Hey, if McCain can run at that age...

Hey, she's done really well among people who haven't graduated high school.

(It's true, in California she got 80% of them!)

Lately, I've been thinking there've been second graders posting here in favor of someone else. I guess it's only fair that there be equal representation.

In 1996 we had a mock debate in 8th grade, I got people to vote for Perot by adopting an accent and demagouging on Dole and Clinton's support for school uniforms.

I voted for Clinton in 1992 because Mad magazine called Bush a wimp on their Baseball card series.  ;-)

Hahaha yes that would be scary.

I kept wondering why none of the candidates made an appeal to the netroots community based on their vision for the DNC. Probably none of them would keep Howard on board. Who do you suppose would head the DNC with Obama as president?

My other thing--how could you ever support the "hand the net over to Verizon and Time Warner, they know what's best" candidate over the candidate of net neutrality?  I've never seen Jerome's take on this, and it's always baffled me.  Obama's going to make Lessig his federal head of technology within a couple weeks of taking office.  Is Jerome looking to keep new participants from entering the big money market of lefty political blogs, winking smiley face?  If so, he's being short-sighted, as I'm pretty sure there will be many more consulting dollars available to Jerome in (hopefully, knock on wood) President Obama's booming internet economy.

There is no doubt in my mind that once the nom is settled, Jerome, Todd and Jonathan will be out there helping us to destroy McCain.

LOL...That's true.  Maybe Jerome needs to vote for McCain in November. HE can single handedly give the Dems the election ;-)

Look on the bright side Jerome... At least Mark Warner will be the next Senator of Virginia...

I still never understood why Warner never ran.  That was sucha  shock to me.

Ahh, it all makes sense.  The months of Obama concern-trolling and bashing was all an elaborate reverse jinx.

Seriously, though, this was one of the most useful things I've read out of Jerome this cycle (and I've read virtually all of it, both the hacktastic and the insightful Obama critiques), especially in combination with that silly "what's Obama's path to GE victory?" post the other day.  It's very interesting that Jerome simply doesn't factor in a candidates political and persuasive talents as a useful predictor of success.  Nor does he share the widespread displeasure that there's an ugly, undemocratic dynastic element to having another Clinton become President, let alone her personal problem with extremely high baseline negatives.  This makes sense given his profession and background--an adviser does his job better when he focuses on data and finds a path to victory, rather than getting swept up in a speech.  And the Clinton presidency may have made all of us a little wary of smooth talk--lefties who felt burned by the right-ward tack of the Clinton white house as much as anyone.  

Therefore, he has been unable to see that Obama was perfectly situated to come from behind and overtake Clinton once the race narrowed to two candidates because he simply never understood Obama's wide appeal, in spite of the mounds of evidence that was presented to him.  But he had his finger on the pulse of the dynamic of Obama peaking too soon and rightly called that Hillary would not be written off until the anti-Hillary vote could be consolidated.  This happened because Obama had not had a chance to campaign in other places where his appeal was more likely to move voters (i.e. in a place with more favorable demographics than lilly-white, working class, strongly female New Hampshire).  

So for Jerome, he's only interested in Obama's political talents to the extent he sees them as a device for advancing the correct agenda.  And to the extent Obama has proven unwilling to hew to his agenda, he's willing to overlook all kinds of negatives of Hillary's candidacy to punish Obama for his insubordination (also known as the Krugman position).  It's very ideologically zero sum, and in a strict, non-pejorative/non-ratfucking way, extremely Rovian.  There's a battle between good and evil, and we're good and we shall prevail.  The non-good-but-not-evil must realize the error of their ways and submit to the forces of good.  Low information voters, moderates, independents and the like are all just pawns for the most clever political strategists to move into place, in service of the winning agenda.  There is little or no utility, in Jerome's view, to convincing non-partisans to support the standard-bearer of the Democratic brand, other than to convert them into partisans.  We don't have to be popular as long as we win.  So what if a candidate has astronomical negatives, acts entitled to the Presidency, and is running a campaign to gut the 50 state strategy and win by the DLC golden calf of 50% plus one.  As long as she is willing to fight for what I believe, it's no problem.  

This was likely a great way to drive traffic to a political blog--find an underserved political viewpoint and serve it very well.  Who cares if you're unpopular with non-readers, in fact all the better.  Readers hate all the adequately served viewpoints and will revel in your efforts to take them down one or more pegs.  

I will always fundamentally disagree with this line of reasoning re: the 08 race (and it's basically the same argument that Obama voters had with Edwards voters all cycle).  It misunderstands the distinction between campaign rhetoric and policy debate dynamics, and it elevates agenda above the duty in a democracy to persuade and compromise.  Conflating David Broder and Barack Obama is pretty stupid and unfair.  But as someone who has admired what Jerome, and many others following in his footsteps, built in terms of the left-wing online political movement, I can't say there isn't part of me that understands.  Obviously a race with Gore as the candidate running on "let's push the reset button" would have been very fun.  And it would have been easier for the blogs to find a role like their current one in that race.  

But the blogs will do fine in the coalition building world of an Obama-led Dem party.  In fact, they are ideal tools for such a world, as evidenced by how effective the Obama campaign has been at organizing and the viral marketing aspects of this race.  In the end, Obama will win this race as the first candidate to conquer the internet (the JFK parallel and the septagenarian opponent are just too tailor-made), and non-legacy media generally will be hugely empowered, and that's all before the candidate of net neutrality and his minister of technology, Larry Lessig, even take office.

LOL, given I was outnumbered 2:1 in my office, and my wife canceled out my vote, he won't have to look far for volunteers.

Roll Tide!

Or GO CATS

Going to write her in?  ;-) Sorry couldn't resist.  

It is kind of cool to see it go this long in the sense it gives most people a say.  

Anyone who says he has no substance really hasn't educated themselves at all.  He has substance, he has plans.  He has said them, they are on his website.  NOW, you may feel Hillary's are better and I can respect that opinion.  But to say there is no substance is simply ignorance.

Guess Obama needs to send his girls on the trail to get the Swingset vote!  ;-)

"he'll be at least 120 ahead in the pledged delegate count.  Where, exactly, does HRC come up with the delegates to close that gap?"

Florida and Michigan.

You really don't think Obama can say its legitimatized to win the nomination without including those states, right?

Thanks, and its the same for Obama with me. I actually hope they work it out and share the ticket, eventually.