Spot on. People can vote for Hillary because they agree with her politics, but it's nuts to just vote for her because you think she's the one most likely to beat the republican nominee. The latest polling data paints the opposite picture, with Edwards performing the strongest, then Obama, and then Clinton. I don't agree with most of her politics, but I would vote for her if I thought she had the strongest shot at winning the presidency. But combining her politics with her national unpopularity, and I don't see any reason to support her.

Enough with the shaggy dog stories.

:)

Is he saying that those who opposed his hyserical warnings about the 'war on Christmas' are to blame for what Huckabee is doing? If not, WFT is he saying??? Where I live in the midwest there was never a let-up in the all-christmas-all-the-time season. Carols in the public-school concert (with repeated references to our lord), Christmas trees on public-university grounds. The only change recently has been an all-out "War on Happy Holidays."

In the republican race, they seem to be competing for last place. Right now, all the campaigns seem to be saying "Look at me! I'm the worst one of the lot!" It's awfully fun to watch.

the amazing thing is Bush's lack of curiosity about what should be the most interesting topic to people in his business - politics. Can you imagine such important events taking place within your particular vocational world and not being curious about it? But no - he really doesn't think about anything, or do much of anything. The irony of his administration has been how hard it has worked to gain power, and then biked, napped, and whittled.

"In 2008, Rudy Giuliani IS 9/11."

In this case, the fact that the press might do more positive stories about Obama than Clinton might simple reflect the fact that.....there are more positive stories to be told about Obama than Clinton. Shocker, that. Has anyone else noted the number of 'first time posters' today on Salon attacking Obama and praising Clinton to the skies? Hmm.

I mean, they are both scary in their own ways, and there is some lovely schadenfreude in seeing Giuliani's decline, but he would have been more beatable than McCain in November. Although I'm generally an Obama supporter, I think Clinton might to better against McCain, who would do more with Obama's 'experience' issue than Giuliani can.

I'm not bothered by the dust-up. Primaries should force the candidates to deal with the worst stuff they'll have to deal with later. It may be a minor matter, but I'm glad both sides are doing what they're doing. Clinton should be prodding at Obama's weak points - if nominated, hopefully she'll continue to do that with the Republican candidate. Obama should be fighting back with all he's got, which he's doing. I much prefer his offense-is-the-best-defense strategy to Kerry and Gore's roll-over-play-dead responses when criticized. The democratic candidate has to be a fighter.

Gimme gimme gimme! The hate for apple products leaves me befuddled. You look at this thing (good tour of it on apple.com) and it's clearly years ahead of any other laptop - yet everyone's reactions is 'yawn - style over substance again. How dare apple create a product unlike anything else! They should get in line and imitate everyone else!' You might hate it, but in three years all notebooks will look and act like it.

on the Onion's AV club right now, in The Hater's blog. It's a hoot.

And stone all the adulterers at the next GOP presidential debate?

It depresses me when they give me a half-cup of butter with my basket of bread, and I leave it behind. At least use it to cook with or something.

I think there are a lot of important points being made here, some of which Shapiro missed. If Clinton's only strength is 'experience,' she's in trouble against McCain. You want someone whose strength matches an opponent's weakness (like Obama-hope vs. Giuliani-fear, or Edwards-populism vs. Romney-the-autocrat). I see Clinton only doing well against Huckabee (she has the problem of being disliked by the right for being a leftie, and disliked by the left for being right-wing - that's a handicap almost impossible to overcome). The three races I would most like to see: Obama-Giuliani, Edwards-Romney, Clinton-Huckabee. One I would least like to see: Clinton-McCain.

The only person, Republican or Democrat, who never shows up in that second column? Obama. Yep, sure seems unelectable to me.

I kinda want him to win the nomination, because he seems to be the weakest of the bunch, the one most likely to lose against democrat-to-be-named-later. But is that really a risk worth taking? Despite the obviousness of his great faults, he might WIN, for jeebus sake.

1) it's worse to point out that one side is trying to disenfranchise voters than it is to actually try to disenfranchise voters;

2) it's wrong to point out the obvious truth that Reagan was a master politician, or attempt to appeal to voters using the same techniques he used: vowing to take the country in a new direction, promising people their lives could be better. How ridiculous of Obama.

Good thing the Irish never created ethnic enclaves when they got to the US, or else we might still be celebrating their holidays and drinking in their bars. Ditto the Polish and their weird sausages. And the Italians, who wouldn't think of creating "Little Italies" in eastern cities. People just need to learn to come here and act like Americans!

Anyhoo, Poggioli has always bothered me. Last year she did a series about Europe, going country to country deriding whoever the 'backwards' local leftist party was and extolling the virtues of every 'modern' pro-American, pro-global-capitalism politician she could find.

Obama is a positive, uniting politician.

Gee, I wonder which one of them would be more likely to win a national election?