Political Bitches

We return from our terrible lack of updating to join in the celebrations as Barack Obama officially won enough delegates this evening to secure the Democratic Presidential nomination. (Yes, we’re celebrating - it’s been fairly clear whose side we’ve been leaning toward this primary season, right?)

Obama’s win was certainly expected, so why are we so excited? I suppose we could purely cite the fact that our nominee of choice will definitely be facing John McCain, but it is so much more than that. Regardless of political affiliation, I think we can all feel extremely fortunate that today we have witnessed history in the making. What happened today will be going down in the books our children will be reading tomorrow, and considering the grim happenings of the past eight years, Obama’s nomination is a breath of fresh air and a gust of hope for a better tomorrow.

Of course, there is really no shock that Hillary Clinton didn’t concede tonight - I didn’t think she would. As I watched CNN this evening, I was a bit perplexed to see that so many of the political analysts were flabbergasted by this fact. Of course she’s not going to give in the second the official victory has been reached - she’s spent the past weeks and months going strong despite the best numbers being against her. For the record, I don’t intend for this statement to be a scathing one towards her - Clinton has clearly demonstrated her ambition to be President, and I don’t doubt her ability for the position. My main problem with Hillary these days is that she has now morphed into a populist against a system, which she previously endorsed when she thought she’d have the nomination in the bag. Despite the shortcomings of her campaign, I would not expect or even be offended by the fact that she didn’t resign - it’ll come in the next few days, folks, so let’s relax and look to the months between now and November. Hillary Clinton is not enemy number one, is essentially the gist of my message.

There has also been renewed talk about the “dream ticket”, after Clinton stated today that she would consider being Obama’s VP. I’m personally not sure how well an Obama/Clinton ticket would go over considering the strong disenfranchisement many people have with the Clintons, but if the Obama campaign has proven anything, it’s that new ideas can certainly trump the status quo of Washington politics, so we shall see what fruits will bear of this ticket, if it does occur.

For now, there will be no bitching, because I for one, am ECSTATIC that we have finally arrived at a conclusion at the end of the primaries, and won’t have to wait for this mess to drag out until the convention in August. I raise my glass to Barack Obama for the amazing campaign he has led, and for a great presidency I’m sure he will lead.

YES! OMG, YES! John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama! *Takes a solid 5 minute break to squee like a child on Christmas morning*

Over AIM 10 minutes ago:

ElysaMNFF: YES!

Laura: YES

Laura: JOHN EDWARDS IS THE MAN

ElysaMNFF: 4 SRS

ElysaMNFF: OMG

ElysaMNFF: PWN

Laura: I love how

Laura: all you had to say was

Laura: “YES!”

Laura: And I knew automatically what you were talking about.

This is huge news, and let me explain why:

i. First of all, Edwards’ endorsement– no matter to whom it went– was/is hugely significant. Edwards has a massive following of extremely loyal populist/working class voters. This has been evidenced by the fact that, despite that Edwards dropped out of the race ages ago, he continues to garner votes in the primaries. His following is so loyal that they vote for him even when he is no longer viable, or even on the ticket. Translation: Edwards holds the hearts of millions of important Democratic voters who have refused to vote for either Clinton or Obama up to this point. Now, that’s set to change. By endorsing Obama, Edwards is releasing his constituents to vote for Obama, is in fact encouraging them to support Obama, and with such an intensely devout following this is essentially guaranteeing that they will. And mark my words. They will.

ii. It is also about the type of voters they are. Edwards, like Clinton, runs on an extremely populist message. He focuses on poverty, healthcare, welfare, et al. Therefore, his target crowd are middle/working class, blue collar Americans– the same target audience as Hillary Clinton, and the one crowd that Obama has had enormous trouble winning over, which is essentially why he lost West Virginia last night by such a massive margin: 90% of West Virginia consists of the middle/lower working class. So Edwards’ endorsement is going to be huge in closing that gap for Obama. It’s going to bring those types of voters over into Obama’s camp, giving him much more support in practically the only real electorate weakness he had (past tense now!). This is terrible news for Hillary Clinton, for the obvious reasons, but also because Edwards’ voice has so much credibility among Clinton’s strongest supporters that by supporting Obama, Edwards will not only bring him more support, but will potentially divert support from Clinton by provoking blue collar voters to rethink their choice of candidate.

iii. Thirdly, this comes at the perfect time for Obama. He just suffered a crushing defeat in West Virginia last night, so Edwards’ timing is choice and strategic. Both the media’s and the nation’s attention is going to be diverted from Obama’s loss and refocused on Edwards’ endorsement. In a political system that (unfortunately, but nonetheless) relies heavily on momentum and media/mass perception, the timing truly could not have been better. The West Virginia defeat story will be old hat within a matter of 24 hours as this Edwards story dilutes the news cycle. It reinforces Obama’s stance as the front-runner, reinstates a little lost certainty in his ability to pick up working class support, and reaffirms his campaign as being the stronger, more credible and able campaign to face McCain in the November General Elections.

iv. Lastly, when an ex-candidate formally endorses another candidate, he/she is also formally releasing their delegates. Meaning, the 19 Superdelegates that Edwards had won in the early primaries are now free to support someone else. And who do you think they’ll support if the candidate they were formally supporting has endorsed Obama? One guess.

Not to mention, of course, that Clinton worked endlessly to garner Edwards’ endorsement, so his decision to support her rival is more than a little embarrassing. No matter how you slice it, it’s utterly fantastic news for the Obama camp, meaning it’s utterly fantastic news for me and Laura. Let it be known that Wednesday, May 14, is officially some manner of National Holiday.

I’m certain I’ll have more on this later (such as what this could mean for a possible Obama/Edwards ticket), but in my unhindered excitement the threads of coherent thought are slipping speedily away.

/Elysa

Since Clinton’s rather embarrassing defeat in North Carolina and her near-defeat in the state of Indiana (a state in which she was poised to win by a margin of 8% or greater– HA), Hillary has lost some substantial Superdelegate support and has been on the receiving end of many calls to bow out of the Democratic race.

Now, let me make something abundantly clear: I do not like Hillary Clinton (as a politician/law-maker, that is). I find her polarizing, near-sighted, and utterly lacking in the ability to compromise during a time in American history when bipartisan cooperation is no longer an ideologue’s plea but a necessity. She’s part Populist (i.e., economically liberal) and I have some strong Libertarian leanings (i.e., economically conservative). Populists bother me immensely. They rally for freedom and civil liberties then endorse government control and regulation– over a fundamentally capitalist system, no less. Fail. So for me, personally, Clinton is faaaar from the ideal candidate. In many ways, I find her just as unappealing as John McCain.

But to those who are shouting for her to drop out: SHUT.UP.KTHX.

I mean, seriously. Let’s be objective, people. Let’s allow democracy to run its course. You don’t have to like her. Again, I certainly don’t. But she has huge masses of support behind her, millions upon millions of American citizens have voted for her, her campaign continues to raise money, and Obama cannot mathematically reach the necessary delegate count to be the official nominee either. Let the god damned woman run, would you? Is this not what the United States is about? Hard-fought elections and exceedingly tough political campaigns? If we can’t endure the strain of democracy at work, who the hell are we? If difficult campaign seasons aren’t worth your time and patience, perhaps you’re living in the wrong fucking country. Do your history homework. Just a thought.

And if appealing to one’s inner ideology isn’t enough, look at it from a strategic standpoint: Clinton is going to win the West Virginian and Kentucky primaries by large margins. 10% or more, possibly by as much as 18%-20% in West Virginia, because she does well in low-income, working class states (i.e., the Populist crowd). These primaries are mere days/weeks away. If Clinton dropped out of the race, what would that mean for the Obama campaign? THINK, people. Our brains can be miraculous little things. He would be losing by huge margins to a ghost candidate. One to two weeks isn’t enough time to close those wide margins and win in those states between now and then. So if she bowed out, the Obama campaign’s credibility would take a beating. “How can he lose to a candidate who has already ceded the election? If he can’t beat Clinton when she isn’t even running anymore, do we trust him to beat McCain and his entire Republican political machine in November?” I find this sort of logic ridiculous and not even deserving of the term “logic”, but unfortunately that is undeniably the inane path of thought that many– the media included– would follow should Hillary drop out now. Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that her bowing out could weaken the Democratic Party by making their supporters second-guess Obama’s validity and capability.

Do I personally buy this argument? Meh, partly, partly not. I believe that is indeed what huge portions of Democratic voters would wonder, but I have reservations as to how detrimental it would truly be. I don’t think it would deter them enough to keep them from voting for him in November. But it is a valid point that a lot of political scientists are arguing.

It’s been an exciting but obnoxious primary season, I agree, and I can’t wait for the real General Election campaigning to begin either. But guys, there’s roughly three weeks left. Three weeks’ worth of primaries, then the Democratic Convention in August. The end is near. So for the sake of all that is holy and in the name of both ideology and strategy, let’s shut our pie holes and let Clinton run her damned race.

/Elysa

Let’s talk about the Michigan/Florida controversy.

2008 Election History 101: The Democratic Party set guidelines and rules for how the states are allowed to carry out their primaries. Some of the rules were small and simple, such as “the candidates’ names must be listed in alphabetical order on the ballot,” and others were far more significant and meaningful, such as “you may not hold your primary before the date ______.” The date was different for most states, but each state received a window of time in which they were allowed to hold theirs. Each Party does this– Republicans too– and not just this season, but every election season. These rules are set down by Party officials, and for good reason. And the reason that the Parties tell the states when they can and cannot hold their primaries is because political strategy demands that some states vote before others. For instance: California cannot go first. They cannot be the first or even among the first to hold their primary, because it is such a huge state with so many delegates, that if it went first, the winner of California’s primary would receive loads of media attention, lots of support from delegates, and tons of money, on the notion that “well, if they can win California they’re pretty well set to win the rest.” And this is not always the case, obviously, so an early win in California would give democratic voters a false sense of who their candidate will be, thereby surprising and disenfranchising them later in the election season if the front-runner ends up being someone else. And what happens when voters are disenfranchised? They stop voting. Which, of course = bad for the Party.

So there is a method to the madness. Each Party sets these rules in place for specific and politically meaningful reasons.

So what happened this season to fuck it all up? Well, Michigan and Florida expressed their desire to break these rules and hold their primaries much earlier than allowed. The DNC (Democratic National Committee) told them– “Look, if you go through with this, we’re not counting your votes. Your delegates won’t be counted. I don’t know how else to phrase it. You’ll be holding your primary for nothing.” Like jackasses, both states decided to call the DNC’s bluff, and went through with it anyway, holding their primaries months before schedule. This threw off the Democrats’ election season, forcing other states to re-schedule their primaries, costing the Democratic Party money and resources. So what did they (the DNC) do? Exactly as they warned: they didn’t count their votes.

And now Florida and Michigan are “outraged” like little toddlers who’ve had their gummy bears taken away for misbehaving. “My God, how dare you do what you said you’d do?!” And they’re calling out the DNC as being undemocratic, or better yet, anti-American, because they’re “disrespecting and disregarding the traditions of democracy which demand that all votes be counted.” Hillary Clinton is eating this up, because she would do well in both states, meaning that if the DNC folds under pressure and decided to count Florida’s and Michigan’s votes, and/or Florida and Michigan are permitted to hold another primary, it will do her campaign a lot of favors. It’s a Hail Mary for the candidate who just got her ass kicked in both North Carolina and Indiana last night (yes, Indiana too, because she only won by 2% and was supposed to win by huge margins, meaning her “I’m more electable than Obama in November” argument is null).

Here’s what I think, because did you really expect me not to tell you?

SHUT THE FUCK UP. You broke the god damned rules. Get over it. It’s not like you weren’t warned multiple times. It’s not like anyone forced you to go outside your own Party’s guidelines and sabotage other states’ primary schedules. Secondly, it isn’t undemocratic not to count your votes, for two reasons. First of all, you made the choice not to have your votes counted by being pompous disobeying douche bags. I.e., it isn’t undemocratic not to count your vote when you asked for your vote not to be counted.

Secondly, these are the primaries, people. These are the elections to determine Parties’ nominees for the presidential election in November. No one is taking away your Constitutional right to vote in the General Election. No one is telling you that, come November, you won’t have a voice. These.are.primaries. And what are primaries? Primaries are Party-sponsored, Party-regulated, and Party-run elections to decide who best represents their Party. So when you flip the bird to your Party and decide not to accept the Party’s rules in the Party’s– not nation’s!– elections, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. And there is nothing undemocratic about it, because the Party system isn’t written into our Constitution, isn’t even a democratic ideal or principle, it is an informal invention and tradition. There are no laws or rights for Political Parties in the U.S. because they weren’t supposed to fucking exist in the first place. Therefore, Political Parties are legally and rightfully allowed to conduct themselves however they see fit. So this controversy over not counting two states’ primaries because they broke their own rules is no controversy at all. If Florida and Michigan don’t like it, they can leave the Party. No one’s stopping them.

Political Parties are like clubs. When the club’s president tells you that “X” is not acceptable behavior during club meetings, and you do “X” anyway, what the fuck do you expect? “ZOMG, u be tellin me not to do dis, den I be doin it n u gets upsetz?! Who culd of new?!” Or would you go about whining about principles of democracy? LULZ, shut up, it has nothing to do with that, you’re still going to get to help determine who will be the president… Just not who will be your party’s nominee. Why? Because you… fucked over your party. Logical deductions FOR THE WIN.

I think the only reason people feel as if they have any right to throw a hot little shitfit over this is because they bear the painful misconception that political parties are state-regulated/based in law, when they’re not. I mean, really, the Democratic and Republican parties don’t even have to hold primary elections at all. The Party officials could just meet around a table, flip a coin or play Pin the Tail on the Right Candidate, and choose that way, and it would be perfectly fucking okay. Just like if you joined a club at school, and they told you, “sure, you can join, but just so you know– we don’t eat cherries. If you eat cherries here, you’re out.” Fine! And if you have a problem with that, guess what amazing little option you have? LEAVE. When you choose to join an informal club such as a political party, you are choosing to respect and abide by the terms and conditions. This isn’t the fucking government. If the government refused to count your vote, or if the government told you that you aren’t allowed to eat cherries, that would be a HUGE fucking problem. Seriously. I would personally revolt. Yes, even over the cherries. Don’t mess with the maraschinos. But this isn’t the government! This is an informal group of crazies who rally around half-baked political ideals and spam your inboxes with petulant little bits of propaganda! That’s it! Nothing more!

And this is partly why I fucking despise Political Parties. Which is another post for another day, but yeah, I don’t do Parties. Hence half of the reason I registered as an Independent. Because I chose not to join. But you know what I didn’t do? I didn’t choose to join and then bitch about the terms involved in joining.

That’s Florida’s and Michigan’s job.

-Elysa

We interrupt our normal programming to bring you all a game of catch-up here at Political Bitches. Unfortunately, do to outside forces (*cough*midterms*cough*) this hasn’t been as kept up to date as we would like it to be, so let’s have a little news medley, shall we?

1. NY Governor Spitzer is caught in a prostitution scandal. These are always the types of stories I hate getting out about politicians, and it’s for the exact reason everyone else loves them getting out: people have an odd fascination with knowing what their public officials are doing with their private lives. Here’s an idea for those people who only care that he had *gasp* sex out of wedlock: he’s put his wife and children into an absolutely TERRIBLE position, and not only does this make him a jackass, it makes him a hypocrite. Generally, it’s not a good idea to buy sex and then go after prostitutes, Governor. I don’t give a damn that he risked his own health and career - the real problem here is he has exposed his family and the young woman (’Kristin’ as she is known) to a great deal of public scrutiny. So let’s actually try focusing on that issue, as opposed to just being shell-shocked by the act, kay?

2. Obama: “I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place.” I know a few people seem to feel this provides necessary reason to call Obama out for “arrogance”, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. No one is perfect in this race, but the Clinton camp just keeps on trying to use more and more tactics in order to bring about a benefit, when in reality, it’s just adding to the separation of the Democratic party. Sure, Obama is confident in his current lead, but at least when he was behind in delegates, he wasn’t offering lesser positions to Clinton.

3. Wright and Ferraro: Not helping. Guess what? This isn’t a color race. STFU. You’re only giving stupid people ridiculous things to say about these candidates because you can’t stop flapping your mouths for two seconds.

4. Sending Dick Cheney to the Middle East to lower oil prices. Riiiiight, let’s send Mr. Halliburton to convince OPEC to boost output. Furthermore, according to this merry band of shrubs, our tanking economy is to be blamed on the increase in oil prices! But never mind that war we spend millions of dollars on every day - no, that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with our economy or the high oil prices.

5. House supports revision the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. And of course, Bush isn’t happy about this, but what else would we expect? As a point of interest, this is the first time the House has held a secret meeting since 1983. Under these revisions, telecommunications companies can be sued for surveillance without warrant, which of course, would be getting rid of another ‘essential tool on terror’. Maybe one day we can wiretap and water board at the same time - double wammies, take that terrorists!!!!!

Laura

As of the moment I type this post, here are the current reports on tonights primaries and caucus:

Ohio: Clinton/McCain projected winners.

Texas: Clinton/McCain projected winner.

Vermont: Obama/McCain projected winners.

Rhode Island: Clinton/McCain projected winners.

At this point, here’s the standing on delegates:

Clinton: 1,324

Obama: 1,411

McCain: 1,205

As an outspoken Obama supporter, I’m not extremely shocked at this turn of events, but I’m not happy with it either. I know the point of this blog isn’t to pout and whine that our favorite candidates don’t get the big win all the time, but hear me out: part of my problem with the way this has turned out actually has nothing to do with my admiration of Obama. Once again, the Republicans have shown the Democrats up by lining up behind one candidate early in the game - instead, liberals are still split fairly even down the middle, and it’s this kind of division that could seriously lose us this election.

I know the general word of mouth now is that no GOP is going to get into office because everyone has become so disenfranchised by the Republicans because of Bush. There is definitely truth to that statement, however, there was a lot of this same sentiment in 2004, and who has been in office the last four years? Oh right, the guy everyone hated on then too.

If I truly thought Clinton could snag an election against McCain, I also wouldn’t be half as bothered - but I truly don’t. The problem with the caucus and primary system is it allows for a lot of trickery on both sides of the aisle, and a significant amount of people can’t even take part in them. Closed primary state? Independents are about as important as minors. Open primary state? People can cross over party lines to vote in swarms for the “weaker candidate” in order to secure a win for their preferred one. And the caucus system? Since when does it make any sense to let so much ride on states like Iowa, which don’t even come close to representing a majority of the American people? This is not to say that people don’t get to vote for candidates they’re passionate about, but there is certainly room to call it a flawed system. There’s also just the fact that a lot of people only vote in the general election because it’s the only “important” one.

You can expect updates on this post as more news rolls in… Unfortunately for Obama supporters, it doesn’t look like it’s going to be good news.

UPDATE: As we all know, Clinton made a comeback last night, however, it’s very important to remember that this race is still up in the air. The big problem with that? It will go to the convention floor in August barring some miraculous happening in Pennsylvania. But why does this matter right now, you may ask? I’ve detected some confusion in the comments about delegates and why this matters because Obama is still “ahead” with 1,520 to Clinton’s 1,424. Besides the fact that this difference is considered neck-and-neck in Washington, there’s no guarantee that the super delegates they currently have won’t jump ship should there be no clear “winner” after all the primaries and caucuses are finished. This means they choose the nominee based on their own principals.

Laura

Yet again, the Clinton camp is finding more reasons to make its front woman come across as an incredible disappointment to her base. I’ll admit - I’ve heavily rolled my eyes at the constant bickering over plagiarism both Clinton and Obama have maintained recently, but really, are a couple of fliers any reason to get so damn defensive?

For those who aren’t aware, the fliers in question criticize her health care plan and her involvement (or, lack thereof) with NAFTA since the start of her campaign. She attacked Obama for circulating fliers that stated her intent to mandate health care whether people can afford it or not. Of course, maybe she’s forgetting that she only opened herself to that attack by suggesting “going after wages” as one option to make her plan a possibility.

Now, I’m under no illusions here - politicians are not Gods, capable of righting all wrongs and rooting out every injustice - if Obama is our next president, he will make mistakes - as has and will every other president in the history of this nation. However, if Obama is fabricating, rather than pointing out, serious flaws in Clinton’s health care plan, why can’t she just be up front and give a simple, honest answer? Instead, she just throws her arms in the air and shouts to a crowd of onlookers about the cruel injustice that is *gasp* politics. You know, the arena she’s constantly reminded us of having worked in for the past 35 years. One would think that by now she could take this kind of happening with a grain of salt - unless of course, she’s feeling seriously threatened by Obama picking away at her numbers.

Sadly, though, part of her motivation behind lashing out like this could be simply because people are prone to believe what they read - because if it’s published in a magazine or online, or a politician puts it out, it must be true! For instance, when we post blogs here, do you think we just pull up CNN or FOX and summarize verbatim what their people are writing? We look at as many sources as we can so that we can take our own stance on these issues, rather than just lining up behind one agenda or the other. The world would benefit greatly if people were a little more curious and didn’t take what is mass produced as the gospel. Don’t agree with what we say here? That’s fine - go research it, find where you think we’re wrong - hell, tell us. Maybe if politicians didn’t have to spend half their time spinning information to make it sound appealing, we’d actually have some fucking progress. But then, the same might occur if they’d just stop appealing to the rumor machine by bickering about the useless “he said/she said” game. Not to sound overly dramatic, but sometimes I feel like I’m watching a really bad sitcom about a bunch of pre-pubescent whiny little sixth graders - and that goes for all of them.

Laura

…or at least that’s what most news outlets are making it out to be. For those of you who haven’t heard about this, Michelle Obama (wife of Barack) was recently quoted as saying, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country…”. Apparently, this is cause for people (namely, conservative blogs) to leap all over her just because she *gasp* may not be proud of everything her country has done. Unfortunately, as it always has been with these types of people, if you’re not with us, you’re clearly against us. You know what? Our country has done great things - did Michelle Obama refute that? No. But how hard is it for people to see that she’s saying this in reference to, you know, that big campaign thing her husband is running right now?

News outlets are also trying (seemingly desperately) to start some kind of exchange between Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain in response to her statement that, “I have and always will be proud of my country.” So, here’s my suggestion to the news outlets…

Who the hell cares? Seriously. Let’s just say Cindy McCain was trying to elicit some sort of cat-fight response from Michelle Obama - this is nothing new. Politicians’ spouses are going to come out and speak for their husbands/wives in relation to the values their respective campaigns are holding. So maybe this will make it a LITTLE more simple for you:

Obama campaign’s main message: Change.

McCain campaign’s main message: Experience.

See how both wive’s comments relate to the respective campaign messages? Yes? Good. Now the lovely people at CNN and FOX news can wipe the drool off their chins and get back to covering actual news… Like, you know, that primary thing that’s going on tonight… Just so you can see an example of where news priorities seem to lie these days…

Fin.

Laura

…all I have to say is this:

Strategically, this was the stupidest fucking move since Huckafuck’s parents decided to reproduce. I don’t know who the shit advised her to make this blow, because it only reflects badly on her and how dire her desperate situation has become. She’s falling from grace at a speed that could rival the rate by which stupid shit comes out of Bush’s mouth, and that is seriously saying something. What pathetic tactics. “Plagiarizing.” If I were a Clinton supporter, I’d be royally fucking pissed at how quickly she is sabotaging both her political legitimacy and chances at the White House. This has all the makings of a Lifetime movie in which “successful woman’s career crashes and burns as she comes to some terribly overdue epiphanies regarding dignity and human character,” inspiring a multitude of dissatisfied American women to believe that they can come out of their ruts, they can they can! …Well. At least there’s a moral, I suppose.

Hillary, if by some chance you stumble upon this, fire your advisers. In fact, you ought to sue them on the grounds of being completely and totally fucking retarded. You were doing so much better when you weren’t resorting to this bullshit.

-Elysa

I got a really thought-provoking comment on my last entry, so I thought I’d reply to it publicly.

“You know, I think at this point, the country is just SO fed up with Republicans and conservative ideals that a democrat is kind of a shoo-in..then again, maybe the fact that McCain is so damn middle of the road, there might be a problem. With the way most people in this oh so lovely country of ours are, they’ll probably be more inclined to vote for a republican with sort of liberalish ideas than someone who is a democrat and a liberal. Then again, maybe I’m just speaking for my own neck of the woods. I don’t know, just something I’ve been observing.

What do you guys think?”

-Amanda

I think you make really important, logical observations, and I’d like to be able to unequivocally agree. Unfortunately, not everyone is as rational as you, and the average American voter seems to come down with a case of Illogicalaria during election season. John Kerry, though perhaps not the most inspiring candidate to ever grace American politics, should have been a shoe-in in 2004 too. We were pretty disenchanted with the Bush administration by then.

But you touched on a really key issue: McCain is a dying breed. He’s a moderate Republican. I disagree with him on a whole host of issues, including the economy, but he is anti-torture, anti-marriage amendment to the Constitution, etc. He can draw in the Independents. For all the fuss the GOP base is causing over his presumptive nomination, the Republican voters made a smart fucking move in choosing him. Huckafuck or Romney wouldn’t stand a chance against either of the Democratic candidates. Not to mention that McCain has done a better job than most of the GOP from separating himself from the Bush administration. He was one of the first Republicans to recognize how shittily Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were handling the war. He hasn’t been afraid to make criticisms of his own party. Sane Republicans will see him as someone who hearkens back to the credibility lost under the current administration.

Truthfully, though, if you want to know the real reason why I don’t think a Democrat is a shoe-in, it’s because of the Democrats themselves. In the midst of war, we took an 80% incumbency rate in Congress and turned it on its head to make the Democrats the majority. They’ve had control of both Houses for 2 years now, and have done little to enact the “change” that provided the basis for their entire platform leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. No one talked about policy or bills. No one even raised an eyebrow over domestic affairs. The only hot-button topic was the war in Iraq and how, if we the people kicked out the Republicans, they would stand up to the Bush administration and pick up the pieces of our dignity. Two years later, they’re devoting countless hours and resources to and holding full legislative committees for a “steroid scandal.” …Steroids. In professional sports. *GASP* OH NOEZ IS U SERIOUS?! WHO CULD HAVE KNOWN?!?!!!!!!1

No, you know what the real fucking scandal is? That there is a god damned war going on, that school shootings are popping up faster than fucking daisies, that there’s a genocide occurring in Sudan, that millions of Americans don’t have access to health care, that our own government is engaging in illegal wiretapping and overstepping Constitutional boundaries, that Social Security will soon be lost to the mesozoic era, that Guantanamo Bay flies the American flag, that we even have to debate whether torture is “okay”, that gays and lesbians are treated like second-rate citizens, that our borders are about as secure as a prostitute’s chastity belt…. and that all the fucking while, Congress would sooner waste a week of our precious time and money on god damned Mark Clemens than any one of these crucial issues.

A Democratic Congress, no less.

Don’t get me wrong. I’d take the blue over the red almost any day of the week, and I completely agree with your implicit suggestion that we need to stomp out the GOP. But I don’t think Democrats are going to escape this election season unscathed, and I think there’s good reason for that.

-Elysa