Yes, the bank failure was a game changer, but don't forget, Sarah Palin's favorability was dropping before the crash (from early September, discussing her favorability drop a few days before the stock market slide: http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_po litical/775744.html?thread=41992000).  How do you account for this?

Hey Jerome,

I recall many, including yourself, predicting that Sarah Palin would be a game changer, and if McCain didn't win the election, would likely be a major figure in the conservative movement we would "have to deal with for the next decade." Given the current state of events, do you still think this is the case? Why or why not?

How is the weather in Malaysia? I hope it isn't as bad as it is here (though I have the sneaking suspicion it probably is, if not worse). On a side note, any thoughts on Clinton's speech this morning?

Jesus, what the hell is your problem? Why don't you just leave? Seriously, just go away. Your kind helped bring about Joe "McCain Has His Bearings I Checked" Lieberman. Yeah, us "rabid leftists," attacking poor old Lieberman, I mean, what a loyal Democrat he's been. Thank you so much for protecting the party from us silly, ignorant peons. If you hate the netroots so much for our horrible ways, then why are you posting on here so much you fucking hypocrite. God, people like you are the worst.

I hate to say it, but the reason she was pushed over the top was Limbaugh voters, who made up about 2% of the vote in her favor. Now don't take this is an attack, I'm not claiming that this wasn't a valid victory, I just merely mean it doesn't look good when the people who pushed you over the edge did so in order to hurt you, especially since Jerome has always put so much influence on his claim that more Democrats have voted for Clinton than Obama, and that this discredits his lead in Popular votes and the legitimacy of his argument.

This is guilt by association, pure and simple. Being that Barack Obama isn't receiving any money from PAC's, these donation totals are simply added up from individual donations of people working at those respective companies. By this logic, if a person who happens to be a member of Klan donates to a candidate, that person must automatically be funded by and in league with the Klan (and we are talking about Corporate companies, not white supremacists here).  

Sadly, it just seems that many are in denial. When the entire premise of the diary is that Obama must be supplied by the rich and corporate because he has an average donation of $96, and yet his opponent has fewer donations with a higher average (something like $100), the entire argument falls short (as if it made sense in the first place, like being able to give someone $96, or even $100, dollars suddenly makes you a "rich, corporate fat cat", when the donation limit is $2300, so the rich would likely max out). Honestly, though, it's not worth it pointing it out anymore and receiving the same "... Shut up, Troll!" responses, because if someone doesn't recognize the logical fallacy of this argument in the first place, trying to repeat it again isn't going to help.

Wow, it can't be racist; you said so! Thank you, so much, for clearing that up. I was so scared for a second that Hillary Clinton was continuing to employ a person who was making racist comments, but now, with your excellent "It isn't racist" argument, I can sleep well at night, knowing the Clinton campaign isn't race baiting in an attempt to get the nomination.

What's that? You have a bridge you want to sell me? In Brooklyn, too? Great, I've meaning to get property up there!

Why does that matter? Pointing out racial things like this doesn't help your candidate. It only enhances the notion that her campaign is trying to divide the country along racial lines (which probably isn't true, but isn't helped by comments like this and Bill's post-South Carolina quote).

I'm an Obama supporter, but seriously, you give us a bad name when you pull shit like this. This has NOTHING to do with the Clintons, or with Obama, so stop being a troll and spamming this nonsense.

Hell yes. All stories of Republicans in disarray give me quick bursts of happiness. Chalk this up, as this makes this season one of the best overall experiences, ever.

It's one of the reddest districts in the state, so this argument doesn't hold up.

It's not spam to talk about coattails. When the mayor of Los Angeles endorsed Clinton, and helped her to win California, was that spamming to mention that in that thread? I didn't think so.

This is a deeply Republican district that hasn't been represented by a Dem since the post-Watergate election of 1974. This isn't just "home turf" for Obama, it is a red state, and the fact that Foster won here shows that Obama has major coattails.

I almost forgot. Dan Seals, and another candidate whose name I'm forgetting, gave staff to Bill Foster as well, and deserve credit as well.