Next.

There was a time when I would have given anything to see Gore step in, but that time has passed. We're going to be fine in the fall and I believe that Obama will win in November - no need to broker any kind of deal for Gore to step in.

I think it's fine for him to stay "neutral", and I don't see that his endorsement would make much of an impact at this stage of the game (I feel the same way about John Edwards). However, I really don't think he's going to endorse Hillary - there's plenty of bad blood between them and it's pretty common knowledge.

Couldn't they have asked him what he thinks about gas tax hollidays? Since economists' opinions are worthless, Gore's environmental perspective might be illuminating. Last I checked, both candidates said he would be integral in shaping their energy policy. I bet he has an opinion on the matter, and I think I know what it is.

Reminding us once again of what our problem with Gore was.
Urgh. Chicken.

I notice that Hillary has just overtaken Obama in the Pollster.com poll of polls.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Saw an interview with Willy Brown on PBS (Now) and he said he was going to stay neutral until the convention so he could help referee the Michigan/Florida mess. That may be something Gore (maybe even Edwards) have in mind, an important role for party leaders who have not committed to a candidate.

Smart guy.

(Plus he know Hillary is winning. She has biggest states, states needed for general. If it were winner take all, she'd already have sewed it up.)

A particularly pungent passage from Richmond, IN Palladium-Item:

"I am definitely going to try to go with Hillary," said [Mary Bunger, a 44-year-old single mom from Abington]. "I almost feel like [Obama's] anti-Christ from the Middle East."

Ah, the mindset of America,

Obama is toast.

See ya.

I think the "tip one way or the other" is just diplomat-speak. If he says the race is going to tip, decisively, soon, that's in essence saying "Obama's got this locked up".

Hillary's path to the nomination is a long, torturous one filled with "Ifs". That's not decisive at all.

So you add "one way or the other". Plausible neutrality.

Busted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiM-6ZnW2LI

Sales Bulletin:

Limited Edition; Hillary Three Balls Protector Cups
now available online. Destined to be a treasured collector's sports item.

Order yours now at:

MyCupFlowethOver.com

No, not Puerto Rico. I bet they just don't want to step on Clinton toes, given their history. Pathetic, somewhat. Can't risk backing either horse. Originally, I felt Edwards was just holding out to make himself matter again. But then his wife endorses HRC's health care initiative over Obama's, although I don't know why. Internal family feud ensues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06brooks.html?_r=1%26oref=slogin%26ref=opinion%26pagewanted=print

May 6, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Combat and Composure
By DAVID BROOKS

Life is short, but campaigns are long. And during the course of them, each candidate will have impressive and pathetic moments. But underlying the highs and lows, there are the fundamentals. The fundamentals of the Obama-Clinton race were on display Sunday morning.

Hillary Clinton went on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” incarnating her role as the first Democratic Rambo. The Clinton campaign seems to want to reduce the entire race to one element: the supposed masculinity gap. And so everything she does is all about assertion, combat and Alpha dog dominance.

A few questions in, Clinton rose from her chair and loomed over Stephanopoulos. The country hasn’t seen such a brazen display of attempted middle-aged physical intimidation since Al Gore took a walkabout on the debate stage with George Bush. It was like watching someone get elbowed in a dark alley by their homeroom teacher.

But her attempt to take over the show was nothing compared with her attempt to dominate the truth. For the first 30 minutes, she did not utter a single candid word, including, as Mary McCarthy would say, “and” and “the.”

She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday and repeated her attempt to blame Indiana’s job losses on outsourcing and Nafta. Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”

When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Paul Krugman, a Times columnist, has raised doubts about the plan, Clinton lumped Krugman in with the Bush administration and said she wasn’t going to listen to the people responsible for the last seven years.

This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.