A: That's the takeaway from the New York Times' coverage of Barack Obama's Philly stemwinder:
“The thing that would really help him is if Reverend Wright came out and apologized,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. One of Mr. Wright’s most criticized comments is his assertion that corrupt United States foreign policy brought about the Sept. 11 attacks; now he must retract that statement, said Mr. Cromartie, just as the Rev. Jerry Falwell apologized after he blamed the attacks in part on gay people and those who have performed abortions.
See? Gays and abortion doctors are no more to blame for 9/11 than corrupt United States foreigh policy!
By which I mean THE GAYS CAUSED 9/11. Possibly aided by the Teletubbies.
A: Most media outlets are calling Missouri for Clinton, but Obama has a 5K vote lead with 98% of precincts voting. By my math, there are only 17,000 votes left to be counted.
WTF, most media outlets?! YOU RACIST BASTARDS NEED NEW ABACUSES.
That's all I got for now. More soon. Go Obama.
UPDATE:This was a world exclusive. You're welcome. -- 04/05/08
In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who George W. Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.
But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at John Kerry.
Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.
Rove has plenty of reasons to prefer Clinton to Barack Obama. Even if Clinton beats whatever dope the GOP nominates, she'll still be a divisive figure her political opponents can marginalize, just as they did when she was First Lady. She's not going to be the Democrats' Ronald Reagan. Obama could change things significantly -- both in terms of pushing through policy and shifting rhetoric -- in ways Hillary can't and won't.
Everyone should be voting Obama. Have I mentioned this?
A: Those of you who live outside the Internet might not be aware that there are millions of young nerds who've become unhealthily obsessed with Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Actually, it might only be thousands of young nerds, or hundreds, or twelve, but they are extremely persistent and outspoken — by which I mean paranoid and annoying — and have perhaps been effective over the past few months in spreading their message — by which I mean drilling it into everyone's face.
(None of which is to say that Ron Paul isn't a better candidate than the other Republicans running. He is. But then, my cat is a better candidate than the other Republicans running.)
As a result of the grassroots campaign, targeted to social networking sites like Digg and Reddit and random message boards everywhere and probably soon my comments section, Paul allegedly has more money than John "Going Off the Rails on a Crazy" McCain. Either that, or Paul's just really bad at math.
One of the favorite hobbies — maybe the favoritest hobby — of the Ron Paul Liberation Army is to attack the media for its anti-Ron Paul propagandist lies. (Some might argue it'd be difficult for the press to underestimate a candidate whose standing in the polls is between two and zero percent, but hey, maybe the pollsters are just anti-Ron Paul propagandist liars.) This constant yammering about the media conspiracy to whatever whatever would be much more bearable if Ron Paul's posse weren't such propagandist liars themselves.
ACTUAL CONTENT: "Though political pros say Mr. Paul's chances of moving into the White House are between slim and none, some expect him to have an effect on the Republican race."
Of course, the story rocketed to the top of Reddit within an hour or two. Ron Paul's base: Fair and balanced.
BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romney just squared off in a debate against my cat. Romney spoke for around 25 minutes, and then my cat vomited. After judges reviewed the facts, the winner celebrated her victory with Fancy Feast.
A: He's thinking about it, says the Washington Post. With no pressing need to get a jump on fundraising (millionairesmay needyour support, but billionaires don't), NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg wouldn't announce his candidacy until early '08, the Post writes.
Market-savvy as he is, Bloomberg might realize that his best chance for the White House, in the current political atmosphere, is to disassociate himself from the idiocy of both parties and run indie-stizz.
Publicly, the Democrat-turned-Republican professes no interest in the top job at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But the founder of the Bloomberg financial news empire has dropped enough hints and has had enough tantalizing discussions with potential supporters that people who observe the city's politics for a living are convinced he is at least thinking about it.
T.A.M.S.Y. implicitly distrusts billionaires, media moguls and anyone who's ever been mayor of New York City — but we might be willing to make an exception for Bloomberg. For God's sake, even the Rev. Al Sharpton likes him!
"He would be a very compelling candidate," said civil rights activist Al Sharpton, himself a once and potentially future presidential hopeful from the Big Apple, and a friend of the mayor's. Sharpton called Bloomberg "Ross Perot with a résumé" and predicted that "if he operates as he's done in other parts of his life, he will put both feet in."
If the rumors turn out to be true, this leaves open the possibility that the 2008 race for the White House could be a three-horse race between a current New York senator, a former New York City mayor and the current mayor. As if New Yorkers needed another reason to be solipsistic bastards?
Of course, in the nightmare night-terror scenario where Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani win their parties' respective noms, I'd jump at the opportunity to vote for "Ross Perot with a résumé." At that point, I'd be willing to settle for just plain Ross Perot.
For God's sakes, the top story on Google News involves Tom Vilsack not running for president. In other words, the most newsworthy thing happening right now is that one of the least newsworthy stories of the year no longer exists.
Also, it's very cold.
Feel free to elevate the level of discourse in the comments. Or just continue my theme of whining about how boring Fridays are.
UPDATE: Stop the presses! The Cleveland Browns just won at something!
Granted, it was a only coin toss. And granted, winning it only means they'll get to waste the third pick of the NFL draft instead of the fourth pick. But let's not get bogged down in semantics. WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS, MY FRIENDS.
A: They sure do. Like, for instance, this one little boy, John Edwards, says he wants to be pwesident! Isn't that just adorable!?
If you want to know how excited I am for John Edwards' candidacy, I have two answers -- one for each of the two Americas.
In the first America, I am not at all excited, because Edwards is a reminder of the shallowness of the Democratic candidate pool (Barack not withstanding, obvs). In the second America, I am conflicted, because although I long to make fun of him, it seems unfair to ridicule such an innocent and adorable child.
Here's the video of John Edwards announcing his intentions to announce his intention of running for president. The news broke, appropriately, on Rocketboom, which is very popular with the kiddies1.
To Edwards' credit, he does seem to have a better grasp of his own talking points than he did last campaign. For instance, he seems to know what several of the words mean (I mean, aside from when he says he wants to get engaged in genocide).
Once you get past his wide-eyed idealism, though, is there any there there?
Edwards might be saying all the right things (or, at least, saying what the kids want to hear) -- but the average digg.com user could cough up the same shpiel, as could Ned Lamont, as could I.
Take away the photogenic smile and the handlers arming him with sellable talking points; does Edwards have the cunning to get shit done in the Oval Office? Good thing we'll never find out, because the answer would likely disappoint you.
ANDBYTHEWAY: Edwards' online campaign headquarters is still OneAmericaCommittee.com. Which is kind of funny, because didn't the "two Americas" concept flop pretty badly last election? Does the Edwards camp really think rephrasing a bombed slogan is the best bet they have? Did they prepay for several hundred years rights to the URL in 2003, and can't afford to cut their losses?
It's things like this that make me confident that Edwards '08 ain't gonna fly. What worries me is the possibility of his adorable face being enough to snag the Dems' nomination. Please, God, no. To be continued.
1 On a semi-related note, what the hell is going on with this Rocketboom interview? Do all of their breaking news briefs begin with 20 seconds of trying to figure out how the camera works? Are they trying to out-unprofessional Amanda Congdon? Is new media trying to out-retard old media? Is a smokin' rack the new large brain? Are dim-witted hotties the new intelligencia? Does this mean John Edwards is going to win? Am I crying hysterically right now?
