Some say the feud between Nancy Pelosi and Ellen Tauscher has always existed. Some say that it that it is a Hatfield-McCoy stories that goes back generations in east coast politics. But one thing is clear, it erupted in the press during the summer of 2001:

The California Democratic Party spent $3 million on GOTV this election cycle, but on Election Day wrote a $4 million check to state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

If the check had been written a day later, it would have been illegal. And if it had been written a day earlier, it could have resulted in negative press that would make the Democratic Party look hypocritical for campaigning against the GOP Culture of Corruption. Hence the odd timing of the check that makes no sense.

To-date, most of the discussion about the money has focused upon whether it was proper. I would prefer to focus on whether the transaction was strategic. Below I offer various other scenarios laying out rough budgets for how the CDP could have invested the $4 million dollars.

Since Russ Feingold will not be running for President, I will now be endorsing Al Gore for President for 2008. I am asking anybody who supported Russ Feingold for President to support Al Gore for President so we can restore the rule of law to the White House and restore the system of checks and balances to our Constitutional system.

Like many of us, I was not enthused by Al Gore in 2000. I voted for Nader as a way of pushing the Democratic party to the left and thus creating a Green Revolution. I thought that Bush would not be that bad of a President anyway, as he would be bipartisan and supposedly be above the fray. In the meantime, we could move the party and the country to the left and everybody would be happy.

A 38 year-old woman in Boston was crushed to death while driving through a new Big Dig tunnel leading to the airport, when a concrete slab weighing several tons fell from the ceiling and mangled her car. Massachusetts' governor Mitt Romney rushed to the scene as quickly as physics would allow.

In head-to-head matchups, Gore has pulled to within 7 points of McCain and 4 points of Giuliani in a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday, improving his standings from May when he trailed both McCain and Giuliani by double digits.

Gore now matches Hillary's poll numbers versus Giuliani and marginally improves upon her versus McCain.

Inspired by Markos's straw polls (at Daily Kos), I started noodling around looking at some things related to the 2008 election.  And lo and behold I noticed this disturbing fact regarding the schedule for the parties' conventions:

The 2008 Democratic National Convention will be the 2008 United States presidential nominating convention of the Democratic Party. It will be held from Monday, August 25, through Thursday, August 28, 2008, after the Summer Olympics in Beijing. (The 2008 Republican National Convention will start just 4 days later, on September 1, 2008).

WTF?  The Republican convention will start just four days after the Democratic convention?  That will give the Democratic candidate almost no time to enjoy a "bounce" or a "honeymoon" or anything else.  Any message developed by the candidates at the convention will be immediately swamped by the Republicans, just four days later.

Over at Daily Kos, there a front page article giving the latest focus group results form Frank "is he with us, or again' us" Luntz.  

Mixed into his "Ten Commandments for 2008 Democrats" there are some points worth a little thought -- even if none of them offer much more than what we've already heard a thousand times.  However, at the end of his list, there's a piece of advice that I find so sour, so distateful, that I can't help but respond.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee.  Electability is going to play a major role in 2008

I hate this rule, hate it with the passion I usually reserve for Rumsfeld's manic smirk.  You know what determines if someone is electable?  The election, nothing else.  If we learned nothing over the last few cycles, it should be that agonizing over electability is one of the most useless activities we can engage in.  It's idiotic, and it's idiotic for three reasons...

After further review and agonizing soul-searching (which explains why I didn't write a diary yesterday), I have decided that I can no longer support Russ Feingold for President. I am well and truly beaten. I did not realize that a twice-divorced candidate would be such a big liability. I fear that it would be such a great liability that we would be beaten even worse than McGovern and Mondale did.

As much as we might agree with Feingold 100% on the issues, he is simply not electable. People want a candidate who represents America, and they would always go for the man who best represents their ideals. This includes having a traditional family. After all, if a man can't run his family, then how can he run this country?

This is directed at anybody who thinks that their vote will not be important in the next election for whatever reason. It doesn't matter whether you are a Green disgusted at what you see as a lack of spine by the Democrats or a former Hackett supporter disgusted at what you see as an insular establishment who determines the candidates for Senate in smoke-filled backrooms. You are missing the key point as to why it is so important that you go to the polls and vote for a Democrat. You forget that a vote for a Democrat for Senate or the House is a vote for John Conyers as chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

On August 28th, John McCain committed a howler on Face the Nation when he said, "I'm not knowledgeable" when asked how many more troops were needed in Iraq, given the fact that he had repeatedly called for them:

The howler came when he called for the escalation of the Iraq War in the face of increasing violence. When asked how many more troops were necessary by Bob Schieffer, he said, "About 20,000 more; I'm not that knowledgeable." Then, if John McCain is not that knowledgeable about what must be done in the Iraq Conflict, then what the heck is he doing considering a run for President in 2008? And what the heck is he doing going on all the talk shows shilling for the administration?

This howler led me to wonder what else John McCain is not knowledgeable about. Now, I think I have an answer: John McCain is not knowledgeable about how Bush operates or acts. This was most evident on the torture deal where Bush supposedly caved in on the torture ban.

Those of you familiar with me know I'm not given to writing many 'Fuck You' diaries, but I have just come across something that really bothers me.

Oprah Winfrey made a stand that, had it been in 1998 or 1999, I would have applauded. But right now, it just frustrates me to no end that she said what she did.

On CNN (courtesy of the Huffington Post) -

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Senator Hillary Clinton and TV host Oprah Winfrey. According to the Gallup poll, they are the two most admired women in America. They had a very interesting and possibly politically significant encounter at the International Emmy Award ceremony Monday evening.

OPRAH WINFREY, TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you. I hope you do us a privilege and run for office. Thank you...

(APPLAUSE)

... president of the United States.

Why is this worth subjecting yourself to another freaking Hillary diary?

Find out, if you dare to brave... THE FLIPSIDE!!!
(where freepers fear to tread...)