I think this is a story worth sharing with every voter you know.
(Please join below.)

OK, so now its caught on that Clinton ran an awful campaign.  The response to the obligatory "Guess what Frank Rich wrote this week" recommended diary is remarkable in the seemingly endless – well, it feels like a celebration – of this obvious fact.  It raises an important question (please consider below).

The O-Train is simply unstoppable.  As a recent convert (I gave my first $50 just this week), I must say I certainly couldn’t resist getting on board.

Well, I just picked up the latest issue of The Economist, and seeing Obama on the cover – am sure this must be a sure sign of yet another endorsement.  (Please follow below.)

On February 15, 2003 organizers around the world staged what are believed to have been the largest coordinated protests for peace in world history (please see below).

This is just a short diary pointing out an inconsistency in two different spins offered by Obama supporters on the Clinton campaign.  Consider it a friendly observation that it’s probably a better idea to pick one story (please see below) and stick to it.

Any political junkies out there?  Good!

Let’s do a pop quiz for fun.

Question: Why did Mitt Romney drop out of the Republican race this week?

A. He did it of his own volition because he loves America
B. He did it of his own volition because his campaign was broke
C. Other (please describe)

(Answer after the jump)

What might we expect from tonight’s State of the Union address?

Besides tortured logic and tortured delivery, that is?

Well, surely Bush’s speech-writers will turn to their patron saint of jaw-dropping bamboozlement, Ronald Reagan, for inspiration, so, for fun, let’s recall what Reagan did with his last pirouette upon the Congressional stage (after the jump).

Comparing a pre-election poll in New Hampshire (which showed Obama winning), the exit polls in New Hampshire, as presented in the LA Times (which showed Clinton winning) and the actual results of the New Hampshire primary, I think the main story of Clinton’s surprising victory yesterday is apparent.

You’ve probably heard the story, but I think the punditocracy continues to blow the nuance (partly from a self-serving agenda; judge for yourself based on the data below).

In sum, I would argue:

1. Obama basically hit his numbers (no "Bradley" effect)

2. Clinton wildly exceeded her numbers – and did so on the basis of a surge of women to her candidacy (46% support in NH vs. 30% in Iowa)

3. The ~7,000 votes Edwards lost between the last pre-election poll and the actual result were probably mostly women, and mostly defectors to Clinton – maybe even providing her margin of victory - and many probably shifted because of his crass attempt to capitalize on "the tear."

(If Clinton goes on to win the nomination, maybe someday Obama and Edwards will be able to laugh about this over a beer.  Well, maybe not.)

Please follow on the other side of the flip.

So the pundits have spoken and the consensus has emerged – the 2008 election is shaping up to be all about "change" -- "change" after 8 years of George Bush.  The win by Obama over Clinton shows that Americans want "change" over "experience."  (Never mind that Clinton hardly has any useful experience – in the debate last night, when she discussed how she would boss the Joint Chiefs of Staff around, you could see in her eyes that she wasn’t even making the sale to herself.)

Yes, the pundits have informed us, we all want change – on both sides of the political divide.  The Iowa win by Huckabee – the candidate so obviously opposed by the Republican establishment – shows that even Republican voters want change.

(Continued after the flip)

Obama’s supporters argue vociferously that Obama’s recycling of right-wing language and talking points is misinterpretation of his statements or (fall-back argument) just smart politics that doesn’t really reflect the character of the man, or how he would govern.

However, with respect to to healthcare reform (one of the top two priorities for most of us), I would argue he’s already done damage to the cause by elevating a bogus "mandates" argument.  By so doing he has effectively "market-tested" and established a line of attack that those opposed to health care reform will, happily, add to their tactical arsenal.

Lets look (below the jump) at the argument in three pieces:

1. Motive – why elevate "mandates" in the context of healthcare?

2. Weapon – the origins of carping about "mandates"

3. Fallout – how the bogus "mandates" debate poisons the chances of meaningful reform down the road

This last week the Democratic nomination race has reminded me a bit of the gubernatorial race last year in Massachusetts.  Now that Obama has got the "O-mentum", I think its interesting to ask what we might learn from the Deval Patrick experience in Massachusetts.

(more below)

I just wanted to make some basic mathematical observations about today’s Home Depot news, perhaps pointing out some mileposts in our ongoing national decline.  (Discussion below)

I came home from a hard day at work and found an Entertainment Weekly in the mail proclaiming J.K. Rowling the Entertainer of the Year.

Entertainer of the Year?  Hell – Rowling is the Entertainer of the Decade.  To me, the Harry Potter series exudes the ethos of the Bush era.  Am I the only one?

I’ll use this as the pretext to put forward three cultural observations from the last year (after the jump)

I know the comparisons have been all over the media – TV news, newspapers, magazines – but I wanted to make sure everyone understands just how empty Republican objections to SCHIP are given the obscene waste built into Medicare Part D, the signature Republican health insurance program created in 2003.

After all, how can Republicans oppose a $35 billion increase in SCHIP funding over five years when the Part D program they created will waste $75 billion in taxpayer dollars over the same time period?

What?  You haven’t seen the story play this way in the news?

How surprising.  I mean, it seems like a pretty straight-forward way to frame the story: why not compare Republican’s supposed fiscal concern about SCHIP with their celebration of profligate waste in Medicare Part D?

(comparison after the jump)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-- Preamble, US Constitution

Remember back in the 1990s when boatloads of academic morons debated "the end of history?"  The argument ran that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy and free-market capitalism had prevailed, and that the rest of time would be merely about sorting out the details of global democratization.

But the democratization that once seemed inexorable is now increasingly in retreat.  Credit George W. Bush and company with a significant role in the rollback – really the growing crisis – of democracy.

It all started in 2000.  (Please join below the jump)

In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater personnel losses than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a large supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their losses did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's losses did to his.

  -- paraphrased from Wikipedia

With Gonzales’s resignation, I see many of us stumbling into a familiar trap: feeling like we have accomplished something when we have really accomplished nothing.  (Please follow below.)

Gonzales’s testimony to the Senate today suggests that the Bush Administration may be daring Congress to impeach Gonzales.

This invites broader consideration of what GOP strategy and tactics are likely to be for the (interminable) 18 months that remain in Bush’s presidency.  First, let’s consider (below the fold) what they hope to accomplish over that time.

WASHINGTON, DC – A White House staffer was the subject of a minor incident at a local supermarket on Friday after his assertion of executive privilege at a check-out counter led to a temporary impasse.

According to eye-witnesses, the staffer, a senior justice department aide, was beginning his check-out at the register when he was confronted with the question "paper or plastic?"

(Continued below)