Howard Jarvis and Barack Obama.... together at last?

A belated Happy Birthday to one of the most significant pieces of legislation in California’s history. Proposition 13, which capped property tax rate increases and which saved countless families their homes turned 30 on Friday.

And knowing that Prop. 13 is a rallying cry for liberals who cite its enactment as ground zero for all the ills that we now currently face in this state is just icing on the cake.

The fear-mongering that attached itself to this ballot initiative included the possibility of scrapping summer school. And conincidentally, summer school was being pondered for the first time for a certain 5th grader whose idyllic 13 week golden summers had never been intruded upon by the mental gulag of summer school. This was our tipping point to becoming politically active. We canvassed our school mates out on the playgrounds of Golden Ave. Elementary educating them to the mutual parent-child benefits of this Proposition.

We will also note that Prop. 13 was, up until just very recently, one of three great grass-roots, populist rebellions of the past 30 years in this country and which also happened to originate out of conservative activism (not quite the acronym we all thought, eh?). Throw-in the sacking of California Governor Gray Davis and the great Rube Goldberg Amnesty Bill smackdown last summer as the other two crown jewels in the pantheon of angry white maledom. Heh.

As we alluded, though… up until very recently….? Possibly a fourth:


“But what I thought of when the friend sent the flash was something another friend told me months ago. It was the night Mr. Obama won Alabama. My friend was watching on TV, in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, looked, saw "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. That's the place they used the water hoses on the civil rights marchers crossing the bridge. And now look. The black man thanking Alabama for his victory.”

Political differences aside, it would be intellectually disingenuous to ignore what an amazing and monumental event in this nation’s history is the nomination of a black man to run for President of the United States some 40 years on a year that has come to symbolize both the height and nadir of the civil rights movement.

OK, but grassroots…? This may be a little bit of a stretch considering the press has been in the tank for Obama from Day One, but also from Day One there has been vast anecdotal and empirical evidence that Obama’s “ground game” was vastly superior to that of Clinton Inc.’s. To achieve that one needs a motivated and passionate backing of supporters at the deck-plate level.

Never mind that the passion and motivation was fueled by the “change” meme that is still vague as to the actual mechanics in which to achieve “change”, the man’s charisma, eloquence and effective placement of his campaign meme effected a groundswell of support among those who were not keen on the idea of 32 straight years of either a Bush or a Clinton working in the White House in some capacity. Beyond any specific criticisms Obama may have leveled at Bush, McCain or Hillary Clinton, this specter was at the core of “change”

Obama and his campaign beat a Corporation containing some of the most seasoned and effective campaign strategists of this generation. We’re sorry, this doesn’t happen just because the press adores you.

The rest of Peggy Noonan’s article from which the above quote was pulled is here. Noonan is laudatory of the Democrats’ selection of Obama whose Presidency (and McCain’s), she believes, may be a disaster but is wholly convinced that a Clinton Presidency most certainly would be a disaster.

Let us know if you think we've completely lost our bearings on this.

"If the Union don't mind...."

As much as the media, Democratic Party leadership and the liberal nutroots just want Hillary to go away in order to Moveon to the general election, Democrat voters don’t necessarily see it that way. A new ABC/Washington Post poll shows that 64% of Party voters say Clinton should stay in the race. Poll doesn’t reveal the underlying motivation for this solid majority so we will chime-in, plumbing the depths of the psyche of the Democrat voter: Our gut feel is that the 64% have not yet made up their mind or if they have, its not yet with enough conviction that they are willing to forego a little more tire kicking… and with precious little to differentiate the two candidates policy-wise, we can’t blame the voters for wanting to stretch this thing out a little longer.

So to the media, Howard Dean and the netroots,…. back down, chumps! Where is it written that this thing has to be determined by Feb. 4, May 7 or even June 3rd? It’s a democracy and sometimes things get a little messy, a little cluttered. This isn’t a Papal selection or a Politburo back-room coronation - this is the democratic process of the people and sometimes its not at all tidy. Don’t blame or pressure Hillary or the voters because Party leadership so completely botched the Primary rules that its dragging on this long. Just relax. Everyone is having too much fun to let the party end.

So just consider this our midweek serenade and shout out to Hillary...

The Case for Hillary

“…she’s already running as a Republican. She’s out there every day, hammering away at my guy, BO, doing the work the Republican candidate just won’t do. Why, the just other day she complained that if the party of Slavery, Segregation, Secularism, and Sedition followed the same rules as the party of Lincoln, she’d already have won.”

Proving that good writing combined with wit, humor and satire trumps ideological differences, we very much enjoy the work of “David Kahane”, NRO’s liberal embed contributor. Read here.

We can only assume the use of pseudonym for this successful Hollywood writer is a matter of professional life and death.

Hillary: Reagan Democrat?

David Brooks of the NYT breaks down the cultural and educational divide within the Democratic Party. Good read. Our assessment of the voting trends during the primaries leads us to the conclusion that Hillary has experienced success in reining-in many rural whites and urban/rust belt ethnic conservatives (read: Catholic and Eastern Orthodox descendants of Southern and Eastern Europe, respectively) that voted for Reagan and both Bushes. This has been aided in no small part by the Republicans themselves tossing to the curb their brand as fiscal conservatives and social conservatives with shameful spending and a handful of highly-publicized sex scandals.

Article does include one very interesting and suspect line:

“In Pennsylvania, Obama did everything conceivable to win over Clinton’s working-class voters”

Was Brooks in a coma when Obama bowled that 37 and when he made the “bitter” comments?

You Go, Girl!

Good lord, its been a veritable love-fest for Hillary in the right-wing blogosphere these past couple of days as she staved-off elimination once again with her victory in Pennsylvania. Certainly, this is a broad-brushed assessment but the general mood is palpable, just as an opposite mood is apparent at the liberal websites.

The “inevitable” label to which Clinton was tagged early in the primaries has now been transferred to Obama. Many Democrats, weary of this months-long slog, wish that Hillary would just gracefully bow out so that they can move their man on to the main event against McCain.

Now, some of the glee directed towards Hillary by Republicans/conservatives is indeed based in schadenfreude as this primary grinds on into May but the majority of it is an honest-to-goodness respect for a woman who simply refuses to give-in or give-up. This is an admirable trait for a prospective CinC… hell, it’s a completely necessary trait.

Obama outspent her 2 to 1 in Pennsylvania and he still couldn’t get it done. And if there is one single thing that men dread hearing more than anything else be it in regards to work, love or sports it is: “Dude can’t close the deal”. Ouch. And this is the state of Obama currently and one in which this suspicion is now spoken openly.

He had the chance to step on her neck and crush any chances she had and he relented. And now the stories of his association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayres are beginning to gain traction and his FORMER pastor is going to be giving a speech Monday at the National Press Club. What could possibly go wrong, there?

As for Howard Dean’s and many other Democratic big-wig's and blogger's edict that this thing gets wrapped up sooner than later and that the superdelegates decide on their candidate by June 1st, don’t count on it. The best explanation we’ve heard for this comes from John Podhoretz:

“Yes. Sure. Because politicians with the most valuable votes in America are just going to choose up sides and not spend three months being courted and feted and promised. They are going to forswear having their feet kissed, their backs massaged, their views requested, their wants fulfilled, their needs anticipated. They are going to throw their vote away rather than milk it for all it’s worth.

It’s time for people like Yglesias and other Democrats to grow up and get this straight. The point here is: A thousand or so people are going to decide this primary. It behooves those people to have this go on as long as possible, because that is how they are going to get the most goodies. Maybe this is what Hillary truly understands”

Its a single elimination tournament for her now but Clinton just keeps on grinding. On to Guam!

The Face of the Democratic Party?

We missed the Democratic debates last week but no matter because on the eve of the Pennsylvania primaries, the resounding theme this entire past week has been Waaaaaaaannnnnnhhhhh!

Good lord, never in our life have we heard as much whining as has been coming out of Camp Obama only to be counter-whined by Clinton Inc. as to their own alleged superior aggrievement.

All this revolves around the line of questioning put to Barack Obama during the debates where ABC moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had the nerve to question him on his “bitter” comments and his association with Reverend Wright. It should be noted that these are the first debates since those two flare-ups went public.

Article here from HuffPo takes pains to break down the type of questions that have been asked of the two candidates in their last 4 debates with one another and concludes that indeed, ABC is the muckraker and biased towards Clinton.

(We thought it interesting that the author regarded questions concerning Rev. Wright, Obama’s association with 60's radical William Ayres, and the “bitter” comments as “scandal” questions. Not sure we would classify those as “scandals”… the implication is that this line of questioning was not a serious, kitchen table policy-related one – just superfluous fluff).

Here is a fine example of whine/counter-whine on Meet the Press Sunday (sorry for the link - embed was inop). As we were watching this clip, it was obvious to us that given a different set of circumstances, Axelrod and Garin could easily be sitting in the other’s chair working for the other candidate. We wanted to slap these guys.

And for the amount of times we’ve heard both sides levy the “Republican-style hit pieces” and “Rovian” tactics when whining about each other, we wonder when the irony is finally going to set in as it might become apparent to some people that perhaps these “low-brow tactics” may not be the exclusive domain of the GOP, afterall.

A quick word about “going negative”: The term is beginning to sound a lot like “wedge issue” to us… meaning “going negative” is simply bringing up an issue, a past quote, an association or a vote that the opponent may not necessarily want publicized as it does not cast him or her in the most positive of lights.

We leave you with Hillary’s recent Republican-style fear-mongering ad.



H/T: HotAir... Gateway Pundit

Obama's supporters really wish Hillary’s supporters would quit wasting everyone's time.

If article here is to be believed, there is a nasty little misogynistic undercurrent to the glassy-eyed Obama support the Senator receives from his straight male supporters. There’s always been some bitterness among Clinton supporters that the Obama phenomena was not just sweeping away but sweeping away in dismissive fashion the best chance feminists might have in a very long time to put a woman in the Oval Office but now many young female Hillary supporters are complaining that this dismissive-ness has taken the form of good old-fashioned sexism and distrust of women in power.

Guy friends and boyfriends alike are getting quite perturbed with their Hillary supporting girlfriends… “like, c’mon, ladies… let’s all get onboard here – can’t you see Obama is the real deal – can’t you see that Obama possesses all those transcendent qualities Hillary does not… your behavior is becoming quite embarrassing…”


Also, for a man who has to be cognizant of the messiah complex charge against him, he and/or his surrogates don’t appear to be doing much to dissuade this notion. In fact, it appears the campaign embraces it. Check out video here. Glassy-eyed, indeed.




“We are the ones we have been waiting for”… We don’t suppose there has ever been a more self-indulgently narcissistic campaign slogan in recorded history. We’re not even sure what it means so throw in “vague” and “incomprehensible” as well. If its one of those “The time is now” or “Our time has come” sort of things, then just say it. We get dizzy just trying to wrap our pea-brains around the circular logic of “We are the ones we have been waiting for” Aaaaaghhh…. Make it stop! The antidote is here by some dudes that sound like Cake.

H/T: Instapundit

Perspective

Democrats opining on media bias: We’re not quite sure what this guy’s point is. Its just politics… Suck it up, Rendell.

Is There a Pill You can take for This sort of Thing?

The Democrats race and gender-based ritualistic self-mutilation continued today as Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from her position in Hillary Clinton’s finance committee over comments she made that suggested Clinton’s opponent, Barack Obama, was successful because he was black. Story here.

This follows on the heels of Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power resigning her position after using the “M”-word.

We think we share the feelings of many Americans (including many Democrats) right now by saying: “What is with these people?”

If you’ve followed this site for any amount of time, you know we have spared our own default party of registration no quarter if any of its members have strayed too far from our Reagan Youth ways or just plain common sense and this extends in spades to the Republican Party’s own presidential nominee, John McCain.

But one of our most consistent criticisms of the Democrats over the years aside from any ideological differences has been what we feel is a complete and abject un-seriousness to how they conduct business.

How can we take them seriously when they do not behave in a serious manner themselves?

So while the Democrats are stumbling all over themselves vying for the honor of “most aggrieved”, we wonder when it is that these people will wrench their focus away from their gender and race-centric navels and propose how it is they are going to fight the war on terror, succeed in Iraq, secure the borders, improve our shaky economy and fix our failing public education system. We’re waiting.

How to cope with all this non-sense? Not to worry. Mr. Styles aka Dr. Street Legal has got a little sumthin’-sumthin’ here that should fit all our budgets.

Would it be possible for You to not make our lives a living hell... again?

So what’s next for the Democrats as they try to un-screw the mess they have made for themselves with respect to the presidential primaries? Mail-in ballots, anyone?

The idea that has been gaining some traction is to declare the original Michigan and Florida primaries null and void and have a “mulligan” - a do-over. Since the state of Florida said they are not footing the bill for another election, the DNC has been advancing the idea of mailing out the ballots, themselves.

Mind you, Floridians are the same folks who couldn’t grasp the butterfly ballot and then found something to bitch about with the electronic ballots because they were easier for Republican operatives to hack (hey, ever notice there are no charges of voter fraud when Democrats win?) and now these apparently electorally-challenged folks will be expected to a) go to the mail box b) open the ballot envelope c) correctly select the candidate of their choice d) place ballot in the self-addressed envelope e) place stamp somewhere on envelope if not an SAS envelope and finally, f) place envelope back in mail box for pick-up.

Now there is something we cannot stress enough: it is of paramount importance that each of these steps be executed in the EXACT sequence as laid-out above. Any deviation from the above will immediately result in howls of disenfranchisement and lawsuits. (After years of suffering the slings and arrows of derision for our somewhat unconventional ways out here in California, can we just say… "thank g#d for Florida!"...whose behavior of late has us Californicators looking like models of sanity, rationality and probity).

Believe it or not, we’ve got a significant degree of sympathy for our Democrat friends…. how is it possible for this mail-in ballot plan NOT to be an absolute grease-fire?

And even if the entirety of the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated it appears unlikely that either candidate will have enough delegates needed (2,025) to clinch the nomination (currently, Obama leads 1589 to Clinton’s 1470, courtesy RCP).

So, it looks like an open convention, where unless some sort of deal is brokered between the two candidates, things could get ugly down on the floor. Of course, Hillary has got a deal. How does Veep grab ya, Messiah? That from the candidate who is currently losing. Classic.

It’s going to be a fun summer. As we noted before, we were too young to be down with 1968 but the politically charged atmosphere of these Olympics and the train wreck that the Democratic national convention may be has us looking forward to our own little ’68 mulligan.

The Dreaded "M"-word.

Perhaps you’ve heard by now but Obama foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power resigned after it was disclosed that in an off-the-record remark, she called Hillary Clinton “a monster”.

Given our sporting backround, this term is usually used in a positive manner and shows a degree of respect. In this context, however, we’re pretty certain Power wasn’t referring to Hillary’s imposing defensive presence in the paint or her unnatural ability in getting off the edge on a pass rush.

So if it is indeed a negative term we still can’t help but feel the dismissal of Power odd. Afterall, on the Democratic “mean people suck” scale, “monster” pales in comparison to some…? most….? nearly every term used to describe the woman, no?

23/6 does some reading between the lines of Power’s resignation memo, here.

P.S. Gotta think Power was let go because either a) there was dirt on her that was going to come out later that would be more damaging to Obama or b) Camp Obama has painted itself into a corner with their sanctimonious awesomeness and felled the axe to maintain their image.

Update #1: Foxfier links here to a piece in Newsweek that laments the improbability of a Hillary Presidency because... we're all sexist pigs. Well, you are, to be exact - we're as pure as driven snow, brothers and sisters. But if you're scoring at home, you will have noticed the irony here as thus far the most egregious personal attack on Hillary has been made by another woman.

Update #2: Here's an angle that hasn't been discussed much because of perhaps its statistical insignificance, but: We know there are women out there that will vote for Hillary merely because she is a woman and men who won't because she is (and we suppose there is the random beta-male who because of modern technology has been spared his Darwinian sentence that will vote for Hillary because she is a woman)... but what about women who won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman? Trust us. They're out there. Think of that female friend of yours that claims to "have more guy friends than girl friends because girls can be so vindictive, petty and cliqueish" Hey, they said it, not us.

When we said the 'long knives would come out' - we didn't expect this

The hypothetical question of who would draw first blood in a showdown between Clinton and Obama supporters is answered here. Was there any doubt?

Of course, a Fred supporter would’ve kicked both their asses with his bare hands.

Fred, who?

Shut up.

Anyway, we never thought it would come to this… Hillary, barring a small miracle, going down in defeat in the primaries, that is. We always figured Clinton Inc.’s long knives would shiv Edwards first and then Obama. And whether or not Clinton Inc. was behind the release of the Obama turban photos, much of her behavior the past couple of weeks has appeared as a hopeless flail against the inevitable.

And while we were pondering all this, we wonder what sort of Senator she is going to be once her designs on the throne have been vanquished. By many accounts and from both sides of the aisle, Hillary has been praised for her hard work and her cooperativeness. Will she be the same Senator in the future that her 7 yr. presidential campaign from the Senate fashioned her as or will she revert to something completely different altogether?

Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

That’s funny…. thought we heard something. Like the screams of millions of anguished souls seeing “hope” vanish and “change” evaporate like water on blacktop in August.

Anyway, just when you thought these presidential primaries couldn’t get any wackier, the wack-meister himself, Ralph Nader, is throwing his hat into the ring as he confirmed today he will be running for President. Story here.

We guess she’s figuring that if she’s gonna lose she might as well go down swinging… and have some fun while doing so. Click here for some of Hillary mocking the Messiah and here she calls out B. Hussein on his healthcare fliers. It appears that Hillary doesn't truly believe that Obama will affect all the change he has been promising on the sheer strength of his awesomeness.

And Foxfier has linked to story on some interesting post-natal care being offered by the Dutch. Click here, por favor. It’ll make you all warm and fuzzy inside. Trust us.

H/T: Hot Air Drudge

Its 10 P.M. Do you Know Where Your Delegate Is?

Newsweek’s cover last week was titled, “There will be blood: Why the Right hates McCain” which is also the name of a multiple Oscar-nominated film starring Daniel Day Lewis. Saw the trailer – looked violent. This aspect of a Republican party internecine Armageddon with McCain and his supporters versus conservatives like Rush and Hannity represented on the cover has been a hot topic in political circles since McCain became the presumptive Republican nominee.

While this ideological fight looms over the Republican party there is a similar meltdown brewing on the Democrat Party side the cause of which, though not ideological in nature, is more of a procedural thing but potentially no less volatile… in fact, a lot more volatile.

This particular foodfight is over the delegates of Michigan and Florida which the DNC deemed null and void as punishment for state pols pushing up the primary dates of those two states. Clinton Inc. along with all the other candidates promised they would abide by this procedural ruling but since Hillary’s ascension is now imperiled, Clinton Inc. has now petitioned the DNC to get them reinstated. Because every vote counts, you know.

Another element of this battle that promises to make the Democrat Party Convention must-see T.V. this summer is the battle for the super delegates – delegates that are not bound to vote for the candidate that won the primary in the state from which they hale. To say that there is some courting going on right now for these delegates would make heavy petting blush.

Oh, and this from Politico.com which claims that Clinton, knowing she can’t win even with the super delegates, is going after the “pledged” state primary delegates – a definite no-no. Article quotes former Virginia governor Doug Wilder as saying there will be rioting in the streets and chaos at the convention if this happens. More Wilder: ““If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.” Awesome! We were too young for both the MC5 and the ’68 convention so we’d gladly take a do-over on at least one of them.

Senator John McCain: A man of principle

If you’ve been following this site for any amount of time, you know we’re huge admirers of John McCain. Let's go over the laundry list of achievements: voting against the Bush tax cuts, co-authoring the Campaign Finance Reform Act, co-authoring the Rube Goldberg Amnesty Bill and leading the Gang of 14 which were effective in blocking many of Bush’s nominations for vacant spots in the Federal courts. Now, what's not to like? Believe it or not, though, all that really pales in comparison to why it is we truly admire the man: its that he’s just so dammed principled.

You want proof? Andrew McCarthy of NRO recounts here , Maverick’s battle in the courts against the pro-life group, Wisconsin Right to Life. What was their crime? Back in ’04 when Bush was trying to get his nominations to Federal benches, he was being blocked by Senate Democrats and chief among those was McCain’s cloakroom buddy Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. Feingold was up for re-election when WRTL had the unmitigated gall to run issues ads in Wisconsin urging people to put some pressure on the Senator to allow for a yes or no vote on Bush’s nominations.

Yes, dear readers…. free speech was afoot.

Enter Maverick: not content to just sit on the sidelines and ride this one out as he really didn’t have a horse in this race, Maverick couldn’t stand to see a pro-life group actually exercise their 1st amendment rights thereby running afoul his legislative crown jewel and the re-election efforts of his Senate chum, so he sprang into action and filed an amicus brief against WRTL when their case came before the Supreme Court.

That’s right - McCain did that knowing full well it would cheese-off both pro-life social conservatives and those few True Believers up in the hills that hold this quaint notion that the Constitution, particularly the 1st amendment may still have some applicability today. Why would he risk alienating the very people he may need to win the general election in November? Ha-haaaa….. you just don’t know the Senator very well now, do you?

Those are just the sort of risks one has to take when one stands on principle as does Senator John McCain.

So we salute you, Senator, for your unswerving and unyielding dedication to…. principle.

.

(This post is dedicated to B-Daddy, who on the eve of Super Tuesday, has found himself stranded in Malaise-ya)

Some Super Bowl Sunday Advice

Just because we are not actively campaigning for any particular Presidential candidate at the moment doesn't mean we won't be pulling the lever for someone on Tuesday. Who will it be? We're keeping that to ourselves and are unlikely to divulge that decision.

We will say this, though.... the old adage of "people vote with their pocketbook" certainly holds sway with us. Its simple, its clean, its pragmatic.

.

And lest you suspect and before we hear any of you cry foul with allegations of craven profiteering, any net gain "earned" from a favorable election result will go directly towards the Beers with Demo retirement fund and not towards boozing and womanizing.... that's what the "stimulus" rebate check is for.

.

Oh, and now for the advice: Take the Pats and lay the 11 points. Two weeks to prepare, on a fast track, everybody healthy... as much as it pains us to say it, "Pats, 19-0"

Town Hall Meeting?

Now just what in the Sam Hill is going on around here? Eeeeasy there, turbo. We requested that site contributor, the Substitute who was out at the Clinton rally yesterday, give us his thoughts on the event and the primary debate which he did so here. We'll get back to our regularly scheduled McCain bashing later so let's just chalk all this up to a conscious desire to find something appealing about the remaining candidates all of which we have serious political misgivings. Senor Substitute, you're on:

Ever been to a campaign rally? Whether you are GOP or Democrat and haven't been to one of these things, it's kind of an interesting experience to go through. But first: What's in a name? When I was a wee lad these things were known as "Campaign Rallies". It has since morphed into "Town Hall Meeting" to give it that intimate folksy charm we all like so much. Think McDonald's turning the cold, stale, "Welcome to McDonald's. Can I help you?" into"What can I make for you today?" as if the girl on the intercom is going to go back and cook me up a quarter-pounder with tender loving care.

Anyway...

I arrived at SDSU 2 hours before the event at the 12,000 seat Cox Arena. The line was almost 3/4 of a mile long and growing quickly. The gates would not open for another hour. Clinton campaign staff came around and said that if I didn't fill out their form, I wouldn't get in. Pretty comprehensive, this form. Cell phone. Work phone. Home phone. Address. Email address. Did I want to join the campaign. How much would I pledge. What I did for work. Pretty smart, if you think about it. They just got thousands of contacts of enthused possible foot soldiers in a 1 hour stop.

I was as vague as possible filling it out. And ended up getting in anyway. After 1 hour, the line started to move. It literally snaked through half the massive SDSU campus. Along the way, various groups for this, that, and the other thing trying to give away brochures or sign people on for theircauses. Here, the marijuana legalization brotherhood (You know, it makes really good rope!). There, Stop Animal Abuse. Towards the arena entrance were the Contras: Republicans with hand-made signs that gave me little hope for much of a conciliatory note from the far-right wing of the GOP if Clinton gets the Democratic nod. After all, "Life's a bitch. Why would you elect one?" doesn't quite have the same ring as "I want a kinder, gentler nation."

Security wasn't quite as tight as I figured. Backpacks banned. Women had their purses checked. But that was it. But I was to find out that when a former First Lady and presidential front-runner comes strolling on stage, the eyes of Secret Service are everywhere. (Later, after the "Town HallMeeting", as Hillary plunged into the crowd for autographs, the agents were the very definition of White-on-Rice)

A few local political hacks came on stage at the appointed 1:30 starttime -- and spoke, and stalled, and stalled. They ran out of things to sayafter 15 minutes. One of them finally teased us with a "I think someone very important is here", and with that all of them left the stage to an excited crowd. Then nothing.

10 minutes passed. 20 minutes. Half an hour. 40 minutes. 45 minutes. Nothing. The crowd, filled to the rafters by now, finally started entertaining itself with a display of (paper) air plane superiority that would have made the Luftwaffe proud. I put on my sunglasses for protection.

But where was the candidate? Finally, 55 minutes late, pool press and agents appear. The candidate was not far behind. A guy I spoke with later at the trolley stop about husband Bill's legendary habit of running on the same delayed schedule when he was President called it "Clinton-SavingsTime". More introductory speakers. In quick succession two guys I'd only marginally heard of (they were booed lustily by a now-impatient crowd), thenL.A. Mayor Anthony Villaragosa. Then SDSU President Stephen Weber.

And Clinton's face finally pops from around the corner. Electricity from nowhere. Cheers. Weber brought her on stage. He then preceded to go another 3 minutes with a long diatribe about education and San Diego technology. The crowd was beyond caring.

Hillary. Microphone. Finally. The energetic vibe was quite palpable.

The rest was stump-basic. Education. Iraq. Vets care. Immigration.Economy. Can't wait to get George out. All designed to energize the crowd and the party.

But, ya know, I still have a soft-spot for McCain.

See you in November.

- The Substitute

Can We Go Back to Detesting Her, Again?

A few thoughts on last night’s New Hampshire primary…

- We’ll freely admit it: Even us cold, cruel rape-pillage-and-burn conservatives felt a twinge of sympathy for ol’ girl before last night.

- How could the polls get it that wrong on the Democrat side while pretty much nailing the eventual Republican results? A quick perusal of the message boards revealed a majority opinion: Fraud!

- Huckabee was supposed to be in trouble in New Hampshire because the Granite State was allegedly all “no tax, no government”. So to confirm this point, the voters go out and give McCain 37% of the vote and the victory….? Then again, since none of the Republican candidates outside of Fred (who didn’t campaign there) have been espousing anything resembling a coherent conservative message, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at the results.

- Sean Hannity is a tool. We find Fox’s house lib, Alan Colmes, infinitely more likeable than that smug little punk.

- Laura Ingraham is a babe.

- We think Brent Bozell and NewsBusters serve a useful purpose but, honestly… why bother when you have completely unabashed, unashamed admission like this.

- So… Is Iowa wrong, again?

- Back to our 2nd point… How does this happen? Everybody was in the tank for Obama, it was Obama 24/7 for the past week, it was all but a foregone conclusion, a double-digit walk-in-the-park for the Dem's "rock star".… people writing Hillary’s obits… only a few people like Dick Morris and Bob Shrum (Bob Shrum!) were saying she still had a shot. How? How did it happen?

- If you haven’t seen it, here’s the “tears” felt across the nation. The YouTube clip doesn’t do this justice. The lighting is perfect, the audio crisp, the camera angle and close-up flattering and Hillary has this weary but warm glow about her. We saw it in HD last night and we were absolutely mesmerized. And this was supposed to have been an unscripted moment captured by a free-lance photographer? Right. Classic. Clinton.

- We brought up a while back (here) how Hillary was going to play both sides of the gender coin and be successful doing it. Whenever it suited her, she would play either the tuff chick or the vulnerable lady. A few people who will go unnamed, doubted the effectiveness of this strategy. She played the road-weary but idealistic lady on Monday, knocked it out of the park and walked away with the New Hampshire primary. How do ya like her now?

- For posterity’s sake: We don’t ever remember primary season being this fascinating, this compelling, this entertaining and this downright fun… and doggone, if Democracy can’t be fun then what’s the use?

Bold Prediction: Romney Will Win NH

B-Daddy here. In an attempt to add to my long string of poor electoral predictions, I am predicting a win for Mitt Romney over John McCain in the New Hampshire Republican primary. I believe that the independents that John McCain needs to win in New Hampshire will be going wild for Obama, depriving him of his left of right base. I am not saying that Mitt Romney deserves to win. He has had an opportunity to define himself to voters and chose instead to stay away from a single theme that would capture the imagination of America. Too bad, because he seems like a decent guy. But by failing to bring his candidacy into focus, he looks like a typical waffling politician. Regardless, I think the combination of Romney's very good debate performance Sunday and Obamamania will sink McCain. OK, New Hampshire, go out and prove me wrong....again.

As an aside, while everyone else is looking for the return of Ronald Reagan, I think the Republican party needs the return of Barry Goldwater. This is because he drew sharp distinctions that laid the solid foundation for what the Republican party became in later years, when it achieved success for itself and for America. Further, I believe that Goldwater's thinking would be much more accepted by the America of today than of 1964.

New Hampshire Republican Debates

B-Daddy here. Stupid me; I switched channels during the Steelers-Jaguars games and found the Republican debates. I spent the rest of the game channel flipping between the game and the debates. Both events got me increasingly agitated. The kids and Mrs. Daddy were yelling at me to get some ice cream and watch a movie, but I couldn't pull myself away from either train wreck. (We eventually watched Danger: Diabolik, an Italian 60's thriller based on a comic book series. Lot of fun.)

I dropped in on the Republicans talking about health care and was appalled. Finally Mitt Romney said something decent about the free market, but I thought they were all incoherent and statist, except Ron Paul, who was merely incoherent.

Some quick takes. Most of the candidates had sharp barbs for Romney, whether out of personal enmity or because they judge him the front runner, I can't tell. For his part Romney looked just too defensive. This will never get him the presidency, because he doesn't look like the guy with sunshine on his face. (That had to go to Giuliani tonight.) McCain attacked the big pharmaceuticals as if he were Edwards. (To his credit, Romney fired right back that the pharmaceutical companies were doing good work trying to save lives.) Huckabee was very smooth, but sounded like a liberal to me on health care and more bizarrely, could only explain how he was actually like Obama, when asked to highlight the differences between himself and Obama. Fred Thompson was principled, conservative and occasionally seemed unprepared. He flat out refused to get suckered into calling for a special profits tax on Exxon-Mobil, but did a bad job explaining why. Also, I want to tag him as Still-in-Bed Fred, for just being too slow with his responses and lacking a grasp of meaningful detail. I liked the way Rudy Giuliani handled himself, again, but he's got a lot of 'splainin to do over immigration. Ron Paul was very erudite on immigration and health care, but I think he lost the audience. I could not fault him on his economics. But he just couldn't help himself from coming off as a crank later when asked about the price of oil he launched into some "we went to Iraq" to get the oil diatribe that I know in my heart he doesn't really believe. I'm really starting to hate this guy.

Best quote of the night: Mitt Romney, quoting P.J. O'Rourke (and giving credit): "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."

BTW, I have not read or listened to any other reactions to the debates, so if I sound like a country bumpkin, too bad, I haven't yet had my re-education from the spin doctors.