Absolutely worth a browse. E.g.:
I think Ken on number 50 might be my favorite.
Found again via the Big Picture, from the NYT. I knew that the best-off cities in the nation, in terms of retaining value in the slump (so far, at least), were Charlotte, Portland, and Seattle (in that order), but this chart explains the story behind Charlotte better. Their values never really went up much:
This post on TPM—essentially a short, smart comment thread that's curated by David Kurtz—provides some excellent state-of-the-race background on electoral strategy, along with commentary on its meta-significance to the ongoing nomination saga. Good stuff, and a nice reminder that the race will be fun and interesting to follow again at some point (i.e., once we're into the general).
Speaking of political coverage inanity, have you heard the latest? Obama said he was proud of his uncle who was among the first Americans liberating Auschwitz. As it turns out, it wasn't his uncle, it was his *great* uncle, and it wasn't Auschwitz, it was *Buchenwald*. OMFG! The RNC, I am not making this up, "demands an explanation."
A week later, the little white pills arrived in the post. I sat down and took one 200mg tablet with a glass of water. It didn’t seem odd: for years, I took an anti-depressant. Then I pottered about the flat for an hour, listening to music and tidying up, before sitting down on the settee. I picked up a book about quantum physics and super-string theory I have been meaning to read for ages, for a column I’m thinking of writing. It had been hanging over me, daring me to read it. Five hours later, I realised I had hit the last page. I looked up. It was getting dark outside. I was hungry. I hadn’t noticed anything, except the words I was reading, and they came in cool, clear passages; I didn’t stop or stumble once.
Perplexed, I got up, made a sandwich – and I was overcome with the urge to write an article that had been kicking around my subconscious for months. It rushed out of me in a few hours, and it was better than usual. My mood wasn’t any different; I wasn’t high. My heart wasn’t beating any faster. I was just able to glide into a state of concentration – deep, cool, effortless concentration. It was like I had opened a window in my brain and all the stuffy air had seeped out, to be replaced by a calm breeze.
Once that article was finished, I wanted to do more. I wrote another article, all of it springing out of my mind effortlessly. Then I go to dinner with a few friends, and I decide not to tell them, to see if they notice anything. At the end of the dinner, my mate Jess turns to me and says, “You seem very thoughtful tonight.”
Which makes me think, wow, I've been getting spam for all the wrong drugs. I tried some brain drug years ago, courtesy of this guy, but it was nowhere near that impressive. Where's my Provigil? And now I find that even the Economist is all like "Dude, get used to it, it's pretty much like coffee, it's the future, etc."
I think that's how I've gone from really liking Clinton just a few months ago to feeling increasingly squeamish about her. First it was the gas-tax holiday, now it's comparing the FL and MI fight to the civil rights movement (the cvil rights movement? psst, hello, way to offend the BLACK GUY RIGHT OVER THERE!), when obviously she didn't feel this way until she *needed* to feel this way to win. That's made clear in this Tim Russert snippet:
Maybe I'll eventually find out that Obama just says whatever he needs to say, too, no matter how intellectually dishonest and misleading (like this recent doozy from McCain), but I haven't seen it yet. I'd still vote for her if she wins (i.e., is awarded the nomination by the super-delegates), but she clearly is willing to say anything that suits her needs, even when it directly contradicts not just logic but what she's pledged in the past.
One of the Clinton campaign's recurring arguments is that she's stronger with white working-class voters—or as she put it unfortunately but perhaps accurately, you know, "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Oregon has proved that wrong. From TPM:
The Oregon exit polls lend a bit more weight to the theory that Barack Obama's real problem is more with Appalachia than it is with working class whites in general, as the Hillary campaign has repeatedly suggested.
In Kentucky yesterday, Hillary slaughtered Obama among these voters. But the Oregon exits show a different story.
Obama beat Hillary by sizable margins among all ages of white voters except those 60 and older. And he beat Hillary among voters with no college degree, too -- and since the state is overwhelmingly white, these voters are the ones he's supposed to have trouble with.
Late Update: The exits also show that Obama also beat Hillary by seven points among voters making less than $50,000 (though she won among voters making between $15,000 and $30,000).
What's more, Obama also won among voters from a household with a union member.
Is it because those voters in Appalachia are more racist? Of course it is. I mean... who knows? It could be anything! (Although, e.g., in Kentucky, when voters were asked "Was Race of Candidate Important to You?" 21% said Yes and 81% of those voted for Hillary Clinton.)
Please just let me know when it's all over. If Hillary somehow gets it, I'll still vote for her—or any Democrat who will save us from a third Bush term. But wow, nationally it's shaping up pretty interestingly:
Zogby's latest numbers: Obama 47%, McCain 37%, Nader 4%, Barr 3%.
Without Barr and Nader it's Obama 48%, McCain 40%.
Weirdly, Silas had two encounters this morning with fake food. The first (trying to eat a picture of a Cheerio on the binding of the "Cheerio Play Book" at Half-Price) was kind of frustrating; the second (chewing on a fake steak from a grill at a boating supply store) was much more satisfying: