Rewinding The Tape Of The William F. Buckley Death Commentary


Tombstone Generator image ripped from the folks at Sadly, No!

The Sadly No'ers noticed something in K-Lo's initial post announcing William F. Buckley Jr.'s death on Wednesday:

He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas.

Doros62 appropriately asked:
Well, which is it? Did he die at work or at home?

Indeed! Of course, Mr. Buckley wrote his articles at home in Stamford, so we know what K-Lo meant. But I laughed really hard when I read that, and I think my girl thought I was nuts. It was late in the day. We were tired. And I was laughing uncontrollably as I was picking her up from her office.

Looking Into The Minds Of The Militant Hollywood Haters


Photo by Flickr user Vlastula, used here under a Creative Commons license

These examples are very interesting. And they are perhaps a little scary, since they remind me of gun-toting militia/patriot movement members from 15 years ago. In fact, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is a site founded by white supremacists, who were deemed a little too extreme for the the right-wing, mildly-racist blog, Little Green Footballs. At least some of them realize that if they watch a single primetime TV show or one of several cable TV channels, they are indirectly supporting either a Hollywood studio or the parent company of a Hollywood studio. So for the commenter who said he onlly watches television for NASCAR races and Fox News, that's two types of Fox programming. Fox television is owned by News Corporation, which owns 20th Century Fox. And Tim Graham, who thinks that no one in Hollywood likes 24, apparently didn't pause to remember which company produces the show.

Debbie Schlussel: [Almost] Never A Satisfied Movie Critic


Here's Debbie live-blogging this year's Oscars. Just read it for the unintentional comic brilliance.

There are way too many priceless gems in her angry rants. But I don't know what is more sad, her angry Oscars commentary fuelled by wine coolers, or the comments by her fans, who actually think she martyred herself by watching the broadcast for their entertainment. Like I said, go read it. There will be laughter.

I say that she is 'almost' never satisfied with a movie, because there are recent films she has enjoyed. In the last year, she liked Spiderman 3, she "loved" Enchanted, and she liked Vantage Point. But really, she detests most contemporary films. She wanted Persepolis to win Best Animated Feature (so did I, but not because it is an anti-Shiite film, or so she says). Fine, it is a great animated film. But a wholesome, fun, critically acclaimed, American animated film won instead. Was she happy for the made-in-the-USA, family-friendly Ratatouille? Even though she put it on her year's best list, she was still left a little disappointed Sunday night.

For those who don't know Debbie, she spends her waking hours as a race-baiting lawyer while aspiring to be more irrational, unhinged, and controversial right-wing celebrity pundit than Ann Coulter ever was. She's among the nuttiest of wingnuts. Gavin at Sadly, No! described her best here. Only a wingnut would start a movie review with this line:

It's not exactly a newsflash that Hollywood sides with Islamic terrorists and is against the impotent War on Terror.

I mean, case closed, she's out of her fucking mind, right? (Gavin smartly argues that she is not out of her mind, but rather a true believer in what the Bush administration wants Americans to believe.) Because of her lengthy, angry rants, she's frequently entertaining, if repetitive. Sadly, No! has been ignoring her, so I'm picking-up the baton today.

Debbie doesn't like films in which there is senseless killing (No Country; most horror films), a smart-ass teenager (Juno), foreigners (La Vie En Rose), gays, Spanish speakers, positive Muslim characters (David & Layla), or any truth about our nation's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (No End In Sight and Taxi To The Dark Side, respectively). So what current movies does she like? Well, based on her running Oscar commentary.....I have to say almost none. She's not a happy camper. All of these highbrow movies don't feature bible reading or perfect happy endings. They reflect imperfect, unfair worlds, much like our own real world. She argues that movies should be positive, escapist entertainment, since we know there are no 'artists' in Hollywood.

You know, for a girl who wants all Muslims exterminated, I find her disgust of movie violence, regardless of genre, maturity, realism, or importance to the story, to be a bit odd (except in Vantage Point....Die Muslims, Die! You too, Matthew!1!!!). But we have seen this behavior before. For example, we have seen it in those who claim to defend life by advocating the murder of doctors. Also we have seen it in those who claim to support a 'Culture of Life' while supporting capital punishment. Debbie is far from alone. Her passion and anger on the issue of stopping Muslims from out-breeding us and enslaving us seems to be unique, however.

She regards herself as an expert on terrorism and Muslim imperialism. She doesn't know about me, however. I know more about the history of terrorism than she ever will, and I can lecture about the subject while wasting drug dealers and cops in Grand Theft Auto. I'm dangerous, man. But this isn't about me.

That's All Folks


From Marc Cooper in today's Huffington Post:


And after repeatedly ignoring pleas from moderator Brian Williams to curtail her health care harangue, after extending and re-extending her remarks, Clinton then portrayed herself as a hapless victim of media bias by comparing Williams' questioning to a satirical sketch that aired over the weekend. "Well, could I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don't mind," she said with a grimace. "You know, I'll be happy to field them but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

Rimshot!

Or was that a car crash?

Either way, time to bring in the mop-up crews. It's over.

In fairness to Senator Clinton, the panel at last night's debate (Tim Russert and Brian Williams) was almost hostile to her. They interrupted her quite a bit, and that brought on her sarcasm and bitterness in return. Tim Russert was also unfair to Obama. I also think that since the health care issue has been talked to death -as critical as it is- it was time to focus on key differences between the two candidates and for Clinton to re-phrase her case for why she should be elected. It didn't turn-out the way it should have. The gatekeepers and agenda-setters did the driving in this debate. Clinton and Obama could only hang-on and react for 2 hours.

Shorter Mark Steyn*


America's Shittiest Website: The Clintons are rock stars who are most successful when their pants are down, appealing to liberals' vices and pathologies. Hollywood stars and fags love them. But this time around, their baby-boomer base will not bail them out. The base has found a new, hot, rock star to follow. It's a pity we couldn't see the Clinton's taken-down more dramatically. Heh. Barf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Looking To Sweep Texas, Ohio, Vermont, And Rhode Island

It's game over for Senator Clinton. We have a clear front-runner. Chadwick Matlin at Slate.com:


After tens of thousands of handshakes, thousands of stump speeches, and hundreds of meet-and-greets, Democrats are tired. They want one candidate—and that candidate is going to be Barack Obama.

We don’t have to look any further than Texas and Ohio to see the exhaustion firsthand. Rasmussen polls had him down by 16 points in Texas eight days ago (post-Potomac, pre-Wisconsin). Now he trails by only three points. The newest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that Texans like Clinton more than Obama on the issues that matter most—health care and the economy. Yet he’s in a statistical tie with her overall. Why? Because 47 percent of the state’s Democrats believe he has the best chance of getting elected president in November—thirty-six percent say that’s the case for Clinton. In Ohio, there’s an even larger disparity between whom Ohioans favor—Clinton—and whom they think can win in November-Obama.

Making A Better Case For Obama: Get The Facts Out


I'm sure Jonah Goldberg thinks this photo proves that like Hitler, Obama knows how to work the crowds.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a great post today highlighting Obama's notable accomplishments as Illinois State Senator and US Senator. He may not have written much legislation, but I see two key facts emerge from his record.

First, he seems committed to a short list of issues, such as ethics reform, prohibiting no-bid contracts, improving health care for veterans, halting nuclear proliferation, supporting human rights, technology, and dramatically improving government transparency. He actually wants the Senate to list all upcoming votes on the Internet, which would make it more difficult to sneak wasteful spending past the public. He wants a vastly improved, seamless Federal Intranet (why didn't CEO Bush think of that?). He has already built a database that tracks government contracts spending for all to see (who knew?). I knew none of this until I read Hilzoy's post, and I am all for it.

Second, when he does concentrate on an issue or bill, he has a track record of winning votes from the other side of the isle. In one of the most remarkable state government achievements in recent memory, he got the Illinois state senate to approve a bill requiring every police interrogation to be videotaped. The bill passed 35-0. How 'bout that? He got every Republican in his chamber to support a human rights law.

Some may look at that and think, 'he must be Jeebus!' I look at that and think, 'maybe this guy will be an excellent President.' Maybe.

Katherine at Obsidian Wings has gotten aboard the bandwagon, too. When you see where Obama stands on human rights, he is closer to the young Hillary than today's Hillary.

Obama Is No Great Candidate, Either


Close, but no cigar, Senator Obama. I have strong reservations about you, too.

1. The ancient Greeks had a point when they viewed hope as a deadly sin. I agree. I can't stand it. Hope is not action. Hope is not courage. Hope is not fighting for what's yours. Hope is just a feeling. It can inspire great works of art and make us aspire to be better people. But hope has to be followed by specific actions to bring about results. If not, then hope is actually our enemy, and distracts us. I'm afraid, Senator Obama, that you haven't gotten past the Hope stage. You don't really have a plan. Not yet. Perhaps you will once you see the mess Bush is leaving in the White House. That's my hope, er, I mean wish!

2. Michelle Obama. Someone needs to sedate her. Every word out of her mouth is rubbish and is used against her husband. Everything she says brings him down a notch. It's a shame that a candidate's law-abiding spouse can be an asset or liability. I personally prefer the MO of Howard Dean's wife, who in 2003, stayed in Vermont, practiced medicine and never once commented on her husband's campaign. But smart people like that are rare nowadays. Hence, we have Michelle. Now it is not her fault that right-wingers are portraying her as a wacko. But then again, if she would only shut her mouth....

3. He still voted in favor of bankruptcy reform which heavily favors banks over people up to their eyeballs in debt. And he also continues to vote in favor of funding the occupation of Iraq. Why does he vote against the values of his base from time to time?

Those are my three big beefs about Obama at this moment. The others are more obvious, and the same as Hillary's. He wants to be President at one of the worst periods in American history. He wants to be President because it will look good on his resume. He, like Hillary, has a short list of slogans to help him get elected. Et cetera.

Three Reasons Hillary Didn't Win My Vote


1. She never explained why she should be my president, aside from the fact that she was an excellent first lady who lived in the White House for 8 years. I remember a born-again peanut farmer from Georgia who explained why he was running in the aftermath of a national disgrace. We have a similar situation and Hillary could have done the same.

2. She spoke of having 35 years of experience. While her career got off to an amazing start, the last decade has not impressed me. Clinton isn't as pro-active or courageous as some of her colleagues in the Senate. When I think about my favorite senators in office, I list names like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Hagel (R), Carl Levin, Daniel Inouye, Chris Dodd, and Bob Menendez. Hillary is not one of them. To paraphrase David Mamet, she's white bread.

We have to keep in mind that it is a mix of legal and political experience. She is not saying that she has been preparing to be President for 35 years. In fact, I think the idea of becoming president only occurred to her in 1999 when her husband was impeached. (Barack probably decided to run after Gore conceded in 2000. He had to hope that Kerry would lose so he would get his chance.)

Senator Clinton's career is nothing to scoff at. She is a graduate of Yale Law School. During her time as a doctorate student, she volunteered at a hospital, worked on child abuse cases, advocated for migrant workers, and became involved in a new 'child rights' movement which gave children more power in the courtroom to fight for what's theirs. She even declined Bill Clinton's first marriage proposal. She was liberal, ambitious, and had characteristics I greatly admire. She was the breadwinner in the family from 1977-1992, earning and investing more than Bill did. She was the leader in that family, which might explain her impulse to defend Bill and restore her family name through her own election to the Presidency. All well and good. Her US Senate seat was supposed to springboard her into the white house. But her conservative track record in the Senate has done nothing to impress me. Yes, I think it would be good for the Clinton family to get a shot back at the Bushes. I can root for a little revenge. But do the Clinton's need this victory? Do they need to hit back, Corleone style? Why should I root for a family that went into the White House slightly more affluent than me, and came out as millionaires and heroes?

3. Most important is Senator Clinton's refusal to admit that she made a mistake by voting AYE on Joint Resolution 114, the authorization to invade Iraq. All she has to do is admit she made a mistake, and she has my vote. Really. That's all she has to do. I want a woman in the White House in my lifetime. Hillary is not perfect, but she's a fine choice for that historic role. What a shame she won't admit her mistake.

21 Democratic senators, including the late Paul Wellstone, voted against the Iraq use-of-force resolution. Every Democratic senator I list above as my favorites voted against it, except those who weren't in office at the time (Menendez and Whitehouse). Hillary could have stood with them. She refused. What leadership is that? Would JFK call that a profile in courage? I think not.

Now I know the most Clinton or Obama can ever give me is two or three moderate Supreme Court justices. But I think Clinton gives me an extra special nothing on the side.

As for Obama...I didn't ask or even want him to run. I didn't ask for a movie star smile. I didn't ask for a deep, strong voice. I didn't ask for an athletic, black president of a white, overweight country. But the more I think about it, the more I realize it would make me happy to see Obama take the helm. And after all, if only selfish people run for that office, I want a selfish reason to see them win. I haven't felt good about my country since......since.....President Clinton was acquitted by the Seante? Wow. That was February 12th, 1999. I remembered what Alexander Hamilton said 200 years ago. He said, "Here, Sir, the People govern." On that day, the People won.

What might an Obama victory do? It might make me feel good about the USA for 50 days. So this is what we've come to - incredibly low expectations for our country. I have many other reasons to smile in my life. Life is good! But when it comes to my country, this has been a most depressed decade. We've been losing, people. Losing a lot.

What would Lincoln say? Where's the freedom in a culture now dominated by fear (and celebrity news)?

Sure, I know, I shouldn't think this way. This is irrational. I should shut-up and order that chicken caesar salad and vodka drink with a twist. But I don't want a caesar salad. I don't want another vodka drink right now. I want to try a rye. I want a president with a Muslim name just to make the wingnuts shit themselves for four years (can you imagine what Ann and Pam would do? Kill themselves, I hope). I want to see Barack Hussein Obama be the president to bag Osama bin Laden. It could happen. I want Obama to be the political equivalent of my Red Sox. I want to see him win. Why not him? Why the hell not?

Hillary didn't explain why she should be president. Neither did Obama. But since life is unfair, one of them had to lose my vote. They both have huge egos. They are both insane to want this job. They both refuse to reverse any of the serious changes Bush brought to this country (Homeland Security, the imprisonment of Lindh and Padilla, The Patriot Act, the spread of torture and domestic spying). But Hillary's vote for Joint Res 114 was the tie-breaker. Game over. We have a winner, who won by screwing-up less.

A Risky Plan


This seems like a crazy idea, but then again, it is the solution "preferred by the Bush administration." The Pentagon is going to attempt to 'shoot down' its disabled, experimental spy sattelite, which is due to re-enter Earth's atmosphere in March. Rather than let the odds play out and let it come down to an unpopulated area or ocean, we're going to blow it up into fragments of dangerous orbital debris / space junk. Bravo!

China proved that it can be done in January 2007, and they successfully made a lot of dangerous orbital debris, which of course, can damage other satellites, spacecraft, and possibly the International Space Station.

I'd love to see the missle miss its target. Let's see how this clever idea plays out...

Roger Clemens: This Is A High-Tech Lynching!!!!1!!


And I can't remember Dan Duquette's name! But I remember the "GM of Boston," once said that I was in, "the twilight of my career."

Good lord. Bruce Braley did a great job today. He opened his classic trap, and proved that Clemens didn't need B12 injections of any kind. So what was injected in his ass? Hmmmmm.

Well, if you were alive and paying attention in October 1991, you know where the term 'high-tech lynching' came from. I'm glad I am not the only one who remembered it during these proceedings.

Having said that, I feel sorry for Roger. He shouldn't be singled out. And honestly, Congress shouldn't be investigating this unless the Federal government is out to regulate professional sports (which it is not). I love Congressmen Wexler and Braley. But today, they used their superior interrogation skills to prove only a few things that are not under their control:

1. Roger Clemens is not too bright. We Red Sox fans knew this.
2. His ex-trainer, Brian McNamee is a liar and is not qualified nor authorized to administer drugs (for which I believe you need a DEA identifcation number - oh, and it helps to be a DOCTOR).
3. A lot of other baseball players have taken steroids or HGH and have lied about it, but they weren't being grilled like Clemens was.

At least it was fun to watch Repubicans on the committee go out of their way to defent Clemens and spin his story. But it was distressing to see Christopher Shays become unhinged (again) and attack a witness (McNamee) and repeatedly call him a 'drug dealer'. Waxman had to apologize to McNamee on Shays' behalf! It was all entertaining, interesting, and memorable.

Now that the committee has put on this little show, can we get back to the missing White House e-mails, please? Help us Chairman Waxman, you're our only hope. Get back to the crises and hand and back to work.

Kon Ichikawa, 1915-2008


Japan lost another of its great fim directors from its 1950s reinessacnce. Kon Ichikawa, director of over 40 films, including classics such as The Burmese Harp, Fires on the Plain, and Tokyo Olympiad, died today in Tokyo. He also excelled at adapting novels into movies, including one of the only Japanese novels I've read, The Broken Commandment. Along with Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu, Mizoguchi Kenji, Imamura Shohei, Seijun Suzuki, and others he firmly put Japanese cinema on the map.

Shorter Mona Charen *


Mona and K-Lo: "Mona, I need to get me more sammiches. You take the floor"

Mona Charen:
We wingnuts can never vote for McCain, because he frequently has lapses of rationality. Damn him!


I know how [wingnuts] feel. The problem with McCain is not just that he strays. George Bush has strayed from conservatism, too. So has Fred Thompson. Certainly Mitt Romney has as well. But Sen. McCain has a knack for saying things in just the tones and accents that liberals prefer. In 2000, he condemned the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry was getting his comeuppance from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, vets who had known him during the war and couldn't remain silent as the Democratic nominee distorted his war record, McCain weighed in by calling the Swift Boaters "dishonorable and dishonest." When the Bush Administration was being vilified as a nest of Torquemadas for using waterboarding on three occasions, McCain came forward to condemn waterboarding as torture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One More Time: Chelsea Is Off-Limits


Last night, Slate published an article by Guy Branum about how it is "stupid" for the Clintons to continue to overly-protect their daughter, Chelsea. Branum tells readers that he's a journalist. But in my opinion, the article makes it clear that he isn't a serious one. I base that on his silly argument that because the word 'pimp' is used in popular culture, it is therefore mainstream in ways that go beyond sexual, and so it is appropriate to use in serious political analysis on national television. His point that the chinese wall around Chelsea Clinton is a valid one. But the rest of his article is frankly, garbage.

I would argue that Mr. Branum is a comedy and entertainment writer first (some of his writing I like, actually), plus as a quasi-journalist on the side. He has had several tiny claims to fame, beginning in 1997. Back then, he was a writer for his university paper, and he made a bad joke about wanting to see Chelsea butchered in-time for the big football game between his UC Berkeley and Stanford (where Chelsea spent her undergrad years). The Clinton's called the Secret Service to search his apartment and talk to him. Unfair? Probably. The quote that got him in trouble was, "show your school spirit on Chelsea's bloodied carcass." But that probably helped his reputation as a comedian, and led to post-graduate jobs today, such as a senior writer and producer for the G4 network, and a co-writer for Chelsea Handler's late-night comedy/talk show on E! (which her boyfriend just happens to control - fancy that).

But let's look at the valid topic he raises and the topic he fails to raise.

First, he is absolutely correct that the chinese wall around Chelsea Clinton is "stupid." She joined her mother's campaign in December 2007, and is in a truly unique position of campaigning for someone without having to say a word to the press. I am very skeptical of the Chelsea Clinton quote in this AP story from December 30th, but if it is true, it is quite telling. A 9-year old reporter from Scholastic (I'll refrain from addressing Scholastic's use of child labor right now) tried to ask Ms. Clinton a question, and she was met with this response:


I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute.

Second, however, is the point that Mr. Branum does not raise. He came close, but missed. He writes,
When Bill was first elected, Chelsea was 12; treating her with special deference made sense. Now she's 28. She's old enough to vote, get drunk, and run for Congress.

Um.....AND ENLIST! Which brings us to the very first question that should be asked of Chelsea, if anyone was allowed to ask her a question. Back in December, when Ms. Clinton joined her mother's campaign, Operation Yellow Elephant wrote:

Her mother is running for President and will not end the war. That much is clear. Senator Clinton also fully supports women in the military, including in combat. The media, and many Americans, have Asked The Question of Jenna Bush, and she has answered it.

Here's The Question:

Assuming you are eligible to serve in our military, have you considered volunteering for military service?

If not, why not?

If so, what resulted from your deliberations?


Ask Chelsea the question. If Jenna Bush can answer it, then so can Chelsea.

The Fascinating Splits Between Clinton And Obama


Photos ripped from the New York Times.

Many many articles have been written about this. Here is just my brief rundown, with some references.

Obama does much better with young voters, aged 18-35. Now I don't know if they know him any better than I do, but they have taken to him much faster than I did. Was it Facebook? Was it his rock star appeal? I don't know. But his energy resonates with the young.

Clinton does very well with Asian and Hispanic voters. Why? Her campaign establishes relationships the old fashioned way - by meeting with local Asian and Hispanic politicians and community boards and answering their questions straight. Obama's camp didn't do this. Also, as Jeff Chang writes, it is a fact that Asian and Hispanic Democrats tend to be more conservative than white and black democrats. It could be a variety of factors, including religion (Hispanics tend to be active Catholics, many Korean-Americans are active Protestants, etc.). Chang calls more conservative Democratic candidates (like Clinton) "emergents," while more liberal, progressive candidates (like Obama) are labelled "insurgents."

Clinton also dominates among female voters over 40 years old. While Obama does exceptionally well among white males, many of whom consider themselves independents.

Clinton has shown an ability to lock-down union endorsements early and swiftly. She has built mainstream support the old fashioned way. She also likes small discussion groups a lot. While they don't create excitement like Obama's rallies, they seem to have made her a more sincere candidate. She still hasn't given me a reason to vote for her, but for others, she has answered their questions and has won their support.

Obama does extremely well in more rural ('red') states. He has won Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Alabama, among others. His next big test is Texas. If he wins that, he is looking good for the nomination. But there is a large amount of Mexican-Americans in Texas. So it is a real test.

But at the same time, Obama does very well among white, college educated progressive voters. It's quite a feat - to appeal to both the rural working class and the wealthy voters with master's degrees. The Connecticut victory is a huge breakthrough. We knew that Obama would do well in cities like New Haven, Hartford, and Bridgeport, where there are large black populations. But he also got scores of votes in Old Saybrook, Darien, Norwalk, and Stratford. Back in August, when my aunt and uncle in Stratford told me they were voting for Obama, I knew he would win Connecticut. The near-defeat of Lieberman by Ned Lamont in 2006 was also a hint that Connecticut had more progressives than it did in decades past. David Chen of the NY Times writes about this today.

Compare Obama's win in Connecticut to Clinton's sound victory in New Jersey. You would think that Obama would also win New Jersey because of its large black population and diverse working-class towns. But no. The wealthy classes in Hoboken (which includes Governor Corzine) went for Hillary. While Princeton, Trenton, Atlantic City, and Newark were wins for Obama, Hillary carried the solid New Jersey middle class, i.e. two income families, espcially whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

But get this - Obama won three rather different counties in New Jersey. He won Hunterdon, a very rural area of villages in the northwest corner of the state. He won Atlantic county, which includes Atlantic City. And he won Essex county, which includes Newark, Orange, and the wealthy suburb of Montclair, where 60% of the inhabitants are white and earn more than $40K each. (It's also the home of Yogi Berra...had to mention that). Even if we assume Clinton won Montclair, Obama was showing signs of winning New Jersey over. But Connecticut opened-up to him much faster and with more enthusiasm. Interesting differences for two wealthy states that have large populations of older Democrats, young college students, working class families, and black and latino urban residents. The NY Times has an excellent story today adressing the differences in the New Jersey and Connecticut results.

And Timothy Egan in the NY Times made a similar observation in examining the Colorado reslts, where Obma won big:


Overall, Obama won some big, general election swing states: Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, and a tie in New Mexico, where they may still be counting votes from the 2004 election. All will be crucial in deciding the next president.

His victory in Colorado, by a 2-1 margin, defied most predictions. Four times as many Democrats turned out as were expected, typical of the passion level elsewhere. In Anchorage, Alaska, for example, traffic was backed for nearly a mile from people trying to get into a middle school to become part of an Obama avalanche.

But back to Colorado. Obama won the liberal enclaves, as expected, but then he nearly ran the table in the western part of the state – ranch and mining country — and he did it with more than Ralph Lauren Democrats. In booming, energy-rich Garfield County, for instance, Obama beat Clinton 72 percent to 27 percent...

...Now broaden the picture and look at the vote among white males, traditionally the hardest sell for a Democrat. While losing California, Obama won white men in the Golden State, 55 to 35, according to exit polls, and white men in New Mexico, 59-38.
Looking ahead to Saturday, when Washington State, Nebraska, and Louisiana hold contests, Obama should add another three states to the 13 he won on Tuesday. They’re all caucus states, each with distinct advantages for Obama.

So back to my neck of the woods. Connecticut's population is less than half of New Jersey's, and it is more white-collar. New Jersy is more working class overall, but has a bigger, more diverse middle class, and has bigger cities. It was a fascinating vote split.

Expect Obama to sweep the three caucuses on Saturday. And then he and his people can focus on Ohio while at the same time try to be competitive in Texas.

Congratulations To The New Jersey Giants!




The evil Patriots were taken down in the second half of their 19th game of the 2007 season. The Giants deserve a lot of credit, especially their young players, who seemed to want it more, and fought harder for the victory. And we saw an escape and pass completion for the ages - Eli Manning to David Tyree. Eli Manning escaped a sack Doug Flutie style, and David Tyree caught a ball using one hand and his helmet - something we may never see again. It was incredible.

Expect the Patriots to be in Super Bowl 43. The Colts have nothing on them. And Belichick and the Pats are going to be hungry. But on Sunday, the Giants stopped them. They beat Tom Brady.

I will say one thing - it put a smile on my face to hear Giants fans chanting "Red Sox Suck" and "Boston Sucks" on my subway ride home from Noho. The fact that the Sox stick on their minds is very sweet. They are in for more pain this spring when the Sox take the AL lead again.