Voice of America Election Blog

Taking Da Bait

2008-09-28T20:53:00.012-04:00

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

2008-09-15T20:35:00.002-04:00

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

2008-09-08T16:12:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-03T10:05:00.005-04:00

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

2008-08-05T19:52:00.003-04:00

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

2008-08-04T14:54:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-29T17:39:00.001-04:00

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

2008-07-23T16:28:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-22T16:36:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-07-21T20:54:00.003-04:00

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

2008-07-19T10:01:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-15T10:56:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-10T16:38:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-08T16:05:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-02T21:58:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-01T20:26:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-20T16:54:00.000-04:00

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

2008-06-18T17:18:00.001-04:00

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

2008-06-16T22:26:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-14T10:24:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-11T20:58:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-10T20:25:00.002-04:00

[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

2008-06-09T15:54:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-07T17:41:00.001-04:00

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

2008-06-07T17:40:00.001-04:00

The Case That Senator McCain Can Make

2008-06-06T15:51:00.000-04:00

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

2008-06-05T15:34:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-04T11:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Compromise and Trinity Church

2008-05-31T19:19:00.002-04:00

Fairly big news over the weekend...

The Democratic National Committee, which oversees the Democratic Party, met in Washington today to discuss what to do with the states of Michigan and Florida. Democrats in Michigan and Florida held early primaries that were unsanctioned by the party and so their results did not count.

No candidate competed in either state and Senator Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan. Senator Hillary Clinton won both contests and she wanted the results to stand which would bring her closer to Senator Obama in the popular vote and delegate totals.

Meeting today in Washington, the committee agreed to give each state's delegates a half-vote because neither campaign could force through the changes they wanted. The meeting was tense and often confrontational. It put Senator Obama ever closer to gaining the magic number (whatever that may be now) of delegates to claim the prize. He, according to one count, is only 66 delegates short.

Senator Clinton's campaign may still take the matter to the convention as her supporters were not pleased with the outcome. But then nobody thought anyone would.

In other news, Senator Obama says he will resign from the Trinity United Church in Chicago after another firey sermon from the church's pulpit. In this one, Father Michael Pfleger ridiculed Senator Clinton and that dredged up the incindiery sermons of Jeremiah Wright which ignited the entire controversy.

This move may have been overdue for Obama who now wants to put the entire episode behind him as he moves in for the nomination.

Is This The End for the Democrats

2008-05-20T17:18:00.000-04:00

This could be a big night in the Democratic presidential primary race. With contests in Kentucky and Oregon, front-runner for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, is poised to declare victory over his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

In the two races, Senator Obama will likely get creamed in Kentucky (Senator Clinton is up by 30 points in one count) but is ahead in Oregon by 10. Nevertheless, either he or his surrogates will claim that he is within 100 delegates of going "over the top," he leads in the number of votes cast in the primary process, and will be the nominee. Reports indicate he won't do it outright so as not to pressure Senator Clinton who still has a good deal of support in the party. This support, by the way, has been making itself more evident in recent days with full-page advertisements in major newspapers, urging her to stay in the race through the end of the primary season in June.

For her part, Senator Clinton shows no interest in leaving, and in fact, is claiming that she leads in the popular vote. She does this by including primary results in two states-Michigan and Florida-that held their contests earlier than the party leadership wanted, and as a result, were disenfranchised from the process. Senator Clinton, who won both contests handily, has been claiming for a long time that these states' votes should be counted. Senator Obama said that the rules specifically stated that the votes of these states would not count and to change in the rules in the middle of the game would be highly unfair.

It's a bit of complicated stretch but: if you count in the vote totals of Michigan and Florida, and do not count four states (Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada) which have not released their popular vote totals yet, then Senator Clinton is in the lead in popular votes by nearly 30,000 out of 34.4 million cast, one-tenth of a percentage point advantage.

Additionally, the Clinton campaign is saying that Senator Obama needs to reach a delegate total of 2,209 (which includes the delegates from Michigan and Florida) instead of the 2,025, which does not include the delegate totals from those states.

Those supporting Senator Clinton have relentlessly been attacking the media for declaring Senator Obama as the nominee. Almost all networks and the print press have done this following last week's votes which featured Senator Obama's bigger-than-expected win in North Carolina and his closer-than-expected loss in Indiana. Nobody in the press is changing that meme very much and it is doubtful that tonight's results will alter any perceptions.

But we will be looking for what Senator Obama says following his expected win in Oregon and how close he comes to saying it's over.

FOOTNOTE: Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, brother to slain former President John F. Kennedy, and slain former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy, has been diagnosed with brain cancer. Senator Kennedy, who is 76, suffered a seizure last Saturday, and was told he had a malignant brain tumor. The tumor (malignant glioma) is the most primary form of brain tumor and the senator will be treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

He is recognized as a "liberal lion" in the Senate and has served for more than 40 years. He ran unsuccessfully for the presidency in 1980, challenging incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

Big Win for Hillary Clinton Tonight in West Virginia

2008-05-13T22:10:00.002-04:00

A big win for Hillary Clinton tonight in the West Virginia Primary, she won by something like 56-29. If this had come last week instead of the North Carolina primary's results, we would have a very different race.

While this will not change a lot on the ground regarding delegates, it may change the "narrative", that is, the press consensus on where the race is. It is true that Senator Barack Obama, the frontrunner and likely nominee, did not campaign much at all in West Virginia and wrote the state off, but the result shows he is still not connecting with a significant portion of the base of the Democratic Party. White, working class voters (both with and without college degrees) voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. Worse yet, significant portions of these Clinton voters say if Senator Obama is the nominee, they will either not vote for president, or vote for likely Republican nominee John McCain in the fall.

While most analysts believe this will not happen, I am not so sure. The Obama campaign has to do some work to attract these voters in order to win. The campaign probably knows this and will try to affect these results but there is always the chance they will ignore these voters and build a new coalition that they think can win--African-Americans, liberals, youth, and those seeking a "change". That could be a winning coalition for sure, but I don't think you can write off at least half of the base of your party without some risk.

We'll see what the Obama camp does.

Meanwhile, this should be the first of several large-scale victories for Senator Clinton in the next couple of weeks. Too little, too late? Or will this (plus expected victories in Kentucky and elsewhere) have any impact on the race to come?

Stay tuned.

The Party's Over?

2008-05-07T17:01:00.000-04:00

Well, not only are the primaries in North Carolina and Indiana over, most likely, the Democratic Party's presidential nomination race is over, too. Yes, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York will keep campaigning and will pick up wins in places like West Virginia and Kentucky, but last night may have been the end for Senator Clinton and the day that Senator Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination.

That's because of the expectations game. To put it bluntly, by winning with a 14-point margin (56-42) in North Carolina, Senator Obama beat the expectations that it was going to be a race decided in single digits. And by losing in Indiana by only two points (51-49), he beat expectations again that Senator Clinton would win by a big margin in that state. It was a big night for him, and even though the races ended up split, it ended up being a not-so-good night for Senator Clinton.

The numbers are being crunched and it appears that Senator Obama did a little better among some of the groups he has been losing in the past. and Senator Clinton did a little worse. The actual numbers in these shifts weren't even all that great; the margins were slightly changed. But it was enough to make a huge difference.

In North Carolina, Senator Obama won African-Americans (a third of the Democratic Party primary electorate) by monolithic figures, something like 92-8. That's a huge margin to roll up at the very beginning. That would mean that Senator Clinton would have had to win voters who were not African-American by substantial margins. She just didn't do it. Maybe no one could have, given the demographic realities.

In Indiana, where there were not nearly as many African-American voters, Barack Obama did better among the groups he was losing than Senator Clinton did among the groups she was winning. And therein lies the difference.

But why did Senator Obama do better? He seems to have changed his tone somewhat and began trying to appeal to the kinds of voters that support Senator Clinton. Maybe that's why he went bowling (scoring an incredibly low 37!) and lowered the tone of his rhetoric, and didn't sound like a Harvard graduate but just a guy from down the street. While Senator Clinton still won these voter groups, she didn't win them by as much as she needed. It's not unlike a fighter ahead on points going into the last three rounds just holding on to lose each round by one point instead of two. Stay on your feet and you win. That is what Senator Obama did.

The pressure on Senator Clinton now to drop out will become intense and most analysts and political types have assumed the race is over. The Drudge Report showed a big picture of Senator Obama and his wife Michelle with the headline: The Nominee.

You can't say that's wrong; the results last night were very impressive, and it appears now that Senator Obama is getting ready to pivot into the general and not bother with Senator Clinton while taking aim at the Republican nominee (for all intents and purposes) Senator John McCain.

The one thing that may be worrying the Obama camp is the reports of how many of Senator Clinton's supporters say they won't vote for Obama in the general election. Given the conditions facing the Republican Party this year, it may not make a difference, but if it's a close race in November, any such defections could prove costly.

Senator Clinton will continue her campaign but the question is will the campaign continue with Senator Clinton or will it have moved on to the main event-Obama vs McCain-with the prize being the presidency. Last night's results say the main event is starting.

Primary Preview

2008-05-06T17:35:00.001-04:00

The polls in North Carolina are slated to close at 0030 UTC (7:30 pm EDT) and in Indiana at 2300 UTC (6:00 pm EDT) although 12 of Indiana's 92 counties are on Central time, so in those areas, polls will be open an hour later.

Hey, Indiana just adopted Daylight Savings Time a couple of years ago, so don't complain.

Nevertheless, in the runup to the voting, there is still some variance in survey data. Most polls have Senator Hillary Clinton of New York winning the Indiana primary by single digits (a few have it particularly close) and most polls have the overall frontrunner, Senator Barack Obama, winning North Carolina (although a couple of late breaking polls have it uncomfortably close for him, too).

The conventional wisdom so far is that a) turnout will be high in both elections; b) both candidates should win their respective primaries where they are favorites; c) nothing will change as a result and the political death march picks up on Wednesday in the Democratic Party.

But there are some things to look at that are interesting. Earlier today, the Clinton campaign was sadly telling reporters that they are staring at a 15-point defeat in North Carolina. They said they gave it their best shot, but the "demographics" of the state worked against them. That is a code phrase for saying there will be huge turnout of African-Americans and college-types who will overwhelmingly support Senator Obama and there aren't enough downscale voters to make up the difference.

The Drudge Report faithfully picked up the story and a huge headline plastered over the site said that the New York senator was headed for a double digit defeat.

However, it sounds to me like what the Clinton campaign is cleverly doing is lowering expectations for Senator Clinton in North Carolina to the point where anything less than a ten-point win could be claimed as a "victory" because she would beat the point spread. Some polls, including today's Insider Advantage poll put Senator Obama up by only four in N.C. Other polls have him comfortably ahead. It seems it's either feast or famine here-either he's ahead by double digits or just squeaking out a lead.

Needless to say, a defeat in North Carolina at the hands of Senator Clinton would be disastrous for the Obama campaign. But a win at low single digits wouldn't be a whole lot better. There will be much parsing of the exit polls (no data yet) and who voted for whom to get the real results from this primary.

Over in Indiana, it's practically a mirror image. The consensus is that Senator Clinton is going to win and some polls put her up by double digits; the Insider Advantage poll puts her up by four. One or two predict an Obama win.

I still am going to go with my first prediction and that's Senator Obama in N.C. by under ten and Senator Clinton over Senator Obama in Indiana by the same margin. As we go up and down the victory scale (how many points the candidate won or lost by), that could prove to be interesting. I'll have some early polls and exit data when I can.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain (remember him?) who will be the Republican nominee, gave a pretty important speech this week. He spoke at Wake Forest University (that's also in N.C.) about an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of conservatives in the Republican Party…and that is the power of the president to appoint judges, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republicans who pay attention to this (and there are plenty of them) believe that their presidents (particularly President Bush's father-George H.W. Bush) failed conservatives by appointing justices who were sold as conservative but decided as liberals. With Republicans winning seven of the last nine presidential elections, a true conservative impact on the court was felt only under the two terms of President George W. Bush who appointed now-Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito. Both were confirmed (but not without fights) and have been reliable conservatives on the Court.

Republicans feel that Democrats appoint so-called "judicial activists" who re-interpret the Constitution based on personal convictions rather than constitutional law and principles. Democrats in recent years have been making similar charges against the Republicans and the stakes on court cases are high, given the often-crucial cases on social policy that reach the Supremes.

In his speech at Wake Forest, Senator McCain said, "There are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary. And I intend to find them, and promote them, if I am elected president."

It has been said that Senator McCain needs to reach out to the conservatives who make up the base of the party and who have often been at odds with the "maverick" who talks about global warming and campaign finance reform, both issues that trouble many conservatives. But it is the judicial issue where Senator McCain can connect with these Republican Party conservatives-if they believe he will appoint candidates who have the "proper role" of the judiciary in mind.

There is some evidence that Republican conservatives, if not wildly supporting the candidacy of Senator McCain, are at least "coming home" and plan to vote for him in the general election. He is fortunate that as the presumed nominee, he has a chance to do this under the radar screen of the mainstream media which is busy chronicling every utterance in the Obama-Clinton contest.

In some ways, the true beneficiary of this prolonged contest in the Democratic Party may be the Republican. I'll have more as results and exit polls start to trickle in later.

North Carolina and Indiana

2008-05-05T17:18:00.001-04:00

Going into Tuesday's critical primary elections (when haven't I not written that phrase?) in Indiana and North Carolina, the consensus view is that the front runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, will win in North Carolina, and his challenger, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, will win in Indiana. The polls tend to bear this out going into Tuesday.

But…and there's always the big but….there is in politics an element of surprise and expectations. Sen. Clinton's advisers were playing that game today when they told the press that Sen. Obama had long been expected to win both states and that his former 17-point lead (on average) in North Carolina had been pared down to under ten; in some cases, it was under five. So, even if Sen. Clinton loses in North Carolina, it's by how many points she loses, and if she wins in Indiana (like she is expected to do), it will be a great night for her.

This is likely to be the scenario on Tuesday, as it is true that Senator Clinton closed a huge gap in the polls in North Carolina. It is not beyond the realm of possibility she could even win. One thing has become clear in these races and that is that the polling has not always been accurate, particularly where Sen. Obama is concerned. In some of the races, he has performed better in the polls than at the polls. Racism? People uncomfortable telling strangers with clipboards that they plan to vote against an African-American? Perhaps a bit of both, but while I think Sen. Obama will pull out a victory in North Carolina (due to his massive vote getting ability among African-Americans who will make up around a third of the Democratic Party primary electorate), it won't be by over ten points, and I expect that to be spun in Sen. Clinton's direction.

I think she will win Indiana by 5 to 10 points so that puts everybody back at square one on Wednesday. There is no doubt the race will continue and the next major states on the calendar (West Virginia on May 13 and Oregon and Kentucky on May 20) augur well for Sen. Clinton. She should win West Virginia and Kentucky handily, Oregon should be Obama territory.

But if either candidate wins both Indiana and North Carolina tomorrow, that could be the turning point that Democratic Party chieftains have been praying for, at least in the case of Sen. Obama. If he were to win both states, the party's non-elected but vote-casting "superdelegates" would flock to him because he defeated Senator Clinton in a state where she should have won. However if Senator Clinton wins both, that would send tremors down the party's spine as it would mean, as one writer put it recently, the good ship Obama would be listing and taking on water. Worse yet, that would put those superdelegates in a tight spot-vote against the first legitimate African-American presidential candidate and kiss goodbye any black support in the polls, no matter what they may think would happen in November.

And if Senator Obama does lose both, he can thank his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose incendiary statements, long-time ties to the junior senator from Illinois, and his recent press junket may have cost Sen. Obama tens of thousands of votes. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Again, I think N.C. is going to be tight but I would bet that Sen. Obama holds on, therefore "tainting" his win a bit; and I think Sen. Clinton wins a workmanlike race in Indiana. We'll see on Tuesday. I'll be posting results and analysis.

Heading into Tuesday

2008-05-02T15:25:00.001-04:00

As we head into Tuesday's primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina, a couple of things are becoming clearer-the controversy over Senator Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-has hurt the front runner who is seeking to wrap up the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. It's shown up in polls, surveys, and anecdotal data.

The press coverage around Senator Obama has changed markedly. No longer is he the savior who causes tingles and chills in political reporters. At times, he has been testy and while his most ardent followers accept his mea culpas about the remarks of the Rev. Wright ("outrageous") others on the fence don't seem so sure.

While Senator Obama has been steadily converting the so-called "superdelegates" who may be called on to cast ballots if, as likely, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Hillary Clinton of New York amass enough delegates to win on the first ballot at the political convention in August, he suddenly seems much less of a clear winner than he did even a couple of weeks ago.

For instance, today (May 2), the Gallup Polling organization reported that its presidential daily tracking data showed the likely Republican Party nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, beating Senator Obama in a fall election by six points (48-42) while Senator McCain leads Senator Clinton for the fall by one point, 46-45.

The obvious conclusion is that the longer Senators Obama and Clinton go at each other, the beneficiary is Senator McCain. Most analysts still say that when the Democrats finally settle on a nominee, the party will unite behind the candidate. But you could drive a truck through the terms, "finally settle" and exactly what that will mean. More and more, you hear voters for one candidate swear they will desert the party if their choice loses. I first dismissed a lot of this, but the more I hear it, the more I tend to believe it's possible.

There is a lot being written and said that the controversy over Rev. Wright is truly a "distraction" from the "real" issues that Americans care about-health policy, the war in Iraq, the economy, the food crisis, etc. It is the press and media which fixate on these so-called meaningless disputes that make for good stories but little else.

Here, I must dissent. Having covered American politics for more than 25 years, and having spoken to thousands of voters in that time (and I'm one myself!), I can say that controversies like Reverend Wright do matter. Here's why:

The American president is not just a national version of a county manager-that is, the person in charge of the Oval Office is more than someone who merely selects and implements a policy to solve problems. No, sir. The president has that role, of course, but the symbolic nature of the Chief Executive is even more important. Our president is head of the government, head of state, and also serves as an embodiment of ourselves. He or she will be the epitome of what it is to be "American". This person is going to be in our living rooms nightly for the next four years. The president will inspire us, call on us for sacrifice, scold us at times, and urge us on to make the country a better place. We have to "like", if not actually love the person who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We want to feel comfortable with the person who occupies the White House.

This calls for a unique set of skills which falls under the rubric of character. What kind of person is this candidate? How truthful? What has this person gone through in life? Am I inspired? Can I believe what is said? What does the body language give off? How are ordinary citizens treated? Can the press be handled? Is this person "presidential"?

Those who think these things don't matter don't understand the office of the presidency.

Do you think Americans actually pore through the policy positions of the candidates on health care and compare them? Most Americans realize that the promises and papers ground out during the campaign mean little. These proposals have a way of disappearing like the morning dew on a blistering hot day once an administration takes office. They are usually vague and sound alike, even coming from different candidates. But the character of the candidate doesn't change, and therein lies the true measure by which a voter can judge for whom he is going to cast a ballot. And incidents like the Wright controversy and Senator Obama's responses to them, or Senator Clinton's imagined landing under sniper fire in Tuzla, or Senator McCain's relationship to President George Bush, may mean more to a voter than another ten-point plan for curing whatever.

So while advocates for one candidate or another may grind teeth at what appear to be inane issues at time when so much needs to be discussed and debated, it truly does matter. That's what people talk about around the water cooler or on the way to work…and that's what can decide nominations and elections.

We will see how this impacts the voting on Tuesday. No matter what, the presidential contest in the Democratic Party will likely go on. There will be a major impact on the race should one candidate lose the two races on Tuesday. Of course, Senator Obama can afford to lose the two and keep going. It would be a devastating loss, but at the end of the day, he would still be ahead in delegates and probably in the popular vote. But it would be a warning sign and could serve as a touchstone for Senator Clinton to rack up further victories in the remaining primaries, putting the supers on the spot.

If Senator Clinton loses both, you can bet there will be more cries for her to leave the race, although it appears she is committed to carrying on. A split decision, and not much changes.

If the results fall in between, I'll be around to interpret them for you. Stay tuned.

The Wright Stuff

2008-04-28T16:41:00.002-04:00

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been on a media offensive this past week. He's made three major appearances since Friday, winding up on Monday with a speech at Washington's National Press Club. The reviews are, to put it mildly, mixed.

The Reverend Wright was the pastor for 20 years for Senator Barack Obama and his family in Chicago. When portions (referred to now in the media lexicon as "snippets") of Rev. Wright's sermons hit YouTube and the rest of the Internet, the nation was astounded. The most common adjective used to describe them was "incendiary." His most famous quote was that African-Americans shouldn't sing "God Bless America," but rather because of the nation's tortured racial past, sing, "God Damn America." There was plenty more that would anger a lot of voters.

In a speech soon after these remarks broke, Sen. Obama tried to distance himself from Rev. Wright's remarks without distancing himself from Rev. Wright or his church. It was a very fine line and for a while, the speech served to quell criticism. But now, after Sen. Obama lost a critical primary in Pennsylvania to his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, this recent media blitz by Rev. Wright is threatening to make life a whole lot worse for Sen. Obama's campaign.

In his remarks in Washington, the Rev. Wright refused to back off or apologize for any of his previous remarks although he did try to put them in some kind of context. But the appearance came off more like a circus with a crowd cheering his every statement and any nuances lost in the rush to play back the sound bites. He said that any criticism of his remarks is not aimed at him but at the black church in general.

The consensus online and in the nation's press was that this was not helping Senator Obama and it certainly did not appear as if the Rev. Wright is in a mood to help him at all. The view from many analysts is that just as the Rev. Wright controversy was beginning to die down, these appearances will only inflame it even more, and threatens to engulf Sen. Obama within it.

Senator Clinton has been very circumspect in her remarks on the Rev. Wright, saying that if she were a member of Rev. Wright's church, she would have left, but she then criticized Republicans for "politicizing" the matter. Not exactly hard hitting stuff. For his part, the likely Republican Party nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said, it was "beyond belief" that Rev. Wright, in a speech on Sunday, offered that the United States was acting like "Al Qaeda under a different color flag."

Republicans in North Carolina (a state where a critical primary will be held next week) are running an ad criticizing Rev. Wright, and by extension, Senator Obama. The ad has been denounced by Senator McCain but will run anyway.

These developments are going to put an extreme amount of pressure on Sen. Obama to disown Rev. Wright in more forceful terms than he has in the past, and possibly, even leave the church. This is what some analysts are suggesting when they say that Senator Obama has to pull a "Sister Souljah moment." A "Sister Souljah moment " is political shorthand for a politician issuing a strong public condemnation of a group preferably in front of the group itself.

It refers specifically to the 1992 scolding by then Governor Bill Clinton during his campaign for president when he told an African-American organization (Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition) that remarks made by hip hop artist "Sister Souljah" (Lisa Williamson) about "black people killing white people" could have been made in reverse by white racist David Duke.

Gov. Clinton was criticized severely by Jesse Jackson, Sister Souljah, and others, but gained media support as someone who would "stand up" to such behavior. It tended to help Gov. Clinton among moderate and centrist Democrats during the campaign. While there was some initial fallout in the black community, eventually he ended up with the vast majority of black votes.

If Sen. Obama did denounce and disown the Rev. Wright, he would probably end the controversy and maybe even make gains among the white working class and senior age voters he is currently losing to Sen. Clinton. But he also risks losing (I think to a greater degree then Gov. Clinton did in 1992) the nearly monolithic support he is getting in the African-American community for his presidential run.

He hasn't always received that support. In fact, when the campaign started, most African-Americans were backing Senator Hillary Clinton out of respect to President Bill Clinton (who became a favorite of African-American voters) and because they thought that Sen. Obama stood no chance of getting the nomination.

But after the Iowa caucus and the subsequent victories of Senator Obama, black support flocked to him and has helped propel him into the lead for the Democratic nomination. A public rebuke of Rev. Wright, a lá Bill Clinton's put-down of Sister Souljah," could threaten that support. It's unclear yet what the political calculations would be in terms of gaining support from white moderate voters to offset an expected loss among African-Americans.

If it did happen, it would be ugly and bitter. Sources indicate that privately, the Obama campaign is furious with the Rev. Wright for launching this media blitz now as the controversy was beginning to dim (not fade away). This will put Senator Obama on the defensive yet again and he will attempt to thread the needle between walking away and maintaining his relationship with the Rev. Wright.

The Rev. Wright isn't making it easy on the candidate. Let's see what the polls in Indiana, and more importantly, North Carolina, say in a couple of days.

Pennsylvania Consensus

2008-04-24T17:22:00.002-04:00

The fallout from the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday night, April 22, is continuing. The American media is now ginning up stories about Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the leader in the Democratic Party's presidential race that would have been unthinkable months ago.

"Is Obama Electable?" went one; "Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?" went another. The current "narrative," which is the media-enforced storyline at a given time, is that Senator Obama has not done well with traditional voters in the Democratic Party-union members, women, Catholics, Jews, the elderly, downscale economic workers. While he has brought new, younger voters into his camp along with his base consisting of highly educated, highly paid working professionals and African-American voters, they may not be enough to guarantee him victory in November over Sen. John McCain, the likely nominee of the Republican Party.

Senator Obama is also being painted more and more as a "liberal" Democrat, and less the post-racial non-partisan candidate and more of a traditional doctinaire liberal.

Senator Obama's rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, cut into his popular vote lead and only slightly dented his lead in delegates. According to RealClearPolitics.com, Senator Obama is ahead in delegates by 131, and in the popular vote (in all these primaries and causes) by about 500,000. Senator Clinton is making the case that if you count the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida, she would actually be ahead in the popular vote contest.

That is the fear of many Democratic Party professionals-the split decision: Senator Obama ahead in delegates while Senator Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. While most analysts believe that will not happen, you never know in American politics. And that is one reason why Senator Clinton is not leaving the race-you never know.

This past month has been hard on Senator Obama. The reverend of the church he long attended, Jeremiah Wright, was a You Tube star preaching invective about America that would be more at home in North Korea than Illinois; then a comment that hard economic times made poor downscale voters "bitter" which led them to "cling" to things like their guns, their religion, and attitudes that those in Senator Obama's class would never begin to consider holding. Then there was the Pennsylvania debate where the moderators launched a45-minute assault on these questions and more.

It was the first time that Senator Obama really had to face a skeptical media, not the one which gushed over his every move and speech and reported how they felt "tingling" in their legs just watching him. And Senator Obama seemed unprepared and irritated that he would have to answer such questions. Another example bubbled up through the blogosphere in Pennsylvania where he was asked a question in a diner about these sorts of issues, and he said, exasperated, "Can't I just eat my waffle?" Ouch. This is not the report of a "Happy Warrior" ready to answer questions from one and all with a smiling face. This is not an approach to win hearts and minds either.

Additionally, there will be further questions on Senator Obama's associations with former radical bomber William Ayers, and Mr. Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn. Mr. Ayers was a radical from the 1960s involved with a group called the Weather Underground, which set bombs off including one in the U.S. Capitol. Ms. Dohrn was part of a group that committed an armed robbery in which a security guard and two police officers were shot to death. She refused to testify against a confederate and served time in prison.

Both turned themselves in the 1980s, and because of prosecutorial misconduct, all charges against Bill Ayers were dropped.

Senator Obama has said that his association with Bill Ayers is one between him and, as he put it, "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and that, "…knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

But most American voters, save very liberal ones who find nothing in the relationship untoward, are going to question why Senator Obama hasn't been more critical of Bill Ayers (who held a fundraiser for him in the senator's earliest political days) and his activities. This, in the eyes of many political analysts, is something that could come to haunt Senator Obama. I think this could be an ongoing issue, despite Senator Obama's supporters' gripes about it, that could drain support the longer it goes unaddressed.

When this is added to the Jeremiah Wright comments, and other recent gaffes in the Obama campaign, it does start to hurt him. It takes away from a persona that was almost absent in political baggage and now dumps a whole lot of luggage on him. The shine and luster have vanished in the hand-to-hand political combat of a presidential primary. He is looking less like the post-politics person who was going to bring us together, and more like a typical politician, evading questions, and coming up with tortured compromises to difficult situations.

Not that Senator Clinton benefits directly. Her veracity (the story of her landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, proved by You Tube to be false) is questioned by a large group of Americans but recent press reporting indicates that Democrats respect her fight for the nomination and most Democrats polled in Pennsylvania don't want her to get out of the race, at least not yet. Voters also hold high negative ratings for her but she is hanging on in the race and vows not to go away.

What may be very troubling for Democrats is that segments of each candidate's supporters say they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if their choice loses. While most political experts say this just reflects the emotions of the moment, and that they will come back to vote for the party's standard bearer, even if a small minority carries out this threat, it could be harmful for the Democrats chances in the fall.

The smart money says that Senator Obama, flush with cash compared to the money-starved campaign of Senator Clinton, is still the favorite to get the nomination because of his delegate lead and the fervent support of his backers. That may be, but the next few elections in Indiana and North Carolina, particularly, will have a lot to say about the campaigns of both candidates.

No matter that party officials want an end to the bloodletting, the two seemed destined to slug it out until, as former President Bill Clinton used to say as a candidate, "the last dog dies." The consensus now after Pennsylvania is that Senator Obama may still be the nominee, but it is not completely inconceivable that Senator Clinton could still somehow, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And the Senator Obama who may win in August will not be the same Senator Obama who was dazzling the political world in March.

No matter who wins, they will face a tough campaign for the White House as polls now suggest. It won't be a cakewalk for anyone in what has turned into, for the Democrats, one of the most bruising campaigns in recent party history.

Sen Clinton Wins

2008-04-22T22:24:00.002-04:00

With about two thirds of the vote in, Senator Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic Party primary in the state of Pennsylvania. She currently has an eight point margin. But the places where the votes have been trickling in so far indicate that she may be able to increase that margin.

Most analysts believed that she needed a win in double digits to persuade a significant number of so-called "super delegates," that is, non-elected delegates given voting privileges in the party's convention due to their status as elected officials or party leaders, to support her rather than Sen. Barack Obama, the current leader in delegates and popular votes.

It is possible that Senator Clinton could win by a margin of around 150,000 votes or more but that would not put her in the lead and most analysts believe she will not overtake Senator Obama in the remaining contests.

However, it does freeze the situation in place as the super delegates who have not committed publicly to a candidate will stay on the fence. Some may even have some unspoken doubts about Senator Obama and his failure to win in states with a traditional voter base for the Democratic Party--downscale economic workers, women, and labor union members. Senator Obama's core support comes from Democrats who are affluent, the highly-educated, professional, information society workers, and African-Americans.

If he cannot win those Democrats over in states like Pennsylvania, he may have a hard time winning the presidency. Many Democratic activists say the party will unite behind the eventual winner no matter who it is but even if a small number of the losing candidate's supporters stay home, or vote for the Republican candidate, it could prove costly for the Democrats.

So it appears the race continues as we await the final margin of victory for Senator Clinton.

And in tonight's Republican Primary in Pennsylvania, Sen. John McCain has won. Senator McCain is the presumptive nominee of his party.

UPDATE: Almost 80 percent of the vote in and the margin is still 8.

Waiting for Pennsylvania

2008-04-22T17:04:00.002-04:00

The long wait is over. I'll be blogging about the important Pennsylvania Primary in the Democratic Party which is being held as I write. Results should start coming in about three-four hours from now (0100 UTC).

Can't predict this one as polls are all over the place. The big thing here is if Senator Hillary Clinton does win the primary, how big her margin is.

She will likely stay in the race no matter what it is but the margin will be significant.

C U L8r

Debate Over the Debate

2008-04-17T19:48:00.002-04:00

The consensus among pundits concerning last night's presidential debate in Philadelphia between the front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who trails him, was twofold.

First, it was not a great night for Senator Obama. He seemed tired, hesitant, and did not turn in a good performance. While you could argue he "lost," Senator Clinton didn't "win" either. Both gave and got throughout the encounter, but it came down to those who believe Senator Clinton isn't trustworthy (think Bosnia) versus those who thought Senator Obama was slippery (think "bitter" comments and more).

Additionally, those who were supporting Senator Obama thought the questioning in the debate by American Broadcasting Company (ABC) anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused on trivial gossip, according to one critic. Their complaints focused on the opening 45 minutes in which Senator Obama seemed to be pummeled by the two network anchors, answering questions on his comments that a poor economy led Americans living in small towns to be "bitter" and "cling" to such things as their religion, gun ownership, as well as negative feelings on trade, immigration, and gay marriage.

They also brought up Senator Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose incendiary comments on America were made while Sen. Obama was a long-time member of Rev. Wright's church. They questioned Sen. Obama's decision not to wear a flag lapel (like many politicians do) and a new item-his association in Chicago with a former 1960s radical named William Ayers. A flag popped up recently on Senator Obama's lapel, but not last night.

Senator Clinton came in for her share of hard questioning about her account of a trip to Bosnia she took as First Lady in which she said that she landed under sniper fire-a story easily debunked by video posted on YouTube.

Some observations?

The two candidates are extremely close on most positions; the differences are minimal. And Senator Obama, as front-runner, is at this point, the natural target of journalists. Senator Clinton was the target late last year and I can recall her complaining about unfair questioning by journalists and giving a "pass" to Senator Obama. But now the positions are reversed, and Senator Obama is the target. This is only natural in presidential campaigns.

The questions were not off base, IMHO, and showed a lot more about Senator Obama's character and beliefs (which we really don't know much about) than drawn out discussions on the nuances of health care. Americans are concerned about whom their candidates associate with and what they truly believe, not what policy positions are dreamed up in the campaign press shop. Does Sen. Obama really think that people in small towns "cling" to religion because of poor economic times? If they were richer, would they give it up? He has tried to moderate those remarks in recent days but somehow has made his actual belief fuzzier.

And what about Senator Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers? Are dots starting to be connected?

Senator Clinton's veracity, according to polls, is also a viable issue. Many Americans, at least those in recent surveys, said they have problems believing what she says. She, too, had to answer some tough questions about this, and she did-without whining about the types of questions she has been asked.

Other writers, not me, have noted that supporters of Senator Obama feel as if he should not be asked any tough questions at all, particularly about his past. In fact, they say, all that he should be asked are questions in which he can criticize Senator Clinton and Senator John McCain, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

Part of this process-the presidential primary process-is to toughen our candidates because the challenges they will face, no matter who is elected, will be immense.

And I have to point this out: Senator McCain has answered every question thrown to him until reporters tire of them; Senator Clinton, after some complaining early in the cycle, has certainly stood in there and taken what was thrown at her.

I wonder if voters are beginning to sense vulnerability in Senator Obama in taking "tough" questions, no matter what they are. During one press conference, when "tough" questions were hurled at him, he left the stage after taking one or two. He generally seems annoyed at the prospect and has said since the debate that the questions he got in Philadelphia were, "… the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with."

While polls haven't reflected the outcome and effects of last night's debate yet, the Democratic voters seem to be in an unusual spot. While Senator Obama still leads in national polls, he trails in Pennsylvania (and leads in two states that will vote soon after Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina). If voters have doubts about him, they also express doubts about Senator Clinton. What to do?

If Senator Clinton wins Tuesday night, she stays in the race, and why not? The image of political sainthood that was bestowed upon Senator Obama early on has been slowly whittled away. Last night he looked, like, well, a politician. He has been on defense for the past few weeks and last night was another example that he is human.

It may not make any difference but the Democratic race is in an odd place. A favorite with more questions being asked about him, and his opponent, who is not a favorite but not an also-ran either.

Superdelegates, those delegates who are not elected and are free to vote as they wish, must be wondering which candidate they will support. It is becoming a more difficult decision each day.

Pennsylvania on Tuesday may be an interesting place to be.

Debate Tonight

2008-04-16T17:23:00.002-04:00

A crucial debate takes place this evening in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is the largest city in the state that just happens to be holding the next primary election for the Democratic Party on April 22.

The debate, between leader Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, comes slightly less than a week before the voting, and after the appearance of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker before Congress to discuss Iraq, various economic news, and the Pope's visit to America.

But the main subject of tonight's debate (as it has been all week) has been the "bitter" remarks made by Sen. Obama during a fundraiser April 6 in San Francisco. There, in a house on "billionaire's row," the frontrunner opined that voters in small-town America were made "bitter" by the lack of economic opportunity they have, and that made them "cling" to such things as religion, the ownership of guns, anti-immigrant feelings, and a lot more.

The remarks ignited a firestorm of opposition but so far, polls indicate that the race essentially stands where it was several weeks ago-a slight lead for Senator Clinton, certainly less than ten points. If that holds, say the pundits, given all that has gone on, then it will be a "victory" for Senator Obama in that he beat the expectations that he was going to be crushed.

Even though she "won," it would be considered a "loss" for Senator Clinton because analysts believe she should have won by a lot more, at least a margin in double digits, the higher the better.

I have no great source feeding me information but I would be surprised if the "bitter" comments have little effect on the race. I know what the polls say but I think when people get in the polling booth, it may be more of an issue than pundits think.

What is keeping the race close is that Senator Clinton has had trouble of her own. Her speeches saying she landed "under fire" in Bosnia were proved by videos on You Tube to be, and this is understated, an "exaggeration." This hasn't helped her and you can see this reflected in additional polling.

But if she does win the state, even by 5-6 points, her campaign will keep going into the next states of Indiana and North Carolina. Senator Clinton has a slight lead in Indiana, according to surveys, while Senator Obama enjoys a double-digit lead in North Carolina.

What this long campaign is showing is that, rather than the early claims that both candidates are terrific, and isn't this long race just swell, both candidates have assets and liabilities that are very real and could, in the worse case scenario, bring each down.

The salad days of Senator Obama and the constant reports of women swooning at his speeches are over. His negatives have risen and he has come down to earth. Senator Clinton has also seen a rise in her negatives as well. Some supporters of each candidate say they will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if it is not the one they currently want to win.

Additionally, the non-elected "super delegates" are being pressured to unite behind a nominee long in advance of the Democratic Convention in August. There are reports bouncing around that those super delegates who remain uncommitted (there are some 350 of 800 give or take) are being asked to declare their support for the leader in pledged or elected delegates and the popular vote after the Democratic primaries are over by early June.

This would signal a winner (presumably Senator Obama) and then the party could unite behind that candidate and begin the general election campaign against likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. While the race between the likely Republican nominee and the two Democrats is remarkably close, most analysts think the Democratic nominee would get an instant boost and immediately go out to a 10-point lead in preference surveys.

But a point is being made that to date, these uncommitted super delegates have held off on an endorsement because of concerns with both candidates. Has Senator Obama been painted as the candidate of the Democrats' liberal elite? Is Senator Clinton now too damaged by her Bosnia fiasco to be believed? Polls indicate that rank and file Democrats want the race to continue so there is obviously some uncertainty still remaining in the party.

The debate tonight could be telling, but so far, they have been fairly tame affairs with the ball moving little. The only debate that ever changed things was the one, coincidentally, in Philadelphia late last year when Sen. Clinton prevaricated (for days) on whether or not she would grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants (a pet project of former Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer).

That is when the campaign of Senator Obama began to take off.

But since then, the debates really haven't done much. Will they tonight? We'll find out….

Obama's Comments About Pennsylvania

2008-04-13T10:01:00.002-04:00

The latest political firestorm is erupting into flames at a time when Barack Obama doesn't need it. On April 6, in San Francisco at a fundraiser, Obama, speaking about the reaction of Pennsylvania residents to the U.S. economy, said:

"And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

And that's only part of it.

The comments and video were posted on a liberal blog site with the poster warning that Obama shouldn't talk that way about what the poster referred to as "working class Americans."

The blogosophere is erupting and the consensus is that is a major mistake by the Obama campaign, perhaps even worse than the Jeremiah Wright videos. As has been pointed out, this was not said by Obama's preacher but by the man himself. It was also said to a group of San Francisco political types whose image across the country is that of an elite liberal community who, fairly or unfairly, are tagged as holding those not like them in contempt.

Politically, it damages Obama heavily in Pennsylvania especially among those who:

a) own guns and like to hunt
b) are religious
c) have questions about illegal immigration
d) question US free trade policies

Obama is saying the downturn in the US economy is so bad that it is driving people to those awful behaviors described above. This has been described as the typical view of the upscale liberals who have flocked to Senator Obama's campaign. You can also read it in books like "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, which wonders why voters like these haven't been voting Democratic, and ascribes at least some of the reasons to the very sentiments expressed by Obama in San Francisco.

It makes Obama comes across as an elitist who disparages people who hunt, go to church, and believe that drivers licenses should not be issued to illegal immigrants (for example) or that NAFTA may not be such a great deal...in other words, people who make up a good deal of voters in Pennsylvania and other industrial states. And by the way, hasn't Senator Obama himself questioned NAFTA?

He has attempted to amend his comments saying he could have put the sentiment better, but that's the problem. If this is what he truly believes, he is going to run into some major trouble ahead.

Already the Clinton and McCain campaigns are jumping on this (as is the press) and rightly so. One comment here said that Obama's two rivals shouldn't have jumped on this and have taken it out of context. When you read the whole thing, it's not out of context (at least not to me). This is what the guy (and obviously millions who support him) thinks.

It gives Senator Hillary Clinton an opening in Pennsylvania and could conceivably lead her to a crushing win in the Keystone State instead of a narrow victory. Other analysts say it also may give pause to superdelegates who could see more of this type of behavior ahead.

So far, Senator Obama's campaign and the senator himself have rarely made mistakes. The biggest controversy in his camp so far has been over his preacher and the preacher's incindiary comments. Now, the spotlight has shifted to Obama himself.

If Senator Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary by high double digits and causes some tightening in other races (like Indiana) it could keep the race going right up to the convention.

The campaign staff of Senator Obama says this won't affect the delegate totals so far. Perhaps, but I wouldn't dismiss the possbility that it could in the future.

Big mistake here IMHO.

Candidates and Congress

2008-04-09T17:17:00.001-04:00

All three presidential candidates had their moments in the political spotlight when General David Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress on Tuesday.

The general, architect of the "surge" strategy, said that there would no massive withdrawal of U.S. troops in the immediate future and asked for a "pause" in troop withdrawals after the surge forces are drawn down. Ambassador Crocker said that some political progress was being made in Iraq but "immense challenges" remain in the country's governing structure.

The two men appeared before a series of Senate and House committees and all three presidential candidates-Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama-had their turn to question and comment on the appearance of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Senator Clinton argued for an "orderly" withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Senator McCain only wants to withdraw troops when it is clear that adequate security has been established in Iraq, and Senator Obama called for a "timetable" for withdrawal plus talks with Iran, which figured prominently in the testimony.

The hearings were much less contentious than previous ones with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Democrats, while disagreeing with the two men, remained respectful, particularly the presidential candidates. They don't want to anger voters who, while not agreeing wholeheartedly with the war in Iraq, still don't want to see the U.S. humiliated there.

Senator McCain tried to position himself as a supporter of the U-S aims in Iraq but not tie himself to the past trials and tribulations of the war as it has been conducted both on the ground and in Washington.

At the end of the day, not much changed politically, say the experts, as each candidate seemed to be propping up his or her own political base and trying not to anger those who, for the time being, may disagree.

April 7 Update--This and That

2008-04-07T17:37:00.001-04:00

Picking up from where I left off some time ago….

Sorry about not posting more, but we are in a bit of a lull. However, there have been some political developments and a few non-political ones to point to, so here we go:

There is increasing pressure on Senator Hillary Clinton of New York to end her presidential campaign to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party. This has been going on for some time now but is only increasing, as Democrats are getting a little nervous.

Her opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, leads by 135 delegates and under the party's rules which award delegates proportionately to the votes in the primary and caucus elections, there is little likelihood she can catch him unless she scores high double digit triumphs in the remaining ten contests. Most people think that's doubtful.

The big election now is in Pennsylvania on April 22. It is a state in which Senator Clinton should do well given its demographics of union workers, downscale voters, and women. Both candidates have been working the state over the past weeks. The large lead that Senator Clinton began with after her wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4 have diminished. The race is tightening; one poll has Senator Clinton up by two, another by 11, and yet another has Senator Obama up by two.

Anecdotal reports on this primary are all over the map. Some analysts are saying that internal numbers in the Pennsylvania polls show Senator Clinton dropping among white males. They argue that her claim that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Tuzla in the 1990s as First Lady, which later proved to be exaggerated, is hurting her badly.

Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, left his role in Senator Clinton's campaign. He stepped aside because of his meeting with the Colombian government concerning a bilateral free trade agreement between Bogotá and the United States. Senator Clinton opposes the idea and Mark Penn had to issue an apology for the incident.

All in all, one could look at these signs and see a campaign in trouble although it is an eerily similar situation to the one right before the New Hampshire Primary back in January. Then, it appeared as if Senator Clinton was going to get blown out, but she fashioned a win and suddenly the campaign was righted again.

Same thing with Ohio and Texas-wins she needed and wins she got as she was being pressured to quit, something she says she is not prepared to do.

So I can't make out exactly what's happening in Pennsylvania; I do believe she is still leading. Earlier predictions were that Senator Obama wouldn't win but one county in the state. If he wins in Pennsylvania, then the whole thing is over, and Senator Clinton will have lost her main claim to keep running-that she wins in the big industrial states where he cannot. But if he does….then it's all about the exit speech.

There is still two weeks to go before the election, so we should see whether or not Senator Clinton could maintain or expand upon a lead she may or may not have. Sound confusing? Me, too.

Then there are reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is talking to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee, about becoming his running mate.

Seriously.

Former Republican Party strategist Dan Senor told the ABC News Network that the Secretary of State is "actively" courting the McCain campaign and points to a meeting she held with a bunch of Republican conservative activists as evidence.

Many conservatives are skeptical as she was once touted for the presidential nomination and people were even ready to begin campaigns to get her to run. She turned them down, and given that she has never run for elective office, and since it appears that most African-American voters are going to back Senator Obama, it may not be such a wise choice.

This could be one of those Washington stories where someone connects two dots and announces they have solved the puzzle. It's possible, I suppose, but not very likely, IMHO. Honestly, I would be very surprised if she was actively considering such a candidacy.

Well, more later, so stay tuned, and go to our website, www.voanews.com for the latest on the ups and downs and ins and outs of the election.

I do feel that things are coming to a head, though, and that head might be April 22. We'll see.

Pennsylvania Tightening Up

2008-04-03T19:39:00.003-04:00

In the Democratic presidential race (the only game in town), it looks as if the primary in Pennsylvania, scheduled for April 22, is getting closer. Recent polls show that the race between Sen. Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton has tightened considerably.

For weeks, Senator Clinton has enjoyed a double-digit lead in the state which is said to be tailor-made for her because of the demographics. But two new polls out show the race much more even.

A Public Policy Poll of a large sample of voters (1224) gives Senator Obama the lead by two points, 45-43; an Insider Advantage poll has Senator Clinton ahead by three. Both of those polls were taken through April 1. A SurveyUSA poll in Pennsylvania that ended on March 31 had Senator Clinton up by 12. Other polls show a wide variance although Senator Clinton maintains a lead in them.

Bottom line is that it looks as though the huge spending advantage Senator Obama has in Pennsylvania (about a 3-1 advantage) may be helping erase the deficit. Some analysts argue that the long period between the Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas to Pennsylvania has benefitted Senator Obama who is spending lots of time in the state.

Also, his speech on race may have allayed some fears in the Democratic Party about him (although I think there is still fallout to be had from it); Senator Clinton's gaffe about sniper fire in Bosnia hasn't helped her at all, and the numerous endorsements that Senator Obama is getting daily may take its toll.

Senator Obama is also outraising her in funds, so put all these things together and one could see that the race is tightening.

Most analysts say that Senator Clinton needs to win by double digits in Pennsylvania and to eke out a win may not help her at all. But a win is a win.

If Senator Obama wins by a small margin, it's a huge triumph for him; but if Senator Clinton wins by that same margin, it's a "defeat". Such is the expectations game. But the two have run neck and neck and the margin between them after all the primary votes is not that much (compared to the number of primary voters and delegate totals) so why would we expect that to change in Pennsylvania?

There are scenarios being spun about how Senator Clinton could garner more popular votes at the end of the primary process, but she has to win Pennsylvania.

I'll have more polling data and trends as we go.

Wild Weekend, Wild Numbers

2008-03-31T20:46:00.002-04:00

Well, taking the weekend off was nice to regenerate the batteries but the campaign slogs on and on.

Basically, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the leader in popular votes and delegates over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party, seems to be making headway among the so-called "superdelegates" with the proposition that he should receive the presidential nomination.

He leads Senator Clinton in the realclearpolitics.com delegate tally by 133 out of 3,131 delegates either pledged or committed (including superdelegates, those Democratic convention delegates who are given voting privileges because of their status within the party). He also leads in the popular vote by 717,000 votes out of 25,993,612 cast. These are not large margins--2.6 percent in the popular vote and 4.2 percent in the delegate count.

But they are leads and if the convention were held today, he would win, and rightly so.

However, the convention is not today, it is in August and there are still some ten contests to go. They will be held in states and territories that are more favorable to Senator Clinton than Senator Obama. The political analyst Michael Barone looked at the remaining contests in his U.S. News and World Report blog:
(http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

He basically says it is possible, given past voting patterns in demographically equal areas among states that have already voted, that Sen. Clinton could sprint past Senator Obama in the popular vote total in the primaries.

Much would depend upon the June 1 vote in Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, but if Sen. Clinton can win big there, it is possible for her to erase his popular vote lead, but the delegate lead would remain with Senator Obama.

This scenario, if it came to pass, would truly be the train wreck that Democrats are fearing. Then the superdelegates would be forced to choose which candidates' lead would be more critical: the delegates or the popular votes. Since neither would have enough delegates to claim the nomination on the first ballot, it would be an excruciatingly difficult choice for superdelegates to make in the hothouse of a nationally-televised convention.

Perhaps that is why some superdelegates are seeking a "superdelegate" convention to award the nomination to Senator Obama (who picked up some key endorsements over the weekend from previously uncommitted Democrats).

But this is like conceding a soccer match down a goal with ten minutes to play. Senator Clinton gains nothing by conceding at this point, according to many observers (including me). If Senator Obama loses by double digits in Pennsylvania and that leads to other losses in other states, wouldn't that send a signal that the race is not yet over?

It seems we have been at this point before. In advance of the primaries in Ohio and Texas in March, there was also pressure for Senator Clinton withdraw. She says she won't, former President Clinton says she won't, and therefore, I don't think she will, despite what "party leaders" wish. In politics, there are too many variables, and another Jeremiah Wright scandal could emerge or a few losses could once again send the press to calling the race "a tossup".

Clue: The U.S. press would love to see a wild convention with the nomination still in doubt. It would make up for the decades of covering coronations of incumbent presidents and gatherings with as much excitement as watching paint dry. They will try to keep the race going but, if things break Senator Clinton's way as polls suggest they might, the press can sit back and enjoy.

Of course, Senator Obama will be doing as much as he can to win the state of Pennsylvania (which would be a knockout blow).

But the way I view this, I don't think this race is over yet, not with the ten contests remaining which appear to be favorable to Senator Clinton in the post-Wright atmosphere.

If Michael Barone is proved right, the Democratic National Convention of 2008 could be one for the ages.

I'll blog tomorrow on speeches and ads that Republican Party presumptive nominee John McCain is putting together. There are some revealing tidbits about his assessment of the race at this point.

Keep it here and at www.voanews.com, and this weekend, look at our new Election USA weekly wrap up of the 2008 political race in the U.S. It is right on our front page on the new website. Hope you enjoy it!

Weekend Update

2008-03-28T13:09:00.002-04:00

Well, sorry I've been off the grid for awhile. Other duties intervened but let's take a look at where we stand now and what's been happening.

The tally in the Democratic Party's presidential race, according to RealClearPolitics.com, finds Senator Barack Obama of Illinois with a 131-delegate lead (when counting announced superdelegates) and a 2.6 percent lead over Senator Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. If you just go by the number of pledged delegates he has won, the lead goes up to 166. But if you count in the disputed state of Florida's popular votes, his vote margin shrinks to 1.4 percent.

Over in the Republican Party, Senator John McCain of Arizona clinched the presidential nomination on March 4, and is now putting together a national campaign.

I've written quite extensively about the Democratic race since that is where all the action is. It seems clear from statements by former President Bill Clinton (who should know) that Senator Hillary Clinton has no intention of quitting the race although public signals have been sent by major party officials.

Democratic Party national Chairman Howard Dean says he wants the race wrapped up by July 1 and he is asking the superdelegates (those delegates who are given voting privileges in the Democratic convention because of their party status-elected officials, party administrators, former administration leaders, etc.) to arrive at a consensus before then, hopefully even in June.

The Democratic Party primaries end in June and the likelihood, according to most political observers, is that neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton will amass enough delegates through the electoral process to claim an outright victory. The Obama forces have been saying (along with other Democrats) that the superdelegates should respect the will of the voters in the Democratic contests and ratify the leader. That should be Senator Obama. And in fact, he has won the most delegates in primaries and caucuses, clearly following the party rules. If there is a "will of the voter" in the Democratic Party, it is with Senator Obama.

Senator Clinton's case is to argue to the superdelegates that she has won Democratic contests in the major industrial states because of her appeal to bedrock party constituencies-women, Hispanics, older voters, and blue-collar workers. She also says that Senator Obama may now have enough cachet to capture the nomination but his natural coalition of upper-income white liberals, younger voters, and African-Americans, in the end, would not be enough to win against the Republicans.

Senator Obama has expanded that coalition along the way but recently, he has been losing those constituencies and the question being asked is if he would win them in the general election.

Troubling for Democrats are recent polls suggesting that significant numbers of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would not vote for the party nominee if their candidate loses in the primary contest. Most analysts say that by Election Day, when the passions of the moment cool down, those voters would return to the Democratic fold. But others aren't so sure. The longer the election goes on, the harder these feelings will be, and even if five percent vow not to vote for the party nominee, it could have an impact.

Over on the Republican side, many conservatives who have grumbled at the prospect of John McCain heading the ticket, also could stay home on Election Day. These conservatives don't view the Arizona senator as someone who shares their views and point to numerous times over the years when Senator McCain seemed to go out of his way to oppose them. You don't hear these noises publicly but you have to wonder if indeed some die-hard conservative voters in the Republican Party could just not pull the lever for the presumptive nominee. Well, the pundits said it was going to be a very different election and they may be right!

Meanwhile, the next Democratic Party contest is April 22 in Pennsylvania. Polls still show Senator Clinton ahead by 10 points in the last survey taken which ended on March 24. But Senator Obama is beginning to work the state and is hoping to eat into that advantage. Most experts don't think he can win, given the state's demographics, but a slight loss could be spun into a victory. An outright victory for Senator Obama and the race is over. But a huge loss in Pennsylvania, and the doubts, which might be being expressed privately by superdelegates, will linger.

Penn Pals

2008-03-26T13:05:00.004-04:00

After several weeks of Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, serving as a punching bag in the imbroglio over the statements of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the punches have begun to fly in another direction.

This time they are landing on Sen. Hillary Clinton, the chief opponent of Sen. Barack for the Democratic presidential nomination.

If you follow the American presidential race, you'll note that the two are involved in a titanic struggle to be the Democratic Party's standard-bearer against Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee.

The latest turn in their ongoing struggle came in response to remarks made by Senator Clinton last winter. In those remarks, she recalled a trip to Bosnia she made in 1996 when she was First Lady. Senator Clinton said that when she landed, she had to run from her plane and that there was sniper fire on the tarmac. She was contradicted by one of the participants in the trip, the comedian Sinbad, and an Obama supporter. His comments were attacked as partisan.

Then like the deus ex machina of the Greek classic plays, enter YouTube. YouTube has become an American Oracle at Delphi issuing digital declarations that can lead candidates to reward or ruin. Videos of Senator Clinton's landing in Bosnia in 1996 showed a far different scene than she implied. She didn't run from the plane, there was no sniper fire, and she warmly greeted a child upon deplaning. A report aired on American network news and the pile-on began.

Senator Clinton said she "misspoke" and the incident "proves I'm human." What it did do was throw a roadblock in her campaign against Senator Obama in the state of Pennsylvania that holds a critical primary on April 22. While Senator Obama's campaign was trying to recover from the pummeling he has taken over the Jeremiah Wright affair (see the previous posts), along came this incident to focus the self-righteous ire of the press in Senator Clinton's direction.

Not that other candidates don't embellish or exaggerate. Longtime presidential watchers recall some of the claims made by Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 campaign (he "invented" the internet; he and his wife Tipper were the inspiration for the couple in the film Love Story based on the novel by Erich Segal; as a young child, he recalled hearing a song about labor unions [Look for the Union Label] which hadn't been written when he claimed he heard it); Senator Obama, according to the New York Times, claimed his parents fell in love during the great civil rights march in Selma, Alabama in 1965, although he actually was born four years earlier. Some of the fond recollections of President Ronald Reagan were often found to be based on myth than reality (like the story he told about the World War Two tail gunner who died in a crash landing because he was too wounded to crawl out of his combat space; the genesis was traced to Hollywood movies not a verifiable incident).

And so on and so on.

But one of the weaknesses of the Clinton campaign, according to polling data, is that Americans believe both she and her husband are, how to put this, factually-challenged, and are willing to parse words and phrases to obfuscate meaning and attempt to be on both sides of an issue at once. The most glaring example came in the October 31, 2007, Democratic presidential debate when Senator Clinton did not give a yes-or-no answer on whether or not she supported then-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Pressed and pressed, she refused to provide a thumbs up or down and continued in this vein for several days until she finally declared in the negative. But by then, the damage was done and her image reinforced. I always peg that as the time when Senator Obama's campaign began to make headway against the then "inevitable" candidacy of the former First Lady.

At a time when she began to make headway against Senator Obama, voters are reminded once again about one of the characteristics they don't like about her instead of some of the ones they do.

Nevertheless, current polling puts her at least 10 points up in Pennsylvania and political commentators there suggest she may be stronger than that. She needs a double digit win in the Keystone State to keep her candidacy going and win in high double digits (15-20 points) could really disturb the sleep cycles of Democratic Party superdelegates who will likely be called on to supply the winning votes for one of the two Democratic protagonists.

I'll try and post again tonight about some interesting developments in Pennsylvania including a registration drive by Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primary for Senator Clinton…to keep the contest going to the advantage of Senator McCain.

Also, I'll have the latest on polls and other things. See ya later.

McCain for a Change

2008-03-24T15:23:00.002-04:00

With all the excitement of an undecided going on in the Democratic Party, it’s easy to overlook the latest comings and goings of the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain.

It’s been a while since Senator McCain clinched the nomination [March 4 with wins in Ohio and Texas] of his party. Since then, almost all the media focus has been on the titanic struggle between the two Democratic protagonists, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. But until April 22, when Senators Obama and Clinton face each other in Pennsylvania, there’s enough of a lull to take a look at what Senator McCain has been doing as he positions himself as his party’s standard bearer.

To begin with, Senator McCain won despite—not because off—his party’s conservative base which has never been friendly to him. Senator McCain’s stands on global warming (he recognizes it and calls for solutions], and campaign finance reform [the major piece of legislation for campaign finance reform bears his name], among others, are at wide variance with the Republican conservative base.

In fact, throughout the Republican Party presidential campaign, the conservatives would tell anyone who would listen what they didn’t like about the Arizona senator even while praising him as a great American for his service in Vietnam and his captivity in Hanoi as a POW.

But conservatives never had a candidate around whom they could rally; Fred Thompson, the former senator and actor, turned out to be a not-great campaigner; Mitt Romney’s deathbed conversion to conservative principles were viewed as too convenient; Rudy Giuliani’s conservative views on national security were not enough to overcome his liberal views on social policy. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee had great credentials on social policy but on domestic policy, he was more akin to a liberal government activist. And on and on.

So, while the conservative base was stewing, McCain was doing. He kept racking up win after win and before the conservatives could really do anything (except fulminate on talk radio and on their blogs), McCain was I, and became the nominee. Even then, conservatives were morose and their griping and sniping continued.

But now, the rumblings by conservatives have died down and while Senator McCain may never be a centerfold in conservative publications like National Review, he at least has begun to draw the party in around him as he faces uphill odds in his quest to hold the White House for the Republicans.

One doesn’t have to be a political Svengali to note that Republicans face numerous challenges in their attempt to keep their party’s brand at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The war in Iraq remains unpopular, there are troubling economic signs, and political history in America suggests that usually, two terms of a political party in the White House is enough. Add to that the excitement in the Democratic Party evidenced by increased registrations and fundraising, and you can see that the Arizonan has his work cut out for him.

But….

The surge in Iraq ordered by President Bush has worked to tamp down the levels of violence and while there is still not great support for the war, the numbers of Americans who think the U.S. could fulfill its goals in Iraq has been rising. Senator McCain was a supporter of the surge and likes to say that early on, he opposed the administration’s strategy in Iraq when it wasn’t working. In fact, you could argue that the surge has been the most helpful development in his presidential bid. Without it, he might be back at his Senate desk thinking of what might have been.

The economy has emerged as a major issue in the campaign and Senator McCain will need to focus on some domestic solutions for the housing situation, health care costs, increases in fossil fuel prices and the like. He has been painted as someone who is more at home with foreign affairs than domestic issues but that will have to change if he wants to take the oath of office at high noon on 1/20/09. There is evidence of that emerging.

Democrats are attempting to morph Senator McCain into the unpopular President George W.
Bush with attacks on the “Bush-McCain War” and the “Bush-McCain Foreign Policy.” Senator McCain is hoping his long history of opposing the Bush administration and his willingness to speak out in favor of ideas that are not exactly on the Republican Party’s radar screen (like global warming and campaign finance reform) will help him.

As one writer said, it is going to be delicate tightrope that Senator McCain must walk—not distancing himself too far from the president, but far enough to convince voters looking for change that he could be their guy.

This past week, the senator went on a trip to five countries in Europe and the Middle East that resulted in high-level meetings with foreign leaders. Europeans and Middle Easterners, according to press accounts of the trip, were wondering how different a President McCain would be from President Bush. The meetings may help them decide.

The trip received high marks save one reported mistake: Senator McCain said that Iran was training insurgents rather than Shiite extremists. This generated a few days of “gaffe” coverage, even though the senator quickly recovered with some help from traveling companion and fellow senator, Joe Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut.

But even with the gaffe, Senator McCain is getting some precious quality time to take trips like these, discuss strategy and a vice presidential choice, and plot the campaign for the fall.
There have been some unfavorable articles about lobbyists and the senator’s ties to so-called “special interests,” but they haven’t had a lasting effect, if there was any effect at all.

He will come under pressure to satisfy the Republican Party base with the direction of his campaign, but there is another school of thought that says the nominee may instead focus on independents and those Democrats who would not be satisfied with the choice of their party.
Some polling data indicates that no matter who wins the Democratic Party’s presidential nod, some of the losing candidate’s supporters may consider tilting towards the GOP candidate in the fall. This seems particularly true of Senator Clinton’s supporters (based on foreign policy considerations) should Senator Obama take the nomination.

While most analysts believe the political tea leaves strongly favor the Democrats on Election Day, Republicans, while anxious, now feel they can at least make a fight of it and recent polls show a tight race between Senator McCain and Senators Clinton and Obama.

Senator McCain’s most difficult electoral challenge, according to some political observers, would not be against the Democrats in the fall, but against factions of his own political party in the summer.

We’ll stay tuned to see how Senator McCain faces this challenge and how it plays in the broader electorate.

As always, flip over to www.voanews.com for the latest. Over and out.

Sunday Update

2008-03-23T10:08:00.003-04:00

It is a glorious Easter Sunday morning in Washington. The sun is shining, there is a clear sky, and the sounds of woodpeckers fill the air.

But that won't stop the political train from going and here are some updates on what has transpired...

Bill Richardson Endorses Obama

Current New Mexico Governor and former presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Bill Richardson, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the nomination. This is a little unusual given that the governor used to be U. S. ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under the presidency of Bill Clinton. In fact, former Clinton aide James Carville was quoted in the NY Times as saying: "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

Gov. Richardson informed Senator Hillary Clinton about his decision and said to the Times, "Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations."

The endorsement came in the middle of the flap over Senator Obama's ties to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose comments on America during his sermons are, depending upon the source, "outspoken," "provocative," or "incendiary," take your pick. You can read some of the comments in past posts of mine.

Gov. Richardson is also Hispanic which should help Sen. Obama with a Democratic Party ethnic group for which he could use a little help.

Gov. Richardson has always been floated as a possible vice presidential nominee because of his mix of foreign and domestic policy experience. Whether Sen. Obama picks him (should the Illinois candidate get the nomination) remains to be seen, but the endorsement certainly raises that possibility.

Clinton Can't Win...

Just weeks after Sen. Clinton's comeback wins in Ohio and Texas (among others) which purportedly created a whole new race in the Democratic Party's presidential contest, the new meme emerging is: face it, folks. she can't win. The math is against here, and truly, we all know better.

This line of thought came up on the blog Politico. A report there [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html] says she "...has virtually no chance of winning. Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates."

She would have to win the remaining ten primaries with large enough margins to overhaul Senator Obama's lead in the popular vote which (without the voting in Michigan and Florida's primaries which will not count) stands at more than 700,000 votes according to RealClearPolitics.com. Forget pledged delegates, where RCP says he leads by 167.

Unless the New York senator racks up huge wins, odds are she will never catch Sen. Obama there and it is unlikely she will catch him in the popular vote. The only way to victory, according to this argument which is beginning to find purchase, is to convince the party's "superdelegates" that Sen. Obama cannot win.

Sen. Clinton can help herself if she wins the remaining primaries convincingly and gets close enough to have these superdelegates consider the question.

The flap over Rev. Wright has hurt Senator Obama, there is no doubt about that. He dropped in polls, then came back over the weekend. But his negatives have risen, and among white Democratic voters, particularly in the working class, the Wright comments and the senator's response, have greatly lessened the post-racial appeal. At the very least, as one writer put it, Sen. Obama was knocked off his pedestal.

But supposing he loses Pennsylvania by high double digits which is not out of the question. Reports are the Obama campaign is working to secure as many delegates out of a potential loss as possible. But a double digit loss in another big industrial state would change the press meme yet again.

Which brings us to North Carolina, a state in the American south that has a primary on May 6, two weeks after Pennsylvania on April 22.

This was supposed to be the state that would put Sen. Obama over the top. It has, according to one poll, a 33 percent African-American voter base in the primary that would presumably go 95-5 for Sen. Obama. But recent reports show a much tighter race with him leading by one point where he led by much higher margins not that long ago.

If he were to lose that race (I don't think he will at this point but it is possible and more possible following a big loss in Pennsylvanaia) then I think the Obama campaign might start to sweat a little as they near the prize but find themselves slipping backwards.

If anything, the Wright imbroglio could have an impact on the Tarheel state (which I bet right now is more concerned with the University of North Carolina's attempt to win the U.S. college basketball championship).

The state's former senator and past Democratic Party vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, who dropped out of this year's presidential race, is not likely to make a Richardson-like endorsement, according to news reports. He is staying neutral and waiting until the contest is decided.

If you are in the Politico-thinking crowd, that date is thought to be May. I say, keep the powder dry.

With Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee who was on a foreign trip this week, out of this controversy, it is easier for him to concentrate on the general election against either candidate. The assumption is it is going to be Sen. Obama.

I know I keep saying I will have more on the Republican and I will but not today.

That's it, keep reading, and I want to hear from you. What do you think about all this, particularly the Wright episode? I'm curious.

This and That

2008-03-21T16:40:00.001-04:00

Just some short takes on the campaign; I’ve been off the grid, busily involved with other things, so here goes:

Michigan-Florida:

It appears as if the agreement to hold another primary election in Michigan has fallen through. Michigan was one of two states (the other being Florida) that moved up its primary in an attempt to cash in on the publicity and importance showered on states that hold their contests early. The Democratic Party’s governing body, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), said that as a result, neither state would receive delegates at the party’s national conventions.

The states went ahead anyway thinking that the national party would relent later. Michigan Democrats agreed on a plan but the legislature and the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat from Illinois, couldn’t take it forward and come out with a concrete election.

With Florida also throwing up its hands at another vote to take the place of its early primary and stripped delegates, it is bad news for Sen. Obama’s challenger, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who “won” both contests. I use the quotes because in one case, there was no one else on the ballot, and in the other, there was no campaigning as candidates honored the DNC’s dictates not to seek votes personally in Florida and Michigan.

Sen. Clinton is looking to make up ground on Sen. Obama, her “victories” in the two states could have netted her around 300,000 votes in the popular contest and around 50 delegates.
But that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen so that makes her job even harder.

It also could anger voters in those two states who might retaliate for the perceived slight by staying home on Election Day. The national party insists the rules needed to be followed and that they cannot be changed in the middle of the game. They also think that, in the end, Democratic voters will, well, vote Democratic come November.

Skullduggery….

Employees at the U.S. Department of State apparently were snooping in the passport files of the three major candidates for president—Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party and Senator John McCain of the Republican Party. Department officials discovered the prying into Sen. Obama’s files some time ago, the revelations of access to the files of the other two candidates came to light on Friday.

A similar controversy erupted in the 1992 election when a political appointee in the State Department was caught investigating then-candidate Bill Clinton’s passport records before Election Day.

Besides information about foreign travel, passports have sensitive personal data including the social security number which could yield all sorts of private statistics, like credit reports, financial records, etc.

An investigation is ongoing. The campaigns were informed and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apologized to both campaigns. Several of the contractors involved in the affair have been dismissed.

More on the Obama Speech…

The comment and debate over Sen. Barack Obama’s speech on race this past week continues to rage pro and con.

As I suspected, the speech is being viewed in two ways: as a piece of rhetoric and as a political tactic.

The rhetoric is being praised but politically, a consensus is emerging that Sen. Obama may not have done enough to dispel the raw feelings left in the minds of many voters by the incendiary statements on circulating videos of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

You can read my previous posts for the details.

A new line of thought is developing that journalists missed the content of the speech and have instead concentrated on the political impact. I am not so sure that the two can be disconnected. And has the senator really said things that have not been said before?

Perhaps his way of saying them, and that it is coming from a politician of mixed heritage may make it unique, but others have posited these questions rhetorically in the past. I am not quite sure how much new ground has been broken in the discussion (such as it is) over race in America.

According to polling data taken after this imbroglio happened, Sen. Obama has lost quite a bit of support as Sen. Clinton has overtaken him in some national opinion polls. It may not do her any good as Sen. Obama’s lead in convention delegates and the popular vote at this stage may be too much for Sen. Clinton to overcome. Also, the party’s “superdelegates” may be loathe to overturn what appears to be Sen. Obama’s lock on the nomination for fear of losing the support of the party’s most faithful and perhaps important voting bloc, African-Americans.

There is discussion of some party elders approaching the campaign of Sen. Clinton to ask her to step aside for the good of the party in the fall. That may be a little premature and even unnecessary. If Sen. Obama were to win the April 22 Pennsylvania, all questions would be moot. He currently trails in all polls by double digit deficits, some approaching the 20 figure.

It is very possible that Sen. Clinton could finish on a winning streak with the remaining contests on the Democratic Party calendar, and while it’s difficult, it’s not completely beyond reason that she could come very close to him in popular votes and trail by 100-200 delegates.

I am not sure what that means (if anything) at this point, but this race, while perhaps solidly going Sen. Obama’s way, could still prove costly. But clearly, he is in the driver’s seat and is the clear favorite to make history in August when he may become the first African-American to accept the presidential nomination of one of our two major political parties.

While all the political signs point to a massive Democratic victory in the fall, there is much yet to be done and both parties are going under the assumption that it is going to be touch and go to see who sits in the Oval Office at 12 noon on January 20, 2009 (when the new president is sworn in).

The Speech

2008-03-18T15:10:00.002-04:00

The long-awaited (well, long awaited for a day) speech on race by presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was delivered today in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is known as the "City of Brotherly Love," which seems an apt place to present a speech on race, and Pennsylvania is the state that votes next on April 22 in the Democratic presidential nomination race.

Senator Obama, who is of mixed racial heritage but identifies as an African-American, leads Senator Hillary Clinton of New York narrowly in the Democratic Party's total of popular votes and delegates. But the race is far from over and it is likely neither candidate will emerge from the voting with enough delegates to claim the nomination outright.

Today's speech was seen as a very important one for Senator Obama's campaign. For the past two weeks, he has been getting a critical press after months of adulatory coverage.
Now that he is the frontrunner, and after many complaints from the Clinton camp that the coverage of the campaign was biased towards the Illinois senator, the press began to look more critically at Sen. Obama.

After the press reported some gaffes and misstatements by the senator and surrogates, an old issue flared up with a vengeance. Video sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of the church in Chicago where the senator and his family are members-The Trinity United Church of Christ-began showing up on network newscasts and on YouTube. The videos showed the Rev. Wright launching into invective that shocked most Americans. The Rev. Wright said that because of past racial discrimination, American blacks should not sing, "God Bless America," but "God Damn America;" the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima in World War Two led "the chickens coming home to roost" in the form of the attacks in New York and Washington on 9/11; and that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus for dissemination to minorities.

When confronted with these videos, the senator first tried to brush them off saying although he was a member of the Church for nearly 20 years, he never heard the Reverend Wright speak this way. And the statements, he told Jewish leaders, were like those of a "crazy old uncle," and while he disavowed them and repudiated them, he would not leave the church.

The answers proved less than satisfactory and he dropped five points in a presidential tracking poll in one night after this story broke. Reports surfaced that Senator Obama did not want the Rev. Wright present at the launch of his presidential campaign because he knew the reverend would be considered "controversial." Paragraphs about Rev. Wright popped up in Sen. Obama's books and it became clearer there was a controversy brewing that threatened to harm the campaign in the home stretch.

So, to the speech today in Pennsylvania.

In the speech, Sen. Obama condemned the inflammatory statements by the Rev. Wright, saying the reverend chose, "incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, that rightly offend white and black alike."

But he said that Reverend Wright's comments shown over and over again on television and on the Internet do not do justice to the man, that he was: "more than snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube…[he] has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country" and has spent his time "housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS."

For the first time, Sen. Obama admitted that he had been present when these statements were made: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

He added that the views expressed in this church were emblematic of African-American life in the United States, "The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America."

In attempting to put Rev. Wright's remarks in context, Sen. Obama said, "For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away, nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years…The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society, it's that he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress has been made, as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old - is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

He would not disassociate from the church saying he could not leave it as much as he could not disavow his own grandmother (who is white) even though, she was "a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

There were other parts of the speech in which he talked about the fears of whites who, "are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

In the end, he concluded that, "…today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election."

The speech has caused a great deal of reaction in the press. Many have praised its eloquence and its frank and open approach to the discussion of race in America-a topic that many try to avoid in any honest terms given the freight in carries in the American experience.
Words like "courageous" (Paul Mirengoff, Power Line) and "a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric;" (Mark Ambinder, Atlantic) "the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime," (Andrew Sullivan) and more.

But along with the praises is some criticism. One commentator wrote that, "[Sen. Obama would] make it appear as though the disgusting remarks of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, are the merest speck, a mere glancing moment in time in the centuries-long history of American race relations."(John Podheretz, Commentary). And there is some doubt (although it is a minority view at this point) that he fulfilled his mission of getting the subject behind him:
"Where it was weakest was in explaining the very reason for the speech: how the inflammatory, even repugnant, comments of Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are understandable." (Mike Allen, Politico)

The view from here is that this is going to go a long way in helping Sen. Obama but perhaps not the entire way. For those looking for a complete repudiation of the Rev. Wright's remarks, it was not there; nor did the senator take stronger action, such as leaving the church. In effect, he was saying, people need to understand the depths of African-American despair in the United States given the legacy of slavery to comprehend why he has a conflicted nature about the entire affair.

But for those put off by the Rev. Wright's remarks, this may not do. "Understand" may come awfully close to "tolerate" when it comes to their reactions to those statements, and it could even be read as a tacit admission that while Sen. Obama repudiated the remarks, he can never completely disassociate himself from them given his past, and the past of African-Americans in the United States. That could be a tough sell to many voters.

For supporters of Sen. Obama, this was another example of his rhetorical talents and gifts in addressing a difficult and tense subject in a way that is rarely done in American politics. His honesty and forthrightness and his logic and ability to educate and persuade could work to put the matter behind him and move on in the presidential race.

There will be another two to three days of reaction and I suspect the majority will be favorable. But first glance suggests that not all were swayed by the speech and his candidacy has been forever changed from the days of swoons and "chills running up and down the leg" in reaction to his campaign.

The real reaction will come April 22 when voters go to the polls in Pennsylvania in a critical primary four weeks after this speech when there is plenty of time to think about it.

Michigan Yes, Florida, No

2008-03-17T20:41:00.003-04:00

The state Democratic Party in Florida has decided not to hold a second primary or caucus. State officials said today that they could not hold one even if someone else, rather than the State of Florida, will pay for it.

That means the 210 delegates allotted to Florida are caught in no man's land. The State of Florida wanted to move its primary up to January 29 in defiance of Democratic Party rules. The Democratic Party said it would strip Florida of its delegates if it did (the Republicans merely cut their Florida delegation in half as punishment).

Florida went ahead anyway figuring the national party wouldn't dare not seat them. Well, now, the mess has been dumped back in the national party's hands.

This is important because Senator Hillary Clinton, who narrowly trails Sen. Barack Obama, "won" the primary although no one officially campaigned there. Sen. Clinton wants to have the delegates seated or new primaries held.

Now that the state says a new vote cannot be held, some Solomonic solution is needed. U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida suggested seating the delegation but giving each delegate a half vote. That plan is still alive but is likely to be absorbed into plans that are acceptable to the two campaigns, the national party, Florida's congressional delegation, and perhaps the governor.

Good luck with that; that's going to be a tough one.

Meanwhile, Michigan, which is in the same boat as Florida, has all but agreed to hold a second primary on June 3. State officials and the campaigns are considering the plans which allow for outside funding of the primary election.

The Clinton campaign would like the states' results to stand but a re-vote is always risky as the campaign for Sen. Obama caught fire well after the Florida and Michigan voting. What would be the result this time? Who knows?

And there are those who think the two states should be stripped of their delegates for violating party rules.

I heard from one web visitor from China who takes that view. What's yours?

More Wright

2008-03-17T16:48:00.003-04:00

Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, has announced he will give what he is billing as a major address on "the larger issue of race in this campaign." The speech will come tomorrow. We will all be watching and listening.

The speech is in response to a week's worth of negative publicity about the senator's ties to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The church's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., has made statements over the years that have been characterized as anti-American. You can read some of them on my previous post, "The Wright Stuff."

Sen. Obama has been a member of the church for 20 years and he and his family are active members. He has tried to distance himself from the more controversial ideas of Rev. Wright but his explanation that he never heard the more outlandish statements because he wasn't present for them or did not know about them strained credulity in the political press.

Hence, the speech.

Another reason might be that since the story of the speeches broke this past week, the Rasmussen Reports polling organization notes: "Sen. Obama has lost 5 points to Sen. Clinton in his daily tracking (52% to 47%) since Thursday, when the Wright comments really exploded into the mainstream."

Additionally, the poll points out that on the Wright controversy, "Most voters, 56%, said Wright's comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats."

The poll finds the same racial split that we have seen emerging in past primaries. For African-American voters polled, according to Rasmussen, "29% said Wright's comments made them more likely to support Obama. Just 18% said the opposite while 50% said Wright's comments would have no impact...White voters, by a 46% to 33% margin, say that Obama should leave the Church. African-American voters, by a 68% to 16% margin, say he should not. Wright retired last month as Pastor of the Church."

So, Sen. Obama has a pretty hot issue on his hands and his previous statements repudiating any language from Rev. Wright that anyone found offensive while not leaving the church have not worked to assuage voter reaction to the Rev. Wright's comments.

Sen. Clinton has remained silent on the issue (although the two have fired volleys back and forth over the Iraq war).

Tomorrow's speech should be interesting because the senator cannot be seen as abandoning the sentiments of African-American voters who have been supporting him monolithically but he also cannot be seen ignoring an issue that a broad spectrum of voters finds troubling.

We'll see what he says tomorrow.

The Wright Stuff

2008-03-15T19:46:00.002-04:00

The biggest issue in the biggest political race in the country right now concerns a former pastor for Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. Sen. Obama narrowly leads Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

When Sen. Obama became the frontrunner, press scrutiny increased, and the media's adulation evaporated like the morning dew. Some of that evaporation was due to Sen. Obama's frontrunner status, and some was due to outside criticism that the press was treating Sen. Obama with kid gloves.

At any rate, the gloves are off, and after a series of minor gaffes and surrogate blunders, this week saw the re-emergence of Sen. Obama's former pastor, The Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, as a major issue. It briefly was discussed last year.

The Rev. Wright has made statements in his sermons over the years that are quite controversial. Videos of him saying things like, "...God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human...We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost (about the attacks of 9/11)...Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people...." and more.

I have no doubt there are Americans across the spectrum who agree with this. I think they are a minority, but they are there.

Some of Rev. Wright's statements were played on national television and eventually caused Sen. Obama to first distance himself from Rev. Wright, and later issue a more forceful repudiation:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments...Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

But in Sen. Obama's memoir, "Dreams of My Father," the senator notes, "While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House."

Some reporters are questioning whether this may mean Sen. Obama did in fact, over the 20 years he was a member of the church, hear some of these statements. And if he did, did he agree with them or tolerate them, as he now says he does not?

As a result, the Rev. Wright, who was on a religious advisory group supporting Sen. Obama's candidacy, stepped down and no longer has any tie to the campaign.

Sen. Obama also spoke about this on a series of interviews on American networks.

The Obama campaign is hoping that the interviews and statements like the ones he made earlier today at a town hall meeting in Indiana, decrying the racial "forces of division," will defuse the situation.

But these forces have been in evidence in this primary fight since the South Carolina Primary on Jan. 26. And some of this has been due, according to observers, to the tighter scrutiny that the press is applying to Sen. Obama. Some commentators are suggesting that this is the first time that the Illinois senator has ever faced anything but a glowing media. This will take all of Sen. Obama's formidable political skills to tamper this issue and others like it down.

The kind of press he was getting before couldn't last forever. Anything that makes Sen. Obama look like a typical politician, after his calls for change and a new politics, hurts him.

Sen. Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton has been silent for the most part, and the Republican nominee in waiting, Sen. John McCain, said he will soon be on the way to visit foreign leaders in Europe and the Middle East.

Suffice to say, Senator Obama has been brought down from his lofty status and his once saintly image has been tarnished. There may be more of this ahead but his lead in delegates and votes still makes him the favorite for the nomination. But as issues like this one emerge, it could cause some head scratching among those yet to vote in the Democratic Primary and among the super delegates who may decide the issue in the end.

Questions, Questions

2008-03-14T20:48:00.002-04:00

We have received some questions from our listeners on the VOA web page--www.voanews.com. Here are the questions and my responses:

Question from John:

Why do you and numerous other news agencies insist on using Hillary Rodham Clinton’s middle name and fail to utilize Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name? Do you really assume that people would not realize this? I truly believe that a secret Muslim such as Hussein Obama should not even entertain the idea of becoming President of the United States. It will be an Obama Nation, or should I say an Abomination; that brings forth Desolation?

Answer:

I use the name, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because she uses her middle name herself and has used it in the past. It is also more common journalistic practice to use her middle name although Hillary Clinton, without the Rodham, is also used.

Sen. Barack Obama has not used his middle name as a common practice so I will call him what he calls himself. He has gone out of his way to say he is not a Muslim and I have no evidence that is a “secret” Muslim. I have no problem using the middle name—it has caused a bit of a journalistic flap when a talk show host introducing Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee made a big deal of it—but unless the candidate identifies with the name, I tend not to use it.

Question from Margaret Altink:

Geraldine Ferraro stated that Sen. Barack Obama would not be where he is today if he was not considered black. Hilary Clinton would not be where she is today had her husband not been the President of the U.S.

Also why is Obama considered black when he is also half white?

Who was it who said speak softly and carry a big stick? That describes Obama to me. After Bush you need someone with intelligence, and that for me is Obama. Thank you.

Answer:

As I commented in an earlier post (March 13), the comments from former Rep. Ferraro caused quite a stir and now commentators are weighing in on both sides of the issue. People have also written about Sen. Clinton and the political relationship to her husband, the former president.

I believe it is fair to say that although Sen. Obama is the son of a white mother and Kenyan father, he identifies himself as an African-American. Who was it that said, speak softly and carry a big stick? Former President Theodore Roosevelt.

Question from Annette Alt:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As a voter in the United States, I am upset that the Florida and Michigan delegates did not count. We the people make up the rules that govern our lives, and we will stand up and be counted. The individual voters of Florida and Michigan deserve to be heard, not ignored due to party rules. After all, we are the party right? Let’s get off our high horses and remember why the party exists ~ it is to bring a collective voice of the American democrats, so let’s get this correct and re-do the primaries in Michigan and Florida.

I am sick and tired of the rhetoric, that is what we have had for seven years. Just do the right thing and honor the voters who work hard every day to pay their bills, take care of their families, and honor their country. How can you possibly tell them that they do not count due to an antiquated rule? Shame on the party. Perhaps I should join a different one? Independent, Republican, not my first choice, however I WILL BE HEARD!

Answer:

As you know, both officials of the Democratic Party and the states of Florida and Michigan are trying to work out some kind of revote in the two states.

The latest information I have is that the Democratic Party officials in the state of Michigan say they have an agreement for a primar, likely on June 3. The money to stage the primary would come from the Democratic Party. The primary would need to be okayed by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, the state legislature of Michigan and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

A potential hangup is that members of the Michigan legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, leave at the end of March on a two-week spring break.

Florida is another issue. Not much progress there. The Democratic Party there offered to hold a mail-in primary but odds of that being approved are not very great. Opposing this plan is the state’s Democrats in the U.S. Congress, and Sen. Obama’s campaign has expressed concerns about a mail-in vote, questioning the security and accuracy of such an enterprise.

Any vote has to be completed by June 10 but officials in the state say they will decide on a plan to hold both a mail-in and in-person vote. One of the state’s two senators, Democrat Bill Nelson, suggested seating half of the state’s delegates.

We should know something about Florida Monday.

But I maintain that when you say “we the people make up the rules,” the “people” did make up the rules and they came up with the rules that said Florida and Michigan could not move their primaries up they way they did. Florida and Michigan chose to violate the rules to which other states adhered. It wasn’t an “antiquated” rule, it was passed in this campaign season.

The two states gambled that the rules would not apply to them. It is still not clear as to what will happen but if the states are allowed to violate the rules without any sanction, there will be no rules at all.

If you violate the rules and vote illegally, your vote does not count, no matter if you are a “voter who works hard every day to pay their bills, take care of their families, and honor their country.” I know you will disagree with this, but I think both states knowingly violated the rules thinking their size and importance would exempt them from what was agreed to.

Your ire should be directed at the state officials who promulgated this, not the party officials carrying out the rules they passed for everyone.

Question From Bingye Xue:

I'm not an American but I just say the rules are rules. For the Democratic Party, there are totally 4049 delegates, and who wins 2025 who will win the nomination.

I don't see any reason that the superdelegates should vote based on the primary voting. If the superdelegates follow the public voters, I think assigning superdelegates is like wasting time and money. Just count the primaries and caucus.

Answer:

Bingye, I couldn’t agree more. Great observation.

I will have a post on the controversy regareding Sen. Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, tomorrow. A big story here in the US.

Thanks for the questions!

Thursday Update

2008-03-13T15:10:00.005-04:00

Back on the grid again after a day or two off...

Well, lots of things happening offstage (if there is such a place) on the US presidential race. All eyes are focused now on the Democratic Party's presidential nomination race between Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

For the record, after wins in the Wyoming caucus and Mississippi primary last week, RealClearPolitics has it 1618-1494 in total delegates (pledged plus committted super delegates) in favor of Sen. Obama. He also leads in the total popular vote cast, 13,280,770 to 12,577,044, a margin of 47.1 percent to 46.9 percent. This does not take into account the voting in Michigan and Florida. Voting in those two states for the Democrats don't count (for now) because they moved their elections up in violation of Democratic Party rules. The Democrats may devise a system to revote in these states but that's not happened yet and that is a post for another time.

Suffice to say, Sen. Obama has the lead in delegates and the popular vote and he will probably hold the delegate lead through the end of the primary season in June. It is possible that Sen. Clinton could overtake him in the popular vote category which would really put the Democrats into more of a dilemma than they already are.

Republicans, for their part, are just about done--Sen. John McCain of Arizona has clinched the nomination and is now trying to stay in the headlines while everyone focuses on the Democrats. A popular parlor game is guessing the vice presidential choice of Sen. McCain. It seems like former rival and past governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, wants the job and is publicly campaigning for it. There is still time for Sen. McCain to be thinking about the number two spot.

The next big stop on the road to Denver (site of the Democrats' Convention) is Pennsylvania, where on April 22, Senators Obama and Clinton will face off again with 158 delegates at stake. Currently. Senator Clinton holds the early lead in public opinion polls in a state whose demographics seem tailor-made for her candidacy. But I expect Sen. Obama to eat into that lead although so far, with both candidates campaigning in the state, she is holding onto a double-digit lead.

A double digit win for Sen. Clinton could make things even more interesting in the Democratic race than they already are.

Meanwhile, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Democrat of New York, resigned his office effective this Monday. Gov. Spitzer was discovered to be "Customer Number 9" in a high-price prostitution ring. Gov. Spitzer held a news conference to say that he was involved in the ring and called it a "private matter." He made no statements about resigning.

Republicans in New York threatened to impeach him, Democrats at the state level began speaking out, and two days later, Gov. Spitzer (dubbed by New York tabloids as "The Luv Guv") said he was stepping down in favor of Lt. Governor David Paterson. There is a chance of prosecution of soon to be ex-Governor Spitzer for breaking various laws but we will find out about that later.

With that resignation out of the way, the political focus returned to the Democrats' presidential race and the specter of racial turmoil began to heat up yet again. Earlier during the South Carolina Democratic Primary, former President Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife, said that Sen. Obama's biography and campaign claims had been "a fairy tale." This angered African-Americans and the former president (who had been up to that point very popular with African-Americans) was roundly criticized. He toned down his comments.

After a Barack Obama supporter named Samantha Power was quoted last week as calling Sen. Hillary Clinton a "monster," she had to step down from her advisory role to Sen. Obama. Then, former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale in a 1984 wipeout loss to President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush, was quoted as saying that Sen. Obama would not be where he is if he were a "woman or any color or a white man."

When challenged about her remarks, she refused to repuditate them. Sen. Clinton did repudiate the remarks, and eventually Ms. Ferraro withdrew from the campaign. Sen. Obama called the remarks "wrong-headed," "ridiculous," and "divisive."

The comments set off a frenzy of punditry with one end of the spectrum saying it was Sen. Obama's talent not his race, (Joe Klein, Time) that has led him to the brink of the nomination. But others (Mickey Kaus, Slate) argue that part of Sen. Obama's appeal is his race and that if his face became America's to the world, quoting Mr. Kaus, it would "be an effective weapon in the fight against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology."

This all follows last week's racially polarized voting in the Democratic primary in Mississippi where Sen. Obama won African-American voters by a 9-1 margin and lost white voters to Sen. Clinton by a 3-1 margin.

Most Americans find this kind of rhetoric and debate unsettling as the Democratic Party race increases in intensity and invective. Whether we like it or not, these racial back and forths have the potential to turn the race very ugly before its conclusion. Both sides in this race are going to have to find a way to cool down passions on what is becoming a heated subject as the nomination contest takes a perilous turn.

Still no settlement on the Florida or Michigan revotes; it looks as if a plan for Florida to vote by mail is not going to happen.

So What's New in Pennsylvania?

2008-03-11T20:53:00.002-04:00

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has won Mississippi, it's only 42 days and counting until the big primary in Pennsylvania. Some 158 delegates at stake and it's another one of those must-win states for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

While Sen. Obama could probably afford the loss in terms of the number of delegates he would still win under the Democratic Party's proportional allocation scheme, a loss would turn up the heat on the notion that he hasn't won any big states in the primary process. If nothing else, it's fodder for the super delegates to mull over as they might (more than might, it's probably likely) have to make the final choice between the two.

Latest poll is the SurveyUSA poll showing Sen. Clinton 19 points ahead. That figure is sure to slip as the campaigning, already underway, heats up in the state. A 19-point win at this point for Sen. Clinton would have enormous psychological implications in the race. A win by Sen. Obama--of any kind--would come close to wrapping it up for him (based on my reading of the situation) in terms of delegates and the electability argument.

BTW, there is a Republican primary in Mississippi as well but since Sen. John McCain has already clinched the nomination, not much happening there. In fact, ten percent of voters in the Democratic Primary were Republicans!

FWIW, Sen. McCain was declared the winner over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has already conceded the race. Exit polls show Mississippi voters liked Gov. Huckabee and think that Sen. McCain is not conservative enough.

Both Democratic Party candidates are campaigning in Pennsylvania today and will stay there for another 42 days. With rhetoric heating up, this should be one heckuva race.

More on Mississippi's Demographic Divides

2008-03-11T20:28:00.003-04:00

Some additional exit polling and turnout information.

Turnout in the Democratic Party primary was considered light to moderate. Both parties combined for about 10 percent of voters. There was some rain in Mississippi this morning which may have held down vote totals.

But the stories about incredible turnouts breaking records and long lines, seem to fading out a bit. Perhaps people are getting tired of the race or we are coming back down to more normal totals.

Secondly, there are votes in Mississippi, at least, that are breaking along racial lines. Seventy two percent of white voters in the Democratic Party, according to Fox Exit polls, supported Sen. Clinton, only 27 percent supported Sen. Obama. MSNBC polls show that Sen. Obama beat Sen. Clinton among black men by 93-7 and black women by 88-12. Conversely, Sen. Clinton won white men over Sen. Obama, 70-30, and white women--her strong suit--75 to 24.

So Sen. Obama's showing among white voters was better than Sen. Clinton's showing among black voters. According to the Fox poll, 72 percent of all primary participants said that race was not an issue but 40 percent of black voters said that it was.

Again, Sen. Clinton won older voters, Sen. Obama won younger voters.

Not too much difference from what has taken place in past elections, but given the large number of African-American voters in the Mississippi Primary, the heavy support given Sen. Obama led to his overall victory.

It seems not that long ago that African-Americans were largely supporting Sen. Clinton but Sen. Obama's win in South Carolina changed all that. It is expected that Sen. Obama will attract the support of African-American voters in Pennsylvania on April 22 while Sen. Clinton will get the votes of downscale economic white voters.

This race in the Democratic Party is certainly breaking across several demographic fault lines of class, race, age, and gender. To watch this is both fascinating and somewhat troubling at the same time.

Perhaps in Mississippi with its stark population patterns, results like these are to be expected but it is going to take a lot to smooth over these divides once a winner is ultimately selected. But if it is one thing that the American system has done well in the past, it's fashion compromises. Maybe this time will be no exception.

As Expected Obama Leading or Has Won

2008-03-11T20:06:00.002-04:00

Fox News has called the Mississippi Primary in the Democratic Party for Sen. Barack Obama, CNN says Sen. Obama is "leading" over Sen. Hillary Clinton.

I think it is safe to say that Sen. Obama is going to win this and the only question is how many delegates of the 33 at stake tonight will he earn.

But he is expected to win this primary because of the large African-American vote which should propel him to victory.

Interesting exit polling: Six in 10 voters for Sen. Obama say he should pick Sen. Clinton as his running mate should he win, but only four in 10 voters for Sen. Clinton believe she should pick Sen. Obama as her running mate.

More ominously, nearly three-fourths of Clinton voters said they would be "dissatisfied" if Sen. Obama wins the nomination but little more than half of Obama voters would be "dissatisfied" if Sen. Clinton wins.

One in five voters for Sen. Clinton said that Sen. Obama could beat Republican Party nominee Sen. John McCain, but only one in 20 voters for Sen. Obama believes that Sen. Clinton can beat the Republican standard-bearer in November.

What does all this mean? The vice presidential choice questions tells me that Sen. Obama's supporters are much more confident than Sen. Clinton's at the moment as they feel they can be magnanimous towards Sen. Clinton. Feelings are harsher the other way around.

Secondly, the second finding surprises me. I would have thought given the passion behind Sen. Obama's voters, that they would be much less willing to accept Sen. Clinton as the presidential candidate than the other way around. Of course, if the question were posed that somehow Sen. Clinton didn't win the majority of delegates through the electoral process but rather the super delegate process, I wonder if that would change. At any rate, a surprising poll result.

What is not surprising is how few supporters of Sen. Obama believe Sen. Clinton can triumph in the fall instead of Sen. Obama.

Taken together, it shows that voters on both sides have some strong feelings about their candidates and it will take quite a lot of work to bring the losing side along with the winner come convention time.

0023 UTC: NBC News Declares Sen. Obama the winner in Mississippi.

Mississippi

2008-03-11T19:54:00.002-04:00

The southern state of Misssisippi will conclude its Democratic primary shortly with 33 delegates at stake. With African-Americans making up about half of the electorate down there, it is no surprise that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is favored to win the lion's share of delegates over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

The expected victory would be the second in four days for Sen. Obama who won the Wyoming caucauses on Saturday. His expected triumph in Mississippi, along with the win in Wyoming, should, as one writer here put it, restore some of his luster as well as pad his delegate lead, which according to RealClearPolitics.com is at 119.

I'll be back with any calls which should come fairly soon. I'll also examine the exit polls for what it is saying about the state of the race.

Stick around.

New Scandal Snares Democratic Governor

2008-03-10T21:10:00.002-04:00

A scandal broke late Monday ensnaring New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat.

Governor Spitzer, a former Attorney General in New York, was caught on tape soliciting the services of a prostitute. When the story broke in New York, the governor called a news conference where he apologized but stopped short of resigning.

Before becoming governor, Eliot Spitzer was an attorney general and political analysts were saying today his "hard charging" style as attorney general made him few friends. Apparently, they say, he continued that behavior while governor and now has few political allies to help him. The term "self-righteous" has surfaced quite a bit in the press among both critics and supporters.

Several top political officials in New York are calling for his resignation. As Attorney General, Gov. Spitzer was in charge of enforcing laws against prostitution rings and he did so; so this looks especially bad. He is calling it a "private matter" but as Attorney General in 2004, his prosecution of two prostitution rings resulted in several arrests and statements about high-level and high stakes operations that were in the end, as he put it, "prostitution rings".

Gov. Spitzer may have played a key role in the presidential campaign when his plan for awarding drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in New York came up in an Oct. 30, 2007, debate among Democratic Party candidates. When asked point blank if she supported Gov. Spitzer's plan, Senator Clinton hummed and hawed and refused to give a yes-or-no answer. The media jumped on the prevarication and in subsequent interviews, she still did not give a definitive statement on whether or not she supported the governor's plan.

Days later, in another debate, she finally said she would not, but by then, the damage had been done, and you can look at that debate back in October as the time that Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy began to take off.

Gov. Spitzer has endorsed Senator Clinton for the presidency but no one is expecting the governor's troubles to reflect on the Clinton campaign. But it doesn't help either. If he does resign, he may lose his status as super delegate, but that is probably the least of his troubles.

While not exactly a presidential campaign issue, it nevertheless is driving political coverage in Washington and the nation and there is a tie to the campaign. BTW, after the debates, Gov. Spitzer dropped the idea after days of negative responses to his proposal.

In campaign news, more water thrown on the idea promulgated from Sen. Clinton that she and Senator Obama would be a "dream ticket," one that former President Bill Clinton called an "unstoppable force."

Very expertly, Sen. Obama argued that if Senator Clinton is saying he is not ready to be president and lacks the experience for the job, how can she promote him as the vice president, a heartbeat away from the Oval Office?

Great response. Even though there are some who think he will be pressured into taking the number two slot, I really don't see it. Some others agree with me that it's not in the cards. There is a long way to go before we are at that point and Sen. Obama has said over and over, he is running for the presidency. I believe him.

Thanks for the Comment

2008-03-10T12:01:00.002-04:00

To Anonymous and Fly on the Wall, thanks for the comments to my blog. I appreciate your well thought out and reasoned additions.

I made my own comments to yours as well.

Hope you stick around throughout the season. It is nice to hear from you

Here now, another in our series from Jeff Young on How America Elects: This time on polls:

How America Elects

The Power of Polling

Every political campaign, from the race to the White House on down to the local level, uses polling of some sort to provide strategic information critical to success at the ballot box.

Think of the political process as a marketing exercise. Candidates and their parties present themselves to the voters (consumers) as a product they can purchase at the ballot box. Is the product viable in the marketplace? Polling tells campaigns where they stand in the competitive field.

By doing surveys of the voting population, pollsters such as The Gallup Organization, Zogby International, the Mason-Dixon Poll and others provide political campaigns with current marketing information on the candidate's popularity and the ranking of issues that matter to voters. As is true with any marketing exercise, polls also reference current information with that obtained in earlier surveys, to create what it called "trending." Trending indicates, for instance, whether the candidate is gaining or losing popularity over time, or whether the public believes that one major party has gained voter perceptions that is better capable of addressing a particular problem as compared to the other major party.

Just as important as the information gained through polling is its analysis. Campaign strategists may see that polling indicates their candidate has weaker than desired support in a particular region or state. Campaigns respond by having the candidate visit that area more often, and by beefing up the campaign organization there. Conversely, areas where the candidate is overwhelmingly supported are areas where the candidate can spend less time and effort.

Such analysis would also tell candidates which issues resonate strongest with voters in a particular area, or a particular age or other demographic group. Then, candidates typically develop multiple "messages" to address those groups. For instance, if polling showed that older men put national security at the top of their concerns, the candidate's speeches to, say, veterans groups would stress national security. If the polls showed that 18-35 year old voters rank envrionmental concerns highly, the candidate's appearances involving that demographic group would obviously address his or her plans to clean up the environment.

As for the mechanics of polling, logistics make it impossible to survey an entire country's population. So, pollsters create a "sample group" to represent the population at large using mathematical formulas that have been proven over time. This is how pollsters can survey one thousand people to represent the opinions of an entire country of perhaps 300 million.

Nearly all polling is presently done by telephone as opposed to face-to-face or via the Internet. But Internet polling is growing, though pollsters have had the challenge of trying to ensure that data collected over the Web remains "one person, one opinion" because of the ease someone might have using the Internet to "stuff" the survey box. Another trend affecting telephone polling is the embracement by younger demographic groups of mobile phones versus traditional landline versions. Polling presently isn't done to mobile phone numbers, but perhaps mobiles will have to be included somehow to properly sample certain groups.

Perhaps the most famous U.S. election polling failure of all time took place during the 1936 race for the White House, in which incumbent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt was challenged by Republican Alf Landon. A well-known national magazine, "Literary Digest,"
announced that its election poll showed that Landon was going to handily defeat Roosevelt.
The results on election day were quite the opposite - Landon was crushed nearly nationwide.
What happened? Pollsters say Literary Digest constructed a fatally flawed survey sample group. The magazine drew its sample from telephone directories, its own subscribers, and motor vehicle registrations. The problem was that in 1936, with the United States struggling to emerge from the Great Depression, many people did not have automobiles or telephones.
People short of cash also didn't typically spend their money on a subscription to Literary Digest. So by creating a sample group based on those factors, the sample was made up of people who did not represent the bulk of the voting public. Incidentally, after the embarrassment of its survey, Literary Digest folded not long after the 1936 election.

Jeffrey Young VOA-TV

This look at election polling is part of the VOA-TV series "How America Elects."

If you want to view this and other segments of How America Elects, go to:
http://www.voanews.com/english/HowAmericaElects.cfm

Comment: Before publishing this piece, I surveyed my "staff"--38 percent liked the piece; 35 percent did not like it, 27 percent had no opinion. Just kidding :-)

Obama Wins Wyoming

2008-03-08T19:03:00.002-05:00

To no one's surprise, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois won the caucuses in the western state of Wyoming today by a percentage of 58-40 percent. He picked up 12 convention delegates with his win over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

The total, according to RealClearPolitics.com, is 1588-1465 in favor of Barack Obama. That is the total of pledged delegates and those committted super delegates I have been posting about recently. It is 1378-1223 in pledged delegates.

This is Sen. Obama's 13th straight win in these small state caucuses. A caucus is different from an election in that in a caucus, participants gather in a public place, and publicly and in the open, declare their support for their candidate. It is more a display of organizational strength than voter support. A primary election is just that...an election in which voters cast secret ballots for the candidate of their choice.

Sen. Obama's overall lead is based on his victories in the Democratic Party caucuses; Sen. Clinton has only three caucus wins.

With this win, and an expected win on Tuesday in the southern state of Mississippi, which is a primary, it is likely Sen. Obama will erase any gains Senator Clinton made last week in her wins in Ohio and Texas.

But all eyes are anticipating the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania when 158 of 187 convention delegates will be at stake.

A good day for Sen. Obama.

Funny Thing

2008-03-07T16:25:00.004-05:00

Just as I was posting about super delegates and how to interpret Sen. Obama's lead in pledged delegates in the Democratic Party presidential race, here comes an excellent article on the subject from Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic magazined.

Mr. Cohn says that the delegate count ("the will of the people") is often based on rules that are less than democratic: arbitrarily drawn congressional boundary lines, party rules that add delegates in states that have voted Democratic in past elections, which punishes states that haven't, and that what super delegates may look to is the popular vote, that is, the total number of votes each candidate has gotten in this process instead of the delegates:

"That's not to say the 'will of the people' ought to be irrelevant to the superdelegates' deliberations. All other things equal, that's probably the best criteria that superdelegates can use. But the key here is defining 'will of the people' properly.

And the way to do that, I think, is by looking not at the committed delegate count but at the popular vote--that is, the sum total of votes cast by individuals in the primaries and caucuses. It may not be a perfect reflection of the voters' will, but it's surely a more accurate reflection than the delegate count."

You can read the entire piece at:
http://tinyurl.com/2r6ggk

BTW, in the same magazine, the pro-delegate argument is made by Jonathan Chait in a piece suggesting Sen. Hillary Clinton leave the race. You can read this one at:
http://tinyurl.com/39ks9z

I know I am concentrating on the Democratic Party race but that is where the action is at the moment. I'll have more on the Republicans and what nominee John McCain is doing and what his vice presidential selection choice process may be in future posts.

How America Votes

2008-03-07T16:10:00.002-05:00

Here is a very nice piece by VOA's Jeffrey Young on how the United States registers voters. It's bound to become an election issue, in fact, it already has, as parties are trying to quickly register those Americans they think will vote for them in the 2008 election.

Here is Jeff's report:

Voter registration is the beginning of the electoral process. Political parties consider voter registration to be a cornerstone of their power and influence, because registration identifies people likely to support that party and vote accordingly on election day. People who register can indicate which party they want to be aligned with, or they can also register as unaffiliated with any party.

Voter registration rolls swell in times of heightened political interest. The 2008 election cycle is one of them. The emergence of a very spirited contest between Democratic presidential aspirants Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama has driven both campaigns to conduct massive voter registration drives in hopes of filling the primary elections with their supporters. Along with those two candidates, the Democratic Party also benefits from a swell in registrations because it may well translate into a higher Democrat turnout in the November general election.

Registration is tied to residence. When someone moves, they have to re-register in their new location. Since states also require people who move to get a new driver's license, a federal law popularly called the "motor voter" law went into effect in January 1995 that enables people using their state's Motor Vehicles Department to register to vote at the same time.
The "motor voter" measure is credited with adding millions of people to the voting rolls.

Along with conventional paper registration, two states - Arizona and Washington - have also set up voter registration on the Internet. Arizona authorities report a notable gain in registrations after the Internet site opened. Internet registration is expected to eventually expand nationwide.

The minimum age in the United States for voting is 18. It was lowered from 21 in the early
1970's in the Vietnam War era. Young people were arguing then that they could be drafted into the Army and face possible death or injury when they were 18, and because of that, they should be able to have a say in the political process. Congress agreed.

Voter registration in the United States is not conducted by the federal government. It is done by subdivisions of states called "counties." Each county's voter roll is then compiled into a state database, administered by an office called the Secretary of State. Voter registration is assisted by the efforts of civil society groups such as the League of Women Voters.

Because of the system under which voter registration is conducted, the state rolls of voters can and have been used as a political tool. Before elections, state Secretaries of State are expected to go over the rolls and purge names who are found invalid for any proper reason, such as death or moving out of the state. Because of that, there have been accusations over time that such purging was done to weaken a particular party's voting strength ahead of elections. This accusation was made, for instance, against Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Republican, in the 2000 election cycle. Harris was accused of selectively purging racial minority members and others deemed likely to support the opposition Democratic Party. But over the years, the Democrats have been accused of engaging in the same activity.

In the 2008 election cycle, a unit of the U.S. Department of Justice has told at least ten states to review their voting rolls. The Justice Department asserts that these states, and possibly others, appear to have more registered voters than voting-age population. Those who have pressured the Justice Department to do this say it is vital to help prevent voting fraud, the casting of ballots by people ineligible to do so. But critics contend that this pressure is purely politically motivated.

Jeffrey Young VOA-TV

This look at voter registration is part of the VOA-TV series "How America Elects."

If you want to view this and other segments of How America Elects, go to:
http://www.voanews.com/english/HowAmericaElects.cfm

I'll be posting more of Jeffrey's "primers" and you are invited to go see them yourself at the VOA website. The URL is in the previous paragraph. Thanks, Jeff.

Let the Super Delegates be Super

2008-03-07T15:02:00.002-05:00

First, just the latest on where the presidential nomination race in the Democratic Party stands. As of today, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois leads Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the delegate race, 1575-1464, with both pledged and committed Super Delegates added in.

There are races coming up Saturday in Wyoming, a "closed" primary (that is Independents or Republicans cannot take part) then on Tuesday in Mississippi (an "open" primary in which party affiliation is not required). Wyoming has 12 unpledged delegates at stake out of 18 total, Missisippi has 33 pledged delegates at stake out of 40.

Sen. Obama is up by six points in a poll taken in Mississippi, I can't find much about Wyoming. But all eyes will be on the critical primary April 22 in Pennsylvania.

There are some other things going on in the day to day race that are pretty interesting but I will get to those tomorrow. For now, I want to talk about super delegates.

You've seen and heard the term perhaps without really knowing who and what these people are. I have alluded to them briefly but here is more background on them and an argument for them doing what they do.

While both parties have "pledged" delegates, that is, delegates who are selected in caucuses and primary elections, they also have delegates who are not determined by those mechanisms. These delegates in the Democratic Party are made up of current and former elected officials as well as party luminaries and retired office holders. There are 794 of them now and they comprise about one-fifth of the number of total delegates at the convention; that's why they are so important.

They were created in the early 1980s as a way of ensuring that party leaders and elected officials still have influence at the convention. The total number of these delegates have changed over the years and another category of these delegates called "add-ons" will hike the total of unpledged delegates from 794 to 870.

These 870 delegates will act as a counterbalance to the sentiments expressed by participants during the primary campaigns. These longtime party officials balance out the passions of new party members or people who vote in "open" contests who aren't members of the party at all.

Now the argument is heard that if neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton have enough votes to claim victory on the first ballot (and this is becoming more likely) these super delegates should reflect the will of the voters by affirming the candidate with the most delegate votes. Sounds pretty simple and straightforward.

But say the two combatants for the Democratic nomination are within 100 votes of each other after some 3,253 delegates have been chosen. That is a difference of only 1.5 percent! Not too much, is it?

That hardly qualifies as a mandate to me. Even though one candidate would be ahead of the other, it's a virtual tie. Now if the super delegates are supposed to merely reflect the will of the voters, is that enough of a margin to bear the entire voting weight of these delegates? One and a half percent? If that is the case, then why do you need them at all? That is not why they were created. They were created to break these ties--virtual or otherwise--by selecting the candidate who they think would be the best for the party.

There are those who say putting the choice of candidate selection in the hands of unelected officials is "undemocratic." On paper, that looks great, but in the U.S., there are dozens of examples of power concentrated in the hands of "unelected" officials. Judges can rule on political issues and in some cases, overturn elections. Many judges are appointed, not elected. Commissions, boards, and councils in the U.S. have varying degrees of power in our political system and their members and leaders are not elected.

One of the great things about the American system to me (warning: brag coming up) is the checks and balances on power in the American system. There are checks and balances on the president, Congress, the courts...and yes, even the voters. The Founding Fathers who set this all up way back when were not completely enthusiastic about democracy and were quick to cite its shortcomings (voters swayed by sentiment and emotion, the factor of corruption, the threat from outside influences, etc., the concentration of power in an individual). But nevertheless, they established a system where democracy was front and center but even some checks and balances were put on the people.

So it is not so un-American to my way of thinking that these super delegates were put in place for a reason and the reason was not to rubber-stamp voter choices. Besides, the political parties can set the rules they wish. Now of course, that is not completely true; they may be private organizations but they are so entwined with our political traditions and laws, that there are a whole series of laws and precedent involving them.

But if the Democrats (the Republicans have super delegates too but they are not called super delegates, there are not nearly as many--only 123!) want to set up a system in which ties are broken by more than 800 super delegates, then so be it. There is nothing, to my mind, inherently wrong, outside the mainstream, or undemocratic about it.

Obviously, others have different views. I would like to hear yours--should unelected party officials have the power to choose the Democratic Party's presidential candidate if neither have enough to triumph?

Of course, it will really get interesting if the super delegates split in a way that will still fail to produce a winner. That is a possibility, too.

All this is part of what makes American politics so fascinating and so thought-provoking. If you've got an opinion on this, shoot it my way via the comment or e-mail in the box to the right. I want to hear from you.

More later.

The Day after Super Tuesday II

2008-03-05T16:42:00.002-05:00

The analyses is flying in, scenarios are being rewritten, and the political landscape in the 2008 US presidential election has been changed dramatically.

First off, rising from the political dead, Arizona Sen. John McCain clinched the Republican Party's presidential nomination last night defeating former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Sen. McCain won the old-fashioned way: he earned it. Given up for dead last year because of his stances on Iraq (he favored the war and the surge) and illegal immigration (he resisted measures that would have made his party look anti-Hispanic), he weathered staff resignations, talk radio accusations and more to come back and win.

Conservatives in the party, a potent bloc, never really had a candidate around which they could rally (I can't end a sentence with a preposition!). They flirted with former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and several others. But in the end, their strength was diffused among various candidates. Some even backed Sen. McCain because of his stance on the war.

When the surge began to shove Iraq down the issue scale among voters, and the Arizonan began winning primaries, most Republicans pegged him as the guy most likely to succeed in the fall. So what if you have some disagreements on policies? There's plenty of time to mend some fences. That was the idea that many conservatives confessed to after the McCain win.

He has formidable obstacles ahead of him--the war issue, an economy which many Americans worry about, and his age. If he wins, he would be the oldest elected first-term president at 71. Democrats are saying he represents a third term for President Bush. He is going to have to embrace the president but not too much and carve out his own space but that is what these candidates do. The good thing for him is that he will have several months to do this.

In the Democratic Party, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said earlier this week, "I'm just getting warmed up." So is the party. Her victories in Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island) last night propelled her back into the race with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois (who won in Vermont). It guarantees that the contest is going to go on through the spring, perhaps through to the final vote in the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in June. It may even go beyond that to the convention itself.

Sen. Obama leads in delegate totals, according to RealClearPolitics.com, 1570-1465, which includes so-called "super delegates". These "super delegates" are 796 party officials, honorees, and insiders who have voting power at the Democratic National Convention. They are bound to no one and can vote as they choose. Next comes the "add on" delegates--76 delegates who are added on to each state's allotment of "super delegates". The add-ons are determined by virtue of a formula that gives states one add-on for each number of seats they have on the Democratic National Committee, the party's ruling body. According to the Wall Street Journal, most states will have one or two; California will have five. These "add-ons" will be selected at upcoming state party conventions in the coming weeks.

These "add-ons" were made part of the Party's rules in 1988 and they were supposed to reflect the popular vote in party primaries. But over time, they became prizes for party activists.

The issue facing the Democrats now is that because of their rules by which delegates are rewarded according to the proportion each candidate receives in the primary election, it will be very difficult for Sen. Clinton to pass or equal Sen. Obama unless she racks up some huge margins in her victories. The math, as most analysts are writing in the US on Wednesday, works against her.

But it is also not clear that Sen. Obama will gain enough delegates (2,025 needed to win) to grab the nomination either. And if they are within a hundred votes or so out of some 3,176 pledged delegates, that is not a very big margin. It is also not clear who will win the popular vote totals among the two candidates after all the races have been won.

So I am moving to the idea that it is the superdelegates who will decide the outcome of the race. And they may split evenly as well depending upon how they vote: do they vote their conscience? The person who won in their state? Congressional district? How will these choices be made? Both campaigns now are courting these super delegates which again makes it only more likely that these delegates will tip the balance one way or the other.

Sen. Clinton is talking about a "dream ticket" of her and Sen. Obama for VP. We're a long way from that, as the Obama campaign has already said. But one thing is beginning to be talked about quietly among political reporters. If Sen. Obama has a lead in delegates going after the primaries, but loses because of super delegate support for Sen. Clinton, it would be a raucous convention with a breach that may never heal.

Somebody's gotta win this thing and there are scenarios for either but the bruised feelings on the part of the loser will take a lot of time to heal, and since the party convention is in late August, it's going to be difficult to heal if there's a lot of blood on the floor (speaking figuratively) before the vote in November.

In fact, several political writers noted that the real winner last night in the Democratic races was Sen. McCain!

There is a caucus upcoming in Wyoming on March 8 and a primary in Mississippi on March 11 which should bring delegates to Sen. Obama. Then a huge primary in Pennsylvania on April 22 with 158 delegates at stake.

We'll cover the polls and predictions on that one and others. And hey, I was right about Texas in my prediction and just a little off on Ohio--right candidate, wrong margin. Keep it here for the best in campaign coverage and head over to www.voanews.com for all the latest on the race.

Back at ya later.

Election Update

2008-03-05T08:30:00.002-05:00

Couldn't stay up late last night to get all the results...but you probably know them by now.

Big...BIG...wins for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in Texas and Ohio. The wins weren't "thumpins" as President Bush called the Republican Party defeats in 2006 at the hands of the Democrats, but they were good enough.

Sen. Clinton won Ohio by ten points, 54-44 percent, and scraped a win in Texas by four points, 51-47. It is not yet clear how the delegate breakdown will be tabulated because of the complex Democratic Party fules. But what is clear is this:

The race is far from over. This was Sen. Obama's chance to drive the stake into the heart of the Clinton campaign but he did not do it. Sen. Clinton lives to fight again.

RealClearPolitics.com estimates that Sen. Clinton is now within 100 total delegates of Sen. Obama including those "superdelegates" (unelected party insiders who have votes at the Democratic Party convention in August) who have publicly committed to either candidate.

She is also close behind in the popular vote totals for all the primaries.

I am not sure if I am ready to say that she has the momentum now quite yet. After all, Sen. Obama won 12 straight primaries through last night until Sen. Cilnton won Rhode Island (which along with Vermont, Ohio, and Texas were voting on March 4). But you can say his momentum has stopped for the moment.

I will have a lot more to say later as I digest these results but this race, as most analysts will now say, is far from over and will likely extend right through to the end. Sen. Obama now faces the pressure of having to win a big state in a primary; not just rack up big wins in small state caucuses.

As they say, overnight is a lifetime in politics.

And kudos to John McCain, the Republican Party presidential nominee who clinched the nomination with landslide wins in Texas and Ohio last night. His principal rival, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee gracefully withdrew, and now Sen. McCain goes about the task of pulling his party together around his candidacy. He will go to the White House to get the endorsement of President Bush in the next day or two.

This is a remarkable political comeback in what is a remarkable political year. If it were not for the excitement on the Democratic Party side, this would have been the major story of the evening.

More later, gotta run!

Waiting for Texas and Ohio

2008-03-04T21:46:00.002-05:00

The networks call the state of Rhode Island for Sen. Clinton.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee makes a nice concession speech and you can see why he engendered support from his followers. Great speaker, very natural, a good communicator. We have not heard the last from him.

Sen. McCain now giving his speech declaring victory in the states that voted tonight in the Republican Party primary elections, and victory in the Republican Party's nominating contest.

Truly a remarkable political comeback for Sen. McCain.

No word yet on either of the two big states, Ohio and Texas, over on the Democratic Party side.

For what it is worth, the Clinton campaign is complaining vociferously about what it called "caucus malfeasance by the Obama campaign." The Clinton camp says this "malfeasance" included signing up caucus goers before the caucus began, locking the doors and barring Clinton supporters who were in line to get in. The Obama campaign disputed this and campaign officials from both camps ended up in a telephone shouting match over who did what to whom.

Lots at stake here so the passions are running high.

McCain Victory Amazing

2008-03-04T21:14:00.002-05:00

Even though the victory of Sen. John McCain is going to be overshadowed by the closeness and importance of the Democratic Party contests, it is still a remarkable political story.

Last year, the McCain campaign was in shambles, with staffers leaving, money tight, and the issues of the war in Iraq and illegal immigration seemed to be working against him. But instead of leaving and believing the political obituaries written over his still-breathing body, he soldiered on.

While he did, he saw that moderates in his party backed him in high numbers, conservatives, who are important in the party, could never agree on a final choice, and that left a window open for the Arizona senator climb through.

Also, the surge in Iraq began to work and Sen. McCain's support for the war (combined with criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war) became an asset rather than a liability. Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney never quite caught fire and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gambled on a win in Florida based on national security stemming from his conduct in New York during the attacks of September 11.

That did not happen either.

And although conservatives had bitter disagreements with Sen. McCain's positions on global warming (he's for it, they're against it); campaign finance reform (conservatives oppose it, Sen. McCain sponsored the legislation that bears his name) and other issues. Conservatives still haven't warmed up totally to him but that will be an ongoing process.

But Republicans concluded that Sen. McCain was likely the best candidate to run in the fall.

Huck Out

2008-03-04T21:09:00.002-05:00

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee will now concede shortly and drop out of the race. This decision came soon after word he would not.

Nevertheless, the former Arkansas governor is now out. Technically, that leaves Cong. Ron Paul still in but not a factor.

Sen. John McCain Projected as Republican Party Nominee

2008-03-04T21:03:00.002-05:00

The networks have projected Sen. John McCain as the winner in all states voting tonight in the Republican Party.

That means he is "over the top" and is the Republican Party nominee who will face either Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama in the fall.

His remaining principal rival, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, is said not to be considering dropping out as of now but may be speaking later.

Sen. McCain may travel to the White House tomorrow and pick up the endorsement of President Bush after he clinches the nomination.

Super Tuesday Update

2008-03-04T20:41:00.002-05:00

Polls closed in Ohio and are closing soon in Texas, exit polling data is out from both places. Here is what we know:

On the Democratic Party side, exit polls give Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton give a slight lead in Ohio, by two-three points and other data is looking good: Sen. Clinton won white women and white men in Ohio; voters 44 and over; and those voters making less than $50,000. She also closely won households which have union members, 52, Obama 46.

In Texas where polls don't close for another ten minutes, exit data says: Hispanics went for Sen. Clinton 64-35 percent. Among those deciding late, it was Sen. Clinton 66, Sen. Obama, 34. And women went for Sen. Clinton 54-46.

Now some polls will be staying open later in Ohio because of problems and weather.

Sen. Obama has been declared the winner in Vermont which also voted today; Rhode Island, a small state which also votes today has Sen. Obama in the lead according to exit polls.

Reports now indicate that Sen. Clinton will stay in the race no matter what. Analysts are saying Ohio is too close to call at the moment with the two candidates running about even.

Sen McCain is winning big both in Ohio and Texas. Say hello to the new Republican Party presidential nominee.

Alright, Already--The Prediction

2008-03-04T16:28:00.002-05:00

I have been monitoring the trends in what is being called "Super Tuesday II"--the pivotal primary races in Texas and Ohio between Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. At stake is the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

If Sen. Obama continues his winning streak (he has won 11 straight contests) he will likely put a stranglehold on the nomination both in delegate strength and in political perception. If Senator Clinton wins, at least she'll stop the momentum and create the political perception that this race is not yet over.

At the RealClearPolitics.com delegate counter, Senator Obama leads with 1392 to Senator Clinton's 1279. This total includes the number of "pledged" delegates won in caucuses and primaries, and the publicly committed "superdelegates," those 796 Democratic Party insiders who are given delegate (and voting) status at the August convention.

The irony is that even if Sen. Clinton wins both elections tonight, she will probably not eat into Sen. Obama's lead very much. That is because of the proportional allocation of delegates awarded to candidates based on the popular vote. Secondly, in Texas, additional delegates will be awarded at a caucus following the primary. But you can only participate in a caucus if you can prove you voted in the primary! What a convoluted system!

That is why many analysts here are predicting that the only thing that would change if Sen. Clinton wins--except if she wins by a large margin--is the current political perception as Sen. Obama might actually increase his delegate totals even if he loses both states!

Nevertheless, it is becoming clearer that neither candidate will reach the magic number of 2,025 out of 4,049 total delegates (or something like that) based on their numbers heading into the Convention. The superdelegates would come into play as they would then have to cast ballots based on their beliefs of which candidate would be better for the party. Both sides are courting and threatening these delegates as the contest drags on.

The polls show a definite trend to the New York senator as she leads narrowly in Texas (47-44 Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby) and in most polls in Ohio, although Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby has Texas as a tie. Additionally, a few polls have Sen. Obama ahead in Ohio.

But compared to the recent gains by Sen. Obama, it is fair to say that Sen. Clinton has come back somewhat to pose a challenge. In past elections, every one that has been fairly close in the polls has gone to Sen. Obama convincingly. What about tonight?

If I had to guess (an educated one, but a guess) I would say that Democratic Party voters in Ohio and Texas still may not be sure of their choices between the two. They may want a longer campaign, and to do that, one has to cast a vote for Sen. Clinton. She has raised some questions about Sen. Obama's experience, and he has been caught in some shifting explanations about a senior campaign aide's interview with Canadian television over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Additionally, a corruption trial has opened up in Sen. Obama's home town of Chicago, which features as defendant, a man named Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko was a fundraiser for Sen. Obama who is accused of extorting companies for money if they wanted to do business with various Ilinois state bodies.

He was involved in the purchase of land adjoining Sen. Obama's home in Chicago which was later sold to Sen. Obama, increasing the value of the senator's house. Sen. Obama is not charged with any wrongdoing and said the purchase of the land from Mr. Rezko could create the appearance of impropriety, and he added that, "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."

The opening of the trial allowed reporters to start peppering Sen. Obama with adversarial questions and this marked the first time in months that the Illinois senator faced any kind of coverage that was less than gushing.

Add all these up, and I am going to say that Sen. Clinton wins Ohio and Texas by squeakers. We may not know the results for hours after the polls close if the races are tight. So in the sense that a win is a win, she will get two IMHO and fight on. But I think she remains an underdog in the nomination contest.

If she loses both states to Sen. Obama (as has been the pattern in the last 11 contests), I truly would join the chorus and say it is all but over. Apparently, she will hang in there and not concede defeat, but if she does not win these two states, I don't see how she convinces the 796 superdelegates that she somehow deserves the nomination over Sen. Obama.

On the Republican side, what normally would be a big story will take a back seat to the Democratic contest. Sen. John McCain of Arizona should go over the top tonight and secure his party's presidential nomination. He is leading heavily in polls in Ohio and Texas over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who should drop out after he sustains major losses in both states.

This is an incredible comeback story for Sen. McCain whose political obituary was all but writte last year. But he tightened his belt, kept the ship afloat, events broke his way (namely in Iraq) and he knocked off former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in primary elections. Fortunately for him, the Republicans had many "winner take all" contests, and his victories have propelled him to the brink of the nomination.

I will be live blogging the results as they come in about two hours or so, so come back, and if you can, tell your interested friends to come over and catch what's happening. Should be pretty exciting!

Election Eve

2008-03-03T15:31:00.002-05:00

It looks like the polls may be moving ever so slightly in the direction of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Tuesday's pivotal Democratic Party primary elections in Texas and Ohio. Sen. Clinton is fighting for her political life against Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois with the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party hanging in the balance.

Sen. Obama leads in total delegates and has won 11 contests in a row. Sen. Clinton badly needs a win of any kind. As I said earlier, I thought the "red phone" ad--a political advertisement in which a red phone rings at 3 a.m. and a narrator asks which person you want to answer that phone, Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama--had the potential of working.

Tracking polls today on RealClearPolitics.com indicate Sen. Clinton has regained her lead in Ohio and may be squeaking ahead in Texas. In Ohio, the main issue is the economy and here the red phone probably did not make much difference. In particular, the main flash point in Ohio between the two candidates is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both candidates have been arguing that NAFTA, and by extension free trade itself, has caused jobs to flee states like Ohio and they are discussing measures which critics call "protectionist".

But an issue concerning NAFTA is causing angst for Sen. Obama. It seems one of his senior aides--an economic adviser named Austan Goolsbee--told a member of the Canadidan consulate to ignore Sen. Obama's comments about NAFTA, that they were just "campaign rhetoric." When the story broke in Canada, the Obama campaign denied the meeting even happened, but CTV, which broke the story, stood by its account. The Obama campaign then said CTV "retracted" the story, which it didn't, and for the first time in months, the usually tight and disciplined Obama campaign seems to have gone off the rails a bit on this story.

Since this is a salient issue in Ohio, it could be a reason why Sen. Clinton is gaining traction there. Texas is different with both candidates in a dead heat.

If Sen. Clinton does manage to win both states--even by the skin of her teeth--she can claim to have stopped his momentum even if she does not catch up to the total number of delegates he claims (1392-1279) and she would stay in the race with a political reprieve.

I'll look at tracking polls tomorrow and make a prediction. I've been spectacularly wrong betting against Sen. Obama so I want to see more data before taking the plunge.

On the Republican side, it is possible that Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the clear presumptive nominee, could "go over the top" and gain enough delegates to mathematically clinch the nomination. That is a huge story, of course, but will be overshadowed by the exciting and media-absorbing Obama-Clinton race in Texas and Ohio.

I will try to post later but as of now, it looks like what the media is calling "Super Tuesday II" is going to be a real nail-biter.

Reader Comment

2008-03-01T15:19:00.003-05:00

Besides our first comment from Jack in the previous post, VOA got an e-mail from a K.Kelly. Here it is:

"Do a Google news search and compare how many times the internet news media, including Voice of America, uses the term "Clinton ATTACKS...Obama" verses "Obama ATTACKS...Clinton." I think you will find the analysis startling. There are a lot more references to "Clinton ATTACKS Obama" than "Obama ATTACKS Clinton." Instead Obama "swipes," "criticizes," "says," "suggests," and "warns," etc. There is a big difference between ATTACK and SWIPES, CRITICIZES, SAYS, SUGGESTS and WARNS. ATTACK has a negative connotation. Is Voice of America biased against the Clinton campaign?

K. Kelly"

While not specifically addressed to this blog, I thought I would take, er a "swipe" at it. :-)

I would go along with the idea that the media in the United States (from which VOA draws much of its news) has generally been less critical of Sen. Obama than Sen. Clinton. This is not only my view but you can read this throughout the media itself.

But one has to admit that the Clinton campaign, according to analysts, has been less than adroit in pursuing the nomination. They gambled everything on a strategy of inevitability and wrapping up the nomination by Super Tuesday back during the first week of February. It failed. The press coverage reflects this as well.

But as I said in my earlier posts, I sense this is going to change and change soon. And again, this is not just my idea; you can read this all over the American press. The press, if I can aggregate what I see, realizes that it has been perhaps too ga-ga over Sen. Obama, and now that he is a front runner, is beginning to focus on what exactly he means by "change". His plans are beginning to be examined, his voting record is likely to be parsed.

I think Sen. Clinton has raised a legitimate question in asking whether Sen. Obama is prepared to assume the awesome burden of the Oval Office. He has spent four years in the Senate, and eight years before that as a state legislator. About half of his time in the Senate has been spent running for president. In his defense, men have been elected with far less national experience than he has as we have tended to elect state governors in past contests.

So given all this, I think the press coverage reflects the states of the two campaigns. And for my money, "attack" is not such a dirty word. That is what candidates do all the time, and frankly, in a democracy, they should. To me, "attack" does not have such a negative connotation but I will concede the point that words matter (where have we heard this before?).

VOA mirrors the national press coverage as we strive to give our listeners and the visitors to our website what the country's media is saying, and that terminology inevitably creeps into our own coverage. Perhaps we should be more careful but while I think we try to be as objective as we can, we should not go out of our way to "make up" for what the US press is saying. It is always going to be a judgment call for us as to how people and things are described. We'll always look at that.

But I do sense that a change may be ahead on the press coverage of both candidates. However, be prepared that if Sen. Clinton loses both contests on Tuesday night, the coverage and adjectives used to describe her and her campaign are going to be painful for her supporters.

Thanks for the note and I hope you keep getting your campaign info from us.

Some Tightening in Texas

2008-03-01T13:05:00.002-05:00

Didn't want I say I told you so, but there does seem to be some tightening in Texas in daily tracking polls. These tracking polls measure groups of voters day to day to determine what may move a campaign on a daily basis. It can also measure the impact of events--speeches, ads, devel0pments, gaffes--and see what may be responsible for voter movement.

In the Reuters/CPSAN/Zogby Tracking Poll, it says: "Democrat Hillary Clinton stemmed her losses and solidified her base in Texas, reversing a slide against rival Barack Obama." Sen. Obama has a two-point lead in this poll but the movement has to be at least some good news for the Clinton campaign.

In Ohio, it's virtually a dead heat according to Reuters/CPSAN/Zogby with Sen. Clinton up by a point, 45-44.

A second poll, the WFAA (TV station in Dallas, Texas) and Belo, a polling organization, have it Sen. Clinton by one point with the race seesawing back and forth. They say there is no way at present she can make up enough delegates in Texas to overtake him, but that may not be the point here. A win is a win and she needs one badly.

As I said yesterday, I wonder if that ad she is running about the red phone has raised a few doubts or given enough voters pause to reconsider a vote for Sen. Obama. That plus the story about whether or not Sen. Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was just "campaign rhetoric," as one of the campaign's senior aides told a member of the Canadian government.

We will see Tuesday evening. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye on tracking polls for these two races.

For the Republicans, Sen. John McCain is not breaking a sweat in either state and should win handily.

Hey, if you have any ideas or opinions you want to express, please go ahead, I welcome them. The e-mail address is over on the right and you can always leave a comment.

Weekend Update

2008-02-29T21:40:00.001-05:00

Heading into this weekend, the last one before critical primary votes in Ohio and Texas on March 4, the situation for the Democrats looks like this.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, counting "super delegates," who are unelected and unpledged, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois leads Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, 1,384 to 1,279. Among pledged delegates, Sen. Obama leads, 1,193 to 1,038.

Looking towards the vote in Texas and Ohio on March 4, Sen. Obama holds a slight lead in the polls in Texas, and Sen. Clinton has a slight lead in Ohio.

The consensus among political observers is that Sen. Clinton needs to win both states to stop the momentum of Sen. Obama. To catch up in the delegate race (delegates are awarded proportionately by the Democrats), Sen. Clinton would need to win by substantial majorities. But politically, a win of any kind in both states would do her well in terms of political perceptions of the race. It could reverse the momentum and make it a contest again and raise some doubts about Sen. Obama.

Sen. Clinton has been running an ad in Texas that has become controversial. The ad involves a red phone ringing and the narrator asks: "Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3 a.m. and something has happened in the world?" The ad hints that Sen. Obama is not experienced as Sen. Clinton in foreign affairs to react effectively.

Sen. Obama's campaign responded by saying, "We've seen these ads before. They're the kind that play on peoples' fears to scare up votes…the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is -- what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer."

But I think this has the possibility of being effective. The answer by the Obama campaign seems to be the same one given to any question about his preparedness for questions of national security: "Sen. Obama didn't support the war in Iraq." However, how long can this response serve as an all-purpose rejoinder to any foreign policy question? I would like to see tracking polls after this ad runs awhile.

Then, another issue erupted in the past few days. According to the Canadian television news outlet, CTV, a senior official in Sen. Obama's campaign gave assurances to Canada's government that Sen. Obama's opposition to, and call for, renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was just "campaign rhetoric."

The Obama campaign told CTV Thursday that there was no message given to Canada that Sen. Obama did not mean what he said about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

But then a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy insisted that the story was true and named the Obama campaign aide--senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee. Mr. Goolsbee refused to confirm whether or not he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office. But Canadian government sources told CTV that they are standing by their story.

This is the first time in awhile that Sen. Obama has been involved in one of these sorts of stories; a story which calls into question the campaign's veracity or its discipline. And if the campaign is truly reassuring foreign leaders that it doesn't really mean the populist rhetoric it is putting forth, that may not reflect well on the front runner. As one writer asked on a U.S. blog, if the story is true, was Mr. Goolsbee acting on his own, and if he was, what does that say about the effectiveness of the campaign? Who else is saying what to whom?

Ultimately, it may not matter as the voting in Texas and Ohio is only four days away and this may have no impact. But as I said, this is the first ding in Sen. Obama's armor in quite some time, and I expect the press (and the Clinton campaign) to play it up.

This may tighten the races in the coming days. I'll check the tracking polls.

For the Republicans, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive nominee, who is leading by 20 points in Texas and 43 in Ohio over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, is not too concerned about the voting.

Stories raising questions about his eligibility to hold the presidency by virtue of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone, ties to lobbyists, and an overeager radio talk show host who introduced him by emphasizing Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein), have plagued Sen. McCain but not really hurt him.

Too much attention is being paid to the Democratic race. We will see if Gov. Huckabee drops out after expected losses in Texas and Ohio or keeps going for the sake of getting to the convention with delegates.

The Last Debate?

2008-02-27T21:17:00.000-05:00

Last night's debate at Cleveland State University in Ohio may have been the twentieth and last in the series that took place in the Democratic Party this election cycle. Debaters Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois squared off just one week before pivotal contests next Tuesday in Ohio and Texas that could decide the Democratic Party's presidential nomination-for Sen. Obama.

The 46 year-old African-American senator finds himself leading in the national polls, leading in convention delegates, and leading in the votes cast by Democrats since the process began on January 3 in Iowa.

While he trails in polls in Ohio, he is closing fast there on Sen. Clinton. In Texas, polls say that the two are tied or that Senator Sen. Obama holds a slight advantage. That's why last night's debate was so important for Senator Clinton. She needed a way to slow Sen. Obama's momentum, but the consensus view in the American press (and my own as well) was that she didn't.

It was not unlike a boxing match in which one fighter is way ahead on points entering the final round. The fighter behind on points realizes he has to knock the other guy out or lose. The fighter ahead on points just needs to stay on his feet. That was the situation last night. Most political analysts believe Sen. Clinton came nowhere near scoring a knockout and Sen. Obama deftly boxed his way out of trouble.

That isn't to say Sen. Clinton didn't land a few punches. There was a spirited exchange on health care plans that would hold only true policy wonks in rapture. There were charges and counter-charges about Sen. Obama's support from Black Muslim leader Minister Louis Farrakhan whose comments about Jewish Americans and Israel have put him way off on the sidelines of political influence. Sen. Clinton scored a point or two here and there, but in the end, most analysts believe Sen. Obama more than held his own and came out, if not the winner, at least not a loser, which was good enough under the circumstances.

The general consensus is that barring some kind of game-changing political development in the remaining days before Tuesday, Sen. Obama could win both big states (along with Rhode Island and Vermont which also vote) making it 13 and possibly 15 wins in a row. Then the pressure on Sen. Clinton to withdraw could become enormous.

But would she? Some columnists are calling for her to do just that but as Jack Kelly argues on the RealClearPolitics.com site, neither candidate may have enough delegates by the time the convention rolls around to claim a first ballot victory…if Sen. Clinton wins in Ohio and Texas. Even if she wins one of the states (she is leading in Ohio) it is probable she would stay in the race, hoping for a win in Pennsylvania on April 22.

But one thing did happen in the debate. For the first time, Sen. Obama came under some harsh questioning from the press. Debate moderator Tim Russert of MSNBC was quite persistent in his questions about Sen. Obama's support from Louis Farrakhan and whether or not Sen. Obama will accept public financing of his campaign. Sen. Obama originally said he would, but now seems to be putting off the question until he becomes the nominee. That's a bit different from his earlier comments.

Sen. Clinton's complaints in the debate about the press treatment she receives (she thinks it's harsh) versus the press treatment Sen. Obama receives (she thinks it's pretty easy) did not impress political analysts but perhaps did lead to some harder questioning of the Illinois senator than he has been used to. Now that he is the front- runner, the press may start asking some harder-edged questions about his policies. Pieces to this effect are starting to pop up in newspapers ever so slightly.

Nevertheless, if past is prologue, Sen. Obama could be in for a good night on Tuesday, and with wins in Texas and Ohio, just about put the race away as far as peoples' perceptions go. Sen. Clinton has to buck the odds and pull out some victories.

With less than a week left, Senator Clinton needs to find a way to win in Texas and Ohio-not necessarily by a large margin-but as one of our famous professional sports franchise owners put it in a famous quote, "Just win, baby!"

Big Debate Tonight

2008-02-26T16:24:00.002-05:00

In what is being billed as New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's "last chance," she takes on the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, in a televised debate. The debate will be held in Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio is one of the critical states with a primary next Tuesday which could go a long way in determining whether Sen. Obama seals the deal with Democratic Party voters, or is the staging ground for a comeback by Sen. Clinton.

Current polling shows Sen. Clinton leading in Ohio but with a tight race in Texas (it also votes the same day as Ohio)--Sen. Obama has a small lead there.

This is a very important debate for both candidates as they seek the nomination for their party's top spot on the national ticket.

I'll have some debate react when it's over. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama's previous debates have been fairly civil but I think this one could be a little different. There is a great deal at stake, particularly for Sen. Clinton. I thinks she is going to try and rattle Sen. Obama in an attempt to give voters pause to support him in the numbers he has been getting. That will not be an easy task but no one said running for president is a lark. As someone once said about politics (I can't remember who)--"Politics ain't beanbag"--meaning it can be a rough and tumble exercise.

Stay tuned!

Back Again

2008-02-25T14:19:00.002-05:00

Sorry to have been out so long.

Lots of stuff happening in the US presidential campaign even though there are no elections set for Tuesday.

A story last week in the influential New York Times about Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, hinting that he may have had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist (someone who represents an industry or cause to members of Congress) and questioning his ties to lobbyists in general, received quite a bit of criticism. Both political critics and those in journalistic circles thought the Times story was not a good one. The Times stood by its reporting, but politically, the result may be that the Arizona senator and presumptive party nominee for president could be helped in his quest to convince conservatives in the party to support him.

In the Democratic Party, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama had a debate last week in which not much happened to change the flow of the campaign. A statement at the end of that debate from Sen. Clinton that, "no matter what happens, we'll be all right," was intepreted by some as a valedictory wrapup to her campaign and a prelude to a graceful exit.

But Sen. Clinton, who trails Sen. Obama in delegates and momentum, is fiercely contesting Texas and Ohio where voters go to the polls March 4. She needs to win both states to keep the campaign going. After last week's victories by Sen. Obama, it was thought Sen. Clinton needed to win by big margins to make up her deficit in delegates. But now, any victory would do. If not, then some columnists (as they already have) are suggesting she withdraw from the race.

But recent polling shows her with a lead in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania (which votes on April 22) but Texas is practically a dead heat.

With the stakes high, the rhetoric is ratcheting up on the Democratic side. There is another debate tomorrow night (Tuesday night) and that could be critical. Although people have said that for each debate and it turns into a mutual admiration society.

We will watch to see what happens as it is really coming down to decision day for the Democrats.

Currents in the Democratic Race

2008-02-20T13:16:00.003-05:00

The final tallies are in from voting on Tuesday, Feb. 19:

In the Democratic Party primary in the state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois defeated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 58 percent to 41 percent. The seventeen-point edge stands in contrast to pre-election polling which saw him with a miniscule four-point lead. In Hawaii, where Sen. Obama was born, he won even bigger, by 76 to 24 percent.

Sen. Obama won across almost all demographic groups, including ones that previously had been voting for Sen. Clinton--women, voters making less than $50,000 per year, and those without college degrees. The only group still loyally supporting the New York senator are women 65 and older.

The results led to a series of articles and reports asking, "Is Clinton Finished?" and indeed they make a strong case that Sen. Obama has gained political momentum as a result of his victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii, and last week's routs in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. He currently leads in total delegates (1356 to 1267, says RealClearPolitics.com) and his campaign points out that due to the Democratic Party's awarding of delegates according to the proportion of votes a candidate receives, Sen. Clinton would need to win primaries in Texas and Ohio on March 4 by more than 20 points to make up the difference.

The most recent poll in Texas, taken by Survey USA, shows Sen. Clinton with a 9 point lead (52-43) but the lead was in double digits not that long ago. In Ohio, a poll taken before the voting in Wisconsin had Sen. Clinton up by five points, 50-45. I'll be watching the polls taken after the voting on Tuesday to see if the momentum effect will eradicate those leads. Many analysts believe it will.

Sen. Clinton's campaign will be going on the offensive and raising the issue of which candidate would make a better commander of U.S. military forces, hinting that Sen. Obama has little or no national security experience.

But another line of attack could have opened quite accidentally for Sen. Clinton. On Tuesday night, MSNBC TV host Chris Matthews asked Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter, over and over again on live television to name some legislative accomplishments of Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Watson could not, and he tried to change the subject but Mr. Matthews would not budge. Don't be surprised if you see this challenge raised again in the campaigns in Ohio and Texas.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton is trying to raise more money for the upcoming campaigns and may be trying to woo former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards' support. So is Sen. Obama who met with him earlier this week.

But leave all these aside; the main task that Sen. Clinton has to accomplish is win in Texas and Ohio, and follow that up with a victory in Pennsylvania in April. She has not won in ten straight contests so that is a tall order, but everything else may be meaningless in the Democratic race unless she wins in these states and wins convincingly.

Wrap Up

2008-02-19T22:14:00.002-05:00

With the Wisconsin Primary called for both frontrunners, Sen. Barack Obama on the Democratic side, and Sen. John McCain on the Republican side, the race seems to be stabilizing and taking a definitive shape.

For the Republicans, it was a good night for Sen. McCain, who won handily among those identified as Republicans. He split conservatives with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, but lost evangelical voters. But overall, he had a good night and is now within shouting distance of clinching the nomination.

The question is how long Gov. Huckabee will stay in the race, previous reports had him staying in through March 4. Given the wide lead of Sen. McCain and the pressure from party leaders to throw in with the front runner and bring the party behind Sen. McCain's candidacy, he will be feeling the heat to withdraw.

For the Democrats, it was a tenth straight victory for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton, and there are signs that Sen. Obama continued to win over voters who had previously been casting their ballots for Sen. Clinton. Many of the demographic groups in the state (women, downscale economic voters, members of labor unions) were ones that Sen. Clinton had an excellent chance to win. The only group that still seems to support her in large numbers are women over 60. Otherwise, she is losing to (or splitting) these critical voting blocs with Sen. Obama.

The tenth straight win also is beginning to solidify the perception that Sen. Obama is marching to victory, and picking up support as he goes. Sen. Clinton badly needs a victory and must now look to Texas and Ohio to break into the win column.

Currently, polls show that Sen. Clinton has leads in both states, but one poll shows a precipitous drop for her support in Ohio, and another shows Sen. Obama leading in Texas. The next thing to look for is what effect the Wisconsin win will have on polling in Texas and Ohio.

There are 13 days between Wednesday, Feb. 20, and the March 4 voting in the two big states; plenty of time for the Sen. Obama bandwagon to roll on to the Midwest and South. But Sen. Clinton also has about two weeks to try to change the shape of this campaign to her advantage.

We will examine polling starting on 2/20 to see if her leads in Texas and Ohio hold up, increase, or begin to plummet.

It's getting to crunch time for the Democrats.

Update on McCain Victory

2008-02-19T21:23:00.003-05:00

While it is true that Sen. McCain lost evangelical voters, he scored over former Arkansas Governor Huckabee among, "those who go to church "weekly" 49-43."

He also won in every major region of the state by large margins. Some analysts are arguing that this means Sen. McCain has begun the process of bringing his party together.

I still think there are some groups existing in the Republican Party that he has to reach. The real test comes when Gov. Huckabee is not on the ballot.

Fox and CNN Project Sen. Obama to win in Wisconsin

2008-02-19T21:21:00.001-05:00

Moments ago, Fox News called the Wisconsin Primary for Sen. Obama; CNN just did so.

Now we wait for the margins.

Sen. McCain Selected as Winner in Wisconsin Primary for Republicans

2008-02-19T21:00:00.003-05:00

Even before the polls closed in Wisconsin, both Fox and CNN called Wisconsin for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, easily winning over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

But the exit polling still shows some troubling signs for Sen. McCain's campaign: the former Arkansas governor wins evangelical voters by 59-35 percent; so-called "values voters" by 54-31 percent, and although there are no numbers yet, the polls say he is winning "conservatives."

But among self-identified Republicans, who made up 70 percent of the party primary voters in Wisconsin, Sen. McCain won, 53-47.

The conservatives and evangelicals are voters that Sen. McCain is going to need to "bring back home" for the general election against either Democratic Party candidate.

The question is whether these voters will vote for the Arizona senator in the fall when Gov. Huckabee is not an option on the ballot. These voters could be going for Gov. Huckabee merely because he is there or they are "sending a message" to Sen. McCain, or, in November, they do not plan to vote for him. We will see over the length of the campaign.

Curiously, among voters who listen to talk radio hosts (who are virulently anti-Sen. McCain), he won 56 percent of their votes against 32 percent who voted for former Gov. Huckabee.

Sen. McCain is saying, "I will be the Republican party's nominee." Pretty safe bet, I'd say.

The Democratic race is still too close to call, although sources say a call could be coming soon based on what appear to be big numbers in the exit polling for Sen. Obama.

Early exit polling hints that Sen. Obama may cruise to a 12 point win, in the area of (as one pundit predicted) 55 plus or minus to 43, plus or minus. Again, Sen. Obama did well, according to exit polls, among groups that have to date supported Sen. Clinton such as lower income whites and union workers., etc. The Illinois senator split the white female vote (over half of the Democratic Party primary electorate in Wisconsin) this group of voters was not as wealthy and affluent as the ones in last weekend's Maryland-Virginia--District of Columbia voting.

Back Online

2008-02-19T19:32:00.003-05:00

After some time away from the computer (it was a three-day holiday in the US) I'm back blogging the US presidential race looking at tonight's Wisconsin primary.

No contest on the Republican Party side as Sen. John McCain, from Arizona, the presumptive nominee, is poised to win that state's primary election putting him within shouting distance of his party's nomination. RealClearPolitics.com has the Arizona senator with 846 out of the 1120 needed to win.

Over on the Democratic Party side in the struggle between Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the exit polls are indicating a good night (again) for the Illinoisan.

If he wins (and those polls are suggesting it could be in blowout territory) that could make it ten in a row for him and really put Sen. Clinton on the spot to not just win, but win convincingly in the next series of races in Texas and Ohio.

Polls indicate leads for Sen. Clinton in Texas and Ohio but once large margins are narrowing. If Sen. Obama wins in Wisconsin (and in Hawaii where he was born which is also voting tonight along with a followup primary in Washington State to an earlier caucus), the tide may be too much to overcome.

I'll post the totals and projections as I get them; polls will be open for awhile yet.

Back on the Grid

2008-02-15T16:44:00.003-05:00

I've been off the grid for awhile and while I was away, tons of stuff happened in the US presidential campaign you should know about.

For a change, let's start with the Republicans. Sen. John McCain of Arizona had any doubts removed that he would be the nominee when he earned the endorsement on Thursday of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Gov. Ropmney amassed 291 delegates (according to RealClearPolitics.com) but he suspended his campaign last week ensuring Sen. McCain would win the nomination. Along with his endorsement, Gov. Romney "gave" his delegates to Sen. McCain.

Those delegates would give McCain 1,116 total delegates, 75 short of the magic number of 1,191 to secure the nomination mathematically.

Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with a total of 240 delegates and Cong. Ron Paul with 14, are both staying in the race but at some point, they will have to bow out so Sen. McCain can truly claim his prize. Gossip inside the Beltway indicates that Gov. Huckabee could withdraw after balloting in Texas on March 4.

The Arizona senator also found out he would receive the endorsement of former President George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) probably next week in Texas. It's a signal, say political observers, that it's time for all Republicans to rally around the nominee and start planning for the general campaign (which seems underway already!).

Republicans next vote in Wisconsin on Feb. 19. It's a winner take all open primary with 37 of 40 delegates at stake.

Now onto the Democrats where the race is much tighter.

When we last left you, the momentum for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois after his wins in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia on Feb. 12, was rising to gargantuan levels; he went into the delegate lead for the first time and also began to creep ahead in national preference polling. The RealClearPolitics.com delegate count has him 58 ahead going into voting on Feb. 19 when Democrats cast ballots in Wisconsin and Hawaii, with a non-binding primary in the Pacific coast state of Washington.

There already was a precinct caucus in Washington State on Feb. 9, and as a result, Sen. Obama got 25 pledged delegates to Sen. Clinton's 12.

In Wisconsin, polls show a tight race with Sen. Obama leading Sen. Clinton by four points. Sen. Clinton was thinking about skipping over Wisconsin, and focusing on upcoming races in Texas and Ohio, but with the contest close, and with her needing a victory, she plans to spend three days in the state.

The state has demographics which each side can claim as favorable. It's gone for Democratic Party presidential candidates in the past two elections but by very small margins. Political analyst Jeff Greenfield writing in Slate.com, says that exit polls from the 2004 presidential primary there showed that almost 60 percent of the voters described themselves as moderates or conservatives. Three in four had incomes of $75,000 a year or less; and half earned less than $50,000 a year. A third of the voters, he wrote, were Catholic, and more than half had no college education. Over twenty percent were members of unions.

This describes fairly well the demographic that has been supporting Sen. Clinton.

But Wisconsin also has a liberal tradition and a large population of university students--this is the terrain that is favorable for Sen. Obama. The polls are fairly tight and a win by Sen. Clinton would throw a roadblock into the coronation underway for Sen. Obama, and give Sen. Clinton a head of steam heading into Texas and Ohio which, along with Rhode Island and Vermont, vote on March 4.

The two large states of Ohio and Texas show Sen. Clinton with leads. With Sen. Obama winning ten major contests in a row (Sen. Clinton was found to have won the New Mexico Primary on Feb. 5--Super Tuesday--winning 14 delegates to Sen. Obama's 12), a win by Sen. Clinton in Wisconsin would be a big boost for her.

But if Sen. Obama's momentum leads to another 10-point win in Wisconsin, look out in Texas and Ohio; the senator from Illinois could be unstoppable.

The endorsement race also picked up when it appeared that Rep. John Lewis, an African-American Democrat from Georgia and long-time supporter of Sen. Clinton, was switching his support to Sen. Obama. The New York Times reported this on Thursday but accounts in the Atlanta papers on Friday denied that there was a switch.

I'll try and post more over the weekend. PS--I do not have a dog in this fight between the two Democratic candidates. I am just laying out the possibilities for each one.

If you have comments or you have preferences, let me know.

The Day After

2008-02-13T16:14:00.002-05:00

It is the day after the so-called Potomac Primary (Democratic and Republican Party primaries in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, all situated along the Potomac River) and what a difference it has made in the U.S. presidential election.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois won smashing victories in all three races. He took 64 percent of the vote in Virginia, 60 percent of the vote in Maryland, and 75 percent of the vote in the District of Columbia. He won a clear majority of the 168 pledged delegates at stake on Tuesday, and now leads in delegates over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York by 1272-1231; 2,025 are needed to nominate. In several national polls of Democratic Party voter preferences he now leads as well. He has won eight contests in a row and a sense of momentum, and even a sense, according to his campaign, of “inevitability.”

It wasn’t that long ago that Senator Clinton was making the “inevitability” argument, which has now been turned on its head.

Speaking from a delegate-count basis, Senator Obama’s supporters say his 41-vote lead, according to RealClearPolitics.com, puts him in command, with Wisconsin and Hawaii voting on Feb. 19, where the Illinois senator is also expected to do well.

Hawaii, which was where Sen. Obama was born, is also a caucus state. In a caucus state, voters attend a public meeting and indicate support a candidate openly, as opposed to a primary, which is an election. Sen. Obama has won almost all the Democratic Party caucuses to date save Nevada. In Wisconsin, he leads Sen. Clinton with a 45-41 percent approval advantage in the state. He could pile up another 94 pledged delegates with victories there next week and continue his unbeaten streak, which would reach 10. This would put an enormous amount of pressure on Senator Clinton and the momentum generated by these wins could prove unstoppable.

Yet the Clinton campaign is not without, to use a word heard a lot in this election season, “hope.” To begin with, she trails in Wisconsin by only four points, with 14 percent undecided. She is going to the state on Saturday (which some analysts believe may be too late) because Wisconsin could play to her advantage: there are large numbers of white working-class voters and a small population of African-Americans. She has scored well with these groups in the past. A surprise win in Wisconsin would give the senator’s campaign a huge boost going into the crucial date of March 4.

On March 4 (the day U.S. presidents used to be inaugurated), there are crucial elections in Ohio and Texas, with another biggie slated for April 22 in Pennsylvania. There are 573 delegates up for grabs between March 4 and April 22. According to press accounts, Senator Clinton would need to get 345 of those 573 delegates, or 60 percent, to even the race. In the remaining states, she would need to win more than 55 percent of the vote. That is asking a lot of any candidate but it is certainly not impossible. Sen. Clinton is currently leading in Ohio by 19 points in one survey, but observers wonder if the momentum generated by Sen. Obama this past week will cut into that lead. We’ll find out in the next three weeks.

So while the math looks difficult for Sen. Clinton, the one thing we have learned in this race is not to count her out. Remember New Hampshire, where polls had her trailing, but she eked out a surprise win.

Both sides in the Democratic race are courting the party’s so-called “super delegates,” those 796 officials who are granted voting privileges in the convention but are not bound to any candidate, regardless of the outcome in a particular state. Sen. Obama’s campaign is urging that these super delegates follow the votes in their home states; Sen. Clinton is using her long political history in the Democratic Party to persuade them to vote for her. It is an explosive issue in the party and many political operatives are hoping the super delegates do not decide the outcome of the race.

Then there is the issue of what to do about Michigan and Florida, two states whose delegates were stripped by the Democratic Party when they moved their primaries up in defiance of party rules. Sen. Clinton won in both states and has said that those states’ delegations should be seated; if so, she could pick up 178 delegates or more. Such a proposal brought to the convention floor would lead to a bitter fight and it is one that most Democrats hope to avoid. It can be avoided with further victories by Senator Obama but if Senator Clinton comes back in the remaining states, all bets are off.

On the Republican side, things were quieter with Sen. John McCain of Arizona winning all three primaries putting him within a stone’s throw of the nomination. His principal rival, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, plans to stay in the race, although several reports indicate there is no possible mathematical way that Sen. McCain can lose. Sen. McCain improved his vote-getting totals among Republican Party voters but social conservatives supported Gov. Huckabee and made the race in Virginia much closer (50 percent to 41 percent) than Sen. McCain had hoped. Nevertheless, Sen. McCain is now aiming his sights at Sen. Obama and Sen. Obama is returning the compliment.

So have we reached a turning point in the Democratic race as we have in the Republican? I’ll blog more about that later. What do you think?

Maryland Called for Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain

2008-02-12T21:48:00.004-05:00

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois made it three for three in the so-called "Potomac Primary" winning Maryland according to major U.S. networks. He added Maryland to wins in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

He ran well in Maryland across demographic lines and exit polls say he won both men and women over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Sen. John McCain also was declared an easy winner in Maryland by the networks.

So, while Sen. McCain had an early scare in Virginia, he rallies to win the state, plus Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The headlines tomorrow will talk of Sen. Obama's momentum, further shakeups in the Clinton campaign (a deputy campaign manager resigned on Monday following the resignation of Campaign Director Patty Solis Doyle; the reason given was to allow the new Campaign Director, Maggie Williams, the chance to organize her own staff) and whether it is time for someone to approach Sen. Clinton and ask her to step aside.

That kind of talk will be generated as a result of these impressive victories by Sen. Obama, but it is too early for that with two big states coming up in March--Ohio and Texas. Those are both states where Sen. Clinton should do well and the demographics are advantageous to her. The question is whether Sen. Obama's gathering momentum will prove unstoppable and the results of the so-called Potomac Primary will have an impact on voting in those two states.

Not to be overlooked is a primary on Feb. 19 in wisconsin which comes before the big votes in March. That could become critical, too.

Sen. McCain had a tougher than expected fight in Virginia but with the wins in the District of Columbia and Maryland, his march continues. The question is how long his chief rival, former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee stays in the race. Rumors are that he will stay in through Texas (March 4) then bow out.

It is going to be a long time between now and March 4 for the Democrats in what will be an incredibly high stakes showdown.

Virginia Called for Sen. John McCain

2008-02-12T20:43:00.001-05:00

Two of the American networks called the Virginia Primary for Sen. John McCain. In a winner take all race, he gets 60 delegates but avoids an embarrassing defeat to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

The Maryland polls are still open for 45 minutes.

Virginia Called for Sen. Obama

2008-02-12T19:40:00.000-05:00

The polls in Virginia closed at 7 pm EST [0000 UTC] and FOX, CNN and MSNBC all called the state easily for Sen. Barack Obama. The FOX network said that Sen. Obama should receive 66 percent of the vote in Virginia, a victory that exceeded the poll numbers.

Sen. Obama won African-American voters (about 30 percent of the electorate) 90-10, and won a huge margin with white voters who called themselves independent. But Sen. Clinton won among white voters who called themselves Democrats by a 20 points. Overall, a smashing victory for the Illinois senator who split the white vote with Sen. Clinton.

On the Republican side, the race is too close to call as conservatives and evangelicals rushed to support former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee against the presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. According to exit polls, Gov. Huckabee won self-identified Republicans by two points and independents by nine points.

Bottom line so far: great victory by Sen. Obama who seems to be inching closer to generating momentum that could be unstoppable. His vote totals among non-African American voters are becoming more impressive with each outing. Analysts say Virginia was the state where Sen. Clinton could have pulled an upset.

Sen. Obama also won in the District of Columbia, no surprise there.

For Sen. McCain, this has to be disheartening. An outright loss would not derail him from the nomination but would indicate some holes in his election strategy. He has to wrap up the voters that Gov. Huckabee is now getting in states like Virginia.

As one analyst wrote, "Can't McCain put this guy away?...Why is this guy winning?"

A judge kept the polls in Maryland open until 9:30 pm [0130 UTC] because of traffic and weather conditions in the state.

E-Mail

2008-02-12T11:58:00.000-05:00

I got a nice e-mail from visitor Charles Muchimba from Zambia who asked about the presidential race. I replied privately and got back this note:

"Thanks for your mail and analysis about the 2008 American race to the White House. It made good reading and I personally enjoyed it vehemently."

Well, Charles, glad you did, and I am always happy to answer queries and comments. Opinions are welcome, too. I won't post them unless you authorize me to or you want your thoughts shared among readers of this blog.

The e-mail address is up on the right hand side, feel free to mail away.

Potomac Primary

2008-02-12T10:59:00.000-05:00

Because the Potomac River runs through the two states and the District of Columbia which vote today in Republican and Democratic Party primaries, the primary elections are being called the "Potomac Primary".

What is also being called by most political analysts here is that it should be a very good day for Illinois Senator Barack Obama as he continues his quest for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. His rival, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, also hopes to do well in the Potomac Primary but perhaps in a different way.

Most pre-election polls indicate that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in Maryland by 18-23 points; in Virginia by 15-22 points, and with the District of Columbia having one of the highest percentages of African-American populations in the nation (56 percent), Senator Obama is all but conceded the District's primary delegates as well.

At stake for the Democrats are 168 of 238 total delegates; currently, Sen. Obama leads Sen. Clinton in overall delegates according to RealClearPolitics.com, 1144 to 1138; 2025 are needed to win.

With momentum going Sen. Obama's way, an interesting development occurs. Suddenly, he is the frontrunner in the spotlight and expectations rise that he will win convincingly today. Perceptions are everything in politics, and now not only is he supposed to win, but he is supposed to win "big". Anything less, several commentators point out, could be construed not as a loss necessarily, but a result that would engender the question: why didn't he win by more? An actual defeat in either Virginia or Maryland would be the surprise of the month.

While polls do not indicate that Sen. Obama will lose, there are some things to keep in mind that may hold down the magnitude of any Sen. Obama victory. The state of Maryland seems tailor-made for Sen. Obama. Some 37 percent of Democratic primary voters there will be African-American, a group Sen. Obama is winning almost monolithically, and Maryland has large concentrations of educated, affluent voters, another group in which Sen. Obama scores well.

But there are also working-class enclaves in Maryland with voters who are not as affluent as their suburban neighbors and who live mostly in rural areas and suburban Baltimore (Maryland's largest city). These would presumably favor Sen. Clinton; there are also many activists who were part of the Clinton administration in Maryland who would also vote for the New York senator and the state's governor and senior senator have endorsed Sen. Clinton.

Over in Virginia, the race also leans towards Sen. Obama but again, there are pockets of voters who will support Sen. Clinton--professional women and seniors, the growing Latino communities and those citizens who worked in the Clinton administration. So again, while it looks good for Sen. Obama (according to polling data), the question is not whether he wins, but by how much.

So how much is how much? My professional antennae tell me that anything less then a ten-percentage point win for Sen. Obama in either state could be considered a "loss" in the expectations game; So while Sen. Obama is still favored to win both states, it's the margin that is critical. And as I said earlier, a loss by Sen. Obama in either state could be a blow to his efforts.

Over on the Republican side, it's also about margin but the Republican margin is about the number of votes garnered by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as he continues the race against the presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. No one doubts Sen. McCain will win the Potomac Primary. The question is, by how much.

Recent surveys in Virginia of more than 400 voters show the Arizona senator with 20-point leads; but tracking surveys of less than 400 voters by SurveyUSA show that Gov. Huckabee has closed a 32-point margin on 2/7 to 2/8, to an 11-point margin on 2/9 to 2/10. Sen. McCain is doing very well in Maryland and there are no late trends to indicate otherwise.

But if the SurveyUSA trend in Virginia is true, it's another irritant to Sen. McCain who is trying to rally all Republicans to his candidacy. It could show he still has some work to do but he does have the time to do it. The question then becomes how long Gov. Huckabee stays in the race (along with Cong. Ron Paul of Texas).

Turnout is expected to be heavy in the Potomac Primary, particularly in the Democratic Party, which has been true for almost all the contests to date.

I'll be posting results later tonight (8 pm EST--0100 UTC). The expectation is the contests will be called early; the later the call, the more interesting the result. You can also tune to VOA shortwave frequencies and follow the voting on www.voanews.com.

And again, I welcome your questions and comments. The e-mail address is over to the right and you can post a comment if you wish.

Weekend Review

2008-02-11T11:07:00.000-05:00

With Sen. Barack Obama's win in Sunday's Maine caucuses (59 percent to 40 percent), he now takes a miniscule lead in the delegate count according to RealClearPolitics.com, 1143 to 1138, with 2025 needed to win.

Sen. Obama also won races this past weekend in Louisiana, 57 percent to 36 percent, in Nebraska by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin, and in the state of Washington, 68 percent to 31 percent. The next round of critical voting is Tuesday, with primaries in Virginia (83 of 101 delegates at stake), Maryland (70 of 99), and the District of Columbia (15 of 38). The Illinois senator leads polls in Virginia and Maryland (he is up by high double digits--17 and 21 percent respectively) and will likely win by a landslide in the District of Columbia.

Suffice to say, it was a great weekend and probably will be a great Tuesday for him as well.

While the campaign of Sen. Clinton expected the weekend results, and also expect to lose the primaries on Tuesday, they nevertheless made some changes in leadership. Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle was replaced over the weekend by Maggie Williams. Ms. Williams served as chief of staff to Sen. Clinton when she was First Lady during the administration of her husband, President Bill Clinton.

This followed another development in which Sen. Clinton said she had loaned her campaign several million dollars which has since been paid back.

All of these results led to speculation in Washington that the campaign needed a new approach to the race and some fresh energy.

After the primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia (Feb. 12 marks the end of the primary period for Democrats who live around the world, the so-called "Democrats Abroad" race with seven delegates at stake), Wisconsin (74 of 92 delegates) and Hawaii (29) vote on Feb. 19. They are followed by Texas (193 of 228), Ohio (141 of 161), Rhode Island (21 of 32), and Vermont (15 of 23) which all vote on March 4.

These are states where Sen. Clinton is expected to do well and take back some of the momentum from Sen. Obama.

On the Republican side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had a good weekend winning caucuses in Louisiana and Kansas. He is contesting the results of the caucuses in Washington which showed him trailing by two percentage points to Sen. McCain, 26 to 24. Texas Rep. Ron Paul finished with 21 percent and remains in the race.

Analysts saw the results as a reminder that Sen. McCain, while the universal choice to be the Republican Party presidential nominee, still has some fences to mend among certain blocs of voters, particularly those who chose Gov. Huckabee in the weekend voting. According to RealClearPolitics, Sen. McCain has 724 delegates to 284 for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (who left the race last week), Gov. Huckabee with 234, and Rep. Paul with 14. To win, you need 1191.

The bottom line for the Democrats seems to be that Sen. Clinton must do well on March 4, otherwise she risks being overwhelmed by the Illinois senator which could lead party officials and the press to conclude that the race is over. She was in a similar situation before the New Hampshire Primary in early January and came back to win in a surprise victory, so many here are not counting her out.

For Sen. McCain and the Republicans, the race continues but he will be more concerned with trying to rally all Republicans around his candidacy and is looking into choosing a running mate. Several names are being floated, but with the convention still seven months away, that decision is probably far off.

Super Delegates and the Delegate Count for Democrats

2008-02-10T10:44:00.000-05:00

As a result of voting this past weekend (the state of Maine's caucuses in the Democratic Party have yet to be completed at this writing), the delegate race between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has tightened even further.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, the tally stands at Sen. Clinton, 1121, Sen. Obama, 1106. The winner needs to get 2,025 out of the 4,049 total delegates at the Democratic National Convention scheduled for August in Denver, Colorado.

Various scenarios are being spun out as to what the delegate total might be after all the primaries and caucuses are finished in June. Most analysts are stopping at the April 22 vote in Pennsylvania as the drop-dead marker for the nomination, although seven states and one territory will hold their contests between May 6 and June 7 with 492 total delegates at stake.

There is a consensus emerging that barring a landslide towards one candidate or the other, neither will have enough to claim the nomination once all the voting is over.

Enter the Super Delegates.

Super Delegates are not delegates endowed with power "far beyond those of mortal men" like the American cartoon character Superman. Instead, the Democrats decided two decades ago that along with the pledged delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses, a certain number of delegate positions would be allotted for what is known as "party insiders"--major elected officials (governors, members of Congress, other luminaries) and chairmen of the state Democratic Party organizations. These super delegates (there are 796 of them) are unpledged, that is, they are not bound by any election results in their states, and can vote for whomever they wish. They are the party establishment, the wise graybeards, who would rise above the petty squabbling and do what is best for the party in the election year, whatever the consequences.

These Super Delegates were created, in the opinion of many convention observers, to ameliorate the kind of deadlock that seems to be developing in 2008. In theory, these delegates would, quietly and out of the limelight, come to a consensus on who should win the nomination, and deliver their votes accordingly. The campaigns would be counseled privately, a compromise reached, and the party enters the convention with the winner known and selected.

That is the theory anyway. But that's not always the way things turn out. The super delegates are subject to pressures of their own. So far, according to RealClearPolitics.com, 348 of the 796 sd's (for short) have publicly pledged themselves. Sen. Clinton gets 211, Sen. Obama, 137. The other 448 are being lobbied furiously with phone calls, e-mails, etc.

The glib reaction is that the sd's will follow the voters' decisions. That is, Super Delegate X will vote for whoever won the primary or caucus in their state. That is certainly possible but imagine this scenario. You are a governor in his or her second term who eventually plans to run for senator at some point. Because you expect to get help and support from Sen. Clinton;s campaign, and you're a long-time friend and ally, and you truly think she can win in November, you opt to vote for her. But the Obama forces come and say that if you want the sizable African-American voting bloc in your state to ever support you again, you better vote for Sen. Obama. What do you do? Suddenly, it's not that easy.

So, in my mind, the super delegates will be whipsawed back and forth among competing factions, but in the end, I think they will do what they believe is in the best interests of the party and its electoral chances.

There are suggestions being made to do away with the super delegates entirely and leave the decisions in the hands of the voters who have taken part in the process so far. But I don't think you change the rules in the middle of the game, and these delegates are there for a reason--to bring the collective wisdom of those who have the biggest stake in the party; not some independent voters who cast a one-time ballot in a primary for a party to which they do not belong.

If I had to guess, I don't think these rules will be changed, although I would not venture to say what the eventual process will be by which the super delegates award their crucial votes. But the party set it up this way and the rules should be honored and remain in place for all candidates. In this case, the "cure" might be worse than the disease.

As you follow this voting from wherever it is you reside, I would love to hear what you think regarding this issue for the Democratic Party. Just drop us an e-mail or leave a comment and we can start the discussion going.

Primary Update

2008-02-09T21:57:00.000-05:00

In the Nebraska Caucus for the Democrats, it's Senator Barack Obama 68 percent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, 32 percent; in the precinct caucuses of Washington State for the Democrats, it's Senator Obama, 68 percent, Senator Clinton, 32 percent.

On the Republican side, the primary caucus has front-runner and likely nominee Senator John McCain with 27 percent; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 26 percent, and Congressman Ron Paul with 21 percent in early returns.

As far as delegates go, because of the complex rules regarding delegate selection in these caucuses (the caucus being but the first step in the actual selection process), Senator Obama picked up 16 delegates of 31 tonight in Nebraska; the rest will be determined later. Delegates in other contests will also be determined in the future.

There are caucuses in Maine on Sunday for the Democrats which are the first step in a multi-step delegate selection process.

Current Democratic delegate count: Sen Clinton, 1079, Sen. Barack, 1017.
Current Republican delegate count: Sen. McCain, 724, former Masschusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 281 (he has dropped out of the race), Gov. Huckabee, 196, Cong. Paul, 14.

The exit polls in Louisiana show that Sen. Clinton won older voters over 60 and white voters; Sen. Obama won younger voters and African-America voters (50 percent of the caucus electorate in Louisiana) and he won both males and females in the caucus according to exit polling.

With 24 percent of the vote in, it's Sen. Obama 52, Sen. Clinton, 39.

These caucuses were expected to be for Sen. Obama and they are holding true to form, a good night for him. He is also expected to do well on Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Sen. Clinton's strength will come in the bigger primaries in March in Texas and Ohio.

As I said, this is getting interesting.

Mike Huckabee Wins Kansas Caucus in Republican Party

2008-02-09T18:46:00.001-05:00

The Republican Party caucus in Kansas has been called for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He got 61 percent of the vote to Sen. John McCain's 24 percent and Cong. Ron Paul's 11 percent.

Gov. Huckabee got 36 (of 39 pledged) delegates in Kansas giving him 231 according to MSNBC with Sen. McCain at 721. Cong. Paul has 14. Gov. Huckabee vowed to stay in the race until Sen. McCain goes over the 1,191 votes needed to secure the nomination. Some analysts believe the former Arkansas governor is angling for the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket.

No word yet on the Democrats voting in the Louisiana primary and caucuses held in Nebraska, the state of Washington, and the the Virgin Islands.

Even though Sen. McCain has all but clinched the nomination, political observers were noting that he has yet to make the final sale to what they call "heartland voters" such as the ones in Kansas. President Bush won Kansas in 2004 with 62 percent of the vote. Kansas is a reliably Republican state.

But caucus attendees are often said to be more motivated than primary voters and Gov. Huckabee's supporters still had a chance to demonstrate their backing. It is an indication though that Sen. McCain has to mend some fences in the party. He began that late last week with a well-received speech at the Conservative Political Action Caucus, many of whose members were supporting former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. While not overly enthusiastic, many of its members thought the likely nominee took the first steps towards gaining their support.

The results of the Kansas Caucus do not alter the status of the Republican race as Sen. McCain has all but been annointed by the press and party officials as the nominee.

Semi-Super Saturday

2008-02-09T10:01:00.001-05:00

Catching up on weekend politics, there are several primaries and caucuses being contested this Saturday:

Republicans:

Louisiana--Primary--not open to independents, 47 delegates
Washington--Caucus--40 delegates
Kansas--Primary--not open to independents, 39 delegates

Democrats:

Washington--Caucus--97 delegates
Lousiana--Primary, not open to independents, 66 delegates
Nebraska--Primary, open to independents, 31 delegates

Currently, the delegate totals, according to RealClearPolitics:

Republicans:

Sen. John McCain, 724; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 281, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, 196, Rep. Ron Paul, 14.

Gov. Romney dropped out of the race on Thursday, leaving Gov. Huckabee and Cong. Paul still running, but for all intents and purposes, Sen. McCain is the Republican Party nominee.

Democrats:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, 1076; Sen. Barack Obama, 1015.

After this weekend's contests, there are a series of primaries in the Washington, D.C. area (Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) that augur well for the candidacy of Sen. Obama; following that is delegate selection in several states highlighted on March 4 (the date presidents used to be inaugurated) by Texas and Ohio where Sen. Clinton could do well.

Pennsylvania, another state where Sen. Clinton is expected to do well votes on April 22. That contest could be affected by the results that go before so we'll watch that one.

After Pennsylvania, there are fewer delegates available in the eight states left to vote.

I'll try and have the results from Saturday's contests up later.

This is getting very interesting on the Democratic side; the Republican side is pretty much over.