"Actually I recognize you as a regular contributor to the bubblegum, name-calling and drivel which has come to dominate these threads."

Whatever you think of my posts, that's the point Ken was trying to make. People -- such as yourself, apparently -- tend to abuse the anonymous feature to sock-puppet.

Whether or not you agree with me, at least you know it's me posting.

As I said before, Sen. Obama said he'd consider breaks for people in the $97-200K rage. But, again, news flash: 97,000 to 200,000 is NOT middle class.

"The 2005 economic survey revealed the income distribution for households and individuals whereby the top 5% of individuals had six figure incomes (exceeding $100,000) and the top 10% of individuals had incomes exceeding $75,000. The top 5% of households, three quarters of whom had two income earners, had incomes of $166,200 or more,[8] with the top 10% having incomes well in excess of $100,000."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States)

You brought up Boston. From the 2000 census:

"The median income for a household in the city was $39,629, and the median income for a family was $44,151. Males had a median income of $37,435 versus $32,421 for females. The per capita income for the city was $23,353. 19.5% of the population and 15.3% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 25.6% of those under the age of 18 and 18.2% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line."

Also, Sen. Obama has also said he'd repeal the Dubya tax cuts for the wealthy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-01-obama-iowa_N.htm), and is -- like most sane people -- in favor of maintaining the estate tax. (http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-remarks_by_sena/)

Perhaps you confused him with Clinton supporter Robert Johnson, a renowned foe of the estate tax?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/08/estate-tax-bob-johnson/

Recent poll data might be instructive on this question.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/08/obama_electability/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html

The upshot? "In all six of the most recent general election head-to-head match-ups, Obama does better than Hillary Clinton against McCain by an average of more than five points. In four out of the six, Clinton loses to McCain."

"The Republithugs will try to present the choice as one between 'former drug user or war hero.'"

I'm sure there'll be some of this, but now that the GOP have picked John McCain, I think there'll be significantly less, due to his wife's well-publicized fight with drug addiction.

(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/)

Mind you, I don't mean this in a "nyah, nyah" sense, and I don't want to make light of Mrs. McCain's fight with drugs. Addiction is a very real problem that shouldn't be played as a 30-sec ad for cheap political points. But I do think her experience will mitigate use of the drug card considerably by the GOP, particularly by McCain himself.

I'd read the NYT article, but hadn't seen the Newsweek piece.

In any case, I find Sen. Obama's candor about his experimenting with drugs refreshing, particularly given "I didn't inhale" and the obvious lacunae in Dubya's past. And I don't see the GOP being able to make much mileage out of it. If anything, it'd send their libertarian wing squarely in Sen. Obama's camp.

Word on the street is Obama also won the Virgin Islands, by 90%.

Clinton will probably win Maine tomorrow. And perhaps Hawaii and/or Wisconsin too.

I say that as an Obama supporter. I'd love to see us run the table, but it's a struggle across the board, and I'd expect Clinton will get a state or two before March 4.

Anon,

For Sen. Clinton's remark about McCain-Feingold...will a Salon source do ya?

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/24/feingold/index.html?source=search&aim=/books/feature

If you want another source, well, google it. In the meantime, perhaps you owe doloresflower an apology.

The argument you make against campaign finance reform is one of expediency...it hurts Dems. Sorry, but that's a sad peg to hang one's hat on.

How, exactly, was Clinton's "you're not living in the real world" remark taken out of context? It was reported in many places when it happened, as it went down. (And, given the Clinton's previous record in shady fundraising -- Trie, Chung, and Hsu ring a bell? -- her actions dovetail with her professed opinion of Mc-F that afternoon.)

Also, you're mistaken again. Sen. Obama -- along with Sen. McCain -- has pledged to accept public financing in the general. Sen. Clinton, for her part, has said no such thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html