I completely agree with you and find only the Hillary supporters having common sense, intellectual honesty and ideological consistency. This of course is a terrible statement about the state of progressive discourse.

I wrote a comment on the FISA bill today..byChicago Dyke...and entitled it the same..Let them eat cake.
Hillary has been with progressives...move on...and many other issues...but did those same progressives and supposedly great intellects, back her? No...those educated liberals demonstrated more collective stupidity than the working class and hispanics who support her en masse. Hispanics obviously have a loyal gene...and the working class, common sense. Not so with self indulgent and self reverential liberals. This is my greatest disappointment. It is Hillary who has gone up against the right wing with a voice...now she might fight the left wing too? Then they deserve what they get...an Obama...an empty suit...who says nothing of importance...only slogans...that these educated rubes hungrily devour...If progressives aren't going to be there for Hillary, fighting against the entire status quo...then I really don't know what they expect. Obama won't be elected in all liklihood. And full blame for this travesty rests on known collaborators...

I hope the common man rises up to repel this hollow liberal mantra...this propaganda...Who knew that the educated ones would be more subject to propaganda? Have you noticed that few are commenting about what Paul Krugman is saying? Sad. Very sad. Liberal cowards. Except you of course and lambert. Stay brave and strong.

At last, a blog FOR Hilary!

Someone blogged about this, can't remember where (I hope it wasn't here), but it sounds about right. The wailing about proper respect for the dead princess sounds very familiar doesn't it?

Wow.

It seems your distain is mainly about the perception of Obama, rather than what he's done or stands for.

By that yardstick, H. Clinton is by far a worse choice, not only in perception but in record. She's been in office only one term longer than Obama, and her record (as a liberal and democrat) is far worse that his, or many others.

It seems ridiculous to me that she'll effect will change when in fact she's done little toward change as New York's Senator.

She voted for a war in spite of a half a million people marching in protest to it in NYC alone, nor as she ever said that was a mistake, only that she was "duped" -

That, and that alone, is enough to disqualify her for my personal consideration.

That being said, there are reasonable reasons not to support Obama, just like there are reasonable reasons to support Clinton, I would acknowledge that.

However, your take with him seems to be that he's popular and a good speaker and excites people. That's your main fucking criticism.

Come on now.

To me, that has about the same weight of the criticism of Clinton stating she's "cold". None.

And your "preacher" comments are a bit icky, to boot, and feels a bit "race-y" and not in a good way.

If this is your argument, I'm not convinced. Nor am I convinced Clinton will effect change (she's not done one damn positive thing in support of liberal or progressive issues, and she fucking sat out the FISA vote today) or even wants to.

Obama says he wants change, and there is evidence in his past, if you look for it, that he has done so.

That's my opinion, for better or worse.

...and plays a wry, affectionate "Taps" as VL trudges wearily away. :)

I can't blame ya, kid. but do it Edwards-stylee and "suspend", okay?

Today, with primaries in the Capitol area and her campaign headquarters in Virginia, Hillary couldn't make it to the Hill to oppose telecom immunity. She had to fly to a state where the primary is three weeks away.

Obama voted against it.

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9870389...

Hillary didn't even have to travel anywhere to make the vote, she would have just stayed in the DC area for the vote then traveled to Texas rather than hotfooting it out of there.

That, on top of the Iraq war vote, is a damned good SUBSTANTIVE reason to not cast a primary vote for Clinton.

I'll vote for whichever one of them ends up winning the primary, but at this point, niether of them is worthy of support beyond that.

That filibuster Obama led to stop the FISA debacle. He sure is right, he can inspire leadership and bring people together to do the right thing.

Neither Obama or Clinton have led on FISA. Clinton's vote wouldn't have changed anything. If either had shown any leadership, that would've been a wonderful thing. The sad truth is they both didn't do very much. So praise Obama for showing up to cast a vote that made no difference on the day when he was going to be in the area anyway because of the primary, if you like, but that's not leadership as far as I'm concerned.

If Obama had shown leadership on FISA or Iraq or healthcare, I'd seriously have to re-think my support for Clinton. So far that hasn't been a problem. He's like Clinton only without any experience fighting the GOP and right-wing framing. That's not an improvement, IMO.

So if it's between a triangulating, hedging uniter (Obama) and a overly cautious polarizing partisan, I'll take the latter. I'd rather have FDR or his wife, but neither of them are running.

It has come to my attention that some readers and fellow bloggers are tired of hearing my criticism of Barack Obama.

No, that's not really it.

Some readers are tired of hearing you criticize Obama supporters invalidly.

Stop internalizing blog comments. Get out there in the physical world and ask the Obama supporters why they choose him. I've done exactly that, and hear over and over again: electability.

Maybe that's a crappy reason. Maybe not. Go ahead and bash that reason, or write why you think that the premise that Obama is more electable is not true.

That's up to you of course.

But what's irritating is your constant insinuation that most Obama supporters are dumb, or naive, or ignorant. No, not everyone has the facts right - and that goes for Hillary supporters as well. But most people have pretty good reasons for supporting the candidate they do, and it's deeper than "he makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside".

- a.c.

p.s. I'm not an Obama supporter myself

you're my only hope. i think the entire blogosphere has gone dopey: no more kos, americablog. viva the rebelion!

FDB,

Casting a vote is putting yourself at risk of being criticized. In this case, Obama is willing to have people say stupid crap like he's soft on security and doesn't want to catch the terrorists, etc. It's not that big a deal, but it's not nothing, and it is, at least to me, more than Hillary did.

You're absolutely right that neither one of them has led on this issue. Or, on any other important issues.

Merely being a part of this most reprehensible group of Democratic Senators ought to eliminate any of them from consideration as POTUS (with the exception of Feingold, perhaps), but we just don't seem to have any other choices.

- a.c.

I can't say I'm surprised to hear you've been getting complaints, given the thin-skinned entitlement attitude I've seen from the OFC. Here's hoping the delicate flowers who are well able to eviscerate Hillary Clinton but clutch their pearls at the whiff of a rogue opinion are able to withstand a general election.

I will vote for the D, too. If it's Obama, I might well have to be drugged and dragged to the polls to do so, but do it I will.

It's too bad the Hope had to get so ugly. It's too bad the Hope couldn't articulate itself top without kicking around a fellow Democratic candidate on a daily basis. I wonder what will happen when the followers lose their constant high of stadium slogans, and the guts and innards of governance take over?

We'll ride the ponies into the sunset...

I really appreciate your writing, VastLeft. Don't let 'em keep you down.

Get out there and ask Obama supporters What They Really Mean when they mouth meaningless Right-wing frames like "electability" and for heavens sakes, quit insinuating that Obama supporters like AC above are ignorant or naive because that comment alone is proof it can't be so.

Lazy, irritating, slut. :-)

I'm calling this a bluff, won't be a week and the Obamarama show will say something to fire up your ire to boil-over. I'll be looking forward to it; more bullshit-calling, please.

Yes, he does sound more like a motivational speaker than is my taste, but it works.

You can't figure out what he's going to do? Perhaps this "google" phenomenon is new to you?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Well that was pretty frickin' hard, wasn't it? I think a valid criticism is that he doesn't do policy definition in his speeches, but that's not the same thing as this "he has no proposals" crap.

Does Clinton get a bad break from the misogynistic MSM? Yes, she does. I hated it when I supported Edwards and I hate it now as an Obama supporter (I think it backfires in her favor sometimes, like in New Hampshire).

I am an OCD blog reader and I don't see anything near the vitriol on the popular Democratic blogs against Clinton that I see against Obama right here. Please don't confuse our newly converted fair weather Dem voters like John Cole and Andrew Sullivan or the usual Hillary haters in the media.

If you are upset about her political strategy not working out like you had hoped, that's not Obama's fault.

And yes I will put an X next to the D in November as well and I'll do it with a smile thank you very much.

Pointing out where Obama supporters are not just wildly uncritical of their emotional and personal projections to their candidate, but ecstatically embrace / rabidly defend their right to that blind uncriticism.. is never going to make fans of the fanboys. And girls.

It is by defnition dumb, naiive, and ignorant, to fail to examine the thrill a political candidate gives you, particularly in light of its affect on your rational faculties.

That can really only offend the true believer.

But such trials only serve to increase their faith, stored up treasures in heaven and all that.

So really, wheres the downside?

By that yardstick, H. Clinton is by far a worse choice, not only in perception but in record.

no. this is factually untrue. HRC has a longer record. it's hard to suss out, but she was "a force" in making policy during her husband's administration. she is a centrist. she is an establishment player. but "far worse?"

no. no no no no no no no no. they are practically the same. i don't mean to sound naderite, but i wish people would stop claiming that obama is the great progressive choice. he's not. look at his record. that's all we're saying. how has he helped poor black people in the district that first elected him to power?

specifically. this year. if he's "real" and hope and change are his driving mantras, the OFB can proviode concrete examples.

prophyl: hillary is hardly any better. but the sexism against her now: much worse. and at the same time, a taste of what obama wil feel (but only the merest taste) should he prevail thru the general and beyond. they killed her chances, and that was only because there was a better choice to set up, the better to later blame and break down.

don't worry, OFB. you'll be right here with me, in 2010 or 11.

The problem with your silly cult and cult of personality charge was that it amounted to nothing more than an attempt to inject poison pen weasle words into the political mill. That was the only objective. The words cult and personality cult have widespread easily recognizable negative conotations. Vague, bet negative. Stick a negative conotation to the candidate you don't like and keep poking at that sore spot. I could easlily make the case that every political campaign in US history were a personality cult affair in some way or another. That would be very easy to do. Your use of it here didn't work out for you because it has no substantive basis to build any real case upon (people chanting at rallies, candidates using references to jesus in speeches, slogans, buzzwords, excited campaign workers and followers who agressively defend their candidates stances.... welcome to a political campaign!) Find me one that has never included all those very same things. Face it, your nasty littel cult smear tactic was a stooooopid idea. Stoopid! And it back fired on you. Although if Obama gets the nom you might expect the wingnuts to try using the "cult" smear against him in the general (congratulations for spending so much time writing talking points for the wingnuts). Thanks Paul!

It has also brought out the lowest quality of discourse I have ever seen among Democrats...

LOL!

I find it hilarious listening to anyone here smuggly bemoaning the low quality of discourse (look in a mirror!) and complaining that the OFB were mean and nasty to you. For one thing this site itself drips with invective and polemical venom and hyperbole and sarcasim and snide snarky malarky (snarky malary for the sake of snarly malarky) on a continuous daily basis 24/7. It always has. You people even posted a couple of videos to a thread comparing an Obama campaign ad to a to the scene from Cabaret of a Nazi singing Tomorrow Belongs to Me. And yoooo are tut-tutting about the low quality of discourse! Hilarious!

Getting all weepy and twisting your hanky into knots because the OFB kicked the shit out you in some comment thread fight you chose to engage in... a fight you went looking for (with your ponies and your cults and your other little venomous nit picks) .... and then to complain that you have been unfairly picked on - seems small and pathetic - especially coming from anyone here. You took the OFB to task early on... accused them of being wussies, lightweights who wouldn't stand up and fight... called em out for it. And what happened, they stood up and kicked the shit out of you. And now here you are laying on your back in your own piss and poop and boo-hooing because they answered your bring it on taunts. And bring it on they did.

So stop your bellyaching and get back to worrying about things that matter.

*

Bellyaching
weasle
nasty littel cult smear tactic
invective and polemical venom and hyperbole and sarcasim and snide snarky malarky (snarky malary for the sake of snarly malarky)
kicked the shit out you
venomous nit picks
kicked the shit out of you
piss and poop and boo-hooing
bring it on they did

Whew. Cue the baboon whoops!

Gosh agression sure is fun isnt it. That'll be why they call it self reinforcing behaviour.

Whew. Cue the baboon whoops!

yup, its just like a football game. you wanna play a football game you play a football game.

maybe ice dancing is more your style zed. then dance for us zed, dance for us. but don't pretend anyone here didn't want this football game. they went looking for it and they got it.

*

Getting all weepy and twisting your hanky into knots because the OFB kicked the shit out you in some comment thread fight you chose to engage in

to whom are you speaking, and of what? it's late and i've got five windows open. are you harshing on the OFB, correntewire, some person in particular, or what?

i'm slow and stupid and often miss your more important points. thank you for your contribution and comments.

my shit is sitting here in a happy, content pile. yet unkicked, even. fwiw.

to spelling and punctuation accidents. my fingers are traitors. i'll leave it at that.

It takes a lot of work to really feel the unity. It's tiring.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Recovered DU member

"His campaign elevates a modestly accomplished first-term senator into peer status with the martyrs of the 60s (even as he belittles the accomplishments of everyman/everywoman activists from that era)
It shamelessly panders to religion and unabashedly paints its candidate as the Second Coming
It gleefully embraces hoary rightwing smears of fellow Democrats
It trumps up charges of racism, just for the audacity of expediency
It surreally paints a glib centrist with a bottomless bag of GOP talking points as a progressive champion
It is built on vague chants about “change” and “transformation” without anyone being able to tell us what he’s going to change and transform and how".

This is my point exactly...
This is my problem with some of the shrill nonsense coming from some Obama supporters. When you look in on so-called progressive blogs, and you see sources like Drudge, Hannity, even freerepublic, not only used as sources, but embraced by obama supporters..as long as they attack Hillary. I have seen more right wing meme's on DU..than on freerepublic..I have seen threads about Vince Foster..Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr..all gleefully embraced and vomited all over the discourse by giggling and sneering Obama supporters. Tell me..Do they honestly think that the right wing is going to just stand back and let Obama waltz into the White House? My suspicion is that, in their messianic zeal, that they actually do believe that. If Hilalry goes down, and I pray that she does not, it will be the democratic party that has brought her down. And it will be that wing of the party, that will wake up shocked and stunned on the day after election day to see a president McCain elected.

Joebasic

And not burn any bridges.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

challenging Our Betters hereabouts, remember?

For what it's worth -- I have seen no creditable rebuttal to my contention that the campaign sweeping Obama over the nation looks very similar to the one that swept our current leader into power. For what it's worth, I have neither seen nor heard a statement, let alone a policy or plan written down, by Obama that follows the track of a progressive ideal.
Vague bland claims of change and inspiration, hope and a visual echo of "morning in America" are everywhere.

Substantive and detailed and reliable and researchable statements? Not so much.

Whoops of "pwned! !!!111!"? yeah, the blogosphere's thick with 'em, including right here at correntewire.
Proof? I'm with you, grrl -- my stuff's right there, completely unkicked.

Honestly after tonight's multiple routs, I can't see Clinton voters rallying to vote for her in TX and OH as Obama voters certainly will since she generally lacks the ability to inspire. Even though the nomination is in their hands, I can see the constant media barrage of Obama The Great getting to them.

@Sarah: I've never met sore winners as bad as Obama supporters (MyDD is littered with talk most likely to be found being spewed by juveniles imitating pro wrestlers). Could it be that his I Am The One Called By
God campaign draws in narcissists?

I'm just curious, but has your web traffic gone up or down since you became one of the few liberal blogs that critcize Obama?

I really only found this place after Iowa, when my many of my fellow liberals started acting like fundamentalist Christians. Am I the exception or the rule?

mouth meaningless Right-wing frames like “electability”

Electability is a right-wing frame? No, unfortunately it's not. And we've seen it in action many times.

There is a belief that Obama has a much higher probability of beating McCain in the presidential election than Hillary does.

I am not saying that is rooted in fact. I don't know how accurate it is, and if it is accurate exactly how big a difference it is.

There have been polls that suggest it is true at least to some small degree.

As a reason to vote for Obama, it is neither cultish nor mindless. It's a bit cynical, for sure.

I have a hypothetical question for anyone reading this who supports Hillary. It is a hypothetical, so please don't argue with the premise, which is very simple:

You omnisciently know that McCain is going to be the Republican candidate. You also know that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, she will have a 1/3 chance of winning the election, and if Obama is the nominee, he'll have a 2/3 chance of winning the election.

Under these conditions, which candidate do you want to be the Democratic nominee? And are there different probabilities that would change your mind?

I'm truly interested in your answers. I know a lot of people who don't prefer either candidate (they like Hillary on healthcare, they think Obama has fewer ties to the war lobby, etc.) and came down on Obama's side at the end because they think he's got a better chance.

- a.c.

Please, don't stop the critique! There's nothing wrong with criticizing Obama and the mania that surrounds him! You're one of the few voices of reason left in the blogosphere! Seriously, it's like the world's gone mad. (And no, I'm not a Clinton supporter...am a former Edwards supporter who supports none of the above, but will mark an X next to D in the fall. But Obamamania creeps me out. It really does.

was lost in a landlside anyway and everyone knew it. It would have been a waste of time to vote. She was there for the second Dodd filibuster,when it counted.

farmer: you are one angry farmer. And your candidate's winning. I frequent dozens of chat boards to see what people are saying. It is a fact that the Obama supporters are in general (with exceptions)much more nasty than Clinton people, hyper aggressive, belligerent, vulgar, demeaning and not at all inclusive. I have been attacked by them for being a baby boomer, for having lived in and participated in those oh so ugly partisan battles that you all want to duck in the 60', 70's, 80's and 90's and I have been attacked for daring to suggest that Bill Clinton was a good president.

Every time I have flirted with supporting Obama he has attacked Bill Clinton's presidency,or his supporters have said things that make me realize they are in general (with exceptions) historically challenged and clueless.

But hey, thats just my opinion. You can keep cussing and exercising your thesaurus for invectives as much as you want. Good luck changing human nature and 250 years of political-partisan battles.

There's plenty of material at Obama's website. Some of it sucks, some of it doesn't, some of it is specific, most of it isn't.

If you haven't

"seen nor heard a statement, let alone a policy or plan written down, by Obama that follows the track of a progressive ideal"

then you aren't looking very hard.

Here's an excerpt on labor:

Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.

Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.

Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.

Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? And progressive?

Is there a point in me stating facts? Or is this argument unresolvable?

- a.c.

Real-world based thinking for me AC so here's exactly what you said you didn't want:

Polls and my own assessment of state-by-state electoral votes show a statistical dead heat between either Obama or Clinton vs McCain. Given that both of them are at this point on the same plane, rather than at different levels as you posit, I'll take the one with more experience dealing with the enemy - and that is not Obama.

farmer: you are one angry farmer. And your candidate’s winning.

oh, my... where is the fainting couch.

Obama: not my candidate. i was for edwards. and then i was leaning to Hillary because of the health care thing. I'll vote for either in the general with no problem at all. i'm mad because the people here engaged in a stoopid weasel campaign of calling the obama camp cultists and christianists.... two idiotic and destructive poison pen attempts which i think added to the low quality of discourse and ultimately HURT the Hillary campaign much more than it helped... if you don't think so maybe you haven't been watch the election returns.

Maybe a lot of the people here should go join the Taylor Marsh cult. I'm sure you'd be happy there. You can learn to chant McCain McCain!

*

I'm hoping you continue the good work. There are few liberal websites where Obama mania doesn't dominate. Comment on what used to be interesting blogs in a pro Clinton way and you get battered and bruised. We need Hillary's side to be told and good for the folks hearty enough to stand up and tell it.

Here's Krugman on the topic with the same conclusion vis-a-vis the current situation and the difficulty of projecting the future. Obama has so little experience at the national level, and certainly no executive experience so other than Hope and Faith I have no idea what he brings to the table. The Clintons have been there for a long time and know where the levers and buttons are to work the system, and in addition they actually know what goes on out there in the rest of the world. For me, McCain is a defeat, Clinton is a win, and Obama is a wash if we're lucky.

All, repeat all, of the pounding on Clinton as being unelectable started on the right as soon as she made clear that she was running, and only recently have they gotten nervous about McCain as her contender. The same right is all overtly excited about Obama, in my view because they think they can wipe the floor with him in the general. Dealing with the choice between Clinton and Obama in terms of electability asks the question in the terms that the Right has been assessing it, and coming down against Clinton because she's "so tainted" is a right wing theme. If you don't see it that way, well, you don't.

My point is not to "convince" you of anything, or to get you to change your mind, etc.

It's a theoretical question. Is there ever a point where "chances of winning" would enter your considerations about who to vote for in a primary?

And here's a question for lambert - if it's been answered in a previous post (I don't think so, but perhaps...?) I apologize:

When you caucused the other day, what did you think of the Obama backers, and their speeches?

For the umpteenth time, I caucused for Edwards. I don't like Obama, for generally the reasons discussed on this blog. That said, I think the vitriol displayed here towards Obama's supporters are ridiculous. I know an awful lot of Obama supporters in real life, and absolutely none of them, in any way, fit this image that a few of corrente's bloggers are projecting on to them. I don't doubt that the cultish newbie exists, but it's not the backbone of his support, at all.

tough enough to deal with reality. Consider your question answered above, in the only terms I care to.

Vastleft, you are one of the few sane voices left and if you're attracting the ire of the Obama fans, you're also throwing a lifeline to those of us who feel like we've been pushed out, without a voice. I was just over at a certain message board, I don't know why, but now they're calling Obama a political genius and the force who will single-handedly bring sweeping unity and change to the country, because we'll all want the same thing. I guess that's supposed to be Obama? Apparently, he's the first president who'll just be seen as an "American." Me, I was looking for a "Democrat."

Now that the mighty wurlitzer has done its job, we need dissident voices more than ever. The unadulterated adulation is really starting to creep me out. And I say this not as a particular Hillary Clinton fan, though as someone disgusted by the sneering hatchet job on her. But I don't want to feel alone in the middle of this growing weirdness. I don't feel good about this -- unquestioning fans are not a good recipe for government. You've been very clear about the need to vote for the D, and you have been very clear that your aim was a better Obama administration. That is only going to be more important, not less.

Electability is bunk at this point. Please note, I am not saying which Dem will or could win against McCain in a the GE. I work with stats and surveys for a living, so this stuff pushes buttons. Polls this far ahead of the game mean nothing. There's been no head to head campaign run.

The current numbers about Clinton v McCain or Obama v McCain mean nothing at this point. Arguing that we should elect Obama because his poll numbers are better against McCain is like arguing the Dems didn't need a primary because Clinton's polls were higher.

Dude (or dudette), I agree with a lot of what you say. I am not at all convinced that Obama is more electable, as I pointed out a few comments up.

Which is why I'm also not saying "vote for Obama".

All I am saying is that there are liberal voters who do buy in to the electability meme, and I can't say that I know they are wrong, and that it's a big part of why they support Barack. Vastleft is calling these people cultists, and I'm calling them pragmatic. You, perhaps, consider them "misguided pragmatics".

The demographics of Obama's support (specifically, the youngest voters) does make a certain reasonable-sounding argument that the 18-21 "first-presidential-election" crowd might be more likely to actually show up on election day if Obama is the nominee. But I doubt that's too much of a difference.

I will vote for the D, and simultaneously hate that this country's political framework is so fucked. Neither Obama nor Clinton would be one of my top 50 public figures to be president. Edwards was the best of a mediocre lot. I wish Gore had entered the race as my top choice among plausible candidates. But Gore isn't running, Edwards isn't winning, and either O or C would be much, much better than McCain. Suggesting that you're not so sure Obama is any better than McCain reminds me of the year 2000 Naderites. Yes, he's a lot better.

- a.c.

Arguing that we should elect Obama because his poll numbers are better against McCain is like arguing the Dems didn’t need a primary because Clinton’s polls were higher.

But I didn't argue that. What I said was that I don't think someone else is an awful person for thinking that Obama would have a higher probability of winning.

As it happens, I have also worked with stats for a living. I happen to agree that early polls don't mean so much. I think that either Democratic candidate is a big favorite (and they are favored, on betting sites where people put their money where their mouth is), based to a large degree on the extremely high turnouts for the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and the number of anecdotes I've heard about Republicans planning to vote Democrat this time (while not hearing about any Democrats planning to vote Republican).

bringiton - You don't do hypotheticals? Uh, the most cursory glance at your comment history makes it very clear that's not true. If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative. Not sure why it bothers you. Theory can be interesting, and it doesn't preclude reality.

You suck, but could you treat Obama like the frontrunner for the next couple of weeks. Press him on issues, call him on his bullshit, maybe lay off the misogyny for three weeks or at least cut it in half.

Because if Obama wins the nomination I want to be sure he can handle at least half of what's coming this way. Since so far, he hasn't even had to handle 10%, I fear that his wave will collapse some time around, oh, say, September when it's too late to save us. Riding a wave of Hillary hate and shallow feel good rhetoric to the nomination isn't going to do anyone any good since last I checked if Obama is the nominee, Hillary will not STILL be his opponent.

While I'm talking to you, I don't know if you've noticed that your Republican choice keeps getting punked in the primaries by that Huckabee dude.

Thanks!

P.S. You still suck and you do a lousy job of picking candidates and presidents. Hey, but judging by this year's work, at least you don't feel bad about it. If I had helped tank Gore for this smirking chimp, I don't think I'd have the strength to get out of bed, so heavy would weigh my shame.

1) Like cd sez,

...they are practically the same.

Well, except for the race and gender thing.

2) Politics is not touch football.

3) Despite the best efforts of the GOP, Ronald Reagan is still dead.

Dick Cheney is too, but he never let that stop him from getting his War on.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

I came over here from Krugman's blog a few weeks ago and was so relieved to discover that other people had concerns about Obama similar to mine. I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of the dKos candidate diaries, so I've purposely missed a lot of the invective there; but I have to say that by far the meanest comments I've run into on this site have come from a Fellow from this very Building. (He'll probably add a nasty retort in a bit.) Way to get along...

At any rate, vastleft, I've really appreciated your posts. It's clear to me that you care a lot and are not conducting a smear campaign. And just so you know, I've sent other people here who understand. I hope you'll continue to call it as you see it!

Wait Anon Cow doesn't sound better when not fully spelled out, does it? Sorry, I'll stick with AC.

Your comment-"You omnisciently know that McCain is going to be the Republican candidate. You also know that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, she will have a 1/3 chance of winning the election, and if Obama is the nominee, he’ll have a 2/3 chance of winning the election."

That's the kind of speculation that makes no sense. Is that based on anything beyond a thought experiment? Or am I missing something?

Oh, Dear God. Do NOT stop, VL. I'll go insane. There are about 2 lefty blogs left which haven't drunk the Okoolaid, and yours is one of them. (And considering that chicago dyke crossposts at one of them, I guess the actual count is 1. Eep.)

You're being worked over by the cult, and while it can be trying, keep it together. More posts like this one are going to be needed between now and the convention, because once the Anointed One gets the Democratic nod, it'll be time for him to move even further to the right (oh, I'm sorry.. "center") than he already is. And where he is now is what's got me honestly thinking about not voting in November.

I've never faulted the man for his crazy fan base, but his CFB is what prompted me to really start listening to what he has to say that's *inspiring* everybody, and there's simply no there there. And there will be even less of it after the convention, by necessity and tradition.

I'll gladly sublimate my pet issues and vote for Any Democrat - if they're actually a liberal.

When did Corrente turn into The Corner?