Well, that didn’t take too long, now did it?

Like the proverbial bad penny always showing up, here comes Mr. Spoiler himself, Ralph Nader, that self-proclaimed (narcissistic) messiah who once again, has perfect timing with his announcement that he’s entering the race for president.

If you ask me, I think this would certainly doom a Hillary nomination, if for no other reason than the left totally hates her guts, so voting for Nader would be their way of sticking it to her one last time because of her Iraq war vote. Since their principles are above reproach, they can vote for Nader without even thinking twice about it. Well, them and the countless other liberals who will scream “Theft!” should she prevail in August at the Democratic convention and get the nomination.

Makes you wonder exactly for whom Nader is working for, correct?

As for the Obamatons, well, this could very well play in their favor, since so many Democrats are still furious with him for spoiling the 2000 presidential debacle, something he denies. If Obama gets the nomination, then plenty of Dems will vote to have a chance to stick it to Nader.

And I loved Mike Huckabee’s response, saying that such a bid would probably pull votes from Democrats, not Republicans. And you know, he’s right.

Hey, it looks like there’s something for everybody now!

Perhaps some people have it all wrong: maybe Obama's free pass from the media isn't an aberration. Perhaps the media script has been to turn on McCain at some point and tear into him. You know, like the way that they've already done to Hillary.

Yesterday's article in "The New York Times" was just all over the media outlets. NPR picked it up and discussed it at length; ABC News and even my local channel. I was initially perplexed because the article played more on innuendo and appeared to be, well, a smear. Then I realized that perhaps it's McCain who is going to be in the crosshairs of our Media Elite: not because he's an unknown, but rather because it's more fun to dig dirt on the frontrunner.

Several people here at Eroico.org truly thought that after helping to push Hillary off the stage (and being gleeful about it in the process), the media would start looking more carefully at Obama. Sure, a few writers like David Brooks have openly questioned Obama on the substance of his rhetoric, but for the most part, there's nary a peep. Maybe the Media Elite now wants to act like it hasn't been pushing Obama as frontrunner and nominee, so they run a story they've been sitting on months against McCain. Shades of things to come?

I am of the opinion (and that's all it is, people) that the media will try to bring down McCain, and not really get that much into Obama. Despite what his cultist followers believe, he's an empty suit who talks great. Wonderful: let's get Tony Robbins to run for president as well. And to be honest, I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton, who clearly has forgotten that Clinton-bashing was first and foremost, a media sport and Democrats just love to hate her and Bill. In Obama, they've found their own stalking horse. Now once they drive the stake in her heart, it will be McCain to feel the heat. Goodbye favored Senate "maverick," hello Mr. Wonderful Speech Giver.

Such a sad, stupid game. And everyone falls for it every four years.

I don’t consider myself an Anglophile by any stretch of the imagination, but I have read more than a couple books about wretched, lustful Henry VIII and his stalwart, more talented daughter Elizabeth I. I have grudging respect for her, if for no other reason than she was a female ruler when hostility to such a creature was far more overt than it is today. Well, just barely, but you get my drift.

I happened to like the movie “Elizabeth” several years back, so I was curious to see what the sequel, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” would be like. Cate Blanchett makes a compelling queen, and while I’ve long since learned that Hollywood and history are like night and day, I appreciated some afternoon entertainment of the British monarch still fighting the expectations that men had of women, and the machinations that men engaged in to secure power.

For some reason or another, I kept thinking of Hillary as Elizabeth. The latter barely made it to the throne, thanks in large part to her political ability. For a while, it looked as though Elizabeth would fall prey to the madness of her sister, Queen Mary (”Bloody Mary”) and wind up on the executioner’s block. The odds were stacked against her, and yet she prevailed, although the struggle to keep control would be a lifelong enterprise.

I make the comparison not because I think that Hillary is Elizabeth, but rather because the struggle to survive in the political game we’re currently engaged in reminds me greatly of Elizabeth’s trials. Neither woman is a martyr nor an innocent, but that is not the point: I don’t need phony romance to make me sympathetic. Instead, I see the odds stacked against Hillary in much the same way Elizabeth had to fend off so many traps and other pitfalls. And she was about as hated as Hillary seems to be.

In perusing several Web sites for news about the primaries and caucuses today, it’s interesting to see the dripping venom of Obamatons against her. Practically everyone is calling for her to end her campaign, or taking great pleasure in her losing another race. (These are the same folks who wildly complain about civility and fairness when their man is questioned, but I digress.) And it’s really at this point that the comparison to Elizabeth takes shape: the will to achieve outweighed the calls of lesser men (and women) to derail ambition. Now, leftists don’t like the word “ambition,” because their assholes are evolved orifices that offer up the sounds of music and the smell of lilac since they aren’t like regular human beings. A person with ambition is one to be distrusted, and it’s already axiomatic that Hillary’s drive and ambition are alleged negative traits. But when I consider this drive, and the willingness to tough it out, I think of Elizabeth’s ambition in equal measure.

Imagine if bloggers were around in the 16th century: they’d all have called for the daughter of Henry VIII not only to give it all up (for the sake of “unity” no less; self-righteous fucks) but to have her head chopped off as a way of taking one for the team. You see, leftists don’t want victory, they want to be stroked. And when you have a woman candidate getting this far (it’s historical, by the way) with this much drive, well, there’s no pride in that. There’s certainly no loyalty, since women voters are flocking to Obama, thus putting the nail in feminism’s coffin because a handsome guy smooth-talked them with a lot of empty talk. They all want Hillary to pack it in, and will spare no dime to dance a jig on her supposed political grave.

But like Elizabeth I, Hillary continues to stay in the race, undaunted by the odds and determined to assume a position of power that is still within grasp. But since the editors of this site have endorsed her, let me explain why she ultimately will not get the nomination: other Democrats. The people who hate her the most are leftists, and they will work mightily to defeat her. Any show of strength on her part is an evil plot, a machination worthy of Karl Rove (see leftist asshole Randi Rhodes inveigh against her and her campaign using “Rovian” to describe everything except her hairdo.) They want to torpedo her because of her “Iraq vote” which I believe will make her the only politician to lose a fight for higher office based solely on this complaint alone. (Hey liberal douchebags, who’s next on your Iraq vote hit list? No one? Thought so.)

Like I said, too many leftists like the idea of stabbing Hillary in the back to consider finding her continued campaign a source of inspiration or strength. Like the very politicians they deride, they are following other voters’ patterns because that’s the way the (stale) wind is blowing. Fine, that’s their choice, but it’s sad to see such a talented and ambitious woman fall prey to the assholes in her own party, and the hard-core leftist fucks who smugly think they’re cruising to nomination victory and beyond.

Just wait.

Wow, I just read this fascinating article by a man who knows all about the Republican slime machine: Joseph C. Wilson, a former ambassador, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was outed by super-asshole Robert Novak as an undercover agent just because the Bush Cartel was mad Mr. Wilson wasn’t buying their bullshit about (dead) Saddam Hussein’s attempt to procure uranium. How’s that for a lead-in sentence?

You can read the article here, and it pretty much sums up a great deal of consternation that I have about Barack Obama. On that front, the elite media fucks have just licked the pen as they compose the final sentence in the otherwise complete obituary on Hillary Clinton. Not to mention some intereesting facts about the congressional vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that has morphed into the Iraq War Vote for which scores of self-righteous leftist shitheads want personally to punish Hillary.

Of course, it was announced today that she won the vote in New Mexico, but that’s been roundly ignored and dismissed by our Media Glitterati because, well, they just don’t care. For them, Obama is the Anointed One, and Hillary is just running on fumes. That’s pretty fair and balanced.

I don't even bother to read the articles on Salon anymore: I jump straight to the comments section, where personal mud-slinging has become an art form among leftists. It's priceless entertainment because reading these posts (usually from the same people) makes me think that all forms of comment sections are functionally useless, except as an outlet for people with no discernable jobs and a need to act tough to people they'll never meet.

With Obama winning three states' caucases (oh excuse me, I have to use the verb “sweep” because that's the choice of our Media Glitterati) we can get back to the script where Hillary's campaign is finally over and Obama is the shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. If you have doubt about that assumption, just read the comments on Salon. I used to think that for hatred and vitriol, I needed to peruse The Free Republic, but now the left has decided that it's time to attack one another. I find it difficult to believe that any of these folks, so polarized in their opinions, could possibly come together at all and back a single choice. The Obama kids are just loathing of Hillary, and strangely enough, they all seem to know exactly what is wrong with her strategy and what she's thinking. That's pretty impressive, since I heard that mind-reading was pretty much a fiction.

For their part, the Hillary crowd is dripping with contempt over Obama's overrated rhetorical style and slim record, likening his supporters to members of a cult or a group of out-of-touch white elitists without a clue. They're at each other's throat, and I think that if I were a Republican, I'd be less worried about John McCain winning the nomination and more entertained by the freakshow that is supposed to pass for “constructive dialogue.”

What bullshit: the Left is turning on itself and doesn't want to do anything constructive but slash and burn everything in sight. Like I said, this isn't anything new since the right-wing has a prediliction for eating its young (and old) as well, but since the Left considers itself socially and intellectually superior, it's a moment to enjoy. But one thing I have gleaned: hard-core leftists are a vindictive bunch, just wanting to plunge the knife in Hillary's chest and twist it around for good measure. Their biggest complaint is her war vote, although I'm hard pressed to know of any other congressmen who were voted out of office on that basis alone. Seems that Hillary is being held personally responsible for our Iraqi Expedition and whole laundry list of other crimes. I don't believe in that at all, but it seems that these folks are the counterparts of the hardcore right-wing: one issue makes them froth at the mouth and there is no forgiveness but utter annihilation.

I have a suspicion that some deal brokering is already going on among the bigwigs of the Democratic Party, precisely because the race is so unbelievably tight, and that will become evident at the convention. Of course, too many leftists believe that political races are really based on one man, one vote, to which I reply: what is this, the planet Cornball? I think, based on no evidence I add, that the deal will run like this: whomever has the most delegates after all the jostling and campaigning is done will get the nomination because the “loser” will concede them in the name of “party unity.” Then that person becomes the other's running mate.

I know, that's a wild-ass scenario for which I have nothing to back it up with, but it's just a suspicion. In the meantime, I will continue to see the leftists tear into each other like rabid dogs, only to end it all with furrowed brows because the convention will produce a result none of them were expecting. It's turned into a zero-sum game for these guys, much to their detriment.

What is the media elite going to do? Their script has been completely thrown out the window, although they're trying their best to re-arrange everything to accommodate the fact that despite their best efforts, Hillary Clinton remains in the race.

I'm surprised that no one in the media has openly called for her to quit, although Allah knows they're all thinking that. And the irony of Clinton's determination to make this a race to the end is that it shows leadership and verve -- you know, presidential-type resolve even when the odds are against you and the media has yours and Britney's obituary.

The race for a Democratic candidate in this election has proven to be just that: a race, unlike the expected coronation ceremony the media predicted when they thought Hillary was the shoo-in. Now that they've taken a shine to Obama, they merely want to change the name on the door and are impatient that this thing ain't over yet. I mean, with as much uncritical attention as his campaign has received, and the dripping vitriol and tea-leaf reading they've done predicting Hillary's demise, they confused, hurt and angry that the voters are shooing Obama in and making this drag out.

And if anyone doubts that Obama has gotten a free ride thus far, let's do a little role reversal. Had California voted for Obama, or even New York, the calls for Hillary to quit would be dominating the headlines because after all, he's ahead, so why should she embarrass herself by continuing the fight? If Massachusetts hadn't disobeyed Teddy Kennedy and voted for Obama, then the coronation would all been declared but over, and you'd see the words “disgrace” following Hillary's media dissection. As it stands, Hillary's thrown these media fucks one curve ball after another, so they've opted to explain this away as women saving her, Latinos saving her and blue-collar workers voting for her as well.

It would never dawn on anybody that perhaps people are voting her because they want her, not because they have a vagina, a Spanish surname or work in a steel mill. By the same token, it would never dawn anybody that people don't want Obama because they don't believe the messianic fervor of his supporters as translating into an ability to lead an entire nation. Of course, those folks are deeply racist, according to the media narrative that has already driven blacks into Obama's arms and turned Bill Clinton into a member of the KKK.

But never underestimate the needs of the media to push Hillary off the stage and start the Rapture of Obama — before the knives come out against him in support of John McCain. But wait, I'm getting ahead of the media narrative. For now, we have to put the nail in Hillary's coffin (because you know, we are all soooo tired of the Clintons) because Allah knows she won't obey the script and just go away.

I have bad news for just about every newspaper and politician out there: I don’t give a damn whom you endorse and it doesn’t change a thing.

And I don’t care if you endorse the politician of my choice either. I can make up my own mind, thank you.

That’s the sentiment I wish I could send out, especially since the “Los Angeles Times” saw fit to follow its New York counterpart (and join the ranks of other slavish newspaper editors, no doubt) by endorsing Obama and McCain this past Friday. This is something I really don’t understand, on the face of it: why are you endorsing two candidates? Why can’t you just go for broke and endorse one to not only get the nomination, but get the job in the end?

Endorsements are selling points, we all know. They’re for weak-minded people who need someone to tell them what to do and how to vote, all while preserving the aura of being completely autonomous and making up your own damn mind. When I read the endorsement of Obama by the “LA Times,” it ended on an oh-so-familiar note:

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.

Oh, it’s so touching, so soul-stirring, so...Oprah. This is how they want politics to be: a love fest, a feel-good moment that is so divorced from reality that at last, I understand that liberals, Democrats and Democratic supporters are not voting with their heads, they’re voting with their hearts because they want to pat themselves on the back and say they voted their ideals. (Well, until they get into the booth; the proof of that will be in the numbers).

It’s a sentiment that can be summed up this: pure horseshit.

Let me explain why by way of a question: is this enough? Is feeling good about your candidate going to produce the change that will undo the damage of eight years of Bush? Do you have any evidence that feeling good and stirring your soul around your cherished ideals actually got anything accomplished? In short: how are you gonna back it all up?

People want to fall in love with their candidates, in same manner they want their two favorite co-stars on a television show to really, really like each other in real life. It’s never happened like that and never will. While I don’t give a damn why governers, politicians and newspaper editors tell me about their personal choices, not one of them has offered the hard question of how they expect their choice to carry out all this stuff. I can only surmise that “feeling good” is supposed to be a means to an end, namely fixing all that ails us. And I suppose leading that change will be Edward Kennedy, because he’s all about change, which explains his almost fifty years in power as a senator. Makes perfect sense to me.

So, the media script continues unabated: promote Barack Obama as an agent of change (oh, he’s an agent alright) and make sure you talk to everyone about lyricism, poetry and a steaming pile of shit and don’t give a hint on how you expect this to happen once the morning comes and you wake up next to who you thought was the girl of your dreams.

Don’t believe me? Just sit back and watch.