Battling On Three Fronts And America's Doin' Time

We now get to to witness Barack Obama's ability to multi-task. On one front, he's getting the business from Hillary Clinton who's making her firewall pitch in Texas and Ohio. On another, he's getting hammered by John McCain who's testing out some early attacks for the general election. And finally, he's taking shrapnel from third parties such as President Bush, who I guess has nothing better to do with the war going so well and the economy in such great shape. But, hey, this is the life of a front runner and to his credit, Obama's swingin' back. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23392288/

But the examination has begun. The "celestial choirs" as Hillary put it, are starting to be drowned out by the new drumbeat of "is he really fit for the job?" Tucker Carlson had an interesting interview with a professor of political science named Fred Siegel on this very subject. Of course, you never know whether these people are plants by one campaign or another. And Tucker is a die hard McCain guy. But...Siegel laid out a few specifics as to why he thinks Obama is not ready. He cited a comment that Obama made about Pakistan that Siegel felt revealed a serious lack of understanding about a key foreign policy issue. Obama said that the new government in Pakistan would be more cooperative than Musharraf in the search for Bin Laden. In fact, Siegel maintained, it's widely known that this new government has pro al Qaeda and Taliban factions, making it more difficult to capture Osama Bin Laden. On another issue, education, Siegel indicated that Obama talks about the need for more funding, when in fact, funding has doubled for public education in the last ten years. It's not funding that's the problem, it's the proper use of that funding. Siegel said that Obama is lucky that Hillary hasn't called him out on these points.

Speaking of Hillary, maybe one of the reasons she can't make these comparisons is that she trips over herself sometimes. Like yesterday. In a TV interview with a local Texas station, a reporter read Hillary a statement by a Hispanic supporter who said that Obama's problem with Hispanics was "that he was Black". Period. The reporter then asked Hillary if she "denounced and rejected" (wink, wink) those comments. Unbelievably, Hillary did not denounce or reject, giving the rationale that you can't really censor what a person says. The same rationale on which she had called out Obama during their debate. Of course, a little later her clearly horrified campaign did damage control, saying that Hillary had to verify the accuracy of the supporter's comments before she could denounce or reject them. Which she now most certainly did. So...I guess we can take that whole issue off the table.

In any event, this new phase will be very revealing. One thing Obama has shown is his proclivity to learn very quickly. If he survives these multi-front attacks, he'll be much better prepared for the job. If they draw real blood, we'll see if Hillary or McCain can take advantage.

Hey, how about a combination of Democratic and Republican approaches on the economy? For example, let's go with the McCain idea of reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%; then roll back the Bush tax cuts on everyone earning more than $300,000 (not $250,000), but... preserve the current capital gains and dividend rates. Then offer a middle-class credit on the payroll tax, which Obama favors, and you'd have a nice package that didn't hurt the wealthy too much, kept businesses happy and put more money in the pockets of lower income folks who would spend it.

On another note, if you know 100 people, chances are, one of them is behind bars. The Pew Center just revealed an amazing report that states that 1 in every 100 adult Americans is in prison or jail. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23392251/ At more than 2.3 million, we have the largest incarcerated population of any country in the world. Including China and India. That, my friends, is amazing. Oh, and if you're black, you're three times as likely to go to jail as a white person. Man or woman. We spend $50 biiii-llll-ion per year to do this. In fact, some states like Connecticut spend more on incarceration than higher education. You can't make this up. It might be nice to hear a Presidential candidate discuss this, but they won't because they can't appear soft on crime. Unbelievable.

Discuss this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Another Change Agent and Other Items

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the general election will feature two real change agents. What? John McCain is not a change agent? Au contraire, mes amis. Look at his response to Cincinnati right wing wacko radio host Bill Cunningham. After Cunningham went on a ridiculous rant in his warm up introduction for McCain, invoking the name 'Barack Hussein Obama' half a dozen times and saying that Madeleine Albright looked 'like death warmed over', John McCain unequivocally denounced Cunningham's remarks. He stated that he respected his Democratic rivals and then took full responsibility for Cunningham's appearance, even though his campaign operation should have vetted the host's remarks. If that isn't a change in Republican politics as usual, I don't what is.

The bigger change, though, involves the level of discourse in American politics. A presidential race that is not waged in the gutter will attract more participation. It will inspire more young people to enter the political arena. Obama's positive, respectful campaign has already done this. McCain, by his actions, is calling on the 'values voters' to do more than just talk about good 'ol American values. He refuses to celebrate the heralds of those voters, these right wing media nuts who can't even practice the simple values of courtesy and respect. This election, one way or the other, will be about change. And don't think a guy with white hair can't be a change agent, too.

Speaking of change... who is going to be able to able to change this trend: the Federal government's health spending is supposed to double by 2017. It will account for 20% of our GDP. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/26/feds-health-spending-to-double-in-a-decade/
There are no great options to curb this inflationary trend. Hillary Clinton and Obama believe that improvements in administration (electronic billing for example) can save up to 70 billion dollars per year. McCain thinks that free market principles can fix the problem. I doubt it. I don't have the answers, but somehow I think you need to bifurcate the system into two separate areas: health care and catastrophic care. Health care involves prevention and wellness, catastrophic care deals with injury and disease. These are two completely different areas of the issue. For example, we could remove onerous tort insurance for GPs who only practiced wellness care. This would lower costs, encouraging people to get preventive care, which would prevent more serious illness in the future. Anyway, I'd love to hear from you about this issue.

More change...what about Iraq? Obama and McCain sparred from a distance on the issue, even as conflicting reports paint different portraits of the situation. Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin (a highly respected observer of the region) recently returned from Iraq talking about the radically improved landscape there. She described now-peaceful Anbar Province where Marines 'are actually bored' due to the lack of fighting. She offered a much more peaceful Bagdhad as further proof that we are in fact making huge strides in Iraq. She reminded listeners of Potus '08 that the government had achieved several of the benchmarks that were crucial to moving forward: a budget for 2008 and limited amnesty for detainees in Iraqi custody. Also, inflation had dropped from 32% to 10%. The bad news? Well, a key measure for provincial elections was sent back to the Parliament for more work. And Admiral Fallon was not ready to resume more troop withdrawals. Maybe that was due to incidents like Sunday's suicide bombing of 56 innocent pilgrims making their way to Karbala. So which candidate will actually forge a change in policy. Will Obama (or Hillary) really have the cajones to start an immediate withdrawal? Will McCain ratchet up our troop presence? Interesting to see. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412290878896765.html?mod=special_page_iraq_1

And finally, the economy. Really nothing but bad news. And it's not just the media making it bad this time, folks. Check this out: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412412525296845.html?mod=hps_us_mostpop_viewed . Chairman 'I' seem to be in over my head' Bernanke did his usual "I'll cut the Fed rate but I'm woried about inflation" two step. Aren't we all? In the end, the economy will carry the day in this Presidential election and the candidate who comes through with the most dynamic solutions to the current situation will win. Here's an interesting idea to check out: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/02/27/zandi-a-mortgage-bailout-would-cost-up-to-250-billion/ even though Treasury Secretary Paulson isn't crazy about the idea.

A PTTP tip of the hat to the late William F. Buckley, who died yesterday. Conservative when it wasn't hip, his National Review founded the modern conservative movement and expanded the political conversation in a unique, stylish way. Wiity, caustic, reasoned and principled, he inspired many young people who felt marginalized by the progressive movement of the sixties-- Peggy Noonan, chief among them. He will be missed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120414750648997515.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today

Lots to talk about. Click on 'comments', bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Mr. Likeable

I suppose the positive nature of Barack Obama's candidacy has rubbed off on me because I was tempted to title this post "Mommy Dearest"--but then I thought that was unkind and needlessly divisive. See? That's change you can believe in. But seriously, last night's Democratic Presidential debate in Cleveland made me about as comfortable as watching an episode of "In Treatment". Only this episode featured Hillary Clinton as a frustrated mother, Obama as her quietly rebellious son and Tim Russert as the therapist hell bent on getting to the bottom of it all. Yeesh.

Desperate to reassert herself and add primacy to her campaign, Hillary Clinton offered an aggressive approach that showed us the many faces of Eve--except the one that her opponent has trademarked: likeability. Hillary may have gained some voters last night--some women and some Jews--by reminding us of the 'sea change' a female President would implicitly effect, and by insisting that Barack Obama use the word 'reject' to distance himself from Louis Farrakhan. But her problem last night and moving forward is quite simply this: Obama has changed the calculus in debates. It's not 'who won or who lost?' anymore, it's 'did she change the course of the race?' And the answer, as it has been everytime they've met, is 'no'. If anything, stepping in the ring against the clearly superior debater has improved Obama in each debate. In fact, many agree he was at his most Presidential last night.

Hillary's problem now is that no matter how she performs--in anything!--she can't offset Obama's most powerful asset: his innate likeability. By likeability, I don't mean a person you neccessarily want to be your friend. I mean a person whose temperment is reliable; someone who seems decent and reasonable; someone you feel won't turn on you. It is the single most attractive political attribute a candidate can have. Ronald Reagan had it. Both George Bush's have it. And all of these guys drove Democrats nuts because they were considered by liberals to be unquestionably inferior. But criticisms didn't stick, defficiencies were overlooked and it was all because people, well, they just kinda...liked them. And if you're on the other side of that, it seems grossly unfair. The worst thing you can do, however, is whine about it. And that's what Clinton did early in the debate. She called out Brian Williams and Tim Russert for asking her the first question all the time. Not very Presidential. She mocked Obama for preferential treatment she believes he gets, referring to a SNL skit, for crying out loud. Of course, Obama just smiled, or shrugged, or quietly shook his head as if to say, 'Wow, I'm glad I'm not that unhappy'.

On substance, Hillary always gives a strong debate performance. Last night was no exception, though she was tripped up briefly by Tim Russert's pointed questioning on Nafta. The mild surprise last night was Obama's strong performance. He battled her to a draw on health care. He scored points on Iraq, especially parrying her criticism that he had voted with her on all the subsequent Iraq votes (best line, ' well, when you drive a bus into a ditch there are only so many ways to get it out, but I didn't vote to drive it into a ditch in the first place'). He also seemed strong on all of his national security arguments. Her strongest moment was her uncomfortable but correct insistence that Obama categorically 'reject' Louis Farrakhan's 'endorsement'. He, of course, undercut the moment by doing as she asked.

So what's left for Hillary? Hard to say. As I mentioned to a friend, her personality swings, as she searches for the right tone, remind me of an alcoholic parent. Sometimes they're sweet, sometimes abusive, sometimes funny, sometimes cold, but they're never consistent. And so they're never trustworthy on an emotional level. This is Hillary's biggest problem. In her public persona (I stress 'public'), she's Mommy Dearest. He's Mr. Likeable. Who would you rather spend four years with?

There's a great deal of other news that I want to address tomorrow. Things like John McCain's Bill Cunningham debacle ("...Madeleine Albright, who looks like death warmed over..." are you serious?); the amazingly bad economic news; shocking projections on inflationary health care costs. It's too much to cover, so I'll try to bring it to you tomorrow.

Talk about the debate or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Fatal Attraction

Here are some random thoughts as I mark time before tonight’s final (please, Lord) Democratic Primary debate.

Regarding Hillary’s last stand to gain the nomination, I can’t help thinking of the final scene in the movie Fatal Attraction. You know, where we’re pretty sure Glenn Close has drowned in the bathtub, but out of the corner of our eye we think we see an air bubble float to the top of the water. And then…SHE EXPLODES OUT OF THE WATER FOR ONE LAST ATTEMPT TO…you get the idea. In these final stages of the Democratic primary race, we’re all looking for that air bubble from Hillary. No one, including me, is willing to pronounce her politically dead. I suppose it’s the respect everyone has for the political acumen of the Clintons and their prodigious will to get where they want to go. But it kind of creeps me out.

I understand the Obama campaign is touchy about dirty pool after the “Obama is a Muslim hell bent on destroying America” e-mail was circulated by ‘rogue’ staffers of the Clinton campaign during Iowa. And the 'cocaine dealer' insinuations by Billy Shaheen. And the Jesse Jackson put down by Bill Clinton. Actually, I really understand, when you put it down in black and white. Nevertheless... it does seem as if the Obama folks doth protest a little too much about the picture of him in tribal garb. I mean, if the electorate is sophisticated enough to look beyond race, they surely understand that dignitary visits to foreign countries often include costume parties. But here’s an idea: if Obama is elected President, foreign dignitaries wearing native garb can try on a Calvin Klein suit. Moving on…

As the Politico.com reports that Obama is becoming more guarded with the press, especially compared to the ever-accessible John McCain, everyone else was reporting about candid comments that McCain tried to retract. Too late. He said he understood that failure to convince the electorate his Iraq policy was right would mean losing the election. Then he said his characterization might be a bit “stark”. Ya think? But he’s right. Iraq is the key for him. And his candor is refreshing. Unless you’re his campaign manager. Or until he says we may be in Iraq for “100 years” or that he’s not really that interested in economics. Then you start to wonder what he might say in a sensitive negotiation with North Korea or Iran.

As far as handicapping tonight's debates, I'm calling for a Bette Davis kind of evening: 'fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night'.

Chime in on this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Darth Nader

You know, there are a number of more interesting stories out there than Ralph Nader's entry into the 2008 presidential race. But since this is first and foremost a political blog let's address it and be done with it.

Yesterday on Meet The Press, Nader gave his usual rant on the corporatization of both parties and voter dissatisfaction as valid reasons to run. He brushed off the criticism that Democrats hold him responsible for eight years of George Bush (he got 97,000 votes in Florida, 60% of which were projected to have gone to Gore, giving Gore a clear victory in that state and the election). Then he went down his admirable but Utopian checklist of progressive issues that he wants to address: worker disenfranchisement; corporate greed; bloated military spending; the Palestinian question and climate change. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

So, what's the problem here? It's a free country. Shouldn't we encourage people who want to run for office? Doesn't the two party system stifle debate on many issues? And isn't this just a Democratic issue? I mean, Republicans, have no problem because they see this as a boon to their chances in November. It's just Democrats who are afraid that Nader will once again siphon away a small but critical portion of their vote. So what is the problem?

I see four of them:
1. Nader can't win. It's not just his agenda. America, rightly or wrongly, is not going to vote for a 74 year old dude with a droopy eye who has never held political office. I'm sorry. And after eight years of George Bush a large section of the electorate is not in a very charitable mood. This was a point Tim Russert unbelievably never raised. Why run if you have no chance of winning? To bring issues to the forefront of the political debate? There are many other ways to do that. And if you can't even make it close in a Presidential election, why not try to influence local or Congressional races where Naderites might actually get elected?
2. In a huge country with such divergent interests, politics is all about compromise. As worthy as Nader's agenda may be, reform needs to be incremental. It will not come from a top down figure, it needs to be a grass roots deal.
3. As Hillary Clinton said when told that Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000, “Well, you know, his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we’ve ever had”. Precisely.
4. Finally, if you want to inject an agenda into the Presidential race, run early, not now. Now, is just a coward's game, the equivalent of crying wolf.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/the-candidates-on-nader/index.html?hp

The point is, presidential elections often present less than perfect choices. In elections, as in life, you can't have everything. So you compromise to get the best possible outcome, as reflected by the will of the people. But without a straight popular vote, the electoral structure makes it possible for a third party candidate to skew the will of the people. Eugene McCarthy gave us Richard Nixon. Nader gave us George Bush. In both cases, one thing was clear: the majority of Americans didn't want Nixon or Bush as President. But that's who we got. And history has not looked kindly on those choices.

So, as I see it, Ralph Nader once again runs the risk of obscuring the will of the people. But this time should be much different for Nader. He will see an energized Democratic electorate who may nod to him deferentially for the outstanding service he has performed as a consumer and worker advocate. But he can forget 2.7% of the vote. As Barack Obama noted, “...his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers...He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

In other words, the jig is up. Dems aren't going over to that dark side again.

Let's hear thoughts on Nader or anything else. Click on 'comments', bypass the Google sign-up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

,

Cherry Pickin'...

Hillary Clinton called on Barack Obama to knock off the cherry picking. And Lowell Paxson may have busted John McCain for a different kind of cherry picking. We'll explain.

Saturday morning, Hillary blasted Obama for a couple of fliers distributed by his campaign. One flier uses a "Harry and Louise" motif (the health insurance lobby's ads that doomed Hillary's plan in '94) to scare voters about the mandates in Hillary's 2008 healthcare plan. It also captures a negative quote about the mandates from a student newspaper in Iowa. The second flier criticizes Hillary's position on NAFTA, which is a touchy subject in industrial Ohio. That flier uses a Newsday quote that makes it seem as if Hillary said NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. In fact, the word 'boon' was part of Newsday's characterization of her position. Later yesterday, Newsday issued a statement clarifying that 'boon' was their word, not Hillary's.

Obama's fliers used a technique known in political circles as 'cherry picking'. It's the art of presenting damaging morsels of information, often out of context, in materials that can't be defended by the accused. And while the information isn't technically incorrect, it serves to negatively distort a candidate's position. The only way to fight back is to do what Hillary did today. She accused Obama of employing "Karl Rove tactics" and threw down the gauntlet to "meet me in Ohio and let's have a debate about these tactics." Obama responded calmly by saying that nothing in the fliers was untrue. He also wondered whether her outrage was itself tactical, pointing out that these fliers had been circulating for several days and she must have seen them before Saturday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

It will be interesting to measure the fallout of this episode. Hillary is correct to state that Obama's characterization of her health plan undermines Democratic efforts to achieve universal healthcare. She also pointed out correctly that these tactics run contrary to Obama's claim that his brand of politics 'doesn't tear people down, but lifts the country up'. (Lost in her valid complaint was a line she uttered that underscored a huge frustration: "...Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies...". Clearly, she has been unnerved by the sight of 19,000 screaming Obama supporters at every one of his campaign stops.) In any case, will this be "I found my voice, part 2"? Or will Obama cement his rep as the new 'teflon man'? Will this be judged as an unwise tactic that gave Hillary energy and sympathy when she most needed it? Or have the fliers already done political damage to her positions? However it shakes out, there's one thing no one can say anymore: that Obama's too nice to mix it up in the rough and tumble world of presidential politics. I mean, when you have the Clintons crying foul, you know you've jumped into the grown-up pool.

John McCain continues to ride a wave of positive reaction for his response to the NY Times article accusing him of inappropriate behavior with lobbyists and their companies. The problem is, Mac has been cherry picking his memory for the good stuff and not 'fessing up to the not-so-good. And now, he's getting caught in some lies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
In Thursday's news conference, McCain adamantly denied doing any favors for lobbyists. But in 1998 he sent a threatening letter to the FCC about a station ownership loophole. The FCC was considering closing the loophole, which would have adversely affected some media companies. Two of these companies retained Vicki Iseman to lobby McCain and it worked. McCain leaned on the FCC with the threatening letters and the loophole remained open. Mac has said recently that he never met with Iseman or Lowell Paxson before sending off the letters. But in a deposition in 2002, McCain offered that he had met with Paxson. Paxson also confirmed this, saying that he and Iseman met with McCain. Tsk,tsk,tsk.

Now, is this a big deal? McCainiacs will say no, it's a smear job on their candidate. They might also point out that most of the denials about the details of these episodes are being issued by the campaign. We know what that means, right? In the event that a bald-faced lie is reported, Mac can say "my campaign said it, I didn't. And they were mistaken". This is another type of cherry picking.

In either case, Mac's or Obama's, cherry picking is a sure fire way to turn off the average voter. We'll see if it has that affect on their campaigns.

Talk about these or any other topics by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

McCain's Thin Line

McCainiacs won't like this blog, but too bad. We have to have a little straight talk.

Since the NY Times ran the article on McCain's alleged relationship with a lobbyist, the Gray Lady has been forced to take a look at her journalistic practices. The hope here is that they have learned something from the fall out. But John McCain should have learned something, too: Be careful of self righteous indignation, because when you point a finger at others, you can be sure three are pointing back at you. McCain is lucky that the Times decided to impersonate the National Enquirer. While he could safely deny the thin accusation of an affair with a female lobbyist, he was never forced to answer specifics that the article detailed regarding access he gave to special interests when he was Chairman of the Commerce Committee. And as McCain sits on a high horse about lobbyists, the truth is, he has more lobbyists and former lobbyists on his campaign staff than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

And he is now embroiled in an issue that calls him out as a complete hypocrite. The FEC released a letter denying Mac's request to opt out of public financing for the remainder of the primary season. That's right, I said opt out. It seems that last year, when Mac didn't have two nickels to rub together, he opted in on public financing for his campaign. Then he took out a $4 million dollar loan late last year, using public funds as collateral. But when he started winning and the donations started flowing, suddenly the crisis was averted. And now, he wants to opt out of public financing because it would limit his spending to 40 million between now and the Republican convention in September. The FEC is balking because of the loan. But Mac will probably get his way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22finance.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=McCain+Loan&st=nyt&oref=slogin

So, where's the hypocrisy? Well, while this has been going on, McCain has been hammering Barack Obama for hedging on a pledge he made last summer to use public financing for the general election. McCain made it sound cut and dried: Obama made a pledge and he should stick to it. But McCain went further to make his sanctimonious point. He said, in effect, that throughout his career he, McCain, had entered into arrangements that weren't always advantageous to him but he stuck to them because it was the right thing to do. Oh, really? But what about now? Now that it's not advantageous for McCain to stick to public financing, it's ok if he wants to opt out?

Now, McCainiacs, don't even go there. I can hear you starting in on ..."but Mac was talking about sticking to your word. And he never pledged to use public financing for the primary". No. He just used it when it was advantageous to use it. And now he wants out because it's advantageous to get out. Which is fine...if you're not crying foul when Obama might want to do the same thing. And if you don't assume we're all stupid enough to believe that raising this issue isn't to neutralize Obama's massive fundraising advantage, but to call attention to typical 'Washington politics' that people so hate. Please.

I'm going to chalk all of this up to McCain having a bad few days. But he needs to learn a simple lesson: If you're going to be a straight shooter, don't play petty political games. Because you never know when that petard that you think is hoisting up your opponent, can come back and grab you.

Oh, and why is Mac pretty confident he'll win his case with the FEC? He's got a former chairman working for him as an advisor. Now, that's typical Washington politics.

Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign in and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

But Did It Stop The Train?

I'm going to make this real easy for you if you missed last night's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas. Hillary had the best opening, the best close and the best canned line--but she didn't make the slightest dent in Obama's quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination. And that can't be considered a successful night for her candidacy. Obama continued to battle the myth that he has no substance. He was armed with specifics, made no gaffes and easily parried the charges of plagiarism in his usual way: by elevating the discourse. The anticipation of Hillary going 'nuclear' proved unfounded. Even the moments where a true debate actually broke out, it never seemed personal. So, on the positive side for Hillary supporters, they could be proud of another solid showing. For Obama supporters, his performance kept the train a' rollin'.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/21/us/politics/20080221_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video

One interesting note: in persistent questioning by the Univision commentator on immigration, both candidates were forced into base-appeasing statements that could haunt them in the general. This year, immigration is a loser for standard liberal orthodoxy. The public is fed-up with the appearence of a free-ride ethic, much as they were with welfare. And just as Bill Clinton had to buck the Party line on that issue, I believe the Democratic nominee is going to be faced with a come-over-to the-other-side moment to gain support with those crucial indies and Reagan Dems. The good news for them is that John McCain is the one opponent who can't take huge advantage of the issue--or he'll look like a Romney-esque flip-flopper. Something to monitor in the Fall. I wish I was inspired to go into further analysis, but it is the 19th debate we've heard.

Conversation for the past few days has centered on the journalistic standards of the New York Times viv a vis the McCain-Iseman story. Conservatives have long held that the Times is a left-wing house organ. I dispute that, but I do see how their reportage can create an editorial-like impression. A prime example is a new front page story on Hillary Clinton's campaign finances. The first part of the story directly implies that she has been profligate in her spending and that her donors are worried. Fine, but then the story continues to make the case that her spending was not that out-of-the ordinary and that this is merely the type of scrutiny a losing campaign always endures. The problem, as Mike Barnacle pointed out on MSNBC yesterday, is that hundreds of papers syndicate Times' articles, and edit them to fit the actual space they have to run them. Thus, the first part of this campaign funds story is the one people around the country will read; they probably won't see the rest of it. The problem is it could seriously impact Hillary's ability to raise money. Now, I'm not sticking up for Hillary's campaign; I happen to think they have prosecuted a problematic strategy. But this type of journalism can influence events that are better off playing out on their own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?hp

So, who won the debate? Click on'comments', bypass the Google sign-up, hit the nickname or anonymous button and let's hear from you.

Muscle, Tussle, and Kerfluffle

Less than twenty four hours after Wisconsin, Washington and Hawai'i weighed in on the Amazing Race of 2008, an impressive spate of new endorsements, attacks, responses, clarifications and revelations have got me a little giddy. If you love politics, it doesn't get any better than this. So forgive my insouciant tone as I catalogue the latest muscle, tussle and kerfluffle.

Let's begin with the Muscle. The Teamsters, one of the oldest and most powerful unions in America endorsed Barack Obama. This is more bad 'constituency-erosion' news for Hillary. The fact that seven of the most politically energized large unions in America--including SEIU and now, the Teamsters--are lined up for Obama gives him serious street cred with the blue-collar worker. The endorsement also makes us nervous for R. Thomas Buffenbarger, the President of The International Association of Machinists. It seems that Buffenbarger (clench your teeth when you say that one, Park Avenue) described Obama supporters as "Prius-driving" and "latte-sipping" at a Clinton Rally in Ohio. Now, you'd think a guy named Buffenbarger wouldn't go there. But he did, and word is, the Teamsters weren't too happy about the characterization. Having worked in show business, I know first hand that the one union you do not, repeat, do not mess with, is the Teamsters. So, the "Buffy" watch is officially on. We hope he can muster a clarification. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21teamsters.html?ref=politics

What a segue! Speaking of clarifications...Michelle Obama did a judicious backtrack of her now-famous, "I've never been proud" speech. As Dudley Moore's title character in the movie "Arthur" drunkenly proclaimed, "Ah may be craazy, but ah'm not stoopid". And Michelle proved she is certainly not stupid. I think she said something very clarifying like...'of course...I've been...proud...of my country...so proud...that it seems...like it wasn't all that much...pride...really, to be called real...pride or...most proud...y'know?...sort of...yeah. Love your outfit. Next question?' Now, I suppose I could try to interpret the patriotic parts of her original "I've never been proud" speech , but, seriously, it just gives me a headache. Not as big as the one it gave the Obama campaign, of course. But anyway, can we move on? We'll hear about this again in the fall anyway...

The tussles... where do we begin? Hillary, after admitting on Tuesday that words do matter (make up your mind already), cuffed Obama for not using his own. Fair enough. But then she did the Clinton Burger King ('have it both ways') when she stated that, “We need to keep dreaming; dreaming keeps us hopeful. Without dreams we can’t aspire to be great, but without action we cannot turn those dreams into reality.” Ok: if she's going to borrow Obama's lines and then butcher them, she should at least give him credit. Or Deval Patrick. Somebody. Obama lashed back with, ...“it’s a choice between a politics that offers more of the same divisions and distractions that didn’t work in South Carolina and didn’t work in Wisconsin and will not work in Texas, or a new politics of common sense, of common purpose, of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.” Great phraseology, which inspired an idea for a business: a discount speechwriting service from which any candidate can steal good lines. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21campaign.html?ref=politics

More tussles...John McCain took a break from deriding Obama for his 'bomb Pakistan' comments (from last autumn), to scold him again for not unequivocally holding to his 'pledge' to accept public campaign funds (from last autumn). Obama tried to use his words (or somebody's) in an op-ed piece in USA Today to weasel out--I mean, to explain his stance more fully. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html#more Of course, McCain was having none of it, simply saying "What's there to talk about?...he signed a piece of paper saying he would do it..." You get the idea.

But then, a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination...a kerfluffle! The NY Times finally ran a piece they had been sitting on for more than 2 months about McCain's 'relationship' with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for Paxson Entertainment (Pax TV). Though everyone has seized on the innnuendo of a possible liason dangereuse with the comely Ms. Iseman, the article actually paints a less spectacular but more disturbing picture about McCain's legislative work on behalf of private telecomm companies. It also rehashes the embarrassing Keating Five debacle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp
In a game press conference this morning, the McCains set the record straight by setting a new record for the use of the word 'dissappointing" by one couple in public. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Everything was going well in the categorical denials department until a reporter contradicted Mac about speaking to the NY Times about the article. Mac calmly said that he had forgotten about one conversation with editorial chief Bill Keller and apologized for not remembering. As someone who can't remember his phone when he leaves the house, I would personally give him a pass on that one. But his straightforward denials to straightforward questions ("did John Weaver ever speak to you about staying away from Ms. Iseman?", "No") makes this a very open and shut story. If he's telling the truth, it will be a done deal; if he's lying about anything, it'll bite him. The good news for McCaniacs is that some have said the only two things that can save John McCain's candidacy are Hillary Clinton and the NY Times. Hello, Times Square! So maybe this will help unite the arch conservatives behind him. The bad news is this story knocks McCain off of his sanctimonial perch a bit and gives Obama a second to catch his breath before the debate tonight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you can't make this stuff up.

Question: Is the NY Times the devil, as conservatives say it is? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' and bypassing Google and hitting the nickname or anonymous button

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid...

That famous tag line from an old horror flick sums up where the 2008 Presidential election stands after yesterday's Wisconsin and Washington primaries and the Democratic caucuses in Hawai'i.

Barack Obama soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in both Wisconsin and Hawai'i to continue his winning streak. John McCain soundly defeated Mike Huckabee in both Washington state and Wisconsin to bring him to the doorstep of the 1191 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. He has 918.

So with apologies to Walter Mondale's famous line, 'Where's the beef?', we ask the question in 2008, 'Where's the fear'?

For Barack Obama, 'fear' is going to be the persisitent refrain he hears in opposition to his candidacy. Both Hillary and Mac are already playing the fear card in warning voters about Obama's inexperience to be Commander-In-Chief. Whether it will stick is anyone's guess. To start, though, Mac will have to do better than pillory Obama's long ago assertion that he would unilaterally bomb northwest Pakistan to nail Osama Bin Laden. Especially if he's going to take issue with the idea of revealing advance plans to bomb anyone. I mean, unless it's now ok to sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23245289#23245289

For John McCain, he needs to fear some unbelievable stats coming out of the Wisconsin contest. John Nichols of the Capital Times reports that out of 1.5 million Badger State voters in the open primary, 1.1 million voted in the Democratic Primary. That's about 75% in a traditionally 50-50 Dem/Repub state. Now, you can say that they felt that the Repub race was over. You can say that. But the truth lies closer to the idea that there is excitement for the Dems. Consider this: in Ripon, the town where the Republican Party was founded in 1854, John McCain, won 346 votes and Barack Obama had 789 votes, more than McCain and Huckabee combined. Obama's numbers keep presenting bad news for Republicans in a general. I urge you to check out the whole story.
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/273406

And finally, for Hillary Clinton, fear may be the wrong word. Panic may be closer to it. What do you do? She has now been crushed by Obama in five states (VA, MD, HI, DC--ok, not actually a state-- and WI) All the numbers suggest that Obama continues to raid her base. Her peeps think that they averted greater disaster by going negative, so that will continue. But how do you go negative when every attempt to do so (legit or not) garners a collective eye roll from the electorate. She is in a real box. She also doesn't have the money to keep competing in all of the remaining states like North Carolina, Vermont, South Dakota etc. Right now she has to win 58% of the rest of the delegates to draw even. If Obama wins one of the big states, say Texas, she has to win 65% of the remaining delegates. In contrast, if he wins 65% of the remaining delegates, he gets to 2025 and the nomination--without a super delegate battle. Again, the Capital Times reporter John Nichols reiterated an irony I noted several posts ago: after he interviewed Hillary, Nichols stated that one on one, she's as impressive in that setting as Obama is speaking to a large crowd. In fact, Nichols left the impression that Hillary was more impressive. The irony, though, is that she doesn't have the time or the money to communicate in small groups.

So maybe it comes down to the Debate in Thursday night in Austin. If you're a fan of politics, the only thing I'd be afraid of...is missing it.

Leave a comment by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or the anonymous button.

'On Wisconsin' And Kakua For Clinton?

Forget Ohio and Texas, today's primary in Wisconsin and the caucuses in Hawai'i hold the key to the Democratic nomination. Why? Let me count the ways, first for Obama. If he wins:
1. On a 10-0 run, it enlarges his aura of inevitability and keeps the excitement high.
2. The races in Texas and Ohio will get much closer in his favor.
3. He increases his delegate lead. This means that future victory margins for Hillary have to be unrealistically large.
4. He puts to bed the claims that he can't win a primary in a key Democratic state.
5. He shows that the negative attacks aren't working.
6. He proves, once again, that his on-the-ground organzation is the best.

If Hillary wins:
1. She's baa-aaack. With such a fluid race, a come-from-behind victory will bring her dead even with Obama on the excitement meter.
2. She virtually evens the delegate battle.
3. She proves she can win a caucus.
4. She proves that her negative campaign against him is working.
5. She exponentially increases her fundraising.
6. She proves that this race is really not over.

So, with so much at stake, I'm surprised Obama's campaign did not milk every last second to campaign in Wisconsin. Why go to Ohio yesterday and to Texas today when you can put a stranglehold on this thing with victories in today's contests? Maybe because, as in New Hampshire, Obama lapsed into front runner mode prematurely. The fact is, Democrats don't want this race to end yet. People like me hate the negative politics of the Clintons but we do want to see how Obama handles himself in the face of them. Even though Obama got the jump on Clinton in the state, Hillary made the smart call to fight for her life in Wisconsin. And what are we hearing in early exit polls? Too close to call, in both Hawai'i and Wisconsin. If Clinton can somehow pull out one of them, the Obama spell may be broken and we'll witness an all out war. Guess who that favors?

Obama had a bad day yesterday with the plagiarism charges. Not the way you want to head into an election. Fortunately, some unseemly on-the-trail behavior by Bill (confronting an Obama supporter in a rope line) mitigated some of the sting. But still...this is waaaay too close to mess around. The good news for Obama supporters is, if he survives these days, he'll probably be ready for other tough ones. The good news for Hillary supporters is, the battle is shifting to her strengths. We all wish those weren't of the negative variety, but, hey...that's politics.

By the way, 'kakua' is Hawai'ian for assistance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23232655/

Where are we headed in this race? Talk about this and anything else by hitting 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Positioning

Before tomorrow's primary in Wisconsin, folks are continuing the political game of "position yourself for the future." For example, Barack Obama sat down with John Edwards in a not-so-secret meeting yesterday in NC. No details were revealed of course, and Edwards didn't tip his hand about an endorsement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23213622/ I don't try to get into the heads of politicians, that's too scary a neighborhood. But it does seem that Edwards has problems with both Clinton and Obama. It's been reported that Clinton has been more solicitous of his endorsement but I'm sure Obama's momentum comes into play. For Edwards, a purely political calculation would be to position himself as the potential tie-breaker in a down-to-the-wire race. If he waits until June to release his delegates, he could effectively hand the nomination to one of the candidates and become a huge player in the Democratic Party. My guess is that he wants to see how the March 4th primaries play out before making a choice. The one down side to this strategy is if Obama has the clear track to the nomination--without Edwards help--then Edwards' loses some viability. On the other hand, both Clinton and Obama have to be wary of total fealty to Edwards' issues if they want to move to the center for the general election. Because there ain't nothing center about John Edwards.

Speaking of the general, The Republican National Committee held a summit in the lion's den known as Los Angeles to figure out how to beat Obama in the fall. As my dad used to say, it's never too early to worry. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8564_Page2.html
Innovative ideas were floated such as "Hit him on inexperience" and "we'll highlight his inexperience" and "he's not ready to be Commander-In-Chief, he's too inexperienced". Though I make fun, it does occur to me that these were the guys who convinced half of America to vote twice for a guy whose resume included a spotty career in the National Guard, total failure as an oil executive, a trade which sent a baseball superstar to another team, and one term as governor of a state with the weakest constitutional governorship in the country. Hmm. I'll shut up now.

And speaking of governors and positioning (I love it when it all ties together), there's Tim Pawlenty or 'TPaw' as he's known in Minnesooota. Many are positioning him as the front runner for McCain's VP. Young, charismatic, blue-collar and politically deft (two term conservative governor in a Democratic state), he seems to fit the bill. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8564_Page2.html
He stuck with McCain when he was down last summer and now he's riding high. His influence in that region is important because Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa are all in play for both parties. His only drawback as I see it, is that he does not help McCain in the South, where Mike Huckabee exposed some serious vulnerability. If the Democratic nominee tabs a Southerner, even a Virginian like Tim Kaine or Jim Webb, that could be trouble.

So tell me who you think Edwards will endorse, who will be MCCain's Veep (give me some other names, too) or anything else you want to talk about. Click 'comments', by-pass the Google sign-up, hit nickname or anonymous.

The Men From Hope And Swahili BBQ Brisket

First of all, thanks for all your comments lately. You folks are proving that there are informed citizens who are not merely the partisan loonie tunes you see responding to most blogs.

The Men From Hope
Say what you want about Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee. Love 'em or hate 'em. But there must be something in the water in Hope, Arkansas because both guys know how to make a case to the people. XM Radio's Potus '08 carried speeches by each of them as they campaigned in Wisconsin. And if you're at all fair-minded, you walk away from their presentations at least impressed, if not convinced. Both are able to explain policy clearly, without talking down to folks. But their greatest gift is weaving a policy position inside a universal truth to give it common sense validation. Here is a smattering of random statements from those speeches.

Huckabee: "The Declaration of Independence stated that...'all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights... of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. In other words, the Founders understood that every life has value... Not as a designation of government but as a creation of God. Government exists to preserve that value, not to grant it. I'm convinced that if, as a nation, we're not right on the sanctity of life, we'll be wrong on a lot of other things....If you look at the Constitution, it doesn't say what the government can do, it says what it can't do. It doesn't say it shall, it says it shall not, prohibit the exercise of religion, of assembly, of free speech, of the right to bear arms...I want to nail a 'going out of business' sign on the IRS so that April 15 can become just another beautiful spring day in America again...Some people want a coronation. I think we should have an election. I think you should have your voice heard. Because no voice means no choice."

I mean, I don't agree with most of his positions, but if you listen to him long enough you get dangerously close to the vat of Kool-Aid. Now, listen to that other Man from Hope:

Bill Clinton: "If you want to criticize me for NAFTA, that's fine, but don't criticize Hillary. She wasn't in the Senate. She didn't vote for it. And it's true that those agreements will need to be revisted because they're not being enforced properly. But the truth is, when I was President, we did enforce those agreements much more stringently...Look, Hillary has got comprehensive programs for job training, for health care, for green energy, for mortgage relief and if you go to her website it tells you exactly, down to the last dollar, how she'll pay for it...But I'm going to tell you, I've studied economic matters for a long time, it's been a lot of the work I concentrated on when I was President and now in my foundation, and I guarantee you if Hillary can implement her economic plans, you will see an even better economy than the one we had when I was President. I mean that...If you're going to elect a President, you need to ask yourself what you expect out of that President, what you really expect a President to do...here's three questions Hillary asks herself to determine if she's been successful: is the country better off when I quit than when I started? Do your children and your grandchildren have a brighter future? And has the world come together more since I've been President? I'll tell you, if the answers to those three questions aren't yes, Hillary won't feel like she's succeeded..."

It's not an accident the man was elected for two terms.

For All Of You Who Aren't Edumicated, Poa is Swahili for 'Howdy Y'all'.
Okay, he didn't say edumicated, but he did translate Swahili into Texan. See if you can do that! It's not often we can say positive things about George Bush's Presidency, but when he deserves credit, he should get it. And not just for his mastery of foreign languages like Swahili--and English. The President and the First Lady are on a five-nation trip to Africa to showcase how American aid has helped the continent. And surprisingly, Mr. Bush has got some real accomplishments to be proud of. Because of a $15 billion dollar commitment to fight HIV/AIDS, the largest by any nation in history, 1.2 million Africans are now on anti-viral drugs. 25 million people now have repellent-treated mosquito nets to fight malaria, the single biggest killer in the world. Bush's economic aid packages are helping struggling countries like Benin to stabilize their economies. As a result, he has finally found a part of the world that generally regards him in a positive light.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/17/bush.africa/index.html

Of course, you can't please all the people all the time, so he draws criticism for his abstinence-only, no condoms addenda to the AIDS package. This is a valid point. Condoms are the most efficient and cost-effective way to stop the spread of HIV. And placing a third of the money to abstinence-only programs is too much, especially since infection rates are not declining. But should it hold up passage of a new $30 billion package? No. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23200795/
He also received muted criticism for not going to Kenya, but he did dispatch Condi Rice to help mediate in the post-election chaos. And while it's a disgrace our country hasn't done more to end the crisis in Darfur, George Bush has been virtually the only leader to call it genocide and to persistently speak out against it. Would it have been a huge statement to go there? Yes. But clearly this trip held a different mission.

Which brings us to the question of motivation. When George Bush insisted that the purpose of his Iraq adventure was to liberate "the good people of I-raq from a tyrant", it strains credulity to believe that protecting 25% of the world's oil supply wasn't the primary consideration. You can't make that case for Africa. We must take Bush at his word when he says that there is a moral imperative to relieve the suffering of so many struggling people. The irony of his Africa largesse is that it may provide him with a positive foreign policy legacy he can really hang his hat on, much like Nixon with China. Think about it: as the planet becomes one big global marketplace, Africa will become the final frontier. New powers like China and India will look to be players (china's already started). Staking an early claim to those markets and constiuencies, not to mention the creation of Africomm, a new strategic command center, may prove to be the single greatest achievement of the Bush Presidency. And how can any one resist a guy who can translate Swahili into Texan?

Any thoughts on the role Africa will play in the future? Is Bill a good surrogate for Hill? Leave these and any other thoughts by clicking "comments, then by passing Google sign-up and hitting nickname or anonymous button.

And The Winner Is...The NRA. And Other News That Fits.

We're back. Let's catch up on a very newsworthy 48 hours.

NIU And Guns
First, the fatal shooting of five students at Northern Illinois University saddens us deeply. We hold the families and the community in our prayers. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html

I guess it's no surprise that there hasn't been even a whisper of re-examining gun control in the wake of this latest tragedy. The NRA, backed by a multi-billion dollar firearms industry, has officially won the debate. It's not even a shock that we've heard nary a peep to shut down the website that sold the NIU shooter and the VA Tech shooter their cache of weapons; no one buys the theory that easy access to guns creates more tragic shootings. In fact, most folks have meekly accepted the NRA's rationale that you'll be safer if you own a gun. It doesn't matter that every law enforcement official in the country disagrees; their lobbyists suck. If I were a drug cartel in Colombia, I'd hire the NRA to prove that easy access to cocaine doesn't create more addicts. They're that good. So, now, the only gun debate left is whether carrying concealed weapons should be legal everywhere, such as National Parks,
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Guns-National-Parks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
or on college campuses. That's right, on college campuses. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=2/15/2008
Politicians understand that one side of this issue is poison. Barack Obama, a Constitutional lawyer, states flatly that he believes the Second Amendment clearly confers the right for individuals to bear arms. He knows any other position means 'adios' to those Repubs and independents he's courting. Mike Huckabee, of course, unabashedly advocates for concealed weapons. Clearly, he wants to be able to protect himself against those zealots who believe in evolution. They're a dangerous lot. All I know is that I've lived in three crime-ridden cities--NY, LA and DC--and never owned a gun. And I never had an incident where I needed one. But that's just me.

Will You Be Mine?
Valentines' Day and the Morning After created some interesting political bedfellows:

Mitt Romney kissed and made up with John McCain in a sunny endorsement that had both guys metaphorically holding their noses. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15campaign.html?ref=politics

Two large unions, The United Food and Commercial Workers and the Service Employees International Union have endorsed Barack Obama. The SEIU may be the most dynamic and politically active large union in America. Once John Edwards' ally, it will now provide Obama with a massive national organizational tool. As if he needed another one. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15obama.html?ref=politics

He loves me? He loves me not? Iconic civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) confused everyone by saying he would vote for Obama as a Super Delegate, even though he wasn't recinding his earlier endorsement of Hillary. Okaaay.

David Wilhelm, onetime campaign manager for Bill Clinton endorsed...Obama. Ouch, if you're a Hillary supporter.

And as I reported two days ago, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá, endorsed Obama. Double Ouch, if you're a Hillary supporter.

FISA Friction
There's no interesting way to report this. We're talking FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is the instrument by which the government can legally wiretap communications from foreign sources through this country to other sources. The goal, obviously, is to intercept messages between terrorists. That's the hope, anyway. But before the last passage of the Patriot Act, the government obtained private citizens' personal communications records from Verizon, ATT and others. Some folks thought that was taking it a bit too far. Perhaps because it was illegal. In any event, with the current statute about to lapse, the Senate passed a new version last week that granted telecomm companies immunity for complying with the government in those illegal efforts. The House rejected that portion of the bill, opting instead for an extension to work out a compromise. As he has done before, Pres. Bush pledged to veto the House version of the bill and the extension. He then demonized opponents of the Senate version for endangering the lives of Americans--even though he was rejecting the extension that would keep the current rules in place. On top of that, he knows (but the general public does not) that any surveillance order under the existing statute is legal for six months after the statute lapses. This is how you change the tone in Washington? Now, I will agree with the President that it's going to be hard to obtain cooperation from these large companies in the future if they think they're going to be sued. But there remain radical folks in this country who believe that if you break the law, you need to be accountable--even if you're a President or a huge corporation. Sheesh, some people.http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/fisa.bush/index.html?iref=newssearch

Speaking of Changing The Tone...
Yeah, it's getting ugly on the campaign trail. Hillary ran another ad accusing Obama of ducking a debate in Wisconsin. And her stump speech is now taking clear aim at his aspirational approach, with the new unofficial slogan "solutions not speeches". You can't blame her, of course. She's tried everything else. And to her credit, she's held off as long as she can. But now it's crunch time and highlighting the negative aspects of your opponenet is a tried and true formula. If the American people want less negative campaigning, now would be a good time to stop rewarding it. Until that happens, candidates will continue this approach. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/2008.hopefuls/index.html
John McCain tried to negate Obama's fundraising advantage in the general by shaming him into honoring an unofficial pledge Obama made last year to forego private campaign financing in lieu of public financing. This would limit each rival to about $85 million or so and insure a level fundraising playing field.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23187794/
The problem I see with this approach is that it will increase the involvement of the 527s, those privately funded advocacy groups who operate with little regulation. They often turn campaigns into negative slugfests. The problem Obama sees with this approach is that it takes away his huge organizational advantage. Stay tuned.

Questions: would Presidential campaigns garner more interest using less money and less negativity? More money and more negativity? More money and less negativity? More negativity and less money? Talk about this or anything else by clicking "comments", by passing the Google sign-up and hitting the 'nickname'or 'anonymous' button.

My Valentine for Political Freaks...Politics 501

In the last Democratic debate, Barack Obama was asked how he would stack up against Mitt Romney and the Republicans in a discussion on the economy. He tartly replied that given the recent Republican economic record of running up a 4 trillion dollar national debt, he thought he'd stack up pretty well. He also said of Mr. Romney, "If you look at our two campaigns, I'll match my campaign management against his any day. He hasn't gotten a very good ROI." Much has been made of Obama's inexperience, but if his campaign is any reflection of how he'd govern, by every measuring stick it bodes well. But more importantly, the Obama campaign is a story that points to a sophisticated evolution in campaign tactics--tactics that reflect the changing political landscape of the 21st century.

If some of you find your eyes glazing over as you read this, don't worry about it. Get back to your well-adjusted lives. But for freaks like me who love the whys and wherefores of campaign success and failure, welcome to Politics 501. This is my Valentine for you. I just listened to a stunningly cogent analysis of the Obama and Clinton campaigns by Fox News's Major Garrett on Rebecca Roberts' s XM radio show, 1600. He explained how Barack Obama's campaign has forced the Clinton campaign into her Texas firewall strategy. And it got me to thinking about a speech I heard Howard Dean make at a campaign rally for John Kerry in 2004. Before I get to that, however, let's take a brief history lesson.

1994: After 2 years of Bill Clinton's first term, a stung Republican party gets off the mat. Led by a new force in American politics--the "values voters"--Repubs take control of Congress in the mid-term elections with their "Contract with America".
1995: In a public showdown over the budget, President Clinton dares the new Congress to shutdown the government. The Repubs, led by Newt Gingrich, back off and an era of deep polarization begins.
1998: In the middle of the largest economic expansion in the country's history, the President can't keep his pants zipped, providing Repubs with the PR opening they need. Caught in a lie about his peccadilloe, the President suffers through impeachment hearings. He serves out his term but he becomes a liability for Al Gore who runs for Potus in 2000.
2000: The political polarization extends to the Supreme Court who vote 5-4 to install George Bush as President, in a non-precedential ruling. Virtually unheard of in the history of the Court.
2001: Promising to change the tone in Washington, Bush and Cheney ratchet up the polarization.
2003: A former Vermont Governor named Howard Dean runs for President. He loses the nomination to John Kerry, but he is the first politician to use the Internet as his primary fundraising tool.
2004: Polarization reaches it zenith with the kneecap job on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The ultimate misnomer. Bush is elected to a second term. Polarization complete.
2005: Howard Dean becomes Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He starts building a new strategy for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections. He calls it "a 50 state" strategy. First, he raises ridiculous amounts of money. Then he creates ground organizations in "red" states. The idea is to: 1) force Repubs to use valuable resources to fight in areas they have traditionally carried; 2) then make them more vulnerable in swing contests; 3) field moderate candidates who can compete in the red states.
2006: It works. The Democrats take back the House and Senate.
2007: A young Senator from Illinois stands on the steps of the statehouse in Springfield to announce his longshot candidacy for Potus. Hillary Clinton announces her candidacy for Potus and instantly becomes the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.
January, 2008: Barack Obama shocks the pundits and pollsters with a victory in the Iowa caucuses. Suddenly, he becomes viable.

Fast forward to the present. Obama holds Hillary to a draw on Super Tuesday by winning a majority of "smaller" states. He then becomes the front runner after an 8 and 0 primary run that sees him take the lead in the delegate battle. The Clinton campaign circles the wagons.

So, how did this happen? Simple, really. Barack Obama took a page out of Howard Dean's playbook. He used the Internet to raise huge amounts of money from a vast army of small donors. Knowing that he wasn't going to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday, he took a 50 state organizing approach. He set up field operations in "red" states like Idaho, Kansas and the Dakotas, guaranteeing victories and delegates. He figured if he stayed close on Super Tuesday he could win a war of attrition after that. Obama also got lucky. Hillary's team, led by the now-departed Patti Solis Doyle, spent recklessly in Iowa. And perhaps as a result of hubrus, the Clinton campaign believed they could deliver the knockout punch on Super Tuesday. Instead, they found they were getting rope-a-doped by Obama--and that they were wearing down for the later rounds. They woke up on Feb. 6th with few resources and almost no ground operations in the next slate of contests.

Now, as all the media outlets are starting to report, Hillary is having to start anew with fundraising and field ops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14clinton.html?adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1203008410-jxxuWrN3USUMXSKrBcyuXg
The Texas-as-firewall strategy has been a last resort. She has had no one on the ground in Texas. In a recent speech, she exhorted supporters to help her "build" her campaign there. A letter from her campaign supposedly came from a town called "Sugarland", Texas--except it's really "Sugar Land". And now the question is: Can she get it done? Who knows, but I would never underestimate Hillary Clinton. The bigger point is, if you look at the campaigns of the three major players left in this race, the candidate percieved as most green, most naive, and not up to the job of Potus, has far and away run the best, most efficient and most fiscally responsible campaign. And what the Obama campaign is doing, any politico will tell you, is very difficult. It takes time, energy and discipline to create the kind of national field op and fundraising network that is now pushing Obama to the finish line.

Today, the governor of Puerto Rico endorsed Obama. This will put a huge dent in Hillary's "Latino inevitability" that is supposed to carry her to victory in Texas. To be sure, it's still much too fluid to make any predictions, but people who study this stuff are starting to catch on to a new reality: the Obama campaign is not about empty hopes, "promises" or "platitudes"; it's about cold-blooded political calculation and expert execution of a bold, new strategy. A strategy that signals a new chapter in American politics.

Oh, and about that speech by Howard Dean. He said in effect, 'We can't let the Republicans corner the values argument with the American voter. We need to reach out to all voters in both red and blue states. And we need candidates who can deliver that message.' I guess Barack Obama was listening.

Can Hillary pull this out? Tell me what you think. Click on "comment", by pass the Google sign-up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Barack...Duck!

Remember the old cartoons when a character would duck repeatedly as an antagonist hurled disparate items at his head--concluding with a kitchen sink? Welcome to Barack Obama's world. Now that he's swept the Potomac Primary and become the unofficial Democratic front runner, it's hammer time. No more fun and games. And we will see if he is truly tough enough to be Potus.

John McCain, who swept the Virginia, Maryland and DC Republican primaries, landed a preliminary salvo in a patronizing reference to "hope" in his victory speech. He also concluded his message with a signature Obama line, "I'm fired up and ready to go!", leaving listeners unsure as to whether he was mocking Obama or stealing his rhetorical flourishes.

Hillary Clinton offered no customary congratulations in her speech in El Paso last night. Who can blame her? She probably felt that Obama got congratulated enough by the media. She has a point. In an interview on Monday night, she chided Obama for not wanting to debate more, indicating that it's high time he started getting specific on issues. And in a speech on Monday, she brought up an issue I highlighted several blogs ago about Obama-sponsored legislation in Illinois that was watered down to appease a nuclear company-- with ties to Obama. It's going to get serious.

So what's got everyone so scared? Well, for starters, Obama's recent primary scorecard is 8 and 0. He's actually taken the lead in all delegates, including the Supers. If he wins in Hawaii, his home state, and Wisconsin, which looks more likely, he'll have a significant delegate lead. And now Hillary can't say Obama does well only in small states and caucuses. Virginia is a big state and all three of yesterday's contests were primaries. Moreover, he averaged two thirds of the vote in each primary--75% in DC. But most significantly, Obama started bucking demographic trends that have favored Hillary. In Virginia, a state with diverse demos , he dominated every demographic, except white women. And he trailed Hillary by only 5% with those voters. He also won the Latino vote, which has to make Clinton very nervous. And making Republicans nervous is the fact that Obama got 100,000 more votes than all the Republican candidates combined. Which means that Virginia is now in play for Democrats in the general for the first time since 1964. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/potomac.primaries.analysis/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080212

So, the feel-good part of this election is now over. With reports of new demographic penetration by Obama into the Latino vote, Texas may not be a guaranteed firewall for Hillary. Plus, the math demonstrates that she must win 56% of the remaining delegates in the big states to win the nomination. That's a tall order. Hillary's only hope is to drive down Obama's positive ratings. This won't happen in make-nice debates. Negative politics will return and only another voter backlash will deter it. Expect to hear the names Exelon (the nuclear company) and Larry Sinclair (a fellow who insists he had sexual relations with Obama and sold him crack). Expect to see microscopic analysis of every bill Obama did or did not vote for. Expect to hear, "Obama's weak on the issues, has no foreign policy experience, is too liberal and compromises too much with Republicans". If Obama can dodge all those flying objects, he deserves to get the nomination. Just watch out for that kitchen sink.

Today's topic is: do you think oppo research has a bona fide smoking gun on Obama? And do you think he can withstand the scrutiny and win the nomination?

Click on "comment", by pass the Google sign-in and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Crossover Appeal?

I'll have a full wrap-up of today's Potomac Primary festivities tomorrow, but here's a report on an interesting Repub voting strategy. I have a first hand account of a Repub voter crossing over (which you can do in the Commonwealth) and pulling the lever for...Clinton. That's right. Feeling good about a McCain victory, some Virginia Repubs are intentially voting for Clinton to help her win the nomination. They see her as a galvanizing force for the GOP in the general.

Now, we've all been hearing the whispers that this is how Repubs feel. And I was also hearing that Repubs might try to influence the election by voting for Clinton. But now that I know that someone actually did it, I'm not really surprised. The fact is, virtually everyone feels that this is a crucially important election. There are divisions and animosities in our politics that run deep. Everyone's looking for an edge. Yesterday, I had lunch with a New York Democrat who hates the whole field in the race. He was a Giuliani supporter. As a financial guy, he sees Democratic ecomomic proposals as socialism; as a Jew, he thinks Republicans are not confronting the threat of Islamic Jihad that exist in places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; and as a global businessman, he thinks both parties are underestimating the market impact China and India present to the rest of the world.

The fact is, it's tough to have true crossover appeal these days. Obama may have some--I have spoken to three Repubs who say they would vote for him--but he's still a tough pill for any but moderate conservatives to swallow. McCain has a whole slice of the Republican party screaming for his head. The only unified group is Hillary Haters.

And this brings us to one macro point: As Barack Obama correctly points out, President Clinton created a positive record of prosperity for the country, but left a negative legacy for the Democratic Party that resulted in George Bush. George Bush has also created a negative legacy for the Republicans that they are battling against in this election.

So here's today's question: Who is the candidate that can stem that pattern of polarization. Or is it even possible?

The NY Times has a revealing profile of Obama dealing with race and a terrific op-ed piece by David Brooks on the "reality" that a possible Democratic Administration will have to confront. Check them both out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12obama.html?hp

Leave a comment by clicking on 'comments', by pass the Google sign-up and hitting the 'nickname' or 'anonymous' button.

The More Things Stay The Same...The More They Change

While the past weekend's caucuses and primaries didn't change the big election picture for either party, more subtle shifts and changes could have dramatic impact in the near future.

What stayed the same? In spite of Barack Obama's weekend victory sweep (Washington, Nebraska, Virgin Islands, Maine and Louisiana), which earned him approximately 40 net delgates, he remains virtually tied with Hillary Clinton. That's based on-- all together now-- her earlier wins in heavily populated states and her 90+ Super Delegate advantage. Obama's dominance in caucuses (as opposed to primaries) remains a constant, as well as the general demographics for each candidate. Other constants: the Clinton campaign firing off emails to the media to let them know that they expected the losses to Obama, as if that reduces their significance; Obama stressing the importance of these wins, even thought they don't gain him much.

For the Repubs, what stayed the same is that John McCain still has the inside track to the nomination --even though Mike Huckabee took two out of three with a big win in Kansas, a narrow win in Louisiana and a close loss in Washington state. Also, the songs remain the same as the Republican jukebox continues to play "The Hardcore Right Hates John McCain Blues" and "Hit The Road, Mike (And Don't Ya Come Back No More)". Huck insists he'll stay in until Mac hits the required number of delegates.

And what's changed? Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's stump speech. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23088122#23088122
At the Virginia Jefferson-Jackson dinner, she presented a concise version, that alluded to the fact that this historical election includes a woman and a Black man, two people whom the Founders didn't even recognize as political entities when they wrote the Constitution. But, she added, they're now included because Americans have always strived for "a more perfect Union". Her speech now includes a perfect blend of policy and aspiration. Obama's standard stump speech is now starting to sound a little tired. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23088836#23088836
Quite a change.

Other changes for the Dems: Patti Solis Doyle "stepped down" as Campaign Manager, replaced by long-time Hillary aide Maggie Williams. This was brewing for a while. If Hillary had lost New Hampshire, this was one of the changes she was planning to make. Question: as a Latina, does Solis Doyle's departure create a negative for the Hispanic community? Another change on the way: if, (and I still think it's a big 'if') Obama sweeps the Potomac Primary, Hillary will beat it down to Texas to start building the firewall. Interesting to me that my home state, Virginia, is becoming the swing state this year. That's also change. And just a random thought along those lines: if I were Barry or Hill, I'd be lined up to snag either Sen. Jim Webb (ex-Under Secretary of the Navy), Ex-Gov. and Senator-to-be Mark Warner, or centrist current Gov. Tim Caine as a running mate. All solid, all presidential, all able to deliver the Commonwealth in a general.

For the Repubs, one change is that George Bush finally came to the defense of John McCain. Sure, it was half-hearted but it was the least he could do after Mac swallowed his pride and supported Bush in 2004. Another change is that Mike Huckabee is able to make a real case that he's got something going. But the biggest change is that Huckabee is now tasting his own vote-grabbing medecine, courtesy of Ron Paul and the now-departed Mitt Romney. In a straight head-to-head with McCain, Huck would have swept all three states this weekend. Ron Paul siphoned away a ton of votes in Washington (21% or so), and Romney (who was still on the ballot ) combined with Paul to snag a total of 11% of the vote in Louisiana. If Huck had taken 60% of that 11% he would've snagged 50% of the total vote and taken all of Louisiana's Republican delegates. With 43%, he beat McCain, but recieved no delegates (per Louisiana party rules). So now Huckabee's the one pining for a straight head-to-head battle. You can't make this stuff up. Check out the scorecard here. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

And finally, to tie it all together, the biggest change from things staying the same, is that both parties have different things to fear than they did a month ago. The Dems, so united in their approval of three worthy candidates, are now in danger of becoming the fractious party the Repubs were when they had a crowded field. The Repubs now may have a clear choice, but they have to fear that the second place finisher doesn't expose so many demographic holes in the front runner's support that victory in the general is compromised.

The Potomac Primary tomorrow will jolt both parties out of this stasis. If Obama sweeps again, with his cash advantage, he can stay close to Hillary on March 4th in Texas and Ohio. And then she could be in trouble. If Hillary has another New Hampshire moment by winning Virginia, she vaults back into front-runner position. If Huck takes Virginia, which I think is unlikely, he's going to really feel the pressure to get out of the race. If Mac does well, the party's over for Huck, and Mac can start figuring out how "100 years in Iraq" can be a winning campaign slogan.

Talk about it all. Click on "comments", by pass Google sign-up and click on 'nickname' or 'anonymous'.

Now Playing...

...Washington caucuses: 78 Democratic delegates, 18 GOP delegates.

...Louisiana primaries: 56 Democratic delegates, 20 Republican delegates

...Nebraska Democratic caucuses: 24 Democratic delegates.

...Kansas Republican caucuses: 36 Republican delegates.

...Virgin Islands Democratic caucuses: 3 Democratic delegates.

And on Sunday...

...Maine Democratic caucuses: 24 Democratic delegates.

I'll have a full report of these contests on Monday, with a preview of Tuesday's Potomac Primary.

There's talk that David Schuster is leaving MSNBC. His new media home? You guesssed it: "Pimp My Ride". Have a great weekend!

Leave any comments by clicking on "comments", by-passing the Google sign up and leaving a nickname or just anonymous

C Ya

Mitt Romney launched his 2012 Republican presidential campaign yesterday by suspending his 2008 campaign. Speaking at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, Romney's announcement made the afternoon's next speaker, John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee (unless we've been seriously underestimating Mike Huckabee's relationship with God-- then, of course, anything is still possible).

I was originally going to walk you through the Romney, McCain and Ron Paul speeches but I'd rather use this time to open up a discussion on the state of the Republican Party. CPAC provides the perfect backdrop for this discussion. You can hear all those speeches at http://www.c-span.org/

For those of you who don't know, CPAC is an annual conference sponsored by the American Conservative Union. It's the main forum of the hard core right--people like Tom Delay and Laura Ingraham who have been beating John McCain over the head for being too liberal.

For these people, called "values voters" or "culture warriors", 2008 brings a question of influence. They first flexed their muscles in the congressional race of 1994, then helped elect George Bush in 2000 (well, kind of) and 2004. Their platform was summed up by Mitt Romney yesterday, who gleefully spewed a rant of intolerance to the very folks whose intolerance prevented him from getting the nomination. Who says Republicans have no sense of irony? The problem today for this reactionary sect of the Republican Party is that their standard bearer, George Bush, has not delivered on Ronald Reagan's famous litmus test. With control of the Congress for five years and God on his side, George Bush has not presided over an improvement in the lives of most Americans from eight years ago. A lack of government oversight has contributed to a paralyzing credit scenario. The absence of any energy policy has mired us in gas prices that depress our productivity. Wages are down, crime is up, teenage pregnancies, for years in decline, are up. The war in Iraq has been prosecuted badly and fiscal policy has ignored the strain the war puts on our monetary system. True, the Supreme Court moved to the right. True, the country experienced top-down economic growth for many years. But even a Sean Hannity would agree that George Bush's record, especially in terms of economic conservative principles, has been a disappointment. Government spending has increased, another huge entitlement program was added and a federal education plan was mandated, then underfunded. And we won't go into the administration's embarrassing response to Katrina and it's stubborn refusal to address serious concerns about our nation's infrastructure.

But the real difficulties facing the Republican Party, many people say, spring from the hi-jacking of true conservative values by those "values voters". Ron Paul's speech yesterday laid out plainly what a true conservative is: a person who believes that the Constitution is the guide for government. His statement that "personal liberty promotes peace, which promotes prosperity" bears little resemblance to Mitt Romney's "culture war" cant. So, if the Constitution is the guide for true conservatives, George Bush has again complicated their mission. His constant invocation of executive priveledge creates congitive dissonance for any conservative who believes that the document was created to reduce the governing power of a single person. His transformation of explanatory signing statements that accompany new legislation, into tools for circumventing that legislation, suggests that conservatives don't respect the laws of the land. A Chief Executive spying on the communications of private citizens, or a Vice President secretly meeting with an influential business group, or the public exposure of an intelligence officer's identity by members of an administration are all anathema to any strict constructionist. And they create a veneer of hipcrosy that sullies true conservatism and its valuable principles.

And this brings us to John McCain. Here's a guy who's been taking a beating from the hard core right. And the reason is that he understands that a diverse nation requires legislative compromise to solve problems. He's reached across the aisle to do this and he's gotten hammered for it. But he hasn't deserted core conservative principles. Take the so-called "marriage amendment". No true conservative can think it's a good idea to change the Constitution to allow the federal government to dictate the private lives of citizens. So McCain didn't fight for it. He got hammered. He didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts because they weren't fiscally responsible. He got hammered. He tried to work out an achievable immigration plan. He got hammered. He believes that an energy policy that enhances the well being of the environment for future generations is worth discussing. He gets hammered for it.

So the question for everyone to ponder is: who is the Republican Party today? Is John McCain the new standard bearer? Can he convince Laura Ingraham that his brand of conservatism is the real deal? Can he convince James Dobson that he can attract more Americans to a new conservative movement? Does he even want the endorsement of Tom Delay, who still insists that there is "no scientific evidence to prove that climate change is man-made"? (Yes, those folks are still out there). These are big questions. Right now, the Republican Party is suffering from a major John Kerry moment: their last man standing excites very few people. The good news is that they now have nine months to figure it all out. Let's hear how you think that can happen. And if you're a Democrat, list some conservative approaches to government that you think are worthwhile. Hint: there are some, if you're paying attention.

I am starting two new mini-commentaries: the Politics As Usual watch (PAU) and Best Political Move of the day (BPM). The PAU describes a sneaky manuver that perpetuates politics as usual. BPM is a smart manuver that moves a campaign toward its goal. Sometimes, they may be one and the same.

Today:
PAU- Barack Obama's campaign leaked a memo to the press about the potential delegate stalemate at the end of the primary season, and claimed it did so "by mistake". Please.

BPM -- Hillary Clinton, in a speech acknowledging McCain's presumtive nomination, warmly emphasized her "friendship" with John McCain. This, of course, continues McCain's marginalization with the hard core right, which helps the Democratic nominee in the general. Brilliant.

Let me hear from you. Click on "comments", by pass the Google sign up to give a nick name or do it anonymously.

Money, Money, Money, Money...Monaaay! And Other Rants

Super Tuesday oozed into What-everrr Wednesday as the Senate swallowed a Valium on the proposed stimulus package for the American economy. At issue was $44 billion in add-ons to the original House package. Benefits to seniors and disabled vets, tax breaks for renewable energy and coal companies, plus an extension of unemployment benefits increased the cost of the package to more than $200 billion. Even though a majority backed the measure, the 58-41 margin fell short of the 60 votes needed to bypass procedural hurdles. Both Senators Clinton and Obama flew back to vote for the package, but McCain did not. Maybe not a great move for a candidate perceived as weak on economic matters.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/06/news/economy/stimulus_senate.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes
Now, are Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, grandstanding to appear fiscally responsible? Or are they just trying to stick it to Democrats? Or are Dems being fiscally irresponsible give-away artists? How about 'all of the above'? For my part, this is funny money, anyway. Mike Huckabee has a point when he says that a rebate-laden package that borrows money from China to buy goods from China is a great stimulus package-- for China. Agreed. But if you do decide to give out spending cash to jump start the economy, it's a safe bet that low-income seniors, disabled vets and folks depending on unemployment checks will put that money right back into the system. More upper middle-class folks are more apt to reduce their credit card debt or simply sock it away, which completely defeats the purpose. And all supply-siders (Republicans, mostly) believe that tax breaks are the only real way to stimulate the economy. So why oppose tax breaks for renewable energy and coal companies that will help us get off foreign oil? For $44 billion? When we spend that in a few months in Iraq? It sounds fishy. And word is, that this could hurt a number of Repubs in upcoming elections. Can anyone say, "19% approval rating?" Love to get your feedback on this one.

If you're a Hillary supporter, you can't like this: in answer to a reporter's question at her press conference yesterday, Sen. Clinton confirmed that she had dipped into her own pocketbook to loan her campaign 5 miiilllion dollars. The full story is that some staffers are working without salaries and that much of her post Super Tuesday campaign strategy is based on her dwindling funds. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23037431/ No wonder she wants 40 debates in 21 days. She can feed her staffers in the CNN Green Room. Obama, on the other hand, is still raking it in. In addition to the $32 million he raised in January, he's apparently on pace to raise a similar amount in February. Now here's the problem with mistrust. For those of us who marvel at the political acumen of the Clintons, it's hard to believe that this poorly-timed story is not part of choreographed plan. It seems like a misstep, but the Clintons rarely make them in these situations. I mean, when was the last time she easily admitted to an opponent besting her in any area of politics. And coming off a strong night, why would you let a story about your campaign's weak financial health dominate a news cycle? Is it a cry for help? Weird.

Don't tell me Democrats don't know what they're doing. Sending New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson packing as a Presidential nominee seems wise--now that his state is taking two full days to count 130,000 votes! California counted 130,000 votes in five minutes! Are New Mexico's census numbers from 1970? Wow. Richardson's bureaucracy makes FEMA look like Fed Ex.

And finally, one last (probably not) rant on the Zogby California polls. Obama with a possible 13% lead? I mean, come on! What's the point? They spend more time spinning their results than the candidates. "Well, sometimes the undecideds don't come forward until...blah, blah, blah". Oh, well, their ineptitude gave birth to this blog-- to let the people speak so no one would try to guess. So I should be grateful. And I am.

Let's hear a few rants of your own. Click on "comments", by-pass the google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button. Thanks.

Welcome To The First Day Of the Rest Of Your Campaign

Before we look at the implications of Super Tuesday, I'd like to take a moment to remember the victims of the devastating storms in the mid-South last night. I have dear friends in Memphis and Mississippi, (they all seem to be safe) but at least 45 people in four different states (Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and Alabama), were not so lucky. My prayers go out to the families affected by this tragedy. You can read more about it. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/06/tornadoes/index.html

And, of course, there's bad news on the economy. The Dow dove 370 points yesterday and service sector jobs were down, pointing us squarely to a recession. My question before we get to Super Tuesday talk is this: Is the US economy now structured to perform in 8 year boom and bust cycles? Are we a solid economy, with these periodic corrections, or do we have a "bubble" economy, which needs more oversight. Supply-siders, try to step outside the box to answer this and Dems, do the same. Ok, on to Super Tuesday.

Now, let's be honest. The only real surprise from last night was that the two man race that materialized for Republicans turned out to be between Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Ok, I guess I didn't know that Montana was Ron Paul country (25%), but come to think of it, that's not really a surprise, either, is it? Anyway, it's true that Mitt Romney won more states than Huck and has more delegates, but he didn't win any southern states (a no-no for a conservative) and two of his victories were in states in which he has lived ( Mass. and Utah). Plus, he lost Cali, where he had busted it with time and money. MSNBC was reporting late last night that the Romney camp was going to conduct "frank discussions" today on the future of his campaign. Aside from that, the expected story was that McCain effectively put a stranglehold on the nomination last night. He won the big prizes, New York, Cali, Illinois, Oklahoma and Mizzou. He now has a 2 to 1 delegate lead over Mitt. He has major mo' going forward. 'Nuff said.

For the Dems? It's even. Even, even, even. Even steven. Did I say it was even? It's even. No amount of spinning can give either candidate an edge. Clinton won the two big states, NY and Cali, and was geographically diverse. Obama won one big state, Illinois, and was geographically diverse. Clinton flexed her muscles with Hispanic voters, Obama with Black voters. Clinton held on to women, Obama to men. Obama did much better than before with white voters, but Hillary still does better with them overall. Clinton held her own in the face of huge Obama press coverage and percieved momentum. Obama proved he has a national following. When the final tallies are completed, Clinton will probably have a lead in delegates, but it's not significant. Folks, this race is even. In fact, it's so even, I tried to come up with a tie breaker: I analyzed the past two general presidential elections, identified the swing states, then applied Clinton and Obama victories in those states to see who had the edge. Here's what I found:

• Arkansas-Hillary
• Colorado - Obama
• Florida - Hillary
• Iowa - Obama
• Michigan - Hillary
• Minnesota - Obama
• Missouri - Obama
• Nevada - Hillary
• New Mexico - Hillary or Obama

In other words: Even.

So, what happens now, on the first day of the rest of the campaign? Well, the pundits are saying that McCain's front runner status allows Republicans to coalesce around him early, which could provide an advantage in the general. They say if Democrats continue to duke it out, it will split the party. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23024795/ I thoroughly disagree. It'll take more than front runner status to unite Repubs around McCain. They are a seriously disaffected lot. The Democrats, on the other hand, are looking at a rib-eye and a New York Strip cooking on the grill: it's fun to watch because you know either one will taste real good. And last night's speeches prove that point. Hillary was pitch perfect http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23021857#23021857 and Obama did what Obama does http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022671#23022671 .

So let's see what happens, because you all know I'm about letting the People speak when they speak and not making predictions. (What was that poll giving Obama a lead in Cali? Come on.)

In the interest of equal time, here are the Repubs' speeches, as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022473#23022473

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022473#23021515

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022473#23021197

Tell me what you think about Super Tuesday, the economy or anything else. Click on "comments", by-pass the Google sign up, and give us a nickname or click "anonymous".