Thanks

They were not supposed to be there.

It was going to be a 8-8, 9-7 type of season, at best.

But there they were. A first-round bye and Walrus Holmgren coming to town; all was right with the world. Green Bay was again title town.

Hey, Seattle fans, remember this?

Third down, wrapped in the arms of Seattle defensive end Brandon Mebane, Green Bay’s hill billy Brett was all but sacked. Or so it seemed.

Filtered through the persistent snow that happened upon that historic city, upon that historic stadium, the play again reminded of why we love our quarterback, why Brett is...well, Brett.

Thirty one other quarterbacks in the NFL would have been sacked on that particular play, but Brett…well just asked Donald Lee how that play turned out. A stumbling, off balance, anything but fundamental underhand flip through the flakes, and we had it, a personification of the career that has enthralled a city for 17 years. He improvised, found a way, and gave us one last reminder of just how lucky we were to have had a front row seat to history.

Today Brett Favre retired.

There it is said. At face value, a simple statement. But for those who it resonates deepest, it is as confusing and nuanced as any. It is an exclamation point punctuating a career that defined not only a city, a state and franchise; but also an era.

In all reality, it was an inevitable conclusion. After all, Elway, Marino, Tarkington and Montana all retired. But try convincing any fan elbow deep in a Krohls West bag of fries, or enjoying a cold Miller Lite at the Stadium View of this ‘inevitability’ and you will be met with confusion. For them, this is not only an absurd comparison, but one not worth discussion.

Number 4 has defined a city for 17 years. Monday through Friday residents are a hard working, no frills lot. But come Sunday, this otherwise blue collar town became sexy. Green Bay had its Hollywood star. A release from an otherwise mundane existance, he was Brett; and he put a town that was otherwise an afterthought on the map.

It’s hard, but all good things must come to an end.

Entertainer, winner, champion, only a few of the descriptors that help shade the portrait that is Brett Favre’s legendary career. Here it is, a send off with the type of simplicity that I think the unassuming man with the southern drawl would himself very much appreciate. See yah Brett, and thank you.

Look! This campaign does have substance: economy

The disdain for the Bush tax cuts on the part of both Democratic candidates is nearing campaign legend status. For a comparison, think Grover Cleveland's battles with protectionists during the 1892 campaign, or Howard Taft fighting William Jennings Bryan over reform in 1908. Not working for you? Try this one, think, Al Gore and the RNC battling over the creation of the internet in 2000 - it's big.

But beyond this inherant hatred for the Bush tax cuts, what else is in the democratic canidates economic plans?

Clinton's plan would start by regressing the rate of income tax paid by upper-income people to the levels seen in the 1990s.

She will also provide matching tax credits to families who save money. The plan includes a dollar-for-dollar match for the first $1,000 a married couple saves, and a 50 percent match on families the first $1,000 savings for married couples earning $60,000 - $100,000. In order to qualify for matching funds, a family has to do their saving in a new American Retirement Account, a Hillary proposed new approach to retirement savings (discussed later).

Obama's biggest tax credit is the, Making Work Pay credit, it would provide a tax credit up to $500 for single payers and up to $1000 for working families. Obama says this will do two things, it will negate payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of income, and second, while maintaining a funding source for social security.

Up next on our magical mystery tour of tax credits, college affordability.

Under Obama's perfectly cheesily titled Create the American Opportunity tax credit, the first $4,000 of college education for 'most Americans' would be free, the use of most, instead of all, is never explained. After the initial $4,000, Obama says his plan would pay for two-thirds the cost of tuition at an 'average public college or university.'

Clinton's credit would double the HOPE tax credit, it would raise the benefit a person can receive from $1,650-$3,000. She would also increase the maximum Pell Grant, tying its value to the cost of tuition.

On retirement, Obama and Hillary offer similar plans. Both would create an automatic workplace pension, this would provide a retirement plan for people who have no employer-based plan. A major aspect of Clinton's plan would establish the American Retirement Account. Money put into this account would be subject to Clinton's matching policy. Additionally, money saved is put into your account via direct-deposit, the same way direct-deposit for payroll works.

Obama would also create an IRA direct-deposit system. His plan will also automatically enroll employees into a workplace pension plan, unless they opt-out. Employers who do not offer a retirement plan will have to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account. Like Clinton, Obama will match funds saved in his new these new retirement accounts. He will expand the Savers Choice tax credit to match up to $1,000 of savings for a family earning under $75,000.

Clinton says she will pay for the American Retirement Account's matching tax cuts by freezing the estate tax at $7 million per couple. Obama does not say where the money for his plan will come from.

Look! This Campaign does have substance: Mortage/Housing crisis

On the housing crisis, Clinton offers a more drastic and broad moving proposal, but both devote a lot of resources to the issue.

To the ire of many, the focal point of Clinton's plan is a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures. The moratorium would keep borrowers un-homeless until the second part of Clinton's plan, a rate freeze on adjustable rate loans.

This freeze would last for at least five years, or until subprime loans could be converted to more "affordable" loans. Clinton will also require status reports on the progress that Wall Street is making in converting subprime loans into affordable ones.

Obama's plan is anchored by what he calls a Foreclosure Prevention Fund, a $10 billion fund that will help, well, let's just say it's name is not very original. Under his plan, borrowers facing foreclosure would be allowed to refinance their loans through either the Federal Housing Authority or government-sponsored-mortgage-giants Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

Obama's fund would also help home owners who bought houses they can not afford sell those houses - basically, assistance for people who made bad choices. The specifics include, providing additional time and assistance to borrowers in order to help them pay back any losses from selling their home and the waiving of certain income taxes that result from borrowers selling their homes to avoid foreclosure.

Both candidates would also address bad guy lenders who, like Dan Aykroyd circa-1977, blatantly covered up the true danger of the product they were pushing. Sitting with a Consumer Reporter (Candice Bergen), toy salesmen, and all around sleaze, Irwin Mainway (Akyroyd) explains that his company's toy, Mainway's Bag O'glass, is nothing more than "an interesting toy, you know?" With the type of greasy arrogance that made Mainway an SNL favorite, mortgage brokers gave dangerous, Bag O'Glass, loans to borrowers - all the while promising, they're nothing more than interesting loans, you know?

Under Obama's STOP FRAUD Act, new penalties for Mainway-lenders found guilty of fraud would be enacted, and the Government Accountability Office would be required to monitor some state lending programs in a effort to find, and get rid of, programs that are unfair to borrowers.

Clinton combats predatory lenders through transparency. Her plan would require mortgage brokers to tell borrowers that their compensation rises are tied to the level of mortgage rates and fees. In other words, the higher the rates and fees, the more money the borrower pockets. She also wants to create a federal registry of mortgage brokers, so borrowers can easily look up violations or complaints levied against a broker. Currently there is no centralized way to look up such information.

Clinton would give a boost to local housing trust funds, under her plan she would create a $1 billion fund to give federal support to local housing trust funds, eliminate pre-payment penalties and require that lenders disclose the taxes and insurance costs when going over the loan with a borrower. Currently, lenders can exclude these 'hidden costs' from the underwriting assessment, thus they are able to qualify people for mortgages they can not afford.

Obama's plan would create a universal 10 percent universal mortgage credit and create the HOME score, an easy to understand rubric that would help borrowers compare prices and understand the full cost of a loan.

Look! This campaign does have substance: Foreign Relations (not Iraq)

With the glare of a thousand suns glaring back, let's look at the bald spot of both Clinton and Obama's platforms, foreign policy. It is actually quite incredible that both miss the point so dramatically.

Outside of Iraq, it could be argued that China and Palestine-Isreal are the two biggest foreign policy hurdles facing the next administration - but neither candidate has an explicit plan to address the two hot spots.

On China.

Clinton started out 2007 framing our one-sided relationship with China as "an erosion of our own economic sovereignty." Clinton also sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, urging them to ensure that foreign governments do not own too much of our debt.

Beautiful rhetoric, but unfortunately this faint attempt at beginning to address China ended early in 2007, as promising sentiment turned to a lame, hollow platform. Clinton's foreign policy aspirations are laid out in an eight page piece, written by Clinton, in Foreign Policy magazine (the article is the main foreign policy link on her website). Of the eight pages, a scant 132 words are devoted to China, 67 of which are dedicated to the description of a climate change plan that would have the United States, China and Japan work together to create greater energy efficiencies.

Clinton's plan is laughable, not ha-ha funny, but, wow, this is actually her plan funny - but at least she feigns interest in China, that is more than Obama can say.

Zero, zilch, nada, that's what you will find in Obama's official foreign policy platform regarding China. In one debate, Obama said China was "neither our enemy nor our friend" - its a good thing Obama is the change candidate, as decisiveness may not be his thing.

On Israel-Palestine.

Both take a decidedly pro-Israel stance. Neither thinks Hamas should be recognized until they recognize Israel's right to exist, stop the violence and abide by past agreements between Israel and Palestine. There are a few shiny objects thrown in to distract onlookers from the otherwise drab opaque that is their Middle East plans. For example, Obama supports continued development of the Arrow Missile Defense system (designed to thwart attacks from Iran), and Hillary supports the security wall between Israel and the West Bank.

But for the most part, both plan fit nicely into their candidates’ overall foreign policy motif - minimalist.

On Iran, Clinton has taken a harsher stance than Obama. In a move chided by many of her Democratic counterparts, Clinton voted for a resolution labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Clinton has maintained that she supports further diplomacy with the region, but some see Clinton as a Democrat capable of supporting military action with Iran.

Obama's plan centers on diplomacy, with the prospect for incentives. If Iran were to abandon its nuclear program and give up its support of terrorism it could receive incentives under the Obama plan. Such sugar cookies could include: membership into the World Trade Organization, economic incentives and normalized diplomatic relations.

Both candidates’ see Afghanistan as the 'forgotten front-line’ and both would redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama would redeploy two brigades to Afghanistan; he would also call for NATO to increase their efforts in the region. Like Clinton, he also calls for measures to end corruption in the Afghan government and secure the boarder. But like the rest of his plan, offers no way to pay for the plan.

Clinton does not give exact troop numbers, but simply says we must engage in counter terrorism efforts in Afghanistan. She would combat oppey production by funding crop-substitution programs. Her plan, unlike Obama's, directly deals with the countries infrastructure, she says that if elected she would initiate a large-scale road building project.

Both candidates fail to say how they will pay for much of their foreign policy platforms, and in many cases they are less than specific. Foreign policy for the Democrats is, at best, a work in progress.

Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Health Care

Thanks John. Edward's has finally pulled the plug, making my overview of candidate policies a bit easier.

The key difference between the two remaining candidates health care plans is choice v. requirement. Obama's plan would provide people the choice to obtain affordable health care insurance, while Clinton's would require it - the dreaded universal health care.

Both would allow people who are happy with their current coverage to maintain their coverage. Both would also offer a new public plan, crafted in the image of Medicare, and offer the same type of plan offered to members of Congress.

To ensure that those who can not afford insurance are able to meet the requirement of insurance Clinton's plan would offer: refundable tax credits, limit premiums to a percentage of income and create a tax credit for small businesses to encourage them to cover employees.

Obama's plan touts low premiums and co-pays (without providing specifics). Obama would also offer subsidies to those who do not qualify for SCHIP or Medicare. He would require that all children are insured (a notion implicit in Clinton's universal plan) and raise the age that young adults can stay on their parents plan up to 25.

Both would eliminate insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. To achieve this Clinton says she would require that insurance companies automatically renew a person's policy if they wish to remain in that policy. It would also prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on age, gender or occupation.

Additionally, under Clinton's plan, premiums collected by insurers must be dedicated to quality health care coverage, not excessive profits or marketing. Obama's plan offers a similar measure, but he sees it as a way to increase competition. Under his plan only insurance companies in regions that lack competition would be required to dedicate premiums.

In an effort to reign in the cost of prescription drugs, both would repeal the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, which forbade Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies. This cost saving measure is rooted in precedent, the Veterans Administration's ability to directly negotiate prescription drug prices has been seen as a success.

Both candidates want to help reduce cost by stopping overpayments to Medicare. Obama proposes eliminating payments made to Medicare's private plan alternative, called Medicare Advantage. Obama says that the government pays 12 percent more to treat patients with comparable conditions through Medicare Advantage than it does through traditional Medicare. Clinton does not specify how she would end Medicare overpayments.

Obama's plan would also include protection from the catastrophic cost associated with catastrophic illness/injury. The plan would reimburse employers a percentage of catastrophic cost that employers incur above a certain, undetermined, threshold. Clinton's plan includes no such provision.

Clinton estimates her plan will cost $110 billion a year, she plans to pay for it, in part, by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those earning $250,000 a year. She also will limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.

Obama estimates his plan will cost between $50 to $60 billion a year once fully implemented, and he will also fund it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making $250,000 per year.

I try to inject a bit of personality and humor into my posts, but the only thing drier than health care reform is Fred Thompson on the stump. Needless to say health care, like Grandpa Fred, does not lend itself to humor.

Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Iraq

Well, in a New Hampshire-esque curveball, it turns out there are differences in the Democratic presidential canidate's Iraq plans. Who knew?

Let's jump in.

All want some sort of large troop withdrawl, but the three plans resemble Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - their different.

Edwards wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and wants to achieve a full withdrawal in 9 to 10 months. Edward's plan would leave one brigade behind to protect the embassy and a couple hundred to guard humanitarian workers.

His plan is the most aggressive. Clinton's does not provide a target troop withdrawal, but says she would direct her Department of Defense, her Secretary of Sate, and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to begin withdrawal withing 60 days. She wants to move...but she is undeceive, like a color-blind guy nervously idling away at a traffic light.

Obama would immediately begin the withdrawal of one or two brigades a month (a brigade is roughly 1,500-3,500 troops). He would continue this until all combat troops were out, he anticipates this taking until late 2009.

All want to leave some troops in the region, but again, there are differences.

Obama and Clinton do not provide specifics, but simply say that they would leave some number of troops in the country to fight Al Qaeda and protect US interests in the country. Obama's plan would remove troops from secure areas first.

Edward's plan provides troop estimates. He would leave 3,500 to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect embassies and humanitarian workers. Edwards also wants quick reaction troops in friendly countries, in case of genocide and to stomp out Al Queda safe havens.

On a topic in which she once used as a means to attack Obama's experience, which countries in the region to negotiate with, Clinton's Iraq plan displays a classic example of politician blabber. Earlier, she criticized Obama's foreign policy inexperience because he said he would engage hostile countries like Syria. Under Clinton's plan she would gather a regional stabilization group including: key allies, other global powers and all bordering states. It is this last group that best highlights Clinton's aptitude for politician blabber (take a look at which country is placed snugly next to Iraq's Northwest boarder).

Instead of saying, oops, I guess I would also bring Syria to the table, my bad. She slipped the idea into the politically euphemistic, regional stabilization group. Umm, that's good blabber. Obama actually takes a stronger stance than Clinton. He says he would encourage Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to steam the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. A clenched fist, to Hillary's foam finger.

On the issue of continued training of the Iraqi security force, there are differences in all three plans.

Edwards would intensify the training, while Obama would tie our continued training to the stipulation that the Iraqi security forces do not become sectarian. Clinton has not really addressed the issue.

Under Obama and Clinton's campaigns the United Nations would be given a fairly prominent role. Obama would have the UN convene a constitutional convention. The council would address issues such an oil revenue sharing, De-Ba'thification and Federalism. He would also have the UN create a team that would investigate possible war crimes, in an effort to prevent genocide.

Clinton's plan involves a multi-billion dollar plan, lead by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, to address the needs of refugees. Additionally, to help curtail sectarian violence she advocates the appointment of a high level UN representative to help broker a peace deal between Iraq's three ethnic groups.

Edwards does not give the UN an explicit role in his Iraq plan.

Im sure I missed a ton, there is much more to cover. It may be incomplete, but there is a rough outline of each Democratic canidate's Iraq plan, including their, apparently elusive, differences.

Introducing the 'Look! This campaign actually has substance

The largely cosmetic election coverage thus far has led to a common dogma. The Republican front runners have different ideas and are varied on the issues, while the Democratic front runners are homogenous, their electability hinging on personality, not substance.

But this is lazy coverage. A very simply carousing of the candidate’s web sites and you can find many differences between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Yes, for the sake of conversation I will still consider Edwards a front-runner.

In what I am calling 'Look! This campaign actually has substance', over the next couple posts I will take salient issues, outline the candidate’s stance on each, and highlight the differences between the three.

First up immigration.

At the risk of being called a liar, you will have to forget what I said above about differences in policy, the Democratic front-runners stances on immigration are quite similar.

Each plan stresses securing the boarders, brining people out of the shadows and protecting families, but none explains how these goals would be accomplished.

Edwards and Obama's plans mirror one another, while Clinton's is underdeveloped and gives very little insight into what she would do if elected.

All of the candidates want to strengthen the boarders, but Edwards is the only one who steps outside of ambiguities and offers some concreteness to his plan. Under his immigration reform plan, Edwards would double the number of boarder patrol agents, both Obama and Clinton say that securing the boarders is important but offer no insight into how they would accomplish such security.

Another aspect implicit in all three plans is a path to citizenship. Both Obama and Edwards want those here illegally to pay (a yet undetermined) fine, learn English and get in the back of the line and wait their turn to become US citizens. Clinton's only says that she opposes a guest worker program, which Edwards supports, but does not further elaborate.

Clinton does emphasize protecting families. In early 2007 she authored an amendment which would have allowed legal immigrants, with green cards, to bring their immediate families up from Mexico. The amendment capped the number of family members at 87,000.

Overall, the Democratic front-runners all have weak, ill-defined immigration policies high on rhetoric and low on numbers. Obama has the most developed policy, but that is not saying much-akin to being the skinniest kid at fat camp.

Atheism: The electorate's last hurdle

A historic election. Two once seemingly insurmountable obstacles, being a women and being an African-American, now have taken their respective positions along side being a Catholic as once unelectable qualities.

These breakthroughs are evidence that the electorate can evolve and, indeed, expand its collective tolerances. But are there limits to this evolution?

As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama struggle for the right to be called the first, there sits a particular quality that seems light years away from even being considered electable - atheism.

There are several politicians who consider themselves atheists, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is the nations first member of Congress who has openly admitted his nontheism. Stark was outed by a constituent who entered his name into a contest sponsored by the Secular Coalition for America, which was looking for the highest elected official who considered themselves to be non-believers. For their effort, the constituent received $1,000.

Despite the efforts of Secular Coalition, Stark was the only one of 535 federal politicians forthright enough to admit that he had nontheist beliefs.

This reluctance of atheists to run for public office, or for politicians to admit their atheist views, is well founded. According to a recent gallup poll, less than half of the country said they would vote for an atheist candidate, even if they deemed that the person was well qualified otherwise.

This presents an interesting dichotomy. Over 70 percent of American's agree that their should be a separation of church and state, that's good. But, those same Americans refuse to elect a president who says that as commander-and-chief their decisions will not be influenced by religious underpinnings, confusing.

It is an interesting observation. People inherently want to claim that the church and state divide is a good thing, almost reactionary. But for many there appears to be a similar divide between what they practice and what they preach.

Because democracy is a function of free citizens electing public servants, the reluctance of these citizens to vote for an atheist president, in essence, takes a wrecking ball to the wall that has always, at least in theory, stood between religion and the state, thus creating a defacto collaboration between the two.

Noted atheist and apparent supporter of all things ironic, Ron Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, sums up the reaction that any openly atheist would receive if they were to run for president:

KING: Do you ever think of running for office?

REAGAN: No...

KING: You've got a pretty good name going in.

REAGAN: It seems to work for some people.

KING: Wouldn't hurt you.

REAGAN: No, I'm not really cut out to be a politician. You know that I sometimes don't know when to shut up. That could be a drawback. I'm an atheist. So there you go right there. I can't be elected to anything because polls all say that people won't elect an atheist.

The buzz surrounding the '08 election is that Washington is broken and this is the most important election of our lifetime. This is interesting. If our political system is so broke; corruption, waste, bathroom rendezvous, could it not be deduced that a system that elects only 'religious' men might be the problem? You would be hard pressed to find a voter who would not say that change is needed, again, reactionary. But what does real change mean? If the faithful screwed it up, why shouldn't the non-faithful at least be given a legitimate chance to help fix it? Whatever it is.

40 percent in Michigan support uncertainty over Clinton

So, evidently Hillary Clinton was not running by herself. Of the 592,798 Michigan Democrats who took part in the state's primary, 236,723 (40%) voted for uncommitted, rather than for Clinton. For an explanation of the Michigan primary and uncommitted voters go here.

This in many ways represents a defeat for Clinton. Not only did 40 percent of voters select uncommitted, essentially conceding the influence they have over their vote, but another 3,835 Michigan Democrats voted for Chris Dodd, a candidate no longer in the race.

This only furthers the argument that Clinton is unelectable. It has been stated and restated that in a general election 50 percent of voters said they would not vote for Clinton, but what does it mean when over 40 percent of Democrats wont?

Some speculate that Clinton's lead in Michigan was so large that had Obama and Edwards been on the ballot, Clinton would have still prevailed. Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, estimates that had the other two front-runners been on the ballot, 30 percent of the uncommitted vote would have gone to Obama and 10 percent to Edwards, still giving Clinton a comfortable lead.

But because no candidate, including Clinton, campaigned in the state, these numbers are speculative at best.

The 40 percent uncommitted is an impressive number, but in Clinton's defense, these numbers were probably inflated by the efforts of groups advocating the uncommitted vote and powerful state Democrats. Detroiters for Uncommitted and Michiganders for Uncommitted, both Obama backers, actively informed Michigan Democrats about their ability to vote uncommitted. And Rep. John Conyers, also an Obama supporter, urged voters to select uncommitted.

In the absence of a real Clinton campaign, these pseudo-Edwards and Obama campaigns really resonated with Michigan Democrats, thus 40 percent choose uncommitted.

However, despite this, the results in Michigan do represent a bit of egg on the face of the Clinton campaign, nothing earth shattering, but an embarrassment nonetheless.

A video put out by 'Mr. Uncommitted'

A list of journalists who gave campaign cash

In July MSNBC compiled a list of journalists who donated to various political campaigns from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007. Overall, 147 reporters, editors, producers, critics and a plethora of others appeared on the list, contributing over $300,000.

Some have legitimate arguments that their contributions are justifiable. Food critics, health reporters, technology correspondents, travel columnists and other non-politics, non-news positions, do not seem as ominous when making appearances on political contribution lists.

But others are in blatant violation of journalisms code of objectivity, and they know it. When the Muskegon Chronicle's Terry Judd was confronted with questions regarding $1,900 given to the Democratic National Committee, between 2004 through 2006, and $2,000 given to John Kerry in March 2004, both under his name, he was blunt:

"You caught me," Judd said. "I guess I was just doing it on the side." Judd was a reporter and chief of the newspaper's Grand Haven bureau.

But what immediately jumps off the page is the fact that nearly 90 percent of contributors gave to candidates, organizations, or causes that favored Democratic canidates. Of the 147 listed, 132 contributed to Democrats, 13 contributed to Republicans and 2 contributed to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates.

Although, many of those who contribute did not cover politics directly, it does give fodder to those who claim the media is a mouth piece of the left. Also of note, not one of the media members listed contributed to Independent canidates. Could this give insight into why smaller and independent canidates are often excluded from debates and find it very difficult to get any sort of press coverage?

Although, vastly outnumbered by journalists giving to Democrats, Republican media members gave more per capita. The average given to Republican canidates and causes was $7,850, while that number is $1,430.72 on the Democratic side.

Here is a breakdown of major broadcast and print organizations. Go here for the complete findings of the investigation.

On the broadcast side:

ABC: 3 contributors; $7,350
CBS: 5 contributors; $7,000
CNN: 1 contributor; $500
Fox News/affiliates: 4 contributors; $8,850
MSNBC: 1 contributor; $4,200

On the print side:

The Wall Street Journal: 3 contributors; $2,300
The New York Times: 3 contributors; $9,185
Los Angeles Times: 4 contributors; $5,250
New York Daily News: 2 contributors; $2,404
The Washington Post: 1 contribution; $250
The Chicago Trbune: 2 contributors; $2,200

GO PACK!!!!

As a Green Bay native all I have to say is...Go Pack GO!!!!

How Michigan Democrats can best use their votes

When Michigan's Supreme Court decided it was alright for the state to hold its primaries on Jan. 15, the move was against party rules and the state paid for its sins. In response to the state's early primary, Republicans lost half their delegates, reducing their number to 30. While state Democrats lost all of their 157 delegates.

As a result, the only candidates on the ballot for the Democrats are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, uncommitted and write-in, an overwhelmingly unimpressive collection. Because of this, Michigan Democrats face some interesting questions. Should they stay home if their Democratic candidate is not on the ballot? Vote for another Democratic candidate? Or use their vote to help try and sway the Republican results in way favorable to Democrats?

Many speculate that Michigan's delegates will eventually be seated. But because of the uncertainty, the Michigan Democratic Party is encouraging state Democrats to vote uncommitted. An uncommitted vote sends delegates to the national convention which are not bound to support a specific candidate. Rep. John Conyers, an Obama supporter, has begun running radio ads telling Obama supporters to vote undecided. Both pro-Edwards and pro-Obama groups have been hitting the ground going door-to-door and promoting the undecided cause. Reminiscent of Richard Pryor in Brewster's Million..."Vote none of the above."

The two campaigns are gitty about uncommitted, because according to Michigan law if over 15 percent of voters statewide, or in any district, vote uncommitted, the corresponding percentage of delegates can back any candidate. Both campaigns are hoping that Michigan's delegates will be re-seated, thus giving them a chance to get Michigan delegates without spending anytime, or money, there.

The Michigan Democratic Party is also behind the uncommitted push.

But, is that's what is best for Democratic voters in Michigan? There is no assurance that an uncommitted delegate will vote for who you support. Would it not be better to cast your ballot for who you think is second best, Democrat or Republican (remember, its an open primary), and have some influence over the impact of your vote? Rather, Democrats in Michigan are asked to vote uncommitted, potentially creating a delegate that is in no way bound to the voters will, in essence, creating another super delegate. It actually seems like Edwards, Obama and MDP are advocating an option that is contrary to voter interest.

Another angle may also lurk here. If enough voters vote for uncommitted, rather than for Hillary, it could be seen as a victory for the Obama and Edwards campaigns. Voters throwing their vote away in place of voting for Clinton, yeah that's a win.

I can not tell anyone what to do with their vote, that is for them to decide. But one thing I would recommend is do not cast your vote based on what Obama, Edwards or MDP says, look at the ballot decide who you think is next best and control your vote. Or just vote uncommitted, whatever.

An informative, yet boring, explanation of Michigan's Democratic Primary by Democratic Committee Chair Mark Brewer:

Ron Paul's suit fails to contain his crazy

In a twitchy, irritated interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Ron Paul's suit had a difficult time containing his crazy.

Responding to racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel newsletters, published in his name, Paul admitted that he was not human. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea," proclaimed Paul in a stuttering, hyper-active style that has become all his own.

I am not writing to implicate Paul as a racist, I don’t know him, he may be a racist and he may not. What caught my eye is the response to the accusations, one that can only be classified as Paul-esque.

Paul goes on to explain that racism is a collective idea and as a Libertarian he sees everyone as an important individual, thus he is above any racist thoughts. This seems to imply that Libertarians, including himself, are not human. Are those who he refers to as Libertarians immune to the feelings the rest of us sometimes have? Now, I am sure that many Libertarians (like non-Libertarians) are pure of racist thought, but for Paul to make a blanket statement proclaiming their incompatibility with any racist notion is, well, crazy.

If the Texan were to get the nomination, Stephen Colbert would seem to be a perfect fit for VP. Colbert is fond of saying that he does not see color, he knows he is white, but only because people tell him. That sentiment would seem to meld nicely with Paul's belief that, "I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups." A Paul/Colbert ticket could have the makings of one of the most open minded in our nation’s history (Read, sarcasm).

But in Paul's defense, he does cite Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes, as if dropping the name of two civil rights icons sufficiently answers question regarding passages that describe car jacking as, "the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

While the content of Paul' statements are crazy in their own right, the way he articulated them was, lets just say, less than presidential. Paul has carved out a niche as the candidate who does not have to appear stoic, poised or presidential. His grassroots supporters respond well to his non-presidential approach that Paul has adopted in interviews and debates. But generally, this disjointed style has come across as maverick and populist, rather than crazy and crazy--as it did in the Blitzer interview.

Paul's campaign has been given lots of press because of his die hard supporters and his ability to organize fund raising days in which his supporters flood his campaign with contributions via the internet. In November, Paul received $4.3 million in one day and in December he surpassed that mark collecting $6 million. All told Paul raised $19 million in the fourth quarter, only Mitt Romney first quarter totals are better.

But despite being awash in funds, Paul has been unable to make his campaign legitimate. He finished fifth in all three early contests (Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming) and is polling sixth in Michigan and South Carolina, in both cases trailing the sleepy Fred Thompson.

Paul's over zealous, pro-constitution message has never truly caught on with anyone beside his die hard 'Paulies'. The surfacing of these racist newsletters and Paul's crazed rebuttal to them, seem to be the final nails in the Paul '08 coffin.

Take a gander.

The Democratic Party's Board of Directors

Politically powerful, working in relative anonymity and pulling the strings that make the Democratic party dance like Pinocchio, pre-flesh, they are the Democratic Party's Board of Directors.

As you may have guessed, the Democrat's board is populated by Governors, Senators and Party Chairman, all have varying degrees of influence within the Democratic party. These influential people, called super delegates, play an imperative role in the Democratic Party’s nominating process. Supers are uncommitted, meaning they are free to pledge their support for any of the Democratic candidates; they are independent of the will of the voters.

But that is not what I would like to discuss here. Instead I would like to ask who the super delegates are? And what impact will they have on the '08 election?

Under the system, if an underdog candidate begins winning primaries and looks like they may win the nomination, but would ultimately fair poorly in the general election, the super delegates can swoop in and rescue the party from its own self-defeating spontaneity-- at least that’s how they envision the system. Currently, Clinton is dominating the super delegates, her 159 vastly out number Barack Obama's 53 and John Edward's 34. There are 217 supers yet to make their allegiances known.

With that in mind, what does Hillary Clinton's hoarding of the supers mean for the Democratic Party? Are there apprehensions about giving the nomination to a black candidate? Are the supers jittery about Obama’s inexperience? Or is it simply an indication that experience and Capital Hill connections still matter?

I would hope it is not an issue of race and I do not. It is theoretically a factor and I wanted to at least present the idea.

As Obama gains momentum some in the party might be uneasy about handing over the reins to a candidate with such limited heavy-lifting experience. It is a time of great international turmoil, if the Democrats regain the presidency after eight years and it turns out that Obama was not ready, it would be a disaster for the party. Clinton’s connections and experience also appear to be paying off, among their Senate colleagues with super delegate status, Clinton leads Obama 11 to 4.

Whatever the reasons, it seems undeniable that the movers-and-shakers in the Democratic Party are thus far behind Clinton. It will be interesting to see if she maintains her overwhelming super support as the remaining 200+ members of America’s Board pick their horses.


A list of the super delegates and who they support

Maine: 21 delegates, no respect

Resembling more a political afterthought than an important election year state, Maine has caucuses fast approaching. Although, I will concede that practically Maine holds very little significance in the nomination process and it is weird for a Milwaukee resident, with no ties to Maine, to care about the little state. But awash in talks of Super Tuesday I wanted to take a look.

Maine holds its Republican caucus on February 1 and its Democratic caucus on February 10. Politically the state assumes a shade of blue, in 2004 Kerry won by a sizeable margin. Environmental issues are of particular importance because its vast natural resources prop up the state's economy. Voters are an independent group who vote their minds. Despite the Blue reputation of the state, both of its Senators hail from the GOP, and until recently the state had an independent governor.

First the Republicans. Two factors make Maine particularly insignificant on the Republican side. First, is its proximity to Super Tuesday. It appears as if Maine will experience a sort of Wyoming-affect. Wedged between Iowa and New Hampshire, Wyoming was the campaign season’s first forgettable caucus. A similar fate is most likely in store for Maine's Republicans. Second, Maine's Republican caucus is non-binding, meaning that the Feb. 1 vote is simply to take the state's temperature; Republicans do not choose who gets their state's 21 delegates until their May convention.

There is not a lot of polling data, whatever that means, but so far Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have set up teams in Maine. John McCain appears to have the inside track, 23 state law makers endorse him along with the Maine Sunday Telegram (editorial boards love Mac).

The state is struggling to evolve its economy from its manufacturing roots and is struggling with ways to adapt. Candidates touting green technologies could make inroads with voters, because they are seen as both a way to help re-vitalize the state's economy and play to the strong sentiment of environmentalism in the state.

Although, there is no recent polling data, the last one conducted by Critical Insights (10/24) showed Mitt Romney with a four-point lead over Rudy Giuliani. These numbers are most likely different now, but Romney would seem a good fit. His experience, familiarity in the Northeast and his perception as the Republican front-runner best equipped to handle the economy bodes well for him in Maine.

Now the Democrats, who despite having their caucus only days after Super Tuesday, may carry some significance. If New Hampshire is any indication, the Democratic race is going to be hotly contested for the foreseeable future, meaning things may not be decided on Feb. 5. If that is the case, Maine's 24 delegates become a hot commodity amoungst Democratic front-runners.

Hillary Clinton has the endorsement of Gov. John E. Baldacci, former Gov. Governor Kenneth M. Curtis and Emmett Beliveau, son of veteran Maine Democrat Severin Beliveau. While Barack Obama gained the endorsement of the Sunday Evening Telegram, as well as House Speaker Glen Cummings. John Edwards has gained a myriad of endorsements, but it appears that after New Hampshire he wont play much of a factor.

With little polling data, it is tough to predict which Democratic front-runner will win in Maine. Because their is little practical difference between Obama and Clinton, the one who carries momentum coming out of Super Tuesday will most likely have an advantage in Maine.

So there it is, with all the talk of Super Tuesday, California and Florida, a look at the small habitually overlooked state of Maine. Tough to pick the winners (Romney and Obama, perhaps?), but I felt bad for little ole Maine and their afterthought status.

Do Independent Voters Matter?

It has oft been stated that the Independent voter is the one who is to ultimately decide who our next president will be. Democrats and Republicans increasingly vie for the independent vote, now having to appeal both to their party's followers and to some ambiguous mass, collectively headlined the independent voter.

But as candidates from the big two continue to court independent votes, the independence of these independents is being usurped. Registering as an independent is supposed to be an indictment on the big two parties, it is the culmination of years of disenchantment with the partisan news speak disseminating from both directions, well, sort of.

The system itself works against the independence of independents. Twenty-six primaries are considered closed. In closed primaries participants must register as a Democrat or Republican and are then are bound to vote for one of that party's nominees. These primaries exclude independent voters altogether.

Florida, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are among the states that close their primaries to Independents.

Most of the remaining primaries are considered open. These allow participant to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are registered with. Open primaries allow Independents to vote, but exclude Independent candidates from getting their names on the ballot. In other words, Independent voters are welcomed, provided they vote for a Democrat or Republican.

For example, when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped his party affiliation, it was widely anticipated that he was planning a run for the oval office. Bloomberg denies the speculation, but if he were to run, his independent status would exclude him from many primaries, including New Hampshire.

Independent candidates are also excluded from debates. It becomes difficult for an Independent candidate to enter into the same sentence with sustainability if they are not allowed to be heard. This is one of the reasons Ron Paul cites when explaining his reluctance to run as an Independent.

Touting the importance of the independent vote is one thing, but allowing those voters to assert their independence is quite another. Until the system becomes more accommodating to the Independent voter, it appears their importance will continue to be linked solely to an ability to get other mainstream candidates elected.

And as warm and fuzzy as it makes everyone feel to proclaim the importance of the Independent, until they are given the independence to vote for who the y see fit, their true importance is cursory at best.

The Other 24

Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, so what?

It was a surprise and no doubt a shot in the butt for a campaign that was struggling to hit singles. Winning New Hampshire could ensure a tight race throughout, rather than domination on the part of Obama. The vote was close, Clinton received 39 percent compared to Obama's 37, but what is of vivid intrigue is the 24 percent unaccounted for here.

Clinton played the role of Appalachian State, and won. Evidently emotion is in. What’s next? Bill Richardson on the Today Show, clasped fist held against a quivering chin, holding back tears as he describes his love for freedom. It might help him sniff double didgets.

By personalizing, Hillary did soften her image and dulled her ornery reputation, but enough to dig into the other 24 percent once lower tier candidates begin to drop out?

Numbers are going to change from primary to primary and, of course, the “other 24” will inevitably turn into another number. But just for fun, let's assume that tonight’s numbers will remain static.

That means if Edward's drops out, 17 percent of the vote would be up for grabs. Because she has established herself as the experienced candidate, the one who can hit the ground running, Hillary's persona does not fit the campaign's current buzz word, change. Juxtaposed against Obama's charming and confident change ethos, it seems likely that a majority of Edward's voters would support Obama rather than Clinton.

The icy exchange between Clinton and Edward's supporters this morning, while Clinton was visiting polling stations, also seems a good indication that Clinton and Edwards’s supporters are as compatible as oil and water. When Clinton went to shake the hands of a group of Edward's supporters, they refused, the entire time chanting, "The status quo has got to go!" Congenial? I think not.

Clinton can grab voters from Biden, Dodd and Richardson. But Edwards’s supporters, dazzled by great smiles and a populous message, will leap to Obama without giving it much of a second thought. In fact, the transition may be so smooth that some may not even know that their allegiances had switched. After all, the only person who conveys a better populist message than Edwards is Obama.

It is these voters, undecided in a sense, that will ultimately decide who gets the Democratic nomination. There is already a ticket of sorts formed on the Democratic side, Obama/Edwards ’08. Edwards could informally be included into the Obama campaign, his 17 percent share of the other 24 is Obama’s to lose. And it is this unofficial affiliation, Obama’s inroad into the other 24, which will ultimately win him the nomination.

Mc-Mentum

It seemed as if a once mighty, likeable, centrist politician was now failing. His maverick image buried under an affinity for the troop surge and surrounded by a sentiment that said his presidential aspirations were now caput - things were looking bleak.

A GQ piece entitled "The Unmaking of a President" chronicled how a man who was seen as an obvious front runner for his parties '08 nomination had floundered. "The most sudden political collapses of our time," about as cheery as a Dick Cheney Christmas, but exactly how GQ writer Robert Draper described a descent into mediocrity.

For all intents and purposes, John McCain was done. His poll numbers languished in the scant teens, some 15 points behind then front-runner Rudy Guliani. Still facing flack for his support of the troop surge, his image as a maverick, poof, was gone.

Since then, things have changed for the Arizona Senator. An acceptable third in Iowa and a likely win in New Hampshire could give McCain good momentum headed into Michigan.

Mitt Romney, a Michigan native, currently leads Mike Huckabee by 1 point in Michigan - McCain sits six points back in third. But consider this, in 2000 McCain beat George Bush in the Michigan primary by a convincing margin, 51 percent to 43 percent. This despite the fact that Bush had both the endorsement and promises of then Governor John Engler, who assured Bush that his state would act as a buffer for the Bush campaign.

Like in 2000, this year McCain won the endorsement of the Detroit Free Press, adding to a collection of newspaper endorsements already including the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe. These endorsements, combined with one from Joe Liebermann, are what gave McCain the spark his campaign needed to reenergize.

Additionally, helping McCain’s chances in Michigan are the fact that many Democratic front runners are not on the ballot. This helps McCain because blue-collar Democrats are much more likely to cross battle lines for McCain than Romney.

If McCain wins New Hampshire and is able to steal Michigan from Romeny, he becomes not only legitimate, but the Republican front-runner. This McCain as front-runner is the worst case scenario for Democrats. As Obama emerges as the head-and-shoulders candidate for the Democrats, the Republicans are struggling to present a strong unifying candidate.

If McCain could re-gain his status as a rock star politician, trade-in his wrinkled frown for the Maverick image that once served him so well, not only could he win the Republican nomination, but he could also serve as a real contender to Obama, or whom ever the Democrats put forward.

The experience and battle-testedness of McCain makes him the only real threat to Democrats in the general election. He can play the experience card on a plethora of issue, but what will make or break McCain's chances is his ability to reassume his once Paul-esque image as a Maverick. Every candidate has jumped on the change express, but only a few are believable. For the Democrats, the candidate with this credibility appears to be Obama. McCain needs to assume that role for Republicans.

People once believed he was a great change agent, a tough no nonsense politician who would stand up to the president and, well, change things. If McCain can again morph into this unifying figure he has a real shot.

Pulling the plug on Clinton

"Whatever happens tomorrow, we're going on." Huh? Not exactly the sentiment of a strong, healthy campaign.

But it is exactly how Hillary Clinton greeted news Monday that she now trails Barack Obama in New Hampshire. He not only has wrestled New Hampshire away from the once Mrs. Inevitable, but he blew past her. Obama gained 11 points on Clinton and now holds a ten point lead, one day before the state's primary.

This surge should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is an indication of both what Obama did and what Clinton didn't do. Obama did win Iowa, and by default collected the momentum that accompanies a Hawkeye state win. But also, Clinton failed to realize that as her momentum faded in Iowa, efforts to save her chances in the state were useless.

Instead of bolstering her efforts in Iowa, Clinton should have shifted her focus to New Hampshire, a state she once led by 20 points. Not only could a shifted focus have helped her save New Hampshire, but it would have had the equally important affect of saving us all from the joke that was the Hill-a-copter.

I realize that many consider it a campaigning taboo to neglect Iowa, after all it is, well, Iowa. But what did Clinton's increased time and resources get her, an opportunity to give a very nice team player concession speech? It appears as if she may get the opportunity to give several more of those.

What Clinton should have realized is that she could sustain a loss in Iowa and still get the nomination, but she could not sustain a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The former is a tough break, but something that a candidate as resourced as Clinton can overcome. But the latter is something that has only been done once. In her defense, the once was by hubby Bill in 1992-so if anyone can do it it may be her.

But, unlike Bill, an unlikeability factor accompanies the princess of pantsuits, something difficult to overcome. It is widely reported that half the country said they would refuse to vote for Hillary, but even beyond the numbers, there is something about her that just makes her hard to like for everyone but established supporters. Maybe the months of front runner attacks have worked, maybe not. But what ever it is, Clinton seems unable to attract new voters at a time when she needs them most.

From the candidate who could not lose, to defending her campaigns ability to continue in the wake of a New Hampshire defeat, Clinton's campaign is on life support. And it now appears that Granite state residents are poised to pull the plug.

Huckabee: a one hit wonder

Well, Mike Huckabee won Iowa. This will provide him the momentum he needs to propel ahead and become more than just a one hit wonder, right? Finally, we have the little guy who will stick it to the political machine, the blueprint is written.

Well, not so fast.

In a state where some polls have him in fourth place, New Hampshire is being less kind to Huckabee than the more religiously minded Iowaegans. An Alan Keyes-like finish in New Hampshire could be the proverbial nail that pops the Huckabee balloon, his Howard Dean falling from grace moment.

True, Huckabee is fairing well in some of the primaries following New Hampshire--he is second in Michigan, Florida, California and leads in South Carolina.

However, Huckabee is likely to not only lose in New Hampshire, but get beat bad. He is over 20 points behind McCain and over 15 to Romney, New Hampshire residents have given him only $33,350, fifth among republican candidates. And in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire’s largest, the FEC lists only 14 total Huckabee contributors. Indications are that things aren’t going to be pretty.

And if the unprecedented does occur and a candidate finishes first in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire, the media would be paying closer attention than Dennis Kucinich at a UFO convention. And with limited resources to combat the negative attention, the fallout from a New Hampshire drubbing would have a palpable impact on Huckabee.

Considering no eventual winner of the Republican nomination has ever finished worse than second in the Granite State, it is tough to buy an argument suggesting that Huckabee’s campaign could be the first. Fergus Cullen, New Hampshire's Republican Party Chairman, says that in his state Mitt Romney's organization is well orchestrated and doubts that Huckabee can win New Hampshire based on winning Iowa alone.

Even in South Carolina, Huckabee's cushion state, things are not as rosy as the poll numbers indicate. State party chairman, Katon Dawson, says it will be hard for Huckabee to win his state without money, something the Hucksters lack.

And with the Mitt machine beginning to churn out attack ads, Huckabee does not have the resources to mount any legitimate television counterattack. The momentum meter was pegged for Huckabee before Iowa, he won, but his poll numbers dipped leading up to the caucuses.

Huckabee does have the urban legend that is Chuck Norris in his corner, which could be good, after all his chief export is pain. But only time can tell if the flannel clad, blue jean wearing Norris will be able to help save the Huckabee campaign if his bubble bursts.