For myself, I've spent more than a decade in active online political argumentation, first on Usenet, then Suite101, eGroups, Yahoo Groups and now blogs. I'm pretty familiar with what amounts to "personal attacks". And I guess I just don't see anything in that text that could possibly qualify as a "personal attack", by any stretch of the imagination.
The idea that "personal attacks" was the rationale given for deleting that diary strikes me as more than a little specious.
Money is a regrettable, but integral, part of politics as they stand.
Obama wasn't born rich, you know. He received money for his campaign through fundraising, just like Clinton. If he was more effective at fundraising, then by definition, that's part of running a better campaign.
Yeah, I thought that was just a little dubious, too. With all due respect to Todd, his preference for Clinton is known, and I think it may be coloring his analysis in this case.
Sometimes a tie is just a tie.
Considering the fact that Obama was down 20 points 2 weeks ago, and considering all the stories about Obama "coming on strong" and some of the overheated expectations of an Obama upset in the last few days (thanks to polling data showing Obama coming on strong), I have to say this one's a draw. I agree with Josh Marshall on this.
I will say this, though--and take it for what it's worth, coming from a "soft" Obama supporter: this morning, I've seen happy, energized reactions from Obama supporters. By contrast, I've seen some pretty frustrated reactions from some Clinton supporters.
I'm not sure what that means, and maybe it's just anecdotal. But there it is.