I will never read political blogs the same way again.  I've seen so much nonsense passing for insightful analysis.  As I've asked before were all these folks always this stupid and I just didn't notice it before?

For that matter, were they always so full of themselves and so sleazy.  From Salon's War Room on the WVWV "controversy",

On Wednesday, at the main TPM site, Marshall asked, "Does that group doing voter-suppression calls in North Carolina have ties to the Clinton campaign?" (He later updated the post to walk back any implicit suggestion that there was "Clinton campaign complicity in the group's activities.") Three hours after he wrote that post, Marshall published a new one, this one titled "Keystone (cops) Voter Registration." In it, he acknowledged, "We've looked into the group's activities in other states and at least outside of North Carolina it's really difficult to figure out whether the group was up to no good or just mind-numbingly incompetent ... Setting aside the incidents in North Carolina, that we're still looking into, it seems like in the rest of the country the group was involved in legitimate voter-registration efforts for a targeted group even though they went about it in a heavy-handed way and sometimes confused voters by failing to note key registration deadlines."

It was good of Marshall to acknowledge that. But even considering the pace of the blogosphere, the responsible, ethical thing to do would have been to wait before flatly stating that voter suppression was going on. It's not even as if he would have had to wait that long: Within just three hours after Marshall said WVWV was "doing voter-suppression calls," he was able to report that -- even if he still believed there might be some wrongdoing afoot in the North Carolina calls -- the pattern of WVWV's recent activities nationally was one of incompetence, not malevolence.

On Thursday, I spoke to a seemingly irritated Marshall and asked him whether he stood by his stories. Marshall responded, "Yeah. I mean, what is there not to stand behind?"

LINK

Former DNC chairs: Hillary would beat McCain today -- Obama wouldn't
Posted: 01:15 PM ET

(CNN) - Seven former Democratic National Committee chairs who support Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, and the family of one who is deceased, released a letter Friday arguing that she is the candidate best-equipped to beat John McCain in November.

The letter was signed by former party leaders Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Don Fowler, Steve Grossman, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, and Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe. It was also signed by the family of the late Ron Brown, who served in the Clinton administration.

They write that "if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee."

"Hillary has run one of the most formidable campaigns in the history of our Party," the chairs wrote, listing Clinton's primary season victories. "Her base of support includes women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics, middle and low income Americans, and rural, suburban and urban voters. That's a formidable coalition tailor-made for victory in a November general election.

"...We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country."

This after George Bush.

Why, why, why won't she let the next generation of (no-nothing bonehead consultants) pseudo-leadership by tantrum, with a more appropriate stooge-entourage, take over the Republican Palace?

If Sen Clinton (is allowed to) win ... [Do the Apocalypso: sky falling, world's end, tectonic cracks in Earth's mantle allowing unspeakable demons to emerge and dance around the place like they owned it and that's not even the half of it ... &c]