Hillary Clinton: Vetted. Just like hemorrhoids

Perhaps the most tiresome, overused talking point of the Clinton campaign is the assertion that she has been "vetted" after 35 years of experience.

Now, never mind that the highlights of those 35 years were: 1) Completely screwing up health care reform, in spite of having solid Democratic majorities in Congress; and 2) Voting to support the Iraq war.

But as far as the "vetted" part goes, well, yes she's been vetted. Kinda like hemorrhoids. Kinda like Paris Hilton's singing. Kinda like... well, you get the idea.

She's been vetted. Thoroughly. And after 35 years, America has decided it does not want her as president.

[Update: Yeah, I know, I'm being harsh. Sorry Hillary, but while I defended you earlier in this cycle -- and for years before that -- your campaign has sunk so low these last few weeks that I just don't feel the need to do it anymore]

My old buddy is the new SNL Obama!

So hey, this is waaaaay cool. Well, for me at least. And for Fred, of course.

After much anticipation leading up to SNL yesterday re: who would play Obama, it turns out that Fred Armisen got the nod. Personally, I think he kicked butt, but hey... I'm biased. I actually grew up with Fred, and he was one of my best buddies in high school (and still a hell of a nice guy, and still the same old Fred, even with his fame).

Congrats, Fred!

heee heee heee....

Gotta love it...

FISA, girl-on-girl action, and perspective from the Google

For those of us political junkies deeply steeped in campaign news on a 24/7 basis, it sometimes helps to take a step back, and use "the Google" to see what most folks are actually focused on.

Now, granted, the Obama campaign has taken America by storm, but just to put things in perspective:

• "Barack Obama" = 6,210,000 search results
• "Britney Spears" = 79,800,000

And yes, some issues are hot in our world, but....

• "FISA" = 463,000 results
• "Girl on girl action" = 604,000

The nomination process might be captivating us junkies, but...

• "Superdelegates" = 3,280,000
• "Superbowl" = 18,500,000

And we might be digging deeply into policy specifics, but...

• "Hillary Clinton" AND "health care" = 508,000
• "Paris Hilton" AND "sex tape" = 955,000

The point of all this? Well, number one, that I am happy to finally have a "research" excuse to Google things like "girl on girl action." But more importantly, perhaps it should give us some perspective as we move (hopefully soon) into the general election.

At a meta level, we shouldn't be surprised that humans are a bit more interested in sex than politics. After all, when it comes down to it, we're basically just well dressed monkeys. At a meta level, we know this. But as the election season moves on, and as we get more and more into this stuff on a detailed, granular level, let's keep in mind that not everyone is like us, and not everyone has the same priorities.

Does this mean we should start dressing our candidates in slinky outfits and start having rallies at "Hooters?" No. But as we work to entice voters to our side, let's remember that the percentage of true political junkies out there is fairly small. Our target audience -- voters -- are not clones of us.

And let's remember that for the general electorate, we might need to start engaging on a much more basic level. Not because they're stupid, but because they're simply not as focused. Well, some are stupid. But not all.

But don't get too down, there's still hope:

• "Politics" = 435,000,000
• "Porn" = 275,000,000

Hey, maybe we well dressed monkeys are evolving after all.

(cross posted at DailyKos)

Just say neigh... Nader

Oh gees, according to Ben Smith over at Politico, it looks like Ralph Nader is fixing to run again.

Now here's thing... Nader has every right to run. Seriously, it's a free country, and I don't really have a lot of respect for the people who rip him a new one just for exercising his constitutional rights. Heck, I even met the guy, back in 2004, to talk about his run that cycle. And you know what? He impressed me.

Okay, so all that being said, Ralph, if you're reading this... please don't run. Not because you don't have the right, but because you could make a difference... again. And after 8 years of Bush rule, we can't afford 4 years more.

BareNaked Pundits 2.0 is Coming...

Yep, we're upgrading. Big time. Stay tuned. It's gonna be cool, baby.

$50 Reward for best comment

Thinking of leaving a comment? Well, go ahead and do it, and you might just win $50.

On March 1st, BareNaked Pundits will officially award $50 to the best comment during the month of February. Why? A few reasons:

• The site is new, we want to build up some critical mass, and this seems like a fun test.
• Philosophically, we like the idea of sharing some of the $$ with those who contribute -- including commenters. And as the site grows, we might want to try more of this.

Here's the guidelines:

• "Best" comment will be determined by a combination of: creativity, humor, cleverness, and perceptiveness. Basically, whatever makes us say, "wow, what a great comment."
• You can post your comment on ANY post on the site, made during the month of February.
• Winner will be determined at the sole discretion and outright whim of John Hlinko, the editor of BareNakedPolitics. If it's a close call, we might do a poll or something.
• The $50 will be sent via Paypal. So when you post your comment, don't just do it as "anonymous," unless you include something in there (URL, whatever) that lets us confirm who left it.
• If we can email you (if it's in the post), we will. Otherwise, check back on March 1st.

So leave your comments today. You might just win $50... that's right... a (searching, searching...) "Grant" just for you.

Best political ad ever?

This is from Paul Wellstone's first campagin for Senate, back in 1990. It's a parody of the Michael Moore film, "Roger and Me," but with the challenger trying to find the incumbent (Senator Rudy Boschwitz) to debate him. It's funny as hell, you can't help but love Wellstone, and not surprisingly, it generated more PR/earned media (aka "free showings") than just about any political ad in history.

Oh yeah, and that year, Paul Wellstone was the only challenger to defeat an incumbent senator.

Fine, I won't mess with Texas... but I might slap around New Mexico a bit

An outlier right now, but this would be pretty cool if it's the start of a trend: Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton in Texas 48% to 42%, according to an American Research Group poll.

Oh, and New Mexico has officially declared Hillary Clinton the winner of that primary, after taking only 81 years to count the votes. Or a few weeks or something....

John McCain & Miss Teen South Carolina

Brilliant mashup. And... scarily on point.

Happy Valentine's Day

"Buck Naked Politics" - Awesome

I love it. Creeping naked-ism is spreading. Check it out, at Buck Naked Politics. (and thanks to BNP for the link!)

The Audacity of "Nope"

A funny thing happened on the way to the Democratic nomination... America heard that a certain candidate was "inevitable" ... but America said, "nope."

Look, I'm not one of the legions of Hillary haters. Far from it. I think she's smart as hell, and I think she gets way too much grief from way too many small minded people.

But I will say, the whole "inevitability" mantra pushed by her campaign for the last year really annoyed the hell out of me. Now, I'm not slamming anyone in particular -- there are good and bad people on every campaign (and as I've learned, some truly awful people as well).

But the inevitability thing was pushed by her campaign, and pushed really, really, really hard by certain specific members. To the point where it frankly pissed off a lot of folks here inside the beltway. Not the "fat cats in smoke filled rooms," but good people who have worked hard in campaigns. People who really want a Democratic president, but... who were frankly turned off by over-zealous Clinton campaign folk who implied they were morons for not accepting the inevitable.

They turned off a lot of potential allies, and now we're seeing a lot of that coming home to roost in waves of flowing schadenfreude.

Were it not for the presence of Barack Obama, hey, maybe this strategy would've worked. Maybe America -- including the beltway crowd -- would've fallen into line. Maybe the "get on the bandwagon or be thrown under it" attitude would've been effective.

Maybe. But back here in the real world, America didn't react kindly to being pushed. And America pushed back -- and said nope.

The Write Stuff: The Writers are Back

Oh thank God, it's confirmed. The writers are back!

Things I hate about cell phone services

Here's two things I hate, to start:

1) When I call 411 and get routed to the crappy cell phone info service, instead of the local one that actually has a friggin clue where things actually are. I seriously doubt if I get the right number more than half the time. In the old days, when I'd say something like, "I think it's down in the East Village," the person on the other end would be a New Yorker who actually knew what the hell the East Village was. Now, it's someone on the other side of the world who can only spout off address after address, with no regard to actual neighborhood. And again, I doubt if I get the right number more than half the time.

2) "To page this person, press 5 now... to leave a call back number, press 7... to send a lightning bolt up their rectum, please press...." Look, dammit, I just want to leave a message. If I can just say what I want to say, why the hell would I want to page someone? And what does paging someone even mean? Why must I go through this list of useless options every damned time I call? Rule of thumb for cell phone companies -- if an option only gets clicked 1 out of every 1,000 times, then don't make people listen to it EVERY DAMNED TIME.

Potomac primary today: Our chance to pick a better neighbor

It's primary day here in the District of Columbia, or as we call it, "our chance to pick a new neighbor who doesn't suck."

You may be shocked -- SHOCKED -- to hear that I plan to vote for Barack Obama. And you know what? After 14 months of waiting, dating back to the DraftObama.org days... it's gonna feel pretty damned good.

Superdelegates would be way cooler if they dressed like this

Right now, I'm really not that thrilled with the prospect of superdelegates choosing the Democratic nominee. And I'm frankly really, really, really not thrilled with the possibility that they could vote against the candidate with the most pledged (elected) delegates, and tip the balance towards the other one, clearly subverting the will of the people.

But if they actually showed up at the convention dressed like this, I'd be fine with them doing whatever they wanted.



Especially if they flew in, even if it were just fake flying with wires like they do in all those stage productions of Peter Pan. That would be really cool. Way cooler than those stage productions of Peter Pan, which in fact are not all that cool.

Nostalgia: "Draft Obama" TV ad from 2006

Well, as some folks here know, I had the pleasure of helping lead DraftObama.org back before the campaign began.

And... it just occurred to me that the TV ad we put out was actually launched 14 months ago. I've got nothing profound to say about that, just a "holy crap" realization that time really does fly.

So, for your viewing (and nostalgia) pleasure, I've included that TV ad right here. Enjoy it, but don't get *too* nostalgic until this thing is actually done.


Big, big, big thanks to all the people who worked so hard on this and other draft movements, and big, big, big thanks to all the people working like crazy on the actual campaign.

Mmmm.... I love the smell of hope in the morning.

(cross posted at DailyKos)

BREAKING: Obama Beats Clinton in California!!!

That is -- ahem -- he just won a Grammy Award in the "Spoken Word" category, beating out former president Bill Clinton:

Obama on Sunday won the spoken word Grammy for the audiobook version of his blockbuster tome "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream." It marked his second statuette, following a win in 2006 for "Dreams From My Father," an audiobook for a memoir first published in 1995.

Bill Clinton was seeking his third Grammy with "Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World," a call to public service. Another former Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, also was in the running, with "Sunday Morning in Plains: Bringing Peace to a Changing World," a collection of Bible lessons. Carter won the award last year.

From Reuters (thanks to Jennifer Clare at Daily Kos for the heads up).

Out of curiosity, is there some kind of rule that only ex- of future presidents can do spoken word stuff?

Does Politico's Ben Smith Ever Sleep?

I've got another addiction -- Ben Smith's blog, over at Politico.

Now, Ben covered covered me back during the 2004 cycle, when I was running DraftWesleyClark.com. And as far as I'm concerned, any reporter who covers me is instantly elevated to Pulitzer status.

But this isn't just about my massive ego, it's about the work he's been doing this cycle. Ben has been covering the Democratic race for president, and has broken a slew of stories the last few weeks. And he seems to be doing updates 24/7, which is great for a political junkie like me. When this race is over, I hope they give him one hell of a vacation. Or raise. Or both.

Writers' Strike Over! (That's the first draft, at least)

Word has it that a tentative deal has been reached in the WGA strike. Thank GOD. It still has to be formally approved, blessed, sprinkled with holy water or something, but... the WGA itself is reporting it, so that's surely a good sign.

Now maybe I can finally hire someone halfway decent to write this stuff.

Clinton Campaign Shamelessly Pimps Controversy over Earlier Pimping

As you might've already heard, there's a bit of a kafuffle going on about the term "pimp." See TPM for full story, but in short... MSNBC commentator David Shuster made a comment about how the Clinton campaign was "pimping" Chelsea Clinton by having her make calls to super-delegates.

Here's the video:

Now, granted, it wasn't the most appropriate term to use. But anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the last 20 years knows that the term isn't to be taken literally, but rather is a slang phrase for "shamelessly exploit." And anybody with half a brain can see that that's how Shuster meant it.

Here's the conversation that should have ensued:

• Clinton Campaign: "Hey David, that was kind of a jerky thing to say"
• David Shuster: "What? I just meant it as in shamelessly exploit. It's slang."
• CC: "Yeah, but she's a 20-something woman, and clearly this could be taken as sexist or demeaning in this case."
• DS: "Oh crap, yeah. Good point. I didn't mean it that way. Sorry."
• CC: "No prob. It's a one-time aberration, mistakes happen, apology accepted."

Seems reasonable, right? But here's how the Clinton campaign advisor Howard Wolfson reacted on a call with reporters tonight (via TPM):

Wolfson denounced the comment as "disgusting" and "beneath contempt," adding: "It's the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network."
Then Wolsfon added: "You have to question whether or not there is a pattern here on the part of the network." He added: "Is this part of a pattern? I don't know, but [it's] beneath contempt." Then, unbidden, he concluded: "I'll say this. We've done a number of debates on that network...I at this point can't envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made."

Okay, can we have a reality check here? "Beneath contempt?" Weird speculating about a "pattern?" Ruling out debates forever? Folks, this is MSNBC, for God's sake, home of liberal icon Keith Olberman. It's not Fox News.

Should he have called out Shuster? Sure. Should he have condemned him this vociferously and pronounced MSNBC "dead in my eyes?" Good grief, no.

Here's the part that bothers me... The Clintons are a frighteningly intelligent couple, and there's no way they misinterpreted this. This was clearly a calculated move, one done for political & PR purposes.

Think about that -- the Clinton campaign is (sorry, but there's no other word) "pimping" this whole controversy.

"Sale on irony! Aisle 5!"

Gay Marriage More Popular than George Bush!

Well, hey, maybe there's hope for America after all! Hot off the presses from AP:

"It's almost as if people can barely stand the thought of President Bush and Congress anymore. Bush reached his lowest approval rating in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on Friday as only 30 percent said they like the job he is doing, including an all-time low in his support by Republicans." (full article)

Now, 30% is probably being charitable. Other polls have already shown him in the 20s. But hey, let's give it to him.

So... that means the following are all officially more popular than George Bush:

• Gay Marriage: 35%
• Doctor-assisted suicide: 49%
• Painful rectal itch: 31%*

And finally... 60% of Americans now favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- exactly twice the number who favor George Bush serving in the White House.

Maybe there's hope after all.

(*Among proctologists. Estimated figure)

[UPDATE: And for the record... why in the world is this country still preventing gays and lesbians from serving in the military? Can we please just stop being stupid already?]

Okay, a Better Pic of Me and Barack Obama

Okay, now this one... I actually like. I still look kinda fat, but hey, the dorky factor is lower at least.

My Dorky Picture with Barack Obama

Oh dear, now that the guy is looking more and more likely to become president, I suppose there's no way I can hide this any longer:

This comes from a meeting I had with Senator Obama back in April of 2007, shortly after he entered the race. I had previously worked with my buddy Ben Stanfield on the Draft Obama effort he started. Anyway, the Senator had us drafters in for a meeting, where he thanked us and we talked grassroots strategy for a while. The really cool part -- he actually listened, asked questions, and genuinely strategized. Sounds like a simple thing, but here inside the beltway, it's not always the case.

But I digress. The real point here -- do I look dorky or what? I mean, the tie is all over the place, as is the gut, and the hair is... well, not having a good hair day.

Now I've gotten a haircut since then, lost 20 pounds (thank you 10K's and Splenda). But of course, *this* is how I looked with the future president. Why couldn't they have taken my picture on this day, when I was frolicking on the beach:

Where Laziness Meets Obsession

I just found myself feeling irritated that I hadn't brought my laptop home from work... meaning I had to get off the couch to check results online, thus prying myself away from CNN. Genuinely annoyed that I couldn't watch both at the same time.

Wow. That's lazy.

No Exit Polls... but Promising Sign for Obama?

It's Super Tuesday, I'm dying to know what's going on, but alas... no exit polls.

In the past, we've usually seen some start to leak before the polls closed. Often as early as 1pm. But ever since the 2004 debacle, when exit polls showed Kerry winning, it's become pretty much impossible to get early ones, even crappy ones.

Apparently, there's a much tighter rein on them these days.

But if you're into reading tea leaves, then you might want to check out Intrade, a market where you can bet on the outcome of elections. For the first time in the entire election cycle, Intrade traders are now giving Barack Obama a higher chance of winning than Hillary Clinton. Just slightly higher -- 52.9% vs 47.9% as of 5:26 pm -- but higher nonetheless.

This switcheroo just happened about 2 hours ago. Maybe evidence of betting by some who really did get early evidence of exit polls? Perhaps. Or perhaps just a coincidence.

Now, arguably, you can only put so much credence on these things, since they're still just predictive markets. And God knows, they've been wrong in the past. Still though, it's real people putting up real money. And... that seems a lot more predictive to me than just the usual pontification.

Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble Hawking Winston Cigarettes

Wow, the 1950s really were a magical time...

Do the Fox News Guys Speak English?

One of them just called Jay Leno, "Jay Leeno" and the other one followed up with a truly bizarre pronunciation of "Illinois." ("Ill-in-nowee").

Obama Surges in "T-Shirt Primary" - Obama 47%, Clinton 18%

Folks, I've mentioned a few times in diaries how I'd become intrigued by watching T-shirt sales on CafePress.com as an indicator of how "hot" or "not " a candidate was. (full details why below the fold).

And I mentioned how, CafePress has set up a CafePress "Election Meter where you can track sales and product creations by candidate, over time. Well, here's a fascinating nugget from this past week:

After being nearly tied two weeks ago in weekly candidate sales (Obama at 28% of all sales, Hillary at 26%), Obama surged last week to 48%, while Hillary fell to 19%.

This is the biggest single change we've seen since we started geekily monitoring these numbers (my company has been doing some work for CafePress, which is how we first came across this data).

Is it scientific? Hell no. But... seems to me it's a hell of an interesting tea leaf to read when gauging grassroots enthusiasm or trying to figure if a candidate is waxing or waning.

So here's the question -- might there be something more here than just a fun coincidence? Sure, it stands to reason that more popular candidates will sell more gear than less popular ones. I mean, that's a duh.

But here's a theory I will pose -- sales of gear will both rise and drop in advance of rises and drops in a candidates poll ratings. Why? A few reasons:

1. The hardcore political types who pay close attention are the ones most likely to buy the gear. They are also the ones most likely to be the "mavens" in their communities -- the ones who will ultimately sway friends, family, etc., to support their candidates. So if you see them start to buy shirts, gear, etc., the odds are they are also evangalizing to others. The first part --- buying gear -- takes place right away. But the wooing of others takes a bit more time, both for direct wooing, and the ripples out.
   
2. On the flip side, I would argue that if a candidate's support starts to weaken, people will stop taking strong actions (buying gear) before they switch preference. If I'm strongly supportive of a candidate, I'll want the world to know. But if I'm supportive but questioning, I might hedge my bets. Sure, I'll still tell the pollster I'm supportive, since I haven't changed my mind yet, but I'll start to be less vocal and overt about it.
   
3. Getting really, really, really granular... most polls take at least a day or two to get results after the data is collected, meaning they are snapshots of a day or two ago, not today. Sales, on the other hand, happen in real time. So you could actually see trends a day or two ahead (Again, this is only for the hyper-geeks, but clearly in the case of a debate, for example, it'd be interesting to see the immediate impact). Again, just some thoughts here from a data/political junkie. And I will try to get more info to validate this as the weeks and months go on.

But... I'd be curious if people think there's a "there there" to this T-shirt primary theory

Damn, Matt Taibbi is Friggin Funny

Okay, I don't always agree with this guy on everything, but in spite of that (because of that?), man does he crack me up.

You can see his writing in Rolling Stone these days, but here he is on Bill Maher:

You know, I'm pretty sure I met Matt briefly during the '04 campaign, when I was on the Clark campaign, working the spin room after a debate (I had started DraftWesleyClark.com in 03, and then joined the campaign once it began). Pretty much exactly the same kind of thing he's got in this video.

My brother in law Josh (one of the other Draft Clark leaders) and I were kinda having some fun with the assembled reporters, trying to avoid the usual schlocky talking point drivel ("this campaign is about freedom and puppies and apple pie, and blah, blah, blah..."). Answering the questions, but also having fun, cracking jokes, etc.

Anyhoo, if I remember correctly, Taibbi was there, and was the one reporter who actually seemed to enjoy the schtick, and even bantered right back. And I remember thinking, "man, we need more reporters like this."

Anyway, the guy's a riot, it's great to see the success he's having, and I hope we see a lot more of him. Buy his stuff, and watch his stuff -- punditry needs more guys like him.

[UPDATE] Well, so we have indeed confirmed that I got it right, and it was Matt. This just in from Julie Polito:

Dude! Have you read "Spanking the Donkey," his collection of essays from the 2004 campaign. YOU'RE IN THE BOOK! You and Josh and your hilarious Vegas lounge act.

Gees, how cool, I gotta check this out.

Obama & Jackie Robinson: Why Even Wholly Selfish People Should Care about Justice

You might've heard the comparisons already, but if you haven't, you certainly will once he (hopefully) wins the nomination: Barack Obama and Jackie Robinson.

Now, the obvious comparison is pretty clear -- Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier, as the game's first African American, and if Senator Obama were to win, he would of course be the first African American president. And who can doubt the importance of both "Firsts" on the justice front? The importance of opening up the doors to others for equal opportunity is something all Americans should cherish.

But let me throw out another thought -- even if you're completely selfish, and even if you couldn't give a rat's you know what about justice, this should still matter to you, big time. Here's why...

My parents are from Brooklyn, and grew up with the Brooklyn Dodgers. I think they're still frankly pissed off about the move to LA, even though it's been 50 years. Now, anyone who lived in Brooklyn at the time certainly remembers when Robinson joined the Dodgers in 1947. But they also remember what came after that.

You see, in the 10 years before Robinson joined the Dodgers, the team won 1 pennant. In the 10 years he played for the Dodgers, they won six.

Now granted, this wasn't all about Robinson. There were other great players as well. But anyone with half a brain and a Baseball Encyclopedia certainly knows that a lot of it WAS about Robinson. So for Brooklynites throughout the borough, the justice story was a great start -- but having the dominant team in the National League? That made it all the more sweet.

A great story, for sure. But let's take it a step further, and think about what migh have been. What if the Dodgers had taken this step a decade earlier? What if they had not only brought Robinson on board, but also such stars as Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige? In short, what if they had simply recruited the best players, period, regardless of race. Would they have won more pennants? Would they have gone a step further, and clobbered the hated Yankees to win more World Series titles as well? We'll never know, but again, anyone with a brain and a Baseball Encyclopedia certainly would've bet on it.

Now, flashing back to the political front, think of this stat -- every American president ever has been a white male. Further, all but one have been a white male Protestant. Now, as a white male (well, "off white," I suppose, since I'm Italian and Slavic), I suppose one could argue I should like this if I were wholly selfish. But here's the thing -- like the Dodgers of the 30s and early 40s, I can't help but wonder how many all-star presidents we've lost out on because we didn't enable the best Americans -- regardless of race -- to have a chance.

What problems might've been solved? What problems might've been avoided? What might America have become if we had truly fielded our "best team," regardless of race?

So yes, I support Barack Obama. I support him first and foremost because I believe he is the best person for the job. Am I happy with the prospect of what this would mean on the justice front? Absolutely.

But most of all, it's just me being selfish. As a baseball fan, I want my team (the Washington Nationals) to field the best team. And as an American, I want my country to do the same.

I'm obsessed with Intrade

Intrade is a predictive market that allows you to make bets on the outcomes of elections, including (my obsession) the Democratic presidential nomination.

Basically, you pay for the "right" to receive $100 if your predicted outcome happens. Right now, Hillary is trading at $60.9, meaning the market assumes Hillary has a 60.9% chance of winning the nomination. Obama is at $39.9, meaning he's at 39.9%.

Why is this interesting? Because people are trading real money. And because, arguably, they are doing so on the basis of a consolidated read of all the information that is out there vis-a-vis the race -- the latest polls, fundraising figures, endorsements, etc.

Is it perfect? Naw. But it does reflect changes in candidate fortunes almost immediately. Polls, on the other hand, take at least a day or two (i.e., there's almost always at least a day between when the polling is done, and when the data is processed and released).

So here I am, with the Intrade site up, hitting "refresh" over and over again, obsessively.

I suppose I'll be less obsessed after Feb 5th. Maybe.

"Hip Hope" Video? Hella cool pro-Obama video from Will.i.am (Black Eyed Peas)

You know, just when I thought we were all going to drown in a sea of crappy political ads, yawn-inducing stump speeches, and mind numbingly boring campaigns... someone comes along and does something that's nothing short of hella creative:



From what I understand, Will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas was behind this "Hip Hope" video in support of Obama. The song is great, which is of course not surprising, given that the Black Eyed Peas rock (and hey, what red-blooded male doesn't love Fergie.).

But check out the production value here. What a cool juxtaposition of the artists and Obama. It's not just another campaign song, it's just... well, hard to explain, but simply hella cool. Check it out yourself:

http://www.YesWeCanSong.com

And yes, I hate the fact that I used "hella" so often in this post, and I'll try to hold off on that again.

Porn: How much does the world really need?

We'll get back to politics in a minute. But first, a break from the Feb 5-athon to ask a simple, very important question:

Just how much PORN does the world really need?

Now, I'm not a connoisseur of porn, though I have no quarrel with those who are. Hey, it's a free country. But I ask this because I'm constantly amazed at just how much porn there is in the world. Seriously, think of all the sites, magazines, pay per view movies, etc. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.

The question is... why? How much porn does one individual need? Who the hell is buying all this? Without getting too -- ahem -- graphic, why does anyone need more than a few samples?

Take porn movies for example. I mean, granted, the titles are hysterical ("On Golden Blonde," "Crouching Thai Girl, Hidden Shaggin," etc.). But why in the world are there more than a few dozen titles, period? Are these movies really so different? I mean, why does the industry still exist? Shouldn't it have pretty much ended when they finished the first few? Why are there hundreds (thousands?) more produced each year?

Comment if you'd like, though to be honest... I'm not really quite sure I want to know the answer.