Chicagoist: A Quick Win in Michigan

smussy

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:27:27 -0600

hey kevin: on another election related issue. i guess i've never thought too much about this before, but how come judges have political parties attached to them -- democrat, republican, etc? aren't judges *supposed* to be impartial?

sparky

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:53:11 -0600

Uh, yeah, but how will they address the issue, stupid. Because Romney saying he'll bring back the auto industry in Michigan without telling anyone how is not addressing the issue.

Spav1

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:09:22 -0600

It's the economy, stupid

matilda

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:23:25 -0600

Kevin: you are right about that.

sparky

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:23:20 -0600

That's assuming anyone addresses real issues this year, Kevin.

Kevin Robinson

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:16:17 -0600

matilda: Either way, the fact that people in electoral vote-rich Michigan turned out for economics more than any other issue suggests that Democrats may be able to win that state in the fall, assuming Democrats actually run on issue this year. It would have been interesting to see how people there voted had there been an actual primary.

matilda

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:30:08 -0600

I don't care what he looks like, only that he told workers in Michigan what they wanted to hear at the expense of the truth (McCain was closer to it when it came to jobs), and that enough people in Michigan apparently were stupid enough to fall for it. This guy is more of an empty suit than Obama is.

Chuck Sudo

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:22:00 -0600

He looks "presidential."

JoeM500

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:55:06 -0600

damn he looks scary.