I Wish Tomorrow Was November 4th

I just read an article about what's on Barack Obama's iPod.

I can't believe we still have over four months of this crap until the election.

As for the article, I like Obama. Really, I do. I probably won't vote for him, but I think he seems like an interesting and basically decent person, and I also admit to being somewhat intrigued by him.

But then he says stuff like this:

"Actually, one of my favorites during the political season is 'Maggie's Farm,' " Obama said of one of Dylan's tracks. "It speaks to me as I listen to some of the political rhetoric."

"It speaks to me." Seriously? There's nothing inherently wrong with the quote, but it's also quite reminicent of a lot of that elitist claptrap that John Kerry used to spew four years ago.

Of course, the real fault lies with the reporters who write this nonsense, actually believing it to be newsworthy.

Or does the fault lie with me, because I clicked on the article and read it?

Finally, Someone Else Said It

Before all the Dem Veep talk was about Hillary, all anyone could talk about, it seems, was Jim Webb.

Finally, someone aside from me, thinks that would be a bad idea.

Of course, Tim Noah has lots of good reasons why he thinks Webb isn't a good choice for Obama to make as a running mate. I just plain don't like the guy.

Perhaps this reason espoused by Noah comes close to being an actual justification on my part, were I inclined to look for one:

Is Obama too cautious and detached? Webb is famous for speaking his mind. (Elizabeth Drew, the New York Review of Books, June 26, 2008 issue: "Like a boxer or a military man, Webb decides on his targets and charges straight at them.")

It's this last characteristic that's the problem. Webb, 62, is a bit of a blowhard.

Also, Noah points to this bit of pettiness...which shows Webb to be pretty immature for his age.

But I can't really point to that as a reason I don't like the guy, because I didn't know about it until just this second and my dislike for him is something that's been around for a while and resurfaces every time I hear his name. I just plain don't like him, and in an election year, and particularly an campaign like Obama's, that's all about change and being optimistic, Webb and his brand of bitter, blowhard politics may not be the best way to go. It's honestly hard for me to say I prefer him to Hillary, even, if that says anything about how profound my dislike for him is.

Do yourself a favor, Barack Obama, and just stay away from both of them. You can pick pretty much anyone else. But I just really don't want to see either one of them polluting the airwaves even more than they are already polluted. If you really want to be the change that we can all believe in, prove it in the most important decision you'll make as your party's nominee.

I won't be holding my breath.

Adieu, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Adieu.

Well, folks, it's finally over. Hillary has accepted that it is not her entitlement fate to be President this time around.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I didn't get that quite right. It's actually not over until Saturday. What should have been over on Tuesday, or, if you want to be techinical, long before Tuesday when everyone knew she had virtually no chance of winning the nomination, is now being dragged out until Saturday.

I think the official reason for dragging this out is that Hillary needs time to come to terms with her loss before stepping out of the race officially.

No, I'm not making that up.

I suppose it is understandable that a normal person might need to take some time after the whirlwind of a strenuous primary campaign before moving on to the next thing. I could argue that Hillary is far from a normal person - and you can take that however you wish because I really don't care anymore - but even setting that aside, I would definitely argue that she'll have plenty of time to go through all the stages of grief after withdrawing from the race. In fact, she'll have nothing but time, right?

I'm also made increasingly nervous by all the media speculation that Hillary might end up being Obama's VP. I still think it's highly unlikely, but the fact that it's all anyone can talk about is enough to give one pause. I really hope that's not the case, because I'd really just rather see as little of Hillary Clinton as possible from here on out.

So, I'll go ahead and say goodbye. Goodbye, Hillary. It's been swell. Now, please try to be graceful for once in your life and just go the hell away.

The Woes of Hillary Clinton

Just how bad are things for Hillary Clinton?

Let's check with Slate's Hillary Deathwatch:

And if that's not enough, let's check in with Jeff Ellis while we're at it:

Hence, there are two lessons that one can take away from today's Puerto Rico primary.

1) 33% of voters will still vote for Barack Obama even after he essentially blows them off.

2) Hillary Clinton is apparently the favored candidate of primary voters who don't have to pay federal taxes.

Poor Hillary. Of course, if she'd just bow out gracefully (though it's much too late for that now), all of this merciless mocking wouldn't still be going on because we wouldn't have her to kick around anymore.

Of course, at this point, when she finally does bow out (assuming the decision isn't ultimately made for her), then we can all just mock her for not doing it sooner. Then, hopefully, she'll disappear.

What's Good for the Country Is What's Good for the Candidates...Both of Them

Andrew Sullivan, who I still like a lot despite the fact that he tends toward hyperbole - while meaning to be completely serious - which really kind of annoys me, has links to a couple of post debating the merits of the proposed McCain-Obama summer debate series. On the con side he proffers this piece by Noam Scheiber:

McCain has several big disadvantages vis-a-vis Obama. He faces a massive enthusiasm gap and will have trouble attracting large crowds. He's in all likelihood going to be massively outraised and outspent, making it hard to get his message out. And, possibly as a result of the previous problem, he'll be cast as a right-winger determined to continue George Bush's policies.

The unmoderated debates would help him overcome all three problems. They'll draw big crowds and generate lots of buzz. They'll help him get his message out for free. And, just by virtue of appearing frequently at Obama's side and having a civil debate, they'll make him look much more moderate than the Obama campaign wants him to look.

I don't see the upside for Obama.

On the pro side, there is this argument from Hendrik Hertzberg:

Another reason, tactically speaking, for Obama to say yes to McCain’s proposal is the dampening effect a series of buddy-movie faceoffs could have on the campaign of character assassination that is sure to be conducted by Republican surrogates and 527s. McCain and Obama both speak of their desire to have a civil conversation. Both say they want to reach across ideological and party lines. Both say they don’t regard their opponents as enemies. A series of face-to-face discussions would make it a little harder for the partisans of either candidate (I’m talking about you, Republicans) to run a parallel campaign of lies and slanders, and would ratchet up the pressure on the intended beneficiary of such a campaign to put the kibosh on it.

Obama’s right. It’s a great idea.

All of that is well and good. And I guess each side has to look at it from the perspective of how it would benefit them.

But really, at the end of the day, I'd feel much more comfortable if the real concern were not whether it was good for Obama but whether it was good for the country. Surely, it's good for the voters to have this kind of open and honest exchange of ideas from the two major party candidates, one of whom will ultimately be the next President of the United States. And since both the candidates seem to want that kind of a dialogue, and most of politics is one big gamble anyway, why not just do it. It seems really cynical for all of these commentators, who in reality are the ones supposed to keep the politicians in check and keep them honest and be looking out for the interests of the public instead of the bottom line, to be so focused on what's good for Obama rather than what's good for the country.

It's almost as if they've decided that Obama is what's good for the country and since we, the public, are too stupid to come to that conclusion on our own through a series of civil and unmoderated debates, they've got to take matters into their own hands and declare that Obama should do it only if it "helps" him...and never mind whether it's the right thing to do.

Obama's instincts are right on this one, and his supporters should support that, rather than falling brazenly at the altar of political expediency.

The Assassin Vote

This is just plain wrong. Still, it's funny as hell.

Slate Readers Stick a Fork in Her

Check out the results from Slate's Obama Doomsday Scenario Contest.

My favorites:

He shot Alexander Hamilton. And there's video.—Andrew Rice

Hillary sheds two tears.—Jon Cowan

One of the lesser-known consequences of quantum physics is an event called “quantum tunneling.” Here's how it happens: At a campaign stop in West Virginia, completely out of the blue, the aggregate wave functions of all the particles in Barack Obama's body end up instantaneously transporting him through the entire Earth and leaving him treading water somewhere in the Indian Ocean, or leaving his various particles scattered inside the mantle. The odds of this occurring are such that any macroscopic object tunneling through any barrier is highly unlikely in the lifespan of the universe, but it could occur!—Michael Blessington

Please Die Already, Hillary Campaign

I'm sitting here right now watching Hillary Clinton's "victory" speech. I put it in quotes because she is treating it as a true victory speech, not really in the fake way that politicians do even when they know it is hopeless, but in a really genuinely delusional way. She's treating Indiana as a win even though it technically hasn't been called yet.

Now, when it comes right down to it, she will probably end up being the winner in Indiana. But the win there isn't nearly as decisive as it should have been and it isn't final, so her posturing and grandstanding right now seems especially obnoxious in that light.

As I sit here watching her, I can't help but think of all of those conservatives and Republicans, led by their overlord Rush Limbaugh, who really want Hillary to get the nomination because they think it will be easier for McCain to beat her. A friend of mind said as much last night.

Well, all I can say to that, is this: Be careful what you ask for. This seems to be especially prudent when Hillary Clinton is involved.

It's not that I don't want McCain to win in November. I mean, I will mostly likely be voting for him, no matter which Democrat comes out ahead. And I, too, used to think that she would be easier to beat.

After having watched the past few weeks of this election, though, I must say, I'm not so sure. To see what Hillary has done to Obama, when for all intents and purposes this thing was "over" months ago, should give anyone viewing it pause. Conventional wisdom may say that Hillary will lose to McCain in November (and I'm not at all sure that it does, at this point), but Hillary has shown herself to be incredibly tenacious...and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Mostly, though, the thing that frustrates me is that she simply doesn't deserve to be the nominee. And if she is, quite frankly, it will really piss me off, even if it does make it easier for McCain to win in November.

Hmm...well, she did just throw in a comment about working for whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee. So that's something, I guess. Perhaps she's not as crazy and delusional as I think she is.

I won't be holding my breath though.

NOTE: My title does not indicate that I want Hillary to die. Just her campaign. Please, lady, just go away.

UPDATE: The pundits are saying that her speech sounded like a concession speech. They seem to be ready to stick the fork in her...again. I didn't hear the concession aspects. Perhaps she hit those notes while I was typing so I missed them. But if she did indeed sound more conciliatory, then I say good for her.

Elitism and Politics

So, I was watching some of the "news" this morning concerning Hillary's "big win" in the Pennsylvania primary yesterday.

(Sorry for all the scare quotes. I'm in an ironic mood, I think.)

On MSNBC this morning,

(I like to give "credit" where it's due)

...they showed a clip of Barack Obama speaking last night from Indiana.

(Psst, Barack - I know you candidates typically like to avoid hanging around in states you aren't going to win for election night. I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but you aren't supposed to win there, either.)

What he had to say sounded fine, but in the interest of full disclosure, I wasn't really listening all that closely. After the clip, the "illustrious" commentators started in on the clip.

Joe Scarborough started us off, with some rambling nonsense about how one time he was running for something against some other guy who was kind of an elitist and he didn't have to come right out and call him an elitist because he had that folksy way about him and just in walking up and shaking hands with people and talking with them they could see the difference.

(I say rambling because he seemed like he didn't really want to talking about it. Perhaps even he realized that what he was about to say was completely useless.)

Then, Chris Matthews started in, talking about how Obama's "elitist" shtick isn't going to play in a place like Indiana.

Um...okay.

It's hard to know where to start with this.

First of all, I think this statement is vaguely - no, make that patently - insulting to people from Indiana or Pennsylvania or West Virginia or wherever it is that he thinks Obama isn't going to "play" well, rather than being insulting to Obama himself. He's basically saying that the people in those states are too "simple" to really get a complex, nuanced guy like Obama.

Yes, it's true that when asked, a lot of people, and not just in those few states I've mentioned, will say they prefer a candidate who is more like them. It's the candidates and the media who assume this means simple and folksy, so that's how they try to present themselves, just as they try to paint their opponent as elitist and out of touch.

I actually think that what Obama does is pretty smart. He doesn't talk down to people, or assume that he's got to act stupid or home-spun or in any way other than his own. He comes across as very genuine, and also very intelligent, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

(Yes, I do realize that Obama had a bit of a misstep on this issue recently, which has led to this latest bout of calling him elite in the first place. His choice of words was somewhat unfortunate, especially since he does not often misspeak. But the point he was trying to make does not really make him sound all that elite, and in fact, shows the opposite, that he cares about the plights of those who may not be like him and understands why it is that they can be the way they are sometimes.)

The larger problem, though, is that I'm really quite shocked that Hillary Clinton is daring to paint herself as non-elite (or at least as less elite than Obama), and that the media is actually letting her get away with it. I would never have thought that I'd see the day where Hillary manages to come across as a down home girl and the media does nothing to call her on it.

This is especially egregious given that before they started talking about this, the same network played a clip of Hillary on some morning show talking about her "strategy" going forward.

She said that now it is up to the delegates to decide whether she or Obama would make a better candidate and opponent for John McCain. She also said that she has managed to put together impressive wins in states that are going to be crucial states for Democrats to win in November, whereas Obama has won a bunch of states that Democrats don't have a prayer of winning.

Um...okay.

Let me get this straight. Hillary goes on television and basically disses entire states where people showed up to vote in the Democratic primary, telling them that their votes don't really matter because the Democrats won't be able to win their states in November, and instead suggests that the delegates should override the popular vote and the will of the majority of those who voted in the Democratic primaries and instead vote for her to be the nominee.

Yet Obama's the one who is the elitist?

Something is very wrong with this picture.

For more on the Pennsylvania primary, check out Jeff Ellis' blog. Particualary this post, which has so many funny quotes about Hillary that I couldn't pick just one. I've taken to calling her just "Hillary," as opposed to Hillary Clinton, because I am refusing to take her seriously any more as a candidate. I hope that she doesn't manage to somehow steal this nomination from Obama. I really can't stand to look at her or hear from her anymore.

Something about McCain

Slate offers a repeat of a McCain anecdote that originally appeared in the New York Times Magazine in a profile by Michael Lewis. It's a pretty good story.

Pay for What You Get

I saw this headline earlier today, and didn't think that much of it. But then I heard it on the radio, and something about it really cracked me up.

Apparently, some wily Obama operatives lured some impressionable Indiana University students from a Clinton campaign rally by giving away free tickets to a Dave Matthews concert. (Read on to realize that the way this is being played isn't exactly the way it is.)

The most surprising development here: that college kids still like Dave Matthews.

Less surprising: that college kids' votes can be so easily bought:

Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they'd left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.

"I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure," he said. "The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here."

Then again, this is unfair of me. I know of one person who might be willing to switch their allegiance to McCain to Obama to get to see Dave Matthews in concert, and this person is a long way from college. Actually, I probably know more than one person who would be willing to do so, I just don't happen to know who they are planning on voting for, though, if I had to guess, I'd have to say McCain. I doubt any of them are planning on voting for Obama, though they might change their mind once they realize that Obama and Matthews are so tight.

The guy that was talking about this on the radio mentioned that these tickets can't be cheap. But given that Matthews has endorsed Obama (yawn), this is less impressive. Oh, yeah, and the fact that the concert is actually an Obama event and THE CONCERT IS FREE.

It's not exactly bribing for votes, then, is it?

Like a Horror Show Monster, Gore Just Won't Die

Say it ain't so.

Jeff Ellis has blogged twice about this now, so I am not going to be able to ignore it anymore. It seems that some people have been kicking around the idea that Al Gore should step in and offer to be the Democratic nominee for President, thereby saving the party the continued degradation of the Clinton-Obama fight.

I really don't think this will happen, but I also can't say it would seriously surprise me if it did. Mostly, I suppose with as crazy as this campaign has been, it would just be par for the course. I can't honestly imagine why Gore would want to be President. I mean, obviously he really doesn't or he would have run in the first place. But he seems to have a pretty good life, without all of the attendant stress that comes along with being President, so why he's want to go and ruin it beats me.

Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part when I say I don't think it'll happen. I mean, I don't, but I also really don't want it to.

There are any number of reasons for this. But the one that came to mind first actually kind of surprised me a little bit.

It just wouldn't be fair.

It strikes me as incredibly unfair to both Obama and Clinton for a bunch of people to be suggesting that Gore should swoop in to save the day. Gore could have run for President, but he decided not to. I presume he had reasons for that, reasons which probably haven't changed all that much. And if they have, well that's just too darn bad for him. You snooze, you lose. He had his chance, and now it's too late. It's not fair to these two other candidates, who have been fighting with everything they have to secure the nomination for themselves. Like them or not, they have both put in a tremendous amount of effort into their respective quests to become the next President, and they both feel like they are the best person for the job. To completely thwart the process, which is working the way it is supposed to, in order to install a new and more palatable candidate, unblemished by the fight, would not exactly be a blow for the kind of change the Democrats are promising to bring to the country in this election. Talk about disregarding the will of the people. It would make all of the previous primaries completely useless. People talk about Hillary Clinton and the fact that she seemed to expect a coronation just because of who she is, but at least she went through the proper process to get there. Gore's been sitting on the sidelines, eating bonbons and winning Oscars (not to mention completely unwarranted Nobel Peace Prizes) and hanging out with celebrities while Obama and Clinton have been gutting it out state by state.

I would also lose a lot of respect for Obama if he were to participate in such a farce.

Some Thoughts on Hillary Clinton

Before I launch into the post, I have to make a disclosure at the outset. A part of me wants to like Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it's the contrarian in me. Most everyone I know absolutely cannot stand her, so that immediately makes me want to argue with them and say, well she's not so bad. So there is definitely this part of me that wants to like her, even if I would never vote for her.

But even I can't delude myself into looking past all the negative and actually liking her or thinking she'd be a good President, so I know there must be something seriously wrong with her.

There are a couple of interesting items in the NY Times that really illustrate this point.

First of all, she's finally spoken out about the issue with Obama and his pastor. A week too late, at the very least. If she was going to say something, she should have done it sooner. Of course, she was doing the right thing by keeping her mouth shut, which earned her a modicum of respect in my book, but now that she's gone and opened her mouth on it, well, let's just say that moment was nice while it lasted. She just looks weak and desperate now.

The Obama camp suggests that her sudden speaking out has to do with her ridiculous statements about being subject to sniper fire in Bosnia, and her even more ridiculous defense that she was sleep deprived and she merely misspoke...for the first time in 12 years. (She also said that occasionally, she is a human being, which makes you wonder just what the heck she is the rest of the time?)

However, I think her attack now is less about that specific story and more about the fact that her chances at being the Democratic nominee have dwindled to just about nothing over the past week, despite the major heat Obama has taken over Wright's comments and the heat he continues to take in many circles over various things contained in his speech. (For an interesting take on the speech that I don't really agree with, check out Christopher Hitchens' latest column. Also see Andrew Sullivan's response, which is more in line with my way of thinking, though it pains me to say it.)

This David Brooks piece really says it all. He's absolutely right that what she is doing now is potentially devastating for her party in this election, and if she really cared about electing someone who would change the way things are and be most in line with her own way of thinking and her own vision for what this country should be, then she would step out of the way and let Obama go forward unscathed.

But she simply won't do it, and I can come to no other conclusion that it all comes down to arrogance and selfishness. It makes her such an unattractive candidate because it becomes all the more clear by her actions that she really doesn't care at all about "the people," only herself and her own ego.

It doesn't matter to me much one way or the other what she does, as I'll probably be voting for McCain in November. But still, I can't help but be appalled by her actions and also can't help but be increasingly glad that she will almost certainly NOT be the Democratic nominee, which means there's no way she can be President come January 2009. I suppose she could always return later to try again, but I really think her actions are precluding even that as a possibility.

Obama & The Speech

I've been meaning to blog about this for a couple of days now, but I've been a little busy so I'm only just now getting around to it.

I must start by saying that I do find the comments of Obama's former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to be more than a little disturbing, and the fact that this man has played such a large part in the shaping of the Obama we see before us today does give me pause. Ultimately, though, I have to give Obama tremendous credit for handling this the way he has. I think the knee-jerk response of most politicians in his position would have been to drop the guy like a hot potato and to put as much distance between them as possible.

But Obama recognizes that there is more to a man than just a couple of speeches or sermons or a skewed view of the world. He understands that people are complex creatures who are a mix of good and bad, and we shouldn't just write those people off and out of our lives because they have said and done some controversial things and we have decided to run for President. He also understands that there is usually a reason a person develops a skewed view of the world, and while this doesn't make it right, it does make it easier to understand, especially when looking at the person as a whole rather than just one segment of their life's work and accomplishment.

I do not excuse the Rev. Wright's comments. I find them repugnant. But I also know that I cannot begin to truly comprehend what it's been like to be him in the first place. They say you shouldn't judge someone until you can walk a mile in their shoes, and I think that's pretty good advice. It's true that we should all aspire to rise above our circumstances, however unfair they may be, but that doesn't mean we can all sit around and look down at others who fail to do so, especially when we have no concept of the events and experiences that have led them to that point.

This is why I'm most angered by the people who have called into question Obama's Christianity. I believe that his is probably the most genuine Christianity we've seen from a politician running for President. It's certainly a lot more Christian than the mealy-mouthed platitudes offered up by President Bush.

I did not listen to Obama's speech on Tuesday. I tried to, but I was at work and I didn't want to disturb my co-workers. But I did read the full text of it later, and I must say that I was pretty impressed.

Then, this morning I caught this post on the women of Slate blog, and knew could wait no longer to blog about this story.

Honestly, that surprised me. I'm not a Huckabee hater at all, but I certainly have a lot more respect for him after reading this. I think if McCain's looking to complete his ticket with one of the other Republican candidates, he'd do a lot better with someone like Huckabee than with someone like Romney. I was particularly struck by his measured response concerning the statements by Rev. Wright. Then again, it shouldn't be so surprising, because it is a true Christian response. It's just so rare to see any politician actually represent actual Christian values, rather than paying lip service to a few key issues while continuing to act in a manner that is decidedly un-Christian. Maybe Huckabee is the real deal after all. I have a friend that really supported his candidacy, and while I still don't think I could have myself, I'm starting to see a little bit of why she liked him so much.

I also appreciate how the other major campaigns have largely stayed away from this issue. Of course, it's very difficult to know just how to handle it, but with all the righteous anger floating around out there at the moment, you'd think

And once again, the denizens of the shrill conservative movement, the jokers of talk radio, once again have no candidate or former candidate who speaks for them, as they all choose to take a measured response or else make no response at all, rather than letting to vitriol fly. This, my friends, can only be a good thing.

I was also surprised by another response to this whole thing: my father's. When I got home from work on Tuesday and was getting something to eat in a hurry before rushing off to class, my father was watching the news. I guess they were talking about Obama and his speech and the flap over Wright's comments. As the story wrapped up, he decided to try and engage me in a conversation.

"What do you think of Obama?" he asked.

I paused, because the truth is I really don't enjoy talking politics with my family very much. It's not that they are too conservative for me (though, in truth, they probably are that, too), it's that they're too much of a particular kind of conservative for me. They tend to be a little knee-jerk on certain things, and very absolutist, which makes it incredibly difficult to have an actual conversation with them.

I will say, though, that my father is generally more open-minded and willing to have a discussion than my mother is. This is probably because he was raised by fairly liberal parents as opposed to...raised by incredibly not liberal parents. Still, it wasn't something I really wanted to discuss all that much.

I also didn't quite know how to answer, so I did what I always do in that situation: sputtered and stalled. He repeated the question again, so I stopped and thought about how much I should say and how I should word it.

"I think he's interesting, and I think he'd make a better President than Hillary Clinton," I offered, knowing my father would surely agree with me on the latter point...which he did.

We actually then proceeded to have a short conversation about Obama, and I was quite frankly really surprised how interested my father seemed in him and how unbothered he was by all of this Wright stuff. Maybe he just doesn't know that much about it, but that wasn't the impression I got. It was all very strange.

All the Veep Nonsense I Can Stand for One Week

In the midst of all the bigger news stories out there this week, I happened to hear mention that Mitt Romney, a man I really hoped would just gently and graciously slip out of the picture for now and always, has publicly stated his willingness to accept the VP slot on the Republican ticket should McCain offer it.

What it is with the hubris and vanity of these guys and gals when it comes to being Veep? First, Hillary says that she and Obama would make a dream ticket, presumably with her in the top spot, even though she's still trailing in the delegate count and most people say her chances of actually securing the nomination are incredibly slim. Even the conservatives who are pushing for their acolytes to run out and vote for Hillary in the primaries (you know who I mean - interestingly, the Google search I did to get that link turned up this article as well, with its truly cringe-worthy premise) don't seem to think she actually has a chance of securing the nomination, even though that's clearly the outcome they'd like. Instead, they seem to just want to keep the Democrats fighting each other as long as possible so that they look bad and will be kept off message, thus lending McCain an advantage. I could be wrong, but the assumption seems to be that Obama, at the end of the day, is still going to walk away with the nomination.

As for this Romney thing, all I can do is sigh and roll my eyes. First of all, duh. Of course Romney would be willing to accept the spot if it's offered. What the hell else is he going to do? He'd fall all over himself trying to accept it before McCain changed his mind. I love how he frames it, though, almost as if he'd be willing to go out of his way and do McCain a favor. How sickeningly presumptuous of him to even suggest that he should be under consideration.

Second of all, and most importantly, I really hope McCain doesn't choose this route. So, John McCain, if you're reading this, do not, under any circumstances, even think about making Mitt Romney your running mate. No one likes him, and it would only hurt you in the end. I know you may feel like you need to do something to reach out to the base, but trust me, there are better ways than elevating some two-bit hack who never should have been in the running in the first place. There's a reason he didn't get the nomination. He should have won it easily and handily, and he didn't, and that's because he, quite frankly, sucks.

The Word for the Day is Hubris

Obama won the Mississippi primary yesterday by a handy margin. It doesn't help too much in the delegate count, but I guess it should help him in the momentum department. This whole thing has turned on momentum. Obama had it, then after last week's primaries Clinton had it and now this week, Obama has it again after a win in Wyoming and a 24 point win in Mississippi. With a whole month until the next primary, in Pennsylvania, though, pretty much anything can happen.

I haven't said anything yet about the Eliot Spitzer thing. I caught this story on the radio pretty much as it was breaking - I was on my way to lunch and then on my way back from lunch as it developed - and I must say I was absolutely shocked. A couple of days later, and I'm still shocked. Not so much shocked that Spitzer would do something like this (though the reckless hubris of this activity is as appalling as it is stupid) but that apparently the man has been soliciting prostitutes for a pretty long time, and despite his status as a pretty controversial public figure, no one seemed to know about this. All I've heard and read since the story broke suggests that no one, even those people in the know, suspected that Spitzer was engaged in this kind of activity. There were no rumors or whispers and none of that "worst kept secret" vibe that you get so often when a scandal like this breaks. Everyone just seems numbly shocked, and that is truly amazing to me.

I'm also struck by this Geraldine Ferraro thing. In case you didn't hear, she made a comment about Barack Obama where she basically stated that he wouldn't be where he is right now if he weren't black. She has since tried to clarify her remarks, saying that she really meant it as a compliment that the black community has really come out to support one of its own, but she also refuses to apologize for her comments. She also refuses to step down from her role as an advisor to Hillary Clinton. I don't quite know what to make of this. On the one hand, I'm almost kind of impressed that she isn't buckling immediately under public pressure after saying something stupid by backpedaling and then resigning. It's kind of refreshing to hear someone stand by what they say for more than 10 seconds. At the same time, though, I think it speaks volumes about the differences between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. After one of Obama's advisors called Hillary Clinton a "monster," she was apologizing and out the door, surely at the behest of his campaign. Yet one of Clinton's advisor makes a pretty obviously disparaging remark about Obama - a higher profile advisor, at that - and Clinton refuses to make a similar statement and gesture of goodwill to her opponent. (Bear in mind that this is the same man she wants to join her on the ticket as her Veep.)

Of course, the Veep thing along with the Ferraro thing really speak to the sense of entitlement and, yes, hubris that Clinton seems to feel and certainly projects. I guess hubris is the story of the day. I'm somewhat cynical, and therefore when people start talking about the hubris of politicians, I usually sigh, because, the truth of the matter is, all politicians are arrogant. They all display hubris to one degree or another, so it seems kind of silly to point it out. Still, sometimes even I can be shocked by the level of hubris displayed by one of these guys...or gals. And the news stories surrounding both Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton show that both of them really fit that bill.

Election Day

I voted today.

I even got an "I Voted" sticker. Of course, even though I have a sticker, I don't have a camera, so you'll have to take my word for it. I'll try and snap a picture of it later and post it as proof.

It was my first time voting in my home state, and I felt like kind of an idiot, actually. I'd never voted on a ballot like this one before, so I needed a fair amount of direction. I can see honestly how people could get confused or not vote properly, and this ballot wasn't even confusing. Also, I was kind of surprised by the lack of privacy in the polling place. They had these little booths set up with short walls and no curtains or anything. The place was empty, but if there had been other people there voting, any of them could have looked over and seen who I was voting for.

It was also vaguely interesting to me that all of the Republican poll volunteers were old white people, and all of the Democratic volunteers were slightly younger black people. And almost all of them, with the exception of the guy that helped me with my ballot, were women.

I don't mind admitting that I voted in the Democratic primary. I definitely prefer one of the two remaining Democrats to the other one and since the Republican nomination was all sewn up by McCain already, I figured I'd branch out a bit. I thought about voting strategically (i.e. who would be the easiest person for McCain to beat in November), but that's really not the point of primaries, and I'd rather look forward to a campaign of ideas and civility rather than one of vitriol and attacks. I'm not naive enough to think that even with the best of candidates things such as negativity can be avoided, but I feel one of the two remaining candidates provides a better hope of rising above than the other.

So I voted for Obama today, and I'm pretty damn proud of it.

Definitely Not with a Bang

...Romney goes down.

It's not the way the whole world ends, but it is the probable end of Romney's.

This is really good news:  Mitt Romney will definitely not be the President of the United States for the next four years.  Just take a moment to think about that one.  

...

It's nice, isn't it?

Jeff Ellis, whose post about the matter is linked above, has dubbed Romney "the John Edwards of the Republican Party."  I can think of no more astute political observation made this election cycle.  I also think it, in and of itself, is reason enough that we should be glad to be rid of Mitt Romney.  

UPDATE:  Bruce Reed has some interesting thoughts on Romney's rise and fall.  

And You Thought I Was Mean

So, I was perusing Slate this morning, which I haven't done in a long time, and I stumbled across this pretty interesting article about the primaries and their relevance in picking the nominees. Apparently, it's a two part series, and the one I read focuses on the Republican candidates.

The article is interesting, but that's not why I'm posting it. As I was reading, I came across the following statement:

John McCain's Jan. 29 victory in the Florida primary got him declared the GOP front-runner just about everywhere, from Reuters to Slate. This seems fairly legitimate. McCain now has more convention-bound primary delegates (95) than Mitt Romney (67); McCain beat Romney by a respectable five points, 36 percent to 31 percent; and this was a closed primary (that is, no independents—who tend to favor McCain—were permitted to vote).

On the other hand, prior to Florida, when Romney had 67 delegates to McCain's 38, and three primary or caucus victories to McCain's two, and a personal fortune to draw on for campaign expenses, which McCain lacks, one heard little talk of Romney being the front-runner. There's a simple explanation for this. Romney is a twerp and a fraud, and no one can stand him.

Ouch. And I thought maybe I was a little too harsh in my dismissal of him yesterday.

I do however, feel a little more justified in my dislike of him, though. It's not just Slate, apparently; it's everybody:

Even Romney's former volunteer driver in his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy wrote on the New York Times op-ed page that due to the phoniness of his presidential campaign, "the Mitt Romney I know is sadly unrecognizable to today's voters." A Jan. 24 piece in the New York Times carried the extraordinary headline, "Romney Leads in Ill Will Among GOP Candidates." Romney's fellow candidates don't like him, and neither does the press. The only reason he's made it this far (apart from that personal fortune) is that a sizeable number of conservative Republicans see Romney as the only candidate who can stop McCain, whom they view (with some justification) as a crypto-liberal.

They even say something that I said yesterday, namely that conservatives like him because they don't like McCain and he is their best hope. The only think I disagree with is that those conservatives are justfied in thinking he's any kind of a liberal at all. Because he's not. Being more liberal than Pat Buchanan, or the ambition-fueled construct that Romney has created himself to be in order to become President, does not make one liberal. Ask any liberal (except those who work for Slate, apparently) what they think of McCain, and this will be confirmed for you.

Now, I know that McCain cultivates that image of himself as a maverick and a straight-talker. And I've even known many moderates and a few liberals (prior to his vociferous support of the Bush administration and the Iraq war) to be intrigued by him. But the fact that even he presents himself one way doesn't change the fact that he is a conservative. And I think, if you asked him and it weren't an election year and he could really be completely honest and not risk everything he's been working toward, he'd tell you that he is a conservative.

Random Thoughts on Life and Politics

Things have been incredibly hectic here lately. Hence the lack of updates on the blog. Hopefully, things have settled down a little bit as I've gotten into the flow of my routine. Still, I've got a lot on my plate, so it's still going to be a struggle - guess, in the end, I'd rather be busy than not.

I've been kind of a yo-yo of emotions lately. A couple of weeks ago I was all excited about the direction my life was heading, full of hope and optimism, which is quite an unusual feeling for a cynic like myself. Then, I started to feel overwhelmed and depressed about things that I thought I was finally started to move past. Guess those things will be with me for a long time. I do seem to be better able to deal with it, though.

Now, I'm feeling better again. Part of it was that I really enjoyed my Statistics class last night. I remembered that I kind of have a love/hate relationship with math, rather than a hate/hate relationship, so that was nice. This weekend, I got really bogged down with the homework she'd assigned to us - not because it was hard, but because it was pointless busy work and there was simply too much of it. I think she realized her mistake, though, because this week's assignment was pretty light. I managed to finish all of it after getting home from class last night, which means I'm way ahead in that class, since we don't even meet next week because of Mardi Gras. We finally started doing actual math, and that's when I rememebered that I really do like math, even if it doesn't always like me back.

Now we'll just have to wait and see if Chemistry is any better tonight than it has been. I'm not holding out too much hope for that, though.

Things are good otherwise, too. I'm getting a lot more involved at church and have several opportunities coming up there that I'm very excited about. Work has also entered the busy season, which means I keep pretty busy, which is definitely better than not.

I'm also incredibly glad that John McCain won the Republican primary in Florida. Not because I necessarily support McCain - I still don't have a clue who will be receiving my vote - but because I really, really don't like Mitt Romney and I really don't want him to be the Republican nominee for President. This win continues the McCain momentum which will hopefully ultimately get rid of Romney.

Please don't ask me why I don't like him. (And no, it doesn't have anything to do with him being LDS, in case you were wondering.) I can't say I have a terribly good reason. I just think he bugs me. It bugs me that he is called the more conservative candidate, when his conservative credentials are, in my opinion, much more suspect than McCain's. I'm not even sure the conservative part matters to me, it's the fact that conservatives love to hate McCain and so they say he isn't one of them, even though he is on a great number of issues, and they've adopted Romney as their guy because he's the most viable alternative and he tells them what he wants to hear.

Or maybe I just don't like his hair or something.