Eric Alterman on the Kerry-Edwards debate:

I was amazed at how hard Edwards came after Kerry, given that I thought he was running for vice president by this time. He’s not. He may end up with the job, but it will take a lot of swallowing by Kerry, and it’s weird that Edwards would want to go down making so much noise. On the other hand, Edwards was terrific, again, and Kerry seemed uncomfortable. That line about God and Abe Lincoln was a killer. Kerry, I dunno. I tried for some pre-debate reassurance from his people that he had a plan for dealing with his Q-rating problem. They wouldn’t grant a thing. They told me people say he’s more likable than Bush. I’m not buying. And I’m certainly not buying when you combine it with the words “Massachusetts liberal” and Bush’s two hundred million plus, and the whole thing gives me a headache.

Journalist, author and blogger David Neiwert of Orcinus says Ralph Nader is an extremist:

Anyone who votes for Nader isn't just voting for Bush. They're voting for a right-wing tool and a wacko in his own right.

Will we get him dead or alive? How long will we have had him?

[Source of image unknown, we received it by e-mail.]

The New York Times has endorsed John Kerry in Tuesday's New York primary. The paper praises John Edwards, but says this is not his time and he needs more experience. As to Kerry,

Mr. Kerry, one of the Senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes maturity and depth. He can discuss virtually any issue of security or international affairs with authority. What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy. While he still has trouble turning out snappy sound bites, we don't detect any difficulty in laying down a clear bottom line. His campaigning skills are perhaps not as strong as his intellectual ones, but they are pretty good and getting better. Early in the race he alienated some audiences with brittle, patronizing lectures. But he has improved tremendously over the last few months. His answers are focused and to the point, and his speeches far more compelling.

....Almost everyone who has been watching the Democratic campaign would love to merge Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards into one composite super-candidate, with Mr. Kerry's depth and Mr. Edwards's personal touch with the voters. In the television era, likability is extremely important. But this is a serious business, and Mr. Kerry, the more experienced and knowledgeable candidate, gets our endorsement.

From Long Story, Short Pier:

Billmon has uncovered the most glorious hack. It seems georgewbush.com has a really keen tool: enter your ZIP code, and it’ll bring up a list of your local papers. Type in the letter you wish to send to the editor(s), check off the papers in question, press the “send” button, and presto! You’ve siphoned off a tiny chip of his 200-million–dollar war chest and used it for truth, justice, and the American way. (If you’re at a loss, Billmon suggests you take the HRC or Lambda Defense Fund letters as boilerplate.)

What are you waiting for? Go! Go!

We'll be putting some great letters in the comments to this post which you can use for your letters. Feel free to add others in the comments that the rest of us can use. The part we like the best is that the Bush Campaign is paying for the funding of the technology to do this.

Now that the Democratic race effectively is down to two choices, bloggers are picking sides: Daily Kos and The Agonist are going for John Edwards.

If you find some more bloggers making endorsements, please post them in the comments. We're still undecided between Edwards and Kerry.

Bush's popularity has faded with Illinois voters:

Illinois voters have grown so disenchanted with President Bush that he would lose the state to either of the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination if elections were held today, a Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows.

According to the poll, both Kerry and Edwards would beat Bush in Illinois.

We've been receiving e-mails from people we don't know in opposition to Ralph Nader's decision to run for President. Here are some of them:

• I can only assume that Nader's decision to run for President again is based either on a tremendously over-inflated ego or he is a puppet of the Republicans who welcome him into the race in the hope that Bush will win again. There is no logical reason for Nader to run - his protestations about the "liberal inteligentsia" being out to stop him is ridiculous. He has demonstrated - four years ago, and again now, that he is irrelevant except as a spoiler. There is not a single spark of hope of him winning anything except ridicule. No money, no funding, little chance of even getting on a state ballot make this attempt nothing short of idiotic.
  
• Why is Ralph Nader running? You could say ego. And you would be right. You could say bile and meanness. And you would be right. You could say "because he can" (like why a dog licks himself). And you would be right. But the most powerful reason, in my judgment, is that he wants Bush to win. That way the ultra-libs will be further energized, and keep sending him all those lovely checks. Ralph Nadar is only interested in Ralph Nadar. He is a wolf in wolf's clothing. I'd sooner vote for Osama Bin Laden; at least he isn't a hypocrite.

We liked these too:

• Nader, you're going to ruin it again. You screwed up last time and now we're living with George Bush. Get behind the Democratic candidate -- now - - before the damage is done! Thanks.
  
• Mr. Nader, please I do not want GW Bush re-elected. Please do not run in November.

We don't feel threatened by Nader's run this time. We don't think many people will vote for him, least of all the Democrats. We doubt the press will give much coverage to his campaign. We don't intend to give him much coverage here either. We think he's best ignored.

Update: Calpundit shares our view.

But can the rest of us make a pact to just ignore him? He's not even worth criticizing or mocking anymore, and we've all got more important things to do than giving him the attention he craves. Like unelecting our current president, for example. OK?

Maybe some creative blogger will come up with a graphic of Nader that says "Nader-Free Zone."

by TChris

In a triumph of ego over the collective good, Ralph Nader announced on Meet the Press that he will run for President. Also on Meet the Press, Arnold Schwarzenegger complained that, as a foreign-born citizen, he can't be elected President.

Democrats aren't the only voters disenchanted with Bush. So are many independents and Republicans, including those that voted for him last time around:

In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. Some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among Republicans and independents.

This one interviewee summed it up pretty good:

In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again. The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."

We really enjoy reading about Teresa Heinz Kerry. We always learn something new about her, and it's refreshing to see a candidate's wife with a distinct personality and a persona of her own. The Sunday New York Times has this long profile of Ms. Heinz Kerry. The new item we learned about her today?

But Ms. Heinz Kerry, a physician's daughter who peruses medical journals and toxicology articles and is intrigued by alternative medicine and Eastern philosophy, knew enough to have her husband's blood retested for C-reactive protein, a little-known indicator of potentially cancerous inflammation. Two days before Christmas, his doctor told Mr. Kerry that his wife's fears were well placed; he was in the very early stages of prostate cancer. Ms. Heinz Kerry may well have saved her husband's life.

by TChris

John Kerry and John Edwards have agreed to debate each other, one-on-one. The "showdown" will take place on February 29.