Good stuff - thanks. I like what I’m seeing of him.
Another interesting piece on O’Malley:
Here’s an interesting short piece on why the Democratic 2016 bench is perceived as weak:
Some grumbling among Dems as to Hillary’s mooks asking for money while the putative candidate stays out: Activists bristle at Clinton fundraising - POLITICO
The infighting’s started early. And who thought it was a good idea to hire David Brock?
Why would that not be a good idea? He knows how the enemy thinks.
He’s also the master of the ineffective dirty attack. When I see the smears he was behind, I think to myself, “And what did any of that accomplish? It didn’t even dent the Clintons.”
Anyway, here’s a great profile of Jim Webb:
Clinton team annoyed that David Axelrod keeps telling the truth.
This type of stuff is good for Hillary. She needs to be picked at and needled, and hopefully have a vigorous primary opponent, to be ready for the general election.
I don’t know where you’re getting that from. There is virtually no one with more experience and more success in taking rabid, mindless attacks from Republican politicians. Getting needled by Elizabeth Warren about an insufficiently bold populist agenda must seem like getting a warm hug compared to being accused of murdering Vince Foster. Or even taking rabid, mindless attacks from Obama worshippers for an entire primary season, for that matter.
I think it’s easy to get complacent. Whatever she’s been through, I think there’s a great chance her opponents will come up with some new line of attack, and I want her to be as ready as possible. I don’t think these sorts of needling comments matter even a smidgen, and I think it might keep her team thinking and responding.
Honestly, other than outright fabrications - which will only appeal to those who will never vote for her anyway - I have trouble imagining anything that could be thrown at Hillary that hasn’t already been thrown. It feels like all of her negatives are already baked in.
A campaign against her is going to have to try to re-raise doubts about issues X,Y and Z. But it’s pretty clear a lot of that is settled business. Even the Benghazi thing isn’t getting a lot of traction outside of already decided hard-R voters anymore.
Right-wing wanking site owned by the Moonies publishes article with no named sources, only a “Clinton ally” and a “Clinton supporter”. Thanks but no thanks for digging up some “truth”.
Most of her negatives are actually baked in, although with that couple there are always new things. Reportedly, Bill Clinton still can’t keep it in his pants and has been associating with some pretty shady characters. Right now those stories are only percolating through the right-wing media, but like the Edwards story, they’ll go mainstream pretty quickly if there’s anything to them.
But more importantly, she’s still a very artificial, play-it-safe candidate and I think you’ll find that other candidates in the primary upend her apple cart pretty easily. It still remains to be seen whether she can win a competitive race. So far, she’s 0-1 in that regard.
And she still has favs in the 55-60 range.
Most invented. The old stuff has failed.
C’mon, don’t be stingy with the links. 
A couple of NY Senate candidates might wish to discuss that with you.
Really? A Democrat winning in New York is a challenging race?
Again, 0-1. And she’s repeating all of the same mistakes she made last time. We’ve still got no one really in charge, we’ve still got infighting, we’ve still got her running as if she’s assuming a coronation. She’ll wilt at the first sign of an alternative.
You know what you said. You also know why you said it.
Specify.
Is that what Mallard is telling you these days?
Hey, Everybody! 2008 **Elvis **is back!
And so is 2008 Pashnish! Tell us all what you learned from the experience.
Well, since 2008, the right wingers have proven that the ‘Obama Worshipers’ line of defense is one without merit. But I guess that doesn’t answer your question because I knew that way back then, too. I see you have failed to learn that lesson.