Political Nanny : campaign issues

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.

Hillary Plays Texas Hold-Me-I'm-Trembling-'em

Madeline Holler — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:10:00 GMT

The Potomac Primary is so yesterday. Which is why Hillary Clinton is in Texas today. She lost big in Tuesday's primaries in Virginia, Maryland, and Washinton, D.C. She's gambling all her chips on Texas and Ohio's March primaries, the next big races and what appear to be her last chance at the nomination.

Mike Huckabee, too, has to regroup if he's going to continue in the race. McCain won big in the veteran rich region of the country.

No more modesty or superstitions: Barack Obama and McCain have no choice but to adopt the frontrunner label.

Let's see what hand the voters in Texas deal her. In the words of Kenny Rogers (hey, he's irrelevant -- surely he endorsed somebody!), she's got to know when to hold'em ... and when to run. (Or, not run in this case.)

Oh, and she should probably congratulate her competitor, since it's become newsworthy that she hasn't. Just saying. Congrats Barack and John!

What do you think of a John McCain/Barack Obama match up?

Photo: Ron Niebruegge

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.

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.

President Jesus' Co-Pilot

Madeline Holler — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:41:00 GMT

As if there weren't enough candidates to choose from, a political operative for Jesus Christ has announced His run for higher office and opened up the miracle worker's candidacy for vice presidential nominations. The bumper sticker may declare Jesus as YOUR co-pilot. But who, indeed, is His?

Stephen Heffner, a lapsed Catholic and former reporter, recently launched the website JesusIn2008.com. He asks that people weigh in on the Holy Candidate's platform and also propose a running mate. Heffner hopes this process will help voters when they go to the voting booth in November. A Georgetown University professor sees it another way:

From USA Today: "[the website] will let the secularists and non-believers get their ya-yas out because it'll be funny to see evangelicals and fundamentalists fume." Damn God-baiting secularists!

There are three rules for participating: you can't preach or behave rudely. And no miracles.

After all, if Jesus were to use miracles to solve the energy crisis or fund Social Security, strategic debate would be pointless, says Heffner.

Instead, Heffner wants participants in this online convention to think of Jesus not in terms of the personal savior, or, Political Nanny assumes, Mike Huckabee, rather:

Our candidate is Jesus the man, the revolutionary individual who comes to us through history as a model for ethical and moral human behavior – the exemplar whose first instinct in any situation was, simply, to do the right thing, according to the website.

Feel free to weigh in on platform issues like the Death Penalty (some commenters make the case that Jesus would oppose it -- take that W!), Community & Capitalism (others argue Jesus would have been something of a regulator -- what do you think of that, Dick Cheney?), Abortion (a discussion that's a little less dogmatic than Political Nanny expected, better alert Ralph Reed!) and Gay Marriage (Jesus wouldn't hold how a person is born against them -- feeling woozy, state Republican leaders?).

As far as VPs, so far there are nominations for Mike Huckabee (ready to revise the Constitution), Mitt Romney (since JC lacks critical administrative experience, argues one), Jerry Brown (can't figure that one out), Lucifer (a secularist's ya-yas?), Mohammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh (the microloans guy), and a couple of others Political Nanny, who confesses to being woefully untrained in theology, does not recognize.

Of course, there's the small matter of the requirement that American presidents be born on U.S. soil. Hmmm, Jesus might want to hook up with Arnold Schwarzenegger and work on that one. (Now THERE'S a possible running mate.)

Ahhh, the virtual political process works in mysterious ways.

Photo: passtheammo.com

Toys For Political Junkies' Babies

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:08:00 GMT

Many of you have privately confessed to Political Nanny how your obsession with this election has cut into your quality parenting time. Days and nights of on-demand newsfeeding. The agony of letting pundits cry it out. You know everything about the remaining candidates, yet you've forgotten your own flesh-and-blood's birth weight and shoe size.

No need to abandon either of your babies. You can rear children and obsess about the nation's future at the same time. There are plenty of activities to bridge these two seemingly opposing interests.

Political Reading for the Whole Family:

Political Nanny already told you about the children's book Why Mommy is a Democrat, wherein loving, kind, Democratic squirrels watch in disbelief as elephants behave rudely. Now the companion, Why Daddy is a Democrat is available to promote a smug satisfaction in progressive voting. In these beautifully illustrated pages, we are told that Democrats support schools (of fish!) and make the earth feel better (it gets sick!) and give police and firefighters the support the need to do their jobs well. Why ever do liberals get accused of having simple, simple minds?

Go interactive with Pat the Politician #2. In the manner of the children's touch and feel classic, Pat the Bunny, this new twist on an old favorite let's kids get in touch -- literally -- with the candidates.

According to the catalog, kids can ... Pull Hillary's purse strings. Fluff John Edwards hair. Scratch John McCain's war rhetoric. And don't forget to wave bye-bye to George Bush. Pat the Politician #2 is perfect for every voter, Democrat or Republican. Features 20 interactive pages with 22 color illustrations.

Role-Play With Political Finger Puppets:

Are your little ones missing the finer points of all this political rhetoric? Act it out in words they understand with these presidential candidate finger puppets. There are five candidates in the set -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, George Bush in a dunce cap and, sadly, Fred Thompson. After you exhaust all three minutes of play with the Thompson puppet (mimicking in real time his failed campaign's light scheduling), turn Thompson into Romney with thick crop of black hair (just clip a patch from your child's Webkinz dog and stitch or glue as necessary). Only have white fur? Fine. He'll be Ted Kennedy. Just position him on your thumb so he can be near his new BFF Barack, who is inspiring the rest of the toybox atop your index finger. Alternately, insert ball bearings into Thompson dolls face and play-act an angry John McCain.

Is your child more of an issues voter? Consider the hours of fun with the gay marriage finger puppets (two men, two women and a priest). Are you raising a security toddler? Then go for the five-man axis of evil "Terrorism" set.

So you're a childless cat lady but you read a parenting blog? No judgment here, we promise. And there's something for you and your much-neglected Fluffy too. Political Pet toys. A soft, safe chew toy for the light of your life. Choose from world leaders, presidential candidates and controversial filmmakers (that's Michael Moore, right?).

Go ahead and start watching the Florida returns. Enjoy all two hours of the debates in Los Angeles on Thursday. Tune into Hardball without guilt. That baby you hear crying? She doesn't need you. She's just interviewing fingerpuppet Hillary. And the swearing? Don't worry. That's her playing with post-Florida Rudy.

Candidates' Cribs: Their Digs, Pre-White House

Madeline Holler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:10:00 GMT

Readers, rest assured. America's housing market meltdown won't leave any of the candidates without a very, very pleasant roof over their heads. But you're kind for caring. How about we take a peek at those roofs and do a little real estate market analysis, you know, on behalf of those candidates who don't manage the upgrade to something bigger and whiter.

Mother Jones was kind enough to assemble a photo album of many of the top candidates' domiciles and CNBC ran the numbers.

John Edwards, that son of a mill worker, lives in the most expensive house of any of the candidates. His rambling $6 million compound, which he purchased in 2007, has risen in value over 4 percent. Think he went the exotic loan route? Incidentally, the average home value in his North Carolina county is $365,000. He's defintely on the other side of the tracks . And when this Chapel Hill estate won't suffice, he's got his $1.08 million beach home.

Rudy Giuliani lives in a $5.25 million nine-room co-op in Manhattan's Upper East Side, by far the best of all the candidate's cribs, in Political Nanny's opinion. The Manhattan housing market has been quite good to him -- the median price of a Manhattan apartment has risen 14 percent since moving day a few years ago. The average cost of a Manhattan apartment is $1.5 million, which, in local money, is kind of slummy, right?

Next up, John McCain's $3 million Phoenix condo (which, according to MoJo, is actually two condos combined into one). We all know the market in Arizona's cities is tanking. The average home price in Phoenix is $428,000, down 1.8 percent in the last nine months. Now, from the outside, his condo looks like a hospital. But for beauty, he can always go to his $1.1 million 6-acre ranch in Sedona.

A tie between Hillary Clinton's Westchester, N.Y., home price and the home Mitt Romney has in Belmont, Mass. There are others. These houses cost the candidates $1.7 million. Clinton has a slight edge in that her neighborhood's prices are down just 2.8 percent, while the Romney's are watching a 9 percent decrease around them. For the Clintons, the average price in the area is $1.13 million. For Mitt and family, the median home price in Belmont is $680,000. (MoJo pictures his $3 million New Hampshire house on a lake, which should not be confused with his $5.5 million main residence, a former ski resort in Park City, Utah. Yow!)

Barack Obama bought his almost-South-Side Chicago house -- a beauty -- for $1.65 million in 2005 (the height of the market, what was he thinking?!). The average value of a home in his area is $310,315. Overall, prices are up 1 percent, so, he's doing OK and won't likely need to take advantage of Hillary's mortgage bailout plans.

Missing from the market analysis: the stats on Fred Thompson's McClean, Va., home, which set the Thompsons back $3.3 million. With prices dropping in the Northeast, though, we'd hate to see him get upside down on his financing. And also Mike Huckabee's Little Rock McMansion, which he and his wife paid $525,00. Sounds like a steal, but we're guessing it's one of the more pricey homes in Arkansas. Which would explain why they registered for house-warming gifts after they bought it.

Now, for any of the candidates trying to establish some Green credentials, Political Nanny's advice is: install solar panels and change those incandescent bulbs, quick! Most of these rather enormous homes likely have an oversized and embarassing carbon footprint. We're just saying ...

Finally, the ones missing from the collection are two that Political Nanny would have really liked to see and also a pair that could give some perspective: the homes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Send over the links if you think you have tracked either or both of them down. Is Political Nanny alone in imagining Kucinich's digs might bear some resemblance to Austin Power's pad? No, only her?

'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).

Group Hug! Candidates Endorsing Candidates

Madeline Holler — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Political Nanny's pet presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich made a surprising demi-endorsement just a day and a half before Iowans kick off the voters' portion of the 2008 election program.

He told his supporters to back Barack Obama if they can't gather enough Kucinich delegates to meet a minimum percent of those gathered. As we discussed before, Iowans have a built-in back-up plan when it comes to determining their state parties' favorite candidates. If a candidate can't gather enough support, those caucusers are allowed to regroup with their second-choice candidate. Kucinich hopes his would-be supporters will gather under the Obama sign.

Naturally, he'd like New Hampshire's Democratic primary support to go all and only to him.

"This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters."

Obama's response?

“He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities — including an end to the war in Iraq that we both opposed from the start, reforming Washington and creating a better life for America’s working families. I encourage all Iowans to take part in the caucuses this Thursday — not because it will be good for any one candidate, but because it will be good for our party and the future of our country.”

Political Nanny feels certain that Kucinich's suggestions for second-best presents an interesting dilemma for more than one lefty Iowan, since Ralph Nader also recently made an endorsement of his own: he told the press he's backing John Edwards.

Those Democrats -- it's just one big group hug after the next. (Hey, John, quit pinching Hillary!)

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!

Nanny Approves: Someone's Talking Preschool

Madeline Holler — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:31:00 GMT

Show of hands: who out there are filling out preschool applications and asking themselves, why? Why is this so hard? So expensive? So random? Who knows a Reggio from a Waldorf? A Montessori from a Co-Op? A church school from a Parents Day Out? Who just wants some damn daycare?

Some experts are concerned about the lack of uniformity and oversight for the nation's preschool programs and are backing mandatory preschool. They hope to create a more uniform early childhood learning curriculum.

The notion of Universal Pre-Kindergarten is apparently on the radar of just a couple of the presidential candidates. Ann Hulbert lays out the debate over UPK nicely in a New York Times piece and says the idea is backed by Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

While Hulbert doesn’t give specifics of the candidates’ plans, she gives a general overview of what UPK means now: basically an attempt to overhaul the patchwork of preschools around the country and back a curriculum that stresses academics and school readiness.

Now, I might quibble with the huge push for academics that is a part of the UPK idea. I, along with many education experts, think it is totally unnecessary to read and write before Kindergarten and think young kids learn through play.

However, one goal of UPK is to shrink the achievement gap between poor kids and their wealthier peers, who get so many of the advantages of educated parents with money that they won’t suffer if they start school on the pre-literate side.

UPK might be a tad too rigid, but it might also be a part of the solution for another problem, this one extending deep into middle-class family’s lives: affordable, quality childcare. Some sort of taxpayer-funded preschool would mean one or two fewer years of paying the nanny/sitter/daycare center.

Should Americans seriously consider UPK? Or do we need to fix our schools first? Or would the former be part of a solution to the latter?