It's always risky to put up one's anecdotal evidence against "scientific" polling, but while reading this I kept thinking of two things:

o) Hasn't this campaign showed us how basically useless polls are in predicting outcomes? Before the New Hampshire primary, Obama was blowing Hillary out; then she won. Before the Wisconsin primary, it was supposed to be close, and then Obama blew Hillary out. Haven't we learned that in a race between a woman and a black man, our former models are simply inadequate, or just plain wrong?

o) I haven't talked to a single person--not one--who wants Hillary to stay in the race. Not one. With friends in Maryland, California, Oregon, and Texas, they all want the race to be over.

So before we go jumping up and down about these poll results, let's remember what previous poll results have done for us in this campaign (ans.: bupkiss), and take a deep breath.

I kept thinking of two things while reading about this:

o) No self-respecting nerd techno-gypsy (and our name is legion) would have accepted that. A nerd would have taken one look in the door, said "No way," and then scouted around somewhere else for an outlet and WiFi connection. Even if he or she had to go to the Starbucks across the street.

o) How pathetic is it that none of these reporters had the modicum of self-respect and technical ability to allow them to say, "Nope, not doing that" and scout around a bit for a better location? Are they so lame that they have to accept everything from the goodness of the campaign's heart?

The last time something like this happened to a group I was with, after sighting the pathetic "conference room" we were offered, we commandeered a couple of outlets, chairs and tables in the hotel lobby. At which point, miraculously, another conference room became available.

When nerds have more spine than the supposedly-tough press corps, something's seriously wrong.

I admit that I have very mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, Glenn is of course right, and the American press approaches those in power on bended knee far too often. The results of this are clear to see, with the spectaculary lame press coverage of the Bush Administration, and the enabling of the official B.S. for public consumption.

On the other hand, is it unreasonable to suppose that people might avoid a business like politics if they can expect that their careers can be ended by one careless slip of the tongue? Or is it unreasonable to think that the reason so many politicians speak in brainless, talking-points-based platitudes--which reporters profess to hate--is because they know that wandering off those talking points opens them up to this kind of feeding frenzy? Haven't we seen how the Bush Administration punishes reporters who have the temerity to ask him hard questions by making sure they never get called on again? Is it unreasonable to think that many other powerful politicians do the same thing?

(And before anyone points out the obvious--"If everyone asked hard questions, then that wouldn't be possible!"--let me note that there is no way on God's green Earth that every reporter is going to get on board with being tough. And until that Utopian day, the powerful will avoid the tough reporters and go to the easy ones.)

I don't know the answer, honestly. But I do know that neither extreme is palatable. Where in the middle is the right place to meet? I have no idea.

So let me make sure I have the basics here: federal wiretaps--which we are constantly assured are used to "catch terrorists"--are used to nab somebody for a victimless crime that is based on a law passed in 1910 to protect citizens against "white slavery."

Is it just me, or are our priorities seriously out of whack? Bush et. alia are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people during a war based on lies, yet he is still in office. Spitzer spent money to get laid. And it's Spitzer who is going to resign?

If they want to prosecute, they should charge "Kristen" with usury for her prices.

I mean, seriously? Aside from New Yorkers? Suicide bombers in Aghanistan, and the press is in full feeding frenzy on a story about a guy paying to get laid? Please.

This is a digression, I admit, but the quote from McCain that Glenn posted kind of puts another dent in Hillary Clinton's assertion that the AUMF was primarily for the purposes of diplomacy, and not military action. If McCain was talking about this the month before the AUMF was passed, it doesn't seem credible that Sen. Clinton believed it was all about diplomacy.

So the civil war has commenced, with Shi'ite internecine fighting in Basra which is rapidly spreading elsewhere. The U.S. forces are providing "support," i.e. we have picked one side and are backing them. We are also acting as referees in this conflict, as well as acting as human targets ourselves.

I see a couple of scenarios: the "Iraqi" forces--i.e. al Maliki's side--win, marginalizing al Sadr and making al Maliki the defacto strongman of Iraq (preparatory to facing off against the Sunnis and/or Kurds, one assumes). This outcome leading to civil war with the Sunnis seems likely.

Or al Maliki's forces lose, further weakening his government and encouraging al Sadr's folks to continue their "resistance" (and giving the high sign that it's okay for the Sunnis and/or Kurds to make a push). This outcome also seems to lead to wider civil war.

(And we've armed all sides in the conflict! Yay, us!)

So that's our choice, it looks like. Can someone remind me why we're there, again? And how this is being spun as a "positive moment" by our Fearless Leader?