Eric's obession is my obsession. But really Eric taking Survey USA as your gospel - a 1% margin over Guiliani now means that unless she picks Webb as her mate (and I hear he can't stand her), VA goes RED

That's not "running well" in my book, though apparently so in yours

As much fun as these polls are, they are about as much of an indication of a presidential election final as my big toe is for Tuesday's weather. The race will tighten tremendously between now and next Nov, and it will be, at best, a nail biter, with the outcome unknown today. Just look back at the post convention figures for the past 5 or 6 election cycles for examples.

Both the mainstream and blogging media seem to have decided that the presidential nominees are going to be Rudy and Hillary. If it proves true, what a sad sad choice (or lack of one) for the nation.

john mccutchen wrote on October 28, 2007 3:31 PM:

Deja Vu all over agin

Hillary votes for the Lieberman-Kyl Iran War amendment claiming she just wants Bush to engage in diplomacy.

I have no reason to think that Hillary did not truly believe that at the time. But before you get carried away with the comparison, let me say that this is not at all even the same as the AUMF vote, as a "Deja Vu all over agin[sic]" would have Levin and Durbin, those paragons of "good judgment", voting against the K-L bill. That they did not vote against it requires that you reassess the validity of the analogy and ask yourself whether your reaction might not be a bit too knee-jerk.

The comparison is, in fact, tenuous at best. First, the AUMF bill had come on the heels of 9/11, when Bush was still quite popular and the country was itching to strike back at anyone (more than 50% of the public had supported the Iraq invasion back in 2002-2003, as the airwaves were filled with vision of mushroom clouds). The K-L bill, on the other, comes at a point when Bush's approval rating is near Nixonian level, the country is at war on two fronts at once, our military has been stretched to the breaking point, the public is fed up with the war, the Democrats control the Congress although narrowly, we have thoughtful SecDef and JCS chairman...and... I could go on, but the point is that should Bush do the unthinkable and launch another war of choice (as opposed to a war of necessity as a retaliatory or self-defense strike)against a country the size of Iran under these conditions, he should be (and probably would be) swiftly impeached because that would constitute "high crimes and misdemeanor" and reckless endangerment of the United States. On the other hand, if he starts another war and gets away with it, it would conclusively prove that he is the Smart One, and everyone else is just a bunch of bumbling fools. The Unitary Presidency of GWB would have been ratified by the Congress and the People. Bush might just be stupid enough and crazy enough to start another war while America is already engaged in a war of choice that has been disastrous to the Nation's political, moral and economic standing in the world by any measure. But, if he gets away with it with the whole country looking on, it would say less about Bush but a lot more about the 'cowardice' of the Congress and the American people. Durbin and Levin voted "yea" on the K-L because, if you think about it, Bush would have to be a certifiable lunatic and psychopath for him to start another war of choice before he leaves office. My wager is that they were right, but Bush can prove us all wrong...

All that is necessary for the triumph of "evil" is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke, British Statesman.

Hillary is opening a can of whoopass on all republicans to the likes we haven't seen since LBJ's washout in '64.

and to that one guy who said Oregon is closer than Virginia what are you talking about?

she is leading the republicans by wider margins.

wake up

Chasing the bandwagon won't end the Democratic culture of corruption.