Obama is going to believe that the behavior isn't really what we say it is, but half of us (at least) have to know better than this.

Look, this is an important issue and deal, if Hillary gets the presumptive nomination in or out of Pennsylvania, this is not going to be good, for any of us.

More after jump.

I was chatting with a Hillary-supporting friend earlier who, like Hillary's staff, backers, and Hillary herself, can't keep complaining about the media coverage being (allegedly) more negative against Hillary than against Obama.  "It's not fair," complained my friend.  "There should be some rule that the network news has to run equal numbers of positive and negative stories for each candidate!"

This is one of the worst problems to come out of the modern cable news debate and news programs: the ludicrous notion that being "fair" means giving both sides of an issue equal say, equal time, and equal respect, regardless of whether one side is, through research and anaylsis, objectively superior to the other.  It is not "fair and balanced" to just let both sides have their say unchecked -- the truth is not neutral between two opposing positions.

Hey all --

It looks like csquared's diary about Monique Davis ( http://www.dailykos.com/... ) is reaching 1,000 comments (which means we won't be able to continue the discussion for much longer), and I don't think csquared is still logged in to create an overflow, so if anyone still wants to chat or debate on these issues, feel free to post here instead!  :)

Okay, I've seen a lot of crap out of the Clinton campaign in recent months, from subtle race-baiting to insensitive comments to flat-out racial prejudice unsuitable for any Democratic candidate.  But this recent "he can't win" campaign is a new low point, and the ad below is over-the-top.  Is this really her only strategy left for winning the remaining states???  Unbelievable.

For the life of me, what Barack was afraid of in Michigan I will never understand.

Hillary Clinton, in the Washington Post, again repeated and detailed this lie that Obama blocked a revote in Michigan.  Nearly all news sources have been repeating this narrative verbatim, despite the fact that it has never been true.  

Please, Obama, give a public speech on this issue.  Explain your position and call her out on this lie, and specifically call out those in the media who are continually complicit in pushing this lie.

...and yet we're still talking about Rezko, apparently the only person ever tangentially connected to Obama (not counting his occasionally over-the-top preacher) being charged with corruption?  Really??

Yes, I know Obama wants to run a positive campaign, but at some point, if Clinton and/or her MSM buddies bring up Rezko again (in the next debate, if there is one?), can Obama please take the proverbial gloves off and simply list a couple dozen names of indicted and/or imprisioned ultra-corrupt Clinton donors?  

Clinton's campaign continues to hammer this absurd notion that every time Barack Obama loses a primary contest to Clinton, that means McCain would probably beat Obama in that state come November.  

Why??  This makes no sense at all.  It is an intentionally misleading non sequitur.  And if it was true, wouldn't therefore the reverse of it also be true -- that every state Clinton lost to Obama would somehow magically go for McCain as well?  (Cause if that's the case, she'd lose in an electoral landslide.)  

Either way, it's historical nonsense.

Hey all!

Much like my little Nicholson parody video the other day (which has now had over 145,000 views on Youtube -- eek!), I must admit I had no idea how much my little four-panel graphic would be used and shared not only on this site, but as of now, many others.

Hey all!  Made this for you guys earlier today.  Enjoy!  :)

Every year around this time, I am quite conscious and appreciative of the media's attention on African-American history.  (I'm White, myself, but am in a multi-racial family and grew up in a Black community.)  We hear soaring historical speeches from civil rights leaders, watch interviews with friends and family of black pioneers who have passed on, read lengthy excerpts from W.E.B. Du Bois and other visionaries, and take a little notice of the contributions from those who, without whom, there would have been no road paved for the genius of their successors.

This February, however, I totally forgot it was Black History Month, until I happened to be chatting with a friend of mine who works for our largest newspaper here.  The conversation went something (heavily paraphrased from memory) along the lines of:

I posted a few polls near the end of last year which generally found about 25-30% of Kossacks saying they won't vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she's the nominee.  Whether those who claim that position are all going to follow through is, of course, up for debate, but I've always tried to preface the polls with "no, really -- don't exaggerate, it's an anonymous poll, just click the true answer".  

I realize, however, that I've never seen a well-clicked poll that asked the question not only of Hillary Clinton, but of Barack Obama as well (and which broke down the probs versus defs, which is significant.)

I have been an active member of this site for four years or so, and in that time, I've always been able to remain civil, promote discussion, ask controversial questions without offending, use my TU status for good instead of evil, and make (or at least attempt to make) a daily substantive contribution to the community.

Last night, after perhaps too many glasses of wine and waaaay too much anger building inside me as I was reading another 100 or so articles on Hillary Clinton, something rubbed me the wrong way in an upthread posting, and I snapped.

In early December, I wrote this diary detailing my strategy in voting for Ron Paul in Michigan.  I reasoned that, because Michigan's primary is open (but only the Republican side will count, after The Party(tm) stripped the Democratic side), I have the choice of either (1) not voting, (2) voting in a worthless Democratic primary, or (3) voting in a Republican primary where I could make a difference in who our opponent will be in 2008.  And voting for Ron Paul would piss off the Republican Party the most, because the more money he earns, and the more primary votes he wins, the more the Republicans have to spend out of their (weak) war chest to shut him up, counter his ads, and treat him seriously.  Helping Republicans lose money is a very valuable tool this election, and would certainly be a better strategy than staying home.

However.

Many months ago, I postulated that the DNC's rule that Michigan delegates wouldn't be counted would almost certainly be overturned at the actual convention.  At the time, Hillary was almost certainly going to win 40+ primary contests, and since Michigan wouldn't make any difference, there'd be no harm in going back on the ruling.  

However, I also noted (uneasily) that there was a second possible scenario that would be extraordinarily damaging to our party: if, for some reason, Clinton and Obama split the delegate count, and Michigan's votes would put Clinton over the top, but Obama would stay on top if the Michigan delegate ban held.  Again, at the time, this seemed unlikely with Hillary's "inevitability".  But now... well, there's several possible scenarios that this could mathematically happen.

The problem with 100% single-payer universal health care is that it requires a relatively healthy population, which we are not.  We take pride in our 1,400 calorie thickburgers and driving to the mailbox.  We likely use more prescription drugs per person than any other nation by a factor of five.  You can't compare the per-person costs of universal health care in, say, France, to what it would cost here.

How about something like this:

In a stunning setback for advocates of DailyKos.com's current handling of registration, hidden comments, and troll ratings, more than half of DailyKos regulars want to change the system, according to a recent online poll.  

The poll, "Should DailyKos become invite-only", was posted by longtime Kos fan and diarist "cartwrightdale", and received hundreds of votes from the community.  Opinions ranged from advocating an "invite-only" system, to closing registration entirely until 2009.  

This is a topic that comes up every once in a while, particularly after yet another popular collaborative blog turns to closed registration or invite-only.  It was most recently debated in an unrelated posting, and so I thought I'd ask it as a poll.

Currently, as we all know, Dailykos has an automated and open registration process, which allows individuals with any motivations to register (and, if banned, re-register over and over).  But it's generally thought that the benefits (a large and growing community with relatively diverse backgrounds and ideas) outweigh the pitfalls (having to constantly police trolls, and censor diaries which reflect poorly on the site and party.)