I've read this blog for years; I've probably been here since this its incipiency.  I used to really like coming here, but your posting on the presidential election has brought out an ugly side of you that I hadn't read before.  Indeed, I hadn't ever left a comment on this blog until one of this site's recent posts on Hillary and Obama.  

With respect to this post, of the 100 most important issues facing this country, whether to expand gaming has got to be at the bottom of a list.  Who cares about this issue?  

And I'll take Obama's stand on criminal law issues over Hillary's any day.  Hillary is a supporter of the death penalty and hasn't taken any sort of leadership role in reducing its use, as Obama did in the Illinois senate.  Hillary also supported the AEDPA, which, as you know, has been horrible for state defendants.  Obama said he would oppose making the crack amendments retroactive, whereas Hillary has said she would not support that.  Finally, I asked you earlier about Hillary's decision to bash Obama for his opposition to Mandatory Minimums.  You're only response was that it wasn't Hillary, but a campaign aide, as if that distinction really mattered.  (Hillary, of course, has never back away from the comments, which were widely reported.)

And two, most leading Democrats are still, unfortunately, not confident enough to run and govern on the politics of conviction. There's still this fear that it will alienate too many voters and lead to political defeat, and that only the GOP can pull this off (by lying through its teeth, of course, but then they generally appeal to a constituency that isn't exactly known for its intellectual sophistication). And since Dems are generally not able or willing to lie as egregiously as the GOP (yes, I realize that they lie, but not even close to the level that the GOP has been lying at since Nixon), they're left with focus group-based politics (which is also a form of lying, but not as egregious a form, I'd argue).

Sooner or later Dems will have to realize that you either have strong convictions and run on them (smartly and toughly, but sincerely nonetheless), or else you're useless, if not worse. It's not only the only way to get good things done, but the only way to get and stay in power long enough to actually do so. FDR should be the template for all future Democratic party policies AND politics. (And LBJ, the last of the great New Dealers--purely on domestic policy of course.)

Edwards' rhetoric comes closest to this, I think, but his late progressive transformation, track record as senator, and to me what comes across as too pandering (to progressives) rhetoric, makes me question his conviction or at least ability to pull it off (plus he won't be president, so it's moot). Hillary has certainly done some great things in advancing a progressive agenda, but she's also (and especially Bill) have done much to obstruct and even reverse it. And with Obama being the least tested on the national scene, he's still a bit of a cipher, although I am encouraged by his state senate record and speeches against the war back when he was one of the few pols to do so publically.

Just when reasonable people would agree that we had found the hemi-demi principle on which we could base the law, the next thing I read is a fancy explanation of how that principle can be split into several hemi-demi-semi elements.

Seems like it benefits them when gaming isn't widely allowed in every state.

Obama says he supports gaming in Nevada because it's well regulated, but opposes it in Illinois. It seems to me he has a tendency to carve out exceptions to justify his inconsistent positions

Really I think we should make a list of politician that are against gabling where they live but support it in Nevada. Sheesh the list of those who oppose it where the live but have gambled in Las Vegas would be huge.