Former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro resigned from Hillary Clinton's campaign Wednesday, one day after making a racially insensitive comment about Barack Obama.  In truly moronic form, the first female ever to appear on a Presidential ticket (with Walter Mondale in 1984) said of Obama, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” 

She then went on to say that it was not a statement of racism, but a statement of fact.  Really?  That is a fact?  Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about that:

Wow.  I mean, this guy is worse than Kerry!

By the way, this election season, I'm starting movement to remove "flip-flop" from the American political discourse. The term makes no sense in relation to a politician's positions because either the pol flips or flops the positions, not both. 360 degrees gets you back to where you started. These are flip-flops, a perfectly good means of transportation, and using them for another purpose only sullies their name. Really, who doesn't love "thong sandals?"

So I'm calling for everyone to start using U-Turn instead. It has actual political roots that date back more than 4 years and the British use it and we all know everything the British do is cool.

McCain is also in my opinion a "bargain," but we'll get to that once the general election starts heating up.

Let's assume the race is down to the two major candidates on either side:  McCain and Romney; Clinton and Obama.  On balance, I'm still convinced that this election is the Democrats' to lose, given the national distaste for the conduct of a Republican administration over the past 8 years, and the war fatigue.  The war fatigue is ironic, though, because at the same time, I also think people want a strong, internationally engaged leader.  We're fed up with our over-exposure abroad, yet we're not quite ready for a completely domestic policy-focused president.

I haven't been inspired enough by any candidate to openly support one yet.  I'm an unregistered independent in New York, so I can't vote in the primary.  I've tried to remain open to this amazingly diverse field, but I still have some unmoved tendencies that have been hard to explain.  The most surprising to me, is that I just don't get Obama.

I hero worship, I constantly ask why we don't have inspirational figures like those of the 1960s, I complain about institutionalized politics and pragmatic moderates, and I used to think Al Gore was too conservative.  All these traits would suggest I might jump on board with Obama and charge full steam ahead.  But, I just don't buy it.

After 8 years of Bush, I want to make sure that the next president is, most importantly, not a Republican.  But also, the next president has to be able to accomplish as much policy change in federal government as possible in their short time in office.  For many reasons, I'm convinced that person, for better or worse, is not Obama.  It's Hillary.

I don't like her personally.  She fails to inspire me in any substantial way.  She is very much politics as usual.  But she is powerful.  She is composed, firm, motivated, dedicated, and she has powerful friends.  And her husband is Bill Fucking Clinton.

I know some people are uncomfortable with Bill being around.  I know many people are disgusted with the aggressive, maybe even dirty tactics the Clintons have used during the campaign.  But for me, I love it.  It doesn't bother me at all.  In fact, I find a strange comfort in their ability to win...at all costs.  It makes me comfortable to think that they won't put up with any shit from the eventual Republican candidate.  I gives me solace to think they will tell Putin to sit the fuck down.  That they, and their friends, are some of the smartest, most competitive, and most connected people in the world—kick ass.  The last time Democrats whined about dirty tricks, the Republicans still ended up in office.  Complaining doesn't win elections, winning does.

This time around, I actually don't want the grand inspirational figure as my president.  I want a tough, seasoned executive to get things done.  To know how federal government works and change what happened over the past 8 years.  To appoint judges, change administrative rules, dispatch diplomats, and bring intelligent people back into public service.  That's what I'm looking for.

Moving on to general election matchups.  Aside from the general vulnerabilities that Obama has (age & inexperience) which make him seem like the weaker candidate on the Dem side, I think the Clinton-McCain matchup poses a serious vulnerability for the Dems.  I think there's a certain breed of voter who is particularly motivated to vote McCain when the other choice is Hillary.  Sort of unaffiliated independents who respect McCain for his personality and his integrity and find neither in Hillary.  Romney is the Dems dream candidate.  He is such a phony, any independent who makes up their mind on common sense and personality will run screaming from that mannequin.  He sucks.  I won't even talk about him anymore.

Anyway, for a lot of reasons, I could be one of those people who are attracted to McCain over Hillary.  I have immense admiration for his life of public service, for his campaign finance reform fight, and for his integrity.  I think many of the traits I claim Hillary will bring to office, McCain could as well.  But one nagging thought stops me from making that choice at this point.  McCain will not bring with him to office one of the most important of those traits, and that is who he brings with him into government.

When Dubya came into office, he won the prize of appointing some 3,000 political operatives into the federal bureaucracy.  If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will have the privilege of accepting the resignation of each of those people and bringing his or her own people into government.  Judges, bureaucrats, diplomats, staffers, and the rest.  John McCain will fire some of Bush's employees, but not all.   And when he goes to fill the jobs of those that do leave, he will have to go to the well.  And that well is not stock full of fire-breathing Vietnam War vets who know right from wrong and up from down.  The well is stock full of more Republican operatives and conservative ideologues.  That's who John McCain will bring with him to Washington.

So, although it makes me a little uncomfortable to admit it.  For now, Hillary's my girl.

Hey! I finally get to exercise my civic duty and let my voice be heard, kinda sorta.

I'm currently pulling for O'Mania right now as I'm a bit tired of the old guard. But frankly, I'm bit worried if he loses. If Obama is not nominated, we risk a fractured coalition, with all these "new" new Democrats being so turned off we could not just squander the moment, but hurt Democratic chances for years to come.

It is exciting that Obama is generating not just lots of interest, but a certain type of interest; an uplifting message that appeals to many Americans. But will these Americans leave aside their differences and their torn hearts if the old guard pulls off yet another win? In my opinion, that remains to be seen.

This is the first year in awhile that one of us hasn't actually bothered to blog the President's SOTU. For my part, I just didn't care to watch it, but I hear it was real inspiring stuff.

But it was his last, finally. Visit here(http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/01/his-last-fuckin.html) to read a post by Sir Charles from Cogitamus, a good blog that has started to really blossom over the past 6 months. Good stuff!

There is a "Facebook" debate on ABC tonight.  I wonder what older folks in NH think Facebook is.  It's the Repubs then the Dems back-to-back, they had all candidates from both sides out on the stage in between their separate debates.  Funny to see all the Hillary-bashers have to shake her hand.

Ok, random thoughts as the debate goes along...in attendance we have from left to right: Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Clinton

Charlie Gibson came right out and asked Obama a foreign policy question -- Clinton's dream question, attack the rookie on his weakness -- specifically about nuclear terrorism and Obama's threat to bomb western Pakistan without their consent.

Edwards wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  Impossible.

Richardson wants to use diplomacy first.  Groundbreaking.

The camera keeps panning to the candidates' wives (or Chelsea in Billary's case), like it's an NBA game or something.

There is no one on this stage that commands much respect in foreign policy.  I want to hear from each of them who their dream Secretary of State would be.  I want Hillary to tell us how she's going to use Bill--Supreme Court? Cabinet?  Diplomacy?

Switching to domestic policy, Charlie Gibson sets Hillary up with the fattest, slowest softball ever thrown and let's her directly question Obama on whatever she wants...AND SHE TOTALLY CHOKED!  She was reluctant to confront him and ended up sort of accusing him of health care inconsistencies.

Now Obama let's Hillary step on her toes and she swings for the fences.  Obama remains polite and presidential, Hillary seems a tad aggressive but it's not too much.

Obama and Edwards seem to be separating themselves from Hillary.  Edwards is going for the jugular here with Hillary, shutting her out of the party and making it about him and Obama only.  Is he auditioning for VP again?

Richardson comes in with the zinger of the night:  I've been in hostage negotiations that were more civil than this.

Richardson seems to be defending/siding with Hillary now.  "What is wrong with having experience?" he asks.

This debate can be broken down to the following:  Change vs. Experience.  So much for substance.

Switching to the third and final topic -- IRAQ

No one had anything interesting to say whatsover.  They all "vigorously agree" as Hillary put it.

Breaking News...Romney wins the Wyoming caucuses.  Yes, apparently, there really was a Wyoming caucus.  So, wy no news trucks in Laramie for the past six months?  It went Romney, Fred Thompson, then Duncan Hunter of all people.  It is so ridiculously inconsistent for all this attention to be paid to Iowa and New Hampshire and there's Wyoming wanting to help choose the president and getting ignored.  Why is it these cold, white states that get to vet the candidates?  Questions, but no answers.

G'night.

What bothers me most about the political process in this country is that the media insists on viewing the political primaries as a horse race. If one candidate doesn't win one state deemed "important," how can they continue?

Unfortunately, the media is not fully to blame. Why shouldn't they view it as a horse race when the primay season is designed specifically for that? We allow voters from one state to essentially vet the candidates for us. The heads of the Iowa and New Hampshire state parties even fully admit that they pride themselves in doing so. Why is that by February 5th, when I got to my states polls, my candidate might not even be in the race anymore, because he has exhausted all of his funds to try to win in prior states, so that the media still includes him by the time that date rolls around. For without the media, he has no chance.

A long drawn out primary season ensures that only the candidates with the most money make it to the end. It also means more months of general election stump speeches and we all know we could use less of those. Second and third tier candidates are right to be upset that they won't be allowed to participate in the upcoming debates. But in addition to being upset over decisions by corporate-funded media outlets, they should also look inward to the party which they belong. The state parties completely control how and when to hold the primaries. The primary season needs to change. I don't have any particular good answers to this and its probably wishful thinking because the machinations behind the current system are too large. But the current system ought to bother anyone not in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Beyond all that, there are outcomes from the Iowa caucases that show promise. There was the largest turnout in Iowa in a long time. We had more young people than ever. And has Hilary said, "We have seen an unprecedented turnout here in Iowa, and that is good news because today we're sending a clear message that we are going to have change and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009." That is, at least, something we can hope for!

For those who know me, its no secret that I am a John Edwards supporter. If there is only one example that explains why, click here to find it.

VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS!

White House Press Secretary "pretty sure" the Cuban Missile Crisis "had to do with Cuba and missiles."

And no, she doesn't get an excuse for only being 35.