Well, she has actually gone now. It does remind me of a modern construction that I absolutely despise.

The "Hillary Clinton will announce she's stepping down". So, therefore, everyone knows she's stepping down? So it's already been announced. How can you put a future tense on something that's patently already happened?

Same with government minister types who go on the radio telling everyone about the policy they're about to announce. Please. You're announcing it there, clearly, aren't you? Why bloody pretend? Grr!

GY,

I agree with that, and think the sexism in the media (esp. by the Chris Matthews and Shuster on MSNBC and that jackass GOP consultant on CNN).

Obama didn't get much overt racism, but the covert/dog-whistling stuff (especially on Fox, but also MSNBC) has been pretty bad.

I didn't see all of it, but it was a reasonably good concession speech, wasn't it?

Didn't see it, but the boy Yglesias liked it.

It was a good concession speech. To be honest, I actually like Clinton when she is focused on what is good and great about herself and Democratic party politics. I don't like her when she is ripping Obama or questioning the legitimacy of the Democratic party (which is why I didn't like her for much of this campaign), but today she was class.

She's class when she absolutely has to be, when most of her heavyweight supporters tell her to step back a little bit.

I'm convinced.

I think.

But my general hard-on for Leahy stands.

The polling data Toro posted from Washington Monthly is absurd. Whoever heard of a Vice-presidential choice moving the numbers by fifteen points?

It's pretty well attested.

Now, the obvious thing to say about the data is that he just has far better brand-recognition than the other Dems, or the possible Repukes. So it's not surprising that he polls so much better at this stage of the process.

But what's interesting in the states chosen there is how he does seem to preserve that advantage over candidates who - locally - have comparable profile.

I think the polls are the least convincing part of that case, to be honest. But even if they massively exaggerate the state of things, they don't hurt the case at all.

QUOTE:
I actually like Clinton when she is focused on what is good and great about herself and Democratic party politics

And what a long list that must be...

I find something very interesting about the acres of print and specualtion about choices of running mates, which is that in an election that so far has been all about "breaking down barriers", and "removing glass ceilings", we jump straight back into rhetoric about how "young people" won't back such-and-such a ticket, or "black people" won't, or "women" won't.

It seems strange. I thought the whole point was that we were supporting Obama precisely because we believe his colour, and his relative youth, won't alienate huge groups of voters - because we trust the electorate to be intelligent enough to listen to policy debate - yet when it comes to far less important (in fact virtually meaningless, unless someone kills the President) choice of VP, it's back to the agonising over "no, can't have him, midwestern whites need the ticket balancing".

Fucking hell, that blog that was linked to has Elizabeth Edward's cancer story as a reason to select John Edwards as VP. How can anybody write something like that...

Er, show your workings?

?