These idiots report on world events like they're writing a plot summary for an action movie.

"I had a strangely gratified feeling watching the stocks tumble yesterday.  Call me a fringe radical, but I suspect that the insiders aren't so much concerned about the "lack of specificity" in Geithner's plan as they are concerned that they may actually pay for their mistakes.  You have to imagine that the tone struck by Obama on ABC last night was echoed in many backroom discussions throughout the day yesterday."

I agree 100%.

Remember it was smoke and mirrors that gave us the last stock market boom during the housing bubble. The market won't react well to realism, but in the long run, it will be healthier and more stable.

that perhaps they should remain as the permanent opposition party. Democrats are better at governing, Republicans are better at heckling. Sounds like a perfect arrangement.

And I think Matthews missed the mark a bit. Republicans are proposing to do more of exactly what they passed over the last 8 years: more tax cuts, and more spending cuts. It's not about whether or not we can trust their way, it's that we've already tried their way. We've done it, and we know what happens.

Grist is putting the price tag at $100 billion in green spending:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/ 28/155157/396

Not bad.

How about Michael Moore? It would at least be funny.

I don't understand why all the speculation has been centered around sitting senators. Is it that the media doesn't know anyone else's name? Surely Obama will avoid raiding the Senate of all our effective Democratic senators. Right? Or is he moving our entire caucus over to the executive branch?

Republicans only care about "character issues", of which this is definitely one. Not understanding basic policy issues or even the Constitutional role of the VP doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar.

There's a really accurate series of state polling coming out in a few weeks, on November 4th. HUGE sample size, zero margin of error.

That's all I can say about this interview. If people vote for her specifically BECAUSE she doesn't understand the issues, then this country is doomed beyond repair. From what I can tell, her entire appeal is her lack of knowledge, and how awful it is that anyone would hurt her feelings by making her answer questions about her job. uuggghhhh

I'm now in the habit of donating money to Obama every time she opens her mouth and says something completely insane. I don't think of it as a game, it's just my gut level reaction to her. She just makes me feel sick down to my bones, like I have to do whatever I can to end this nightmare.

So now I'm off to go drop more benjamins in the sanity bucket. Anyone want to join me?

http://donate.barackobama.com/

As if taking the high road has EVER, ONCE served as a shining example to conservatives of proper political conduct. As long as "Is Obama a secret atheist Muslim from an anti-American Black Liberation Christian church??? PLZ FWD!!!!" emails are still flying around, and as long as they're still picked up as mainstream debate points in right wing circles, I'm going to have absolutely zero qualms about seeking answers about an extremely bizarre family situation. Especially when that family situation is held up as a living example of the kind of morality that would get legislated over all of us.

I'm glad Obama is keeping it classy, but I don't work for the campaign, and I want answers. So, to Sarah Palin and John Sidney McCain III, release the medical records!

In Clinton's concession speech, she did an excellent job of demonstrating how to reach out to her supporters to support Obama. She simply talked about an issue or a value that she supported and campaigned on, and said that the way to achieve that goal would be to elect Obama, because he supports it too.

that if she really and truly wants the VP slot, undermining Obama at every turn isn't the way to get it? As VP, she would have to work closely with Obama in an Obama administration. Do you think for a second that Obama is going to be excited about having a #2 who has a shown a knack for working against him every time the going gets rough?

Hillary is proving that she wouldn't be a team player in an Obama administration. That's a red flag. If she really wanted the #2 spot, she could have had it if she had either dropped out earlier, or campaigned on her merits without the slime of the kitchen sink strategy.

Any popular vote estimation must also include the 173,664 estimated voters in Michigan who showed up at the only nomination contest available to them, and voted for Obama.

If you think those voters shouldn't count because his name wasn't on the ballot, then you're making a rules and technicalities argument, not a "will of the people" argument. If you want to measure the will of the people, you have no choice but to cast the widest net possible. This includes the caucus state estimates and Obama's 173,664 estimated Michigan voters.

About this point: "Clinton is more electable because of Obama's scandals"

You're correct that Republicans will make Hillary's past front page news, but I think this is missing half of the story. The Clintons have eight years of business deals and connections made through Clinton Global Initiative that have been largely ignored, between 2000-2008.

Now I'm certainly not implying that any of these connections are remotely shady or even worth mentioning, but it doesn't matter. Republicans can and will blow anything out of proportion, and harp on it endlessly. Nominating Hillary doesn't insulate us from this.

Obama is a validation of the 50 state strategy, thus he is the stronger nominee. Competing everywhere is a winning strategy, and good for governance. The last thing we need is another 50%+1 presidency.