I watched Katie Couric’s coverage of “Super Tuesday” last night for as long as I could bear before switching off the tube and cracking open a good book. But I couldn’t help notice the way the talking heads were already declaring the Republican candidates that are trailing McCain all but dead, and floating the question, “Why don’t they just bow out?” It remains clear, at least to me, that having McCain become the Republican Party nominee would please dems no end by assuring a liberal in the White House.

What’s that? You say McCain isn’t a liberal, he’s a Republican? Well, yes and no. He’s actually a mixed bag. Conservatives don’t like his stance on illegal immigration (he sided with Kennedy, you’ll recall, in trying to push though the dems’ plan to eliminate the illegal immigration problem by simply granting illegal immigrants legal status), and he was on the wrong side on tax cuts and campaign finance reform. Still, he brings some good things to the table, so it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the coming weeks.

The race between Clinton and Obama is far more complicated. I can’t say I wasn’t surprised to see Clinton win in New York and California, both big delegate states. But the Democratic party has some convoluted rules designed, I think, to keep anyone from knowing who’s actually winning until much farther down the road. Candidates don’t, in most cases, win all the delegates in a given state; they’re instead parsed out between the candidates using a formula I don’t claim to understand. So at this point, even the talking heads have to acknowledge that Obama is still neck and neck with Clinton although, to many, she would appear to be way ahead. That race may not be decided until the very end.

So where does this leave us after “Super Tuesday?” Here’s what we know (or think we know) so far according to Reuters:

• Economic worries — plunging housing values, rising energy and food prices, jittery financial markets and new data showing a big contraction in the service sector — eclipsed the Iraq war as voters’ top concern in both parties, exit polls showed.

• “Polls of Democratic voters on Tuesday made it clear that the politics of identity — race, gender, class — was driving the contest between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the Republican contests, the far-right fringe is trying to maul their party’s front-runner, Senator John McCain,” said the New York Times in an editorial.

• Obama scored victories in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah and his home state of Illinois.

• Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee and her home state of New York. She went into Super Tuesday battling a wave of momentum for Obama, who had surged in national polls on his message of change. New Mexico was still too close to call, media said.

• Obama maintained his strong showing among black voters but also expanded support among whites, winning 40 percent in Georgia, exit polls said. Clinton won heavy support from women and Hispanics, exit polls showed.

• McCain won in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma.

• Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, won in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia.

• Romney won in Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Massachusetts, where he served as governor, and Utah, which has a heavy concentration of Mormons. Romney would be the first Mormon president.

• Huckabee’s wins were fueled by strong support from evangelical Christians, and he split votes with Romney among conservatives unhappy with McCain.

So there you have it. Can we declare a winner? Nope, just the momentary front runners. Was “Super Tuesday” exciting? No, more like watching grass grow. What’s next? Just more of the same, and maybe a couple surprises although the msm will be working hard to convince us it’s already a done deal.

Hugh Atkin sent me another of his satirical videos following up on the great job he did mixing campaign footage of the candidates with David Bowie’s “Changes” (see What Voters Want Is…).

In this video, he mixes a teary eyed Hillary explaining “how she does it”, with Tom Cruise explaining, well, essentially the same thing. Enjoy!

…about the current political news, I really am. I’m trying to pay attention to the incessant bickering between Obama and the Clintons, Giuliani’s “Travelin’ 9-11 Show”, Edwards’ attempts to be the candidate of change, Hillary’s crying, ad nauseum. But it’s all such crap!

Maybe things will (yawn) get a little more interesting in the weeks ahead. Meanwhile, I’ve got Hugh Atkin’s political mashups to keep me in the game.

Hugh Atkin sent this spoof based on the David Bowie tune “Changes”.

It’s refreshing to see a major news source take issue with the way the Clintons are twisting the words of Barack Obama, their primary political foe in the primaries. It’s certainly not a new tactic for the Clinton camp, but it seems as though most mainstream news media rarely call them on it, not wanting, it would appear, to rain on their parade. It helped get Bill elected and it’s probably helped Hillary to this point in time.

I’m not surprised that Obama told South Carolina’s The State newspaper that former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, are lying about him and his record purposefully. “There is a concrete strategy by the Clintons,” Obama said.

What surprised me was the response by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper. In the article, he writes, “Any objective review of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have been twisting comments Obama made about Ronald Reagan and the Republican party would concur.”

Tapper provides a link to the interview of Obama by the Reno Gazette-Journal that, though lengthy, is well worth viewing. Listen to what Obama said. Contrast that to what the Clintons claim he said. It leaves little room for doubt that Hillary (and Bill) will say anything to win.

Got this from Grouchy Old Cripple. I suppose it was inevitable.

Sarah Lai Stirland penned an article for Wired Magazine with an interesting take on Romney’s win in Michigan. It’s worth a read…

If there’s any consensus in the blogosphere on what Mitt Romney’s win in Michigan means for the 2008 election, it’s this: That he should have run his campaign the way he did in Michigan from the start.

The former governor of Massachusetts beat Republican senator John McCain of Arizona with 39 percent of the vote. McCain had 30 percent and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee came in with 16 percent.

“With hindsight, I think there was a better way for Romney to position himself: as a conservative and supremely knowledgeable expert on the economy, as George Bush’s heir as a vigorous defender of the U.S. in the war against Islamic terrorism, and as a person who is himself a social conservative — just take one look at his family portrait — but who doesn’t talk much about those issues except in the context of the constitutional philosophy which will guide his appointment of judges,” wrote John Hinderaker, a lawyer and founder of the conservative blog Power Line. “I think if he had followed this route, he would have been truer to himself and more credible to voters.”

New York magazine columnist and former Wired magazine writer John Heilemann says that Romney “probably” should have always run as “the politician he once was,” but that it was probably his pandering to the economically depressed Michigan voters that helped push him to victory. … Continue reading

It seems clear that the Republican nomination is still pretty much up for grabs. Democrats are pushing for a liberal in sheep’s clothing. This is getting interesting.

Looks like G.W. still has a few things to check off on his “To-Do” list before his term ends…

Folks, Matt Davies says it’s up to us. We need to “Vote for Change!”

Thought I’d forgotten about the Nebraska Republican Presidential Primary? No, but that one surprised me, too. I know he was favored, but… CNN has an analysis.

Sen. John McCain’s victory in New Hampshire’s Republican primary Tuesday came with the help of critics of a war he supports and independents who gave him the edge eight years ago, exit polls found.

The result highlights a remarkable rebound for McCain, whose campaign was largely left for dead over the summer.

“When the pundits declared us finished I told them I’m going to New Hampshire where the voters don’t let you make their decision for them,” he told supporters in Nashua after his leading rivals conceded.

McCain had alienated the party’s conservative base with his support of a controversial immigration bill, his poll numbers dipped against his rivals, and his disappointing fund-raising prompted a shakeup of senior staff.

“I’m past the age when I can claim the noun ‘kid,’ no matter what adjective precedes it,” McCain said. “But tonight, we sure showed them what a comeback looks like.” …

According to CNN, Hillary Clinton has overtaken Obama and been declared the winner in Nebraska.

Solid support from registered Democrats and women in New Hampshire were crucial Tuesday as Sen. Hillary Clinton rebounded from her third-place finish in last week’s Iowa caucuses, narrowly defeating Sen. Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary, with 39 percent of the vote to Obama’s 37.

Forty-three percent of self-styled independents said they voted for Obama, and 31 percent said they backed Clinton. Independents made up 43 percent of all voters polled. But Clinton was ahead of Obama 45 percent to 34 percent among those who said they were registered Democrats. Those voters made up a majority — 54 percent — of all those respondents. Clinton also claimed the majority of women’s votes, according to the polling…

What can I say? I’m speechless.

Two boys in Chicago were playing baseball when one of them was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off of a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog’s collar and twisted it, breaking the dog’s neck.

A newspaper reporter from the Chicago Tribune witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy. The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline, “Brave Young Cubs Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal.”

“But I’m not a Cubs fan,” the little hero interjected.

“Sorry,” replied the reporter,” but since we’re in Chicago, I just assumed you were.” Hitting the delete key, the reporter began, “Barack Obama Fan Rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack.”

“But I’m not an Obama fan either,” the boy responded.

The reporter said, “I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Cubs or Obama. What team or person do you like?”

“I’m an Arizona Diamondbacks fan and I really like John McCain,” the boy said.

Hitting the delete key, the reporter began again: “Arrogant Little Conservative Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet…”

Bob Rivers’ spoof on Al Gore and “global warming”…

Now that she’s lost Iowa, Hillary Clinton says the state “doesn’t really matter.” I wonder if Nebraskans will appreciate her newly minted “I’m really a down-home, cookie-baking mom” persona?

Her handlers thought it best that Bill stay away from Iowa. Didn’t help. I suspect now he’ll rush to her aid.

I wonder if Nebraska will “matter”…