I'm at work, and this is apparently just being broken, so I apologize for the brevity of this diary. Depending on workload, I'll try to flesh it out later.

According to Wired's science blog http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ 06/regulator-wants.html
California is sending cease and desist letters to genetic testing companies that operate without a physician signing off on the testing. Each of the companies contacted had been providing "direct to consumer" genetic testing.

The scary part of this scenario only requires a few steps: A physician is required to order your genetic test --> The results of the test go in your medical records --> Insurance company accesses your records, and now has data on every genetic risk factor you possess and could potentially pass on. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but Gattaca keeps jumping into my head.

I'd like to take this moment to announce that I, too, would be willing to be Obama's VP.

Sure, there might be people who endorsed him earlier. And there might be people who have committed fewer verbal faux pas than I have. And yes, there might be people who could bring more to a campaign based on changing the culture of corruption and cynicism that has plagued Washington. But I'm willing to do whatever it takes to help the party win, so I should be VP.

Thanks for your time.

As documented by the Chicago Tribune (link:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-c ampaign_fri.1apr25,0,2850297.story)

Some might argue that its a tad premature, but IMHO, this is a great, perfectly timed "pivoting" move. For the primary, it further bolsters Obama's argument, to "red-state" superdelegates, that he can provide serious coat-tails, both in terms of perception and in actual boots-on-the-ground volunteers. Its general-election appeal is obvious (more Democrats = good).

I first started reading (and perhaps a little writing) at MyDD, Dkos, and a few other sites (John Edwards site blog springs to mind) a few years ago. What attracted me to them was that, despite vastly disparate view points, the posters at these sites were all committed to 1) ending the control of the White House, our Congress, and our state legislatures by Republicans, and 2) the election of successively better Democrats.

I've been quite lax in my participation at these sites after starting law school. As such, I'm surprised at the amount of people  suggesting that they (and more often that many other people) will either stay home or vote for McCain if their candidate does not win. While I've got opinions on this behavior, this diary is not where I'll be voicing them. At this point, I just want to know if these statements are an accurate characterization of a slice of this community. Answer the poll, and bump/recommend it if the results would be interesting to you as well.

Growing up in the NJ suburbs during the 90's, I'd seen as many ridiculous Rudy moves as it is possible to witness. As such, I was not surprised by his irrational reliance on the Florida primary to save a campaign that never got off the ground. The logic of the move escaped me then, and does now. Whatever advantage Rudy's campaign envisioned in the Sunshine State was allowed to evaporate as his opponents racked up wins, delegates, momentum, and cash in the preceding states. When the predicted day of Rudy's Shock and Awe victory arrived, the consequences of these bonehead moves became apparent.
Knowing his history, I thought this was just another example Giuliani stupidity. However, I'm beginning to think its a New York thing, as Sen. Clinton is now employing the same strategy

Bob Cesca's piece at HuffingtonPost yesterday points out a statement made by Hillary in the run up to her NH win, regarding terrorism.

<"I don't think it was by accident that al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister. They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do. Let's not forget you're hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."/

Cesca goes on to show how closely Clinton is following the Cheney/Bush playbook with this statement, essentially saying that electing Obama or Edwards is inviting a terrorist attack. Check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/ senator-clintons-fearmon_b_80782.html for the full article.