you guys seriously sound so stupid complaining like this. if axelrod wants the clintons on the campaign, is that not news that should be reported? is it not equally about the obama campaign? you sound like babies. there's clearly no hidden agenda to "resurrect" the clinton campaign. why be so paranoid? it doesn't reflect well on us obama supporters.

Posted at June 10, 2008 10:41 AM in response to Axelrod: We Want The Clintons To Campaign For Us

i think you make a good point about feingold. obama/feingold could tout their honest leadership and open government act, along with bcra, to really undermine mccain's reform argument. plus, if there are going to be people who refuse to vote for obama because of his race or name, i don't think they're going to change their minds because of a certain running mate. but in the end i think this is more wishful thinking by those of us who see obama/feingold as a true "dream ticket."

Posted at June 9, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Austan Goolsbee Lives!

how'd he get into the state of the union to snub hillary if he can't get security clearance?

Posted at June 5, 2008 10:44 AM in response to Obama In Jail?!

i agree with everything you say (except that i think all primaries should be open since i'm not a registered democrat), but again i think it's important to respond to clinton's claim not only with a somewhat complicated explanation of why it doesn't matter, but also with the simple fact that it's not true.

Posted at June 5, 2008 9:55 AM in response to Popular Vote

actually, there will be at least 4 candidates on the ballot in november, and many people who do think there's a legitimacy problem may be tempted to vote for someone other than obama, even if they agree with his policies more than mccain's. obama supporters (and obama himself) have said all along that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the people. and to some, if clinton received more cumulative votes than obama, that's what the superdelegates did, even if obama did win more pledged delegates. obama, i believe, consistently said that the superdelegates should endorse the winner of the pledged delegates. and as i indicated there are several problems with simply adding together all the primary votes as if they were all the same. but the fact remains that many people will believe that the nomination was robbed if the "winner" of the cumulative popular vote is not the nominee. i think it's important to point out that that was not the case here. you may be right in saying that it doesn't matter, but you probably realize that other people think it does.

Posted at June 5, 2008 9:48 AM in response to Popular Vote

the point is that of the people who actually did vote in all the primaries, it looks like more voted for obama than for clinton. i agree that the system is flawed. i'm not even a democrat, and i don't believe in the party system at all. but there is a debate about who "won" the cumulative popular vote, and while i agree that that has limited usefulness, i do think it's important to show the clinton supporters who think the nomination was robbed from them that clinton did not in fact receive more votes. you can argue about the caucus system, but we can really only guess what the numbers would have been otherwise.

Posted at June 5, 2008 9:39 AM in response to Popular Vote

i want to disturb my neighbor, cause i'm feeling so right, i want to turn up my disco, blow them to full watts tonight

Posted at June 3, 2008 9:30 PM in response to Obama To Declare Victory: "Our Primary Season Has Finally Come To An End"

i understand your point and there certainly are plenty of instances when a feature like that would be desired, but i still don't think it's appropriate. and i don't think that ignoring offensive comments condones them. and how many times are they ignored anyway? people seem all too eager to respond to offensive comments. and i have a feeling the people who write them know what the response to them will be. what is the point of flagging them? it's useless, and it could be abused.

Posted at June 2, 2008 7:13 PM in response to Clyburn Finally Makes It Official: He's Backing Obama

i agree with you, there shouldn't be any such feature. it is indeed a form of censorship, and it's easy enough to ignore without some sort of formal mechanism. but your original post is really stupid. you didn't even spell reagan correctly.

Posted at June 2, 2008 6:50 PM in response to Clyburn Finally Makes It Official: He's Backing Obama

yes, thank the gods that a person can be elected president without getting the most votes, based on arbitrary state borders and the weighting of small states. thank the gods bush beat gore. there are many important protections against the tyranny of the majority, but the electoral college is not one, and we should not be arguing that it is. that said, hillary's argument is just plain false, and the comparison to the general election is off anyway since the primaries are all different and not held on the same day.

Posted at June 2, 2008 12:16 PM in response to McAuliffe: Hillary Is Winning Popular Vote Without Michigan