It's got a nice ring to it

President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama!

President Barack Obama--President Barack Obama! President Barack Obama. (President Barack Obama.) President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama; President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama... President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama.

"President Barack Obama," President Barack Obama. "President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama."

President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama!

In defense of George W. Bush...... (no I'm not high, why do you ask?)

During last night's second nationally televised debate between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, Obama brought up a point he has mentioned previously regarding President Bush's response to the 9/11 tragedy. In the weeks and months following our nation's deadliest terrorist attack, Obama says, Bush failed to respond in a serious and appropriate manner, telling people instead to (paraphrasing) "just to go shopping".

The senator's implication here is that the President was trying to get people to ignore the problem. In this case, Obama is wrong. I remember when Bush said it and why.

Two major industries were in danger of collapsing as a direct result of the events of September 11, 2001. Retail sales were approaching record lows. Our economy was in the early stages of implosion. And our level of confidence in our security as American citizens had never been thinner. In short, we were a country teeming with paranoia. What we could never have imagined had just occurred. If the twin towers of the World Trade Center could be brought down with $40,000 and a dozen carpet knives, anything can happen. We were all vulnerable.

I spent the 2001 Thanksgiving holiday with my brother in Minneapolis. I remember shopping in the Mall of America that Friday when a horrific vision occurred to me: I was in the nation's largest shopping mall during the biggest shopping day of the year. I looked around the central atrium and thought to myself, what system do we have in here to prevent someone from walking in with a suitcase full of explosives, setting it in the central plaza and calmly walking away, seconds before the devastating explosion that would effectively change retail shopping in our nation forever?

Our economy depended on our ability to continue living, eating and shopping as we had done before 9/11. We needed to be told not only that we needed to trust our national security and go about our day-to-day lives, but that it was our patriotic duty to do so. This was precisely the context of George Bush's message to the nation.

So, on this topic--this lone, single point--Bush did the right thing. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a beautiful sunset I'd like to watch. And yes, my sky is the same color as yours.

Fox: The Net Efffect

I'm not sure who showed up first on the network. All I know is, one won't talk while the other's drinking a glass of milk.

The party's energized all right

The news outlets can't stop saying it. Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee, has "energized" the conservative base of the Republican Party. The line's been parroted to the point of becoming cliche.

Okay. Someone has to throw a robe onto the ol' Emperor, so it may as well be me.



Palin (right) is a young, vibrant and virtually unknown hard-line right-winger who oh-by-the-way happened to finish second in the 1984 Miss Alaska beauty pageant. In the realm of presidential politics, she is jaw-unhinging gorgeous to say the least, clearly capable of lifting a senator's spirits, among other things.

The conservative base of the GOP is a group of predominantly balding white men approaching their silver years (below).



So Princess Viagra has "energized" a group of predominantly balding white men approaching their silver years? Ummmmmmm... I'll bet she has.

Out of sight, out of remind

Aside from his curiously brief and equally bizarre pre-recorded speech at the Republican National Convention Tuesday evening, complete with ill-timed pauses for audience reaction (um, it's 2008... why not deliver it live?), George W. Bush officially became an afterthought in St. Paul, Minnesota. Clearly, the president's approval ratings (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) also reflected the opinions of his own party's delegation.

Don't believe me? Just add up the total number of references to the name "Bush" from each prime-time speaker during the last three days of the RNC--the "Bush Name Drop Count" if you will:

TUESDAY NIGHT

Laura Bush: 1 reference (when mentioning her husband's involvement in relief efforts for Hurricane Gustav)

Fred Thompson: 0 references

Joe Lieberman: 0 references

WEDNESDAY NIGHT

Mitt Romney: 1 reference (when mentioning W's fight against terrorism)

Mike Huckabee: 0 references

Rudy Giuliani: 0 references

Sarah Palin: 0 references

THURSDAY NIGHT

Lindsey Graham: 0 references

Tom Ridge: 0 references

Cindy McCain: 1 reference (when mentioning how honored she felt to stand alongside First Lady Laura Bush in support of Hurricane Gustav relief efforts)

John McCain: 1 reference (again, mentioning Laura Bush)

That makes a grand total of four times the word "Bush" was uttered at the podium in three nights of prime-time network coverage. And two of them were about Mrs. Bush.

Actually, McCain did refer to the current president twice--just not by name, merely as "the current president", as if he were giving a sworn deposition. The man couldn't even muster up a slightly more endearing "our president", much less "our party's president". He also referenced George Herbert Walker Bush but again, not by name. Only as "our 41st president". Factually accurate, yes, but about as warm and friendly as a farm subsidy bill.

It's sad enough that the party's sitting two-term president didn't even make a personal appearance at its week-long national convention. BUT ONLY TWO NAME DROPS FROM ALL THE OTHER BIG WIGS? That is truly without precedent.

Eight years as president. Two full terms in the Oval Office. Yet the measure of the man's success is such that those who spoke at his party's national convention either were instructed not to utter his name, or came to that conclusion independently.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure is worse.

Talk about your exit strategy

Being one of nature's more vicious storms, hurricanes are typically defined by adjectives like violent. Ferocious. Deadly.

This week, the Republican Party added a brand new descriptive: convenient.

Guided by forces from above and steered by the prayers of GOP strategists, Hurricane Gustav pulled away from Havana and bore down on New Orleans. The same New Orleans that, exactly three years ago to the day, succumbed to the catastrophic cat-five winds of Katrina. The same New Orleans that slowly drowned while the lifeguard on duty, President George W. Bush, snoozed away in his tall white chair. The same New Orleans whose cries Bush tuned out as he flew from his vacation retreat in Crawford, Texas, to Arizona and then California. Yep, that one.

W had to have noticed the flailing arms of the city's rooftop-bound residents during the infamous "fly-by" portion of his return trip to Washington. Amid the worst natural disaster in our nation's history, the water-bound communities treaded water for four full days before Air Force One reappeared and actually deployed its landing gear. The people of these proud neighborhoods continued bailing, praying and looking for loved ones, waiting for the president to make his first public speech to a concerned nation on behalf of Katrina's tens of thousands of victims. He did get around to the task-- it just took him till halfway through the following month to do so.

You know, when it was convenient.

Bush had learned from his heartlessness. Should our country ever face another natural disaster, he had something to prove. An outstanding debt he owed the citizenry and, more importantly, his legacy. Three years later, as the final year of his reign rolled along, manifold challenges awaited his Grand Old Party. The nominee, Arizona senator John McCain, was being portrayed as W's political siamese twin, retroactively conjoined by Barack Obama and fellow Democrats during the previous week's Democratic National Convention in Denver. McCain's voting history, 90% in lock-step with W's, is a matter of record.

So how can the Republican nominee avoid the party's abyssmal track record over the last eight years of leadership? How can he distance himself from a president with the lowest approval rating in our nation's history? And how can the party who took over the Oval Office in 2000 with a budgetary surplus and proceeded to transform it into our largest deficit ever, run--literally--away from its indelible past and toward another four years of power?

Shhh! Wait--can you hear that rain comin' down?

Fast as you could say "weather channel", Gustav had Bourbon Street in its cross-hairs. And Bush packing for a flight south, ostensibly a mission of atonement to the soon-to-be hurricane-ravaged Gulf regions of Louisiana, Mississippi and East Texas. The weekend before the RNC, two days before he was to stand at the podium and shower praise upon his long-time friend and colleague, W scheduled a hasty press conference to announce that nature's agenda was far more critical than his, and far too important for him to blow off this time around. To make sure his commitment was clear, he said he must regrettably stay away from Minneapolis for the entire week. Too many people would need his assistance someplace else. No way can he afford to stand next to McCain now; not while the potential for a massive hurricane was this close, this real. No, this was a situation far too... convenient.

Thus continued one of the more surreal weeks of our two-century-long political existence. After the first African American nominee gave his historic acceptance speech before seventy-five thousand people on the home field of the Denver Broncos; after McCain announced his historic--and altogether unknown--running mate hours later; the sitting two-term president elected to forego his party's entire national convention. Even he knew the cancer that was he himself. Exit, plane left.

Did it matter that Gustav had been downgraded to a low category-two storm when it ran aground 100 miles west of New Orleans? Did it matter that there was only minimal damage and negligible loss of life? Did it matter to the thousands who perished as a result of the hoof-dragging and finger-pointing Katrina response, or the many thousands who loved them, that W was on-site and on call, ready at the helm this time around?

Did it even matter to Mr. Bush himself that his efforts appeared fruitless? No, not one bit. Because they weren't. In fact, he did more than Republicans could have ever wished for. The man is so unpopular that the biggest contribution he can make to his party is to make himself disappear. The man the Dems couldn't beat with a majority of the popular vote the first time (in 2000) and with virtually 50% of the vote the second time (in 2004), encouraged to "make like a tree" by the very people that helped lift him over the edge in both elections.

Not only was Bush aware of this horrible truth; he was actually cool with it. And the McCain-loving media was cool right back, barely mentioning the obvious attempt to hoodwink the nation with this stunt.

Every time you think to yourself, there's no WAY the Republican party can pull this off, you get more convinced that maybe just maybe, they already have.

The "Me-Too" Maverick

By definition, a "maverick" is "someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action."

Senator John McCain (photo) has been able to wear the label, proof-unseen, through this entire election campaign. Perhaps the first major decision of his candidacy, the selection of a vice president, would reveal this maverick we've been hearing about, the one he apparently used to be.



Just hours after Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech in Denver, McCain unleashed a well-coordinated sneak-attack on the Democratic Party candidate's momentum by announcing his choice for running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The news sent people googling for the hills, creating a one-day spike in search engine usage. Who? Sarah Palin? Where's she from? What's she done? Wiki-wiki-wiki.

The more people learned about her, the less they found. Twenty months as governor of Alaska. Six years as the mayor of her home town--Wasilla, Alaska (population 6,715). A bachelor's degree in journalism, with a minor in political science, from the University of Idaho. A second-place finish in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Brief stints as a sportscaster and commercial fisherman. But of course, she towed the company line on abortion, gun control, oil, W's tax cuts, etc.

As puzzling as the choice may seem, one thing is clear: it's anything but the work of a maverick. Mavericks think and act independently. Yet McCain's selection was more reactionary than revolutionary, a "me-too" move if ever there was one. A deliberate attempt to pander to Hillary Clinton voters while adding the illusion of relevance and, well, life to a campaign in quicksand, the way vertical stripes add the illusion of weight loss. A decision he made after having met the woman exactly once.

Maverick? Hardly. Desperate doesn't even serve an adequate descriptor for what amounts to the political equivalent of a one-night stand. But this morning after doesn't involve a walk of shame; instead he's asking the nation to approve of the marriage.

Sarah Palin, VPCILF

Just hours after Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination, before 70,000 awestruck Americans at Denver's Invesco Field, the Republican nominee landed a McHottie of a running mate--Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

In one move, John McCain destroyed the central message of his campaign platform and negative campaign against Obama. And all for the opportunity to have an attractive political figure at his side. The double entendre is intended: Palin is flat-out gorgeous. McCain now can travel the country with trophy wife on one arm and trophy veep on the other. Bookend babes. Talk about your poll bounce.

I can't help but assume this will quickly take its toll on Cindy McCain. Her blonde hair, brilliant smile and vibrant wardrobe have been an arresting and consistent element throughout her husband's campaign. Her cover-girl looks that much more youthful perched beside her 72-year-old hubby. Yet from this point on, there's a bigger, brighter name on the marquis, a stunning woman with no wrinkles to hide and exuberance on her side. How long will Cindy's vanity remain dormant before her hem climbs higher and her neckline plunges deeper? McCain's numbers may grow from sheer cat-fight anticipation.

The right-wingers are spinning as fast as they can to workshop potential responses to McCain's quantum leap of faith. Give them a break, they've only had a few hours to back up what is described in favorable terms as a baffling selection. But they've fired out some really creative doozies.

One initial retort is to take the offensive--like the challenge they're laying down to democrats, this "you want to debate experience? let's go!" tactic. Beneath its bravado is the suggestion that those in Obama's camp who question the pick are being hypocritical, given the Illinois senator's limited experience. What they seem to forget is the fact that the Republicans are the ones who initiated the experience issue. In fact, they made "not ready to lead" the tag line of their anti-Obama ad campaign. Why on earth would Obama make his inexperience a topic--who in his position would? Team McCain raised the point and now they've contradicted their position. The hypocrisy is theirs and theirs alone.

Another GOP spin is that Palin is "the most popular governor in the United States", on the basis of her 69% approval rating. This is priceless. A high school poly sci student could point out the flaws here. True, no other governor may have as high an approval rating... IN THEIR STATE. But going from here to saying she's the most popular governor in the country is a stretch of Bubble-Yum proportions. Frankly, I doubt that 5% of the nation had even heard of Sarah Palin before today. All you can logically conclude from this statistic is that she is more popular among Alaskans than any other governor is among their residents.

Then there's the argument that Palin has more experience than Obama. Here are the facts:

o Palin has served 20 months as governor and six years as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population: 6,715). Comparatively, Obama has been in the United States Senate for four years and served in the Illinois Senate for eight years before that.

o Palin's previous pursuits included stints as a sportscaster and commercial fisherman, as well as four years on the Wasilla City Council. Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, and worked for a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development for another 11 years.

o Palin received a bachelor's degree in journalism (minoring in political science) from the University of Idaho. Obama earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia University, then graduated from Harvard Law School after becoming the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He earned an academic scholarship. She won a scholarship for finishing second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant.

A year and a half as governor of a state with a population of 600,000 may technically be "executive experience". But it bears mentioning that not too long ago, her fellow Republican George Bush (daddy) and some other maverick named Perot attacked a relative unknown named Bill Clinton, by suggesting the state he governed (Arkansas) was roughly the size of Wal-Mart. Arkansas has FIVE TIMES the population of Alaska.

Still another spin, most recently tossed out by Florida's republican governor, is that what's really important is which presidential candidate is best equipped for the job, a contest McCain wins "hands down". Well if we can measure the two candidates on the basis of their first major decision as their party's nominee, you'll have a hard time making that argument. Biden and Obama had worked closely for years as fellow senators. Reports are that McCain had met Palin just once before yesterday. JUST ONCE. Forgive me but I must repeat this. McCain and Palin had met only one time before yesterday. That meeting was six months ago.

What does it say about the man who is asking us to put him in charge of our nation? It appears he has treated the issue of who will take over the presidency should be be unable, more like a blind date than a serious process? Is this a harbinger of the type of decision making we can expect in a McCain administration?

Furthermore, what does this selection really say about his views on gender equality? Could a move aimed at "breaking the glass ceiling" for women, belie an altogether malodorous intention? McCain's recent off-handed comments about entering his wife in the "Miss Buffalo Chip" pageant, once chalked up as a tasteless ad-lib, may actually be just another stitch in a pattern of apparent objectification. From his second wife Cindy (with whom he began a relationship in the midst of his first marriage)... to the lobbyist friend that led several close to him to question his political sensibilities (remember the New York Times article that was inexplicably forgotten simply because the two never "did it"?)... to today's choice of running mate... it's clear the man likes to surround himself with babes.

Ask yourself: would Palin have been his choice if she didn't possess such dazzling good looks? If you can't answer with a resounding "yes", what does that tell you? Last time I checked, promoting someone seemingly under-qualified for a position, based on his or her physical appearance, is textbook sexual discrimination. And anyone guilty of this is more male chauvinist than maverick.

Bottom line: the only people who hail McCain's choice of running mate are people who would hail any choice (Lieberman aside) the man made. It's their job as members of the Grand Old Party to get behind the decision. But deep down, they must be freaking out. They've spent the day not boasting about McCain's choice but defending it. Frankly, it's hilarious if not downright jaw-dropping to watch right-wing strategists and pundits lauding the 44-year-old Alaskan's credentials, mere days after criticizing Obama's.

What most of them won't admit, is that before today they had no idea of this woman's background and qualifications, if they even knew her at all. McCain said of Palin in his speech this afternoon, "When you get to know her, you'll be as impressed with her as I am". Yet, having met her just once before yesterday, he barely knows her himself.

Now that's what you call a first impression.

He's been tortured enough... but then, so have we

So the media is supposedly tougher on McCain than on Obama, huh?

Then how come it's fair to question the latter's youth and inexperience while the former's age is officially an off-limits topic? As far as I'm concerned, if it's okay to publicly vet Obama and his lack of political experience, it's just as important to question why, if the Arizona senator is so vastly qualified for the office of president, it has taken him until his 71st birthday to win the support of his own party. Should he be successful this fall, McCain will become the oldest first-term president in our nation's history. So why couldn't he win the Republican nomination over a far less qualified G.H.W. Bush eight years ago? Like the co-worker who's been at your company for thirty years, he's either invaluable or unhirable, depending on your point of view.

Similarly, Obama has been criticized for the way he allegedly "exploited" his wife and two children by granting an entertainment network exclusive permission for an interview. Yet we are not allowed to even mention the misgivings of the torch-bearer for the party of "family values", such as his failed first marriage and admitted infidelity? The horrific story of McCain's torturous years as a war prisoner in North Vietnam is universally accepted support for his patriotism. However, no one even mentions his role in the infamous Keating Five. McCain's irresponsible business dealings during the Savings & Loan mess epitomized the ego-centric state of our economy in the late 1980s. Was this not emblematic of a man putting himself ahead of duty to country? At the very least, shouldn't it receive as much scrutiny as the issue of whether the other party's presumptive nominee wears a freaking flag pin on his lapel?

This brand of pettiness was in full inexplicable force during Obama's overseas visits. So why is the media given the green light to deconstruct every aspect of Obama's public appearances in Europe and the Middle East, while any talk of McCain's well-known temper has somehow been deemed unfair treatment? Even when questioning Obama's character--in particular his supposed snubbing of injured soldiers--McCain threatened what he called "a seismic event" had the Pentagon attempted to enforce its policy on a hypothetical McCain overseas hospital visit. A seismic event? Did ANYONE holding microphone or notepad say so much as, "Beg pardon, Senator?" The clip has been played ad nauseum. You mean to tell me in all this time that no talking head has uttered a syllable calling out his threat of an eruption? Yeah, the poor old guy's got it rough.

Then there are the spouses. Michelle Obama's sound byte about being a proud American for the first time--woefully out of context, of course--has been rolled so much the digital files are wearing out. She has explained herself and the comment numerous times. You'll have to take my word for it, since you likely never saw it on any of the major networks. For some reason, Cindy McCain's Vicodin addiction, the illegal prescriptions she obtained from the non-profit organization she founded, the employee she fired who discovered the scandal (and ultimately shared it with the DEA) and the subsequent investigation doesn't seem to be as important an indicator of a prospective First Lady's virtue than a sentence taken out of context.

But back to the hubbies. Isn't the temperament of the man who would run our country a legitimate issue? Isn't it at least as important as, say, the assessment that Obama's mannerisms suggest those of a man who had already won the election--in other words, that the guy with so little experience now, to his own detriment, somehow seems "too presidential"?

-------

By the way, can someone please explain to me how McCain possibly benefits from the surge in Iraq being successful? No level of our success can make the decision to go to war with Iraq any more rational. Put it this way. Let's say W gets it in his head that all he needs to reverse his approval numbers is to bomb the hell out of Cuba. The odds would greatly favor our armed forces winning this battle. But would victory make the decision to attack any more sound--much less sane?

Yes, changing your position is technically "change"

John McCain is the candidate for change, all right.

He once spoke out against the Bush tax cuts. Now his message has changed.

He once spoke out against the Bush economic policy. Now he's changed his tune.

His chief economic advisor once called us "a nation of whiners". Now his campaign has changed, adopting whining as a core element of its political strategy.

He once called his campaign the "straight-talk express". Yet he's become nothing more than a puppet, saying whatever feels like the politically advantageous thing to say at the time, parroting the words of whomever is running his campaign on that particular day.

And he boldly promised this past April 14 on Fox News that he would run a "respectful campaign" and swore - SWORE - not to lower himself to negative attacks. His broken word conveniently forgotten, McCain has changed his tactics, going so far as to blame Obama for the high gas prices, claim that he snubbed injured troops in Germany because the Pentagon wouldn't allow cameras, and compare him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, ostensibly as world-famous celebrities yet clearly a move to effeminize his attempt to appear strong on the world's stage.

If this makes his supporters uncomfortable, there's no need to worry. Things will surely change again.

Which one's the elitist again?

Phil Gramm, national campaign chairman and chief economic advisor to fellow Senator John McCain, is under fire for his comments supporting McCain's "psychological" explanation for our stagnant economy. "You've heard of a 'mental depression' ", states the Lone Star State's senator (growing loner by the minute), "this is a 'mental recession' ". Fearing the excuse of an out-of-context sound bite, Gramm then pulled his pistols out n' went fer it awl:

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline...We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today...Misery sells newspapers. Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

McCain, never wasting a minute (as is the wont of one over 70), threw Gramm under his "Straight-Talk Express" quick as he could find a microphone. He tersely stated, "Senator Gramm doesn't speak for me. I speak for me.", before suggesting a better position than economic advisor would be ambassador to Belarus. Forgetting A) the fact that Gramm, by title and edict, was indeed speaking for McCain; and B) the GOP candidate's own recent--and numerous--references to our economic woes being psychological. See, it's all the fault of us commoners. If we'd just shut up and be happy with what we've got, maybe this "good feeling" vibe can help grow his stock portfol... I mean, our economy. Yikes.

To nobody's suprise, Fox News has been spinning the Gramm story so fast their panelists no longer know which way they're facing. On Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes--who not too long ago tore Obama a new hole for his "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" comments--actually called the Texas senator's words "straight talk", and said the comments about being a nation of whiners were spot-on. Straight up, honest. I can't make this stuff up.

All this on the same day McCain, pressed by a reporter for his opinion on why Viagra is covered by insurance while birth control is not, confessed that it was something he hadn't really thought about. "It" being coverage of birth control, the content of bills he has voted down multiple times according to congressional record. The video clip of his hemming-and-hawing would make a La-Z-Boy recliner uncomfortable.

Being capable of voting against legislation when one has yet to give any thought to it is not an especially admirable quality. Yet still, it's more endearing than the idea that a major party candidate is so far out of touch with the basic needs of half our nation's population that he is left slack-jawed at the end of a simple health care question on birth control.

Wait. I thought Obama was supposed to be the elite one.

A supply-demand issue?

Sometimes the rhetoric gets so thick I can't take it any more. Then I remember that I have this nice little political blog.

The next time you hear anyone tell you the surge in oil prices (which are at a near-record high $143 a barrel, pushing gas prices to their current level of $4.25 a gallon) is merely "a supply-and-demand issue", demand them to supply you with any piece of credible information that documents a sharp increase in our nation's consumption of oil over the past 26 months. Assuming my information is correct, domestic oil consumption in 2007 averaged 20.7 billion barrels a day, a number similar to totals from the previous year. And projections suggest that consumption will drop by nearly 300,000 barrels a day in 2008. (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo)

So our nation's demand for oil doesn't seem to be sending prices through the roof. But clearly, something is. In April of 2006, oil averaged $70 a barrel, half of where it is today. The cost of a barrel of crude has shot up 100% in just over two years. So if the "experts" want to indirectly spread the blame to us consumers as well, then let's see some evidence.

I don't doubt the legitimacy of reports bemoaning our continually dwindling oil supplies. There are a number of reasons for that, which we know. And as we all remember from our 100-level Econ classes, demand increases as supply dwindles. But throwing one's hands up and citing basic economic principle for the current outrageous state of fossil fuels in this nation is an insult to all on the demand side of the chart, all those not benefitting from the record profits oil companies have enjoyed in recent months.

So when anyone hints that we are part of the problem, stop them right in their tracks and say, "you're only half right." It's a supply issue all right. But the minute they roll their eyes at the sight of anything non-hybrid in your driveway, feel free to bring up the point that high-level executives and politicians have more to do with this crisis than all of us combined. They sure have more to gain from it than we do. Then suggest they focus their outrage instead on the system that enables the monopolistic practices of the oil companies to dictate pump prices thereby allowing them to ignore that cost-controlling capitalistic mechanism every first-term Econ prof tosses out on day one: competition.

From Monroe to Menominee... The Nominee

The line traced the border of Joe Louis Arena and wound itself down the concrete banks of the Detroit River. We followed it past Hart Plaza, behind Cobo Hall and alongside the mighty Detroit Princess steamboat (see above photo), ten minutes after being instructed to find its end. Ultimately reaching the Renaissance Center's General Motors entrance, the quarter-mile pathway to an historic evening welcomed my son, my friend and myself along for the ride.

It was twenty minutes after six o'clock. The city's first public appearance by the nation's first African American nominee--in the arena named after Detroit's Brown Bomber--was still nearly two hours away. Doors would not be open for another ten minutes. Yet as we stood in line, watching it grow behind us, we had no idea whether we had arrived too late. Will we even make it in? we wondered. As word spread that Cobo would open its doors and allow overflow crowds to watch the speech on its jumbotron screen, one thought lingered in my mind.

Too bad Barack Obama didn't win Michigan, huh?

Well we made it through the doors, endured the secret service's version of airport security and found seats with a clear view of the stage. As unexpected as this had been just an hour earlier, it paled to our complete surprise when we saw governor Jennifer Granholm introduce Obama and his invited guest, former VP Albert Gore (pics below are courtesy of an acquaintence of mine, Tom Tomich).





Two historical figures, pointed in the same direction. One, a Nobel Prize and Oscar-winning activist who happened to win the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, endorsing the other, the first African American nominee for the nation's highest office. Gore spoke of Jack Kennedy and the importance of elections. Obama reiterated much of what he's said over the previous nine months, yet most around me were taking it in for the first time. And though I had heard much of it several times before, being in the same room as he ignites and unites tens of thousands of people with the notion that we can make this country of ours a better place, left me tingling. Hell, just three months ago I wouldn't have dreamed of a night like this!

Since becoming the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Obama has traversed our state three times now, bringing Jon Edwards' endorsement to Grand Rapids and Gore's to the D, and speaking in Flint earlier on this brisk June Monday. Given the importance of winning Michigan in November, we've not seen the last of the Illinois senator around these parts.

And now, for no reason at all...

On the one-year anniversary of The Video That Changed Politics Forever, another look at Amber Lee Ettinger.

Old? Why, he's a Maverick!

He uses a Chuck Berry number as his entrance music. He attacks opponents by attaching them to political figures from over a quarter century ago. His misspeakings include a public moment where he defined himself as a "liberal conservative candidate".

Yet John McCain's backers insist he's not too old; in fact, they say he's a maverick. Fine, then. That helps us paint a better picture at least. But questions still need to be answered. Like, are we talking two-door or four-door?



Or, what about the luxury decor option?



And lastly, if he's doing a Maverick Sprint into this general election campaign, who will his running mate? The more experienced Mustang, or a true agent of change--the Pinto?



One thing for sure. He's the genuine article. Otherwise, people would be labeling him as more of a comet.

The art of unapologizing

Hillary Clinton has been getting heat for her racially motivated comments regarding Senator Barack Obama's inability to gain the working-class white vote. Yesterday during an NBC interview with a pillow-tossing Brian Williams, she said she regrets the way other people misinterpreted her comments. The network has since accepted this as an apology.

"I'm sorry you feel that way" wasn't an apology when your kid sister said it. "I'm sorry you're a jerk" wasn't an apology when your kid brother said it. And "I regret how others have interpreted what I said" is not an apology when a disingenuous politician says it.

The fact that Clinton is incapable of taking responsibility for anything she's done or said--be it "confusing" kissing babies during a photo op in Bosnia with running under a hail of sniper fire; using these misrepresentations as the basis for a claim that she has passed the "commander-in-chief threshold"; or saying that her African American opponent is unable to win the white working-class vote--is reason enough to keep the New York Senator as far from the White House as possible. Let's prove as a species that we can learn at least that much from history.

Spinning Herself Dizzy

This morning's Fox & Friends Show diminished Jon Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama last night in Grand Rapids, going so far as to spin it into a win for Hillary Clinton (!) since Edwards' wife (who they hinted was a Hillary backer) wasn't with him.

But the priceless moment was when co-host Alisyn Camerota (see pic) accidentally hit the puree button. Within a matter of seconds, she wondered aloud why Edwards waited so long to announce his support (months after dropping out of the race and weeks after his home state's primary) and why he announced his support so soon (just days after saying he would pass on endorsing a candidate).

I love it when the those obstensibly impartial unintentionally reveal their true intentions. Goes to show that spinning in opposite directions can result in no spin at all.

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Clash of the Titans

As the nation moves forward in the process of nominating a Democratic Party candidate to run in November's general election, it's important to keep on the true path of... well, truth. The following points have been endlessly echoed through the media despite their inaccuracy. So here's my attempt at separating reality from rhetoric:

Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton got the double-digit win she needed in Pennsylvania to prove she's turned it around and has a chance.
Reality #1: HILLARY WON THE PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY BY 9% WHICH IS SINGLE DIGITS. Technically, 9.4%. And last time I was in a math class, you round .4 down, not up. Spin it all you want, but the difference between Clinton's and Obama's vote totals is less than 10%.
Reality #2: Hillary was expected to win this primary, by pretty much the final margin of victory. Yes, Obama closed the margin from initial polls that projected a Clinton win by anywhere from 18-26%... but the most recent polls have predicted a margin of anywhere from 6-12%. Oh, and despite the odd poll result, the majority have consistenly picked Clinton over Obama since they began polling in Pennsylvania.
Reality #3: You cannot use the results of a single primary to make the conclusion of a momentum shift. Remember Hillary's "big comeback" last month? The end result of the four primaries was a net gain of six delegates. The truth is, the primary race seems more provincial than sequential. Last December Obama's camp predicted the outcomes of each primary up to the convention, and all have come true with one or two exceptions (I remember Missouri being one, I forget what the other was). Chris Matthews read the list on his show a few months ago, and it went along the lines that have been the same factors in these recent primaries.
Reality #4: Hillary Clinton has no shot at overtaking Obama in the delegate count. Given the DNC's representative awarding of delegates, even a landslide win at this point won't generate enough delegates to close the gap. Same with the popular vote.

Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won the Michigan primary.
Reality: HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT WIN MICHIGAN. Trust me, I was there at the polling booth on primary day. My choices were Mrs. Clinton, "Uncommitted" or one of the Republican candidates. The leading democrats (Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson), in a move that would "undercut the validity of the contest", agreed to withdraw from Michigan's January 15 primary. not to campaign in the state and ignore the primary's results. All Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke DNC rules by moving its primary ahead of February 5. Yet she conveniently decided to keep her name on the ballot. At the time Hillary defended her actions by saying, "I personally did not think it made any difference, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, in this election they're having, it is not going to count for anything." Boosted by the ego gratification of winning an uncontested election, she has since claimed "victory" in the state and argued that the DNC seat delegates and count the election results "as is". She now says, "I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted." Yet no one in the media questions her on this flip-flop.

Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won the Florida primary.
Reality: Hillary Clinton finished first in a primary that was ruled invalid weeks before Election Day. Thousands of residents failed to turn out, knowing their votes would not be counted. And the candidates--Hillary included--agreed not to count the Florida results, and not to campaign in the state. But as was the case in Michigan, Hillary's manipulative instincts got the better of her as she flew in ostensibly for a "campaign dinner" the day before the primary, yet turned the tarmac into photo op as she emerged from the aircraft waving and smiling at every camera. This, to Mrs. Clinton, is her idea of "not campaigning". Whether she would have finished first had the primary never been ruled invalid is hard to say. In other words, she may have, but we'll never know. And any thought of a do-over in either state makes no sense, since it disregards the people who crossed over and voted Republican, not to mention Senator Edwards and Governor Richardson no longer being involved.

Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won Texas.
Reality: OBAMA WON TEXAS. Despite 100,000 fewer votes, Barack gained 99 delegates to Clinton's 94. Last time I checked, the party determines its nominee by delegate count. So Obama's five-delegate win in the Lone Star State should be acknowledged. Surprisingly, few outlets have even reported this fact much less acknowledged it. And all the while, Clinton supporters claim this "victory" as further proof that Obama cannot win in the "big states", with nary a sniff of rebuttal from the media. Shocking.

Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton wins the big states, such as California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Florida--something Barack Obama cannot do.
Reality: As we've just showed you, Hillary has no right to include Michigan and Florida, and Obama has more of a claim to Texas than she has. That's for starters. Now remove New York from the list since it's her home state (the same rationale used by Clinton to discredit Obamas big-state win in Illinois). That leaves Ohio and California. Ohio isn't as big as Texas, which as we've already said is Obama's to claim. So that leaves California--a significant win by Hillary, explained in part by her husband's incredible popularity in the state (as evidenced by convincing wins in '92 and '96). There's no disputing her win in the Golden State. But this one win doesn't and shouldn't label her as the "big-state" candidate. (And all experts assure us that whoever the Democratic nominee may be, they will defeat McCain in Cali.)

Rhetoric: Barack Obama is an elitist.
Reality: These claims are being leveled by the two remaining candidates, each of which could buy and sell Obama many times over, according to recently released tax returns. The Clintons claimed 10 times the income of the Obamas over the past seven years. And despite her most recent incarnation as a "woman of the people", she's the same former First Lady who, weeks before having the entire White House Travel Office employees fired, said, "You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinkin of her as a human being.". As for McCain--who hasn't seen a lobbyist he didn't like--he has also amassed millions upon millions more than the Illinois Senator, and has displayed an ignorance of basic domestic economics that recalls fellow out-of-touch Republican George H.W. Bush's cluelessness regarding the price of a gallon of milk.

Rhetoric: Barack Obama's comments in San Francisco bely his elitism.
Reality: In the same city, Hillary said the following during a fund-raising event: "Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." If Obama was showing his true colors with his remarks, what does this say about Clinton's? Her quote is teaming with imperialist condescension. Yet for some reason, it has not been mentioned by the "mainstream" media. Wile Obama's comment, like scripture, has been analyzed and scrutinized and ultimately taken out of context to up the shock factor.

Rhetoric: Barack Obama can't handle tough questions, as evidenced by the recent ABC debate.
Reality: Obama's people aren't complaining about the tough aspect of the questioning. They're complaining first about fairness (for example, one candidate's husband's press secretary being allowed to serve as moderator), and second about the chosen topics (for example, Barack's supposed unwillingness to wear an American flag lapel pin, as oppposed to anything related to Bin Laden).

Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton has an overall advantage in the popular vote.
Reality: She doesn't. In her recent speech Mrs. Clinton claims an advantage in the popular vote among all who have voted. Yet she continues to legitimize the invalid results in Michigan and Florida, where voters were told their primary wouldn't count, whereupon they either voted Republican or didn't vote at all. Once again, she is able to make this claim without being called out directly by the media. Gee big surprise.

Rhetoric: Barack Obama has been getting a "free pass" this election.
Reality: ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? He is getting it from ALL sides. From the Republicans, be it McCain's direct attacks or the right-wing media's unconditional support of Clinton. From his own fellow Democrats, where many of those considered the nucleus of his party are publicly tearing him apart. And even from the mainstream media--yes, the partisan left-wing media, whose ranks claim twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans--where both sides of the political spectrum, from the Fox News Channel to MSNBC, have confessed their love of the drama and strong ratings this prolonged race continues to deliver them. Which should explain those news shows that seem to be inventing topics about which to criticize Obama. And despite all the political waterboarding, each of these groups STILL think he deserves more attacks. It's horribly one-sided, yet the people who should notice are too busy taking part. The only people who aren't anti-Obama are those who have contributed to his campaign. Rarely have one million people felt so alone.

ABC: acronym for Agenda Benefitting Clinton

You know, this is a defining moment in our nation's history. And I too wonder with anticipation: are we at the point where the voting public is finally smart enough to recognize a steaming pile of shit when it's served to them--even when the hosts are calling it plum pudding?

Today, the day after ABC's chillingly biased Pennsylvania Primary Debate, our electronic powers-that-be spin away at the countless objections from the Obama campaign, weaving them into whining far-left cries of "you're too mean!" Yet the point of contention was not the hard line of questioning. It was the fact that only one candidate was subjected to them. A curiosity made downright scandalous by the fact that the debate was moderated by the other candidate's husband's press secretary.

Under the guise of a getting-at-the-tough-issues forum, this sham more closely resembled the Joseph McCarthy Senate hearings more than any exchange of ideas. A one-sided, accusation-rich witch hunt so partisan, Obama wouldn't have felt less comfortable in an interrogation room with a single lit light bulb swaying over his head.

I'm not part of the far left wing--I voted for Ronnie and W so I think that qualifies me as banned for life--so I take offense at the media's automatic categorization of anyone who didn't feel the debate was fair and accurate as such. Even now, long after the stage lights have faded in Philly, you still get the sense the media feels Obama is "getting off easy".

One one side, you have a woman who has hypnotically convinced the media to turn her lies--sorry, inaccurate recollections--about her trip to Bosnia qualifying her to be our Commander-In-Chief, into an old topic we need to get past. On the other, you have a man who in a week's time will enter his third month of scrutiny regarding a sermon given by his former minister. Not his spouse, nor his running mate, nor a family member. His former reverend. Getting off easy? The guy is getting it from all sides: from his own party, from the opposing party, and from left- and right-wing media alike.

You see, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the nomination. But clearly, some of you Democrats weren't paying attention like you should have been. Shame on you! It's amusing the degree of ferocity displayed by those in "the establishment" with a clear stake in the primaries, particularly those in the left-wing media (read: Fox News). On the Hannity & Combs entertainment program, John Kasich, the former Republican Senator from Ohio, literally yelled out an accusation that the Democratic Party "has it in" for the Clintons. I love it when people play the victim card for perhaps the single most vindictive couple in modern American politics. Not only was the comment without merit; it also came the night after Hasslemania, the ABC-TV Pennsylvania Debate, where Hillary was able to read responses directly from 3x5 cards, as if on cue.

And Sean Hannity, the Peter Griffin of political news, has used his "Hannity's America" show as a platform to engage in topics of hearsay bordering on gossip, the likes of which one would only expect to find in an Olympia Dukakis movie. If you were real quiet, you could hear hair stylists all over town yelling "shut your yaps" at their TVs.

I'm not even sure that ABC's debate-turned-debacle has satisfied the mainstream media. These are the same folks who collectively turned tail and ran hours after the New York Times story broke concerning John McCain's questionable relationship with an oil corporation lobbyist. They cited insufficient evidence of a sex scandal, ignoring, in their hasty exit, the fact that an absence of proof of physical sex doesn't make his unethically close relationship with a female lobbyist--one whose client happened to be on the business end of legislation to which McCain's involvement would be critical--any less newsworthy.

This is the same media who has allowed Senator Hillary Clinton and her former-President husband dictate the course of this entire Democratic Primary. It's as if they wait for her campaign releases and run with them like the gospel. Last night Ms. Clinton got away with dropping yet another F-bomb (F as in Farakhan) in another attempt to strike fear and trepidation into Pennsylvania's mostly white voting public by tapping into their deepest prejudicial insecurities. Standing on a stump and proclaiming "This is not a campaign about race" is win-win for her; it makes her look fair while planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of undecideds.

Could it really, really be that this man--this man who's taken all their punches, who time and again refuses to take the bait and sink to mud-slinging, even when handed the topic of Hillary's fabrication of her Bosnia "experience"--strikes fear in the eyes of the establishment? And by establishment I mean everyone from the Clintons to the McCains, from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to George "Step-On-All-Of-Us" and Charles Gibson?

I'm sure we'll learn more after Pennsylvania, when Hillary wins the popular vote by roughly 10% (as polls suggested months ago and even Obama's campaign has acknowledged) while nearly breaking even in the electorals.

I'm not saying... I'm just saying

Tid-bits too short to live as their own posts, yet need be said...

o Okay, so this McCain guy is really starting to creep me out. It's not the age thing, the pro-war thing, the Keating Five thing, the melanoma thing, the "lobbyists" he rolls with thing or even the I-still-need-to-be-educated-about-the-economy thing. It's his complete inability to flow with anything off a teleprompter. When he speaks he does that thing where he's looking toward you, somewhere in your general vacinity, but not directly at you. So it comes off like he's either perpetually aloof--not the ideal impression a 70-something presidential nominee should create--or fixated on the guy sneaking up behind you with a 12-inch cleaver in his hand. Either way, I don't think I can handle six more months of it.

o It's not that Hillary Clinton is cold and disingenuous. It's just... well, let's just say if you see her crying at a funeral, it's more likely the result of locking her keys in her car.

o While Clinton and McCain camps whine away about "unfair treatment", the media continues its open season on Obama--despite the slim pickins they have to work with. This past week, the Illinois senator was blasted for candidly referring to the response of the "typical white person" upon seeing African Americans on the street. Right-wing pundits used this as evidence of his latent hatred of white Americans. The mainstream outlets did what has become their wont: "innocently" float it out, ostensibly to "let you decide". Not acknowledging that the very credibility they give ridiculous stories like this one legitimizes them, thereby helping make up the public's mind for them. In all the coverage of this "atrocity", not once have the talking heads mentioned that one tiny piece of critical information... BARACK OBAMA IS WHITE! Bi-racial, technically, but he's as white as he is black. And if he's permitted to speak on behalf of the black man, so should he be allowed to speak for Caucasians. So tell them where they can stick their domo arigato, Mr. Mulato!

o Not only do the Clinton minions continually support her claim of "winning the big states" by including Florida and Michigan--states that just last October she proclaimed "do not count"--but they also falsely include Texas. According to msn.com numbers, Obama took 99 elected delegates from the Lone Star State, while Hillary gained just 94. In other words, despite her receiving 100,000 more votes (and a 51-47% advantage), the former First Lady lost where it mattered most: the almighty delegate. And we don't even know the extent of Obama's landslide win in the Texas caucus, where he currently leads 56-44%.

o All told, the Clintons falsely claim FIVE state primaries among their conquests: New Hampshire (widely accepted as her first "comeback" win, yet she and Obama actually tied with 9 delegates apiece); Nevada (despite Hillary's 51-45% advantage in the popular vote, Barack received 13 delegates to her 12); Florida (see above comment); Michigan (see above, noting that all other major candidates had removed their names from the Democratic side of the ballot); and Texas (Obama earned 5 more delegates in the state primary, and will also enjoy a sizeable caucus win once the final numbers are announced). So why do these false claims barely get a challenge from the media? Hmm???

o "BIG MO" UPDATE: It's April 3rd, and as of today Hillary's "I've still got it!" March primary comeback is as follows (according to the msn.com Election 2000 page):

Ohio = Clinton 75, Obama 66
Texas = Obama 99, Clinton 94
Texas caucus = Obama 56%, Clinton 44% (41% reporting; final results due very soon)
Vermont = Obama 9, Clinton 6
Rhode Island = Clinton 13, Obama 8

This collossal turnaround the media keep telling us about, officially amounts to two wins, three losses and a net gain of six delegates. And once the final numbers are in from the Texas caucus, even those may be gone.

o Every time I hear yet another outspoken Republican do the now-tired "Senator Osama...oops...I mean" bit, I can't help but wonder how their president justifies having a commander of American troops in Iraq by the name of General Betray Us.
Oops...I mean...

o Word is out about a new network reality show in the works. It involves regular people just like you and me, yet faced with a responsibility one wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. It's called "The Next Super Delegate"! You think Donald Trump is intimidating? Wait till you endure the terror of a 3:00 a.m. call--coming from a former President's red phone! Being on the business end of relentless verbal tirades vile enough to make Chef Ramsay blush, contestants test the limits of human endurance as they attempt to do the impossible: REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! It's the mother of all fear factors! And too much for me to bear. All things being the same, I'll stick to my bowl of crickets and eyeballs please.

For the want of a *

For the winners--the ones on the top looking down--an asterisk is the kiss of death. Ask baseball's new home run king, who may as well legally change his last name to Bonds*. Or President George W. Bush*, indelibly linked to an election won in court.

While cute as a snowflake in appearance, this little star belies scrutiny, demanding further explanation, forever challenging any achievement to which it is affixed. Which explains why those not on top cling to its five tiny tenticles (or six, depending on the manufacturer of your computer) as if dangling from a precipice.

Okay, that's a bit dramatic. Suffice to say, a tiny whiff of foul air can cause the defeated to question the validity of any competition, or the legitimacy of its victor. An asterisk provides them with an ambiguous photo-finish of sorts, keeping ajar the door to eternal speculation. Could there have been wrong-doing? Horseplay? Scull-duggery? There's always scull-duggery, right? The fish never get smaller. And soon, enough uncertainty is cast that the recognized champion can never truly be seen as the real champion.

If the Democratic Party fails to pull together shotgun primary elections in Florida and Michigan, candidate Hillary Clinton--lacking elected delegates, states won and popular vote totals--will turn her attention to this most prickly of punctuation marks. It's her her exit music, her one ticket out. A way for her to lose without really being defeated and keep her own drum beating well into the next decade. Should this battle end short of the convention, Hillary will show up in Denver wearing her * like a hound's tooth pants suit. And as she stands at the podium and exclaims, "I hereby give my unconditional support to our party's nominee, Barack Obama*!"--we all will learn what an asterisk sounds like.

You won't see a * in the Illinois senator's name. Not immediately, at least. But somewhere in her speech, perhaps under the thin veil of "humor" she uses so prolifically (I put it in quotes because it resembles bitter, biting sarcasm more than anything else) you will hear the *. Maybe it will be a simple "even though I won two big states we disqualified" or "despite my attempts to have the voices of the people heard in Florida..." Or something even less subtle. This tiny little phrase will float out of her mouth, satisfying the hordes of female supporters and causing the eager media to jot down her every next thought as the new truth, so they can spread her spin epidemically through every outlet.

I am a Michigan resident. I was not allowed to cast my vote for the person I wanted as my president. Last fall, the state's democratic party moved up its primary date in clear violation of DNC rules. The party's braintrust (boy oh boy am I taking liberties there) decided to strip the state's delegates and unseat them for the Denver convention. The national party candidates--Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc.--all ostensibly agreed to abide by the DNC's decision and not campaign in the state nor participate in its primary. Yet for some reason, while every other major candidate took their names off the ballot, the former First Lady didn't touch hers--"Oops, was I supposed to do that?"

So, my choices on the ballot were Hillary, the line marked "Uncommitted", or one of the Republican candidates--most notably John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Being that I have been an Obama supporter (gee, can you tell?) since last December, I had planned to vote for one of the GOP candidates. I think it was going to be Huckabee. Mitt had the private sector experience, as he would let anyone waiting for an elevator know. But he had this sleaziness to him that just wasn't right. I let intuition guide most of my initial impressions. McCain is a trigger-happy man in his 70s in need of anger management. And it's just... let's just say it's not a good trifecta. Huckabee, while the thought of this Arkansas gubernatorial pipeline to the Oval Office thing makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, is nonetheless a governor. So he's had to run a state, which is an important though not essential step. He is principled, in fact no one really had taken issue with his character.

He's just, you know, Mike Huckabee. I like having a clean dashboard. I like ceiling white paint. I like new socks and a freshly edged driveway and a recharged cell phone battery with four bars. I'm just not excited about it. These things don't stir me. Neither does this election season's version of Dr. Phil.

So I had sufficiently practiced holding my breath for the trip to the ballot box... and then, THE DAY BEFORE THE PRIMARY, I decided to investigate this "uncommitted" thing further. And a tiny supplemental page on the Michigan party website nearly put me into shock.

Apparrently, the law stated that, should a decision be made subsequently to seat the delegates at the convention, they would be free to vote for whomever they choose... PROVIDED that 15% of the people choose "uncommitted" on the ballot. Otherwise, if "uncommitted" were to garner less than 15%, the delegates, if seated, would be required to vote for the candidate who won the primary. And gee, what do you know, there was one major candidate who--oops!--forgot to remove their name. So Hillary would get them all, will of the people be damned.

Now do I think Hillary Clinton intentionally left her name on the ballot to take advantage of this little-known stipulation? Um, hell yes. The same way she knew what she was doing when she flew to Florida the day before their primary for a big smiley photo-op on the airport tarmac while on her way to plan her "victory party" the following night. (Where's that askteris when you need it?)

So I phoned, emailed and yelled out my window to all the Michigan democrats planning on voting Republican, to vote "uncommitted" instead. No one knew it was something other than throwing your vote away. No one knew it really mattered. It was the "anti-Hillary" vote that really counted. So as it turned out, "uncommitted" received 40% of the vote. Hillary received 55%, but it didn't matter. She couldn't steal the state's delegates.

But she hasn't stopped trying. All year long--in speeches, on her web site, even spinning some networks into believing it too--she has shamelessly claimed victory in both states. And now, despite her comments last October that "Michigan and Florida do not count", she has done an about-face, a show of pure desperation, and is trying a last-gasp delegate grab. The problem is, there is NO WAY to re-do the primaries in any way that can be construed as fair. (I'll explain later... in fact, it will be the topic of my next post, so stay tuned.)

Even though it jeopardizes my candidate's chances of winning the nomination, I hope I get to vote again, and that it counts this time. First, because it's my right as an American, and I do take that right seriously. Second, becausI am currently one of FOUR people in the entire state of Miichigan with an Obama sticker in my car. I like the political season, the hype, the campaign stops, etc. Particulary if I have a candidate I like. And third, because if we don't have a primary that counts, and if Florida doesn't count, then the results of the national primaries will not be beyond dispute.

Then Hillary would not have really lost, and Obama would not have really won. Oops, I mean Obama*.

If this is a turnaround, why are we still pointed in the same direction?

Okay, last time I checked, Democratic Party nominees are chosen based on their delegate count. Not how many states they've won, or which ones, or even the popular vote. That being said, as of March 13 here are the accurate delegate counts in the aftermath of The Big Momentum Shift:

Rhode Island: Clinton +5 (13-8)
Vermont: Obama +3 (9-6)
Ohio: Clinton +9 (75-66)
Texas: EVEN (92-92)
Texas caucases: Obama leads 56-44% (41% reporting), results due 3/31
Mississippi: Obama +5 (19-14)

So... in the five primaries since Obama's surge of 11 straight wins, the point where the media has announced Hillary Clinton as roaring back and officially in possession of the "Big Mo", the former First Lady has seen a net gain of six delegates. And she may lose that when the Texas caucus results are finalized.

In the words of former rapper Deion Sanders, "don't call it a comeback".

The Difference Makes All The Difference

Remember "Super Tuesday"? The supposed turning point of the Democratic presidential race? Hardly. How bout "Comeback Tuesday" last week, when Hillary Clinton got up off the mat, took off the gloves (or did she put them on? even the sports metaphors escape me sometimes) and sent Barack Obama to crushing defeats in the two huge states of Ohio and Texas? Hmmmmm. I'm going to have to say, no. The superlatives were flying like confetti, yet now that the political dust has settled, anyone who cares to look at the results can see what really happened: Hillary Clinton didn't gain enough delegates to make up for Obama's win in Idaho.

Idaho?

When it comes to states, it's not how many delegates a candidate has that matters in the new math of the Democratic primary season. It's how many more delegates you have than your opponent. Sure, wins in states like California, New York and Ohio are impressive--and will surely look good on your resume come convention time--but not if you don't walk off with the lion's share of delegates.

Obama's finely tuned political machine has known this from the outset. So when will the former First Lady learn that size doesn't matter?

Well, it's clear the news hasn't even reached the Clinton doublespeakers. Earlier tonight on CNN, longtime Clinton family apologist James Carville dismissed with a laugh the point that Obama has won more than twice the states (26) that Hillary has (11), saying, "How many Idahos equal one Ohio?" Truth be told, it's the other way around, since Idaho equals a 12-delegate advantage for Obama against Clinton's gain of 9 in Ohio.

Still laughing, Jimmy? Either Mr. Carville is as dumb as he looks, or he's attempting to spread the perception that some states are more important than others. Whatever the motivation may be, he can't hide the ill-focused strategy he's trying to defend. His candidate may lie, but the numbers don't.

Savant that I am, I couldn't help but take a look at the real scoreboard, the numbers that really, really count: the delegate differentials. These are the real indicators--though clearly not as colorful as the homespun 47-year-old short-order cook in Spokane, or the picket-toothed white supremecist from Southern Ohio. The media delights in lighting up U.S. maps, discussing daily rhetoric with expert panels and "talking to the people". Yet scientifically speaking, it's the political equivalent of summoning Puxatawney Phil out of his hole. Wake up, the real story is right under your nose. (The nose of the collective media, not Puxatawney Phil.)

There's a reason why Obama won Nevada's delegate count, 13-12, despite "losing" the state on primary night. There's a reason, while the press was boldly hailing Mrs. Clinton's "huge" win in New Hampshire, that Mr. Obama had actually tied her, each gaining nine delegates. It's the same reason why, as we sit here with 10 domestic primaries remaining in the march to Denver, Hillary has effectively won just 11 states, while Barack has bested her delegate total in 26 (with three states even). He's won more than half of the United States; she's won about one fifth of them.

It's also the very likely explanation should the Voice Of Hope win Mississippi tomorrow with a double-digit delegate advantage. Some other fascinating points I discovered, simply by doing what the media refuses to do... look at the race in terms of DELEGATE DIFFERENTIALS:

> Barack Obama's lead is reportedly slim, with the difference in delegates being anywhere from 139 (1336-1227 per NBC) to 141 (1345-1204 per the yahoo dashboard). Yet in reality, we're getting close to magic-number time. A closer inspection of the delegate differentials tells us that the Clinton regime will need to average a 14-delegate gain in each remaining primary in order to overtake Obama. Yet, of the 40 contests held so far (not counting the USVI), less than a third of them (13) resulted in a delegate difference of 13 or higher. And only three--Arkansas, California and New York--were won by Clinton.

So in other words, with 10 state primaries left to go, if Hillary intends to reach Denver with a lead in total elected delegates, she has to do 10 times in a row what she has done just 3 times in the 40 states thus far. No tall tale can mask such a tall order.

> There are seven states that were won by a differential of at least 20 delegates. Five of those seven were won by Obama (Illinois, Georgia, Washington, Virginia and Minnesota). In fact, two of the three states that saw a 40-or-greater differential were Obama wins. So much for the "can't win the big one" angle.

> And the largest delegate differential of all? Obama's 54-delegate rout in his home state of Illinois, edging out Hillary's delegrabs in home states both genuine (19, Arkansas) and artificial (45, New York). So, being that the state most likely to go Hillary's way (Pennsylvania, Michigan & Florida) happens to be the largest remaining primary, equalling her highest margin of victory (45), while unlikely to say the least, would still leave her nearly 100 delegates behind Obama. And as we've already seen in the Idaho-beats-Ohio, Third Millenium world of the DNP, the Illinois senator could win Mississippi tomorrow by enough delegates to offset a close defeat next month in the Quaker state.

> Should the Democratic Party cave like a spoiled brat's parent and forgive Michigan and Florida for violating party policy, and should these two large states become "in play", to the delight of Bill & Hill... well, in the words of Todd Rundgren, it wouldn't really make any difference. A 3/7 Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Michigan shows the candidates in a virtual dead heat, each preferred by 41% of respondents. Assuming Camp Clinton doesn't hoodwink officials into validating the initial results or something similarly ridiculous (not to mention unconstitutional), Michigan will pretty much end up even. That leaves Florida, a state large enough to turn heads with a substantial win.

Problem is, unless it's Clinton's home state, Obama's home state or California, even a landslide win won't appear to garner more than 30, maybe 40 if it's a true blowout (and Obama's already shown he'll likely avoid a rout, as he gained a fair share last time without the benefit of a single campaign stop).

He'll keep Pennsylvania close (within 60-40), minimizing delegate damage. And by the time we get to Puerto Rico, we'll probably be roughly where we are now. Bracing ourselves while Hillary Clinton and her husband tirelessly woo super delegates.

Our Fearless (and clueless) Leader

A few lines from George W Bush's two appearances last month on Fox News Sunday, giving us an unusual glimpse into the mind of this man (giving us about the same feeling as a glimpse of our parents "doing it"). Here now are the words of the man authorized to push "The Button":

“I think the experts would tell you we are not in recession. And they would tell you that there is a lot of uncertainty.”

"History takes a long time for us to reach. And there is no such thing as short-term history."

“Any president can make the decisions of how many troops we need (in Iraq). I mean, I could have increased troops or decreased troops in Korea, and we had a long-term security agreement… and so I — some of these arguments, I view, are — they just need to be — the people making these arguments need to think through exactly what they are saying.”

“I would say that they want to be very careful that we don't overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans. And I understand that, a lot.”

“listen, I no more want to trample the civil liberties of the American people than anybody else does.”

“History will be the judge of an administration… It's going to take a long time to figure it out and so this is all — I could give you a whole, I could give you reams of books about criticisms of my administration. I understand this.”

And last but not least, though the decision process was exhaustive, my personal favorite...

"It's very hard to write the future history of America before the current history hasn't been fully written."

More better words weren't never have been spoken.

The Effect of Sniffing Too Much Ditto Paper

It's sad enough for the first family of dirty politics, that they happen to be competing against Barack Obama, a man so apparently squeaky-clean that all they could scrape together was an alleged incident of plagiarism. Plagiarism? They stuck Capone with tax evasion, but at least they got him locked up. Besides, this charge was made all the more entertaining in that it came from a woman that claimed authorship of a book she didn't write (the Grammy-winning "It Takes A Village").

Nonetheless, in terms of impact, it was an "A-Ha!" moment that couldn't have been less riveting if it were, "A-Ha! That's the bank teller's pen!" or "A-Ha! The eggshell finish does work nicely in the guest bedroom!". Somewhere along the way it had been divulged that the line in question was written by Obama's campaign manager, who penned it for a congressional colleague's 2006 election. But that wouldn't keep the former first lady from missing yet another opportunity to take yet another ironic and well-worn turn toward the unoriginal.

She's trying. Like a Hollywood starlett after signing the big money-grab contract, trying to act her way out of a lousy script, Hillary Clinton is attempting to be the hip/cool female counterpart to Barack Obama and capture a larger chunk of the fresh new 20-something voter population.

First was her response to the Illinois senator's inspirational, relevent and widely popular "Yes We Can" video. Ms. Clinton released a me-too YouTube follow-up effort, a "We Are The World" ensemble piece as awkward in its construction as it was in its execution. The contrived piece left viewers with a warmed-over, "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" vibe, and an inescapably embarrassed feeling akin to watching your father dance techno.

Then came The Punchline. That scud missle she dropped upon the single biggest cable television audience of 2008, during their most recent debate. If the video was wrong, this was wrong on wrong with a side of wrong.

The hackneyed pasttime Hilary chose was something known as the "Debate Zinger". A sound byte one can own for the duration of his or her campaign, as Reagan enjoyed with his "There you go again" critique of then President Carter. Or GHW Bush's "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" proclamation, one he ultimately betrayed after winning the 1992 election. I'd say the best-delivered "Zinger" was the verbal sword the late senator Lloyd Bentzen drew to lance little Danny Quayle in 1998. The sitting Veep even teed it up for Bentzen, who did to the set-up for his "You're no Jack Kennedy" bomb what Manny Ramirez does to an 80mph change-up: take it yard.

This new line, Hillary envisioned, would be the video clip of the campaign, and as Sen. Obama responded to Brian Williams' question, she stood there with her pearly-white overbite aglow. She couldn't wait to drop it on Barack, on MSNBC and much of the Western Hemisphere. And when her moment came, she let her well-rehearsed ad-lib flow: "Using other people's words isn't 'Change you can belive in.' It's 'Change you can Xerox.'"

"Change you can Xerox"?

Obama shook his head at the former First Lady, who seems to lower the bar as much as a limbo artist. The audience would have been cricket-chirp silent were it not for a few hundred boos echoing through the auditorium. Even those in her section sat open-mouthed and stunned, making better fly-catchers than supporters.

Okay, forget that it was entirely inappropriate. Forget that it was dirty politics and a cheap attempt at a sound bite. Forget all that. Xerox?!? Weren't they a duplication company back before the computer chip? Has anyone used that reference since the 1970s?

Honestly. Has anyone even heard the name Xerox since the Carter-Ford debates? What in the world wide web was Hillary thinking? Short of rolling a mimeograph machine out onto the stage, she couldn't have tried to be more out of touch with today's pop culture. A culture watching her stand-up routine falter while downloading network sit-coms onto their iPhones.

Even with all that, at least it could have been funny. But she flat-out bombed. I had to explain what Xerox was to my teenage son. Here's a thought Hill, how bout "Change you can download?"? "Change you can drag-and-drop"? "Change you can import"? Or, to appeal to the broader 1.0 crowd, "Change you can cut and paste"? This was the post-Internet sequel to Pappa Bush not knowing the price of a gallon of milk. A "floppy disk" joke would have vaulted her into the '90s, for the love of God.

Okay, the Zinger was dead on arrival. So as a follow-up, Hilary reached into her holster and came out a-shootin' with, of all things, her recent Saturday Night Live drop. She referenced a humorous debate sketch in which the Obama character was faced with such grueling questions as, "Are you comfortable? Can I get you some coffee or a pillow?" Yet being that the show is watched every week by an audience safely reaching the dozens, it was lost on the vast majority of blue-collar Ohioans, many of which work early shifts and therefore are in bed long before the late-night variety show airs.

Campaign Co-Presidency is about as healthy as a face-down Jane Doe floating slowly along the Potomac. Not only has Hillary Clinton trusted the abilities of "her people" in Camp Clinton--despite their Tysonesque ability to burn effortlessly through tens of millions of campaign dollars. But she has put her fate in the hands of a writing staff that, given the material they have cranked out so far, might be best served drafting her political epitaph.

"Change you can Xerox"? They should have written her a few Nixon jokes while they were at it.

"I Promise You The Most Ethical Blog EVER" (...the first of many broken promises)

Everybody remembers their first beer. The first time they tried cigarettes. That first adult-rated movie. But do we remember that first moment we got sucked into the vortex that is American politics? It's just as addictive, every bit the personality-altering vice that tears friends and families apart. And in the end, it leaves you far worse for the experience. It's like a drug, but without the high.

So I was minding my own business, creating television commercials, writing web site copy, posting on my sports blog and helping my autistic teenager cope with middle school. Then I overheard a CNN report on some element of the upcoming primaries. And I found myself scribbling down an opinion on a sheet of lined paper, typing blank notes on my desktop, finding message boards to blow out unproductive viewpoints to an electronic audience of anonymous "you suck!" responses (sheesh, like I didn't know that already). I had to be honest with myself: it's time I create a forum on the off chance someone may find merit in my words. Even if that someone is merely myself.

Too much is going on in this already-historic race for the White House, too many points are being missed here and someone needs to voice them. So as of today I've officially turned off my 'mute' button. Move over, Mrs. Clinton. I think I found my voice, too! (I'm even welling up as I type this...)

I hope you enjoy my words, and I hope I don't offend. But I'm sure that someone out there is bound to take issue with one of my takes. Please remember, it's only politics. Nothing more. And even the best candidate out there will soon end up a corrupt, waffling, fillibustering, filandering, hypocritical tax-and-spend liberal commie neo-fascist conservative who doesn't care about our nation's safety, environment, global warming, stem-cell research, the sanctity of life enough to get out of our reproductive systems and save our planet, end the war, create jobs and just plain care about me.

Okay, there. I think I touched on everything.