If we had two normal political parties I might agree, too. But we have a gang of timid incrementalists and a gang of frothing sociopaths. The risks of giving the incrementalists one-party rule are far outweighed by giving the sociopaths any leverage whatsoever.
I want the Republican Party, in its current form, to die. Let the principled libertarians and Rockefeller moderates pick up the pieces once the current cabal is gone. Then if the Dems overreach or become corrupted, they can make their comeback.
in terms of the budget. The BIG fight where 60 will matter will be on healthcare. A Martin or Lunsford victory would have a huge impact on how watered-down the final version of the healthcare bill is going to be. Republicans already concede the need for reform, but the effectiveness of their whining about socialized medicine is directly proportional to the number of Senators who believe that crap.
In fact, I would say 59 is more of a magic number than 60, for one reason: Arlen Specter. He's up for reelection in 2010, is in his 70s, has Hotchkins disease and is the second most moderate Repub after Olympia Snowe. He has little to fear from a Repub backlash in a light blue state (even if he runs again) and a huge potantial backlash to face among indies and Dems in light-blue PA if he's the key holdout. The perception of his own mortality may cause him to feel a bit more for those who are fighting with insurance companies to cover their cancer treatments.
Collins (if she survives) and especially Snowe could also see the light. So I agree 60 is not all that important. What I would most like to see is the retirement of the Senate's Greatest Douchebags: Inhofe the oil industry tool, Cornyn the mindless petty partisan and Roberts the snivelling illegal war and torture enabler.
That's the important point here: the RNC is spending this money. Hyprocrisy-style attacts about Republican FisCons wasting money and blahblah are not helpful here. It's also as irrelevant policy-wise as John Edwards' haircuts.
The value of this story is as a demoralizer for Republican donors. Circulating the story is good, but using it to attack Palin is unnecessary and possibly counter-productive, as it could produce a backlash with a meme like "Obama supporters are against moms who try to look nice".
Corporate Cons are already worried that McCain may have made a major gaffe picking Palin. The key to the DNC outraising the RNC in 2010 may be gently peddling more stories like this.
Funny, mabye. Saw little evidence of that and it's not an important criterion for me anyway. I find McCain to be one of if not the funniest Senator anyway.
I recognized the "blind ambition" meme as a bit of a media/SNL exaggeration. But I am not a fan of using "in it to win it" as a campaign slogan. She showed she could be gracious after dropping out; more so than Bill anyway.
I find her claims of experience "fighting for" this or that to be greatly exaggerated. She blew it on the most important things (healthcare, Iraq) and always seemed more interested in getting the credit than forging the consensus or improving the bill.
Charismatic? Never met her in person, but I find HRC to be one of the least charismatic politicians I know. What many people call her "shrill" voice simply sounds like nerves and shallow breathing caused by a lack of confidence in what she's saying. Which I found to be mostly focus group-tested pablum anyway. I'd rather listen to pretty much any other Democrat speak.
Anyhoo, apologies for reopining old wounds. My main point is that despite all that, she's a good Democrat and I would have voted for her.
How long did it take you to realize the pettiness?
I will admit I have a pronounced personal dislike for Hillary Clinton. But her policies are fine and I don't see how even the nastiest comments from a Clinton could make me vote for McCain if she had won the nomination.