... according to your projections, it should break down as a 20-14 split.

They heard the dogwhistle.

That's the subtext of the "Ready on Day One" argument -- that Hillary is quicker to go to war, because Obama is a sissy.

I think of it as a "Brother Soulja" attack -- going after a strong Dem constituency (those opposed to the war) with a right-wing frame, in such a way to immunize the attacker against his/her own perceived weaknesses.

I think it's a curious primary attack. My state has voted, so I can't cause any real damage to Clinton for going this route. But perhaps the other states will.

and she even mentioned the election this time!

That is some not-especially-compelling internet trash-talking.

I've seen some goading worthy of the alt.flame.* hall of fame around here, but you're not really putting in the effort.

Nobody got "set up," and other posters are running circles around you just pointing and laughing.

Quality, not quantity.

In other words, no, nobody has done the count.

I wonder if we could convince the DNC to give HillaryIs44.com some delegates -- their caucus could be the new firewall!

Yes, SUSPICIOUS!!!

Including FL/MI.

Ohio: Clinton +12 / Rhode Island: Clinton + 9. / "Socialist" Vermont: Obama +12 / Texas: Clinton +2.

Well, I suppose we'll see who has a "lack of brain" by the end of the evening.

I wonder if OpenLeft will do a post calling you out for demonizing our political base in the northeast as "socialists"? A three point swing in Texas and they'll be "socialists" too, perhaps.

Word, man. I don't know if this is right, but way to put it all on the line with these predictions.

I know just what will win Clinton back the support of the black voters that she lost in the last 12 months -- calling Jesse Jackson a "race hustler."

I have noticed that the passion that fueled the virulent hatred against Hillary Clinton in comments across the blogosphere just does not transfer to John McCain.

That's because so many bloggers spend more time trying to define the Democratic Party than anything else. When 95% of the writers in a thread are Dems, that's what you debate and argue over. That shouldn't be a surprise.

Clinton supporters have been after Obama's blood for having an unambitious health care plan. Obama supporters have been after Clinton for supporting the Iraq war.

A lot of Clinton's most vocal supporters think it's high time a woman be nominated for President. Some of Obama's strongest support blocs want to nominate an African American for President.

Obama supporters want to see a campaigns run primarily by promoting progressive values, and Clinton supporters want to see campaigns run by presenting progressive policies.

Not all of this is true of every candidate supporter, but we all want to shape the Democratic party so it reflects our beliefs and identities. Is that really surprising?

The insinuation Jane was trying to make is beneath her, and it should be beneath you. I haven't seen any major blogs -- even those most thoroughly tilted towards Obama -- use your comments section to suggest that Clinton voters are deficient for their promises to support McCain in the general. That's because just about everybody (else) realizes that we'll all have to work together in the summer and fall.

He did show up to vote against telecom immunity, so that counts for something (and probably had something to do with the Dodd endorsement today.)

But, like it or not, all the candidates are missing a lot of Senate time while they're on the campaign trail. If Clinton had fought for universal healthcare for two years from the Senate floor instead of the campaign trail, we might be closer to achieving that policy -- but she'd be even further from the White House than she is now.

I would give you an uprating, if I could. Sorry :(

I didn't detect the changes you're describing until sometime around the Nevada caucuses, but you're right that MyDD has become a shadow of its former self.