...to the earlier entry on Rep. Renzi. OK, this makes it worse. This guy was under investigation for two years, raided a year ago, obviously protected by the DOJ which fired the USA investigating him, and McCain makes this guy his campaign chair? That's at least a judgment issue.

Though I still think the GOP picked the only candidate with a chance of winning an honest election.

I'm not sure that's a vlid point that the news about McCain being close to this lobbyist had been reported before. I didn't know about it, and though I recall the Keating scandal, I didn't recall much about it, and I'm pretty sure I didn't know much of what was reported. If they had left out the allegation of a non-financial relationship, the article is stronger than you made out.

This is going off on a tangent, but I'm glad you mentioned that conservatives were isolationist before World War II, and in fact they adamantly opposed involved any US involvement until Pearl Harbor. By contrast, it was the left that kept saying fascism and nazism were major threats that needed to be actively opposed. This is not only forgotten generally, but the opposite is assumed as those against bombing someone at every opportunity are denounced as the sort of people who would have said D-Day was too hard and given up. Buckley knew better, but his ideological heirs don't, and actively misinform the public in their pro-war propaganda.

Question to the reporter who asked the question. Don't you have to win once in order to win "again"? Of course, in Bush World, a landslide is defined as "a narrow enough loss that we can steal it".

Caucuses are run by volunteers. I've been one of those volunters, and I'm glad the tension was so much less when Minnesota went. The complaints each side has side like the mistakes of inexperienced people which, in a typical caucus, constitutes just about everybody. Even the varying application of voter ID --- I saw people come into our caucus with the photo ID in hand, obviously not knowing the difference between a caucus and primary, but even if it was a primary, they were misinformed about photo ID being required. Judges out to be better trained, but the fact is they're practically volunteers too and often inexperienced and wrong about some aspects of election law.

So what I'm saying is nothing in this posting sounds like malfeasance to me. Nothing sounds like what the Republicans do every election, and I say that as someone who has been a poll watcher, who believes Bush stole both "wins", and follows election integrity closely. An important aspect of addressing these issues is learning the difference between honest mistakes and real theft.

Republicans have caucuses too, but this year who cares.

Glenn, even though you're right there's been nothing substantial about a Rezko/Obama connection, and it helps for you to address, ultimately Obama is the one who has to swat it down, otherwise the press will ignore counterarguments and debunkings. not that I'm suggesting even an Obama denial will stop the story completely, it will have much more life if Obama isn't seen being out front of the denials. Same with the NAFTA memo, the debunking of which seems likewise to have been ignored by the media and unknown to yesterday's voters. My theory on Clinton's comeback is the NAFTA story hurt Obama seriously, and my concern is that he hits back against only what comes from the right, not on what comes from Clinton or the media. I want to see him go after Clinton for having used the NAFTA story before getting the facts, and so I've heard, using it after the Canadian government denied it.

After hearing Hillary supporters complain caucuses are unfair because her supporters are less likely to show up than Obama supporters, a question comes to mind. If Hillary's supporters can't be bothered to spend a couple hours at a caucus, can they be counted on to spend a few hours knocking on doors in October? That Obama is winning caucuses is not a knock. On the contrary, it's a reason for thinking his supporters are more likely to do the grunt work in the general election that will give our presidential candidate coattails for candidates down the ballot. I'm also thinking the win Obama had in the Texas caucuses raises a question of how many Hillary voters were really Republicans trying to screw up the Democratic primary.

Just to give us a smile, I heard from Thom Hartmann that callers to Rush Limbaugh complained that after doing as he asked and taking a Democratic ballot to vote for Hillary, they were miffed to find they couldn't vote for Republicans in the other races. No one told them that's how primaries work! Primaries have only been around for 100 years, so no reason they should know that.