Again, David Broder provides us a view of his idea of independent centrism, as he weighs in again in favor of Joe Lieberman in Connecticiut:

The outcome of [the Connecticut] fight is important nationally for the meaning that will be attached. While other states such as Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Virginia will decide whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate, this Connecticut race constitutes perhaps the nation's clearest test on the Iraq war. Lieberman['s] . . . winning and returning to the Senate and its Democratic caucus would slow, if not reverse, growing pressure from the Democrats for an early pullout of U.S. forces. On the other hand, should Lamont repeat his primary win over Lieberman and capture the seat, it would add immeasurably to the momentum of the antiwar forces. He says that he is running in order to end the nightmare of "140,000 of our brave troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war."

David Broder's independent centrism call for rubberstamping the Bush/Lieberman Iraq Debacle. He acknowledges that that is what a vote for Lieberman in Connecticut would be. Connecticut voters -- do you support the Iraq Debacle? Because that is what voting for Lieberman means. Broder told you so. As Chris Matthews said:

OK. Just let me say this to Connecticut, if we have a war that keeps going after this election, don't sit back and say, "I did my best." Because the best thing you can do is vote against the war, right? If you're against the war, vote against it. You only get one vote. Shouldn't you vote against it, if you care about it? There's nothing complicated. Use your intelligence and vote your brains.

Libertarian Loretta Nall is running a write-in campaign for Governor of Alabama. She was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight.

Loretta did a great job. Her platform:

• Legalize marijuana
• End the Iraq War
• Don't Comply with the Patriot Act
• Legalize the state's undocumented immigrants

If she loses the race, she'll run for Congress in 2008.

The replacement ad for this pulled ad, from the RNC, is not going to be run by Tennessee TV stations:

At least two Tennessee stations are refusing to run a new Republican National Committee ad attacking Dem Harold Ford, Jr., saying that they want more factual documentation of the ads from the RNC before running them, a Ford senior adviser, Tom Lee, has told Election Central.

Abortion pills for kids? How do they dream up this stuff? The Party of Hate.

He said it:

John Kerry, who Sullivan supported, isn't for gay marriage: "The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position." Or, as he said on another occasion: ""I'm against gay marriage, . . . Everybody knows that." Are there any Democratic candidates in contested races who are pushing gay rights and gay marriage? I can't think of any. Certainly, as I noted before, Harold Ford isn't among them. And Hillary Clinton isn't beyond reproach: "The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda gay rights group has described Sen. Hillary Clinton as 'a complete disappointment.' . . . Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act."

Who am I to argue with the Professor? Maybe he should drop Hostettler a line and straighten him out.

More from the Party of Hate, an ad in an Indiana congressional race:

Pelosi will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home," the narrator says. . . . "I know what you're thinking," the narrator says. "Is this true? Well, do you feel lucky? Go ahead, vote for Brad Ellsworth. Make Nancy Pelosi's day."

Honestly, I don't know how a reasonable intelligent person can be a Republican. I wonder if even Barack Obama can find common ground with Hostettler, the GOP congressman running this ad.

Greg Sargent writes about a new GOP Corker ad in the Tennessee Senate race:

Okay, so Election Central has just obtained a radio ad which you've got to hear: It actually has what sound like tom-tom drums playing in the background every time the ad talks about Dem Harold Ford, Jr. The ad -- which says it was paid for by the campaign of GOP Senate candidate Bob Corker -- can be heard right here.

I listened and can't say that I am hearing what Greg is hearing. But maybe this copy is not a good one. See why I say so on the flip.

From Mark Schmitt on the Tennessee Senate GOP ads:

[L]ook at the independent ad in question. Then look at Republican Bob Corker’s own ad, here.

The independent ad begins with an African-American woman saying, "Harold Ford looks nice. Isn’t that enough?" The Corker ad begins with an African-American man saying, "Whoo, he looks good on TV!" (Apparently that’s the basis on which black people decide who to vote for. I did not know that.) It ends with someone else saying, "but he looks good on TV."

In between, the two ads have a virtually identical rhythm and look -- very short, person-on-the-street clips, alternating white and black, men and women, in a staccato rhythm, all cheerful and direct. . . . Together . . . these two ads sure look like a well-coordinated attempt to echo a single coherent message: He’s a pretty boy, he’s not from here, has weird values, ("He’s just not right," the independent ad concludes).

Watch this.

E.J. Dionne:

There has long been talk about the rise of a "radical center," made up of voters essentially moderate in their philosophical leanings but radical in their disaffection with the status quo. This looks to be the year of the radical center. If it is, the Democrats will win. And if they win, their task will be to meet the aspirations of a diverse group of dissatisfied and disappointed Americans. Not an easy chore, but one that certainly beats being in the opposition.

The negative extremist brand has been stuck on the Rubber Stamp Republicans. Obama, take heed please.

The Media hard at work:

The New York Times sorted 362 of Mr. Lieberman’s war-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks into content-related categories, and found that he has alternated his arguments about the parties and the war’s prosecution, shifting tone at critical points as political circumstances have evolved.

In other words, the Lieberman Principle:

So this is the Lieberman Principle. What is good for Joe is good. When it is good for Joe to criticize the President, then it is good to criticize the President. Only then. When it is good for Joe to be partisan, then it is good to be partisan. Only then. When it is good for Joe to abandon the Democratic party, then it is good. Only then.

What a mendacious unprincipled hack Joe is.

Phil Singer of the DSCC sounds the alarm:

NEW FROM BUSH: Yesterday, Bush revived his plan to privatize Social Security, calling it one of the “big items” he wants to get done next year. Watch video of Bush yesterday:

Watch Bush

And Bush's merry band of GOP Senate candidates who agree with him on privatizing Social Security on the other side.

So says President Bush.