First off, a bit more on the voting id case. Whalen v. Roe focused somewhat on the claim that the drug registration law was not shown to be necessary. It noted in part: "The absence of detected violations does not, of course, demonstrate that a statute has no significant deterrent effect." Will the majority in the voter id case cite this ruling, which also has some nice things to say about privacy rights, ala Reynolds v. Sims in Bush v. Gore? Good thing that is but one aspect of the problem ... that alone might not be a constitutional strike against the law. Overall, even some chance of benefit is not enough when a fundamental right is at stake. Some commentary notwithstanding.*
John McCain might be beloved by the press. The phony "maverick" that does basically nothing substantive to deal with President Bush, who even run of the mill Republicans admit leave something to be desired. Other than some hearings on Jack Abramoff, what exactly did St. John do? I caught a clip of him after Iowa saying negative campaigning (likely reference to Romney, who btw is not doing as bad as some say he is) doesn't work. You mean like against you in 200 or Kerry the last time around? I also heard a clip of him on the radio on how fiscally responsible Reagan was ... which again is b.s. Experienced, sure. In b.s.
But, as the "unity" run for Bloomberg -- isn't going beyond partisanship the whole point of the Obama race (Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! worries about his strategy along with his use of corporate money, but apparently he doesn't go far enough for some people, or they simply don't trust him) -- image is often more important than substance. I can, for instance, link to St. Greenwald again to show how Bloomberg supported the Republicans (he after all won as one) and the Iraq War the last few years. Likewise, the last few elections showed how connecting with voters and personality (fake or otherwise) was key. Not there, sorry.
Dennis Kucinich, who got about two percent of the vote in New Hampshire, wants a recount. Going for three, are we? No, his campaign is concerned about reports of irregularities, so it is akin to like when a third party candidate (Kerry, whose endorsement I'm not sure does Obama any favors, deciding to concede right away ... Ned Lamont btw also endorsed O., you know, the Lieberman supporter) who did so in Ohio last time around. BTW, that was inconclusive, since it was later found that election workers cheated to ease the process along to prevent the need to do too much work. This article supports the move, though (like me) doesn't think either Ohio or NH was stolen.
John Marshall continues the meme of HC's "surprise" win in New Hampshire, which as with the constant talk of a HC v. BO (that's unfortunate) race [hmm, I recall at least one other person], seems to me to have some effect. I admit that it is unclear what sort of effect such "conventional wisdom" brings, but there is some value in opening up the possibility of something. The possibility does not mean that it will happen, but the opening is necessary for there to be a decent shot. So, the idea -- with resulting financing, endorsements and influence on voters who might be tempted to go elsewhere -- that HC suddenly had a "surge," even if she was the probable (in a close race) winner all along matters.
BTW, the fact Obama had a shot at winning (the race was close) doesn't change that. It does underline that two key races don't make a primary season, or Bill Clinton wouldn't have been President. Ditto thoughts that a surge of support for a few days will end matters. In a close race with no candidate a slam dunk, it is unsurprising if there are ebbs and flows, one candidate working hard (helped by events that can be overblown, like HC being "emotional") to alter moves in another direction. It is not "surprising" that a populist evangelistic friendly candidate did well in Iowa. Or, that McCain won NH, or the more conservative leading senator of a NE state (who the Weekly Standard earlier on figured the best of a bad situation) won there.
The need for simple story lines aside. Finally, ala Media Matters etc., I agree Chris Matthews is anti-Hillary in a "you need help dude" way, but is he that special that we should be too worried? Seems he is an extreme example of a wider trend, a trend worthy of concern, but I personally often am not as viscerally affected as much as those like Atrios ("Tweety" etc.) who watch these people on a more regular basis, such as Rachel "I don't own one, but love being on it all the time" Maddow.
BTW, the repeats of Coupling on BBC America this week were great. About half of the episodes are pretty good, a quarter often simply hilarious.
---
* As usual, the discussions can get tedious. One specter is dead people voting -- I saw a serious lawyer type bring that one up. As one person noted, when this was used by machines (the old political type) to up the vote totals, it was not a voter fraud issue. Dead people voting was illegal then too; the authorities were not too deterred. Anyway, this is a registration issue. There are ways to update rolls without such a problematic means. And, audits of the results -- useful for various reasons -- can also "catch" the problem, if not the wrongdoers in various instances.
Is cost/benefit ratio that hard of a concept to understand?