Skip to main content

Was just checkin the local news on WRAL.COM and saw this article about Edwards Here.

JE was interviewed in SC during his book tour and he says it would be a good idea for Obama to enter the 2008 race:

"I hope he runs. I think he should run," Edwards told The Associated Press. "This is such an important job that I would urge anybody who can make a serious contribution to the campaign and the dialogue either in our party or the other party to run."

The article says Edwards has not decided whether to enter the 08 race or when he would announce.  Having watched Edwards on Jon Stewart last week I was left with the impression that he would in fact announce.

"I honestly don't have any timetable," Edwards said. "If you were in my house listening to (wife) Elizabeth and me talk, you'd know I don't have a timetable. Obviously, at some point over the next weeks and months, I have to make that decision."

Should be an interesting primary season in 08

Originally posted to ParaHammer on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:40 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Annie sez (22+ / 0-)

    Obama should NOT run until he learns how to take a stand on something.  Until then, he has not proven a thing about his leadership skills.  Pretty speechifying just is not enough.

    I support Wes Clark 2008. ------------------------- Oh yeah, and FUCK Joe Lieberman.

    by asskicking annie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:58:26 AM PST

    •  Four ways for senators to take a stand: (9+ / 0-)

      speeches
      votes
      writing/proposing legislation
      filibusters and procedural manouevers

      How does Obama rate?

      1.  Speaks for itself.
      1.  Not much different than any other Dem. senator.
      1.  Not much different ... (that minority in a Rethug

         Congress thing is a bitch, isn't it).

      1.  Not much different.  And consistent with his view

         of how to get progressive things done in the long
         run.

      Now the Lamont thing is an issue for some people.

      As for taking a stand against the mainstream ...
      CAFTA, the war in Iraq, and his approach to dialogue with people who disagree.

      •  Obama (8+ / 0-)

        put a hold on all Bush appointees to a federal agency, sorry I forget which one now, until the government promulgated new lead paint regulations as promised.

        Annie might not think that's a "controversial" issue, but he did this at a time when most Democrats were afraid to buck Bush on ANYTHING. And in fact I think it was smart to do so on an issue that the vast majority of people would agree is important to protect children yet once again the Bush administration let us down.

        I'd definitely support Obama in '08. The ability to give great speeches, attract enthusiastic crowds and generate excitement is going to matter in a time of transition when people believe the old guard and old ways of doing things have let us down.

        •  Obama ... too soon! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          America08

          I say to all Obamaites: you don't yet
          know your man.  So far, the eloquent
          young Illinois Senator is mainly talk
          and little action. We do not really know
          him, there just has not been time. Do
          not be mis-led by America's famous
          consumerism and "branding." He may not
          be what he seems.
          JIM
          sfe

          •  Did you see Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chicago jeff

            talking on the Tim Russert show (not Meet the Press) where Tim actually gives a person a chance to talk in depth? Obama was excellent. He knows how to put the issues in the perspective of important values that Americans share. He impressed me deeply that he has intelligence and decency. I say we need Gore/Obama in '08!

            "This is not an election anymore, it's an intervention." - Andrew Sullivan, 11/1/06

            by kathika on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:55:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes yes and maybe (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kathika

              Yes, I strongly agree: Obama talks
              excellent well!  He's rhetorically gifted.
              But we have no evidence that he has any
              ability at all to put wishes or ideas into
              action.  His Illinois record is impressive
              mainly as a winner of elections and his
              Washington record -- well, it has yet to be
              won.  I am all for the young man; he just needs
              years and years of seasoning and expeience. If
              he will help elect Al Gore - well HELL YES! <grin>
              best
              JIM

      •  I'm never sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snout
        what people mean when they say our leaders should be taking stands.
        For the most part, I think they're referring to calls for filibusters and impeachment.  The only one who's really taken such stands is Russ Feingold and as much as I like him, I can't say that those stands have really done much for the country.  Sure, they make liberals like us happy, but they don't accomplish a whole lot else.
      •  GOP minority (0+ / 0-)

        Um, you know the GOP is still the majority in Congress, until Jan right?

        In an ironic turnaround, Iraq brought regime change to the U.S. - Amy Poehler

        by jj32 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:16:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah. That's my point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32

          As a member of the Democratic minority, serving in a Rethuglican controlled Senate, it's not surprising that Democratic Senators don't have many legislative triumphs.  That's not their fault so it's not a valuable measure of any Democratic senator as a potential candidate.

          After January, I would expect to see some legislation written and passed by our new Democratic majority.  

    •  You seem to have forgotten his stand (7+ / 0-)

      against he Iraq War Resolution in '02.

      (-2.75,-4.77) America let Bush play with its Army and he broke it.

      by Sam I Am on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:30:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm guessing (7+ / 0-)

    Edwards is thrilled to see someone who specifically draws from HRC's base.

  •  Both are impressive VP candidates (5+ / 0-)

    They both lack seasoned leadership experience that will be necessary to be considered seriously. Yet both would elevate the discussion and should run.

    Obama is an inspiring speaker yet must demonstrate his passion as it relates to our progressive values. Edwards, I'm just not sure what he can do demonstrate that he is ready to sit at the adult table.

    Wes Clark shares my values! If you believe the Iraq war is a success, vote Republican.

    by mperloe on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:13:39 AM PST

    •  2004 redux (6+ / 0-)

       I guess this is the part of the show in which dems convince themselves that the out of touch corporistic northeast liberal should be at the top of the ticket while the populist in the VP slot.

      It didn't work in 2004 and it will not work in 2008. Democrats need to nominate someone like Obama or Edwards, candidates that could campaign in red state america as well as blue state america to win the whitehouse.

      Hillary is simply gambling.

    •  We need to stop repeating the "experience" meme (8+ / 0-)

      What do we get for it?:

      • Candidates with long records that get distorted by the GOP noise machine during the campaign.
      • Candidates that are inextricably in the pocket of the business interests that kept them in power long enough to get "experienced."
      • We weaken guys like Obama and Edwards that can buck the above trends.

      When you take Obama's entire career ino account he has more than enough experience to lead this country.  Further, he is the only candidate we have with the potential and political skill to be a truly transformative presence for this country. We weaken him at our own peril.

  •  Edwards Should Run (14+ / 0-)

    I am a Clarkie but I like Edwards a lot.
    I thing JE is doing God's work by bringing the discussion of Poverty in America to the National level.
    Either one of these guys is better than any republican.

    "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".

    by ParaHammer on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:19:25 AM PST

  •  I agree with Edwards (10+ / 0-)

    Despite Obama's disagreements with the blogs (which in charitable times I think of as a misunderstanding, and in less friendly moods I view as a deliberate attempt to go along with rabid liberal bogeymen that the right and the media have made us out to be), I think he'd make a good candidate.

    Expect McCain to be the War-Hero Moderate candidate.  And expect the media -- who already has their script on McCain written -- to prop up that impression at every turn.  Any information that shows McCain to be an inconsistent weasel who would break any promise and bend any priciple for a vote, will have a hard time getting air play as the press does everything but mount him on a white horse.

    Obama might be the only candidate who has a good enough "pres-friendly back-story" to generate sympathetic coverage while running against McCain.


    Theobromine -- does that come in chocolate?

    by Mark Sumner on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:20:46 AM PST

    •  Obama's relative youth could (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Devilstower, Delirium, dhfsfc, djm4america

      actully be a major plus compared with an aging McCain or a gaunt Rudi.

      (-2.75,-4.77) America let Bush play with its Army and he broke it.

      by Sam I Am on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:28:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even as an old guy myself (5+ / 0-)

        I agree that McCain 2006 looks a lot more run-down than he did eight years ago.  Despite the media's attempt at sanctification, it's not at all clear to me that the public will be that keen on McCain.  Should some of the media decide to go off script and point out McCain's bowing and scraping before the icons of the extreme right, and the paper-tiger nature of all this "stands" against Bush, his image could change rapidly.

        It's like Rudy Giuliani.  Folks who have no experience of Rudy but the days immediately following 9/11 have one image of the man, but those who have seen more than that very limited view have quite a different impression.


        Theobromine -- does that come in chocolate?

        by Mark Sumner on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:40:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  he's a lot slower on the draw (0+ / 0-)

          Mccain is a lot more beatable than Giuliani...

          I think the repubs are getting behind the "electable" candidate who may turn out to be as electable as Kerry was

          •  It sounds to me like Obamaites (0+ / 0-)

            are saying the same thing about their man.Electability,that is.There are a lot of us who would rather not supportANYBODYin the DLC.This last election was as much a rejection of the GOP lite ideology of the DLC,as it was about the war,or anything else for that matter.I thought this was one of the underlying causes for the Dean/Carville war currently going on.Unless they can put up somebody closer to a Dennis Kucinich,a lot of us are not going to support them in '08 !!

            "Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous."William Proxmire

            by Rothbardian on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:32:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Are there health issues McCain or Rudi (0+ / 0-)

        that are likely to get any traction with public?

        ---

        WV Politics? Visit WV Kossacks

        by SLJ on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:05:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Please, not again. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthe, algebrateacher

    I think dog vomit is more interesting then another conversation about Obama is good/bad in 08.  First things first, lets make sure the Dems who already won do what they were elected to do.  If they don't, 08 will belong to the Republicans again because of low voter turn out.  It is really hard to motivate anyone to vote when the system is corrupt and cooked. I really hope the Dems shows some stuff.  With that, I will leave you to debate Obama.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

    by dkmich on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:24:30 AM PST

  •  I sometimes wonder if (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hrh, kindertotenlieder, djm4america

    being a Senator too long hurts the chances of becoming President. It's not as if there are a bunch of examples in recent history of Senators becoming President directly. A voting record is a hard thing to run from, and Senators have it especially hard because of the relative power. That and you won't see a Rep run for Prez. I guess. Unless of course they are in a leadership position.

    •  fast trackers in general (0+ / 0-)

      tend not to leave the seats too warm ...

      of course, Edwards already tried that route. Now he can point to someone with even less time in the senate, LOL.

    •  Hard For Senators To Run For President (0+ / 0-)

      It's hard for Senators, because it seems they can never have any consistent positions. And they also have to defend the votes they cast in the Senate.

      No, Jack Kennedy's I can see. Can you?

      If not, Senators, especially the sitting ones have big hurdles to climb over if they think they have a shot at being president.

      Executives, (VP, Governors, Generals) have fared far better than any member or former member of Congress.

      "I have not yet begun to fight" --John Paul Jones, Father of The United States Navy

      by djm4america on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:02:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  other than being good at speaking (0+ / 0-)

    and being the flavor of the month, what exactly are his qualifications?

  •  Edwards Pulling A Dean! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MattBellamy, ParaHammer

    Anyone remember when people didn't know in 2003, if Wesley Clark would enter the race. Howard Dean said he should enter the race. Then When Clark entered he was Dean's largest competition.

    So, Edwards may say this. But, It may hurt his chances of being th nominee. Obama's support is growing. And I am a Clarkie, and I am seeing this.

    Besides the MSM loves Obama more than Hillary or Edwards. That is bad for both of them.

    "I have not yet begun to fight" --John Paul Jones, Father of The United States Navy

    by djm4america on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:59:07 AM PST

    •  But how else could he answer? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ParaHammer, ourprez08, djm4america
      If he says anything else, it would look like he's afraid of Obama.  There's no doubt that an Obama candidacy would hurt Edwards, but he can't really come out and say that.
      In the end, I think Obama will make his decision based on what's right for him and his family.  What Edwards or anyone else says isn't going to affect that.
      •  yeah, what's he going to say - (0+ / 0-)

        "I don't think he should run"?  How is a comment like that going to help anyone, least of all the Democrats?  This is one of those typical journalistic gambits of asking an inane question trying to lure someone into saying something dumb/controversial.

        Yes, there are still FEMINISTS on Daily Kos! Join the fabulous Supervixens every Thurs. night.

        by hrh on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:50:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  not exactly the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ourprez08

      you can never say someone shouldn't run within your own party.

      If Obama beats hillary and Edwards I can live with it..
      However, in this case Obama would disproprtionately take vote from HRC in a dem. primary

    •  No Clark was... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      djm4america

      Edwards biggest challenge.

      Clark wasn't in Iowa. Clark stopped edwards from winnning New Mexico annd Oklahoma. Clark hurt Edwards.

      Agian, being here in Iowa, what hurt Dean was the Dean campaign. I loved Dean. The orange hatted masses actually scared people here, and it was the Deaniacs that started people using the Kool-Aid comments.

      Clark prevented edwards from being the nominee, not Dean.

  •  Nah - too much rascism in this country. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, srkp23

    Obama doesn't have a chance until elections are verifiable.  At that point he'll run and win hands down.  The best thing for him to do right now is hang in there for a big win in 2008, accept an important  Cabinet post under a Gore Admin and be electable in 2012 or, more likely, 2016.  He needs time to find his own moral compass, let the ground firm up under him.  And most important this country has to be ready for him.  Art imitates life & all, but just because '24' is on TV doesn't mean that life will immediately start to imitate art.

    (-7.63,-6.21) "Never doubt that a thoughtful group of committed citizens. ...etc., etc." M.Mead "I, on the other hand, am not so sanguine." ez

    by ezdidit on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:06:45 AM PST

    •  Had to recommend b/c I like (4+ / 0-)

      the sound of this!

      Gore Admin

      Aber dieses ein Mal gewesen zu sein, wenn auch nur ein Mal: irdisch gewesen zu sein, scheint nicht widerrufbar. --Rilke

      by srkp23 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:38:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's not going to run (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        srkp23

        Gore has done a lot more for global warming out of office than he ever could in office.

        Gore has the platform to push whatever agenda he wants more effectively now than he could battling with congress.

        If he does run he is running the most unorthodox campaign ever

        •  You may be right (0+ / 0-)

          about his not running.

          I think you're definitely right about this:

          If he does run he is running the most unorthodox campaign ever

          but I still love the sound of this:

          Gore administration

          Aber dieses ein Mal gewesen zu sein, wenn auch nur ein Mal: irdisch gewesen zu sein, scheint nicht widerrufbar. --Rilke

          by srkp23 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:49:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gore hasn't ruled out a run (0+ / 0-)

          Only a spokesperson should definitive statements such as: "He's not going to run" Don't you think? (To me it reads: "I hope Gore doesn't run, so Edwards would have a better shot" :)).

          Gore has done a lot more for global warming out of office than he ever could in office.

          He can actually pass a full course agenda to deal with global warming while rebuilding the economy. There is no way he will get to do that out of office.

          Gore has the platform to push whatever agenda he wants more effectively now than he could battling with congress.

          Nope. Nothing gets done until the President signs things into law.

          •  I hope gore runs but holds no prisoners (0+ / 0-)

            in the process.

            Acutually the more people left of center that run - the better it is for hillary it doesn't really matter who.

            The right half

            HRC
            Evan Bayh
            villsack
            Biden

            the left half

            Gore
            Clark
            Edwards
            Kerry

            the wildcard Obama (is he left is he right?)

            so it really doesn't matter  who actually runs from the left column - there are a large group of people who don't want hillary.

            Believe me Gore is not reading dailykos to decide if he should run and he clearly knows he has the most left of center support.  Could he go negative on hillary? that is the question,  whether it is gore, clark or edwards they will have to go negative on hillary if they want to win.

            •  Gore only needs point out: he opposed the war (0+ / 0-)

              when Hillary and Bill Clinton supported it, and that he was one of the first to do that.

              •  Neuvo - your dreaming! (0+ / 0-)

                Gore has to do alot more than that, he has to over come all the fear of his loss before he will even decide to run.

                I asked Krenna if her dad would run, she said she wished he would but, he had said he wouldn't.  That was back during her book tour, and of course he can change his mind, but, he has to over come the fear of losing again, and Al Gore is a proud man.

                •  I'm not. There are any reals signs (0+ / 0-)

                  that he maybe thinking about running (when Warner and Feingold withdrew, there were indications of things brewing on the Gore front).

                  Gore has to do alot more than that, he has to over come all the fear of his loss before he will even decide to run.

                  The record and facts are on Gore's side. He will win the nomination (it will be a fight down to the wire with Hillary because Obama will pull 20-25% almost assuredly, because of the African American vote)

                  I can't speak for Karenna. Besides, her book tour was many months ago.

  •  Qwatz (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ParaHammer, barbwires

    If any under-experienced Senator should run in 2008, it should be Jim Webb.

    Harry Mitchell is my new congressman, replacing JD Hayworth.

    by 2liberal on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:55:35 AM PST

  •  Hillary vs Obama (0+ / 0-)

    I think Obama should run and this is coming from someone that isnt a big fan of his because i just didnt like the way he took some shots at the democratic party expense so he could look a bit more centrist.

    Also, im hearing rumours that Hillary really dont want Obama to run because he will take the black votes away from the clintons and she will need every votes to fend off any attacks from leftist candidate.

    What i heard is, they will try to convince Obama not to run because if he loses, that'll be it for him and him being too inexperience, will hurt him...They are basicly going to begg him not to run because it's Hillary's turn to be president....Hillary might offer her the VP post, if that could persuade him not to run and wait once Hillary is done.

  •  For all the Obama bashing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal

    I would take him in a heartbeat over Edwards. Why people love this guy, is beyond me. He was so timid during he 04 campaign, then after he loses, he suddenly gets the courage to take courageous stands? Um, no thanks, I'd rather take Obama's original anti-Iraq war stand, over Edwards apology. Obama is just as good on the domestic issues too.

    In an ironic turnaround, Iraq brought regime change to the U.S. - Amy Poehler

    by jj32 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:19:22 AM PST

    •  Yes, issue by issue, Obama is better than Edwards (0+ / 0-)
    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      "then after he loses, he suddenly gets the courage to take courageous stands?"

      that describes most politicians,  Gore, Kerry and to some extent Edwards.

      the consultants get a hold of them and screw them up.

      Gore wouldn't challenge the 2000 results enough

      •  Response (0+ / 0-)

        Gore had a LOT to lose when he opposed the war in Sep'02.

        Gore was the leading contender for the 2004 nomination in 2002, making him the first major Democrat to stand up and oppose that war, eventhough upwards of 60% of Americans supported an invasion at that point.

        He would have won the nomination even if he had kept quiet about the war, and the unfavorables coming from standing against the tide here would only stood to hurt him in the general (which they surely did, as the media went hammering Gore on his stand, as described by Alterman; Apparently as a result, by December'02, Gore was trailing Bush by 20 points, eventhough he was still leading the Dem field for the nomination) he in fact put his presidential prospects on the line. I think he did because the war was the wrong thing to do, and probably also because he sensed that the direction that the Bush regime was headed towards was not good for the country.

        Gore wouldn't challenge the 2000 results enough

        Here, you're losing the cred. WHAT are you talking about? Gore fought the 35 day FL battle and withdrew (in disagreement) when no legal recourse was left following the SCOTUS verdict, DNC chair called him to concede, and 79% of Americans wanted him to do the same. Once you concede, you honor that word, which is what he did with electoral vote certification.

      •  sadly, (0+ / 0-)

        it is spins and mischaracterizations like "Gore wouldn't challenge the 2000 results enough" (this is actually a flat out falsity) from our side that probably make him feel disheartened more than the trash from the right wing.

        •  Farenheit 911 (0+ / 0-)

          I thought michael moores film gave the impression (mistaken?) that the only people wanting to fight on were the congressional black caucass.

          do you see Farenheit911?

          •  somewhat amazingly, I haven't (0+ / 0-)

            But, I have heard about this scene, which is really misleading.

            The protests were only symbolic gestures, with nothing material was going to come from it (since we didn't have majorities in congress). In 2004, Boxer did sign on and contest Ohio. Did anything come out of it?

            Gore had already fought hard for 35 days, and was honoring his word when he conceded the race thereafter and delivering on his sworn duties as the VP.

  •  2008 is a HEALING election like 1976 (0+ / 0-)

    2008 will be a mirror of 1976, when people needed to heal from Watergate.

    So they elected the ultimate "Healer" in Jimmy Carter.

    The two potential candidates with those qualities (also the least experienced) are Edwards and Obama.

    A few quick Obama thoughts:

    1. I suspect he's our W (in a good way)-- W played the centrist compassionate conservative in his campaign and hit us with the rightwinger once selected.  Obama was quite liberal as a State Sen. in Ill.  I suspect he is keeping his powder dry and has the potential, with his ability to communicate, to be our Reagan.
    1. Don't doubt what 70% African American turnout would do for Dems, both Presidentially and downticket.  Obama on the ticket, win or lose, guarantees we hold the House and Senate, if not make major gains.  In fact, I think he makes many states competetive and may take some states (PA, maybe OH) that have larger Afican American populations, off th e map.  
    1. Show me what Kerry won that Obama loses.
    1. Unless he proves me wrong, my dream ticket for 2008 right now is Obama/Webb.  Put VA in play.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:41:37 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site