Here are the polling that is referred to:

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1433

I don't have any particular sympathies for either the kid or the wife. But I sure feel sorry for the husband. That damned woman must be hell to live with 365 days a year. That man needs a divorce.

Ya'll need to pay this poor reporters expenses for heading up to Vermont, and pay the guy a decent amount for his time and trouble. He's surely doing the Lord's work. But you don't have to publish a non-story just to justify the fact that you paid him. Some times you go to the well and the well is empty. It's just a fact of life.

Well, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. I certainly share you concern that she is not electable because she alienates swing voters (although I do worry about that with Barack, albeit to a lesser extent). And she is far more corporate friendly than I would prefer, the most corporate friendly of the three main candidates.

But I am curious as to why you are so ambivalent about her as to not being willing to hold your nose and vote for her as I will. I don't know your political affiliation, but I am a Democrat for ideological reasons. I think that my party's solutions to the issues are superior solutions than the other side's. Even with a flawed leader who is on the wrong side of the ideological spectrum within my party, I figure that I'm better off voting for her than voting Republican or not voting at all (effectively voting Republican).

Tell me in detail, if you would, why you not vote? I'm sincerely interested so I can begin to understand those who would not vote for her in any circumstance so that if she is the nominee I can figure out what to do to help my party win in November.

Why are you so exercised by this, pray tell? This is what at least half of the Republican party believes in. He's not outside the mainstream of his party, he's right in the big middle of it. This is what the Republican American Taliban wants -- a theocracy based on their narrow (mis)interpretation of Christian scripture. I say bring it on.

Let's have this battle and let's have it in as big and in as public a way as possible. If the majority of the American people are with them, I'd just as soon know now so I can pack my happy ass up and leave. But if the majority of the American people are not with them -- and I suspect that they are not -- let's let them know is no uncertain terms that this is still a secular government of tolerance that welcomes the religious and the non religious alike.

But why be horrified and why run from the fight? Let's embrace Rev. Huckabee's time in the limelight and welcome this battle for hearts and minds with open arms.

You remind me of the knuckleheads who said that there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore. Do you think Al Gore would have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court?

I'm not fan of HRC, but appointing judges is the single most important function of a President, and no appointees are more important that appointees to the Supreme Court. I can assure you that Hillary's appointee and McCain's appointees will not be at all similar. With five nut jobs on the Court, and our justices the ones who are next in line (by age, at least) to retire or die, we cannot afford any Republican, no matter how moderate.

I see how Blaisdell could be a problem, although I certainly see ways around it. (See argument below). But I don't see how the Contracts clause of the Constitution being applicable to States makes any difference. I presume, not having seen a detailed proposal, that HRC is suggesting a five year freeze by mandate of Federal law, not State law.

But just as Blaisedell may be a problem for any solution -- though I would argue, not a big one -- I think that Contracts Clause jurisprudence is a bigger hurdle. Look at Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983). Three part test. One, State must significantly impair the contract. Two, State must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem. And three, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. Rather similar to the equal protection rational basis test. Sounds kind of like a weak argument to me.

As to the Blaisedell problem, two points. First, it could be invoked against a Contracts claim just as easily as against a Takings claim. In fact, Blaisedell was a contracts claim, wasn't it? You could well argue that suspending the contract was a necessary step to keeping public order, but the government compensating the victim of the taking would in no way undermine the peacekeeping effect of the suspension.

Second, you would simply have to point to the underlying fact that this is a very different climate then the depression. There are not masses unemployed and starving. There truly may have been an argument for keeping the peace at the time of Blaisedell, but there is none now. Plus, as much as I'm not a fan of the make up of today's Court, I think that they would 1) be more favorably inclined toward the takings argument, and less favorably inclined to the Blaisedell argument.

Let's put it this way. I'd take the Fifth Amendment takings case of a large mortgage holder on a contingent fee!!