The guy was caught with wads of cash in his freezer.  I can see waiting for indictment to kick him out (for fear of setting a precedent - after all it is trivially easy to say someone is under investigation).  But this guy needs to go, and now.   He has been indicted for corruption and bribery!

If, in the future, the Dems want to make a special exception for someone who has been indicted (say for civil disobedience), fine, but the general rule should be they are gone upon indictment.

He is cautious and low key.  And I am not happy about his most recent Iraq votes.  But he is a really decent guy who is with us on almost every issue.  He would certainly be far better than Salazar or, of course Bob Schaffer.

What I am hearing is that Schaffer was reluctant to get into this race, because he doesn't think 2008 will be a good year for Republicans (and then he's a two time loser).  But the Repub party chair, named Dick Wadhams (I swear that's really his name) talked him into it.

doesn't usually pan out.  Dean supporters pitched this idea.  So did Lamont supporters.  Mostly the people who vote are the people who voted last time.

I am not favoring Hillary (I support Edwards at the moment), but I must admit that there is a little part of me that gets excited whenever I hear she is doing well.  The idea of a woman president is inspiring to me and probably to a lot of other women.  Even that fact that a woman candidate is taken seriously is pretty amazing, actually.  It wasn't thus even a few years ago.

Anyway, my point is that I can see why men might not  feel this way or understand that women feel this way. More Dems are women than men.  Something may be getting overlooked in the blogosphere.

At first I read the REL column as relatives.  He doesn't even get a plurality there.  :-)   Actually I suppose REL mean religious right.

I think 2008 could be the year where a woman or a minority could easily win the presidency.  Talk about time for a change.  I am supporting Edwards, but I agree with the second lady - Clinton is fine, she's a Democrat.  Same with Obama.  We can do this with any of them.

A small blog wants more traffic (or traffic from particular other blogs) because the owner feels that she has a different and worthwhile perspective to offer Dems/Progressives.  She feels that her writing will strengthen the movement because it will broaden the perspective of the readers.

A big blog may also feel that different perspectives will strengthen Dems/Progressives.  So the big blog owner "owes" it to his readers to link to small blogs that provide eclectic views.

I don't blog, so this is not a personal perspective.  It just seems to make sense.  I choose the genders of the bloggers as I did because this sort of discussion comes up once in a while regarding women's blogs.  But it could apply to, say, rural writers, or older folks, or unionized service workers just as well.

I figure liking matzo ball soup is close enough.  Or I hope so anyway.  :-)

Yeah, Clinton did that.  But Clinton was really, really likable.  Rudi, according my northeastern friends, isn't.  People think he is right now because they remember his 9-11 speech.  But in fact (I'm told) he's thin skinned and bossy and unpleasant when stymied in any way.

But have you taken a look at the guy?  Voters are pretty shallow about looks.  They want a guy who looks presidential.  T. Thompson - at least from the picture I saw in the paper this morning - looks old, pudgy, and boring.

He is right in there.  Mostly primary money too.

Those of us who have never once voted in a presidential primary that mattered can vote in the MoveOn primary.

I've liked MoveOn for a long time.  They get people like my parents involved in online politics.  They give people a chance to do something, contact someone, kick in a few buck, even if they don't know a blog from a newsgroup.

I beat you by seconds.  :-)