Someone putting their thumb on the scale .

Hi, Jane!

It sounds like things are crazy in Iowa. I hope that once the caucuses are over, you will post a more introspective account of what it was like to be there.

I admit a little confusion. The DMR has the reputation of being the most reliable poll(according to a poll of pollsters). So why the sudden nitpicking on their methods? And if they changed methods, why do that when you are considered the most reliable?

And I still think that Edwards isn’t going to get hurt here, Obama and Hillary can wrestle in the mud while he gets more media recognition and Mellencamp ain’t going to hurt either. Thats a sure plus in that neck of the woods.

Heh. I was at that rally in the picture, standing exactly where that picture is taken from. The cameras were right above, behind, and to the right of where we were. It was an incredible rally with 22,000 people in Austin.

Obama gets some help today when Kucinich tells his supporters to vote for Obama on the second ballot.

crap. First thing I’ve disagreed with him on.

Edwards wins in Iowa. I hope.

And BTW, the anyone-but-a-Republican attitude on this and other blogs is not thoughtful, IMO.

HRC as president, for example, could be a dream come true for repubs down the road.

Hello Jane. I hope the gnashing went on inside and when outside, you are keeping warm. We need you.

Obama isn’t my first choice but I would happily support him if he gets the nomination. Still it is a little disconcerting that, if the DMR poll is correct, almost half of the participants in the Iowa Democratic causus won’t be Democrats.

Meanwhile, Mark Ambinder explains the importance of John Edwards’ lead as a second-choice among likely caucus goers is important.

Consistent with this second-choice lead, the InsiderAdvantage poll (whatever that is) predicts a comfortable Edwards win. They assert that their polling methodology correctly predicted the 2004 Iowa Democratic outcome.

http://www.southernpoliticalre.....1_103.aspx

I’m not happy with any of my choices. Couldn’t we please have Howard Dean? :(

The Val Air Ballroom? That was where the “Dean Scream” happened in 2004!

Huck n Chuck. Too funny. Huckabee’s name sure lends itself to some comical soundbites.

I still think the DMR poll people know what is going on in Iowa. My question would be WHY did they use that sample of new causcus goers IF they didn’t see that happening in their interviews. So…I’m sticking with them, and the fact that things are still fluid.
The 2 other polls out, did not have an Edwards surge either, so, sumthin’s up!

Thumb? How about a hammer? This poll is so skewed to be both statistically

unreliable and invalid. WTF?

I have defended the DMR in Government classes for 30 years. WTF?

All these celeb endorsements hurt so good.

Hi Jane. Every two hours a different poll comes across my google reader and all of them seem to tell a different story.

I believe it will be Edwards, Obama, HRC. I think the media has hyped HRC and Obama, so they can have a big “story” when it all goes down. Obama has a very strong following with all types of people.

Yes, the ValAir is the home of the Dean Scream.

I and DeDurkheim are off to see the Mellencamp show tomorrow at the ValAir…I have a feeling we’ll see Jane earlier that evening.

I will resist buying a Chevy Pickup

I thought I heard that the Health Dept. closed down the Huck ‘n Chuck

And BTW, the anyone-but-a-Republican attitude on this and other blogs is not thoughtful, IMO.

That is not the attitude I have seen anyone here display. The attitude is, “Let’s try to nominate the best possible Democrat. Once a Democrat has been nominated, let’s support whoever it is against the Republican in the general.”

The only way you could see a problem with this calculus is if you consider at least one of the Republican candidates to be preferable as President to at least one of the Democratic candidates. Please tell us which ones they are.

BTW, as I live in the greater Des Moines area, let me tell you it is FREAKING COLD and WINDY hear today.

Just effing miserable.

Edwards/Obama could win the general.

Aw, crap, I sure wish I could edit #22 above.

I would like to see Mellencamp and Norris arm wrestle.

Huck and Chuck, sounds like what happens after a long night of drinking.

I, too, wish their were an edit feature. Admittedly, it’s absence does prevent certain pernicious trolling techniques.

Heh! Been there done that.

desmoinsdem needs to check his or her math.

If there were 175 voters last time, and we add 60% new voters, that gives 280, not 300. However, since most caucus voters are elderly, it’s also likely that a number will have died or will be in too poor health to make it this time around; also, some other former voters might not bother to show up.

Tonight’s big event will be the Huck’n'Chuck, when Huckabee trots out Chuck Norris to stump for him.

Will Chuckie will also sing for Huckie. Wouldn’t that be something!

Anyone besides me remember how awful Chuck Norris was singing the theme song of his TV program, aka the Norris produced amateur hour?

I am not buying it either.To many express an opinion
to the poll taker and then don’t show.Do we really
have a whole year of this stuff?

PhysioProf at 21

I’ve been alive from Truman through shrub.

I’ve seen good repubs and bad dems, and vice versa.

The notion that one party is better than the other is flawed, IMO.

I’ve drifted from repub to independent to dem to none of the above.

I think blogsites devoted to 1 party lack sufficient critical thinking.

I hear you. *g*
But why can’t you? Is there not an edit button right next to reply?

Mommybrain do you have an edit button?

Opinion polls are the modern equivalent of the Oracle at Delphi. Except, polls are more likely to be fraudulent .

Not for me.

I lose my “executive functions” after 6 a.m. Central. ;-)

Here’s the Des Moines Iowa weather for the next couple of days:

Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around -1. Wind chill values as low as -15. Blustery, with a northwest wind between 11 and 18 mph, with gusts as high as 22 mph.

Wednesday: Sunny, with a high near 14. Wind chill values as low as -15. West northwest wind between 6 and 10 mph.

Wednesday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 7. Wind chill values as low as -5. West wind 5 to 8 mph becoming south.

Makes me glad to be in warm, sunny Alaska.

Circus Circus. You can’t make this stuff up. There is no other way to express American politics. I thought Nevada was silly but they are looking pretty sophistocated compared to Iowa. The Las Vegas strip is conservative next to the Iowa scene. Thanks for the comedy, Jane.

(my face is red)

I have so many windows open I can’t tell what I’m doing anymore. No, it’s on another window, not fdl.

Never mind.

That’s all very nice, but you did not answer my question.

I’ve also lived from Truman through Little Boots. And you are correct that there have been good R and Bad Rs and Good Ds and Bad Ds.

Unfortunately, however, the time when there were reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful, dedicated Rs seems to have peaked back in the 70s. Ever since the “ReaganRevolution” and the rise of the movement Conservative, those people who claim to be R yet vote their conscience and the Constitution and reality seem to have been purged from the party or acquiesced to the Movement and lost their spines.

So if there is an R currently running that you feel does not fit this description, please enlighten us.

I usually lose mine after a couple of glasses of wine.

Exactly, precisely what dakine said.

And BTW, the anyone-but-a-Republican attitude on this and other blogs is not thoughtful, IMO.

How about the anyone-who-is-not-batshit-crazy? It covers much the same territory. That more helpful?

Yep.

Art45, it’s been my experience that owners of blogs have already done enough critical thinking to chose one party over another. If a truly cogent arguement is presented by someone of the other party, it is usually duly noted - often in astonishment, true, but noted.

Anybody see the “Minor Candidates Debate” from NH on CSPAN? Some funny stuff.

PhysioProf,

You did not ask a question. You made a statement.

I can imagine some repubs being better than some dems.

Why? Because I don’t trust what any of them say on the campaign trail.

And because I think the current dems in congress are largely corrupt or compromised. Just as repubs are.

That’s what I was trying to say.

So if there is an R currently running that you feel does not fit this description, please enlighten us.

This one…?

Gators Lost!!! Yes!!!! Give back the Heismann, Tebow until you learn how to read a blitz!

The Howard Dean “scream”? Let’s not forget that it was largely manufactured. Once they pulled out the loud ambient noise all around the auditorium, he did sound like a lunatic. But on the night of the event, not a single reporter noted anything unusual. It was carefully orchestrated to make him look unhinged and it worked.

Also, Art45, there may be some “undecided” or “uncommitted” blogs out there. Perhaps their critical analysis of the issues would be more to your taste. However, if you haven’t come to a decision of which party’s philosophy you support I’m not quite sure how you do critical analysis…

If I wanted to slip and slide through the slime of the viewpoints of those who defend politicians ranging from the criminally insane to the religiously intolerant and every sexually deviant variant in between, I know where they are at.
No thanks

What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?

You did not ask a question. You made a statement.

Partially correct. I made a request, which you ignored

I can imagine some repubs being better than some dems.

Is there a non-imaginary Republican that you think could be better than any of the non-imaginary Democrats? If so, how about revealing who these candidates are?

Busted linky. And then it’s on to New Hampshire, which is where the attention should be focused in the first place.

Ah but your esteemed Governor is not (currently) running for the Preznitcy. Given how she seems to have said F*ck you to all the corruption and corrupt members in the Alaska Legislature, she may herald a new beginning of the R party.

I won’t hold my breath.

That is absolutely right. I was there that fateful night and in person it was nothing like the processed audio of the news networks.

What the Iowa Poll suggests is that the independents have decided by a large margin to participate in the Democratic caucus. This is very good news and bodes well for November.

I’ve seen good repubs and bad dems, and vice versa.

The notion that one party is better than the other is flawed, IMO.

I’ve drifted from repub to independent to dem to none of the above.

I think blogsites devoted to 1 party lack sufficient critical thinking.

In the sense that the spineless democrats in Congress are voting for anything Gillespie, Addington and Cheney send down the Pike for incurious Junya, you’re correct, but there is a helluva difference in the irreversible for a generation damage the Rethughs have done to this country.

I don’t think you have a blog/threads here where you can’t express a critical or different opinion.

I can tell you for a fact though, as soon as you do it on most conservative blogs they resort to the same name calling they learned before they were housebroken as children.

No big deal, I thoroughly expect that Iowa will settle nothing for Democrats. (Republicans are another matter.)

I think blogsites devoted to 1 party lack sufficient critical thinking.

I think that sites that devote themselves to a single view on whether the earth is flat or not lack sufficient imagination.

The Republican party has gone off the far deep end as witnessed not only by the Gingrich Contract on America or the Bush Administration, but the current blighted crop of Republican candidates. The Republicans wouldn’t know critical thinking if it kicked them so it is a little bizarre for you to equate those of us who do think critically with those who don’t and then ascribe our unwillingness to do so to a lack of critical thinking. As I said, bizarre.

Marion at 53

My view, FWIW. The worst thing that could happen to posters on this site, from their viewpoint (and probably mine), would be 4 years of HRC and dem-controlled congress.

I’m not a troll and not a repub.

I respect posters here as thoughtful and dislike the idea that some posters trade thinking for party loyalty.

Very clever of the Capitalist advocates to use a political party, the Republicans. They get to keep the name, Republican, change their purpose and keep the party assets (its voters).

Republican isn’t about government, it’s about the rule of unfettered capitalism. That’s what we are up against.

Yes, it is also in the Democratic Party which is all the more reason we have to be activists and hold their feet to the fire. I don’t think there is anything left of the Republican Party but capitalistic ideology. Democracy is OUT. We the People are OUT.

I can’t count of the Democrats to regain our democracy so I have to help them do it.

Seems to me the point is this. All but two of the Repub candidates are at least aligned with, if not in favor of a more drastic version of, the policies of George W. Bush. *All* of the policies of George W. Bush.

The two that are not, namely Huckabee and Ron Paul, are quite possibly even more crazy and frightening than old GWB himself.

Anybody there you’re comfortable with?

It’s not gona. Why should it? Except who drops out and where their votes go-but even that’s unprexdictable.

Personally, I think the Dem turnout will be historic, and close if not greater than 200,000!

First, there is a base of 100,000+ people who participated in the confusing process in 2004, and understand first-hand how it works. Unfamiliarity with the process is the biggest limit to turnout, and for the first time in quite a while there is a huge pool of previous caucus-goers. (Note: 2000 was a shoe-in for Gore, 1996 didn’t matter at all, 1992 was dominated by hometown boy Harkin. So in 2004, you had to go back 16 years to 1988 for a caucus that was contested and truly mattered. Meaning in 2004 there weren’t that many people who had caucused before.)

How difficult will it be to double up from that base, given the expenditure of $100+ per caucus-goer at the margin? And of course there is a pool of hundreds of thousands of extra voters to be potentially dragged into the individual precincts.

Plus, the weather forecast is good. No precipation and relatively warm for January.

So my equation is Base + $20Million + good weather = fantastic turnout.

Iowa rarely settles anything at the top, it culls the bottom and sets up New Hampshire to whittle the field down even more.

Edwards/Obama could win the general.

yes, you are right on there.

nor will I hold mine, but people from both parties sometimes have good intentions. I have gotten totally tired of listening to bible-quoting hypocrites with Houston Texas accents controlling my state on behalf of the sleazy energy companies, though, no matter what their political affiliation.

The worst think that could happen to the entire country including you and posters on this site, is that any of the lying white men who are running on the Rethug side would become President, but their isn’t an ice cube’s chance in hell that they will whoever runs for the Dems in the general.

I respect posters here as thoughtful and dislike the idea that some posters trade thinking for party loyalty.

It comes across as very condescending to assume that the decision to exercise party loyalty was not the outcome of extensive analytical thought.

I would like that to happen.

I’ll wait and see though. I do think the point you make about prior experience and the enthusiasm for the Democratic candidates will drive up attendance to record highs. This has been an election cycle with a LOT of enthusiasm “in state” for the three major candidates, that was decidedly NOT the case in 2004 here. Edwards is known here, Clinton as well, and Obama has a real charisma, all are quite likeable to the Democrats. There will be little antipathy on our side.

Agreed in general. When 3/4 of your field are basically cookie-cutter images of each other (like the Republicans are this year), Iowa goes a long way toward culling the redundant copies.

Anybody see the “Minor Candidates Debate” from NH on CSPAN? Some funny stuff.

That was hysterical comedy. I give them credit. They have far more moxie than I have but then ignorance is bliss. I found it so entertaining that I watched it a second time. Each sentence that spewed was funnier than the preceding statement. Boy, it made even the Repug slate look smart.

Also, the Val-Air Ballroom is just across the street from the scenic Roto-Rooter Corporation headquarters. Just a fun fact.

jayt at 66

As a lawyer, you’ve read opinions of Hugo Black, who carried a copy of the Constitution in his vest pocket.

He was the BEST U.S. Supreme Court Justice in terms of the First Amendment.

Yet, before he was put on the Court by FDR, he was a KKK member.

My point: You can’t tell what a person will do necessarily by his or her past. You have to use some judgment.

For me, the most important quality is trust. Whom do I trust to be true to his or her word?

‘zactly.

Howard Dean, Nixon White House attorney, pointed that out clearly in a recent book…This republican party takes no prisioners make no compromises and marches in closed ranks and throws anyone who has a differing viewpoint under the bus. And the republican party is in lock step with the corporate oligarchy that is seeking world domination. Sorry ART45 I am not buying your subslime spin.I’d bet the farm noone here is either.

desmoinsdem needs to check his or her math.

If there were 175 voters last time, and we add 60% new voters, that gives 280, not 300. However, since most caucus voters are elderly, it’s also likely that a number will have died or will be in too poor health to make it this time around; also, some other former voters might not bother to show up.

JoeBuck, you need to check your math. If all 175 from last time show up, and they represent 40% of the caucus-goers, then the 60% of the total (all newcomers) would be 262. The DMR poll says that 60% of the caucusgoers will be newcomers, not that newcomers will be 60% of 2004’s attendees. So, presuming all 175 show up (and I take your point they might not, but still) then the other 60% (or 262) will be newcomers.

This means that in the caucus in question, there’ll be 437 attendees, something desmoinesdem couldn’t even imagine, so s/he rounded it down to “at least 380.”

*****

With regard to second-choices, Marc Ambinder puts in well, as do his commenters. Will non-viable caucusers (who fail to achieve 15% for their man) for Richardson, Biden, or Dodd (all experienced & resume-heavy) want to go for Obama, Clinton, or Edwards on the second round? It comes down to personal relationships at that point — where’s your next-door neighbor? Who is your boss supporting? The couple you usually babysit for? Your carpool leader?

These factors become much more important — retail politicking based on the people in attendance, not the candidates.

On the NewsHour last night Judy Woodruff opined that Iowa polls are notoriously inaccurate and that the caucusing process was unrepresentative. I agree that both of these things are true but they were true months ago and even in previous election cycles so I don’t see why Woodruff and the NewsHour didn’t bring it up then. Instead it seems that the NewsHour buys into the traditional memes and only abandons them when a non-traditional candidate like Edwards appears likely to do well in them.

Iowa won’t settle anything. With the re-emergence of Edwards, this will be a three-way race through Super Tuesday, (2/5/08), and we can almost hand the nomination to Clinton and her gang of party insiders.

It’s all in the delegates, and the only way us outsiders would have won is if either Edwards or Obama emerged as a single anti-Clinton choice. (and steamrolled her on Super Tuesday.)

Sure, there is some chance the Edwards and Obama teams coalesce at the Convention, but more likely is Obama selling out for HRC’s V-P slot, as he’d be a fool not to make that deal.

Anyway, let’s hope I’m wrong. The return of the Clinton Gang will set our progressive movement back at least a decade. (and I hope I’m wrong about that too, sigh.)

Yes, and Glen-Gery Brick…and there are fine culinary establishments nearby…

Taco Johns, Wendys, Burger King, Mister Donut

The worst thing that could happen is if a Romney or a Giuliani or a Thompson were “installed” via fraudulent elections because of the “machines”.

If you go to Applebee’s, you’ll likely upChuck.

Art45, I’m certainly not a Hillary supporter, so you certainly don’t have an argument there! However, I truly believe at this critical juncture in our nation’s history that the worst of our worst is better than the best of their best. (This comment comes from someone who started out life as a Republican, FWIW.)

My sis-in-law recommended it to me the other night and I saw it today. Hard for the moderators to keep straight faces. Caught Biden after that. he’s Ok. He takes flak here, but i like him.

Marion sorry. The link works perfectly in IE7; won’t work at FDL however, and I don’tknow why. All my previous links have worked at FDL and in preview but not this one.

The article does take into account New Hampshire and several states following.

January 1, 2008
Political Memo
What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

DES MOINES — Iowa is packed with presidential candidates and hundreds of campaign aides, advisers and contributors. Twenty-five hundred representatives of news organizations have been granted credentials to cover the caucuses Thursday night, twice as many as in 2004. Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side.

But what if it is not decisive?

What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats — former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)? A number of polls going into the final days have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night could end up more or less a tie.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.

“It would be like a six-month trial and a hung jury,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “I think it is really possible.”

Rather than clarify the state of play and consolidate this crowded field a bit, an outcome like that would almost certainly muddle things further and potentially extend the time before Democrats know their nominee.

For different reasons, Iowa is not likely to determine much for the Republicans, either. Only Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, are going all-out here, and whatever happens between them, the Republican race already seems likely to go on at least until the cavalcade of primaries across the country on Feb. 5.

But for the leading Democrats, an inconclusive ending here would be a much more complicated result.

Because none of them would be judged a decisive loser, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama would all be able to go on to the New Hampshire primary next week, no questions asked. And you can bet on this: the other Democrats in the race — Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., Representative Dennis J. Kucinich and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico — would feel less of the morning-after-Iowa pressure to pull out.

It would be hard for any candidate to play the “I beat expectations” game and claim some sort of chimerical victory, much the way Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the winner after coming in second in New Hampshire in 1992 — although Mr. Edwards, who for much of the year campaigned in the shadow of his two rivals, would no doubt try.

“Frankly, if there’s a three-way tie, that changes the dynamics of what has been reported the entire year: that it’s a two-person race,” said Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the Iowa campaign director for Mr. Edwards, who has put in more than a year preparing for this week. “It changes the way people look at the race, and they’ll see it as a three-way race.”

It is a good bet, in fact, that one candidate would try to claim a victory, even if it was by a single percentage point or less. Still, that is not likely to get him or her on the cover of Time or Newsweek (that would be the old-school way of measuring the political impact of winning in Iowa). The other two would be left fighting for the right of second place. And politics being politics, it is likely there would be a campaign trying to present a three-way tie as a victory.

Beyond that, New Hampshire, which for Democrats has seemed something like a stepchild in this year’s nominating process given all the attention being paid to Iowa, would get a chance to have some real influence over the nomination. For 25 years, there has been debate and study about how the outcome in Iowa affects New Hampshire voters. This time around, because of the decision by the New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to set the primary on Jan. 8, voters will have just five days to examine the candidates and make their decision.

One of the bedrock political assumptions of the year — and certainly one that has informed Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — is that winning Iowa and New Hampshire would set the table for sweeping the 20 or so states that vote on Feb. 5, the day when many Democrats believe that their contest will effectively be decided. But if Iowans end up being equally divided among what many party leaders view as an unusually strong cast of candidates, who is to say that voters in the Feb. 5 states won’t be as well?

None of this is meant to suggest that such an outcome would mean that what has taken place here over the past year is insignificant. Quite the contrary. Watching these candidates, Democrats and Republicans, deliver their final speeches, take the last rounds of questions from Iowans and shake the hands of supporters one more time, it is apparent that most of them are much better at campaigning than they were a year ago.

Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, an old Iowa caucus hand who has moved here to help out in the final days, said as much in explaining why he would be comfortable with even an inconclusive outcome. “The experience here in Iowa,” he said, “has been tremendous for the entire campaign.”

However, I truly believe at this critical juncture in our nation’s history that the worst of our worst is better than the best of their best.

True dat. I asked ART45 to reveal which Republican he thinks is better than any one Democrat, and he has so far declined to do so.

This is the interesting part of the poll. Regardless of whether the numbers are correct, independents seem enthusiastic about voting for the Democrats. Obama in particular appears to inspire them. How can widening the coalition be a bad thing?

What I don’t get is Kucinich’s appeal to his delegates to caucus with Obama if he doesn’t get his 15%. I’ve written him at his site to ask why? It doesn’t make sense to me. Edwards seems the most closely aligned with his positions. I’m seriously perplexed.

For me, the most important quality is trust. Whom do I trust to be true to his or her word?

Well, that’s hard to argue with - have you answered your own question yet?

And - have you seen anyone on the R side whose word you’d like to trust? If so, I’d be interested in hearing which one, and the issues upon which you’d base this support.

Are there any Dem’s you feel are to be non-trustworthy? That too is a fair question; you might some some common ground here, depending on the answer…

On the NewsHour last night Judy Woodruff opined that Iowa polls are notoriously inaccurate and that the caucusing process was unrepresentative. I agree that both of these things are true but they were true months ago and even in previous election cycles so I don’t see why Woodruff and the NewsHour didn’t bring it up then. Instead it seems that the NewsHour buys into the traditional memes and only abandons them when a non-traditional candidate like Edwards appears likely to do well in them.

That is so aggravating to me. It’s not like this is the first election they’ve covered

The worst thing that could happen is if any Republican candidate got elected.

The fraudulent machines are a done deal. They will be up and running in thousands of counties throughout “We be knowin’ Britney’s lil sis got a baby in her belly America” because Americans are on the whole, too stupid and apathetic to demand change.

It’s been showcased emphatically that the propitiary machines that are all from companies who are huge Republican contributors can be hacked in five minutes and with no paper trail, you’d be better off with the “hanging chads” circuis.

I haven’t seen a worse slate of candidates that Romney, Rudy (”Ah killed firemen at 911 but so what I’m gonna milk it) and the rest of the Rethug candidates in the history of this country.

They won’t make it in the general, but the faulty voting machines and the effort to change the electoral votes by Republicans in California are huge concerns.

The NewsHour has been very mainstream in not covering Edwards.

Nothing wrong with widening the coalition, but I take BTDemocrat’s point about Obama’s use of GOP memes; if Barry’s using “trial lawyer” to attract independents and GOPs to our caucuses, he’s not being nominated by our party but by their defectors. Leaving behind his progressive messages doesn’t endear me to Obama, at all. It’s why Hillary lost me.

Amen to that. Obama has done an amazing job of hiding his Liberalism. (evidenced by how much Kos complains about him).

His brilliant positioning is what I like best about Obama. And contrary to others, his Presidency would be an open book. Who knows what Progressives might accomplish with our Democratic majorities?

Howard Dean, Nixon White House attorney

Maybe John Dean, unless Howard has led a secret life.

I heard an NPR reporter (might have been local, wasn’t really paying attention) interview 100 people at random places over the last couple of weeks. The question was “how do you feel about Alberto Gonzalez?” 99 people never heard of him, one said he should be traded to the Astro’s because he can’t hit.

Sigh.

I don’t see anyone on the Republican side I’d trust to take out my garbage or walk my dog. They would be horrendous at running the governmnet, and they would all continue Bush as usual, and the quest to embed a permanant Unitary Executive in place of the Constitution which has been gutted by a stupid, passive Congress who votes with Bush on every crucial vote. Watch ole S. 2248 aka the FISA bill get passed as a total piece of crap with immunity for the Comcos and Telcos in a couple weeks.

I do not look forward to having to identify, convince, and fund a progressive challenger to President Hillary Clinton in 2012 just so we can end the damn Irak occupation.

TrueBlueCT
“Brilliant positioning” with regard to governor arnold, with reaching across the decadent aisle? What makes you believe that his presidency would be an open book?