Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 5, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

FINAL SUPER TUESDAY POLLING MADNESS....For your viewing pleasure, here's the down-to-the-wire, hot-off-the-preses, absolutely positively final set of recent national polling results as collected by RealClearPolitics. If they're to be believed, in a mere two days Hillary Clinton's lead has slipped from 8 percentage points to 2.5.

But as we found out on Sunday, they play those games for a reason. So get out there and vote, OK?

Kevin Drum 12:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (127)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Kevin, you're a smart guy, you should realize that the concept of averaging disparate polls is bunk

Posted by: bob on February 5, 2008 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

in a mere two days Hillary Clinton's lead has slipped from 8 percentage points to 2.5.

That's a really interesting stat Kevin. That means Obama is gaining at an average of 2.75 percentage point a day. By tomorrow, Obama will be in a lead of 0.25 percentage point. Amazing. Looks like Obama can't lose tomorrow. If I were Hillary's advisor, I would have to tell her to prepare to lose big tomorrow.

Posted by: Al on February 5, 2008 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Go John Edwards!
(I voted by absentee ballot two weeks ago)

Posted by: fyreflye on February 5, 2008 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'm really going to miss the horse race aspect of the whole thing. And the karma and astrology angles. And the haters and the lovers. And the "impartial" partial opinion makers. And the phone calls.

March is going to be big let down.

Posted by: B on February 5, 2008 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

What if it's so close that the so-called SuperDelegates get to make the selection. That would smack of smoke-filled, or hemp-fueled, deals at the convention in Denver that would really get the MSM tripping out on their conspiracy fantasies.

The Tsunami Tuesday results could bring even more hyperventilation on the part of the punditry corps.

Posted by: daveinboca on February 5, 2008 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

Rather than messing up my beautiful mind with these matters, I prefer to spend my time watching the fourth episode of the second series of the superb Stephen Fry show "Kingdom," with that dreamy, dreamy Karl Davies.

Posted by: Anon on February 5, 2008 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

Why is averaging polls bunk? I thought the RCP record of doing that was pretty good and it seems to make sense.

The chart makes it look like Hillary is in for a spanking, IF everything we have heard through the years about poll trend lines, surging candidates, late breaking deciders, Hillary as incumbmant, etc. are really true, then she will have a bad night. I have always taken those theories with a grain of salt, and it seems like Bush got a majority of the late deciders last time.

There are so many differnet state stories my guess is that the national polls don't mean much and Obaman will not get as big a surge/win as this would suggest.

Posted by: brian on February 5, 2008 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Am I a bad liberal for not caring for either one?

Hillary = the usual baggage
Obama = Liebermanesque haranguing fellow Dems from the Right, using the Right's language

Says the little voice in my head: "Meh"

Posted by: anonymous on February 5, 2008 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

I also think the new crying story, while probably not fair, will hurt her this time. It is just too much, there she goes again right before primary.

Posted by: brian on February 5, 2008 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

brian: "I also think the new crying story, while probably not fair, will hurt her this time. It is just too much, there she goes again right before primary."

Really? Another Scarlett O'Hara moment? I didn't really buy the tears at all the first time, although I actually did think the words accompanying them were sincere. But I certainly didn't think she'd dare doing it again. I thought she was smarter than that.

Posted by: Varecia on February 5, 2008 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

It looks like Obama picked up most of the Edwards supporters (except for the organized ones like fyreflye)

Posted by: Max Power on February 5, 2008 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

My sister, a Californian like me, originally a Biden supporter, laments that she already sent in her absentee ballot, voting for Edwards. If instead she'd be be going to her friendly neighborhood voting place tomorrow, she would have voted for BHO, as I will (though I'll be assisting my mother to vote for HRC).

Barack's been getting a lot of endorsements lately. I'd be surprised if he doesn't take California.

Posted by: bad Jim on February 5, 2008 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

YES WE CAN!!!

Posted by: Kevin Kelly on February 5, 2008 at 4:47 AM | PERMALINK

SurveyUSA polls out of swing states yesterday, as well out of California yesterday and today look AWFUL for Obama. I know their automated interview methodology is poorly regarded among many pollsters, but those are the most recent polls we have.

If so, this could EASILY be another last minute NH-style swing back to HRC in the states that matter.

Posted by: Fran on February 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

"If they're to be believed"

Exactly. "If". Well, isn't "RealClearPolitics" a right wing site, hmm? Imho it would be ridiculous to expect unbiased information about the Dem race from them. This chart should be taken with a lot of salt (optional also with a slice of lime and a tequila).

Posted by: Gray on February 5, 2008 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

"YES WE CAN!!!"

Can what? Can, how?
This primary race really has come down to mass demagoguery with cheap slogans and nothing remotely substantive behind them.
:-/

Posted by: Gray on February 5, 2008 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

This primary race really has come down to mass demagoguery with cheap slogans and nothing remotely substantive behind them.
:-/

Posted by: Gray on February 5, 2008 at 7:29 AM

So, what else is new? All political races come down to mass demagoguery with cheap slogans and nothing remotely substantive behind them. It's been that way at least since the founding of the Greek city states. The surprising thing is that we usually elect better candidates than we deserve--the last two elections being the exceptions proving the rule.

Posted by: corpus juris on February 5, 2008 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

If they're to be believed, in a mere two days Hillary Clinton's lead has slipped from 8 percentage points to 2.5.

It looks like some people are working real hard to make sure Obama gets most of the vote-- like two vacuous TV personalities I saw today. One of them actually said "The campaigns have been running on two different themes, change versus experience. So the question is, what direction do we want to go in," as if she was suggesting that we all have to totally buy the campaigns' messages that they're going to deliver change and hope.

Hey, maybe one wouldn't deliver what it promises. Maybe the other would.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

The Obama surge is mostly hype. This will be New Hampshire all over again.

Can't believe the breathless media fall for this twice.

Posted by: lobbygow on February 5, 2008 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised at how much anaysis hasn't been done on the Clinton-v.-Obama question, because of how we let the media control the discussion.

For example, if we put Clinton in the White House, it's a rare and perhaps unique chance to put a successful Democratic president who has 8 years of experience as the president already back in the White House!! It's denying reality to say that Bill won't help Hill or that she won't turn to him to advice. Bill probably even tried to hint at it when he noticed people weren't talking about it enough by talking about himself at his wife's events. But mainstream media outlets just tried to embarass Bill Clinton and shut him up for participating so much in his wife's campaign, while other candidates' spouses were praised for defending their own spouses. People have been too quick to be ultra-politically correct, and just ignore Bill Clinton and consider his wife's candidacy sort of hers alone. But it's totally legitimate and realistic to consider Bill Clinton and the positive impact he could have on Hillary's term(s) in office.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

I think the pundits and pollsters are all wet this year. This is an atypical election year with atypical candidates. Ignore the polls...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 5, 2008 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

it's a rare and perhaps unique chance to put a successful Democratic president who has 8 years of experience as the president already back in the White House!!

It's a rare and perhaps unique chance to put a Democratic president who sold out every progressive principle (AEDPA, NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.) back in the White House!! It's a rare and perhaps unique chance to put a Democratic president who always triangulated to the right, never to the left, back in the White House!!! But most of all, it's a rare and unique chance to circumvent the 22nd Amendment!!!!

Posted by: lifelongdemturninggreen on February 5, 2008 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

This might sound funny, but I have talked to a lot of dems the last few days and nearly all of them are breaking to Obama. I know that isn't scientific, and I know there are lots of Hillary supporters, but Obama really does have some serious MO right now. The real question is who is going to actually vote. Will the young get out of the daily lives and vote what they are telling people, or will the old folks put Hillary over the top? Never bet against old people.

Either way we are all going to have to join together to beat John "Hundred Years War" McCain. He is scary.

Posted by: corpus juris on February 5, 2008 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

I haven't listened to the pollsters since the complete invalidation of their usefulness in New Hampshire. ;-)

Posted by: Quinn on February 5, 2008 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Swan, I don't think putting Bill back into the White House is something the Hillary campaign wants to emphasize. He didn't exactly cover himself with glory during his own term. He was a man of enormous potential who just didn't have much courage or conviction as President.

For a lot of us, if Hillary is elected, keeping Bill out of the West Wing is going to be one of Hill's greatest challenges.

Posted by: corpus juris on February 5, 2008 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

I read "swan" so that you don't have to.

For example, if we put Clinton in the White House, it's a rare and perhaps unique chance to put a successful Democratic president who has 8 years of experience as the president already back in the White House!!

Awesome!! Except the Secret Service will have to use lysol and pine sol on everything!! And then there's the promiscuous sex everywhere!! But who cares!! We're not thinking today is we!! ?? :

It's denying reality to say that Bill won't help Hill or that she won't turn to him to advice.

The English language is your third language, isn't it? Right behind Dutch and 'confused retard,' isn't it? Did you write your papers with that syntax? Did you roll out of the dorms at nine each morning with that awkward phrasing. Did you go up to pretty girls and say, it's denying reality to say that going out with me wouldn't let you turn to me for advice on what to wear to a formal dinner.

Bill probably even tried to hint at it when he noticed people weren't talking about it enough by talking about himself at his wife's events.

Help!! No idea what he just said!!

But mainstream media outlets just tried to embarass Bill Clinton and shut him up for participating so much in his wife's campaign, while other candidates' spouses were praised for defending their own spouses.

??

People have been too quick to be ultra-politically correct, and just ignore Bill Clinton and consider his wife's candidacy sort of hers alone. But it's totally legitimate and realistic to consider Bill Clinton and the positive impact he could have on Hillary's term(s) in office.

What? What the hell? I just had three associates of mine read that and we cannot fathom what you just said. Or tried to say. Whatever points you're trying to make are lost.

I have a person here who graduated from Harvard with two different business degrees and another person here who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1984, very high in their class. Next to me is my old friend Beans Winthrop, who graduated from Princeton with me in the mid 1960s. Beans is one of the two smartest people I have ever met in my entire life, and I have met Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury and probably 500 people with PhDs. These are intelligent people, and not a one of them can understand anything you are saying. Beans has a headache from trying to parse your fourth para and he has to take some Excedrin now, thank you very much. Are you happy with yourself, giving a man a headache just because you can't express a simple, clear idea?

Que paso? What the hell?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

I'll be back to my 4th day of canvassing today, which is a lot more useful in getting a good idea of where this is going than looking at polls, listening to talking heads and reading pundits!

Posted by: Varecia on February 5, 2008 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

The polls are all over the place. Of the two latest polls in California, one has Obama +13 and the other has Clinton at +10. Similar results in Missouri.

I think the margin of error this year is plus or minus ten points.

Posted by: PE on February 5, 2008 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Reconsidering that Hillar vote yet, now that Michelle Obama has come out with the threat to potentially not endorse if they lose? Whereas the Hillary camp has already stated they would love to have Obama as a running mate.

I think the media has done a willful misreading of where the animus has really been coming from over the past couple of weeks. It was largely this way in IA too (Team Obama going negative while screaming bloddy murder at Team Hillary), but it went unreported.

Posted by: patience on February 5, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Alright, for those who are not regular readers, Norman Rogers is a Republican who regularly puts down regular commenters with a bunch of stupid insults and probably npthing he writes about himself is true (shows you who the conservatives want to win this primary, too, doesn't it?). So if that's what it looked like to you, you're correct.

For some reason, Kevin's moderator, who at other times is very aggressive in taking down posts, never takes down this guy's comments at all. It's pretty screwed up.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

"Why is averaging polls bunk?"

Zogby - California: Obama 49%, Clinton 36%

SurveyUSA - California: Obama 42%, Clinton 52%

At least one of these polls is embarrassingly wrong. Averaging them is a complete waste of time and it would tell you nothing.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Strange people like lifelongdemturninggreen at 9:25 AM can write all the strange rants they want, but the rest of us remember Bill Clinton a lot differently, and the rest of us don't think "compromising" every "principle" (What do you want? Worker communes and Stalin shipping dissenters to Siberia?) is a minus when we live in a real world where big business plays a big part in improving everyone's standard of living, and as important as it is to try to rein in its excesses, we really can't switch whole-hog to a non-capitalist system, and we certainly can't make huge reforms (instead of only piece-meal ones) in a single presidential term of office, or two.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Just got back from a two hour round drive to vote for Obama. (Sorry, Al! I carpooled?) But, really, I still like Hillary a lot. I'll be happy with whomever wins. It's a win/win for the Democrats, IMHO.


Posted by: Caitlin on February 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Plus, voting for Obama is really voting for McCain, because Obama CANNOT WIN and white people will break against him sharply once they have been roused to take an interest in the general by the Republican advertising campaigns. So who is really more liberal, me or so-called lifelongdemturninggreen?

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Swan,

My theory is that Norman and the moderator are the same person.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 5, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Like a few of the previous commenters, I am having a strong sense of deja vu. Didn't we see this movie just before New Hampshire?

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 5, 2008 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

"but the rest of us remember Bill Clinton a lot differently"

Really? You speak for 300 million people minus one? Fancy that....

In any case, since we aren't voting for Bill, I'm afraid the discussion is moot.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

So who is really more liberal, me or so-called lifelongdemturninggreen?

I'm going to have to go with the person not trying to keep The Black Man In His Place.

Posted by: Killjoy on February 5, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

"Plus, voting for Obama is really voting for McCain, because Obama CANNOT WIN"

"Plus, voting for Clinton is really voting for McCain, because Clinton CANNOT WIN."

Wow, this is easy. And I don't even have to make sense or back it up with anything resembling logic, reason, or data. Just type it in ALL CAPS and say it OVER AND OVER AGAIN and it automatically becomes true! I'll never go back again.

"and white people will break against him sharply"

Just like they did in Iowa! Oh, wait....

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

OK, folks, ONE MORE TIME: This will be my 4th day of canvassing and I went into it with all the preconceived stereotypes about whom should be voting for whom. HOWEVER, I'm not finding that to be bearing out. I don't think there can be any comfortable predictions for today, so just buckle your seatbelts and settle back...it's going to be a long, bumpy day.

Posted by: Varecia on February 5, 2008 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

And of course Norman Rogers is a troll and nothing he writes about himself can be taken seriously. However, he's such an amusingly over-the-top troll that the moderators have probably left him alone because of the sheer entertainment value of his silliness.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

The 22nd Amendment sucks donkey balls. I want to see Bill Clinton vs. Zombie Reagan.

Posted by: Boronx on February 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Let's face it: if Reagan's corpse was president, this country would be much better off.

Posted by: Boronx on February 5, 2008 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

I proudly wrote in Norman Rogers. (Sorry, Inkblot fans!)

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Reagan's corpse was president.

Posted by: chance on February 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Just got back from my precinct. They only had three (3) election workers there (small elementary school) and they said they were mobbed this morning. They had over 300 then. Glad I got there before the lunch hour crowd.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 5, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Swan,

Get a clue. Norman is no troll. He is a great parody. I mean c'mon, "Beans?" What Republican adult would have a single syllable nickname which is a common household object?

I like to read him using a Mr Howell accent.

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Doc,

We were told 6:30 tonight would be the best time to vote.

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Alright, all the people who are pushing Obama owe us a solution to everything that McCain does to us if Obama wins the nomination and loses to McCain.

Just saying.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Alright, for those who are not regular readers, Norman Rogers is a Republican who regularly puts down regular commenters with a bunch of stupid insults"...Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Troll, parady, I for one don't want Norman's stuff taken down. Having come from New England, I suspect he is real. (sounds much like my dad) I rather do believe what he tells about himself, for the stories seem to fit the typing, so to speak.

Swan, now having the dubious honor of being one of his targets, don't you feel that his diatribes serve as a reminder of what liberals need to fight against? He does me. He has that common mistaken conservative mentality that being a wealthy elitist is in alignment with his religious/conservative principles, not against them. Such delusional duplicitous duality really should be fought by saner people.

His staunch maintenance that no opinion other than his singular conservative one can possibly have any merit or validity negates the foundational principles of this very country and must be fought.

His refusal to give equal weight to the well-thought out opinions of folks whose life experiences and cultures and upbringing and education has produced ideals not like his own is dangerous in its concrete world view, and must (gently, I prefer) fought.

Norman Rogers provides lessons in each of his posts, though they aren't what he thinks he teaches. I hope he isn't moderated.

"the worst part about being lied to is knowing you weren't worth the truth" Captaincynic.com

Posted by: Zit on February 5, 2008 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, all the people who are sure that racism won't effect Obama must be psychic. I should start listening to the psychics from now on, instead of paying attention to what everyone knows and making my judgments by what experience tells me.

After all, after they're done talking to each other about how much they hate foreigners and blacks, don't the Republicans come over to us and swear up and down that racism is dead in America, so there is no reason for a liberal party anymore? By rejecting the concerns about Barack's candidacy, and by forgetting all the intimidation the Republicans pull to leep blacks from voting every year, we're merely acknowledging the Republicans' hopeful dream is true: racism is dead and we can all go back to not really believing the Republicans are racists, and that we just all complain about nothing, just like they browbeat us about.

Posted by: Hagar the Horrible on February 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Tripp: I mean c'mon, "Beans?" What Republican adult would have a single syllable nickname which is a common household object?

Or a baseball glove, for that matter?

But I agree with Tripp. Anyone who takes Norman seriously needs help.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Alright, for those who are not regular readers, Norman Rogers is a Republican who regularly puts down regular commenters with a bunch of stupid insults and probably npthing he writes about himself is true (shows you who the conservatives want to win this primary, too, doesn't it?). So if that's what it looked like to you, you're correct.

No, no, no, son. I'm just in an incredible amount of pain trying to read what you've written. I mean, for God's sake--why don't you make any sense? As the kids say, Jeebus.

For some reason, Kevin's moderator, who at other times is very aggressive in taking down posts, never takes down this guy's comments at all. It's pretty screwed up.

I cannot be moderated, sir. I have been posting here for years. I am invincible and permanent. I am the stone decoration upon the face of a public building. I donate money to the Washington Monthly, I have known Charles Peters for years, and you must fear my wrath. Once I have set my laser-beam eyes upon your insanity, I mean to destroy you. I will destroy you mentally, and I'll probably have to assume that that takes care of the physical side, because, ewww, who wants to think about that mess.

Once again--you make zero sense. None. Nada. Zip.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

please, don't ever moderate Norman! he's the one funny conservative in the world (which makes me think he's a liberal parodist). boffo, norm! every word makes me laugh.

Posted by: benjoya on February 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers provides lessons in each of his posts, though they aren't what he thinks he teaches. I hope he isn't moderated.

Once again, I cannot be moderated. If I withdraw my funding, then everything collapses like a house of cards in a hurricane. I am here to explain how things work. I am legend, as it were, but I am not the "last" conservative in the world, just the smartest. I have my finger on the pulse of the liberal world and this is where I try to bridge the gap between common sense and liberalism. It's my penance for a life of making money.

And, yes, Beans is a real fellow. He had such a headache, he actually threw up. We had to call his driver to come and get him.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

John "Hundred Years War" McCain

At first I read this as... John "Hundred Years Old" McCain.
I'm not far off.

Posted by: ckelly on February 5, 2008 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

I want to see Bill Clinton vs. Zombie Reagan

We already had 8 years of Zombie Reagan.

Posted by: ckelly on February 5, 2008 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

He may be Norman Rogers to us, but to Beans, he is Muffy, and is very used to hearing about headaches.

Posted by: Zit on February 5, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Swan, what the hell? Other people's racism isn't a good reason not to vote for Obama. Obviously.

Posted by: Caitlin on February 5, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

One thing that I thought seemed anecdotally favorable when I voted this morning (Purple neighborhood Blue State), the independents were asking for D ballots. I hope this is an indication of how things will break in the general. Since many people are voting today, I will avoid partisanship, I think it is appropriate to just let the voters do their thing on election day.

Posted by: bigTom on February 5, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

By rejecting the concerns about Barack's candidacy, and by forgetting all the intimidation the Republicans pull to leep blacks from voting every year, we're merely acknowledging the Republicans' hopeful dream is true: racism is dead and we can all go back to not really believing the Republicans are racists, and that we just all complain about nothing, just like they browbeat us about.

Posted by: Killjoy on February 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Swan, who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? I really don't know why you obsessively push this idee fixe that a black man cannot be President when everything we're seeing and hearing indicates exactly the opposite. Surely, you have more than one idea. You appear to have an obsessive need to be ridiculed. Sometimes you make insightful, well-reasoned arguments and I think, "Phew! Finally." But then, like someone with a tic or Tourette's, you're at it again. You're sapping my strength. Like the Dude says, "Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man."

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

By rejecting the concerns about Barack's candidacy, and by forgetting all the intimidation the Republicans pull to leep blacks from voting every year, we're merely acknowledging the Republicans' hopeful dream is true: racism is dead and we can all go back to not really believing the Republicans are racists, and that we just all complain about nothing, just like they browbeat us about.

Let me get this straight: good liberals must keep a black man from the Democratic nomination, because it proves to Republicans that racism isn't dead? Maybe we should primary out Conyers, Rangel and Waters out of office to further hammer home this point. That'll show the Republicans.

Posted by: Killjoy on February 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Zit: "I for one don't want Norman's stuff taken down"

Me either. Norman gives meaning to my sad little life.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Morning report from our local polling place:

3 Dem Machines
3 Rep Machines

Dem machines doing brisk business, of the 20 people who came and went while we were there, every single one hit a Dem machine. Rep machines empty.

Posted by: arteclectic on February 5, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Once I have set my laser-beam eyes upon your insanity, I mean to destroy you.

Ha! What are you going to do Normie, destroy liberalism? Yeah, that's what the British thought too. Your ass will get beat down just like the Tories...

Now hurry along, you wouldn't want to miss your spa appointment.

Posted by: elmo on February 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Killjoy: Let me get this straight: good liberals must keep a black man from the Democratic nomination, because it proves to Republicans that racism isn't dead?

That takes my breath away! How do people get themselves twisted in such knots? Methinks, they do think too much.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Let me get this straight: good liberals must keep a black man from the Democratic nomination, because it proves to Republicans that racism isn't dead?

I don't think anyone's saying anything like that. He's saying that it's funny that people believe and assert that racism is alive and negatively effecting things in one context, but in another, because they want Barack to win, they're blind to it. The comment was totally sarcastic.

People who want Barack to win remind me of some students I went to law school with. I went to a very liberal school, where almost all of the professors were old-school liberal activists. Sometimes a black student, who must have not come from a background where he/she dealt with a lot of professional-class white people before, would get very defensive when a teacher spoke in (what I would recognize as) a normal teacherly tone that didn't differ between white and black students. It seemed like the black student would look at the teacher and see nothing but a stodgy, establishment white man-- a caricature of the evil capitalist-- and I'd look at the same guy and think, "Hey, chill out man. This guy is as hippy as a hippy can get. No one in this society would fight harder against racism than people like this. Back in the '60s this guy was a professor here and was doing pro bono landlord/tenant work for the tenants, and had a huge beard that usually marked you as a total hippy in those days. There is no way this guy is 'the man' or that he is somehow against you." I know a lot of Obama supporters are very left, white liberals. I think many of them have bought into Obama's image, and for them he is more a symbol of voting against the establishment and against caricatures of greedy capitalists. They forget who the Clintons are and what they have done for reasons like Clinton's and Obama's images, which frankly Obama and Clinton have to mold to attract broad support- just because Clinton isn't Randi Rhodes every second of every day doesn't make her Steve Forbes. They can mold their images to try to attract support acording to different strategies, but if Obama's route just attracts trippy hippy support and not a lot of moderates who are still kind of bigoted, he can't do it-- he can't put us over the top. All the music videos and all the Hollywood money in the world won't do that, and the Republicans know it.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Zit,

delusional duplicitous duality

Wow. Almost as good as "nattering nabobs of negativity," and I'm not being sarcastic.

Thersites,

Hey, I pitch them in and you knock them out of the park!

Norman,

Beans is one of the two smartest people I have ever met in my entire life,
I am not the "last" conservative in the world, just the smartest.

Thanks. I wondered who the other smartest person was. It was you. I should have known.

But really:

very high in their class.

"Their" used as first person neutral gender!? I am disappointed, sir. I weep on command.

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

arteclectic,

Dem machines doing brisk business, of the 20 people who came and went while we were there, every single one hit a Dem machine. Rep machines empty.

Sounds a little like the 2004 Presidential election.

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Now that's a sensible argument, Swan. There appears to be a crack opening in your consciousness, an awareness this is a yeasty time and things are changing in unpredictable ways. I'm with Krugman who says there's still a lot of racism but that it's clearly on the wane and it's dangerous to keep using models that haven't been updated.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Swan: It seemed like the black student would look at the teacher and see nothing but

Does your mind-reading power work on white people, too? Just curious.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Dem machines doing brisk business, of the 20 people who came and went while we were there, every single one hit a Dem machine. Rep machines empty.

We had three dem machines at my polling place, out of about 10 or 12. They were full while I was there. Not sure what this means, but I was able to skip ahead of about 10-15 people because I had a dem ballot. I'm guessing it was because they were independents. Rep booths were empty.

Breakdown was about 75/25, African-American/Caucasian. Didn't see any Latinos. Area code is 90019.

Oh, and Obama of course.

Posted by: enozinho on February 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

The comment was totally sarcastic.

Yeah, okay buddy.

They can mold their images to try to attract support acording to different strategies, but if Obama's route just attracts trippy hippy support and not a lot of moderates who are still kind of bigoted, he can't do it-- he can't put us over the top.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination despite all the inherent disadvantages you say comes with being a candidate who is black, it means that the other Democratic candidates weren't very good at the whole politics thing. If he loses the general, we were destined to lose anyways.

Posted by: Killjoy on February 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

People who want Barack to win remind me of some students I went to law school with. I went to a very liberal school, where almost all of the professors were old-school liberal activists.

Stop--you're actually talking about Rutgers as a liberal school? This is the same school from which you graduated--and now you cannot find a job???

I think not, sir. Rutgers is no more a "liberal" school than Princeton. But people like you would like to smear a good school with falsehoods. Academia presents a problem and an opportunity for the conservative movement, but you would ruin our chances by this kind of nonsense--from the writers of The Centurion at Rutgers:

With our publication, we fight to expose the rampant liberal bias on our campus. Our activism transcends our written paper, through videos of professors and faculty that we host on our site. We have been told on camera, that we "have no first ammendment rights". We have confronted tenured professors that host convicted cop killers to speak on academic panels about parole. We even pushed the limits of the our school's leftist opinion's on sensitivity and tolerance, and successfully got Lucky Charms banned from our dining halls, (as a joke, although we were taken seriously and the cereal was banned on the grounds that the Lucky Charm's leprechaun was offensive to the plight of Irish Americans in our nation). Professors have cussed us out, school funded groups illegaly shut us out from their events, and Deans compromise our rights by discussing the sensitive personal issues we bring to their attention amongst themselves. Our very own school president, Richard McCormick, has openly expressed his disgust of our conservative paper amongst other students at a Rutgers-owned lounge restaurant. Watch our videos, and get an idea of how we operate.

Now, when are you going to admit, Mr. Swan, that it was YOU who pretended to be a conservative and that it was YOU who forced Rutgers to ban Lucky Charms?

One thing I will not tolerate is this hatred for Irish Americans. People mock me all the time and call me "that Irish bastard Norman Rogers" and "that rat f*cker Irish sh!thead Norman Rogers" and these are real events in my life, sir. But I don't go around playing the victim. I don't go around claiming there is a bias where none exists. I hold my head high and carry myself with pride.

You call yourself a man of ideas? Well, if your one idea is sticking your head up your ass, certainly.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Oh God, Norman, you're in a fugue state. Keep it coming! Please write a book.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp: I am disappointed, sir. I weep on command.

I'm not sure the world is ready for a parody of Norman. But keep it up.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Let the battle be joined!

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Keep it coming! Please write a book.

I have written a book; it is called An American Lion: How Norman Rogers Survived the Clinton Years.

There is no publisher as of yet, but I am hoping to put it out before old age takes me away, away from you all.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Sir Norman, accept my scarf and tie it to your lance.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, please, please tell me you're immortal. I can't stand the pain otherwise.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, if you don't tell this Sharon about your three ex-wives, I will!

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, do you need an editor? How silly of me. Of course you don't. What was I thinking. May I view the manuscript even so?

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

I have been to seven Republican National Conventions and I know all about groupies, sir. I have four ex-wives and four grown children. I am old and ready for the sunset. But until I shuffle off the great stage of life, I will inflict pain and screaming on anyone who disagrees with me politically.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

"Wow, all the people who are sure that racism won't effect Obama must be psychic."

Do tell us if you can find anyone saying that, won't you? All I've seen is people pointing out that a) racism hasn't stopped Obama so far, and b) racism is not nearly the powerful force that Swan pretends it is (among Democrats and independents, at least), particularly when his only data appears to consist of "me and my friends."

Are there people who won't support Obama because of his race? Of course, just as there are people who will not support Clinton because of her gender. But the hard-core racists are in the other party and wouldn't vote for either candidate, anyway. And, this year, in particular, there are so many factors working in favor of the Democratic Party that electability is the least of my concerns. Either of these candidates can beat McCain and I'll be quite happy to vote for either one in the election.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, I stand in such awe of your brilliance. Lesser men here have begged me not to encourage you, but I'm swept away. Alas, I am a weak vessel.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Bravo, Paul.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Alright, all the people who are pushing Obama owe us a solution to everything that McCain does to us if Obama wins the nomination and loses to McCain."

"Alright, all the people who are pushing Clinton owe us a solution to everything that McCain does to us if Clinton wins the nomination and loses to McCain."

Yup, still a piece of cake. And the real beauty of it is that it doesn't even have to make sense.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Pre-fucking-cisely, Paul

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

I feel Swan building up momentum. Don't do it, Swan. Save yourself.

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with PaulB. I had reservations about Obama, because I worried about his electability. Still do. But this morning, in the voting booth, I realized that if I let the bigots stop me from voting for my candidate of choice, I would be surrendering my world to them. No. They can't have it. Mrs. T and I have put up with enough of their shit. Fuck them, and fuck their little racist pea brains.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Sharon, I'm only warning you. Don't call me a lesser man.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Right on! Fuck their little racist...and sexist...pea brains in every orifice!

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, folks, it's Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Laissez les bon temps roulez!

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Sharon, I'm only warning you. Don't call me a lesser man.

LOL. Then prove your worth, knave!

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Do brains have orifices?

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Alack! What is that rumbling? Is it Sir Norman? The worthy Thersite?

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Swan @ 10:51AM: we live in a real world where big business plays a big part in improving everyone's standard of living

LOL. "Dems" like you are the reason for my handle. Maybe when the wacko Republican party regains its sanity, you can return to your natural habitat.

Posted by: lifelongdemturninggreen on February 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Here's my rundown on why I like the Democratic candidate's chances this year (in no particular order):

1. Iraq -- Even with the "success" of the surge, this is still an enormously unpopular war. The voters want this war to end, and soon. The Democratic candidate is going to have a lot of fun against John "100 years in Iraq" McCain on this issue.

2. The economy -- We've had eight years of Republican economic mismanagement and the cracks are definitely showing. All we have to do is ask: "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" The answer is clearly no, and the Republican prescription of "more tax cuts for the wealthy," which seems to be all that they have to offer, just isn't going to cut it.

3. The Hispanic vote -- Bush had started making inroads into this bloc of voters, but that evaporated when the Republican Congress went batshit crazy on the subject of immigration. The polls I've seen show them back in the Democratic camp.

4. All of the available polls show that voters want a Democratic president, by double-digit margins in most cases. I understand that the generic poll is not the same as the specific candidate poll, but I would argue that, given these numbers, those late-breakers are more likely to vote Democratic.

5. Democratic voters are more excited about their candidates and are more energized about this election than are Republican voters. The Republican Party is splintered and depressed and McCain is not likely to have what it takes to fix that. Based on what we've seen in the early primary states, I think turnout is going to be a big factor in the election and I think that this year, it favors the Democrats.

6. Congressional races -- The early indicators are that Republicans are in real trouble in both Senate and House races. "Coattails" can work both ways -- get people excited about coming out for fresh Congressional candidates and they'll also be voting for the Presidential candidate.

7. Money -- For the first time in recent memory, the Democrats are not facing an enormous funding shortfall. Our candidates are easily outraising their candidates, by embarrassing margins, and I see no signs of that stopping.

Does that mean we can just sit back and take it easy and that the election is in the bag? Of course not. Among other things, we just don't know which issues are going to be the most important, which candidates are going to say something really stupid, how much of an influence outside parties will have, and so on. There's a long way to go, but I really like our chances.

And, finally, can we please drop the whole "electability" argument? There are valid arguments to be made about both candidates and neither of them has an edge, in my opinion. And remember that we chose the most "electable" candidate in 2004, one who would be "immune" to the Republican attacks on national security issues. How did that work out for us?

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Great fun watching the Republicans tear each other apart. Today, Rush compared McCain to a Clinton, for heaven's sake.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

And, finally, can we please drop the whole "electability" argument? There are valid arguments to be made about both candidates and neither of them has an edge, in my opinion. And remember that we chose the most "electable" candidate in 2004, one who would be "immune" to the Republican attacks on national security issues. How did that work out for us?

Dear Sweet Pants, no, we cannot drop the "electability" argument because, alas, dear sugar trousers, well, it's election season.

Neither Obama nor Hillary are "electable" because Joe Six Pack cannot envision voting for someone who doesn't look like himself. Joe Six Pack runs the country from the quiet confines of his trailer on the edge of town. Joe Six Pack picked Reagan, Bush, then he screwed up twice and ended up splitting his vote between Perot and Bush and Perot and Dole and this elected the hillbilly, then Joe Six Pack rejected Gore and rejected Kerry.

Do you really mean to say that Joe Six Pack is going to vote for Obama or Hillary? Please, dear honey trousers, it won't fly.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Do brains have orifices?
Sometimes, but that's not Norman's fault. He's been overly medicate for quite a few years, now.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

I hereby declare myself a member of the Norman Rogers Fan Club. He would be very scary if anything he said were serious. But as it is, he's absolutely hilarious.

Posted by: CatLover on February 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

For those of you arguing about Obama's "electability," let's look at Clinton's, shall we?

1. The Republican base hates her, even more so than they hate Clinton. With Clinton as our candidate, their otherwise-dispirited base is motivated, not to vote for McCain, but to vote against Clinton.

2. The press doesn't like her, either, as we've seen in nauseating detail.

3. Many people just have trouble with a female "Commander in Chief," particularly when America is at war.

4. Many people are tired of both the Bush and Clinton dynasties and are ready for something new.

As I've noted above, I don't find any arguments on "electability" persuasive, but please don't pretend that either Obama or Clinton has any real edge here. They are both equally "unelectable." They are also both equally "electable."

We're making history here. Support the candidate of your choosing on the basis of their policies and strengths and to hell with their "electability," or lack thereof. And just be grateful that we have two strong candidates who blow away anything available from the other side.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Does your mind-reading power work on white people, too? Just curious."

Bingo. Swan has, shall we say, "issues". I wonder if he realizes just how much he's revealing about himself with these asinine posts?

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if he realizes just how much he's revealing about himself with these asinine posts?

My guess? No.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you really mean to say that Joe Six Pack is going to vote for Obama or Hillary? Please, dear honey trousers, it won't fly."

LOL... Normy, dear, you really are a treasure. And yes, dear heart, Joe Six Pack is going to vote for Hillary or Obama because Jill is going to brain him with her rolling pin if he doesn't.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Jill, of course, being "Mrs. Joe Six Pack".

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Norman,

Couldn't we chip in and buy Joe Six Pack a case to drink on election day so he'll stay home? Do they run Nascar in November? Please address me as "syrup slacks."

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Six Pack is going to vote for Hillary or Obama because Jill is going to brain him with her rolling pin if he doesn't.

Maybe the woman (?) runs things in your household, dear sucrose slacks, but I assure you--in America, the man tells the woman what to do and the woman does it. Last time I had a look at this country, the ERA was dead, Ms Magazine wasn't worth reading, and Gloria Steinhem was married. Today's archetypal woman isn't That Girl--it's Britney Jean Spears, dear, and not many more aspire to much else.

In my home, my word is king. The queen suffers in silence if she doesn't like it. And the princes and the princesses better not lip off.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

Jill is going to brain him with her rolling pin if he doesn't.

True enough. I've seen the sign. "No women ever shot a man when he was voting Democratic."

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

"In my home, my word is king. The queen suffers in silence if she doesn't like it."

My goodness, but your wife has you well-trained, doesn't she, Normy? How nice of her to allow you to pretend that you're in charge. I must remember to convey my appreciation to her for allowing you to entertain us here.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Norman,

Hey HEY! I thought I was syrup slacks! I could settle for "nutrasweet knickers," but only if you tell me more of your daughter. I believe you said she was having some problem?

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be thrilled with a woman as president. Let me know when one runs. The first requirement for being a woman is to be human. I get the distinct feeling Hillary has just stopped the truck, thrown the door open and said to the American voters, "Come with me if you want to live."

Posted by: HeatherK on February 5, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

And, so far, it's a landslide for Obama!

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won the first battle of the Super Tuesday showdown when Democratic Party voters in Indonesia -- where Obama spent four years of his childhood -- picked him over Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Seventy five percent of the nearly 100 votes cast by expatriate Americans a minute after midnight Indonesia time (12 p.m. Monday EST) went to Obama. The rest were cast in favor of Clinton, said Arian Ardie, country committee chair for Democrats Abroad.

That's it; we can all go home now. :) Hat tip to DailyKos.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

That's screwed up, PaulB- trying to skew things?

I'll be sure to read your excerpt or link when skimming a comment from you from now on.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK
….my word is king….ab-Norman Rogersat 2:12 PM
Are you sure you can be heard ? Posted by: Mike on February 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

"That's screwed up, PaulB- trying to skew things?"

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, did you, perchance, see the smiley face?

Might I inquire as to precisely what you are bitching about? The very brief text I quoted stated precisely what the story was. I found it amusing, just as did the author of the post over on DailyKos. And you're complaining because, oh, boo-hoo, you actually have to read that text to figure out what I was commenting on? Sheesh.... you're really losing it.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

And, yes, Swan, you caught me redhanded. I was trying desperately to influence the literally hundreds of people who read this blog, literally dozens of whom may have read my post at the bottom of a long, boring thread. Just think of what an impact that will have in California! Curses! My nefarious plot has been ruined yet again by those meddling kids!

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB: And, yes, Swan, you caught me redhanded.

Political Blog Commenters Trying to Influence Politics! Film at 11

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

(grabs PaulB)

Run, you fool! Our identities have been discovered!

(runs into Obamamobile, speeds away)

Posted by: Boorring on February 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Guys make sure you check out the article "The Intoxication of Inspiration" on the blogzine SAVAGE POLITICS (not related to Mike Savage) at www.savagepolitics.com. It is awesome......everyone should read it before voting.

Posted by: Elsy on February 5, 2008 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB, your last two posts could have been shorter by using a simple phrase instead: "GAH!"

The razor-wit of the Obamaites rears its ugly head once again...

From your previous posts, including your obsessed, absurd criticism of me, I know I can expect that kind of Scooby-Shaggy hijinks from you. And yes I know this thread is basically over- just wanted to let you know, the readers of this blog are wise, in case you try to pull another fast one sometime.

Posted by: Swan on February 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

"PaulB, your last two posts could have been shorter by using a simple phrase instead: 'GAH!'"

Yes, dear. They could also have been shorter by using the simple phrase, "What a maroon!" But not nearly as much fun. Has it really escaped your notice that I'm mocking you and having fun at your expense, dear? This wouldn't be nearly as successful if you wouldn't keep providing me with posts like this.

"The razor-wit of the Obamaites rears its ugly head once again..."

Dear heart, where on earth did you get the notion that I'm an "Obamaite," whatever that is? I'm not pro-Obama; I'm anti-stupidity. I was leaning toward Edwards until he dropped out of the race. Now I'm undecided but I happen to believe that both candidates are quite good, both are "electable," and I will be happy voting for either in November.

"From your previous posts, including your obsessed, absurd criticism of me"

ROFL.... You give yourself too much credit, dear. As for my "absurd criticism," your posts speak for themselves.

"I know I can expect that kind of Scooby-Shaggy hijinks from you."

Says the person who accused me of trying to "skew things" on the basis of a post at the bottom of this thread? A post, moreover, that was quite short and contained all of the relevant information. I think you dramatically underestimate the intelligence of the average reader of this blog and dramatically overestimate my influence.

"And yes I know this thread is basically over- just wanted to let you know, the readers of this blog are wise, in case you try to pull another fast one sometime."

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, I didn't try to "pull [a] fast one" this time, as even a casual reading of my post would reveal. Do you really not see just how much damage you're doing to yourself with silly posts like this? Has it really escaped your notice that I'm not the only one mocking you on this thread? And that your posts have been richly deserving of such mockery? I can hardly wait to see what you'll come up with next.

Posted by: PaulB on February 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Master PaulB, we, your faithful minions, await orders. I know you wanted to keep your leadership a secret, but now it's out in the open.

Posted by: thersites on February 5, 2008 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Pant, pant. I just did a quickie with Treacle Trousers. What did I miss?

Posted by: Sharon on February 5, 2008 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Alas, thersites, with the discovery of my super-duper, top-secret, double-secret-probation, evil plan, my nefarious plot has been foiled and California has been lost. Curse you, Red Baron!

Time to regroup and retreat to our top-secret HQ and plot our next strategy. Don't tell Swan; I want this to be a secret.

Posted by: PaulB on February 6, 2008 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly