... is sponsoring a petition (link to Digby's blog at my sig). The petition is to be sent to the major media outlets.

The full text reads:

Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire last night was shocking. The performance of the national press corps in the days preceding the vote, unfortunately, was not.

Your organization's focus on punditry over journalism is perverting our democratic process. And the misogyny that was unleashed by a feeding frenzy on the video of an exhausted Clinton tearing up at a small New Hampshire roundtable of voters was just the tip of the iceberg.

Whether we agree with Clinton on the issues or not, the media's (and indeed your organization's) assault on her candidacy based on gender is unacceptable. So too is biased and uninformed commentary on the minority status of other candidates (Obama's ethnicity and Romney's religion, to name just two).

The nation is at a critical juncture. A sober citizenry must make informed decisions about who will lead our country in addressing more crises than any previous generation has faced: global warming, unending war in Iraq, and multiple constitutional crises.

Our democracy depends on an informed public. And an informed citizenry requires a media that provokes thought, not prejudice. Start doing your job or our country -- and indeed the world -- will continue to suffer the consequences.

[Your name]

[Your address]

Link to the petition itself: http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/hillary_media

The link I provided to that petition trapped "me." To effect the petition you'll have to go to Digby's link. There is something about this particular kind of link that remembers you personally. It's happened to me before. I once had to ask Glenn to to remove a comment because the link provided has captured a lot of my own personal information. I'd feel like a real dork, except reading Digby's comments, apparently it has now happened to her, too. Anyway, disregard the petition link I provided. You'll find it unworkable. If you care to sign it you'll need to go to Digby's link, and I suggest if you want to direct others to the site, you may want to direct them to Digby's link as well. Someday, someone will generously explain to me why that happens, and how to avoid it. Until then, I'll direct others to the site where I first found the link. Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience.

FWIW, Zogby did a press release - in case you haven't seen it - one item:

4. My polling showed Clinton doing well on the late Sunday night and all day Monday – she was in a 2-point race in that portion of the polling. But since our methods call for a three-day rolling average, we had to legitimately factor the huge Obama numbers on Friday and Saturday – thus his 12 point average lead. Unfortunately, one day or a day–and–a–half does not make a trend and we ran out of time.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1419 (or, at my sig)

I don't disagree Mike. This type of survey process is unfamiliar to me, so I hesitate to say very much. I read Zogby as saying, "This is our methodology and we're sticking to it." to explain why they didn't release the information they had. The argument that somewhat echoes your own was made by Todd Beeton at MYDD (link at my sig),

If there's a lesson here it's not that all polls suck, but rather that pollsters would be well-advised to get large one day samples, particularly on election eve, rather than rely almost exclusively on multiple day rolling averages. With the primary schedule condensed as it is (only 5 days between Iowa and New Hampshire...) and an unprecedented access to coverage of the candidates, we're likely to have more 1 day swings like the one that changed the game for Clinton in New Hampshire yesterday.

Todd links to yellowdem1129, Polls were right; pollsters tried to spin

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/9/144017/8193

Your tax dollars are spent on research for high tech weaponry the New World Odor will use to subdue and oppress you!

Indeed it does stink!

My complaint was odor being used to subdue and oppress me.

Weapons research can lead to discoveries that save lives and research designed to save lives can lead to some of the most horrible battlefield atrocities imaginable.

So, it is a two-edged sword. I knew that. But, would you really want to argue that war is justified because of the serendipitous discoveries it offers? Would you argue that these discoveries could never be found without war to prompt them along? I'm with WT. I'd like to give peace a chance.

.... but.

One of the first plowshare nuclear blast cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense. After the project was terminated, a proof-of-concept 104 kiloton (435 terajoule) cratering blast was conducted on July 6, 1962 at the north end of Yucca Flats, within the Atomic Energy Commission's Nevada Test Site (NTS) in southern Nevada. The shot, "Sedan", displaced more than 12 million short tons (11 teragrams) of soil and resulted in a radioactive cloud that rose to an altitude of 12,000 ft (3.7 km). The radioactive dust plume headed northeast and then east towards the Mississippi River.

There are risks, yes? There are both benefits and costs, yes? Is ageis of war the only premise under which exploration can be done? [And, YES, I am aware of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_combat_system]. In other words, preparing for war, fighting wars, recovering from wars may provide useful scientific insights. Is that the only way to arrive at them? I'd argue the premise tends to lead one continuously cycling in ways that are, generally, not consistent with life.