It is an issue. People are dying along the border trying to get in, and the current set-up is rife with corruption, violence, and lawlessness. The current situation does no one any good, and a sane, humanitarian approach to the situation that takes into account the needs of the people trying to get into the country would be a good thing.
Unfortunately, the painting of the issue in starkly racist, xenophobic terms by the right makes some people on the left think it is "their" issue. But it's most assuredly not "their" issue. It's the single biggest wedge in the GOP, dividing the corporatists and the elites of the party from the mass of the base, which views every single issue through the lens of predation ("brown people are invading and taking our livelihoods!") and punishment. Rove has been desperately trying to head off the base on this issue for years.
Because the base is driving the party off the cliff, accepting nothing less than a bill based solely around exclusion and punitive measures. They're losing AZ, NM, NV, CO, and FL over this, and will be putting TX in play in the cycles ahead. And all over the country, they are on the road to making the Hispanic vote a nearly African-American style bloc for the Democrats. It's the death of the GOP, if the Democrats are at all smart about it.
I've said before that the war in Iraq is the major issue, but immigration could be the real stake in the heart of the GOP.
I think Obama is better off in NH than the polls of Democrats indicate. I know that state, and in the current dynamic, he'd be my clear frontrunner in the primary. But it's a long way away.
Right now, I'd put those three as nearly tied. Hillary has a slight advatage in most metrics, but seems stalled. Obama has huge financial resources and positive name ID, but isn't as strong in the early caucuses. Edwards lags behind those two in the money and national numbers, but has excellent early state strength.
I think one interesting thing will be to see if the AFL-CIO goes through with their plans on an early endorsement. I have to think that was meant as a "Hillary is inevitable" thing (I can't imagine they'd go with Edwards so early), but with Hillary clearly not inevitable, I think the AFL-CIO backs off.
He's a master manipulator, and nothing gets the right-wing in a froth like Hillary Clinton. It's the same reason the GOP fundraises around her; she just evokes an intense reaction from them. So they talk about her more, which focuses the attention on her even more ...
It's a sort of self-perpetuating, reinforcing circle of Hillary obsession.
So I'm not the only one ... funny stuff, that show. Aliens with these laser rifles that take forever to charge after one shot, and crazy humans with fully-automatic M-16s.
The "alien invaders" genre has to be the vehicle for more silliness than any other.
Back to the topic, I actually think the logo, in the pure sense of a non-written graphical representation, has to be an area Presidential campaigns will expand in the future. It's such an obvious part of a product roll-out in the consumer world that has, mostly, been ignored in politics. There was the "W" last cycle, but I can't think of any other.
Not sure if that's good, bad, or indifferent, but prepare for all sorts of symbols, swooshes, and stylized letters in the years ahead.
And when we bring on new writers, we bring on people from outside the blog, rather than inside (usually).
I think this is a key point. There's a strong competitive feel to dKos often, with the "meritocracy" angle devolving into a mad scramble for attention. Which I actually don't have a problem with; it's not strictly meritocratic (the best don't always rise), but it's close enough to be interesting.
However, when you have a really strong benefit to rising in the meritocracy (getting read by hundreds of thousands in the case of a front-page piece or whatever percentage click on "rec diaries" in the lower-level case), feelings can run really high. There's a lot of benefit to "succeeding" at Daily Kos, so the differences between community members is pretty large, larger than really fits with a progressive feel. That "winners and losers" feel can create a lot of resentment and anger.
Combine that with a pretty strong lean toward blunt, strong, sometimes profane verbiage that runs throughout the blogosphere and is reinforced on dKos by Markos's strong writing style, and you'll get flame wars and resentment fairly often.
Seriously, that's why I started having doubts about him. Once you get him talking for more than a couple of minutes on any domestic issue outside of energy, he really starts to sound like he's just vamping, only from a 1998 playbook. I'm starting to think all those folks who have him pegged for SecState or VP at best are right.
I still kinda like the guy just because he's got the best peace vision around, and his energy work has been great. But ... that just isn't enough.
I think this fight was well-chosen. There were plenty of other ways to go against the Bush Administration, many of them more consequential even than the prosecutor purge (illegal activities around the various surveillance programs, secret prisons, defense corruption, etc, etc). But this one is a pure, raw partisan scandal. There's really no fallback to a "we were just protecting the American people" dodge.
This fight over subpoena power and Executive privilege was going to happen. It was inevitable, and the Bush Administration was preparing for it. I'm glad the Democrats chose this ground on which to stage the battle. The use of such high-sounding Constitutional defenses of Executive Privilege sound absolutely craven when paired with such raw, partisan actions.
The two data points of Fox viewers (elderly viewers and monolithic partisanship) go together. As people age, they don't get more conservative or liberal, but they become much more rigid in their beliefs. So, the people who watch Fox News, being older and overwhelmingly conservative, are there to get their beliefs validated and to see news that conforms to their world view.
What's important about that is this: these folks can't be persuaded. They are not a group that's open to new perspectives. There is no upside to going on Fox. Well, maybe a very, VERY few of them can be, but as a statistical situation, it's just not likely at all.
I have to say, I'm really enjoying not being a partisan this time around. I have a slight Obama lean, but really not enough to get all bothered by it. I like Edwards just fine, feel like he's Opie all grown up before our eyes (sheesh, I hope no one jumps on me for that ... ). I'm even OK with Richardson. After 2003 ... whew. This is much better.
I'd recommend it to anyone.
Just remember the common enemy ... The Judean People's Front!
That's not true about WMDs. Obama said that he didn't believe that Saddam had any WMDs that posed an imminent threat. Which is entirely consistent with his past positions. Greg got it wrong over at TPM.
Obama was right about Iraq at the beginning, more than any other candidate. That's a point in his favor certainly. He's also been a stronger voice against the war than Hillary since his election to the Senate. His current position and Edwards's is much closer, though, afaik, fwiw, and a bunch of other acronyms.