...maybe president too? I think this would be a great career move for her and could possibly pave the way for a run for president in 2016 or 2020.

I doubt Kudlow would ever be considered for a "non-biased" interview program - he's avowwedly a hard-right wing conservative, even if he's not part of the obnoxious Sean Hannity brand.

Erin Burnett however, talk about an added incentive to tune into Meet the Press every Sunday. It would become the easiest program on the eyes in cable news (and Burnett would play hardball if needed).

yeah, however i'm almost positive that was Kerry/Shrum who put a leash on Edwards, as he wanted to be an attack dog and respond forcefully after the swiftboat ads began. I guess Kerry got caught wayyy too much on that "optimism" bullshit, while Bush went for the kill, and indeed killed Kerry.

and all sitting congressmen back down, hopefully we can get Jim Davis to have another go at politics again.

I have full confidence that if elected, Gerry Connolly would stay a Democrat until his retirement/defeat, and never endorse a Republican presidential candidate or caucus with the Republican party.

However, I have full confidence to think that he'll be an "embarrassing Democrat", perhaps the most likely class-of-'08ers likely to be indicted, and would be anywhere between a "Dollar Bill" Jefferson and Tom Carper. Even if Byrne isn't perfect (and I don't intend to claim that she is), I think she would be a hell of a lot better to win this seat, a hell of a lot better for the party (non-corrupt), and a lot more electable (you'll be sure that they'll throw Connolly's corrupt tendencies in the general to try to retain this seat). And, FYI, Byrne was thrown out of Congress in perhaps one of the worst election cycles in our history. And, she won this district, outperformed Creigh Deeds in this district, and would win this district in november.

If anyone actually remembers pre-Iowa, Edwards had a very realistic and likely chance to win it - Obama actually looked as if he was going to go into third place. Let's assume Edwards wins Iowa, Obama second, Clinton third. That would likely wipe out any momentum Obama would get, and most of the support he gained post-Iowa in New Hampshire would have gone to Edwards. In New Hampshire, it would have likely been 1) Clinton 2) Edwards 3) Obama, with the unions lining up behind Edwards for Nevada, finishing 1) Clinton 2) Edwards 3) Obama. Here, since the race dynamic wouldn't have existed as much, Edwards would have picked up 15-20% of blacks in South Carolina, Clinton around 35%, and Obama the remaining - Edwards wins his birthstate narrowly. Hillary wins Florida convincingly.

In Super Tuesday, there's 2 scenarios - Obama stays in and Obama drops out. If Obama stays in (which I think is more likely), he would have siphoned enough of the black vote to ally Edwards wins in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee; Edwards would carry Oklahoma, Missouri, North Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Kansas and maybe Connecticut and Delaware - Hillary taking the rest (and maybe some smaller caucuses like Idaho/Utah), with Obama winning Illinois - he drops out.

Mid-February contests are generally favorable to Edwards - yet not overwhelming like they were to Obama, Hillary wins in DC, Maryland, Hawaii, Maine, Virgin Islands (maybe) and Abroad, with Edwards winning Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Wisconsin and Virginia. On mini-super tuesday, Hillary wins Rhode Island and Texas, while Edwards wins Ohio, Texas caucus and Vermont (narrowly).

After this, Edwards wins Wyoming while Hillary wins Mississippi. Edwards wins Pennsylvania - albeit narrowly, then goes on to win resoundingly in North Carolina and Indiana - Hillary drops out.

Can't anyone leave out this Obama, Hillary shenanigans out of diaries that do not concern either of them?

in any event, this is definitely a positive effect for the Democratic party of both suffering through the years of Bush as well as the prolonged primary season.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

glad you're not the only one who caught it. Although I do remember that someone on the Breaking Blue also rickroll'd via sending a link to what seemed like an important story...

I'm sure people in Iowa are right now hitting themselves in the head thinking "why didn't we caucus for this guy? He's so much better than the other two"... Shoulda, woulda, coulda... not going to happen. I wish him the best luck in whatever he chooses to do in his political or non-political life.

Then allow the Republicans to vote against it and have it as a wedge issue a la S-CHIP, being tied to big oil and voting against lower gas prices don't seem to be very popular outside of the Exxon headquarters.

A) Remove the gas tax for 3 months
B) pay for that with a windfalls profit tax on oil companies.

Essentially, regardless of whether or not consumers actually get significant relief, whether its 35$ or 50$, what this plan enables us Democrats to do is keep that windfalls profit tax in place after the summer removal of the gas tax is removed. Smart politically, and a smart plan against big oil in Washington D.C.? I think so. I agree that there won't be much significant relief, but there would finally be a way to dip into that deep resevoir of Oil company profits - and that's something I always support.

I think the vehicle to making a left-wing party in the UK lies in Labour, not in the Lib-Dems. The Lib-Dems were founded as a centrist alternative to Labour and the Tories, and it seems to me that they aren't going to deviate very far from their core base of beliefs. True, short term, Lib Dems are often to the left of New Labour, but ultimately the vehicle to a center-left party in England means restoring Labour back to some of its roots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIoF7hScH IY&feature=related

kool-aid

And Jon, we still do not know if this will help, or hurt in Mississippi.