An Improved Primary System

Let's face it: The primary election system sucks. Why should states like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a huge influence, when much more populated and important states are ignored? Why should uninteresting candidates have the nomination wrapped up after Super Tuesday, when we hardly even know who they are?

One of the better alternatives came from a lesser-known presidential candidate. He is so lesser-known that I forgot his name.

His idea was to have no more than 3 state primaries each week. This would last for a period of 16 weeks. The elections would be in alphabetic order by state. One presidential cycle would start with the "A" states, and the next cycle would start with the "Z" states. That would end the Iowa monopoly.

An even better approach would be to have the elections in order by the size of the state: Smallest states first.

Since it doesn't require a great deal of money to run in a small state, this approach would allow the largest number of citizen-candidates to run. They could also run in a real way, rather than just through worthless, bullshitty ad campaigns.

At the same time, the large states like New York and California would still have enormous power at the end of the 16-week cycle. No candidate could really win the nomination in less than about 14 weeks of the cycle. The huge state primaries in the last 2 weeks of the primary cycle, in places like New York, California, Illinois, etc, could reverse any trends of the first 40 state primaries.

This would also give people plenty of time to get to know the candidates in a real way, rather than just through bullshitty advertisements.

WEIGHTING

The entire primary process needs to be geared more toward winning the General Election, rather than just finding out who is the most amorphously popular in the country. To do this, individual states delegate-counts should be WEIGHTED in terms of their "redness" or "blueness".

100%: States that voted for the Democratic candidate in either of the previous two elections would receive 100% of their delegate-count.

75%: Failing that, states that have either a Democratic Governor or Senator, but who have not voted for a Democratic candidate recently, would get a 75% weight.

50%: Failing the above, States that have some minimal percentage of Democratic Congressmen would get a 50% weight.

25%: All other states.

In this way, totally MEANINGLESS, indelibly RED states would not have much say in the Democratic candidate selection. This would help to avoid the nomination of the usual LOSERS.

CAUCUSES UNACCEPTABLE

Except informally, caucuses would be TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for calculating delegate strength. A STANDARD ELECTION, using the same equipment as the general election, would be required.

A SECRET BALLOT is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED!!!

WINNER TAKE ALL

To be consistent with the November election, states should run on a WINNER TAKE ALL basis. Running a primary on the basis of who is the "most popular" is very marvy. However, that is NOT how the General Election works.

Al Gore won the popular vote by 5 million votes in 2000. Big deal. It don't count for dog patootie. The loser is the loser. It doesn't matter if you win by 100 million votes. The election is based upon state-by-state electoral college votes.

The primary MUST SIMULATE the state-by-state electoral college approach.

Having a state-by-state primary insures that the selected candidate has an understanding of electoral college politics, and is not just driven by some pie-in-the-sky notion of making "all Americans" happy. Whoopee doo.

NO DISENFRANCHISEMENT

The DNC would NEVER, under any circumstances, have the right to disenfranchise an entire state.

The disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan in this cycle is TOTALLY CRIMINAL and UNACCEPTABLE! It should NEVER, EVER be repeated!

Following these rules might help the Democrats to nominate an ELECTABLE candidate, for a change.

Draft 2: 2/21/08

Comment 5/28/09: OK, I was wrong about Obama losing. But I STILL think that Hillary would have won by a MUCH larger margin than Obama. The 2008 election SHOULD have been a total landslide, and it was not.

OBAMABUNTO TRANSLATORS NEEDED

There is a serious problem in the Obama campaign. There is a drastic shortage of Obamabunto translators. Obamabunto, of course, is the native language of the Obamas. And while Obamabunto sounds very similar to English, it actually has VERY different meanings.

For example, Mrs. Obama recently said that "for the first time in my life, I am really proud to be an American." Now, of course, in normal ENGLISH, this would seem to indicate that Mrs. Obama has been ASHAMED to be an American her entire life.

However, in OBAMABUNTO, the phrase "For the first time in my life", has an entirely DIFFERENT meaning! In Obamabunto, the phrase "For the first time in my life" translates roughly into the word "Achooo". Or, in some cases, "burp".

In other words, after translating to Obamabunto, Mrs. Obama's statement has AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEANING!!! What Mrs. Obama REALLY said was "Achooo. I am really proud to be an American." Which, of course, is VERY patriotic, as SHE is very patriotic and always proud to be an American. However, you might think otherwise is you do not speak Obamabunto.

Obama had a similar problem with the word "plagiarism". In Obama's native ObamabuntoLand, political leaders FREQUENTLY copy ENTIRE speeches from other political leaders. Yes, MANY leaders in ObamabuntoLand have given the ML King "I have a dream" speech, and of course, claimed it as their own! Many of the natives in ObamabuntoLand have never heard the speech before, not having any electricity in their huts, so there was no question of plagiarism.

In FACT, in Obamabunto, there is no word for "plagiarism".

So you can certainly see that there is a dire need for Obamabunto translators in the Obama campaign. It is likely that MANY mis-understandings of this nature will arise, simply because Obamabunto sounds so similar to English, but yet has entirely different meanings.

Care must be taken to ALWAYS consult an Obamabunto translator before assuming that an Obama has said or done something wrong. Because, of course, the Obamas are PERFECT, and NEVER say or do anything wrong. THOUSANDS of Obama supporters will swear to that, and how could they be wrong?

OBAMA: How about a RE-VOTE?

Once again, I ask Obama to push for a REVOTE in Florida and Michigan. This would be good for Obama, good for Hillary and good for the Democratic Party.

Why? Obama would have the opportunity to prove that he could defeat Hillary in FL and MI, where he was previously CLOBBERED. This would make his nomination less controversial and would end this bitter nomination fight earlier.

It would be good for Hillary since it would give her one last chance for success. If she failed, it would be over, and we could get on with our lives.

It would be good for the Democratic Party and the DNC, since it would heal the wounds inflicted by the IDIOTIC disenfranchisement of FL and MI.

It would also help the Democratic nominee in the November election, since Florida and Michigan delegates would at least feel that they had a part in selecting the nominee.

Currently, Obama is especially handicapped in carrying Florida and Michigan since he and his supporters have made many disparaging remarks about these states. Apparently Obama's desire to win is greater than his desire for "fairness" or "voters rights", which he supposedly supports. But how does Obama support "voters rights" when he supports the disenfranchisement of 26 million Florida and Michigan citizens?

And it would be good for democracy. After all, this is SUPPOSED TO BE an election. Wouldn't it be nice we actually could HAVE an election?

The money necessary to pay for the revotes could EASILY be raised by the combined forces of Hillary, Obama and the DNC. After all, Obama was just bragging that he had raised 7 million dollars in 2 days, and Hillary had raised 10 million in 7 days. So they could pay for it in ONE WEEK.

A small price to pay for democracy.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GETTING SUCKERED

Limbaugh is playing the Democrats for suckers. When he says that "we are doomed" if Obama is nominated and that he is going to fundraise for Hillary.

The reason that the right-wingers are saying this is because they know that they can DESTROY Obama, but the Clintons can win.

The fact that this is an agreed-upon MESSAGE from the right, is the fact that Karl Rove last night said that he thinks that Clinton will be the weaker candidate but Obama could win.

Now, THINK ABOUT IT: Since when have Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh been interested in giving HELPFUL advice to the Democratic Party?

Get real. The Democrats are being SUCKERED. The Righties know that Hillary can win, and that is why they are doing this.

And why, pray tell, has the vast rightwing conspiracy been so QUIET about Obama? Wait until after he's nominated!!!

And how much of the much-vaunted money that Obama is getting is actually funnelled-in by Republican billionaires who want him nominated, so that the Republicans can win?

The Republicans are now DESPERATE to get the WEAKEST DEMOCRAT nominated. With their own candidate weak, that is their only prayer.

But the weakest candidate is Obama, not Hillary. Obama is the Republicans ONLY chance of victory. The Republicans will re-define the word "swiftboating" if Obama is nominated. You can guarantee it.

But then, if you trust the advice of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, go ahead and nominate Obama.

The Idiotic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories about 9/11 implosions are impossibly assinine. Consider:

1. Do these 9/11 IDIOTS have any idea how much EXPLOSIVES would have been necessary to do this?

1a. WHO put these explosives in place?
1b. How come nobody SAW any of these explosives? They would have had to have been plastered to the walls, etc. Holes would have had to have been drilled, there would be detonator wires all over the place, drywall would be smashed in.
1c. How come nobody SAW a team of workers bringing in TONS of explosives into BOTH of the Twin Towers?
1d. Where would Bush have gotten such total traitors and murderers as workers? This would certainly be repugnant to patriotic Americans of the right wing.
1e. Why have there been no stool-pigeons? Virtually every one of Bush's former cabinet members have turned into stool-pigeons informing on Bush. Don't you think that some of these conspirators would have stool-pigeoned by now?

2. WHY would Bush have even WANTED to do 9/11? It was certainly not clear in advance that 9/11 would work to his political advantage. It was actually a terrible stain upon his administration that 9/11 happened UNDER HIS WATCH. If the Democrats had any brains, they could have CRUCIFIED him for it. 9/11 only "turned out" to be to Bush's advantage. Consequently, there would not even be a motivation for it to happen.

3. Finally, the amateur Saudi Arabian Al Quida pilots would have been required to hit the buildings in PRECISELY the correct location to set off all of these explosives.

4. There would have been chemical traces of explosives. Considering that a huge amount of explosives would have been necessary, there would have been chemical traces of them.

5. People would have seen explosives going off, if the building had been imploded. There were no explosives. The top floors simply collapsed of their own weight after steel supports had melted. That is what caused the so-called "implosion". There were no explosions after the initial impact of the airplanes.

There is ample documentation of the collapse of both buildings, and it is clear that there were none of the explosions that you would have seen if it had somehow been exploded.

To conclude, these are just a FEW of the arguments against the idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It is rather clear that certain people are just so desperate to deny the REALITY of the need for the War on Terror, that they must makes up fantasies to defy reality. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are as idiotic as saying that Pearl Harbor never happened, or that the Holocaust never happened.

FLORIDA 2000 ALL OVER AGAIN?

In case nobody noticed, there's still a 900 pound gorilla in the room. And her name is Florida. And her 700 pound friend Michigan.

The DNC's idiotic decision to strip them of delegates, and Hillbama's decision to boycott them, have been equally disasterous.

What happens if those Florida and Michigan delegates come into play? Do you count Hillary's big wins in both of those states?

Is it Hillary's fault that Obama was too stupid to register his name in Michigan, or to campaign in any way in Florida?

Should there be a re-vote in FL and MI? Wouldn't that be unfair to Clinton, who already won in those states? She had campaigned in those states LONG BEFORE the IDIOTS in the DNC came up with their INSANE DISENFRANCHISEMENT of Florida.

As a Florida Democrat, I have no great sympathy for Obama's "agreement" with Hillary to boycott Florida. Sounds like something a SLUMLORD would say. "But gee, Mr. Soprano, we had a DEAL!!!"

Yes, a DEAL to DISENFRANCHISE Florida? I consider that non-binding.

KENNEDY OVERDOSE

Teddy Kennedy is a medium. He has channelled the thoughts of JFK and determined that JFK would vote for Wonderboy. But could he also channel the thoughts of another very important dead person? Yes, MARY JO KOPECHNE.

Gee, I wonder if Mary Jo Kopechne would also endorse Obama?

And how about William Kennedy Smith? Who is HE endorsing? Seeing as how every Kennedy alive and dead seems to be endorsing a candidate, who is the choice of rapists? Does anybody care about rapists' rights?

But it was good to see that Maria Shriver is still alive. I thought that Ahnoold had fucked her to death. After spending the last 20 years giving birth to 7 little Republicans, she emerges from her kitchen to tell the Democratic Party who to nominate. Talk about sleeping with the enemy.

But I certainly won't say anything bad about the Holy Virgin Caroline, whose father, JFK, art in heaven. The Holy Virgin Caroline has conferred with her father, JFK, who art in heaven, and determined definitively that he would vote for Wonderboy.

Oprah says that she isn't endorsing Wonderboy because he's black, but rather because he's brilliant. Gimme a break. How many brilliant crackers has she endorsed lately?

And truth be told, President Clinton is more brilliant than Wonderboy by a country mile. He could also get us out of this recession, rather than just sitting around and gas-bagging about it.

To conclude, if there any additional Kennedys, alive or dead, who plan to give any more endorsements, please do so now.

And you know, as a DISENFRANCHISED Florida Democrat, whose vote doesn't mean SHIT, I find it rather interesting that people are more interested in how every Kennedy and their mother-in-law feels, and that they are totally uninterested in how Florida and Michigan Democrats feel.

Draft 2: 2/4/08

OBAMA: MASTER OF THE VEILED INSULT

We're beginning to get a sense of Obama's very slick modus operandi. He is a master of the veiled insult. He does this by presenting intense insults in the form of "objective observations".

His latest put-down of this nature is describing Hillary's lead as "name recognition". This is a very effective put-down since it implies that the only reason that people vote for Hillary is because they know her name. Aside from that, she is totally worthless and has no value as a candidate. According to this "objective" evaluation by Professor Obama, that is the only reason that people are voting for her.

But I thought that Obama's Reagan comment was a brilliantly slick put-down of the Clintons. It contained SEVERAL separate insults to Clinton, and at the same time it was presented like Obama was making a fair-minded, lofty "observation".

And when the Clintons responded with outrage and retaliation, Obama turns to Bill Clinton and says, "Gosh and golly, that mean old racist bully BILL is picking on me!" He is just SO unreasonable. And then his Uncle Ted chimes in to enform us that Bill Clinton is just SOOOOOOO horrible! It is just sooooooo RACIST to mention that Jessie Jackson won South Carolina twice.

But let's look at the brilliant insults built into Obama's Reagan "observation":

He brutally lumped Clinton with Nixon. This was a subtle reminder that they were both impeached.

He associated Clinton, a sometimes brilliant idea man, with the mentally constipated Nixon.

Targeting Clinton's boomer supporters, Obama cleverly associated Clinton with the single President that is most virulently hated by all Boomers.

Obama failed to acknoweldge that Clinton's administration was probably AT LEAST as transformative as Reagan's.

Obama did not mention Clinton's obsession with developing the "information highway", and improving America's infrastructure, which has served us very well into the much vaunted 21st century. Clinton was anything but devoid of ideas. Reagan, on the other hand, spent most of his time riding his horsey.

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs. Ronald Reagan began the DESTRUCTION of America's industrial base and it's exportation to Cheap Labor Land.

Bill Clinton's administration was HIGHLY TRANSFORMATIONAL. It took America from stagnation to a booming economy. It was taking America to world technical superiority before Bush hijacked it, and gave it all away to India and China, for the sake of cheap wages and easy profits.

Yes, Reagan was "transformational". He helped to DESTROY American greatness. Reagan DESTROYED American industry.

Reagan DESTROYED American Democracy by removing high taxes on billionaires. The billionaires have now become multi-billionaires, thanks to Ronny Ray-gun, and Democracy has become a JOKE. It has become a totally corrupt dog and pony show where the multi-billionaires can buy whoever and whatever they want.

And speaking of that. How much money is Oprah funneling into Obama's spend-a-thon, with her fortune of $2.5 BILLION dollars. I wonder if Obama will cut HER taxes?

Some TRANSFORMATION!!! And Bush has continued the transformation by destroying American technical superiority. Pretty soon there will be no jobs left in America other than Wal-mart. Thank you, Ronny Ray-Gun. Thank you, El Georgo.

There was good reason for Bill and Hillary to be INFURIATED by Obama's "innocent" little Reagan "observation".

And of course, after these "objective observations", Obama can sit back and say "Who me?", in mock puzzlement, as Bill Clinton turns purple and Hillary shreiks. Then he can say that the Clintons are most assuredly negative and imbalanced, because they attack him for no reason.


His best performance was at the debate just before Super Tuesday. Like a poisonous snake, he totally mollified and disarmed Hillary Clinton. Then the following days he attacked her with the sledge hammer of the Kennedy endorsement and more Oprah-thons.

This pacification was very important, because he had to disarm Bill Clinton. Barak is obviously aware that Hillary's strength is Bill. But he and his supporters have managed to silence him, so that they can more easily destroy Hillary and her lead.

As I have said before, Bill should be with Hillary as much as possible. They have an ENORMOUS advantage over Obama as a TEAM. They are Jesus and the Virgin Mary, Zeus and Hera, Yin and Yang. They need to USE that advantage, not bury it.

Obama has been very clever in doing everything he possibly can to get Bill out of the picture and NEUTRALIZE him. Ted Kennedy, King of Bullshit, has castigated Clinton, but that is only because Kennedy is an Obama supporter.

And what is Kennedy's near-psychotic obsession about defeating the Clintons? Is he JEALOUS? Is this a battle of the dynasties? Is he afraid that the Clintons will overshadow the blueblood Kennedys?

There must be SOMETHING behind this manic destruction of Hillary that Kennedy is perpetrating. But for Hillary to listen to Kennedy is ABSURD. Kennedy is her enemy, and his objective is to neutralize Bill.

Bill should go on the attack again, and go on the attack HARD. There is no reason why Obama should get away with this OBSCENE comparison of himself with JFK. And we should learn a little more about what Obama was REALLY doing on the South Side of Chicago. How long he worked for that slumlord. What his associations were with Jessie Jackson. What he did for the Daley machine, which is located on the South Side of Chicago.

In short, its time to cut thru Obama's angelic mascarade and reveal the demon beneath.