> November 5, Reid tells Lieberman that he's
> toast and they refuse to seat him with the
One more time: the managers and power brokers of the Democratic Party like Lieberman. And they like the way Lieberman defeated his groundling critics in 2006. They won't punish him because (a) he is their friend (b) they don't think he has done anything wrong.
I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but the insiders who control the Democratic Party - the ones who greased telecom immunity through over the last 2 weeks - LIKE Joe Lieberman. They think his views on many issues, including Iraq, are correct and don't back him publicly only due to fear of their "lefty" constituents. They aren't going to punish him in any way shape or form no matter what the outcome of the 2008 election is; quite the opposite in fact.
Whoever it is who controls the Republican Party has decided to take a pass in 2008. Stay back, let the Dem (now Obama) win and take the punishment for cleaning up Iraq and the economy, then run a white horse in 2012. They aren't supporting McCain because they don't like him and they actually want him to lose.
> And no call for Missouri yet, even though Clinton
> leads big. Wonder why?
Because St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Kansas City haven't reported yet? St. Louis County was at less than 10% counted when the State of Missouri web site crashed; St. Louis City and Kansas City at zero. There are a few voters in those counties.
I have made no decision on which Democratic candidate to support. But I have to say that this tendency of Clinton supporters to try to make every gaffe and example of poor judgment go away with an aggressive counterattack on those who point it out is not a mark in her favor.
I can read the words that she spoke, and I am aware of where the frame behind those words originated and their multiple meanings. Perhaps it was a misstatement or a gaffe; if so let Senator Clinton correct it. If however she actually believes that Democrats are weak then you need to be able to deal with that honestly.
If any of the candidates wants to dominate a debate, he should open up his first response with "That's a great question and I will get back to it in a minute. First I would like to say to the panel that I will NOT be participating in any 'raise your hand' questions. Solving the tough problems that the Radical Right is dumping in the lap of the next Democratic President will require hard, tough work and taking very unpleasant action - and you don't get that kind of thing done by 'raising your hand'. So let's just forget about that tonight. Now, ..."
I used to think this sort of thing was a good idea. After seeing what Bush/Cheney have done with the National Guard, a resource that is supposedly controlled by the States and only federalized in cases of extreme emergency, I no longer think that having a large corps of draftees available to any Administration is safe for our country or its citizens.
I hope that at the national-national level there is someone in the Democratic Party who has and understnads how to use good databases. What I have seen at the state and state-national level is database capabilities and skills straight out of 1967. Which might be unfair to 1967 database practitioners.
I observed one state-national campaign using its volunteers to look up data on a green-screen system and type it by hand into a (horribly bad) web form interface to another system. When I inquired about the possibility of using scripts, export/import routines, etc to do the work automatically the response was... not positive.
> t is (relatively) easy to train somebody to
> canvass, hand them their clipboards, and off they
In my experience the typical canvasser and phonebanker receives essentially zero training, and if they don't come to the job Internet-savvy and fully read-up on the candidate's positions and arguments they won't get that information from the campaign.
I would really like to see some proof of this. Due to utter disgust with the current situation my spouse volunteered a considerable amount of time in 2004 and 2006 for both local and national campaigns - the first time in her life she had ever done anything like that. Unlike me she is very good at talking to and bonding with people. She was assigned to large amounts of canvassing and phonebanking. In her opinion, the net effect was either zero or less than zero (many people told her that if they received one more Kerry call they were going to vote for Bush as revenge). The gotv work she did on Election Days was perhaps marginally effective - but only marginally.
As I said I really question the effectiveness of these 1860s campaign tactics in the TVized, suburban world of the oughts. And I think there should be a real hard look at it before dumping in more resources.