It's common belief on the liberal side that people vote on God, gays, and guns because they let themselves get bamboozled and don't think about bigger issues. Obama seems to be saying that people do care about those issues, but believe nothing will be done by whichever party wins, so they worry about what they can better affect. Maybe he phrased something awkwardly, but he's right. It's that sort of deep thinking that makes me an Obama supporter. I like that he challenged conventional thinking in a persuasive way. Just like his "more perfect union" speech to respond to the Wright controversy, he seems able to turn a problem into an opportunity. Like another letter writer, I appreciate that he talks to the public like we're capable of understanding a moderately complex idea.

I forget who said this, but some wise person said, "It's hard to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it." Given how environmental issues eventually boil down to almost all scientists on one side, and a few funded by the polluting industry on the other, I would say the source of funding matters a lot. This paper versus plastic bag issue is still unclear but once it's clear, if it comes down against plastic bags, watch for ACSH to still defend them.

Meanwhile, bring your own bags. Save a tree or landfill space.

I can't answer that question for everyone, but for myself, I will vote for Clinton in the general election. I may have to hold my nose while I vote and maybe I'll leave the voting booth wanting a shower, but to avoid another Republican presidency, it's worth it. That attitude is all I'm asking of Clinton supporters if Obama's the candidate. Feel free to spend the day after the election seeking an intraparty challenger to Obama's reelection, but don't let another Republican presidency happen.

Maybe Obama is right, and Jon Stewart should run the next debate. No stupid questions, and no one gets away with anything.

I'm listening to Clinton's victory and she just said the tide is turning. No it isn't. She led by 20 points a month ago, and she needed that big a win to have a realistic hope. She's not even close. She needs a massive 65-70% win the rest of the way. Seriously, does anyone think she'll get that? She looks close in delegates until you look at the math. Given how few states are left and how few delegates they have, she's pretty much hoping a meteor lands on Obama. What good is she doing at this point?

I'd think a news junkie like me would have known about this special election and maybe even heard about a poll or two. So why did it fall by the wayside, even in liberal media (real liberal media, not mainstream media) like Salon? I probably know hte answer: it got ignored in the obsession with the presidential campaign. In fact, that's a good guess whenever we wonder why we didn't hear more about issue x.

I don't know for sure that the focus liberal media brought to Democratic challengers in 2006 was a big factor in those elections, but is sure didn't hurt. Additional focus on congressional elections couldn't hurt.

Count me another endorsement for the 50-state strategy.

One of the minor things that has bugged me about the Clinton campaign is the attitude that only certain states count. This big state/swing state attitude has been a consistent loser. Dean was right about his 50 state strategy, and it looks like Obama buys into it. It's part of why Obama can actually build the party rather than just squeek into office with a dinky majority and no mandate in Congress. Why are some Democrats conceding any states already? It's only April!

Obama campaign, please tell new registrants to follow up and make sure they get their confirmation card or whatever their state does. Tell them to contact the right office for confirmation they got registered. It looks like millions of would-be voters will show up at the polls on election day (and it may have been happening already in the primary) only to find that registrations from Democratic precincts were mysteriously not included on the rolls. Or maybe tell them to register as Republicans so they actually get on the rolls.

doesn't anyone notice another aspect to this story? The GOP is having to pull out all its dirty tricks and spend a bunch of money to hang on to a safe GOP seat in Mississippi in a special election. Long held GOP seat --- Mississippi --- special election --- three things that in the past indicated the GOP could walk through this campaign and expect to win. Maybe the way to respond to this is to point out how bad things are for the Republicans when they have to resort to this.

Does anyone really expect Bush to abide by the May 15 deadline? They'll let it pass, and when the judge asks why the delay, they'll ask for more time to explain the delay, and when that time passes, they'll have some new insane legal argument which will take time to rule on...

What struck me about the "arugula" line wasn't how dumb it is, but they're saying this to themselves in an internal presentation. They're not saying this on Fox News or the talking points, but to reassure themselves. If they have a disaster at the polls in November, this will have been a predictive moment, much like Rove's "I have THE math" moment.