Could you point to the place in the Constitution where it protects the right of the media to hold information relevant to the fairness of the election as a corporate IP trade secret? -- ondelette

I can't believe I'm seeing this. This is a joke right? Are you claiming there is an obligation anywhere for the media to provide an unbiased, 100% complete, database, for your viewing pleasure?

Better yet, where it says withholding information from the electorate is a protected right?

What are you going to do, waterboard NBC to make them talk?

If you be a Wurlitzer

I be a t'ween

with a pocket full of quarters

and a desire

to listen through

the whole play list.

Damn! You go!

Glenn, you had a great opportunity to inject a bit of Shakespeare into your post about the media RightWing and the Media being in bed together.

Instead of: That's the two-headed beast that was single-handedly responsible for milking the sex scandals into Bill Clinton's impeachment against the wishes of most of the country

...you might have written: That's the the beast with two backs that was single-handedly responsible for milking the sex scandals into Bill Clinton's impeachment against the wishes of most of the country

But then maybe that would have been too crude, even if true...

I can't believe I'm seeing this. This is a joke right? Are you claiming there is an obligation anywhere for the media to provide an unbiased, 100% complete, database, for your viewing pleasure?

If analyzing that database is the undisputed most accurate way to determine whether or not election irregularities took place, and the outcome of the election may hinge on whether or not it is analyzed? Yup, you bet.

It isn't necessary to waterboard anyone. Least of all NBC. Just ask them to turn in their broadcast license on grounds that they are aiding and abetting election fraud.

See how easy that was? There's always an alternative to committing war crimes. Just needs a few more heads in the brainstorm, I'm sure the Cheney camp could have asked, and people would have been happy to provide waterboarding alternatives.

Can't vouch for the reliability or validity of the site but it's supposed to update regularly:

http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

Will look for others...

... on The Politico and politico.com's parent/holding company.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Politico

Discard pills after 1/04/2008.

O, a Amoxcicillan Trihhyydrate 'K' 125 MG's a tab is good fer yer? I'm leary, though....

Should I take a 500mg/Clavulanatae K 125 mg. Tab?

I know not know?

The dogs sniff?

Tough for Mitt.

Hillary is my prediction for the Dems at this point. It makes sense. Independents in NH would tend go for Hillary but it will be close and Obama is still very much in the game, as is Edwards.

Are you okay? This pharmaceutical thing is scaring me a little. Please take care of yourself; I know that others here would join me in saying that your continued good health is important to us.

What WT said.

But just for a little extra help, I put in a special prayer request for you earlier today. I waited until today to take advantage of the New Moon. The request lasts for a month. Keep us informed. I'll Re-New the Next Moon, if needed.

Thank you for your objective appraisal Glenn. God knows, there aren't many of them out there right now.

I have always considered myself a progressive liberal, so I was never particularly thrilled at the idea of Senator Clinton being the Democratic nominee for President. Be that as it may, two years ago, I predicted that she would be the next President. My prediction wasn't based on any idealistic hope that the country would suddenly "come to its senses" and stop hating Senator Clinton as it has for so many years. Rather, I genuinely believed that Senator Clinton, despite the negative perceptions about her, possessed such formidable political skills that she would be able to overcome the opposition against her and win the nomination. Whenever I articulated this opinion to family and friends, they would scoff. In retrospect, I guess they knew something I didn't.

When making my prediction, I also factored into the equation the fact that the media would be against Senator Clinton before she even announced her candidacy. Even the most casual observer of political media coverage for the past 20 years cannot deny that the media is more or less a right wing institution, and will crucify any democratic nominee on the cross of pseudo-"objective" reporting (Tim Russert, anyone?). And because she is a woman, I assumed their nastiness would be even worse than with past candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry. Silly me to underestimate the savagery and absolute hatred of the media establishment toward Senator Clinton. Chris Matthews aside, the sheer misogyny expressed even by "mainstream" media sources, in 2007, is genuinely shocking.

However, what has been even more jarring for me is the contempt, if not hatred, expressed against Senator Clinton by my fellow liberals, even on liberal blogs like this one. I have no problem if someone criticizes a candiate because of the positions and beliefs they espouse, but when did Senator Clinton become the devil incarnate? And as Glenn so aptly points out, if Clinton fails to attain the nomination, does anyone seriously doubt that the media will immediately set its targets on Senator Obama? As manifest as sexism is in our society (as so aptly demostrated by the coverage of Senator Clinton), can you imagine the racism that is going to erupt should Senator Obama be the nominee? Racism, particularly racism against African-Americans, is the cardinal sin of the United States - it's written into our Constitution for Christ's sakes. Moreover, Senator Obama, no matter how many gestures of conciliation he makes to Republicans, will be labeled a liberal by the media and political establishment that runs this country. And being a liberal, to our serious Washington courtiers, is far more unforgivable than being a woman or a minority.

Assuming he is still in the race by the time Massachusetts holds its primary, I will vote for Senator Edwards, as he most closely espouses my political beliefs. Hoever, given that he is the one candidate who truly threatens the status quo(even if he is a white man with southern roots, he's the Breck girl and all; shit, his wife even has the temerity to have cancer), I doubt he will win the nomination. Despite the current vitriol being directed at Senator Clinton, I still think she will be the Democratic nominee for President. I have nothing against Senator Obama, and it is certainly refreshing to see a candidate appeal to our better instincts as opposed to our baser ones. After nearly eight years of W, Cheney, Delay, Frist, et al., however, I don't want a nominee who promises reconciliation and bipartisanship. As Paul Krugman so aptly stated, "bipartisanship is for suckers." Frankly, I want a candidate who will literally grind the modern Republican Party into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. Probably none of the Democrats running for the nomination will do that, but one thing I am sure of: of all the Democratic candidates running, no one is more qualified to withstand the slings and arrows of the Republican Party than Senator Clinton. Give her credit for that much, at least.