late.

where'd it go? got busy, forgot. apologies.

posts to look forward to this week:

- my ode to the best damn show on teevee: the mclaughlin group.
- more election nonsense.
- general tomfoolery.

and now, something unexpected: i've decided to vote republican. sorry liberal hippie patchouli-heads, it be happening:

lion in the senate.

this is not good news.

he made true liberalism acceptable. as a consequence, he become the punching bag of the right. his raison d'etre? a five-sided blessing: labor, choice, speech, equality and progress.

he doesn't shirk and he doesn't mince.

this is what it means:

the meed'ya.

dear cnn, abc, et al:

i'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you can show news headlines like this and this. listen, i know you guys have to fill up airtime with wild speculations and endless, well, b.s., but stop. just stop.

to summarize, west virginia is not indicative of the general electorate. it is not a bellwether. at least not one that matters. sorry. you can't spin this into "what? electability? ooh-nooos." he won utah, people. utah. also, here's some friendly advice: when you call the election "over" (see: last week) and knowingly admit that he's going to lose big in west virginia at the same time, you've pretty much shown all y'er cards. you know the outcome. stop trying to make it more dramatic than it is.

ok?

paging ted stevens.

the next big wait? this is an interesting list. i might try to do a"nobody is reading this but i wish i could advise in this decision" post tomorrow.

happy friday.

awake & confused.

wow. did not expect. not done yet, but might be over...soon. will be an interesting few days coming up. this is likely to be the best strategy. do the right thing, hillz.

ok.

• almost over. or not quite yet. please let it be the former.
• only in texas, eh?
• the only glossary you need for '08.

can't. reach. keyboard.

am home sick with a head cold and taking off from work and blog, so i got nothing. but, if you're so inclined, old people and politics always come off well. i take that back; old people singing about the good ol' days of dixie or talkin' about black helicopters and the problems with the "coloreds" = not so great. but for the rest, there's this.

now I’m gonna try this old microphone light...*

inadequate? the problems are not limited to elections in "emerging" democracies. on the subject, read eric bjornlund's beyond free and fair: monitoring elections and building democracy for some compelling insight into the necessity of elections observation.

on a personal, partisan and elections-related note, no. actually, not a chance in hell. the only reason i'm bringing it up is because i've been asked about it three times in the last month. why? here's why.

* m. ward, radio campaign

packed. looking for the bunker.

i've eased off the ledge. another 40 days. i can deal with it.

to your right, i'd like to introduce the latest incarnation of dj indian jay. if ya'll feel like hearing things i'm listening to right now, feel free. or not. your choice. honestly. this week's selection is a bit morose. more variety next week. two things:

irreverence, with words: i laughed. a lot. outloud. funny post.

smacked foreheads awareness day: this, on the other hand, is insipid. the author, anatole kaletsky, has managed to base an entire editorial on an ill-informed and purposely narrow poll interpretation. see if you can spot the stupid in this choice quote (emphasis mine):

That Mrs Clinton will now carry on with her campaign is not just probable but essential. For the voting in Pennsylvania confirms that she has a much better chance than Mr Obama of winning the White House for the Democrats. According to the Associated Press exit polls published yesterday, 16 per cent of white Democratic voters considered race an important factor in the Presidential election and 43 per cent of these said they would either vote Republican or not vote at all, if Mr Obama were the Democratic nominee.

time's up. i came to three conclusions:

1. she has a better chance? really? 'cause he hasn't met the independents i met in south carolina, maryland and georgia. the latter included support from a former pro-segregation hunter. if they don't head towards obama, they're going to mccain. guaranteed. the latest mud-slinging salvo has all but assured a tough campaign ahead. that's understood. but when you're winning really, reeaaallly white areas like idaho and utah and wisconsin, it's a safe bet you can bridge the gap in the general.
   
2. ok, so 16% consider race important and 43% won't vote or will vote republican if obama is the nominee, huh? its political posturing. that's it. are there folks that aren't going to vote for a black candidate? of course. but i think he's taking a page from the pundit school of hackery with these conclusions. let's be honest, he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if the above samples were a measure of an "overall racial indicator."
   
3. aside from being the most exaggerated poll answers i've ever read, it does seem like the questions were probably a lil' disingenuous. i'm guessing the (push) poll went something like this: "if barack obama kicked a puppy, and then won the nomination, would you vote for obama- the puppy kicker - or mccain? or not vote at all, 'cause of the puppy kicking thing?"
   

srsly, continued.

• 12:42am: damn. 98% reporting. gap widened to 10 points. its gonna be a long may-uary.
• 9:59pm: with 48% reporting, she's leading by 8 points. hogwash. close. gap. now.

srsly.

is the pennsylvania primary less exciting to me because of the likely outcome? prob. but just interesting enough. what's running through the weasel's head, you ask?

the polls have her leading within the margin of error. the best thing to come outta today is a less than 6-point finish for hillz. anything more, and she'll get her stamp of approval for another month (or, gasp, two.) but, if obam's able to pull this off with the undecideds, its game over: superdelegates flock and what little is left of her cash flow momentum is gone.

not that its mathematically possible for her to catch up anyhow. for a more scientific (or not) take, see below:

no more curbside baggage...*

countdown to something:

• as the bitter turns.
• spry, feisty.
• really? yawn.

* sage francis, makeshift patriot

for the love of weasels.

i haven't posted for over a year, and until a few hours ago, thought i might be done with the weasel for good. alas, internal dialogues sometimes need written exposure. here's the sad part. despite all that has happened in the past twelve months, all it took was an absolute train-wreck to wake me out of my stupor. the culprit? the abcnews democratic debate.

honestly. what were they thinking? i didn't have much of an opinion on gibson before this, but he's managed to change that. the kicker? stephanopoulos. the washington post commentary described him as an "...overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing." that's being generous. he came across as glib, uninformed and unfinished. in short, like he was reading off of michelle malkin's cue-cards.

but don't take it from me...the reviews are in. and as always, only wonkette comment-mongers can turn the tragedy of 4/16 into something palatable.

kudos to commenter spence for hitting it on the mark: american democracy. shark. jumped.

never forget.

update: oh george. when asked by politico about his reaction to the debate criticism:

“i think it just comes with the territory,” stephanopoulos replied, adding, “I think you’re going to find a wide range of opinions.”

wait. wait. wait. did he read the same critiques i did? wide range of opinions? not so much. staring down the violent end of all rational dialogue as we know it? more likely.