Whether they set out to directly measure it or not, I think the researchers at NIU were tapping the "Hillary effect". She's the most obvious female candidate and that puts her top of mind for survey respondents. How many were conservative Republicans who saw Hillary's face when asked to consider their anger over a woman president? The NIU press release suggests the findings held across most demographic groups, but before I put any stock into their conclusions, I'd like to know if they held across party ID or ideology.

Hilarious. Wastler expects a volunteer Internet poll to yield "a show of hands" on who won the debate. Does he also believe Firefly is the Best TV Show of All-Time? At least Harwood understands the part that makes this blunder valuable fodder for political discourse. So why is Wastler the one in charge?

The academic and professional communities, i.e., the American Association for Public Opinion Research, will tell the story of Wastler's whine again and again (between guffaws) at their next meeting. Watch for this example to show up in 2008's textbooks for college sophomores, immortalized as the reason such "shot in the dark" Internet polls should not be taken seriously.

...like when Moveon.org thought it would be clever to make fun of the general's name. Message? What message?

Hillary is on record as calling Obama "irresponsible & naive." Can't imagine she'd try to sell him as someone suited to be a heartbeat from the presidency.

Re: Wesley Clark, if Hillary is the nominee, it will be because Democrats think her the best person for dealing with Iraq. Her foreign policy experience (& the assured counsel of her husband) obviates the need for Clark as a show of military expertise. He could do her more good in the cabinet.

John Edwards, with his focus on domestic issues, would make a complementary addition to the ticket, if he's even interested. And I've never heard Hillary suggest he wasn't ready to be president.

Policy differences can be reconciled (in deference to the nominee & the platform, unless of course you're Cheney). It's an entirely different matter when you've painted your opponent as unprepared for the office, as Hillary has.

The text surrounding this blog post seemed to suggest the issue was Bush using public money for fundraising. Obviously, that got lost here due to the dramatic photo. If there's a point you want to make about the horrors of what Bush has wrought, make it. Don't pretend you're reporting something else as you exploit an injured soldier. Juxtaposing these two elements is something I expect to see on Fox News, not in Salon.

Obama fan much? When it comes to Clinton, I have trouble differentiating you from Chris Matthews. You pounce on her remarks about Ben Johnson, but you don't bother to examine the substance of what she actually said about LBJ. That you gave the Obama camp AND the "bash Hillary" media a pass for their overkill response speaks volumes about your bias.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Ducking, bobbing, deflecting ... The question is "how will the courtroom drama affect Obama?"

McClatchy Newspapers is already reporting on a Pentagon study (due for release later this week) of over 600,000 documents from the Saddam Hussein regime. No mention of Al-Qaida in Iraq, or ties to any terrorist group identified as an enemy of the US. See the story here:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html

Past campaigns have shown the hazards of waiting too long for controversy to float downstream, but IMO Obama is taking a big risk making this speech at a time when more people are worried about Bear Stearns than Reverend Wright. Not only is he calling attention to his unique situation (and providing fodder for the 527s to cherry-pick his statements and play them alongside those of Wright & Michelle Obama), but he's yielding the floor for HRC to talk about the economy.

You're grasping at straws with that last bit, Alex. Focus groups aren't designed to represent opinion. That takes a large, random sample. Why spend money to include the views of vegetarians, etc. when you already know what they'll say? If the FDA had wanted to stack the groups with industry advocates, they could have done so. It makes no sense to assume something nefarious with regard to their "bias" given the study's results. Assume it instead for their disregard of the findings, and leave it at that.

If these breaches happened in January & February, why were they suddenly reported when Obama was stumbling in the polls? Sympathetic figure or an effort to raise more doubt? Someone's pulling the strings.

I applaud the Democrats, particularly Obama, for roundly criticizing the conduct of the debates, enough that the criticism itself has made the news cycle. Sadly, "liberal media" is part of our lexicon, and it will take near-continuous outrage to make the truth salient among even those few who are paying attention. I'm hoping the first "liberal media" accusation from the McCain camp is greeted by a loud, clear "That dog won't hunt."

The broadcast media can effectively circle the wagons and ignore this issue; first, because they are all guilty, and second, because they know the issue is too complex for the average TV-dependent news viewer (i.e., their audience) to grasp. If it were a single organization, or even two, and the others were pressing the story, we might actually see them in damage control mode to mend their credibility. Instead, they can go with the flow, knowing they can get away with it because everyone else did it, and there won't be a cost in audience.

Interesting how Howard's such a stickler for his rules regarding FL & MI, but now he really, really wants to pressure his superdelegates to get in line and save him from himself.

Ironic that one of the most-often cited rationales among the superdelegates was that they needed to vote the will of their people.

They seem to think otherwise in SD:

Clinton 8 pledged

Obama 5 pledged

Obama 6 superdelegates