Is any opposition to the war inherently “pathological”? Or, can candidates be opposed to the war without their opposition being labeled “pathological”?

Likewise, with “hating the President” - is all political opposition to the President inherently hateful? Or, does the writer have some particular insight into the souls of these “haters”?

As I noted over on NLS, the democrats need six seats to take the senate. They likely see good to great chances in MT, MO, RI, and a lead pipe cinch in PA. They will want to put the $$ into either holding loose seats or picking off the other two. Given that Webb is taking a hit in polls, and given that his own internal fundraising is hardly raising the roof, I imagine they are holding off on pumping $$$ into the Webb campaign until either (a) they think he has a real shot, or (b) they don’t have any other options for a pick-up.

Yes, the longer they wait, the less good it does…and therein lies the rub.

The EMILY group that was geared toward electing women (”Early money is like Yeast”) recognized that $1 in June and July was worth $2 in October. Team Schumer is holding off to see where the money should go, but by delaying sending big money to Webb they are diminishing what he can accomplish with it when and if it finally comes in.

But that’s not entirely my point. Webb has been endorsed by John Kerry. Great! Where is the support? Webb raised just over $1 million so far for his campaign. Kerry, Schumer and Robb could raise that in an afternoon if they wanted to - but they haven’t.

The Democratic establishment has been unwilling to back candidates supported by Democratic voters. This is going to hurt them over time.

I won’t bother with all the differences between the situation in CT and VA, but Lamont’s view on Iraq is here - http://nedlamont.com/issues/27/iraq