"Black is the new President, Bitch!"

Tracy Morgan on SNL...

Funny spin on all that's been going on.

Remember, "Black is the new President, Bitch!"

Springterns in the WSJ

Wanna know what Steph and I have been up to over break, check out Ellen's article in the WSJ today.

I Can't Stand This Anymore

Hillary Clinton is a hypocritical liar who plays politics like a game and only does what is best for herself.

If you have any doubts about this, check out her NPR interview that aired this morning...

Got it?  Ok!

I'm done with this.  If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she's either going to have to do one heck of a job convincing me to vote for her and she can forget about getting any money, time, or energy from me as a volunteer.

Sadly, as I can already tell, if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination for the Dems, it's going to be another 8 long years with a Republican in the White House.  I'm afraid and you better be too.

VOTE OBAMA '08!  VOTE FOR CHANGE!  VOTE FOR HOPE!  VOTE FOR A BETTER TOMORROW!  VOTE FOR A BETTER AMERICA!

YES WE CAN!

YES WE CAN!

YES WE CAN!

We Are the Ones.

New OBAMA video from Will.I.Am.

Check it out:

All you in TX, OH, RI, and VT... Vote OBAMA '08 on Tuesday, March 4th!

Oh No!

The world is coming to an end... Andrew Sullivan is leaving for the week!

What am I to do?

Well at least we still have the carefully crafted pictures of The Page, AW, Ezra, and Sullivan's new guy, Patrick Appel isn't too bad...

Oh well, one day down, 6 to go!

No Videos!

"No You Can't"

Media Problems

As I continue to learn more about the political process- yes all those nitty-gritty details- the more I being to hate the news media.

Not only is the horse race of politics blown completely out of proportion, but the media fails to explain basic election laws.

Problem #1:  Obama has no substance.

The media goes on and on (Hillary's campaign included) that Barack's policies have no substance.  Take a look at the campaign website people!  If you want to learn more about policies, there's lots of paper there to look at.

Problem #2: Delegate Count.

The news media (sans MSNBC) always includes in their delegate count unpledged superdelegates.  This is a very bad system, as we have seen recently, because superdelegates can change their position.

Problem #3: Texas.

The media fails to fully explain Texas's complex popular vote / caucus system for the primaries.  Texas's system is very detailed and very complex.  However, it is necessary for the news media to make the listeners and readers understand the system before they start generalizing with polls and ideas about who could possibly take the state.  Obama is great in caucuses- something that will help in the second part of the Texas primary.  The way the caucuses are split (because of Tom Delay gerrymandering), plays up heavily black districts, down playing heavy Latino districts.  Polls fail to take this into account at all

Problem #4: Superdelegates.

Superdelegates are tough.  Some have already declared who they are supporting.  Some have changed their stances.  And yet some still have yet to decided.  The fact the the news media always fails to present in their analysis of the "struggle for superdelegates" is that Superdelegates are elected officials.  When worst comes to worst, of if the convention arrives without a Democratic frontrunner, the superdelegates will back the leader with the highest popular vote  or the one that took their district.  The Superdelegates are the first people in the National Democratic Party who do not want to see it torn apart at the convention.

Problem #5: Democratic Proportionality.

Based off of the popular vote, seated delegates are rewarded based on proportionality.  Therefore, it does not quite matter if a candidate won a state, so much as how close the two candidates were in the polls in that state.  Case in point- Nevada.  Hillary won the popular vote, Obama got more delegates.  More: New Hampshire and Missouri- they both tied for delegates even though Hillary won New Hampshire and Obama won Missouri.

Bottom line... the media would rather turn politics into a cat fight than report the truth in its entirety.

This is why I'd rather read some good blogs where people have actual knowledge of the system even if what they say is biased somewhat, at least it gets me away from the horse race of the news media. 

"His to Lose" The Economist

The second article from The Economist...

Objections:

The article states, "Mr. Obama's message of 'change' and 'hope' is becoming a little tiresome".  Why might I ask, if Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" is getting old, is Hillary Clinton joining on the change bandwagon?  Obviously, the country is not tired of hope and change, the country is embracing it.

Important points:

The article overall does a good job outline the Hillary Clinton campaign's downfall following Super Tuesday... 

- Losing 8 out of 8 primaries / caucuses

- Obama taking Hillary's base of whites, women, Latinos, and people over 65

- Her failure to campaign adequately in any of these 8 states

- Her quick withdrawal from Wisconsin

- The changes in the structure of her campaign staff

- Giving $5 million to her own campaign

The most salient point was that all of the crises that have been hitting the Clinton campaign following Super Tuesday "undermines her claim to be a CEO-type figure who will be ready to run the country on day one".  Obama on the other hand "has run a steadier campaign.  He has consistently out-organized and out-planned his rival".

Finally, the most important point... "If Mr. Obama can prevent Mrs. Clinton from winning the triple [Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania], then no amout of arm-twisting of superdelegates will save her campaign".  All Obama has left to do is take one of the three firewall states from Clinton.  It is going to be tough, but this campaign has been fighting against the odds since it began.  Change can happen.  Change will happen.

"But Could He Deliver?" The Economist

The Economist's new issues asks critical questions about the Barack Obama campaign and a Barack Obama presidency.

Here is my response to the article entitled "But Could He Deliver?"

First of all... as a grammar freak, I can't believe how many obvious grammar errors there are in this article

- For example, "Begin with the horse race.  Mrs. Clinton is in a bad way- and deservedly so".   What that doesn't even make any sense!

The article argues that Hillary "trumps Mr. Obama on the mastery of detail".  

Mastery of detail?  Maybe so in the debates- Hillary's long-winded talks bore everyone to sleep, a nice bed time story for those late night debates.  But as for in general, Obama has the longest policy plans that I have seen of any candidate (the shortest being Rudy Giuliani).  When talking to voters and the phone and explaining his policy plans, I often feel bogged down by all of the material.  It's great for me no doubt- the new policy analysts on the scene, but for the regular voter?  While yes, voters do want to hear about policies, most voters don't care for the depth that Hillary provides in her speeches (which leads to the boredom).  Barack's way of going about policy- exciting the electorate while detailing main policy points, leaving the rest to be explained in much detail on the website is perfect for the average American voter.

The article further argues, "If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse.  A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline."

Yes, the Bush years have taught us that incompetence is bad.  But Obama and incompetent are two words that do not go together.  For a man who went to Columbia, Harvard Law, was a community organizer, a Civil Rights attorney, a professor of Constitutional Law, a state Senator, and a United States Senator, incompetence is not in Obama's dictionary.

Also, Hillary has never run any public body- unless you consider the office of the First Lady a public office.  If you do consider her position as First Lady as a steppingstone to being a President, then let me just tell you that as a female (because obviously, gender is being brought into this question), I strongly object to electing a female president who has ridden into the office on her husband's coattails.  Do it yourself!  Make your own future!

Finally, to not give Barack credit for his nearly flawless campaign and amazing organization, while hinting that Hillary is more prepared because she was the First Lady is extremely contradictory.  Are we looking at the same campaigns here?  Hillary's- the campaign that she lended $5million, fired her two major staff, oh and failed to prepared for the primaries after February 5th?  Hmm... I guess being First Lady doesn't always prepare you for running for President.

My last opposition... "But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have."

A lower bar?  Hmm ok.  I personally think that the fact that his name was literally unknown nationwide when he declared his candidacy last year and his biggest rival was (and still is) the former First Lady under an extremely popular Democratic President presents a somewhat high bar to jump over.

Ok so those are my major problems with this article.  More to come