Oooh, nuance!

As the fallout from the Reverend Wright show continues, I find myself thinking once again about our American two-party political system. And once again, I conclude that it is robbing us of a rich variety of possible candidates and viewpoints.

We progressive-liberal-commie pinko types are always complaining that no candidate really represents our interests. Well, believe it or not, I hear that from conservative and independent types, too. Or do we really think that most Republicans are happy with Mr. 28% Job Approval? And what about their Congresscritters, who, if we watch C-SPAN, appear to have the collective intelligence of styrofoam? At this point, no one is happy, because the Big Tents of Republicans and Democrats are, well, too big. Trying to grow large enough to make it fit tends to bloat our candidates and make them slow and sleepy. You know, like eating too many carbs at lunch.

Just imagine if there were a proportional representation system in this country, and we had multiple parties representing various constituencies. Oh, I know that we would all still be complaining, but at least we would know that our representatives actually, you know, believed what we did and were pushing our agenda in Congress. Wouldn't that be loverly? And even better, the fringier portions of our electorate would only make up a fringie-ish part of our Congress. Yes, I'm talking to you, rightwing wackos!

Let's apply this to Barack Obama and his controversial pastor, Reverend Wright. Suppose there were a Black Liberation Party (the "BLP"), for example, that consisted of African Americans that subscribe to the views of Pastor Wright, which he classifies as Black Liberation Theology on the TUCC website. Should Senator Obama choose to be a member of that party, he would not have to renounce his pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years in order to run for office. He could simply state that he was a member of the BLP, and whoever ascribed to those views would vote for him. Presto-change-o, no pandering, no pretending. WYSIWYG.

Now, would these views make him eligible for the office of the President of the United States? I don't think so, personally, but if he could get enough votes as a representative of the BLP, then so be it!

This type of system only works if we put several other reforms in place as well. So, since I am borrowing Hillary's Queen of the Universe powers for the day, I hereby decree that:

1. Proportional representation now exists in America.
2. All elections are now publicly funded. Yes, you'd have to pay an extra $20 a year on your taxes. Get over it. Think of how much less time your representative would have to spend on the phone raising money from evil oil and insurance companies. Why, they might even be able to get some work done!
3. All candidates running for national office (President or Congresscritter) get equal, limited teevee time for advertising. The networks would provide it for free, in recompense for their use of the public airwaves to broadcast their mostly mindless drivel.
4. All political parties are legitimate if they can meet certain criteria. Let's say, X number of signatures and X number of meetings per year. (At last, we would see what real far-left liberals look like. Those words do not mean what Bill O'Reilly thinks they mean.)
5. Finally, there are no more primaries, caucuses, delegates, superdelegates or national conventions when we vote for President. Let the people have their say. There will be one national election weekend, and instant run-off voting will decide the winning ticket. Largest amount of votes = President. Second largest = Vice President. Bada bing, bada boom, Betty Boop.

Now, there is a danger that this new system could get a bit messy. (Notice my hitherto unseen gift for understatement.) But dammit, real democracy IS MESSY, but vibrant. Wouldn't that be better than messy, but decrepit?

I say let's go for change that is not just an empty slogan. Power to the people!

Okay, I'm off the fence. Not only is Barack Obama unelectable, but he will make Hillary Clinton unelectable if he joins her on a dream ticket. He is a dead man walking, and he still doesn't understand why.

Nor do his followers. I meandered over to Eschaton yesterday, and I saw many commenters opining on how the Reverend was not so bad; in fact, he was intelligent, thoughtful and misunderstood. Besides which, IACF (It's All Clinton's Fault) because she is fueling the flames of the controversy and because she is busy painting Obama as an uppity n***er.

I shit you not.

I have often wondered why, if Senator Clinton is as powerful as Obamans appear to believe, she would even bother to run for President. Surely, she controls the universe already! Wouldn't this be a demotion for her, of sorts?

I mean, forget the fact that the right-wing scream machine has been using her, her husband and her daughter as punching bags for the past umpteen years. She wouldn't bother using her Super-Powers for something so prosaic as preventing the media from accusing her of murder, or clamoring for the impeachment of her husband because of his infidelity, or publishing ever-more-hysterical accusations about her love life. Why should she bother with such trivialities?

She's much more inclined to use her Queen of the Universe Powers to control every aspect of Barack Obama's life. It's true! For example, did you know that Hillary was hovering, protoplasmically, over Senator Obama's head for 20 years whilst he sat in the Trinity United Church of Christ, listening to Wright's rantings and ravings? I mean, Obama couldn't have gotten up and walked away when he heard things he disagreed with. Senator Clinton kept pushing his butt back down in that seat!

You know what else she controls? The Reverend Wright himself. Late at night, when he is asleep, Hillary uses her mind control to hypnotically suggest that he go on national television and make a complete and total ass of himself by mocking the way white people clap, making fun of the accents of white people of all stripes (including JFK and LBJ), and proclaiming the great historical importance of the lunatic hatemonger Louis Farrakhan.

I am personally in awe at how well Hillary has torpedoed Barack Obama's campaign. She is like Tonya Harding with Super-Powers ZOMG!!!111111

Or maybe, just maybe, no one forced Obama to associate with Wright (or Reszko or Ayers). Maybe everything that's happened to him is the direct result of his own actions. Maybe the DNC, which has aided and abetted him at every turn, should have dealt better with the FL/MI mess, instead of blindly, stubbornly insisting that millions of votes did not count and proclaiming that Barack Obama is the front-runner in an essentially tied race. Maybe the bigwigs of the Democratic Party should have considered Hillary Clinton's decades of service to this country and to her party before jumping on Obama's bandwagon o'cash.

In fact, maybe IACF really doesn't apply here. Maybe Senator Obama and the Democratic Party have no one to blame...but themselves.

I do know one thing. If the Party chooses to nominate Obama despite his obvious flaws as a candidate for President, he will certainly lose against John McCain, and take the Democratic Party with him.

Good riddance, if the Party leadership is that incredibly stupid. This die-hard Democrat will become an Independent, and I won't be the only one.

Are you listening, Super-Delegates?

Oy. Every so often, I am reminded why I never watch news on the Teevee.

I was looking for a weather report yesterday morning, and I settled on New York 1. While I waited, the "news" came on.

The first thing I saw was footage of Barack Obama. Apparently, he was speaking about the economy. (I had the sound muted at first and missed most of what he was saying.) Then, a quote from Senator John McCain was displayed and read by the newsbot, basically stating that Senator Obama didn't understand the economy the way John McCaca McMaverick McCain, the most awesomest economic brain evah, did.

Then the newsbot went to the next story.

Did your head explode yet?

I mean, seriously. This type of reportage is like watching two three-year-olds arguing about who hit whom first. Fergodssake, was what Obama said true? Was it not true? Does John McCain understand the economy? What are McCain's economic proposals compared to Obama's? Which would actually benefit American workers, and which would not?

Okay, stop laughing. I know that the days of fact-based television journalism are long since past, although I hope, not forever. I have stated before that our Fourth Estate is broken. Hell, there are blogs that are devoted full-time to the horrors of today's corporate media. MediaMatters.org and The Daily Howler are two of the very best.

But man, every once in a while I get a glimpse of why so many Americans are uninformed about politics. It's not their fault. They watch the Teevee, and they get Twinkies and Doritos instead of chicken, rice and vegetables.

We aren't stupid. Our media is.

It's a damn shame.

and Central Park looks like this. (The photo is from the Central Park Conservancy, an excellent place to donate a few bucks if you're so inclined.)

Let's all think positive thoughts today, and I hope the weather is lovely in your part of the world.

Barack Obama's campaign, faced with irrefutable evidence from the exit polls and results in Pennsylvania, has finally admitted the problems he will have reaching out to white working-class voters if he becomes the nominee. The presumed Democratic front-runner took the first steps towards Democratic Party Unity by stating,

"You know, I realize that despite my intense concern for the working families of America, I have sometimes come across as if I didn't care. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I will be working very hard to convince the voters of this great country that I, in the inimitable words of Bill Clinton, feel their pain."

I applaud this savvy statement from Senator Obama. First, he admits there's a problem and that it's no one's fault but his own. Second, he throws in "this great country," which helps firm up the perception that he actually does love America. Third, he finally says something nice about the most successful and popular Democratic President most Americans can now remember. Great job, Senator!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just kidding! That's what an ELECTABLE candidate would do. John Kerry was Bill Clinton compared to this guy.

Here's the latest "gaffe" from Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod. "Mind-blowingly idiotic" is a kind way to describe it.

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years [emphasis mine]. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

Here's how Bill Clinton won, you ridiculous, lying little snake. HE WON WHITE WORKING-CLASS VOTERS. Of course he didn't rely solely on them to win, but the fact that they "swung" to him made his win possible. That's what the expression "swing state" means. You. Idiot.

Now, I do understand that Barack Obama's strategy is to expand the electoral map in a previously unseen way. He brags about his Republican and Independent support, which I continue to believe is based on no evidence whatsoever. (Crossovers in the Democratic primaries and caucuses do not count. Republicans are known to vote strategically, and often they vote for the opponent they would like to run against.) He wants to count on some of the "red" states, such as Virginia, to carry him over the top. But has he really looked at who John McCain appeals to? Has he seen the effect his dismissive, insulting campaign has had on Hillary's voters? About 50% of those voters will not vote for him in the fall. Honey, there aren't enough young and African-American voters in the world to compensate for that loss.

I ask in despair, what did the Democratic Party ever do to deserve Axelrod and Obama? Haven't we been punished enough by seven years of the Worst President Ever? Do we really need to shoot ourselves in the foot once again by trying to shove an inexperienced, charismatic neophyte down America's throat?

I guess when Obama loses 40 states to John McCain in November, the Obamans will console themselves that they were prophets, misunderstood in their own time, and that all the core Democrats who wanted to vote for the more experienced, more qualified, and more electable candidate were just evil monsters and Republicans at heart. But frankly, they will be the only ones surprised. The rest of us have seen this movie before.

And once again, the ending will be tragic.

I am not too strong on teh mathemumatics, but there are many things that struck me as key in Hillary Clinton's primary victory over Barack Obama last night. Surprisingly enough, they all have to do with numbers. Let's check them out, shall we?

300%.

---

That's the amount by which Obama outspent Clinton in Pennsylvania.

10%.

---

That's the amount by which Clinton beat Obama despite his unprecedented advertising blitz.

50%.

---

That's the amount by which Clinton beat Obama in Scranton.

62%.

---

That's the amount by which white voters chose Hillary over Barack.

0%.

---

That's the amount of corporate media pundits who are being honest about the delegate and popular vote count. What about "they're not counting Florida and Michigan" do you not understand? Trust me, they know that the current count is bogus and that there is no way it will be viewed as legitimate by HRC's supporters. Perhaps that's why...

About 50%.

---

That's the amount of Hillary supporters who say they will not vote for Barack Obama. Holy fucking shit! (Please note that I'm not among those voters, but I deeply sympathize with their feelings.)

100%.

---

That's the amount of corporate media pundits who will now switch their allegiance from Obama to McMaverick McCaca McCain, their one and only true love, now and forever, amen. (It's already started this morning, although I predicted it yesterday on my new favorite blog, TalkLeft.) Say good-bye to your media darling status, Barack. I hope you enjoyed it. From now on, it's always good news for John McCain.

1.

---

That's the number of big states that Obama has won over Clinton. And it was his HOME STATE. It's like Hillary winning New York - it's a gimme. In every must-win General Election state, she has beaten him by a handy margin.

0.

---

That's the number of Obama voters who will riot at the Convention if the SuperDelegates choose HRC. Wake up, people, and stop being afraid of teh Blacks ZOMG!!!111!!!. Obama is a product. Do people riot in the streets if they can't get their iPods?

Here's why I'm sure about this. Before last night's primary, Obama supporters were calling Mayor Michael Nutter's office and excoriating him for his support for Senator Clinton. The good mayor of Philadelphia, who is African-American and hugely popular, was getting so much angry email from Obamans that he had to shut down his email address. Now, has anything happened to him? Of course not. They, like their candidate, are all talk.

A different question is: do I put anything past David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager and the Democrats' answer to KKKarl Rove? Absolutely not. Yes, he could use the tried-and-true Republic tactic of paying people to cause a ruckus, like the "Brooks Brothers riot" in Florida that stopped the vote counting in 2000. But I ask you, what would be the point? Would an Obama-inspired riot convince the Democratic Party that they had made a mistake in choosing HRC? Would they stop the balloons and say "Oh, ha ha, just kidding. Our nominee is....Barack Obama!" Um, no. The point is intimidation. The point is terror. But when it comes down to it, there will be no action, because by that time, it will be too late.

---

In conclusion, if I were a Democratic SuperDee, I'd look at these numbers very carefully. Where are Obama's white votes? Where is his core Democratic support? And why do they think that Hillary's voters have had enough of Barack Obama? Could it be the misogyny, the thuggery, the lying, the foot-in-mouth-itis, the elitism, the lack of experience and follow-through? And why can't he close if he is the nominee?

By the numbers, it looks like a very bumpy ride for Senator Obama from now on.

On this day of the Pennsylvania primary, a possible game-changer for the Democratic Presidential race, I would like to answer some of the questions that many Obama supporters seem to be constantly asking us Hillary supporters. From my travels across neutral and pro-Hillary blogs, I am confident that I am speaking for many and not just for myself. Here goes!

Q. Why does Hillary's experience matter to you? She's just part of the old style of politics.

A. Hillary's experience matters for two reasons:

1) She has been around long enough to know how Washington works. This will be a plus when attempting to get her agenda passed through Congress. We know she is adept at charming her opponents into working with her, as she recently charmed the capo di tutti capi, Richard Mellon Scaife. She also has the best grasp of how to deal with foreign leaders, having traveled to 80 countries as First Lady and been a strong support in negotiating for peace in Northern Ireland. Barack Obama's recent claim that his foreign policy experience was equal to (or surpassing) hers was nothing short of laughable.

2) She knows how to deal with, and defeat, the right-wing scream machine. Many people don't realize this, but her Senate run in 2000 was very, very far from a sure thing.

Her first opponent was - of all people - New York's Nosferatu, Rudy Giuliani. He pulled out in May due to prostate cancer, but if truth be told, Hillary had pulled about even with him before that decision. Then came Republic Rick Lazio, who, up until the very last minute, gave Hillary a real run for her money. She won due to her stellar performance in a one-on-one debate with Lazio, all the while defying the punditry who were constantly, desperately, predicting her demise. It never happened, because our girl never gives up. In 2006, she was re-elected with 67% of the vote.

Q. Why doesn't the math bother you? Barack Obama is leading in the popular vote and pledged delegates. His lead is insurmountable, so she might as well quit.

A. Barack Obama's math does not take Florida and Michigan into account. That is unrealistic and ill-advised. Those votes will at least be counted, even if the delegates are not seated. If you actually give Hillary all the votes she won, the gap narrows to a very surmountable one of 80,000 votes - and that count is from a pro-Obama diarist!

As for pledged delegates, neither candidate can reach the magic number without superdelegates. According to Democratic Party rules, the superdelegates are the only ones that matter at this point, and they can - and will - make their decisions based on any factors they think are important, such as...popular vote totals and electability.

Q. Okay, fine. Let's talk about electability. Don't you think that Barack Obama is more electable? After all, he's bringing in so much new blood and so much excitement to the process. Plus, he's converting a lot of Independents and Republics. Won't he be the best person to go up against John McCain?

A. In a word, no. Here is Hillary's Electoral College Theory of Electability in a nutshell.

At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

Note that this analysis was done before the full effects of BitterCling were felt, before Obama's horrible performance in last Wednesday's debate, before he wriggled out of the upcoming North Carolina debate (his only suggested date was Passover, which was unacceptable - then he refused to reschedule), before he whined about eating his waffles...I bring these things up because they are Part Deux of the Clinton Theory of Electability. Obama's personal associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko; his inability to electorally connect with or understand white working-class voters; his squirreliness about facing hostile questions; all these things do not a good candidate, or President, make. In short, he is not ready for prime time, and while Democrats desperate for any Democrat in the White House don't care as much, McCain will beat him like a drum in the General Election.

Q. Fine, so Obama isn't the greatest in debates or off-the-cuff. Don't tell me Hillary is so great either! What about Tuzla?

A. Hillary's misspeaking on Tuzla was definitely blown into a huge story, and it hurt her for a while. However, she apologized for it several times, most recently in the debate, and I think it is defused as a General Election issue.

Q. Well, what about her vote for the AUMF? Doesn't that bother you? If she hadn't voted for it, we wouldn't be in Iraq now. And how will she contrast herself with McCain on Iraq?

A. First of all, I've read about Bush's first few days in office. ("The Price of Loyalty" was a real eye-opener.) That man was going into Iraq. Nothing, including every Democrat voting against the AUMF, would have stopped him. This assertion is borne out by the fact that the AUMF did not authorize Bush to invade unless certain conditions were met; yet, despite the fact that those conditions were not met, Bush invaded anyway.

Barack Obama's supposed anti-war stance is a joke to me. He made a speech, then voted exactly the same as Hillary once he became a Senator. You want a real anti-war Senator, look at Russ Feingold's record. So to me, there is no difference between them on Iraq, except that I prefer her withdrawal plan to his.

As for Hillary's AUMF vote, I don't agree with it, and I was one of the people who marched against the war in 2003. However, I truly believe that this vote will allow her to credibly counter McCain's "I'm stronger on National Security!" argument. One of the things people always worry about with Democrats is, are they too peace-loving to fight when the chips are down? Well, Hillary has already shown her willingness to fight. So yes, she is too hawkish for me, but she's right where most Americans are - she initially supported the war, but now is insistent that our troops be brought home. Of course, McCain wants to stay there for 100 years. Not too hard to draw distinctions, now, is it?

Q. You Hillary supporters sure are long-winded! My last point is, what about the Movement? Don't you want to be part of the New Democratic Party, a party that throws off the shackles of partisanship and petty politics and moves forward with unity into a bright new, hopeful future?

A. I hate to put a bridle on your Unity Pony, but we Hillary supporters don't see you Obamans the way you see yourselves. We see you as thugs who bully and vilify and ban anyone who doesn't fully believe that Obama is the Messiah of the New Democratic Party. This does not speak of unity, lack of pettiness or new politics. It speaks of McCarthyism. You scare the hell out of us, frankly.

No, we see ourselves as the Silent Majority. We are the true Democrats, the ones who believe that parties exist for a reason, that the fights of the 60's are not over, that the nation is in a hell of a mess and that only a return to core Democratic principles - a New New Deal -can bring us forward into the 21st century.

And tonight, Pennsylvania voters will show us that we are right, as Hillary wins big despite being outspent 4-1 by Senator Obama. Barack Obama's movement is a house of cards that is just waiting for a breath of fresh air to blow it over.

Rise, Hillary, Rise!