I could have sworn that None of the Above had left the party, opting instead to run as a Republican this year!

It becomes more self-evident with each media blast of the Hillary spin that Hillary&Co are the new VastLeftWingConspiracy.

Just as she did on healthcare Hillary has capitulated. Wolfson is her Norquist and we are seeing TeamHillary do precisely what was the GOP game. Attack, attack, attack, make issues about non-issues and never respond on the issue.

The media is bought and sold. Even EC and TPM are. The word is trickling down that this site is the equivalent of opposition research that Griffin ran for Rove. We see it daily in how the majority of thread headlines and writeup are nothing but Hillary messages and framed from a TeamHillary spin. Witness the onslaught of the national polls when we know they have little relevance at this point other than to give the overwhelming impression that her candidacy is inevitable.

Obama has said all along that change comes from the bottom up. Power is never relinquished it has to be taken. Americans will have to stand up and take back their country even from the likes of Hillary. Hillary is the establishment she will be known as LadyBush if she wins the Presidency as that is how she will govern.

Obama has the money and the means to totally up-end the establishment. He can beat back her Swiftboating with the will of the people. We have to believe in our country and we can beat the status quo. It will happen we just need to be patient.

Hillary is going to go down hard the people on the street are not going to let her reign over us for the next 4 years.

"EC has reported polls showing that Hillary Clinton is expanding her lead in New Hampshire, results at a state level similar to national polls. Are we seeing results of a swiftboating of Obama in full gear?"

When EC reports polls showing Obama expanding a lead is it a result of Obama's swiftboating of Hillary?

The rest of your post is libelous and defamatory. And I see you agree with Marshall that dems are conspiring to get Obama. I also see you present as much evidence as Marshall. If you and Marshal can come up with some proof/set of facts/ evidence that dems are conspiring to get Obama please do. Because you and Marshall thinking something isn't enough for me and I’d posit most people. Especially with a charge like this. Something concrete please.

The more interesting thing (relatively speaking) about the Iowa straw poll is who finishes second.

If we were all only as smart and witty as hadenough (thinks s/he) is, the world would be a much better place. I'll now crawl back to my dim little world and await to be berated some more with hadenough's piousness.

Witty, succinct, and courageous defense of your rating, AJM. You truly inspire fear in those who disagree with you.

Why a lofty 2? What must I do to earn a troll rating from you? Or will this turn the trick?

Can you imagine a campaign season for Hillary without Bill's coattails, without the name recognition which has so much to do with those polls and the 'inevitability' meme at this point in the process?

Imagine such a woman, but let's call her Hilda Jones, 2nd term Senator from New York. Hilda wants to be president, so she'll have to run on her office-holding record. But, wait, there's not much of an accomplishment record at all, in fact there is a near total absence of leadership on matters of national importance, and then there is a glaring problem of her having voted for the Iraq fiasco. Imagine Hilda, out on the stump, weaving and bobbing to avoid specifics of her actual record of elected office. She is not at all a charismatic speaker, her advocacy for women and children her only strong claim, she is brightly intelligent, but rather more plodding than bold, she is a practiced fence-sitter, she is a follower of others' leads..... and, darn, her personality can turn people off pretty quickly. Hilda would be, if lucky, a fourth tier candidate for president, as would any of hundreds of other accomplished women.

Now, if we can change the story, have her married to the party's favorite son Clinton, put her in the limelight for eight years of being Bill's spouse, then have her become a US Senator [while Bill earns big bucks consulting and speaking], why, then, almost everything out of her mouth will be covered by the media. Now, with all this name recognition, making her a viable presidential candidate is more a matter of sticking to generalizations about 'experience' and 'leadership', plus hard long hours practicing sound bites and non-answers and 'looking presidential', building up a soap opera about her victimization and the delicious idea of 'beating the VRWC', then hey, we have not Hilda, but 'Hillary the Inevitable'.

Yeah, I can see why she's a bit upset with being challenged by Barack Obama. I am looking forward to how this comes out. I do not think Hilda, I mean Hillary, can keep up the mask of inevitability for much longer. Did you catch the UIA poll that showed Iowans consider either John Edwards or Barack Obama as more electable than Hillary? Not that the MSM would report that, seeing as how they dote on Hillary the same way they doted on GWB for far too long. No, this time again, the masses will be ahead of the punditry.

thank you Hillary research team, you can go to happy hour now. Maybe Bill will the there.

The consipracy is not Democrats against Obama, but the establishment against Obama, as Hillary, Dodd and Biden proved in concert in the Chicago debate. The status quo does not want change and Obama is about new ideas that can inspire all of the nation, not just half of it.

I am amazed, and not amused, by the intense levels of partisanship invested by people in their favorite candidates.

The problems are institutional. The War Machine. The Free Trade PR Bulldozer. And the Mainstream media.

Any politician "electable" enough to be considered a viable Senatorial/Gubernatorial candidate is already compromised "up the yin/yang," as they say.

Yes, degrees of compromise do exist and are important (but are also difficult to investigate, because of the PR-machine mendacity & doubletalk of the media and the politicians, and the lack of reliable sources on these things).

So that's what we're debating here, the degree of relative angelic-ness and demon-hood among Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc. None of them is a saint who will miraculously lead to the promised land. We are insanely paranoid that the selected one WILL turn out be a disaster, after our collective experience since 11-8-00.

If we want better leaders, if we want to influence the choices that these candidates make in the crucial coming months, WE the progressive netroots HAVE GOT TO MAKE EVEN MORE NOISE AND CREATE EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION by ourselves, for ourselves RIGHT NOW and force these "leaders" to follow us, and force the MSM to notice our truths. These things are far more likely to be done with shoe leather and by talking to people you wouldn't ordinarily talk with, than by keyboards. But whatever it is that you think you can do to effectuate this goal, you better be doing it, in spades, please, for our children's sake.

The investment in the glorification of one candidate and the demonization of the others says more about the individual citizen than the candidate. When I was so sick of Dem. compromises that I wanted to organize a 3rd party, everyone always told us, run for school board, run for city council, don't start by running for president. But people don't care about school board and city council the way they care about President ... if you have anything like a viable candidate for President it is far easier to organize around him/her than for any other race, or around any particular cause or idea. Folks choose their Presidential candidate like they choose house, their car, and major wardrobe styles: this is who I am, these brands reflect my (good taste/great coolness/superior rectitude/advanced intellect etc. etc.) -- it's part of branding yourself as a personality.

Is there someplace better to go to actually have a conversation about positive pragmatic steps we need to be doing to force our candidates and media to be better at their supposed jobs?

I am amazed, and not amused, by the intense levels of partisanship invested by people in their favorite candidates.

The problems are institutional. The War Machine. The Free Trade PR Bulldozer. And the Mainstream media.

Any politician "electable" enough to be considered a viable Senatorial/Gubernatorial candidate is already compromised "up the yin/yang," as they say.

Yes, degrees of compromise do exist and are important (but are also difficult to investigate, because of the PR-machine mendacity & doubletalk of the media and the politicians, and the lack of reliable sources on these things).

So that's what we're debating here, the degree of relative angelic-ness and demon-hood among Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc.

So it is your considered opinion then that it made little difference that Hubert Humphrey was nominated by the party establishment over Eugene McCarthy in 1968, that an entire generation, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and even Eugene McCarthy himself was lost to the Democratic Party? It was inconsequential that Nixon was thus elected president to continue the search for "peace with honor" at the cost of thousands more American lives and untold numbers of Vietnamese because all Democrats are dirty?

There seems to be a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

Paradoxically Hubert Humphrey himself was a quixotic figure who had earlier sold his soul to the devil. Later he claimed he was just the man to end the war but didn't dare say it out loud. The one-time peace candidate against JFK had been reduced to a lapdog pumping the war for LBJ all over the country.

Nixon began, as he began so much, the descent of the Republic back into the Imperial Presidency, a theme that runs all the way back to John Adams and perhaps even George Washington.

I thought the threatened impeachment of Nixon that removed that bigoted paranoiac from office was the end of the nightmare but little did I or anyone know that the following decades would bring us to King George and threaten us with Hillary I.

Hey, featherfamily, I think it is sometimes worthwhile to look at the forest. All the trees in the forest are imperfect in one way or another but forests are very good things I believe. Burning the forest down to rid the country of the rot has consequences.

Best, Terry

Did I say anything vaguely anarchical? How do you get me, who is ready to discuss the scientific basis of tree worship with Druid priests, to 'burning the forest' ?...

Where the heck are you coming from ?

From a long line of druids since me father came from Ireland and all Irish are related to each other near as I can tell.

I applaud all your efforts and am insulted you did not choose to inform us all where ignoramuses like myself might be able to buy your book so you could learn us something. :-)

Obviously even a blackguard like myself can see you are an erudite and concerned fellow but despite your tree worship you have somehow missed the forest.

Only occasionally are the choices so stark as in the Democratic primaries. Democrats can choose old or new, they can choose war or peace, power and privilege or community and outreach. They can choose Hillary I or from a menu of delectables.

And you want people to focus on the local sheriff or dogcatcher because all politicians are dirty and there is too much partisanship?

Doesn't make sense to me but then I am pretty slow.

Best, Terry

"Democrats can choose old or new, they can choose war or peace, power and privilege or community and outreach."

also: Ideas or Rhetoric

Some good news for you, Obama is NOT going down in the polls in NH; the Hart/McLaughlin numbers that EC has listed as most recent actually represent polling BEFORE the ARG numbers that have Obama tied for first in NH. According to pollster.com, the Hart/McLaughlin poll was conducted from 7/24 to 7/26, whereas the ARG one was conducted from 7/26 to 7/30, so the assumption that the less favorable poll to Obama is more recent is incorrect.

Furthermore, looking at all the numbers, one can also make the following observations:

The most recent NH poll (ARG) has Obama tied with Clinton in first place, showing a change of -3 for Clinton and +6 for Obama since the last poll by that firm.

The most recent SC poll (ARG) has Obama in first place leading Clinton by four points, showing a change of -8 for Clinton and +12 for Obama since the last poll by that firm.

Then you have Iowa, where the most recent poll (ABC/Washington Post) shows Obama edging out Clinton for first place. Furthermore, The University of Iowa poll shows a change of -2 for Clinton and +3 for Obama since its previous survey, and ARG shows a change of -2 for Clinton and +2 for Obama.

All in all, if you look at the trendline of every single primary poll taken in the last two weeks, each one has Obama rising and Clinton falling; not a single trendline for a single early primary state shows Obama doing anything but going up, and Clinton doing anything but going down. This is a notable consistency, considering how much each of those polls differ in their overall results.

You are a bit slow

You will slow down when you get old too.

All we fossils appreciate you recognizing that but please try to slow down or are you trying to run us over?

you seem to have a hard time reading as well.

Cataracts are indeed a problem. Thank you so much for your concern.

I fully anticipate holding my nose to vote for Democrat in Nov. 08

Haven't you yet learned that such one-handed voting gets you a president that smells bad? It is a very simple lesson to learn.

And the stark difference between the candidates is clear only to yourself.

Do you have cataracts too?

I suggest you see an ophthalmologist. The advances in eye surgery should open your eyes. Then you too can see the difference between a winger and a liberal, not to mention between men and women. Not being able to see such differences must be dreadful.

Best, Terry

Congress has some power in the matter but they also have Constitutional and other legal restraints against effecting how and who are chosen.

At this point, I'd even support an admendment.

You to.

Under all the verbiage all you said was that in your view Hillary is not at all Left and changes her positions for political advantage.

Since this point has been made often, and substantiation of sorts offered frequently I felt you were adding nothing to the debate but name-calling.

Usually the reason for a rating is fairly obvious -- including when it is given simply because of agreement or disagreement with a position. I would have rated you lower if I had been rating position rather than inducement of boredom.

Rather, she has decades of fighting for causes she believes in-

Please name them. I have searched and am unable to find any national causes that she has championed for decades with any measurable results. I would think as a national figure with national recognition that cause would come readily to mind. Like Jerry Lewis with MD, or Lou Rawls with the UNCF or Jesse Jackson with PUSH or Elizabeth Taylor with AIDS or Katie Couric with Colon cancer. Tell me again what was Hillary's cause?

Clinton is not my first or second choice but questioning her supporter's integrity and intelligence does no good for your candidate

Folks do not question Clinton to do their candidate good (that is cconsidered an attackmethod TeamHillary practices) rather they make valid inquiries to find out the substance of that candidate. You however are trying to shift the focus to the other candidate rather than answer the very real questions about Hillary. Hillary does that a lot in the debates. Never answering the question simply pointing a finger of blame at Bush or Obama...never Edwards, Biden or Dodd. That should give you a heads up as to where substance CAN be found.

It ticks me off when supporters of my favorite candidate (whom I'm volunteering for) question supporters of other candidates

You wouldn't need to get ticked off if your candidate could stand on their own. You would be able to assert with confidence all the substance your candidate has instead of whinning about anyone showing their total lack of experience, intelligence and integrity.  Typically that is how it works in society. When someone impugns your character you respond with a list of accomplishments, achievements and outcomes that refute and rebut their invalid assertion. Unfortunately if your record of accomplishment is sparse or non-esistence you can't do so. Unfortunately candidates without a stellar record prefor to act like sniveling weasels instead whinning  that it is 'unfair' to hold their pathetic  lack of record up for the world to see. They think they can label full disclosure and informing the populace as an attack on them. They view all information that highlights the other candidates superior record  as an attack. It's not.

They just like other candidates better.

Great. Then simply say that. Instead of whinning when others make accurate assertions about the lack of intelligence, leadership and integrity of their choice. Don't try to defend the indefensible.

Don't try to be 'your choice' a victim because the other candidates record is so much better and they are without argument far more experienced and unmatched in achievement, leadership and integrity.