Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Gonna Be a Long Fall

Barack Obama has a majority of primary delegates and apparently will be the Democratic nominee. That's prompted talk that Hillary will quit which--as of this time--she still denies. Still, Clinton said Tuesday that she was willing to do "whatever it takes" to elect a Democrat in the fall - presumably including being Obama's running mate.

This makes no sense. First, it's a bit late--Obama doesn't need Hillary. As James Taranto said Tuesday in a related context: "If Obama does have the nomination wrapped up, how is Mrs. Clinton in a position to negotiate anything with him, whether she formally ends her campaign or not?" Second, uh. . .huh?--as I've asked: "Hillary's already been Vice President--why on earth would she accept the same job again?" Third, please tell me Chelsea has principles--because neither her dad nor mom do.

So what's Senator Obama doing to prepare for fall campaigning? Certainly not studying energy or economics. Maybe he's trying to find a church led by someone who sounds even remotely Christian (WWJD?--throw Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger out of the temple). Or, perhaps The Onion has it right:
Democrat Barack Obama has reportedly been working tirelessly with his top political strategists to perfect his looking-off-into-the-future pose, which many believe is vital to the success of the Illinois senator's campaign.

When performed correctly, the pose involves Obama standing upright with his back arched and his chest thrust out, his shoulders positioned 1.3 feet apart and opened slightly at a 14-degree angle, and his eyes transfixed on a predetermined point between 500 and 600 yards away. Advisers say this creates the illusion that Obama is looking forward to a bright future, while the downturned corners of his lips indicate that he acknowledges the problems of the present.

Obama's advisers have created a computer model to simulate the optimal looking-off-into-the-future pose.

"The senator spends six hours a day gazing resolutely off into the distance," said chief political strategist David Axelrod, who regularly analyzes video of the pose with Obama, pinpoints areas that need improvement, and makes necessary tweaks.

"It is critical to get every detail right," Axelrod continued. "If he looks up an inch too high, he appears aloof or confused. If he looks down too low, it appears that he is distracted by something in the back of the auditorium. If the curvature of his upper lip is not at the exact 0.87-centimeter radius, it reads that he does not care about preserving the environment for future generations."

The pose also requires Obama to arch his eyebrows at 32-degree angles, open his mouth to prevent the misconception that he is frowning about the future, and briefly flare his nostrils to convey faith in the nation's children.

He must then clench his jaw with sufficient force to express strength and decisiveness—if he uses too much force, Axelrod said, his supraorbital forehead vein becomes visible and makes it appear as though he is in physical pain.

"Every millimeter of that head vein costs him 150,000 votes," Axelrod said.

To complete the pose, Obama must then open his eyes at an aperture of 1.43 centimeters, tilt his chin slightly upward, and rotate his head 37 degrees to the left. His advisers stressed that he must always look to the left.

"When you look to the future, you look to the left," Axelrod said. "Looking to the right is an I-am-sorry-for-the-mistakes-I've-made-in-the-past-but-promise-to-work-my-hardest-for- this-great-nation-from-now-on pose. It's too early for that."
Only five months to go.


OBloodyHell said...

> Still, Clinton said Tuesday that she was willing to do "whatever it takes" to elect a Democrat in the fall - presumably including being Obama's running mate


Pass a law requiring the passing of an IQ test before voting? Anyone with an IQ over 70 doesn't get to vote?

Or perhaps a simple set of poll questions, like:

"Do you own a gun"? "Yes" "Ah, well, sorry -- NEXT!!"

"Two words: Chimpy McBusHitler" "WHAT ABOUT THAT BASTARD SOB?!!" "Here's your ballot. Next, please..."

OBloodyHell said...

Re: Obama's energy policies:

"gradually raising our [vehicle] fuel economy standards by four percent - approximately one mile per gallon - each year" (as, he claims, Europe and Japan have done);

Now, I'm not going to overly argue the merits or disadvantages of this as a concept (my own position is, "let people decide for themselves") BUT:

At some point, raising this number raises the COST of the CAR more than the COST of the GAS saved.

In other words, there is a point of diminishing returns.

And anyone with a clue can figure out that doing this beyond that point is just flat out stupid, at least if your goal isn't to take the car away from the individual (which, I think seems obvious, IS the real goal)

Note: there are certainly other concerns, such as performance, but that's another matter, and can be argued as esthetics. I'm pointing out that there is an actual objective point where this notion is itself inherently stupid, and I doubt if anyone actually makes that into a limiting part of the demand on the industry.


Assistant Village Idiot said...

The Onion is often frightening in its accuracy, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Big man afraid of smart, successful women! Boring. Pathetic. Hillary was the obvious superior candidate, but I guess Bush proved beyond doubt that qualifications are irrelevant when it comes to picking a President. Who do you think the Supreme Court will pick to be our next President?

Anonymous said...

The pose is important, certainly, but what about the puppeteers pulling the strings of the people we refer to as "Presidents" of the USA? Who tells Bush what to do and say?