I, Muehlenhaus. U, Riedermaus.

Now I am thinking of abstaining from the election entirely to instead throw my political weight behind a candidate in a foreign election. I really think Gyula Horn would be an ideal Prime Minister again in Hungary next time the elections come around. In 1994 he came into power with a neck brace and a mandate, and although his mandate didn't get very far, one has to assume it was because of his neck brace. Thus, let's give him another chance!

So I am no longer concerned about the US election, because no matter what happens, at least whoever wins will do so on more millions than the entire country of Hungary spends on electricity every year. It's time for me to start volunteering for elections that really matter; that is why I am going to volunteer to go door-to-door in Hungary when Gyula Horn's campaign asks me in 2010.

Current Electibility Index
(Where "Index" Has No Meaning or Indicative Capability Whatsoever)

1. Bill Richardson
2. Al Gore
3. Barack Obama
4. John McCain*
4. Hillary Clinton*

* Tied for last place.

Tonight is more exciting than the lead up to a play off game for me. I mean, sure when the Twins make the playoffs and are about to play that day, I get a little excited and can't really focus. But this is different... I am really interested to see how this plays out. Two people, like boxers in the ring, trading canned one-liners and heat-deflecting anecdotes... I'm not scared for Obama. I'm more worried about how self-destructive Hillary will be for her party.

I was thinking about it today, while watching Mette run around the dog park. The Clintons are fighting exactly what brought them to power. It is truly ironic. They started in the DNC stumping for George McGovern -- a change candidate that so terrified the elite of the DNC that he was one reason they cited for creating Superdelegates. Then, they came to office as the non-Washington hicks from Arkansas -- give change a chance. And yet today, they are bashing Barack for not being experienced, for asking for too much change too fast, and for being naive. Hillary's husband was one of the worst Presidents in history during his first two years, but he caught on and I think most people would say he ended up at around the middle of the pack as Presidents go. So I don't get it.

Then I started thinking more. (Always dangerous.) When has a Democrat won an election for president when he (or she) has not been a change candidate? The only person I could think of was Lyndon B. Johnson, but he won due to a sympathy vote over JFK. He didn't even run for a second term, because it was obvious he was the establishment. Clinton won as a candidate of change. Carter won as a candidate of change. JFK definitely won -- or cheated his way in depending on how you look at it -- as a breakthrough minority candidate of change (i.e., he is the only Catholic, the only non-Protestant, to ever be President). FDR, believe it or not represented change too when he was elected. He just stuck around for a while. Truman was establishment, but again I have to think the sympathy vote eked it out for him over Dewey, but I suppose you could put that down as a non-change candidate... my point is that Hillary can't win. It's like nominating Kerry or Humphrey or something. Good God! The writing was on the wall four years ago that the Democrats needed a non-establishment candidate when Howard Dean was doing so well... and then was squashed by the DNC machine and given the paltry consolation prize of becoming the organization's head. Change would have won that year too, I'm convinced. Voting for Kerry was painful... it was like voting for your high school principal by choosing either the current really mean one or the Assistant Principal who is known as being just as mean. What? John Edwards did really well in 2004 simply because he was the only candidate of change left by the time South Carolina rolled around. And this time he did respectably well, considering the people he was up against, because people remembered that.

Okay, so I hate to be someone who is fear-mongering, but let's face it -- if Obama is assassinated, shouldn't the Clintons be prime suspects?

I mean, it is their last chance, right? And they are supposedly all powerful. I honestly wouldn't put it past them, as they appear a bit desperate and are obviously counting on securing the White House. The only other option is to lose this nomination, sabotage Obama's election run by helping the Republicans, and then running again in four years. I think that may be their new angle. I relaly do. They did much the same against John Kerry four years ago -- asking Wesley Clark to run against Kerry and not helping Kerry at all on the campaign trail. Interesting... if Obama wins, Hillary can never get elected. She will become too old waiting for a non-incumbent. But if he loses, she can run again in four years.

Anyway, I'm back to voting for McCain again over Hillary. Maybe Ron Paul just for the hell of it... to make Pisti happy! 1) Obama. 2) Ron Paul. 3) McCain. 4) Anyone. 5) Clinton, Rodham or whatever the hell her name is this year.

RRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Man, not to get overly political... but I hope Hillary hangs it up when Texas and Ohio are done. She is attacking Obama today for his ads that point out that her health care coverage requires everyone to have it or be penalized. Regardless of whose plan you like the most, there is no way her "mandatory coverage" would ever pass; so it is a mute point. Obama's plan, though not mandating universal coverage, is the only plan that stands a chance of getting past congress. Plus, Clinton has been attacking him on universal health care the entire campaign and now says that she cannot believe "one Democrat would attack another over universal health care." Um... well, yeah. Right. The plagiarism argument? She stole her "famous" final lines of the last debate from a Bill speech in 1992. The super delegate argument? Obama has gained 27 on her in the last two weeks. The Michigan and Florida argument? Even with those delegates she wouldn't catch him, and he wasn't even on the ballot in one state! Her campaign is so sophomoric. It is petty. And the real kicker is, she can't even get nominated by the party she and her husband own, so what makes her think she can win a national election? It is kind of surreal to me how delusional these old school Democrats are.

But the election is beginning to bug me. I can't stomach McCain at all either. So I've re-ranked my voting preferences and these will stick through the election (I think):

1. Barack Obama
2. Abstain from voting

Listening to Mum right now and working on a lecture for next week. Apparently I am busier this semester, as I never write to this blog anymore. I don't even have time to play card games with beans or watch 40-some episodes of Lost in a row. Life is hard...

But I'm enjoying it. The Democratic nomination process is hilarious to watch. I mean, everyone knows the Clintons (and I use plural, because all three are involved) are likely going to bludgeon their way to the nomination. They will single-handedly set women and African American politicians back by about 40 years due to their own vanity. Sure, Hillary will get the nomination by seating delegates she was against seating originally and getting the Democratic establishment that owes her favors to vote for her. And then... she will lose. And we will have four years with a guy that is pro-war, anti-taxes, and not exactly all that bright. Sound like what we have now? Well it is... and you know what the worst thing is? If this actually happens, all of my Democratic Party friends will be bad sports about it. They will insult McCain for being "stupid" and "arrogant" and opine that there is no way the Democrats can or should lose the next election. Just as they did before Kerry lost and they are right now. The problem is... Republicans are not stupid. In fact, often they are far more convincing, mature, and logical than Democrats, which is why they win elections. I think perhaps the Democratic Party suffers from the sort of institutional malaise that affects most of the unions in this country. That is, they are completely corrupt and unresponsive to the reality they operate in. The party is more hierarchical than the Postal Union -- seniority over energy and potential. That is hardly the way to win elections.

The more I think about it, the more I can't believe I still want to affiliate with the Democratic Party. Certainly on political issues I am closer to their perspective, but at least if I was Republican I could attempt to make change from within the power structure, as Democrats seem intent on never gaining executive power in the next eight years or so. Let's face it, if change is what people want this election and the Democrats nominate Hillary, then voters will only have one choice -- to vote for the Republican that has pissed Rush Limbaugh off more than Hillary ever has. To go with the maverick rogue Republican who actually is a moderate at heart and has convictions of steel. And on top of this, the Democratic Party not only risks alienating moderate voters like myself, but also the African-American population it has banked upon to keep it close in elections. Quite honestly, if Hillary Clinton steals the nomination from Barack, the first African-American political leader that the white population has ever embraced across age and gender lines, what does this say about the Democratic Party leadership?! If the Republican Party is smart, as soon as Hillary is nominated, they should throw out a proverbial carrot on the stick and announce that a vote for Hillary is a vote against progress. It would be pretty easy! Even if they only shave 10% of the African-American vote away from the Democratic Party, that may be enough to get them some big states. (Note: in the 2000 election, African-Americans voted 92% for Gore-Lieberman; I'm not sure what the 2004 election stats were but they were not much different. Knocking that down to 82% could begin breaking up the urban stranglehold that Democrats enjoy during national elections.)

The crazy thing is... I want Obama and the Democrats to win, but even I can see how this party is heading for disaster. Better to point out the iceberg and jump ship than sink with an incompetent captain that can't see the horizon. That's exactly what I will do if the Democratic National Committee helps Hillary get the nomination. I'm out of here... Adios. I'm a ghost. But those are just my thoughts after losing sleep and staying up watching political talk shows late at night to recuperate from teaching.

Now jamming to the Moldy Peaches. Incredible band! Anyone who can do a cover of "Little Bunny Foo Foo" and follow it with a single called "Whose Got the Crack?" is stellar in my mind. I don't even have to know what they sing! OK, back to work... I had to vent about the election. Sadly, I have a bad feeling I am all bluster. Watch, I'll probably vote Hillary in November and hate myself for it. Particularly when she loses and I could have gone with my gut and picked the winning side. RRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrr...

The time has come to say something that I've wanted to say for months. The reason I have not said anything earlier is because I was worried about alienating all two people who might be reading this on a regular basis, and maintaining this high level of readership is very important to me. But alas, Super-Duper Tuesday is this Tuesday, and it is time I dispense my political thinking to the blogosphere. Particularly since the CIA seems to think I am an extremist; we'll see what happens when they realize I am a bloody moderate!

Ian's Political Logic

• If you are a Democrat, and you want the Republicans to lose, then you must vote for Obama. Obama can beat any Republican on the ticket if he runs a solid campaign.
  

• If you are a Republican, and you want to keep the White House in your party's hands, then you must vote for McCain. He is the only Republican who can beat either Democratic candidate. However, I doubt he can beat Obama, so you will also need Hillary to get nominated by the Democrats. If Hillary gets nominated, McCain will win hands down -- as long as he doesn't have a stroke before November.
  

• If your main concern is having a woman President, you need Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to get nominated on the Republican side. Otherwise, Hillary cannot win a national election.

Hillary can certainly beat Barack for the nomination, but this should terrify the Democrats, because Hillary will never beat McCain. He is a moderate, a bi-partisan guy, a war hero, anti-fraud (and note, that the Clintons are extremely fraudulent, whether you like them or not, they pardoned drug dealers and criminals who they were friends with), and far more personable than Hillary. Hillary is hated by roughly 30% of the country. She is married to a President that was (albeit wrongly) impeached, which will surely come up. And she will be hard fought to keep Democratic Party voters like myself who despised Clinton in his later years. If it comes down to Hillary versus McCain, as an independent minded person, I will probably vote McCain.

I am for Obama.

Note, I don't think he will be a great President. But he won't be worse than Bill Clinton was -- someone who had little experience and still managed to do quite well for about four years in the middle of his eight years in office. (Although, it should be noted, Bill really sucked at international affairs like Bush too. He just didn't make as gargantuan of a mess as the current administration has.) I see Barack as a Jimmy Carter figure. He will last four years if elected. He will make mistakes. But he will be honest, honorable, and probably mend a lot of wounds with the global community. US hegemony is disappearing regardless, so you might as well go out with someone who is likable and doesn't get the whole world riled up. Like Carter, Iran will probably be his undoing, but that's okay. At least he sees the glass as half-full when it comes to America's position in the world, rather than how it really is -- four-fifths empty and leaking from the bottom.

Plus, Barack has the support of a lot of Republicans. He is a shoo-in for the national election. Nominating Hillary is the only way the Democrats can lose the national election. And for die hard Democrats that should give them pause. They still can't believe that Kerry lost to Bush. They spent so much time hating Bush that they didn't think about how to convince other voters not to vote for him. And it bit them in the ass. I am hoping this time around Democrats have figured out that you need to look forward to the national election. It seems most of the Democrats in Congress and other political offices have. A majority of Democrats, including the Governor of Kansas, who stand no chance of being nominated as Hillary's VP running mate (should she be nominated), have flocked to endorse Obama. There is a reason for this. Hillary can't win.

So I have thrown my hat in the ring. Even before Iowa... I have to admit, I contributed to Barack's campaign -- 20-smackaroos! So I'm not just coming up with this because it is hip among college students. I'm invested, man! I keep telling Birgit that if he gets elected, we'll have the President's ear!

Here's my breakdown. I will vote for the top most person over others depending whether or not they are on the ballot come November:

Ian's Picks as of February
1. Barack Obama (if the Democrats don't nominate him, I will go nuts!)
2. John McCain (he is a bona fide ass hole, but I think he would be a far better President than Hillary)
3. Bill Richardson (I am hoping he will be a VP candidate)
4. Al Gore (just because I really don't like Hillary)
5. Hillary Clinton (I would choose her third, though, if Bill Richardson is on her ticket)
*. Honorable Mention: Jesse Ventura (because feather boas would be so cool in the White House)