I've lived in France for a long time and share the French incredulity that Americans would again endorse Bush policies by choosing another Republican. Of course, we were stunned four years ago too, and not just because John (Le) Kerry spoke French.
That being said, the American elections are getting as much ink and airtime in France as any local story except the Sarko show.

Posted at February 2, 2008 12:20 PM in response to The View from France

It's true, Minnesota also elected a former pro wrestler as governor. Maybe we should also revoke California's statehood for electing one half of "Sonny and Cher" to Congress and give the entire US back to England for electing the star of "Bonzo Goes to Town" President. On the flip side, Ventura was a former Navy Seal and Franken is a Harvard graduate.

Posted at February 2, 2008 12:18 PM in response to Poll: Al Franken Ahead In Minnesota Senate Race!

"The media often refers to Hillary as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I wonder if Obama's support would fall simply by adding his middle name in references to him: Barack Hussein Obama?"

Yes, they refer to her as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Not 'Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton', her full name. Rodham is her maiden name.

Posted at February 2, 2008 12:09 PM in response to Los Angeles Times Endorses Obama, McCain

Maxine Waters is not a power house endorsement in the WHOLE state of California. She may mean a lot to some, but the Endorsement of the LA times probably is more significant than hers.

Posted at February 2, 2008 12:07 PM in response to Chart: Totality Of Polls In Feb. 5th States Shows Race Is Tightening

The media often refers to Hillary as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I wonder if Obama's support would fall simply by adding his middle name in references to him: Barack Hussein Obama?

My thought is that yes, it would. I doubt Americans are ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein. But I bet many Americans (and maybe a lot of his supporters) don't even know what his middle name is.

Kid gloves treatment for Obama. The media really wants him to be the Democrat nominee.

Posted at February 2, 2008 12:04 PM in response to Los Angeles Times Endorses Obama, McCain

Are you going to update this to reflect more recent polls?

Posted at February 2, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Chart: Totality Of Polls In Feb. 5th States Shows Race Is Tightening

Hillary Clinton will "represent the people's interests and NOT the special interests?" Give me a freaking break. I just lost all respect for RFK Jr.

Posted at February 2, 2008 11:44 AM in response to Hillary Camp: We Have Kennedy Ads, Too!

After the polling debacles prior to New Hampshire and South Carolina, it's amazing to me that we're giving these polls even a moment's consideration. Hasn't it become abundantly clear by now that the vast, doughy contingent of undecided voters will eventually determine who gets the nomination? And they will make their "decision" in the same way that they merge their cars onto the freeway: They will say a little prayer to the Patron Saint of Eternal Vacillation, close their eyes, press down on something, and hope for the best.

Democracy, as usual, is being held hostage by the uninformed and the wishy-washy.

Posted at February 2, 2008 11:31 AM in response to Gallup: Hillary's National Lead Down To Three Points

IMPORTANT ISSUE !!!
Hillary's Health Care Plan Would Create 47 Million 'Universal' Law Breakers !

BEWARE !!! Hillary's so-called 'Universal' Health Care Plan is to make it AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANYONE TO NOT BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE AUTO INSURANCE)That's not health care....that's just a law (that's what mandate means) !!!!! Under Hillary's health care plan everyone who breaks her law and does not buy their own health coverage (if not offered through their job) would be fined and wages could be garnished. Also, everyone would have to prove that they already have health insurance (show an insurance policy) before they could get a new job if that new job does not offer coverage.If people could afford health care they would have it already! To make it a mandatory law will just make people who are unable to afford the coverage (could be $300-$400 per month/per person) afraid to go to the hospital when seriously ill in fear of getting caught breaking the law (without coverage). Then we'll end up with millions of people simply hiding the fact that they don't have coverage....instead of receiving the true health care they need. TERRIBLE !!! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA !!!!!

"All Americans Would be required by law to purchase health insurance" reports CBS News Chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA NEED TO KNOW THIS ABOUT HILLARY'S PLAN. THE LAST THING THESE 47 MILLION PEOPLE NEED IS TO BE CALLED LAW BREAKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO POOR TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE. AND A TAX CUT FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER COVER THE TRUE COST. PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE FACTS !!!

Posted at February 2, 2008 10:54 AM in response to Los Angeles Times Endorses Obama, McCain

Semi-off topic note about how Obama is tayloring his pitch to Latinos on Super Tuesday:

Economics 101 says that when the supply of anything goes up, its price goes down. This applies to the increase in the supply of unskilled labor created by immigration – legal or otherwise - but Obama chose to pander to Latinos in the LA debates despite having previously recognized this aspect of the immigration problem in his second book.

Obama’s pandering position in the CNN debate held that attributing inner-city unemployment, to immigrants, is a case of scapegoating that “ I do not believe in, I do not subscribe to.”

But in his second book (pg 263) Obama recognized that “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole – especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan – it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

To put Obama’s current position in context here is an excerpt from the transcript from Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sponsored by CNN, The Los Angles Times and Politico.

CUMMINGS: On immigration. The Republicans have had a pretty fierce debate over immigration. And it's now pretty clear that that's going to be an issue for you all, as well, not just in the general, but it's bubbled up in some of the primaries. And it's a divisive issue for you all, as it is for the Republicans. And that was pretty evident when we got a question through Politico.

This is from Kim Millman (ph) from Burnsville, Minnesota. And she says, "there's been no acknowledgement by any of the presidential candidates of the negative economic impact of immigration on the African-American community. How do you propose to address the high unemployment rates and the declining wages in the African-American community that are related to the flood of immigrant labor?"

Senator Obama, you want to go first on that? And it's for both of you.

OBAMA: Well, let me first of all say that I have worked on the streets of Chicago as an organizer with people who have been laid off from steel plants, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and, you know, all of them are feeling economically insecure right now, and they have been for many years. Before the latest round of immigrants showed up, you had huge unemployment rates among African-American youth.

And, so, I think to suggest somehow that the problem that we're seeing in inner-city unemployment, for example, is attributable to immigrants, I think, is a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in, I do not subscribe to.

And here is how Obama dealt with the matter in his 2006 book pages 262-263:

By the time I returned from law school, though, the tensions between blacks and Latinos in Chicago had started to surface. Between 1990 and 2000, the Spanish -speaking population in Chicago rose by 38 percent, and with this surge in the population the Latino community was no longer content to serve as junior partner in any black-brown coalition. After Harold Washington died, a new cohort of Latino elected officials, affiliated with Richard M Daley and remnants of the old Chicago political machine, came onto the scene, men and women less interested in high-minded principles and rainbow coalitions than in translating growing political power into contracts and jobs. As black businesses and commercial strips struggled, Latino businesses thrived, helped in part by financial ties to home countries and by a customer base held captive by language barriers. Everywhere, it seemed, Mexican and Central American workers came to dominate low-wage work that had once gone to blacks – as waiters and busboys, as hotel maids and as bellmen — and made inroads in the construction trades that had long excluded black labor. Blacks began to grumble and feel threatened; they wondered if once again they were about to be passed over by those who’s just arrived.

I shouldn’t exaggerate the schism. Because both communities share a host of challenges, from soaring high school dropout rates to inadequate health insurance, blacks and Latinos continue to find common cause in their politics. As frustrated as blacks may get whenever they pass a construction site in a black neighborhood and see nothing but Mexican workers, I rarely hear them blame the workers themselves; usually they reserve their wrath for the contractors who hire them, When pressed many black will express a grudging admiration for Latino immigrants – for their strong work ethic and commitment to family, their willingness to start at the bottom and make the most of what little they have.

While there’s not denying that many black share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border – a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all those fears are irrational.. The number of immigrants added to the labor force every years is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century. If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits tot he economy as a whole – especially by keeping our work for young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan – it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety,

Posted at February 2, 2008 10:45 AM in response to Los Angeles Times Endorses Obama, McCain