Arkansas seems to like guys with funny names as Governor...

Brings you back to the days of Orval Faubus and Dale Bumpers.

The Obama people finally realized that a contrived format such as a 'debate' with 8 other people and 60 seconds answers is really not the best way to showcase their candidate. Undoubtedly it's a problem for them: Clinton and Edwards are much better at this as they've been doing it for a long, long time. Whatever Obama does, it's looking bad - so they probably decided to do the bad thing they can control... They're already down to that kind of gambit. Not good.

[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

The "debates" have become so trivialized. Too many of them. Six DNC debates is more than enough. Let the candidates spend quality time with the voters.

Hey Terry, I'm sorry to say but even if Obama can better control his message and choose the kind of discussion he wants to enter into with other candidates, I still think it sucks for him - he's looking like he's retreating, ceding the terrain to Clinton. I know this is not their intention, and they actually spun it in the right direction (only the voters ask tough questions) - but still, I don't think they have the ability to impose that narrative on the MSM. Probably they should have put that side-by-side with the Hillary-Edwards exchange about how they should have smaller debates with the 'real' candidates. Just a thought.

[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

"I would have preferred, over my lifetime, if I could have invested some of that Social Security money myself," Rudy said. "I think I would have done much better than the government did."

The only time in his life that Rudy has ever been able to turn a buck is the period post-9/11 when he has cashed in on that horrific tragedy as a result of merely showing up for work. Granted, he didn't cower in a classroom reading a children's book.

Sadly, Rudy fails to understand that Social Security is party of a social contract between the government and the people, ensuring that no one will be poor in their old age, irrespective of their investments and the vagaries of the markets.

I think people misread Obama's intent here. After seeing the poll results from CA to FL etc.. Obama will attempt to make a goal line stand in IA, NH and SC so you will see Obama in those 3 states from now to Feb timeframe.

Obama will attempt to make a goal line stand in IA, NH and SC so you will see Obama in those 3 states from now to Feb timeframe.

Not terribly likely I think.

Obama is the one candidate with the money and organization to compete head-to-head with the smiling Lady Hawk anyplace in the country.

Hillary has no more answers for her contradictions than Alberto Gonzales. She may stonewall to victory but it appears even Fred Thompson is not going to be able to pull that off and he is a pro.

Best, Terry

Obama To Limit Future Debate Participation

Obama needs better counseling. This will be a big mistake. Does he really think he can structure his own forum independent of all the Democratic interest groups and other candidates?

Speeches and press releases aren't enough. Thinking on your feet and adapting to unplanned situations is how battles are won. This is something that Hillary knows much better than any other candidate.

Thinking on your feet and adapting to unplanned situations is how battles are won. This is something that Hillary knows much better than any other candidate.

You think so huh?

Kindly post just one of Hillary's deep thoughts.

Or a thought of any kind.

Maybe something besides corporations are people just like you and me. Maybe that qualifies as a thought but it doesn't seem a good one to me. Admittedly it is rather novel.

Best, Terry

Another thing - slightly O/T but I hope you guys will put it to rest for me - it recently came to my attention that there are rumors flying around DC as to Karl Rove's sexual orientation (probably related to Jeff Gannon/his father etc...). Is that for real?
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

Then, why did he say he would still consider forums where the candidates appear "sequentially" and only chicken out of events where they appear head-to-head?

Sorry. There is only one interpretation.

I have watched all of the debates and forums, Democratic and Republican. While I try to catch a full campaign stump speech from each candidate when they are on C-SPAN, I have found the debates quite useful for comparing and contrasting styles, quickness, command of the issues under pressure, and the ability to formulate a coherent thought in 60 seconds.

For example, Hillary's "I'm not here to attack Democrats, I'm hear to unify the party and beat the Republicans, I'm your girl!" was a politically brilliant response to frontal attacks from the "new kind of politics, can't we all just get along" candidates.

I saw some of that discussed over at Common Dreams today...would love love love to see that story bust!

Barf.

"Let the candidates spend quality time with the voters."

I never see the candidates in person. They come nowhere near me. Debates/forums are what I get.

And it really POs me that candidates have to suck up to voters in less than a handful states or else they can forget getting the nom. Who's dumb idea was that?

So which is it "thinking on their feet" or "how the game is played?" You seem to have done a 180 in the space of one post.

As for whether Ms. Clinton and Mr. Edwards will follow Mr. Obama or not, I have seen too many political predictions fail to make many of them (except that Hillary will lose to Thompson, that's a lock). I commend that policy to you.

I think it is time for you to acually address the lack of substance of your own post, which is what Terry was asking you to do with blockquoting your statement and then asking for some depth.

In my experience, the sloganish statements coming out of Hillary's mouth are about the same empty nothings as those coming from Hillary supporters.

Like, what in the world is this supposed to mean - "Keep in mind communication involves a lot more than just words."

All declaration, no substance.

Yesterday [I believe it was slounick who did this] Hillary cheerleaders were asked throughout the threads to back up their declarative fluff with some supporting facts. Not once were there any responses.

I don't know about Terry, but I am impressed with Obama's campaign in making this move.

J. McCutchen

Americans need to ask themselves - why has our media featured Obama's supposed lack of foreign policy experience when the likes of

Norman Poderhoretz and Rudy Giuliani are allowed to roam free of straighjackets?

Maybe the question is never asked because the answer is too real, too true, too disturbing.

Makes Dems appreciate the Other Man from Hope!

So which is it "thinking on their feet" or "how the game is played?" You seem to have done a 180 in the space of one post.

Huh? That's an unusual interpretation. Please show your reasoning.

Hillary will lose to Thompson, that's a lock...

Thompson is a walking, cigar smoking zombie who is confined to a wheel chair golf cart. Go over to Kos and watch the Fox Newz piece on him. Read the comments.

DonnaG says "I am impressed with Obama's campaign in making this move."

I tend to agree. Obama knows the status quo is accomplishing nothing and costing precious resources, so he's changing. Bold, consistent with message, risky perhaps, but less so than going through the costly mechanics of meaningless debates where there is no room for substance on a crowded stage.

[Political Logic] seems to be arguing that any effort to change politics for the better is futile...

Well you are 'seeming wrong'. Your belief in Obama's superman powers is wishful thinking.

Which candidates criticized Edwards?

That is not at all true, about the sole focus being the first four primary/caucuses, or 'no money invested anywhere else'.

Who are you, chicken little? Oh, on second thought, you are the fertilizer of your own wishful thinking. Your disinformation does stink though, like it came from a manure spreader.

"If voters don't recognize this, and Hillary is nominated"

Hey look at that we have something in common. We are both ready to blame the voters. You will blame the voters if obama is not nominated and I will blame the voters if he is.

spoken like a diehard cynic. Better to accept Hillary, Bush-Cheney status quo, the Clinton baggage, and bitter national division? hmmmm pass the pom poms.

By not being in the debates Obama may actually gain some individual media exposure with stories about what he was doing while others were debating and his reactions to the debate soundbites.

In any event, the flexibility he gains and the resources he saves seem well worth the risk of not being there.

Yup, he's a 9/11 whore.

I'm clearly leaning Hillary, but you have to give Obama some props on this -- unless it's a faux bold move because in reality it doesn't have him sitting out of that many events. All of the leading campaigns must have considered doing something similar, and he stepped to it first. It's been an open secret that the top 3 dislike this explosion of these types of events.

For the non-DNC forums, the organizers are dependent on the candidates for the event to happen. And in each case the candidates wait quietly to see if the others will agree before committing. I think the fact that it might endorse his 'leadership' is one of the ONLY reasons why Hillary and Edwards won't follow suit.

I also reject the Bush-Cheney-Clinton tactic of creating a strawman to knock down. When I admire Obama's values, honesty, willingness to TRY to change the status quo, and interest in finding ways to bridge deep divisions, I'm not attributing superman powers. I'm CHOOSING optimism and change as a better strategy than division and the status quo. Preaching negativity won't improve things. Obama may.

If that's true, looks like you're trying for the Guinness record with a triple play.

Please clarify. Do you mean she will go to the debates, misrepresent, say abosolutely nothing of substance, and continue to rake in huge sums from deep-pocket, corporate special interests?

With regard to Obama changing the rules to gain an advantage... duh?

Hillary's people can't seem to understand that the only other people who think Hillary is the inevitable nominee are wishful-thinking Republicans.

Putting words in other people's mouths doesn't make them true. You should try thinking a little before you write.

Waddya mean what do I mean? It's quite manifest:

You criticized Obama for ducking debates because, according to you, he needed to demonstrate his ability to think on his feet. When party-of-one pointed out that there's no feet-thinking done in those floor shows that we ironically call debates, you flopped over to the thing about playing the game. If the whole rapid-response thing is bogus, why did you bring it up?...is my reasoning.

Thompson is a walking, cigar smoking zombie who is confined to a wheel chair golf cart.
...which will make Hillary's defeat even bitterer.

Juxtaposing Bush-Cheney-Clinton underscores my beliefs by labeling things I oppose and they share: the politics of division and protection of a speical-interest-driven status quo. I know, I know, the Hillary-is-inevitable crowd hates comparisons to Bush, but they need to get used to it, too obvious to ignore.

People who attend Camp Obama training sessions for community organizing for the campaign report that the Obama campaign is focusing solely on the first four primary / caucuses.

You might want to find friends who tell you the truth instead of telling you what you want to hear.

I live in upstate New York. It is not exactly a stronghold for Obama with the Dragon Lady dominating the polls and pols. I attended one organizing meeting for Obama that drew people from across the political spectrum and all class lines. I regularly get updates on local canvassing, a trip to New Hampshire, a presence at various events, a wine-tasting, fundraising party.

I personally lost some heart early on when Obama showed his way was hands across the aisle rather than confrontation. A little more than a matter of style but I was later impressed by Russ Feingold talking about Obama's particular effectiveness.

There is substance from Obama, which is twisted by the MSM into unrecognizable form. Hillary's empty, slash-and-burn rhetoric is mighty fine to the chuckleheaded talking heads, who are not open to ideas. A volatile electorate is looking for change and hopefully they will get it rather than more of the same with Hillary.

Sure are a lot of people willing to volunteer their time and money to see it happen. Obama is even matching and exceeding Hillary's corrupt funding with small donors. Hillary could never do the same. She offers nothing of substance to people below the rarified atmosphere she inhabits with her tony "middle class."

You want the same old, same old with workers, children, single mothers, the sick and disabled left to fend for themselves while Hillary pampers the giant corporations and well off? You want more war, more corruption, more deterioration of the infrastructure, more union-busting, more rhetoric, more pollution, Hillary is your girl.

I want my country back and so does the rest of the world.

Best, Terry

What makes you think Thompson would beat Hillary but not Obama?

There is an almost cultish mindset among some Obama supporters. They just know Obama would be a great general election candidate and beat any/all republicans.  They are not basing this on his electoral history or polls but a personality cult in which he is treated as a savior.

I agree that polls this early are not very meaningful. I also know that there is no way to tell how a candidate will do in a general election. There are so many factors; the press treatment, the political climate, ability to absorb attacks, ability to punch back, discipline, etc.  Al Gore was devoured by the media in 2000. Kerry couldn't handle the swiftboat smears. So there are a lot of unknows for any candidate running.

For the sake of disclosure, I am a 'Deaniac' and lean heavily toward Senator Edwards. And, I have said this before, but it it's worth saying once again:

I can think of many reasons to shudder when considering a Hillary Clinton presidency. Her negatives are astronomical, and she is a lightening rod for the right wing to focus its anger and hatred on.

But, instead: let's just perform this little mathematical exercise, eh?

8 years with George Bush Sr in the White House as Vice President
4 years with George Bush Sr in the White House as President
8 years with Bill Clinton in the White House as President
8 years with [the chimp] in the White House as President
8 years with Hillary Clinton in the White House as President

Sum them. That's 36 unbroken years with a Bush family member or Clinton family member serving as either President or Vice President. 36 unbroken years: more than a third of a century!

That outcome alone should be enough to erase her candicacy from the minds of any reasonable individual. Why doesn't this thought terrify almost everyone?

Miri11, You describe "cultish mindset" Obama supporters, "a personality cult in which he is treated as a savior." I've never met or heard any Obama supporters who fit that bizarre description.

Obama seems to appeal most to thinking Democrats, progressives and independents who are tired of politics as usual (which means partisan wars, deep pocket special interest domination, lack of substance and progress on key issues, e.g., healthcare, Iraq, social security, etc.) Obama supporters seem to want to move forward, not protect the status quo or go back-to-the-Clinton-years.

Far from a "savior," Obama does bring a distincitive life experience, values, honesty, a commitment to constructive change and an intelligent charisma that could inspire and lead more than half the nation. No other candidate yet offers that promise: substance, change, more unity and progress. If that sounds "cultish," pass the kool aid.

You have just made my point.

It does not matter how good or decent a person is, the rightwing slash and burn machine will turn that person into a sniveling wretch who, undoubtedly, "wants the enemy to win."

So?

The Republicans will attempt to tarnish any viable opponent just as Hillary is doing.

If the Republicans couldn't destroy their dirtbag twins, the Clintons, what makes you think they can destroy Obama?

Best, Terry

Get it?
Yeah, I get it. You're huminah-humining.

What makes you think Thompson would beat Hillary but not Obama?
I guess you haven't noticed that there are quite a number of people on this very blog whose votes would be automatic for ANY Dem except Hillary.

I will not vote for her, TH will not vote for her, many lefties will refuse to vote for her. So she loses all the righties and all the lefties.

Hello, President Thompson.

Go vote for Nader.

Was that remark supposed to have some clever meaning?

Alot goes over your head evidently. No real loss.

Thus spoke Dr. Political Logic.

Ah. So solly. No spreekee bullshit.

Were you speaking English?

We Democrats don't need enemies -- we are our own worst enemies.

By the time we have a nominee, he or she will be so battered and muddied we won't recognize him or her

Rove is a mere child compared to the Clintons' smear machine.

Democrats range from rightwing nutjobs to moderate lefties. There are no real lefties in the Democratic Party. You have to look to the Progressive parties for that. Even the Socialist senator from Vermont is not really all that far left.

Fitting the whole eclectic collection under one umbrella is not as easy as suturing in the various frankenstein look-alikes on the Republican side.

Edwards or Obama will come through their trial of fire by the Clinton spin machine just fine thank you.

Hillary will still be dirty.

"Out damn spot," cried Lady Macbeth. But the spot wouldn't out. It was in her very being.

Best, Terry

Good thought. And define campaigns tightly so no Fred Thompson run without declaring would be possible. It would certainly shorten the endless campaign.

Although I never voted for him, I watched as George Bush was elected/appointed President twice. Before Bush, my naive assumption was that the nation was so strong that one person in the White House couldn't do that much harm in just a few years. I was very wrong, and should have taken to the streets during the Flordia re-count controversy in 2000.

I believe Hillary Clinton also represents a disastrous choice for president of the United States. Appeals to be quiet and line up like a good Democrat are bogus. Now is the time to speak out.

I perceive very litte difference between the Clintons and the Republicans on many issues, particularly their posture on reform of American politics, the need to break the grip of corporate special interests and the debilitating cycles of partisan warfare.

Appealing for Democratic unity only works if the nominee represents a break with the past. If Hillary is the nominee, it is too late, many Democrats, progressives and Independents will be lost. That is not an attack, threat or prediction, it is REALITY.

Maybe this is why obama wants to skip as many debates and forums as he can:

Democrats preach virtue of labor unions

The crowd thinned out after Edwards' speech, leaving scores of empty seats for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who spoke third. The rest of the field spoke to mostly empty rows.

Obama said a Democratic president, backed by organized labor, can change Washington and protect the middle class.

"We need a president ... who is not afraid to mention unions," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070819/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_iowa

There is an almost cultish mindset among some Obama supporters. They just know Obama would be a great general election candidate and beat any/all republicans. They are not basing this on his electoral history or polls but a personality cult in which he is treated as a savior.

As an Obama supporter, I offer my thoughts.

There is a groundswell of renewed hopefulness replacing years of frustration [with the political/governmental system] and that groundswell has found a place to light in the person of a talented and courageous guy. Obama correctly gauges the mood of the country, has the audacity to try to make a difference, and is willing to step up and lead the changes desired by so many for so long.

But, to openly hope for and to actually work for a better world is a psychically dangerous thing to do. What I mean is, it won't kill you, but it has the potential to really crush you if it doesn't bear out, as compared to say, staying 'safe' in a bubble of cynicism. It means laying oneself open to taunts and jeers from the sidelines, misinterpretations, and always there's that possibility of failing, at which point that chronic frustration might return, but with an added layer of angst.

I believe that the Obama supporters, young, old [my category] and in-between, have gone out on this psychic limb, so to speak, and have said no to the usual cynicism which is the most common defense against frustration. Because they have done that, they are living deeper within themselves, walking the talk, and feeling good about it. There is something palpable about anyone who does that deepening whether it is being a soldier in a war or responding in a natural catastrophe, or family crisis, or supporting an audacious man of character in a political race.

I think it's that palpable quality which you try to define with 'cultish mindset'.

As to your last sentence, I disagree a bit. It is not Obama's personality but rather his character which signals his potential. Laurence Tribe saw that character at Harvard, and lots of others see it, too. And, here are a couple of other signals that have some weight:
Electoral history: Obama got a lot of support from red counties in Illinois in his US Senate run.
Polls: in the polls, Obama does very well against republicans, often better than Clinton

And you are right that there is no way to predict the future, or hog-tie the unknowables.

Ah. The ad hominem fallacy. That's two in one thread. You're definitely on a roll. BTW, there's no such word as "alot" (in English).

You know what's odd is that it's usually the front runner in a race who wants to avoid debates. Remember those famous Roger and Me styled commercials that Paul Wellstone used to shame Rudy Boschwitz into debating him? (Wellstone then proceeded to administer Boschwitz a righteous ass-kicking in debates and went on to win the election.)

The understandable rationale is the way the number two guy gets to be number one is by going after the leader. Therefore, as the reasoning goes, someone already enjoying a significant lead has little to gain and everything to lose by exposing themselves thusly. But it's usual for someone running in second place not to want every chance they can get to mix it up with the leader.

Good luck with your efforts to nitpick edits on comment posts: an infinite task worthy of your talents. U r so gud @ it. When you've finished or tire of that meaningful quest, there are worlds of misspellings, typos, and abbreviated jargon in billions of email messages just begging for your eagle eye. You have found a noble calling.

The current candidate cattle shows are not really "debates." They favor shallow one-liners and soundbites (even Bush manages a few of those) and exclude thoughtful, challenged-and-defended substance on issues and solutions. So, they favor a famous (or infamous) frontrunner who rides on her husband's coattails with no real substance to offer or defend, and work against a person with ideas and an agenda for change. Do you really think that Hillary is eager for a classic one-on-one debate with Obama?

Real ideas take more than 60 seconds to share as does a thoughtful, constructive cse for change. In effect, the current debates serve the status quo because they don't offer citizens/voters a chance to really see and hear alternatives. No wonder Hillary loves them.

hadenough said: "...around a million people watched the last dem debate."

With most of the rest of them, I got nothing for my time and effort. The novelty of these substanceless "debates" is over. Hillary loves them so she can pander. Does she really think standing on stage is better for Iowa seniors than really tackling their issues with thoughtful analysis and real policy alternatives?

Obama is about substance and smart enough to invest himself in other venues.

Thanks, hadenough for underscoring another clear difference that make Obama all the more appealing.

"I guess you haven't noticed that there are quite a number of people on this very blog whose votes would be automatic for ANY Dem except Hillary."

Maybe a dozen or so. Based on all the polling I've seen though, any of the top three candidates seem do very well among Democrats. Also have to note that a lot of people have gone broke betting against Hillary Clinton.

I know the commitment for a fact but it is not that comprehensible to me.

The comprehension may be easier if you allow the given of these ingredients, all of which have existed before, but which have reached critical proportions in the public stew: 1] Americans distressed with the way things are being done or not in Washington, 2] Americans critically wanting change in the way things are working in Washington, and importantly, 3] the catalytic rapid learning curve provided by witnessing Bush incompetency go unchecked or even be collusively abetted by the dems in Washington. Matters have become grave and the usual dem responses no longer persuade. The usual dem responses are being seen as 'more of the same.'

In short, Obama, as I said, correctly recognized the mood of the country, and furthermore, recognized that it is that mood/rapid learning which would carry his candidancy. To his supporters, it is a plus that he declines to use his candidancy like some 'savior figure' doing old-style 'heroic sloganeering'. The truth spoken without fanfare by a 'studious intellectual' is a breath of fresh air to folks who have been slapped awake in a dawning realization that they've been had by sound bites and slogans. That same awakening is supportive of steady, incremental real structural change at a time when the whole structure could topple.

If you are a reader, I recommend, "Understanding Change: The Dynamic of Social Transformation" by Scott London [you can find it on the net]. And if you like to delve deeply, there is nothing more illuminating than Ilya Prigogine's work on systems change. Prigogine was a Nobel prize winning chemist from Belgium. The meditators have sort of taken over Prigogine's theories for their own purposes, perhaps shorting readers of Prigogine's full genius.

I am going from memory here, so don't quote my paraphrasing, but I will try to convey an essential from Prigogine which I see applying to the grassroots behind Obama:

My paraphrase: 'Any system will handle perturbations by working to dampen or counter those perturbations. But, when the perturbations reach a certain critical mass, the system will die or suddenly escape to a higher order'.

I think BushCo provided the critical mass of perturbations to the system, as well as did a great job alerting lots of average Americans to beware 'retail politics'.

What channel? Will it be posted on youtube later?

Proof?

So this is about punishing Hillary? We both know that she would be a better President than Thompson.

It does matter.

Hillary gets a lot of support from red counties in New York because ????

Obama gets a lot of support from red counties in Illinois because ?????

Hillary won big time in New York which shows what about her political ability ????

Obama won big time in Illinois which shows which shows what about his political ability? (It helps to know that both his primary and his general opponents were wife beaters.)

I could go on but my point is simply that too many of the Obama supporters here do appear cultish because they apply different standards to him than to the woman currently beating him nationwide.

Then by all means nominate her, if you're willing to have us all live to live with the consequences whether she wins or loses.

Among these will be an indefinite continuation of the debacle in Iraq and further erosion of civil liberties, a further alienation of the lefties in the Democratic Party, and a further drift to the right of the Party.

Should be fun.

Awe, now you're depressing me too. God it's all so bleak! How can we ever go on? (Sob.)

But seriously, whoever inherits George W. Bush and Tom Delay's mess -- whether it's Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or whoever your own preferred personal savior may be (Nader?) -- is going to have a mess on their hands. Best case, it's going to suck. So it's probably a safe bet to go on predicting doom and gloom for a while, regardless of who the next president ends up being (and no matter how cracked one's crystal ball may be).

oh, happy hour again?

100 proof = 50%alcohol, approximately (more precisely 57.1% alcohol by volume or 49.28% alcohol by weight) and 200 proof = 100 percent alcohol.

Hillary won big time in New York which shows what about her political ability ????

That she has a marvelous ability to select hapless opponents.

A bit of local history:

The last time my district was represented by a Democrat before 2006 was when a one-termer was elected during the upstate New York "Truman landslide." The hostility of upstaters to downstate politicians has lessened greatly but it once had real sting.

The upset winner's inaugural speech in the House was a farewell. He was intelligent enough to realize he had no chance whatever of winning again.

Oddly, though there has been a long reign of Republicans, the district tended to elect mavericks. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert had many unpleasantries with the like of Newt Gingrich and the right-to-lifers notably.

When we finally elected a Democrat, he immediately joined the Blue Dog Caucus. It isn't all that clear that we Democrats came out ahead with an ersatz Democrat replacing a maverick Republican willing to war on the Republican Party leaders.

Under those conditions it is not so difficult to see why Hillary would have appeal in this district as a rightwing Democrat. That is without considering the powerful coattails of Eliot Spitzer.

I was frankly surprised somewhat by Hillary's overwhelming victory but her opponents were abnormally weak.

Our Blue Dog Democrat will probably stay in for the foreseeable future but the best hope for booting out the horrendous Randy Kuhl and routine hack James Walsh is for the Democrats to nominate a presidential candidate that can generate real excitement like Barack Obama. I am less sure Edwards or even Richardson can have the same effect but I am sure Hillary will be a drag on the efforts to rid the US House of two cockroaches.

I sincerely hope the Democrats do the smart and ethical thing and nominate a real Democrat instead of another ersatz faker. Be good to tidy up the House a bit.

The matter remains to be decided but present omens are not good IMO. The Empire usually wins against insurgents and is likely to do so again. The forces of darkness are very strong.

Best, Terry

Party ID always peaks at election time and falls off a little in the off years. That's a well documented and completely expected phenomenon. But even at that, Rasmussen's current 35.5% for Democratic party ID is up like 6% from just a few years ago.

And keep in mind that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican pollster who thinks George W. Bush still has a 38% approval rating and is not above spinning poll results a little. There's some good stuff on his site and his polls of the Senate races last year were pretty decent, but his headlines are often kind of cute like that. Don't let him scare you.

Interesting that when Hadenough is challenged to produce facts and links the response is "it's out there, go find it yourself".

That she has a marvelous ability to select hapless opponents

May I present to you Mr. Alan Keyes?

Let's pick this up again out here.

If there is a track record certainly you can provide links to facts? Right?
Right! (Sorry, I thought everybody knew by now that her view of the First Amendment is to the right of Antonin Scalia's.)

And you think Hillary is the reason [Dems are losing members]? Hillary? Really?
Well, no...and I didn't say that, imply it, or have it tatooed on my big toe. (Blogging hint: Argue with what your debating opponent says, not with what he or she doesn't say. Just a suggestion.)

I think it's obama [+ approximately 15 paragraphs of ranting about Mr. "obama"]
I believe we were discussing Ms. Clinton.

Quadruplicate

Duplicate

I didn't say he was inaccurate, silly -- well except for that 38% Bush approval thing. That's a little far fetched. But what I said is that he was spinning his results. He's spinning, you're buying.

Your faith in Obama's coat tails is misplaced: currently, he appears able to get a small slice of naive Democrats and some Independents very excited and to leave the bulk of Democrats unconvinced.