Will You Watch the Democratic National Convention?

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:51:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 12:47:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 9:39:30 AM
Author: BizouMom

Maybe that''s because she didn''t want to have something like that on tape to resurface in 4 years?

Excellent point! If Obama is elected, in 4 years we will be able to see exactly how much change has really occurred. The Clinton Campaign has always been so smart.

Actually the stragegy is if Obama loses, so she could challenge McCain in 4 years. Planning to challenge a sitting president isn''t a good strategy at all. Oh and if the Clinton Campaign was smart, they would have ran a better campaign against Obama. Sorry, but it was awful, I expected a lot more from the Clintons.

I don''t understand how you can praise Hilllary''s speech in one post but then call her campaign awful in the next? Planning to challenge a sitting president may not be a good strategy but it is the only one she looks to have if Obama wins. I think she will make a run for President regardless of who gets elected. If Obama''s promsies fade to dust she has an excellent chance IMHO. I think she did a great job of setting herself up for the next four years. I am not part of the Clinton campaign so I can''t tell you what their strategies are, but I doubt they plan to just roll over & die if Obama gets elected.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:58:31 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 12:51:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 12:47:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 9:39:30 AM
Author: BizouMom

Maybe that's because she didn't want to have something like that on tape to resurface in 4 years?

Excellent point! If Obama is elected, in 4 years we will be able to see exactly how much change has really occurred. The Clinton Campaign has always been so smart.

Actually the stragegy is if Obama loses, so she could challenge McCain in 4 years. Planning to challenge a sitting president isn't a good strategy at all. Oh and if the Clinton Campaign was smart, they would have ran a better campaign against Obama. Sorry, but it was awful, I expected a lot more from the Clintons.

I don't understand how you can praise Hilllary's speech in one post but then call her campaign awful in the next? Planning to challenge a sitting president may not be a good strategy but it is the only one she looks to have if Obama wins. I think she will make a run for President regardless of who gets elected. If Obama's promsies fade to dust she has an excellent chance IMHO. I think she did a great job of setting herself up for the next four years. I am not part of the Clinton campaign so I can't tell you what their strategies are, but I doubt they plan to just roll over & die if Obama gets elected.

Huh? One is a speech, the other is a campaign. The ability to (possibly write) and deliver a great speech does not mean you can or did run a successful campaign. In fact, there have been quite a few stories that reported on how poorly it was ran. There was so much infighting that people leaked documents from the campaign to tell on each other. She was at the helm of the mess and couldn't take control of it. Honestly, that's what annoyed me most about her claim to be ready on Day One, she couldn't even get the darn campaign in order. Here you can read for yourself:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign

and the documents themselves:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200808u/clinton-memos

Also, I really don't believe she will challenge him if he wins. Assuming that he does, I anticipate that he will offer her a very prominent role in his Administration. Most likely covering Health Care which seems to be her life long dream to establish. As cynical as I am about her, I think she would take great pride in finally accomplishing that goal. Meaning, if the Administration did poorly, and she was a part of it, she'd have a whole lot of explaining to do when she tried to challenge her boss. I don't think she's that stupid. But the Clintons did a lot of stuff I thought was stupid and never expected them to do...so hey, it's possible!

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 1:12:06 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 12:58:31 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 12:51:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 12:47:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 9:39:30 AM
Author: BizouMom

Maybe that''s because she didn''t want to have something like that on tape to resurface in 4 years?

Excellent point! If Obama is elected, in 4 years we will be able to see exactly how much change has really occurred. The Clinton Campaign has always been so smart.

Actually the stragegy is if Obama loses, so she could challenge McCain in 4 years. Planning to challenge a sitting president isn''t a good strategy at all. Oh and if the Clinton Campaign was smart, they would have ran a better campaign against Obama. Sorry, but it was awful, I expected a lot more from the Clintons.

I don''t understand how you can praise Hilllary''s speech in one post but then call her campaign awful in the next? Planning to challenge a sitting president may not be a good strategy but it is the only one she looks to have if Obama wins. I think she will make a run for President regardless of who gets elected. If Obama''s promsies fade to dust she has an excellent chance IMHO. I think she did a great job of setting herself up for the next four years. I am not part of the Clinton campaign so I can''t tell you what their strategies are, but I doubt they plan to just roll over & die if Obama gets elected.

Huh? One is a speech, the other is a campaign. The ability to (possibly write) and deliver a great speech does not mean you can or did run a successful campaign. In fact, there have been quite a few stories that reported on how poorly it was ran. There was so much infighting that people leaked documents from the campaign to tell on each other. She was at the helm of the mess and couldn''t take control of it. Honestly, that''s what annoyed me most about her claim to be ready on Day One, she couldn''t even get the darn campaign in order. Here you can read for yourself:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign

and the documents themselves:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200808u/clinton-memos

Also, I really don''t believe she will challenge him if he wins. Assuming that he does, I anticipate that he will offer her a very prominent role in his Administration. Most likely covering Health Care which seems to be her life long dream to establish. As cynical as I am about her, I think she would take great pride in finally accomplishing that goal. Meaning, if the Administration did poorly, and she was a part of it, she''d have a whole lot of explaining to do when she tried to challenge her boss. I don''t think she''s that stupid. But the Clintons did a lot of stuff I thought was stupid and never expected them to do...so hey, it''s possible!

I would rather not read any more about the Clintons - I am not a fan of them either. I just consider every speech a candidate gives to be part of their over all campaign...candidates, to me, are always campaigning. I see there is a difference of opinion, so I''ll let it rest.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:58:31 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 12:51:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 12:47:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 9:39:30 AM
Author: BizouMom

Maybe that''s because she didn''t want to have something like that on tape to resurface in 4 years?

Excellent point! If Obama is elected, in 4 years we will be able to see exactly how much change has really occurred. The Clinton Campaign has always been so smart.

Actually the stragegy is if Obama loses, so she could challenge McCain in 4 years. Planning to challenge a sitting president isn''t a good strategy at all. Oh and if the Clinton Campaign was smart, they would have ran a better campaign against Obama. Sorry, but it was awful, I expected a lot more from the Clintons.

I don''t understand how you can praise Hilllary''s speech in one post but then call her campaign awful in the next? Planning to challenge a sitting president may not be a good strategy but it is the only one she looks to have if Obama wins. I think she will make a run for President regardless of who gets elected. If Obama''s promsies fade to dust she has an excellent chance IMHO. I think she did a great job of setting herself up for the next four years. I am not part of the Clinton campaign so I can''t tell you what their strategies are, but I doubt they plan to just roll over & die if Obama gets elected.

yep,she could care less about Obama. Hillary is already thinking about the yr 2012.

 

[diamondfan]

Let us not forget politicians are in it to win it. Not to be TOTALLY cynical but grandstanding, giving rousing speeches, flip flopping on issues, making and breaking campaign promises when elected, NONE of this is new. I just think ALL politicos are capable of this and tend to do it most of the time.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/27/2008 7:04:54 PM
Author: diamondfan
Let us not forget politicians are in it to win it. Not to be TOTALLY cynical but grandstanding, giving rousing speeches, flip flopping on issues, making and breaking campaign promises when elected, NONE of this is new. I just think ALL politicos are capable of this and tend to do it most of the time.

i hope if Obama wins he breaks his promises. i don't want U.S to become a socialist country. windfall taxes

 

[swimmer]

DF, sometimes you make such great comments and sometimes I just am not sure where you are coming from. I grew up in a Socialist community, and he is sooooo not a Socialist. Wanting children to have healtcare is not splitting everything equally regardless of and rejecting religion in favor of the state.
So spill, do you make over 5 mill a year?

Watching the convention right now, awesome to see all these military leaders and vets endorse Obama.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/27/2008 8:36:56 PM
Author: swimmer
DF, sometimes you make such great comments and sometimes I just am not sure where you are coming from. I grew up in a Socialist community, and he is sooooo not a Socialist. Wanting children to have healtcare is not splitting everything equally regardless of and rejecting religion in favor of the state.
So spill, do you make over 5 mill a year?

Watching the convention right now, awesome to see all these military leaders and vets endorse Obama.

nope,i didn't make anything $$$'s last year.

besides....the riches people in the U.S. is already paying most of the taxes,why should they pay more?

 

[MoonWater]

Props to Bill for an excellent speech and saying what folks claimed Hillary should have said but was really the right of a former President to say: Obama is ready. Also props for bringing it full circle, he finally acknowledged the similarities in his 1992 bid and Obama's 2008 bid (i.e. the claims of being too young and inexperienced). For the first time, in my adult life, I am really proud of the Clintons.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:28:44 PM
Author: MoonWater
Props to Bill for an excellent speech and saying what folks claimed Hillary should have said but was really the right of a former President to say: Obama is ready. Also props for bringing it full circle, he finally acknowledged the similarities in his 1992 bid and Obama''s 2008 bid (i.e. the claims of being too young and inexperienced). For the first time, in my adult life, I am really proud of the Clintons.

Yeah, I think all the media attention paid towards Hillary''s lack of "Obama is ready" statements really put pressure on the Dems to have Bill say it. Everyone in the Democratic party stands to gain from Obama''s election so it just makes sense. Poor Bill has made so many mistakes in Hillary''s campaign I''m glad he held his own.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:34:06 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 9:28:44 PM

Author: MoonWater

Props to Bill for an excellent speech and saying what folks claimed Hillary should have said but was really the right of a former President to say: Obama is ready. Also props for bringing it full circle, he finally acknowledged the similarities in his 1992 bid and Obama''s 2008 bid (i.e. the claims of being too young and inexperienced). For the first time, in my adult life, I am really proud of the Clintons.

Yeah, I think all the media attention paid towards Hillary''s lack of ''Obama is ready'' statements really put pressure on the Dems to have Bill say it. Everyone in the Democratic party stands to gain from Obama''s election so it just makes sense. Poor Bill has made so many mistakes in Hillary''s campaign I''m glad he held his own.

That implies that it wasn''t already in the works. I''m a cynic, but I don''t think they made it up over night. I think it was always the plan, a one-two punch. Hillary''s job was to address her PUMAs but only Bill could really claim, from the perspective of a former President, that Obama could handle the job. I can''t imagine what other role he could have played than that. You certainly don''t invite Bill Clinton for filler lol, or simple nostalgia.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:42:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 9:34:06 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/27/2008 9:28:44 PM

Author: MoonWater

Props to Bill for an excellent speech and saying what folks claimed Hillary should have said but was really the right of a former President to say: Obama is ready. Also props for bringing it full circle, he finally acknowledged the similarities in his 1992 bid and Obama''s 2008 bid (i.e. the claims of being too young and inexperienced). For the first time, in my adult life, I am really proud of the Clintons.

Yeah, I think all the media attention paid towards Hillary''s lack of ''Obama is ready'' statements really put pressure on the Dems to have Bill say it. Everyone in the Democratic party stands to gain from Obama''s election so it just makes sense. Poor Bill has made so many mistakes in Hillary''s campaign I''m glad he held his own.

That implies that it wasn''t already in the works. I''m a cynic, but I don''t think they made it up over night. I think it was always the plan, a one-two punch. Hillary''s job was to address her PUMAs but only Bill could really claim, from the perspective of a former President, that Obama could handle the job. I can''t imagine what other role he could have played than that. You certainly don''t invite Bill Clinton for filler lol, or simple nostalgia.

I think that everything in politics is planned and manipulated for the benefit of whichever agenda a party is trying to push - that is the nature of politics. You can have the opinion that Clinton was being genuine, but I was expressing my opinion that, given the negative attention given to Hillary''s speech in relation to Obama''s readiness to lead, they (the speechwriters) were given specific instructions to include that into Bill''s speech. Bill didn''t write that speech, so I don''t think it was really from his perspective. I also don''t think you need to have been a former president to know whether someone is ready to lead. As a senator and former first lady, I am sure that Hillary recognizes presidential leadership ability in others. Whether or not she saw it in Obama is irrelevant - it didn''t serve her agenda.

 

[MoonWater]

Heh, I never said anything about Bill being genuine. I said I think Bill making that claim was in the cards all along. I don't think it was lost on the writers, or Bill, or Hillary, or Barack, or Michelle, or Americans that for a former President to say a person was ready, it meant more because they actually did the job. It is especially potent coming from the President who presided over the country when it was last prosperous. It has nothing to do with Hillary's ability to recognize leadership, it simply makes more sense coming from the former President when you have him at your disposal (and he happens to be married to the candidate that lost). note: this is where the planning, calculation, and manipulation comes in...this is why I don't think it was a simple add on.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:09:52 PM
Author: MoonWater
Heh, I never said anything about Bill being genuine. I said I think Bill making that claim was in the cards all along. I don't think it was lost on the writers, or Bill, or Hillary, or Barack, or Michelle, or Americans that for a former President to say a person was ready, it meant more because they actually did the job. It is especially potent coming from the President who presided over the country when it was last prosperous. It has nothing to do with Hillary's ability to recognize leadership, it simply makes more sense coming from the former President you have at your disposal (and happens to be married to the candidate that lost). note: this is where the planning, calculation, and manipulation comes in...this is why I don't think it was a simple add on.

I guess you would just lump me in with the group of Americans who don't care if Bill Clinton, or any former president, thinks Obama is ready to lead. The United States, and world for that matter, is VERY different now than when Bill was president; i.e. 9/11. Clinton (and his speechwriters) may think Obama is ready to lead based upon the things he experienced in office, but the truth is that no president in the recent past has had to step into as rough position as the next president will. That's why this election is so critical and full of doubts. I just found it extremely calculated and quite comical that Bill's speech said exactly what Hillary's speech was immediately criticized for lacking. Difference of opinion, that's all.

 

[HollyS]

Uh, actually, there is reason to be concerned about the relative inexperience of our leaders; it's a good indicator of why governors don't always make great presidents, i.e. Bush, Carter, and Clinton.

There were many instances where Clinton's inexperience was a factor: open ended involvement in Bosnia's civil war, nixing his opportunity to capture Bin Laden when we had the intelligence infor to make it happen, his ill-advised decision to put Hillary in charge of health care reform, his choice of Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders who wanted to give birth control to children, his sterling choice of Janet Reno as Attorney General who had no experience and showed it with the whole Branch Davididian fiasco, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center. The list goes on. And on

And we could talk for days about Jimmy Carter's woefully misspent 4 years. Of course, we all know Bush has been a huge disappointment.

So yes, I'd say inexperience is a BIG factor; or should be.

 

[MoonWater]

You can lump me in that category as well. What Bill and Hillary says carries practically no weight with me. But I look at this as a performance for those that can be convinced by tv ads and short speeches. Those that have read and researched have likely already made their decisions. But, since this will be over analyzed by the media, and more importantly, the Republican Party, I think Hillary and Bill did their jobs well and neither needed anything added or taken away from their respective speeches. Further, I think both the Clintons and Obamas are fiercely intelligent and there is no way they didn''t hash this stuff out well in advance.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:31:39 PM
Author: HollyS
Uh, actually, there is reason to be concerned about the relative inexperience of our leaders;

Sure, but I always found it utterly annoying and partially funny that Hillary tried to use that claim against Obama knowing full well the same exact claims were made against her husband whose years in the White House she praised over and over.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:37:12 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/27/2008 10:31:39 PM
Author: HollyS
Uh, actually, there is reason to be concerned about the relative inexperience of our leaders;

Sure, but I always found it utterly annoying and partially funny that Hillary tried to use that claim against Obama knowing full well the same exact claims were made against her husband whose years in the White House she praised over and over.

Ya got a point there. Can''t argue that.

 

[diamondfan]

Americans have short memories and love the impactful stuff.

I too thought Hillary did a heck of a job. But delivering a speech is not just about the words. I think she had no choice but to get up there and ask the Dems to unite. She must if she wants to keep moving forward politically.

I still continue to feel Barak is NOT Presidential, at least not yet. That is not to say he is not bright and charismatic and someone with a bright future. People respond to him, and that is wonderful. But once the campaigns are over and the fanfare dies down, we have a country in dire straights, and the winner of this election will have a country to run. It will not be all the spotlight of this time right now. It will be time to get to work, and I just do not see him as the person I want leading. I think neither choice is great. I wish there was something really good about to come out of this campaign, someone who is long thinking and not self promoting...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:31:39 PM
Author: HollyS
Uh, actually, there is reason to be concerned about the relative inexperience of our leaders; it''s a good indicator of why governors don''t always make great presidents, i.e. Bush, Carter, and Clinton.

There were many instances where Clinton''s inexperience was a factor: open ended involvement in Bosnia''s civil war, nixing his opportunity to capture Bin Laden when we had the intelligence infor to make it happen, his ill-advised decision to put Hillary in charge of health care reform, his choice of Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders who wanted to give birth control to children, his sterling choice of Janet Reno as Attorney General who had no experience and showed it with the whole Branch Davididian fiasco, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center. The list goes on. And on

And we could talk for days about Jimmy Carter''s woefully misspent 4 years. Of course, we all know Bush has been a huge disappointment.

So yes, I''d say inexperience is a BIG factor; or should be.

I agree as well, I was just saying that I didn''t care about the opinion of the Clintons on any candidate''s experience or lack thereof. Wow your comprehensive list of Clinton flubs brought back such memories for me haha

I definitely think that experience plays a HUGE factor in any president''s success, I just rely on objective facts in a candidate''s career to help me gauge their strengths and/or weaknesses in that area. I think you & I are on the same page there.

 

[diamondfan]

Swimmer, did I mention socialism ANYWHERE in my comments or assign the socialist label to anyone? No, I did no such thing. Did I mention children and health care and dividing up money? NO. My comment was not directed at any ONE candidate or party or view, but at the nature of running for office. What politician running does it NOT to win? Who spends the time and money on running without wanting the ultimate prize? Campaign managers, pollsters, strategists, they all exist to help their candidate make changes and shift things as needed in order to win. It is standard operating procedure.

My other point was that many times things are promised in order to get the votes that then never come to pass. As a President has power but not the only say, they can get away with it, but they can promise the moon and the stars and do not have to deliver it. This is not news either.

I was NOT talking about one policy or one view or one strategy, rather, that ALL politicians want to win, and will say things, promise things, change their stance as popular attitudes dictate in order to get votes...this applies to EVERY candidate. This has zero to do with socialism or any ideology, but does have everything to do with how one wins an election.

I also think that this is an exciting moment historically, and the enthusiasm is quite high in Denver, but that is not what the next four years will be like. Rousing speeches and getting a stadium full of people to feel that wondrous emotion, using that rhetoric, is not real life. And they can make things sound one way, via that rhetoric and emotion, meanwhile they are standing up there having voted differently or said very different things prior to their moment on that stage. Spin doctors do their jobs well during this time.

It will happen next week too to be sure...it is the nature of the beast.

My husband does very well but that is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that this convention is exciting, history has been made, speeches have moved people to tears, but even with all that momentum, votes will be cast in November and we will see what hit people strongly and what fell short.

 

[miraclesrule]

Oh Diamond Fan, it must get confusing sometimes when you have the same shortened nick as DancingFire. I believe that swimmer was referring to the other "DF".

Usually I watch both of the conventions, but for some reason I can''t bring myself to watch either of them this year. It''s just so hyperbolic than I cringe or roll my eyes. It will be interesting to see who McCain chooses as his running mate though. I am eagerly awaiting that announcement.

 

[diamondfan]

Miracles, THANK YOU. I was totally confused and thinking HUH? Read my comments over and over to see where on earth anyone would get that from what I posted?

Swimmer, I am sorry. I proposed that I be df and Dancing Fire be DF as it got ultra confusing.

Or I could be Dfan and he could be Dfire, just to make things a bit more clear?

 

[miraclesrule]

For the record, I think I prefer to call you "Diamond"

 

[diamondfan]

Just call me, that is what counts!!!

 

[swimmer]

Oh Wow, so sorry Diamondfan,
I didn''t think about name specificity since my post came directly after his comment on Socialism and he replied immediately and directly to my joshing him about his rather constant tax comments.
Yeah, that would have been confusing to read my post and think it was to you!
So sorry for the confusion!

 

[HollyS]

Well, I''ll give the Dems props: they look good, they sound good. Republicans may look stodgy by comparison next week. But are they cardboard cutouts, or the real deal?

You can dress it up, put lipstick on it, parade it around the arena, and it''s still just a first prize hog at the county fair. Americans have a way of knowing the difference. That''s why in my lifetime (1959-present) there have been more Republican presidents, with the majority of them serving two terms. There has been one Democrat president to serve more than one term in that time frame -- Clinton.

Do I think Republicans have all the answers? Well, certainly, after the last eight years, I''d give a resounding NO. But I would like to see (in the White House) some gravitas and experience, even if it''s coming from an old fart, than loose cannon innocence/inexperience. As ugly as things are in the world at large today, cute won''t cut it.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual, by God, candidate with the balls and brains to carry us forward. And frankly, come November, whatever happens, we will not get what we need.

 

[diamondfan]

Holly, one of the commentators felt that Obama''s "visit" last night reinforces that "celebrity" thing he is accused of lately. Tonight they move to a field so he can address triple the number of people who attended the last nights of the convention...again, commentators were remarking upon the Greek temple glam situation...I will watch tonight to see it all unfold. One of the guests on Larry King afterward said, Hey, pretty speeches are wonderful. We all love rhetoric. But it is what one does in office, every day, that matters, Another said, Being in that room is great, the emotion is high, but how does some of that hit your average person in their living room? Clinton apparently used to never call a speech a speech but rather a talk, and always wanted to make sure it worked well outside the venue too.
I did see some emotion from Michelle Obama when Beau Biden was speaking, which replaced her normal look and I was touched. Who could hear that story about nearly dying, losing his mom and baby sister, (near Christmas no less) being hospitalized for months with his brother and NOT be teary? I was crying for sure . Hearing about how his dad was so dedicated, almost did not take the role on, came home every night...and then to hear how they all married Jill and she helped fix their family...wow. Very powerful. All of that was just incredible as a story to hear last night, I am from PA but never knew that much about his life. He has been married for 31 years now to Jill and they seem happy, which is wonderful. I think he is a solid guy, not perfect, but a really good man for the most part.

There was one interesting facet. On Larry King, there was a Republican woman who is running for Joe Biden''s senate seat in Delaware, while Biden will be on the ticket for both senate and VP (this will be similar to Lieberman, who was running for VP while still a senator from Connecticut who was up for reelection). She said he refuses to debate her, now she knows why, and that he is using his senate seat as back up. Also, the governor, who will be leaving office shortly after the race for President (in January) can, if Biden wins both elections, simply put Beau in his place since Joe would be unable to fill the seat. If she loses in November, and he wins VP, he will have run for Senator without being able to fulfill his role. If he loses VP but wins Senate again, fine, he goes back to what he did all along. That seems a bit unfair to me.

 

[ksinger]

And now on to the next one. Scuttlebutt has it that McCain has picked his man. But I thought this was interesting, for the title if nothing else:

Rove Rejects Lieberman for GOP Ticket

Rove? Rove rejects?? But Rove isn''t one of his....advis....NO...!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Sorry, I just couldn''t resist. Seriously though, I really don''t want to see, or rather feel the clandestine influence of, another 4 years of Rove. Lord help us all then.

Interesting piece though.

 

[diamondfan]

I think it is Ridge or Romney. Lieberman would likely get a cabinet post.

He is going to be in PA with both of them. Ridge is former Gov. of PA and Romney Gov. of MA.