Aftermath of Florida Amendment 1: We're not even seeing the worst of it yet

So far, the only response I've gotten on this blog has been my post about the Florida Amendment One proposal at the beginning of this year. Mainly, I was against it, as it 1) it wasn't going to be the answer to people's problems with their homes not selling and their mortgages getting tighter; and 2) it wasn't going to solve the revenue problems the state was facing, simply because by cutting back on the taxes that generate the revenue Florida statewide services (schools, libraries, police, fire emergency, child care, road care, health care, all care) needed it was going to cut services at the worst possible time.

The amendment happened because politicians fell in love with tax-cutting. Tax cutting made them look like they were being fiscally responsible. Tax cutting made them popular with people who kept thinking "Oh, I don't wanna pay taxes, why worry about road repairs and law enforcement and fire/emergency response times?" And because if they didn't keep pursuing tax cuts bullies like the Club For Growth Greed were going to hound them out of office.

But the problem is, tax cuts can only go so far: we're at the point now where the state can't generate any more revenue. And Florida, which relies on tourist sales taxation, millage taxation, and very little else for state revenue, is still facing a year of fewer homes owned and fewer tourists traveling (notice the cost of gas recently?). And the Florida state budget is starting to reflect the last few years of decreasing revenue.

We now have in the news that school districts are facing severe cuts to where they are laying off teachers and closing schools. Teachers that are remaining are facing a 2 percent salary cut in some districts: they are already one of the lowest-paid employees in the public sector anywhere, in a state that's routinely at the bottom of the list when it comes to education spending. Counties are looking at 15 percent cuts across the board at various service offices, with the sheriff's looking at 10 percent cuts. And do you want to know the worst part about all this?

We're not seeing the worst of it yet.

The whole nation is, let's admit it, in a recession: jobs are down, the dollar is weak and shrinking on the global market, oil and food (!!!) prices are going up on a global scale, you name it. What will happen is that more and more people are going to demand more and more help from one of the cornerstones of society, the one stable force in an unstable world. The government. BUT THERE WILL BE NO GOVERNMENT TO HELP THEM. The money's drying up, gone, we're losing it just as people are going to be needing government services to get food on their tables, to deal with health care, for city and suburban infrastructure, help to find jobs, help to keep their kids in schools and off the streets, pretty much help that they expect from an institution that's supposed to promote the general welfare of the people.

This is what constant tax cutting gets you: a government unable to help when it's needed most. We didn't need tax cuts: WE NEEDED FAIR TAXES. And we're still waiting for that.

Gregg Easterbrook: Constitutional genius?

Not only am I a political obsessive, I'm also a football obsessive. I check the sports sites such as ESPN every so often, and every Tuesday keep an eye out for Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ weekly rantings.

This week, he's working on the insanity and imbalances of the draft, but he also goes off on tangents and talks about other topics, sometimes politics. Halfway through his article for April 22nd, he goes off on the insanities of the Presidential campaign, and makes a pair of suggestions that once I read them made absolute perfect sense.

He points out how Presidential campaigners during the primary tend to be sitting elected officials (such as the current three survivors, McCain Obama and Clinton), who divide their time between campaigning and performing their elected duties. Easterbrook notes how they can't really campaign and work as Senators at the same time, and so suggests that in order to run for the office of Presidency you have to resign your current job and focus full-time on the campaign.

This makes truckloads of sense. Rather than stretching yourself thin juggling twenty things at once, you can now focus on just the campaign and juggle five things instead. Also, a resign-to-run law is honest, as you no longer get an income for a job you're not really doing (note the occasional dust-up in the press about who's absent during floor votes). Lemme quote from Easterbrook here:

States including Arizona, Florida and Georgia have in recent years passed "resign to run" laws that require an office-holder seeking higher office to resign from his or her present position. The time has come for a resign-to-run law at the federal level. Membership in the U.S. Congress should not be treated as a lifetime entitlement that pays whether you perform your sworn responsibilities or not. In 2007, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, then in the Democratic field, actually moved to Iowa and lived in the state -- yet was still taking his taxpayer-funded salary for serving the people of Connecticut, a job he was making no pretense of performing. It may be nonsense that the current political reality requires a year of round-the-clock campaigning to win a party's nomination, but taxpayers should not subsidize this nonsense.

As a back-up proposal, Easterbrook suggested that Congress goes back to a per diem salary: get paid for the days you show up to work. Given that Congress has been and will always be prone to paid vacation leaves up the wazoo, and given that members of Congress have a habit of not showing up half the time anyway, why pay them for the days they're not clocking in? Forcing a per diem salary encourages they show up and do their jobs and be held accountable. I love that idea.

Yo, Easterbrook, dude, why aren't you writing for the Washington Post or New York Times? Oh, right. They don't hire columnists who make sense.

New amendment proposal for hackers and virus spreaders

My home computer is on the fritz. Somehow, something got into my System32 folder and 'changed' the shell32, user32, and system32.dll files, as well as the ntsofldr (?sp?).exe file.

As such, I cannot log in to anything requiring ID and password. Other Internet pages, anything with PHP to them, I can't open well.

As such, I now have a wonderful new amendment proposal for those who create viruses, spyware and adware, worms, trojans, and any other form of computer malware:

• Death to all f-ckers who mess with my computer.

Kill 'em. Kill all hackers. You have no redeeming social value, you bastards. Your viruses create chaos, havoc, they ruin people's lives, innocent people, some of you steal identities, and you steal money, and for what? To indulge yourselves at others' expenses. Screw you. You die for this. Die painfully.

You may notice I'm in a bit of a mood.

Plugging a book moment, brought to you by:

Glenn Greenwald, who is offering up his new work, Great American Hypocrites, on Amazon.com now.

Why Mark Twain is still the greatest smartass ever

I must admit, I never knew Mark Twain wrote something like this, until a library patron came up and asked for a copy: an essay titled On the Decay of the Art of Lying. I found this via the Project Gutenberg website.

This was something he wrote for a meeting of the Historical and Antiquarian Club of Hartford back in... hm gotta find the year. Anyway, his opening paragraph alone should put the Ann Coulters and J-Pods of the world to shame:

Observe, I do not mean to suggest that the custom of lying has suffered any decay or interruption,--no, for the Lie, as a Virtue, a Principle, is eternal; the Lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need, the fourth Grace, the tenth Muse, man's best and surest friend, is immortal, and cannot perish from the earth while this Club remains. My complaint simply concerns the decay of the art of lying. No high-minded man, no man of right feeling, can contemplate the lumbering and slovenly lying of the present day without grieving to see a noble art so prostituted. In this veteran presence I naturally enter upon this theme with diffidence; it is like an old maid trying to teach nursery matters to the mothers in Israel. It would not become me to criticize you, gentlemen, who are nearly all my elders--and my superiors, in this thing--and so, if I should here and there seem to do it, I trust it will in most cases be more in a spirit of admiration than of fault-finding; indeed if this finest of the fine arts had everywhere received the attention, encouragement, and conscientious practice and development which this Club has devoted to it, I should not need to utter this lament, or shed a single tear. I do not say this to flatter: I say it in a spirit of just and appreciative recognition. [It had been my intention, at this point, to mention names and give illustrative specimens, but indications observable about me admonished me to beware of particulars and confine myself to generalities.]

A bit wordy, true, but I found it so hard to find a spot to paraphrase or edit down, as each word literally drips with sarcasm, truth (ironic uses of truth will abound regarding this), and best of all wit.

Above all, the value of Twain's essay was how Twain 'praises' the art of lying, all to highlight in Truth the sad little horror that everyone lies. The question then becomes ending the 'lazy' and 'faulty' practices of lying, those lies that do harm (the injurious lie, which to Twain was as harmful as the brutal truth), and in Twain's words that

...the wise thing is for us diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others' advantage, and not our own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily; to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling. Then shall we be rid of the rank and pestilent truth that is rotting the land; then shall we be great and good and beautiful, and worthy dwellers in a world where even benign Nature habitually lies, except when she promises execrable weather. Then--But am I but a new and feeble student in this gracious art; I cannot instruct this club.

I personally, stated elsewhere, prefer that we not live in a world built on lies, that I would like to see punishments inflicted on those in office who would lie. I am, however, not a fool. I know the underlying fact that people lie, that everyone does. I do too. My great objection to lying is the thing I agree with most in Twain's essay: that there are lies and then there are injurious lies, lies that do harm, and it is those lies I would like ended. Twain, of course, was not a hypocrite (well, actually he was, but he was honest about it) and so could not argue against lying at all. The brilliance of his work here is that he highlights the aspects of lying, the causes and its usefulness, and makes the proper distinctions between the 'soft' or positive lie and the 'harsh' injurious lie. The kind of injurious lies, in fact, we keep getting from the Bush administration (about 9/11, about Iraq, about torture, about wiretapping, about cronyism and incompetence and... and about nearly every thing they do).

As someone who yearns to achieve the status of Recognized Smartass, I bow to the infinite jest and wisdom of the true Master, Mark Twain, who emphasized the Smart as well as the Ass. Huzzah, sir, huzzah.

Spitzer, Vitter, Democrats, Republicans, Hypocrites All

The issue here is hypocrisy.

As I write this, sick at home, the news channels are all atwitter over New York Gov. Spitzer's pending resignation, following reports of his patronizing a high-class call-girl operation. This is a noteworthy event on several points: 1) Spitzer is a well-known public official from a large state; 2) Spitzer's earlier career as a hard-nosed prosecutor made him a figure of "reform and ethics", which is now laughable; 3) Because the Republicans are utterly gleeful at the sight of a high-ranking Democrat finally nailed in a sex scandal after years of their own getting caught with their pants down; 4) Sex sells.

To be honest, there are no heroes here, and perhaps a few victims (above all Spitzer's wife... for the love of God, will we ever see one day a wife getting medieval on their cheating bastard husband? They just stand there in the glare of the cameras and just let the whole world see the humiliation on their faces). The columnists and the bloggers are all bringing up issues of discussion (why is prostitution illegal? why can't we stop it? what the hell costs $4,000 per hour anyway?), most of them barely even relevant to the moment on hand (who cares how this affects Hillary's campaign? Unless her own cheating bastard husband used the same call girl operation...). The issue most obvious, and the most relevant, is the hypocrisy of it all.

I have no sympathy for Eliot Spitzer. None. His hypocrisy is that he spent years working as a prosecutor, even handling prostitution cases much like the one he's facing now. The evidence, the money involved, his own discussions requesting particular models... this is not entrapment, or a trick. If it were he'd be fighting it. He had to have known that what he was doing was illegal. And he did it anyway. His hypocrisy stems from what has to be a belief in his own moral superiority, his own arrogance, his own belief that he and he alone would never get caught. Join the club, Spitz.

On the same point, I have no desire to side myself with those in the Republican party that had been screaming for Spitzer's resignation, like the state GOP demands that he resign office or face impeachment. These Republican leaders are the same ones who routinely ignored their fellow party members' indiscretions (Mark Foley text messaging, anyone? Can we get some more pictures of Larry Craig's bathroom stall in that Minneapolis airport?), and are still ignoring the indiscretions of Senator David Vitter, a Republican who got caught soliciting a call-girl service in much the same way Spitzer did. Compounding the issue with Vitter is that he was one of the more vocal speakers against Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal for Slick Willie's sexual indiscretions. Anyone noticing the circular/spiral pattern starting to form here...? As for the Republicans, I can't be the only one who wants to stand in front of them and denounce their openly forgiving Vitter for sins they've openly accused Clinton and now Spitzer of doing.

What we are seeing here are levels of hypocrisy piled upon layers of desperation, two political parties that have essentially become mirror images of each other right down to the constant need to spin and lie and excuse their way out of disasters, the constant need to protect their own even when the lawbreakers are so clearly in the wrong, the constant refusal to recognize issues in the real world in lieu of ideological talking points, the constant push to win win win at all costs. We are now faced with a political world in perpetual Damage Control Mode, where every action and statement is going to come back around to bite everyone's ass.

Is there any solution to this? Well for one thing, and I think I've suggested this amendment idea before:

• Lying is not protected speech.
• Any elected official, or staffer, or public servant found to have made false or misleading statements in any way shall be suspended from duty without pay pending full investigation. If found guilty by the law, that person is to be removed from duty and barred for life from holding any office or civil service position and also barred from any job that may have direct dealings with any level of government.
• And I would like to add to this amendment this idea: Hypocrisy is now a felony. Punishable by however Congress sets the law, but personally I'd like to see tar and feathering make a comeback.

If you're worried about this amendment causing a chilling effect, well you're right it does cause a chilling effect: IT'S GONNA STOP PEOPLE FROM LYING. The amendment allows for someone to defend their statements, and the best defense is the TRUTH. If what they said is the truth, they don't get punished. THE ONLY ONES WHO SHOULD GET PUNISHED BY THIS LAW ARE THE LIARS. And for those screaming "Free speech!" or "slippery slope" let me just note that you are essentially defending a right for a person to lie, to bear false witness, to basically go against the truth that should really be protected. Are you also saying that people should lie in court? After all, we have laws for Perjury, for Obstruction, and for making False Statements (even though SOME Presidents also ignore that as well, to their shame). It's just we should apply such enforcement to the political world, to ensure that the citizenry are properly and correctly informed. And if you're worried about forcing politicians and their staffers to tell the truth might compromise National Security, relax. There's an easy out: JUST SAY NO COMMENT. It's still truthful, after all.

One last thing to say. It might surprise people to note that lying (outside of paid advertising of products) is not only currently protected but is some ways encouraged and nurtured. This is the political world we've built, where lying is the coin of the realm, and reality is basically ignored to the suffering of all. That's what I'm watching as Spitzer resigns, as the media elites bicker and crow according to their ideologies, and as the world keeps getting worse. Welcome to 2008, where it turns out Orwell was an optimist.

Florida vote... take 2

Every time I try to get out the vote... they keep pulling me back in! Hey, it's either that or quoting from Pacino's Scarface. Which would you prefer? Scarface??? Oh, okay: Rule number two, don't get high on your own supply.

Actually, this is a post about reports that Democrats want to get the two states they punished for improper primary timing - Michigan and Florida - to recast their votes. The primary slugfest between She Who Must Be Obeyed and the Boy King of Destiny is looking to go down to the last wire, and legally even though both Michigan and Florida voted anyway their delegates can't participate in the convention.

Hillary, who won both states (rather underhandedly in Michigan too), is petitioning to get those states re-admitted as is. Head of the DNC Howard Dean passed judgment on that yesterday making re-voting the only viable solution (there are other solutions, but most of them are questionable and confrontational).

Should the states re-vote? Part of me wants the voters of these states to be able to have representation within their party, as it wasn't entirely their fault their state governments tried to move up their primaries in order to be more relevant to the election cycle. This is what happens when you have states voting in stages, and the earlier states have a greater say in who stays in the race. The other part of me worries about the do-over aspect of this, that voters with buyers' remorse the first time around will switch around and we'll end up with a different result than before, and if Hillary suffers because of it (as she won the first time around) I am certain that she will unleash her flying demon monkey horde on us to wreak vengeance across the land.

Not that I'm biased or anything.

I'm for the re-vote plan, as long as 1) the vote is only for the Democrats, as the Republican party still allowed some delegates from Florida and Michigan to represent and as the Republicans have settled the issue on who won (a clone of Dick Cheney... John McCain), and as long as 2) all the names on the original ballot get listed. If people still want to vote for Edwards, even though he's dropped out, they should. If the ballot shifts to reflect only Clinton and Obama, people can argue that the re-vote isn't exactly the same and will gripe/moan/bitch/unleash freaking flying monkeys over it.

In the meantime, there is one great grand solution to this whole mess that would work if only the parties were compelled by law to do it (because they won't do it otherwise): HAVE ALL THE PRIMARIES ON THE SAME DAY, AND HAVE THE PRIMARIES COUNT THEIR VOTES THE SAME WAY! Sheesh! Christ on a Harley! (headthump noises)

Best. Proclamation. Evah!

Just as a back story, over the past year the state of Georgia has suffered a massive drought. It got so bad that the governor Sonny Purdue called for a Rain Prayer to bring about divine intervention. The drought was a combination of things, between the lack of rain and because the state of Georgia had sold too much water rights to the equally parched state of Florida (doh!). As a result, Georgia started talking about re-opening claims of land and river rights along the border with Tennessee in order to build a massive pipeline to Atlanta, both a massive boondoggle and also a slight affront to the rights and sovereignty of the folks of Tennessee.

The city of Chattanooga, which resides right on the border, was going to be hugely affected by that land grab attempt. So in response, the Mayor of Chattanooga issued a proclamation:

PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, it has come to pass that the heavens are shut up and a drought of Biblical proportions has been visited upon the Southern United States, and

WHEREAS, the parched and dry conditions have weighed heavily upon the State of Georgia and sorely afflicted those who inhabit the Great City of Atlanta, and

WHEREAS, the leaders of Georgia have assembled like the Children of Israel in the desert, grumbled among themselves and have begun to cast longing eyes toward the north, coveting their neighbor’s assets, and

WHEREAS, the lack of water has led some misguided souls to seek more potent refreshment or for other reasons has resulted in irrational and outrageous actions seeking to move a long established and peaceful boundary, and

WHEREAS, it is deemed better to light a candle than curse the darkness, and better to offer a cool, wet kiss of friendship rather than face a hot and angry legislator gone mad from thirst, and

Whereas, it is feared that if today they come for our river, tomorrow they might come for our Jack Daniels or George Dickel,

NOW THEREFORE, In the interest of brotherly love, peace, friendship, mutual prosperity, citywide self promotion, political grandstanding and all that

I Ron Littlefield, Mayor of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee,

Do hereby Proclaim that Wednesday, February 27, 2008 shall be known as

“Give Our Georgia Friends a Drink Day”

Mayor Littlefield just earned my vote for the President of the United States. We can't spare the man: he snarks!

The Cuba Question Part CXLVIII

Yesterday was a momentous time: Pakistan's election openly repudiated Musharraf; Wisconsin's primary openly repudiated Clinton (Jebus! She got creamed by double digits in a blue-collar state that she's supposed to win); Toshiba surrendered to Sony Blu-Ray; and Castro resigned from official duties as Cuba's President.

What's amazing is that all at once Castro's resignation, with obvious signs of old age and illness, both means so much and so little. Even though Musharraf's huge loss has more meaning, Castro dominated the news chatter all day: at the same time, Castro's departure from the main stage doesn't really, honestly, change a thing.

Castro may be leaving office, but he's kept in place a circle of political elites running Cuba that have no incentive or desire to reform their government. His own brother is technically in charge now, and while Raul is talking considerations of reform there's no sign he'll follow through on anything substantial.

The big reason why there won't be any change is because of us, the United States. Our stance on Cuba has not changed in 49 years, and at some points have even worsened, simply because of ideology and stubbornness. While we have legitimate grievances against Castro's communist (and post-Soviet authortarian) regime, we've never attempted genuine diplomacy and dialog. Instead we've forced embargoes, sanctions, denials, covert ops, basically every hardliner stance we could think of. We'd also tried invasion once. We'd also tried exploding cigars and Nair assaults on Castro's beard (I'm not kidding!).

The problem is that all our efforts are wasted: other countries do not observe the sanctions and embargoes, so Cuba stays afloat (barely) financially. Castro and his buddies, meanwhile, use our bullying ways to act defiant and manly, and they get to look good while they do it. And what's worse, we know it's working for them, and not for us.

But we can't change, can we? Even with all the expert advise, all the obvious clues, we can't change our behavior towards Cuba because no one in D.C. wants to upset 200,000 plus Cuban exiles sitting in South Florida... even though a growing number of them think the sanctions and embargoes need to go.

There's also the issue of all the land, property and businesses that Castro seized from the Cuban exile community. A lot of the older exiles who originally owned that stuff insist on getting them back. Unfortunately, it's not just Cuba owning those properties now, other nations have invested and bought them up, so the issue of ownership has gotten waaaaay more complicated. Even Castro's departure isn't going to fix that...

So, what will happen with Cuba? Not much is going to change, not right now. Our politicians will continue to demand political reform, and that Cuba hold open elections, etc. The Cuban leadership will mock, snerk, and insist on their sovereign right to laugh in our general direction.
The older Cuban exile community will continue to sulk; the younger community will head out to dance clubs. The Cubans at home will live with censorship, meager income, low standard of living and high standard health care.

Oh, and everyone is still waiting for the upcoming Batman film. That's about it.

Winners and Losers of Super Tuesday

Winner: John McCain. He jumped from a slight lead to a massive lead in the delegate counts. Between both parties, McCain is the one certain frontrunner. Momentum is his, the aura of inevitable victory is his. He is now bound to get more party support, more voters flocking to his banner. And the early math regarding the remaining states suggests he has smooth sailing from here on in. What really clinched his victory, nicely enough, was an early loss on the day: West Virginia. In that state, they hold a convention rather than a primary, and the first round of convention voting went 40 percent Romney, 31 percent Huckabee, 10 percent McCain, and laughable for Ron Paul. A supposed (rumor alert) quick round of phone calls later, and nearly all of McCain's votes went to Huckabee, giving him enough votes to beat Romney. As a calculated move, it was brilliant: it kept Romney, McCain's major rival, from winning a solidly conservative state that could have improved Mitt's "Conservative" appearance, while giving a real Conservative Huckabee a victory in a state that didn't have many delegates riding on it. No wonder it left Romney's people sputtering and screaming conspiracy: it hurt them more than it hurt McCain.

Loser: Mitt Romney. Yes, he won states. But he won the states he was expected to win (Utah, Mass., even Colorado). And he lost the states he needed (California, Cali, Hollywoodland, the Big One). What really hurt him was that he lost big in the solidly Red States, ahem, the big Southeast states. He didn't even place second in Alabama or Georgia or Tennessee. Having already lost South Carolina and Florida, Romney is not impressing anyone where the Republicans maintain their voting base. And this is despite nearly all of the major "conservative" pundits like Limbaugh and Coulter trying to prop Romney up (or to tear McCain down). There are a lot of GOP voters who aren't buying what Romney is selling.

Winner: The Democratic Party. Okay, the general election isn't even here yet. There's 5-6 more months to go before the convention. There's still two heavy-hitting candidates punching each other for the title belt in a fight that's gotten messy and could get worse. But the good news is that the voters are turning out in droves for the Democrats. If you look from state to state that had shared Primaries between the D and the R, there was double the turnout for the Dems than for the Reps. And the Republicans have more at stake than the Democrats: The Republicans still have 3 major choices to choose from (let's face it, Ron Paul is one step away from calling up Ross Perot about borrowing the Reform Party for a few months). You'd think with the Dems' choices down to two, there would be fewer voters taking a stake: You'd think with the Republicans still campaigning hard with three choices there'd be more voters wanting to have their say. But this is in conjunction with the census numbers of registered voters showing a 50-35 Democrat-to-Republican body count: there are simply now more registered Dems than Republicans. And the Democrats are more enthused with their choices: most voters don't have a problem with their opposite candidate winning (71 percent of Obama's will vote for Hillary if they must; 72 percent of Hillary's will voter for Obama if he wins). Compare that with the Republicans, who are splitting rather nastily between McCain and Romney and Huckabee.

Loser: Obama's Momentum. Statistically, it was a draw between Hillary and Obama last night. They mostly split the states down the middle, almost Solomon-like. Hillary could claim victory because she won more of the larger states (Cali, Mass) and got more delegates. And Obama could claim victory for winning in states he wasn't polling in two weeks earlier, as well as winning in states where Hillary's chances are not that good (the South outside of Arkansas and Florida). However, Obama did poorly in California, and worse yet did poorly in Massachusetts. The entire Kennedy clan was backing him, fer crissakes: when was the last time that state didn't answer fawningly to the Kennedys' whims? As for the Big Mo, Clinton still looks formidable, and while Obama's caught up to her in the polling numbers she still gathered more numbers to herself (taking more of Edwards' lost support than Obama has). Obama still has a major obstacle (or twelve) to overcome. It's now down to Ohio and Texas, and who can win those states...

Loser: The Kennedys and their home state. My God. Massachusetts voted for Clinton. What the hell is wrong with that state?!?!

Loser: the Conservative Mainstream Media Elites. They don't like McCain. It's that obvious. They also can't understand why most Republican voters are backing McCain, which is risky (for them and their wallets). Ann Coulter's always been more on the fringe, having alienated a few too many fellow Conservatives, but Rush Limbaugh is starting to look waaaay out-of-touch with the average Republican. What do you think could happen if the voters keep siding with McCain come November? Will the talking heads swallow their pride and calmly back the party's candidate, or will they continue to blast him and end up alienating their own audiences?

Loser: the people who want a One Day Primary. Dammit! Are we the only ones who notice how convoluted and inconsistent the whole damn mess is?!?!

Remember all that stuff about primaries I whine about?

"...Never thought they'd go the distance..." - Lex Luthor in Superman II

We live in interesting times. For one thing, this is February and the Primaries aren't over yet.

I've complained before about how by the time the voting gets to Florida, there's no choices left. Well, this time we are heading into Super Tuesday (the mass bulk of Primaries across 21-22 states) and both parties still have a few knock-down drag-out fights to go. Something we've haven't seen in decades.

For the Republicans, there's still four candidates: McCain now the media front-runner, Romney the last of the 'conservative' standard-bearers (and to call him the standard-bearer means the conservatives in the party are seriously screwed), Huckabee the Socio-Religious Spoiler, and Paul the Clueless Geek Who Knows the Party Hates His Guts But Is Sticking Around to Cheese People Off. For the Democrats, it's come down to two: Hillary Clinton, She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, and Barack Obama the Boy King of Destiny.

That we still have so many candidates left in February shouldn't really be a surprise: for one, there were so many candidates in both parties to begin with (roughly 10 for Republicans, roughly 8 for Democrats) that the natural weeding process of the strung-out Primary system got strung out further. The second thing, for the first time in a long time, the individual states holding their own early voting did not agree on a single front-runner, splitting enough delegates between the surviving candidates that some of them could well survive into the conventions. Neither McCain nor Romney have delivered a death-blow to the other, with Huckabee holding his own: Hillary and Obama are almost neck-and-neck.

Of course, by the end of the evening tomorrow the math may straighten itself out, and a front-runner on both sides could emerge. But does this all contradict my earlier rants about how screwed up the Primary system is?

No. One of my strongest concerns is that not all of the states are getting a fair chance to choose a candidate they like, simply because there has still been drop-outs in this year's race. Possibly strong candidates like Edwards and Thompson, or Dodd and Biden, all of whom didn't attract enough support in the first few voting states... but for all we know they could have done well if they held on to campaign in upcoming states like California (who's to say that Fred!'s Hollywood ties wouldn't have helped him out?). The later states voting are stuck with fewer choices... and the rumblings from the Republicans about McCain suggest there's enough dissatisfaction about the choices that *are* left to cause problems down the line.

Another problem rearing its' head is that each state's Primary, and also their Caucus, do not follow uniform delegate distribution. Nevada, for example, had a complex math for dividing up Democratic delegates that Obama actually ended up with 1 more delegate than Clinton who actually won the overall state. Penalties on Michigan and Florida meant their delegates aren't being counted for the Democrats. Florida's Republican Primary became a Winner-Take-All whereas all other states are dividing up delegates by percentages. The delegate selections are uneven, and in some cases unfair.

There's been a few more blog postings out there about how screwy this Primary season has been. Sadly, the blogs I've seen still think the 'Solution' is to have regional primaries, rotating between regions. That doesn't resolve the issue of front-loading, essentially the issue of candidates dropping out before EVERY state and EVERY voter gets a say. And it doesn't fix the problem of having inconsistent Primary voting methods and delegate distribution.

We still need a One-Day Primary. All states, all voters, getting a chance to choose all at once. Also making sure the rules are uniform across all states and all primaries (no more Caucuses, those things get too complicated). And making sure the delegate selections directly reflect who wins what and where. We need to make sure the system allows every voter an opportunity to have their choice count.

Amendment we DON'T need: Florida Amendment 1

This Tuesday, Florida will host a primary for Republicans (and Democrats, even though the DNC has barred delegates from the state because we're voting out of turn). There will also be a ballot for a state amendment, meant to reform our state's property tax laws and supposedly making things easier for homeowners.

The amendment, in short, sucks.

To quote from Jeff Webb's article I linked to:

For sure, Florida's tax system is a mess and it needs reform desperately. But the deceitful deal that is Amendment 1 doesn't do the job; it only perpetuates the inequities and gives people an undeserved sense of confidence in their lawmakers.

And make no mistake about it: That's exactly what the politicians who back Amendment 1 are seeking. They want to go on the campaign trail this year and crow about how they saved you money by cutting your taxes.

(Remember, these are the same people who still claim - amazingly, with straight faces - that they solved the homeowners insurance crisis.)

So what exactly would fix Florida's tax system?

For one thing, recognition by both voters and politicians that, dammit, things cost money. We look to government to fix our roads, hire the police, clean the water, rebuild our schools, aid us during and after disasters, and take care of a hundred other things. That means governments have to establish taxes in order to pay for all those things. That means taxes are, honestly, a necessary evil. The question becomes, "How do we keep taxes fair?"

The answer isn't "Cut taxes," which seems to be the only answer politicians are willing to provide. Nobody wants to be on record as saying we need to raise them, or keep them at certain levels, because then the anti-tax nuts will go on the warpath and everything sensible gets tossed overboard. As a result, the incoming revenue stream gets narrowed with those cuts, just as government services have to expand in order to meet more needs of a state that has outgrown its limits (overpopulation, which is stressing our schools, transportation, water supply, health care service, and everything else).

There was already a major budget cut hit this past year in 2007, a lot to do with the fact that Florida can no longer rely on sales taxes and property taxes to pay for everything the state needs to do. Home sales and new constructions are down due to a massive market downturn (which is another disaster story altogether). Home values are dropping, screwing up the math of property assessment and taxation. Instead of expanding services, the state government had to cut back, and also cut back funding to the counties and cities, hurting those groups' abilities to fund their services. (Disclosure: I work as a public librarian whose library system exists on state and county funding)

Instead of trying to wow the voters with a Super Homestead Exemption, which looks so pretty on paper but which can come back to bite us on the ass, the state of Florida needs to switch to a State Income Tax system. Yes, there's about 900 million people screaming about how Florida never needed a state-level income tax system to mess things up further. But here's the deal: relying on property and sales taxes ain't helping. Florida is one of the few states left that HASN'T gone to an income tax system, and maybe that's saying something that the other states know what they're doing.

Huckabee, please read this

Regarding statements Huckabee has made about his plans to amend the Constitution: HOLY BLEEP

Dear Mr. Huckabee, please do me the pleasure of reading these tidbits out aloud:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This is known as the First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

Article Six of the Constitution has this paragraph: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
James Madison: The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning RELIGION, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
Please also read this, sir: the Massacre during St. Bartholomew's Day in France, in which the Protestants got screwed over simply because they butter their Jesus bread upside down.
Please also read this, sir: Cromwell's Calvinist conquest of Catholic Ireland, in which the Catholics got screwed over simply because they butter their Jesus bread rightside up. Please note sir, the overwhelming history of religious wars even among fellow Christians.
Please note, sir, how the Founding Fathers were descendants of those who fled Europe due to religious persecution, such as the Pilgrims of Plymouth, the Catholics who settled in Maryland, the Quakers who fled to Pennsylvania. Which was why they went out of their way to insist NO RELIGIOUS TEST be applied to government duties and oaths.

Please note sir, that your definition of what God is and what God wants, as a Baptist, is going to be different from even your fellow Christians, be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinist, Reform, etc.

Please note Mr. Huckabee that your desire to rewrite the Constitution to reflect *your* point-of-view on God's Will, and it's only *your* will by the by, is going to scare the crap out of every other person who doesn't preach and pray to God the same way you do.

Sir, you may be preaching thinking that you want to convert this nation from its seemingly godless ways, but rest assured we Americans are more driven by our faith and our acceptance of God moreso than any other Western nation. There is no need to make the Secular Law of the Land to mirror the Law of Faith. If you do, if you persist, you're going to find more people bickering and arguing over the Law of Faith the same as they bicker and argue over the Secular Law. Bickering leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering.

History has borne that out. Even Biblical history has shown that. Please note this. And please stop running for Secular office. You are clearly not meant for it.

A Review of Sabato's amendments book

Ezra Klein does a review of Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution on the Barnes & Noble site. I still am waiting for a copy of the book meself (curse ye, WorldCat! It takes months for the sucka to get a book from Alaska to Florida...).

Searching for voters' rights groups

And I think I found a few:

• Common Cause
• VotersUnite
• People for the American Way

I'll be shopping around, see which ones best fit my righteous angry mood about how screwed up the electoral system is.

New Year's Resolution

I hereby resolve to find and join an organization that is pushing for a nationwide one-day primary system. There has to be a voting rights activist group that is already pushing for it, or would be interested in pushing for it.

Oh, and also I'm gonna try to finish writing a bloody bleeping novel. For once. Sheesh. ;)

Saturnalia Wish List 2007

Dear Saturn:

I've been sending this crank prankster St. Nick letters for years, hoping he'd buy my Nice act and send me all the toys I want, but I've gotten tired of the non-replies, so I hope you don't mind if I'm shopping around for another Deity this season. Fail to deliver, and I'm taking my business to Mithra, got it?! Kay.

O mighty Roman lord o Time and phone boxes, I have a few simple Constitutional Amendment ideas I'd really like to see implemented before the world goes completely batsh-t crazy, please and thank you:

1. An amendment where any politician who compares waterboarding torture to swimming be compelled to swim the Atlantic Ocean... from Jacksonville to Hamburg. And back again. Then said politician can understand what waterboarding torture is actually like. EDITED: actually, they need to swim whilst their mouth and nostrils are covered with saran wrap with tiny holes in them. THEN it's more like waterboarding.
   
2. An amendment where the White House press secretary is given a truth serum before meeting the press every day. (caveat is that the truth serum be non-toxic. Don't want to kill anybody, just embarrass the hell out of them) That oughta keep 'em honest.
3. An amendment barring any Bush or Clinton from being in the White House in any capacity ever again. JESUS CHRIST NO MORE! Will you PLEASE bring the Adams and Roosevelts back! Thank you.....
4. An amendment where no American citizen has to pay taxes ever again. Except for Grover Norquist. He has to cover for everybody. Maybe then he'll understand.
5. An amendment that sanctions the building of an elaborate maze and tunnel system, complete with lethal traps, between the border of Mexico and the United States. Anyone sneaking through successfully can stay. For each Hispanic person that successfully enters the United States, a registered Republican known to have made anti-immigrant statements (starting with Tom Tancredo, then Pat Buchanan, then the next most deserving racist f-ckwad) will be picked up and shipped to whichever country that successful immigrant came from.
6. An amendment that sanctions the building of an elaborate maze and tunnel system, complete with lethal traps, between the border of the United States and Canada. Any American sneaking through successfully can stay in Canada. Canadians don't have to send us anybody back. Unless they want to clear out Quebec or something.
7. An amendment that allows ducks and pigeons to hunt Dick Cheney down like the mongrel he is.
8. An amendment wherein if anyone from Texas does something arrogant and stupid ever again, we will give that state free of charge back to Mexico. The maze and tunnel system can be redesigned as needed, at Texans' expense.
9. An amendment forcing Hollywood to assent to the writers' demands. Also to get them to stop making worthless remakes of movies that don't need to be remade (with the noted exception of any remake for Plan 9 From Outer Space). Also to get them to stop dithering and make that Wonder Woman movie I've been waiting for. R-rated version.

And that, o Lord Saturn, shall do it for now. Unless I come up with something snarkier.

Oh, actually one more thing: can you get Bill O'Reilly to pay for the sacrificial bull this Mithras season? Cool.

Io, Saturnalia!!!

So, I emailed Larry Sabato

Having spent a few threads discussing the amendment ideas he'd brought up in his book A More Perfect Constitution, I decided on a whim to email Mr. Sabato and offer my alternative suggestion regarding the representation in Congress for both the House and Senate. I wrote as politely as possible, noted I had seen the threads on Moderate Voice, added that I was waiting for a copy of my own of his book (waiting via Interlibrary Loan), then offered up my suggestion and sent in the email. Here's a copy of it:
Hello.

I had spotted the Moderate Voice's overview of your book A More Perfect Constitution. As someone interested in reform, especially the type of reform only constitutional amendments could achieve, I gave the entry a good look, and I am attempting to get the book through my library for a more thorough reading.

I did have a few issues with some of your suggestions. For one, the need to expand the number of representatives and senators. To expand the House to an even 1,000 may improve the ratio of representation, but it does not guarantee *effective* representation. As of now, given the nature of the political beast, expanding to 1,000 congresspersons is simply giving lobbyists and deep pockets more targets to bribe with billion-dollar campaign warchests. I understand the desire to improve representation, to give voters better opportunities to meet and confront their representatives. But first, get rid of the current lobbying system that perpetuates corruption, then maybe we can see about expanding the number of representatives.

I also have issue with the suggestion of having the number of senators expand by giving the most populous states 2 more senators, and the next tier of populous states 1 extra senator. I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of the Great Compromise to have the small states get equal representation in the Senate. I think, if you want to expand representation in the Senate, there is a simpler method: just bump the number of Senators from 2 to 3. Right now that gives you 50 extra Senators. You get the benefit of having the states now vote every election cycle (2 years) a new Senator instead of skipping one cycle.

With regards to expanding the number of House representatives, if possible they could bump the small states with one lone representative up to the same number of Senators (right now at 2, with my suggested boost it would be 3). Having only one representative for the smallest states seem so... lonely.

Also, about having ex-Presidents serve as "national" senators seems a flippant way of trying to solve the age-old question of what to do with them. I don't think there are going to be a lot of people who would be thrilled to see Carter, Clinton or Dubya serve in government like that. After all, not every ex-President is going to be a Harry Truman or Herbert Hoover post-term. Though I'm still partial to one politician's suggestion that ex-Presidents be sent in exile to small islands. ;-) Or maybe the Disney President's Ride...

I do support your overall suggestion about our need to reform government via constitutional amendments, and I would love to see at the state level more active attempts to get a convention (or at least pressure on Congress) going on the matters that need to be addressed.

I do await getting your book so I can read it in greater detail.

I do admit, I did get a little snarky in that email.

Having tried for years to get short stories published, I didn't expect much back: I've rarely gotten replies, and of the rejections that did come back they were along the lines of "Gosh, we're impressed you can read and write." I was pretty sure Sabato, a public figure in political punditry, was someone swamped with messages, complaints, hassles, half-baked amendment proposals, and Viagra offers (hey, even my sister gets those!).

However, I did get a reply. It was, pretty much, a "Gosh" reply, sent by a colleague of Mr. Sabato's who apparently had to answer the mail this week:

Mr. Wartenberg,

Thank you for your e-mail last week to Dr. Sabato regarding A More Perfect Constitution. I am glad you are taking an interest in the subject. Dr. Sabato has been out of town on book tour but send his best. I think most of the questions you have presented here are addressed in detail in the text of the book. Please let me know if you have further questions once you have looked into it.

Best,

Michael

Didn't exactly read like he/they had viewed the whole email, nor that there were any qualms or rebuttals of the issues I had with Sabato's push for increased numbers of representatives. Just a simple cookie-cutter response. At least it was a reply, I hadn't been expecting one. Wasn't expecting anything like a C-SPAN debate or anything, although that would have been nice...

So anyway, here I am, thinking up a Christmas wish list of constitutional amendments for the holidays. Coming soon!

Off-Topic: who am I supporting in 2008?

Well, primary-wise, there's not much I can say on the subject. I had switched to No Party Affiliation after the Schiavo fiasco that completely soured me on the Republicans forever. I had always been more Moderate when it came to social issues, but at that point I knew the pro-lifers had completely taken control of the GOP and had turned the party leadership into slavering morons. This was a little before Iraq turned into more of a quagmire, way before Katrina disaster demonstrated that a political party that advertised they didn't believe in good government would offer inept and far worse government than those who did believe, and a good while after I had known (since 2000) that Bush would have been a Bad Preznit. Back then, when he basically stole the election (I was in South Florida, and I was witness to a lot of criminal antics by the Republican mobs that disrupted the recount attempts), I operated on the hope that it would have been a brief one-term where very little happened and where his screwups could be easily fixed once a more competent guy got elected in 2004. But yeah, Sept. 11. And for a while there, he *sounded* like he was going to rise up to the challenge of leadership... but then he screwed up Afghanistan, pushed for a questionable invasion of Iraq when *I* knew at least that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and where I agreed with much of the international community that tougher sanctions and diplomacy could succeed where an invasion would turn into a disastrous occupation, and on top of that pushed for MORE tax cuts at a time when military expenditures were so obviously going to go up. And then Kerry came up for the Dems in 2004. Oy vey. (head thump)
So I soured on the Republicans in a big way. But I couldn't switch over to the Democrats either. They have proven themselves from 2000 on to be craven, spineless, clueless, hopeless. They're basically sitting there letting Bush get worse on his own, simply because they don't want to make any misstep that could actually make Bush look good. The Dems are just sitting there, content with the knowledge that Bush is the least popular President ever, with a track record that could end up making Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan look like geniuses and U.S. Grant look like a squeaky-clean wise man. But in the meanwhile they're intentionally caving in on subjects that the majority of voters WANT THEM to stand up and fight for, and it's sick. It's just flat out sick.

So here we are, looking at 2008 Presidential election. Both major parties have candidates up the wazoo, perhaps the first time in a long time there have been so many. There hasn't been this many GOP candidates since 1980 (96 was close but that race was never as wide open). Well, I've gone through the lists of both sides, and I've determined what the odds look like for each candidate... and... So... if I had to choose for 2008? Well, right now, I'd go with the parachute and jump.

Okay, sorry, needed to get that off mah chest. Seriously?

Seriously, I can't vote Republican. Not ever again. Not as long as the party is dominated by religious nutcases who can't understand word one of the whole "Separation of Church and State" concept found in the First Amendment and this bit in the Constitution that insists no Religious Test be imposed for political office. Not as long as war-mongering neocons are in charge of international policy, thinking that all they have to do is keep bombing nations that look as us funny and we'll win the War on Terrah. Not as long as anti-immigrant pols act like racist mofos more afraid of brown people than more concerned about effective immigration/assimilation of people who WANT to be here, and who show no concern about genuine job security while allowing our jobs get shipped overseas (a more destructive cause of our shrinking job market than illegals).

With regards to the Republican field, I go by what my parents are considering. I think I mentioned that before. If there is any good news about this election year, it's that my parents are a *tad* disappointed by the choices they have. They don't even know who Duncan Hunter is for one. They kinda knew Tom Tancredo, but that was because I reminded them he was the idiot who insulted Miami Cubans. As my dad is a Nixon man, they knew who Thomspon is, and they still can't stop laughing. They know McCain, and amazingly they're not too thrilled with him... for the oddest reason. My dad's an ex-Navy pilot, same as McCain, and all because of the disaster on the Forrestal that McCain was literally in the middle of, my dad thinks the worst of him. I think mom's trying to talk him down. But anyway. As for Ron Paul, my parents stared at me and changed the subject at the dinner table. The best news is that my parents aren't even considering the Big Two (who are the two worst IMHO) of Mitt and Rudy. They view Mitt as a plastic flip-flopping Clinton wannabe. They view Rudy as a Democrat (that's at best: you don't wanna know the worst they think of Giuliani). That's left Huckabee as their choice, but even there my parents are wavering. The whole scandal involving DuMond wasn't a major issue with them: I think it's more to do with Huckabee's lack of foreign policy experience, which is why McCain is still on their list. Actually, my dad's still upset Newt Gingrich isn't running, even though I've tried to point out Newt's character flaws could rival Rudy's...
So on the Republican side, if I had to...? I have to admit, I was a McCain man back in 2000. I *could* go with him, but I have my concerns now (mostly about his health; some about McCain's asskissing from 2004 to 2006 trying to get on the Religious Right's good side). I was okay with Huckabee until I heard about the DuMond case. If Rudy or Mitt wins the GOP, forget it. No way am I supporting them.

As for the Democrats... No Hillary. Never. She already had control of the White House from 1992 to 2000! Sheesh. Lady, give someone else a shot. And that's my immediate response regarding her. If I had to think about it more, I'm concerned about her vindictiveness, her arrogance, her lack of scruples, her willingness to play fast and loose with the facts if not outright ignoring them. I'm terrified of a Hillary in charge of a lawless executive branch she would be inheriting from the Bushies. She's Dubya's arrogance mixed with Cheney's deceit and lust for power multiplied by Rove's viciousness. If she gets the Democratic nomination we are doomed to either four more years of a Republican sleazebucket or four more years of Clinton corruption. As for the others... the more I see of Gravel the more I wonder about what made him such a big player for the Dems back in the 1970s. I'm seeing Richardson as more of a Clinton loyalist than anything: that he's in this race simply to be Hillary's veep should she get the nod. I'd like Dodd except that his ties to lobby groups make me sick. I know Biden has skills but he lacks any charisma to sell what he's offering. I keep missing Edwards if only because the whole media seems to be ignoring him. About Edwards, my parents joked that for someone who cares about poverty he sure lives in a big house. I had to point out that NO ONE who lives in poverty can afford to run for office, so neener neener. I want to miss Kucinich because any liberal who wants to team up with Ron Paul has *got* to be insane. And Obama? He may be the Boy King of Ultimate Destiny, but he's got only 3 years of national experience. If only he could have waited another 4 years, and if we could get a better picture of how he performs and what his policy beliefs are.
If I had to, among the Democrats...? Possibly Edwards. He's the most competent of the bunch and as not as openly corrupt as some of the other choices.

If the full election comes down to either Romney/Clinton or Giuliani/Clinton, forget it: I'm voting myself in for office. ;) If it's McCain/Clinton or Huckabee/Clinton, I'd go GOP, but I would seriously regret it the next morning. If it's Obama or Edwards against Romney or Giuliani, I'd seriously go Dem. If it's McCain/Edwards though, that would be tough. If it's McCain/Obama, I'd have to see who McCain went with for his Veep. If it ever gets to Paul/Kucinich... RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

That's how it's going to be for me. Pray it's a McCain/Edwards choice come November.

Off-Topic: Rating the Primary Candidates Phase 2

And now, for the Democrats. Prepare for Level 12 Snark!

Joe Biden (DE)

• PROS: Long-term Senator and party stalwart. Outside of a plagerism scandal that derailed his 1988 attempt at the White House which turned out to be nothing but media overkill, Biden has no scandals of note. His voting record is consistent with Democratic views, and he also demonstrates bipartisan skill. Intelligent, even-tempered, and... and...
• CONS: He's as flat as drywall. He's talks a lot but doesn't really say anything. Try to remember the last appearance he's had on television, be it a debate or a Sunday talk show. As part of a Democratic leadership that has failed to stand firm against Bush's possibly corrupt practices regarding torture, invasion of privacy and other civil liberties issues, Biden could suffer a backlash from angry Dems.
• ODDS: If it were any other year, without Hillary or Obama running, Biden might have stood a chance. He occupies a comfortable centrist position that could appeal to moderates if only there was something else there to root for. As it is, he's a second-tier candidate with a very long shot at making any impact in the primaries.

Hillary Clinton (Clintonland)

• PROS: She's Hillary Clinton. Who else is as ruthless, driven, capable, prepared, as she is? There are remote tribes in the Kalahari that know who she is. There's a massive campaign machine behind her, there's a thousand cameras on her, there's a million people voting for her. Simply because of who she is. There are enough voters who can compare her husband Bill's 8 years in office to Bush the Lesser's 8 years in office, and who will think things were better then and overlook the blemishes now.
• CONS: She's Hillary Clinton. No other candidate brings as much baggage as her. While the Republican Mudslinging Machine is gonna trash any Democrat that wins the nom, Hillary will be their biggest, easiest, most desired target. Any other Democrat could keep the GOP dispirited and divided: Hillary would unite them, and give them enough motivation to win. There is also the growing ennui of having another Clinton in the White House: a dueling family feud between Bushes and Clintons. Not so much Scandal Fatigue, which is obvious, but simply Clinton Fatigue, that we've already seen this TV show before. Some voters will think she's already been President (twice). And speaking of Scandal Fatigue, there are questions about where Clinton is getting her money from. Clinton is also ruthless to the point of savagery. Clinton's camp is willing to pick up on a nasty Republican slander on Obama, underlying how desperate she is to win. And despite all her political skill, if you ask any of her supporters, they can't tell you what she's FOR (other than being President). Nearly every other popular candidate, especially Obama, can be seen as running for someTHING. Hillary doesn't. For all her power and reputation, there's no PASSION for the office. This time around, she's not offering CHANGE (That's Obama's bumper sticker now), she's simply taking POWER.
• ODDS: With all the power, fund-raising skill, and name recognition, Clinton is as close to "Designated Winner" as the Dems will see this Primary season. Except for the fact that people are starting to look away, either because the other candidates (Obama, cough) are more exciting and deserving of support, or that her phoniness and blatantly open desire for power are turning voters off. People are beginning to realize Hillary represents four more years of hell, blood-crazed Rush Limbaugh clones, and Bill Clinton as First Dude. Insert screaming noises here.

Chris Dodd (CT)

• PROS: Dodd is a long-standing Senator, and has been a major player in the Democratic ranks for years. His positions are consistent with the party line. He's recently made headlines as being one of the earliest candidates to openly oppose some of Bush's heavy-handed attempts to subvert the Constitution, such as granting telecom companies retroactive immunity from any illegal wiretapping.
• CONS: Other than his dramatic stands against telecom immunity, Dodd has pretty much been invisible this campaign. He has the same problem as Biden: a solid resume but no charisma to sell it to voters. Dodd has the incumbent's usual problems of having too many close ties to certain lobby groups: his ties to Arthur Andersen and other accounting/financial firms that are normally under his committee's oversight.
• ODDS: This is a second-tier candidate struggling to stay in the fight. One gets the feeling his bravery in standing against the telecom immunity efforts by Bush is more for show and relevancy than anything else (which doesn't say much for the other Dems in the race), simply because he's talked about it but hasn't done anything about it. If he's lucky he could be in the race for the Vice President's slot, but even that's a crowded field this year.

John Edwards (NC)

• PROS: A major player from the 2004 Presidential campaign who kept himself in the public eye all these years. Was one of the first to openly declare and develop a head start. Has focused his campaign aggressively on poverty and health care, making those topics his signature issues. He's positioned himself in most respects as a candidate with more compassion and sincerity than Clinton, and more experience than Obama.
• CONS: He's not Hillary. Nor is he Obama. Which is a problem the rest of the Dem field has to deal with anyway. But for Edwards it's worse: being third place in this race isn't doing him any favors. And the media has, in its own way, decided not to treat him as a serious candidate, hurting his public perception.
  
• ODDS: This is a make-or-break campaign for him. He's not running to be a Veep like last time (at least he'd better not be: it's be almost like a step down for him). But with Hillary as the Machine candidate and Obama as the Scene stealer, Edwards is screwed. His best chance is that Hillary implodes somehow, which right now is improving as her campaign is starting to show signs of strain and overreaction.

Mike Gravel (AK)

• PROS: He's not Ted Stevens.
• CONS: No one else knows who he is. Which is a pity because he's apparently been a major player for the party for years. And in the debates he's not winning anyone to his side with poor performances.
  
• ODDS: If Vegas has any mercy (and oddly enough they usually do), they'd have taken him off the board by now. Most people I've talked to about the elections didn't even know he's on the ballot.
  

Dennis Kucinich (OH)

• PROS: Is a well-known candidate from the 2004 campaign. He's also one of the more vocal opponents of the very unpopular President Cheney, uh Bush: he has attempted more than once to propose impeachment proceedings on Cheney regarding "manipulated intel" and false reports of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Kucinich is campaigning as the "Peace candidate," promising immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Is the only Dem running who has consistently voted against the Iraq invasion and funding of it. If elected, his wife becomes the hottest First Lady ever (sorry, Jackie!)
• CONS: The media depicts Kucinich as a tad... well... crazy. But let me state right off that it's not that he's reported seeing a UFO: lots of normal, honest people report UFOs all the time. No, it's that he's openly praised Ron Paul and even suggested having him as a running mate. Dude, if crazy people are flocking to Paul (and they are), and if Kucinich is flocking to Ron Paul... Look, if A = B and if B = C, then A = C, right? Right. Other than that, Kucinich has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
• ODDS: Like the last time, Kucinich seems to be in this race mostly for the principle of the thing. Making sure his anti-Iraq platform stays in the debates. He really doesn't have much of a chance.

Barack Obama (IL)

• PROS: He's what I call the Bartlet candidate. Ever watch the "Two Cathedrals episode?" It's not the Latin speech blaspheming God that caught my attention, it was the Origin Myth back-story of how Mrs. Landingham met Josiah Bartlet when he was younger:

Jed: Why do you talk to me like this?
Mrs. Landingham: Because you never had a big sister and you need one. Look at you. You're a boy king. You're a foot smarter than the smartest kids in the class. You're blessed with inspiration. You must know this by now, you must have sensed it...

• Obama is the Boy King for the Dems this election cycle: he brings with him youthful vigor and freshness, an ability to express optimism without being cheesy, something more veteran candidates can't pull off without any bit of cynicism. He's positioned himself well on most of the issues Democratic voters consider come choosing time. There's a good reason why Hillary is having a hard time campaigning against him: Obama represents Change, not only Change from corrupt Republican to less-corrupt Democratic, but also Change from Clinton World Domination to a World without Clinton Fatigue. If Bill Clinton was the Change candidate in 1992, Obama is the Change candidate now, and that's what got Hillary and Bill running scared...
• CONS: Obama is genuinely new to the national and international political stage. He's only been a U.S. Senator for 3 years. Other candidates can harp on his lack of experience, and there are times that lack of experience shows. It's probably the biggest reason why he's not trumping Clinton so early in the campaigns. Racism will, sadly, become a factor at some point especially if he wins the early primaries (in the Good News category, the response from voters over the sleazy "He's a Secret Muslim" whisper campaign suggests any racial attack could backfire). Despite his "freshness," he's still as ambitious as any other politician running for the Presidency (after all, ambition is made of sterner stuff), so he deserves the scrutiny for hypocrisy same as any other candidate.
• ODDS: Obama is currently the Number Two guy on the list, and with Clinton faltering in the last hours of the pre-primary campaigning he's one upset victory away in Iowa or New Hampshire from running the tables. He's starting to get more support across the board.

Bill Richardson (NM)

• PROS: Um, he's not Ted Stevens? Actually, let's start over. Richardson's a major party player and has a resume bouncing all over the board: Congressman, Cabinet Secretary, ambassador, hostage negotiator, state Governor. Experience is not a question for this guy. He's of Hispanic descent, possibly the first Hispanic running for President (if I am wrong, please correct meh).
• CONS: Has too many ties to the Clinton administration, and with Hillary also running he's not getting any support from their admirers (which makes up a sizable portion of Democratic voters). There's not much passion coming from his campaign, and little passion for it from voters. Is coming from a relatively small state of New Mexico. There's no indication he's getting any support from Hispanic voters, at least not enough to dent either Hillary or Obama's efforts.
• ODDS: Richardson is another second-tier candidate who's not making much noise. There's been talk online that Richardson, if he tries to stay in the race, will jockey for a Veep spot considering he's from a key region (Southwest/West) that would balance out the ticket with the current leader Hillary Clinton (Clintonland).

So... who do I think will win it in 2008?