Weighing in: Bill Richardson and Obama V. Clinton

Bill Richardson dropped out today. I liked him, but he didn't stand a chance in a field with 3 people considered Rock Stars by the rest of the country. And, to be fair, one of his strong points was that he was a Governor with a long resume of experience in Washington. This election race has already proven those qualifications unnecessary. His slip when asked if being a homosexual was a choice, and his answer was "I'm not a doctor" placed the final nail in his political coffin. Almost everyone recognized it was a mistake, but to beat Clinton, Obama and Edwards, he could not afford mistakes.

On to the remaining contenders:

Edwards is an interesting case. He's a great candidate, stands for all the right issues. But in at a time when simply not being a Republican is a huge positive, he has one glaring flaw: He's not the first of anything. He's not going to be the first woman, he's not going to be the first president of color.

If Edwards gets the nomination by sweeping on the 5th, I'll write about him a lot more. He's still a great candidate. But for now, he isn't going to get many bytes dedicated to his candidacy on this website. It is not personal - this blog (ie, me) doesn't support any candidate in particular. Each has their pros and cons, all of them are better than the other side's candidates, and I believe, with the exception of probably Huckabee, none of them will lose to a Republican candidate.

So without further ado, here is a brief analysis of Obama v. Clinton:

Neither one is perfect, but neither is as flawed as their die hard supports will lead you to believe. I'll start with Hillary, as she is the most hated of the group.

Hillary Clinton is outstanding politically. Outstanding. I'd say she's even better than her husband with the exception of his Obama-like Charisma. Hillary does not make mistakes. And in a world where making just a few mistakes can be the difference between success and failure, this is an amazing accomplishment. Always remember that politics is just that. Politics. Imagine you have a job that requires a skilled typist, and you find a person who can type 200 words a minute with no errors. She's less likable than the other candidates for the job, but she's still really, really good at it. Even if you like Edwards or Obama more, if she ends up being the candidate, you should still be excited, because you're getting a candidate that does not make mistakes.

For that same reason, however, she's flawed. To get political work done, you're automatically doing two things. First, you're forced to acknowledge and respond to the needs of the other side. For politics to work, you need some sort of balance. Already, Hillary loses points, because she can't be as liberal as we all wish she were. Now, whether she is genuinely liberal or not is not the issue. She can't acknowledge the need for gay marriages, whether she believes in them or not, because she can't justify that belief with Republicans. Civil Unions she can. She can't say she plans on taking all of the troops out of Iraq because she can't justify that belief with the 30% of people that still think it was a good idea. Pulling the majority of the troops out, she can. For her to keep this political advantage (by that I mean, the fact that she's better at it than everyone else) she has to keep the balance between what we want (the Democratic party) and what she can justify to the right. If you're liberal, it's hard to stomach this. If you're a Republican, just because she can justify it doesn't mean you'll care or bite - so she isn't really more liked for this by the right, and liked less by the left. But she still needs to maintain this balance to keep the advantage.

(Video posted for no reason. But give me 5 stars, okay?)

Second, the fact that she doesn't make mistakes is one of the reasons many people dislike her. She appears fake, disingenuous. Obama does not. Edwards does not. This immediately makes her less likable. I don't have much to say on this, other than I want you to remember that George Bush was elected for being likable, and we saw how that turned out. Likability is not the best criteria. Though that is not to say it isn't important. How likable she is will eventually dictate at least a little of what she will be able to get done once in office. Similarly, by not being likable, if she ever does make a mistake her popularity will drop much faster than Obama's would if he made the same mistake, because it's easier to forget negative things about people we like.

Issues about her past should, in my opinion, be taken with a grain of salt. I don't expect anyone on either side, with the exception of Giuliani, to be corrupt upon taking office. I could care less if a candidate had money in oil companies, etc., unless I thought it would affect their job as president, which in this case I don't. Bush was corrupt, Cheney - obviously. These candidates, both Democratic and Republican alike, are not those two.

And for those that actually have a problem with her sticking with her husband after Lewinsky (I'm talking to you, racist commenters that post on AOL blogs), you need to get over it. Funny that the people who have the biggest problem with it seem to be voting for Giuliani. Is it necessary to bring up the kind of crap he's pulled?

So Hillary Clinton is a great candidate. Not perfect, but incredibly skilled with the potential to do great things. Does that mean she will? Not necessarily. To use a baseball analogy, not all prospects pan out as expected, but that's no reason to give up on them before they reach the Bigs.

Now, Barack Obama also has that much potential. Let's start with responding to his strengths:

First, he's likable, charismatic, a great speaker - he gives the impression of being a leader, something many of us noticed when he spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Whatever people say about his abilities because of his short time in office is bunk. Obama knows what he's doing. He's not as polished as Hillary, no, but again, it's hard to be. Still, his likability allows most of us to ignore his mistakes, and so he is at far less risk of unexpectedly dropping in popularity because of a speech blunder.

Similarly, the guy is good. Very good. Politics often takes some degree of manipulation - not for a vindictive reason, but because it's necessary to sway people to your side. Obama doesn't need that manipulation. He's believable. He explains his points clearly and wins over his opponents simply because they can see the truth in his words. And he's liberal, inarguably. So that's a plus.

As for his flaws - they, too, are questionable. Not enough experience? Please. Experience seems to have a fairly low correlation with abilities. If any of you have worked for a boss, chances are you know this to be true. Cheney had a lot of experience. 'Nuff said.

On the flipside, he does make mistakes, and he lacks some of the clout of Clinton. But again, he has the charisma and the knowledge to get better. While there are no guarantees he can make this adjustment, he's shown no reason to believe he doesn't have the ability. Consider where he has come in 2 years. Part of politics is getting public support, and there is no question that Barack Obama can garner more public support than any of the other current presidential candidates.

That makes him an incredible force.

So, in my opinion, the question comes down to one thing: Who can win? And the answer is: Both of them. The Republican candidates suck. They're really, really bad. They're the "Dude Where's My Car" of Presidential politics. The only exception would be Huckabee vs. Clinton. In that one instance, I think Huckabee would be difficult to beat. Otherwise, they're both going to beat any other candidate the Republicans have to offer (especially with Wesley Clark as Vice President, yeah?) . True, Clinton is HATED by Republicans. For a lot of people, they worry that she will lose because there will be a high Republican turn out just to defeat her. I have three responses to this: First, I think she's a strong enough candidate that she'll still win. Second, don't forget that Obama's best demographic is young voters - and I'm not convinced they're going to be running the polls any differently than any other year. Finally, I don't know about you, but I personally like something more when it pisses off Republicans.

Once more, however, if you are a woman, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is also a woman is a bad idea. Similarly, voting for Obama because he is black is equally bad. Remember, NeoConservatives vote for their candidates based on their religion. Let's not be like them.

You can, however, be excited that those two candidates will be the first of something. The first black president OR the first woman. That's exciting. But if you vote for Hillary because she's female, you're basically saying: "I'm not voting for Obama because I'm not black, I'm female." You are WELCOME to like her, and you may even like her because she is female, but that should not be WHY you're voting for her. Same goes for Barack.

So they can both win, and they are both great candidates. So who should you vote for?

Well... Both of them. If you have opinions one way or the other, I encourage you to make your pick at the primaries. There is nothing wrong with a preference for a candidate, and if you have one, I hope you vote for them in the Primary in your state. But be happy you have these candidates to choose from and be excited even if the candidate you'd prefer does not end up as the Democratic pick. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are phenomenal candidates, and though you may like one over the others, I'd take those three over Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani any day.

Go Democrats, 2008.

MORTAL KOMBAT!!! The Election Version

No, this is not a joke. Kill your political rivals with the new Kung Fu Election game.

Battle as:

Hillary Clinton -



John McCain -



Barack Obama -



Mitt Romney -



John Edwards -



Mike Huckabee -



Bill Richardson -



And Rudy Giuliani -


Pick your candidate, battle the rest to the death. Get on it.

Let's Hold Hands...

...And pray that anyone but Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa.

I'm accepting guesses on what happens after the results today:

- Two days from now, I expect Fred Thompson to bow out.
- Ron Paul will stay in, though he will lose a little bit of support. He will quit immediately and angrily after New Hampshire.
- Mitt Romney will win in Iowa. He will place third in New Hampshire but call the results "Bologna"
- McCain will place third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire.
- Huckabee will get second in Iowa and, God willing, bow out immediately.
- Duncan Hunter will quit the race today, immediately after the results, and he will hold a press conference endorsing McCain.
- Biden will quit the race tomorrow. Mike Gravel will stay in, though no one knows why.
- Kucinich will quit the race immediately after New Hampshire. Chris Dodd will leave two days later.

Those are my guesses.

Republican Opportunists

Benazir Bhutto, leader of the opposition group to the Pakistani Government and as important a figure to Pakistan as Bill Clinton is to the US, gets assassinated. What do you think would be the appropriate response from a Republican Presidential Candidate?

Is it:

a) Share a moment of silence and prayer for Bhutto, her family, her supporters who died in the suicide attack and the dangerous situation in Pakistan.
b) Argue that terrorism needs to be stopped in Pakistan as a way to bolster his image of a terrorism fighter (in order to get more votes from the people who pay attention to that).
c) Explain why a fence is important to stop the Mexicans from getting in our country.
d) Have sex with young boys in an airport bathroom.

If you picked D, you're wrong, but at least you have a good sense of humor. If you picked B, you're still wrong! Well, I'm sure one of them did, but that's not the subject of this post. If you picked C, you're right! Yes, Governor Mike Huckabee decided to compare the murder of a top political figure in Pakistan to the need for a border fence to keep the Mexicans out.

Congratulations Mike Huckabee! You are officially the Librocrat.com Douchebag of the week!

McCain Calls Clinton a "Bitch"...

...Indirectly, by allowing a stupid question by a Republican supporter and then referring to Hillary Clinton by name.

Grow some balls old man. If someone calls one of your opponents a "bitch" you stand up for her even if you are trying to beat her. And Republicans: Get smarter, because at this point it's difficult for me to think less of you.

"Excuse me, excuse me, Mr. McCain? Quick follow up to the 'bitch' question posed by my distinguished colleague. If Barack Obama ends up with the nomination, how do we beat the n--?"
- Realistic hypothetical Republican.

Tom Tancredo: Terrorism Stopper

Great retard? Or Greatest retard?

Thank you, Tom. Thank you for informing me that without your helpful hand, I may die. I'm glad I know that now so that when you don't get elected, I can fill out my will.

You make the entire Republican party look like a bunch of raving lunatics, and I can honestly say: Keep up the good work.

(I was thinking of naming this post Tom the Terrorism Hunter and doing a little Cartman jingle like "I am the Tom, the Big Bad Tom of the Terrorists." But I didn't. Thank me later)

Good. I didn't really want you anyway

And we thought we had already elected an idiot.

Fred Thompson decides to tell a Fox News correspondent that, in essence, he doesn't expect to be president.

Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: "And so do I."

As some Thompson aides looked bemused and others cringed, a taken-aback Mr Cameron, Fox's chief political correspondent, exclaimed: "You can't do that kind of stuff!"

Can I get a round of applause?

I like how the Fox correspondent was genuinely upset, since his stupid channel decided to basically throw all of their support behind the actor/politician.

Full Story here.

Someone should bring this sign to all Republican debates

This is from www.xkcd.com

Romney - You stupid asshole

Listen Mitt,

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I wouldn't support you if you were a Democrat, but here's a tip: When you're trying to win an election, holding up a "No to Obama Osama and Chelsea's Moma" sign is a really, really, really fucking stupid thing to do. I'm going to pretend it didn't happen, and, instead, I'm going to imagine that you grabbed the sign away and beat that woman over the head with it.

Okay, so you want to believe that Jesus visited the US and the Garden of Eden is somewhere in Missouri. That's fine. Knock yourself out. I'm not going to make any references to Scientology or anything. I promise. But let's go ahead and pretend that the fascism in your religion doesn't make you a bigot too. The next time you want want support from some racist idiot in South Carolina, you may as well go all out and kick puppies. I'm serious. Their votes matter too. There are like... 6 or 7 puppy kicking Republicans that would REALLY be impressed if you just took that baby dog and drop kicked it like 50 yards.

Idiot.

Forgotten Candidates

Sometimes I don't root for the underdog. But with Ron Paul about to be on the Daily Show (or was on the daily show, if you're on the east coast), I was thinking about the underdog candidates in this year's presidential election. The Republicans have Paul, who has been making a killing online - if not in actual polls - ironically because he is a socially liberal Republican (are these still the 30% of individuals who like Bush?). Democrats have Bill Richardson, and possibly Chris Dodd and Kucinich. Should we count these people out because they are far behind? In fact, maybe we should, since (at least for Democrats) there seems little possibility that John Edwards, Barack Obama, AND Hillary Clinton all lose poll numbers with such a fervor that one of the 4th or lower candidates rises to the top. Maybe if it were only two... And that's too bad, because I like Richardson. And the rest of them for that matter.

But it still seems a little early for MSNBC and CNN to completely ignore the other candidates except for some post-game interviews. After it is over, don't talk about how well Clinton, Obama and Edwards did. Talk about how they all did. Be inclusive. We watched the debate, and we will see the video of it afterwards on YouTube or read about it on blogs - but I want to know how everyone did, and how the critics/pundits thought about all the candidates. Wait until people start dropping out (I'm looking at you, Jim Gilmore) before focusing on the top. You have over a year.

"And the stone that sits on the very top of the mountain's mighty face - Does it think it's more important than the stones that form the base?"
- "Through Heavan's Eyes" - Price of Egypt

Romney a Douchebag?

Mitt Romney, in an effort to appeal to conservatives Republicans Philanthropists, has decided to donate his entire presidential salary to charity - showing once and for all that Mitt Romney has a shitload of money more money in tax breaks than he would make as president perfect Republican presidential credentials. Yep, he's just like your average Joe. I can hear his next talking point now:

Hello Conservatives. I am just like you. I don't use big words like "Polysyllabic" and "Sesquipedalian," and I certainly don't exacerbate my quandaries exponentially similar to that of the alternative candidates.

Sounds like a winner, Mitt.

Ron Paul - The Man, The Myth, The Cryptkeeper

This is an open forum for all those who support Ron Paul of believe he "won" the Republican debates.

I have to ask the question - why do you like him? And I pose this question to you because, as Republicans, I'm assuming you're not aware of the hypocrisy in supporting a candidate because he's anti-war, but still claiming the Democrats are soft on terror because they are anti-war. When the Democrats go against the administration, the right wing boos and hisses, but when this Republican (actually Libertarian) congressman goes against the administration, people refer to it as "leadership qualities." Other than that, there are no real differences between him and the other candidates. Oh, except that he wants to abolish the IRS. Because, apparently, taxes are bad. Okay then.

Obviously I'm bias against Ron Paul - and really all of the Republican candidates - but, barring that, I would like someone to answer the question honestly:

Why Ron Paul?

Republican Presidential Debate: Reagan Count

So the final tally: The phrase "Ronald Reagan" was spoken by the Republican candidates a surprisingly low 17 times. The word "Reagan" was uttered during the entire debate a total of 29, but that included "Mrs. Reagan", "Reagan Library" and any time it was spoken by Chris Matthews.

I have to admit, I'm surprised at the low Reagan turnout. Although euphemisms are not included in the final number, and there were a few of those.

Rudy Giuliani preferred to hear a different phrase:

"When you had this debate last week and all the Democrats were up here, I never remember the words 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorism' being spoken by any of them."

You're right, Giuliani. Because unlike the Republicans - and really, unlike all the non-mayor candidates - they run on more than one platform, with things like "ideas" and "plans" for the American people. You, Mr. Mayor, have nothing. And this may come as a surprise, but trying to scare the crap out of people - sadly, not an actual plan for America. Good campaign strategy, it did work in 2004. But no, it's not a plan.

I look at the candidates and I think to myself:

"I wish I had a paper bag to throw up in."

Learn Something New Every Day

Law and Order... For president?

I did not know that the DA from Law and Order, "Arthur Branch," was actually ex-senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson. The character he plays on television is an über-neoconservative, and it was disheartening to know that he was the same in real life as well.

But now the actor/senator is considering running for president. The article here:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Not enough "star" power for Fred Thompson in a GOP presidential field that includes some of his friends? Whatever the case, the actor and former Tennessee senator is considering getting into the 2008 race.

Thompson, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama "Law & Order," said Sunday, "I'm giving some thought to it, going to leave the door open" and decide in the coming months. "It's not really a reflection on the current field at all," he said.

"I'm just going to wait and see what happens," Thompson added. "I wanted to see how my colleagues who are on the campaign trail do now, what they say, what they emphasize, what they're addressing, and how successful they are in doing that, and whether or not they can carry the ball in next November."

Thompson, 64, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible GOP candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.

"I think people are somewhat disillusioned. I think a lot of people are cynical out there. I think they're looking for something different. ... and I think that they're going to be open to different things," he said.

"It will be interesting to me as I listen to people and learn and watch what's going on and what's the reaction, and the poll numbers and so forth, as to whether or not my instinct on that is right."

Ugh. Why.

On the issues, Thompson said he:

_Is "pro-life," and believes federal judges should overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision as "bad law and bad medical science."

_Opposes gay marriage, but would let states decide whether to allow civil unions. "Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that."

_Opposes gun control, and praised last week's 2-1 federal appeals decision overturning a long-standing handgun ban. "The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that."

_Supports President Bush's decision to increase troops in Iraq. "Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now," he said. "Why would we not take any chance, even though there's certainly no guarantees, to not be run out of that place? I mean, we've got to take that opportunity and give it a chance to work."

_Would pardon former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice now, rather than waiting until all his appeals are exhausted. Thompson is a fundraiser for Libby's defense.

Thompson said he was not setting a deadline to make a decision and believes he won't be at a disadvantage if he waited until summer. "The lay of the land will be different in a few months than it is today, one way or the other."

He added, "One advantage you have in not ... having this as lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it's not the end of the world."

Thompson, the minority counsel in the Watergate investigation, was elected to the Senate in 1994 to fill the unexpired term of Vice President Al Gore. He was chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and left the Senate in 2003 to resume his acting career.

Thompson has acted in films such as "The Hunt for Red October," "Cape Fear," and "In the Line of Fire."

He was also a strong candidate for vice president in 2000. Apparently, he was so bad, that we got Cheney.

Can the actor win? I think Lindsey Graham says it best:

"I think he makes a great president in the movies and he might make a great one in real life."

Yep. Because we all know that the only qualifications for being president - The ability to pretend to be one. Bush does it every day.

Newt Gingrich Admits Affair - DURING CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

File this under: You gotta be f!@#ing kidding me.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

''The honest answer is yes,'' Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. ''There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards.''

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

''The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,'' the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. ''I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials.''

Widely considered a mastermind of the Republican revolution that swept Congress in the 1994 elections, Gingrich remains wildly popular among many conservatives. He has repeatedly placed near the top of Republican presidential polls recently, even though he has not formed a campaign.

Gingrich has said he is waiting to see how the Republican field shapes up before deciding in the fall whether to run.

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.

''There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,'' he said in the interview. ''I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm ... not proud of.''

Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1998 when he abruptly resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in elections and after being reprimanded by the House ethics panel over charges that he used tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.

What the hell is wrong with those people? Is every Republican in the United States a colossal hypocrite? Or is it only those who affect public policy? And he gave this speech to "Focus on the Family." Do they care? They'll probably blame the gays.

I still can't believe Kerry couldn't beat these guys.

Exclusive Librocrat Report - Where Are All the Republicans?

For those that troll the newspapers nowadays, one things is blatantly missing: Where are all the news reports about Republican presidential candidates?

Despite the "hype" over McCain, Giuliani and Romney, the news these days is overwhelmingly about Democratic candidates and their positions, locations, speeches, etc. A big switch from November of 2006 when the news was about George Allen, Mark Foley, Hastert, and others - the news today is a pro and con match of the Democrats, complete with anger and love, resentment and appreciation.

The Washington page of the New York Times overwhelmingly references Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, with 5 articles referring to one of the three and zero articles about the Republican presidential nominees. MSNBC's politics page has similar numbers, with 13 articles designated to Democratic candidates while just 5 articles about Republican candidates.

This type of reporting is not limited to "liberal news." On the ultra conservative website "Right Wing News" (www.rightwingnews.com) Hillary Clinton is mentioned 8 times, Barack Obama was mentioned 6, and John Edwards was mentioned a whopping 21 times. On the Republican side (excluded is a posted conversation about the Republican nominees, which I count as 1 for each candidate since they repeat names not for article emphasis but rather to differentiate who they are complaining about in the conversation) Rudy Giuliani is mentioned only 2 times, McCain mentioned 4, and Mitt Romney mentioned just 3 times. All but 1 of those counted for each candidate was the result of a recent poll rather than an article about the candidate. Only 2 articles were about Republican candidates while near 10 were about the Democrats. The results were similar with Townhall.com's ratio of 6:1, Outside the Beltway 3:0. Michelle Malkin got the closest to even with 5:3, but 2 of her 3 articles were about the CPAC conference that she was blogging from. Even the Fox News front page was 3 to 1.

So what is the reason for the excessive focus on Democratic candidates? Is it the star line-up that the Democrats have to offer? The two stars for the Republican party, McCain and Giuliani, are losing their popularity with each passing day – McCain for referring to solder’s deaths as “wasted” and Giuliani for being a MAYOR WHO HAS DONE NOTHING EVER… excuse me, for being a too liberal for the conservative party.

Most likely it is the opposite. Rather than it being the star power of the Democrats it is the indifference towards the Republicans that keeps them out of the news. Liberals and Democrats simple don’t care, while Republicans and Conservatives are using their time to blast the popular Democratic candidates rather than boost the image of their own kind. Whatever the reason, without a good Republican candidate, Clinton and Obama are going to be used so often, they may as well be referred to as “Clobama” similar to Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez’s popular nickname of “Bennifer.”

Although, personally, I’d like to refer to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani as “McLiani.” I could see that as being something that catches on. Maybe Mitt Romney and McCain can be "Romain" - like the lettuce (sans -e)? Or "Romniani?" "MittCain?" "Cainianey?"

Their names are incredibly lame.

Fake News Not So Fake

I've written a few fake news articles about possible presidential nominees in 2008 (included, but not limited to, Papa Smurf). One of those articles was about a Democratic candidate that I named "Eniwon Butboosh." You can read that post here.

Last night I was considering the Republican nominees of 2008. I remain unimpressed. John McCain is such a sell out he has become the Puff Daddy of the Neoconservatives. Mitt Romney hasn't made a decision about anything, ever, and he won't win his own state let alone the Republican nomination. Rudy Giuliani has accomplished nothing, ever. Literally, ever. He has done nothing. And he was a mayor. I can't emphasize how incredibly dense you have to be to think he has any qualifications. Sam Brownbackkk...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... Oh, sorry, even saying his name makes me fall asleep, let alone listening to him talk. Mike Huckabee - Uh... no.

But looking at the candidates I can't help but sigh in relief. None of them, despite how much I despise what each and everyone of them stand for, is as bad as Bush. And my original joke of "Eniwon Butboosh - 2008" actually stands.

I would never vote for any of them, and I encourage all curious moderates to follow my lead and vote Democratic. But the Republicans this year are all are not as bad as Bush. Bush not only represents all that is evil and wrong with this world, he represents what happens when connections and corruption enter the white house. He and Cheney, with their connections to the oil industries, Halliburton, and other powerful individuals in the business, religious, and political nexus, single-handedly distorted, manipulated and exploited everything in the country during the past 6+ years of their reign over the white house. Whether it was hiring their cronies or providing contracts and money to their families and business partners, nothing in the government was executed without some sort of gain for someone in the Bush/Dick web. Sam Brownba....................................................... Sorry... Sam Brownback may be more conservative than even Bush, but at least he does not have the same for-gain mindset of the Bushies. John McCain may be a sellout, but he doesn't have the support (or, in Cheney's case, support) the oil industries. And Giuliani - again, a man who has done nothing, ever - doesn't have the white house connections that allow him to get away with nominating under-qualified Neanderthals for important military and political positions.

Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson - each of them is a qualified, trustworthy, strong candidate that deserves our vote and respect, no matter which one of them gets the Democratic nomination (I hope to see that no matter who receives the nod, we can put our differences behind us and rally ourselves towards that candidate). But at least we can finally say "Anyone But Bush, 2008" and be satisfied that is what we're getting. It's comforting that the worst case scenario is still better than it has been for the past 6 years.

Knock on wood.

John McCain to America: I'm In, And I'm In to Lose to a Mayor

John McCain continued his quest to plunge his campaign into the abyss today as he released a statement in Iowa pledging his all out, unwavering support for the war in Iraq.

From the New York Times: "Almost from the moment he took the stage at his first campaign event in Iowa since forming his presidential exploratory committee, Mr. McCain made clear that he was not backing away from his support of the war. From Des Moines to Cedar Rapids to this eastern Iowa community, Mr. McCain aggressively identified his candidacy with the war. In the process, he signaled the political advantage his campaign sees in presenting Mr. McCain as an unapologetic Iraq war advocate to the conservative Republican activists who dominate the Iowa caucuses."

The man who used to be known as a Maverick for the way his steadfast moderate beliefs contrasted against the rest of his party, has now become a Maverick because he makes stupid decisions against the advice of his aides and supporters. Although it can help him win the pro-war Republican nomination, his advisers think ("Anxiously" according to the New York Times) that there is no way he can win the Presidency against an anti-war Democrat with such a blatantly pro-war stance. "Mr. McCain’s aides could barely contain their frustration, as he sailed off on this maiden voyage of his campaign, at the extent to which perhaps the most important factor in determining the 2008 race was beyond their control."

We will always wonder what happened in these last 4ish years to the "Moderate Maverick" that would have him change (one might say "flip-flop" - though I hate that term) his stance on such issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, NSA eavesdropping - and what made him begin prostituting himself to the right wing neocons.

I remember after the 2004 catastropuck of an election, my fellow liberals and I - through our tears - hoped that at least if McCain ran and won in 2008 we'd have the lesser of the vast number of Republican evils. Now, although he has voted more conservative than Sam Brownback over the last few years, we still want him to run because there is no way this sleepy old man can win. The Moderate Maverick is no more.

--

If you are a John McCain fan, I've posted a photograph below of Britney Spears bald to help cheer you up:

Mitt Romney Running for President

Watch out Barack Obama, here comes Mitt Romney. He's just like you, only not charismatic, not a minority, conservative, inconsistent, and somewhat of a Neocon sellout. Oh, and he's a Mormon, which doesn't bother me at all but will certainly make hilarious Republican attack ads.

Now that he's officially in the race, please contribute to the anti-Mitt Romney presidential poetry located in the link on the top of this website.

Bombs over Baghdad

Er... no. That's depressing. Instead I'm going to talk about Presidential Nominees.

Clinton/Obama (hypothetical ticket) have a slim lead in the polls over Giuliani/McCain. The order is due to their current polling ranks, where Hillary Clinton is up on Barack Obama by roughly 20% and Rudy Giuliani is up on John McCain by a similar margin.

Question: How belittling will it be to McCain, ex-war hero with years of experience in Washington to be the Vice President to a man who was mayor of a city, and whose only claim to fame is his ability to capitalize on people's emotions about a horrible tragedy, milking it for all its worth? Seems like the kind of thing that would make a candidate impotent, but I could be wrong, since he's old and probably already is.

Follow up question: What kind of an idiot votes for a mayor for president. I'm serious. It needs to stop. Seriously. Stop. I mean it. He's a mayor. An ex-mayor. An ex-mayor who is going through his 3rd divorce. I mean, the guy didn't know whether he should run for president or continue with his business ventures. Does that bother anyone? ANYONE? He was torn between running the country and making money. No? No one cares? He claimed somehow he brought people together, rather than the pain of the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't that bother anyone? Do qualifications matter to you people at all? No? Okay, well... Whatever.

As for Hillary Clinton, she has finally issued a retraction for her vote for the Iraq war. I like Obama, I like Edwards, I even like Bill Richardson (who, according to the Malaysian Newspaper "The Star," is said to be a Guinness World Record holder. His feat? He shook 13,392 hands in one day during his campaign for governor four years ago.) but I cannot help but like the strength of Hillary's character, even if she has not been as liberal as I would have liked. Plus I'd rather Obama be a Vice President, not because I think he is worse than any of the other candidates but because I think he's better, and he's young enough that I would like to see him in office for 16 years instead of 8 (eight years vice, eight as pres). We'll see what happens.