It’s not just the word of last year — it’s an ethos. Make w00t happen: Send in your Whatsies nominations by this coming Monday. Send to editor @ this domain. Full instructions here.

In the meantime, any Iowa caucus predictions? Just for the fun of it, I’m saying Obama, Edwards, Clinton for the Dems; Huckabee, Romney, McCain for the other guys.

18 responses to “W00t!!!1!”

  1. bryan says:

    I just heard Hatch say he thinks it will be O,E,C for the dems (that order); and H, R, and Ron Paul for the Reps (that order).

    I think it’s wishful thinking on both your parts that Hillary will come in 3rd.

  2. bryan says:

    hey dave — are you intending this as your first installment of the new thursday plan: a playlist in the morning followed by a couple bloggier entries later in the day from whomever feels like posting something brief?

  3. Dave says:

    2: No. Sort of. Depends.

  4. Dave says:

    I know a while ago I was all “w00t Obama w00t!!11!!!”, but these days I’m 100% for Edwards and can actually see pragmatic reasons for favoring Hillary over Obama. (She’s to his right, but she’s tough as nails, which Democrats need.) On the other hand, Yglesias says none of us has enough information to predict which of the three would be a better (for your own value of “better”) president, so he’s trying to remain agnostic.

  5. LP says:

    Hate to say it, but I’m feeling less concerned about “which of the three would be a better president” than “which of the three is certain to kick the Republican’s heiney.” I know conventional wisdom at this point is that all three could. But still, I won’t be celebratin’ til everything’s counted.

    There’s something about Obama that bugs me, and I’m not sure what it is.

  6. Dave says:

    As far as electability goes, this looks like a strong argument for Edwards and against Clinton.

  7. LP says:

    Wow. Also a good argument for the Republicans to nominate McCain.

  8. Missy says:

    You got it, LP. I think the only way we’ll really be in trouble is if McCain wins the Republican nom.

  9. Dave says:

    Really, Missy? The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections make me seriously afraid of a bad outcome no matter who’s nominated from either party.

  10. bryan says:

    obama v huckabee?

  11. Dave says:

    Huckabee won’t get the nomination. It’s just bad for Romney, and thus probably good for McCain (or Giuliani if he doesn’t continue to decline).

  12. Demosthenes says:

    Proof from my own personal cellphone camera, that republicans are indeed trying to save the country one karate chop at a time.

  13. Demosthenes says:

    So my last html photo comment didn’t work out like I thought. Lets see if this does.



  14. Demosthenes says:

    So my last attempt at a html photo didn’t work out so well. Lets see if this does.



  15. Tim Wager says:

    If Huckabee announces that Chuck Norris will be his running mate, he’ll totally take the nomination. Otherwise, no way.

    Giuliani? Nah. Too ‘ethnic’ for the South (outside of Florida) and too ‘city’ for the heartland.

    Until today I hadn’t considered McCain a serious possibility, but looking at those numbers on Real Clear Politics makes me think he’s got a chance. Also, he could get it sort of out of default.

    Romney just doesn’t play in the Bible Belt. Huckabee does, but a little too well for the comfort of the rest of the country.

    Seems to me that Michigan and Nevada are the real pre-Super Tuesday tests for McCain. Romney will take NH and Huckabee SC, but if McCain can win NV and do well in Michigan, he just might have legs.

  16. Marleyfan says:

    CNN is reporthing this morning that Marleyfan will win as a write-in.