Annnnnnnnnd we're back

Lets jump right in, shall we?

I wanna start off with the Congress, since my classes study it a lot, and it interests me more than the presidential race at the moment.

For starters, hats off to DOD Secretary Robert Gates. The Judiciary Committee can't get a straight answer out of the Attorney General nominee about waterboarding. He won't answer, they won't vote, and Bush reminds them to do whatever he says, because after all, we're at war! It's every damn day with this guy, isn't it? Anyhow, they keep fighting back and forth on it, and finally Gates jumps up and says, "hey folks, I'm pretty high up in the military game, and I say no waterboarding period. It's not in the field manual, it's not authorized." While he didn't really answer the question at hand (whether it was legal) he did a lot to clarify the situation by saying that it doesn't matter, it can't be used anyhow.

Personally, I don't think Mukasey is all that bad of a choice. Ironically enough, he would've been confirmed by the Senate before when he became a Federal Judge - you would think that they knew a little about this guy.

The SCHIP thing has kept me going for over a month now. It is the funniest thing I've seen this Congress. Let me give everyone a little story on what I think this is - While to the normal observant, Democrats are liberals that believe in extra spending in health care. They go over budget in renewing this program, but hey, it's for kids right? They send it up with some bipartisan approval, and Bush, in all ironies, decides "you're spending too much" although I'm sure that it came out grammatically incorrect and vetoes it.

Here's the first funny thing - Bush is hilariously inconsistent. He still claims that he's a fiscal conservative, and criticizes that damnable Nancy Pelosi for spending too much. Oh hell that's funny.

Funny #2 - Congress Democrats got the Republican Party to look like asses. Not all of them, mind you, just the ones who whine about spending while simultaneously voting for outrageous spending bills for another country. To be honest, this could all be a political trick, and I think it is. I think the Dems knew Republicans would reject this, but they're using the GOP playbook, in which I'm sure is a large chapter called "Won't you please think of the Children!" It's surprising that they missed their own tactic in reverse, but I guess when you're busy scouring your office to rid any ties to Sen. Craig and his people, you don't pay much attention to anything.

Funny #3 - They're doing it again! They can't override the veto, so they just proposed it again, and it passed, again, and it'll be vetoed. . . . again! It's so funny to me, because it keeps Bush in the news as a war lovin child hater.

In all seriousness, I'm surprised that the votes in the House cannot meet the override threshold. They are sticking to the party line, and they're allowing Bush to continue setting that. The GOP needs to find a new leader now if they want to hold onto any seats in 2008. They have little shot at the Presidency, if any, and they should recognize this loss and focus on not losing a great deal of congressional influence. Many of the higher up Republicans are retiring, and the Democrats are already trying to find good candidates for their seats. The Republicans need to admit that the 2006 elections are over, they lost, and their President has little political influence. They need to get people in trouble districts right now and start campaigning 2008.

Ok now back to the main event - the race.

Finally, this thing is going to become nasty. The Democrats are starting to get angry with each other, and Obama and Edwards are starting to understand that Clinton is, in most places, killing em. Obama breaks tradition by attacking a fellow Senator, and she isn't, but is pointing out that he's contradicting his own campaign philosophy of positive politics. I think that if she can push this message enough, she's the winner. It all comes down to who we'll believe more.

Is Senator Clinton playing dodgeball? Sure she is. They're trying to pin her down on Social Security and illegal immigrant drivers licences - but here's the funny thing on the latter. The Presidency has no say in drivers licence procedures - that's a complete state function. She chose her view carefully, as it's a real hot-seat thing in New York right now. Nobody's a fan of illegal immigration lately, but she can't betray the Latino voting block, so she's playing politics and saying "I choose not to choose" and lets the others hang themselves. Obama's flaw is that he's a beginner in a professional event. Hillary is good at this, she's been at national level politics for fifteen years, plus plenty of time at a state level. The bottom line is, she knows exactly what she's doing when she doesn't know what she's doing.

I don't think her act is going to play out. The media is portraying her as crying "poor me, I'm the only woman." First, this isn't happening outright. She's an outright supporter of womens rights, and surely wouldn't back down from a gender contest. There may be subtle messages that she is trying to express this to win female voters. The media has also come out with "close campaign stragetists" who say that yeah, this is the plan, to portray her as the poor little woman against all these men. I don't buy it. I think the media is turning against her. She wants to tout her experience, not some gender weakness and "they're picking on me" attitude. I think her real plan for this phase of the campaign is to remain as non-controversial as possible - people will find something wrong with Hillary just to bitch about her, and she's got to be completely aware of this.