You need to have some perspective and chill.  This commentary sounds like the same BS we heard during the campaign about Obama not being able to compete with McCain.

Obama and his Democratic allies just passed one of the largest spending bills and largest tax cuts in U.S. history - less than a month into this new presidency.  

This economy will recover (it likely would have anyway, but the stimulus bill will hopefully speed the recovery).  

When the economy does begin to recover, Obama and the Democrats will rightfully be able to take credit for doing the right thing.  This will give them a basis for expanding Democratic majorities in Congress and state houses.

This bill could very well be the beginning of a decades long Democratic hegemony - for the benefit of this country and its people.  

Ps - let's not forget that SCHIP also got passed - again in under a month.    

Can anyone help me with the methodology of the "RCP poll of polls" that's so often cited (and cited by Mr. Armstrong in this post).

I can't for the life of me figure out how RCP comes up with its polling average.  

thx

She's lies right in our faces, just like Bush.  She claims Obama never refers to victory in Iraq unless it's in reference to his campaign.  This is false.  Check out his July 15, 2008 speech where he very clearly defines what "victory" means in Iraq.

She claims that the $30 billion natural gas pipeline she supported will help America reduce its dependence on energy from dangerous countries.  Problem is, the U.S. imports very little natural gas and almost all of it comes from Canada and Mexico. So the pipeline does nothing for national security.  

She's nothing new - she's W. all over again, with a dash of true trailer park just to up the entertainment value.  Hopefully the American people will be smarter this time.

Palin is a terrible pick - it undermines McCain's chief argument against Obama on experience.  It took Democrats 18 months to become comfortable with Obama's relative inexperience, and the Republicans think that 60 days with Palin is sufficient.  

This is the typical hamfisted way that Republicans do diversity - what the hell is a "feminist for life" anyway.  I suspect most women will be as excited about this pick as blacks were about Clarence Thomas' nomination for Supreme Court.  

At the end of the day,  I think this loses McCain the presidency while saving Sen. Stevens (because Palin's selection will drive up Rep. participation in Nov).  As a Democrat and proud American I am happy with that trade off.  

I agree, it's like the nice old lady you see on the bus whose gleefully talking to herself - you don't gain anything from trying to make her stop (or trying to reason with her).  Just let her enjoy herself, she's not doing anyone any real harm.

McCain is a crazy old warmonger.  His recent "league of nations" comment and his joking about bombing Iran about sum it up.  In the current environment, he couldn't get elected dog catcher.  It's going to be either Obama or Clinton in November -  that's why they are fighting so hard to get the nomination.  Your expressed willingness to support McCain and your claim of his purported invincibility says volumes about your judgment.  

Based on your impressive track record there, your opinion about which candidates are "unacceptable" probably doesn't mean much.  

Amen!  That is one of the most significant things I find distasteful about the Clintons' campaign.  

gasp, gasp, must...reach...straw...gasp

We had a similar experience here in West Seattle - no bullying by either side.

down four points over four days is not tanking -

The media's response to this will say a lot about whether there is in fact a media bias in favor of Obama.  If there is, then she'll get nailed and we'll hear about her statements for the next few days.  If there isn't, this story will never see the light of day (which may suggest a Clinton bias).  It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  

My gut tells me that it will be too tempting for the media not to try to turn it into a story - especially since the circumstances (insulting statements made behind closed doors at a fundraiser) are so similiar to bittergate.  

True, and a lot of what Obama said about rednecks was true but, he still shouldn't have said it.  She'll pay a price for this - it's just a question of how big a price.  

This may be more harmful than "Bittergate" in the short term because we're still in the primary contest and she's bad mouthing people who actually participate in and effect the primary results - i.e. democractic activists - whereas Obama merely insulted rednecks as a whole.  

How on earth is Paul Krguman an authority on redneck culture?  I just read his column and the arguments he makes are lame.  Like a typical economist, he tries to examine and explain social issues using ecomomic measurements - it just doesn't work.  For example, he tries to prove that rednecks are not prone to cling to religion by comparing levels of poverty with levels of church attendance.  This is obviously inaccurate because it's based on the false assumption that religious rednecks actually go to church.  In my experience, many just spout select religous talking points (i.e. pro-life, anti gay marriage) without making any effort to find out what it means or to where they came from.  

Krugman did not prove Obama was wrong. All he proved is that he's pro-Clinton.