A bit harsh? Maybe. I clipped an article out of the paper last week, intent to blog about it, and didn't. Then I saw a follow up in today's paper that more or less synched it.

Last week's article in the Denver Post by Susan Greene, talks about Sacha Millstone, a bitter hater, that is willing to give the country back to Republicans because her candidate didn't make the cut. It's one thing to have backed Clinton, in the first place, it's another to pull a bullshit line like, "This isn't sour grapes. This is about the best candidate losing the nomination because she's a woman. It's the most blatant example of sexism in our society...."

I call, rather shout "BS!" I'm curious what Sasha would say to democrats saying they'd vote McCain because Obama lost the bid. If they claimed he lost because of racism, would she support them or tell them to buck up and not be bitter? I suspect the latter.

Clinton wasn't the best candidate, it's that simple. She was the same lame candidate we've gotten from the party election after election. In the pocket of big business, and special interest. Her losing the bid wasn't because she was a woman, it was because she was a Clinton.

Quoting Susan Greene on Sasha, "Gender is the prism through which she views all things political. Any woman who doesn't, she says is 'deaf and blind.' " Again, I scream BS! Was Clinton not one of many senators? Would she have agreed that Obama losing the bid was Racism? Is she blind and deaf for not seeing racism in all things politics? We'll never know because Obama's supporters aren't the ones crying in the streets about the inequity of politics.

I don't disagree that sexism isn't at play. Hello it's been at play for ever! Will Clinton be the last/only woman to run for President? No! She'll probably run again in four years. If she doesn't some one else will. Eventually a woman will be elected. Sexism doesn't end any more abrutly than racism does. Look at business. Years ago a woman wouldn't be running fortune 500's I think as an example, Meg Whitman has done a stellar job of playing in "a man's field".

That brings us to this weekend, and a follow up in the perspective section with letters to the editor. One was from another, pardon my term, HATER! Milane Kolquist of Arvada, who said "I won’t vote for Obama. My not voting for him doesn’t emanate from aknee-jerk reaction to the Democrats selecting him over Clinton as theircandidate. Rather, my not voting for him comes from the knowledge thathe hasn’t the ability, skill or experience to help our country out ofits current, dangerous malaise." uh... so you'll vote for the guy from the party that put us in this "dangerous Malaise"? Or worse yet, you'll not vote, which could have the same impact? Clinton lost! How does being bitter towards the party help anyone but you? You'll sleep better reciting, "I'll show them, I sure will, I won't vote for him!" yeah that's a great tactic. Milane, you're an idiot!

I'm not going to pretend to be objective on the topic, 'my candidate' won the bid. But I just can't see the logic these women (If there are men feeling this way, they're keeping it to themselves, which tells me this is more femi-nazi nonsense, than real political thought) are using to further hurt their party. Clinton was a terrible candidate, who played the game like it's always been played. America (democrats at least, and only those not doing the "oh it's a woman, stand by our sex, no men!!!) wasn't interested in politics as usual. It should have been clear to Clinton that was the case. Every time Obama revealed his campaign numbers, it should have rung crystal clear to the Clinton campaign. A candidate backed by special interests was not a candidate americans wanted. Sure she tricked the red neck trailer trash (and apparently many women), but beyond that group, we all saw right through it. She ran negative ads, she hounded on his "lack of experience", which really just drove home the point that "experience" meant doing things the way they've always been done. As the first female candidate to stand a chance, she should have been on his bandwagon with "no more politics as usual". Instead he platform seemed to be "Politics as usual, except with a woman". That didn't fly. Why would it?

To any Clintonite reading this, I implore you, suck it up. Your candidate lost because she wasn't the right person for the job, male or female. Not voting, or not voting Obama does nothing but put a Republican in office. Is that what you want? Will that help you sleep better? Knowing that, "Well, Clinton isn't in office, but neither is Obama, so there!!"

So you chose Hilary, bad call on your part, but not the end of the world. Now according to Wired, the Hilary-ites are pushing the envelope of moronic, supporting McCain.

I mean really, are you bitter? You're guy, gal lost. She was lame and like every other politician (including McCain). Do you really hate your party that much? Do you really want another 4 years or Republican rule.

I call Bullshit and shenanigans on all members of Hilary Supporters for McCain. You guys are lame, ass burglers who are the reason the Democratic party sucks so bad! Would you guys rather another lame-O like Kerry? Are you so lame you can't imagine politics any way but the way it's been for years?

STOP BEING LAME!!!!

I've been sitting on this thought for a while now. 'Experience' What's it mean?

I'm a college drop out, I took 1.25 years of Computer Science and dropped out, now I'm a computer programmer.

One of Hilary's biggest digs against Senator Obama is his "lack of experience" to wit I say, FUCK THAT! Here's why

1. Hilary has no more experience, she was the f'en first lady. Not exactly a major role. Sorry that's how it is. I know as First Ladies went, she was more active and all that, but still FIRST LADY. WIFE of the President. Does Chelsea have the required experience to be President? She was First Child after all.
2. Has the US really been served by politicians with "experience"? Have the last 8 years been that great based on President Bush's 'experience'? Obama is slammed for his approach to dealing with Cuba, well hello, the heavy handed, "we expect concessions because we're America" approach ain't exactly been winning friends, maybe it's time we try something new. Repeating what doesn't work, isn't a strategy it's retarded.

I know it's a purely political manuever but I find it hard to even fathom that it works. Are Hilary supporters and even McCain supporters so blind and (sorry to offend) moronic that they think, "more of the same politics" is what we need right now? That more of the same crap we've had the last few decades is what the country needs?

Hey Hilary and McCain fans, what happenned to your candidates' gas tax break for summer? That was more of the same shit right there. Trying to trick up into thinking they're doing something when they're not. Notice that when Senator Obama called them both out on that dumb idea, it went no where and they stopped talking about it. Had they really thought it was a good/legitimate idea, don't you think they'd have pushed and defended it?

Yeah that lack of experience at politics as usual, that's a handicap alright (insert sarcasm, if you couldn't detect it)

'nuff said

So Hilary won the West Virginia primary. Yay! Poor white people like her!

Just when I was hoping she'd take the hint and realize that no one wanted her, she wamboozled West Virginians. Is it really a victory when you convince a bunch of poor, tards that "you're one of them"? Granted neither Obama or Clinton come off as "common" but some how Hilary is better at tricking people into thinking her neck is as red as theirs. I don't get it.

One interesting tidbit from the article was

One major warning sign for Democrats could be found in the percentage of Obama and Clinton supporters apparently unwilling to support the opposing candidate. Only 38 percent of Clinton's voters said they would vote for Obama in a general election matchup against presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain. A bare majority (54 percent) of Obama's voters said they would vote for Clinton against McCain.

Oh great guys. You're so busy (Clinton more than Obama, but he's no angel I'm sure) vilifying each other that regardless of who wins the nomination, you're handing the white house to Republicans.

The democratic leadership needs to take it's head out of the sand. This is not good for the party or the country! If McCain wins, it's because we let ourselves be so divided by our own two candidates.

A funny

Over the past week, Clinton has highlighted the fact that white, working-class West Virginia was once a Democratic stronghold. In fact, no Democrat has captured the White House without West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson won a second term in 1916. President Bush was able to win the socially conservative state twice largely on the basis of hot button issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control.

For a democratic strong hold, it sure sounds like a bible thumping red state. But I'm not surprised Clinton could swindle them to her side if they went to Bush's side too. West Virginia wake up you mooks!!!! Hot button issues?!!?! They're just that, meant to polarize people to one side. How's that worked for us so far!?

Well you eeked out a victory in PA. w00t!! you go girl, maybe you can trick a few more states into thinking that your brand of politics like we've always had them, is exactly what we need more of.

PA, sorry you guys, you're a bunch of chumps. You had the opportunity to show Hilary the door and allow her to gracefully bow out, and save a little face. Not to mention saving us all a few weeks of crappy campaigning and sleazy tactics, ahem, Hilary.

Oh well. On to the next state. Good luck Obama!

I forgot to mention previously, but it's really interesting just how much our politics bleed into the world. I can understand once we have a president, but all through out Italy, one of the things that came up time and again from people... "What's up with your politics? Who do you want to win?"

I was in Italy twice in as many months, saw the posters and can only remember the name of one of the 3 dozen (it seemed) candidates for their presidential elections. Yet they're almost anxiously waiting to see what mess America makes in November.

Oh and the folks I was talking to, don't like Hilary. "It might be time for a woman, but not Hilary." Too funny.

The only thing that comes to mind, when reading this NPR story, is "Oh Snap!!!!"

Below is an email that the Obama campaign sent out, in response to an email the Clinton campaign had sent.

What amazes me, is that despite the repeated drubbings that the Clinton campaign has been taking from Obama, and despite the overwhelming evidence that the populace at large IS NOT INTERESTED in politics as usual, the Clinton campaign continues to try and campaign like politics as usual, using disinformation, spin, and all forms of un-honest nonsense. Why? Get with it Hilary, you're going to lose, but you could at least lose by treating the voters like we're not morons. Your campaign deserved this.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans -- all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders -- those making up their minds in the last days before the election -- have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us ... I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

I fly a lot these days, and without fail, some ass-burgler is in front of me causing trouble.

Whether it's "I'll never fly Delta again!" Douche in ATL bitching because he was 1 lb over the 50lb limit,

or mr. I'm gonna give the ticket checker before you get to Security a hard time, guy.

or my favorite, "My laptop can't be in the bag?" Idiot.

I'm no fan of the TSA, We've been at threat level Orange now for what? a year? Why even have colors if you're never going to change the level? We were at yellow once that I remember. Now apparently we're always at Defcon 2 flight security wise. WEAK!

HOWEVER. since they make the rules, freaking follow them! Wired has an article on ways to breeze through security.It's all very straight forward advice, and for anyone who's flown this decade, retardedly obvious, but for the rest of you! READ IT! commit it to memory. Yes it's a pain in the arse! Yes it's probably over kill, yes it didn't used to be like that, and yes maybe if we get a democrat in office, the government and TSA will stop trying to make it sound like we all like in Beruit. BUT until then, get in line, shut up, take off your shoes, belt, outer shirt! Take your laptop out! Have your shit ready before you get to the bins. Don't fill the bin while it's on the stack, thereby bin blocking the guy (usually me!) behind you!

I'm pretty far from a crazy hippy liberal, I like the death penalty, I also like women choosing what to do with their bodies, and I don't give a flying fig that the ten commandments were in front of that court house, hell they're good rules to live by even if you're not a bible thumper. I do think the pledge is ok as it is, but am fine if we return it to the original, none "Under god" version, since that was added for lame reasons.

All of that said, I mostly think both parties are so crooked and not at all interested in their constituents that both should be disbanded and let's see what happens then. Case in point!

It would seem that in the interest of keeping "turmoil" which to me means discourse and debate, from the national convention, the Democratic party decided some time ago, to be undemocratic in their tie breaking. Way to go guys. Way to be better than "the other side".

From the CNN article,

"Party rules call for the votes of superdelegates -- 800 or so partyofficers, elected officials and activists -- to tip the balance. Theparty instituted the system to avoid the turmoil that a deadlocked racewould create at a convention.

...

While pledged delegates are allocated with the understanding they'll vote the way their state went in its primary or caucus, superdelegates are free to vote however they want. And even if they pledge their support to a candidate, they're free to change at any time."

Meaning, that these better than everyone else delegates can be swayed by political favors, poilitical pressure, and oh I supposed but not really, popular pressure from oh, i dunno. THE FREAKIN' PUBLIC! Essentially from what I take from this article, the Democratic party has decided that if the public should happen to be split, we lose any and all right to decide and the decision comes down to a select few, hey, that's almost like the farse of an election system we use here.

""If a perception develops that somehow this decision has been made not by voters participating in primaries or caucuses, but by politicians in some mythical backroom, I think that the public could react strongly against that," Devine said."

I can't imagine why we'd think something like that. It's only been the status quo in Washington for mmm forever or close to it? Is there any one politico or other that thinks Washington isn't run by back room deals? Hello Pork barrel ring any bells? The system is crooked and even the least politically involved believes that. So yeah, should some shady shit happen, we'll call it like we see it.

In talking about Walter mondale, who was one of the first to benefit from SuperDelegates,

" Mondale was able to line up the superdelegates going into the convention and avoid a fight on the convention floor."

I read "...avoid a fight on the convention floor." to mean avoid a debate or any type of discussion on the issues and ideals that each candidate brought, in order to just "move things along" is the convention really nothing more than a pep rally? If there's a clear winner than sure, pep rally it up, yo'! but if there isn't the convention should be where it gets decided! The candidate should be selected on the strength of his or her arguments and character, not on how well they wheel and deal with a tiny un-picked by the populace minority.

I've said this before, Democrats emberass me. The party that is supposed to be for "everyone" keeps edging closer and closer to being only for the "everyone" that matters and can further the political agenda, or donate the most. Isn't that the Republican parties platform?

I was talking to Tom and something funny struck me. We were talking about the NH Presidential Debates, which I'm slowly working my way through. After stating the Obvious, "Rebublicans are just boring, the first half is gonna be tough to get through", something occured to me.

While sitting there watching the top Republicans, I noticed that as usualy (though more striking this year) that it was

white guy

white guy

weird older white guy (Ron Paul)

TV star white guy

war hero white guy

and that tard from NY, also a white guy.

Now being a white guy, i'm very pleased to see my kind so well represented in politics, but it just struck me me as odd. "How can anyone but my fellow white guys continue to vote for a party that is ALL WHITE GUYS? I mean I'll grant that normally it's all white guys on both sides of the field, but this year, well let's take a look.

We've got more of my peeps.

White Guy, White Guy,

Maybe a brown guy? Or is he just tan?

Black guy

Ken doll A white one even.

white guy,

white lady, and

white guy

No you didn't mis read, and I'm not confused, A black guy, a brown(?) guy, and white lady. Holy hell.

I'm not sure which I'd find more out of touch; Republicans digging up a Token, or just plodding along white as can be. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting Obama, and don't for a second consider him the Democrat's token black guy (they're honestly not that clever). But given the environment of this current election, I just can't reconcile how anyone but my afformentioned fellow white guys could vote republican.

Are the non white evangelicals so blind that they tow the line even when their party can't seem to step up from the oh I don't know. 30's, 40's? Everyone is equal of course, but us white guys, we're in charge and that's that, sorry you don't like that, go vote Democrat then.

I mean really, there's no non-white guy republicans out there capable of leading the country? I can't see a reason to ever vote republican, but some how so many do. Will they still, now that during this election, the whiteness is ever more apparent?

in case you didn't see it any of the trillian or so places it's likely to be. I wanted to post it. He's an incredible speaker, more motivating than most as far as i'm concerned.

Looks like Iowa has spoken, "Nearly complete returns showed him gaining 37 percent support from Iowans."

I'm very excited that this first Caucus turned out in Obama's favor.

I've heard it said that winning Iowa is a sign of things to come, so that's good!

It's cool to see such potential for positive change in America being recognized. It's also kinda nice to see Hilary not even taking second, "Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina appeared headed for second place, relegating Clinton, the former first lady, to a close third."

Not surprisingly, " Mike Huckabeerode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the openinground among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House."

You can always trust the wing nuts to do what they do best. Hopefully the rest of America has had enough of that type of President, and this November we get some real change in this country.

Congratulations Senator!