Sarandon v. Baldwin and why I'll vote for Obama

You know its election season when celebrities start making threats to leave the country if the guy they don't like wins.

Susan Sarandon says she'll split if McCain wins. Canada or Italy she says. Funny, I think its the debate most Honeymooners have. "Canada, Italy? Canada, Italy? Canadaaaa, Italy? Blast, why did they have to make those two countries so similar?"

Stephen Baldwin (can we really call him a "celebrity?") says he'll split if Obama wins. Maybe he'll drive the "Lords Lounge."

Anyway, Mr Obama is the clear winner here. He gets another check in the "Reasons To Vote For Obama" box.

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

Election Prediction Update

For those of you wanting to look smart at dinner parties when you discuss the upcoming election please read Andrew Sullivan's blog, for the rest of you, keep reading.

Here it is, short and sweet, McCain will not win. Period. To see if I write right, mark these trends.

One, Obama will get a bump in the polls once Hillary drops out. This is not a divided party. Its more like trying to pick what you want for dinner. You know which restaurant you want to eat at, just not necessarily what you want for dinner. Once Clinton drops, the party will all eat the same dish, no ones going to leave the restaurant. Hence the bump.

Second, conventional wisdom (meaning Stalins hated Main Stream Media) is that the dems are killing their chances with the prolonged primary. Nope, not this time. This particular campaign is hardening Obama and setting Hillary up for a huge run for Senate Majority Leader and a long shot for VP (either are great carrots for her). All these "damaging" revelations and "embarrassing" slip ups will be long played out by the time the general election comes around. The one thing we know is that in America, scandals are like comets. Burn bright then, poof, no one cares anymore. Obama's learning.

Third, and here's where Stalin's going to blow a gasket, the war is an issue. Politics, right now, is about "blocks." And there's a large block what just doesn't like the war, or how its being waged. "More of the same" is an automatic killer. Having a large block out there that simply wont vote for you just means you have less to work with. Rove perfected this concept. Create blocks that won't vote for your opponent no matter what and hem him in. Then attack the edges. I agree with Stalin, this block, by itself, won't change things, but it makes it much harder for McCain. And, by the way, I think this block is bigger than pinko commie liberals, and, if I'm right, that really hurts big Mac. Block Theory is also why Clinton could never win. Her "no matter what" block is just too big.

Fourth. The economy. Incumbent parties don't win Presidential Elections. You can argue all you want that this recession isn't bad, or real, or lots of things, but perception is reality, and the perception is that we're in a recession. And we also all know that the economy picks up well before the perception of the pick-up is realized. I just don't see the perception changing before the election, even if the actual recession is over by then.

Fifth. Age. Big Mac has been under the warming lights for a very long time. Nothing can change that. Oldest President Ever Elected is just going to haunt him. Again this issue by itself isn't enough to change the election, but a large component of block theory is to set the block then attack the edges. Age is perfect "edge" stuff.

Sixth. McCain cannot hold his two key blocks. Right now he's after the conservatives and the moderates and they are not complimentary blocks. Its too fine a line and a zero sum game. A move to shore up one will cost him with the other. He cannot hold the line on his two blocks with no competition. You can bet that once the dems start attacking, holding on will get even harder, forget about building.

Seventh. He hated Bush, now he loves him. Did he vote for Bush, did he call him, "dumb as a stump?" Who knows? My bet? Oh yeah baby. McCain has a famously bad temper so it's not a huge leap of faith to believe Daddy Mac said some not so nice things about W, and I totally understand McCain not voting for W. I mean, I'm a relatively calm dude, but if W pulled that election sleeze on me, I'd say mean things and not vote for him too. The problem is that with conservatives leery to support McCain, this is bad. It also wont go away. Just as Obama probably has more "friends" he'd like to forget, McCain probably has more "comments" he'd like to take back. Will they bring him down? Nope. Just as Obama's "friends" will be old news, McCain's "comments" will also loose steam. But in the interim, McCain famously cash strapped campaign will have a hard time gaining traction as these comments come to light. Again, as the block of absolute no's grows, and W's massive disapproval numbers drag McCain down, the margins are disproportionately important, and his past comments about Bush will hurt those margins.

In summary, keep these two things in mind. One, circumstance and McCain's own actions have created an inverse in the typical strategy. For McCain the margins aren't marginal, they're his life. Losing a few votes on the side isn't really marginal, its exponential. Two, remember, just getting McCain's base to stay home is a huge win for Obama. Obama doesn't necessarily have to convince voters to vote for him, he can also shoot for getting McCain's base to vote for no one. That's a much easier proposition. Worse for Big Mac? He can't run the same strategy against Obama. Obama's voters are coming. While McCain must convince the swing voters to swing his way while shoring up his base all Obama has to do is focus on the swingers (and this is where Bill Clinton comes in-HEY NOW!). Anyway, two fronts vs. one. Odds are strongly with Obama here.

McCain's only hope is that the dems just plain blow it. Normally that makes him a huge underdog, but since its the dems, its probably 50-50.

Obama Supporters to bail out Clinton

I have to admit, I've been following politics for most of my life (yes, I accept that I'm a total geek) but I had no idea that the following was possible.

Top officials of the Barack Obama campaign are privately exploring ways to help Hillary Clinton discharge her debts and pay back the $11.43 million she has loaned her organization.

Really? So now Clinton staying in makes much more sense. She's not so much staying in because she thinks she can win, and she's not really hindered by spending more money because she's actually staying in as a way to make money. In effect, Clinton's just playing for time to negotiate the best deal (don't blame her, $12million is a lot of jack).

But I can't help but wonder if this is bad for Obama. I know that if I gave money to Obama (I didn't) it would be because I support him and his ideas, and not Clinton's, or I would give to her (I didn't). But with this transaction, if I gave to Obama (not the real me, the hypothetical me), I'm really giving to Clinton. No way do I want the money I gave (recall, I didn't) to go to Clinton. In fact, I'd be pretty peeved at Obama for giving my money (in theory) to Clinton.

I'm also surprised this is legal under Election Laws, but I guess it is. Interesting loophole no?

Anyway, my assumption is that this has been going on for years so no one involved thinks anything of it. But now that the practice of using your campaign money to pay off the debts of your competition is public knowledge, I'll be watching to see what the publics's reaction is. I also wonder if McCain did the same for Huckabee and/or Romney?

McCain hates torture, stymied by what to do about it

GOP Presidential hopeful(ly not) John McCain tells 60 Minutes,

We prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II, and one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they waterboarded Americans.

And now America does it. Does, anyone have any ideas on why, and how to stop it? Lets see the follow up.

Asked "how did we lose our way," McCain answered,

I don't know the answer to that.

OH, OH, I know, I know, call on me, call on me, OH, OH! Thank you. Ahem. I think the answer to "how did we lose our way" is when politically ambitious anti-torture Senators sell their souls and vote against a bill that would bring the CIA into compliance with the Army Field Manual banning torture. Then to complete the sell-out urge the President to veto said bill. Which he did. Meaning America still reserves the ability to torture.

So there you go Mr McCain. Feel free to cut this post out and keep it in your pocket next time you're asked the question.