Time in the field is a little long for my tastes, but all around good news for Obama:

Colorado: Obama leads McCain 49 - 44 percent, including 51 - 39 percent among independent voters;

Michigan: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent, with 46 - 38 percent among independents;

Minnesota: Obama buries McCain 54 - 37 percent, and 54 - 33 percent with independents;

Wisconsin: Obama leads McCain 52 - 39 percent, and 50 - 37 percent with independents.

"But Sen. Obama should not be picking out the drapes for the Oval Office just yet. His lead nationally, and double digits in some key states, is not hugely different from where Sen. John Kerry stood four years ago at this point in the campaign," Brown added.

Things aren't that much different in a lot of ways. People who want divided government may switch their vote from Kerry to McCain. National security voters will vote for McCain. Some people who base their votes on the economy will vote for Obama. The GOP has already conceded that Obama is probably going to lead McCain until the fall. They roll out their Obama destruction campaign after Labor day.

In the Minnesota U.S. Senate race, Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman tops Democrat Al Franken 51 - 41 percent, including 55 - 35 percent among independent voters.

To write this race off now...you have no guts, my friends. When the Obama supporters over-ran the caucuses....I was worried then because I didn't see that many dedicated Dems, willing to do the hard work of the general election, on all levels. It's much easier, I guess, to write this race off to "bad breaks", ride the dream express, and not do the hard work.

and that you have decided to speak for all of them.

Then why are you speaking for Minnesotans? At least I live here.

I am speaking up for Franken, and wondering why the Obama polling shows no down ticket strength.

When in fact, I do have quite a good idea from the conversations I've had with people who-gasp-actually live there.  

You are discounting that people may have opinions that differ from you and stating they have "no idea".  

"In a race that will likely send tremors throughout the House GOP leadership, Republicans lost former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat Saturday in a hotly contested special election in exurban Chicago.

Physicist Bill Foster, a Democrat running in his first political campaign, is heading to Congress after defeating Republican dairy owner Jim Oberweis in a result that was unthinkable just weeks ago.

With all precincts reporting, Foster defeated Oberweis 53 to 47 percent."

If you knew anything about that race, you would realize that the Republican, Oberweis, spent millions of dollars on advertising and was well-known in the State of Illinois. The district is hugely Republican and had been for-almost-ever.

So, instead of making a baseless claim that my post is false, then providing no evidence to back up your smear -- Isn't that the definition of a troll? -- just take what I write as gospel and move along to denigrate the next Democrat, or at least stop being lazy and provide some evidence for your accusations.

"was well-known in the State of Illinois".

Those of us who followed the race closely knew that Foster had an excellent chance to win.  Polling was, at worst, neck and neck.  Oberweis simply was not "heavily favored" no matter how you slice it.

I like how you assume I'm just some rube who possibly didn't even know this was Dennis Hastert's old district, while you, of course, are a savvy political observer who regards the Politico as gospel.

"The loss is a huge psychological blow to the Republican Party, already reeling from a slew of congressional retirements and fundraising woes. Democrats hadn't contested Hastert's seat since 1986 and, in Foster, had a political novice running in a traditionally Republican district.

These polls will be pretty meaningless until after the conventions. When the ink is dried and the nominees are set and more Americans than just us political junkies start tuning in, then we'll have a better sense of who will win in November.

I know it's supposed to the Democrats' year, but I will honestly be surprised if the majority of voters in this country have changed so much that they can dismiss Obama's associations with Wright, Pfleger, Ayers and Dohrn--and loosely Farrakhan. I'll be surprised if these associations don't  cause most to vote for the old, uncharismatic but "safe" guy.

The non-political junkies haven't really started following things closely--and a lot is on their minds as they deal with more economic insecurity than we've seen since Bush I was president. In the background chatter, they hear that everyone loves Obama. But when they look up from their kitchen tables in September and October and closely look at the two men, which will they feel more confidence in?

For many, that's determined far less by reason and more by (manipulated) intuition. Obama will have tons of money and therefore the ability to control the message. But Wright is such a potently divisive force that all the money in the world, all the ads in the world, can't convince a lot of people to entrust the White House to a guy who has had more experience sitting in Wright's church for 20 years than he has in government. This undermines Obama's claims of having superior judgment--and makes him culturally "foreign" to most Americans, like the windsurfing Kerry.

FDR had been NY's governor for four years, a state senator for two years and Assistant Sec of the Navy for seven years.

Teddy Roosevelt was only 42 years old when he became Prez, and his government experience was only two years as NY governor and six months as VP.

Jackson was a governor and Congress member for a year each, and only a Senator for three years. That's only five years in government service. Obama has about twelve years.

Woodrow Wilson was a college professor first, then he ran a college, then he was NJ's govenor for two years.  

Heck, Abraham Lincoln, one of my favorite presidents, served only two years in the House of Reps before running and winning the presidency.  

Experience in government isn't always as important as wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion.

Yes, Lincoln spent only two years in the House after winning election in 1846. Yet his deep involvement in state and national politics began in 1832, the same year he was elected a captain in the Illinois militia -- and 28 years before he ran for president. He then served as leader of the Illinois Whig Party and served his far-from-undistinguished term in Congress courageously leading opposition to the Mexican War.

After returning home, he became one of the leading railroad lawyers in the country, emerged as an outspoken antislavery leader of Illinois' Republican Party -- and then, in 1858, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and engaged with Stephen A. Douglas in the nation's most important debates over slavery before the Civil War. It behooves the champions of any candidate to think carefully when citing similarities to Lincoln's record. In this case, the comparison is absurd.

"[O]nly people who really want a black President, liberals who hate McCain, and kids who don't think experience matters will turn out in any numbers for Obama."

The metro area, especially very conservative Waukesha County (just west of Milwaukee, fourth reddest county in the country in 2004, very populous from white flighters, fundy Christian) that arose since the primary to force the first AA on the state supreme court off the bench.

New in the annals of poor research. Women are drummed out of the military in far greater numbers than you would expect based on the 15% proportion of women in the military. They account for 45-50% of discharges.
This study postulates that the reason is: that almost 1/2 the women in the military are lesbians and only a small proportion of men. But offers no proof.

But that ignores the fact that in a military that is 85% male and a bastion of sexism, that women who 'don't put out' get targeted for rumors and accusations. On top of the suspicion about women choosing traditionally male jobs. I also will postulate that the gay men who join the military are comfortable in macho culture and thus don't 'stick out'. There are so many gay men who just blend into the scenery - for example my ex-brother-in-law who is a cop, fixes cars, hunts, and for his first several years at his barracks all the wives of fellow officers were setting him up with their friends.

So my theory (as valid as the researchers) is that while it is possible that a larger % of female military are gay vs men it is much more likely that sexism is the cause, which the researcher apparently didn't even broach.

"Women are less valuable to the military and more expendable.  Plus they are more trouble when it comes to problems like sexual assault."

Easier to ditch the people that the military culture doesn't favor than to change the culture that is the problem to begin with.

If I had a nickel for every time  man whined about women in the military(It'sSO unfair wah wah that they get more time to run orare allowed more body fat), I'd be a rich women. Dollars to Donuts the people that turned these women in were spurned men upset because they couldn't get in their panties.

If McCain is elected, he will nominate Ted Olson. Weak dems cave and confirm him.

In the summer of 1991, Valerie Jarrett, then Mayor Richard Daley's deputy chief of staff, interviewed a young Sidley Austin attorney named Michelle Robinson. After the 90-minute conversation, Jarrett offered her a job, but Robinson called back a day later, not to say "yes" but "maybe." First, she said, her fiance wanted to meet Jarrett.

By that time, Obama the independent-minded community activist had privately expressed his political ambitions. This job would put his wife-to-be squarely in the offices of the man whose father had perfected the Democratic machine.

"My fiance wants to know who is going to be looking out for me and making sure that I thrive," Jarrett recalled Robinson telling her.

So the three of them -- the prospective boss, the job applicant and the man she would marry a year later -- piled into a booth at a seafood restaurant in the Loop and got to know each other over a long dinner.

At the end of the evening, Jarrett turned to Barack and asked, "Well, did I pass the test?" Obama smiled, put his head down, closed his eyes and said, "Yeah, you passed the test."

You lied.

And you lied apparently because you knew that you could get away with it here, and you lied even though the truth was an internet click away.

Here is a link to Obama's platform on women's issues:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

Pretty low, base and disgusting as well. I'm glad you're not a Democrat.

Instead of spewing vulgar stereotypes, perhaps you should go here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

The telecom companies clearly know a thing or two about phone bills--whether it's asking customers for money or getting their way with federal legislation. Last week 94 House Democrats who once opposed providing immunity to the telecom companies for their role in the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretapping program voted in support of the protection. What distinguished the 94 lawmakers who switched their vote from the 116 that remained opposed? Campaign contributions from the companies, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.

Forgot the agency that tracked it, but Obama gave waay more to congress critters than all the other candidates for pres.

There is no other option.
All legislative fixes will go down on court challenges.

She's in negotiations with Obama about how she'll campaign for him WITH legal council.

[In January] Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:

There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco

.
Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill [. . .] There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength[.]

I don't anticipate a great return to the left.  The solipsism of bloggers has made them ignore Obama's multiple rebuffs of their affections.  

He gives us Olbermann's pomposity and hypocrisy in all its vain glory. And he skewers Jonathan Alter's ignoarance pretty well too.

Addington said Cheney was attached to the legislative branch but was not a member.  The guy questioning him asked, "Attached like a barnacle?  

My favorite was "Earthquake" Ober for Commissioner of Public Lands.  He gathered momentum when he suggested (rather late in the campaign as I recall) that efficiency would be a hallmark of his office and he would begin by combining two tiny towns on the Olympic Peninsula where I live - Pyssht and Forks - into one small town...Pysshtforks, naturally.

He gave some interesting points to his delight in having these two smart, and respected people on his side. Even stated that Bill had been a GREAT president.

Yesterday he told reporters his VP choice would have to be someone who could step in and be President should anything happen to him, AND someone who could get him back on track when he isn't making good decisions.