Florida and Michigan Loom Large

There was copious discussion of the Florida and Michigan delegate situations on this blog. I always maintained that should Obama claim the victory (which he now has, lugubriously), he would struggle in those two states. Swing voters would not be forgiving of such neglect.

According to Real Clear Politics (the most dependable source in polling), here are the current numbers in those states:

Florida: McCain +8.3
Michigan: McCain +1.6

Now to be fair, much of the above data is based on old numbers. Obama has clearly made gains in the last week. He could still win those states, especially Michigan, but it will require a healthy degree of diplomatic skill.

Can Mr. Obama afford to lose both these states? Probably not. He could overcome defeats with surprise victories in two of Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, and Nevada. Of course, he would also need to hold on to Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

If it does come down to Florida and Michigan, however, and John McCain wins, Sir Barack will have nobody to blame but himself.

Fathers Rule the Day

Make no mistake, it is the least of my intentions to take anything away from fathers on their day of recognition. I had once hoped to become a father, and while certain impediments still stand in my way, I assume I will one day realize that dream.

When it comes to politics, however, one has to observe the overwhelming bias that favors fathers over mothers. Yet again, both presidential candidates make this their day of celebration, with none to represent that other parental day in early May.

Was it because of a lack of viable candidates? Certainly not. And yet, women still find themselves fettered by that glass ceiling. I had hoped that would change in this term, but if the backlash against the genuine Geraldine Ferraro is any indication, we have still a time to wait.

Where Hath Hillary Gone?

It seems, by all media accounts, that our dear Mrs. Clinton has vanished from the public eye. The bewilderment as to her whereabouts has struck not only the regular news media (aka the Obama for President support group), but the famed paparazzi as well.

The only available reports indicate that Hillary has taken a much-needed respite to spend time with her family. A noble initiative, I would ordinarily say, were it not that it ran so contrary to my personal interests. In the past, I would like to at least envision my chosen lady in a certain place, campaigning away with her typical eloquence.

Based on what little information exists, I shall give you my inferences, which are nothing more than pure speculation. Take heed, however, that when it comes to Mrs. Clinton, I share a greater wavelength of connection. The possibilities:

1. Her residence in Chappaqua, NY - This is certainly the most likely destination, and yet one would think it would be known. I wager not.

2. Some private Caribbean island - One hopes not the place where Bertha Mason lived (see Jane Eyre's piece here for more details on why that would be ill-advised). I tend to think she would choose somewhere of more interest to her personally.

3. Pemberley Estate - I have reasoned it all out, and this seems the most probable. We all know Mrs. Clinton's fascination with Pride and Prejudice...what better opportunity to explore the intricacies of a famous novel than now. I can only hope the current residents have welcomed her with open arms, as I would have.

The Tale of the Assistant Housekeeper

While I would never feign to assert that the painstaking process of selecting the Pemberley Assistant Housekeeper position was as tedious as Sir Barack Obama's search for a Vice President, there are some relevant parallels. Ah, that was a mouthful of Mrs. Bennet's pork loin.

We had a plethora of demands to meet, much of it dispersed among varying demographics. The lady servants desired female representation (the lead Housekeeper was of the male persuasion), and they were joined in their feminist crusade by my lovely sister, Georgiana. They had a particular lady in mind, a Mrs. Reynolds.

Mr. Wickham (before his character was impugned), however, was adamant that the lead Housekeeper be affixed with someone more diversified in talent. The ladies' choice, you see, failed to deliver in that regard, because her policies were quite similar to that of the lead Housekeeper. To appoint Mr. Wickham's choice, however, would have incited a gender-based uproar, and we could not have that.

Ultimately, we decided on Mrs. Reynolds. As some of you may recall, she eventually became lead Housekeeper, playing a monumental role in opening Lizzy's mind to the salubriousness of Pemberley.

Take heed, Mr. Obama. Appeal to the heart of women, for they will reward you with determination, for or against. My dear Hillary is the proper choice.

What Will My Dear Hillary Do Next?

Yesterday, I proffered a blueprint for how this blog will function from this point forward. I will be debating between the two remaining presidential misfits: Sir Barack Obama and Templar John McCain. All this, while continuing to assert my never-waning enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton's political accumen and physical prowess.

Today, we shall focus on my favorite of those three personages. Much attention has been afforded to what my dear Hillary will do next. I give you a thorough breakdown of each possibility:

1. Mr. Obama offers her the Vice Presidency, and she accepts. This, I believe, is what we are all striving for, but would Mr. Obama truly accept such a superior mind? Would he not feel threatened by her sheer good looks, her commanding eloquence? Would it not often happen that immediately preceding a major crisis, he would pull her aside and say, "Sweetcakes, what ever should I do?" It all seems so improbable.

2. No Vice Presidency, so Mrs. Clinton returns to the Senate. Many are describing her as the next Ted Kennedy (a title I would avoid like the Bubonic Plague), posing as the Senate's most authoritative and potent figure. There is an element of appeal here, certainly, but it stings of disappointment. Could I have simply accepted Lizzy's sister Kitty as a consolation prize? Heresy!

3. Ah yes, the most appealing option. Spurned by the Democratic party and lauded by fervent supporters, Mrs. Clinton remains as Senator, but makes it undoubtedly clear that her goal is to run again in 2012 or 2016. In her first post-electoral act, she saddles husband Bill to a divorce settlement, then seeks comfort in the arms of a more worthy lover. And that, my dear friends, is where I shall be waiting, with expectant arms.

All is Not Lost

It has been quite a lengthy period since I last employed this platform. My reasoning? Grief, mourning, lugubriousness, depression, tribulation, mortification, bereavement, melancholy. This, I feel most inexorably, for the American people, who have squandered their democratic rights on a mere fantasy (just as I have squandered my affections...but I still hope!)

I find myself in a bit of a perplexing situation. Do I dedicate the first indentation on my glossy voter card to my sworn enemy, Sir Barack Obama, or do I defect to an equally unappetizing choice, John McCain?

And yet, I almost relish this new vocation of the "swing voter." Suddenly, overtures are being made from both sides, attempting to lure those heartbroken Hillblazers such as myself with wing-shaped promises and angst-filled entreaties. Much like those disgraceful electors we refer to as Superdelegates, I shall sit upon my lofty perch and comment as the days go on.

Final determination? November. And yes, I am back for good, and loyal as ever to my dear Hillary and her luscious physique.

Pastor Wright a Worthy Adversary

In the wake of Reverend Wright's Obama-defaming national tour, I can come to only one conclusion; he, like me, is vying for my dear Hillary's affections.

How else to explain a behavioral display so disarming of Senator Obama's chances? If my dear Hillary manages to turn this election around, it will be much to do with Wright. I cannot help feeling jealous, knowing what a greater hand he would have played, when I exerted myself tirelessly to let my lady know the fullness of my feelings.

One poll had North Carolina within 5 points (most have it 10-15, however) and Indiana seems to be shifting Hillary's way. This while at a major financial disadvantage. If only I had my former fortune, I could expend it on something more gratifying than a new acre of chrysanthemums!

My Deepest Apologies

I wish I could attribute my recent absences to some worthy cause, such as rescuing my true love's sister from cosmic disgrace. Unfortunately, my explanation is far more self-serving, exposing me as a personage wholly undeserving of your readership.

I have been - ashamedly - electioned out for a few days. With so much intensity leading up to the Pennsylvania elections, it was undeniable that I would experience a letdown (to my credit, I predicted the results exactly). My affections for Hillary remained in full form, to be sure, but my ability to watch CNN waned. I simply could not endure any more commentary!

Now that I have taken the much-needed respite, I am ready to commence my analyses once more. Perhaps you enjoyed the break as much as I, and we can both approach the coming Indiana and North Carolina primaries with considerable gusto.

I also promised an explanation for why I have developed a fondness for the nation of Sweden, and I assure it will come shortly. Perhaps after I dream of my dear Hillary, myself, and three bottles of Crown Royale in between.

My Dear Hillary Takes Pennsylvania

The returns are still accumulating, and it remains to be seen whether my dear Hillary can win by double digits (a symbolic number that could bode well for her).

Either way, she should claim victory in the 8-10 points category. A formidable showing, no doubt, though she will need more to truly overtake the front-running Barack Obama. With Indiana and North Carolina on the horizon, she must take advantage of this much-needed momentum to climb the polls quickly.

Momentum, of course, depends on your media. How will they run with this story? Will three days of good publicity amount to genuine progress, or will it fall quickly to the Thames floor? As a newly patriotic American, I hope this is the beginning of the Hillary movement.

Return from Holiday

To my faithful readers who have long awaited my return, I am back from my week-long holiday (an excursion that I probably should have published. I feared too many paparazzi). Beginning today, I will be back for good, submitting my usual equitable dissertations on the current political sphere.

Let me just express three quick sentiments:

1. England is not what it was. I sojourned back to the land of my roots, only to find a nation consumed with modernity, forgetting its old aristocratic identity and embracing elements of such foreign notions as socialism and respect for the common man. Improvements? In many ways, yes, but not entirely so.

2. I have a new favorite nation: Sweden. There will be more on that tomorrow.

3. The long-anticipated Pennsylvania vote is tomorrow. My prediction? My dear Hillary 55%, Sir Barack Obama 45%.

More to come soon, I assure you.

Obama Darth Vader in the Making!

I have experienced the pleasure of watching your popular fantasy series, Star Wars. What a gripping tale, which could only be made better with some stronger acting performances. Why not Colin Firth as Luke? How about Keira Knightley as Princess Leia? I would leave Harrison Ford alone, though.

Well, as much as the Jedi bring good to the universe, they also have some crafty tricks up their sleeves. Look what can happen when those talents fall into the wrong hands? We get Darth Vader.

Sir Barack Obama has been quite effective at wielding those Jedi mind tricks. As comically depicted here, he has somehow managed to swing the press under his spell. Beware, I say. We could be electing Darth Vader.

Clinton Marrital Squabbles an Opening for Me?

From what I understand, the Clinton marriage has always had some questionable elements to it. As a nobleman, I have battled furiously against any malevolent wishes for their marriage, but my genteel nature is being tested quite a bit now.

It seems the Clintons are spatting right now. No, not over Monica Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or Jennifer Flowers, but over trade with Colombia. A trivial matter, you assume? I beg to differ.

It has long been speculated that their marriage is one of convenience: a political union. Would not a political union be most threatened by a political squabble? Gentility condemns my lustful inferences, but I may be beyond repair. Could the door now be open for me? Please let it be so, my dear Hillary.

Hillary Makes Use of Her...Assets

The disparity in finances between the Obama and Clinton camps is enormous, which is the predominant reason why he continues to gain on Hillary in states she once led by large margins.

An interesting thing happened in Texas and Ohio, however. My dear Hillary, wisening up from past failures, held off a good portion of her resources to the end. The results were staggering. In the final week, she regained much of her lead.

We are witnessing the same pattern in Pennsylvania. Aside from a horrendous bowling performance, Sir Barack Obama launched a 3-week British-Royal-Navy blitz on the state. Should he not have gained points? It was a near certainty.

And now, my dear Hillary has graced our screens with three ads. One condemns the Bush administration (quite rightly), one employs the venerable Governor Ed Rendell, and the third (my favorite) demonstrates Hillary's sentimental ties to the state.

Pennsylvania, you must vote for her!

Delegate System One for Brighton Quacks

In my prior life, we of the highest nobility would occasionally have soirees together in London. The discussions would range from business to politics, and we always decided things on a majority basis.

Then one day, some alchemist charlatans from Brighton claimed to have made gold in their pump rooms. We all sensed it as nonsense and swiftly voted them out (a contingent from Portsmouth was especially vocal about it, making use of their boots as much as their lips). Dissastisfied with the way they were treated, the Brighton group decided to make their claims anyway, defying the traditional rules. A few of my nation's more gullible citizens ate it up, and they were swindled out of their money.

I bring up this story because it resembles the current delegate equation. Why have a skewed proportional system when winner-take-all works much more effectively? To this day, all the TV networks have different interpretations of the delegate count. What a nonsensical scrum!

Look at how simply the Republicans were able to delineate their primary. Furthermore, the General Election is decided by a winner-take-all, which would seem to benefit the side whose candidate performs best in those situations.

According to Sean Wilentz's fool-proof calculations, my dear Hillary's big-state appeal would carry her to the nomination. She would lead even without the inclusion of Florida and Michigan, two states Mr. Obama murderously discarded.

Should the Democrats be run like genteel folk, or Brighton Quacks? If you answered the latter, you probably had too many puffs at an Obama rally.

Pennsylvania the Keystone For Clinton

Every day, we the people are treated to a new round of polling, generally from such inconsistent groups as Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, Survey USA, PPD and the likes.

The numbers which seem to be drawing the most attention are the Democratic National polls, dominated by Sir Barack Obama as of late (with the occasional close one). Pundits, television networks, and Obama proponents have used these numbers as evidence that the race is over.

The other pro-Obama statistic has been in national McCain vs. Democrat polls. These have been fairly close, but Obama is polling a tad bit better. These, some would say, further the argument that Obama is the better general election candidate.

The problem with both of these arguments is that Pennsylvania has yet to happen. Between now and April 22nd, the only polls that truly matter are the Pennsylvania Primary, and predictions have been erratic enough to leave us wondering what the result will be.

I have studied the numbers incessantly, and past trends have shown huge general movement with single-day gains, much the result of the media. Here is my barometer for Hillary's chances:

Lose Pennsylvania - Race is over, barring a MAJOR scandal (apparently more egregious than Wright)

Win Pennsylvania by 5 points or less - The only way this works into a positive is if the media places Obama's expectations higher than they should be (ie. Ohio and Texas).

Win Pennsylvania by 5-10 - Will bring some momentum, but probably not enough to gain real traction.

Win Pennsylvania by 10-15 - A tremendous victory that might be enough to sway some North Carolina and Indiana voters.

Win Pennsylvaina by 15-20 - A major news story that carries Hillary Clinton into a surge. What she does with that surge would depend on the politics from there.

Win Pennsylvania by 20+ - A dramatic win that exposes Barack Obama's failures in major swing states. A result like this would similarly bring the popular vote much closer, and put Hillary in an almost even match for the nomination.

To Have Been Around When...

Life is made up of a series of what-ifs, and it's a topic that can be discussed for hours on end, especially by well-to-do (code for nothing-to-do) aristocrats. I found myself particularly transfixed by David Shribman's piece today, how of all places to have been a fly on the wall, he would have picked the Kennedy-Johnson VP conference of 1960.

In my case, I no longer think "To Have Been in the Room When" but "To Have Been Around When" Certainly, there are events from my lifetime that I wish I could have witnessed, such as the French Revolution and the 1802 day a stupid aristocrat drove his horses into Stonehenge, but here is a brief list of events I would have liked to have been around for:

1. The Victorian era, 1837 - 1901 - I still have a chance to see part of this, if Lady Catherine decides to bring me back. It just seems a golden period in British history. Could I meet Charles Dickens?

2. The Wright Brothers, 1903 - I would have loved to have seen the beginnings of flight.

3. The Holocaust, 1939-1945 - Specifically, the Concentration Camps, which make the greater injustices of my time seem like a poor day's hunt. I find it important for every human being to witness humanity at its worst, so as to never duplicate such maligned behavior.

4. Neil Armstrong on the moon, 1969 - I am still in disbelief. The thought of reaching the moon was beyond the realm of fantasy in my day. It truly stands as a monumental moment in human progress.

5. 1989 - Leonard Bernstein conducts the largest international orchestra in Beethoven's 9th to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall (actually on DVD). This may seem a trivial choice, but for a man of my time, few things can express a more surprising unification than the whole world playing Beethoven. I was privy to some of Beethoven's earlier symphonies, but I never heard the 9th. By the way, that was real music.

Oh, and one more:

October 26, 1947 - The day my dear Hillary graced this Earth with her presence.

If There Were Snipers...

Much has been made about those would-be Bosnian snipers, the ones my dear Hillary mistakenly referred to in a campaign speech. It amazes me how quick some people are to call her a liar, when her mistake could have easily been a case of confused memory. Those "neutral" pundits are the real snipers.

What cannot be attributed to memory befuddlement is Sir Barack Obama's two-faced observations of Reverend Wright. How can the media be so gullible as to believe Obama was "shocked" by the media clips? Even more disturbing is that there's written evidence that he was well aware of it before. The media ought to be ashamed for giving one story life and the other death, all to help their golden boy.

But as a last thought (and this goes out to you, my dear Hillary), I would just like to say that if there had been snipers in Bosnia, that I would have laid my body over yours to protect you. What more proof do you need of my devotion? How about you lay your body over mine.

Napoleon Gets More Coverage Than Me? Sacrebleu!

Two references to Napoleon today, both from major political commentators. As pleased as I am to have the great 19th century examined more closely, I have to wonder why I am not given more recognition. I thought I had the monopoly on modern politics from the 1800's perspecive. Apparently, I need to read up more on your anti-trust laws.

In this first piece, Charles Krauthammer mentions Waterloo in the opening sentence. Why not Pemberley instead? Do you think Napoleon's army would have rather tasted the famous Darcy Shepherd's Pie or blood-splattering defeat? Point Darcy.

In the second article, Jonah Goldberg compares Napoleon's "When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna," with Sir Barack Obama's humiliating bowling performance. Credit must be given to Napoleon for accomplishing that feat, but I have fulfilled many of my promises too. I set out to make sure Jane Bennet loved Mr. Bingley, and I succeeded (albeit with destroying their lives for a year...but what's one year in a life?) Even.

Napoleon tried to conquer the world and failed. I tried to conquer a woman's heart and succeeded. Darcy wins!

So why more Napoleon? I suppose your era prefers losers to winners; hence, more Obama coverage.

Attending a Hillary Rally

Rallies were not a popular thing in my day, and if they were, certainly not among the gentry. Why exhaust yourself at a rally when you could grumble quietly to a servant (who had to pretend to listen despite having no interest whatsoever)? We complained about such life-altering travesties as the mutton being too chilly or the weather being too tropical. Life could seem barely tolerable at times, and yet few got emotional about it. Everything was subdued.

After attending my first political rally tonight (incidentally for Hillary Clinton...who would have guessed it?), let me assure you that times have changed. Not only do women find it in themselves to talk the forbidden subjects (politics, religion, anything related to having something beyond a bird's brain), but they speak with an insatiable fire. They may as well have played Berlioz's March to the Scaffold (an excellent composition from my neighbors to the south), with Sir Barack Obama's head on the pike, then burnt it to the stake a la Joan of Arc and quartered it to the four corners a la William Wallace (a wonderful film, that Braveheart). These women were out for blood, all while they served carrot cake.

And the Obama rallies are supposed to be even wilder. What could possibly go on there? Do they take Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls and poke out her eyes with Monica Lewinsky's cigar?

It seems that if I ever want for the old life, McCain's pub is the place to be; no rabid liberals, and no conservatives from what I hear either. I'll "hang" with Hillary's crew any day of the week.

Pundits Have A Case of Selective Polling

A neighbor of mine enlightened me on the concept of "selective hearing," a practice I am quite fond of, apparently. Back in my old life, I employed it to perfection, tuning out Lady Catherine when belligerent, Caroline Bingley when negative, and Mrs. Bennet when she, well, spoke at all.

I am noticing a similar trend among pundits when it comes to polling. The polls have varied to such an extent that almost anyone can take a given day's results and spin it in his/her favor. Like film reviews, there are vast discrepancies in interpretation (save for the exception of rare masterpieces, such as Pride and Prejudice).

Well, I am going to play pundit for a day. Never mind all those polls showing my dear Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania slimming, or the double-digit defecit in North Carolina. How about this indisputable Quinnipiac poll, which shows Hillary winning Florida and performing better in Ohio and Pennsylvania against McCain?

Wait a moment. Why am I playing pundit? This is the clear evidence I have feverishly sought, proving my dearest lady as the Democrat's best hope! Scratch everything I said above.

Bowling for Clinton-Time

Today, my dear Hillary summoned some of her finest wit, suggesting that she and Sir Barack Obama bowl it out, for the nomination. This, of course, comes on the heels of Mr. Obama putting forth a rather poor showing at the alleys (a 37 I believe).

I never bowled back in my day. I preferred more gentlemanly games like croquet and badminton (though my fondness for baseball is growing by the minute). If bowling is what my lady likes, however, then let her challenge me to a contest. I would gladly throw a few by the wayside to give her victory. After all, my mind would already be - as you Americans are fond of saying - "in the gutter."

What Was In the Clinton Library Redactions

Apparently, I am not the only creation of Jane Austen's turning up today. As the outstanding Austen Blog reports, a new letter has surfaced, mentioning such appetizing things as Austen's recipe for hamster curry. Oh, the old delicacies!

The emergence of this groundbreaking news has plunged my mind into a reverie, as I imagine what might have been redacted from the Clinton Library records. Could there have been something in reference to me? Here are a few that came to mind:

January 20, 1993
Much as I tried to listen to my husband's inaugural address, I could not resist rummaging through the pages of Pride and Prejudice, desperately searching for every reference to Mr. Darcy. Oh, what a gentleman!

January 1, 1994
NAFTA comes into effect today. I'm not sure how I feel about it (who knows, there may come a time when I run for President myself, and it may not be good for certain states?). The one thing I do know how I feel about is Mr. Darcy. I'm ravenous for him.

December 29, 1995
I had the great pleasure of watching the BBC Miniseries of Pride and Prejudice, starring the dashing Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. If he were to arrive at my doorstep, he could have me...all of me.

January 17, 1998
My longtime enemy, Chris Drudge, just launched a report about my husband's dealings with Monica Lewinsky. Does this mean I can finally act on my deepest secret, my long-felt affections for Mr. Darcy?

April 10, 1998
Today I was in Belfast for the Good Friday Agreement between the British and Irish governments. Though I had to play the neutral role, I must privately admit my bias for England, because of my great passion for their literature (and most notably, the character of Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice).

November 7, 2000
My dear friend Al Gore is hanging by a thread, hoping for a recount in Florida. I, too, am hanging by a thread, just waiting for a romantic escapade from Mr. Darcy.

Could that have been what was redacted from the Clinton Library? Was it fear of being exposed for impure thoughts that caused the Clinton campaign to withhold information? I can only hope.

Oh, and readers: Do you think Hillary would like hamster curry?

Polls, Like People, Are Fickle

In my two centuries of experience, I have witnessed quite a bit of human interaction. Between the graceful mannerisms of my day and the more outspoken dialogue of yours, I have learned this foolproof adage: People rarely say what they mean, and when they do, they rarely stick to it.

The political polls, which measure the current perception of the populace, are about as predictable as the weather in Hyde Park; when it rains, it often pours (or hails), and yet it dries up shortly afterwards. How else to make sense of the up-and-down, see-saw, Pemberley-to Longbourn-to Netherfield- to Pemberley- to Rosings Park-to Pemberley-to London- to Longbourn- to Pemberley capriciousness?

Let's break it down further:

Pemberley - Clinton the clear favorite (January-August 2007)

Longbourn - Obama gains momentum, becomes challenger (Fall 2007)

Netherfield - Obama wins Iowa caucus

Pemberley - Facing political death, Hillary eeks out a win in New Hampshire

Rosings Park - Obama wins huge in South Carolina, splits Super Tuesday, then wins 11 in a row

Pemberley - Clinton strikes back in Ohio and Texas

London - Wright Controversy

Longbourn - Obama regains momentum, Bosnia sniper fiasco (where we are now)

And to come?

Pemberley - Clinton wins Pennsylvania big, catapulting her into the popular vote lead and a happy ending for all when the Convention chooses a Clinton-Obama ticket.

We can only hope for the Pemberley ending, but sadly, many things go the way Mr. Collins and Charlotte Lucas.

It's a Popular (ity) Contest Now

The common media epithet for the January 29th Florida Democratic Primary was "beauty contest." Furthermore, the biggest issue surrounding the New Hampshire Primary was likability. Having delved enough into the history of your High School culture, I question whether this political race is just another popularity contest, pitting Socs against Greasers, jocks against T-Birds. Is it indeed a popularity contest?

I say it is, but in a different way. If this were, in fact, a beauty contest, my choice would be obvious. 60 years or not, Hillary Clinton is one sumptuous temptress. Deep inside, every male journalist has to be wondering what lies behind the pants-suit curtain (is it the fear of rejection that makes them favor Obama?).

But leaving the Meryton gutter behind, let's focus on the word "popularity." Pundits for Sir Barack Obama have argued that Mrs. Clinton has no chance to catch him. Some have gone even further, suggesting that she should drop out (Mr. Obama - to his credit - retreated from that position yesterday).

I am the first to accept the pledged delegate differential as daunting, but the "popular" vote can still be accomplished. It was universally acknowledged that - with Florida and Michigan - my dear Hillary Clinton would have had an excellent chance to catch up in popular vote. When Mr. Obama tramelled that attempt, many saw Mr. Obama's lead as insurmountable.

I entreat you, readers, to examine this chart from the illustrious Jay Cost. As Michael Barone shows here, my dear Hillary still has a decent chance. She will need her strongest showings in Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota, states that may or may not be favorable to her. She must exceed expectations in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia, while minimizing the damage in North Carolina and Oregon.

The other critical contest is Puerto Rico, where lawmakers have successfully changed the vote from a caucus to a primary. Clinton has soared with Latino voters (a large percentage of the Puerto Rican population, we assume), so if she can gain over 300,000 votes there, she would be in a prime position. Let's also factor in the growing trend of states wanting to feel important. The best way to have an impact on the race is to vote Clinton, so I expect her to gain a few supporters that way too.

In sum, Mrs. Clinton may not win a High School popularity contest with Mr. Obama, but she can win the popular vote. It was much the same way with Mr. Bennet, as he was first inclined towards Mr. Wickham, but later settled on me. The United States can do the same.

Howard Dean Decides to Speak Up

After months of silence when he should have spoken, Howard Dean (once compared to Mr. Bennet) has decided to speak up. And what has he said? Naturally, that the candidates should tone it down.

This, coming from the master of "toning it down," save for that little squeal four years back. He successfully toned down the Florida and Michigan electorate too, which is proof that the real genius in Dr. Dean's toning-down has been his muted support for Obama.

It reminds me of when I instructed Mr. Bingley to tone it down, wrongfully interpreting Jane Bennet's bashfulness for indifference. My ill-advised interference delayed their happiness for a good year; Howard Dean's will rob his party's happiness for four.

Obama, Clinton in Lyme?

The desire to discover one's origins is present in nearly every human, so it should come as no surprise that I have actively sought information about Jane Austen, the woman who brought me to this world (before I was hijacked to a different world by Lady Catherine).

It was to my great pleasure, then, that I stumbled across a brilliant piece on Austen in Lyme. Most of you will associate the word Lyme with Lyme's disease, but the lovely waterfront town in England serves as an outstanding relaxation spot, a soothing distraction from the hustles and bustles of daily life. In fact, I would recommend it as a place for people ailing from Lyme's Disease, almost as a British Lourdes of sorts.

But all this talk of relaxation got me thinking about the stresses of the political trail. Would it not benefit my dear Hillary and Sir Barack Obama to find America's version of Lyme, to come to an accord and save the Democratic party of more fracture, perhaps over a spot of English tea?

Let's review some possibilities:

Palm Beach, Florida: At first, I was sure this would work, but then I remembered a key obstacle: Mr. Obama does not recognize Florida as a state.

Sleepy Bear Sand Dunes, Michigan: Another great spot, but alas, not one on Mr. Obama's lists either. No delegates, no tea party.

On Lake Michigan, Illinois: Mr. Obama does recognize his own state as far as I know, but so does the Reverend Wright.

Charleston, South Carolina: The perfect Lyme, except Mr. Clinton - who did more for civil rights than any prior President - would not be welcome because he's presumed a racist there.

Boston Harbor, Massachusetts: Perhaps not the best place for a tea party.

Long Island, New York: They prefer coffee.

Seattle, Washington: Too much rain.

Laguna Beach, California: Too much Tom Cruise.

Alas, it looks like the real Lyme is the only alternative. Perhaps they'll meet Anne Eliot there. Oh, and they should make sure to watch their ankles.

Drop Out, They Say? Hah!

Add Pennsylvania to the bulletin of states the Obama campaign finds irrelevant, and go ahead and include North Carolina and Indiana for good measure. Brush them aside with those undeserving constituencies in Florida and Michigan, because the only states that should weigh in on the Democratic party's choice for President are the ones that support Mr. Obama.

Am I being a bit harsh? Am I engaging in hyperbole? Not at all, if you examine these reprehensible remarks from supporters of Mr. Obama. Is not the concept of counting every vote an essential component of any true democracy? Only my dear Hillary seems to comprehend this.

What is Mr. Obama afraid of? If he were so certain of his position, he would gladly support revotes in Florida and Michigan, and subsequently first-votes in the remaining twelve states, commonwealths, and territories. God forsake Pennsylvania of its statehood, because it dares to vote against the chosen one!

Fortunately for all rational-minded folk, the day of reckoning will be April the 22nd, and I sincerely hope the good citizens of Pennsylvania turn Obama into a toothsome miscellany of Quaker oatmeal. What a tasty instant breakfast!

Cupid Strikes Again

Do you hear that sonance, that swishing sound of Hillary Clinton sinking? No, not in the polls (okay, perhaps there too), but in the open wound that is my heart.

I recently opined about how my dear Hillary plagiarized my words to express her affections, and today I was given more proof. Take a look at this lovely illustration of the glorious Lady Hillary unleashing arrow after arrow in search of love.

Now look at the artist's name. Yes, it is indeed a gentleman named Mr. Darcy (in this case Jeff...mine is the much more regal Fitzwilliam). She simply sought the wrong one.

In light of these new developments, I may just overcome my fears and extend my shaking hand. As many of you are painfully aware, marriage proposals have not been my forte (though I still claim to be more adept at it than Mr. Collins). Please tell me readers; will my efforts be in vain? Will she accept my lessened fortune and twentieth century inexperience? My goodness, I sound like Mr. Obama! How unworthy I am!

I am almost certain to be rejected, and yet I still cling to the tiniest shred of hope from those potioned arrows so beautifully depicted in that drawing. She must take pity on my pour soul.

If Hillary is to decline my heartfelt affections, then lay me down in front of those Bosnian snipers.

If she accepts me, well then, I will be the happiest of men.

A Divisive Dance

The Democratic political race has reached a new level of chaos, thanks to a growing rancor between supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Sir Barack Obama (Trinity United Churchgoers excluded...it is difficult to imagine them any angrier than what I witnessed in my whirlwind church tour last week). Opinions on the potential ramifications of this "house divided against itself" conundrum fall into two factions:

1. Some say the issue is overblown, and that the Democratic party will unify once a nominee is picked. It's just a mere stain (a la Monica Lewinsky's dress).

2. Others see the party as ripped apart at the seams (a la any dress designed by my mother-in-law Mrs. Bennet. The only things worse than her knitting are her poor nerves).

As a self-declared optimist, I was inclined to go with the first group, until those virtuosos at CNN dropped this bombshell on me:

19% of Obama supporters will vote for McCain over Clinton and 28% of Clinton supporters will vote McCain over Obama.

Even if inflated, those are some frightening numbers for the side of the donkeys (who will soon find themselves escorting tourists up and down Santorini if the status quo maintains). This is no small matter. My decision/indecision to dance at the Netherfield Ball was a small matter (save for a few ladies who might have developed a fateful attraction). The President of the next four years is a gargantuan concern.

So how do I propose the Democrats resolve this conflict? By nominating my dear Hillary, of course. 19% is considerably better than 28%, especially when you factor how many of those 19% are in states never likely to go Blue (ie. Deep South), whereas much of Hillary's 28% are in battleground states.

My fellow Democrats, the choice is evident, and besides...if in doubt, dance with a lady.

Consulting the Baronetage

Those of you familiar with Jane Austen's Persuasion must recall this illustrious opening:

Sir Walter Elliot, of Kellynch Hall, in Somersetshire, was a man who, for his own amusement, never took up any book but the Baronetage; there he found occupation for an idle hour, and consolation in a distressed one; there his faculties were roused into admiration and respect, by contemplating the limited remnant of the earliest patents; there any unwelcome sensations, arising from domestic affairs changed naturally into pity and contempt as he turned over the almost endless creations of the last century; and there, if every other leaf were powerless, he could read his own history with an interest which never failed. This was the page at which the favourite volume always opened:

"ELLIOT OF KELLYNCH HALL.

"Walter Elliot, born March 1, 1760, married, July 15, 1784, Elizabeth, daughter of James Stevenson, Esq. of South Park, in the county of Gloucester, by which lady (who died 1800) he has issue Elizabeth, born June 1, 1785; Anne, born August 9, 1787; a still-born son, November 5, 1789; Mary, born November 20, 1791."

What relevance does this have to today's affairs, you might ask? I would have wondered the same thing, until I stumbled upon this shocking genealogy report today, courtesy of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. This is absolutely amazing material, and they ought to be commended for their researching efforts.

Let's examine this a bit:

Barack Obama is related to Brad Pitt, Hillary Clinton to Angelina Jolie. Well now we have a much greater understanding of the film, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. More significantly, could these new developments encourage Brad Pitt to break ties with Angelina Jolie and return to Jennifer Aniston? I dare not conjecture.

Mr. Obama also shares an ancestry with President George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman, James Madison, Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, and Civil War General Robert E. Lee. One has to wonder how many of these prestigious figures (save the Bushes) would have felt about their descendent taking part in Reverend Wright's sermons. Is Sir Barack Obama the family disappointment?

As for Clinton, her list is not quite as presidential, but it certainly is cultural: Jack Kerouac, Madonna, Celine Dion, Alanis Morissette, and Camilla Parker-Bowles, wife of my own Prince Charles.

If we were to base the presidency on ancestry alone, the tenderest meat would go to Mr. Obama; certainly, Winston Churchill was much more the statesman than Camilla, who aided Prince Charles in desecrating the British royal tradition.

Fortunately for my dear Hillary, the quality of one's relations is a monstrous barometer for measuring the worth of a person. Need I remind you of that tactless Mrs. Bennet I have the misfortune of calling my mother-in-law? As you Americans are fond of saying, "enough said."

I Was Plagiarized!

This would not be the first time plagiarism has surfaced in this election. As some of you may recall, Sir Barack Obama was accused of the very charge, taking his now infamous "Just words" speech from friend Deval Patrick.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that my dear Hillary Clinton had plagiarized my own words! In today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review interview, Mrs. Clinton had this to say about the Reverend Wright:

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Is that not a paraphrase of one of my earlier postings, when I compared my inability to choose that wretched Lady Catherine for my aunt with Obama choosing his preacher? Hillary Clinton swiped the words directly from my fingertips.

Now how seriously am I taking these charges? With the utmost care, let me assure you. Am I to write this off as "just words," as Mr. Obama and his operatives might say? Of course not. These utterances have penetrated my heart deeply, like arrows sprung from the fingers of a master archer, striking bulls-eye in my left ventricle.

Yes indeed. Only Cupid's hand could aim so adroitly. I almost dare not think it, but could it be that my lady Hillary Clinton has come to love me? I can only hope.

Would Austen Have Picked Hillary?

At this point, there can be little question regarding my political preference. Only an illiterate dimwit from Yorkshire would fail to discern it, and even he probably has an inkling. Let me just quickly state, however, that if there should happen to be one of those in need of clarification, I am boisterously in support of the lovely Mrs. Clinton, pant-suits and all.

A more poignant question, however, would be whether Jane Austen agrees with me. In a sense - since I am a creature of her machination - it could be said that I reflect her viewpoints. I would like to think that's the case, but I am just one small facet of her complex brain, one character among a slew of differing opinions. I could no less make that claim than disown the Austen community.

The Austen Blog (a wonderful potpourri of all things Austen...highly recommended) expounded on this very point, precise location Exhibit C. It seems some are of a mind to associate Miss Austen with Mr. Obama, an assertion I hope to dispel for good through three impenetrable persuasions:

1. Jane Austen may not have been a feminist in the Wollstonecraft vein, but she certainly championed women's rights, and while my dear Hillary has her flaws, so did Emma. If I remember correctly, Austen managed to make a heroine out of her, so why not the same for Hillary? If Austen were here today, I say she would embrace the possibility of a female leader, perhaps rallying behind her with a sharp-witted endorsement (so long as the inauguration had the appropriate amount of satin).

2. What type of character is Jane Austen most wary of? The dashing, philandering male suitor! We see it time and time again, between Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Wickham, Henry Crawford, and even Frank Churchill (I think it's safe to say Mr. Collins does not grace this list, as he already inhabits the current presidency). This, my readers, is Sir Barack Obama, the sorcerer of seduction.

3. Hillary Clinton has oft been called the "iron lady" for her wilful determination and steely resolve. Is that not a trait common in Austen heroines? How about Fanny Price's insistence on denying Henry Crawford despite Sir Thomas Bertram's implorations, or Elinor Dashwood's fearlessness in the face of misfortune? My dear Hillary embodies these qualities in their finest form.

So there you have it. Not only would Hillary Clinton garner Austen's support, but she would also transform into a true Austen heroine (perhaps leaving Bill - the greatest seducer of them all - behind). And if such were the case, count me among those in pursuit of her charms.

Jane: You are NOT Plain

Let me respond to your post, Miss Eyre, with a bit of a pick-me-up. Your own physical appearance has been the subject of much questioning, by readers, literary theorists, and most notably, yourself.

You are famous for saying: "Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless?"

Let me respond with this interrogative: "Do you think because I am rich, famous, handsome, and large (interpret that as you may), that I am soulless and heartless?"

Let's focus specifically on the words "soulless and heartless." When you voiced them in your beautiful speech to Mr. Rochester, you intended to say that you have a soul, a heart. That you had feelings. When I proclaim them, I mean it in terms of sympathy. I may be all those great things on the outside, but I have a heart and a soul too, and they feel for you in your self-deprecation.

In fact, I find you quite beautiful, Miss Eyre. I have always been one to go for intelligence (hence, Mrs. Clinton), and I can proudly say that I find neither of you plain.

Unfortunately, your Mr. Obama - just like Mr. Rochester - is not all that pure either, in fact far from it.

Victorian Ideals in A Victorian Age

While speaking politics, a friend recently criticized Hillary and added, in jest, women should be seen and not heard. I know that my independence put me at odds with Victorian ideals, but come on! Now I don't support Hillary any more than Mr. Darcy supports Obama, but I definitely think that her candidacy is quite important from a social standpoint. In a brilliant speech, Obama recently discussed race from a social standpoint in modern society. I think that Hillary is doing for gender what Obama is doing for race. For that, I definitely respect her. But really, has this modern society really regressed back to a Victorian one? I should hope not.

And of course what did I respond to my friend's platitude "women should be seen and not heard"?

"Well, I'd much rather hear her...she's not much of a looker."

I'd wager that Mr. Darcy would disagree.

Times Change, People Don't

The more I learn of your political figures, the more perplexed I am by their parallels to those from my time.

Already, I have made a persuasive case for George W. Bush being Mr. Collins. The time has come to make a few more comparisions.

Mr. Wickham: Easily Sir Barack Obama, as the articulate manipulator, making use of good looks and a swift tongue to deceive the populace.

Lady Catherine: It must be Ann Coulter. Both are vile, and both think themselves more important than they are.

Lydia: Michelle Obama, whose newfound pride in her country must certainly be due to the attentions of attractive soldiers. How else to explain the silliness and conceit?

Charlotte Lucas: Laura Bush, because she must have had serious reservations about wedding George W. (one hopes anyway)

And lastly (and the point of this piece), Mr. Bennet: Howard Dean. This is a complicated correlation, but it holds strong. Like Mr. Bennet, Howard Dean's progressive 50-state strategy netted him some early victories in 2006 (Jane and Elizabeth), but his hands-off approach to Florida and Michigan (Lydia and Kitty) will lead to their ruin (in this case, elopement with John McCain).

Furthermore, Howard Dean presides over a party dominated by female voters - just as Mr. Bennet did daughters - and he struggles to coexist with women his age (Hillary Clinton, or Mrs. Bennet).

As in the immortal words of Austen, Mr. Dean has put Democrats in an untenable position; select Obama and women will never vote for him again, select Clinton and blacks will never vote for her again.

Finally, it must be said that Howard Dean, like Mr. Bennet, has one more fatal flaw: he plays favorites. At least Mr. Bennet had the judgment to favor the most virtuous one.

Out with the Dishwater, in with the Ditchwater

In a past posting about the delegate mess, I implied that Sir Barack Obama might end up drinking dishwater, among other references to Charlie Crist being served a crusty blueberry muffin.

Now, in the wake of reports that Mr. Obama has singlehandedly trameled/trammelled (British) the Michigan revote, it seems I was all too kind. Dishwater is too clement a medicine for a candidate so fond of disenfranchisement. I say give him ditchwater.

Now some will maintain that dishwater and ditchwater are one in the same, but I beg to differ. One of my servants once had the unfortunate accident of finding himself stranded in a ditch with nothing but the prior day's rain to quench his thirst. We rescued him after a thorough search of the Pemberley grounds, and he vowed never to indulge in ditchwater ever again. He drank dishwater every day.

So the moral of my little anecdote is that ditchwater is quite a bit worse than dishwater, and that Mr. Obama - should he win the primary - will experience that awful taste for himself when he loses Michigan to John McCain.

Michigan Reminds Me of the Dark Ages

In my nation's long and proud history, there are splotches of shame scattered within. I could lay out a laundry list for you (I just learned how to use your washing machines, by the way), but I prefer not to sear too deeply into periods I should rather forget.

The question of a revote in Michigan, however, reeks of the same sort of self-interested corruption. Relying on fragile arguments, those connected with Sir Barack Obama mean to deny a fair calculation at any cost, including that of losing the state in the General Election.

I understand their reasoning. It is clear as the chalk on England's southern cliffs. Mr. Obama wishes to thwart any possibility of my dear Hillary obtaining an advantage in popular vote. If he gets his way (which it seems he very well might), then justice will be tossed about like a wife wearing the Tudor emblem.

On the heels of such a landmark speech, I say shame on you Mr. Obama! If my greatest desire for the Reverend Wright would be for him not to practice what he preaches, then it would be decidedly the opposite for Mr. Obama, who must live up to his own billing, a billing that might see him second if such an event fails to occur.

Obama's Speech Fit for an Englishman

Those of you who have read my prior commentary know that I have been critical of Sir Barack Obama in many respects. Much of that is due to my growing affinity for Hillary Clinton, but I also attribute a good portion to sound logic. I still hold the same reservations, but I want to step aside and give credit where it's due (as you Americans are fond of saying).

Mr. Obama's speech on race was unquestionably brilliant, if for no other reason than that he was uniquely qualified to give it. Put any other human being in the world in front of the same words and the effect is lessened. Perhaps Nelson Mandela could have delivered it with more authority, but even that is doubtful.

As the first prominent biracial presidential candidate, Mr. Obama has the genetic formula necessary to quell racial strife in America. Throw in his political stature, and the stage was set properly for a speech for all ages (both in terms of human ages and eras).

Yes, I can step aside for a moment and praise a truly elemental moment in human history. For a day, you, Mr. Obama, are king of the world. As for tomorrow, I still have yet to hear a real policy.

I Couldn't Choose my Uncle Either...Oh Wait, He Could

Sir Barack Obama's defense of his longtime cohort, Pastor Wright, has been summed up as a relationship with an old uncle. To give you the exact quote: "[Rev. Wright] is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."

That got me to thinking about my relations, and I recalled how little say I had over my own Aunt, Lady Catherine, the villain responsible for my current whereabouts (I think, anyway). Interesting, though, how I did manage to show enough judgment to defy my aunt and marry the woman I loved. Mr. Obama has done no such thing.

Then it occurred to me that Reverend Wright is not even Sir Barack's real uncle, but a friend close enough to be considered family. Hrmmm. Something smells like the Thames.

Choosing the Right Church

This past Sunday, I embarked on a pursuit of the right Christian institution for my membership. Between all my ephemeral stops, I likened myself to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, when they famously criss-crossed between Ohio and Texas several times a day.

Needless to say, there is little that resembles the old Anglican church I used to be a part of (nor do I mind escaping Mr. Collins' sermons). Let me describe my journey:

I made my first stop at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Aside from feeling slightly out of place (I did not quite fit with the demographic), I found myself put off by the explosive preaching, particularly in regard to America being the KKK and the support for anti-semitic leaders like Louis Farakhan. To make matters worse, things were not exactly pro-Hillary, which to me is the greatest desecration of all. I left aghast, though still with the audacity to hope for a better congregation.

My next visit was to Virginia Beach, where I figured Pat Robertson would give me a warm welcome. How wrong I was! Never have I heard such absurd hate-speech. I could be wrong, but I think Pat Robertson blamed my "godlessness" for the tornado that befell Georgia this past weekend. He also predicted a number of apocalyptic events, brought on by such terrorist groups as the gay and lesbian community. So reprehensible were his words that I suddenly considered Reverend Wright and his Trinity United a rational place of worship.

Dismayed by my first two attempts, I made the trek out to Los Angeles (what speedy transportation your world has!) to hear about a promising new sect of Christianity: Scientology. I found myself in the company of such wise people as Tom Cruise (the gentleman from Mission Impossible...he must know miracles). While their congregation was not as motivated by hate, it was equally nonsensical, cult-like even. For a moment, I thought I might be at an Obama rally.

Finally, I set my sights on St. John the Divine in New York. At last, an accepting establishment that boasted itself as a Christian haven for all Americans, no matter their faith. They were even kind to Jews! It would behoove Mr. Obama to switch here if he decides to leave Trinity United, just as I did. Of course, it also helps that the architecture reminds of old Westminster Abbey, but I think you Americans can appreciate that.

So there you have it. Come sit with me at St. John the Divine on Sundays and we can open a pint of brandy afterwards....my treat.

I Know a Little Something About Pride

Any who have had the honor of reading Pride and Prejudice know that the first of these epithets was in reference to me. Yes, I was guilty of too much pride, and I have pride enough now to admit it.

That being said, who would know better than I about the vices of pride and arrogance? I read this piece on Mr. Obama's arrogance, and there are a few serious red flags.

Let me point out two quotes in particular:

"To know me is to love me," and "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there." Aside from the Bob Dole-like use of the third person, we are dealing with a candidate far to full of himself to effectively lead a country. This nation needs the delicate touch of a woman, in this case my dear Hillary.

Jane Eyre, ON MY BLOG???

Just when I thought things had reached their lowest possible point, I discover that Lady Catherine has sent another novel inhabitant, Jane Eyre, to my world, and more specifically to my blog.

Let me preface my complaints by saying that I have since read Jane Eyre and found it quite superlative. I took great delight in Jane's character, and I very much look forward to conversing with her.

The pleasantries stop there. Jane Eyre, always known for her audacity (she had the chutzpah (a new word I learned) to turn down that domineering St. John Rivers), has made the most reckless of moves. She has....dare I say it...endorsed Sir Barack Obama ON MY BLOG!!! This was to be my shrine to my dear Hillary, and now I find it tainted. Are the shades of this blog to be thus polluted?

Despite my apprehensions, I have decided to allow her to stay. What better way to extol my lady Hillary's virtues than to defeat a spokesman (or spokeswoman, I should say nowadays) for the inferior side.

Miss Eyre, you are welcome, but do not expect kindness. You know those dreams of Thornfield Hall burning to the ground? Such will be your Mr. Obama.

The Suppress'd

Mr. Darcy recently posted on the head/heart dichotomy. I am a woman of very few words, hence I will be brief. From experience, I tend towards responsibility and reason. Yet my one true love, my dear blind Rochester, has proven, in various manifestations, that it is the heart, not the head, from whence where the truest decisions originate (comma splice, possibly?).

For me, Clinton will always be the crazy lady, the Bertha Mason, locked in the attic--ever present, somewhat delusional, logically robotic to the point of insanity. In her quest to defy gender stereotypes she seems to have suppress'd any and all emotion (that I suspect would lead anyone to consider her "too feminine"). While this emotional suppression does in fact render her less womanly (which is perhaps one of her campaign goals?) it also paints her as less human. It is quite difficult for me to relate to her on a personal level, a woman in such disequilibrium. I offer to her kind words of wisdom, for I too have been on that path. I repress'd all emotion and nearly married St. John, almost the most disastrous mistake of my life. Yet herein lies the difference in our situations: if elected, it will be the lives of the entire American public affected. I am far more willing to entrust my life to a man of passion, integrity, and change (albeit somewhat ambiguous). How then does one reconcile reason with emotion, passion with responsibility? It is a question I have oft grappled with. For me, I can see my dear Rochester in Obama's sultry smile, his dark eyes, his long hands. I can see Rochester in Obama's strong shoulders; shoulders upon which I would entrust the weight of the globe.

And finally, To quote the great Amy Poehler: "One of Senator Obama's aides resigned after calling Hillary Clinton a monster. Clinton's response: RAWR!" That sounds just like Bertha Mason!

Superdelegates Should Follow their Heads, I My Heart

There's a certain timelessness to the question of "head or heart." Back in my former life, the obvious "head" choice would have been to marry Lady Catherine's daughter instead of Elizabeth, but my heart pointed uncontrollably for the latter.

The same question plagues the superdelegates today, as they debate between head (Clinton) and heart (Obama). The common argument goes that Obama inspires a new wave of hope, based not in policy but change. Clinton, on the other hand, is all reason and experience, with a robotic insistence on asserting policy over faux-idealism.

When it comes to choosing the leader of a country, reason should always prevail. That Obama inspires such optimism is nice, cute even, but will it bring results? Perhaps the real idealist, the true bringer of hope, is the one who depends on pragmatism to achieve those ideals. That, my readers, is my dear Hillary.

And as for me, I go with my head, but also my heart. With each passing day, I become yours all the more, my dear Hillary. You have my head and my heart, and perhaps you could have half my possessions too.

The Evolution of Swing

By all accounts, the Swing era was a flourishing time for the arts and cultural advancement. My objection to dancing has been well documented (though not nearly as strongly as Mr. Knightley's), but I should have liked to give Swing a go. In fact, I would take myself there in an instant if not for a certain Hitler.

But all this talk of Swing has my head swirling, which generally leads me into another rumination on the political sphere. In this piece, the Washington Post breaks down the ten most likely "swing states" to, well, swing in the 2008 presidential election. I list them below:

Missouri, Minnesota, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa.

Minnesota and New Hampshire are the only two blues. If I were making a list, I would add Pennsylvania and Michigan, but I will work with their list.

Of those ten, my dear Hillary has won five in the primaries so far, while Sir Barack has also taken five. If we were to assume that each would take his/her five, that would amount to 61 electoral delegates for Clinton and 50 for Obama. Advantage Clinton.

Of course, this is not to say that each cannot take all in the General Election. By my subjective analysis, however, I see Obama with very little chance in Florida or Ohio (47 delegates), whereas Clinton has nearly the same chance in Missouri and Minnesota (21 delegates). I see neither with much chance in Virginia and Colorado, despite what the Washington Post says, with Iowa being Obama's only clear supremacy. Again, Advantage Clinton.

And, she's more attractive (at least, to me). Threefold, Advantage Clinton.

Identity Politics, circa 1800

In 1800, the increasingly not-so-glorious era in which I lived, it is difficult to imagine whether a female or black candidate would have garnered more support. Neither women nor blacks had much voting power, if at all, so it would have come down to the wealthy white male landowners. Would they have preferred to take it on the chin from a race they viewed as inferior, or in the groin from the sex they so loved to dominate?

My personal theory is that there would have been a split vote. Progressive males would have supported the female - a Wollstonecraft as it were - while the more backward would have opted for what least affected them individually (anything but my wife aspiring to an opinion!)

By my estimation, 1800 would have gone for the latter, but not 1850 (an interesting paradox, since slavery would have been abolished by then). Either way, these prejudicial components do not make me much proud.

Now that I have become addicted to the Internet, motor vehicles, CNN, and a new hobby (American sports - more to come on that later), how can I possibly return to the horse-and-carriage days of my infancy? The only thing I miss from that era is Lizzy and my pal Bingley.

So there you have it Lady Catherine. You tried to banish me, and yet I find contentment. Banish them too! (Wait...how will Lizzy feel about my infatuation for Hillary. On second thought, let's hold off a bit).

The Spitzers of My Time

In my time, more attention was paid to spinsters than Spitzers, but it was people like Eliot Spitzer who contributed to spinsterhood.

In your world, progressions in the feminist movement, materialized in the advancement of the female gender, make the once-dreadful thought of spinsterhood a mere bad noodle. With that being said, let sympathy go out to Mrs. Spitzer, who has had to endure not only the acidity of public shame, but the forced realization that her life has been a sham. She is Elizabeth's sister Lydia, except she knows of the disgrace (Lydia, in her ignorance, had not the slightest idea what I saved her from).

Some parallels have to be made with the current lady of my hour, Mrs. Hillary Clinton. From my comprehensive study into her life, I know the public crucified her under similar circumstances (see Lewinsky, Monica). If it is any consolation to Mrs. Spitzer, she should look proudly on HRC's rise from the ashes and find her own phoenix.

It is also fitting for those, who know neither Spitzer nor his wife, to make assertions on what they should do. These sentiments are expressed beautifully here: http://leftoverright.blogspot.com/. Let them be.

But if there is to be any cross-cultural summation on our two eras, let me leave you with this insight:

There will always be Spitzers and there will always be spinsters, but as society progresses, the Spitzers become more repulsive while the spinsters get along just fine.

Pastors Gone Awry

Yesterday, I began my exploration into race relations in America, and today I was supplied a fresher insight. If this is any indication, it seems the racial separatism is now perpetrated from both sides (And I thought having to suffer through one of Mr. Collins' sermons was unnerving. This makes that look like a stroll through Mr. Rushworth's gardens).

Certainly, Pastor Wright has the right and authority to express his opinions, but he should also realize what a damaging effect these sorts of statements have on Obama's campaign. If Sir Barack is truly the great uniter, he must declare a moratorium on old-seeded racism and direct the collective conscience of this country forward. And from a strategic standpoint, these monologues do little to advance his cause with rural white voters.

The unfortunate victim in these proceedings is my dear Hillary, whose devotion to civil rights goes unrecognized. For those accusations, I say shame on you Pastor Wright.

I also am no stranger to "prejudice," though in a different form, but as is often the case, those acting in prejudice act in the wrong. Do Sir Barack and your nation a favor and put a stop your unruly assaults.

Catching Up with the Times

Racism in America has been a foreign concept to me...up until now that is.

I've been doing my research on the history of American race relations, and I cannot help but react to the stark comparisons in yesterday's Mississippi primary voting:

As demonstrated here, my dear Hillary won nearly 3/4 of the white vote, while Sir Barack Obama took 9/10 of the black vote.

These are certainly disturbing images, and it's perplexing how I suddenly find myself a pugnacious crusader against racism. In just a few meager days, I have transformed from a white aristocrat unfamiliar with oppressed minorities to one who wishes to fight for them.

Indeed, I have adapted quickly to the times. Perhaps I'm more adaptable because, well, I started out in a novel. After all, I was adapted into a number of movies if that's any indication.

In the course of my research, however, I could not prevent myself from noticing the cornucopia of civil rights acts performed by my esteemed Hillary, and as such feel all the more disturbed.

Why must my dear Hillary suffer under false pretenses? She is no racist! To all my devoted black readers (and I know there are many...I hope...wait, do I have any readers?), please give this fine woman another chance to convince you on her policies.

If my experiences are any indication, listen to Hillary articulate on subprimes and you will feel weak in the knees. Oh, how I'm falling for that damsel!

Lovers' Vows

I call into question the theatrical production in Mansfield Park, composed so brilliantly by Jane Austen (to whom I owe my existence).

I watch the daily squabbles between my dear Hillary Clinton and Sir Barack Obama, and I cannot help questioning whether they would do better as team, uniting their political party, just as lovers do when they take their vows. Could they not join for the sake of the people?

I posed that question, and this week I received answers.

Hillary: Yes

Obama: No

All the more reason for that fine-looking woman to get my vote. My dear Hillary, I am hopelessly yours.

George W. reminds me of Mr. Collins

It confounds me that you Americans, who opposed our George III with such vehemence, would go and elect an inept George of your own.

I watched that inarticulate fellow on the television - CNN I believe they call it - and I was startled by his resemblance to a meanderer from my time: Mr. Collins.

His difficulty in pronouncing words and failure to pick up on social mannerisms were all too familiar. Fortunately, back in my age, Mr. Collins only stood as church leader of Rosings Park. How is it that you Americans would "elect" such a man?

This must be Lady Catherine's doing. I blame her for all my misfortunes. Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted in my absence?

The Delegate Mess

I've been studying American politics quite closely, specifically as it relates to the delegate mess in Michigan and Florida.

It reminds me of a similar situation back in my time, when speculators from Devonshire attempted to undermine the British government on a land surveying initiative by campaigning early.

Despite their actions (I punished them by serving sour tea and stale scones when they visited Pemberley), we knew that their voices were true, and that as landowners, they deserved a say.

Such is the same with these renegade states, whose juvenile actions ought to be frowned upon, but not silenced. Today, I would serve Bill Nelson and Charlie Crist a crusty blueberry muffin, but I would never thwart their constituencies.

If the prior vote is to be ignored, then surely there must be a revote. Otherwise, Mr. Obama might find himself sipping dishwater.

Do I really look like Colin Firth?

I ventured outside my mini-estate today, when I was overrun by adulating ladies, espousing their dearest initimacies to me. I could not imagine why, until I saw my reflection in the mirror.

Is my resemblance to Colin Firth so striking? And is he really that good looking? I must say, I've enjoyed the attentions, but these women were only tolerable. Not pretty enough to tempt me.

Besides, all my 21st-century affections have been allocated to my lady in pant-suits: Hillary.

No Lizzy, but there's Hillary!

I've begun to pay attention to the politics of your time. What a taxing affair! So much attention paid to healthcare reform. Thank goodness we weren't bombarded with hospitals in my time, or else I would have never set my sights on Lizzy when Jane caught a cold.

But that brings me to a somber soliloquoy...Lizzy. Alas, as a result of my unfortunate travels, I've lost my dearest gem, the magnificent Mrs. Darcy. Lady Catherine must be responsible for this!

The good news is that I've taken solace in a new dame, the lovely Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yes, she's a bit past her bloom, but I can't help the unmistakable shudders I feel when she graces the stage, articulating such romantic things as NAFTA and the economy. Why is it that I always fall for the intellectual girls?

Rest your doubts, my readers. I would never cheat on Lizzy, but that HRC (what a nice monogram for my Pemberley china) is certainly winning my vote.

How it Happened

Dear Readers,

It was the most unnerving thing. There I was, pleasantly entrenched in one of our language's most scintillating novels, when all of a sudden I found myself transported into a new era: the 21st century.

Needless to say, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a man of great fortune who ventures into the future suffers greatly from inflation, but my goodness, what an astonishing exchange rate! My sources tell me the Americas rule the world now, but thanks to the unprecedented decline of the American dollar, I've managed to find myself a comfortable abode overseas.

I may not be as wealthy as I once was, but my civility still goes unquestioned (thank you Lizzy), and as such, I'll be applying my eloquence to modern day affairs.

Your most obedient and humble servant,
Mr. Darcy

P.S. I'd like to get in contact with that old chap, Dick Cheney. Perhaps we could go for a hunt together. I hear he's a worse shot than I am!