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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."