For Super(duper) Tuesday coverage

Please check out my posts at All Things Democrat (this, from a lifelong til now Indy) to see how:

• the Republicans are shitting themselves
• West Virginia votes first for Romney than seals its delegates to Huckabee "(Aren't dinosaurs still here?")
• why they're saying John McCain will break the Republican Party in two (don't believe it, myself - they've been a divided party for a long time, usually divided between those with a brain and no heart, and those with feint heart and little brain and then a huge number of folks with some brain and heart who get stuck with loser, pathological candidates).

In A Panel of Bald-Faced Liars, Mike Huckabee Stands Out

[Methinks spending time around Chuck Norris and his drug-induced haze has affected the Huck's mental capacity (which was never exactly firing on all cylinders to start with).]

Mike Huckabee, the same man who last week insisted that it was his solemn duty to change the U.S. Constitution to reflect HIS interpretation of the word of God - namely, to outlaw homosexuality and a woman's right to choose and make any semblance of marriage restricted exclusively to a man and a woman - with a straight face during the Thursday night Florida GOP presidential debate, insisted that he would never, ever try to impose his religious views on the nation.

Say what?

"America's Mayor" Campaign Going Boom DOT Bust?

For weeks and weeks, GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has been pouring all his time and resources (and we've learned that his campaign, even before Mike Huckabee's, has run out of money in ways that make it impossible to pay all staffers) into key primaries like Florida's after doing very badly in Iowa, New Hampshire, and others.

However, it's unlikely Giuliani, mayor of New York City on September 11th, 2001, will win even Republican voters when it's time for the Empire State to cast ballots. But if he does as badly in the upcoming Florida primary as polls suggest, how can the man who sold out the firefighters and other 9-11 rescue workers, who took billions in no-bid contracts not just from the Bush Administration but from our supposed sworn enemies, and who should have an in among Floridians who were former New Yorkers, stay in the race? Despite his focus down there, he's halved his polling numbers since November (from 36 to 18%).

The Republican debate in Florida is tonight on MSNBC. Urg.

The South Carolina Democratic Debate: Who Won? Not Us

If I had to sum up my reaction to the South Carolina Democratic debate Monday night in just one sentence, I would paraphrase what contender John Edwards said, "Excuse me, there are three people in this debate, not TWO and with all this squabbling, how many kids will be able to get health care or go to college because of this meanness."

Not only did this become a Hillary-Barack slugfest with their behavior along with how debate host CNN's Wolf Blitzer handled it, but the media after the fact seemed to ignore that Edwards was even present. Most of the clips of it shown offered no glimpse, much less a soundbyte, from the former North Carolina senator.

The relatively few who DID notice Edwards was there, like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown, noted that he came out as the soul of reason, the only one who realizes this isn't about Hillary or Barack or even himself, but a nation filled with hurting people who can no longer afford their mortgages, their health insurance, or to be guaranteed a decent education for their kids. As Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out with Keith, if Clinton-Obama fights like this continue for the next month, Edwards is almost guaranteed to come out ahead of both of them put together.

Finally, the media was far more focused on the arguments between the woman candidate and the black candidate, making it sound like it was just wrong. As a pacifist and as someone who rarely feels she learns much from arguing, I'd agree. However, the media ONLY looks at Clinton and Obama and the fighting, giving almost NO attention to harsh words exchanged between Republican candidates or many of the lies the GOP runners tell about the Democrats as well as their own voting/business history. Given how the media presents this stuff, how can we possibly trust their overall analysis? Hell, they didn't give Mike Huckabee this kind of heat when he came out a few times last week to declare that the U.S. Constitution must be completely rewritten to document the word and laws of His God - something that affects all of us a HELL of a lot more than whether Hillary and Barack love each other or engage in verbal smackdowns

McCain-Lieberman Ticket?

Did you catch the love-in between John McCain and (he's such a liar he still calls himself a Democrat) Joe Lieberman? The one where there was more than just a slight suggestion that McCain might actually consider the hawkish Orthodox Jew-slash-Unorthodox lawmaker as his running mate?

While anyone with a brain knows that among the countless reasons why Lieberman, in his current incarnation as loyal Bushie, should never be allowed near Capitol Hill, much less 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his religious affiliation is not at all one of them, I still found myself wondering what the hell McCain is thinking.

Granted, McCain has tried to rebuild himself in the far right image, courting and getting the warm and wormy embrace of the late (and never great) hate mongerer, Jerry Falwell, and granted that the far right has painted itself the "great defender" of Jews of late. But this scurrilous crowd hardly "likes" Jews - no, they see them (most and revulsively despicably) as a "necessary evil" for the Rapture to occur the way they want.

But can even the increasingly erratic McCain think he can help his chances on Super Tuesday, or in South Carolina's primary, by suggesting he would consider as his vice president a man like Lieberman who is despised by most Democrats for his "me first" politics of late while many Republicans hold their nose as they try to find something nice to say about Joementum?

Chris Matthews, Hardball, Mea Culpas, And An Embarrassment of Rich (and Neverending) Embarrassments

Salon starts of this piece about how MSNBC's Hardball host, Chris Matthews, has caused the Internets (all of them!) to be agog about his terribly treatment of Hillary Clinton and goes on to say he's offering his mea culpas, which may or may not be because he could lose his job otherwise.

But let's be honest here: almost everything that comes out of Matthews unchecked and mealy mouth, usually about Democrats in particular, has been damned embarrassing.

Matthews started his very erratic slide - and this tool was never the most sharply calibrated instrument to begin with - when he went totally gaga about how MANLY Bush looked in May 2003 with his stunt landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to announce "Mission Accomplished" and "all combat pretty much over in Iraq". Matthews literally noted Bush's (quite obviously) padded crotch and opined that every woman in America had fallen in love with the brainless wonder and every man was proud that, if they had to have a president who had a bigger codpiece than they did, at least it was "this MAN's MAN". (Geez, I want to retch just thinking about this.)

Thus, Matthews simple-minded diarrhea of the brain isn't something that started with this election cycle. It's just that he's getting exponentially worse. In addition to the Hillary remarks, he's said Obama was inspiring because he did so well in Iowa considering he's a true candidate of the third world. Uh, I know Chicago has problems, but when did Illinois join the third world? And it gets worse from there.

Sadly, the only thing MSNBC is doing in having Matthews plastered on EVERY presidential campaign focused broadcast is to render useless the little bit of better analysis they DO have (and considering their team, we're pretty much down to Keith Olbermann who shouldn't have to be paired with a fellow host so incompetent he could be named a major Bush appointee).

Today's Nevada Caucus: Rules Must ALWAYS Favor the Voters, Not Specific Candidates

With all the talk the last few days of how critical it was that Barack Obama "won" a ruling in Nevada that permits caucuses in the casino areas (now there's something our forefathers probably did not envision) so that workers, like the culinary workers union that threw its support behind Obama, can participate in the caucus process despite the fact the votes are held on a Saturday (today) which has to be a very busy workday on the strip, comes a point too often lost.

The point is this: voting rules and laws should always favor the best interests of all voters. For example, anything that can be done to make it easier - and yet still able to protect the integrity of the votes cast - for voters to cast their ballots can and should be done. Such rules should NOT be designed to favor one candidate or another. In fact, screw the candidates: it's the voter's interest that comes above all else.

The most egregious example we've ever seen - and I pray it will never be repeated - of the system being rigged for a specific candidate rather than the totality of the American voters came in the presidential election of 2000. And no, I'm not talking specifically about the Bush-Cheney subversion of the votes through outright thievery.

When Bush's people, led by constant Bushie savior James Baker III, raced to the U.S. Supreme Court to be sure that the recount of votes in Florida was stopped (lest it was proven that indeed Gore won), Baker took a law designed to protect the voter and turned it magically into an argument that one single voter and candidate, namely our current Moron in Chief, would be irrevocably harmed if the Florida recount was permitted to continue to its logical conclusion.

Somehow (magically, through a packed court roster - though hardly as weighted to the extreme Bushian mindset as it is today), the Supreme Court not only let them get away with a total perversion of the laws, they rewarded Baker and Bush and Grand Evil Emperor Cheney with the presidency in a decision that boils down to "we can't let Florida finish its recount because if it does, it's likely Bush will lose, and that will hurt poor Georgie's feelings and nobody ever says NO to Georgie and Dick(less)."

Thus, regardless of whether the court decision to allow Nevada voters to cast their caucus votes (and the caucus system is really a strange way to go, but that's a whine - without the cheese and crackers - for another day) in a more convenient arena like casinos favors Hillary, Barack, John or Dennis, or hell, even the (choke) McCain-Lieberman ticket, the important issue is not which candidate benefits or is hurt, but that voters get to vote. This is exactly as it should be.

"Everything's PERFECT With New Hampshire Primary Vote Recount" - Unless You Bother to Read The Numbers

The stench wafting across the border is riper than Cabot Creamery's special blue cheese. Cough.

Bradblog is all over some of the irregularities already found with New Hampshire Democratic Primary votes recount (Republican recount to come after the Dems); I visited Brad AFTER I saw this happy horseshit on WMUR (a New Hampshire TV station's Web site). From WMUR (for MURky fact-gathering, perhaps?):

The continuing Democratic primary recount in New Hampshire has not found any voting problems.

As of yesterday, even TINY counties were noting that optical electronic scanners had reported HUNDREDS of ballots were blank (thus not counted) when they were indeed marked for a candidate.

Something really doesn't meet the stink test here. And Diebold may have changed its (bleeping) name, but it sure hasn't changed its rigged machinery.

Was New Hampshire's Primary Vote Count ACCURATE? We Need To Know: Here's Why

Last week, I noted that Ohio Congressman - and still Democratic presidential hopeful - Dennis Kucinich (along with a Republican few know) demanded a recount in New Hampshire to carefully recount the votes cast there last Tuesday. But what's gone under the radar is the WHY: that in the Democratic primary alone, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won, on the surface, depends on how the votes were counted. Specifically, the hand-counted votes seemed to go to Obama; the electronic machine counted ones seemed to favor Hillary.

I very much applaud Kucinich for making the demand; we NEED to know if there is a problem and, if there is, whether it's willful or a deliberate cheat. While our (already, if not always so fairly or appropriately) elected leaders have already kissed away true voting reform until 2012 at the same time that those in the know indicate that, even if verified voting reform were enacted TODAY, we can't even be sure the 2012 vote will be who we actually elected.

As you might imagine, there is HUGE doubt as to this November's validity of vote. And if you aren't paying attention to this, you may deserve what YOU get, but I don't think the rest of us do.

New Hampshire Republicans (And Others): Watch Bush and Iran Today

With the events in the Straits of Hormuz today, with Bush rattling his sabers ever louder for an action from Iranian boats that, since we declared the War on of Terror, American forces commit EVERY DAY in the waters of other lands where we often have no right or permission to threaten, I advise you to rethink carefully your primary vote today.

McCain isn't all that far from Bush, while Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, et al, are determined to continue Bush policies that have bankrupted this land and made us far more, rather than less, hated in the world. And if you think Iraq is a mess, imagine what a war with Iran will bring us.

We won't ever "control" 1.5 (and growing) billion Muslims. But we can influence them BADLY against us. And the Bush-Republican way is to do that.

I happened to hear on WGN today a speech given by a Holocaust survivor today at a Chicago area school. This man, who lost so much, talked so passionately about how wars are always started for so-called noble purposes, but that with it, so many (and usually, so many of them innocents) die, and that the way forward is to STOP the wars.

I second him. We don't need a holocaust for Muslims, and we don't want to bring one down (through our own actions) on Christians (or at least, leaders who CALL themselves Christian).

A Vermonter To Her Neighbors In New Hampshire About To Vote In Tuesday's Primary

Dear New Hampshire Primary Voters:

I write to you as the yin to your yang (VT and NH look like two halves of a whole though so few realize how very different philosophically, politically, and even geologically we are from one another).

Dems: vote your very best; don't vote for the "it" candidate if you truly want another one

GOPs: I'm really so very sorry for you; your candidates are so damned bad anyway but hey, I'd vote Ron Paul myself (especially after his people chased and scared the hell out of Sean Hannity of Fox News this past weekend)

Indies: Hey, do you really want more of the Republican trash in YOUR White House? Take out the garbage so we can start fresh.

And to ALL of you: Do NOT LET ANYONE talk you into playing dirty tricks with anyone's vote, including your own

Huckabee: Bright He's Not, But PBS Can't Ask Him Tough Questions?

Posted at My Left Wing (and my blood is boiling!):

Posted at My Left Wing are some questions I think need to be asked AND answered:

[There] is a transcript provided by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) of Judy Woodruff's interview with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Or you can listen to the audio by clicking here. This interview illustrates why bloggers like myself have utter contempt for the corporatist media. And yes that now apparently includes PBS which is supposed to be a cut above and serve only the public. In a disgraceful display of inept journalism, Woodruff asks one horse race question after the other.

This man may become the Republican nominee and perhaps our next president. I don't think he will but it's not impossible. So why not ask him questions of substance? They're plenty to chose from.

Some clips from Woodruff's piss poor interview (which, btw, hardly fits New Hampshire which, despite its Republican bent, is a far cry from Iowa):

JUDY WOODRUFF: The first question, is you had a lot less money.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You had a much smaller organization.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you think you did it in Iowa?

MIKE HUCKABEE: I think we did it because we had a message that people
resonated with.

And they wanted to believe that there was still a place in American politics for a person who didn't come at them with a lot of money and razzle and dazzle, but came at them with an authenticity that they felt like was about them, not about the campaign, but about the people, who are supposed to be the very recipients of all this message we create.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think that what happened in Iowa translates to the
state of New Hampshire, where we are right now, a very different state...

MIKE HUCKABEE: Sure.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... everybody has started to point out?

MIKE HUCKABEE: Americans different in some maybe thoughts or emphasis still have the same ideas. They want a government that lets them be free, that leaves them alone, that doesn't interrupt and interfere with every aspect of their life, that lets them go to work and keep more of what they've worked hard to have.

Those are principles that I think are valid anywhere. Now, there may not be as much focus, for example, in New Hampshire on the sanctity of life or maybe even traditional marriage, as you would see in Iowa. But on issues like lower taxes, less government, and then a more efficient government, that'll be a focus here in New Hampshire that I think is universal anywhere.

New Hampshire, as of January 1st, started the first civil union that is identical to marriage. But calling people who believe in choice and freedom less focused on "sanctity of life" or "sanctity of traditional marriage" is just one of a whole huge host of reasons Huckabee should never get any closer to being president than winning the Iowa caucus. However, New Hampshire right now - God help us - is heavily leaning toward McCain and Vermont governor Jim Douglas, a Bush loyalist, just came out endorsing McCain who also should not be allowed anywhere near Washington, much less 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Schizophrenic Iowa Caucus Candidate Results Math

With perhaps less than 25% of Iowa's precincts reporting in the big caucus today, NBC has already projected Mike "I put the suck in" Huckabee as the winner of the GOP race there and perhaps Barack Obama as the winner of the donkey lane. (As I type this, CBS News seems to be projecting the same). But there are some problems here, not the least of which is that 25% is a long way from 100% and that we already saw this kind of "jump the shark" math make a complete and utter mess out of the "easy Bush steal" of the 2000 Florida vote where all the networks went back and forth with who won.

Let's start with the Democrats. Though Obama is now projected as the Dem winner, the last numbers I saw actually put John Edwards ahead, followed by Obama and Clinton. Strangely enough, however, even when Edwards held a good percentage lead over the other two, NBC's and some of the other networks' pundits were making it sound like this was great for Obama and a big loss for Edwards. Uh.... huh?

Some of the same pundits were calling a vote for any Dem but Hillary an "anti-Clinton" vote. Gee, who knew that Democrats only had two choices: Hillary or NOT Hillary? They also saw the votes as broken down along specific lines: all blacks and those whites who happened not to like Hillary all voted for Obama, according to these puny pundits, while all women and those blacks who didn't like Barack handed their support to Hillary. Now this wouldn't explain how Edwards still comes out so strong, but this simplistic twit shit doesn't make much sense otherwise anyway. Earth to Pundits: not all blacks, not all women, not all "there is no such thing as evolution and mankind and the dinosaurs began to live contemporaneously with one another on Earth about 5 minutes ago" fundamentalist fruitcakes all think, act, and vote alike.

Another weird Punditry spin, this one espoused by MSNBC's Chris "I jump on board whichever ship isn't sinking quite as fast at the moment" Matthews, is that Obama is somehow more a child of Kenya than of the U.S. To hear Matthews talk, you'd think that Barack arrived in this country about 10 minutes before the caucus. Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see Obama as anymore (and Matthews actually used this reference) "a child of the third world" than Mike Huckabee is the voice of intelligent Christians (of which I'm not sure Mike is one), or Rudy Giuliani is the voice of adulterers everywhere, or that Hillary is just another Bill.

Meanwhile, Matthews is rather "kind" in noting that Huckabee seems out of touch with what's going on in the world or even in this country. Huckabee, for example, is claiming he appeared on Jay Leno's "The Tonight Show" last night not knowing there was a writers' strike going on (and if you believe this one, than kindly believe I'm a 6 foot tall anorexic natural blonde 17 year old who wants someday to be as smart as the "so dumb she almost makes Paris Hilton seem like she has an IQ in the double digits" Miss South Carolina). But even if you buy (and you shouldn't) Huckabee's claim of ignorance on crossing picket lines, he's equally clueless about a number of other far more important points, such as Pakistan's politics and his repeated statements that religious freedom and true democracy in the US can only be achieved by forcing every American to be baptized into his evangelical faith and to rewrite the Constitution based on his version of the Bible.

To sum it up, if the media's coverage of the Iowa caucus tonight is any indication of how the rest of their reporting on the November's upcoming presidential vote will go, we're in even bigger trouble than we've been.

Iowa, Caucuses, And "There's Got To Be A Better Way"

If you listen to the media focusing on the presidential vote that will happen just over 10 months from now, it's "all Iowa, all the time."

Now, Iowa's voters count as much as any groups, but I still find it rather offensive to see Iowa's voters treated like the real race is almost over once the caucus votes are counted Thursday (tomorrow).

Perhaps it's still the very bitter taste left in my mouth by the way Iowans - and the media reporting on it - treated Democrat (and now DNC chairman) prez candidate Howard Dean in 2004; where one corny "Yeeee-haaaaw" derailed a campaign that got average Americans participating with their money and their letter writing in a way we had never seen before.

The reality is that Iowa is

a) the whitest state in the nation which is increasingly NOT white bread,
b) should have no greater power to decide the race than any other,
c) their voters constitute a hardly whopping 6/100ths of 1 percent of this nation's entire voting population
d) Iowa does NOT have the market cornered on the greatest of American values
e) January is JUST too damned early to decide who the best candidates for each party are

Your opinion?

Primary Colors

You don't have to live in one of the two whitest states in the union to vote in primaries or caucuses this Thursday. As Ricky Shambles points out at All Things Democrat, MySpace is running its own primary through 11:59 PM tonight (Wed, 1/2). However, you have to join to vote so....

The Last Debate of 2007

Argh. So many debates, so long before the actual vote is NOT a good thing.

If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend Ralph's list of questions he'd like to see addressed at round two of the Iowa debates: the Dems in the last debate of 2007. [How do I nominate Ralph to be the next moderator?]

I'm listening to the debate now though it caught me by surprise. CNN kept saying the debate was Thursday night but at 2 PM ET, they fed us some of the worst audio possible (sounds like it was recorded in my washing machine). However, what I noted FIRST were these points:

-- CNN made a big and rather demeaning deal of the Dem senator candidates who took private jets to rush to Iowa after voting on the energy bill today as in "oh, really, they couldn't save energy going together by plane?" - I don't mind the question but why the hell is this standard NEVER, EVER applied to the Bushies or the Republicans in general? We ALL need to be smarter about energy use; if only Democrats do it, it won't work.

-- Why were Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich kept OUT of the Dem debate today (which CNN applauded as a smart move) yet Alan Keyes (who? well, we last saw him mosh pitting in the 96 Republican presidential race), who not even Republicans seemed to know was running until last night, allowed to debate in the GOP version?

-- If CNN thinks it's "helping America" with its "approval meter" showing where viewers like and dislike debate points by candidate, they're screwier than their Kyra Philips is dumb as denuded dirt.

-- Moving up the caucuses and primaries is a massive mistake; we'll eliminate good candidates way too early which, sadly, may be the point.

Maureen Dowd: "Obama's Big Screen Test"

Maureen Dowd just reminds us that this is going to be an interesting Democratic primary season. While it's not one I necessarily want determined by Hollywood, I'd prefer Hollywood to Rove- and Cheneywood. Rozius gives us all the Dowd that's fit to print, but here's a big snip:

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.- Hillary is not David Geffen’s dreamgirl.

“Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high,” says Mr. Geffen, the Hollywood mogul and sultan of “Dreamgirls,” as he sits by a crackling fire beneath a Jasper Johns flag and a matched pair of de Koonings in the house that Jack Warner built (which old-time Hollywood stars joked was the house that God would have built). “Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

Barack Obama has made an entrance in Hollywood unmatched since Scarlett O’Hara swept into the Twelve Oaks barbecue. Instead of the Tarleton twins, the Illinois senator is flirting with the Dreamworks trio: Mr. Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave him a party last night that raised $1.3 million and Hillary’s hackles.

She didn’t stand outside the gates to the Geffen mansion, where glitterati wolfed down Wolfgang Puck savories, singing the Jennifer Hudson protest anthem “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.” But she’s not exactly Little Miss Sunshine, either. Hillary loyalists have hissed at defecting donors to remember the good old days of jumping on the Lincoln Bedroom bed.

“Hillary is livid that Obama’s getting the first big fund-raiser here,” one friend of hers said.

Who can pay attention to the Oscar battle between “The Queen” and “Dreamgirls” when you’ve got a political battle between a Queen and a Dreamboy?

Terry McAuliffe and First Groupie Bill have tried to hoard the best A.T.M. machine in politics for the Missus, but there’s some Clinton fatigue among fatigued Clinton donors, who fret that Bill will “pull the focus” and shelve his wife’s campaign.

“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

The babble here is not about “Babel”; it’s about the battle of the billionaires. Not only have Ron Burkle and David Geffen been vying to buy The Los Angeles Times — they have been vying to raise money for competing candidates. Mr. Burkle, a supermarket magnate, is close to the Clintons, and is helping Hillary parry Barry Obama by arranging a fund-raiser for her in March, with a contribution from Mr. Spielberg.

Did Mr. Spielberg get in trouble with the Clintons for helping Senator Obama? “Yes,” Mr. Geffen replies, slyly. Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.? “I hope so,” he says, “because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”

Read it all here.

And yeah, Hillary does not warm the cockles of my heart. Nor, frankly, does Carville & Company. But Bill? Well, I'd do another four years of Bill. IF I had to.

Actually, after all these years of Bush & Cheney, there are whole months when dictatorships start to look good by comparison. ::sigh::