You gotta love GS, not only using that turn of phrase, but putting it within the link text so that it's indexed by goog, etc that way.

Oh wait, it must have been the web interns.

The bench at TPM is not deep.

Yes, the Quite Rightly highlights do bother me as well. Greg Sargent claims neutrality but continually has pro-Clinton comments or edits like this. It would be a lot simpler if he just came out and stated his bias. Greg could as easily high-lighted a pro-Obama comment.

Thank you.

Demographics, name recognition, and establishment support (i.e. the "machine").

Good lord, in addition to Nutter, Rendell and whatever Y'inser is in charge in Pittsburgh, Clinton has the State Dem Chairman on her side.

Obama is basically running against the party in PA.

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.

Losing it.

Oh yeah, he's positively hysterical.

Keep talkin' gotalife, keep talkin'

Like I said, I'll be thinking of you when Hillary drops out.

"Do you like waffles?" He said, when asked if he liked waffles by a reporter from the Waffle Times of Wafflesburgh.

"Yeah we like WAFFLES!"

Buttering it.

Can't take the syrup.

Gotalife presents a touching homage to Alice's Restaurant in this short scene, touching on an intensely poignant Pressure Point that harkens to the wildly tessellated Tender Mercies that have brought him so much love from the TPM audience this campaign season. Casual viewers may be tempted to overlook this example due to the terse, staccato dialogue - but long-time viewers will certainly revel in Gotalife's uncanny ability to weave a rich tapestry from only a handful of thread.

Known Troll: +5
Intellectual Dishonesty: +20
Willful Misinterpretation: +15
Bitter Modifier: +25
Waffle House Tip: +20 (New!)
--------------------------------------------
Troll Rating: 85

At least he didn't cry when asked a question about his hair doo.

ANd quite rightly so. Jake Tapper is responsible for some of the silliest stuff ABC puts out. He's sort of the poster boy for the crew ABC put up for the debate.

Jake Tapper quite rightly says things the same way that a stopped clock quite rightly tells the time. The work that Election Central does is significantly better than the pablum that Tapper spins out, so why is EC linking to him?

And maybe this is a knee jerk reaction, but the media is execrable these days. Don't link to crap, and don't flatter the crap that is linked.

This made me laugh.

Quite right.

"Pennsylvania" - spelling correction.

Most reasonable people denounce and reject those 'guilt by association' tactics.

Then I'm surprised ABC hasn't done the same.

Perhaps they are busy photoshopping Obama's face on Nixon's body.

Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Nuff said.

Does the Nixon guilt-by-association cancel out the Wethermen guilt-by-association?

It's not boxing. Hillary is winning some states because people want to vote for her. But more people want to vote for Obama.

The argument that Obama won, and Hillary lost, but that because Hillary didn't lose by that much she should be declared the winner is absurd.

Dream on, Hillary. It's not going to happen.

Thank you for not posting poll results here.

Well, you can think that. But it's wrong. If it's under 10 points, the superdelegates will flock to Obama.

Fair enough, I do not see that she has a more effective pitch to make to the superdelegates, so she might as well run with this, tripe though it might be. That said, do you imagine that the Obama folks cannot rebutt this? The argument can be turned inside out like a sock - Clinton has had numerous chances to knock Obama out: first in Iowa, then in Nevada, then on Super Tuesday (when the polls had her far, far ahead of him everywhere but in Illinois just a few weeks before the voting). She managed, however, to blow a mind-boggling war chest and advantage in terms of machine connections and name recognition to lose to a not-even-one-term freshman senator.

The fact that neither has been able completely to eliminate the other shows that they are both good candidates. It is simply nonsense to spin it as if this situation shows that one or the other is a weak candidate.

My god, you people really do live in your own little world, don't you? A world where every hold 'em hand is a pair of aces, where everyone hits the big Lotto jackpot and where it's safe to play in thunderstorms because the lightning only strikes in this one place. Sounds nice, in some ways.

I'm sure the flying pigs in your world make tasty barbeque, but personally, I'd rather live out here in the real world. It kind of sucks sometimes, but here in the real world, we still have a little actual democracy left and our politicians and party hacks know that reversing the outcome of the primary process because they think they know best would be a catastrophe for the party, for the nominee and for the country.

But, hey, buy me a Lotto ticket before you leave. I promise I'll pay you back for it once it hits.

superdelegates and pleaged delegates are going to wonder how come he can't finish this and how come he can't win big states...

And then they are going to turn right around and wonder how come she could not finish it and how come she could not win critical blue states like MN, WI, OR and WA. Once they are done reviewing those dizzying considerations, it will be interesting to see where they land.

Why can't she close the deal? Why can't she win in more states than him? Why can't she raise more money than him? Why can't she win more pledged delegates than him? blah blah blahdy blah.

She's not going to get the superdelegates to suddenly and miraculously back her after tonight. It's not going to be that wide of a margin. Second, she's probably going to get clobbered in North Carolina. In short, for the superdelegates to flock to Hillary, they'd have to disregard a number of factors and piss off a large swath of the American public, all to support a candidate who ran a miserable campaign and has never recovered from Super Tuesday. They're not going to do that, because at heart, they've got their own careers on the line.

The fact that Bill had a very awkward senior moment today isn't going to help, either.

You should blog this.

Tapper has to believe Obama is a fraud because Tapper, himself, is a fraud.

Analogous to the way that Hillary assumed Obama had attacked her--in her speech in Pittsburgh. So she attacked back, and got booed for it. Hillary assumes Obama is going to attack, because that's what she would do.

Tapper assumes that Obama is a fraud, must be a fraud, because if he's not, it's going to make looking in the mirror and seeing how shallow and petty he (Tapper) is very difficult.

By the way, "Axis of Imbecility" should be trademarked.