Despite all the hubbub last week about Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016, Philip Bump, writing in The Atlantic, says there are now no concrete criteria by which to gauge a possible Clinton victory. First, it's far too early for polls, he says. Second, the supposed “gender advantage” isn't clear. Third, “voters appear to be less intrigued by Clinton than the media.” Translation: Down, boys and girls. ... A new study says men between the ages of 35 and 50, and driving blue BMWs at 5:45 p.m. on Fridays, are more likely to engage in road rage than other drivers. Artificial empowerment certainly doesn't come cheap, does it? ... Retired political reporter Jack Germond died last week. He defended Teresa Heinz Kerry during her infamous 2004 “Shove it!” incident in Boston by trashing the Trib live on CNN. But he failed to disclose that his wife, Alice, was, at that very time, secretary of the Democratic National Committee. We remind, you deride. ... Poor Mike Crossey. The president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the one-time Democrat candidate for lieutenant governor from Pittsburgh's South Hills, is, in some circles, considered a possible candidate next year. But Keystone Politics, “Pennsylvania's source for liberal political news and commentary,” couldn't even get his name right in a Wednesday dispatch, referring to him as Mike “Crossley.” Hey, at least it got his first name right.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.