Are you going to continue making bullshit posts hating on Obama once he's the nominee?

It did work. And yet you're the one accusing me of wanting MyDD to be a dKos clone.

Just because you didn't give half a damn about MyDD before the presidential primary season doesn't mean a vast majority of the community (from, what I can tell, has left the site long ago) didn't care.

I've noticed that OpenLeft is a lot more like MyDD than MyDD is now, if that makes sense.

My thoughts exactly.

You clearly missed the point. I am not arguing for MyDD to be a dKos clone. I'm looking for MyDD to return to its roots.

The primary battlefield that MyDD has become is not what this blog was about. And now it's all it has become about.

It's not that Daily Kos is necessarily a better blog - that's a subjective view, and the Edwards/Obama diaries there can be just as bad as those here at MyDD - but there's a hell of a lot of other things to discuss, and the focus is on many other topics that are more relevant. You know, like how the Attorney General of the United States has been flat-out lying under oath in the past couple of days.

The MyDD community has completely lost its perspective. I think it's telling that Jerome, who founded this site way back in the Stone Age, literally only posts about the 2008 election (or if something comes along relating to the blogosphere at large, like the JetBlue skirmish).

Calm down. The person you're responding to is a shill for Hillary.

And then they show a focus group where she didn't even place in the top 3.

Hell, MyDD has already become Astroturf Central. It'll fit in perfectly here now.

Wrote about this a couple months ago...

No, I think the conclusions are still relevant.

See you around.

As I noted in the comments over at dKos, I do think the state polls are relevant. I'll do a post on Iowa and New Hampshire next weekend - I'm sorry I don't have hours upon hours to compile all this data at once. This took long enough as it is.

Reuters just got acquired by Thomson, IIRC (or at least an offer).

I would imagine that actual news reporting will come from financial news sources - Bloomberg, Thomson/Reuters, etc., along with in-house research (which is already a big source).

And crap, since the RNC broke into Watergate in 1972, that was just the reason why McGovern lost the election - if he couldn't protect it, how could he possibly be president?

Stupidest reasoning ever.

Not a big fan of the round-ups (the daily Edwards ones over at dKos in particular), but there sure was a lot of effort put into this. Nice formatting.

But as someone who is (and probably will be) working in the financial services industry, it's hard to come by the excellent economic reporting done by WSJ during the week and Barron's on the weekend. Simply put, there's going to be a gaping hole in solid business reporting if the WSJ goes the way of the London Times. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for the New York Times to beef up its business section? Hard to say.

Nevertheless, the deal's going to get done one way or another. From a shareholder's perspective, it's hard for Dow Jones to turn down a 67% premium to a share price that didn't have any real upside. At the same time, it'd be nice if the folks at WSJ considered a stakeholder's perspective and thought about the Journal's unique place within the industry - and what is likely to be lost as a result of selling out.