Political Nanny : Independent

Ronnie, You Naughty Boy!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:07:00 GMT

Political Nanny loves her little Ronnie's friends. They're everywhere. They're kind of kooky. And they look like this! Take that, Obama girl!

Pictured above is Miss February, a special education teacher from Detroit and lately defender of the Constitution and the founding fathers' ideals.

From LA Times Top of the Ticket:

"The current challenge to our civil liberties, combined with a never-ending welfare state, will serve to weaken the constitutional framework laid by our founding fathers." Seductive!

Miss February is one of twelve women who make up the "Hotties for Ron Paul" pin-up calendar. Only 50 are left, it's nearly March and the good Dr. Paul has backed off considerably on his presidential campaign to focus on saving his seat in Congress. So get your orders in quick!

The calendar fundraiser's creator, Juliet Annerino of Los Angeles, sunk her own money into the project. She's also Miss July.

Annerino is shown, head up in a defiant, Libertarian-kind of way, lips slightly parted, wearing an ammo belt and holding a rifle. She said she was going for a Revolutionary War look, although Betsy Ross didn't sew long leather coats and short black hot pants.

Purrrrr. Did she send Ron Paul a copy?

Photos: via Hotties4RonPaul.com

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.)

The Edwards Matrix

Madeline Holler — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:34:00 GMT

Think of it as the grown-up version of picking a prom date.

An Edwards supporter who doesn't know which box to check on her absentee ballot has come up with a cheat sheet to figure out which candidate she will support. She has posted the Edwards Matrix for all to see.

Problem is, the matrix is inconclusive. The mom who designed it gets all the important stuff -- Iraq, healthcare, experience, hair. But the would-be dates are still in a dead heat.

Political Nanny is looking for something definitive -- a gun to her head, marching orders, whatever you got. Clinton, Obama ... Obama, Clinton. To hell with choice. Could somebody help her decide!

Seems like Republicans are less undecided than Democrats, but there are still plenty who are (but with much less consequence, since McCain seems to be far enough ahead of the others). Apparently, we undecideds are not alone. Salon's Rebecca Traister brilliantly describes how millions of Democratic voters are feeling right this very minute. And this minute. And this one too.

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.

'It's OK to be Different': Dems Turn the Page on Race Rant

Madeline Holler — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:04:00 GMT

Political Nanny headed to the bookshelves and pulled out her heaviest hitters to cool down this simmering and saddening race/sex war on the Democratic campaign trail.

For a recent storytime, she assembled her candidates and the Todd Parr "we're all in this together" oeuvre. These colorful children's books starring stick figures of all shapes, sizes and species with the none-too-subtle titles like It's OK to Be Different, This is My Hair, The OK Book, The Feelings Book, ... well, you get the picture ... gave the candidates a chance to remember that nobody owns sadness and suffering more than another and what's truly valued over skin/chromosomes is strength, substance, and a plausible healthcare plan.

Political Nanny thinks they got the picture. (For how things degenerated, a great summary at MSNBC.)

Barack called for an end to the feud. As reported on Politico:

"Obama, too, indicated he wants a truce, saying at a media availability in Reno, Nev., that the campaign “shouldn’t be personal.”

“Bill and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of the civil rights movement,” Obama said.

Obama also said he didn’t want the campaign "to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back and forth that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this."

Hillary stepped up with a statement calling for party unity when it comes to the rights of all Americans.

“We [Clinton and Obama] differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side.

“And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”

Political Nanny has also been reminded that no matter how different we feel that we are from another, there is always, somewhere, common ground and agreement. Which is why Political Nanny finds herself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with New York Times columnist David Brooks. Not everything (and that's OK), but scroll to the bottom and we get this:

"The final two points I’d make are: First, this whole show seems stale and deranged to the younger set, as Obama and Clinton seemed to recognize when they damped down the feud yesterday afternoon. The interesting split is not between the feminist and civil rights Old Bulls, it’s between the establishments of both movements, who emphasize top-down change, and the younger dissenters, who don’t. Second, this dispute is going to be settled by the rising, and so far ignored, minority group. For all the current fighting, it’ll be Latinos who end up determining who gets the nomination.

At last, a bridge to the 21st century."

Todd Parr, don't you agree?

More in candidate-care ... Two Extra Cookies

Political Nanny is awarding a Clark County (Nev.) judge two extra cookies at snacktime today for ruling that NBC must include Dennis Kucinich in tonight's debates on MSNBC. NBC, who is appealing that ruling, argues only the top three Democratic contenders should be involved. Political Nanny wholeheartedly disagrees. Who cares if Dennis hasn't racked up delegates. He's running for president. He's a national figure. Plus, they invited him!

Everybody Gets a Blue Ribbon!

Our handsome boy Mitt leads in today's Republican primary in Michigan. Political Nanny is secretly crossing her fingers for him to win. He really wants to, it's the state he grew up in. Sure, he's a touch out of touch, promising to rebuild the auto industry when, to put it bluntly, that's quite unlikely. Still. She'd like to see as many candidates stay in the Republican race as long as possible.

Foodie in the House!

This isn't directly related to the presidential elections, but it might be a taste, literally, of what Democratic leadership at the highest levels could bring. Seems House Speak Nancy Pelosi has taken her promise to "green" the House into the cafeteria. Now hungry staffers can dine on healthy stuff, the harvest of which doesn't wreck the environment.

Naturally, the prices have increased considerably and that's not so great. But what's funny and telling are many of the comments, especially those admonishing "Nanny Nancy."

Just imagine what those commenters would say to Babysitter Barack or Househelper Hillary or Meddling Mike -- or any other future president who might actually take the health of the entire nation seriously.

Photo: AP via Politico

Image: Amazon.com

You Vote Like a Girl

Madeline Holler — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:59:00 GMT

Oh, ladies! You fickle registered voters! You suffragists with a soft spot! Illogical! Emoooootional! So (once in a while) devoted to your Grrrl Power!

Late last week, many a written tear was shed over Hillary Clinton’s surprise win. Trails of mascara streaked down puffy-faced blogs and newspapers. The votes of many, many New Hampshire women came under close scrutiny and were resoundingly second-guessed. No WAY did all those gals want Hillary for president! Not for reals. These sweet, caring, sympathetic (read: female) babes just didn't want to see Clinton cry. :(

But don't worry, theorizer of the Grrrlfriend Posse – wherein a roving band of one asked our girl a personal question to get her all choked up. Settle down, those of you who suspect that the tears were forced. Not for a moment will Hillary's tearful, childish, emotional manipulation -- meant clearly to prey on the fairer American voter's biologically fickle nature and DNA-given perogative to change her mind -- send her to the White House. Barack Obama can easily reclaim the female half of the voting population -- what Political Nanny likes to think of as "voters-lite". Why?

Because Senator is fine!

We all know how seductive power can be to a straight woman. And when that power is bestowed in a man with those looks! With such skill holding babies! With these dance moves! Oh, get the smelling salts. Even Political Nanny is feeling light-headed.

What does all this mean? Well, if the female vote is as uncommitted/wavering/sympathetic/overly sensitive/tied to the heart as the press would have us thinking last week, it means Hillary Clinton is going to have to do a whole lot of crying – sobbing really – to hold on to their votes. It has nothing to do with the issues, or winning or political opinions of one's own. It's all about a passion for politics (if you get Political Nanny's drift). Barack is just THAT hot!

Let's hope, for Hillary's sake, that Barack doesn't pull out a handkerchief and dab at her cheeks when she schedules a meltdown in South Carolina. Oh, how the ladies in the voting booth will grab hold of his lever and start tugging!

What can the other candidates do to get a little of this girl action? Dennis Kucinich could stop making out with his hot wife! (She makes us feel ugly!) And John Edwards, well, he's got that sensitive man thing going. So, why not show us a little leg like Obama and shed a few tears like Clinton. Who knows what the picky voter chicks will go for next!

Ultrasound Canceled! It's Still the First Trimester

Madeline Holler — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:20:00 GMT

If only we could hold a sonogram wand against the belly of this election beast, the sex of the next president, and the size of his/her win, could be accurately predicted. But the campaigns are still developing, it's early in the race, and this election has crappy health insurance. We'll have to wait and count votes to see who actually emerges from the mess.

A tough lesson for those in the news business! Pundits and political writers relied on old wives' tales this week to try to predict the details of the nation's first primary before it was even over. They observed whether New Hampshire carried its primary low or high, they peed in glass jars and mixed it with Dran-O, they relied on polls that gave Barack Obama double-digit leads. Then they painted the nursery blue.

Boy, are they pissed. It’s a girl!

Why? How? Where did it all go so wrong?

For your very uncommitted, undecided Political Nanny, this aftermath of the "surprise" "comebacks" (well, maybe for McCain) in the New Hampshire primaries has been more fun than a baby shower with no games AND an open bar. Political Nanny hated all the frenzy and frothing at the mouth that followed Iowa and led up to New Hampshire. She’s hoping, audaciously, for a little more caution going into South Carolina and eventually to Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.

But the fun! The fun! Maureen Dowd, a die-hard Clinton-hater, bawled like a girl after the results and speculated that New Hampshire ladies sopped up Hillary’s tears with sympathy votes. We're laughing so hard we're crying, Maureen.

Others, like Salon’s Rebecca Traister, navigate us through the makings of an anti-Hillary pile-on. The details -- from prologue to postscript – are so compelling, you’ll never take a thing Chris Matthews says seriously again (not that you have for a verrrrrrry long time).

Politico offers this mea culpa and explanation for why journalists got it wrong. It’s refreshing in its candor, delightful in its self-loathing. A sample:

Our own publication, Politico, did its part in promoting several of these flimsy story lines. We used predictive language in stories. We amplified certain trends and muffled the caveat, which perhaps should be printed with every story, like a surgeon general’s warning: “We don’t know what will happen until voters vote.”

And for some nasty fun, watch the blooper videos from Slate. Be patient, Anderson Cooper looks like a total ass in the final clip (and why Gloria Borger keeps trying to make her point, we can only guess). The collection also includes an NBC correspondent's confession that, regarding Obama, it's difficult to be objective. Yikes!

You know, the gestation of an election is supposed to take some time. It’s not supposed to be decided by fewer than 1 million people (just under 800,000 to be more specific) in two different states. How ridiculous would it be to have all but one candidate drop out at this point – before the bulk of the country (remember, the population is over 300 million) could help narrow the field? How fat and swollen and pre-diabetic and endless and post-due would a general election feel in that case? Schedule an induction, STAT!

So, call the lab, cancel the next ultrasound, and have a little fun. Let’s take the presumed advice of an election midwife: eat right and drink plenty of fluids, exercise moderation, avoid polls and negative campaigning. Above all else, give the horse-race analysis a rest and try to enjoy this very special, very magical time that only happens once every four years of your life.

And now, a tribute, to a Political Nanny fave, Bill Richardson. He has withdrawn from his race for president. No, we never thought he’d actually make it to the White House (now THERE’S a prediction even Political Nanny feels was safe to make), but we liked him behind the microphone. In the most recent debate – the one right before the New Hampshire primaries – he was funny, smart, and able to get the discussion back to the issues. Even though he won’t be the Commander in Chief, we get the feeling he’ll nonetheless be moving to D.C. for a job about this time next year. Political Nanny will pack your toys and change of clothes, little Bill, and have them sent to you there.

Finally, this tidbit:

John Kerry has endorsed Barack Obama, not his former play- and running-mate John Edwards. On the one hand, that's sad for Edwards, on the other hand, does a Kerry endorsement have much weight? Hey, Political Nanny is just asking!

Photo: BBC.co.uk

Break Out the Diapers: Candidates Demand a Change!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:00 GMT

Candidates from both parties are beginning to sound like a room full of neglected toddlers wearing sagging, saturated diapers. "Change, change, change," they all yelled, screamed, demanded, whimpered during a weekend of debates in New Hampshire. "I'm here for change!"

Well, hold on a second, Mitt and Hillary and John McCain. Just last week you were bragging about your experience and training and ability to, if elected, go on the potty starting from Day 1!

But Political Nanny understands. You're all wetting your pants after the Iowa Caucus when the new kids Barack and Mike got most of the attention and a whole lot of love -- love and support you had hoped (expected?) would mostly be yours. Since everyone is reading these not-totally-surprising-but-still-very-notable wins as Americans wanting change, well, that's what you'll all give them: change!

In Saturday's Facebook/ABC News back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates and again on Fox for Republicans on Sunday, the talk was about change. Change in immigration. Change in healthcare. Change in Iraq. Change in foreign relations. Change in the status quo. Change in monetary systems. Change in leadership style. Change in change.

The Republicans:

On Saturday, Fred Thompson sounded like he was BSing, a lot, let Political Nanny just get that out there. He seemed caught off-guard. John McCain was ready with a zinger for Romney at nearly every turn. Giuliani got in a couple as well. It was kind of a Mitt Romney pile on. Interestingly, Mike Huckabee sat back a bit. Answered his questions. Stayed out of the fray. Safe.

Side note: perhaps Political Nanny is starting to identify with her captors, and some kind of mainstream media Stockholm Syndrome is clouding her judgment, but Saturday's debates were the best so far for both parties. There was no schtick to upstage the candidates (like videos or planned questions from the audience), and Charlie Gibson allowed the candidates to talk and ignore the clock a bunch.

Even better, Gibson followed up on a couple of points Political Nanny has been curious about: He pressed Republican candidates, who say tax credits are the way to get more Americans insured, by crunching the numbers -- basically laying out how $15,000 in annual premiums (which is essentially what employers are paying for a family) can't possibly be written off the taxes of families with incomes of $60,000. They would only be able to write off something like $3,000. (This is the same problem I see with health savings accounts (Guiliani's healthcare strategy). How do you build up enough to cover ongoing health checkups -- particularly for families who have young kids (well baby checkups must add up to a fortune) and need those expensive immunizations and still have something left over for a catastrophe or, say, minor surgery?)

So Charlie crunched the numbers for them, which no one responded directly to, but that's about when John McCain jumped in and said the trick is to control inflation, so that healthcare won't cost $15,000. Riiiiiight. Huckabee said we have a "disease care system," and not a health care system and wanted to shift to prevention and, of course, control costs (yet have it remain a free-market enterprise. Hmmm.). Romney wants the states to handle it how their governors see fit. But he wants to give support (and money?) at the federal level.

The Democrats:

There was some fun sparring to watch, especially as Barack Obama and John Edwards hooked harms and took on Hillary Clinton, later pointed about by moderator Gibson and getting a laugh from Clinton, "you noticed?" Overall, Clinton wanted voters to believe that she doesn't have to convince them that she's a candidate for change (see? "change!"), since she's been about change her whole life. Then she cited a few things that she's changed, particularly getting healthcare for children in Arkansas. And said, as the first woman president, she would quite distinctly embody change.

Edwards wanted us to know that he has lived through the struggles facing American families and that his desire for change is personal. And possible: he claims he has never taken money from lobbyists or PACs and that he wouldn't allow lobbyists in the White House and, therefore, would be beholden to no one but Americans.

Obama defended his ability to inspire as an important catalyst for change, that inspiring Americans builds momentum and support for change.

Bill Richardson said, "I love change," after also defending experience, a notion that has taken a beating as of late. "What's wrong with experience? We want to change this country, but we have to know how to do it." (Political Nanny detected a defense on behalf of Hillary. So kind.)

Speaking of Richardson, Political Nanny would like to hug him. He provided just the right kind of levity the debate needed to ease the tension and pull the rhetoric back a little to remind everyone they were talking about real issues, actual events, and American lives.

Next up ... the New Hampshire Primaries tomorrow (Tuesday, Jan. 8).

Independent Considers Joining the Race (and We’re Not Talking About Nader)

Madeline Holler — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:27:00 GMT

Make room in the sandbox, kids, because there’s another rich white guy who's thinking about joining the race.

Though New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg brushes off talk of a run for the White House, his aides have been looking at what it might take for him to launch a bid as an independent. Which means he's thinking about it. Billionaire Bloomberg could do it too, since he's loaded and could easily finance his own campaign in this “billion dollar” presidential election.

There’s speculation that if he were to run, he’d wait until after the March primaries in Texas to make the decision/announcement. He’d have to get on the ballot in all 50 states, but Ross Perot did it in four months, so why couldn’t he?

Some speculate that he'd be an appealing centrist candidate for those in the South, particularly if the general election were between the other New Yorkers, Clinton and Giuliani.

What do you think? The more the merrier? Can we survive yet another election with an Independent candidate skimming votes from one side or the other? What's Bloomberg's take on family issues? New Yorkers, we're asking you!