"You can't criticise me on substantive grounds on an issue on which I'm completely in the wrong! There's a hurricane!"

The president ought to be concerned with the safety of the country, so Bush not speaking at the RNC is the right thing to do (although hopefully somebody more competent will be on hand as well).

But why is Cheney missing? Does he miss his undisclosed location? Or do they just figure that he's not even going to be particularly well liked at the RNC?

I had a similar idea.

But then I realised that not everybody wants to read 5000 words of profanity and aspersions regarding John McCain and zoo animals.

Although I stand by every word.

Idaho sucks.

Do I win a prize? :p

He has to all but call McCain a traitor. He has to impugn his character, suggest that he's crossed the point of no return and move the issue on from visits to John McCain's character.

McCain has to be bloodied and badly, or we'll have the same circus next week.

It's not a bellwether, it's a lagging indicator. It represents a lot of aspects of American culture, but it isn't emblematic of them and how it voted in 1980 isn't that relevant.

We certainly should be playing there, but it isn't the be-all and end-all - there are plenty of other routes to political dominance.

Jackson's criticisms of Obama were based on Obama not covering the issues he wanted covered. And he apologised promptly. That's not the sign of a man who wants Obama to lose, it's the sign of a man who wants Obama to be much more to the economic left.

The reason Operation Chaos worked (if it did) was that nobody could tell who was and was not a dittohead. Whereas if they have to speak, it all falls apart.

Sure, they can back silly suggestions, but those will be removed at a higher level, and amending the party platform to "No Blacks Allowed" is hardly going to be a productive use of their time.

Not sure about that one. I remember there was a Karl Marx a few months back. I had my suspicions, because he seemed rather too far to the right for that name to be appropriate, but his arguments for Hillary appeared to be made in good faith. Besides, random accusations from freepers of communism aren't that hurtful and Engels isn't that well known.

Although I'm not denying that engels appears to be a troll. We just need to wait for him to come back as lenin, trotsky or thalmann before we can be sure about the communism angle.

Might want to not call them trolls. They have the same effect, but most don't seem to want to cause damage, they just sincerely believe one candidate (almost always Hillary) should withdraw and haven't twigged that this isn't going to be well received by partisans of the other side. Their hearts are in the right place but their psychological insight is lacking.

Never put down to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity, and all that.

That needs to be an ad. Shown heavily everywhere, before McCain has a chance to rectify that.

Either McCain is shown as the Bush loyalist he is, or he points out how many votes he's missed and we hit him for laziness and try to get him to step down from the Senate.

Lieberman sucks, no doubt about it. And Reid was talking crap when he said he voted with us on everything but the war.

That said, on a lot of issues he isn't the problem. For a start, if we win the presidency, Iraq withdrawal doesn't need Joe. For seconds, he can't prop up a power structure that isn't there any more. Sure, he'll continue to suggest that the likes of Gonzales weren't really that bad, but he won't be able to filibuster much.

Then consider that on healthcare, he's not bad, that he has an interest in environmentalism (even if he does write godwaful bipartisan bills on it) and that he's more beholden to the media than to our corporate masters, and a picture emerges. Joe Lieberman will not be helpful, but Ben Nelson is more likely to sustain filibusters than he is.

If we take the presidency, we neuter Lieberman, because the legislative branch isn't strong enough to take away our freedoms and his importance there has been to stop it trying to preserve them for us.

Fuck off. Please?

This was a strongly argued article that didn't attempt to sidestep around the issue, but the diarist made quite clear that his intention wasn't to denigrate those older than him, merely to demand that he not be looked down upon on the grounds of his age.

Obviously you aren't willing to give him (or any of the rest of us) that, although I can't say whether that's tied for support for Clinton and a need to denigrate those who don't, or whether you're just an arsehole.

All I can really say is that either way, your conception of manners is a very good argument for more incivility in society.

Very dumb. Even if there were good reasons why Obama was unacceptable as a candidate (there aren't) comparisons to Lieberman are not a good idea. Clinton supporters are Democrats too, and in general that doesn't mean support for endless war, bipartisan comity/Republican rape of the country for the sake of appearances on Sunday TV, or a practiced disdain for the base.

Also, the model's broken. McCain isn't getting 10%. No, you may not be a troll, but you really haven't thought this through.

I just don't see this.

Why would the candidate from the minority racial group seek to divide the party on racial lines?