I say this because, I came across a very util candidate selection devise that had a STUNNINGLY HUGE MAJORITY of participants overwhelmingly picking KUCINICH as their candidate based on agreement/dissagreement with the candidates’ positions on the issues.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ to select the candidate who agrees most with you.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php to see the results.

Almost 200,000 have taken the poll. Are there that many Kucinich net-nerds out there taking the survey 100 times each? I don’t think so.

As well, your observation that Kucinich does not seem to be getting high numbers in the polls, may depend on the poll sited: http://www.democracyforamerica…..s?&r=1

Another interesting point you might have made when the polling chart was brought up on screen, is how WAPO & Co. are so short on space/$ they can’t even include all of the official candidates in their polling graphic. And this is before anyone has yet to vote in a single primary. To me this is interesting when some of those not listed may not be polling statistically lower than say Richardson, who does make it on the graph.

This might have been a moment to comment on the horse race and big money nature of the election process, even on C-Span. (You did make a good point on Hillary’s potential debt to her big funders.)

I think the Democratic party would best serve its constituency(ies) by simply following up with conviction on the issues the wize American voters want to have addressed in the manner they want it (yes, based on polls) instead of obfuscating & passing the buck. Just a thought.

And yes, I do have a poll fetish. Keep up the great work!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01345.html

But check out Noemie Emery’s analysis:

As they took control of Congress at the start of 2007, the Democrats vowed this would be a year of historic importance, and it seems they were prescient: Seldom before in the annals of governance have so many politicians fought so long and so hard to completely screw up a winning strategy being waged on their country’s behalf. Some cruelly define this as treacherous conduct, but this is imprecise and unkind. They tried, it is true, to do serious damage, but were compromised in the event by their chronic incompetence, as well as by being too above-board and open to try to do things on the sly. A stab in the back as a concept was wholly beyond their capacities. This was not a stab in the back that works via guile and subterfuge. It was 41 different stabs in the front, that always fell far short of serious damage, unless you count the damage they did to their own reputations (the approval ratings for Congress are now in the twenties). It was the Stab in the Front, the Surge-against-the-Surge, the Pickett’s Charge of the Great War on Terror. It was a year to remember, that will live in the annals of fecklessness. It was historical. It was hysterical. It was the Stab that Failed.

Nice try, in any case.

5000 awols this year? all due to extended tours? hmmmm

Although I fully support defunding, my problem is that is too indirect a means to end the war. A sane commander-in-chief would, when faced with an accomplished de-funding, begin disengaging and bringing home the troops. I don’t believe that Bush cares enough to do that. He would more likely begin shorting every other use of funds and contiue with troop deployments. He is just as likely to cancel shipments of bullets and food. Our 160,000 troops are now hostages because he really doesn’t care what happens to them. He only cares about not losing… to the “enemy”, to the Democrats, to the will of the people.
Impeachment is the only answer. Anything short of that and the troops will pay for our leaders cowardice.

here here encore!! Impeachment is the only way americans will be able to hold their collective head up in the world again, as well as here at home amongst each other. i sense our dignity is permanently loss unless we throw these bastards out. Running out the clock is cowardly and Nancy should be spanked for it.

The scary thing is that we have a president who’s basically running an extortion racket, and probably would leave the troops in the field long after funding was cut off, just so he could try to blame someone else.

If you don’t impeach a president who thinks he’s above the law, he’ll continue to screw you whenever you try to use your lawful powers.

here here!!

Jane Hamsher @ 14

Eh, still a little chemo brain-y, flubbed a few, but getting better.

sure did not look like flubbing to this viewer. the comparison between you and that doofus on after you was remarkable.

and watching him i was moved to write an essay on male facial hair and its meaning, that’s how deep he was. Jane’s poise when departing and shaking his hand was a nice counterweight (oops) to his ample avoirdupois and the meatheaded thinking that went along with it.