Administrativia

Give this man more air time...

Jesse Ventura schools Elizabeth Hasslebeck.

Down...

Virginia Postrel has some less than kind words for the press and pundtry's seeming infatuation with "the first 21st century depression". I don't necessarily disagree with her assessment, but she (and most of the press for that matter) miss the mark by focusing simply on economic statistics like unemployment, bank failures, stock market value, etc. What most people seem to be forgetting is that the Great Depression was actually two "depressions" in a series. The economy had actually started a minor rebound when Roosevelt came into office -- but other factors intervened like: Environmental disaster -- the dustbowl, subsequent mass migration of people and pressure on food markets Protectionist world markets collapsing credit markets and trade Cultural shifts with the continued move from the farm to the city (driven by economic factors) The near collapse of world social order created by these factors led to the rise of the Hitler & the Nazis, Mussolini in I...

It seems that the punditocracy is going into overdrive working scenarios whereby McCain pulls an upset. What A McCain Win Looks Like... McCain Looks for Upset as Obama Holds Advantage John McCain still has a shot Of course, if those don't pan out... time to call in Mothra!

From 538: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/today%27s%20polls From Pollster: National Trends . Chris Bowers @ OpenLeft breaks it down .

Campbell Brown p'wns McSame spox Tucker Bounds.

I get tired of hearing from the fawning third estate of how "good John McCain is on the stump" and in a town hall setting... The fact is, he's awkward, doddering and embarassing -- whether joking about killing civilian Iranians (with bombs or cigarettes) or lying about his voting record on veterans issues.

For some reason, I've been banned by John Aravosis on AmericaBlog -- probably because I noted that he's become increasingly shrill in his commentary rather than reasoned in his approach. Yet other hateful comments are left. Oh well -- his blog has jumped the shark... and now comes off my favorites list and blog role.

One of the observations that most folks (even the pundits) have noticed is the generational difference (perhaps) between the Obamaniacs and the Hillbots. My biggest problem is that Gen Y or Gen Whine as I call them is an entirely untested voting group. My experience with this generation is that they expect, want, crave attention -- and when they don't get it, they bitch and moan and walk away. They are overwhelmingly unwilling to "play" when they think that the "process" is to onerous or time-consuming. They are the text-message generation and don't believe or support anyone who doesn't kow-tow to their particular sensibilities. Don't pet them -- and they walk. Which is why Obama is wonderful for them -- they get all the stroking they need and a blank slate that they can write their own story upon. Hillary has a problem with this group -- they don't like details. Details are something that are supposed to be taken care of for them. (Which is...

The rules for choosing the delegates in Texas are a little different than everywhere else (of course), but are not what AS lays out in his Daily Obama. A poster on the blog that AS links to as a sign that the great O will trump the evil HRC corrects the record: Joe Garland, on February 6th, 2008 at 7:41 pm Said: This paints an inaccurate picture of how delegates to the Democratic convention are chosen in Texas. An explanation of the process for selecting delegates can be seen at the Texas Democratic Party’s website: http://www.txdemocrats.org/page/-/howto08.pdf …and a full list of the rules can be seen here: http://www.txdemocrats.org/the_party/article_vii_national_delegate_selection_rules While it is true that 126 delegates are chosen through the caucus process, party rules state that for this subset, “the number of delegates awarded each candidate is based on the results of the Presidential Primary in that district.” Precinct “conventions” are held the night of the primary election...

As I listen to the MSM narrative of Obama is bringing in record numbers of new / independent voters, I wondered if there were any actual numbers to back that up -- as opposed to the meme that Hillary has hit a ceiling. I'm just now starting to crunch the numbers -- and maybe this isn't the right comparison -- but if you look at the MA vote (2004 Primary / 2004 General / 2008 Primary) -- from CNN vote totals: Kerry (2004 Primary) = 440,929 Total (2004 Primary) = 598,929 Kerry (2004 General) = 1,803800 Compared with Clinton / Obama in the 2008 Primary Clinton (2008 Primary) = ~611,839 @ 11:30 EST Obama (2008 Primary) = ~433,394 @ 11:30 EST Total Dem Primary Vote = short of 2004 general election total by ~ 700,000 votes; but beats primary vote total by about 400,000 votes. Interestingly, Hillary beats the total 2004 primary vote total in MA but Obama's total is less than Kerry's primary vote total. This is just one state, but I chose MA first because of the Kennedy factor....

I am, admittedly, firmly in the Hillary camp -- but unlike more than a few Obama supporters (like his wife), I will enthusiastically support whomever becomes the Democratic nominee. My problems with Obama have as much to do with his statements and positions as with many of supporters. Michael Chabon's paean in the Wapo yesterday was typical -- you must support Obama or you're naive, uninformed, cowardly, a closet racist or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with making informed choices about a candidate. So many of the Obama-ites see what they want as they gaze at the object of their affection. He is the blank slate that their fantasies can be drawn upon. Andrew Sullivan swoons in post after post -- when not spewing bile about Hillary... and everyone talks endlessly about "hope". The latest narrative: Obama = JFK & Camelot reborn. Blech. Sorry to break it to those that actually read and follow history. JFK was elected by the tiniest margins, was a woman...

Walnuts wins on the GOP side, no news yet as to whether or not 9/11 Nellie will bow out tomorrow (rumored) or wait until after the California debate later this week. Hillary pulls out what I consider a decisive and impressive win -- even though no delegates have been awared (yet). Why is it impressive? Because the news cycles have been constant on the Obama surge and the Billary plunge. Add regular Obama political ads (yes, a "national buy" but included in all Florida cable markets) and just the general temperature in the blogosphere after Teddy's endorsement, the table was set for this "beauty contest" to be much tighter. But it wasn't. Two things bode well for the Dems -- overall turnout still seems to favor the Dems... even without active campaigns for the top of the ticket. And Hillary's win means Super Tuesday looms even larger. More than that, it also means that states like Texas can actually look forward to at least having some sort of Democr...

Q: Does Focus on the Family lie and distort as a matter of practice? A: Yes. Note to the folks at Time's Blog, Swampland... or wherein, blogger Michael Scherer is surprised to find that not only does FOF lie , it refuses to acknowledge that lie and keeps on lying . Had he done any research on gay issues over the last decade, it might have occurred to him that this possibility existed. Unfortunately, we're still often confronted with the so-called "balance" reporting where somehow it is required to have two "sides" of an issue represented, even though one side is lying... and pointing that out becomes the responsibility of the other "side" rather than having the reporter doing minimal due diligence (try Googling for a change!).

I will admit to reading Andrew Sullivan on occasion -- it's like watching Faux News -- better than coffee to get my blood pumping. It is difficult to take someone seriously (small s) who, throughout the 2000 Bush campaign and particularly post-9/11, spent so much effort waxing poetically about GWB as an historically transforming and uniting figure. The slightest action -- however out of context -- was trumpeted as positive change and used to bash those who were skeptical as out of the mainstream. (Gays didn't have to worry about being bashed under the Bush adminstration, why he once said hello to one!) Disdain was too mild a word for those who might be wistful enough for the Clinton years to want Al Gore to win. After 9/11, those of us who knew what a truly ill-equipped man-child with delusions of competency Bush is were dismissed and demonized as traitors. True enough, times changed and the sheer incompetence of this President -- not to mention the gutting of civil liberties...

There is one word that most in Washington -- especially in the Executive -- hate, it's the "R" word: Recession . There. I said it. Like Hermione Granger said of Voldemorte : "Saying his name takes away the power." I don't fear the R-word like most. Perhaps it's because I'm reasonably well educated or have most of my finances in order. Perhaps it's because I've lived through the dark days of the mid-80's during one of the first oil busts. What I have come to fear -- and it's not irrational -- is the "response" to a recession that inevitably comes from the political establishment. When a politician says, "The economy is sound..." The harbingers of doom are in conflict with the fingers-in-the-ear set. Everyone has seen the same numbers. Everyone knows the trajectory, but few in power want to acknowledge the elephant in the room... so they call it Phil. Anything but the R-word. Nothing is actually done at this point ...

It really is a village of idiots -- especially Chris Matthews . And don't forget to let MSNBC know what you think via Media Matters .

Plenty of commentary all over the blogosphere and in the MSM about why HRC won on Tuesday, despite the polling numbers and the constant barrage of "it's over" -- but what strikes me most is how flinchingly dishonest the punditocracy is being as they try and find "the right narrative" to explain what happened. The fact that the folks of New Hampshire (and the rest of us for that matter) don't particularly care to be told what to think or whom to vote for by a press establishment that is solely focused on the horse race rather than the substance of the campaigns seems to elude them. Instead we get -- the people lied to us in the polling because they are secretly racist, or women broke for Hillary because she turned on the tears, or maybe it's because the Flying Spagetti Monster made them do it as part of the Grand Intelligent Design. Or perhaps the real reason is basic retail politics . What is certain: the pundits got skunked and that's a good thing...