It certainly wasn't because I liked Rick Lazio.  I was every bit as liberal in 2000 as I am today.  I didn't like the idea of voting for a Republican, nor contributing at all to the neo-con movement that was approaching full steam back then.  

So, why did I vote for Rick Lazio in 2000?  Solely to stop Hillary in her tracks in her transparent carpetbagging chess moves toward the presidency.  Unfortunately, she picked the right state to move to...one that almost certainly would vote for her...and my preventative measures failed.  So here we are today.  Hillary for President 2008.

As much as I have issues with Scott McClellan's delay in telling the truth about the Bush administration, there is one core concept he brings up that hits the nail right on the head for me.  That is the concept of a permanent campaign...one that we can all tell today Hillary is every bit as guilty of as the Bush Administration.  Hillary's permanent campaign used New York as a stepping stone...and as a result, New York (through Hillary) voted to authorize the war in Iraq because Hillary was hedging her bets for the Presidency.

I just heard Chuck Todd mention Washington was not counted in the popular vote because they had a caucus which did not report popular vote results.

Please remember Washington state had a primary AND a caucus, similar to Texas.  Barack Obama won the primary (for which few if any delegates were assigned) 51-46%, or 354,111 to 315,740 in popular vote according to msnbc's own election results site.

Strangely, navigating to the 2008 primary results from Washington's Sec of State website directs you to the wrong election's results.  (Click on 2008 Primary results and you end up getting 2007 General results).    

Obama won the caucus by a more substantial 2-to-1 margin...the results are right there on msnbc's website as well.

There is no reason why at least Washington's primary should not be counted for the popular vote tally...especially if it is counted for Texas.

Why, again, does this even matter anyway?  Why don't we just throw the whole Primary process out the window to figure out something more favorable for Hillary?

Ok, I know even talking about Hillary at this point could be considered beating a dead horse.  But I couldn't help but try to share this wonderful analysis done today by Poblano at fivethirtyeight.com.  

Poblano attempts to figure out who's attacking who more often, using scientific means rather than spin.  He essentially counted the number of Press Releases by a candidate which were headlined with another candidate's name, assuming that is an attack.  You don't see the McCain campaign singing the praises of Obama too often, so this methodology sounds good to me!  The results speak for themselves...

Hey Barack!  Hey Hillary!!  Want a sure-fire way to win some votes this election season?  Be the first one to come out swinging against the huge, faceless Credit Card Companies!!!  This is an as-of-yet untapped resource of voter frustration, as many people I know are getting screwed over time and time again by them.  It's also a great wedge issue between big corporate Republicans and hardworking Americans.  

Please pardon my rant here.  I just got home from a midnight shift, and feel like I need to blow off a little steam to my 100,000 closest friends before I go to bed.

But Hello!!!  I can't believe I'm not hearing more about this issue.  Just like Big Oil, this is a massive industry that is profiting off the hard times of everyday Americans.  Even worse than Big Oil, they are shamelessly changing terms of agreement...unilaterally increasing interest rates, increasing monthly payments, assessing fees...taking money out of the housing market; taking money out of our economy.

Imagine an additional 2% or 3% sales tax on everything you purchase.  Instead of going to roads, schools, or even our military boondoggles, this tax would go directly to the pockets of multinational companies.  How do you think this tax would poll on the latest Gallup survey?  

Well, Americans vote with their wallets every day. Check your ATM card.  Does it have a VISA or MasterCard logo on it?  Chances are, if your bank is one of the larger ones, it probably does.  This logo means that whenever you purchase anything with your card...be it a latte, a round of beers, or a tank of gas...VISA or MasterCard is probably taking 2-3% off the top of the sale.  This money doesn't go to your favorite store or coffee shop...it goes to the credit card companies.  

Why should we care?!?  How about these apples... These same credit card companies are engaged in a vicious campaign against Americans who are trying to manage their debt on revolving credit cards.  Why should we sponsor this behavior with our everyday purchases?  That's why I've decided to do my part by using cash to pay for my stuff, whenever possible.

Are Democrats really going to subscribe to another American Idol election?  I think Tuesday may tell us a lot about the answer to that question.

Absorbing the events of the past week or two ("bitter" wars, the High School Senior Class President debate on ABC, and the ensuing punditry), it sort of dawned on me that despite all the talk about this general election finally being the one about the ISSUES, it really won't be.  Nope, we can expect the 2008 General Election to be yet another beauty pageant.  Forget about the 100-200 million people in this country who are hurting right now.

Charles Gibson and George Clintonopolos' questions during the ABC debate just made me shake my head in disgust.  Not because I felt they were unfair to Obama, but because it showed me what we can expect the focus to be during the general election.  It brought back foul memories of Gore's 2000 debate sigh issue, and the 2004 Kerry/Edwards gaffes on the Cheney Lesbian Daughter issue.  Did either have real bearing on how Gore or Kerry would serve our nation as President?  Of course not.  But arguably, I think those two moments were the turning points of those elections.

Another case of a member of Mr. Clinton's entourage questioning Mrs. Clinton's credibility:

Former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig continued to take aim at Hillary Clinton's foreign policy claims Friday, telling the National Journal that the former first lady has "grossly exaggerated the nature of her experience."

If I were smart enough to be running Obama's campaign, I would truly go for the jugular here.  Hillary has spent months padding her foreign policy resume, and no one has dared seriously question her about it.  That is, until now.  Greg Craig's comments are spot on.  Hillary is obviously embellishing on her qualifications.  I understand that Hillary's experience as First Lady has probably given her a little bit more experience in international hospitality and ettiquette than Obama.  But the way Hillary talks it up...you would think she was Secretary of State or something.

Perhaps I'm catching on later than most, but today it dawned on me that Hillary is running a Republican campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Every time I hear Hillary speak, I can't help but feel like I'm being manipulated.  I understand that to a certain extent, it's a politician's job to sway people's ideas...at least to the point where they can feel reasonable in voting for them.  But Hillary insults the intelligence of American, hanging carrots in front of us and the media...hoping we will collectively take the bait.  When one rumor of scandal (and I emphasize RUMOR) fails to catch attention, she moves on to another flavor.  JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS.  I think we all need to step back and ponder for a second, regardless of who we're supporting, who will be more effective at running a Karl Rove Republican-style general election campaign?  A Democratic Candidate or A Republican Candidate?  Hmm...