I respect you much. You have a grip of the whole picture which is sadly missing in this increasingly horse race (not accusing the blog itself, primarily the readers) blog. I followed the news of the CA same-sex marriage thread closely, and, I have to say I agree with you totally.

Further, I think you are correct here, obviously. A better educated population is America's infinite benefit from a major American leader discussing the difficulties (and in my personal opinion, ridiculousness (and I mean that it's sad because we are the richest, most powerful nation on earth)) of poverty in America. I can't possibly see how this is bad. As Senator Obama (and Edwards let us hope) discuss these issues with America we can additionally address major problems in our society: the class disparity of those serving in the American military and the resulting strategic decisions with regard to their immeasurable sacrifices; the terrifying lack of American strategy to deal with global warming (having spent many months in Europe I can say they take it much more seriously than our mighty nation ever has (most sad because America is believed to be the vanguard of Western democratic process (by me as well!)) and the most basic issue itself: in this nation of prosperity (and I'd consider myself and my public-sector family as middle-class) and opportunity there are legions of people who work hard every goddamn day and get disproportionate reward for it. My family was lucky enough to work for their state government - in which, similarly with federal employees, "conservatives" or neoliberals will constantly remind us doesn't change fast enough has left us with Reagan's anti-union, anti-labor campaign. Basically, abandon all support network for employees who have worked for your enterprise (be it public or private) for 40 years.

Change can be only good. And I don't mean any Obama silliness by this, though I am an Oregon Obama supporter. Any candidate willing to address the ridiculous and depressing disparities of wealth in this nation gets my vote. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, any other than McCain because he'll pledge allegiance to whatever gets him "support" later on.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have principles: something they'll fight for once this Democratic primary contest is over.

That's why I will support whoever wins this contest. I prefer Senator Obama, but I will support Senator Clinton should she emerge victorious. They will both address the most paralyzing and embarrassing aspect of the great, prosperous nation of America: poverty.

Posted at May 16, 2008 10:59 PM in response to Edwards Secured Private Commitment From Obama That He'd Go On Poverty Tour As Nominee

Sargent is shameless. I have become used to this. Josh Marshall runs a tight and aboveboard blog (my favorite as well), but I think for some reason he feels the need to retain partisan idiots. And yes, I would feel as pissed if he hired Obama partisan idiots as if he hired Jeff Gannon as an objective journalistic participant. It's the same idiocy, just from different perspectives.

It just eliminates whole sections of the blog, as regardless of who you feel about anybody, you know what (in the words of the Arabian Nights) "so and so" will say.

Posted at May 16, 2008 10:30 PM in response to Edwards Secured Private Commitment From Obama That He'd Go On Poverty Tour As Nominee

Excellent point. Never mentioned by the broader media, unfortunately.

Bush in all his not negotiating with terrorists just decided to give in to their demands. Arguably, the US forces in Saudi Arabia were one of the largest motivators for Bin Laden's rage at America.

So, Bush took them out.

Posted at May 16, 2008 6:52 AM in response to George W. Bush: Appeaser

Yep. Just go to Google and type define: plurality and the truth will be told.

Posted at May 16, 2008 6:49 AM in response to Hillary is the unstoppable V.P.

I have to say I am on the same page here.

Posted at May 16, 2008 4:52 AM in response to Marriage in California

Steve for Senate!

Posted at May 15, 2008 9:31 PM in response to New GOP Attack Ad Suggests Republican Incumbent Senator Is Vulnerable

Hear, hear. The state Republicans may have controlled the legislatures, but that didn't stop the dramatic majority of Democrats in them to vote for the moves as well.

Posted at May 15, 2008 8:30 PM in response to Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters

The Obama campaign hasn't called for Senator Clinton to withdraw.

The Clinton campaign (specifically Terry McAuliffe) has repeatedly raised new metrics by which the nomination will be decided.

If you are simply referring to the supporters of these respective campaigns, you're right - a fair number of Obama supporters have been issuing vitriolic demands that Senator Clinton withdraw from the race.

I'd prefer to focus on the campaigns themselves - arguably the only actors that actually matter - and not ignorant and spiteful supporters. There are always going to be angry and uninformed people trying to get combative about things they don't fully understand. It's unfortunate, and it's happened on both sides of this contest.

Posted at May 15, 2008 8:28 PM in response to Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters

Amen. This contest is about the future of America, not two personalities.

Posted at May 15, 2008 8:20 PM in response to Hillary's concession speech planned...early draft leaked

Yeah, I still like them, although I don't respect them as much as I used to.

I still thank them both for convincing America that the Democratic Party was worth their votes, especially after over a decade of destructive GOP dominance.

Posted at May 15, 2008 8:15 PM in response to Hillary's concession speech planned...early draft leaked