"Undistinguished academic career." Right. Because to get on Harvard Law Review in the first place, you only have to finish your first year in about the top 10% of the class (whether in terms of grades or your writing). And being in the top 10% or so at Harvard is a cake-walk, obviously.

Posted at May 14, 2008 9:26 AM in response to Obama Rolls Out Two More Super-Del Endorsements

To say that I've lost respect for Clinton after this whole thing is something of an understatement. Like many of us, I now cringe when I simply see her open her mouth. That said, if Obama thinks that it's a good strategic move to ask his donors like me to give her some money, I will donate to her in a heartbeat. November is all that matters. We now need her 100% on our team, and it's pretty obvious that she will be a strong asset to his campaign. And I'd CERTAINLY prefer to send her campaign a few hundred bucks rather than see her make a stink about deserving VP.

Posted at May 11, 2008 1:58 AM in response to N.O.P.E. (Not One Penny, Ever)

I'm no pollster, but I noticed a perhaps interesting thing when comparing this poll with their previous one.

1) The poll a week ago (Obama +3) contained 46% dems (or lean dems) and 35% repubs (or lean repubs). 21% were liberal or somewhat liberal, 41% were conservative or somewhat conservative.

2) The poll today (Clinton +7) contained 51% dems (or lean dems) and 32% repubs (or lean repubs). 21% again liberal, but 44% conservative.

So not only did they poll a larger sample of conservatives this week (+3), but they also expanded the % of the total sample that they included in the Clinton-Obama matchup (+5). Looks to me like the poll is less about what actual Dems think, and more about conservative voters (who perhaps like Clinton--maybe gas tax effect?) starting to identify as Dems. Such an effect might be interesting when looking toward the general election, but probably not so much when assessing what actual Dems think of their two candidates (51% of the country are certainly not Dems, yet--or probably ever). You could figure more of this out with the actual crosstabs, to see what the "true" Dems who vote stated as their primary preference.

Posted at May 6, 2008 12:39 AM in response to AP/Ipsos: Hillary Takes Seven-Point National Lead Over Obama, Both Beat McCain

There was no such "condition." There was simply a "promise" to give them political cover. The Clinton folks were sophisticated enough at the time to know that such a promise means nothing in legal terms.

Posted at April 30, 2008 4:55 PM in response to Hillary Again Hits Tale About Indiana Company Sold To China During Clinton Years

It's not clear to me what Obama's crew is doing on this, so maybe this post is off base.... but I really wish they wouldn't fan the flames on things like this "screw em" comment too much.

This issue has very reasonable legs of its own, and will likely be a top story through at least Monday (we know how this goes: a few days of Clinton camp complete denials, more eye witnesses confirming it popping out of the wordwork, an interview over the weekend where Clinton is asked directly and won't say "no", instead opting for "I can't remember, people like me say a b'zillion words over the course of 16 years, yada yada", then the Sunday talk shows and crazy Mr. Russert (who is drooling over this one), and then finally the stories based off the talk shows on Monday).

Anyway, I think one of the big reasons that the "bitter" comment didn't result in a boost for Hillary (besides that it was a stupid non-issue) is that she attempted to play it for all she could, rather than just watch and smile. Let's hope Obama plays this one right.

Posted at April 17, 2008 11:15 AM in response to Hillary And Obama Camps Duke It Out Over Her Alleged "Screw 'Em" Comment

There's a pretty decent chance you'll have to vote for that empty suit come November. That is, unless you prefer voting to put a 6th right-winger on the Supreme Court. So perhaps don't be TOO eager to burn any Obama bridges in your mind.

(and yes, same goes of course for Obama supporters and Clinton--which I try to remind myself of at least once a day so that I don't get too far out there)

Posted at April 12, 2008 1:37 PM in response to Hillary Hits Obama's Small Town Comments Again: "Elitist And Out Of Touch"

One very important federal issue I left out, that I think both would be reliable on: federal tax benefits for partners/civil unions/married gay couples. Perhaps employment discrimination would come up too, though I'm pessimistic that we're going to see more civil rights legislation too soon.

Posted at April 10, 2008 11:09 PM in response to Hillary's Appeal - The Diva Theory

This all seems like a non-issue to me. Do any of us actually think either of them will work hard to pass any major pro-gay initiatives? Best I can see 1) is getting rid of the "don't ask don't tell" policy, and 2) defensive actions, like blocking future FMA's. Both of these are very important, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see a big difference between either candidate on it.

As for adoption rights, marriage rights, civil unions, etc--all of these are state issues, aren't they? (I don't really know re: adoption, but I assume it's state law that regulates this, not federal. Maybe international adoptions bring federal in...). Anyway, point being that in terms of gay rights that they'll have any power over, I don't see much difference between them at all.

So, just be sure to vote for the Dem (Diva or not) in November. :)

Posted at April 10, 2008 11:05 PM in response to Hillary's Appeal - The Diva Theory

That first ad (the Scranton one) is a very nice break from what we've been seeing (I love the "raised on pinochle and the american dream" thing). Not sure however that it can overcome her previous hard line anti-dreaming stance.

Re: the Rendell one--does he really say that he's known Hillary for 50 years (that would mean they met in 1958... when she was just 11)? Or am I just hearing wrong? Is this common knowledge?

Posted at April 8, 2008 11:30 AM in response to Hillary Rolls Out Major New Post-Penn Ad Campaign In Pennsylvania

Isiah Thomas was at least a really, really good player before he set about destroying the Knicks. Penn, on the other hand, has always been and still is useless.

On another note, don't forget that Penn likely knows where many of the bodies from the last 12 years are buried. THere's no way control freaks like the Clintons could cut afford to cut a guy like him loose. He's theirs for the duration of the campaign, and beyond.

Posted at April 7, 2008 10:51 AM in response to Report: Hillary Demanded Penn's Removal After Colombia Story Hit