Vecky, don't forget that in 2006, Nelson provided bipartisan cover for Alito's ascencion to the Supreme Court.  Sweet.

If for some reason this posts twice, I apologize.  I was in the midst of typing and lost what I was doing, I think.

Anyway, I just don't agree with your point, Nathan.  Nelson has gone from being someone who often opposed Democratic positions to one who opposes Democratic positions all the time.  Nelson does nothing to increase the progressiveness of the Senate--he's not a progressive, for heaven's sake.  What's the difference between having a Republican who opposes us on everything, and a Democrat who opposes us on everything?  In fact, as others have noted, Nelson is worse than a Republican, because his opposition gives cover to the Republicans ("even the Democrats oppose this bill").

As for his vote for the stimulus, let's remember that he voted for it after arbitrarily saying that the President's original amount was too large, despite the opinion of many leading economists (including Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize, for crying out loud) that it was not large enough.  Nelson had no alternative, and no reason, for asking that the stimulus be cut, he just wanted it to be smaller.  In so doing, he undermined the effectiveness of it and killed the chances for a second stimulus, which we so badly need.

Replace him with a conservative Republican, and the vote on major Democratic proposals will change not at all.

I was with you for a while, Nathan, until you got to "I believe that Ben Nelson will stay a Democrat, and for that I am thankful."

You thoroughly detailed all the ways in which Nelson has undermined the Democratic Party's agenda, all the positions he's taken that have made life more difficult for the most popular Democratic President in the last 40 years...and yet you want him to remain a Democrat?

Why?  What do we gain from having him in the party?  We can't count on him on breaking filibusters.  We can't count on him on voting for our policies.  What advantage is there to having him on our side of the aisle?  Better he become a Republican and we beat a conservative Republican somewhere else with a progressive Democrat. 

Last I looked, the calendar said February, and the general election is in November.  Let's put the brakes on for a minute.

Kirk has had a moderate voting record in the House, but he has tacked right in the primary.  His promise to vote against cap-and-trade in the Senate (which he voted for in the House--it's okay if...) won't play well in a general.  He's not the shoo-in everyone thinks.  Plus, we have no idea what the economy will look like in November.

That said, I agree that Lexi can't beat Kirk.  There are probably a few hard drives full of oppo research on his family's bank, and the GOP will put it out strategically between now and November.  I'm voting for David Hoffman.

In the gubernatorial race, none of the Republicans is able to seize on the outsider theme that is driving the teabaggers.  One candidate is a former state chair; another is a former state senator and chief of staff to former Gov. Jim Edgar; another is a washed up former state Attorney General who was such a great candidate when he was the GOP nominee in 2002 that he lost to Blagoyevich.

Maybe a teabagger couldn't win here.  But they do seem to be the energy in the Republican Party right now, and they don't seem to have any traction in the Republican primaries.  We will get our vote out for any Democrat running for Governor (go Quinn!), but Lexi will be a tough sell.  The fact that he played basketball a couple of times with Obama is not enough.

It'll be a GOP year because Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg say it will be.  After all, they're never wrong, right?

Were we watching the same race 9 years ago?  Gore didn't lose, he had the election taken away from him.  Big difference.

Um, let's see:

David Axelrod

Rahm Emanuel

Valerie Jarrett

Arne Duncan

Desiree Rogers

Oh, yes--the President of the United States!

Must I mention, desmoinesdem, that I'm from Illinois?

(You had to see this one coming).

Jeffrey Toobin says that Ginsburg and Souter are the most likely to retire, so Obama should be able to appoint two much younger Justices to serve 20 or more years on the bench.  I'd hate to see both of them go, but we have to think of future Courts.  If Ginsburg and Souter do leave, I say let Stevens serve until 2011, set the records, and leave then.  We will likely have 60+ Senate seats by then.

For background purposes--Danny Davis was elected Alderman (City Councilmember) from the 29th Ward on Chicago's West Side in 1979, as an independent (anti-machine) Democrat.  He was a loyal ally of Mayor Harold Washington, and ran for Congress twice while Washington was Mayor (against incumbent Cardiss Collins).  

In 1984, he lost to Collins 48-39, and in 1986, he lost 60-40.  

After Harold died, Davis ran for Cook County Treasurer in the Democratic primary in 1990 (lost), the Cook County Board in 1990 general (won) and for Mayor in 1991 (lost).  He finally won the Congressional seat after Collins retired.  

His district was gerrymandered in 2001 to remove what was then Obama's residence from the district of Bobby Rush, to whom Obama had lost in 2000.  However, once Obama moved to his present address, he moved back into Rush's district.  

Davis is an eloquent speaker but not a very good campaigner, I'm afraid.  (I've always thought the 1990 Treasurer's race was doable for him).  I haven't seen him in a while, so I didn't know about the cane, but it may be that Blago does what Minner did--appoints a caretaker and lets the candidates battle it out in 2010.

I thought I was with you nrafter (I'm a big believer in appealing to all voting blocs, no matter how big ours is), but you lost me.

Mario Cuomo lost in 1994.  If anything, NYS has gotten more Democratic since then.  

Upstate is emptying out, and Democratic voters are left there.  NYC's population grew in the last Census, and it remained strongly Democratic.

Maybe a base strategy would work.

I was absolutely certain that Wesley Clark would be the V.P. nominee, up until the Face the Nation interview.  And this wasn't residual Clarkism from 2004 (I was a Dean person).  Not that I'm unhappy with Biden--I'm not--just thought Obama would not choose someone else from Capitol Hill.

I knew Barack would get over 350 electoral votes.

I was surprised Missouri was as close as it was.

Thought this was the year for Dan Seals in IL-10.

Blagoyevich wants to court the African-American vote for 2010, when Lisa Madigan runs against him, and Daley will want Jesse Jr. in the Senate so that he won't run for Mayor.

I can't believe that Valerie Jarrett will want this.  I think both she and Obama will want her in the White House.

Just my two cents...

So, quoting her words is now Swift Boating?

Funny, I thought feminism was all about creating an equal playing field.

Talk about moving the goalposts.  First, Hillary and her friends here say that Barack is winning states Democrats won't win in November, and thus he's not a strong nominee.

But Hillary wins big in a state the Democrats won't win in November, and suddenly, it's Barack who's weak again?

Give it up.  It's over, and he'll beat McCain in the fall.

Josey, surely you jest.

Obama can put states in play that Clinton would have lost decisively.

And the hatemongering went the other way, if I recall, starting with the Big Dog himself.

A black man in America being the candidate of the Establishment?  LMAO.