Looking Back at the Arkansas Senate Race

I think the essence of your point is correct. However, there were many cringe-worthy statements in there that were bordering on repulsive.



"When a close race in November is expected, electability is an issue which should be taken into consideration when nominating a candidate."



No, electability has NO place in nominating a candidate. It's insulting and contributes heavily to the degradation of democracy's credibility. You nominate a candidate to do the job of representing you. The statement above (and several other similar ones in the article) pays deference to voters pulling out their magic 8-ball to predict "electability". It ignores the actual campaign process, ongoing events, and scandals - suggesting that vegas-like predictions of success is more "reasonable."



Well, I respectfully wave the b s flag.



Case in point is o'donnell. She may have been more electable a few weeks ago as polls suggested R candidates in Delaware would beat a Dem. But after a short time, the "dabbled in witchcraft..." stuff - and other comments - came out, she became far from electable.



The reason she isn't electable is because she is a very poor candidate (for just about anything, really) and has been exposed for what she is to the voters by her opponent and her opponent's supporters. In other words, the Dem candidate's campaign has been better (not that he's all that much to cheer about, either....).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Rahm Bombed

While reading this article, I got the sense of increasing anger and frustration on the author's part. But that's OK, because anger and frustration is very appropriate in this case.



I'm far from genius stature. But when I managed to lead the Dem takeover in a local municipality, I carefully determined which positions were most vital to fixing the major problems we had. For those spots, I appointed people that were loyal to my agenda - at least where it relates to the position's responsibilities.



Then I considered the positions where removal of folks who could potentially turn out to be disastrous is very difficult. And I again appointed people who I knew would be reliable supporters of the agenda we ran on.



Last, all the other positions with very limited ability to derail my core goals went to folks who I could easily replace if they didn't support my 'mandate' from the voters.



So I compare that to Obama and can only see two possible conclusions: 1). he did exactly what I did and rahm (etal) are the supporters of Obama's true agenda or 2). he failed to take control or his agenda, allowing insider hacks to seize the administration.



And whichever it is, I surely won't vote for Obama again. He's either no better than a repug or even more spineless than the stereotypical Dem. I'll support a Dem primary challenger or third party - while reserving the right to change my mind if Obama cleans house and
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Real Housekeeper of California

I'd like to know this, though, while we're on the subject...



When you have 10s of millions of dollars in your bank account - SO MANY $$$$ that you can blow $120 million on an election campaign and not even bat an eye - why can't you afford to hire an American citizen to work at your stinking house?!



Can you help me out with that, Sparky? She had NO ALTERNATIVE?!



If she was such a crusader against illegal immigration, why would she even RISK bringing in an illegal when there are probably 4 or 5 people in California (or wherever her houses are) who would be willing to work for her at an annual salary that would probably be less than what whitman drops hosting a cocktail party?!?!
About California Governor Race
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost