Thanks for you for you excellent analysis of the situation. I am so tired of all the moving to the center nonsense. It is not about left right and center, and I am delighted that you have made that point so well.

It is the sort of metaphor you find in spy novels, and it basically means blending in with the people you are spying on. It was probably more popular in spy novels back in the 1970s. He is a total jerk but this is just an example of how he is a generation behind the times.

but I suspect that your comment was meant to provoke a chuckle. Too bad people have lost all of their sense of humor in the heat of the candidate wars.

And if the Republicans don't run anyone she might even be able to win the general election.

Why would people turn out in the cold and snow to vote in a primary with no delegates at stake.

Yes, she is able to do very well when she is the only one on the ballot. A likely reason for the low turnout is that many of those who supported Obama and Edwards did not bother to vote. So the low turnout makes her "victory" even more meaningless.

I have been looking at the British numbers, and Hillary has also tanked there while Obama has risen. You must be talking about another British market; can you give a name or a link. Intrade has been shown to be quite accurate historically.

There is nothing to the article you recommend so strongly, and the author simply says it is a rumor. He does not even say he believes it. Who is stacking the deck in Obama's record breaking fundraising and his unprecidented number of contributors? You sound like a desperate Edwardian.

An impressive analysis. I follow the Intrade betting markets as well as the polls, and at the moment Obama is about three points behind Clinton. He has been ahead of her a couple of times recently. Unlike many in the blogosphere I take the betting markets seriously. What do you make of the fact that he is doing so much better there than in the various polls? Obama's recent advance on Intrade clearly reflects his huge success at fundraising, but the people placing bets have access to the polls as well as the fundraising numbers and various other sources of information. So I think Intrade is at least as accurate a reflection of how the candidates are doing as the polls. Personally I don't see why Obama would want to be drawing close to Clinton in the polls at this point six months away from the first voting. If he were having trouble raising money that would give him a good reason, but he is not. In Ameridan politics it is far better to be an underdog for as long as you can. I think Obama is saving his money to make a massive push as the end, and I think this will work.

He has brains. I think he is the most intelligent and most well educated candidate for president since Adlai Stevenson.

There is simply no possible way that the Senate can pass any sort of binding resolution or legislation to end the war even if the Democratic party is totally unified and all the presidential candidate were willing to give up their posturing. The votes just are not there. They are not even close to being there. What they can do is to prevent future funding from being spent to expand the war, and restrict future funding to uses that diminish our involvement. That only becomes possible when those appropriation bills are considered sometime in the future. So I think we need to work on convincing the Democrats and a few reasonable Repugs that that is the thing to do rather than complaining about their not doing enough now.

I have long felt great admiration for John Edwards and until I saw this story he was one of my two favorites for the 2008 nomination. But the idea of allowing Israel to become a member of NATO puts an end to that. The central problem of the Bush foreign policy is that it is an idiot's conception of how to make world safe for Israel. As many smart Israelis know it has only made things worse, and admitting Israel to NATO would just allow the Israeli hawks to pursue their ruthless policies with impunity. Allowing Israel to join NATO is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard and to hear it coming from Edwards is very sad indeed. I am now solidly for Obama.

I think that anyone in their right mind would want to have a different kind of politics than what we have had in this country over the past decade or so. I loathe Lieberman and the fact that he uses that phrase to cover his spineless pandering to Bush and Co has nothing to do with what Obama is saying. No, they are nothing alike, and I really do think that we should not try to tear down Obama to prepare the way for Edwards. I think both are excellent people and that both would make wonderful presidents, and I think both have a good chance of winning. I am for both of them.

Vitter's comment suggests that he seems to have wanted more troops earlier and would want more now, so unless someone has further evidence I don't think one should count on that vote. Also there is the question of walking the walk in addition to talking the talk. It will be hard to get the votes to end a fillibuster. But these numbers suggest we have a chance at it.

Lieberman has now become largely irrelevant. Lomont's victory in the primary sent shock waves throught the democratic party and showed how important it was for democrats to stand up against the war. His primary win was a key factor in the fall victory of the democratic party. I too regret very much that he did not win in the Fall. He deserved it; we all deserved it. But life is rarely fair, and Lamont and those who worked so hard for him can take comfort in the fact that they have pushed the Liebermans of the world to the margins of the political debate. I would bet than many of those in Connecticut who voted for him regret it now that they hear him giving such strong support for the war. They probably imagined he had learned a lesson or two and should be given another chance. Well, guess again.