Yes, Rush Limbaugh is a mostly disagreeable figure, but the fact that no one writing here seems bothered by the presumptive idea that encouraging people to vote tactically is NOT protected speech is frightening.

Why shouldn't Limbaugh be "allowed" to encourage republicans to vote for whoever they feel like, and for whatever reasons they see as fitting? When we vote do we have to justify our internal state, our conscience, to the state?

If I encourage democrats to vote for Ron Paul, for example, should I also be concerned with being prosecuted by the government?

deliberately undermining Obama to set herself up as the favorite for 2012?

Irrespective of the etymology, it sounds like a pretty reasonable hypothesis. First,the economy may well continue in the doldrums 2009-2012, irrespective of who's president. If she faces McCain this November, her platitudes about experience vis-a-viz Obama will make her look foolish because McC's clearly far more experienced, and presently they're equally responsible for the Iraq war in most voters' eyes, having both voted to authorize it in 2002.

But if she faces an incumbent McCain in 2012, it'll be his war, and instead of being more experienced he'll just be a really old guy.

"But we'll have to wait until November to see just how many Americans are paying attention."

You suggest that from the 3 mainstream candidates, at least one represents economic sanity, presumably one or both democrats.

I used to believe it worked that way. But with the "off the books" financing of the Iraq debacle-- and the utter unwillingness of Obama and Hillary Clinton to publicly draw the connection between the war,the weakening dollar, and the ever-upward spiraling of dollar-denominated oil prices, I question whether the democrats represent a substantially more sober answer.

of Sean Wilenz-- don't know what he looks like, but still-- doing a one armed hand stand while balancing twirling sticks on his nose and in his free hand, balancing rotating plates, and two more plates, rotating on his super-pointy loafers, struggling to appear composed.

To me that's the visual equivalent of this exceptionally tendentious, screwy article. The only thing he offers that make sense to me is his criticism of the prejudices built into the caucus system. But the pesky constitution says that the states get to determine how to conduct elections, not academics from tony universities. If you want to end the caucus system(s), just persuade ALL the candidates in 2012 in both parties to boycott all of them-- even Iowa. You know, on principle. Then the state legislatures from Texas and Iowa-- yes, even Iowa-- will act.You know, on principle.

(hey, quit laughing...)

Look: this poll versus that poll versus that other poll, ad nauseum-- nobody really knows which one, Obama or HRC is more electable versus McCain.

In my book all three of them leave a lot to be desired, but I'm hoping that the barely standing skeleton of what the democratic party used to stand for means that it still makes some, perhaps only microscopically detectable, positive difference if you vote for the dem nominee instead of that of the Rapture party.

PS: DLF's title is very droll-- kudos.

not Wilenz-- excuse me.

but an additional thought regarding Michigan and Florida-- I hardly ever hear anybody talking about Michigan and Florida and the possibility of a revote expressing a concern about how those states' voters feel about the question.

Maybe the really high-profile TV pundits(who are mostly NOT from MI or FL) who think a revote's needed should offer to pay the states to do. I mean, if it bugs them so much.

let's throw the democrats overboard and keep the horses.

Hi Joan,

Are you "Shut the Freud Up?" (Just curious, even though I imagine it's pointless to ask...)

While I happen to agree with you that HRC seems to have faced more openly-expressed sexism than Obama has faced openly-expressed racism, it also occurs to me that, regarding the poll you've recently discussed, possibly many of the answers respondents gave were given in the context of Hillary Clinton running this year. Even if the poll didn't mention her specifically and discouraged the respondents to think in terms of this years' race, I imagine many of the negative respondents were responding to Hillary in particular. Do I know this? Of course not, and I'm not sure how they could test for such a bias.

(Of course having said that, I still think that nobody really knows for sure whether HRC or Obama would be stronger in the general election against McCain. As far as I'm concerned far too many pundits who discuss this question are cherry-picking the (often divergent) polls, are being a little impressed with themselves because they get paid to idly mouth off on TV or elsewhere.)