FIRST PRINCIPLES

It is all an irrelevancy, but we have to admit that our ego about being right allowed us to get a little ahead of ourselves on something. Kelso was wrong. Hard to believe? Out of the realm of possibility, you say? Well, if there's anything Kelso's learned in a lifetime of involvement in stochastic situations is the first thing to do is admit when you guessed wrong. Kelso was too clever by half about Governor Mike Huckabee. In that last Republican debate, Ron Paul absolutely undressed Huckabee on the wars. Huckabee it seemed, when faced with an actual opponent of the wars, was jammed up in a pretty bad Hobson's Choice and he didn't handle it super-great. It's probably on Crooksandliars, but Kelso heard it on the radio via internets.

The essence of Huckabee's defense of Administration policy was that "yes" this has been a "failure" but "we" "failed" "as" "a" "nation." Well, it's more evolved than what the Lisping Fascist usually says and it's downright sane compared with Crooked-Talk-Crazy-Hands, but it's weak. And Paul was actually nice about it. He went into the exchange with the concept that they were both loyal Republicans. It has been clear to us for a while that Huckabee's a bright guy and his more nuanced views of religion show a truly religious guy and not a guy just ready to use his religion as part of the fascist tripartite system. His views on labor certainly suggest this. He's going to have to sharpen up, though, and make a choice. And find a voice. If that choice is just to bear down and be another in a line of Southern Nazis, OK, but to do that he has to find the anger toward brown-skinned people and workers that America's Mayah and Manos-De-Piedra have and change the religious nuance to the reflexive "Jesus is my best buddy" simplicity of George Bush.

What is the point of this exercise, you ask? Why would anyone who blogrolls Kelso care about Mike Huckabee? He's not likely to get the nomination and to be sure there is a stunning lack of interest out there in lefty blogland in getting to know the Republican candidates. Perhaps, this is why there has been such a failure to see that Barack Obama is a Republican. Well, the point is that for better or worse, Senator Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and at the very least it's worth sizing up the opposition. Kelso does not believe either Giuliani or McCain match up with her too well. Giuliani is just mean and dumb. McCain is mean and smart but crazy (a little more on this in a bit). Romney hasn't figured out what color his eyes are yet. Fred Dalton Thompson is a pure joke and unwittingly Chris Matthews's man-crush on Thompson and subsequent public ejaculation after waxing his own carrot with Aqua-Velva has set the tone on Thompson. Last we saw on CNN, Thompson was in no hurry to get into this thing. He would have an announcement in two weeks, four weeks ago. Brownback is more interesting a politician and a person than would appear at first blush but he can't raise any money. Huckabee, however, is the borderline candidate who is the least-worst. He can get to Clinton's left on a lot of stuff if he wants to a la Bush v Gore 2000 and force her to don a Fundamentalist Cape that doesn't look real, real great on her. And he knows how the gears grind in Arkansas. So, if you are a Democrat and like Hillary Clinton, it pays to get to know Mike Huckabee.

While we've been rock-solid in our loathing of Barack Obama, we've been all over the place with regard to Senator Clinton. We began the blog in 2005 dead-set against her. In a few posts this year we've advocated strongly for her. We've listened to all opinions, read as much as we could, watched the debates, voted for Jon Tassini against her in the Democratic Party Senatorial Primary in New York and passed the Clinton/Spencer race. and most importantly have read and re-read Michael Tomasky's masterpiece, HILLARY'S TURN, about her first Senate run. Kelso still does not quite know what to make of her and that's a good thing. Having started out negative and getting to confusion, Kelso may be representative of just the kind of male voter cohort of which Clinton's going to need 70%. We've been all over the place and that means as a certainty we've been wrong at various turns.

Kelso, however, now lives in a country which is not agnostic on Hillary Clinton. His adopted country has nothing but love and respect for the previous occupants of the White House because they did Panama the biggest favor they could have. They fucking left it alone to sort itself out. One doesn't need to know much more than the stats in the Economist's World Report and the absence of any critical mention in the annual report of Human Rights Watch to get how well the hands-off policy has worked here.

It really is hard to know, isn't it? Well, let's get back to first principles. If EVERYONE AGRESS ON SOMETHING, IT'S WRONG. And everyone in America with a voice seems to agree that Clinton is no damned good. Republicans cling to the belief that she's the feminazi who's planning to give the launch keys to Barbra Streisand. Morons. Democrats keep harping on this "corporatist hawk" thing which has a bit more currency but their alternatives seem to be the more consevative Obama or John "I'm Not Gay" Edwards instead of the true Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, who seems to be regarded as a "kook" in mainstream circles and a "pussy" in "tough-guy" circles, though where the latter viewpoint comes from is beyond Kelso. No Serbian-American from Cleveland is a pussy. Full stop. But everybody knows how we feel about Obama (awful) and about Kucinich (real good). Edwards is a mixed bag. He isn't bad, but we've been through this before. He should be running away with the debates at least and isn't, so some something is definitely wrong.

So, let's deal with reality. Clinton is a big odds-on favorite to win the nomination, around -$2.00 and is a strong favorite,thugh not odds-on, outright in the general election +$1.40. That's not based on chump-change. That's based on lots of money moving. There's your candidate. There's your president. Deal with it. If she's so awful, why are professional gamblers who are way smarter than pundits enthusiastic. Why does the public like her? Why does she do better with Black voters than Obama does? There must be something good about her. Kelso would vote for Dennis Kucinich in a primary if he could, but after Kucinich is there another Democrat with any chin at all? Sure, Kelso wishes Clinton was a bit more dovish and a bit more straight-forward, but since when does that win anything in The United States of Embarrassment? The chin works. She and Kucinich win all the debates, albeit from different starting points, and is anyone other than Kucinich really to Clinton's left? Only POSSIBLY Republicans Paul and Huckabee! And that's really a stretch. Even Kelso's not THAT contrary.

It's hard to imagine that Clinton would be anything other than a trustworthy steward of the economy and state, if only because she couldn't possibly be worse than what's there. Just not being Obama is really enough. And she comes in with no bellicose legacy to protect. There is the possibility that she's too tied to the AIPAC/LIKUD fringe and may play the string out in Iraq too long. She's too sensible to take a run at Iran. Nobody who's as savvy as to NOT have a victory party following her primary win over Jon Tassini so as not to offend him or his handful of supporters is going to do something with a non-trivial probability of initiating global nuclear war. Sorry, Kelso doesn't love Clinton's rhetoric, but he's not buying on that one. Whatever saber-rattling she's doing now just HAS to be for show, not dough. She presents no problem whatsoever in rearranging Department Of Justice and in potential judicial appointments as well as cabinet officials. And you get The Big Dog for free.

Two people whose opinion Kelso likes on these things -- jewgirl over at "all the way from oy to vey" -- and a professional gambler whose identity is irrelvant have said that they'd happily support Clinton. JG is a very strong feminist but comes to her point of view knowing all the caveats and very much not because of Clinton's gender. JG's not even bothered by Clinton's wishy-washiness on choice. She thinks it's a bit of an okey-doke for the masses and that Clinton is rock solid on the issue. Who's Kelso to argue? Kelso knows about as much about feminism as he does about whittling. The pro gambler likes her on her capabilities. Anyone who knows these folks would say both of these people are less conventional political thinkers than Kelso is, by the way, and Kelso is not exactly know for his conformity.

When Bill Clinton had that big July 1992 which pretty much cinched it for him, the political scientist Rafael Sonenshine wrote in the LA Times something to the effect that Clinton's best move was always saying "yeah, yeah,'family values,'" and then moving on to his issues, that he didn't expend any unnecesary energy fighting a silly cultural fight he couldn't win. This would appear to be Hillary Clinton's way as well, althugh certainly lacks the natural populist instincts and common touch the Dog has. She has good instincts, though. You hear a lot of left wing voices complaining that she hasn't been a "leader" on ending the war, but what these people forget is that there are Senate protocols. Hillary Clinton is the Junior U.S. Senator of the State of New York, whose Senior Senator, Schumer, is so scared of AIPAC (or is a Zionist himself) that he sure isn't leading on that issue, so why does Hillary have to? She may be as careful as she likes. This is taking advantate of Senate protocol. This is called politics. And that Barack Obama hasn't figured that out yet is why he'll either be switiching parties or losing his seat.

There is all of this palaver about what a "divisive" figure Clinton is. Kelso's not getting that part. The men who hate her have a lot more in common with her conservative rhetoric than Kelso does. She certainly has her humorous side. The way she screwed-up McCain was masterful. The story is something like this. She and McCain and a couple of other senators were in the Baltics. One night at a restaurant, McCain challenged them to a vodka shots contest figuring as a stone-cold juicer he'd win it if anyone accepted, but no one would and he could make fun of Hillary the next day. Hillary drank him under the table and bragged about it. What could McCain do? He told the press she was lying and that he'd only had water hoping "the base" would bite. More fun stuff: if she and the Big Dog were hanging around Dan Lasater in Arkansas in the 1970s you better believe Hillary spilled more yeyo than Obama (who made a big deal about his "honesty" on this) has ever had. Speaking of which, how did Holy Joe Lieberman end up with Obama, who has admitted to using cocaine. Where have your family values gone, Joe?

This is what people are missing about Senator Clinton. In 2006, a majority of men voted Democratic for the first time in a long time in part because despite how much American men love war, the Republican party platform against "pot, poker and porn" but for gay congressmen and preachers wasn't exactly to their liking. Hillary's not likely to get a majority of men's votes, but she's going to get bigger piece than anyone thinks merely by not being a Republican. And if she shows something of that fun side, she'll get even more.

No, she's not a Progressive. No, she's not a Liberal. No, she't won't do shit about health care. Actually, if she's as "corporatist" as they say, she might take a careful look at the Fair Tax Movement which would be a good thing. She'll run to win -- can't say that about either Gore or Kerry -- fend off all the shit, and will stop the regress. At this point that doesn't sound bad at all. Without the option of Kucinich, Kelso's with the Junior Senator Of The Great State Of New York.

Kelso's Nuts love you