September 25th 2008
If you’ve not watched one of Mark Fiore’s animation pieces before, do yourself a favor and check this one out. Wether or not you agree with drilling (more), this is freaking hillarious. And wether you agree or not, it certainly puts the philosophy and corrupt nature of the decision makers into perspective.
(Clicking the player will take you to Mark Fiore’s site)
September 15th 2008
What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney? Lipstick.
The difference between George Bush and John McCain? Nothing.
The election of Sarah John to the white house? Priceless - if you like to chant “Drill, Drill, Drill,” in your sleep. Just gotta wonder who does the drilling and who gets drilled. Shivers!
We can’t lose this one. DONATE NOW!
August 27th 2008
Well, here we go with the “Hillary didn’t do enough” routine. I like Maureen Dowd, but what is her latest column about?
In response to Hillary’s speech at the DNC last night, Dowd writes,
“She (Hillary Clinton) added insult to injury by coming out Tuesday night looking great in a blazing orange pantsuit and teaching the precocious pup Obama something about intensity and message. She thanked her ’sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits,’ and slyly noted that Obama would enact her health care plan rather than his.”
What does her pant suit have to do with insult to injury? And when exactly did she get Obama to commit in blood to HER health plan? I must have missed that, and it seems that only the nattering heads caught it. That should tell you something.
Dowd continues,
“At a meeting of the Democratic women’s caucus Tuesday, 74-year-old Carol Anderson of Vancouver, Wash., a former Hillary volunteer, stood in the back of the room in a Hillary T-shirt and hat signed by Hillary and “Nobama” button and booed every time any of the women speakers mentioned Obama’s name.”
OK. So this lady has bad form and can’t get on board. Fine, screw her. We don’t need her.
Now Dowd reaches deep into the hole to pull out this psychoanalytic rant,
“Obama’s pacification of Bill made his supporters depressed and anxious that he was going to be a weaker candidate than they had hoped and fearful that, as in Obama’s favorite movie, ‘The Godfather,’ every time Democrats try to get away, the Clintons pull them back in.”
What is it with the “evil” Clinton routine all of a sudden. So they (the Clinton machine) may be dirty - what politician isn’t? But suddenly the party wants to run from the one group who delivered it form the wilderness? I mean Carter doesn’t really count, despite his tremendous virtues and strong moral fiber. He won the White House by default, people were just worn out over Nixon. So, the last time you had a Democrat in the white house before Clinton was 1968! 1968 for God’s sake!!! If you don’t want to highlight the Clinton administration, then you are telling people to look back 40 years to see what you are offering them and no one likes that picture. Go forward young man, not back!
Obama is not going to loose because of Hillary, the economy, gas prices, the war, nor because he is black. He is going to loose because he hits like a girl, is too pacifist and refuses to get in the fight.
The Republicans may answer the same question posed to a Democrat with the effectiveness of a “Mom, he touched me!” routine, but when the Democrats don’t argue back, that routine benefits the Republican party and the Democrats look like the pouty middle child who always gets the shaft because they want to be “above the fray.” It works every time and it’s working today.
Obama is not going to loose because he’s the wrong man for the job, but because he’s the right man in the wrong race. As pissed as some people are about the economy, jobs, health care, mortgages, Iraq and everything else, as low as Bush’s ratings may be, people see “enough” change in McCain as to accept him. After all, he’s not Bush, and so that is change, right? That’s why the polls are so even. And the next week will be all McCain all the time, followed by the presidential debates where the public will see Obama as another dense headed intellectual a la Kerry, and Gore.
You have to want the White House bad enough that you will blow a mule in front of God, country, mother, wife and your children. The job IS “the other woman” it’s cheating by default. Obama doesn’t want it that bad. Clinton did, and that’s why she would have pummeled McCain’s nuts back to the Hanoi Hilton.
Maybe Jesse Jackson was on to something.
April 3rd 2008
The video is a spoof - but the device is actually real and being installed in certain AT&T stores in four cities New York, Atlanta, San Antonio and San Francisco.
To borrow a phrase from Uncle Fester (Steve Ballmer), “$10,000? Fully subsidized? With a plan? I said, ‘that is the most expensive coffee table book display in the world.’ And it does’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard which makes it not a very good email machine. Now, it may sell very well, I dunno…”
Very funny video! Here is the spoof…
Here is Uncle Fester…
February 20th 2008
Well, guess that’s it. Obama is the winner, why bother to continue? As his campaign manager stated, there is no way that Clinton can catch him now unless she wins 3 out of 4 delegates going forward. I didn’t check his math, I mean, why should I? It’s Obama’s manager, so it must be right.
Thank goodness that petty politics are now a thing of the past (forget of course, the sour grapes Michelle Obama - who doesn’t think she can vote for Clinton). No, no, petty politics is all behind us now. Why I feel new and clean already!!
So, taking this break from my tax organizing duties, I should be thankful. Now, I can finally sleep at night knowing that hope has emerged victorious over the nasty Cruella DeClinton! Inspiration has won the day. I can simply sit back and let the next generation solve our problems with their immutable hope and vision.
I realize now that it was silly of me to think that years of experience would matter at all. All that matters now is that we stop those old school Democrats from continuing to fight those kindly, good hearted Republicans. After all, it’s the Clinton’s fault that we had any rancor at all these last 16 years. No one on the other side of the aisle had anything to do with the divisiveness. I see now that it was clearly one sided and that the only way to solve it is to remove the Clinton clan from public life.
Linked from: http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2008/01/10/
I rest easy knowing that the retired Jewish couples in Florida will embrace Obama over John McCain this November. I know they will find his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be… oh so inspirational. (Nevermind that you might agree with him, or that his view is more even handed than any leader in recent memory.)
Yes, folks, it’s finally over. And we know of course that Obama will win in November. Why, he carried all of those solid red states in the mid-west and south - you know - the ones that voted for George W. Bush (twice) by 30 and 40 point margins!! How could he possibly loose in November when it’s so clear to everyone that he has turned those states a shiny sheen of purple?
And if my optimism bothers you, just remember that this year I haven’t been right about one single thing in politics!!! I might have nailed it perfectly in 2000 and 2004. But this is 2008 - the year of the O-hope-obama movement. And nothing matters now but hope and inspiration!
February 13th 2008
Is this it? Is this the end? Is there finally light at the end of the primary tunnel? Can we say we have a candidate now? Not by a long shot.
Obama’s strategy is brilliant! In this rare, never before seen strategy, devised in part by sheer accident, we have activists driving caucus results, and caucus results driving the public’s perception and the public’s perception (now) driving his first real primary wins (VA, MD, DC).
But it’s far from done. No one can take these last few wins from Obama. No amount of data parsing can do that. True, DC and MD have large African-American populations and true, he now receives as much as 90% of the African American vote. And yes, the whole Potomac region is stocked full of the high income, college educated voter that is driving his victories. But when you take a primary by these margins, a win is a win is a win.
For the first time in this race, Obama has the lead in delegate count, by 25 delegates - more or less depending on which news source you choose to belie. But he is ahead. For now….
This is a tough choice for me. I’ve waited 8 years for this change - any change to be honest. For a long time now, I’ve waited to see the shock and disbelief on the faces of all the right wing nuts on talk shows, religious broadcasts and radio shows, as Hillary Clinton stepped into the White House. My first (presidential) voting experience was in 1992. Then, as a college student, we were excited about ‘change’ about ‘hope’ - about Bill Clinton. So yes, I have some loyalty here. Were Clinton not in the race, this would be a no brainer. For all of you hope seekers, understand that long before you hoped for Obama, we were hoping for Clinton. And I dare say, we got some solid results for 8 years.
With half of the 4,000 and something delegates already split almost perfectly even between the two candidates, there are only three possible outcomes now:
So, I’m looking for data, signs, something to use to read the cards. Should I finally ditch my loyalty and get behind Obama? For that answer, I decided to follow the money. Can the money behind the candidates provide an answer? Maybe. The idea here is that while one candidate may lead in polls, another may be leading in fund raising in the same state. Where people have put their money counts more than how they answer a poll question. And those with money in the game are going to argue for the cause with a little more conviction.
To be fair, I didn’t look back over the states already won, only forward to the states soon to vote or caucus. (source: WashingtonPost.com) Where do they stand?
Obama has raised more money than Clinton in Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Vermont, Kentucky, North Carolina and Mississippi.
Clinton has raised more money than Obama in Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas.
Now, let’s combine that with poll data from each state (source: electoral-vote.com).
For Obama, we don’t have any poll data for Kentucky or Mississippi. But of all the remaining states in which he leads in dollars, he is behind in the polls except in North Carolina. To be fair some of the polls (in Vermont for example) are months old. But the big states in his top dollar list - Oregon, Wisconsin, and Ohio, do have recent poll data, all pointing to Clinton.
For Clinton, the money versus poll data is quite clear. In the states listed for her, as top dollar states (IN, WV, PA, RI, TX), she is ahead solidly in the polls and all of those states are holding primaries, not caucuses. Texas is doing a hybrid of some kind, so that one will be unpredictable until the days before the vote.
When I look at the money and the polls and the primary versus caucus map, the data still continues to favor Clinton. In fact, it’s only in Mississippi and North Carolina where we can assume an Obama win.
The road ahead is no picnic for either candidate, nor the party. And while the data may favor Clinton in both polls and dollars, there is no denying the Obama surge. Until now, I think both candidates have played the best game they could. Obama, as the challenger was smart, quick and agile. He developed a savvy plan and executed flawlessly. Clinton, as the incumbent has played defense like a champ, waiting out this final surge of the Potomac primaries and readying for the final play. But the final play cannot avoid the ugly truth ahead. The Democratic party is about to divide, and at this point it’s uncertain that either candidate can win in November - six long months away.
Why would I say such things when the Democratic vote turn out has been almost 2 to 1 vs. the Republican vote? Simple. Neither Clinton nor Obama will take the other as running mate, nor should they now. They are now as mixable as oil and water. Neither base group will be on board for that. I still stand by my conviction that in the general election, there are simply not enough, real, true, independent voters willing to swing to the Democratic party to change the solid red states to even just barely blue. As for the 6 or 8 states that are currently on the edge, I simply don’t believe that either Clinton or Obama can effectively say they can do a better job than McCain with the independents.
Folks, this is going to be ugly. Looking over the data, and considering the voters in Michigan and Florida, I have to say that it will be Clinton who wins the overall delegate count. But that simply will not be acceptable to the Obama camp. At this point, they are convinced that they have the sole right to the nomination. Not saying they shouldn’t feel that way. But hope as they might for unity, this is going to be about division. History shows us that the divided party does not win in November. Period.
Linked from: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/jd/
February 8th 2008
Let’s start this post with the most entertaining read in years, and one that is perfect for a college focused site: NYT: Questions for Dr. Retail
So TIME magazine does a poll sometime in the last few days stating that a McCain/Clinton match up results in a deadlock of 46% each, but a McCain/Obama match up results in a victory for Obama, 41% to 48%. Having read my comments here, my friends email me to point this out.
Problem is, I just simply disagree that it’s all about the independents and the actual DATA does too! There are no real independents. And yes, I know that we have a system where two parties are entrenched, making it almost impossible for a true third party.
Folks, there is a reason why we teach history in school, reference it in our politics and write about it on our blogs. History, is the best guide to the future no matter your age, your outlook or how much hope you have in your gas tank. That ditzy cheerleader in high school is still a ditzy cheerleader. She just doesn’t look as appetizing. The quarterback is still a quarterback, only in his armchair.
The TIME magazine poll simply ignores the truth as pointed out in “The Myth of the Independent Voter” (Keith, Magleby, Nelson, Orr, Westlye). As I have noted previously, the DATA - not the hope - the DATA simply do not back up this assertion that there is a huge groundswell of independent voters who will not back Clinton.
Even TIME magazine acknowledges that it’s only in Caucus states where Obama has the advantage. That’s not to say it won’t work for him, it’s worked so far. But Obama supporters (count me as a former supporter), are simply ignoring the data, which show that Clinton is getting the actual votes. And, as TIME points out, on Super Tuesday, there were 15,417,521 Democratic voters, and only 9,181,297 Republican voters. Look at which of the actual primary states won by each candidate and it’s no question at all who the for whom the overwhelming majority of those Democratic votes were cast. The DATA simply speaks for itself.
| State | Clinton | Obama | ||
| Arkansas | 69% | 27% | ||
| New York | Blue state Primary | 57% | 40% | |
| Massachusetts | Blue state Primary | 56% | 41% | |
| Oklahoma | 55% | 31% | ||
| New Jersey | Blue state Primary | 54% | 44% | |
| Tennessee | 54% | 41% | ||
| California | Blue state Primary | 53% | 41% | |
| Arizona | 51% | 42% | ||
| New Mexico | 49% | 48% | Caucus | |
| Missouri | 48% | 49% | ||
| Connecticut | Blue state Primary | 47% | 51% | |
| Alabama | 42% | 56% | ||
| Delaware | Blue state Primary | 42% | 53% | |
| Utah | 39% | 57% | ||
| North Dakota | 37% | 61% | Caucus | |
| Illinois | Blue state Primary | 33% | 64% | |
| Colorado | 32% | 67% | Caucus | |
| Minnesota | 32% | 67% | Caucus | |
| Georgia | 31% | 66% | ||
| Kansas | 26% | 74% | Caucus | |
| Alaska | 25% | 74% | Caucus | |
| Idaho | 17% | 80% | Caucus |
Let’s boil this down even more to the essence of what will count, electorally, in a general election, when so called “independents” get to choose 8 more years of war, conservative supreme court judges, tax breaks for the wealthy and Exxon Mobile profits of over $1,300 per SECOND or choose “change” - of any kind! Let’s also take out each candidate’s home state to see what they can really do.
| State | Clinton | Obama | Margin | EV Count |
| Massachusetts | 56% | 41% | 15 pts. | 12 |
| New Jersey | 54% | 44% | 10 pts. | 15 |
| California | 53% | 41% | 12 pts. | 55 |
| Connecticut | 47% | 51% | 4 pts. | 7 |
| Delaware | 42% | 53% | 10 pts. | 3 |
To clarify even more - WHEN YOU LOOK AT BLUE STATE, PRIMARY WINS OBAMA IS NOT THE CANDIDATE BRINGING THE VOTES. Period.
Clinton takes 82 electoral votes by solid margins in each of these states, Obama takes a mere 10 electoral votes by smaller margins. There is simply no getting around the data.
Quoting from electoral-vote.com: “Obama did especially well in Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. Whut? Yes, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. One of the big questions of this election has been the role of identity politics. Would white people vote for a black man, for example. Well, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska are full of white people. In fact, they have very few minorities of any kind (except the Eskimos in Alaska). What gives?”
Quoting from electoral-vote.com: “Obama did extremely well in caucus states and Clinton did very badly in them. How come? Turnout in caucus states is always low, usually about 10-20% of the electorate. Only highly motivated people bother to show up, especially the Democratic caucuses, which go on for hours and people have to publicly defend their choice. Obama has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters. These are precisely the people who can swing a caucus state by showing up in droves and working hard to convince the other voters that Obama would make a great President. In primary states, the media, especially TV ads have a much bigger influence. Now it becomes clear why Obama won North Dakota but Clinton won Oklahoma, a demographically similar state in the same part of the country: North Dakota had a caucus and Oklahoma had a primary.”
A Clinton/Obama ticket wins hands down. Come on Obama, shut this thing down so we can win in November.
February 7th 2008
We love the idea of “we the people.” Just love it.
Except when it’s not our voice or when it’s not the majority voice or, pick a reason.
Consider this from www.electoral-vote.com
“Yesterday [2/6/08], a Democratic precinct chair from Colorado reported about being curious as to why Obama did so well in the Colorado caucuses (including hers) but only so-so in the nearby New Mexico caucuses. Some investigation showed that the New Mexico caucuses were in reality primaries: people came in, voted, and went home. There was none of the open discussion of the candidates that characterizes the caucus process as we have described here earlier this year. This tends to confirm the theory that Obama does better when there are small groups discussing the candidates where his cadre of enthusiastic supporters can try to convince other voters that he is the best person for the job. If the caucuses in Washington and Nebraska on Saturday are true caucuses, he will probably also do well there. Next Tuesday we are back to primaries, with few recent polls there.”
The evidence for Obama doing well in small groups - one on one - continues to mount. And that’s not only fine, it’s awesome! Here we have a candidate so energizing that his supporters have become evangelizers - sort of like Apple’s users.
However, wherever the majority of the “people” have a voice (actual primary votes), Clinton is winning, often by solid margins. As I noted yesterday, aside from Obama’s win in his home state of Illinois which is everything above and beyond a solid, fantastic win, he only truly took 3 states from Clinton - Deleware by 11%, Connecticut by 4% (both solid wins), but Missouri by less than a point. Sorry, but solid red states don’t count. They will go red again this year. So win or loose them, whether Obama or Clinton, it’s irrelevant.
For me, I am conflicted ever more on who to support. Early on, I emailed friends saying I’d like to see if an Obama/Clinton ticket would work. But as I look at the data behind the primaries so far, I’m increasingly skeptical of Obama’s win, his lack of details on issues, and the media’s infatuation with him. Yes, I am aware that there is something deep in the American psyche that doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. I know that. But no one can find the rationale.
If we honor the voice of the people, then let’s consider - In almost every actual voting primary contest, the people have spoken for Hillary. If Obama takes the lead in delegates and gets the nomination, then it’s not because the people have overwhelmingly spoken. It’s because he has run an amazing, smart, strategic and flat out perfectly brilliant campaign as a challenger and managed to win despite the voice of the people, through small evangelical supporters. Simply brilliant.
But it’s not the voice of the people.
You can darn well expect that there is going to be some deep seated resentment among not only the Clinton establishment, but also among Hillary Clinton’s supporters. My own life has been one of the underdog. And so I’m not surprised that I’m not feeling Obama today as I did in January. I can certainly respect what he did here, and while I acknowledge it’s smart, even savvy, I can’t say that it was the voice of the people. It’s not.
Yesterday, Obama stated that he felt certain that Clinton’s supporters would vote for him, but that he was not so certain his supporters would vote for Clinton. Unfortunately, that’s a dangerous gamble since a large majority of people in actual Democratic primaries have voted for Clinton. Change is a two way street - don’t count your votes before we the people cast them!
Bloodsport.
February 6th 2008
Holy krap! Just look at Obama go! H&R Block has nothing on this man. This dude has “people!!” Super Tuesday was indeed a bit crazy!
Now, time for a reality check.
Obama won 13 states (14 IF New Mexico does come in for him - doubtful), but overall he didn’t get what he needed, nor is he likely to after February and March are through. Worse, the Democrats may have lost it now. They will go on to convention in a deadlocked fight and probably broke. (Obama has been spending money much faster than Clinton. Clinton’s fundraising has slowed down.)
Had Obama taken California, it might have been time for Clinton to bow out. Now, the possibility of the Democrats losing in November is real. Politics is a game of chess and last night, the Democrats got checked. November could be mate, and Karl Rove is rolling with laughter.
Just take a look at the electoral map for 2004 and, before you wax poetic about change and how it’s 2008 and the past doesn’t matter, and the young people will change the world, and how Obama can bring people together, and blah, blah, blah… consider:
Source: www.electoral-vote.com
What this means, this data set, is that Obama is not winning where it actually counts. Yes he won the Iowa caucus. But Nevada and New Mexico are a different story. Nevada’s vote went to Clinton, even though Obama got the most delegates, because while technically a caucus, it turned into a primary. People simply dropped in, voted and left. No discussion, no arm twisting. New Mexico is still up in the air - but it will be slim for either candidate. If I were to bet who could carry those three states against McCain, it would be Clinton.
In red states, it seems some people have been on the losing side for so long (Democrats), are so scared of losing again that they’re ready to scream from the top of thier lungs that Clinton can’t win and so we should get behind a fresh face in the hopes of being less divisive. Need I remind you, it was not Clinton who made the 90’s politics what they were. Even more people have bought into the idea that Clinton can’t win across party lines. Yet, she has done so twice, and in a not so very blue state.
The answer now, after Super Tuesday, is for Obama to be the bigger man (pardon the pun), and shut this race down. By ceding the nomination, he would wield enormous power over Clinton for the next four years and ensure both of their political futures, a better future for every citizen, and his own eventual presidency. The alternative is a brokered convention, bitterness and financial problems in the general election, capped by a loss to John McCain.
We can pretty much assume that the Republican ticket will be McCain/Huckabee. We’ve already seen evidence of this in the West Virginia Cuacus where McCain supporters fell in behind Huckabee to prevent a Romney win.
The Republicans will reel in Romney, clean things up and get ready for November. They have no choice now but to take Huckabee as the VP - he brings the God vote. Romney is a looser all around, but lives to fight another year. Despite the frothing of right wing talking heads and self appointed ambassadors of God, their base will vote McCain, especially with Huckabee as VP.
The Democratic ticket will either be Clinton/Obama or Obama/_________
And therein lies the problem, and I cannot overstate what it means. So just stop and dwell on that blank spot for a moment.
The problem is that Clinton will NOT take VP now, not after being stabbed in the back by Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Claire McCaskill and others - people she and her husband have helped over the years. Had she lost several primaries in January, she would have scaled back, or resigned herself to taking VP. Not now. Not after all this. So if the DLC and delegates knock her off at the convention, and make Obama the nominee, they have to come up with a new VP.
Sure, people like to say the VP makes no difference, but it actually does. In 1960, Johnson helped balance Kennedy. In 1980, Bush Sr. took one for the team to get the party back in power. In 2000, Cheney helped people feel comfortable with a brain dead, “screw the constitution” Bush. Do you really think that Bill and Hillary will enthusiastically support and raise money for Obama as the nominee after this? No way. Their support will be tacit at best, word only, no deeds. Say what you want to about Bill, but the democratic nominee will need both Clintons.
The Democrats don’t have a VP pick that can stand up to this challenge or balance the ticket. Obama would have to carry the full load with some no name has been or wanna be. The only viable VP would be Oprah and that’s just not happening. Obama is great, he is positive and his presence is invigorating. But, he is not Jesus.
You could say this is Howard Dean’s revenge. In 2004, the press killed Dean, slit his throat over a non scream. Anyone who saw that clip knew he was raped by the media unnecessarily. The Democratic party leadership watched that slaughter like a pacifist vegan sent back to the middle ages and did nothing. Then the establishment (Clinton) promptly got behind Kerry. Well, Dean is now in charge of the Democratic party. This is payback and maybe it’s his to give. But it’s our future he’s tinkering with.
As a result of the recent endorsements by Kerry, Kennedy, et al, Hillary will exert a huge payback as will Bill Clinton. Remember, he’s the party’s only successful ex-president in more than 40 years (soon to be 50 years). If you don’t get his support, hang it up. And, yes, (Hillary) Clinton should exert payback for this! Politics is personal, it’s blood sport. Deal with it. If you can’t trust your family, who can you trust?
Now what does all of that get you?
Bottom line, the DLC abdicated responsibility. They should have pulled one horse back (either Clinton or Obama) early on in this process in order to have something in the stable and avoid this ugly fight. Instead, they let both of their best horses run. Now, they’re screwed. Clinton will never take VP. Obama can NOT carry the whole ticket. And by all accounts, they are going to duke it out to the death.
The one way to ensure a blue victory in November is for Obama to make the right move, right now. That doesn’t make him a loser, it makes him smart.
The country as a whole (unfortunately) does not give two cent’s about Iraq (Obama’s winning vote getter). And in 2012, it’s Jeb Bush for the Republicans. On a personal note, all of you self righteous D’s who had a problem with a dynasty (including me to some extent) just remember this: the Republicans are already covered in their own orgasms at the mere mention of the next heir to their dynasty. Meanwhile, for the Democrats, the ghost of Ralph Nader lives on.
We just got checked.
Linked from: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/jd/
Linked from: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bs/
January 31st 2008
Way, way off topic and yet not! I’ve seen my share of ads looking for child care and I am sure most, - OK, I am sure NONE - of the advertisers on CollegeClassifieds.com are like this (I hope), but in case you are, please look deep inside and find some compassion. Filed under: “Anything Goes” … in a place I like to call, “the get a brain zone.”
