istewart, can you possibly LIKE Cindy McCain?

Michelle rocks.

As long as she keeps the beer flowing, we're cool.

LOL

I just saw Joe Andrew replying to this on MSNBC. It's really pretty funny that the Clintonites feel it necessary to attack him in this way.

Dean just says they will seat Florida and Michigan on the daily show

God Stewart says some ******ed stuff, I'm remembering why I don't watch often anymore. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the insurgents because they aren't a protected person in the treaty. If you want to say we should hold that standard because of moral reasons, fine, but lets not proclaim things based on pure ignorance.

Of course they will seat FL and MI, its just how the delegates will be worked out and when they seat them.

Great video here btw...

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1531283112

Found the place where I read it. As of Tuesday, it was 37.2% (not 38% like I quoted) of NC voters that had voted early and are black:

Center For Congressional and Presidential Studies

Specifically these two posts:

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/04...ompare-to.html

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/04...-carolina.html



ARG's last poll is coming closest to targeting the correct turnout #s as reported by the NC State Board of Elections (at least if early voting is indicative of what the final demographics will look like); that poll had Obama +10.

Having said that, earlier this week, less than 150k ballots had been cast (when that blog posted the image above). The count on the NC Board of Elections site now says they're close to 300k votes cast; not sure if the demographics are still the same.

Two interesting stories:

1. Obama has dozens of uncommitted super delegates lined up waiting to support him, they are waiting till after June 3rd to come out in support of him so it doesn't look like they are circumventing the votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...o_n_99386.html

2. In North Carolina lots of homes in predominantly black districts were receiving automated phone calls with competely false information about voter registration and eligibility. After some complaints, a newspaper tracked down the source of the calls to a group called "Women's Voices, Women Vote" a group 'dedicated to improving unmarried women's participation in the electorate and policy process'

The group is declining comment on why they were making these calls and why the calls had a bunch of lies.

Oh... the big shoker of course, is that all the leaders of this organization have donated money to Clinton in the last few months.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...carolin-1.html

My God...I did NOT see that coming.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1495

Zogby, 4/30/08 thru 5/1/08:

North Carolina

Obama 50%, Clinton 34%

Indiana

Obama 42%, Clinton 42%


Although as noted earlier, Zogby traditionally rates at near the bottom of pollster reliability. Clinton only winning by 10% among white voters in NC is an outlier compared to every other poll.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...out-obama.html

Also, a nice post at fivethirtyeight for those of you all panicky about the sinking ship that is the Obama campaign:

Read the whole thing; makes a pretty compelling argument that, when using McCain as a benchmark, it's not that Obama is flaming out, it's that Clinton's campaign is actually doing much better now compared to two months ago. But what of the "*now* it's time to panic about the Obama campaign!!!!" narrative that's all over the media? ldo:

Mason Dixon poll shows Obama's N. Carolina lead eroding, now just 7 points

For those still wondering how Krugman would respond to Hillary's gas-tax holiday proposal, which has been condemned by virtually everyone else:

In his column today, he spends the first 9/10 criticizing Obama for giving Republicans too much credit for recognizing that regulation can be flexible. Finally, in the second to last paragraph he says this:

"To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn't; Hillary Clinton shouldn't have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday."

In the last paragraph, he then concludes:

"But I think Mr. Obama is doing much more harm to the Democratic cause by echoing Republican attack lines on such issues as insurance mandates and Social Security. And now he's demonstrating his post-partisanship by giving Republican credit for good ideas they never had."

That made my day, Wynton, thanks.

Hey Vecernicek,

Here's another little fun tidbit from FirstRead:

"If it's Friday, it's another attack Obama column from Paul Krugman. You can set your watch to it. Earlier this week, Krugman actually praised Obama on his gas tax stance, but he did so on his blog -- and apparently decided only to mention it in passing in his column."

Obama reads his top ten list of surprising facts about himself on Letterman last night:

10. My first act as president will be to stop the fighting between Lauren and Heidi on “The Hills.”

9. In the Illinois primary, I accidentally voted for Kucinich.

8. When I tell my kids to clean their room, I finish with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”

7. Throughout high school, I was consistently voted “Barackiest.”

6. Earlier today I bowled a 39.

5. I have cancelled all my appearances the day the “Sex and the City” movie opens.

4. It’s the birthplace of Fred Astaire. (Sorry, that’s a surprising fact about Omaha)

3. We are tirelessly working to get the endorsement of Kentucky Derby favorite Colonel John.

2. This has nothing to do with the Top Ten, but what the heck is up with Paula Abdul?

1. I have not slept since October.

Another former DNC Chair endorsing Obama today:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNo...3105288&page=1

Rasmussen's summary of recent Indiana polls. The recent trend isn't good.

[IMG][/IMG]

As I explained earlier in this thread, the so-called economic critiques of the gas tax repeal are actually political critiques. "We should not encourage people to buy more gas", or the disingenuous "Those funds are needed for highway construction" (I guess encouraging people to drive by building shiny new highways with my money is ok, but encouraging people to drive by letting them keep their money is not), and the perennial classic "it's bad for the climate".

None of the critiques have anything to do with the simple fact that reducing gas tax will be economic relief to drivers.

natedogg

You may disagree with the critics, but it's absurd to dismiss them as just political. People from all political spectrums - from Bush, Bloomberg to Pelosi - have roundly condemned the idea on economic grounds.

What are the economic grounds that they are dismissing them on? You can't just say well look Bush and Pelosi said it, therefore it must be true. You need to either show why Natedogg is wrong, not simply appeal to an authority that isn't really authoritative.

Ikestoys,

My point wasn't to debate the gas tax on the merits; my point was that one cannot dismiss the criticism as purely political when it is coming from conservatives, liberals, moderates, Democrats and Republicans alike. Surely, they do not all have the same political motivations.

First off, thats a pretty big assumption there.

Secondly, different political motivations often lead to the same result.

Feel free to make an economic argument against gas taxes. Hint: it is in a budget shortfall.