With all of the talk about * being "invincible" again, I' thinking of a

[progressiverealist]

sports cliche: You're never as good as you think you are when you win, or as bad as you think you are when you lose.

I've been hearing so much "Bush is surging," and "Bush will be very hard to beat what with the roaring economy and Saddam" from both the right and left, and more than ever it strikes me as reactionary. How can people be thinking he has the election salted away? He's just enjoying a nice media bump.

By the same token, I've read so many "Bush is toast" posts following each "mini-scandal" that I don't even read them anymore.

Bush hasn't won and Bush isn't toast. What do you all think? Do I have my head in the sand or is this, as I feel, all still "pre-season?"

PS... I say "mini-scandal" because that's what they end up being in the media... I believe that most of these issues (Yellowcake, Wilson, 9/11 coverup) are in actuality huge, but I've given up on the Republican media.

[Larry Gude]

1. What a profoundly rational...

...stream of thought.

Applause for you.

The primary dance is about to begin, New Hampshire historically means nothing and Iowa is about the same in terms of predicting the nominee of either major party.

People are getting pre-game jitters and proclaiming all is lost if THEIR guy isn't chosen and proclaiming it will be everybody elses fault that they didn't rally behind THE ONE in time.

Al Gore treated Bill Bradley with absolute disdain and zero respect leading up to 2000 but still got the most votes of anyone, ever.

And yet we now have terms like 'democide' being cast while not one vote has been.