I specifically love that Obama isn't shying away from numbers.  It seems to me that a lot of political ads underestimate the intelligence of voters to understand simple concepts.

"Not a drop of oil for seven years" is pitch-perfect.  

A-freaking-men.

Not only that, but there were no polls prior to election day (or prior to Edwards announcing he wouldn't run for reelection) that showed him losing to Burr.

This is getting ridiculous.

My wife's a great example of exactly what you're talking about.  She's an Edwards supporter (as am I), but she's said repeatedly that she feels a lot of guilt for not supporting the first viable female presidential candidate.  If Clinton had Edwards' positions, we'd both be supporting her!

Margie Vanderhye.  She's running for State Senate right now, but after watching the video of her debate with Rip Sullivan from April (link), she'd be an awesome candidate.

If the Republicans nominate Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, which wouldn't surprise me at all, she'll run a "clean" campaign and bring out all of Connelly's dirty laundry.  A progressive, successful woman candidate would be able to tie Davis into the national GOP much better than Connelly.

Here's Margie's website.

He won't take $$ from federal lobbyists, either.

I believe he's going to be in Iowa.

Rather smart...all the other candidates will be NV, so he gets the IA press corps to himself.

I still think he should be there, but I understand the logic of missing a one-on-one forum to hold court in IA by himself.

Absolutely right.  These posts weren't "anti-Catholic;" they were accused of being "anti-Catholic."  Even using that frame is accepting wack-job's premise, which we shouldn't do.  Edwards said he was personally offended by some of the statements.  Good for him.  Me, I found them to be cringe-worthy, but not personally offensive.

Statements that some people might be offended by?  Yes.  But wouldn't this be a good time for religious Democrats to emphasize critical thought and not knee-jerk reactions?

Calling statements critical of religion "anti-religion" is just a way to dismiss the criticism without actually addressing it.

And that's why we hold "religious Democrats" (whatever THAT means) to a higher standard--we expect more.

Wow.  Great comment.

It's Edwards' speech after Katrina on poverty:

So, today, I implore all Americans -- don't turn off the television and put the disturbing images out of your mind. Don't let yourself think that because the levees in New Orleans are being repaired, we have built all of America's levees high enough.

Rather, stand with me today and pledge to work for an America that doesn't ignore those in need and lifts up those who wish to succeed. Pledge to hold your government accountable for ignoring the suffering of so many for far too long. And pledge to do your part to build the America that we have dreamed of -- where the bright light of opportunity shines on every person -- an America where the family you are born into, or the color of your skin, will never control your destiny.

He said on MTP on Sunday that one of the carrots could be providing nuclear reactor fuel for civilian use, in exchange for stopping the weapons program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/pag e/3/

Yep.  This is Obama's chance to actually do something to stop the war he opposes, rather than just talk about it on TV.

You're 100% right.

That's why the Democratic Party should take the lead in fighting to maintain solvency beyond the 75-year CBO (or OMB?) budgeting window.

The simplest solution, of course, is to raise the cap on FICA taxation from $92,000.  I've heard that raising it to $150,000 will maintain solvency through the 75-year window.

We could probably bring some Republicans along by raising the cap on tax-free retirement savings contributions.  Not all savings, just those for retirement.  We could also increase the penalties for pulling those funds out, with a series of exemptions for medical/family emergencies.  Heck, maybe throw in matching funds for those who have an annual salary less than $XX,000...as your salary goes down, the percentage of matching $$ goes up.

Not only would it buttress our arguments to continue to win over the under-30 set, it would bring along a lot of middle to upper-middle class voters who are the mythological "swing" voters.

And General Clark did so well, he was named the Vice  Presidential nominee.

Or not.

The bottom line is that I feel that Edwards' message is inspiring and cohesive.  Something Clark just doesn't have.  He also has maintained a lot of ties to the activist base in the early primary states and  a campaign-ready staff.

He's in a better position to run and win than General Clark.