Is there a reason that Ron Paul was not included in this ranking?

Chris -

You got it wrong for the Ds - Dodd has been showing the surge among tier two, not Biden. I agree that Richardson shouldn't be 4 right now too - he's told people close to him to keep the powder dry for a run at the open Senate seat. Although it's not his style, I don't think in the Prez race he is keeping up.

Dave
Albuquerque, NM

""Dave, if Hillary Clinton was flying around in a private plane owned by someone who was once convicted of dealing cocaine, wouldn't you [or zouk] point that out?"

Honestly, if it happened 25 years ago, probably not.

Posted by: dave | November 5, 2007 12:23 PM"

Umm, dave, Jimmy Carter left office ~27 years ago. Without opening the door any farther, need I say more?

the Bible teaches and Christians believe "... that government ...derives its moral authority from God. Government is the 'minister of God' with powers to 'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including even wrath by the sword..."

I thought it also taught to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, no? Government derives its moral authority from the consent of those who are governed.

Isn't it time to put the "Christian Nation" thing to rest? While the nation was founded largely by Christians, they made it quite clear that they were not establishing a theocracy.

Among others:

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
--------------------------------------
Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

That Treaty was signed into law by John Adams, who, if history serves me correctly, was one of those exhaulted Founding Fathers.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

America was clearly not designed to be a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.

'If you have a cite that shows a presidential candidate wanting to replace the US Constitution, cite it.'

dave, they never actually say that. whaat they say [and i should have been, again, more precise], is that the consistution is subservient to the word of god, meaning the Old Testament. That's why Mike Huckabee thinks that it's okay to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, so that it better reflects the will of God. I do have cites on that. It's nuanced, but a great deal of Republican issues [school vouchers, prayer in school, federal funding of religious agencies] are about the destruction of the wall between church and state.

As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe "... that government ...derives its moral authority from God. Government is the 'minister of God' with powers to 'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including even wrath by the sword..."

"Dave, if Hillary Clinton was flying around in a private plane owned by someone who was once convicted of dealing cocaine, wouldn't you [or zouk] point that out?"

Honestly, if it happened 25 years ago, probably not.

Mark/some of you might be interested in this Memorandum, re Mukasey:

'A group of distinguished intelligence and military officers, diplomats, and law enforcement professionals delivered an urgent message this morning to the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling on them to hold the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey until he takes a clear position on the legality of waterboarding.

Their message strongly endorses the view of former judge advocates general that waterboarding "is inhumane, is torture, is illegal." The intelligence veterans added it is also a notoriously unreliable way to acquire accurate information.

They noted that the factors cited by the president and Mukasey as obstacles to his giving an opinion on waterboarding can be easily solved by briefing Mukasey on waterboarding and on C.I.A. interrogation methods.'

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/11/05/urgent-letter-from-intelligence-military-diplomatic-and-law-enforcement-professionals/

I am not debating that there is a group of people that someone could label dominionist. I would like to see where one of the candidates says they are a dominionist since you state the following:

"There is a substantial group of 'dominionists' who would love to see the Consitution of this country replaced by the Old Testament [someof them are running for president]] which would be very similar to Sharia."

It seems that the re-ocurring "they are just like us" liberal screed is raising its ugly head again. It's the similar to the early 80's when the liberal rant was that we were no better/no worse than the communists ("we share the same biology regardless of ideology"). Now, it's "Fundamentalist christians are the American Taliban". If you have a cite that shows a presidential candidate wanting to replace the US Constitution, cite it.

/Philip Martin's drug issues seemed to end in 1983 and his probation ended in 1989./

Dave, if Hillary Clinton was flying around in a private plane owned by someone who was once convicted of dealing cocaine, wouldn't you [or zouk] point that out?

dave, this is what we call 'dog-whistle politics'. It's using a language that certain people understand to mean one thing, but to others something entirely different. although the officials doctrines of christian reconstruction and dominionism arose in the 70s, I was raised in the ultra-fundamentalist sect that spawned it, so I know what the words mean. When someone talks about 'reclaiming america for christ,' they are talking about dominionism.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not a secret, it's quite well-documented. When you understand what they are saying, you will see how open it really is, and understand why, for instance, John McCain recently said, 'America is a Christian nation."

Christian Reconstructionists believe that church and state have separate spheres of authority, but that the state must submit to biblical morality as interpreted by the church. There are several organization which sells books and tapes attacking the separation of church and state, arguing that all of America's founders were conservative evangelical Christians, that American was founded as a Christian Nation, and that only Christians should be allowed to run for public office.

'Pat Robertson, a powerful televangelist with a strong influence in the Republican Party, who is frequently asked to serve as a "religious commentator" by mainstream channels like CNN. D. James Kennedy, who hosts a yearly "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference that brings together nearly every major Christian Right leader and many powerful Republican Party leaders (this year's conference will feature Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee). Dominionist Jack Hayford gave the benediction at George W. Bush's first presidential inauguration.'

claudialong: The Guy gained power by an overthrow of the Govt. He now has complete power as a Dictator of the country, and the US has been his biggest supporter. The US is rattling their sabres against Iran, who is a threat to nobody, only in our minds. Nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in the region are there. The Taliban is a very strong force there as well, and don't forget The Taliban was once a strong ally of ours before we betrayed them. This could be the hot spot no one wants to talk about, since the Saudia folks and him are not on very good terms and he does not like Israel very much either.

claudialong,
It might be beneficial for many of us for you to note when you are recycling news from the late 70's and early 80's. Philip Martin's drug issues seemed to end in 1983 and his probation ended in 1989.

Sorry dave, the last 3 grafs of that post were directed to you.

I thought McCain got off a zinger about rudy last night:

'Here's McCain, firing back during a town hall meeting in Iowa Sunday night: "When someone says waterboarding is similar to harsh interrogation techniques used against the mafia in New York City, they do not have enough experience to lead our military."

The founders of Blackwater, our US paramilitary, call themselves 'Christian Soldiers' and say they are on a 'Crusade' in the ME..

As far as 'replacing Consitution' see what I said to Mark above, or google 'dominionists' -- there's lots of material.

Groups such as the Christian Coalition have adopted many of the tenets of Dominionism, and many key Christian right leaders are close to Reconstructionism, which thinks that the U.S. Constitution is a sub-document overruled by Old Testament Biblical Laws."

In spite of Romney's clearly manufactured persona interesting analyses at Slate show that only Romney and Huckabee are trending upwards in many States. If those trends continue....

http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/nav/ais/

claudialong,
"How would you like Muslim troops in Rome?" First off, I would say we have US troops, not "Christian troops", in Saudi Arabia. And secondly, I grew up Catholic and if the Vatican had no problems with "Muslim troops", I'd be fine with that. But the point of my post is that according to Sullivan, Obama has much the same policy as everyone else running. So he probably would not be closing down the base in Saudia Arabia. I agree that the base is one of the reasons that OBL gave for his motivation. So how would Obama be any better or worse, simply based on his skin color and name, if he would carry out the same policies as everyone else since it's the policies that are seemingly driving al-Qaeda and Muslim extremism? And I have to take exception with you that there are people running for president that would ditch the US Constitution. Please cite where someone is calling for the replacement of the US Constitution.

'This could very well be a repeat of how this guy got into power and it may be what brings him down.'

Mushareff, Lyle? The dictator? Not sure what you mean here.

Tell me, did anyone ask Fred about this:

'Thompson has flown around the country in a private jet borrowed from businessman Philip Martin, a co-chairman of Thompson's campaign who also has a criminal record for drug dealing, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Martin pleaded guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana, but the court withheld judgment pending completion of his probation. He was later charged with violating probation and multiple counts of bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, and was continued on probation, the newspaper said.'

Mark, I should have been more specific. I suspect Huckabee is, although not positive. But whether they are active dominists themselves, whomever the R nominee is will have to pass muster with these folks if they want a large chunk of american voters. You've probably heard of the massive Coral Ridge Ministry in Florida. That's the center of domionist thought in this country today, and all R candidates make a pilgrimage there. Dr. Richard Land is a dominionist, as was Jerry Falwell. Google dominionist and you may be surprised at what you find. I also urge you again to read Kevin Phillips' 'american theocracy'. You probably know he was an R strategist going back to Nixon, so he's quite authoritative... it was eye-opening to me.

'Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts.

Five of the Republican Senators who were unseated on November 7 received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Voter Scorecards. Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. (FRC and FOF are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.)'

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dominionists&btnG=Google+Search

claudialong: The Sunday talk shows were a litte drab, Fred T. was about the best thing for dems. This guy did not answer a single soft ball question posed by Russert, who is, IMO, a strong GOP supporter. Russert asked the three Gs that GOPers stress so much. The attacks on Hillary last week by Edwards seem to have about done him in, and the endorsements doesn't appear to work, one way or the other. Watch statements coming from the Administration concerning Packistan. This could very well be a repeat of how this guy got into power and it may be what brings him down.

Who is running for President who claims to be a "Dominionist"?

Who is running for President that you, drindl, would call a "Dominionist"?

Why?

I am not challenging your statement - I am sincerely wanting to know.

'With someone else as the Dem nominee, the race will be about Bush's disgraceful presidency'

NO. The race will be about whatever the republicans choose as a narrative, unless there is a dem strong enough to fight back. 2004 should have been about bush's presidency, sholdn't it? But it wasn't. It became about Vietnam.

The R's will soil and destroy whoever is running--they always do, because the media allows helps them. It jdoesn't matter how decent the person is -- there is no one better at character assasination than the current R party, and there is no other entity in the world to equal it in terms of structure, organization, reach, and financing. Richardson would be eaten alive by them. He just isn't sophisticated enough, or fast enough on his feet, to fight back the inevitable deluge of sewage.

'we have the idea that we can have a footprint in various countries in the ME (like Saudia Arabia)'

That's the reason Osama bin Ladin cited, dave. We had troops in their holy cities. How would you like Muslim troops in Rome? If you were a Catholic, perhaps not so much. I'm not defending it, nor blaming America. I'm just saying that I can see how others might perceive our actions differently than we do.

They know there are many Christian fundamentalists and wackjobs here [ like Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater] who beleive the very same things that bn Ladin says about us -- namely, that we think all Muslims re evil and thatthe US is engaged in a 'crusade' to to rid the world of Arabs.

And the Christian fundalmentalists don't care much for our 'freedoms' either. There is a substantial group of 'dominionists' who would love to see the Consitution of this country replaced by the Old Testament [someof them are running for president]] which would be very similar to Sharia.

This morning I heard Sen. Biden give one of the better reasons for Sen. Clinton to not be the nominee of the Dem party.

He pointed out that if she is the nominee the race will be about her and Bill, their old baggage, etc. With someone else as the Dem nominee, the race will be about Bush's disgraceful presidency. True.

Biden also said he is going to call Musharraf this morning and push him to hold parliamentary elections within the next 60 days, but also noted that Musharraf is affected by the rest of the political and social leaders in the country and that the situation needs to be looked at as a whole.

All the other presidential candidates in Iowa (and there are a slew of them today) addressing the subject are just spouting, no action behind their words.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

I'd like to see John Edwards pull ahead decisively. I see him as the first chance we've had to put a true progressive Democrat in the White House since Kennedy.

It's been heartbreaking to see how one man could make us, as Americans, responsible for a bloody genocide in Iraq, and turn our country from the most admired country in the world into the most hated one, in 6-7 short years. The flip side of that is the right man could turn it around almost that quickly.

This is probably the most important election in modern history. And John Edwards is the real deal. I hope no one minds if I post this link to the "Heroes" piece that Chris already linked to. I find it to embody everything we ever wanted in a president. It won't be hailed as bipartisan by the pundits/powers that be, but that doesn't change anything. It's an appeal across party lines to We The People. I can't watch it enough.

http://tinyurl.com/yo5p3f

I very much enjoyed Sullivan's take, as I usually do - curiousity that Sullivan is. His best social point was the continuing VN divide. His least defensible was casting Obama as a healer with Islam.

I think dave is making points that must be made. Let me add two more counterweights, here.

I was actually surprised that Sullivan did not caution that an Obama presidency would raise false hopes in central Africa that we would think their welfare would become, magically, a national security interest of the west.

I wonder if Sullivan has considered the fate of apostates under sharia law. The Wahhabbists
continue to train reactionary fundamentalists
who believe in a past utopia. That an American son of a probable moslem is a liberal western Christian will present the face of dreaded apostasy to them.

Watching Biden on FTN.

claudialong,
Those would be our ideas of democracy, equlity and freedoms that are associated with "western culture" as opposed to their interpretation of Sharia law. There is also that they don't like the fact that we support the idea of Israel or that we have the idea that we can have a footprint in various countries in the ME (like Saudia Arabia) if the government of that country allows us to be there. How Obama's color on his face will change that is a mystery to me.

roo_P,
Yes it does. And I guess the assumption is that there would be no recruiting of terrorist if we had not invaded Iraq which is simply rediculous since terrorism existed and terrorists were recruited prior to Iraq. One can make the argument that Iraq did not help or that it made it worse but there terrorist attacks prior to Iraq were plentiful, well funded and there was no problem getting recruits. The fact of the matter is that anything the US does in the ME is used as a recruting tool. In fact, things countries do at home (like political cartoos or laws on burkas) are used as recruiting tools. Obama's color will not change that.

dave--The passage quite clearly refers to the people who are not YET terrorists or terrorist financiers.

'Islamic terrorists don't seem to care what color you are, what religion you are, or what your history has been. They care about our policies and the fact that we are percieved to be a powerful voice for ideas they do not agree with. They will kill anyone, Muslim or Christian, black or white, that associates with these policies. '

I'm curious, dave, what ideas would those be?

Sullivan's love letter to Obama had me until he tried to state why Obama would be the candidate to fix the divide. "If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close." The idiocity of this statement alone undoes all the rest of the piece. Islamic terrorists don't seem to care what color you are, what religion you are, or what your history has been. They care about our policies and the fact that we are percieved to be a powerful voice for ideas they do not agree with. They will kill anyone, Muslim or Christian, black or white, that associates with these policies. We will still be occupiers regardless of who is president in 2008. An Obama presidency will not be radically different foreign policy-wise. We will still be friends with Israel. We will still be viewed in exactly the same way simply because our policies will not be radically different, as Sullivan states. He failed to convince me.

'Or Rangel's "War on the middle class"

This is how orwellian zouk is -- Rangel's plan to cut taxes on the middle class is a 'war' on the middle class -- honestly these people are dangerously subversive and insane.

The Sullivan piece could be one of the most important texts of this election cycle, honestly. It is absolutely excellent.

Yay for Joe Biden! I believe he has either won every debate or done as well as any candidate. It is apparent that he has the foreign policy expertise lacking in the others. I believe that he appeals to independents and potentially moderate republicans. Although he does well in the debates, I saw him at an Iowa event, and determined he needed a good stump speech. He could also benefit from a speech coach. He wandered all around what he was trying to say. Sadly, after so many years in the Senate, I'm sure he doesn't realize it. Further, he needs to stop making so many references to his mother.

The plagiarism incident from his past is not a big deal, but needs to be addressed. He ought to do more than apologize & perhaps explain it. As I recall, he was asked about it in a debate? Well, I can't remember anything beyond an apology.

I'm for Biden. He's smart and experienced and electable. I also think he could be successful at diminishing the divisiveness so pervasive in politics.

roo, thanx for the Sullivan cite.

I would support, tomorrow, McCain, Biden, Dodd, Obama, and Richardson ahead of HRC.
Maybe Obama ahead of Dodd - maybe not.
They all have more relevant experience and more demonstrated skill at building consensus than HRC.

As Sullivan implies, HRC vs. RG could be
seen as the continuation of a very long bad dream for America.

Roo, I read that earlier and was really blown away. the writing alone was top notch and the social commentary on how we got where we are today was powerful.
I liked how he tied it all into why Obama is so important to elect. I wish every beltway pundit and journalist would read it.

Ah, here we go.. I have been reading the Internet again. Clinton camp admits to using the Little Defenseless Girl Victim Card:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_clinton_1

Now, let us discuss her failures to discuss issues.

Andrew Sullivan lays out his case for Obama beautifully: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

lylepink--Well, I did uncharacteristically add a little satirical smiley-face there to show that I was not completely serious.

Re: economy.. I was just skimming the report and it turns out that 103 000 of the 166 000 jobs are *estimated* without any particular proof. Great.

rooP: Your 8:31 PM post, is a insult to all Hillary supporters. You can support[Obama] or anyone you choose, but don't fall into the trap of repubs that are so scared of her, from INFO I have gotten/received, they have even donated many $$ to Obama in the hope of derailing Hillary which is not going to happen, IMHO.

Democrats like "odd." It's the Adleigh Stevenson syndrome. They never shook it off. After Adleigh lost twice to the general, they considered running him a 3rd time, but Kennedy, like B. Clinton, was tricky enough to dodge their gate-keepers. You have to trick them into running someone with a pulse.

They have a fascination with woodenness as though it goes hand in hand with high seriousness. He looks half-dead, so he ought to be able to handle the pressing issues of the day. Hillary is the liveliest of the current crop. She dominates. Edwards is fifty-four but looks twelve. He has a twelve year-old's haircut. Kucinich is some "Lord of the Rings" animatronic doodad. He admits to having seen a UFO. Biden is a walking comb-over. Dodd polls less than Kucinich. He has no hope. Who the hell would invite him to be VP? Who needs a VP from Connecticut? Oh wait - Gore tried that. What was he thinking? Richardson looks like he just ate Kucinich and has a stomach ache.

And Obama - the new Adleigh reveals himself. Once the great white hope for defeating Hillary. Everyone acted like he was RFK challenging Johnson. Yeah. What he has in common with RFK is that they're both bone-thin. Obama took this long to come out swinging. Please. They have a fascination with maintaining the pose that this is a contest of ideas. So Hillary will never get properly vetted, and the Democrats will take it on the chin. Hard.

They need the GOP to stumble. To somehow skip Guiliani and run an unknown governor, like Huckabee, with a waffler, like Romney, of Massachusetts, as sidekick. Then she might win.

roo--I'm concerned too... I enjoyed watching the latest Edwards ad about Clinton, though. For somebody who is leaning towards Clinton based on name recognition and seeing her before in the White House, this has got to be a revelation.

urban4--In my view, if all voters were informed, Clinton would be polling at 5% ;)

The reality is that there are certainly people who are not as savvy (fortunately the primary voters DO tend to be better in this respect) and this is why I am still concerned about the eventual outcome.

Fox did a poll on second choices in Feb, 2007. The poll showed that second choices followed name recognition.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251178,00.html
Is anybody aware of newer data?

Unless the dynamics of the voters has changed completely since then, it is likely that Clinton will benefit more from people dropping out of the race than her challenger.

I suspect that contributors to this blog are not a representative sample of the voters. The average voter is probably less interested in politics and is willing to make less of an effort to make an informed decision based on the issues that each candidate represents. Does anybody have data on what percentage of Clinton supporters are "true believers"?

lylepink--Yeap, exactly right about the economy. A lot of the wage increase is due to high earners earning even more, not the <$60k getting paid more. I am not sure why I bother rebutting him, though, KOZ will just pretend as if I never posted anything anyway.

Truth_Hunter--I am, of course, speaking in generalities but Biden's policies are closer to Clinton which may be attractive to some.

Will you completely abstain if it looks like Biden is dropping out? Would an endorsement by Biden affect you?

Interesting question, though. Perhaps my equation is exactly the wrong way around?

Perhaps Biden/Dodd/Richardson supporters already considered Clinton and refused to go in her camp (even though she is far likelier to win) because of some unrecoverable flaw in her otherwise and would therefore be LESS likely to go for her? I can certainly see this as a possibility. On the other hand, I do not think it is likely that the "protest" side will switch to Clinton.

At this point, I am resigning myself to Clinton being the single most popular candidate and that the nomination fight will come down to how the "also-ran" supporters break between Clinton and whoever her main contender is.

I not so sure that Richardson supporters would necessarily support Clinton if he implodes. While I respect Hilary a lot... she is smart and hard working, her approach toward Iraq is farthest from Richardson's. If I have to support someone else - which at this point I have no intentions to - I would probably support Obama or Edwards. I live in New York and have asked a few of my woman democrat friends if they are supporting Hilary. I haven't yet met anyone who is, though quite a few say they haven't decided who they are supporting. Now,
it could be that they are saying that to me just to not admit it. I really wonder if these people who support Hilary in the polls are really familiar with her stance on the issues and some of her recent votes.

Western NY Geologist

MarkinAustin & rooP: The economy according to Kudlow and other GOPers is great. Look at the bigger picture,IE.. where are these jobs created, what industries etc.. Chrysler announced recently a planned lay off of some 12,000 workers. The jobs created, from what I have been able to find out, are in the lowest income levels, Flipping Burgers ETC.. I have found nothing in the middle income earners that supports these claims. I define middle income as between $50,000 and $100,000. This may be off a little when children of these earners are considered. You may consider the average income of all workers, but it creates a false impression as to the real earnings. The top earners of a Billion plus can, and is, figured in these where the medium income is derived.

"Clinton is widely seen as the most experienced candidate in the field and the candidate with the best chance to reclaim the White House for Democrats in 2008."

Biden has vastly more experience than does Clinton or any of the other candidates (save Richardson's lengthy resume, which does him little good). Biden is also much better positioned to reclaim the White House if he gets through the Primary (and I am routing for him).

I think voters (and some of the press) are done flirting with Obama - he was all hype with no substance, and despite the Chicago machines efforts, it takes more than a 'unique' back story if you are seeking to be commander in chief of our armed forces. Obama is clearly in over his head.

Edwards - if he were a true populist he might have a chance, but alas, he is a trial lawyer, and I don't think he can get past NH and be competitive.

This race is going to come down to Biden and Clinton, and Clinton may be better positioned to win the primary, but Biden is the better candidate. Let's hope shoe leather still counts for something, but he has an uphill battle to win the primary.

Well, roo, you are right about that -- I did one of those select your candidate quizzes twice--and the first time came out with Obama, the second time, Kucinich.

My first choice in the primaries would be Gore, but there you go. I could go for Biden, followed closely by Obama.

'Roo_P On what do you base your "switch to Clinton" theory? I'm now a Biden supporter and would NEVER switch to Clinton unless I lost my mind and wanted more of the same.'

Well more of same, on steriods, Truth, would be Rudy. Do you really want to enable that? Hillary is far from my favorite, but this guy is Mussolini. trust me, I live in NY... I could tell you stories...

CC - At last Biden is receiving his due. You are rightly picking up on his increasing popularity, especially in Iowa.... forthright style is what voters are looking for.

Roo_P On what do you base your "switch to Clinton" theory? I'm now a Biden supporter and would NEVER switch to Clinton unless I lost my mind and wanted more of the same.

Frankly, I have no second choice although if I HAD to choose someone besides Biden, it would be Gore.... I know, he's not running, but none of the others appeal.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

kingofzouk / Larry! - Nice to meet you at long last. As reported in the BBC, however, the vas majority of those jobs went to "immigrants". Close to 100% of hi-tech jobs go to guest workers on H1-B visas. If you read the fine print in that newest jobs report, it was "adjused", too. Just another fine way for your government to lie to you...to all of us. I know you don't believe much of what your local government has to say I certainly don't. So, why do you persist in believing anything that Washington or the White Hose has to say?

Roo,
Here is my list of preference, if I pay no attention to polls and electability:
Obama, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel.

claudialong--I posit that Kuchinich is a fine candidate, the U.S. political system is what is terrible :)

Personal anecdotes show that (by far, like 65%+) most people doing one of these "select your candidate" quizzes come out with Kuchinich on top.

Who is your first choice in the primaries (whether or not you will attend)? If he or she drops, who is your second?

Roo, I like a lot of Kucinich's ideas. But he's a terrible candidate... too hard a sell to most folks, kind of a loose cannon and comes across wacky, although he isn't really.. Obama of course I like, but I think I would put Biden ahead of him, purely on foreign policy creds. I'm liking Dodd but he has no chance. not enough time or money. Edwards is okay with me in a lot of ways, but he isn't gettng traction either. Richardson is flailing, Gravel is pretty over.

And you're right, I won't do the Nader protest vote -- I will vote for Clinton if I have to, because I think everyone on the R side is scarier than her, as I have said, except McCain, and he doesn't seem to please his party's purists.

kingofzouk--You (or Kudlow) are fudging your "real" numbers, predictably.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsanM66tszKz1zFq0LOG4XvWS7zAD8SLMI5G0

* Most growth in lower service sector.
* Unemployment rate is not decreasing (which means that jobs added are keeping pace with "workforce inflation")
* Wages grew 0.2%, 3.8% over the last TWELVE MONTHS.
* You completely ignore oil prices and the housing problem.
* Dow is diving (I do not think much of it but you always tout how important Dow is, so you cannot have it both ways.)

mark_in_austin--Yeah, I am certainly working off coarse assumptions myself but let us assume for a moment that the polls that show 45-48% of Democrats being for Clinton at this point are accurate. If (and when) this becomes a two- or three-way race, I have a hard time believing that NONE of the supporters of the rest of the field will switch to support Clinton instead.

Continuing that thought, I see Biden, Dodd and Richardson's current supporters being far more likely to switch to Clinton. This is my "establishment" vs. "protest" division.

But as you, I am keenly interested in other people's opinions on this topic. Who IS your second? My line from most to least favourite:

Kuchinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Richardson, Clinton.

Mark or Colin, a question on the driver's license program. How can it be done legally? If this is strictly for 'undocs' -- and they provide, say birth certificates, that certify they are NOT here legally, aren't they subject to immediate deportation?

Hillary may be the front runner because of her name recognition and because there are a lot of women who want to show that a woman can be elected President.

I would guess a portion of those who say they are for Hillary are basing it solely on name recognition and association to Bill and not on her stand on the issues, and haven't bothered to educate themseleve on where all the candidates stand on the issues. They assume that she will be like Bill. If they elect Hillary on this premise they will be sorely surprised when they get something entirely different. These voters need to start educating themselves. If these people are too lazy to research all the candidates' experience and stand on issues and vote on name recognition alone, if Hillary gets in because of these people I don't want them crying after the fact what a bad president she is and and that they were not aware of her stand on something. Look at the Conservatives who helped get Bush re-elected and shortly thereafter cried that he wasn't doing what they thought he would do.

For those who just want to see a female as President, you need to ensure that the female is the best person for the job, based on the same criteria that you would judge a male running for office. After all you wouldn't want the wrong female to get elected and fail. If this were to happen, it would be along time before another female candidate would be elected President.

This is the first time in history that voters have had to educate themselves on the candidates, and this is the first time there are sooo many candidates to choose from. I hope that people will not cast their vote for Hillary solely on name recognition and because she is married to Bill; and I hope women will not vote for her solely because she is female. The choice for who runs against the Republicans in '08 is too critical to be solely left up to name recognition and gender association. We need to elect the best candidate, based on their stand on the issues and the strength and integrity of their character, and their ability to lead.

EEEEKKKKKKK - real numbers. don't look at them drindl, you will surely turn to stone. or perhaps billions and billions of little pebbles.

Well, well, well ... 166,000 new jobs. Twice the consensus view. Did somebody say Goldilocks? Did somebody say the greatest story never told?

U.S. businesses and entrepreneurs are in very good shape. These are the real job creators. And with low tax rates, low inflation, and low interest rates, the economic and stock market outlook looks extremely bullish. The economic bears continue to underestimate the strength of the consumer because they continue to underestimate the strength of business. Ultimately, it is business that creates jobs. And it is jobs that create income.

Here's the key point: Outside the struggling financial and consumer discretionary sectors, the economy is firing on all cylinders. Economy-wide profits are up a smoldering 15 percent in the third quarter when you remove these two laggards. And in addition to today's robust, expansionary jobs number, GDP blew away forecasts earlier this week, coming in a hair shy of 4 percent. (For the record, this represents the biggest back-to-back quarterly gain in four years.) This means healthy American businesses are generating jobs. Meanwhile, hardworking American workers are out there spending money, with real, disposable, after-tax, after-inflation income running around 4 percent -- a big number.

In the October jobs report, average hourly wages for non-management workers increased 3.8 percent, well above inflation. These wage gains don't come from home-equity lines. They come from strong job creation. This is the heart of the consumer story. The October jobs gain is the best in five months. Over the past year, 1.7 million new jobs have been created. The bulk of these, by the way, are coming from high-pay service jobs, including business and professional services, as well as education and health services.

Looking back over four years, from the middle of 2003 when President Bush's tax cuts took effect, the economy has created 8.6 million new jobs. Presently, non-farm payrolls in the U.S. stand at 138.5 million, a new record high. The unemployment rate today is a low 4.7 percent. And total civilian employment stands at 146 million, just shy of the record high. In fact, when you look at the October jobs report, it appears that employment is speeding up, not slowing down.

Message to all you worrywarts out there: The U.S. economy remains strong. There is no recession ahead. Goldilocks rules.

no mikeB - the sky is not falling.

Larry Kudlow

Oh yes, JD, as Mike mentioned, there's also the matter of the billions and billions of dollars sent to Iraq that have just mysteriously vanished -- no paper trial, no accounting, no nothing. Just gone. Poof.

lyle and lwoodfield are not allowed to say HRC is their "second favorite", of course!

Bye.

didn't care to take on the "war on Poverty"?

how about Dirty Harry Reids War on the military?

Or Rangel's "War on the middle class"

Or hillary's "War on integrity"?

I know, MikeB. and I also understand what you said about feeling sorry for the undocs. That watering hole story dave posted pretty much summed of the poignance of it... these are folks who know they have a good chance to dying to get here, but they still do it because they may well be fighting for their family's survival. Under other circumstances, we might call that courage.

But because of our so-called fabulous economy, a lot of our citizens are competing with them for crappy low wage jobs. Big employers should be heavily penalized -- and no one ever talks about the culpability of the Mexican government. Tthey have never lifted a finger to help us. How about some kind of sanctions until they enforce their side of the border and do something, anything, to help their people's lives improve.

roo, you may have made assumptions about voter preferences that are unrealistic.

If HRC is not a comfortable fit for a voter now it will be either

because that voter does not think she has relevant experience, or

because that voter does not think her relevant experience bodes well, or

because of perceptions, fair or unfair, about her character.

She is a known. She will carry Ds in a general election, of course, if she is the nominee.

But I, an independent, would bet the field against her because I think she will never reach 50% in her own party. I do not think many D's rank her their "second favorite" candidate.
There are many Ds who post here. Ask that "second favorite" question, yourself.

KOZ posted a video of HRC that is, I suspect, a mild harbinger of things to come.

There is a determination among some to deny reality. A large number of people arguing about whether Hillary should be playing the victim should first cite where she has ever played the victim. People telling us how cold she is might like to see the whole video of her at Wellesley where she is funny and mischievous and twits the other candidates. Then there's the blogger here who states that there's no real enthusiasm for Clinton. That is particularly self-deluding. Go to a Clinton meeting, read the Clinton blogs, look at the polls -- her supporters are dedicated, they love her, and have pledged a million hours to get her elected.

We have gone from "I don't know any of my Dem friends who are for her" to "They only like her because they think she's inevitable" -- hence the endless "she isn't inevitable" pundit theme. She isn't inevitable -- but anyone who puts money on someone else is making a very bad bet.

Look for Hillary supporters who say "Wow - I used to support her but now I'm for Obama or Edwards or Biden." Look for previously uncommitted voters who say "I now really dislike O and/or E". Which group is larger?

Concurrent Technologies is a bizarre company in Pennsylvania's rust belt that seems to exist for no other reason than to benefit from mindbending levels of graft -- last year's was revenue $248 million -- courtesy the company's local congressmen John Murtha.

Plenty of money for this.

kingofzouk--Are you JOKING? The "War on Drugs", brainchild of Nixon and later more formally Reagan, is a failed LIBERAL policy?

Yeah, it is a CATASTROPHIC failure, as are the mandatory non-violent drug sentencing guidelines. However, whenever there is pressure to change those (medical marijuana, even), the fscking CONSERVATIVES are up and in arms!

claudia - You're forgetting one important point, too....WE HAVEN"T EVEN *STARTED* TO PAY FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN YET! None of Bush's war bills have come due yet. Those debt's go to the sad suckers that come after he leaves town, and they will pass them onto us. Also, the billions tossed to that Halliburton subsidiary KRR, end up being shipped on a barge to their new headquarters in Dubaii. They aren't even an American company any more.

Well, OK I didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

They haven't done anywhere close to $50b though, because of Iraq or anything else.

Again, Iraq's been going on for what, since 2003? And 9b/year times 4 years is.....

And most of the rev is not Iraq-related....

Hey drindl - how much has the failed "war on Poverty" cost us? when will you Libs declare it is lost and the time has come to get out? how much has the "war on Drugs" cost us? when will you admit failure on that one? how much has the Libs "War on Bush" harmed us for local Lib political gain? you can't even pass a single approps bill, so is it now time to declare the war on Bush a failure and moveon? Or will you simply regirgitate all the lies and smears for use on Rudy?

Interesting that the war in Iraq is the only thing Dems consider to be expensive and worth cutting funds for - the one thing that the Federal government is actually authorized to do for all of us. all those bridges and earmarks and Byrd buildings do not enter into any cost cutting debate. and when it comes to power aggrandization - the sky is the limit for Libs - more health care, more eco-foolery, more regulation, more interference, more price fixing.

Eh, KBR et al. You want to live in a capitalist society, you pay the price. In this case, it is a private company leeching whatever it can while providing substandard products and services. I believe the technical term is "business as usual."

I think a far more productive line of argument, claudialong, would be to start holding people accountable for LITERALLY losing billions of dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

Edwards new scathing video on hillary's two sided mouth. I couldn't have done it better myself.

the beginning of the end for Hillary - we hope.

I was being facetious myself, JD -- half a trillion is about what we have spent so far. A great deal of that has been to KBR, and they started getting money before the invasion even started, for oil surveys and what not. So it's been five years now. Let's say just for fun then that all they've made is $50 billion approx. that ain't chump change, and there's a whole lotta other contractors like them.

Right now this war has cost every citizen in this country about $8000 each, not counting the interest since it's deficit spending, which we will pay dearly fo at some point.

Looks like KBR did $9b+ last year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=KBR&annual

I accept your apology

So Claudia, it's your contention that KBR has received $500b in contracts since the Iraq conflict began?

I'm afraid I'm going to need to see some backup.

Make serious arguments please, or don't make them at all.

Claudia, I was being facetious...and doing a poor job of it. Also, I do not hate illegals. I actually feel sorry for them. Most are wretchedly poor and come here becasue the alternative is starvation. The problem is, in the numbers that are here, they have wrecked havoc with our own poor workers. Illegals have virtually taken over the construction trades, meat packing, even non-union manufacting jobs. The consequence of that has been reduced wages and benefits for American workers...and we all know the social consequencesa of THAT - more failed marriages, families falling apart, debt, homes lost, increase juvinile crime and gang membership. I understand that businesses, taking advantage of illegal immigrants, playing Amercian workers off against them to win those wage and benefit concessions is the underlying problem. Also, with the sharp downturn in the housing market, we are seeing hundreds of thousands of illegal workers suddenly without those construction jobs. They are moving into other markets..and into crime. The most recent DOJ statistics attributes 24% of all crime to illegal immigrants: "...illegal immigrants cause 3,360 murders, 19,950 rapes, 450,000 burglaries, and 1.45 million serious thefts, besides other categories of crimes." And it's growing at a rate of 4.5% annually, far outstripping the less than 1.5% growth rate for the rest of the population! Last year 31% of all homicides were due to Latino gangs. That's pretty outrageous, when you consider that *all* Hispanics compose a bit more than 10% of the whole population of this country.

"Reportedly, there are parts along some of the more harsh and remote border areas where people have set up stations that have water to be used specifically by IA's during their crossing as a humanitarian aid to prevent dehydration and death"


People did this for us on the Appalachian Trail when I hiked it in '99. That was a big drought year, so a lot of the usual water sources were dried up. Humanitarian locals would leave jugs of water at road crossings so us pesky hikers could keep walking our walks. People that do little things like that help maintain my faith in humanity.

claudialong,
"-'Remove the artificial watering holes' did I miss something. I confess, I don't have a clue what you'r talking about here."

Reportedly, there are parts along some of the more harsh and remote border areas where people have set up stations that have water to be used specifically by IA's during their crossing as a humanitarian aid to prevent dehydration and death. The argument is that this makes an uncrossable section (due to the harsh conditions) now crossable and induces people to cross there. That selection would not be on my personal list but I put it out there as I have heard of it.

'It is and it isn't. When a person applies for a driver's license, they are supposed to prove their identity, among other things. So the question becomes - how are people who are here illegally proving their identity? That and who's job is it to enforce immigration law?'

That's the really interesting question. I would think the DMV should be bound to determine exactly who they are, in which case a lot of them would be deported. Bingo! End of problem. We don't even have to go after them.

Actually it would make a pretty good sting, for a while. Cruel, but hey, they're breaking the law.

'endangering our troops by denying them the equip and $ theysaid they needed. '

the reason they aren't getting the equip they need is that about half a trillion dollars has disappeared down the black hole that is KBR's pocket.

claudialong writes
"The driver's license thing is a real quandry. I don't think it's an easy yes or no at all."

It is and it isn't. When a person applies for a driver's license, they are supposed to prove their identity, among other things. So the question becomes - how are people who are here illegally proving their identity? That and who's job is it to enforce immigration law?

'Hey, we are at least getting the official word from one of the Clinton crowd! They want to legalize illegals, grant them all amnesty, Social Security benefits, free medical care, drivers licenses, and *your* job. '

You're being hysterical again, Mike. I'm not your enemy. I am not a Clinton supporter, do not want legalize illegals, give them medical care, SS or anything else. Read what people actually say, don't listen to the dog whistle in your head.

I was simply pointing out that in things like preventing epidemics, as Mark says, and identifying/tracking people who are here, we are protecting ourselves. You would shooot yourself in the foot just because you hate them so much.

edit to say, I see no reason why that reasoning COULDN'T apply here.

As for the compliments, likewise Colin.

I know that Rudy may be vulnerable to that charge; wasn't Bill Bradley also ridiculed when he told Iowa caucusers that he's for farm subsidies (ethanol) as prez, but was against them as a NJ senator, because now he has different constituencies?

I see no reason why that (somewhat sound) reasoning should apply here.

And frankly, I'm not sure I'd call Rudy a flip-flopper - he's been pretty consistent, like him or hate his positions. Mitt, yes, but Rudy no and McCain no.

HRC IMHO has done much worse; she's pandered - she voted for the Iraq vote when she thought the wind was blowing that way, then she voted against funding the troops once they were there, endangering our troops by denying them the equip and $ theysaid they needed. She needs to pick a side and stick with it.

MikeB, I still don't see the problem with anchor babies. This woman claims she shouldn't be deported, because she has a baby who's a citizen. And yet it seems she was deported; having a citizen for a child doesn't give her any legal standing. It gives her a reason to complain, but that's not doing her any good. So why is this a problem?

I'm not worried about "them" taking my job, mibrooks -- sorry to hear you have a job "they" might be qualified to take.

I will blather on for a bit still about my "establishment wing" vs. "protest wing" theory.. the important implication, as I am sure many figured out already, is that the "real" race at this point is between Clinton on one side and Obama + Edwards on the other--a far closer call than Obama or Edwards by themselves. The vast majority of their supporters will likely fall in with the other's rather than Clinton's.

Hey, we are at least getting the official word from one of the Clinton crowd! They want to legalize illegals, grant them all amnesty, Social Security benefits, free medical care, drivers licenses, and *your* job. Thank you Claudia!

"bsimon, out of curiosity, where do you live?"

I'm in Minneapolis.

Blarg - It has always been my understanding that any children born to even one U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. citizen, whether they are born on U.S. soil or not. I would not want that changed.

As for anchor babies, a good case in point is that Mexican woman who was held up in that Chicago church. She had entered the country illegally and been deported any number of times. On her last attempt, she was pregnant and had her child (paying nothing and sticking the hospital with the bill) at a U.S. border town hospital. Ever since, under the guise of "not breaking up the family", she and illegal apologists have been filing lawsuits and sob stries of their "plight" take up excess space in newspapers like the Post. I want people like THAT deported. I would even make illegal border crossing a felony and, if the courts do decide that the child is a U.S. citizen, take it from her as an unfit parent (a felon) and toss her back across the border. We make it far too easy for illegals and guest workers and the damage they do to U.S. workers is too often ignored.

'A contract employee of an Arizona nuclear plant was stopped at a plant entrance Friday with an explosive device in his truck, officials told CNN. The capped pipe was found in the truck bed during a regular security search outside the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station -- the country's largest nuclear plant.'

just saw this. a 'contract employeer' --wonder if they do much background checking for contract workers at nuclear power plants- they're notoriously sloppy around here with Indian Point. which is why basic security precaustions should be government mandated and enforced.

i couldn't help wonder if he was illegal, or just one of our homegrown anti-government types. all the fences in the world won't stop the well-armed timothy mcvieghs of this country.

Yes, JD, agreed. But prices will still be higher -- in some cases much higher, and that's why the costs will balance out.

Thanks, Mark. So what's the threat of anchor babies? Is it the fact that the baby can return years later as a legal citizen? I don't see why this is such a big issue.

' think getting the federal courts to declare immigrants to be part of an invading army would be very difficult. '

yeah, most invading armies doen't work at Perdue.

CC, you have finally came around in the Republican nomination race! I have said for a while it's down to 4 candidates, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee & McCain. F. Thompson never impressed me, and it looks like the majority of conservatives agree. When I used to post under the name "reason", I wrote that for 2 weeks or so before this Line revealed it. F. Thompson don't cut it with Republicans. It looks like Romney is now the front runner, in my estimation. He's winning big in Iowa, and in NH. The endorsement of Sen. Gregg is icing on the cake in NH. I noticed he is now leading in SC, a state where Huckabee could certainly do well or even win, giving him a huge leg to stand on in this campaign. Nevada will be interesting, but Romney now leads there, too. Romney has big advantages in Michigan. Guiliani really needs to compete strong in Michigan & Florida, before the massive primaries on Feb. 2. Florida may be Guiliani's best hope for an out and out win before Feb. 2. Huckabee, to remain in the race, has to have at least 2nd place in Iowa and really needs to win it outright. Then it would be on to SC for Huckabee. NH will likely be won by Romney. Guiliani will very likely have a great day on Feb 2., but the nomination is still wide open. If Huckabee doesn't win Iowa or SC, he's gone. McCain just about has to take 1st place in NH to continue the race, but if he wins NH he's in it to win it. But, by the Florida/Michigan primaries, it could well be down to Romney vs. Guiliani if Huck can't win Iowa or SC and McCain doesn't win NH. Who knows how it will turn out at this point?

On the Democratic side, Clinton really looked like she was cruising until the debate this week. However, if Clinton wins Iowa it's over and she will win the nomination. If someone can beat her in Iowa, they can certainly beat her in SC, too. The good news for Obama & Edwards: there is a great shot one of them will win Iowa.

Minors generally get deported with their deportee parents, blarg.

JD -- thanks for the info. Like I said, I wasn't sure if provisions for funding had been made or not. At the very least, I respect the fact that you're prepared to pay for what these new measures will cost. As usual, I admire your intellectual honesty. On the merits, I'd still prefer to see the Feds come up with a comprehensive solution. Immigration seems like the perfect example of when a federal solution is superior to a patchwork approach.

Here's a general immigration question for everyone. If either Romney or Rudy are the GOP candidate, will they really be able to hit immigration hard? Both were STRONG advocates for amnesty-like programs before they started running for the GOP nod. It would be pretty easy for Clinton or Obama to throw up some very nasty video clips showing both Romney and Rudy sounding quite liberal on the issue. I'd be curious to hear others thoughts. [NB -- especially since both Rudy and Romney have flip-flopped on a number of other issues too. That really will be a strong narrative to use against the GOP this go-round]

Claudia, you say the prices for those things will go up.

I look at it from an economist's POV: the prices will settle at the 'correct' level, no longer artificially influenced downward by the shadow economy's effects.

bsimon, out of curiosity, where do you live?

Also, I notice that the whackjob Rufii have not posted here. How nice. I guess he's participating in an important experiment

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

'we save $ in the long run (less crime, less emerg room visits, less schooling of the illegals, etc)."'

well, yes and no. a lot of prices will go up -- food, construction, landscaping, childcare, so I expect it to probably just kind of balance out. Since there are many Americans who rreally cna't afford to live on what illegals work for, certain jobs will have to pay more and of course, costs will be passed on to consumer.

I still think however, employers and illegals should be punished, because they are both breaking our laws. And I agree Mark, that the current situation with SS/undocs is absured.

dave-'Remove the artificial watering holes' did I miss something. I confess, I don't have a clue what you'r talking about here. As to the fence, if you've visited along the border much, you'll see how silly and how ridiculously expenesive it will be. As far as technology, that's a different matter. The money would be better spent on camera, motion sensors, etc, increased border patrol too. National Guard -- we ain't got the number, they're in Iraq.Minutemen? Oh yeah, that's a good idea. Give a bunch of racist gun nuts a license to kill and watch them go in and shoot up whole towns. Bad bad idea, Dave.

The driver's license thing is a real quandry. I don't think it's an easy yes or no at all. Licensing them provides a way of tracking them... knowing who they are and that they are here. They will also need to buy liability insurance to drive, so if you are in an acicdent will them, they will pay. The way it is now, they can simply disappear after an accident, with no way to track them down.

MikeB, what about couples where one member is a citizen and the other isn't? It would be extremely unfair to deny citizenship to their children. But allowing their children to be citizens could still allow some form of anchor babies to be legal, in certain circumstances.

Could someone explain what is helpful about an anchor baby? If two illegal immigrants have a baby and the baby is a citizen, how does that benefit them? They can still be deported. Or are there exemptions to immigration laws for parents of citizens? If so, maybe that's the laws that should be revised, not the 14th Amendment.

I think getting the federal courts to declare immigrants to be part of an invading army would be very difficult. Particularly since there's absolutely no evidence to support that stance. But I don't know the relevant statues; as I've told you before, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a software engineer.

proudtobeGOP--I was trying to explore that hypothetical (among others) earlier. If we assume that Clinton and Obama are the two winners, how are the backers for the other candidates going to break? Will enough go to Obama to bring the two even nationally? What is the scenario if it is Clinton and Edwards or Biden? What about Obama vs. Biden?

I was trying to get a gauge how people figure the "factions" within the Democratic party--how many, if it comes to an either-or choice, will break for Clinton and how many for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Whoever.

In my view, Clinton, Biden, Richardson and possibly Dodd are sort of the "establishment wing" of the party. In a head-to-head between Clinton and anyone above, Clinton wins (unless she has made some huge blunder.) On the other side there is the "protest wing" with Obama, Edwards and recently Dodd and a matchup between one from either camp would be more even. Then there is the "unfairly labeled kooky wing" of Kuchinich and Gravel, neither of whom likely have a chance (I can hope though!) and both of whom fall in the "protest" camp.

M in A, since HRC's major weakness will be her illegal immigration stance (in the primary, but mainly in the genera), I don't think you're threadjacking at all.

Colin, I think that's incorrect. I saw the hearing (and wow did it go late into the night), and they talked about another $1m needed. This is in light of Keane's budget cuts to the counties, which was mentioned many times (gotta save that rainy day fund to keep the AAA bond rating....).

I don't think they've passed the tax increase yet, but I can tell you that living in the highest per-capita-tax paying zip (property taxes are constant %, and our houses here in the west are worth the most), that I'm ready for it. And I'm OK with it.

Corey Stewart (sp?) is the one spearheading this, and he's got my vote. THey had the Sheriff on the radio the next day and he explained all the training with ICE that they need to do (which will drive the cost). The training is to make sure we're legal and lawsuit-proof, and make sure we don't use racial profiling to execute the board's wishes.

That's not to say we won't get sued - I heard some Puerto Rican Defense Fund meddlers from NYC have filed suit (tell me again their standing?), but I'm confident we'll hammer them in court.