Alright, so George W. Bush has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of public polling. As he's fond of saying, the previous winner, Harry S. Truman, has been looked upon far more approvingly by history, and he was involved in taking the United States into an unpopular proxy war in the midst of economic turmoil, a housing crisis, and what we would now call stagflation. So W. can't be all bad, er, right?

Before you start frantic troll-rating, let's just agree: Worst Ever. But for the basis of comparison, let's review the other candidates (below the flip) so we can put damage to the Republic, the Nation, and the Planet in appropriate context.

I hesitate to devote a diary to a topic that will no doubt gain me the enmity of both my fellow Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, but in fairness I feel we need to recognize Clinton's right to remain in the contest.

There's no love lost between myself and Hillary Clinton, make no mistake about that. I have gone from having a mildly positive view of her when the campaign started to having a very negative view of her character and executive abilities.

I also strongly disapprove of the way she's run her campaign recently (and in general). Incompetence in framing her message for democratic primary voters is not an excuse to go nuclear on another member of the party during the primary, particularly with respect to the specific tactics that have been used. I think she needs to drop that approach, and drop it now, and run on her own merits. But I defend her right to stay in the race at this point. More on the flip at the risk of being, um, nuanced and hated by friends and opponents alike.

(promoted from comments)

Leaving aside the fact that historically probably 90% of all our ancestors were illegal immigrants (even my ancestors who came over on the Mayflower were violating the King's charter, which allowed them to settle only in Virginia), here's why Conservatives should LOVE illegal immigrants.

They're the embodiments of entrepreneurial capitalism, family values, respect for authority, fiscal responsibility, and devotion to the military. Details on the flip.

It's been said in some quarters that the Democratic party would not be in this "mess" if it didn't use a proportional system of representation in the primaries. In other words, if we were more like Republicans and the winner-take-all mentality, the race would've been over a long time ago with a clear victor.

Reading through the lines with the "big blue primary states only" argument, the suggestion is we would've had Clinton as the nominee.

I can't comment on what effect "momentum" would've had in those circumstances, but I can get out the spreadsheet and do a little experiment with the results we have so far. So, what if each primary or caucus thus far were a winner-take-all affair? Where would the Democratic race stand?

Results (drum roll please...) on the flip.

I floated the idea in these pages some weeks back that Clinton would do anything, including burning down the Democratic party, to gain the nomination because this is basically her only shot at the Presidency, and when it comes down to it, that's all she's interested in -- not a Democratic President, but a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

There was some controversial discussion about that proposition at the time, but I believe the last three weeks of the campaign have clearly indicated that, indeed, Clinton is in this for herself first. She's elevated John McCain's qualifications over Obama's, used every Lee Atwater-Karl Rove trick in the book, focussed on trivia while avoiding issues, claimed to be ahead while she's behind, and we now hear very explicit threats to sue over Michigan and Florida because it's clear that's the Clintons' only path to the nomination.

In short, she's exercising the nuclear option: she's pushing the button and hoping when the clouds of radioactive dust settle, she's in the best position to be leader of the crumbled ruins she's leaving behind.

How does Obama fight this? How do you fight this? By Mutually-Assured Destruction, the only means of deterring nuclear madmen. Or madwomen. More on the flip.

It's election day, and that means the weird spin of ever-moving goalposts can't be far behind! It's just more proof that HRC will be ready on Day One to continue the present administration's successful policy of changing the goalposts on Iraq, the economy, fighting poverty in America, preparing the country for disasters, and securing telecoms from lawsuits our borders.

Join us below the flip to play the interactive game of Hillaroullette, in which we try to identify the spin on the results of today's primaries.

Like many Democrats, I've been puzzled of late by Hillary Clinton's seemingly erratic, occasionally desperate, often shrill intemperate approach in the campaign in the last month after starting out the campaign in 2007 on a relatively high road.

Much has been made of the reasons why the Clinton campaign imploded, but in looking forward, many are now asking the question about what she has to gain by helping the Republicans rehearse attack lines on Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Yes, it's possible this is a genuinely-formed strategy about the best way to become President in 2008. But increasingly I'm wondering if Clinton might be tempted by the devil's bargain -- to position herself for 2012 by weakening the Democratic nominee in 2008. More on the flip.

I'm applying for a job as the chief engineer of the largest construction company in the world.

I have lots and lots of experience. You see, I am married to somebody who was an engineer for ten years -- albeit at a small regional firm -- and then was married to that same person when he was also, coincidentally, the chief engineer of the largest construction firm in the world.

I also have been a junior engineer for just over eight years at a large regional company, on the strength of the recommendation of my spouse. But when I put "26 years of engineering experience" on my resume, the head of the firm interviewing me scoffed at me! <more on the flip>

Two years ago, I posted a diary on John McCain's naked political ambition extending to the point of the asburd accusation that the Clinton administration was responsible for North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons, even though Korea had acquired them five years into the Bush administration.

I was reminded of this in the context of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama last night on the subject of when, and whether, to negotiate with hostile foreign governments. I sort of wished at the time McCain was in on the conversation, so we could see exactly how illogical and dangerous a thinker he is in contrast to our two leading Democrats.

Follow the link to my original post above for full context, and more on the contrast to the Democrats on the flip.

Hey, I'm not saying McCain's age is an issue.

But I hear an awful lot of nervous Republicans eager to point out his mother, with her loose mouth and nimble step, is 95, as some sort of genetic bona fide.

Of course, I never hear these same folks point out that when McCain's father was the age McCain is now, he had been dead for two years.

More on the flip if you want to look at the actuarial tables for a hypothetical average 72-year old.

I have been supporting Edwards since 2006 for a variety of reasons. He's a good man, with a good message, and good policies. I would gladly have him as my commander in chief, and I hope he remains in American political life.

However, I've been struggling of late with the question of my proper role as a Democratic voter in the primary. I believe I have an obligation to have my beliefs expressed through my vote. I believe I also have an obligation to express what I believe is best for the party, and the nation, through the ballot box. Crassly, sometimes these latter points might be reduced to "nominatability" or "electability" but in turn, it's also partly a process of myself listening to what other voters are saying about why they are choosing a particular candidate.

Oddly, it was in consideration of my reaction to Clinton's media bounce and a thoughtful self-consideration of why I have been opposed to her candidacy, and the re-consideration of the three major candidates' positions that made me decide, finally, that I am indeed going to jump from Edwards to Obama, and cast my vote in the February 5th California primary (absentee, soon) accordingly. More explanation/rationalizations on the flip, and your opportunity to express your reaction, of course.

Hey, I like Bill Richardson. I like his resume. He's made a few missteps along the way, to be sure, but he seems pretty qualified to hold high office in the land.

However, he does not have "it". I don't know what "it" is but I know it when I see it. So do voters. Maybe it's lying about being drafted in the major league draft, maybe it's the careerism, maybe it's a certain smugness, but he hasn't quite connected with most voters.

That's not to say he couldn't be a valuable player in a future administration. Take the poll below the fold and help us pick out Bill Richardson's job in 2009.

I'm a California voter, and have to vote early this year (as usual). I'm determined not to do as I've done in the past, that is, essentially waste my vote by casting it absentee for a candidate who is out of the race by the time the polls close on the actual day of teh election.

I've been supporting Edwards, but I'm frankly not optimistic he's going to survive through Feb. 5th. But because the vast number of delegates this season are being selected that day, in theory, he could still be competitive with a good showing that day. I'm curious about what other California Edwards voters are thinking they might do in the eternal tactics-vs.-principle of not wanting a vote for Z to benefit X because Z and Y are alternaties to X. Read on for an explanation and poll.

I find it strange hearing myself say this, but I agree with Larry Craig's decision to fight his railroading out of the Senate.

I don't agree with Larry Craig's politics at all. If he's indeed gay, he's the ugliest kind of hypocrite. If he isn't, he's shown a kind of spinelessness in the face of adversity that does not speak well to his character.

But I would be a hypocrite, too, if I took schadenfreude out of his current predicament. The charges against him are misdemeanors, and there's no precedent for someone being forced out of office for the equivalent of a speeding ticket (in fact, one could argue somebody speeding is more of a danger to society than someone playing footsie.) More on the flip.

I have a minor ethical dilemma I'm trying to resolve, and I turn to Kossacks for at least some discussion.

The local carpenters' union has some kind of long-running dispute with a general contracting company, and has posted pickets at various commercial establishments where the company has done or is doing work.

I come from a union family and my initial instinct has always been solidarity. When I've approached the picketers, however, and talked to them to find out more about the dispute (which I do whenever I see a picket line), it became clear that they were not only not union members but paid picketers, but it seemed possible they were illegal immigrants. (more)

To hell with issues! Forget organizing, tactics, and mutual support! It's all about the freakin' horse race! We continue our profile about what really counts in this beauty contest, finishing out the Democratic candidates (so far).

In Part 1 we rated Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel (and also explored the criteria for What Really Matters), in Part 2 we ranked Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack, and "Uncle" Joe Biden, and in Part 3 we looked at heavy-hitters Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson.

In this week's installment, we look at the undeclared candidates without any exploratory committees (what's hotter than playing hard to get? we'll find out!), Wes Clark, Al Gore, and Al Sharpton.

Welcome back! Yes, it's part three of what-really-matters in the Presidential-Horse-Race. If you need to catch up in Part 1 we rated Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel (and also explored the criteria for What Really Matters), and in Part 2 we ranked Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack, and "Uncle" Joe Biden.

So sit back, relax, and let Democracy work as we continue our multipart series. This week's installment: we continue with the Democrats, reaching into our heavy hitters bag with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson. Details on the flip side!

I've been told on The Daily Kos that if I want to see more about issues, I should go to another site, because the 'horse race' is going to be oh so very important.

Silly me, I thought TDK was all about tactics, strategy, issues, character, alternative journalism, information-sharing, and the politics of the grassroots. I had thought the whole point of this exercise was to get away from the poisonous inside-baseball, poll-obsessed, hair-splitting, minutiae-obsessed, media-skewed, money-clogged approach to selecting the most important leader in our democracy.

Well, I saw the light, and starting with Part 1 of this series, I've been outlining the 2008 Presidential contenders by what really counts. In this installment, we look at three more Democrats: Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack, and Joe Biden. More on the flip side.