Happy Obama Day!

I'm not generally a fan of exclamation marks, but I feel it's warranted here in the title of this post.

Big ups to America for inaugurating Barack. It's really hard to put into words how I feel about this. I'm just happy that today I can finally tell my students that they can word hard enough and be the President and actually mean it. Holla at ya boy.

So Happy, And Yet So Sad

Seriously, on the day we elect the (half) black dude president, and 61.2% of Californians voted for Obama, 52.4% of them also voted in favor of prop 8, thus voting to strip gays of the right to get married.

That's so fucking gay.

Save The Drama For Obama

I had a mental outline of a post that was to be entitled "I Have Lost Faith In Humanity" which was to be fleshed out upon a victory by John McCain in the presidential race. Fortunately, I have actually gained a bit of faith in humanity after yesterday's outcome in which Barack Obama was elected by nearly 63 million Americans.

I am exceedingly happy about this outcome. Seriously, though, I'm wondering if he has enough experience to actually be a good president. Let's hope so. I will be purchasing a t-shirt that says "Save the drama for Obama" forthwith.

Fox News doesn't even try to be non-partisan anymore. Their coverage was given from a Republican point of view to an astounding level. I didn't watch any MSNBC coverage, so I can't comment on that. CNN was predictably centrist.

Most interesting side note: In Minnesota nearly 3 million votes were cast for the Senate race and Al Franken appears to have lost to the incumbent by 572 votes. And 437,000 votes were cast for an independent and 23,000 votes were cast for other gies who had no chance of winning.

UPDATE: The New York Times web site has the most amazing interactive coverage of the election. You can watch the Obama's and McCain's speeches with the transcripts, you can zoom in and out of each state on the map and see the results by county. You can, and I have, spend hours looking through the results and reading the stories and looking at all the clickable maps and such. It's really astounding.

Prediction time, yay!

Yeah, that’s right, three exclamation points, what? Do something. Yeah, I thought so.

Anyway, after a goddamn eon or something, this fucking election is finally gonna be over tonight (well, hopefully). Side Bar laid down the first bet: 338-200 (for Obama, presumably).

Not bad, my Facebook-hating friend. I’ll take your 338 and raise you a North Carolina, which brings it to 353-185. I'll tack on a popular vote call to: 51.8%-46.3%.

And incidentally, if you run into anyone who gives you that “If Obama loses, I’m moving to Canada” thing, punch that person in the throat. That’s retarded. You can also kick their dog, if they have one and it’s in your immediate vicinity.

Anyway, here’s a lil’ clip from the lovely Faith who, by the by, is a Rhodes Scholar and a part-time Navy S.E.A.L. So I hear, anyway.

Dear Lord,

Please don't let the stupid vote ruin this for me tomorrow.

Stay black, Lord.
Amen.

Sarah Palin's Vlog

This is funny. I'm trying to feed Side Bar's infatuation with Sarah Palin, future GILF. Someone named Sara Benincasa has made a bunch of video blogs of Sarah Palin. There are like 15 or 20 of them, but this is the first one.



The part where she says, "I won mayor of a small town and I won governor or Alaska" is very funny to me. The ones that come after this are also pretty funny so watch 'em. Vlog #5 is particularly good.

Becoming A Republican

I've said for years that I can't even wrap my head around the idea that one might choose to be a Republican. I don't dislike Republicans or deny them of their choice, but it's honestly something that makes absolutely no sense to me. The only reason I can think of that one might want to be a Republican is if he or she is worth more than $5 million and wants that money to stay in his or her pocket. Outside of that, and even that is a somewhat selfish motivation, I can't see why one would choose to be a Republican. Is there anyone in this country who is not in the top 1% of the wealth pool who can honestly say that he's better off today than he was 8 years ago? Is there anyone outside of that 1% who can honestly say that George Bush has best served their interests and not those of his cronies? It's genuinely mind boggling for me. I would love for someone to give me a reasonable explanation for being a Republican. I'm not being facetious.

Anyhow, what I mean to say is this. In the last two Republican conventions, the good ol' boys have trotted out two former Democrats to make speeches for their folks. Those two guys are the stodgiest old guys in the history of the world, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. Is trotting these two guys out there really a good idea? Doesn't it kindof lend credence to the idea that the Republican party is the party of old dudes who are no longer idealists and no longer care about the little guys. There's got to be a better strategy than pimping out a couple of old margnialized politicians.

Barack's Speech

Side Bar said one of us might be able how to figure out to embed Barack's speech. Well, great success, I did it.



It's a dope speech.

Let's Hope I'm Wrong

Here's a quote from me from a post on January 19, 2005:

Why is there only one black senator? There are one hundred senators and only 1/2 a black person. Until there are more black senators, there ain't never gonna be a black president. Write that shit down. Barack could single-handedly capture Osama bin Laden and balance the budget and that negro would still not get elected president.

I just thought I'd bring this back to light in the hopes that I'm wrong. At the very least he's got as good a shot as any other Democratic candidate, perhaps better.

Relatedly, here is Side Bar's comment to my post:

"Barack could single-handedly capture Osama bin Laden and balance the budget and that negro would still not get elected president."

Priceless.

Actually, though, I disagree. I don't think there is enough blatant, out and out KKK-type racism to preclude a black guy from getting elected President (i.e., not enough guys going, "fuck that, I agree with that guy on most issues, but screw it, he's black"). Racism as it exists today is much more subtle - a black guy with baggy pants and corn rows can't get a home equity loan at his local bank as easily as I could, minorities have a harder time getting a cab, etc.

This is the problem with success stories like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama and the like. These leaders are used as evidence to support the claim that there is less racism in the country. That's bullshit. There's plenty of racism, it's just that a very few prominent black politicians have overcome it, and achieved positions still disproportionately held by whites.

Americans would embrace Obama the same way they would have embraced Powell (he was polling in the 40's in 1996), but I don't think that such an outcome would signal the sort of watershed moment in race relations that most pundits will announce.

PS - After a bit of a rest period for me, the Daily Show has once again become required viewing in this election season. It just does not get better.

What I've Learned From Reading the New York Times

Maureen Dowd hates Hillary Clinton.

Is it just me (and MMG, who I know agrees with me), or is Maureen Dowd not viciously sexy? And her column is annoying recently, but that just kinda adds to it because now she's got that teetering on the edge, manipulative, other woman-hating, might snap at any time kinda thing.

Fuck Hillary Clinton

Man, I really can't stand Hillary Clinton anymore.

And, it's not because she's a woman, or a Clinton, or a baby boomer. No, none of those things.
It's because she fucking sucks.

Here's the most recent reason why: In an interview last week (and I don't know why it's taken a week to get out), Geraldine Ferraro (former first woman-ever VP candidate in 1984 and a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and campaigner) had this to say about Barack Obama: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

What? Obama has nothing else going for him except being black - really? Hmmm. That's pretty bold talk, especially from the first woman VP candidate who just happens to be supporting the former first woman president candidate - who just happens to be the first First Lady presidential candidate.

Was it an angry outburst, quickly recanted? Geraldine, what do you say?

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Sounds like you can spell mea culpa without Geraldine Ferraro to me.

So what did Hillary have to say about all this nonsense? Hillary, who demanded that some lady get kicked out of Obama's campaign for calling her a 'monster'. I mean, maybe she just meant the cookie monster or the sock monster or something, is that such a mortal sin? Well, Hillary didn't take it that way and Camp O felt her pain: the woman resigned.

Was she irate? Indignant? Disugusted?

"I do not agree with that," she [Clinton] said. "It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues."

Monsterism is clearly out of bounds, but a little racism? Eh - whatever.

Fuck you Hillary Clinton and fuck you too, Bill.

There's this, but there's also Bill dismissing Obama's SC win - saying Jesse Jackson won in '84 too; them sending the pictures of Obama dressed up in Kenyan clothing (and *Muslim*); Hillary saying "He's not Muslim...as far as I know".

I find it hard to believe, but I really feel like Hillary Clinton is employing her own 'Southern Strategy'-lite. I mean this isn't Ronald Reagan going to Philadelphia, Mississippi, to announce his presidency and affirm his commitment to 'states' rights'. But she's intentionally appealing to the middle white America's remaining racism.

They're not running against Barack Obama, they're running against 'that black (and maaybe Muslim) guy', Barack Obama.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Somewhat Interesting Constitutional Argument

I say somewhat interesting, because if it actually came to the forefront, I can't imagine them ruling him ineligible, especially if the Republican Supreme Court has the ultimate decision, but there's apparently a bit of conversation regarding John McCain's eligibility to be president.

The issue is that he wasn't born in the United States, but rather in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed in the area by the military. The Constitution has a provision about "natural-born citizens" being the only ones eligible for the presidency. Some believe that means that only people born inside the United States are elegible to be president. Under the strictest interpretation of this provision McCain may not be eligible.

First of all, I don't imagine that anyone would challenge McCain's eligibility, nor, apparently, is it very clear who or how a challenge would be raised. Secondly, McCain has never been anything other than an American citizen, which is enough for me to end the conversation. The provision has never been challenged, though it seems pretty clear that a naturalized American citizen, say the Governator or Madeline Albright as examples, would not be eligible under any interpretation, but I can't imagine that McCain would be deemed to be ineligible.

Still, it's an interesting question. This seems like something that's screaming to be clarified by an amendment to the Constitution, but good luck with that.

A Vote For Idealism

First of all, I don't know about the other contributors feelings on blogging about politics, but I know that I'm not going to be able to keep myself from blogging about the upcoming election on a somewhat regular basis. If you don't want to read my thoughts on politics, then I expect you'll just not read my posts.

Anyhow, today is "Super Tuesday", the day when nothing really happens, but there are really good new graph technologies on CNN. Heading into today I was really, honestly torn between voting for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As I think I've expressed in previous posts, my feeling is that the prudent vote at this point goes to Clinton, and the idealistic vote goes to Obama. I think we know with Clinton we're going to get a president that's a solid B+ and that she won't really be better and she probably won't be worse. Obama, on the other hand, has the potential to be an A or even better, but also might go down in flames, or at least be like a C.

I have never had to think so hard about which candidate I wanted to vote for. Voting for Bill Clinton in 1996, Bill Bradley and then Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004 (the nomination was wrapped up by the time the New York primary rolled around) were all no brainers for me. This year I read a lot about it, I watched all the Meet The Press I could, I even read Maureen Dowd's column for the past couple weeks (which is getting harder these days. We get it Maureen, you're cynical. Very clever). I even looked fairly specifically at some of their policy platforms. At the end of the day, I really feel like the two candidates are pretty similar, in fact I believe that they are only marginally different. Requiring Americans to buy into a health care plan is not exactly a difference. It is, but you know what I mean.

It really just comes down to two things for me. First is electability, second is that prudence vs. idealism thing. If I felt like one of these two would be entirely outmatched in the general election by the Republican nominee (which is looking more and more like McCain), then I would vote for the other guy. Honestly, though, even there I see that they both have convincing arguments. Clinton is entirely prepared to go into the general election today, whereas she may lose momentum come November. I think Barack will have to build up steam by first changing is message for a more cnetrist audience, and second weathering the personal attacks that would undoubtedly begin in earnest come August, but I think he would really get the proverbial train moving later in the race.

At the end of the day, I had to make a decision. I was still not 100% convinced either way as I walked into the voting booth. My decision came down to this. I'm 29 years old, this is the last time I will vote as a "young voter" with my heart rather than with my head, and I decided to cast a vote for idealism, rather than prudence. I voted for Barack Obama.

I'm still not convinced that I made the right choice, to be perfectly honest with you, but I don't regret my vote. And I could not be more happy that my vote will actually count for something because 1)the nomination is not yet decided and 2)New York is not a winner take all state (Clinton has already been projected as the winner) so whatever proportion of the vote Obama receives will determine the number of delegates he receives.

If my guy doesn't end up winning the nomination ultimately, I will happily vote for Clinton in the general, but for today I'm still young, today I'm still an idealist, today I voted for the guy who most closely represents me and my background.

I'm Happy That Hillary Won New Hampshire

At this point, I'm honestly torn between the prospect of nominee Obama and nominee Clinton. My feeling is that today, at this moment, the idealistic vote goes to Obama, but the prudent vote goes to Clinton. Yesterday in New Hampshire, Clinton's victory served to ensure that Obama will, in time, become the prudent vote as well as the idealistic vote.

Follow me here. Let's assume Obama had won New Hampshire, effectively becoming the overwhelming favorite, requiring a miracle of sorts from Clinton to pull out the votes on super tuesday, Feb. the 5. This would allow Obama to keep walking around giving stump speeches about abstract ideals and may have actually, despite my facetious tone in the endorsement, started promising unicorns to Americans with enough space to keep them. What's gonig to happen now is that Obama is going to actually have to stand for something in order to get those votes. So that means he'll have had at least this extra month of January to hone his platform, explain why he doesn't want to require Americans to have health care, why he wants to have tea with Castro and Kim Jong Il, and how he's going to convince the Democratic congress to up the cap on the social security tax. (Ok, that last one was really my issue, but I'd like to see someone pick it up.) Bottom line, Barack needs this fight. If he's going to position himself on the Hugo Chavez side of center, then he's going to have to get ready for McCain (Mac is back!) coming hard with the Piggy and Samaneric conch busting, right leaning fire and brimstone.

A side note: I'm pretty pleased at the prospect of all 3(well 2.5) major Democratic candidates taking up the cause of universal health care. All of their plans are pretty similarly based on the Massachusetts model, with some alterations. Now this plan is flawed in the traditional Canadian/British model of universal health care, but it's I think the best we can do from where we are to where we want to get.

And now, introducing the next President of the United States...

Barack Obama!

I must admit, I did not like the idea of turning this [insert superlative] blog into a political mouthpiece, but after the past two weeks or so, I feel no choice but to concede a point.

And that point is that due to the courageous endorsement by the editorial staff of Where's Luke?, the winner of the Iowa caucuses was none other than the man himself...Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

I have to give credit where it's due, and that's to Side Bar, who put together that incredibly insightful -- and, little did he know, influential -- post. But more than that, because I'm sure Side Bar knows it, too, the true credit belongs to Chuck.

After all, it was Chuck who put in the snarky little comments. (You know, those ones in parentheses!).

LJT, you did a tremendous job as campaign manager as well. Don't think I'd forget you!

But ultimately, I think the real reward should go to me. After all, I put up that breathtaking comment, which everyone read and thought about for a few days after, right? The sheer breadth of wisdom espoused in my comment was so cathartic that it prevented me from even sleeping that night, so I'm sure that's what happened elsewhere as well.

Anyway, congrats Barack, congrats staff of Where's Luke? In particular, congrats to Side Bar, Chuck, and LJT.

But most particularly, congrats to me, Open fucking Bar. It's nice to know that, after seeing the results of the beautiful and perfect democracy that is the Iowa caucuses, perhaps, the country will finally right itself.

Soldier on.

[Editor's note: Yes, I, Open Bar am predicting right now, this January 4th of 2008, that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. This is independent of any co-writers of this blog. Unless, of course, they choose to agree with me. Then, in that case, I will give them credit for saying it. After I did first, though.]

Things That Are Overrated: The Iowa Caucus

First of all, the Iowa caucus doesn't even decide anything. It is not a primary, and the outcome of the caucus doesn't decide any delegates, doesn't win you any states, and doesn't lead to anything tangible in the way of getting you elected president. This thing is just level after level of confundity. As best I understand it from reading the Wikipedia entry on the matter, the caucus determines local delegates, who then go and elect county delegates, who then in turn go to elect district delegates, who then select the state delegates. AKA, this process is useless.

Also the way the caucuses are run is a fucking travesty. In order to vote you have to take several hours out of your day and go to the meeting place. Then when it's time to vote you don't get to cast a secret ballot, instead you have to stand in a group with the people who all support the same candidate. And then in some other corner of the room are the people who support another candidate. So you could get mad peer pressured into casting your vote. Or you could just be a non-Goldman who doesn't like to stand out from the crowd and so you linger for a second and then get in the group with the coolest people in it or whatever. That shit is mad rigged.

Also, the result of the caucus doesn't exactly line up one to one with the eventual results of each party's nomination. Since 1972, which is apparently how long the media have been sucking cocks in Iowa, the Deomcratic winners have been: 1972-Uncommitted (more people essentially abstained from voting rather than pick a candidate. Good way to spend your two hours at the caucus, people), 1976-Uncommitted, 1980-Jimmy Carter (incumbent), 1984-Walter Mondale (eventual nominee), 1988-Dick Gephardt (Dukakis finished 3rd), 1992-Tom Harkin (Iowa senator, the other candidates didn't run in Iowa), 1996-Bill Clinton (incumbent), 2000-Al Gore (only other contender was Bill Bradley), 2004-John Kerry (after the Howard Dean meltdown)

The Republican winners have been: 1972-I don't know, apparently only the Deomcrats made a big deal about 1972, 1976-Gerald Ford (incumbent), 1980-George Bush Sr. (Reagan won nomination), 1984-Reagan (incumbent), 1988-Bob Dole (George Bush Sr. eventually won, finished 3rd), 1992-George Sr (incumbent), 1996-Bob Dole (eventual nominee), 2000-Dubya (eventual nominee), 2004-Dubya (incumbent).

All of this is confounded too by the fact that the Republicans also hold something called a straw poll in Iowa, which is an even earlier vote held in the previous year that sets the tone for the Republican caucus.

I lost something there in the middle, but my point is that this is essentially just a media exercise where nothing gets acoomplished unless you decide to scream like a chicken afterwards (Byaaaaaahh).

Endorsement

After eight years of dreadful (mis)leadership by an administration without regard for the civil rights of its own citizenry, the human rights of the citizens of other nations, and the reputation of the United States around the world, America is suffering from a crisis of identity. Americans have always been a brash, arrogant crowd, but with that brash arrogance came a more quiet confidence borne of the knowledge that America was in the right more often than it was in the wrong. America was a good country trying to do the right thing. Churchill observed that: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." This no longer appears to be the case, as obvious mis-steps in the foreign and domestic arena are met with nothing more than platitudes and accusations of unpatriotism from the very people who committed the error in judgment. Even when every reasonable, objective view suggests otherwise, they insist we must "stay the course" both at home and abroad. We disagree.

(Really let's be honest, Bush sucks cock. He's a hyper-christian, rights stealing, prisoner torturing, citizen spying, rough putter. Buddy the dog would be a better president than this crazy motherfucker. If we could endorse Buddy the dog over a new Republican regime, I'm sure we'd do that.)

Anxious to find our way again, and hopeful that a young, enthusiastic leader can catalyze the return of American decency, leadership (and yes, superiority), the editorial staff of Wheeeeeere's Luke enthusiastically endorses BARACK OBAMA to serve as the next President of the United States.

(Enthusiastic in the same way we were enthusiastic that the second season of Heroes wouldn't suck so bad. It's got a lot of potential, but its kineticism wasn't exactly rolling downhill.)

Mr. Obama is far from the perfect candidate. His relative inexperience pales in comparison to that of his closest rivals, and his relationship and dealings with Tony Rezko (who in October plead not guilty to federal charges of corrupt dealings with the administration of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich) are a frustrating reminder of the likely imperfections of those we admire most.

(Frankly, however, we admire a candidate who admits to his past cocaine use unlike our current standard bearer.)

Mr. Obama’s platform is garden-variety, left of center stuff. On his website he champions a responsible strategy for exiting Iraq, fighting poverty, assuring healthcare for those who cannot afford it, and protecting the environment. We applaud Mr. Obama’s views on these and other issues, but recognize that he does not stand alone on this platform. Indeed, each of the Democratic candidates have platforms that we can and do support. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama’s potential to excite America, and to dust off the cobwebs on our collective conscience are enticing and unique in this field of candidates. Moreover, and with apologies to the comedian Chris Rock, he is a superb orator and seems, at times, to channel the very best of Clinton, Cuomo, and King.

(If we take a step back from it, Barack really doesn't stand for anything at this point, but that's what makes him so interesting. At this point his campaign is built on his good looks and startling command of the language. *begin Pearl of wisdom* The weaker your argument, the more fierce your rhetoric need be. *end Pearl of wisdom* That means we can look forward to some stunning speeches from our boy. That motherfucker is downright captivating at times.)

We also believe (again with a nod to Mr. Rock) that the election of a black candidate -- not because of his race but in spite of it -- represents an obviously positive step forward in America's tortured history with race. Joe Biden's ill-advised remark notwithstanding, Mr. Obama would not have been a viable candidate for President in this country 25 years ago.

(And at least one of us is super-psyched to have a half black dude running for president. Upon his election he will shoot to the top of the list of half-black heroes doing some good in this country. From Halle Berry to Jason Kidd. Derek Jeter to Alicia Keyes. Maya Rudolph, Lenny Kravitz, and let's not forget our current hall of fame half-black representative, Tiger Woods.)

Whether Mr. Obama can carry the day in the face of the overwhelming the power, poise and pockets of Hillary Clinton's campaign is yet to be seen, but it will of course be an uphill battle. Mrs. Clinton is a deft politician, but we believe she represents a retreat to the center, and -- if the reader will excuse a worn cliché -- "politics as usual." By contrast, we believe an Obama presidency presents the best opportunity for America to rediscover its identity as a responsible leader of the world.

(Bill Clinton (who's obviously biased, but is also the smartest guy I can think of at the moment) says that voting for Obama is like rolling the dice. That's absolutely true. That's what we love about it. Is Hillary Clinton a better senator than Barack Obama? Undoubtedly. David Brooks outlines this point with startling clarity in an intersting op-ed piece from December 18, 2007. In that same piece, however, he concludes that Obama, for many of those same reasons, is the better presidential candidate. And seriously, could you imagine a scenario where a guy with a gleaming moral compass and such obvious intelligence wouldn't steer this country in the right direction? (ix-Nay on the immy-Jay arter-Cay. No one even remembers stagflation anymore.) The moral of the story, though, is that we know what we're going to get from president Hillary Clinton and that would be pretty good. But the potential return from president Obama leads the imagination to visions of ethanol cars, solar powered outhouses, world peace, and a unicorn in every back yard. A vote for Obama is a vote for unicorns, America.)

It's Too Early For Election Talk, But I Got Sucked In

A non sequitur. I started reading the New York Times online instead of in print. Can you start with a non sequitur? Probably not. Given that a non sequitur is a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it, you can't start with a non sequitur since there is nothing that proceeded and therefore no logical lapse. Like I was saying, reading the Times online is way easier than reading it in print. I had recently cancelled my subscription to the Times because I wasn't really reading it and what not, but if you use the Today's Paper link on the website, you get an organized list of every headline, and you read the ones you want and it's fucking fantastic. I find I read a lot more of the articles in the online edition instead of just flipping directly to the op-ed and crossword. The only drawback is that you can't do the crossword online, or I think maybe you can but you have to pay for it. And if you didn't get to read a section or something, it stays online for a week. If I got busy and didn't read the Science Times on Tuesday, let's say, the whole Science section is online until the following Tuesday, when it's replaced by the new one. Awesome. And I just recently made the NYTimes site my home page, which more or less ensures that I look at it every day. I still go out and buy the Sunday Times, though, for the magazine, which I'm addicted to.

My point is that I was reading today about the Republican debate yesterday and some other related articles about the primaries, and I wanted to comment on some things even though it seems way to early to start discussing this shit given that the election is over a year away. Except this shit has been in the news for at least 6 months now, and is dominating the Sunday Meet the Press/Chris Matthews type shows too.

First of all, it boggles my mind that Rudy Giuliani is currently the leading Republican. If he's nominated, he's going to get Killed with a capital K between February (when the nomination will likely be decided) and November about all sorts of shit from his past, including his multiple marriages, his carrying on with his current wife while still married to his previous wife, his association with Bernie Kerik, who turned out to be a dude you don't want to be associated with, and all sorts of other shit. I mean, I get the idea that a lot of his personality quirks (if that's what you want to call them) won't really fly outside New York. Also, Giuliani is way more liberal than a lot of Republicans seem to realize. Or else he's way more conservative than I realize, but I lived and worked in New York for most of his term in office, and within his zone of influence for his entire tenure.

Mitt Romney seems like a weird dude to me. I don't really know anything about him, but how many Mormons live in Massachusetts? He might be the only one. It's kindof strange that there isn't really one candidate that stands out for the Republicans to hang their collective hat on. McCain seems like he should be running away with this nomination, but he isn't, in fact he's behind both Rudy and Romney. I was reading that some of the influential Republicans feel like Mike Huckabee is the most qualified candidate, but some of the stupid things that shouldn't matter are holding him back, like his name, and the fact that he's from Hope, Arkansas, which is where Bill Clinton is from. I guess no one wants to talk about "President Huckabee". It seems clear over these past couple weeks that Fred Thompson is not going to be a real player in the election. I don't think he really even wanted to run, he just got talked into it by somebody.

It astounds me that motherfuckers have been underestimating Hillary Clinton for over 15 years. She's clearly the best pure politician on either side of the race and has the most experience out of all of them too. It seems like people just have it in their minds that a woman can't win, and that may by why she's sneaking up on us as not just the frontrunner for the nomination, but to win the whole damn thing. I'm not in love with Hillary or anything, but clearly she'd be a competent leader and those who don't think so are going to find themselves bowled the fuck over by her momentum before they realize it.

I like Barack Obama and I like the idea of having a relatively young president with at least a moderate amount of idealism left, which is kindof the platform that he's running on. I think he would be a competent leader as well, and if he builds up some momentum, I can see the country getting caught up in the Obama wave. He seems to be the only one aside from Clinton who has the wherewithall to mount a serious campaign after the primaries.

I do not like John Edwards. That's all I have to say about that.

It seems like Bill Richardson should be putting up a better fight. And Dennis Kucinich is short. What are the names of the other Democrats, because I forget? Dodd, Biden, these guys are hopeless. I like Joe Biden, though.

The really interesting part about this whole thing is that the states are scrambling for their primaries to mean something, and for the first time in my voting history (since 1996), my primary vote is going to actually mean something. I was proud to vote for Bill Bradley in the 1999 primary, but Gore had sown it up by then, and I think Bradley was off the ballot in every other state except New Jersey at that point.

Anyhow, states like Michigan and Nevada are scheduled to have their primaries even before New Hampshire. Michigan, who feels like its being ignored and that it has issues like unemployment and the auto industry that need to be taken seriously have made sure that they are not taken seriously by actually schdeduling their primary for January 15, against the wishes of the DNC and therefore forcing every candidate to promise that they will not campaign there. In fact, all of them pulled out of the Michigan primary yesterday except for Clinton (who was leading in polls despite not having campaigned) and Dodd (I don't know why he stayed, maybe trying to get some name recognition by getting a significant number of votes ahead of some of the important primary dates).

In fact, almost all of the states have moved up their primaries into January and February and both of the nominations should be wrapped up by February 5th of next year when over 1,600 delegates will be decided on in 22 states including California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. The only big states to be decided after Feb. 5 are Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. I'm kindof surprised that Pennsylvania hasn't tried to move up from April 1 to at least March 4, when Texas and Ohio vote.

So that means that from basically Feb. 5 of next year until election day in November it's going to be a 2 horse race (unless they convince Bloomberg to run as an independent (which isn't going to happen, but I'd be enormously interested in a Bloomberg candidacy for president)). The conventions are going to take place in the summer, long after any sort of relevance has passed.

I find it strange that there aren't federal guidelines for primaries. I know you're going to pull out the states' rights argument here, but electing the president is the most important decision that the country makes as a whole, and putting all of the eggs in Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina basket is kindof strange.

Anyway, my prediction, Clinton v. Romney, and I almost don't believe it myself, but I think Clinton is going to win.