No, the title isn't a biblical reference to Moses, I am not going to attempt a evangelical political blog. Also it is not a reference to Michelle Obama briefly confusing Ohio with Iowa yesterday. The reference is meant to be to Robert Heinlein's book of the same name. In particular I'm thinking of the "grok" concept.

As first used in the Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land:

“ Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthly assumptions) as color means to a blind man.

Grok - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the historic democratic presidential primary process coming to my own home state, the great state of Wisconsin, it is now a less abstract thing and I find myself having to grok the current situation and commit to casting a actual real ballot .

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong but that's the way to bet - Damon Runyon

The current democratic party process remains more historic than the usual run of the mill president picking in that it includes both a African-American and a woman. From what I have seen I would have to say race has been more of an issue than gender.

For a somewhat timely example consider the recent Chesepeake Bay primaries (Virginia,DC,Maryland).

At one point while the results were coming in the numbers from the exit polls showed about 90% of the African-American vote going to Obama and his also getting about 43% of white men. Seeing these numbers one commentator mentioned that this might be a sign that possibly race was becoming less a factor. The other commentator replied something like 'I hope so, I hope so'. I can only assume that concerned the numbers for the white male returns which showed I think maybe a 5% or so improvement for Obama. I would have to assume that they were ignoring the African-American numbers which I think were about a 10% improvement over previous numbers that I had seen and might just be influenced by race. Another improvement like that and it would mean Obama was getting the vote of 100% of African-Americans, all of them. Wait a second, we didn't get that guy over there. Oh, never mind he's a tourist from Finland. It is 100%, all of them. I think in order to see race as not mattering here, you have to flip the binoculars in going from one column to the other. I recently heard it suggested that Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina probably explain the gain in the African-American vote. There had to be something really extreme in what Clinton said that I'm still missing. I think though that I will have to add that suggestion to my Definitely Doublespeak page when I get around to setting one up. I'm afraid I would also have to include the idea that if you vote for Obama race isn't involved but if you don't it automatically is involved to that same page.

A sort of funny Breaking News came up on MSNBC one night when it was announced that New Mexico had gone to Senator Clinton. Considering this was about a week or so after the Super Tuesday primaries you had to wonder if the results were brought in by Pony Express. Sort of like, this just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Or, this just handed to me, John Edwards still hasn't made an endorsement, although Senator Obama apparently did just pay him a visit again today. About the same time as the New Mexico result was announced, possibly the same night, Tucker Carlson on MSNBC returned to his show after a couple of days off and again started in on Bill Clinton's comments being race related in South Carolina. South Carolina was prior to New Mexico. A lot of things had changed, including most pertinently Bill Clinton's role in the campaign immediately following South Carolina. I know it's sometimes a little tough after a couple days off but catch up Tucker. Maybe the campaign is trying to move on from there.

What happened to the St. Valentines day massacre?

It occurred to me that the above might just be to some extent an example of press bias. So it was of interest to me on Valentines day morning when this very question was raised on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program to a Clinton campaign representative. (By Joe Scarborough, I'll mention him by name since I would consider raising this question to be to his credit). Actually, the question had two parts. First, is the press coverage unfair to Clinton? Second, is the press giving Obama a free pass? Or, is the coverage extra critical to Clinton and extra nice to Obama. The Clinton staffer seemed reluctant to reply to this. Finally, as to it being biased he answered, "Yes, but we're going to win anyway". He then wished Andrea Mitchell a happy Valentines and the day went on from there. I think an opportunity might of been missed here to take the press just a bit to task and hold them accountable for doing their job fairly, also in this case helping out your candidate. Maybe not shooting off fireworks but at least raising a little friction. The holiday love fest seemed to continue later in the day when Romney endorsed McCain. Maybe I should make this a evangelical posting, that seems like almost a lion and lamb reconciliation.

Style over substance is a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. In some cases, the fallacy is employed as a form of ad hominem attack.

- Style over substance fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So who am I voting for in this, the democratic primary for the great state of Wisconsin? That remains unchanged from my first blog. Senator Clinton. For me Obama has so far failed to make a case that I should change my mind. He wins the charisma factor contest without a doubt, I will give him that. But I do not consider that the most important thing I want to see in the president. Obama currently seems to be responding to the question of whether his speeches have more style than substance. That they concern inspirational topics like change and hope but do not concern government fiscal policy. I preferred his first response to this, that he would cut back on the applause points in his speeches and make them longer in discussing details. I liked this response. Take the challenge and show that you can present your candidacy just as well in this fashion. I liked less a more recent response where he indicated his positions were all posted on his web page. That might be fine for those who have internet access and know how to find his web page but not so good for those unable to do this. Also it seems to suggest that since he had them there that he shouldn't have to be bothered with mundane things like issues in his speaking. I do not think Senator Clinton is against change, or hope, but really remains the best prepared to accomplish it.

I guess as I said in my first blog it still goes back to this, from MSNBC, this time Chris Matthews Hardblogger.

Hillary Clinton’s grace under pressure in those dreary months gave her a political lift she’d never enjoyed before. Her national approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s to just above the 70 mark in one poll. Her toughness in walking through fire had much to do with the strong invitation from New York Democrats, U.S .Congressman Charlie Rangel led the parade of welcome wagoners, to begin competing for a senate seat of her own.

For me it was still watching her go on a straight ahead attack against the vast right wing conspiracy. There might be scoffing about this, but I think just Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich were enough to constitute a very real vast right wing conspiracy.

If the press really is going easy on Obama they are to my thinking not giving him the chance to show what he is capable of in defending his candidacy. So not really doing him a favor.

In the end, it still groks to my vote going to Clinton.

I had to start over a couple times on this blog - my granddaughter powered off the computer, my daughter closed the page while working on taxes, the computer itself had problems and started denying me my first amendment rights. Anyhow, the content changed a couple times where one thing that was lost being the following. I'll throw it back in for the Texans who I think may also have a primary coming up. The line spoken to John Wayne from True Grit.

I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.

Just a good line isn't it?