Pancake City

Note from a lazy person:

So the events referenced below happened a week ago, last Tuesday I believe. I thought of the idea for the skit when I woke up Wednesday morning. Knowing the rapid news cycle made speed an absolute necessity in implementing my idea, I went back to bed.  Saturday morning, when the already obscure story has safely faded from national gestalt, I typed it up.

Before I hit publish, I realized while it may have been funny enough for Wednesday when the idea was fresh in people’s minds, it wasn’t funny enough for Saturday. I had an idea on how to make it funnier, but I had to leave for the day. “I’ll write it on Sunday.”

So it’s Sunday.  I sit down to write and realize that extra day screwed everything up.  My Saturday idea, which was funny for Saturday, wasn’t Sunday funny. It would have killed on Wednesday and worked on Saturday, but it wasn’t enough for Sunday. Shit. I need a new idea. Better think of something and get cracking on Monday.

To make a long story non-short, it’s Tuesday, I’m about to leave for a trip, and I give up. My Monday evening idea of acting it out with a puppet show isn’t going to happen. For what it’s worth, here it is, my Wednesday-quality Saturday skit, on Tuesday:

*****

White House Press Conference
JULY 08, 2008

PERINO: “And with that, we’ll take questions.”

Q: “Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki suggested yesterday that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces in order for a security agreement to be extended between the U.S. and Iraq. The White House has long opposed any timetable for withdrawing troops, claiming that such a move would energize the enemy and lead to defeat. What’s the White House’s response?”

PERINO: “Our response is that Prime Minsiter al-Maliki didn’t ask for a time table yesterday.”

Q: “Uh, yes he did. I read the transcript.”

PERINO: “We believe it was a translation error.”

Q: “What? That’s ridiculous. You’re not dealing with reality.”

PERINO: “I’m having trouble understanding you. Al-Bayesh, could you translate?”

TRANSLATOR: “He said you’re doing a great job, and keep up the good work.”

PERINO: “Thanks! Next question.”

Q: “If it turns out that the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to withdraw on a timetable, will the Bush administration reverse their opposition and support the Iraqi government?”

PERINO: “That’s a good question.”

Q: “And?”

PERINO: “Next question.”

Q1: “Oh, come on.”

Reporters loudly grumble and protest. Perino frantically motions to her aide and raises her voice to be heard.

PERINO: “Okay, looks like we have a surprise visit from a special friend. Who wants to say hi to…Senator McCain!

Reports excitedly titter.

Q: “McCain, McCain!”

McCain: “Hello, boys and girls.”

The press corp shyly giggles.

McCain: “I have a special treat for you. Who likes doughnuts?”

The press corp begins shrieking and jumping up and down.

Q: “I do, I do!”

AP REPORTER: “Do you have sprinkles?”

MCCAIN: “Of course I do, Lisa.”

PERINO [whispers] “Thanks.”

PERINO slinks out of room as the reporters sit down cross-legged and wait for McCain to tell them stories.

Here’s what I think presidential candidates should look for when selecting a V.P., in order of importance:

* Able to handle the job of President.

I know it’s simplistic and almost naive, but shouldn’t that be a major factor?  I don’t want the first black guy nominated by a political party and a man so old he looks like Colonel Tigh without the makeup picking Gov. Yahoo from Shitslvania just because the governor will help bring in a few more working-class Hispanic Jewish white voters.

There’s a higher than usual chance that the next President of the United States will not serve a full term in office. Besides racism and age, a terrorist assassination is a real threat. If you wanted to damage the psyche and disrupt the political system of America in the worst way possible, and not even have to spend much money or resources to do so, what better option is there than assassinating a President?

I know security has increased since the days when a nut like John Hinckley could run up to a President and take a few shots, but do you really think it couldn’t be done? I’m a little surprised it hasn’t been tried yet.

* Loves campaigning.

With the long campaign season and amount of media coverage we’ve had so far, it’s easy for anyone watching the process half-closely to wonder how anyone could be unfamiliar with the candidates at this point. But there are plenty of people who aren’t paying much attention and won’t for months, if at all.  This is a particular problem for Obama, whose newness makes him unfamiliar to many voters.  Going from town to town and holding rallies and meetings to get undecided voters a few hundred at a time is part of what it takes to win, and you need a V.P. who is personable and enjoys the process.

As long as this campaign season has been, I think Obama is in a race against the clock. His biggest obstacle to the presidency is unfamiliarity, and sometimes you just have to meet with people personally to get them comfortable with you. It’s a slow process that takes lots of time, and he needs a V.P. who could double his efforts.

On a related note, the traditional V.P. role in recent campaigns has been of attack dog–making vicious attacks that the presidential candidate wants to be heard but not from his own mouth.

* Not a gaffe machine / no skeletons in the closet

Self-explanatory. The V.P. candidate shouldn’t interfere with the campaign’s message and be a distraction.

I don’t put any value in picking someone to win a state. When has that worked recently? Edwards couldn’t help Kerry win N.C. in 2004, and Gore lost his home state in 2000.

I don’t put a lot of value either in picking someone to counter a candidate’s perceived demographic (e.g. older voters) or political deficiencies (e.g. foreign policy).  Sure, that’s a nice bonus, but you could probably get as many votes picking someone that compliments a candidate’s strengths and getting higher turnout from your base.

George Bush picked Dick Cheney, someone the opposite of him in terms of age and foreign policy experience. Bill Clinton picked Al Gore, another young Southerner. They both won. What lesson can you draw from that?

I have no idea who Obama or McCain will pick. I’m surprised though how few people are mentioning John Edwards as a pick for V.P. I think he would make a good choice.

Update: As much as I hate the idea, by my own criteria, Hillary Clinton would be a good choice too.

Some people have jumped on Hillary Clinton’s latest electability argument (essentially, that white people will vote for her, but not Obama) as an example of race-baiting. It’s not, although the real dynamic behind what she said, and has been saying about Obama for the past few months, isn’t much prettier.

Eugene Robinson nails it on the head in his latest column. The money quote:

Clinton’s sin isn’t racism, it’s arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama’s success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton’s year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media’s darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

“It’s still early,” Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

It’s sore loser syndrome writ large. Romney, Huckabee, Edwards, and everyone else found a way to exit gracefully when the handwriting was on the wall. I don’t see Clinton doing the same. I’d love to be proven wrong.

Mike brought up in the comments the latest development in Panderthon 2008: the proposed gas tax holiday by McCain (and a few days later, by Clinton) for the summer.

The idea of a gas tax holiday will resonate with some voters.  Voters who:

1. Have no idea what the current federal gas tax is (18 cents for gas, 24 cents for diesel).

2. Are horrible at math (18 cents x 20 gallon tank =$3.60 saved per fill up. An average of $30 for the summer by a CBO estimate.)

3. Don’t understand that it will delete the transportation fund of $10 billion dollars, which maintains our highways, roads, and bridges…and provides jobs to transportation workers.

4. Don’t understand Economics 101. If you lower the tax, demand will increase. Which decreases supply. Which…makes prices go up. It’s unlikely people will even get back the entire dime, nickel, and three pennies.

5. Don’t understand the environmental benefits of higher gas prices. I live paycheck to paycheck and have been hurt by the sharp rise in gas prices, but I can see the upside. High gas prices is probably the only thing that will force people to change their driving habits, their car buying habits, and their lifestyles, including pressing employers for telecommuting, living closer to work, demanding politicians invest in public transportation and alternate energy research, and so on.

6. Think that economists against this idea, which is almost every single economist, and I say almost just to cover by bases in case one turns up later on, is an idiot who dag nab it just don’t understand trucking.

In other words, this is directed to about 25% of the public, and may well decide the Democratic primary in Indiana. And guess who is taking a political hit by standing against the idea?

Why doesn’t McCain and McClinton just promise voters a pocketful of fairies?

MCCAIN: “My fairies will help you do your laundry, and watch over your kids.”
CLINTON: “My fairy proposal isn’t irresponsible. I’ll pay it with a windfall tax on bridge trolls.”
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AD: “Barack Obama. Doesn’t believe in fairies. Doesn’t believe in America.”

You know what’s audacious about Obama? He believes enough Americans are able to move beyond being pandered to and guilt-by-association politics and go in a different direction because of the great challenges facing our country. We’ll see.

He gets outraged about the right things. The Clinton campaign’s response to Geraldine Ferraro’s dive off the deep end was so tepid and disappointing that I am seriously going to consider voting for John McCain if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Ferraro’s statements are more than the rantings of one angry supporter. Surrogates don’t do interviews on network TV for three days without the tacit approval of the campaign they support. The Clintons’ Machiavellian, use-any-tactic-that-works style of politics is short-sighted and carries a long-term cost.  If Hillary Clinton can’t win Pennsylvania without using racial polarization, she doesn’t deserve the Presidency. What does it say when Sen. McCain appears to be doing more to run a dignified campaign than she is?

An exceedingly common refrain when criticizing the invasion of Iraq is that “we took our eye off the ball” (the Taliban in Afghanistan). A web headline on The Washington Post’s site today is “Eye On The Ball, America.” It’s about the Mideast peace process.

Are we so stupid that we are incapable of talking about foreign policy without using sports metaphors? It’s not even a smart sports metaphor. “Keep your eye on the ball” is what Little League coaches yell at eight-year-olds who are too distracted by that dog licking himself on the sideline to pay attention. It’s a miracle President Bush said “Mission Accomplished” in 2003 rather than “Touchdown!”

This isn’t an idle point. Language both reflects and influences our thought processes. Our thoughts can only be as complex as the words we use to utter them. When politicians say, “We gotta get the bad guys,” do you know what they’re thinking? It’s not, “We need to judiciously marshal our resources to target radical Islamic fundamentalists that wish to harm us without inflaming the world and creating a bigger problem than what we started with.” The thought is, “We gotta get the bad guys.” Or perhaps even “Bad guys bad” if they are getting linguistic help from a teleprompter.

A large part of the reason political discussions are so simple-minded and devoid of substance is because of the language politicians use. Is “Pullout now / We can’t surrender” any different from “Tastes great / Less filling”? By the time a complex discussion gets hacked by television media into 15 second sound bites and repeated ad nauseam on 24-hour cable networks or by ideologues on political talk shows or radio, it doesn’t resemble a discussion anymore. It’s just sloganeering, and the small percentage of people trying to think independently and evaluate the available information wonder why they have so much trouble doing so.

I don’t know how much to blame politicians for this. When they say something nuanced, their words get twisted and distorted by their opponents. If it’s not a snappy sound bite, news networks will prune qualifications and conditions from the original statement until it becomes one. And that what gets remembered. There is something about human psychology that makes us receptive to short, simple messages (see: Basis For All of Advertising). It’s a shame few politicians point this out and at least try to raise the level of discourse.

I need a new tag: “yeah, politics, again”. At least I can tuck this under the fold that isn’t a fold for those not interested in politics. Read the rest of this entry »

Well, my resistance to blogging about it lasted all of one minute.

9:01 — I wish MSNBC could understand that a Presidential debate shouldn’t be run like an episode of Meet the Press. They always start off the debate with insider politics, horse race questions. Which is fine…for Meet the Press.

9:03 The video is jerky and almost unwatchable. Not sure I’m disappointed.

9:05  I might as well drop the “mini” from the post title. Who am I kidding? I’m going to blog the whole debate like a big nerd.

9:07 Yikes! Already nasty.

9:10 Seriously, MSNBC. You want to add another 8088 to your server rack so the video doesn’t break up every 5 seconds? You can hold ctrl-alt-dash to put it in turbo mode (4.77 Mhz -> 10 Mhz. I had one growing up, 20 years ago. Fond memories.)

9:14 Part of me likes the mudslinging. I admit it. It’s like how I dislike the idea of boxing, but can’t help watching Ultimate Fighting for a few minutes when it’s on TV.

9:15  Lots of snark, head shaking, and interrupting so far. Clinton is using some misleading but clever arguments (if I weren’t biased towards Obama, maybe they wouldn’t seem misleading.) Obama is holding his own so far.

9:16 MSNBC, don’t act like you are taken aback at how the debate is turning out. This is exactly what they wanted, and why they structured the debate this way (no time limits, a “free for all” to paraphrase them)

9:19 Clinton complains about getting asked questions first all the time, then references a Saturday Night Live skit to back her point up. Seriously. (Hey, it’s cool, Hillary. You gotta work the refs.)

9:21-9:30 The Internet both takes away and giveth. MSNBC streaming is down, but the local Ohio TV station has its own (working) feed.

9:34 I’m guessing what I missed in those 9 minutes was Brian Williams and Tim Russert stabbing Obama and Clinton with cattle prods if they tried to stop attacking each other.

9:38 Clinton’s attack against Obama: he voted the same way on Iraq as I did when he was in the Senate. Okay…. Then she misrepresented his position on Pakistan. I’m pretty sure that one will be on the WaPo fact-checker site. (Update: Yup.)

9:41 They both brought out their A game for this potentially last debate. I’m glad I’m watching it now.

9:42 Russert almost asked a good question on Iraq. Almost. Then it took a turn into inanity.

9:43 This “Iraq is costing us money” argument is going to be get a lot of play in the general election. Guns or butter, bitches!

9:46 Clinton makes a decent attack on Obama not holding a hearing while chairing the subcommittee of something-or-other. Obama: I started chairing the committee in the beginning of 2007. It’s probably a good attack in that there is some truth to it, but it’s so Washingtonian that I think it will elicit a “So what?” response.

9:48 - 9:52 Today’s color bars brought to you by: WKYC-TV #2. When you want color bars, WKYC-TV #2 is your place to be.

9:53 Considering how ferociously Obama and Clinton are attacking each other, the audience has been fairly quiet. Which I like. Adds a little dignity.

9:54 That was a really nice opening response of Obama to the clip of Clinton poking fun at him. He laughed and gave her a compliment on her delivery. Hillary cackled. Guess who’s side I’m on?

10:01 I’m starting to believe that Obama can be a very good debater. Except for his response on Clinton’s subcommittee attack, he has been doing very well.

10:03 Russert is somewhat mendacious and overly aggressive in his framing of McCain’s claim that Obama is ducking out of his public financing agreement, but at the heart it’s a good question and I’m glad it was asked. Obama gave a so-so response.

10:06 Russert asks a question to Clinton I’m also curious about: “Why haven’t you released your tax return yet?” I thought her response was weak, but again <—- me biased.

10:08 “Do you support Louis Farrakhan?”  It’s like an extended version of Meet the Press.

10:09 RUSSERT: See, Hillary? I can ask obnoxious questions to other politicians too!

10:13 CLINTON: Obama hates Jews. She’s dancing on a real fine line here.

10:14 I love Obama. Clinton made what I thought was a sleazy hint that Obama really wouldn’t mind Farrakhan’s support (and secretly doesn’t like the Jewish people as much as she did). He responded with a humorous line that addressed the issue as well. I really think she shot herself in the foot with that one. It would have been much better if he had just flat-out rejected Farrakhan though. The way he worded his response was nowhere near as strong as it could have been.

10:20 Williams: Obama, why you so liberal? He gave a good response on the National Journal rating system, although frankly, the “Most Liberal Voting Record” rating is going to be dragged out again and again, whatever its basis.

10:22: RUSSERT: “Russia! Betcha didn’t see that one coming! You, Clinton: what’s the new Russian President’s middle name? Answer now!”

10:26 Decent final question: are there any votes or things you said that you wish you could take back? Hillary-hating media asked her first, of course. Obama brings up Terry Schiavo. Gave a surprising but (at least to me) a frank response. Ended complimenting Hillary too.

10:30 WILLIAMS: “Just kidding, false ending! One more attack, please!” OBAMA: “No.” CLINTON: “No.” (I wondered what they would have said if Clinton was asked first, and Obama second. I say that because Obama was a little more charitable in his response.)

POST-SCRIPT: I really, really, hate Tim Russert. I think his antagonistic, bombastic style is totally inappropriate for a Presidential debate. I hope this is the last we see of him. Tonight was “mean Clinton.” I like nice Clinton better, when she promotes herself rather than tear Obama down, but that’s just my preference. That was a downer of a debate, as any attack-focused debate is. I’m glad voting isn’t held tonight, or not as many people would show up.

The 20th and perhaps final Democratic party debate starts at 9:00, MSNBC. I’m a huge political junkie. I’ve watched probably 15 of these debates. Listened to the radio-only NPR debate a few months ago. I can’t muster much enthusiasm for this one though.

Part of the reason is that I don’t see this debate making an iota of a difference in the race, barring a major gaffe from Obama or the hand of God breaking through the roof of the auditorium and pointing to a celestially-illuminated Hillary Clinton: “I CHOOSE YOU.” And even them, some of Obama’s supporters would have a hard decision to make.

General election thoughts, assuming it’s Obama vs. McCain: this is the first Presidential election in my short memory where both of the candidates in the race have a truly compelling life story. There is potential for great nastiness, but there is also potential for a repeat of what many Democratic voters faced this season: a difficult choice between two appealing, well-qualified candidates. Perhaps my opinion will change a few months down the road, but there are some things I like and admire about John McCain, and that’s more than I can say about the past Republican picks for President in my voting lifetime.

I have no idea how the general election campaign will turn out (eight months seems like an eternity for a campaign), but I suspect it will be much closer than the Obama vs. McCain polls suggest at the moment (some of which give Obama a significant lead). What is interesting is that while Obama hasn’t been hit with months of negative attacks in his political career, neither has McCain to my knowledge.  I find the idea of being “vetted” ridiculous, as Clinton claims, because Presidential campaigns are a different beast entirely. They bring a level of national scrutiny that just doesn’t occur anywhere else. You are never vetted until you win the nomination and have to run as your party’s nominee.

Furthermore, people have short memories. I think that’s the function of the Internet age, but that’s for another time. Those scandals that happened 10 years ago that you thought were behind you? They are new to 18-30 year olds, along with everyone else with a fuzzy memory.

Sometimes there is a feeling that if it happened in the past, it’s not worthy to report on again, but I think a growing realization in the media that it is part of their job to reshine the media spotlight on important events in the past, so people who were too young to remember them at the time, or just plain forgot the details, can be able to make a more informed decision. Couple this with the fact that reporters will have to fill up to eight months with Obama and McCain stories, and the idea of Clinton or McCain already being vetted becomes a little silly. We’re going to know the candidates’ wastelines for their boxers by the time all this is done.

One last thing: Science Debate 2008!

8:07: I admire Clinton’s ability for tailoring her opening statement to the audience, but I think she took it a little too far when she commemorated former Cowboys coach Tom Landry.

8:09 Four minutes in and still mud-free!

8:10. Obama’s opening statement. He’s using a lot of the same phrases he used in past speeches. No one’s accusing him of plagiarism this time!

8:11 I call this opening remark pander-off a tie. A good pandering to the both of you.

8:12. Obama: “What we are lacking now isn’t good ideas.” He introduced this line a week ago, I guess it’s a swipe against Clinton’s wonkiness, but I actually don’t agree with him. Political strategy is critical to implementing legislation, but what you are trying to implement is important as well. This line is anti-idealistic, and it’s strange coming from a campaign partially based in idealism.

8:14: First question is from the soccer game announcer at Univision. “Senator Clinton, what are your GOAAAAAAAALS for America?” Actually, it’s a good opening question: “Would you be willing to meet with Raul Castro or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship?”

8:15 Clinton’s response: not until Cuba changes first. This is the same argument Bush uses for not talking to countries. It’s based on the idea that America is the popular kid in school and Cuba is a socially awkward nerd that will do anything to please us. We’re like 0 for 13 in countries we tried this policy against.

Another ridiculous policy: embargoes. When have they ever worked? We had a trade embargo against Cuba for 40 years, and all it did was make the Cuban people poorer. We would have got rid of Castro faster by sending over some of our potato chips. Try living past 70 after eating a bucket of Lays, Fidel.

8:17: I can’t say if Obama’s position on Cuba is ideal, but it’s worlds better and more forward thinking than Clinton’s position.

8:22 Obama makes a good argument for active diplomacy–to undo some of the damage caused by Bush.

8:23 Q: “How are you different from Clinton on economy?” Are they different?

8:25 Obama avoiding differences so far, giving stump speech answer.

8:28 Clinton wants a “trade timeout”. No X-boxes for 2 weeks.

8:30 Pleasantly pleasant so far. I wonder if at 9:00 they will give Clinton and Obama battle sticks and send them into the Octagon. (Note: I swear I wrote this at 8:30, and not after watching what happened around 9:00)

8:30 I like Clinton’s “War on Science” line. I also like the passionate, positive Clinton. There is an argument to be made that her only chance is to ferociously attack Obama, but I personally like and admire Hillary more when she’s arguing for herself and not against Obama.

8:31 Today’s group to pander to: Hispanics. The Kanaka Maoli got totally left out when their wasn’t a debate in Hawaii.

8:33 The path to citizenship for illegal immigrants sounds like a huge pain in the ass. Are any illegal immigrants really going to do this?

8:34 Obama: We need to tone down the rhetoric. Fits in with his campaign well. “We need to fix legal immigration process.” Clinton nods in agreement, looks like she’s thinking “I wish I said that.”

8:36 Snide question from me: How can we help the Mexican economy when we have trouble with our own? It’s probably one of those ideas that ends up helping both of us, but people become more protectionist when they’re fearful for their own economic future.

8:37 Border fence question. Question I would prefer: “Is a border fence as stupid as it sounds?”

(Side note–the audience seems slightly pro-Hillary. Not sure if it’s her performance or their predisposition)

Clinton’s argument for why she and Obama voted for a border fence: Bush tricked both of us. Again! Damn you, Bush.

8:39 Clinton mentions “smart fencing”. Is that like those ultrasound electric dog fences? Overall, she gave a good response.

Obama agrees with Clinton. Clinton nods in agreement, looks like she’s thinking “Yeah, I’m the one who said it.”

8:43 Obama mentions the “Dream Act”. I don’t know what that is, but Obama is dreamy, so I support it.

8:43 Get this Univision guy back for another debate. He asks good questions. “Is there a downside to a bilingual nation?”

8:46 Obama: I want kids to learn a second language. Woah, hold on there, Barack. I don’t like learning new stuff. And I don’t want to raise a race of super kids that are smarter than me. Let’s keep our kids the way they are now: unilingual and dumb.

(commercial break) If this is what debates will be like, Obama should be fine with one every week. Both candidates are coming off well, which favors Obama slightly.

8:50 John King: Will you fight. Please? Come on. I’ll help you out. Obama is a _____.

8:52 Bye Internet. I was watching the debate online. Come back soon.

8:56: Obama says something that gets a lot of applause. What is it? I don’t know, INTERNET.

8:57. Campbell Brown: Seriously, you have to fight. I mean, Senator Clinton, you are sitting next to a plagiarist.

8:58 SILLY SEASON! I love it, Obama! I want to put Silly Season on my popcorn.

8:59 Clinton must have been crushed when that line bombed. “…lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in; it’s change you can Xerox.” It’s a good line, but the timing was horrible, especially after Obama’s strong response against the charges of plagiarism. First boos of the night.

9:00 Number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop: three. Number of questions it takes to get candidates to fight: two.

9:03 Where is this debate, next to a wind turbine? A gust of wind has been blowing their papers around for the past 10 minutes.

9:06 Obama: openness vs. closedness. Closedness is why Hillary’s health care reform in the 90s failed. Plans needs to be explained to people. A philosophical difference between the two candidates.

9:11 More fight questions!

9:13 Obama gives a better-than-usual rebuttal to Clinton’s health care claim.

9:15 It’s an attack question, but it’s from the Univision guy, so I like it.

9:22 Good question on the surge: Were you wrong in opposing it?

9:22 Very good answer by Clinton–goal of surge was about political progress. Goal still hasn’t been met. Completely true. The whole point of the surge was to create a safe enough environment for political progress to take root and flourish. The security part worked, but the political process is still stalled. We need to do something else to motivate the many power-holders in Iraq to figure out a political solution.

9:24 Clinton: “Last night in Brownsville, you know, a woman grabbed my hand and said, ‘Please, my husband’s there for the third time. Bring him home.’ ” There are a lot of people grabbing Hillary’s hand. Where is she holding rallies, Zombie Conventions? “Last night, in Gaisnville, a young zombie mother of two grabbed my hand and said, “BRAAAINS!” And I tell you, when one of her daughters started biting my ankle, the tears welled up in my eyes.”

9:33 Questions on their records on earmark spending. Obama mentions a “Google for Government” bill he co-sponsored with a staunch conservative. I like the bill, and I like his point–it’s not earmarks that are bad, it’s the secrecy behind them.

9:35 Hillary: Remember the good times with Bill? I’m a Clinton too.

9:36 Univision guy asks his first bad question. Super delegates: yawn.

9:39 “Describe the moment in your life when you were tested the most?” I think Oprah submitted that question.

9:43 Awwww…. (Hillary gave a nice closing response. They shook hands. You had to be there.)

It means I’ll jot some notes while I’m watching tonight’s Democratic debate and post them later. Or maybe not. I wrote notes for the last debate, but didn’t feel motivated to share them.

* Clinton’s campaign is setting the stage for a protracted battle, at least publicly. In the link, her campaign manager claims she will have a delegate advantage by around June 7th, the end of primary season. The campaign is also fighting a battle in the media about the role of superdelegates, both arguing that they should exercise their own judgment (i.e. not mirror the wishes of voters, who have given Obama an edge so far) and that they shouldn’t be called superdelegates but rather “automatic delegates” because…I honestly forget.

I agree in principle with them that superdelgates should exercise their own judgment. That’s the whole raison d’etre for superdelegates. In the “should have though of this beforehand” category though, if the superdelegates actually selected a party candidate with significantly less popular support, the rift would severely damage the party, making one wonder why superdelegates exist in the first place.

* People have an intuitive but misleading idea that you can’t be a good orator and knowledgeable about policy at the same time. It’s the same thought process behind the idea that a gorgeous woman can’t be brilliant, or a professional sports player can’t be intelligent. What’s the basis for this idea? I believe it’s primarily two concepts: limited focus and necessity.  Expert skill takes many years to develop, so we assume that the star running back doesn’t have the time or resources to become well-read, and since he’s already successful in one area, what’s his motivation anyway? If you are gorgeous, the thinking goes, sure you can become thoughtful and well-read, but you don’t need to because you can get by on your looks. So why bother?

A third reason is that there is no overlap between the skills of policy wonk and orator, so it’s more difficult to believe the same person can possess those two skills.  In contrast, it would be easier to picture a construction worker skilled working on cars rather than one talented in writing poetry, although if you think about it, are there really any skills in common between building a house and working on a car, besides being able to lump both of them in the category of “manual labor”?

Related to all of this is the Academy Awards.  Seriously. Comedies almost never win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, if one is even nominated at all. For most people, moments of happiness or light-heartedness are fleeting, and the rest of the time is spent in a neutral or negative emotional state. We then engage in temporal reasoning and conclude that because pleasant moments are rare and fleeting, and make up a small fraction of our experiences, they are outliers and not “real life”. In other words, anything that makes you feel good can’t have lasting meaning, because we can’t help defining “meaningful feelings” as the ones that stay with us the longest.  If one believes that a Best Picture needs to say something meaningful about life, it becomes easy to dismiss any comedy solely for being a comedy.  Here’s some advice for any comedy trying to win a Oscar for Best Picture: don’t be too funny, and make sure to include some depressing moments as well.

The dynamics of inspiring rhetoric are different from those governing movies like “Juno”, but what they face in common is an almost insurmountable suspicion of the value of anything that is fleeting and makes one feel good. It’s a justifiable suspicion in many cases, like eating junk food or a juicy hamburger, but not always, and that’s what most people don’t get. Something can make you feel good and have deep value as well.

Believe it or not, I am actually holding back most of my thoughts on the election. Most of my writing is funneled to comments sections on political blogs. These noble blogs are taking a bullet for you so you can have more YouTube videos and LOL catz, the latter of which I just found out that my friend Kate pronounces so completely wrong that she seriously should not even bother to argue with me about it.

I feel like I should put myself out there with a prediction though. It’s easy to call most conventional wisdom B.S. when you don’t offer your own prediction. So here it is.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that all this talk about the fight for super delegates and a nomination battle up to the convention is political masturbation. Unless Hillary Clinton has a tremendous showing in OH and TX, the super delegates will shift en masse to Obama by the middle of March and effectively end the nomination race. They are looking for an excuse to declare a winner and avoid a divisive and resource-draining nomination process while McCain is able to husband his resources and define his opponents while they are too distracted to fight back.

By tremendous showing, I mean win OH and TX by a combined 25% or more. Ohio is especially important because it is a swing state in the general election, and Clinton will need to be able to point to the results and make the argument that Obama cannot win in Ohio as part of a general argument that she is more electable than he is. This prediction is based on Obama winning in the next primary, Wisconsin, which Obama currently has a slight edge in.

FYI: Clinton currently has a poll average of an 18% lead in Ohio. Strangely, there are no polls yet for Texas but the conventional wisdom is that the state significantly favors Clinton . If the election were held today, Clinton would clear the 25% mark. If that happened, there would be a huge conventional wisdom battle on the question, “Who is most electable?” I can’t predict who would win that battle, especially at this point.

You all have permission to rub this in my face if I am wrong, although I will probably beat you to the punch. Because I like punch, It’s fruity and reminds me of the colorless people of Hawaii, who make the punch and have funny hair.

Update: This is a good summary of the situation. I’m not sure if John Lewis officially switched, but the important point is that he is publicly giving credibility to the idea of switching. Clinton can still win, but she’ll have to show that she is the better candidate in a clear way, through more total votes and pledged delegates. Unsolicited campaign advice for Clinton: I’d drop the attacks against Obama and draw on the compassion of her supporters. Her few successes this year were when she allowed herself to show she was vulnerable–tearing up in New Hampshire, loaning money to her campaign (she got a record number of donations after people saw she needed the money).  I think she would get more out of saying, “My back is against the wall. I need you.” than any attack or other campaign tactic.

We are at a point in American politics where being a woman or black isn’t necesarrily an overall negative. These traits have an equally positive side, but you have to be clever in how you negotiate them. The double standards aren’t fair, but they exist and can be worked around. Obama figured this out long ago. Will Clinton?

Yoono, a bookmarking program that powers my mini-blog on the right, isn’t working at the moment. Mini-blog post, you are hereby promoted to main blog post! Huzzah! Here it is:

Candidates’ Earmarks Worth Millions - washingtonpost.com

The impression one gets from the lead may be misleading — I would think a more accurate way of measuring Senatorial earmark spending is to focus on money per constituent, not total spending — but there are lots of illustrative tidbits on the three major candidates in this article.

Sen. McCain’s anti-earmark stance is symbolically powerful. Earmarks are the type of thing that is easy for people to rail against. They symbolize waste, even though they are a small fraction of total government spending and probably serve a good purpose in some cases (although that’s more on a guess than knowledge). Then again, they seem like an under-the-table way to reward donors and political friends.

I hope that if any changes are made to how earmarks are handled, that the people supporting these changes think hard about the potential unintended consequences of those reform. Well-intentioned changes can end up making situations worse.

I voted a little after 11:00 yesterday in D.C. for Barack Obama. D.C. has a closed primary system so I had to switch from independent to Democrat last month to vote. Not ideal, but not a big deal either. I had a Cheesy Sitcom Moment at the voting center. I handed a poll worker my registration card, and she asks whether I want a paper ballot or electronic ballot. Electronic, of course. I’m a techie. I get my key card, turn around and there’s one electronic voting machine, 10 people in line for it, and 15 paper ballot voting machines with no one using them. WAAA WHAAA. Or slide whistle. Your choice.

I got at the end of the stupid train. We slowly waddled towards the front. When it was my turn, the “Next” button wasn’t responding to my touch. I mentioned it to the poll worker. “Oh, it does that a lot. Just keep hitting it until something happens.” I whacked the screen like a monkey trying to get chocolate coins to fall out of the machine. Meanwhile,  people smart enough to use paper ballots, which seemed like everyone who came in after me, were walking in and out. Also, the paper ballots were being electronically scanned on the spot. So essentially it was electronic voting without a line.

It is amazing how much the democratic race changed in just over a week. There are election markets like Intrade that has no predictive power, but are good reflections of current sentiment and conventional wisdom. Barack Obama’s share price was at 45 on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th. He and Hillary Clinton were virtually tied in votes and delegates won on that day. Now, on Feb. 13th,  after a string of expected but still impressive victories, it is at 74. There are a lot of explanations as to why this happened so quickly, but I think a major one is what I suggested last week.

I expect some heavy mudslinging to start in a day or two. Clinton is at a do or die point right now, and will be attacking him ferociously in hopes of winning both OH and TX (she needs to win both at this point, or at least have a blowout win in one of these two states). McCain will probably start attacking the new front-runner Obama in earnest (as he did in his victory speech last night). The media, for a variety of reasons (including perhaps a subconscious desire to not want the Cinton/Obama race to end) will be harsher on him. The next Democratic debate, debate #23 (no, I’m not kidding, although a few of the debates Wikipedia counts aren’t real debates) will be dubbed as The Most Super Duper Important Debate So Far and will likely end up being the same as debates 1-22: kind of important. It will make for a few interesting weeks.

* A reporter told Mike Huckabee that it was almost impossible for him to get enough delegates to win and asked why is he still running. Huckabee responded, “I didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles.” I think what he meant was, “I’m hoping McCain has a heart attack.”