The Democratic leadership sees that they've taken the liberal-wing of the Democratic Party for granted, prompting these liberals to vote for a third-party spoiler. As a result, the Democratic leadership decides to return to it core and pay more attention to the needs of its liberals such that a third-party spoiler doesn't happen again.

What actually happened: the Democratic leadership concludes that the way to win office is to act more like Republicans, dismiss their liberal base and allow the political center to be shifted further to the right.

Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 not so much for what they positively offered but because they weren't Republicans. And they'll lose power because they've accomplished next to nothing and performed like neutered Republicans.

There's a part of me that believes Democrats deserve to lose if they can't support their liberal base. Maybe it'll propel the party to real change. The question is whether you think there are certain times this tough love would be inappropiate because the opposing candidate is so unacceptable. My personal opinion is that Bush vs. Gore was a bad time for Democratic tough love.

"Funny thing about that notion: dissolving (or, in the case of the Bush administration, neutering) the regulatory power of the federal government is just about the best possible thing one could do to ensure the ascendency of said corporate fascist state."

Well said.

for being the only presidential candidate daft enough to appear on late-night television during a strike the night before the Iowa Caucuses. Here's hoping that's the headline tomorrow morning as Iowans head to the caucuses. It could have an effect if "Hollywood" and "television" are left out of the headlines.

I kept wondering how/why the Tonight Show got Huckabee for their strike-breaking debut... It's because Huckabee had no idea.

these are tips on how to function as an independent adult, which should apply whether one is single or not, right?

Yes, all adults should know basic life skills. But if you're single, they're even more important because you can't count on a partner to manage things for you.

FYI: The "Just for One" section of the site does have "singleton" versions of products. It's the frou-frou "stuff to buy" section that approaches singletons as an untapped advertising market with purchasing power. What lifestyle mag doesn't have the "buy me" section?

For a new venture, the site has a decent balance of men's and women's articles on different lifestyle aspects including travel, career and health. It's got room to grow, but it isn't complete fluff.

Oh, good point, Garry Owen. The Writers' Revenge could be quite a thing to behold...

Zogby shows Obama 4 points over Edwards, who's 3 points over Clinton.

The poll's margin of error is +/- 3.3%.

This poll merely reflects what most every other poll has shown in Iowa of late: it's a statistical dead-heat between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

Tim Grieve, do you promise this is the last poll before the caucuses?

I honestly don't understand how anyone could say that they would vote for a candidate based on their sex alone, even with all other things being equal. It's such an arbitrary measure and says absolutely nothing about the candidate.

The thing is, all important issues being equal, whatever deciding factor you use will necessarily be arbitrary. It has to come down to race, gender, smile, height or how well they play the tuba. So, all things being equal, why not make history? Why not elect a woman to the highest office in the country? An office occupied entirely by men throughout our history even though women are just over half of the population?

Having women in positions of leadership matters. Women have experiences that biologically and socially men do not. This is not to say that one set of experiences is more valuable, rather that our leadership should reflect a diversity of experiences. And having women in positions of leadership changes the aspirations of young girls about their own futures.

This is not to say I'm voting for Senator Clinton. I haven't decided. I'm excited that all three of the Democratic frontrunners are, in my view, qualified and agree on certain core issues important to me. And I believe each of them would bring certain strengths and weaknesses to the office.

-

Aside 1: The notion that women are a monolithic voting bloc who "would, like, totally vote for a woman, of course" is ridiculous. Women are over half of the U.S. population. That's one pretty big bloc.

Aside 2: That women are more likely to endorse a woman as being stronger on healthcare and education isn't surprising. Women consistently rate the importance of healthcare and education higher than their male counterparts. If these issues are more important to the average woman overall, it's not a big leap to surmise a female elected official would find these issues more important, too.

What does it mean that this primary season is 1) early than before, 2) more compressed than ever, and 3) there's no incumbent or vice-president on the ballot?

And other variables worth pondering: a woman and a black man as frontrunners on the Democratic ticket and the power of internet fundraising as manifested by a Ron Paul?

It'll be interesting to see if the old formulas still apply.