Oooh, nuance!

Let me just say that I think people should vote their preference, for whatever reasons they feel are important. Some reasons are based in fact, and some in emotion, as I think we all realize. But when Obamans start telling me that one of the fact-based reasons they are voting for Senator Obama is because the media won't be as mean to him as they will to Hillary, I just can't believe it.

Seriously, Obamans. Do you remember Al Gore, perchance? How we shouldn't vote for him because he sighed and wore earth tones and was not a Real Authentic Guy? And also how he invented the Internet and was a serial liar and...

Okay, maybe that's too far back. How about 2004? Ah yes. The theory then was that our nominee, Senator John Kerry, a genuine war hero, couldn't be attacked by Bush on his war record. After all, our Commander Guy was snorting coke off coeds' backs during Vietnam! But what happened then? May I remind you Obamans where the word "swiftboating" came from? Add massive election fraud (covered up by the ever-cooperative traditional media) to the 24-7 campaign of the ironically-named "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and...buh-bye, Senator.

And oh, what about my beloved Howard Dean? The guy got a little excited and the mikes were hot. The media played his scream over and over till Americans thought he was craaaaazzzzzy. Does that ring a bell?

I know the media has given Barack a pass up until now. Wake up, as Michelle Obama would say. That's because they WANT HIM TO BE THE NOMINEE. Why would they want him to be the nominee? Because they think he will lose to McCain the McMaverick. How can you not get this?

The utter lunacy of this argument would not bother me so much, except that it is symptomatic of the OTHER reasons people say they are voting for Obama. Even Ted Kennedy has drunk the Kool-Aid and is saying the Senator from Illinois is representing a "different kind of politics." Hey Ted, I'd love some specifics on how Obama's approach is so new and different. How about it?

[cricket cricket cricket]


The fact is that Obamans do not understand who the enemy is. They think it's some amorphous, personless entity called "politics," or perhaps the dreaded "partisanship." It's not.

Politics and partisanship are merely tools in the hands of PEOPLE. People are the problem - specifically, REPUBLICAN PEOPLE like President Bush and his cronies, who are doing everything they can to turn back the New Deal and foment permanent war for profit and resources. Say what you will about Democrats, but I will guarantee you that if they had been in charge for the past 8 years, not one single Bushian disaster would have happened. 9/11? Preventable. (No excuse, of course, for Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11.) Breaking of the levees during Katrina? Preventable. Collapsing of infrastructure? Preventable. But the sociopathic Republics were too busy lining their pockets and drowning government in the bathtub to care.

By the way, Barack - how does it feel to have said you'd consider Arnold Schwarzenegger for your Cabinet, only to have him endorse John McCain? Get used to that pain in your back. You're going to be feeling it again and again - from REPUBLICANS.

Senator Obama is campaigning as if all difficulties, including the extremely obvious and well-documented anti-Democratic bias in the traditional media, will simply melt when he turns the heat ray of his "new kind of politics" on them. I don't know if he believes his own propaganda or not, but as he says the same things over and over again, I have to take him at his word.

Obamans, however, have completely bought into the Senator's propaganda, and that is terrifying. Because it Will. Not. Happen. If "Barack Hussein Osama/Obama" is the nominee, the media and the Republics will be only too happy to "swiftboat" him 24-7 with accusations of his being a Muslim, while constantly fellating McMaverick as the best, most independentest, most reasonablest candidate EVAH. They will attack Hillary Clinton with equal ferocity, and would have done the same to John Edwards.

Will the inevitable media blitz work? Will Americans elect a 72-year-old warmongering Republic who's joined at the hip with Mr. 30%? I certainly hope not. But please, do not insult my intelligence by saying it's not coming. Any Democratic nominee had better get ready for a shitstorm of epic proportions. And if that nominee isn't ready, it will be that much worse for him or her.

Dumbest. Reason. Evah.

If we implemented the madamab election strategy, the only people who would select our candidates...would be We The People. Not the media. Not delegates, Seated, Unseated or Super. And most certainly not the Electoral College.

Just sayin'.

It's amazing. Even though Bush was supposedly set to veto any extension of the Protect America Act, which was put in place temporarily in August to prevent the telecom/Bushie immunity from passing the Senate, he suddenly, miraculously agreed to let the PAA be extended for 15 days. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Bush really, really wants immunity from warrantlessly wiretapping Americans. Why? Two reasons: 1) Because the fact that he did so is one of the strongest reasons for impeachment; and 2) The FISA court doesn't grant warrants to spy on Congressional Democrats, and that's what they've been doing. Whoooooooops!

If Bush and his minions allow the old FISA law to be reinstated - which it will be, if the Senate cannot agree on a more permanent "fix" than the Protect America Act - then he will not get immunity. Today, it looks like immunity may be off the table. And you know, impeachment proceedings can be begun after a President leaves office. Not gonna look too good in the history books, eh, Worst President Evah?

In my never-humble opinion, Senate Democrats should be doing everything they can to allow the Protect America Act to expire. After all, Bush was warrantlessly wiretapping us BEFORE the attacks of 9/11, and 3,000 people still died. And what about the anthrax killer? Despite all the spying, we somehow haven't caught THAT terrorist either. So no Osama bin Laden and no anthrax killer. Gee, I feel so much safer since Bush started his destruction of the Bill of Rights!

I'll take the old law and my civil liberties back, thank you. And can I have a side order of impeachment with that?

Mmmmmmmm, that looks delicious!

Wow. It feels really, really good to win one.

Yesterday afternoon, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama came back to DC to stand with Senator Chris Dodd against the Senate Republics' latest middle finger towards the Democrats. The Republics thought they could stop any discussion on whether "retroactive immunity" should be included in the FISA bill. That immunity is not just for telecoms that illegally wiretapped Americans - it's for Bush, Gonzalez and Cheney too. I can't believe we're even debating whether we should give MORE immunity to the Bushies for breaking the law. They've had a free ride for eight frigging years, beginning with stealing the 2000 election from Al Gore!

For once, the Republics didn't have the votes to pull it off. And thanks to thousands of phone calls, letter, emails and faxes by patriots all across America, our Senatorial Presidential candidates were right there on the teevee. The message was clear: "Enough is enough!"

I hope Harry Reid likes the feeling of strength that comes with standing up for the rule of law. I hope he likes it so much that he starts doing it more and more often.

Give 'em Hell, Harry! And should you feel so inclined to encourage his spinicular fortitude, why not write him a letter or give him a call to say thanks?

I guarantee that if we knew Bush was going to say this, the SOTU address would have the highest ratings in the history of television.

Mah fellow Americans,

Ah hereby tender mah resignation as Preznit of these You-Naghted States. Ah am fully aware that there idn't enough Jack and Coke in the world tuh keep me standin' no more. Ah'm goin' back tuh Crawford so Ah kin clear Condi's brush.

As for Unca Dick, well, he's on his tenth baboon hart and we don't think he can make it much longer, so Nancy? It's up tuh you. Good luck! Heh-heh-heh.

[BUSH STUMBLES AWAY FROM THE PODIUM]

[STANDING OVATION FROM CONGRESS EXCEPT BOEHNER, WHO BEGINS SOBBING UNCONTROLLABLY]

Waaaaay before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared their Presidential ambitions for 2008, there was a lot of speculation that they were running despite their denials. I thought at the time, "Hillary - Barack - don't do it!"

I didn't think either one of them would make a bad President - in fact, I've usually liked what Hillary has done as my Senator, and I didn't have much of an opinion about Barack except that he gave a kick-ass speech - but I just felt that the country was not ready for a black or female President. As is often the case, I feel I was right AND wrong at the same time.

What the country was not ready for was a black President, a female President...and eight more years of the Clintons.

We can all see how ugly this campaign has become. I do think a lot of it has been fueled by the traditional media, whose antipathy to the Clintons is psychopathic in nature; but let's face it, this country is very far from healing the self-inflicted racial wounds of slavery. Barack's overabundance of melanin has not passed unnoticed by the press, and I would need a database bigger than the NSA to document all the misogynistic labels the punditry has slapped on Senator Clinton.

A lot of the problems, however, have come directly from Bill Clinton himself. His role in his wife's campaign has surely been (kindly stated) a mixed bag. He is such a giant figure in Democratic history; beloved both by most Americans and party faithful, he was one of the most popular presidents in recent history. Sadly, we remember the bad things as well; the constant innuendos and sexual scandals; the far-too-friendly corporate policies; and the definition of "is." Had Hillary waited one more term in office, she could possibly have run for President in 2012 or even 2016, when another Democratic President would served as a buffer between the somewhat unappetizing dynastic idea of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton. Perhaps Chelsea could run against Jeb in 2016! [shudder]

I understand that right now, due to the presence of SuperDelegates, it may be impossible to determine who the nominee will be until after the Democratic convention. I wonder if it's possible that John Edwards could be nominated even if he doesn't win a single primary?

If Bill Clinton continues to have a strong and negative effect on his wife's campaign, and if America is not ready to vote for an extra-tan Senator whose biggest assets are his speech-making abilities and Oprah Winfrey, I believe it could indeed happen.

It was too soon.

Wow. $600 per person - in MAY at the earliest - from Our Great Deciderer-in-Chief! That will surely:

• Bring down the price of oil, and the price of everything else that is affected by the price of oil;
• Stop the U.S. from spending $2 billion a week on the never-ending occupation of Iraq;
• Help people pay off their ARM's whose interest rates have suddenly ballooned to 25%;
• Create jobs for the unemployed or under-employed; and
• Prevent illness-related bankruptcies.

It won't? Oh. Then I guess I'll just put it in the bank for the next time I have to fill up my tank or put food on my family.

I have to say, I think most people knew this crash was coming. I knew back in August, and I'm just a dumb opera singer. But in a weird way, I'm glad this happened now. I'm glad that people see that when Republics are in charge, this is what happens to the economy - and these are the types of solutions you get - because I think the Rovian plan was to try to stave off disaster until 1/20/09, and then blame the Democrats for the Bush Recession/Depression. Na. Ga. Hopin.

I don't think the American people are going to forget those pathetic little checks at the voting booth in November.

It's the economy, stupid.

It's official. Not only do I not like Barack Obama's campaign style - I actually don't like him.

Until last night, I was planning to vote for any of the top three Democrats. Despite my problems with Senator Obama's right-wing approach, I didn't even consider withholding my vote from him. This election is too important.

But that was before last night.

The brilliant Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake got there first - with video. I won't elaborate too much, but this is what got me permanently angry with the Senator:

OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

I don't know, could she? One thing Obama says is that due to her high negatives, he can get votes Hillary can't. Both he and Edwards are using this type of argument. I think it's kind of a stupid one, considering polls show that she can beat any Republic in the general...and that's without the Republic having to campaign for several months against her. That part doesn't bother me.

But as for Obama's supporters not voting for Hillary, that's an incredible - and offensive - statement. Hillary has, in effect, already asked her supporters to vote for Obama or Edwards if she is not the nominee. In fact, she's done that many times during the campaign - including in her concession speech in Iowa. Edwards also appeared on Olbermann that night, and said that without a doubt, he would also encourage his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was.

Barack Obama's words are in stark contrast to those of his fellow candidates. They reflect a man who is so in love with himself that he puts himself over both party AND country.

I've got news for Mr. Obama. I would happily vote for Hillary or Edwards without blinking an eye, but as of last night, this is one vote you will NEVER GET. I hope like hell you are not the nominee, but if you are, I will write in Al Gore.

What. An. Ass.

Shockingly!, this story was not found in any American publication, since according to the corporate media, Iraq is Not an Issue. And it's all because of The Commander Guy's Awesomest Surge Evah!!!

"Don't let the quiet fool you," a senior defense official says. "There's still a huge chasm between how the White House views Iraq and how we [in the Pentagon] view Iraq. The White House would like to have you believe the 'surge' has worked, that we somehow defeated the insurgency. That's just ludicrous. There's increasing quiet in Iraq, but that's happened because of our shift in strategy - the 'surge' had nothing to do with it."

Can you imagine that? But wait - it gets worse. It turns out that the State Department and the White House could have stopped the insurgency in its tracks in 2003, and they did not.

In part, the roots of the disagreement between the Pentagon and White House over what is really happening in Iraq is historical. Senior military officers contend that the seeming fall-off in in-country violence not only has nothing to do with the increase in US force levels, but that the dampening of the insurgency that took hold last summer could have and would have taken place much earlier, within months of America's April 2003 occupation of Baghdad.

Moreover, these officers contend, the insurgency might not have put down roots in the country after the fall of Baghdad if it had not been for the White House and State Department - which undermined military efforts to strike deals with a number of Iraq's most disaffected tribal leaders. These officers point out that the first contact between high-level Pentagon officials and the nascent insurgency took place in Amman, Jordan, in August of 2003 - but senior Bush administration officials killed the talks.

Why in the world would the Bush administration officials kill peace talks between tribal leaders and the Pentagon? Well, because the insurgents were being encouraged by the Evil Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken: Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia. Now, let's see. Who ELSE is a Wahhabi from Saudi Arabia? (Hint: Attacked us on September The Eleventh, Two Thousand and One.)

At the center of these early talks was a group of Iraqis led by Sheikh Talal al-Gaood, a Sunni businessman with close ties to Anbar's tribal leaders. Gaood, who died of a heart ailment in March of 2006, was a passionate Iraqi patriot who feared growing al-Qaeda influence in his country. Speaking over coffee from his office in Amman in 2005, Gaood was enraged by the "endless mistakes" of the US leadership. "You [Americans] face a Wahhabi threat that you cannot even begin to fathom," he said at the time, and he derided White House "propaganda" about the role of Syria in fueling the insurgency.

Gaood, looking every bit the former Ba'athist - complete with suspenders and Saddam Hussein-like mustache was particularly critical of what he called "the so-called counter-insurgency experts among Washington policymakers who think they know Iraq but don't." As he argued: "The guys who come through here, very educated, come in their brown robes and say they are going to Iraq to kill the Americans. They are not Syrians. They are Wahhabis. They are from Saudi Arabia. But if you talk to American officials, it is like they don't exist."

Let me be very clear that I never supported this invasion, and took to the streets in protest in 2003. I thought it was illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention morally insupportable. But at least if we were going to do something so wrong and brutal, we could have done it with the least amount of damage to Iraq, the Iraqi people, and our military. Instead, like the King Midas of crap, Teh Deciderer's touch turned the invasion into an occupation that has set the Middle East aflame and has turned our country into a nation of murdering, torturing cowards.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

I am desperately trying to stay out of the back-and-forth between the top three Democratic candidates for President. Let's face it, if I had to campaign for 17 thousand years and do a billion debates and interviews, I'm sure I could be very easily discredited for something I said - or even something I didn't say!

But you know, it is meaningful that Obama brought up Reagan in any kind of admiring way. I have repeatedly noted how much Obama is reaching out to Republicans and self-declared Independents, and attacking Clinton and Edwards from the right, not the left. It's his campaign strategy, and who knows, it may work. My nervousness comes from what he would do after being elected President, and how he will deal with the Fascists in the House and Senate that are sure to make his life completely miserable. Since I don't have a long record of votes and public service to refer to, I have to take him at his word that he will govern to the right of the other two candidates. Needless to say, I'm not comfortable with that.

The other thing that makes me uncomfortable is what Paul Krugman talks about this morning. Progressive Democrats have to say, "Reagonomics (deregulation of corporations and union-busting) does not work. It leads to recession and poverty. We need to go back to the economics of the New Deal to revitalize American society."

John Edwards, of course, is essentially saying that when he calls poverty "the great moral issue of our time" and proposes to end it by 2036. And yet, he has consistently been treated as Mr. Cellophane by the traditional media.

Or perhaps, there is no "and yet." In an Edwards administration, the corporate owners of the traditional media outlets would suddenly have to deal with diversification and regulation. And those hogs don't want to share their feed with the little people, do they?

On this day when we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and mourn his untimely assassination by persons still unknown, I find myself thinking about the principles he held so dear. Why was he such a hero to so many? Why was he so effective in convincing our leaders to change the laws of this land?

Did he have a huge stockpile of weapons? No. Did he scream about how his oppressors, the white men, were devils? No. Did he incite his people to murder and revenge? No. He based his movement on love, as befitted a minister who lived the words of Jesus Christ. In other words, he was a proud, true liberal.

Contrast the movement conservatives like George W. Bush and his minions, and how they want to bring about change in this country. Do they have a huge stockpile of weapons? Yes, and they do not hesitate to use them and build more. Do they scream about how their enemies, the brown people, are devils? Yes - they decry made-up threats like "Islamofascism," and claim that Muslims are evildoers who want to destroy America. Do they incite their followers to murder and revenge? Yes - and they are proud of their torturing, murdering ways. As Mitt Romney said, "Double Gitmo!" And as John McCain sang, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." And as Dick Cheney said, "Waterboarding is a no-brainer." Etcetera, etcetera.

I hope that the horror of the Bush era will finally convince Americans that hate and fear can never bring about true, lasting and positive change. Only love can be that strong and pure and uplifting.

And...they're off to Nevada! According to the latest oh-so-reliable polls, Saturday's primary is predicted to be a close match between Senators Clinton and Obama on the Democratic side, whereas Mitt Romney appears to be the favorite in the anyone-goes Republic field.

But as we know, we do not have a direct-election system in Murka; we elect representatives who, essentially, vote for us. The regular guy or gal who goes to the voting booth (or caucus) during the primaries is only the beginning of the process, which culminates in a final delegate count during the National Conventions in July. Delegates can be either pledged, unpledged or uncommitted to a particular candidate. There are also superdelegates, who are usually high-ranking Party officials. The delegates that are pledged, as far as I can find out, do not change their votes during the primaries unless their candidate drops out of the race.

The common wisdom about the delegate counts is that they are very close on the Democratic side, with Obama narrowly in the lead. The Republic count has Romney with a comfortable lead.

But what if we take a look at pledged delegates and superdelegates too? The picture changes dramatically on the Democratic side, showing Hillary with a large lead, and John Edwards, unfortunately, not making a strong showing.

Don't get me wrong. I still think the race is wide open and that anyone could win on either side of the aisle. In fact, my very very super-secret hope is that the Democratic convention will be brokered - no candidate having enough delegates to win - at which point, AL GORE COULD BE DRAFTED! (I know, I know. A girl's gotta have dreams.)

My real question is, why isn't the traditional media mentioning the pledged delegates and the superdelegates when they show the count?

Oh, that's right. They think we're idiots. Got it.

And now, back to your 900th hour of "American Idol!"

WARNING: Stormy Waters Ahead. Proceed with Caution.

Remember when the three Democratic frontrunners all refused to commit to withdrawing all troops from Iraq by the end of their first term? A lot of folks in the blogosphere were outraged by that, saying that the Democrats really didn't want to end the war, that they were as bad as Bush, blah blah freaking blah.

My reaction was: Of COURSE they can't commit to it, because they don't know what horrible surprises will await them once they finally get the evil monkey out of his feces-stained squat in the Oval Office.

And lo, last Sunday it was revealed unto the nation by Newsweek's Michael Hirsh that the Chimp-in-Chief has a very, very nasty surprise planned indeed. Not content to smear his shit all over Iraq for the past five years, he wants to make sure the stench can't be removed for a long, long time - not even by President [fill in the Democrat] in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries.

[snip]

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact. [emphasis added]

Mr. Hirsh goes on to say that under the proposed accords, troop levels will be drawn down to around 60,000 by the end of 2008. Well, at least that would be an improvement, right? Of course, that number does not include Blackwater and other mercenary groups; and of course, we would be required to have (say it with me now) PERMANENT MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ. Wheeee!!! Can't you just see Cheney gloating in his bunker, his fat slug body rolling naked in $1,000 bills? Ohhhhh, the humanity!

No wonder KKKarl was claiming that Iraq will not be an issue in the 2008 election. This horrifying scheme has his drool all over it. If permanent military bases are in these accords, and the next President is obligated to continue the occupation forevah, then what can be done to get us out of Iraq?

FUCK! What in the name of the Giant Green Lizard is it going to take to make Nancy Pelosi realize that the only way to bring our troops home is to impeach Cheney and Bush NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW?!?!?!?!?! What the hell does she think we've been screaming about for the past year? Not just stopping the invasion of Iran, but also finally extricating ourselves from the bloody morass in Iraq, depends on it. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, MADAME SPEAKER, AND DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!

Calmer Waters Ahead Now. Safe for Delicate Stomachs.

All right, now that I've blown off some steam...it's time for a little optimism. Unlike Mr. Hirsh, who seems absolutely delighted by these revoltin' developments, I'm not convinced that an agreement based on an illegal occupation truly can be considered binding. And tell me, which "Iraqi government" will approve the accords? Surely even the Deciderer knows that the existing coalition of the unwilling is far from unified. By 2009, an entirely new structure or majority could be in place; one that, like most Iraqis, wants us the hell out of there.

Despite the eventual outcome of this scheme, it remains a truly Machiavellian and disgusting way of using our troops to shield the Deciderer from the consequences of his actions.

Tragically for our nation, our soldiers, and the Iraqis suffering under the brutal yoke of a hostile occupying force, that's just the way Bush and Cheney do business.

Worst. Co-Presidents. EVER.

It's National Impeachment Call-In Day! Get Dennis Kucinich's resolution out of its exile in the Judiciary Committee. Ask your Congresscritter to support Congressman Wexler's demand for impeachment hearings.

Making a quick phone call is the least we can do to support patriots like Wexler and Kucinich.

Ah, yes. Good ol' Hackabee, with his five o'clock shadow and folksy manner. What an appealing candidate! He was a Governor. He's not a legacy candidate like George W. Bush. He's got real evangelical creds, being a Baptist minister. Heck, he even seems to have compassion for poor people - something a lot of elected Republics lack. What could be wrong with this guy?

At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.

Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

Now, since Hackabee just lost the vote of tens of millions of people who think this is the dumbest idea evah, how can I say he's a great campaigner? Easily. This type of rhetoric is absolute red meat to the right-wing evangelical voters who are the biggest voting bloc in the Republican primaries. To a large degree, these voters mistakenly believe that America was founded on "Christian principles," whatever those are (hey, it's not like people ever disagree on what the Bible says or anything!), and thus, America should really be a theocracy. If these poor ignorants only knew that the whole reason most Americans came to our country was to AVOID religious persecution CAUSED by theocracies in their home countries! Alas, megachurches don't give classes in history.

Ever since Raygun brought the right-wing evangelicals into the Republic Party's tent, they have been getting very little in return for their money and loyalty. Gay marriage still exists - in fact, more and more states are legalizing it - and Roe v. Wade is still established law. I think we can all agree that a formal Constitutional Amendment banning abortion and gay marriage is a non-starter, since it would require a two-thirds Congressional majority to even begin the process. So what is Hackabee talking about?

Well, how about an informal amendment of the Constitution? All that needs to be done to make this happen is for a federal judge to make a ruling that changes the way the Constitution is interpreted. Indeed, religious conservatives scream about "activist judges" because in decision after decision, federal judges have upheld the Constitution's declaration about the separation of church and state.

In the case of an evangelical president being elected in 2008, these rulings could change. President Hackabee, thanks to the approaching retirement of two of the liberal Justices, could potentially appoint two right-wing evangelicals to the Supreme Court. All they have to do is rule that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, and that "marriage" should be defined as only taking place between a man and a women. Of course, that will only be the beginning of the "reforms" the Hackabee Court would make to our democracy. In a few years, it could be illegal to be anything but Christian in America.

Now who woulda thought that aw-shucks ol' Hackabee could be plotting such a horrible perversion of America's laws and traditions? Certainly not the traditional media, who are treating him as a legitimate candidate, and not the theocratic maniac he truly is.

Yup. He's a great campaigner all right. Thankfully, campaign skills can only get him so far, because convincing more than 30% of Americans to vote for him would truly take divine intervention.

There has been a lot of research done about how people vote, and the accepted conclusion appears to be that we vote primarily with our emotions, and not our brains. I don't see that changing too much in the near future, especially not with the current state of media coverage in our beloved country. I saw one of the cable news channels yesterday referring to the primaries as a "political bowl," as if the candidates were competing quarterbacks on the way to the playoffs.

To me, it was quite obvious in 1999 that candidate George W. Bush was not qualified to be President. This was not just a matter of party loyalty - it was also a gut check. I could not stand to either look at or listen to the man, because it was obvious that he was lying, stupid, or both - none of which were desirable qualities in a Deciderer-In-Chief.

At the same time, however, I recognized that if you had a less sensitive gut than mine, George W. Bush was a much better campaigner than Al Gore. He spoke in short, simple sound bytes that the TeeVee could easily digest. His platform had a nice bumper-sticker quality to it, designed to appeal to the maximum amount of people (remember how he was a "compassionate conservative?") while secretly telegraphing his right-wing evangelical credentials to his base. And I bemoaned, as I have done for many years, the seeming inability of intelligent, progressive Democrats like Al Gore to translate their superior governing abilities into superior campaigning abilities; to gather enough votes that even election fraud or an appealing third-party candidate would not matter; and to make their case that they, not the radical right-wing Republics, represent the majority in America. (I understand that authors Drew Westen and Thom Hartmann have recently written excellent books about this phenomenon.)

Well, file those complaints under the "be careful what you wish for" department, because what we got...was Barack Obama. And he is so good at campaigning that he's gone too far: he's grown a cult of personality, and is encouraging it to a dangerous degree.

Look who he took on the campaign trail with him: Oprah Winfrey, one of the most popular figures in American culture, and a woman watched by millions of viewers who hang on her every word. She tells her followers to buy a book, for example, and they do. Obama is exploiting Oprah's power to gain votes based on her enthusiasm, not his qualifications.

Witness the current sniping among the three front-runners, greatly exaggerated by the right-wing noise machine. Bill Clinton was 100% right when he called Obama's anti-war claims a "fairy tale," since Obama himself admitted that had he been in the Senate at the time, he didn't know how he would have voted. Yet the media has chosen to cut, splice and distort everything Bill Clinton said in order to take Obama's side. Nothing will interfere with the narrative of the Anti-War Saint Obama!

And of course, no criticism can be leveled at the Senator without accusations of racism. I'm sorry, but I've been following the Clintons for decades now, since Hillary is my Senator - and I just don't believe that there is any evidence whatsoever that they are racist. Barack Obama's latest statement seems to defuse the racial tension a bit, but nonetheless manages to push his prime narrative that Clinton is a clueless Washington insider and he is an agent of change. Man, is he good at this or what?

If Barack Obama became President, I certainly don't think it would be a disaster for the nation...but I don't think it would be a real change, either. I don't like the fact that he espouses policies that do not go with his impressive rhetorical skills (for example, his health care plan covers fewer people than Edwards' or Clintons'). I don't like that he panders to the anti-gay religious right in the African-American community, and I don't like that he refers to the "Social Security crisis," when there isn't one. Finally, I don't like that he says "can't we all just get along" with the elected Republics, when clearly, we cannot. If we could, they would stop the damn filibustering and let some of the Democratic agenda pass through the Senate; but unlike Democrats, Republics are perfectly content to accomplish nothing in service of their political agenda. Obama does not seem to realize that, and it worries me.

Don't get me wrong. I will vote for Senator Obama, or any Democrat that makes it through the endless primary process. But is it too much to ask for that a Democratic Presidential candidate be both progressive AND a master of campaigning techniques?

Apparently, for now, the answer is yes. But I do have hope that if Barack Obama can be a great campaigner, perhaps someday soon a progressive like Dennis Kucinich or Chris Dodd can be a great campaigner as well...without the attendant cult following. Since no candidate is perfect, we should be able to be enthusiastic about our candidates without worshiping them as if they were the Second Coming.

Won't that be a wonderful day for American democracy?

Being a lifetime DFH type, I have always been puzzled as to why conservatives fear the "left." To paraphrase, what's so scary about peace, love and understanding?

I got a bit of a clue when I began to read Tim Weiner's fascinating book, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA." Who knew that one of the reasons the CIA began intervening in elections in sovereign nations...was to prevent the Vatican from falling into the hands of the "godless"?

I admit that back in 1948, when Christian believers in the CIA threw the Italian election to the Christian Democrats (preventing the Communist Party from taking power), there was some cause for fear. No one knew what Stalin's plans were, and no one knew just how far his arm stretched. It was possible that if the Communists won the election, they would burn the Holy See to the ground - or perhaps worse, decide to redistribute its vast wealth a bit more equitably among the people. The horror!

But now? The Soviet Union, despite Fred Thompson's assertions, no longer exists. Stalin's been dead for a long time, and the Communist Party in America barely exists. All that remains is we, the Murkin middle-of-the-roaders, who have been pushed and prodded into a "radical left" frame that doesn't fit any more.

I have a message for our poor propagandized brethren and sistren in the Christian faith. Be not afraid; for lo, we liberals and progressive types have no desire to demand that you give up your religion. We are not communists, despite the rantings and ravings of paid psy-operatives like Rush Limbaugh. Many of us, believe it or not, are also people of the Christian faith. (It's true!) In fact, did you know that both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are evangelical Christians? I swear on a stack of Bibles!

I understand that you've been told that were we to take over the government, we'd take your guns, force your children into gay marriage and burn down the churches and temples. But isn't it time you realized how ridiculous that is?

All we want is the separation of faith and state. In the interest of freedom of religion, we want everyone to be able to worship as they please - and we don't want the government to tell us what religion, if any, we must espouse.

Now, doesn't that sound like a world we want to live in?

Dennis Kucinich thinks so.

"Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday’s Presidential primary in that state."

We all know how completely flummoxed the pundits and the candidates themselves were at the results of the New Hampshire election, since previous polling had shown huge leads for Senator Obama. (Although Zogby now claims that he had a poll that showed much closer numbers for Clinton and Obama, he didn't feel it was representative because it had been done over a shorter time period.) So wouldn't a hand count be a good idea?

YES. I think it would be a great thing if the ballots were hand-counted. Unlike many states, New Hampshire uses paper ballots with optical scanning machines, so there is a record as to how each vote was cast. But here's the rub: Who's going to pay for the staffers who will have to count tens of thousands of votes?

I'll tell you who: No one. And that, my friends, is yet another reason why the government, and not private corporations, should own our franchise.

Where's the accountability when something goes wrong (as in 2000, 2002, 2004...)? Oh, sure, individual people who help rig elections, if caught, do go to jail. The phone-jamming RNC operative in New Hampshire; the election workers in Ohio; they've paid for their crimes. But what about fixing the problems with the machines? What about double-checking the results? Shockingly, since ES&S, Sequoia and Diebold are all owned by Republic FOB's (Friends of Bush), the Deciderer has been, er, decidedly lax in pointing the finger at these e-voting companies for the (very kindly stated) poor quality of their products.

If the (Madamab-style) government owned our franchise, there could be a budget set aside for hiring of staffers to count, and recount, the votes, if necessary. There could be a process to be completed and standards to be met for requesting a recount, so that time was not wasted on frivolous demands. And, if we did use machines to cast and count our votes, their code would be open-sourced and each vote would be cast on paper.

Dennis is right, as usual. I personally think that New Hampshire was an anomaly, due to the very large number of Independent voters there who apparently made up their minds on the day of the vote, and I don't believe there was fraud involved. But what if there were? In the face of such a surprising result, there should be no question: a hand recount should be done automatically to rule out any wrongdoing or error.

Our franchise demands no less.

Thanks to the always informative commenters at Eschaton yesterday, I have discovered an excellent new-to-me online source for this information: it's called Progressive Punch.

The group is a non-partisan, but left-leaning, organization that reviews and analyzes the Congressional voting database for you. You can check each vote of your Congresscritter and see if it matched the progressive position at the time. The votes are even broken out into handy-dandy categories for you, such as Housing, Corporate Subsidies, War and Peace, Family Planning, and so on. Nifty!

Since it is common wisdom among many progressives that Hillary has a very conservative voting record, I looked it up. Believe it or not, she has a 91.29% rating overall, making her the 16th most progressive Senator in Congress. I also checked Senator Obama's record. Surprisingly, his rating is a bit lower - 88.76% - making him the 24th most progressive Senator in Congress.

Of course, it also works for your personal CongressPeople. I just checked out my Representative, Nita Lowey, and let's just say if a Progressive Democrat challenges her in the primaries, I'm not voting for the incumbent. War and Peace at 66%! Yikes!

But don't believe me. Go check it out for yourself, and maybe give them a little turkee for making it so easy to fact-check our Critters' Creds!

Yes, it's true - I am having a total geekgasm over what happened last night!

We The People are standing up and giving the middle finger to the out-of-touch pundits and pollsters. The participation in the primaries and caucuses is through the roof. The candidates are becoming better and more sharply defined the more they speak to us. And best of all, thanks to the wins of Senators Clinton and McCain in New Hampshire, every major candidate has a shot at the nomination for each party...which means NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN! Oooh, unpredictability!

I can't help but see last night, in a broader context, as a win for Americans over the corporate media. I wrote recently on the topic of covering elections merely as "horse races," stating that despite the Beltway Boys' best efforts, we all know that it fucking matters who's President. In MSNBC's exit polling, 49% of all NH Republicans stated they were angry at our Deciderer-In-Chief. For a party that normally votes in lockstep, that's quite a large number. (Yay, George Bush - you united us at last!)

Even some members of the elite punditocracy are starting to face their irrelevance. Tom Brokaw, participating in the election coverage on MSNBC last night, said this:

"We don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed and trying to stampede, in effect, the process. Look, I'm not just picking on us, it's part of the culture in which we live these days. But I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us -- if they haven't already -- if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding in many cases as we learned in New Hampshire when they went into the polling booth today or in the last three days. They were making decisions very late....

[snip]

What we ought to do is invest in the American people in their wisdom."

Why yes, Tom, it would be better to report the facts and trust in the wisdom of the American people, rather than reporting on how you think they should feel and trying to influence the process. That's the way it used to be done back in the Stone Age. It was called...journalism.

Is it possible that after the election of 2008, we will not only see an American Renaissance, but also a re-birth of truth in the corporate media?

Wow. Pass me a cigarette, baby.

Well, hooooooly moly! Looks like the (mostly male) punditocracy has been flummoxed by the power of teh scarrrrrry vagina!!!1111!!!!

All right, seriously now...according to the exit polls from New Hampshire, the turnout among women voters was incredibly high tonight. That is such excellent news, no matter who ultimately gains the Democratic nomination.

I can't help but be proud of my sisters in New Hampshire, and I hope that this trend of record participation among women continues throughout the entire primary cycle.

It's about time we stood up and made our voices heard.

you had a bad day yesterday.

After months and months of being the front-runner, then having both Barack Obama and John Edwards beat you in Iowa, then seeing your national lead evaporate and Obama look like he's ready to sweep New Hampshire, you finally cracked. A few tears choked your voice. You started making stupid comparisons...and the worst of the worst, you used a "vote for me or die" strategy that would make KKKarl Rove smile.

You know what? Everyone has bad days. You can survive this if you truly want to. You can apologize and blame it on campaign stress. Americans can relate to stress after 6 long years of George W. Bush's Reign of Error.

But if you want to stay in the race, to run a 50-state strategy, like your husband, who didn't win the first five states he ran in, then you need to pull yourself together and realize that Obama is offering two things you cannot offer:

1) He has a penis.
2) His name is not Clinton.

You've got to sell yourself by being yourself, and not let Obama throw you off. You cannot be the candidate of his type of change, and this may indeed be your downfall. But if it is, don't take it personally. Americans always love a good bumper sticker slogan, and just look at Barack! He's young, he gives a great speech, and he is truly African-American. Just those three things are enough for many folks who are sick and tired of the same old crap from the Oh-So-White House.

I don't doubt that you would make a great President, and unlike many, I don't hold your ambition against you or feel you are insincere in your desire to move America forward into the 21st century. But you are suffering from the two handicaps I mentioned above, and you need to realize that. If you don't understand what you're up against, and know that you will have to fight for every vote, then I suggest you get out now and let the other candidates duke it out.

Or, you can keep on flailing around...and have more and more bad days like yesterday.

I've got a bug, and I'm depressed. Going by the polls, Barack Obama is going to win in NH too. I understand he is polling very well with "Independents."

Let's just say right out that none of the candidates is going to be liberal enough for me, and I'm okay with trying to push them, through activism, towards progressive values. However, I take great exception to Senator Obama's attempt to win the presidency by attacking folks like me and reaching out to rightwingers, while knowing that he'll get my vote anyway. It's infuriating, and none of the other Democratic candidates have done so in such an obvious and egregious manner.

If it were not for the TeeVee and corporate election financing, we would probably have President Dodd or Kucinich in the White House in 2009, as they represent the things that most Americans care about. I do hope Edwards can pull it out, but I don't know if he will gain enough money to continue the race through Super Tuesday, unlike Hillary and Obama, who have money for the long haul.

I really wish people voted for policy and not personality or bumper sticker slogans. To me, Barack Obama is like that cute foreign exchange student in high school, you know, the one with the British accent. You think he's the dreamiest because of the way he says what he's saying, but then when you go on a few dates with him, you realize that what he's saying isn't actually all that great, and furthermore, he borrowed a lot of his ideas from that nerdy guy in Science class (that would be Senator Clinton).

Oh well. I guess we won't really know anything till Super Tuesday, but I'm not liking how this is going, not one little bit.

it's Hackabee and Obama! Hillary and Edwards are deadlocked at second place.

Hackabee, in a straw poll, whomped Romney and all the other candidates by a large margin. The general consensus seems to be that Obama, and perhaps Edwards, benefited from "second choice" recommendations, since the top three Democrats all received 30% or more.

In any case, the race is far from over. The Republico-punditry seems desperate to claim that McCain and Giuliani still have a chance to win, despite their extremely poor showing in Iowa. (Ron Paul, this year's Ross Perot, got much higher numbers than either of those "major" candidates, but shockingly, Chris Matthews doesn't seem to think he has a manly enough scent to be discussed.) The Democratic folks (especially Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC) are ecstatic about the strength of the candidates; the amazing turnout, which ended up being double that of the Republics; and the undeniably exciting and historic nature of Obama's win.

Considering the complete lack of discussion in the media about Edwards, his showing was quite strong. I'm disappointed that Edwards didn't come in first, but I still think he will end up being the Democratic nominee.

On to the next, and the next....

Our election system sucks.

As a resident of one of the most populous (blue!) states in America, I am currently powerless to choose among the full roster of candidates in my party. (Oh, Chris Dodd, why are you not among the top three!) Once a nominee is chosen, it doesn't matter whether I vote for that nominee or not. Then, the nominee has to run for an additional year, spending more and more millions that he/she has to somehow gather from whomever will give it. Finally, when I do vote in the election, my vote will not count and in some states, would be subject to massive election fraud. Pardon me for being a bit underwhelmed.

As Imaginary Preznit of the United States, I would enact these reforms:

1) One national election day. Instant runoff voting would serve the same purpose as the primaries. Election day would be a national holiday, and anyone who votes would get a bonus of some sort - $100 in the mail, a percentage point knocked off their taxes - you get the idea.

2) Stealing from Old Yurp - Election season is 6 weeks long and is completely financed by the gummint. No private donations allowed. Also, equal, free (paid for by gummint) media time. Each candidate gets the same amount of time and/or space to advertise.

3) Hand-counted paper ballots. I'd rather wait a couple of weeks to know the results of the election than be worried Chuck Hagel's voting machines will "shockingly" elect Republicans like him.

But since none of these things are reality right now, I hope those freaking Iowans do the right thing and listen to the Krug. We need a fighter - someone who will beat back the forces of Fascism once and for all.

It ain't Barack.

If you are not an economist, and you want a concise explanation of what Atrios calls "Big Shitpile," let Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect explain it to you. (Thanks, Dad, for bringing this to my attention!)

The article is remarkable not only for its clarity, but for its framing. New Deal good! Free-market fairy tales bad! Amazingly, regulation is not the worst thing that can happen to an economy, and just lowering interest rates does not magically infuse the system with high-value cash. Who woulda thunk it?!

To me, Business as an entity is like a child experiencing its "Terrible Two's." All of a sudden, "NO!" is the only word the child seems to be able to say. Although the Terrible Two's are difficult for parents, they are also a crucial time for setting limits and imposing discipline. Is the child intrinsically bad? Of course not, but it needs to learn morality. Without the proper guidance, it will develop not into a responsible member of society, but instead into a spoiled, selfish brat. (Of course, that may happen despite the best efforts of the parents, but that doesn't mean the parents are excused from trying.)

And that's where conservative economic policy (what Kuttner calls "free market fairy tales") fails us. Business is not intrinsically bad - in fact, it can be very, very good. But Business has no moral compass - it exists purely for profit. Without strong limits and regulation, it will become an anti-societal force, and that's just what has happened.

The conservative movement has been very, very good at selling the idea of unregulated markets by hooking it to the mythos of the American cowboy. He's out on the range, striking out on his own, no one to tell him no, singing "Don't Fence Me In." How oh-so-very-manly! Like Robert Kuttner, we liberals need to re-frame this debate. The free-marketeers are not cowboys. They are the robber barons; the triple-chinned fat cats who light their cigars with $100 bills; the guys who take your hard-earned pension and use it to buy hundred-foot-yachts for their buddies.

Nobody likes those guys.

2007 was a very tough year for many people - most recently and tragically, for Benazir Bhutto and her family. Still, I hope we can all learn something from our trials and tribulations. Here are some things I learned:

Political Lesson of 2007: Republics Really Are Bent On Destroying America.

It's true. Since the Democrats took over and Congress suddenly began to take its oversight power back, we've confirmed that the Republic Party is nothing but a criminal enterprise dedicated to its own enrichment and continuance. They're willing to wiretap every American; allow terrorist attacks to go unpunished; put cronies in charge of every regulatory agency; ignore the basic needs of our soldiers in the field and deny them proper care when they return from battle; lie repeatedly under oath to Congress; torture, render and kill hundreds of thousands; allow nuclear-armed foreign nations to degenerate into chaos while attacking weak nations for their resources; claim "no one could have predicted" the horrible effects of Hurricane Katrina; permit our food, medicine and consumer goods to become contaminated with toxins; refuse to take any action to prevent global warming from becoming irreversible; and hollow out the very structure of our government and our Constitution by pursuing the theory of the "unitary executive."

Why do they do it? In order to make a few bucks. THAT'S IT. Truly, these are the most venal, disgusting and repulsive criminals on the planet, and they must be driven out of power as soon as possible.

Personal Lesson of 2007: Appreciate What You Have, Even If You Can't Take Credit for It.

When we are born into this life, certain gifts come along with us. Whether the Giant Green Lizard or genetics have given us that je ne sais quoi, we all have something that makes us special. Yet it's all too easy for some of us (cough me cough) to discount our unique qualities because we didn't earn them, or to bemoan them because they are not what society prizes. Well, enough of that! This year, I vow to enjoy the things that make me madamab, and I hope you will too.

A very, very happy 2008 to all, and may it be a vast improvement over 2007.