EC seems to be echoing the early Drudge spin on the John Edwards and Murdoch story. I don't follow the logic. How is receiving a fee for services or purchasing products from a subsidiary in Murdoch's vast media empire the equivalent of accepting campaign contributions from Murdoch himself? Did Edwards call for a boycott of all Murdoch products, or the return of influence-buying campaign contributions?

This actually points out one of the dangers of media consolidation, there are fewer and fewer outlets for even former Senators to get their message out. Then there is the aspect of Murdoch's Post lying mistating the amount of money Edwards got, and the fact that he gave all of it too charity.

Gerson writes. "What Mormonism shares with other religious traditions is a strong commitment to the value and dignity of human beings, including the unborn, the disabled and the poor."

And by "other religions", he means mainstream Christianity and perhaps Judaism.

I have been requesting the addition of another rating opportunity to separate agree or disagree from quality of post.

While most readers of the Book of Mormon may or may not have those values, one listening to Mitt Rommey has little choice but to come to the conclusion that his belief system has clearly has strayed far from the platitudes attributed to his faith.

If Mitt were to play up his religion as suggested, there is little doubt that he would fall short in the paragon o' virtue category.

Like his professed hero (Ron-dog Reagan), compassion for anyone not in the top income tax bracket appears to be missing from his daily check off list.

Ooops:

Hillary:

50% Best experience
Obama = 7%, Edwards = 15%

35% Strongest leader
Obama = 23% , Edwards = 18%

30% Campaigned hardest in Iowa
Obama = 29%, Edwards = 22%

But in the 'Kinda guy you'd like to have beer with' question Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

not sure if this is the best place to post this... but is anyone watching the house right now? the "chaos" continues. the main thrust: wow, the republicans sure know how to play the minority. the dems NEVER had the balls to play like this. not saying this sort of action benefits our republic, but they sure know how to throw a wrench in the majority's gears.

(yes, i'm the geek who watches cspan on a friday night)

How are they doing it? I'm re-watching Thank you for smoking

"That's not a positive, seeing as how the more campaigning hasn't (according to this poll) resulted in any advantage."

If you want to see if campaigning is doing well you'd have to look at several polls over a period of time. I'd recommend trying that.

from the abc poll:
"But it’s Obama who shows the most difference among population groups. He’s got 38 percent support from likely caucusgoers under age 50 – leading Clinton and Edwards in this group – but just 15 percent support from senior citizens, a group in which Edwards leads.

Young people are notoriously hard to turn out, but Obama also leads among a more reliable voting group, highly educated adults. He’s got 35 percent support from likely caucus-goers who have post-graduate degrees, compared with 19 percent among those who haven’t gone beyond high school."

Just how many of the caucusgoers have post-graduate degrees? I'm thinking of Howard Dean. How about you?

do you really think a president, no matter of which party, will be able to stifle, silence or suture this extreme partisanship? we're dealing with people who have or want power and will do anything to keep ahold or (re)grasp it. in my heart of hearts, i feel like its only going to get worse, before it gets better.

honestly, i hate to sound like a negative nelly, but i don't think there's going to be much change in this country or in our government until the $hit hits the fan. Until we are face to face with dire circumstances and can no longer hide behind our ipods and plasma screens and laptops, true change - truly "bring[ing] this nation back together" - will not, cannot occur.

Considering the poll said they're a "more reliable" group, I'm not too worried.

And lol @ under 50 being "young" people. Talk about blunt instruments of division.

THE OBAMA PEOPLE WIN. I'LL TAKE A BREAK FROM ELECTION CENTRAL FOR A COUPLE WEEKS.

THE BARACK OBAMA SPIN ROOM IS OPEN!!!!!!

people don't get punished when they win.

you win.

Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.
So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them!

I have no idea what you mean, but sounds like a break is a good idea.

btw, I see you don't follow your own prohibition against rating down.

It may be the quality of your posts, not your Hillary mania that is getting rated down. Lots of Hillary folks get very defensive and agressive when they encounter opposition and realize nothing is envitable.

IF I understood your posts, I would try to reply constructively.

Before I take a break, I thought I'd ask Mr. Animal if he'd like to explain himself?

and i can take a hint. if mr. animal is like a site admin or something and wants me gone, he, as a representative of election central, can just say so.

saves everyone lots of time!

You know, I'm pretty sure I'm considered an Obama person, and I'm also pretty sure that I don't abuse the ratings system. On top of that, I'm also pretty sure I've been rated down on non-abusive posts.

I appreciate that a few Obama supporters have been over-using the ratings system. I agree. But lets not talk in broad brush strokes here.

His signature issue is transparency in government. His base is the type that would make use of said transparency. As such, if he's owned by big business or the military industrial complex or whoevever, it would be incredibly difficult for him to pull it off I think without it becoming painstakingly obvious from day 1.

I have been rating any meta-discussion of "Ratings Abuse" with a big zero cause it bogs down these boards, is entirely unproductive, and, to be honest, is embarrassing. My hope that any new reader that comes to these sites to read some good analysis can be spared this annoying back and forth. Obama supporter or not, if you fight about the ratings, I'm putting up a low number. All the whining and snipping is just ruining these boards.

Now, as this is a meta-discussion contribution to the fight about ratings itself, I'd appreciate it if others would rate this post a 0, so as to push it out of the way for new readers who are looking for substantive discussion on the issues.

Of course, it is not. Indeed, News Corp. did not even bother to get the facts straight in its press release, adding up the $500,000 advance on royalties and the $330,000 some of royalties received to date ... when it is a normal advance, and the $330,000 is part of the $500,000.

Of course, if John Edwards is elected, the royalties would certainly top $500,000, and that would be good for Habitat for Humanity and the International Rescue Committee ...

... but its highly unlikely that the net effect on News Corp. of that plus availability of utility wireless broadband and a return of the FCC to its statutory responsibilities is going to be a net financial win.

There's a great deal of genuine disagreement/confusion about the purpose of the ratings system and its use. Sometimes discussion helps to clarify. If you do not agree, maybe just ignoring the posts would be a better strategy than posting condescending diatribes that fuel more exchange. Just a thought.

Edwards seems sincere and on the mark. Trying to make him the issue is Bush-Rove-Clinton-Murdoch style politics = swift boating, pure distraction.

Of course, the real issue is not Edwards but Rupert Murdoch's purchasing of political influence with campaign contributions to help him convert once legitimate media outlets into his personal right wing political/economic propoganda machine. Why is Hillary Clinton courting Murdoch support, and tacitly endorsing his media-domination agenda and questionable ethics? Someone needs to ask Hillary if Rupert Murdoch is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" she battled as First Lady. Some hypocrisy here?

I've felt this way for a bit myself, but to be fair to the former Senator:

1-he was a 1st term Senator, where any amount of grandstanding or radical policies is generally frowned upon.

2-he was from a red state, making the pressure on him to be more centrist and represent his constituency that much greater.

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that he planned on establishing himself with a more moderate, quiet early term and then building on that. Its also equally feasible, however, to suggest that it was always about his personal ambition, hence the very early Presidential run.