...and the one about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary -- five years *before*
he famously climbed Mount Everest!

Posted at April 5, 2008 8:27 PM in response to Hillary's not ready at 3am, 5am or 9pm. She’s just not ready!

How would the impeachment/Monica episode be addressed if Hillary is the nominee?

Easy. Have Chelsea tell everybody: "It's none of your business!"

Posted at April 3, 2008 9:26 AM in response to Monica-gate and the superdelegates: How Bill's impeachment is relevant in the election

But you're okay with Hillary endorsing that so-called opposition? Whose side are you guys on again?

Posted at March 17, 2008 9:02 AM in response to The ONE Blog Entry You can Finally Recommend

I do not support the idea of a re-vote in Florida and Michigan because it *does* "change the rules in the middle of the game." (Hillary supported stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates and agreed that no candidate would campaign there.) But, if Hillary does want to change the rules, Mark Schmitt explains why this is not such a good idea:

What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign's count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.

And at that point, the magnitude of Clinton's deficit would be too obvious to spin away. Yes, there would be two additional large-state contests in which to win back the million popular votes and hundreds of delegates. But unless she did significantly better in both states than she did in the illegal primaries, she would lose, not gain, ground, by her own calculations. Since she was on the ballot alone in Michigan before, it's highly unlikely that she will do better there. It's very possible that she could do better than the 50 percent she won in Florida in January, but since it would now be a two-person race, it's a dead certainty that Obama would do significantly better than the 32 percent he got in January, thus adding to his total popular vote margin and delegate count even if he lost again, and so it would be a net loss for Clinton. Re-votes cannot help Clinton be "perceived" as the winner of the popular vote.

Is this really what the Hillary campaign wants?

Posted at March 15, 2008 11:57 AM in response to Obama should push hard for re-votes

If you listen carefully to what Barack Obama is actually saying (instead of that tired old song in your headphones :) it's "Yes, *we* can."

Posted at March 2, 2008 9:40 AM in response to Obama Running New Ads In Texas

This is what I like about Barack Obama. Notice how positive these four new campaign ads are: this is who I am, this is what I have done as a senator for Illinois, and this is what I will do as President of the United States.

Barack Obama does not define himself by denigrating his opposition, but by appealing "not just [to] Democrats, but Republicans and Independents who want to believe again." He wants "to be the President of the *United* States of America."

Are you listening?

Posted at March 2, 2008 4:16 AM in response to Obama Running New Ads In Texas

If John McCain won't reject or denounce Pastor John Hagee, does this mean that he rejects and denounces this statement that he made during his 2008 campaign for the Republican nomination?

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

Posted at February 29, 2008 4:46 AM in response to Farrakhan's Support For Obama? Hugely Controversial. Hagee's Backing Of McCain? No Problem.