Taro T

And that bounce will last what, a week tops, maybe only through the weekend? Starting out with the unshakable CA electoral votes gives the President a huge initial advantage, and that combined with the locked in NE may be enough for the President to win the election picking up a few states here and there. But barring a seriously major event occurring in October, there is no way the people that want 4 more years will be more energized than those that have had enough in November. The President's quest currently is to try to drive the energy level on the right down to the left's energy level. I truly don't see President Clinton's speech energizing the party faithful because at the end of the day, President Obama energizes people relative to President Clinton like President HW Bush energized people relative to President Reagan and as much as they might want to tell themselves they're voting for a 3rd Bubba term, they're still going to read the current guy's name on all the posters before they even get to the polling station.

Are you referring to tomorrow morning or through the next 2 months? Tomorrow morning, D's will be very excited about the possibility of a 3rd WJ Clinton term. Somehow, I'd expect that through the next 3 debates and the seemingly endless TV ads, they might come back to the realization that Bubba isn't coming back. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and Republicans will likely maintain their enthusiasm to remove this generation's Jimmy Carter from office.

Yep. Your point being?

Nope. They were voting to add Him and 'Jerusalem' back in. (Where they had been in '08.)

So do the Republicans have it in them to come up with a campaign ad showing how 'since Democrats want to be like us, you might as well vote for us' or one showing 'they don't believe in anything but are willing to say it any how' without screwing the pooch?

More likely he actually pointed out to them that Hispanics in general tend to be Catholic and that it probably wasn't their best way to reach out to Hispanics by pointing out that they were kicking them in the nuts again. As I'd mentioned in another thread yesterday, I was kind of surprised how for the 1st part and last part of his speech every 4th word was about God, the Lord, or receiving his blessing.

Was it only me, or did the Mayor invoke God an awful lot for a DNC speech?

Thanks SDS!

States unilaterally reducing their own say in who gets elected president. What a bunch of pinheads.

Except he didn't tell Medvedev to get back to him after the election, he told him that he'd have 'more flexibility' after the election. Which kind of came across to mean that he'd like to give Putin what Putin wants but it might cost him the election so Vlady needs to wait a few months before the US will roll over.

Well, they might be changing people's minds about their own objectivity.

I hope you are correct. The after the likeability statement was meant to convey that I am unsure how much value that brings to the table. I am having a hard time coming up with many (any?) other reasons that people have to vote for him other than 'we know what we're getting with him' and 'he's not a Republican.' And yet the polls are still essentially even.

But right now, it seems the main thing the President has going for him is that he's 'more likeable.' If the whole thing ends up just 'Mitt Romney isn't afraid to go to hell - he's the devil' then the D's risk losing one of the 2 edges they have (the 2nd being, people KNOW what they're getting with the current President; getting back to 'the devil you know vs the one you don't' motif) - the likeability.

Interesting. I can't believe that's the reaction Axelrod was shooting for, but it could be expected. The one thing that has struck me throughout this campaign is how shrill the incumbent's campaign has seemed. The R's playing up their desire to 'fire' the current incumbent as being due to disappointment and even stating that they actually think he's a good man just a horrible President would seem to be playing up to this as another contrast between the 2.

I'm curious if Eastwood did his schtick the way he did to help get seniors outraged when the inevitable attacks from the left occur? And, with Romney and crew making a lot of their points to be about a disappointment in President Obama not living up to his hype and also for believing better days are ahead for America, it'll be interesting to see how the President frames his message next week. I thought Romney did well with his speech, but it's clear that he isn't an orator by vocation. Though if he can keep the message focused on 23MM lost jobs and a hopeful vision for the future, the President will be in for a very tough fight.

I'd actually take the opposite tack and have step one to provide incentives for being married. (And if the federal government is gearing tax policy to support marriage, I am fine with providing civil unions with the same tax incentives.) BC's PSA's extolling the problems that single mothers face and why single girls/women should try to avoid that sounds ok as an additional step.

Fair enough. When I was younger, I was very much in favor of your position. Where we are today with technology, I think it would end up chilling free speech more than understanding where the money is coming from would help the system. JMO.

So, no issues with a person supporting a politician supporting public union reform having (literally) a truckload of protesters on their front doorstep?

I don't expect the whack jobs to try to kill someone for actually speaking their mind, but I could definitely see someone catching hell for it.

Interesting. As Chris Matthews is talking about how every single person on the stage today except for Walker Cruz is a white Catholic and the Republicans are trying to woo the Reagan Democrats, Arthur Davis is up on stage. And, apparently, not a single person has talked about Mitt Romney tonight either.

You aren't impressed by the Republican's convention?!? Truly shocking.

NB, you seem to feel very strongly about this issue. Question for you, in lieu of having individual donors 'outed' would you be willing to accept a system where demographic statistics are released in aggregate about the donors to campaigns and PACs on perhaps a monthly or weekly basis? Something whereby say the NAICS codes (or aggregates of general 1st 2 digits of SIC codes) with # of donors, & average donation, and headquarters states / nationalities; and similar info for individuals and unions is also disclosed. That way you would know (more or less) where the money came from, but whack jobs wouldn't be able to specifically target individuals for retribution for having the audacity to use their 1st amendment rights. Obviously details would have to be fleshed out better. Just curious as to whether you'd consider something along those lines acceptable.

I've been going for the entertainment angle tonight. Been flipping back and forth between Fox and MSNBC. Thought it interesting that it looks like MSNBC didn't show the video w/ Obama's quote in it. (If they did show it, which I doubt, they cut away to Matthews VERY quickly.)

It was a team loss, but if any of a handful of plays/items would have been different, so would the outcome. They include: Biscuit dropping a likely pick-6 right before the Jints went up 20-19; Talley having 1 arm in a protective sleeve (how many tackles did he miss because he couldn't wrap the guy up - a lot of other people missed tackles that game, but that was the only game all year Talley was missing); Marv Levy not forcing Kelly to call additional running plays - the Jints had a 2 man front and Thurman was tearing them up; Bruce not being able to get the ball out of Hostettler's hand in the endzone; and the officials deciding to review McKeller's catch on the last drive that cost the Bills at least enough time to get 1 additional play that drive.

I'd've probably run with "Former Republican, Ex-Governor Christ Endorses Obama." Somehow I don't see his endorsement as being quite in the same league as Zell Miller backing Bush. (No tthat that was any particular surprise either.)