Texans Get to Vote TWICE?!?!

The "Oh Hell No" of the Week

Everything really is bigger in Texas... including the number of times you can vote!

When I watched CNN this morning and they said that Texans can vote twice, I was astonished. Bill Clinton actually had a funny little quote about this.



(Please notice the "BILL CLINTON FOR VICE PRESIDENT" sign.)

Well, wtf? I want my vote to count for 3x its worth. Gosh. Why do they always have to have things bigger in Texas?

What's funny to me is that the Democratic candidates are "strongly urging" Texans to vote twice. How can they do this? Well, they don't call it the "Texas two-step" for nothin'.

Find out more here.

Something seems fishy about this whole ordeal. They get to hold a primary and a caucus?

Who has time to do this? You get out and vote early, or you vote in the mixed-primary, and then when it's all said and done, you go out after primary voting is complete, and vote again? I mean, I would love to do that, but does this actually work? I guess we'll have to wait until next week to find out...

Uh, Then What Are We Entering?

Dubya is in a state of denial, again. I can't say I'm surprised though, as this is the first stage in coping with the death of his political career (though some would argue he's already postmortem). Maybe he should be moving on to the next stage- bargaining- to figure out what went wrong. While he's bargaining about the economy, he should probably get a jump start on figuring out what went wrong with his entire presidential career. Dubya, if you need assistance with this part, I'd be more than happy to help. FYI, history is still going to judge you as a dumbass.

"Take a look around. See all the foreclosures? That's not because people are unable to afford their homes. No, it's because after they move into bigger house, they forget to sell their old house. It's not because, say, they're losing their jobs, they have bad credit, and/or they can't afford it. Silly Americans. "

While I haven't had the opportunity to listen to Dubya deny that the country is headed toward a recession, I'm imagining that it went something like that.

On the weekends, I work in a mall for extra cash, and I see it all around me: Furniture stores closing/going out of business because people don't have enough money to buy/keep a home, let alone furnish it; luggage/travel stores going out of business because nobody can leave the country, let alone the state (as gas prices continue to climb). I only wonder if the Nine West shoe store is closing because people can't afford luxuries such as shoes anymore! (Heck, it seems like it's only a matter of time!) The sad part is that I work in a mall where the patrons live in affluent communities. If this is happening to them, what's happening to us average Joe's?

Last Night's Debate

WARNING: EXCESSIVE RANTING AND COMPLAINING FOUND BELOW

So I watched the debate last night, and I must say that Hillary is no MASTeRdeBATeR...

I'm going to write this blog in bits and pieces throughout the work day until I am finished, because I have a lot to say about last night's debate.

Let me start by saying that Hillary completely offended me at one in particular, and irritated me for the remaining hour and 20 minutes. And here's why:

Hillary said of 20-somethings without insurance (from the NYT transcript of the Cleveland debate):

SEN. CLINTON: About 20 percent of -- about 20 percent of the people who are uninsured have the means to buy insurance. They're often young people --

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: -- who think they're immortal --

SEN. OBAMA: Which is why I cover them.

SEN. CLINTON: -- except when the illness or the accident strikes. And what Senator Obama has said, that then, once you get to the hospital, you'll be forced to buy insurance, I don't think that's a good idea. We ought to plan for it --

SEN. OBAMA: With respect --

SEN. CLINTON: -- and we ought to make sure we cover everyone.

That is the only way to get to universal health care coverage.

SEN. OBAMA: With respect --

SEN. CLINTON: That is what I've worked for for 15 years --

SEN. OBAMA: With respect --

SEN. CLINTON: -- and I believe that we can achieve it. But if we don't even have a plan to get there, and we start out by leaving people, you'll never ever control costs, improve quality, and cover everyone.

SEN. OBAMA: With respect to the young people, my plan specifically says that up until the age of 25 you will be able to be covered under your parents' insurance plan, so that cohort that Senator Clinton is talking about will, in fact, have coverage.

I have four words for Clinton: Oh no she di'n't.

I WISH I could afford health insurance. I would love to have insurance! Who thinks they're "immortal," aside from the Wicked Witch herself? It's unfair to say that 20-somethings can afford insurance, and it's unrealistic. Most recent college graduates I know start out in debt, so how could they afford expensive insurance?

Let's see... get my credit straight and pay off my thousands of dollars worth of loans to ensure a financially secure future, or buy insurance that I may or may not need at this very moment, while my loans continue to accrue interest?

Plus, we're unable to stay on our parents' insurance (assuming our parents have insurance) without our parents paying a steep fee. And who is she to say what is affordable? Affordable to her is a $5M "loan." Does Chelsea even pay for her own insurance?

*************************************************************

Hillary said that she was interested in helping the middle class in America, but does she not realize that the so-called "middle class" is disappearing?

*************************************************************

The whole Louis Farrakhan thing is a joke. I liked loved Obama's response. Seriously, what can he really do? He can't censor Farrakhan (although I think most Americans would love to); it probably wouldn't be the wisest idea to tell him NOT to vote for him; and no matter how Obama feels about it, Farrakhan thinks that he's the best candidate. For once, that nut-job Farrakhan and I agree on something! Hillary is so full of crap. Plus, nobody asked her opinion on the issue.

*************************************************************

Did I mention that Hillary lost the debate? She's a loser. I get so tired of these feminists supporting her just because she's a woman (though I wouldn't argue with someone calling her asexual). Don't they see that she's acting the way people STEREOTYPE women, and why people think that there shouldn't be a woman president? She's catty, vengeful, bipolar, argumentative at all of the wrong times, she's a biznatch, plus she always has lipstick on her teeth (if you notice after the 1st break last night, it looks like she brushed her teeth and then covered them with Vaseline in order to get rid of her lipsticked teeth).

Interesting analyses:
The Atlantic
Real Clear Politics (TIME)
Howard Kurtz (WAPO)

Want to Know More about Chris Dodd?

For those who were unaware, Senator Chris Dodd (CT) endorsed Barack Obama today...

If you want to know more about Dodd's voting record, and the voting record of any other current/former presidential candidate (though some are just all talk and have never voted), visit this site.

Seriously? Jenna Jameson? Way to go Hillary

HRC's backers suck as much, if not more, than she does (or doesn't, depending on if you're talking about Bill or politics here)...

Wow, Hillary. Way to go.

Something tells me that the politicians endorsing HRC may be worse than the celebs! I know that my Governor and Senior Senator are endorsing her, and nobody likes either of them (okay, obviously someone DID, but who really does anymore?).

Let Me Comment, CNN!

Wow. HRC (which we'll just say stands for Huge Rectal disComfort) is throwing out all kinds of debauchery. How low can one woman go? Watch HRC and find out!

Alright, so this is just utter bull. The Clinton campaign crew has absolutely no shame left. I mean, really? Some people argue that this is not some sort of propaganda on the Clintons' behalf, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Why would the Clinton Camp circulate pictures of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb if they didn't think that enough ignorant Americans would be fearful? We all know that if Hillary Clinton wore a burka, nobody would associate her with being a Muslim (which ignorant Americans, once again, associate with terrorism).

This whole ordeal is just cowardly. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Congratulations, Hillary. You've done it again!

Uh oh, McCain

You know, I'm glad that I actually read up on the FEC.

Check this out.

WTF, Nader? You're a Serial Loser

This is dejavu. Didn't we already see this? And, seriously, dude, WTF?

Yes, it's true. Nader is running for President. Again.

Aside from the fact that he is going to lose, he's going to detract from the real candidates. I mean, we're going to have to devote more time to finding old SNL skits and songs that make fun of him, reopening the "Why Nader Sucks" Archives, not to mention the fact that somewhere, at some point during the election, some jackoff is going to vote for him.

I'm sure Al Gore isn't too happy about this.

What is the purpose of Nader running again? I thought that he was doing some polling to see if people would actually vote for him. It seems as though he is a pawn for the Republican Party or something. If he knows that he cannot actually win an election, then what is the point of running? He says that he is bringing some interesting points to the table that the current candidates have not yet discussed, but, come on. Seriously? Mr. Jackoff in Vermont, why did you tell Nader that you would vote for him. Now look what you've done!

I just hope that it doesn't affect Obama in any way, shape, or form. There's not much affecting he's going to be doing as far as the GOP nom goes...

Edwards to Jump on the Clinton Ticket?

The Wicked Witch of the West Wing is brewing something in her cauldron...


Many, many Americans are out there wondering if/when two particular people are going to endorse a democratic candidate: John Edwards and Al Gore. We may find out about one of the aforementioned politicians sooner, rather than later.


In today's CNN Political Ticker (I always want to just type "Politicker"), Mooney discusses the possibility of an Edwards endorsement... for Clinton.


I posted a comment on the blog, but we'll see if it shows up. Until then, here is what I wrote:

"I think it's funny that Hillary Clinton used the phrase "change you can Xerox," when she copied Barack Obama's slogan! How hypocritical, and typical
Billary, to point out Obama flaws, while simultaneously exposing her own flaws.

If I were John Edwards, there would be no way I would back this campaign. I
have to agree with Sunny; if he doesn't endorse someone soon, his endorsement is
going to be as irrelevant as American Gladiators after the writer's strike!"

I think it's basically over for Team Hillary. At this point, she may finally decide to restore her dignity (the little that she has remaining). Some political pundits are suggesting that her closing remarks in last night's debate may have alluded to her leaving the race after March 4, though I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that Hillary is going to go down without a fight. I may not like the notion of her being the President of the United States, but I can say that the woman is a bit of a fighter. The fact that she has no problem hinting at the fact that her hubby got a presidential BJ for her own benefit during a debate (with accompanying standing ovation) speaks volumes. Sike. But I don't see her pulling a Romney. She still has a shot at winning this gig, and we cannot forget that. If there's any GOP candidate she's going to channel, it's the "never say die" Huckabee.

The next two weeks are going to be very interesting...

Why Do Women Keep Grabbing Hillary Clinton?

Did anyone else notice how many women have grabbed Hillary Clinton recently?

During the debates, she must have mentioned at least five times that some woman grabbed her and told her something. Where is the secret service? This is an outrage!

McCain Bartered Sex for Influence?

Though it's not a novel idea, could it be possible?

I think this whole McCain "scandal" is pretty bland. Nevertheless, I think it is interesting that Huckabee is defending McCain's "integrity." Either Huckabee has a lot of heart for not using this as a way to get ahead (although that seems virtually impossible), or something else is going on. I think that we'll find out within the next couple of days.

Whose idea was it to call Cindy McCain (whose name I just learned) a "blonde bombshell?" Does anybody else find this statement unjustified? I think she's boring, even when she tries being passive-aggressive in response to Michelle Obama's latest statement (which Barack has clarified).

Federal Election Commission

The Federal Election Commission site is pretty flippin' sweet...

This morning, grasping for blog ideas (there are too many to count at this point), I found a link to the Federal Election Commission website (thanks to the Ben Smith Politico Blog). This site has a lot of useful (and useless) information.

For starters, I learned that there is a limit to how much an individual can donate to a presidential candidate. This struck me as strange. For starters, how can the government tell me how much of my money I can spend? Can someone please look at this and explain to me how Hillary Clinton was able to donate $5M to her campaign (despite the fact that she is calling it a "loan," not a donation, which she is charging interest on)?

After reading about these limits, I decided to take a look at the McCain-Feingold Law, paying particular attention to the Millionaire's Amendment. I'm going to be perfectly honest- I'm not sure what the hell this is all about. Someone please enlighten me. (This could possibly explain the answer to my previous question.)

What I found to be creepy and interesting on the site was how you can look up donors. If you want to do a search and look at a map of presidential campaign finance, you just click here. It's all pretty fascinating and spooky.

North Dakota, which donated the least amount of money to presidential campaigns, donated the most to Giuliani. Weird.

Check out the site. It's pretty interesting. (Especially when you look up donors in various zip codes when you're feeling like a Special Agent.)

Clinton Still Attempting to Lose Election

In another Political Ticker blog, Alexander Mooney writes about how Billary is trying to win votes for Obama. As if he needs any more of her help...

After reading this, I decided that Hillary is trying her hardest... to lose.

"Hillary Clinton's campaign launched a new Web site Wednesday designed to convey its argument about how delegates should be counted — the campaign’s latest offensive against Barack Obama's contention that the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win the party's nomination

The new Web site lists five of the Clinton team’s disputed views on delegates, including the ideas that Florida and Michigan's delegates should be seated at the convention despite party sanctions and that there is a "clear path" for Clinton to finish the race with more delegates than Obama.

The Web site also argues that superdelegates — or what the Clinton campaign is now calling “automatic delegates” — should not look to the primary season vote when deciding which candidate to support, stating, "The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president."

According to CNN's latest estimate, Obama has earned 143 more pledged delegates than Clinton. But Clinton currently has the support of 73 more superdelegates – which translates into an overall deficit of 70 delegates.

Speaking with reporters Wednesday morning, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe repeated the campaign's contention that the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win the nomination, and said is nearly impossible for Clinton to catch up in that count.

“This is a wide, wide lead right now,” he said. “I am amused when the Clinton campaign continues to say, 'Well, it’s essentially a tie.' I mean, that’s just lunacy. We have opened up a big and meaningful pledged delegate lead. They are going to have to win landslides from here on out to erase it.”

Plouffe also said the Obama campaign keeps "offering alternative theories for why they can win the nomination that have nothing to do with the votes that are happening in these contests.”"

Okay, so basically Hillary is saying that delegates should be using logic when choosing a candidate to support. If they should start using logic now, what exactly were they using before? Oh, I know. Maybe they were choosing candidates based on looks. Or maybe based on who is the oldest. Who is the most annoying? Well, I know what they weren't basing their choice on- who was married to a president. If that was a case, she would have already won.

Plouffe, you're amused? I think we are all amused by the Clinton campaign, and for various reasons...

This Just In... Hillary Clinton is a Playa' Hata'!

Announcer: "Barack Obama wins the Wisconsin primary with 58% of the votes. Clinton lost by nearly 200,000 votes."

Hillary: extends right hand to Obama

Obama: reaches out to shake Hillary's hand

Hillary: quickly moves right hand up to the side of her head, as if adjusting fly-away hairs. "Sike."




One thing that political pundits seem to have left out of their analysis of Hillary Clinton is the fact that she's a player hater- a shocking fact considering that she is married to one of the most notorious players in presidential history (next to Thomas Jefferson circa Sally Hemmings).

In CNN's Political Ticker blog, CNN's Political Producer Peter Hamby posted on Feb. 12 solid evidence that Clinton is not only a playa' hata', but also a sore loser.

"For the second election night in a row, Hillary Clinton failed to acknowledge or congratulate Barack Obama after he won the day in dominating fashion...

The courtesy of conceding a primary or caucus loss — and then congratulating your opponent — is by no means required. But it has become standard practice during campaign season.

Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton “did an outstanding job.” That courtesy continued through the early states.

But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating one’s opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside."

I'm not sure if it's because she's still in denial or what, but that's just inconsiderate. She should take it like a man. Oh, wait...

Tony Kornheiser gave an interesting analysis this morning during his show on Washington Post Radio regarding the way Obama continues to win over supposed Hillary Clinton supporters. I think it's fairly obvious at this point that Hillary is living in some kind of fantasy world where you don't have to visit the people you want to vote for you, you don't have to congratulate or say "good game" to your opponent (regardless the results), and you can assume that you are going to win the female, senior citizen, and Latino vote, just 'cause. Of course she's not going to win the votes of these people if she's not demonstrating that she actually wants their votes. She has been bypassing states like they don't matter, and at this point, every state, and every vote, matters.

"Journalists are a Buncha Meanies!" --- Bill Clinton

Okay, he didn't actually say that, but he might as well have...

I love reading Eugene Robinson's articles in the WAPO. They're insightful and oftentimes hilarious. In this article from last week (hey, I'm trying to play catch-up here), he discusses the male Clinton's allegations that the American media is vilifying his "wife," while glorifying Barack Obama.

In "The Clintons' Beef With the Media," Robinson writes,

"'The political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I've never seen this before,' the former president said. 'They've been active participants in this election. . . . But I don't want to talk about the press. I want to talk about the people. That's what's wrong with this election, people trying to take this election away from the people.'

Somewhere in there, if I'm not mistaken, he acknowledged that journalists are people, too, so I guess I should be thankful for that. And I should note that throughout the interview with Washington's WMAL, Bill Clinton was back in loose-cannon mode. He said Hillary Clinton 'has been the underdog ever since Iowa,' which is not true. To support that unsupportable assertion, he implied that the political establishment is opposed to his wife's candidacy, which is not true. And he claimed that 'we've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,' which is true only if you don't count the more than $100 million the Clinton campaign has raised (and mostly spent)."

I have to agree with Robinson, once again. When did Billary become "the underdog?" And who decided that the pol. establishment doesn't support her? And furthermore, who decided that they wanted to hear them b****ing and moaning again (oh, wait, was that sexist?)?

Done with playing catch-up, I think now is the appropriate time to discuss an issue on the cover of today's national papers: Clinton on Obama, Round 3,000.

Okay, so despite the outcome of the last round's bout with Obama that resulted in Bill becoming a total prick in the eyes of the American public and Billary losing several states, the Billary campaign squad (with a handful of substitutes from the last round) decided that it's in their best interest to badmouth Obama for more votes, once again.

Do these people never learn? Give me a flipping break! Now Hillary is accusing Obama of plagiarism and lacking substance. Bah humbug. Maybe she wants Obama to beat her...?

photo http://didactique.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/bill-clinton.jpg

Woof Woof?

Oh how I miss Scruffy. No other dog will defend me against the neighbor's son the way he once did.

So we're cloning dogs now, commercially. I guess they're an endangered species now. This article on BBC News seriously disturbed me. It not only disturbed me that a South Korean woman would be inclined to clone her deceased canine companion, but because the scientists actually agreed to do so!

They say that this will be the first time that this will be the first time that a dog will be cloned commercially, and that, though it's only costing her roughly $150,000 (plus her sanity), it may eventually cost only, say, $50,000 in the future. Ridiculous. Think of how many Kibbles & Bits that could buy (do they still make that brand?)!!

In a world where people are starving, ethnic groups are being exterminated, and the very well-being of the planet is constantly calculated, do we really need to cut the ear off of dying Scruffy to preserve his "essence"?

My Birthday Wish Came True!

My Future President decisively swept the Potomac Primaries (in what was aptly described by Politico as "The Beltway Beatdown)...

I've been reading quite a bit this morning about Obama's views on education. I think it's important to look at this when you see how low American students score on tests compared to their international peers.

The Politico interviewed Obama two nights ago. You can check out the (poorly edited) manuscript here. You can also read about Obama's outlook on education here.

The WAPO published an article about the "Potomac Trifecta." In Dan Balz's article "8 Questions the Potomac Primary Could Answer," he's got some solid suggestions about when Huckabee may finally leave the race.

How do I register as an Obamacan?

The Greatest Birthday Present Ever

The greatest birthday present ever would be to have Obama win my state, and the rest of the Potomac region...

I read Eugene Robinson's always insightful column today, and not only did it make me giggle (as usual), but it was a good read. Check it out.

I have to agree that Obama has a better shot at beating McCain than Bill-errr-y. I wonder what Curious George has to say about that... In Robinson's column, he hints at the notion that the Goppers may be up to something mischievous. I have to agree (and not just because I always suspect the Repubz). After watching Romney drop out of the race, I knew that the Big Fat Corporate Elephant party had something brewing in their wire-tapping, civil liberties-denying cauldron.

Someone Read My Blog!

Let me first begin by saying that "Read" is in the past tense...

Yesterday, on my morning commute, I was blessed to be able to witness Obama supporters in front of Silver Spring Station. Hallelujah! I was getting nauseous every morning, to the point where I questioned pregnancy. Standing out there with their stupid Hillary posters, attempting to hand out literature on the Wicked With of the North Former First Lady. Finally, FINALLY my Future President's crew was out there, and modestly so. While Hillary's people made a lot of noise and looked like those people in the mall trying to sell you Dead Sea Secrets to no avail, Obama had a modest crew. They each held a standard Obama '08 sign (one which I'm dying to have but don't know where to get it), and were calm, cool, and collected. It was the passerby that had all of the energy and enthusiasm. It was quite a juxtaposition. Hillary's campaign team made noise, while no one listened, while the Obama campaigners (who I'm not even sure were hired by him after a brief discussion with one of two gentlemen) were quiet and listened and the Washington commuters cheered, gave the thumbs up, and smiled in approval.

It's funny, because I think that this was an awesome display on metaphor. Hillary makes a lot of noise and accomplishes next to nothing, while Obama listens as people come to him.

Money Bags, er, Hillary Clinton

Hillary contributed $5M to her campaign late last month. 5 MILLION DOLLARS! Yesterday morning, I wondered if anyone else was concerned by how much money she was magically able to contribute (to her own campaign, mind you) at the drop of a hat. Fortunately, Barack Obama hinted at the idea of The Five Million-Dollar-Baby Clinton delivering some financial statements, as he and his wife Michelle have already volunteered to do.

Senator Obama reminds me a little of Robin Williams’ character in Man of the Year. In this article, he says that he has nothing to hide. (Of course Williams’ secrets were much more comical.)

Out of curiosity: If you were running for president, would you contribute as much money as possible to ensuring a victory? And if so, would you wait this long to do so?

When I ran for secretary of my high school graduating class, I printed out hundreds of copies of VOTE FOR ME paraphernalia, and spent countless hours hole-punching and making posters. I spent money at Office Depot buying colored paper and the like. I didn’t wait until the week before elections to get my name out there. I made sure that I spread the word ASAP! I don’t know. This whole “watch me pull five million dollars out of my hat” magic trick does not impress me; instead, it makes me ever more skeptical of the FORMER first lady.

Let me just add another thing about Mrs. Clinton while I’m at it. I’m tired of seeing her stupid supporters waving their stupid Hillary flags at the Silver Spring Station!

Does it bother anyone else that she is the only candidate that is using her first name in her campaign? I don’t recall seeing any “Vote for Mitt” or “John for Prez” banners (though I did hear about the “Barack the Vote” slogan some time ago). Sorry. Had to rant.

FYI, Steve Harvey did a hilarious bit about what “Mitt” was short for. “Is Mitt short for Mitten? I’m not voting for someone whose name is MITTEN!”

Yes We Can!

Is Today Super or Fat?

Can someone please tell me? Is today "super" or "fat?"

Why Vote for Obama?

This is an interesting article that is getting a lot of buzz. Check it out!

America: A Democrazy or Phobocracy? (or even a Patriarchy?)

I don't know. I'm too scared to think...

Michael Chabon of the Washington Post wrote an interesting article about why he's voting for Obama, and the many self-imposed problems of Americans (and how Obama can help solve them). In "Obama vs. the Phobocracy," Chabon explains why America has become a "phobocracy." I liked this one paragraph in particular:

"The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlled media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear. America has become a phobocracy."

To be "fair and balanced" (perhaps in response to this season of The Wire), the WAPO editors decided to include an article from a woman who is voting for Clinton. I must say that her lede is great.

"Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women," said Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday, one of the many "news" outlets to expose Kristol's reliable sexism. "The Democratic establishment would be crazy to follow an establishment that led it to defeat year after year," Kristol continued in his woolly, repetitive style. "White women are a problem, you know. We all live with that."

Nevertheless, I found this article to be annoying for several reasons. For starters, the writer sounds like she's whining. It's bleeding feminism (whatever), and in one of those annoying, condescending "come join our campus organization if you care about women's issues, and if you don't, you're a pig" manners. I did find some humor in Erica Jong's article (Hillary vs. the Patriarchy), however. Jong is obviously self-medicating in this article, and her defense of Clinton has little to do with her actual political agenda.

Like this line:

"Besides, what does anyone know about anyone else's marriage? As a novelist I understand that I can't even invent the complexities most people live with, the compromises made, the deals negotiated and renegotiated. If it works, let's say hallelujah, rather than pick and quibble. It took me three marriages to find my soul mate. Maybe Hillary was luckier."

She makes it seem as though Hillary Clinton has had such a tough life. Give me a break. "Don't pick on her." "Her husband sucks." "She's really a good person." Blah, blah, blah.

"I'm hardly the only woman who sees my life mirrored in hers. She's always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos. She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber."

"She's had to endure nutcrackers made in her image, insults about the shape of her ankles and nasty cracks from mediocrities in the media like Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and Kristol."

"In the 1990s, when they became "Billary" as president, she gave her all. When the White House beckoned, she was true blue. When he took the hardest job in the world, she helped. And when he rewarded her by letting some tootsie do whatever it was they did in the Oval Office, she got really mad."

"Little by little, she loosened up. She learned how to dress and speak and smile and relax on the podium. I've watched this whole process with immense admiration."

Possibly the most annoying line in the entire article is this:

"Obama is also a token -- of our incomplete progress toward an interracial society. I have nothing against him except his inexperience. Many black voters agree. They understand tokenism and condescension."

If being a black man holding a political office is "tokenism and condescension," do we tell all young black males that they can never become president without being considered a sellout?

Oops!

Team America: Oops! We Did it Again!

This morning, when I was supposed to be working on my Stat of the Week for our org's website, I read this brief article on the BBC News site, entitled "US admits killing Iraqi civilians."

I decided to rename the article myself, channeling my inner Britney Spears. "Oops! We did it again!" I mean, seriously. Did they even need to write this article? Don't get me wrong, I support the U.S. servicemen and women (not the war), but I know of many other reports that echo the same "we made a boo boo" sentiment.