• comment on a post tiny tent dems over 6 years ago

    Jerome, you're turning into some guy named Vinny in a bathrobe.

  • on a comment on It's Time For Condi To Go over 6 years ago

    I agree - taking Condi down is silly, when we know Cheney was directly involved, and Bush knew and approved.

    Simulpeachment is what's called for, but unfortunately our Congress doesn't have the guts.

  • Same idea, though:

    "See that rock I just threw up in the air?  I bet it hits the earth when it comes down!"

    :Rock lands:

    "See what a great prognosticator I am!"

  • comment on a post LA-Sen: Landrieu Way Up Over Kennedy over 6 years ago

    If she'll join her fellow Dems in voting to end debate on bills the GOP would like to kill without a vote, she can be as DINO as she wants on everything else.

    We need 60 Dems in the Senate.  If we hang onto Landrieu's seat, that's one less we have to win somewhere else to get to 60 in 2010.  (I still have hopes of our getting there this year, but it's one hell of a longshot.)

    That's all that matters.

  • comment on a post CT-04: Chris Shays' Liberal Makeover over 6 years ago

    After all, the big papers' reporters won't.  Thank goodness for bloggers like you!

    At least he has these meetings.  I've been trying for years to find a place and time when Steny Hoyer takes questions from his constituents, with no success.

  • comment on a post Obama's Verbal Gutterball over 6 years ago

    Funny, I didn't see Obama partisans complaining when Obama attacked Hillary on healthcare using rightwing talking points

    Should I have jumped up and down a bit more, and waved my hands more vigorously?

    Because I did in fact complain quite a bit at the time, and it's one of the reasons I still have some pretty nontrivial reservations about Obama.

    And it's also one of the reasons I'm quite glad that John and Elizabeth Edwards decided not to endorse Obama.  This stuff's important, and hopefully their unwillingness to endorse him, despite their deeper dislike of Hillary, sends something of a message.

  • I can understand a great deal of the carping about Bush Dogs, but like Jonathan says, there are some districts where even a very conservative Dem is better than the sort of Republican that would otherwise represent that district.

    In other words, there's a big difference between the circumstances of Dan Lipinski and Nick Lampson.  Lipinski deserves to have his name trashed, and should see a primary challenge every two years until he loses, because he's in a pretty safe Dem seat, but votes half-Republican anyway.  Lampson's in Tom DeLay's old seat, and deserves all the help he can get in hanging onto it, even if he votes half-Republican.

    Cazayoux will be somewhat closer to Lampson's situation than Lipinski's.

  • I agree that Obama will refuse to make the deal.  But I don't see it working out for Hillary if he offered and she accepted.  Three scenarios:

    1) Obama/Clinton wins in November, and wins re-election in 2012.

    Clinton's 68 when she runs in 2016, it'll be 24 years since she first became a national figure, the Clinton legacy will be ancient history, and a generation of younger, more attractive politicians will be chomping at the bit to run for President.

    She'll have a chance, but it's not a great one.

    2) Obama/Clinton wins in November, but loses in 2012.

    If this comes to pass, whatever causes Obama to lose re-election will tarnish Clinton too.  Plus all the drawbacks of (1).

    No chance.

    3) Obama/Clinton loses in November.

    The #2's on failed Dem tickets, from Muskie to Edwards, haven't done well in modern times.  Hillary might be the exception.  But she'd have to come up with some stronger selling points next time.  If she hadn't started off as the trusted, default choice, she'd be nowhere right now.

    A realistic chance, but well below odds-on.  Maybe 25%, I don't know.

  • comment on a post Drive Launched To Form Unity Ticket over 6 years ago

    I just don't see that happening.  

    Not that I see Obama offering it to begin with, but even if he did, I can't see her accepting.  She hasn't run in order to spend up to 8 years shutting up and toeing the line.

  • I second Soshi's question, but would also like to know when the penalty went from 50% to 100%.

    It makes a big difference whether this happened last February or last December.  If FL and MI had already more or less decided a primary date under the 50% sanction, and THEN had the penalty upped to 100%, the 'half-Nelson' solution is a lot more defensible than if the penalty was set at 100% before the serious jockeying for position began.

  • comment on a post On MI, FL and the committee over 6 years ago

    I see no reason to change the principle that the DNC has no right to decide when a state chooses to set their primary or caucus.

    You're right.  Everybody should go first if they want.

    Seriously, if letting the states pick whatever dates they want wouldn't be a classic instance of a 'market failure,' I don't know what qualifies.

    It certainly doesn't jive with the mission to decentralize the power back to the states.

    Decentralize what power?  How do you resolve a competition between states by having nobody set the rules?

    And its still an idiocy that Democrats are talking about not counting Florida and Michigan votes.

    'Democrats' aren't talking about it.  Hillary and her supporters are the sole participants in this conversation anymore.

    It's a small wonder then, that today McCain is projected to have a 324-205 EV lead over Obama, and McCain over Clinton by a 304-203 margin.

    Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.  In other words, just because B follows A doesn't mean B was caused by A.

  • on a comment on Guidelines For Users over 6 years ago

    I should add that it's a particularly relevant question since "The Big [Bleep]pile" seems to be the official blogospheric name for the mess of CDOs and SIVs and whatnot that's screwing with the credit markets right now.

  • Oh yeah: not that it makes a whit of difference, but I hereby call for Hillary to concede the race to Obama.

  • comment on a post Enough With The Calls For Clinton To Drop Out over 6 years ago

    As we saw yesterday with the candidates' respective speeches on the economy, this primary race does not preclude running against McCain

    And their attacks on McCain will largely be a footnote in the media coverage.  That's the problem.

    The more time we have to define McCain rather than letting him define himself, the better off we are.  But until this circus is over, efforts to do so will be lost in the noise.

  • comment on a post PA, Obama, Casey, and buses over 6 years ago

    We all know that Clinton's writing off so many small to midsized states was a huge factor in enabling Obama to roll to such a big lead in pledged delegates.  

    The Obama camp has to be at least as aware of this as we are.  I don't believe for a second that they're writing PA off.

    They may fully believe they'll lose the state overall, both in votes and in delegates.  But they know this isn't winner-take-all, so they're not throwing in the towel.  

    If they lose PA by 8-10%, that's no big deal.  Losing PA by 20 would be another story, and they know it.  So they've got every reason to not write off PA.  Winning PA may not be in the cards, but a big chunk of its electorate and delegates certainly is up for grabs.

    I'll believe they're writing off PA when they go dark in PA.  I bet that doesn't happen between now and 4/21.


Advertise Blogads