So, the Democratic National Convention is being held August 25-28th (timed to be a four day celebration of my birthday, methinks, but I digress.)

Barring a meltdown of epic proportions or some other game-changing miracle, the person making the acceptance speech on August 28th, 2008 will be Barack Obama.

...

45 years to the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.

Here's hoping it doesn't disappoint.

-pb

Apparently there was an election of some importance today?

Our election-day ritual has been to take the 10-minute walk to our polling place before work. We tend to get there around 30 minutes after the polls open. They give us a number when we walk in, and prior to today, my highest number was 11 - as in the 11th person to vote that day, which you'd expect 30 minutes after the polls open, right?

Today, I was number 61. There are two polling districts at our polling place, and the poll worker said that when they got there to open up, there were already 50 people in line.

Pundits that tell you that a long primary are damaging to the party are lying. I'd say it'd be bad if it goes all the way to the convention, but if it goes to June 3rd, that's not a bad thing. People are excited and heading to the polls. How is that hurting the party?

-pb

From The Gavel, Nancy Pelosi's blog:

“The Olympic Charter states that the Olympics should seek to foster ‘respect for universal and fundamental ethical principles.’ Sadly, the Chinese government has not lived up to its commitments to improve the human rights situation in China and Tibet. I believe the International Olympic Committee made a mistake in awarding the 2008 Summer games to China, and I sponsored a Congressional resolution expressing that view at the time.

“However, I believe a boycott of the Beijing Olympics would unfairly harm our athletes who have worked so hard to prepare for the competition.

People in Tibet are being mown down in the street for demanding their country back. People in China who are sentenced to death are harvested for cosmetic supplies. But we need to think about our athletes, who experience Pon Farr every four years and must compete in the Olympics or die from a hormone overload! THINK OF THE ATHLETES, PEOPLE!

Send China a Congressional resolution. That's sure to get 'em to wake up!

"Dear China, it would be kinda cool if, you know, you maybe stopped killing hurting throwing kittens at people citizens sub-human savages in Tibet Himalayan Chinastan. If you don't, we'll send you a strongly worded letter George W. Bush Condoleezza Rice a fruit basket.

Kthxbai!

P.S. Can we get another loan?

-pb

This whole hullabaloo over someone at State snooping around in Barack Obama's passport file stinks like week-old fish. Now, suddenly, we've got State saying that they've been elbow deep beyond the borderline in Hillary Clinton and John McCain's files... so, don't worry, right? Because it wasn't politically motivated, our naughty naughty employees are snooping on everyone!

Bullshit, Pyle!

This goes back to the total disregard for the law and the Constitution that was the original wiretapping story. "Warrants that we can get after the fact that have a 99.9998% approval rate slow us down, so we need to completely ignore the court that was designed just for this purpose. After all, TURRISTS!" Why wouldn't they just get a warrant? Two possible reasons (neither of which were the stated one): 1) The 99.9998% approving FISA court would have said NO NO NO to the warrants they wanted to get. 2) They knew the FISA court would never approve a warrant form with the "Who do you want to spy on" field filled out with "Everybody."

I think scenario 2 rings a bell here. One guy peeking? Yeah, but that one guy is DICK CHENEY.

Kagro X at Daily Kos sums it up pretty well:

What an amazing development, eh? George H.W. Bush's State Department sticks their nose into Bill Clinton's passport file, but the "responsible" official resigns, and nothing ever comes of it. Lesson learned? Sure! Now George W. Bush's State Department is free to stick its nose into Hillary Clinton's files. Plus anyone else it feels like poking around on. And like almost everything that happens around Condoleezza Rice, no one could have foreseen it!

Dangerous domestic spying? Or just imprudent use of a new class of massive, all-encompassing, Total Information Awareness-style databases by unnamed and unidentifiable "outside contractors" and "low-level employees?" Who knows?

And does it really make a difference? So long as a government official in a proper-looking suit tells reporters -- from behind a proper-looking podium with a proper-looking seal on it and proper-looking blue draperies behind -- that it's "been taken care of," though they can't tell you the names of the employees (confidentiality, you know) or the name of the contractor (national security, you know), then everything's just find and dandy, right?

Besides, it's just another opportunity for Republicans to point out how "Big Government" doesn't work. Just look! We can't make it work, either! And if that contractor was a government employee, Teh UnionZ would make it impossible for us to fire him. So really, this breach was a terrific way for us to demonstrate that outsourcing really works! Sure, we had to let someone totally unvetted and totally untrustworthy access sensitive personal information about our opposition's top political leaders to prove it, but prove it we did! After all, we just announced that this unverifiable person was unverifiably fired. What more proof of our dedication to security and freedom could you want?

Yeah. That sounds about right.

-pb

28 years ago today, the United States announced a formal boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Why is our delegation still headed to Beijing?

-pb

(Oh, and screw this misnamed and misdirected "strike.")

Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to appear on a Presidential ticket (as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984), made a statement the other day about how Barack Obama is only the frontrunner at this point because (get this) he is black. Apparently, she believes, white men simply cannot be elected president in this country, because, as she attests, "in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president." I'm wondering what Walter Mondale, her pasty-white running mate, and oh... 43 other white men and their white male opponents, and all of their white male vice presidents, and their opponent's white male running mates, would have to say about that. "Well, we had a good 208 year run, but fucked if we can get elected anymore what with national opinion demanding that only blacks and women run for office!"

So, yeah, she's a bit cuckoo. But it gets better! The expected backlash came (because he comments were fairly well racist), and now she insists, insists, that "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Yeah. It had nothing to do with the fact that you made a ludicrous statement concerning Obama's skin color , and it had nothing to do with the fact that you backed it up with an equally ludicrous statement concerning your own gender. It has everything to do with the fact that you're white. And now, some nice gentlemen would like to help you into the back of this very nice van and take you on a nice, relaxing "vacation." Go with the nice men, ma'am.

-pb

I was listening to Nine Inch Nail's The Downward Spiral last week, and you know, there are some pretty blatant ideas in there. "I want to fuck you like an animal" and "he dreamed a god up and called it Christianity." Pretty pointed references. But, I though, what if you stripped all of those obvious meanings and replaced them with something else? Something that Trent Reznor never intended (yet would likely appreciate). The Downward Spiral came out in 1994. Fast forward 10 years, and I think it accurate (and eerily) describes the 2004 Presidential Election...

• Mr. Self Destruct - Dick Cheney, whispering in George W. Bush's ear.
• Piggy - Excerpt from John Edwards' memor, on John Kerry selecting him as a running mate.
• Heresy - Excerpt from Karl Rove's memoir of the election and wrangling the evangelical vote.
• March of the Pigs - Memo from a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth strategy meeting.
• Closer - Bush's speech at the Republican National Convention.
• Ruiner - The Democratic base to the Bush Administration, collectively.
• The Becoming - The Democratic Party, lamenting the loss of its identity and its inability to gain any traction on issues that should be simple to win on.
• I Do Not Want This - The Democratic base, to Kerry, the day after the election.
• Big Man with a Gun - More excerpts from Rove's memoir, on the aftermath of the election.
• A Warm Place - The numb soundtrack that the world heard the day after the election.
• Eraser - Kerry, conceding mere hours after declaring all votes would be counted.
• Reptile - Bush, referencing the voting population, 50.5% of which is "a mandate."
• The Downward Spiral - The Democratic base's response.
• Hurt - Kerry, addressing the Democratic base after Bush's second inauguration.

I don't have too much time on my hands, I swear.

-pb

Note to politicians (especially Democrats):

When you've based your entire political career on the notion that you're a law-and-order ethics-reform champion like Elliot Spitzer (current Governor and former Attorney General of New York, known for busting naughty corporations), DON'T GET CAUGHT FUCKING PROSTITUTES. Easiest way to do that? DON'T FUCK PROSTITUTES.

Repeated, for any other Democrats who might be thinking of fucking up November:

DON'T

FUCK

PROSTITUTES.

Not having a good time of things with the wife? YOU HAVE TWO HANDS. Buy all the porn you want (discreet methods exist). Grab a tube of Jergen's (for your dry, chapped hands). Jerk yourself silly. Do not, under any circumstances, get your naked dick within 100 feet of any woman who is not your wife. Seriously, go home if you need to piss. Keep that motherfucker in your pants.

Because now, for the next eight months, we're going to hear about how Democrats talk about ethics while they're fucking prostitutes. Spitzer, you're in the wrong party if you want to hold office, fuck prostitutes, talk about ethics, and have any chance of re-election. That's the Republican Party.

-pb

I haven't said much about the actual handling of the Democratic Primary process so far other than to discuss my leanings. However, something has really irked me lately. As it became apparent that Obama had a great deal of momentum, the Clinton campaign began using "Scorch the Earth" tactics. Going negative is one thing, but what they've done is actively try to poison the well. I haven't seen "OMG SCARY MUSLIM" from them, but they're getting close.

First there was the 3AM ad, but that showed me that Obama is good at responding quickly - unlike John Kerry. So, plus for Obama. But then there was the mailer that went out where Obama's face was darkened and stretched to make him appear "more" Black. Not that there's anything wrong with being Black, but it was a dirty, underhanded appeal to racism in the markets it was sent to.

One of Obama's advisers quit after being quoted off-the-record calling Clinton "a monster." One of her staffers tried to one up that.

One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in “boutique” caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: “Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.”

Note to 59% of Wyoming Democrats: You sip lattes and live in a "boutique" state.

(in Wyoming's caucuses today, almost 7,000 more people showed up to caucus than did in 2004, which is significant, considering only 675 people showed up then. That's over 1100% more people.)

Clinton's tactics here are reprehensible. In the general election, they do one of two things:
1) If Obama wins, they provide an unlimited supply of ammunition for the Republicans. "Even other Democrats will tell you that Barack Obama blah blah blah"

2) If Clinton wins, they provide a drawn-out continuation of the narrative that Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry bitch who has no limit to how far she will stoop to win.

She's not just hurting Obama, she's hurting herself. She's hurting the party. And, I daresay, because of that and the stakes in this election, she's literally hurting the country.

This election is not just about who gets to be the next president. Downticket races are a concern as well. Republicans are defending 23 Senate seats, fully half of which are vulnerable. Democrats have to defend 12, only one of which is considered vulnerable. The top of the ticket could greatly influence that. If McCain turns out more voters, the majority in the Senate could stay where it's at. Harry Reid might still have to give Joe Lieberman free handjobs in order to remain Majority Leader. All 435 seats are up for grabs in the House, which makes it even more important for there to be a solid turnout for the top of the ticket.

Clinton is going to burn the ground all the way to the convention. This was exciting up until now, but now it's just worrisome. I really hope that whoever's left standing at the end doesn't wind up smelling like a compost pile while McCain comes away minty-fresh.

-pb

So, there's this continuing meme about Barack Obama's lack of experience. What exactly is the threshold of experience that one should have to be elected to the Presidency?

Let's take a look at the previous 43 presidents and the number of years in elected office:

George Washington - 0 years
John Adams - 8 years
Thomas Jefferson - 6 years
James Madison - 8 years
James Monroe - 8 years
John Quincy Adams - 4 years
Andrew Jackson - 4 years
Martin Van Buren - 8 years
William Henry Harrison - 22 years
John Tyler - 15 years
James K. Polk - 16 years
Zachary Taylor - 0 years
Millard Fillmore - 11 years
Franklin Pierce - 8 years
James Buchanan - 22 years
Abraham Lincoln - 10 years
Andrew Johnson - 18 years
Ulysses S. Grant - 0 years
Rutherford B. Hayes - 7 years
James A. Garfield - 18 years
Chester A. Arthur - 6 months
Grover Cleveland - 2 years
Benjamin Harrison - 6 years
Grover Cleveland - 6 years (incl. previous term)
William McKinley - 20 years
Theodore Roosevelt - 2 years
William Howard Taft - 0 years
Woodrow Wilson - 2 years
Warren G. Harding - 8 years
Calvin Coolidge - 7 years
Herbert Hoover - 0 years
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 6 years
Harry S. Truman - 10 years
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 0 years
John F. Kennedy - 13 years
Lyndon B. Johnson - 26 years
Richard Nixon - 14 years
Gerald Ford - 24 years
Jimmy Carter - 4 years
Ronald Reagan - 8 years
George H. W. Bush - 8 years
Bill Clinton - 10 years
George W. Bush - 8 years

Granted, most of these men had distinguished service careers prior to this, some holding cabinet or diplomatic posts, but when it comes to actual elected office time, they average less than nine years experience, with some few serving more than 10, and a number having not been elected to public office at all before being elected to the presidency or vice-presidency.

So, where do the current candidates stand?

John McCain leads the pack with 25 years of elected office, which would make him the second-longest serving public official elected to the White House, trailing Lyndon Johnson by only a year. Barack Obama has half that with 12 years, topping the average by three years. Hillary Clinton brings up the rear, a relative newcomer with only 8 years holding elected office, one shy of the average, but longer than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson combined...

So, let's put that idea to rest.

-pb

CNN is apparently looking for a web copy editor.

Headline: "Five hurt Iin mall blast"

From an article: "Bloomberg, a former Republican who become an independent while in office..."

Concerning that article: "Bloomberg passes on White House run." More News From the Past We're Just Getting Around to Reporting®™. I know there's been speculation that Bloomberg will run, even though he has not made any sort of statement that he intends to since he said this to Dan Rather in August:

Rather: Well, let’s get it out of the way. Are you running for President?

Bloomberg: No.

Rather: Are you going to run for President?

Bloomberg: No.

Rather: Any circumstances in which you would?

Bloomberg: Oh, I don’t know. Any — the answer — if I don’t say no categorically you’ll then read something into it. The answer is no.

So, why is his repeated denial of a run newsworthy? It'd be like them writing an entire article about Al Gore coming out and saying he hasn't ruled out a run, but he's not planning on it. When I was in Third Grade, we had a saying: NO DUH.

-pb

I absolutely hate the word "electability." Seriously. It gave is John Kerry, because a bunch of people though "sure, this guy is electable, whereas Howard Dean is just a lunatic." So, instead of going with the more progressive candidate, the one who fit in better with the party's ideals and had the youth vote fired up, Democrats chose the more "electable" candidate. It was important to win. Too bad the "electable" candidate lost and then couldn't even be bothered to count the votes (which, regardless of whether or not that would have swung the decision, he still would have been virtually tied).

So, why do I bring this up? Because it's happening all over again, but this time, both sides are plagued with it. Is Clinton more "electable?" Is Obama less "electable?" Is the same true of John McCain and Mitt Romney/Mike Huckabee? Allow me to prognosticate and pontificate...

Hillary Clinton: Dems love her. Though she polls at essentially 50% against Barack Obama, 84% of Democrats say that they'd be happy with her as the nominee. But in the general, no one gives a flying fuck what Democrats think, because she'll get their votes. What we're worried about is independents and moderate Republicans. Can she steal them?

I think the answer might be "yes," but the caveat here is "will it matter?" She's such a polarizing factor, the Conservative's bugbear, that she might create a bigger Republican turnout for her opponent (regardless of who it is), nullifying her support among independents and moderates. That, and she's not likely to energize the Democratic faithful. I can almost guarantee that the campaign isn't going to be about issues, either. Mudslinging will be the order of the day for three months between the convention and the election. You're not likely to hear her enumerate one thing about herself. All the information you get on her will come from her opponent. Of course, all the information you'll get from him will come from her, so it'll come down to (once again), the lesser of two evils. Electable? Probably. Going to collect a broad array of support and win convincingly? Not likely.

Barack Obama: Dems love him. Though he polls at essentially 50% against Hillary Clinton, 84% of Democrats say that they'd be happy with him as the nominee. But in the general, no one gives a flying fuck what Democrats think, because he'll get their votes. What we're worried about is independents and moderate Republicans. Can he steal them? (This sounds strangely familiar)...

I think the answer is "yes." Caveat? I think he might rile up the "racist" vote in the South. Of course, that cuts both ways. He's likely to drag every Bobby Ray, Emmy Sue and Roscoe in white-hood-and-burning-cross territory, but he's just as likely to have the African-American vote out in droves. I don't want to sound racist here, so please don't get me wrong. I'm not buying into that myth that white folks won't vote for him (because my flist is filled with people who would love to prove you wrong, as is North Dakota), and I'm not buying into that myth that black people will only vote for him because he's black. The fact remains, though, that there will be a segment of the white population that votes against him because he's black, and there's no denying that blacks will turn out for him - but they're just as likely to turn out for Clinton... they'll just probably be even more ready to turn out for Obama.

I think Obama is likely to cause Republicans who are unhappy with their choices to just stay home. Not that I'm big on a disconnected and disaffected segment of the population, but this isn't for shits and giggles here. If Obama manages to whip more than 1/2 of the "I was actually going to vote" population into voting for him, and 1/10 of the rest just throw up their hands and say "fuckit, let's wait until 2012," then that's just padding the margin. As for that "I was actually going to vote" population, I think Barack Obama stands a much better chance of getting out the vote. He's an energizer, and I don't mean bunny. He walks into a room, talks for five minutes, and people stream onto the street ready to spread the Gospel of Obama. Seriously. I've been there. I've seen it. He wasn't even running yet when I heard him talk, and seriously, people just wanted to touch him. They wanted to vote for him right there. I did.

And, while I assume most candidates elicit that sort of response from throngs of their own faithful, I point to the polls that show that where Obama goes and campaigns, his numbers rise drastically. Take Washington's caucuses, for example. Back in October, Hillary Clinton held a 48% lead over the entire field of Democrats. Obama had a 22% share. Flash forward a few months and some campaigning, and Obama mops the floor with Clinton, 53%-40%.

Electable? Probably. Current polling says that he'd go up almost 10% on McCain. "Electable" really isn't good enough here, though. "Recount-proof win" is what we're looking for.

John McCain: The presumptive front-runner for the Republican nomination, McCain seems to be the John Kerry of 2008. Plenty of buyer's remorse from Republicans, and the primaries are only jsut past the halfway mark. Allow me to enumerate a list of who hates John McCain:

1. Anti-abortion fanatics. McCain apparently doesn't blow up clinics himself, so he's got no cred.
2. Anti-gay fanatics. McCain hasn't called for the lynching of every homosexual, so he must want to marry your ass off to some queer.
3. Evangelicals. Aside from not being anti-abortion and anti-gay enough, these people think he's not Christian enough, because he's divorced, and that's apparently worse than supporting abortion before it became politically expedient to oppose it.
4. Fiscal conservatives. He opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy before he supported them. Remember, if you supported a position at one point, but you are now against it, that means you actually support the former position (unless you're Mitt Romney).
5. Neo-Cons. These people chugged gallons and gallons of McCain's "I'm a Maverick Liberal who votes my conscience and party be damned" Kool-Aid. Funny, considering he's one of the most conservative Senators in Congress and supports Bush more than most of the Republican delegation. Sometimes, when you lie, the people you wanted to know it was a lie actually believe it.
6. Moderate Republicans. Now, I know that a lot of them still like McCain, but there's a segment of them who haven't drank his Kool-Aid and see him as the Bush crony that he is. They're pretty much tired of looking at their party and hanging their head in shame. They're ready to bolt... but maybe not for Hillary Clinton.

There are some prominent Neo-Con movers and shakers who, when asked "are you willing to throw this and wait until 2012?" say "Well, we're, uh... that's not an unforeseeable scenario..."

Electable? Probably, but it would likely take a gaffe from his opponent or some sort of October Surprise... which isn't unlikely, either. So, regardless of the fact that his own party isn't so happy with him, he's still in this thing. Although, one can hope that McCain is this generation's George McGovern or Walter Mondale...

Mitt Romney: He's out, but he's still on ballots, and there's still the chance that the delegates he's received could go to Huckabee if this thing gets close... Look for him coming this November to a Vice Presidential ballot near you!

Mike Huckabee: He's got a long way to go to get into this thing, but he's won everything since Super Duper Trogdor Omega Supreme Tuesday (except for Washington, but the jury's still out on that, and at the very least, he was damn close). Even if he manages to pull this off, what does he have going for him? Neo-Cons aren't exactly in love with him, but Romney on the ticket might help with that. Evangelicals are still a bit wary of him, but in the general, they'd be a huge force for him. Like McCain, however, his lack of Conservative Cred can be used against him. He's weak on immigration, foreign policy, taxes, and pretty much everything but praising Jeezus.

Electable? Let's put it this way: If he manages to win the primary and wins the general, we've entered the fucking Twilight Zone. Because if it happens, that means that some serious shit happened and a whole lot of Americans got replaced with Rapture-happy pod people who staggered to the voting booth. If it's Huckabee, seriously, Europe? Please liberate us.

So that's that. Electable? Yeah, most of them. Only one of them gets to look back and say that they were really, truly electable, though.

-pb

Pretty much, yeah.

HAPPY SUPER MEGA NACHO HABANERO ULTRA GOYOOOOOOOOOO MECHA-ZILLA TUESDAY!

Vote 'em if you got 'em.

-pb

So, VP consideration typically happens in the 30 seconds after the nominee has emerged, but I figured I'd like to hear some speculation before that.

There have been a lot of names bandied about. Richardson was, in the end, positioning himself to look appealing to the Clinton camp, although he didn't endorse anyone. Edwards at times has appeared to do the same concerning Obama. Ted Kennedy just endorsed Obama, and that might make an interesting ticket. Party elder who long ago packed away his Presidential aspirations backing up party rising star? That sounds familiar...

Anyway, what are your VP scenarios?

-pb

You know, when Barack Obama tries to deflect accusations that he "lacks experience," emails like this from his wife don't help:

We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.

What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record.

Uh, excuse me, Mrs. Obama... do you know who Bill and Hillary Clinton are? Were you born yesterday? You didn't expect two people who've spent the last 16 years on the receiving end of the Republican Noise Machine to not have learned a few tricks from it?!

I'm sure this email is designed to engender sympathy (and a steady flow of donations) from the Obama faithful. For me, it just engenders the notion to slap the entire campaign upside the head and say "stop bitching and do something that matters."

-pb

So, the eventuality that I discussed in my last post is apparently going to become official later today. Richardson is dropping out after posting distant fourth place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Never mind the fact that this further underscores the ridiculousness of our primary system. "Less than 2% of the country didn't get on board with my campaign! Well, that pretty much wraps it up!"

So, who's next? One of two things happened in New Hampshire: Clinton* got a massive boost from getting all teary over some insults, or the media had a combined clusterfuck in terms of interpreting the polling and actually going after real numbers.

I'll take media clusterfuck for $1000, Alex. The media (like, all of the media) took the numbers that suggested that independents were going to break for Obama and ran with it. That led to the notion that Obama had broken open an 8-10% lead over Clinton, and McCain was only leading Romney by about 2%. When the real poll came back, the numbers were practically opposite. Conspiracy theories aside, there were actually some polls that suggested that Obama's hard numbers were right on the money and others that suggested that independents might break for Clinton or McCain, which apparently they did.

So, what does this all mean? It means that this is still a three-way race. Clinton's hoping for some massive success on Ultra-Bonzo-Loco-Habanero-Chalupa Tuesday, but Obama is nowhere near out of the race. Coming in second by about 2% Yeah, that's not particularly bad. Edwards, however, needs some serious karma heading his way to convince people that he's still able to play, and that might come in the form of a South Carolina win.

The way I see things happening, Obama will nudge Clinton in Nevada, Edwards will win in South Carolina, but it won't really help. He'll continue to trail while Obama and Clinton dogfight across the country. Edwards will then get to play kingmaker - He'll either bow out before the convention and endorse (I would assume Obama, and get to be VP candidate again), or he'll go to the convention keeping enough delegates from either Obama or Clinton to lock the nomination... and then the real fun will begin.

Anyone watch the last season of The West Wing?

-pb

* I'm not going to call her "Hillary" any more because can be realistically assumed that anyone reading this knows that I'm not referring to Bill Clinton, so calling her by her first name is just stupid. It's a bit disrespectful, as well, to be referring to a Presidential candidate in non-friendly terms by her first name - just like I don't call Barack Obama or John Edwards by their first names.

Barring some sort of miracle, Bill Richardson is not going to come in first or second, and probably third in the caucuses tonight. He might place fourth, but it's not likely to be a strong fourth. His prospects in New Hampshire next week look equally dim. He's hoping that he can hang on until Super Duper Ultra Mega Gonzo Tuesday, where he's likely to win New Mexico, but I'm not really holding out hope that my guy is going to be on the top of the ticket, or even on the ballot when Pennsylvania's primary rolls around. He's looking at VP candidate at best, but more likely he'll be the candidate's choice for Secretary of State (which I'm also on board with).

So, I face the highly likely prospect that I will have to change horses in midstream here. Being a values voter, I take my values very seriously. So, looking back over my previous assessment of the candidates and my dealbreakers, who the hell do I support if Richardson is out of the race?

Going with the next closest puts me at Al Gore Barack Obama. So, do I rally behind the Obama campaign? You'd think that. But now, as the campaign season heats up, I realize I have to take character into account now.

Obama, committing the cardinal sin of attacking one's own party, stated that "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats — we've done that in 2004, 2000."

I distinctly remember something about Gore winning the popular vote (and the presidency, before that pesky Supreme Court hijack) in 2000, and I remember 49.5% of 40% of the electorate thinking Kerry was the right choice, too, if you don't count voting irregularities in Ohio, Florida, and assorted other places. So, Obama not only stoops to savaging people he's not even running against, he doesn't even get it right. Instead of being a uniter ("we should build on that!"), he becomes a divider ("our party sucks!")

And then, to top it off, Obama advertisements started showing up on the Drudge Report. What the hell is that? Funding the opposition?

So, while I agree in principle with a lot of what Obama says, I just can't get fired up and ready to go about him.

Last on the list is John Edwards (because Dodd and Biden are in the same boat as Richardson, and I wouldn't vote for Hillary with a 10 foot pole). Like Obama and Clinton, he favors a phased withdrawal from Iraq that should end around the same time that the Sun expands far enough to swallow the Earth. Not too happy with that. He's in favor of capital punishment, but seriously, everyone in the race is except Kucinich, and I've been down that road. Edwards, at least, favors reforming the system before jabbing needles into people. I agree with him on a lot of his other priorities, but I can say that (in principle) about most of the other Democratic candidates. But, now there's this insidious little rumor that Edwards slipped some stick to a staffer, who is now expecting his love child. One of my knocks on Hillary is that she'll spend the next eight years fighting the scandals, imaginary or otherwise, instead of real battles. If Edwards gets the nod, that rumor is not going to go away, even if it's false. I'm still hearing chatter about McCain's illegitimate black baby, and that was a nasty lie eight years ago.

Of course, "knocked up a staffer while his wife was dying of cancer" is probably no more damning than "killed Vince Foster with her bare fucking hands" or "is a Muslim traitor who will deliver us to Osama bin Laden."

What's a liberal whackjob to do?

-pb

Religious politics: The dangerous facts

Here's an article about religion in politics, 1932-2007. I'll let the article do the talking (it's not really that long), but here are the distressing talking points:

the total number of references to God in the average presidential speech 1981-early 2007 was an astounding 120% higher than the average speech 1933-1980. References to broader religious terms, such as faith, pray, sacred, worship, and crusade increased by 60%.

and even more disturbingly:

To declare that liberty (or freedom, a term used interchangeably by presidents) is a gift from God is to position oneself as a prophet: that is, the wording suggests that one has knowledge of divine wishes and desires.

But the prophetic approach is not the only way to link God and liberty/freedom. Pre-Reagan modern presidents more often spoke as petitioners, asking for God's blessing or guidance. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, in his famous "Four Freedoms" address in 1941, used this approach when he spoke of the nation's "faith in freedom under the guidance of God."

This petitioner style used to be the norm in presidential politics, but no more.

... the ratio of petitioner to prophet style speech has almost completely reversed, from ~85% petitioner 1932-1980, to ~75% prophet 1980-2007.

This isn't just Republicans, folks. Sure, they may be the most forthright in their theocratic bent, but just listen to the God talk flowing from the Democratic camps.

This begs the question... Are we headed towards theocracy, regardless of which party wins in 2008?

It scares me that I even have to ask that question.

-pb

So, is the blogosphere at a one-outrage-per-week limit or something? Has the complete overload of outrage left sites like Kos with a reduced capacity to focus and direct their wrath? I'm as pissed off as the next real American that we're handing over our sovereignty to foreign governments, but come on, people! SOUTH DAKOTA OUTLAWED ABORTION. Didn't we settle this shit back in 1973?

-pb

State Senator Vince Fumo stares down BMW to stop purse-snatcher

Fuck you if you think Dems are weak on crime. This guy, a career politician, put his own body on the line to stop a PURSE SNATCHER. Let's see some Republican nancy-boy do that! Yeah, you're all big with your defense spending, but it's SOMEONE ELSE that gets thrown in front of the car when push comes to shove! Ha! Sissy!

-pb

Just got this from the PA Dems:

-------
Governor Rendell Endorses Bob Casey for U.S. Senate
Governor will campaign on Casey's behalf in the coming months

Governor Edward G. Rendell issued the following statement regarding Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey's recently announced candidacy for United States Senate.

"Bob Casey will do an outstanding job as Pennsylvania's next United States Senator. Throughout his public career, he has always put the interests of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's hard working families first. It is clear that he will continue to do so in the U.S. Senate.

"Bob was a terrific Auditor General and has the integrity, the skill, the energy and the experience to be a truly great Senator. He is the kind of public servant Pennsylvania needs. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse his candidacy, and I look forward to campaigning with him in the months ahead."
-------

Get ready for six more years of spreading Santorum! Bob Casey can't campaign. Plain and simple, the only posts he's been elected to have been ones where the challenger was completely unknown. He was absolutely destroyed in the Democratic gubernatorial primary (by Rendell, incidentally) due to the fact that he can't campaign to save his life. So, going up against rampaging hordes of Toomey-loving, gay-hating Santorum voters, he's going to loose.


If you live in Pennsylvania and want a Senator that LIVES IN YOUR STATE,
if you live in Pennsylvania and like to HAVE SEX FOR REASON OTHER THAN HAVING CHILDREN,
if you live in Pennsylvania and HAVE A VAGINA or love someone that does,
if you live in Pennsylvania and THINK THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE A GOOD IDEA,
please please please get behind Chuck Pennacchio 200%!
-js?!

Look! A Republican who wants a single-party system!

Good old Joe Scarborough's advice to the Democrats on winning is to MOVE TO THE RIGHT. Yeah, good one. That's going to help us. Move farther to the right. That way, Republicans will move even farther to the right. And we'll be accused of flip-flopping. And the next thing you know, people like me will be getting arrested for not attending church on Sunday, and sent off to the front lines when we attack France.

Great idea.

-pb