Follow the money

After the Pennsylvania primary, the MSM slobbered over Clinton raking in $10 million in a 24-hour period. Or was it $8 million? $9.2 million?

Whichever. Point being, the little people (that's you and me) dug into our meager wallets and found $10, $50, however much and gave to Hillary.

But for some reason, the politicians only pander to us during election season. The rest of the time, there are bigger fish to honor and obey while sitting on whichever throne the politico may hold.

Look at Goldman Sachs - a premier Wall Street investment bank. The company has given hundreds of thousands of bucks to all three presidential contenders.

I like the way they think - no matter who wins, they win. And that's great when the person sitting in the Oval Office owes you a few favors, and you can continue to give them and their political buddies wads of cash.

But we already gave our last ten-spot to McCain/Obama/Clinton. What do we get when the shouting's over?

Fuzzy, wuzzy math

The Pennsylvania primary is over. The long, agonizing weeks of nonsensical campaigning at an end - at least for that state's primary.

And what have we learned? That, like many have already said, Obama can't be beaten mathematically and he will get the nomination.

He lost Pennsylvania. He knew he would, and yet he's still got more delegates that Clinton. Polls show he'll take North Carolina, pushing his numbers even that much higher. On the same day, a tight race in Indiana will give him even more delegates, regardless of who wins the popular vote.

The AP puts Obama at 1,714 delegates. Clinton has 1,589 by the same count. At this point in the race, Clinton must start winning every remaining primary by a wide margin to get the nod.

And she can't do it.

Winning elections must be a feeling like no other. Clinton feels great right now. But that feeling will ultimately get crushed in two weeks, maybe a little longer if she decides to continue this farce.

And the longer she goes, the better chance McCain has of taking it all come November.

New math

You might think that in the world's greatest democracy when it came down to deciding who's going to be president, it would be one man (or woman), one vote.

Of course, you might think a lot of things that aren't true. There have been plenty of stories recently about the math of reaching the magic Democratic delegate number: 2,025. Here's what the MSM has to say:

"Overall, Obama has 1,646 delegates to 1,508 for Clinton in the Associated Press' count, with 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination."

Some stories are claiming Clinton needs 65 percent of the remaining primaries and caucuses to overtake Obama. It might not be that much, but she definitely needs some heady wins in order to beef up her pledged delegate numbers, which is necessary to woo more superdelegates to her cause.

And she must might not be able to do it. Obama just needs to keep his loses on the good side of 40 percent, win a few more states and watch the superdelegates raise their banners for him. This is why the grumblings about Clinton bowing out are getting louder.

Everybody loses an underdog, but there's a difference between having a shot and your math just not adding up. Those grumblings are only going to get more frequent.

Meet the new boss ...

I'm watching the Pennsylvania debate right now on a fuzzy television with rabbit ears on top, and what can I say ... I might as well be watching a debate from 2004, or 2000, or any presidential election year for as long as I've been alive.

Questions are asked that I don't really have a stake in and the candidates give meaningless answers that don't tell me anything. They just finished up with gun law questions, and I don't know anything more about these candidates. Both are saying they don't have all the facts and they haven't read the court briefs, and then they continue to give a non-answer.

Now they're on to affirmative action - a hot button issue that they'll try to sneak away from. This isn't a forum to learn more about a candidate. It's a test to see if the candidates can get through a grueling oratorical exercise and alienate the least amount of people possible.

Years ago, I saw a bumper sticker that simply stated "I hate you and I vote." I kind of feel like that right now.

Hillary: She's one of us

You gotta love campaign season. In no other time will we collectively dissect every word uttered by a presidential candidate. We will scrutinize every gesture, evaluate each expression. We may even judge the music their children listen to.

Note to Chelsea: Glenn Miller good. Nine Inch Nails bad.

And note to Obama: It's always bad news to say those down on their luck tend to get "bitter and 'cling to guns or religion' to express their feelings," as news services are reporting it.

Obama said this about a week ago to a private gathering, and Hillary's gone on the attack, knocking on Pennsylvania doors herself and knocking back beers to show she's just like us and not like the elitist Obama.

The Illinois senator has since apologized for his utterance, saying he should have chosen better words.

Ya think?

In a world where the country wants to know how you like your toast, you better make sure you don't say anything that can ever be interpreted as inappropriate, even while you sleep. I don't think this poor phrasing will become Obama's Dean Scream, and it certainly won't reach the levels of the Rev. Wright episode, but it is another arrow in Hillary's quiver.

And it's just one more talking point that could extend the nomination process even longer, if Pennsylvania voters take it to heart.

Ron who?

Check out the "politics" section of Yahoo! news recently? Seen the face of a strange man next to John McCain's mug, sheepishly scowling as if he has a chance of getting the Republican nomination, much less having people remember his name?

It's Ron Paul - presidential candidate wannabe and a drain on my rapidly dwindling attention span. Once the darling of 20-somethings who need something to desperately cling on to, he's now the guy who had his 15 minutes of fame and still won't go away.

Sure enough, the Paulites are sticking up signs all over Pennsylvania for some reason, thinking that fuzzy math will save their candidate's chances from being a big, horrendous, gargantuan, mammoth and in no way petite LOSER.

I don't know how many primaries and caucuses you have to lose until you figure out it's not going to happen. Maybe more than 50. I fear we'll find out.

Might as well grab a can of Juicy Juice and settle in for the show. It appears this is a case of Ron Paul that isn't going away any time soon.

She's a political pearl

Stop me if you've heard this one before ...

Heidi Montag, of "The Hills" infamy, has for some reason come out and endorsed a political candidate - John McCain. Here she is quoted from UsWeekly:

"I'm voting for John McCain. I'm a Republican and McCain has a lot of experience. I don't think anyone cares who Heidi Montag votes for."

I think that last bit was a dig at Spencer Pratt, her prat of a boyfriend, who allegedly cautioned her against publicly endorsing a candidate. For this once, I'll agree with the stooge. Montag has zero credibility in the political sphere. she's an augmented cupie doll whose purpose goes no farther than an insipid television show filled with spoiled debutantes whining about their pampered, pathetic lives.

And she couldn't sing her way out of a damp paper sack.

However, here we all are hanging on her every syllable, now no doubt waiting for Audrina to espouse her devotion toward Ron Paul. Would we really care about their opinions if they weren't rich, hot and sometimes naked?

Dumb question.