Q: Am I prepared to call the media wrong about Missouri?

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

Q: The lady or the paper tiger? (or: Is Karl Rove rooting for Hillary Clinton?)

Rove: "Pay no attention to the viable candidate on the right"...?

A: At first, the idea presented in this L.A. Times piece from yesterday seems crazy: Clinton may be a target of Rove's reverse psychology. But is it so crazy, it just might work have already worked?

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?

Q: What's the hottest American obsession of 2007?

A: Zee News India has the surprisinger scoop:

Sanjaya becoming the biggest obsession of Americans this year

While many may consider him vocally challenged, there is no doubt that Sanjaya Malakar is becoming the biggest obsession of Americans that is making its way into national political debate.

During a radio call-in on WOKQ-FM, Hillary Clinton was asked what the United States can do about Sanjaya, the American Idol underdog who has confounded his critics by surviving deep into the voting on this season`s programme.

"That's the best question I`ve been asked in a long time," Clinton said.

And you thought political discourse in America was dead!?

Anyway, Zee News' grammar may be crooked, but its reportage is stellar. In what is probably the top news of the week, scientists recently announced that Sanjaya has rocketed to the top of America's obsession charts '07.


On a related note, what is a Sanjaya?

EARLIER: Why the terrorists hate you | t.a.m.s.y. on meth

Q: Will Mike Bloomberg run for president as an independent?

Mike Bloomberg: Redefines 'green' party

A: He's thinking about it, says the Washington Post. With no pressing need to get a jump on fundraising (millionaires may need your 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.

Q: Did John McCain just lose more supporters than he gained?

A: You'd think so, wouldn't you?

I would have considered voting for McCain over Hillary or wittle Johnny Edwards, but not anymore. Now I'm just considering moving to Canada.

• McCain: Roe v. Wade should be overturned [Yahoo! News]

Or Iceland. The girls are totally bangin' in Reykjavic.