Irish Trojan in Tennessee

McCain predicts Bradley Effect?

By Brendan Loy

Hmm... this is interesting:

The presumptive GOP nominee tells voters in an afternoon Pickersville, Pennsylvania town hall that the state will pick the winner in November — and he will be behind until right before the polls close.

McCain's point seems to be simply that he's the underdog, which is undoubtedly true. But, if the election is close, it's quite possible that he'll be literally right; indeed, he might seem to be behind even after some polls close... until the combined impact of the Bradley-Wilder Effect and the Exit-Poll Liberal Selection Bias Effect (see: the Seven-Hour Presidency of John Kerry) is revealed, when actual vote totals -- as opposed to final opinion polls and leaked exit polls -- reveal a narrow McCain victory.

I'm not predicting it. I'm just saying it's a possibility.

"Period. Full stop."

By Brendan Loy

Just a thought: it would be nice to see John McCain clarify his non-answer about Barack Obama's patriotism in the same sort of straightforward, no-nonsense, not-open-to-interpretation way that Obama responded today to Wesley Clark's comments questioning the value of McCain's military service.

The John McCain of 2000 and 2004 would have done it. Will the John McCain of 2008?

P.S. Incidentally, Obama also criticized MoveOn.org -- specifically its "General Betray Us" ad -- in the same speech.

UPDATE: It seems Obama's answer on the Clark front isn't good enough for the McCain campaign, which appears to be implicitly adopting the position that a candidate can be faulted for anything his supporters say, even after the candidate clearly and explicitly disavows it. I trust the McCain folks won't mind when this same standard is applied to them.

McCain's only hope in this election is to make the case that he is the true candidate of change, reform, "straight talk," etc. In short, he needs the "McCain brand" to both survive the collapse of the "Republican brand" and to trump the shininess of the "Obama brand." It's a tough task, but Obama has recently opened the door for McCain with his reversals on several issues, particularly campaign financing. (For that matter, the MoveOn.org thing is something of a flip-flop; Obama pointedly did not vote on the resolution to condemn the ad, back when it was primary season and a "Yes" vote might have hurt him with the base.) McCain is obviously trying to take advantage of the opportunity he's been handed. But, in this still-undecided voter's view, he's doing so in precisely the wrong way.

McCain needs to kill Obama with kindness, honesty and straightforwardness, not heavy-handedly twist and contort his words in a blatant political game that ultimately holds Obama's statements and actions to a standard that McCain himself cannot possibly meet. The latter course might be enough to fool some low-information voters, but those folks aren't paying attention yet anyway, and in the mean time, opinion leaders in the media and blogosphere -- who are crucial to the survival of the McCain brand -- are going to see right through McCain. You can't become perceived as the candidate of the "high road" by taking a short cut on the low road. It just won't work.

I suggest that McCain read Mark Halperin's advice from last week, particularly:

14. Recognize that gimmicks ... are seen as just that — gimmicks. ...

17. Avoid personalizing your disdain for Obama. ...

22. Protect the McCain Brand at all costs – it is the only thing that gives you a chance to win!!

Somebody get this guy a latte

By Brendan Loy

Remember Tom Buffenbarger, the machinists' union blowhard who unleashed a hilariously unhinged anti-Obama rant on Hillary Clinton's behalf during her post-Wisconsin-primary rally back in February? I'll refresh your memory:

[During his speech introducing Clinton,] Buffenbarger derisively dismissed Obama as a mere "wunderkind," a "man in love with the microphone," and "a poet, not a fighter." He repeatedly and pointedly called him "the junior senator from Illinois" (as if Hillary isn't the junior senator from New York?). He compared Obama to "Janus, the two-faced Roman god of ancient times." And then he really got going:

"The Barack Show is playing to rave reviews, sold out on college campus after college campus, standing-room-only crowds to hear his silver-tongued oration. Hope! Change! Yes, we can! Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine!"

... Buffenbarger [also made the] blatantly anti-intellectual argument -- repeated twice -- that Obama can't "fight" for the working class because he was "the editor of the Harvard Law Review." I guess Hillary's stint as an editor of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action establishes her credentials as a real union stiff?

Buffenbarger blustered so buffoonishly that I proposed a new verb to describe his actions: "to buffenbarger," meaning "to engage in an inappropriately vitriolic attack on a member of one's own political party." (TPM Cafe contributor David Schlitt had a similar idea.)

Well, it turns out ol' Tom is still buffenbargering after all these months:

Now is not the right time for the [International Association of Machinists] to endorse Senator Barack Obama... Our members feel the economy squeezing their family finances for every last dime, every single week ... But those meat and potato issues have not found a place in the message frame developed by Senator Obama's campaign. To us, hope and change are not antidotes to the economic pressures blue-collar families face... In the Machinists Union, a predominately blue-collar union, the impression continues to grow that Senator Barack Obama could care less about folks like us.

McCain-Buffenbarger '08! ;)

Ugh, powder blue

By Brendan Loy

Clinton and Obama wore (nearly) matching outfits at their Unity event this afternoon: her pantsuit and his tie were both, according to Politico's color-spectrum analysis, powder blue.

Powder blue, of course, used to be a UCLA school color, back when I was at USC. But the Bruins switched in 2003 to a different shade of blue, so I guess I can forgive the Dems for their use of what I've always considered a rather distasteful shade of an otherwise fine color. Still... for future reference, I'd recommend either Notre Dame blue or Newington blue. :)

Anyway, here are some more photos from the Obama-Clinton rally in Unity.

Clinton, Obama join together in Unity

By Brendan Loy

Literally.

Around midday today, the former Democratic rivals will make their first joint public appearance since she dropped out of the race -- and the event will be held in Unity, a tiny town in western New Hampshire where Obama and Clinton each received exactly 107 votes* in the January 8 primary.

Here's a quick primer on Unity, from Wikipedia:

Unity is a town in Sullivan County, New Hampshire, United States. The population was 1,530 at the 2000 census and an estimated 1,715 six years later. The town includes the villages of East Unity, Quaker City, and West Unity. ... The racial makeup of the town was 99.35% White, 0.07% African American, 0.13% Asian, and 0.46% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.72% of the population.

The percentages from the 2000 census indicate that Unity had literally one black person, two Asians, seven mixed-race individuals, and eleven Latinos. Oh, and 1,509 non-Hispanic whites. Heh.

Anyway, here's an AP article about how Unity is gearing up for today's big event. It opens with the obligatory quote from a local old lady: "I don't remember having any presidential candidates here in my time," says 84-year-old Roberta Callum. And then there's this, regarding the expected crowd of 2,500: "Locals say the last time there was a crowd that big was for a 1970s performance by folk singer Arlo Guthrie." Heh.

The Concord Monitor is unimpressed with the meta-pun that today's event represents:

[N]o one would have mistaken these two policy wonks for the jokesters of the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Nonetheless, nearly six months after the local vote, Obama and Clinton return today, going to extreme lengths for a corny gag.

They're coming to Unity, N.H. - get it? Unity? It's a place where they split the local Democratic vote, 107-107. It's a place so far out in the boondocks that voters and reporters will require shuttle buses from Sunapee, for Pete's sake.

Ah yes, the bustling metropolis of Sunapee -- population 3,055! And it's only 31 minutes away! Heh.

Politics as usual?

By Brendan Loy

Earlier today, I read this article by Bob Beckel making the strategic case for an Obama-Clinton ticket, and I found myself almost beginning to doubt the ferocity of my oft-stated belief that such a choice would be "wolf-face crazy." Then I read the little biographical blurb at the bottom:

Bob Beckel managed Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign.

LOL! And Obama should take this guy's advice on political strategy, why exactly? ;)

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's Dan Balz argues that, so far, McCain vs. Obama is politics as usual:

Whatever substance they may contain has been buried in negative counterattacks from the opposing camp, designed to turn ideas into stereotypes and candidates into caricatures. In the hands of Obama's advisers, McCain is nothing more than the third coming of President Bush. To McCain's staff, Obama is merely a liberal, naive, arrogant extension of what Democrats have been offering for years.

Gone in the early stages of this campaign is any sense of the uniqueness of the two nominees. McCain is certainly no garden-variety Republican and the historic possibilities of Obama's candidacy cannot be overstated. But those realities have been submerged beneath a tactical shouting match that feeds the cable culture of contemporary politics.

Don't blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyper-aggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge however small or incidental can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.

That led a McCain surrogate to respond to Obama's comments on the rights of terrorist detainees, a topic on which reasonable people can differ, as "delusional." It led to an Obama surrogate to describe as "stupid" the positions McCain has taken on the Iraq war, though it is clearly arguable that the surge strategy has helped to reduce violence and U.S. casualties. ...

Of all the candidates who sought the presidency this year, McCain and Obama seemed the least likely to fall so quickly into old habits. The question is whether the opening weeks are a true reflection of their characters and the kind of campaigns they intended to run or a temporary departure.

(Hat tip: Halperin.)

Poll shows Obama way ahead nationally; Barr, Nader hurt McCain

By Brendan Loy

The L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll finds the following national breakdown in a four-way race: Obama 48%, McCain 33%, Nader 4%, Barr 3%, Undecided 10%. Even if we assume that most of those 10% will eventually vote for McCain, in accordance with the Bradley Effect, Obama's still clearly winning.

What's particularly intriguing is that, although Nader does slightly better than Barr, their combined effect hurts McCain far more than Obama. When only two candidates are mentioned, it's Obama 49%, McCain 37%. Another 4% volunteer their intention to vote for "someone else," while 10% remain undecided. The poll write-up explains:

Eighty-seven percent of McCain’s voters would stay with him [in a four-way race featuring Nader and Barr], but 11% would vote for another candidate, with 2% undecided.  Almost all of Obama’s voters (95%) would still stay with him even when the race opened up to include more candidates.

More specifically, when the two-way race becomes a four-way race, 5% of McCain voters switch to Barr, and 6% switch to Nader, while 2% say they "don't know" how they'd vote. By contrast, just 2% of Obama supporters switch to Nader, 0% switch to Barr, 2% "don't know," and -- just to prove that you can always find a tiny segment of poll respondents who'll say things that don't make any sense whatsoever -- 1% switch to McCain! (Remember, he's an option in both scenarios; why anyone would vote for Obama in a two-way race, but McCain in a four-way race, is beyond me.)

Other interesting findings:

• "More than 80% of Obama voters said they were enthusiastic about their candidate, including 47% who are very enthusiastic.  It’s another matter for McCain.  Just under half (45%) of McCain voters said they were enthusiastic about voting for him, but 51% were not enthused about the prospect."

• "While almost a fifth of moderate Republicans would support Obama, just 7% of moderate Democrats would support the Republican candidate.  Overall, almost four out of five liberals support Obama, just 58% of conservatives support McCain."

• "[M]en are somewhat divided -- 40% for Obama to 37% for McCain -- but women give the Democratic candidate a 25 point lead (54% to 29%)."

• Among whites, it's McCain 39%, Obama 39%, Nader 5%, Barr 4%, someone else 2%, undecided 11%. (If Bradley/Wilder holds, McCain will get the bulk of those undecideds in the end.) Among blacks, Obama gets "nine out of 10" or thereabouts, while McCain gets just 2%, and 2% are undecided. Obama wins 61-23 among "other ethnic groups."

State-by-state polls, it should be noted, have been trending in the same direction. Five Thirty Eight, which was projecting an extremely close race as recently as a few weeks ago, now has Obama winning 344 to 194 in the Electoral College, with a map that roughly resembles Clinton's win over Dole in 1996.

Caveat: It's still very early, and polls at this point can be extremely misleading, arguably to the point of meaninglessness. It's clear that Obama is doing very well right now; it's not at all clear what, if anything, that means for November.

P.S. It should also be noted that, although some pre-election polls in 2000 showed him in the high single digits, Nader ultimately got just 2.73% that year, and in 2004 he managed a paltry 0.38%. It seems highly unlikely, then, that in a high-stakes election offering such a stark issue-based contrast as Obama vs. McCain, he'll ultimately get anywhere near 4% of the vote. In fact, given that Obama is practically a liberal's dream candidate (at least as plausible Democratic nominees go), I find it hard to believe that Nader will do better than the 0.38% he got in '04, when he was running against the far less dreamy John Kerry. (On the other hand, I suppose Nader's numbers could be boosted by the "racist liberal" vote -- folks who won't vote for McCain because he's a Republican, but won't vote for Obama because he's black.)

The only way I can see Nader breaking 1% is if he truly does pick up a whole bunch of erstwhile McCain voters -- and that itself seems highly unlikely, given how anathema his views are to anyone who is remotely conservative or libertarian-ish. My guess is that those 6% of McCain voters who currently gravitate to Nader in a four-way race are simply disaffected with their candidate, and are casting a "protest vote" for the third-party candidate whose name they recognize, namely Nader. But once they start paying more attention, I'd imagine that most of 'em will realize Nader is really not their kind of guy. Nader is a liberal candidate; it's hard to believe he can build a sizable support base that's based fundamentally on anything other than liberal voters.

In the end, most of the disaffected conservatives/Republicans will either stay home, vote for Barr, or hold their noses and vote for McCain. The "conservatives for Nader" movement is about as plausible as the "elderly Jews for Buchanan" movement in Palm Beach County eight years ago. ;)

What about Zimbabwe?

By Brendan Loy

TNR's James Kirchick asks an intriguing question: "Will the Candidates Recognize Morgan Tsvangirai as President of Zimbabwe?"

Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, is the legitimately elected president of Zimbabwe. Or at least he should be. He won that country's presidential election (and his party won its parliamentary election) on March 29th, a victory that has been denied to him and his colleagues over the past three months as Robert Mugabe has murdered nearly 100 opposition supporters, tortured many more, and driven thousands from their homes. A week after the election, the Zimbabwean junta announced that Tsvangirai did not win an outright majority, thus forcing a runoff scheduled for this Friday. On Sunday, however, Tsvangirai announced that he was dropping out of the election, stating that "we cannot stand there and watch people being killed for the sake of power."

So here's a question for Senators Obama and McCain. Back in April, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer declared Tsvangirai the winner of the March 29th election, and certified that he won over 50% of the vote. Recognition of him as the duly elected president of Zimbabwe -- with all of the diplomatic measures that would imply, specifically spelled out today in a New York Sun editorial -- should have been forthcoming, yet the State Department has been reluctant to go that far. With Tsvangirai hiding in the Dutch Embassy for fear of his life, will either of you call upon the United States to recognize him as the elected president of Zimbabwe?

Sounds good to me. But wouldn't that constitute "regime change"?

Mismanaging the world

By Brendan Loy

"John McCain and the Republicans will lose if this campaign is about issues. They only mismanaged the economy and mismanaged the hurricane and mismanaged the budget and mismanaged the war and mismanaged the hunt for Osama bin Laden and mismanaged the world." --John Brummett, Arkansas News Bureau. (Hat tip: Ben Smith.)

P.S. Meanwhile, on an unrelated note, the Obama campaign takes some MSM heat for its less than entirely progressive attitude toward the American Muslim community. Money quote from Congressman Keith Ellison (he's the guy who was actually photographed being sworn in with his hand on the Koran), regarding Obama's aggressive denials of those pesky "smears" alleging that he's a Muslim: "A lot of us are waiting for him to say that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way." More here and here.

Vice President Biden?

By Brendan Loy

Joe Biden: hell yeah, I'd be Obama's veep!

As I've said before, I think Biden is a great choice in theory -- an experienced hand, sensible on foreign affairs, forceful on the war on terror, etc. In practice, he's a bit trickier: he's as slippery and slimy a Washington insider as they come, which doesn't exactly jive with Obama's message of change, and he has a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth. (See: "articulate and clean," Indians at 7-Eleven, etc.)

Still, since I ultimately rank national security and foreign policy as my #1 voting priority, I'd be reassured by Obama picking Biden. I kind of doubt it will happen, though, especially now that he seems almost to be campaigning for it.

A dead heat in Georgia?!

By Brendan Loy

Ladies and gentlemen, we have statistical evidence of the Bob Barr effect! A new poll in the blood-red state of Georgia, where the Libertarian nominee is from, shows a dead heat: McCain 44%, Obama 43%, Barr 6%. Wow!

Now, a major grain of salt is called for here. It's very early, and I seriously, seriously doubt these numbers will ultimately hold up. But this sort of polling data (see also: close races in Alaska, North Carolina) can't make the McCain people happy. Indeed, I bet they're getting some serious heartburn from the combination of: 1) the recent state polling numbers generally, which show a definite Obama bounce in red, blue and purple states alike, and 2) the noises Obama is making (backed with action) about competing in states like Texas and Indiana.

With regard to Georgia and point #2, the real issue is that, in light of Obama's decision to change his mind and reject public financing -- a tactical no-brainer, notwithstanding its dubiousness in principle -- he can afford to put his (abundant) money where his mouth is, and at least force McCain to waste precious resources in these states.

P.S. His mom's white! He's from America! Heh.

Hope for Iraq

By Brendan Loy

Optimism about Iraq: it's not just for neocons anymore! From this week's issue of The Economist:

After all the blood and blunders, people are right to be sceptical when good news is announced from Iraq. Yet it is now plain that over the past several months, while Americans have been distracted by their presidential primaries, many things in Iraq have at long last started to go right.

This improvement goes beyond the fall in killing that followed General David Petraeus's “surge”. Iraq's government has gained in stature and confidence. Thanks to soaring oil prices it is flush with money. It is standing up to Iraq's assorted militias and asserting its independence from both America and Iran. The overlapping wars—Sunni against American, Sunni against Shia and Shia against Shia—that harrowed Iraq after the invasion of 2003 have abated. The country no longer looks in imminent danger of flying apart or falling into everlasting anarchy. In September 2007 this newspaper supported the surge not because we had faith in Iraq but only in the desperate hope that the surge might stop what was already a bloodbath from becoming even worse (see article). The situation now is different: Iraq is still a mess, but something approaching a normal future for its people is beginning to look achievable.

The article proceeds to explain the improvements in greater detail, and then concludes:

In highlighting the improved conditions in Iraq we do not mean to justify The Economist's support of the invasion of 2003 (see article). Too many lives have been shattered for that. History will still record that the invasion and occupation have been a debacle. Iraqis even now live under daily threat of violent death: hundreds are killed each month. They remain woefully short of the necessities of life, such as jobs, clean water and electricity. Iraq's government is gaining confidence faster than competence. It is still fractious, and in many places corrupt.

Nor does it follow that a turn for the better necessarily validates John McCain's insistence on America staying indefinitely. A safer Iraq might make Barack Obama's plan to pull out most American troops within 16 months more feasible, though at the moment a precipitate withdrawal looks foolish. But to guard the fragile improvements, the key for America must be flexibility. Both candidates have to keep their options open. If America's next president gets Iraq wrong because he has boxed himself in during the campaign, all the recent gains may be squandered and Iraq will slide swiftly back into misery and despair. That would be to fail twice over.

More from The Economist here and here. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

A house divided

By Brendan Loy

You know those "House Divided" license plates -- they're really popular here in the South -- for families in which the spouses root for rival schools? Well, the governor and first lady of California have something similar going on, except it relates to politics rather than sports, and it's on their house instead of their car:

Heh.

Of course, while the Schwarzenegger-Shriver split gets front page treatment in the New York Times, the same thing happens every day in the Carville-Matalin household. :)

(As for those license plates, I need a customized USC/Notre Dame version that says "A Man Divided." Heh. Okay, not really, but it'd look cool, anyway...)

Victory in sight?

By Brendan Loy

Kimberly Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War, and Frederick Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, claim in the WSJ:

America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.

These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today.

(Hat tip: Youngblai.) I have no idea whether the Kagans are correct, but in general, the problem with claims like theirs is one of credibility: back in 2006, most folks on the Right did not contemporaneously admit that we were "unequivocally losing in Iraq," so it's hard to know how much credence to lend to their claims now. (Honest query: I'd be curious if somebody can find an example of the Kagans bucking this trend back in '06, and forthrightly admitting then that we were losing. Maybe they did; I have no idea. But many conservatives -- and administration officials -- didn't.)

Listening to a hawkish conservative who always claimed we were winning say, "we were losing then, but we're winning now," is sort of like listening to a far-left liberal who opposed the war in Afghanistan say, "we should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan." Maybe they're right, but they have no credibility saying it!

Actually, though, the former example is arguably worse than the latter one, because whereas a lefty who rallies 'round a war he opposed is making a self-contradicting statement of opinion, a hawk who rewrites the war's history is making a self-contradicting statement of fact. And, as the saying goes, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but nobody's entitled to their own facts.

That's what makes this Iraq debate so frustrating for someone like me -- someone who is by no means an expert on what's happening in Iraq, but who wants to support the right course of action based on sound
reasoning and properly understood facts. Both sides are so committed to their ideological preconceptions that it's seemingly impossible for them to agree on what the facts are. The Left will claim we're losing, or are inevitably bound to lose, and must therefore get out, whether that's factually true or not; and the Right will claim that we're winning, and can succeed if only we keep at it for a little longer, and must therefore stay the course, whether that's factually true or not.

For many on both sides, I think, it's past the point of being dishonest: they're so committed to their argument that they convince themselves to honestly believe their version of reality. One of the reasons I'm undecided between Obama and McCain is because I feel like I'm choosing between these two camps, both of which have ideological blinders on, which is not exactly an appealing choice -- and meanwhile, I don't have the requisite information to decide whose preconceptions are closer to the truth, largely because I don't trust either side to present that information accurately! Nor do I trust the liberal media, or the conservative media, or the right-blogosphere, or the left-blogosphere. On this issue, it seems like everybody has an agenda.

What are the actual facts? Are we winning or losing? Is there a reasonable hope of genuine success in building a reasonably stable and at least somewhat democratic Iraq, or are we just wasting our time on a quixotic and unsustainable effort to do so, and suffering needless losses in the process? If we leave, will things get better or worse -- and if worse, how much worse? The "facts on the ground" that would help answer these questions are absolutely essential pieces of information for any rational decision-maker, yet they get lost in the fog of war -- and, perhaps more pertinently, of politics. Argh.

Bush vs. Carter?

By Brendan Loy

Back in the long-ago dark ages of late 2007, when it appeared that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee, there was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the notion that the 2008 election -- and a potential Clinton Administration -- was going to turn into a re-hash of the 1990s.

Now, with Barack Obama the nominee, it appears we're going to re-hash the 1970s instead:

“Senator Obama says that I’m running for Bush’s third term," McCain said.  “Seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.”

Zing, indeed. Well, I guess it's better than re-hashing the election of 1896.

TPM's Greg Sargent says we can "expect more evocations of Carter. Lots more." Politico's Jonathan Martin seems to agree, writing that Carter is one of the few "convenient and resonant Democratic bogeymen" available.

P.S. On an unrelated note, John McCain wants to veto beer!

Heh.

More politics-as-sports

By Brendan Loy

Last week, I confessed that, although the rational side of my brain is undecided between Barack Obama and John McCain, the "portion of my brain that views politics as a sport can't help 'rooting' for Obama" because he is "the scrappy mid-major going up against the staid, boring, established program; he's Boise State against Oklahoma ('They said this day would never come: a WAC team in a BCS bowl! Yes, we can!'), he's Appalachian State against Michigan... or, as McCain might prefer to say, he's Hawaii against Georgia."

Now, Ben Smith uses a college-football metaphor, saying that Obama's 50-state, expand-the-map strategy is the political equivalent of the "spread offense."

If so, Obama's definitely going to win Michigan. :)

My letter to Senator Joe

By Brendan Loy

Having shocked y'all Friday morning by announcing that I'm retiring the blog on July 20, I figure Monday morning is a good time for yet another shocker. Would a three-page manifesto to Irish Trojan favorite son Joe Lieberman, lambasting him for dishonest and unworthy campaign rhetoric, do the trick?

I sent the letter Friday afternoon to Joe's D.C. office, and now I'm reprinting it on the blog. I don't mean to grandstand about this, but having been so vocal in defense of Lieberman, I figure I owe y'all an update on where I stand now. (In point of fact, my sentiments shouldn't be too shocking; I alluded to my growing disillusionment with Lieberman last month.)

It's important to emphasize that I have no problem whatsoever with Lieberman endorsing McCain and arguing against Obama's candidacy; it's the way he's been opposing Obama that bothers me, not the mere fact that he's doing so at all. I object to such things as his role in spreading the Obama's-a-Marxist and Hamas-loves-Obama memes, his implication that Democrats are not "pro-American," and several other specific statements he's made recently. Anyway, here's the money quote:

What happened to your 2006 message, promising a less hyper-partisan brand of politics?  Based on your recent statements, it appears you have completely abandoned the premise that Democrats and Republicans have honest disagreements on the issues.  Instead of substantively engaging important topics of legitimate debate and disagreement, you have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to vilify and caricature the Democratic Party ...

I am deeply disappointed that you have sunk to these lows, and having been such a vocal advocate on your behalf, I must admit that I am somewhat embarrassed.  It is becoming more and more difficult to defend you against your critics in the blogosphere, who increasingly feel that they were “right all along” about you. 

On reflection, "completely abandoned the premise" is probably a bit much. But it gets the message across, anyway. Joe needs to tone down his rhetoric, or folks like me who once greatly admired him will increasingly come to view him as just another typical politician.

Read the whole thing after the jump.

Quittin' time

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton will formally withdraw/suspend and endorse Obama shortly at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. If you aren't near a TV, you can watch the event streamed live on CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN.

Also, The Caucus, Daily Kos and TPM will be liveblogging.

UPDATE: A fine speech so far by Hillary; I have no complaints about it. But I have to quote the funny comment by Barb, who we're watching it with (she's visiting for the weekend from Buffalo). Barb finished one of Hillary's sentences for her:

Hillary: "The Democratic Party is a family..."

Barb: "...and I'm the kooky aunt who nobody likes, but you have to invite over for Christmas anyway."

Heh.

Quote of the day #2

By Brendan Loy

Peggy Noonan, on why the "unity ticket" is a bad idea:  "[Clinton] undercuts the cleanness of Obama's message. She doesn't turn the page, she is the page." Heh.

More after the jump.

Quote of the day

By Brendan Loy

"Is [Obama] 'elitist,' too condescending and glib and remote and full of himself? I don't find him so—but then again, I myself am an elitist who can seem condescending and glib and remote and full of himself, so who am I to judge?" --Kurt Andersen, in a piece for New York Magazine brilliantly titled "I'm Not Totally Sure We Can."

(I also like Andersen's take on what each candidate must to do pass the, er, commander-in-chief test, if you will: "I'm far more convinced that President Obama would summon up the requisite steel and shrewdness than I am that President McCain would become sufficiently nuanced and diplomatic." Heh.)

Don't let John McCain feed your baby

By Brendan Loy

If you do, your baby may get burned by bottled hot water:

Tee hee.

Obama's Gary Hart moment?

By Brendan Loy

Be careful what you wish for: "If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it."

Presumably by "do it," he means "produce it," as in, produce the evidence. Hmm. This would seem to run somewhat counter to his previous statement that his wife is off-limits.

Now, I agree with Obama on the substance of the point he's making -- about how frustrating it is when totally unsubstantiated rumors get lifted out of the undernews into mainstream discussion, and thus in some sense legitimized, simply by somebody in the MSM asking the question -- but still, does he really want to essentially dare the media, and his political opponents, to dig up dirt on him and his wife? We all know what happened the last time a presidential candidate did that!

McCain: Let's go to Mars

By Brendan Loy

In an obvious and blatant attempt to shore up the crucial Space-Obsessed Law Professors With Highly Trafficked Blogs voting bloc, John McCain said yesterday he would like to put a man on Mars.

Sounds good to me, but what I want to know is, will we do the other things?

P.S. In other John McCain-related news, he's apparently trying to fight off the "age issue" by making references that the youngsters of today will understand -- like, for instance, comparing Obama to William Jennings Bryan.

The year was eighteen ninety-six, and John McCain was just sixteen...

:)

P.P.S. And yet more McCain-related news: he's released his first general-election ad, in which he states: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. ... I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are."

TPM's Greg Sargent says "McCain is using his bio to achieve separation from George W. Bush," suggesting that "even if he's continuing Bush's war policies, he's different from Dubya in that he understands the costs in a way that Bush never did." The subtext, Sargent writes, is: "Even if that reckless chicken-hawk took us to war, someone who actually understands and has experienced the costs of war -- someone you can actually believe -- is here to tell you that we must continue it."

So, to review: John McCain hates war, yet he wants to send a man to Mars, a planet which is named after... war. :)

UPDATE: Glenn links here, and says of my above joke, "somehow the Obama backers manage to make everything about Iraq... Heh." Hey, now! What's this about "Obama backers"? I know it might be hard to believe, given my blog's recent focus, but I repeat:

I am undecided. In fact, if you put a gun to my head right now and made me choose, I think -- *think* -- I'd vote for McCain. But it's really entirely up in the air how I'll vote in November. I like and admire Obama, but that doesn't mean I think he'd make the best president. The best Democratic nominee, yes, but that's only because his opponent is such a lying, conniving, deceitful [bad word]. Against McCain, he doesn't have such an obvious "character" advantage (both candidates are, as best as I can tell, generally good, decent and honest, though of course not pure or perfect), and I'm not at all sure who I think is, on balance, better on policy.

If that confuses you, consider this: "The portion of my brain that views politics as a sport can't help 'rooting' for Obama (he's exciting! he's inspiring! he's shiny!), [but] the rational part of my brain, which governs my actual vote, is totally undecided between Obama and McCain." Obama is the scrappy mid-major going up against the staid, boring, established program; he's Boise State against Oklahoma ("They said this day would never come: a WAC team in a BCS bowl! Yes, we can!"), he's Appalachian State against Michigan, he's Davidson against Kansas. Or, as McCain might prefer to say, he's Hawaii against Georgia. :) The point is, he's fun to root for, and that fact bleeds over into my blog coverage. (Also, my blog coverage has just been generally Dem-dominated because that contest has been much more exciting since late January.) Moreover, it's fun to poke fun at John McCain because, you know, he's old. (In fairness, I've also poked fun at Obama for being messianic and cultish. Whee, humor is fun!) But none of that necessarily means that I support Obama, because in the end, politics isn't a sport, and voting isn't about "rooting" or making jokes, it's about deciding the future of the country. So yes, I'm undecided. Really.

P.P.P.S. Speaking of the Red Planet, Andrew Sullivan this morning posted a picture from 2005 of Sunset on Mars. He should have included it in his "The View From Your Window" series!

Lieberman leads McCain's outreach to disaffected Hillary supporters

By Brendan Loy

Oy vey:

Sen. Joe Lieberman – who has taken on increasingly high-profile campaign roles on behalf of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain – announced Thursday that was launching and heading a new grassroots organization, "Citizens for McCain," with a direct appeal to Hillary Clinton’s disappointed supporters.

“The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times,” Lieberman wrote in a message sent to the Arizona senator’s supporters. “Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton.”

(Hat tip: Youngblai.)

Wrong state

By Brendan Loy

WDVX just played a song called "Satan Lives In Arkansas." But that isn't right. She moved to New York! :)

Forgive and forget?

By Brendan Loy

Ross Douthat on Hillary's decision to concede:

"If only she'd done this weeks ago," Matt writes. I take his point: It would probably been better for the party if Hillary had conceded defeat somewhat earlier (though there would have been the potential embarrassment of having the presumptive-nominee lose primaries to a rival who'd dropped out), or at the very least campaigned less fiercely against Obama once his victory became a near-certainty, and certainly her non-concession speech on Tuesday night was bizarre and faintly pathological. But I think that once a few months have gone by, at least some of outrage that Hillary Clinton has generated among liberal pundits by campaigning to the bitter end in a race that she ended up losing by just over a hundred pledged delegates and roughly half a percent of the popular vote will seem, in hindsight, faintly hysterical.

Ban Johnson, a commenter on Douthat's post, responds:

I'd grant your point if I believed your characterization of most of the outrage as about Clinton merely "campaigning to the bitter end" were accurate.

Most of the outrage wasn't about her campaigning in itself. It was about the malignity of her campaign -- suggesting McCain was better equipped to be commander of chief, dishonestly ginning up Michigan and Florida resentments, characterizing her supporters as "hard working white people": basically trying to sabotage Obama, the overwhelmingly likely nominee of her party, whenever she could get away with it.

(Hat tip: Sully.) I think they're both right, in a way.

Announcing the announcement

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton sent out an e-mail to her supporters early this morning (not quite at "3:00 AM," but close!) declaring her intention to announce Saturday that she'll endorse Obama. This is the old "announcing the announcement" trick, and it raises the question: If you tell everyone you're going to endorse somebody, doesn't that mean you've already endorsed him?

Clinton to endorse Obama on Friday Saturday

By Brendan Loy

ABC says Hillary Clinton will drop out on Friday and "ced[e] the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama."

I'll believe it when I see it.

UPDATE: For some reason it didn't auto-post, but CNN sent out a breaking-news alert at 7:10 PM stating: "Sen. Hillary Clinton will officially end her campaign for the presidency by the end of the week, multiple sources tell CNN."

UPDATE 2: This isn't just based on anonymous sourcing now. Here's the official statement from the campaign: "Senator Clinton will be hosting an event in Washington, DC on Friday to thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity."

Politico's Ben Smith writes:

Clinton delivered something approaching a victory speech Tuesday night, just minutes after the media reported that Senator Barack Obama had clinched the nomination with a majority of the pledged delegates. But reality began to sink in Wednesday, as party leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, declared Obama "the nominee" and close supporters like Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel lost patience with her delays. ...

Clinton had convened a conference call with congressional supporters Wednesday to plead for time. Instead, a Clinton backer said, her supporters laid down the law: Time had run out, and she needed to leave the race this week.

More from NYT's Adam Nagourney:

Her decision came after a day of telephone conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about what she should do now that Mr. Obama had claimed enough delegates to be able to clinch the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had initially said she wanted to wait before making any decision, but her aides said that in conversations, some of her closest supporters said it was urgent that she step aside. The news was first reported by ABCNEWS.com.

“We pledged to support her to the end,” said Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate. “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

UPDATE 3: The event has been pushed back to Saturday. It'll be competing for news coverage against the possible Big Brown Triple Crown.

Final popular-vote update

By Brendan Loy

Here are the final "popular vote" numbers, courtesy of Real Clear Politics. Leaving aside the fact that the "popular vote" is a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate metric for determining the "winner" of the Democrats' byzantine primary and caucus process, the results are as follows:

• Obama wins if you don't count Michigan, whose primary results were rejected as illegitimate by the DNC.
  
  
• Clinton wins if you count Michigan fully, and give Obama zero votes (thus granting her the benefit of an utterly undemocratic, Soviet-style 328,309 to zero "victory" there).
  
  
• If you count Michigan, but give Obama the votes of "Uncommitted" -- which is more generous to Hillary than the DNC was, and represents less support for Obama than he would have gotten if Michigan had held a real primary -- Obama wins, provided that you include the estimated tallies from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. Clinton wins only if you exclude these four caucus states, in direct contradiction of her insistence on "counting every vote" from "all 50 states." Even if you use Washington's non-binding primary instead of its binding caucus, and include caucus estimates for Iowa, Nevada and Maine only, Obama still wins, albeit by a measly 11,000 votes.

Thus, the answer to the question I posed back on May 7 -- can Hillary Clinton "win" an "arguably plausible" popular vote tally? -- turns out to be "no." She only wins if she does one (or both) of the two indefensible things that I've been decrying all along: awarding herself a unanimous victory in Michigan that would make Saddam Hussein proud, and/or disenfranchising four whole states that did nothing wrong.

Stepping back from those controversies, though, a bigger-picture view of the "popular vote" reveals just how freakin' close this election was. The most Obama-friendly scenario has him winning by 151,844 votes, which is just 0.4% of the total cast. The most Clinton-friendly scenario (giving her the unanimous Michigan victory and excluding the caucus states) has her ahead by 286,687 votes, or just 0.8%. Basically, the popular vote was a tie.

Now, that said, if the 13 caucus states had held primaries, Obama probably would have had a more substantial edge. For instance, although he won by a whopping 79.5% to 17.2% in Idaho, he netted only 13,225 votes there, because only 21,224 people voted. If Idaho had held a (real) primary, Obama's percentage margin would likely have been more akin to his 56% to 38% win in the state's non-binding primary, but turnout probably would have been more on the order of 175,000 or thereabouts (judging from Kerry's total in 2004). That translates to a margin of roughly 31,500 instead of 13,225. Repeat that effect in the other 12 caucus states -- Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming -- and you're probably talking about an additional several hundred thousand votes for Obama if all 50 states had held primaries.

Nevertheless, it's clear that the battle for the nomination was achingly close, and the central reason Hillary lost is because of the strategic gaffes committed by her incompetently managed campaign. She and Obama essentially split the Democratic Party right down the middle, but Obama came away with a clear delegate majority for the simple reason that he ran a better campaign than she did. This obviously burns her up inside, and helps explain her current irrational behavior. She's sitting there thinking, over and over again, "I should have won this thing, I should have won this thing." And that thought process makes it incredibly difficult for her to acknowledge defeat.

And you know what? In a sense, she's right. She should have won. If her campaign had merely matched the strategic competence of Obama's campaign, such that she'd essentially tied him in delegates as well as votes, she'd very likely have ended up being the nominee, precisely because of the electability arguments she's been making. If this race were truly a tie, the superdelegates would be very open to those arguments, and she'd probably win the floor fight in Denver. But because her campaign arrogantly failed to compete in various states, and thus allowed Obama to rack up an unassailable delegate lead in February, she clearly lost the pledged-delegate count, which is the closest thing we have to an accurate reflection of the "winner" and "loser" of this byzantine process. As a result, it's game, set, match, Obama.

So, Hillary, you're right: you should have won the nomination. But nobody stole it from you. It's your own damn fault you lost, and putting your party through hell in a futile attempt to make up for your own campaign's blatant strategic errors is hardly the mark of a leader.

Blog countdown PSA

By Brendan Loy

I was going to delete the blog sidebar thingy that was counting down to "MT, SD primaries," which stated (under "Upcoming events" at left) that those elections are "-1 days" away. But then it occurred to me to do something different. Instead of deleting the countdown, I've changed its text to read "Obama clinches," and I'm going to leave it there until Hillary Clinton drops out of the race and endorses Obama. So, this way, we can keep a running tally of how long Hillary continues her campaign even after she's lost.

This is sort of like how, back in 2006, I left the "Shannon's due date" countdown in place until Shannon actually had her baby -- at which point it said "-7 days." I wonder if Hillary will beat that record? (For what it's worth, the Democratic National Convention begins in 82 days.)

Headline of the day

By Brendan Loy

"In Defeat, Clinton Graciously Pretends to Win."

What is Maureen Dowd talking about?

By Brendan Loy

Her NYT column today contains this bit of sheer nonsense:

[Hillary Clinton] has told some Democrats recently that she wanted Obama to agree to allow a roll call vote, like days of yore, so that the delegates of states she won would cast the first ballot for her at the convention. She said she wanted that for her daughter.

Memo to Maureen: there is always a roll-call vote, at every single convention, not just in "days of yore." Obama does not have the ability to "allow" or "disallow" such a vote, because it is the roll-call vote that will make him the nominee, as opposed to the "presumptive nominee."

The speeches

By Brendan Loy

Watch Obama's speech (in particular the opening portion, about Hillary), and then watch Hillary's speech, and tell me, which one of these candidates really wants the Democratic Party to be united?

Hillary's claim that she wants the party to be united is, at this point, an utter and obvious lie. Her speech last night was sheer demagoguery, deliberately using rhetoric -- about the "popular vote," about Michigan and Florida, about electability, and so forth -- that will keep her supporters in a frenzy of anger and/or denial about the outcome of the election.

I said beforehand that it would be unforgivable if she made these sorts of arguments last night, and she made them, and it is indeed unforgivable. Absolutely unforgivable. On the very night when the party should have begun coalescing once and for all around its presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton continued to stoke the fires of intraparty civil war, instead of beginning of the process of standing down and backing off.

I'm not saying she needed to concede last night, but she needed to be gracious and conciliatory and valedictory, not combative and defiant and demagogic. She needed to explicitly attack McCain's candidacy, not implicitly attack Obama's legitimacy. She needed to speak the language of unity, not merely pay lip-service to it. She failed -- she deliberately chose to fail -- on all counts.

This notion out there that we should "respect" Hillary by not acknowledging the repugnance of last night's speech, and of her recent campaign tactics generally, is completely back-asswards. It's disrespectful to be anything other than repulsed, because such a reaction requires a belief that Hillary doesn't know perfectly well what she is doing. To give Hillary a pass is to assume she's a witless child, which she most certainly is not. She knows precisely what she's doing -- and it is the exact opposite of "uniting the party." She is willfully undermining her party's nominee.

If you don't believe me, just watch the beginning of John McCain's (widely panned) speech, in which he made a blatant -- and somewhat ham-handed, in my view, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't work -- play for disaffected Hillary voters.

McCain's efforts in this regard, aided and abetted by Clinton's rhetoric, are already bearing fruit:

[T]he RNC's convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.

See also:

HillaryGrassrootsCampaign.com, an organization with upwards of half-a-million supporters, announced today it is committed to breaking ranks with the Democratic Party and supporting Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election - regardless of her status as the party's nominee.

There will be more developments like these, and no matter what she says publicly about "unity," Hillary can't wash her hands of them. She created this monster. If you tell people, over and over again (even unto the very night that your opponent clinches victory!), that their votes aren't being counted, that they aren't being "respected," that they're "invisible," and that their chosen candidate, despite having lost, is the legitimate winner -- no matter how untrue all of those things are -- many of them are going to start believing what you're telling them. Hillary's dead-woman-walking "campaign" has become one giant Big Lie.

At this point, the only way Hillary can even begin to redeem herself is by aggressively countering this stuff -- not merely by dropping out and endorsing Obama, which she will inevitably do at some point, but by explicitly walking back her combative, divisive rhetoric. She needs to passionately make the case to her supporters, particularly women, that Obama's their man, and McCain isn't. She needs to find a plausible way to openly contradict her past statements about "elitism," electability, the "commander-in-chief test," and so forth. She needs to be the one who convinces her supporters that Obama is really and truly the legitimate nominee, that the "popular vote" doesn't matter, that nobody was "disenfranchised," that no one is "disrespecting" her "18 million" supporters. Above all, she needs to make perfectly clear that she was not robbed, that she lost fair and square.

She needs to do all this, irrespective of the fact that it will leave some of her most fervent supporters feeling "betrayed." She can't use their fragile emotions as an excuse, because she created those emotions with her shameless demagoguery. (That's what demagoguery does. That's its whole purpose.) Like I said: she created the monster. Some of the damage she's done is irreparable, which is why she can never fully be forgiven for her actions. But she can take a small step toward reconciliation by undoing as much of the damage as possible.

Somehow, though, I don't think she'll be walking back her rhetoric on any of these key points. Oh, she'll make the case for Obama on policy, and argue that he's better than McCain, for the sake of appearances. But, having planted the "she was robbed" seed in her supporters' brains, she'll let them stew about it, and she'll tell herself that if they want to stay home -- or vote for McCain -- because of that, well, there's nothing she can do. Like so much of what she says, that's a lie. But maybe it'll let her sleep at night.

Personally, I am not a Democrat -- I'm an independent -- and although the portion of my brain that views politics as a sport can't help "rooting" for Obama (he's exciting! he's inspiring! he's shiny!), the rational part of brain, which governs my actual vote, is totally undecided between Obama and McCain. Thus, my anger at Hillary is more based on my internal sensibilities -- about right and wrong, about proper and improper behavior, and, above all, about truth and untruth -- than on fear of what she'll do to Obama's chances in November. And yet I'm pretty damn angry. So I can't imagine how intense the anger must be among committed Democrats who are 100% behind Obama. They have to be livid. At this point, she's got be reaching Bush/Cheney/Lieberman levels of earned hatred, yes?

Oh, and as long as we're talking about Hillary hurting Obama's chances, check out this video clip that the Republican National Committee sent out last night:

This is Exhibit A, B, and C for why the unity ticket is wolf-face crazy. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if she were his runningmate?

UPDATE: Here's another clip the RNC is circulating:

Tell Hillary where to go

By Brendan Loy

In the climax of her remarkable, contemptible speech, Hillary Clinton asked her supporters for their advice on whether to drop out:

Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we've come and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

[At this point, her supporters cheered wildly, and some chanted, "Denver! Denver!"]

But this has always been your campaign. So, to the 18 million people who voted for me, and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my Web site at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me[.]

As NRO's Jim Geraghty writes, it's fairly obvious where this path leads:

She wants people to visit her web site and help her decide what to do next.

Can you see what's next? "I wanted to concede, but my supporters didn't want me to."

Like I said, it's the Ross Perot strategy. "The volunteers have asked me to run!"

Luckily, Hillary's "18 million" aren't the only people who know how to use the Interwebs. So, I invite you all to follow this link, and give Hillary the advice she so desperately needs. For example:

Reactions to Hillary's speech

By Brendan Loy

Jonathan Chait:

Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn't concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he's won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama's campaign on its "achievements," but barely musters a single good word about him.

I don't know what the fallout will be, but at minimum, I'd say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama.

Dana Goldstein:

The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary's entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters -- instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama. Yes, there's a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made "invisible?" Who's supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over.

Isaac Chotiner, who calls the speech "A Total Disgrace":

[H]er speech tonight has been combative and petty (mentioning the states she won, saying the primaries ended in South Dakota, not Montana, claiming a popular vote win), with scant praise for the Democratic nominee. If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly.

Jonathan Cohn:

I have no problem with her reminding people of her campaign highlights--or postponing an actual concession. But implying that Obama can't win in November? Whether or not she believes that, she has no business saying it now. And suggesting that she'll fight on until her supporters are no longer "invisible" and get "some respect"? What on earth is she implying there?

Matthew Yglesias:

I probably shouldn't write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I've found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different. I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who've been enabling her behavior, I'd say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain's most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll.

Andrew Sullivan:

The speech tonight was a remarkable one for a candidate who has lost the nomination, though not remarkable for a Clinton. It was an assertion that she had won the nomination and a refusal to concede anything to her opponent. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton.

Her narcissism requires that she deprive her opponent of a night, or a second, of gratification or attention. And she has now won, in her Bush-like version of reality, 18 million votes. Her invitation for her supporters to email their suggestions to her website is pure theater, a way of keeping herself in the spotlight and maneuvering her delegates to demand a second spot on the ticket. The way she is now doing this - by an implicit threat, backed by McCain, to claim that Obama is an illegitimate nominee if she does not get her way - is designed to humiliate the nominee sufficiently to wound him enough to lose the election.

Either way, she is clearly intent on getting Obama defeated this fall if she is not offered the vice-presidency. And if she gets the veep nod, the way she has gotten it will allow her to argue that a November loss was not her loss. It was his. And she will run again in 2012.

She will not go away. The Clintons will never go away. And they will do all they can to cripple any Democrat who tries to replace them. In the tent or out of it, it is always about them. And they are no longer rivals to Obama; they are threats.

A Sullivan reader:

What Democrats needed from Clinton tonight, aside from at last CONCEDING to Obama, was to go after McCain with everything she had: this would have been a first step to pulling her supporters into the larger Democratic fold. Instead, incredibly, she chose to continue her veiled critique of Obama. Instead, incredibly, she chose to emphasize and repeat all of her lies: that she won the popular vote, that she has "more votes than any other candidate who's ever run in the primaries", and, most damagingly, insinuating that somehow, this election was "stolen" from her. We see, more clearly than ever, that this is not about defeating Republicans in 2008: it is, for her, solely about her own career.

The Jed Report:

If I had any respect for Hillary Clinton going into tonight, after watching her speech, it is now gone.

She is now running for a nomination that she has lost. She cannot win it. The game is over.

She is, however, clearly willing to put John McCain in the White House if she doesn't get her way. Now, I don't think she has the power to do that, but she seems to think that she does, and she thinks that is a legitimate negotiating tactic.

The most pathetic part of the speech was her appeal for fundraising dollars. Because of her own mismanagement, her campaign is millions in debt. She's wealthy -- she can afford it. But yet she asks her constituency, which she says is struggling to get by, to help her pay off her own debts.

Absolutely no class -- and completely self-absorbed.

John Aravosis:

Obama won tonight and she still can't concede. Take a flying leap. You lost. You nasty woman. She can't decide what she wants to do, whether she concedes or not. So she wants people to email her and help her decide. ... She's just a nasty nasty woman. I'm so glad the Democratic leadership gave her space and her time to grieve. How's that working for you?

FinneganOregon, a Daily Kos diarist:

I am sitting here listening to her speech this evening and my jaw has slowly dropped to the floor.

This woman has no class.

She deserves absolutely nothing. Not a f***ing thing.

The only dissenting voice I can find in the liberal blogosphere is Al Giordano, who says, "I think that Senator Clinton’s speech was fine. She didn’t concede. (The Field didn’t expect her to.) But nor did she declare that she’s going to go on a Kamikaze mission. ... Everything is good. She’s getting out. She just has to negotiate her terms. But she stopped short of starting an internecine Civil War in the Democratic party. And nothing in her tone or words indicated otherwise."

Needless to say, I completely disagree. In fact, I'm baffled; Giordano must have been watching a different speech than I was. I think Dana Goldstein, quoted at the top of this post, is 100% right: "Hillary's entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters -- instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama."

P.S. See also Noam Scheiber.

Hillary speaks

By Brendan Loy

"Thank you so much to South Dakota. You had the last word [sic; that would be Montana -ed.], and it was a good one."

"I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run." (She then proceeded to say some other nice things about him, battling through a few hecklers at one point. I couldn't quite make out what the hecklers were saying, but I think it was anti-Obama.)

"And it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished."

"Now, 16 months ago, you and I began a journey to make history and to remake America..." blah blah blah

UPDATE: "You asked yourself a simple question: who will be the strongest candidate?" (Crowd yells "Hillary!") "Who will be ready to take back the White House and be commander-in-chief..." Hmm, where is she going with this?

UPDATE 2: "Our campaign carr[ied] the popular vote with more votes than any campaign in history."

UGH.

Hillary Clinton just implicitly called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party illegitimate.

Now she's babbling about swing states. What a freaking creep.

UPDATE 3: Now she's talking about "count[ing] every single vote!" Unbelievable!!

I don't know why I'm continually surprised by Hillary's shamelessness. Someone tell me again, why the HELL would Obama want to make this utterly contemptible woman his V.P.?

She really doesn't know when to stop, or have any idea what she sounds like to people who aren't either idiots or sycophants. This speech isn't remotely conciliatory or valedictory. It's a blatant attempt to undermine her own party's nominee on the very night he clinches the nomination. Absolutely beyond belief.

UPDATE 4: I don't want hear her say another freakin' word about "party unity." It's like Loeb said: "Every time Mrs. Clinton claims she has a popular majority, she's...making it that much more likely that her supporters will stay home in November. If she really wants a united party, she needs to stop."

Clearly, she has made a conscious decision not to stop. Unreal.

Now she asks rhetorically: "What does Hillary want?" ... "I want the 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, and no longer to be invisible." (!!!)

What does Hillary really want? She appears to want Obama to lose in November. That's the only rational explanation for this speech, at this time, given in this way.

UPDATE 5: The crowd chants, "DENVER! DENVER!"

See?!? What did I tell you about rhetorical momentum?? This is exactly what I meant!! Using rhetoric like this, even now, she is creating a situation where many of her supporters will view not fighting to the convention as a betrayal! Now watch her use that as an excuse.

"Now, the question is, where do we go from here? ... This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight." The crowd goes wild. You know what decision they want!

UPDATE 6: She's telling people to "go to her website" and tell her what to do!! This is the Ross Perot strategy -- "I do what the volunteers want!" So she's deliberately creating rhetorical momentum, so she can say that she's staying in the race because her supporters demanded it!!

FINAL WORD: Hillary Clinton had one last chance, tonight, to exit the stage with dignity.

She missed it.

CNN: Obama wins

By Brendan Loy

Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer says Barack Obama, Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee.

UPDATE: Here's the video:

Fuzzy math

By Brendan Loy

Fox News's delegate count in the scroll at the bottom of the screen has Obama at 2,128 delegates, 10 more than the "magic number" -- but he still doesn't have a little check-mark next to his name, like McCain does. Not sure what's up with that, or where they're getting their numbers from. (Maybe the Associated Press?)

CNN, meanwhile, has Obama at 2,114 delegates, four away from securing the nomination. I think that means Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer will be declaring Obama the nominee at 9:00 PM, if not sooner. (By the way, yes, I still have cable at the moment. Long story.)

The Huffington Post has a running tally, naming names, and they claim he's at 2,110 delegates, eight away.

Obama's campaign says he's at 2,108, ten away.

However you do the math, it's clear that Obama will be able to accurately say in his speech tonight: "Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States."

It's over

By Brendan Loy

Obama is now 12 delegates away from the nomination, without considering any "private commitments" or making any projections of tonight's results.

That means he'll definitely be able to declare victory as soon as Montana is "called" for him, even if South Dakota is still too close to call (or, for that matter, if it's "called" for Hillary). Even a one-vote win in Montana gives him 9 delegates, and there's no way he won't get at least 3 delegates in South Dakota.

UPDATE, 7:22 PM: Now he's 10 delegates away. CNN is quoting the same number. If he gets a few more endorsements, the mere fact of the polls closing in South Dakota may put him over the top.

UPDATE, 7:29 PM: CNN says he's now within 7 delegates.

You know what would be hilarious? If Obama gets within 1 delegate of clinching, and then Donna Brazille -- an undeclared superdelegate on CNN's "best political team on television" -- announces her endorsement live on CNN, thus putting him over the top. :)

UPDATE, 7:45 PM: Now 6 delegates to go, says CNN.

Obama will get at least 7 delegates in South Dakota unless his vote total is less than 41.66%. He'll get at least 6 delegates unless his vote total is less than 38.88%. He's essentially guaranteed at least 5 delegates, since he'd have to dip below 27.77% to get less than that, which pretty clearly isn't going to happen.

So, assuming the exit polls do not suggest a West Virginia-style blowout by Hillary (i.e., in a range where a 73-27 victory is conceivable), the mere fact of the polls closing in South Dakota should add at least 5 delegates to Obama's column.

That means that if just one more superdelegate endorsement happens before 9:00 PM EDT, South Dakota puts him over the top -- even if Hillary wins the state. No need to wait for Montana.

Paging Donna Brazille!

UPDATE, 8:04 PM: CNN says Obama is 5 delegates away.

This appears to be based on CNN's own independent reporting, talking to superdelegates. Obama's own delegate countdown is stuck at T-minus 10, presumably because he wants pledged delegates to put him over the top.

Clinton must not raise the "popular vote" tonight

By Brendan Loy

The last 24 hours have seen an incredibly vigorous guessing game of, "What will Hillary Clinton say tonight?" Here's the New York Times's Adam Nagoruney's take:

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said that, should Mr. Obama cross the line Tuesday night — and be declared at least the presumptive nominee — their candidate would acknowledge his accomplishment, without going so far as to drop out.

That seems quite likely to be true, but in my mind, the big question is, what will she say about her non-concession? Will she make a conciliatory, valedictory speech that's basically mum on her next step, leaving things vague until tomorrow (perhaps at AIPAC) or the next day? Or will she present an affirmative case for her decision to stay in the race, which would almost certainly involve arguing again that "I lead in the popular vote and Senator Obama leads in the delegate count"?

If she does the latter, two major problems crop up immediately. First of all, if her logic is, in essence, "we're tied, because he won more delegates and I won more votes," it's difficult to understand what would change that logic between now and August. The core premise of her argument -- incorrect and illegitimate though it may be -- will remain in place indefinitely; nothing after tonight is going to change the popular-vote math, obviously. So it's hard to see how "he has more delegates, but I have more votes" is an argument for staying in the race tonight but then dropping out later this week. If it's anything at all, it's an argument for going all the way to Denver. (Cue my argument about rhetorical momentum.)

Secondly, even if she does drop out later this week after reiterating her phony "popular vote" argument tonight, she'll have already seriously damaged Obama by implicitly questioning his legitimacy as the nominee on the very night when the party should be starting to formally unify around him. Again, I quote Baltimore Sun columnist Paul Rogat Loeb:

Given the bitterness of so many Hillary Clinton supporters that the woman they thought would be America's first female president will not be, the more they hear the suggestion that Sen. Barack Obama's win is illegitimate, the more likely they are to bolt. If Senator Clinton's voters embrace the story that "a man took it away from a woman," denying her a victory she deserved, they're at risk of staying home come November, or holding back from the volunteering and get-out-the-vote efforts necessary for the Democrats to prevail.

That's why it's so unfortunate that Mrs. Clinton continues to claim that "we are winning the popular vote." Because that statement is a lie - and it undermines every word she has recently spoken about the need for the party to come together. ...

Every time Mrs. Clinton claims she has a popular majority, she's...making it that much more likely that her supporters will stay home in November. If she really wants a united party, she needs to stop, and the superdelegates need to hold her accountable.

In my opinion, making this argument tonight, of all nights, would be absolutely unforgivable. And I bet she'll do it.

Obama-Clinton '08: wolf-face crazy

By Brendan Loy

In response to Hillary Clinton's suggestion this afternoon that she's open to being Obama's VP, I would just like to reiterate my previously stated belief that picking Clinton as veep would be "wolf-face crazy...the kind of decision you make when you are drunk, and on cocaine, and on deadline, and on fire." (Hat tip: ESPN Page 2.)

As I put it then: "How can Hillary be on a ticket with someone she has called an out-of-touch elitist who is unready to lead from day one? Not that she'd have any shame about it, mind you, but the constant repetition of those charges out of her mouth would provide such a constant drumbeat of 'gotcha' moments that it would totally eviscerate any electoral benefits such a ticket would otherwise reap. Imagine the negative ads! 'Even Barack Obama's runningmate says...' NO WAY. Will not happen. Crazy." (If you don't believe me, here's a preview. Imagine how much worse this would be if she was his runningmate!!)

And that's without even getting into all the other problems with such a ticket. It really would be terminal insanity. Again: "Picking Hillary is suicide. It a) gains him a sliver of her base that he'd have otherwise lost, and b) loses him the election."

Alas, as I wrote in that May 8 post, "the media will be absolutely obsessed with the notion of a 'dream ticket' ... and the Clintonistas, given their endless supply of self-centeredness, will be only too happy to add fuel to the fire." That prophecy is now predictably coming true. As a result,

I actually think Obama would be well served to announce his running mate earlier than usual, just to prevent the inevitable Clinton-for-veep speculation from consuming the entire summer, and from further dividing the party when he finally gets around to rejecting what many pundits (and Hillary supporters) will myopically see as the "obvious" choice.

Before the "healing" can truly begin, the last shot must be fired, and that shot will be Obama's choice of a vice presidential running mate who isn't named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mark Halperin echoes this point today, writing that "any delay [by Obama] in choosing a running mate will only bring rampant speculation about whether he is going to pick Clinton – and if not, why not – speculation so extreme it might warp and dominate the entire process (and potentially create reams of critical and distracting press for his eventual Veep selection)."

The earliest vice-presidential selection in the last 20 years was Kerry picking Edwards on July 6, followed closely by Clinton picking Gore on July 10 and Dukakis picking Bentsen on July 13. (Bush picked Cheney on July 24. Gore picked Lieberman on August 7. Dole picked Kemp on August 10. H.W. Bush picked Quayle on August 17.) Personally, I'd like to see Obama beat Kerry's speed record. How does, oh, June 23 sound? Like I said before: rip the band-aid off quickly.

AP: Obama clinches nomination!

By Brendan Loy

Breaking news:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House. ...

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

(Hat tip: Becky.)

My initial, gut reaction is that this AP report, which Team Clinton will inevitably describe as "premature," actually increases the chances of Hillary fighting on to the convention. I fear they'll say a bunch of things this afternoon and evening that will make it harder to backtrack and drop out once "effectively clinched" turns into simply "clinched."

On the other hand, Mark Halperin says Hillary "underestimates...the number of her staff and top supporters who will not tolerate her campaign continuing beyond Wednesday – and just how gravely they feel about it." He's probably right, and I may well be wrong about the risk of the Clintons talking themselves into a continued fight. But beware of rhetorical momentum!

UPDATE: TPM's Greg Sargent writes:

The AP is including over a dozen super-dels who privately indicated to the news org that they will ultimately back Obama, should the contest continue, but haven't said so publicly. Not everyone counts private commitments; the Obama campaign, for instance, only includes publicly declared supporters in its super-delegate tally.

So this isn't an official clinching of the nomination, obviously. And indeed, it's really a no-brainer that Obama has reached the magic number when you factor in private commitments. It's highly likely that far more than a dozen have privately signaled support for Obama.

And Politico's Ben Smith weighs in:

Not to be a stickler here, but that's not how this has been working, either in our count or in in the Obama campaign's. The commitments that matter are the ones that are public. So the story is trivial: I think you could probably get virtually all of the superdelegates at this point to privately acknowledge that they'll vote for Obama at the convention.

So as far as the (academic) matter of deciding when exactly Obama gets the majority, I'm going to stick with named supporters. Our count, and the Obama campaign's, leave him about 30 shy.

Meanwhile, Halperin puts up this graphic:

P.S. Here's a lengthier version of the AP article, which is essentially a wrap-up of the entire race.

Clinton's non-concession concession?

By Brendan Loy

The debate rages over whether Hillary will concede tonight.

It appears that the confusion may turn on what the meaning of "is" "concession" is, as Politico's Ben Smith explains:

This morning's report that Clinton would "concede" that she's lost the delegate race -- and the campaign's subsequent denial that she's conceding the nomination -- triggered wide confusion.  

But Clinton herself explained her position yesterday in Yankton, SD yesterday:

"Tomorrow is the last day of the primaries and the beginning of a new phase in the campaign. After South Dakota and Montana vote I will lead in the popular vote and Senator Obama will lead in the delegate count," she said. "The voters will have voted and so the decision will fall to the delegates empowered to vote at the Democratic Convention. I will be spending the coming days making my case to those delegates. Their responsibility not only to the Democratic Party but to our country is to vote for the candidate who is best able to lead us to victory in November and best prepared to lead our country into the future."  

The theoretical case here is that -- even if Obama currently holds the absolute majority of convention delegates -- the delegates can't cast their votes until August, and could change their minds.

So in theory, Clinton can concede that Obama -- presently -- has the majority, but maintain that he doesn't have the nomination.  

In practice, she's pretty much out of options: He's on the verge of locking up the majority, and a bandwagon effect -- which has already begun to pull on her supporters -- will only intensify.

But as Clinton choreographs her defeat, she's outlined a two-step: First conceding that Obama's won the delegate race, then that he's won the nomination.

That makes sense in theory, but as Smith says, it falls apart in practice, unless her intention is to take the fight to Denver.

If she doesn't concede -- and I mean fully concede -- very quickly after it becomes clear that Obama has wrapped up a clear delegate majority, there is no logical point until the convention at which it will make sense for her to fully and finally concede.

Moreover, as I said earlier, the feisty rhetoric she'll inevitably use to justify her non-concession could create, perhaps unintentionally or half-intentionally, a sort of unstoppable rhetorical momentum that would make it nearly impossible for her to concede anytime before August 28 (the date of the roll call in Denver) without angering and alienating her supporters.

This is why I think the campaign either: a) ends this week (probably in the next 48 hours) or b) continues until August. And it's also why Harry Reid's plan -- telling superdelegates to wait a little longer -- is such a bad idea. This is no time for Obama's people to be delicate and deferential. They need to Clinton off the stage, now. This is their last, best chance to avoid a floor fight. It's now or never.

P.S. In comments, kcatnd quotes the Beatles:

If you don't take her out tonight
She's gonna change her mind
And I will take her out tonight
And I will treat her kind.

Heh. Indeed.

Kcatnd also speculates that Hillary will "bow out gracefully tonight once it's clear Obama has clinched it. Until then, it's still a 100%-absolutely-not-conceding tack." That's a distinct possibility. This all may be nothing but tough talk, both to influence Montana & South Dakota voters and to try and prevent the superdelegate flood that would allow Obama to hit the "magic number" tonight. If so, I hope it has the opposite effect. It will, if these Democratic party "leaders" have any sense at all. To quote from another song:

No other road
No other way
No day but today

Hillary way ahead in South Dakota??

By Brendan Loy

Whoa:

HILLARY CAMPAIGN EXPECTS 25-POINT WIN IN S DAKOTA, TOP SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING...

And:

[An] American Research Group survey of South Dakotans [released today] shows Clinton leading 60 percent to 34 percent among Democrats in the state. There have been few surveys of South Dakotans this year; the last poll was conducted two months ago and showed Obama with a 12-point lead, according to Real Clear Politics.

A new ARG poll of Montana voters shows Obama with a four point lead in Montana, beating Clinton 48-to-44 percent.

The new numbers are subject to some skepticism because they are so at odds with prevailing notions about South Dakota in particular. Electoral projection blog FiveThirtyEight.com predicts Obama will win the state by five points and calls ARG's scenario "completely bats**t crazy."

FiveThirtyEight isn't alone:

[C]ampaign officials for both Clinton and her opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, questioned the accuracy of the [South Dakota] survey results...and urged news outlets not to run them prior to the primary. ...

While accurately reflecting some primaries in the Democratic race, New Hampshire-based American Research Group has also missed others, in some cases by substantial margins. ARG indicated Clinton was ahead in Iowa, where she lost, and that she was behind in New Hampshire, where she won. An ARG survey showed at 3-point edge for Obama in South Carolina, where he actually won 55 percent to 27 percent.

On the other hand, ARG has been spot-on in some other primaries. I guess we'll find out tonight whether they're right this time, too, or whether this last-minute poll is indeed "bats**t crazy."

Obama lines up the supers

By Brendan Loy

On Sunday morning, I wrote:

Assuming conservative projections of 22 pledged delegates in Puerto Rico today, and 8 each in South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, he needs 27 more delegates -- out of 218.5 undeclared superdelegates and Edwards pledgees.

The only question, really, is whether he'll get those 27 delegates by the time he takes to the stage in Minnesota Tuesday night, so he can declare victory then and there. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of supers declare for Obama within, say, an hour after the polls close in Montana and Souta Dakota.

Now it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen:

Sensing an opportunity to shut down the nominating contest, Obama campaign advisers said that they were orchestrating an endorsement of Mr. Obama by at least eight Senate and House members who had pledged to remain uncommitted until the primaries ended, and that the endorsements would come the moment the South Dakota polls closed on Tuesday night.

Only one problem: the final polls close in South Dakota at 9:00 PM EDT (though polls in most of the state close at 8:00), but Montana's polls stay open until 10:00. So if these supers are really going to "remain uncommitted until the primaries end," don't they need to wait until "the moment the Montana polls close"?

Then there's the Harry Reid theory, which is that the remaining supers should stay mum "until the final votes have been counted." That would mean Wednesday morning at the earliest. But I think Obama has the right idea here. As I wrote last night, I think there's a danger of Hillary & co. talking themselves into continuing their campaign -- or at least taking the "middle option" of suspending-but-not-endorsing -- if the momentum of the moment doesn't very quickly usher them offstage tonight.

Dragging this thing out further is not a good strategy for anyone who wants the campaign to end this week (which is the same thing as saying "end before the convention," because IMHO, it either ends this week or it ends in August). Tonight is the best possible moment to declare a definitive winner and be done with it. If you give Hillary a chance to dither and delay, she'll dither and delay, and when the dust settles, she may well have fallen under the sway of her own (and Bill's) "keep fighting" rhetoric. Far better to rip the band-aid off quickly. Forget about "disrespecting" the Clintons; first of all, they deserve it, and second of all, the pain of that "insult" will fade. The pain of a three-month battle en route to Denver, won't. So, with all due respect to Harry Reid, he's wrong. Once Obama is assured of 2,018 delegates, there's no reason to delay, and doing so could prove grossly counterproductive. He should declare victory tonight, if he can. 

Luckily, it seems I'm preaching to the choir on this; Obama apparently agrees with me. Here's another take on his efforts to end it tonight:

With an expected late wave of support from congressional Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama appeared poised to secure enough delegates to earn his party's presidential nomination, perhaps even before the votes from the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana are counted Tuesday night. ...

A Democratic source said at least five to 10 House members would endorse Obama on Tuesday morning, at least 10 senators will endorse him by the end of the day and an additional 10 superdelegates will also endorse him during the day. That would assure enough delegates by the end of the day to clinch the nomination.

Keep in mind, if the networks are able to immediately "call" South Dakota and Montana (based on exit polls) when the polls close, that'll be 17 delegates right off the bat. Currently, by his own count, Obama is 39 delegates away from clinching an outright majority, so he'll be able to declare himself the presumptive nominee at 10:00 PM -- assuming early "calls" in South Dakota and Montana -- if he gets 22 superdelegate endorsements between now and then. (That's not including his first three supers today -- Clyburn, Lalonde and Chappelle-Nadal -- who are already included in the count.)

P.S. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza reports:

The three highest ranking Democrats in Montana plan to wade into the Democratic presidential race as soon as the state's primary is decided tonight, according to a source familiar with the decision.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer as well as Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester have agreed to all endorse the winner of Montana's primary -- almost certain to be Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- immediately upon the contest being called. The trio will be joined in the endorsement by state party chairman Dennis McDonald and vice chairman Margaret Campbell.

Politico's Ben Smith writes that the Montana 5 are "likely to be part of a substantial wave that comes to Obama when polls close."

P.P.S. Pablano projects that Obama will win by 18 points in Montana, but only by 5 points in South Dakota. If that's correct, Montana will probably be "called" right at 10:00, but there might not be a clear winner in South Dakota until late into the night, in which case Obama might want to pick up another couple of supers today (perhaps 24 or 25, instead of 22), so he can still declare victory at 10:00 or very shortly minutes thereafter. (He'll want to do so before 11:00, certainly, lest Tim Russert go to bed before Obama's victory speech!)

UPDATE: A potentially significant bulletin from the AP:

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

UPDATE 2: CNN clarifies:

Sen. Hillary Clinton's is "absolutely not" prepared to concede the race for the Democratic presidential nomination to Sen. Barack Obama, her campaign chairman said.

Terry McAuliffe rejected as "100 percent incorrect" an Associated Press report that Clinton is preparing to acknowledge that Obama has the delegates to win the nomination Tuesday night as the five-month Democratic primary process comes to a close.

Obama "doesn't have the numbers today, and until someone has the numbers the race goes on," McAuliffe told CNN.

But that's not much of a denial, or "rejection." He said "until someone has the numbers" -- which could well be tonight! His bluster notwithstanding, the clarification is totally consistent with the earlier report.   

The longest election

By Brendan Loy

The remarkable Democratic primary and caucus process of 2008 -- the "campaign that wouldn't end" -- finally ends today, whether Hillary Clinton likes it or not, with primaries in Montana and South Dakota. After tonight, there's nothing of any significance left on the calendar until the convention begins on August 25.

There's been a lot of talk about what a long, drawn-out campaign it has been. (Remember when it seemed exotic to look past February 5?) I have a unique perspective on that, as the Iowa caucuses occurred the day after Becky and I came home from the hospital with our firstborn child. So we barely remember what our lives were like before this election began.

For Loyette, the situation is even more extreme. This campaign has literally been going on for her entire life. :) She was three days old when the first votes were cast; now she's five months and three days. She's more than doubled her weight, gotten five or six inches taller, and has changed from a tiny, dazed and confused newborn into a vibrant, happy, bouncing baby girl with a distinct personality and an ever-increasing set of skills. And all the while, the Democrats have been fighting over who'll be their nominee. Remarkable.

Anyway... what are your predictions for today's election? And when will Hillary drop out? Tonight? Tomorrow? Thursday? August 28? January 21? ;)

P.S. Remember how Mitt Romney dropped out, and endorsed McCain, at a speech in front of CPAC? Well, is it possible Hillary will drop out, and endorse Obama, at the AIPAC convention tomorrow? She and Obama are both scheduled to speak there tomorrow morning.

Fight on for HRC?

By Brendan Loy

Are Hillary Clinton and her supporters talking themselves into continuing their fight all the way to the convention? Or is the tough talk just posturing?

As Hillary huddles tonight in Chappaqua with her inner circle, I fear there's a real risk of an echo-chamber effect taking hold, and the Hillaryland brigades convincing themselves of the logic of continuing the campaign even after Obama surpasses the magic delegate threshold. She's being deliberately vague about staying in the race "until there's a nominee" -- what exactly does that mean, especially given that delegates can change their minds, and that the "magic number" itself is still in doubt? -- but we'll find out soon enough. If Obama clinches a delegate majority and Clinton doesn't drop out, then we'll know. If that happens, there'll be no preventing a party-crippling floor fight. Once the train leaves the station, it won't be stopped. It's either this week or the last week of August, methinks.

The question is, does anyone in Clinton's inner circle truly understand the depth of the backlash that would occur if she were to attempt such a thing? Do they realize it would be career suicide? Do they understand that these next couple of days represent her last chance to exit the race with some semblance of dignity, such that she and Bill might someday have a chance of rebuilding their image in the party? Or are they so myopic at this point that they'll fall under the spell of their own talking points?

Even if Hillary & co. don't truly believe their own rhetoric, they'd better be careful: their words may become increasingly difficult to back away from. When you've got supporters chanting "Denver! Denver!" (not to mention "McCain! McCain!") and fundraisers saying "August, and no earlier," how do you bow out gracefully -- even if you want to -- without leaving those folks feeling betrayed? Particularly when you've been casting your argument in terms of "upholding bedrock principles" and saving the country from certain doom? If she doesn't at least begin the process of standing down and backing off tomorrow night, the sheer force of momentum produced by her "fighting" rhetoric may carry her all the way to Denver, whether she means it to or not.

P.S. On a somewhat related note, it's incredibly frustrating to keep reading bogus reports -- from legitimate journalists in mainstream newspapers! -- about how the Obama campaign may "reach deeply into its well-stocked coffers" in order to repay Clinton's campaign debt. There's only one small problem: it'd be illegal for Obama to do anything of the sort, as noted here:

Obama is not allowed to take millions of dollars from his own campaign and give them to Clinton's campaign. The most his campaign could legally give would be $2,000. Any deal to help Clinton with her debt would have to be in the form of Obama helping to raise additional money on Clinton's behalf.

This is a very basic piece of essential information, yet it keeps getting utterly ignored by "reporters" when they "report" on this issue. Such inexcusably sloppy reporting is journalistic malpractice, plain and simple.

Countdown to Obama's victory

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama needs 25 superdelegate endorsements today and tomorrow -- maybe a few less than that, depending on his Montana and South Dakota margins -- to clinch an outright delegate majority in time for his St. Paul victory speech tomorrow night.

Can he do it? As of this writing, he's gotten two today, so he needs 23 more. Check this link or Halperin for updates throughout the day, as I'm sure there will be more endorsements. Also keep in mind, it isn't the "net" that matters, but the absolute number for Obama.

One key question is when the "Pelosi club" superdelegates, who've said they'll endorse the pledged-delegate winner, will specifically announce for Obama, who has already secured the pledged-delegate majority.

As for those in the alternate Hillaryland reality who want to trump the pesky delegate count by relying on a fundamentally flawed, inherently illegitimate, hotly disputed, and at best extremely narrow "popular vote" victory, here's a handy popular vote scenario tester, where you answer various questions about how the vote should be counted, and the tally updates automatically. There are a grand total of 972 possible scenarios. :)

P.S. Baltimore Sun columnist Paul Rogat Loeb makes an excellent point about Hillary's phony "popular vote" claims:

Given the bitterness of so many Hillary Clinton supporters that the woman they thought would be America's first female president will not be, the more they hear the suggestion that Sen. Barack Obama's win is illegitimate, the more likely they are to bolt. If Senator Clinton's voters embrace the story that "a man took it away from a woman," denying her a victory she deserved, they're at risk of staying home come November, or holding back from the volunteering and get-out-the-vote efforts necessary for the Democrats to prevail.

That's why it's so unfortunate that Mrs. Clinton continues to claim that "we are winning the popular vote." Because that statement is a lie - and it undermines every word she has recently spoken about the need for the party to come together. ...

Every time Mrs. Clinton claims she has a popular majority, she's shattering whatever cease-fire exists and making it that much more likely that her supporters will stay home in November. If she really wants a united party, she needs to stop, and the superdelegates need to hold her accountable.

P.P.S. On a barely related note, Politico quotes a Clinton aide as stating, "It’s clear to us that Barack Obama has won the Drudge Primary, and it's one of the most important primaries in this process." Hmm, does that make Matt Drudge a super-duper delegate?

UPDATE: Obama is definitely hoping to clinch tomorrow:

Looking to bring finality to the Democratic presidential campaign, Barack Obama worked furiously Monday to win over enough superdelegates to clinch the nomination with the final primaries Tuesday.

Obama wants to formally kick off his general election campaign against Republican John McCain in a victory speech Tuesday night as the final primary campaign polls close in South Dakota and Montana.

"Senator Obama is trying to line up people that are going to come out for him tomorrow during the day so that he'll have enough that puts him over the top that he can declare victory tomorrow," said Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire, one of about 200 superdelegates under pressure to take a side in the contest.

For what it's worth, the polls close at 8:00 PM EDT in eastern South Dakota, 9:00 PM in western South Dakota, and 10:00 PM in Montana. Obama's rally in St. Paul is scheduled to begin at 9:00 PM EDT, but I assume he won't be speaking until sometime after 10:00. (Montana is expected to be a landslide, so it'll probably be possible to declare it for Obama -- and award him 9 delegates right off the bat -- immediately after the polls close. [UPDATE: Or maybe not?])

Oh, and about those superdelegates: 15 of them, all U.S. Senators, are meeting this afternoon to decide what to do. I imagine a mass Tuesday-morning endorsement by the remaining undeclared senators could go along way toward bringing a few more supers along and putting Obama over the top by 10:00 PM tomorrow.

Hillary's mixed signals

By Brendan Loy

What happens after Obama clinches the delegate majority this week? Well, on the one hand...

Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe tells my colleague Ken Vogel in San Juan that Hillary Clinton will “probably” continue a retail-level campaign operation after Tuesday’s primaries regardless of what happens in them.

Team Clinton also won’t necessarily consider the campaign over if rival Barack Obama soon reaches the 2,118-delegate threshold necessary to clinch the nomination. ...

[McAluiffe said,] “We’ll see. We’re going to get through Tuesday’s votes. We’re going to see where we are, and we’re going to look at all of our options. Every option is on the table.” ...

And he hinted that the campaign might be targeting some superdelegates committed to Obama. ... “Just remember: No superdelegate is bound until they vote at the convention.”

On the other hand...

Members of Hillary Clinton's advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.

The advance staffers -- most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana -- are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed -- at least -- some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate's events around the country.

With the future of her campaign in doubt, Clinton hasn't announced her plans for the final election night of the primary cycle or beyond, but the aides said she would stage her election night event in New York City.

Her home state sounds like a great place to make a concession speech, no? [UPDATE: According to Ben Smith, Hillary's election-night speech will be "at Baruch College in Manhattan. A Clinton source says it'll be 'valedictory' but she seems unlikely to actually drop out and endorse Obama tomorrow." Meanwhile, one of Hillary's top supporters, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, says she should concede after tomorrow's elections.]

Anyway, I don't think anyone knows what Hillary will do yet -- I doubt she herself has even finally decided -- but it's quite possible that McAuliffe's tough talk is largely posturing for negotiating position. Consider this report from over the weekend:

Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

Hmm... peace with honor in Vietnam Hillaryland? Well, hey, it could be a good test run for ending the war in Iraq. :) More after the jump.

The sun sets... on Hillary's campaign?

By Brendan Loy

Above, a pretty sunset in Knoxville. Meanwhile, in Puerto Rico, Hillary ended up winning by about 142,000. By my armchair calculations, Obama still leads by 35,000 in the count that includes the caucus states, Florida & Michigan, and counts Uncommitted for Obama.

UPDATE: My armchair calculations were a bit off; Real Clear Politics puts Obama's lead in that count at 44,605.

Basically, barring huge upsets in South Dakota and Montana (both in turnout and in result), Clinton will only be the "popular vote winner" in the counts that either: a) give her the benefit of a Soviet-style, 328,309 to zero "victory" in Michigan, and/or b) exclude and thus effectively disenfranchise the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, in direct contradiction of her recent statement that "I want to be sure that all 50 states are counted," not to mention her 2007 pledge to snub the Michigan and Florida primaries because of the "unique and special role" played by, among others, Iowa and Nevada, which she now excludes from her count.

Turnout low in Puerto Rico

By Brendan Loy

With 14% percent of the precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by 67% to 33% in Puerto Rico -- and, more importantly for Hillary's hopes of a "popular vote" win, by a raw vote margin of 22,253 votes to 10,924 votes. So far, then, the results corroborate anecdotal reports of surprisingly low turnout.

If we assume that 14% of the precincts means roughly 14% of the votes, and if we further assume that the margin will remain roughly constant across the remainder of the island, Hillary's current 11,329-vote edge translates into roughly an 80,000-vote victory, which is not nearly enough to earn her an arguably plausible "win" in the national popular vote count (barring major upsets in South Dakota and Montana).

Even if Hillary's margin ends up being 100,000 or 110,000, it won't be enough. Hillary needed her Puerto Rico margin to get well into the 100,000's to have any shot at winning the national "popular vote" without the benefit of a) a Saddam Hussein-style, 328,309 to zero "victory" in Michigan and/or b) the indefensible exclusion of four caucus states that held valid elections.

Bottom line: unless overall turnout and/or Hillary's support is much higher in the precincts that haven't reported yet, Hillary now has virtually no chance of earning a claim on the popular vote that isn't facially ridiculous, undemocratic and absurd.

UPDATE: With 56 percent of the precincts reporting, Hillary now has roughly a 70,000-vote lead, which extrapolates to approximately 125,000. Still not enough unless you only give Obama his "exit poll share" of the Uncommitted vote in Michigan, and maybe not even then, depending on what happens in South Dakota and Montana. Also, given that the DNC gave Obama more than his share of the Uncommitted vote, and given that Obama unquestionably would have gotten more votes in a "real" primary than Uncommitted got, I'd say a count that gives him only a 73% share of Uncommitted stretches the definition of "arguably plausible" somewhat. But that's the only arguably plausible count -- or perhaps arguably arguably plausible? -- that Hillary now has a shot at.

The new math

By Brendan Loy

After yesterday's Rules & Bylaws Committee decision, Obama has 2,052 delegates (including Edwards pledged dels who have declared for Obama), and the new "magic number" is 2,117. That puts him 65 away from clinching the nomination.

Assuming conservative projections of 22 pledged delegates in Puerto Rico today, and 8 each in South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, he needs 27 more delegates -- out of 218.5 undeclared superdelegates and Edwards pledgees.

The only question, really, is whether he'll get those 27 delegates by the time he takes to the stage in Minnesota Tuesday night, so he can declare victory then and there. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of supers declare for Obama within, say, an hour after the polls close in Montana and Souta Dakota.

One thing he won't necessary wait for, before declaring victory, is a Clinton concession. Reportedly, however, Clinton is coming to terms with the fact that she's going to lose, so a concession may actually happen.

Florida & Michigan update

By Brendan Loy

Politico's Ben Smith looks at where things stand after all sides -- the Clinton camp, the Obama camp, the Florida folks and the Michigan folks -- made their arguments to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Noonan defends McClellan (sort of)

By Brendan Loy

Peggy Noonan:

Leave [Scott McClellan] alone. He wrote a book. It is true or untrue, accurately reported or not. If not, this will no doubt be revealed. It is honestly meant and presented, or not. Look to the assertions, argue them, weigh and ponder. ...

The book can be seen as a grenade lobbed over the wall. Thus the explosive response. He is a traitor, turncoat, betrayer, sellout. If he'd had any guts he would have spoken up when he was in power. ... But those damning him today would have damned him even more if he'd resigned on principle three years ago. [The right]—and the administration—would have beaten him to a pulp, the former from rage, the latter as a lesson: This is what happens when you leave and talk. ...

When I finished the book I came out not admiring Mr. McClellan or liking him but, in terms of the larger arguments, believing him. One hopes more people who work or worked within the Bush White House will address the book's themes and interpretations. What he says may be inconvenient, and it may be painful, but that's not what matters. What matters is if it's true. Let the debate on the issues commence.

Uh-oh, now Obama's in trouble

By Brendan Loy

Ricky Martin endorses Hillary Clinton.

This weekend's schedule

By Brendan Loy

For anyone trying to figure out when exactly to tune in to Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer this weekend, here is the schedule:

Saturday: DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meets to rule on Florida & Michigan challenges. Oral arguments begin at 9:30 AM EST. After a lunch break, RBC members will "consider and debate the challenges" in the afternoon. As many as 368 delegates -- 313 pledged, 55 super -- are at stake. More on the numbers here.

Sunday: Puerto Rico votes. The polls are open from 7:00 AM to 2:00 PM EST. 55 pledged delegates are at stake. As for the "popular vote," depending on how you do the math, Hillary Clinton needs to win by more than 113,000, more than 177,000, or more than 268,000 votes to have a shot at staking any sort of arguably plausible claim on a popular-vote "victory." (Of course, the "popular vote" is inherently illegitimate, and moreover, counting every vote isn't such a good idea for Clinton anyway. But the question right now is whether she'll even have an argument, not whether it's a winning argument.)

My blogging on these events will probably be rather light, as my parents are in town this weekend.

McCain's Arab-American problem

By Brendan Loy

Will John McCain lose the presidency because of the Arab-American vote?

Arab-Americans are both very likely to vote -- their turnout is 20 percent higher than that of the general population -- and they are concentrated. Two-thirds of them live in just 10 states, including the swing states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. In Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, Arab-Americans have made up 2 percent of the electorate in recent elections. That sounds like a small proportion, but in a close race it can make a difference. In 2000, Bush won the Arab-American vote over Gore by 7.5 percentage points. ... [This year, however,] Zogby polling has found that a strong majority of Arab-Americans now favor Obama.

(Hat tip: Sullivan.)

Hillary schedules events thru next Friday

By Brendan Loy

There are some indications that Hillary Clinton is planning on sticking around past next Tuesday. Specifically, the reporters embedded with her campaign "received an email Thursday afternoon informing [them] they could sign up for travel through June 6 on the campaign website." (Hat tip: Halperin.)

Notwithstanding this, I predict she drops out on Thursday (the 5th). Obama will reach the "magic number" -- however it's defined -- either Tuesday night or Wednesday (with additional superdelegate endorsements), thus well and truly clinching the nomination. At that point, the pressure on Hillary to withdraw will become intense and almost universal among party leaders outside her circle of sycophants and rabid supporters.

If she presses on, using Michigan and Florida as her phony rationale for doing so -- and, yes, it's phony even if she genuinely believes it, having convinced herself of her righteousness -- it'll be career suicide (and quite possibly party suicide). Which doesn't mean she won't do it, but I'd bet against it. All things considered, I suspect this "schedule" is mostly for show.

Michigan makes its case

By Brendan Loy

Michigan Democrats' argument to the Rules & Bylaws Committee is surprisingly reasonable -- certainly moreso than the nonsense Hillary's people have been spouting. In particular, I hadn't previously heard the argument that the DNC "selectively enforce[d] its calendar rule," penalizing Michigan and Florida but not New Hampshire (even though all three violated the calendar), and that this selective enforcement is what forced Michigan's hand.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of that interpretation of events -- indeed, I suspect Michigan was just looking for an excuse to cut in line -- but on its face, it sounds reasonable, and actually does provide an arguably legitimate, rather than merely demogogic, case for lifting the delegate-stripping penalty.

However, I take issue with this statement, at least as it applies to the proposed solution of cutting Michigan's delegation in half:

To penalize Michigan ... would jeopardize our chances of carrying Michigan and winning the Presidency.  ... [W]e must insist on Michigan’s full delegation being seated at the Democratic National Convention with full voting rights.

The problem is this: the Republicans cut Michigan's delegation in half, too! In fact, the GOP halved the delegations of Michigan, Florida, South Carolina, Wyoming and New Hampshire, all because they violated the party's calendar.

It is difficult to see, therefore, how the Democrats would "jeopardize our chances of carrying Michigan" by adopting the exact same solution the Republicans chose -- unless the spin wins out over the facts. Unfortunately, if the RBC halves the delegations and the Clinton campaign and/or the Michigan & Florida folks choose to demagogue the issue, that's exactly what is likely to happen.

Why the polls don't matter

By Brendan Loy

Last week, Matthew Yglesias wrote:

It's really too bad that the folks behind Five Thirty Eight.com have gone and created such a compelling website based around state-by-state general election polling. It's all really well done and, as such, I can't really bring myself to look away. But this stuff is all really and truly meaningless.

He's right. It's May; the general election is in November. Making Electoral College projections based on current polls is a bit like projecting the BCS bowl matchups based on the AP poll in Week 2. It's candy for political junkies (hence my glee when these maps first started appearing), but it's not terribly informative, and it's certainly not anything to base important decisions on. Thus, it's rather silly for Clinton to be sending out pollsters' maps to the superdelegates, using them to argue that she's more electable than Obama.

Underlining this point today on his Politico blog, Ben Smith offers an Electoral College projection from May 28, 2004 -- four years ago yesterday -- that showed Kerry beating Bush, 327-211. See, that proves Kerry's electable!

An awful lot can, and will, change in the five-plus months between now and the election. Most people don't start seriously paying attention until after Labor Day, and the closest of the battleground states will be decided by swing voters who make up their minds in the final week of the campaign. You can learn a lot more from thinking about the likely dynamics of the race (e.g., young vs. old, change vs. experience, cash cow vs. cash-strapped, dovish vs. hawkish, liberal vs. conservative, and alas, black vs. white) than from looking at polls, whether national or state-by-state, at this early date.

UPDATE: Speaking of polls, this is interesting:

There are very few sure things in politics, but here's one: Barack Obama's going to dominate the black vote in November. John F. Kerry got 88 percent, and it's hard to see Obama getting less than 90 percent as the favorite son of a core Democratic constituency in a great Democratic year.

But many polls aren't currently showing this. Take the SurveyUSA poll of Michigan getting some attention today. The poll, which has McCain up 4 percentage points, has Obama winning among African-Americans 62 percent to 26 percent with the balance undecided ...
This seems just wildly unlikely as an outcome ...

Whatever the cause, it's something to watch for in general election polling, and a way in which Obama's support seems at times to be seriously understated.

Obama backtracks (?) on diplomacy

By Brendan Loy

Call it flip-flopping if you must, but I, for one, am glad to see Obama clarifying/revising his position on meeting with foreign leaders:

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, sought to emphasize, as he and his aides have done continually over the last few days, the difference between avoiding preconditions for talks with nations like Iran and Syria, and granting them automatic discussions at the presidential level.

While Mr. Obama has said he would depart from the Bush administration policy of refusing to meet with certain nations unless they meet preconditions, he has also said he would reserve the right to choose which leaders he would meet, should he choose to meet with them at all.

The issue presents one of Mr. Obama’s biggest political and policy tests yet as he appears headed toward a general-election contest against Senator John McCain of Arizona: How to continue to add nuance to a policy argument that he views as a winning one, without playing into a fierce round of accusations that he is either shifting positions or appeasing the enemy.

The "appeasement" charge is crap, as I've noted before. But, as I also said in that same post, "it's perfectly fair to debate whether Obama's stated willingness to meet with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions is a good idea. I'm not at all sure it is[.]" What I am sure of is that important foreign-policy decisions should be made based on contemporaneous good judgment, not slavish adherence to spur-of-the-moment campaign promises. Obama's apparent recognition of this fact is distinctly a good thing.

Alien fever grips Denver

By Brendan Loy

Not illegal aliens, mind you. Space aliens:

A video that purportedly shows a living, breathing space alien will be shown to the news media Friday in Denver.

But enough about Dennis Kucinich.

McClellan's book consumes the Beltway

By Brendan Loy

I never got around to posting yesterday about Scott McClellan's book. I'm sure you've heard all about it already, but here are some of the highlights:

President Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” and has engaged in “self-deception” to justify his political ends, Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, writes in a critical new memoir about his years in the West Wing.

In addition, Mr. McClellan writes, the decision to invade Iraq was a “serious strategic blunder,” and yet, in his view, it was not the biggest mistake the Bush White House made. That, he says, was “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”

Mr. McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” is the first negative account by a member of the tight circle of Texans around Mr. Bush. Mr. McClellan, 40, went to work for Mr. Bush when he was governor of Texas and was the White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006.

More:

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence. ...

The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected.

McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait.

Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial" ...

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.” ...

“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.” ...

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.” ...

Among other notable passages: ...

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

Needless to say, reaction to the book has been fast, furious, and predictably partisan. For instance, Nancy Pelosi "totally agrees" with McClellan's charges, and Robert Wexler, a top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wants McClellan to testify about his accusations. Karl Rove, on the other hand, says McClellan's book is "a little irresponsible" and that he "sounds like a left-wing blogger." Barack Obama says McClellan "confirmed what a lot of us have thought for some time." But the current White House press secretary, Dana Perino, accuses McClellan of distorting the truth to sell books and says, "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew." And Dan Bartlett, a former top Bush aide, is distinctly displeased:

Former White House counselor Dan Bartlett lashed out at Scott McClellan in a telephone interview Wednesday, saying the allegations that the media was soft on the White House are "total crap," adding that advisers of President Bush are "bewildered and puzzled" by the allegations in McClellan's new book.

"It's almost like we're witnessing an out-of-body experience," Bartlett said of McClellan. "We're hearing from a completely different person we didn't have any insight into."

Bartlett added that intimates of the President feel McClellan has violated his trust. "Part of the role of being a trusted adviser is to honor that trust," said Bartlett. "It's not your place now to go out" and criticize the President like this. ...

Bartlett said the bewilderment stems from "Scott's decision to publicly air these deep misgivings he's never shared privately or publicly" with fellow Bush insiders. "To do it now, through a book, is a mistake," he added.

Bartlett asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events, noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used "propaganda" to sell the war.

"I don't think he was in a position to know this," Bartlett said flatly. He said it's "troubling" that McClellan is now "gives credibility to every left-wing attack" on anecdotes that are "either thinly-sourced or not witnessed by him" in the White House.

Blogospheric reactions are split with similar predictability. Perhaps one of the more sage points comes from Ed Morrissey:

Expect all sides to redefine McClellan in order to either boost or reduce his credibility. To the Right, McClellan will have been the worst press secretary of modern times, and to the Left a man of extraordinary ability chased out of his job by Bush’s minions. The truth will be somewhere in the middle.

So... what do y'all think?

Of Tucker and toad venom

By Brendan Loy

Glenn Reynolds weighs in on an illegal, deadly aphrodisiac: "Others may see things differently, but to me there's a big gap between 'toad venom' and 'feeling sexy.'" As Glenn himself would say: Indeed.

This comes on the heels on Tucker Carlson's disturbing relevations about his sex life, vis a vis the veepstakes:

“The VP story is a little bit like sex,” observes Tucker Carlson, the writer and NBC political analyst who falls into the skeptic column. “When it’s happening, you’re totally focused on it, it’s all you want. Then, the second it’s over, you can barely remember why it seemed so important.”

“It happens, there are fireworks for 30 seconds, ‘[AP's Ron] Fournier’s got it — it’s JACK KEMP!’”

According to Wikipedia, Tucker is married with four children, so I'm guessing he doesn't really yell out "JACK KEMP!" in the heat of passion. But who knows. I suppose some women would find it sexier than toad venom, at least. Though, if there's a bow-tie involved as well, toad venom might be preferable.

Just in case there was any doubt...

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton just sent this e-mail out to supporters; boldface in original:

This Sunday, voters in Puerto Rico will go to the polls and make their voices heard -- the first time the island has played such a vital role in selecting our party's nominee. At this critical moment, I am depending on you to help me make sure they have a choice. We are depending on the voters of Puerto Rico in our fight to secure the nomination.

She goes on to say that "this race is up to the voters, and I'm going to keep fighting for every last vote," and that "over the next four days, we have the opportunity to make history in the Puerto Rico primary -- and win the national primary vote by redoubling our efforts."

That some very interesting language there: "national primary vote." Is she trying (again) to exclude all caucuses now, even the ones that report popular-vote tallies? I thought Hillary said we must have a nominee based on 50 states! Now she seems to be suggesting that she can claim victory based on the popular vote in 37 states, two territories and the District of Columbia. Hmm.

Needless to say, that's ridiculous, and nobody would take such a tally seriously. However, as I've pointed out before, Hillary does have a shot at an arguably plausible "victory" in the tally of all states and territories -- leaving aside that the "popular vote" is an inherently illegitimate metric -- but, in order to get it, she'd need a Puerto Rico margin of between 113,000 and 268,000 votes, depending on how you do the Michigan math. The best magic number for her to aim for is probably 177,000; that margin would give her a shot at catching Obama in the count that includes all the caucus states and Florida and Michigan, and gives Obama the "Uncommitted" vote in Michigan. (To win without Michigan, she'd need 268,000+.)

Of course, I realize that the notion of a popular-vote victory fundamentally premised on a Puerto Rico blowout is a contentious issue. But I'm not wading into the pros and cons right now -- been there, done that. I just wanted to point out, for whatever it's worth, that the Clinton campaign has now made it explicitly clear that they are "depending on" Puerto Rico.

Today's e-mail missive from the Obama campaign, by the way, states as follows:

Only three contests remain in the Democratic primary.

Voters head to the polls in Puerto Rico on Sunday, followed by South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday.

After more than four dozen contests, Barack has won the most votes, the most delegates, and more than half the states. But we still need 48 delegates to secure the nomination.

We're fighting in these critical states and making the preparations necessary to take on Senator McCain.

That language, "these critical states," is intriguing. Are they sloppily declaring Puerto Rico a "state," or are they implying that South Dakota and Montana and the only "critical" contests remaining? We report, you decide.

P.S. Hillary's memo to the superdelegates sheds some light on that "national primary vote" line:

[W]hen the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee – the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

So, "more delegates earned through primaries" = "more people have cast their votes for me." So she is advancing a metric that explicitly ignores the will of the voters in 13 states. Fantastic!

The problem with this approach goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, since Hillary Clinton appears committed to leaving no childish lie behind, no asinine argument unmade, no deceptive bit of rhetorical nonsense unstated in her endless assault upon reason, logic and truth. So, here goes:

It's one thing to claim that caucuses are undemocratic, unrepresentative, unfair, and generally, well, bad. That's a perfectly defensible position. However, it's the sort of argument that you make in the course of trying to reform the system, for example by convincing caucus states to switch over to primaries. Hillary did not do this -- indeed, she played lip service to the glory of the caucus process in Iowa specifically, in order to pander to those voters -- and now, instead, she wants to simply ignore the results from those states, because of their "undemocratic" process. Well, guess what? I know something that's more undemocratic than having a caucus: not having an election at all! Yet that's exactly what caucus states are reduced to -- electoral non-entities that effectively did not vote -- if you count only the states that held primaries.

That's without even getting into the fact that, coincidentally, pretty much all of the demographically Hillary-friendly states held primaries (and indeed, several of them got "bonus" delegates for voting late in the process), whereas a bunch of demographically Obama-friendly states held caucuses. So the "delegates earned through primaries" are hardly a fair or representative sample of the country. If all states had held primaries, Obama's pledged-delegate lead would be narrower (because his percentage margins in the caucus states would have been smaller), but he'd still be ahead, not behind as in Hillary's phony metric (because he still would have won those states). Moreover, Obama's popular-vote lead would be wider (because his raw vote margins in the caucus states would have been larger, since vastly more people would have voted). This is all hypothetical and speculative, of course, but it has a firmer basis in reality than Hillary's utter, shameless nonsense.

And then, of course, there are the contradictions inherent in Hillary's position. For example, Michigan's primary was also incredibly undemocratic, unrepresentative and unfair, since only one major candidate was on the ballot, and since most voters didn't bother to show up (or voted in the other party's primary) because they knew the primary didn't count. Yet Hillary wants to count that undemocratic primary -- in fact, she wants to give herself a Soviet-style 328,309 to zero victory in it -- while simultaneously excluding all the caucuses, which (unlike Michigan) fully complied with the rules, on the basis that they are undemocratic. Obviously, that makes no sense.

But then, we're well beyond the point where we should expect Hillary Clinton to make sense, or be internally consistent, or remotely rational, or morally defensible, in her pursuit of power. So I guess I'm just wasting my breath.

P.P.S. In case anyone's wondering, here is the full list of states whose voters are disenfranchised by Hillary's "delegates earned through primaries" metric for ascertaining the popular will: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii (gee, do you think Obama would have won by a huge popular-vote landslide in a primary there?), Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming. Needless to say, with the possible exception of Nevada, every single one of those is an Obama-friendly state, and if they'd held primaries, he almost certainly -- given the "demography is destiny" nature of this campaign -- would have won 'em all.

Any method of counting the votes (or the delegates) that excludes any of these states is inherently and facially illegitimate, and the fact that she would even attempt to make such an offensive argument is itself a independently sufficient reason to deny her the nomination.

Breaking news of the bloody obvious

By Brendan Loy

CNN Breaking News: "A judge has ruled that the Democratic National Committee has the right to determine whether to seat Florida delegates."

Um, yes.

Meanwhile, DNC lawyers say the Rules & Bylaws Committee cannot seat more than half of the delegates. I'm skeptical of this, and so is DemConWatch, which muses, "I haven't seen the analysis, but I thought the RBC was free to come up with any solution they wanted. And I'm curious - if the RBC comes up with a solution that the DNC lawyers don't like - what is the DNC going to do? Sue its own RBC committee?"

That said, the lawyers' memo may provide crucial political cover for the RBC members to reject Hillary's proposal (which they almost certainly want to reject anyway, for reasons I explained before). Thanks to the memo, instead of actively choosing to "disenfranchise" Florida and Michigan, they can simply say, "Sorry, but the lawyers told us we have to!"

McKinney clinches Green Party presidential nomination

By Brendan Loy

Remember Cynthia McKinney, the racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-mongering moron who was so radical and ridiculous that she managed to be voted out of her safe congressional seat in Georgia after she refused to take responsibility for physically assaulting a Capitol police officer, an incident that she blamed (as she does everything) on racism?

Well, she's going to be the Green Party nominee for President of the United States.

Cornell professor Peter Swartz, opposing McKinney's appointment to that university's faculty in 2003, famously wrote: "Ms. McKinney is a racist and anti-Semite of the first rank. If she were white and male, she would be David Duke." Well, hey, David Duke ran for president in 1988 (first as a Democrat, then as a Populist) and in 1992 (as a Republican). She's just following in her mentor's footsteps!

Obama: I see dead people

By Brendan Loy

Heh.

Could Obama-Nunn win Georgia?

By Brendan Loy

When I learned yesterday that Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia, had won the Libertarian nomination for president, I promptly called my parents and, getting their answering machine, left a message for my dad in which I wondered aloud whether there are any plausible Democratic vice-presidential options from the state of Georgia. The rationale behind my question was the notion, which I also mentioned here yesterday, that the Peach State could be unusually competitive thanks to the combination of: a) Barr's candidacy taking away Republican votes and b) record African-American turnout causing lots of Democratic votes. Thus, the thinking goes, a veep candidate from Georgia could conceivably put Obama over the top. And it's hard to imagine McCain winning the presidency without the 15 electoral votes from Georgia.

Well, the answer to my question is: yes, there is indeed a plausible Democratic vice-presidential option from Georgia. His name is Sam Nunn. Here's what Politico has to say about him:

[A]fter leaving politics in the 1990s, [Nunn] has...appeal as an independent-minded foreign policy/military elder statesman. ... [He] chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, served on the Intelligence Committee and authored bipartisan legislation creating programs against nuclear proliferation (with Republican Sen. Dick Lugar) and reorganizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff (with Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater). ... Nunn holds positions at various national security organizations and is a professor at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech.

Nunn has the advantage of helping the Democrats make a play for Georgia. Since Bill Clinton narrowly carried Georgia in 1992, the state has gone Republican, but by inconsistent margins. This election could be the perfect storm for Democrats to turn Georgia blue: Obama likely would inspire high turnout among African-Americans (who represent 30 percent of Georgia’s population); McCain might suffer low turnout among religious conservatives long skeptical of him; and the just-announced Libertarian candidacy of Bob Barr, a recent Republican member of Congress from northern Georgia, could siphon conservative votes from McCain. With this confluence of forces working for the Democrats, Nunn joining the ticket could take Obama over the top in the ninth-largest state.

Five Thirty-Eight gives Obama a 5% chance of winning Georgia, though that's based on old polls that don't factor Barr into the equation. Anyway, what would that percentage rise to if Nunn were on the ticket? 20%? 25%? Perhaps more to the point: is there any realistic chance of Obama-Nunn carrying Georgia in an election where Obama needs it (i.e., a non-landslide)?

Barr wins Libertarian nomination

By Brendan Loy

The Libertarian Party's national convention is in Denver this weekend, and today Bob Barr was nominated for president on the sixth ballot:

Rep. Bob Barr has won the Libertarian Party's nomination on the sixth ballot at the LP convention, with 324 votes to 276 for Mary Ruwart.

The ex-Republican from Georgia won the nomination after a tough battle that one of his supporters called a "dog fight." Ruwart, a longtime LP activist, was the favorite of the party's more radical or "purist" faction. ... Barr and Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root split the "pragmatic" vote in the early rounds of voting, but when Root was eliminated on the fifth ballot, he endorsed Barr and declared his [intention] to be the party's vice-presidential candidate, a nomination [that] will be decided in a separate vote later today. ...

Barr's assistant, Jennifer Chambrin, was skipping along the sidewalk of 16th Street outside the Sheraton: "We won! We won! We won!" Inside the convention hall, she hugged Barr publicist Audrey Mullen, who then said, "Oh my God, we've got so much work to do now."

More here and here. (Hat tip: InstaPundit, who says, "I predict he'll outperform Michael Badnarik.")

P.S. There were several write-in votes for Ron Paul on the first ballot. Meanwhile, Mike Gravel made it to the fourth ballot, but was eliminated at that point with just 76 out of 629 votes, thus vindicating Sean's argument that "we're not a repository for crazy people, we're a political party with a specific political platform!"

P.P.S. On the other hand... in that same comment, Sean -- the Irish Trojan Blog's resident Libertarian -- described Mary Ruwart as "that idiot woman who wants to decriminalize kiddie porn." He's right. Specifically, Ruwart has been quoted as saying, "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess." And yet Ruwart received 46 percent of the vote on the final ballot. Hmm. A repository for crazy people? Maybe!

But hey, she's not the nominee; Barr is. And that raises some questions:

1) Does he make Georgia a swing state? I don't know how popular Barr is in his home state, but if he's well-known and well-liked there, is it conceivable that he could draw enough votes from McCain to make the race between Obama and McCain competitive in the Peach State, given the unprecedented African-American turnout that Obama will presumably inspire? (Georgia is 29 percent black.)

2) Does he raise Obama's "ceiling"? A recent Politico article pointed out that "Obama has long been thought by analysts to have a higher electoral vote ceiling as well as a lower floor than Hillary Clinton. " The article's focus was on that "lower floor," but I wonder if Barr could help rehabilitate his "higher ceiling." The logic underlying the notion of that "higher ceiling" is that Obama can compete in solid red states in the West, and maybe the South. That concept has largely faded from the public and media consciousness as the bruising campaign against Hillary Clinton has robbed Obama of the "post-partisan" sheen he had after Iowa. But it seems to me that Barr's opposition to the war, defense of civil liberties, and hard-line stances on immigration and government spending could hurt McCain most severely in precisely those western and southern red states. Might it open the door just wide enough for a resurgent Obama to pull some upsets?

3) Does he increase the likelihood of a clear-cut popular/electoral vote inversion? This is something I first mentioned last month, and I'm hearing more and more talk about it: the possibility of Obama winning a clear victory in the popular vote but losing the electoral vote by a clear, undisputed margin, creating the first "pure" inversion since 1888. The main reason this could happen is because Obama will likely narrow the gap in those same southern and western states that we were just talking about, but won't win them, and meanwhile he could suffer narrow defeats in a bunch of Rust Belt swing states. Well, for the same reasons stated above, Barr's candidacy makes it more likely Obama will narrow the gap in the South and West, while doing little to help Obama in the Rust Belt. So I think the answer to this question is clearly yes: Barr makes the popular/electoral inversion more likely.

4) Will Lou Dobbs pay attention to him? Of course, before Barr can have any appreciable impact on the race -- whether it involves throwing whole states to Obama (scenarios #1 and #2) or just narrowing the gap in solid red states and thus affecting only the popular vote tally (scenario #3) -- he needs to have some sort of media footprint, so that people are aware that he's running. That's where the right-wing and/or anti-illegal-immigration TV and radio talking heads come in. Will Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, etc., give his campaign any serious attention, particularly because of his stance on immigration? This is a crucial question, methinks. McCain is certainly vulnerable to an attack from his right on that issue. Is Barr the man to do it? We shall see.

P.P.P.S. But cf., "nobody likes Bob Barr."

Refuse to lose

By Brendan Loy

The Jed Report makes an entertaining analogy.

Meanwhile, Hillary herself pens an op-ed explaining her RFK remarks, and outlining her case for why she's still in the race. It's basically a repetition of the same bogus arguments that she's been using all along (popular vote, swing states, etc.), plus a newly explicit playing of the gender card ("as the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race") and a veritably Nixonian line about how "my parents did not raise me to be a quitter." Notably, the op-ed barely mentions Michigan and Florida, and doesn't specifically use them as an independent rationale for continuing her campaign. Is she backing away from the precipice?

In any event, I think it's telling that she feels the need to defend herself in this fashion. It's never a good sign, methinks, when you're reduced to penning newspaper columns explaining why you haven't dropped out of the race yet. It's even worse when you're saying things like: "I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination - but this race remains extraordinarily close." Yeah, it's close, but so is a basketball game where one team is up by 4 and has the ball with 1.2 seconds left. It's close, but it's over. And it sounds like Hillary might be starting to realize that.

Hillary's gaffe

By Brendan Loy

I'm sure you've all heard about the Clinton/Obama/RFK kerfuffle by now, but I figured I should weigh in on it, at least briefly. Y'all know I am the furthest thing from a Hillary fan, but I think it's pretty obvious that she wasn't intending in any way to suggest that she's staying in the race just in case Obama gets assassinated. Her words were, needless to say, incredibly poorly chosen, and her "apology" only made things worse -- but nevertheless, this is, at its core, a phony controversy.

Seat Florida & Michigan?

By Brendan Loy

Daily Kos diarist PocketNines does the delegate math in excruciating detail and concludes that Obama should agree to seat Michigan and Florida in full, because, in the words of the Jed Report's "Cliff Notes version":

Obama is still a lock to win the nomination even if Michigan and Florida are seated in full, and by giving Clinton everything she wants, her rationale for taking the campaign to the convention disappears.

That makes a lot of political sense, but as I said before, the fly in this ointment is that, even if the Obama campaign agrees to seat Michigan and Florida in full -- thus putting Hillaryland and Barackworld in complete agreement -- I still don't see how the Democratic Party can afford to go along.

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in the Rules & Bylaws Committee members' ability to look beyond the current controversy and see the bigger picture. But the long-term reality is that, if they cave on Florida and Michigan, they will have completely ceded their power over the primary and caucus process. Seating Florida and Michigan would be abject surrender to state-by-state chaos.

The battle of the Senators Joe

By Brendan Loy

Joe Biden responds to Joe Lieberman.

A preview of a vice presidential debate, perhaps??

Is the unity ticket dead?

By Brendan Loy

If true, this is incredibly good news:

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

That's from Al Giordano. I'm guessing he has some decent sources. I sure hope they're right. As I've said before, the "unity ticket" is a terrible, terrible idea. I'd rather Obama picked this guy.

Hillary's gambit

By Brendan Loy

Jonathan Chait on Hillary's newly escalated Florida-and-Michigan rhetoric:

This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It's obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don't want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton's character. I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton's gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she's consciously lying, it's a shockingly cynical move. I don't think she's lying. I think she's so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It's not just that she's convinced herself it's okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

Indeed.

With regard to why her "attempt to steal the nomination" is "obviously not going to work," it isn't just because the supers "don't want to commit suicide"; it's also because the math just isn't there for Hillary. Even if Florida and Michigan are seated according to her best-case scenario, Obama only needs 19 percent of the undeclared supers to secure the nomination. Given that many of those supers are already in the tank for one candidate or the other -- i.e., they're not undecided, just undeclared -- it's inconceivable that Obama won't get at least 19% of them. So he's got the nomination wrapped up, no matter what happens with Florida and Michigan.

What, then, is Hillary playing at? I have a theory. She appears to be racheting up her rhetoric to the point where, if the Rules & Bylaws Committee does anything other than seat the Florida and Michigan delegations with full voting rights and in complete accordance with the rogue primary results, she can declare that decision an anti-democratic outrage that must be remedied, irrespective of its significance to the nomination battle, and thus use it as an excuse to keep fighting all the way to the convention, even after Obama secures the nomination by any and all mathematical standards (whether the magic number is 2,025, 2,210, or something in between). In this scenario, Hillary would most likely "suspend" her campaign, but refrain from endorsing Obama or "releasing" her delegates, and then lie in wait for the next three months, hoping some political calamity befalls him in the mean time, at which point she can sweep in like a "white knight" and take the nomination away from him.

So, you might ask, why doesn't Obama just surrender on Florida & Michigan -- since he's going to have a majority either way -- in order to deny Hillary that phony rationale for continuing her campaign? The answer is that, even if he does surrender, the Rules & Bylaws Committee won't. As I mentioned yesterday, more than just the current nomination fight is at stake here. The party's very credibility, its ability to meaningfully enforce its calendar and its rules, is on trial. Again: "the Democrats cannot simply seat Michigan and Florida, with full voting rights, in exact accordance with the results of the states' primaries, in direct contradiction of the previously imposed sanctions. If the party does this, it would completely undermine, forevermore, its ability to control the primary & caucus calendar in any way. Such an action would be abject surrender to chaos. The 2012 New Hampshire primary would be sometime in fall of 2009. They can't do it. They won't."

Hillary knows this. But instead of laying the groundwork for a reasonable compromise, she's dropping the rhetorical equivalent of nuclear bombs in the party's path, insinuating that no middle ground is possible because anything less than a complete recognition of the rogue primaries would be an affront to democracy on par with the 2000 election, the denial of women's suffrage, segregation, slavery, etc. (!!)  These are the words of a person who doesn't want a problem to be solved.

This is her path forward, people: to keep her campaign going all the way to Denver, ostensibly not because she wants the nomination, but because she wants to make sure that Michigan's and Florida's "voices are heard." It's an incredibly cynical, dishonest, destructive tactic. It will deny Democrats the ability to unify behind their nominee all summer long. It will perpetuate, particularly among low-information voters who aren't familiar with the math, the notion that Obama is trying to win the nomination illegitimately. It will degrade people's faith in the electoral process for no good reason. It will create a (false) image of the Democratic Party leadership as disenfranchisers and vote-stealers. But it's her best shot at constructing a rationale for staying in the race -- so that she can take advantage of any "July surprise" that might befall Obama -- once he has the nomination mathematically secured beyond all doubt, which will happen shortly after June 3. And since Hillary cares only about herself, it seems reasonable to presume that this is precisely what she'll do.

P.S. A Huffington Post article suggests it's quite possible Hillary will lose at the Rules and Bylaws Committee by a vote of 15-13. Hmm. You don't suppose, do you, that she might compare such an outcome to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore, and use the closeness of the vote as an excuse to soldier on to the Credentials Committee, with rhetoric along the lines of "2.3 million voices were silenced by the votes of two unelected party officials"? Nah, she can't be that shameless... [/sarcasm]

A brief history lesson for Hillary

By Brendan Loy

Not that she cares about history, or rules, or fairness, or consistency, or democracy, or anything else other than her own power.

Ugh, ugh, ugh

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton, speaking today in Florida:

Here in Florida, more than 1.7 million people cast their vote, the highest primary turnout in the history of Florida. And nearly 600,000 voters in Michigan did the same. And not a day goes by that I don’t meet someone who grabs my hand or holds up a sign, no matter where I am, in Kentucky or anywhere else, and says, “Please, make my vote count.”

Hey, guess what, Hillary? In Iowa, 236,000 people cast their votes. In Nevada, 117,559. In Maine, 44,670. In Washington, 200,000 or so. And yet your tally doesn't count any of their votes, even though it's perfectly possible to estimate the tallies, and even though those states' caucuses (unlike the Florida and Michigan primaries) were indisputably legitimate. I bet those people want their votes to count, too!

I receive dozens and dozens of letters and emails and phone calls, every couple of hours it seems like, all making the same urgent request: please count my vote. We used to be worried about voter apathy, didn’t we? We worried why Americans didn’t participate. Now, people are worried that their participation won’t matter.

You know what I'm worried about? I'm worried about you destroying your own party, undermining your opponent's legitimacy, and needlessly shaking voters' faith in democracy, all because you are shamelessly demagoguing this issue for your blatant own personal gain -- and ridiculously cloaking your self-serving arguments in idealistic terms, acting like some sort of G*d-damned martyr -- when, in reality, you and your campaign agreed to the rules that you now demand be disregarded, and didn't start objecting to them until it was too late!

I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes. They should count them exactly as they were cast. Democracy demands no less.

Ah yes, democracy! Count every vote! But wait, does "democracy demand" that you be granted a 328,309 to zero victory in Michigan, in direct contradiction of the clearly expressed will of that state's voters, who granted you only a 55% "victory" even though you were the only major candidate on the ballot? Does "democracy demand" that you be declared the "winner" because you won an uncontested election that sounds more like something out of Soviet Russia or Saddam Hussein's Iraq than the United States of America? What the hell does pretending that nobody in Michigan supports Barack Obama have to do with "democracy"?

I am here today because I believe that the decision our party faces is not just about the fate of these votes and the outcome of these primaries. It is about whether we will uphold our most fundamental values as Democrats and Americans. It is about whether we will move forward, united, to win this state and take back the White House this November.

"It is about whether I will get what I am owed: the presidency. It is about whether my ambitions can be stopped by such mere technicalities as 'rules.' It is about whether I can construct a ridiculous, indefensible metric whereby I can fool you dumb plebes into thinking I won. Wait, did I say all that out loud?"

I would go on, but it's just too depressing. I can't even bring myself to read the rest of her ridiculous speech. I really think she is seriously one of the most disgustingly shameless people on the planet.

P.S. I'm pretty sure this speech constitutes Hillary setting off a nuclear bomb in Obama's, and the Democratic Party's, path. She is now explicitly and full-throatedly questioning Obama's legitimacy as the nominee (invoking the specter of the 2000 election, and the civil rights movement, in the process!) unless the party agrees to her demands. Demands which are -- objectively -- absolutely beyond the pale. The Democrats cannot simply seat Michigan and Florida, with full voting rights, in exact accordance with the results of the states' primaries, in direct contradiction of the previously imposed sanctions. If the party does this, it would completely undermine, forevermore, its ability to control the primary & caucus calendar in any way. Such an action would be abject surrender to chaos. The 2012 New Hampshire primary would be sometime in fall of 2009. They can't do it. They won't. And yet Hillary is quite clearly saying that, if they don't, they are subverting democracy, and Obama is an illegitimate nominee.

Superdelegates, this is the moment to end it. Every undeclared superdelegate who cares about the future of the Democratic Party should come out for Obama, now. Hillary cannot be allowed to drag this out any further. It's gone on far too long already, but this is the last straw. May 31 must be made irrelevant to the outcome of the race. As must Hillary Clinton.

End it.

P.P.S. Andrew Sullivan:

How do you respond to a sociopath like this? She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.

I think she has now made it very important that Obama not ask her to be the veep. The way she is losing is so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Yes.

P.P.P.S. I managed to skim the rest of the speech, and I just wanted to call attention to this line:

Senator Obama and I are running to be president of all Americans and all 50 states. And I want to be sure that all 50 states are counted and your delegates are seated at our convention.

That "all 50 states are counted" ... except for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington!

There are truly no words adequate to condemn the utter vileness of Hillary Clinton.

Popular vote update

By Brendan Loy

I begin with the caveat that the popular vote is an illegitimate metric for determining the "winner" of the primary and caucus process, and that pledged delegates are in fact the proper measure of such. (Note that "such" refers to "the 'winner' of the primary and caucus process," not "the winner of the nomination.")

I also note that Obama has already secured the pledged-delegate "win," with or without Florida and Michigan -- if we give Obama the Edwards delegates who have personally declared for him, and if we give him all (or nearly all) of Michigan's "Uncommitted" delegates, both of which are accurate counting methods if we're trying to project what's actually going to happen at the convention in August.

Nevertheless, with all that said, here's an update on the "popular vote" math:

That's the ticket!

By Brendan Loy

At last, the perfect running mate for Obama:

Heh. (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

Would you loan money to Hillary Clinton?

By Brendan Loy

I sure wouldn't. She's spending herself into massive amounts of debt -- $31 million as of April 30, presumably even more by now -- all in the pursuit of an utterly lost cause. What's the point, Hillary?

Of course, $11 million of that debt is money she owes herself, and another $5 million is money she owes Mark Penn. Some of the rest is owed to other high-dollar consultants. I'm not exactly weeping for those folks. They knew what they were getting into.

But some of this debt is owed to miscellaneous small-time vendors in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states she's campaigned in. How can she justify that? She's throwing money down the toilet in pursuit of a nomination she can't win, accruing more and more debt along the way, while a bunch of people who've helped her -- caterers, cleaners, landlords, event planners -- are paying the price, in the form of unpaid bills. She claims to be a "fighter" for the little people, and yet the little people are among those who she's stiffing. Are these folks ever going to get their money back? If they don't, Hillary Clinton will have some serious explaining to do.

P.S. Slate offers a useful primer on the topic, under the headline, "Can a Campaign Go Bankrupt?" (Short answer: yes.)

Meanwhile, about the possibility of Obama helping Hillary retire her debts: I was going to say that it would be an outrage for Obama to use the hard-earned, small-dollar donations of his individual contributors to pay off the debts of a rival campaign that was financially mismanaged to the point of near-criminal incompetence -- and that didn't know when to quit. However, according to Josh Marshall, that's not even a legal possibility, and all the MSM talk about it is legally ignorant babbling.

"Obama is not allowed to take millions of dollars from his own campaign and give them to Clinton's campaign," Marshall writes. "The most his campaign could legally give would be $2,000. Any deal to help Clinton with her debt would have to be in the form of Obama helping to raise additional money on Clinton's behalf." More here.

Obama's sorta kinda victory speech

By Brendan Loy

Here is Obama's speech in Iowa last night:

Mark Halperin calls it "one of the best-written (and delivered) speeches of the campaign." I guess there's something in the water in Iowa: the guy always gives a great speech there. :)

Oregon/Kentucky/Idol open thread

By Brendan Loy

The polls close at 6:00 PM EST in most of Kentucky, 7:00 PM in western counties. Oregon is mail-in only; last ballots are due at 11:00 PM. Oh, and the American Idol finale is from 8:00 to 9:00.

Barack Obama's big Iowa rally is at 8:30 PM, which creates an odd dilemma for him: how is he going to declare that he's won a majority of pledged delegates before the polls have even closed in Oregon? Admittedly, it's a foregone conclusion that he will secure the majority tonight -- with or without Florida and Michigan -- and indeed, he will probably secure the non-Florida/Michigan pledged-del majority based on Kentucky alone. But isn't it a bit unseemly to either: a) declare quasi-victory based on a 20-point loss; or b) declare quasi-victory based on presumed results from a state whose polls aren't even closed yet? And yet if he waits until 1:00 AM or whenever, everyone will already be asleep.

Of course, as a commenter on Pablano's site points out, maybe it doesn't matter, since everyone will be watching Idol anyway. (I don't even know who the finalists are. Okay, check that, I just looked it up: the finalists are David Archuleta and David Cook. But I honestly haven't been paying any attention. And I'm apparently not alone.)

Anyway, leave your predictions, comments, observations, etc. (about any of the three contests) here. I'm not sure how much live-blogging I'll be doing. The last several nights, after putting Loyette to bed, Becky and I have been (finally) watching the first season of Lost on DVD -- I know, we're so hip and with it! Viva 2004! -- and I have a feeling she won't want to watch Wolf when she could be watching Jack.

Oh, and no Lost spoilers, please. And by "spoilers," I mean "anything that has happened in the last four years." Thanks. :)

Memo to the media

By Brendan Loy

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I couldn't let this one go. I've just sent out this letter to various members of the MSM, hoping to get somebody to pay attention to what Hillary is doing.

Dear members of the press,

Today's New York Times highlights Hillary Clinton's claim of a lead in the "popular vote."  The article discusses the controversy surrounding Florida and Michigan, but it barely mentions the two most intellectually dishonest aspects of Senator Clinton's tally:

* Her count totally and deliberately excludes the states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, even though it is perfectly possible to include reasonable estimates of those states' popular-vote totals.  Senator Clinton has chosen to ignore these states, and yet she has the audacity to claim that she is the one who wants to count every vote, in all 50 states.  That claim is flatly untrue. Hers is not a 50-state count, but a 46-state count.  In direct contradiction to her rhetoric -- "we cannot claim that we have a nominee based on 48 states," she said yesterday -- Senator Clinton is ignoring four whole states that held indisputably valid elections, simply because their inclusion would give Senator Obama a combined 110,000-vote boost and thus eliminate Senator Clinton's 26,000-vote "lead."

* Her count not only includes the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan, it makes no allowance for the fact that Senator Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.  Instead of counting Michigan as a 328,309 to 238,168 victory for Senator Clinton -- her margin over "Uncommitted" -- she is awarding herself a 328,309 to zero victory.  This margin is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's electoral "victories," and it obviously bears no relation whatsoever to the actual expressed will of the people of Michigan.  Yet her national "lead" is completely dependent on this absurd perversion of the popular will.  If "Uncommitted" is counted for Obama in Michigan, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington are included in the tally, Senator Obama leads the national tally by more than 319,000 votes.

Through both of these indefensible vote-counting choices, Senator Clinton demonstrates that she is not interested in counting every vote, but only those votes which benefit her argument.

The Obama campaign is not aggressively countering these lies, presumably because it does not want to legitimize any aspect of Senator Clinton's "popular vote" argument.  However, the press has a duty to report the truth, and even granting Senator Clinton all reasonable benefit of the doubt, her fraudulent tally bears no relation whatsoever to "truth."  To claim that Senator Clinton has "received the most votes" is not merely a controversial statement, it is an outright lie, and the press must report it as such.  To do otherwise is to actively participate in the disenfranchisement of all voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and all non-Clinton-supporters in Michigan.

I am an independent blogger, unaffiliated with any campaign and personally undecided between Senators Obama and McCain.  However, I am exasperated by Senator Clinton's use of a facially fraudulent vote tally, and by the press's willingness to play along with her risible spin.  In particular, the exclusion of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington gets barely a mention in the mainstream media, when in fact this is the most obviously indefensible aspect of Senator Clinton's vote-counting tactics.  How can she claim to "count every vote," and lambaste Senator Obama for declaring victory "based on 48 states," when she herself is only counting, at most, 46 states?!  This lie must be countered by the truth!

I have written letters to all of Senator Clinton's superdelegate endorsers in the four uncounted caucus states, urging them to insist that she stop ignoring their states' voters.  As my letter notes, it is particularly ironic that Senator Clinton is refusing to count Iowa and Nevada, given that she signed a pledge to respect those states' early caucuses by refraining from any campaign activity in the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries.  "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign manager said at the time. Yet she is now arguing that Iowa and Nevada should not count, while Michigan and Florida should. This is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to a degree that beggars belief.

If Senator Clinton wants to argue that Florida should count, and that Michigan should count with the "Uncommitted" votes going to Senator Obama, those are reasonable arguments, and can be fairly considered.  But the inclusion of her Saddam Hussein-style, unanimous "victory" in Michigan, and the exclusion of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, completely undermines the intellectual underpinnings of her argument, and it is your duty as members of the press to point this out.

I urge all members of the media to provide honest, objective, and thorough analysis of this issue, rather than granting the Clinton camp's unrebutted spin a veneer of legitimacy that it plainly does not deserve.

Sincerely,

Brendan Loy
"Irish Trojan in Tennessee"
http://blog.brendanloy.com/

A letter to Hillary's superdelegates

By Brendan Loy

As promised last week, I'm sending letters to Hillary Clinton's endorsers in Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington, urging them to insist that their candidate stop effectively disenfranchising their states' voters by making a "popular vote" argument that depends on pretending Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington never voted.

After the jump, I've copy & pasted one of the letters -- to DNC member, state senator, and congressional candidate Dina Titus of Nevada.

P.S. Also after the jump, a list of the people I've contacted, along with the e-mail address or URL I've used to contact them. If you have better contact info for any of these folks, or if you know of other Clinton endorsers in IA, NV, ME or WA that I should send my letter to, please let me know!

Electoral College geek alert!

By Brendan Loy

The increasingly indispensible blog FiveThirtyEight looks at the 269-269 scenarios, and what would be the likely result in such an event. (Bottom line: Obama probably becomes president.)

Clinton and Obama, together in Florida?

By Brendan Loy

Huh? Mark Halperin says, "Obama and Clinton to share Florida stage on Wednesday." Does he mean they'll literally be on the same stage, or just that they'll both be in the Sunshine State? If it's the former, that sounds very significant!

UPDATE: Halperin clarifies: "Obama and Clinton both plan to campaign in Florida on Wednesday." Oh. Nevermind.

P.S. Speaking of people whom Obama might like to "share [a] Florida stage" with... has anyone seen Al Gore? Just asking!

P.P.S. Heh:

But they got Connecticut wrong! It should be black... as should Maryland and Delaware. (Actually, if you look closely, it appears that Delaware has just been left off completely. Joe Biden's gonna be pissed!) Meanwhile, Nevada should be white, unless we're going on delegates rather than votes (in which case Texas should be black).

In any event, as Ben Smith notes, "it's a reminder that race and politics are complicated subjects when North Dakota is 'black.'" Heh. Indeed.

Obamamania in Oregon

By Brendan Loy

The media obsession with Obama's huge rallies may have peaked in January and February, but the man still knows how to draw a crowd: 75,000 in Portland!

That's almost as many people as the total number who voted for him in West Virginia.

UPDATE: This was in fact a record Obama crowd.

McCain on SNL

By Brendan Loy

Heh.

A floor fight over the veep spot?

By Brendan Loy

Bob Beckel argues that, if Hillary Clinton really wants to be Obama's running mate, she can force her way onto the ticket in a convention roll-call vote -- or get herself picked in advance by threatening to force a roll-call vote. We're talking about a roll-call vote for the vice-presidential nominee, mind you; yes, the delegates pick the veep, too. And Hillary will have almost half of the delegates in her corner anyway, and Beckel thinks she'd be able to bring along enough of Obama's superdelegates (many of whom have residual loyalty to the Clintons) to secure the #2 spot. I doubt it will shake out this way, but it's an interesting possibility.

Clinching

By Brendan Loy

If you include Michigan's "Uncommitted" delegates in Obama's column, as well as the Edwards delegates who have announced their intention to switch to Obama in the wake of Johnny Boy's endorsement, it now appears that Obama will clinch the pledged delegate majority -- including Michigan and Florida -- on Tuesday. So, that's one rhetorical weapon removed from Hillary's arsenal, in terms of rebutting his anticipated argument that, after Tuesday's results come in, he will have effectively "won" the primaries and caucuses and now it's up to the superdelegates whether to validate or overturn that result.

Diplomacy is not appeasement

By Brendan Loy

Since I keep referencing it, but I haven't actually stated my position on it, I figured I should probably weigh in on yesterday's controversial statement by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Now, let me begin by pointing out that I myself have made the "appeasement" argument before. Specifically, in response to posters that were plastered around USC's campus in the immediate wake of 9/11 by anti-war activists (against the Afghanistan war, mind you), which stated "WAR IS ALSO TERRORISM," I made some rebuttal signs that stated, "APPEASEMENT IS ALSO SURRENDER." When I chose those words, I was responding to the then-common far-left credo that our reaction to 9/11 should involve withdrawing from the Middle East, closing our bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc. -- in other words, making specific, substantive concessions to Al Qaeda's demands.

Similarly, in 2005, I wrote on the blog that we should not withdraw from Iraq simply because the terrorists want us to:

The Islamist radicals don’t just want us out of their backyards — they want to take over ours. Just like we were foolish to ignore Hitler’s long-term goals for “Greater Germany” and pretend that he would be satisfied with a few incremental concessions here and there, we are foolish to ignore the Islamists’ long-term goal of a worldwide Islamic state.

Withdrawing from Iraq for fear of further attacks would not stop them — it would not even slow them down. On the contrary, it would encourage them, because it would show them that they can convince us to change our policies by terrorizing us. It would give them reason to hope that, with a few more attacks and a few more surrenders, maybe they really will be able to see the Islamic flag flying over the whole world. We must not feed that fantasy.

That’s not to say the Iraq war is necessarily justified — that’s a separate debate, but the debate must be conducted on our terms, not theirs. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terrorists’ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing. Appeasement is not the answer.

Again, in raising the specter of "appeasement" and World War II, I was addressing a specific substantive concession that I believed we should not make, at least not for the reason stated. Now, you can argue the merits of my point, but it is at least within the realm of rationality to claim that such an action would indeed be "appeasement."

President Bush's comment, by contrast, is not within the realm of rationality. He is claiming that the mere act of sitting down and negotiating with an enemy is tantamount to "appeasement." That is absolutely absurd. Bush needs to look up a dictionary definition of the damn word he's talking about. American Heritage defines "appeasement" as "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." Concessions. Not negotiations. In no version of reality is the mere act of negotiating "appeasement."

Now, it's perfectly fair to debate whether Obama's stated willingness to meet with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions is a good idea. I'm not at all sure it is, and my uncertainty on that point is one reason (among many) that I'm undecided between Obama and McCain. The mere act of engaging in negotiations does have certain potential negative consequences, particularly when you're the world's unipolar power -- it tends to bestow a certain veneer of legitimacy to the other side, it can be a propaganda coup, etc. These factors need to be considered, and weighed against the potential positive consequences. That is an important debate to have.

But regardless of where you come down in that debate, calling the simple act of negotiating "appeasement" is clearly incorrect. It's not "appeasement" unless you concede something. Period.

If you want to argue that merely negotiating with one's enemies is itself inherently a "concession," then what do you make of the many times throughout our history that U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have met with our enemies, sometimes with great success? Remember "only Nixon can go to China"? How about Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev, which helped end the Cold War? (Hat tip: David K.) Were those revered Republican presidents "appeasing" China and Russia, merely by meeting with them? Or does the substance of the negotiations determine whether they engaged in "appeasement"?

The answer is head-smackingly obvious, to the point that anyone who responds incorrectly is either an idiot or a liar. It is substantive concessions that matter. Thus, for instance, it is fair to argue -- not necessarily correct, but plausibly arguable -- that President Clinton "appeased" North Korea by essentially paying them off to halt (or pretend to halt) their nuclear ambitions. It is not, however, fair to argue that a President Obama would inherently be "appeasing" them merely by re-opening direct talks. You can't make any kind of judgment on the issue of "appeasement" without getting into the substance of the potential talks.

The last time I checked, neither Barack Obama nor any other major Democratic figure is promising any specific substantive concessions to Iran, nor to any other "terrorists [or] radicals." Bush himself actually acknowledged this point, unintentionally no doubt, when he mockingly described the Dems' position as a belief that "some ingenious argument will persuade [the terrorists and radicals] they have been wrong all along." If that were really the Dems' goal, as Bush asserts, then it would be foolish and naive, but it would not be "appeasement." Even if we credit Bush's own straw-man version of the Democrats' position, he's still wrong. Trying to convince someone they're wrong is not the same thing as "appeasing" them!

Of course, in reality, the goals of diplomacy are varied and complex, and again, we can and should debate what those goals should be, whether direct negotiation is worth the costs, etc. But dismissing the whole project as, by its very nature, "appeasement," is simply a lie.

Nor is this just some minor semantic debate. The word "appeasement" has a very specific and loaded historical meaning in geopolitical discourse, as Bush knows perfectly well. He made this explicit with his reference to Hitler, but he didn't need to. Everybody knows, when you're talking about "appeasement," that you're referring to Neville Chamberlain and his decision to give Hitler the Sudetenland, in hopes of achieving "peace in our time." That foolish action was, of course, a textbook case of "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." That was appeasement.

But the mere fact that Chamberlain talked to Hitler wasn't "appeasement"! What made it "appeasement" is what he did at those talks: he made a concession that he shouldn't have made. Bush has offered no evidence, nor even an argument, that the Democrats would follow the same course as Chamberlain in that regard. He therefore has no business invoking Chamberlain and Hitler to make his point.

What's really sad about this whole kerfuffle is that, as I said, there is actually a very serious and important issue that underlies all this bulls**t and malarkey. But now that's all become obscured by Bush's despicable rhetoric and the Democrats' justifiably angry rebuttals. Basically, what's now happening to our political discourse on the important issue of how we should approach diplomacy with our enemies is precisely what happens on the Internet whenever somebody breaks Godwin's Law and inappropriately invokes Hitler. Our president yesterday became a glorified message-board troll.

One other point: I don't personally get too riled up about the whole "politics stops at the water's edge" thing. I'm not saying it isn't a good principle, necessarily, but it's just not something that personally makes my blood boil. However, it is something that Republicans and conservatives tend to get very worked up over. God forbid a liberal public figure should ever say anything critical of our foreign policy overseas! Any time they do so, even arguably, the right wing predictably erupts in a paroxysm of rage. For heaven's sake, Natalie Manies of the Dixie Chicks was pilloried for the fact that she dared speak ill of President Bush in England, and she's a freakin' singer. And I know there are examples of even more righteous outrage when it's an actual Democratic politician who does this, though I can't remember details off hand. The point is, this is very much a sore spot on the Right.

So, against that backdrop, it is totally hypocritical for anyone who has ever invoked the "politics stops at the water's edge" principle to in any way condone Bush's remarks yesterday. He went before the legislature of a foreign nation and, acting in his capacity as head of state, made a clearly political argument designed to attack the other party and its presumptive nominee. (And don't even start with the "he wasn't referring to Obama" nonsense, or the "Obama doth protest too much" absurdity. Just don't. That's beyond Hillaryesque in its disregard for the truth. Of course he was talking about Obama, you nitwits. And acknowledging that obvious fact in no way acknowledges the truth of the criticism. Go back to third grade art class and rejoin the discussion when you have something meaningful to contribute.) As such, he has specifically validated the practice of taking our internal political debates overseas, in the most ostentatious way imaginable. If you're okay with that, fine. But don't you dare ever criticize any Democrat or liberal ever again for doing the same thing in reverse.

A superdelegate map, and Michigan math

By Brendan Loy

The indispensable DemConWatch has a cool map of where each candidate is getting superdelegate support from. With a few notable exceptions, it's fairly similar to the primary map.

Meanwhile, The Jed Report argues that Edwards's endorsement of Obama "shatters Clinton's Michigan and Florida dreams," because "now that Edwards has endorsed Obama, there's really no fair argument to deny Obama" the 55 "Uncommitted" delegates from Michigan. Jed then does the math, and concludes that, even if Michigan and Florida are seated with full voting rights (but with Obama getting all 55 Uncommitteds), Obama only needs 22% of the remaining undeclared supers to clinch the nomination (this is using the Clintons' preferred "magic number" of 2,210).

An orgy of post-partisanship?

By Brendan Loy

McCain-Lieberman vs. Obama-Snowe?

Talk about "historic": we'd have candidates competing to be first black, first female, first Jewish, and oldest first-term president or vice-president, with the winning ticket guaranteed to be the first "bipartisan" administration since Adams-Jefferson.

(Lieberman, I should note in passing, is increasingly pissing me off lately. I don't have any problem with him supporting McCain -- I myself, as I keep saying, am thoroughly undecided between Obama and McCain at this point, and I don't think Lieberman owes some mythical duty of "loyalty" to support the Democratic nominee -- nor do I mind him drawing honest, substantive contrasts between McCain and Obama, even if he does so vigorously. But some of these deceptive partisan smears are beneath him... or I thought they were. Unlike Joe Klein, I'm not prepared at this point to say that I was wrong in 2006. But I'm disappointed in ol' Joementum. I'll probably have more to say about that at some point fairly soon.)

Another possibility: what if McCain picks Lieberman and Obama picks Gore, leading to a Gore vs. Lieberman grudge match for the veep spot? They'd be running against each other, eight years after they ran with each other! LOL! Can you imagine the vice-presidential debate? 

Okay, so it won't happen, for like a million reasons, but it's still something for political junkies to salivate over. :)

Here's something that might happen, though: you know how Obama unveiled the Edwards endorsement -- in Michigan -- on the day after his big loss in West Virginia? Well, Obama will be in Tampa next Wednesday, the day after his big loss in Kentucky (and his big win in Oregon, after which he will sorta-kinda-not-really declare victory). Can you think of anyone who Obama might try to convince to join him there -- in Florida, of all places -- for another big splashy post-election endorsement? Just saying!

The Ragin' Cajun in Knoxville

By Brendan Loy

As I mentioned previously, Becky and I went to the Knox County Democrats' Truman Day Dinner last night at the Knoxville Convention Center, where we were treated to a keynote address by none other than than the Ragin' Cajun himself, James Carville, described in the event's program as "the most famous political consultant in America" (something I think Karl Rove might take issue with).

Carville was as advertised: bombastic, outrageous, and hilarious. He was also, despite his well-known LSU fandom, dressed in a Tennessee football jersey throughout his remarks:

It was a Peyton Manning jersey, presented to him by the Knox County Democratic Party chairman, and he wore it proudly because, as Carville pointed out, Manning was born and raised in Louisiana. "He was our gift to your state," the native Louisianan said. "Don't expect any more."

A press release in advance of Carville's speech said he "will be giving his analysis of the primary campaign of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama," but in fact, he mostly steered clear of that topic, except to mock the hand-wringers who believe the battle is killing the party. "Don't worry," he said. "We'll be united." He added, "I'd much rather be in the party that's got two good candidates than in the party with one bad one."

The Republicans, Carville said, are the ones who are imploding (a theme echoed today by Peggy Noonan, who I'm guessing doesn't agree with Carville all that often). He then summoned his political strategy expertise and offered some free advice to the Republicans: "PANIC!!!"

But his most memorable jabs were reserved for a former Republican candidate for president, Tennessee's own Fred Thompson. Carville quipped that Thompson was "the only presidential candidate in history to test positive for ambien." (The audience roared.) Carville also said, to uproarious laughter, that Thompson is a big supporter of President Bush's education policy: "He wanted to make sure no child was left behind, so he married her." Heh.

I think my favorite line, though, was his reference to the topic that made this blog famous. Carville mentioned that he'll be giving the commencement address at Tulane this weekend. "I left Louisiana in 1986, and it took me 22 years to get back," he said. "That means I'm getting to Louisiana faster than FEMA got there."

You can read local news coverage of Carville's visit from the Knoxville News-Sentinel and Volunteer TV, and a bloggy interview at KnoxViews. Also, via Knoxville Talks, here is the local NBC affiliate's interview with Carville before the dinner:

As always with these sorts of events, you have to sit through all kinds of warm-up acts before the main event, and those included speeches by U.S. Senate candidates Bob Tuke and Mike Padgett, both of whom are vying to take on Lamar Alexander in November. (The primary is August 7; there are six Democrats on the ballot, but Tuke and Padgett are considered the front-runners.)

Both men spoke a little too long, I'd say, mostly repeating similar talking points: the Republicans are to blame for everything that's wrong with the country, Lamar Alexander has been in Washington for too long and is out of touch with ordinary Tennesseans, etc. Becky thought Tuke was the better speaker by far; personally, I thought Padgett was just about as good, but suffered from the fact that he spoke second, and by that point the audience was getting bored, having already heard all the good anti-GOP lines, and was ready for Carville to speak. Even so, it's odd that Tuke seemed to connect better with the audience, given that he's from Nashville whereas Padgett is a local boy.

Regardless, in all likelihood, Tuke and Padgett are fighting for the right to be a sacrificial lamb in November. According to a Rasmussen poll last month, Alexander leads 59% to 30% over Tuke and 58% to 31% over Padgett. But don't tell that to anyone at last night's event. It was basically a big pep rally for the Democratic Party, and although one speaker acknowledged that it can be "tough to be a Democrat in East Tennessee," folks at this shindig were incredibly upbeat about their chances in November. Of course, political self-delusion is a well-practiced art (just ask Carville's favored presidential candidate!), but I can see why there'd be some optimism: between the general national mood (Tuesday's special election in Mississippi was mentioned numerous times) and the recent scandals in the Republican-dominated Knox County government, it seems like, if there's ever a year when Democrats have a chance in East Tennessee, this would be the year.

Gay marriage legalized in California

By Brendan Loy

The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's gay marriage ban...

...and it's not even the top story on Drudge. (Nor is Mark Halperin paying enough attention to realize that Florida, not California, is the "Sunshine State," last time I checked.) I'm not sure if this reflects a decrease in the level of national polarization caused by this issue, or if everybody is just too wrapped up in talking about President Bush's "bulls**t...malarkey" at the Knesset to pay attention.

But anyway: there it is. Gay marriage, legalized in California, by order of the court. Andrew Sullivan has more, of course, as does Boi From Troy.

Here's the opinion (PDF), which I haven't read, and probably won't for the moment. (After work, I'm going to see James Carville tonight.)

This being California, there will undoubtedly be a state constitutional amendment initiative to overturn the ruling -- but, on that front, Sullivan notes:

One key fact: the ruling takes effect in 30 days - which means thousands of couples will be able to marry long before any initiative attempts to reverse it. So the initiative question becomes: do you want to divorce thousands of already-married couples? Or do you want to keep things as they now are? That's a big advantage for the pro-equality forces.

Indeed.

UPDATE: More from Sullivan -- including a point that seems to contradict the above-quoted passage, though I may be misunderstanding him -- in a post titled "Judicial 'Activism'?":

As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?

One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people ... for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.

Speaking of the Governator, he has reiterated that he respects the Court's ruling and opposes its reversal.

Obama-Clinton: "terminal insanity"

By Brendan Loy

Dick Morris disses the "dream" ticket:

It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it's a hell of an idea!

Heh. Indeed.

Read the whole thing. (And read my previous anti-dream-ticket posts here and here.)

Relatedly, from Politico:

Greg Sargent spends some time making the very good point that Obama doesn't do notably worse against McCain with working-class white people in much polling than Hillary does -- a lesson in the danger of reading primary results into the general election.

Don't confuse us with facts!

Hillary to IA, NV, WA, ME: Drop dead

By Brendan Loy

My earlier question about whether Hillary Clinton would proclaim her fraudulent popular vote "lead" today -- a "lead" which, for the first time, unequivocally depends upon completely ignoring the will of the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine -- is, alas, answered in the affirmative:

Clinton's high command is hosting a conference call right now. Terry McAullife, the chairman of the campaign, has a new talking point. It's "Hillary Clinton has now moved ahead in the popular vote." (He requires Florida and Michigan to make this claim)

Yes, he does -- but Florida and Michigan aren't the half of it, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

Including the vote tallies from two meaningless beauty-contest primaries that didn't count -- including a Saddam Hussein-style 328,309 to zero "victory" in a state where Obama wasn't on the ballot -- is bad enough. But largely escaping the media's notice, still, is Hillary's reliance on the disenfranchisement of four whole states that held indisputably valid, binding contests!!

I know I'm a broken record on this point, but I find it absolutely infuriating, and it seems like nobody is paying attention.

It bears repeating that two of the excluded states, Iowa and Nevada, were included among the four "early states" that Clinton herself pledged to honor -- by not campaigning in Florida and Michigan!! I quote from the September 2, 2007 New York Times article about hat pledge:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

"Unique and special," indeed! Their votes are uniquely irrelevant, according to Hillary's current argument for being awarded the nomination!

People, this math isn't just fuzzy, it's is completely indefensible, and it's an absolute joke that nobody is calling her on it. Everyone talks about Florida and Michigan, but nobody talks about Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Yet their exclusion from the popular-vote tally isn't even arguably plausible, and it goes completely against everything Clinton is pretending to stand for in the Michigan and Florida debate. "Count every vote!" Honor the "will of the people!" Unless those people happen to live in Iowa, Nevada, Washington or Maine!

Enough! This is ridiculous. I'll be writing letters to some Clinton superdelegates from those states. I'll post 'em when I'm done.

Big CA gay marriage ruling tomorrow

By Brendan Loy

The California gay marriage decision will be released tomorrow at 1:00 PM EST.

Needless to say, if the California Supreme Court were to legalize gay marriage (or otherwise reach a decision that sets up an immediate statewide political battle over the issue, as envisioned in the final paragraph here), it would throw the national political scene for a massive loop. It'll be very interesting to see what happens.

 Andrew Sullivan has more.

Hillary romps, everybody yawns

By Brendan Loy

So... is it still over? Survey says... yes.

Still, Hillary won West Virginia by 41% -- about what I expected -- but, thanks to high turnout, she got an unexpectedly large raw popular vote margin: 147,410 votes, according to the current count. This increases her chances of ultimately winning an arguably plausible "popular vote" count, as it's about 40,000 more than my estimate gave her from the Mountaineer State. If she can similarly beat my estimate in Kentucky, she'll net an extra 68,000 votes or so there.

That said, her overall hopes remain slim, as they depend on surprise results in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana, and a huge victory (and turnout) in unpredictable Puerto Rico -- where, incidentally, Michelle Obama is going. And of course, the whole notion of using the "popular vote" to determine the nominee is illegitimate, and there's no way the superdelegates are going to give her the nomination over the clear pledged-delegate winner on the basis of such fuzzy math. But we're talking about the margins of plausibility here. "So you're saying there's a chance."

Anyway, Hillary already "leads" the fraudulent "count" that includes Florida and Michigan, but excludes all Obama supporters in Michigan, and excludes entirely the states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. She's ahead by 29,471 votes in that "tally." That is, of course, not an "arguably plausible" count, as I've explained before. And it's the only count she currently leads. If you add in the estimated IA/NV/ME/WA totals, she trails by 80,751. (If you use Washington's beauty-contest primary instead of its binding caucus, she trails by 30,751.) And of course, if you give Obama the "Uncommitted" votes from Michigan, rather than giving Hillary credit for a Saddam Hussein-style 328,309 to zero "victory" in Michigan, he's way ahead. He's even further ahead if you only count the contests that, y'know, actually counted (i.e., not Florida and Michigan). But let's not get crazy, and start enforcing "rules" and whatnot. ;)

It'll be interesting to see if Hillary proclaims her popular vote "lead" today. If she does, I may write letters to her prominent superdelegate endorsers in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, arguing that they should insist on her not disenfranchising the voters of their states.

P.S. Speaking of superdelegates, the immediate result of Clinton's big win in West Virginia is... two more superdelegate endorsements for Obama. Heh.

P.P.S. TNR's Josh Patashnik makes an interesting point:

In retrospect, Barack Obama may be lucky he didn't win Indiana last week. Why? Suppose he had--there would have been immense pressure on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race, which she might have done. Given that around seven percent of West Virginia Democratic primary voters pulled the lever for John Edwards, who dropped out of the race more than three months ago, there's a pretty decent chance Obama would have lost West Virginia, or at the very least would have come up short of 50 percent. And as bad as tonight's results look for him (even though it's yet one more instance of the essentially unchanging demography-is-destiny story in the Democratic race), surely it would have been far worse to lose to Hillary if she had already conceded the race. As it stands now, he'll be able to take his licks in West Virginia and Kentucky without being totally humiliated, then make a victory declaration of sorts after a win in Oregon. That's about as reasonable an outcome as he could have hoped for, given that the quirks of the primary calendar put two of his worst states in the union at this juncture in the race. (Random question: Oregon uses mail-in ballots, so there are no exit polls. Will the networks be able to project him the winner early enough in the night for him to make a speech at a reasonable hour?)

If, in fact, it was the antics of Rush Limbaugh that put Hillary over the top in Indiana, it may well be that El Rushbo was the only thing standing between Obama and a deeply embarrassing loss to a non-candidate. The joys of unintended consequences.

Heh.

West Virginia open thread

By Brendan Loy

CNN's Gloria Borger says exit polls show half of West Virginia voters believe "Obama shares Reverend Wright's values." LOL. Well, at least they're well-informed! [/sarcasm]

Also, Obama is getting 28% of the white vote, according to Bill Schneider. So... uh... I guess maybe he might crack 30% overall?

Then there's this.

Anyway, I just turned off the TV, but if anyone else is still watching and wants to comment on the results, fire away.

UPDATE: With 47 percent of the precincts reporting, it's Clinton 65%, Obama 28%, Edwards 7%.

Meanwhile, in the much more exciting MS-1 congressional special election, it's Childers (D) 51%, Davis (R) 49% with 80 percent of the precincts in. This is a district that Bush won by 25% in 2004, and would be an absolutely huge victory for the Democrats, portending doom in November for the Republicans.

UPDATE 2: According to Daily Kos, the AP has called the race for the Democrat, Childers. Amazing. Cue GOP panic!

West Virginia predictions?

By Brendan Loy

Tonight, we learn the answer to the question I posed last week: Will it still be "over" after West Virginia?

The polls close at 7:30 PM, and, for the first time since February, I expect Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer will be able to immediately "call" the race, based on exit polls alone. (They even waited a half-hour or so before calling Mississippi.) So it'll be a suspense-free night, with only the margin in doubt. That'll give the "best political team on television" (and the various other networks' political pundit squads) several hours to pontificate about "what it all means": Obama can't win the white working class, Clinton can't catch up in the delegate count, maybe they'll have a "dream ticket," blah blah freakin' blah.

I expect I'll turn off the TV around 7:35 PM.

Anyway... what will Hillary's margin be? The average of the four last polls on RCP is 61-24, but that leaves 15% unaccounted for -- and although John Edwards is prominently on the ballot (see at left), I don't think he'll be getting quite that much support. Al Giordano predicts 69% to 31%, and 20-8 in delegates. Poblano says 67.4% to 28.6% (with 4% for Edwards), and 19-9 in delegates, with the potential for a 20-8 or 21-7 delegate split, depending on the 1st and 3rd districts. I'll be pessimistic, and say 70-25-5, and 21-7. What are your predictions?

Oh, and Pablano predicts a 105,000-vote gain for Hillary in the "popular vote," which is roughly the same as the 107,105-vote estimate I used in this post, and which would put her within a few thousand votes of Obama in the facially ridiculous "don't count Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington, but count Florida and Michigan, but don't count Uncommitted for Obama" cumulative tally. (She currently trails that transparently fraudulent "count" by 113,498 votes.)

Meanwhile, Marc Ambinder says the "most important election taking place today is not in West Virginia. It's in Mississippi, for the first congressional district, a seat held since the Republican revolution of 1994 by Republican Roger Wicker. Wicker's retiring, and there's a good possibility that Democrat Travis Childers will win today's run-off election." He adds:

A Dem pick-up here will be a portent of doom for Republicans in the fall. George W. Bush won this district by 25 points (66,000 votes) in 2004. Because Davis and Childers tangled via advertisements over whether Childers had been endorsed by Obama amid Rev. Wright's revenge tour, the press will be tempted to spin a Childers victory as a sign that Obama is not a drag on the ticket. Local factors and the national environment are going to be dispositive here, not Barack Obama. So don't believe the hype.

You can read more about the MS-1 race -- and the GOP "panic" it's causing -- in this RCP article.

Declaring victory, acknowledging defeat

By Brendan Loy

For reasons I've stated previously, I'm glad to hear this from Team Obama: "We’re definitely not going to declare victory [on May 20] ... We think it’s an important moment in the campaign ... [but] obviously we have to get to 2025."

Meanwhile, James Carville -- whom Becky and I will be seeing in person Thursday night, at the Knox County Truman Day Dinner (I got tickets through someone at work) -- says Obama will probably win:

Carville told about 500 people at Furman University that U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton should fight until the last dog dies.

“I still hear some dogs barking,” said Carville, the flamboyant Louisianan known as the left’s ragin’ Cajun. “I’m for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee.

“As soon as I determine when that is, I’ll send him a check.”

The New York Times Caucus Blog declares Carville "our fat lady" -- i.e., the official arbiter of when the race ends -- and says, "we’ll be keeping an eye on those Federal Election Commission filings to let you know when the general election has officially begun." Heh.

The GOP's Nader?

By Brendan Loy

If Bob Barr wins the Libertarian nomination, will he "draw non-trivial numbers away from McCain," particularly in the small-l libertarian West? Hmm. (What if he were to pick Ron Paul as his running mate? Just asking!)

In other news, I discovered this blog today: Things Younger Than John McCain. Heh.

On a more serious note, George F. Will has some questions for McCain.

Joe Donnelly endorses Obama

By Brendan Loy

South Bend's congressman, Notre Dame Law School alum Joe Donnelly, is the latest superdelegate to endorse Obama.

I'm not sure how the 2nd District as a whole voted, but Donnelly's home county, St. Joseph, favored Obama 53% to 47% last Tuesday.

Also, Clinton has lost a pledged delegate to Obama, according to the Washington Post. "I cannot in good conscience go to the convention and not support Barack," said Jack B. Johnson, who was selected to fill one of Clinton's elected delegate slots "in consultation with the Clinton campaign by the Maryland Democratic State Central Committee." (Oops.) "She ran a great campaign, but she fell short of the line," Johnson says of Clinton. I wonder if the Obama campaign will include this "switch" in their count, in light of the previous fury over Clinton's threats to try and "flip" pledged delegates? (More here, and here.)

Oh, and in other news, there's a primary today. Shh, don't tell anyone. ;)

UPDATE: And now Ray Nagin endorses Obama. Ugh.

A thought on West Virginia

By Brendan Loy

There have been a lot of articles published in recent days with man-on-the-street quotes from West Virginia along the lines of, "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist."

Now, I'm not denying that this sort of sentiment is a problem for Obama, nor am I necessarily denying that it's a particularly severe problem in West Virginia. But can we please take this reporting with a little grain of salt, at least? I'm not sure whether these sorts of quotes tell us all that much about the electoral dynamic in West Virginia, as opposed to the psyche of the reporters writing the stories.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if you're a reporter, and you conduct enough man-on-the-street interviews, you can find some idiot to say "Obama's a Muslim" -- or even "Obama's a n***er" -- anywhere. You can find racists and xenophobes and conspiratorial crazies in California, New York, Texas, Illinois; you can find 'em all over the damn country.

Can you find them more easily in West Virginia? Perhaps. But you're also much more likely to publish their quotes in a story about West Virginia, because it fits the storyline perfectly. Indeed, such a quote is precisely what these reporters are looking for when they start conducting the interviews in West Virginia. Whereas in California or New York, they'd probably ignore the random racist quote, in West Virginia they go out, they turn on the yokel-detecting radar, they hold up a microphone to the redneckiest-lookin' redneck they can find, and -- voila! -- journalistic magic happens.

Again: I'm not denying the real, genuine significance of racism as a factor in Obama's problems, nor am I suggesting that Appalachia is devoid of racists. But please, let's not jump to the conclusion that, when Hillary wins tomorrow's primary by a margin of 70% to 30%, it means that 70 percent of West Virginia Democrats are racists, just because we read a handful of cherrypicked quotes that seem to validate that preconceived notion.

Hillary Clinton's supporters prefer her to Obama for a whole bunch of reasons, some of them cultural, some of them political, some of them overtly racial, some of them subconsciously racial, and some of them falling into various other categories. While I disagree with their choice (and I strongly disagree with Hillary's conscious or reckless exploitation of the prejudices that do exist), it's an insult to those voters to paint them all with a broad brush and assume the only reason they've voting for Hillary is because they hate black people, or people with the middle name "Hussein," or whatever.

It's possible to condemn prejudice without engaging in it, and that's what's called for here. Some people in West Virginia (and elsewhere) are voting on the basis of racism, and that sucks. Most others aren't, and we shouldn't assume that they are. And that's all I have to say about that.

UPDATE: Poblano writes:

I do want to write a little bit more about the notion that West Virginians are racist. ... [T]he short version is: yes, there are racist voters in West Virginia, but there are racist voters in every state. The primary determinant of the extent to which racism tends to be more manifest is education levels, and so the effects may be more noticeable in West Virgnia, a state with poor academic achievement. But there is no reason to believe that West Virgnians are particularly racist, relative to their education levels.

That seems right to me.

Wrong track

By Brendan Loy

The notion that eighty-two percent of Americans think the nation is on the "wrong track" is, to me, pretty stunning. Not to say I disagree. I just find the near-unanimity amazing.

If McCain is somehow elected (I almost wrote "re-elected" -- haha, there's a Freudian slip the Democrats would love) in this sort of environment, it'll be nothing short of a miracle. Of course, it would be his second political miracle of this election cycle...

Mr. Nuance

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama's stated position on Israel is, I think, impressively, refreshingly nuanced, and entirely unobjectionable. Which doesn't mean there won't be objections from those who regard "nuance" as a dirty word, of course. But I'm pretty hawkish about Israel (and terrorism generally), and yet I honestly can't find anything wrong with what he's saying (at least what I've read of it).

Honest, non-demogogic conservatives/hawks/Likudniks: show me where I'm wrong. Like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

Hillary's conservative populism

By Brendan Loy

Jonathan Chait:

The dying days of the Hillary Clinton campaign have brought the breathtaking spectacle of a candidate lashing out at every element of public life that has nourished her career. The über-wonk has disparaged economists and expertise. The staunch ally of black America has attacked her opponent for lacking support of "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." People who thought they knew Hillary Clinton have gazed in astonishment: What has she become? The answer is, a conservative populist.

Conservative populism and liberal populism are entirely different things. Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people's interest. Conservative populism, by contrast, dismisses any inference that the rich and the non-rich might have opposing interests as "class warfare." Conservative populism prefers to divide society along social lines, with the elites being intellectuals and other snobs who fancy themselves better than average Americans.

Consider this analysis recently offered by Bill Clinton in Clarksburg, West Virginia: "The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules." This is precisely the dynamic that allows multimillionaires like George W. Bush and Bill O'Reilly to present themselves as being on the side of the little guy. A more classic expression of conservative populism cannot be found.

Historically, the conservative populist's social divide ran along racial and ethnic lines. In recent years, overt racism has all but disappeared from mainstream political life, and even racial hot button appeals like the 1988 Willie Horton ad have grown rare. What remains is a residue of nostalgia about small towns--whose residents are said to have stronger values and work harder than other Americans, and who also happen to be overwhelmingly white. In 2004, after John Kerry declared that some entertainers supporting him represented "the heart and soul of America," George W. Bush embarked upon a national tour of small- and mid-sized cities, where he would say, "I believe the heart and soul of America is found in places like Duluth, Minnesota," or other such places.

Likewise, Bill Clinton recently declared, "The people in small towns in rural America, who do the work for America, and represent the backbone and the values of this country, they are the people that are carrying her through in this nomination." The corollary--that strong values and hard work is in shorter supply among ethnically heterogeneous urban residents--is left unstated. Hillary Clinton's statement about "hard-working Americans, white Americans" simply made explicit a theme that conservative populists usually keep implicit.

Read the whole thing.

More on the (bad) dream ticket

By Brendan Loy

TNR's David Bell lists ten reasons the "unity ticket" is a bad idea. He's right.

Hillary's great Appalachian hope

By Brendan Loy

Jay Cost says Hillary still has a chance. Why? West Virginia and Kentucky, of course. "I think it is too hasty to declare her finished just days before two of her three best states."

In support of this notion, he posts the latest version of Sean Oxendine's Appalachia map (original here):

The blue counties are Clinton's, the green are Obama's. As you can probably guess, the darker the color, the larger the margin. South Carolina isn't included because it was still a three-way race then. The black line represents the boundary of Appalachia, according to -- um -- the Census Bureau, or somebody. I forget.

Anyway... I think Cost is right. And while he couches his analysis in terms of uncertainties and unknowns, I don't think there's any doubt that Hillary will win huge, huge victories in WV and KY. The only question is the turnout. Will it be high enough to give her the "popular vote" margins she needs? (This is what Bill Clinton was talking about, of course.) And then, if she does get the numbers, will anyone buy her illegitimate line of argument? Will it at least sow enough doubt and uncertainty to buy her time until May 31 (Michigan and Florida) and June 1 (Puerto Rico)? On Wednesday, I asked the question; today, I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the answer is yes.

I have a growing sense that, if there was going to be a moment before June 3 for the party to truly and fully coalesce around Obama, this week was it, and it hasn't happened. Oh, they've half-coalesced, they've whispered their allegiances, and there have been superendorsements. But there's been no mass superdelegate movement, no intervention by party graybeards, no coordinated push to get Hillary out of the race -- nothing like that. In fact, there's been a coordinated decision by the Obama campaign to not push Hillary out, probably for fear of triggering further divisions within the party (and perhaps a wave of mutnemom). I'm not saying this was a bad decision, or that a more muscular approach wouldn't have backfired. I'm just saying that, if the get-Hillary-out moment was going to happen this month, I think it needed to happen this week, and it didn't.

"But what about May 20?" you might ask. Well, I'm not at all sure Obama's "declare victory on May 20" gambit will work. In fact, I think it may be a bad idea to even try it. Hillary will win a much bigger victory, percentage-wise, in Kentucky that day than Obama will in Oregon, and the concept of declaring victory on the basis of a majority of pledged delegates is almost Hillaryesque in its spinnish hamhandedness. A "majority of pledged delegates" is only slightly more meaningful than a "plurality of the popular vote": it may have some psychic or moral significance, but it's not the metric that determines victory. A majority of all delegates is what determines victory, and Obama should not want to get into a contest with Clinton over who can more blatantly move the goalposts. While she vascillates between metrics and rationales -- big states, swing states, popular votes, 2,209 as the new "magic number," etc. -- he ought to stand firm in stating that he'll be the presumptive nominee when he hits 2,025 delegates, including supers. No sooner, no later. Using his pledged-delegate majority as an argument to the voters, the supers and the media is fine; using it to declare victory, to assert that the race is over, is problematic and Hillary-ish, IMHO.

Matthews on the mound, Puerto Rico at the plate: let's play beanball

By Joe Loy

Note: Just so nobody will assume I'm Spinning this issue ~ I support Barack Obama, for whom I voted in my state's primary. (Admittedly, I was For Hillary before I was Against her. :) My sinister motivation here :> is that I'm Also in favor of (a) due Process and (b) Puerto Rico :}.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The host of MSNBC's Spitball Dirtball Screwball Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday mounted another bold attack in his ongoing 2nd Battle of San Juan. Extremely extensive transcript excerpts (tendentious emphases added; my commentary follows):

...MATTHEWS:  And then you can see it going through Puerto Rico.

When it comes time to fight for who‘s got the most elected delegates -

pledged delegates, and if you lose that, if you come short, which is likely you will come short, can you add Puerto Rican votes to your claim of a popularity—of a popular vote victory?

[Clinton Communications Director Howard] WOLFSON:  Of course.

MATTHEWS:  Even though they can‘t vote in the presidential election?

WOLFSON:  Well, they‘re participating in our...

MATTHEWS:  Right, right, right.

WOLFSON:  ... in our primary process.

MATTHEWS:  But are you willing to say that you have a right to the nomination based on Puerto Rican votes?

WOLFSON:  Yes.  Which votes are you going to exclude from the process?

MATTHEWS:  No, just—just...

WOLFSON:  I said yes.

MATTHEWS:  Just people that are not American—are not voting in the American presidential election.  That‘s all.

[Much more after the Jump. / ~ the guestblogger]

Super Friday for Obama; Clintons still in fantasyland

By Brendan Loy

Bill Clinton -- who is reportedly among the people pushing his wife hardest to keep fighting, all the way to the convention if necessary -- told West Virginia voters today that an overwhelming turnout coupled with an overwhelming Hillary margin in the Mountaineer State (and neighboring Kentucky) can make the "earth move." Why? Because of that wonderfully illegitimate metric, the "popular vote," of course:

"She can win the popular vote, she is clearly the most electable according to all the national polls, and between now and August, the superdelegates are gonna have to think long and hard about how badly they want to win."

Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, Obama made a net gain of 7 superdelegates today -- including a nod from the superdelegate superblogger, Mr. Super -- and he has now overtaken Clinton in some media superdelegate counts, for the first time in the campaign. (The count I trust the most, DemConWatch, has Hillary still up, but by a measly 1.5 super votes. So it's only a matter of time. Like, maybe a few more hours, the way today has been going.)

In other news, Rasmussen Reports will be stopping its daily tracking poll of the Democratic race:

[W]hile Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. ... With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

And, on an unrelated note, Joe Lieberman would like you to know that he, uh, checked John McCain's bearings, and, uh, they're just fine.

Teehee.

Barack Obama, mountain mama?

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton says "West Virginia is a test" of electability. Heh, yeah, a "test" she can't possibly fail. That's a little like Michael Jordan challenging Wayne Gretzky to determine who is the greatest athlete of their generation -- by playing a basketball game.

Here's a look at just how challenging impossible West Virginia's political landscape is for Obama. A new poll released yesterday shows him down 63% to 23% (with 14% undecided, I guess). Daniel Larison has more grim poll numbers. [UPDATE: ARG says it's 66% to 23%.]

Mark Halperin wonders, "Why is the likely Democratic nominee not visiting the next state up? Is it the expectations game?" Um... yes? Duh? Look, Clinton's people have consistently made the (bogus) argument that, if Obama spends lots of time and money in a state, that means he "should" win it, even when he's clearly the demographic underdog and is obviously just trying to hold down her margin (see, e.g., Pennsylvania). He knows he can't come remotely close in West Virginia -- the best he could hope for would be to maybe reduce her margin to 20% or 25%, and will anyone really give him credit for that? -- so why give Hillary the ability to make that argument? It's like Larison says:

[W]hat he needs to do is to change the subject and act as if these primaries [in West Virginia and Kentucky] are not happening (or, to borrow a page from the Clintons, to claim that they “don’t really count”), because there is simply no way that he is going to change the powerful opposition to him in these states.  Imagine the resistance that he faced in the Monongahela Valley, and then expand it to include entire states, and you have an idea of what he’s up against.

I don't support the "claim they don't count" strategy -- when she wins, he should graciously congratulate her, reiterate that he is the choice of voters all across the country, and proceed with his general-election arguments against John McCain -- but there's nothing wrong with lowering expectations, nor with pointing out that these states shouldn't count extra just because they happen, coincidentally, to take place near the end of the calendar. Hillary's inevitable blowout wins in West Virginia and Kentucky should "count" no more, and no less, than Obama's blowouts in, for instance, Georgia and Kansas on Super Tuesday.

That said, I'm of two minds about this, because if Hillary racks up a huge popular vote margin, and wins the WV delegate count by something like 32 to 7, it'll probably rejuvenate her spirits and at least dampen the media's "it's over" meme for a while. But at the same time, if Obama campaigns heavily in West Virginia, the media will declare that he is trying to "close the deal" -- and when he "fails" to do so, losing by, say, a "whopping" 22 points (which would actually be pretty good), that'll be disastrous for him in the campaign's meta-storyline.

So, all things considered, I think Larison is right. Obama is better off basically ignoring West Virginia, and spending the next week campaigning in general-election states. Even if she wins almost all of the Mountaineer State's 39 delegates... it won't change a damn thing. His mathematical advantage is still insurmountable.

Now, if we want to talk about real "tests," this would be an interesting idea:

[T]here is one last chance for the Clinton campaign: make Oregon definitive. Everyone knows she's going to win Kentucky and West Virginia. Everyone expects her to lose in Oregon. If she throws down the gauntlet and says: "Oregon is it. Obama has home field advantage. If he wins, I'm out. If I win, we go all the way to the convention. Game on."

Who, really, could resist? Certainly not the cable networks!  And the state is home to millions of white people.

Heh.

Obama, for his part, plans to declare victory in Oregon on May 20, on the basis that he will have clinched a majority of the pledged delegates -- not 2,025, but 1,627, the number that ObamaIsWinning.com has been touting for months as "the real magic number."

Vice President Clinton?

By Brendan Loy

No.

But the question is going to be asked, oh, about 100 million times between now and whenever Obama announces his actual running mate. And it's going to be incredibly annoying. The media will be absolutely obsessed with the notion of a "dream ticket" -- in fact, this may be the MSM's compromise solution to the West Virginia/Kentucky dilemma, sticking with the "it's over" meme but presenting Clinton's landslide wins as evidence that she's "indispensible" -- and the Clintonistas, given their endless supply of self-centeredness, will be only too happy to add fuel to the fire (regardless of whether Hillary would actually accept the offer).

For once, I am in complete agreement with Kos, who wrote yesterday that the notion of Obama offering Clinton the #2 spot "should be a non-starter from the start.  This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics." (Hat tip: yea.) I agree with Kos's reasons, and I would also add the ones I articulated last month:

[T]here's no way the dream ticket happens now. Before bittergate, I thought it was possible*, but now, no way. How can Hillary be on a ticket with someone she has called an out-of-touch elitist who is unready to lead from day one? Not that she'd have any shame about it, mind you, but the constant repetition of those charges out of her mouth would provide such a constant drumbeat of "gotcha" moments that it would totally eviscerate any electoral benefits such a ticket would otherwise reap. Imagine the negative ads! "Even Barack Obama's runningmate says..." NO WAY. Will not happen. Crazy.

The reality is, for all the myopic gnashing of teeth right now (can teeth be myopic? nevermind), the bulk of Hillary's supporters will ultimately vote for Obama. We're talking about what happens on the margins here. It's not as if he's only going to get 51% of the Democratic base to vote for him. The issue here is whether he'll get 85% or 90% ... or something like that. Having Hillary on the ticket would be one way to make up that 5% (or whatever) -- while simultaneously shedding 10% (or whatever) among independents, liberal idealists, etc., and helping McCain shore up his base -- but it's not the only way, and it's by far the most destructive way. There are other running mates Obama can choose who will also help him make inroads into margins of Hillary's base that you're worrying about, without the devastating collateral consequences elsewhere in the electorate. Kathleen Sebelius would help with women. Ted Strickland [or Evan Bayh -ed.] would help with Rust Belt folks. (If only Jennifer Granholm weren't Canadian, she could do both!) Bill Richardson would help with Hispanics. Jim Webb would help with the working-class "tough guy" vote.    

There are lots of good options. Hillary is a bad option. Bad, bad, bad. There are ways he can make this work. Picking Hillary is suicide. It a) gains him a sliver of her base that he'd have otherwise lost, and b) loses him the election.

I actually think Obama would be well served to announce his running mate earlier than usual, just to prevent the inevitable Clinton-for-veep speculation from consuming the entire summer, and from further dividing the party when he finally gets around to rejecting what many pundits (and Hillary supporters) will myopically see as the "obvious" choice.

Before the "healing" can truly begin, the last shot must be fired, and that shot will be Obama's choice of a vice presidential running mate who isn't named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

*P.S. My statement that "before bittergate, I thought it was possible" is seemingly contradicted by my January 22 comment that "If it's an Obama-Clinton ticket, I will eat my arm." :) However, there actually was a period in March or early April when I briefly flirted with the idea of a Obama-Clinton ticket being workable. Sort of like how I briefly flirted with the idea of voting for Nader in 2000. In both cases, I eventually realized that the idea was "wolf-face crazy...the kind of decision you make when you are drunk, and on cocaine, and on deadline, and on fire."

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

George F. Will:

Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home. She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.

Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's ZIP code.
    
Or perhaps she wins if Obama's popular vote total is, well, adjusted, by counting each African-American vote as only three-fifths of a vote. There is precedent, of sorts, for that arithmetic (see the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, before the 14th Amendment).

(Hat tip: Joe Mama.)

Believe it or not, I hadn't seen Will's "three-fifths" joke when I made essentially the same joke on an earlier post. Heh. Great minds think alike, or something.

Incidentally, Will isn't buying into the conservative CW that recent scandals have revealed Obama's alleged "liberal Reagan" status as a fraud. He writes:

Tuesday night must have been almost as much fun for John McCain as for Obama. The Republican brand has been badly smudged by recent foreign and domestic policies, which are the only kinds there are, so McCain's hopes rest on the still-unattached cohort called "Reagan Democrats," who still seem somewhat resistant to Obama.

McCain's problem might turn out to be the fact that Obama is the Democrats' Reagan. Obama's rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan's ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness -- the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

I think Will is right. The "liberal Reagan" lives, even if he's been limping recently. For all his weaknesses, which have become quite glaring in the last month or two, Obama still has several hugely important trump cards against McCain: his youthful and energetic appearance, his optimistic message, his rhetorical skill, and his ability to raise money. In a very superficial, meta sense, the general election is going to be a cash-strapped, often uncomfortable-looking, grumpy old guy, arguing for essentially the status quo on most issues, against a young, well-funded, energetic, rhetorically gifted "fresh face" who draws massive crowds and argues passionately for change. When you think of it in those terms -- and many swing voters are very superficial in their thinking about politics -- it's hard to imagine McCain winning, isn't it?

Those factors are in addition to the fact that the country is seemingly rather fed up with Republicans and Republican policies at the moment. And, oh yes, and let's not forget the media's adoration of Obama, which will only increase as he gets closer to the "first black president" finish line. (The media has traditionally adored McCain, too, but in this "historic" race against Obama, that'll change.)

If Obama manages to lose in spite of all those advantages, it will be a minor miracle, and the best example yet of Democrats throwing away an election where everything was in their favor. I'm not saying McCain can't win -- he certainly can -- but his supporters ignore Obama's built-in advantages at their peril.

A question for Senator Clinton

By Brendan Loy

In an interview yesterday, Hillary Clinton told USA Today that she's more electable than Barack Obama because she does better among white people:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Now, look, I'm not going to get all frothing-at-the-mouth outraged over the mere fact that Senator Clinton is reciting basic demographic and statistical facts. However, I do have a question.

Hillary points out that she has been consistently beating Obama among whites, which is certainly true. However, it is equally true that Obama has been consistently beating her -- by much wider margins -- among blacks. How this adds up to Clinton having a "broader base," I'm not sure, unless she's counting blacks as three-fifths of a person or something. (Sorry... that was a low blow.) The reality is, Obama is getting more votes than her, so on its face, his "base" would seem to be "broader."

In any event, because Clinton seems to think that general-election preferences can be extrapolated from primary results, her poor performance among blacks is -- by her own logic -- a major problem for her. At present, her "winning coalition" includes only 10 to 20 percent of the black vote. She is fond of saying that no Democrat can win the presidency without winning the various "battleground states" whose primaries she's won; well, no Democrat can win the presidency with only 10 percent of the black vote, either.

The clear implication of Clinton's argument is that, because whites are voting for Clinton rather than for Obama in the primaries, it therefore follows that many of them will not vote for Obama in November. Okay, so can we likewise presume that, because blacks are voting for Obama rather than Clinton in the primaries, it similarly follows that many of them will not for Clinton in November? And if not, why not? Is Hillary simply taking the black vote for granted? I think she is, and I think she needs to be asked: why is it acceptable to take the black vote for granted, while the white vote must be earned? Do tell, Senator Clinton.

In reality, of course, the vast majority of Clinton primary voters -- of whatever race, ethnicity, gender, etc. -- will back Obama in November, and the converse would be true if she were the nominee. But if Hillary's going to use this bogus line of reasoning that conflates primary results with general-election trends, then she needs to be asked flat-out why she thinks she can win the presidency with only 10% of the black vote... and when she stumbles and fumbles her way to an answer, she needs to be asked the follow-up question, "Ah, so you're taking the black vote for granted, then?"

Will it still be "over" after West Virginia?

By Brendan Loy

Hillary says she'll fight on, though the congealing consensus is that she's likely to behave like Mike Huckabee after Super Tuesday, running a purely positive campaign from here on out. (I'll believe that when I see it.)

In any event, the media CW that "it's over" remains firmly entrenched, as illustrated by the following clip from tonight's CBS Evening News, currently linked at the top of Drudge:

Here's how the New York Times put it: "Very early this morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against Senator Hillary Clinton's continued viability as a presidential candidate."

But is the shift truly "irretrievable"? The big question in my mind is whether the "it's over" meme will survive Clinton's 30-point win (or more!) in West Virginia next Tuesday, followed by perhaps a 40-point win in Kentucky the following week.

Will the MSM have enough discipline to recognize that, in this primary season where demography is destiny, these inevitable Clinton landslides will tell us nothing new about either candidate, and will not demonstrate that Obama "can't close the deal" or that Hillary is "fighting back"? (In truth, the results will demonstrate only that two of the three most naturally Hillary-friendly states in the nation -- the other being Arkansas -- coincidentally happen to hold their primaries right near the end of the process.)

Or will the MSM once again fall prey to the allure of shiny moving objects, allowing Hillary to successfully use this coincidence of the calendar to generate fake "momentum" down the stretch? Will her utterly predictable blowout wins turn the media storyline back in her favor, freezing the superdelegates and focusing everyone's attention on May 31 and June 1 (i.e., Michigan, Florida and Puerto Rico)?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but it will determine whether anyone takes Hillary Clinton seriously during the final month of this long campaign.

Can Hillary win the popular vote?

By Brendan Loy

The short answer is: probably not.

The long answer is: if she wins by massive margins in Kentucky and West Virginia, pulls a stunning upset in Oregon, and romps in a Puerto Rico primary with unprecedented turnout, she could still potentially win an arguably plausible version of the popular vote tally.

By "arguably plausible," I mean a tally that does not depend on either a) a 328,309 to zero "win" in Michigan, or b) the total disenfranchisement of voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (caucus states that, as I've discussed before, don't report popular vote totals, but that do provide turnout numbers which allow for a rough estimation of vote totals). Any argument that purports to present Clinton as the "choice of the people," while ignoring those four caucus states (in which Obama had a 110,222-vote advantage) and/or giving Hillary credit for her Saddam Hussein-style "victory" in the Wolverine State, is laughable on its face, and such a tally will never be taken seriously by anyone outside Clinton's innermost circle of devoted sycophants.

However, I'd say it's arguably plausible to include Hillary's 294,772-vote Florida margin, even though it came in a beauty-contest primary that both candidates pledged not to campaign in. Similarly, it's arguably plausible to give Hillary the benefit of her 90,141-vote "win" over "Uncommitted" in Michigan's similarly meaningless primary, with Uncommitted's votes going to Obama. (Admittedly, not every Uncommitted voter favored Obama. But it's intuitively obvious that there were a lot more Obama supporters who didn't vote -- because he wasn't on the freakin' ballot, and the primary didn't count -- than there are Uncommitted voters who weren't for Obama. Awarding Uncommitted's votes to Obama doesn't overstate his popular support in Michigan, it understates it. And in any event, a 328,309 to 238,168 margin is much closer to being an accurate reflection of the will of Michigan's people than a 238,168 to 0 margin is.)

Of course, claiming "victory" based on such a tally is highly dubious, not only because it counts the Florida results and a modified version of the Michigan results, but because the "popular vote" is an inherently flawed metric and is not a legitimate way to determine the "winner" of the primaries.

But I said "arguably plausible," not "legitimate according to Brendan Loy." So, with that understanding, I ran the numbers, as promised yesterday. Details after the jump.

McCain supporters fueled Hillary's Indiana win

By Brendan Loy

The exit polls show that Hillary Clinton only won Indiana because of pro-McCain voters. In other words, she probably owes her victory to Rush Limbaugh and his army of chaos-loving Dittoheads.

P.S. In fairness, Ben Smith points out that "presumably many of these were voters sincerely picking a second choice." That's true, and it's a good point. It's impossible to know, of course, what percentage were doing that, and what percentage were "playing tactical games," a la Limbaugh. Nevertheless, whatever their motivations, it seems (if we believe the exit polls) that Hillary owes her margin of victory in Indiana to the support of people who have no intention of voting for her in November. Given the Clinton camp's penchant for using primary results to draw conclusions about electability, this seems a fair and pertinent point.

Drudge, Russert say it's over

By Brendan Loy

I just got home after my drive from Nashville, and upon getting out my computer, I'm greeted by news of a shrinking Clinton lead in Indiana (1.4 percent, or 16,609 votes), a prediction by Gary's mayor of a "possible Indiana shocker," and a report by Matt Drudge that "Hillary plans to huddle with undecided super delegates tomorrow; gauging if she can go on." And then there's Drudge's bold headline:

The link goes to this video clip of Tim Russert -- the emperor of MSM conventional wisdom -- declaring the race over:

Will Hillary really drop out (or "suspend" her campaign, or whatever) immediately before two states -- West Virginia and Kentucky -- that she could potentially win by 30 or 40 percentage points? I'm still skeptical. But if Obama can pull out Indiana, the chorus calling for her exit could become overwhelming. And unless she gets a fundraising surge like she did after Super Tuesday and again after Pennsylvania, the money problem may decide the issue for her.

Key fact: Obama's whopping popular-vote margin in North Carolina -- more than 233,000 with 99% reporting -- makes it, I think, impossible for Hillary to "win" the national "popular vote" using any remotely, arguably legitimate metric. I'll run the numbers tomorrow, but I think she can probably still "win" if you count her votes in Michigan and don't give Uncommitted's votes to Obama, thus giving Hillary the benefit of a Saddam Hussein-style 328,000 to zero victory. But that's obviously, facially absurd; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "will of the people," and absolutely no one outside of Hillary's most devoted circle of shameless sycophants will buy into it. And, even if you give her every other benefit of the mathematical doubt (counting Florida, excluding the four caucus states, counting her 90,000-vote victory over Uncommitted in Michigan, etc.), I think it's now impossible for Hillary to "win" the "popular vote." Thus, we can now say with confidence that, when all is said and done on June 4, Obama will have more delegates and more votes. Clinton will therefore be left trying to spin a loss into a win, and to convince a supermajority of superdelegates to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people. She'll fail. Drudge and Russert are right: it's over.

UPDATE: As noted above, CNN called Indiana for Clinton a couple of minutes after I published this post. The other networks have called it, too. It will be a very slim margin, however -- so slim that it seems entirely possible, if not likely, that Hillary owes her victory to Rush Limbaugh. In a race this close, "Operation Chaos" may well have made the difference.

P.S. Hillary's assertion that Indiana "broke the tie" in the PA-NC-IN trifecta is quite possibly the most pathetically unconvincing piece of election-night spin since Joe Lieberman's "three-way split decision for third place" in New Hampshire four years ago.

P.P.S. An astute post on Obsidian Wings, declaring the race over and explaining why.

Indiana/North Carolina open thread

By Brendan Loy

The polls are closed in most of Indiana. North Carolina will soon follow suit. As mentioned below, I'll be in flight from 7:00 PM to 9:30 PM EST, and driving from Nashville to Knoxville after that, so my ability to post blog updates will be extremely limited. But this is your thread to chat about the results as they trickle out. Comment away!

It's Hoosier/Tar Heel Tuesday!

By Brendan Loy

The polls are open in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. They'll close tonight at 6:00 PM EST in most of the Hoosier State, 7:00 PM in a few western Indiana counties, 7:30 PM in the vast majority of North Carolina, and 8:30 PM in a few N.C. counties.

The RCP poll averages show Clinton up by 5 in Indiana, and Obama up by 8 in North Carolina, so a "split" seems the most likely outcome. But who knows, maybe we'll see an upset tonight. What are your predictions? And what will the outcomes mean? Does an Obama sweep force Hillary out of the race before West Virginia? Does a "split" keep us going to the convention, or just to early June? What if Hillary pulls off a sweep? (Here are my thoughts.)

Whatever your predictions, and whatever your rooting interests, remember: the early, leaked exit polls mean nothing. If Drudge comes out with another late-afternoon "EXIT POLL DRAMA" bulletin, showing Obama leading Indiana by a small margin and North Carolina by a huge one, don't buy it. Obama always does worse in the actual results than in the unweighted exit polls. So don't get excited, and don't buy into this crap again:

[Pennsylvania's] early exit polls had suggested a nail-biter that suggested Hillary might be finished. Yet, much like Super Tuesday, Hillary made a "comeback" over the course of the night, as her vote margin gradually widened. Why, it was almost as though Obama had Hillary on the ropes and she fought him off with pure grit and determination. Impressive! She's back!

That's happened four separate times now: New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, Texas & Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Not again! Enough! The line must be drawn here! Let there be no unearned, fraudulent "spin" boost for Hillary this time, due to poor media memory of recent exit-poll history. PAY ATTENTION, MSM!!!

Anyway... my flight leaves Denver at 7:00 PM EST and lands at 9:25, so it's quite likely that neither state will have been "called" when I take off, and both will have been "called" by the time I land. And, upon landing, I have a 2 1/2-hour drive from Nashville back to Knoxville. So, needless to say, I won't be doing my usual election-night liveblogging. But I might post an update from the airport if there's anything to report (e.g., meaningless exit-poll leaks), and regardless, I've set up an "open thread" to automatically post at 6:00 PM. Also, CNN Breaking News alerts should auto-post a few minutes after Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer calls each state.

Goooo Obama, Beeeeat Expectations!

Pick your poll

By Brendan Loy

USA Today: "Poll: Flap over pastor hurts Obama"

New York Times: "In Poll, Obama Survives Furor, but Fall Is the Test"

Who's right? For better or worse, the voters of Indiana and North Carolina will decide that, at least for purposes of the immediate media storyline.

P.S. Mark Ambinder explains the difference between the two polls' wildly divergent national Clinton vs. Obama numbers.

Obama conspiracy-theory porn

By Brendan Loy

Ben Smith brings us up to date on the latest Obama conspiracy theory, courtesy of a former Lyndon LaRouche acolyte and a 9/11 Truth pamphleteer in South Bend.

Naturally, since this is a LaRouchie thing, they accuse Obama of being a closet conservative, "a pawn of -- wait for it -- the CIA, the Ford Foundation, the Trilateral Commission, and Zbigniew Brzezinksi." LOL!

(I actually tried once to read a lengthy LaRouche pamphlet in its entirety, after a LaRouchie on USC's campus gave it to me. I literally couldn't get through it. It was utterly incomprehensible due to its sheer lunacy and logical incoherence. Those people are nuts.)

Smith also notes that the Reverend Wright controversy isn't quelling the Obama-as-secret-Muslim rumors: "I just got a viral email trying to resolve a major source of cognitive conspiracy dissonance by claiming that Trinity United Church is an Islamic front." Heh. God bless America.

Hillary's pathetic pandering

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton's phony populism and egregious anti-intellectualism are really getting ridiculous. In the words of Robert Reich:

I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

Indiana and North Carolina voters, please, for heaven's sake, see through this crap.

Hundreds of ballots! Thrown out!

By Brendan Loy

There will be a recount in Guam. Apparently more than 500 "spoiled" ballots went uncounted, which dwarfs Barack Obama's 7-vote margin of victory.

Meanwhile, in other political news yesterday: "Democrat Don Cazayoux, one of a handful of Southern candidates whom Republicans have tried to associate with Obama, won a special congressional election in a Republican district... [The race] was closely watched to see whether Obama can play the same role in GOP demonology as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy."

Halperin plays the Eight Belles card

By Brendan Loy

I expected commenters on my blog to pick up on the Hillary Clinton-Eight Belles analogy in the wake of the horse's second-place Kentucky Derby finish (behind, ahem, "Big Brown") and tragic post-race death. And it figures that Wonkette would also pick up the story, and give it a headline like "Hillary's Horse Dies Embarrassingly." But I'm a little surprised to see Time's Mark Halperin discussing it -- with an unmistakable air of amusement -- on his widely read election-news clearinghouse, The Page:

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP
Hillary Clinton enthusiastically picked a filly named Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby and compared herself to the horse. Eight Belles finished second. The winner was the favorite, Big Brown. Eight Belles collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.

Er, well, yes. However, I think we can all agree, Obama and Clinton supporters alike, that whoever finishes second in the Democratic presidential race, we all sincerely hope they aren't, um, euthanized immediately after the deciding delegate vote is cast.

(On the other hand, I suppose if Hillary were to merely break an ankle during, say, a balloon fiasco following Obama's victory, that would complete the analogy without anyone dying -- since humans aren't generally "put down" after breaking limbs. If they were, a certain South Bend tennis net would have been my undoing!)

Anyway, The Huffington Post has more.

Um, and R.I.P., Eight Belles. Election-related snickering aside, it really is quite sad.

Obama wins Guam by 7 votes

By Brendan Loy

The final tally in the Guam caucuses: Obama 2,264, Clinton 2,257. Heh!

That's 50.08% to 49.92%, if you were wondering. Not quite Florida-close -- indeed, an order of magnitude less close, as that race was decided by 0.009%, rather than 0.155% -- but still: seven votes. Wow.

According to Politico, Clinton and Obama will each get four pledged delegates, each of whom has a "half-vote" at the convention, so the tally is 2-2. But Obama's seven-vote victory in the popular vote apparently nets him a superdelegate:

The ticket of Pilar Lujan and Jaime Paulino won the race for Party Chairman and Vice Chairman -- both superdelegate positions. Paulino is an Obama supporter, and Lujan has indicated she'll back the caucus winner.

Presumably that means she'll vote for Obama, despite his extremely narrow margin of victory. And I believe the Guam supers get full votes, rather than half-votes... so, counting superdelegates, Obama earns a net gain of 2 delegates (4 to 2). Three other Guam supers are, I think, still undeclared.

UPDATE: According to the Jed Report, one of the other three Guam supers is for Clinton, one is undeclared, and one hasn't been selected yet.

And then we're going to Guam! YAAARH!

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama is leading the Guam caucuses.

UPDATE, 5:29 PM: With all but one precinct reporting, Obama leads 1,951 to 1,748. So Hillary will need a 204-vote margin in Dededo, Guam's most populous village, to overtake Barack and win the caucuses.

Noonan on Wright

By Brendan Loy

Peggy Noonan compares Jeremiah Wright to the Wolfe Tones. A must-read.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

No candidates at Kentucky Derby

By Brendan Loy

The Kentucky Derby is today, Saturday. Post time is 6:04 PM Eastern.

Alas, my vision of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton making dueling appearances at the racetrack -- in anticipation of the Kentucky primary, two weeks and three days hence -- will not be fulfilled. But Chelsea Clinton will be there! And Hillary did briefly don a Derby hat during a visit to Louisville on Thursday.

Well, it looks better on her than it would on Barack, I suppose. :)

Meanwhile, both candidates have announced their Derby picks, taking the concept of the political "horse race" beyond the metaphorical. Obama is picking Colonel John to finish first, Pyro to finish second, and Big Brown to finish third. Clinton has only announced her first-place choice: Eight Belles, the lone filly in the race. Heh. Girl power!

Does anyone really believe...

By Brendan Loy

...that Obama can "close the door on the nomination with...a narrow loss in Indiana" and a win in North Carolina? Why on earth would Hillary, after a "split" on Tuesday, drop out of the race -- immediately before literally her best two states, outside of Arkansas, in the entire country (West Virginia and Kentucky)? That's crazy.

The only way Hillary drops out, maybe, is if she loses both of Tuesday's primaries outright, and her fundraising dries up as a result -- and even then, I'm not sure. Her path to the nomination no longer depends primarily on the voters; her strategy is centered on the superdelegates, not the pledged delegates (of which probably less than a dozen really hang in the balance in Indiana anyway). We already know she's going to finish way behind in the pledged delegate count; a win in Indiana won't change that, and by the same token, a loss in Indiana won't make the situation meaningfully worse than it already is.

What Indiana will do, of course, is play a big role in shaping the media narrative, which the superdelegates are susceptible to being swayed by. But Hillary knows perfectly well that West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico will swing the narrative back in her favor, if she stays in. Besides, we all know what will happen, narrative-wise, on Tuesday. Even if the media sets "a solid win in Indiana" as Hillary's goalpost now, it will inevitably get moved at the last minute, because on election night, the OMG! EXIT POLLS!! will show Obama winning Indiana by 6 points and North Carolina by 18, or something like that, and every idiotic, short-memoried pundit will declare Clinton's campaign over... whereupon she'll "rally" to win Indiana by 1 (which will look like 3 when Tim Russert goes to bed) and lose North Carolina by "just" 8 (which will look like 5 at Russert's bedtime). Another Clinton comeback!! She's a "fighter," don't ya know!!

*sigh*

Anyway, all things considered, I think this idea that Obama is (again) on the verge of "clinching" the nomination is wishful thinking. Unless the USOs (Uncommitted Superdelegates for Obama) decide to come out of the closet en masse in the wake of Hoosier/Tar Heel Tuesday -- which I suppose is possible, but I think it's unlikely -- or, again, unless Clinton just plain runs out of money, I don't see any "doors" being "closed" yet, and certainly not if Obama loses Indiana by any margin.

In fact, oddly enough, I think Obama's back may be, in a certain sense, more "against the wall" than Clinton's. If he loses Indiana and, let's say, scores a weaker-than-expected victory in North Carolina (let's not even contemplate the horrific prospect of a loss there), the media narrative will turn irrevocably against him for the rest of the primary season, and things could get very ugly. The rest of the calendar is almost all Hillary territory, with no significant Obama "firewall" opportunities. Tuesday is his last chance to even try and force her from the race. If she survives to spin another day, Obama's "run out the clock" strategy is going to become increasingly difficult to maintain through several more weeks of news cycles. The MSM will increasingly portray the race as having no clear winner, with Obama winning the early races but losing all the late races because of Wrightgate and so forth (never mind that geography and demography are way, way more important than "momentum" or scandals or other shifting events in the campaign; the media likes its storylines chronological, dammit). Hillary's "popular vote" arguments will gain ever-increasing traction, and Obama's process-based rebuttals will look increasingly desperate (no matter how correct they are). Michigan and Florida will be front-and-center. And the race will most definitely go on into June, at least.

The only way Obama can even hope to prevent all that, in my judgment, is to win Indiana on Tuesday. A "narrow loss" will not cut it.

P.S. Incidentally, here's a good analysis of what's probably causing Obama's exaggerated exit-poll numbers. (Hint: it's not the Bradley Effect.) The article also contains a good explanation of why some leaks Pennsylvania had Obama up 5, while others had him down 4.

The Democratic primary in 7 minutes

By Brendan Loy

Well, 7 minutes and 26 seconds to be exact. Very funny -- and complete with two Lord of the Rings references and a Star Trek reference!

(Hat tip: the excellent DemConWatch.)

More "gotcha" crap

By Brendan Loy

A widely circulating YouTube clip, referenced in comments earlier, that supposedly shows a top Clinton adviser insulting Indiana voters and using the n-word, was apparently doctored. (More here and here.)

Doctored or no, this is one of those "gotcha" things I've been complaining about. Who cares? Are we really arguing about what some campaign surrogate did or didn't say in 1992? Jeez.

Unmitigated gall 101

By Brendan Loy

Heh: "There is one theme, however, that runs through not-for-attribution conversations with both sides [in the Clinton-Obama race]: Each candidate thinks the other has unmitigated gall."

NCAA demonstrates common sense; Hell freezes over

By Brendan Loy

Remember Barack Obama's pick-up game with the North Carolina Tar Heels? Well, technically speaking, it violated NCAA rules. But for once, the NCAA is taking a sensible line: "This was a unique situation and not an NCAA issue," said a spokesman. "It certainly was a great opportunity for the student-athletes to interact with a presidential candidate."

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Hmm... now, does this "humanize" Hillary, or make her an effete, out-of-touch elitist? We embed, you decide!

(In fairness, I have trouble with those things sometimes too.)

P.S. She's also never heard of Red Bull, and she hasn't pumped her own gas in years. Elitist!! ;)

On a more serious note, after the jump are the clips of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Hillary this morning in South Bend. Notre Dame fans should at least watch the first minute of the first clip -- there's a Fighting Irish reference!

Also, Buffalo-area readers may want to skip ahead to around 5:45 in the second clip, where he (briefly) takes her to task for not improving the Western New York economy. w00t!

Obama rejects, denounces & disowns Wright

By Brendan Loy

I think the term "Sister Souljah Moment" may need to be renamed as "Jeremiah Wright Moment":

Obama basically said exactly what Andrew Sullivan said yesterday that he needed to say, so it's no surprise that Sullivan called Obama's remarks "a very impressive, clear and constructive re-framing of the core message of his candidacy. ... [T]oday, we found that he can fight back, and take a stand, without calculation and in what is clearly a great amount of personal difficulty and political pain. It's what anyone should want in a president." More reactions here, including this from Jonathan Chait:

His denunciation of Rev. Wright today seems to be pretty much a bullseye. Why did he let the story hang out there so long without a response? I don't know, but I do see a pattern here: Throughout the campaign, Obama has made very good tactical moves, but he's made them slowly. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has made a lot of mistakes, but she does grasp the 24-hour news cycle and she acts very quickly.

That's my impression, too.

Glenn Reynolds, however, is unimpressed. I expect that most on the Right will react similarly. But I'm not sure what else they want Obama to say. They can say, as Glenn does, that he should have said it sooner. Fine. But that's a weak criticism. "Better late than never" is a common expression for a reason. And, look, can we take a big-picture view of this, please? Even if you have a completely cynical opinion on Obama's transformation vis a vis Wright -- even if you don't believe him for a second when he claims he didn't realize until now that Wright was so radical and disgusting -- let's take a look at where we are now, as opposed to where we were a month ago or three months ago or 20 years ago.

Right now, at this very moment, we have an African-American candidate for president who commands overwhelming support within the black community, who has just explicitly and firmly denounced the radical and hateful nonsense that is all too often accepted and repeated without question within that selfsame black community. That's a very good thing. Wright will undoubtedly dismiss Obama's comments as, in Al Sharpton's words, "grandstanding in front of white people," but the truth is that Obama is speaking to black people, too -- he's speaking to everyone -- and he is sending a very clear message: enough with the bulls**t. Haven't conservatives been waiting for a black leader to do that for, like, forever?

This is the promise of the Obama candidacy, encapsulated and made real. Obama is urging blacks to leave behind, once and for all, the politics of conspiratorial victimhood -- the politics of Jeremiah Wright and, although Obama can't afford politically to say so explicitly, of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -- and embrace the politics of unity and hope and, ultimately, self-empowerment.

You can parse his words and question his timing, and you'll find plenty to criticize. But ultimately -- again, big picture, people -- he's doing the right thing, and it's a very important "right thing." Either his heart's in the right place, or, if you want to be all cynical about it, he's pretending that it is, and his overall message demands that he continue to do so, which is almost as good. Either way, the Barack Obama who spoke today is the natural ally of anyone who has ever despaired over the blame-whitey victimhood culture within the black community. No, he's not quite channeling Bill Cosby. He wouldn't be in this position if he were. No, he didn't throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus last fall. It's a delicate and difficult tightrope he's walking. He's not perfect. But no one is, and Obama is trying harder than anyone else has, on this stage, ever before. Be reasonable! 

I'm not saying how we got here is entirely unimportant, but I think recognizing where we are now is vastly more important. And I think it would be a shame if Obama is now effectively crucified by both sides: the political right (and its newfound ally, Hillary Clinton), for not saying this sooner; and radical elements of the liberal-black community, for saying it at all. Rightly or wrongly, the takeaway lesson, if such a two-front assault destroys him, would be that a black politician cannot succeed on the national stage, at least until the baby boomers die off. Conservatives ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (That's liberals' job!) Obama is doing the right thing here, and if he's a little late to the party, slap him on the wrist and then defend him against the coming Wright/Sharpton/etc. onslaught. And then beat him in November on security issues or whatever. But he's on the right side of this issue, and if he loses because of it, it will be a shame for everyone -- principled conservatives included.

P.S. My dad writes: "It's now expected that Wright ... will come back and further Diss the apostate. / This will be Good. Instead of Hillary & McCain running for President against Jeremiah Wright, Wright will be perceived as running against Obama. Excellent."

My dad, incidentally, says Wright is "evidently jealous" of Obama, but I think Cornhuskers may have hit closer to the mark when he said that Wright's ramblings confirmed a longstanding fear that the old-guard "civil rights leaders would fear that they are going to lose that 'white man behind the curtain keeping black people down' trump card" and would consequently go after Obama, knowing that "it's hard to preach this when the person sitting in the big chair at 1600 Penn is a black man." Further support for this theory: now Al Sharpton is coming after Obama, too.

This is good, as my dad said. If Obama is running against Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright, he'll win in a landslide.

Indiana is everything

By Brendan Loy

Thesis: between Jeremiah Wright's latest ramblings, Hillary Clinton's continued domination of the media spin game, the high-profile AP/Ipsos poll showing Hillary doing significantly better than Obama in November, the numerical fudge factor provided by the Michigan and Florida wild cards, and the incredibly unfavorable geography of the upcoming calendar for Obama (West Virginia and Kentucky will, in consecutive weeks, provide Hillary with her biggest non-Arkansas margins of victory in the entire campaign, and Puerto Rico may not be much better), events are now conspiring against Barack Obama such that Hillary may actually have a chance -- and Obama's only real opportunity to reliably stop her from seizing that chance is to win in Indiana on Tuesday. If he loses, then heaven help us, she might just be the nominee.

Discuss.

I'm not sure whether I believe this "thesis," but I am worried about the possibility that it might be right. And I'm apparently not alone, judging by Hillary's Intrade surge.

One key aspect of my thesis is a recognition of the fact that the media refuses to contextualize the primary calendar in any meaningful way. Hillary got waaaaaay too much credit for winning Pennsylvania, which was almost a can't-lose state for her, just as Obama got waaaaaay too much credit for most of his post-Super Tuesday victories in February, which were generally in "gimme" states for him. So, given this history, I assume that Hillary will again get waaaaaay too much credit for her inevitable blowout wins in West Virginia and Kentucky. (It's especially devastating for Obama that West Virginia has a whole week all to itself! And I suspect Kentucky will totally overshadow Oregon the following week, especially given what I assume will be her much larger margin there.)

Of course, Hillary knows all this, which is why I doubt she'll drop out even after an Indiana loss. But at least an Obama victory in Indiana -- coupled with a North Carolina win, of course -- would stop the bleeding and reset the storyline heading into WV and KY. In addition, it might cause her fundraising to dry up. But if Hillary earns a "split" on May 6, the money will continue flowing, and the media storyline will continue to be completely in her favor... and Obama will have no opportunity for a "firewall" victory until, well, ever. (I don't think anybody is going to care about Montana and South Dakota.) And then we're all left scratching our heads and wondering if the superdelegates will buy the HRC/MSM line on electability, popular vote, working-class whites, etc., or if they'll see through the smoke & mirrors and realize that, despite it all, Obama is still clearly the better choice for the party, all things considered.

I still think Obama wins, in the end, if only because of the superdelegates' fear of repercussions in the black community if they deny him the nomination that he will be perceived (at least among blacks) as having earned. Hillary's electability case would have to be completely overwhelming, to the point of being undeniably right, to overcome this hurdle, I think. As long as the electability question is debatable, I don't see her wrenching this thing away from him. But making assumptions about the psychology of superdelegates is a risky business, and I can increasingly see a path to her at least having a plausible road to a floor fight at the convention over Michigan and Florida. Which would just about guarantee a McCain win in November.

Bottom line: Obama really, really, really needs to win Indiana.

P.S. When I say "the HRC/MSM line," I don't mean to imply that the media wants Hillary to win. On the contrary. However, for a whole constellation of reasons that I don't feel like getting into right now, the media environment is incredibly friendly to Hillary at the moment, despite most journalists' general preference for Obama, and the environment is unlikely to change without an Obama win in Indiana.

UPDATE: In comments, eagleye writes, "I don't think the superdelegates will let this go to a floor fight at the convention. There is going to be a lot of pressure on them to act sooner than later." Ah, but this is a misunderstanding of the process. The superdelegates do not have the power to prevent a floor fight! They have the power to get Obama to the "magic number" before the convention, yes. But that doesn't necessarily prevent a floor fight. Only you can prevent forest fires, and only Hillary Clinton can prevent a floor fight.

If she doesn't drop out, then the fight keeps going. The mere fact of Obama reaching the "magic number" in the media's delegate counts in June (which I assume he will, because I assume most of the superdelegates will heed Howard Dean's call to announce their intentions) doesn't necessarily mean that Hillary won't keep fighting all the way to the convention.

I explain why after the jump, and then I attempt to clarify my race-related comment above.

Obama loses the Duke vote

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama shot some hoops with the North Carolina Tar Heels yesterday. "You guys are leaving the next president of the United States wide open," Roy Williams jokingly yelled at his players at one point.

No word on whether Williams was wearing a Hillary sticker at the time. ;)

Alan Keyes loses, again

By Brendan Loy

Eternally entertaining wingnut Alan Keyes, who finished ninth in the Republican presidential race -- behind McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson, Hunter and Uncommitted (but ahead of Tancredo!) -- left the GOP earlier this month and decided to seek the Constitution Party nomination for president instead. Well, over the weekend, Keyes lost the CP nomination to anti-war radio host Chuck Baldwin. Reason's Jesse Walker calls it "a small but satisfying victory for two noble though possibly lost causes: the movement to end the occupation of Iraq and the transideological coalition to get Alan Keyes to shut up." Heh. (Hat tip: Sully.)

Um... open thread?

By Brendan Loy

Sorry for the lack of blog posts today. Becky says my readers are going to be worried that I'm dead. :) Don't worry, I'm alive. I've just been busy. But I haven't been reading too many news articles, or blogs, today. So I guess I'll just open the floor for discussion of whatever y'all want. The Voter ID case? Jeremiah Wright? Miley Cyrus? Whatever. Go nuts.

P.S. On Reverend Wright, quoth Andrew Sullivan:

Wright's cooptation of Obama for his own agenda - his assertion that Obama's distancing from him is insincere - requires, in fact demands a response from Obama.

Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright's views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against: the boomer, Vietnam era's obsession with its red-blue, white-black, pro and anti-America fixations. That is not what this election needs to be about; and Wright's massive, racially divisive and, yes, bitter provocation requires a proportionate response.

We need a speech or statement from Obama in which he utterly repudiates this poison, however personally difficult that may be, however damaging the impact will be. The statement today will not do it. This is no longer about cynics trying to associate one man's politics with another. It is now about Wright attempting to associate himself and some of his noxious, stupid, rancid views with the likely Democratic nominee. Wright has given Obama no choice - and he has also given him another opportunity. [Obama] needs to seize it.

A rueful I-told-you-so post

By Brendan Loy

TNR's Michael Crowley makes two excellent points. First:

With about 95 percent counted around midnight [Tuesday] night, Hillary was leading by 10 points. But now, with 99.44 percent counted, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State shows her winning 54.6 to 45.4. That's only 9.2 points--less than her 10.3 margin in Ohio, and less than the 10.5 bar that all-powerful CW-arbiter Mark Halperin had set for her.   

Yet no one cares. The storyline is clearly that Hillary had a decisive victory which keeps her campaign alive.

Why isn't the reality of single digits a bigger problem for her? One reason is that the final margin often matters less than the presumed margin when people like Russert go to bed.

That's absolutely true, and is something that I anticipated on Monday: "I maintain that a double-digit win is necessary for Clinton to really claim an unalloyed 'victory' ... Though, the state of the race at around 10:00 or 11:00 PM Eastern time probably matters at least as much as the actual final numbers, since the media usually decides its transitory 'winners' and 'losers' before bedtime on the East Coast."

And, speaking of things that make me say I told you so:

Another reason--one an Obama aide was just grumbling to me about--is the weird havoc exit polls play with the media's primary-night storylines. Yesterday's early exit polls had suggested a nail-biter that suggested Hillary might be finished. Yet, much like Super Tuesday, Hillary made a "comeback" over the course of the night, as her vote margin gradually widened. Why, it was almost as though Obama had Hillary on the ropes and she fought him off with pure grit and determination. Impressive! She's back!

If I were a Machiavellian Obama operative, next time I might consider leaking some phony exits showing misleading strength for Hillary.

As I said repeatedly before this completely predictable occurrence happened, there's absolutely no excuse for the media to be fooled by that exit poll nonsense anymore, because Obama always does better in the leaked exit polls than he does in the final results. ALWAYS!! It's happened over and over and over again: New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, Texas & Ohio, and now Pennsylvania. Will these idiots never learn?

Karl Rove reads Barack Obama's mind!

By Brendan Loy

It turns out Karl Rove isn't just an evil strategic genius. He's an evil telepathic strategic genius, as he demonstrates in an Obama-bashing WSJ column today:

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing.

He knows how to deceive the electorate, debase public discourse, win elections, and read minds. Is there anything Karl Rove can't do?

P.S. If you're looking for a less mendacious take on the Clinton-Obama race, Time's Joe Klein has a comprehensive -- and depressing -- look at what Pennsylvania hath wrought.

Reality check

By Brendan Loy

Josh Marshall:

I think I've said this a hundred times, as have many others.  But this article in Thursday's Times is a good moment to revisit the point. As Patrick Healy explains, it is simply a fallacy to claim that winning a state's Democratic primary means you're more likely to win that state in the general election or that your opponent can't win it. ...

That's not to say there isn't a difference between the two as general election candidates -- at least in their current incarnations. There is. It's just not this big state nonsense.

Indeed.

Obama: the next Samuel Tilden?

By Brendan Loy

A crazy thought occurred to me this evening. And what are blogs for, if not for airing crazy thoughts?

In November, Barack Obama will most likely spur unprecedented turnout in urban areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, due to his appeal to African-American voters. The result of this high turnout will be to build larger-than-usual popular-vote edges for the Dems in several "blue" states -- totally meaningless for Electoral College purposes. Obama also seems likely to reduce, but not overcome, the GOP's advantage in a number of southern and western "red" states. Again, this is electorally meaningless, but it will reduce the GOP's popular-vote cushion.

At the same time, it appears that Obama may be vulnerable to possible narrow defeats at the hands of John McCain in key swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. While I don't want to lend credence to Hillary Clinton's mostly bogus "big states" argument, there is some legitimate reason to worry about Obama's ability to carry these states.

Put it all together, and Obama starts to sound like a prime candidate for another inversion between the electoral and popular votes, like in 2000. But that's not the crazy thought. The crazy thought is this: is it possible Obama could lose an electoral-vote squeaker to McCain despite winning the popular vote by a meaningful margin -- like, 2 or 3 percent, as opposed to Al Gore's half-percent -- and become the first candidate since Samuel Tilden in 1876 to lose the presidency despite winning a majority of the popular vote?

P.S. From the Irish Trojan Assignment Desk: somebody look at the 2004 state-by-state margins, adjust them as needed, and construct a plausible scenario where this occurs. :)

Procedure is destiny

By Brendan Loy

Washington Monthly's Josiah Lee Auspitz provides a detailed (and entertaining) look at the degree to which both parties' nomination contests have been fundamentally shaped by the arcana of party delegate-selection rules. I love it.

A mini-backlash?

By Brendan Loy

Hey, maybe there was a backlash, after all! John Judis writes:

Clinton seriously damaged her own cause by going negative on Obama during the April 16 debate--and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had already done sufficient damage without Clinton piling on. According to the exit polls, 68 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and they backed Obama by 55 to 45 percent. It's hard to know for sure, but these tactics probably cost her among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as prize fights.

Maybe if Hillary hadn't gone so negative, she actually would have won by double digits, instead of a mere 9.2 percent. :)

P.S. Let the record show that I'm actually rather skeptical of Judis's conclusion. Given the final numbers, I doubt there was much of a meaningful, measurable backlash. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like Clinton's negative ads hurt Obama very much, given that her margin was actually smaller than in Ohio, and she lost ground with key demographics. Bottom line, I don't think the negativity had much effect at all, in either direction (or whatever effects it had cancelled each other out).

I for one welcome our Hoosier overlords

By Brendan Loy

For the next two weeks, Indiana is officially the center of the political universe: "With a demographic landscape that's well-suited to both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, Indiana is shaping up as the most consequential battleground of the remaining states."

Argh. Why couldn't this have happened last year, when I was living there?? [Um, because they don't have presidential elections in odd years? -ed. Shh.]

Hillary Clinton proves her contempt for democracy once and for all

By Brendan Loy

Or, if you prefer a lengthier, more complete headline: "Clinton falsely claims popular vote lead, disenfranchising all voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington, and all Michigan voters who preferred her opponent."

This "spin" is, of course, entirely predictable -- indeed, they've made a related argument before -- but it's still absolutely infuriating. Hillary claims:

After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama.

Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ... This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan.

Kos responds:

[T]he Clinton campaign ... [has] taken the roughly 215,000 net votes Clinton gained in Pennsylvania, and added them to the popular vote count that includes the unsanctioned contests in Michigan and Florida, and excludes caucuses in four states [Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, whose caucuses do not report popular-vote totals, and Clinton is choosing not to estimate them]. How's that for inclusiveness?

It gets worse. That Michigan vote [tally]? Obama wasn't on the ballot. If you count the "uncommitted" votes for Obama -- all of them anti-Hillary votes, remember -- that would add 237,762 votes to Obama's total.

Which means that in Clinton and Jerome [Armstrong]'s world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you "disenfranchise" every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton.

That takes a new and particularly audacious level of chutzpah.

(Hat tip: yea.)

Kos is missing an additional aspect of the audaciousness, though. As I pointed out previously, "after signing a pledge to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, she is now arguing that Iowa and Nevada don't matter, while Florida and Michigan do."

Say what you will about the more arcane procedural debates, re: what is the proper metric for "victory," what should happen with Michigan & Florida, what is the intended role of superdelegates, what it means to be a "pledged" delegate, etc. I firmly believe Hillary is wrong on those issues, too, but I concede that, at least to some extent, they are debatable.

However, there is no debate about this. There is no possible counterargument. It is completely and utterly indefensible for Hillary Clinton to make a blanket claim that "more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate" while literally ignoring duly held elections in four whole states!! And, similarly, it is totally dishonest for her to advance a "popular vote" legitimacy argument that depends on her Soviet-style "victory" of 328,309 to zero in Michigan.

Odds and ends

By Brendan Loy

Correction: Hillary Clinton may not have won by double digits, after all. Her actual margin rounds to either 8%, 9%,or 10%, depending on whom you believe. (Mark Halperin and Josh Marshall have more.)

Meanwhile, TNR's Jonathan Cohn argues that the general-election polling indicates there is "no reason to panic." He also speculates that 45% may be McCain's "ceiling."

Also at TNR, Josh Patashnik rebuts the idea that "Obama's likely nomination is somehow illegitimate unless he wins over Hillary's demographic groups--even if his coalition is a narrow majority" with a basketball analogy (my apologies in advance to Jay):

If a basketball team has held a lead of, say, six or seven points for the entire second half, the fact that the lead isn't getting any bigger as the clock ticks below a minute left doesn't mean that the team is any less likely to win. On the contrary, it makes the "frontrunner's" small lead nearly insurmountable, absent some dreadful foul shooting. Then again, those urging Hillary to drop out might want to ask John Calipari what he thinks of the idea.

Heh.

Elsewhere on the Internets, the Huffington Post's Sam Stein points out that Obama actually did cut into Hillary's demographics -- just not enough. Of course, that's according to the exit polls, and I think Mickey Kaus has a point when he writes, "If the exit polls are this unreliable for press' result-predicting purposes, why aren't they also unreliable for all the scholarly purposes they are supposedly put to? Garbage is garbage, no?" I suppose the answer is that they're retroactively "weighted" once the real results are known, but that has to be a somewhat imprecise process. I'm skeptical.

Kevin Drum says Hillary "seems to have won by roughly the same margin she would have won by even if she and Barack Obama hadn't just spent $40 million there. In other words, the campaign was not only pointless, but pointless and wildly expensive.  On to North Carolina!"

Mark Ambinder notes that Clinton winning the pledged delegate count is now "more than next to impossible." It's well and truly impossible. Dick Morris says that means last night's victory is "too little, too late" for Hillary: "The Democratic superdelegates aren't about to risk a massive and sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we'd see a repeat of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and ruined Hubert Humphrey's chances of victory."

John Cole says "Hillary's vanity campaign will continue on, trailing in delegates, trailing in the popular vote, trailing in enthusiasm and money, but not lacking in the firm resolve that only Hillary can save us all from our selves." (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

Speaking of Sullivan, he writes:

It's worth recalling what this primary came to be about, because of a self-conscious decision by the Clintons to adopt the tactics and politics of the people who persecuted and hounded them in the 1990s. It was indeed in the end about smearing and labeling Obama as a far-left, atheist, elite, pansy Godless snob fraud. That was almost all it came to be about. It was the Clintons' core message and core belief. And if anywhere would have proved its salience, it would surely have been beleaguered and depressed central and western Pennsylvania; and it would surely have worked with white ethnic voters over 50.

It did work, it seems to me. It will work, to some extent. It's valid in the sense that Rove is not stupid. But it works less and less the younger the vote is; and it is obviously losing some of its divisive salience even among the older generation. It is fading as a tool. Used by Democrats, legitimized by Democrats, embraced by Democrats, the Rove-Atwater gambits have been paid the highest compliment by the Clintons these past few weeks. But a single digit win against a young black man in a polarized race suggests that this compliment was past its sell-by date. It was an act of desperation, and one last grab back to the past. It didn't quite do what it was supposed to do. Nearly, but not quite.

And the New York Times, which endorsed Clinton back in the day, echoes Sully by lambasting her for taking the "low road to victory" in Pennsylvania: "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

Last but not least, Ron Paul lives! Say it with me, Paultards: "WE'RE #2! WE'RE #2!" ;)

Change? We don't need no stinkin' change

By Brendan Loy

So, Hillary won by about 10 points. Yawn.

Josh Marshall:

Lots of spin coming from both campaigns tonight. I'd say the real story is that this leaves us basically where we were. It was a decisive win for Hillary but that was the expectation. ... There's a lot of crowing from Hillary's campaign tonight about a shift in momentum and doubts about Obama. Tomorrow there will be a lot of chatter from Obama's campaign that none of that really matters because of the reality of the delegate numbers which won't change much.

Like I said, I think that means we're basically right where we were.

I'm not sure how following up a 10-point win in Ohio with a 10-point win in Pennsylvania demonstrates "momentum" for Hillary. If Wrightgate, Bittergate, Debategate, etc., had damaged Obama among Democratic voters, you'd think Hillary would have been able to build on her Ohio margin. But she didn't. On the other hand, if there was going to be a significant backlash against Hillary's kitchen-sink strategy, you'd think Obama would have been able to cut her lead to single digits. But he didn't. He did "rally" from his initial 20-point deficit in PA opinion polls, but I'm not sure that means anything. So we're basically stuck on the status quo, like Marshall says. Nothing has changed. And that includes the fact that the Obama Effect struck again with the exit polls.

In fact, it's not clear that much of anything has changed since Super Tuesday, or even earlier. For all the talk of shifting momentum, I think this contest will ultimately be viewed by historians almost purely through the prism of regional and demographic trends. You don't need to look at the calendar to understand how things have unfolded. Geography and demography alone (and caucuses vs. primaries) explain the results. Obama's February "winning streak" was a coincidence of friendly states stacked up one after another on the calendar; same with Clinton's recent trifecta of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She hasn't really "halted" his "momentum," so much as the calendar has simply shifted in her favor, geographically and demographically speaking. And likewise, when he wins North Carolina, he won't be "halting" her "momentum." He'll just be winning another Obama-friendly state, just like she's winning the Clinton-friendly states. For all its moving parts, this race is really quite static. It's more helpfully viewed on a map rather than on a timeline.

Apropos of which, now we move on to a pair of election days that seem quite likely, based on these rather rigid geographic/demographic trends, to be split decisions: May 6 (Indiana for Clinton, North Carolina for Obama) and May 20 (Kentucky for Clinton, Oregon for Obama). Watch out, though, for the primary that's in between those two, West Virginia on May 13. It's all by itself on the calendar, and it's certain to be a Clinton blowout, given her consistent success in Appalachia, which came through for her again yesterday. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.) It'll be an accomplishment for Obama if he can hold his margin of defeat under 20% there. West Virginia could be her South Carolina. That could really get the talking heads' tongues wagging about Hillary's "momentum." Expect a full-throttle "expectations game" effort by Team Obama to try and convince the media they're writing off the Mountaineer State.

Anyway... on to Indiana and North Carolina! YAAAARRH!!!

P.S. Here's Hillary's speech, and here's Obama's speech.

P.P.S. On the geographic/demographic point: name one state that's been a true "upset" in retrospect, a contest that one candidate won where you'd have expected the other to prevail. Obama's win in Missouri? Maybe, but it borders Illinois, so maybe not. Obama's win in Connecticut? Superficially, perhaps, but I think if you know a little more about the Nutmeg State electorate -- and its maverick streak in primaries -- that was pretty predictable. Hillary's win in New Hampshire? Yes. And that, IMHO, is actually still the only true upset of this entire campaign. (And it only happened because the contest was still a three-way race at that point. if Edwards isn't in the race, Obama beats Hillary there, too, just as you'd expect.)

Pennsylvania open thread #2

By Brendan Loy

That's all from me, kiddies. I gotta go to work early tomorrow, so I'm turning off the TV, shutting down the computer, and getting ready for bed. Thanks for all the traffic, and by all means, feel free to keep commenting as the candidates make their speeches, and as the results -- and the spin -- continue to roll in.

The next question

By Brendan Loy

With the race now moving on to Indiana and North Carolina on May 6 -- and probably West Virginia (May 13) and Oregon and Kentucky (May 20) -- here's my question: will Clinton and/or Obama attend the Kentucky Derby? It's on May 3.

I posed this question to Becky yesterday, and she responded with an even better question: "Where would they sit?" Hmm... perhaps the "elitist" Obama would sit in the grandstand, sipping a mint julep (with Michelle wearing one of those giant hats), while Clinton would mingle with the bitter, clingy, drunken plebians on the infield! :)

And then there would be the question of which horse they would each pick. Whose favorite would do better? It would take the concept of the political "horse race" to a whole new level!

In similarly silly election-related commentary, don't miss the debate about puppies in the open thread.

On a more serious note -- well, sort of -- Josh Marshall writes, "I'm not sure I've ever heard a higher proportion of hypothetical spin on both sides in the absence of voting numbers. At the moment Tim Russert is going back and forth making each campaign's arguments based on various hypothetical vote spread." Heh.

Meanwhile, InstaPundit links to the drunkblogging Stephen Green, who notes, "If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system like the Republicans and the Electoral College do, she’d have this thing clinched — and Obama would look like a regional candidate who can’t win much outside the South and his home state of Illinois." Well, yes, but no. If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system, both candidates would have had vastly different strategies. Obama would have spent less time, energy and money in caucus states where he knew he could rack up big delegate margins, and focused more on the "big states." Among other things, it's entirely possible he would have won Texas (since he would have been paying zero attention to Ohio or Rhode Island under this scenario).

You can't divorce the results from the process. And anyway, the process is what it is. The Democrats don't have a winner-take-all system like the Republicans and the Electoral College do. They have a proportional system, because they decided to have a proportional system. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game -- or spin them into some alternate reality. They are what they are. And Obama's gonna win.

Fox, NBC call it for Hillary

By Brendan Loy

Per Talking Points Memo.

No call yet on CNN, which is what I'm watching. Can't get enough of Wolfie doin' a heckvua job. :)

As an aside, this may be my last chance to watch Wolf Blitzer "call" a race -- complete with his (as I've put it before) rambling run-on sentences, senseless repetition of people's names and other random words, redundant recitation of the same facts over and over again, odd choices of verbal emphasis, constant talk about everything being "important" and "historic," endless self-referential comments, unnecessary references to "right now," "standing by," etc., etc. -- until November, because Becky and I are thinking about canceling our cable due to a budget crunch and our Comcast problems (and the fact that, during the interregnum between college basketball and college football seasons, we really don't need it).

UPDATE: CNN calls it! Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, is the winner right now in the very important state of Pennsylvania right now, according to our exit polls, right now. Hillary Clinton will win, will win, Pennsylvania, right now. (Not a direct quote.)

Now: Spin! Spin!

UPDATE 2: Is this Rush Limbaugh's doing?

Bill Schneider: Hillary "leading"

By Brendan Loy

CNN analyst Bill Schneider just slipped when talked about Hillary Clinton's 60% support among seniors (which is less than her 72% support in Ohio), and basically admitted -- catching himself too late -- that she's "leading" overall (according to his interpretation of the exit polls) in what the network is officially calling a "competitive" race with Obama:

"She's not doing as well among seniors, but there are a lot more of them in Pennsylvania, and that's why she's still lead-- er, very competitive."

I'll finish the sentence for you, Bill: "That's why she's still leading."

Meanwhile, the earliest of early returns are trickling in, and so far, predictions of Obama jumping out to an early lead are not materializing.

The polls are closed

By Brendan Loy

But, unsurprisingly, no "call" yet from Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer. He says, "We can characterize this race right now as very competitive. We cannot project a winner based on the exit poll numbers alone." I'm shocked, shocked.

Remember, folks: the fact that it's "competitive based on the exit polls" doesn't mean it'll actually be close in the end. It's probably fair to say that it won't be a mega-blowout (like, 15 points or more), but beyond that, this alleged "competitiveness" means very little. CNN initially characterized Ohio as "competitive," too, based on the exit polls.

P.S. More meaningful than leaked exit poll numbers or CNN projections of "competitiveness": my wardrobe choice! I'm wearing my lucky Obama shirt tonight. I've worn it on every election night from Super Tuesday on, except March 4, when I forgot to wear it. So, if the shirt's luck holds, maybe those leaked numbers are right, after all! :)

Incidentally, in a brilliant bit of strategery :), I've positioned myself so that, no matter what happens tonight, I predicted it! If Hillary performs up to expectations or better, I was right with my widely linked "don't trust the exit polls" posts. On the other hand, if Obama exceeds expectations, I was right with my Sullylanched "backlash" post! I can't lose! Heh.

Pennsylvania open thread

By Brendan Loy

The polls close in an hour. Go nuts.

UPDATE: Holy cow. I leave work, drive home, eat dinner, put the baby to bed, and by the time I finally get to my computer at just before 7:30 PM (this post was created in advance and published automatically at 7:00), I've had almost 7,500 hits in an hour-and-a-half, thanks to link-love for my "don't trust the exit polls" post from Real Clear Politics, the Huffington Post, the National Review, the New Republic, Mickey Kaus, Daily Kos, Free Republic and Democratic Underground, among others. (Talk about a motley ideological crew!)

Craziness!! Admittedly, I did link-whore the post to a bunch of people before leaving work, but I never expected this kind of success. :) Anyway, welcome, new readers! I'll be live-blogging the election results tonight, so stay tuned!

And so it begins...

By Brendan Loy

As expected:

Deep breaths, people. Deep breaths. Repeat after me: Obama always does well in the leaked, unweighted exit polls. He then does worse in the actual results than in the exit polls. This has happened over and over and over again. We should no longer be surprised by it. These numbers are therefore completely meaningless. They ought not alter the "expectations game" one iota. If Hillary wins by around 10 points, it will not be a "comeback." It will not be a "surprise." It will be the expected result. These numbers do not change that fact. At. All.

Are you listening, media punditry? Or will you fall into the same trap you did on Super Tuesday (when exit polls had Obama winning New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Arizona -- all of which he lost handily -- and in a dead heat in California) and on March 4 (when exit polls had Obama winning Texas and Ohio), of giving Hillary Clinton undue credit for fully-expected victories?

THESE NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING.

UPDATE: National Review's Campaign Spot has Obama ahead by 5 points, 52-47.

Again: meaningless! The only reasonable assumption, based on past experience, is still that Hillary will win by a wide margin.

Also remember Politico's Pennsylvania-specific cautionary note about the actual results, once those start trickling in: "Don’t be fooled by early results. The cities and suburbs usually report their returns first, which gives the candidate favored in those areas a quick –- and sometimes fleeting –- lead. The conservative-leaning small towns through the center of the state usually filter in much later in the evening. ... So Obama could show a lead in the early results, but it might be short-lived."

Again, deep breaths, people.

Predictions?

By Brendan Loy

1. What will tonight's Pennsylvania percentages be?

2. On what date will Hillary Clinton drop out of the race?

After the jump, some important dates that might influence people's answers to question #2.

Hillary's financial woes

By Brendan Loy

Will Hillary Clinton be forced to drop out due to a lack of money if she doesn't win big -- nay, huge -- tonight? I'm not hopeful, but apparently her financial situation is somewhat dire. More here.

Obama, Clinton join the know-nothing brigades on autism-vaccine "link"

By Brendan Loy

Turn out Barack Obama is just as indefensibly ignorant as John McCain of the science surrounding vaccines and autism. Ugh. He should read Mike's comment from a few weeks back. Or, you know, anything written by anyone with the remotest idea of what they're talking about -- which would not include Jenny McCarthy, CNN's unfortunate editorial judgment to the contrary.

P.S. I sympathize with McCarthy's parental plight, and I'm sure she genuinely believes the provably false (indeed, proven false) things that she says. The same is probably true, in most cases, of 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earth Society members, etc. But genuine emotional grief and honest-but-discredited beliefs are no excuse for using a national platform to ignorantly spout nonsense.

And as for Obama and McCain? They have even less of an excuse.

UPDATE: Clinton, too!

(Hat tip: Aaron, who quips, "all tremble before the mighty Israel gun union defense autism lobby." Indeed. *sigh*)

Other things Barack Obama isn't ready for

By Brendan Loy

As I mentioned earlier, Hillary Clinton released a TV ad yesterday implying that Barack Obama isn't "ready" to deal with such unpredictable events as a stock market crash, a world war, a cold war, a gas shortage crisis, the fall of the Berlin Wall (wait, wasn't that a good thing?), or a devastating hurricane, nor to contend with such unsavory characters as Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden.

It's an interesting argument, but Senator Clinton is clearly leaving some things out. For instance, as I wrote this morning, the appearance of unexplained light formations over Florida and Arizona obviously leaves Obama vulnerable to the charge that he's not ready to protect Americans from UFOs. (Alas, if only Kucinich were still in the race! This could be his moment!)

But that's not all. Jimmy Kimmel, apparently taking a brief break from f***ing Ben Affleck, helpfully points out some other possible calamities that could befall America:

Is Barack Obama READY to protect Cleveland from Bigfoot???

Don't trust the unweighted exit polls!

By Brendan Loy

[UPDATE, 8:12 PM: Welcome, new readers! The scenario I predicted in this post is now happening. Some leaked exit poll numbers show Obama winning, others Clinton leading by a slight margin. Regardless, it's all meaningless. Likewise, CNN's statement that the race is "competitive based on the exit polls" should be not taken as predictive of the final outcome. CNN initially said Ohio was "competitive," too.

Anyway, I'm liveblogging the results on my homepage.]

Following up on a point I made yesterday -- in a post that just got Instalanched -- as we political junkies giddily await the first hints of what's happening in Pennsylvania today (finally, another primary!! election results tonight!! exit polls!!! colorful maps!!! whee!!!!), it's very important for us, and even moreso the media, to remember that Obama almost always does well in the leaked, unweighted exit polls, and almost always does less well in the final results. For instance:

• In New Hampshire, the "first wave" showed Obama leading by 4; he lost by 3.


• On Super Tuesday, the "first wave" had Obama winning New Mexico by 6 (he lost by 1) and losing California by just 3 (actual margin: 8). The "second wave" wasn't any more accurate: it had Obama winning Georgia by 50 (actual margin: 35), Illinois by 40 (actual margin: 32), Alabama by 22 (actual margin: 14), Delaware by 14 (actual margin: 9), Connecticut by 7 (actual margin: 4), Arizona by 6 (lost by 8), New Jersey by 5 (lost by 10), Missouri by 4 (actual margin: 1), Massachusetts by 2 (lost by 15), and losing Tennessee by 10 (actual margin: 13), New York by 14 (actual margin: 17), Oklahoma by 30 (actual margin: 23) and Arkansas by 46 (actual margin: 44). So Oklahoma and Arkansas were the only states on Super Tuesday where Obama did better than the leaked, unweighted exit polls suggested.


• On March 4, the "second wave" showed Obama winning Vermont by 34 (actual margin: 21), Texas by 2 (lost by 4), Ohio by 2 (lost by 10), and tied in Rhode Island (lost by 18).

Averaging all those numbers together -- and I recognize that this is very unscientific -- you get an average discrepancy of 7 to 8 points. That is to say, Obama generally does 7-8 points worse in the actual results than he did in the leaked, unweighted exit polls.

This is crucially important, because it has the potential to significantly affect the post-primary "spin." That's exactly what happened on Super Tuesday, when Clinton was able to initially spin a "victory" out of her lukewarm performance, largely because the media was expecting Obama to win some "big states" based on those early, favorable numbers. Likewise on March 4, Hillary was able to claim "success" for her Texas and Ohio "firewall," even though she really needed much larger margins to make meaningful delegate progress, in part because the leaked exit polls again conned the punditry into expecting better showings by Obama, possibly including a win in one or both states.

It'll be a travesty and a farce if that happens again. Hillary Clinton needs to win big -- like, double digits big -- and make significant delegate gains in order to claim any kind of a meaningful victory in Pennsylvania tonight. That basic fact will not change one iota if Drudge and The Corner and Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post (and, er, the Irish Trojan) publish initial, meaningless numbers this afternoon that show a "OMG A DEAD HEAT IN PENNSYLVANIA!!1!" and then Hillary "pulls away" and wins by 6 or 8 points or whatever.

It's important to remember that these leaked exit polls do not actually represent any version of reality; they are not something that a candidate can "come back" from. In those instances where they differ from the actual numbers, they are, and always were, simply wrong. The exit-poll-fueled "seven-hour presidency of John Kerry," for instance, was always an illusion; Kerry was never "ahead," and Bush never mounted a "comeback." That's all pure perception, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Same thing here. If Hillary, yet again, does substantially better than the exit polls suggest, nobody should be surprised, and still less should she get favorable, "expectations"-based spin as a result. Obama's early "lead," in that event, will have been (again) a complete chimera. So please, for heaven's sake, let's not get all excited if history repeats itself again.

As I said yesterday: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 21 times, shame on me.

P.S. Politico adds an additional cautionary note, referring to actual returns rather than exit polls:

Don’t be fooled by early results. The cities and suburbs usually report their returns first, which gives the candidate favored in those areas a quick – and sometimes fleeting – lead. The conservative-leaning small towns through the center of the state usually filter in much later in the evening.

This tendency has wreaked havoc in past elections: A Democrat goes to bed thinking he or she is the winner, but wakes up the loser. The last time it happened was 2004, when the Associated Press called the state attorney general race for Democrat James Eisenhower and retracted it later in the night as the numbers closed. Some newspapers went to print with the wrong results.

So Obama could show a lead in the early results, but it might be short-lived. If Clinton is ahead at the start, she may never lose it.

Hillary throws Osama at Obama

By Brendan Loy

When I wrote last week about a possible backlash among late-deciding Pennsylvania voters against Hillary Clinton's all-negative-all-the-time "kitchen sink" strategy, it occurred to me -- although I didn't say it -- that a possible flaw in my theory was that Hillary would probably stop blanketing the state with negative ads in the final few days before the primary, precisely to prevent any such backlash.

Well, so much for that idea:

Admittedly, the ad doesn't explicitly mention Obama's name. But the implicit attack is pretty damn clear, and very much in keeping with the central argument of her campaign: that he isn't "ready from day one," whereas she is. The Obama camp's response:

When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It's ironic that she would borrow the President's tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points.  We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don't need another.

And then this:

I honestly don't know whether Hillary's endlessly negative frontal assault on her Democratic opponent's basic fitness for office will create a backlash. (Well, I know it's apparently created at least a backlash of one. But will Marty's feelings be mirrored by broad swaths of the electorate? That's the question.)

But one thing that's clear is that Hillary's people are not worried about a backlash. If they were, they wouldn't be running this ad now. They clearly believe their relentless negativity will have no adverse consequences for them whatsoever -- or at least that any such impact will be outweighed by the benefits in tearing down Obama. And they may very well be right.

1 day to go

By Brendan Loy

Mark Halperin calls today "The Last Monday Before the First Tuesday of the Rest of Our Lives." He is referring, of course, to tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary. The latest polls show Clinton with a lead in the high single digits to low double digits. I maintain that a double-digit win is necessary for Clinton to really claim an unalloyed "victory"; Obama "wins" if he can hold her margin under 5 points; and a Clinton margin of between 5 and 10 points is a murky gray area. Though, the state of the race at around 10:00 or 11:00 PM Eastern time probably matters at least as much as the actual final numbers, since the media usually decides its transitory "winners" and "losers" before bedtime on the East Coast.

Oh yeah, and, um, delegates. Those matter too.

One cautionary note to those who, like me, are hoping for a strong Obama showing. Don't put any stock in the leaked exit poll numbers. I'll publish the details tomorrow, but bottom line, when you look at New Hampshire, Super Tuesday and March 4, Obama does, on average, roughly 7 to 8 points worse in the actual, final results than in the leaked, unweighted exit polls. (And sometimes the discrepancy is 15 points or more!) So when Drudge announces the inevitable "SHOCK EXIT POLL" numbers late tomorrow afternoon that show a "DEAD HEAT" in Pennsylvania, you shouldn't get all excited -- and neither should the media. When Hillary ultimately trudges to an 8-point win, nobody should be surprised, nor should it be considered some sort of Clinton "comeback," for heaven's sake. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 21 times, shame on me.

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!

Here are the exit-poll details that I promised above.

P.S. Noam Scheiber writes:

Ben Smith makes a great point here. He says Obama's had such a rough stretch lately that it'll be almost impossible for Hillary to spin a single-digit win...into a victory. Expectations for Obama have fallen through the floor.

I certainly hope that's right, and from what I've read, the MSM seems to be sticking to its "Hillary must win big" guns for once (see, e.g., this AP article), rather than allowing the yea scenario to repeat itself.

Quote of the day

By Brendan Loy

"I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything." --John McCain

A very Republican Democratic debate

By Brendan Loy

David Brooks offers his take on last night's debate, under the headline "No Whining About the Media." He thinks it was fantastic.

He's in the minority, of course, among the commentariat. But it's easy to see why a conservative commentator would be pleased with the debate (as demonstrated by the veritable glee over on National Review Online last night). First of all, the questions were stacked in such a way that the candidates' answers were chock full of sound bites that John McCain can use to great effect against either candidate in November. (I still Barack Obama's long, rambling, noncommittal answer on the Iran-Israel question may have well and truly lost him Florida.) [UPDATE: In comments, Sean Braisted scolds me for buying into the Florida-as-Israel meme. He's got a point! ... Bad Brendan, listening to Clinton/MSM spin! Bad!]

But secondly and perhaps more importantly, when the moderators finally finished asking things like "Does your pastor love America?" and got around to asking policy questions, they were largely policy questions that Republicans care about, framed in ways that Republicans would frame them. Will you pledge not to raise taxes? How would you change affirmative action to prevent reverse discrimination? Will you still withdraw from Iraq even if the grownups tell you not to? Don't you think gun control violates the Second Amendment? If Iran nukes Israel, will you pledge to nuke 'em back?

Now, there's nothing illegitimate about these questions, as such. (As for Charlie Gibson's fuzzy capital-gains math, well, that's another story.) What's problematic is that they were being asked in a Democratic debate, ahead of a primary in which Democratic voters will choose between Democratic candidates, presumably based on Democratic issues. Issues like, well, this list of topics, created by a Daily Kos diarist. We can nitpick the exact topics, but I mean, really: how many Pennsylvania Democrats are going to be choosing between Clinton and Obama on the basis of who is more committed to keeping the capital-gains tax at current levels? And yet those sorts of issues -- ones that most Democratic voters simply don't care that much about -- absolutely dominated the debate.

Will there be a backlash?

By Brendan Loy

That, I think, is the only question* that matters now, in terms of Tuesday's result in Pennsylvania. Will the Keystone State's Democratic voters -- remember, these are Democrats, not general-election voters -- rebel against the negativity, the "gotcha"-ism, the endless drumbeat of cynical word-twisting and opportunistic gaffe-pouncing, that has become the central operating principle of the Clinton campaign, and vote instead for the man whose message of "hope" and "change" and a "new kind of politics" so inspired voters in the early stages of this nomination contest? If there's ever a moment for that message to gain new traction, it would be now.

The conventional wisdom holds, and the polling suggests, that undecided voters will break for Hillary, as they did in New Hampshire, and in various big Super Tuesday states, and in Texas and Ohio. But in the last week, Hillary's campaign has gone almost entirely negative, and her inner attack dog been unmasked as never before. Pennsylvanians, remember, have rarely if ever been the center of the political universe like this before -- they're not used to being New Hampshire on steroids -- and the negativity must be absolutely overwhelming at this point. I imagine a lot of voters are getting awfully tired of it all.

If I'm right, tonight's debate, while superficially helpful to Hillary (Sullivan calls it Obama's "worst performance yet on national television," and I don't disagree), may actually have damaged her -- precisely because it seemed, in some ways, almost like an extension of the last week of her campaign. It wasn't really a "debate" so much as an endless series of "gotcha" moments, an ongoing riff on "electability" and side-issues and distractions. The lefty blogosphere is in an uproar; Ed Rendell is mad as hell; commenters on ABC's site are livid. But what will Pennsylvania's voters think? And if they were turned off the debate, will that turn them on to Obama's message, and turn them off to Clinton's transparent Rovianism? I think it just might.

One of the night's most popular answers, according to WPVI's undecided voter reaction tracker thingy, was this response by Obama to a question about his relationship to former Weather Underground bomber William Ayers:

George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. ...

[T]his kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Hillary's response? "Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position." The undecided-voter meter plummeted.

Perhaps I'm being a pollyanna-ish member of the Cult of Obama here, but I think there is a real chance the voters of Pennsylvania will rise up and, once and for all, reject the endless, party-destroying "gotcha" tactics of Hillary Clinton, and choose the candidate of "change." It would be the backlash to end all backlashes. I'm not predicting it. But I think it could happen.

And it would be so sweet if it did.

*Check that: "Will there be a backlash?" is one of two questions that matter. The other one is, "What constitutes 'victory' for Hillary Clinton?" I still maintain she must win by double digits, but I worry, in keeping with the yea theory, that a late rush of pro-Obama polls -- or even leaked, unweighted, pro-Obama exit polls on election night -- could lower the bar and allow her to claim "victory" with a mere narrow win.

UPDATE: Welcome, Andrew Sullivan readers!

P.S. Full disclosure for my new readers: before you put too much stock in my quasi-prediction here, you should be aware of my track record. In October 2005, I made a friendly bet that Giuliani, not McCain, would win the GOP nomination. In November 2007, I bragged that Rudy's strong showing in national polls proved my long-held belief that the GOP isn't as monolithically closed-minded as many liberals think it is. (I actually still think this point is correct, but my use of Giuliani as an exemplar was obviously woefully premature.) In January 2008, one day before New Hampshire, I predicted that Hillary Clinton, after being crushed in the Granite State, would quickly fade and "will not win a single primary." I implied she'd drop out after Super Tuesday. The next day, I picked not just Obama, but Romney, as New Hampshire winners. Later that month, in a reversal of wrongness, I picked McCain to win Michigan. I subsequently opined about a possible "Rudy surprise" in Florida. I could go on, but you get the idea. I've repeatedly been spectacularly wrong this election season. :)

But hey, here's hoping this is the time I'm right!

UPDATE, 7:45 AM: I've been Digged! Also Kossed and DU'd. Already more than 5,000 hits today, and it isn't even 8:00 AM yet. Craziness!

Meanwhile, in comments, Jim Hu writes, "Maybe there will be a backlash, but basing it on the uproar in blogs and comments sections strikes me as wishful thinking. If these were reliable indicators, Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee."

Heh. Touche. But actually, I'm not "basing it on" those things. I'm basing it on my own sense of voters' likely reactions, which the online uproar has only confirmed. My sense is simply this: Democratic voters (not to be confused with general election voters) seem generally unmoved by Bittergate and these other "gotcha" issues. That sense seems to be generally confirmed by polls, "man on the street" interviews, and so forth. So, given that voters are generally unmoved by those issues; and given that Hillary has run an unceasingly negative campaign in the last week or so, based primarily on those issues; and given that last night's debate seemed like an extension of that negative campaign; and given that Pennsylvania has really never been saturated like this with a sustained, PA-centric, negative campaign; I think a backlash is possible. I may well be wrong, but if I am, it won't be because I'm putting too much stock in online commentary. It'll be because my internal predictive sense of how voters are likely to react is wrong. As demonstrated above, it wouldn't be the first time!

UPDATE: The ever-insightful FlyOnTheWall writes in comments:

There may be a backlash provoked by the debate, Brendan, but I suspect that the narrative of a backlash will be far more important. Scanning the coverage this morning, there seems to be an emerging consensus among the talking heads that Clinton hurt herself through her unrelenting negativity last night. I'm not sure that's entirely fair - it strikes me that she's mostly guilty of sinking to the level of the moderators, and taking their bait. But it may not matter.

Consider, for example, this gem from Halperin: "The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that 'prominent Pennsylvania supporters' will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton’s negativity." Now, I'd be willing to wager that if they actually exist, these supporters came around before last night. But Axelrod and Plouffe aren't stupid - they recognize the value of reinforcing perceptions. So they'll roll them out this morning, and the day-after cycle will be dominated by the news that Hillary even turned off some of her own supporters. (Assuming Stephanopolous is correct - can you trust the guy after last night?)

I doubt that the debate itself changed many minds. But far more people will see coverage of the debate and its aftermath than tuned in to watch the event itself last night. And if Obama can make Hillary's negativity the crucial issue, he can turn a truly dismal performance to his advantage.

Well, hey, Hillary won New Hampshire on the basis of a ridiculous, trumped-up "sympathy card." If Obama can do the same in Pennsylvania, they'll be even. Oh, and Obama will be the nominee.

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the "narrative of a backlash" could be bad for Obama, because it could have the effect of resetting the expectations game -- again! -- so as to lower the bar for Clinton -- again! -- thus allowing her to claim a "win" on the basis of a narrow margin that should really be seen as a moral victory for Obama -- again!

As commenter "yea" pointed out two weeks ago, and as I alluded earlier in this post, this late-in-the-game resetting of expectations has been a major Achilles' heel for Obama throughout the campaign. (Think New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, Texas & Ohio.) And it could happen again, with the "backlash narrative" being the launching point.

Think about it: there are still six whole days before the primary. That's a lot of time. And polls are already showing a tightening race, as they always seem to do when primary day nears. That in itself will start to reset expectations, but what's worse, the "backlash narrative" may convince the commentariat that Obama will pick up a big chunk of the undecided vote. Throw in a couple more polls that, by random variation, show Obama with a slight lead -- which will, in keeping with the conflation of correlation and causation, be attributed to the "backlash," thus strengthening the meme -- and, by Tuesday, the MSM could be well-nigh convinced that Obama has a chance to win Pennsylvania outright.

And then think about what will happen when the first wave of leaked, unweighted exit polls -- which always seem to favor Obama -- appear on the media's and blogosphere's radar. If those numbers show a dead heat or an Obama victory, and if the first round of published, issue-based exit polls show the voters saying by wide margins that they hate all the negative campaigning, and that it was important to their vote -- which voters always say, whether it's true or not -- the narrative of a "possible Obama upset" will become conventional wisdom by the time the polls close.

All of which will mean that, when Hillary wins by 5 or 6 points, she'll be able to claim a "comeback" victory, and the narrative will abruptly shift back to: "Well, I guess that 'bitter' stuff, and the Wright stuff, and the Rezko stuff, and the Ayers stuff, and the flag stuff, really hurt Obama after all! Why, look, he lost the working-class white male vote by a 2-to-1 margin! Obama is in trouble!" The superdelegates go back to being alarmed; Hillary again vows to stay in the race until the convention; the thumb-suckers suck their thumbs vigorously; and, basically, we're back to square one. All because of a narrative that I played some small role in starting. Dammit. :)

Dem debate open thread

By Brendan Loy

The "Philly style" Clinton-Obama duel -- "cheesesteaks at ten paces," as commenter JD suggested -- begins at 8:00 PM. I don't know how much liveblogging I'll be doing, but y'all can feel free to leave your own running commentaries in comments here.

Live video stream here.

UPDATE: Obama isn't exactly hitting these initial questions about Bittergate out of the park. He could (and should) have had a clearer explanation of his remarks prepared, and he's missing some chances to take sharper shots at Hillary.

Then again, Hillary is rambling pretty badly now.

Here is Josh Marshall's liveblog.

UPDATE 2: Hillary can't seem to decide if she's really going for the jugular or not, so she's sort of talking around herself. Ramble, ramble, ramble.

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan notes: "So far, neither Gibson nor Stephanopoulos have asked a single policy-related question. They seem utterly uninterested in foreign or domestic policy. After the past eight years, we have had half an hour with nothing but process questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos are clearly part of the problem in this election and part of what has to be reformed."

UPDATE 3: The undecided voters whose reactions are being charted on the WPVI stream hated Hillary's horrible Bosnia answer, and loved Obama's response that we need to stop obsessing over gaffes.

UPDATE 4: Sullivan again: "Now, it's flag-pins! I'm just pointing out that we are now almost halfway through this debate and ABC News has not asked a single policy question. It's pure Rove, sustained and hyped and sustained by Stephanopoulos and Gibson. It's what they know; it's easy; and it will generate ratings. It is not journalism." And later: "I have to say I am actually shocked at the appallingly poor quality of the questions: the worst of the campaign so far. Pure MSM process bulls**t."

I'm actually not entirely sure I agree. They've debated policy in 25 debates, and we already know they disagree on virtually nothing. The "pure MSM process bulls**t" is really the only thing we haven't heard them talk about face-to-face ad infinitum.

Then again, in light of my recent stance on "gotcha" tactics, I suppose I should be on Sullivan's side on this one. I dunno. I can see both sides of it.

UPDATE 4 1/2: Upon further reflection, I'll say this. It does make some degree of sense to talk about the "process bulls**t" in the sense that it's new, whereas the policy questions aren't. However, the policy questions are vastly more important; they elevate the debate, whereas the process questions degrade it. The policy questions inform voters, whereas the process questions distract them. A responsible journalist, committed to fulfilling the press's unique role as a crucial element of our democracy, would spend less time thinking of obvious gotcha potshot questions, and more time thinking of new, different, and more informative and educational ways to ask important questions. This debate, however, was not an exercise in responsible journalism. It was, as The Huffington Post says, "the gotcha debate."

UPDATE 5: Did Obama just lose Florida with his rambling, evasive answer on Israel and Iran -- followed by Hillary's straightforward "massive retaliation" answer?

Substantively: he'll make a rock-solid promise to withdraw from Iraq by a date certain, but he won't promise anything more than "appropriate action" in the event of Iranian nuclear attack on Israel? Bleh.

To be clear, I'm not sure an ironclad pledge by a presidential candidate is appropriate in either instance. But if I was going to promise one and not the other, I'm pretty sure I'd make the opposite choice from the one Obama made.

UPDATE 6: This is funny. All the liberal bloggers think these moderators are terrible. Meanwhile, over at National Review: "These are the GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER."

It's easy to see why. This debate has been a veritable gold mine of sound bites that John McCain will use to great effect, whoever wins the nomination.

UPDATE 7: I think both of these candidates are tired. They're both terrible tonight.

FINAL UPDATE: I totally checked out on the end of the debate: I stopped watching as the affirmative action question was being asked. Did I miss anything good?

On the conflation of correlation with causation

By Brendan Loy

TPM Cafe contributor FlyOnTheWall has an excellent post (as per usual) on "Signals, Noise and Polling." It is very insightful and totally correct, whatever one thinks of Bittergate. I won't excerpt it; just, by all means, read it.

Hillary's strategy: all negative, all the time

By Brendan Loy

It appears that Hillary Clinton's new campaign theory is "if you can't say something mean, don't say anything at all." Her television ad campaign in most Pennsylvania markets right now is 100 percent negative.

I think there's a real chance the voters will rebel against this. But we'll see.

Clinton vs. Obama, Philly style

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will face off tonight in Philadelphia at 8:00 PM EST, in their first debate since February 26.

It will be very, very interesting to see how things shake out. I think there is a serious risk of Hillary overplaying her hand if she continues to hammer Obama on his "small town" gaffe. The Obama campaign apparently agrees, judging by this ad:

I'm not sure what Hillary's debate strategy will be, but I doubt we'll be seeing any "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama" moments. And if she tries that crap, I hope to God he hits back with something like: "If you're so 'honored' to be here with me, Senator Clinton, then why have you been lying to the good people of Pennsylvania by telling them I'm an 'elitist,' which you know perfectly well isn't true, and that I'm supposedly 'not ready' to be president? These are false, Republican-style attacks that have no place in a Democratic primary. You need to make up your mind and be straight with the voters of this state." Hell, I hope he says something like that regardless of what she says. That's be awesome. And it could help continue the erosion of trust in Hillary.

P.S. On the issue of the bitter/cling controversy and the question of whether Hillary is overplaying her hand, Noam Scheiber says: "[The comment in San Francisco] was unquestionably a serious stumble on Obama's part. But the high-percentage move [for Hillary] would have been to get out of the way and let the media run with it. If this were going to do Obama in, it would have done so without her help. Instead, she's thrown Obama a lifeline. She's made herself look completely cynical, she's once again reminded superdelegates of everything they hated about the Clinton era, and she's started making claims about her own cultural authenticity that don't pass the smell test."

I agree, and I actually wonder if she's inadvertently thrown Obama a lifeline for the November election as well. I've had a lengthly blog post about this percolating in my head for several days, which I will attempt to briefly summarize thusly:

Obama's comments are naturally more damaging among the general electorate than among the Democratic primary electorate. I.e., if they're going to destroy him, it'll be in November, not now. Moreover, it will/would be much easier for John McCain to play the "how dare you insult our religion and our guns" card than it is for Hillary Clinton to do so. If this gaffe had occurred without Hillary in the picture, McCain would have immediately pounced, with the guns/religion part of the comment being his central focus. Instead, although McCain did pounce too, Hillary's pounce got the most play, because of the current state of the race -- and she focused mostly, at first, on the "bitter" part, which, as I've said, is by far the most easily defensible part of what Obama said. That resulted in the media labeling this as the "bitter" controversy, "Bittergate," Obama's "bitter" remarks, etc. -- and, once the media decides on a storyline like that, it's pretty well set in stone.

Hillary has since pivoted to talk more about the religion/guns part, but the focus of public discourse is still on "bitter." And I think there may be a growing, vague sense in the psyche of the average, barely-paying-attention swing voter, that this is much ado about nothing, that Obama's comments weren't that big of a deal (after all, we are kind of "bitter"!), that he's being unfairly attacked for an insignificant poor choice of words, and that the "typical politicians" attacking him (for daring to claim that working folks are "bitter") are the ones who are "out of touch."

So, if I'm right, what does this mean for Obama if he wins the nomination? Well, the big question is, what happens when McCain tries to bring this issue up again after Labor Day, when most people really start paying attention to the election? I think it might mean he'll get much less traction than if he'd been the one raising it in the first instance. I think it's possible that the vague "much ado about nothing" impression I just described may trickle down, through swing voters' veils of primary-season apathy, and become a sort of an unconscious sense of the inherent nature of this issue, such that when McCain brings it up again, people will be far less receptive to his argument than they otherwise would have been. I say this because, often times, people's impressions of political events are like newly laid concrete: it's really easy to change their shape initially, but once they take hold, they become very solid almost to the point of immovability. I wonder whether, in part because of the limited degree to which people are paying attention, combined with Hillary's poor tactics in initially highlighting "bitter" instead of "cling," such a "cementing" process may now be occurring, with limited damage to Obama. If so, that is very good news for Obama and very bad news for McCain, who might otherwise have been able to absolutely bury Obama with this.

Mind you, I'm not saying I think any of the above has definitely happened or is definitely happening -- indeed, I could be entirely wrong -- but I think what I've just described is at least plausible. And if I'm actually right, maybe Obama should thank Hillary for being such a cynical, power-hungry monster who cares not at all for her party's well-being. She may be accidentally saving the Democrats, despite her best efforts to destroy them!

Hillary at the bar

By Brendan Loy

John McCain did "Hardball" at Villanova today, and a student -- in reference to the recent photos of Hillary Clinton doing (or possibly sipping) a whiskey shot at Bronko's restaurant in Crown Point, Indiana -- asked him, "I was wondering if you think that she's finally resorted to hitting the sauce just because of some unfavorable polling. And I was also wondering if you would care to join me for a shot after this?"

Heh.

That reminds me: I have a proposal for Hillary Clinton. As you all know, I've soured on her rather severely in recent months, and at this point, I'd be pretty hard-pressed to vote for her under any circumstances. However, there is one thing that might make me change my tune. Hilldog, if you'll go to The Backer, order one of their terrible yet potent Long Islands, and get yourself photographed and videotaped singing the "God Bless the USA" followed by the Notre Dame Victory March (yes, this would mean staying until -- ahem -- 3:00 AM), I might consider switching my allegiance. :)

P.S. Possible campaign ad: "It's 3:00 AM, and your children are safe and asleep. But Hillary Clinton is wide awake, if slightly tipsy, singing patriotic music while swaying back and forth in a circle of townies* in South Bend, Indiana. Suddenly, a cell phone rings -- the cab is here. Who do you want answering that phone? The elitist snob Barack Obama, who will jump in the cab at the earliest opportunity to get away from the 'bitter' townsfolk, and miss the Victory March? Or Hillary Clinton, the woman who respects your traditions, who'll tell the cabbie to wait ten minutes so she can stay right through to the end of 'Oh What A Night'? Make the right choice: Vote for Hillary Clinton on May 6. [slurred Hillary voiceover: 'I'm Hilllary Clinton and I (hiccup) approve this message.']"

*Why townies, you ask? Because the Domers are too "elitist," of course! ;)

I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this John McCain ad

By Brendan Loy

Scoring political points (for herself, and -- much moreso -- for the Republicans), or overplaying her hand?

Al Giordano: "The question is, how many Clinton supporters are there that aren’t signing up for the slash-and-burn-down-the-Democratic-Party strategy that is now naked and running around on TV? Those that remain silent will probably lose credibility later on because in times of moral crisis, silence is seen as complicity."

John Aravosis calls the ad "vile, sickening, and filthy," and urges his readers to "ask yourself if you'll ever vote for this woman again." (Hat tip: The Jed Report, which replies, "I know my answer to that question. As far as I am concerned, Hillary Clinton is no longer a Democrat.")

Hollow scandals and ignored travesties

By Brendan Loy

Ezra Klein on Bittergate:

There's no actual attack being levied [against Obama] that anyone can rebut, or ideas being tossed out that anyone can argue. Instead, Obama has said something Politically Damaging. And it will Damage him. And we'll all watch to see how badly.

But let's be clear: It's not damaging because we think it foretells him doing something harmful to the country. It's not damaging because it suggests his policy agenda is poorly conceived, or his priorities are awry. If you think of policy and politics as two circles in a Venn diagram, this is damage that only exists in the politics circle, and doesn't even come close to the area of intersection. We reporters have to cover it, of course, because it's Really Important, and matters more than the housing plans of all the candidates put together. But it matters in a completely self-referential way, it matters only because it matters, not because it means anything about Obama, or illuminates anything about his potential presidency. It's a hollow scandal. Those housing plans, by contrast, don't "matter" in a way that convinces the media to cover them, or to relentlessly hound McCain about the inadequacy of his proposal. They don't "matter," but they are meaningful. And this is why I don't like writing about the campaign. It's full of hollow scandals and ignored travesties.

Meanwhile, it seems some Pennsylvanians have had enough of Hillary's manipulation of this particular "hollow scandal." Is it possible Hilldog is overplaying her hand here? It's hard to say, but I think she has at least damaged her case by focusing so much on the "bitter" portion of Obama's comments -- clearly the most easily defensible part -- rather than zeroing in, with laser-like focus, solely on the far more problematic comments about religion, guns and (especially) xenophobia and racism. As long as the debate is centered primarily on whether Pennsylvanians are "bitter," a lot of people are going to agree with the best political team on television that Hillary is, at best, cynically making a mountain out of a molehill, and at worst, demonstrating that she's out of touch with how pissed-off voters really are. I have an emerging sense that she has inadvertently thrown Obama a major lifeline with her chosen line of attack.

Fun with lolcats

By Brendan Loy

Obama goes on the offensive

By Brendan Loy

"That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton," he says of her reaction to his "bitter" gaffe. "She knows better. Shame on her."

Don't miss the riff on Clinton "talking like she's Annie Oakley," from around 4:10 to around 5:00. LOL!

P.S. Just the other day, I heard a tune on WDVX that might be a good campaign theme song for Hillary. It's Track 7 on the Biscuit Burners' new album, and can be found on iTunes here. Here's the chorus:

:)

Meanwhile, we now have the Bitter Voters for Obama. Heh. (Hat tip: Marty West.)

P.P.S. Theda Skocpol writes into TPM with her take on Bittergate:

I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break! ...

The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss. ... [W]here is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?

Authenticity? Dignity? Hillary? Surely you jest.

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Says Memphis National Champ Despite KU Having More Points: "Just because some team comes along in the last minute and scores more points than the other guy doesn't mean they're necessarily able to be National Champion on Day One." (Hat tip: GT12.)

Uh-oh

By Brendan Loy

Obama sure has been making his share of rhetorical gaffes lately, hasn't he? Yikes. How many more "terribly, terribly phrased" (or, if you prefer, "not the most felicitously phrased") remarks must we suffer through?

Once again, it's perfectly possible to defend his remarks at an intellectual level, but... he does realize he's running for President of the United States, not, like, dean of the law school, right? He can't win the general election if he keeps saying intellectually defensible but politically indefensible stuff like this.

P.S. In fact, I'm growing increasingly concerned that he can't win the general election, period. Maybe that's just sleepy pessimism talking, or maybe Hillary Clinton put a Borg microchip in my brain and the assimilation process is beginning ("Votes are irrelevant. Delegates are irrelevant. Resistance is futile."), but nevertheless, I fear the game might already be over. Has Obama done enough long-term damage to himself (with Rev. Wright's help) that the man who I once thought would be the "liberal Reagan" is going to lose in a landslide come November? I'd like to say no; I'd like to think American voters will rise to the occasion and judge these two fine men, Obama and McCain, on their actual merits, rather than on a handful of sound bites. But is that really a good bet to make? Can Obama really survive "God damn America" and "typical white person" and "punished with a baby" and "cling to guns or religion"? If he can, he really will be the liberal Reagan: truly teflon-coated.

P.P.S. To be clear: I say I "fear" this outcome because I want a competitive race between two well-respected candidates that's fought on the merits and the issues -- not necessarily because I want Obama to win. I'm undecided between Obama and McCain. But I'd like to see a real race, not a YouTube- and attack-ad-fueled McCain rout. But the latter becomes more likely with each Obama gaffe.

P.P.P.S. Mickey Kaus:

Because Obama's comments are clearly a Category II Kinsley Gaffe--in which the candidate accidentally says what he really thinks--it will be hard for Obama to explain away. [He could say he was tired and it was late at night?--ed But he was similarly condescending in his big, heartfelt, well-prepared "race speech." Better to embrace them. Let's have a national dialogue about egghead condescension!]

Heh.

The expectations game, Keystone edition

By Brendan Loy

From the Economist's Election '08 blog:

The Clinton campaign would have us believe that after all the resources Barack Obama has poured into Pennsylvania, anything but a huge victory for him in that state's primary should raise grave doubts about his electability. But of course, Mr Obama has always trailed Hillary Clinton by huge margins in the Keystone State, which is precisely why he's had to spend so much cash, in hopes of avoiding an embarassing rout.

Nevertheless, what is the appropriate "expectations" benchmark with polls bouncing erratically week to week? Does Mr Obama "beat expectations" if, as per the most recent polls, he holds Mrs Clinton below the double-digit leads she was showing in surveys a month ago? Or are new expectations established by the polls conducted this month? Or, rather, by whatever results are released in the next few days? How long before we decide that a "benchmark" as fluid as "expectations" is essentially meaningless, allowing both campaigns to spin in their preferred direction by selecting their preferred baseline?

Amen to that.

Alas, I'm afraid the media will probably fulfill the prediction of commenter "yea" last week:

who could have predicted this would happen? obama is trailing by a huge amount in a state he's never been to. he shows up in the state and the margin starts to decrease slowly. all of a sudden he surges and even takes the lead in a few polls. things stabilize as the election gets closer, and then there is a natural drift back to hillary that allows her to win the state. she wins the state be a smaller margin than anyone thought possible 4-5 weeks ago, yet by a bigger margin than most of the late polls indicated. hillary then claims the momentum.

*sigh*

Quote of the day #2

By Brendan Loy

"I really don’t understand why the Republican Party very clearly decided what they were going to do [about the Florida and Michigan delegations], and the Democratic Party can’t decide." --Hillary Clinton.

Actually, Senator Clinton, the Democratic Party did decide what to do. They decided to strip those states of all their delegates. This decision was made through the proper procedures, at the proper time, by the proper decision-makers -- including your own adviser Harold Ickes, who voted "yes" on the delegate-stripping plan. The decision was clear and straightforward: if Florida and Michigan didn't move their primary dates, they'd lose their delegations. Period. That was, and is, the decision.

You initially accepted this decision because it was politically necessary for you to do so -- after all, you couldn't be seen as the only candidate not currying favor with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Now, you are refusing to accept that very same decision because it is, again, politically necessary for you to do so, as you can't "win" without those "delegates" who were "elected" in those states' illegitimate "primaries."

To make matters worse, you are dishonestly and absurdly cloaking this cynical Machiavellian maneuver under the guise of democratic idealism, arguing that there's some sort of moral imperative to count the votes of citizens who chose to participate in "elections" that everyone knew were non-binding beauty contests. Better yet, you're making this argument while simultaneously advocating the importance of a "popular vote" count that excludes all voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (whose caucuses didn't report raw vote totals, only delegate counts), and all Obama and Edwards supporters in Michigan (whose candidates weren't on the ballot).

And now, on top of all that, you have the unmitigated gall to gripe that your party "can't decide" what to do, when in fact they decided long ago precisely what to do, and you acquiesced in that decision until you realized that you couldn't win without changing the rules in the middle of the game -- i.e., that you can't win without cheating.

You are truly a piece of work, Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Welcome, Andrew Sullivan readers! I could be wrong, but I think this is my first Sully-lanche. :)

"Big, black dogs just don't get adopted"

By Brendan Loy

Andrew Hiller on this story: "It's time to stop barking, and start listening. An invitation to a national conversation on dog race." Heh.

As the owner of a big, black dog, I am personally offended by the prejudice against said dogs, and I hereby demand that all the presidential candidates immediately and personally reject and denounce the dog-racist sentiments which CNN has bravely shined a light on... and if any candidate does not do so within the next five minutes, I will consider him or her to be presumptively a dog-racist! :P

Gooo Begich, Beeeat Stevens!

By Brendan Loy

Will Alaska's corrupt U.S. senator and pork grand-champion, Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens, be defeated in 2008? Please, lord, let it be true!

I bet his opponent, Mark Begich, is funding his campaign in part by raising a bunch of money over a series of tubes.

Rice, other top officials approved torture

By Brendan Loy

That whole McCain-Rice thing? Er, well, even if the parties involved wanted it to happen (and she has denied any such thing), this probably wouldn't help:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News. ...

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic. ...

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies. ...

[After the leak of the 2002 "torture memo,"] CIA officials ... returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."

Of course, the officials involved would dispute my headline, as they regard these "enhanced interrogation techniques" as "not torture." Duly noted.

Obama's refrain

By Brendan Loy

"Get me more white people!"

And also, a shrubbery.

I am offended by your offense

By Brendan Loy

Ladies and gentlemen, the game of "gotcha" that has characterized the 2008 presidential campaign to date has officially jumped the shark.

The levels of pique, outrage, faux-outrage, and hypersensitivity -- and the cynical manipulation of all of the above -- on all sides, and in all camps, have just gotten absolutely ridiculous. Enough already. Honestly.

P.S. I admit that I have been guilty of this myself once or twice. But, going forward, I promise to do my best not to play the "gotcha" game about trivial, non-substantive matters. If I break this vow, feel free to slap me.

P.P.S. Also, and perhaps more importantly: the fact that some police officers in this allegedly free country feel they have the right to fine people for "disorderly conduct" any time they "do something that alarms or disturbs another" -- even if the "alarming" or "disturbing" conduct is nothing more than arguably offensive speech -- is genuinely frightening. Ever heard of the First Amendment?

Quote of the day

By Brendan Loy

Spike Lee: "The Clintons, man, they would lie on a stack of Bibles. Snipers? That’s not misspeaking; that’s some pure bulls***. I voted for Clinton twice, but that’s over with."

He went on to refer to the former president as "Massuh Clinton" -- as in, a slave master -- and to mock "old black politicians" for obsequious loyalty to him. Cue someone from Hillary's campaign calling on Obama to "personally repudiate" those remarks in 5... 4... 3...

Veepstakes bombshell: McCain-Rice?!

By Brendan Loy

ABC News reports that, according to GOP strategist Dan Senor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is "actively...campaigning" for the vice presidential spot on John McCain's ticket. Drudge is going nuts with this.

Senor's evidence seems a little thin, though. He cites Rice's unexpected appearance at some sort of Grover Norquist conservative confab a week-and-a-half ago, and... well, that's it. If he's extrapolating that she's "actively campaigning" from that data point alone, I'm highly skeptical.

In any event, I expect we'll see Rice tamping down this speculation, through a spokesperson or otherwise, probably tomorrow. The key will be the language she uses. Will she issue an out-and-out denial? A half-denial? A non-denial denial? (She's already sorta kinda denied interest, for whatever that's worth.)

[UPDATE: John McCain has already issued a non-response response: "I did not hear that [she's campaigning for the spot]. I missed those signals. I think she's a great American, I think there's very little that I can say that isn't anything but the utmost praise for a great American citizen, who served as a role model to so many millions of people in this country and around the world. But as I mentioned to you, we're not talking about the [veep selection] process because it just then gets into things that could easily to spill over into an invasion of privacy."]

If Rice does want the VP spot, I don't see the downside for McCain. She's young, smart, articulate*, well-respected, and obviously qualified to be president from day one. And of course, the benefits in the identity-politics game are obvious; she's the perfect antidote to either (or both) the Dems' "historic" candidates.

Once upon a time, I thought Rice was a problematic pick because she's so closely associated with the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. But at this point, McCain has already tied himself so closely to those things that I don't see how her presence harms him. He's been harshly critical of the Rumsfeld strategy, but unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of the Bush Administration's internal dynamics, Rice is not exactly considered a member of the "Rumsfeld wing." In any event, I think she'd help McCain more than she hurts him**, and tapping her would be a political masterstroke.

*and clean! ;)

**I may, however, be underestimating the significance of the ralcitrant racist voting bloc, which would be left with no major-party options in a race between Obama and McCain-Rice. I'd like to think there aren't enough of these folks (in swing states, at least) to really hurt McCain if they stay home, but I could be wrong.

Mark Penn resigns; blogosphere sighs

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton's Karl Rove, Mark Penn, has resigned as her chief strategist. He will stay on board as her chief pollster. (Hat tip: aeromusek.)

The immediate cause of Penn's departure is a flap over his meeting last week with the Colombian government -- in which he was ostensibly acting in his private capacity as a lobbyist and strategist, not as a member of Hillaryland -- but that was really just the straw that broke the camel's back. Penn has been widely reviled by everyone in Hillary's inner circle (except Hillary herself) throughout the entire campaign and before, and he almost certainly would have been sacked back in January as part of Hillary's rumored post-New Hampshire "shakeup" if she had, as expected, lost the Granite State's primary. Instead, he was inexplicably kept on board despite the fact that everyone hates him and his "strategy" was an obvious failure. To make matters worse, as Josh Marshall says, it was absolutely crazy to have "Mark Penn both run message and polling when his polling is so legendary for cherry picking data to confirm his preferred political strategies and messages."

Anyway, I'm kind of sad about this, as Penn was easily the most reliable source on the Clinton campaign team for nonsensical, risible bulls*** spin, which made for great fun mocking him. Alas, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, the blogosphere won't have Mark Penn to kick around anymore.

P.S. Chris Cillizza writes:

While the news of chief political strategist Mark J. Penn's abrupt departure from Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign this evening took many in the Democratic political world by surprise, talk soon turned to how the move would impact the overall message of the campaign. One Democratic consultant, granted anonymity to speak candidly, predicted "a less combative campaign and more focused on her strengths."

Penn was a major influence in Clinton's decision to focus on her toughness and readiness to be commander in chief during the campaign. He was one of the guiding forces behind the now-infamous "3 am" telephone ringing at the White House ad that sought to raise questions about Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) ability to lead the country in the event of a national security crisis.

Sam Gamgee campaigns for Hillary

By Brendan Loy

Yesterday was the second stage of the Washington caucus process (which is the most convoluted of all the Democratic caucus processes), and Politico's Ben Smith reports that Hillary Clinton sent Sean Astin -- a.k.a. Rudy, a.k.a. Sam Gamgee -- out to be her "surrogate" in one of the state's legislative districts. Heh.

Astin's presence made a fair amount of sense when the Clintons were visiting South Bend, where everybody loves Rudy. But Washington-state blogger Eli Sanders is skeptical of Astin's relevance to this particular event in his state: "the type of people who show up for legislative district caucuses on a Saturday don't really need a celebrity (or semi-celebrity) to motivate them to take political action."

Personally, I think Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, or perhaps best of all, Gollum, would be a better spokesman for the Clinton campaign. :) "The presidency, it's ours, it is! Our precious! They stole it from us, the nasssty Obamasses, and we wants it back!"

Hillary's 3 a.m. problem

By Brendan Loy

Mark Steyn:

Jeepers, will all business during this Clinton administration be transacted at 3 a.m.? Is it some union-negotiated flex-time deal? "Home foreclosures mounting"? We'd better wake the president. There are now so many foreclosures the banks can no longer foreclose on everyone they need to foreclose on during normal banking hours. "The First National Bank of Dead Skunk, Maine, has begun issuing midnight foreclosure notices, Madam President."

"OK, nuke 'em."

"Er, well, maybe this can wait till the regular afternoon meeting."

It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone ringing in the White House. And ringing and ringing and ringing. Kim Jong-il No Dong missiles are heading for every major West Coast city, but the president's not picking up because at 2:57 a.m. the Secretary for Soccer Moms called to alert her to the growing crisis caused by the lack of federally mandated children's bicycling helmets.

Heh. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

P.S. On a more serious note, it looks like Hillary has been "misspeaking" again:

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee. ...

[H]ospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

The idea of Hillary using the (false) tale of someone dying because they couldn't pay a $100 fee reminds me a bit of that wonderful old campaign ballad, The M.T.A. Song. But instead of "Fight the fare increase, vote for George O'Brien!" I guess now it's "Fight the premium increase, vote for Hillary Clinton!" Heh. Hillary descends further and further into self-parody...

P.P.S. Video of the M.T.A. Song:

I sing that song to Loyette all the time. :)

P.P.P.S. For those not familiar with the song, they actually did a lyrical switcheroo in the final verse in the above clip. You can view the real lyrics here. It's supposed to be "Fight the fare increase, vote for George O'Brien! And get Charlie off the M.T.A.! Or else he'll never return..."

40 years later

By Brendan Loy

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Memphis. Politico's Ben Smith has a video clip of Bobby Kennedy's famous speech, announcing Dr. King's death at what was to be a campaign rally in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis:

Here's the back story:

Amid the tragedy of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, April 4, 1968, an extraordinary moment in U.S. political history occurred as Robert F. Kennedy, younger brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, broke the news of King's death to a large gathering of African Americans in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The gathering was actually a planned campaign rally for Robert Kennedy  in his bid to get the 1968 Democratic nomination for President. Just after he arrived by plane at Indianapolis, Kennedy was told of King's death. He was advised by police against making the campaign stop which was in a part of the city considered to be a dangerous ghetto. But Kennedy insisted on going.

He arrived to find the people in an upbeat mood, anticipating the excitement of a Kennedy appearance. He climbed onto the platform, and realizing they did not know, broke the news.

You can hear the crowd's stunned screams in the clip. Yet Kennedy went on to deliver a memorable speech, and despite the Secret Service's worries, he was unharmed that night.

Bobby Kennedy, of course, was himself assassinated two months later in California.

If the Democratic convention in Denver this August becomes a contentious floor fight, there will be a lot of comparisons in the media -- and even on this blog, probably -- to the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, exactly four decades earlier. The confluence of the anniversary and the superficial similarities will be too much to ignore. But it's worth remembering the context of the '68 mayhem before taking such flippant analogies too seriously. For all the heated rhetoric, Machiavellian machinations, and important issues at stake in this election, 2008 is nothing like 1968, thank God.

Job market continues to tank

By Brendan Loy

Fan-freakin'-tastic:

The U.S. economy shed 80,000 jobs in March and the unemployment rate jumped to 5.1 percent, as the labor market continued to be battered by an economic slowdown.

U.S. employers have now eliminated more than 232,000 jobs in the last three months. ...

The latest employment figures, released this morning by the Labor Department, add evidence to the developing sense of an economy in recession. In addition to the March figures, the department said that even more jobs had been lost in January and February than earlier reported. Statistics for those months were revised downward by 67,000.

"Trends are awful," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist with the High Frequency Economics consulting firm. Factoring out the increase in government jobs, he noted, private employers dropped nearly 100,000 positions. Considering that as of the end of last year, businesses were adding an average of 45,000 jobs a month, "the turnaround has been very fast," he wrote in an analysis of the latest employment report. ...

The latest jobs report "shows that we're right in the middle of a recession that will probably take a while," said Carl Lantz, an analyst with Credit Suisse in New York, told the Reuters wire service. "Our expectation is that it will be a longer recession than the last two and we're just in the beginning."

I think I may need to create an "Economic News" category for the blog, since it sounds like there will be a lot more of these cheerful posts in coming months and years.

P.S. The candidates react.

At least he doesn't refer to himself in the third person

By Brendan Loy

Ross Douthat looks at John McCain as Bob Dole. Insert your own Viagra joke here.

Polls show narrow Clinton lead in Indiana

By Brendan Loy

South Bend Tribune: "Clinton, Obama neck and neck in Hoosier state." (Hat tip: TPM.)

The cited poll has Hillary up by 3%. A different poll a few days ago showed her up by 9%. In any event, a close race in Domerland.

Quote of the day

By Brendan Loy

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate." --Hillary Clinton.

This is fascinating -- truly fascinating. Hillary has painted herself as a champion of democracy, both by promoting the supremacy of primaries over caucuses, and by insisting that the illegitimate Florida and Michigan primaries should count, lest millions of voters be disenfranchised. But now, by arguing that the delegates elected in any and all primaries and caucuses shouldn't be considered "pledged," she is quite literally advocating the disenfranchisement of all voters in all states.

After all, what on earth can the purpose of those primaries and caucuses have been, if not to produce "pledged delegates"? What was the point of bothering to have elections at all, if their results can be so casually disregarded when it comes time to actually choose the nominee?

As a technical, procedural matter, of course, she's right: the delegates aren't "pledged" to follow their state's result. Just as there can be "faithless electors" in the Electoral College, there can be "faithless delegates" at the convention, and there's no legal mechanism to stop them from casting their votes however they please. But that's a legalistic, proceduralist argument, which isn't what Hillary is driving at here. She's making a legitimacy argument. She's contending that "there is no such thing as a pledged delegate" in an attempt to convince people that it's perfectly okay for her to try and "flip" Obama's delegates -- that there's nothing normatively wrong with doing that, and so she shouldn't be criticized for it.

Which is fine, if that's what she wants to argue, but then she ought to be called on the carpet for the inevitable logical extension of her argument, which is that Democratic voters have no binding role in the selection of their own nominee. All the primaries and caucuses were, according to Hillary's logic, strictly advisory in nature. Somehow, I don't think Democratic voters will go for this. (Nor is it remotely consistent with her own statements about Michigan and Florida, the popular vote, and many other things.)

This isn't the first time, of course, that Hillary has raised the possibility of "flipping" pledged delegates. But she's never put it in such stark terms until now. In my mind, it's one thing to suggest, as she has implicitly done before, that she might try to flip some pledged delegates if the overall delegate result appears unjust for some reason (e.g., not in line with the "popular vote"). But it's another thing entirely to dismiss the whole concept of pledged delegates as being altogether meaningless. Her underlying strategy may be the same in both cases, but the rhetoric in the latter case is vastly more inflammatory. "No such thing as a pledged delegate." Think about that. Really think about it. She might as well be saying to the 28+ million voters who've already cast ballots in Democratic primaries and caucuses: "Your votes didn't count. You elected nobody and nothing."

Obama needs to hit back on this, hard. It should be the easiest thing in the world to spin Hillary's comment as appallingly antidemocratic. It'll be easy because, unlike the vast majority of Hillary's spin, it's actually true.

(More here and here.)

McCain-Crist?

By Brendan Loy

Man, oh man, would they ever look old if they were up against, say, an Obama-Webb ticket.

Why the popular vote doesn't matter

By Brendan Loy

A Politico reader makes an interesting point about Hillary Clinton's reliance on the "popular vote" as a reliable, and perhaps even dispositive, metric of public support:

I wonder whether the technical difficulties in counting the popular vote obscure a more fundamental reason why it's an uninformative metric for the strength of the candidates - namely, it was never contested. Both campaigns were (or should have been, anyway) focussed on accumulating delegates. To do this they developed very specific strategies. Obama invested resources in caucus states, a place he could garner many delegates but not much of the popular vote, for instance. Even in primary states, the candidates focussed much of their efforts on certain (odd-number-of-delegate or otherwise mathematically interesting) districts over others. So although the popular vote might appear like it should be a good measure of overall preference, it seems to me more of a coincidental consequence of how delegate strategies played out.

That's absolutely true. Of course, it's equally true, if not moreso, in the November election, when candidates focus on the Electoral College, not on general popular-vote turnout. Would Al Gore have "won" the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000 if Bush's campaign had invested more resources in "running up the score," if you will, in the red states? Would Bush have "won" by 2.5% in 2004 if Kerry's people had been mounting truly intensive (because potentially decisive) get-out-the-vote efforts in places like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago? The broader lesson is that the process matters, and you really shouldn't try to judge an election by a metric other than the intended one. You gotta follow the process, or you get results of very limited utility.

Somewhat relatedly, I would direct your attention to my recently revised article defending the Electoral College. Among other things, I've revised my hypothetical 2012 scenario: Mike Huckabee, instead of Jeb Bush, is now President Obama's opponent. :) Let it be known, by the way, that in the original version of article, I pegged Obama as the hypothetical 2012 incumbent, way back in April 2007 -- heh!

Obama gaining ground in Pennsylvania

By Brendan Loy

Something strange is happening en route to Hillary Clinton's presumed Reverend Wright-fueled romp in Ed Rendell's not-ready-to-vote-for-a-black-guy Keystone State: Barack Obama is gaining ground, again.

Yesterday, a new Rasmussen poll showed Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania down to 5 points, from 10% a week ago in the same poll. I held off posting anything, because one shouldn't put too much stock in a single poll. But later yesterday, SurveyUSA showed Hillary's lead shrinking from 19% three weeks ago to 12% now. Today, Quinnipiac has her lead at 9%, down from 12% two weeks ago.

And then, of course, there's a one labeled by Drudge as a "SHOCK POLL," the Public Policy Polling survey that shows Obama ahead by 2%. The same poll had Hillary leading by 26 points just over two weeks ago -- a 28-point swing in 16 days!

According to TPM, PPP "has had a solid record this year." Still, TPM says, and I agree, that this Obama-by-2 poll "has to be seen as an outlier, though it is important to note that [it] is the most recent survey." It should also be noted that the RCP average now has Clinton up just 6%.

Relatedly, Mark Halperin looks at What Hillary Clinton Has to Do to Really “Win” Pennsylvania.

Oh, and here are some interesting Electoral College maps, again showing Hillary and Obama having very different strengths (and weaknesses). They appear to confirm something my dad said, way back before Super Tuesday, which I initially questioned but now whole-heartedly agree with: that Obama, electorally, has "both more upside and more downside potential."

Finally, on a totally unrelated note, it looks like Washington state is headed for another Gregoire-Rossi barnburner.

UPDATE: Commenter "yea" writes:

who could have predicted this would happen? obama is trailing by a huge amount in a state he's never been to. he shows up in the state and the margin starts to decrease slowly. all of a sudden he surges and even takes the lead in a few polls. things stabilze as the election gets closer, and then there is a natural drift back to hillary that allows her to win the state. she wins the state be a smaller margin than anyone thought possible 4-5 weeks ago, yet by a bigger margin than most of the late polls indicated. hillary then claims the momentum.

Heh. Indeed.

I'm not sure, though, if the Clintons will be able to get the media to buy that load of bull this time around. I'm not totally putting it past them (or rather, past the media to be that dumb, again), but at some point, the reality of, well, reality, as opposed to spin-based unreality, has to take hold, doesn't it?

Look, the following is a fact: whatever barely plausible case Hillary might currently, arguably have that she can still catch up and win the nomination, she will have no such case when April 23 dawns, unless she won Pennsylvania the previous day in a massive blowout (like 15+ points) and thus earns a huge delegate edge there. The delegates to make up Obama's lead have to come from somewhere -- they can't all be uncommitted superdelegates, there aren't enough of those -- and she's running out of chances. She can't beat Obama by running out the clock with a series of delegate draws and claiming "momentum." Momentum is meaningless unless, at some point, it gets her delegates.

I think this is a case of fool me once (New Hampshire), shame on me; fool me twice (Super Tuesday), shame on me; fool me thrice (Texas & Ohio), shame on me; but I'll be damned if you're going to fool me a fourth time. :)

More unintentional comedy

By Brendan Loy

From the makers of that godawful "Hillary for you and me" video, here comes the sequel -- "Hillary in the House" -- in which they, um, rap:

Commentary would be superfluous.

In other news, Bill Clinton went on a tirade last weekend, attacking, among others, Bill "Judas" Richardson for his alleged disloyalty. (Loyalty! It's always about loyalty with these wretched buffoons!) Speaking of Richardson, he responded to his attackers in yesterday's Washington Post:

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

It seems as if the Clintons truly do not understand that their behavior vis a vis Richardson, among many other things in this campaign, solidifies and confirms every negative impression that people have of them. Like the people who make those hilarious (in the "laughing at you" sense) YouTube videos, Billary and their surrogates appear to entirely lack self-awareness.

Taking Snipergate up a notch

By Brendan Loy

Christopher Hitchens accuses Hillary Clinton of "flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia." And then he gets really harsh!

[H]ere is the historical rather than personal aspect [of the controversy], which is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

Michael Crowley has more, including some potentially contradicting evidence. What's his verdict? "Inconclusive--but suspicious! I say the burden's on Hillary to establish that she really was speaking up about these genocides that moved her so [according to her book]. Thus far, she hasn't made much effort to do so, and I'm not sure she's earned the benefit of the doubt recently." (Via Sully.)

P.S. On the topic of Hillary's lies and deceit, somebody sent me this article. Not sure what, if anything, to make of it. We link, you decide.

Bowling for delegates

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton's April Fools joke. Not bad!

Audio here. Poorly synched video here.

"Cover me, Chelsea!"

By Brendan Loy

Heh:

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

More on Hillary's lie misstatement

By Brendan Loy

Snipergate: the gift that keeps on giving!

SARAJEVO, Bosnia - The Bosnian girl who famously read a poem to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her 1996 visit to the war-torn country is shocked - and her countrymen infuriated - that the former first lady claimed to have dodged sniper fire that day.

Emina Bicakcic, now 20 and studying to become a doctor, told The Post she stood on the tarmac at the air base in Tuzla, greeted Clinton and even had time to share the lines of verse she'd written - all without fear of attack from an unseen enemy.

In other news: Heh.

Poll: Obama increases lead over Clinton

By Brendan Loy

Gallup says Obama leads Hillary by 10% nationally. Maybe the voters are getting caught up in the same wrap-it-up trend as the superdelegates.

Meanwhile, alas, Obama is going to get in trouble for this remark regarding his opposition to abstinence-only education:

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.

I boldfaced the part that's being, and will continue to be, gleefully taken out of context by "outraged" conservates. In reality, as the context makes obvious, Obama's not talking about abortion at all, nor is he saying that teenage parents ought not love their babies. He's merely acknowledging an obvious reality that everyone understands (teen pregnancy is a bad thing), and proposing something that he believes would help reduce teen pregnancy ("comprehensive" sex education that includes information about birth control and protection). His comment is entirely defensible, and indeed, 100% correct in my view. But it was also clumsily worded, and will make great fodder for some anti-abortion 527 group. (The linked blogger, Mike Allen, asks whether "this comment opened the door to trouble, or are conservatives twisting an innocent observation?" Um, both?)

Al Gore for President?

By Brendan Loy

The Goreacle Option picks up steam.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

The idea of rejecting Clinton and Obama, and turning to Gore instead, entered the mainstream conversation with some intriguing comments by a Florida congressman on Monday, and this Joe Klein piece on Wednesday.

Cue some Rovian snark: "You know you got a problem if the answer is Al Gore."

News flash

By Brendan Loy

Apparently John McCain is American.

P.S. Meanwhile, it seems Hillaryland considers Indiana a must-win. Also, predictably enough, their line of attack against the growing Hillary-should-withdraw chorus (about which, more here) is to play the gender card: Leahy, Dodd, Richardson, etc. are the "big boys" trying to bully a woman. Ugh. What a shameless b.s. artist she is, truly.

Dean wants supers to decide by July 1

By Brendan Loy

Howard Dean wants the undeclared superdelegates to pick a candidate "at some point between now and the first of July, so we don't have to take this into the convention."

Dean's logic is not necessarily pristine here, alas. Even if every single one of the 794 supers were to "say who they're for" prior to July 1, that doesn't necessarily mean "we don't have to take this into the convention." Indeed, in a formal sense, we "have to take this into the convention" no matter what -- there is, after all, going to be a roll call at the convention, and no other binding roll call will occur before then. The best the Democrats can do is have a nominee presumptive before the convention, not an actual nominee. And that only works if Hillary Clinton plays along.

That raises the following question: if the informal July 1 tally shows Hillary trailing by, say, 100 delegates -- barely 2 percent of the total -- does anyone believe she'll drop out at that point? Particularly if the Michigan and Florida controversies are still unresolved? She keeps reminding us that all the delegates, including the "pledged" ones, are free to make their own independent decisions when the roll is called. That means they're also free to change their minds between July 1 and August 28. If Hillary's willing to put the party through hell through the end of June in hopes that Obama will inexplicably collapse, why wouldn't she be willing to extend her quixotic quest for another two months?

This is where the brilliance of Phil Bredesen's superdelegate superconvention -- which Dean opposes, because he doesn't like the potential "cigar-filled back room" aspect of it -- comes in. Admittedly, such a gathering would not formally change any of the above. But if Hillary publicly buys into the concept (even if kicking and screaming), then it will have the potential of producing some actual closure to the race, as opposed to the anticlimactic June trickle of superdelegate endorsements that Dean seems to envision. It'd be much harder for Hillary to justify continuing her campaign after "losing" the "superdelegate primary" than it would be if she is merely "trailing" in the fluid, informal "superdelegate count."

In related news, one day after Chris Dodd said that "over the next couple of weeks," after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries at the latest, "the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion... instead of having this sort of drip on for the next five months," Pat Leahy took it a step further, opining that Clinton "ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama." Cue sputtering outrage from the Clinton camp in 5... 4... 3...

It should be noted that Dodd and Leahy had already endorsed Obama, so these aren't exactly neutral parties putting the heat on Clinton. Nevertheless, it's significant that we're start to hear some high-level noises that sound a bit like "drop out, Hillary."

Oh, and also, Pennsylvania Senator (and superdelegate) Bob Casey (D-PA) will endorse Obama today. This is a big deal for two reasons. One, it's a crack in Hillary's firewall of Pennsylvania establishment support that could carry a decent amount of weight in the Keystone State, since, in Halperin's words, Casey has a "big following among — and symbolic resonance with — the state’s working-class voters." (Did I mention he's white? And, as far as I know, doesn't attend a wacky racist church?)

Secondly, as Eric Kleefield notes, "Casey had previously said he thought the best thing to do was remain publicly neutral — so his endorsement of Obama could potentially reflect a desire to end the primary race as soon as possible." Along the same lines, Mike Allen writes: "Democrats are wondering if this could signal the beginning of a 'bandwagon effect' that began last week with the endorsement by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson."

In other words: Richardson... Dodd... Leahy... Casey. The drumbeat begins. Boom, doom. Drums in the deep.

Does Hillary want McCain to win?, ctd.

By Brendan Loy

Yesterday afternoon, I blogged about Maureen Dowd's column in yesterday's New York Times, in which she argued that Hillary Clinton's willingness to out-and-out attack Barack Obama -- even though the resulting damage will probably inure only to John McCain's benefit, not Hillary's, in the end -- might indicate a self-interested preference for a McCain victory in November. The theory, of course, is that an Obama defeat in the general election would open the door for Hillary, The Sequel in 2012. "Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat," I quoted Dowd as saying.

Silly me, thinking Maureen Dowd had an original thought.

As it turns out, this very topic has been the subject of a raging debate in the center-left blogosphere for almost a week, with various prominent bloggers weighing in both sides of the issue -- creating a dialogue that's much more illuminating and insightful, unsurprisingly, than a Maureen Dowd column. Details after the jump.

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

TNR's Christopher Orr says Hillary Clinton has joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Meanwhile, blogger Cameron Fredman has found some counts that show Clinton ahead. My favorite:

Average Highest Elevation

CLINTON: 6135 Feet
OBAMA:  6097 Feet

Frankly, I’m surprised that more attention hasn’t been drawn to this.  Obama claims to want to elevate the level of discourse, but he has failed in states with the highest elevations.  Clinton has won on Mount Whitney (California), Humphreys Peak (Arizona), Boundary Peak (Nevada), and Wheeler Peak (New Mexico). Perhaps more significantly, there are so few peaks left that despite the close margins, Obama has no hope of regaining the altitude vote.  Clinton also leads among states with the highest average mean elevation: (Clinton:  1908.8 feet    Obama:  1457.7 feet).

I fully expect Howard Wolfson to be citing that one within days. (Hat tip: TNR.)

P.S. And another "Heh," courtesy of James Carville, opening a speech at a finance conference: "Governor Richardson was going to introduce me, but he got pinned down by sniper fire at the airport.”

P.P.S. And yet another "Heh," courtesy of Wonkette:

Gravel vs. Paul? Bring it on!

By Brendan Loy

Mike Gravel, the former Democratic presidential candidate who once made a creepy YouTube ad in which he stared at the camera for like two minutes, will run for the Libertarian nomination for president.

So far, Ron Paul -- who was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1988 -- says he's not running in 2008. But man, wouldn't that be awesome? Mike Gravel vs. Ron Paul? The Democrats' fringe also-ran vs. the Republicans' fringe also-ran, duking it out for the Libertarian nomination? It'd be the political equivalent of the NIT championship game!

The audacity of hopelessness

By Brendan Loy

David Brooks had a good column about Hillary Clinton in yesterday's New York Times. He estimates her chances of capturing the nomination at 5 percent, and then professes himself astounded at "what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance." She appears intent on attempting to destroy Obama, even though there's a 95 percent chance her efforts will only help McCain. "When you step back and think about it, she is amazing," Brooks writes. "She possesses the audacity of hopelessness."

Interesting stuff, but even moreso when it's read in concert with today's Maureen Dowd column, which suggests that Hillary might consider this lifeline to McCain a feature, not a bug. After all, if Obama loses the general election, Hillary can take another stab at the presidency in 2012. And a 76-year-old President McCain could hardly play the age card against a 65-year-old opponent.

Translating Hillary Clinton

By Brendan Loy

A few days ago, Jay blogged about Phil Bredesen's proposal for a superdelegate superconvention. Today, Hillary Clinton offered her thoughts on the plan: "The governor from Tennessee suggested that there be a convention of superdelegates, and I think that it is an intriguing idea. I have not considered it long enough to have an opinion on it."

Heh. Translation: "I haven't determined yet whether it would help me or hurt me politically. When I figure that out, I'll let you know whether it's an obviously necessary, undeniably fair and just procedure for determining the nominee, or a horribly undemocratic, totally indefensible alteration of the sacrosanct process we already have in place."

For those of you who haven't seen them before

By Jay Johnson

I don't know how many folks are aware of the guys from Red State Update, but I love their redneck takes on politics. The guys are radio DJs/comedians, playing the characters of Jackie Broyles and Dunlap.

Usually, it's simply them sitting at a table, bantering back and forth. This one, however, is a special kind of amusing.

Enjoy. Then, if you haven't already, go check out their other stuff on their site and/or add them to your MySpace friends.

Implausible deniability

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton admitted yesterday that her claim, in a major prepared foreign policy speech last week, that "I remember landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia in 1996 and "we ran with our heads down" to avoid being hit, was false. She says it was a "misstatement," that she inadvertently "misspoke," and that this whole issue is a "minor blip."

Remember, this "misstatement" by Clinton was not an off-the-cuff, throwaway remark. It was in the prepared text of a major speech, and it formed part of a broader argument that Hillary has meaningful foreign-policy experience from her days as first lady. Politico has more, including video of the CBS News report that debunked Hillary's statement and spurred her to correct it:

On an almost-related note, Josh Marshall weighs in, again, on the Clinton campaign's ongoing "fog of nonsense":

Spin is one thing. And it's not a bad thing. But to have utility it must be tethered to some relevant facts, some kind of reality. Otherwise it just descends into ridiculousness. There's always some new clever but inane argument to twist 'up' into something at least somewhat resembling 'down'. Or if not that, enough to keep your head spinning long enough not to notice for a while that 2 and 2 still equals 4.

And finally, on an entirely unrelated note, a goofy picture of President Bush and the Easter Bunny, courtesy of NRO and Drudge:

NRO readers suggested some captions, but I don't think any of them are terribly good. I think Irish Trojan readers can do better. Suggestions?

Campaign '08 continues its "Places Brendan Used To Live" World Tour

By Brendan Loy

Speaking of the Indiana primary... the South Bend Scenario -- the latest salvo in the "vast right/left-wing conspiracy to piss me off" by making every single place I've ever lived, except the place I'm living now, a major hub of presidential campaign activity -- is proceeding according to plan: Bill and Chelsea Clinton are in South Bend today to celebrate Dyngus Day (video here), and the Obama campaign is opening a South Bend office, declaring that Obama will campaign "in every corner" of Indiana. (Hat tip: JT.)

So, there have now been campaign visits by major candidates and/or their top surrogates in Greater Hartford, Los Angeles, New York City, Phoenix, South Bend and Denver (my possible next home)... everywhere I've ever lived except Knoxville.

HARUMPH.

North Carolina as the new firewall?

By Brendan Loy

With Hillary Clinton appearing to have an insurmountable edge in Pennsylvania, Mark Halperin says the "developed consensus" is that "Clinton probably has to win North Carolina’s May 6 primary to fight on with a real chance — but/and Obama has to win it to avoid a prolonged fight." Polls there show a slight Obama edge.

You'd think that, at some point, the focus would become exclusively on delegates, rather than on objectively meaningless "wins" and "losses." But of course, you'd be wrong. The objectively meaningless could be subjectively pivotal, because of the importance of the superdelegates, the media narrative, etc.

Thus, although it advances the "wins" vs. "losses" narrative, I gotta ask: what about Indiana, which votes on the same day as North Carolina? Might not Obama need a two-state May 6 sweep to really get the "Hillary should drop out" meme going?

TNR's Noam Scheiber thinks so. Here's the key excerpt from his excellent piece on the "Democratic death march" toward Denver:

Democrats have never been known for Spock-like rationality, but even they see the logic of avoiding a convention fiasco. "It's in nobody's interest in the Democratic Party for that to happen," says Mike Feldman, another former Gore aide. "There is a mechanism in place--built into the process--to avoid that." That mechanism, such as it is, involves an en masse movement of uncommitted superdelegates to the perceived winner of the primaries. Almost everything you hear from such people suggests this will happen in time. "I think once we have the elected delegate count, things will move fairly quickly, " says Representative Chris Van Hollen, who oversees the party's House campaign committee. Increasingly, there is even agreement on the metric by which a winner would be named. Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most.

Assuming Feldman and Van Hollen are right, that means Democrats won't wait much past June 3--currently the last day on the primary calendar--before crowning a nominee. At the same time, it means there's very little chance of ending the contest sooner. Undecided superdelegates on Capitol Hill, along with party elders like Pelosi, Gore, and Harry Reid, "don't want to be seen as elites coming in and overturning the will of the people," says one senior House aide. A Senate staffer says his boss "thinks this give and take is natural, it will be helpful in the end." "That's a view held by a majority of these guys who have been through the cut and thrust of politics," he adds. Which means early June it is. ...

The most optimistic scenario I could plausibly construct didn't end the campaign until the second week in May. To make it happen, Obama would have to overtake Hillary among superdelegates--a key psychological barrier. He'd have to limit his margin of defeat in Pennsylvania to ten points, then hold serve two weeks later in North Carolina and Indiana, a pair of states he's slightly favored to win. At that point, Hillary would face nearly impossible odds of overtaking him in the delegate race.

Unfortunately for anyone who wants the race to end soon, there are several problems with this scenario. For one thing, even if all this comes to pass, Hillary would still have to bow out voluntarily--an unlikely twist in any event, but highly implausible if the limbo states of Florida and Michigan still offer her hope. Meanwhile, any one of the aforementioned steps could easily fall through. Polls currently show Obama trailing by double digits in Pennsylvania; the good Reverend Wright could make that tough to change. And, though Obama now leads in North Carolina and Indiana, his advantage is either small or, in the latter case, based on a single, flimsy poll. As for superdelegates, as of this writing, the last two out of the closet opted for Hillary.

So, to review: The most optimistic scenario we have relies on a highly tenuous assumption; it's unlikely to happen even if that assumption holds; and, regardless, it allows the Democratic contest to drag on for six more brutal weeks. The dream may never die, but it's seen some better days.

The focus of Scheiber's article, as that latter point implies, is the damage the Democrats are doing to one another. At one point, he writes that "debating national security credentials during the primaries invariably alters the general-election landscape. You can now count on seeing another '3 a.m.' ad sometime this fall--not to mention a '3 a.m.' debate question from Tim Russert, and a shadowy, '3 a.m.'-obsessed 527 group. ('Insomniac Prank-Callers For Truth'?)" Heh.

He also notes, referring metaphorically to Democrat-on-Democrat attacks, that "any missile that hits its target would also destroy the person who launched it":

Given the delegate math, Hillary's only path to the nomination, barring a meltdown by Obama, is to destroy his electability. But harsh attacks on Obama will inevitably discourage African Americans from voting in the fall, and Hillary can't beat McCain without strong black turnout in places like Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Conversely, any attack on Hillary that alienated moderate Republican women could cripple Obama's chances.

Indeed.

Obama's unforced error

By Brendan Loy

The Obama campaign's decision to distribute a photo of Rev. Wright with Bill Clinton is one of the lowpoints of his campaign, IMHO. First of all, it's a Hillary-esque move, trying to spin an insignificant fact (i.e., Bill Clinton met some guy and had his picture taken) into a major talking point (i.e., the Clintons are clearly hypocrites for criticizing Obama's Wright connection, because they like Rev. Wright too! Just look at the photo! And they even wrote him a thank-you note! A THANK-YOU NOTE!!). In that sense, it's reminiscent of the kindergarten essay nonsense from a few months ago. Like I said: Hillary-esque. And, as Jay Carson says, "pathetic."

Secondly, and for much the same reason, it invites ridicule. Whatever point Obama is trying to make here, it's implausible on the facts presented. Nobody can possibly believe that Bill Clinton shaking hands with Rev. Wright, and having a picture taken (one of "tens of thousands" of such pictures taken over the course of eight years, the Clinton campaign plausibly asserts), somehow establishes that Hillary has anything approaching the level of connection that Obama has with the man. The notion is frankly just laughable. And when you're the front-runner for the presidential nomination, you don't want people laughing at you. As Howard Wolfson e-mailed when asked for comment about the photo, "Urgent indeed — a picture — oooooooo!"

Thirdly, it's strategically idiotic. As NBC's First Read says, "Doesn't [the photo] just give cable networks another excuse to run the video of Wright? How does that turn the page? It was an odd decision to say the least." Whatever infinitesimal gains the photo might reap for Obama by pointing out the Clintons', uh, hypocrisy, or whatever, they're wiped out ten times over by the fact that the photo gives the Wright story fresh legs.

All in all, a terrible move by Obama.

P.S. This "typical white person" thing isn't so hot, either.

On the bright side, Obama has just picked up the coveted Richardson endorsement. And it's nice to see a hard-hitting memo on Hillary's history of deception. Though, with March Madness going on, I'm not sure your average voter will notice any of this weekend's developments.

I'm a procedural minutiae snob!

By Brendan Loy

Remember a few weeks ago, when I couldn't stop blogging about the Michigan and Florida delegate controversies? And yet now that those controversies are all over the front pages and the mainstream blogs, I've gone silent on this issue. Why, you ask? Well, a big part of the reason is basketball, of course. But, as I was thinking about this the other day, I realized there's something else to it. When it comes to obscure procedural issues like delegate credential battles, the forgotten election calendar, the primacy of superdelegates, etc., I'm sort of like the uber-nerdy equivalent of an indie music snob who only likes a band when it's "undiscovered," then stops paying attention once the band goes "mainstream." I was blogging about Michigan & Florida before it was cool to blog about Michigan & Florida! And now that it's cool to blog about Michigan & Florida, I've sort of lost interest. :)

That said, there have been a bunch of major developments on this issue recently. I haven't found a good general roundup of what's happened, but the bottom line is that re-votes look increasingly unlikely in either state, which is bad news for Obama, IMHO (though he doesn't seem to see it that way; it's been largely his people who have been either actively or passively resisting re-votes, from what I understand). I realize Hillary would likely win Florida and might win Michigan, but I think it would be in Obama's best interest to get this issue settled, even if it costs him two dozen delegates or whatever, because frankly, those delegates aren't going to make the difference, but as long as the issue is still hanging out there, unresolved,  it contributes to the general media storyline of this nomination battle being unsettled, which benefits Hillary. (Also, a possible re-vote victory in Michigan would have given Obama one of those much-ballyhooed "big states.")

Obama's bracket

By Brendan Loy

John McCain isn't the only presidential candidate filling out his bracket.

Meanwhile, TPM's David Kurtz makes an analogy between March Madness and Hillary Clinton's campaign:

[Hillary's] goal is to put superdelegates in the position that the NCAA tourney selection committee faces each March: Who deserves to be in the big dance more -- the team with the better overall record on a late season losing streak or the one who started the season slow and is finishing on a roll.

Tennessee's Governor angling for spot on Democrat ticket

By Jay Johnson

Well, I think that Governor Phil Bredesen is looking to slide into a VP slot with whichever candidate the Dems nominate. He's pushing a proposal for Democrat Superdelegates to convene in advance of the convention, in order to sort the whole mess out.

He's featured in an Op-Ed in today's New York Times.

Honestly, Gov. Phil is a pretty appealing candidate to add to a Democratic ticket. He comes across as much more moderate than I think either Hillary or Obama do. He's a yankee by birth, but the governor of a southern state.

Quote of the day

By Brendan Loy

Obama advisor David Axelrod, on the Clinton campaign's ever-shifting rhetoric: "When they started off, it was all about delegates. Now that we have more delegates, it’s all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game of cribbage to choose the nominee.” Heh.

"A More Perfect Union"

By Brendan Loy

Here is the full text of Obama's speech on race.

P.S. Politico's Ben Smith says the speech "embraces complexity" and notes that it "insists on things that you don't get much of in politics: context and nuance." TPM's David Kurtz says the speech "is remarkable for its nuance, for its long view of history, and for its decency."

Kurtz adds, however: "I am not sure, on first take, how effective it is politically." Along the same lines, Politico's Jonathan Martin says the "insta-reviews" from media "elites" will inevitably be that the speech was a "great success," but "what actual voters think is a different story, of course."

UPDATE: Here's the video clip:

Obama's big speech on race

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama will give a major speech Tuesday morning on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," with a nod to the recent controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which appears to have (unsurprisingly) hurt him in the polls. Says Politico:

In the past, Obama has made racial issues, and his own precedent-shattering status, a minor note in his message. But Obama said Monday he recognizes that there is no way he is going to become the Democratic nominee without a forthright statement about the role of race in American life.

“I think it would have been naive for me to think I could run and end up with quasi-front-runner status in a presidential election as potentially the first African-American president, that issues [of] race wouldn’t come up, any more than Sen. Clinton could expect that gender issues might not come up,” Obama told interviewer Gwen Ifill on PBS’s “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.”

“I think we’ve got to talk about it,” he added. “I think we’ve got to process it. But we’ve got to remind ourselves that what we have in common is far more important than what’s different and that if we’re going to solve any of these problems, we’ve got to come together and bridge our differences in ways that we just have not bridged them before.”

I guess this is sort of like the racial equivalent of Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech. So... what will he say?

Can you beat John McCain's bracket?

By Brendan Loy

John McCain is running his own NCAA pool. You can "Win Great McCain 2008 Prizes!" Heh. (Hat tip: Eric Soskin.)

I'm guessing McCain will pick Arizona to upset West Virginia and Duke. Just a hunch.

Big win for Obama in Iowa (again!)

By Brendan Loy

Remember my posts about the forgotten election calendar, and how the multi-stage nature of the caucus process could result in changes to the delegate count?

Well, Iowa held its county conventions on Saturday, and it looks like Obama made a net gain of 10 delegates over Clinton (mostly at Edwards's expense), as compared with the originally estimated results from the precinct caucuses in January. To put it in perspective, that's a bigger gain than Clinton's 9-delegate edge in Ohio!

Of course, these new results are still estimates, since the county conventions only elected state and congressional-district delegates, not national delegates. Nevertheless, a good day for Obama.

Geraldine Ferraro is right... sort of

By Brendan Loy

The big kerfuffle in the Democratic presidential race this week -- albeit largely overshadowed by the trials and tribulations of New Year's "pay for luv gov" -- has been the controversy over Geraldine Ferraro's comments suggesting that Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is now if he weren't a black man.

[Caveat: I've only followed this story cursorily, as I've been much more interested in basketball the last few days. As such, take my opinion with a grain of salt. For instance, I haven't actually watched any of the interviews with Ferraro, so if the details of her initial or subsequent comments are more (or less) outrageous than what's reflected in the bare-bones news and blog reports I've read, I may not be aware of that. The point of this post is more to react to the general concept of someone saying that Obama's race helps him, rather than to pass judgment on Geraldine Ferraro specifically.]

From what I know of it, I regard this controversy as much ado about not much. Ferraro's comments were unnecessary and inappropriate, in the sense that they serve no possible purpose except to inflame racial tensions and further divide the party. And yet, they're also not "racist," any more than it'd be "sexist" to say that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where she is now if she were a man, or if she weren't Bill Clinton's wife. (Or, for that matter, to say -- as Ferraro herself did -- that Ferraro wouldn't have been the 1984 vice-presidential nominee if she were a man.)

Oh, Wolf, how I'll miss your calls...

By Brendan Loy

With no primaries or caucuses until April 22, tonight presented the last opportunity for the next six weeks to see Wolf Blitzer "call" a state -- complete with his typical pattern of stammering, stalling and repeating himself, as well as his gratuitous overuse of the word "now," his self-referential commentary, his time-wasting restatements of obvious facts (Democratic primaries are proportional, superdelegates are party leaders, etc.), and his "questions" to CNN's other correspondents and analysts that aren't actually questions at all, but are in fact declarative sentences that again repeat facts that Blitzer has already reported two or three times. Wolfie, you're doing a heckuva job!

Nobody wastes as much time listening to himself talk -- while reporting "breaking news" -- as Wolf Blitzer. And oh, I do love it so.

By the way, with 77 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama leads 58% to 40%. And exit polls find that nearly half of the voters said she isn't honest and trustworthy. These are Democrats, remember.

Mississippi predictions?

By Brendan Loy

Polls close in Mississippi at 7:00 PM tonight. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the candidates' percentage totals?

And, as a bonus, at what date and time will Eliot Spitzer resign?

Obama: Clintons can't have it both ways

By Brendan Loy

About this whole Eliot Spitzer business, I share the reaction of the Politico commenter who said: "Great!  Now this idiot is going to take away from the press coverage of Obama's VP retort to Hillary. crap."

Well, I figure I should do my small part to remedy that problem. So, in case you missed it, here is Obama's brilliant rebuttal to the Clintons' shameless "dream team" nonsense. Money quote: "I don't understand. If I am not ready [to be commander-in-chief], how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?"

Watch the video. The crowd was eating it up.

It's 3 AM, do you know who your ad is voting for?

By David K.

The girl who appears in the now infamous "3 AM" ad that the Clinton campaign aired in Texas prior to last week's primaries supports Obama. Casey Knowles filmed some footage for a railroad company advertisement 10 years ago; the Clinton camp bought it from Getty Images. Knowles will be 18 next month and met Obama at a rally held last month in Seattle. She has already been in touch with the Obama campaign and may work with them to film a counter ad.

Hillary values loyalty over competence. Sound familiar?

By Brendan Loy

It is sometimes said by Democrats who prefer Clinton to Obama -- or who simply have their doubts about Obama, on account of his relative inexperience -- that to elect him president would be to repeat the same mistake we made by electing an inexperienced neophyte named George W. Bush in 2000. Heck, I once voiced this concern, and although I think Obama has a lot of other things going for him, it's still something I worry about a bit.

I would argue, however, that the real history-repeating-itself danger would be in electing Hillary, in light of her managerial skills (or lack thereof) and her veritably Bush-like views on management, competence and loyalty:

[I]nterviews with campaign aides, associates and friends suggest that Mrs. Clinton, at least until February, was a detached manager. Juggling the demands of being a candidate, she paid little attention to detail, delegated decisions large and small and deferred to advisers on critical questions. Mrs. Clinton accepted or seemed unaware of the intense factionalism and feuding that often paralyzed her campaign and that prevented her aides from reaching consensus on basic questions like what states to fight in and how to go after Mr. Obama, of Illinois.

Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.

I've read similar observations about Hillary numerous times elsewhere, and they really concern me. Do we really want another "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" sort of president? I think not.

Hillary: caucus delegates not "elected"

By Brendan Loy

In an interview with Newsweek, Hillary Clinton trots out a new bit of spin, offhandedly asserting that there are three types of delegates: "elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates."

Unpacking that statement, I notice two things. Firstly, what happened to calling superdelegates "automatic delegates"? I guess that bit of Clinton spin has officially bitten the dust -- replaced with the equally silly notion that only delegates allocated by primaries are "elected," while delegates allocated by caucuses are not. That one doesn't pass the laugh test, but terminology aside, I think the Clinton campaign might be on to something here.

I assume the campaign's ultimate goal is to encourage the media to delineate the primary and caucus delegates in separate counts. Regardless of its merits or lack thereof (an arguable point, IMHO), I think this tack just might work. The Obama campaign had considerable success in arguing early last month that the media should stop conflating the pledged-delegate and superdelegate counts, and in light of her recent success "working the refs," I think Clinton may now be able to convince the media that a tripartite count is appropriate.

If she can accomplish that, she will then presumably try to argue that she is a legitimate option for the nomination if she's ahead, or within striking distance, among the primary (or "elected") delegates by the end of the primaries in June. I haven't done the math on it, but I imagine that's a much more realistic goal than coming within striking distance in the overall pledged-delegate count, and possibly even more realistic than winning the "popular vote."

(I hasten to add that, whatever the merits of a tripartite delegate count, a legitimacy argument based solely on primary delegates would be totally, well, illegitimate. It's one thing to argue that primaries and caucuses are different and should be treated as such, and that primaries should matter more. It's another thing to completely ignore the caucuses altogether, thus effectively disenfranchising all the voters in those states.)

Less likely to work, IMHO, is Clinton's attempt to re-raise an argument that her campaign floated and then quickly rejected last month: "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to." If she starts making a public effort to "poach" pledged delegates, I think there will be a massive backlash.

One last point: her statement that "[t]his is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process" could very well come back to haunt her, if anyone remembers it (not that blatantly self-contradictory comments have stopped her before). Several of her spin tactics -- including the denigration of caucuses -- are in direct opposition to the notion of respecting this "very carefully constructed process that goes back years."

In other news, the New York Times Caucus Blog has the latest on Michigan and Florida. A pair of "do-overs" appear increasingly likely.

Revisiting the South Bend scenario

By Brendan Loy

Back in January, when I wrote about how the major candidates for president were campaigning "in or near practically every single place I used to live...as well as a place I may someday live...but NOT the place I currently live" -- a phenomenon which I referred to as "a vast left/right-wing conspiracy to piss me off" -- I noted that the only former Brendan Loy domicile they hadn't visited was South Bend. Then, as an afterthought, I added:

And come to think of it, if the Dem race really does drag on, there's an excellent chance they'll eventually hit South Bend! Between Pennsylvania (April 22) and West Virginia (May 13), the only primaries are in Indiana and North Carolina, both on May 6. So there's a two-week window for campaigning in just those two states. If Hillary and Barack are still going at it by then (probably unlikely, I admit, but certainly not impossible), they'll have more than enough time to travel up and down the entirety of the great state of Indiana trolling for votes, stopping in every major and minor city along the way. So they'd certainly make it to South Bend, which is [one of the] biggest cit[ies] in northern Indiana. Heck, forget South Bend, I bet they'd end up coming to Notre Dame itself, perhaps for a rally (or rallies) at the Joyce Center (as President Bush did on his Social Security Unplugged tour back in 2005).

Again I say, harumph.

Well, here we are, just over five weeks later, and that "unlikely...but certainly not impossible" scenario looks, well, likely. Unless Hillary loses Pennsylvania, you have to think the campaign will continue into May. And you also have to think Hillary, fresh off victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania, will focus heavily on the next logical target in her tour of economically depressed "rust belt" areas: northern Indiana. Forget visiting South Bend, she might practically move in. :) Obama, for his part, will presumably spend most of his time in large population centers with reasonably large black populations -- which would put South Bend high on his list, as well.

So basically, it looks like every single place I've ever lived except East Tennessee (Greater Hartford, NYC, Phoenix, L.A., South Bend), plus my possible future home (Denver), will have played host to one or more major candidate visit by the time this campaign is over. Jealousy, thy name is Brendan Loy.

P.S. With my luck, we'll probably end up moving from Tennessee to Colorado sometime in between the Democratic National Convention in Denver (August 25-28) and the presidential debate in Nashville (October 7), thus missing both events. ;)

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Particle-physicist Democrat wins former House Speaker Hastert's seat

By Joe Loy

Thus collapsing the Illinois GOP's quantum wave function. (Or if you prefer, the Measurement of the votes [Curiously enough] killed the Republicans' previously-Indeterminate kittycat. :) Links added:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A Democrat on Saturday captured the Illinois U.S. House of Representatives seat former Speaker Dennis Hastert held for more than two decades before he retired.

Returns showed physicist and businessman Bill Foster beating dairy owner Jim Oberweis by 52 percent to 48 percent of the vote in a long-time Republican district that currently stretches across northern Illinois from the Chicago suburbs nearly to the Mississippi River.

...While the area has been a Republican stronghold for years, redistricting brought geographic changes and population shifts including more Hispanics and younger suburban families that changed its make-up. The 2008 edition of the Almanac of American Politics rated the district as "a tough one for Democrats to win but not impossible."

Evidently Not. / Mu on, Representative-elect Foster. :)

Obama wins Wyoming

By Brendan Loy

He's up 58% to 41% with 91 percent of the precincts reporting.

Foreign policy experience?

By Brendan Loy

What foreign policy experience?

(See also here.)

On Clinton spin and electoral math

By Brendan Loy

Jonathan Chait on the subject of Clinton spin:

All politicians, including Obama, spin. But the way the Clinton campaign says night is day is just especially audacious. ... I think Obama and his staff say things they at least believe to be essentially true. Working for Clinton has to be a soul-deadening experience.

Chait is echoing Josh Marshall, who wrote last month that "good spin is clever and forward-leaning pitches of actual realities, facts. ... But this Clinton campaign has been doing it in a weird parody mode. Not sharp 'spins' on favorable realities, but aggressive pitches of complete nonsense."

Meanwhile, Obama supporter Nick Beaudrot engages in the "good" kind of spin -- forward-leaning pitches of actual realities -- in his interpretation of those Survey USA polls. Beaudrot's bottom line:

At the moment, Barack Obama is the better general election nominee. Period. Full stop. He will have to spend less time defending blue states. He's competitive in a larger number of red states. And he's more competitive in states that have Senate elections. Barack Obama: because this is the year to bust the map wide open.

Sounds right to me. I hadn't even thought about the Senate angle. But yeah: coattails matter. Even if Obama doesn't win the Great Plains and Mountain West states, he could make it easier for Democratic Senate candidates to win there. Whereas Hillary would make it harder.

P.S. Casey offers a new slogan for Hillary: "I am that rat, America."

Puerto Rico cancels June 7 caucus, schedules June 1 primary

By Brendan Loy

Politico's Ben Smith: "Puerto Rico's Democrats tonight voted to ditch their June 7 caucus, and to replace it with a June 1 primary." More details here.

Although this move prevents any possibility of the Michael Barone scenario, in which Puerto Rico could have been effectively a winner-take-all victory for Hillary Clinton (a scenario that I think wouldn't have happened anyway), it's nevertheless good news for Hillary in two ways:

Fun with Electoral College maps!

By Brendan Loy

A new set of Survey USA 50-state polls on McCain-Obama and McCain-Clinton general election matchups show McCain losing narrowly to either candidate (280-258 to Obama, 276-262 to Clinton), but on the basis of very different electoral maps.

Survey USA has Obama winning nine states that Hillary doesn't: Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, Virginia, and New Hampshire. They also say he'll win two of Nebraska's three congressional districts, but lose the state.

Meanwhile, they show Clinton winning five states that Obama doesn't: Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Inching toward legitimate votes in MI, FL

By Brendan Loy

The movement toward a "re-vote" in Michigan and Florida -- which would not actually be a "re-" anything, but rather the first legitimate primaries they've held, as I'll keep stubbornly pointing out -- appears to be steadily gaining momentum.

The Obama campaign now says it will "support whatever the DNC rules are, including a fair remedy to this problem." And the aforeblogged Hillary pivot toward accepting "re-votes," raised first by Terry McAuliffe and then by Ted Strickland, continued today as prominent Clinton supporter Ben Nelson added his voice to the "re-vote" chorus, and Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson signaled a possible opennness toward such a scenario: "Given how well we did in those states, were there to be a primary, we would have a good opportunity to do well again."

Wolfson then reiterated the campaign's official line: "Our position is that the voters of Michigan and Florida have spoken." But that position is entirely untenable once the "re-vote" option comes to be seen as a viable alternative, which appears to be happening.

Hillary's only hope: the popular vote

By Brendan Loy

I think Jonathan Alter is right:

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Clinton's only hope lies in the popular vote—a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Of course, a big question is, which popular vote? The Clinton campaign is currently quoting the popular vote including the January "primaries" in Michigan and Florida, but that's absurd -- at least with regard to Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot. Moreover, Clinton herself said, months before Michigan voted, that "it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything."

Another must-read for political junkies

By Brendan Loy

Peter Baker and Anne E. Kornblut have a fascinating story in today's Washington Post about the ongoing turmoil within the Clinton campaign, with a heavy focus on how everybody hates Mark Penn.

A lot of focus will inevitably fall on the portion of the article that quotes Clinton aides shouting the f-word at one another, but I actually think the buried lede is this:

[The campaign] essentially did not compete in smaller states holding caucuses [on Super Tuesday]. Clinton, feeling burned by Iowa, had become allergic to caucuses, deeming them unfair.

Ickes and political director Guy Cecil argued that such states were important because even if she lost, she would pick up delegates with a strong showing. That would soon become clear. Clinton racked up big wins in California, New Jersey and even Kennedy's Massachusetts. But she lost the caucus states, and because of the party's proportional rules, it cost her.

"That was one of the biggest blunders we had," a senior official said.

We already knew that the decision to "skip" the caucuses was a huge blunder, but the general assumption up until now has been that it was a sign of arrogance on the campaign's part -- they skipped the caucuses because they made a fatally flawed calculation that they didn't need 'em, they could win without 'em. In contrast to that CW, this article makes it sound like it was not really a strategic decision by the campaign at all, but rather a fit of personal pique by Hillary herself, who "deemed "caucuses "unfair" because she lost one.

And thus it emerges that the Clinton campaign's strategy of marginalizing the caucus states -- to the
point of twisting the results in a way that totally disenfranchises the voters of caucus states, arguing that merely that caucuses should count for less than primaries, but that they shouldn't count at all -- is not so much a spinmeister's gambit as a position based on Hillary's actual, deeply held beliefs. I'm not sure which is worse!

P.S. A secondary "buried lede": the Clinton campaign spent $7 million in South Carolina... and only $300,000 in Wisconsin!!

Hillary's hope

By Brendan Loy

RealClearPolitics's Jay Cost has an excellent analysis of what it will take for Hillary Clinton to make a "moral claim" on the Democratic nomination.

On the flip side, the best argument for the superdelegates to coalesce around Obama, and end this thing sooner rather than later, is simply this: Clinton can only win the nomination in a bloodbath. She cannot win it cleanly. Obama can.

YEAAARRH!!! Dean lays down the law on Michigan, Florida delegate battle

By Brendan Loy

The most intense debate over Florida and Michigan since the 2006 BCS controversy heated up late today, as the governors of the two states issued a statement demanding -- demanding! -- that the Democratic Party find a solution to the ongoing delegate impasse. Never mind that Governors Granholm and Crist are the very people who effectively disenfranchised their own constituents by moving their states' primaries to forbidden dates, thus inviting the parties' promised delegate-stripping penalties. They now want the DNC to fix the mess that the states themselves created:

"The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right, and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence the voices of 5,163,271 Americans. It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective national conventions."

Look, I don't deny that the "disenfranchisement" thing is a real issue, but it's pretty hard to stomach this sort of righteous rhetoric coming from two governors who walked into this situation with their eyes wide open. Just as Obama says to his supporters, "we are the change we seek," I say to Governors Granholm and Crist: you are the disenfranchers you decry!

Anyway, DNC chairman Howard Dean is having none of it:

"We're glad to hear that the Governors of Michigan and Florida are willing to lend their weight to help resolve this issue. As we've said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today's public overtures are good news. The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Amen, Howard!

Said a source close to Dean: "Everyone seems to be asking what the DNC will do. But the question is: what will the state parties do."

According to Politico's Ben Smith, the Clinton campaign's "official line remains to reject re-votes in Florida and Michigan." But as I've noted previously, there have been some hints of that position softening in the last couple of days. In particular, it sure sounded like Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland was endorsing a re-vote last night:

I expect the Clinton position will continue to soften. Demanding re-votes (actually, the first and only legitimate votes), instead of demanding that the illegitimate delegate slates be seated, is obviously the right move for them, both morally and strategically. Prepping for an August credentials fight is a losing proposition for them; fighting for re-votes is a winning one. How can Obama argue against such a proposal? If he does, he'll look as shamelessly opportunistic and self-serving as Clinton usually does.

Bottom line, if she plays her cards right, a "re-vote" -- unlike a "just count the delegates" gambit -- is something Hillary can actually make happen. And what's more, it's the right thing to do.

Anyway, very interesting stuff. This issue is definitely not going away.

P.S. What's the statute of limitations on referring to the Dean Scream in headlines about the former Vermont governor and/or his home state? At least five years, right? Phew. :)

It's 3 AM, your children are asleep, and Barack Obama is black. Black!!

By Brendan Loy

Kos: Clinton campaign making Obama "blacker." And blatantly lying about it, to boot! Lovely! (Hat tip: yea.)

[UPDATE: Upon further review, I think this story is much ado about not much. On the one hand, Clinton certainly hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt, but on the other hand, this seems, just on its face (no pun intended), more likely to be a slightly ham-handed application of a standard negative-ad tactic than anything racially motivated... and I don't think I can justify imposing a double standard on anti-Obama ads just because he's black and people are hypersensitive to it.

As I said in comments, "I guess I've gotten cynical enough about Hillary where I'm a bit too eager to ascribe the worst possible motivations to her." But I'm going to walk this one back a bit.

Original post after the jump.]

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

TPM Café contributor cscs: "I think one thing is clear this far into the Democratic primary race: Both Obama's and Clinton's supporters must now drop out of the race."

Jerome Armstrong's fuzzy logic

By Brendan Loy

Jerome Armstrong, father of the netroots, has a post up on MyDD arguing that "Obama has a huge electability problem in [Ohio]." Armstrong's evidence?

[Obama] took a total of 5 counties [in last night's primary], and lost in 82 counties. ... You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can only win in 5 counties.

Arrrgh. This is such obviously, transparently flawed reasoning. As I've noted previously, "winning a primary in a given state [or county] does not mean you'll win the general election there, and likewise, losing a primary doesn't imply that you'll lose the general."

In a Democratic primary, between two Democratic candidates, some Democrat has to lose every county. (And every state, for that matter. But cf., Hillary's bogus swing-state argument.) The fact that somebody loses in the primary doesn't in any way suggest that the losing candidate couldn't win in November, running against a Republican. Those are two entirely separate calculations.

The fact is, in order to win in November, either Obama or Clinton will need to win the votes of a large majority of the Democrats who supported his/her opponent in the primaries. But it's impossible, by definition, for either of them to win a majority of their opponent's votes when they're running against each other. Again: someone's gotta lose. So a loss, by itself, tells us nothing about the November landscape.

Put another way: a vote for Clinton, without more, does not imply "I would never vote for Barack Obama." And a vote for Obama, without more, does not imply "I would never vote for Hillary Clinton."

Armstrong's argument could be just as easily, and with equal validity (i.e., none), be turned against Hillary Clinton:

She lost all of Ohio's major urban counties. You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can't win the urban counties. Clinton has a huge electability problem in Ohio.

But that's crap! Obama's victories in those urban counties in no way suggest that Hillary would lose to John McCain there. Likewise, Clinton's victories in various "swing" counties (as well as tons of solidly Republican counties) tells us nothing about her, or Obama's, general-election prospects there. Nothing. Nilch. Nada.

Simply put, last night's Ohio results provide no valid cause for concern about either candidate's chances in November, because primary elections simply are not a remotely reliable or relevant gauge of general-election prospects.

Well... maybe not quite no valid cause for concern. This, I'll admit, is a little disconcerting:

[B]oth exit polling and copious anecdotes from my colleagues on the trail suggest that some Ohioans were less ready than white voters elsewhere to elect, as Obama says, a black guy with a funny name. ... [T]he exit polls had about 20% of Democrats (and these are Democrats, remember) saying that race was a factor in their decision; of those, three quarters went for Clinton.

That data point is, I must admit, potentially a reason to worry about Obama's general-election chances. (If Ohio's Democrats cite race as a reason for voting against the black guy, what will happen when you add Republicans and independents into the mix?) TNR's John B. Judis elaborates:

The exit polls ask voters whether the "race of the candidates" was "important" in deciding their vote. If one looks at the percentage of Clinton (and earlier Edwards) voters who said it was "important," that is a fair estimate of the overall percentage of primary voters who were not inclined to vote for Obama because he was black. ...

In some February 5 states, the overall percentage of white (or Latino) primary voters who voted for white candidates partly because of race was pretty high. It was 9.5 percent, for instance, in New Jersey. In the general election, that percentage is likely to double; and some of these additional voters will be white working class or Latino voters that a Democratic candidate needs to win. In Wisconsin, the number was very low--only 6 percent. But in Ohio, a crucial swing state, it was 11.4 percent. That's a real danger sign for Obama in a state where elections can be decided by one or two percentage points.

If Armstrong wants to build a case that Obama has an electability problem, those are the numbers he should be citing, and then maybe he'd have a respectable argument. But the mere fact, without more, that Obama lost a bunch of Ohio counties to Clinton, is an absolutely ridiculous basis for such an analysis.

P.S. It should be noted that people who cite "race" as an important factor in their vote, and then vote for the white candidate, are not necessarily racists. They may simply be partisan Democrats who are worried about electability, and believe that other people, who are racists, would derail Obama in November. Such a stance enables racism, but it is not itself based on racism, as such. More importantly, this rationale would not carry over to a general election.

A more complete election calendar

By Brendan Loy

There will be a lot of talk in the coming days about how only 612 pledged delegates remain to be allocated in the Democratic presidential race; 2,642 have already been given out. However, those numbers aren't entirely accurate, technically speaking.

As I've explained before, most of the states that have held caucuses to date haven't actually allocated their national convention delegates yet. Rather, they've allocated and elected delegates to county, district and/or state conventions, which will in turn apportion and select delegates to the national convention, often in a multi-stage process. For instance, Iowa, the state that got this crazy primary season going just over two months ago, won't actually finish allocating its national delegates until June 14! Anyway, when you add it all up, there are actually 965 pledged delegates still to be allocated.

Rather than recognizing this procedural reality, the media's delegate counts generally extrapolate from the Election Day results and pretend those extrapolations are final, assuming that the various county, district and state conventions will reflect the election results and will produce no surprises. Making such an assumption is probably preferable to simply ignoring the technically-unallocated caucus delegates, as the New York Times is doing, because in truth, major surprises are unlikely -- and ignoring the caucuses altogether is much more misleading, in terms of providing an accurate picture of the "state of the race," than ignoring the formalities.

However, with the candidates scraping and clawing for every delegate, it would be foolish to completely ignore the forgotten election calendar. While major shifts are unlikely, it's entirely possible we could see at least a handful of delegates going in unexpected directions due to procedural snafus and shenanigans, back-room deals, and people simply changing their minds. So, after the jump, I've combined the "forgotten calendar" of low-profile delegate-selection events with the primary and caucus calendar, to produce a more complete picture of what the next few months will look like, if this nomination battle continues into the summer.

Well, there it is

By Brendan Loy

So, Hillary's "firewall" holds. It looks like she'll win by a large margin in Ohio, and a narrow one in the Texas primary.

Given the delegate math, it remains very, very difficult to see how she can win the nomination, barring a major Obama collapse that causes both voters and superdelegates to have some serious buyer's remorse (and fast). Moreover, in the big picture, she's clearly in far worse shape than she hoped to be by this point, even as of Super Tuesday's immediate aftermath. (Various Clinton surrogates are on record as saying in mid-February that they expected to be ahead, or nearly tied, in the delegate count after Texas and Ohio. Instead they're still down by triple digits.)

But certainly, this means she'll fight on, at least to Pennsylvania on April 22. That's a long seven weeks away, and as one commentator on Fox pointed out, she really has nowhere to take her newfound "momentum." She'll lose Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on Tuesday, and then run into an empty calendar (well, except for those low-profile delegate-selection events) with no opportunities to convert momentum into delegates.

Ultimately, her success will depend not really on winning primaries (which, barring a game-changing event, she can't realistically do consistently and convincingly enough to turn the pledged-delegate tide), nor on swaying large numbers of superdelegates (which she can't realistically do without first turning the pledged-delegate tide), but rather on shaping the campaign narrative in such a way that an Obama collapse -- i.e., a game-changing event, or series of events -- can occur. It's all about the news cycles now.

P.S. A less obvious ramification of Hillary's success on Ye Olde Super Tuesday is that it severely complicates the transition from obsessive political blogging to obsessive college-basketball blogging here on the Irish Trojan's Blog. :)

P.P.S. Speaking of the blog, I'm going to un-mark the open thread, so it can return to its natural place in the post chronology. If you want to view all of my posts from yesterday, click here.

Shenanigans!

By Brendan Loy

Y'all know I support Obama over Clinton, but if the facts reported by Fox's Steve Brown are true, I don't like this... I don't like it one bit:

In the end, of course, Hillary won Ohio, so this probably didn't matter (though I haven't looked at the district delegates). But whatever the facts of this particular situation, this business of judges arbitrarily ordering certain polling places to stay open later than others is a big, and growing, problem. (It would be an even bigger problem if we elected the president by popular vote. In fact, I may add something about this issue to my Electoral College paper.)

We need to improve the rules that are set up beforehand for dealing with contingencies like bad weather -- and then we need to stick with those rules. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is obviously wrong when she claims that "things like flooding and ice and bomb threats" are "things no one can predict." All you had to do is watch the Super Tuesday television coverage a few weeks back, when it was reported that tornadoes had literally destroyed polling places in Arkansas and Tennessee, to know that severe weather can disrupt voting. As for the foreseeability of election-day "bomb threats"... well, um, New York City had an election scheduled for September 11, 2001. 'Nuff said.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, but the piecemeal system we have now is no good. It invites abuse by candidates and judicial activism by judges, and it will seriously erode whatever public confidence remains in our election system if it continues unchecked.

P.S. Oh, and I'm sick and tired of "ballot shortages." For heaven's sake, print three or four times as many ballots as you think you'll need. At this point, there's no reason for anyone ever to be "surprised" by high turnout. Heck, why not simply print any many ballots as there are registered voters? Surely ink and paper aren't that expensive these days, and the additional costs would be well worth it, IMHO, to avoid this constant drumbeat of "WE RAN OUT OF BALLOTS!!!" nonsense.

Fox: Hillary wins Texas primary

By Brendan Loy

Hillary: "battleground states" include AZ, AR, CA, NY, NJ, MA, OK, TN, RI

By Brendan Loy

I know I'm a broken record on this point, but I am absolutely mystified at how Hillary can count solid red states (Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee) and solid blue states (California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) -- two of which are her home states -- as among her triumphant "battleground state" victories, yet none of Obama's victories "count." How absolutely bizarre and ridiculous. Is she seriously contending that Obama would lose New York in November, or that she, Hillary, can win Oklahoma? Good grief. What a maddeningly, transparently bogus argument!

The thing is, I actually think recent events, including tonight's results, have opened up some legitimate lines of attack for the Clinton spinmeisters. They need to stick with those, and stop with this indefensible, self-serving nonsense about which states "count."

Ugh.

By Brendan Loy

Why must Hillary constantly talk about how her campaign proves to "little girls" that "anything is possible" -- thus repeatedly and explicitly injecting the gender card into the campaign -- while Obama never (that I've seen, anyway) feels the need to talk about how his candidacy proves to little black kids that "anything is possible"? His message of hope and change is universal, whereas hers seems so often to be gender-specific.

Of course, I fully support the gender equality message that she's advancing, particularly now that I myself am the father of a little girl. But I don't appreciate her constantly using that message for such blatantly self-interested reasons. I don't have to support Hillary Clinton in order to prove to my daughter that "anything is possible," thank you very much.

Identity politics sucks. Can we please decide this nomination based on issues, not genitalia or skin color?

Gov. Strickland: "Let us go to Michigan and Florida!"

By Brendan Loy

Ohio's governor and prominent Hillary Clinton supporter Ted Strickland came dangerously close to a Howard Dean moment just now, warming up the crowd for Hillary's victory speech in Columbus, as he listed the states that Hillary will now continue to "fight" in -- concluding, to loud cheers and applause, "And let us go to Michigan and Florida!"

Fox News's Brit Hume and Bill Kristol then proceeded to talk at length about a possible credentials/rules fight at the convention over those states' disputed delegate slates from the January primaries, but IMHO, they missed the point entirely. Strickland's comments appeared to pretty straightforwardly confirm Hillary's pivot to a new strategy on Michigan and Florida: pressing for a re-vote instead of (indefensibly) demanding that the earlier null-and-void primaries be honored.

This strategic shift, predicted several weeks ago by blogger FlyOnTheWall, is exactly what Team Clinton should be doing, and although Hillary might well win those states again, I would support a re-vote, as I explained yesterday and elaborated earlier today. If you're going to count those states, re-votes (actually the first real votes, since the previous primaries were intrinsically meaningless) are the way to do it.

On the other hand, Hillary herself just asserted in her victory speech that "we've won Florida... [and] Michigan." Hmm.

UPDATE: Here are Governor Strickland's comments, followed by an entertaining Fox News roundtable discussion of the issue:

Ron Paul wins!

By Brendan Loy

No, John McCain's lone remaining challenger didn't win any states tonight. But he did win the primary in his district to keep in House seat. Results here.

There's no word yet on Kucinich.

UPDATE: Looks like Kucinich won, too.

Fox: Hillary wins Ohio

By Brendan Loy

Brit Hume: "As you can see, the margin is now almost 200,000 votes. There are a lot of votes still out there, we concede, but Hillary Clinton wins Ohio, and wins it, possibly -- for all we know, she may win it comfortably."

Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer

By Brendan Loy

As I noted below, Wolf Blitzer was in full self-caricature mode when he announced that John McCain had clinched the GOP nomination: the rambling run-on sentences, the senseless repetition of people's names and other random words, the redundant recitation of the same facts over and over again, the odd choices of verbal emphasis, the constant talk about everything being "important" and "historic," the endless self-referential comments, the unnecessary references to "right now," "standing by," etc., etc.

I patched together a video of the carnage:

Fox > CNN?

By Brendan Loy

I've been mostly watching CNN throughout this primary season, and when I've occasionally flipped over to Fox News, I've found its coverage to be neither significantly better nor significantly worse than CNN's. But just now, flipping over to Fox, I find that they're interviewing one of their "decision desk" guys, who is actually explaining what the numbers mean, what to expect, what to watch for, etc. The analysis is much more helpful than CNN's flashy touch-screen map coupled with John King's relatively inane and obvious pseudo-analysis.

Clinton, Obama battle behind the scenes

By Brendan Loy

While the vote-counting in Ohio and Texas continues apace, a pair of pitched behind-the-scenes battles are also raging between the Clinton and Ohio camps. One involves superdelegates:

A behind-the-scenes battle broke out late Tuesday over superdelegates who had secretly committed to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), with Clinton campaign officials scrambling to “freeze” them before they announced support for him.

The battle reflects the trench warfare that both campaigns expect if the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination stretches on to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

The second battle involves the still-ongoing Texas caucuses:

In an extraordinary Clinton conference call -- in which the campaign alleged irregularities in the Texas caucuses -- the top lawyer for the Obama campaign (Bob Bauer) jumped on the call during the Q&A session to rebut the Clinton camp's charges.

The Clinton campaign alleged (among other things) that Obama supporters were confiscating precinct chairman manuals at the caucuses, as well as locking out Clinton supporters from the precincts.

"What is happening tonight is an outrage," said Clinton Texas state director Ace Smith. "It's really disturbing and it's really undemocratic what is going on."

More here.

Regardless of whether the accusations of irregularities are correct, it sounds like absolute chaos at the caucuses, per CNN's reporting.

Interesting development on Fox News election coverage

By Jay Johnson

Maybe Steve Jobs has already gone apoplectic. (Maybe appleplectic?)

Karl Rove is rockin' a MacBook Air on Fox News.

UPDATE BY BRENDAN: Jim Hu has a photo, taken with an iPhone no less:

Hillary wins Rhode Island

By Brendan Loy

So says Fox and MSNBC.

No word yet from Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer.

UPDATE: CNN, CNN also calls Rhode Island for Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton.

The streak is over!

Huck-a-bye-bye

By Brendan Loy

Huckabee drops out.

Wolf Blitzer at his best

By Brendan Loy

"CNN projects John McCain wins the Republican presidential nomination. What a historic night for John McCain, given where he was only a few months ago. So many people had written off his candidacy, they thought he was virtually dead in the water, but John McCain never gave up, and John McCain, John McCain tonight in Texas, and earlier winning in Vermont, earlier winning in Ohio, and John McCain will now have enough delegates, 1,191, that's what you need to capture the Republican nomination, and he has managed to do it. What a night for John McCain."

CNN projects McCain wins GOP nomination

By Brendan Loy

Texas puts him over the top.

The new firewall: Michigan and Florida?

By Brendan Loy

Team Clinton appears to be pivoting on its Michigan/Florida argument from the indefensible "just count the delegates" line to a far more respectable "hold new primaries" line. Good.

P.S. FlyOnTheWall predicted this several weeks ago.

Huckabee to drop out tomorrow?

By Brendan Loy

Hotline:

A Huckabee senior aide tells NBC/National Journal that Mike Huckabee tonight will congratulate John McCain and will be in touch with the McCain campaign tomorrow from Little Rock to coordinate a concession.

"The handwriting is on the wall," the aide said, and indicated that was the plan whether or not McCain officially reaches 1,191 delegates tonight.

The aide said that Huckabee wants to have contact with McCain tomorrow in Little Rock before deciding what next to do.

(Hat tip: TPM.)

UPDATE: CNN says Huck will bow out Thursday.

Kucinich & Paul

By Brendan Loy

Ron Paul has a very early lead in his primary fight to keep his House seat in Texas.

No results yet from Dennis Kucinich's district in Ohio, but they'll be posted here when they're available.

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Michael Crowley:

In the last couple of hours I've gotten allegedly reliable Ohio exit poll information showing

a) Narrow Obama lead

b) Narrow Hillary lead

c) Hillary blowout

d) Tie

I think from now on political journalists should turn off their BlackBerries from 5-8pm on election nights and, like, go do ESL tutoring or some other charitable work instead.

Further evidence of Crowley's point: Major Garrett says the Obama camp is optimistic about their Ohio prospects "for the first time today," while others talk about an "Obama freefall." Huh?

No Ohio results until 9:00 PM?

By Brendan Loy

Apparently there will be no real numbers from Ohio until 9:00 PM EST:

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has ordered all 88 counties to hold results until after voting concludes in Sandusky County at 9 p.m. The county ran short of ballots, and Brunner went to court to keep the polls open in that county for an extra hour and a half.

And Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is seeking a court order to extend voting hours in Cuyahoga County, where bad weather hindered the ability of some voters to get to the polls.

UPDATE: On the other hand, here are some numbers. I guess some county missed the memo?

Anyway, with a fraction of a percent of the precincts reporting, Hillary leads, 56% to 42% (2,029 votes to 1,526). If no more results come out until 9:00 PM, that 14-point Clinton margin will be on CNN's crawl for quite a while.

P.S. CNN's exit-poll numbers from Ohio suggest a 51% to 48% lead for Clinton. (But, as Ben Smith notes, the exit-poll numbers "sometimes change as the night goes on and pollsters adjust for reality." And as Jonathan Chait points out, a three-point margin is "close enough that the result could easily be off.")

UPDATE 2: Some Cuyahoga County (i.e., Cleveland-area) polling places will indeed stay open late.

Wouldn't it be funny...

By Brendan Loy

...if, with Clinton in Ohio and Obama in Texas tonight for their respective "victory parties," Obama wins Ohio and Clinton wins Texas? Seems possible, based on the early exit-poll numbers.

YEARRRRHH!!! Obama takes Vermont

By Brendan Loy

Make it 12 in a row for Barack Obama, who has been declared the winner in Howard Dean's home state of Vermont. (Hollerin' Howard, you may recall, won Vermont's primary in 2004 despite having already dropped out of the race.)

Based on the leaked exit poll numbers, it sounds like that'll be the last Democratic primary tonight that the media will be able to "call" right as the polls close.

Exit-poll "second wave" more Obama-friendly: TX, OH, RI deadlocked?

By Brendan Loy

Contrary to earlier reports showing Hillary Clinton "exceeding expectations," the latest exit-poll data -- the so-called "second wave" -- shows Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island all looking like dead heats, "the latter two of which would be pretty substantial surprises," in a good way, from Obama's perspective. Specifically, according to Jim Geraghty:

This is interesting. One of my sources has gotten two sets of exit poll results. It's unclear whether this is different pollsters or, I suspect, different times of day.

For the first set, Obama is up by 2 percent in Ohio, Hillary is up by 2 percent in Texas, Hillary is up by 3 percent in Rhode Island and Obama is up by a 2 to 1 margin in Vermont.

The second set is similarly close - Hillary up by 2 percent in Ohio, the two Democrats tied in Texas, Obama ahead by 2 percent in Rhode Island and a similar 2 to 1 margin in Vermont.

Meanwhile, Right Pundits says, "CLINTON INTERNALS FOR OHIO . . . Clinton 49 Obama 46, Clinton expects to gain about 8 delegates overall."

Sounds like we won't be hearing any early media "calls," except for Vermont, tonight.

P.S. More numbers here: VT - Obama 67-33; OH - Obama 51-49; TX - Obama 51-49; RI - tied 49-49.

Also here: the same as above, except 50-49 Obama in TX.

On the other hand, Matthew Yslesias is "hearing big Hispanic turnout in Texas (good for Clinton) and a huge Clinton edge among late-deciders (obviously good for Clinton)."

Hillary "exceeding expectations" in unweighted exit-poll "first wave"

By Brendan Loy

Via Right Pundits:

2.41pm - It really does appear that Hillary is exceeding expectations in the early data. As we always caution, take first waves as they are meant to be, which is a pile of data that has not been properly normalized for known demographics. More in a minute. ...

3.50 EST - Turnout is much higher than any previous primary, but turnout is LOWER than all the pundits were predicting. Most pundits and those in the know thought turnout would exceed 3 million, some even suggesting it would be closer to 3.5 million. Absent a huge surge this evening, the predictions seem to be off. Young African American turnout is 1/3 lower than expected, maybe they’ll show up in the final wave [of exit poll data]?? ...

4.30 EST - Mood in Obama camp shifting to subdued. They are lowering expectations this afternoon and talking about the next contests like Hillary did in past days. Obama: “We closed the gap, but you know whether it’s going to be enough to actually win is going to depend on turnout. We know there’s not going to be a huge shift in delegates one way or another — just given the math. Which means that either way we will go to Mississippi or Wyoming next week.”

Take it for what, if anything, it's worth. As always, remember the Seven-Hour Presidency of John Kerry.

P.S. Early Ohio data, when available, will be here.

Ye Olde Super Tuesday open thread

By Brendan Loy

On this "original" Super Tuesday ("Super Tuesday Classic," perhaps? Nah, I think I prefer "Ye Olde Super Tuesday"), I'm going to do the same thing I did on "Super Duper Tuesday" last month: I'll keep an "open thread" on top of the homepage all night, so y'all can comment in one place and not have the conversation scroll rapidly down the page as new CNN alerts and other posts appear. Of course, you're free to comment on other posts as well.

Anyway, new posts will appear below.

Required reading for horse-race junkies

By Brendan Loy

Three must-read posts from The New Republic's blogs on tonight's Ye Olde Super Tuesday contests:

• Jonathan Chait's "The Number to Watch on Tuesday Night" 
• Noam Scheiber's "Where Today Will Leave Us"
• Michael Crowley's "The Day After"

Seriously, read 'em.

Also, something else to watch tonight: as MSNBC's First Read points out, two Congressmen you may have heard of -- Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) -- face potentially tough primary challenges to keep their House seats. Their districts are Ohio's 10th and Texas's 14th.

Popping the quiff in Texas

By Brendan Loy

Today's big vote in Texas is something of a quantum physics puzzle. The citizens of the Lone Star State will soon pop the quiff and learn whether or not they count!

If Clinton wins, Texas is another big, important state that proves Hillary's mass appeal and electability. If Obama wins, Texas is another meaningless, illegitimate, caucus-tainted sinkhole that's "not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee" anyway. It's Idaho writ large, if you will -- so who really cares about it? Ohio and Rhode Island are the states that matter! :)

(At the moment, of course, in accordance with the paradox of Schrödinger's cat, Texas both counts and doesn't count.)

Anyway, Josh Marshall sums up where things stand:

If the polls bear out, we seem set for a result that will lead to minor or major crowing from the Clinton camp, with a victory in Ohio seeming very likely and at a least a primary popular vote victory in Texas looking like a distinct possibility. The Obama camp will counter, and they'll be right, that judged by the standards of a few weeks ago, these results only amount to Clinton holding on by the skin of her teeth. But the expectations game isn't 'fair'. It's what it is, they're expectations. And there's simply no denying that such an aura of victory has grown up around Obama that losing one or both of these big states (at least the popular vote in Texas, which, remember, also has a caucus that seems likely to bag a lot of delegates for Obama) will be perceived as a very real turnaround.

And yet, look at the delegate counts, or what they seem likely to be. We've run the numbers, and even assuming a very big night for Clinton, she seems unlikely to make more than a small dent in Obama's lead of roughly 150 pledged delegates. Indeed, she could actually do quite well on the popular vote side and end up falling behind a bit further on pledged delegates.

The upshot is that the Clinton campaign may come out of tonight with a major shot in the arm and a round of good press and yet still be in no more realistic a position to win the nomination based on the stubborn tally of delegates.

Sounds about right. But let's wait and see what the voters decide.

It's Longhorn-Buckeye Tuesday!

By Brendan Loy

...or, to be more precise, Longhorn-Buckeye-Catamount-Ram Tuesday!

Really, though, all eyes are on Texas, the land of the Longhorns (and Aggies and Red Raiders and Bears, oh my!). I think we can pretty much assume that Hillary will win icy Ohio and Rhode Island, and Obama will win Vermont. The big question mark, and the state that will determine the day's "winner," is Texas.

And to think, everybody thought Teaxs was giving up its influence on the primary season by sticking with Ye Olde Super Tuesday instead of moving to Super Duper Tuesday like all the cool kids did. Quoth the AP:

AUSTIN — The failure of state legislation to switch the 2008 Texas primary to Feb. 5 from March 4 likely means the presidential primary contest will be decided in other states, some of which bumped up elections to have more clout in choosing the major parties’ nominees.

“There is no doubt that Texas is going to be less relevant and may be irrelevant,” said George Edwards, a political science professor at Texas A&M University.

Hahaha! Oh waiter, one order of crow for Professor Edwards! ;)

Anyway, Halperin has the scoop on tonight's poll-closing times. In EST, they are: Vermont: 7pm. Ohio: 7:30pm. Texas: 8pm, western counties at 9pm (caucuses to follow). Rhode Island: 9pm.

Clinton will be in Columbus, Ohio tonight. Obama will be in San Antonio, Texas. Will they both get to have victory parties? It's possible, although it seems all the late movement is in Hillary's direction, so she may get to declare victory in both states. We shall see.

Quote of the day

By Brendan Loy

"They keep moving the goal posts, but at some point you run out of field." --Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, on the latest Clinton spin.

If Hillary wins narrow, meaningless popular-vote victories in Ohio and Texas tomorrow ("meaningless" because she'll gain very little, if any, ground in the delegate race), and if Team Billary manages to successfully hoodwink the media into painting it as another Clinton "comeback" (as happened on Super Tuesday), I may just jump out the window.

Relatedly, the Clinton camp is now -- incredibly -- touting Hillary's home states of New York and Arkansas on its list of "states that matter." What's particularly telling is that between five and seven of the nine listed states would be expected to be utterly uncompetitive (in one direction or the other) in November, so it's difficult to understand why anyone would premise an electability argument on them. (My full rebuttal to this nonsense is here.)

Will Hillary march forth?

By Brendan Loy

The New York Times's election blog explains the stakes of tomorrow's big vote:

[F]our primary contests on Tuesday could extinguish Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hope of overtaking Senator Barack Obama. ...

Yet the hinge could still swing either way. If Mrs. Clinton carries the behemoths of Ohio and Texas — despite her opponent’s momentum and financial advantage — Mr. Obama may rue this week as both an end and a beginning.

Specifically, Tuesday could be the end of his coronation as Democratic standard-bearer and the beginning of a wrenching springtime struggle. With Clinton victories on Tuesday, neither political realities nor “delegate math” would preclude it.

As an explanation of that last line, the Times goes on to note that "[u]nless Mrs. Clinton quits, either candidate will need votes from the so-called superdelegates." Although that's technically true, it should be noted that there's a huge difference between needing a handful of superdelegates to shore up a clear pledged-delegate majority, versus needing a large majority of superdelegates to overturn a clear pledged-delegate majority. For instance, if Obama continues winning delegates at his current pace, he'd finish with a lead of 1,718 to 1,498. Out of the 820 superdelegates and Edwards delegates*, Obama would need just 306 (37.3%) while Clinton would need 526 (64.1%). How she could possibly convince nearly two-thirds of the unpledged delegates to buck the popular will is beyond me. So I think the "delegate math" is still a major problem for her.

Nevertheless, the Times is right in the big picture: if Obama doesn't land a knockout blow tomorrow, or at least a punch that starts a slow bleed which would get Hillary out of the race within 3-10 days, then this race is going to continue well into the spring. There's nothing on the calendar (with the exception of various low-profile delegate selection events that won't generate any momentum) between next Tuesday (Mississippi) and April 22 (Pennsylvania), so if Hillary isn't out of the race by, say, next Thursday, I can't see what would convince her to get out before late April.

(Hat tip, sorta, on the headline, to C. Stephen Ludlow.)

*This assumes that Edwards gets his 14 Iowa delegates, which is unlikely, as I explained here. But since the fate of those delegates remains uncertain, it makes sense to count them in the non-Clinton/Obama category for now.

P.S. Interesting aside: tomorrow is the original "Super Tuesday." The reason such phrases as "Super Duper Tuesday" arose to describe February 5 was to differentiate it from the true "Super Tuesday," March 4. But as more and more states moved their primaries to February 5, people simply stopped using the "Super Tuesday" label to describe March 4 and started applying it, sans "Duper," to February 5 instead. Yet here we are, on the eve of the original Super Tuesday, and it's more "super" than ever: the entire Democratic race hangs in the balance.

A re-vote in Florida?

By Brendan Loy

If Florida hadn't moved its primary, it would be a crucial part of Hillary Clinton's "firewall" strategy right now; the Sunshine State was originally scheduled to vote next Tuesday, March 11. Instead, the state is part of Hillary's cynical "throw out the rules" strategy. But could it become a legitimate firewall again, assuming Hillary survives Tuesday? Maybe. Talk of a Florida re-vote picked up steam this weekend after Republican governor Charlie Crist said the state would pay for a new primary. (Crist, a prominent McCain supporter, would doubtless love to play a role in prolonging the Dems' fight.)

From what I understand, the Democratic National Committee edict that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates specifically encouraged those states to reschedule their primaries, holding re-votes if necessary. So I'm inclined to think that a new primary or caucus in either Michigan or Florida would be legit and -- unlike Hillary's just-count-the-delegates gambit -- would not constitute "changing the rules in the middle of the game" (since the "rules" specifically allowed for this). As I see it, the Florida and Michigan primaries became illegitimate and irrelevant the moment the DNC stripped them of their delegates, so this wouldn't really be a "do-over"; it would be the first valid opportunity for those states' residents to cast votes in this primary fight. So regardless of whether Clinton or Obama would be favored, I'd be inclined to support this.

Live from New York, it's... Hillary

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton will appear on Saturday Night Live tonight. She's also doing the Daily Show on Monday. I wonder what the strategic thinking here is. Maybe a last-ditch effort to "show off her human side" before Tuesday?

Hillary's plan to delay the inevitable

By Brendan Loy

Here's a plausible-sounding explanation of Hillary Clinton's bizarre-seeming lawsuit strategy in Texas:

There is method to the Clinton campaign's mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest. ...

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. ... [For Clinton to] remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained-- but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.

This strikes me as an interesting, but ultimately quixotic, strategy. It took the media several news cycles to realize that Obama had emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear front-runner, but realize it they eventually did. Hillary might be able to obfuscate the electoral "facts on the ground" for a while, but ultimately, she can't maintain her campaign's viability purely through smoke and mirrors. If she falls further behind in the delegate count on Tuesday, that'll become clear soon enough, and it will become increasingly ridiculous to pretend she can rally. Unless she, like Huckabee, intends on "majoring in miracles," the mathematical reality has to become a factor at some point, doesn't it? Without large delegate margins in the big states on Tuesday, there is simply no realistic way she can get anywhere near Obama's pledged-delegate total by the end of this thing, barring a total sea change in the dynamics of the race (e.g., Mississippi and North Carolina suddenly becoming Clinton country). That's going to become the storyline eventually, whether on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday.

Also, let's not forget that the two races immediately after Tuesday are the Wyoming caucuses (March 8) and the Mississippi primary (March 11). Neither of those are Clinton-friendly at all. So even if she manages to successfully delay the media's recognition of a March 4 failure, the most likely result is simply a slow bleed -- much like what happened after Super Tuesday, actually, when the media slowly woke up to Hillary's dire straights, helped along by one loss after another in the week that followed. Anyway, I could see the post-Teaxs/Ohio news cycles going something like this:

TUESDAY NIGHT - Inconclusive results, but clearly not a Hillary sweep on her "firewall" day.
WEDNESDAY - Texas caucuses still in doubt, but it looks likely Obama will maintain or increase his delegate lead overall. Rumblings of possible mass superdelegate movement to Obama begin.
THURSDAY - It's now increasingly clear that Obama's Tuesday performance boosted his delegate lead. A bunch of superdelegates join his side.
FRIDAY - More superdelegates and other endorsements for Obama. Pressure mounts on Hillary to bow out. She vows to fight on. MSM analysts increasingly roll their eyes at this.
SATURDAY, MARCH 8 - Obama wins by a landslide in the Wyoming cacuses.
SUNDAY, MARCH 9 - Updated delegate count shows nomination increasingly out of reach for Hillary; primary in Obama-friendly Mississippi looms. Media tone now unabashedly that of a coronation.
MONDAY, MARCH 10 - Last-ditch flailing by Clinton camp, amid more defections and a sense of impending doom.
TUESDAY, MARCH 11 - Obama rolls in Mississippi, gives what looks for all the world like the nominee-presumptive's "I just clinched victory" speech. MSM on-air analysts now openly saying Hillary cannot win, treating her basically like Huckabee.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12 - Hillary finally drops out.

Obama-Bloomberg '08?

By Brendan Loy

Hmm...

More here.

Hillary's self-pity

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton: "Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field, but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."

Andrew Sullivan: "Is she f***ing kidding me? ... Clinton has more privilege, more clout, more intrinsic unearned advantages in this race than any non-incumbent Democrat in living memory. And still she failed. And still she whines. There are moments when you almost feel pity; and then you realize what a petty shameless narcissist she is."

Clinton camp portrays March 4 as Obama firewall (!!)

By Brendan Loy

Hahahaha:

With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. ...

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

LOL!! So Hillary can "win" on March 4 just by picking off one state from Obama?? And here y'all thought I was kidding when I said Rhode Island is the new firewall!

Oh, and as for the notion that "the majority of [Democrats] have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date" ... that is about the most tortured piece of transparently bogus political spin I've ever heard in my life. It strings together, into a logically incoherent whole, the following four pieces of nonsensical Clintonian garbage, each of which is utterly untenable on its own:

1) Caucuses shouldn't count at all (not just "caucuses should count less than primaries" -- this goes much further than that, suggesting that the preferences of individual voters who happen to live in caucus states do not matter at all);

2) Michigan and Florida should count, even though the party definitively stripped those states of their influence for violating the rules, and even though all the candidates agreed in advance not to contest those states, and even though Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and even though, according to Hillary, caucuses states which followed the rules, and which both candidates did campaign in, shouldn't count (see above) -- I mean, just think about this: after signing a pledge to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, she is now arguing that Iowa and Nevada don't matter, while Florida and Michigan do;

3) Independent and Republican voters don't matter, and their votes should be retroactively subtracted from the candidates' actual vote totals based on exit-poll estimates (more on that below), even though the local Democratic parties in many states consciously and deliberately choose to allow them to vote in Democratic primaries, and all candidates actively court their votes, and you can't win a general election without their support; and

4) Exit polls are completely accurate and can be fairly used to definitively assess -- for purposes of determining the rightful nominee -- candidates' relative strength among "Democrats" and "non-Democrats" (even though registered Democrats often self-identify as indepedents, and vice versa, so even if the exit polls were 100% statistically accurate, they'd still be wrong).

The absolute lunacy of this Hillaryland spin is beyond staggering. At this point, there are just no words for it. These people are living in an alternate universe. The nonsense they put out seriously has no relation whatsoever to reality. It is... Just. F***ing. Ridiculous.

P.S. By the end of this campaign, I wouldn't be surprised if Team Clinton is putting out press releases touting the fact that Hillary Clinton has won 100% of the vote among voters who voted for Hillary Cilnton. That's how circular and self-serving their spin is becoming. It's like they say, "Let's see what logically incoherent combination of criteria we can concoct to prove that Hillary's winning the nomination." At what point will they realize it's time to give up? At what point will the empress finally recognize that she has no clothes?

Hillary: vote for me or I'll sue!

By Brendan Loy

If Hillary Clinton loses in Texas because of the state's bizarre primary-caucus hybrid, will she file a lawsuit challenging the process? (Hat tip: Joe Mama.)

Her campaign has truly become a shining exemplar of unintentional self-parody and self-destructiveness.  It's like they honestly don't understand how they look, pulling one self-serving stunt like this after another.

At some point, Hilldog, you've gotta recognize that there's a process, there are rules, and while they may be deeply imperfect, they are what they are, they're decided beforehand, everybody knows about them in advance (or, if not, it's their own damn fault for not paying attention), and you can't change them in the middle of the game because you don't like the (potential) outcome. Good grief.

Is John McCain screwed?

By Brendan Loy

Maybe. And it has nothing to do with Vicki Iseman:

Bottom line: Either McCain used the promise of public campaign funds as collateral for his loan, in which case he's locked himself into the public campaign finance system (and its strict spending limits) and is massively screwed until September. Or he didn't use potential public funds as collateral, which means he didn't have anything to offer as collateral, which means he received an improper loan. Neither one of those scenarios is very good for the Straight Talk Express.

Interesting. Verrrry interesting.

P.S. Then, unrelatedly, there's the fact that he was born in Panama. Obviously that one shouldn't matter, but it's an interesting ConLaw debate, if nothing else.

(Personally, I continue to maintain that the constitutional requirement should be changed to say that you have to have been a citizen -- whether natural-born or otherwise -- for 35 years. Thus the citizenship requirement would essentially replace the age requirement, and we'd prevent the obvious absurdity of someone who moved here when they were a toddler, like Jennifer Granholm, being ineligible because they're considered some sort of dangerous foreigner.)

Unapologetic TN GOP whitewashes its Obama hit job, still misses the point

By Brendan Loy

A follow-up to my post below about the Tennessee Republican Party's vile, ethnically and religiously divisive smear against Barack Obama... the Somali photo and the reference to Obama's middle name have been removed from the state GOP's press release, and the following note added at the bottom:

Clarification: This release originally referenced a photo of Sen. Obama and incorrectly termed it to be “Muslim” garb. It is, in fact, Somali tribal garb, hence, we have deleted the photo. Also, in order to diffuse attempts by Democrats and the Left to divert attention from the main point of this release - that Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and recieved endorsements from people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel - we have deleted the use of Barack Obama’s middle name.

This "clarification" is grossly inadequate to resolve the issue. In fact, in a couple of ways, it makes things worse.

First of all, consider for a moment the claim that the original press release "incorrectly termed [Obama's clothing] to be 'Muslim' garb. It is, in fact, Somali tribal garb, hence, we have deleted the photo." Wait, what? Hold the phones. They're admitting they deleted it because it is "Somali," not "Muslim," garb. But how on earth did its alleged "Muslimness" make it relevant in the first place?

As best as I can tell, the Tennessee GOP is now explicitly stating that, in their opinion, if Barack Obama had been wearing "Muslim" garb, that simple fact -- standing alone, without regard to the photo's actual context -- would have made the photo automatically relevant to the party's claim that he "has surrounded himself" with anti-Semitic supporters. WTF?!? Someone needs to call them out on this, force them to explain themselves further. Are they suggesting that all Muslims are anti-Semites? That if someone is a Muslim, or is wearing "Muslim garb," that somehow creates a presumption that they're anti-Semitic? It appears they are saying precisely that; otherwise, the "clarification" makes no sense.

This afternoon, before the "clarification" was issued, I called the Tennessee GOP and left an angry (but respectful) phone message on Bill Hobbs's machine, asking why on earth they had concluded that the intentionally inflammatory Somali photo was in any way relevant to the press release. The "clarification" appears to answer that question, and it seems the answer is: "We thought it was relevant because we thought it made him look like a Muslim." That answer makes them look even worse.

A far better answer would have been: "Some intern added that photo because he thought it was funny. It was a mistake. We apologize." That, I could have accepted. Instead, they have elevated anti-Muslim bigotry to the level of official party policy! What was once implicit is now explicit. Astounding.

Secondly, the party claims it removed Obama's middle name in order to "diffuse attempts by Democrats and the Left to divert attention from the main point of this release." Leaving aside the misspelling of the word "defuse," this statement is downright Hillaryesque in its mendacious spin, as it attempts to deflect the blame for the GOP's own inexcusable mistake by suggesting that "Democrats and the Left" are somehow the villains here.

Never mind that the folks attacking the press release included such liberal luminaries as former Republican State Senate candidate Bob Krumm and conservative blogger John Norris Brown (who condemned the release even though "I would never support Obama because he’s an empty suit with whom I have almost no policy agreements"), not to mention centrist independents like myself.

Never mind that Karl Rove and John McCain himself have specifically said it's inappropriate to use Obama's middle name against him. (And please, let's not pretend that the usage is somehow innocent. Nobody calls him "Barack Hussein Obama" except as a deliberate, divisive maneuver based on religion, ethnicity and race. In the actual context of reality, it is transparently bogus to claim that calling Obama by his full name is anything other than a conscious playing of the Muslim Card. We all know what's going on here, so please, don't play dumb.)

Never mind that it was the Republicans themselves who "diverted attention" from their own "main point" -- their tenuous-but-debatable substantive claims about Obama's "anti-Semitic" ties -- with the deliberately inflammatory and divisive use of that photo and of "Hussein." (There is no other explanation for the inclusion of the photo, nor the usage of "Hussein," except the racist/inflammatory/divisive explanation. Their presence in the press release makes no sense otherwise.)

Never mind that the Tennessee GOP was privately scolded by the national Republican Party and publicly rebuked by John McCain for the press release.

Forget all that. According to the state GOP, this whole controversy is the liberals' fault.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. What's needed here isn't a "clarification," it's an apology. And until the state Republican Party owns up to the transparently obvious fact that they made a conscious, deliberate decision to use Barack Obama's racial and ethnic background, and his family's religious history -- and an utterly irrelevant photo of him in "Muslim garb" -- against him for political purposes... until it straightforwardly apologizes for that despicable tactic, and promises not to engage in such contemptible shenanigans again... my anger will remain intact. This mealy-mouthed "clarification" doesn't even begin to make things right.

McCain: I liked WFB!

By Brendan Loy

John McCain eulogizes William F. Buckley on National Review Online.

Hey, give the man credit. He knows an opportunity to endear himself to the Right when he sees it.

Tennessee GOP hits Obama with vile, divisive smear

By Brendan Loy

*See note below about the changed title of this post.

There are no adequate words of condemnation for this.

I'll try a few, though. Indefensible. Inexcusable. Disgusting. And, yes, racist.

The Tennessee Republican Party apparently thinks it's appropriate to smear Barack Obama -- or as they put it, Barack Hussein Obama -- with an official press release accompanied by an all-too-familiar irrelevant, inflammatory photo of Obama in Somali garb, described pointedly as "Muslim attire."

And they aren't backing down. Far from it, in fact. They say this deliberately divisive nonsense is necessary to "inform the Republican base." Oh yes, how "informative"! Good grief!

[UPDATE: The press release has been altered, with some of the offending material removed. You can see the original here. I've published a new post here addressing the state GOP's grossly inadequate "clarification."]

The people propagating this piece of trash may not themselves be racist or bigoted -- I strongly suspect they aren't, in fact -- but there's no question they are deliberately playing the race/religion card in a way specifically designed to appeal to those who would reject Obama because of some combination of: 1) the fact that he has black skin and Muslim ancestry, and 2) the utterly discredited, Internet-fueled rumors that he's some sort of radical-Islamist Manchurian Candidate.

And I'm just talking about the photo and the middle name (the use of which John McCain has specifically rejected as inappropriate). That's not even getting into how misleading and mendacious that "discussion" is, engaging in the sort of guilt-by-association via six-degrees-of-separation tripe that could land any politician in hot water. (Obama would be an anti-Israel president because... wait for it, wait for it... the board of a nonprofit organization on which he once served, once gave money to a "controversial Arab group," that once said it's opposed to Israel's existence? Really? ... I daresay I don't think it's terribly wise for Southern Republicans, of all people, to suggest that one's racial attitudes can be established through such tenuous links.)

But even those who might want to debate the validity of those points will surely agree that, in any event, the inclusion of the photo is utterly indefensible, to a such an extreme degree that whatever legitimacy the press release might otherwise have had is utterly destroyed. In other words, even admitting arguendo that these "anti-Semitic" Obama connections ought to be discussed, this is not the way to do it -- not by even the remotest stretch of the imagination. As such, I'm sure everyone will also agree that the Tennessee Republican Party's disgusting, vile, racist tactics should be roundly and universally condemned, period.

(More here and here.)

All I can say to the Tennessee Republican Party is that, as an independent, centrist resident of your state who leans conservative on a number of issues, this is something that I will most certainly keep in mind as I ponder whether to support the candidates whom you nominate for state office in future elections.

Bill Hobbs, communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party, whose name appears at the bottom of the press release, can be reached at billhobbs@tngop.org, or by phone at (615) 269-4260.

P.S. By the way, on the somewhat related issue of Obama's supposedly "anti-Semitic" foreign-policy advisor, Samantha Power -- not raised in the TN GOP release, but oft-discussed elsewhere, including here -- check out what the archliberal Max Boot, writing in the noted lefty publication Commentary, had to say. (If you don't know, both of those descriptions are entirely sarcastic.) More here.

NOTE: As several commenters pointed out, the issue isn't really whether Tennessee's Republican leaders are themselves racists -- which I'm sure they aren't -- but rather whether they are using deliberatively divisive, racist tactics against Barack Obama in order to appeal to the baser instincts of some of their constituents (which they clearly are).

As such, I've changed the title of this post (which was originally "The Tennessee GOP is run by racists"), along with some of the rhetoric in the first few paragraphs, in order to more accurately reflect my point -- and avoid distracting from the main issue with overheated rhetoric.

I apologize for going a little over-the-top in the initial version of this post. I was in a hurry and, frankly, quite angry. But the issue here is not whether Bill Hobbs, Robin Smith or anyone else in the party are personally racist. I never really meant to seriously suggest that they are. The issue is whether they are using racially (or religiously or ethnically) divisive tactics. That's what we (and I) should be focusing on.

Unintentional self-parody 101

By Brendan Loy

Suddenly, Hillary Clinton thinks superdelegates should mind their own business: "it would be unfair and unjust to cut off the nominating process now" by closing ranks around Obama. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

They really have no sense of irony in Hillaryland, do they?

Dem debate open thread

By Brendan Loy

I actually don't think I'll be watching tonight's (final?) Clinton-Obama debate. But if you'll be watching and you want to comment on it, here's your thread.

UPDATE: You can watch the debate in its entirety here:

#1 Tennessee visits Vandy tonight

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama isn't the only frontrunner who will be on national TV tonight trying to defend his recently acquired top-dog status against a rival's onslaught. At 9:00 PM EST -- the same time as the Democratic debate on MSNBC -- the #1-ranked Tennessee men's basketball team will face #18 Vanderbilt on the Commodores' home floor. The game will be on ESPN, and Bruce Pearl will be in his orange blazer.

Go Vols & Go Barack!

P.S. I'm looking ahead a bit now, but take a gander at the Big East standings, and then ponder for a moment Thursday night's big game: Notre Dame at Louisville, 7:00 PM on ESPN. Holy cow. Mike Brey's boys playing, maybe, for a Big East regular-season championship? I love it! Oh, and did I mention it's part of an Irish Trojan doubleheader? USC visits Arizona at 9:00 PM Thursday, also on ESPN. Sweet.

Kudos to John McCain

By Brendan Loy

John McCain already seems intent on running a more honorable campaign against Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton has. To wit:

Republican John McCain quickly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who while warming up a campaign crowd referred repeatedly to Barack Hussein Obama and called the Democrat a "hack, Chicago-style" politician. ...

"I apologize for it," McCain told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask the Arizona senator about Cunningham's comments.

"I did not know about these remarks but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign.

McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."

Asked whether the use of Obama's middle name—the same as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein—is proper, McCain said: "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

There have been so many times during Hillary Clinton's campaign -- yesterday's shenanigans being only the latest example, Buffenbarger being another recent one -- when the honorable thing for her to do would have been to come out and quickly make a statement just like the one McCain made. But that's not how Hillary operates. She thinks it makes her a good "fighter" that she never concedes an inch -- that it would somehow be a sign of weakness to repudiate bad behavior by her surrogates and supporters. This attitude was fully on display yesterday, when her new "tough as nails" campaign manager, Maggie Williams, refused to condemn an obvious attempt (by someone) to play the Muslim Card against Obama, instead grotesquely accusing Obama of being the "divisive" one for daring to cry foul against such tactics. Hillary, with all her rhetoric about being a "fighter" who can go toe-to-toe with the "Republican attack machine," seems to think this take-no-prisoners approach is a badge of honor. In fact, it is a badge of shame. She is the very thing she detests (or claims to detest). Thankfully, it appears the American people see right through her, and that's a big part of the reason Hillary Clinton almost certainly will not be our next president.

Hillary's firewall

By Brendan Loy

is leaking.

This may explain the Clintons' emerging Texas-doesn't-count theory.

Tomorrow's Clinton talking points today: the new firewall is Rhode Island! ;)

Fear and loathing in Hillaryland

By Brendan Loy

Two articles out today, one from the Washington Post and one from Politico, really paint a vivid picture of disarray and dismay in Hillaryland, as Senator Clinton's increasingly frustrated top tier of advisors careen madly from storyline to storyline and talking point to talking point, unable to craft a winning message and unwilling to recognize that this is primarily their own (and the candidate's) fault, not Obama's or the media's.

The inability to settle on a strategy or message helps explain why Hillary's last debate performance was so tactically incoherent, and why her public tone since then has been wildly inconsistent. It'll be interesting to see if she can pick a message, and then stay "on" it, in time for tonight's debate. I wouldn't bet on it. Her campaign now bears every indication of being a total train wreck. With each passing day, the "political genius" of Team Clinton is increasingly being exposed as a fraud -- Bill's success was due largely to his own charisma/charm and a healthy serving of dumb luck, IMHO, so when you replace Bill with his charmless wife, and when the other guy's getting all the lucky breaks, there isn't much left to work with.

P.S. Team Clinton's lashing out at the media is a sign of how unfocused they have become in their desperation and frustration. Blaming the media is almost never going to be a winning message if you're a Democrat. It pisses off the media, makes you look like a sore loser, and does nothing to win over voters (since it's Republicans, not Democrats, who instinctively mistrust the MSM).

In any event, if Hillary's political advisers were competent, they would have foreseen Obama's inevitable media advantage and would have come up with a coherent plan to combat it. They didn't, and now they're acting shocked and outraged that the media is behaving the way it always behaves. (The media loves a "change" candidate, something Bill Clinton knew well in 1992. Of course they're going to give more favorable coverage to the exciting, "inspiring" candidate over the wonky "experienced" candidate, particularly when the former has a real flair for public speaking whereas the latter toggles between preachy schoolmarm and screechy monotone. These are "facts on the ground" that Team Clinton obviously should have anticipated and planned for, and their failure to do so is particularly damning given that the ability to "fight" and win pitched political battles is a key component of Hillary's supposed appeal. How is she going to defeat the "Republican attack machine" if she doesn't understand the first thing about how the media works?)

Obama's Michigan supporters will fight for "their" Uncommitted delegates

By Brendan Loy

Yesterday, my ten-day-old nerdy post about Michigan's Uncommitted delegates -- in which I asserted that "if the Democratic presidential race goes all the way to the convention, and if Michigan's disputed delegation is ultimately seated, an absolutely crucial question will be the identities and loyalties of the state's 55 'Uncommitted' delegates" -- got a comment from one Abby Dart, the deputy director of Michiganders for Obama. Dart wrote that "we are running an aggressive campaign to elect our slate of Michigan Obama delegates. We aren't going to let the Clinton campaign gain any of our hard fought for uncommitted delegates."

Intrigued, I e-mailed Dart to get more information on this effort. Among other things, I asked whether, to her knowledge, the Clinton campaign is also mounting an organized effort to elect their loyalists as "Uncommitted" delegates -- something they have every legal right to do, voters' intent be damned. Dart answered in the affirmative: "I've heard that the Clinton team in Michigan is organizing as well to try to get our uncommitted [delegates]." But, she added, "now we have the labor unions (of course, critical interest group in Michigan) assisting us and the press understands what is at stake."

Dodd endorses Obama

By Brendan Loy

Rejecting "entreaties from the Clintons," Chris Dodd, former presidential candidate and senior senator/superdelegate from Connecticut, will endorse Barack Obama at a Cleveland news conference this morning. Dodd is a longtime friend of the Clintons; Bill named him general chairman of the Democratic National Committee back in the mid-90s. Mark Halperin calls it "one of the ten most back-breaking nods Clinton has lost to Obama."

P.S. If Obama were looking for an "attack dog" runningmate, he could do far worse than Dodd, who can growl and bark with the best of  'em. :) Dodd also has experience/gravitas; he's been in the Senate for 28 years, is chairman of the Banking Committee, has been on the Foreign Relations Committee forever, etc. He'd be an unexciting choice, though. I don't see anything about Dodd that would be attractive enough to overcome the two-senators problem, or the Northeastern-liberal problem. Besides, do Democrats really want to risk putting another Democratic senator from Connecticut on the national ticket? :) We all know what happened to the last guy they did that with... heh. (Not a fair comparison, of course; Dodd is as solid of a partisan liberal Democrat as they come. But still.)

All in all, I don't see it happening. If Obama is willing to go with a Northeastern U.S. Senator for the sake of experience/gravitas, I think Biden would be the better choice. The only thing Dodd might have on Biden is that I think he's seen as more of a straight-shooter -- which, admittedly, might be a big deal for the Prophet of Hope and Change. :) But I still think Biden's the pick if Obama wants to solidify his foreign-policy credentials. More likely, though, I suspect we'll be seeing someone like Webb, Sebelius, Schweitzer... or perhaps Bredesen? (But cf., Schweitzer and Bredesen haven't endorsed yet.)

UPDATE: The Boston Globe speculates that Clinton and/or Obama -- more likely Clinton -- may choose a runningmate before the race is over if the battle rages on past March 4. (Hat tip: Reagan's GOP.)

Obama accuses Clinton of cherrypicking

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton and NAFTA:

He said Clinton had portrayed herself as "co-president" during her husband's administration but was now trying to distance herself from one of his signature achievements.

"Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of, and so the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient, that doesn't make sense," Obama said.

He's absolutely right. She made this bed, now she has to lie in it.

(If he really wants to press the point of how Hillary is distorting her own record, he might want to ask more directly why she keeps singing her own praises with regard to her failed health-care reform effort in 1993. It's a bit like Charlie Weis bragging about his coaching efforts last season, or Ben Affleck citing Gigli as an example of his acting skill. It just doesn't make much sense. "Vote for me, I'm the experienced candidate who knows how to get things done! You want proof? Just look at this colossal failure I orchestrated!")

On a somewhat related note, if Hillary more often sounded like she does in this interview, she'd be a far more palatable candidate. Thoughtful, introspective, genuine. Where's that Hillary on the campaign trail, in the debates, etc.? Instead we get schizoid Hillary, who toggles back and forth between obviously-fake "finding my voice" moments and over-the-top anger and sarcasm. It's like she's been calculating and triangulating for so long, she's almost forgotten how to be herself.

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Heh.

Romney, resurrected?

By Brendan Loy

Mitt Romney may get back in the race if the McCain scandal blows up.

Hillary staffers play Obama Muslim card with leaked Somali photo

By Brendan Loy

What can one say about this?

(Here's the Drudge page where it came from. More here.)

Although I probably shouldn't, I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, for the moment, and assume the photo was leaked by low-level staffers with no authorization -- not even of the wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind -- from Hillaryland Central. Of course, to maintain that benefit, she'll need to step forward forthwith and angrily condemn this disgusting, unworthy smear tactic in no uncertain terms. No caveats, no defensiveness, no twisting this into some sort of talking point: just a straightforward, genuine condemnation.

Even if she does that, though, there is simply no way to undo the damage the photo will do -- both to Obama (among general-election voters who are inclined to lend credence to the Muslim Manchurian Candidate nonsense) and to Clinton. In the context of the Democratic nomination fight, this is deeply, deeply damaging to her, regardless of her personal culpability (or lack thereof), because nobody in the media -- and very few in the party, outside of her most loyal die-hards -- will give her the same benefit of the doubt that I'm tentatively extending. After all, the logic will go, leak-and-condemn is precisely what she'd do if this was a deliberate ploy. Even a full-throated condemnation can't unring the bell. So, no matter what she says, practically everyone will see this as yet another dirty Clinton tactic, orchestrated or at least acquiesced to from the top of the campaign. That's the price she pays for a) having a do-anything-to-win reputation, and b) behaving in ways that amplify that reputation.

I think, in fact, this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for Hillary (no pun intended). I wouldn't be at all surprised if a whole bunch of superdelegates defect to Obama's camp in the next 48 hours, and the pressure on Hillary to "drop out for the good of the party" rachets up much sooner than expected. If this is going to be what the final week before Texas and Ohio looks like, every Democrat outside of the most loyal Clintonistas are going to want this campaign over, now.

UPDATE: On the other hand... Marc Ambinder points out that the only evidence the photo actually came from Hillary's camp is, well, Matt Drudge's assertion that it does. Ambinder writes:

It's unclear who is circulating the photo, what the photo means, why only Matt Drudge would receive it, why anyone would assume that even "stressed" Clinton staffers would do such a thing, and why, absent any proof that such a photo was circulating, Obama's campaign would formally react.

(Clinton campaign aides denied circulating the photo, although they worry that, if someone on the campaign -- 700 people now -- did so without authorization, they will be in a pickle.)

We're at the stage of the campaign where both campaigns lose perspective and are willing to believe the absolute worst about each other on the basis of an assertion. And that Manichean perspective then cause said campaign to imputing the absolute worst motivations to their opponents. ...

Anyway, the Clinton campaign believes that the Obama campaign is cynically exploiting the Drudge fetish that news producers have in order to step on her big foreign policy speech today, and the Obama campaign believes that the Clinton campaign is actually sending out a funny-looking photo of Obama.

Such charges are aided and abetted by stories like this one, which uncritically accepts the premise of the photo and its origin.

Could some dumb Clinton ally have sent the photo to Matt Drudge? Sure. Does that mean the campaign authorized its sending? Why would Matt Drudge be the recipient of such an oppo dump -- whatever the oppo dump was supposed to signify.

It'll be interesting to see how this story develops. My above commentary is obviously premised on the notion that the photo did come from someone in the Clinton camp (or at least that the media continues to "uncritically accept" that assertion as fact).

UPDATE 2: Benefit of the doubt extinguished.

Obviously, if this wasn't coming from them, they'd deny it. (As Josh Marshall says, "Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around. We held up on [discussing] this [story] because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself.")

Instead, the Clinton camp did exactly what I said they shouldn't do, reacting with defensiveness and twisting this into an anti-Obama talking point. And it's the most cynical talking point you can possibly imagine. From Hillary's campaign manager:

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

The message, in essence, is that Obama is being anti-Muslim for daring to suggest that it's divisive to circulate a photo that's obviously deliberately designed to feed the bigoted anti-Muslim rumor that he's some sort of terrorist Manchurian Candidate. So basically, Clinton's people can play the Muslim Card to maximum advantage, and then call Obama an anti-Muslim bigot for objecting to their tactics.

F*** Hillary Clinton. F*** her and f*** her whole cynical, divisive, disgusting campaign. May she return to the Senate in shame, get caught in some sort of horrible scandal, and be defeated in the 2012 Senate race.

P.S. From the previously skeptical Marc Ambinder: "OK -- so someone (connected to the Clinton campaign?) circulated the photo because they wanted to show everyone how cool Obama looked in it... and the Obama campaign, for questioning the motive of the person who distributed it, is being offensive?"

P.P.S. Note that, just this morning (before I knew about the photo), I was saying, "I don't think it's fair to put the 'Muslim Manchurian Candidate' thing on Hillary."

Oh, but how quickly and thoroughly she has proved me wrong.

If Clinton's campaign really wanted to avoid being "distract[ed] from the serious issues confronting our country today," they would have promptly put out a statement like this:

Senator Obama and I disagree on a number of things, but we are in complete agreement that religion and ethnicity should not be used as a wedge issue to divide us. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with wearing the traditional garb of another nation while visiting there. Just as obviously, the person who circulated this photo is trying to suggest otherwise. We do not yet know whether the photo was circulated by anyone working for our campaign; if it was, it was obviously unauthorized, and we abhor it. If we discover that anyone on this campaign was employing such a cynical tactic, that person will no longer be working for this campaign. I know that Senator Obama and I both share a desire to make this contest about the issues, not about race or gender or ethnicity or religion, and I hope we can return to that important and substantive debate.

But they don't want to avoid distraction. They want to turn this to their advantage. They will, I think, fail. But it's telling that their first instinct is to attack, no matter how cynical or wrong-headed or mutually destructive their line of attack may be.

UPDATE: Now the Clinton campaign has come out -- finally -- with a quasi-denial. They say the e-mail wasn't "officially" pushed by the campaign. Well, of course not. Things like this are never "official." Cue Josh Marshall:

When we first heard about this brouhaha this morning, we didn't want to do anything with it before we heard what the Clinton camp had to say, for the reasons I described in the initial post ["we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything"]. We know that without doing some sort of exhaustive internal investigation, there's no way a national campaign can say that no one in their campaign had anything to do with it. There's high-level staff, mid-level, hundreds of volunteers, etc. That's not what we were looking for. In most cases, in a situation like this, a campaign, or in this case, say, perhaps Howard Wolfson or some other top level staff would say: "We don't condone this. We didn't authorize this. As far as we know no one in our organization had anything to do with this. Our campaign is made up of hundreds of people. So we can't say definitively that someone somewhere didn't make a stupid decision. But this isn't something the campaign has anything to do with." We pushed and pushed. But we didn't get anything like that. The new statement goes further [than earlier non-denials]. But not that much. The Clinton campaign is either terribly inept at dealing with the story or they know or suspect that it's accurate.

Clinton unleashes sarcastic attack on Obama

By Brendan Loy

On Thursday night, Hillary Clinton called Barack Obama a plagiarist who "Xeroxes" his ideas and has never accomplished anything -- and then said she's "honored" to be on stage with him.

On Saturday, she accused him of using "Karl Rove's playbook" in a weeks-old mailer. "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" she cried.

Now, it seems her anger has turned to sarcasm. On Sunday, during a campaign stop in Rhode Island, she mocked Obama's message of hope and change in a manner only slightly less dirisive than supporter Tom Buffenbarger's tirade last week. See for yourself:

It looks like Mark Penn is winning the debate over strategy in Hillaryland. I told you the media's "Hillary isn't going negative" spin was wrong. She did go negative in last week's debate; she just did so incoherently. I'm not sure whether this latest diatribe qualifies as coherence, but it certainly signifies a conscious decision to stay on the attack. It'll be very interesting to see what happens Tuesday night in Cleveland. I think we can expect fireworks for sure.

UPDATE: The wildly ideologically divergent Jonathan Alter and Robert Novak both say Hillary should drop out now -- before Texas and Ohio. "To withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career," Alter writes. "She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place." Novak, meanwhile, says "many Democratic insiders" are "pray[ing] for the clear Obama victories on March 4 that they hope will make it unnecessary for anybody to beg Hillary Clinton to end her failed campaign." (Hat tip: NRO.)

Huckabee on SNL

By Brendan Loy

Heh.

Ralph Nader: he's baaaaack

By Brendan Loy

Ralph Nader is running for president again.

Says Obama: "I think anybody has the right to run for president if they file sufficient papers. And I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference."

He also says, in response to Nader's criticism that Obama lacks substance: "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work." Obama added that, "historically," Nader is a "singular" and "heroic figure" for his consumer advocacy, but "I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way."

P.S. If Nader's percentage of the vote keeps declining at the rate it did between 2000 (2.73%) and 2004 (0.38%), he'll get 0.05% this year. Or, if you prefer subtraction to division and multiplication, he'll get negative 1.97%. :)

The forgotten election calendar

By Brendan Loy

Politico's Ben Smith has a post up about "chaos" at a Nevada county convention, an event that he says "was supposed to be something like a formality, ratifying the choices of caucusgoers last month."

Hmm... well, as a practical matter, that might be true. But procedurally speaking, it's not correct. Let's go to The Green Papers for an explanation of the actual process.

Back on January 19, when Nevada held its public caucuses, voters in each precinct chose not presidential candidates, nor national-convention delegates "pledged" to a particular candidate. Instead, they chose delegates to the very county conventions that were held yesterday. It's a bit like how, on "Election Day" in November, we're actually voting for presidential electors, not the candidates they're pledged to. Except in this case, the system is even more convoluted, and nobody's "pledged" to anybody. "While a non-binding Presidential Preference Poll is conducted during the caucuses, delegates at the Precinct Caucus level are not bound to their declared Presidential preference."

Next in the process are the county conventions, which choose the county's delegates to the Nevada State Democratic Convention. Again, "while a non-binding Presidential Preference Poll is conducted during the Conventions, delegates at the Precinct Caucus level are not bound to their declared Presidential preference."

Finally, the delegates selected by the county conventions meet at the state convention from April 18 to 20, and only then are the national convention delegates actually allocated and chosen.

Nevada is hardly unique in this regard. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming will all be allocating national-convention delegates at little-noticed, low-profile events over the next few months. These events will be treated as rubber-stamp formalities by the media -- if they're even discussed at all -- but in a race this close, where every delegate counts, they could potentially be very important.

For instance, if you thought you knew the pledged-delegate count in Iowa (supposedly Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14), you may be in for a surprise when the county conventions convene on March 15. Will Edwards's county delegates stick with Johnny Boy, or will they vote for one of the other two candidates? Will any of Hillary's county delegates have changed their minds as Obama-mania has taken hold over the last month-and-a-half? Or, conversely, will any Obama supporters have switched to Hillary? As The Green Papers notes, there's nothing to stop them from doing so. And a switcheroo here or there could alter the delegate balance.

Iowa is particularly likely to see changes from the expected tally because of the Edwards effect, but the other states bear watching, too. The Obama and Clinton camps may have pledged not to "poach" national convention delegates once they're allocated, but that isn't the case yet in these states. And even without "poaching," we could see delegates individually changing their minds. So I think it's worth a closer look at this bit of potentially important procedural minutiae.

Straight talk?

By Brendan Loy

Josh Marshall: "There's no way of getting around the fact that McCain routinely, almost constantly, issues categorical denials that are demonstrably false."

More here. ("He can't put this one behind him simply by asserting that he's JOHN MCCAIN, a living embodiment of honor and integrity, and so we all have to trust him.")

For me, these dissembling denials of side-issues are a much bigger problem than vague, anonymous allegations in a liberal newspaper that some people thought he was maybe having an affair. ... Look, McCain's chance of winning over centrist voters like myself is largely premised on his reputation for "straight talk." If that's just another hollow brand, then what's left?

P.S. On the other hand, maybe some swing voters will vote for McCain just to spite the Times. Though I doubt it. It's February. The anger against the newspaper can't possibly burn white-hot for 8 1/2 months, can it? On the other hand, 8 1/2 months is plenty of time for McCain's "straight talk" bubble to either solidify or be popped. So I still think the false denials are the bigger problem. (It's always the cover-up...)

And so it begins

By Brendan Loy

Slowly but surely, the superdelegates are abandoning Hillary Clinton. It's been a slow trickle, but Obama has gained a net 27 supers in the last two weeks, according to the Associated Press. "Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for us to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen," says one former Clinton super.

That sentiment will spread very, very rapidly unless Hillary's "firewall" works. Presumably, if she loses either Texas or Ohio, she'll drop out (as Bill suggested). But suppose she wins both states by narrow margins -- perhaps edging Obama in the Texas popular vote but losing the delegate count -- and decides to press on despite still being way behind by every measure (pledged delegates, total delegates, popular vote, states won, etc.). If that happens, I think there's no way the superdelegates will let this thing go all the way to April 22 (when Pennsylvania votes). The trickle will become a flash flood, the numbers will become totally lopsided, and Hillary will be hounded out of the race very quickly. Worst case, Mississippi on March 11 (the last pre-PA primary) becomes Obama's final coronation, and Hillary concedes that night or the next day.

The only thing Hillary can do to stop the bleeding is win, and win big.

P.S. For Hillary, there's a big advantage to bowing out gracefully, of course: if Obama loses in November, she immediately becomes the prohibitive favorite for 2012 -- perhaps truly inevitable this time. (This creates an interesting situation on both sides of the aisle, with Clinton and Romney both at least half-rooting for their own party's candidate to lose, so they can get another shot in four years.)

Rice: no dice

By Brendan Loy

Condoleezza Rice says she won't be running for veep.

Of course, they always say that. (For example...) But in Condi's case, I tend to actually believe it.

Speaking of potential vice presidential runningmates, today I stumbled upon this Obama veepstakes post from Marc Ambinder. It's a week old, but it's interesting. Just keep scrolling through the comments.

Positive signs for Obama in Texas

By Brendan Loy

This chart seems like excellent news for Obama. So does this article, and so do these numbers. And then there's Kos's prediction:

Today I talked to a reporter working on a piece on the Obama movement, who had just returned from Texas to see the Obama ground game close up. I asked if it lived up to the hype. He said that he had gone down there cynical, not expecting much, but had been utterly blown away. His piece will be out next week I think, and I can't wait to read the details. But bottom line is that Obama has run a volunteer-driven ground game while the Clintons thought they'd run an advertising air war.

There's a reason Obama is outperforming the polls and even my most optimistic vote predictions -- his volunteer-driven ground game is blowing whatever meager operation Clinton has completely out of the water.

The numbers are moving dramatically in Obama's direction right now. He's going to win Texas, and win it comfortably. Here's the thing -- if the Texas election were today, Obama would likely win it by 10 points, regardless what the polls say. His ground operation is that good.

By the time this thing finally rolls around, expect Wisconsin-like numbers. Obama's victory will be complete.

In an unrelated story, yesterday I asked for a world map of the Democrats Abroad results, and -- hurrah! -- somebody made one.

Also, following up on another post from yesterday: Mayor Bloomberg is backing off his "fraud" claim.

Hillary Clinton's strange debate tactics

By Brendan Loy

I wrote last night that Hillary Clinton seemingly arrived at yesterday's debate not having firmly chosen a side in her campaign's internal debate about whether to go negative or stay positive. As a result, her performance was a strange mixture of politeness and nastiness that I suspect put off a lot of viewers (the "Hillary did better" media CW notwithstanding).

Pondering it some more this morning, I think what's even more puzzling is the specifics of her debate strategy (or lack thereof). When you really stop and think about which points she went negative on, and which points she stayed positive about, you're left wondering what on earth she was thinking. It's as if Mark Penn convinced her to take a couple of meaningless "gotcha" potshots, but forgot to mention that she also needed to aggressively and explicitly connecting her substantive, issue-based contrasts to her broader thematic attacks on Obama's qualifications. So basically, she went negative where she should have stayed positive, and stayed positive where she arguably should have gone negative.

Her two main barbs against Obama were both on utterly insubstantial non-issues: the "plagiarism" nonsense, and the embarrassing but monumentally unimportant fact than an Obama supporter blanked out during a live TV interview. (Does Hillary really want to get into what the candidates' supporters and surrogates say or don't say?) Meanwhile, on substantive issues -- stuff that actually matters -- she was gentle almost to the point of timidity. She drew some contrasts, yes, but she didn't try very hard to make those contrasts stick by explicitly tying them in with her campaign's big-picture themes: experience vs. inexperience, words vs. actions, etc.

Plagiarism?

By Brendan Loy

Sincerity you can Xerox:

Heh. (Hat tip: InstaAlthouse.)

UPDATE: But wait, there's more!

(Hat tip: Politico.)

P.S. She even plagiarized Tom Zbikowski! ;)

P.P.S. Is this a petty, childish line of attack, utterly devoid of substance? Yes! Should it be a non-issue? Yes! But it's Hillary's non-issue; she can't back away from it now.

Besides, she's the one who told us to "look at the YouTube." She said "it does raise questions." And she's right!

Debate open thread

By Brendan Loy

I don't know if I'll be doing much liveblogging of the Clinton-Obama debate (live now on CNN), but if you're watching, feel free to leave your comments here.

UPDATE: I thought Obama pretty clearly won that debate -- not just in the sense that Hillary didn't score a knockout punch, so Obama "wins" by default, but in the sense that he won the debate outright. Of course, I'm biased. But I thought Obama wiped the floor with Hillary during the middle part of the debate, where they were talking about the plagiarism question, the actions vs. words issue, and the general tone of the campaign, followed by the experience/judgment question. I thought that was the heart of the debate, and the part that'll be replayed and analyzed endlessly tomorrow -- and he looked great while she looked awful.

P.S. Caveat: I wasn't really paying attention to Hillary's closing statement, which everybody is saying was great.

P.P.S. You know that article I linked about how Hillary's camp was divided on whether to go negative or stay positive? Thinking about that debate and watching the highlights on CNN, it occurs to me that it seems like Hillary never really decided which course to take.

She took a couple of pretty sharp swipes at Obama (the disastrous "Xerox" comment and the reference to his supporter who couldn't name a single accomplishment), but she seemed to be attacking only reluctantly, and she didn't stay on the offensive. And then came the moment at the end where she said she was "honored" be on stage with Obama -- a man she had just gotten through basically calling a dirty rotten plagiarist who isn't ready for prime time, is all talk and no action, and has never accomplished anything. Huh? Either go negative or stay positive, but don't try to do both at once. That really doesn't work.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Transcript here. One of my favorite Obama lines was in response to his supposed focus on style over substance:

These are very specific, concrete, detailed proposals, many of them which I've been working on for years now.  Senator Clinton has a fine record. So do I.  And I'm happy to have a debate on the issues, but what we shouldn't be spending time doing is tearing each other down.  We should be spending time lifting the country up.

This was good too, of course.

Hillary's dilemma

By Brendan Loy

The final (?) stretch of the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination begins with tonight's debate in Austin. In preparation for which, the New York Times asks: Can Hillary afford to go negative on Obama? Can she afford not to go negative?

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton meets Senator Barack Obama at a one-on-one debate in Austin on Thursday night, one of her final opportunities to change the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will again face the challenge that has repeatedly stymied her: how to discredit her popular opponent without hurting herself.

Even now, after a string of defeats, her advisers are divided over how to proceed as they head toward what could be her last stands, in Ohio and Texas on March 4.

Some — led by Mark Penn, her chief strategist — have been pushing Mrs. Clinton to draw sharper and deeper contrasts with Mr. Obama, arguing that she has no other option, campaign officials said.

Others, particularly Mandy Grunwald, her media adviser, have pushed for a less aggressive approach, arguing that attacks would not help Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in an environment in which she is increasingly appearing to struggle, aides said.

My default setting would be assume that Mark Penn is wrong. ;) But really, I think Hillary's in a no-win situation here. Polls show that most Democratic voters already like both candidates; they just like Obama better. So Hillary isn't going to change the course of the race simply by staying positive. Saying "look at me, I'm awesome!" isn't going to sway Obama's supporters, because most of them already think she's awesome; they just think Obama is more awesome.

So she needs to go negative (or to "draw contrasts"). But she can't, because if she does, she'll a) look desperate, b) turn voters off (voters hate negative campaigning, even when they're in the process of being swayed by it), and c) cause the media to say repeatedly that she looks desperate and is turning voters off. (There's a certain self-fulfilling quality at work there.) All of which will be exacerbated by the political "facts on the ground": John McCain has wrapped up the GOP nomination, and is already turning his fire on Obama, echoing many of Hillary's talking points. Most Democrats, whoever they support, now assume that Obama is going to be their nominee, and thus, to "go negative" on him is to attack the likely Democratic nominee. To do so using virtually the same talking points that the presumptive Republican nominee is using -- well, that's high treason! Never mind that Hillary was using those same talking points first; to ramp up their use now, and thus potentially damage the guy who's probably going to be the nominee, just looks really bad.

With each passing Obama victory, it gets harder and harder to attack him without being accused of buffenbargering. And yet, by the same token, with each passing Obama victory, it becomes more and more essential for Hillary to draw contrasts! It's a real dilemma she finds herself in -- very likely a insolvable one, IMHO. She's really stuck between Barack and a hard place.

(I'll be here all week, folks...)

Obama wins Dems Abroad; Joe Loy triumphs again!

By Brendan Loy

Two weeks and two days after Super Tuesday, the results of the Democrats Abroad caucuses -- which began that day, and continued through Potomac Tuesday -- are finally in, and the winner is... Barack Obama, with 65.6% of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 32.7%. (Somehow, this blowout victory only earns Obama a half-delegate edge, 2 1/2 to 2. Go figure.)

[UPDATE: Here's a PDF file with detailed, official results, broken down by country -- indeed, by "voting center" within each country. It's a rich treasure trove of information. For example, Obama won Canada, 1,398 to 807, while Clinton dominated in the Dominican Republic by a Romney-in-Utah-like margin of 606 to 65. But Obama wasn't universally weak in Latin countries; he won Mexico 883 to 626. Hillary was strong in Israel, winning 190-159, but Obama routed her in Indonesia, 179-54, perhaps due to heavy madrassa turnout. (I kid, I kid!) Seriously, someone needs to make a world map of these results!]

That means Joe Loy, who had already clinched the best prediction record in the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest for both parties combined, is also the winner in the Democrat-only contest. He finishes with 22 points out of a possible 24, having gotten only two contests wrong: American Samoa (where he picked Obama) and Delaware (where he picked Clinton). That 22-of-24 record ties him with Sam Cialek, but Loy wins the tiebreaker because his prediction of Clinton's delegate total in California, 190, is closer to her actual total, 203, than is Cialek's prediction, 170.

I, Brendan Loy, finish third with a 21-of-24 record. :) And if only I'd gotten one more state right, I'd have beaten 'em both, because my tiebreaker prediction was awesome -- 199! Why, oh why, did I pick Clinton in North Dakota and Utah? That doesn't even make sense! I think my vote was miscounted! Fraud!

Bloomberg cries "fraud" in Obama tally

By Brendan Loy

What on earth is Michael Bloomberg on about?

Is he angling for a VP nod or something? Obama-Bloomberg '08? The wunderkind and the supernanny?

Seriously, though, WTF? Is this a joke that the Post took out of context? Or has Mayor Mike finally gone off the deep end? It's my understanding that both presidential campaigns, and all involved parties, agree that the Obama undercount was some sort of innocent error, so Bloomy seems to be going off the reservation here.

NYT: John McCain is a dirty old man

By Brendan Loy

In case you haven't heard, there's a John McCain sex scandal (ewww) in today's New York Times. Well, there's no actual allegation of sex, per se -- but a woman is involved, anyway, and allegations of "romance" ... or allegations of suspicions of romance ... or something. McCain denies everything and says the New York Times smells like poo. Personally, I don't find any of it very compelling, and it does seem rather fishy that the Times sat on the story for months before finally unleashing it once McCain sewed up the nomination. I mean, really, WTF?

Clinton introducer goes ballistic on "two-faced" "wunderkind" Obama

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton supporter Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, went off the deep end last night in true Zell Miller-esque fashion, as his introduction of Senator Clinton turned into a 12-minute tirade against Barack Obama.

Buffenbarger derisively dismissed Obama as a mere "wunderkind," a "man in love with the microphone," and "a poet, not a fighter." He repeatedly and pointedly called him "the junior senator from Illinois" (as if Hillary isn't the junior senator from New York?). He compared Obama to "Janus, the two-faced Roman god of ancient times." And then he really got going:

The Barack Show is playing to rave reviews, sold out on college campus after college campus, standing-room-only crowds to hear his silver-tongued oration. Hope! Change! Yes, we can! Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine!

Heh. But the most offensive and ridiculous line, IMHO, was Buffenbarger's blatantly anti-intellectual argument -- repeated twice -- that Obama can't "fight" for the working class because he was "the editor of the Harvard Law Review." I guess Hillary's stint as an editor of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action establishes her credentials as a real union stiff?

Anyway, here's the video:

I suggest the creation of a new verb: "to buffenbarger," meaning "to engage in an inappropriately vitriolic attack on a member of one's own political party."

To their credit, Hillary's supporters were not impressed by Buffenbarger's buffenbargering. In the above video clip, you can see the supporters standing behind the podium growing visibly uncomfortable -- several of them sit down during the speech -- and, as Fox News points out, "midway through his remarks, [Buffenbarger] could barely be heard over the yells of the crowd - which was alternately shouting for Hillary and agitating for him to leave the stage." Here's a video, taken from the crowd, of Buffenbarger being heckled and booed.

More here. (Hat tip: Andrew Leyden.)

The Michelle Obama problem

By Brendan Loy

Is the Obama campaign's reaction (or lack thereof) to the Michelle Obama "proud of my country" kerfuffle disturbingly similar to John Kerry's initial non-response to the Swift Boaters? Jonathan Martin thinks so, and I fear he may have a point.

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious what Michelle Obama meant. Even before Barack Obama said this...

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America. Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

...I figured that's exactly what Michelle was trying to say. Frankly, it's pretty ludicrous to suppose that she actually believes the literal meaning of her words; it's perfectly obvious to a fair-minded observer that this was a gaffe, a botched line, not a revelatory Freudian slip exposing the dark inner reaches of Michelle Obama's unpatriotic soul. But the facial implausibility of the less charitable explanation won't stop people like Rush Limbaugh from saying things like, "Doesn't it just grate on you that liberals in general are not proud of their country, period?" Nor will it stop those statements from damaging Obama's campaign (if only by firing up Republicans to levels of hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-McCain-ism that at least begin to approach what we'd see if the likely opponent was Hillary Clinton.)

In a way, this is a lot like a different John Kerry controversy: the kerfuffle over his "botched joke" in 2006 about American soldiers and/or President Bush getting "stuck in Iraq." As I wrote at the time, it was perfectly obvious what Kerry meant, that the whole controversy was -- at its substantive core -- much ado about nothing. Yet it destroyed Kerry's '08 presidential ambitions (thank goodness) and caused him to basically slink off the stage lest he damage Democratic prospects in that year's election.

I suspect that most Americans are inclined to be more forgiving of a gaffe by a presidential candidate's wife -- particularly when it comes nine months before the general election -- than they were of a gaffe by a once and future (or so we thought then) candidate. But to be forgiven, you have to actually ask for forgiveness. Instead of doing that, Team Obama let this thing fester for a while. Now they're finally starting to do some damage control, but I'm afraid the damage may already be done. In a Feiler Faster/Two Electorates world, the public absorbs sensational, controversial news -- the type with sufficient oomph to break through the bubble of political apathy that surrounds most people in their everyday lives -- very quickly, yet is very slow to absorb more mundane contradictory information. So when something like this happens, you have to strike fast in an effort to dilute the impact of the initial information while it's still being absorbed into the public consciousness. A full news cycle later, it may already be too late for that. Barack Obama, already a crypto-Muslim Manchurian Candidate in the eyes of many, may now be a crypto-Muslim Manchurian Candidate who steals other people's speeches and whose wife hates America. Great.

P.S. The plagiarism thing would normally be too arcane to break through the apathy bubble. But although I wasn't listening to talk radio or watching cable news yesterday, I suspect it may have piggybacked in with the Michelle Obama thing, thus allowing a silly quasi-scandal to become a potentially indelible part of the broader public's impressions of Obama.

Hillary's slow collapse

By Brendan Loy

The final result in Wisconsin last night was a startling 58 to 41 margin for Obama -- closer to the unweighted exit polls (60-40) than the "final," weighted ones quoted by Fox (55-43). I'm no polling expert, but it occurs to me that maybe the "weighting" process somehow took into account the degree to which exit polls in previous contests had overstated Obama's support -- but this time, that didn't happen.

If so, it could be another sign of Obama gaining strength. Not only is he winning, or damn near winning, many of Hillary's core demographics (women, low-income voters, non-college-educated voters, etc.), he may also be converting the fake-Obama-supporter demographic into real Obama supporters. Where, two weeks ago, some voters would tell people, including pollsters and exit pollsters, that they supported Obama -- the hip, young, black, inspirational candidate with the celebrity music video and the liberal hipster allies -- but would then cast their ballot in secret for the "safe" candidate, Hillary ... now those people are actually voting for Obama.

Just a theory. And probably a wrong one. :) But I thought I'd throw it out there.

On a related note, Michael Crowley looks at the Collapse of Hillary. But the candidate herself seems not to have noticed. For the third straight election night, Hillary's "concession" speech failed to mention that she'd lost anything, or that there had even been an election held that day. And today her campaign has opened a new front in the delegate-counting war, collecting all their ridiculous spin in one convenient "hub." It's like they don't realize they're losing -- like they're whistling past the graveyard. News flash to Team Billary: you can't win the nomination purely on back-room machinations. At some point, you'll have to win some more primaries. A bunch more, actually. Not just Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico. You'll need those -- by wide margins -- but you'll need others, too. And that seems like an increasingly dubious prospect.

By the way, here are yesterday's speeches.

Life imitates The West Wing

By Brendan Loy

I believe this has already been noted here on the blog: there are eerie similarities between this year's presidential race and the campaign in the last two seasons of The West Wing.

Bill Clinton on "experience"

By Brendan Loy

Heh. (Hat tip: Sully.)

For all you delegate-counters...

By Brendan Loy

You can get Wisconsin results by congressional district here. Based on my crude delegate math, I'm coming up with an estimated total of Obama 42, Clinton 32. I explain in detail after the jump.

Anyway, I'm going to bed now, but Hawaii results will eventually be available here and here.

Oh, and that meaningless Washington beauty-contest primary? Those results are here -- though, annoyingly, you have to go to a different page to get the "percentage of precincts reporting" stat. Anyway, with 36% reporting, Hillary has an slight lead! She could move to 3-0 in meaningless primaries! Suggested victory speech: "First we're going to go to Michigan! And then we're going to go to Florida! And then we're going to lose the Washington caucuses, but win the meaningless primary! And then we're going to go to Denver and lose the nomination! YEAAARRH!!!"

The polls are closed

By Brendan Loy

Wolf Blitzer says CNN projects John McCain "will win, will win" Wisconsin. On the Dem side, "the exit polls indicate that Barack Obama does have a lead, but CNN is not ready to make a projection at this point."

UPDATE, 9:19 PM: Fox calls Wisconsin for Obama. Says the "final exit polls" are 55-43 in his favor.

UPDATE 9:22 PM: CNN calls it too.

An Obama blowout?

By Brendan Loy

I want to ignore the leaked, unweighted exit polls, given their history of being drastically wrong (see: the Seven-Hour Presidency of John Kerry; Obama by 4 in New Hampshire; Obama winning Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New Mexico on Super Tuesday; etc.) ... I want to look away, really I do ... I don't want to blog about them ... but I can't help myself!

I'm hearing that after two waves of data, Wisconsin looks like a blowout in favor of Obama, in the neighborhood of 60 percent to 40 percent.

Also:

Democratic officials with access to exit polls say Sen. Obama looks like he’s headed for a huge win in today’s Wisconsin primary. The polls could turn out to be off, as they have in the past. But the officials’ revelation reflects the chatter in the campaigns in advance of the 9 p.m. Eastern poll closing.

The party officials said that if the trends reflect in the interviews with hundreds of Badger State voters, the news out of the primary will be: Obama encroached deeply into three of Clinton’s core groups of voters — women, those with no college degree and those with lower incomes — while giving up none of his own.

I need a twelve-step program or something. :)

P.S. More here, with (apparently weighted) numbers: 51-49 Obama among women; also 51-49 Obama among households with incomes under $50,000. If those are anywhere close to correct, that's absolutely devastating for Hillary.

Video here.

Cheesehead Tuesday

By Brendan Loy

It's Badger Tuesday... or, as I prefer to call it, Cheesehead Tuesday!

The polls will close in Wisconsin at 9:00 PM EST -- which, coincidentally, is when the Hawaii caucuses will begin. Hawaii caucuses begin at midnight EST and end at 12:30 AM. Oh, and let's not forget Washington state's utterly meaningless $10 million beauty contest... actually, on second thought, yeah, let's forget it. :)

Anyway, in honor of Cheesehead Tuesday, I give you... nearly naked hotties for Ron Paul! (SFW.)

On a more serious note, Fly On The Wall offers an excellent critique and analysis of the the various arguments about legitimacy vis a vis delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, etc.

And speaking of superdelegates, here is a brief history of how they came into being, and why. Though, on that point, I have a slightly different theory:

HILLARY: "Do you know how the Superdelegates first came into being? They were Pledged Delegates once, taken by the dark powers. Tortured and mutilated…"

[The Superdelegate growls.]

HILLARY: "...a ruined and terrible form of life. And now... perfected. My fighting Automatic Delegates."

HILLARY: "Whom do you serve?"

SUPERDELEGATE: "Hillary!!"

Yes, I suck at Photoshop. :)

Anyway... the other big story of the day is the Obama "plagiarism" scandal, which may -- may -- be hurting Obama in the polls. More importantly, will it hurt him at the polls, in Wisconsin tonight? We shall see.

Personally, I can't believe the media isn't making the obvious connection between this latest example of Obama plagiarism, and the far more blatant example that's been hiding in plain sight:

Can we co-opt a cartoon show's slogan as a presidential campaign rallying cry? Yes we can! :)

What the?

By dcl

Seriously, if this is true Clinton has lost any chance of my support in any election ever full stop.

UPDATE BY BRENDAN: In fairness, the Clinton campaign promptly denied the report in question, and pledged not to try and "poach" Obama's elected delegates. The Obama campaign has also ruled out "poaching."

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean Hillary's supporters in Michigan won't try to poach "Obama's" Uncommitted delegates at the district conventions on March 29...

More utterly dishonest Clinton spin

By Brendan Loy

Argh:

Clinton’s ace-in-the-hole delegate counter, Harold Ickes...[a]cknowledges [the] campaign perhaps should have done more in caucus states, but belittles Obama wins in places like Idaho — says they aren’t general election battlegrounds.

No, they aren't. And neither are California, Massachusetts or New Jersey -- Hillary's supposed "big wins" on Super Tuesday. Is Ickes seriously suggesting that Obama would lose those states in November? The same goes for New York, another of Hillary's large-state victories.

On the flip side, although Bill won Arkansas in the 1992 and 1996 general elections, I think it would be a stretch to believe that Hillary can. Just as CA, MA, NJ and NY are rock-solid blue, AR is rock-solid red. The same goes for Tennessee and Oklahoma, also much-ballyhooed "big wins" for Hillary. These states are all little more than glorified Idahos.

So, in sum, that's seven Clinton wins that came in states that aren't "general-election battlegrounds," and therefore are not "significant," according to Ickes/Penn logic.

Even if we ignore the fact that this whole argument is transparently bogus -- winning a primary in a given state does not mean you'll win the general election there, and likewise, losing a primary doesn't imply that you'll lose the general -- the Clintons' argument defeats itself, on its own terms. To wit:

Excluding, as any intellectually honest person must, the states where both candidates agreed, in advance, that the primary didn't count... Hillary has won exactly two true "swing states" (New Hampshire and New Mexico), plus two "red states" that you could potentially see a Democrat competing in (Nevada and Arizona). Obama has also won two true "swing states" (Iowa and Missouri) and two "red states" that you could see a Democrat competing in (Colorado and Virginia).

So, the candidates are doing equally well in this (meaningless) statistic... unless you tally up the electoral votes in their respective "general election battlegrounds," in which case Obama is way ahead, 40 to 24. Are you listening, Harold?

Likewise, if you look at their popular-vote margins in those states' primaries, Obama wins by a mile, 16.7% to 4.4%. Or, if you prefer raw totals, it's still Obama in a romp. We have to throw out Iowa and Nevada, since those states don't report actual vote totals, but Obama's combined margin of 322,745 votes in MO, CO and VA dwarfs Hillary's combined margin of 42,604 votes in NM, NH and AZ.

So... what is Harold Ickes's point, exactly?

Who will Michigan's Uncommitted delegates be?

By Brendan Loy

If the Democratic presidential race goes all the way to the convention, and if Michigan's disputed delegation is ultimately seated, an absolutely crucial question will be the identities and loyalties of the state's 55 "Uncommitted" delegates.

Hillary, you may recall, won 73 delegates to Uncommitted's 55 in the January 15 Yooper Tuesday primary. "Uncommitted" was basically a proxy for Obama and Edwards, who weren't on the ballot. The substantial majority of "Uncommitted" voters, it's safe to say, were Obama supporters -- but that doesn't necessarily mean Uncommitted's delegates will be Obama loyalists.

Their loyalties are very important to determine, though. If all 55 of 'em are de facto Obama delegates, Hillary only gets an 18-vote boost from seating Michigan's delegation, which might not be enough to salvage her nomination chances. But suppose they're evenly split; suppose half of them are actually Clinton loyalists. Then Hillary's Michigan advantage becomes a huge, huge deal mathematically. (In that scenario, 73-55 would turn into something like 100-28.) So I decided to do a little research into the process by which these delegates will be selected.

Pelosi to supers: respect the voters

By Brendan Loy

House Speaker (and superdelegate extraordinaire) Nancy Pelosi says the superdelegates should follow the will of the voters, not override their verdict -- and also, that Michigan and Florida's delegations should not be seated.

P.S. Pelosi will chair the convention in Denver. I'm not sure how much actual power that gives her, but it certainly lends at least a bit -- and maybe a lot -- of additional significance to her statement.

Wisconsin as a mini-Ohio?

By Brendan Loy

Makes sense to me. Although, don't tell it to Badger fans.

UPDATE: Is Obama really winning Texas? [But cf., Derek's comment. He says ARG, the company whose poll shows Obama leading, sucks.]

P.S. Peggy Noonan sums up Hillary Clinton's week. It's been a doozy.

Meanwhile, Michael Gerson explains why Hillary is losing: "Clinton's largest problem is not a lack of money or public enthusiasm. It is the lack of a compelling narrative for her campaign."

Most successful presidential runs eventually have an overarching theory: the generational ambitions of John Kennedy's "New Frontier," the rising cultural resentments of Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority," the reviving national confidence of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America."

Obama's appeal is straightforward: getting beyond "the ideological battles that have consumed us for the last 20 years" -- in which Clinton and her husband have been two of the main combatants.

Hillary Clinton's attempt to define a narrative of her own has been hobbled because her campaign is defined by the rejection of rhetoric. Obama's eloquence and idealism are dismissed as "abstract" and a "fairy tale" in contrast to Clinton's experience and policy substance. It is difficult for a campaign to inspire while using "inspiration" as an epithet.

Gerson also notes that the "experience and policy substance" argument is further hobbled because "Clinton has had little actual experience running anything, and that the "argument for experience comes at an odd time, when Americans are generally disillusioned with both Democrats and Republicans in Washington." But, he argues, the other possible Hillary narratives are also fatally flawed: Hillary the Fighter ("it is hard to imagine American voters thinking: 'If only the Clintons were a little more ruthless, I'd finally support them'"), Hillary the Comeback Kid ("when you lose a lot, you eventually look like a loser") and Hillary the Tested ("it is not enough to be vetted. The goal is to be vetted and found clean"). He concludes:

Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.

Unlikely -- but it would be a fitting contribution to the Clinton legacy of monumental selfishness.

Indeed.

Supers and spin

By Brendan Loy

Josh Marshall:

The Clinton camp's super delegate gambit is not only audacious. Far more than that it is simply unrealistic. The super delegates who are gettable for Clinton by loyalty, conviction or coercion are already got. And enough's been seen of both candidates for everyone to be more than acquainted with them. The ones who remain -- who make up roughly half the total -- are waiting to see who the winner is.

The truth is that there are over 1000 elected delegates remain to be won. We really don't know what's going to happen yet. But if the trend continues and Obama ends the primary season with a clear majority of elected delegates, the idea that those remaining super delegates will break for the candidate who won fewer delegates, raised less money and is polling worse against the Republican nominee simply makes no sense.

He goes on to cite this as another example of Hillary's people, particularly chief strategist Mark Penn, putting out "spin" that's downright laughable. Good spin, Marshall says, involves "clever and forward-leaning pitches of actual realities, facts." What's been coming out of Team Hillary, by contrast, are "not sharp 'spins' on favorable realities, but aggressive pitches of complete nonsense."

More delegate math

By Brendan Loy

The New York Times has a fantastic delegate graphic today. Of particular interest to me are the stats for where the delegate count would be without proportional allocation: Obama 1,096-1,075 in a winner-take-all system by state, or Obama 1,138-1,033 in a WTA-by-district system. Fascinating.

UPDATE: It's a couple of days old, and it's long, but here's an interesting post about the delegate situation and the state of the race.

"Floodgates open" after super-defection?

By Brendan Loy

Very good news for Obama on two fronts tonight. First, it looks like he may be getting a huge union endorsement -- that of the national Service Employees International Union -- possibly at 1pm Friday.

Second, and even more importantly, a development that TPM's Eric Kleefeld says "may well be the beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton's super-delegate strategy": a super-duper switcheroo! According to the New York Times:

Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

[UPDATE, 12:52 AM: A late report suggests the Times may have jumped the gun; Lewis may not be switching after all. WTF? Is something fishy going on here?]

Mark Halperin calls Lewis's defection an "earthquake" and the "most serious symbolic threat to Clinton's nomination yet." He elaborates:

Lewis is a universally respected, historic figure who is the first prominent Democrat to go from squarely in Clinton’s camp to Obama’s. The rationale he gave to the New York Times strikes at the heart of the argument that has been circulating among many wavering, undecided superdelegates, and among those now in Clinton’s camp who are feeling pressure to switch. Floodgates could open. The timing could not be worse for Clinton. And those in the party and the press who want to write off her chances will be able to make a big deal about this development. Take whatever you thought Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination before Lewis’ decision and divide that number by as much as two — those are the odds of her winning now.

Michael Crowley says Halperin is exaggerating. "Obviously this is a nasty development for Hillary. ... It hurts. But an event that cuts her odds in half? That's how I would describe a big loss in Wisconsin. Not this."

Regarding Lewis's rationale, here's what the Times said:

Birthday boy Loy clinches Super Tuesday contest

By Brendan Loy

Nine days after Super Tuesday, Democratic Party officials in New Mexico announced today that Hillary Clinton won their state's primary -- which means that Joe Loy, who turned 60 today, is the overall winner of the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Contest.

With only the Democrats Abroad result still outstanding, Loy is 38-of-44 in predicting the Democratic and Republican elections that were held on February 5. No one else is better than 36-of-44, so even if Loy gets Democrats Abroad wrong (he picked Obama), he'll still win the overall contest.

Populism pander alert!

By Brendan Loy

Next she'll be saying she's the daughter of a millworker:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) trashed an array of corporate interests in an economic speech in Ohio Thursday, vowing that as president she would go after oil, credit-card, insurance, pharmaceutical, investment and loan firms.

But is this fight "deeply personal" to her?

Centrists gone wild

By Brendan Loy

First Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain. Now Lincoln Chafee has endorsed Obama. What's next? Chuck Hagel for Hillary? John Breaux for Huckabee?

Meanwhile, is this the start of a Clinton-to-Obama superdelegate switcheroo trend?

UPDATE: Speaking of switcheroos, an unexpectedly rapid answer to my question, "What's next?," has arrived via Wonkette: one of John McCain's top advisers will quit McCain's campaign if Obama is the Democratic nominee because, well, golly, he just likes Obama too darn much to campaign against him! (Hat tip: dcl.)

Obama vs. McCain = Paula vs. Simon

By Brendan Loy

An amusing analogy, courtesy of an NRO reader: "I was watching American Idol last night, and as usual Paula Abdul was just going on and on about feelings and emotion, and crotchety Simon Cowell was rolling his eyes and telling her to get to the point. It occurred to me that this could be a preview of the election this year if it's Obama and McCain. Paula versus Simon. Who do we want as President?" Heh.

On a more serious note, Quinnipiac Polls in Ohio and Pennsylvania, taken during the week between Super Tuesday and the Potomac Primary, show Hillary up big -- like 15 to 20 points big. If she can hold onto those margins, then this is still a race.

Hillary Clinton is HOT! HOT! HOT!

By Brendan Loy

Was this Hillary video made by the same people who did the "Appalachian is HOT! HOT! HOT!" video?

Seriously, the similarities are striking. And I'm not just talking about the fact that Hillary and Appy State both won in Michigan. (Though in fairness to the Mountaineers, their win actually counted.*)

Anyway... just listen to the killer lyrics. "Experience is great / Instead of war, we can negotiate / Education, health and world affairs / Hillary is the one who cares" ... ROFL!!

How did this thing not win a Grammy? ;)

(Hat tip: Jason Zengerle.)

*Insert your own joke about Les Miles and "Uncommitted" here.

Obama leads national popular vote

By Brendan Loy

Assuming for the sake of argument that the "national popular vote" means something in the context of a state-by-state, district-by-district fight for the nomination -- and I'm not at all sure it does, but the Hillary folks will certainly argue that it does if such an argument suits their spin -- it's interesting to note that, even if you count Florida and Michigan, and even if you ignore the caucus states that don't report popular-vote totals, Obama is winning the popular vote.

Of course, it's totally absurd to count Michigan, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot there, and both campaigns agreed in advance that it didn't count and they wouldn't compete there. Same goes for Florida, except for the ballot thing, so counting the Sunshine State is pretty suspect, too. Furthermore, the only fair way to accurately reflect the national popular-vote totals is to try and somehow estimate the votes in those caucus states, as ObamaIsWinning.com is doing; otherwise you are just completely ignoring Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, all of which were (unlike FL and MI) actually contested by both candidates.

So really, Obama's legitimate lead is actually much bigger than the 9,942,375 to 9,860,138 that you get if you count FL & MI and ignore IA, NV, WA and ME. Still, he's ahead no matter how you slice it, and that counts for something. I think. Sort of.

Even a broken clock...

By Brendan Loy

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have official confirmation that the Wisconsin-as-Hillary's-mini-firewall meme, first predicted by yours truly in my Monday post "Wednesday's CW today," has become, well, Wednesday's CW.

I wrote on Monday that, as the "growing media consensus that Hillary's in trouble and March 4 might not be able to save her" collides with the reality of an Obama Beltway sweep, the result would be that Wisconsin would become "a pre-March 4 'firewall' for Hillary." I added, "Maybe [the MSM and her superdelegates] won't demand that she win Wisconsin, but if she loses badly (again)," she'll be in trouble.

Well, here what the AP's Scott Bauer has to say, under the headline "Clinton Scrambles to Contest Wisconsin":

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving belatedly to make a contest of next Tuesday's [Wisconsin] Democratic presidential primary. ...

Clinton hasn't conceded the 74 delegates at stake even though she has already begun campaigning for the larger delegate prizes offered in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Her advisers say the New York senator may not win Wisconsin but can't afford another of the lopsided defeats she suffered in three mid-Atlantic primaries Tuesday. ...

Scrambling to prevent an Obama runaway, Clinton plans to spend three days in the state. On Tuesday, she squeezed in three satellite TV interviews with Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay stations amid seven interviews with Texas and Ohio stations. Former President Clinton arrives on Thursday.

A new Clinton TV ad begun Wednesday asks why Obama hasn't joined her in accepting an invitation to debate at Marquette University...

So there you have it. The Irish Trojan: your source for occasionally-correct election predictions and media-CW prophesies! ;)

In less obnoxiously self-referential election news, Politico's Ben Smith says Obama is winning the spin war over whether the superdelegates should be lumped in with the pledged delegates as an undifferentiated mass in the media's delegate counts. (Answer: no.) But Hillary's camp isn't conceding the point, not by a long shot. Says communications director Howard Wolfson:

We are not making distinctions between certain kinds of delegates. We don’t make distinctions between delegates that are chosen by millions of voters in a primary or tens of thousands of voters in a caucus. We don’t make a distinction between elected officials.

Heh. I love the blatant dishonesty of the statement, "We don't make distinctions between [primaries and caucuses]." I wish someone had replied, "Of course you do, Howard! You've done it consistently throughout the last several weeks, and in fact, you're doing it right now, under the guise of denying it!" It takes a truly artful liar to lie about the very words he is saying, even as he says them. These Billary people really make dishonesty an artform.

Alas, they aren't going to quit with this delegate-count-obfuscation business, and even if Smith is right that Obama is gaining ground in the delegate-count spin war, the "total count" is still going to keep carrying a fair amount of weight -- as Team Billary obviously recognizes when it sets a "target" of being within 25 total delegates (pledged and unpledged) of Obama after March 4.

Of course, they're setting that goal because it should be a pretty easy one to exceed -- unless Obama can even out the superdelegate numbers in the mean time, which, as I mentioned in my P.S. earlier, would really help with the perceptions game in the event of an inconclusive situation when March 5 dawns. And this Clintonian spin tactic is precisely why.

UPDATE: More on Wisconsin:

The Clinton campaign has coaxed Teresa Vilmain (left), who earned high marks for running her Iowa operation, down from the wilds outside of Madison to run her suddenly-rejuvenated Wisconsin operation, we're told.

Early on, it looked like Hillary Clinton might effectively concede Wisconsin's Feb. 19 contest to Barack Obama. But her schedule released late last night shows an apparent change of heart...

(Hat tip: Politico.)

P.R. governor backs Obama

By Brendan Loy

Last week, in a much-discussed article about the final stop on the Democratic election calendar -- the Puerto Rico caucuses, on June 7 -- Michael Barone argued that the island's 63 delegates (actually 55, plus 8 supers) will probably be distributed in an effectively winner-take-all manner, and thus could prove incredibly important if Clinton and Obama are still locked in a close delegate battle at that point. Barone argues that, although proportional allocation of pledged delegates is a universal requirement under national Democratic Party rules, such a concept is "alien to highly competitive Puerto Rican politics," and therefore, in past years, "the dominant figure in Puerto Rico identifying with the Democratic Party has seen to it that his faction gets all the territory’s delegates."

I don't know anything about Puerto Rican politics, but as I stated yesterday in comments, I think Barone will probably be proven wrong about this. Precedent from prior years is relatively meaningless in the current context, as there hasn't been a down-to-the-wire delegate battle in many years, so there hasn't been a reason for anyone to challenge any Puerto Rican party shenanigans that may have occurred. Whatever the island's Democratic power-brokers might try to pull off, I can't imagine the national party allowing its presidential nomination to be decided -- over the loud, vociferous, and absolutely correct objections of the loser -- on the basis of blatant territorial rule-breaking. So I have to believe that any effort to manufactuer a 55-0 win for either candidate will be nipped in the bud. (The actual, official rules of Puerto Rican delegate selection can be found at The Green Papers. Needless to say, they are not winner-take-all.)

That said, whether Barone is right or wrong, even a proportional battle over 55 delegates at the very end of the calendar certainly could be important -- and, as such, today's Obama endorsement by Puerto Rico's governor strikes me as pretty significant.

And if, by chance, Barone is right, then it's really significant.

Too good to be true

By Brendan Loy

Is it really possible that Bill Clinton actually said to Bill Richardson -- in reference to Richardson's refusal to endorse Hillary -- “Isn’t two Cabinet posts enough?”

Color me skeptical. I'd love to know what the sourcing is on the report where the quote first appeared. Like the allegation that Paul Wolfowitz said the Iraq War was "all about oil" (subsequently corrected and deleted), this is one of those quotes that's so deliciously wonderful, so perfect, so neatly encapsulating what everybody in the Beltway secretly (or not-so-secretly) thinks about Bill Clinton -- that he's a presumptuous, insufferable egomaniac who considers himself God's gift to the Democratic Party and believes that everybody in the known universe "owes" him -- I just can't believe it's actually true.

Obama on the verge

By Brendan Loy

If you want to know where the Democratic race stands right now, do not pass go, do not collect $200, just head straight over to TPM Café and read FlyOnTheWall's latest post. I was going to quote excerpts from it, but then I realized I'd end up blockquoting the whole thing. Just go read it already. :)

(Also read his follow-up comment. Money quote: "I expect the superdelegates to coalesce [around Obama] remarkably quickly after March 4" -- even if Hillary wins reasonably big in Texas and Ohio.)

Oh, and if you're still worried about Hillary's potential superdelegate shenanigans, you might want to read this, too. It'll get you all fired up, if you're an Obama supporter -- or a supporter of small-d democracy in general, or for that matter, truth, justice, the American way, etc. :) But Fly's math and logic are persuasive: it appears unlikely that Hilldog can even get the pledged-delegate count close enough to make such shenanigans plausible.

IMHO, the only way Hillary wins this nomination now is if, under the increased media and public scrutiny that comes with being the clear-cut frontrunner, Obama seriously stumbles in the next three weeks. He and his campaign have been so disciplined and on-message to date, it seems unlikely he'll commit an unforced error (knock on wood), so really, it's all about the debates. She's got two chances to trip him up. All he has to do is not fall flat on his face, and he'll be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Which is pretty damn remarkable.

P.S. Fly predicts that Obama will be rolling out a bunch of superdelegate endorsements over the next three weeks. I hope that's true. Given the media's unholy obsession with the grossly misleading "total delegate count" -- lumping the pledges and the supers together into an undifferentiated mass -- it would help Obama immensely in the perceptions game if he can pull as close to even in the superdelegate count as possible before March 4. That way, even if Hillary wins big in Texas and Ohio (which, frankly, I doubt will happen; I think Giuliani syndrome is going to take hold between now and then, again barring an Obama gaffe), Obama will still be able to maintain a sizable, obvious lead in both delegate counts: the one that actually ought to matter (pledged delegates) and the one that the media is obsessed with (total delegates). The less ambiguity about who's "ahead," the better Obama's chances to wrap this thing up.

Hillary Clinton's bleak delegate math

By Brendan Loy

Does Obama already have a pledged-delegate majority effectively wrapped up? MSNBC's Howard Fineman says both campaigns think so, as Josh Marshall explains:

[T]he gist of [Fineman's analysis] was that both sides agree that it's highly unlikely that Clinton can end up with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama. And the issue now is how close she can keep the margin.

If she can keep it within a couple dozen delegates, he argued, it would be credible to try to make up the margin with super delegates. On the other hand, if Obama's ahead by 100 or 200, the pressure against trying to make up the margin with non-elected delegates would just be too great.

Sounds about right. Here's the clip:

The speeches

By Brendan Loy

I thought Obama's victory speech tonight was one of his better recent efforts. It was less repetitive of earlier speeches, pithier and faster-paced, and less self-referential than his discomfiting, almost messianic "we are the change we seek" speech on Super Tuesday.

As for the other candidates' remarks: I only caught a brief snippet of McCain's speech before duty called (Loyette needed a diaper change), but it seemed like a pretty hard-hitting frontal assault on Democratic/liberal policies. And Clinton's speech was... um, I think the word would be grating. I kept thinking, "this speech would sound good if Obama were giving it." :)

Video clips here.

P.S. TNR's Jonathan Cohn calls it Obama's "best speech yet":

Compared to his early speeches, he's far more deft at weaving policy into his promises of movement-building. ... [W]here he used to talk about change for change's sake, now he talks about specific changes -- and how he intends to build a popular mandate for those changes. ...

Towards the end of the speech, he returned to his theme of "yes we can" -- but in a way different than I had heard before. (Again, maybe he's been doing this lately and I just missed it.) He tied that theme to all the great movements in American history -- the revolutionaries who fought the British for independence, the abolitionists who crusaded against slavery, the Greatest Generation who served in World War II, the Civil Rights movement, and so on. Not only did this cloak his ideas in the mantle of patriotism, which is always a good thing, but linked them -- once again -- to tangible, pivotal changes in American life, which is precisely what his campaign needs to be promising.

It was a good speech.

On Wisconsin?

By Brendan Loy

CNN's John King gets the Wisconsin-as-Hillary's-mini-firewall meme going:

Key quote: "The Clinton campaign has to build a firewall. They say Ohio and Texas. Well, what about Wisconsin? That's a week from today. ... If [Obama] can win Wisconsin next week, there are a lot of Democrats who think the trap door may open under Senator Clinton eventually."

Look for this to become conventional wisdom within the next 24-48 hours.

UPDATE: Or not. It seems Hillary isn't even travelling to Wisconsin until Saturday.

I guess the test of my theory will be whether she's forced to change her schedule by an escalating sense that she must win, or at least do well in, Wisconsin. But the very fact of her schedule may prevent that CW from coalescing in the first place.

UPDATE 2: The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut looks at the same schedule and draws a different conclusion, citing the fact that Hillary is going to Wisconsin at all -- albeit not until Saturday --  as proof that she's "making a play for Wisconsin in hopes of scoring at least one more victory this month."

UPDATE 3: Halperin's headline: "The Fight for the Badger State." He writes, "Despite campaign intentions to focus on Texas, Ohio, Clinton now plans to stay in Wisconsin Saturday through Tuesday’s primary."

No Huck-a-shock

By Brendan Loy

"CNN can now project that John McCain will -- will -- win the state of Virginia." --Wolf Blitzer

It'll be closer than expected, but that doesn't matter. Virginia is winner-take-all. McCain gets all 63 delegates. As far as I'm concerned, this effectively ends any realistic chance of Huck stopping him from reaching the magic number to clinch the nomination.

Any such "chance" was a major stretch anyway, of course. But now McCain will be around 810 delegates by the end of the night by the Green Papers' count -- assuming he wins D.C. and Maryland -- which will put him within ~380 of the magic number (1,191), with more than 1,100 delegates still to be allocated. He now only needs to win barely a third of the remaining delegates. He can do that in his sleep.

Delegate math

By Brendan Loy

Virginia has eleven congressional districts; Maryland has eight. There are six 4-delegate districts (VA-1, VA-2, VA-5, VA-6, VA-9, MD-6), five 5-delegate districts (VA-4, VA-7, VA-10, MD-1, MD-2), five 6-delegate districts (VA-3, VA-11, MD-3, MD-5, MD-7), and three 7-delegate districts (VA-8, MD-4, MD-8).

Virginia results by district are here. After the jump, I look at the delegate math for each type of district.

Maryland polls extended till 9:30 PM

By Brendan Loy

Due to bad weather.

CNN calls VA for Obama, not McCain

By Brendan Loy

WOOO!!! Huck-a-shock?!?

Based on the exit polls, they can immediately call it for Obama at 7:00 PM, but the GOP race is "competitive."

Thoughts on the Dem race

By Brendan Loy

TPM Cafe contributor FlyOnTheWall, whose blogging is consistently excellent, has some very insightful, forward-looking thoughts on the Democratic race. Three of the best:

4) It may be this week; it may be next; it may not be until March. But sooner or later, the Clinton campaign is going to have to face the reality that the Michigan and Florida delegations aren't going to be seated, and that they can't win the convention without them. When it does, we'll see a dramatic shift in strategy. The Clintons will join the DNC in pressing for caucuses (the formal name for any party-run election, no matter its mechanics). And when they do, Obama's not going to be able to stop them. If Obama can't pull off an upset in OH, TX or PA, it's likely that the campaign will come down to these final two contests. And ironic - the political advantage state leaders failed to achieve by moving their contests forward may well be theirs if they agree to reschedule them all the way at the end of the calendar. ...

6) Will becoming the frontrunner help or hurt Obama? The Potomac Primaries offer an interesting test case. If he can prevail better than 60-40, it's probably a sign that Hillary's base is starting to get discouraged and stay home. But if his margin is smaller than the (incredibly flawed) polls presently predict, we may see Hillary trying to sell the comeback narrative again. Taking the overall lead among delegates is a similarly fraught achievement - its major benefits accrue only if Obama can retain that lead. Otherwise, the media may embrace a narrative of shifting momentum. ...

8) After Wisconsin, we hit a long, empty stretch. For the first time, Obama will feel the heat of national media scrutiny that he imagines he's already endured. How well will he hold up? Can he maintain his momentum?

I've been pondering points #6 and #8 (which are closely related), and had been planning to blog about them myself, but FlyOnTheWall expresses them better than I would have. And I hadn't even thought of point #4, but it's brilliant.

By the way, in addition to recommending FlyOnTheWall, I also recommend the blog 2008 Democratic Convention Watch for all your delegate-counting needs. Both sites will be added to my blogroll shortly.

Democrats Abroad caucuses end tonight

By Brendan Loy

In addition to the Beltway primaries, the Democrats Abroad caucuses are scheduled to end today. I have no idea when the tally will be announced, but assuming it's known before Friday -- which is the deadline for the still-ongoing New Mexico count -- the Dems Abroad result will clinch one of the two still-undetermined Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contests, while leaving the other hinging on New Mexico's tally. Details after the jump.

Majoring in miracles

By Brendan Loy

If this isn't a sign of an impending Huck-a-shock (or Huck-a-miracle, if you will), I don't know what is.

Fool me once...

By Brendan Loy

Will Virginia be New Hampshire Redux?

It does feel a bit that way. Now, as then, everyone is assuming that the only question is what Obama's margin will be. Now, as then, there is talk of an "epic blowout."

Will the sense of inevitability surrounding his chances of victory -- and the assumption that "high turnout" equals "big Obama win" -- actually be justified this time?

We shall see. I'll believe it when I see it, this time. And I don't care if the leaked exit polls show Obama up 95% to 5%. I want real numbers, dammit. Or at least a media "call." :)

P.S. In other news, Ron Paul is facing reality.

P.P.S. Back on the Democratic side, a Texas blogger offers what TNR's Michael Crowley calls an "incredibly thorough, district-by-district, demographic-based analysis" of the March 4 Texas primary, which concludes that "even a 5-point Hillary win in the statewide vote could leave Obama with a slight delegate advantage (thanks in part to Texas's screwy primary-caucus hybrid system)."

Meanwhile, more evidence of the Cult of Obama: fainting in the aisles.

P.P.P.S. Here's a good roundup of developments and musings on the Democratic race.

And here's a good observation from Politico's Ben Smith: "It's still a long month, and things can change. Having succumbed to conventional wisdom and more or less written Clinton off already after Iowa, I think I'll hold the obit this time."

Smith also links to a pro-Obama site which "mak[es] a case that seems to be gaining acceptance: That the more important count is the count of pledged delegates," and that therefore, superdelegates shouldn't be included in the overall delegate totals. This is absolutely true, as I mentioned yesterday, and I'm not just saying that because I support Obama over Clinton. It's all well and good to keep track of the currently "committed" superdelegates, but the principal "scoreboard" ought to be the pledged-delegate-only count, because they're the only ones whose votes are actually, truly "committed" to anyone (for the first two ballots anyway). The common practice of combining supers and non-supers into an undifferentiated numerical mass serves only to confuse the issue.

Oh, and about those superdelegates, Smith notes that there are actually now 794 of 'em, not 796. (Apropos of which, R.I.P., Super-Superdelegate Lantos.)

Anecdotal turnout report: Virginia

By Brendan Loy

In comments, Old Dominion readers report high, pro-Obama turnout at their Northern Virginia polling places this morning -- and intrepid Irish Trojan correspondent dcl notes that Obama is also doing well among the important cute-blonde-girls-at-bars demographic. I say this trend demands further research. Any volunteers? ;)

Can Huckabee do it?

By Brendan Loy

Josh Marshall looks at the possibility of a Huckabee upset tonight in Virginia. He concludes that "there's at least a chance." But Marshall fails to mention the most crucial element of the Huck-a-shock formula: the crossover vote. As I've noted before, Virginia's primaries and completely open to both parties, and with the Democratic race dominating the headlines, I suspect that a lot of McCain's natural supporters in the Beltway area will follow the lead of Doug Mataconis and Joe Mama, and vote in the Democratic primary (most of them, like Mataconis and Mama, for Obama). I further suspect that most of Mike Huckabee's natural supporters will not do this. :) The crossover effect is Huckabee's golden ticket -- it is, quite simply, the reason he might have a chance to pull the upset tonight.

Marshall also fails to mention the critical reason why Virginia is so important: it's winner-take-all, and it's worth 63 delegates. If McCain wins it, it'll give him more than one-eighth of the 490 additional delegates that he needs to clinch the nomination. On the other hand, if Huckabee wins it, he'll increase his current delegate total by a whopping 29%, and the possibility that he could stop McCain from getting an outright majority will start to look merely implausible instead of out-and-out impossible.

One thing Marshall does mention, which I hadn't realized, is that Survey USA polling shows Huck gaining a remarkable 19 points on McCain over the weekend, from a 57-27 deficit on Friday to just a 48-37 deficit yesterday. This suggests that Huck's strong performance in Saturday's contests is actually giving him something of a "bounce," perhaps simply because it established in the minds of some not-too-sold-on-McCain folks that he's a more plausible alternative than they thought.

Anyway, it'll be very interesting to see what happens tonight. McCain will presumably win all of D.C.'s 16 delegates and most, if not all, of Maryland's 34 (the only question being whether Huckabee can win any of the state's eight congressional districts -- the first and sixth CDs, maybe? -- and thus pick up a few delegates in multiples of 3). But all of that will be totally overshadowed if Huck can take Virginia.

P.S. On the other hand, Huckabee won West Virginia, and what are the odds of Virginia and West Virginia actually agreeing on something? :)

Wednesday's CW today

By Brendan Loy

If, as expected, Obama sweeps the Beltway states tomorrow -- particularly if he does it convincingly, with landslide numbers -- I suspect the growing media consensus that Hillary's in trouble and March 4 might not be able to save her, which has been percolating for a couple of days and will be solidified by tomorrow's NYT article, could lead the MSM, and perhaps (more importantly) some superdelegates, to essentially designate next Tuesday's Wisconsin primary as a pre-March 4 "firewall" for Hillary.

Maybe they won't demand that she win Wisconsin, but if she loses badly (again), it'll leave a very bad taste in her supporters' mouths heading into the two weeks off before Texas and Ohio, and I could see some superdelegates jumping ship early (super-jumpers?) rather than waiting till the 4th.

P.S. Of course, having said all that, the history of this campaign says that Hillary will win Virginia tonight. Anytime you start writing her political obituary, she comes back out of nowhere.

Superdelegate redux

By Brendan Loy

Blogger Dylan Loewe, in a post titled "Why Obama is Closer to the Nomination Than You Think," argues convincingly that, in the end, neither rogue superdelegates nor the Florida/Michigan controversy will decide who wins the Democratic nomination; the winner will be whoever gets the most pledged delegates, even though the pledged delegates alone won't get the winner anywhere close to a majority. The superdelegates, Loewe says, are too wimpy to buck the will of the pledged delegates -- and the will of the pledged delegates will similarly control who gets on the Credentials Committee, and thus whether the Florida and Michigan delegations get seated. (Hat tip: Noam Scheiber.)

I think Loewe is probably right, provided the leading candidate's pledged delegate advantage is meaningful -- say, over 100 delegates or so. If that's the case, the superdelegates will rally around the leader for the sake of party self-preservation. But if the leader's delegate edge is in double digits only, I think all bets are off, in part because a lot of these superdelegates will be making their decisions while the national delegate estimates are still maddeningly in flux (so the identity of the "leader" may be less than clear) and in part because Hillary will then be able to wield the "popular vote" argument as a potentially effective counter to Obama's "I got more delegates" argument. If the final pledged delegate count is, say, 1,640 to 1,587, then it really will be chaos. But if it's more like 1,700 to 1,527, then, yes, the nominee will be the pledged delegate winner, notwithstanding that 1,700 is well short of the 2,025 needed to nominate.

P.S. With regard to those "maddeningly in flux" delegate counts: the media seriously, seriously needs to start consistently and clearly separating superdelegates from pledged delegates in its counts. To view the numbers primarily as an undifferentiated mish-mash is so confusing as to be almost worse than worthless. A "committed" superdelegate is not the same thing as a pledged delegate, for the simple reason that the superdelegate can change his or her mind, as some already have and many ultimately will. I'm not saying the superdelegate tally isn't important, but it is separate from the pledged-delegate tally, and it needs to be regarded as such.

If I were a major media organization with a "decision desk" and a staff of analysts figuring out delegate counts, I would publish a breakdown of delegates that would explicitly include, in separate columns, the following clearly delineated categories:

Still looking for my hat tip

By Brendan Loy

BrendanLoy.com, February 6:

Hillary needs to be very careful of this, methinks. If Obama starts racking up wins in the friendly landscape of the next few weeks, his momentum could become a very powerful thing indeed, not with voters but with superdelegates. If Obama does very well throughout the rest of March, the supers might be ready to jump on the bandwagon en masse, and effectively anoint Obama the winner, if Hillary doesn't really impress in her March 4 "firewall" states, Texas and Ohio.

New York Times, February 12:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said Monday. ...

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

After being repeatedly and consistently wrong about almost everything this election season, I finally got something right, and got out a few days ahead of the conventional wisdom in the process, with this superdelegate thing. Woohoo! :)

Lieberman won't be a superdelegate

By Brendan Loy

Heh:

Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a superdelegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.

The Yaley Daily has more. (Hat tip: NRO.)

I can't say I blame the Democrats for this one. I'm a little surprised they were planning to invite him to Denver in the first place, actually.

I must admit, though, at purely impish level, I'm mildly disappointed. It would have been extremely amusing to hear something like this at the convention:

Mr. Speaker, the Great State of Connecticut, the Nutmeg State, home of the NCAA women's basketball national champion UConn Huskies... [YAY!! WHOO!!]

...and home of the Big East runner-up UConn men's basketball Huskies, who recently made yet another trip to the Sweet Sixteen... [Yay!]

...and home of the Big East co-champion UConn football Huskies... [YAY!]

...Connecticut, with its great senior senator, a fine American and a loyal Democrat, Christopher J. Dodd...  [HURRAH!]

...and with its four fine Democratic representatives, Rosa DeLauro, John Larson, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy... [Woo!]

...Connecticut, the Constitution State... ["Vote!"]

...the state that, in 1687, struck a blow for democracy by hiding its state charter in the Charter Oak... ["VOTE!!"]

...and the state that will, in 2008, strike another blow for democracy... ["VOTE!!!"]

...by helping end eight disastrous years of Bush/Cheney/McCain government... ["Boo!" "Yay!" "VOTE!!!!"]

...by casting its seven electoral votes for the next Democratic president of the United States... ["Hear, hear!" "Hurrah!" "VOTE!!!!!"]

...Mr. Speaker, Connecticut casts 35 votes for Senator Barack Obama, 25 votes for Senator Hillary Clinton, and 1 vote for Senator John McCain.

Hee hee. Would've been fun. Oh, well.

Mike Huckabee's Ryan McBride moment

By Brendan Loy

Let 'er rip!

(Members of the Newington High School Class of '99 with long memories will understand the reference in the title of this post. Everyone else, move along, nothing to see here...)

Huck cries foul after Washington "loss"

By Brendan Loy

Just what Washington state needed: another election controversy.

Obama romps in Maine

By Brendan Loy

The one state this weekend where Hillary Clinton hoped to notch a win, Maine, has instead crushed her evil heart, going big for Obama.

Meanwhile, there is talk of a possible John Edwards endorsement -- though we don't know for whom. More here.

UPDATE: Another win for Obama:

Barack Obama topped a Clinton in another contest on Sunday -- the Grammys.

The presidential candidate beat both former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to win best spoken word album for his audio version of his book "The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream."

But does he get any delegates for it?

Hillary's plan to steal the nomination

By Brendan Loy

The New Republic doesn't mince words in its criticism of Hillary Clinton's plan to -- and I quote -- "steal the nomination" by giving retroactive significance to the facially meaningless primaries in Michigan and Florida:

[T]heft is the only way to describe the plan [Clinton] has floated for certifying the Florida and Michigan delegations.

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.

My blogging on the Michigan and Florida controversies has thus far looked at it from the perspective of a political junkie obsessed with procedure and delighted by chaos, but as a substantive matter, TNR is 100% right; what Hillary is proposing is absolutely outrageous. It's doubly outrageous with regard to Michigan, where the sole reason Clinton "won" is because Obama removed his name from the ballot entirely -- a move that was entirely in keeping with the spirit of the candidates' pledge, but one that Clinton cynically chose not to reciprocate. As a result, Michigan was far, far less than a beauty contest. It was a nullity. If Clinton gains a decisive advantage from her "win" there, her nomination will be grossly illegitimate. And prevailing on the basis of her Florida "win" would only be slightly less illegitimate.

Any intellectually honest Clinton supporter must necessarily admit all of this. There is simply no logical rebuttal to TNR's argument, no principled defense for what Hillary is proposing to do. Unless, that is, we are to declare that the whole process is a sham anyway, so it doesn't matter -- in which case, why are we even bothering with any of it? As blatantly imperfect and at times ridiculous as the primary and caucus system is, surely it is preferable to respect the process rather than subordinating it to one candidate's blatant power-grab.

If Obama were doing the same thing that Clinton is doing, I would certainly condemn it (and would, in fact, quite probably renounce my support for him altogether if he were to go through with it). I assume Clinton's supporters feel the same way, and I urge them to tell her so.

For my part, I can tell you right now that if Clinton wins the nomination through these ridiculous shenanigans, I will become much, much more likely to vote for John McCain in November -- or, if I ultimately conclude that I'm unable to support McCain, then for a third-party candidate as a protest vote. I just don't know if I can see my way clear to voting for someone who would show such blatant disregard for the democratic process as Clinton is proposing to do.

Anyway, this simply cannot be allowed to occur -- for the sake of the country, the Democratic Party, and the Clintons themselves.

(Hat tip: Joe Mama.)

P.S. Now, on the other hand, if either Clinton or Obama wins because of superdelegates -- which isn't really an "if"; one of them will -- that's arguably undemocratic too, but it's undemocratic in a way that is specifically foreseen by the process everybody agreed to. What makes Clinton's Florida/Michigan gambit so outrageous is that it would change the mutually agreed rules of the game midstream for pure self-interest, and would do so in the same of democracy, when in fact it's an entirely undemocratic move. It must not happen.

Obama's latest speech

By Brendan Loy

Starting around the 11:00 mark, he does a good job making the case for why he's the more electable candidate against John McCain (a point that I've harped on repeatedly, and one with which Frank Rich and Peggy Noonan, among many others, agree). The rhetoric is largely recycled from past speeches, but I think he delivers it particularly well here. (Though I must say, I was somewhat surprised to learn that lobbyists apparently are not "American people.")

P.S. Interesting slip of the tongue, or at least odd phraseology, where he said, "I'm looking forward to being on the ticket with Mark Warner." Ostensibly, he was just referring to being on the same ballot as Warner in Virginia as the latter runs for U.S. Senate this November -- he made a reference to "riding his coattails" -- but... hmm... Obama/Warner '08? :) Presumably not, given the very Senate candidacy in question. But still.

Huckabee FTW! (or not?)

By Brendan Loy

As results from the only two states in the country that don't use the Multistate Bar Exam continue to trickle in...

With 37% of the precincts reporting in Washington state, Huckabee has the lead!!! It's Huck 26.9%, McCain 23.2%, Paul 20.6%, Romney 18.3%, Uncommitted 10.9%. (Seriously, the high level of support for Mitt, who dropped out two days ago, is somewhat bizarre, no?)

Huckabee's also up in Louisiana, 48% to 38% with 40 percent reporting. Can you say "Huck-a-sweep"?

The New York Times's Washington and Louisiana results pages are your best bets for the latest results.

UPDATE: CNN's John King points out that Louisiana's primary is a "beauty contest" unless somebody gets a majority, and based on their projections, "we are certain that no candidate will pass 50%." So even if Huckabee wins, he gets bragging rights, but little else.

UPDATE, 11:30 PM: With 78% reporting in Washington, McCain has taken a slim lead, 25.7% to 24.0%. Ron Paul is within striking distance, too, at 21.4%. Romney's at 16.2%, and Uncommitted is a strong 12.7%. What a weird result.

Meanwhile, Huck's lead in Louisiana has narrowed to 44.6% to 41.0%, with 82% reporting. And Orleans Parish, which McCain is winning overwhelmingly (60-22), is only half in. Also, East Baton Rouge Parish, where McCain leads 48-31 (and which has a lot more GOP votes than Orleans), is only 19% in. If those trends hold, methinks McCain may pull this one out.

UPDATE, 12:18 AM: 97% reporting now in Louisiana, and Huckabee is still barely ahead, 43.4% to 41.9%. More to the point, he's up by 2,276 votes. Orleans is 90% in, and East Baton Rouge 83% in. This is going to be very close -- and, of course, utterly meaningless.

Results

By Brendan Loy

The Seattle Times has 'em all on one page, and they seem to be up-to-date.

As noted below, Huckabee has won Kansas, and Obama has won Nebraska and Washington -- by very wide margins, in all three cases. The big question marks now are Louisiana (both parties) and Washington on the GOP side.

UPDATE, 10:08 PM: CNN calls Louisiana for Obama.

Actually, to be more precise, Wolf Blitzer said that "In the state of Louisiana, Barack Obama, Barack Obama, will carry Louisiana." Why, Wolf Blitzer, why, do you always, always repeat yourself, yourself, when you, you, are talking, Wolf Blitzer?

Also, Obama apparently won the Virgin Islands. So, he's 4-for-4 tonight. Nice.

Now... what about the GOP? Will the Huck-a-sweep happen??

Saturday night's all right for voting

By Brendan Loy

Mark Halperin has the rundown of this weekend's primaries and caucuses. Today's first results could come in shortly after 5:00 PM EST, from Kansas (GOP only) and Washington (both parties). Later, the mighty Virgin Islands (Dem only), Nebraska (Dem only) and Louisiana (both) will report in. And tomorrow, the Dems vote in Maine.

Predictions? I'm going to say, in an effort to stem the tide of my own irrational exuberance, that Hillary pulls a narrow upset in Washington (though I hope I'm wrong), Obama wins big elsewhere, and Huck takes Kansas but loses Louisiana by a hair and is blown out in Washington, notwithstanding my previous ruminations to the contrary. :)

On an unrelated note, it's Notre Dame 63, Marquette 52 almost midway through the second half. The Irish look impressive.

UPDATE: Notre Dame wins, 86-83, surviving a late Marquette run thanks to clutch free-throw shooting. That'll help them in March, if they keep it up.

UPDATE 2: Huckabee romps McCain in Kansas, 66% to 22% (with 11% for Ron Paul). Wow! (That's with 76% of the precincts reporting.) Maybe I was too Huck-a-bearish in my predictions...

UPDATE, 8:26 PM: With 35 percent of the precincts reporting in Washington state, it's 67% to 32% Obama. (Official results here.) Hooray for yet another faulty Brendan Loy prediction! :) Nothing yet on the GOP side.

So far, indications are good for Obama in Nebraska, too.

UPDATE, 8:32 PM: CNN is now projecting that Obama will win Nebraska. And it's another huge win: 69% to 31% with 73 percent reporting.

In Louisiana, meanwhile, the Obama campaign is complaining of voter irregularities.

UPDATE, 9:25 PM: With 17% of the Washington GOP precincts reporting, it's McCain 27%, Huckabee 26%, Paul 21%, Romney 17%, Uncommitted 9%. Did they miss the memo that Romney dropped out? And that Paul is nuts? ;)

Meanwhile, the Louisiana results are just beginning to trickle in. ABC News "does not have enough information to project the winner of the Louisiana Democratic primary, but Obama is leading New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, based on exit poll estimates. There is not enough information to project whether Arizona Sen. John McCain or former Gov. Mike Huckabee will win in Louisiana on the Republican side."

P.S. Commenter "CD" gives a first-hand report on the Washington Democratic caucuses. She also reported on last night's Obama rally.

Super Tuesday drags on in N.M.

By Brendan Loy

They're still counting in New Mexico, where Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by 1,123 votes (about 0.8%) with thousands of provisional ballots still to be tallied.

Hanging in the balance: one delegate, "bragging rights to another popular vote victory," and of course, the outcome of the Irish Trjoan Super Tuesday Contest -- a crucial implication that the Associated Press inexplicably failed to mention. :)

(Hat tip: my dad, who will clinch the combined contest and stay alive in the Democratic contest if Clinton hangs on.)

The freedom pledge

By Brendan Loy

In my obsessive political blogging throughout the last month or so, I've occasionally been criticized for focusing too much on the horse race, at the expense of the issues -- a criticism that is unquestionably well-founded. :) So here's an issue for y'all to discuss: the Presidential Freedom Pledge.

I learned about it via this post on TPM. Basically, it's a ten-point list of constitutional committments that each presidential candidate was asked to sign. Obama did; Hillary didn't. (She wrote up this letter instead.)

Reading over the pledge, I think I agree with every point except possibly #10 -- at least as applied to organizations -- and the last sentence of #7. But I've only very briefly considered. I'm curious what my readers think of it, and what significance, if any, to ascribe to Obama's signing it and Hillary's not doing so.

P.S. Relatedly, here are Clinton's and Obama's responses to the Boston Globe's survey about executive power. And while we're on the subject, here are McCain's.

Dobson to endorse Huckabee

By Brendan Loy

That'll help in Kansas and Louisiana tomorrow...

What Huck needs is for some other unrelated major breaking-news event to happen tomorrow, distracting the media, so he can quietly win KS and LA, thus signaling to his attentive Virginia supporters that he's still viable, without getting the attention of McCain's Virginia supporters. Thus, the McCainiac independents/centrists in the Old Dominion State will vote for Obama on Tuesday (and perhaps a few McCainiac security/experience voters will vote for Hillary), and Huck's true believers will be able to drive a low-turnout, winner-take-all upset...

P.S. Halperin's schedule shows that Huck is in Kansas -- not Louisiana -- all day today. Does that mean he thinks Louisiana is in the bag, or that it's unwinnable? Or just that he's only one man, and can't be in two places at once? (This is one of those times where a super-superdelegate would come in handy.)

P.P.S. After the jump, I do my flips about Huck's chances in Washington state, which may be better than you think!

Where's my hat tip?

By Brendan Loy

The Washington Post imitates the Irish Trojan. ;)

Obama-related miscellany

By Brendan Loy

Mark Halperin makes a good point: Romney's departure from the race, and McCain's consequent coronation by the media as the nominee presumptive (Huckabee notwithstanding), could help Obama by bringing over more McCainiac independent voters to the Democratic side in the open primary states -- which include Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Indiana.

Of course, if that happens, it will also help Huckabee, as I noted vis a vis Virginia in comments earlier.

Speaking of Obama, Andrew Leyden sends along an interesting article about the cult of Barack. Although a few of my recent posts about Obama might lead some to conclude that I'm a cultist, I actually understand and sympathize to some extent with the sentiment being expressed. I do think Obama has the potential to be a transformational politician, but it's important not to get too carried away in praise of him. And I, like Joe Klein, was a bit put off by his comment that "we are the change we seek," and annoyed by the flatly untrue "it's not different because of me, it's different because of you." I think I even objected to it aloud while watching the speech with Becky.

(As an aside, I actually thought his Super Tuesday speech was by far the weakest of his post-election speeches thus far. It went on about five minutes too long, it repeated too much material from earlier speeches, he flubbed a line or two, and the implicit swipe at the Katrina response in his reference to the hours-old devastation in Tennessee and Arkansas was grossly inappropriate in its timing.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm still on the Obama bandwagon, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize him -- or his "cult" -- when I think it's deserved.

Anyway, one last link before I stop: Five reasons Hillary should be worried.

[Actually posted at 10:17 PM, but timestamp bumped backwards. -ed.]

Oh really?

By Brendan Loy

Time's Joe Klein says that Obama "should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania."

Let's fact-check that assertion, shall we? As I mentioned yesterday, there are 1,428 pledged delegates still outstanding. Of those, 193 are from Texas, 158 from Pennsylvania, and 141 from Ohio. That's a total of 492 -- barely a third of the total.

Now, if it were possible for one candidate to sweep all of those delegates, that could certainly be decisive. But as we know, and presumably Klein has figured out by this point, the Democratic delegate allocation system is proportional, not winner-take-all, so the most Hillary can hope for is something like a 100-delegate edge in those states (that would be if she earns about 60% of the delegates), probably less.

Even in Clinton's best-case scenario, Obama has more than enough opportunity to make up that hypothetical 100-delegate edge in the various other states that make up two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates -- including ones more favorable to him, like, oh, pretty much every state that votes this month (total delegates: 538). And of course, that all ignores the superdelegates, who, contra Klein, are truly the constituency in which "this nomination is likely to be decided."

Tomorrow's CW today

By Brendan Loy

If they aren't already, I predict that the national media -- once they wrap their collective head around the fact that we are now looking at a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee -- will soon begin saying that Virginia is Huckabee's last stand. With its 63 winner-take-all delegates and its North/South split personality, the Old Dominion, which votes next Tuesday, is the place where Huck must prove he can beat McCain head-to-head (and, more importantly, deny him 12.8% of the 492 additional delegates he needs to wrap up the nomination).

Of course, first the Huckster needs to win Kansas and Louisiana (on Saturday), but those ought to be gimme states for him. (Right?) Virginia is a less obvious possibility, but, looking at the calendar and crunching the numbers, I think he absolutely needs it in order to maintain any sort of rationale for continuing his campaign.

Ultimately, to stop McCain from getting a delegate majority, Huckabee is going to need to win states like Wisconsin and Ohio, which strikes me as highly unlikely. (He won Iowa, of course, but that was in a five-way race.) But I think he can remain a viable candidate through at least March 4 (when not just Ohio but Texas, which presumably is friendly Huck territory, holds its California-style, district-by-district winner-take-all primary) if he wins Virginia on Tuesday. Otherwise, forget it.

UPDATE: Okay, a slight modification to the above. As I glance at a couple of the sites in my blogroll and see that the pundits are basically saying that Romney Dropping Out = McCain Wins, I think it might be more accurate to say that Huckabee needs to win Kansas and Louisiana on Saturday just to get (or recapture) the media's attention. Then the "Virginia is Huckabee's last stand" talk can begin in earnest.

Fellow horserace-watchers: Am I wrong to just assume that Huck will win those states? (I also assume McCain will win Washington state on Saturday, and D.C. and Maryland on Tuesday.)

P.S. WKRN-TV's "Volunteer Voters" blog -- which, incidentally, has been linking to me a lot in recent days (thanks, guys!) -- says that even if there's a McCain-Huckabee back-room deal, as many expect, Huck will nevertheless stay in the race for a while to prevent Ron Paul from getting too many delegates.

Bradley Effect alive and well?

By Brendan Loy

A pair of UW researchers has studied the polls and the primary results, and has concluded that the Bradley Effect is happening in states with small (<10%) black populations, causing Clinton to do better against Obama than the polls suggest -- while, in states with large black populations (>25%), a "newly discovered" Reverse Bradley Effect benefits Obama. (Hat tip: CD.) Here's the chart of their results. (It doesn't state which pre-election poll numbers they were using.)

It is important to note, as I stated Tuesday in a comment after somebody accused me of smearing Hillary supporters as racists because I brought up the Bradley Effect, that "people who fall prey to the Bradley Effect are not necessarily racists. They may be voting for the white candidate because they feel she's genuinely the better candidate, but lying about it [to pollsters] because they feel social pressure to vote for the black candidate just because he's black." Similarly, black Reverse Bradley voters may be voting for Obama for non-race-related reasons, but lying about it because they don't want to be pigeonholed as "racial loyalty" voters. Or are the Reverse Bradley voters white, and they don't dare admit to pollsters that they prefer a black man because they think they'll be perceived by their redneck buddies as racially disloyal? Hmm...

Anyway... I'm curious what our resident pollsters and statisticians think of this. Do the finding appear to be sound, or do they look like bunk?

If the findings are accurate, some upcoming primary states to watch for possible Bradley Effects (via this PDF) are: Wisconsin (5% black), Rhode Island (4%) and Vermont (0.3%), with the "big kahuna" states of Ohio (11%), Texas (12%) and Pennsylvania (9%) all borderline. Upcoming possible Reverse Bradley Effect primaries: Louisiana (31%), Maryland (25%), D.C. (66%) and Mississippi (36%).

Romney bows to reality, will drop out

By Brendan Loy

The Stormin' Mormon storms no more: Mitt Romney will quit the race, according to Mark Halperin's sources. "Withdrawal could come at CPAC speech at 12:15 pm ET," Halperin writes.

I thought he'd withdraw this week. He doesn't seem like the type to keep fighting a clearly hopeless battle, especially with his own fortune. (The delegate math makes it pretty well impossible for Romney to beat McCain.) Better to save that money for a possible second shot in 2012 -- or, you know, other stuff he might want to spend it on.

Anyway, as Mike Huckabee said: "It's a two-man race -- and we're in it!" Not for long, though...

Pillow talk

By Brendan Loy

This is how you know Becky and I are both huge dorks. We had the following exchange in bed last night, as we were each starting to drift off to sleep:

Brendan: "You know what would be awesome?"
Becky: "What?"
Brendan: "If there was a superdelegate with superpowers. He could be called Super-Superdelegate."
Becky: [pause] "That would be awesome."

Heaven help poor Loyette. ;)

It's all about the superdelegates

By Brendan Loy

It may be premature to say that the 2008 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party won't be determined until the national convention in August. But it is definitely not premature to say this: unless somebody drops out or cuts a deal between now and August, the nominee will be chosen by superdelegates.

Whatever the media might tell you about the potential decisiveness of the primaries on March 4 (Texas and Ohio) or April 22 (Pennsylvania), it is now essentially impossible for either Clinton or Obama to "clinch" the threshold 2,025 delegates needed to nominate during the primary and caucus season. Neither can win the nomination with pledged delegates alone. In fact, they can't even come close.

Before yesterday's contests, the pledged delegate count stood at Obama 63, Clinton 48, according to The Green Papers. Now, if NBC's estimate of the Super Tuesday pledged-delegate breakdown is correct, the tally -- again, counting pledged delegates only, not superdelegates, who are by definition free to change their minds at any time -- looks something like Obama 908, Clinton 883 (give or take 10 delegates), with 1,428 pledged delegates still outstanding.

The math is pretty straightforward. In order to reach 2,025 without depending on superdelegates, either Obama or Clinton would need to win something like 80% of the remaining pledged delegates. Obviously, in a tight race governed by proportional allocation rules, there is no way on God's green earth that's going to happen. In fact, I'd say any ratio more lopsided than, say, 60-40, seems totally outlandish under the circumstances.

So... where does that leave us? Assuming that neither candidate collects more than 60% of the remaining 1,428 pledged delegates, nobody will have more than 1,765, or thereabouts, of the 3,253 pledged delegates when all is said and done. The leader will thus finish somewhere between 250 and 400 delegates short of the magical "needed to nominate" finish line (2,025), with the trailing candidate no more than ~550 delegates away. It'll be up to the 800 superdelegates to decide whom to push over the finish line.

Tim McDonald wins GOP contest; Loy, Brown battle in Dem, combined contests

By Brendan Loy

In light of my post below about California delegate allocations, in concert with my earlier post about Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest scenarios, BrendanLoy.com can now make some projections regarding the contest winners. (Cue dramatic music, swooshing graphics, and Wolf Blitzer needlessly repeating every third word out of his mouth.)

Tim McDonald will win the Republican contest by virtue of the John McCain California delegate tiebreaker. McCain will get at least 155 of the Golden State's 170 delegates; McDonald predicted he'd get 110, the highest number among the four contestants who tied for first place with 17-for-21 prediction records. Joe Loy (who said McCain would get 98 delegates) finishes second; Marty West (88) finishes third; and Andrew Bottom (88) finishes fourth.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, it's a two-man race between Joe Loy and Ben Brown. Sam Cialek, who is tied with Loy and Brown with a 20-for-22 prediction record, is nevertheless eliminated from the Democratic contest because his prediction of Hillary Clinton's California delegate total (170) is lower than Loy's (190), which is in turn closer to Clinton's actual projected total of 207. However, in order to win the contest, Loy needs to avoid finishing tied for first place with Brown, who predicted that Clinton would get 191 delegates in the Golden State. Thus, Loy needs Clinton to win New Mexico and Obama to win Democrats Abroad. If both of those things happen, Loy wins; if either one doesn't happen, Brown wins.

The scenarios for the combined contest remain unchanged from my previous update. It is also a two-man race between Loy and Brown, like the Democratic contest, but the contestants' needs are different (because Brown got one more state wrong on the GOP side than Loy did). In the combined contest, Loy needs only one of the above-mentioned events (Clinton winning New Mexico, Obama winning Democrats Abroad) to happen; Brown needs them both to not happen.

CA delegates: Clinton 207, Obama 163; McCain 155, Romney 6

By Brendan Loy

Looking at the California congressional district results on the Democratic side, it appears Hillary Clinton is going to get a bigger chunk of the delegates in that state than I thought. I had assumed that Obama, because of the urban black vote, would have a better chance of winning the district-level blowouts necessary to make even-numbered districts meaningful. But instead it was Hillary winning rural districts by enormous margins -- ratios of 2-to-1 or more in some cases -- while Obama was unable to do better than 61.5% in any district, and in fact only got majorities in seven of the state's 53 districts (and narrow pluralities in three or maybe four others).

After the jump, I crunch the numbers using the DNC allocation formula. The end result, as I suggest in the title of the post, is a delegate allocation of Clinton 207, Obama 163, give or take two or three delegates.

The Republicans' numbers are much easier to crunch, as they simply award each district's three delegates to the winner of the district. Looking at the GOP district-by-district results, it appears that McCain has won 48 of the 53 districts, with Romney apparently capturing CDs 21 and 52, and CDs 42, 49 and 50 too close to call (though McCain has a slim lead in all three). Romney was achingly close in a number of McCain's districts, but close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and Democratic primaries. So McCain comes away with, at a minimum, a whopping 144 district delegates, plus all 11 at-large delegates. Thus, the totals: McCain 155, Romney 6, with 9 undecided (but leaning McCain).

Again, after the jump, details on the Democratic allocations.

A question

By Brendan Loy

If Barack Obama won more states and more delegates than Hillary Clinton yesterday, then how exactly did Clinton "win" Super Tuesday?

Just asking!

P.S. Oh, right, I forgot, she "won" because she captured the "big prizes," California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Never mind that a) they're not really "big prizes" at all, because, like all Dem contests, their delegates are split proportionally; b) Clinton had massive, seemingly insurmountable leads in all three states a couple of weeks ago, and it's a testament to Obama's incredible surge of momentum that they were even in play; and c) the states' much-ballyhooed "symbolic significance" is, from beginning to end, an invention of the national media, which -- in gloriously circular fashion -- first decided that they were "symbolic" and then declared them "significant" on account of the aforementioned "symbolism" that it ascribed to them.

Knoxville's Super Tuesday in photos

By Brendan Loy

Here's my Super Tuesday photo gallery. And here are couple of pictures from it:

I also like this shot of a very lonely-looking Romney sign on the Kingston Pike. I think Mitt feels a bit like that sign after tonight's results.

These kids, by the way, are the Cedar Bluff Middle School Student Council members who were giving away free coffee and donuts to voters. I promised I'd put their picture on my website, so... there you, guys. Here's a larger version of the photo, and here's the full-size version.

Again, here's a link to the full gallery. It's two pages long, by the way, so don't miss page 2.

Super Duper wrap-up

By Brendan Loy

Josh Marshall sums things up, and does a far better job of it than the cable-news talking heads:

If you look at this from the vantage point of two weeks ago, it's a huge win for Obama, since he was trailing in states across the country by a very big margin. From the vantage point of the last couple days, however, it's much less clear. The hype of his momentum just got a bit out ahead of what he was able to pull off. And in that sense there's a very mild echo of New Hampshire, though the Clinton campaign is silly to claim some sort of comeback. There were a handful of states which, had he won two or more of them, would have taken him from a delegate tie to a decisive win that would have put Clinton seriously on the defensive. But it didn't happen. Not in New Jersey or Massachusetts and most importantly not in California, which Clinton won decisively.

But I think all these competing scenarios make one point clear. The only arguments for one side or the other being a winner here come down to airy and finally meaningless arguments about expectations. And the result tells a different tale. It's about delegates. It's dead even. You've got two well-funded candidates who've demonstrated an ability to power back from defeats. And neither is going anywhere.

The flip side of the proportional representation in delegates is that not only does it allow a challenger like Obama not to get put away early, it also makes it difficult to put away an opponent late. The conventional wisdom is that Obama will do well in this weekend's and next Tuesday's contests. But if he does, proportionality will reign there too. It's hard to see where this doesn't go all the way to the convention.

Indeed.

By the way, if you're looking for the Super Tuesday open thread, which I've bumped back down to its proper chronological place on the blog, here it is.

P.S. Another good wrap-up, courtesy of Matthew Yglesias:

The Obama campaign points out that their man won a majority of the states in play, which is certainly true. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota are a better prize than New York and California. The bottom-line, however, is that if you factor out the more exuberant Zogby-fueled dreams of the weekend, Obama did quite well relative to his baseline of a week ago. The February 5 landscape favored Clinton, and Obama managed to not lose any of "his" states while poaching Connecticut and narrowly grabbing contested Missouri. Clinton won, but most indications are that she won't have won nearly enough delegates to put this thing out of reach. Now the landscape gets much more favorable for Obama.

This all goes back to Kos's "irrational exuberance" post. He was right.

As an aside, why does anyone even write about Zogby polls anymore? Isn't it a bit like basing weather forecasts on the Farmer's Almanac at this point?

P.P.S. Here are some more excellent observations, from TNR's Noam Scheiber, written a little earlier in the night but still essentially valid:

Obama is going to come out of tonight having won at least half of the states up for grabs, and very close to half the delegates, which either meets or exceeds the expectations for him going into today. So why do the cable pundits seem so down on him? (I actually heard Brit Hume concede that he'll probably have enough delegates to fight on after tonight. Probably?)

My sense is that this is almost entirely a function of the exit polls we in the media have been lathering ourselves in since 5:30 this evening. The polls showed Obama up in places like Massachusetts, New Jersey, Missouri, and Arizona, and many of us began to think Obama might even end the nomination fight tonight. When the actual numbers started pouring in, everyone was pretty wrong-footed.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is this: Exit polls aren't a reflection of on-the-ground reality. It's not as though Obama was actually up in all these places at 5 o'clock, and then Hillary, comeback kid that she is, reversed his charge and ground out a victory. The final results suggest he was never actually up in these places (certainly not by the margins the polls suggested.) It was a complete mirage.

Campaigns can be blamed for failing to manage expectations. But should they take the hit for the media's utter cluelessness at interpreting this data?

No. But they do. And Obama's Missouri "win" -- after the AP had called it for Clinton, then retracted the call -- came too late to reverse the P.R. damage to Obama. The die was already cast, the CW set in stone, by that point. Even though the CW itself was based on a reaction to a set of flawed, unweighted exit-poll numbers that were never discussed on-the-air. Pretty ridiculous all around.

P.P.P.S. On a more "micro" note, if I'm reading CNN's (weighted!) California exit poll correctly, African-Americans were only about 6% of the electorate!! Well, no wonder Obama lost. Sheesh. (Population-wise, California is roughly equal parts white, black and Hispanic.)

CORRECTION: That last sentence, which I've crossed out, is utterly false. I don't know where I got that idea; I thought I had read something along those lines years ago, and I swear I found something via Google last night (er, this morning) that backed it up, but I obviously must have misread it in the wee hours when I wrote this post. Anyway, I apologize for the error. California is right around 6% black, just as the turnout suggests, so the problem here was my own warped perceptions, not a low black turnout.

Prediction contest scenarios

By Brendan Loy

CNN just called Alaska for Romney. That clarifies things considerably in the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contests. The only remaining variables are the New Mexico Democratic primary, the Democrats Abroad caucuses (whose results won't be known until next week), and the delegate counts in California, both Republican and Democratic.

Here are the contest scenarios, subject to revision if I realize I screwed something up. :)

Combined contest

It's a two-man battle between Joe Loy and Ben Brown. Loy wins if Clinton wins New Mexico or Obama wins the Democrats Abroad caucuses; Brown wins only if Obama wins New Mexico and Clinton wins the Democrats Abroad.

Republican contest

It's a four-way tie between Andrew Bottom, Marty West, Joe Loy, and Tim. The tiebreaker is who comes closest to correctly predicting John McCain's share of the 170 pledged California delegates. Bottom said McCain will get 87 delegates; West said 88; Loy said 98; and Tim said 110.

Democratic contest

If Clinton wins New Mexico, Sam Cialek and Joe Loy are tied for first place, and will stay that way. But if Clinton then wins the Democrats Abroad caucuses, which continue through next week, Ben Brown can join Cialek and Loy to finish in a three-way tie. The tie would be broken by calculating who is closer to Hillary Clinton's total number of pledged California delegates out 370 (Cialek said 170, Loy said 190, Brown said 191). If, on the other hand, Obama wins the Democrats Abroad caucus after Clinton wins NM, it'll just be a two-way tie between Cialek and Loy (to be settled by the same tiebreaker).

If Obama wins New Mexico, Brown will take sole possession of the lead, but will need Clinton to win the Democrats Abroad caucus in order to maintain sole possession. If Obama wins the Democrats Abroad caucus after Obama wins NM, then Brown falls back into a three-way tie with Cialek and Loy, to be settled by the aforementioned delegate tiebreaker.

Complete current standings after the jump.

Clinton has tiny popular-vote edge

By Brendan Loy

With 76 percent of the precincts reporting nationwide, the combined Super Duper Tuesday popular vote count, according to CNN, is:

Clinton 5,763,143
Obama 5,687,890

Wow. That's damn close. (It's also damn meaningless. But yay! Numbers! Numbers are fun!)

And on the Republican side:

McCain 3,027,772
Romney 2,346,943
Huckabee 1,604,010
Paul 315,691

Obama wins Missouri!

By Brendan Loy

So says CNN.

"Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will emerge with plenty of delegates from Missouri," Wolf Blitzer points out, "but at the same time, Barack Obama will have bragging rights that he carried this bellweather state."

The news of his victory comes so late, though, I'm not sure how significant those "bragging rights" really are. Most viewers have already gone to bed; tomorrow's newspapers are already going to print. Aren't we officially past the point where the CW -- "Obama did well enough to stay alive, but Clinton won all the big states, so she 'won' Super Tuesday, but the delegates will be close and the race remains up in the air" -- has already become cemented into place? I'm not sure an objectively-almost-meaningless-anyway 8,000-vote victory in the Show-Me State is going to change anything.

UPDATE: After the jump, the updated prediction contest standings, with only Alaska (GOP), New Mexico (Dem), and Democrats Abroad still outstanding.

Winners and losers

By Brendan Loy

In addition to the California call noted below, CNN has declared McCain the GOP's Missouri winner, and has retracted its call that Clinton won the Democratic race there; the latter is too close to call, and Obama has a slim lead.

Combined with all the other projections and results, that leaves only Alaska (GOP), Missouri (Dems), New Mexico (Dems) and the Democrats Abroad undecided. Elsewhere, the winners are:

OBAMA: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah

CLINTON: American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee


MCCAIN: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma

ROMNEY: Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Utah, North Dakota
HUCKABEE: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia

As for the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest... Andrew Bottom and Marty West are currently tied for first place on the GOP side, and will stay that way regardless of the Alaska result. But if Romney wins Alaska, Joe Loy [UPDATE: and Tim] will join them in first place. Either way, the tie will be settled by the California delegate tiebreaker. Bottom said McCain would get 87 delegates; West, 88; Loy, 98. [UPDATE: Tim, 110.]

There are too many variables to project winners in the Democratic or overall races yet, but Loy currently has the overall lead by one point, and is tied for first with Sam Cialek and Ben Brown in the Dem contest. Complete standings after the jump.

UPDATE: Okay, I ran some scenarios for the Democratic contest. Only the current co-leaders and Clete Andrews are still alive to win. Cialek and Loy will finish tied with each other no matter what. But Brown can pass them if Obama wins New Mexico and Clinton wins the Democrats Abroad; if only one of those things happens, he'll finish tied with them; if neither happens, he'll finish behind both of them. Meanwhile, Clete Andrews will finish tied for first if Obama wins Missouri and Clinton wins the Democrats Abroad. Any tie would then be broken by the California delegate tiebreaker. Cialek predicted that Clinton will get 170 delegtes; Andrews, 180; Loy, 190; and Brown, 191.

CORRECTION: My mistake. Andrews is already eliminated. I had messed up the spreadsheet, failing to include Obama's Alaska win.

UPDATE 2: In the combined contest, the Missouri Democratic primary doesn't matter. It's all about New Mexico (Dems), Alaska (GOP), and the Democrats abroad. If Obama wins New Mexico and Clinton wins the Democrats Abroad, Ben Brown will win outright. Assuming at least one of those two things doesn't happen, then if anyone other than McCain wins Alaska, Joe Loy will win outright; if McCain wins Alaska, it'll be a three-way tie between Loy, Andrew Bottom and Brendan Loy.

Yet another update

By Brendan Loy

Halperin has added Arizona and Missouri to Clinton's list, and Colorado and Idaho to Obama's list. Still undecided on the Dem side: Alaska, California, Democrats Abroad, New Mexico. No changes on the GOP side from the last update.

Latest prediction contest standings after the jump. The top two in the overall standings: Joe Loy and Brendan Loy. :) Well, I'm tied with Andrew Bottom for second.

P.S. The "Democrats Abroad" primary started today, but it won't be over for a week. I didn't realize that when I included it in the Super Tuesday contest. Oh, well. If the Democratic and overall prediction contests are close enough, we may not know the winners until next week...

Delegate dead heat

By Brendan Loy

Josh Marshall: "[O]ur very much in-progress spreadsheet...has the two candidates almost exactly tied in delegates. ... I think that's going to be the big story. For all the spin and nominal wins. It's a dead-heat where it really counts, in delegates."

On the other hand, Obama is claiming he'll end up with a 606-534 delegate lead, or thereabouts.

Update

By Brendan Loy

Okay, forget Drudge, I'm going to base my prediction-contest updates on Halperin's list. Here's the latest:

DEMOCRATS:
OBAMA: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah
CLINTON: American Samoa, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee
UNDECIDED: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad, Idaho, Missouri, New Mexico

REPUBLICANS:
MCCAIN: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma
ROMNEY: Massachusetts, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota
HUCKABEE: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia
UNDECIDED: Alaska, California, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee

The actual numbers show the Georgia GOP race and the Utah Dem race really close, though. ... But CNN just called Georgia for Huck.

UPDATE: Contests standings after the jump.

Hmm.

By Brendan Loy

The Fox spin is very pro-Hillary.

Obama 10, Clinton 7 :)

By Brendan Loy

Again via Drudge, a more succinct summary:

CLINTON: AR, MA, MO, NY, NJ, OK, TN
OBAMA: AL, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT

HUCKABEE: AL, AR, GA, MO, TN
MCCAIN: AZ, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY, OK
ROMNEY: MA, ND, UT

Judging from Halperin's summary, the states where Drudge might be getting ahead of himself are Idaho (Dems), Missouri (Dems and GOP), Tennessee (GOP) and North Dakota (GOP).

Polls close in California in eight minutes...

Super Duperness

By Brendan Loy

Here are the states Drudge is calling:

AL: OBAMA
AR: CLINTON
CT: OBAMA
DE: OBAMA
GA: OBAMA
ID: OBAMA
IL: OBAMA
KS: OBAMA
MA: CLINTON
MN: OBAMA
MO: CLINTON
ND: OBAMA
NY: CLINTON
NJ: CLINTON
OK: CLINTON
TN: CLINTON
UT: OBAMA

AL: HUCKABEE
AR: HUCKABEE
CT: MCCAIN
DE: MCCAIN
GA: HUCKABEE
IL: MCCAIN
MA: ROMNEY
MO: HUCKABEE
ND: ROMNEY
NJ: MCCAIN
NY: MCCAIN
OK: MCCAIN
TN: HUCKABEE
UT: ROMNEY
WV: HUCKABEE

For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that all of his calls are correct. Also, CNN just (finally!) called Arizona for McCain. And Clinton won American Samoa.

That leaves Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and the Democrats Abroad undecided on the Democratic side, and Alaska, California, Colorado, Minnesota and Montana undecided on the Republican side. If that's right, here are the latest standings in the prediction contest...

Connecticut for Obama!

By Brendan Loy

Drudge is calling Minnesota, Connecticut, Idaho and Kansas for Obama. Dunno who else, if anyone, is doing so yet.

Connecticut would be huge, in light of New Jersey and Massachusetts going Clinton's way, and so would Minnesota, given that Missouri seems to be going for Clinton.

Wait, hold the phones: Fox just called CT for Obama.

UPDATE: CNN, too. Yay!

Huh?

By Brendan Loy

Via CNN:

Heh.

Update

By Brendan Loy

North Dakota and Utah for Obama. Also, Utah for Romney -- the upset of the night! ;) Oklahoma for McCain, according to Drudge. And did I mention Obama got Alabama?

Obama's Utah win is the first result that John Norris Brown has gotten wrong all night in the Irish Trojan prediction contest. He's still perfect on the GOP side, along with Andrew Bottom and Marty West. On the Dem side, Sam Cialek and Ben Brown are still perfect. Norris Brown leads the overall, combined contest with a 21-for-22 record.

Complete standings after the jump.

Clinton, McCain lead in Knox County

By Brendan Loy

With 39 percent of the precincts reporting, Clinton and McCain are winning Knox County.

Interestingly, Clinton won early voters 48% to 39%, while Obama is leading among election-day voters, 52% to 44%. That may have something to do with the 11% that John Edwards got among early voters.

Good news for Hillary

By Brendan Loy

Obama wins Delaware; Clinton wins Massachusetts and New Jersey. So much for the leaked exits showing a sweep of the non-New York Northeast for Barack.

And she's way up early in Missouri. Damn.

Latest prediction-contest standings after the jump. I've added a line at the bottom of each side's standings saying which states are in.

Bradley Effect?

By Brendan Loy

With 10 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama is "only" winning Georgia by a margin of 55% to 41%. That's a whole hell of a lot less than the 75% to 25% suggested by exit polls. I don't know whether these are Clinton-friendly precincts that are reporting so far, but the wide gulf between the exits and the actual numbers worries me a bit. Are we seeing the phenomenon of white voters voting for the white candidate and then telling exit pollsters that they voted for the black candidate? If so, it could bode ill for Obama elsewhere in the country with regard to those phenomenal leaked exits.

P.S. Similarly, with 12% reporting, it's 50% to 48% Obama in Connecticut, whereas the leaked exits had Obama winning by 7.

Fox: Tennessee for Clinton

By Brendan Loy

Hmm: "NBC has retracted its call on Mrs. Clinton in Oklahoma. Meanwhile, Fox has called Tennessee for Mrs. Clinton."

In a related story, there has been some seriously severe weather in West Tennessee, which InstaPundit speculates could hurt Obama and Huckabee. (That severe weather is heading our way after midnight. Wind gusts of 50+ mph, etc.)

Meanwhile, John Judis says the Georgia results suggest that "almost all the John Edwards vote, which was primarily white, went to Barack Obama."

For the sake of argument, I'm going to keep Oklahoma in Clinton's column, put Tennessee in her column, and put New Jersey in McCain's (which everyone is now projecting). Based on that, here are the prediction contest results through nine states... with Mike Wiser no longer perfect in the Dem race, as he picked Obama in Tennessee...

No surprises yet; 3 perfect in contest

By Brendan Loy

CNN is being cautious with their projections. They only projected CT-R (McCain), IL-R (McCain), MA-R (Romney), IL-D (Obama) and OK-D (Clinton) at the top of the hour.

In the prediction contest, Andrew Bottom, John Norris Brown and Mike Wiser are still perfect on both sides, and Marty West is still perfect on the Dem side. (Lots of people are still perfect on the GOP side.) Wiser, you may remember, won the 2004 Electoral College Contest with a perfect prediction record. Latest standings after the jump.

Early prediction contest results

By Brendan Loy

With just two states in -- the Georgia Dems and the West Virginia GOPs -- here are the very early results of the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest:

Obama winning everywhere??

By Brendan Loy

The leaked exit polls look incredibly favorable for Obama, with Clinton winning only Arkansas, New York, Tennessee, Oklahoma and (narrowly) California, and Obama winning everywhere else, including Arizona (by 6), Connecticut (by 7), Delaware (by 14), Massachusetts (by 2), Missouri (by 5), New Jersey (by 5) and New Mexico (by 6). Drudge has similar numbers.

But remember: the Seven-Hour Presidency of John Kerry.

P.S. And also: the Bradley Effect.

No irrational exuberance until we have real numbers.

Waiting in line to vote

By Brendan Loy

In my post earlier about my voting experience, one thing I didn't mention is waiting in line to vote. That's because I didn't have to. The polling place was reasonably busy, but there were at least two or three machines open (out of maybe a dozen) when I got there. A guy who arrived a few minutes after me had to wait until a machine opened up -- my machine, as it happened -- but certainly nobody was waiting in long lines. This was shortly after 9:00 AM.

Becky went to vote around 11:30ish, and she did have to wait in line, with Loyette -- who, per her checkup with the pediatrician today, is now 10 pounds, 4 ounces -- for about an hour. Becky was holding Loyette the whole time (figuring she'd be less fussy that way than in her stroller), and I'm sure it got tiring after a while. Still, I'm kind of jealous. You hear all these reports of people waiting in line to vote, yet I've never had to wait in line, for even 30 seconds, to exercise my civic duty. The effortlessness almost cheapens the experience somehow. :) Plus, if I was waiting in line, I could get photos of people waiting in line...

I remember going to the polls in South Bend on the evening of November 2, 2004, amid TV reports of voters waiting for hours in Ohio, Florida, etc., and finding the polling place almost completely deserted; aside from the fellow 1Ls who I car-pooled over with, I think there might have one other voter in the whole gym where we voted. (The best part of that trip was that I voted for Kerry, my roommate voted for Bush, and our other friend voted for Nader, so we completely cancelled each other out. We joked later that we might as well have stayed home and had some beers instead.)

Incidentally, the voting machine I used this morning, which I jokingly called an "iVote" because it uses an iPod-like scroll wheel, is actually called the eSLATE. It's manufactured not by Diebold, but by Hart Intercivic -- though I'm sure they're connected to Diebold, Halliburton and Dick Cheney somehow or other. :) Anyway, the machine's design was pretty counterintuitive and dumb, if you ask me. And there was no paper trail.

Super Tuesday open thread

By Brendan Loy

Since the blog updates -- some from me, some from CNN -- will be coming fast and furious this evening, and rapidly scrolling off the homepage to make way for new updates, I'm setting this post to stay on top of the blog, in order to more easily facilitate uninterrupted discussion. Feel free to comment on the other posts too, of course. But this one will be here all night. All new posts will appear below.

A helpful Super Tuesday scorecard

By Brendan Loy

With apologies to Jay Johnson for contributing yet again to the horse-race mentality ("...and down the stretch they come!"), here's a handy-dandy Printable Super Tuesday Guide, so you can follow along at home as tonight's dizzying array of results are announced.

Please let me know if you spot any errors.

P.S. See also Chris Cillizza's Super Tuesday Viewer's Guide.

UPDATE: And here are the aggregate predictions of the contestants in the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest.

Irish Trojan readers expect Obama to win Alabama, Alaska, California (!), Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas and Missouri. Clinton is favored in all other states. The closest contests, prediction-wise, are the California primary, in which 25 predicted an Obama win and 21 predicted a Clinton win; and the Democrats Abroad caucus, in which 25 picked Clinton and 21 picked Obama.

On the Republican side, McCain is favored everywhere except Arkansas, in which Huckabee is the overwhelming favorite, and Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana and Utah, where Romney wins are expected. The closest states are Alaska (McCain 24, Romney 19, Other 3) and Montana (Romney 24, McCain 19, Other 2, Huckabee 1). "Other" presumably refers to Ron Paul.

It should be noted, however, that the Irish Trojan consensus is already 0-for-1, as it was just announced that Mike Huckabee has won West Virginia. Only 8 of 46 contestants predicted that; 24 thought McCain would win and 14 picked Romney.

(The eight who picked Huck in WV -- and thus now have a 1-0 lead over everyone else in the contest -- are: Andrew Bottom, John Norris Brown, thebeef, chazunga, Marty West, Jeff Morrison, Mike Wiser and Hal Strickland.)

UPDATE 2: Here's a spreadsheet showing everyone's picks in the contest. Be patient; it may take a moment for the spreadsheet to load.

It's a very wide and unwieldy HTML document, but it gives you the information you need if you're a contestant who's forgotten your own predictions.

California dreaming spinning

By Brendan Loy

I've been wondering whether California's vote tally distinguishes between absentee votes and in-person votes, such that it'll be possible to determine, based on actual numbers (not just polls), the "Election Day only" vote tally. Page 7 of the state's 2006 Statement of Vote indicates that the answer is yes. Assuming those numbers are available in real-time, if I were the Obama campaign, I would keep a running count of the "Election Day only" numbers, and be ready to quote the latest numbers from that count to media interviewers at every opportunity.

Polls suggest that Clinton will win among the early voters by a substantial margin, while Obama will win among those who go to the polls today. If that's true, Obama should be able to spin even a high-single-digits loss as a sign that he's got the momentum going forward into the post-Feb. 5 states. But he needs to get started with that spin immediately, before the "Comeback Kid" CW solidifies. Hence the need for a running tally, so they can say something like this:

Wolf, the final outcome in California may be too close to call at this point, but what's clear is that while Senator Clinton was favored by people who voted three weeks ago, Senator Obama won a clear majority of California voters who voted on Election Day. He is currently leading 54% to 43% among that group. Obama is currently the leading choice among Democratic voters, and we have the momentum going forward.

If California is close, the spin war tonight will be unbelievable.

Polling place report

By Brendan Loy

In case anybody's wondering, the only presidential candidate with a presence -- i.e., campaign signs -- at the Cedar Bluff Middle School polling place in West Knoxville was... Ron Paul. He had a ton of signs (as he has, all over this area, throughout the campaign), alongside the numerous signs for various local candidates. But there were no Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney or Huckabee signs anywhere in sight. I thought there were two never-say-die Thompson supporters showing their true colors, but it turns out their "Fred 08" t-shirts were a reference to Fred Sisk, a county trustee candidate.

I'll have more photos of the election-day circus later this evening. Stay tuned.

The best part of my voting experience -- well, aside from having my vote stolen by Diebold, of course :) -- was getting a free Krispy Kreme donut from the Cedar Bluff Middle School Student Council. Well, not entirely "free"; I made a donation to their little donation box thingy. A lot of others had donated, too. Those kids are getting a great lesson in the twin pillars of American life: democracy and entrepreneurialism. I love it! Anyway, the most I've ever gotten for voting before was a sticker, so a donut was an unexpected bonus.

On my drive over to the polling place, I caught the tail end of Freddy Smith's award-winning morning show on WDVX. As he always does, Freddy ended the show by saying "it's time for me to go home and feed them chickens," then played a gospel set -- "to tune up your heartstrings," as he always puts it. One of the songs he played had a chorus which stated: "Don't be afraid or ashamed to speak our savior's name." It almost made me want to vote for Mike Huckabee! ;) Okay, not really, but if any fence-sitting Christian conservatives were listening to Freddy while en route to vote, the song might have steeled their resolve to get off the fence, strategic voting be damned, and proudly vote for Huck.

Speaking of the Huckster, yesterday as I was driving home from work, I saw a pair of his supporters standing in the median on Henley Street, waving Huckabee signs in the rain. I was stopped at a red light for a while, so I watched them, and noticed that nobody was honking or otherwise acknowledging them. I felt sorry for the poor bastards -- getting soaked while campaigning for a lost cause, and getting no love for it -- so when the light turned green, I honked and waved as I drove by. They looked delighted, as if they were thinking: finally, a supporter! Heh. Well, not exactly. But although we may not see eye-to-eye, I'm glad they're passionate about their candidate.

Happy Super Duper Tuesday, everybody.

I Voted Today

By Brendan Loy

My first time using an electronic voting machine. Not actually "touch screen" -- you have to turn a little wheel thingy and press actual physical buttons. Sort of like a large, primative iPod. The iVote? :)

Time to vote!

By Brendan Loy

And people ask why I don't do early voting. I love this stuff! Election Day in all its glory. God bless America!

Super Tuesday

By Brendan Loy

The polls are open... may the best man/woman win!

(And by "win," of course I mean "arbitrarily be declared the 'winner' by the know-nothing national media, notwithstanding that proportional delegate allocation combined with the closeness of the race means there's no way anybody can really 'win' today.")

P.S. In case you're wondering, no, that picture was not taken today. It was taken a couple of weeks ago, and I've been saving it -- I thought it would make a nice patriotic Election Day stock photo.

P.P.S. Last chance to enter my Super Tuesday prediction contest! Deadline is noon today. Any entries received after noon EST will be disregarded.

Yes, we can

By Brendan Loy

If you haven't seen it, here's the celebrities-for-Obama music video thingy that's taken the Interwebs by storm:

I don't really see what the big deal is, to be honest; I prefer just watching Obama speak, without all the bells and whistles and MTV-ish-ness. But then again, I'm a crotchety 26-year-old geezer, right? ;)

Will Knox County's turmoil help Obama?

By Brendan Loy

There's an article in today's New York Times about the recent shenanigans in Knox County government, which have caused a wholesale public uprising against the county commission. "A longing for reform, for fresh faces and new ideas, has overtaken Knox County," the Times writes, "so much so that many people here cannot wait to vote in the Super Tuesday primary. And it has nothing to do with who might be the next president."

I wonder, though, if it might affect the presidential race. Knox County is heavily Republican -- Bush got 62% of the vote in 2004 -- but there has been talk that Democrats might have a chance of getting elected to local offices that they normally don't have a prayer of winning, because of all the recent corruption and the resultant "kick the bums out" mentality. Tomorrow's election, of course, does not pit Republicans against Democrats, but it does give voters a choice of which party's ballot they want when they walk into their polling place. (Tennessee does not have party registration. Everyone is unaffiliated, and then you pick your party-for-a-day whenever there's a primary.)

With competitive Democratic primaries in four of the eight open County Commission seats -- itself an anomaly -- and the countywide Democratic primary for County Clerk (between an old-guard insider and a former deputy clerk who claims she was fired for announcing her candidacy) to boot, and with voters ticked off against the mostly-Republican ruling clique, I wonder if an unusual number of normally Republican-leaning voters will ask for Democratic ballots, motivated by the local races rather than the national ones, and then will find themselves confronted with the prospect of choosing between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If so, I imagine it will help Obama; rock-ribbed East Tennessee Republicans are not going to vote for Hillary. And racial politics isn't that big of a deal in East Tennessee (we're more Appalachia than Deep South), so I don't foresee a big anti-Obama racist vote here.

Bottom line, I think the turmoil in Knox County politics might net Obama a handful of votes that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise. It probably won't make a difference in the delegate count -- the 2nd Congressional District has an even number of delegates, four, so it doesn't matter -- but a Knox-for-Obama surge could decrease Hillary's statewide popular-vote margin ever so slightly. That could sway an at-large delegate this way or that, and anyway, every little bit counts in the perceptions game, right?

The tyranny of odd and even numbers

By Brendan Loy

Slate's Trailhead explains why only certain congressional districts matter in the Democratic primaries -- specifically, the districts with an odd number of delegates. The even-numbered districts are meaningless (except as a small part of the statewide at-large allocation, of course), barring a massive landslide for either candidate... which is possible for Obama in some heavily black districts, but otherwise very unlikely.

This, incidentally, is why proportional allocation of electoral votes within each state -- a "reform" that gets kicked around now and then -- is a terrible idea. It would render entire states meaningless based on the wholly arbitrary criterion of whether they have an even or odd number of congressmen. (Whereas at least now, states are made meaningful or meaningless by whether they're competitive, which is at least a rational criterion.)

In other Pooper Scooper Eve news, Kos has a sensible post about what lies ahead in the Democratic race, and why Obama supporters need to avoid "irrational exuberance" about tomorrow's big vote.

The expectations game

By Brendan Loy

It's Pooper Scooper Eve: Let the spin begin!

Obama: "We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states. If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months."

Clinton: "Although we are confident that we will win a diverse mix of states tomorrow, the results are likely to be close and inconclusive, due to the proportional allocation of delegates under the Democratic party’s rules. Despite this muddled outcome, we expect to maintain our current overall lead in delegates on February 6."

Heh. I love politics.

Over at Politico yesterday, Ben Smith asked, "What would be a game-changing, or game-ending, 'win' on Tuesday?" He later summarized the consensus thusly: "an Obama win in California, or secondarily in New Jersey, would make him hard to beat; while if Clinton can shut him out on the coasts and in places like Arizona and Missouri, her hand is very strong." Beyond that, he concedes, "we're moving into the territory where expectations aren't the whole ballgame. There's always the pesky question of who emerges with the most delegates." Ah yes, that "pesky" question. ITDS: It's The Delegates, Stupid!

Actually, though, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's quite unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will do well enough in the coming months of primaries and caucuses to earn an outright majority with pledged delegates alone. The eventual nominee will need at least some superdelegates, and maybe a lot of them. Which, alas, brings us back to the expectations/momentum game, because the fickle superdelegates are going to hitch their wagon to whichever star looks to be rising faster in the next month or so. That is why Obama needs to "win" a decent share of states tomorrow: because not too many superdelegates will be swayed by "But he's within 100 delegates!" They'll be much more swayed by "He won Missouri and Colorado and Connecticut!"

As an aside: apparently California's "winner" may not be known until Wednesday or later, because of the high volume of early and absentee voting. This strikes me as excellent news for Obama, assuming that a) Hillary is going to win California but b) the margin is going to be relatively close, both of which seem likely. If, when everbody goes to bed tomorrow night (including the folks manning the printing presses of the nation's major newspapers), the storyline is "California too close to call," that will be almost as good for Obama as an outright win.

Even if he ends up losing by, say, 5 or 6 percent once all the ballots are counted -- thanks in part to Hillary's reported heavy advantage among absentee voters -- that will matter much less, as few will be paying attention anymore. The lasting impression will be that Obama, with a surge of momentum, rallied from way behind (despite Hillary's aforementioned early-voter advantage!) to make California "too close to call."

(This is all the more true because it actually doesn't matter who "wins," so there's no real reason for people to keep paying attention beyond a certain point -- especially given that almost-exact delegate estimates, which do matter, may well be available long before the statewide popular-vote "winner" is known. So the media, in spite of itself, may end up actually paying attention to delegate counts, simply because they'll be the only available numbers from which to ascertain a "winner"! And Obama will almost certainly do better in the delegate count than he will in the statewide popular vote, because the allocation system puts a premium on congressional-district landslides, which he'll presumably get in a number of heavily black districts.)

Oh, to be back in New England...

By Brendan Loy

As few days ago, I mentioned how the presidential candidates seem intent on campaigning in virtually all the places I used to live and/or may someday live, while staying away from the place I currently live -- even though Tennessee is a Super Tuesday state! "It's a vast left/right-wing conspiracy to piss me off," I wrote.

Just to drive the point home: if I still lived in Connecticut, between yesterday and today, I would have been able to see John McCain (in Fairfield yesterday), Hillary Cilnton (in New Haven this morning, where she cried again), and Barack Obama (in Hartford this afternoon, with Ted Kennedy). And then tonight, I'd have the option of seeing Chelsea Clinton (in Hartford, hosting the Connecticut location of Hillary's live-via-satellite town hall), Hillary again (in New York City, also for the town hall), or Obama again (in Boston).

Mike Huckabee was in Chattanooga and Blountville earlier today -- both between 90 minutes and 2 hours away -- and John Edwards visited Chattanooga late last month. But that's it; none of the Big Four have made it to East Tennessee. And nobody has darkened Knoxville's door. The closest thing we have to a legitimate campaign event on this Pooper Scooper Eve is our own local broadcast of Hillary's national town hall, at the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame, hosted by -- wait for it, wait for it -- "former John Edwards supporter Warren Gooch."

Harumph.

Is Huckabee dropping out?

By Brendan Loy

Mark Halperin's The Page has added the following event to the day's schedule, at 7:01 pm: "Mike Huckabee delivers a message to the people of Arkansas from outside his campaign headquarters in Little Rock." Huh? Does that sound fishy to anyone else? Sort of like Edwards's "address on poverty" in New Orleans? On the other hand, nobody seems to be talking about it, so I'm probably wrong. But I wonder. Did he cut a deal with someone? (With Romney?)

Three reasons to vote for Obama

By Brendan Loy

In comments, a Georgia voter asked me to give him "three reasons to vote for Obama tomorrow." His question is timely, as I've been working on a post like that anyway. Cobbling together some of the arguments I've made previously in e-mails to my parents (who are undecided Connecticut voters) and here on the blog, I've done my best to answer the call. Because my reasons are quite lengthy, I've put them after the jump.

McCain sign vandalized

By Brendan Loy

Saw this on Locust Street in downtown Knoxville. A bunch of McCain signs have popped up around town in recent days; I wonder, given the printed piece of paper, if this is an organized campaign of vandalism against them?

P.S. To be clear, when I say "organized," I don't mean to suggest that another candidate's campaign might be behind it. I just wonder whether some idiot printed out a bunch of those "SUCKS! He's a liberal" labels and taped them on a bunch of McCain signs. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just to vandalize one sign. Can anyone in Knoxville confirm or deny whether other McCain signs around town bear similar messages this morning?

P.P.S. In a sort-of related story, the Knoxville News Sentinel has endorsed McCain and Obama.

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!

Hey, while you're here, why not enter my Super Tuesday Prediction Contest?

Complete rules here. Deadline to enter is noon tomorrow.

Super Tuesday prediction contest

By Brendan Loy

Just a reminder: the deadline to enter the Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest is noon on Tuesday. (Complete rules here.) Sign up now!

This post will stay on top of the homepage all morning day, so my weekday-only readers won't miss it. New posts will appear below.

Nobody's perfect

By Brendan Loy

Giants 17, Patriots 14, final. Wow!

Turns out Plaxico Burress gave the Pats' offense too much credit!

Somewhere, the '72 Dolphins are drinking champagne right now.

Liveblog thread below.

P.S. Now, can Obama pull a Giant-sized upset against Tuesday's overwhelming favorite?

P.P.S. I just had a thought. Forget Maria Shriver. Forget Al Gore and John Edwards. Barack Obama needs Eli Manning's endorsement. If Eli were to publicly endorse him in the next 24 hours, Obama would win the New York primary in a landslide. ;)

Baby's first Lady Vols game

By Brendan Loy

We went to an Obama rally, and a Lady Vols game broke out!

Becky and I decided to check out the Obama rally outside Thompson-Boling this afternoon. We figured it would be a good excuse to get out of the house with Loyette, and I wanted to take some pictures of the festivities. So we drove over to UT, tucked Loyette snugly inside her kangaroo pouch (which I was wearing), and ventured out toward the arena. We ended up getting free Obama signs of our own...

...and struck up a few pleasant conversations with Obama supporters heading into the arena. Several people were curious to see the baby inside the pouch -- the "youth vote," we said. :) Then one of those conversations took an unexpected turn: a middle-aged couple was looking for someone to give their tickets to, and asked if we'd like them. We figured, what the heck? If Loyette didn't do well with the crowd, we could always leave. So we accepted the tickets, and thus ended up unexpectedly taking our baby to her first basketball game.

And she did great! She was sound asleep inside her pouch for pretty much the entire affair. The crowd noise didn't seem to bother her at all, and after flinching the first few times the P.A. announcer yelled, she got used to that, too. At one point, with my hand on the bottom of the pouch, I could actually feel her snoring -- out like a light in the midst of a crowd of 19,259. Heh. She's a sound sleeper! We ended up staying till the final buzzer, much to our surprise.

Tennessee won the game, by the way, routing overmatched Kentucky, 79-51. And Candace Parker dunked!

Oh, and lest my Connecticut readers be concerned, I sang the UConn Huskies fight song to Loyette during the car ride home. Wouldn't want her to get too indoctrinated with this Lady Vols stuff. :)

Super Bowl open thread

By Brendan Loy

Super Bowl XLII is underway. Leave your comments on the game -- and/or the ads -- here. I may post occasional updates as well.

UPDATE: A rather surprising halftime score of 7-3 in favor of the Patriots. If the Pats put it together in the second half, the Giants will rue their failure to get a touchdown on either of their two red-zone opportunities.

Nothing terribly memorable on the ad front, IMHO, though the Budweiser Clydsdale ad was cute, as usual.

Did anyone else in a Super Tuesday state get an Obama ad during the local block of ads immediately after the first half ended? There are no national political ads during the Super Bowl, by Fox's decree, but Obama bought an ad from the local affiliate here in East Tennessee.

UPDATE 2: 10-7 Giants with 11 minutes left!

UPDATE 3: Patriots re-take the lead, 14-10, with 2:42 to go. Giants ball, all three timeouts remaiing.

UPDATE 4: After the Play. Of. The. Century. by Eli Manning and David Tyree ... TOUCHDOWN GIANTS!!

Now, can Tom Brady lead New England down the field in 35 seconds to put them in position for a game-tying, perfect-season-saving field goal? Or will we see the biggest upset since Super Bowl III?

UPDATE 5: GIANTS WIN!!!

17-14, final. Wow!

P.S. Is this a good omen for Obama? :)

UPDATE 6: Back-to-back Super Bowl MVPs for the Manning brothers!

P.P.S. About that Obama ad, it was indeed run in 24 23 states (plus D.C.) during the local affiliates' halftime ad block. The cost was around $250,000. Here it is:

Here's the list of states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

Super Bowl & Super Tuesday

By Brendan Loy

I've un-"bumped" my Super Tuesday Prediction Contest post for now, but just a reminder, you can enter the contest here.

Meanwhile, there's another "Super" event today. I'm not having a formal prediction contest, but feel free to leave your predictions for the Super Bowl in comments. I'm going to say... um... Patriots 42, Giants 31.

Apropos of which...

Vizu.com: Opinion Polls & Market Research

California up for grabs (!)

By Brendan Loy

A bunch of new polls show Obama anywhere from up 4 points in California (Zogby) to down 2 (Field) to down 9 (Mason-Dixon). And Drudge says a new Rasmussen poll, not published yet, will show Obama up 1.

In comments, Derek urges caution with regard to Zogby's reliability -- and he's previously questioned Rasmussen as well. But with multiple polls showing Clinton's lead in the Golden State narrowing, and a huge number of undecideds still out there (Zogby and Mason-Dixon say 16%, Field says 18%), it's clear the biggest Super Tuesday prize is up for grabs. As Greg Sargent says, "Bottom line: We have no idea what's going to happen on Tuesday."

If we assume that Hillary is a de facto "incumbent" against Obama's hordes for change, Tuesday's vote may be an epic showdown between the Incumbent Rule (which says that late-deciding voters tend to break overwhelmingly in favor of the challenger) and the Bradley Effect (which says that many white voters who tell pollsters they're "undecided" are actually planning to vote for the white candidate).

One other thing that's really interesting: Mason-Dixon says Clinton leads Obama among Hispanics in California, 68% to 18%. But in Arizona, the same polling firm, polling at the same time, found Obama winning the Hispanic vote, 53% to 37%!

Has Pat Summitt endorsed?

By Brendan Loy

There will be an Obama rally outside Thompson-Boling Arena prior to tomorrow's Lady Vols game. Is nothing sacred? ;)

Speaking of Obama, TNR's Noam Scheiber makes an excellent point, one I hadn't thought of but wish I had, about how the post-Super Tuesday calendar favors Obama:

There's not a day on the primary calendar between Tuesday and the convention that has more than four contests scheduled. ... Obama tends to do better the more time he can focus on a specific state, [so] I see this slightly benefiting him.

I see it significantly benefiting him. The question, as Scheiber says, is whether Obama can "survive" Tuesday's mega-primary, the very nature of which doesn't suit his strengths. "Obama isn't playing for a win on Tuesday," he says, but rather "something that approximates a stalemate." Scheiber elaborates -- answering my question from yesterday -- that "I'd say that means carrying 8-10 states and 45 percent of the delegates up for grabs." Sounds about right to me, though I think 6 or 7 states might be enough, depending on which states they are. In any event, the perceptions game is very important in this regard. Obama doesn't need to "win" Super Tuesday, but he needs to do well enough to convince the media, and through them voters in later states -- and, especially, superdelegates -- that he's a viable candidate going forward, not just a one-hit wonder on the verge of flaming out.

Mitt wins Maine; McCain, Paul vie for 2nd

By Brendan Loy

Will Maine crush John McCain's evil heart? It looks like the state where Ross Perot beat George H. W. Bush is once again bucking conventional wisdom, giving Mitt Romney a convincing victory and throwing the nominee-presumptive-presumptive* into a dogfight for second place with Ron Paul:

Mitt Romney appeared to be on his way to a win in presidential preference voting by Maine Republicans as returns were counted Saturday from the party's municipal caucuses, turning the contest into a race for the No. 2 spot.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had 52% of the vote with 57% of the towns holding caucuses reporting. John McCain trailed with 22%, Ron Paul was third with 19%, and Mike Huckabee had 5%. ...

Besides Paul, who visited Maine on Monday, Romney was the only candidate to show up or send a surrogate to campaign as the caususes drew close. His oldest son Tagg campaigned Friday and appeared at caucuses Saturday.

There are still some more caucuses to be held tomorrow -- it's a three-day event -- so Paul could still potentially pass McCain. But I don't think anyone is going to catch the Stormin' Mormon.

The question is, will this lead to a surge of Mitt-mentum that will carry Romney to a surprise showing on Tuesday? I doubt it. But hey, give the man credit: he's really good at winning these tiny caucuses that nobody else pays attention to. First we're going to go to Wyoming!! And then we're going to go to Maine!! And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House!! YEAAAARRH!!!!!

P.S. I don't actually think John McCain has an evil heart. It's just a lyric from a silly song I like.

*He's not the nominee-presumptive yet, but it's presumed that he will become such after Tuesday's results come in. Hence, "nominee-presumptive-presumptive." :)

Obama vs. the Queen of Darkness

By Brendan Loy

Heh.

Hil-mentum?

By Brendan Loy

Today's updates from both Rasmussen and Gallup show a sudden reversal of the recent trend of Obama gaining ground nationally on Clinton. Here's Gallup's chart:

I guess a bunch of those undecided former Edwards voters suddenly finished their soul-searching and decided to go with Hilldog?

Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that John Edwards will not endorse before Tuesday. (Hat tip: Brian Foster.)

Enter my Super Tuesday contest!

By Brendan Loy

The first ever Irish Trojan Super Tuesday Prediction Contest (or if you prefer, Super Duper Pooper Scooper Trooper Blooper Tuesday Prediction Contest) is now online and accepting entries!

Just follow the link and submit your predictions. PLEASE NOTE: You may want to print your entry page before submitting it, as you won't automatically get a copy of your picks sent to you.

The deadline to enter is noon Tuesday. Details after the jump.

What does Obama need on Tuesday?

By Brendan Loy

Although Barack Obama is almost even with Hillary Clinton nationally, the latest polls from Super Tuesday states suggest that he's within striking distance almost everywhere, but leading almost nowhere (well, at least among the states were there are polls). And he's running out of time to "strike." With the Super Bowl on Sunday, people are pretty much going to tune out politics until Monday, and that's already Pooper Scooper Eve.

Democratic delegate selection rules are such that nobody is going to have a commanding victory in the delegate count on Tuesday; even in her best-case scenario, Hillary won't come anywhere close to "wrapping up" the nomination, mathematically speaking. But with 22 states (plus American Samoa and the Democrats Abroad) going to the polls, it's imperative for Obama to rack up some "wins" -- even though the concept of "winning" individual states is almost meaningless in terms of delegates -- in order to create a favorable (or at least not unfavorable) media storyline. If Hillary, for example, wins everywhere except Illinois and Georgia, that would be utterly devastating for Barack's momentum; people would start to write him off, and Hillary would become "inevitable" again. That would be true even if most of the races are very close and Hillary only edges him by, say, 150 delegates.

My question is, what does Obama need to do? How many states must he win? Marc Ambinder wrote on Wednesday that, based on the polls and his conversations with party insiders, he believes Obama "has an edge in Idaho, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois." I've also read that Alaska is supposed to be Obama-friendly. Would those eight states -- to Hillary's fourteen -- be enough? Can he get away with less than that (say, 5 or 6)? Or, on the contrary, does he need 9 or 10 wins? Does he need his list of victories, however long it is, to include at least one or two non-tiny, non-Southern states that aren't Illinois? (Connecticut and Colorado, maybe?)

By the way, I'm working on a Super Tuesday Prediction Contest, so stay tuned for that. I'll probably post the entry form later tonight or tomorrow.

Will Ron Paul win the Maine caucuses?

By Brendan Loy

The little-noticed Maine GOP caucuses start today and continue through Sunday, with most of the meetings taking place tomorrow. There is some speculation that Ron Paul might win.

P.S. Maine is the devil, you know.

O-mentum continues

By Brendan Loy

Rasmussen's latest daily update is out:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama inching closer to Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s now Clinton 43%, Obama 37%. A week ago, Clinton had an eleven point advantage, 41% to 30%.

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. The last two nights of tracking were the first without John Edwards in the race. For those two nights, it’s Clinton 44% and Obama 42% meaning that Clinton’s support is essentially unchanged. This suggests that many former Edwards supporters now support Obama, many others have yet to make a decision, and few currently support Clinton.

[You know what I bet would help those "many others" make a decision? A freakin' endorsement! Argh! -ed.]

Two day results are based upon a relatively small sample of 476 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and should be interpreted with caution. The next Presidential Tracking Poll update is scheduled for Saturday at 11:00 a.m. Sunday will be the first update based completely upon interviews since Edwards left the race.

Gallup should have an update later this afternoon. Also, Rasmussen will release its Tennessee poll later today. It'll be interesting to see whether it mirrors the Hillary landslide suggested by InsiderAdvantage.

P.S. On the other hand, with regard to those "many others [who] have yet to make a decision"... it has been suggested that the so-called "Bradley Effect," in which opinion polls mask voters' racial prejudices, is most likely to be seen "not in the black candidate’s poll numbers but in the 'undecided' category":

Here’s how the Bradley Effect works: A stranger calls you to ask how you intend to vote. You do NOT intend to vote for the African American, but you don’t want to get a lot of guff from this stranger about how you must be a racist if you won’t vote for the African American. So you answer, “Not sure.” In all the classic Bradley Effect elections (and NH fit the pattern), the polls got the vote for the African American about right, but OVERREPORTED not sure and UNDERREPORTED the other candidate’s vote.

I don't know if that's right, or if it's happening here. I hope not!

P.P.S. Gore?

P.P.P.S. Obama will be in New Mexico this evening. Richardson?

UPDATE: Gallup's out, and it's more of the same. Clinton leads 44% to 41% over the last three days of polling:

Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as close as they have been since the polling program started at the beginning of 2008. Forty-four percent of Democratic voters nationwide support Clinton, while 41% support Obama, within the poll's three-point margin of error. [Derek's head asplode! -ed.] The data suggest that Obama has gained slightly more -- at least initially -- from John Edwards' departure from the race. In the final tracking data including Edwards in all three days' interviewing (Jan. 27-29 data), Clinton had 42%, Obama 36%, and Edwards 12%. Since then, Clinton's support has increased two points and Obama's five. Tomorrow's release will be the first pure post-Edwards three-day rolling average.

Sweet.

Where is John Edwards?

By Brendan Loy

Politico's Ben Smith reports that John Edwards was in North Carolina last night for the UNC-Boston College basketball game. Is he still in North Carolina? If so, do we know that Barack Obama isn't in North Carolina, or on his way there? (The Page lists no public events for Obama until 4:15 PM.) Time is running out for my predicted Friday-morning Boyz 4 Change endorsement announcement...

The future, Conan? Looking past Feb. 5

By Brendan Loy

With all the talk about the Democratic race stretching on beyond Super Tuesday, I think it's instructive to actually look at the calendar to see what lies ahead after February 5.

On February 9, Louisiana (56 delegates) and the mighty U.S. Virgin Islands (3 delegates) have primaries, and Nebraska (24) and Washington (78) have caucuses. The next day, February 10, Maine (24) has its caucuses. Then comes the "Beltway Primary" two days later, as D.C. (15), Maryland (70) and Virginia (83) all vote on February 12. So that's 353 delegates at stake in eight primaries and caucuses over the course of a week.

After that, things get a bit more chronologically sparse. One week after Beltway Tuesday, Wisconsin (74) has a primary and Hawaii (20) has caucuses, both on February 19. Then we get two weeks off before the potentially decisive primaries on March 4 -- the original Super Tuesday -- in Texas (193), Ohio (141), Rhode Island (21) and Vermont (15).

It seems pretty likely that the race will effectively be decided either on Beltway Tuesday or on Old Super Tuesday (a.k.a. Longhorn/Buckeye Tuesday). But if it still remains competitve, the calendar then starts to get really weird.

The great Democratic state of Wyoming (12) is all by itself with caucuses on March 8. Only a dozen delegates, but oh, the momentum! (Just ask Mitt Romney! Oh wait...) That will be followed by the Mississippi primary (33) on March 11.

And then.. nothing! For over a month!

The next vote is on April 22, when Pennsylvania (158) holds a primary. If the race is still going at that point, residents of the Keystone State will get to find out what it's like to be Iowa and New Hampshire: they will become the center of the political world from March 11 until April 22. Who'd have thunk it?

Leaving aside the primary in Guam (3) on May 3, there will effectively be another two-week break before voters in Indiana (72) and North Carolina (115) go to the polls on May 6. If they're still battling by then, I imagine Hillary and Barack would both visit South Bend, causing me to become extremely jealous. Next comes West Virginia (28) on May 13, then Kentucky (51) and Oregon (52) on May 20. Wrapping things up are Puerto Rico (55) on June 1, and South Dakota (15) and Montana (16) on June 3. (All of the May and June races are primaries, not caucuses.)

In my judgment (which, I remind you, is always, always, always, always, always wrong), Super Tuesday is likely to produce one of two scenarios in the overarching campaign storyline. Either: 1) Hillary wins enough states -- close delegate counts notwithstanding -- that she re-emerges as a "near-inevitable" candidate, and the Beltway Primary a week later comes to be seen as "Obama's last stand." Or: 2) Obama wins enough states that the commentariat continues to regard the race as legitimately close, and conventional wisdom will rapidly coalesce around the idea that March 4 is the new Big Important Day When Everything Will Be Decided. In other words, Old Super Tuesday is the new Super Tuesday!

But what if the race is still in flux when all the March 4 votes are counted? Some math is necessary here: according to the Green Papers, there are a total of 4,049 delegates (not counting Florida and Michigan), of which 3,253 are "pledged" and 796 are unpledged superdelegates. A total of 2,208 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. By my count, 2,643 pledged delegates will have been awarded through March 5, while 610 will still be outstanding. So, to secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone, a candidate would need to have won roughly 84% of the pledged delegates awarded between January 3 and March 4. Obviously, with a proportional-allocation system, that's not going to happen.

However, let's say the pledged delegate count when March 5 dawns looks something like Clinton 1,600, Obama 1,000. Hillary would still be a good 600+ short of clinching the nomination with her pledged delegates alone, but the fickle superdelegates would have begun flocking to her in droves (she's already got 186 of 'em) and the pressure on Obama to drop out would become enormous. Game over -- maybe not mathematically, but for all practical intents and purposes. Same deal, methinks, if it's around 1,500 to 1,100.

On the other hand, what if it's more like Clinton 1,400, Obama 1,200? That's a bit more interesting. Or how about Clinton 1,350, Obama 1,250? Now we're talking. Nobody's going to hound Barack out of the race with numbers like that. Hillary will get some more superdelegate commitments, but so will he, and suddenly, everyone will start focusing on the all-important April and May primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky and Oregon. Imagine.

Of course, if we get to that point, it will already have become impossible for either candidate to clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone. And proportional delegate allocation means that those April, May and June states will only be able to nudge the delegate race a little bit in one direction or the other, not dramatically alter it, let alone end it. Basically, it'll be a battle to get as many delegates firmly in your corner as you can, while also starting the pre-convention posturing and politicking, lobbying the undeclared superdelegates and fighting over those Michigan and Florida delegate slates.

In the unlikely event that the race remains undecided to the bitter end, it'll be three very long months between the South Dakota and Montana primaries on June 3 and the first day of the convention in Denver on August 25.

(Information via NPR and Wikipedia.)

Mano-a-womano

By Brendan Loy

The great debate is underway on CNN. I may not be able to do much liveblogging because I'm trying to calm a fussing baby while I watch, so consider this an open thread.

UPDATE: Hillary says that, with regard to our Iraq policy, we need to "send several messages at once." Well, if there's anyone I trust to do that, it's the Clintons! ;)

UPDATE 2: Oooooh, she played the "gravitas" card!!

UPDATE 3: Obama's response a few minutes later to Hillary's "day one" rhetoric was excellent, though: "it's important to be right from day one." Notwithstanding our differences on Iraq specifically, I think that's exactly what Obama needs to do. When Hillary says she'll be "ready to lead from day one," Obama needs to invite to voters to ask, "But where will you lead?" This actually feeds into the broader Clinton character issue as well, because in actuality, the Clintons don't really "lead" so much as follow public opinion and poll numbers. Obama needs to make the case that whereas Clinton may be the so-called "experience" candidate, Obama is not just the "change" candidate but also the "leadership" candidate.

UPDATE 4: Clinton has an unfortunate habit of sounding like the Wicked Witch of the West when she laughs.

Rove to join Fox News

By Brendan Loy

Drudge: "FLASH: Karl Rove will join FOXNEWS as contributor; likely used throughout Super Tuesday coverage..." Heh. I would say this will make liberals hate Fox even more, but I'm not sure that's actually possible.

Rove, incidentally, has an article in today's WSJ about the "new rules" (and some old rules) of presidential politics.

Super Tuesday held on Fat Wednesday in coastal Alabama

By Joe Loy

Yes, not wanting their annual Good Times Role :> to get Stuck Inside of Mobile due to some damn ol' Primary date changed by those idiots up in Montgomery, south Alabamians said to hell with That and voted yesterday :) ~

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) Feb 25 — Don't mess with Mardi Gras in Alabama.

Voters in two coastal counties — Baldwin and Mobile — will vote Wednesday even though the state primary is six days later on Feb. 5. The reason: Feb. 5 also is Fat Tuesday when throngs of people celebrate Mardi Gras on the Gulf Coast. The frenzied end to Carnival is an official holiday in the two counties in Alabama.

When the state legislature moved up the presidential primary from June 3 to Super Tuesday, it discovered belatedly that it fell on Mardi Gras. In Baldwin and Mobile counties, government shuts down and crowds by the tens of thousands jam the port city's streets for parades.

The legislature's solution was to let voters in those two counties go to the precincts six days early. The votes cast will be sealed and counted with the others on Super Tuesday.

...Mobile County, which has the most parades and balls, will have all its regular polling places open Wednesday and one place open in Mobile on Feb. 5. Baldwin County will have one polling place open on Wednesday and then all its regular polling places open on Feb. 5.

Yesterday's Mobile County turnout was reportedly strong, perhaps in response to Tuesday's wise editorial advice from The Press-Register:

If Mobile County residents want a say in who will be the party nominees for president of the United States, they need to say so tomorrow.

...On Tuesday, Feb. 5, the day of Republican and Democratic presidential primaries in Alabama, a large number of voters are going to be celebrating Mardi Gras. As the Press-Register's legendary Masked Observer reminds us, "Revelry mixed with democracy can only lead to unbridled insanity."

Only one polling place will be open on Feb. 5, at the Revenue Commissioner's Office at Michael Boulevard and Azalea Road, well away from the packed streets of downtown. If everyone waits until then, lines are likely to be long.

So avoid the Super Tuesday rush; if you live in Mobile County, you should vote on Wednesday.

:)

Poll shows Hillary landslide in Tennessee; Obama gaining ground nationally

By Brendan Loy

Some more new polls today, and the news is mixed on the Democratic side. In Georgia, which is supposed to be solid Obama country, InsiderAdvantage shows the Illinois senator with a big lead, 52-36. Obama gets 73% of blacks, 54% of Hispanics, and 33% of whites.

But here in neighboring Tennessee, which is supposed to be a hotly contested tossup/lean-Hillary state, the same firm's polling shows Clinton with a huge lead, 59-26. The poll was taken yesterday, and thus may reflect a shift of Edwards voters into the Clinton camp (though 7% still prefer "other"). But what's really surprising is that Clinton isn't just winning the white vote, 64-19; she's also winning the black vote, 46-43!

Moreover, Clinton has almost identical margins among men and women; she wins big in all age groups (with her biggest margin of all, 81-14, among 18-to-29-year-olds!!); and she is favored by self-identified Democrats, Republicans and Independents. So either this is a screwy poll, or Obama-mania really just hasn't caught on at all here in the Volunteer State. If Obama's internal numbers are showing a similar trend, maybe that explains his conspicuous absence -- this supposed battleground state may be, for whatever reason, a lost cause for him.

InsiderAdvantage also released a poll on the Republican race here in Tennessee, and it's much tighter, with McCain leading Huckabee and Romney 33 to 25 to 18. Thirteen percent are undecided.

UPDATE: On the bright side for Obama, he's setting fundraising records, and is already buying ads in post-Super Tuesday states. Barring an enormous Hillary sweep on Tuesday that re-establishes her "inevitability" and thus causes a paradigm shift in the media storyline, this race will go on for a while. As this chart shows (context here), there are a ton of delegates at stake on Tuesday, but a ton more after Tuesday, too.

Meanwhile, the very early returns from Rasmussen Reports suggest that Edwards's departure is helping Obama nationally:

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Hillary Clinton 42% and Barack Obama 35% [in the three-day average]. Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last night’s data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even. Samples for individual nights are very small and results should be interpreted with caution.

The daily history shows that it was 41%-32% Clinton (a 9-point lead) from January 28-30; now it's 42%-35% (a 7-point lead) from January 29-31. The big question is what happens tomorrow and the next day, when we'll see a three-day average that is entirely after Edwards's withdrawal. Gallup's tracking poll will also be worth watching closely; they had the race slightly closer (6 points) even before Edwards bowed out.

UPDATE: Gallup's new data is out. It shows the Clinton-Obama race narrowing further, from 42-36 in yesterday's three-day average to 43-39 in today's three-day average -- just a 4-point lead for Hillary!! However, Gallup's write-up says that "Wednesday night's numbers (the first with Edwards excluded from the ballot) show no clear indication that either candidate is benefiting disproportionately." I guess that means Obama's 2-point gain between Jan. 27-29 and Jan. 28-30 is an indication that Jan. 27 was a good day for Hillary, rather than an indication that Obama cleaned up among former Edwards voters on Jan. 30.

More O-mentum!

By Brendan Loy

Following on the heels of that tied Connecticut poll, a new Massachusetts poll -- conducted on the night Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama -- shows Hillary's lead at just 6% -- down from 37% a week earlier (in a poll by a different polling firm, but still).

Also, Hillary is only up by 12% in her home (er, "home") state of New York. Obama could pick up a pretty big chunk of delegates in the Empire State.

UPDATE: Obama's within 3% in California!

This is sounding more and more like a trend. But Obama needs something to put him over the top. Like, say, a strong performance in tonight's debate, followed by a John Edwards endorsement tomorrow morning.

Obama is the electable Democrat

By Brendan Loy

A lot of John Edwards supporters are doing some soul-searching right now, trying to decide which of the remaining Democratic contenders to get behind. People had various different reasons for backing ol' Johnny Boy, but one thing that the vast majority have in common, presumably, is that they desperately want a Democrat to win in November. Assuming they do indeed feel that way, Edwards supporters (and, for that matter, those currently backing Hillary Clinton) ought to seriously consider jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon, because as best as I can tell, Hillary Clinton is quite possibly the only person in the known universe who is capable of uniting the Republican base behind John McCain.

McCain, of course, is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee for president. He's got Rudy and Ahnold on his side now, with more endorsements to come, no doubt, and his momentum appears unstoppable -- the GOP establishment is already getting into "rally around the winner" mode. And perhaps not unrelatedly, it appears that the Mitt Romney is pretty much giving up the ghost, at least in terms of TV ads.

So it'll be McCain for the Republicans. This is an extremely significant fact because a substantial chunk of the Republican base hates John McCain. I mean, really despises the man. They respect his foreign policy chops, but not much else; on domestic policy, they don't consider him a true conservative or a real Republican. On the contrary, they view him as an apostate on several core issues (immigration, taxes, campaign finance, interrogation, etc.) and a disloyal, MSM-loving sellout who cannot be trusted to uphold their principles. As such, they have no interest whatsoever in voting for him. Thus, on November 4, many of them will stay home.

Unless Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

Needless to say, pretty much the entire Republican base hates Hillary Clinton with the heat of a thousand suns. By contrast, the anti-McCain segment of the base only hates McCain with the heat of, oh, perhaps five or six hundred suns. So if he's running against her, many of the McCain Derangement Syndome folks will do something they wouldn't do in virtually any other potential matchup: they'll hold their noses and vote for McCain. Whatever it takes to stop Hillary.

O-mentum?

By Brendan Loy

More good polling news for Barack Obama:

Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.

Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race Wednesday after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.

TNR's Ben Wasserstein -- responding not to this poll, but to the general feeling of Obama momentum in the media and such -- is wary: "There are too many echoes of the post-Iowa period for me to be confident in the media narrative of Obama's ascent. ... [I]t's all starting to look like New Hampshire Redux to me."

Meanwhile, Edwards adviser Joe Trippi says the Clinton and Obama campaigns are "banging down the doors" for an endorsement:

"I don't expect him to do anything today," Trippi said. "His will be a very coveted endorsement. He's got a fairly large following in the party, both on line and off, and I can't think of anybody else who would be bigger or more coveted."

Asked if an endorsement was possible before Feb. 5, something that could have a huge impact, Trippi declined to rule out the possibility. "I'll let him speak to that himself," Trippi said. ...

Asked about the sudden timing of Edwards' decision to leave the race, Trippi declined to elaborate on what precipitated it.

Hmm. As for the question of who Edwards's supporters will naturally gravitate towards, John Judis writes, "I think it's very inconclusive. Clinton will pick up votes from Obama in some Southern states like Georgia that Obama should win anyway—and Obama will pick up a few votes in middle Atlantic or Midwestern states that Clinton will probably win anyway." Fair enough, but remember, none of the Democratic primaries are winner-take-all, so picking off votes here or there actually does matter.

2 out of 2 Democratic candidates agree...

By Brendan Loy

...that John Edwards is awesome!

Man, oh man, there is going to be some serious John Edwards butt-kissing at tomorrow night's Barack vs. Hillary debate in Los Angeles.

Hillary opens up shop in Knoxville

By Brendan Loy

One day after the Obama campaign opened a Knoxville headquarters, the Clinton campaign is doing the same this evening.

If you missed them, here are my photos from yesterday's Obama grand opening.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Former Sen. John Edwards is quitting the presidential race, CNN has learned.

UPDATE BY BRENDAN: Edwards "will not immediately endorse either candidate," according to the AP. Good lord, what's the holdup? He needs to endorse Obama before Super Tuesday! Boyz 4 Change!! Boyz 4 Change!!

P.S. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the timing of this announcement seems odd. That's right -- I question the timing!! :)

Why is Edwards doing this now? Surely he wasn't depending on a strong showing in Florida's delegate-less "beauty contest" to rejuvenate his candidacy? And if he based this decision on South Carolina, well, what took him so long? That primary was four days ago, which is a political eon. When he didn't announce anything on Sunday or Monday, you had to think he was staying in the race through Super Tuesday. Instead he bows out now. Why?

Isn't it possible that he's already cut a deal with the Obama campaign? Yeah, I know, he "will not immediately endorse." But that could be an elaborate smokescreen to make it seem like they didn't cut a deal. It all depends on what the definition of "immediately" is! (Right, Bill?) It seems entirely possible that Edwards and Obama have already agreed to terms (vice president, attorney general, whatever), but part of Johnny Boy's end of the deal is that he must drop out today (to distract media attention from Hillary's Florida "win," thus decreasing any momentum boost) but wait until, say, Friday to endorse Obama -- thus maximizing the impact of the big "Boyz 4 Change" announcement (and decreasing Hillary's window to recover from the blow) by placing it closer to Super Tuesday, while also spacing out the two developments (i.e., Edwards's withdrawal and his endorsement of Obama) far enough apart to prevent people from suspecting a shady back-room deal (which doesn't exactly fit the image the "politics of change").

Like I said, call me a conspiracy theorist! But it's at least plausible, yes?

P.P.S. One thing's for sure: Edwards's departure makes tomorrow night's Democratic debate a lot more interesting. (I even added it to my sidebar!) Finally, it'll be Clinton vs. Obama one-on-one, mano-a-womano! Hillary against Barack for all the marbles! May the best senator win! 

But, now, hmm... Obama is generally better in stump speeches than he is in debates. He's not terrible in debates, but they're not his strength. I daresay they are Hillary's strength, at least sometimes. What if Obama "loses" the debate? Hillary's momentum coming out of a clear "win" could be killer, potentially dominating the news cycle for 24-48 hours...

...unless, of course, Obama has some sort of a shock-and-awe-inducing, momentum-stopping "firewall" up his sleeve... like, say, a Friday morning endorsement announcement by a certain former opponent? Just saying!

If Hillary wins the debate, Obama could stop her momentum cold with a Boyz 4 Change announcement. And if Obama wins the debate, he'd multiply his own momentum heading into the weekend. It's a win-win!

UPDATE: Just when I thought CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was throwing cold water on my endorsement speculation (reporting that Edwards "hasn't any plans to endorse" -- no modifiers like "immediate"), I read this from TPM:

An Edwards adviser confirms to me that John Edwards won't be making any endorsement "for the moment."

However, this source refused to rule out the possibility of an endorsement before Feb. 5th, which is six days away.

The board is set, the pieces are moving...

There's also this non-denial-denial from Obama yesterday.

If Edwards endorses Obama on Friday, it will more than make up for all of my previous incorrect predictions this election season.

P.P.P.S. On second thought, maybe Saturday would be better -- unless Obama really does tank in that debate -- because Saturday is the day before the Super Bowl. Nobody will be paying any attention to politics on Sunday! So Edwards endorses Obama, the media laps it up, then everyone stops paying attention so Hillary has no chance to respond. The next thing you know, it's Super Tuesday Eve, and Obama's an unstoppable freight train again.

Michigan & Florida "delegate" counts

By Brendan Loy

According to the Green Papers, Florida's pledged delegates -- if they are seated at the convention -- would break down like this: Clinton 108, Obama 77. Clinton also has 5 (hypothetical) superdelegates from Florida; Obama has 2. Eighteen Florida superdelegates have yet to declare an allegiance. (This raises an existential question: if you're an unpledged, undeclared, unallied "delegate" from a state that has no delegates, aren't you basically a nonexistent nonentity?) So the total Florida delegate (or rather, "delegate") tally is Clinton 113, Obama 79, undeclared superdelegates 18.

Combine that with Michigan (73 pledged to Hillary, 55 for Uncommitted, 6 superdelegates for Hillary, 1 superdelegate for Obama, 1 superdelegate for Edwards, and 20 undeclared superdelegates), and you've got the following combined breakdown of the two disputed delegate slates, including the declared supers: Clinton 192, Obama 79, Edwards 1, Uncommitted 55, undeclared superdelegates 38.

A big question that I don't know the answer to -- but maybe someone out there does -- is whether Michigan's 55 "Uncommitted" delegates will be Obama delegates by any other name. Certainly, most of the voters who cast their ballots for Uncommitted on Yooper Tuesday were Obama supporters, but does that necessarily mean that the Uncommitted delegates will be Obama loyalists? It depends on Michigan's delegate selection process (i.e., not the process of allocating the numerical delegates, but the process of choosing the individual humans who fill the allocations), and I don't know how that works.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Uncommitted delegates favor Obama, and further assuming that Edwards eventually throws his delegates (or rather, in this case, his delegate) to Obama, the breakdown would be Clinton 192, Obama 136, undeclared superdelegates 38. That's Obama's best-case scenario, and it's still a substantial edge for Hillary. Heck, even if every single undeclared superdelegate eventually backs Obama, which seems highly unlikely, we're still looking at a 20-delegate Clinton edge.

Like I said, if the Democratic nomination comes down to a knock-down, drag-out fight over whether these delegates get seated, it's going to be a big stinkin' mess.

P.S. Another important question that I don't know the answer to, at least not for sure: if the delegates from Michigan and Florida aren't seated, does that change the total number of delegates needed to win the nomination?

Normally, the Democratic nominee needs 2,208 delegates (50.01% of the delegate total, 4,415) to win the nomination. With Michigan and Florida excluded, the total number of delegates needed is reduced to 4,049. Presumably, that reduces the nomination-winning "magic number" to 50.01% of 4,049, which is 2,025. Or does it? The Green Papers assumes (or perhaps actually knows) that it does, but is this actually a settled issue, I wonder? It can't have come up too often before!

Suppose the expected breakdown coming into the convention is something like Clinton 2,100, Obama 1,949. Clinton's total would be 52% of 4,409, but only 48% of 4,415. Could Obama try to insist that the winner needs to get a majority of the pre-sanction delegate total -- in other words, that Hillary needs 2,208 delegates after all (the original "magic number"), which would amount to 54.5% of the delegates actually seated? It seems like a battle Obama would probably lose in that scenario, but it's just another example of how this thing could be a huge mess.

UPDATE: As noted in the post above, John Edwards has dropped out of the race. Politico's Ben Smith writes that Edwards's departure "makes a long race, and a brokered convention, far, far less likely. ... If it's one-on-one, the road to an absolute majority is a lot clearer."

Clearer, yes, but still not totally clear. If the "winner" gets less than ~65% of the pledged delegates, he or she will be dependent on superdelegates to secure a majority at the convention. The superdelegates are notoriously fickle, and will want to "back the winner." If Hillary beats Obama in the pledged delegate count (or, less likely, vice versa) by something like 60% to 40%, this won't be much of an issue, because the superdelegates will back the presumed winner. But if it's 51% to 49%, it will still be a brokered convention, because it'll be up to the unpleged superdelegates to decide who wins.

Hillary Clinton doesn't get it

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton, on CNN, just said, "I will do whatever I can, if I'm the nominee, to get the Florida delegates seated." Wolf Blitzer responded by sensibly noting something that so many in the media seem not to understand: "if this is a very close contest in Denver at the Democratic Convention, a brokered convention, those Florida and Michigan delegates could be decisive." He then asked Hillary, "Would you go to court to get them seated?"

Hillary's ridiculous response: "Oh, Wolf, this is all pretty premature. We don't even know who the nominee's going to be yet."

Did she honestly not understand the question? Of course we don't know who the nominee's going to be yet -- and in Blitzer's scenario, when the time comes to decide whether or not to seat those delegates, we still won't know! And the very matter at issue -- whether the delegates get seated -- could itself play a potentially huge role in determining "who the nominee's going to be"!

Hillary, along with most of the media, has it completely backwards. The prevailing theory -- that the nominee presumptive will insist on the delegates being seated -- only works if there's a nominee presumptive. The far more interesting scenario is the one Blitzer astutely raised, and Hillary flatly ignored. And it's getting to be a very realistic scenario.

It's going to be a huge stinkin' mess if that happens.

Obama, Clinton tied in Connecticut

By Brendan Loy

So says the latest Rasmussen poll, taken on Sunday -- the day after South Carolina, the day before Ted Kennedy. Obama 40%, Clinton 40%, Edwards 11%, Other 3%, Undecided 6%.

This is great news for Obama, as it's the first empirical evidence that Obama's recent momentum is actually translating into increased support in a Super Tuesday state. Previous polls, including a Hartford Courant poll 10 days ago, had Clinton leading by double digits.

The big question is whether this will start a trend. RCP's Latest Polls page will be worth watching in the coming days, to see whether other post-S.C. (and post-Teddy) polls in Super Tuesday states also show Obama gains.

McCain wins; Rudy to endorse him?

By Brendan Loy

With 54 percent of the precincts reporting, McCain leads Romney 36% to 32% in Florida. In comments, Ed writes, "Barone reported that the strongest county (Orange), in theory, for Romney already reported and Romney won it by less than 100 votes."

Giuliani is a very weak third with 15%, and has apparently come to the end of his road. He will reportedly endorse McCain as early as tomorrow. So much for me winning that dinner bet.

UPDATE, 9:18 PM: The networks are calling it for McCain.

P.S. Watching (and blogging) primary returns is fun. It's even more fun when you've got an adorable baby sleeping on your shoulder throughout. :)

Barock the Vote

By Brendan Loy

I went down to the grand opening of Obama's new Knoxville headquarters after work this afternoon to take some pictures:

And I met Rebecca Loy!

Becky's namesake seemed very nice. :) I also met Kevin Barry, vice chairman of the Knox County Democratic Party. (He's the guy in the blue shirt here, here and here.) Kevin walked up to me and asked if I'm Brendan Loy -- he's read my blog before, via InstaPundit. Heh.

Full gallery here.

McCain, Romney very close; Rudy toast

By Brendan Loy

The polls are closed in most of Florida. According to NRO and Drudge, the first wave of exit polls shows a razor-close race with McCain barely ahead: McCain 34.3%, Romney 32.6%, Giuliani 15.3%, Huckabee 12%. That's way too close between John and Mitt to draw any conclusions from the exit poll alone. I think it's safe to conclude, however, that Rudy is done for. But hey, at least he's on track to beat Ron Paul this time! :)

Those numbers supposedly (somehow) include early/absentee votes -- which reportedly favored Romney, proving once again that every single thing I predict this election season is wrong. :)

P.S. Hey, wait a minute, this has potential! I predict Hillary will win the nomination! Heh. There. You can thank me in your inaugural address, Barack.

Obama to open Knoxville HQ

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama is opening a Knoxville headquarters at 5:00 PM today. It may open with a bang; severe thunderstorms are expected this afternoon.

Up until now, Obama's only Tennessee HQs were in Nashville and Memphis. Hillary Clinton's only TN headquarters at the moment is in Nashville. The only candidate to visit East Tennessee so far is John Edwards, who was in Chattanooga yesterday.

Meanwhile, one of Obama's main organizers in the Knoxville area is named Rebecca Loy. Not my Rebecca Loy (though she likes Obama too), but someone else by the same name. Weird!

Early voting could create a Rudy surprise

By Brendan Loy

The polls are open in Florida, where Mitt Romney and John McCain are in a knock-down, drag-out fight for Republican front-runner status. Even Rudy Giuliani says the winner of the Sunshine State's primary is likely to win the nomination -- a statement that has many folks speculating that Rudy will drop out if he loses, which polls suggest is extremely likely; he's in a battle for a distant third place with Mike Huckabee.

A word of caution about those polls, though. The polls are snapshots; the Florida primary is not. Floridians have actually been voting for weeks already. Absentee voting began in late December, and "early voting" started on January 14. As of last Friday, a whopping 400,000 Republicans had already voted. [UPDATE: Make that 474,000 through Sunday.] To give you an idea of how significant a number that is, a total of 699,500 voters cast ballots in Florida's 2000 GOP primary. Now, turnout will probably be much higher in 2008, since this year's primary is much more significant and hotly contested. (The 2000 primary was held a week after Super Tuesday; McCain had already conceded.) But even if the raw turnout total doubles, we're still talking about something on the order of one-third of the electorate having voted before election day. (Florida has 3.8 million registered Republicans. If 1.4 million of them vote, that'd be a 37% turnout -- which would be quite high for a primary.)

Giuliani's campaign has specifically tried to get their candidate's supporters in Florida to vote early (though hopefully not often), in hopes of "locking them in" before the inevitable decline in Rudy's momentum and poll numbers as the early-state results took their toll. As far as I know, the other candidates -- who, unlike Giuliani, actually focused their resources on competing in those early states -- have not focused on early and absentee voting nearly as much. So if Rudy does much better tonight than the current polls indicate, the reason is probably early voting.

[UPDATE: In comments, Derek suggests that I'm overstating the impact of early voting, as many of the pollsters have taken it into account. I didn't realize that.]

Rats deserting the Clintons' ship

By Brendan Loy

Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton was the "establishment candidate" in the Democratic presidential race. But Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama today is only the latest crack in that foundation, writes ABC's The Note:

It's not just the Kennedys who are falling into line for Obama, as the non-Clinton Democratic establishment...coalesces (along with with scattered red-staters -- and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, D-Kan., is next, after she delivers the Democratic response to the State of the Union) to try to steer a party into a new direction.

Obama spoke both for them and to them, in an interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday. "There is no doubt that I think that in the '90s, we got caught up in a slash-and-burn politics that the American people are weary of," Obama said. "And we still see it in Washington today."

It's been a long time coming, The New Republic's Noam Scheiber reports in the magazine's new issue. "For people like [John] Kerry and [Tom] Daschle and especially their former advisers, the Clintons' continued presence at the center of Democratic politics has sometimes chafed over the last eight years," Scheiber writes.

"It may not be apparent beyond the Beltway, but the Clintons kept their grip on Democratic Washington long after leaving the White House. . . . If you've looked for a job in the Democrats' government-in-exile lately, chances are you've hit up a Clintonite."

How did the Clintons burn so much goodwill so quickly? Why is the establishment candidate facing a revolt from inside the establishment?

Start with persistent concerns that Sen. Clinton's candidacy would guarantee a revival of the pitched partisan battles of the past two decades. Sprinkle in Bill's performance of the last few weeks, which persisted right up through the primary in South Carolina with his comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson.

Add to it a broader sense of how Hillary was running her campaign -- another factor that hurt her with voters in South Carolina every bit as much as it hurt her with party regulars in Washington, Bloomberg's Al Hunt writes.

"Hyperbole is a staple of American political campaigns. Senator Hillary Clinton has crossed the line into distortion," writes Hunt (hardly a Clinton basher). "She has flagrantly misrepresented her own and her opponents' positions or statements. The general tone, more than any specifics, of the Clinton effort contributed to Barack Obama's stunning 2-to-1 victory over her in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary this past weekend."

Hunt's article is worth reading in its own right. It does a good job distinguishing between run-of-the-mill exaggeration, which all candidates are guilty of, and the Clintons' routine practice of out-and-out lying. He concludes: "Privately, some Clintonites agree that while the campaign is ugly, it's only a prelude to what Republicans will do in the general election. Perhaps, but Hillary Clinton is paying a price. There is so much to admire in her public life. Her whatever-it-takes campaign is debasing that value."

Meanwhile, echoing my "P.S." below, TNR's Michael Crowley writes, "If he wanted to, Al Gore could deliver something close to a death blow right now by endorsing Obama." I don't know about "death blow," but right now -- or, better yet, tomorrow evening, just in time to completely steal the thunder from Hillary's "win" in the beauty-contest Florida primary whose significance she is now trying to resurrect, in flagrant violation of (at least) the spirit of the party rules that she and everyone else agreed to -- would certainly be a great time for him to jump on the bandwagon.

Why Teddy matters

By Brendan Loy

Mark Halperin explains why Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is a big deal.

Somewhat less of a big deal, but still interesting and potentially helpful: Kathleen Sebelius will endorse Obama later in the week. Sebelius is the governor of Kansas (a Super Tuesday state) and a rising political star who will be giving tomorrow night's Democratic response to the State of the Union address. Hmm... Obama-Sebelius '08? (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

P.S. As long as we're talking about Obama endorsements... what about Al Gore?

9 days and counting

By Brendan Loy

With Obama's 25 to 12 to 8 South Carolina win in the rear-view mirror, MSNBC's Mark Murray handicaps Pooper Scooper Tuesday:

With Clinton and Obama splitting the first four contests, we head into Tsunami Tuesday in a Democratic nominating race that seems entirely up for grabs. From our vantage point, these are Clinton’s base states: CA, NY, NJ, AR, MA, and OK. Obama’s are: AK, ID, KS, MN, ND, GA, AL, and IL. The toss-ups appear to be: AZ, CT, CO, DE, MO, NM, TN, and UT. Among those toss-ups, AZ and CT might lean towards Clinton, since they’re closed to independents, and TN -- where Clinton is today -- probably leans her way, too. Of course, Obama will make plays in CA, MA, and NJ, and sources tell us that he is going up with ads in Philly (NJ) and New York City (NY, NJ, CT). Also, Edwards will go heavily after OK and TN.

[UPDATE: The Associated Press says "both campaigns consider Missouri and Tennessee major battlegrounds." Sweet! Maybe one or both of them will actually campaign in East Tennessee!]

Well I, for one, will be voting for Obama in TN. As I explained in a rambling comment last night, I'm at the point of being completely fed up with the Clintons and absolutely ready for something different. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily support Obama in the general election -- I'd be undecided between him and McCain -- but for heaven's sake, get the Clintons off the stage. Enough already. Or, as Mike's brother Matt put it:

Hilary and Obama are about equally likely to screw things up. But, at least in Obama's case, he'll be trying to do the right thing in the process. If he puts into place programs that turn out to be wrong, well, at least his heart was in the right place. Whereas Hillary's a coniving, self-aggrandizing carpetbagger who cares nothing whatsoever about the damage she does, as long as she makes herself look good in the process. So, even if we take the worst case, at least in Obama's case I won't be disgusted as things go wrong. I also think the potential upside of Obama's vastly higher. If things go well with him, and he receives good advise to help with his inexperience, he could help heal much of the divisions in this nation. On the other hand, Hillary has no such outcome. With her, we're certain to continue the pathological hatred both parties have for each other. As best as I can tell, there was actually a time when the elder statesmen types were widely respected, both in Congress and amongst the general public, regardless of party affiliation. Whereas now we have maybe Jimmy Carter in that position, and he gets it primarily by having done so little as President it's hard for Republicans to truly hate him. So, overall I'm pulling for Obama to be the Dem's candidate, even if I'm not sure I'd vote for him in November. At least I feel I could vote for him without hating myself for it.

Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy will endorse Obama tomorrow. That'll make him the second Kennedy to do so; Caroline Kennedy jumped on the Obama train with a New York Times op-ed today, saying he would be "A President Like My Father."

And more good news: Obama is taking the high road in response to Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment. This is exactly what Obama -- and his surrogates -- need to do: let the Clintons' prevarication, triangulation and race-card-playing speak for itself. It does so loud and clear. Obama needs to rise above it and focus on the positive rationale for his candidacy, rather than fighting the Clintons on their turf. See also here:

“Do you think President Clinton was engaging in racial politics there?” George Stephanopoulos asked Obama on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Illinois senator, who won almost four out of five votes from African-Americans, didn’t rise to the bait. Instead, he talked about health care, college costs, the credit crunch and the subprime-mortgage mess. “As long as we were focused on those issues, we thought those would transcend the sort of racial divisions that we’ve seen in the past,” Obama said.

Obama's money quote

By Brendan Loy

"It's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

UPDATE: Here's the full speech.

UPDATE 2: Here's the video:

Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Cohn say it may have been Obama's best speech yet.

P.S. When Bill Clinton called Barack Obama's position on Iraq "a fairy tale," he wasn't playing the race card. On the other hand, when Bill Clinton said this...

Huh? Who said anything about Jesse Jackson? Why would his mind happen to wander there, pray tell?

Ugh. It's pretty obvious what the Clintons are up to here. Obama's people played right into their hands by making race an issue when it wasn't -- re: the "fairy tale" and MLK comments -- but that doesn't diminish the disgustingly cynical nature of what the Clintons are now plainly trying to do. The underlying strategy of their campaign has evolved into making the public perceive Obama as the "black candidate," thus creating a white backlash. Will it work? God, I hope not. But I fear it may be enough to tip the scales in Hillary's favor.*

Obama's victory speech tonight shows that he's doing exactly what he needs to be doing: rising above it all, or at least positioning himself so it seems like he's rising above it all. Put another way, it now behooves Obama to look more "presidential" than the ex-president -- and the way Bill's been acting, that shouldn't be too hard. Obama's shots at the Clintons need to be veiled but effective, something he pulled off effortlessly tonight. As Eric Scheie puts it, "I'm very impressed at his ability to go for the jugular in a respectful manner." (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

For me personally, the Clintons' recent behavior has caused a major tipping point my personal outlook on this race and my plans for how I'll vote on February 5. I've gone from tentatively favoring Obama over Clinton, but leaning toward voting in the GOP primary (probably for McCain), to a solidly committed Obama supporter and voter. I will proudly cast my vote on Super Tuesday for the senator from Illinois -- end of discussion. Obama is far more liberal than I am, and I do still have concerns about his inexperience; I'd enter a McCain-Obama general election thoroughly undecided. But I desperately want the Clintons to move off the damn stage. Good grief: Enough! I've always been anti-dynasty in principle, but now I feel it much more deeply than that. They need to go. They're bad for the party, bad for the country, and bad for my stress levels. It's time to get rid of them. We can salute them for their service at the convention... and then let's nominate and elect somebody else, for the love of God.

*I suspect that only a minimal amount of "tipping" is needed, if any. The Super Tuesday format favors Hillary anyway. Obama does better when voters get to see a lot of him, and of his opponent. Hillary does better campaigning from afar; the more voters see of her, the less they like her. But voters in California won't be seeing nearly as much of her (or of the uber-charismatic Obama) as voters in, say, Iowa and South Carolina did. This bodes well for Hillary.

P.S. On a more optimistic (for Obama) note, Noam Scheiber's analysis is worth reading.

And then there's the NRO reader who writes, "I would argue that a black man winning 25% of the white vote in good ol' SC is HUGE." There's something to that. South Carolina is not representative of the rest of America when it comes to race relations; racial issues are, it seems to me, much more highly charged there than in all but maybe two or three other states in the whole Union. So let's not assume that South Carolina's racially polarized tallies (though not as badly polarized as some thought they might be) will be repeated to the same extent across the country on February 5. This is not the United States of South Carolina.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Sen. Barack Obama will win the South Carolina Democratic primary, CNN projects.

Obama wins big in South Carolina; Clinton second, Edwards third

By Brendan Loy

So says ABC News:

7 pm ET: ABC IS CALLING THE RACE RIGHT AT POLL CLOSING TIME. From our decision desk: "Based on exit poll data, ABC News projects that Obama will win the South Carolina Democratic primary. We do not yet have enough information to project who will be second or third, but based on the exit polls Clinton is leading over Edwards in a race for second."

This would SUGGEST a large margin -- networks don't call races based only on exit polls unless it's pretty convincing.

CNN has called it too. And their exit polls show Edwards narrowly winning the white vote, with Obama getting a "healthy" 25%.

Among black men: Obama 80%, Clinton 17%. Among black women: Obama 82%, Clinton 17%.

Edwards got almost zero black support, which is why Clinton will probably beat him overall despite narrowly losing the white vote to him.

The full CNN exit poll results will eventually be here, but they're not yet.

As the actual votes come in, you'll be able to see them at CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the South Carolina Democratic Party.

UPDATE: CNN's exit poll still isn't online, but MSNBC's is, and extrapolating from the gender numbers, it looks like a huge win for Obama, to the tune of Obama 55%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%. Which raises the question: would a 25-to-30-point margin of victory be enough to offset the potential P.R. damage from the bloc voting issue? Especially given that Obama got a quarter of the white vote?

UPDATE, 7:39 PM: CNN now projects that Clinton will beat Edwards for second.

If Edwards does end up below 20% in the state of his birth, which he won in 2004 with 45% of the vote -- beating ascendant front-runner Kerry by 15 points -- does he still keep his repeatedly promises to stay in the race all the way to the convention? I get the "kingmaker" thing, but where will the money come from? And won't this charade become humiliating exercise at some point soon? And isn't the media soon going to start totally ignoring him -- leaving him out of debates, etc.? It's completely obvious now (if it wasn't after Nevada) that this is a two-way race. With the probable exception of North Carolina, I bet this is the last time Edwards polls in double digits.

UPDATE, 9:06 PM: CNN estimates the delegate count from South Carolina as Obama 8, Clinton 4, Edwards 2. All this for a four-delegate edge? Heh.

Obama's bloc-voting problem

By Brendan Loy

Mickey Kaus speculates that, even if Obama wins in the expected South Carolina landslide today, he could be damaged politically if the exit polls show him getting overwhelming support from blacks and overwhelming non-support from whites. (In some pre-election polls, his support among whites has dropped as low as 10%.) The fear, again, is that Obama will come to be perceived as another Jesse Jackson -- a "black candidate" first and foremost -- thus diminishing his appeal to non-blacks on Super Tuesday and beyond. Win the battle (South Carolina), lose the war (the nomination)?

Kaus thinks maybe we shouldn't pay too much attention to exit polls, though, as people can lie to them: "If you're a black South Carolinian and want to help Hillary as much as you can, you'll walk into the booth, vote for her, then walk out and tell the exit poll person you voted for Obama." Heh. Also:

There may also be non-Machiavellian peer pressure in black precincts to tell the exit pollsters the same thing (which, perversely, might hurt Obama in tomorrow night's press spin by making it look as if he received an ethnic bloc vote). In white areas similar pressure might enocourage voters to falsely tell exit pollsters they voted for Edwards or Clinton. ... I'm not sure we should pay so much attention to the exit polls! ... Presumably the real, actual official secret-ballot vote tally will reveal any bloc voting by white areas or black areas, no?

Presumably so, but don't expect the media to think about that. One thing that's always struck me as odd is that, no matter how many times the exit polls are debunked as reliable predictors of the actual vote totals (see, e.g., Gore's victory in Florida, the seven-hour presidency of John Kerry, etc.), they're still relied upon as gospel truth for their racial, ethnic, gender, etc. results -- even though that data is inevitably based on smaller sample sizes than the exit poll at large!

Obama counters e-mail lies

By Brendan Loy

Politico looks at the Obama campaign's response to that e-mail chain letter I'm sure everyone's gotten by now about how Obama is a closet radical Muslim. (Ross Perot got it, and believed it.)

Obviously, it's false, and I'm very glad Obama is addressing this head-on. The more I heard people talking about the e-mail in recent weeks, the more I became concerned about its potential impact on the race. I'm still concerned -- I think it has the potential to be far more damaging to Obama than his skin color, particularly in a general election when more casual voters (who pay virtually no attention to politics, but do get e-mail chain letters) will make up a higher percentage of the electorate -- but at the very least, it was essential that they aggressively counter it, and they're doing that. Good.

(I wonder, though: how many times can Obama basically jump and down screaming "I'm not a Muslim!! I'm not a Muslim!!" before he starts to get in trouble for offending Muslims?)

For the record, here is the Snopes debunking of the rumors.

Top Ten Obama Campaign Promises

By Brendan Loy

P.S. Older but funnier:

Attorney General Edwards?

By Brendan Loy

The Boyz 4 Change alliance emerges at last!... maybe. Quoth Robert Novak:

Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration. ...

In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.

That's one way to do it. Another way would be for Edwards to drop out now (or soon), and to not just endorse Obama but to actually join forces with him -- before Super Tuesday. The concept of an "anti-Hillary vote" may be an oversimplification, but surely Edwards could convince a whole lot of his supporters to jump on the "Boyz 4 Change" bandwagon, as I called it two weeks ago when I suggested a similar course of action (though I assumed it would take a vice presidential carrot to bring Johnny Boy along). As I wrote then, "imagine the political power of such a development." Barack Obama and John Edwards, the kinder-and-gentler reformer and the mad-as-hell crusader, campaigning together, promising that "together they will change America. Hillary wouldn't know what hit her."

That said, if Obama and Edwards are essentially already on the same page on this Attorney General thing, but Edwards isn't dropping out, that means one of two things. Either: a) Obama is the world's worst negotiator, having offered Edwards a cabinet position in exchange for Edwards's merely "often seem[ing] to bond together in alliance" with Obama against Hillary (not a very high price!); or b) Obama thinks it's in his best interest for Edwards to stay in the race at this point, perhaps because, as suggested here, Edwards "drain[s] white male votes away from Senator Clinton." Me thinks option "b" seems more plausible (though perhaps not as plausible as option "c," which is that there is no Obama-Edwards deal, and this talk is just that: talk).

P.S. If it is option "b," there's a pretty decent argument to be made for Edwards staying in the race for, oh, about another 24 hours -- long enough to siphon off those all-important "white male votes" in South Carolina -- and then dropping out, perhaps tomorrow night, followed by... hmm... a Monday-morning endorsement splash, perhaps? ... "Up next on Today: the Boyz 4 Change!" ... Talk about a massive infusion of energy into the Obama campaign! And then, with eight days until 24 states vote on February 5, the A.G.-in-waiting would go on the campaign trail for his new buddy and future boss, doubling the pre-Super Tuesday campaign reach of the Obama/Edwards juggernaut. ... I'm not predicting anything, but if it happens, you heard it here first! :)

Clinton fatigue, 2008 edition

By Brendan Loy

At NRO, Victor Davis Hanson writes that, as a result of Bill Clinton's antics in recent days, "liberals are waking up from their 20-year slumber and blurting out that the shameless Clintons 'will say and do anything...'." In the WSJ, Peggy Noonan sounds a similar theme, writing that "many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats ... are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so." Quoting a Nation columnist as calling the Clintons "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath," Noonan notes that this is "exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade." Now that Democrats are seeing it too, the Clintons "are tearing the party apart," according to Noonan.

TNR's Jason Zengerle rebuts Noonan, to a certain extent. But he, too, has noticed the "Clintonites against Clinton" trend. Back at NRO, Hanson says that if Billy Boy "keeps it up, it is very likely that he will alienate so many moderate voters that many could hold their nose and vote for someone like John McCain in the general election."

I witnessed this trend, albeit in microcosmic and anecdotal form, at a UT Students for Obama rally that I stopped by en route home from work yesterday afternoon. One of the student organizers for Obama was chatting with her friends about the "Barock the Vote" signs they'd made, and suddenly blurted out something to the effect of, "Maybe we should make a sign with Hillary's face on it, and people could stomp on it." Someone suggested using Bill's face instead, which was met with general approval. The student organizer then mused aloud, "This [election] is really souring my opinion of the Clintons," or words to that effect.

Of course, everybody has a different take on Bill Clinton's effect on the race. Pundits have been saying since Iowa that he's hurting Hillary, but then the exit polls keep suggesting that Democrats still love him, and he's helping. Personally, I think people's opinions of Bill Clinton are very complex, nuanced, and difficult to measure in a poll. This has been true for a long time: back in 2000, polls showed Clinton was extremely popular, yet it was clear to everyone involved that "Clinton fatigue" played a major role in hindering Al Gore's campaign. (Gore might deny it now, but his pick of Lieberman for VP proves he believed it at the time. And from what I understand, Bush's advisers are convinced that Clinton's tarnished legacy helped them eke out an election they should have lost handily.)

The truth is, a lot of people have two or three different opinions of Bill Clinton, and in many cases those opinions are not fully reconciled with one another. They fondly remember the peace and prosperity of his presidency ... they not-so-fondly remember the lies and deception and embarrassment of his scandals ... they remember their anger at the Republicans for overplaying their hand with the impeachment ... yet they're still a bit ticked off at Clinton for creating the situation in the first place ... and they're not sure if he was really as good a president as they sometimes give him credit for ... but then again, aw shucks, he felt their pain ... and he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, after all ... but on the other hand, that blue dress ... etc., etc. Basically, if America in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, tried to classify its relationship with Bill Clinton in a Facebook profile, the classification would be "It's Complicated."

Mix up the unpredictable and volatile stew of Americans' (particularly Democrats') feelings about Bill Clinton with the always unpredictable and volatile stew that is race relations in this country, with a dash of gender tension to boot, and you get, well, something really unpredictable and volatile -- and not at all susceptible to resolution or understanding through a straightforward yes-or-no poll question about people's attitudes toward Bill, Hillary, etc. I think this is why Obama still seems to be tiptoeing around the issue a bit more than he potentially could: he's just not sure what will happen if he takes Bill on directly. Frankly, I don't think anyone's sure.

My instinct says that Hanson and Noonan are right, and that the student organizer at UT is representative of a broader phenomenon whereby staunch Democrats who once respected or even admired the Clintons are now becoming disillusioned with them, in a way that won't just go away after the primaries are over. But my instinct could be wrong; it certainly has been numerous times this young election season. :) I wonder, though, whether Bill & Hill have fully thought through the risks they're taking with this tactic? Or are they simply depending on fate to smile upon them once again, as it has so many times before -- opponents overplaying their hands, external conditions falling into place, etc., and making the Clintons look like geniuses? At some point, their luck has to run out.

Gurule backs Romney; Kucinich bows out

By Brendan Loy

Notre Dame Law School Professor Jimmy Gurule has signed on as a member of Lawyers for Romney.

In other news, Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the race. Also, recently-departed Duncan Hunter has endorsed Mike Huckabee, causing Michelle Malkin's head to explode.

P.S. Another NDLS professor, Gerard Bradley, has endorsed McCain.

Fred never wanted to be president, only veep!

By Brendan Loy

Fox News's Carl Cameron reports that Fred Thompson's dearly departed presidential campaign actually began as a trial balloon for a possible vice-presidential bid, then spiraled out of control as the intensity of the "Draft Fred" movement took Thompson and his people by surprise:

[Back in March 2007,] several insiders told me OFF THE RECORD that [the murmurs of a possible Thompson presidential bid were] largely a trial ballon to guage his popularity and float his name as a possible vice presidential nominee. I was sworn to silence.

Those insiders have now lifted the conditions on our conversations. From March to August of 07 -- through postponed announcement days, staff changes, firings, resignations and general disarray -- the Thompson camp was stunned by the incredibly positive response and didn’t really know how to manage it. The trial balloon soared mighty high and he found himself being dragged into a race that he was not even sure how to run.

If true, that explains a lot. (Hat tip: Top of the Ticket.)

Another victory for Uncommitted!

By Brendan Loy

First Michigan, now Louisiana: Uncommitted is on fire! It's the nonspecific, undefined sensation that's sweeping the nation!

P.S. And this time, it was a Republican victory. Voters' support for Uncommitted's noncommittal message is a bipartisan phenomenon! If neither party nominates Uncommitted, I think the late great Unity08 should resurrect itself and take up the cause. Uncommitted-Lieberman '08!

He's in it to win it

By Brendan Loy

Bill Clinton announces his candidacy. Heh. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Sister Souljah time for Obama?

By Brendan Loy

Is Barack Obama becoming Jesse Jackson in the public's perception? Mickey Kaus thinks so, and he suggests a solution.

Conservatives for Rudy?

By Brendan Loy

I heard a commentator on CNN the other night arguing that Rudy Giuliani, if he wants to become a factor in this race, needs to appeal to the GOP's conservative base. Not hardcore evangelicals and others who care only (or primarily) about social issues (and hence support Huckabee), but rather National Review conservatives, Rush Limbaugh conservatives, etc. -- conservatives who oppose abortion rights, gay rights, the coarsening of the culture, and so forth, but who also care just as much about limited government, low taxes, the war on terror, etc.

That caveat notwithstanding, we are talking about social conservatives here (just not single-issue-voter social conservatives). And the concept of Giuliani appealing to social conservatives seems ridiculous at first -- everybody knows Rudy is the cross-dressing, gay-loving, baby-killing former mayor of godless Gotham, right? -- but I actually think it's right. (Which, given my track record this election season, undoubtedly means it's wrong.)

A hypothetical election question...

By David K.

This one is geared mostly towards Republicans, but anyone can answer.

So assume either Hillary or Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, under what circumstances (if any) would you vote for one or the other so you could later say you voted for the first "insert female/black" President? Would it take a landslide showing in the national polls? The fact that your state always votes one way or the other? Something else? Nothing else? Would it be easier if it were Hillary? Easier if it were Obama? Easier if it Al Sharpton? Easier if it were Weird Al?

McCain trounces Rudy, Mitt in CT poll

By Brendan Loy

According to a Hartford Courant poll, Arizona's John McCain is supported by 39% of likely GOP voters in Connecticut, well ahead of his rivals from bordering states, New York's Rudy Giuliani (16%) and Massachusetts's Matt Romney (11%).

Connecticut's 27 pledged GOP delegates are all awarded to the winner of the February 5 primary. The state has been considered prime "Rudy Country" -- along with neighboring New York (87 delegates) and New Jersey (52), both of which are also winner-take-all -- so this is definitely bad news for Rudy. (The latest New Jersey poll shows him 2 points behind McCain in the Garden State, and the latest New York poll shows the rivals in a dead heat in Giuliani's home state.)

On the Democratic side, it's Clinton 41%, Obama 27% and Edwards 9%. Per national party rules, Connecticut's Democratic delegates are awarded proportionally.

Why should blacks "unite" behind Obama?

By Brendan Loy

An article in Der Spiegel about the purported "end of the Obama revolution" contains a revealing bit of analysis that echoes a disturbing trend I've noticed in various folks' commentaries on the Democratic race: the assumption that we ought to expect black voters to be monolithically united behind Barack Obama, simply because he's a black man. Here's the snippet in question.

[Obama] hasn't managed to attract a strong following among older people and blue-collar workers. The majority of women find him interesting, but they support Hillary Clinton. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are opposed to Obama, partly because he is black. Even African-Americans are not united in their support for Obama.

What's telling is the way the author, Gabor Steingart, chooses to characterize the various statistical realities that he's discussing. Women, he says, "support Hillary Clinton." Well, according to a CNN poll released on Saturday, Clinton is preferred by 54% of white women and 38% of black women. CNN doesn't give a combined total for all women, but presumably it's just barely above 50%. That's a "majority," true enough. Obama, meanwhile, has the support of 59% of blacks. That's a significantly larger majority than Clinton has among women. But the Steingart doesn't say that. Instead, he imposes on Obama some sort of "interest-group supermajority" rule, whereby getting almost three-fifths of the group in question is somehow a failure. This same rule is not applied to Clinton, however. Steingart doesn't say that "even women are not united in their support for Clinton."

Why not? Because there's no particular reason why they should be -- just as there's no particular reason blacks should be united behind Obama. Voters should choose whoever they believe is the best candidate, not necessarily the candidate who happens to share their skin tone or genitalia. Yet for some reason, there's an expectation that black Democrats ought to be 100% behind Obama, or nearly so, whereas no similar expectation exists for female Democrats and Clinton.

I understand that identity politics exists, and it isn't going away. And I'm not demanding that pollsters or the media ignore it. But there's no need to overemphasize it, or to twist and tweak the data to conform with a preconceived notion that everything is about race. We ought not automatically expect voters to make identity politics their #1 criterion, and act like something is necessarily amiss if they don't. ("Black voters aren't totally united behind Obama! He must be doing something wrong!") Particularly for those whose expectations have the power to help shape reality, i.e. the media, such potentially self-fulfilling assumptions are deeply corrosive to our political discourse.

UPDATE: Condor comments that the German-to-English translation may be to blame for some of the offending phraseology.

Fred, we hardly knew ye

By Brendan Loy

The Associated Press is reporting that Thompson is out.

UPDATE: You can read Fred's statement here.

"That's it?" writes NRO's David Freddoso.

Naptime for Bill Clinton

By Rebecca Loy

This'll help Hillary get the black vote in South Carolina:

Poor Bill. I can totally relate to sleep deprivation. :)

(Hat tip: Perez Hilton.)

Obama pulls Tennessee ads

By Brendan Loy

I've seen a couple of Barack Obama ads on TV in recent days -- they're the only political commercials I've seen, in fact -- but it seems Obama has pulled the ads. Not sure what that means. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Issues with independence

By Mike Wiser

Stanley Fish has an interesting opinion today about why it's bad to be a political independent.  Speaking as an independent, I obviously don't think it's such a bad thing, but the article is relatively well written.  Essentially, the writer argues that humans are by nature factional, and that once you start trying to actually do anything rather than speak in meaningless generalities, you'll end up with disagreements about terms or priorities, and then you'll need to unite with like-minded people in order to accomplish something.  Further, an independent as President would face more politics in trying to get something done than a member of one of the two major parties, as that President wouldn't be able to count on a large bloc of automatic support.

These arguments are valid as far as they go.  What I feel the author has overlooked, though, is another reason why many people become independents: the fact that there is more than one political axis.  If you align things are a purely left-right axis, I come out pretty much dead center.  So does another of my college friends.  When you look at two axes, on the other hand, he and I come out as diameterically opposed, as he's essentially a populist and I'm essentially a libertarian.  We come out in the middle on a single axis because when looking at the broad scale, the number of issues on which we greatly favor the Democrats balance the number of issues on which we greatly favor the Republicans--it's just that, for the two of us, many of those positions are opposite to each others'. 

I'm sure there are some people who are independents because they gain satisfaction from not belonging to a major group, or who may feel superior to others for their lack of assumed allegiances.  The author does, however, completely ignore that some people might be independents because on the, say, 4 issues that matter the most to that person, two positions are taken by the Republicans and 2 are taken by the Democrats, and the person thus doesn't have greater loyalty to one side or the other on policy as a whole, but must make decisions more on the basis of the particular Republican or Democrat offered as a choice.  By not addressing that aspect, I see the argument as fatally flawed.  Thoughts?

Why should Fred Thompson drop out?

By Brendan Loy

In the wake of John Edwards's humiliating showing (4 percent!) in Nevada yesterday, Mickey Kaus asks, "What would it take to get Edwards out?"

Of course, most of the talk of "getting out" is on the GOP side, where it's widely assumed that Fred Thompson will drop out after giving a past-tense-y speech last night in response to his weak third-place finish in his "last stand" state, South Carolina. (Hey, at least he denied Romney the bronze!) But NRO Jim Geraghty makes the case for Fred staying in:

[T]here's no reason for Fred Thompson to leave the race. He's apparently put more effort into Louisiana than the other candidates (they vote Tuesday), and there's a bunch of deep red states he can fight in on Super Duper Tuesday, including his home state of Tennessee.

If there were a clear frontrunner, and this thing was all over, I could see it. But if he really finds some of his other rivals as not-conservatives who are unacceptable to carry the Republican mantle, why not stay in this thing until the end, collect as many delegates as he can, and at the very least, throw them to the one he finds most acceptable at the GOP convention?

That makes perfect sense. It's clear Thompson isn't going to win the nomination at the polls, but: so what? The punditry is lagging seriously behind the reality here. The MSM really needs to wrap its head around the concept that this is a delegate battle now; it is not about "winning the nomination at the polls" anymore, at least not necessarily. ("McCain has momentum!" Who cares? "If McCain wins Florida, it's over!" Bulls***!) So the mere fact that somebody is stuck hopelessly in fourth or fifth place is not, by itself, enough reason to drop out of the race.

This contest could well end up more like a haggling session in the Israeli parliament than like a "one person, one vote" election. Do the minor parties in the Knesset "drop out" just because they only have a handful of members? No -- they leverage what strength they have, and sometimes they become kingmakers! Why shouldn't the minor candidates in this wildly unpredictable race do the same?

For instance, current Israeli prime minster Ehud Olmert owes his position to both the Shas Party (which controls 9.53% of the Knesset) and the Gil Party (5.92%). If either party left his coalition, he'd be toast. Fred Thompson's percentage in South Carolina was better than Shas and Gil combined! :) And if he stays in the race, there's a good chance he'll rack up at least a Gil-sized share of the delegates. (Tennessee alone would give him 2.3%, if he gets a majority here.) That might be enough to throw the nomination to his preferred candidate. If he drops out now, he suddenly goes from "undetermined, but possibly huge, amount of leverage" to "guaranteed zero leverage." So why should he drop out again?

Oh, right. To be McCain's vice president. But wait -- doesn't he help McCain more by staying in, and thus taking votes away from Huckabee? So again: why? And remember, "he's not going to win" isn't a good enough reason.

S.C. exit polls: McCain by 6

By Brendan Loy

McCain 33%, Huckabee 27%, Romney 16%, Thompson 15%.

UPDATE: CNN projects that McCain and Huckabee are in a tight battle for first place, with Romney and Thompson fighting for third.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

CNN projects Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the Nevada Democratic caucuses.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

CNN projects Mitt Romney as the winner of the Nevada GOP caucuses.

Nevada, South Carolina and USC-UCLA

By Brendan Loy

I didn't realize this, but the Nevada caucuses are actually held in the morning and afternoon, local time, so results will likely be known by 3:30 PM EST for the Republicans and 5:00 PM EST for the Democrats, according to Mark Halperin. The polls close at 7:00 PM in snowy (!) South Carolina.

UPDATE: All of this pales in comparison, of course, to another event at 3:30 PM EST tomorrow: the USC-UCLA basketball game, a.k.a. Mayo-Love I, at Pauley Pavilion, which will be aired nationally on CBS. Beat the Bruins!!!

UPDATE 2: Fox News has called Nevada for Romney. He's got three golds and two silvers! Will he get his first bronze in South Carolina?

UPDATE, 2:15 PM: The CNN entrance poll suggests that Romney will get a vote percentage in the mid-to-upper 40s -- and Ron Paul will finish second with around 20%!

It also shows that a quarter of voters were Mormons (compared to just 7% of the state population), and Romney get 94% of their votes. But Paul got 63% of independents, who made up 14% of the electorate.

UPDATE, 3:03 PM: CNN's on-screen vote tally shows Obama 86%, Clinton 14%. It's a landslide! Of course, that's with 7 votes reporting. Not 7 percent of the precincts -- 7 votes. It's Obama 6, Clinton 1. [CORRECTION: I guess those are actually county delegates, not votes.]

Carolina in my mind

By Brendan Loy

Politico on the McCain campaign's acquiescence in the MSM's obsession with South Carolina dirty tricks: "They recognize that there is sympathy to be gained by playing the victim and they’re milking it for all it's worth."

Speaking of South Carolina, Fred Thompson really needs to win tomorrow. But current polling suggests he needs to make a Hillary-like comeback at the last minute. Perhaps he should consider crying?

Vote early, vote often!

By Brendan Loy

Early voting got underway Wednesday here in Tennessee, and the Reynoldses -- InstaPundit and the Insta-Wife -- voted yesterday. Glenn reports that anecdotal evidence suggests lots of early voters for Obama and native son Thompson.

Personally, I'll wait until February 5 to vote. For one thing, who knows what will happen between now and then? (Those Thompson voters may find that their candidate is out of the race before their votes for him get counted. Same with any early Edwards voters.) Moreover, I like voting on the actual day of the election. There's something sort of romantic about it.

I wonder if any of the candidates will make it out to East Tennessee to campaign? I realize there are much bigger states voting on Pooper Scooper Tuesday, and there are also much bigger cities in Tennessee than Knoxville (namely, Nashville and Memphis), so I suppose the odds are against it... but hey, I can hope, right? I want a campaign event to blog about, like the forum in Phoenix that I went to in '04!

UPDATE: Aha! The Washington Post has a list of campaign events by state for Tennessee. That's helpful!

His daddy's money, his mama's good looks...

By Brendan Loy

A look at the state of the GOP race. With everybody else running out of money, can Romney buy the nomination?

With all the other intriguing possibilities, a Mitt vs. Hillary general election would be about the most uninspiring, boring, cardboard combination imaginable -- sort like Bush-Gore, when we could have had McCain-Bradley...

The article also contains a rebuttal to my Obama-needs-Edwards-out thesis:

Who says that Edwards Hurts Obama? One constant refrain in news "analysis" of the Democratic presidential campaign is that the continuation of the Edwards campaign hurts Sen. Obama's campaign by "dividing" the "anti-Clinton" vote. Really? I would argue that Edwards helps Obama in South Carolina (and elsewhere) by draining white male votes away from Senator Clinton, thus making it all but impossible for her to win definitively in any state with significant African-American voting populations. I don't hear anyone in the Obama campaign calling for Senator Edwards to get out of the race. And for good reason.

Perhaps. I still think the Boyz 4 Change ticket (or alliance) would be politically powerful, at least for wrapping up the nomination. But I hope Ellis is right, because I don't want Barack to have to kowtow to Johnny Boy...

CORRECTION: On second thought, I hope Ellis is wrong, because I'd like to think we've gotten past the point where significant numbers of white males out-and-out refuse to vote for a black man, which seems to be what he's implying. So nevermind.

Mitt and Huck, two peas in a pod

By Brendan Loy

Stephen Bainbridge: "Mike Huckabee joins Mitt Romney on my personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton." (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

In light of his recent about-face on immigration, it appears that Huckabee may be even more of a craven flip-flopper than Romney. Now that's an accomplishment.

Fred's last stand

By Brendan Loy

This evening, South Carolinians will see a Fred Thompson ad blitz:

NRO Peter Robinson calls it "straightforward, down-to-earth, and, in my judgment, utterly compelling." But will it be enough? The latest polls don't look encouraging. Whither Fred-mentum?

Speaking of polls, the latest one in Florida shows Giuliani in third place. And I had forgotten this, but the Sunshine State is winner-take-all, so Rudy's gotta win it; a close second does him no good.

Don't bet yet on only one brokered convention

By Joe Loy

WashPost columnist Ruth Marcus explains why the Dems can get gridlocked, too (and by all means read the whole thing for the 1984-and-related backstory). / Hat tip: Bob Lutts, CT political Oracle & peerless constitutional Constructionist :}. / Emphases added:

...Indeed, 2008 is looking like 1984 on steroids: For the poorly organized, underfinanced insurgent (Hart), substitute a candidate (Barack Obama) with the money and organization to compete with the establishment candidate (Hillary Clinton). For a front-runner about whom the party faithful are hardly enthusiastic (Mondale), substitute a candidate (Clinton) who has a loyal, energized following.

McCain-Lieberman?

By Brendan Loy

The Comeback Codger is playing coy.

New Hampshire recount underway

By Brendan Loy

The Dennis Kucinich-funded New Hampshire recount began today.

Uncommitted wins Michigan! (sort of)

By Brendan Loy

If the Democratic Party ultimately decides to seat Michigan's currently banished delegates, Hillary Clinton will get 73 of them, and 55 will be uncommitted, according to The Green Papers.

The state also has 28 (hypothetical) superdelegates, who are by definition "uncommitted." So if you add it all up, Uncommitted wins, 83 to 73!

Of course, "winning" by a margin of 83 hypothetical delegates to 73 hypothetical delegates is sort of like being crowned the national champion of an imaginary college-football playoff. But still... way to go, Unc! (Can I call you "Unc"?) Unc all the way! Unc '08!! Yeeeeeaarrgh!!!

If only Uncommitted could give a victory speech! I'm sure it would be another transcendent political moment, a stirring celebration of yet another barrier-breaking victory:

"They said this day would never come... they said a non-corporeal entity, a mere word on a printed piece of paper, running against various homo sapien opponents, could never win this primary... but they were wrong, weren't they, Michigan? They were wrong!"

[crowd cheers, chants "Unc! Unc! Unc!"]

"You showed them that our undefined, noncommittal message is resonating with the American people! To all of my countrymen who don't know what the hell they want in a candidate, I say: join us! Together, we will take back this country for nobody specific and nothing in particular!"

Yes, as my dad says in comments, it would truly be an undefining moment in our nation's history.

So... now what?

By Brendan Loy

I didn't actually get to watch very much televised coverage of last night's Michigan results -- the American Idol premiere was on, we only have one TV, and I have a sleep-deprived wife with veto power :) -- but I did catch a bit of CNN's analysis late in the evening while I was trying to shush Loyette to sleep. I saw Anderson Cooper game-planning the next few weeks of primaries, and it seemed to me that he was talking for the first time about a brokered GOP convention as a serious possibility, as opposed to just a pundits' dream. And he's not the only one. Our resident Republican realist Andrew, who is not exactly prone to making wild and crazy predictions, wrote this in comments last night:

Romney wins Michigan, and I think Huckabee wins a close but very divided field in South Carolina. I honestly think we have a great chance to get to the RNC with Huckabee holding a slight plurality of delegates, but Romney, McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani will broker amongst themselves to take the nomination and shut out Huckabee.

He adds that this "may not be a bad thing" for the GOP, and makes a pretty interesting argument for that point of view, but you can read the full comment for that. I'm just focused on the fact that this brokered-convention thing is looking like a real live possibility. In fact, it's getting harder and harder to see how it won't happen.

The key to preventing a brokered convention, it seems to me, is for Giuliani to completely collapse. Because if, as expected, he wins the winner-take-all northeastern states -- New York, Connecticut, New Jersey (hat tip: Halperin) -- and gets at least a sizeable share of the vote in Florida, California, etc., he'll have a decent chunk of delegates. And certainly, Huckabee is going to rack up a bunch of delegates, too, from evangelical support alone. But I don't think either of those polar opposites of the Republican coalition can cobble together a majority.

There's probably more than enough space in between the poles for a single anti-Huck/anti-Rudy candidate to get a majority of delegates. The problem is, there is no such candidate right now -- there are three of 'em! That trio may soon be down to two -- Romney's win last night is bad news for Thompson, and if he doesn't win (or finish a close second in) South Carolina this Saturday, he may be finished -- but it's now impossible to imagine either McCain or Romney dropping out before Pooper Scooper Tuesday. Unless one of them dominates the non-Rudy, non-Huck states on that day, it's hard to imagine the GOP delegate count being anything other than a hopelessly splintered four-way race...

...unless Giuliani doesn't win those northeastern states, and doesn't do well in the other Rudy-friendly locales like Florida and Cali. His support has been fading, and 3% in Michigan (behind Thompson and Paul, again) isn't exactly a vote of confidence. What if the "Giuliani Republicans" in the northeast abandon Rudy for McCain? Or, what if McCain and Giuliani split the moderate/centrist vote -- and emerging "conservative" front-runner Romney wins those states? I don't think either scenario is inconceivable.

But unless something like what I've just described happens, I don't see how any Republican is going to earn a majority of delegates at the polls. Of course, I haven't exactly been on a roll with my predictions lately (I said Romney would win New Hampshire, McCain would win Michigan, Obama would not lose a single primary, and Ohio State would beat LSU), so now I've just destroyed any hope of a brokered convention by predicting it. Darn it. :)

P.S. I just added the Maine GOP caucuses (February 1, in between Florida and Super Tuesday) to my countdown sidebar at left. Respect Maine! Remember (the) Maine! Are you listening, Fred? Heh.

Mitt Romney's breach of protocol

By Brendan Loy

This isn't going to soothe any of the bad blood between the McCain and Romney camps.

Romney wins Michigan; on Dem side, a moral victory for Uncommitted?

By Brendan Loy

The polls aren't closed yet in Michigan's westernmost counties, but early results are trickling in from the rest of the state. On the GOP side, it's Romney 37%, McCain 31%, Huckabee 16%, Paul 6%, Thompson 4%, Giuliani 3%, Uncommitted 3%, with 5 percent of the precincts reporting. The Mitt-McCain-Huck split is pretty consistent with the leaked exit poll numbers.

Meanwhile, on the Dem side, it's Clinton 62%, Uncommitted 33%, Kucinich 4%, with 6 percent reporting. Will Hillary beat Uncommitted 2-to-1? So far, she's not!

UPDATE: CNN calls it for Romney.

Other networks, too.

Mitt takes home the gold!

P.S. You know what this means? Chaos!

UPDATE 2: On the Dem side, exit polls show that among African-Americans, it's Uncommitted 69%, Clinton 25%! This does not bode well for Hillary's chances in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, in the Las Vegas debate, Clinton and Obama continue to tone down the racial talk. More here.

UPDATE, 10:13 PM: Uncommitted is closing the gap!! With 59 percent of the precincts reporting, it's now Clinton 58%, Uncommitted 37%. Hillary's already under her embarassment threshold, and I'm guessing there are some urban precincts still to report, as they tend to come in late. With Hillary's horrendous showing among African-American voters, could this end up something like 55% to 40%? That would be humiliating on the order of Bush-Buchanan New Hampshire '92, no?

In any event, it certainly looks like a moral victory for Uncommitted!

P.S. Welcome, InstaPundit readers!

UPDATE, 6:51 AM: Did I call it or what? With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, it's Hillary 55%, Uncommitted 40%, just like I predicted above. Kucinich got 4%, Dodd 1% (his first breakthrough into single digits!), Gravel 0%.

But wait -- here comes the spin! Clinton's campaign manager says, "Tonight Michigan Democrats spoke loudly for a new beginning." And so they did: they gave nobody in particular almost as many votes as the "inevitable" Mrs. Clinton!

Nevada supremes say no to Kucinich

By Brendan Loy

Breaking news from the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "The Nevada Supreme Court says MSNBC does not have to allow Dennis Kucinich on stage tonight for the Democratic debate."

Good. A terrible precedent is reversed.

P.S. Added bonus: the Kucinich Krazies' blubberingly angry reactions will be amusing to watch.

UPDATE: Mark Halperin has a link to the court's ruling. The New York Times blog has more.

As for the substance of the debate, Halperin reports that each candidate will get to ask each other candidate two questions. Also, Tim Russert has suggested that there will be questions about the recent racial controversy.

In other Nevada-related news, the Review-Journal will reportedly endorse Obama tomorrow.

UPDATE 2: You can watch the debate live here.

Exit polls show Romney up

By Brendan Loy

Via NRO: "I'm hearing the first round of exit polls have Romney 35, McCain 29, Huckabee 15, Ron Paul 10, Giuliani 4. [What about Fred? -ed.] This doesn't count absentee ballots. ... Of course, all the standard disclaimers apply, and the later voters may differ from the early rounds, and the polls are still open, so if you're a Michigander, go out and vote for your favorite."

Derek has more in comments on my previous post.

UPDATE: Drudge says, "FINAL EXIT POLLS SHOW: Romney 34, McCain 28, Huckabee 17."

More here on the exit polls.

Real numbers will soon begin to trickle in here.

UPDATE 2: In comments, Brian Foster suggests that Wolf Blitzer just accidentally tipped his hand on air:

Wolf just slipped up: "once the polls are closed we'll be able to make some -- we'll possibly be able to make some projections . . . "

CNN calls it for Romney at 9:01.

We'll see soon enough.

Goooo McCain, Beeeeat Romney

By Brendan Loy

The Appalachian State Michigan primary is today, and various anecdotal reports suggest that turnout is low. The conventional wisdom is that low turnout helps Mitt Romney, who gets more support from the more committed, rock-ribbed Republicans (whereas McCain is counting on some crossover votes from independents and Democrats). Then again, the conventional wisdom was that high turnout in New Hampshire favored Obama, and we all know how that turned out. (Besides, the Daily Kos "Democrats for Mitt" campaign may screw up this calculus.)

Anyway, I'm thinking that the reports of low turnout, and the CW that Mitt would benefit from same, probably account for Romney's InTrade surge this afternoon. Or maybe the bettors know something we don't -- but I wouldn't, er, bet on that. InTrade doesn't have a great track record this election season so far: "The price movement tends to respond to conventional wisdom and polling data; it doesn't lead them."

Meanwhile, as Romney and McCain battle it out for the Republican/netroots vote, the question on the Democratic side -- with the Boyz 4 Change off the ballot, and zero delegates at stake -- is what percentage of the vote Hillary Clinton must get to avoid embarrassment. Her chief opponent, "Uncommitted," has been polling above 30 percent. (Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd are also on the ballot, along with a space for write-ins.)

Anyway... predictions? On the theory that "conventional wisdom is always wrong," I'm saying it'll be McCain 31%, Romney 28%, Huckabee 20%, Fredmentum 10%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 4%, others 1%... and, on the Dem side, Clinton 59%, Uncommitted 27%, Write-Ins 7%, Kucinich 6.3%, Dodd 0.5%, Gravel 0.2%. (Write-in votes for Edwards and Obama don't actually count -- those supporters would be better off voting "Uncommitted" -- but a lot of voters won't know that.)

Blogroll thoughts?

By Brendan Loy

What does everyone think of the new & improved (?) politics blogroll in the sidebar at right?

I added a bunch of the sites y'all suggested, as well as some others, and did my best to break the links up into three (admittedly somewhat fuzzy) categories -- while avoiding those arbitrary "left" and "right" labels.

Did I miss anything important? Is anything miscategorized? Did I add too much, make it too long/cluttered? If so, what should I take out?

Identity politics and the Clinton-Obama feud

By Brendan Loy

David Brooks:

Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.

Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill [Connerly? -ed.] and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners. ...

[T]his whole show seems stale and deranged to the younger set, as Obama and Clinton seemed to recognize when they damped down the feud yesterday afternoon. The interesting split is not between the feminist and civil rights Old Bulls, it’s between the establishments of both movements, who emphasize top-down change, and the younger dissenters, who don’t.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Brooks also mentions that, presumably before yesterday's detente, "Obama's campaign drew up a memo delineating all of the Clintons’ supposed racial outrages." That's the first I've heard of that. Does anyone know anything else about this supposed memo? Is it online somewhere? Was it actually released, or just "drawn up" and then discarded when Obama decided to declare a truce?

Fredmentum: a four-way race in S.C.

By Brendan Loy

Finally, a post-debate poll is out in South Carolina, and it shows Fred Thompson surging into a virtual tie for second place with Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. According to Rasmussen, John McCain leads with 28%, followed by Huck (19%), Mitt (17%) and Fred (16%).

The previous Rasmussen poll, four days ago, had McCain at 27%, Huck at 24%, Mitt at 16% and Fred at 12%. So it looks like Thompson's frontal assault on Huckabee's conservative credentials is working: Huck's down 5 points and Fred's up 4. Fred-mentum!

Says Fred File: "We are not surprised. South Carolinians know a consistent conservative when they see one. ... Fred has the conservative message Republicans crave; he has the ideas to keep America secure and strong; and he has the leadership ability to keep the Reagan coalition together."

Now Thompson needs McCain to bury Romney tonight in Michigan, thus hopefully turning the Palmetto State into, effectively, a three-man race. You'd have to think a lot of Romney's support among National Review-ish conservatives would go to Thompson if the king of silver medals drops out (or, more likely, stays in the race but looks like a lost cause). The question then becomes whether a strong second-place finish in South Carolina (behind McCain, well ahead of Huck) would be enough to keep Fred's campaign going, or whether he needs to go on the attack against McCain, in a "win at all costs" gambit.

[UPDATE, 2:02 PM: I guess that answers that!]

Methinks a strong second might be good enough. If Romney fades, the stars may be aligning for Fred to become the anointed "real conservative" alternative to McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani heading into Super Tuesday. But he needs South Carolina to, at the very least, make him look like a credible contender. (And, not unrelatedly, he needs money.)

P.S. Can Thompson make a play for (at least second place in) Florida? He's polling in fifth now, but that could change, no? He was a distant fourth (fifth, by some measures) in South Carolina a few days ago, and now he's in the thick of it. Thompson is sort of like the anti-Hillary: the more people pay attention to him, the more they like him. Maybe he just needs to jump and down and say, "Look at me!!"

On the other hand, Florida's early voting is an obstacle.

P.P.S. What about Maine?? Its caucuses are right between Florida and Super Tuesday, so everyone else will be ignoring it.* Maybe Fred can bomb the state with some last-minute ads, and/or a brief campaign visit, and pull off a stunning upset -- which he could then parlay into further Fred-mentum and, more importantly, pre-Super Tuesday campaign contributions.

Only one problem: are there any actual conservatives up in Maine? :)

P.P.P.S. Can Fred win the Perot vote?

P.P.P.P.S. He was a not-too-distant third place in the last Maine poll, in October. And he's got blog support! Maine for Fred! Heh. It could happen!

*...unless a desperate Romney goes there in search of another "gold" before February 5. Mitt Romney, President of Wyoming and Maine!

UPDATE: "Actually there are lots of conservatives in Maine," writes Jane, in comments. I actually don't know a lot of Maine's political makeup, so I will defer to the superior wisdom of anyone who does. My reference to the "Perot vote" wasn't a joke -- you gotta be at least somewhat temperamentally conservative to vote for Perot, no? Not to mention, willing to buck conventional wisdom? Well, ol' H. Ross finished second in the Pine Tree State. My gut tells me there could actually be an opening for Fred, if the conditions are right (e.g., McCain and Giuliani focusing their efforts elsewhere, Romney doing the same or already out of the race).

Judge orders MSNBC to let Kucinich debate

By Brendan Loy

This is a terrible precedent:

A Nevada judge said Monday that Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in Tuesday's candidates' debate in Nevada.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson said if Kucinich is excluded, he'll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate. ...

A lawyer for the network said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

The judge called it a matter of fairness and said Nevada voters will benefit if they hear from more than just Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

He might be right. Maybe it would be better, and "fairer," if Kucinich had been invited. But a judge has no business telling the news media whom to invite to their debates. MSNBC is appealing the state Supreme Court, as they should. If that appeal is denied or not heard in time, they should cancel the debate on principle. They can't allow their own journalistic decision-making to be hijacked like this.

P.S. Or they could just let Kucinich stand there, but not give him any time to answer questions. Would Judge Thompson issue an emergency injunction in the middle of the debate? Heh.

P.P.S. There were 42 candidates on the New Hampshire ballot, including such illustrious characters as Vermin Supreme, whose platform includes a "mandatory tooth brushing law," and Jack Shepard, who believes the Mossad had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Why didn't the judiciary in the Granite State force the media to include them all in the debates? Maybe next time around, they will! Where will it end? You have to draw the line somewhere, and there is no principled legal basis on which a judge can draw that line; it's an inherently subjective and political decision. It should be left to the debate organizers. Obviously. I can't decide if this is tragedy or farce.

UPDATE: Apparently Kucinich's argument is based in part on a breach-of-contract claim, i.e., that MSNBC breached a contract to have him on the debate (as it had previously invited him, and then un-invited him). I don't know whether that claim is actually meritorious, but if it is, then I have no problem -- or far less of a problem, anyway -- with the court ruling in Kucinich's favor, provided it's on that basis alone. It's only if the court is forcing MSNBC to include Kucinich on "fairness" or "public policy" grounds that I have a serious problem with it. Enforcing a private contract is another matter. (Although, specific performance is not usually awarded in contract cases; money damages are much more common. But how would you calculate damages in a case like this?)

Obama rips up the race card

By Brendan Loy

Hey, maybe he did read my letter, after all. :) Okay, probably not, but in any event, Barack Obama is finally doing the right thing -- disavowing the race-card nonsense and criticizing the Clintons on the substance of what they said, not on racial innuendo that plainly wasn't there.

Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics.

Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy. ...

"I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News [in reference to Hillary Clinton's comment about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.].  "That's something that has played out in the press.  That's not my view."

He then proceeded to criticize the substance of Hillary's comments about experience versus ideals, and similarly, to criticize the substance of Bill's description of Obama's Iraq position. Bravo. You can read all that here.

Later, according to the article, Obama "stress[ed] that he, former Sen. John Edwards, and Clinton all share the same goals when it comes to civil rights and equal justice issues."

Amen. (Hat tip: TPM.)

Of course, some will argue that Obama is playing the old Clintonian game here, letting his surrogates do his dirty work for him, then taking the high road once the damage is already done. And maybe that's exactly what he's doing. On the other hand, the race-specific rhetoric was never coming directly from anyone high-level within his campaign. (His wife did distort Bill's "fairy tale" comment, but she didn't take it to an explicitly racial place; she just suggested that Bill was calling Obama's campaign a "fairy tale" rather than only his Iraq position.) My issue was always that, for all his rhetoric about a more hopeful, less divisive brand of politics, Obama hadn't taken the lead in putting this thing to rest, even though it was some of his supporters and surrogates who got the ball rolling. Now he's actually displaying some leadership to match his lofty rhetoric. I'm not prepared to let him totally off the hook, but I'm a lot happier with him than I was 24 hours ago.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times:

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

Mr. Obama was seeking to be seen as taking the high road in the ongoing feud between his campaign and that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. First, he conducted three back-to-back interviews with the major television networks here. Then, he hastily called a news conference at the Reno Events Center.

After speaking to hundreds of Nevada voters at a rally here, Mr. Obama urged Democratic voters not to become embroiled in racially-charged or motivated discussions.

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

Hurrah! I couldn't have said it better myself.

P.S. That last part is, it seems to me, incredibly important. Obama is now on the record pledging to "speak out forcefully against" future race-baiting by his supporters. That means that when something like this happens again (and you know it will), Obama won't be able to rely on the argument that it's "not his job" to "bail out" his opponents -- nor, seemingly, on the argument that he "can only be responsible for what he says or what his paid campaign staff say." He has now assumed an affirmative obligation to have Sister Souljah moments whenever his "supporters" engage in race-baiting.

Will he keep that promise? Maybe, maybe not -- but if he doesn't, the media and his critics will be able to throw this quote in his face -- "Senator Obama, you pledged in January that you would 'speak out forcefully against' any misleading or unfair racial criticisms by your supporters. Why haven't you spoken out against _______?" -- and it'll be much harder for him to duck the issue.

The skeptics, I'm sure, will remain skeptical. But just imagine the possibilities, if he's actually sincere. President Obama, America's first black president, making a habit of actively debunking his supporters' attempts at inventing fake racism for political purposes -- and thus giving himself all kinds of moral authority to speak out against real racism when it occurs. That would be fantastic for the country.

In any event, we'll have to wait and see how things play out in future race-baiting incidents, but his statement sets an excellent precedent going forward. And he has to know people will be watching closely to see whether he's true to his word. I certainly will be.

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Obama: It Took Men to Give Women the Vote.

ScrappleFace is on fire with this story.

UPDATE: In a related story... another "Heh" for this. Warning: profanity!

Poll: Bull***t Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Racism kerfuffle update

By Brendan Loy

An Andrew Sullivan reader criticizes Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks the right way: on their substance. Bravo. (Similarly, from a few days ago, a legit rebuttal to Hillary's MLK comments.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama pretends that Bill was talking about something other than what he was actually talking about. Ugh.

Am I overreacting to this whole controversy? Probably. That Obama is putting his purported principles to one side for the momentary political benefit of watching the Clintons squirm is disappointing, but hardly shocking. And anyway, in the purely binary sense -- i.e., wherein everything bad that I say about Obama redounds positively upon Clinton, and vice versa -- it surely should be noted that the Clintons are by no means pure as the driven snow when it comes to identity politics. They've played the gender card shamelessly, and they've arguably played the race card (through surrogates) as well. (Apropos of which, in retrospect, I wish I had left out the fourth paragraph of my letter to Obama. It's true that the Clintons aren't racists, but it's also true, as Stephen pointed out, that "[w]hether or not the Clintons are racist personally is not the question. The question is, will they use racist tactics in pursuit of their ambitions." I'm not sure the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes -- the "cocaine" issue, for instance, is more complicated than people make it out to be, though that's another post for another day -- but it isn't an unequivocal no, either.)

The Clintons clearly weren't playing the race card in this instance, which is why my criticism of Obama is still valid. But I don't want people to get the impression that I think Bill, Hillary & co. are somehow totally innocent. Indeed, a big part of the reason I drifted away from the Clinton camp in the first place is because I was sick of their old-style political tactics, their divisiveness, etc. I just didn't blog about that as much, because I wasn't as engaged with the campaign yet (and, not unrelatedly, it was still college football season!). But it's something I'm well aware of. There's a reason why I said that this kerfuffle has thrown me back into the "undecided" column, rather than back into the Clinton column. (Heck, it may throw me into the McCain column. I haven't decided which party's primary to vote in on February 5. I can choose either one on primary day. And stopping Huckabee is a high priority!)

Anyway, this whole thing has left me somewhat disillusioned, but I do recognize that it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot. And I'm going to try to stop obsessing about it so much. No promises, though. :)

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton Decries Lack of Blacks in Fairy Tales.

Obama race-baiting update

By Brendan Loy

At a conference call with reporters this morning, somebody asked Barack Obama about the Clintons' recent controversial remarks and Hillary Clinton's response to the kerfuffle. Thus, Obama had a golden opportunity to make clear that he does not believe the Clintons' remarks were racist or racially insensitive -- and he chose not to do so. Instead, he said a bunch of other stuff that I have no problem with, but failed to do the one thing he needs to do, which is to unambiguously disassociate himself from this race-baiting nonsense.

As I wrote in a comment on my earlier post:

What is...surprising about this particular round of race-baiting is that the allegations of racism are so facially implausible. I mean, there is really not even a remotely plausible argument that the Clintons have said anything racist here. The whole thing is completely illogical.

Now, I realize these sorts of accusations are always rooted in emotion, not logic. But usually, when people cry "racism," racism is at least one of three or four potentially plausible explanations for whatever the underlying offense is (and the main issue is that they're jumping to that one conclusion instead of considering the other, more innocent possibilities). But here, the cries of racism don't even make sense, particularly with regard to the "fairy tale" comment.

So this whole controversy is really bizarre, and I keep thinking maybe Obama will come out and say, "Um, WTF are you guys talking about? Can we please get back to discussing things that are real?" Alas, it hasn't happened yet.

And it doesn't look like it's going to. Indeed, his spokesman told the New York Times, "People were offended at her words, and she can explain them however she'd like." In other words, we're not going to bail her out; if people want to vote against her on the basis of this self-evidently ridiculous nonsense, more power to them. As a political decision, I understand that, but it's very much politics-as-usual. Obama had a chance to take the high road here (while still attacking Clinton on substance), and he has clearly made a strategic decision not to do so. He is, it turns out, perfectly willing to let this racial stew fester, so long as he thinks it will work to his advantage -- even though the controversy is totally baseless, and he knows it. That suggests to me that, as president, he would let any racial controversy fester if he deems it politically advantageous. After all, if he won't distance himself from allegations as obviously insubstantial as these...

Anyway, this whole thing makes me genuinely sad. I thought maybe Obama was different. I guess not. I'm back to being thoroughly undecided. Congrats, senator, you've just lost a supporter.

UPDATE: I just noticed that I got Instalanched again this morning. And Classical Values also linked to this post. Welcome, new readers!

I agree with what Glenn wrote:

You know, I've noted before that if Hillary attacks Obama too hard she risks losing black supporters -- and others who've invested in Obama. But it works both ways -- if Obama looks too much like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even like he's too close to those two politically, he'll lose a lot of people who've rallied to him precisely because he promised "a new kind of politics." You can't run as a uniter, and engage in racial politicking at the same time. Well, you can -- but it won't work very well.

However, as I note in my latest (and perhaps final) post on this kerfuffle, I'm probably overreacting a bit. Ah well, you be the judge, I suppose.

Fred-mentum?

By Brendan Loy

It's been a heady few days for Fred Thompson. First came the dominating debate performance. That was followed by endorsements from conservative magazine Human Events and from the New York Conservative Party (of James and William F. Buckley fame). Next came the surging crowds at Thompson's events in South Carolina. On Friday, Bill Quick of Daily Pundit wrote, "I think we're about to see what will later be described as an 'amazing turnaround' for Fred in South Carolina." Now, even the New York Times is talking about a Thompson surge. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

As yet, there are no new polls to support, or refute, the belief that Fred is gaining ground in the Palmetto State. In any event, he's got six days left to turn all this positivity surrounding his campaign into votes.

P.S. On the other hand, it sounds like Fred's a little strapped for cash.

A letter to Obama about race-baiting

By Brendan Loy

I just sent the following letter to the Obama campaign through their contact page:

Dear Senator Obama,

Like many Americans, I have been inspired by your message of hope and change, and by your belief that politicians should be able to "disagree without being disagreeable." Your victory speech after the Iowa caucuses gave me goose bumps -- and I am usually a jaded political junkie, not prone to such emotional reactions. But your campaign is something special, or so it has seemed to me. Thus, in the past few weeks, I've changed from a tentative Hillary Clinton supporter to a tentative Barack Obama supporter.

I am deeply concerned, however, by recent events surrounding your campaign. Media reports indicate that a number of your supporters and surrogates have suggested that recent remarks by Bill and Hillary Clinton were racially insensitive. Yet the remarks in question, while perhaps substantively wrong, had nothing whatsoever to do with race. Criticism of the Clintons' statements should be limited to the actual substance of what they said, without resort to such divisive rhetoric. I urge you to publicly disavow the cynical tactic of using race as a wedge issue, and to dissociate yourself from anyone who persists in using such tactics.

Bill Clinton's description of your Iraq narrative as a "fairy tale" may be factually incorrect and wrong-headed, and if so, you should rebut it on its merits. But it is certainly not racist; to claim otherwise is ludicrous and offensive. Likewise, Hillary Clinton's comments about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have inappropriately downplayed the importance of ideals and rhetoric, and if you believe that, you should say so. But again, there is no reasonable way to interpret her comments as being racist.

Although I am inclined to support you over Hillary Clinton, I believe the Clintons' record on racial issues speaks for itself. They are by no means racists. Now, of course, their record should not insulate them from criticism if they were to say something genuinely insensitive. But that is not the case here. As I said, their remarks may be wrong-headed and worthy of criticism on their merits, but there is absolutely no reason for anyone to imply that the remarks are racist, and it is deplorable and indefensible to do so.

When I read Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, a prominent supporter of yours, arguing that Bill Clinton should refrain from criticizing your record (specifically, the "fairy tale" accusation on Iraq) because he and Hillary Clinton "owe the African-American community" for "saving his presidency," I am frankly disgusted. The African-American community is not a monolith, and no one should argue that substantive criticism of an individual African-American leader is somehow off-limits because of past support from other African-Americans. Assuming Mr. Jones was not misquoted, I urge you to disavow his comments and, if he will not publicly renounce them, disassociate yourself from him. (If he was misquoted, I hope he can publicly clarify the record about what he actually said.)

Similarly, I am deeply concerned when I read that Rep. James Clyburn is reportedly thinking about endorsing you in part because he believes it was racially offensive for Bill Clinton to state that your message of unity and optimism is a "fairy tale." First of all, that is not what Bill Clinton said; it was perfectly clear that his remarks were focused entirely on your Iraq position. Secondly, even if the former president had been calling your hopeful message a "fairy tale," that would be, again, wrong-headed but not racist. If Rep. Clyburn chooses to endorse you, I have no doubt that you'll accept his endorsement, and I don't blame you for that. But I hope you will make clear that you do not believe that the Clintons have said anything racially insensitive, as they have not.

A key reason I have been inspired by your campaign is because of your promise to change the tone of Washington's discourse, to move away from the bitter politics of the past toward a more hopeful and united future. Yet this sort of cynical, divisive race-baiting is a prime example of the very sort of poisonous tactics that have made our politics so bitter in the first place.

It is absolutely imperative that you avoid being associated with these race-baiting tactics. If you are to convince voters like me that you really intend to follow through with your promises of a new, more hopeful politics that unites rather than embitters, you must take a clear stand on this issue. Statements and actions that are truly racist or insensitive should of course be harshly criticized, but inventing racism where none exists for political or tactical advantage is deplorable and has no place in the sort of hopeful America that I hope to see you lead.

Sincerely,

Brendan Loy

P.S. By the way, I am a registered voter in Tennessee, which holds its primary on February 5. I will be closely following this issue, among others, as I finalize my decision of whom to vote for. I hope that, in the end, I will be able to cast my ballot for you.

Obviously, Barack Obama himself is not going to read my letter. But hopefully this isn't the first time someone has raised this issue, and hopefully it won't be the last (hint, hint) -- and if that's the case, then maybe it'll make an impression on whatever campaign staffer does read these things, such that the message percolates up. Probably wishful thinking, but hey, it can't hurt to try.

UPDATE: I only just now read this from today's New York Times article about the issue:

“Voters have to decide for themselves what they think of this,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, declining to discuss the matter further.

That's not acceptable, obviously. Obama needs to distance himself from this crap, and fast, or he will risk losing my support (and I bet I'm not the only one). The prospect of having a president who will allow his surrogates to cry "racism" whenever anyone criticizes him -- about anything, no matter how unrelated to race -- is not something I want to deal with for four or eight years.

UPDATE 2: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Well, that should help with the "percolation" process. ;)

Seriously, folks, if you agree with me about this issue, tell Senator Obama so, especially if you are a potential supporter. He needs to understand that he will lose support if he doesn't nip this thing in the bud.

UPDATE 3: And now, welcome, Democratic Underground readers! My whole letter is posted verbatim there, so the link isn't generating too much traffic for me, but they're having a vigorous discussion of it over on DU, which is great. Several commenters agree with me, while others are accusing me of being a "concern troll." Sorry to disappoint, but I actually am a (tentative) Obama supporter, as my archives make clear; I'm not just pretending to support him to make a point. It's telling that folks would assume that, though. How dare I question the party line, eh?

Anyway, the DU link might help spread this meme even more usefully than the InstaPundit link will, since most of the Instalanched visitors aren't likely going to be supporting or considering Obama anyway, and are more likely to dismiss this whole thing as a result of me deluding myself that Obama was ever a good guy in the first place. Whereas the DU folks might actually see fit to write to Obama if they agree with me. Which is great. Please do. And that goes for the Insty crowd, too. Ideological differences should have no bearing on our common opposition to both racism and race-baiting (which is itself a form of racism).

UPDATE 4: I just want to clarify one thing for new and infrequent readers. I am leaning toward Obama for the Democratic nomination, not necessarily for the presidency. The latter is a separate question, and one that I can't even begin to answer until I know who the GOP nominee is. So I'm just talking about the battle for the Democratic nomination at this point. And among the Dems, Edwards is totally out of the question for me, so Clinton and Obama are the only two viable options.

I used to favor Clinton because I felt she'd be a steadier hand on foreign policy, but after a while, I began to sour on her due to the endless divisiveness and triangulation of the Clintons (and my lack of desire to replay the pitched political battles of the '90s), coupled with a sense that her "experience" isn't all it's cracked up to be, and -- not insignificantly -- my distaste for presidential dynasties. Meanwhile, I came around to the belief that I might be willing to take a chance on Obama with regard to foreign policy (depending on who he picks as his veep and other advisers), and that he's vastly preferable with regard to those other intangibles I mentioned. I haven't given too much thought to the candidates' domestic agendas, to be honest, in part because I get the sense that they're pretty similar. Anyway, Obama's soaring rhetoric after Iowa helped cement my positive impression of him, but it's by no means the sum total of the reason I've been tentatively supporting him over Hillary. And it certainly won't be enough to convince me to vote for him in November. (Well, unless he's running against Huckabee, in which case he could just sort of stand there mute for the entire campaign season, and he'd get my vote.)

More than anything else, what I'm looking for in a president in 2008 is a leader -- someone who inspires confidence in his or her competence, and someone who has a coherent, rational, non-radical philosophy on the important issues, coupled with an ability to articulate that philosophy in a way that can move us toward accomplishing things, toward solving our problems as a nation and a world. My personal opinions on a lot of issues, including some really important ones, are unsettled -- I have more questions than I have answers -- so I'm not necessarily looking for someone who passes a series of litmus tests on various issues. I'm willing to be persuaded on a lot of things. What I want, again, is a good leader, and someone whose judgment I feel I can trust. None of the candidates have yet convinced me that they fit the bill, but Obama and McCain are in their parties' respective driver's seats for me at this point (with Thompson maybe gaining some ground).

UPDATE 5: Hillary Clinton fights back. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign continues to decidedly not disavow this nonsense; on the contrary:

A spokesman for the Obama campaign, Bill Burton, did not back away from its original criticism of Mrs. Clinton. "People were offended at her words, and she can explain them however she'd like," Mr. Burton said.

Congratulations, Senator Obama, you've thrown me right back into the undecided camp. Perhaps my vote would be better spent trying to decide among the Republican contenders rather than wasting my time choosing between a cynical, dynastic triangulator and a fraudulent "uniter" whose campaign is perfectly willing to deliberately stoke the flames of an absolutely nonsensical racial controversy.

Obama-Biden '08!

By Brendan Loy

I know it's a bit early to be talking about potential vice presidents in an Obama Administration, considering Barack the Builder currently has just 78 of the 2,025 delegates he needs to win the nomination, and is presently, at best, a co-front-runner with Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, I was delighted to hear this from CNN's Gloria Borger yesterday, on the topic of a possible Hillary & Barack (in whatever order) ticket:

I think it's more likely that Clinton could choose someone like Barack Obama than Barack Obama would pick someone like Hillary Clinton. I think if he were the nominee, he would be more likely to go to somebody like a Joe Biden, with a lot of foreign policy experience.

Yes! Let's get an Obama-Biden boomlet going! Maybe I should start a Facebook group or something. :)

P.S. Here's the video:

P.P.S. Ezra Klein is on the bandwagon. Kevin Drum, too. And Transplanted Texan at MyDD. The groundswell is growing! Joe-mentum!

Clintons face nonsensical allegations of racism

By Brendan Loy

Y'all know that I'm tentatively supporting Obama over Clinton in the Democratic primary race... but... can someone please explain to me how Bill Clinton calling Barack Obama's characterization of his position on Iraq a "fairy tale" is somehow "racial"?

I'm honestly baffled. Do black people tell their children lots of fairy tales? Is "fairy" not just an anti-gay slur, but an anti-black one? I just don't understand how this is remotely related to race at all, even arguably.

Thompson apparently dominating debate

By Brendan Loy

There's a Republican debate going on right now in South Carolina. I'm not watching it, but John Podhoretz says that Fred Thompson is "not only winning this debate, he is giving the most commanding debate performance we've seen from any candidate in either party since the beginning of this endless primary process."

At NRO's The Corner, Rich Lowry says Thompson has been "funny, pointed, substantive, and conservative." Kathryn Jean Lopez writes that his performance exemplifies "why he wears well with conservatives even after what seems like a lackluster campaign — he sounds like one of us. He spontaneously sounds conservative. Because it's a natural element for him."

But it isn't just conservatives who are impressed; so is the New York Times blog:

Mr. Thompson rocks tonight. Asked about the recent confrontation between United States warships and Iranian speedboats, he suggests casually that if Iran’s Revolutionary Guard becomes more hostile, the Iranians will see those virgins they’ve been looking for.

Heh. And earlier, "Mr. Thompson draws the biggest applause of the night so far with his litany of accusations against Mr. Huckabee, including the charge that he is basically a Democrat."

Jonah Goldberg says, "I think if he'd been this guy from the beginning, he'd be at the top of the pack." He wonders if Fred will get a bounce from his performance tonight. And a reader thinks it could be a double-bounce: "I don't know anyone who doesn't like Fred, but they all support someone else because they don't think he can win. If he gets a small bounce in the polls after tonight's performance, it could very well translate into a large bounce once it looks like he has a chance."

Peter Robinson seems to agree: "in my judgment, Thompson need only sustain this performance for a couple of days before votes, and money, start moving in his direction." In tonight's debate, Robinson adds, "the one consistent and authentic conservative in this race made himself the man to watch. When Fred roars, he roars."

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Ned Lamont has endorsed Obama. I'll try not to hold it against you, Barack. ;)

By the way, about that Kerry endorsement I mentioned earlier: NRO's Andrew Cline questions the timing.

Oh, and Dennis Kucinich is demanding a recount in New Hampshire.

UPDATE: Via Hot Air, Thompson on Huckabee:

Ouch.

Obama gets Kerry's endorsement; now he needs Edwards

By Brendan Loy

Like Al Gore before him, John Kerry today snubbed his former vice presidential runningmate and endorsed someone else for the presidency -- namely, Barack Obama.

What Obama really needs, though, is an endorsement from the man Kerry just snubbed, John Edwards. The question is how to get it. And I fear the answer might be: offer him the vice presidency.

I say "fear" because, personally, I don't want to see an Obama-Edwards ticket. First off, I don't like the new, angry, virulently anti-business John Edwards 2.0 that has emerged this election season -- and I don't think general-election voters will, either, once they get to know him. (Edwards's strong showing in national general-election polls is based mostly on people's lingering impressions from 2004, just as McCain's strong showing is based mostly on lingering impressions from 2000 and Giuliani's strong showing is based mostly on memories of 9/11. Things can and will change once voters actually start paying more attention to this election, which should happen around, oh, Labor Day.)

Second and more importantly, I firmly believe that Obama needs to pick someone older and more experienced, with "gravitas" and foreign-policy experience... someone like Joe Biden, for instance. A "message of change" is all well and good, but a lot can -- ahem -- change between now and November, like a terrorist attack or major developments in the Middle East, and a duo as inexperienced as Obama-Edwards would be extremely vulnerable to a major public-opinion shift in such an event, especially if the Republican nominee is McCain or Giuliani.

But Obama can't win the general election unless he wins the nomination, and it's becoming increasingly clear that Edwards is a major obstacle to that goal. At some point -- and we're not there yet -- it may behoove Obama to do whatever it takes to get Edwards out of the race, even if that means offering him the #2 spot and dealing later with the potential negative ramifications of that decision.

Obama lost to Clinton by 3 percentage points in New Hampshire, with Edwards drawing 17 percent. Does anyone doubt that, if the hard-core liberals who comprise Edwards's base had to choose between Obama and Hillary, the vast majority of them would pick Obama? He may represent a kinder and gentler sort of change than the mad-as-hell Edwards, but he's still a genuine "change" candidate, whereas Hillary remains the "establishment" no matter what her slogan of the moment says. Oh yeah, and she's despised for her triangulation on Iraq by those who believe the war is the defining issue of our time. It's an oversimplification to say that Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Hillary vote, but as a practical matter, that's basically what it boils down to. I bet Edwards's 17 percent would have broken down something like 10-4 for Obama if Johnny Boy were out (with 3 percent either for Kucinich or not voting).*

The bottom line is this: Obama needs Edwards out before Super Duper Tuesday. Otherwise, Hillary could sweep back into "inevitable frontrunner" status with a whole bunch of 40-percent pluralities on February 5, and suddenly people would start pressuring both Obama and Edwards to drop out, even though 60 percent of the party doesn't want to nominate Hillary (and even though the Dems' ban on winner-take-all delegate allocation makes it tougher to rack up a majority by getting 40 percent everywhere).

So, how does Obama convince Edwards to step aside? Ideally, he won't have to: if Edwards finishes third in both union-heavy Nevada and southern-fried South Carolina, you'd have to think he might drop out on his own. But what if, say, he finishes second to Obama in Nevada, and second to Hillary in his birth state of South Carolina, with Obama a close third? (Hillary shouldn't win S.C., but thanks again to the vote-splitting problem, she could.) In such a scenario, Edwards, despite losing the only state he won in 2004, could easily convince himself he's still in the first tier of contenders, and that he ought to make a stand on Super Duper Tuesday.

Perhaps, though, he could be made to see reason in such an event -- if the price were right. What if Obama came to him, the day after South Carolina (two days before Florida and nine days before February 5), and said: "Look, we both want change, but if we both stay in the race, Hillary's going to win. One of us needs to drop out before it's too late. You beat me in your home state, but I'm doing better than you nationally. If you withdraw from the race, I will make you my vice presidential runningmate, and we'll campaign together as a team, fighting for change."

Would Obama make such an offer? Would Edwards accept it? I don't know. (For what it's worth, Edwards will be 63 years old in 2016.) But imagine the political power of such a development. Just when it looked like Hillary was building up a major head of steam heading into Super Duper Tuesday (winning on Obama/Edwards turf in South Carolina, leading in the polls in Florida), the Boyz 4 Change ticket emerges, holding a joint campaign rally on Florida's Eve -- or maybe it would be better to wait until, say, February 2 or 3, after delegate-less Florida and right before Super Duper Tuesday -- to announce that Edwards is dropping out and will be Obama's runningmate, and that together they will change America. Hillary wouldn't know what hit her. And Obama would be your 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Boom. Case closed.

Like I said, I don't actually like the idea I'm proposing, because I don't think Obama-Edwards is a good ticket for the general election, either strategically or in terms of earning my vote. But if things develop just so in the next few weeks, I can see this becoming a very attractive -- perhaps even necessary -- possibility for Obama to at least pursue.

It would be better, of course, if he could coax Edwards out of the race with a lesser offer (Attorney General? Secretary of Something-or-Other?), and maybe if Johnny Boy is looking weak enough, that would work. But if Edwards is still viable enough to drive a hard bargain, it might have to be the veep spot that Obama offers him. And if Hillary is still winning 40% pluralities, Obama might have to do it.

*As an aside, did any of the exit-pollsters ask the question: "Who's your second choice?" It's not on CNN's exit-poll page. It should be!

GOP chaos theory

By Brendan Loy

Some good analysis of the Republican race from Larry Sabato:

Just as in 2000, McCain will face tough challenges in the South and among conservatives and strong Republican party identifiers as he moves beyond New Hampshire and Michigan (where he has to be rated the early "momentum" favorite against native son Romney). The key question is this: Can McCain manage to carry states he lost in 2000 by becoming as much of a darling in his own party as he is among Independents and the news media? If so, McCain could emerge as the nominee this time around. Yet McCain is despised by various wings of the GOP for his pro-immigration, anti-Bush tax cut, and pro-campaign finance reform stands. McCain must win over some of these voters, mainly using the electability argument--"I'm the one who can defeat Clinton or Obama in November, and the other Republican contenders cannot." If McCain fails to make progress with these key target groups, either his hopes for the GOP nomination will be dashed or a conservative independent candidate may arise to take a critical several percent of the general election vote from GOP nominee McCain in November. Of course, Hillary Clinton will remain the Republican nominee's best friend, assuming she's the Democratic standard-bearer. Having responsibility for electing Hillary may deter some possible independent conservatives.

South Carolina on January 19th looms as a critical test for McCain versus Huckabee, and possibly Romney, if he's still in the race, and Fred Thompson, who apparently is still running after his 1 percent showing in New Hampshire--no, that number was not a misprint. Rudy Giuliani's strategy of waiting until Florida on January 29th to make his stand has appeared improbable for some time. Nonetheless, even Rudy's gambit has a chance of working under the right circumstances. Giuliani has always hoped for chaos in the Republican field, with different candidates winning different contests in January, and chaos could be descending on schedule.

Chaos could also potentially help Fred Thompson, which is why, contra Marty, he ought not even consider dropping out of the race at this point, his non-misprint New Hampshire disaster notwithstanding. Even if he can't win at the polls, Thompson -- who, alone among the Republican contenders, isn't viscerally hated by a sizable portion of the Republican electorate -- could be a plausible "savior" candidate in the event of a hopelessly deadlocked convention.* Though perhaps not as plausible as Brian's suggestion, Haley Barbour.

*Of course, in theory, Thompson could drop out of the race and still step in as a savior later on. But it'll be easier to emerge at the convention if he at least has some delegates to start with.

News flash: N.H. primary wasn't rigged

By Brendan Loy

A Daily Kos diarist, in a post on the site's homepage, thoroughly debunks the notion that the reason Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire is because Diebold hacked the election. (Yes, this theory has gained enough currency among the nutroots that it needed to be debunked.)

You tell me...

By Brendan Loy

What's missing from my revamped "politics blogroll" in the sidebar at right? What other blogs (or quasi-bloggish websites) are indispensable daily reads during this crazy election season? I don't care if they're left, right or center, just so long as they've got good/interesting/informative content, frequently updated.

Polls? Where we're going, we don't need... polls

By Brendan Loy

Mark Blumenthal, a.k.a. Mystery Pollster, looks at what the heck happened in New Hampshire yesterday.

Richardson bows out

By Brendan Loy

Bill Richardson will drop out of the race for president -- freeing up his whopping 19 declared superdelegates. No word on whether he'll endorse anyone.

With Richardson joining Dodd and Biden in the graveyard of campaigns that never got off the ground, we've reached that odd point in every primary season where the second-tier candidates have all dropped out, leaving only the first-tier candidates and the fringe candidates. In this case, that would be Clinton, Obama, Edwards ... Kucinich and Gravel. Heh.

Meanwhile, it appears that Mitt Romney is putting all his eggs in one basket, and that basket is called Michigan. He's pulling his ads from South Carolina and Florida to focus on the Wolverine Skunkbear State. "We feel the best strategy is to focus our paid messaging in Michigan," says a spokesman. I guess he doesn't want another "silver."

What happens in Vegas...

By Brendan Loy

...doesn't stay in Vegas. In fact, it could change the course of the presidential race.

Culinary Workers Local 226, the 60,000-strong union of casino and hotel workers that could hold the key to victory ni the January 19 Nevada Democratic caucuses, will announce its crucial, coveted endorsement at 2:00 PM EST today. It had been widely assumed that, out of a desire to "back the winner," Culinary would endorse Obama after his big win in New Hampshire last night. But of course, Obama didn't win New Hampshire (well, unless you're counting delegates), and now there's a lot more suspense about the union's announcement. Some sources say Obama is still likely to get the nod, but even those folks acknowledge it's not a done deal.

Whatever Culinary decides, it will have a major effect on today's media spin cycle, either boosting Hillary's newfound momentum, reviving Obama-mania, or giving Edwards an unexpected shot in the arm. The media needs a new storyline, after all; New Hampshire is so yesterday.

By the way, don't confuse the Culinary Workers with the less important SEIU Nevada chapter, which backed Obama last night. I'm sure he's very happy to have that endorsement, but in Nevada, it's the Culinary Workers union that everybody wants to have in their corner.

P.S. NRO's John Hood -- whose post has the same title as this one, though I swear I didn't see his till I'd already written mine :) -- writes: "Long ago, ... the plan was apparently for this critical union to back Edwards. ... Now, with the sentimental favorite essentially out of contention, Obama is the fall-back. This segment of the labor movement really doesn't like Hillary."

UPDATE: Politico reports that Obama is "expected" to get the Culinary endorsement.

Meanwhile, a day after the a National Review columnist hailed Hillary Clinton as an "insurgent against the liberal MSM," a Clinton adviser is joining the WTF parade by praising George W. Bush: "George Bush gets the credit [for the high turnout and interest in this election]: He has done more than anyone to get the people of this country involved again in politics. They now realize it is important who the president is." Heh. NRO praising the Clintons! The Clintons praising Bush! Cats and dogs, living together! Mass hysteria!

UPDATE 2: Obama got the nod.

Hillary Clinton did not win New Hampshire

By Brendan Loy

Nope. She tied Obama, 9-9.

In delegates, that is. Which, in case you forgot, are what actually matter.

But don't tell that to the media. It would interfere with the storyline. :)

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan notes that, if you include the pledged superdelegates, Obama won!

If the convention were held today, New Hampshire's turn in the roll call would go something like this: "Mr. Speaker, the great state of New Hampshire, the Granite State, proud home of the first-in-the-nation primary, led by our great Democratic governor, John Lynch; New Hampshire, home of the 2007 Canadian-American League champion Nashua Pride baseball team and the 2006-2007 AHL Atlantic Division champion Manchester Monarchs hockey team; New Hampshire, whose state motto 'live free or die' was once again embodied last year when we became the first state to legalize same-sex unions without a court order or a threatened court order; New Hampshire, which cast its four electoral votes for John Kerry in 2004, and will once again proudly support a Democrat for president in 2008; Mr. Speaker, New Hampshire casts 12 votes for Barack Obama, 11 votes for Hillary Clinton, and 4 votes for John Edwards!"

Is peaceful libertarian Ron Paul a wacko racist bigot?

By Joe Loy

Based on various incarnations of a Newsletter published over several decades under the freedom-loving Texas physician's name, The New Republic's James Kirchick seems to think Maybe So:

...In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

For me at least, the TNR piece requires a slow & careful reading in order to form a Tentative opinion. There's a good deal of guileful Guilt-by-Association embedded within it; and it sure doesn't sound like the guileless old GoldStandard Freemarket Isolationist Son of Liberty we all Know & Love :).

Then again...well, Y'know: smoke, fire, & So forth. / Once again, here's the whole thing. What Say ye, gentle Peace&Freedomphiles?

The Comeback Kid, Part II

By Brendan Loy

Have I ever blogged two consecutive posts that were more spectacularly wrong than yesterday's "Ohio State will win tonight" and "When will Hillary drop out?" -- the latter of which opined, "I don't think there is any way she can beat Obama. In fact, I believe that she will not win a single primary. Obama's momentum is already unstoppable, at least by her."

Heh. Oh, waiter! One order of crow, please!

So... what the hell happened? How did Obama go from a double-digit lead to a stunning defeat in just 24 hours? Was it Hillary's tears that turned the tide? Was it the fire in her belly at the debate?

Did the race-based Bradley effect, absent in Iowa, rear its ugly head tonight? Did women voters decide they didn't want the first serious female candidate for president to go down in flames in the second primary?

Did New Hampshire's much-ballyhooed independent voters outsmart themselves -- as I pondered earlier in an Instalanched post, and as Rich Lowry subsequently pondered as well -- by voting strategically for McCain because they thought he needed their support more than that unstoppable Obama freight train did?

Or did those maverick, independent-minded Granite Staters simply overdose on the MSM's Obama-mania, and decide that they were going to do something unexpected, dammit, because this is New Hampshire, and that's what they do?

I think that last theory might be the best one. But Mark Halperin offers some more possibilities.

Anyway, Obama has conceded, and now Hillary is speaking. I thought Obama's concession speech was pretty weak compared to his victory speech five nights ago, though I did like the line about people "who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable." I'm still watching the early part of Hillary's speech as I write this (I'm a few minutes behind on the TiVo, thanks to some crying-baby drama).

I was rooting for Obama, but what the hell. From the perspective of politics-as-sport, this is great. It means both parties are going to have competitive nomination battles. Awesome. (Or, as one NRO poster put it, "We will have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore, and I'm glad.")

P.S. Hillary wants to "end the war in Iraq the right way." I like that.

P.P.S. She praises Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinih, Edwards and Obama. What about Gravel??

P.P.P.S. Speaking of crying babies, I thought this was pretty amusing: "Can I get my 5-month-old daughter photographed with every presidential candidate?" Heh.

UPDATE: "They said this day would never come!" What day, you ask? Why, of course, the day when a National Review columnist would hold up Hillary Clinton as an "insurgent against the liberal MSM," proof that "voters can stand up against an emotional 24/7 media Valentine for one candidate." Hillary Clinton, conservative hero. Heh! (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

UPDATE 2: Another theory on why Hillary did unexpectedly well: ballot order! "Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University [argues that] the order of names on the New Hampshire ballot - in which, by random draw, Clinton was toward the top, Obama at the bottom - netted her about 3 percentage points more than she'd have gotten otherwise. That's not enough to explain the gap in some of the polls, which presumably randomized candidate names, but it might hold part of the answer."

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the New Hampshire primary after a tight race with Sen. Barack Obama, CNN projects.

Hillary still leading

By Brendan Loy

With 20 percent of the precincts reporting, it's still Clinton 40%, Obama 36%. At what point does the media start trusting the real numbers over the exit polls, and begin considering the possibility that Hillary won't just finish a closer-than-expected second, but may in fact win?

Maybe they know something I don't know about which precincts have reported, but I'm beginning to wonder.

UPDATE, 8:54 PM: With 24% reporting, now it's 40% to 34% Hillary!!

It's looking more and more like my prediction that Hillary "will not win a single primary. Obama's momentum is already unstoppable, at least by her" may join "Ohio State will win tonight" and my premature Giuliani gloating in the pantheon of embarrassingly wrong Brendan Loy predictions. But hey, at least I was right about Katrina! ;)

UPDATE, 9:02 PM: Tightening a bit now. Clinton 39%, Obama 36% with 26 percent in.

UPDATE, 9:03 PM: 40-36 with 29% in.

UPDATE, 9:21 PM: 39-36 with 38% in. Is Obama going to rally at some point?? Andrew Sullivan points out that the college towns of Durham (University of New Hampshire) and Hanover (Dartmouth College) haven't reported any results yet.

Meanwhile, I guess I was spoiled by Obama's victory speech in Iowa, but it strikes me that McCain's speech sucks. He keeps stumbling over his words and stuff. He seems tired.

UPDATE, 9:26 PM: Now 39-37 with 42% in. That's the closest it's been. Specifically, 40,090 to 37,766. Hillary by 2,324.

UPDATE, 9:30 PM: Hillary's margin down to 2,156 now. And about those college towns: CNN reports that a total of 6,000 people voted in Hanover -- 2,000 more than Hillary's campaign expected -- so the Clintonistas are worried about that. Another important college town is Salem (Southern New Hampshire University).

Aaaand now the margin is back up to 2,800. Still just 43% in.

UPDATE, 9:35 PM: Hillary's margin up to 3,024. 44% in.

UPDATE, 9:38 PM: Now 40-36 again, and a margin of 4,336, with 46% reporting.

The Boston Globe has the town-by-town results. Very useful for watching to see what happens in Durham, Hanover and Salem.

UPDATE, 9:58 PM: Salem is in, and Clinton won it, 2,867 to 1,508. But I think Salem's more than just a college town, and I may have misunderstood what the expectations were for it. Durham and Hanover are the ones CNN has been focusing on, and there are no results from them yet. Also Rindge, though it's much smaller.

Anyway, with 56% reporting, it's 39% (57,458) to 37% (53,935). Clinton by 3,523.

UPDATE, 10:03 PM: About McCain's speech, I wrote that it "sucks" before he got to the excellent war-on-terror language. Still, I'd say that his delivery sucked, even though parts of the speech itself were actually quite good.

UPDATE, 10:28 PM: Rindge is in. Again, Hillary won, 381-348.

I don't think Obama can win this. He's now trailing by almost 5,000 votes with 61% reporting, and from what CNN was saying about the number of registered voters in those college towns, I don't see how he can make it up unless he's got some other major pockets of support also outstanding (and Hillary doesn't).

A question

By Brendan Loy

Did New Hampshire's independents outsmart themselves, believing that McCain needed them more than Obama did, and thus deciding to vote Republican in greater-than-expected numbers... producing a McCain landslide and a Clinton-Obama squeaker?

P.S. Or maybe it's Diebold's fault.

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Much more about Hillary's stunning victory here.

Actually, though, Hillary didn't win. She tied Obama, 9-9, in the delegate count.

UPDATE 2: In comments, Jim Hu links to his analysis of the numbers, which suggests that my "independents outsmarted themselves" hypothesis doesn't fit the data. The key point is that the polls actually got Obama's percentage total about right. They just badly lowballed Clinton's total. From Real Clear Politics, you can see that Obama was expected to finish in the 35% to 40% range, and that's exactly where he was: 37%. But Clinton was expected to get around 30%, and instead she got almost 40%! The logical conclusion seems to be not that Obama's supporters voted in the wrong primary, but that Clinton overwhelmingly won the undecideds.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Sen. John McCain will win the Republican primary in New Hampshire, CNN projects.

A Clinton comeback?

By Brendan Loy

Forget exit polls, real numbers are now coming in, as the polls have already closed in much of New Hampshire -- and Hillary's ahead! Clinton leads Obama, 11,734 to 11,097. That's with 10 percent of the precincts reporting... which is not a lot, but it's not nothing, either.

These will be mostly rural precincts, if I understand New Hampshire's poll-closing schedule correctly. Not sure what that means. Is Obama stronger in the cities?

Meanwhile, McCain leads Romney 37% to 28%, also with 10 percent reporting.

UPDATE: Now, as of 8:00 PM, CNN is projecting that Edwards will come in third, with first and second place undecided between Clinton and Obama. So their exit polls do not show an Obama landslide. Sounds like Lopez's numbers were about right. I'm telling you, this "record high turnout" may have been a bunch of bunk.

UPDATE 2: NBC reports that "Obama and Clinton are in a tight race which is too close to call." Time calls it "an unexpectedly close Democratic contest." And the spin has begun: "Clinton campaign officials are suggesting that a Clinton finish of less than 8 points behind Obama would make Hillary the 'Comeback Gal.' Note that in 1992 Bill Clinton lost to Sen. Paul Tsongas by eight points as well."

UPDATE 3: CNN projects McCain wins!

UPDATE 4: It's Hillary 40%, Obama 35% (!!) with 13 percent reporting.

UPDATE 5: If I'm doing the math right, I believe CNN's exit poll, based on gender, translates to an estimate of Obama 39%, Clinton 38%.

It shows 57 percent of the electorate being women, and Hillary beating Obama by a 45% to 29% margin among them. Obama won men 44% to 36%, but only 43 percent of the voters are men.

Also, Obama won almost 50% of voters under 40 years old, but just one-third of the electorate was in that age group. Among the two-thirds of the electorate 40 and over, Hillary won 42.5% to Obama's 34%.

So maybe there really was record-high turnout -- caused by a bunch of old women rushing out to vote for Hillary. Who knew?

Meanwhile, it looks like the "youth vote" fizzled again!

UPDATE 6: Dewey defeats Truman!

McCain by 6, Obama by 4?

By Brendan Loy

Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner says "I'm hearing leaked exits that have McCain winning by six and Obama by 4. But I'm skeptical—polls aren't closed, etc. Meaningless." And she adds in an update, quoting from a friend's e-mail, "turnout numbers suggest these exits could be even more unreliable than their usual unreliability. they depend on accurate turnout modeling."

On the other hand, do we actually know that the turnout numbers will reach the much-hyped "record highs"? As I mentioned earlier, "Poll workers and election officials are often overly excitable when it comes to turnout projections (presidential elections only happen every four years, so it's easy to forget how much higher the turnout always is than in other elections)." The fact that some New Hampshire cities are running out of ballots could mean the turnout is "epic" -- or it could mean that New Hampshire's local election officials were sleeping on the job.

For what it's worth, The Page reports that ABC's exit-poll analysis shows that "independents are voting in 'substantial but customary numbers,' and so far there’s a spike in older voters, but not younger ones (though they tend to vote later)."

In any event, whatever the turnout, I agree with Lopez that the individual candidate exit-poll numbers ought not be trusted; remember "President Kerry." But if -- if -- Obama were to win by only 4 points, the "expectations game" would label that a win for Hillary, no?

UPDATE: Mark Steyn advises Lopez to "pay no attention to" the exit-poll numbers. "Nobody's started counting. And I find it hard to believe the various town offices that have had to order up extra Democratic ballots are doing it because Obama's going to eke out a four-point victory."

On the latter point, I just want to reiterate that we don't know what the turnout is, or for that matter, what the "extra ballots" mean. They could very well mean that a bunch of polling-place workers, who were expecting a high turnout after Iowa, saw a normal turnout and overreacted to it (as polling-place workers are prone to do in presidential elections), panicked, called the secretary of state, and said, "TURNOUT IS HIGH!! WE NEED MORE BALLOTS!!" In other words, the fact that extra ballots were requested in the early afternoon doesn't necessarily mean they were actually needed.

Look, I'm not predicting a lower-than-expected turnout (or a smaller-than-expected Obama margin), I'm just saying that neither would be altogether stunning. Stranger things have most definitely happened. Turnout isn't a perception, it isn't a feeling, it's a number, and it's notoriously difficult to come close to pinpointing that number based on people's armchair estimates at midday.

Obama vs. McCain

By Brendan Loy

No, the title of this post isn't a general-election prediction (though it wouldn't be a bad one). It's a description of the all-important battle for New Hampshire's independent voters today. But NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks it's a battle both men can win:

In the final days before the New Hampshire presidential primary, the million-dollar question appears to be “will Independents vote for John McCain in the Republican primary or Barack Obama in the Democratic primary?”

The answer is likely to be that there are enough Independents — or “registered undeclared” —  to give each candidate what they need.

I hope so. We shall see.

By the way, if you're looking for early exit-poll results this afternoon, past experience suggests that you should check Drudge, The Corner and Wonkette. Remember, however, that past experience also suggests that such poll numbers are notoriously unreliable; just ask President Kerry.

Other sites to check, not necessarily for exit polls, but for frequently updated political news, commentary, and links: Mark Halperin's The Page, MSNBC's First Read, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, National Journal's Hotline On Call, and The Politico. (Do you have other suggestions for this list? Leave 'em in comments!)

UPDATE: According to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com, "we are unlikely to see any...leaked [exit poll] results until moments before the polls close." D'oh! (Hat tip: TNR's The Plank.) Halperin appears to confirm this.

UPDATE 2: Drudge has a siren up: "EPIC TURNOUT FOR DEMS -- We Are Out of Ballots!" He elaborates:

Secretary of State is making runs to Seacoast – Hampton, Portsmouth – and Southern Hillsborough – Pelham, Nashua – to bring extra democratic ballots. Many towns are reporting shortages... Developing...

Poll workers and election officials are often overly excitable when it comes to turnout projections (presidential elections only happen every four years, so it's easy to forget how much higher the turnout always is than in other elections), but if the turnout is truly "epic," that's excellent news for Obama. More here.

UPDATE 3: Heh:

Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani ran into each other outside the Brookside Congregational Church in Manchester, where Huckabee immediately asked the former New York mayor for his vote. “We get along beautifully on the trail," the former Arkansas governor said. "No animosity."

Say what you will about his policies, but by all accounts, Huckabee's a funny guy.

The comeback kid: Romney?

By Brendan Loy

Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping, pandering idiot. (Hat tip: Sully.)

But he may yet win New Hampshire. It seems Mitt is mounting a rally.

If he does win, I guess we can put to rest the notion that Granite Staters have some special talent for spotting a "phony" by "ask[ing] tough questions and see[ing] through the baloney." (Though perhaps John Kerry's win on the Dem side in 2004 should already have debunked that notion.)

Anyway... predictions? Let's see. Here are mine: On the Dem side, Obama 41%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 21%, others 11%. And on the GOP side, Romney 32%, McCain 31%, Huckabee 16%, Giuliani 7%, Paul 7%, Thompson 5%, others 2%. (There are a whole lot of "others" to choose from.) Of course, I haven't been doing too well with predictions lately, so take those with several grains of salt... and, with regard to Romney, I fervently hope I'm wrong...

Obama, McCain win early N.H. towns

By Brendan Loy

In the tiny New Hampshire hamlet of Dixville Notch, whose voters are mostly registered Republicans or independents, a majority of voters decided to cast their ballots in the Democratic primary, and Barack Obama won in a landslide -- receiving 7 votes to John Edwards's 2 and Bill Richardson's 1. Hillary Clinton was shut out!

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, it was McCain 4, Romney 2, Giuliani 1. Duncan Hunter, the only candidate to campaign in the Notch, got no love from the locals, receiving zero votes.

No word yet from Hart's Location, the other New Hampshire town to do midnight voting.

P.S. As I did in 2004, when Wesley Clark was the big Dixville Notch winner (like Duncan Hunter, he was personally on hand for the big event; unlike Hunter, he actually got votes), I would like to dedicate the song "A Town in Old New Hampshire," as sung by the a capella group "4 Under Par," to Dixville Notch. Audio clip below; lyrics after the jump.

P.P.S. Interesting comparison: the last time both parties had contested primaries, in 2000, just six Dixville Notch residents voted in the Democratic primary (Bradley 4, Gore 2), while 23 voted in the Republican primary (Bush 12, McCain 10, Forbes 1). So while it's obviously unwise to try and extrapolate too much from this tiny town (especially in light of its spotty prediction record; you'll recall that Bradley and Bush both lost New Hampshire in 2000, and Clark lost in 2004), it does seem that Obama's crossover appeal to Republicans and independents was on display this morning in the Notch.

UPDATE: Obama and McCain are also the winners in Hart's Location! On the Dem side, the tally was Obama 9, Clinton 3, Edwards 1. On the GOP side, it was McCain 6, Huckabee 5 (!), Paul 4 (!!), Romney 1.

So, in sum, with 0.6% of the precincts reporting (New Hampshire has 301 precincts; 2 of them are in, albeit the two most sparsely populated), here are the current results:

Obama 16, Edwards 3, Clinton 3, Richardson 1.

McCain 10, Huckabee 5, Paul 4, Romney 3, Giuliani 1.

It's a landslide in the making for the comeback kids! :)

The polls in most New Hampshire towns open at 6:00 AM and close at either 7:00 or 8:00 PM.

Go Buckeyes! Go Obama! Go McCain!

By Brendan Loy

My two favorite sports, college football and presidential politics, converge tonight. The BCS national-title game is underway (LSU is up 17-10), and the first New Hampshire primary results will be available in less than three hours, as the polls open -- and close -- in Dixville Notch and Hart's Location. I don't know how many people will be flipping between Fox and C-SPAN around midnight, but I know I will be!

UPDATE: LSU was up 34-10, but Ohio State just scored a crucial touchdown to cut the Tigers' lead to 34-17 late in the third quarter.

UPDATE 2: Still 31-17 with 5:43 left, and after two straight interceptions by LSU, it's pretty much over.

Meanwhile, back on the political front, here is some corroboration of what Matt Drudge was reporting earlier today.

UPDATE 3: LSU 38, Ohio State 24, final. (It was 38-17, then tOSU got a garbage-time touchdown with 1:13 left.)

So, um, yeah, nevermind. ;)

The Fox analyst says Ohio State "could very well be back in this game next year." Oh good lord.

Now, over to C-SPAN...

UPDATE 4: WTF?? C-SPAN does not appear to be showing Dixville Notch live!! Why does C-SPAN exist, if not to allow political nerds to watch live coverage of ridiculous, nonsensical, meaningless political traditions?

UPDATE 5: Phew, CNN is live from Dixville Notch!

UPDATE 6: It's midnight, and the New Hampshire primary is underway! Four of the 17 residents of Dixville Notch have already voted absentee, and the other 13 just dropped their ballots into the ballot box. ... And the polls are closed!

UPDATE 7: This is riveting.

UPDATE 8: Duncan Hunter is there. In Dixville Notch. Heh.

And they're about to announce the results!

UPDATE 9: McCain 4, Romney 2, Giuliani 1. No love for Hunter!

UPDATE 10: Obama 7, Edwards 2, Richardson 1. w00t!

When will Hillary drop out?

By Brendan Loy

With New Hampshire's most respected poll showing Hillary Clinton trailing Barack Obama by 10 points on the eve of the primary, and other polls also universally showing Obama in the lead, Drudge is now running a siren with the headline: "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN." He writes:

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.

I agree with those "others close to the former first lady." I don't think there is any way she can beat Obama. In fact, I believe that she will not win a single primary. Obama's momentum is already unstoppable, at least by her.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Hillary, with all her resources, will bow out before Super Duper Tuesday (February 5), or, at the very earliest, Florida (January 29). Who cares about the "Clinton brand"? Bill is termed out, and it's not like Hillary is going to get another shot at the presidency. (If you think those wrinkles are bad now, just imagine how they'll look in four or eight years.) Whose future political fortunes are they worried about, Chelsea's? This is Hillary's chance, this is her moment, and although it's now almost certainly a lost cause, I don't see the Clintons as the gracious, bow-out-early types. I expect them to follow Carville's suggested course of action, quixotic though it may be.

Still, what's really interesting to me is the possibility of Clinton exiting the race before Edwards does. I actually think Edwards has a better chance (albeit still a slim one) to catch Obama than Clinton does, because whereas the central rationale for her candidacy -- experience -- is one that the voters are clearly not interested in right now (pseudo-incumbents don't win "change elections"), and therefore she has no ammunition with which to fight Obama, the central rationale of Edwards's candidacy is change; his is simply a more angry, confrontational message of "change" than Obama's, and there are definitely a lot of liberals who will be receptive to that message (fraudulent and histrionic though it may be) if they hear it directly contrasted with Obama's feel-good take on things. A head-to-head Obama-vs.-Edwards battle could be very interesting, and while Obama's inherent charisma and political/rhetorical skill are such that I think he would still win fairly easily, I can imagine Edwards potentially catching him, whereas I just can't see Hillary making a comeback unless Obama makes some sort of huge unforced error.

P.S. An earlier incarnation of this post said that I don't see the Clintons as "bow out early for the good of the party" types. I modified that phraseology because, actually, in light of my last paragraph, I think an early Hillary exit would not be good for the party, since it would increase the possibility of an Edwards comeback, which would unquestionably be bad for the party, in light of his angry, polarizing rhetoric, which appeals to the very worst impulses of the Left. (In George F. Will's words, "Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them and who therefore think that opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.") Edwards is the one Democrat in the race who -- meaningless current general-election polls notwithstanding -- might actually lose to a cardboard-cutout Republican like Romney or Thompson (or even perhaps, heaven help us, Huckabee). So, oddly enough, it's in the Democrats' best interests for Hillary to maintain her quixotic struggle until Obama's coronation becomes inevitable, rather than allowing the election's dynamic and narrative to shift to a head-to-head battle between kinder-and-gentler "change" and mad-as-hell "change," which the latter might just win.

Mike Huckabee and the schism of doom

By Brendan Loy

Thomas Edsall breaks down the dynamic of the GOP race:

As the pared-down field of presidential candidates returns to battle today in preparation for next Tuesday's primary, the GOP faces the prospect of two struggles: one, an intra-party conflict to determine who is going to be the Wall Street/national defense establishment candidate; and, two, a civil war in which the winner of the first conflict takes on Mike Huckabee, the Iowa victor who is leading a right-populist/evangelical insurgency.

The initial GOP contest is to determine whether John McCain, leader of the national defense wing, will defeat Mitt Romney, who now carries the mantle of anti-tax, economic conservatives, to become the overall choice of the party's mainstream - or whether Rudy Giuliani will stage an improbable comeback. [Or Fred Thompson! -ed.]

Whoever takes the New Hampshire Republican contest on January 8 will face what is likely to be a far more divisive challenge from Huckabee in the next round of primary and caucus states. This fight threatens to fracture the Republican party - recalling the schism engendered by the 1964 Rockefeller-Goldwater battle.

It sounds like Edsall thinks the McCain/Romney/Giuliani/Thompson battle -- the fight to become the anti-Huckabee -- will be settled in New Hampshire. I don't think that's at all realistic. New Hampshire might send one or two of those guys down a path where they're out of the race by the end of the month, but it's hard to believe there won't be at least two anti-Huckabees still alive and kicking by the time Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) rolls around.

Really, though, that only serves to underscore Edsall's larger point. A deep and lengthy Huckabee-vs.-the-establishment schism would be potentially devastating for the party -- especially if, as I expect, Barack Obama has the Democratic nomination wrapped up by the end of Super Duper Tuesday. And if the Republican "establishment" isn't able to rally around a single standard-bearer, even after February 5 -- if, say, McCain and Thompson both remain viable on into February and March -- the allocation of delegates could be such that the GOP's civil war continues right up until the convention in September, which would mean the Dems would have a presumptive nominee for seven months while the Republicans continue to fight among themselves. The GOP leadership is probably disciplined enough to prevent that from happening, but it's certainly not impossible.

(Hat tip: Matthew Yglesias, via InstaPundit.) More from Edsall after the jump.

Obama presidency = comet impact

By Brendan Loy

Casey worries that, by electing Barack Obama president, we would be setting ourselves up for a catastrophic comet impact: "Black presidents are not good at destroying massive asteroids or comets. There’s a one-to-one correlation between black presidents and comet impacts." Heh.

Obama's victory speech

By Brendan Loy

A transcendent political and historical moment:

Andrew Sullivan:

Simply put: he sounded like a president. The theme was not just change; it was a new unity. And as a black man, he helps heal the past as well as forge the future. This really was history tonight. To win so many white voices, and bring together so many minorities, and use the unifying language that leaves the toxins of race and partisanship behind: This was the moment America stopped being afraid.

This was the America we have missed and have found again.

Obama: "our time for change has come"

By Brendan Loy

Obama is the clear Democratic winner in Iowa, with between 37 and 38 percent of the vote. Clinton and Edwards are in a dogfight for second, with just under 30 percent apiece. No one else got any significant support. Dodd, who earned a whopping 0% and one delegate to the state convention, and Joementum Biden (1%) are dropping out, according to CNN. You gotta think that Richardson (2%) will probably follow suit.

Obama is speaking now: "Thank you, Iowa. You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But on this January night, on this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do.

"You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this new year, 2008. In lines that stretched around school and churches, in small towns and in big cities, you came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents, to stand up and say that we are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come!

"You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington, to end the political strategy that's been all about division and instead make it about addition, to build a political coalition that stretched through red states and blue states, because that's how we'll win in November, and that's how we'll finally beat the challenges that we face as a nation.

"We are choosing hope over fear. We are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America."

I gotta admit, I'm getting goose bumps listening to him. He's good. I feel like I'm watching something historic here.

The only bad news for Obama is that Edwards is still very much in the race, so this doesn't immediately boil down to Barack vs. Hillary, as he would prefer. But I think Obama's momentum is going to become an unstoppable freight train pretty quickly. If John Kerry -- John Kerry -- could seize the momentum of an Iowa win and translate it into an out-of-nowhere nationwide victory, Obama should have no problem doing the same. I bet he wraps up the nomination on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5.

UPDATE: Obama just finished talking. I haven't watched him on the stump much, but: wow. Like I said, he came across really, really well. Inspiring, even. He's got a little bit of the old-style black preacher in his voice, but without the divisiveness of Jackson, Sharpton, et al. in his message.

By the way, only 3 percent of the voters in Iowa were black. CNN analyst Roland Martin says "Iowa has never elected an African-American to anything." So this is huge for Obama.

P.S. David Gergen says Obama's victory speech was one of his best ever. "There were echoes of Martin Luther King of that speech." I thought the same thing.

UPDATE 2: I just e-mailed my parents the following:

Did you watch Obama's speech? I just caught it, having just woke up from a nap about 15 minutes before he spoke. I thought it was amazing. I'm a pretty cynical man, senator -- well, no, "cynical" isn't the right word, but I'm a political junkie, not easily swept off my feet by rhetoric -- but Obama was giving me goose bumps. I really felt like I was watching something historic, which is exactly the feeling he was trying to instill. Everything about the speech was perfect. Really a transcendent political moment.

Barring a major stumble in the next month, I think Obama's momentum very quickly becomes unstoppable -- if Kerry, with his limited political skills, could catapult to victory from early momentum, Obama certainly can -- and both Hillary and Edwards drop out of the race after an Obama near-sweep on Super Duper Tuesday. And unless McCain wins the GOP nomination, Obama becomes the first black president with relative ease. McCain is the only one who can make it a race (and possibly only if homeland security/foreign policy issues rear their ugly head due to "facts on the ground" between now and November).

P.S. If Huckabee wins the nomination (heaven help us), Obama wins in a Reagan-like landslide.

Iowa caucus open thread

By Brendan Loy

I don't know how much TV coverage of the Iowa caucuses I'll have time to watch tonight, never mind how much I'll be able to blog about them. Maybe quite a bit, maybe very little; it really depends on Loyette's and Becky's schedules, which are nigh impossible to predict in advance. Anyway, just in case I don't end up blogging much at all, I figured I'd post an Iowa thread now, so y'all can comment on any news that may break.

In the mean time, what are your predictions? My money's on Obama winning a squeaky-close three-way race that really decides nothing, and Huckabee edging Romney with McCain third. But I haven't been following events closely for the last few days (obviously), so take those predictions with several large grains of salt.

Speaking of salt grains, give any pre-caucus "entrance polls" the grain-of-salt treatment as well. The arcane caucus rules, particularly on the Democratic side, mean that it's a very chancy proposition trying to predict the outcome of such close, multi-candidate races based on polls, even polls taken mere minutes before the voting. We really just have to wait and see what the actual votes say.

Bloomberg says no

By Brendan Loy

In probably the first and last major political announcement ever made in an interview with Ryan Seacrest, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg just stated unequivocally on New Year's Rockin' Eve that he will not run for president.

Not that he couldn't change his mind, of course, but it was surprising to hear a straight answer -- no -- instead of a non-denial denial.

(Becky and I are watching the countdown to the ball drop on ABC from our hospital room, which also has Wi-Fi.)

Biden hoping for Iowa surprise

By Brendan Loy

Joementum, the sequel?

P.S. I suppose I shouldn't say "the sequel," considering that Joementum I was a bit of a dud. But hey, maybe Biden can get a three-way split decision for third place! ;)

A five-way race for president?

By Brendan Loy

The New York Times is reporting that Mayor Michael Bloomberg "is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of launching an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run."

I was thinking about this yesterday, and depending on how things play out in the major-party nomination battles, I think we could see as many as five high-profile presidential tickets battling it out in November. If Huckabee -- who is perceived as soft on illegal immigration -- wins the GOP nomination, I think Lou Dobbs jumps into the race for sure. Meanwhile, Huckabee's reputation for having a Carteresque foreign policy could open the door for a McCain independent candidacy... maybe a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

And if Bloomberg is pondering a presidential bid now, imagine how he'll feel if the other options are the theocrat Huckabee, the nativist Dobbs, the warmongerers McCain and Lieberman, and... the populist crusader Edwards, perhaps? Bloomberg may be a nanny-stater, but surely he's got enough of the businessman left in him to chafe at Johnny Boy's extreme anti-corporate rhetoric. Moreover, an Edwards (or Obama) candidacy -- as opposed to Hillary -- would also beef up the rationale for a McCain-Lieberman bid, since at that point, all of the other options (Huckabee, Edwards/Obama, Dobbs, Bloomberg) would arguably not exactly inspire a great deal of confidence on the foreign-policy front.

So, how would such a race unfold? Nationally, I imagine that Republicans would be hopelessly divided among Huckabee, Dobbs and McCain, while Democrats would rally around Edwards to a much greater extent. Johnny Boy would very likely win a popular plurality nationwide -- but of course, that doesn't matter. What matters is the Electoral College, and such a five-way race would seriously open the possibility of an Electoral College deadlock. But of course, that would require at least three of the five to actually win some states, and Edwards to be held below 270. I imagine Huckabee would win some southern and western states, and it's conceivable that Dobbs could pick up a couple of southwestern states.

The wild cards would be McCain and Bloomberg. If Mayor Mike could carry New York, and maybe a couple more northeastern states, that in itself might be enough to deadlock the Electoral College, combined with Huckabee's support in the Bible Belt. But what is Bloomberg's ideological base, exactly? Although nominally a Republican, he's functionally a Democrat, and he'd have to pull significant support from centrist Dems. The problem is that, as I said, I imagine the Dems would rally around Edwards, both out of fear of Huckabee and out of an overwhelming desire to take back the White House after eight years of Bush-Cheney. Bloomberg would be painted as a potential Nader, and I suspect his candidacy would fade significantly in this environment.

The other possibility is that McCain could draw broad enough support from the center-left and center-right to pick off a few states. It's hard to predict whether that would happen -- and whether, if it did, it would take away so much from Huckabee that his southern strategy would fall apart. If the GOP splits badly enough, Edwards could even win pluralities in the Bible Belt.

Bottom line, as long as Edwards successfully moves to the center and tones down the angry populism a notch, I imagine he would probably win an electoral majority, possibly in a landslide (though many of his individual state margins would be sub-40% pluralities). But it would be an incredibly unpredictable campaign dynamic, and man, it'd be fun to watch.

P.S. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Ron Paul on the Libertarian line could draw Nader-like numbers.

P.P.S. If the Electoral College does deadlock, of course, the House of Representatives would elect the president, choosing from among the top three E.C. vote-getters. And the House votes not by individual member, but by state delegation. By my count, based on Wikipedia, the Democrats currently have a majority in 24 state delegations to the Republicans' 22, with four delegations deadlocked. So neither party has a majority. That's a very volatile balance, though; many states could flip with just one seat changing hands, and it's the new House that would pick the president, if it came down to that.

McCain's leaked anti-Romney ad

By Brendan Loy

Mitt Romney, the serpentine former governor of Massachusetts, has unleashed a negative advertisement targeting John McCain, hoping to prevent the Arizonan from becoming the "Comeback Kid."

McCain has the perfect rebuttal -- and it was produced by Romney's own media whiz-kids, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer. They made the ad six months ago, before they defected and joined the Romney camp. (They were for McCain before they were against him!) But it was never aired, as the McCain campaign didn't want to "go negative."

It remains to be seen whether the McCain campaign will actually run the ad, but they've already leaked it to Slate. The ad uses Romney's own words to paint him as the craven flip-flopper he is. See for yourself:

Ouch.

UPDATE: Here's the anti-Romney ad that McCain is actually running, apparently:

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.) I'm not sure the McCainiacs' strategy of relying on newspaper endorsements to sway Republican voters is the best idea; being "the MSM's favorite candidate" is not necessarily a good thing.

Barack Obama is the Boston Red Sox

By Brendan Loy

Anonymous Liberal makes an interesting analogy that rings true to me:

If you believe, as I do, that it is imperative that a Democrat be elected president in 2008, you have to consider how media coverage will shape the election. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the dynastic element of the election (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton). I suspect the media dynamic will be very similar to campaign 2000, where press coverage was overwhelming tilted in favor of the Republican candidate. If Obama is the nominee, however, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the historic nature of the election. Coverage will revolve around America's willingness to take a giant leap forward as a country and elect its first black president. And I think the mainstream press corps--who are political junkies at heart--will be rooting for that outcome, in much the same way sports fans rooted for the Red Sox in 2004. They wanted to see history being made. The Republican candidate, whoever it turns out to be, will have to try very hard not to be seen a merely a footnote to history.

I realize that many of my readers will respond that the "mainstream press corps" will "root" for the Democratic candidate anyway, as they always "root" for the Democrats. And there's some truth in that. It is an undeniable fact that journalists overwhelmingly tilt to the left, and it is similarly undeniable that, because journalists are human beings, their personal biases impact their work product. However, I have long believed, and continue to believe, that, conspiracy theories aside, the effect of the MSM's liberal bias on elections, especially national ones, is -- for the most part -- far less pronounced than its impact on the coverage of issues, particularly issues where there is a strong belief among liberals that their belief is the only moral one (immigration, gay rights, the environment, etc.). The MSM bias in covering those issues, as issues, is barely concealed at all. But when it comes to covering elections -- and indeed, in general, to covering individuals -- most journalists make an effort (somewhere between concerted and cursory, depending on the journalist) to keep their biases out of the picture, and play it down the middle. (I said "most," not all. I'd venture to say the percentage is declining. But I think it's still "most.") Sometimes this results in overcompensation, and thus reverse bias; sometimes it fails utterly, and the liberal worldview still shines through; often times, and worst of all, it results in the elimination of all nuance from a discussion (because everything must be either "left" or "right," which must be kept in perfect "balance") and/or the dumbing-down of politics into what Mickey Kaus calls "Neutral Story Lines" (or "NSLs"), which may or may not have anything to do with the issues that actually matter (usually not), but which are convenient for lazy journalists to focus on.

The dynamics of political journalism are, admittedly, changing drastically and rapidly in this New Media age. But for at least this cycle, the old MSM dynamics still have a good bit of life left in 'em -- and those dynamics are such that, IMHO, liberal bias matters much less than is commonly supposed, and Neutral Story Lines matter much more. And that's why I find the Obama-Red Sox analogy so compelling. Although the "first black president" meme seems obviously nonneutral on its face, as it focuses specifically on the (hypothetical) Democratic nominee, it qualifies as a NSL because there's nothing overtly ideological or even really issue-related about asking, "Will America elect its first black president?" (just as there's nothing ideological about asking, "Will America perpetuate the Bush-Clinton dynastic cycle?"). I absolutely agree that the MSM would eat that storyline up, and focus on it a great deal -- much moreso than the "first woman president" issue, because the media is far more race-obsessed than it is gender-obsessed. And it would certainly help Obama and hurt the Republican candidate.

In sum, I think Anonymous Liberal is right: entirely aside from the liberal bias issue, journalists will be "neutrally" rooting for Obama, if he's the nominee, because of the first-black-president NSL, and that "neutral" rooting will probably impact the dynamic of the race a lot more than any ideological rooting ever could. A brilliant observation. (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

P.S. By the way, in case anyone was wondering, I find myself, in terms of the Democratic race, increasingly souring on Hillary and leaning grudgingly in Obama's direction. I don't trust him on national security, at least not yet, but I think he might be able to win me over, especially if he picks the right running mate (Biden!!). With Hillary, I increasingly feel like the upside just isn't as big as I thought it was, and the downside -- well, the downside is obvious, starting with the dynastic thing. But I can't fully articulate the logic behind this change of heart; I'm just reporting that it's happening. It's by no means fully crystallized yet.

I'm very much an undecided voter, both among the parties' choices and between the parties, but if you put a gun to my head and made me rank them right now, I think the outcome would be something like: Biden, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney. (Don't ask me to defend those rankings intellectually; I can't. That's just my vague sense of things right now.) I don't know where to rank Thompson; haven't really formed an opinion of his candidacy. Same goes for Dodd and Gravel, though they're far less consequential, obviously. Edwards, Richardson, Huckabee, Kucinich, Hunter and Paul are non-options. Is that everyone? Oh, and Keyes. Heh. Yeah, also a non-option.

What about Biden?

By Brendan Loy

Glenn Reynolds offers his thoughts on the presidential candidates.

More twists and turns in Iowa polls

By Brendan Loy

A new Iowa poll shows Hillary suddenly up 15 points on Obama, McCain suddenly at 17 percent in a state he had written off, and Ron Paul jumping from 4 percent to 10 percent. Color me skeptical. Sounds like a screwy poll.

Besides, the arcane rules of Iowa's caucuses -- in particular the "viability" requirement, calculated in each precinct -- mean that statewide polls in a multi-candidate race have the potential to be extremely misleading. The proper answer to "who will win Iowa?" remains "who the hell knows?"

P.S. The Weekly Standard's Richelieu, in a week-old post, offers more reasons to mistrust Iowa polls. (Hat tip: Kaus.)

Hillary's blame game

By Brendan Loy

Mickey Kaus on Hillary Clinton's "much-rumored staff shakeup":

Implicitly blaming her staff [for a possible loss in Iowa] seems more promising than blaming her husband. She's stuck with her husband.**

**--Unless ... you don't think ... Now that would be a staff shakeup.

Heh.

I think Kaus is right, though, that neither the staff nor the hubby are Hillary's main problem. Hillary's main problem is... Hillary.

Mitt Romney, phony?

By Brendan Loy

The Concord Monitor on Mitt Romney:

If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core. ...

When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

Ouch. (Hat tip: Byron York at NRO's The Corner. That would be the same NRO that endorsed Romney.)

Rudy the Fascist?

By Brendan Loy

Ouch:

The American Conservative, if you don't know, is a paleoconservative mag co-founded by Pat Buchanan. They're harshly critical of neocons -- in fact, they hate Bush so much that they endorsed Kerry in 2004. They don't much like Rudy, either, because he's got quite a collection of neocons on his foreign-policy team.

That said, I generally suggest taking anything said by Pat Buchanan, or anyone affiliated with him, with a grain of salt.

Boston Herald endorses McCain

By Brendan Loy

The Boston Herald endorsed John McCain yesterday, making former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 0-for-2 with his hometown's ideologically opposed newspapers.

Breaking news!

By Brendan Loy

Britney Spears's 16-year-old sister is pregnant... with John Edwards's baby!!

Okay, I made that last part up. Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant, though.

All I want for Christmas is Ma Spears's parenting book...

Edwards! Affair! Scandal! Drudge's two-month-old breaking news gossip

By Brendan Loy

The National Enquirer's John Edwards affair rumor that's currently the Drudge Report's lead story is not actually new -- though the claim that Johnny Boy's alleged paramour is pregnant with his love child is a new and salacious twist. But the claim of an 18-month affair between Edwards and former campaign staffer Rielle Hunter has been a hot item in the blogosphere for more than two months, ever since it surfaced in the National Enquirer on October 10... and was, surprisingly, not picked up by Drudge.

Drudge did, however, link to Edwards's public denial... of an affair Drudge had never previously mentioned. The denial wasn't reported nearly as widely as you'd expect, though. The media at large, notwithstanding its usual tendency toward sensationalism, pretty much ignored the whole story. Hence, assuming this latest "developing" item from Drudge seeps into the MSM (as his lead stories usually do), this will be totally new information to a lot of people.

When the original scandal reports basically fizzled, there was much blogospheric talk -- particularly by Edwards-Hunter gossipmonger-in-chief Mickey Kaus -- about why Drudge and other media sludges weren't running with the story. The chief line of speculation was that sympathy for cancer-stricken Elizabeth Edwards was holding the usual suspects back from their usual "release the hounds" mentality. Well that, and the whole conspiratorial liberal-MSM blah blah blah. (That doesn't work for Drudge, though.)

Apparently, however, the prospect of a hidden love child was too much for Drudge to pass up. Either that, or bringing this scandal into the mainstream now, 16 days before the Iowa caucuses, better suited his not-so-hidden agenda(s). Either way, there is certainly plenty of room to question Drudge about his rationale for turning this National Enquirer story into a major headline when he totally ignored a previous story from the same publication about the same alleged scandal. It's not like the Enquirer somehow magically gained credibility in the last two months.

Mitt Muskie?

By Brendan Loy

The AP has a story today, linked near the top of Drudge, with the headline, "Romney Gets Tearful Recalling War Toll." The lede reads:

Mitt Romney's eyes filled with tears Monday as the Republican presidential contender recalled watching the casket of a soldier killed in Iraq return to the United States and imagined if it were one of his five sons.

This follows on the heels of Romney's Meet the Press performance Sunday, in which he got teary-eyed while telling the story of how he wept openly -- tears of joy, of course -- when he learned in 1978 that the Mormon church had ended discrimination against blacks.

Both of these are perfectly reasonable things to get emotional over, but methinks Mitt needs to watch his public displays of emotion, lest he become another Ed Muskie. Somebody needs to tell him there's no crying in baseball... or politics. The American people like their women unwrinkled and their men unemotional! (And their beer cold, their TV loud, and their homosexuals flaming.)

Is there life after February 5?

By Joe Loy

In the Dec. 17 NY Times [free registration required] Adam Nagourney shares the Shocking revelation that in the presidential nominations contests, Super Duper Tuesday just might Not constitute The End of All Things. [Why yes, I've been rewatching The Trilogy on TV lately; how'dja Guess? :] Emphases Added:

As campaigns try to keep up with this fast-paced, multi-layered campaign, there is growing sense among Republicans that for their contest at least — and perhaps for Democrats — Feb. 5 may not be the end of the line...

...The conventional wisdom is that a candidate must do well enough in the contests that take place in January — starting with Iowa and New Hampshire — to roll into Feb. 5 with enough force to sweep the table. Even if the candidate doesn’t actually accumulate enough delegates to claim the nomination, the pressure from party leaders to coalesce around a nominee, combined with the obstacles facing other candidates who might want to fight on, would carry the day.

Except that it is now entirely possible that no Republican will be moving very quickly going into Feb. 5. In fact, it is entirely plausible that Mike Huckabee of Arkansas will win the caucuses [in Iowa]; that John McCain of Arizona will win New Hampshire; that Mitt Romney of Massachusetts will win Michigan, Fred Thompson of Tennessee will win South Carolina and Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York will win Florida. In those circumstances, with no obvious front-runner, and with many of the candidates having adequate resources and varying bases of support, they could just divide the prize on Feb. 5 and move on to the next primary.

“Which means the race might not be over until the convention,” said Peter Robinson, a fellow with the Hoover Institution and a speechwriter in the Reagan White House. “I know there comes a time every year when journalists say this is going to be decided at the convention. I won’t say it’s probable, but it is possible: This race just won’t close.”

Still, there are considerable obstacles to a protracted nominating battle...

...Which Nagourney goes on to elucidate. Read the whole free-registration-required thing.

(Full Disclosure: my own Impish fantasy is TWO contested Conventions, a Dem 3-way and Repub 4-way, in which the seating of the Penalized Delegations ~ those from the Impermissibly Early primary-&-caucus states, previously presumed to be No Problemo because the respective Nominees Presumptive will grant them Full Dispensations for the sake of Party Harmony ~ become, in the unanticipatedly-consequential Absence of said Nominees Presumptive, the very Condundrum whose solution is Crucial to the the concoction of a Majority for Somebody. / IOW ohhh, wouldn't it be Fierce? :)

Does Lieberman's endorsement of McCain break a campaign promise?

By Brendan Loy

Joementum for John?

The netroots' reaction to Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain is relatively muted, notwithstanding Andrew Sullivan's prediction that it would make their heads asplode. The king of the netroots, Kos himself, writes that it's "kind of silly" to be "outraged" about this, and in fact professes to be "quite pleased with this turn of events." He says it reveals Lieberman's true colors at last (those of a "disloyal backstabbing ass"), and renders the hated Nutmegger increasingly irrelevant.

One thing about the McCain-Lieberman ticket alliance does seem to be sticking in the lefties' craw, though, and that's the fact that Senator Joe supposedly "promised the voters of his state that he would fight to elect a Democratic Senate and president." This claim deserves some additional scrutiny.

Are Hillary's wrinkles fair game?

By Brendan Loy

If you're a Drudge Report reader, you know that Matt's top "story" right now is a picture of a wrinkly and bedraggled-looking Hillary Clinton, above the headline "THE TOLL OF A CAMPAIGN."

What you may not know -- I only recently learned it -- is that the Drudge Report has become, at least in part, a Mitt Romney vehicle, courtesy of the Stormin' Mormon's senior communications strategist, Matt Rhoades, who is described as having a "direct line" to Drudge. I don't know whether Romney and Rhoades have anything to do with today's Hillary-bash, but it's widely believed that Drudge's recent anti-Huckabee headlines have been fed to him directly from the Romney camp.

But anyway, more interesting than the Romney angle, IMHO, is the sexism angle, which Ann Althouse tackles:

My first reaction to that picture is simple disbelief. How can she suddenly look that much older? I know Presidents age horribly in their few years in office, but she's not President yet, and this seems to have happened overnight. Did some treatment wear off?

But here's my second reaction, on reflection: We make high demands on women. A picture like this of a male candidate would barely register. Fred Thompson always looks this bad, and people seem to think he's handsome. We need to get used to older women and get over the feeling that when women look old they are properly marginalized as "old ladies." If women are to exercise great power, they will come into that power in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. We must — if we care about the advancement of women — accommodate our vision and see a face like this as mature, experienced, serious — the way we naturally and normally see men's faces.

I think Althouse is right. As such, I disagree with Glenn Reynolds and particularly with his reader, Thomas S. Baker, who writes: "Remember all the media attention regarding John Kerry and his alleged botox injections?" I think that actually proves the point, rather than disproving it. Kerry didn't get bad press for being wrinkly, ugly and old-looking; he got bad press for trying to improve his appearance, so that he would look smoother, more attractive and younger! His supposed use of Botox was seen as unmanly, and that's why it was a big deal. (To an extent, the same is true of John Edwards's $400 haircut, and that video.)

If Kerry had never used Botox, his wrinkliness never would have been a campaign issue, just as Fred Thompson's isn't. Glenn says "if Fred went from apparently smooth-skinned to wrinkly overnight, people would notice." But let's get real. The camera can make the same person look wonderful one minute and horrible the next, depending on camera angles, lighting conditions and so forth... not to mention how much makeup the candidate is wearing (and yes, the male candidates wear makeup, too). Point is, I'm sure there are plenty of unusually unflattering photos of male candidates sitting on various wire services' cutting-room floors, never published, and certainly never the top "story" on Drudge. So this isn't just a double-standard based on gender; it's almost an opposite standard. Women are supposed to look young(-ish) and fashionable (but not too fashionable) and unwrinkled at all times. Men are supposed to project an aura of not caring about their appearance at all -- beyond looking "presidential," of course, whatever the heck that means (and wrinkles probably help in that department).

Lieberman to endorse McCain

By Brendan Loy

So says the Weekly Standard. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

McCain-Lieberman '08!

(Previous McCain-Lieberman posts here, here, here and here.)

UPDATE: This shouldn't be seen as a huge surprise. Lieberman has stated repeatedly that he would back whoever he felt to be the best candidate in 2008, regardless of party.

More from CNN:

An aide to Lieberman tells CNN he decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism."

The Lieberman aide insists the senator does not see this as a "commentary on or an endorsement of the Republican party, only the person."

Lieberman had not planned to endorse anyone until after the primary season, but McCain asked Lieberman for his endorsement a few days after the two men returned from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq together, and Lieberman decided to do it, according to the same Lieberman aide.

Lieberman will continue to caucus with the Democrats.

Quoth Harry Reid: "I have the greatest respect for Joe, but I simply have to disagree with his decision to endorse Senator McCain."

According to HuffPost, McCain and Lieberman "will appear together on NBC's 'Today' show tomorrow, then at an 8 a.m. town hall in Hillsborough, N.H. They will talk with reporters after the town hall meeting."

Marc Ambinder:

The endorsement is further evidence of Lieberman's slow drift to the right in American politics and is bound to generate intense anger among Democrats who support him. But Lieberman and McCain have often walked in lockstep together on the prosecution of the war, have traveled to Iraq together, and have worked together on domestic issues like climate change.

The move will heighten speculation that McCain might ask Lieberman to join his ticket.

P.S. Daily Kos diarist JeremiahFP:

Both [McCain and Lieberman] are good men and members of the Beltway club of Very. Smart. People. Who. Are. Always. Wrong. About. Everything (Iraq, Iran, Whether Fred Thompson is sexy. Everything). Those very smart people will faun all over this. David Brodeur's head may explode with pride.

As for the rest of us, well, the battle lines are drawn once again. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He may be a good person, but, on matters of life and death and war and peace, Joe Lieberman is fundamentally wrong. Ou[r] party should stand up to him strongly.

Andrew Sullivan has more.

UPDATE 2: According to Fox News, a Lieberman aide said this does not mean we'll be seeing a McCain-Lieberman ticket:

[T]he aide said... that McCain did not ask Lieberman to join his ticket in the vice presidential slot.

Lieberman "just wants to serve as a U.S. senator, nothing more," the aide said.

Of course, that is what they'd say now, regardless of what might actually happen later. Personally, I can't see Lieberman turning McCain down if McCain begs him to join the ticket for the sake of national unity and national security. The question is, will McCain ask?

In other McCain-related news, I had somehow missed this before, but the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed McCain earlier this month. That's far more significant, it seems to me, than the endorsements from the liberal Boston Globe and Des Moines Register, which are unlikely to influence many Republican voters. Anyway, here's what the Leader had to say, in part:

On Jan. 8, New Hampshire Republicans will make one of the most important choices for their party and nation in the history of our presidential primary. Their choice ought to be John McCain.

We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.

Competence, courage, and conviction are enormously important for our next President to possess. No one has a better understanding of U.S. interests and dangers right now than does McCain. He was right on the mistakes made by the Bush administration in prosecuting the Islamic terrorist war in Iraq and he is being proved right on the way forward both there and worldwide.

McCain is pro-life. Always has been. He fights against special-interest and pork-barrel spending, and high spending in general, which ticks off liberals and many in the GOP who have wallowed at the public trough. Yet he also has the proven ability, unique among the contenders, to work across the political divide that has led our government into petty bickering when important problems need to be solved.

If you can't tell, I'm strongly leaning toward McCain as my preferred choice for the GOP nomination. Whether that means I'll vote for him in November is a separate question, but I think he's the best Republican in the field. Lieberman's endorsement sort of sealed it.

Edwards vs. Huckabee? Shoot me now.

By Brendan Loy

Is the Edwards campaign poised for a comeback? (Hat tip: Kaus, via Insty.)

I sure hope not. I think I can live with either Clinton or Obama as the nominee (depending on who the latter picks as his running mate... hint: Biden!), but I don't think I can live with Edwards, who has morphed from an optimistic, inspirational everyman* in 2004 (sort of a white Obama) into an angry populist anti-business crusader. If Edwards wins the nomination, it's quite likely I'll wind up voting Republican... unless, of course, his opponent is Huckabee. What a nightmare of populist demagoguery that race would be. And it doesn't get any better when you consider the possible third- and fourth-party candidates, Nanny Bloomberg and Nativist/Protectionist Dobbs. Good lord, that's gotta be the worst four-way presidential race imaginable. Who the hell would I vote for? Those Libertarians would start to look better and better...

*Yes, I realize a multi-million dollar trial lawyer is not actually an "everyman." But that's the image he projected, and he did it well.

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Glenn says: "[H]onestly, I think I'd vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I'd feel dirty the next morning. And I'd be even more likely to vote for Hillary or Obama [over Huck]."

McCain picks up two big endorsements

By Brendan Loy

The Des Moines Register has endorsed McCain and Clinton, and the Boston Globe has endorsed McCain and Obama. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

I'd love to see McCain pull an upset in one or both states. But I wonder whether these endorsements will actually help him, given conservative attitudes toward the MSM. Reading the editorials, it's fairly clear they're written from a liberal worldview. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but I doubt it will sway too many Republican primary and caucus voters.

Of course, independents can vote in New Hampshire, and were largely responsible for McCain's upset win there in 2000. But the newfound closeness of the Clinton-Obama race makes it much harder for him this year, because more independents will presumably do what Sally Eneguess is doing and vote in the Democratic primary.

In other news, Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin has some harsh words for Mike Huckabee: "One big government conservative administration in the 21st century is more than enough." Ouch. That hurts. Though it's not as bad as having your foreign policy called "Carteresque" -- by conservatives. (Hat tip, again: InstaPundit.)

UPDATE: Finally, an explanation for Huckabee's meteoric rise: Chuck Norris!

UPDATE 2: Richelieu at the Weekly Standard writes:

McCain is rising in New Hampshire polls, and savvy on the ground observers there tell me McCain's campaign is catching fire. I still think McCain should have rolled the dice and committed TV money to Iowa to beat Rudy and Fred there and nab a third place finish, which would rocket him into New Hampshire as the big surprise Iowa winner. But if the Mitt vs. Huck tussle damages both, McCain could still potentially upset the field in New Hampshire and then be off to the races. McCain's great advantage is that, unlike Huckabee and Romney, his numbers are deep and rock solid. You either like him or you don't. So he enters the chaos of the post-Iowa period with a tough knot of real support in New Hampshire, which is not a bad secondary hand to play in a chaotic situation.

Huckabee? No.

By Brendan Loy

Stephen Bainbridge makes the case against Mike Huckabee. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

If Huckabee wins the nomination -- and he's now not only leading in Iowa, but surging nationwide -- then, well, remember all that stuff I said about Giuliani winning? Yeah, pretty much the opposite of that.

UPDATE: Another reason to be anti-Huckabee: he is opposed to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Luckily, I don't think any president or Congress, nor even liberal activist judges, can invalidate that law...

(Hat tip, again: InstaPundit, who quotes a commenter on the linked post saying, "In this election we obey the laws of thermodynamics!")

I can has Iwa cawcuss?

By Brendan Loy

Is this the first InstaPundit lolcat?

(Well, okay, technically there's no cat involved, but he's using the syntax, anyway. Though really, the phrase in question originated with Ann Althouse, and is a reference to this embarrassment to the Hillary Clinton campaign.)

Hostages being held at Clinton campaign office

By David K.

Not sure how this hasn't been posted as a CNN alert yet, but an ongoing hostage situation is underway at Hillary Clinton's campaign office in Rochester, NH.  Senator Clinton is in Washington and has canceled her schedule for the day.  More info here.

McCain?

By Brendan Loy

There's been some right-blogospheric chatter in recent weeks about giving John McCain a second look, and after watching his latest ad, Andrew Sullivan wonders whether McCain is "going to become the Kerry of this election cycle: dismissed as old hat for months and then newly relevant in the weeks before the primaries." Maybe. Here's the ad:

My two-year-old dinner bet notwithstanding, I'd like to see McCain make a comeback. Whether I want him to be president, I'm not sure, but at least he's a grown-up, and at least he has actual beliefs and principles, unlike some candidates I could mention (cough cough, Mitt Romney).

P.S. Glenn Reynolds is less impressed, paraphrasing McCain's ad as saying, "Don't hate me because I'm smarter than you."

Hillary & Huma?

By Brendan Loy

The Hillary-Clinton-lesbian-affair-with-Huma-Abedin story, which has been spreading via blogospheric whispers for months, has finally broken on Drudge after making it into print, sort of, in the Times of London.

This comes after the L.A. Times supposedly decided to sit on the story, though some deny that. Regardless, somebody alert Mickey Kaus and Luke Ford: the "Dark Unseen Scandal Star" is coming into view at last!

One thing's for sure: if it's true, then judging purely on physical appearance, Hillary has way better taste in women than Bill. More on the lovely Ms. Abedin here.

P.S. One other thing that's for sure: even if these rumors are true, Bill can't say that Hillary is cheating on him, because according to his definition of sex, it's physically impossible for her to have sex with a woman!

UPDATE: Is the person stoking these rumors about Hillary Clinton... Hillary Clinton?

More on the Hil-&-Huma allegations here.

Not-really-liveblogging the Dem debate

By Brendan Loy

I haven't watched any of the presidential debates up until this point, so I figured I should watch tonight's Democratic debate, even though it conflicts with part of the Oregon-Arizona game. (Priorities!) At the moment, I'm watching it on a slight TiVo delay, and can I just say: is there no one on this stage who will point out that whether illegal immigrants should get driver's licenses is a state issue, and the President of the United States has nothing to do with it? I know these are Democrats, but jeez.

Also: "A Kucinich Administration will be a worker's White House" ... HAHAHAHA.

UPDATE: The Dems say the key to American security in the Middle East is promoting democracy. Isn't that the Bush Doctrine?

UPDATE 2: "I feel very comfortable in the kitchen." --Hillary Clinton. Heh.

President Huckabee?

By Brendan Loy

Surprising poll results from Iowa:

Democrats and Republicans are both headed toward heated showdowns in Iowa, where, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, Hillary Clinton holds a statistically insignificant lead over John Edwards and Barack Obama, and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney finds his long-held position as the state's front-runner challenged by a surging Mike Huckabee. ...

Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits. ...

Huckabee ... is well within striking distance in the CBS News/New York Times poll, where he trails Romney, 27 percent to 21 percent, with a 5 percent margin of error.

Rudy Giuliani was in third at 15 percent. All other candidates were in single digits, including Fred Thompson, who had 9 percent support among likely caucus-goers.

Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Coalition has endorsed Fred Thompson, essentially dubbing him the anti-Giuliani. Asked why NRLC picked Thompson over Huckabee despite the latter's arguably stronger pro-life record, the group's director pointed to "electability" -- an interesting rationale, in light of the latest Iowa polls. Anyway, the group's official press release is here.

Colbert drops out after S.C. Dems say no

By Brendan Loy

Just 20 days after jumping in, comedian Stephen Colbert has jumped out of the presidential race after being rebuffed by party elders:

His announcement came after the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council voted last week to keep the host of "The Colbert Report" off the state's primary ballot. The vote was 13-3. ...

"Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history—only 10 votes—I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle," Colbert said Monday in a statement. "It is time for this nation to heal."

Colbert had said he would run only in his native South Carolina, a key primary state. He said he planned to run as a Democrat and a Republican—so he could lose twice. Colbert, 43, later declined to file with the GOP, which has a much higher filing fee ($35,000) than the Democrats ($2,500).

Indeed, as I mentioned before, "the Republicans' filing fee is 14 times higher than the Democrats', but they don't require you to pass muster with some aristocratic 'executive council.' So the Democrats' system is more egalitarian, but less... democratic." And the undemocratic Dems just said no to Colbert. Interesting. More here.

New idea

By dcl

In the name of fiscal responsibility, I'd like to say I would support a Warren Buffett candidacy for president.

(Note, as cool as it would be I don't think a Warren Buffett Jimmy Buffett ticket would be a good idea, Warren is 77 after all, and we don't really need our president floating around on a sail boat in the Caribbean.)

Giuliani & the GOP: a premature "I told you so"

By Brendan Loy

Among some of my liberal friends (and some commenters on this blog), it has long been an article of faith that Rudy Giuliani cannot win the Republican nomination because he's too socially liberal and has too shady of a personal life. According to them, those closed-minded Republican religious wackos would never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay, twice-divorced candidate who once dressed in drag -- never, under any circumstances, regardless of his strength (or perceived strength) on other issues like terrorism and national security.

I happen to think the Republican base is a little bit less monolithic and one-dimensional than that, so I have repeatedly argued against this viewpoint for the last several years. (I think it's come up a few times on the blog, and I can also remember several conversations along these lines in the law school lounge.) I don't deny that Giuliani's socially liberal stances are a liability with your average GOP voter, but I've never believed they are the overwhelming, insurmountable liability that left-wing oversimplification of the conservative psyche would suggest.

Now, with the primaries fast approaching and Giuliani continuing to look like the front-runner, Ann Althouse says the oversimplifiers, like New York Times columnist Frank Rich, are finally having second thoughts:

Why is Rudy doing so well? People in the know used to think the rubes just didn't realize Rudy has dressed in drag and once lived with 2 gay guys; they just remembered him as the star of that 9/11 show they saw on TV that one time.

But now it's dawning on the pundits that Americans probably know all that stuff by now, so why isn't Rudy sunk? They're shuffling around for explanations. You could say "terrorism fears trump everything," or "the rest of the field is weak." But Rich thinks the right answer is that Americans really aren't as narrow-minded as they are portrayed...

I agree, except that it isn't Americans who have been portrayed as narrow-minded, it's Republicans. Let's be clear about that.

Anyway, Rich focuses on the extent to which "self-promoting values hacks" like James Dobson and Gary Bauer have puffed up their own importance, and that's certainly true. But in an odd way, the far left has collaborated with the far right to create the "rarely questioned conventional wisdom...that no Republican can...win the presidency without pandering...to the most bullying and gay-baiting power brokers of the religious right." For Dobson, Bauer, et. al., the benefits of this CW are obvious: it makes them seem more important than they are. For the oversimplifiers on the left, the motivation is quite different: painting all Republicans as Dobson clones is a lovely straw-man argument, lending itself nicely to the all-too-common lefty conceit that liberals are the only tolerant, decent, rational people in this country. (Many conservatives, to be fair, do the same thing to liberals, painting them with a broad brush based on the words and actions of a zealous few. In fact, I must admit that I may have been guilty of doing this on, er, one or two occasions. But I think it's more widespread on the left, though I admit that's a subjective perception that can be neither proven nor disproven.)

Anyway, Rich points out something that some of us who don't spend our time hanging out in the New York Times newsroom noticed a while ago: that Dobson & co. "don't speak for the Republican Party. They no longer speak for many evangelical ministers and their flocks. The emperors of morality have in fact had no clothes for some time." (Now there's an unpleasant mental image... shudder.)

Rich concludes that "should Rudy Giuliani end up doing a victory dance at the Republican convention, it will be on their graves." Yes. But it will also be on the graves of the armchair pundits on the left who have long insisted that Republicans are too one-dimensional and closed-minded to even seriously consider nominating someone like Giuliani.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

P.S. On a related note, I'm feeling pretty good at the moment about my two-year-old dinner bet on the GOP presidential race.

P.P.S. Here's more from Rich on the disconnect between evangelicals and their alleged "leaders":

But the most significant — and happiest — explanation for the values czars' demise as a political force is that white evangelical Christians and a new generation of evangelical leaders have themselves steadily tacked a different course from the Dobson crowd. A CBS News poll this month parallels what the Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick found in his examination of evangelicals for today's Times Magazine. Like most other Americans, they are more interested in hearing from presidential candidates about the war in Iraq and health care than about any other issues.

Abortion and same-sex marriage landed at the bottom of that list; fighting poverty outpolled abortion as a personal priority by a 3-to-2 margin. To see just how large a gap separates that evangelical electorate from the values organizations that purport to speak in its name, just look at the Values Voter Summit that the Family Research Council convened to much press attention in Washington last weekend. In a survey of participants to determine which issue would be "most important" in choosing a presidential candidate, the summit's organizers didn't even think to list the war, health care or fighting poverty among the 12 hot-button options.

The Values Voter Summit's survey of the attendees' presidential preferences showed just as large a disconnect. Rudy Giuliani came in next to last (behind Tom Tancredo, ahead of John McCain) in the field of nine candidates, earning only 1.85 percent of the vote. By contrast, among white evangelicals nationwide in the CBS News poll, he was in a statistical dead heat for first place with Fred Thompson; indeed, Mr. Giuliani's 26 percent among evangelicals nearly matches his showing among all Republican voters. The discrepancy between the CBS poll and the summit survey leaves you wondering who exactly follows Dr. Dobson and Mr. Perkins beyond the ticket buyers who showed up for their media circus last weekend at the Washington Hilton.

Indeed.

America's Panderer; Truthiness; and Hillary's non-promise

By Brendan Loy

Rudy Giuliani, alleged Yankees fan, is rooting for the Red Sox to win the World Series.

P.S. In other Election 2008 news, Stephen Colbert is in a statistical tie for fourth place in the Democratic presidential race:

In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth place behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (40 percent), Sen. Barack Obama (19 percent), former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent). Colbert finished ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent).

The poll has a 5 percent margin of error, so it's meaningless to talk about Colbert's 2.3 percent being "behind" Biden's 2.7 or "ahead" of Richardson's 2.1. As I said: he's tied for fourth -- with everyone else not named Clinton, Obama or Edwards. (He's tied with me, at 0.0 percent, for instance.) The headline, really, ought to be simply: Colbert gets measurable support. (Hat tip: E&P, via InstaPundit.)

And in more serious election news, Hillary Clinton says she "would consider giving up some of the executive powers President Bush and Vice President Cheney have assumed since taking office." At least, that's what the Associated Press says she said -- and the AP headline turns that into "Clinton Says She'd Give Up Some Powers," which is clearly quite different than saying she "would consider" doing so. And even "would consider" might not be quite right. From the original Guardian article about their interview with Mrs. Clinton:

Ms Clinton said the accumulation of executive power [under Bush and Cheney] had put America into "new territory" because Mr Bush and the vice president had taken the view that what were previously extraordinary powers were now inherent powers that belonged to the White House.

"I think I'm going to have to review everything they've done, because I've been on the receiving end of that," she said. Ms Clinton stated it was "absolutely" conceivable that, as president, she would give up executive powers in the name of constitutional principle.

"That has to be part of the review I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that," she said.

So, what she actually said was that she'll "review everything they've done," as "part of the review I undertake" (which is functionally equivalent to saying she'll set up a committee to study the issue), and that it's "conceivable" that she would give up some executive powers. And somehow the AP headline-writer translated that into "Clinton Says She'd Give Up Some Powers." Hmm. Wishful thinking much? (Hat tip, again: InstaPundit, who declares himself "somewhat skeptical" that Hillary will follow through on her, uh, non-promise.)

By the way, the Guardian article, if you're wondering, is headlined, "Clinton vows review of executive power." That is actually accurate.

When hot alien women attack

By Brendan Loy

Dennis Kucinich claims he's seen a UFO.

Did the craft's arrival coincide with his hot wife's appearance on the scene, by chance? It's always seemed odd that Kucinich would land a gorgeous redhead, but this could explain it: perhaps a species of alien metamorphs is trying to infiltrate our government, and they figured that taking the form of an attractive woman, wooing and marrying a presidential candidate, would be a good way to start. Luckily, this alien society clearly doesn't understand ours very well, or else they would have picked someone other than Kucinich.

But... wait a minute... what about Jeri Thompson???

Somebody needs to ask Rudy about this!

McCain on Woodstock: "I was tied up at the time"

By Brendan Loy

Heh:

(Hat tip: Joe Mama.)

Giuliani mentioned 9/11 again! Drink!

By Brendan Loy

A Republican debate drinking game.

Isn't it a little early in the election season to be drinking? :)

Pat Paulsen for the YouTube set

By Brendan Loy

You may have heard that Comedy Central comdeian and faux conservative blowhard Stephen Colbert, a native of South Carolina, announced yesterday that he's running for president:

He says he'll compete in his home state's primary... or rather, primaries: Colbert plans to seek the nomination, or at least some delegates, of both parties. (According to CNN, South Carolina's "Republicans are holding their primary January 19, while the Democrats will vote January 26.")

My first thought when I heard about this was: there was a movie about this, and it wasn't very good. My second thought was: "Can he, as a practical matter, actually do this?" Yeah, yeah, it's a nice funny story, a comedian running for president, blah blah blah. But what about the procedures? What about the deadlines? (What can I say, I'm my father's son.) The New York Times fills in the blanks:

New Year's in Iowa

By Brendan Loy

It looks like the Iowa caucuses will be held on January 3. At least the Republican ones. The Democrats may still end up having their Iowa caucuses on January 5 or 14.

Meanwhile, it appears increasingly possible that the New Hampshire primary will be held in December.

Rudy Giuliani will protect us from aliens

By Brendan Loy

Not illegal aliens... space aliens! A kid in New Hampshire asked him the question yesterday:

I think it's a legit question! But I want more specifics on Rudy's plan to prepare us for an alien attack. Also an asteroid impact, and that La Palma volcano. No, really! I will vote for the candidate who hires that kid as a disaster-preparedness consultant. :)

P.S. I also want to know the candidates' positions on protecting our senior citizens from robot attacks.

MLB balks at Dodd's Fenway pitch

By Joe Loy

Yes, it's a swing and a miss for Chris  :).

Here's how eastern Connecticut's Journal Inquirer called the play  (emphases added :)

Major League Baseball has put a stop to U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd's raffle of two tickets to see the Boston Red Sox play the Cleveland Indians for the American League Championship.

Dodd, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and self-professed lifelong Red Sox fan, last week offered a chance at the coveted playoff tickets to supporters of his long-shot bid for the White House.

There were a couple of critical catches.

The first was that the winner had to sit in the seats next to Dodd's.

The other was that entrants had to either make a campaign contribution of $20.04, a number that represented the last time the Red Sox won the World Series three years ago, or recruit two dozen friends who would sign up on the Dodd campaign Web site.

The tickets were for Game 6 of the playoff series, and, if that didn't happen because the Sox eliminated the Indians, the winner could go to Game 2 of the World Series.

Should the Sox lose the playoffs, Dodd was promising the winner free airfare to Iowa or New Hampshire to join him on the campaign trail.

But Dodd spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan said Friday that Major League Baseball had "scuttled" the plan...

Here's a Boston Globe take.  / The "Contribute" page linked from Chris's campaign website states:

"NOTE: The Chris Dodd Fenway Tickets contest is no longer active. Thank you."

:)

Fred Thompson doesn't care about the Constitution

By Brendan Loy

I didn't watch the GOP debate last night, but I was rather annoyed by the first line of Fred Thomspon's post-debate e-mail:

Yesterday, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto. While they played politics, Fred Thompson rose above it and took his conservative, small government, tax cutting message straight to the American people.

Huh? Debating (during a debate) an important constitutional issue -- one that directly affects the president's job, no less -- is "partisan bickering" and "playing politics"? WTF? It would be different if Giuliani was questioning Romney's religion or Mitt was gabbing about Rudy's personal life, but disagreeing substantively about issues is not inherently a bad thing!!

This sort of dumbing-down of political discourse is really quite irritating. Just because people feel passionately about an issue doesn't necessarily mean they're "bickering" or "playing politics." Sometimes, "partisanship" is a good thing, and those who claim to "rise above it" are just sanctimoniously spouting vacuous nonsense. It's like what George F. Will said about the claim that Michael Bloomberg represents "post-partisanship": "If so—if he is not a partisan of any large, controversial causes—why is he needed?"

I can't escape the Stanford loss

By Brendan Loy

Trying to get away from this whole miserable college-football thing (I didn't mean that, football gods! I'm sorry!), I decided to read up on some politics before I go to bed. So I clicked over to this Weekly Standard article about whether Rudy Giuliani is really the most electable Republican. And how does the article end?

FOOTNOTE: USC, ranked second in the county, with a 35-game home winning streak, was a 41-point favorite over Stanford Saturday night. Stanford won, 24 to 23. Obama can beat Hillary.

Damn you, Bill Kristol. Damn you.

(Who ever would have figured Kristol for a Tree-hugger?)

By the way, the article's most glaring error -- one so glaring that it's almost useless, really -- is that it doesn't talk at all about the system by which the President of the United States is actually chosen: the Electoral College. Who cares what each potential candidate's popular-vote margin would be? The state-by-state races are the only thing that matters! And when we're talking about the potential electability of a Republican candidate from New York, it's a decidedly non-trivial point.

McCain: new banner-holder for the Christian Right?

By JLR

Guest-blog by Josh Rubin

Whatever happened to the moderate John McCain who ran in the 1996 and 2000 elections?  By all accounts, he's dead (though, I must point out, Mandela isn't).

This was further cemented by an interview the aging Senator and Presidential hopeful gave to BeliefNet.com.  My favorite part?

But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

If this is the number one issue, maybe we haven't progressed much since the Spanish Inquisition.

[I don't know how to embed movies, but you can see the whole thing here or read the transcript here]

Of course, Jews and Muslims alike have voiced their displeasure--so he apologized.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton (or perhaps Richardson?)

By Brendan Loy

[UPDATE: This post has been linked by InstaPundit, and at least one person who followed the link interpreted my comment below as criticizing the military in some way. That wasn't my intention at all. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the military. Indeed, I share the anti-politician, pro-military attitude of most members of the public! It's the politicians who need to fix this, not the military or the public. As the asterisk at the bottom of this post makes clear, I wish our political class would improve, so that the public confidence levels in politicians and the military could become closer to equalized.

What's the problem with them not being equalized, you ask? Well, to be clear, I don't fear an imminent military coup or anything like that. Really, I'm just echoing a point made by the InstaPundit himself a few weeks ago, namely that the confluence of single-digit or low-teens approval ratings for Congress (and low-twenties for the president), coupled with supermajority approval ratings for the military, is intrinsically, conceptually bad for democracy in the long-term. Very few people would support a military coup right now, and very few military members would even consider mounting one. But if these sorts of numbers continue indefinitely, I would imagine we could very easily see a creeping increase in military, as opposed to civilian, power over governmental affairs. It's not because I'm anti-military that I believe such a trend would be a bad thing; it's because I'm pro-democracy.]

*   *   *

The AP takes a look at Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton fatigue. Count me among the 25 percent of Americans who say that anti-dynasty sentiment will be a factor in their 2008 voting decision. Not necessarily the deciding factor -- I'll still vote for Hillary if I ultimately conclude she's the best choice by a sufficiently wide margin -- but a factor, for sure. This dynastic trend clearly isn't healthy for democracy. It's one of several unhealthy trends at the moment, in fact (the public's extremely low confidence in the political class and extremely high confidence in the military* being another).

Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus is taking a look at Bill Richardson, who he argues is undervalued in the political betting markets:

Bill Richardson is trading at .60 on Intrade. I think that means his odds for winning the Democratic nomination are currently running 167-1 against. You should take those odds. 1) He's already at 11% in Iowa, where voters notoriously look around for an alternative to the front runners in the final 10 days. 2) Iowa, they say, is more important than ever! 3) A clear, major policy difference just opened up between him and all three of the candidates ahead of him, when they refused to promise to pull out all troops from Iraq by 2013; 4) The Iowa caucuses attract a small minority of relatively liberal Democrats who are likely to care intensely about Iraq and find Richardson's promise very appealing. 5) He doesn't even have to win to get a slingshot effect from Iowa. Gary Hart didn't win Iowa in 1984--he finished second with 14.8%--but that was enough to propel him to victory in New Hampshire and other early primaries.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.) Kaus adds, "I'm not pro-Richardson. He has a rep as a substance-challenged schmoozer and he's certainly a panderer. I disagree with him vehemently on immigration and No Child Left Behind. I just think he's currently well-positioned for a #1 or #2 finish in Iowa."

I'm not pro-Richardson either; I've flirted with the idea before, but his "promise" on Iraq is -- I think -- a negative in my book. (I'm not sure what the hell we should do in Iraq -- and watching The Fog of War last night didn't help any -- but I'm fairly certain it's irresponsible to promise complete withdrawal as a candidate, given how much the "facts on the ground" can change in the next 16 months, and given that candidates aren't privy to the kinds of classified information that presidents are. And regardless, precipitous withdrawal is an undeniably terrible idea... I think.) But I agree with Kaus about the potential for a Richardson surge. I think it's foolish to assume that the nominee will definitely be Clinton or Obama, with Edwards the only conceivable dark horse. A lot can happen between now and the first caucuses and primaries (well, assuming Iowa and New Hampshire don't reschedule to, like, tomorrow).

P.S. In other Election 2008 news, Christian conservatives are threatening to back a third-party candidate to be named later (Alan Keyes, anyone?) if that godless, cross-dressing, gay-loving baby-killer Rudy Giuliani wins the GOP nomination. This could significantly disrupt my theory that Giuliani is obviously the most electable Republican candidate.

*I'm not saying the public's respective confidence levels in politicians and the military are unjustified. On the contrary! It's the suckiness of our current political class that's the problem here, not the public's perceptions thereof. Political class, heal thyself! Or perhaps, un-suckify thyself!

Fred Thompson Facts

By Brendan Loy

Frank J.'s Fred Thompson Facts are pretty funny. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.) Yeah, it's basically the same thing as Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer jokes, but still, funny. Scrolling down, I found the Harry Potter edition of Fred Thompson Facts, from back in July. Heh.

Rudy and Romney and Fred, oh my!

By Brendan Loy

The New Republic's John B. Judis looks at the odds of a brokered GOP convention. Wouldn't that be fun?

Where's Waldo Mitt?

By Brendan Loy

This is neat: I just got an e-mail about a website called Map the Candidates, which has created a Google Maps "mashup" to track where the presidential candidates are campaigning, what happened at their events, etc. They're integrating YouTube clips, local media coverage, etc. A cool idea, says I.

Thompson finally announces

By Brendan Loy

Apparently some guy named Fred Thompson is running for president. Who knew?

Craig may resign

By Brendan Loy

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), he of the "wide stance," may resign today.

In other political news, Fred Thompson will announce his candidacy for president on Thursday. Though I must admit, I've always been a little unclear on the distinction between the announcement and the announcement-of-the-announcement. If you've announced that you're going to announce something, doesn't that mean you've actually already announced it?