"with user-created match-up of John Stewart saying—"I heart Huckabee.""

She probably meant mash-up.

Oh, this is a transcription isn't it? Nevermind.

This may sound hypocritical coming from me, but: Is Zephyr Teachout a real name? I didn't reaize at first that it referred to a person.

I wish the enthusiasm for Ron Paul on the right were repeated for someone on the left (Kucinich?) that I could get even marginally excited about.

Yes, I believe it was the name given to her.

Lorelei: I'm not sure it would be possible to have this repeated on the left, because the Democratic field of candidates are so much better than the Republican field. If Dems had the same shittiness factor of Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and several other old white men, there might be a Ron Paul of the left.

To elaborate: Ron Paul is the Republican anti-war candidate, and that's a big part of this phenomenon. The Democratic Party is now entirely anti-war, except for maybe Hillary Clinton.

CM, yeah, those leading Dems sure are head and shoulders above the craptitude of the Republicans (barf). I feel extremely inspired by the message offered by Hill-Bama:

"If you like what the Democratic congress has accomplished, you'll LOVE what I'll do as president.........................

...and also war with Iran, yay!"

Anyways, yes, Zephyr Teachout is her real name. I actually hung out with Zephyr for a bit in Ames on caucus day in '04. Very nice young lady, and smart.

m

I don't really understand your 'old white men' complaint. A: the bulk of the Democratic field is old white men (I guess it depends on your definition of old and your definition of white [I put Richardson in the white category]). B: Ron Paul is an old white man. C: There's nothing wrong with old white men. There's something wrong with the ideas of these particular old white men.

PS. I'm vaguely thinking of registering in DC so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary, but I haven't decided yet. It would be amusing.

ps-I am anticipating the pushback already. I personally think Barack Obama is the worst and most dangerous candidate out of the Democratic stable. Not only is he a hypocrite (smoked, snorted and sold drugs all damn day as a kid, but is probably the harshest drug warrior out of the entire field), but he sounds an awful lot like a young, inexperienced governor of Texas in 2000. Can't remember his name, it's on the tip of my tongue. Anyways, that guy was always talking about the politics of hope, and about he would transform this, and transform that, and transcend this other thing. This pretty much sums up my feelings on Obama. Sorry, Mr. Democrat CM.

"I have grown a bit tired of the whole Obama-as-the-anti-Hildebeast meme, which the Obama people have determined is the non-Oprah key to his current surge. Indeed, Obama's campaign has begun to make my skin crawl a little bit. The we-are-the-world optimism that not only blinds him to the fundamental corruption of the regime he hopes to replace, but also makes you wonder if he's the guy to come in and throw daylight into all the dark corners of the past seven years. The willingness to employ Republican storylines on Senator Clinton and, far more seriously, on Social Security in an apparent attempt to win the vital Green Room Primary in Washington and to appeal to mythical "moderates" who don't exist and won't vote for him anyway. If we're ever going to get past the depredations of the Bush Administration -- many of which, I guarantee you, are still deeply secret -- it is an insufficient remedy to declare that the "politics of division" are now over and we will now reunite under a banner and move forward together. In the first place, there already is a conservative attack machine in place that will nuke whoever a Democratic president is the moment he or she lifts a hand off the Bible. Moreover, there must be an accounting if the corruption is to be cleansed and the constitutional order restored. There is no way to do this without an angry, bloody, and, yes, political process. The next president's most critical function in the early days is not to make us all feel good about our country again. It is to be the head of an informal national Truth Commission. I'm not sure if Obama even wants this job."

I can pretty much guarantee that.

I have nothing against old white men in particular, but an entire field of old white men is quite telling. (Notwithstanding Keyes's odd cameo this week.) I do not consider Clinton, Obama, and (despite your odd belief) Richardson old white men, and the fact that the Democratic party has a non-trivial amount of diversity is a superficial yet good thing.

Matt, Obama's viewpoints on marijuana legalization don't please me, but he has been supportive of medical patients and critical of the Drug War. I wouldn't call him a drug warrior, but he probably parses his words in this area carefully due to his past.

As for the business that Obama is going to run a kumbayah country, I think that's a campaign tactic to differentiate himself from Hillary, who comes with an immense amount of baggage. I don't think he intends to go in and let the Bush policies stand: one of my favorite lines in yesterday's debate came when he said that in his first month in office he'd order the attorney general to go through every Bush executive order w/ a critical eye. I should note that Obama has also been vocal about protecting civil liberties, whereas Clinton has been less so. He has released a technology policy that's incredible (net neutrality, etc.), whereas Clinton has dodged the issue. I know you're not a Clinton fan, but do you really think Obama would be more dangerous than her? Who do you think would be more likely to retain Bush's policy on executive power? Which one gave Bush the authority to bomb Iran?

I'm not sure why he reminds you at all of Bush. What candidate doesn't use transformation and change as buzzwords, except for one who wants to be associated with the economic boom of the late 90's?

Oh, usually extremely underqualified affirmative action cases (and no, that's not simply a racial thing. GWB got there on his daddy's name. Hillary Clinton has at least a teensy bit of policy experience, but come on. Nancy Pelosi is an enormous affirmative action case, have you ever heard of her being referred to as a farm-raised political catfish? Her dad was mayor of Baltimore) with no real policy prescriptions and who owe their allegiance to machine politics. I also tend to strongly agree with this post at IOZ's place. As for the drug war, Obama was the last Democrat to sign on to the pledge from Granite-Staters for Medical Marijuana to end medical marijuana raids. He was also the last candidate (I'm pretty sure) to come out against the crack/powder sentencing disparity and mandatory minimums. Yeah, you'll get no argument from me on Hillary, but she's at least a known quantity. She's an awful authoritarian warmonger. You at least know what you are getting. Looking back at 2000, how much 'compassionate conservatism' have you seen lately?

I also strongly recommend this article at Counterpunch. Obama is a damn mirage. He is totally full of shit. The Democratic equivalent of Mitt Romney. All flash, no fire, and other assorted cliches involving cowboys, hats, & cetera.

ps-Andrew Sullivan also fucking loves him. I kinda remember him saying similar things from 2000-2004ish about a certain sitting president as well. Sorry, but anyone Sullivan actually likes has a major problem in my book.

It strikes me as totally bizarre that his drug history makes Obama a "hypocrite', Matt - indeed, the only thing that likely would separate him from his predecessors and cocontenders for/in the Oval Office would be the admission of past drug use, not the conduct itself. Also, Bush's sloganlicious Hope-aganda masked idiocy and Faith-Based Government (see, i.e., his Speech Accepting the Republican Nomination, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/bushtext080300...) ; while Obama is a former constitutional law professor who was the only Dem nominee to actually like MENTION the constitution and abuse of executive power in yesterday's debate. Most offensive is your comparison of a douchebag coattail-riding, baseball-dabbling oilboy to a man who has lived a life (albeit constructedly) of public service, reduced income, and self-earned position. If you really elide Obama and Bush in your mind, I seriously question your ability to gauge reality.

If you look at voting records, the areas where Obama has distanced himself from the Dem pack don't really concern me. He's voted more pro-corn (see i.e. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR200612...), pro-gun (http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3872), anti-clusterfuck weapons against civilians (http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3897), anti-drilling in the Gulf (http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3883). There is this one comprehensive energy package I don't know enough about, which included coal among a host of other renewables, which he voted for and passed 85-12, and Hillary opposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005 Don't know the politics behind it. ANYhow, he seems overall to be slightly more pro-ethanol, pro-gun, and pro-human rights...I'm selling myself.

Hehehehehe:

The bill has had the unintended effect of causing shortages of E85, an ethanol and gasoline blend of fuel, in many parts of the country. Section 701 of the bill requires US Federal fleet flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) to operate on alternative fuels 100% of the time. Formerly, such FFVs were required to be operated by the end of 2005 on alternative fuels only 51% (i.e., the majority of the time) by Executive Order 13149.[10]. This effectively means that the US Government's use of E85 has been doubled, with the unintended results of limiting public availability of E85 fuel and increasing its price.

Meh. I don't even feel like finding a link about Obama's decision to choose Lieberman as his senatorial 'mentor.' Or the fact that he couldn't be bothered to attend the vote on Mukasey's confirmation, although he was nominally 'against' Mukasey, whatever the hell that means (yes, yes, I know that neither did Clinton, Biden or Dodd. Those guys suck too). Also, yes, I do think that the drug war stuff immensely does show his hypocrisy. The guy fucking sold drugs! Yet he wants to continue the drug war. Fuck that. Any politician who supports the drug war after being lucky enough not to be caught for using/selling drugs is a heinous human being. "It's ok for me, but not for thee." Besides, I'm not comparing him to the other candidates, saying one is better than another. I'm just saying that there sure seem to be a whole lot of people who have deluded themselves into thinking that Obama is some sort of political messiah who will save us from the evils of partisan politics. He's just another hack, and in my opinion, a dangerously untested, slick as oil, bullshitting hack. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, Flea.

ps-You actually support more farm subsidies for ethanol?!?

pps-I think we might be talking past each other as well. See my first post:

I feel extremely inspired by the message offered by Hill-Bama:

"If you like what the Democratic congress has accomplished, you'll LOVE what I'll do as president.........................

...and also war with Iran, yay!"

So yes, he has pretty much voted with the rest of the Dems in congress. In my opinion, that makes him unqualified for office regardless of his numerous other shortcomings.

pps-from that earlier article I mentioned at Counterpunch:

Barack Obama is a lawyer by training, but could easily have made a career on Madison Avenue, where “impressions” are the holy grail. The most effective commercials are those that provoke consumers to provide their own impressions of the product, through word and image association. Obama’s special genius is to elicit self-generated positive impressions from a wide range of consumers/observers – most dramatically, from consumers across the color line – while saying nothing of substance.

ppps-I promise I'll stop after this one, I forgot about this, his buddy the un-gay singer Donnie McClurkin.

...not to mention his professed support for surgical strikes on Iran in 2006, nor his disavowal of universal healthcare (which he formerly supporterd), nor his recent attacks on Paul Krugman for being called out on his bullshit social security 'crisis' nonsense, nor...

i don't find uncited rhetoric persuasive in candidates OR political commentary. I agree that ron paul speaks with more substance than most candidates.

unfortunately, the substance of a man who votes no on all appropriations bills, opposes public education, believes the aclu shouldn't get fees, wishes to abolish the irs, and is anti-abortion doesn't expand my options.

He believes the ACLU shouldn't get fees? In what context? Just the ACLU? I hadn't heard that, where's that?

I wish Bill Richardson were my uncle.

while it wasn't titled the anti-aclu act, that's how it was known. only 5 republicans in the whole house voted against it, incl. Shays; I have newfound respect for all of them.

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3907&sort=party
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26881prs20060926.html

Yeah, that's a pretty slimy thing not to vote for.