John Edwards is out.

He indicated that he'd at least hold out until Super-Mondo-Blue-Oyster-Cultosauro-Erecto Tuesday, but apparently only 15% in the quasi-meaningless contest in Florida sealed the deal for him. Word is, he won't endorse right away, but might soon (read: before there's a nominee). Pundits are already frothing over the Edwards split - that is, which way will his supporters lean? Do they break across racial lines (with Edwards getting pretty much none of the Black vote) and head to Clinton, or do they break across the "change" and "progressive" line and head to Obama?

Edwards' rhetoric would suggest that if he was going to endorse, it wouldn't be Clinton, but I can imagine there's some heavy deal-brokering going on behind the scene.

Any way you cut it, I'm still standing next to a dead horse. I might be swayed to Obama if there's an Edwards endorsement, but it's probably Al Gore on my ballot at this point. I've got three months to mull over it.

-pb

As I wrote right in the thick of the Iowa Caucuses, my candidate was swirling the drain. What do you know, New Hampshire came and went and Richardson didn't hang on until Nevada like I thought he would. He didn't endorse, either, because he's still hoping to be VP.

So, I'm down to Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

There was a point a few nights ago where Barack Obama said something that made me want to vote for him. I'd never really experienced that. I'd never heard a candidate say something that flat out made me want to vote for him on the strength of what he or she said. This is from a interview on NPR:

At a debate in Nevada, Obama was asked about his weaknesses. He confessed that his greatest weakness is a lack of organization — a messy desk and office. At the debate, Obama answered the question first, followed by Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).

"I think Sen. Edwards said he was too passionate about helping poor people, and Sen. Clinton said she was too impatient to move the country forward," Obama tells NPR. "I was trying to answer the question 'What's your greatest weakness?' as opposed to 'What's your greatest strength disguised as a weakness?'"

"I should have said I like to help old ladies across the street," he says.

But Obama says he would not want to redo his response.

"I think one of the hallmarks of our campaign is that I actually answer questions honestly and try not to engage in too much spin," he says.

Check out the audio for the full effect. It's about 2/3rds of the way through the segment.

Of course, that feeling faded quickly when Obama and Clinton (and Clinton) started mud wrestling. And then there was the debate. I didn't watch, but from the recaps I saw (and according to people who actually watched), John Edwards won. Media response?

OMFG HILLARY OBAMA CATFIGHT SHE FUCKING WENT FOR THE EYES AND HE GRABBED HER HAIR AND THEN BILL WAS TAKING BETS IN THE AUDIENCE AND SWEET JESUS THEY WERE LITERALLY TRYING TO FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER AND John Edwards was there too. He said nothing worth repeating.

People scream and yell for substance. The media keeps telling us that we want a candidate that will address the issues ("no shit," we reply). So, when someone actually tackles the issues, they ignore him. And this isn't Dennis Kucinich here being written off by the media as a troll to be ignored, it's The Incumbent Democratic Party Candidate For Vice President of the United States Whom Women Swooned Over not Four Year Hence. Now? Chopped liver. Speaking important things that are boring. Black Person and Female Person are fighting. More interesting. It's like American Idol.

Edwards' message was starting to get some traction with me. I like his stance on social justice, I like his (new) timetable for Iraq, I like the fact that he was right on the economy months ago. And now, of course, the media is shutting him out.

Now what? I won't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her. We've spent the last seven years under the rule of an Executive that has grabbed more power than any administration since Theodore Roosevelt, and moved to set itself up as the top of the government with the Legislative and Judiciary on a second tier that are directly answerable to the Executive. And then there's Cheney's "Fourth Branch." I look at Hillary Clinton and think "Hey, Republicans, when you were busy skullfucking the Constitution, didn't you even for a second think 'what happens if a Democrat becomes president and uses all of the powers we've grabbed against us?'" I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would abuse the Executive just like Bush did. I want a president who will undo that damage, not make it worse.

And while I like Obama in principle, I'm really souring on the fact that he is part of the fact that the level of debate has been lowered. "She distorted my record!" Get over it! Don't whine about it (I blame Clinton for this, too), go out and tell people what you're really about. The more you whine, the more the media is going to show you whining, and the less you get to talk about the issues. Or maybe that's the plan?

So, while Edwards is my current favorite in this rogue's gallery, I'm afraid that the media has ended his campaign for him. My last hope here is the brokered convention producing Al Gore. As it stands, I still don't know who I'm voting for.

If Edwards is still on the ballot come April 22nd, as of this writing it'll likely be him. If not, I'll write in Al Gore unless the polls show a close contest between Clinton and Obama, in which case I'll probably bite the bullet and vote for Obama.

I'm worn out and frustrated with the whole thing, and we're not even a month in.

-pb

Al Gore, through no particular prompting or prodding or anything else, he's released a video on Current, a network that he co-owns, openly advocating his support for same-sex marriage.

Why on Earth would he do this? I think the answer here is he's quietly getting himself on record before the Convention in the hopes that there will be a brokered convention and he'll be held up as a compromise candidate. Or, he might try to get the nomination from the floor.

Either way, Al Gore is still my president. And with my displeasure* with the remaining three candidates, I'll probably wind up writing him in when I vote in the primary.

*more later.

-pb

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Only one thing I can say to this:

GORE '08! GORE '08! GORE '08!

-pb

I've got four things I consider "dealbreakers" when it comes to voting for a candidate:

• Candidate does not support reproductive choice
• Candidate does not support LGTB rights
• Candidate is in favor of capital punishment
• Candidate does not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and/or supports indefinite deployment of even a token U.S. force in Iraq

I have other dealbreakers, like environmental concerns and so on and so forth, but since these four uniformly eliminate any Republican candidate, but might also eliminate a Democratic candidate, we'll focus on them.

Now, it's become apparent that with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates currently in the race are free of all of those dealbreakers. Dealbreakers aside, Gravel has some crazy ideas that I'm not down with (like the FairTax initiative, which is anything but), but I agree in principle with 99% of Kucinich's platform. The problem is, he's such an outside candidate that it's not even worth discussing him. I voted for him once, but I'd like to not have to do that again. Also, he's been getting on my nerves with his "Any media, any time, at any moral cost" stance, to the point of being the only Dem candidate to actually call FOX News a legitimate news organization (especially in the face of Edwards calling them on their increasing disconnection from reality).

So, I'm left with ranking the actual viable candidates against my dealbreaker list. And this is what I've come up with:

John Edwards - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. "Uncomfortable" around gays but supports civil unions. Supports death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely. (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Dealbreakers: 2.5/4.

Barack Obama - Opposes ban on late-term abortion, supports prevention education, is against Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. In favor of civil unions that are "just like marriage". Fought against death penalty in legislation but is on record defending it in some cases. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 2/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for wishy-washing on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Hillary Clinton - 100% NARAL voting record and supports education and prevention, but has engendered some pro-life sentiments depending on her audience. Uncertain on death penalty except to mandate DNA testing, so not obviously against. Supports civil unions, but not marriage. Supports blowing up more shit in Iraq.

Deal breakers: 3/4 (.5 for anti-choice chatter, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Joe Biden - 34% NARAL voting record. In favor of civil unions, voted against same-sex marriage but calls it "inevitable". No real position on death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 3/4 (1 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for no position on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Chris Dodd - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but voted against same-sex marriage. Called for a moratorium on capital punishment. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 0 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Bill Richardson - Supports Roe v. Wade. Supports civil unions with full marriage benefits, would call it marriage if possible, aims for "achievable". Supports death penalty. Favors 6-month withdrawal from Iraq with no remaining troops.

Dealbreakers: 1/4 (0 for reproductive rights, 0 for civil unions as a first step, 1 for death penalty, 0 for Iraq)

And just for shits and giggles:

Al Gore - Supports Roe v. Wade, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but against same-sex marriage. Supports death penalty in certain cases. No official stance on an exit from Iraq, but strongly opposed to involvement there.

Dealbreakers 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 on death penalty, provisional 0 for Iraq)

So, that's what I'm left with. Up until this soul-search evaluation, my favorite candidate in the race was Edwards, but he's hitting over 50% of my dealbreakers. Next would probably have been Obama, hit he's right at 50%. Even my ideal candidate is has 1½ of them.

I want a voice in the primary, a voice other than "none of the above". I want to point to one of these people and say "that one..." Ideally, I'd like to end that with "is the best choice," but right now, I'm going to have to settle on "is the least objectionable." And barring a complete policy shift (which I wouldn't likely trust anyway), that one is Bill Richardson. Aside from his downsides, he's got a number of upsides, too. He's the only Dem candidate with a detailed environmental plan. That detailed plan is also far better than Clinton or Edwards "wish list". Richardson's been to Darfur and has been trying to do what he can to bring an end to the genocide there (a big step for a governor who doesn't have the federal government behind him). He's been to North Korea. He's got actual foreign policy experience. He supports a federal minimum wage for teachers of $40,000, and wants to scrap "Every No Child Left Behind." At the federal level, he's been responsible for the return of Native American land rights and has served as an advocate for them in both the House and at the Cabinet level. He made New Mexico the first state to offer $400,000 in life insurance coverage for active duty National Guardsmen. He's a supporter of regional rail and private space program development. He signed medical marijuana legislation while running for President despite calls that it might hurt him, because it was "the right thing to do". He's a supporter of gun rights. He cut taxes. (Hear that? He's a pro-gun, tax-cutting Democrat.) At the moment I'm writing this, I'm actually more excited for Richardson than Al Gore.

I still want Gore to get into the race, but if that's the case, I want Richardson as VP. Gore was a very hands-on VP, and with someone as well in line with his beliefs as Richardson, I think they'd make a very dynamic team that would get a lot done. But, until Gore gets into the race, I think I've found my horse.

-pb

Hey, we're thinking about hosting a Live Earth house party on July 7th. Who wants to watch a bunch of great bands on our TV?

There's free Al Gore for everyone, too!

-pb

Apparently, I made a confusing poll and got interesting results. The idea was to only vote in one of the polls (I'm supporting candidate X...), not all of them.

But I am seeing a lot of Gore support there...


EDIT: The idea here is today, I'm supporting [Biden|Clinton|Edwards|Gravel|Obama]. If Al Gore entered the race tomorrow, I'd [switch support|stay where I'm at].

-pb

Ok, so, looking over the answers from my complete unscientific 2008 Primary Straw Poll, I can see that I'm not entirely alone in my support of Edwards, but I'm certainly not in the majority of you Obama supporters. So, here's a question, and it's only for registered Dems (unless you happen to live in a state with an open primary) - Whichever horse jackass you're supporting, how would Al Gore's entry into the primary affect your vote?

Please feel free to discuss/rant/whatnot.

-pb

Poll #1006696 How would Gore's entry into the Democratic Primary affect your vote?
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

I'm supporting Hillary Clinton - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting Joe Biden - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting John Edwards - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting Mike Gravel - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting Barack Obama - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

So, apparently, Vegas has 6-1 odds on Gore being the 44th President, matching Grover Cleveland's record of holding two presidential succession numbers (Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President), and even one-upping him by not skipping a term inbetween!

I walked past a TV shoing CNN running a story "Will Gore Run?" Pundits have been prognosticating that Gore's entry into the race would put him as the frontrunner, instantly overtaking Hillary and dropping Obama to number 3. Polling seems to indicate that a great deal of Edwards support is just Gore support in disguise (i.e., people like me) who would jump to Gore's camp right away. That would be devastating for Edwards' campaign, and probably drive him from the race, lending Gore even more support. Hillary's base seems to have some Gore supporters that would flee her scene if he came along, too.

And then, there's the general. Gore, as an undeclared candidate, matches toe-to-toe (and has the advantage) with Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner. That's without Gore spending a single campaign dime. He won't have any trouble raising cash, either. Gore's no stranger to the internets (probably because during his service in the United States Congress, he invented the internet "took the initiative in creating the internet"), and he's no stranger to Howard Dean (who he endorsed in '04), who's online campaign is the new model for netroots fundraising.

Gore has obviously learned from his failings in 2000. The old "Lawkbawx" Gore is gone - replaced with a self-deprecating, funny, engaging Al Gore who can light a fire under the base while talking actual strategy and policy. Al Gore doesn't just tell you what would be nice, he has actual ideas as to how to accomplish them, and he knows how to actually deliver that message now. He's also got a disenfranchised electorate that, at least on one side, sees him as a man who was unfairly robbed of the Presidency in favor of a man who has bungled every single thing he's done - America's looking back now and thinking "Huh, maybe we should have gone the other direction on that one".

Al Gore might be looking to give America a do-over. The wild speculation (and attention) might be going a long way in that decision.

-pb

I'll have to wait until I get home tonight to view the clip, but from what I hear, Al Gore gave his most solid "maybe" yet under the pressure cooker that is Keith Olbermann. I missed hot Al on Keith action last night. I are saddened!

Anyway, here's what some of the pundits on teh intartoobs have postulated:

1) He's really not going to run. Yet, having decided that, there's no sense in letting the world know until the primaries are over. Let the Republicans waste effort on a guy who's already out of the race. Less money to waste elsewhere.

2) He's going to run, but why bother annoucing it now? Wait until September or October, let Hillary and Obama wear themselves out on each other, and then come in like a shining white horse, unscathed by the mudslinging. Al's got a crapload of money already, and he'll have no problems raising gobs more.

I'm hoping for option #2.

-pb

MSNBC is reporting ahead of John Edwards' news conference that, due to his wife's health, he is at the very least suspending his Presidential campaign, and may drop out altogether.

First off, I'm hoping that Elizabeth Edwards pulls through this. She's a great woman and a fighter.

Second, to the election: John Edwards is third in the polling behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the "top tier" for the Democratic nomination. Suspending his campaign now will allow Clinton and Obama to make even more headway on him, driving him into "second tier" territory, and pretty much making whatever campaign he picks up on hopeless. More than likely, he knows this. Unless he comes back before the debates, he's toast. At best, he's running mate material.

This opens an interesting door, though. Of the entire field of candidates, John Edwards has been the only one to get on board with the moral crusade against climate change. Without a standard bearer among the pack for what he considers to be the biggest threat to the world right now, does this increase the likelihood that Al Gore will toss his hat into the ring?

I still hold to my belief that Gore can jump into the fray at pretty much any point he wants, will raise money, will bleed considerable support from both Clinton and Obama, will emerge as the party favorite, and will run a spirited campaign against whatever the Republicans put up, who will, without a doubt, not energize the Right.

I'm waiting on Al Gore, and I'm prepared to wait right up until I enter that polling booth. I believe that he is going to enter the race, and I believe that on January 20th, 2009, he'll finally get to start the term that he won in 2000.

-pb

Kerry is OUT. Thank gods. I think he would have hurt the eventual nominee just by running in the primary.

John Edwards has a goldfish memory. Well, I was considering him my favorite, but then he goes and says "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table." Good job, John. Talk like that got you to vote for invading Iraq before you regretted it. Now you're talking about possibly invading a country that actually has F-14 Tomcats and a naval force, not to mention will make the quagmire in Iraq look like a romp through Candy Land. Do you even hear yourself talking?

Shit, now who do I vote for? Obama's looking like that door that Jack and Rose bobbed along on after the Titanic went down. It's not much, but it's floating, right? I guess I'm back to Wes Clark, who hasn't declared yet, and Al Gore, who saying "Yes, I'm definately positively sure I will most likely not run, probably".

Please, Dems, do not make me have to vote for Dennis Kucinich again. No offense, DKu, but voting for you in 2004 was a protest vote.

-pb