She Might Stay In It For A While Yet

While many of us are beginning to suffer the effects of Democratic Primary Fatigue (turning the TV off for whole hours on end, beginning to dislike both candidates when you liked both of them before, wanting to take all the campaign signs you see on the side of the road force them into the wood chipper, having images of squeezing Chris Matthews’ head like a ripe cantaloupe), The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported The Hillary Camp’s regular conference call with reporters said today that:

If Obama does not win four-for-four on March 4, she could very well stay in the race until the Pennsylvania Primary, scheduled for April 22.

“On the conference call, anger and accusations were certainly in abundance. But so too was standard-issue campaign spin. The Clinton camp, playing off of a memo it had sent to reporters earlier in the day, insisted that if Obama was unable to pull off a four-for-four day in Tuesday’s primary, it would signal ‘buyer’s remorse’ with his candidacy as well as ‘interest in having this campaign go on, at least to Pennsylvania.’”

I need a beer.

And I recommend reading the comments beneath Sam’s piece. Some of them are priceless.

Best Headline Of The Day

Courtesy of Haaretz:

Woman who said was saved from Nazis by wolves admits fabrications

I’m not going to comment here. It’s just too good by itself. Leave it alone, girl, leave it alone.

Unofficial Poll Of My Peeps

I sent out an email to some of my friends and family in Texas asking for whom they intended to cast their vote on March 4. It’s a small group, because I’m not so uncouth as to ask a wide swath of acquaintances. Here’s what we have so far:

• 1 white female would vote for McCain, but she thinks he has the nomination pretty wrapped up and probably won’t vote on March 4
• 2 white and 2 bi-racial females are voting for Obama, but not because he’s black
• 3 white males are voting for Obama
• 1 white male and 1 white female are voting for Ron Paul
• 1 white male says, “Either writing in Romney in the Republican one or voting against Clinton in the Democratic one. For poll purposes you should put me down for the former, since I won’t be voting for Obama in the general even if I do now.”

3 of the Obama supporters participated in early voting and have already done the deed.

This is by no means scientific or indicative of anything other than I like my little amateur polling experiments and plan to do more!

Update: After informing the last white male how amused I was by his response, he answered, ” I do my best to entertain. And I just don’t like any of my options this year, and haven’t for awhile. Call it the ‘audacity of despair.’” Does it get any better than that?! Hell-to-the-no! (shout out, whitney)

Update: Add 1 white female for Hillary and 1 white male for Obama, who says, “Right now we both think it is almost a draw based of [sic] many factors. In actuality, it’s not that I’m in love with either (Hillary or Obama) over the other. But, right now I would vote for a chimp if I though [sic] it would get those FUCKING republicans out any quicker!”

AWESOME: Yellow License Plates For DUI Drivers

A congressman in Seattle is sponsoring a bill requiring drivers convicted of driving under the influence to don a bright-yellow license plate on their car for a year.

Notice the poll on the website, in which 52 percent of votes said they do not agree with the proposal. Since when did embarrassment become cruel and unusual? These drunk drivers are violating my civil liberties by getting behind the wheel when they’re wasted. What ever happened to getting a cab? I don’t understand why people outside of NYC and Chicago and D.C. have such issues calling a cab! And the drivers are so interesting. The last couple I had were from Sudan and one was from Liberia. It was awesome conversation! Even if I don’t remember much of it…

Clinton vs. Obama III: Thoughts On Obama Bio

Whew! I finally finished David Mendell’s Obama: From Promise to Power last night. Note to self, any political biography will suck if immediately read after a political biography written by Carl Bernstein.

For those of you who don’t know, I was planning to vote for Bill Richardson in the TX primary and the day he dropped out, I picked up Carl Bernstein’s bio of Hillary Clinton and David Mendell’s bio of Barack Obama to strengthen my understanding of these two political players. I didn’t want to read the books they wrote themselves because, obviously, they’re biased and formulaic with their messages, so I thought reading their own scripts would be a waste of time at this juncture. If you want to read my assessment of Hillary’s bio, click here.

Before I launch into the impression Mendell’s book gave me of Obama, let me address my impressions of the book. First of all, it should have been called “Obama N’ Me” or “Tuesdays With Obama” because Mendell was almost as much a main character in this book as Obama himself. Note to Mendell, read Carl Bernstein’s bio of Hillary - cause that’s how you write a biography. Mendell didn’t want to repeat all the biographical information Obama provided in his own two texts, so Promise to Power was filled with a lot of filler (dragging descriptions of Obama’s Hawaiian home. It was tropical, we get it), details repeated over and over (if I had to read one more time that Obama would rather wear a black shirt and khaki pants or that his target constituency in Chicago was African-Americans and liberals, I was going to gouge my eyes out) and gave extra-extra-attention to Barack’s run for U.S. Senate - which is the period David Mendell covered Obama the most for the Chicago Tribune. If I had known how much Mendell would insert himself into the book and gloss over many time frames - including Barack’s time in the U.S. Senate - and deeply focus on times where Mendell was present, I probably would have picked up a different book.

That said, here are my thoughts on Obama.

Smoker

This is a hard one for me. I was a light, on-and-off smoker for a long time, until I was 26 and it was time to grow up. I loved it and would continue on a chain basis if it were a healthy habit, but it’s not. I especially have difficulty with parents who smoke and are doing such a grave disservice to their children. Obama stopped only when his wife made it a prerequisite for him to run for the presidency. I knew this before I read the bio.

This isn’t a major big deal, but it does speak to his decision-making skills on that “obvious” level. Smoking is fun when you’re young and dumb, but for someone in their forties who has procreated…I have a hard time with that. He probably smoked around the same amount of time as Peter Jennings and look where he is today. Poor Peter.

Identity Issues

Barack certainly has abandonment issues and had a hard time figuring out where he fit in as a bi-racial person which has left him with the same type of self-absorption that applies to almost all people who feel they have a greater calling. What can I do? Where do I fit in? etc. But Obama’s search to find himself has instilled in him a need to seek the counsel of others and listen - and that is something we see in great leaders and something we don’t in poor leaders (hello, Bush, Cheney, even Hillary to an extent).

Itchy Feet

It’s hard not to notice that Obama has never spent a prolonged period of time doing the same thing; he has always looked to what’s next and to climb a bigger mountain. Occidental, Columbia, community organizer, Harvard Law School, State Senate, U.S. Senate. He certainly doesn’t marinate in one area too long because he thinks he can make bigger and better changes over the next horizon. Granted, he wasn’t looking to run for the presidency so soon and sort of became caught up as the Democrat’s darling in this age of overwhelming disappointment with Bush, but he has never felt comfortable in one place for very long. If he’s elected and then re-elected, eight years will be the longest he’s kept the same job, I think. I haven’t decided what this means or if it really matters to the presidency, but it certainly contributes to my need to psycho-analyze him.

It’s interesting how childhood abandonment issues affect adult behavior. Obama seeks the approval of elder males, especially of African-American heritage, and climbs the professional and political ladder relentlessly. Bill Clinton was also born to a young mother and didn’t know his father and later sought solace in the buffet of T&A is positions of influence brought him. Bush had two well-intentioned, loving, and fairly-present parents and he was a screw-up who almost led an oil company into bankruptcy, bought a small part of a baseball team, used the team as his personal playground, rode his last name right into the governorship of Texas and spewed campaign promise after promise he wouldn’t keep in order to be president of the U.S.ofA. Who would you rather have as president? Let’s hear it for single mothers!

Political Game

One thing is clear. However comfortable and candid and honest Obama is, he is playing the political game. He knows which field he is on and that greatly motivates his actions and words.

I found this to be true in the area of religion. Mendell speaks of Obama as a young agnostic who visits Chicago’s black churches as a community organizer and found a home. My experience with agnosticism, and even atheism, is that such developments largely occur the other way around. People tend to be raised christian and then gain some education or experience the world and release themselves from the familial obligations of their past. Not Obama. He found comfort in the church and felt like he belonged to a group in a way that soothed much of those echoes of abandonment. But belonging to a church wasn’t just Obama finding a family; it’s clear that to navigate an ambitious political path, one has to assimilate in the area of faith. Chicago’s black community certainly accepted him in a way that would have been impossible if he maintained a skepticism about christianity. He calls the bible a “a great book that contains a lot of wisdom” according to Mendell. But does he really think he has to accept Jesus as his savior or he’s going to hell? As a person who is finds religious assimilation abhorrent, this gives me pause. But not a long pause. More like a bathroom break.

Obama wasn’t destined for the White House from the start the way Bill Clinton was; but for a long time, Obama has strategically made choices that will take him wherever his future goes. He may not be as vetted as Hillary claims to be (questionable), but he watches himself and plays the game carefully. There may be an authenticity to him, but underneath it all, those wheel are definitely turning.

Certainty, or lack thereof

The one characteristic I dislike in politicians - and people in general - is certainty. These people have sheer conviction that they are right on all accounts and leave no spec of mind open to other ideals. They commit no mistake and attack relentlessly those that might choose to challenge them on any issue. Gingrich, Delay, Pol Pot, Bush, Cheney, in many cases, Hillary. There is no compromise, no discussion. Certainty is an indication of a mind petrified that has ceased to learn and makes demands instead of finding solutions. And our government suffers for it. Our democracy is poisoned by it. And I am annoyed by it as they express their righteousness on television day in and day out.

Obama has proven over and over he is not a man of this ilk. One might call him inexperienced or green or wishy-washy. But it is not that. He listens to others and considers their points. He chooses to cooperate with “the other side” and seeks understanding among all parties. He admits when he has been mistaken or mis-spoke. He does not assume he is right all the time and is willing to admit it when he is not - and that is a powerful thing. The humility, while not the style of today’s politics, might just be important enough to make him a good leader. This might not be the clincher for my vote, I have not fully decided, but it is certainly enough for me to think the world won’t end if he’s elected president.

Questionmark

Obama is a bit of an undefined. We don’t exactly know what we’d get if he were president. He does have chinks in his rainbow of hope and change. Reality is one of them - our world won’t be all roses and honeybees and pretty fairies if he’s elected; he’s inheriting a disaster from Bush, for one. His education on many of the issues is lacking, as we saw on Tuesday night’s debate and the learning curve will be straight up. His halting speech indicates extreme thoughtfulness behind every single word he utters (not always a good thing) and his relentless clipping of words can irritate the crud out of me. If one of his campaign staff did call the Canadian ambassador to tell them his talk of NAFTA was campaign rhetoric, I’ll be mightily unhappy. His meteoric rise, both of his and others’ doing, is certainly giving answer to all those who have clamored for someone new. When I think of hope in relation to Obama, I don’t think he gives me hope that we have a brighter future. I know we do because Bush won’t be president. I just hope Obama doesn’t eff the whole thing up if he’s elected.

But, he’s worth the consideration and he’s certainly worth the research. If he gets the nomination, I recommend everyone read a bio of his so he can become more of a known entity. Because he just might be an entity that becomes leader of the free-frickin’-world, yo.

Good Job, RNC!

They sent a warning to Tennessee Repub. Party that they will be censured if they continue to use Obama’s middle name, “Hussein.”

Notice the third comment below the story, “McCain is most qualified, most deserving, most experianced [sic]. Anyone who disagrees is naive.”

Isn’t it funny when people who disagree with you try to disarm your argument by saying you’re “naive.” As a young, blonder female, I noticed that this happens quite a bit when people are threatened by your education on the issues and resort to condescension in order to further their point and try to obtain or maintain the upper hand in a discussion. What’s REALLY funny is that out of the nearly 36 million primary voters who have shown up to the polls, around 7.4 million have voted for McCain. Everybody else is a dumbass. Well, I’ll tell you who the dumbass is….

Hmmmm. Did Obama Campaign Reassure Canada On NAFTA?

This story is suspect, but - as Talking Points Memo says - could resurface later. A Canadian news report claims someone from inside the Obama campaign called the Canadian Ambassador to reassure him that tough talk on NAFTA was just “campaign rhetoric.”

You can watch the video here.

I certainly hope this didn’t happen and wouldn’t jump to conclusions. Those crazy Canadians! Wearing pins of their flag on their backpacks all over Europe so no one thinks they’re Americans!

Update

ABC News reports: “The Canadian Embassy issued a statement Thursday stating that ‘at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA’ and stated the CTV story is ‘untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA.’”

Reaction To Last Night’s Debate And Theories of Media Bullying Clinton

It was exciting. At first. That prolonged debate on health care during which Hillary rolled over the moderators’ shushing attempts like that Clear Lake dentist rolls over cheating husbands. I don’t understand why the whole wide world is all pissed off at Russert for throwing her fastballs later when she so pointedly treats moderators like inconveniences at debates. She has a potent of history of open combativeness with and disrespect of the press for over a decade and then resorts to the role of victim and claims she doesn’t get a fair shake. Gag, you know? Just gag.

Sure, Russert didn’t ask Obama once to “commit right here and now” to do whatever he said over and over the way he did Clinton. He didn’t launch Sumo attacks at Obama the way he did Clinton to pry a clear answer from her cold, thin lips. But, then Obama doesn’t react to them with the condescending arrogance she does and doesn’t have the history of kicking them out of The White House when her husband became president.

I have news, people. Clinton has a lot more baggage than he does - she has many more decisions to answer for than he does, more fuckups, more disingenuous and politically calculated speeches. She is perpetually fake, with her friends and close supporters saying they wish she would show the public the manner she uses in private. Obama is politically calculating, no doubt, but you don’t get that feeling that he’s dramatically different in private. I’m just not resentful that I don’t see that side of him the way, at least I am when I see her. She’s legendary for the disconnect between her private self and public self. This is one of the core reasons the public trust doesn’t gravitate toward her full-cheeked smile. And let me tell you, I bet I’d like her private personality a lot. Even if she looked at porn. I’d probably like her more. She should throw some cuss words into those speeches. Even a “hell yeah!” here and there would push those public approval numbers up, I’m sure of it! Let’s get some shots of her gambling and throwing back some tequila! That’s how you rise in the polls. At least here in Texas. She tried that whole, “I eat hot peppers a lot” line, but that just gives everyone visual images I will not go into.

The bottom line is, like I heard an analyst on MSNBC say recently in response to Clinton’s interview where she said she felt misunderstood, that Clinton has been in the national public eye since essentially 1992 and if she’s still misunderstood, who’s fault is that really? It her fault, dagnabit! It’s the fact that every word, every look, every piece of jewelry, every laugh, and smile, and eye-contact, and hair placement is a political calculation that includes side-stepping reporters’ questions and failing to knock that feeling of “well, I think she could do the job…but I don’t know…” from those of us who pay attention and will show up to the polls.

Last night was no different and we were all expecting more. I mean, come one, it’s go time! All she could come up with was a McCain line that Obama wanted to bomb Pakistan - which was ridiculous and garnered a small, immediate laugh from B.O. Her jumping in after the Farrakhan question lowered her score when she said, “Well, something like this has happened to ME as well when I was supported by an anti-Semitic group and REJECTED their support!” Nice try, hon. Not gonna make it.

And she still refused to answer his accusations about the negative effects of her plan to mandate health care - which I have serious concerns about! She hasn’t even addressed once what would happen to a person who didn’t fall in line with her plan and that really pisses me off. People are living paycheck to paycheck and in huge debt - even if health care costs were decreased dramatically, many millions would still not be able to afford it and the answer is to criminalize them? Or what? Because I don’t know how a mandate is enforced in her plan. She won’t tell us.

As far as Obama goes, he was good, but less than stellar. There were a couple of Fred Thompson-esque responses to questions that lacked depth and were fairly short. It’s great that he is comfortable with himself politically enough to agree with her on issues, but other times his answers were as simplistic as a 12th graders. It’ll be good once the nomination process is over and he can take a little time to bone-up in areas where he doesn’t have a lot of understanding. Also the word is MASSACHUSETTS, not MASSATOOSETTS. Phonetically: MASSACHOOSETS. God, I hope this isn’t his “nookular.” That would just kill me to have another president who can’t pronounce easy, regularly-used words correctly. He’s supposed to be a good orator…

All in all, he won. He won because he didn’t lose. We didn’t have visions of Hillary Clinton landing on an air-craft carrier with the banner “Mission Accomplished” on full display behind her. It was like she was trying to put out is unstoppable prairie fire with one of those handheld fans you take to the ballpark.
Her “It’s so curious how I always get the first question” immediately followed by the disingenuous “I mean (breathy laugh), I’m happy to answer them, I just think it’s curious!” was just a bomb. I mean BOMB. The first panel member to give his assessment of the debate afterward mocked her by telling Keith Olberman, (paraphrasing) “Fine, Keith, I’ll answer, but you always give me the first question!” If she wanted to give the media a softball to use against her over and over she couldn’t have done any better.

If media coverage of Hillary seems harsher lately, it’s because she’s LOSING. And they are reporting on what’s happening. They’re not reporting on her ideas or the issues. They’re reporting on how the campaigns are going and hers is going shittily, to put it lightly. If Obama’s was sucking ass, they’d be on that like white on rice, too. But he’s doing well for whatever reason and that’s what the media is saying. “Her campaign isn’t going well.” “His campaign is picking up steam.” OHMYGOD, call in the media patrol, Hillary’s the last one picked for kickball!

Grow up, suck it up, this is national politics and Hillary, you started the campaign thinking it was in the bag and then you brought out your secret weapon, Bill, who reminded us how much the partisanship of the 90’s sucked. Sure, the media isn’t the unbiased, effective weapon against corruption, valiant body protecting the publics’ interest. But take a good, hard look in the mirror when you’re wondering where the fault lays for your coverage and your political progress. And don’t do it with a flashlight on your face, saying “bloody mary…bloody mary…” Do it with the lights on.

Getting Geared Up For The Debate

It’s going to be exciting!! The last scheduled debate and Hillary’s potential Waterloo. The election season is so topsy-turvy, the fat lady is frustrated. She always gets a note or two out and then the cane (large one) emerges from the wings and yanks her behind the curtain as candidate after candidate skirts the grim reaper of political campaigns.

I don’t know if I’m ready for the all-out brawl between Obama and McCain yet, despite the beating of the war drums audible across every media medium - can we at least wait for the coin toss? At least Nader’s presence will provide some comic relief.

The Hillary/Obama contest is drawing to a natural close and the majority of Democrats seem ready to bid her adieu - though I doubt she’ll go down without a fight. Politics is a spectator sport and I’ll have a couple of bottles of Texas bock ready for the show when the clock strikes 8 (Central Time, that is). Tim Russert, with his permanently furrowed brow, and Brian Williams, with his pristine hair that even a war zone couldn’t ruffle, will try to assert their steerage of the vessel so forcefully to remove any off-script ideas from that head of Hillary Clinton’s.

But she’s a desperate woman, People! And desperate women do desperate things. Even today, her friend Chris Dodd threw his lot to Obama, which can only convince Hillary further it’s now or never. Do or die. Sink or swim. Beat her opponent about the head with her political prowess or pack up her plethora of pant suits and take a tropical vacay. I cannot predict which direction she will take - conciliatory, accusatory, defensive, offensive, aggressive, condescending, friendly, valedictory? She can do them all with ease. And I can’t wait to watch.

And if you don’t want to watch the debate, Valerie Bertinelli will be on Larry King talking about her drug use and sex with Stephen Speilberg. Wolfie says CNN will have an interview with that fruitcake radio host who embarrassed McCain when he called Obama a hack.

Bush - Still Delusional After All These Years

It’s nice to know some things will never change.

During a dinner for the Republican Governors Association (the clips have been all over cables news), Bush says:

“I’m confident we’ll hold the White House in 2008.”

“And I don’t want the Republican president to be lonely. And that is why we’ve got to take the House, retake the Senate, and make sure our states are governed by Republican governors.”

“When I say I’m confident, I am so because I understand the mentality of the American people. And I understand the mentality of our candidates. And there’s no question in my mind, with your help, 2008 is going to be a great year.”

“I believe the American people understand that success in Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the American people. And we will elect somebody to the White House who will keep up the fight to make sure Iraq is secure and free.”

He understands the mentality of the American people? Is it Opposite Day at The White House? Does that mean he sits in the Oval Office and says, “Screw the American people and their mentality!” every time he makes a decision so out of line with overall national sentiment? I don’t think there’s anyone who understands the American people’s mentality less - Wolf Blitzer who thinks that repeating “The Best Political Team on TV” every 30 seconds will make us agree with him (it doesn’t).

And imagine the country flooded with Republican leaders. I’d rather be invaded by gargantuan cyclops wanting to enslave our women and eat our household pets. Party loyalty has to be abandoned if we want a healthier democratic government. If history has proven one thing true, it’s that rule by one party alone leads to enhanced corruption and faulty logic and leadership.

Only 10 months and 25 days. Only 10 months and 25 days…

Gates - No Longer Just U.S. Defense Chief

He’s an arms salesman!

I understand wanting to stay on India’s good business side as it’s economy growth out paces ours - as well as maintaining strong military cooperation, but Robert Gates? Isn’t there anyone else we can send to be a representative for Lockheed Martin? Shouldn’t he be busy elswehere? Bueller?

WashPo Says Chiarelli Likely To Replace Patraeus At The End Of The Year

Apparently, Patraeus is looking to head over and revitalize NATO. I wonder if he’s friends with Wes Clark, who is backing Clinton.

“Another possible candidate discussed by administration officials, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, was nominated earlier this month to be the top U.S. Army commander in Europe. Dempsey is currently the deputy chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East.

Chiarelli, currently the senior military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, commanded the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq in 2004 and early 2005, and then was the No. 2 officer in Iraq in 2006, preceding Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno. Opinions inside the Army are mixed, with some officers noting that Chiarelli was one of the first advocates of shifting course in Iraq and adopting classic counterinsurgency techniques, while others say that in his second tour, he presided over a failing strategy as violence skyrocketed. Some influential insiders are still advocating that Odierno, who was recently nominated to become the Army’s vice chief of staff, replace Petraeus later this year.”

I hope the presidential candidates are picking up the phone and getting to know these people. Iraq still needs to be at the forefront of concern during this election and has been slipping for a while. And Obama certainly needs to build his weak military-leader credentials if he plans to present a rational argument for his qualifications as commander-in-chief. It’s been time to step away from the “I’ve been against the war from the beginning!” We know you have. We’re sick of hearing it (it’s like Chinese water torture for crissakes!) and aren’t quite sure you would have felt the same way if you were a U.S. senator back then and a bit more of your ass was on the line. I understand you’ve worked with the urban poor int he U.S., but the urban poor (and rural poor) in certain other areas of the world can turn into terrorists.

In The Words Of Moe, Waaaahh? - Romney’s Kid Says He Might Re-enter The Presidential Race

If McCain’s campaign “falters,” writes the LA Times, Josh Romney said dad could get back in the boat. Fan-effing-tastic!

UPDATE: Flip-Flopper Jr. might run for Congress. Josh says he’s been approached to run for Utah’s 2nd Congressional District and is considering it. At the end of the article, in reference to his dad campaigning for McCain - Josh says probably won’t do the same: “It’s one thing to campaign for my dad, someone whose principles I line up with almost entirely,” he said. “I can’t say the same thing for Sen. McCain.” Which principles are he talking about? The run-for-Mass.-Governor principles Romney held or his run-for-U.S.-pres. principles? Because those varied greatly.

Religious “Unaffiliated” Fastest Growing Religious Demographic

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted a survey, according to CNN, of 35,000 people and found:

“While much of the study confirms earlier findings — mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing — it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.”

“The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin.

The majority of the unaffiliated — 12 percent of the overall population — describe their religion as “nothing in particular,” and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.”

Many hold the evangelicals responsible (including me) for at least the second Bush term, if not the first, which has left a bad taste in many mouths (especially mine). I also think Atheist and Agnostic numbers are surging and will continue to do so - like I’ve said before, you can’t stop progress!

In Texas News - Hutchison Doesn’t Want To Be VP, She Wants To Be Governor

Kay Bailey Hutchison said this weekend she is not interested in the position of Vice President under John McCain. I doubt she would have been chosen anyway and this probably doesn’t mean much to yous guys outside TX, but - to the rest of you - it pretty much means she’ll throw her pearl necklace into the race for the TX governorship when the waste of Rick Perry is gone in 2010. I wouldn’t call her the Republican’s best friend, but I doubt I’d vote for her either. And, let me just say one thing - we need legalized gambling in this state already!! Many don’t think it’ll happen until we get a Democratic governor. Well, I’m damn good and ready for some blackjack tables in Galveston! Vegas gets expensive real fast and Shreveport and Lake Charles are so over.

Insurance Company In Trouble For Dropping Cancer Patient

I saw this story this weekend and was so encouraged! Health Net was fined $9 million for canceling the policy of Patsy Bates while she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Can you imagine the audacity?! I would have a hard time not resorting to vigilante justice if this happened to me. Hopefully, this will start a trend in the reining in of the insurance industry’s running a muck over customer rights.

THOROUGH Assessment of Ron Paul

This is quite a long blog because it’s one I take very seriously. I’ve bolded each issue though, in the case you don’t want to read every word (most of you, i’m sure!)

I’ve been avoiding writing this, hoping Ron Paul and his followers would see the writing on the wall at some point and exit stage left. But noooooo, they’re on some strange campaignphetamine and have forsaken all hold on reality in hopes their insanity will somehow be affirmed by a miraculous success that “the media can’t ignore!”

The followers want the Republican nomination to remain unsettled until the convention have launched a movement calling on all followers to try and become delegates at the National Convention. I won’t go so far as to say they want to steal the nomination, but they are trying to round up enough delegates who will vote Ron Paul either after their first choices have dropped out or even abdicate the position of the voters in their state or district, which they represent. You can read the views of these “enthusiasts” on the “Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President” site and this Ron Paul Forum entry from Feb. 5 which the author titles “Things going according to plan. Don’t lose hope.” The rules for Republican delegate obligations are varied and described a bit on The Republican Source.

In light of the intent by Ron Paul supporters’ to attempt (no matter how serious) to hijack the Republican Convention, it’s time for me to pitch in chronicle my assessment of this cracker jack.

The Bush Effect

In the early stages of the campaign, I knew Ron Paul didn’t have a chance in hell of garnering the Repub nomination. Paul’s following is a result of what I call “The Bush Effect.” If it were not for the turmoil perpetrated by Bush and Cheney over the last seven years, much of what we’re seeing on the political landscape today wouldn’t have been possible. I never would have considered Hillary for president, a fairly green senator from Illinois would have to put in a few more years on the national level before being taken seriously, and the immense increase of democrat voter turnout over Republican voter turnout would have been a dream.

Ron Paul’s candidacy falls into this category. Never would such a rabid following of enthusiasts who have very little understanding of the development of civilization, the dynamics of a successful government and electoral science have been able to coalesce around a fringe, Libertarian candidate so well that he garners more votes than Mayor 9/11 himself, Giuliani, and participates in all meaningful Republican debates.

The unendingly wretched decisions of Goober Bush and Diablo Cheney have made the impossible possible.

Initial Interest and Approval

Ron Paul at a glance seems like a great candidate for change. He labels himself a Libertarian and a smaller, limited governmental beast always seems a good idea. He thinks we never should have gone to Iraq and should get out immediately. I agree the U.S. cannot act as the world’s police (a line Bush used in running for the 2000 nomination). While not for legalized abortion and gay marriage, he believes these decisions should be left to the states - a much better stance than the typical conservative Republican. He signed the American Freedom Agenda Pledge, which I wholeheartedly support and he’s against eminent domain. If nothing else, I appreciated the conversation Ron Paul brought to the Republican Party. From the outset of the campaign, I intended on voting Democrat in order to balance the Supreme Court, but I try to give every candidate across all party lines their due consideration. Ron Paul wudn’t bad, as we say in Texas. The “wudn’t” part, that is.

In the efforts of full disclosure, my boyfriend and partner, Brendan is from Lake Jackson. Ron Paul was the obstetrician who delivered some his friends. So, we heard about him early on and, I must confess, I believe his geographical origins are the main reason for his support among some people we know. You always want to root for the home team. But not mindlessly, as I see many doing today.

Investigation, Research and Disappointment

As I took the mandatory squiz into Ron Paul’s stance on the issues, voting record, and basic history, it became clear this was a candidate I could never support.

Immediately, the support home schooling garners on his site struck me as a red flag. I’m not a huge proponent of home schooling, not necessarily in principle, but because the majority of home schooling is a result of parents who are closemindedly christian and do not want their children exposed to certain tenants in public education - evolution, abstinence, STDs, much of the literature. I’ve belonged to a number of churches in my past in which a number of the congregates home schooled and saw first hand how unexposed and brainwashed their children were. Brendan and I have experienced working and interacting with adults who were home schooled as children and to say they were socially inept is an understatement. We witnessed their failure to effectively interact with coworkers and socially and the subsequent shunning they experienced. While there are certain circumstances under which I would support home schooling - sometimes it’s a requirement for education because of geographical factors - but the widespread encouragement of home schooling (as you sometimes see here in Texas) is never a movement I could endorse because of the negative effects it has on the children.

Secondly, Ron Paul’s letter to gun owners on his website was a huge obstacle for me as a voter. Yes, here in Texas the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is significant. Ron Paul says the “high-and-mighty politicians” want to “Force law-abiding American citizens who want to protect themselves through more bureaucratic rigmarole and throw up more ‘gun free zone’ signs.” Well, the language of the letter is incendiary (who says high-and-mighty anymore?). I don’t believe there’s a gun owner around every corner threatening me and I certainly do not support ever law-abiding citizen’s right to own an uzi and any semi-automatic weapon. The tremendous amount of gun crimes is due largely to the availability of firearms which is due largely to the objection to gun control. (what i find really ironic is that most right to bear arms proponents are christian. so you ask them, what about the bible and an eye for an eye or women submitting completely to their husbands and sitting on their own side in church, shushed into silence. i always here, well that’s a reference to the situation of the times and doesn’t apply today) Bearing arms was a necessity when the Constitution was written. I’m not sure we should suspend the Right to Bear Arms, but let’s have a bit more historical context in our need to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Then we have Ron Paul’s very unlibertarian stance on illegal immigration. I do not believe illegal immigration is a huge threat to the United States. Ron Paul’s very political existence, in his words, is to protect the foundations of this country - meaning the Constitution. Yet illegal immigration is a foundation of this country as well. The U.S. has experienced wave after wave of various illegal immigration groups and responded in fear and intolerance. Yet, each time, the economy and culture absorbed these immigrants well until the fear had passed and the group was accepted. What our economy cannot tolerate is the deportation of over 12 million workers who are here illegally. Farmers, restaurateurs, construction and other industries would be threatened at every level. It is fear-mongering that has the country lashing out at undocumented workers needlessly. Ron Paul contributes to perpetration of such lies - while his supporters accuse everyone else of lying about him.

Having studied intently on the subject of economics, Ron Paul’s approach is strictly in support of free-market Capitalism, as well as the elimination of the Federal Reserve, income tax, the IRS and many departments of the U.S. government. I do not support any pure economic theory, whether its Capitalism or Communism, as it fails to truly interpret and react to the human pysche. These theories assume far too much about human behavior to be effectively applied without hindrance. Economic activity must be a balance of many elements, including capitalism and socialism, to truly benefit the society to which they are applied.

Hypocrisy

Ron Paul has claimed repeatedly to believe that abortion is a legal question best left to the states. Yet, he is the sponsor of unsuccessful The Sanctity of Life Act which would define life at conception and protects life from conception to birth. A federal law defining life at conception would basically handicap any state law legalizing abortion because it would amount to murder. Paul’s repeated statements that he believes abortion should be a states’ right is a lie - evidenced by his intent to change federal law to prevent the surgical act and private right. Also, Ron Paul asserts a “partial birth abortion is never a necessary procedure.” He goes on to say, “The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture…” If anyone of you has read Freakonomics, you would know that abortion actually contributes to a decrease in violent crime. Just FYI. He is even a member of the Association of American Physicians - a right-wing group of doctors that are opposed to abortion and believe in the free market so they may choose whatever price they want to provide medical services.

Now I will address the controversial newsletters published between 1988 and 1996 under Ron Paul’s name that have questionable messages and innuendos. The newsletters were at various times survivalist or pro-militia, anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, conspiracy theorist and isolationist. Ron Paul says he didn’t write the newsletters and doesn’t know who did (which I believe to be a patent lie) and believes that should be the end of the story. “A Libertarian can’t be racist.” And his supporters think so too. That the American voter should not be concerned with the fact that such ugly, hateful, putrid language was published under a presidential candidate’s name is sheer ridiculousness. Paul has also said he would make all the newsletters available and has not made one effort towards fulfilling his word - leaving it up to The New Republic to dig them up. First of all, his explanation is NOT enough. Second of all, the fact that he’s still a minor player in the race without much attention from the other candidates and media shows how little he is being taken seriously in this race. If he were a real factor, everyone would be going to town on this guy’s past and he would have been forced out long ago. The newsletters are so offensive, I am amazed people would sully their name by endorsing this fellow!

Voting Record

Then I decided to visit Club For Growth and view his voting record, where I discovered many votes on which I personally would have differed. Though I did approve of many of his votes, these are the ones that irked me a bit:

• Voted for an amendment to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the development of national reading and math tests
• Votes against all free trade agreements because he thinks trade is inherently free and we don’t need all these silly stipulation. An isolationist view with clear miscalculating of our increasingly globalized world
• Voted against a minimum wage increase
• Voted against an amendment that imposed costly arsenic standards on small water systems
• Voted against an amendment imposing new mileage standards on automobiles
• Voted against a bill to criminalize so-called price gouging among oil companies
• Voted for a bill to prohibit federal officials from nominating U.S. lands for protection without prior congressional approval
• Paul opposes tort reform

Ron Paul Supporters - Hate Groups

Overwhelmingly, white supremacists, pro-militia groups, conspiracy theorists, 9/11 thruthers, and Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul. I would list all the white supremacist groups who support him here if it wouldn’t make me throw up. Should he have to pay for the sins of his followers? Should he have to return their contributions or publicly denounce them? Denounce them, yes.

It is a real and significant question to ask if a person who garners the favor of hate group after hate group would be the best representative for the people of the U.S. and even the free world. This alone, in my opinion, negates him as a viable candidate for president. He never discusses this branch of his support and this, coupled with his past newsletters, indicates to me he speaks Libertarian like the CATO Institute, yet lives and thinks the Libertarian of the Ted Kaczynski/Timothy McVeigh style. “R”evol“ution”? My ass.

And as we see more credible Libertarians abandon his campaign, it is more easily understood that Paul is not for limited government, but for no government. We all have our compounds and apply our own laws. Does he think the South should have had the right to secede? I question how badly he wants to protect the Constitution and his flavor of Libertarianism in general.

Misc. Points

• Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution.
• His supporters refer to him as Dr. Paul - not a big deal, but you never hear people calling Bill Frist “Dr. Frist.”
• Read this “handwritten” campaign letter sent out by Ron Paul. It’s good for a laugh.

Stealing the Republican Nomination
Ron Paul has many intriguing positions and declarations that allow me to understand his appeal and his cultish following - especially in today’s corporatocracy. Taking into consideration ALL that I have found - and there is a wealth on his positions because he writes so often (a practice to encourage among politicians - he is not a candidate I could support now or ever. Having seen the results of his campaign, it would seem a point moot at this time.

Think again.

In what seems good enough fodder for a conspiracy theory, many his followers want to amass enough delegates at the Republican Convention to give him the nomination anyway! Some think he is the only Republican candidate who could beat the Democratic Nominee. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

I realize many Ron Paul supporters are normal, rational people. I don’t know many of them, but I’m sure they exist. It is with the crazies who want to amass delegates at the Convention that I have a quarrel.

In the Republican primaries so far, give or take a few minor errors, I have calculated 618,094 voters have cast their ballot for Ron Paul. 7,434,090 have voted for McCain and 2,874,007 have voted for Huckabee. Ron Paul has earned less than 4.5 percent of the overall nearly-14 million votes in the Republican primary. And yet his followers still want him to be the Republican nominee. As a Government major in college, you can understand how blasphemous I feel such strategy is!

The U.S. is a representative democracy. For the most part, we choose our elections through a majority or plurality votes. For Ron Paul supporters to think it’s right that they get together to usurp the nomination in direct contravention with the overall will of Republican voters, is shameful. Paul says he will remain in the race as long as his supporters want him to and will use his newfound influence and money to affect other political races. Such is his right.

But end this hope for the Republican nomination. It is wrong at its very base regardless of delegate equations. Only if Ron Paul were to gather a majority of the votes, even if he wasn’t allotted a majority of the delegates, would it be understandable to make a grab for the nomination. This cannot and will not happen.

Ron Paul has been good for discussion and a benefit to the process. But that’s it.

Clinton Gets Nasty - Does That Make Her A Bitch?

This weekend, Hillary’s bipolar campaign decided to tack toward the scolding and mocking - away from the friendly and conciliatory. She scolded Obama for “misrepresenting” her stance on NAFTA and later mocked him, saying that,”I could just stand up here and say ‘Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified.’ The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” You can watch the video on The Huffington Post here.

Applying the word “bitch” to Clinton can ignite a shitstorm of controversy, with women claiming men never receive such epithets. I wholeheartedly disagree, as I apply the words “dick,” “asshole,” “asshat,” “weiner,” “ankle-grabber,” and many, many more to many, many men in and outside the political arena.

Let’s get real. Clinton is a bitch. You can see it clear as day in her clip on Saturday telling Obama, “Shame on you” in that mean school-marmy affect she has. The continual replaying of the clip has sent ripples of cringes across this nation of ours. A lot of powerful women can be called bitches and others can’t. Being a bitch isn’t a bad thing and certainly doesn’t mean Clinton wouldn’t or couldn’t be a good president. Quite the opposite, in fact. But it’s not her bitchiness that will lose this election for her.

Letting loose her inner bitch and then speaking mockingly and condescendingly of Obama’s “message of hope” the next day just signals her campaign is grasping at straws and getting desperate. She’s like the girl toward the end of the night who really wants to hook up but even the ubiquitous beer goggles aren’t getting her any play. Too late, you’re a mess, go home and lick your wounds. She couldn’t win on inevitability. She couldn’t win on the issues. She couldn’t win on personality. Insulting Obama supporters certainly won’t convince them to abandon his ticket in droves. Bitchiness might have worked before, but not now. It’s just pathetic now because it’s purpose is so transparent.

So far, Obama has shown no proclivity towards getting down in the dirt with her, but - needless to say - the debate tomorrow night on MSNBC promises to be very interesting indeed. Maybe she can channel the Ultimate Fighting Champion and Eleanor Roosevelt at the same time and pull a miracle out of her ass. I doubt it, tough. The fat lady is entering the building…

More On The Evolution Teachings In Schools - This Time In Texas

The March 4 primary isn’t just a big deal in Texas because for one of the first times, the Lone Star State will have a hand in deciding a presidential nominee, an election for a members of the State Board of Education is also a hot topic. The decisions Texans in District 2 and District 11 will set the scientific agenda for the state’s schools, including whether to scale back teachings of evolution and increasing the notion of “intelligent design” and abstinence vs. contraception, etc. Echoes of the Wild, Wild West still linger in this diverse state and the School Board is no exception.

If you’ve read my blog, you already know how I stand on this issue. The teaching of evolution is merely a factual presenation of the evidence we have found as to the Earth’s origins and its development. “Intelligent Design” - or the notion that there is a specific designer of the universe and we humans are merely too “unintelligent” to explain it. Well, I’m not.

First of all, the idea that science will never discover how or why the Earth came into existence is insanity defined. Science grows by leaps and bounds all the time. Look at how much we can explain scientifically of the Earth’s history, molecular structures, the biological mechanics of the human body and the “why”s that accompany these discoveries. Humans have discovered an exponential amount in the areas of technology, physics, chemistry, etc. than even 100 years ago. That science is somehow handicapped and limited is freaking ridiculous and a myth Christians hold on to because to disprove the bible would undo all that they’ve based their souls on. They are biased. Science is not biased. Science wants to discover, not destroy. Christians want to destroy all that is separate and disagrees with them. Their behavior is shameful and embarrassing.

I’m not worried about the development of the School Board. You cannot stop progress. To teach intelligent design in schools will simply prove the “conservatives” imbeciles and the children whose education they choose to forsake will understand this in time. Information is everywhere and boundless and unstoppable.

And, FYI - if all you intelligent designers want to know how the Earth came into existence, watch Naked Science “Birth of the Solar System” on National Geographic. That should clear up a lot of questions you might have.

And if you live in District 2 or District 11 - please research the candidates and vote INTELLIGENTLY. There is no Democrat Running for School Board in District 11, so I cannot vote as I will be voting in the Democratic Primary. You Republicans out there will have 2 choices and I suggest PAT HARDY- who is Christian, but does not endorse the teaching of Intelligent Design.

Nader’s In - Suck It, Bitter Democrats

Nader, as we thought he would, announced on “Meet The Press” yesterday that he would enter the 2008 presidential race. Here’s the transcript - it was a good show.

While he will meet a lot of opposition from Democrats who feel as if he “stole” the election from Gore in 2000, I happen to think his presidential endeavors - though predictably fruitless - increase the democratic health of this country. Even the whirlpool of poor judgment Goober Bush’s presidency has been does not preclude the benefits Nader brings by running as a third ticket. Nader says he received quite a few Republican votes that year as well - and I agree that it is far from conclusive his participation in that election kept Gore from The White House. Gore acted like dick during that campaign and he deserved to lose it. VP’s cannot behave as though it is their inalienable right to be president and shun the very president who gave them their VP post in the first place. And that’s the tip of the ice burg when it comes to reasons Gore was not the 43rd president.

Furthermore, the Republican and Democratic parties own the U.S.’ political system and their corruption and poor behavior are frequently intertwined into a single motivation to lengthen careers and increase power. What have the democrats accomplished since taking Congress back? Certainly not pressuring Bush to scale the war back - in fact, he achieved a surge in troop levels under their watch. Have they launched any significant investigations against the impeachable president and his V.P.? Not at all! Sure, they helped bring about Gonzales’ ouster, but who gives a crap? Mukasey won’t even say whether waterboarding is illegal or not - talk about worthless yes men! Congress’ approval rating is in the outhouse and they’re hardly more beneficial than the rubber stamp Congress that preceded them.

It has long been time for third-party candidates to raise their voice. Ceding power to two political parties handicaps our ability to participate in this representative government and demand they represent our best interests. More choice means a healthier democracy. I’m not delusional enough to think Nader could win the election (unlike the Ron Paul suckers), but he just might get my vote on principal. The simple back and forth negotiating between Republicans and Democrats has created a quagmire of corruption and inefficacy that bleeds power to the mega-corps who really run the country today. I don’t want to participate in that.

If you’re still upset Nader’s entering the race, give a good research to the guy and take a hard look at his past. You might find something you like and can get behind. Haha. I said “behind.”

Bring it Nader! Bring it good!