I live in Vermont now, so I'm sorry I couldn't help with the Wynn ouster! Anyway, when I did live in D.C. I was less than a mile from the border (in Takoma) but still couldn't afford to crawl over the border to live in Takoma Park or Silver Spring. I did live in NoVa for a while, but my vote didn't count there either. And in D.C. I was registered Statehood Green, but there was really only one party there, as the Greens didn't seem to float all that many candidates. At least in Vt. we have a viable third party, so I can make a difference in local politics. Actually, around here the "third party" is the Republicans; the conservative and liberal parties are Democrats and Progressives, respectively. This is the closest we could come to moving to Canada without the international hassle.

Just kidding. That always annoyed me about living in D.C. too. One more great reason to move to a liberal state! Your vote is rendered meaningless in an entirely new and exciting way! :)

That was helpful.

As one who has probably prematurely accused people of being trolls, I would like to suggest that it's not just about whether someone disagrees with you. It's more about tone, frequency, and willingness to respond respectfully to actual points. One is MUCH more likely to notice that someone is trolling if that person disagrees with him or her - but that is not the definition of a troll, as far as I have ever seen on ANY Salon thread. Where have you seen that?

I notice some of my favorite posters over the years - Juliebird, Slackie, AKA Smith, doloresflower (and what ever happened to orbitboy? and Rich Emery?) - come into threads and have energetic, emotionally charged, intelligent conversations with people who disagree with them, and receive equally energetic, emotionally charged, and intelligent answers. No one accuses any of these people of being trolls. Ever.

But I have been ignoring W.E.S. for months, because he or she has the manners of a two-year-old. That might not be exactly the same as being a troll, but it sure is irritating. I would like an ignore feature too, but there are only a few people I would put on my list. I bet they are the same people most other people would put on their lists, too. Just as my favorite frequent posters, listed above, are pro-Clinton AND pro-Obama, some of the people on my fantasy "ignore" list are anti-Clinton and some of them are anti-Obama. The point is not what their beliefs are. In fact, most of them don't really appear to have beliefs, even though they troll against one candidate or the other. Their only belief is that the conversation should be about them them them.

Would you use an ignore feature if it were available?

How much e-mail do you get from MomsRising? I thought it sounded interesting, but was leery of signing up for more sign-this-petition-and-call-your-socialist-senator-so-he-knows-how-to-vote e-mails. (I don't think Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy really need my help to make progressive voting choices....) What do you see as the advantages of signing on?

I have seen people referring to superdelegates as an "emergency brake." Not sure whose talking point that was to begin with, but it's an interesting metaphor. An emergency brake is not something you can safely use as a brake when you're going full speed - i.e., in this case, when both candidates have equal momentum. Put on the "brake" at full speed, and the Democrats' bus will go into a dangerous tailspin. I have seen both sides trying to steer the superdelegates to one side or the other, and I find it very disturbing. As with much that has happened this election cycle, I suspect that everyone is getting bent out of shape way too far in advance. While we should have an emergency plan in place, I think we should wait until after Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas (and Vermont! don't forget Vermont!) before we get too hot under the collar. Wisconsin still looks tight, but there could be a February surprise and the dam could break for either candidate before March 4. As for superdelegates using the emergency brake at full throttle - well, I have voted Democrat most of the time over the years, but I am not registered as such, and I stopped giving the DNC money several years ago. I am increasingly disinterested in their nebulous, anti-democratic, pro-lobby, good-cop politics, and increasingly incensed at not having a real progressive choice. If the Democrats would really like to suppress voter turnout, I think letting a few superdelegates use their "discretion" to decide the nominee this year would be a great way to do that. Otherwise, I think Howard Dean and an army of professional mediators ought to go to work on how to handle this after Ohio and Texas (assuming it's still necessary) and before it becomes a crisis.

My point is that it isn't Irish. It spends so much of its posts pointing out all its Irish creds that I've become certain that it isn't actually Irish. Nor, probably, a she. And I used to think it was the same person as Thrasher, since they used to post alternately anti- and pro-Obama and they disappeared at the same time. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but my troll-dar goes off whenever I read its faux Celtic drivel. And since it contributes virtually nothing to the conversation, I guess I don't see a reason to give it the benefit of the doubt.