HRC backer/VP-angler Tom Vilsack (the former governor of Iowa) has a wife named Christine.  And she has some unsavory opinions.

Ever since the King of Truthiness showed us some love (see right), we have been looking for an opportunity to return the favor. So we have decided to help his recently launched presidential campaign get off the ground by attempting to generate a list of 50,000 Americans whose Americaness doesn't match up with the Almighty Stephen T.  Here's who we came up with off the top of our heads:

1. George Washington

2. Betsy Ross

3. Lee Iacocca

4. Captain America

5. Team America: World Police

6. Bill Cosby

7. Mike Gravel

8. Tom Cruise

9. John Edwards

10. Jonathan Edwards

11. Andy Rooney

12. Carrot Top

13. Toby Keith

14. Jon Stewart

15. Larry Flynt

16. Big Bird

17. Richard Dreyfuss

18. Lance Armstrong

19. Tommy Hilfiger

20. All the members of Dave Matthews Band

21. Valerie Plame Wilson

22. Stephen R. Colbert (of Thermopolis, WY)

23. Dennis Kucinich

24. Angelina Jolie

25. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald

26. Alistair Crewpepper

27. Katie Couric

28. Jay-Z

29. Elvis Presley

30. Boutros-Boutros Ghali

31. This guy

32. Ron Paul

33. Morgan Spurlock

34. Davy Crockett

35. Al Pacino

36. Rudolph Giuliani

37. David Geffen

38. The Dixie Chicks

39. Hillary Rodham Clinton

40. David Arquette

41. Paul Bunyan

42. Billy Zane

43. Joe Biden

44. Roger Clemens

45. Mike Bloomberg

46. Orl Unho

47. Mitt Romney

48. Queen Latifah

49. John McCain

50. Bob Jones III

51. Sonny Rollins

52. Mike Huckabee

53. Steve Carrell

54. Alberto Gonzales

 

Surely this is just the beginning!  Help us complete the list!

 

As you can see from this photo of Senator Obama signing up for the New Hampshire primary, among his many qualifications for the Presidency is the fact that he is left-handed:

(AP)

Senator Obama markets himself as a refreshing change of pace from the Washington establishment, and what's more anti-establishment than being left-handed?  It is the humble opinion of this 2logger that Mr. Obama ought to give this aspect of his personality a larger role in his campaign.  As this list of famous left-handers reveals, there are many arguments for doing so:

• Hillary Clinton's campaign is, of course, fueled heavily by nostalgia for Bill Clinton's administration.  However, the right-handed Hillary will sign off on invading Iran with her right hand, whereas her husband was a lefty.
• The GOP's dissatisfaction with its crop of hopefuls for the 2008 nomination is well-documented, as is Obama's attempt to market himself as the candidate best equipped to end partisan inertia in government.  The common thread in many discussions amongst GOP analysts is the search for a new Ronald Reagan.  As the list of famous lefties reveals, Obama is similar to Reagan in at least one area.
• Obama is struggling to court the female vote.  Drawing a parallel between himself and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose defense of women's rights at the legislative level is written entirely left-handed, would be extremely valuable in this regard.
• Black voters concerned that Obama is out of step with most African-Americans may be interested to discover that Obama takes notes on the campaign trail with the same hand James Baldwin used to pen Notes of a Native Son.
• New Yorkers blindly planning allegiance to their state senator may want to consider instead supporting the candidate who shares traits with Paul Simon, the unofficial poet laureate of Manhattan.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, there are a few left-handers on this list with whom Obama ought to avoid associating himself.  For example:

• Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (somewhat less supportive of women's rights)
• Ollie North (probably wise for GOP candidates to steer clear of him as well)
• Jean-Marc Froidevaux (sounds too French, lends credibility to Giuliani's dreamscapes)
• Napoleon Bonaparte (also sounds too French)

Here is today's probably naive and likely hopeless attempt to infect the masses with Obamamania...

As the media's coronation of Hillary Clinton continues, I was struck by a New York Times article suggesting that GOP voters might do well to consider the fact that John McCain, currently polling third or fourth amongst Republicans for the party's nomination, does the best against Hillary in a head-to-head match-up.  She still beats him, but by only 3.7 points. 

Let's forget about McCain for the moment, lest we accidentally engender any McCainmania.  This article presumes, like most, that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.  In doing so, however, it also presumes that Obama would not fare as well against the GOP contenders.  Which, as it turns out, is hardly the case.

According to ongoing studies at Real Clear Politics, where they compile the results of numerous polls into an overall average (ostensibly resulting in politics which are more real and clear):

• Obama beats Giuliani by 2 points (Clinton beats him by 4)
• Obama beats Thompson by 9 points (Clinton beats him by 11.7)
• Obama beats McCain by 3.7 points, a larger margin than Clinton's 3.3
• Obama stomps Romney by 11.4 points, again a larger margin than Clinton's 10.3

It is therefore unclear to this little Obamamaniac how on earth such a large portion of the Democratic base apparently views Obama as a less viable candidate than Hillary.  Their numbers in these match-ups are virtually identical, and Obama has far fewer vulnerabilities to the GOP attack squadron than Hillary does, at least given what we know so far.

However, say people do come around and start grooving to the Barack 'n roll.  The Republican candidates exhaust all their venom on Hillary, and get the party all whooped up to nominate the one best qualified to beat her.  Then she doesn't get the nomination, and the entire right-wing is caught on its heels re-formulating its strategy, whilst B-Rock consolidates his support and rides into the sunset on a hope-jingly rainbow.

That would be awesome.

Dear Winston,

    Given that you know a lot about politics, maybe can help me out here.  Why shouldn't I donate my time to Ron Paul?  I know he's so crazy he makes moon-bat lunatic Dennis Kucininininch look like wizened statesman Mike Gravel.  I know his most ardent supporters are 16-year old pothead, redneck, cowboy, nerds.   I know he looks like a Keebler Elf.

 

    But consider the following.  He's representing Congress, which has an 11% approval rating.  But Dr. No always votes against Congress.  Therefore, he must have a 89% approval rating!  I'd better hop on this bandwagon!

    More importantly, he has the best stance on both Iraq and Iran.  He and Obama are among the few credible candidates who opposed the war from the beginning.  On most of the important issues, he's spot-on: Iraq withdrawal, not bombing Iran, and among the lone voices in favor of returning to the gold standard (not itself important, but a welcome warning against the dollar hegemony).  He's not a perfect match on everything, but I do trust him to act thoughtfully.  Most importantly, whenever he's in a fight, he has a habit of standing up for the little guy.  He's always questioning dogma.

    At this point, it seems he can't win.  But then again, neither does Obama.  Support for either is a protest move.  But supporting Ron Paul is a more effective protest.  With his newfound wealth, he'll become a major force in the Republican party.  He has the potential to revolutionize the party.  A Republican Party without the evil!  Could you imagine!  Having an election in which there were two candidates that weren't completely evil.  An honest choice!

    Anyhow, I've made my case for Ron Paul.  I look forward to having you point out what I'm overlooking.  In the meantime, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is Romney's election to lose.  He's either vastly ahead or gaining rom-entum in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada, and New Hampshire.  Giuliani would drop mighty quickly in the polls if he lost most of those states.  Plus, he's realized his religion could become a campaign issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to win points with evangelical crazies.  This is especially exciting news, because in the spirit of rooting for the underdog, it would be very cool to see a Mormon president.  Also, and more importantly, Romney is the best target for humor:

Evidently main man B-rock stopped by our fair city on Saturday night...

 

Yesterday, Gerrit cleverly tried to use the evils of Math to claim that Netflix has somehow defeated Blockbuster in the ongoing video rental wars.  Previously, he used the same dark forces to claim that Obama's debate performance was part of his campaign's "slow motion explosion."

What Gerrit fails to recognize, like many Americans, is that numbers are meaningless.  Judging from this missive, Gerrit and many others who have been suckered in by the media's coddling of Netflix and its Winky-Poo Happy Times business strategy, would do well to remember history's enduring lesson: nothing matters except the facts on the ground. 

(NOTE: It would be wonderful to be able to put a closing paragraph here detailing the abundant evdidence of Blockbuster's superior service record.  However, I have none, aside from the anecdotal fact that Gerrit has been waiting two weeks for his latest shipment from Netflix.  Since this incident is part of a feud between the tenants of our apartment building and the United States Postal Service--a topic for a future 2log post--as opposed to an error on Netflix's part, it would befoul the journalistic integrity of Taximan's Lament to suggest it has anything to do with Gerrit and I's ongoing debate as to which of us has made the better choice regarding video rentals.   You may ask then, fellow Lamenter, why on earth I continue to patronize Blockbuster, despite its continual lackluster performance and the seeming inevitability of its eventual defeat by Netflix.  Call it the audacity of hope, my friends.)

Check this out: Obama has firmly declared his support for the writers in their ongoing dispute with the greedy producers, the first and most forceful of the candidates to do so.

I find this interesting not just because it jives with my personal sentiments about the situation, but also because it demonstrates a certain apolitical boldness.  Obama is the darling of numerous media elites, and is often perceived as something of an elitist.  Siding with the writers underscores the central platforms in his campaign: the freedom from special-interest politics and the gridlock it creates, and a voice for everyday Americans when it comes to policies that affect their lives.  The swiftness of his response and clarity of his stance is also perfectly timed given Hillary's recent stumbles, which appear to have had at least some effect, and which can be traced to her inability to articulate a clear position when pressed.

 

Gambling odds now put Ron Paul as the third place contender to take the Republican nomination.  I guess his posse of 16-year old pothead, redneck, cowboy, nerd supporters are putting their allowance where their mouth is.

Unfortunately for Ronnie, I don't think I can go whole hog for candidates that run solely on philosophical purity.  Because you know who else ran on a strictly philosophical platform?  Communists.  And if there's communists about, I need to get ready to drop some murder.

The problem with lofty philosophical ideals is that they're great in theory, but when they get into a spat with reality, reality tends to bowl them over.  Whenever people serve up too much Kool-Aid, I find the room smelling fishy.

His success is still exciting, and I'm rooting for him until the end.  Other than the fact that he's crazy, he's got nuanced, intelligent, philosophical stances on a number of issues.  He has the capacity to reshape politics as we know it.  He probably even has the best stance on the issues overall.  And just imagine a three-way election among him, Obama, and Bloomberg.  Three great choices for president.  Given my luck, however, I know we'll be stuck with another clothespin vote between Clinton and Romney.

Big news day for Hillary:

• In the polls, she's droppin' like the stock market.  Like the stock market, I don't think she'll stay down forever.
• Peggy Noonan says "I'm a feminist.  I'm friends with feminists.  And you, ma'am, are no feminist."  Sounds vaguely familiar.
• In good news for Clinton, she's having a lesbian affair.  And, unlike Bill, she has good taste in women.