Sep
7th
2008
categories
-
ann coulter
argentina
audio blogging
barack obama
boca juniors
businesses to avoid
businesses to patronize
california
celebrities
congress
cooking
crime
culture
doug
economics
education
election
en espanol
hugo chavez
humor
ice hockey
illegal immigration
joe biden
john kerry
journalism
kentucky
law
law school
mahmoud ahmadinejad
middle east
morality
mormons
music
people we admire
politics
soccer
sports
technology
terrorism
travis
uncategorized
underdogs
video
war
whatnot

Brilliant! These are the questions I think many have been waiting to be asked!
I’m not sure why it matters that Obama has not gone against his party. Isn’t that why he is in the party–becasue he agrees with its platforms?
That is why I have joined teams, schools, a church, etc.–not becasue I feel like I need to fight against them, but becasue I want to be a part of them.
Obama certainly has his obvious flaws, but I don’t see this as one of them. And McCain’s little ‘Maverick’ stance is hardly the great attribute that he seems to think.
Miguelito,
Agreed, going against the party isn’t a requirement for president. The rub is that Obama is explicitly running on a concept of being “post-partisan” and other such nonsense, when in fact he is among the most party-line members of his caucus.
Wallace calling out Axelrod on these unanimous consent “votes” was genius. It exposed the talking points of “ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation” as a complete ruse.