Friday, February 29, 2008

Diebold Accidentally Leaks 2008 Election Results 8 Months Early

This is pretty damn funny:




Watch it now, before the shadowy overlords take it down!

(And yes, this is the Onion, which is satire)

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama's Letter

Senator Obama released an open letter to the LGBT community today, asking for their (our? my?) support in his campaign for president, and really, it's a good letter. Anybody who's weeded through the blog knows I originally stopped supporting Obama for president back in the summer of 2007 when he let a pray-away-the-gay preacher give a 30 minute homophobic speech as the centerpiece of one of his fundraisers, but besides that both he and Clinton are pretty solid when it comes to gay rights. The full letter, from Andrew Sullivan's site (when I find a free copy I'll use it instead):
I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBTAmericans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.

In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system. The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBTAmericans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Like I said, overall a pretty good letter with a laundry list of things he would change for the better. Two points I want to make, though; one substantive, one stylistic.

1) The differences between Obama and Clinton on DOMA aren't very big at all. While Obama supports repealing the entire act, Clinton supports repealing everything except Act II, which is the part that lets states ignore other states' gay marriages. This might sound like a big difference, until you learn that Obama believes states have an inherent right to ignore other states' marriages under the US Constitution (a position, incidentally, that's also held by the vast majority of constitutional scholars). So basically they differ in that Clinton wants to keep the part of the law which explicitly says that states can do what Obama says the constitution imiplicitly says that states can do. A mostly symbolic difference, but honestly, sometimes symbolism matters. Obama wins this one on the merits, if only slightly.

2) The style of the letter reminds me of what I don't like about Obama: his apparent inability to make an argument or take a position on an issue without including the sparkle-unity-pony. Yes, I'm a sarcastic, jaded, dry-humored realist, so I'm a little biased, but phrases like "our gay brothers and sisters", "yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach what we know is possible", and "I will [not] close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced" just come off as incredibly preachy and sappy.

Good letter, though.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Bad Blogging Behavior

I've been a bad blogger. Nary a post for almost a week! And it's not for lack of posting subjects either.

It was an ... interesting ... Friday night. Circle of Death choices that involved grabbing various body parts of various people, a Play-Doh dragon, and some interesting dares with pictures that I'll post as soon as I get permission ;)

But, I had a relaxing weekend spent with Lucy.











A busy week at work (sorry, no pictures, thank god)

And now I've got a purring cat in my lap and Are You Being Served playing on the tvf (BEST ... SHOW ... EVER), a good drink in my hand, and I'm content.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Change you can Trademark(TM)

Clinton's "change you can xerox" line last night bombed miserably, but it's actually an interesting example of how a particular product can become so popular and wide-spread that its name starts to replace the actual noun. Xerox, of course, is actually a company that makes photocopier machines, and have had such great success that people now think of photocopying and xeroxing as synonymous.

While some people think that this is just great PR, it's actually really bad for the company in question. If a trademarked name becomes so generic, a judge can actually rule the trademark invalid, the company loses its name, and everybody can start (legally) calling their products by the same name. All in all, the bane of marketing.

Just for kicks, here're some other commonly used words that actually started out as trademarks:
google
photoshop
kleenex
aspirin
roller blade
band aid
ping pong
thermos
heroin
ditto
teflon
styrofoam
coke (fer the sutheners)
yo-yo

The Missing Eyes of Cindy McCain

My friend Lyssa made an interesting observation earlier today: Cindy McCain, wife of John McCain, does not have any eyes. And while I wasn't too pleased with her ruining my productivity for the day, the topic was too good to pass up. So let's see whether Cindy McCain has any eyes, shall we?

Here is Cindy listening to a woman who didn't change from black and white to color in the 70's when everyone else did. (for the record, colorless woman is actually John McCain's mother)


Here is Cindy with a pitchfork (ok, you can sorta see her eyes here)


Here is Cindy again, looking remarkably like someone applied a layer of latex over her face.


So what's your verdict? Does Cindy have eyes? Or is she eyeless?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Rethinking the Live Blogging

Hmmm... appparently a side effect of live-blogging a 2 hour debate is that you spend ... 2 hours live-blogging the debate. This externality must be carefully considered when deciding whether to undertake such an adventure.

Texas Debate Liveblogging

Another first for me! I've watched lots of debates, and I've read lots of blogs that have liveblogged a debate, but I've never liveblogged a debate. So, assuming that I can figure out how to quickly and easily edit and post on blogger, I'm going to liveblog tonight's debate in Texas between Clinton and Obama.

Some thoughts before the debate starts ... are there really any people out there who haven't decided yet? And is a debate going to sway them? What about people who have decided? Will anything either of the candidates says tonight change their vote? Honestly, who knows?

I might not know, but I can certainly predict. Obama will act like the front runner tonight, because he is the front runner, and Clinton will attack Obama more tonight than she has in the past. Ultimately, this debate is Obama's to lose. Clinton has to play tonight perfectly: she can't crash and burn on any question, she can't get shrill, all attacks against Obama have to be valid and smear-free, and she has to make one stick. If she doesn't, it's a tie, which means Obama wins.

8:00PM - It begins. Obama got a lot more applause than Clinton when he walked out. A LOT.

8:02PM - We learn that this is happening at a university, which means it's a lot of students, who overwhelmingly support Obama. Applause still impressive, but not as much as I thought.

8:05PM - Opening Statements. Clinton emphasizes her connections to Texas, talks about Anne Richard. Says candidacy is about taking issues head-on. She sounds pretty good, actually. Keeps mentioning health care, she clearly thinks that's her strength. Obama opens with unity and defining moment. Goes into specific problems of people he's met. Mentions his Iraq position. Sounds presidential. Problem isn't ideas, problem is Washington, lobbyists, special interests. Wants to help America be as good as its promise. Kinda wishy washy at the end.

8:15PM - Cuba question. Would Clinton meet with the new guy? She's ready to reach out and work together once he demonstrates he's going to move towards to democracy. Would not meet until she has evidence they're on the right track. A good explanation of why she would and wouldn't meet with somebody.

8:17PM - Obama responds. Moderator challenges him on a 2003 comment he made, he falters at first, recovers well. Still sounds presidential. You can tell he's thought about this.

8:19PM - Clinton responds to Obama's response. Draws distinction about when/whether president should offer meetings without preconditions. Says it shouldn't be offered in the beginning. Attacks the Bush policies. Starting to get shrill. Tone it down, Hil!

8:22PM - Economy, how would you be different? Obama: end tax breaks for rich, keep trading but fairly, invest in green jobs. So far he hasn't answered the question about how he'd be different. Brings the question back to his ability to unite and overcome.

8:26PM - Clinton responds ... hasn't answered the question yet either. Getting shrill again. Starts into specifics: moritory on foreclosures .. would freeze interest rates for 5 years? WTF? Definitely getting shrill. Green jobs, infrastructure. Ending Bush's war on science ... interesting twist. Got some good applause from the audience.

8:30PM - Would you stop immigration raids? Clinton: for the most part, yes. Then goes into immigration reform. Promotes path to legalization, would introduce in first 100 days. Obama: sounds much calmer than Clinton. Says it is critical to tone down rhetoric, end discrimination. Illegals would move to back of line. Would fix legal immigration, improve relationship with Mexico and help them produce jobs. Attacks Bush and his fixation on Iraq ... not sure how Iraq war ties in with focusing on Mexico.

8:35PM - Clinton voted for the fence? Didn't know that. Clinton throws out that Obama voted for it too. Smart way to protect the borders, and dumb ways to protect the border - got a laugh. "When both of us voted for this..", she's really emphasizing that Obama also voted. John King presses on whether it was still a good idea. Clinton says yes, but has to be done the right way, with technology.

8:40PM - Obama: I agree. Country needs immigration reform. America wants fairness, but also wants order. Plugs DREAM, gets applause.

8:42PM - Is there a problem with the US becoming a bilingual country? Clinton: being bilingual is good for people, believes English is the unifying language. 170 languages in NYC? That's a lot. Obama: important that everyone learns English, every student should learn second language. Failure of NCLB is reliance on standardized testing that doesn't include foreign language.

8:46PM - Break. So far, I think Clinton's done a bit better, but not enough to make a difference. Her answers have more details in them, while Obama keeps bringing it back to his ability to unite. And while I find that kind of annoying, I don't think many people will. Obama's losing his train of thought at times, but Clinton really needs to learn how to not sound like she's screaming.

8:50PM - John King notices a wee bit of difference between stump speeches and tonight's debate. Quotes Clinton saying Obama offers speeches, she offers solutions. Clinton takes a quick jab at Bush, says she and Obama agree on just about everything, but just look at the world a bit differently. Brings up the Texas guy's horrible peformance on MSNBC ... says actions speak louder than words, which gets some good applause. Tricky question, she needed to be careful, and she answered it well.

8:54PM - Obama responds: look at my record, I've got action too. We think differently about how change comes about. People aren't being duped, this is real, and we need it to change Washington. Goes off into about how we need change - wow, audience is clapping over the moderator.

8:57PM - Hmmm... The first question: Senator Clinton, you said Obama's all words and no action, is he?. The second question: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton says you plagerize, how would you respond? The third question: Senator Clinton, is it sillly season? A little bit biased against Clinton, maybe? Obama goes off into why he is teh awesome, and gets all inspirationally.

9:01PM - "Not change you can believe in, it's change you can xerox." Obama tried to respond, Clinton talked over him. Some boos. Ooo... she's going after him, and hard. This is double or nothing for her, either she does this perfectly and hits Obama bad, or it's over for her. Clinton: it's not enough to bring the country together, you have to do hard work, and I can do that. Obama: "My plan didn't change, the politics changed" ... huh? Obama takes on their differences in healthcare, hits her on the mandates. Says his plan does more than any other to reduce costs. Same goals, different way of getting there. Says he admires her attempt to tackle health care in the 90's, but that she did it the wrong way, and that's important.

9:06PM - Another "real quick break", and at about the most inconvenient time ever. I was looking forward to the debate on healthcare. First, Obama is wrong when he says Clinton's plan was hatched in secret. There were over 400 public meetings with doctors, nurses, economists, drug companies, insurance companies, and members of both parties. The reason this meme has spread is that the media wasn't specifically invited. By no means were they barred, but because Clinton didn't advertise her plan to them, it somehow became "secret".

Second, I don't know about her going after Obama with the just-pretty-words angle. I was nervous ... she didn't make any huge mistakes, but not making mistakes isn't good enough, she had to be exquisitely perfect. She wasn't.

9:10PM - The moderator asks Clinton whether Obama is ready to be commander in chief. Clinton goes right back to health care. Hits Obama with Edwards' line about non-mandated health care being like privatized social security. Obama responds, Clinton responds too, both of them talk over the moderator. Clinton says people who go to the ER without insurance would be fined. Obama says anyone who wants insurance will get it, and that yes, if you game the system you will be fined. Question for Obama that Clinton should have asked: how is going to the emergency room gaming the system?

9:18PM - Obama: "I would not be running for president if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief." Raises the Iraq war vote. Says explicitly that Clinton was wrong in her vote. Got applause, but not a lot. His key argument: I was right, she was wrong. "I have shown the judgement to lead."

9:20PM - King asks question of Clinton: is Iraq better now? Clinton makes the argument, finally, that the whole idea of the surge was to support political reconcilliation, and that hasn't happened. Clinton: "I would begin withdrawing troops within 60 days." She says Iraq has to step up.

Seriously, all debate spin asside, I'm just glad that a Democratic candidate has finally finally FINALLY pointed out, on national television, that the surge didn't accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish. IT - DID - NOT - WORK

9:25PM - Obama brings it right back to original sin, er, the original Iraq vote. He didn't answer the question. Now he's going on about veterans. I have no problem if you branch out, but not if you ignore the question. So far, he's the first one tonight not to do so. He also goes after McCain.

9:27PM - ANOTHER break? What's up with this? Hmm.... a coal industry ad. And now 3 different Campbell Brown heads across the screen. Weird.

9:31PM - And we're back!

9:32PM - John King: Obama is responsible for $91MM in earmarks, and won't disclose what they were for. Obama: no, you're wrong, we did, and I made a google for government. Also says some earmarks can be very good, but that they have to be done publicly and above board.

9:33PM - Can Clinton claim that she's any better than McCain on fiscal issues? Clinton: naturally I am, he's a quack. In all fairness, she did avoid the underlying premise of the question, which was earmarks. They both toned it down a notch.

9:35PM - Oooo... superdelegate question. Would it be bad if the supers picked the candidate that the voters didn't? Clinton: we will have a unified party. Obama: the primaries and caucuses should count for something. And now some stuff about dreams and hope and Washington again. Ok, dude, we get it, you can stop finishing each answer with your stump speech?

9:38PM - What moment would you point to that was a moment of crisis in your life? I'm actually interested in hearing this answer. Obama: I had a tough youth and made mistakes, and now I bring people together and fight for them. Umm.. ok. Clinton: "I've definitely lived through some crises in my life" - gets a laugh and applause. She's in awe of other people living through their crises, talks about her experience at a medical center listening to a speaker who'd had most of his face blown off. Eww. She's resolved to give other people the blessings she's had is her final answer. Hmmm... neither of them answered the question, both turned it back to their own strengths.

9:45PM - Anderson Cooper with the best political team on television!

9:50PM - Hmmm again. CNN's analysts seem to think that her closing statement was the best moment she's ever had. Widely agreed that the xerox statement is quite possibly the worst.

9:55PM - The professional analysts agree with me that Clinton had to wow or Obama had to stumble if Clinton was to gain momentum. Score one for me! They say they didn't see either. Neither did I, frankly. Both of them bickered a bit, she may have scored one or two little wins on substance, but he scored a bit on style, even if I disagree with it. If she does get some help from this debate, it'll be because of her last statement, which humanized her.

One thing that I'm starting to find very annoying is the insistence that we only get about 5 minutes to debate any one subject before we move on. These are complex and important issues, and they deserve more than a few words spoken over a moderator. The argument over healthcare was starting to get to some key differences between their plans, and then it got cut short. That doesn't help anything.


And the winner of tonight's debate is.....
Anderson Cooper, best looking guy on the best political team on television! (if you don't watch CNN, you won't get that)

Monday, February 11, 2008

A Week of Firsts!

Woohoo, lots of firsts the past few days!

First time I successfully cooked dinner for Justin and Danielle without setting the apartment on fire.

First time I was polled.

First time I got a political robo-call.

First time I will vote in a presidential primary. (I wasn't old enough in 2000, and in 2004 was still officially living in Pennsylvania, which has their primary in April, so it didn't matter anyway.)

First time I've ever seen the word "divestitures" used in a real life situation.

Cat Blogging

Because some days you just can't decide whether to get out of bed.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Friends for Dinner

Well, not for dinner, but they came over for dinner. Fun times!

They love each other. Really.


Although sometimes I wonder ...


Also, because Danielle requested it, the recipe for the stew that we ate for dinner.
Ingredients:
2 large cans condensed cream of mushroom soup
1 large pot roast (about 1.5 to 2 lbs)
1 large onion
1 package sliced mushrooms
3 or 4 large carrots
2 to 3 cloves garlic

Directions:
1) Mince garlic. Dice onion & carrots. Slice pot roast into bite sized pieces (they will shrink considerably).
2) Throw everything into a crockpot, add condensed soup (as is), and cook for 8 hours.
3) The meat will shrink and the soup will reduce considerably, towards the end you can add water or cream for volume and then corn starch for thickness.

Told you it was simple!

Thursday, February 07, 2008

The Con-Obama Post

You know, this primary campaign has been oddly cyclical for me. I'm generally well enough informed about candidates that when I decide to support one, I don't change my mind. And yet it's happened 3 times so far this time.

When the campaign first started, I supported Obama. Not because I didn't like or support Clinton (I do), but because I was kinda swayed by the whole fresh-face-no-baggage argument. It's an extremely vague and substanceless argument, of course, but of course 6 months out campaigns are supposed to be vague and substanceless. So I sat back and waited for Obama to secure my vote, assuming that he'd eventually start campaigning for good progressive plans and policies.

Except that he never did. While Clinton and Edwards were coming up with 5 point plans on everything from health care to global warming to economic policy to Iraq policy, Obama kept right on not talking about issues, but instead about how Washington was broken, and how he could fix it. And THEN he gave a bible-thumping pray-away-the-gay pastor a front and center spotlight at one of his major campaign events. That kinda turned me off on Obama, and back towards Hillary.

I spent the next few months figuring out new reasons not to like Obama. He rarely talked about policy, and when he was finally coerced into doing so, it was kinda bad in some ways. Universal health care without mandates, which every liberal economist agrees is a bad idea; irresponsible sweeping comments about Iraq and Iran (which are more complicated issues than a lot of people think); and just a general lack of enthusiasm about anything issue related at all. He wasn't campaigning for his stance on issues, he was campaigning for himself.

I also had more reasons to like Clinton. I was closer to her on things like health care and foreign policy, she talked about the issues, and she just generally got a lot of unfair treatment that she didn't deserve (or at least, not more so than the other candidates). But then she started to do some blatantly political stuff, like suing to keep some Nevadans from caucusing, or trying to get Florida and Michigan reinstated, or the way that husband Bill was abusing his prestige on her behalf. I promised myself after the Nevada affair that one more strike and Clinton was out in my book, and then came Florida, and that was that. So while I agreed with some of their underlying arguments, I didn't approve of their tactics, and scratched Clinton out of my book. And yet, in the past few weeks, I've gone back and forth. So here is my list:

1) Obama has drunk too much of his own kool-aid. The man seriously seems to think that his mere presence in the Oval Office will somehow make the nation's problems magically disappear. His campaign has become dangerously self-referential: Obama is teh awesome because Obama is teh awesome! His rhetoric has gone over the top, almost to the level of messianic. "The fierce urgency of now." "Yes we can!" "We are the change we seek!" The 'boys' story from his Super Tuesday speech was like something straight out of the New Testament. And the implication that the only reason people aren't supporting him is because they are afraid of change (he actually said this) is condescending and insulting. Policies should not be an after-thought or some link on a website, we need to know that the candidate believes in them and is passionate about seeing them through. Clinton, for all her faults, is. Obama, in contrast, is passionate about himself. And that turns me off.

2) Obama has not been media tested. Both his state and federal senate campaigns were cakewalks. And while his presidential campaign has certainly been at least an order of magnitude tougher, the idea that Clinton's feeble attempts at going negative are as bad as the sh*t-storm the Republicans will throw at him in the faull laughable. So too is the idea that Obama's press coverage has been as bad as Clinton's. The media narrative on Clinton is that she can do no right. Remember the infamous Tip-Gate? When the Clinton campaign allegedly didn't tip their servers at a diner? At first it was a media frenzy about how out-of-touch the Clintons were with the real world. When the Clinton campaign insisted that they did tip, it became a story about how Clinton's instinctive response was to lie lie lie. And a few days later, when it was revealed that Clinton DID tip (generously) and that the waitress somehow 'forgot', it became a story about Clinton's response to the 'scandal', and how it showed she couldn't just come clean with the media and tell them the whole story (um, HELLO, they did!) Compare and contrast with several Obama stories that have gotten nary a peep. 1) Obama says the DNC approved his ads in Florida, and within a matter of hours the DNC comes out with a strongly worded statement that says they did no such thing, and that Obama is "mistaken", after which Obama says again that they did, when asked about it directly. 2) Obama doesn't take questions from reporters, because they ask him about policy, and he doesn't do policy. 3) The Obama campaign emails reporters to highlight a question raised by a single mother in an Obama town-hall and uses it as proof that working class mothers are better off with Obama than Clinton ... but does so 3 hours before the town-hall takes place. 4) The SOTU snub, which was pretty obviously NOT caused by a question from the person next to him, who was busy reaching towards Hillary. Seriously, look at the pictures. He simply turns his back on her and looks away into empty space. If Clinton had pulled any of these stunts, it would be all OVER the news.

3) Obama's supporters have drunk too much kool-aid. I actually know people who support Obama, but who will vote for McCain in the general election simply out of spite for Clinton. Or people who are convinced that the only reason someone doesn't support Obama is that they're secretly racist. Or Obama supporters who simply won't talk about policy at all, on the grounds that the only thing that matters is that he's Obama, and is thus teh awesome. Or people who hate Clinton simply because she happens to be a baby boomer, and "their time is over." Or people who claim that Clinton is actually worse than George W Bush when it comes to foreign policy, and that if she'd been president, we wouldn't have just invaded Iraq, but also Iran by now. This kind of stuff turns me off too; it's a cult of personality that's become almost completely detached from reality.

Simple version: Clinton has given me solid reasons to support her, and solid reasons not to. Obama hasn't given me anything solid at all. And I find that, at the end of the day, he and his supporters annoy me far more than Clinton and her supporters do. So, on Tuesday, when I cast my vote, I will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Random Musings

A few random thoughts from the past couple days:

1) Last week I went to Blockbuster with Justin and Danielle, and came to the rather depressing realization that I didn't even know half of the movies had come out yet, much less released on DVD.

2) The 2008 Super Tuesday primary elections are even more exciting than the Super Bowl! I know, I'm a dork. But, I'm a dork with popcorn who's anxiously awaiting Missouri's returns!

3) Dreams. Whoa.

4) Ron Paul needs to withdraw from the Republican primary, if only so that CNN doesn't have to keep doing that annoying flip between results for the different candidates because they can only put up 3 at once.

5) Our primary processes are way too complex. We now have final results for 8 states that had their primaries on Tuesday, and near certain results for most of the others. And we have no idea what that means for delegates, because there are weird distribution methodologies that differ from state to state, population, and whether there are an even vs odd number of delegates per congressional delegation.

6) One of Lunesta's side effects is "drowsiness". Umm... duh.