Such shameless intransigence is, of course, the hallmark of Islamic negotiation.

Lets Fighting Love.

Fun episode of The Walking Dead and it sucks that it won't be on for a few months. One thing I do have to note is that they've turned Michonne into the dumbest character in the history of TV shows. There has been about a dozen times where if Michonne simply said something, anything, the whole plot would get settled but instead she says nothing and we get hours of lunacy.

Some major deviations from the comic books but it looks like they'll be swinging back around after the break and adding some of those storylines into the mix.

Rewatching How I Met Your Mother. Season 1 is still great and watching mid twenties Colby Smulders and Season 1 Allison Hannigan is extremely hot.

Headline seems quite optimistic considering no deal has been made yet. I'll believe it when I see the final outcome.

Given that the Dems would get quite a few things they wanted if the thing actually fails, (tax hike on rich and defense cuts) why should Obama be the guy worried here, he is the one person in this whole thing who no longer has to worry about reelection again.

The GOP meanwhile, don't seem to get as much stuff as they would want if the whole thing blows up... sure there is entitlement cuts, which is dubious if the GOP actually want to cut it though. well that and destroying the US ... or at least the US government.

Yeah I found the headline really oddly written (but submitted it anyway).

Bitter, I read the headline as "... Obama ends up giving in", so I agree it's oddly written.

Edmundo me also on first read.

Continuing our previous discussion regarding the Asian American vote. Pretty interesting and addresses a bunch of arguments that came up last month.

So is November's OTP the most comments in a single month?
Using the time stamp on the posts, and then subtracting an hour (since it doesn't seem to have recognized DST switchover), the very last post in November was on page 112.
It was Lassus at (converted time) November 30th, 11:55pm, and it was post #11144.

There were 721 hours in the month, so that means there were ~15.45 posts per hour, every hour.

That has to be the record, right?

What the GOP gets if the whole thing blows up is that the whole thing blows up. They sure seem to like that. It's like a goal in and of itself for them.

Given that the Dems would get quite a few things they wanted if the thing actually fails, (tax hike on rich and defense cuts) why should Obama be the guy worried here, he is the one person in this whole thing who no longer has to worry about reelection again.

The GOP meanwhile, don't seem to get as much stuff as they would want if the whole thing blows up... sure there is entitlement cuts, which is dubious if the GOP actually want to cut it though. well that and destroying the US ... or at least the US government.

Boehner and company are sort of throwing a hissy fit because Obama isn't 'negotiating' the same way he did 2010-2011 -- remember that the whole 'cliff' thing got --- quoting Boehner here "98% of what he wanted" to get the debt ceiling deal done. Obama's MO in previous negotiations had been to start with an opening offer that was already a compromise against what would normally be the opening D position... then move closer based on that, with the GOP's 'compromise' essentially being "not crazy". I mean, agreeing NOT to default on previous expenditures is hardly a sane compromise by a well-grounded negotiator.

Obama is playing this one differently and good for him - if he doesn't want to spend the next four years in misery, it's inherently necessary to break this "NO COMPROMISE!" GOP mindset. Given that he's got a just concluded election on his side, the fact that all the available polling shows that the GOP will take the blame for lack of a deal by an almost 2-1 margin, and public opinion on his opening negotiating position on his side -- it's the perfect place to make a stand.

willcarroll

it's pretty basic actually. if you are a gop house member you have a choice between what you perceive as 'maybe' the national economy suffering for some undetermined time or 'knowing' you will lose your seat in 2014 if you vote for any deal that has any type of tax increase.

whereas after january 1st you know you will be presented with the chance to vote for a tax decrease.

pretty simple

Congress rejoice!

Gallup says congressmen just slip past car salesmen on 'honesty and ethics'!

Of course, Gallup just concluded a very poor polling cycle, so it's entirely possible that Congress might, in reality, be considered as honest and ethical as stockbrokers or even insurance salesmen.

Fun episode of The Walking Dead and it sucks that it won't be on for a few months.

I don't even watch the Walking Dead, but this current practice of splitting up a 12/13 episode season into two half-seasons months apart is the worst thing that has ever happened to television, and possibly the worst thing in the history of humanity.


or 'knowing' you will lose your seat in 2014 if you vote for any deal that has any type of tax increase.

I'm probably just young and naive, but I truly believe a vote for an increase in taxes on the GOP side doesn't immediately submarine your chances for election. And if it does, maybe you should get out of a party that's committed to treating you insanely.

I don't even watch the Walking Dead, but this current practice of splitting up a 12/13 episode season into two half-seasons months apart is the worst thing that has ever happened to television, and possibly the worst thing in the history of humanity.

It predates TWD by a good clip.

I think Battlestar Galactica was actually the first 'hit' to do this, no?

lassus

house members are elected to represent their constituents. these house members have been told and are being told to not compromise, to not vote for a tax increase and to do so would be the end of their career representing their district. this message is coming from individuals in their district, from groups, from lobbyists, you name it

so yes, they 'know' the fallout.

the other stuff is just a maybe. at least that is how it is being perceived

The New Yorker on the elusive mandate:

"In 2004, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, conservatism’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, congratulated President Bush for “what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term” and exulted, “Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive.” This year, examining similar numbers with different labels, the Journal came up with a sterner interpretation. “President Obama won one of the narrower re-elections in modern times,” its editorial announced. Also: "Mr. Obama will now have to govern the America he so relentlessly sought to divide—and without a mandate beyond the powers of the Presidency."

I don't even watch the Walking Dead, but this current practice of splitting up a 12/13 episode season into two half-seasons months apart is the worst thing that has ever happened to television, and possibly the worst thing in the history of humanity.

In fairness to TWD, they started off with a 6-episode, teaser-style first season.

It predates TWD by a good clip.
I think Battlestar Galactica was actually the first 'hit' to do this, no?

Oh, I know, it finally caught up to Doctor Who this year, which only lengthens the torture of Moffat for me. As far as BSG, I don't know, I started it on DVD towards the end so there was no real delay for me.


house members are elected to represent their constituents. these house members have been told and are being told to not compromise, to not vote for a tax increase and to do so would be the end of their career representing their district. this message is coming from individuals in their district, from groups, from lobbyists, you name it. so yes, they 'know' the fallout.

I know you're the expert on the gop, but this still sounds, to me, somewhat on the hysterical (not the comedic sort) side. I'm sure it could be both hysterical and right, so there's that.

gonfolan, what were the Senate and House makeups in 2004 vs 2012? I suspect their use of 'mandate' was assessed, correctly I might add, by more than electoral or vote margin of only the Presidency.

Not that I agree with the WSJ's take; you (and the New Yorker) make a valid point about their bias.

lassus

not claiming to be an expert.

just trying to help others understand the rationale behind what is perceived as irrational behavior

if you are a house member who knows if the economy tanks but you voted as your district wanted you likely keep your seat but if the economy improves but you know for certain that youl will lose your seat for having voted against the wishes of your district then on a selfish level it is not a hard decision. you let the economy tank, blame the president and keep your seat

Harvey - "expert" wasn't meant as a knock there, just acknowledgement, at least regarding the gop.

Anyhow, everything else is concern trolling on my part, but you aren't the only one smart enough to see that the gop has a definite strategy to see the economy tank. It's already started to come back on people, and I don't think this whole thing is going to make it any better.

What is the rationale behind the "split season"? Is it done more marketing reasons? Production?

Game of Thrones is really the only show I've followed "live" so to speak in the last few years...if I had to wait more than a week for the next episode I'm pretty sure I'd strangle someone. Not putting the DVDs out until 5 minutes before the next season starts is bad enough.

I recall Lost had some kind of hiatus that people didn't like very much. Was that a split-season or the writer's strike? I watched the show on DVD later so I didn't pick up on it.

lassus

something that folks also miss is that the wing of the party so determined to not compromise doesn't give a sh8t what any ceo has to say. that is another wing of the party that takes the input of corporate leaders

that is one of the problems of the current coalition. used to be that on big matters you listened to other factions to represent their views at key moments. now you have a good number of house members who only care about their stuff and to h8ll with everyone else in the party.

that's unhealthy

gonfolan, what were the Senate and House makeups in 2004 vs 2012? I suspect their use of 'mandate' was assessed, correctly I might add, by more than electoral or vote margin of only the Presidency.

The GOP picked up 4 Senate seats in 2004 (going from 51-49 to 55-45) and 2 House seats (going from 229-205 to 232-203).... Total House votes were about +3 million for the GOP, but that was actually a drop from the 2002 midterm splits (GOP -0.4% from 2002, Dems +1.6%). The Dems actually outpaced the GOP so far as total Senate votes by a pretty good clip - but then, given the nature of Senate elections - not much to divine by that since it largely largely depends on which seats are up.

In 2012, the Dems picked up 8 House seats (going from 193-242 to 201-234) and 2 Senate seats (going from 53-47 to 55-45). Final House tallies not in yet, but it looks like total Dem House share will be just under +1 million.

All things considered, I'd say that aspect is a wash at best... the biggest difference is probably that Democratic Senate minority leader Tom Daschle also lost in 2004, whereas this time out - the biggest 'name losers' were really 'names' more to their tendency to be loud and obnoxious (West, Walsh) than having any real power in the caucus.

I don't even watch the Walking Dead, but this current practice of splitting up a 12/13 episode season into two half-seasons months apart is the worst thing that has ever happened to television, and possibly the worst thing in the history of humanity.

What is the rationale behind the "split season"? Is it done more marketing reasons? Production?

Game of Thrones is really the only show I've followed "live" so to speak in the last few years...if I had to wait more than a week for the next episode I'm pretty sure I'd strangle someone. Not putting the DVDs out until 5 minutes before the next season starts is bad enough.

I recall Lost had some kind of hiatus that people didn't like very much. Was that a split-season or the writer's strike? I watched the show on DVD later so I didn't pick up on it.

for a show like the walking dead (or breaking bad), it's the difference between a 12/13 episode season and a 16/18 episode season. instead of having those 12 episodes lined up 12 weeks in a row, you have 8 episodes in the fall, and another 8 in the spring.

and that also means that you don't go 10-12 months without airing any new content on TV, which means that you should be able to keep a more steady viewership.

gonfolan, what were the Senate and House makeups in 2004 vs 2012? I suspect their use of 'mandate' was assessed, correctly I might add, by more than electoral or vote margin of only the Presidency.
Not that I agree with the WSJ's take; you (and the New Yorker) make a valid point about their bias.

House of Representatives, 2004: GOP by 30
House of Representatives, 2012: GOP by 33

Senate, 2004: GOP by 10
Senate, 2012: Dems by 10

GOP pickups, 2004: 4 Senate seats, 3 House seats
Dem pickups, 2012: 2 Senate seats, 8 House seats

Bush, 2004: Won by 2.4%, 35 electoral votes, and 3 million votes
Obama, 2012: Currently ahead by 3.6%, 126 electoral votes , and 4.7 million votes (percentage and vote margin are expected to rise)

Wall Street Journal, 2004: "Just because an election is close doesn't mean it isn't decisive."
Wall Street Journal, 2012: "President Obama won one of the narrower re-elections in modern times."

Did Sopranos or B* split the season first?

and that also means that you don't go 10-12 months without airing any new content on TV, which means that you should be able to keep a more steady viewership.

Someone needs to tell that to the guys making Game of Thrones!

At 10 episodes per season, and one book per season (excepting 2 season for book 3) that's 60 episodes to catch up to where they are now book-wise. Ideally, you'd do them all at once. That's an episode a week for just over a year. Plenty of time for Martin to finish the series and tack on 20-30 more episodes. I suppose now someone's going to tell me that wouldn't have been feasible...TV would be a great medium if these pesky practicalities didn't always crop up.

BTW -

Just wanted to start the Brian Schweitzer '16 watch:

Gov Schweitzer was on CNN's Sunday yacker this past weekend and all but declared his candidacy -- he did the coy "I'm governor for another 2 months yada yada", but also joked about his great love for the people of NH and IA. I'm betting he runs in 2016.

A potential Schweitzer candidacy would be interesting for the Democrats --

On one hand, he absolutely and wholly defangs any NRA/gun control arguments - I'd say there's at least an even-money chance that he actually gets an NRA endorsement. He's also got a pro-coal bonafides that might actually make Appalachia swing back to its old Democratic ways.

He's got a fair number of feathers in his cap that will liberals will like -- education and health care (he's been probably as friendly to single payer as any candidate).

He's a blank slate on immigration, more or less...

The big question - should he run and get the nomination - is whether he'd be able to keep the Democratic trendlines for minority demographics intact. I could see him absolutely hanging onto the youth vote - he's charismatic, plainspoken, and can hold the attention of the crowd.... but his gun stances are likely to be problematic for the urban coalitions. I'm guessing he'd need an exceptionally active outgoing President Obama in the fall campaign.

It would be an interesting race - Schweitzer would have an excellent chance at competing for the voters increasingly trending Republican... but the question is whether he'd be able to hang onto Latino, AA, etc gains (specifically, turnout gains).

zonk

gov schweitzer can take any stance he wants on immigration because on a local level it doesn't matter so he has no concerns about fallout that could harm him as governor

it's why democrats from out west could vote for civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's. nobody cared back home because there were no blacks to be concerned about

zonk

gov schweitzer can take any stance he wants on immigration because on a local level it doesn't matter so he has no concerns about fallout that could harm him as governor

it's why democrats from out west could vote for civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's. nobody cared back home because there were no blacks to be concerned about

The one clue we do have --

Schweitzer does have a very strong record on Native American issues in MT (it's one 'minority population' that MT does have)...

Assuming HRC doesn't run in 2016 (and increasingly, I don't think she will) -- I can't think of anyone sitting prettier than Schweitzer. He can run as far left as he needs to in the primary, but his persona does a great deal to inoculate him when it's time to move back to the center for a GE.

Like I said - his GE fortunes are going to hinge very heavily on whether he can keep a significant chunk of the Obama coalition engaged...

...well, that and the fact that, just by nature of his locale - he probably needs money more than anything, as he doesn't have a natural financial backing constituency to get behind him.

However, the second part is mitigated by the fact that the liberal blogosphere tends to really love him - and see Howard Dean in 2004 - I think he could small donation his way to warchest parity if he had to (it ought to be noted that he's a vocal 'soft money' opponent, too).

On one hand, he absolutely and wholly defangs any NRA/gun control arguments - I'd say there's at least an even-money chance that he actually gets an NRA endorsement. He's also got a pro-coal bonafides that might actually make Appalachia swing back to its old Democratic ways.

I will take that bet! The Democrats could nominate Charlton Heston's rotting corpse and the Republicans Carolyn Maloney, and the NRA would still endorse the Republican for President.

That said, Schweitzer is interesting for exactly the reasons you state; he's got lots of solid positives but it's unclear he'd excite any of the groups that have animated the Democratic resurgence. Seems like your classic VP pick.

In fairness to TWD, they started off with a 6-episode, teaser-style first season.

Which is all I've watched of it so far, at least a year ago, courtesy of Netflix. It was ... perfectly OK, but nothing life-changing. One of these days I'll get back to it. Maybe.

(I read the first 70 or so issues of the comic before losing interest with the glacial pace [& realizing that I would be OK with having Robert Kirkman set on fire & kicked down a long flight of stairs], I should note, & of course I've seen eleventy-billion -- OK, more in the ballpark of 260 or so -- zombie movies, so of course normal viewers' mileage probably varies.)

What is the rationale behind the "split season"? Is it done more marketing reasons? Production?

Among the other reasons mentioned, it also allows for a smaller writing staff with the head writers taking more of an active role. In a traditional 22 episode season the head writers basically manage - they'd go crazy or disappear into a punchbowl full of cocaine (or do both if they're Aaron Sorkin) otherwise. In a 12 episode season broken into chunks of six the head writers can actually write rather than delegate.

On one hand, he absolutely and wholly defangs any NRA/gun control arguments - I'd say there's at least an even-money chance that he actually gets an NRA endorsement. He's also got a pro-coal bonafides that might actually make Appalachia swing back to its old Democratic ways.

I will take that bet! The Democrats could nominate Charlton Heston's rotting corpse and the Republicans Carolyn Maloney, and the NRA would still endorse the Republican for President.

I don't know -

This isn't a standard rural state Dem governor - Schweitzer is probably as vocal as Heston was about opposing any and all gun control measures... There's a credibility breaking point, I think, for the NRA regarding Schweitzer. Maybe I'm going too far in thinking they'd actually endorse him - but I could easily see them sitting out the endorsement. I mean, this is a guy who - in response to a question about how many guns he owns, rather famously said "Probably more than I need, but not as many as I'd like"...

Add that to the fact that Schweitzer tends to be rather... let's say combative... when it comes to voicing his opposition to legislation he doesn't like, it would be hard for the NRA to make the case that members should fear Schweitzer getting rolled by his own party on such legislation.

In a 12 episode season broken into chunks of six the head writers can actually write rather than delegate.

This makes sense for a 22-episode season, but if you need that much break time to write twelve episodes, I'm calling artistic laziness.

Among the other reasons mentioned, it also allows for a smaller writing staff with the head writers taking more of an active role. In a traditional 22 episode season the head writers basically manage - they'd go crazy or disappear into a punchbowl full of cocaine (or do both if they're Aaron Sorkin) otherwise. In a 12 episode season broken into chunks of six the head writers can actually write rather than delegate.

I've heard that the split season has come about mostly due to the writer's strike in 2007. Like you said, studios realized that they could do with less if they changed the scheduling of shows. Another reason why that was one of the dumbest strikes in memory.

I approve of Obama's negotiating thus far. If Boehner isn't complaining, the democrat isn't doing it right, to be honest.

All of the demographics are trending Democratic, and the Dems should nominate Schweitzer to inoculate against the shrinking GOP demographics? If, and only if, you feel he's the right guy for the job. It really doesn't seem likely to be politically necessary.

This makes sense for a 22-episode season, but if you need that much break time to write twelve episodes, I'm calling artistic laziness.

More down time equals more time for head writers to go into the bunker and work their magic. But you can't ask a head writer to pull 18+ hour days seven day a week every single week for 12+ weeks, because they'd go insane. It's a different type of show but have you ever seen the documentary about the Making of South Park? Trey Parker is basically insane on Wednesday afternoon because he's constantly writing and rewriting. He needs that break, especially when he's got a whole bunch of other projects going on that makes Comedy Central a lot of money.

Schweitzer seems like the world's most ideal VP pick ever. I'm not entirely sure they should go with him for President, unless there's nobody better (since he is good).

All of the demographics are trending Democratic, and the Dems should nominate Schweitzer to inoculate against the shrinking GOP demographics? If, and only if, you feel he's the right guy for the job. It really doesn't seem likely to be politically necessary.

Oh, I'd definitely be getting behind Schweitzer because I think he's the right guy for the job... if we're still going to be in a period of partisan recalcitrance, he's the guy I'd want as my standard bearer. He doesn't mince words, he gives good soundbite, and he's the sort that almost relishes 'the fight'.

I'm just gaming out his electoral plus/minuses.

[quoteAssuming HRC doesn't run in 2016 (and increasingly, I don't think she will)

I'm just curious as to why you think that. Assuming there's significant job growth in the next 4 years and Obama's popularity is intact, do you really, really think HRC could turn down one last shot at history? I don't know HRC or pretend to know her, but something tells me that she couldn't sit back. Particularly with a stacked GOP deck in 2016 and a frankly somewhat light Democratic bench (right now.)

...well, that and the fact that, just by nature of his locale - he probably needs money more than anything, as he doesn't have a natural financial backing constituency to get behind him.

i disagree. i think he could get big business/energy/wall-street backing considering he would be a much more preferable candidate for them than cuomo or clinton, or...you know i don't even really know who else is out there. the democrats lost a lot of gubernatorial races, and those are usually the breeding grounds for successful national candidates. but anyway, schweitzer would seem to be better positioned than most anyone else to raise money from those donors.

Schweitzer seems like the world's most ideal VP pick ever. I'm not entirely sure they should go with him for President, unless there's nobody better (since he is good).

i actually think he might win in a landslide if he runs a good campaign. unless there's a geological shift in the republican party, their stances on abortion and immigration and gay marriage aren't changing before 2016. maybe you lose some of those votes because of turnout, but you're still almost guaranteed to win them by a hefty majority.

and, if you think a lot of the anti-obama animus reeks of race-baiting, having a good ole country boy at the top of the ticket could really help downballot.

I'm probably just young and naive, but I truly believe a vote for an increase in taxes on the GOP side doesn't immediately submarine your chances for election.

It may not significantly harm your chances of winning a general election that you're a candidate for, but on the other hand it may significantly harm your chances of becoming a candidate for a general election.

The Republican base has increasingly become a mob of outright idiots; angry idiots, who are totally willing and able to put up a crazy person to run in a primary against any "RINO" who is perceived of insufficiently toeing the line - i.e. against anyone who doesn't loudly scream that Jesus hates science, Jesus hates immigrants, Jesus hates the poor, Jesus hates helping people, Jesus hates raising the marginal tax rate on the uber-wealthy by a tiny amount, Jesus hates General Motors, Jesus hates gay people, Jesus hates Mr. Rogers, Jesus hates Jesus hates Jesus hates.

First things first:

Fun episode of The Walking Dead and it sucks that it won't be on for a few months. One thing I do have to note is that they've turned Michonne into the dumbest character in the history of TV shows. There has been about a dozen times where if Michonne simply said something, anything, the whole plot would get settled but instead she says nothing and we get hours of lunacy.

It was fun, and left a ton of things hanging without it's all feeling terribly forced. What's particularly depressing about Michonne is what a marvelous actor Danai Gurira is. She's physically perfect in the role, and can express tremendous warmth and intelligence. Using her like this is like using C-notes for toilet paper.

Which is all I've watched of it so far, at least a year ago, courtesy of Netflix. It was ... perfectly OK, but nothing life-changing. One of these days I'll get back to it. Maybe.

I heartily encourage you to enjoy the second season, and pay no mind to complaints that the season was slow; it was remarkably well done, and well paced, with classical tragedy at its center. Some things just need an extended build up. When people complain that it's slow, what they usually mean is that two of the thirteen episodes were somewhat uneventful. If you don't crave an exploding head every five minutes I imagine you'll enjoy it very much.

(I read the first 70 or so issues of the comic before losing interest with the glacial pace [& realizing that I would be OK with having Robert Kirkman set on fire & kicked down a long flight of stairs],...

Huh. That's just where I quit, but more because as Kirkman ran out of ideas he fell back more on Rick making errors to keep what drama there was going, until Rick became a blundering oaf who could raise up his stump after the town was overrun and declare without a hint of irony, that by god having meetings about how to make the place safer was an idea whose time had come! Hilarious and awful. Plus, skimming told me that Nagan made the Governor a hive of moral complexity. Wouldn't be the first thing that ran out of real dramatic juice long, long before production ceased.

This makes sense for a 22-episode season, but if you need that much break time to write twelve episodes, I'm calling artistic laziness.

Not a writer, I see.

if you are a house member who knows if the economy tanks but you voted as your district wanted you likely keep your seat but if the economy improves but you know for certain that you will lose your seat for having voted against the wishes of your district then on a selfish level it is not a hard decision. you let the economy tank, blame the president and keep your seat

This is also the way the world as a whole works. I find it completely credible.

What the GOP gets if the whole thing blows up is that the whole thing blows up. They sure seem to like that. It's like a goal in and of itself for them.

Sure. It damages government, an inherent good to some of them. If you think government shouldn't borrow money, damaging it's ability to borrow money is a good thing.

Also: "Mr. Obama will now have to govern the America he so relentlessly sought to divide—and without a mandate beyond the powers of the Presidency."

Does anyone still take the Journal seriously? They're only slightly better than Fox at dull hackery.

I think Battlestar Galactica was actually the first 'hit' to do this, no?

Anyone catch B&G: Blood and Chrome? They diced the first episode into five chunks, and the first chunk, while respectable, was overly cliched: cocky young viper pilot, blah blah blah. Watchable because it was set in the intriguing BSG universe, but not exceptional. I'll keep slogging, though. I like the setting.

As far as BSG, I don't know, I started it on DVD towards the end so there was no real delay for me.

I hear it's even better if you start with the first episode.

:-0)

This makes sense for a 22-episode season, but if you need that much break time to write twelve episodes, I'm calling artistic laziness.

A 22 episode season is 22 22 minutes shows over 25 to 30 weeks. 12 episodes is 12 43 minutes episodes over 14 weeks or so. It is roughly the same amount of airtime condensed into half the time.

I'm just curious as to why you think that. Assuming there's significant job growth in the next 4 years and Obama's popularity is intact, do you really, really think HRC could turn down one last shot at history? I don't know HRC or pretend to know her, but something tells me that she couldn't sit back. Particularly with a stacked GOP deck in 2016 and a frankly somewhat light Democratic bench (right now.)

It's more gut than anything -- but she'll be 69 in 2016 and going back to the 90s, I think she's been through more battles than two political lifetimes. I go back and forth on her future - today, I just think she's ready to be done with it... that might change tomorrow.

BTW - it should be noted... she's still got a few odd million of 2008 campaign debt to retire.

I hear it's even better if you start with the first episode.

This is entirely incorrect when it comes to Battlestar Galactica. I decided to watch it earlier this year, got season one in the mail, put in the first disc and was greeted with "previously on Battlestar Galactica..."

Warning to all likewise ignorant newbies, don't start with season one, episode one!