so sad, living in an alternate reality. the real dem primary numbers are linked above, so i won't embarrass you again.

and i'll see your energy bill and raise you the aumf and the kyl/lieberman iran bill. absolutely shameful that hrc would accept either one.

Posted at June 5, 2008 11:28 AM in response to Hillary's Congressional Supporters Back Off Plan To Push Hillary As Veep

this is me being a cynic...

still, over on huffpo, thomas edsall says that, in effect, hillary clinton is now running for the vp slot.

and although no one seems to be saying this yet (at least no one i've read), it seems that it would be pretty obvious to hillary clinton that the cheneyfication of the vice presidency has made that position vastly more powerful, and less accountable, than it has ever been, historically.

so, again, this is me being cynical: does anyone else think, given the last 8 years, that hillary is looking at that vp slot as more than just a consolation prize? certainly dick cheney has demonstrated how one could wield more power with less impunity from that position than [arguably] even the president.

Posted at June 5, 2008 10:46 AM in response to Hillary's Congressional Supporters Back Off Plan To Push Hillary As Veep

thanks, carol...it's sad what some people have to do for attention.

as for the subject of this post, we'll see how those numbers move once the dems have a nominee and we're past august. i just can't trust a poll more than 6 months out. of course, by late october, it could be worse...

Posted at April 24, 2008 11:29 AM in response to New Poll Finds Al Franken Falling Further Behind In Minnesota

methinks the comments here are indicative of franken's problem - he's already a polarizing character.

sure, those that like him think he comes across as a "nice guy" but on the other side of that coin he's reviled as a dfh and pinko commie liberal.

and of course there's the total class of people like mila who, whether joking or not, say they would like to see him get colon cancer. what a model human being you are, mila.

i despise dick cheney but there's no person on this earth i'm going to wish a painful and debilitating disease upon. maybe mila needs a nice hobby.

Posted at April 24, 2008 11:01 AM in response to New Poll Finds Al Franken Falling Further Behind In Minnesota

that's some pretty weird republican framing you're using there. are you an obama supporter or a mccain supporter?

so, bill clinton is in office for little over a month (i know, i know, ready on day one...), and the 1993 wtc bombing is all "the clinton's" fault?

poppy bush doesn't get any of your love? how about saint reagan, who, despite warnings from gorby continued to pump money into islamic extremist groups in afghanistan, leading to bin laden's rise?

i am actually no clinton supporter, and my past posts will bear that out. but i don't think hillary gets the blame for any of her husband's action (or inaction) with respect to al qaeda. that's a completely specious argument. i actually worry that she would be considerably more hawkish than her husband was.

Posted at April 22, 2008 11:11 AM in response to LATEST: Obama blames Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and others for letting Bin Laden escape!

"It’s as if progressives feel that if they can prove that the Founders were Deists rather than serious Christians, then that will strengthen the case for separation of church and state."

as AdAbsurdum has stated, and I will second, and go further. This isn't just venturing into strawman territory, it's going whole hog and building a mega-strawman of the size and heft of jonah goldberg. and throw in a healthy dose of concern troll-ism.

it's absolute nonsense to invent an imaginary fault of "progressives" and not cite a single instance of it actually existing. and the fact that you have to write a clarification piece to bolster your prior writing, and only dig your hole deeper in the process doesn't actually speak very well for your abilities.

i believe now i will continue not reading you.

Posted at March 12, 2008 11:56 AM in response to Militant Unitarians

kyl-lieberman.

could potentially be a worse vote for hillary than the aumf.

Posted at February 29, 2008 12:03 PM in response to Obama Campaign Hits Back Hard Against Hillary's "Security Mom" Ad

you neglected to mention that the m.o.e. on that early voting was a whopping 7.5%, which essentially nullifies any claim to a 5% lead.

Posted at February 27, 2008 11:13 AM in response to Quinnipiac: Hillary Up Only Six Points In Pennsylvania

16 years of hillary-bashing by the right has pretty much dulled many of us to the effect of it. that high 40's negative rating she has translates into a lot of "middle voters" that are not and will not be inspired by a hillary candidacy (or repulsed by attacks against her). she is a known entity.

therefore, the inevitable attacks that will come, regardless of who the dem nominee is, could be presumed to have a different effect on those in the middle ("moderates," "independents," and/or "undecideds"), depending on the candidate. when they attack hillary, there may be indignation amongst those who already support her, but given that there are very few in this country who haven't already formed an opinion about her, it's not likely to move that many voters in her direction. the reaction outside of her supporters will be, "ho-hum, another attack on hillary like we've been hearing for the last 16 years." net effect: little movement, little chance for the "have you no shred of decency..." moment that would be a most welcome development in the context of our political discourse.

the same is not true for obama. the chance that the ugliness of the republican attack machine will offend those "middle" voters is much greater, and the chance that it will bring these voters to him is much greater as well. and there's even the chance that these attacks will leave a lasting negative impression of the republican party with these voters for many years to come.

so, all in all the natural tendencies of the republican party to slime their opponents has a much better upside with an obama candidacy than with a clinton candidacy.

Posted at February 21, 2008 2:16 PM in response to Poll: Hillary Up By 12 In Pennsylvania, Obama Catching Up

erm. uh. i have to wonder...(full disclosure, i've already decided to vote for obama, tho i've given him no money or rah-rahs in comments or blogspace)...

at this point my only real decision is whether or not to vote for hillary clinton or sit it out if she wins the nomination. i keep wavering, but now i'm back to 'sit it out'.

lemme tell ya why -- campaigning on "experience" and "competence" rings hollow in the light of one of the more inept campaigns i've seen in quite a while...

1) not enough delegates seated in pennsylvania
2) no preparation (or even awareness, apparently) for the screwy delegation allocation process in texas
3) seemed to have no strategy for post-super tuesday
4) sending bill to make a respectable loss in south carolina a devastating loss
5) desperate plagiarism attack -- when even harold wolfson won't say hrc has never done it herself
6) discounting every state she hasn't won as 'not important'

i'm supposed to vote for this roaring example of ineptitude and mismanagement? not in this lifetime.

Posted at February 19, 2008 7:35 PM in response to SurveyUSA: Hillary's Ohio Primary Lead Shrinks To Nine Points