Can’t argue with that.

It’s why for more than any other reason, this election is an election about the Supreme Court. And Obama supporter that refuses to vote for Clinton or Clinton supporter refusing to vote for Obama is just a dumb ignorant jackass.

Apparently helped steal the election in part so she could retire, perhaps realized her mistake (“the hiring of John Ashcroft, the politicized response to the affirmative action case, the lawless approach to the war on terror, and the accelerating disaster of the war in Iraq all appalled O’Connor.”) and very much wanted to stay on to the next term so that someone else could appoint her replacement, her husband gets very ill with Alzheimers, she then retires to take care of him, her replacement turns out to be a judge who disagrees with many of the positions she supported and will vote to reverse him, and then her husband dies. That’s a shit load of karma.

I think this is the story Jeffrey Toobin tells in his book, “The Nine.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/books/21book.html?fta=y

Jeez, I actually do feel very sorry for her.

I see your point. Didn’t know the ages of the Court.

More like, Kos was for staying on the ballot, before he was against it. And also more like, removing your name from the ballot was considered at the time to be a pander, and enlightened liberals were able to give enlightened liberal support to politicians that refused that pander.

But some of us have forgotten that.

In eight years, I could see all of these being gone, with the exception of Vafanculo the Impaler, of course.

Aren’t we assuming that seats on the bench will open up during his term? I know 8 years is a long time, but who is on the way out?

Accomplishing a progressive goal without all the noise is sort of the hallmark of what Obama is pushing.

Beats me on all of this, I just read the blogs, and wait for Oliver to put up pictures of Jessica Kim.

The five states that broke the rules.

Here is Markos Molitsas in January, BEFORE Super Tuesday:

Daily Kos: State of the NationWhat’s more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan’s ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won’t last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates….So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Okay, 2016 then. Just because she may lose this time doesn’t mean she doesn’t still yearn for it.

My issue with Clinton’s recent attempts to portray herself as the champion of those disenfranchised states is that she signed off on their disenfranchisement in the first place…but then went ahead and (a) campaigned and (b) kept herself on the ballot. Almost by definition, she had cake and ate it, too.

As for popular vs. delegate votes, Obama leads in the popular vote. Hillary’s claim that she has more of the popular vote utilizes her calculus that, ironically, disenfranchises the caucus states that didn’t give her the edge.

Regarding FL and MI, five states broke the rules. Only two are being punished. The current punishments for those two that broke the rules are explicitly NOT the punishments handed out by the written rules. Since we currently have a basically tied game where the winner will be decided by the hearts and minds of the superdelegates, it is fair for either Obama or Clinton to made any arguments they choose regarding popular vote vs. pledged delegates.

This is called politics. Apparently it is an ugly business. Who knew?

But it should have nothing to do with whether Clinton would be guided by the law or not when should she sit on the court. And I would have expected August, et. al., to recognize that.

Remember 7/20/93!

She can run in 2012, but she’d lose badly. A lot of Obama supporters will blame her for his loss if it happens. A lot of people who wouldn’t care about that won’t be willing to take a roll of the dice on a female candidate after the black candidate lost the previous election. Combined, that will doom her chances. Hell, either one by itself probably could. It will be a white man for sure, probably a western or southern one if Obama loses.

her campaign has placed her in a prime position to influence policy in the next Democratic administration–if not in Obama’s cabinet, in a position of power within the Senate.

Agree.

That said, she should realize that for as much bridge rebuilding she needs to do, there is little doubt in my mind that her campaign has placed her in a prime position to influence policy in the next Democratic administration–if not in Obama’s cabinet, in a position of power within the Senate.