Arlen Specter Does Benedict Arnold

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, longtime GOP heavyweight, announced today that he has become a Democrat. The former Republican said in a press conference, "I have found myself increasingly more at odds with the Republican philosophy." In a separate statement he also said, "I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania." The Washington Post describes Specter's final meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday to have consisted of, "stony silence."

Yes, he is making a political survival move. I'm not sure that's wrong however. He seems genuine when he says he is following the will of his state, which has had a nearly unprecedented shift toward the Democratic party, and toward liberal ideals. President Obama is said to have given Specter his full blessing. I say, "bravo!" to Arlen Specter for having the balls to do something like this. It is a huge risk. The GOP is mad as hell, and Democrats are suspicious.

Specter will retain his seniority in the Democratic party as though he were elected Dem in 1980. Specter was one of a wave of Republican officials who rode Ronald Reagan's impressive coat tails. He will become chairman of an influential subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee. He also brings the Democratic caucus to 59 votes, one short of a filibuster-proof 60. If Al Franken (MN) is ever seated, Dems will have a controlling majority of Congress, the first since the first half of Jimmy Carter's presidency in '77-'79. Vice President Biden is reported to have played a key role in smoothing the transition and keeping peace while Specter made the decision. The two are said to be long time friends. The Huffington Post of all places, is giving Hillary Clinton credit, citing the fierce voter registration war waged between Clinton and Obama during the Pennsylvania Democratic primary last year as the major cause of Pennsylvania's massive shift to Blue.

Specter is the 4th most bipartisan-moderate member of the GOP caucus, according to the Congressional Database, and 4th overall in both Houses of Congress. He ranks behind Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). According to the Washington Post both Senators Snowe and Collins have also been lobbied by the Democrats. Ironically, Olympia Snowe, who is the most centrist member of Congress (between both Houses) by a wide margin, only voting with her party 54.4% of the time, says joining the Democrat party is, "Something I would never do."

Specter's announcement came on the eve of President Obama's 100th day in office. Specter criticized ultra-conservative factions of the GOP for taking control of the caucus, and showed a little anger toward Republican politics and politicians since 2000. If there was ever a clearer slap in the face to the GOP, I've never seen it.

Gerrymandering For Good

I'm not sure how much of Judd Gregg's withdrawal from consideration for Commerce Secretary really had to do with the 2010 Census, but what I do think is that Gregg let the cat out of the bag.

Gerrymandering is "a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are deliberately modified for electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group." The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 2 states: "The actual Enumeration [of the US population] shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The Department of Commerce is responsible for the conducting of the census, through the Census Bureau. Once the Census is completed, the population data contained therein is used for Congressional redistricting. Because it is impossible to actually physically speak in person to every person within the borders of the US, data samplings are used to project actual population totals and demographic breakdowns (i.e.: the racial and religious makeup of America.) It is a generally accepted platitude that in projecting minority population totals, Republicans trend toward under-sampling (making America officially whiter, richer and more Christian), and Democrats trend toward over-sampling (making America officially more diverse, and giving census-driven representation to racial minorities.)

The 2010 Census will be the first Census conducted under a Democratic government in 30 years. (The 1980 Census was conducted under Jimmy Carter.) President Obama has been unofficial about any of it so far, giving generic reassurances that there will be no monkey business. Regardless, it appears that the 20120 Census will be directly supervised by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. While no doubt the census data will be used to benefit Democrats down the line, I also believe that President Obama wants more direct control of the census so that we can actually count the racial diversity of America. I believe this to be the real culture war, an actual battle. The White House intends to see a representative census, and the GOP is furious over it. I hope the President gets his way on this.

Pelosi Feels The Burn

For the first time in 5 years, Nancy Pelosi is no longer the most powerful Democrat in America. She worked her little tail feathers off to get President-elect Obama elected, openly contemptuous toward Hillary Clinton (and in the end, Hillary still gets more power, more access to the President, and more star power) and blithely bullied the Democratic caucus to get behind her. Now, she has to "lay down the law" with Rahm Emmanuel -- no longer her creature in the House. Not that he ever was to begin with, just an alacritous player. Emmanuel has long been a Blue Dog, and prominent member of the Democratic Leadership Council, Hillary Clinton's true power base, and the body from which Bill Clinton rose to the Presidency. With Rahm out of the DCCC chairmanship, and out from under Pelosi's thumb, she announced today that there would be "no surprises" from the Democratic White House, and in essence told the incoming Obama administration that they had better mind their P's and Q's, and she wants to know the second they set foot on her turf, and why. Poor little Nancy.

Is Clinton The Real Unifier?

I have long been saying that voters are considering presidential hopefuls Obama, Clinton and McCain on a Liberal-Moderate-Conservative scale, in that order, independent of party affiliation. McCain is playing a balancing act, putting his "maverick" image out to the public and courting the conservatives on the inside of the GOP. Obama, on the opposite end, is challenged to maintain his liberal image without seeming too divorced from the bread-and-butter concerns of middle America. This allows Clinton to slide right in between them and frame herself as the true "compromise candidate." It also opens her to attacks on all sides. Liberals slam her for doing what you are supposed to do in a presidential campaign: use your resources to win; conservatives slam her for her obvious departures and disagreements with how Republicans have been running the country for the last 8 years.

Ironically, both Democratic candidates have been friendlier toward McCain than each other. This is changing since it has become obvious that people are tired of the negative campaigning. Obama has repeatedly spoken for unity in November, and yesterday Clinton (finally) said that if Obama gets the nomination she will "work her heart out for him." Admittedly, it is easier for her to say now that she is on her way to being the perceived front runner again. However, the same could be said for Obama, calling for party unity, at a time when he was soaring on public opinion. The Illinois senator has also repeatedly accused Clinton of using GOP tactics against him, and many people believe that the "vast right wing conspiracy" (a term ironically coined by Clinton) is currently conspiring for Clinton.

My first question is: just what are "GOP tactics" and if this "Rove Playbook" exists, I'd like to see a copy of it, because it seems to me it has been pretty effective. Maybe Democrats should take a lesson from the other side of aisle. The last time I was old enough to vote for a Democrat that actually won an election was 16 years ago, or 12 if you count Bill's second term. Since the Rove comparisons have fallen largely on deaf ears, Obama has now begun comparing Clinton's campaign strategy to McCain's, which I think is backwards. Obama has seized on the proposed Gas Tax Holiday that both Clinton and McCain support and he opposes to frame Clinton as a "defector." In reality, I think it was McCain co-opting a Democratic strategy, which is very good for his (illusory) moderate image. I find it an erroneous comparison, in fact, I find the idea that there is any specific and particular way you should run a presidential campaign silly.

I believe the main conceit of liberals is not their ideas, but the attitude that the rest of the world would see it their way if they would just "wake up" or if they were not so "ignorant." Maybe this is the conceit of every broad group of people. Regardless, the liberal vs. conservative dynamic in American politics always falls along these lines. We are told that liberals want change, implying that change would be good for everyone. We are told conservatives fear and abhor change because it will undermine our social structure and destroy "the establishment."

I believe Clinton represents the closest thing to a true bipartisan presidency we can hope for. I've said this before, but allow me to reiterate: Obama wants us to believe he is the "change" candidate and the one who will bring a spirit of cooperation to government, yet he holds the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Clinton represents liberal ideal for individuals, and very moderate ideals for government. Her voting record shows that she is a party-line Democrat, but she has crossed the aisle quite a few times in order to achieve goals she believed were for the best. Obama has made gestures in this area, but has continually withdrawn when it was time to put his name on bipartisan compromises.

The Weekly Standard recently published an article called An Exceedingly Strange New Respect, and while it points out why Clinton is gaining respect from the GOP and conservatives, I believe it also points out the growing respect for her overall. They make a very compelling case for the idea that the 2008 campaign itself has transformed Clinton into what she claims to be based on her past experiences. She's shown toughness, resilience, and tenacity, and moreover, she has demonstrated that she will not be forced to back down by the loud clamor of dissent, something every president faces. I would ask: isn't being respected by the GOP a key factor in encouraging cooperation? When Obama calls for change and unity and makes sweeping promises of compromise and shared responsibility, this is actually (as I have said before) code for: I will encourage bipartisan cooperation in my administration. But would he? Or does he simply believe that by virtue of being President he will be able to strongarm the GOP into submission? They do not like him; the GOP sees Obama as a threat, as a reversal of their efforts, and the end of conservative dominance of government. That's great right? I don't think so. I'm not sure we need another president that half the country hates. I'm not sure we're really ready for the kind of fight Obama will have to fight. There are much more pressing issues facing America than the Red & Blue Divide. Why not go with the candidate who's already purple?

Clinton has a very liberal background. Back in the '60s and '70s, she would have been in the front row of every Obama rally chanting, "Yes we can, yes we can." But the Woodstock era politics largely failed. What is really different now, forty years later? We're still fighting other people's wars. We're still detaining political prisoners without trial or representation. We're still killing the environment. We're still allowing radical religious governments to dictate our foreign policy. We're still in bed with the oil companies and the drug companies and the huge mega corporations that drive our economy. Senator Clinton lived through all of that, and her politics have been tempered by it. She has slowly slid closer to the middle and has dedicated her efforts to areas where a difference can still be made. She has embraced modern politics and modern ideas of compromise, and understands that sometimes you have to pick your battles. She is not seeking to upset the balance, only to refocus. What's wrong with that? Not radical enough? Do we really need another radical in the Oval Office? Obama is the Anti-Bush, which is precisely what makes him such an attractive option, but I don't believe the reality of an Obama presidency would deliver on his huge campaign promises. Clinton has not made any of these sweeping claims. Her most radical promise is a plan to provide health care for every American, which Obama has the audacity to call a bad idea.

Clinton represents a very interesting dichotomy. On the one side, her social programs are almost Communist, but she has presented a very conservative stance on war and foreign relations, citing US military might as her method of restoring America's preeminence worldwide. She has been widely attacked for what is being spun as a nuclear threat to Iran, when if truth, that is exactly what we would do if Iran launched an attack on Israel, which they have repeatedly made overtures toward. Clinton is not trigger happy, and I very much doubt she would authorize a full scale nuclear assault on Iran, unless they used nuclear weapons first. Moreover, using the very real threat of US military superiority is a valid and often used tactic, and one that is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton sees an America that prioritizes itself, and its citizens. She wants to see every American have health care, better jobs, and stronger families. She also wants to see an America that takes its responsibility to the world seriously, instead of treating the world like its playground. If we have to puff up our feathers and pound our chests and strut around a little bit to get that done, she is willing to do so, and Americans like that. Support for Iraq is very low, and everyone knows it is a terrible situation for everyone involved. This does not mean other threats are not real, or that we should not get involved. Clinton understand this as well, although she may not fully understand Iraq. She does understand we need to get out, and we need to do so in an orderly fashion, and at the end of the day, that is what matters.

Clinton is making friends on the other side of the aisle, drawing support from the GOP, and solidifying her middle class base. This sparks all kinds of controversy, and opens the door for her to be cast as a secret Republican or worse. I find it unspeakably odd that we spend so much time wistfully imagining a united America, where we all get along and every politician's first priority is the good of all, and yet we reject politicians who are moderates. We want these uber-liberal politicians to create a common ground when they have as little common ground with the average American as the uber-conservative.

The Presidency is like a turn-based video game where competing sides "get their turn," and Democrats feel that their turn was stolen from them in 2000, and again in 2004, although they cannot deny the reality that Bush actually won in '04. Regardless, the Democrats now have an even greater sense that the Presidency is rightfully theirs this time around. I believe that Bill Clinton announced Hillary's candidacy in 1992 when he declared you get "two for the price of one," and later threw the entire force of the White House behind her 2000 Senate run. This is the source of the disparity between Hillary and the Democratic party, the largely unspoken accusation that focusing on Hillary's senate campaign compromised the necessary focus to get Al Gore elected. Because of the political and media firestorm created by the Gore-Bush race, we have forgotten that Gore had already greatly distanced himself from Bill long before the 2000 campaign, and it was seen as a career move for Gore, to keep his nose clean so to speak. He cannot fully blame the Clintons. You can't have your cake and eat it too, step back from the President when it is politically expedient, then expect him to prioritize you when it's convenient. It's certainly not very consistent with the loyalty model the Clintons expect. Hillary's sense of entitlement to the Presidency is completely in line with the Democratic party's own attitudes, but Al Gore casts a long shadow. However, I believe party leadership is also cognizant of the risk of alienating the Clinton machine, and while this has been held up as a reason to dislike Hillary even more, it also represents a very real network of political power and capability that could be put back into direct control of the White House, something the DNC greatly desires. Obama lacks this kind of extended network, which would require a good deal more effort on the part of party leadership to ensure smooth transition to solid Democratic control.

So, like her or not, Clinton is forming a large base of support, has shown extreme potency, and is now even attracting fans inside the GOP. What's bad about that? Isn't it the real goal? To draw everyone together? Or do we mean, we'll draw Democrats together? Perhaps what the party fears is the return of the New Democrats to power. The critics of the New Democrats, and Bill Clinton who was the DLC Chair until his 1992 presidential campaign, cite the perceived failures of NAFTA as the reason the New Dems are wrong. I find this erroneous as well, and would point to the overall success of Bill's presidency as the proof. People fear "dynasty building" as well, the idea that a second Clinton is in some way building a presidential dynasty comparable to the Bush regime. This logic completely ignores the fact that Clinton politics and Bush politics are very different creatures, draws another false comparison. The deeper you look into it, the more it looks like the Democratic party actually fears change, the realignment of the party toward the middle. And yet, isn't that exactly what we need? Isn't the endless tug of war in Congress and the White House tired yet? A centrist president is exactly what we need.

A Triangulated Battle

So what exactly are these dire consequences to the Democratic party if Clinton and Obama drag their horse race out five more months? I don't think it is that the two are "destroying each other." I don't think it is lasting bitterness on behalf of the eventual loser's supporters. I don't think it is that the superdelegates are going to crash and burn modern democracy if they don't follow the popular vote. All of this bickering and hostility and mud slinging will be instantly forgotten once the nomination is awarded.

Calls for either Clinton or Obama to drop out have been soundly booed, even by party leadership. Even though the media is focusing on Howard Dean's call for delegates to endorse, he specifically identified his time line as after the primary season. This week, big money Clinton supporters threw down the gauntlet to Nancy Pelosi and basically said if she openly endorses Obama before the Convention, they won't open their wallets to House Democrats. MoveOn.org went wild over this and issued a rebuke. Pelosi seems to have rejected this threat, but also flexed her claws over threats to House Democrats, which tells me she takes it seriously. No matter what happens, I believe the message is loud and clear: no one is dropping out yet.

What the party leaders are afraid of is triangulation. I have long felt that voters are evaluating all three presidential candidates on a continuum from left to right, independent of party affiliation. Both the Democrats and the GOP are experiencing disturbing trends of defection. The Democratic party considers GOP defectors a success and view the Dems who are showing sympathies to McCain a sign that the internal race is harming the cause. I find it to be an exciting phenomenon, and a clear indicator that American voters are engaged in the political process. I believe this phenomenon is benefiting the Democratic party, but only because they are the only potent national venue where change is endorsed.

I also believe a sub-textual fear is that if Clinton gets the nomination, resentful voices will say Republicans tipped the balance. If that is true, it also calls into question the motives of GOP defectors, which Rush Limbaugh has already paved the road for. "Triangulation" is a dirty word to most Democrats, and it was a major bone of contention between the party and Bill Clinton. Regardless, I believe it cannot be ignored that Obama, Clinton and McCain represent a liberal-moderate-conservative scale, in that order. All scandals aside, all analysis of race, gender, and age (again, in that order) aside, what we see right now are three very viable, intelligent, and prepared candidates, all of whom have a very distinct Presidency mapped out.

Reality is finally intruding on the '08 election cycle. The economy is swiftly emerging as the big election issue. All three candidates have begun platforming economic plans, solutions to the mortgage crisis, and dovetailing their personal campaign slants in. Obama is subtly inserting his Change theme into his economic position. Clinton is doing the same with Health Care, arguably her strongest position, smartly using it as her launching pad for the rest of her economic plans. And, McCain is splashing foreign relations broadly across his whole strategy, and doing some very impressive image spinning. Both Democrats have started to focus on McCain instead of each other, which tells me, the General Election has begun.

Increasingly, I see Clinton and Obama drawing the knife edge closer instead of further apart. Currently, in head-to-heads, Obama has regained his visible lead over McCain, according to RealClearPolitics.com. However, less than one point separates all of them, and both Democrats come in at exactly 45.0%, showing they both perform the same in a head-to-head. The undecided percentages, and the margin or error erases any determining call. Pennsylvania and North Carolina have re-polarized after a few days flux toward Clinton, and are now mirrors of each other again, with the split hovering around 50-30, favoring Clinton in Penn and Obama in NC. Clinton is standing to gain more in Pennsylvania, but she has a harder climb than Obama, so the delegate-smaller state of NC is still a considerable win for Obama, too. Once more, an eye for an eye. Again, according to RCP, factoring in Florida, Michigan and estimates from states that do not report exact totals, the popular vote total is split almost exact down the middle, separated by less than 1 percent, around 200,000 votes. Depending on any number of factors from visceral things like money to the completely spontaneous, Clinton could easily make up that difference. Jay Cost has made a very compelling and thorough analysis of how the popular vote count could vary dramatically. Both have suffered very nasty blows to their image and are both still standing. Both have spouses who have been unpalatable to their campaigns. Both have had inverted victories, hedging into each other's bases equally. I believe even the Democratic voting pattern shows equal-opposite strengths. Clinton performs well with big working class states, and Obama performs well in caucuses and broadly with white men. Both inspire so much loyalty that their supporters are willing at least to threaten defection. Both represent a contradiction to the Democratic party. Clinton's sense of entitlement to the presidency is fairly consistent with the party sentiment, but find the attitude distasteful coming from Clinton. Obama represents change and coalition, but the risks involved in backing him are considerable. The true significance of the Wright scandal is that race had to come up eventually, and it will again.

Every high profile Democrat has reinforced the push for unity behind whoever wins the nomination. I believe the reason Howard Dean has said July 1st will be his personal deadline for all delegates to make up their minds is because he fears not the Convention, but a brokered convention, which is when the really ugly fighting would start. The "Al Gore Shadow Candidate" rumor is popping up again, and I still don't believe it. But, I do believe people are doing the math and realizing that even the superdelegate vote could split in such a way that neither candidate got the 2025 magic number. It could happen.

Everyone already knew this, but now that it is happening, they are realizing that instead of preventing it, they should be planning for it. Preventive strategies have failed, instead fueling the debates. Democratic leadership now has to lean toward preparing for the superdelegates to take center stage, exercise their best judgment, select a nominee, and do all of this in the most politic possible way. Doing so by July 1st gives six weeks to test the waters for the presumed nominee. Someone has to concede eventually, and if buyers remorse is going to set in, better it be while there is still an option: before the Convention. Clinton is poised for a big win in Pennsylvania, one that will net her momentum for coming wins, a delegate gain, and a major proof in her "more electable" argument. Rightly, she could at this point throw Obama's words back at him in answer to his campaign calls for her to drop out, "Why would I drop out? I'm winning." Both know the pitfalls and advantages of the frontrunner - underdog symbiosis, and both are exercising them daily. Clinton is suffering very bad right now as the underdog, but this plays directly into her comeback phenomenon. The worse it looks for her, the greater even a small victory looks. Conversely, Obama is riding the wave of his near to insurmountable lead, returning to his grand oratory style, and writing speeches that are already headed for the history books. But, he has also found out that being in the lead, even in the presumed winner's slot, does not shield him from major blows to his image or questions of his integrity, in fact it intensifies the desire for scrutiny of both. Coming out of the recent round of battle bruised but still swinging is good for him, but he should be careful to think it's over. He may have won the battle, but the war is still very much on.

McCain has realized he can't stay out of the fray. Clinton and Obama if nothing else, are giving each other excellent practice rounds. As I have said in a previous article, Clinton and Obama represent very different challenges to McCain. His answer to this is to begin positioning himself as the President people expect. Now that he has gotten the Bush endorsement, he has also begun to distance himself from Bush politics, which both Democrats have harshly criticized. McCain knows his weaknesses, and he is sidestepping them rather well. He has come across as calm, confident, and eloquent, and that is the real danger. Both Democrats have begun, by necessity to respond to McCain's forays against them, and this has drawn attention to all three as serious options. Like it or not, the presidential race is currently three-way. It is incumbent on Democrats to narrow the field to two, but all three are campaigning for President, and all three are drawing their own unique following. I believe this is what accounts for the seemingly strange movements in party affiliation and in cross-over voting. Allow me to reiterate that I find this exciting and interesting, and I see it as a sign that Americans overall are more interested in who is President, not in what party wins.

Positive Effects of Dems Battle On McCain Campaign

Hey, that rhymes, "McCain Campaign." Something that has been largely ignored is the idea that the protracted battle between Senators Clinton and Obama could have some negative effects on the GOP side. The idea at this time is that the longer it takes the Democrats to get behind one or the other, the harder it will be to win in November. While this idea has credence, there could be some positive effects as well.

Foremost, I believe that the longer McCain is unsure who he is running against, the longer both Dems have to build a case against him, and the less time he has to frame his campaign. Ironically for the GOP, who by and large probably have some serious misgivings about McCain, I think only John McCain stands a chance of being competitive in November. Any other Republican would be annihilated in the current political wind. Hillary Clinton said, "The [GOP] should be so embarrassed by the Bush administration they should not even tender a candidate this year," in the Austin debate on February 26th, for which she got a standing ovation. The sentiment is likely true. I believe anyone but McCain would be eaten alive by any Democrat. Unfortunately, the GOP did tender a candidate, and it was one who presents a serious threat to Democratic entitlement in November.

Here are a few things I feel may be positively effecting the Dems, and negatively effecting the GOP because of the extended Democratic race:


McCain will not pick a VP until the Democratic nomination is settled

McCain is tight lipped on the issue. This is normal in one way, that he is reserving the announcement for after he officially gets the nod. Clinton and Obama are both silent on a VP pick for the same reason. Regardless, it would be much easier and much more acceptable for McCain to at least let the media name his #2 at this point, but he can't until he knows if he will be facing Clinton or Obama in the November. While the choice of a VP normally has little effect on the results of an election, it is a bigger issue for McCain because of his age, and because of the polarity of his opponents. Clinton and Obama represent different challenges for him and his VP pick will likely be his answer to those differing contrasts.


Divide and Conquer

Again, while the protracted Dem campaign has been pitched as giving McCain time to test drive strategies against both of them (even by me), I don't see that happening. I see McCain unable to focus in on one or the other other and start tearing them apart. He has only been able to target broad issues like Iraq and NAFTA, where both Democrats have nearly identical positions. McCain's main strategy up to this point seems to be: stay friendly. He had an opportunity with both Ferraro and Wright to cast either of them in very negative light and both times rejected the idea as small minded. He has not attacked Clinton's experience or Obama's liberal change platform. This is almost eerie. What is he planning? Surely, McCain is intelligent enough to know he is not going to coast to an easy victory in November. McCain has taken a pot shot here and there at specifics of each candidate's platforms, but has not been able to narrow his focus as much as he could if there were only one. I believe the extended visibility of multiple Democratic candidates has crippled GOP strategy somewhat, forcing them to focus on image and general issues.


McCain vs. ...?

Obama and Clinton represent very different campaigns to McCain.

Democrats have all seen the "Obama Effect" and know what it can do to an otherwise strong opponent. GOP cockiness has dismissed him as too liberal, too inexperienced, too black. (Sounds familiar doesn't it?) I doubt at this point these kinds of attacks are a surprise to Obama, and I believe he has shown he can survive the attack machines. What he will have a very hard time with is McCain's experience, which includes a very long political career, military experience, and an impressive track record of supporting bipartisan legislature. McCain, oddly enough, will look more liberal compared to Obama. Not more liberal than Obama, but more liberal than he really is. If he has to face Obama in November, his best strategy will be a bifocal push with experience on one side and his "maverick" image on the other. McCain will have a much better chance of pulling Independents away from Obama than he would against Clinton. Obama would polarize the general election with his much greater contrast to McCain, and his strengths would be in difference creating cooperation, and the "enough with the same old same old" stance. Obama's anti-war stance may well be a liability by November, but he will have an easy time painting McCain in very ugly colors on his social and fiscal platforms. Obama represents a contrast in total to McCain, which will make McCain's campaign easier to frame, but harder to carry out.

Clinton has more moderate appeal, and that presents a whole different set of problems for McCain. While there is a rumor that GOP double agents are supporting the Clinton campaign because she will be easier to defeat in November, I think this is dead wrong. Holding up a Clinton in front of a Republican is like holding up a cross in front of a vampire, "It burns, it burns!" Clinton has been clear that one of her campaign pillars is vendetta against the Bush administration and GOP pandering to it, and McCain is already dovetailing into the Bush schematic very nicely. Against Clinton, McCain will have to combat the Clinton brand. Bill Clinton may be a liability now, but in the general election, a return of the Clinton agenda will look a lot sweeter. Clinton also arguably has more pull with Independents who are hesitant to back the more liberal Obama. In addition, I believe there is fairly clear support for true GOP defectors to Clinton. Something that has been overlooked in the race so far is Clinton's appeal to women in general; recent reports from Pennsylvania show that a mass of the GOP defectors in the Keystone State are women, and I doubt they are doing it because Rush Limbaugh told them to. Against Clinton, McCain will be challenged to distinguish himself from Bush style government without undercutting his conservative supporters, who are his bread and butter.


An Energized Voter Base

By time time all the primaries are over and Democrats go to Denver for the final match in the ring, record voter turnouts will be undeniable. The battle between Clinton and Obama has drawn out voting bases unseen in elective history. People who have never voted before are getting involved in the Democratic race. While there is still squabbling over where those people will fall in November, the fact remains that visibility of and importance of this race are over the top. I believe the importance of voting, and of getting your voice heard will carry over to the general election. Democrats will be able to harness the massive voter surge, which would benefit either of them. The fact that millions of new voters are already registered or registering to vote now means they will not have that hurdle to jump in the fall. It also means they are already paying attention. With a little spin, either Democrat could easily take the tooth-and-nail element of their internal battle and turn that tide against McCain.

In conclusion, let me say that I hope Democrats will be as unified in November as they say they will be. A new Gallup poll is suggesting an alarming defection to McCain if Obama gets the nomination. A smaller portion of polled voters indicated the same thing if Clinton gets the nod, but I don't think that threat is as real. Clinton loyalty is a brand of its own, versus Obama-mania which I believe will much more easily translate to "unity" if Clinton goes to bat in November. I don't think the fallout will be as dire as either side predicts, but Clinton has always lead in supporter loyalty. This has been spun as a negative, because it could "cost Democrats the presidency." That is based on the assumption that Obama will be the nominee, which is no more real at this point than Clinton's claim. Demonstrating voter retention is a strength. I believe that either Clinton or Obama will be a powerhouse against McCain, and while I do see the head-to-head results favoring Clinton at this time, I think Obama would still have a very good chance. While I can't avoid my own bias completely, this essay is not about Clinton vs. Obama. It is about Democrats vs. McCain, and in that battle, I still think the Democrats have a leg up.

Florida, Michigan Dems Pack Thier Toys And Go Home

So the headlines are saying, "Will Dean Cost the Dems Florida?" State Democrats in Florida have stepped up their case for inclusion by throwing down the gauntlet. Recent polls are suggesting that Florida Democrats may stay home on Election Day unless their votes get counted in the Convention. They are also threatening to withhold financial support, and possibly asking for national contributions to be returned to the state if they are shut out. Take that, Howard. Childish? Yes. Counter productive? Yes. Fair? Maybe.

As I have said before, there is ample Constitutional precedent for respecting the will of state authority over federal directive. I wonder, if the Florida vote had favored Barack Obama, would this even be an issue? The assumption would be that once Obama secured the nomination, those delegates would be automatically seated. That's how it's always been done. But now, when the Florida delegation clearly favors Clinton, and serves to draw her quite a bit closer to the nomination, everyone is hesitant to give it to her. I also feel that if the DNC bends and accepts Florida as-is, which seems to be the only option other than not at all, this will also lend credence to including Michigan. With those two things combined, the "Obama lead" is pretty much erased. Although I have said many times that I feel Florida and Michigan are totally different problems and should be addressed as such, I don't see much favor for that view.

I am beginning to see the Florida situation in a much more black and white (if you can excuse the pun.) The only thing that was not done according to the rules in Florida was the timing of the vote. Florida used the same arguments for moving their primary forward as Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, all of which were allowed. The fact that a voice-only vote was conducted to make this allowance really, to me, seems to make the ruling seem fairly arbitrary. Combined with the threat of (basically) Democratic defection and the potential damage of losing Florida in the general election, I don't see any reason for Howard Dean not to bend on this. The state of Florida has made it clear, including even Republican governor Crist, that the voice of Florida voters will be heard, or there will be consequences. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has joined Crist in a joint statement arguing for delegate seating. Interestingly, Crist is a McCain supporter, and Granholm is a Clinton supporter, but on this issue, they agree.

I think the bickering over the rules is starting to look pretty silly. The timing of the primaries is a technicality that should not be given as much gravity as it has. With the outcry nationwide for supporting the popular vote as loud as it is, I can't see how anyone can justify ignoring Florida. In addition, Obama's suggestion that Michigan be split 50/50, although it would benefit him, is not all that unfair. I'd say, acknowledge Clinton's 55% win and give her 1 more delegate than Obama, and everyone would probably be happy. This ignores the fact that Obama would be getting credit for votes and delegates that he did not win, but I don't really see another solution for Michigan, whereas I see a clear one for Florida.

Something I find very strange is the hesitancy to give Clinton any sort of advantage, combined with a strong preference for handing over the nomination to Obama. The argument is that because he is the "front runner" he should just be given the nomination, and yet in spite of overwhelming arguments to let the popular voice be heard, in contests where Clinton was the clear winner, everyone wants to exclude them. Excuse me? Something else I find strange is that in a political race so close, that there is anyone who wants to discount the voice of millions of voters. Come on. Give Florida their delegation. Insist that Michigan come up with an acceptable compromise. I'd say the fact that Michigan's Senate went to recess before any kind of plan could be hatched is a clear sign on the part of the state that they expect the same result as Florida: like up or lump us.

Enough With The He-Said-She-Said Over Iraq

I was going to write a non-partisan evaluation of all three presidential candidate's positions on Iraq, but I can't. I just read in detail McCain's published position on his website, and it is so repugnant to me, I cannot offer any sort of authentication to it. McCain's position is not only "pro-Iraq." It is a manifesto of continued occupation of Iraq, increase of military presence, nullification of Iraqi domestic government, and insinuation of US interests in the Middle East in general. McCain offers us a conqueror's claim of territory. If McCain has his way, it will not be "foreign oil," it will be tribute paid to an overlord. I am repelled and sickened. Any lingering sympathies I may have had for McCain are destroyed. I am eating my own words: McCain is Bush With A Brain. Let me echo Nancy Pelosi in saying, "We must have a Democratic president."

For Clinton and Obama, again, let me urge unity. Their positions are almost identical, with only nuance level differences. Clearly, both Democratic Senators are pro-withdrawal, pro-America, and pro-Iraqi autonomy. Enough with the he-said-she-said. I will reiterate: it only matters what they will do about it. Obama is crying foul that Clinton "supported the war." I find that a broad claim, as what she actually did, along with more than half of congressional Democrats, was authorize the use of military force in Iraq, which in spite of liberal cries against it, was a reasonable choice. Clinton also spoke in favor of heavy UN involvement, coalition building, mediation before military action, and heavy Senate oversight. Clinton has said that Obama may be misrepresenting his position on Iraq, and that he may in fact not even be planning to carry through on his claims of immediate solutions. What I believe is Obama may find himself mired in partisan politics and jockeying for position, and would have to make some compromises. Compromise, which is the result of successful cooperation seems consistent with Obama's position to me, and I feel he would be equally diligent in his pledge to get out of Iraq. Clinton has a more detailed plan by far, but that does not prove Obama would be bad at it, or that he would not have a more flushed out plan by January 2009. Obama has a higher moral claim to his position because he has clearly opposed the war, strongly, since the start. That does not prove that Clinton is insincere in her position, and her impassioned support of the human tragedies in all corners of the Iraq mess. I think both Clinton and Obama are genuinely concerned with the well being of the Iraqi state, and in managing the visceral elements of the war like refugees and bereft American families, veteran affairs and ongoing safety protocols.

Comparisons to FDR could be damaging for both of them in this matter, but I do see a good deal of Rooseveltian sentiment from both Clinton and Obama, which I can only agree with. Clinton approaches Iraq from the long-view perspective, whereas Obama treats it as a critical but independent situation. Iraq and Afganistan have been ongoing issues for the US since the late 80's, and every President since Carter has had to confront Middle East issues. Iraq figured strongly in Bill Clinton's administration, and this is an area where Hillary may well fairly claim more experience. This does not dismiss Obama's positions or potential successes.

Both have indicated that they chiefly agree with each other on Iraq. I believe this is one of those times that Clinton and Obama should present a strong united front. Allowing campaign rhetoric, debate biases or negative campaigning to undermine a united Democratic front on solutions to Iraq is a bad, bad idea. New polls are suggesting that support for the ongoing Iraq quagmire is at an all time high again, and McCain is going to capitalize on that to make his pro-Iraq war mongering seem like a good idea. If this trend continues, Clinton and Obama are going to have to make very strong cases for being in favor of balanced management, not dramatic withdrawal. Although the economy is taking a front seat in the issues, I believe the successful spin on Democratic solutions to Iraq will be management not "withdrawal." Focus on coalition and transitioning, steady insertion of multi-national forces, and inclusion of Iraqi dominated government officials can win the argument.

They tried to make me go and re-vote and I said, "No, no, no."

Florida Democrats have spoken, and they say, "No do-over." This has the media in a tussle over it, calling it a "blow" to Clinton and crying about the woes of the Florida delegation. Meanwhile, DNC member Jon Ausman has filed a petition with the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee challenging the charter's verbiage and arguing for the inclusion of both Florida and Michigan. First, let me say, I'm not sure how this is a "blow" to Clinton, who clearly won Florida. If the DNC is already responding to Florida's reticence to have another go at it, there is certainly hope at least that Florida will be included, and if it is, it will be as-is. I really doubt the 50/50 argument will go anywhere. Second, let me say, I can't believe that Florida and Michigan are still being lumped together. Michigan was a whole different schematic, and hopefully Democratic leadership will acknowledge that.

McCain Already Acting Like President

Someone should knock on the Democratic party's door and remind them that the competition is on the other side of the aisle, and right now it's on the other side of the pond for a fundraiser.

It would sound something like this, "Hello? Yes. I was wondering if you have seen Senator McCain?" No, they haven't.

Why?

Because he is in Iraq "assessing the troop surge." It can't be too bad a PR trip, with more than half the foreign-deployed US military being in Iraq. McCain is traveling under the auspice of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, and the visit is his 8th in 5 years. McCain is pro-Iraq, but has criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war. Now that the troop surge McCain advocated is working, he is free to capitalize on being right, and gets the Bush stamp of approval. McCain is a popular candidate in the military demographic. While Senator McCain's official role on this trip is legitimate, there is no doubt the timing is political. Senators Clinton and Obama are tangling like angry cats, no one can hear over the din, and McCain strolls off to Iraq to start personally handling the war.

Also in McCain's palm pilot over the next week are meetings with Jordanian King Abdullah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. While he is jaunting around the globe meeting with important world leaders and reinforcing the GOP agenda, Clinton and Obama will be busily destroying each other, nearly oblivious. The fighting between Clinton and Obama has created such a thick smoke screen that McCain doesn't even have to be in the country to campaign. The GOP and Bush are free to start a phased transition of control from Bush to McCain. As far as they are concerned, he is President-elect. I have no doubt that McCain is willing to adopt the Bush agenda in exchange for a bully pulpit endorsement.

Who's to say Clinton and Obama could not present a united front against McCain while still continuing their own campaigns? I think it is perceived as impossible at this time because of the vice-presidential bickering, which both have said is premature, but were forced to discuss it anyway. Both Democrats shied away from the VP question because they both knew that it was going to lead to trouble. But, the media and the pundits pushed the issue and they capitulated. This sparked off the latest infighting that has now escalated to name calling. See, it is so fascinating even I get distracted talking about it, and forget what I was really talking about: John McCain.

I'm going to say this every chance I get, until I'm heard: do not underestimate John McCain. In the most recent head-to-heads, all three presidential candidates are in a dead heat. But, it's sliding McCain's way against Obama, and Clinton's way against McCain. A week ago, Obama beat McCain in head-to-heads by 5 points, and Clinton was losing by 2 points. The head-to-head schematic is sliding back toward where it was in December, with Clinton the clear winner. But, it's much closer this time. As I said, it's a dead heat, less than 1 point separating any of them. That's excellent news for McCain and the GOP, and should be a dire warning to Democrats that their assumed victory in November is in jeopardy.

How do Democrats bail the ship? I think the answer is simple. Go back in time. Not literally, but back to when the Democratic race was about the issues. It didn't seem like it at the time, but it was. I'd love to hear one of Obama's inspirational speeches right now. I'd love to hear Clinton croaking on about health care and heartfelt moments with single mothers. Both campaigns are losing track of their core platforms and they need to get back to them.

I think there are signs that both want to, signaled by a willingness to participate in 2 debates, in spite of the obvious risks of what topics could come up. No doubt, there will be mutually agreed upon topics to be left alone. We need to see some "Democratic unity" between Clinton and Obama, something they have both shown when they appear together. If they are smart, and they both are, they will use their considerable media networks to author the upcoming debates to focus on the general election and the issues, not the identity of the candidates.

Democratic leadership has already indicated that the entire nominating process is going to be allowed to play out, up to and including the likelihood of the superdelegates deciding the race, with or without popular backing. What happens is going to be allowed to happen. So, for any Democratic candidacy to survive McCain's bid for the Oval Office, Clinton and Obama need to shape up. Instead of the race or gender card, it's time for someone to play the good sportsmanship card. It is possible to run a polite campaign. Classic principles of debate could and should be applied to the Democratic race right now. Clinton and Obama should bury the hatchet, shake hands, and agree to keep it clean. The GOP kept their process clean and focussed on the issues, and produced a nominee who is much stronger than anyone anticipated.

I was warning about McCain two years ago, and all of my arguments are coming true. I said McCain was a popular war hero with a long Congressional career, foreign relations expertise and a moderate image that would resonate with Independents and swing voters. Congratulating myself for predicting McCain's win is not what I want to do, and would be a hollow reward. I would much rather the attitude that Democrats are guaranteed to win in November be immediately dismissed. Fueled by Bush's deplorable image domestically and worldwide, and by the prevalent idea that Bush stole the presidency from Gore, Democrats feel a sense of entitlement to the Presidency. This is a terrible attitude to take toward actually winning.

Even though Clinton is getting slammed for being willing to do anything to win, I don't think anyone would damn her for using the same strategies against McCain. Conversely, if Rev. Wright flung a few honkey comments at McCain, probably everyone would chuckle and forget it. People delight in the humiliation of public figures, and as long as the fighting looks fair, all bets are off. There is a subtle but strong eye-for-an-eye current running in the Democratic campaign anyway. I think Dems will be willing to overlook almost anything as long as it helps secure a Blue president. America was founded on many Classical principles, and our government, a republic, was modeled after Classical and Roman deliberative bodies. I don't think party leadership even cares who the nominee is at this point, as long as one of them fairly wins the argument.

Decoding Pelosi

With her election as Speaker, she is the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership. She is the second Speaker from a state west of the Rocky Mountains, with the first being Washington's Tom Foley, who was the last Democrat to hold the post before Pelosi. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi ranks second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Dick Cheney. She is therefore the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. Government. -Wikipedia.org

When she was elected as Speaker, Pelosi clearly weighed in that this was a victory for women. She said in her acceptance speech, "This is a historic moment — for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today, we have broken the marble ceiling. For our daughters and our granddaughters, the sky is the limit, anything is possible for them." -The San Fransisco Chronicle

Pelosi is sort of the "clean Clinton." She's got a history of getting elected instead of appointed. She has never participated in a candidate debate. She has a history of landslide victories. She seems to have a monogamous and happy marriage. In her marriage, she is the political big wig, and did not stand on her husband's shoulders to get where she is. Nationally she is seen as a liberal, although her constituents consider her moderate. She is a strong and popular advocate for women in politics. In spite of what should be a clear-cut case for supporting Clinton (including her constituency supporting Clinton), it must sting a little bit to see Clinton take the limelight as the "first."

I think the arguments that Pelosi is supporting Obama secretly or that she would benefit politically by supporting him are little more than rumors. I'd say Pelosi's Freudian slip in referring to Clinton's campaign as the "Clinton Administration" here, certainly shows that she has at least envisioned Clinton as president. Further, rumors that Obama should pick Pelosi as VP are pretty silly. First of all, why would Pelosi give up her place as Speaker on the chance of becoming Vice President, a political post of questionable influence, with term limits, and one that would only bring her one step closer to the presidency? She would be stepping out of the legislative process, which is where she has the most of her influence. Ignoring for a moment the fact the VP picks really have very little to do with the outcome of presidential elections, Pelosi also isn't a great choice for either Obama or Clinton. She doesn't represent strength in either candidate's weak areas, her performance as Speaker has been less than stellar, and she stands to gain a lot more for herself by staying right where she is. Ignoring also the few pointed departures from her usual liberalism, Pelosi seems like a sensible and dedicated Democrat with the best interests of her party and the people in general at heart. In her NECN (New England Cable News) interview, Pelosi said, "We must have a Democratic president." She also stressed her uncommitted status and distanced herself from the campaign completely.

Pelosi wears many hats right now. As Speaker she is primarily concerned with Democratic control of the House. As Permanent Chair of the 2008 Convention, she is concerned with the integrity of the process. And as a superdelegate, she is concerned with picking the best candidate for president. I think Pelosi is doing what she knows is safest and staying out of it.

Clinton and Pelosi have both stood out as Bush critics. Obama and Pelosi both enjoy very liberal images in general. Pelosi has taken a lot of criticism for putting the kabosh on impeachment proceedings against Bush. I believe Pelosi understood that this would have been a waste of effort. Only 2 presidents have been impeached and both were acquitted by the Senate, stayed in office, and experienced increased popularity and power in Congress due to it. To get Bush out of office, Democrats would have had to give almost every second of their time and muster their entire constituencies. Pelosi saw upcoming battles for control of Congress, and the early stirrings of a very important presidential election as bigger issues, and no doubt they are. Bush was already a second-term president by the time all this came into play, which meant he was on the way down anyway. His approval ratings were so low by 2006 there was little point to getting rid of him. Passing up the shiny prize of impeaching Bush in favor of more realistic and likely long-term gains was the much wiser sentiment, even though it cost her some of her liberal image, and got her soundly chewed out by her home constituents. Pelosi can take the hit. In 20 years, she has never faced a serious challenge to her seat.

Pelosi's main problem is eroding approval ratings of the Democratic Congress since she became Speaker. Failure to effectively challenge Bush is cited as the cause. More specifically, failure to push the current administration's hand on settling affairs in Iraq. There is an argument that Pelosi would be biased toward Obama because of his stronger claims to being anti-war than Clinton. I'm not convinced he is all that anti-war, and agree with this article that asserts Obama has been inconsistent on his Iraq position. I also believe that in spite of Obama's slight lead in the Iraq debate, Pelosi shares many more commonalities with Clinton both in position and plan. Her constituency supports Clinton by and large. She shares a view with Clinton on the importance of this election for women. I also think that Clinton's vocal support of Pelosi's role in Syria indicates the two share a view on foreign relations schematics as well. Pelosi referred to her "gut" in her weekly press conference yesterday, and I think her gut says go with Hillary. Pelosi pretty strongly put forth her experience as the reason they should believe her. She said there wasn't time for her to share her "lifetime" of knowledge. Pelosi understands that tenure and backing of the party line make a recipe for success, both of which Clinton has over Obama. While Pelosi will no doubt remain neutral, I suspect her superdelegate vote will go to Clinton eventually.

That could change before it's all said and done. I think her many and possibly conflicting roles inside the party are going to lead her to back whoever fronts the strongest case by August. I can see a conforming support of Obama, versus what I think is fair to call a natural support for Clinton. No one is anxious to jump on the Hillary bandwagon, for fear of looking corrupted, versus how readily people are flocking to Obama. If I were the most powerful Democrat in government I would be wary of both: looking corrupt or looking fleeced by a cult.

To wrap up, I would like to point out what Pelosi has actually said. After all, she did say, "I just speak, you interpret."

"We must have a Democratic president," [source]

I think this clearly identifies Pelosi's priority: winning in November. She may be uninvolved in the campaign now, but that is going to change on August 29th. The only person she is going to hand over the title of "most powerful Democrat in America" to is the next President. This is a major throwdown to the GOP, the kind she has been criticized for not offering up to now. No matter who the nominee is, Pelosi will come out swinging. If the GOP does by some miracle win in November, her political power, and the chances of retaining it, are in extreme jeopardy. In this vein, Pelosi stands to lose a lot more than either Clinton or Obama in a worst case scenario. They'll still have careers with a chance of getting better.

"I think that ticket either way is impossible," [source]

Not, "I think Clinton-Obama is impossible," as the media is spinning it. Yes, that, but also, "I think Obama-Clinton is impossible." Pelosi has indicated that she thinks neither combination will happen and cited her "lifetime of political gut" as how she knows. I believe the reason she specifically cited Clinton as having ruled it out herself is because, of the two possible pairings, Clinton-Obama is the only one anyone could imagine. Obama did say, "Hillary would be on anyone's short list," but I doubt he would ask her and more I doubt she would accept. But, I don't think that is why Pelosi thinks it won't happen. I think she is looking at how seldom the top two contenders in a nomination race have paired up, and how even less often it has worked. Top two combo is not a winning strategy.

"Yes, there is going to be a dream team," [source]

No matter who is picked, Democrats are going to call it a dream team. They definitely aren't going to put forth a combined ticket like this, "Well, it's the best we could do. Good luck ya'll." Whoever claws their way to the top of the nominating process will be on the top of the ticket. Whoever is picked as VP will be the real McCain contrast. Neither Clinton nor Obama represents a strength to each other in that way. Both face different issues in creating strategies against McCain, and that is where the selection of a VP will really matter.

I'm surprised conspiracy theorists aren't already jumping all over Pelosi's certainty that any combination of Clinton and Obama will not happen. How does she know really? I've said how I thinks she knows, or at least what she means. Pelosi speaks. I interpret.

Florida, Michigan, and electibility

Back to Florida and Michigan again. The issue has been fairly consistent throughout, but now that particularly Florida Democrats are getting involved, offering strategies for inclusion, the debate is becoming real. I think Michigan's party leaders are probably watching to see how the wind blows before putting forth an offer to the DNC. Michigan and Florida represent very different problems, in spite of their being lumped together in the debate. Let's talk about both on their own.

Florida

Florida gets to go first for a few reasons. Being the "more important" state in the general election pretty much trumps. Florida's issues are also a lot less complex. All candidates were on the ballot. Clinton and Obama both followed the rules, or broke them depending on how you look at it. Both held fundraising events in Florida and made private appearances only. Both ran national ads only in Florida. The claim that there was "no campaigning" in Florida by either candidate is a conceit. There was no ground game in Florida. Since both Democratic survivors shared this handicap, I don't think it matters. The main issue is rules, which Florida state Dems broke by moving their primary date forward, and were duly penalized by having their delegates to the Democratic National Convention stripped. Now, because of the finger-breadth differences in votes and delegates in many races, the overwhelming pressure from all sides is to count every vote. So, how do we do that without just trashing the rules?

I believe Clinton was a little presumptive to hold an event in Florida the day of the primary, and if she had not done that, the debate would be even less complicated. Conversely, I believe being present to claim a big popular victory in an electorate-rich state is a long-term campaign strategy, and a smart one. Florida is a Red-Swing state, and a double-digit lead in a three-way contest (Edwards' last contest was Florida) is a big win that demonstrates electibility. Dems in any other election cycle would be thrilled to see such a strong performance by any candidate. Obviously Florida "mattered" since a third-place showing was Edwards sign of the times to drop out.

I am torn on the idea of a re-vote. It seems fair, but is it? The prevalent push at the moment is toward a mail-in vote. This opens the door to so many potential disasters, I honestly can't imagine how Howard Dean and the DNC could agree to it. Paper ballots and Florida have a very bad reputation since 2000. I've also said this before, and will reiterate it here: there will be no re-votes in November. Florida voters knew Florida was a "beauty contest" and they still came out in record numbers. The popular vote is winning the argument all over the place, and 1.7 million voters in the Democratic race should not be ignored. But, what do you do with the other six candidates? Sure, they're out now, but they weren't then, and Edwards is still technically in. There is no way to effectively reconstruct campaign conditions.

I don't think it would be too much of a political problem for the DNC to simply say, "Florida was conducted according to the rules save for timing, which is the state's right to decide. Considering the cost of re-votes, and the potential issues of fairness involved, we have ruled to include Florida's results as-is and will authorize Florida's state party to award delegates proportionally, based on their state's rules. Michigan will be addressed individually, based on its unique situation." Really, there is plenty of legal precedent for respecting the will of state governments over federal authority. I believe there are two fair resolutions to the Florida situation: either include Florida as-is, or don't include them at all. Inclusion of Florida as-is would not put precedent forward to do the same in Michigan, as I believe it is plain that Michigan is a different issue.

Michigan

Michigan poses a different problem all together. Let me start by pointing out, Hillary Clinton was not the only candidate on the Michigan ballot. However, Barack Obama and John Edwards (and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson) were not. So, only 50% of the Democratic candidates were represented. The claim that there was "no campaign" in Michigan is a lot heavier than the claim in Florida. Edwards urged voters to vote "uncommitted" because write-ins would not be counted. 40% of the primary vote going to "uncommitted" certainly indicates that voters knew this, and made an informed choice. This also makes the argument for a re-vote a lot stronger in Michigan.

But what does it mean? Did Edwards win 40% of the Michigan vote? The uncommitted idea was his. I think the idea that people voted for Clinton because she was the "only candidate" is so full of holes there is no way it could go anywhere. In every race Clinton has won except 2, she has done so in the 50+ percentage area, so the Michigan results, at a time when Clinton was still perceived as the front runner, are pretty much in line with expectations. I know that argument is weak, but the argument that all uncommitted votes would or should go to Obama is weaker. Also, what were they supposed to do in Michigan? Not vote? If Clinton had pulled herself from the Michigan ballot, would they have canceled the primary? I doubt it.

So what do they do about Michigan? Did it give Clinton "false momentum"? If it did, Edwards and Obama are certainly to be thanked for it. Michigan was a beauty contest, but state Democrats obviously didn't think so. Why would you remove yourself completely from a ballot when you knew your opponent was not going to? The following-the-rules-good-faith-move argument only holds so much water, and in the end will probably hurt more than help. Edwards and Obama not being on the Michigan ballot has completely muddied the waters in that state and has created a lose-lose for everyone. This is an election. If you want to win you put yourself on the ballot. Attempts to characterize Clinton as greedy or underhanded because she wanted to compete in a state primary are little more than slur tactics. The conceit that there will be "no campaign" just because the DNC says so is ridiculous. The primary still happened -- isn't that the point of scheduling early -- Democrats in Michigan still came out and voted, and obviously at least 40% of them were listening to the campaign rhetoric, since they followed advice and voted uncommitted.

Michigan is a problem though. The problem is not that Hillary Clinton "broke faith" and stayed on the ballot. Obviously Obama and Edwards learned from that mistake, and quickly put themselves on the Florida ballot. (Giving more credence to Florida's validity, too, or to the hypocrisy of all of them, depending on how you look at it.) The problem is, we don't know who all those uncommitted people would have voted for. In terms of the general election, Michigan is an electorate-rich state as well, but it's a Blue state and I think whoever wins the nomination will carry Michigan. The state's overall importance is more inside the Democratic race than in the larger general election schematic. The "split them 50/50" argument is ridiculous. Clinton won more than 50% of the vote, and giving more than the uncommitted vote percent (40%) to Obama would show clear favoritism. The idea that all the uncommitted votes would have gone to Obama is bunk, since it was Edwards who pushed for it. And, with Edwards out, his supporters do not automatically go to Obama or to Clinton, as we have clearly seen since. I think there are two solutions for Michigan, too: either organize a statewide re-vote, or leave them out.

Other Early Voting States

Nevada and South Carolina had early primaries, too, and were not penalized by the DNC. So, the "rules" don't hold much credence in this case. A voice vote only was held to authorize primary / caucus advance dates and the argument was that Nevada and South Carolina are more representative of minorities, and would give a broader scope to early primary returns. Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally been allowed to hold early primaries as well, based on the argument that small states should get their voice heard over the din of big events like Super Tuesday. But, we all know that big states pretty much decide the general election. Having an early litmus test of big states is not such a bad idea.

I honestly believe that the real issue is that Clinton clearly won 3 of 5 early voting states. Including Michigan she won 4 of 6. At this point in the campaign, if Obama had won the majority of them, it would be over, Clinton would be out, and the controversy would be moot. The fact that Florida and Michigan draw the race to a true razor-thin difference, is the difference. The media has struck its blow on this one and cast Clinton as the "desperate" and "manipulative" underdog who will "do anything to win." This has made her look like she wants something unfair. Let's not forget that Clinton is the one advocating for a system of inclusion, and Obama is the one who keeps saying no. Why? Because it's bad news for him. Poor Obama. His "overwhelming lead" (which he does not have) would be challenged. His poor performance in big states would be sharply underscored. He would be challenged to really prove that he can win, instead of coasting on small state wins and lopsided victories in demographics that are not representative of the general election turnout.

Obama's arrogance on these matters is monumental. Currently he is holding an 8% lead in delegates, which could easily be erased between now and June. He is holding only a 5% lead in the popular vote, which drops to less than 3% if Florida is included. And, in the most recent head-to-heads, where now both Clinton and Obama beat McCain, Obama only performs better than Clinton by 0.3%, a difference that is meaningless. The two are in a statistical dead heat, and yet Obama is trumpeting all over the news that he is "the clear front runner" and "obviously winning." I've said this one before too, but here it is: it aint over til it's over, and it isn't over til Denver. Superdelegates are going to decide this nomination, and they are not going to be bound solely by the popular vote. Even Nancy Pelosi would not say she would follow her constituency in her decision as a superdelegate. If the leading Democrat in the country as of this time is not willing to advocate for the popular vote, I'd say that argument is now moot. Clinton is leading in superdelegates by 13%, and that balance is a lot more likely to swing the nomination, unless the popular vote dramatically swings in favor of one or the other.

Also, claims that Clinton is using GOP tactics against Obama are just hype. She has been calling herself more qualified, and ripping on Obama's abilities as commander-in-chief for a very long time. The fact that McCain is doing it, too, does not logically prove that Clinton is doing the same thing. It only proves that two people believe they would be better than him. Clinton is getting slammed for using divisive tactics and called (basically) a bitch for "trashing another Democrat." Isn't accusing Clinton of "using the Rove playbook" the exact same thing? Isn't an uncooperative attitude toward Florida and Michigan re-votes just as nasty? Please. This is a presidential campaign, and a very critical one for Democrats. Every candidate is pulling every stop to win. That's the bottom line. Also, Clinton's words are coming back -- and ringing very true -- get ready, it's just started. If Obama can't survive some relatively polite negative campaigning from Clinton, he'll be crying in his beer once McCain gets going. Come on. The 3am ad? The commander-in-chief bickering? Those are small beans compared to how fast and deep the GOP is going to rip into either Democrat once the nomination is sealed.

Few Surprises in Mississippi Primary

Only 92% are reporting in Mississippi as of now, so the results could change by some small margin, but Barack Obama is winning by double digits. Other than a wish and a hope, this is no surprise to anyone. There are a few interesting bits from the exit polls.

The racial divide was almost complete, which is a little unusual. Pretty uniformly, Clinton won the white vote by a landslide, and Obama won the black vote by a landslide. In an interesting reversal, Clinton took the $100K+ vote, which Obama usually wins. Clinton also hung onto her most dedicated demographic, the over 60 crowd. Also unsurprising, the moderate vs. liberal divide was pretty clear again, with Clinton taking the lead the closer to the middle and right and Obama taking the left-leaning voters and beyond. Here's a curious one, that I think is related, but I'm not sure how: even though exit pollers indicated that recent campaign ads negatively effected them, Clinton still won late deciders and electibility. Slightly backward as well, although Obama soundly won both men and women, Clinton did better with men than women in this primary. Catholics stayed loyal to camp Clinton, and she picked up white Protestants, which usually go to Obama. Finally, and the most interesting, more Republicans voted than Independents in Mississippi and Clinton took both.

Here's what I think about the Republican thing. Yes, Rush Limbaugh told Republicans to go vote for Hillary. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Limbaugh's rabid conservatism is too radical for too many people. I believe the voter surge in this election cycle is partly responsible, and hand in hand, I think people are abandoning the party line in favor of their conscience. Both Clinton and Obama have drawn Republican support. Record voter turnouts in the primaries have drawn out unknown voters. I read an interesting argument recently that suggests voters in all parties may be evaluating Obama, Clinton and McCain on a bipartisan continuum, in the order from left to right. I think this idea holds a lot of water, considering the protracted visibility of more than two presidential candidates. Democrats have voted in Republican primaries as well, although not in as great numbers. The Bush administration has shamed the GOP. I find this a much more compelling argument for Republicans to support either Democrat.

So, it's on to Pennsylvania, where Clinton will score another hit. This race is getting tiresome. At this point I think everyone knows that neither Democrat is going to get wrap it up, and the much-dreaded Convention is now looking more like the super bowl than a smoking lounge. In the end of August, in Denver, one of them will finally get their knockout.

Gore Must Weigh In Eventually

There is a new piece of gossip going around the Democratic race that Al Gore is going to be the nominee. In a move that would pummel the Democratic party back to the stone age, this rumor alleges that superdelegates would withhold their vote on the first ballot at the Convention, then unanimously submit Gore on a second ballot. This rumor is ridiculous and I urge you to treat it with extreme skepticism. Edwards would be a more likely second-ballot winner, and even that is nearly as much science fiction as Gore.

Imagine the media free-for-all: Al Gore brokers the ultimate back room deal in the smokiest of rooms, the same thing that was done to him in 2000 by the Bush regime, and steals the nomination from inside his own party? If Al Gore wanted to be President next year, he would have put his name in a long time ago. The Democratic party has been looking for the guaranteed winner ever since Gore lost. They took a chance on John Kerry, who tried to dodge by blaming Edwards. The only true survivor of 2004 is Howard Dean, who is looking blustery and defensive right now. No doubt, he is out of his depth. With names like Gore, Clinton, Carter, Mondale and Kennedy taking the headlines again, the Democratic leadership must be walking on pins and needles. If Al Gore were to be the nominee, the entire Democratic party would stand to be completely demonized as the ultimate hypocrites. Less damage would be done if Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean just said, "Will you just give it to Hillary already??"

I find the idea laughable. What I find much more believable is that the potential kingmakers are being knocked out like dominoes. Bill Clinton went first because of his obvious lack of objectivity. Nancy Pelosi is a woman, so if she supports Clinton she will get slammed for that, and if she supports Obama she will be accused of falling under his spell. It's a lose-lose, so she has confined her influence to platitudes about fairness. Howard Dean has the most direct control, and that has him in a choke hold. Al Gore and Walter Mondale are still standing, so the media is starting to exploit every angle on what could happen. The Gore rumor is the extreme end of it.

More likely, Al Gore will eventually have to express some sort of advisement. No doubt Mondale has already been asked to weigh in, but likely his advice will remain private as the comparisons to 1984 are pretty dire for the Democrats in general. Early attempts to combat this resulted in Obama being compared to Reagan, which is such a bad idea, it only lasted a couple weeks. I believe in general, the "party elders" would be foolish to let any negative comparisons get too much play. Al Gore has sagely distanced himself from any bone picking over his defeat. He is the President That Wasn't, which makes him both the most acutely empathetic voice and the most apparently removed from it all. He hasn't uttered a peep. More likely than staging a very undemocratic coup, Gore will either address the Convention or brief the party captains in a less formal setting of his recommendations.

On the heels of this Gore coup rumor, are the toss ups that Obama-Gore might happen. Obama-Clinton is more likely than that. Now that Obama has nearly said he would not accept a VP spot under Clinton, the rumors are open to fly again. First, let me reiterate my belief that, if he lost the nomination, Obama would jump at VP. He would be foolish not to, as he does not have the pedigree that Clinton has, and would not be able to secure a high ranking Senate spot as easily as her. I also personally believe that if Obama was serious about being President, he would be pitching for Secretary of State as his contingency plan. I also think that office would hold more appeal to Clinton than VP. I am still not sold on the idea that Clinton would take the bottom of the ticket, but I know it cannot possibly off the table entirely. It cannot be off the table for either of them. I am also not sold on the idea that a combined ticket is the "dream ticket" either, although I have spoken in favor of Clinton-Obama.

What I am sure of is that Al Gore is not interested in being Vice President again. The words "Gore" and "backpedal" do not go together very well. Al Gore is doing exactly what he wants to be doing: saving the world. Gore has always had the environment and climate change at the very core of his convictions, and he is getting his voice heard much better now than when he was the understudy to a rock star president. All this rumor is brewing because Al Gore, by attrition has become the closer of the Democratic Will. The question has been asked, who has the influence to tell Clinton, "It's time to call it quits." Gore is definitely one of those people. (Although in reality, if it does become necessary I think it will be Bill.) Conversely, who has the stopping power to say to Obama, "Not this time." Again, Gore. I also don't think John Edwards has been dealt out as a kingmaker. Two things tell me this. First, if Edwards co-announced an endorsement and a VP grab for one or the other, it would be smooth sailing. Second, he is still holding 26 delegates. It may come to that.

The Chelsea Factor: "Does anyone have a question about my mom?"

Young voters are coming out in droves for presidential hopeful, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who stands a chance of being the first African American President of the United States. Obama has rocked the vote, sweeping past the competition, and sliding in beside New York Senator Hillary Clinton, in a campaign race so close no one can call it. The two Democratic front runners are in what is being called a "dead heat" for the DNC's nod for the nomination. Clinton, who has long enjoyed front-runner status, is now faced with a dramatically polarizing opponent who has shown that he can draw record numbers from traditionally weak demographics. He is also hedging into her presumed lead with women and Democratic big-wigs, eating away at the Clinton movement from all directions.

What the Clinton campaign desperately needs is some fresh material. In spite of criticisms of vagueness and lack of experience, Obama is still riding high on his campaign for change. Clinton on the other hand is struggling right now to come up with something new to say. One thing is clear: young people are a big asset.

Who are these "young people" though? Sure, we are seeing them show up in the exit polls, but they are still an unidentified mass. No one has paid any attention to this demographic because they have never mattered very much. Now they do.

If the Clinton campaign can brand Chelsea as the "face of the youth vote" they might have a chance still. Can they do it? Are they? Is Chelsea's sudden appearance full-time on the campaign trail timed? She could be Hillary's secret weapon.

Chelsea's got it all: she's young, smart, personable, educated. She has absolutely no political record to be attacked. She has never participated in a campaign for either of her parents before. Her only official duty ever, was a 17-day stint assuming her mother's duties as First Lady in January 2000. Chelsea was sheltered from the media and from public opinion by both of her parents throughout her life, which gives her the advantage of mystery, and cast both Bill and Hillary as caring parents. It draws a sharp dividing line between the publicly cold persona of Senator Clinton and a warm and personal mother.

Chelsea is on the college circuit now, stumping for her mother all over the country. But, don't be surprised to see her on the main stage before too long. One inappropriate comment about Chelsea, by David Shuster on MSNBC has propelled Chelsea into the limelight, and opened the door for the Clinton campaign to capitalize on negative press. The Shuster situation is not the first insult from NBC. All this press didn't cost the Clinton campaign a penny. Now, everyone is apologizing and offering glowing opinions of the former first daughter.

What's Chelsea got that Hillary needs? Well, she's young first of all. She's a woman. Being the only person on the planet who can call Hillary Clinton, "Mom," gives her a unique power: she is the best spokesmodel for the softer side of Hillary. Can Chelsea rock the youth vote? With Obama ahead by along shot in that area, she certainly can't hurt. And, as already pointed out, if she can be branded as the "face" of the youth vote, watch out -- the Clinton machine is rolling again.

Chelsea is a wild card. Her near invisibility until now is both a help and a deterrent. What is clear: the Clinton camp is using her where she can be the most effective and it appears she volunteered. She has taken leave from her 6-figure job to join the campaign full-time, and for free. This is smart. If it can be presented that Chelsea has come forward of her own accord, she is free from being seen as a tool. Long gone is the sheltered and reluctant, mousy daughter. The new, improved, Chelsea is looking quite a bit like Hillary Jr., eloquent and witty where her mother is calculated, warm and funny where her mother is cold. All signs, including the words of Chelsea herself, indicate that she enjoys a sunny relationship with her mother, and a credible voice for Hillary being a "real person" is something the Clinton campaign could really use. We've already seen that Bill Clinton may be more of a liability than not, so now the mantle falls to Chelsea.

Can she stand up to the challenge? I think so. The Clintons put so much effort and attention on sheltering Chelsea during Bill Clinton's presidency that she is already an institution of her own. This reclusiveness is mirrored even now in Chelsea's stalwart avoidance of the press; she speaks in prepared venues only. While we will no doubt hear more from Chelsea in the news down the road, her general pattern of refusing interviews is good for now. The more people wonder what Chelsea thinks, the more it will matter when she eventually answers. Scarcity breeds popularity, at least when you've already got the attention of the nation. Be on the look out for a lot more Chelsea.

Super Tuesday Predictions

Four days until Super Tuesday. The major event leading up to the big day has already happened: John Edwards and Rudy Guiliani have called it quits, effectively making it a 3-way Day: Clinton, Obama and McCain. Barring a miracle, as I predicted, John McCain is going to be the big winner of the Republican race. The real interest in the campaign is on the Democratic side, and the revised view now that Clinton and Obama are the sole survivors. It also appears that both Democratic front runners have taken the popular sentiment against negative campaigning to heart, and the campaign is taking in the character of a love fest. Both Senators showed an extreme level of courtesy, respect and friendliness toward each other in the January 30th debate, even when cutting each other on Iraq and Health Care. Predictably as well, even Bill Clinton has dialed back his visibility in the campaign, and left off the attacks on Obama. Good Bill. Hillary Clinton is still leading in the polls as the favorite for the Democratic nomination, although Obama is closing the gap.

Here's an overview of the Super Tuesday numbers:

• There are 2038 delegates at stake on Feb. 5th


• Of the "magic number" of delegates needed to secure the nomination, this represents just over100%.


• As the polls stand now, this means the likely outcome will be: Clinton 53% , Obama 47%
  • I am predicting a 50/50 spread between Clinton and Obama for a delegate grab from Edwards and Undecided.


• If my prediction is correct, the final delegate count after Feb 5th will be somewhere around: Clinton 1312 (54%), Obama 1116 (46%)
  
• After Feb 5th, 1559 delegates will remain to be awarded, 1621 including Edwards current 62, representing 40% of the total delegates nationwide.

The likelihood that either Clinton or Obama could sweep the primaries and shut out the other is very low; the landslide victory required would take a very different climate than we are seeing. Additionally, the delegate grab from Edwards is not going to make much of a splash if the Super Tuesday results are as close as they seem they will be. The Democratic nomination will still be up for grabs. There are some serious heavy-weight states after Super Tuesday that could really give one of the two a major lead. The states with over 100 delegates are: Texas (228, the big boy after California), Pennsylvania (188), Ohio (161), North Carolina (134), Virginia (101), and Washington, Maryland and Wisconsin should get honorable mention with 97, 99 and 92 delegates respectively. The likelihood of a brokered convention is looming, although I doubt we will see it happen. I believe that if push comes to shove, the Superdelegates will weigh in before the need arises and will most likely favor Hillary Clinton, who is much more connected in the meta-levels of the Democratic party.

There are a few things that I believe are very pertinent. First and foremost, I believe it is clear beyond a doubt that the Democratic party will be unified behind one candidate. They are not going to allow a divided Democratic vote come November. I also believe that the sentiment in this campaign is "the sooner the better." I feel that after Super Tuesday, barring a dramatic win by either Clinton or Obama, the focus of the Democratic campaign is going to shift to a pre-brokering, to avoid the need for a brokered convention in August. A protracted battle to lock out one candidate or the other would be very damaging to the Democratic campaign as a whole.

There is a decent chance still that one of the two will be able to secure a shut-out of the other prior to the DNC's June 21st deadline for nomination submissions to the Convention. With the polls favoring Clinton, this means Obama would have to show a very serious surge in support in order to get ahead. Not only a surge of popular support, but a surge of support inside the machine of the Democratic National Convention. Lastly, and related to this, is the fact that Florida's primary results may end up being impossible to ignore. Hillary Clinton's giant win in Florida cannot be ignored, with over a million registered Democrats casting votes regardless of the official DNC sanctions on the primary. However, Clinton is also playing the game right in that she is allowing the debate to be carried past Super Tuesday, making it likely the lion's share of Florida's delegates will be awarded to her as both the demographics and the popular vote favored her. If Florida falls into line, it is almost inevitable that Michigan will follow. Historically, the Convention Chair has allowed delegates to be seated from closed-out states once the convention is under way. So long as this pattern is followed, Clinton stands to gain somewhere around 195 delegates.

Does John Edwards fall into the mix?

Yes and no. Yes, very much, an endorsement by Edwards of either Clinton or Obama would give a nice boost to either candidate, and could decisively swing the primary voting. No, on the delegate grab. 62 delegates is a negligible number after February 5th. Even if one of the two remaining candidates took every one of them, it would not do much to swing the numbers either direction. Edwards is teetering on the edge of obscurity. In order to actually have any kind of influence on the Democratic campaign, and possibly the entire presidential race, he needs to act quickly and smartly. Will he? Who knows.

To wrap up, my Super Tuesday prediction is that Hillary Clinton will come out on top. Her margin above Obama will likely fall in the area of 3-7%, very close. Overall, this is a very disappointing result, and is going to fuel a serious fire in both candidates. In a nationwide contest only rivaled by the General Election itself, such an even outcome is going to bolster both campaigns. Regardless of this, Clinton is going to take the day, and she will capitalize on this with the aplomb that only she is capable of. What is disappointing to me is that Clinton is not going to see a big enough victory to call it settled. Yet.