In a telephone poll commissioned by Friends of Sandi Jackson, Illinois voters preferred Congressman Jesse Jackson over nine other people who might be considered possible replacements.  The list included Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis.

Commissioned by Jackson's wife (to whom Jr. moved hundreds of thousands of dollars before her election to the Chicago City Council) means that state political dollars were used, and not those falling under the rules of the FEC.  Illinois has no limit on the amount that someone can give a state political committee.  Contributions to federal campaigns are currently limited to $2,300 per cycle.

The survey, conducted Nov. 5-6, 2008, shows that, given a choice of 10 possible candidates, 21% think Gov. Rod Blagojevich should appoint Jackson to the seat when Obama leaves it vacant to ascend to the presidency, far more than the rest of the field. Tammy Duckworth, a former Democratic congresswoman candidate from a suburban Chicago district, is the only other potential candidate to win double-digit support -14% said she should be appointed.

Mark Kirk likes to pretend that he's a moderate.  But the fact is, he's no moderate -- he's voted with George Bush 90% of the time.  By comparison, the ultra conservative Peter Roskam has voted with George Bush 90% of the time.

At least Roskam is honest.  Mark Kirk doesn't have Roskam's integrity.  Despite being the chosen candidate for the Club for Growth, Kirk has long pretended that he was "independent" and a political moderate.  Kirk obviously thinks that his constituents are stupid.

The Club for Growth, according to its own website, "has become a power broker of sorts with the conservative movement," and "has become a force in congressional elections, taking aim at moderate Republicans."

So it came as no surprise when the Neo-Con independent group, Freedom's Watch, invaded the IL-10's airwaves in support of Mark Kirk.  While Kirk may try to represent himself as an independent or political moderate, inside the Beltway, his friends know that they can count on him.  Just as they can count on ultra-conservative Peter Roskam.

This story got me thinking.  Fact: Peter Roskam "votes with Bush over 90% of the time. Fact: he votes in favor of tax breaks for Big Oil. Fact: he voted against veterans benefits."

So what's the difference between Mark Kirk and Peter Roskam?  

Image, of course.  In politics, image is everything.  Voters are supposed to ignore the wizard behind the curtain.

Mark Kirk says that he's a moderate, but he has the same voting record (in this regard) as Peter Roskam.  Mark Kirk says that he's independent, but he has the same loyalty towards the president and his party as Peter Roskam.

Peter Roskam will tell you that he's a conservative.  At least he's honest about it.  But that's probably because Roskam has stronger ties to his district than Mark Kirk.  Roskam represents what he believes his district wants.  Kirk pretends to.

It's 3am.  The nation is in crisis.  And John McCain just told the Situation Room to call back in the morning.

Maybe because he's so old.  Maybe his brain doesn't work so well under stress.  Or maybe he's completely out of his element.  But the McCain campaign's blatent attempts to keep people from asking them questions is the same thing as telling us to call back in the morning.

How the hell can we expect him to take on Vladamir Putin?  Or, hell, Nancy Pelosi?

first of two

It was never going to be easy.  In fact, it seems to be a peculiar Democratic disease to go into the fall thinking that defeating the Republican presidential candidate -- whatever Republican presidential candidate -- amounts to a slam dunk.  Thankfully, the Obama campaign, and the candidate himself, has never fallen prey to this disease.

Like Hillary's campaign, the senior leadership of the Obama campaign closely studied the 2004 campaign.  But the Obama campaign began to implement the lessons it derived from 2004 from the beginning.  Its goal was not to win the Democratic nomination, but to win the White House.  Its analysis didn't focus on improving at the margins but on answering the question, Why has only one Democratic presidential candidate won 50% of the vote since 1968 (Jimmy Carter in 1976)?  In light of their conclusions, the Obama campaign started from the outset to rectify the weaknesses they found in prior Democratic presidential campaigns.

In essence, the Obama campaign set out to radically change Democratic campaigns.

Today, Eric and I attended the Blogger's Tailgate Party.  I signed us up even though I had no idea that Howard Dean would be there.  But he showed up, gave a great speech and then proceeded to sit down at our table.

Howard basically asked us how everything was going and what we thought could be improved.  I had a list and made it known.  I took pictures of another blogger and Dean.  (Eric handled the video camera!)

What's the point of a political convention?  To choose the nominee, of course!

You know better than that.  Maybe political conventions used to select nominees -- back in Abraham Lincoln's Day.  But now, nominees are chosen by primaries and caucuses.  This is the result of decades of political reforms pushed through by liberals and progressives who intended to open up the process.  Of course, some of those people may be regretting these reforms, since the candidate they supported lost.  Opening up the political process of how we choose our party nominee changed the game, but it didn't perfect it.  People still get alienated, feel left out, disenfranchised by how our party nominees get chosen.

So, what's the point of a political convention?