John Edwards likes to spread his seed

While the Democrats chances to recapture the White House are surely boasted by an unpopular president and a sluggish economy, the biggest break the party may have caught in 2008 is not nominating John Edwards for President. That is because the former North Carolina Senator and 2004 VP candidate has recently sired a child with a woman who is not his cancer-stricken wife.

The National Enquirer, the tabloid that reported a woman named Rielle Hunter was pregnant with Edwards's child last year, caught Edwards leaving, at 2:45 AM last Tuesday, the Los Angeles-area hotel room Hunter and the baby were staying at. According to a security guard at the hotel Edwards's face "went totally white," before the well-coiffed politician ran down the hallway and dived into a men's bathroom.

I had done a post on the rumors of Edwards infidelity -- and Rielle Hunter's bizarre connection to the book American Psycho -- last December. And it turns out all the rumors and connections are completely true.

So score for Internet rumor-mongering. Proven accurate once again.

Asking the hard questions the MSM ignores

You probably haven't thought a whole lot about the kind of aliens that come from outer space during this electoral season. But, as Bill Pullman proved in Independence Day, the role of the United States President in any space invasion is vital. So the little green men are here, Barack Obama or John McCain who you got?

On the humorless presidential campaign

JibJab 2004.
JibJab 2008.

Ventura body slams Stuart Smalley

With all this talk of "change" and "mavericks" it's easy to forgot that not so long ago there were true political mavericks, whose calls for change really did alter the political landscape.

The tone-deaf obstinance of Ralph Nadar was almost certainly responsible for the Bush presidency, and there is a very good chance that Bill Clinton would have ended up as a red-faced historical footnote if it wasn't for Ross Perot's unbalanced balancing act.

But, in terms of electoral success, the top mavericky change agent of the pre-Bush era was Jesse Ventura. Running on a platform of clever commercials, returning the state's budget surplus to the people, and humbly admitting that he wasn't up to speed on all the issues, the Body/Mind went from steroid abusing wrestling heal to Governor of Minnesota

Eye-deep in a blood feud with the local press, Ventura chose not to seek re-election in 2002.

This morning Ventura announced he will probably be joining a Minnesota Senate race that already includes comedian Al Franken. Yes, that would make two former wrestlers with ties to the entertainment industry, bad tempers and a history of making controversial statements vying for the same office. Norm Coleman, the third guy, is currently running happy laps around his office.

Under the bus goes international

Barack Obama's under the bus tour claimed its latest victim yesterday as he coolly dismissed rumors he is good friends with actress turned dreadful singer Scarlett Johansson.

Johansson, one Obama's most outspoken supporters, has listed Obama among her "five dads." (Joining Woody Allen, Tom Waits, Bill Murray and Bob Dylan.) She made this distinction even creepier by later joking she was engaged to Obama.

While Scarlett has conceded that after their glorious first meeting at a private fundraiser she hasn't been able to spend that much time with her political daddy, she has insisted they have a very healthy back and forth email relationship and breathlessly gushed “someone like the senator who is constantly traveling and constantly ‘on’ — how can he return these personal e-mails?"

Not true, according to Obama, telling reporters he only emailed Johansson once, after an aid had forwarded him her message, and the extent of his response was "Thank you, Scarlett, for doing what you do."

Obviously somebody is mistaken. And while I don't think very highly of Barack's general truthiness, I trust a 23-year old entertainment type even less. On the off-chance Scarlett isn't exaggerating and the incriminating emails get out . . . we are going to have ourselves a bizarre and not insignificant scandal.

But yesterday Barack wasn't the only political figure to ditch a hot celebrity female with whom there has been talk of a non-biological family relation. Nelson Mandela also got in the act by dumping "adopted granddaughter" Naomi Campbell from his official 90th birthday party.

Now Mandela is far from the under the bus tossing sort -- just ask current world enemy number one but still Friend of Nelson Robert Mugabe. Meaning Naomi's transgression must have been a lot worse than claiming she had the Noble Price winner's personal email address.

In fact the supermodel was convicted of assaulting two police officers at London's Heathrow airport and calling them "crackers." But the kicker was she did so while wearing a cap which read 46664 -- Mandela's ID number during the 27 years he spent in prison for seeking racial justice.

Adopted adult granddaughters never learn, do they?

Death Watch: Tim Russert

Admittedly I'm a little late to this game, but I had spent the hours and days after Tim Russert death confused, as I watched the newsman celebrated like no American since the passing of Ronald Reagan.

While I have no doubt Russert was a first class guy, a terrific journalist, and could have made a living doing Daniel Patrick Moynihan impersonations if the Meet The Press thing hadn't worked out, there were times during the coverage of Russert's sad and untimely demise that, because I have a tendency to sleep late on Sundays, I felt like a foreigner in my own country.

By Monday there was a bit of sheepish pulling back from the canonization, and the media admitted they may have gone too far and overstated the importance of one of their own.

Which is fairly understandable, if that is the case. Russert practically died right in front of his colleagues, and if their desire to emote and pay tribute to someone they loved and respected trumped their news (and better) judgment for a day or so, it's only human.

Furthermore, there is now this rapidly expanding web/TV/traditional media colossus of political coverage that needs to be feed story lines constantly. With the presidential race in what should be an extended slow period, a lot of hungry reporters, bloggers, pundits and producers stand ready to pounce on anything that feels like news.

So Russert -- who truly was a giant in that world -- gave the bloated political coverage machine a much needed big story.

But it's more than that. It's the bloated media as a whole. Heath Ledger's death also seemed overdone. And Anna Nicole Smith . . .

Deaths are big deals. Especially when they come young and as a surprise. While I'm fairly certain that by next week Russert's death won't be seen as the historic event the media made it out to be, I can't say their coverage was out of line since I don't know how they would have reacted to Kurt Cobain's death. Or John Lennon's. Or -- can you even imagine -- JFK 's.

For all we know, in this current media reality, Russert got the send off he deserved.

Celeb gossip may be dead, hopefully just asleep

I was planning on doing a post on how celebrity gossip seems kind of dead lately. I was going to blame it on the nation's recent American Idol-like obsession with presidential politics, and then implore the fun, good looking celebs (meaning not Amy Winehouse) to come out from their hiding and start making mischief again.

It is pretty clear we are about to enter into an extended dead spot in the 2008 campaign. I'm of the belief that unless our favorite media-approved train wrecks step up and bring us some new sex tapes, DUI's and venereal diseasess this whole Internet thing -- which had been getting bigger and bigger by the day -- could atrophy and fall apart. And not be there when we really need it.

But somebody else sort of beat me to it. So check out what he has to say, discuss, and admit you miss Paris Hilton too.

Vetters left unvetted leads to more tit for tat

Today there is increased pressure on Barack Obama to cut ties with long-time Democratic insider Jim Johnson, who Obama had tapped to help select his running mate.

Johnson stands of accused of, among other things, getting a seven million dollar below market rate home loan from Countrywide Insurance through an informal program set up for friends of the embattled mortgage company's CEO.

Obama has in the past used strong language in railing against Countrywide and other subprime lenders, making his association with Johnson -- and Johnson's with the lender -- awkward.

So far Obama has yet to dismiss Johnson with his trademark "this is not the Jim Johnson I know" kiss off. But a controversy surrounding the "vetting of a vetter" is an ominous sign for what is about to become a brutal political slog.

During the Clinton/Obama primary fight a favored tactic of both sides was to hit at the other through the gaffes and biographical glitches of their surrogates and associates, and then to suggest their opponent distance themselves from said surrogate or associate. What prevented this from getting completely out of hand was that every couple weeks there was something more important to focus on: Actual voting results.

Only now, since there won't be any of that voting stuff until November, there will be plenty of time to play the guilt-by-association game to its under-the-bus-tossing conclusion. The revelations about Johnson are surely the tit for a tat the Obama camp launched a couple weeks ago when they put pressure on John McCain to get rid of advisers who had done work as lobbyists.

But, cynical political maneuvering aside, is it even wise for the McCain camp to force Obama to get rid of Johnson? Maybe not. Twice before Johnson has vetted VPs for the Dems. First in 1984 he came up with Geraldine Ferraro, but neglected to uncover that the New York Congresswoman's husband's finances were a criminal mess. Then in 2004 Johnson suggested John Edwards, who never jelled with John Kerry, and who was only able to increase the Democrat's vote share in his home state of North Carolina by .4 percent.

Whether it be Jim Johnson or John Hagee, could there be wisdom in letting the other guy's liability stick around long enough to do some real damage?

Person living in cave learns of fist pound

During a campaign rally in April, Barack Obama appropriated Jay-Z's "you gotta get, that, dirt off your shoulder" gesture to dismiss a shaky debate performance. Seeing a grown man in a suit and running for president employ such a ridiculous non-verbal communication technique made me cringe and feel overwhelmingly embarrassed for the presidential candidate, the crowd cheering the presidential candidate, and for myself for having to have been alive when this took place.

Then the media broke down the significance of the gesture, and I cringed again -- for the media mostly, but also for myself for having to have been alive when this took place.

Over the last couple days another "hip" Obama gesture -- this one a fist pound he completed with his wife -- has elicited even more analysis.

But this time I didn't cringe at all. In fact I viewed it as one of the most positive developments of this campaign; for I sincerely hope one day the fist pound will replace the handshake as America's favored greeting ritual.

My big problem with the handshake is that it is an open invitation to allow another person to attempt to display their physical dominance by smashing their germs into your skin. Wheres in the fist pound contact is always fleeting, and anyone coming in too hard will do so at the risk of their own knuckles.

While have my doubts that Obama could possibly "change" the culture of Washington, as he likes to claim he will, he might just be the guy who can change the way our power brokers say hello and seal their shady deals. And that's the kind of change I can believe in.

The Whitey (or Why'd He) Tape

(I'm bumping this up because it seems to be what everybody is looking for. It was originally posted Monday at 12:15 PM. Since then Larry Johnson has provided no further information -- and gets more unreliable by the hour. On the other hand Democratic insider Bob Beckel got on TV this morning and stated he expects a Michelle Obama bomb to drop tomorrow. Actually, having now seen the Beckel interview on tape [I can't watch youtube videos on my computer] I would say Beckel expresses extreme worry, not a pure expectation, that this could happen.)

Bouncing around the innards of the world wide web, there is potential political scandal more explosive than all the others that have come to pass in this super-charged electoral season.

Some bloggers -- led by ex-CIA agent and Hillary Clinton supporter Larry Johnson -- have been advancing the existence of a so-called "Whitey Tape," a video recording in which Michelle Obama repeatedly uses the epithet "whitey" during a mean-spirited rant in front of the congregation of the controversial Trinity church that she and her husband just "resigned" from.

Although he hasn't seen the tape himself, Johnson, who blogs at noquarterusa.net, wrote a few weeks ago that he knows four reliable people who had, and they tell him it would be a devastating game changer for Obama if and when the tape leaks to the public.

Johnson also claims the tape is currently in the hands of Karl Rove, and that the GOP strategist plans on releasing it in October to maximize its damage to the Democrat's chances of capturing the White House. According to Johnson, word of the tape got out after a right-wing billionaire who Rove showed the tape (likely casino magnet Sheldon Adelson) offered up a million dollar bounty for a copy of the recording because he has it in for John McCain and doesn't want to give the Arizona Senator the benefit of an "October Surprise."

While I don't doubt the possibility that Michelle Obama railed against "whitey" from the pulpit -- the sermons of Reverend Wright and Father Pflegger suggest taking such a pose can really get the crowd going over there -- the involvement of ultimate Republican bogeyman Rove and a Machiavellian, double-crossing billionaire casino boss gives the whole thing a Hollywood quality which had my BS detector flying all over the place when I initially read about it.

Yesterday marked the first time the mainstream media (in so much as Geraldo is the MSM) addressed the topic when the pugnacious Fox News host asked the suddenly ubiquitous Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone if he had heard about the tape.

Stone, fresh off maybe providing the tip that took Eliot Spitzer down, said that he had, and that so far seven networks have contacted him to comment on it. Stone denied having seen the tape himself, but expressed confidence that it does exists, and said he believes one of the "major networks" already has their hands on the incriminating video.

Also yesterday, Johnson provided more logs for the fire when he wrote that the tape is of a panel discussion at Trinity, and Nation of Islam hate-monger Louis Farrakhan is present and involved during the event. He also divulged that the tape was originally acquired by a Republican candidate who is no longer in the race, but who had a crack opposition research team. (Presumably Mitt Romney.)

Late last night a pro-Obama blog seemed to confirm the existence of the tape, but with a twist. The Booman Tribune posits Michelle Obama wasn't saying "whitey" but "why'd he," as in why did he (President Bush) cut off medicare, let New Orleans drown, etc.

The Boorman Tribune's account of what was said has been disputed today by various right-wing bloggers, and there is now a bizarre amount of chatter over the specific transcript of a tape nobody has confirmed actually seeing.

I'll confirm I'm not very schooled in what goes in a church that preaches black liberation theology, but, from what little I've seen, a rhetorical flourish such as morphing "why'd he" into "Whitey" would be a crowd pleaser. Meaning they could all be right.

So what happens next? Since I'm diving into the wild speculation of others, I'll add a bit of my own: The tape will break under the flash of the Drudge Report siren.

I'm not the only Drudge-watcher who has noticed the generally-right-wing Internet trouble maker has been unusually soft on Obama. Granted Drudge hasn't had a dog in the fight since Romney dropped out. (It's hard to believe a First Amendment absolutist like Drudge would take much of shine to a McCain candidacy.) But for Drudge, who rarely passes up an opportunity to engage in race-baiting, to just about completely ignore the whole Reverend Wright controversy -- as he did -- is extraordinarily suspicious.

What if the Romney operatives who had been feeding Drudge quality anti-Giuliani information back in 2007 also tipped him off to the Whitey Tape? And now Drudge is making sure Obama sticks around long enough for him to drop the tape at the most impactful time.

Or maybe Drudge doesn't have the tape, but, like Roger Stone, knows that a network does. That network could be weary of running it -- especially if there is doubt as to what Michelle is actually saying -- and Drudge is just biding his time until an insider slips him a copy. This is exactly how Drudge broke the Lewinsky story which made him famous.

Or maybe this is all a ploy by an ex-CIA agent who is trained in spreading misinformation. Only time will tell.he expects

Sex tapes are the new beards

As popular in his home state as he is tan, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been on the shortlist for the VP slot on the GOP ticket ever since his last minute endorsement of John McCain propelled the Arizona Senator to victory in Florida's primary, and the driver's seat for the nomination.

But Crist, a sparkly-eyed bachelor, has also been dogged by rumors that he has a secret -- the same type of secret that contributed to fellow sparkly-eyed Sunshine State bachelor politician Mark Foley's sad downfall.

So far Crist's best defense against this speculation has been the rumor that he fathered an out-of-wedlock child in 1989.

But now, courtesy of controversial GOP operative and proud swing club enthusiast Roger Stone (who is the subject of a fascinating article in this week's New Yorker) there is buzz about a sex tape involving Charlie Crist and a woman.

Sex might be a strong word, for Crist and his friend with real female parts were only kissing when their images were captured by an elevator security camera. But reportedly Crist pulls the make-out session off without making a grossed-out face.

Stone, who is saving the tape "to play on the national shows," worked on Crist's 2006 campaign for governor.

If this tactic actually works, and Crist is ungayed in the eyes of party skeptics, look for Mitt Romney to attempt to dispel those nasty rumors that he is a Mormon by leaking a tape involving a six pack of beer and a swear word.

The hemorphidites and horse-swappers of yore

As we enter into the general election one thing is for certain: There will be much moaning from the candidates, the media, and the "public" about the the negative tone the campaign will inevitably take. Even though mere policy could never sustain a six month election news cycle, the self-righteous critics will complain how slander and innuendo is no way to elect a President, and that such tactics breed hopelessness and cynicism. But what they won't say is such tactics are un-American. And if they do they are sorely misinformed.

Those who took in the John Adams mini-series on HBO last month were exposed to the ugliness of the 1800 election, which pitted Adams against Thomas Jefferson, his sometimes good friend and his current Vice President.

During the campaign both candidates pummeled the other's character in widely-distributed pamphlets. Including this dozy leveled against the sitting President:

(Adams is a) hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.

On the strength of that disturbing image (and opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act) Jefferson won the election.

The Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 are often looked upon as the height of our nation's political discourse. But in fact the two statemen's traveling show was rife with petty insults, many focusing on the other's physical appearance. Douglas was regularly assailed for being short and fat, while Lincoln constantly lambasted for being gangly and ugly. In that vein Stephen Douglas launched this verbal barb against the great emancipator:

(Lincoln is a) horrid-looking wretch, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper and the nightman.

I tried to do a little research into nutmeg dealers of the 19th century, but all searches yielded only the original quote. So I have no idea if such a vocation is better or worse than being a Weatherman or a lobbyist.

More examples of old-fashion campaign values here and here.

McCain's new convention strategy

While I believe John McCain has a better than not chance of being the next President of the United States, he will face a serious obstacle on September 4th when he will be forced to address the Republican Convention in Minneapolis.

The problem won't be so much that his stance on issues such as immigration reform and global warming will be in stark contrast to most of the delegates amassed at the Xcel Energy Center, rather it will be that the delegates will all be Republicans, and they will put their differences with Arizona Senator aside and cheer him enthusiastically.

Then McCain will be forced to acknowledge the crowd's cheers, and perhaps look towards the rafters and smile at President Bush, who will be doing his own cheering from a special box. Unfortunately for McCain, cameras will capture all of this cheering and smiling and acknowledging, and the images will be beamed to homes all over America, reminding people how much they don't like a lot of the people who have just become very excited about John McCain.

There isn't a lot poor John McCain can do about this. (If some sort of devastating disaster befalls the Twin City region in late August, be very suspicious.)

His one saving grace, if you can call it that, is he will probably have his good friend Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman to introduce him. Lieberman is no great shakes, but he is not a Republican either -- in fact he ran on the Democratic ticket for Vice President just eight years ago.

But is there another failed Democratic Vice Presidential candidate out there that John McCain can recruit to help him survive Minneapolis?

Yes there is! In interviews over the last couple days, Geraldine Ferraro has given every indication she would still like to work hard to defeat Barack Obama, whose campaign she feuded with earlier in the year over race and gender issues.

Ferraro didn't add much to the Democratic ticket in 1984, but she just might be what the Republicans need to get through another hour of prime time convention coverage without alienating most of America.

With Lieberman and Ferraro on board, McCain would have the support of two out of the four living failed Democratic Vice Presidential nominees, and would only need John Edwards and Sargent Shriver to complete the set. (Mondale actually won in '76, so he doesn't count.)

Getting the endorsements of Edwards or Shriver is probably a bridge too far. Although on the off-chance McCain was able to build an insurmountable lead on Obama before the convention, Edwards could surely be convinced to jump ship with some flimsy promise of a "poverty tour." McCain might also try to get Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fellow member of the super exclusive popular Republican club, to lean on Shriver, who happens to be the action-star-turned-governor's father-in-law.

But two out of four ain't bad. In fact the slogan for the 2008 Republican Convention could be "Now With the Support of 50 Percent of the Living Failed Democratic Nominees for Vice President."

Anyone have a better one?

Mel and Britney?

* OK, so I really blew it by not coming up with "Mitney" as a Spears/Gibson portmanteau. Duh -- it's staring right out from the title of the post. I guess I think of "Mitney" as the hip nickname for Mitt Romney that wasn't.

Sean Penn not quite on board with the Obama thing

Before there were blogs, it was only Hollywood stars who could express their unfiltered and completely unsolicited opinions about politics to mass audiences.

Sean Penn has been taking advantage of this special access ever since his Madonna-era photographer slugging days, but he has really stepped it up lately with his increasingly hysterical criticisms of President Bush.

So, now that the Bush administration is in its final throes, has the volatile actor's political outlook become more optimistic?

On the red carpet at Cannes, Penn was asked who he supports for President. While Penn refused to endorse a candidate, he did admit he was "excited by the hope Barack Obama is inspiring."

Then, to prove he hadn't got all starry-eyed and will continue to serve the public with his biting criticism, Penn went on to accuse Obama of having a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.

When describing Obama's voting record, "phenomenally" is always going to be an odd word choice unless it is followed by "risk-averse and thin." Allowing my skeptical assessment of Penn's skill as a political commentator to remain unchanged.

Penn continues on Obama:

”I hope that he will understand if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be.”

Ok, that's a bit overstated, but wise nonetheless. Although the clever word play suggests Penn meant to say something else but misspoke.

Later, when faced with Cannes' stunning display of materialism and celebrity worship, Penn bravely led a revolt against the film festival's smoking ban by lighting up and encouraging others to do the same.

So there you go, political candidate seeking the much-coveted Sean Penn endorsement, let him smoke in other peoples' faces and he will probably refrain from bashing you when he speaks to the foreign press.

What to look for tonight

After six weeks of polling and in-depth analysis the likes of which a Pennsylvania primary has never seen, we can finally say with a high degree of certainty that tonight one of these five scenarios will go down:

Obama wins. After crying for the camera, Hillary pummels now secret adviser Mark Penn with a hard cover copy of "Microtrends" A red-faced Bill Clinton thrusts his pointed finger at a group of reporters. Somebody loses an eye.

Clinton wins by between zero and five. Obama "brushes" it off by telling supporters not to worry because it "ain't no thing." Television executives from Charlotte to Terre Haute to Portland wonder if such a margin will allow for the campaign to continue long enough to finance their new kitchens.

Clinton wins by between five and ten. Looking towards Indiana, Hillary gets lost in an analogy comparing herself to Notre Dame football underdog "Rudy" Ruettiger and claims she once played halfback for the Fighting Irish. She then takes a swig from a handle of Jack Daniels and shoots a 12-point buck.

Clinton wins by between ten and fifteen. Veteran right-wing TV pundit Pat Buchanan refers to Hillary Clinton as "one tough gal." College campuses everywhere erupt in angry blogging. From his well air-conditioned straight talk bus, John McCain rubs his hands together and thinks about White House drapes.

Clinton wins by more than fifteen. Howard Dean tries to scream, but no sound comes out. Obama dismisses elections as "the kind of old politics which have made our nation cynical." From his well air-conditioned Tennessee mansion, Al Gore rubs his hands together and thinks about White House drapes.

McCain has the left stuff

Because presidential elections are held every four years and there have only been 55 in our nation's history, one can find all sorts of trends of who gets elected how that aren't particularly statistically significant.

In that spirit, I've learned of two such trends concerning the physical attributes of presidents.

The first is a surprising trend towards left-handedness. The election of George W. Bush -- who was beaten in the popular vote by lefty Al Gore -- broke up a string of four straight southpaw presidents. With John McCain and Barack Obama both being lefties when it comes to their hands, there is an extremely good chance we will soon be five for six. What makes this streak noteworthy is only 12 percent of the United States population is left-handed, and, before Gerald Ford, there had only been two left-handed presidents in US history.

Could this be a function the television age? Maybe lefty candidates look smoother than right handed ones -- just like a left-handed baseball player or golfer is often perceived to have a "sweet swing." It seems a stretch, but why not? The phenomenon needs to be explained somehow.

A trend that long pre-dates moving pictures is that of presidential eye-color: 38 of our 43 presidents have had green, blue or grey eyes. Of the five dark-eyed presidents only Richard Nixon -- the last one-- was elected to a second term, and we all know how that turned out. In contrast to the men who hold the highest office in the land, only 16% of the US population has light eyes. While this low percentage is a reflection of shifting ethnic demographics, it was still only at 30 in 1950, and was probably never higher than 50.

President Barack Obama would break up the longest and starkest streak in presidential appearances but, running against a left-hander with blue eyes, he will have his work cut out for him.

Somebody let Kennedy get into the Cuervo

In the interest of equal time, it should be noted that this week George W. Bush wasn't the only politician to go native to charming effect.

The dreaded Puerto Rico scenerio

I know I'm not the first one to say this but, after Super Tuesday, McCain is a lock for the Republicans and Hillary has a slight advantage in the Democratic contest. Although the former First Lady's edge is somewhat mitigated by what could be serious cash flow problems.

No matter what, the Democratic race looks like it will go into May, if not all the way to the convention.

Here is where things could get crazy. According to Michael Barone, who is the dean of all electoral knowledge, the Democratic race could hinge on Puerto Rico, whose residents don't even vote in the general election.

For some strange reason the Democrats have given Puerto Rico 63 voting delegates, as many as Arizona gets. And PR's delegates effectively come winner take all, as opposed to all of the other Democratic primaries and caucuses which are at least somewhat proportional. Meaning the candidate who captures the semi-autonomous island territory nets more delegates than Hillary did after she beat Obama by eight points in the mammoth, full-righted state of California yesterday.

Furthermore, while technically PR has a caucus in early June -- right in time to decide a deadlocked nomination race -- really the party boss in PR gets to choose who gets all the delegates. And, if it is still close back in the States, this decision could trump the votes of about 15 million mainland Democrats.

Of course the Democratic party could (and probably would) have the super-delegates distributed in a way that lessens PR's influence on the final decision. But that won't be an easy process. Especially when the party would also be dealing with what to do about Florida and Michigan (about 8 percent of the United States' population) not having any delegates seated at the convention.

There have been brokered conventions before, but never one under the all-access 24/7 glare of twenty-first century media. Add the explosive mix of identity politics and disenfranchisement baggage that would come with the debate and it would be quite a show indeed.

Super Tuesday

I have no idea what is going to happen tonight, and since my Super Bowl pick may have been the worst in the whole entire world (no joke) I think I am going to take the week off from predicitions.

But I do know a lot about the jobs 2008's presidential candidates had before they got into politics. Why I even wrote a quiz about it. You can check it out here.