Why are you so intent lately to block longtime bloggers and fans from this site?   I have always admired Talk Left for being rather fair and balanced in allowing its posters to comment without fear of banning.  But since Barack Obama became the nominee, all I an able to read all comments that are only positive in his favor with no criticism or questioning of him being allowed.

I recognize that this is your blog, and I also recognize that you must ban those who choose to use vulgarity and slander as talking points.   But shutting down commentators who have been your mainstay over the years is rather puzzling.

Perhaps I have missed something but as someone who has come often to read your analysis of topical issues I honestly do not understand.

TalkLeft is not a neutral site and never has been. It's been clearly stated in our mission statement which has not changed since 2002.

The commenters who are banned are those who chatter (see the comment rules), blog-clog, attempt to hijack or dominate the discussion.

You registered to comment in Feb. which is not a long time in the 6 year history of TalkLeft.

My goal is to expose the injustices of the current Administration and get the Democrats back in the White House. You are welcome to express your different opinion, up to four times a day. I think that's more than reasonable. I will not allow those with opposing views to dominate or take over the site. And I do insist on civility -- no name-calling, personal attacks, etc.

When the number of wasted votes one candidate gets goes above a certain percentage in certain states, that candidate can fall into the trap of losing "the map" while winning the popular vote. This was Al Gore's nightmare in 2000, and had things gone a little differently in Ohio, would have been John Kerry's in 2004. The fact, for example, that Al Gore got almost 60% of the vote in New York, instead of just 55%, did not help him one bit in Ohio, Florida, new Hampshire, or Tennessee. So too for Massachusetts and John Kerry.

So let's consider a Rasmussen South Carolina poll from yesterday giving McCain a real but narrower-than-expected lead. I suspect the poll is wrong, but even if it's right, it is irrelevant. The extra 6% or so of votes that Obama would need to win South Carolina are just not available to him.  He knows this, which is why he is not bothering to compete there. (And why at long last he has finally decided to give up on money pit Georgia).

i'd have to agree with your basic premise andgarden. i would take it a step further: the obama campaign shouldn't waste any scarce, allocable resources in any of the states of the confederacy. he'll likely get 99% of the AA vote, and still lose every one of them.

Working on a new soup recipe. Roasted squash and corn soup. Was cruising the net for ideas on what to do with my delicato squash and came across a recipe where you take the seeds and other inner squash "stuff" and use it for stock. Oh MY! So I used the "stuff" to make stock (along with water and white wine) while I roasted the corn and squash. Who knew?! Very nice stock!!! I'm adding a few other foods (fresh picked apples and carrots etc) along with the roasted veggies and as soon as they cook down a bit, I may just have a kick butt soup!

From my viewpoint, not enough close and careful examination has been done with regard to Sen. Obama's past which includes his qualifications or experience so you will understand why I am still very reluctant to commit.   I prefer to digest as much information as I can and I think you would agree that the MSM has fallen down in its duty to provide us with some semblance of balance.  I usually look to other areas and other opinions to assist me in finally coming to a reasonable conclusion.

I thought Naomi Klein cleaned Andrew Sullivan's clock on economic questions.  Sullivan's effort to disagree with Klein on the meaning of the Wall Street spiral was just not credible.  The fact is that The Shock Doctrine IS in play on the economic front.  That a McCain Administration Will use the problems as an excuse to eliminate programs, and make an assault on Social Security that will make W. look like's its best friend.

But then Sullivan got it right in joining Klein and Maher on the crux of the matter, which is that McCain's election will spell a nightmare for National Security and take the Culture Wars to unprecedented levels.

Best line of the night was when Maher said McCain will probably win because the American people are "too f&#king dumb."  I've seen a lot of chatterers on here lately talking about how it is not right to question the intellect of PUMAS and other Americans supporting McCain.

But what gives credence to the argument that we are a dumb electorate is, not only does McCain stand an excellent chance of winning.  But that more telling still, McCain consistently gets higher marks on the question who is fit to be Commander in Chief.  How stupid is the "McCain is Strong on NAtional Secutiry" meme?  Answer: Very stupid.

And people who vote McCain and then lose loved ones in the next guranteeed round of ill-begotten wars, will have nobody to cry to, or blame, but themselves.