Hey, thanks for mentioning us (Grassroots Enterprise -- I'm the CEO).

We've actually started doing a bunch on the Facebook front, including this first app we launched for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:

http://apps.facebook.com/iamsmokefree/  

(you have to be logged in to get there).

Stay tuned, there's a bunch more coming from us, including expansion of the TFK one (right now, "declare yourself and your profile smoke-free", and write your state officials to ask for smoke-free laws).

For what it's worth, we're big time bullish on Facebook.  Not the only place for this, of course, but the most exciting one right now (hey, 55 million people can't be wrong... or at least not THAT wrong).

We're actually having some fun with it as well.  Stay tuned, we're going to launch a great one in the next two days...  holiday themed, but in a fun way, not corny.  Can't really say much more, just check out www.Grassroots.com later this week.  ;)

I hope the progressive orgs overall really embrace Facebook.  Properly designed "faceroots" campaigns really could make a big impact.

I agree, although I think there should be a reality check as the debates go on, and it's clear some of them have no chance.

It's amusing to have 9 or 10 people up there for the first debate or two. But once you get 4 or 5 debates into it, it's an annoying distraction when half the participants have no friggin chance, and are taking away time from those who do -- and making it tougher for viewers to make an informed choice.

Good point -- not to mention accidental face to faces.   I was in Manchester last election, and it was amazing how many candidates we randomly ran into.  The most awkward might've been Hadassah Lieberman -- when we were handing out piles of Clark bars.  

Not surprising, I suppose, since it's not a big state, and though Manchester is the biggest city -- it ain't that big.  

This time around, there could be literally 3 or 4 times as many candidates (i.e., GOP primary too, and bigger fields on both sides), and a much longer time frame.  

It'd be a hoot to be up there again, although... I think I'd prefer the fall or spring this time.  Beautiful state, NH is, but 20 below WITHOUT the wind chill was a bit much for me.

Yep, no doubt about that.   There's a lot of mud they can sling at Rudy.  And unfortunately, McCain 2.0 ain't the straight talk express guy from 2000.  He seems to be driving the "win at any cost" express this time around.

Good point.  I can't stand the guy, based on his stem cell position (among other things), but... he could gain some traction among the social conservatives.

Do you have links for that?   I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just have found that most of the most egregious Rudy stories turned out to be urban legends, or at least overstated.  (I'm not saying that is, I just haven't heard it before, and want to find out details)

Yeah, I hear ya.  "Rudy 1.0" -- the mob prosecutor, was viewed very favorably by Dem and Republican alike.  Kind of an Elliot Spitzer of his time, though (I think) not as well known.

As mayor, "Rudy 2.0," I think he earned a lot of goodwill for turning NYC around -- lower crime, better economy, etc.  Yeah, yeah, it wasn't just him, but it was certainly part him.  New Yorkers ain't stupid -- and there's a reason he got reelected overwhelmingly in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.  

But I think you hit it on the head -- he's a New Yorker, and there's a certain cadence, style, etc., that does not necessarily play in Peoria (or maybe Des Moines.).  Rudy 2.0 was also quite abrasive.  Of course, Rudy 3.0 -- post 9/11 -- seems to be much more concilliatory, kinder, gentler, etc.

Personally, having lived in NY under previous administrations, I think there's no doubt it's a far better place to live than pre-Rudy.   And I find most of the people who lament the loss of the "authentic" New York are ones who actually didn't live there in those days... when the homicide rate was three times what it is now.  

When it comes to president, however, I find it hard to think of voting for any Republican for that these days.  Whether others will vote for him, I think depends on whether the Rudy who shows up is Rudy 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

I wouldn't underestimate Rudy's support in NY either (fellow New Yorker here, though in DC now).  He's still a heck of a lot more popular in NY than many of his detractors would care to believe.

Even taking away 9/11, he was still reasonably (though not wildly) liked in NY.  In the 40's or even 50s, depending on the poll.  

My sense -- a small percentage of people really detested him, but most people were simply tired of him after 8 years, and even those who liked his policies had had enough of the unnecessary abrasiveness.

I wouldn't underestimate Rudy for a minute.  If McCain doesn't run (hey, anything is possible), my money is on Rudy to win the GOP nomination.

You see no difference between Hillary and Bush?  

Sorry buddy, if that's the case -- you need new glasses.

I'd pledge my vote right now to any candidate who used , "America, f*** yeah!" from Team America.

You know how in little league baseball, there's a "slaughter rule," where if one team is ahead by say... 20 runs, the game is over?

Could we institute a similar rule here if Bush goes below 20%?   You know, "thanks for playing, here's some lovely parting gifts, now get the hell back to Texas."

Since Cheney is already there, sub 20%, I think that'd leave Pelosi to finish out the last 2 years.  I could live with that.  

You've got a right to your opinion, but... be careful not to go too far out on a limb.  Talking about "choreography" and "angling for jobs" is just plain innaccurate.  

I'm a senior advisor with DraftObama.org, and the last thing I'm looking for is to join another campaign.  I just want the guy to run, period.  And no, there is no choreography or coordination -- period.  

I understand your skepticism, but sometimes a draft is just a draft.  It's pretty simple -- yes, we think the guy is likely to run (more likely as of yesterday).  But he still hasn't said for sure.  And most of the people "certain" he is going to run said the same about Warner, Bayh, etc.  

So... until he formally gets in the race, the purpose of the draft is pretty straightforward -- convincing him to do it.   Maybe he's 50% there, maybe he's 99.9% there, but until February 10th, we won't know 100%.

And soup -- rumor has it they both enjoy soup.  

And milk -- as kids, they both drank milk.

The similarities are just eerie.  

Illinois may lean Dem for sure, but it's still been on the "Swing" list in recent presidential elections, and has elected Republicans to statewide office.

When Obama made the statement against the war, it was 2002 -- when both Bush and the forthcoming war were relatively popular.  

If he'd planned on staying in a local seat, sure, it would've been easy.  But considering he was eyeing a run for US Senate -- the statement was anything BUT easy.   Had the war been a success, and had Obama been running against a credible GOP candidate, that single stance could've tanked his candidacy.

Kudos to Edwards for having the guts to reassess his position, and admit he was wrong.  But kudos to Obama as well for being right from the beginning.

Good point, although.... to be honest, I'm still not sure Obama is definitely running.

I still have nightmares of 1992, when everyone thought Mario Cuomo was certain to run, but didn't.  

Now, as a (half) Italian kid from NY, perhaps this hit me harder than most.   :)

Nevertheless, I'm still of the opinion that no one is a candidate until they formally jump in.  So I certainly think it's a heck of a lot more ilkely now than it was with Clark back in '03, when Jerome, Kos, I and others jumped into the fray.   But that being said... it ain't over til it's over, and it ain't started til it's started.   :)