This WSJ poll was so poorly designed that any reputable statistician would simply throw it out. However, here's another poll that's pretty interesting - re conservatives & independents who will vote McCain if their preferred Demo candidate doesn't win the nomination (Clinton comes out way ahead on this one):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105742/Democratic-Groups-Most-Risk-Deserting.aspx

You say: "The more rightward a Democrat goes to coddle the idjit vote, the worse they do in the GE. Fuck 'em, cut them loose"

You've got this exactly backwards and your concluding sentiment is exactly the sort of elitist nonsense which causes Democrats to lose election after election after election.

A close friend who's a statistician remarked earlier today that the WSJ poll looks pretty contrived. Whereas she believes the mechanics of the Gallup polls look pretty sound.

Just how much does much does Obama really care about the lunch bucket crowd, the people at the heart of Edwards's strongest social concerns? Well, enough to lie big-time in Ohio, apparently:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQ5YmQ0NDhiNjliOWFhODU4N2U2MjhiZWQ1MTE4NDg=

You say: "Were it not for the media incorrectly calling Texas a Hillary win (to keep the race and ratings going)..."

Hillary DID win the popular vote in Texas, so how were the media incorrect? The delegate count is a whole 'nother matter, but a completely screwed up one which clearly needs to be eliminated. I'll be attending our county delegate convention this Saturday as an alternate for Clinton, and I can tell you that practically no one here understands the ground rules - even those provided with the requisite information.

Last night, we had two captains from other precincts sit in on our strategy meeting, because handouts for Clinton precinct leaders were intentionally disappeared by the local Obama people. The games started on voting day with caucus sign-in sheets being grabbed and filled out long before the polls closed (a big no no, and another Obama ploy). Many voters were allowed to sign in for the nighttime caucuses without showing any proof of having voted earlier that day at a particular precinct (supposedly a strict requirement). Caucus goers on election night can declare for Hillary, attend subsequent precinct meetings organized for her to gain inside information, then show up at the county convention as Obama supporters. Because of their larger numbers at caucus time, this will almost undoubtedly happen.

Bottom line: the caucus affair in TX is little more than a Darwinian sham and it's souring a whole lot of voters here on the entire process. It's absolutely insane.

And the rest of the old boy's club can go to hell. Every pronouncement such as Leahy's is simply further angering women who support Clinton and causing them to dig in deeper and deeper against Obama. With good reason, one might add.

Re lies about Obama's record: when one's record is so obscure and contradictory, it's probably easy to make comments about it which will be interpreted by some as lies. Reading the following is pretty instructive (and yet one more Obama contradiction the MSM will likely never cover):

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/judicial-watch-obama-intended-to-leave-no-paper-trail-2008-03-26.html

You say: "ku klux kate - the hatemonger in drag starts her Friday quoting reich wing sources. Dixiecrat dumptruck with one line of thought only: no darkies in the white house, unless dey be sweepin' up or servin' mint juleps. Miz Hill'ry, I don't know nothin' about birthin' no babies. Cracker."

And I say: You are precisely the sort of Obama fan who makes some of us more than a little disturbed by the prospect of an Obama win. If you are the type of voter your candidate attracts, we should be very, very afraid. You are being replicated all over the Internet, spewing hatred and slurs in a way that's every bit as nasty as any bile that ever issued from the far right.

You won't see on salon.com, though it's from the same Gallup touted in the headline and it's all of 24 hours old. These are the numbers that count among those who haven't completely lost all perspective:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105742/Democratic-Groups-Most-Risk-Deserting.aspx

You say: "And who is their [the Repub. right's] candidate of choice? Obama of course. Shouldn't someone be asking why instead of running with the lemmings for the cliff? The right has more at stake then just losing the White House: there are legal matters to be considered and some people could end up doing major time. Their cunning is the cunning of desperation. Only Obama and Methuselah McCain can save them. Looking down on all this like an alien from outerspace I see the blind leading the blind."

Your eyesight is far, far better than that of the average armchair analyst in this ungodly rerun season of "The Devil Wears Press Passes." You've squarely nailed the current situation right on its ugly head. So here are the stars which salon.com will never, ever award you: ***************************************. (Sorry they aren't in some nice, bright color)

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence out there (and some more than anecdotal) that plenty of Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama when the game started taking off. The NYTimes covered this story at the time of the Texas primary. At any rate, don't you find it the least bit strange that so many conservative members of the commentariat have taken to all but gushing over Obama, the man cited as most liberal senator of 2007? If this doesn't raise one hell of a lot of red flags, I don't know what should.

And now I suppose I should sign off as the double agent I really am (snark - but certainly not aimed at you).

It's Friday night - surely there must a cabal somewhere you could attend? And take your slime slinging buddies with you.