For a mere ten thousand dollars, I will take a polygraph test which will completely prove that John McCain had his gay mansexual way with me and an illegal immigrant in a torrid homo-pervert three-way. Then, he spat on the Bible and affirmed his dual loyalties to the Democratic Party and Osama Bin Laden.

Ten thousand bucks, Mr. Huckabee. How can you pass up a bargain like that? Eh? Eh?

Obama: “Hey, guess what: I’m a liberal, and you fucking love it, don’t you, you independent voters and crossover Republicans. Oh, yes you do. You know it. That’s right, cheer me as I promise to be explicitly pro-labour. Cheer for daddy. Uh huh.”

McCain: “It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats choose Clinton or Obama, because they are both evil soul-sucking vampires offering fake champagne promises and cut-rate, government caviar dreams. Only vaguely libertarian promises can lead us to the promised land, where terrorists die with a wave of magic fingers.”

Clinton: “I’m still here! Really! Twenty-five-percent margins of defeat? I see none of these things. So what if the other guy won women voters by nearly twenty percent tonight? I have mandates, people! Mandates!“

Via Obsidian Wings:

From a political blog’s comments after the Maine caucuses tonight:

Any word on the percent of african-americans voting for obama?

In Maine? I’m guessing Fred and Brenda voted for Obama, and Joe voted for Clinton.

I don’t know for sure if I’m one of them (although the idea certainly has its attractions), but: fifteen percent of Canadians would give up their right to vote in the next federal election if it meant being able to vote in the current U.S. presidential election.

(Via Buzz.)

Today, Democrats (and independents, and even a few Republicans) will have the opportunity to vote in primaries for their candidate for President. I’ve already endorsed Barack Obama previously, but that was just a quick one-off of me more or less saying “yes, I like him.” I figured I should be more comprehensive.

So.

Firstly, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: my personal preferences aside, Hillary Clinton would make at least a good President, and just possibly a very good one. I am sure she would do the job well enough, and getting Bill Clinton in the bargain as an unofficial advisor is no small deal. As a candidate, however, Hillary Clinton is, bluntly, terrible. It doesn’t matter how intelligent and capable and even charming she is; she comes into the presidential election with slightly less than half of the electorate utterly unwilling to vote for her.

Is this fair? Of course not. Hillary Clinton’s demonization by the right wing has never been even remotely fair. But likewise, it wasn’t fair that Al Gore got tarred as a serial liar in 2000 when he wasn’t in fact lying. It wasn’t fair that John Kerry got demonized for his military service. It wasn’t fair that an otherwise clever, personable wonk was given the nigh-unelectable name of “Paul Tsongas.” Politics is many things, but it is not fair.

But even if Hillary Clinton did not carry with her this baggage, Barack Obama would still be the choice. I feel the need to illustrate my point thusly: the overwhelming feeling of all us foreigners towards America right now as regards Obama can most accurately be described as jealousy. Great statesmen are rarities in any nation; we all mostly make do with capable technocrats and charming rascals, and for the most part this is good enough. But every so often a nation gets a truly amazing leader, someone all the other countries look at and wonder “why can’t our leaders be like that” – a Churchill, a de Gaulle, a Trudeau, a Mandela.

Am I saying Barack Obama is one such? Not necessarily. But more than any leader I can remember seeing since Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama exemplifies the promise of greatness. He has shown he is willing to speak plain truths. (A friend of mine watched last Thursday’s debate with me, and his jaw dropped when he heard Obama bluntly name an attack question on illegal immigration the scapegoating that it was. “Does he want to lose the election?” he asked me, not realizing that if anything, Obama’s answer probably won it for him.)

Critics of Obama often lash out at his tendency for rhetoric, but rhetoric is only a crime where specificity is missing, and Obama has nothing if not a powerful understanding of policy. (I won’t pretend to agree with him on health care mandates, but ultimately he and I agree on the necessity of universal health care coverage, and he has displayed in his political career an admirable tendency to use what works. Everything else is dross.)

Moreover, though, what irritates me is the charge that Obama is instilling the electorate with unreasonable expectations, that causing people to believe that simply electing the right man can turn everything around. Do these people not read history? Franklin D. Roosevelt was the one man of his time; so was Mikhail Gorbachev. Give one man enough power and he can change the world for the better or the worse – we know this. So I assume those who level this accusation believe Obama incapable of living up to such expectations.

True, maybe he can’t do it. But – and I say this wholly convinced of the truth of it – unlike any presidential candidate in at least the last twenty years, he’s got a shot. Say that to yourself, again: in dark times (and these are very dark times, don’t think otherwise for a second), there is at least one presidential candidate who can be better, and who more importantly inspires other people to believe they can be better, and if they believe they can be better, they will usually try to be better. I’m sure you can appreciate the ripple effect at work.

There is nothing criminal in trying to appeal to what Lincoln called “the better angels of our natures.” It is, at root, how politics should work.

So, please – vote for Barack Obama. Prove to the rest of the world that America can still do something that is holy-shit stupendous. Believe me, we all want to see you do it, very badly indeed.

Quite possibly the best comprehensive analysis of the Democratic Super Tuesday races on the entire goddamned internets.

Tip of the hat to Jim Smith, without whom I totally would have missed this:

Over the past month a new Axis of Evil has emerged — not one based in Damascus, Tehran or Pyongyang — but instead in Cedar Rapids, Charleston, South Carolina, Derry, New Hampshire and Boca Raton, Florida.

No, seriously. He’s not kidding!

I can hear you saying, “surely you aren’t saying that South Carolina has gone liberal — are you?” Are you kidding me? Drive through the Carolinas and count the number of license plates from NJ, NY and Pennsylvania. There is not much Dixie in the Carolinas; it’s more like Trenton and Long Island with fireworks.

HOLY SHIT, YOU GUYS, HE IS SERIOUS WHEN HE WRITES THIS. This guy is actually theorizing, for reals, that the South Carolina primary was manipulated by out-of-state voters, who moved down to South Carolina to subvert it with their liberal values. You could not make this sort of person up if you tried.

“But”, you protest, “New Hampshire, is Live Free or Die, it’s been a backbone of conservatism since the 1950’s.” No longer my friends — NH has become an exurb of Boston, with Boston’s sensibilities and, ugh, their voting tastes. NH hasn’t been reliably conservative since Reagan’s first term. These voters would rather be loved by the Boston Globe, than respected by the Union Leader.

In fairness, he has a point here. I mean, just last week I got an email saying “dear Chris, I have a problem. As a native of New Hampshire, I know I should be rightly considerate of my local media’s respect of me. However, the Boston Globe has a bigger comics page and a crossword daily, rather than five days a week. I find myself torn. Do you think perhaps if I lobbied the Union-Leader to add more sudoku, I could remain loyal to my home state’s newspaper? Signed, An Imaginary Person Who Does Not Exist.”

“Iowa, that’s America, with small town values and homespun sensibilities.” Wrong again — Iowa is just a state brimming with farmers on the federal dole, college students and ex hippie professors looking to con, libs in training at Grinnell.

oh god i can’t breathe

make him stop

please

oh god

If liberals from Englewood Cliffs NJ want to vote liberal, it’s going to get cancelled out by conservatives in Chattanooga — who might actually get to vote for Fred.

And here we come to the crux of it – this is Angry Fred Thompson Voter Man #789. This is the man who just can’t get over the fact that most people think Fred Thompson is a lazy-ass bastard who, while he may be awfully good at saying things like “the Russians don’t take a dump without a plan, son!” is not actually a particularly impressive politician, thinker, or much of anything else other than a second-rate character actor.

Make every state vote on exactly the same day. Make every candidate compete in EVERY state at the exact same time and hold every single GOP primary and caucus on Super Tuesday.

There’s pros and cons to this idea, but dumbass here doesn’t seem to realize that this plan would have annihilated Fred Thompson, who entered the campaign with not a lot of money and hoped to build momentum from a couple of early victories – you know, the traditional route for candidates who don’t have a lot of money. That’s the advantage of the primary system – it allows good candidates with low resources to gradually gain them.

The other advantage of the primary system, incidentally, is that it allows voters to spot bad candidates over the course of the campaign, like Rudy Giuliani – or, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson. Seriously, can you imagine Fred Thompson, the biggest verbal stumblebum in the entire 2008 presidential race, as the Republican nominee? Chris Dodd and Joe Biden would have eaten him for breakfast, let alone Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

But wait, I still haven’t given you the dramatic conclusion of this dimwit’s “voters I disagree with are the new terrorists” spiel:

RINOS and Liberals have taken the GOP plane hostage, and its time for us passengers to revolt…and do what has to be done — Let’s Roll.

*applause*

I was watching the Democratic debate just now, and Hillary Clinton suggested that having a woman President would “change the world.” Pretty obviously in response to the fact that the Obama campaign excites people because, hey, potential black president, that’s a big deal.

Look, I hate to have to be the one to say it, but outside of the United States, a woman leader of state just isn’t that big a deal, okay? Margaret Thatcher took office nearly thirty years ago! Like, two-thirds of the First World have already done it at one point or another, and those that haven’t have had female political party leaders for years and years.

This is why the Obama campaign impresses non-Americans so much more than the Hillary campaign does; most countries have managed to overcome sexism to an extent – I’m not suggesting anybody’s solved it yet or anything, but women participating in the political process as leaders isn’t even a novelty any longer. In comparison, the Obama campaign is unique because it threatens to overcome, at least symbolically (and some might argue that “symbolically” is half the battle right from the get-go), the racial power gap in America – which is something no country has done. European political parties, even with greater immigrant and increasingly nonwhite populations, are still pretty much white white white. Even in Canada, we don’t have a single nonwhite leader of a political party.

That’s why the Obama campaign is impressive. From a symbolic standpoint, the Hillary campaign is about catching up to the rest of the world. The Obama campaign is about lapping it.

Well, if Obama loses the Democratic nomination, it’s certainly not going to be for lack of funding.

$32 million on January, with 170,000 new donors? That’s insane.

Erick “Not An Actual Viking” Erickson is on a tear lately. Now that he’s told us all how black people aren’t actual voters and that white Democrats are all racists for not voting for Barack Obama (except those that did, but they don’t count), he’s attacking NOW New York for their attack on Ted Kennedy (among others).

Now, admittedly, NOW-NY’s press release is batshit insane and patronizing to feminists, to say the least. (I particularly liked this response from Feministe‘s comments: “Silly me! I thought feminism was about equality and social justice, and it’s really about being in a club and making sure my club wins!”)

But good ol’ Erick! It’s not enough to say that the statement is stupid hyperbole. No, Erick Erickson goes the distance to make sure you all know exactly what he thinks of those durn feminists.

As the Clintons and their supporters continue their destruction of the Democratic Party, we see the latest salvo fired from the thighs of ugly nags.

IT COMES OUT OF THEIR VAGINAS WHICH THEY DO NOT EVEN BOTHER TO SHAVE!

From the nether regions that see no men, New York’s National Association of Gals is out bashing Teddy Kennedy

1.) “Gals”? Does Erickson think he is in a 1940s newsroom comedy? Next up: the unironic use of “tough dames.”

2.) I’d ask “what the hell is his unseemly, nervous fascination with pussy,” but, well, i understand why he might be obsessed with pussy. Hint: it is much the same reason that Belloq was obsessed with the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Since Janet Reno endorsed Hillary that should negate this one man’s physical battery against womankind.

“Because Janet Reno is a dog, just like all those ugly feminists! HAW HAW HAW! Pass me the porn.”

Or a paid operative, or a spam-flunky for a political campaign.

Figure A. From myDD.

Figure B. From Marc Ambinder’s blog:

Shorter Erick Erickson: the party running a black man as a serious presidential candidate is totally racist because white people actually vote for candidates other than him.

Some choice bits:

In New Hampshire, white Democrats turned out overwhelming to reject the uppity black man who dared to challenge the Democratic establishment.

“Overwhelming” in this case refers to a difference of two point five percent, the margin by which Clinton beat Obama. I understand that Erick is a Republican and as such is used to thinking that two point five percent is a massive triumph, worthy of, say, a Presidential mandate for whatever George Bush wants, but in the rest of the world, two point five percent is actually a pretty fucking close finish.

But wait, there’s more!

In South Carolina tonight, Democratic voters would rather vote for the rich, Southern, white man than either the black man or the female yankee.

My word, you mean a fairly local candidate from the Carolinas did better than two Northerners? That is unheard of. You know what else? Barack Obama is leading in Illinois! I know! And Hillary Clinton is leading in New York, despite the fact that there are black people in New York City! Alert the (non-biased portion of the) media!

(Also for amusement value: note that Erickson conflates “voters” with “people who aren’t black.” You know, because Obama won South Carolina. But, as has been witnessed before from conservative commentators, black votes are kind of fake, and not nearly so important as nice white voters.)

In fact, exit polling by and large shows that John Edwards, by staying in the race, is taking votes that would otherwise typically go to Barack Obama. Is this a racist ploy? Is John Edwards in league with the Clintons to make sure white voters, who don’t want to vote for Clinton, have a white alternative to go to, lest Barack Obama get more traction?

Now this is bit is just flat-out wrong, and I don’t mean “my god, how dare he utter such things” wrong, but “two and two is five” wrong. Exit polling by and large shows that John Edwards is siphoning away white male voters from Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. It’s one of the reasons Obama won so hugely tonight: he only got a quarter of the white male vote, but did well among blacks and women, and Hillary lost ground with Edwards scooping up support that otherwise would have gone to her.

And what of the Clintons? Bill is out comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. In fact, the Clintons have made race a sport in this primary election. They are reminding white Democratic voters that Barack Obama is black.

How can that tactic work? It seems it can only work if Democrat voters are, in fact, racist.

Bill is comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson because Jackson is a polarizing figure, much like Al Sharpton (a figure who, amazingly, has not endorsed Obama yet, and for that the Obama campaign is almost certainly very thankful). Jackson is a corrupt, philandering, self-important dickhead. Yes, racial politics are at play here, and Bill Clinton definitely gets asshole points for trying to link Obama to Jesse Jackson.

But guess what – if Obama is the candidate come the fall, you won’t be able to go two fucking steps without hearing Republican attack ads calling Barack Obama the new Jesse Jackson. (And a secret Muslim terrorist to boot!)

And again: number of black people who have run for President as a Republican: one. Alan Keyes. Who is batshit insane. The Democrats manage to put up credible black politicians in their presidential campaigns; the Republicans, not so much. You know why? Because if you’re going to say that one party or other is definitively racist, it’s gonna be the Republicans. Yes, Robert Byrd is a Democrat. Guess what: Jesse Helms is a Republican. So is Trent Lott. So was Strom Thurmond. So is (etc.)

Yes, your choice of acronym is very clever.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: Look, the “well some Democrats make fun of Bush in a mean way too” entirely misses the point. Calling Bush et al dickheads or assholes is just being rude; calling Hillary a cunt, and especially in this knowing, schoolboyish way, is downright misogynistic. And that is the difference.

Regardless of whether or not you think Barack Obama should be President (and I do), you have to admit this is one hell of a speech, both in terms of style and content and the sheer balls required to make it.