Taking Da Bait

Well the U. S. presidential debates are finally underway; excuse me while I stifle a yawn. Republican John McCain duked it out for 90 minutes with his Democratic counterpart on the evening of September 26th. The topic of the debate was supposed to be foreign policy, but seeing as the world's largest economy, now about 12 trillion dollars in debt, needs another trillion to avoid collapse, dollars and some nonsense were inevitably discussed. Neither candidate offered a clear indication as to how we got into this mess or whether the financial "rescue" plan could get us out. The debate almost didn't happen: McCain decided earlier in the week to quit the campaign and the debates to come to Washington in an effort to fix things. Not sure he did much, but you have to give credit to the rarely seen bipartisanship exhibited by Congress. By the evening of the 28th, a draft financial plan was hammered out and is expected to be passed, meaning the world won't stop turning anytime soon. Coming to a screen/speaker near you this coming Friday, another debate: it's Democrat Joe Biden against Republican Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidates face-off. See you all soon.

The Dead Zone

One of the telecom companies has an ad that proudly says there are no "dead zones" in its coverage. Presumably the "dead zone" is an area of complete silence, where no functioning communications can take place. Hmmmm...it seems like the presidential campaign has hit a dead zone. After the conventions, during which time the democratic nominee Barack Obama got a bump in the polls, then fell back a bit when his rival John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin got her bump in the polls, there seems to be a deafening silence. The problem is, there is SO much to talk about. The nation's financial situation is rockier than the coast of Maine, and it seems like each day that goes by another financial institution is put up for bankruptcy or for sale. In addition, jobs are being lost in massive numbers and gasoline is creeping back up to four dollars a barrel. Figure this: last week both campaigns spent the better part of a week defending and/or criticizing (depending on whose side you are on)the phrase "lipstick on a pig". Seriously folks, we all deserve better. Maybe we can get serious again when the presidential debates commence on September 26th, but don't count on it.

Palin In Comparison

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, chosen by Republican nominee John McCain to be his vice president, is proving to be a big hit. She has so far manage to quell any doubts about her experience and is picking up, not necessarily in any order or importance: women, middle-class voters, conservative voters and (who would have thought)change voters. Any garden-variety political scientist will tell you that it is very difficult for an incumbent party (read: Republicans in 2008) to run on change, especially when the incumbents(read: Republicans in 2008), in the public's mind, have done such a poor job of straightening out the country. Although McCain cannot sell the change-agent story (he has been in Washington for almost three decades)Palin CAN. She is a new face on the national scene, even though she has no "Washington" experience. Indeed, there are several ways to slice and dice the experience argument. On the one hand, one might say she only governed the small state of Alaska, but it would depend on what you meant by the word "small". Alaska has about the same number of people as her competitor Joe Biden's state of Delaware. And, you can fit about 250 Delawares inside one Alaska! In addition, the GOP has gone out of its way to tell Americans Palin got more votes running for Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and Governor of Alaska than Biden did when he was running for president. Where are we headed with all this? Probably some prime tv-time interviews for Palin in the next few days, when she will have to answer some tough questions about a variety of issues; we will see how she holds up. September 26th: first presidential debate. Stay tuned.

ww

Unconventional Wisdom

It's been a while since we last were with you, and a lot has happened in recent weeks. Barack Obama chose U. S. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware to be his presidential running mate on the Democratic party ticket. This was considered a safe, indeed sane, choice. Biden is a long-time legislator who has run for president in the past and is considered to be quite knowledgeable in the foreign policy arena -- an area critics say is one of Obama's weak points. After the Democratic convention in late August, Obama gained a tick in the polls and for the first time the Gallup Daily poll had him at 50 percent.

On the Republican side is where things are REALLY interesting. Republican nominee John McCain could have taken the safe and sane route as he had plenty of qualified candidates to choose from, including Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who was a former Director of Homeland Security. However, perhaps sensing the race might be getting away from him, McCain stepped "out of the box" as it were, and picked Sarah Palin, the relatively unknown Alaska governor.

Palin was mayor of a small town in Alaska, then worked in Alaska state government before being elected governor a couple of years ago. Americans are quite split on the choice, some saying that living between Canada and Russia does NOT qualify you as having foreign policy experience, others arguing that she has more executive experience than Obama,Biden and McCain combined. Republicans in general are loving the choice of Palin because of her conservative views.

Palin steps into the national spotlight tonight with her VP acceptance speech before a throng of delegates at the Republican National Convention. Stay tuned kids: this could be a wild ride.

Olympic Energy

With the Beijing Olympics ready to take center stage on the world (if it hasn't already) the American political race will continue but the excitement level and interest are doing to drop drastically. Most Americans will be more concerned about track and field than polls and surveys.

But nevertheless, the campaign will go on. Democratic Party nominee in waiting, Senator Barack Obama, continues to lead in the polls by small amounts. His "bounce" from his European and Middle Eastern tour dissipated but he climbed back up to his normal 4-6 point lead by Tuesday.

Senator John McCain, the Republican Party nominee in waiting, had a pretty good week. He finally found an avenue of attack against Senator Obama that drew some blood and that was the Democrat's celebrity. Senator McCain ran an ad that I saw on television several times over the weekend, showing Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, and comparing their celebrity to that of Senator Obama. Another ad compared Senator Obama to Moses and used a clip from the 1956 film, The Ten Commandments, to illustrate the point.

The US press chortled and snorted saying the ads were hopeless, but they did work. They were viewed quite heavily on YouTube and other social networking sites, and I guess you could credit them with driving down Senator Obama a bit from his often lofty perch.

The two are now slugging it out over energy policy: who approves drilling where, and at what cost. Both have reversed positions previously held on where to drill for oil. But with costs of petroleum dropping a bit and now being noticed at US pumps, will energy costs (part of a larger economic issue) be as important as it once was? What will be the next issue du jour in the campaign if gasoline in the US remains under four bucks a gallon?

Who knows? The public reacts and then the candidates react to the public reacting. Not much will change in that regard until the two parties' conventions in August and September, but I believe that after they are over, we'll be back where we were before. Both candidates have to do well at their conventions because it will be the first time that Americans who weren't invested in the primary races will take a serious look at them. Even then, I would venture to say many Americans wait until the weekend before the election to make up their minds although they may lean one way or another.

But if you're tired of the constant campaign, take a break, enjoy the Olympics, and hope the weather smiles over Beijing's Bird's Nest. Talking to my friends in Hong Kong tonight, they said they were in the middle of a typhoon. Not great weather for outdoor events, but maybe it will clear out the pollution Beijing is noted for.

Hope your nations' athletes do well in Beijing...

Attack Ads

If you have been following the US presidential campaign, you have noticed that each candidate--nominees in waiting Senators John McCain of the Republican Party and Barack Obama of the Democratic Party--are running attack ads.

Horrors. How awful. Everyone in politics--save the professionals--gnash their teeth, shake their heads in sorrow and let out with exasperated sighs. This is just not the way it is supposed to be.

But anyone in politics will tell you that candidates use attack ads for one reason--they work. And by the way, the rather elastic definition of "attack ad" has been so expanded these days as to include practically anything that doesn't include motherhood and apple pie (two American staples that most of us agree are good things).

Attack ads differentiate candidates and point out differences. Sure, there are exaggerations and stretching of the truth. But they can help. Right now, Senator McCain is using an attack ad that I saw about ten times over the weekend on television. It's the one showing Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton and comparing them to Senator Obama.

While most of the press groaned, the dirty little secret is the ad worked. Since the ad began to run, Sen. Obama dropped nine points in the polls to where he and Senator McCain are tied. This after the extensive media coverage of Senator Obama's overseas trip. So why did the ad work?

Well, on a couple of levels, the ad tapped into public perceptions of Senator Obama and the American media. Polls showed that most Americans (in both parties) felt that the U.S. press was much more sympathetic to Sen. Obama than to Sen. McCain. Part of this sympathy is due to the tremendous interest in the campaign of the first African-American who will get his party's nomination for president. That, in itself, would serve as enough to whet the appetite of the ravenous press.

But also Sen. Obama is a very engaging fellow. Good looking, young, confident, and optimistic.

And therein lies the attack opportunity. Senator Obama has only been on the national stage for four years. In two of them, he was running for president. We don't know much about him except he's for "change" (whatever that is), generates incredible voter enthusiasm, and is popular abroad.

But on his overseas trip, a little hubris began to sneak into the campaign. Being young and confident can also be interpreted as being not experienced enough for the presidency and a little too sure of one's self. Perhaps Americans wanted to see Senator Obama humbled a bit, hence the drop in polls.

There are other reasons according to pollsters, but with just under 100 days remaining until the election, voters are in no hurry to make up their minds. It could very well be that once the two candidates go head to head in the fall presidential debates, voters who are thinking of casting their ballot for Senator Obama actually will, and the Illinois senator will close the deal. But until then, voters are going to make him earn their votes, no matter what the press says. Besides, they need to see this guy under pressure, and so far, that really hasn't happened yet.

Look for Senator Obama to maintain a slim lead going into the Democratic convention at the end of this month, and if all goes well, he should sprout to a 5-10 point lead afterwards. If it's less than that, then there's trouble ahead. More than that, things are looking good for November.

I still insist that it will remain close until the presidential debates and then it will break one way or the other.

The Obama Bounce

Now that the dust has settled on the momentous overseas trip for Sen. Barack Obama, the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, the results are coming in. Besides the fabulous visuals on the trip-Barack sinking a trey on a basketball court in front of U.S. troops; 200,000 idolizing Germans listening to his speech in Berlin, schmoozing with leaders of France, Britain and the Middle East-what did American voters actually think? What was the "bounce"?

By "bounce," I mean an uptick in Senator Obama's approval ratings. By all accounts, the trip, highlighted by extensive media coverage (most of it very positive), should have boosted the Democrat over his presidential rival, Republican Senator John McCain.

And sure enough, by Sunday in the Gallup Tracking Poll, Sen. Obama sprinted to a nine-point edge over Senator McCain. A similar tracking poll (which measures daily fluctuations in the race) from the Rasmussen organization showed on Saturday that Obama shot to a six-point lead over Sen. McCain. The Rasmussen lead drifted back down to five on Sunday.

But the shocker came yesterday when the Gallup/USA Today poll showed Senator McCain leading Senator Obama among likely voters. Here I must digress and explain. Polls often ask questions of voters who have varying degrees of enthusiasm and commitment to their candidates as well as voting. Polls are often taken of "registered" voters; that is, anybody who says they are registered to vote. Polls also are taken of "likely" voters who, as you would probably conclude, say they are "likely" to vote in the upcoming election. The likely voters are often a more reliable number than the registered voters because, well. likely voters are more likely to show up at the voting booth.

Registered voters may or may not cast a ballot. So which would you rather have? A huge lead among people who may not vote, or a lead among people who say they will? Watch these numbers reported during all the polling throughout the campaign. They mean different things and should be weighed accordingly. But remember, this is only a snapshot in time. It could mean something, or it may be a statistical blip.

Anyhow, what are the numbers? Among registered voters, Obama still leads McCain but by three points, 47-44. However, among likely voters, it's Senator McCain, 49-45. Huh? In addition, the Rasmussen tracking poll is down to a one-point lead for Senator Obama. The Gallup tracking for today has it Obama by six.

So after the trip, the polls are telling us the race tightened? Why? Shouldn't Senator Obama have lengthened his lead?

Pollsters are still trying to figure this out. Gallup says that Americans actually had a muted reaction to the trip with Democrats saying it was great, Republicans, not. There were more people without an opinion than with one. The Gallup people also say that following the excitement of the Democratic primary race between Senator Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, Republicans are tuning back into the race; they had obviously tuned out before. Senator Obama's positives among Republicans and independents have suffered slightly, hence the drop.

Throw in the factoid that many Americans think the U.S. media is biased towards Senator Obama, and the trip coverage may have reinforced their opinion, and you may have the beginnings of a little pushback. Republicans may become more energized about the race than before, although many political professionals remain gloomy about the GOP's electoral prospects.

Some commentators are dismissing the polling results saying that the real value of Sen. Obama's trip will come in the fall campaign when he can say, "When I spoke with France's president…Angela Markel of Germany and I…the Israeli and Palestinian leaders told me…" and therefore go head-to-head and toe-to-toe with Senator McCain on foreign policy debates, where Senator Obama could be weaker.

We'll see, but political common sense tells me the numbers should have been a little higher.

Don't hold me to this, but I think the Obama campaign may be suffering from a little hubris, and it's showing. Those voters who aren't devoted to Senator Obama may be put off from supporting him at this moment. They could still hop on the bandwagon and vote for him, but for now, they might think it's a little bit unseemly for him to start acting like he's already the president.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama's campaign and other sources are discussing "serious talks" with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as a vice presidential candidate. Kaine is a Democrat who has won in a traditionally Republican state. If he can help the Democrats carry Virginia away from the Republicans, that could be great news for the Dems. But Gov. Kaine has only served two years and change as a governor. Perhaps that's not the greatest credential for a presidential candidate who is going to get attacked on his lack of experience. The two are said to get along very well and would present a forward-looking young, not-Washington type of ticket. We'll see.

Senator McCain is still considering a VP choice and some insiders say it is between former presidential candidate Mitt Romney (who was defeated by McCain) and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Conservatives in the party like Pawlenty for his tough economic stands. It's also a state the Republicans almost carried in the 2004 election and would like to take away from the Democrats if possible. Again, a tall order this year but that could be big for the Republicans if the election turns out to be close.

Finally, another Republican in hot water. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, was indicted today on seven charges of failing to report gifts and income. He is also up for election this year. He plans to fight the charges but as if Republicans didn't have enough to worry about, this won't help.

Post Surge

There is an interesting storyline developing now in the media regarding Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the "surge." By way of definition?

Sen. Barack Obama--Democratic Party nominee-in-waiting, leader in the polls, and candidate rock star

Sen. John McCain--Republican Party nominee-in-waiting, trails Sen. Obama in the polls, and is more like a fan of big bands; the other day when he landed in New Hampshire, there was one--count 'em--one reporter on hand to meet him. Unlike say, the press contingent with Sen. Obama on his foreign tour.

Surge--an increase of 30,000 troops to Iraq that seemed, by all accounts now, to have been successful in its goals of reducing violence and introducing a heightened sense of stability to the country, as well as allowing the government time to develop.

What's new is the sense that the "surge" worked. So now that it's worked, let's declare victory and get the heck out. This is also being expressed as the feeling that the American voter doesn't want to hear an endless debate about whether or not the surge worked (it did); who supported it (Sen. McCain), who didn't (Sen. Obama) but wants to know now that the surge is successful, when we will be able to leave?

This argument helps Senator Obama a great deal as he has combined the success of the surge (which he opposed) with his insistence of a timetable or schedule for leaving Iraq at the earliest possible moment. This may well be what voters want to hear; in fact, it's the best of both worlds--we're doing well, the Iraqis have time to work out their solutions, so let's not stay any longer than necessary. It's a forward-thinking argument and sounds a lot more appealing than the surge is working but we have to stay until we decide it's time to go, whenever that is.

Sure, Senator Obama and US Iraq Theatre Commander General David Petraeus disagree on whether or not a "timetable" should be established for a U.S. exit. The new narrative seems to be: the surge worked, so let's go.

Senator McCain may also be running into problems with some gaffes he's been piling up lately. He's been talking about the "Iraq-Pakistan border" (they don't have one); a mix up between Somalia and Sudan, references to "Czechoslovakia" (when that former nation was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia), referring to Vladimir Putin as the president of Germany, and others.

Pressure has been building in the liberal blogosphere for an accounting of these misstatements which are being attributed to Senator McCain's age of 71. As one pundit put it, you can criticize Senator Obama's policies, but criticisms of Senator McCain are increasingly being targeted to his age. Obama may be too young and inexperienced at 46, but is Senator McCain too old at 71, soon to be 72?

How will the voting public take to this? It will all factor into this equation which I believe is a soliloquy encapsulating the state of the voters' present mindset:

I think some change is necessary. But I don't know a whole lot about Barack Obama except he's for change and he's awful young. But he seems to have energy, determination, and smarts; and maybe he can change America's image in the world. He seems to have answers and lots of plans. But I'm not ready yet to commit. I need to see a little more of this guy. What if he talks a good game but can't deliver?

John McCain, great guy, patriot, can't imagine what he must have gone through, speaks his mind, is independent, doesn't talk down to you or pander, he'd be good on the war on terror but has his time passed? Is he the guy I want at the helm given what faces us in 2008? He even says he doesn't much care about domestic issues. I'm not sure about that...So, I don't know...I have to figure this out. But I still have time, the election is far away.

Which affects a candidate more...age or inexperience? That's a tough one. But an answer will emerge after the presidential debates, which barring any huge developments until then, could decide that and many other questions.

A Veep for McCain

As I mentioned yesterday, rumors are swirling that Republican presidential nominee (in-waiting) Sen. John McCain, will name his vice presidential choice by the end of this week. There are 41 days before the Republican National Convention opens in Minneapolis, Minnesota, so it's not as if the nominee is racing to beat a deadline.

It used to be that vice presidential nominees were chosen during convention week. At times, it was the only story at a convention when the candidate had the nomination sewed up and there was little to do save guess who was going to be No. 2.

But with the Democratic Party presidential nominee (in waiting), Sen. Barack Obama, generating mega-headlines and photo ops on his foreign trip, it may that the McCain camp feels they have to make a big splash to dampen the coverage of Sen. Obama (an unplanned pun, pardon me).

Several commentators have said that it's a pretty big card to play at this stage in the race and any true public relations value of such a choice would be wasted away while, frankly, most Americans aren't paying that much attention now to the political race. It would be a big buzz for a day or two, be one of several topics on the weekend political talk shows, but for a major announcement and strategic plan, is it really worth it to do this now? I come down on the side that it isn't.

But if he does, whom will he pick? The most obvious choice is former Massachusetts Governor and defeated presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It is a good, safe pick but certainly not an "exciting" one. Gov. Romney had lots of advantages going into the presidential race in 2007 but failed to parlay them into the nomination. Plus he is a Mormon, and like it or not, it became enough of a campaign issue during the primaries that he felt compelled to give a speech on it.

Then there are the others: former congressman Rob Portman, who for awhile, headed President Bush's Office of Management and the Budget; Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a popular governor in a critical state who helped the nominee a great deal with a personal endorsement; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, another defeated candidate, but a guy with personality and an ability to connect with voters, especially conservatives; and former NY mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who would buttress support on the senator's national security credentials.

The surprise "exciting" choices would be: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American turned Catholic who is smart, beloved by conservatives, and brings diversity and youth to the ticket. But Jindal is only 37 which would point up Senator McCain's age at 71. On the distaff side, there is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a former beauty queen who has a great personal story, is pro-life, and appeals to so-called "swing" voters (who go back and forth among the two parties). Also there's Carly Fiorina, current McCain advisor, former chief of Hewlett-Packard, and someone who speaks in 21st century management buzz phrases.

One thing political analysts say the Republicans are noted for is order in their succession. The next guy (or gal) in line always gets the nod, no matter what. If that is the case, look for Mitt Romney. But if the Arizona senator wants to truly roll the dice in a race that seems stacked against him he could make a major splash and choose from Jindal, Palin, or Fiorina.

We'll see what he does if he does it....and sorry for all these liquid metaphors!

Obama in the Middle East; VP Names?

The news is saturated with coverage of Democratic Party presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. Barack Obama, and his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Sen. Obama is in the region to see for himself the situation on the ground.

It doesn't seem to have affected his desire to pull out most American troops from Iraq in 16 months. The Iraqis say the want US troops gone at some point although they would not commit to a timetable. Sen. Obama says that knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed sending more troops to Iraq last year.

But almost all Middle East observers (and Sen. Obama to some degree) say the "surge" of forces to Iraq worked; violence is down, Iraqi security forces have made gains and the nightly stories of bombings that dominated news broadcasts and front pages of papers have been relegated to the back or end of the broadcast, if they are mentioned at all.

Withdrawal as a goal without a timetable, based on the events on the ground, with residual forces left, is morphing into the default position of both candidates and the Bush administration. The differences among them are becoming minute although the rhetoric is still strident. And Senator Obama is calling for more troops in Afghanistan.

Politically, the trip will do Sen. Obama much good as the American public will see him with foreign leaders and in the war zone. They may not hear much of what the anchors accompanying him on the trip will say and the substance may get lost in the background noise. What they will hear is what the press thinks. So far, the coverage has been positive but restrained. Sen. Obama has to be careful of making any gaffes and so far, his trip has been structured to do just that.

Senator McCain is trying to keep in the game as Sen. Obama dominates the headlines with critiques of his own on the Democrat's foreign policy. The Republican said that by taking a trip to the region, Obama would "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."

Iraq and foreign affairs have taken a back seat to the economy and oil prices in recent months. If the election is fought over economic issues, that will rebound to the favor of Senator Obama, as he is of the "out" party. But if it is about national security and keeping us safe, that advantage goes to Sen. McCain.

Another political observer pointed out that the election will be a referendum on one of the two candidates. Each wants to make it a referendum on the other. Candidates usually lose referendums on themselves.

Americans are still coming to know Sen. Obama; he has only been on the national stage for four years; before that he was a state legislator. I also get the sense that Americans are in no hurry to make up their minds as the election is still over 100 days away. There have been articles suggesting this is a rerun of the 1976 election between President Gerald Ford (Republican) and Governor Jimmy Carter (Democrat). President Ford was challenged at the convention by then Governor Ronald Reagan of California, inflation was high, and the mood in the country was sour. President Ford won at the convention, but barely.

Gov. Carter had a huge advantage in public opinion polls, but later in the campaign, President Ford caught up and nearly won.

The other analogy is to 1980 when Gov. Ronald Reagan trailed President Carter through most of the election season. People knew Ronald Reagan as an actor on television, and a governor who was not ashamed to say what he thought. They didn't know him politically.

Again, the country was in a sour mood, with the Iranians holding US hostages, and American prestige around the world damaged. There were major economic troubles and the American public wanted a change, they just weren't sure if Gov. Reagan was the man they wanted to lead that change.

There was one presidential debate in the election season and in it, Ronald Reagan demonstrated he wasn't the monster portrayed in the media. He seemed kind of likable, avuncular, and connected with the audience. After the debate, it was a close race no longer, Gov. Reagan sprinted to a lead in public opinion polls and won going away.

Right now, I am leaning towards the 1980 model with Sen. Obama playing the role of Ronald Reagan. There are differences, to be sure, but I think much will depend upon how Sen. Obama comes across in the debates. If Americans don't think he is too young or too inexperienced for the job, he may win going away, too. But if they do, it will end up being a very close contest.

BTW, reports are filtering in that both candidates may soon be ready to name their vice presidential running mates. Sen. McCain may do this by the end of the week, Senator Obama in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why they are doing this now a full month ahead of the conventions, but look for possible announcements. Republicans are leaning towards former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who was defeated in the primaries by Sen. McCain, the Democrats are anybody's guess. I haven't heard much about Sen. Clinton and the vice presidency in a long time.

Talk at you later.

Obama in Afghanistan

Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama is in Afghanistan as part of his European and Middle East trip. If you're a supporter, this is an educational exercise for the nominee, a chance to meet foreign leaders face to face, and judge the situation in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq.

If you are a critic, this is a shameless photo-op and a campaign trip.

But for the nominee, there are upsides and downsides to this trip. The upside is he will likely be greeted in Europe as a conquering hero and the man who will take the presidential oath of office in January of 2009. While relations between the Bush administration and Europe have warmed in recent months, most Europeans consider Barack Obama one of them, perhaps the closest to a western European democrat (small D) that an American candidate has been in some time, even closer than the Democrats' 2004 standard bearer, John Kerry.

In the Middle East, though, it is going to be much more complex (isn't it always?) Iraqis, while welcoming him, have a mixed view. If he indeed pulls out troops on a schedule, despite what is going on on the ground, that could be viewed negatively. Not that Barack would ever say so publicly. But at the same time, Iraqis say they are ready to have the US leave in a less formalized way.

Back at home, Barack has sought to maintain his views on the Iraq war (leaving as soon as practically possible) but insists on building up forces in Afghanistan. Unless the Democratic Party campaign suddenly adopts the Afghanistan war as its own, it could be a difficult (but not impossible) sell to its striden anti-war base.

Interestingly, the polls remain close, at least for now. The results of this trip will also try to get more Americans comfortable with the idea of Barack Obama as commander in chief, so he has to be careful to play the part. It's harder than it sounds, particularly in the Middle East, so the stakes for him are high.

There will be lots of media coverage, all major US network anchors are going which has led the McCain camp to cry double standard. When Senator McCain went on trips to the Middle East, the anchors didn't go along, so why now? Well, it is a little different and Senator Obama is on a maiden voyage of sorts. But obviously, righit now, this election is about him, not Senator McCain, hence the super coverage.

Let's see if this turns into a mushy pr campaign, or if the senator is asked some tough questions about how this will impact his views on the war and what he will do about it as president.

Update

Sorry for not having posted in a bit but, hey, it's summer...the pace slows down a bit. Not for the candidates, mind you, but for those who follow them. But all good things come to an end (at least for me), so now back to the campaign trail. Here's a roundup of recent events. And thanks for the kind compliments that have come in; they are much appreciated.

Whiners:

When we last left you, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said he wanted to cut off part of Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's anatomy. The senator, in the Rev. Jackson's view, was "talking down to black people" with remarks on responsible fatherhood. It caused a flap and the Rev. Jackson had to apologize, which he did, early and often.

But soon after, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, an adviser to the Republican Party's nominee, Sen. John McCain, said, in essence, that Americans who complained about the economy were "whiners." This has been the Republican tack for some time on the economy--things are not that bad and you don't know how good you have it.

Once again, the hammer came down, and Senator McCain had to apologize for former Sen. Gramm's remarks. Politically, the remarks were seen as close to an insult to voters who have been wracked by high gas prices, the threat of home foreclosures, increased overall costs, etc. It seemed out of touch and insensitive. Whatever advantage Senator McCain may have gained in the Jackson-Obama flap (and it probably wasn't much) was lost immediately in the flap over the "whiner" comment.

Curiously, some on the conservative side defended Sen. Gramm's remarks saying Americans were whiners. While you can point to lots of statements and polls that show Americans do tend to whine on certain topics, politically it was not a great thing to say. Advantage: Obama.

But speaking of Obama, it has not been a great couple of weeks for the senator. His lead in the polls over Sen. McCain remains small (in fact, in a Newsweek poll, it dropped from 15 to 3; others show it essentially tied) and his movement to the political center has caused angst among his most fervent anti-war supporters.

Senator Obama based his entire campaign on his early opposition to the Iraq war. He has said consistently he would withdraw troops the first day he took office and have them out within two years. He also opposed the "surge" in Iraq which, by most accounts, has worked to lessen violence and bring some stability to the country. Now, any criticism of the surge is no longer on his website.

So, Senator Obama has been "clarifying" and "moderating" his position on Iraq in advance of a trip to the region. He says he tie any decision on American forces in Iraq to events in the ground after talking to commanders there. Although he still says he will withdraw forces, it's a lot fuzzier now than it was before.

In a speech today, and in previous opinion pieces, he said that if elected, he would be sending "additional Afghanistan brigades," and argued "the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan." Polls show Americans are more optimistic about the war in Afghanistan than in Iraq (but not by much), so perhaps, Sen. Obama is trying to show he is committed to the war on terror (to please voters who are not anti-war types but have concerns about Iraq) by fighting it in Afghanistan.

This is costing him some support among his passionate anti-war activists, but so far, his personality and the change he represents still attracts a strong base of support.

However, among independents and non-partisan voters on both sides, the Obama of 2007 and the winter of this year is not the same Obama as now. His focus seems to be much less clear and it's hard to pin down exactly where he is standing (although today's speech should give pundits lots of food for thought).

Voters who are considering casting a ballot for Obama haven't made up their minds yet, and they still have doubts based on his age, and shall we say, modest, experience on the national scene. Of course, nobody has to make up his or her mind yet, as there are 112 days to go before Election Day on Nov. 4.

Obama staffers believe over time, voters will grow comfortable with the idea of Sen. Obama as commander in chief. But as the underdog, every day that decision is put off, is a good day for the campaign of Senator McCain.

The Rev. Jackson's "Cutting" Remarks

If this campaign gets any weirder, well, I don't know what I'll do.

The other day, the 66 year-old Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader and former presidential candidate, was on a talk show on the Fox network about the election. When he thought the microphones were off, he said that Democratic Party presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama was, "talking down to black people" when the candidate was making speeches at black churches. Senator Obama's crime? He apparently was telling the audience that black parents need to set better examples for their children..particularly fathers.

"Too many fathers are AWOL (absent without leave), missing from too many lives and too many homes," Sen. Obama said.

For some reason, this angered the Rev. Jackson, who then said, referring to Obama, "I want to cut his --- off," (you can find the exact quote elsewhere) according to the Fox News Web site.

Immediately, the punditry went into high gear. Of course, the Rev. Jackson was angered. As a two time presidential candidate (class of '84 and '88) who came nowhere near winning, he is probably angered at Senator Obama's success at becoming the first African-American to win the nomination of a major party and perhaps the first African-American to win the office of president. Jealousy? Envy?

I report, you decide.

But is Senator Obama talking down to "black people?" His advice could apply to people of any race. It isn't just black fathers who are AWOL in their childrens' lives. But it is a particular problem in the black community.

For instance about ten years ago, 57.7 percent of all black children, 31.8 percent of all Hispanic children, and 20.9 percent of all white children were living in single-parent homes. Entertainer Bill Cosby has spoken out about this quite regularly; he, too, has been criticized for doing so.

Nevertheless, the Rev. Jackson began to apologize to anyone who would listen and reemphasized that he remained a supporter of Sen. Obama. Gee, I would hate to hear what he had to say if he was an opponent :-)

Even his own son, Jesse Jackson, Jr., a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, blasted his dad (although he said he loved him) for the comments. There's family...and there's politics.

But the real hoot (at least to me) was the instant analysis of whether or not this would "help" Senator Obama with working class white voters who are a tad more traditional than either the Rev. Jackson or Sen. Obama. Their verdict? It would!

"It reinforces Obama's effort to present himself as an advocate of responsible personal behavior, a position that Republican candidates like to secure as uniquely their own," said Mark Rozell, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University.

Please....

Voters may select candidates for a variety of odd reasons (he has a mustache, I never vote for a person with a mustache; she wears loud color dresses and looks drab; he's too young) but this is not one of them. I doubt anyone is going to pull the lever in November based on an insult made in July. And an insult that is going to be viewed as one of personal pique.

This won't have any effect at all; it highlights the way pundits think American voters are like children. It angers me at times that something like this would even be considered to "help" or "hurt". I think voters make decisions based on a lot more than that...all right, at least most voters.

But it may point out a little quiet divide between older civil rights leaders and Senator Obama, the "post-racial" candidate. If Senator Obama wins the presidency, you can expect a great deal of heavy pressure put on him by the civil rights establishment for long-time cherished goals like increased social spending for blacks, reparations legislation, and more.

Will Senator Obama go along, or believe his path to mastery over U.S. politics lies somewhere in the middle?

In American politics, the middle ain't a bad place to be.

Safeco Acceptance Speech

Democratic Party nominee Senator Barack Obama plans an unusual departure from convention orthodoxy when he accepts his party's presidential nomination in a 76,000-seat stadium rather than the 15,000-seat convention hall in August.

The nomination will be August 28--the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech--and the setting should be a roaring, adoring crowd, the kind of venue in which Obama performs best.

The networks are scrambling because they have spent four years preparing for the four-day convention which they assumed would be held in the Pepsi Center; now it will change locations. There is grumbling on the part of the networks and threats to reduce convention coverage, but the theatre of August 28 plus the symbolism will be much too much to ignore. Bet on massive coverage of the acceptance speech on television.

But what if it rains?

Just asking...(as others have in the press).

I keep reading that in this race, it truly will be a referendum on Barack Obama and that Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain, is really "incidental" to the whole question of who will take the oath of office at high noon on Jan. 20, 2009.

While there is some truth to this, it is exaggerated, and the closeness of the presidential polls in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats hints that Senator McCain and the Republicans (at least so far)are not "incidental".

There are some interesting political calculations going on which I will have more on later but that's it for now. Gotta run...

Shakeup at McCain HQ

According to various press sources, Republican Presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, has shaken up his campaign.

The campaign manager, Rick Davis, will now be spending much of his time on fundraising, planning the convention and the vice presidential search. Unpaid advisor Steve Schmidt, who has been traveling with the senator, moves into a more day to day control position.

What is interesting to me is that Steve Schmidt ran the successful rebranding of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenngger in his re-election campaign as well as the "war room" for President Bush and Vice President Cheney in 2004. He is a details man who is said to be a stern taskmaster and a guy who can control all the various aspects of a presidential campaign.

Many press accounts indicate Republican Party frustration with the McCain campaign for what they said was the squandering of the time after the Arizonan won the nomination that could have been put to use "identifying" himself with the American public at large. That would have been difficult at any rate because most media types were reporting in overdrive on the Clinton-Obama race. Nevertheless, many Republicans feel that the campaign has been literally adrift. The last straw could have been a speech on June 3 in which Senator McCain appeared before a stark green backdrop and gave a speech before what has been called a "sparse" and "uninterested" crowd. The speech was generally panned.

Compared to the speech given by Senator Obama (it was the night he clinched the nomination and was at the Excel Center in Minnesota) who was speaking before a roaring crowd in a packed house, the McCain effort was found wanting. Again, the man and the moment reverted to Obama and while his speech ran long that night, all networks covered it almost in its entirety while ignoring, for the most part, Senator McCain.

At any rate, such things as appearances matter and Republicans hope Steve Schmidt can fine-tune the operation.

Given the challenges facing Senator McCain and the Republicans in this election, he needs to run a near-flawless campaign.

Polls still show it's close so the good news for Senator McCain is that Senator Obama does not have a big lead at this point. But in this day and age of visual, visual, visual, the McCain campaign has to show it can compete with that of Obama's on a variety of levels. Given the way the Obama campaign has performed, that won't be easy.

Something else to keep in mind is that Mr. Schmidt's sucess with Gov. Schwarzenngger involved a candidate who came into office as a conservative firebrand and morphed into a moderate Republican who embraced global warming and other social policies. This may be what he needed to do in liberal California, but it could also serve as a hint that the McCain camp thinks it needs to appeal more to independents and moderates who may be uncomfortable with the increasingly difficult to understand and ever-evolving positions of Senator Obama.

The McCain camp has its work cut out for it, but this election is far from over, at least in current polling.

Back on the Trail

Hey there...

Now that my one-week vacation is over, I can return to the world of politics. Let me tell you, since I escaped the Beltway for a week, most Americans do not spend every waking hour worrying or wondering about who will succeed whom in what office. At least now. Maybe later, but not now.

Politics outside of Washington is like a radio playing in the background. People may watch a bit of a newscast here or there but then move onto other things--like what is for dinner, what the kids are doing, the weather, and griping. Politics is not a dominant fixture in their lives.

They know who is running for office, they know the issues, but there's plenty of time before they need to get serious, so why do it now?

While I was away, I saw that Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared on the same stage at the same time; Senator Clinton's husband spoke to Barack Obama in a long anticipated "chat," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have the right to own guns in their own homes for self-defense, and the candidates continued sniping back and forth over this and that.

Senator Obama had to give a speech saying that he was an American patriot (countering claims that he wasn't) and Senator John McCain was being attacked on his military record (seems like a dumb move to me).

We are going to see a lot of this back and forth trying to win the news cycle for the next several months so get used to it. That and lots of polls released almost daily by dozens of organizations, some of whom should not be in the polling business. Don't worry, I'll sort them out for you.

Basically, Senator Obama can be safely described as "ahead" although not by very much. Given President Bush's low approval ratings and the large advantage Democrats enjoy in generic polling, it could be said that Senator McCain should be grateful it's this close. It can also be said that given all the Republican Party's woes, it's a good sign for Senator McCain that he is only slightly behind (in most polls, not in all).

There was an interesting article posted about a focus group in the Washington Post recently. Focus groups are gatherings of 5-10 people chosen demographically and are asked questions and followups. Unlike a poll, a good focus group leader can drill down into peoples' emotions and feelings about a candidate or party and glean things that could make a diference in a campaign.

This one particular group showed that a consensus leaned towards Senator Obama but that there were still many unknowns about him because he has so recently become a national figure. There's interest but no finality and if Senator Obama can't close the sale, Senator McCain will be there to fill the void. So, the election is still pretty fluid, as far as I am concerned, although I would say Senator Obama is still the guy to beat.

Lately, Senator Obama's statements on such issues as gay marriage (he does not favor gay marriage but does favor gay "unions" and wants the issue left to the states but does not favor a referendum in the state of California to prohibit gay marriage) are beginning to leave a muddled taste in some polling. What does this guy really think? Is he the true post-political figure who can bring Americans together, or is he trying to slide an ambitious political agenda through a series of mushy bromides?

Senator McCain was viewed by this focus group as too close to President Bush and the Democratic argument that electing Senator McCain would fulfill a third term for President Bush is falling on receptive ears. People in this group felt a change was necessary but were not quite agreed on what that "change" was or should be.

Voters will have to decide but they will have time to do it, and at their own pace. Even if it's not the pace of Beltway insiders who think of politics all the time. Tonight, I actually found myself thinking: what's for dinner? :-)

On Vacation

I am taking a well-earned vacation (at least in my opinion!) so blogging will be pretty light. I'll try to post from where I'll be staying and I will follow the political news, so look for a few things.

Any questions, or anything I can answer, let me know!

Thanks!

I'll be thinking of you....:-)

The Political Environment

The issues in Election 2008 are changing almost weekly.

But it is becoming clear that the economy has overtaken Iraq (at least this week!) as the central issue in the campaign.

However, there are several aspects to the "economy" issue-the drop in the value of housing in the United States, which is related to the mortgage mess; globalization and its effect on jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs; but the most salient issue right now in the "economy" is the prince of energy.

Suddenly, it's energy policy that is being batted back and forth. With gasoline prices over $4 a gallon in the United States, the candidates are discussing how best to increase the U.S. supply of fuel and lower the cost. There are several alternatives but the current debate is focusing on offshore drilling, that is drilling off the coast of U.S. states where oil deposits are said to be.

Up to now, this has been an environmental no-no. But the high cost of gas has people-including at least one presidential candidate, John McCain-reversing field somewhat. Senator McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has been opposed to offshore drilling. But I think he and his campaign advisers sense an opportunity here to go one up on the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling and hews to the traditional Democratic Party position that it is harmful to the environment and lines the pockets of big oil companies. He is joined in that view by the major environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, that usually back Democrats.

Most Americans favor environmental policies and the political power of voters who say they want to protect the environment is a potent force. This force has usually favored Democrats; ironically, Senator McCain is one of the few Republicans who even address the environment issue, so it is somewhat of a switch for him to be supporting offshore drilling.

He wouldn't make it a national policy; he would leave states to decide whether or not they want to do it. One of his principal backers, and a man who has been named as a possible running mate for the Arizona senator, is Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican who strongly opposes offshore drilling. If he indeed is nominated as VP, that could make for an interesting press conference if the energy question is asked.

But a recent poll by the Rasmussen organization showed that 67% of voters say drilling should be allowed off the coasts of states like California and Florida. Some 18% disagree with 15% are undecided. While conservative and moderate voters support this approach in strong numbers, what is interesting is that self-identified liberal voters approve, although by a plurality (46% in favor, 37% against).

Is this an issue that could work to Senator McCain's advantage? Or will the environment trump the price of gas?

One thing I have always thought about environmental supporters is that it's easy to be "in favor of the environment" when it doesn't cost anybody anything. I wonder how strong that "support" would be if, if Americans were forced to drive down their use of energy by 20 percent or so a year. What would they willingly give up? How much would they agree to sacrifice? A couple of hours of electricity a day? Driving on just a few days of the week? No microwaves or computers on weekends?

Who would have to do this? Would schools, hospitals, government, seniors be exempted? Could more affluent families buy a "carbon offset" that would allow them to use as much power as they wish (like Hollywood stars who pant over their environmental advocacy) and let somebody else bear the pain? Just asking… This election could prove to be an interesting test case to see just how far Americans' love of the environment goes.

Environmentalists will point out that there are ways to lower the price of gas without sacrificing the environment-through driving less, through the encouragement of renewable resources, through the development of more hybrids, etc.

And maybe that's true and achievable through more directed research.

But there's no place like a presidential campaign for these theories to be tested when there is actually something on the line. You want offshore drilling and the possibility of lower gas prices (though Democrats say it won't happen), vote for Senator McCain. You don't want offshore drilling because it ruins the environment (Republicans say offshore drilling can, thanks to newer technologies, have less of an impact on offshore ecosystem) and you're willing to gamble that green development and policies can lower gas prices? Vote for Senator Obama.

That should be an interesting debate this year unless a new issue emerges next week that sends the environment back to the end of the line and an entirely new debate breaks out!

Obama to Visit Iraq and Afghanistan

Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, now plans to visit Iraq and Afghanistan. An idea for a joint visit with Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain was promoted by the Arizona senator (as were joint town hall meetings and other venues) but it looks as if Senator Obama will go it alone.

Just a couple of days ago, his foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said charges that Senator Obama didn't know much about Iraq because he had not been there since the surge, was, in her words, "complete garbage."

Now, he's going. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the surge. Previously, he said it wouldn't work, but in announcing his plans to go, he said he, "...was encouraged by a recent reduction in violence in Iraq." But the second part of his statement reiterated his intention to withdraw U.S. troops: "..it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making it clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq."

No doubt Senator McCain will disagree with him on that point, and with Iraq not quite the campaign issue it was previously, this might become the object of the debate: bases or no bases? Presence or no presence?

That could be an interesting dialog. No exact word on when this trip will be or take place, only it would be before the November elections. It would be a very well-covered trip and one which would allow Senator Obama to express at least some degree of support for the surge while still advocating troop withdrawal. There could be some interesting exchanges with the troops over that.

BTW, former Vice President, presidential candidate, and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore endorsed Senator Obama.

If energy becomes an issue, Senator McCain is staking out a claim on opening up offshore drilling, saying states should be the ones which decide if they want to drill or not. With energy prices a major concern, public attitudes on offshore drilling (they are usually against it) may be changing. Senator McCain has fairly good environmental credentials and is one of the few Republicans who has pursued the issue. While he doesn't receive the same accolades from environmental groups as Democrats do, he nevertheless is far out in front of the environment in the Republican Party. His task now is to sell this drilling idea as not retreating on the environment. Hopefully, new technology which says it can extract oil in an environmentally acceptable way could help him make the case.

Tim Russert and Network Journalism

My sympathies to the family of NBC newsman Tim Russert who died unexpectedly on June 13. It was unusual and somewhat poignant for me as that is my birthday and I turned 61. Tim Russert was three years younger than me and he died of a heart attack. It always gives one pause. Why him, not me?

I can't answer that except to say the older I get, the more health-conscious and weight-conscious I have become. Maybe that has nothing to do with anything but it is something I always keep in the back of my mind. Health. Age. Diet. Weight. Exercise.

Getting to politics, which is the subject of this blog, Tim Russert had an enormous impact on American politics. As moderator of one of the nation's top interview programs, "Meet the Press," and overall analyst for NBC, my lasting memory of him is that he was one of the last "old school" political reporters in the business. He was fair to both liberals and conservatives and often made both feel uncomfortable. At a time when the broadcast networks (particularly Russert's sister network, MSNBC) are viewed as increasingly partisan--Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee--Russert was refreshing in that he would play it straight down the middle and not get caught up in the rush to take sides.

In fact, it was Tim Russert who asked the one question that began the implosion of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. I detailed this in an earlier post but he asked plain outright if she supported then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.

Senator Clinton hemmed and hawed and tried to turn the question into a critique of the Bush Administration but Russert would have none of it. He kept pressing, asking whether yes or no she supported the policy. The more he asked, the more she dithered. Russert seemed incredulous before moving on. So did viewers and the pencil press who picked up on this key moment.

That was the first chink in the Clinton armor and it was then--the date was October 30, 2007--that Barack Obama began a little uptick in the polls and was seen as a credible alternative to Sen. Clinton.

Maybe another journalist wouldn't have pressed the matter as much. Maybe other journalists wouldn't have even asked. But he did. And knowingly or not, he paved the way for Barack Obama to make his case to Democratic voters.

It was said in Washington circles that potential presidential candidates had to pass the Russert test which was a public grilling on national television defending choices, positions, beliefs. It was often not pretty but necessary and everyone in the political world understood--if you couldn't pass the Russert test, why would anyone trust you to negotiate with world leaders, who would be much rougher than Tim Russert.

I will always remember him on the fateful election night of 2000. While other analysts were armed with computers, word processors, spreadsheets, and graphic representations of miniscule slices of the vote, he had a white board on which he wrote with a dry marker pen. He accurately predicted, long before the digital geniuses, that Florida would be the key to the election and he scribbled down the name of the state plus its electoral votes.

Like John Henry in the famous folk song who beat down the steam drill by using his strength with a sledge hammer, Tim Russert was there before the computers were using his own knowledge and intuition. Score one for the old school guys.

Russert's passing also points out what I think is a trend that is plunging headlong into the past. In America's political history, especially in the nineteenth century, the press--such as it was--was highly partisan. Political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats--had their own newspapers. Others were highly identified with a party. For instance, the New York Tribune's editor Horace Greeley, was strongly identified with the Republican Party and even ran for president.

Eventually, newspapers moved away from direct ownership by political parties and became independent. But papers always maintained strong editorial support for one party or another. In the internet age, newspapers and television networks have returned to the model of the 19th century.

The New York Times, the L.A. Times and many other newspapers have become much more liberal and supportive of the Democratic Party and make no bones about it. The Wall Street Journal tends to favor Republicans; Fox News is for conservatives (although it has mellowed over the years IMHO); and MSNBC has become an anti-Republican, pro-Obama network, according to many critics, including those without an ax to grind.

The internet blogs have replaced the pamphleteers of the 19th century with their unique takes--Daily Kos, MyDD, NationalReview Online, michellemalkin.com--so in a way, we are returning to an earlier model. There are some in the journalistic world who think this is a good thing as at least now the reader is well aware of the beliefs and views of the writer with no attempt made at phony objectivity or sneaking in opinion between the lines.

But getting back to Tim Russert, it appeared to me as if he really felt that he needed to be a journalist who didn't come down on one side or the other. And that is becoming more and more rare each day.

He will be missed particularly in the 2008 election season. Rest in peace, Mr. Russert.

Update on Veepstakes

Well, one day after my last post on the trials and travails of Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama's choice of a vice presidential vetter (see the whole post below), that choice left.

Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae, a US government lender to mortgage bankers and former CEO of former Countrywide Financial,a mortgage lender caught up in the controversy over foreclosed loans, was revealed to have gotten mortgage loans on very favorable terms from Countrywide.

This was a major line of attack from Senator Obama against his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton as several of her aides had ties to Countrywide. Senator Obama even specifically mentioned Countrywide as the poster child for what was wrong the mortgage banking system as many subprime loans and homes have been foreclosed.

There was no way that he could keep Mr. Johnson on staff with what he had said earlier. But worse, he said that Mr. Johnson was not one of those "folks who worked for me." That didn't wash either and on Wednesday, Mr. Johnson left the campaign to no one's great surprise. So, ironically, the first victim to vetting in the Obama vice presidential vetting campaign was a vetter, not a candidate.

Meanwhile, what of Republican nominee John McCain's ideas for a vice president? So far, he's shown inclinations towards his former primary rivals, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, and also in there is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Messrs. Romney and Huckabee are obvious candidates for consideration, it's Bobby Jindal who is the interesting candidate. He's young; he just turned 37; he's been a member of Congress and perennial candidate in Louisiana. He has an impressive resume; he is the first elected Indian-American governor in U.S. history (not that the press would ever mention that because Jindal is a Republican), and the second Asian-American governor in the country. He attended prestigious Brown University in Rhode Island and later received a master's degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.

He entered state government in Louisiana, served in various medical roles and eventually was tapped as an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. He left to run for governor.

Political analysts say he would bring a dash of diversity and pizazz (he's often called the Republican Barack Obama)to the ticket and conservatives who are supportive but cool towards McCain, would love him.

But Jindal's youth, which has pluses, also has minuses. It would point up McCain's advanced age--71--and also rob McCain of any political points gained at the expense of Barack Obama's young age, 46.

How can you criticize Obama for being young if the man you chose to be a heartbeat away from the presidency is ten years younger?

Again, such are the pitfalls of vice presidential choices; but keep your eye on Bobby Jindal. He could be going places and bringing a growing and vibrant constituency, Indian-Americans, from the Democratic Party to the Republican.

You heard it here first.

Veepstakes

[One of the most important decisions a freshly minted presidential presumptive nominee [did I touch all the bases :-)] makes is who the vice presidential choice is going to be. It is often referred to as the “first” such decision of a candidate to which voters pay attention.

And if voters don't, the press will.

Such was the case for Barack Obama this week when it turned out that controversy erupted not over his vice presidential choice, but for his choice of who would look into the various possibilities. These people, usually called “vetters,” because they “vet” the potential nominee, looking for scandals, controversies, hidden issues or problems that will no doubt emerge during the long campaign. Most times, the candidate assembles a team of two or three people who perform this chore. Sometimes they do a good job, sometimes not. And sometimes, it's impossible to do the job because somewhere, there is always going to be some stone that is left unturned.

The vetters are usually party elders or people close to the candidate who have the nominee's trust. In Barack Obama's instance, he chose a panel of three people—Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and Jim Johnson, the former CEO of mortgage lender Fannie Mae.

Jim Johnson, during his tenure at Fannie Mae, a government chartered company that lends money to mortgage institutions, apparently received loans on very good terms from a company called Countrywide Financial Corporation. Not usually a big thing but...

During the campaign, Senator Obama bitterly assailed Countrywide by name saying, “this is a company that is as responsible as any firm in the country for the housing crisis we're facing today.” And he also criticized an aide of Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he defeated for the nomination, strategist Mark Penn, for leading a company that did work for Countrywide.

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, and it's Barack Obama's chief vice presidential vetter who has ties to Countrywide. So what did Senator Obama have to say?

He defended his choice, calling critical reports of his vetter, “a game,” and that the committee were “folks who didn't work for him.”

Well if not for him, who?

Senator Obama hopes this will all go away and the press may move on to other things but for now, it's a mini-headache for the candidate that could get worse if it is not addressed more carefully. The "game" could backfire just as he begins to "introduce" himself to the electorate at large

If it was bad for Mark Penn to do work for Countrywide, why is not bad for his aide to have gotten what has been described as preferential loans from the same company?

Certainly, the press may want to know.

I'll have some thoughts on the Republicans' vice presidential vetting tomorrow.

The Day the Campaign Began to End

In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Cassius, in speaking with Brutus about the role of fate (among other things), tells him:

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Such could be said about Senator Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Effectively giving up the ghost on Saturday at a big rally in Washington, Senator Clinton suspended her quest for the presidency. By suspending her campaign, she left herself some wiggle room to raise money and retain her delegates for another such farewell at the Democratic Convention in August.

Countless trees died as print analysts tried to explain why Senator Clinton—who only last year was seen as the “inevitable” candidate—lost the nomination to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Her advocates claimed it was sexism, it was unfair treatment by the press, it was the burden of being the sole woman candidate, and several other mêmes of a similar nature.

Yet nowhere did they ever come close to admitting that the fault may not have been in her stars but in herself. In the end, it always comes back to the candidate and something he or she did or didn’t do. And that’s what happened here.

Let me take you back to October 30, 2007, the night of the Democratic Party’s fourteenth presidential debate of the primary season (there would be 12 more). Held on the campus of Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seven Democratic Party candidates faced questioning from MSNBC anchors Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Going into the debate, Senator Clinton was leading in all the major polls for the Democratic nomination—in both states that were holding early primary elections and caucuses, and nationwide.

Towards the latter half of the wide-ranging debate,Tim Russert posed a question to Senator Clinton about a statement she made concerning then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. Senator Clinton had told a newspaper editorial board that the idea “made a lot of sense.” Russert wanted to know why.

At first, Senator Clinton danced around the issue concluding that: “…what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform…There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.”

She was immediately challenged by then-candidate Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut who criticized the plan saying that a driver’s license was a “privilege, not a right.” Senator Clinton countered by pointing out that she didn’t say that it “made a lot of sense,” and that Governor Spitzer’s plan contained three levels of driver’s licenses, so illegal immigrants wouldn’t necessarily have the rights and privileges of a full driver’s license.

But she was sharply challenged by Tim Russert who bluntly asked: “Do you, the New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense…Do you support his plan?”

Her reply: “You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”

When she said it “made a lot of sense,” that, a) contradicted the claim she made thirty seconds earlier that she didn’t say it, and b) she never gave a yes-or-no answer.

This small part of a larger debate on foreign and domestic policy stood out and political analysts leaped on it as an example of Senator Clinton’s inability to give a direct answer, a trait which, along with her other negatives, dogged her throughout the early going of the campaign. She prevaricated on the question for another couple of days, before finally getting to the point where she said that she did not support giving drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.

But it proved the first major dent in her armor. Immediately, polls showed her dropping in popularity. By the end of the year, when she would be heading into the primary elections, she would even lose her lead.

We all know what happened next—she lost the Iowa caucuses in early January to Senator Obama and the tone was set. With a bounce-back win in New Hampshire the next week, she still was ready to make it a contest—but then Senator Obama reeled off 11 straight wins often by large margins.

Did the October 30 remarks have anything to do with this? It would be a stretch to think that the debate remark was the sole reason, but I believe it opened the door to what voters recalled they didn’t like about Senator Clinton—you couldn’t believe what she said, she would say anything to win, etc.

Remarkably, after a gutsy comeback win in Ohio on March 4, Senator Clinton again armed her critics with another drivers’ license-type episode. Throughout her campaign, she talked about her international experience as First Lady, and illustrated it with an anecdote.

She described what she said was a scene fraught with danger in 1996 when she and her daughter, Chelsea, visited Tuzla in Bosnia. She recalled that she and Chelsea faced considerable risks upon landing and had to run for cover from sniper fire. But video footage of the day, which popped up on YouTube, showed it was a peaceful landing. The First Lady was even greeted by a young girl on the tarmac.

This time, there was no waiting and Senator Clinton had to explain that she “misspoke and was sleep deprived,” and that she made a mistake.

But once again it was like taking out a billboard advertising one of the things that people said they did not like about Senator Clinton and her campaign—the exaggerations and the misstatements. Maybe she did remember it as a dangerous landing, perhaps she really thought that it happened as the way she portrayed it.

But it solidified in the public mind a trait that was not appealing about the candidate.

Even after all this, Senator Clinton ran an incredible campaign, winning most of the primaries down the stretch but it was too little, too late. Voters in the Democratic Party were looking elsewhere at a fresher face, a newer face, someone without the “baggage” and history that Senator Clinton brought with her into the 2008 presidential campaign.

To be sure, this is not the only reason that Senator Clinton won't be accepting the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on August 28 in Denver. And there was likely a good deal of press bias against her and in favor of Senator Obama. This was particularly true among television network correspondents, one of whom said that hearing Senator Obama speak “sent a tingle” up his leg.

But she didn’t need to help her critics by supplying reasons to remind them what they did not like about her.

What would have happened if on October 30, 2007, she told Tim Russert flat out that she did not support drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants? Would her polling have stayed the same? Would she have gone into 2008 with a political head of steam and would it be Barack Obama now be under consideration for her vice presidential slot?

Maybe, maybe not. But IMHO, the beginning of the end of her campaign came on October 30, 2007, when she opened the door every so slightly to Senator Obama, who as we all know, came roaring through it to capture the nomination.

Whose fault was it? Was it the “stars,” or to paraphrase the immortal bard, “herself”?

Senator Clinton "Suspends" Her Campaign

So today, after 504 days as a presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York suspended her campaign. Notice she didn't end her campaign, she “suspended” it. She did endorse her Democratic Party rival and now the presumptive nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, but she kept some doors open...just in case.

By suspending her campaign rather than ending it, she is retaining her ability to raise money. The campaign is said to be in debt to the tune of 30 million dollars. She also keeps her delegates up to the presidential nominating convention in August. And yes, it means she can “unsuspend” her campaign later in the season if she wants to.

While most analysts believed this was truly the end, some longtime Clinton watchers like former political aide Dick Morris don't believe this is truly the end. They think she is biding her time and ensuring she remains viable if something comes up that could torpedo Senator Obama. So she'll be around...just in case.

But in reality, this is the end of her campaign to seek the presidency. If Senator Obama loses this time around, she would have to wait another four years—maybe eight---to seek the office by which time she would be 69 years old. If she was yesterday's news in 2008, just think what she would be in 2012 or 2016.

Now she is being compared to Al Gore, Bill Clinton's vice president who also failed to gain the presidency. Since he's become Mr. Global Warming and earned a Nobel, he has a life direction; what can Hillary Clinton do?

Some observers are asking whether she would take the role of Senator Edward Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, who was recently diagnosed with cancer. Others raise the possibility of a Supreme Court nomination in a Barack Obama presidency.

Whatever her future holds, it appears (barring some catastrophic event) it won't include the presidency of the United States.

More on her legacy in a future post.

Senator Clinton "Suspends" Her Campaign

The Case That Senator McCain Can Make

So how does John McCain beat Barack Obama given the latter's incredible enthusiasm, momentum, charisma, and let's face it, adulatory media support?

Especially when it is easily viewed as a contest of young versus old, Washington veteran versus Washington rookie, "change" versus "reform," MSNBC versus Fox, and a huge money-raising machine versus a much-lesser money-raising machine?

Well, there are vulnerabilities that Senator Obama have and they were evident in the recently concluded campaign. This is not to say that these liabilities (at least in my view) are hard-wired and cannot be changed (or get worse), but they are there, and the McCain campaign will be taking a look at them.

The first is Senator Obama's willingness to leave Iraq no matter what. This is basically what defined his early campaign-unlike other Democrats in the race, especially Senators John Edwards and Hillary Clinton-he opposed the Iraq war while they initially voted for it in the U.S. Senate. This earned him the support of fervent anti-war activists in the Democratic Party of which there are legions. He became identified with this view and still sticks to it, although apparently with enough qualifiers to leave himself a little wiggle room should he be awarded the keys to the Oval Office.

But events on the ground in Iraq have changed markedly since Barack Obama first spoke out against the war in Iraq back in 2002 and while he continued his campaign in the U.S. Senate to bring American troops home. While people still debate whether the so-called "surge" (a marked increase in U.S. troops to cut down on casualties) has "worked," the fact is casualties have gone down and most analysts have concluded that the surge, at the very least, has improved the situation in Iraq.

While public opinion generally coalesces around the view that getting into the war was wrong or a mistake, there is variance among different polls about the course to take now-stay in, get out, get out immediately, get out later, stay until it's finished-you name it. But few Americans in polls want an immediate pullout; most want the troops out in less than a year, one or two years, or as one poll put it, they want the next president to be "flexible."

If the surge continues to consolidate the position that there is some progress being made in Iraq, then an immediate pullout or setting a hard and fast date may not be as strong a political position as it was a year or two ago. And Senator McCain can argue that Senator Obama would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." That is going to be a difficult argument to make, but if events on the ground in Iraq continue to improve rather than deteriorate, the senator from Arizona can make such a case. Polls show most Americans don't want to surrender unilaterally.

Same for Senator Obama's positions on whether or not he would meet with America's most strident enemies. At first, he said he would do so without preconditions. Later that position was massaged and now he says he would meet with them only after groundwork was laid and certain conditions were met-which was the Hillary Clinton position, if I am not mistaken.

But it's a little muddy as to what he would do exactly, and again, Senator McCain would have an opening to prosecute his case for election based on whatever position Senator Obama has on the issue.

However, where Senator McCain could really make some inroads is with the groups in the Democratic Party who were "left behind" in the wake of the Obama victory. And again, these are based on demographics and exit polling: the base of Senator Obama's support is made up of educated, affluent white, younger liberals-the winners in the information economy-and those African-Americans inspired by the Obama campaign.

The losers in the information economy-laid off factory workers, voters who occupy rungs on the downscale economic ladder, those without higher education-in other words, the groups who made up what was once the bulk of the Democratic Party, have been lukewarm to Obama. In focus groups being held across the country, and in particular, states that Senator Obama lost in the primary campaign, voters are telling pollsters that they are intrigued with Senator Obama, but they don't know him. More importantly, they feel he doesn't know them.

The most obvious manifestation of this view came in April when Senator Obama told a fundraiser in San Francisco, California, "…small-town voters are bitter over the economy and, because of that, they 'cling' to guns and religion." These comments portrayed the senator as a liberal elitist far removed from those voters who live in small towns, go to church, and like to hunt and own guns.

While Senator Obama had belonged to a church for twenty years (and therein lies a whole other problem) and he has made comments about respecting such people, it's clear that when he thought no one was looking, his mask may have dropped a bit and the real liberal aloof Obama came out.

If these voters are truly in play, and Senator McCain can pick off a substantial portion of them, it could be a very close election, indeed.

Lastly, Senator Obama is perhaps the most liberal candidate nominated by the Democrats since 1972 when George McGovern got the nomination. Supporting universal health care with a strong dose of government intervention, repealing various tax cuts, and calling for massive spending programs on social issues, Senator McCain can draw a distinction between himself-a fiscal conservative-and Senator Obama, whom he will label a big spender that will by necessity, raise taxes.

Whether or not this argument works, whether Senator Obama will persuade Americans that the time has come for increased government spending on social programs (the electorate does seem to be more favorable to these kinds of initiatives than in the past) remains to be seen. But again, it is an opening that Senator McCain can use.

The issue may come down in the end, to, in most simple terms, "change" versus "reform," with Senator Obama offering the former, and Senator McCain, the latter. If Americans feel Senator Obama may be going too far, "reform" might be preferable to "change" with Senator McCain leading it.

As we head into the general election campaign, no one underestimates the challenges facing Senator McCain and the Republicans-an unpopular president, an unpopular war, an economy producing anxiety, and a feeling that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Add to that, the word, "Republican" is not a magnet for voters currently, the money advantage that Senator Obama is likely to have, and the excitement and media support that Senator Obama will attract, and the feeling that American voters are generally ready for a change in parties, and you can see, it's going to be tough for Senator McCain to win in November But not impossible; despite all the handicaps he has, he still runs a tight race with Senator Obama and people vote for people-not generic candidates with no name or history.

Many analysts believe that the Republican Party may have nominated the one candidate who actually has a chance to win, even though he is not beloved in his own party the way Ronald Reagan was. Nevertheless, it's not over until it's over, and while there is great excitement about the candidacy of Senator Obama, let's just say his election is not a sure thing; in fact, I think it's going to be a very close race.

And of course, you can follow it all on www.voanews.com!

Veepstakes and More

After a much criticized non-concession speech on Tuesday in Washington, it looks like Senator Hillary Clinton of New York will finally leave the race and endorse the Democratic nominee (let's forget "presumptive," "likely," and the other niceties now that it's over) Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. She is scheduled to do this in a speech either Friday or Saturday.

Then the speculation centers on the vice presidency for the Democrats. The current view is that Senator Clinton is "interested" and that Senator Obama is "willing" to talk with her about it. Those are both probably true. And those statements are about as far as anyone should be willing to go concerning Senator Obama's choice for a veep.

I have said so before in this space and I'll say it again-I would be majorly shocked if Senators Obama and Clinton wound up on the same ticket. While it is a dream of Democrats, it's one that will not come true, IMHO. For one thing, it would be a partnership in this sense: say someone owes you a lot of money that you need for a project. Suddenly you realize, you don't have a debtor, you have a "partner."

Senator Obama cannot be seen as being bullied into accepting Senator Clinton has a running mate. He can ask former Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale about this (see my post yesterday). Secondly, it's not entirely clear that Hillary Clinton wants the vice president's job, which one great American and former veep himself under Franklin Roosevelt, John Nance ("Texas Jack") Garner, called (and this is a paraphrase), "not worth a buck of warm 'spit'." Use your imagination to guess what the actual word was.

Additionally, it would be one of the most dysfunctional White Houses to hit Washington in decades. The two titans would create their own power bases and legions of courtiers who would vie against each other for power and influence. And with Hillary Clinton, you get Bill Clinton. Think Barack wants him anywhere near his Oval Office?

Lastly, I have come to the conclusion (shared by several analysts) that in the end, vice presidential candidates don't matter much (see John Nance Garner above). They don't usually help although they can hurt. In the end, voters will be focusing on the person at the top of the ticket…and with a hale, hearty and healthy 46 year-old leading the Democratic Party, well, you don't think much about the number two person, now do you? So, if Senator Obama feels he needs help with women voters, for instance, there are other candidates who come to mind. One such person's name tossed about is the female governor of Kansas, Katherine Sibelius.

But in the end, I think Senator Obama will go with a male who has strong foreign policy credentials, who is a little older and more experienced, and is widely viewed as a safe centrist. For me, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson fits the bill but there are others. I don't think it will be Hillary Clinton, and if it somehow is, I don't think it will be the first choice of Senator Obama. You read it here first.

While most of the attention is on the Democratic candidate because of the historic nature of his victory, don't forget the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Since he clinched his party's nomination back in March, he's had time to ponder on just how he plans to run against the wunderkind. What's interesting to me is that despite the huge advantage Democrats now enjoy over Republicans in generic party preference (something like 12 points), the Obama-McCain race in presidential polling is fairly tight and has been throughout the primary season.

One reason is that we don't nominate generic candidates-we nominate flesh and blood human beings with their own pasts, foibles, strengths, and character. Right now, I think the American voting public is slightly leaning towards Senator Obama but his election is certainly no slam-dunk.

The latest tracking polls show a slight tilt towards Obama with one showing a slight tilt to McCain. A recent CBS poll shows a six-point Obama lead but that was with a survey of 930 registered voters. The other polls are in the 1200-4400 range so I trust them a little more. It will be interesting to see the Obama "bump" after he clinched the nomination with the adulatory press articles about the historic nature of his triumph. If that bump doesn't go way beyond five points, the McCain campaign should be breathing easier.

Although Obama seems like a strong candidate in the fall, given the current atmosphere of the electorate, there are some flaws and weaknesses, which were apparent in the last months of the primary campaign. I'll describe those in a subsequent post.

But for now, things are finally settling down and, as a result, voters will actually stop paying attention for awhile now that the candidates are set and the summer season has begun ("summer season" actually begins in the United States at the end of May and goes to the first weekend in September). Time to focus on friends, family, food, sun, and vacation. We'll keep an eye on the politics for you, but even I get caught up in the summer season; and we can all use a little breather after the long slog that was the presidential primary process.

The Long Campaign Ends with an Obama Victory

Congratulations to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois who is the winner of one of the most grueling primary campaigns ever. His triumph is an historic one as well-the first African-American to ever head a national ticket. It is being seen here as a glorious moment for the United States and perhaps it is.

There are several pieces available now looking at exactly why he won over the vastly more experienced and well-known (and well-funded) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Having gone through them, and looking into my own reasons, I come up with these two:

1) The Obama team put together a plan that fit the reality of what the Democratic Party nominating process was in 2008. The rules were very quirky, complex, and difficult to master. Yet the Obama team did master them and nullified the normal advantages that a candidate like Senator Clinton would enjoy in the party. By focusing on the small-turnout voting events called caucuses, the Obama campaign was able to leverage small groups of people into significant delegate advantages.

They also knew how to play the delegate game in the bigger primaries. The rules of the Democratic Primary awarded delegate totals unequally-that is, certain areas of a state received more delegates than others, based on previous election results. So the Obama campaign micro-targeted these areas and picked up enough delegates through this process to give them an insurmountable lead that held up week after week.

The Clinton campaign did not do this and effectively ceded the primary to him.

2) Senator Obama himself was the right messenger for these times. The electorate has changed and shifted over the past four years and Senator Obama's message of "change" resonated much more effectively with voters than Senator Clinton's message of "experience." The funny thing is that, of all people, Senator Clinton should have known this: her husband won in 1992 on a "change" platform over that of President George H.W. Bush who stressed his "experience."

"Change" doesn't win all the time but when the message is right, it works. Additionally, Senator Obama's race trumped Senator Clinton's gender with Democratic Party voters. The novelty of the first African-American candidate to contend for the nomination with a chance to win attracted more favorable press and reaction from party members than did Senator Clinton's campaign based on her sex.

I suppose one had to choose which "history" one wanted to be part of-the first African-American to head a national ticket or the first woman and voters in the Democratic Party made their choices.

Now the question shifts to Senator Clinton's plans in the fall campaign. She didn't concede, she didn't quit, she is somewhere in political no-man's land. It seems to me that she really wants Senator Obama to come to her seeking support.

He won't do it. He won't repeat the mistake that former Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale made in 1984 when he offered the vice presidential nomination to Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro under heavy pressure from party feminists. Mondale was seen as weak and buckling under to feminist influence, a charge that really handicapped him during the general election.

In this campaign, Senator Obama won, and Senator Clinton lost. As the victor, it is Senator Obama who gets to set the agenda and terms of what happens next. I still maintain that I would be shocked if he offers her the second spot on the ticket; it would be too forced a partnership and it wouldn't work on the campaign trail and insiders say it certainly wouldn't work as a governing system should they win in November.

I think he is looking elsewhere.

As far as the presumptive Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona is concerned, he has been campaigning against Senator Obama for some time, so in a way, nothing much has changed. But he will be trying to make some inroads with frustrated Democratic Party female voters who are still enraged over Senator Clinton's loss to Senator Obama.

He will also be emphasizing Senator Obama's relative inexperience and sometimes muddied responses to answers.

Ironically, a focus group recently discussed Senator Obama and the voters in it said while they were intrigued by his campaign theme of "change" (whatever that means), they didn't really know all that much about him-what he really thought, what he would like to do, where he stands on issues (not policy positions and papers which have a habit of disappearing after the campaigns are over and the winner has to actually do the dirty work of governing) or what he is likely to do in given situations. That's the kind of stuff that voters learn over a politician's long career in public life. Senator Obama has had a short one, so voters really consider him something of a blank slate.

That is going to be a challenge for Senator Obama (among others) which is, strange as this may sound, introducing himself to the electorate at large which is quite different from the electorate that is restricted to the Democratic Party.