News10.net

The official word is in from Pennsylvania, the land of Punxsutawney Phil (the forecasting groundhog): six more weeks of winter are ahead for Democrats in this historically drawn-out Primary of the Titans.

With Hillary's 10-point victory in Pennsylvania, we're officially right back where we started. Tonight's results show that Clinton didn't have a big enough victory to change the dynamic of the Democratic race and alter the "leader-board," nor did she have such a small margin of victory (or loss) that it would've knocked her out of the race. Obama still maintains approximately the same lead in the delegate count, ahead of Clinton approximately 1,713 to 1,586. Welcome to the Bill Murray version of Groundhog Day -- it keeps happening over and over and over again...

In Pennsylvania, we divvied up 158 delegates -- and next up in Indiana and North Carolina, our potential nominees will be fighting for their share of the 157 delegates at stake. But do we really need more of the same prolonged debate?

I can only hope that like in the Murray movie, we learn from our mistakes, finally realize what's important (economy, war in Iraq, health care), and get it right at the end. Because while our potential nominees are drawing one another's blood, Republican nominee John McCain enjoyed a "weekend of rest."

The only silver lining I can find in all of this is that the Democrats' dirty laundry will be old news by the time the General Election comes along, because we will have aired it for months -- and by then, it finally will be McCain's turn to face the music.

In the words of Groundhog Day's lead character "Phil": "There is no way this winter is ever going to end as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't see any way out of it. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him."

So, I hate to break it to my fellow Democrats: unless we stop the madness, our winter of discontent (and endless debates), may not end until the primaries on June 3rd -- 6 weeks to the day... and very possibly beyond. Curses on that silly groundhog.

Surf's Up on Tsunami Tuesday...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008 posted by Robin Swanson at 7:22 AM

Surf's up! Its Tsunami Tuesday, and all eyes are on California to determine which Presidential candidates are going to be riding the wave off of our state's gold mine of delegates this Primary Election.

On the Republican side, John McCain had a dominant lead in California only one short week ago -- but Mitt Romney has infused his trademark cash into the coffers of television stations to run ads across our state, and could give McCain a run for his money. If the polls are any indication (and they aren't always -- evidence: New Hampshire), Romney has closed the gap, and has a shot at winning the state by a nose. With 170 Republican votes here in the Golden State, this is a contest where no one wants to have a "wipeout."

And while it doesn't appear to be the case in California, Mike Huckabee does seem to be chipping away at Romney's self-acclaimed conservative base in critical Southern states that vote today.

The Democratic contest here in California will be just as closely watched, but may be more of a wash in terms of the delegate count because of the complex way we apportion our delegates. Approximately two-thirds of Democratic delegates will be awarded by the percentage of the vote the candidates receive in each Congressional District, while the other third will be awarded according their share of the statewide vote.

In recent polls, Barack Obama has also erased Hillary Clinton's once-sizable lead here, but the odds continue to favor both candidates sailing out of California with 100+ delegates added to each of their counts. And both Democratic candidates will be heavily courting the women's vote, which could be the deciding voting block in this Primary. (See "Girl Power!" blog, below.) California is truly the coveted "prize" today, with the winner of state's popular vote walking away with a big psychological boost in what could be the first ripple that ultimately swells to the elusive momentum-wave that helps secure the nomination.

While Democrats need 2025 delegates for the nomination, and today's 22 state primaries hold the key to 1,681 of those delegates - it is unlikely we'll have a clear answer to the question of who the Democratic nominee for President will be by Wednesday... Stay tuned.

Survivor:Presidential Primary
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 posted by Robin Swanson at 6:14 PM

After a series of challenges under trying circumstances in diverse locations and on very little sleep, the contestants on both the blue team and the red team each had to vote a player off the island today. Alliances have been formed, but not all of them have been revealed. Welcome to Survivor: Presidential Primary.

The tribes have spoken, and Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards will no longer be carrying the torches of their respective parties. But were these contenders voted off because of their strength, or were they let go because they were a weak link for their team?

Not surprisingly, I happen to believe Rudy Giuliani was the latter, and while he's formed an alliance with John McCain by endorsing him in his concession speech -- I'm not sure how many votes that gets McCain in the end. In just a few short months, Giuliani has fallen from the top of every national poll to being a blip on the political radar screen.

And his Florida-or-bust strategy will go down in every political consultants' how-not-to-run-a-presidential-campaign-playbook, bunk from start to finish. So, in the quest for delegates toward the Presidential nomination, does the Giuliani endorsement help McCain at all?

The answer is mixed. While there certainly are Rudy die-hards out there, who loved that every sentence, thought and sneeze was finished off with a 9/11 reference, the twice-divorced, pro-choice Giuliani certainly doesn't bring the conservative "values voters" to the voting booth in a Republican Primary.

But while Mitt Romney would love to claim the conservative voters as his own, the pesky-preacher-politician otherwise known as Mike Huckabee, hasn't yet gone away â€“ and could continue to siphon away those votes.

John Edwards, on the other hand, hasn't announced any "alliances" he may have formed -- and if he's looking for a V.P. spot on the ticket, may want to keep his powder dry through Super-Duper Tuesday on February 5th. Ironically, that makes his endorsement that much more valuable to the Democratic nomination process than Giuliani's was to the Republican nomination process. (Note the VERY ingratiating speeches given by both Obama and Clinton today about Edwards...)

And Edwards, at the very least, had already scored a number of delegates in the nominating process, because while most Republican Primaries are winner-take-all, most Democratic Primaries are not.

Others have also suggested that Edwards had such a strong message on the Iraq War, populism and poverty, that the other Democratic candidates essentially co-opted it throughout the campaign. So the theory goes that an endorsement from Edwards would bolster their credibility on those issues all the more.

And then there's the question of the Southern Democrats. While both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have Midwestern roots and East Coast ties -- neither has a lock on the South. In theory, that was Edwards' territory, as a son of the South, despite his devastating loss in South Carolina.

The truth is, in this extended version of Political Primary Survivor, there's no doubt that the winning candidate left standing will be the one who knows how to best Outlast, Outwit and Outplay...

Loves me, Loves me not...
Sunday, January 13, 2008 posted by Robin Swanson at 10:03 PM

After watching the heated Republican debate in South Carolina and Hillary Clinton's "fiesty" performance on "Meet the Press," I wondered how important the candidates' "likability" factor was going to be in this election. In theory, democratically-held elections are "popularity contests" of some sort - the person with the most votes wins. The notable exception to that rule being the year 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the Presidency to George W. Bush. But I don't want to make this particular blog a diatribe on the flaws of our electoral college system.

The question that remains unanswered is: do you really have to LIKE a candidate to vote for her or him to be your leader? The answer from a "focus group" of voters watching the Republican South Carolina debate was a resounding "yes." This group was asked why they overwhelmingly picked Fred Thompson as the winner of the debate, and the vast majority of them said that they really liked him and thought he was "funny" and "clever." But would that make him a good President?

And while I don't happen to agree with the analysis, some pundits even credit Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire surprise comeback to her emotional moment, which theoretically made her more "likable" to women voters. In the last Democratic debate, the moderator even asked Hillary why people found Barack Obama to be more likable than her, to which she humorously responded: "that hurt my feelings..."

I happen to think "likability" is only a small part of the equation when it comes down to electing the President of the United States. Because while Fred Thompson may turn a witty quote during a debate, unless he dramatically changes his tactics, raises more money, shakes more hands, kisses more babies and talks to more actual voters, he will continue to lose states that had him in first-place only a few short months ago. And with a grueling Primary schedule like this: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=140388, all candidates will have to be on their A-game if they want to see the light of day on February 5th.

I also believe that in a time of war and economic-recession, voters are looking for more than a "Comedian-in-Chief" who always has a good punch-line. That's where I think the premature obituaries written for Hillary Clinton by a media obsessed with candidates' personality flaws and the "likability" factor, were dead wrong. She may not be the woman who everyone wants to go have a beer with, but she might just be capable of leading this country back in the right direction. So could Barack Obama. But, if he becomes the Democratic nominee, I believe it will be because voters decided he would be the best leader, not just because he was so darn cool.

The Winds of Change are a Blowin'
Friday, January 4, 2008 posted by Robin Swanson at 8:31 AM

Those 60-70 mile per hour wind gusts blowing through Sacramento this morning are merely a mild tropical breeze compared to the winds of change that blew through the Iowa Caucuses last night.

With relative newcombers Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee running away with their respective party's nominations in Iowa, the trend is clear: make change or go home.

Barack Obama, who won with a commanding 38% of the Democratic Iowa Caucus vote, has been running on a platform of change from day one, a message juxtaposed against the "experience" of rival Hillary Clinton. But the keen observer would notice that even Clinton had the word "change" blasted across her podium sign last night - though it was too little too late to convince a majority of Iowa caucus-goers to vote for her. And John Edwards' fiery speech was entirely focused on changing the status quo. No doubt we will see that message hammered ad nausea by every candidate in New Hampshire for the next five days.

Interestingly, the same message that drove Democrats out to the Caucuses in record numbers, also worked to propel Republican Mike Huckabee to victory in Iowa with 34% of the vote. Despite a few bizarre and amateurish missteps by his campaign over the past week, Huckabee has managed to capture the momentum of change that Fred Thompson was never able to even ignite, and Romney's millions couldn't buy.

And the irony in the Republican voters so feverishly embracing change is the inherent rejection of incumbent President George Bush. No candidate, Republican or Democrat, wants to carry on the Bush legacy of a war with no end in sight, an economy on the brink of recession and leadership that divides instead of unites.

The election storm of 2008 is finally under way, and the blustery winds out of Iowa are only the first harbinger of things to come in a year that is sure to be full of political and meteorological marvels.

Girl Power!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 7:15 AM

Good news, ladies: according to the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/27/MNVTTDNOM.DTL&type=printable), pollsters and political consultants have decided that single, unmarried women are a relevant voting block.

Much like the "Soccer Moms" and "NASCAR Dads" of elections past, it turns out that single females, who make up more than a quarter of the country's eligible voting population, could be the critical vote to sway this election.

So move over Prince Charming, and let the Presidential "wooing" of the single ladies begin. Come on now, I'm looking forward to more love-notes in the form of candidates' big glossy mailers promising me the moon and the stars, and maybe even a little health care too.

No matter that it's almost two centuries after the start of the women's suffrage movement, and that single women are the fastest growing large demographic group in the country -- let's enjoy our moment in the sun.

For once, the news about single women is not about our eggs drying up (remember the hysteria a few years back about the "creeping non-choice" we were making by waiting to have kids?), or some bleak odds about being more likely to get struck by lightning than to find a man that will marry us after a certain age. Nope, this is good news -- our opinions matter.

So what exactly is this 53 million-head-beast otherwise known as the potential single-female-voter (SFV)? Well, that's where it gets tricky. We're not all necessarily the footloose and fancy-free single ladies glamorized by the popular show "Sex and the City." The SFV includes women who are widowed, divorced, separated and unmarried, of all sexual orientations and ethnicities. Some are raising children on their own, and others are not. Some may be living with partners or roommates, and some live alone.

That means that unlike the soccer moms, who were easily labeled as child-centered, the SFV is a more amorphous voter to target. That's right, where political outreach is concerned, we're a high-maintenance group. You might find us at the coffee shop, the mall or even a Monarchs game. And we may or may not be listed in the phone book for safety reasons -- so good luck trying to call us.

Finding the elusive SFV is the first hurdle -- trying to figure out what she's thinking is entirely another. Although many of us ladies have expected men to read our minds over the years, it appears the political consultants and presidential contenders are actually going to take a stab at it this election. But given the complexity of the SFV, I can't imagine they are going to have much more luck than the poor men-folk who have been banging their heads against the wall trying to figure it out for eons.

While 43 percent of SFV's make less than $30,000 per year, an equal number of them make more than $75,000 per year. So it's more likely than not that an SFV is supporting herself and concerned about so-called "pocketbook" issues, but her economic status is going to run the spectrum. That means she's just as likely to care about the sky-rocketing price of gas as say, a "NASCAR Dad."

Despite these challenges, a non-profit group called "Women's Voices, Women's Vote," http://www.wvwv.org/, has launched a series of public service ads in an effort to get more women politically involved and voting.

I think that's great. I just hope they buy as many ads on ESPN's SportsCenter as they do on Lifetime, "television for women."

Girl Power?
Monday, November 19, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 9:20 AM

I thought about blogging about last week's Democratic debate (Hillary held her own and pushed back against those attacking her; Barack had a rocky start, but finished strong; and nobody else really mattered), but the fact is, I am still trying to make heads or tails about something I watched a few weeks ago -- "The Women's Conference 2007."

The conference, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08DogD8tNJA) which was moderated by Maria Shriver, was basically a conversation among many of the Presidential candidates' wives, including Michelle Obama, Jeri Thompson, Ann Romney, Cindy McCain and Elizabeth Edwards.

After watching it for only a few minutes, I was both impressed and disturbed by the women on the stage: Impressed that each of these women were incredibly accomplished, articulate, attractive and "relatable" in their own right. Disturbed by how anachronistic the conference felt, with a stage full of women completely sacrificing their own lives and careers to support the unlikely dreams of their husbands to become President of a nation that has only elected men to the post in our 2.5 centuries of democracy.

They are all truly remarkable women, who ironically seemed to possess certain qualities that their husbands are lacking: Michelle Obama is obviously equally as sharp as her fellow Harvard-educated husband, but manages to answer questions without sounding the least bit rehearsed. Ann Romney is well-spoken, and emits a genuine sincerity that Mitt can't seem to render. Elizabeth Edwards is not only articulate, but manages to be both fearless and warm at the same time. And Cindy Hensley McCain and Jeri Thompson both have the youthful energy that neither of their husbands seems to be able to muster.

Yet there they sat: supporting someone else's vision and a dream that was partly theirs, but not truly their own. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to downplay the importance of a good partnership in life, but the fact that the stage was a lopsided estrogen-only zone of supporters just didn't seem right.

And while the word "feminism" means very different things to people now than it did decades ago, I had to wonder, is this stage what Gloria Steinem would have envisioned after forty-plus years of "progress" on women's rights?

Even more strange was the fact that no one wanted to talk about the fact that Hillary Clinton had already lived the life of the "candidate's wife," for many years. She sat on many stages just like where they were sitting, and back in her day, she probably fumbled more questions as the "candidate's wife" than all of them combined.

But I wanted to ask each and every one of them if they ever thought it was going to be their "turn," -- or if they even wanted a turn. I wanted to know if any one of them, in the depths of her imagination, secretly day-dreamed about running against Hillary. What would she say? What would she do differently than her husband? But none of those questions were answered, or even asked.

So I'm not sure that I've come to any profound conclusions about it all, but thinking again about the debate, I even entertained the idea, what if that was Michelle Obama standing behind that podium next to Hillary Clinton? Now that's a showdown that might actually get some ratings.

Trick or Treat
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 10:10 AM

The Washington Post published an article this week: "What's Your Halloween Candy Personality?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/artsandliving/source/features/2007/halloween-candy-102807/chart.html?hpid=topnews

which explained that the kind of candy you pass out to unsuspecting trick-or-treaters on October 31st says a lot about the kind of person you really are. O.K. -- I realize it's not exactly breaking news, but the lead piqued my interest enough to click on it (or maybe it was my incurable sweet-tooth taking over), and alas, I couldn't help myself from taking it one step further.

So, in the spirit of all things ghoulishly political, I thought I would offer some suggestions to many of our Presidential candidates as to the Halloween candy they might want to hand out (from the window of their campaign bus in Iowa):

Fred Thompson: Whachamacallit

Good ole' Fred Thompson can't seem to remember the year, the state of world affairs, or the fact that the Soviet Union is no longer a country. So I figured he should at least pass out a Halloween treat with a non-descript name he wouldn't have to struggle to remember...

Rudy Giuliani: Jawbreaker

He's so tough and hardened, you could work on him for weeks without getting to his core. He's been around for years, and either you like him or you just don't have the patience for him.

Hillary Clinton: Reese's Peanut Butter Cups

Just like there's no better combination than peanut butter and chocolate, there's no more powerful political duo than Bill and Hillary. And they are quite popular in every national poll.

Barack Obama: Poprocks

He's new, he's different, he's exciting, like the little candy that explodes on your tongue. No other candidate can quite match his rockstar qualities. But people want to know: what happens after the fireworks?

John McCain: Lifesavers

While his poll numbers have picked up slightly in key states like New Hampshire, John McCain still needs a lifesaver to revive his uninspired campaign.

Mitt Romney: PayDay Bars

How much of his own money can one candidate spend on his Presidential campaign? Only Mitt Romney knows the answer to that question. But goodness knows media buyers across the country are just lickin' their chops to get ahold of some Romney's payday stash.

Mike Huckabee: Raisins

I know, I know -- it's not a candy. But this man has lost a whopping 105 pounds in the past three years, and now he's fit as a fiddle. With his new emphasis on health and fitness reforms, he's vowed to only eat non-processed, healthy foods. Raisins for everyone!

John Edwards: Godiva/Hershey's

O.K. -- so I'm confused about this one, just like I am about the candidate. John Edwards is a man who can afford the $400 haircuts, palatial homes and Godiva chocolates (and he's just as smooth as their chocolate truffle), but he has managed to secure the backing of labor groups across the country. (According to the United Food and Commercial Workers, Hershey's is a labor-friendly company...) So I think he passes out both the Godiva's and the Hershey's, depending upon the trick-or-treater who comes to his door.

Bill Richardson: Jolly Ranchers

Dressed in his vintage cowboy hat and boots and grinning from ear-to-ear in most of his political mailers, this New Mexico Governor is clearly most at home on his happy ranch.

Duncan Hunter: Hot Tamales

From his extreme views on immigration and "shutting down the Mexican-American border," to his explosive conversations with Pentagon officials about Iraq war strategies, this candidate can be too hot to handle.

Mike Gravel: Snickers

I'll say it -- he's kinda nutty. Come on now, have you seen his "metaphorical" YouTube spots? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19295759/ According to Gravel, only people under the age of 30 can understand them (has he looked at the age demographics of people who actually vote?), so perhaps that's why I'm just as dumbfounded as the next voter.

Dennis Kucinich: Almond Joy

Also a bit nutty. Just a happier-go-luckier version.

Here's Hoping...
Thursday, September 13, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:28 PM

Today, the University of Southern California released a fascinating study on the role of "hope" as a resonating and decisive emotion in American elections.

In a press release about the study, "Don't Give Up Hope: Emotions, Candidate Appraisals and Votes," the reports' authors conclude that "hope about a candidate is a particularly powerful emotion that motivates voters."

The study, led by USC Professor Ann Crigler, also concluded that: 1)Hope is the most important emotion in a campaign; 2) Hope for one candidate is closely related to fear of the opposing candidate; 3) Voters compensate for their increasing hope of a favored candidate by building a negative image of the opponent; 4) Hope biases information search by voters, and 5) Biased info and perception may lead to false hope regarding election outcomes.

I suppose that since Americans as a whole have long been viewed as hopeful, optimistic and even "naive" by people in other countries, the results of this study aren't exactly shocking-- but I also think it's painfully apparent that the current Administration has created a vacuum of "hope" in our country. Whether it's a seemingly endless, bloody war in Iraq, or an economy and housing market that have put middle-class families in a squeeze, reasons for many Americans to feel hopeful are fewer and further between.

So looking at our current crop of Presidential contenders, who do we think will capture the "hope-factor" among voters?

An obvious choice would be Barack Obama. After all, he even authored a book titled: "The Audacity of Hope," trying to tap into a sense of optimism and hope for the future. Obama is also known for his electrifying stump speech that inevitably leaves a crowd hopeful.

And Hillary Clinton clearly has no shortage of hope on her campaign, which continues to run at full-speed with double-digit leads in every major national poll. Her stump speech also is riddled with references to hope for the future, posing questions like: "How do we keep this huge, sprawling diverse country together and moving into the future with optimism and hope?"

It's also clear that Republican voters are still "hoping" for something better from their field of candidates. Expressing dissatisfaction with their choices, it's almost as if Republican Primary voters were simply checking the box for "other" before Fred Thompson entered the race, hoping he would give them something to believe in. I don't happen to believe he has delivered on those expectations yet, but only time will tell.

The fact is -- despite the inevitable accusations that will fly and mud that will be slung over the coming months as the campaigns intensify, the candidate who wins their Party's nomination and ultimately the White House, will be the candidate who gives voters a real reason to feel hopeful.

It's no mistake that Bill Clinton, a once little-known Governor from Arkansas, captured the imagination of the American people and sailed to Presidential victory with a stump speech that always began with: "I Still Believe In a Place Called Hope." And I suppose it didn't hurt that he was born there...

HOW GOOD OF AN ACTOR IS HE?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 7:20 PM

With summer vacations coming to a close for politicians, parents, students and bloggers alike, the dress-rehearsal days of Presidential debates that no one watches and political missteps that no one pays attention to, are over.

Enter, stage right, former United States Senator Fred Thompson, your next presidential wannabe. But is he ready for his close-up?

While the GOP is grasping for a candidate who looks, sounds and yes, ACTS like a Republican, they also want someone who can capture the imagination (and the votes) of the American electorate. On the surface, Fred Thompson doesn't look much different than the other eight older white men vying for the Republican nomination (please see previous postings), but the question remains -- does he have something new and different to say? And more importantly, can he sell a credible message that resonates with voters on Iraq, health care and the economy?

Sitting atop Newsweek's cover with the intriguing headline "Lazy like a Fox," Thompson the Presidential candidate remains somewhat a mystery. He's expected to officially announce his candidacy on Thursday, but in a Schwarzenegger-inspired move (perhaps initiated by the many former Schwarzenegger staff newly hired to Thompson's campaign team), he will likely make the initial announcement of his candidacy to the masses on Jay Leno Wednesday night.

While the rest of the Republican field is engaging in yet another mind-numbing debate to nuance potential policy differences, Thompson gets to play political softball on a show with broad appeal. Not a bad move for him - but it still doesn't lower the high bar that he set for himself by jumping into the race long after all the other candidates got a running start.

The political chattering class has declared Thompson's unofficial stump speeches thus far to be lackluster and uninspiring - so the question remains whether Republicans look to Thompson as their savior from a humdrum field of candidates. And like other Republicans in the field, Thompson won't be able to duck from the hard issues of the day, and ultimately will have to give definitive answers to tough questions - namely on the war in Iraq.

But like Ronald Reagan before him, the "lazy" label can be overcome with charm and luck, and like Schwarzenegger, Thompson could pull off the "everyman" appeal, despite his far-from-everyman lifestyle.

All three men have performed as Hollywood actors, but Thompson has yet to prove his acting chops on a national political stage. It's time for that curtain to rise.

Getting to Know You...
Monday, August 6, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 1:08 PM

With several Presidential debates already under our belts, and nearly a dozen more over the next six months leading up to Super-Tuesday on February 5th, voters have more opportunities than ever to get to know their Presidential contenders.

But when candidates deliver rehearsed barbs and one-liners at one event after the next, voters may experience some debate-ennui, yearning for the authenticity that got lost somewhere between the poll-driven talking points.

While the You-Tube debates have certainly added color to landscape, allowing "real" (if often wacky) people to ask the questions, the candidates could (and often did) still lapse into their comfort zones with stump speeches and answers.

But there is one venue that I think will give voters a different, more genuine glimpse into the candidates' psyches - Comedy Central's "Indecision 2008."

In the coming weeks, Jon Stewart will be hosting four Presidential candidates on the "Daily Show," including Joe Biden on 8/8, John McCain on 8/16, Tommy Thompson on 8/20 and Barak Obama on 8/22. And Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and John Edwards have already appeared on his program, some multiple times.

Neither party's front-runners, Hillary Clinton nor Rudy Giuliani, have agreed to go on yet. Nor has Mitt Romney. But I have no doubt they will, eventually, go on (with the exception possibly of Romney, who appears to want to wimp-out on even the Republican You-Tube debate). Because while Jon Stewart certainly comes with a liberal bent, he actually doles out the cynicism and humor pretty even-handedly, giving candidates a real opportunity to show their true colors.

On "Meet the Press" this weekend, Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin talked about how important it is for voters to choose candidates less on their platforms and more on their inherent "qualities and attributes."

I think voters already instinctively do this - it's just that now with the Internet and non-traditional programming, they have multiple venues to learn about the real "person" behind the candidate.

It's not that we expect our next President to be a comedian (restraining myself from making any reference to our current Commander-in-Chief here), but we want the opportunity to peek behind the curtain "Wizard of Oz-style" to make sure we're getting the real deal.

And if we don't seize this opportunity to do that over the coming months, well then, I guess the joke's on us...

This is No Pillow Fight
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 3:50 PM

Watching last night's "slumber party," held in the hallowed chambers of the United States Senate to debate the Iraq war, I didn't get to see any of my favorite Senators on C-SPAN in their fuzzy slippers or flannels, but I do think the topic at hand was worthy of an all-nighter, (and many, many more).

There's no question that the Iraq War is the politically defining issue of 2007, just as it was in 2006, and will be in 2008, when we elect our country's next President. That's because until we stop spending billions of dollars every week on Iraq's civil war, we can't even begin to address the bread-and-butter issues that affect millions of Americans right here at home.

The latest tallies show that we have spent approximately $450 billion on this war, http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar/index-public-education.html roughly equal to hiring almost 8 million new teachers, or providing health insurance for 266 million kids.

Yet President George Bush continues to justify the Iraq war by using the same old hollow rhetoric he started the war with over four years ago: The enemy is coming across our borders. All other issues must take a back seat while we're a nation under siege.

But the failure in the logic has always been, and continues to be, that the war in Iraq is an effective method for quelling terrorism here at home and abroad. One news report after another continues to show that the opposite is true - the terrorists are now emboldened, and while we're spending billions on a bloody civil war, Al Qaeda has gotten stronger.

With the National Counterterrorism Center releasing a threat assessment report last week entitled "Al-Qaeda Better Positioned to Strike the West," and our own Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff telling the Chicago Tribune he has a "gut feeling" about an impending terrorist attack, Americans are left to wonder just exactly what they are getting in return for their half-a-trillion-dollar investment.

When George Bush held a press conference last week to defend a report that very clearly defined the failures of our foreign policy in Iraq, he had the audacity to claim: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home."

That's simply not true, and never has been - the September 11th Commission disproved that assertion in a study released back in 2004, saying that they found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

And the fact that our President continues to perpetuate that lie as justification for our involvement in Iraq is both disgraceful and deeply disturbing.

When a reporter at the same press conference asked our President for evidence that his assertion was true, he offered none.

The fact is that al Qaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden, remains at large nearly 6 years after orchestrating the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. And this President's myopic world-view and failure to fight a truly modern war on terrorism has made our country more susceptible, not less, to terrorist attacks.

So while some conservatives have called the Senate all-nighter a "publicity stunt," I think that only good things can come out of shedding more light on the quagmire that has been created by this Administration, and discussing real solutions for getting out of Iraq.

Although only 4 Republican Senators (Susan Collins - Maine, Chuck Hagel - Neb., Gordon Smith - Ore., and Olympia Snowe - Maine), today showed the courage to stand with the majority of the American people in voting to support a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq, the political tides are turning.

And perhaps after a few more all-nighters on this issue, Senate Republicans will wake up with a fresh perspective on what has become a nightmarish war for our country.

Bill O'Reilly Likes His Women Muzzled
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:37 PM

When I was invited to tape a segment on the O'Reilly Factor today, I knew that I would be walking onto a set-up program that would be biased against any reasonable Democratic point of view, but I've appeared on many FOX News (FNC) programs before, and felt comfortable responding on the topic of the day.

On previous FNC programs, such as "Hannity & Colmes," while there's a clear conservative skew, panelists usually are allowed to make their points, even if they have to shout to be heard.

But despite the well-deserved perception of FNC as a conservative monolithic "news" outlet, they continue to do well in the ratings game, and their viewers run the gamut of the ideological spectrum. So Democrats from across the country, including myself, brave the landmine-riddled terrain that is FNC in order to attempt to deliver a Democratic viewpoint in otherwise hostile territory.

Normally, you've got about 15-20 seconds to make your point in segments that run from about 3-7 minutes long. Most of the time I've been able to deliver a few salient points, and other times I've been less successful.

But today was different.

In the midst of a debate where O'Reilly was trying to pit the Left of the Democratic Party against Senator Hillary Clinton, I dared to disagree with his premise. I had the audacity to suggest that the fissures about the war in Iraq were actually in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.

O'Reilly was clearly perturbed that I didn't allow him to bully me. So, mid-sentence, apparently taking his cue from the season finale of the Sopranos, he cut my audio and video feed. Fade to black.

For a news organization that laughingly calls itself "fair and balanced," this was a new low. O'Reilly claims that his program is a "No-spin zone," but apparently, it's "No-speech zone" if you disagree with him.

O'Reilly's censorship of guests who don't perform on-cue like trained monkeys is truly Orwellian. If you disagree with him, you don't exist - he cuts your feed.

No debate, no argument, no fighting to get in the last word - simply pushing a button, and sending guests' satellite feed back into space.

Perhaps I should've expected this treatment from a network whose President, Roger Ailes made jokes comparing Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden, but with O'Reilly leading the charge, FNC is has achieved the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer. And at least that rag is entertaining.

And in the ultimate ironic twist, O'Reilly began tonight's program with a whiny segment complaining that Democratic Presidential contenders have refused to appear on his program.

All I have to say is: Keep dreaming O'Reilly - your on-air temper-tantrum today is proof positive that your "no-spin zone" is anything but.

Richie Rich for Pre$ident
Monday, June 11, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:31 PM

The amount of money modern-day Presidential candidates have to raise in order to be considered "contenders" has reached an all-time high, and will continue to be closely monitored and analyzed by the media, but what really should be raising eyebrows is their staggering collective personal wealth.

The United States Senate has been called the "millionaires' club" in recent years, and given that many of the '08 Presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle come with Senate experience on their resumes, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they are all loaded. But a quick review of the Presidential candidates' personal financial disclosure forms may make you have some "champagne wishes and caviar dreams" Robin Leach-style.

Here are the estimates of the personal net worth of some of the candidates at the end of '06:

Mitt Romney: $190 - $250 Million
John Edwards: $22 - $62 Million
Hillary Clinton: $10 - $50 Million
John McCain: $13 - $23 Million
Rudy Giuliani: Approx. $30 Million
Bill Richardson: $3.5 - $10 Million
Chris Dodd: $1.5 - $3.5 Million
Duncan Hunter: $1- $2.4 Million
Barack Obama: $500 K - $1.1. Million

So move over Spot, Buddy and Millie, because with Richie Riches like these running for President, the next Presidential Dog is bound to be named Dollar.

That said, being a wealthy Presidential contender isn't necessarily a new phenomenon. John Kerry's wealth is reported to be in the Romney-range (hundreds of millions), and the Bush-dynasty is most decidely of the blue-blood variety. John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt also came to the office with plenty of cash on hand.

But the sheer number of millionaire candidates running for President this cycle is remarkable, and raises questions about just how accessible the nation's highest office will be in the future for ordinary people with extraordinary dreams.

Eddie Haskell vs. Beaver Cleaver
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:13 PM

Coming home on a flight from D.C. this weekend, I had a rare chance to read my Time magazine cover-to-cover, and two of the articles: "Obama's Inconvenient Truths" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1627031,00.html
by Karen Tumulty, and "Mitt Romney's Disappointing Campaign" http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1626721,00.html by Joe Klein, jumped out at me because difference between the featured candidates couldn't be more stark.

It struck me that they could've been cast from an episode of "Leave it to Beaver," with Mitt Romney starring as Eddie Haskell, the insincere brown-noser, and Barack Obama playing the part of the unfailingly and sometimes painfully earnest Beaver Cleaver.

Mitt Romney's ability to weasel out of answering difficult questions, brown-nose a crowd and flip-flop on any given issue depending on who he's trying to impress, is so Eddie Haskell-like, I'm just waiting for him to belt out: "That's a lovely dress you're wearing Mrs. Cleaver."

On the campaign trail, Klein details Romney's complete inability to articulate a position on the war in Iraq, and describes the "brazen cynicism of his candidacy," at a press conference in Dover, N.H., where he clumsily handles his flip-flopping position on the issue of immigration. Here's Romney's non-answer to the question of what immigration policy he would actually favor: "I'm not going to lay down a posture different from the others being considered."

Seriously - it was enough to make me gag on my honey-roasted peanuts.

So I moved onto Tumulty's article about Barack Obama's willingness to "tell it like it is," no matter who he might offend. (Note a collective gasp from the political consultants of the world, myself included... )

Tumulty says that: "Whereas other candidates like to throw red meat before their audiences, Obama is developing a penchant for hurling cold water at them." Case in point - Obama's decision to give an environmental speech decrying the abuses of automakers... to the Detroit Economic Club.

The question remains whether Obama's Beaver-Cleaver-esque and painfully honest "eat-your-spinach approach," as he calls it, will get him through a Democratic Primary. It's clear he's positioned himself as an outsider who wants to buck the establishment and bring in a "new" kind of politics to Washington. Problem is, he has to get there through our very "old" and established system - one with an Electoral College and vested interest groups that move both the money and voters necessary to make ordinary politicians into U.S. Presidents. So Obama's "Gee Wally, I'm just bein' honest" response isn't going to easily assuage those who want to protect the status quo.

While it's still anybody's game at this point, if Obama does make it through the Primary process to be the Democratic nominee, it's clear he'll have a better chance in a General Election than Mitt Romney, who is Eddie-Haskelling his way through the Republican Primary. Maybe it worked for Eddie because his world was in black-and-white, but the average American voter now gets to see our candidates in living color, (warts and all), as they endure a much longer period of scrutiny than ever before.

As my plane descended into Sacramento and I returned my seat back and tray table to their full, upright and locked position, I comforted myself with the thought that the average American voter will see through the cynicism and pick the real deal.

Mob rule
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 7:05 PM

When it comes to watching crime dramas and corruption scandals, who needs the Sopranos when you've got the California GOP? I'm here to tell you: save yourself the extra $19.99 per month on your cable bill, cancel your HBO subscription and start paying closer attention to the California Congressional Delegation. It's a reality TV show you won't want to miss.

With an all-star cast featuring: Reps. Johnny "Dough$Boy" Doolittle, Ken "Earmark" Calvert, Jerry "Scud-Missile" Lewis, Gary "Homework" Miller, and of course the "Godfather" of Congressional corruption, Randy "Duke" Cunningham (already doing his time in the pokie), these GOP Congressmen have created more drama-filled twists and turns than when Tony Soprano had family-member Christopher Moltisanti whacked.

In fact, Tony no doubt would be envious of the small fortune in legal defense funds these Congressmen have amassed and spent. According to an article in USA Today this weekend, Rep. "Scud-Missile" Lewis has raised and spent $906,000 in legal fees, Rep. "Duke" Cunningham $570,000, and Rep. "Dough$Boy" Doolittle $149,000. In total, the GOP rounds out 9 of the 10 top spots for lawmakers who spent the most campaign money on legal fees in the past 27 months.

And while this Congressional crew is keeping the Feds busy investigating their extracurricular activities, we the American taxpayers are getting stuck with a "Bada-Bing" of our own - a big fat bill.

Even conservative Republicans are speaking out against the GOP Culture of Corruption in Congress. The conservative blog RedState.com is quite red-faced over the recent appointment of Rep. "Earmark" Calvert on the powerful House Appropriations Committee in the midst of an ethics scandal. Ironically, the vacancy on the committee was created when "Dough$Boy" Doolittle had to vacate it in the midst of his own family's ethics problems and affiliations with criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

And even more disturbing is the fact that Rep. "Scud-Missile" Lewis is actually the RANKING Republican on the same committee, making decisions about billions of dollars in defense contracts while under investigation for crony-ism and unfairly doling out contracts to friends. Do we really want a man who has spent almost a million dollars on legal fees appropriating our hard-earned tax-dollars?

No doubt the Congressional "pork" doled about by these men would put the Sopranos' famous Satriale's Pork Store out of business...

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words
Monday, May 7, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 11:45 AM

For all those who have feigned indignation over my previous postings about the Republican Party offering the American people a predictable one-dimensional cast of Presidential contenders (Crusty Old White Dudes), I offer this picture from last week's Republican debate.

There's really not much more that I can say, except that the America I live in and love looks much different than this picture.

Edwards and Apple Pie
Sunday, April 29, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 11:20 AM

Having just watched former Senator John Edwards deliver his speech to the Democratic Convention here in San Diego this morning, I feel like I've just had a dish of warm apple pie and ice cream served up to me on a TV tray while sittin' on my living room couch.

Maybe it's his Southern charm and accent that makes his delivery so darn smooth and palatable, but Edwards managed to send out some pretty potent and hard-hitting messages about the war in Iraq, the deplorable child-poverty in our country and the declining world-view of the United States, without breaking a sweat or sounding the least bit bombastic. He even managed to keep the audience captivated while outlining the details of his plan to provide health care coverage for all Americans. Edwards brought the crowd to their feet a number of times throughout his speech, with people smiling and nodding their heads afterwards, reminded again of why they've like him so much all along.

So, I've said it before and I'll say it again - while Clinton and Obama continue to be the main media attractions, there's no doubt that with the right set of circumstances, John "dark horse" Edwards could very possibly find himself at the top of the Democratic ticket. His challenge will be to convince the remaining skeptics who question the authenticity of his recent shift to the Left, that he's the real deal.

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party is offering the American people genuine choices for a long overdue change in leadership. The same cannot be said for the predictable cast of characters we'll see at the Republican debate in a few days.

The Organizer vs. The Orator
Saturday, April 28, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:18 PM

As all of the major Democratic Presidential contenders court the increasingly important California vote at the state Democratic Convention this weekend, the mood here at the San Diego Convention Center is both hopeful and rowdy.

Two of the arguably most exciting contenders, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, spoke to the Democratic faithful today, and the stylistic differences between the two are distinct.

First up this morning was Hillary Clinton, whose campaign appears to have out-organized the Obama camp at this Convention. By the time she walked on this San Diego stage, she had already locked up a pretty impressive list of nearly two dozen notable California endorsers, including California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, and former Governor Gray Davis. While voters don't vote for a President based on a campaign endorsement list, a candidate's backers can be a critical organizing tool that brings with it invaluable resources and manpower.

I also give Clinton credit for giving a formidable speech in the throes of having what appears to be a miserable flu while on the verge of losing her voice. Having just recouped from a similar bug this week where I was incapable of wrestling myself off the couch for days on end, much less participating in a live televised debate in South Carolina, flying 3000 miles and then following it up with a major Convention speech, I tip my hat to her - she's got some serious fortitude. She managed to deliver a speech that was compelling in parts and emotional in others. It's clear her drive is unshakeable - Hillary "the Organizer" Clinton is truly a force to be reckoned with.

If Hillary Clinton was the "Organizer" today, Barack Obama was undeniably the "Orator." He electrifies a crowd like no one I've seen (with the possible exception, ironically, of Bill Clinton) and manages to capture an intangible passion. While he didn't veer much from his "stump" speech, it's like a great song you've heard before and want to hear again - and if you're not careful, you may just start singing along.

It's clear that the one area where Obama's speech outshines Clinton's is on the subject of the war on Iraq. Clinton has put herself in the position of "explaining" far too much, while Obama simply ignites the emotional fires that moved an electorate in 2006 to throw Republicans out of office and enact an historic change of leadership in Congress.

Reality Check
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:55 PM

Tonight at 7 p.m., moveon.org will host an online virtual "town hall" with all of the Democratic Presidential contenders. Topic: Iraq.

While there will no doubt be some banter about who opposes the war the most and who opposed the war first, I can't help but think about the stark contrast between a Democratic conversation about the war and what we'll see when the Republicans debate it at the Reagan Presidential Library on May 3rd.

The fact is, although none of major Republican candidates has been willing to distance himself from President Bush's failed policy in Iraq, the GOP has no cohesive message about the war. And the spin machine at the Republican National Committee has to come to terms with the fact that every conversation their candidates have about it further alienates voters from their party.

Case in point: John McCain's bizarre publicity stunt calling on the "liberal" media to cover the "good news" in Iraq while simultaneously walking through a Baghdad market surrounded by American troops, armored tanks and attack helicopters hovering overhead.

It reminded me of a weatherman who goes to the center of a hurricane to give a live report with gale-force winds blowing him over. Except as the waves crash over the barriers and the palm trees bend to the ground with every gust, the meteorologist declares: "its 70 degrees and sunny, not a cloud in the sky!"

At least tonight's discussion among the Democrats will be grounded in reality.

Mo' Money
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 10:28 AM

How much money could a one-term Senator from Illinois in a crowded field of well-known and established candidates possibly raise in his candidacy for President?

$25 million. That's the pretty astonishing news from the Barack Obama for President camp today. In addition, they claim to have over 100,000 individual donations, showing that Obama's base is as broad as it is generous. Today's announcement should erase any doubts -- Obama is officially a contender.

But let's be clear -- Obama's still got an uphill battle in key states, including right here in California. Yesterday, the respected Field Poll released new numbers putting Democrats head-to-head that showed Senator Hillary Clinton with a commanding 20 point lead over Obama here in California (Clinton 41, Obama 21, Edwards 13.)

With a comparable stash of campaign cash, however, Obama's got a real shot, and the race is on.

No matter what, the excitement about the Democratic ticket is palpable, and I can't help but point out that the potential Republican nominees simply aren't generating the same kind of energy or campaign cash.

A rough comparison of the funds raised by the top 3 Democratic Presidential contenders ($75 million) versus the top 3 Republican contenders ($50.5 million) shows that voters and donors just aren't excited about what the Republican Party has to offer.

Show Me the Money!
Monday, April 2, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 3:01 PM

On this morning's program, Karen and I talked about the initial fundraising reports released by some of the Presidential campaigns, with Senator Hillary Clinton leading the pack, raising over $36 million ($26 million in new money).

As more first-quarter fundraising reports trickle out, it appears that the other big winner of the day is Republican dark horse Mitt Romney, raising an astounding $23 million.

While campaign cash certainly doesn't guarantee an Election Day victory, Romney's ability to outpace his fellow Republican Presidential contenders is worth noting. Though some are focused on John McCain's comparatively poor showing of $12.5 million, I think the real disappointment has to be in Giuliani-land, where the Republican frontrunner has raised $15 million, far short of both Clinton and Romney.

Giuliani, like Clinton, has the wealthy New York fundraising base and frontrunner status, but he still managed to come up short on reporting day. While there's still plenty of time to even the playing field over the next 19 months, its clear Romney wins the initial financial flex-off among Republican contenders.

The big unanswered question is Barack Obama. If he's in the ballpark of Clinton's $26 million in new money raised, any lingering doubt people might have in their minds about his viability should be erased.

It's Good to be Loved
Monday, March 26, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 11:26 AM

With California's Presidential Primary moved to February 5th, the courting of voters by Presidential candidates in the nation's most populous state has begun. Californians had to learn the hard way that money couldn't really buy love, with previous Presidential candidates keeping the Learjet engine running while they popped in and out of the state for quickee fundraisers. But the new Primary date seems to be working like a rock-solid pre-nup - these Presidential wannabes will have to prove their love before they get to empty our bank accounts.

Some experts argue that due to the number of states moving up their Primaries and the astronomical cost of buying television commercials in states like California, campaigning in the smaller states like New Hampshire and Iowa will become even more relevant.

But that simply isn't the reality we're seeing here in the Golden State. This weekend alone, we had the pleasure of three would-be Presidents making the trek to the Left Coast, including Democratic hopefuls John Edwards and Barack Obama in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, and Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani in Oakland and Monterey. Other candidates, including Hillary Clinton and even Mitt Romney, have also made a number of public visits to our state in the past month, with one notable high-profile exception: John McCain (see Hanretty's blog: "He's just not that into you...")

A quick review of the Presidential candidates' schedules for the upcoming week shows that California stops are right up there with visits to states like Iowa, New York and Texas. In fact, it appears New Hampshire is the state being neglected this week, with only California's Duncan Hunter paying tribute to the first-in-the-nation Primary state.

It's pretty clear that of the 17 states likely hosting their Primaries on February 5th (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah primaries; Nevada Republican primary; North Dakota caucuses), California seems to be getting the most love.

And make no mistake: while prying open the wallets of generous Californians is still very much part of the agenda, rallies and public appearances to reach out to the state's 15.6 million voters are just as important.

GOP to Independents: You're Not Invited to this Party
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 4:27 PM

According to the California Secretary of State's web site, nearly 3 million people in our state are registered as Decline-to-State (DTS) voters. That's 18.83% of all registered voters in California, compared with 42.52% registered Democrats and 34.19% registered Republicans.

The number of these DTS voters has shot up exponentially in California and nationwide as they feel more and more removed from "party" politics and Coulter-esque creeps.

But over the past week, in yet another stunning case of short-sightedness, the California Republican Party upheld a rule to ban Independent voters from participating in the Republican Presidential Primary.

For a Party that managed to alienate voters across the spectrum in the '06 Election Cycle, Republicans appear not to have learned much from their historic defeat.

Instead of working to rebuild their Party and earn voters' trust, California Republicans have rolled up their welcome mats, drawn the blinds, retreated behind their gated communities and changed the gate codes. Message to uninvited guests: go home!

In fact, the Southern Vice-Chairman of the Republican Party, Jon Fleischman, has said in his blog that he would "support expanding the current policy as it pertains to the Presidential Primary, to say that to vote in the Republican Primary for Statewide Constitutional Office, Congress or the State Legislature, you must be a registered Republican voter."

In an era of "retail politics," where most elected officials and campaigners realize they have to "sell" a palatable agenda to everyday voters, the California Republican Party has embraced its own version of "Ralph Lauren politics," with an emphasis on exclusion.

In the mean time, the Democratic Party not only allows Decline-to-State voters to participate in their Presidential Primary, they are standing on the rafters, blasting out the Evites and asking voters to "come one and come all" to participate in the Democratic process.

Democrats in this state understand that one-size-does-not-fit-all, and that every vote matters.

In fact, in the San Diego Union Tribune this week, respected U.C. Berkeley political scientist Bruce Cain explained that Independents tend to remain loyal to the party they vote with in the Primary.

So if the Republicans want to keep more than 18 percent of voters out of their Party process at a time when California has an earlier Primary date and more influence than ever over who may become this country's next President, I fully support their decision. Most people know that Democrats throw a better "Party" anyhow.

Staking their ground
Sunday, March 4, 2007 posted by Robin Swanson at 9:07 PM

Just a quick observation:

While Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vied for the African American vote today in Selma, Alabama, John Edwards was right here in California once again courting the labor vote.

He spoke at U.C. Berkeley about the importance of their janitors' campaign, and yes, even responded to Coulter's derogatory remarks about him, taking the opportunity to set up his own "Coulter Cash" fund to be able to respond to viscious attacks.

The news coverage today definitely favored the historic event in Selma, giving a leg up to both Senators Clinton and Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Coulter-Edwards flap made news again tomorrow.

Where's my Gong?
posted by Robin Swanson at 7:43 PM

I've decided the political world would be a better place if we took some lessons from the old Seventies variety show, "The Gong Show."

On the show, the judges had the prerogative to get up and smack an enormous Gong any time they just couldn't stand the contestant's performance anymore. And oh what a message that booming reverberating gong-sound sent.

Could you imagine how much fun we could have with a "political gong" every time a candidate droned on for too long in a speech or forum?

Over the weekend, I was wishing for my own giant gong, having witnessed two gong-worthy Republican attempts at "humor" gone awry.

The first was when I subjected myself to the FOX News self-proclaimed political comedy show with a conservative bent: "The Half-Hour News Hour." With the sophistication of a high school talent show, the show took juvenile comedy to a new low, with not one, not two, but three dreadful skits in a row about kids.

The initial sketch was called "pre-school child predators" which was so contrived I can't even explain it -- but basically, it was about pre-school kids being set up in a "To Catch a Predator"-like scheme. Not laughing? Exactly. GONG!!!

The next skit was about banning trans-fats for kids, with the host pointing out that it was a shame because "fat kids are funny." Gong. Gong. Gong. Gong.

And the final skit, (it took all the willpower I had not to channel surf at this point) was an attempt at "irony," with a forum about banning recess because it is bad for kids' self-esteem. The only version of a gong I had available to me