Dip me in cowshit and roll me around in grass blades

Huh.

So, what's our takeaway from two completely non-representative state electoral contests? On the D side, both Obama and Clinton can run formidable campaigns, and most pundits (including yours truly, although I don't think I exactly qualify as a pundit, per se - just as a know-nothing loudmouth) are full of shit. I have no idea where this heads down the road, and the time lag between now and the next few contests (and the big February 5 electoral burrito supreme) makes a magic 8-ball more reliable than any prognosticator. I do think it's a two person race now - Edwards will stay in (and I hope he stays in through February 5, just to keep the social democracy rhetoric in play), but he's got no chance and will be under pressure to bow out.

On the R side, Mittens' star is fading fast. After getting walloped after dumping buckets of money into Iowa, and then getting creamed in a state where he practically lived (oh, and winning Wyoming... whatever the hell that means...), he's going to have the sickly gangrene stench of loserdom following him from here on out. I don't necessarily think it bodes well for McCain, I think outside of its theocon wing, the GOP is terrified of Huckabee, and Giuliani hasn't begun to seriously invoke 9/11 to win yet. Who the fuck knows?

Me? I'll be taking advantage of this apparent lapse in the orderly succession of leadership to smuggle massive amounts of hallucinogens to 7th grade midwesterners. Or drink more booze, as has been the case this evening.

What now?

First things first: my political prognostications aren't worth shit. Now what do we draw from this completely unrepresentative, first-in-the-nation presidential wine-tasting?

On the D side: Iowa was a must-win for Edwards. I don't think there's any way for him to rebound. From what I understand, his field operation in NH is a shadow of what he invested in Iowa, and he's already far enough behind Obama and Clinton in NH that I don't think he'll be able to staunch the bleeding. Obama probably rides the big mo to a win in NH. But beyond that? Clearly, Edwards message resonates, and it's going to be interesting how his supporters shake out and who tries to make a play for them. Like Dave and a lot of others, I find Obama's "unity" message to be a little disconcerting, especially when accompanied by his recent policy sniping from the right. Likewise, I'm not enamored with Hillary and the whole idea of Clinton II. I'd gladly take either over anyone the Rs would have to offer up, though. Obama's clearly the "change" candidate, but his vision of change seems out-of-sync with the times.

Color me flummoxed as to how my own vote shakes out, but for now I'll say that Obama is my second choice after Edwards. After NH, we've got ourselves a Battle Royale on our hands.

On the R side: One thing I'm sure of: you can stick a fork in Mitt. He got shellacked by an underfunded, Bible-bangin' hillbilly, and now the GOP money guys are going to abandon him in droves. I had figured that McCain would get a third place nod that would give him some momentum going into NH to nip Romney there. But Grandpa Fred in third?

So NH looks like a mess to me on on the R side. McCain is ahead in the polls, but will be competing with Obama for independent voters in an open primary, and Obama clearly has more going on for him. Huckabee has been hanging around 10% in the polls and might get a little bounce, but doesn't have the fundamentalist core he needs so desperately. Mitt is going to hemorrhage supporters, but the question becomes how many. I think enough of Mitt's support goes to McCain to put him over the top in NH. Mitt might go on for awhile after that, but will diminish in significance. And South Carolina will be a hideously nasty affair as the GOP big boys try to stamp out Huckabee like they did McCain in 2000 (oh sweet irony). We'll be hearing whispers about Huckabee fucking goats any day now.

And somewhere out there, we have Rudy 9/11 waiting to use his "big state" strategy. I think Rudy fails miserably in this - his support is already cratering given his, erm... out and out douchebagginess, and being out of the media narrative for the first few states while others build momentum will only seal the deal.

But really, what the fuck do I know? Onward to New Hampshire!

Conservatives on crack

In case you were curious as to why no one in their right mind (pun so-not-intended) would ever hire National Review blogger Kathryn Lopez as a political consultant:

I do think the veep is going to matter — and especially to conservatives. Early match-ups wouldn't be a bad idea. If Rudy had Bill Bennett or Rick Santorum running with him, he'd get a second look from pro-lifers who are sick over the prospect of a pro-choice nominee, for instance. A solidly conservative Dick Cheney like figure (is anyone Dick Cheney like though) could help Romney, to ease any concerns about this able guy folks feel like they just met....

To re-cap - for Rudy or Romney to solidify their potential GOP candidacy, the should consider for veep a) a moralistic scold/compulsive gambler, b) a Christianist former senator who was just tossed out on his ass by voters in an important swing state, or c) someone like the most unpopular vice president ever. And you're telling me no campaign is waiting to snap K-Lo up?

Profiles in douchebaggery

To quote the lovely ms. wobs friend JM, "What's not to hate" about Rudy Giuliani? He's got a creepy smile. He's an out-and-out race baiter whose contribution to immigration policy would probably be to stand idly by while Border Patrol agents sodomized detainees with broom handles. His foreign policy plans would make even Dr. Strangelove bristle.

And he's a Yankees fan. That, in and of itself, is a grievous wrong on so many levels, but then one must factor this in:

On Friday, a New York Times story examined Rudy Giuliani's schedule in the months after 9/11 to verify his controversial claim that, like rescue workers, he'd spent long hours at ground zero, and so was "in that sense ... one of them." In fact, the Times found, he only spent 29 hours at the terror site between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16.

[...]

By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 60 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16. By his own standard, Giuliani was one of the Yankees more than he was one of the rescue workers.

This "America's Mayor" bullshit is really starting to wear thin.

Republicans on shrooms

That a plurality of Republicans and leaners find Rudy Giuliani to be the most electable of the current and potential GOP candidates leads me to a number of conclusions:

1. A plurality of Republican's don't really know Giuliani beyond what they've seen on 9/11:
   
2. Republicans are more than willing to throw their "values" under the bus in order to remain in power.
3. Republicans still believe that the mere mention of "9/11" and anyone associated with that tragic day is enough to put the majority of the electorate into a catatonic haze where they'll pull the lever for any authoritarian jackass.

My bets are on numbers 2 and 3. Giuliani hasn't made any apologies for his cosmopolitanism (nor should he), and given that he still has the glow of 9/11 "leadership" on him, at least for Republicans, I think most of the GOoPers are willing to give him a pass in order to have someone in office who wants to kick some brown people's ass (both foreign and domestic).

Unfortunately for them, a growing majority of the country has learned that when Sept. 11 is invoked by Republicans, it's usually being used to make a steaming pile of horseshit smell like petunias. That air freshener ain't working anymore, and the stench of corruption, greed, and mismanagement that accompanies Rudy will only grow stronger as the campaign continues. And the truth of the matter is, his 9/11 performance left a lot to be desired:



Jeebus, if they think Rudy is electable, I wonder why they find others not-so-electable...

Through the looking glass

The world according to Giuliani:

The hard-nosed former U.S. attorney, known for cracking down on organized crime and scooting the homeless from the streets of Manhattan as mayor, told members of the conservative Hoover think tank in Washington today that he made the switch from Democrat to Independent to Republican because "we care about the poor more."

News to me. I'll be changing my voter registration later today.