Allright*. Obama is the next president.

I do have a penchant for calling these races early. Back in... I don't want to look it up, but several months ago I called Hillary for the Democratic nomination (I reiterate that I thought so because she is relentless, and I also reiterate that she sure is).

So why the heck would I call the general election now?


(A) Obama has long-ago won the Demcratic nomination. This is ridiculous. There is no math that makes any alternative outcome (Hillary) possible. None. Except that Obama dies a sudden and untimely death, which I sure the hell hope Clinton isn't counting on.

I sure, sure the hell hope not. But she is holding nothing else in her poker hand.

Nothing, by the way. Did I say "nothing" already?


(B) Obama will beat McCain; and I submit THIS as evidence. Watch this clip, listen close on every word, and pay special attention, in fact, to Huckabee's words. To repeat the poker analogy, McCain is holding nothing going into this November. Flat-out nothing. His solution for Iraq is to dig further in without real commitment to the war (no draft, no new taxes); and his solution for the economy is more tax cuts and more deregulation. Your workaday Republican charlatanry: we can get everything for nothing.

[Note: This is the Laffer Curve: lowering taxes will raise revenue. Which was always bullshit. Reagan first accepted this principle (and doubled back on it, by raising taxes once his initial lowering of taxes resulted in - duh - lower revenue), and all Good Republicans since have extended this Laffer-Curve religion into every element of public policy: lowball a war in order to win it. Cut food programs in order to feed people. Reduce government spending (direct investment in the economy) in order to stimulate the economy. Black is white, war is peace, conservatism is compassionate. (Comment to Note: John Maynard Keynes, father of macroeconomics, called government spending a "multiplier", because the initial spending stimulated the economy, but there was a secondary spending that occurred out of the salaries of the government employees paid in the first spending. This is what got us out of the Great Depression (doubters: was or was not World War II a time of increased government spending?) Whereas Republicans, on the other hand, have their own theory called "trickle-down economics", which means you do the reverse: let the government spend no money and have rich people hang onto it all. Well, guess what? A dollar saved by a rich person is put into savings, and does not create the effective (payable) demand which is the true engine of our economy. A dollar put in the pocket of a government employee (unless that employee is Dick Cheney) is rather likely to go to McDonald's that afternoon, and thus stimulate the economy. In sum, Republican economics is sheer and simple bullshit. Or, as the elder Bush notably called it, "voodoo".)]

People, in short, see where this crap has already been leading us. So I don't want to go on about it at length.

McCain has got nothing. Least of all, these days, any residual straight-talk.

Did I say already he's got nothing?

A fencepost could beat McCain this year. Which is to say that if John Kerry were the Democratic nominee, he would take the thing. However, Kerry isn't the nominee. It's Obama. Who may or may not be the Savior of the American Republic: but I sure hope he is, because I believe he will be its next President.

Seriously, watch that clip I recommended if you aren't feeling me.


And, (C). Which is that I don't believe Obama will let them get away with the garbage Huckabee suggests at the end of the clip. Huckabee says the Republican nominee is likely to lose, unless sufficient seeds of doubt can be sown into the Democrat. And I, um - well, some have said Obama responded to the Jeremiah Wright thing too slowly, or in half-measures. But I have a feeling here. I think the man knows how to street-fight these things; I think he now knows how to street-fight them even better than he did before the Wright thing came up; and I have confidence that he will punch on through.

Am I wrong? Lay a bet with me in the comments: I work nonprofit and don't have a lot of cash, but I might take you up.


PS. I began this blog with an unstated personal ban on the use of obscenities. I let that standard slip in a recent post about the fifth anniversary of "Mission Impossible", or whatever in god's name The Retard called that miscarriage. I was mad. Today I seem to have done something similar with the use of the word "bullshit"'; but I want to make it clear that I intend the term technically, with a meaning not quite captured by any other word. IE, "Saying stuff which is superficially plausible, but which the speaker, and very possibly the listeners, know is not true: but yet, in the saying of which, it is hoped that in the formalism of its merely being spoken that a given point will still be carried, or at least not too-closely questioned."

I have an elaborate definition of "bullshit", as you can see. Therefore you understand my need to resort to the term. But it resumes from here that in general, I am committed to the notion that I will make my arguments only the more persuasively if I do so without vulgarity.

(Bullshit!)


* I spell it, "allright". Not "alright" or "all right", which every dictionary in the world tells me to do. Why? Even though I am aware this is regarded incorrect? Because I like it better that way. It's the same reason I put my end-comma outside of a given "quotation", and why is that? Because the comma isn't a part of the freaking quotation, that's why. The stuff in the quotes is the stuff being quoted, yes? And no sentence ends with a frigging comma. I figure that if I defy grammar as-taught in the name of just one or two items that bear greater common sense, then these things might catch on. "Alright"? Why do we drop the second "l"?

And while I'm at this - people, use commas to separate the last item in a list. It creates ambiguities otherwise. Check this out:

The budget allocates resources to the following areas: capital expenses, salaries, building maintenance, research and development and sundries.

Versus:

The budget allocates resources to the following areas: capital expenses, salaries, building maintenance, research and development, and sundries.

You know what I'm saying. Use the last comma in a list. Not to do so values economy over meaning, which is simply goddamned stupid. AP Style be damned.

Thank you. I have exhausted all the opinions I can think of for the moment

Oh: I hate onions.