faboo mama

Whoa…Sen. Obama is the projected winner of Iowa according to MSNBC. I’m stunned. I didn’t expect Sen. Clinton to win, I thought that Edwards would carry Iowa no problem, especially after seeing Huckabee’s numbers. I mean, they both have the same message and seem to have the same or similar beliefs. There’s no difference between the two, in my opinion, besides the fact that ones a lawyer and one’s a minister.

*******

So far, Clinton and Edwards are vying for second place.

*******

There are reports that Biden, Dodd and Richardson supporters are joining Kucinich supporters in going to Obama as their 2nd choice. The news channels are reporting that, though from watching C-SPAN and reading other blogs, that doesn’t necessarily bare out. It seems that those supporters are either going to Edwards or splitting between Edwards or Obama.

At least CNN and MSNBC are both calling Iowa for the Huckster. This should be interesting and I’m not at all surprised that people in Iowa fell for his schtick. And yes, even though I despise Huckabee and think of him as nothing more than a one-trick pony, I see the Corporate Republicans are scared of his message and that tickles me to no end. I can’t wait to see how the money flows as these primaries go on.

********

I’m not shocked that Giuliani’s numbers are so ridiculously low. My hope is that this means the media will stop trying to force President Drag Queen on us.

********

Now, I wonder if this means Romney is going to dump more money into New Hampshire. After all, the papers there and in nearby states have either “anti-endorsed” him or endorsed someone else. I’d also be interesting in seeing how Romney does in the Wyoming Caucus on Saturday (It’s GOP only).

Chris Matthews…sigh

Landed on MSNBC and BigHead is on yammering and that GOP tool they have to do pundrity about Democrats was babbling about Clinton losing Iowa and how that’s going to send a message. Then BigHead actually said, “If Clinton loses in Iowa, how do you think that will affect your rank-and-file voter, that hasn’t really been paying attention? The voter in Manhattan or…western LA, who is a Clinton supporter and they see her lose in Iowa?”

Does a voter in Manhattan or…western LA ever care about what happens in Iowa?

Naturally, the GOP tool they had on told us that it will be very dire for Sen. Clinton unless she’s able to win NH and all the big states. Then Matthews started in on voters “in condos in FL” and I grew very suspicious this was all a segment on “The Jewish” vote.

Bleeech.

Tell me again why I abuse myself with stupid cable “news” channels.

Same reason Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton should never be president. We have a separation of church and state in our Constitution. We do not have a religious requirement for a person to become president. We should never entertain the thought of a religious leader, no matter the religion, to become president. This means that several of my family members and friends should never be allowed to be president.

I’m okay with that.

I just want those people who feel that Huckabee is a good idea for a president because he’s a minister to think about their hypocritical feelings if Huckabee was a rabbi or an imam. Think of all those idiot Republicans and GOP media types who make a big deal of Senator Obama attending a Muslim school as a child, in a Muslim country and the lies and idiocies they spread about the Christian Senator wanting to turn this secular country Muslim. Not just your average run-of-the-mill Muslim, but a psychotic-beheading-jailing-the-rape-victim sort (I had to throw in the beheading so you won’t think I was talking about, Bill O’Reilly). Then think about how you feel when I say: Huckabee as president is dangerous because he is a Baptist minister and would turn this country into something out of A Handmaid’s Tale. Or worse.

No, acutally the people who respond to these polls are stupid. I understand the average American, or rather most Americans either willfully don’t pay attention to politics or pretend that they know something based on a 30 sec clip run on CNN. I got that. That being said, it doesn’t help that pollsters decided to waste money on incredibly dumb and pointless polls. Why? Because people fall for the majority answer all the time, not wanting to be “left out”. Americans are conformists at heart. That why people fell for that stupid GOP paid “poll” over who’d they prefer to have a beer with. Sheeple never even bothered to see who requested and paid for the poll and then regurgitated, “Well, I’d rather have a beer with Bush.” like they thought of it or something. (I should note that I almost got into a fistfight with two guys at Yankee Doodles in Santa Monica over this subject, and yes, I started it.)

Which brings me to the AP-Yahoo! poll. The headline on Yahoo!says that people think that Obama is more likeable than Guiliani. That’s a duh. That’s like asking “Would you prefer a fine 7 course meal or the stale french fries under my kid’s carseat?”. In reading the responses from some of the people you get this:

“I’d rather have a president that’s going to get in somebody’s face if he’s got a problem with them or another country,” says Stokes.

Guess what he’s registered as? :\

Oddly enough, Stokes (who is a Republican) has fallen for the Guiliani 9/11 myth, though he would prefer to bring John Edwards on a family vaction (WTF???). There’s other dichotomies, such as the Obama supporter who would prefer to go bowling with Romney. I’m not even going to wonder how that subject came up. Is beer too ‘99? I’m dying to know the actual questions asked of the respondents. I’m sure they had to pick someone from the other camp to fill in the blanks of the political Mad-Lib.

Naturally, since the media decided months ago that Clinton and Guiliani are the frontrunners, they have a pretty poll that proves them right. People seemed resigned to this finality, probably not realizing that the media decided our nominees back in March.

The poll apparently covered a lot of points, even going so far as to ask the respondents to rate themselves on their outlook on life. So apparently all 8 Huckabee supporters are deliriously happy. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters, we’re told, are mostly low-income so they’re a pretty sad lot.

And I’m left wondering, “How the flaming flapjack is any of this important?”

Yes, I’ve ignored Paul’s huge online haul. I’m not dazzled that he’s managed to swindle Americans (probably the same sort that voted for Bush with gusto) into giving him money.

I am impressed by the American public’s general willingness to be swindled. Many people like Paul because he’s against the war. That’s nice. Many people, like me, were against the war before it started. Many people realized in 2003 that the war was a bad idea and the Bush Adminstration had no idea what it was doing. Paul has been a staunch detractor of the war. I’ve seen some great speeches by him on the floor of Congress stating how bad the war is and how terrible it’s been managed. That does not make me want to give up my rights as a woman, as a black person to someone who happens to agree with me on one thing.

Granted, I am a proud liberal and I could never vote for anyone with an R or I behind their name just because they agree with me on one thing. Hell, I haven’t ever voted for fucking Dianne Feinstein (D[ha!]-CA) because she votes with the GOP on most of the issues that are important to me.

Ron Paul’s supporters are quick to defend him with, “He won’t take away your rights. He’s for state’s rights!”. Yeah, Le Shrub ran saying he was for state’s rights too. Remember? That was his answer on just about everything that the couldn’t or wouldn’t give a solid answer to. “[Whatever] is a complicated issue. I’m for state’s rights.” He was for state’s rights as long as they fell in behind his administrations poorly planned and pro-corporatists interests. Paul strikes me as one for state’s rights as long as it’s not affecting him personally. Oops, guess that’s all libertarians.

Oh well. At least he’s not a tyrant-in-training like Guiliani.

Running down a list of candidates in my mind and completely forgot that Biden and McCain were actually running. Like, I remember Huckabee over McCain. I guess it’s because Drop Dead Fred took over as Grampa of the GOP field. He positively makes McCain look like a spring-chicken. But not a gay spring chicken. He has sweaters for that.

UPDATED: Okay, in looking for a link for McCain’s gay sweaters, I went Think Progress. The 3rd comment down, just killed me:

McCain would need to wear about eight sweaters at the same time to look younger.

Comment by Badmoodman — July 11, 2007 @ 11:35 am

Not particularly shocked, but it’s reported that Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is retiring from the Senate and won’t run for president. This is good for the Democrats because it means that the GOP will not only have to field a candidate in the district, but also throw lots of money at a seat they thought was pretty safe.

Hagel plans to announce that “he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008,” said one person, who asked not to be named.

Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.

The GOP’s field of presidential candidates must be breathing a sigh of relief. On the face Hagel seems like your old-school non-extremist Republican. You know, the rare sane kind. The kind who didn’t accuse you of treason because you disagreed with him. The Republican Independent voters probably would have flocked to him if he decided to run for president, not to mention the surprisingly large number of so-called progressives who think Hagel is the cat’s pajamas for whatever inane reason.

From MSNBC

Hagel, 60, was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 and would be up for reelection in 2008.

Hagel, a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, has emerged on the national stage as a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

I am so utterly disgusted with CNN and Anderson Cooper for that farce that occured last night. If you didn’t watch, you’re lucky. First of all, as I wrote on DailyKos today:

If they’re going to call these debates, then let the candidates debate. Otherwise call it what it is, Soundbite Forum. We all know that clips from these “debates” are going to wind up in ads.

1. There were a lot of submissions available on YouTube from engaged young adults. The questions were complex and revealed the people who were paying attention. Instead, CNN chose to use the simpleton questions that they probably would have asked.

2. As annoying whiny as Gravel was about not being able to speak, he had a point. When Obama or Clinton were allowed to ramble for 95 seconds and Gravel was interrupted during his 30 sec., something ain’t right.

3. The Springeresque sandbagging of Edwards was total bullshit. Edwards supporters on DailyKos have really driven me away from this man, but even I recognize a hit and that was one big time.

4. How about NOT choosing the questions with right-wing talking points. The Asian guy asking about taxes, with the GOP talking point should never had made it. I saw at least 7 intelligent posting online from young adults regarding taxes, all without right-wing frames.

5. Don’t insult the intelligence of your viewers and the candidates by having them answer stupid questions like, “Who was your favorite teacher?” or “Do your kids going to public/private school?” Those questions do NOT help us find the ideal candidate.

Usually, I get upset because the candidates do not answer the question. However, they’ve answered these stupid questions in previous “debates” and I’m glad they chose this time to expand on what they’ve already mentioned.

That being said, I can’t wait to see what they do for the Republicans. This so-called “liberal media” has lobbed nothing but softballs to Republicans for 7 years.

• Are we honestly to believe that CNN will have the Republican candidates ask questions about Katrina, getting out of Iraq, global warming and gay marriage?
• Will they have almost 20 minutes of fact-checking after the Republican debates?
• Before the debates begin, will there be a roundtable discussion with a liberal columnist, Democratic strategist, a campaign strategist, all hosted by Patt Morrison or Robert Scheer?
• How much time will they spend on picking apart Romney’s wardrobe?
• Will they have Maria Elena Salinas back to discuss Latino issues or will they have some old white guy doing it (as usual)?