You do get more points for winning congressional districts, and the DeLay Texas redistricting scheme is going to play to Clinton's strengths, though--she's going to win the hispanic supermajority districts pretty handily, while the educated white democrats in Austin are split into large rural districts.  I could see the final texas delegate count coming out pretty skewed in Clinton's favor.

They would have to be evenly distributed throughout Iowa.  Turning out 3,600 new caucus voters in Ames and Iowa City is not going to have all that great an effect in terms of delegates, thanks to the insane formula that is used to convert voters into delegates.  And rural Iowa is very old.

Ann Coulter wrote an entire book titled <u>Treason</u> about how the Democrats are turning on the country.  I'm sure she mentions more than a few veterans in said book.  She didn't get the entire senate voting to condemn her.  How is that any different than the 'stupid' moveon ad?

get to be the two, and only two, small states that get to enjoy all this absurd attention?  Why is New Hampshire so inherently more deserving than Vermont?  Why does Iowa deserve so much more attention than Indiana or Nebraska or Missouri?  Why do two states with demographics way out of line with the rest of the country get to have 90% of the say in electing the president?  

Jay Nixon is a very, very weak candidate.  His previous senate bid was a disaster--he severely divided democratic constituencies without building any new inroads elsewhere.  No one much likes Blunt, but beware getting too excited about Nixon.

And who knows whether Obama would have voted for the AUMF had he been in the senate

You're making a false equivalence, too--it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize a vote from the outside than it is to actually make that vote from within the Capitol.  Obama would not have won his primary without his war opposition in the first place.  He differentiated himself by opposing the war, which was especially critical, given that he was not the establishment candidate for IL senate.  

I seriously wonder if he would have voted for the war with the rest if he had been elected to the Senate in 2000.  It's an unanswerable question, but the credit that he gets for opposing the war vote while running for the Senate is less than the credit that I give, say, Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer for actually voting against the war.

in a lot of ways, Gulf of Tonkin was a more blatant lie.  More deaths resulted.  Before we go on and on about the justice dealt out by previous generations, answer me a question: why wasn't LBJ impeached?

With Nixon, there were also several years of heavy press coverage where people learned all of hte minituae of how the white house functioned, and the particular crimes instituted by Nixon.  Today, we're lucky if we get 5 to 10 minutes of political news at 6:00

That is such an absurdly small sample size, that it's not worth dignifying with a response.  Bush 2000 lost the popular vote, and won the electoral vote in a disputed election.  Andrew Johnson was a lame duck from the minute he took office, and the Democrats were essentially dead for about ten years anyway.  Carter won in 1976, but I wonder what would have happened without the pardon from Ford.

If it's still a contested primary by the time that CA comes around, money will have a big, big part to play.  It's an absurdly expensive state to try to run for President in.  

Smoked pot contains tar.  It will not cure lung cancer.  It certainly will alleviate pain from cancer, and help with secondary symptoms.  

But come on.  There's a reason you cough when you take a big hit.

Letting the Cubans in Florida dictate policy toward Cuba is the epitome of pandering to a special interest group.  1962 was fourty five years ago.  

The Obama campaign is what generational change looks like and what a movement looks like.  He has not been tested yet but it's clear that Obama is not a fad.  I also see it almost every day in the District of Columbia a few blocks away geographically and miles & miles away psychically from the DC of the Capitol & K Street.  I see it on the faces of junior high kids who run over and want to talk to me, a middle aged white guy, and ask how they can get an Obama T shirt like mine.  They are faces of hope that I just don't see on an average day.

Yes, <u>everyone</u> understand that Obama's supporters believe this.  Everyone has heard this assertion about how his movement, involving X number of people threatens to transform America.

But, I almost never hear in these posts about the Obama movement:

• 1.What this is, or does, and how it is different from the status quo, other than encouraging 'hope'
  
• 2. How Obama's movement is qualitatively different from, say the 1992 Clinton campaign, or the current Edwards campaign, or any other Democratic campaign
  
• 3.  WHAT BARACK OBAMA WOULD DO IF ELECTED PRESIDENT
  

What does that mean?

I have never heard a single obama supporter say what that means.  Politicians have decried rank partisanship since before any of us have been alive.  They have promised to 'move us forward' since before there was a United States.  In terms of substance and style, Obama and b. clinton seem somewhat similar, hence what I said.