I think we can all agree that, on the whole, this isn’t a place where we delve in too much serious discussion. Today, though, I do feel compelled to say a few words about the official beginning of the presidential election cycle. Why is today the official start? Because tonight, all across the “great” state of Iowa registered voters will gather together to caucus it up like it’s 1999…or 2008, I suppose.

What’s that? No caucus doesn’t mean that, pervey!

Basically, a bunch of Democrats from each of Iowa’s counties will get together in rooms and, I’m not exactly sure, shout at each other or something, until they decide who they support. The Republicans will do the same thing, though they’ll be in different rooms than the Democrats. At the end of the night we, the American voting public, will know who the new (or not new) front runners are for each party’s nomination.

Next Tuesday then brings us to the New Hampshire primary. This, of course, is much different than the Iowa caucus because it seems to be written in New Hampshire’s state constitution that at the age of 18 you MUST register as an independent.

Wins in either state can propel a candidate into the bigger primaries, such as Kerry’s 2004 victory in Iowa and McCain’s 2000 victory in New Hampshire.

Hey kilian, thanks for the civics lesson!

You’re welcome loyal 6 readers. But here’s the point of all this. I really believe that the 2008 election COULD be very important to this country. Now I say COULD because there is a small but strongly defiant part of me that is cynical enough to believe that it really doesn’t matter whose inaugural ball is going on just over one year from now since it seems increasingly clear that the two parties are on course to meld into one Uber-party about 15 years from now, but I digress.

On the whole, there are a lot of similar candidates with shades of difference. For instance, I whole heartedly agree with the PMJA staff’s assertion that Hillary and Giulianni are pretty much the same candidate (and, has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same room…think about it…).

Certainly, there exists the possibility that someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich could get elected, but let’s be realistic folks. We’re really looking at six (possibly seven) viable candidates at this point; Hillary, Obama and Edwards on one side, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and (if you believe recent polls, which I don’t) Huckabee.

For those that don’t know, I’m a leftist. In fact, I’m a registered member of the Green Party. I don’t take that affiliation too seriously as I did, with much nose pinching, vote for Kerry four years ago. But I hate the idea of “independent” so I picked the party closest to my views. I point this out only so that you know from which direction I’m approaching the election cycle. While I certainly am curious to see how the Republican nomination shakes out (particularly in light of the fact that no “real” evangelical option is open to the right since, I’m telling you now, Huckabee won’t win the nomination and Romney is a mormon), I am much more interested in the Democratic nomination.

I think that Michael Moore breaks it down fairly well. All things considered, Edwards decision to use matching grants is perhaps the most telling thing that has gone on in this race. Whether it was a political ploy or not, no other candidate has yet done the same.

Of the three, I suppose I lean toward Edwards, though the lean is slight. I certainly don’t feel at all inclined to vote for Hillary. I’d vote for Bill again, were that an option, since he was so entertaining while in office. I can’t see Hillary bringing quite the same zest to the White House though. Plus, I’m pretty sure that if she and Giuliani aren’t, actually, the same person, then she must be a Nazi-robot who traveled through time.

Something about Obama doesn’t sit right with me. He seems good, but for all his “supposed” charisma, I never find myself swayed by him. Plus, I think that if he were to win the nomination, and the election, he would be assassinated within three months of taking office. I just think it’ll happen. 2008 or not, there are a lot of a-holes still out there.

So I guess, by default, that leaves me with Edwards. My wife is high on him, and she’s usually got a better moral compass than myself. But I guess I’m just too tired of being stuck with the “least evil” option. I guess on some level that in our current society anyone who would actively desire/campaign to become president is untrustworthy by default.

If you happened to come here, oh accidentally. Say a wayward search engine dropped you here…then I ask that before reading on, go here first…

OK, now that you’re all caught up..

First off, let me just say that I’m not completely shocked by either Obama’s, or Huckabee’s win.

First on the right, Huckabee played well in Iowa because they have a lot of evangelicals, and he’s loved by Jesus. Let’s not go anointing him the savior of “American values” just yet. Yes, he spent much less than Romney for a greater return, but he also let everyone and their cat know about it, and that thing plays well in a state with a lot of corn. New Hampshire will be a much bigger (and probably more important test) because the Reps in the granite state lean much more to Romney’s kind of conservativity. I doubt Huckabee will even rank in the top three there (probably 5th, behind even Paul), but if he does hit a top three finish in New Hampshire (based, I think, mostly on his momentum from Iowa) then he might be able to start raising more money and compete with Romney…but I doubt it heartily.

Obama…oh how much hope we have for you at this moment…and how I fear it will soon evaporate. Much of the coverage that I saw last night focused on both, the amount of Obama’s victory (his pull with voters across several categories was strong) and the depth of Hilary’s collapse (sidenote: little was made that Edwards finished above, albeit by a small margin, Hillary…even NPR this morning still touted Hillary as Obama’s chief rival), and how Obama = change. Just as with the Republicans, I feel that Obama may not play as well in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa.

OK, so on to responding…

First I’ll start with exsulis’ final point about the loan bail out. When you really look at it, the government isn’t really bailing out those who took the loans, so much as those who GAVE them. Yes, people shouldn’t take loans they can’t pay, but, you know what, a bank shouldn’t give a loan to someone who can’t pay it and then bitch when that loan goes into default.

Sorry, but just like the S&L bail out in the 80’s, this is more about american lending corporations saving face (read; stock price = international trust in said companies = less impact on the dollar which is, by the way, in the shit!). A few people might save their houses as a result, but that’s more or less collateral damage…

OK, another point from exsulis…yes, the economy is driven by business, but as you pointed out, 16 years (yeah, Clinton is at fault too) of near unchecked business practice causes the shit we are seeing now. Business needs some sort of governmental oversight because the fact that business is only in the “business” of making money and all other concerns (human rights, environment, etc) will, inevitably, fall by the wayside. Look, I’m not a socialist (really, I’m not), but anything unchecked (whether it’s business, government, zombies, whatever) is just bad.

Tengu, what doesn’t jive about Ron Paul is the fact that he is a golem controlled by a secret occult consortium run by the gold mining industry.

Kerri, one of the reasons that Obama is getting such good returns is that he has such little experience. Bush (inexplicably, since his dad was head of the CIA, Vice-President and President, plus he’s got a governor brother) sold himself as a Washington outsider and it worked because people wanted “change.” Obama’s doing the same thing, really. And he is a Senator. No he hasn’t been there since the ice-age, like say, Bob Dole. But it’s not like he doesn’t know anybody in Washington.

I do agree with exsulis assertion that Obama’s approach to the war is the most sensible. Look, I actually marched against the war before it started, but I’ve been saying since before then that if we went into Iraq we would have to be there for 2 decades. If we were to pull the troops out now, we’d turn that country (and much of that region) into an f-ing wasp’s nest! What we need is a true international coalition, backed by the UN and NATO, to help us sort out Iraq so that some stability can be brought to the area. Pulling out now will only cause the next generation of Iraqis, who will see us as a bunch of assholes who raped their country then left when we longer wanted to stay, to become Al Qaeda’s next crop of willing recruits.

C, I wouldn’t call them puppets, more like semi-autonomous constructs with advanced emotive matrices…but it’s really just nitpicking.

You know, it’s Friday afternoon. I have the very real possibility of sleeping more than four hours tonight. My books is done and sent off. I’m feeling pretty good.

Until, that is, I head over to The Newswire and find this….

I don’t know if I should cry or laugh?

I said to my wife, last night, if it comes down to McCain and Hillary, then McCain will destroy her. I base this on McCain’s (real or perceived) history as an independent thinking Republican. He can get away with military Hawkishness because of his military history much more than Hillary can in a general election. And given the choice of McCain or Hillary, all the GOP will go McCain out of sheer hatred for the Clintons, and I think he’ll draw more from the independents then she will.

But the point Coulter makes about their positions being so similar is true…

McCain scares the GOP because he does not tow the party line…which is fine, but does the GOP hierarchy even know what the party line is anymore? I mean after Bush jr who the f can tell.

If given the choice of McCain or Hillary, right now, I’d probably lean toward McCain. Even though I hate that after the 2000 election he felt the need to take a hard right, to set up this run at the white house, I can understand it. What I don’t understand is how someone with Hillary’s rhetoric can be the leading candidate for the “liberal” party.

God help us if Obama isn’t the Dems candidate.

Look, if one candidate could get the backing of the powerful porn lobby, well that’d candidate would have an easy…sticky…march to the white house…

And as an added bonus, there’s a new, special, Super Tuesday poll up for everyone to vote even more today!

I know I said this wouldn’t turn into a political type blog thing, but it’s an election year, and it seems like this one might be a particularly important one…and I know that they say that every election, but this time it’s true, really.

So the Mormon’s out which, after Tuesday, isn’t that big a surprise. All the way home yesterday (which is about a 75 minute commute) NPR was going on and on about how the conservative base still hasn’t gotten behind McCain and he needs them to win. My question is, does he?

Look, I already said that I think he’d beat Clinton in a general election. Oh, yeah I heard all the disgruntled Romneyites saying they’d vote for Hillary over McCain (and, of course, there was that Ann Coulter thing…) but that was a kneejerk reaction to their guy bowing out. As an aside, I found his “concession” speech rather graceful, except for the middle part where he felt the need to go on about how porn and gays were ruining the fabric of America….Anyway, who honestly believes that any proud, card carrying Republican is going to walk into a voting booth in November and actually pick any candidate with the name “Clinton.”

Look, I know she’s just as conservative as McCain, but it just isn’t going to happen in this world. Plus, McCain has already shown that he’s winning moderates and independents, something Hillary will have a hard time doing.

One thing that strikes me as funny is that, by and large, staunch conservatives feel betrayed by McCain because…as far as I can tell…he has some principles. He committed the cardinal sin of NOT VOTING FOR A TAX CUT WHEN IN TIME OF WAR, like, oh I don’t know, a real conservative (as opposed to a neo-con) would. Then, and this is the really crazy thing, he co-sponsored two bills with actual liberals. Dear god! We don’t want someone in the White House who actually has a history of working across the aisle!

Like I’ve said before, I’m not a McCain guy, but given the choice of him or Hillary…that’s tough.

Now Obama, there’s your (and by that I mean, my) candidate. Already we’re seeing a hint that he might be getting the better of Clinton, at least as far as money raising goes. Of course, Dems go with the whole (and decidedly more democratic) proportional delegate thing, so we’ve still got a ways to go (by the way, where would Romney be if the GOP did the same?). But I think a McCain, Obama election would be better for the country all the way around. You have a long time Washington politician who’s not really “loved” by his party vs. essentially, the most unpolitical presidential candidate you’re likely to get….