Catching up on Season Four of "The Wire," I'm struck by the similarities between Obama, Clinton, Carcetti and Royce. Obama is Tommy Carcetti, the young white councilman big on inspiration but short on resume. In Baltimore, he's in the minority.
Clinton is Clarence V. Royce, the incumbent hack with dubious ethics. I doubt I'm the first to notice this, as I'm a year behind on "The Wire, but the comparison is most apt.
In the month since Iowa held its caucus, I've been up ...
Obama vs. McCain -- it might actually happen. How refreshing would it be to choose between two truly decent candidates, neither of whom is grounded in the politics of petty partisanship? I typically resist such unguarded optimism, but, for one night at least, the future looks bright. I'll savor it while I can.
Time to face facts and fuck optimism: We're stuck with Hillbot and Romneytron 3000 (tip of the cap to Al Kosa). The pod people have won.
We'll either have a president so white he makes George W. look like Rollo from "Sanford and Son" or one that could teach The Marquise de Merteuil a thing or 2,000 about (the politics of, to coin a cliche) personal destruction.
In the Chesapeake Rout, according to exit polls in Maryland, Obama won: Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47 All Religions (Including Catholics) All Age Groups (Including Seniors) All Regions All Education Levels And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS...
Never count the Clintons out, we're told, but conventional wisdom is so 2007.
Shrill partisanship or sheer inspiration? Authentic hero or opportunistic phony? She or we? Character or calculation? Dynasty or dynamite? Maverick or panderer? Barbra Streisand or Scarlett Johansson? Clint Eastwood or Pat Sajak?
As a registered independent in an open primary state, I can vote in either primary. Party regulars hate voters like me, arguing that "outsiders" should have no influence in determining the course of "their party" (as opposed to "my country"). I have a thing against blood oaths -- not to mention collective ideologies.
Moreover, I don't want Hillary and Romney anywhere near the Oval Office. Considering Obama has a huge lead in Georgia, I'm casting my vote tomorrow for McCain. He needs it, as recent polls indicate a dead heat among GOP voters.
I ask my fellow independents to consider doing the same. Obama can win without your vote; McCain likely won't. Besides, how the hell could anyone vote for a transparent phony with no foreign policy experience and a checkered economic record? Conventional wisdom has overlooked some very inconvenient facts about the so-called economic expert:
During Romney's term in office, Massachusetts ranked third from the bottom in job growth, trailing only Louisiana and Michigan. Manufacturing employment also declined more than 14 percent during The Anchorman's years as governor.
so goes the election. Polls are tightening, with one candidate losing inevitability as another gains it. Granted, my heart is helping guide these predictions, though momentum is on my side.
Their margins won't be comfortable, but Obama and McCain will prevail in the Golden State. That'll make Obama the undisputed frontrunner and McCain the presumptive GOP nominee. Hillbot will remain a factor in the race, but a clear underdog. Meanwhile, The Anchorman will be signing off for good -- or at least for 2008.
No way Romney cracks McCain's short list for veep -- might Colin Powell? If Hillbot defeats Obama, that ticket makes a lot of sense. Better still, it would enrage the unhinged right.
I don't have strong feelings either way about Wolf Blitzer, but he did a shitty job moderating tonight's debate. When he wasn't lobbing chummy softballs, he threw inside (the Beltway) junk, like his concluding question about whether Obama or Hillary would pick the other as veep. Gee, I wonder what they'll say.
Blitzer seemed intent on punctuating -- nay, influencing -- a recurring theme: You like her, you really like him.
Hillbot works best with script in hand, though the structure didn't suit Obama. Fortunately, debates tend not to matter (see: George W. Bush).