Political Nanny : Americans

Political Nanny is Moving Out ... But Not Away

Madeline Holler — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:18:00 GMT

Political Nanny has packed up the candidates' clothes, toys and night-night blankets, loaded the moving van with their position papers, teleprompters and weighty political baggage, and sent change of address notices to their aides, managers, proxies and the press pool. In other words: Political Nanny has moved!

The good news is, she hasn't gone far. Just up and over to Strollerderby, where she'll still be keeping an eye on the last three candidates in her charge and everybody else around them. Political Nanny will still be there to give out cookies, put rule-breakers in the Naughty Chair and bulk up the babes with a little formula supplement on the issues.

The new digs won't change a thing! Political Nanny is still the one who stays awake to answer the phone at 3 a.m., she's fired up and ready to go, she wants change, too. It's too soon for nanny withdrawal, this surge into Strollerderby will work -- it's already working, my friends. She's staying in this race until November! Yes she can!

So reconfigure your RSS feeds and meet her upstairs at Strollerderby. See you there!

And a sidenote to all those who wrote her with concerns: smooch! Now wipe the lipstick off your cheek and go play.

Photo: sandiegohomeblog.com

St. Paddy's Day Formula: How Green is Your Candidate?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:37:00 GMT

On St. Patrick's Day, everybody's Irish, right? That includes the candidates, two-thirds of whom have traceable Irish roots. (The other married Bill Clinton, who descends from the Irish, too.) But as Political Nanny likes to tell her charges, it doesn't matter where you came from as much as where you plan to take the rest of us. So on this day of shamrocks and parades and beer tinged with food-coloring, let's see which candidate's platform is the greenest of all.

The Grist distilled candidates' positions into a handy table. In summary:

As with most issues, it's difficult to differentiate the Democrats. They both would make polluters pay for the right to pollute, and aim to get nationwide carbon emissions down to 1990 levels by 2050. They both want to raise fuel emission standards to 35 mpg by 2020. They both have multi-billion dollar plans for investment in renewable energy -- Obama aiming to get 30 percent of the federal government's energy from renewable sources within the next two decades. The Dems both want to require 60 billion gallons of biofuels produced by 2030. Neither loves nuclear energy, considering the water and storage problems. But Obama said it should be a part of the energy mix. Clinton doesn't want it emphasized as an option until those problems are addressed.

On coal they differ a bit. They both support clean coal, but Obama says he'll keep new dirty coal facilities from being built. He had some making up to do to environmentalists when, a few years ago, he sang the praises of liquified coal, which he now supports only with the above-described qualifications. Greenies also cast a suspicious eye on Obama, fearing his reach across the aisle could mean watering down tough but necessary environmental action.

Like the Dems, McCain also supports selling off pollution rights, but calls for much less aggressive reduction in carbon emissions around the country. He supports better fuel efficiency for cars, but hasn't laid out a specfic number like the Dems. He did introduce legislation in the Senate that would require all cars to get 36 mpg by 2016. McCain has no specific targets on renewable energy. He likes biofuels but opposes subsidies for ethanol. He's fine with coal but wants to find cleaner ways to use it -- no mandates or plans, though. He supports nuclear energy and has submitted bills which contain significant support for the nuclear energy industry. Back when other Republicans were putting quote marks around global warming, McCain was calling for action.

Now, campaigning has got to be one of the most unenviromentally friendly endeavors around. All those plane trips, all those buses, disposable everything -- not just for the candidates but for their entire entourage (and the press!). Clinton's campaign purchased carbon offsets, among other "green" strategies. Neither of the other two candidates mentions greening their campaigns. But environmentalism starts at home, and here's what they've done:

Clinton says: we have switched not only lamps to compact fluorescent light bulbs, but also downlights, track lights, and vanity lights. We've installed motion-sensor light switches so lights automatically turn off when there is no one moving in the room, and switched to buying our power from ConEdison's green power program. We're also reducing our demand for energy by replacing windows and doors to keep more heat and cold in. This has taken our total [kilowatt-hour consumption per year] from about 14,000 to about 4,300. We're currently working with the Rocky Mountain Institute to determine how we can best incorporate solar energy into our home.

Obama says: We just bought a Ford Escape, so I traded in a non-hybrid for a hybrid. We are in the process of replacing our light bulbs in our house and trying to limit the use of our air conditioning, trying to make sure that we unplug and turn off all of our appliances when we're not using them. It's a fun project to work on with my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old.

McCain says: We just moved from a very large house with swimming pool and grounds into a condominium, so we made a dramatic change. My daughter has a Prius. And we have a place up north where we have solar panels in some of the buildings. But we haven't done enough, and we intend to do more.

Ralph Nader: Hey, Guys, I'm Back!

Madeline Holler — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:17:00 GMT

Everybody's favorite election spoiler, Ralph Nader, has officially come back for more.

He announced on Meet the Press this morning that he will be launching his third third-party candidacy and running a campaign based on his anti-corporation message. Of course, Dems aren't happy, but even he -- Ralph Nader, jouster of windmills -- had this to about whether he expects to win:

“Not a chance,” he said. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just pack up, close down, and re-emerge in a different form.”

Hillary's not exactly excited. The GOP, on the other hand, is likely loving it. As for Obama, we're pretty sure he's not terribly concerned.

The Sound of Hillary's Two Hands Clapping

Madeline Holler — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:20:00 GMT

Philosophical Discussion Topic Card #37: What is the sound of Hillary's two hands clapping?

Answer: What you hear is the desperate chortling of Chris Matthews and his sycophants trying too hard to be funny. And saying questionable things like, "is this a Chinese thing?"

First, the video:

It's a montage of Hillary Clinton clapping at different speeches and rallies. In some, she's obviously clapping to a chant. Other times she's clapping at her audience and as a way of acknowledging the supporters standing behind her. Eventually, the montage cuts in Stephen Colbert, who mocks her: "Clap, clap, point, point ..." (Not his best work, but a it's alright.)

Funny (peculiar), the Hardball pundits don't show clips of her clapping, say, at an interview, or a small group discussion, which would indeed be weird. But she's always clapping around crowds of people who are also clapping and/or chanting. Was it a slow news day, Chris?

In fairness to the Hardball intern who put together the clip, the way candidates look into the crowd and then suddenly point and raise their eyebrows -- maybe signal with a thumb's-up -- is jarring. Kind of cheesy. It's all so Tom Jones "What's Up, Pussycat" and cringe-inducing when coming from potential leaders of the free world. But ALL the candidates perform this pointing exercise (except, maybe, Ron Paul.) All the candidates clap, too (again: jury's out on Ron Paul). What are we missing? Is it only worthy of ridicule coming from Hillary Clinton? Oh, and the Chinese (WTF?)?

This focus on Hillary for all the 2008 campaign hilarity leads Political Nanny to another discussion that started shortly before the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, and that is whether there is a double-standard going on with respect to negative attitudes toward the final two Democratic candidates. Women's rights advocate Robin Morgan believes it is. The author of the 70s essay "Good-bye to All That," Morgan updated her sentiments in a "Good-bye to All That 2," which became news because Part 2 was supposedly fowarded by Chelsea Clinton to a few friends. Before long, the email got all viral.

Slate's XXFactor breaks it down arguing Morgan's essay gets a bit ranty. Agreed. But the essay also points out the following:

When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO [Barack Obama], it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

And that's true. If the complement to those "I Wish Hillary Had Married OJ" T-shirts were, instead, XL Beefy Ts bearing a silk-screened noose? There would have been no end to the outrage (and understandably so). It's as if anything about Hillary is fair game including -- no, especially -- whatever reminds us that she's a female.

It's interesting, too, that making fun of Mitt Romney's Mormon underwear never really caught on. Because religion is sacred, perhaps? Nobody mentions John McCain's floppy right arm. Why? Because that's just mean! Not to mention irrelevant. Like the central figure of a rally clapping along with the audience.

But yuck! Political Nanny hates the discussion that begs to know which trumps the other race or gender! Why? Because it pits one group of the historically disenfranchised against another. And it pushes us in that direction of having to choose between race or gender rather than being seen as a statement of the obvious: both black guys and white ladies are capable of leading the country! Instead, it's all: Voted for Hillary? We always knew you didn't fully comprehend racial struggles in America. Voted for Obama? Misogynist pig!

Even worse! The race vs. gender fight isn't fun or engaging or hopeful or forward-thinking. It's narrow and stuck and divisive. Sort of like Congress under mega-partisan Bush.

Which brings us back to Hardball and to Philosophical Discussion Topic Card #38: If Chris Matthews falls in a forest and nobody hears him, does he make a sound?

Answer: Let's give it a try.

(Hat tip to Jezebel for bringing the Hardball segment to our attention.)

Good Enough Wednesday: Some Thoughts

Madeline Holler — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:00 GMT

Oh, sweet Mitt. Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. Super Tuesday? Not so super for you, Mitt. If you're planning a very special speech today, know that Political Nanny always liked you second best among the GOP. But if you're planning on burning through another 10 acres of stacked 20s from your own personal fortune, she'll think you're crazy, yet love you more than ever. Let's hope post Super Tuesday is a good-enough Wednesday for you.

And Mike! Southern voters hearted Huckabee! Sure, the West Viriginia win feels kind of disingenuous, but you take what you can get, right? Any chance you're going to turn this around and kick John McCain in the teeth? Because you are knocking them off, one-by-one.

John ... well played. That West Virginia move was slick. The rest of your wins obviously earned. Your own political surge is working.

Hillary and Barack ... this is exactly where you need to be. Tied. A continued battle. It's too soon to know. Wait! A reversal! Obama wins Missouri, not Clinton. Oops, it's still pretty close. She's got more delegates, he's got more states. She's got the old white ladies, he's got the young and the beautiful in every color and creed.

(Question: When you're George W. Bush -- or any Bush -- and you see all this "energizing" and "calls for change" and record number of voters, do you feel in any way embarassed for having created such a fuss?)

Ron Paul, you'll take (second in) Montana -- your best showing. There's a fire in this nation ...

Some extras:

Whenever reporters said "delegate-rich California," did anybody else start craving cake with a delicious, calorie-rich buttercream frosting?

Damn kids! Arnold Schwarzenegger's 18-year-old daughter followed mom Maria Shriver's endorsement, not the governor's, and voted for Barack Obama. (And wore a T-shirt in case there were any questions.)

From The Root, an African-American woman confesses that, even though she's a big ol' lefty, she's nominating Condoleeza Rice as her candidate for president. After all, the fact that a woman might vote for Obama or an AfricanAmerican might vote for Hillary Clinton just boggles the mind of pollsters and the press. However do these women make up their minds! Last night over on ABC, Sam Donaldson (who needs to hang up his toupee and retire from live broadcasting) asked, incredulously, what's a black woman to do?

Predictions ... not so easy. Even estimated bedtimes were off. No sooner were folks at CNN shaking their heads saying, "this'll be a late one ... results from delgate-rich California won't be ready until the wee hours ..." when 5 minutes later, after retrieving a pack of Little Debbie Swiss Rolls, Political Nanny noticed they called the Golden State for Clinton and McCain.

Finally, a note to John Edwards. We all know who you're going to endorse. Now that Super Tuesday is over, just come out and say it.

We'll continue licking the bowl of this delicious election throughout the day, here at Political Nanny.

Hillary: Send Me to Prison

Madeline Holler — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:33:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton said in an interview that her dream would be to compete on America's Next Top Model. She admits, though, she wouldn't have much of a chance. Now, Political Nanny doesn't like to traffic in the superficial, but, since Hillary brought it up? Yeah, not a chance.

However, the former first lady and presidential hopeful thinks she could go all the way as a contestant on Dancing With the Stars, and we don't see why not. Especially, as she says, if she gets one of the really good pros. (Oh, but not if Barack Obama is one of her competitors. In that competition? He'd be ready to lead his rhumba partner on Day 1.)

Clinton tackled these and other difficult topics with Tyra Banks earlier this week in a taping for Bank's eponymous talk show. Her interview airs Friday (check for local times ... or check in with Political Nanny, who vows to set up the Political Nanny Cam and bring the video to you.)

Other interesting tidbits: Clinton likened the White House to a prison. Some outtakes (thanks L.A. Times Top of the Ticket):

"Do you ever get lonely?" Banks asked the New York senator. "Do you ever sit in your room by yourself sometimes and just feel alone?"....

"I don't feel lonely," Clinton said. "But I do feel sometimes isolated. Because when you are in these positions that I have been in, it can be very isolating. It is one of the reasons I put on the dark glasses and the baseball cap and go out of the White House. President Harry Truman once said that the White House was like the crown jewel of the American penal system because you can feel confined."

The two also talked about what Bill Clinton should be called if he winds up the First Spouse, and whether she -- remember, future Dancing with the Stars hopeful -- does hip hop or knows the Soulja Boy or the Spongebob dance.

Well what did you expect? Oprah?

Elsewhere on Political Nanny's Playground ...

Club Dem Refuses Race Bait, One Calls Bush 'Pathetic', and Island Survival Strategies

The Democratic candidates clobbered not each other in the debates last night but two of the reps from the media. Brian Williams and Tim Russert tried hard to keep racial discord alive in their early round of questions for Clinton and Obama. But the candidates refused to be baited, bragged on the Democratic party, blah, blah. They defended each other, for example, against how their statements had been reported in the media (Barack on Russert's claim that last night's pledge to take troops out of Iraq was a change from earlier refusals to make such a pledge). They offered excuses for insinuating racism and claims of misusing historic icons being brought up in the first place. (Clinton: “We both have exuberant and sometimes uncontrollable supporters ...”)

Sure, the debate was something of a snoozer (though Political Nanny perked up when Hillary Clinton described Bush, on his trip to Saudi Arabia, as "pathetic" and "begging for lower oil prices.") The questions got so banal that toward the end candidates were asked their strengths and weaknesses. Strengths and weaknesses? Even a teenager looking for work at a video store knows how to answer that one. "I refuse to stop working until the job is done" (Clinton gave her version of that) ... I've been told I'm committed to a fault!" (Edward's take on this "weakness" classic.) Political Nanny was fully expecting them to have to tell Russert the one item they'd like to have with them if they were ever stranded on a deserted island. (A book on shipbuilding, of course!) Mercifully, there was a commercial break.

Michigan

Mitt Romney stays in the GOP race, winning 39 percent of the Republican vote in his boyhood state of Michigan. Headlines 'round the nation say this win, Romney's first, and yet another candidate with a first-place finish in these early states, "scrambles the GOP field." McCain came in second with 30 percent of the vote. Political Nanny's glad these candidates will push on for more of the statewide contests.

Also in Michigan, Hillary, the only of the three frontrunners whose name appeared on the ballot, got 55 percent of the Democratic vote. Uncommitted (code for Edwards or Obama) got 40 percent.

Iowans Play Favorites. Political Nanny Still Doesn't

Madeline Holler — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:34:00 GMT

Well, that was that. The candidates stepped out and tested the cold, cold waters of voter approval last night in Iowa. Political Nanny stood at the side, waiting with towels and hot drinks and, for some, a soft hankie to cry in.

Her boys Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama swam confidently to shore, winning their parties' races by about 9 percentage points each. Obama won most of the female vote and most of the younger voters' support too.

Her tough fighters Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and recently challenged Mitt Romney, flapped their arms and gasped and fought their way to finish in respectable positions and not terribly far behind the winners. Each of them vowed to continue fighting. Each of them is ready to regroup and start again. In five days. Whew!

But quite a few of Political Nanny's babes sank to the bottom. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Ron Paul made it to the double digits. Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson, and especially Duncan Hunter and Chris Dodd, wellllll, they did their best. But it wasn't great. In fact, Political Nanny will spend the day packing up Chris's bag, gathering his toys, taking down his pretty pictures, and telling him good-bye. He has decided he won't be needing Political Nanny's care any longer. His little friend Joe Biden -- God, remember how hard it was to tell them apart? -- is leaving Political Nanny too.

Down to 13 monkeys jumping on the bed. Time to pack for New Hampshire.

Photo: MSNBC.com

Election Milestone: Candidates Take First Steps In Iowa (Quick, Get the Camera!)

Madeline Holler — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:38:00 GMT

Political Nanny is sitting on pins and needles, at once excited, deliriously proud of and terrified for her candidates. Today, the 15 reach such an important milestone: the Iowa caucuses. They look so grown up! It seems like just yesterday ...! It's all happening so fast (well, not really.)

As the unruly group of them toddles around on stages, grabbing at microphones, saying "cheese" for the camera, and slobbering all over Iowans one last time in hopes of charming each and every one of these Midwesterners to go out tonight and be counted at the caucus (and chances are, they won't), Political Nanny is watching and trying to remember Iowa is not the final word. It's the first, only the first. We caregivers -- those of us experienced with cadidate-children -- know that the early walker in Iowa will not acurrately predict who gets to sit in the White House highchair. (Remember little guy Dick Gephardt?) See, there's time to catch up.

In the meantime, Political Nanny will be watching her babes today as they smile and shake hands and talk pretty and learn their numbers (polls and precinct percentages are the new flashcards!). She'll be watching tonight as the reports come in. Tomorrow, she'll usher the remaining ones over to New Hampshire for primaries there next week.

Those little buggers never could sit still.

Guess Who Ralph Nader Just Endorsed!

Madeline Holler — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:33:00 GMT

Who cares what the governor of New Hampshire thinks, right? Or the editor of Iowa's largest daily. Or, sorry to say, Sean Penn. Political Nanny listens to Political Nanny when it comes to who she'll vote for in the primaries.

Endorsements, with a couple of exceptions, just haven't been that interesting. Until now ...

Public citizen, consumer advocate, sometimes presidential candidate, one-time election spoiler, and Babble "Timeout" subject Ralph Nader made an endorsement, just in time for the Iowa caucuses. He's throwing his support to John Edwards.

We're no experts, so who knows whether Ralph is a good or bad playmate for John. But Political Nanny adores Ralph and respects his opinion. His support feels like a gut-check: she's long suspected John really means what he says and contrarians like Ralph are the first to smell the BS, yet he thinks John, for the most part, is the real deal.

From Politico:

Nader said he has watched Edwards from afar and sees his more pugilistic brand of populism as a "glimmer of hope."

"It's the only time I've heard a Democrat talk that way in a long time," Nader said, acknowledging what was, for him, a rare moment of praise for a Democratic leader.

"Iowa should decide which candidate stands for us," he added. "Edwards is at least highlighting day after day that the issue is who controls our country, big business or the people."

Not the most unflinching of endorsements -- indeed, he's used the endorsement mostly as a way to criticize Hillary for being too Republican. But what's notable is that it's not himself that he's endorsing. Can we assume he won't be making a bid? Or does that depend on whether John Edwards gets the Democratic nomination?

In any case, Political Nanny is excited that Ralph Nader has come out to play.

Candidates, Political Nanny Loves You. Now Change!

Madeline Holler — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Over the past three months, Political Nanny has grown to love her lot of disagreeable, argumentative, name-calling, cackling, power-praying little presidential candidates. They're approaching the first of many back-to-back primary election milestones -- only three days until Iowa! -- but have already blossomed into tough and sturdy and, how shall we put this, flexible campaigners.

But could they be better? Oh, couldn't we all. In the spirit of starting anew, Political Nanny has made some resolutions for the campaigning men and woman of 2008.

Over at the Democrats' favorite playground ...

Barack Obama: resolve to inspire (again … and, alone!). What happened to the guy who swept us all off of our feet nearly four years ago? This sparkling source of hope has gotten dull from so much positioning and polling and over-wrought handling. Get back to the basics -- make change feel possible! Make it feel inevitable! If the old caucusing biddies in Iowa (or New Hampshire or South Carolina) weren’t going to vote for you months ago, they’re not going to vote for you now. Indeed, one person can change the world. We just don't want Oprah to think it's her!

Hillary Clinton: tear down that wall! This distance you keep from the voting public reminds us of a certain guy president and no, we’re especially not talking about your husband! So let us in. Let us ask questions – any question! Not pre-approved ones! Trust us! We’ll do the right thing! Trust yourself! You've got the answers!

Joe Biden: Keep on keeping on. You know everything, you really do. You probably even know you don’t have a chance to win. But the candidates need you – America needs you. In government and in this campaign. You turn meta-answers into concrete plans, Joe. You say what we need to hear, not what we want to hear.

Chris Dodd: Be (even more) like Joe. With two of you, oh, how the front-runners won’t get away with pandering to the polls!

John Edwards: John, sweetheart, listen. You have got to expand your message to the middle and upper middle class (who look more like the lower- and middle-class you're talking about, everyday). Here's the deal: the mortgage industry is handing you talking points for these people who, to be honest, you might sorta be alienanting with your anti-corporate talk (you see, that’s where they work!). But with housing, ohhhhh, housing. Just bring up housing, foreclosures, bubbles, all of it -- and they’re listening. They're listening to you.

Bill Richardson: Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the vice presidential stars.

Dennis Kucinich: Don’t go changing to try to please Political Nanny. She loves you just the way you are.

Mike Gravel: Come here and give Political Nanny a hug, you silly guy.

Now back at Camp GOP ...

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. So much to love. So much to loathe. Political Nanny would like you to be your own guy. She knows that Republicans often get bullied by big scary Christians who claim to be friends. But would real friends ask you to be someone you’re not?

John McCain: Resolve to stay tough. And be strong. You keep hope alive for conservatives who don't necessarily think the church and state are one and the same. Oh, and next time a supporter mentions The Bitch, show some sac, dear John, and don't be so quick to laugh.

Mike Huckabee: Michael! That's enough! You, my boy, are a man of faith. But you must also resolve to be a man of respect. If all you have to offer Americans are platitudes and religious references, please reconsider your leadership goals and run for president of the Southern Baptists. Because Political Nanny likes her America inclusive, cohesive and as plural as it can get.

Fred Thompson: Sit down, honey, let’s talk. Political Nanny thinks you don’t actually want to run for president. And you know what? That’s perfectly fine. No shame in “spending time with the family.” So, whenever you’re ready to call it quits, know that millions of others are ready for it too.

Duncan Hunter: Still more are ready to see you go, Duncan. So, Political Nanny would like to see even less of you in the new year, young man. You can use the extra down time for painting murals on your very special wall.

Mitt Romney: Political Nanny thinks you’re a good boy, Mitt, she really does. But you want your buddies to like you so much that you’ve changed your mind, mainly by closing it. You say such damaging things to millions of families in the U.S. and completely dismiss millions of others. Political Nanny wants to see you be the truest, most honest version of yourself in 2008.

Ron Paul: You're doing something right, Ron Paul. Look at all those people giving you money! But that doesn't make you perfect, not by any means. In the new year, Political Nanny would like you to work on (1) living in reality, (2) increasing your dosage of paranoia-tempering thorazine and (3) smiling.

And last but not least, a New Year's resolution for her GOP debate interloper and possible candidate (please, please, please) Alan Keyes: Just. Do. It.

Happy New Year, kids! And Happy New Year, voters! Let's resolve to get together everyday for a little election downtime with Political Nanny!

Debate Summary: God and Guns Good; Taxes and Immigrants Bad; Families and Kids ... Huh?

Madeline Holler — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:04:00 GMT

The CNN/YouTube Republican debate last night was not a win for parents and families. But what involving Republicans ever is? (Oh, settle down, Political Nanny’s just feeling cranky.)

Only one question came close to being directly related to families and children, and it's not even one of the top concerns reported in the Parents magazine survey that Political Nanny has posted about a few times. The family-ish question?

Lead in toys. That’s right! Lead and toy recalls! A YouTube mom, flanked by her two beauties, wanted to know what each candidate would do about keeping toys with lead from being sold in U.S. stores. Duncan Hunter said we should only buy American-made toys (suuuuuure. That’s doable! We’ll start sewing our own clothes and building our own laptops too!). Others said blah, blah, blah. You know, none of the answers gave Political Nanny any confidence that at some point she won’t have to chuck the entire contents of her daughters’ room, which, incidentally, isn't half has filled with shit as the question-asking woman's playroom appeared to be. In any case, screw lead-filled Thomas, we're fighting a war!

Demographics of YouTubers: there were not a lot of females in the mix, a few African-Americans (none of whom had their very direct questions satisfactorily answered), loads of Jesus loving from YouTube and the candidates, some gun rights battles, and bizarrely some kid asking the candidates to comment on a Confederate Flag hanging in his bedroom. (Seriously, how did a producer win the argument to run THAT question?). Oh, and immigration, immigration, immigration. A real knock-down, drag-out fight over who hates immigrants more. It was a draw, except Mike Huckabee hates them, loves their kids (more on that in a second).

No questions on the economy (though some on Social Security and the national debt). Super-nothing on the mortgage crisis/housing market meltdown, and zero, zero, extra-zero on education. Seriously? Not one question on schools? Giuliani and Romney did mention schools in answering a question about black-on-black violence, but it's not like they mentioned plans or, heaven forbid, funding.

There was one question on college tuition, but it was a disguised accusation that Huckabee loves illegal immigrants' kids more than the children of military personnel, because he wanted to give them scholarships to go to college. Naturally, he denied having a preference. Also, nothing about gas prices, nothing about healthcare and nothing about the environment (nothing! And these are all things, we don't care how conservative the pickings, the next president is going to have to deal with).

Oh, and guess who should have been disqualified from asking a question but wasn't? Grover Norquist – whose bad facial hair mixed with low-quality video and my computer screen (had to watch online while eating dinner – West Coast time) made me think it was some guy trying to look like Hitler! Go look! Anyway, how unfair is it that he got to ask a question but not "professional bloggers"? There were rules! Whatever. The super-right wing guy wanted to know whether the candidates would sign a pledge not to raise taxes and oh, yes, yes, yes, they’d all sign. That is, until Fred Thompson got to answer and he said he wouldn’t raise taxes but he makes his agreements between himself and the American people and not between himself and Grover Norquist. Take THAT, sneaky, sneaky Grover.

The questions were clearly picked to see where on the spectrum – from center, to right, to Tancredo – each of the candidates' positions (and beliefs … it’s all about their beliefs!) are. So, no wonky policy, just scrambling to appear conservative, while hoping not to get busted with evidence of a more centrist past (tough going, eh, Mitt and Rudy?). Good times.

One more thing, Political Nanny would like to humbly apologize to CNN for incorrectly presuming they would not ask a couple of questions that, indeed, were asked(!): the one about jail time for abortion doctors and what’s so wrong with gays in the military. Political Nanny likes to believe great minds think alike so, CNN, keep it up and you’ll get to hang out with the gifted kids someday. (Incidentally, the answers on jailtime and abortions -- ahhbahhbahh, I know, the states would decide! The states would decide!; answers to gays in the military ranged from it's unfair that someone with strong Christian values should have to serve alongside such sinners (Hunter) to don't-ask-don't-tell is working (McCain -- saying this despite the fact that the question-asker, there in Florida at the event, said gobs of gays are discharged from the shorthanded U.S. military simply for telling or getting caught or whatever.)

The New York Times political blog has all the questions that were asked, if you’re curious, and CNN has plenty of blather about rancor and out-takes of the "debates" themselves.

The Debate Questions CNN Won't Bother Asking

Madeline Holler — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:02:00 GMT

Political Nanny has zero confidence that tonight's CNN/YouTube Republican debate will leave viewer-voters with a deeper understanding of the Republican presidential candidates. And that has nothing to do with YouTube or the questions submitted in the online video format.

If Anderson Cooper's promo of the event, or this Situation Room chat between Josh Levs and Suzanne Malveaux, are any indication of the broadcasters' interest in tackling tough issues, we are in for more of what we saw in Las Vegas with the Democrats: the network's inability to deal with the real Americans they find so fascinating.

So if you see a lot of space aliens or controversial snowmen or (as Anderson Cooper was rather obsessed with) poorly composed video shots in the question-posing part of the debate tonight, know that, once again, CNN went for show not substance.

There were some really great questions submitted to YouTube -- direct, serious, relevant, specific in a way that would make Malveaux's head spin. Here are some Political Nanny hopes will be chosen: jail time and abortions; serving alongside gay soldiers; gay marriage concerns of a young guy; gay marriage concerns of an older woman; (we went a little gay crazy, but since it's such a rallying cry for Republicans, why not?); No Child Left Behind unfunded; federally sponsored childcare (yes!!!!); and stem-cell research bans from self-described Reaganites.

The questioners aren't hostile or confrontational or insulting. Just smart, concerned and looking for answers.