That might explain the discrepancy, but only on one condition. If the respondents had to somehow prove that the random series of characters and numbers they were telling the researcher was truly their password, then forget I said anything. But if they would be able to say "my password? Oh, it's my birthday, 06/31/75" and walk away with their candy, then I'd say that any guy whose ever stood in a bar with a cocktail napkin marveling at the fact that real people actually have "555" phone numbers just like on TV understands this survey just fine.

(sorry if I mangled your handle)

You may well be right. I'm just saying I don't think that's the most interesting part of this, though it's obviously the attention-grabber.

I'm willing to believe the Congressman, given his quick apology, that use of the word "boy" was not intentional. I'm more interested in, as the post correctly points out, whether or not Congressman Davis has somehow revealed classified information.

Yet another example of the party who got themselves elected to protect national security just can't seem to maintain the level of competence and professionalism of a poorly run Dairy Queen.

he'll land on his feet, round about January 21st, 2009 somewhere in Crawford, TX.

KateTex now thinks not only that Obama supporters are a messianic cult, but that David Axelrod now possesses some sort of Jedi mind control that could make Clinton into the heavy.

I think all this begs two questions...first of all, it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, she could fire Bill and start campaigning in a tiara and fake beard at this point and it wouldn't matter.

But the second, and most important, is that the main way we have to judge candidates with no executive experience (read: not governors) is the management of their campaign. Obama has made a couple of mistakes, and he's been taken to task for them. Clinton seems to make another mistake every third day, and at a certain point, it's her competence, not how genuine or likable she is that's at issue.

And as someone who sat on the fence for a while before throwing in heavy for Obama, I scarecly can even remember what took me so long.

but no.

One candidate is playing by the established and agreed upon rules, and one candidate is trying to change them. And the candidate that is playing by the rules, is winning by any measure. Period.

Your half-formed analysis is like saying with 5 minutes to go in last night's basketball game "hey, let's say that the free throws counted for 3 points and the 3 point shots counted for 1, ok?" Well, then don't you think both teams would stop trying 3 pointers?

It's a cheap analogy, but it is perfectly illustrative. Tactics matter, and there's nothing to say that if the Democrats did go winner-take-all, Obama would have used resources differently, would have made different campaign choices, and would have executed on a different strategy. And there's nothing suggesting that he wouldn't then be wiping the floor with her that way also.

Hate the system if you must, but you're going to have to bring more to the table than "my candidate wouldn't have lost if the scoring system was different"

And I'm not even going to address the laughable suggestion about getting Obama to cede delegates in Nevada or whatever that was. That was just sad.

...can I stop reading Salon, too, Joan? Really, may I? I mean, it's one thing that you are playing the take-my-ball-and go home card over your preferred candidate's terrible campaign, but you're trying to tank your website, too?

Is your new friend Rush allowed to read? I'm sure he would never, ever, call anybody a mean, mean name like that other radio person did.

Adios, Joan, I'll check in with King Kaufman, but I'm done with the rest of you.

right, because I remember that time there was that e-mail circulating about how Clinton was secretly a Muslim, and that picture of her in scary Muslim-looking native garb showed up in the media, and that time that media outlets ran 30 second clips of her pastor saying mean things and then putting the blame on her, or that time when one of her advisors, acting on her own, said something embarrassing to the Canadians about NAFTA except it turned out his people said something worse and did it first.

Yeah, somebody calling her a bad name in front of a couple hundred people...that really is reason not to support the candidate that person supports.

Teach us a lesson? Are you effing kidding me? A lesson? What, that we should "stay the course" and nominate old-guard loser Democrats every single time so that whatever half-dim homonculus comes out of the jesusfreak primary is automatically given the nomination? Do you really not see the straight line from Walter Mondale to Dukakis to Al Gore to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton as establishment loser Democrats? Sure, her husband won two 3-way elections, but that isn't going to happen again, now, is it?

Mind you, I'm only addressing the rest of Salon's readership, not lolcait, who does very well see the striaght line, and would like nothing more than to extend that line by one more name.