Ok, here we go again..

Welcome to my new attempt at consistent blogging. I made one attempt a little while back, and it failed miserably after two posts. It's called "A Hitchhiker's Travels", and I will revive it beginning when I, well, travel, for more personal blog type stuff.

But I've been inspired to create another separate blog because, as most of you probably know since you are getting the link from my gchat status, I've been essentially using that as a political blog for a year now. But here, I can actually write longer comments and give full quotes from links and stuff! It's great. Also, I figure if, as I do on some particularly angry days, I need to post a whole bunch of links, well then I can do that too! Isn't blogging great?

This won't just be political, either, but really just anything I see or think that I think either people should or would like to know. Or really anything I feel like shouting out to whoever will listen. Hopefully you enjoy. And please comment and lemme know if I sound insane, paranoid, or too doomsday-like. Though I'll admit, for now, I will likely sound very much like that.

An example from The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

[Clinton] needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.

When are the party leaders gonna step in and say "That's enough?" She's gotta be running either to tear him down or for a chance at 2012, by making sure McCain wins now. How can the remaining neutral party leaders (Gore, Dean, Edwards, Richardson, etc.) let her very obviously tear down the party's chances? Wasn't the point of them remaining neutral so that they would have the moral authority to stop this?

And one point about the new MI and FL primaries: I understand the need to seat the delegates in order to not discourage the voters in those states, but then there's the, you know, rules. But from a strategy point of view, even if Obama is saying that he'd accept a re-do for that reason, how can he, knowing that Clinton will just campaign by saying that she wanted to seat those delegates and he did not? Any changing of the rules in the middle will be a bad thing for Obama's campaign, except as a good-will gesture to the superdelegates. He has to basically believe that good will will counter the "momentum" PR that he will lose from these new primaries, or he has to believe, as many are beginning to, that he has already won. I just don't know that it's a good tradeoff.