Three Men Get into a Taxi... Does Fareed Zakaria have a point about our elections?

There's a joke that is very popular in Mexico and it goes something like this... Three guys are in a taxi on their way to the airport and they begin to talk about elections and whose country is the best.  The first guy, and American, says that in his country, the greatest democracy in the world, after everyone votes, the people know the results after only a few hours, or days, at most. The second guy, from China, boasts that that's nothing.  In China he says, with a billion people, they have gigantic computers that count the votes and they no the winner the minute the polls close, which is clearly better than America. Scoffing at this, the third guy, from Mexico chimes in... That's nothing he says, puffing out his chest with pride... in my country millions of people vote in every election and you know what?  We know the results a month ahead of time! With this in the back of my mind, I was surprised Sunday morning to hear Fareed Zakaria on his GPS Show reference Mexico as a place where the United States can look for guidance in how to run an election. Here's what he said... Imagine a country on Election Day where you know the results the instant the polls close. The votes are counted electronically, every district and state has the same rules and the same organized voting procedure. It is managed by a nonpartisan independent party. Sounds like the greatest democracy in the world, right? Try Mexico or France, Germany, Brazil, certainly not the United States of America. American has one of the world's most antique, politicized and dysfunctional procedures for its elections. A crazy, quilt patchwork of state and local laws with partisan officials making key decisions and ancient technology that often breaks down. There are no national standards. American voters in more than a dozen states, for example, don't need identification, but even India, with a GDP just 12 percent that of ours, is implementing a national biometric database for 1.2 billion voters. The nascent democracy in Iraq famously dipped voters' fingers in purple to ensure they didn't vote again. Why are we do behind the curve? The conservative columnist, David Frum, recently wrote an excellent article for CNN.com and he tells a story about the 2000 presidential election. The City of St. Louis, Missouri, had outdated voting equipment so there were long delays in voting. But St. Louis was heavily Democratic so Al Gore's campaign asked a judge to extend voting by three hours. The judge agreed, but then George W. Bush's campaign protested and the judge was overruled. Meanwhile, voting had already continued 45 minutes past the legal time. Is that how elections should work in the world's greatest democracy? In most other countries, an independent national body would make the big decisions, there would be nonpartisan observers at the polls and, of course, there would be modern, functioning equipment. Even Venezuela, which had elections last month, had electronic voting booths with biometric technology across the country. We've been criticized around the world for this. I saw a scathing, 116-page report about our electoral process published by, of all places, Russia. Here's the Wall Street Journal's translation of it, "The electoral system and electoral of the United States are contradictory, archaic, and moreover do not meet the democratic principles that the U.S. proclaims are fundamental to its foreign and domestic policy." I hate to say it, but Moscow has a point. On the other hand, we do have one thing the Russians don't, actual free elections. This election season, we've seen attempts to shorten the early voting period to further one party's chances of victory. Our ballots can be as long as a dozen pages. In some places, they're paper ballots and, in some, they're electronic. And Election Day always falls on a Tuesday, a working day. Every four years, we see the chaos of American elections, but nothing changes. This week, international election observers were banned from nine states. Some of these men and women were threatened with arrest. Maybe we should learning from election officials from abroad not trying to throw them into jail. I will tell you that in Mexico's case, as the joke implies, there are some problems. But there are some strengths as well.  If you are going to vote, you need a national elector card provided by that non partisan group Zakaria referenced.  Your finger, after you vote, is inked like in many countries, to prevent double voting.  You will also see poll watchers at almost every precinct from the major political parties working to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote gets that opportunity. Finally, Mexico votes on a Sunday, when most people do not work and can more easily get to the polls and not miss a day of work.  The winner is then announced that evening at 10:00pm. Do they have it all figured out?  No they don't, and neither do any of those other countries listed above.  But maybe, just maybe, the United States can look across the global spectrum and come up with a system that is better for us, mixing the strengths of some of these places. We've got to do something... because a system that is controlled by whichever party wins the various Secretary of State office elections across this country is ripe for partisan abuse. Right now the world is laughing at us.  As we admonish the rest of the world to become more democratic like us, they are asking why.  Why should they allow political parties to take control of their public airwaves for six months every two years, broadcast lie after lie, and then send people to stand in sometimes, five hours lines, for the right to cast a vote that may take days, or weeks to count, if it is even counted at all?

America lost before the voting began...

A quick reading of the results of yesterdays election would say that Barack Obama won and Mitt Romney lost. But the truth is that the American people lost and the results were in far before anyone voted and sat down last night in anticipation of seeing their candidate elected to the presidency. In the famous words of Bernie Mac, listen up America, we lost.  But not for the reasons you might think. We lost because money won.  That’s right America, money won! Let me explain. The cost for this years presidential contest was over 2 billion, not million, dollars.  70 million dollars was spent to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts, 55 million for a seat in Texas, 30 million for the Wisconsin seat and over 40 million dollars was spent by the candidates for the Senate seat in Montana.  Montana?  There are less than a million people living in the state and you need 40 mil to campaign there? How about over 21 million to win a seat in congress for candidates from Florida or 20 million for the Speaker of the House to be reelected in Ohio. The influence of big money from individuals and corporations on both sides of the political spectrum has damaged our system perhaps, beyond repair. The question is whether America will rise up and demand the kind of change necessary to return the political system to the people. I am not encouraged. All recent attempts by politicians, individuals and even state governments to limit the amounts of money spent on races have been met by a chorus of naysayers screaming about first amendment rights of free speech.   When a group gets a law passed limiting spending, the lawsuits begin almost immediately.  Think Citizens United, McCain-Feingold or the still being litigated campaign finance law from Montana. Ideas for publicly funded elections have been derided as European hoighty-toightyness. Calls for public openness of political donors in real time have routinely been met with derision by the recipients, and donors, of these exorbitant large sums. As you and I, the John Q. Public people, express our open disdain almost daily during these campaigns, we are totally ignored.   Have you taken a look at your Facebook page today?  There are so many people thanking God that the commercials are over, it’s incredible. The little girl crying on You Tube who was sick of Bronc Obama and Mitt Romney was just expressing what most of us have felt everyday the last few months.  Monday I went to my mail box and it took me 10 minutes to sort through all political ads just to find my two pieces of actual mail. Yet in spite of this disgust and the total corruption of our political system, we the people refuse to demand change and hold our political representatives feet to the fire. America, we did not lose last night when Barack Obama was elected and we would not have lost had Mitt Romney prevailed. We had already lost when we willfully refused to put any limits on the amount of money that could be spent to win an election in this great country. Somehow I doubt this is what our founders envisioned when they penned the First Amendment giving us the right of free speech. What say you?

Let's go to the Map... the elections and electors...

Our presidential elections are all going to come down to one thing... the map! That's right, after all is said and done, after all of the debates, speeches, charges and counter charges, lies and dirty tricks, all that is going to matter will be the map. And 270 electoral votes. Because here in these United States of America, you can lose the popular vote and still be president if you can amass the magic number of 270 electoral votes. So, here's my question. Being realistic, what states will Mr. Romney be able to pick off from the list that President Obama carried in 2008? Here's a link to a nifty interactive map... take a look, give it a try, and leave your ideas...

Voting Rights... a sane approach to an insane problem...

As we say in Spanish… Ya! Basta! Enough is enough! I am talking about all this blathering about voter registration, curtailment of rights, political gain, and disenfranchisement of folks, primarily those who are older or poor. As I understand it, conservatives are saying there are potentially thousands of people voting in elections who have no right to vote because they are here illegally. Liberals on the other hand are saying that requiring people to have a government issued ID will be a financial or logistical hardship on elderly and poor people and potentially college students as well. Can we all agree that maybe, just maybe, both sides are a little bit right here? And then look for a sane middle ground solution? Libs, get over it!  What can possibly be wrong with requiring everyone in our country to show proof of legal residence as a prerequisite to voting?  The idea that requiring people to show ID to vote is not some rogue plot to disenfranchise enough voters to steal an election. And you conservatives, is it too much to ask that you acknowledge that there are in fact some people who have lived here legally for years, who just don’t have any form of ID that you would accept?  I am thinking 87 year old Aunt Clara who doesn’t drive and has lost her birth certificate and has been voting since the Eisenhower Admin. So, what should we do? Here is where I would start. First, for the integrity of our election system, we should set a goal that every registered voter must show proof of legal residency.  In Mexico, where I work, every single person of voting age must have a valid federal election identification card.  If Mexico can pull this off, so can we. Second, let’s understand that for some people, this really will be a hardship and come up with a system that both gets us towards our stated goals, but takes into account some very real world issues. We should not be denying Aunt Clara her right to vote. Let’s pick an arbitrary age, perhaps 55, and say everyone below that age better get on board.  If you are older than 55, there will be no change in your status.  In just a few short years, we will get to 100% compliance without denying anyone their right to vote. Then we make getting a state ID free if you do not have a driver’s license.  The system is already in place for doing this, so the cost would be negligible.  For little Johnny who is in college, he should be able to show his drivers license or hs free state issued ID and his college ID card. By grandfathering in the people who are over 55, we take the issue of senior citizens who might have lived under a more lax system off the complaint board.  By providing free state issued ID’s if you do not drive, we eliminate a potential problem for the extremely poor.  By accepting a combination of both state and college issued ID, we are making it easier for non-resident students to vote. By designing a system that allows all legal residents the opportunity to vote, and prevents those who are not registered from tampering with our voting system, we will be insuring that our elections will not be subject to manipulation by people with no right to vote. Finally, and this is huge, these provisions should be enshrined in federal law so that we have one standard across this great country.  A fifty state country with fifty different electoral laws is election fraud in the making.  Only with a single policy, with broad agreement across party and state lines will we solve this issue equitably. Your thoughts are welcomed…

The Mexican Elections... a step to the left, or two steps back?

***UPDATE BELOW*** As I write, Mexico is making final preparations for the presidential elections to be held tomorrow, July 1st.. The country seems as divided as the United States politically as roughly the same percentage of voters favor left leaning candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the PRD and Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI. The third major candidate, Josefina Vazquez Mota of the PAN Party, has virtually no chance as polls show her trailing the top two candidates badly. Whoever wins, the election is going to have major consequences for the United States. Both Peña Nieto and Lopez Obrador are advocating policies in the drug war, which has claimed over 50,000 victims over the last 6 years, that would basically allow the free flow of drugs to the United States. Mexico is asking whether it is worth the cost in money and lives to fight a war over a product that is essentially passing through the country on the way to the wealthy drug users. Let me put it another way. Why should Mexican citizens die in a futile attempt to curtail an insatiable addiction of another country?  After all, Mexico is not a major player when it comes to drug use, rather, it is more of a transit route. Peña Nieto has said his administration will focus on crimes that directly affect the Mexican people.  That includes things like extortion, kidnapping and murder.  Lopez Obrador, in classic leftist rhetoric is saying he will take the military off the streets in six months and put his focus jobs for the millions of underemployed young people in the country. Notice that neither candidate is saying he will continue the war on drugs that was undertaken six years ago by current President, Felipe Calderone. As I listen to everyday people on the street, here is what I am sensing. It is time to return to the days of the PRI, the party that ruled Mexico for 70 years before finally losing in 2000 to PAN candidate Vicente Fox. I was in Mexico on the night he was elected and all I can say is that the country was ecstatic.  They had finally done it, had finally declawed the dinosaur.  And now, just 12 years later, they are ready to give that dinosaur life again. That is the view of the establishment.   Young people, the type that were partly responsible for the Arab Spring across the Middle East, are all in for Lopez Obrador.  But I do not think they have the numbers to make the difference. I believe Lopez Obrador dashed his own hopes to win the presidency by acting like a spoiled brat after he narrowly lost to Felipe Calderone in 2006.  If, after that election he had accepted defeat gracefully, rather than crying fraud and trying to set up a shadow government in exile, the people would have backed him heavily this time around. I will be in Oaxaca City all morning and the rural areas in the afternoon trying to get a sense of what is happening.  We are being told that a winner will be announced by midnight. Soon we will have a new President-Elect in Mexico and a new policy towards the United States.  Who can say where this will lead, except that it seems certain that whoever wins will be looking for a way to curtail the violence that has led to more deaths in Mexico in 6 years than we saw in the entire Vietnam War that so consumed our country. Want to read more? From the Washington Post From John Ackerman in The Nation AmericasMexico Blog Update As expected, Enrique Peña Nieto was elected the new president of Mexico.  His margin of victory however was much less than the polls showed.  In pre-election polling, he was leading Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador [AMLO] by over 10%.  His margin of victory will end up about 5%. AMLO has, like he did when he lost in 2006, cried fraud, although his supporters have turned up nothing that could even remotely change the final tally, even if everything he alleges were true. Mexico has worked hard to reform their system and for a majority of the country, there is a feeling that AMLO just cannot, or will not accept that he lost. I am sure this will lead to some protests around the country starting tomorrow when the official tallies are released.   Now we will wait for the upcoming changes in the war on drugs that has claimed so many lives...

Primaries, Caucuses, and the GOP...

As many of you know, I am in working to get a well on line for our farm in Tlacolula, Oaxaca. I got here in mid-January and will not return to the states until well after the Nevada Caucus dates. That means I will not be getting a chance to participate in, or read all of the breathless blather that will try and tell folks that anyone else other than Mitt Romney has a shot at the Republican nomination. Folks, here is what the GOP needs to understand. The nomination is going to Mitt Romney barring an 11th hour move by the party big-wigs to choose a different type of candidate. No matter what their supporters think, the reality is that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul have absolutely no chance to actually capture the nomination. Santorum has no money and is too far to the right on social issues for the average GOP voter. Paul is too old and not enough of a military hawk to appeal to the military industrial wing of the party. And Gingrich, well he’s Newt. In spite of all of the money Las Vegas zillionaire Sheldon Adelson is pumping into his campaign, Newt can’t out run the facts... he makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of moral virtue. And so that leaves Mitt. And a bunch of questions as we move achingly slow to the Republican Convention in Tampa later this year. Why are these folks still in the race? In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled all the way through June. Why? Because there was a conceivable path to victory for both of them. Not a single partisan supporter of the three GOP losers can give a reasonable explanation of how their candidate will get the nomination. So I ask again, why are they still in the race? It must be because while they believe Mitt will be wrong for America if he wins and that he cannot beat President Obama, they are hoping to get something out of staying. Is it a nice book deal? Is it the Vice Presidency? Is it a cabinet spot? Or is it front runner status in the 2016 presidential elections after Obama wins reelection this year? There has got to be reason, or maybe these guys are all just folks with oversized egos who can’t understand that they have already lost the election to a man named Mitt. You tell me. PS... the postcard is in honor of Dmarks, a big post card guy and another blogger who occasionally checks in here at the mission...

The Party's Over!

The Obama Presidency is over. Oh, we're still in it, but much like Germany was lost when the Allies landed on Normandy Beach before the actual surrender, this war has been decided. The country is in a funk, and when we are in a funk, the guy at the top loses his job. It's the American way. When a football team is unable to win, rarely do owners look at the bunch of losers suiting up every week as the problem, because to do so would also necessitate looking at who hired them. Nope, when a football team fails to live up to expectations, the coach is dismissed and they try another approach. And that is what is going to happen here, and no amount of wishing, hoping, reasoning, or complaining is going to change this metric. Because day by day, President Obama is losing his base. A new study from the LA Times reveals the problems he is facing. In a state where he still outpolls every GOP challenger, a state where government largesse is legend, people are calling on the biggest employer in the nation, government, to put more people out of work. Yes Virginia, even California is calling for reduced government spending. If a Democrat is going to have issues in California, how is his message going to play in Missouri? Virginia? Nevada? or Pennsylvania? These are all states Obama must win to secure the nomination. Now I know people can point to a host of reasons behind these findings. You can probably even argue that the GOP has been the driver of the bus to oblivion. But that will not matter. What will matter is what the Clinton War Room instinctively knew in the 1992 and 1996 elections. It's the economy stupid! And right now our economy sucks and does not look like it is getting better anytime soon. This has been coming for the Democrats for a long time. It is their day of reckoning. As it is for our country. What we are facing is not a GOP manufactured, or a Democrat manufactured crisis. What we are facing is the natural result of our headlong rush to live outside of our means. Instead of saving and buying, as our parents and grandparents did, we believed we were entitled to a better life and we borrowed to get it. Sure the political parties enabled us, and to a point, even exacerbated the problem, but no one put a gun to our heads and forced us to refinance our houses did they? Who made you buy your son that shiny new bicycle when he could not yet ride it? Did someone sign our names on all those charge receipts for dinner at the local Sizzler when we were short of money, short of food, and wanted to feel better about it? The Republicans are right. We have been on a spending spree for years now, and the note is now due. Unless President Obama can figure out a way to get this economy moving without additional funds, in the words of old Dandy Don Meredith on Monday Night Football, "Turn out the lights, the party's over!"

Better the Devil You Know?

Today is the day. Today millions of Americans will head to the polls to either take America back from someone, presumably the Anti Americans, or to vote against the extremists. You’ll be able to tell who is voting against the extremists because they include the Code Pink people and folks who wear cow costumes to political events. Here in Nevada, the biggest race is between Senator Dirty Harry Reid and Sharron Extreme Right Angle. I am amazed at the conversations you can have here if you are willing to put up with a little foaming at the mouth from folks. Those supporting Ms. Angle decry the government getting involved in all walks of life, yet they reject her ideas to privatize Social Security, the VA, and Medicare. Apparently anti government ire has its limits and those limits run about like this… Keep the governments hands off of my Medicare. And while many in the crowd supporting Angle believe that elected officials should just follow the will of the people, many in Nevada suspend that view when it comes to Yucca Mountain and a national nuclear repository. The Reid supporters, who are apparently unable to say Ms. Angle’s name with adding the extremist moniker, seem fundamentally unable to grasp that folks are worried here and want to see an end to the economic crisis and the way it is impacting our state. Everyone knows Reid is prone to making verbal gaffes, but he does not have the personality of Joe Biden to weather the storms connected to those gaffes. The Reid camp does not seem to understand that his statement that the war in Iraq was lost, true or not, was offensive and hurtful to people, especially in a military state like Nevada. Calling a sitting President a liar, another Reid classic, does not win you a lot of friends back home. And so here we are, forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in our little insignificant state that is made up primarily of land owned by the federal government. As for me, I am a living example of the old Tip O’Neill adage that “All politics is local.” States like Nevada do not have a lot of influence back in Washington. I believe that it is not in our best interest to enter the fracas known as the next national budget cycle with one hand tied behind our back. Nevada will need every resource, friend, and trick in the book to guard our interests in the coming season of declining revenue. Freshman senators do not have that kind of clout, but I fear I am in the minority with that thinking here in Nevada. I believe tomorrow morning we will wake up to the news that Sharron Angle has upended Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. **Update** The Associated Press and Fox News have just called the race tonight for Senator Reid. At this moment, Sharron Angle is not winning her own county. Like Former Vice President AL Gore in 2000, the people that knew her best, her friends and neighbors, did not have enough confidence in her abilities. Here's hoping this will be the last we see of the person the conservative newspaper, the Las Vegas Review Journal, twice called the worst legislator in the state.

Jesus For Congress?

Just a few more days and then we can return to our regular diet of commercials for little blue pills, feminine hygiene products, and the latest gadgets you can get for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling. But wait, there’s more! That’s right. Before you can experience that return to nether land and enjoy a sweeps month of no reruns of your favorite shows, you have to endure one last week of campaign ads, all aimed at convincing you that everyone running for office is either: A. a sleaze ball B. a thief, murderer, or child molester C. a commie, socialist, pinko, gun hating Godless idiot D. an extremely estreme extremist or E. all of the above It’s a wonder anyone would want to serve when to get elected, you must subject yourself to the most heinous character assignations imaginable. Valerie Dixon, writing in the On Faith column of the Washington Post recently, wondered how Jesus might fare if he were running for office in any of the most competitive districts across the United States next Tuesday. See what you think as he imagines what types of commercials His opponent might run. On foreign policy: Scene: A shot of the World Trade Center towers falling. Voiceover: 9/11. The nation suffers the worst attack on its soil in history. But Jesus says that we ought to love the people who did this. He says: "do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who misuse and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44) Love al Qaeda? Do good to the people who attacked us? This is no plan to keep us safe. Jesus. Soft on defense. Wrong for America. On guilt by association: Scene: Nighttime on a city corner where prostitutes and drug dealers are doing business. Cut to Jesus having dinner with the same people. Voice: People are known by the company they keep. Jesus is friend to prostitutes, drug dealers, tax collectors. Is this the kind of man we want in the United States Senate? Jesus. He's just not one of us. On family values: Scene: Children outside playing in the yard, happy and carefree. The father is washing the car while the mother watches from the kitchen window. Everyone is happy and contented. Voice: Strong families are the backbone of America. Faith and family are what make this country strong. Next scene: Father and son are screaming at each other. A daughter stomps out of the room, slams the door and leaves the mother looking lost and bewildered. Voice: But Jesus wants families to be at war with each other. He said: "For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10: 35-36) Is this what we want for our families? Is war in our homes a family value? Keep Jesus in Nazareth and in the carpenter's shop. We do not need him in Washington. On Jesus' patriotism: Scene: Jesus is speaking to a large audience. He says: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the Day of Judgment than for you." (Matthew 11: 21-22) Voice: Why does Jesus hate America? Do we really want someone who hates his country so much making laws for us? Real America, tell Jesus no on Election Day. On socialism: Scene: A scene from the movie Dr. Zhivago when he comes home from the war to find strangers living in his house. The woman says there was room for many families here. Freeze frame. Voice: Karl Marx says that the government ought to take from each according to his abilities, and give to each according to his needs. This is socialism. This is communism. Jesus agrees with Marx. He says to be saved, you have to give your hard-earned possessions away. He said: "Go and sell whatever you have and give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."(Mark 10: 21) Jesus. Socialism. Dangerous for America. Your thoughts?

And Now There Are Two...

The News Last night in the Florida Primary, we apparently saw a couple of knockouts. On the Democratic side, after a string of poor showings, John Edwards has decided to call it quits. While seeming like a nice enough guy, Edwards was never able to catch fire, and even lost his home state of South Carolina. I have always believed if the people who know you best will not support you, that says something. It is one of the reasons I never got all that upset over the Al Gore debacle in Florida in 2000. If he had just won his home state of Tennessee, Florida would not have been an issue. On the GOP side, "His Honour" the self styled America's mayor will drop out of the race today. I think this sends a message to all future candidates, Iowa and New Hampshire do matter. Rudy, made a huge mistake, although I am not sure there was any way for him to overcome his leftward slant on some of the social issues important to the GOP, mainly his pro-choice and pro-gay marriage stances. Analysis This is historic stuff. Two parties, two candidates each, two debates this week, heading into what is in reality a national primary, Tuesday, February 5th. That day will also mark the anniversary of our Constitution. What better way to celebrate. On the GOP side, no one thought McCain would still be in the race at this point, let alone the front runner. He was pretty much left for dead after his campaign imploded last summer but has somehow managed to survive, apparently a McCain trait. What is interesting is the number of GOP supporters who hate this guy. There are web sites dedicated to stopping him because he is not conservative enough for them. Most of those people have bought into a philosophy that says the reason Americans are now turning away from the GOP is because they have left their conservative principles and are not conservative enough. The angst for McCain is so deep that people are willing to support a man, Romney, who was so liberal as a Republican he was actually able to become Governor in Ted Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts. Most of their anger stems from the following issues: McCain did not support the Bush tax cuts because he believed they would add to the deficit [they did], did not support the original Bush/Rumsfeld battle plan for Iraq [it was a disaster], was part of bi partisan group that brokered a deal to get Bush's judges seated [it worked well giving the GOP faithful Roberts and Alito], and opposed torture and waterboarding [maybe he knows something]. On the Democratic side, Obama has an uphill battle. He is literally behind in every state voting on Super Tuesday. Unless he is able to break through over the next few days, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic party. I believe this is a seminal moment for the Democrats. Are they ready to move on, or will they be content to go back to the future. The Florida Primary, which Clinton won, meant nothing. Every candidate agreed to and signed a pledge not to compete in that state and that their delegates would not be seated at their convention. That agreement was signed months ago when it appeared that Hillary would be the nominee and was in the middle of her "inevitable" march to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Now that she finds herself in a real battle, she says it is unfair to those delegates. Well Hillary, perhaps you should have said that three months ago, instead of waiting until primary night, after you won, to make your stink. It is the same thing the Clinton campaign did in Nevada where they waited until four days before the caucuses to challenged a procedure they had agreed on months earlier. Allow me to say this. The Clintons have run a despicable campaign. They have distorted Obama's record and positions, injected race into the campaign, and done everything possible to muddy his reputation and name. And now there are people in the Democratic party who are upset. Well get over it. I do not recall hearing any dissent when this type of stuff was visited on the GOP when Bill was running for office and was President. It is disingenuous to now complain about the very practices you supported when it was to your advantage. In short, I can't wait. I'll be serving steaks to a few close friends as we settle in to watch the returns come in. I am not sure that night will settle everything, but I have a hunch John McCain is going to have a pretty good night. And hopefully Obama too. [the views here are mine and mine alone and are not to be seen in any way as representing the views of my current employer]

The Empire Strikes Back!

Last night The Clinton Death Star dealt a potentially fatal blow to the campaign of Barack "Luke Skywalker" Obama. As Obama and his troops reveled in the pre-vote polls predicting a double digit win in New Hampshire, Evil Lord Hillary was out crying and evoking sympathy after her crushing defeat in Iowa. Unlike in Iowa, Clinton carried the female vote in NH and may in fact have been helped immensely by Sen. John McCain drawing thousands of undecided and independent voters to his cause on election day. Hillary has always fared better with the rank and file of the Democratic Party, who strongly supported her side Tuesday night. This simple fact should position her well heading into "Tsunami Tuesday" in early February as those voters can be expected to support her call for changing things back to the way they were in 1992. On the GOP side it will interesting to see if McCain can defeat Romney in the latter's home state of Michigan. Romney's father was governor there in the 60's so his name recognition is pretty high in that neck of the woods. The next two weeks bring us the Nevada Caucuses, the Michigan Primary for the GOP, and the South Carolina Primary, probably the end of the Dead, um Fred Thompson express. Enjoy!

Obama and Huckabee Shine in Iowa

A political earthquake. That's how conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks described the Iowa caucus results in his column today. And he was not just talking about Barack Obama, but Mike Huckabee as well. Here is a little insight into some of the numbers that you may not have seen. First Obama. More men preferred Obama over Hillary. Same with women. Obama was the preferred candidate if you were 59 or younger. Every single income group chose Obama over Hillary. First time voters, liberals, moderates, issue voters, rural voters, you name it. Other than senior citizens and conservative democrats, Barack Obama bested Hillary Clinton in every single category the pollsters tracked. It was remarkable. But what about Huckabee? Men, women, young, old, rich or poor. Every single Republican demographic group other than moderates and non evangelical voters went for Mike Huckabee. It truly was what Brooks called a "Political Earthquake." So what does all of this mean? At this point who knows. But the results do offer up a few questions. First for the GOP. Is this the end of Fred Thompson? He tied John McCain who did not even compete in Iowa. And what about Rudy? Yes he is still running but he was beat by GOP fringe candidate Ron Paul. Will Romney continue to struggle in New Hampshire or will Obama siphon off enough independent voters from McCain allowing Mitt to be this elections "Comeback Kid?" Stay tuned. Now for the Dems. When will the Empire strike back? I cannot believe that the Clinton's will not respond. Remember the famous Clinton war room from the 92 election? Can Barack avoid a costly misstep exposing his relative inexperience? And finally, is Edwards toast? Who will defeated candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd support? We shall soon see. If you want more analysis, check out what my GOP friends Mike and Dee have to say over at their blogs. Yes they are partisan, and GOP... but pretty fair and accurate. You can also check out Barack Obama's after caucus speech over at Roy's Blog, Thin Places. It is excellent. Know this... we are in for a wild and woolly ride as all of this shakes out over the next few weeks, for both parties.