Hilary wins Ohio and Texas

Of course she did. I absolutely loathe demographics in election talk, because the moment it becomes the topic of conversation politics becomes sports.

Having said that, is it sexist to point out that in races where the majority of the voting block are women, Hilary does well? Has anyone else noticed that the majority of the televised Media Circus is comprised of Men? Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, some Democratically minded women are silently holding their tongues, then voting when it matters?

Is it racist to assume that African-Americans who identify with Barack Obama based on his ethnicity will vote for him?

Maybe yes on both questions, but still quite possibly true.

In reality, both options only matters in the ABSENCE OF SUBSTANCE. When the campaigns can't get coverage by discussing issues, or won't step up to the plate and try, identity politics and soundbites are all that remain.

Mr. Obama, why was the Presidential election more important to you than talking about Afghanistan in the Senate, AT LEAST ONCE, since January 2007?

Mrs. Clinton, when was the last time you went to Iraq?

If the Democratic Party wants to elect a President ...

My thing lately is lists. Here's another one, top 5 things Hilary and Barack need to do if they want to see a Democratic Party President elected.

1. Stop going at each other throats!
All your campaigns are doing at this point is generating fodder for Republicans in November

2. Start going after Bush, Cheney, and McCain!
Seriously. You know who the first person to emerge as a leader in this campaign is going to be? The one who acts like one. That's the person that takes the reigns as the front-runner, doesn't bother with their critics, and instead focuses more on some things that matter. Try starting with the situation on the ground in Afghanistan someone!

3. Bridge the Gap
Y'know, maybe what this campaign is about is Hilary and Barack TOGETHER in the White House. It could be a Reagan Bush moment for the Democratic party. That thought is still a little scary, perhaps worthy of another blog post devoted to the subject.

4. Stop whining!
Seriously, your job is about tough decisions. Let the press roll off your back and quit your bitching.

5. Start Talking Issues!
If you're really about hope Barack and you're really about solutions Hilary, then every time you have a microphone in your face, you need to bring up an issue that matters! My suggestion - Health Care!

We'll see if Hilary wins Texas and Ohio. All signs point to yes.

Another Super Duper Tuesday!

So, tomorrow is not-quite-Super Tuesday, a make-or-break day for Hilary Clinton's campaign, a day of destiny for Barack Obama.

And I gotta say, color me underwhelmed. I am quite an atypical American in this sense. I could care less about the horse-race aspects of American election coverage. Because if you think about it, the reason our mainstream media covers the event in this way is quite obvious. Or at least, A reason, there's many. You could write books on the subject.

But I think it's like this. It's the snake eating its tail. The public understands box scores. The Lakers won 114 to 108 against the Sonics. The Yankees won 8-2 in a double-header against the Red Socks. Obama is up 1012

Anyway, given the reality that we're 8 months from the election and that the coverage of issues that matter likely won't manifest itself anytime soon, I say it's time to give in and live with reality. Every year there will be gloomy gusses like me who talk about dull 'issues' like 'universal health care' and 'the war' like they 'matter' or something. It doesn't.

What matters is the people, how popular they are with a segment of the population that's easy to ... well ... segment, and how we market a brand to consumers. We're buying a charismatic bit of television with whowever becomes our new President on the next season of "the President Show" so it's time to live with it. In fact, heck, let's get our share! 5 things that will help America adjust to our new reality.

1. Allow betting on the elections
We already have lotto, why not introduce gambling into the political process and fund a few firehouses?

2. Introduce Pugil Sticks
A big hit during the writer's guild strike was 'American Gladiators.' Let's swap out at least one debate with a pugil stick battle. At least Hilary could get a shot in during a debate!

3. Sponsor the White House
CNN and FOX and all the other network acronyms make money whenever a press conference occurs. So, cut the White House in on the action! Imagine the savings if we overtly allowed corporate interests in on the White House action. "This press conference is brought to you by Verizon. Get Verizon FIOS before we nuke Iran!"

4. Hire ESPN to cover politics
Why not? If you swap out the subject matter between 'Meet the Press' and 'SportsCenter' the big difference is that the latter is actually entertaining.

5. Move me to my own country
Seriously. I don't think I fit in anymore.

I know what you're thinking. "Well, just wait, as soon as the primaries are over, some issues will come to the surface." And maybe they will ... right up to the point that someone starts running all the same polls against all the same demographics and segments all over again.

Here's hoping that at least balancing the budget gets some kind of play, even if nothing will be down about it.

MOOD: Quite Pessimistic

Barack Obama is a Liberal Ronald Reagan

I read the Wall Street Journal fairly regularly. I used to read it for business news and crazy conservative opinions. Now it's just for the crazy conservative opinions, which have gotten downright nuts since Peter Khan left the building over there.

The craziest conservative opinion I read was a few weeks ago. In the op-ed section, a story ran giving some analysis of what happened to Hilary Clinton's campaign, and warning conservatives about the overall power of Barack Obama's campaign.

The bottom line? Obama represents hope in a time when people in America at least feel they desperately need some.

The last President that resonated in this way with Americans, at least in the opinion of the WSJ, was Ronald Reagan. Just like Reagan, Obama's opponent's dismiss his charisma and vision as lightweight. Carter, a sitting President, found out just how powerful those two elements can be when he was swept from power by a candidate that opposition forces sorely underestimated. Now, by this point, the only people who are underestimating Barack Obama and his opinion to the American people are largely mainstream Republicans. McCain is already preparing to debate Obama, to the point of largely ignoring Clinton's talking points (read: Healthcare).

The Clinton campaign has not learned this yet, since experience is still and again the main talking point. Granted, this charge didn't really apply to Reagan, the former governor of California, in the 80s. But the dismissal has a resounding ring of the 80s and Jimmy Carter to it.

The point? Reagan represented hope. A lot of his legacy was to gut the Federal treasury, add billions to the federal deficit in order to outspend militarily a Soviet Union that was in hindsight already crumbling. People may have felt better, but ask millions of Americans if they were truly better off. We hoped things would be better, but this may not have translated into action.

For me at least, the specter of Reagan shadows Obama and makes me less than hopeful that such a transformation would happen were he elected. Instead, it could be Jimmy Carter all over again. His motto in 1976? A Leader, For a Change.

And the one thing I'm surprised that the Clinton campaign hasn't pointed out that in 2004, another Presidential hopeful tried to rally America with hope for change. And we all know how well George W. Bush's promise of "Yes, America Can!" has turned out. Both of them had great mottos, if less than stellar track records while sitting in the Oval Office.

Obama could represent a Liberal version of the above scenario. Instead of outspending militarily, perhaps we outspend on Healthcare or other hotbutton issue during a time when we need to correct the budget excesses of the Bush and Reagan years. It's a question of details and the staff that come along when a President comes to power. If the President is a person of details, then the staff generally will be since the person to which they report will be interested in such things. Think about George W. Bush. He resonated with Republicans in 2000 and 2004 because of his Reagan-esque qualities.

So, the question is, "who is running the Obama campaign?" If there is a sharp technocrat behind the scenes, a 'left-wing Karl Rove' and all that represents, then Obama represents something dangerous in the White House for Liberals. And if you think a 'left-wing Karl Rove' is just what the Democratic Party needs right now, I pray you weren't one of the nuts who thought that 'electability' was a real issue in 2004.

If Obama is the one managing the details, then that represents someone who could truly bring hope to the White House. And the Democrats would have a narrow opportunity to really transform Washington D.C..

Barack Vs. Hillary Vs. McCain (Vs. Nader?)

When I can't make up my mind about something important I make a list of pros and cons. If it's time to buy milk, and I don't know what milk to pick, I'll look at the milk and say, "Hmm, the 2% milk is on sale so that's a pro, but oh, it's expired, so that's a con." Unless you want to make cheese, in which case the expired milk is a pro.

Anyway, I figure that politics and picking people to be President can work the same way.

Barack Obama
PROS: Against the Iraq War, Inspiring, kind of like a Democratic Ronald Reagan, strong civil rights record
CONS: ... KIND OF LIKE A DEMOCRATIC RONALD REAGAN



Hillary Clinton
PROS: Technocrat, detailed, has a kind of gravitas if not very personable, Chelsea Clinton's Mom
CONS: comes with Bill Clinton, VOTED FOR IRAQ WAR


Ralph Nader
PROS: Strong populist streak, helped make seatbelts a standard item in American cars.
CONS: Still uses a typerwriter (which is just as bad as Bush not reading the newspaper), no green party support, NUTCASE



John McCain
PROS: Steady, strong leadership, penchant for bipartisan thinking and action, has accomplished legislation including finance reform
CONS: IS A FUCKING NUT JOB STILL IN FAVOR OF IRAQ WAR


John McClane
PROS: Really kicked ass in all those Die Hard Movies, knows how to kick the crap out of eurotrash, WALKED ON GLASS WITH BARE FEET! Could possibly destroy all terrorists on his own.
CONS: Reginald Veljohnson not available for vice-presidential spot


This list turned out to not be very helpful. I do need milk though!