super tuesday!

[amatyultare]

Watching TV coverage of Super Tuesday, while simultaneously checking results online--fun times. Suddenly I care about politics again?

Random live blogging, just for fun.

As I plugged my computer in, PBS started showing Hillary addressing her supporters. Gotta say, she's a good speaker. And I find it hilarious that she's almost completely ignoring Obama. She briefly mentions needing a candidate who's 'ready from day one' but then goes off about 'a hundred years in Iraq' and the Swift Boat Vets, of all groups.

And Hillary is the second candidate I've seen tonight state that she'll 'keep jobs in America.' (Romney was the first; I think I missed McCain's speech but no doubt he claimed he'd save jobs too). Um....how? Tariffs and import quotas? I hope not. Most of the jobs being offshored aren't highly technical ones, so education won't do that much. Lower the minimum wage to make American unskilled workers more competitive? Tax breaks for corporations who don't outsource? Somehow I doubt it.

I know it's his home state and all, but I find it silly to call Arizona for McCain, even with a 15-point lead, when less than a third of the votes are in.

WTF? I just saw a state called for Obama with 13% of the votes in. I didn't even notice which state it was, that's how boggled I was. How can they make those decisions?

I'm feeling really apathetic about all of the Democratic results simply because--what is there to choose from? Rhetoric of Changing America/Solutions That Work aside, the actual POSITIONS of Clinton and Obama seem fairly identical to me. I'm sort of not a huge fan of Hillary on a personal level, but I'm just not that involved in it.

Am I the only one who sees a real identity crisis occurring in the Republican Party? The Democrats had theirs in 2004 (anyone remember Howard Dean? Yeah.) and now it's the Republicans' turn. I see it as the social conservatives versus the economic conservatives/libertarians, but where does foreign policy fit in? I'm not sure. I also am not really sure who will win (although I know whose side I'm on....)

Oh, here comes McCain--guess I didn't miss him after all. OMG I LOVE HIS WIFE'S SUIT! (I assume that's his wife?) He's so...folksy. The jokes are a huge hit. I don't know--viscerally, I just like McCain better than Romney. His caution about making statements about whether's he's won? I like that. Doesn't mean he'd make the best president, I'm just saying emotionally I like him. Which is a hard thing for me to say, post-McCain-Feingold.

And here's Obama. May I just say, on the not-at-all-important-but-striking side, that his ears are HUGE? He should grow his hair out a bit to de-emphasize them. Am I the only one who is really annoyed by 'Change We Can Believe In'? It should be 'Change In Which We Can Believe', dammit! And Obama's big policy statement is: let every child live out their dream! Awesome, but specifics, please?

Why the heck is Huckabee doing so well? Where did that come from?

Oh look, they've called California for Hillary. With only 14% of the precincts in, of course. Am I missing something? Do results from the really important precincts always come in first?

And they're also calling California for McCain. Which wraps up the show because if it's true, McCain has the Republican nomination.

McCain vs. Hillary? This is going to be entertaining.

I've run out of things to 'discuss'. Night, all!

Comments

[lacontessa11.livejournal.com]

You know what would keep jobs in America? Lowering taxes so that companies can AFFORD to pay more American workers at our union-inflated salaries. Just saying >_> (I have to behave myself re: unions all the time around Josh and his mom, it's SO HARD!! Well, I can get away with it around Josh, but his mom is too cute to offend). I've honestly come to the conclusion that the best way to force companies to bring jobs back is to send actual mail to their U.S. headquarters and complain that none of their customer service people speak English and you won't buy from them anymore until they provide people that do. Seriously, as long as labor is cheaper in foreign countries, companies will continue to use their workers until it starts to be cost prohibitive. I don't think think my theory has a chance of working, though, because Americans suck at boycotts. We like us some instant gratification.

Did you see the clip on Drudge of Ann Coulter swearing up and down that Clinton is more conservative than McCain and that she would vote for Clinton over McCain? I can't tell if she's SERIOUS, or if it's an attempt at sabotage. If it is, I bet it was Karl Rove's idea. (I had a Karl Rove moment yesterday! I was walking home from school, and this crazy hobo-looking guy seemed to be screaming "Vote for McCain!" by the Metro. My first thought? "I wonder if the DNC planted that guy so people think McCain supporters are nuts." The DNC = the new Karl Rove? Perhaps Karl Rove RUNS the DNC? He is Howard Dean, after all.)

As much as I dislike McCain-Feingold, I've always liked McCain. Further, I think he can win (although it would be harder against Obama, who seems like a genuinely nice guy, although much too liberal for me). Even my socialist fiance likes McCain as a person, although he would only vote for him if Clinton is nominated, because he can't stand her. I'm pulling for her to win, because I think she would thoroughly entertain me in a general election. Plus, she'd lose, and the Dems would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I would laugh SO HARD. I'm already giggling at the thought.

Wait, you want specifics in an American presidential election? Er...no such thing exists. The prevailing opinion of politicians seems to be that the general voting populace can't understand detailed policy proposals (an assumption I personally agree with, although I think it's disgraceful and it's pretty much the original reason I gave up on democracy and became a monarchist--I'm kind of disdainful of anything that requires that important issues be dumbed down for the very people who are SUPPOSED to vote in an informed manner), and the rest of us are letting them get away with disguising shallow sound-bytes as legitimate policies.

I have nothing against Romney other than his flip-flopping on abortion, but I'm glad to see McCain clinch it. A quick count of the delegates (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/delegates?ref=ipb) shows that there is no way Huckabee or Romney can catch him. Yes, I'm pretty happy over all.

(it's funny about CA, because earlier today, Obama was up 13% in the polls)

[amatyultare.livejournal.com]

Your plan would work, although not perfectly (and let's face it, most of the jobs we're supposedly 'losing' we actually lost 20 years ago to Japan and South Korea. Now they're moving from there to China and Vietnam and so on, but it's not like we're losing them a second time.) But can you EVER imagine HILLARY supporting measures to give more money to evil corporations? Because I cannot, which is why I found her spiel so hilarious. (My thought is to work on up-training people to do the kind of highly skilled jobs that workers in third world countries CAN'T do, because they don't have the training. But that's making new jobs, not keeping the ones we have, and blue-collar voters don't want to hear that sort of thing.)

Jesus, what is up with Ann Coulter these days? This is one of the reasons why I'm kind of rooting for McCain; the crazily social conservative faction of the Republicans will absolutely self-destruct. (Although I kind of love the idea that Ann is secretly trying to wreck Hillary's campaign through inappropriate endorsement.)

The DNC is Karl Rove, and Howard Dean is Karl Rove (what is Dean up to these days, anyway? I was reminiscing about the good old crazy days tonight). Did you ever see that show Joan of Arcadia, where God can show up as anyone to give the main character advice? That's how it works for Karl. *nods*

McCain is going to have difficulties once he's the clear frontrunner, i.e. the new image of the Republicas, because it'll dilute his whole 'not-really-conservative conservative/maverick' thing. But watching him vs. Hillary would be a thing of joy and beauty. Plus, half of the 'non-conservative' items with which he's accused, I don't have a problem with. Obama would be more difficult, partly because he's got the whole idealism thing going on and partly because

I know what you mean about vagueness, but at least the other candidates are giving us something, you know? Hillary spent five minutes on universal health care. Romney was all about 'traditional values' (seriously, who thought a Constitutional amendment on ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE was a good idea?). Sure, they're not talking specific numbers or anything, but at least it's something you can pin down. Obama's policy is: let children live their dreams? That's a whole new level of nonclarity.

The PBS website has this whole 'who do you support?' quiz and I took it for fun--they give you candidate quotes on a variety of issues and you check 'agree' or 'disagree' for each. It cracked me up because almost everything was so vague and feel good that I couldn't disagree with a good 80% of them. Then, of course, any actual policy idea isn't stated outright, it's 'coded'. Mom would not believe me, for example, when I told her that Republicans calling for 'reducing dependency on foreign oil' were probably taking a position on ANWR, not hybrid cars.

But as P.J. O'Rourke said so eloquently back in 1990 (about the 1988 elections, and if you haven't read Parliament of Whores, you are missing out), you can't trust what any presidential candidate says anyway because they only tell you their REAL position on one issue: who they think should be in the White House.

California got called so quickly--and especially with the polls, I thought it was odd. But as they keep saying, it's about the delegates, not the states.

[lacontessa11.livejournal.com]

While you might THINK Ann Coulter would complain about McCain's supposed RINO opinions on social issues (I'm very dubious of any claims that McCain is not "conservative" enough), she was actually complaining about . . . the war. Yes, the war. She is allegedly convinced that Hillary Clinton will be MORE AGGRESSIVE about the war on terror. Really. I don't think she's stupid enough to take Clinton's occasional "OMG KILL TERRORISTS!" outbursts seriously, which is why I was wondering if it was a scam. Clinton is seriously schizophrenic on the war, depending on to whom she is speaking. Meanwhile, I've only ever heard McCain try to develop new strategies, not "end an illegal war" or whatever the current liberal catchphrase is. Do I want a president beholden in any way to the hippie liberal base? Hell no! "We are immediately leaving Iraq and sending Iran a gift basket by way of apology for imposing our imperialist values next door." Unless Clinton is talking to a free speech group, in which case we're invading Iran.

I suspect that "let children live their dreams" is possibly a reference to the "free college for everyone" debate that was in the news for a while months ago? Maybe? I don't know, I think it's a horrible idea, for economic supply/demand reasons. But, my true favorite wacky Dem policy from this primary (man, I love primaries!) was Edwards' "if you don't go to the doctor at least once a year, you will be BREAKING THE LAW." That's right, the government will penalize you for making YOUR OWN CHOICES about YOUR OWN HEALTH CARE. Yes, the government knows what's good for me better than I do. Maybe the government can take control of my property for me next. But anyway, yes, I wish people would also specify more about their social policies, because even though I'm pretty darn socially conservative, I still want social policies that will be efficient and will actually achieve what people want to achieve.