Iowa just got a whole lot more important, nobody's going to have an excuse to "skip" it this time.

I knew it would take about 5 seconds for a DLC jab to appear, lol.

Another nail in the coffin for Barack "Whistling in the Wind" Obama. Can't wait to say good fucking riddance!

Generally speaking, the phrase has come to mean "to talk or argue purposefully," and I use it as an exression of my belief that there is no purpose to Obama's campaign other than his own ambition, just as his books are about himself and his self-absorbed philosophies. Compare his books, for example, to Al Gore's (World Changing, Earth in the Balance, An Inconvenient Truth, Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, The Spirit of Family, Joined at the Heart, and the upcoming Assault on Reason). My point is not about Al Gore, as much as it is that we've seen this Obama thing before. It's not JFK (and for goodness sakes, Michelle Obama is certainly no Jackie). It's Jerry Brown who, for as much as his touch of moonbeam shed a certain sort of light, he lacked balast and was blown away,just as Obama will be.

Is the IA primary the same day as CA with far fewer electoral votes?

Would it make sense for a candidate to just skip IA, if Hillary has it sewed up, and campaign in another state?

If the DLC doesn't like the jabs - the DLC should stop setting itself as so eminently jabbable.

Take it for what it's worth because I'm too lazy to dig up the documentation, but for a time, the DLC had 1)Tom Vilsack, who was actually the chair of the DLC running for Pres, and 2)HRC, who's probably it's most prominent/credible remaining member - running for prez.

I don't recall who issued the statement- Whitman? But we had a statement from the DLC saying that HRC was 'their' candidate and that the DLC would be working hard to ensure she won the nomination and the Presidency.... quite a slap in the face to the chairman, doncha think?

While I obviously have lots of policy issue differences with the DLC - what I abhor most about them is that whether by design or not, they're trying to turn the Democratic party into the GOP.

It's a well-worn, but perfectly accurate description of the last generation of GOP presidential selection that they 'coronate' more than 'select'. Some learned, wise, cabal of insiders decides that Bob Dole... or whomever... get his 'turn' this cycle. It's the game McCain is playing (and losing) now - for all his supposed Maverickism, it's been 6 years of toeing the line, biting his tongue and playing pattycake with the powerbrokers so 2008 will be 'his turn'. Too bad (for him) the GOP is coming apart at the seams so it may no longer work.

I have no desire to see the DLC do the same thing to the Democratic Party - no wise, learned men of substance protecting us great unwashed masses from ourselves.

The sooner the wise, learned men of the Democratic Party learn that the left side of the spectrum works best with a bottom up, rather than top down approach to politics, the better off we will all be.

I know for a fact that Obama's messaging strategy has been polled and focus-grouped by at least one other prominent Dem. So I guess that's why I'm much less likely to find Obama's message to be any more "pure" than the other Dems' messages. Personally, I like all the Dems more than any of the GOPs. I do wish that people would pay more attention to Richardson though. On paper, no other candidate comes remotely close to him. (Disclaimer: he's my second choice, above Clinton, Edwards, Obama.)

sheez

I liked it better around here when I was the only hillary supporter!

The IA caucuses are ahead of CA by at least a couple of weeks, and I don't think an endorsement by Vilsack "sews up" Iowa for Hillary. True, endorsements are much more important in primaries than in the general (since the endorser lends organizational capital, like volunteer lists, etc.), but they are not determinative.

You also "knew for a fact" the other day that Richardson opposed the invasion of Iraq before it was launched, and that was wrong.