Coleman would have used his millions to slime any Democrat who ran against him. Franken, fortunately, had enough excited supporters to match Coleman's millions and the will to fight back. Some no name most likely would have been swamped by Coleman, who was relatively popular and seen as moderate before Coleman started smearing Franken and Franken fought back.
Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20. So, looking back and seeing that Franken WON, it's easy to see he was the right candidate.
For some reaon I keep thinking about whether cheating on a sick spouse is more morally reprehensible than cheating on a nonsick spouse. I can see where cheating on a sick spouse is seen as kicking them while they're down. But, I can also see where illness creates stress in the marriage that leads to infidelity. Truth is I really don't know anything about the marital lives of John and Elizabeth, so I'm really not in a position to judge exactly how reprehensible his acts were.
Agree about the flush our chances down the toilet part. It's certainly the part with the greatest potential negative consequences and the most direct connection to me personally. Since this was first reported back in October 2007, Edwards had to know he was playing Russian Roulette with Democratic presidential aspirations by running for President with this skeleton in his closet. I do judge him harshly for this.
I'm not at all surprised that Obama is doing well among Hispanics--that was always a narrative without factual basis. What is somewhat surprising is how poorly McCain does. For him to be well below how Republicans generally fared in 2006 is shocking. Before the R nomination fight, McCain had always done well among Hispanics, much better than Rs generally. Of course, he's also strongly associated with the attempt to provide a path to citizenship that other Rs slammed. Of course, he's tacked hard right and this has a lot to do with it. But, I suspect an even bigger problem for McCain is the "R" beside his name on the ballot. If Democrats can continue to solidify their standing among Hispanics, the Republican party as we now know it will disappear.
I'm very open to the choice of Clark. He's got a great background that compliments Obama nicely and would play well with independents and crossover Republicans, especially older voters who may be hesitant to take a chance on Obama because of his relative youth and inexperience. He would blunt any national security and inexperience attacks the Republicans are sure to make. Everyone also says he's a good progressive, although I've never heard him speak on domestic issues.
On the downside, I haven't really heard him speak enough to know whether I think he would be a good campaigner. I also don't have any clue how well he and Obama get along and I think personal chemistry with and loyalty to the President is important for a good VP in office. Last, he doesn't have any real political strength with a particular constituency or in any state.
The crazies who have been pushing for this will wet themselves with conspiracy theories and talking out their ass about how this or that or the other doesn't seem right on the scanned copy. The nutjobs will never accept anything provided by Kos. This just ensures that they'll waste even more time with it. It's no wonder Americans don't trust the Republican party to govern anything given the "issues" on which they spend their time and attention.
I'm extremely skeptical it was an innocent alteration. You would think even midling media people pay attention to the color and contrast in their ads. As factcheck itself points out, however, there is a plausible, non-race, based reason to darken the picture.
McCain's argument is much stronger than just being born on a military base. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was basically US territory at the time. It's similar to Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona before it was a state or someone born in Puerto Rico today. Legally, I don't believe military bases are treated as US territory, unlike embassies. If he had been born on a US military base in a foreign country, he would have a serious constitutional problem.
I don't get the whole Barry thing. I understand conservatives like to use it and Obamans like to correct whenever it's used. If it really were his legal name, however, so what? Is Barry considered a less electable name than Barack? Would Obama somehow be considered deceptive and untrustworthy if he chose to go by his father's name at some point in life? I don't get it.
I agree with your skepticism about the Rasmussen poll showing a 4 point Cornyn lead. However, I don't see how primary enthusiasm skewed the result--the primary was more than two months before that poll.
As a Texas resident and avid consumer of political news, I can positively state that nothing has happened in Texas to cause such a large shift in the numbers. I have no doubt that at least one of the two Rasmussen polls is an outlier. My guess is that the first is more off than the second.
Not only would he make a great VP and future president, but he would deliver Virginia this election and help with working white voters everywhere. We can find another nominee to beat Gilmore--he's extremely weak.