Get over it. For the rest of us, following polling data is an interesting activity. Think about sports fans who read about a particular match-up before game day - dismissing such interest as 'irrelevant to who will actually win' is a bit joyless.

That being said, I am much more interested in polling of the various D-R match-ups than in dem-dem polling. The national D-R polling is what shows Edwards and Obama the clear winners, especially against McCain. If you have no interest in such things, you have no sense of political strategy. I want the strongest democratic candidate against the most likely republican one (McCain), so such polls help me make my decision.

My experience tells me that people with power frequently say "I never said that" or "I never did that" when accused of having said or done something wrong, something they most certainly did say or do. Drives me nuts. It's so nice that when you get powerful enough, there's such a good paper-trail of everything you've done and said that you can't get away with it. No harm in trying, apparently.

Clinton should not be throwing stones when she lives in a house that would make glass look solid in comparison. Rezko? That's one weak lapse of a democratic community organizer in Chicago getting too chummy with a major democratic party contributor in Chicago who works in urban development projects. BFD, really. The Clinton's comparable 'weak lapses' start with Whitewater and end about a dozen lapses later. All minor, in my mind, but easily blown out of proportion, just like the Rezko story.

It started to go down in NY toward the end of Dinkens' administration, partly do to his social policies, but largely due to the national let-up in the crack epidemic. Drops in crime in NY mirrored that which occured in most metropolitan areas at the same time. The timing allowed Giuliani to take credit for it.

I especially find it interesting when certain people use scare-quotes for 'Palestinians' (as if they don't really exist) when Israel's misdeeds are the topic, but cry 'poor oppressed Palestinians' when it's Egypt's turn for accusations.

I don't think Gaza can become another singapore, though it's nice to imagine. It's too ruined a corner of the world, too many people with no capital, no industry, and no infrastructure. Even in a two-state future, Gaza will probably be left out.

Then it would be more like a sperm-based super power. "Sperm on! Sperm away!" And there could be fun changes of mind, like "No, no sperm off! Abort mission! Repeat, abort mission!"

But I don't think any two of them would make a good ticket. All of them are short-term senators. Each of them would need to pick someone quite distinct as a running-mate - a Richardson, or a Wesley Clark. As others have said, Edwards would be able to do much more as an AG.

Not just because both Clinton and Obama are good candidates to choose from (though I do think one is far better than the other), but because the importance of his endorsement could either go way up over time, or way down. If Clinton or Obama become the clear un-reachable front-runner after super Tuesday, his potential endorsement will lose value, which therefore would be maximum right about now. If they continue to be neck-and-next, though, they will continue courting him and he can hold out for the best offer (VP, AG, ...).

She's actually competing for 50% of the vote, and hoping that's enough. Yeah, let's rally around that hope.

SobeOne is making CLINTON disliked by proxy. Way to be helpful.

I'm about to open my wallet for some more. I like both candidates, and I'm putting signs for both Clinton and Obama in my yard (because I'm weird that way), but he has the best chance of beating McCain.

I'm curious about why Clinton and Obama supporters hate each other so much on these comment boards. I don't recall the same antipathy 4 years ago between supporters of Edwards, Kerry, and Dean. Is it because the stakes are higher? That both sides are absolutely sure the other side will lose against the republicans? I like Obama a lot, and Clinton a little less so. My partner is the other way around. We don't sweat it too much (though we are each sure the other is wrong).

But as Pluibus said, it beats this:

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his [McCain's] name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."

1) A heavy-handed critique of Clinton's health care plan (though she and Edwards have been similarly heavy-handed in their criticism of Obama's plan in the past).

2) Comparing the ad to a nazi march.

Isn't it clear which of those two things is worse?

You don't need to flip a coin for that. The Republican nominee will have an "R" by his name, and next to it will be the name of Clinton or Obama, and be marked by a "D." That's the one you vote for.

I get so confused.

And the tea-leaves scream: "you will have no power in the next senate - your only shot at future power is as a VP." And the tea-leaves whishper under their breath, "but that's a very long shot."

WTF, people? We're a step away from "didn't she kill Vince Foster?" and "He's a muslim terrorist mole!"

I'm a strong Obama supporter, but Walsh's piece was fine, as a discussion of recent California politics. Salon is not a news site - it is a site for opinion about the news. I don't care that Walsh tilts so heavily toward Clinton, as there are other writers who clearly tilt toward Obama (as they should!).

It's clear that Obama's plan is best. Oprah's loaded.

:)