The Daily Kos is publishing more not-newsworthy crap about military donors to the candidates campaigns.

If you add up all the pro-withdrawal candidates, you see the disparity getting huger:

Obama + Clinton + Paul + DNC: $751,870 from 1,825 contributors
The rest of the Republicans: $616,808 from 1,166 contributors

A few things about this that are silly:

First, that’s a total of 2991 contributions.  Not a very good sample.  Second, if you do the numbers, GOP donors are generally donating more per contribution than Democratic donors are, by about $118 per contribution.

Also funny:

Note that this only includes donations over $200. Smaller donations don’t need to be itemized by the campaigns. And given that enlisted personnel make less than $2,000 per month before taxes, we can assume that they’re not sending the bigger dollar contributions. As such, for Obama to score such a huge advantage among officers, which have always skewed more Republican is pretty startling.

So what Kos is assuming is that officers are more conservative than enlisted men.  Why he assumes this is beyond me.  Oh, and enlisted men can make a great deal more than $2000 a month as they move up the ranks….

In any case, it’s non-news.  It’s just Kos being an idiot.

There is little doubt that the notion most Americans have in their heads of neoconservatism has been at least temporarily skewed due to the perceived failures in Iraq. Regardless of the fact that things are actually improving on the ground finally, the bad taste left in many proverbial mouths when uttering the term “neocon” is more than apparent.

Of course, the fact is what the vast majority of people associate with neoconservatism is, in fact, a complete misconception of what it actually means to be a neoconservative. Even Kristol’s article may be only one aspect, one perspective on what it means to be a neocon. Indeed, a whole new generation of neoconservative thinkers is sprouting up, both here in the US and overseas.  Why?  Irving Kristol says it well,

(more…)