Three Things That Made Me Laugh This Morning

  • A comment in the SongMeaning.com thread concerning Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin'”:

    That one line..."some will win, some will lose.." That line couldnt be more true. this one time i won, and then this other time, i lost. steve perry really tells it like it is.

  • David Wilhelm’s lol’able lack of critical thinking skills.

    Summary:

    Wilhelm: I’m a superdelegate and I’m going for Obama. Others who have come out for Clinton need to keep in mind the proper role of the superdelegate: to reflect the popular vote.

    Interviewer: So if Hillary has the popular vote after Ohio, you’ll switch to her?

    Wilhelm: No, why would I?

  • Review for Madonna’s new film Filth and Wisdom: “Madonna has been a terrible actor in many, many films and now – fiercely aspirational as ever – she has graduated to being a terrible director. She has made a movie so incredibly bad that Berlin festivalgoers were staggering around yesterday in a state of clinical shock, deathly pale and mewing like maltreated kittens. She is also the producer and co-author of the script. If she’d done the location catering as well, they’d have had a Jonestown situation on their hands.”
* * *

7 comments.

  1. The sad part is this will be most people’s first exposure to Eugene Hutz & Gogol Bordello. I guess it’s all over for them.

  2. It would have been quite easy for Willhelm to say “yes, absolutely I’ll switch if she wins the pledged delegate race” – because she’s not going to. He’s an idiot (though he is backing the better horse, methinks).

  3. Your summary was funny. I’m going to argue his point just for the hell of it. I think his point is that super delegates elected to public office should reflect the wishes of their constituents, and non-elected super delegates should reflect national trends, i.e. the popular vote/total number of non super-delegates.

    In other words, super delegates should give up the entire reason for being super delegates and just act as a multiplier for the will of the people.

    His argument is obviously opportunistic and not based on principle, but practically he’s right. Unless the popular vote and delegate counts are very close, the side with the vote/delegate advantage will feel justifiably robbed if super delegates support the other candidate. The bad blood generated will fatally poisonous (how’s that for mixing metaphors?).

    If the popular vote and delegates are very close (less than 1 percent, less than 30 delegates), then one side is going to feel robbed no matter what, so the super delegates will be screwed whatever they decide.

    I am going to go out on a limb here and say that all this talk about the role of super delegates is political masturbation. Unless Hillary Clinton has a tremendous showing in OH and TX, the super delegates will shift en masse to Obama by the middle of March and effectively end the nomination race. They are looking for an excuse to declare a winner and avoid a divisive and resource-draining nomination process while McCain is able to husband his resources and define his opponents while they are too distracted to fight back.

  4. Wow, I’m going to have to make room in my vocabulary for “husband his resources”.
    That is terrific Jason.

  5. >>The sad part is this will be most people’s first exposure to Eugene Hutz & Gogol Bordello. I guess it’s all over for them.

  6. We need a three week moratorium on the use of the word Superdelegate (and all its derivative forms). Anyone using it in public should be hissed at like a Spaniard at the French Open.

    In the immortal words of Junior Johnson, “When you sit down to a breakfast of eggs and bacon, the chicken is committed but the pig is dedicated.”

  7. I have that exactly backwards (I need coffee…).

    The chicken is dedicated and the pig is committed.