To distract myself from the inevitable pain that will be watching the Patriots beat the snot out of the Chiefs, I'm going to share some impressions on the ground of what is going on in Missouri and speculate as to why Obama is devoting resources to my state.

1. The McCaskill factor. She was with Obama early and strongly. She lost in 04 when she ran for governor and followed the D.C. establishment's plan for how to campaign in Missouri. And she lost to a total tool. When she ran for Senate in 06, she rejected the outsiders advice and spent an enormous amount of time and resources campaigning in out-state Missouri. She won by trimming Talent's margins in out-state. (The divide in MO is not urban vs. rural as much as KC/St.Louis/Columbia and "out-state," which represents the other half of the population and much of which manages to maintain certain "rural" attitudes despite being sizeable populations in cities full of colleges - see Springfield).

Veepstakes mode is starting now, with its rampant speculation about things that almost never seem to end up mattering. Rather than doing that, I'm going to take it to the next round of speculation and start picking a cabinet. Regardless of who our nominee is, the democratic party is full of talented, intelligent and passionate public servants whose best efforts will be needed to start cleaning up the mess that Bush has made. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that John Edwards would make a great Secretary of Labor.

I've seen people suggest that Edwards would be a great AG and while I don't think he'd be bad at it, I think his talents are better suited for the DOL. Just because a man is intelligent and a lawyer doesn't mean we should slide him into the AG slot. Edwards' experience, passion and stature make him a solid pick for the DOL slot.

Ok, first time diary and the "tagging tips" is 404'ing me so forgive me if I've done something improper. I've been wanting to ask this question for awhile. Judging by recent diaries, I know I'm not the only one who misses being able to come here and actually learn about internal processes with other people who are committed to a progressive majority. But am I alone in remembering a time when posters here spoke with their own voices and fears? Am I alone in remembering a time when the diaries represented the kind of conversation you would have with a passionate stranger, as if no one else was watching?

I first noticed the change last summer with the Obama supporters. They all seemed to be talking from the same list. Not to disrespect their positions, it just seemed... canned. The vocabulary of the newly initiated. Given the recent, um, demographic shifts now it's overwhelmingly the Clinton supporters. But it's the same arguing as if you were a spin doctor and not a normal far-from-power voter. I miss that honest conversation. And it breaks my heart to see anyone on this site arguing from republican talking points.

Because it seems necessary these days to declare one's allegiance, I'll say I started out wanting Gore. After Labor Day I shifted to soft Edwards. When Edwards dropped out, it was a close call for me and I went with Obama. Since that point (2/5) I've had more strategic/tactical than substantive differences with Clinton. I don't hate or love either candidate. But I do hate seeing what has become of this site. Am I guilty of rose-colored hindsight? Or did this place used to be better than this?