which has Obama up 12 (up 15 with Nader/Barr):

"[T]he great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found. Only 11% of Clinton voters have defected to McCain."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story

So, again, the Traister article isn't only pointless shit-stirring. It's predicated on a falsehood.

Congrats on your second post.

You're still a GOP troll. Get lost.

That should be first POST, not first poll.

Congrats on your first poll. Trolly McGee, you're the trolliest. The trolliest troll to ever troll the troll world, in fact.

Also, I know Khalidi too (I'm a history PhD at Columbia.) He's not a racist...so grow the fuck up.

None of the current polls bear out the thesis of this article. Sure, you'll find some Clintonite dead-enders, and they'll tend to cluster around talkbacks like this one. But, the fact of the matter is the party is uniting behind Obama, and not a single poll says different.

In other words, this article's premise is false from Jump Street. Not that I'm surprised -- Traister is far and away the worst paid writer working in the online magazine biz these days, and one of the many reasons I'm letting my premium membership lapse this summer. If the mood strikes me, I can find incessant whining about mean, ogreish, mercurial men in the blogosphere for free.

I'm not quite sure why this scab needs picking just yet. I have every confidence that you're correct, but that doesn't mean you have to rub it in while the wound's still raw, just to fill a byline.

Keeping his powder dry until well after all the dust had settled. Now, THAT's the hypercautious, vacillating candidate I remember from 2000.

Well, welcome aboard regardless.

For your own sanity if nothing else, wake up. Sen. Obama is our Democratic nominee.

This has been true since Wisconsin, of course. But, now, you can no longer deny it and remain in the reality-based community.

Frankly, Sen. Clinton embarrassed herself with that graceless speech. On the other hand, she further buried her infinitesimally small chances of being on the ticket. So, we all benefit.

And good riddance.

Also, that was a terrible non-concession concession speech by Clinton...but fully in keeping with what we've come to expect from the Senator from New York.

And now on to November.

And now on to November.

Congrats to Sen. Obama, and here's looking forward to November.

"This ought to be good for at least 3 or 4 more Salon articles. Quick, somebody call Rebecca Traister!"

Ha! Now, that's funny.

I have a pitch. How 'bout: Young men today are wracked with indecision and can't commit to anything, per Ben Kunkel...except when they do commit to a political candidate, in which case they're overly aggressive sexist trolls, just like mean old John Edwards in NH.

Traister byline imminent.

Apologies for the Epic Fail with regard to italics tags in that header.

The fact that he was Republican is really here nor there at this time. Most of the left-leaning congressmen of Borah's day were Republicans. See also: Hiram Johnson, Robert La Follette.

Other than a few notable exceptions (Burton Wheeler, Al Smith) and the circle around Woodrow Wilson (William Gibbs McAdoo, etc.), most progressive-minded folk before FDR were in the Republican camp.

Sweet.

At any rate, Borah's suspect assessment of Hitler notwithstanding, he (and his progressive-isolationist contemporaries, such as Hiram Johnson and Burton Wheeler) were the last vestiges of old-school progressivism in the government during the New Deal, and were critical to keeping the fractured movement alive during the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover Twenties. (I spend a lot of time with Borah -- not only in the essay linked to above, but in the dissertation I'm currently writing.) So, comparisons of Borah and Obama, while wrong on this front, aren't entirely misplaced.

http://www.smallrrepublic.com