Well it's Super Tueday! Or is it Soooooper Tuesday? Or Souper Tuesday!

They are already saying Huckabee won West Virgina!

Man, this is all over the place!

Stuper Uesday.

Yea, really!

The HUCKster won the COCKus and that's it!!!!

OK, so Foxnews.com has this picture of "Who is backing Whom" on their home page.

Beside Obama's picture is George Clooney, Matt Damon, Oprah, and Robert DeNiro.

Beside Hillary's picture: Madonna, 50 Cent, Barbara Streisand and Jerry Springer!

Of the 8 DeNiro is the only one that is worth a crap!

Even if I was a Hillary supporter...Jerry Springer endorsing her would be enough to make me barf then give my support to someone else.

Madonna and 50 Cent????? Can't she do any better than that? A slut and a (c)rapper! HA!

SkyBill, it was on Foxnews for crying out loud. False12 News, News how we see it!

Skybill, thanks for pointing out the bias that exists at Fox News. Why else would they show that Madonna, 50 cent, Barbara Streisand, and Jerry Springer support Hillary? Fixed News is a fucking joke!

And next to Huckabee - Chuck Norris? Next to McCain, we have...Sylvester Stallone?

Rambo vs. Texas Ranger?

I think I'll stick with Hillary or Obama thank you very much.

Andrew

It wasn't so long ago that Republicans found the idea of actively seeking the public support of Hollywood ( which Democrats do and did to a greater degree than Republicans ) proof of California liberalism and San Francisco values and, basically, abhorrent. Even sinful.

NOW we get Republicans trotting out anyone they can. McCain and, uh, Wilford Brimley? Seriously.

Frankly, for me, an actor giving an endorsement never counted for much. But to see who is coming out to support The Republicans is kinda funny.

This goes back to a point I have a hard time articulating, but I really feel that Republicans have a big chip on their shoulder when it comes to knowing that they lack a certain " coolness. " Even if it is just a perceived one. Not based in fact. They are generally uncreative and just, you know, geeky. Humorless too. Puritanical. Joyless. And certainly sexless.

It's a tough sell to combine " fear and power-hungry " along with " being able to relate on entertainment level." Most of the time, they ( Republicans ) wear it like a badge of honor that they steer clear of anything that smacks of The Hollywood Elite. That's actually true. They do. But it's times like these that show that chip. Republicans have been laughed at for a while now. Satire and just flat out pointing out some of their backwards absurdity has actually been effective. My suspiscion is that they hate that. Good. They should. And whaddya know? Some of that less than subtle shaming tactics has actually worked when it's been brought about openly and spoken aloud. Many of The Republicans' positions SOUND good as long as you don't talk about it too much. But when someone does, especially in a comedic fashion ( Hell, sometimes all it takes is someone to be articulate to expose some previously unattended flaw in their logic ), much of their platform feels very wrong to me. Which touches on the other thing about Republicans; They prefer to have things done quietly and behind the scenes. Not because they are humble. Quite the opposite. It's because they carry such a burden of repression that they have found comfort in being secretive and doing things in the dark. That's my opinion and experience.

How IS that Fox version of The Daily Show doing anyway?

Look, being " cool " isn't always akin to being " good." I accept and fully embrace that. But Republicans never really had a choice. So they get what they get when it comes to relatability. More often than not, I just don't relate. Democrats have the same chip in that they have to suffer through ego-maniacs thinking they have far too much influence over things. The sheep that follow Oprah purely because she, you know, Oprah and popular - is doubly tragic for me. Borderline silly.

I'm not saying I'm above it all. Heck, some endorsements mater to me and sometimes I'm not even sure why. Sometimes it's about who they are NOT endorsing that catches my attention. A couple Kennedys getting behind Obama caught my attention. Mostly for the fact that they didn't do the expected route of supporting Clinton.

I'm rambling now. Sorry. Typical Democrat.

IMHO, that's a really great ramble.

On a simple and silly note, anybody that has Matt Damon's support, has mine!

--and him standing next to Oprah is just bizzare, if you think about it! What an appeal statement for Obama huh?

Don't forget that the HUCKster had Ric Flair....

WHOOOOOOOOOOO!

Its funny how first the wrestling issue got brought up yet again (THREAD JACK) But surprisingly wrestlers for the most part are a very conservative bunch. Mick Foley is the only name wrestler that I can think of who is a registered and known Democrat.

Along the lines of what Chickenjuggler said it goes for the endorsement of Obama by Hogan (talk about a guy who has little to no credibility but the could be said for Flair too)

IMHO, that's a really great ramble.

A hearty +1.

I think that the cool celebrity chic shtick dates back at least to the days of the Rat Pack. In 1960, Frank Sinatra sang alternate lyrics for the Kennedy campaign to his 45, High Hopes.

Digesting the results:

1. Mitt Romney. Why the hell has anyone given this guy half a chance? It was obvious after Iowa that the guy was finished. Yet the media has continued to spew the conventional wisdom that he's a contender as he's continued to lose important primary after important primary. It's baffling that the talking heads seem so surprised that he finished so poorly AGAIN.

2. Mike Huckabee: acting like he's won some sort of big Super Tuesday victory, but given McCain's huge lead, it's pretty much hopeless for him, too. Unless McCain's health fails him before September...

3. Democratic Primary "winners" - the media keep calling a "winner" in all of these Democratic primaries, but there is no "winner" in states (most of them) that award their delegates proportionally. It's not winner-take-all (as in the electoral college or in so many of the Republican primaries). So why does anyone care if Clinton or Obama wins a state? All that matters is the total number of delegates.

4. Obama is a big winner just by winning so many delegates. He's shown that he's for real in opposing someone who was widely supposed to be the frontrunner.

5. John McCain's victory speech: did anyone notice that no one standing behind him (including fellow Republican Joe Lieberman) looks younger than 50? Sheesh, the contrast with Obama's under-30 crowd is striking. Historically that's bad news for Democrats if Obama winds up nominated, because young people historically don't come out on election day. Maybe this year - ?

6. Obama loses big, Hillary wins big, to Hispanic voters particularly in California. Depending on how you look at it, it could be bad news if Obama is nominated, because Hispanics may prefer McCain. On the other hand, it shows that if Hillary is nominated, she might have an edge with McCain with Hispanics.

This could be a HUGE issue in November, because the Hispanic vote could tilt California to McCain and that would probably give him the election. Democrats take note if they want to win the White House.

Andrew

"It's baffling that the talking heads seem so surprised that he finished so poorly AGAIN."

Maybe because deep in the media's subconscious a wide early McCain lead in the nomination process doesn't translate into great TV (or print media sales.) Face it -- McCain is a bit dull. Huckabee is far more interesting and Romney is like a car wreck -- both better topics from the media's point of view. Hmm?