The hilarity continues

yeah. i'm just saying, i've seen teeball stands that pitch better.

what sucks is that if you look at the interview from an extremely conservative perspective, Biden basically dodged the questions. by which i mean, he didn't come out and say "no, idiot, raising taxes on big business and higher-income households does not equal socializing the nation's wealth." i'd say that Biden didn't speak in those terms because he didn't realize just how dumb the people he was talking to actually were, but seriously--he's been in Congress how long?

I agree regarding the talking point. But no one has given me a link to a law, state or federal, that shows these terms distinguished. And the reason why I'm so curious is because I have trouble (yet simultaneously don't have trouble) believing that a law could be so dependent on semantics. If the distinction is as key as everyone on the board is making it, then I want to see it in writing.

I think it's totally justifiable why someone might conflate the terms vote fraud and voter fraud. But if there is a distinction, let's see it.

The interesting thing is that McCain's rallys tend to be held indoors, where the smaller numbers look larger. Palin generally does hers outdoors. In other words, she's the larger draw among party faithful.

McCain won his party's nomination by way of triangulation and being the overall least objectionable. Their complimentary halves are seeming to make more of a hole than a whole.

It boggles my mind that they've managed a worse campaign than even Hillary did. Though they do seem to have done a wee bit better than Giuliani's laughable effort.

Giuliani thought he had it in the bag.

Obama drew more than 100,000 in Denver and in Fort Collins, a small college town to the north, drew 45,000. And still the media want to call this a close race.

In Sports, sometimes when a team takes a huge lead early. In the 4th quarter starters can sit down, and all the bench players come on. They do play out the game, but the score doesn't really change much. Back when the Chicago Bulls were winning an awful lot, the commentators called it "garbage time." This election is officially in "garbage time."
However, that is no excuse to get complacent. On occasion some lousy team has recovered and won because of complacency. No complacency allowed.

The Republicans know the only way they can win now is to cheat.
Hopefully those efforts will be squashed.

Early on he thought he did. What blew it for him was his gambit to blow off earlier primaries and bet EVERYTHING on Florida. Given how many candidates and the level of interest (and thereby press coverage) in earlier primaries pretty much wiped out any chances he'd had of taking the state.

Clinton's strategists assumed that tried and true strategies would work for them. They really assumed they'd have it in the bag by Super Tuesday. It would appear that Obama had some smarter people seeing and seizing upon different opportunities. And quite honestly, the Clinton campaign seemed to be a clusterfuck of "When we get what we're sure to get, I want THIS PIECE." Too many people looking out for their own ends. Circular firing squads and infighting even before she was certain to lose.

Obama spoke outside in the rain to 9000 in Philadelphia and 50 miles north in Oaktown McCain cancelled a rally due to inclement weather.

But only pay attention to what he's saying at the rallies he shows up for: "We're not givin' up!"

you can't spell Hilarity without Hilary

True. But up until now, her experience seems to have been largely limited to health reporting. Particularly on women's health issues. At least that looks like what all of her awards have been for.

In that context, her interviewing style seems to make more sense. It just doesn't work for political reporting.

I think the main problem here is that neither of the terms has a uniform definition. Considering the kind of "legalese" language used in most law codes, those are probably not the actual terms used anyway.

For example, in the California Law Code, the general heading for what has been defined here as "voter fraud" (i.e. fraudulent voting) is Corruption of Voting. Which covers fraudulently casting, or attempting to cast, an actual ballot. Among other offenses.

DIVISION 18. PENAL PROVISIONS ; CHAPTER 6. CORRUPTION OF THE VOTING PROCESS ; Article 4. Corruption of Voting. Which is also the same chapter that contains the articles covering voter intimidation and bribery.

"Registration fraud" is covered under DIVISION 18. PENAL PROVISIONS ; CHAPTER 2. VOTER REGISTRATION, which doesn't include the term "fraud."

Neither of them are specifically defined as felonies in California, but IIRC, it is defined by the length of sentence, and where served. A felony receives more than one year, and it is served in a state prison. A misdemeanor gets a year or less, and is served in a county jail.

Which means that both can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the seriousness of the offense.

Incidentally, that last link includes a lot more details on the kinds of things that govern what ACORN can and can't do with questionable registrations. They can't discard them. They also can't correct any errors on them. Both of those would also be crimes.