PrezPolitics

2008-03-14T23:22:00.006-04:00

See you when the stupidity storm has passed

Today the fifth-largest investment bank in the country went hat-in-hand to a competitor and the Federal Reserve Bank to keep itself afloat.

Had Bear Stearns been unable to find someone to participate in a bailout we could have seen - and in fact may still see - more banks and investment banks go belly up.

A global credit crisis looms.

The stock market is in the tank.

Oil prices are well over $100 a barrel.

Home foreclosures have people living in 21st century Hoovervilles.

We are heading into - and frankly I would say are already in - a recession.

And the dollar is getting weaker by the second.

But the big story today on the blogs and the 24-hour noise networks is Barack Obama's pastor. It's hard to imagine that there's anyone out there who doesn't know what I'm talking about, so I'm not going to explain it here.

You'll notice that my posts on this blog have been fewer in recent weeks, and that is no accident.

I refuse to get involved in the bullshit and slime that passes for news and political discourse in this country, the supposed model of Democracy.

If you check back over the past month of posts on this blog, you will not see anything about the half-baked John McCain/female lobbyist story that sullied, or shall I say further sullied, the reputation of a once-great newspaper - the New York Times.

You won't see anything about the incendiary and bigoted remarks made by the right-wing preachers that have backed McCain in the hopes of bringing the rest of the religious right into the GOP fold for the fall.

You won't see anything about Geraldine Ferraro, or Samantha Power or any references to Hillary Clinton being a monster.

You won't see anything about the 3 AM ad, or Saturday Night Live.

That's because (to quote George Carlin) it's all bullshit and bullshit is bad for you.

As the Democratic race drags on, and the Republicans try to get a head start on the November campaign, the so-called news is getting uglier and more moronic by the day.

And it is getting that way for a reason.

Americans are themselves bigoted, stupid or just plain fearful and the politicians know how to play on that prejudice, ignorance and fear.

If you disagree with me, please explain to me how the Vietnam war hero was painted as the wuss in 2004, while the guy who got a plum appointment to the National Guard (secured by his important daddy) became the tough guy hero.

Politicians know that when they get into the gutter they get votes. And the 24-hour noise networks know that when politicians get into the gutter the networks get viewers.

You can argue that all the noise is really news because it affects how people vote.

Sadly, I'd have a difficult time arguing that point.

But that also proves my point.

Taken as a whole, the American electorate is not sophisticated enough to know when they are being led around by the nose.

With a six-week lull until the next primary, the noise machine will become deafening. The blogosphere and the airwaves - just when you think it impossible - will become trashier and more ridiculous.

This campaign started in earnest about a year ago with about 9 or 10 candidates (some from each party) who could make a good case that they were qualified to do the job they aspired to.

We're now down to three candidates who lose more and more luster each day, as they beat each other over the head and have every word they have ever spoken parsed, pulled out of context and distorted for someone else's political gain.

By the time the slime machine gets done with the remaining trio we will once again come to a November when we voters will ask ourselves if the last two candidates standing are the best we can do. Another hold-your-nose-and-vote election.

But we in the electorate have no one to blame but ourselves.

The politicians and the networks serve up this shit and we gladly eat it up.

If and when this campaign gets back to something worth talking about, I'll be posting again.

For now I will spend my time trying to figure out why it is we just don't seem to be able to do this Democracy thing right.

2008-03-09T21:26:00.005-04:00

Dream Team? Dream on

There has been a lot of talk the past few days coming out of the Clinton camp - indeed out of the mouths of the Clintons themselves - about giving the Democrats their cake and letting them eat it to.

Giving the party faithful a two-fer.

Vote once and get Clinton and Obama - in that order.

Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton said it should be in that order when they each advocated for a ticket with both of the remaining Democratic candidates on it. But it's clear which way they intend the ticket to be structured.

The motives behind the suggestion are obvious.

The Clintons clearly see great value in having Obama, who has turned out droves of new voters during the primary season, to add excitement and votes to a November effort.

But that is not the immediate motivation.

So what is?

How about the notion of damning with feint praise?

By suggesting they'd love to see the Clinton-Obama ticket, they're telling voters that Obama would make a good president down the road, after he's had a chance to learn under Hillary.

They're also telling voters that they can get a ticket with both Obama and Hillary, if they vote now to make sure Hillary is at the top of the ticket. After all, they let the voters reason, Obama's still young. He can get in line for his turn next time.

Obama is having none of it.

In the past when the subject has come up, Obama has mostly said it is a question for another day.

Over the weekend he was more emphatic, saying he won't be running for VP.

On Meet the Press today, Obama backer and former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle put it a bit more bluntly.

"It may be the first time in history that the person who is running number two would offer the person running number one the number two position."

The so-called Dream Ticket will never come about.

The most obvious reason is the nastiness of the current campaign and the animosity it is building between the two candidates and their supporters.

Which of the two is going to agree to play second fiddle?

Just based on the audacity she has displayed during this campaign, the sense of entitlement, do you really see Clinton agreeing to be No. 2 to "the novice" ?

If you were Obama, would you accept the vice presidency - a position already in search of a job description - with Bill Clinton hanging around the West Wing with lots of time on his hands?

In the case of either candidate, which would be a more attractive position to hold - a no-show job in the administration or a powerful new role in the Senate?

Both Clinton and Obama - with their strong showing as presidential candidates - can lay legitimate claim to a position of leadership in the Senate.

And then there's one more question to consider.

Do the Democrats really want the first legitimate woman candidate and the first legitimate African-American candidate for the presidency on the ticket together?

Isn't that a huge crap shoot?

Isn't that putting a bit too much faith in a country that has shown itself historically to be racist and sexist?

Will the new voters that such a ticket would bring to the party outnumber the swing voters who may decide that Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is a little more change than they bargained for?

The Democratic Party is too hungry for a victory to roll those dice and find out.

2008-03-05T19:23:00.006-05:00

McCain gets the nod from W

Ever come across one of those photos that you wish would just go away?

Maybe it's the prom photo where lavender is your dominant color. And you're the guy in the photo, not the girl.

How about a picture you posed for in March which could really come back to bite you in the backside in - say - November?

The GOP presidential nominee, John McCain, had one of those photo ops today - and will likely have many more in the months ahead with the man he hopes to succeed in the White House.

McCain was endorsed today by President Bush, who promised to help McCain in any way he could - including staying away from McCain if the GOP nominee feels that's the best way to go.

But McCain is wedded to Bush's war. He's wedded to Bush's "surge" and he's wedded to Bush's tax cuts.

He will easily be painted by the Democrats as the candidate offering four more years of what we've got now.

By accepting Bush's support today McCain seems to be OK with that.

2008-03-04T15:44:00.003-05:00

War of words is key

Hillary Clinton has characterized Barack Obama's presidential campaign is little more than fancy words.

Obama has argued that, although his campaign is a lot more substantive than that, words do matter.

They're going to matter big-time after the results of today's four primaries are known.

I'm not in the business of prognostication. That's often when trouble starts.

But based on the latest polls over the past few days, I'm going to stick my neck out and say Hillary Clinton will win Ohio tonight by 5 to 10 points, and probably a lot closer to 10.

The polls of the past two days show Texas as a tossup, but new polls released today show Clinton with a mid-single-digit lead.

I'm going to assume this all means the momentum has swung noticeably toward Clinton in the past few days and that she will notch a slim victory in Texas - though I think Obama could win more delegates in the state.

I'm going to say the two will also split the two small states voting today - Rhode Island and Vermont.

Most news organization have Obama leading Clinton by about 100-120 delegates, depending on who's doing the counting - and by about 140-160 pledged delegates.

Despite the fact that she seems poised to win Ohio and the popular vote in Texas, the delegate needle is not likely to move more than about 10 0r 20 in Clinton's favor. Which is hardly a move at all.

It's six long weeks until Pennsylvania, the next mother load of delegates. So the war of words after today's elections will be important.

If she wins the popular vote in both Texas and Ohio, Clinton's argument that she's as viable as Obama will be strengthened greatly.

But Obama can still boast a delegate lead and likely victories in more of the remaining states than Clinton is likely to pull off. With mostly western and southern states among the dozen elections that will remain after tonight, Obama's argument would seem to hold.

But Clinton, ahead by double-digits at the moment, is likely to take the largest single prize- Pennsylvania.

As of today her national numbers are as good as Obama's.

And she is likely to come out of tonight with a legitimate claim of momentum.

But with virtually no chance of winning the nomination with pledged delegates, Clinton may face a war of words with party leaders - who are growing tired of the length and nastiness of this campaign.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said the other day that the race must end after tonight, with the candidate holding the most pledged delegates being the nominee.

There is no chance of that happening, but it is indicative of a restlessness within the party over the possibility that the two candidates will tear each other down enough to lose in November.

NBC's Tom Brokaw today broke a story saying that about 50 super delegates are poised to come out very soon in Obama's favor.

That's another indication that the patience of party leaders is growing thin.

Depending on who the 50 are, the pressure for Clinton to step aside could be great.

She will need a strong argument to stay in the race.

But if the polls of the past few days are correct she just may be building that argument successfully.

2008-03-02T15:27:00.004-05:00

Heading toward Hillary?

Earlier this week former (Bill) Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers said on CNBC's Hardball that she felt the races coming up on Tuesday in Ohio and Texas were moving toward Hillary Clinton.

I don't remember her exact words, but that was the gist of her comment.

When Chris Matthews jumped down her throat asking her what she based that opinion on, Myers paused for a brief moment and then said "my golden gut."

I have to say as we reach the end of the final weekend of the Ohio/Texas campaign I'm feeling the same way, based on little more than my considerable gut.

Having spent the first 27 years of my life in Cleveland - six of those years covering politics - I think I have a bit of a handle on Ohio's political make-up.

I look at today's (Cleveland) Plain Dealer survey, which shows Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by four points (47%-43%) and I have no cause to doubt the poll is accurate.

You have to look beyond the surface numbers to determine that, indeed, those results appear to be pretty solid.

Clinton leads among women (53-38), people over 50 (54-36) and union households (56-34) - three key components of her coalition. That she leads those groups is not surprising, but the size of her lead among those groups is larger than it has been in many of the recent contests

The same can be said about the white vote, where Clinton holds a commanding 58%-32% lead.

Clinton has a 23-point lead in southeast Ohio, a sparsely populated part of the state which is dirt poor and in the foothills of Appalachia. Clearly Clinton remains appealing to low-income voters, which will be key in a state that has been stung more than most by lost jobs and home repossessions.

Perhaps a larger key for Clinton is her 47%-43% lead in northeast Ohio, which is the most populous part of the state and includes Cleveland, Akron, Canton and Youngstown. These are all cities that have been devastated by the effects of NAFTA, but also the part of the state that has a much larger percentage of African Americans than other regions.

Clinton also leads in northwestern Ohio (53-38), which has Toledo as its largest population center.

Obama's strength is in central part of the state (46-43) and the southwest (52-36).

Central Ohio's population center is Columbus, easily the most progressive city in a not-very-progressive state. It's the home of Ohio State University and the state government. It also has the most highly educated electorate of any region in the state. What's surprising is that Obama's lead here is only three points.

The southwest population center is Cincinnati - home of the iconic Taft family, a leading Republican force in Ohio politics for more than 100 years. The pro-Obama vote here is more likely an anti-Hillary vote.

Only 8% of those polled by the Plain Dealer said it was possible they would change their mind before Tuesday, and they are evenly split among Obama and Clinton supporters. It's unlikely when these votes play out that they will bring about any overall shift in support.

Obama's best hope for an upset lies with two groups - the 9% statewide who say they remain undecided and independents, among whom Obama is favored 53%-33%.

If Obama can turn out independents in huge numbers and he can win the last two news cycles and move the undecideds into his camp, he can win.

Clinton has never trailed in the polls in the Buckeye State, and although Obama has cut her lead sharply over the past couple of weeks, I'm going to say Ohio will be a win for Hillary.

In Texas, the latest polls show Obama ahead, but by only a point or three.

Today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram puts Obama ahead by 1 point.

The other recent Texas polls are equally inconclusive.

Whether it was her complaint of unfair treatment by the media finally getting traction, her performance in the latest debate in Cleveland or her tenacious campaigning, something has happened this week that seems to have stopped the bleeding for the Clinton.

Clearly no unexpected, Wisconsin-like blowout for Obama is in the offing.

The question is whether Clinton can spin one, and possibly two, very narrow wins in Tuesday's big primaries into an argument for her continued candidacy.

I'm going to predict we'll see a lot more of Clinton on the campaign trail in the weeks ahead.

2008-02-27T18:16:00.000-05:00

Led by children?

Does it seem to you that we are a nation of ninth graders? Or at least a nation led by a bunch of ninth graders.

Or maybe I'm not being fair to ninth graders.

While those running for the highest office in the land, and their surrogates, have provided dozens of examples in the past few weeks of "nah-nah-nah-nah nah-nah" politics, all you really have to do is go back 24 hours to have more of it than you can really stomach.

Today the low-brow commentary involved John McCain and Barack Obama, as McCain jumped on a slight misstatement made by Obama on an awkwardly worded hypothetical question by MSNBC's Tim Russert. (Click the link above for the full back-and-forth between McCain and Obama). About the only thing missing here is a "he started it" or a "see you after school dude" comment.

McCain's sarcastic rant against Obama came just 24 hours after the Arizona senator apologized to Obama for comments made by some moron radio host in Cincinnati who was a "warm-up act" at a McCain rally yesterday.

We also had the much-publicized nonsense about Louis Farrakhan's support for Obama and Obama's rejection of that support.

In this case, it's Russert who seemed bent on continuing to ram a question down Obama's throat when he'd already answered it. And of course Hillary Clinton chimed in with her "teacher, teacher, I have a better answer" response.

Which of course followed the whole Obama-in-Somali-dress episode, and the Three Faces of Hillary act which we commented on yesterday.

While criticizing your opponent is what political debate is all about, it seems we are incapable as a society of discussing the issues on an adult level.

One side is always looking to smear the other, or trip up the opponent rather than convincing people that they have the better plan.

The media seems to think its only purpose is to play "gotcha" or to make outrageous comments of their own, like Chelsea Clinton is being "pimped out" because she wants to help her mom win the election or Hillary's entire political career is based on sympathy for her having to endure the Lewinsky affair.

In the days before the 24-hour noise networks any newsperson making either statement would have been shown the door immediately. Now such inappropriateness seems to be cultivated by those networks.

The sad reality is we haven't even made it through February yet. There's still eight months to go and you have to wonder just how ridiculous it will get.

2008-02-25T18:01:00.010-05:00

Silly season indeed

During the most-recent Democratic debate Barack Obama said the political "silly season" was underway with Hillary Clinton's accusation that Obama plagiarized words from another politician's speech even though that politician not only gave Obama his blessing to use the words but encouraged him to do so.

The silly season may have reached it's peek today with wide-spread distribution of the photo of Obama shown above.

It's a legitimate (not doctored) picture of Obama, on a visit it Kenya in 2006, where he donned local ceremonial garb, much like thousands of politicians have done when they visit overseas.

(Think 'W' walking through the garden holding hands with some foreign male head of state because that's what they do over there.)

The picture was unearthed by The Drudge Report, saying it was obtained from members of the Clinton campaign. (somewhat like the Karl Rove campaign tactics Clinton accused Obama of using on Saturday)

The Obama camp called it "divisive" and campaign manager David Plouffe called it "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."

Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson, on a teleconference with reporters today essentially said 'don't look at us.'

"I just want to make it very clear that we were not aware of it, the campaign didn't sanction it and don't know anything about it."

The campaign had earlier issued a statement in which it did not come anywhere close to a denial that the photo may have come from somewhere inside the Clinton camp.

"Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

But the Clinton campaign is indeed being distracted, or more accurately they are the ones doing the distracting - even if the Obama photo was not their handiwork.

Clinton today made a foreign policy speech in Washington, an area that - at least by her claims of superior experience - should be her strong suit over Obama.

But the silly picture of Obama looking like a member of the Taliban is getting all the attention.

And in her speech on foreign policy, Clinton made a few more incendiary remarks about Obama, contrasting his calls for talks with Iran and Cuba with his assertion that we should make an incursion into Pakistan, which harbors Osama bin Laden, and clean out the al Qaeda and Taliban elements who thrive there on the border with Afghanistan.

"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve the world's intractable problems, to advocating rash, unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world."--Hillary Clinton

The criticism of Obama - legitimate political criticism in most circumstances - becomes nothing more than "more mud thrown today by Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama" on the newscasts, if the speech is covered at all.

Unless you have been spending your recent days contemplating the meaning of life, your navel or the likely affect of Ralph Nader's entry into the presidential race, you are no doubt familiar with - and sick of seeing - Clinton's sarcastic rant yesterday which painted Obama and his followers as modern day Peter Pans, who refuse to grow up and face the realities of the real world.

Or her scolding of Obama Saturday over the campaign leaflets Obama's campaign distributed in Ohio.

All which followed her make-nice moment at the end of Thursday's debate.

The bluster seems to indicate that the "go-negative" wing of the campaign has won the day heading into the crucial Ohio and Texas primaries next Tuesday.

And just where has the strategy taken her?

A USA Today/Gallup poll today shows Obama up by 12 points nationally, though the latest three-day Gallup tracking poll shows Obama with a much smaller margin.

A Public Policy Polling poll shows Clinton's once huge lead in Ohio down to 4 points.

An American Research Group poll shows Obama ahead in Texas and facing a narrowing deficit in Ohio.

The University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll shows Clinton with a narrowing lead, and so does the latest Quinnipiac Poll, though her lead in that survey is still in double digits.

With so much negativity in the air, tomorrow night's debate at my Alma Mater - Cleveland State University - should be interesting.

2008-02-22T15:32:00.003-05:00

What that ending was really all about

Sometimes it's best to put a few hours between yourself and an event before deciding just what to make of it.

Such is the case with the final 30 seconds or so of last night's Democratic debate. (This clip is a lot longer than 30 seconds, but you can fast-forward it to get to the relevant part).

Immediately following Hillary Clinton's conciliatory comments at the end of the debate, the talking heads were trying to decide what to make of it.

I happened to be watching MSNBC's coverage, where Keith Olberman seemed to be taking the comments not only as a concession speech by Clinton but also a bid to get her name on the short list of VP candidates.

NBC's Chuck Todd thought the moment was clearly an indication that Clinton realizes she might well lose the nomination but also a moment that might help her bid.

Clinton ended the debate on a VERY conciliatory note and for the first time sounded like a candidate who realized she might not win. It must be an odd position for her but the confidence she exuded for just about the entire debate disappeared there at the end. I wonder if showing some vulnerability might actually help her with some undecided voters.

Some pundits pointed to other seemingly conciliatory signs in the debate, most notably Clinton's answer to the question about superdelegates possibly deciding the nomination. She sidestepped the question and simply said, "we'll have a unified Democratic party" in the fall.

Still there were moments of tension between Clinton and Barack Obama, on healthcare and when Clinton tried (for what we can only hope is the last time) to score points on the plagiarism non-issue, saying Obama stood for "change you can Xerox."

Some of the talking heads on TV decided that Clinton's double-edged approach to the debate was indicative of the major split in her campaign - between those who think going big-time negative is her only hope and those who think such an approach will do more harm than good.

There may be something to that, but it certainly seems odd that the candidate would head out on to the stage for the most important debate of her career with two conflicting strategies.

Here's my guess.

The campaign's hope was Clinton could put Obama on the defensive during the debate - over healthcare or "plagairism" or SOMETHING - or, that he would somehow screw up himself.

I think the campaign felt if that didn't happen, then their only shot to salvage anything out of the evening would be for Clinton to get in the last word with something that would get serious play and win her some empathy, if not sympathy.

Clinton's closing comments - which were clearly hatched prior to their delivery on stage - would serve two purposes: tamp down the criticism that the senator seems to have taken a win-at-all-costs posture and give her plenty of airplay for at least a couple of news cycles.

I think the comments hit the pre-determined bullseye.

2008-02-19T21:11:00.006-05:00

Obama continues to roll

Barack Obama posted a larger than expected win in Wisconsin by carving chunks of support from Hillary Clinton's coalition, much as he did in the Potomac primaries.

Let's make this simple by skipping a lot of verbiage and go right to the numbers in the voting groups that Clinton had been carrying until last week's primaries in the mid-Atlantic.

Women: Clinton won this group tonight 50%-48%. Clinton had dominated this voting block until last week in Virginia when Obama won with about 60%. So Clinton regained some ground here.

White women: Clinton won 53%-45% in Wisconsin. The results were nearly identical in Virginia a week ago.

Families with income of $50,000/yr or below: Clinton again lost this once-solid demographic for her 46%-53%.

Education: Among high-school graduates the exit polls showed a dead heat 49%-49% - again an area where Clinton seems to be losing ground in a once-solid voting bloc.

Union membership: Obama topped Clinton in households where at least one family member is in a labor union 51%-47%. Among voters who themselves are in a union, the results were a tie.

Negative campaigning: 26% of those polled said that only Clinton attacked her opponent unfairly, and among that group 91% went for Obama; Just 6% said that Obama was the only candidate to attack his opponent unfairly. 27% said both took cheap shots at the other side.

Age: Obama won all age groups except those voters 65 and over. In Virginia Obama won literally every age group, so Clinton did reclaim some of her base among older Americans.

To summarize: Clinton regained some women, but didn't come anywhere near the levels she had wrung up among in the early primaries. She failed to take back those earning $50,000 or below, and failed to take back her lead among union members and union families. She also was unable to repeat her early performance among voters with only a high school education.

Her less-than-stellar performance in the lower-education, lower-income and unionized-worker groups does not bode well for Clinton as the race moves to Ohio and later to Pennsylvania.

---

Just two more observations and then we'll call it a night.

For the second time in key points in this campaign (South Carolina being the other), the voters have told the candidates - the Clintons in particular - that they are sick of negative campaigning.

The other point is a thought for Obama.

In breaking with campaign etiquette, Obama began his victory speech in Houston tonight before Clinton finished her non-concession speech in Youngstown.

It's not the first time that Clinton has not officially conceded on election night during this campaign - a breech of etiquette in itself.

But Obama would be wise from here on in to keep to the high road because his decision to upstage Clinton tonight smacked of the arrogance of a candidate who smells the nomination. It was unbecoming of the campaign he has tried to wage so far and he should think twice before doing it again.

Sometime around the time my alarm clock goes off at 4:30 a.m. EST we'll know what happened in Hawaii tonight. If you stay up for that you are more hardcore than I.

2008-02-18T15:10:00.004-05:00

Obama-Bloomberg third-party ticket and other nonsense

I like to stay away from just collecting and parroting news stories on this site.

There are a number of very good collating sites already, and in fact we prominently link to one of the best - Taegan Goddard's PoliticalWire.

But because there are several things that popped up today that are worth knowing about and commenting on, I've decided to do a little collating - with some commentary - myself.

The most eye-catching is a report today by that sterling journalist Armstrong Williams, who reports that Barack Obama has a Plan B in mind if he should win the support of the voted-in delegates only to lose the Democratic nomination when it's in the hands of the super delegates.

Williams says Obama has talked with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg about teaming up on a third-party ticket (with Obama at the top) if Obama doesn't get the nod from the Democrats.

The ever-principled Mr. Williams quotes "the word on the street" and "sources" to back up his story.

You might remember that Williams was paid by the White House several years ago to promote President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program on Williams' syndicated TV show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

So you might just want to take today's story - and anything else that springs from Williams' keyboard - with about six shakers of salt.

----

Grasping at strawmen

Now on to today's next bit of ridiculousness.

Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson has accused Barack Obama of plagiarism for using lines from another politician in a speech Obama gave over the weekend.

The Clinton campaign's latest - lame - attempt to find a way to bring down Obama is to argue that because Obama gives a much better speech than does Clinton he must be somehow less able to govern effectively.

The "all-talk-no-action" accusation has been used in the past, against Massachusetts Gov. Duval Patrick in his 2006 race against Republican Kerry Healey, who accused Patrick of being strong on rhetoric and short on specifics.

Patrick, during his campaign, responded with the following lines, which were pretty much exactly the same words Obama used in the same way over the weekend.

“ ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ — just words?”

Patrick's point then -as Obama's is now - is that part of being a good leader is being able to move people to action with your words.

Patrick, in a New York Times story this morning, said he and Obama had anticipated that Clinton might use the same strategy on Obama that Healey tried on Patrick, and that he - Patrick - has no problem with Obama using his words.

Here's an excerpt from the Times story:

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

Said Obama : "I was on the stump, and he had suggested that we use these lines. I thought they were good lines. I'm sure I should have (credited Patrick)— didn't this time. I really don't think this is too big of a deal."

Seems to me like it's not plagiarism if the two men discussed using the comments ahead of time.

It seems also that an increasingly panicked Clinton camp is grasping at straws here.

---
Pooh poohing the super delegate strategy

One of Clinton's staunchest African-American backers, Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem said the Clinton campaign should not be counting on the super delegates to pull her effort out of the fire.

The Associated Press reports Rangel made the comments at a gathering in Albany last night.

"It's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not superdelegates," Rangel said last night at a dinner for the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators conference in Albany. "The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is," he added.

Meanwhile, another Clinton backer and her fellow senator from New York, Charles Schumer, told Tim Russert yesterday on Meet the Press that he also sees no good coming from a nomination being sealed by the super delegates.

"For the sake of party unity, [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean and the two candidates will have to get together if neither candidate has 2,025 ... and come up with a strategy. Each candidate will have to buy into that strategy."

A little something more for the Clinton camp to be concerned about today.

2008-02-17T23:00:00.005-05:00

Will Texas be Hillary's Alamo?

There seems to be a general consensus among most politicos that Hillary Clinton must win in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania to keep her candidacy alive.

Ohio, at least according to the polls, doesn't seem to be a big problem for Clinton.

The same is true for Pennsylvania, though that race is two months away and who knows what can happen by then?

Texas, on the other hand, is a lot more problematic.

The Dallas Morning News on Sunday did a long, analytical piece about the Democratic race in the state, interviewing party officials, campaign operatives and political experts.

Based on that analysis and recent polling, it's beginning to look like Clinton may not pull off the kind of win she needs in Texas, and may pick up fewer delegates there than Barack Obama, whether or not she wins the popular vote.

"Hillary needs to maintain her advantage with women voters, which seems to be slipping nationally," said Democratic consultant Glenn Smith in the Dallas Morning News article.

American Research Group's Texas poll, released Friday, indicates Clinton seems to be OK there. She leads among women 54% to 42%.

Wayne Slater, who wrote the piece for the paper described a winning coalition for Clinton this way:

"The Clinton blueprint suggests getting two-thirds of Hispanics, a majority of women and enough moderate 'yellow dog' Democrats in East Texas to win."

This is where the problems start for Clinton, at least in the last ARG polling.

The poll shows Clinton leading among Latino voters in Texas by a 44% to 42% margin. In the Democratic races as a whole so far, Clinton has been able to reach the needed two-thirds threshold among Latinos.

But she didn't do nearly as well in the last round of races - the Potomac primaries. In Maryland Clinton got 55% of the Latino vote to Obama's 45%, according to exit polls. In Virginia, Clinton trailed Obama among Latinos 46% to 54%.

The Potomac primaries were held two days after Patti Solis Doyle - the first Hispanic to manage a presidential campaign - resigned as Clinton's campaign manager.

The move has angered some Hispanic leaders, who feel Solis Doyle was being scapegoated for the candidate's current losing streak.

The move clearly is not going to help Clinton in Texas, where the latest ARG poll shows her trailing overall to Obama 48% to 42%.

(Editor's note: ARG polls tend to run contrary to the overall body of polls. For example, most polls have Clinton leading Obama in Texas by a number in the upper-single digits. And you may have noticed ARG (in the link above) shows Clinton leading Obama in Wisconsin by six points. Most polls have it the other way around. Still, with ARG showing Clinton and Obama virtually tied among Latinos it is hard to imagine ARG is so far off that Clinton could still have the two-to-one margin she needs in that voting block.)

Democratic political consultant Ed Martin told the Dallas Morning News he thinks Hispanic turnout will be heavy, but in proportion with overall turnout.

But he said: "The real vote change could be urban: African-Americans. I think (African-American turnout) is going to be much, much larger."

Having won the African-American vote by an 8-1 margin so far, a bulge in turnout by that constituency in Texas, obviously, would help Obama there.

Whether or not these two factors will be enough for Obama to beat Clinton in the popular vote in Texas, it seems clear they will at least allow him to keep Clinton from the 20-point victory she needs in the state (as well as in Ohio and Pennsylvania) to bring her back to even with Obama in the number of committed (voter-picked) delegates to the convention.

In fact, as the Dallas Morning News points out in its Sunday article, it's is entirely possible that Clinton could win the popular vote in Texas and still lose the delegate tally.

"As it happens, the state Senate districts with the most delegates – Austin, Houston and Dallas – are all seen as prime Obama territory. As a result of that and other quirks in the process, it is possible that even if Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote on March 4 – and declares victory that evening – Mr. Obama could actually come away with more delegates."

Having said all that, there's still the matter of Wisconsin, and with most polls showing a spread of roughly four or five points, Obama is no lock there and an upset this Tuesday would cast a whole different light on next Tuesday.

2008-02-12T22:11:00.000-05:00

Obama widens coalition in Potomac primaries

Barack Obama made it another clean sweep tonight, this time in the so-called Potomac primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C.

The victories - when the votes are counted - will be by roughly 25 to 30 points in Virginia and Maryland, much the same as Obama's wins in the contests this past weekend. The victory in D.C. will be closer to 50 points.

But to really absorb the magnitude of Obama's wins, you have to look at the exit polls, where you will find that certain voting blocks that have been going for Hillary Clinton in previous contests may be starting to be won over by Obama.

In Virginia, Obama got 50% of the white vote to 49% for Clinton. Some 56% of white men went for Obama.

In the 60-plus age group, Obama won 54% to 46%.

Obama also won among all income groups, and won by 20 to 30 points in the various groups at $50,000 or below - groups (like those mentioned above) that Clinton has won in previous races.

Obama also got 60% of those who maxed out their education with a high school diploma, another group that Clinton has attracted until now.

Some 70% of those who identified themselves as Republicans in Virginia voted for Obama. Among independents, 66% went for Obama.

Obama also won among Catholics 50% to 48%, a first-time win for him in that category as well.

Sparing the details, Obama made similar inroads among the same groups of voters in Maryland , though Clinton won the overall white vote 51% to 46%.

Perhaps the most disconcerting numbers for Clinton are the gains made by Obama among lower-educated and lower-income voters. These groups are going to be key in upcoming races in Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio.

The same is true for the gain in Catholic voters, a key constituency in cities like Cleveland and all of northern Ohio, as well as Milwaukee and other ethnic enclaves in Wisconsin.

The bad news for Clinton is the widening delegate count for Obama, but the worse news for the New York senator is Obama's widening coalition.

On the Republican side, John McCain was the winner in all three races. He's projected by the networks to have won big in Maryland and D.C.

But Mike Huckabee continues be that annoying flea buzzing around his face, getting a little over 40% of the vote in Virginia.

2008-02-09T23:53:00.000-05:00

Huckabee crashes McCain coming-out party

John McCain's first Election Day as the GOP's presumptive nominee was one big flop.

The biggest punch in the stomach for McCain came mid-day out of Kansas, where he found he lost that state's Republican caucuses to Mike Huckabee by a whopping 60%-24%.

The day didn't get much better as it moved into evening.

With 98% of the vote tabulated in Louisiana, McCain trailed Huckabee 44% to 42%.

And out West in Washington State, with nearly 80% of the vote counted it looks as though McCain won't get over the 30% threshold, if he manages to hold on at all.

The numbers I'm looking at as I write this are McCain 26%, Huckabee 24%, Ron Paul 21% and the no-longer-running Mitt Romney 16%.

According to Louisiana exit polls, McCain was unable to come up with the right answer to the big question he faces.

Can he get the party's right wing behind him?

Evangelicals made up 57% of the GOP electorate in the state, with 56% going for Huckabee and 31% for McCain. Among those who described themselves as politically conservative (71% of GOP voters), 50% went for Huckabee and 34% went for McCain.

There was no exit polling in Washington or Kansas, since those states held caucuses.

But with McCain unable to get more than about one in four votes there, and four candidates finishing within about 10 points of each other top-to-bottom, it's clear there's something Republicans in Washington don't like about McCain as well.

And Kansas was a major repudiation of the party's likely nominee.

Most of the GOP's winner-take-all contests have already been completed, so McCain will get a slice of the delegates in nearly all of the races from here on in.

He will get enough delegates to win the nomination.

But with many more nights like this, the Republican nominee will cross the finish line with a bloody nose and a black eye.

2008-02-09T21:56:00.000-05:00

A huge sweep for Obama

Barack Obama rolled through today's three-state contest with huge victories in all three.

Obama pulled 68% of the vote in caucuses in Washington and Nebraska.

With nearly 90% of the votes counted in Louisiana it appears that Obama will win there with about 55% of the vote.

So what can read into this?

With the wide margins of victory Obama put up tonight, he will have a clear lead in the committed-delegate count (the ones people actually voted for) and I'm hearing "experts" on TV projecting he'll be within 25 delegates of Clinton when the super delegates are added in.

With Obama holding large leads in the primaries in Virginia, Maryland and DC on Tuesday, Obama could threaten to take the lead in both counts by next Wednesday morning.

Tonight's wins were not surprising, but the margins of victory were, and that should have the Clinton campaign on edge.

Clinton needs to pick up a win in Maine's caucus tomorrow or in Wisconsin or Hawaii on Feb. 19 to put a speed bump in Obama's path before the next big round of primaries on March 3, when Texas and Ohio - right now Clinton states - will predominate.

2008-02-08T17:24:00.000-05:00

Why the Democrats could lose

The current Republican occupant of the White House has had approval ratings in the low 30s for years now.

The GOP's presumptive nominee in the race to replace George Bush is the biggest hawk on the most divisive issue in the country - the Iraq war.

And that likely nominee - John McCain - is despised by a large and vocal pillar of the party's base.

Meanwhile, the Democrats started the nominating process with five or six candidates that most everyone seemed to like. It was like a candidate candy store.

Weeks later there are two candidates still standing and the Dems like them both so much they just can't seem to decide who to choose.

And therein lies the problem.

It is pretty much a mathematical certainty that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough committed delegates in their corner to win the nomination when the primaries and caucuses have all come to an end.

Since I've previously mentioned my shortcomings in math, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's the argument, as made by washingtonpost.com's Paul Kane:

We've done a bad job of explaining this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).

Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.

And then the super delegates decide this thing.

That's the math.

Ah the super delegate thing again.

Face it folks of the Democratic Party. It ain't going away.

So far in the Democratic contests, thousands of new voters have come into the process, excited - presumably - by the chance to vote for potentially the first women or first African American president. Or perhaps because they are just plain excited by two solid candidates.

Whatever the reason, Democrats are excited.

But, as we saw in the days before South Carolina, Democratic voters seem to be strongly attracted to "their" candidate, and when push comes to shove the heat starts to rise and bad blood boils to the surface.

There are people who are staunchly behind Clinton. And there are clearly "Obama" voters.

Before the race got so tense, many Democrats would probably have told you they'd be happy with either.

But now they seem to have taken sides.

And, these new, turned-on and very partial voters are going to have their decision made for them by 800 or so professional politicians.

All those folks - or more accurately half of them - who sent $50 Obama's way, or came to Clinton's rescue when they found out she was lending her own campaign lots of money are going to see that their money went down the drain.

The volunteers who knocked on doors, harassed commuters at the train station or manned phones at the corner campaign office will see that their work was for naught. How many of those folks do you think will repeat those important tasks in November if "their" candidate is shown the door by the politicos?

And then we have the question of Florida and Michigan.

Like most of us, I have to presume the big-wigs at the Democratic National Committee never imagined the race would last past Tsunami Tuesday, and so stripping the two rogue states of their delegates as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early seemed like a good idea.

Who knew those delegates would be critical?

And now one of the candidates - the only major candidate to keep her name on the ballot in Michigan and the only major candidate to visit Florida during the primary period - is pushing to count those votes.

That puts the party big-wigs in the position of taking sides.

If they stand their ground, they're taking Obama's side.

If they relent and seat the delegates at the convention, they're taking Clinton's side.

Once again, how will that play with the supporters of the candidate who "lost" on that one? There is some talk of a re-vote, or of holding caucuses in the two states, to make the results more equitable. This isn't a great solution, but it may be better than the alternative.

Most news organizations agree that Clinton is favored by more of the super delegates who have already declared their preference (but are free to change their minds), so that gives her a bit of an upper hand.

Yet most polls conducted over the past several months - including one released today by Time magazine - have shown Obama doing better in one-on-one match-ups with McCain in November.

So while the party regulars favor Clinton at the moment, they may be doing so at the expense of the candidate the polls say may be a slightly stronger choice for the general election.

Even the results of the GOP primary season have conspired to throw a clinker into the campaign that the Dems "can't possibly lose."

Although he has tried furiously to prove otherwise to conservative GOP voters, McCain is probably the most center-right of the candidates on the Republican side. (Although with Mitt Romney it was pretty difficult to tell where he actually stood on the issues, regardless of what he was saying on the campaign trail).

McCain's work on campaign reform and a reasonable solution to the problem of illegal immigrants are just two examples of his tendency to head to the center ground.

McCain has two choices for November.

He can continue to stay to the right and try to win over and turn out the right wing of his party. If he can excite that group, he improves his chances. But the evidence of the past few days indicates that he will have a hard sell.

Also, if he stays to the right, he leaves the center and left wide open for one of two Democrats who won't have much trouble filling that space.

McCain's other choice is to veer back toward the center.

If he does, the right flank will stay home in November but he'll pick up some votes in the center, the very same votes he'll be taking away from his opponent.

So which strategy do you think he'll follow?

There has been talk - mostly wistful longing for the old, old days by students of political history - of a compromise candidate (Al Gore?) emerging from the back rooms at the convention.

It seems doubtful the Democrats would take that option, but right now I don 't see an easy way out of the dilemma the party pooh bahs created with the super delegate system.

---

By the way, if you're a Democrat and wondering who your congressman, governor or other local party pooh bah is supporting - if anyone - click here.

2008-02-07T21:42:00.001-05:00

McCain and the conservatives

It's all over - except for the shouting, or gnashing of teeth on the far right of the Grand Old Party.

With Mitt Romney's departure from the race today, John McCain will be the GOP candidate in November.

With just under 1,200 delegates still to be chosen in the Republican races ahead, Mike Huckabee would have to get just under 1,000 to get the nomination.

So, barring something that would fall into the "God forbid" category, McCain will carry the GOP flag this fall.

So the big question becomes, can McCain unite the Republican Party?

More specifically, can he win over the ultra-conservative wing of the party?

He tried today - at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

"It is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative."--John McCain at CPAC

And just how did that go over with the social conservatives gathered in D.C. James Joyner of Outside the Beltway had this summary of the event:

McCain’s speech was conciliatory, praising Mitt Romney as “a great governor” and Mike Huckabee as a “great man” (or something along those lines). He must have used the word “conservative” 200 times. Nothing of any great substance in the speech for those of us who have been paying attention all these months.

The crowd reception was relatively enthusiastic. If there was a lot of booing, it wasn’t audible on the closed circuit; it might have been in the hall.

But, if you saw the speech on TV, what you saw may not have been the full picture, at least not according to Anne Schroeder Mullins, who's Shenanigans blog is part of the Politico Web site:

We're told from a reliable source on the ground at CPAC: "They stuffed the main room with McCain supporters. But the overflow room booed him heartily, cheered when Romney was mentioned, booed when McCain said he hopes we forgive his absence from CPAC in the past."

Our source was sure to add: "There was forced applause by the supporters, but not the whole room; laughs and scoffs when he mentioned his conservative record."

The overflow room has 100+ people in it, we're told, with minimal (seven-ish) McCain supporters.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting tonight that influential evangelical Christian leader James Dobson will cast his lot with Mike Huckabee.

Here's a short excerpt from the AP report:

Dobson released a statement Tuesday that criticized McCain for his support of embryonic stem cell research, his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment and for his temper and use of foul language.

McCain called the appearance at CPAC a "good first step" toward winning over the right wing. Can't wait to see the next step.

2008-02-07T12:42:00.000-05:00

Romney to call it quits:

From the Associated Press:

Mitt Romney will suspend his presidentialcampaign for the Republican nomination, The Associated Press haslearned, effectively ceding the nomination to John McCain.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney planned to say in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

More later.

2008-02-06T16:43:00.000-05:00

An argument against the "super delegate"

If you thought following the results of 24 races, involving two different parties and five major candidates on three or four TV networks was confusing last night, try figuring out this whole delegate thing.

I've spent the better part of the afternoon trying to determine who's leading who on the Democratic side.

I stayed away from the spin by the candidates and their surrogates and tried looking at the delegate numbers. Problem is, everyone's got different numbers and they keep changing every couple of moments.

So I took a snapshot of time at about 3:30 this afternoon and looked at the delegate totals on five different Web sites that seemed the least complicated and the most up to date.

These numbers include all races held to this point and not just Tsunami Tuesday numbers.

(Keep in mind that these numbers are being constantly updated so the numbers you click on won't be the same as those below).

The five sites are:

CBS News
Real Clear Politics
The Washington Post
CNN
Yahoo News

Among committed delegates (excluding the so-called super delegates) Barack Obama had an average of 686 to Hillary Clinton's 683. (The Washington Post charts didn't break out uncommitted delegates separately and so was not included in this average).

When the super delegates are added in Clinton leads Obama with an average of 891 to 811. (The Yahoo News site didn't have an estimate of super delegates and was not included in this average).

The Washington Post site was the only site to break out the numbers separately for last night without having to do all the math yourself (a dangerous prospect for me).

According to Post, Clinton picked up 714 delegates last night to Obama's 693. But you have to keep in mind these numbers are not final, and only one news organization's estimate.

NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd and his team did a lot of number crunching to project what the numbers will look like when every last delegate from Tsunami Tuesday is awarded.

It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night’s delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton; the Obama camp projects winning by nine delegates (845-836).

While it may be next to impossible to get this all down to the last delegate, one thing seems certain.

Barack Obama leads - if only slightly - in the count of delegates that have been awarded so far based directly on votes cast by Democrats in the states that have already gone to the polls.

Clinton's overall delegate lead is entirely the result of her advantage among super delegates, which are primarily members of Congress, governors, state party leaders and other politicos entrenched in the party machinery.

The Republicans have no such concept. While the Republican National Committee has a tiny number of delegates under it's control, John McCain's lead is based on votes cast, period.

As of a short time ago, and based on an average of the five Web sites mentioned above, McCain has 671 delegates, compared with Mitt Romney's 242 and Mike Huckabee's 180.

I'm not sure how you feel, but I have to say the super delegate concept seems like a bad idea to me.

For many years until the 2004 election, voter apathy kept turnout down.

Most Americans just aren't that wild about politicians and bout the way politics has been played over the last many years.

In the past couple of cycles voters turned out in record numbers, primarily because of the polarized nature of the country at this point in history and the feeling that "we" just have to win because "we hate the other side so much."

The Democratic Party's nominating race this year may be the first in a long time to be decided in large part by these so-called super delegates.

What message will it send to an energized throng of voters if their candidate loses because a small group of politicians decided it should be that way?

And what kind of energy will that take out of the party come November?

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game (though the Clinton team has tried to do so in Michigan and Florida), but for next time around, the Democrats should scrap the super delegate model.

EDITOR'S NOTE: With the number of candidates in the race thinned to five, we've scrapped the presidential preference polls for each party and substituted them with a "newsy" question involving an issue in each party. Please check out the polls on the panel to the right and vote!

2008-02-06T01:24:00.000-05:00

Clinton, McCain take California

Dems fight to Tsunami Tuesday draw
Romney's future in doubt

Although the final totals won't be coming for a while yet, California appears to have gone for John McCain on the GOP side and Hillary Clinton among the Democrats.

With 20% of the vote in, both McCain and Clinton have large double-digit leads.

The win for McCain puts a cap on what has been a big night for him.

Having won nine states as of now, and most of the winner-take-all states, he'll have a huge lead in delegates in the morning, and may very well be looking at Mike Huckabee on the wrung below him rather than Mitt Romney.

Romney won his home state of Massachusetts and the state where he saved the Olympics - Utah.

He also took Montana, Colorado and Minnesota, so he could make a weak argument that he is the candidate of the West. But, seriously, how good would Romney look in a cowboy hat?

Having finished third throughout the South - a place where Huckabee scored his five wins on the night - and second to McCain in most of the states McCain won, Romney doesn't appear to have the gas to keep going.

In fact, MSNBC is reporting that Romney's top staff will hold "frank discussions on the future of the campaign" Wednesday.

In the big surprise of the night, it appears Tsunami Tuesday may have washed Romney out of the race.

As for the Democrats, since we last posted Barack Obama has taken a come-from-behind win in Missouri.

That means Obama took two of the five states we identified earlier as those that Clinton had led big-time a few weeks ago but could lose tonight.

But more importantly, Clinton has scored what looks like a decisive win in California, the largest state on the docket.

She also took her home state of New York, the second largest state that voted Tuesday. Although Obama countered that by winning his home state Illinois.

So, while Obama can argue that he made inroads into Clinton country, Clinton can make an argument - and maybe a better one - that she held serve against the Obama surge. She can also say she beat back the Kennedy clan, which campaigned heavily for Obama in both Massachusetts and California.

The most important numbers tonight though are the delegate counts - which we actually won't know until morning.

As of about 12:45 a.m, NBC's Chuck Todd put Obama at 841 to Clinton's 837, with the numbers for California and New Mexico guestimated and the super delegates eliminated.

However you slice it, the two are as good as tied in the delegate count.

As for the horse race, Clinton supporters will fervently believe, with some justification, that she grabbed back the momentum.

Obama's team, with equal credibility, can say they picked off some Clinton states, that Clinton won California with votes that were cast weeks before Obama picked up steam and that they still have a wave to ride.

Check out final vote totals here.

2008-02-05T22:29:00.000-05:00

California holds the key

The results from California won't be in for a little while yet, but there's no way to wrap up this night without hearing from the Golden State.

California will decide two things.

On the Democratic side, the California results will confer bragging rights on the winner, but not much more, as this race looks to be weeks away from the finish line.

On the GOP side, California will determine whether Mitt Romney can credibly carry on beyond this Tsunami Tuesday.

Let's look at the Democrats first.

By morning, when the delegates are all counted, the two candidates won't be too far apart from one another and the race will rage on.

In my mind, the keys to tonight were the states where Hillary Clinton at one time had commanding leads which dwindled just before Election Day.

Those states were: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and California.

Clinton was able to hold on to three of those states, losing only Connecticut to Barack Obama's recent surge, with Missouri still up in the air but looking like it may go to Clinton and, or course, California still to come.

Obama also picked up wins in tossup states in Utah and Delaware.

On the other hand, Clinton was not able to pick off any "Obama" states.

If Obama can grab California - the largest prize of the night - along with Connecticut, I think he can legitimately claim that he conquered enough of Clinton's territory to grab the momentum as the race moves along.

If not, Clinton can claim she held the fort and is ready to go on the offensive.

On the Republican side, California is now a must win for Romney.

With Huckabee rolling through the South like Sherman - though I doubt he'd like the comparison - Romney was forced into third place in six races at the time of this writing, all in the Bible Belt.

Of those six, Huckabee finished first in five.

Missouri is still up in the air, with all three candidates a few points either side of 30%, but with Romney likely to come in third.

Romney's victories have been few and far between, aside from his home state of Massachusetts and his psuedo-home in Utah.

John McCain took most of the winner-take-all states, and is the big winner.

Without a win in California, it will be difficult to imagine Romney with a credible argument for his continued candidacy.

2008-02-04T19:59:00.000-05:00

30 minutes on the "Straight Talk Express" - A personal essay

OK, so I didn't actually get on the bus itself.

But I did have the opportunity to jump aboard the John McCain juggernaut for a brief time Sunday afternoon at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

It was the first time since 1980 that I'd attended a presidential candidate's appearance as a member of the working press.

The last time I was working as a radio reporter for an all-news station in Cleveland. I covered George H.W. as he tried to play catch-up in his race with Ronald Reagan - spouting the words "voodoo economics" as he went.

Of course when George H.W. actually did win the White House, he employed those very same economic principles - though by then they had grown to be known as "supply-side economics."

Four years prior to that - as a reporter for my college radio station - I remember covering a peanut-farming governor from Georgia, full of energy and enthusiasm, as he campaigned to beat the incumbent Gerald Ford.

By 1980, the optimistic governor was a dispirited president, feeling the weight of the Iranian hostage crisis on his shoulders.

I recall being at one of the debates that year, in Cleveland. The one that set Jimmy Carter's re-election bid tumbling when he went on about how he had asked his young daughter Amy what he should do about nuclear proliferation.

It was one of those moments - like the Dean Scream - which may very well have killed a presidential bid, or re-election bid in this case.

As I arrived at Sacred Heart Sunday I wondered just how much things had changed in the campaign-coverage biz over 28 years.

The short answer is - hardly at all.

Back in 1976, protesters were a mainstay on the streets near the venue where the candidate would speak. In '76 and '80, the protests were "no-more-nukes" protests (weapons as well as energy plants).

The protesters were there again yesterday. A bit older, and mostly more well-dressed. This time the Iraq war was their target.

Inside the school's Pitt Center gymnasium, things looked much as they did back in the day as well.

McCain supporters, sprinkled with curious onlookers, packed the bleachers and much of the basketball court.

There were the familiar risers, with a couple dozen TV cameramen and still photographers fiddling with equipment. In front of them was a press table, loaded with local reporters who would soon be crowded out by their national counterparts who travel with the camapaign and push their weight around at every stop.

Nothing new there.

On stage were McCain's trusted political allies, most notably Connecticut's newly independent senator, Joe Lieberman. Or Sen. Joe Mentum as he is known to those who know the inside joke.

The one-time Democrat would talk about unity in the country, and how McCain - the biggest hawk on the most divisive issue in the country - could bring us all together.

Former Texas senator Phil Gramm was there. It's Gramm who is filling in the knowledge gaps for McCain on the economy - a subject the candidate recently, if not too wisely, admitted he doesn't know that much about.

Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was there as well, along with local Republican Rep. Chris Shays.

The faces have changed, but it was done the same way back in the 70s, and a whole lot longer ago than that I would think. A good chance for the local pols to be seen with "the big guy."

The NPR guy at the press table near me had a big old clunky tape recorder with a large microphone, very much like the one I lugged around daily so many years ago.

The school's pep band played all the political standards as the crowd awaited McCain's arrival.

There was one onlooker at the event that made the whole thing a bit out of the ordinary.

Actor Robert Vaughn - some forty years removed from his role as Napoleon Solo in the mid-60s spy drama The Man From U.N.C.L.E. - came to see McCain.

Vaughn said he is concerned about "Islamic jihad" and wanted to hear McCain's plans to tackle it.

I suppose that should be no surprise coming from Napoleon Solo, the man who made his living battling Thrush - a shadowy group of international evil-doers.

About 20 minutes after his scheduled arrival time - fashionably late for the campaign trail - McCain grabbed the mic.

He spoke for 20 or 25 minutes, ticking off each and every one of the same talking points he's ticked off a thousands times along the way.

Perhaps it was weariness that comes with the hectic campaign schedule, but, despite having recited the same old themes and repeated the same tired jokes he had uttered many times before, McCain lost his train of thought at least three or four times.

There was the requisite heckler, who caused McCain to pause briefly but who was soon shown the door as the candidate continued with his message.

McCain's loudest cheers came near the end of his speech, when he insisted he'd never pull out of Iraq without a victory and would never "surrender" in the so-called war on terror.

While the trappings were the same, and the process was the same I came away feeling that something was different than when I had done this very thing for the first time more than 30 years ago.

The words were delivered with same enthusiasm. Promises were made and the talk of a brighter future was just as it was 30 years ago.

But I felt no excitement like I did back then.

I no longer hear with open, hopeful ears.

The politicians and the process haven't changed much in 30 years.

I guess I have.

2008-02-04T11:29:00.000-05:00

The surge is working (Obama's that is)

My Tsunami Tuesday outlook posted Saturday is pretty much holding up, but some last-minute polling over the weekend seems to be providing more evidence for the notion - expressed by both politcal pros I interviewed for the story - that Barack Obama could ride a rising wave and pull off a big surprise tomorrow night.

A number of the most-recent national polls show Obama just about even with Hillary Clinton.

In fact two of them, a Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll, and a CNN/Opinion Research poll, show Obama ahead by six and three points respectively.

A CBS/New York Times poll shows them dead even at 41%, and a Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Clinton up by three four nationally.

The Gallup tracking poll had Clinton up by two points this morning.

Voters obviously don't vote nationally in the primaries, but 22 states will hold elections tomorrow.

In three of those states in particular, Obama has made the biggest inroads.

The latest Zogby tracking poll, through yesterday, shows Obama with a six-point lead in Caliornia.

In New Jersey, a Quinnipiac poll shows Clinton leading Obama by five points in a state where she was leading by 17 points just 10 days earlier.

In Missouri, Obama leads by two points in an American Research Group poll, while Clinton is up by anywhere from one to six points in three other polls - McClatchy/MSNBC, Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby and Survey USA.

These, of course, are not all of the polls and others show slightly different results. But, taken as a whole, the polls are showing the kind of surge by Obama that we saw just before New Hampshire.

Of course we know how that turned out.

----

Speaking of just before New Hampshire, it was a couple of days before that primary that Hillary Clinton had her teary-eyed moment that some say helped her reverse her fortunes in the state by prompting women to get out and vote in droves for her.

Today, on the eve of Super Tuesday, there was another mushy moment for Clinton, this time at Yale University.

2008-02-02T21:48:00.000-05:00

Tsunami Tuesday likely to decide very little

Voters wanted a vote that would count.

State-level politicos wanted more influence in picking their party’s nominee.

National party officials just wanted the whole nominating thing over with in a hurry to keep intra-party squabbles to a minimum, while maximizing fundraising time for the November election.

And so, Tsunami Tuesday – the 22-state delegate grab set for this Tuesday – was born.

Just three days out, it looks like the voters’ wishes will win out.

With 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination and only 1,681 at stake, it is mathematically impossible for either Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to clinch the Democratic nomination Tuesday.

On the Republican side, even if the surging John McCain were to win every one of the 1,023 delegates at stake Tuesday, he’d still be about 70 delegates shy of the needed 1,191.

Despites the mathematics, the GOP could have a virtual nominee by Wednesday morning, largely due the winner-take-all rules in 10 of the party’s 21 Tsunami Tuesday contests.

“Clearly with the winner-take-all states, McCain will be well on his way to the nomination,” said Dr. Chris Malone, a political scientist from Pace University. “I don't think he will win it on Tuesday; but it just may be over by the end of February.”

According to a compilation of polls published on the Web sites Real Clear Politics and U.S.A. Election Polls, McCain is favored in five of the all-or-nothing states – his home state of Arizona, as well as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is a clear leader in just one state- Utah, where he has the solid support of the state’s large Mormon population.

Romney’s chances may also be hurt by the fact that he’s not the clear No. 2 in some of the big states where the delegates are parceled out proportionally. For example, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee leads in his home state and is second to McCain in Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia.

In addition, Romney’s home-field advantage in Massachusetts is diminished because he will have to share delegates there.

Still, Iona College political science professor Dr. Jeanne Zaino expects all three men will still be standing Wednesday morning.

“I think it’s doubtful any of the Republicans – even McCain – can wrap it up, but I don’t see it being an end for anyone either,” Zaino said. “But if anyone drops out it would definitely be on the Republican side.”

Among the Democrats, Obama has been surging in national polls in the past week, having closed the gap with Clinton to three points on Thursday in a Gallup tracking poll, only to see it widen again to seven points by Saturday. Still, just a week ago Clinton was up by 15 points. And Obama has cut the lead in many of the large states where he had been well behind.

“My sense right now is that Obama is going to do better than people expect, including in places like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, said Pace’s Malone. “I would not be completely surprised if he came out of Super Tuesday with a 200- to 300-delegate advantage. Things are swinging in his direction in a big way.”

Iona’s Zaino called those four states “must-win” for Clinton.

While making what she called “the conservative pick,” putting Clinton in the lead for delegates after Tuesday’s voting, Zaino also senses a chance for Obama to surprise.

She credits a “dramatic” showing by the Illinois senator in South Carolina, his ability to respond effectively to attacks from the Clinton team and the endorsement of Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy – a liberal-Democrat icon – for Obama’s rising momentum.

“Endorsements are overrated but not in this case,” Zaino said. “I think the more progressive, or liberal Democrats have always been more drawn to Obama but were wondering if they could really support him. I think the Kennedy endorsement gives them a sense that ‘yes I can support him’ and to say ‘I’m not entirely comfortable with Hillary Clinton.’”

With all 22 Democratic contests offering delegates proportionally, Zaino says Obama could win even if he loses Tuesday night.

(Clinton’s) expected to win. She’s expected to be on top when the night is over,” said Zaino. But I think if (Obama’s) in a strong second and maybe picks off a state or two he wasn’t expected to, then he wins the expectations game and gains more momentum.”

2008-01-31T12:27:00.000-05:00

Separated at birth?

This is just for laughs.

No hidden messages or political commentary.

I was watching the Republican debate from California last night and kept thinking to myself that Ron Paul (on the left) reminds me - a lot - of someone.

This morning, I remembered who. Comedian Pat Paulsen, who took six -- tongue-in-cheek -- stabs at the presidency from 1968 through 1996 (excluding 1984 for some reason).

We can be pretty sure they weren't separated at birth though. Paulsen was born in 1927 and Paul was born in 1935.

2008-01-30T19:42:00.000-05:00

Rudy endorses McCain, Is Ahhnold next?; Is Ralph Nader rearing his head?

As expected, Rudy Giuliani exited the GOP presidential race today and endorsed John McCain, who is the frontrunner after his win last night in Florida.

Now there is talk the California Gov. Arnold Shwarzenegger is likely to be the next big name to jump on the McCain bandwagon.

On Democratic side today, John Edwards called it quits, opening the door for --- Ralph Nader? Well, at least that's what ABC's Rick Klein is reporting. Klein reports Nader has formed an exploratory committee and will win if he determines he can raise enough money.

Nader said to Klein:

"When Kucinich threw in the towel, now you have Edwards gone — who's going to carry the torch of democratic populism against the relentless domination of powerful corporations of our government?"

And he's already got a Web site up and running.

After taking a few minutes off for some kind words for Edwards - who both remaining Democrats will now court for his endorsement - things went back to being nasty the Democratic campaign trail.

Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton divisive and - in a twist on Bill Clinton's old "Bridge to the 21st Century" campaign theme said;

"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century,"

In a rather clever retort, and with a twist of her own on the title of Barack Obama's book, Clinton called Obama's comments "audacious but not very hopeful."

And, just one more little piece of weirdness before we go. The New York Post has endorsed Obama in the Democratic primaries next Tuesday.

"We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.

Obama represents a fresh start.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again?"

Just another day on the trail.

2008-01-29T23:01:00.000-05:00

Florida flop spells the end for Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani put all of his money on Florida – and lost.

The former New York City mayor’s presidential aspirations suffered a mortal wound with his disappointing finish in Florida’s GOP primary contest Tuesday, and Giuliani is widely reported to be on the verge of dropping out of the race and endorsing Tuesday night’s winner, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

With their votes, Florida Republicans likely ended Giuliani’s hopes for the nomination, severely damaged former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s chances and left McCain in a fierce battle for the nomination with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who finished a solid second in the Florida contest.

With 90% of the precincts counted, McCain led Romney 36% to 31%. Giuliani was in third place at 15%, just ahead of Huckabee at 14%.

For now, Giuliani remains in the race. But in addressing his supporters in Florida Tuesday night, he spoke in the past tense about his campaign.

“The responsibility of leadership doesn’t end with a single campaign. If you believe in a cause you continue to fight for it, and we will,” Giuliani told the cheering crowd.

Huckabee, like Giuliani, did not pull out of the race Tuesday despite being bereft of cash and without a victory since the Iowa caucuses at the beginning of the month. But, unlike Giuliani, he made it clear he intends to remain in the hunt.

“We’re in this game for all nine innings,” Huckabee told a subdued crowd of Florida supporters, as he headed off for California for another GOP debate tomorrow night.

Meanwhile Giuliani’s campaign manager Mike DuHaime, in an interview on MSNBC, said the plan is for his candidate to head to California as well.

However, several news outlets reported late Tuesday night that Giuliani is expected to drop out of the race and endorse McCain Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., the sight of Wednesday night’s debate.

If Giuliani does pull out of the race, it will mark the end of a once high-flying campaign that crumbled in the space of one month.

The former mayor led the national polls for virtually all of last year. As late as Dec. 17, Giuliani was atop a USA Today/Gallup national poll by 11 points over Huckabee, his closest competitor at the time.

In Florida, opinion polls were portending a four-man scrum as late as mid-January.

But, as Giuliani turned in one poor performance after another in the primaries and caucuses earlier in the month – all single-digit finishes – his Florida campaign began to come apart.

Giuliani eschewed campaigning in the early-voting states and spent nearly all of January in Florida, which he hoped to use a springboard to Tsunami Tuesday, next week’s 22-state delegate bonanza.

Dr. Chris Malone, a political science professor at Pace University, said Giuliani is a victim of his own strategy.

“He thought he’d do well in Florida, which is winner-take all, and then move on to other big states like New York, New Jersey and California on Feb. 5,” Malone said. “It doesn’t seem to have worked out that way.”

In the Sunshine State’s Democratic primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama in a race that offered no delegates.

Florida’s delegates will not be seated at the party’s national convention, a sanction imposed by the Democratic National Committee to punish state party officials for moving up the date of Florida’s primary in violation of party rules.

The Democratic candidates all pledged not to campaign in the state. Clinton did stop in Davie, Fla. after the polls closed for a victory rally. She also made two fundraising appearances in the state Sunday night, which were not in violation of the pledge signed by the candidates.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was initially written for purposes other than this blog, purposes which required me to focus on the Giuliani angle of the story rather than McCain's win.

While we'll probably be on to tomorrow's endorsement and debate by the next time I get behind the keyboard, I will also try to find time to focus more on the results and exit polls from tonight.

With one job, one graduate school class, two blogs a wife and three kids, time may be a difficult commodity to come by, but I'll do my best.

2008-01-28T17:13:00.000-05:00

Name-calling in Florida

The Democrats have been getting all the headlines about their fussing and feuding, but the top two Republican candidates have been sparring too.

Today it got just plain ugly,

Send the kids out of the room, or at least shield their eyes. You won't believe the language coming out of their mouths.

Within the space of a couple hours down in the Sunshine State today John McCain and Mitt Romney called each other - oh, dare I say it? - liberal. Or at least they intimated that the other had liberal tendencies.

Is it genetic, or a behavior of choice? I guess we'll never know.

---

We covered the Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday so I think we'll skip that for today.

Just a few bits and pieces to report.

After Saturday's huge defeat in South Carolina, the Clinton campaign is re-thinking the role of husband Bill. Rather than the family pit bull - the role he's been playing lately -the New York Times reports today that the former president will be going back to playing the role of the little (wo)man that he played prior to Hillary Clinton's loss in Iowa.

Al Sharpton, on The View today, offered some unsolicited advice to Bill Clinton - just shut up!

And, as long as we're keeping it light today, if you are among the many out there having trouble choosing your candidate as Tsunami Tuesday approaches here's a pretty good quiz that will help you sort it out. I took it and it matched my actual preferences almost exactly.

Oh ya. Tonight is George W.'s last State of the Union address. And you thought this day would never arrive.

2008-01-27T17:43:00.000-05:00

(Update: Monday's Zogby Poll, the third of a three-day tracking series, shows John McCain back on top in the Republican race in Florida. The poll has McCain at 33%, Mitt Romney at 30%, Rudy Giuliani back in third place at 14% and Mike Huckabee in fourth at 11%. Eight percent remain undecided one day prior to the election. )

McCain, Romney tied in Fla., Giuliani slips to fourth in latest poll

I've spent my day playing catch-up on the Democratic side of things (see previous posts below), but I haven't been so busy as not to notice a couple of significant developments in the GOP race for Florida.

The latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll shows Mitt Romney and John McCain dead even at 30% in Florida.

And, the news has gotten worse for Rudy Giuliani, who has slipped behind Mike Huckabee by one point in what looks like a race for third place.

This is the second of three one-day Zogby tracking polls heading into Tuesday's primary. In yesterday's poll McCain led Romney 31% to 28%, while Giuliani was third at 15% and Huckabee fourth at 10%.

McCain got a rather last-minute, but still-helpful endorsement from Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist last night.

On Friday, Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida, also endorsed McCain. Martinez's endorsement is seen as helpful in the Cuban community in Miami, an important voting block.

2008-01-27T15:17:00.000-05:00

A message to the Clintons to cool it?

By giving Barack Obama an overwhelming win in South Carolina yesterday, voters there sent two clear messages.

They liked what they saw from Obama as a candidate.

They also seemed to be saying they didn't care for the way the Clintons conducted themselves in the state and they'd like to see the Clintons scale back the negative campaigning that has dominated their efforts in the past few weeks.

But neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton seem to be listening.

If you doubt that Obama's two-to-one win over Clinton was, in part, the result of the blowback against the politics of race and misrepresentation practiced mostly by the former president, consider these numbers from the exit polls yesterday.

Seven in 10 of those polled felt that Hillary Clinton unfairly attacked Barack Obama during the South Carolina campaign.

Obama, who chose to respond in-kind, was seen by 53% of those polled as having attacked Clinton unfairly.

Some 54% of those who saw Clinton's criticism of Obama as unfair voted for Obama; another 21% voted for John Edwards.

But of those who saw Obama's attacks as unfair, 41% voted for the IIllinois senator anyway, perhaps suggesting that they felt it necessary for Obama to hit back - unfairly or otherwise.

Of those polled, 58% said Bill Clinton's campaigning had an important or somewhat important impact on their vote. Among those who felt that, 48% voted for Obama and another 15% voted for Edwards. The rest went for Hillary Clinton.

While it would have been nice for the pollsters to have taken it one - obvious - step further and asked voters if the Bill Clinton affect was positive or negative, they didn't. But from the numbers above I think it's safe to assume Bill Clinton's campaign conduct did not help his wife.

But, if the voters were indeed sending the Clinton's a message about poor behavior on the stump, they don't seem to be getting it.

As the results were beginning to become clear, at around dinner time last night, Hillary Clinton bolted from South Carolina and never did offer up the customary concession speech. Bill Clinton made quick mention of Obama's victory in a later appearance.

Earlier in the day Clinton tried to dismiss Obama's victory as a win for the black guy in a state dominated by black Democratic voters. He likened it to Jesse Jackson's one-shot wins in the state in 1984 and 1988.

Earlier last week, Sen. Clinton ruffled feathers among Democrats by suggesting that Michigan and Florida be permitted to seat their delegates at the party convention.

The national party had ruled long ago that delegates from the two states would not be seated at the convention because party officials in the two states moved their primaries into January against national party rules.

At the time, all the major Democratic candidates agreed not to participate in the state's primaries. None campaigned in Michigan, but Clinton was the only major candidate to keep her name on the ballot.

She won the state handily, and is well ahead in the polls for this week's tainted Florida vote.

Whatever you think about the national party's decision to disenfranchise voters in the two states, all the candidates went along with the plan. Now Clinton wants to change rules im the middle of the game.

As an indication that she is not bothered by the negative reaction to her call to count the delegates from the two non-cooperative states, Clinton announced today on CBS's Face the Nation that she intends to be in Florida on Tuesday, the day of the primary.

For two people as politically astute as the Clinton's, they don't seem to understand that the Democrats they hope to once-again lead have been burned badly in the past presidential elections by Swift-boating, push polling and all manner of dirty tricks cooked up by Karl Rove and company.

They don't seem to get that Democrats are not in the mood to watch the same kind of tactics be employed in-house on one Democrat by another.

Further reading:

Bill Clinton's Lost Legacy; Vaughn Ververs CBSNews.com

Tonight in South Carolina; Joe Klein Time magazine

2008-01-27T12:32:00.000-05:00

One Kennedy On Board For Obama, Another Just About There

(UPDATED: Includes Clinton endorsements from the RFK branch of the Kennedy clan at bottom of this post)

ABC News is reporting that Ted Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination tomorrow.

The original scoop on this belongs to Time magazine, but frankly I've scoured the Time Web site for about 30 minutes now to put up the link and can't find it.

That might explain why the weekly news magazines are having a rough go, even as they try to move into the 21st Century with their own Web sites.

On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos Obama sidestepped the question about the anticipated announcement from Kennedy.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's advisors say they don't think it's true.

The news about Ted Kennedy comes on the heels of an op-ed piece in the New York Times this morning by Caroline Kennedy - daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy - saying she supports Obama because she is inspired by him the way others were inspired by her father.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama.

There's more than a little irony here, since a fairly significant presence in the Clinton camp has often said that he himself was inspired by JFK.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal's Web site is reporting today that members of the Robert F. Kennedy branch of the Kennedy clan are endorsing Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reports Ted Kennedy's endorsement will involve active campaigning by the Massachusetts senator who plans to concentrate his efforts on Hispanic voters and labor unions.

2008-01-25T15:19:00.000-05:00

NY Times Endorses Clinton, Whacks Giuliani

The Old Gray Lady has smiled on one of New York's presidential candidates while giving the back of her hand to the other.

The New York Times today endorsed Hillary Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination, but went with John McCain on the Republican side instead of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

But the Times GOP endorsement was more a repudiation of Giuliani...

"The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."

than it was a thumbs-up for McCain....

"We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice. ... Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

It's seems reasonable to assume that the timing of the endorsement - nearly two weeks before the New York primary but only four days ahead of the Florida vote - is an attempt by the Times editorial board to step on Giuliani's fingers as he tries desperately to hold on in a state that he must win to continue his presidential bid.

This may, however, be another instance of the Times having an exaggerated view of its own importance. In fact, rather than grease the skids for Giuliani, the Times may be doing him a favor.

The paper, after all, is not overly popular or respected by the elephant-cuff-link set. The editorial board may have done the former mayor more good than harm.

As for the Democrats, at many points in the Times editorial it appears as though the editorial board ripped a page out of Clinton's daily talking points - the one about experience - and pasted it into the newspaper. You know, the bit about being able to lead "from day one."

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

The timing of the editorial doesn't hurt Clinton, with John Edwards beginning to nip at her heels for the No. 2 spot in South Carolina tomorrow.

2008-01-21T15:17:00.000-05:00

Florida or bust for Giuliani?

Has Rudy Giuliani's Florida-only strategy squeezed the juice out of the former New York City mayor's presidential campaign?

A major pollster shows Giuliani well behind John McCain in New York today and that - coupled with the latest numbers from New Jersey, California and at the national level - makes you wonder.

Giuliani made early, half-baked overtures in a couple of the key early states - most notably New Hampshire and South Carolina. But he finished among the bottom wrung in those states.

Giuliani has spent most of the past month campaigning in Florida with the idea that he could make a big splash there and carry it into Tsunami Tuesday, when he would grab control of the Republican race with big wins in his home state of New York, neighboring New Jersey, California - where Gov. Schwarzennegger has his back - and other large, diverse states that are not top-heavy in evangelical voters.

But somewhere along the way that strategy seems to have withered on the vine.

Giuliani once dominated the national polls, as well as New York, New Jersey and California - the three states at the corner of his Tsunami Tuesday strategy.

In Florida, Giuliani seems to be in the thick of a four-man race

But he has not held the lead in a national poll since mid-December. Ditto for California.

Giuliani lost his grip on New Jersey earlier this month.

And today comes compelling evidence that his home state is slipping away as well.

A WNBC/Marist poll shows McCain ahead of Giuliani in New York by a fairly solid 34% to 19%. Mitt Romney is tied for second with Giuliani and Mike Huckabee comes in fourth at 15%.

The poll shows McCain with a substantial 33% to 15% lead over Giuliani in the upstate counties, where most of New York's Republicans reside. Mitt Romney is second upstate at 20%.

McCain and Guiliani are in a virtual tie in New York City as well as in the suburban counties north and northwest of the city.

There's one silver lining for Giuliani in the poll. While only 21% of his supporters say they could change their mind before the Feb. 5 primary, 31% of McCain's backers and 36% of Romney's said their decision could be altered.

Siena College also put out a New York poll that shows a remarkable turnaround in New York. The poll shows McCain leading Giuliani by 12 points after trailing him by 33 points just one month ago.

If things don't pick up - and soon - for Giuliani it just may be that Giuliani's Sunshine State strategy was a real lemon.

---

Just FYI, on the Democratic side the WNBC/Marist poll shows Hillary Clinton with a 48% to 32% lead over Barack Obama in Clinton's home state. John Edwards is third at 8%.

In the Siena poll, Clinton leads Obama by two-to-one in New York.

2008-01-19T22:10:00.000-05:00

McCain toughs out win in South Carolina

It was - as predicted for much of the past week - a nip-and-tuck race on a long night, but John McCain pulled out a win tonight in South Carolina.

And so the state that killed off his candidacy eight years ago has propelled him to the top of the Republican heap.

Much like eight years ago, McCain had to fend off push polling and other dirty-tricks politics in the state, as well as a hoard of evangelical voters, to pull off the win in South Carolina.

Exit polls showed that 59% of those who braved awful weather in the Palmetto state Saturday to cast a vote in the GOP race described themselves as evangelical Christians.

The exit polls showed that group went for former preacher Mike Huckabee 40-27 over McCain.

So McCain will head to Florida as a the front runner, if only nominally.

Mitt Romney has won three states - Montana, Nevada and most notably Michigan - and will lead the delegate race at the end of the day today.

Mike Huckabee has won only one state, but he too is ahead of McCain in the delegate count.

Huckabee lost in a state where a majority of GOP voters were evangelicals, and is fourth in the polling in Florida. But Huckabee could find himself the only social conservative in Florida, while fiscal conservatives Romney, McCain and Rudy Giuliani pound on one another. If that's enough to propel him to the top in Florida, he lives on. If not, he likely doesn't.

The big thing going for McCain is his victories in two high-profile states - New Hampshire and South Carolina. After all, as we were told 10,000 times by the media this week, the eventual GOP candidate has won South Carolina in each race since 1980.

The conventional wisdom tomorrow morning will be that McCain is the front runner and that he will solidify that status if he wins in Florida.

That sounds about right.

But I think Romney's is still in very good shape even if he doesn't finish well in Florida.

South Carolina should spell the end for Fred Thompson, who really needed to come up better than the mid-teens to keep going.

Should he depart, his absence could make some difference in Florida, where he's polling in the high single digits.

Thompson, most believe, would back McCain if he gets out. Other's say he would do McCain more good to stay in and take away some of the conservative votes in central Florida.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani could win the winner-take-all Florida race, which would return the chaos to a GOP race which seems, tonight at least, to be clarifying itself at least a little.

My guess is - barring an embarrassment for Giuliani in Florida - there will be three viable candidates on Tsunami Tuesday - McCain, Romney and Giuliani.

2008-01-19T16:26:00.000-05:00

Clinton beats Obama in Nevada

Hillary Clinton will go into next Saturday's South Carolina primary with a westerly wind at her back.

When all is said and done, Clinton will take the Nevada caucuses by 5 or 6 points, taking about half the votes in a three man race.

Clinton will get about 50% and Barack Obama 45%.

So, Clinton heads to South Carolina with two wins to Obama's one. That makes her the frontrunner overall.

Or so says the media.

But I think that characterization needs to be questioned a bit.

A few weeks ago Clinton was a prohibitive favorite in Nevada.

Then came Iowa and the Obama bump that came with it.

Suddenly the Nevada race looked a lot closer and the results bear that out.

In addition, Clinton got one fewer delegate in Nevada than did Obama - 12 to 13. If you strip out all the so-called super delegates, Obama has 38 delegates and Clinton has 36 in the three states that have weighed in.

Whether or not Nevada makes Clinton the frontrunner - as the media insists it does - she is the underdog in South Carolina, at least based on all the recent polls. Any momentum Clinton takes from Nevada may be checked with a loss in South Carolina.

On the other hand, the Nevada results provided the first test of the Democrats in a state with a diverse population.

Clinton did well among whites while Obama did well among African Americans. That's no surprise.

Perhaps the big news here is that Clinton took the Hispanic vote by a 2.5-or-3 to 1 margin.

Hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the electorate. They are likely to be an important factor in a number of the big states that will hold primaries on Tsunami Tuesday.

If the preferences displayed by the Hispanic voters in Nevada carry over to other contests, that could be the biggest news to come out of today's results.

2008-01-19T15:15:00.000-05:00

Romney takes Nevada

Mitt Romney is the projected winner in the GOP cacuses in Nevada.

All the networks projected Romney the winner pretty much as the caucuses came to a close.

As I write this only 20% of the vote has been counted and Romney is at 55%.

Ron Paul and John McCain are in a tight race for second, each with about 12%.

Everyone else is in single digits.

Mormons made up about about 25% of those who showed up for the GOP caucuses according to The Associated Press, and nearly all voted for Romney, who is a Mormon.

This was kind of an unusal event because 31 committed delegates will be chosen today, but only Romney spent any notable time in the state. Perhaps that's because he's the only one of the top GOP candidates who didn't see much point in making a hard push in South Carolina, which is holding its primary today as well.

Still Nevada's 31 committed delegates top the 24 available in South Carolina, so Romney got a freebie here. Delegate allocations are not available yet.

The Democrats did have quite a battle here, complete with legal wrangling and name-calling (you Reagan lover you!) and their results wont be out for a little while yet. The party's South Carolina primary is not until next week.

We'll be back later with a look at the Dems and a more comprehensive look at what today's GOP races mean once the South Carolina numbers come in tonight.

2008-01-18T20:13:00.000-05:00

Today's Dem campaign mantra: distort and confuse

Barack Obama gave his two chief Democratic opponents an opening the other day and they are driving a big old Mack truck right through it.

Obama likened the Democrats' opportunity this year to that enjoyed by Ronald Reagan and the GOP in 1980.

Back then there was a tired, old party in charge, with the same old ideas to offer and an unpopular president leading the way.

Sounds a lot like today, except that in 1980 the old, tired party was the Democrats.

That, pretty much, is what Obama meant when he said the following on the campaign trail in Nevada the other day:

"The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it."

Pay special attention to the first sentence, and the last three. Does he seem to you to be saying the Republicans had GOOD ideas? I didn't think so either.

Yet out on the campaign trail today, the Clintons and John Edwards made statements obviously intended to distort what Obama was saying.

Here's Hillary:

"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years.

"I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt."

And then there's Bill:

"I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess.So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas are better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

Go back and re-read Obama's comment. Does he say anywhere in there that the Republicans ideas were better? Or was he simply saying they were offering a clear change in direction when the electorate was ready for one?

It's no accident that this stink is being brewed in Nevada, a place where union support is key and where Obama has the support of the state's largest union.

Do you think that could be why Edwards made the following statement?

"Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party,"

And no one - certainly not Barack Obama - said he was.

2008-01-18T10:20:00.000-05:00

GOP Race Tightens In South Carolina

Looking at the headline on our last post ("Polls Point McCain's Way") I thought it might be a good idea to update that a little.

While the road to Tsunami Tuesday still looks a lot less bumpy for John McCain than for Mike Huckabee, the latest polls out of South Carolina show Huckabee is in position to throw up a roadblock in the Palmetto State.

In polls released yesterday, it appears things have gotten tighter in the state, which holds its primary tomorrow.

A Survey USA poll puts John McCain ahead of Mike Huckabee 29%-27%; A McClatchy- MSNBC poll has the Arizona senator leading Huckabee 25%-23%; and the latest Rasmussen poll has the two tied at 24%.

All three polls produced virtual ties for the top spot.

One other poll released yesterday still shows McCain with some breathing room in South Carolina. A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll has him up 29%-22%.

And, while this has nothing to do with South Carolina, Rasmussen has some interesting numbers on New Jersey. Their first poll in the Garden State shows McCain leading Rudy Giuliani on what is essentially Giuliani's home field.

2008-01-16T18:47:00.000-05:00

Polls point McCain's way

With the Republican race wide open and three more primaries on the docket before Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5, John McCain got a lift from a few polls unearthed today.

A Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll shows McCain leading in South Carolina, which votes on Saturday.

The polls show the Arizona senator with 29% of the vote, Mike Huckabee with 23%, Mitt Romney at 13% and Fred Thompson 12%.

Meanwhile, Political Wire got a look at a Strategic Vision poll which shows McCain ahead in Florida at 27%. Mike Huckabee is second at 20%. He's followed by Rudy Giuliani at 18%, Mitt Romney at 17% and Fred Thompson at 10%.

Two things to notice here besides McCain's lead in both states.

Neither poll - obviously - was taken after Romney's win in Michigan last night, so there's no "bounce" recorded yet. However, Romney is far enough back it's not clear how much a jolt from Michigan will help in either of these two southern states.

The other thing to notice is that Giuliani is nine points behind McCain in Florida. If Giuliani can't pump up those numbers in the next 10 days, Florida will not only be his first stand, but perhaps his last.

Romney, on the other hand, has a lead in the latest Nevada poll, by American Research Group, with 28%, followed by John McCain at 21%, Fred Thompson at 13%, and Rudy Giuliani at 11%.

In this poll 10% of those polled are undecided and 46% said they could change their minds by Saturday.

All the national polls released in the past week favor McCain, with Huckabee several points behind and Romney in third, polling mostly in the low to mid-teens.

2008-01-16T17:16:00.000-05:00

Was Michigan really meaningless for Dems?

Exit polls from Michigan's Democratic primary yesterday - the one that didn't count for anything - are providing the first indication that Hillary Clinton may have been hurt by the sniping about race that took place over the weekend on the campaign trail.

Clinton was on the ballot in Michigan against Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd (who has already dropped out of the race) and "uncommitted."

Clinton managed to smoke "uncommitted" 55% to 40%, but looking inside the numbers there's some reason for concern for Clinton.

According to the Detroit Free Press, exit polls show 68% of black Michiganders who voted in the Democratic primary chose to vote "uncommitted" while 30% voted for Clinton.

Among women, 71% of white women voted for Clinton, while 34% of non-white women went for the New York senator.

Obama's campaign had urged voters who were in his corner to vote "uncommitted."

The Illinois senator, and former senator John Edwards removed their names from the ballot when the state party was sanctioned by the national party for holding its primary too early, violating national party rules.

There was plenty of good news for Clinton in the exit polls as well.

Voters were asked who they would have voted for if all the candidates had been on the ballot. Clinton prevailed with 46% to Obama's 35%. Edwards finished well back in third at 12%.

I'm not really sure how much can be read into all that, but the black vote can not be seen as good news for Clinton.

---

On another matter, we're going to try a "quote of the day" feature. It sounds like fun and just may be, but it could be more time consuming than I can handle, so let's just give it a shot and see how it goes.

Today's quote comes from Karl Rove - who needs no introduction. No longer in the Bush administration - officially at least - Rove has even more time to sling mud than he did when he was a government official. A scary thought.

Check it out in a panel to the right, just under the picture of the White House.

2008-01-15T22:14:00.000-05:00

Romney wins in Michigan

There have been three major GOP contests in this primary season and - with Mitt Romney's win tonight in his boyhood home - three different winners.

Romney in Michigan, John McCain in New Hampshire and Mike Huckabee in Iowa.

Romney also won in Wyoming's caucus, but there wasn't that much at stake in the state and some Republicans are questioning the process there and the actual winner.

So three winners in three states it is.

As I write this, it appears Romney will likely win by eight or nine points tonight, which is a bit contrary to the polls, which showed the Romney-McCain race much closer.

The general consensus is that lousy weather kept independents at home and turnout down, which was helpful to Romney.

In addition, 40% of those polled said Romney's ties to Michigan did have at least some influence on their decision.

Some had Romney's political obituary written and ready to publish had he not come in first tonight, and they may well have been right in their estimation.

But the bottom line is he won and the GOP race is even more widen open than it had been.

Polls in Nevada have been few and far between and - frankly - not worth much.

Mike Huckabee had a notable lead for a while in South Carolina, but John McCain now seems to be ahead in the state that did him in eight years ago. Mitt Romney doesn' figure to do well there.

After Nevada and South Carolina comes Florida, the place where Rudy Giuliani is placing all his bets. If you look at the most-recent polls in the state - those taken in January - Florida looks like a four-way tossup involving Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee.

Heading into Feb. 5, it is conceivable there will be four different winners in the five major GOP races to that point - Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida.

But it is also possible McCain will have notched three wins.

There's also a chance, but much less so based on the latest polls, that Huckabee could have three wins or Romney could have two under his belt heading into Tsunami Tuesday.

So, in addition to breathing renewed life into his own campaign, Romney with his win in Michigan tonight has assured that the only thing we know about the GOP race is that we have no idea where it's heading.

And that's fun for a change.

---

One other note.

As I write this I'm listening to the Democrats debate on MSNBC. While it seems the three candidates are having good nights, I'd say the moderators can't make the same claim.

For the first 23 minutes of the debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams did their damndest to stir up the ill feelings about the injection of race, sex and other controversy into the campaign in recent days.

The two seem to have confused their role tonight. They should not be trying to make news by sparking a controversy. They are supposed to be on the podium to ask the questions we as citizens would like to ask ourselves.

From where I sit, they wasted nearly a quarter of the debate on a bald-faced attempt to get feathers flying.

2008-01-14T20:35:00.001-05:00

Obama Camp Girds for Battle in Clinton Country

It was a good weekend for the Obama campaign in the heart of Hillary Clinton’s turf.

The New York Times ran a story Saturday about the strides the Illinois senator’s presidential campaign is making in New York.

On Sunday, the Daily News followed up with a poll showing Barack Obama has cut Clinton’s lead in New York by 11 points in the past month and overtaken her among African American voters in the state, posting a 42-point swing from a Sienna College poll taken a month ago.

And that all coincided with the ramp-up of the Obama campaign in the state, as campaign offices are opening around New York and volunteer lists are burgeoning.

“Sen. Obama is on the ballot in all 29 Congressional districts in the state, so the depth of excitement, enthusiasm and receptiveness is really strong everywhere in New York,” said Richard Fife, a spokesman for the Obama campaign from his office in lower Manhattan.

Fife says the campaign has opened about 10 offices in all parts of the state and 750 volunteers are already knocking on doors, ringing up phones and greeting commuters.

One of those volunteers is Rose Cohen, who is helping to drum up votes literally in Clinton’s back yard. The Chappaqua resident says she was hooked on Obama the first time she heard him speak.

"I saw him speak and I was very impressed by the way others responded to him," said the resident of Clinton's home town. "He resembled John F. Kennedy who I saw as a very little girl. I was just impressed with the way he could move people. I haven't seen that in a politician in a very long time."

Judy Aydelott of Katonah ran for Congress in New York’s 19^th District two years ago and is a delegate for Obama on this year’s ballot in the district, which straddles five counties north and northwest of New York City.

Aydelott was attracted to Obama because, she says, he’s the one candidate who can bring the country together and move it forward.

“He can’t do it by himself but he has the ability to motivate people, bring them together and help him to bring about the change we need,” she said.

Of the large swing among black voters in recent weeks, State Sen. Bill Perkins of Harlem, a Democrat and Obama supporter, said voters are beginning to believe the senator can win.

“He’s obviously catching on especially after Iowa and the very close race in New Hampshire, which is an extraordinary accomplishment running against the so-called inevitable Democratic choice,” Perkins said.

But can Obama win in Clinton’s home state, where Clinton is popular among Democrats of all stripes?

Perkins thinks he can:

“He has broad support of both black and white, independents, young people. Hey, Iowa is 97% white and that’s a lot whiter than New York.”

2008-01-11T20:13:00.000-05:00

Kucinich seeks recount in New Hampshire

It's an absurd headline on its face since Dennis Kucinich got only 1% of the vote.

You, no doubt, are asking, "Why is the bozo blogger leading with such a ridiculous story when there's so many other things to talk about today."

True enough.

I could be taking about how John McCain - fresh off his win in New Hampshire- has taken the lead nationally over Rudy Giuliani on the GOP side.

Or, I could write about how McCain has vaulted ahead of Giuliani in Rudy's must-win state - Florida- and has caught him in on his home turf in New York.

I could be talking about how Giuliani apparently won't be able to pay the higher-ups in his campaign this month.

Or I could be talking about how the Clintons spent a good deal of their day trying to smooth over their relations with African-American leaders as the campaign moves into states where black people actually live.

I might even mention how one of those leaders is threatening to end his neutrality and back Barack Obama because of some comments made by Hillary Clinton that he didn't like.

I might even mention that Obama did receive the endorsement today of Arizona's governor, Janet Napolitano, which could help him in Nevada and should help him in Arizona.

But I choose instead to focus on Kucinich's call for a recount.

My intial reaction is that Kucinich, who has always been a little on the oddball side, is just seeking publicity. Having covered him when he was mayor of Cleveland in the late 70s I can say there is probably a little bit truth to that notion.

But in making his request for a recount in New Hampshire, Kucinich raises some very good questions - questions which were prompted by the failure of not only the pre-election polls but also the exit polls, which have a long history of precision.

Exit polls have been used for decades not only so news networks in the U.S. can tell you who won before the polls close, but also as a gauge of the fairness of elections in places around the globe where elections are often not on the up-and-up. If the final results stray too far from the exit polls, the international watchdogs on the scene (usually Jimmy Carter) call the results into question.

At the heart of Kucinich's concerns are "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots," Kucinich wrote in a letter to state election officials which is posted on his Web site.

"I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf. But, serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.” --Kucinich in his letter to New Hampshire Attorney General William Gardner

The events of Tuesday night in New Hampshire were very much like a replay of Election Night in 2004.

Anyone surfing the net and watching the cable talk shows in the late afternoon and just prior to the closing of the polls in East was expecting a somewhat early night back in 2004, with exit polls showing John Kerry winning virtually all of the six or seven battleground states.

Seven years - and one war - later we all know that was not what happened when the votes were counted.

The New Hampshire experience was very much the same, with the TV pundits perplexed all night that Obama wasn't overtaking Clinton as the vote tallies grew larger.

Just as there were questions about the accuracy of electronic voting machines in 2004, those same questions are being raised about New Hampshire. It was not only the pre-election polls, but also exit polls, that indicated Obama would have a big night.

Frustrated and disappointed Democrats across the nation raised questions of a stolen election in 2004.

All Kucinich want's to know - and what we all should want to know - is were those electronic voting machines fixed, or do they just need fixing? Or is the concern about the machines a lot of bluster about nothing?

2008-01-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

Can MSNBC keep Chris Matthews on the campaign beat?

There's an incredible video clip making the rounds on the Internet and it raises serious questions about whether MSNBC can continue to allow Chris Matthews to cover this campaign.

On the cable network's 'Morning Joe' show the morning after the New Hampshire primary, Matthews talked about Hillary Clinton's surprising win.

Matthews, who was as befuddled as anyone about the breakdown of the polling that pundits like himself depend on in making their living, declared that Clinton's victory - and in fact her entire political career- came down to her tenacity, but also to sympathy for her over her travails during the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Here's the clip.

Here's a verbatim quote of the key parts of the clip:

Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merits. She won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation, right? That's what happened."

I watched MSNBC's coverage of New Hampshire most of the night. It was a far cry from the days of David Brinkley and Howard K. Smith and Walter Cronkite.

Matthews, who was supposed to be the grounding wire for a collection of fringe characters from each end of the political spectrum, seemed himself to be going off the deep end through much of the evening. (Check out this clip from the Daily Show. You have to scroll forward to the 5 minute mark to get to Matthews)

Keith Olberman was doing his schtick most of the night, while also attempting to blend in a bit of serious evaluation. And, as we said, the rest of the cast was comprised of fringe characters who spent the night spinning and not evaluating.

And then there was Tom Brokaw - the only real journalist on the MSNBC podium that night - trying desperately to bring some order to the chaos and add reasoned analysis.

The old-line, over-the-air networks seem to have ceded the political coverage to their wacko siblings on their cable outlets so the networks themselves can keep running Can You Dance Better Than A Fifth Grader without interruption.

If you want unvarnished, insightful - if a bit pompous - analysis on election night, these days it appears you are just out of luck.

2008-01-10T16:09:00.000-05:00

Good news or bad?

I'll report and let you decide.

Sen. John Kerry - the Dems' 2004 candidate for president - endorsed Barack Obama's bid today.

It was Kerry who helped launch Obama onto the national stage by choosing him to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. That speech was widely praised and put Obama on the national political map.

Kerry still has a broad base of supporters organized through his Web site, which could provide Obama with additional infrastructure in the states that will be voting down the road.

But Kerry, just by being Kerry, seems to play into the hands of the right-wing slime machine as we saw in 2004 and beyond.

If I were the Obama folks, I'd thank Kerry for his endorsement and keep him as far away as possible from a microphone or an Obama event.

--

Today marked the end of the line for the campaign of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, perhaps the most qualified candidate in either party.

Richardson has been a legislator, a governor, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N and Energy Secretary during the Bill Clinton era. He was also chosen as a negotiator in hostage-taking incidents in a few places around the globe.

For whatever reason - my guess is name recognition in a star-studded field - Richardson never got noticed. I'm sure he's being noticed by those who will be helping one of the other candidates pick a VP nominee.

2008-01-09T16:40:00.000-05:00

Runner-ups Making Some Changes

Coming off second-place finishes last night in New Hampshire's presidential primary, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney have some changes in store.

Obama's are rhetorical. Romney's are strategic, and a bit more drastic.

AP reports Romney is pulling TV ads from South Carolina and Florida and will run more ads in Michigan.

This means at least two things: even Romney's pockets are not bottomless, and the former Massachusetts governer needs a win - badly and right away.

Michigan is next up and it is a becoming a must-win for Romney.

Romney grew up in the state and his father was a popular governor there in the '60s. Still, he and Mike Huckabee are polling about even there, and last night's winner John McCain is nipping at their heals.

Romney is well behind in South Carolina and Florida, which come later this month. So, given his need for a big win, the strategy would seem to make sense.

It would also seem to indicate just how much trouble Romney is in.

Meanwhile, Obama is hinting there may be a sharper edge to him in the very near future, telling the AP today:

"I think that Senator Clinton, obviously, is a formidable and tough candidate, and we have to make sure that we take it to them just like they take it to us. I come from Chicago politics. We're accustomed to rough and tumble."

Getting a bit tougher as Clinton pushes from her end is probably unavoidable. But I think it would be a mistake for Obama and his team to make too many changes based on a three-point loss in New Hampshire.

Without all the pre-election hype of an Obama tidal wave, the three-point loss would not have been such a big a deal. Obama's camp shouldn't try to fix what aint broke.

And they're going to have to stop saying stupid things like this - perhaps some of the most asinine words uttered in this campaign to date.

--
One other note of interest. Despite his loss last night, Obama did pick up the endorsement of Nevada's largest labor union today - the Culinary Workers Union, which represents hotel, restaurant and laundry workers in Nevada's casinos.

2008-01-08T22:33:00.000-05:00

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't anyone tell me they saw this coming.

The Clinton campaign didn't even see it coming, as reports came in all day that Bill and Hillary were huddling to decide who's heads would roll in the campaign and where to go from here.

Where will they go from here? South Carolina I guess.

Tonight's results, though close, were huge for Clinton.

A few weeks back, Clinton was ahead by roughly 10 points in New Hampshire. By last night she trailed Barack Obama by a similar tally. Some were writing the campaign's obituary and most - including me - assumed she'd be hobbling badly, at the very least.

And so now we have a race again.

Michigan is next, but those results don't count on the Democratic side because the party there is being punished by the national party for breaking its rules and holding their primary too early. (Imagine that, a big state with a diverse demographic makeup wanting to influence the presidential selection process.)

Beyond Michigan is Nevada, a week from Saturday. Obama was expected to get a big endorsement tomorrow from the hotel workers union - the largest union in the state. But that was when Obama was supposed to blow Clinton out tonight, so we'll have to wait and see on that endorsement.

And then it's on to South Carolina and Florida before Tsunami Tuesday.

The polls, which certainly weren't much help tonight, show Clinton with good leads in Michigan, Nevada and Florida, while Obama is ahead in South Carolina.

In politics they often borrow cliches from the sports world. Tonight, the one to borrow is "that's why they play the games."

McCAIN GETS THE GOP NOD

The results on the GOP side were not nearly as surprising. In fact, they pretty much mimicked most of the polls.

John McCain, as expected, was the winner. He lives to fight on, and is in pretty good shape in the long run.

Here's why.

Despite all his talk about two silvers and a gold, Mitt Romey has put up disappointing numbers in his two second-place finishes.

You'd think he'd do well in the next stop on the trail - Michigan - since his dad was a popular governor there and Romney grew up in the state.

But Romney is running neck-and-neck there with Iowa winner Mike Huckabee. John McCain may also get a bounce from tonight's win and would likely pull votes away from Romney in Michigan if he does get that bounce.

After that comes Nevada, South Carolina and Florida. None of them are likely Romney states. If he doesn't win anything but Wyoming prior to Tsunami Tuesday he may get tossed aside by mainstream Republicans in favor of tonight's winner, McCain.

Huckabee seemed thrilled with a third-place finish tonight. That's better than expected. With the race heading down South, he stands to remain among the leaders in the GOP chase for some time.
As for Rudy Giuliani, you can look at the results a couple of ways.

He finished in pretty much a dead heat with Ron Paul for chrissakes.

But he never expected to win here. And as long as each race produces a new winner, Giuliani is in good shape to have a good showing on Feb. 5 and be right in the thick of things, just as he drew it up.

2008-01-07T18:39:00.000-05:00

Are the Wheels Coming Off?

It's a fair question to ask of the Hillary Clinton campaign today, a day when the candidate choked back tears at a roundtable event in New Hampshire, and polls in the state have turned decidedly in her opponent's favor.

Let's first go to the campaign moment everyone is talking about.

During a discussion with voters today, the weight of the polls, the loss in Iowa and the unrelenting campaign schedule seemed to bring Clinton nearly to tears.

The video is available here. An Associated Press story containing Clinton's comments is here.

Meanwhile, polls taken since Barack Obama's Iowa win show Clinton trailing the Illinois senator by anywhere from 1 point to 13 points in New Hampshire. The poll showing the 13-point lead was released today by USA Today and Gallup. The average lead for Obama in 11 polls tracked by Real Clear Politics and conducted from Friday through Sunday is 7.7 points.

The USA Today/Gallup poll also shows Obama pulling even with Clinton nationally - which is a jump in the neighborhood of 15 or 20 points from polls taken in the recent past.

In another sign of trouble for the campaign, The Washington Post reported today Clinton is no longer taking input from advisers. Instead she's the one determining the day-to-day message and handing staffers their marching orders.

And Time magazine reports today that money - of all things - is becoming a problem for the Clinton campaign.

I'd like to go back to the moment Clinton's emotions nearly spilled over and invite you again to take a look at the clip.

I have deliberately stayed away from the blogosphere until I finish this post because I want to make sure my judgments are my own. I'm sure Drudge is having a great time and Rush Limbaugh must have been beside himself this afternoon on the radio.

But from where I sit, Hillary's "human" moment is the moment I've been waiting to see from her since she informally began her campaign around Thanksgiving of '06.

It was clear these words weren't scripted or vetted, that they were heartfelt and filled with emotion. It's the Hillary Democrats have been hoping to see for so long now.

It would be shame for her if the real Hillary stood up too late to do herself any good.

2008-01-06T12:05:00.000-05:00

Making Change

It was a twi-night doubleader (remember those) on ABC last night, with the Republican presidential candidates facing off in the first debate of the evening and the Dems battling in the nightcap (another sports metaphor done away with due to the greed that permeates pro sports these days).

But I digress.

Mitt Romney, as expected, was the whipping boy in the GOP debate.

With Iowa's winner Mike Huckabee showing little promise in New Hampshire, and thus little chance of building an early tidal wave, Romney was the wounded big fish in the water and the other candidates are smelling an opportunity to all but finish him off on Tuesday.

On the Democratic side, one would think Barack Obama's Iowa win along with his firming poll numbers in New Hampshire would have been enough to make him the target at last night's debate.

Hillary Clinton tried to make it so, attacking Obama on his health care plan and his experience level.

But something surprising happened on the podium at St. Anselm College.

A fiesty John Edwards came to Obama's defense and blasted Clinton instead.

Edwards alligned himself with Obama, saying they were the two candidates of change. He tried to paint Clinton as the establishment candidate, saying when the forces for change speak up it's certain to bring a swift reaction from the proponents of the status-quo - in this case Clinton.

Obviously Edwards, who could have opted to try to help Clinton bring Obama down a peg , is hoping to help send the one-time frontrunner packing.

The full exchange is viewable here.

(There's an ad first that you can't scroll through and the first half of the clip is just the warm up. The good stuff starts at about the five minute mark and runs for about two or three more minutes.)

And so now we know that - like millions of clerks at 7-11s and CVSs around the country - Hillary Clinton knows how to "make change." Which is probably more than we can say for the current occupant of the White House.

2008-01-05T23:02:00.000-05:00

Obama Catches Clinton, McCain Widens Lead in New Hampshire

Barack Obama appears to be getting a big bounce from his win in Iowa Tuesday night. Three New Hampshire polls have been taken since Obama's win Tuesday and all three are good news for Obama.

The best news for the Illinois senator comes from a Rasmussen Reports poll begun and completed on Wednesday. In that poll, Obama leads Clinton 37% to 27% in New Hampshire after trailing by three points in a pre-Christmas Rasmussen poll.

A WMUR/CNN/University of New Hampshire poll released today shows Clinton and Obama tied at 33% in the state, which holds the first primary on Tuesday. John Edwards is a distant third at 20%.

A Concord Monitor poll shows Obama ahead 34% to 33%. Edwards came in third in this poll as well, at 23%.

Clinton led Obama by four points in the previous WMUR/CNN/UNH poll completed Dec. 30.

On the GOP side, John McCain has opened a six point lead over Mitt Romney, 33% to 27%, in the WMUR/CNN/UNH poll. He's up 35% to 29% in the Monitor's poll. The Arizona senator has a five point lead in the Jan. 4 Rasmussen Reports poll.

The previous WMUR/CNN/UNH poll showed Romney and McCain tied at 29%, while Romney was ahead in a pre-Christmas Rasmussen poll.

Tuesday's Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee is third in the Monitor poll at 13% and fourth in the WMUR poll at 11%. Rudy Giuliani is third in that poll at 14%. Huckabee is fourth in the Rasmussen poll as well, three points behind Ron Paul, who is third.

Romney Wins Wyoming

There was a bit of good news for Mitt Romney tonight. He won the Wyoming caucuses handily.

2008-01-04T14:17:00.000-05:00

Iowa Win May Be Start of Good Month for Huckabee

A month or so ago a Mike Huckabee win in Iowa would have been a shocker. But if you've been paying attention lately Huckabee's victory was hardly a surprise, except maybe to the TV pundits who either believe what comes out of their mouths or are just trying to hype the storyline.

They argue that no one who is outspent 15-1 should win any political contest, except maybe for dog catcher.

But recent poll numbers, and the gut feeling you got when you saw both Huckabee and Mitt Romney in clips from the stump, pointed to a Huckabee win.

It was also pretty clear that the religious right would have much to say in this race, but it was a bit surprising to find that 60% of GOP caucus-goers considered themselves Evangelical Christians.

Huckabee should be so lucky in New Hampshire, the next main contest on the GOP calendar. (Wyoming is Saturday, but no one's likely to pay that race much heed.

New Hampshire conservatives are more of the libertarian variety and don't look kindly on those who want to tell others how to live their lives - especially politicians who would do so. So Huckabee's "Christian values" agenda is not likely to play well in the state. The polls bear that out.

But that is not news to anyone, least of all Huckabee.

If you look beyond next Tuesday's vote in New Hampshire, Huckabee appears to have a good shot of winning three of the other four major pre-Feb. 5 primaries.

He's even with Romney in Romney's boyhood home of Michigan (Jan. 15), has a decent lead in South Carolina (Jan. 19), and is in the thick of a three-way race with Romney and Rudy Giuliani in Florida (Jan 29).

Nevada (Jan. 19) is a two-man race right now between Giuliani and Romney, but it's on the same night as South Carolina and even though it offers nearly as many delegates as South Carolina, the media will pooh-pooh its results as inconsequential. So, the media spotlight would stay on Huckabee if he were to win down south.

Maine (Feb. 1) is on the pre-Feb.5 schedule as well, but so little attention will be paid to that race that I can't even find a Maine poll to post here.

Huckabee's Iowa victory could have one side effect that has the potential to hurt him in a big way down the road.

In beating Romney soundly, Huckabee may have damaged the former Massachusetts governor heading into New Hampshire, where Romney is already a point or two behind John McCain.

Should Romney come up short again in New Hampshire, the economic conservatives in the GOP will likely start looking around for another candidate to knock off Huckabee.

That candidate is likely to be McCain, who could be tough for Huckabee to beat if and when the race shakes down to two or three candidates.

2008-01-03T22:20:00.000-05:00

And the winner is.....

Barack Obama.

The numbers show that the top three Democrats finished within a few percentage points of each other in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night.

But the winner clearly was the senator from Illinois.

Obama, as has been well documented, came from a fair distance to pass Hillary Clinton, who has spent most of the past 12 months as the Democratic front runner in Iowa and nationally.

With Clinton leading by about 7 points in New Hampshire, according to the composite of polls put together by Real Clear Politics, Obama needed a win in Iowa to prevent Clinton from putting two quick wins in her column and rolling to the nomination.

Indeed, not only did Obama's win prevent such a scenario, it also gives him the "winner" boost heading into the Jan. 8 vote in New Hampshire.

Never known to accept the "inevitable" candidate, New Hampshire voters just may see themselves with an opportunity to become Hillary slayers.

With Clinton leading most of the other polls in the other pre-Feb 5 states - South Carolina being the exception - it will be important for Obama to close the gap in New Hampshire and grab the baton as the clear early leader.

As I write this, CNBC is reporting Clinton and John Edwards are tied at 30%, with 90% of the caucus results in.

It's probable the two will finish within a percentage point or two of each other and no matter how you slice it, that is bad news for Clinton. A third-place finish for the once-invincible candidate would be a major repudiation of the New York senator.

For Edwards, going neck-and-neck with Clinton is impressive. But he has pretty much lived in Iowa for the past year and he really had to win the state to give him the kind of bounce he needs to go much beyond the early states.

Perhaps the biggest winners of all tonight though are all of those Democrats who live in all of those states - big and little - that will hold their primaries on Feb 5.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where they will not have two strong, still-viable candidates to vote for when they head into the voting booths.

The alarm clock goes off in my room in six hours, so we'll take a look at the GOP side of things tomorrow.

2008-01-02T22:07:00.000-05:00

Long Campaign Shows Candidates' Warts

The Iowa caucuses are upon us - finally.

The presidential candidates have been out and about since mid-November of 2006, and the early start and high-profile of the pre-primary campaign has apparently resulted in voter fatigue - with 10 months to go until the general election.

The knock on Hillary Clinton among some Democrats is that she is too polarizing to win the general election. They fear she will give disheartened Republicans a reason to come out and vote in November if she tops the Democratic ticket.

But results of a Rasmussen Reports poll released Wednesday show that just one major one candidate heads into the primary season with low negatives. John McCain, who's nosedive over the summer kept him under the radar for several months, doesn't seem to move the negativity meter the way all the others do.

Surveys of 800 Likely Voters December 26-27 & December 28-29, 2007

Favorability Ratings Among Presidential Candidates

Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53% 27%
Edwards 49% 42%
Clinton 48% 50%
Obama 43% 51%
Thompson 42% 42%
Giuliani 40% 55%
Huckabee 40% 47%

Romney 38% 51%

The other interesting thing to note in this poll is that most of the candidates have negative favorability ratings. That is, their "unfavorable" rating is higher than their "favorable" mark.

You might also find a bit of irony in Clinton's numbers. The Great Polarizer has one of the smallest negative margins among the candidates at 48-50. That compares favorably with the "surging" Barack Obama, who checks in at 43-51.

John Edwards is the only one of the Dems' big three with a positive rating (49-42), adding more fuel to the argument that Edwards is a dangerous dark horse who could create some chaos in the next few weeks.

2007-12-29T01:35:00.000-05:00

Peaking at the right time?

One man is urbane, soft-spoken in personal conversation yet impassioned in front of a crowd. He is African-American - his father having been born in Kenya - and would likely come up slightly left-of-center on the U.S. political continuum.

The other man is a country-boy preacher from Arkansas who has ridden a winning persona and conservative social values to a 10-year stint in the Arkansas governor’s mansion and, now, into the driver’s seat in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

While quite different in background and ideology, Sen. Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Republican Mike Huckabee have one thing in common – they have each played an impressive game of catch-up in the race for their parties’ presidential nod.

They are also poised to pounce with primaries upon us.

Obama remains roughly 20 percentage points behind Sen. Hillary Clinton nationally. However, primaries are not national and the Illinois senator has made steady gains in the early-voting states, putting himself in position to win the important battle for early momentum.

In Iowa – the first state that will weigh in with its caucus on Jan. 3 – Clinton held a small but steady lead in October over both Obama and John Edwards. By mid-December, both challengers had caught up to Clinton. The latest poll, a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll released on Dec. 28, shows the three in a statistical dead heat.

The same poll shows Obama - down by 19 points in September - has taken a small lead over Clinton in New Hampshire, 32 percent to 30 percent. New Hampshire holds the first primary on Jan. 8.

While Obama pretty much walks the Democratic Party line on most issues – he is pro-abortion, against the Bush tax cuts and for some form universal health care – he has distinguished himself on foreign policy. He boasts of his opposition to the war in Iraq from the beginning and has pledged to bring all U.S combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months, leaving behind only those guarding the U.S. embassy or involved in counterterrorism.

“If Al Qaeda in Iraq is reforming bases there, we should have the capacity to strike them,” Obama said recently in an hour-long interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “But that would be it.”

On the stump, Obama has been critical of Clinton’s Iraq strategy, which calls for a redeployment of troops to guard Iraq’s borders and limit Iran’s influence on Iraq.

At the Jefferson-Jackson Democratic fundraising dinner in Des Moines in November, Obama told the crowd he’s “sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, acting and voting like George Bush Republicans.” Pundits have interpreted the comment as a swipe at Clinton and the Democratic Congress, which has failed in several attempts to tie troop withdrawal to funding for Iraq.

Obama has also said he would not hesitate to go into Pakistan to find the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and, unlike Clinton, is in favor of opening a dialogue with Iran about its nuclear plans.

Obama has not made much use of the race card but has seen his support among black voters rise in some key races. The Jan. 26 primary in South Carolina is the first in which the black vote will have a major impact. A Rasmussen poll taken in early December showed Obama with a 51-percent to 27-percent lead among black voters in the state. Just a month earlier a Rasmussen poll showed the two candidates dead even among black voters. An ABC News-Washington Post poll in mid-December showed Clinton still carried a 12-point lead over Obama among blacks nationwide.

Unlike Obama’s steady rise, Mike Huckabee’s has been meteoric. In Iowa, he has stormed ahead of all comers, putting as much as eight points between himself and Mitt Romney in a mid-December CNN poll. About a month earlier, Huckabee had trailed Romney by 16 points in a Zogby Iowa poll. Hucakbee is well behind a resurgent John McCain and Romney in New Hampshire, but is even with Romney in Michigan - a state where Romeny’s father George was a popular governor in the 1960s. Huckabee has a solid lead in South Carolina, which votes Jan. 26.

Huckabee’s red-meat issues are those most dear to the evangelical Christian branch of the GOP. He is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion, as well as one banning gay marriage.

“My faith is my life. It defines me,” Huckabee tells supporters in a recorded message on his campaign Web site. “I see no separation of my faith from my personal and professional lives.”

It’s that kind of stubborn devotion to faith that has made Huckabee the darling of many on the religious right, but has given others reason for concern. The former Baptist preacher has come under criticism for the unusually large number of clemencies he granted as governor of Arkansas, with critics attributing the actions to Huckabee’s ties to other preachers.

The former Arkansas governor has also been on the hot seat for a comment in a recent New York Times Magazine article in which he questioned whether Mormons believe Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers. Huckabee apologized publicly to Romney, a Mormon, saying: “I don’t think his being a Mormon or not being a Mormon has a thing to do about being president. I don’t think anybody ought to vote for or against anybody because of their faith.”

Fiscal conservatives are suspicious of Huckbee because of his expansion of health insurance for the children of Arkansas’ working poor and his support for a fuel-tax boost to pay for road repairs in the state.

Though the first votes will be cast in just a few days, both Obama and Huckabee could face last-minute challenges from unexpected twists.

If voters turn their focus to world events with the recent assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, Obama could lose some support. The same late-December Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll that showed Obama gaining in the early voting states also shows that Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire consider Clinton far more qualified than Obama on national security issues.

As for Huckabee, in addition to possible damage from stepped up scrutiny in recent weeks, an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll done in the final week of December shows his rising numbers may not be solid.

Four in 10 Iowa Republicans polled say they know too little about the candidate to offer an impression of him. The same number of GOP voters said they have changed their support at least once in the past month. Nearly two-thirds said they may change their minds again in Iowa, a state Huckabee is counting on to get him to South Carolina and then on to Tsunami Tuesday in the first week of February.

All polls referenced in this post, except thos linked directly to it, can be found at Real Clear Politics.

2007-12-27T08:50:00.001-05:00

STUDY: FOX IS THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL

When it comes to coverage of both the Democratic and Republican presidential races, FOX News is the fairest of the big networks. At least that is what one study has turned up.

Before I go any further, I must provide a bit of background here.

I work for News Corp.- the owner of FOX News.

I didn't work for News Corp. until about two weeks ago, when the fairly large newspaper company I work for was taken over by News Corp. Our flagship publication is the Wall Street Journal. You may have heard of it.

Like most of the journalists at Dow Jones, I was, and still am, a bit skeptical about this new ownership. After all, News Corp. publishes The New York Post and The Sun (London's raciest tabloid). It also, of course, broadcasts the FOX News Channel, itself the subject of some ridicule for its "fair and balanced" claims.

So you can imagine my surprise to read the results of a study by the Center For Media And Public Affairs, which shows FOX News has been the most balanced of the national TV outlets in recent coverage of the presidential campaign.

The study of the main nightly broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX showed that FOX's news stories about the Democrats were 51% favorable and 49% unfavorable. The numbers are reversed for the Republicans, and split 50-50 when the two are taken together.

Among the traditional broadcast networks, the coverage of the Democrats was 47% positive and 53% negative, while the coverage of the GOP candidates was 40% positive and 60% negative.

The press release for the study (which I have linked above) does not break out each broadcast network individually and the center's Web site says only that full results will be posted soon.

The study also showed, based on analysis of 481 election news stories from Oct. 1 to Dec. 15, that Bill Clinton's frequent assertions that the media are hardest on his wife may be correct. The numbers bear that out, at least among the Democrats.

Of the stories about Hillary Clinton, 42% were deemed positive by those completing the study, while 58% were negative. Coverage of her closest competitor, Barack Obama, was 61% positive and 39% negative.

John McCain had the least positive coverage of all candidates at 33%. Mike Huckabee fared best among the GOP at an even 50-50.

The results seemed to validate another of Bill Clinton's complaints as well - that the media is focused on the horse race and not the substance of the candidates' positions.

Campaign strategy and tactics far outweighed other aspects of coverage with all the candidates.

The Center For Media And Public Affairs is an academic endeavor at George Mason University, so presumably there is no ideology involved in the study. It is interesting, however, that the headline on the study press release reads: "Obama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)"

2007-12-21T22:12:00.000-05:00

TAKING ANOTHER SHOT

It's been nearly nine months since PrezPolitics went on a somewhat involuntary hiatus.

With too much going on I had to give up the blog or publish it at a quality level below my satisfaction.

So shut 'er down we did.

But things have calmed a bit and it's time to take another shot.

A lot has happened - obviously - since the last time we posted back in April.

Back then Hillary Clinton had a comfortable lead in all the polls and an air of invincibility. Today she finds herself in a dead heat with Barack Obama in polling in Iowa, the state that will weigh in first in the race with its caucus on Jan. 3. John Edwards is very much a factor in Iowa as well and could be poised to surprise.

Things have also tightened in New Hampshire, the second state slated to render a verdict on the presidential hopefuls with its primary on Jan. 8.

The Clinton campaign has been on the defensive for weeks now, with the first tests of the political season on the horizon.

Some things don't seem to change however. Dennis Kucinich is still polling in the single digits, as he spreads his left-wing gospel to a small group of fiercely loyal supporters.

For whatever reason, Bill Richardson's campaign never took off like I thought it might. Richardson has been a cabinet member, a congressman, a diplomat and a governor. He has a sensible, middle-of-the-road message. He is of Hispanic heritage, a factor you might think would help as that sector of the electorate continues to grow. But his poll numbers are not much better now than they were in the spring and he stands precious little chance of being around for Tsunami Tuesday at the beginning of February.

The same can be said for two veteran Democratic senators in the race, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware. The two of them, along with Richardson, appear to be running for vice-president in reality.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul didn't even register on the political radar when we went on hiatus in April. Today, while still in the single digits in the polls, the Texas congressman is drawing crowds and raising record amounts of cash from small donors. He is the only anti-war Republican and he is riding that and his populist, libertarian appeal to heights no one expected of him.

When we last posted there was one Republican in the race named Thompson. Tommy. Now the Thompson in the race is Fred, the actor-turned-senator-turned-TV star-turned presidential candidate. Back in April he was playing it coy, waiting for the draft-Thompson movement to swell to the proper size before getting into the race. Today, after a quick burst as he entered the in September, he is looking like a tired, also-ran. How quickly they come and go.

Nearly every candidate on the GOP side has seen his fortunes rise or fall since the spring.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas preacher-turned-governor, was polling at about 2 percent back then. He was mostly known as the candidate who once weighed over 300 pounds. Now, with strong poll numbers in Iowa and North Carolina, Huckabee is seen by many as the man to beat in the Republican race.

Rudy Giuliani has ridden his 9/11 fame throughout most of the year, but his appeal seems to be wearing thin at just the wrong time. He's invisible in Iowa and nearly so in New Hampsahire. His strategy was to write-off those small, early-voting states and go for the gold in the larger, more moderate states on Tsunami Tuesday. But recent national polls have shown Giuliani slipping and he is no longer seen as a clear front-runner.

John McCain, looking scorched around the edges back in April, is no longer toast. He's made a bit of a comeback in national polls and is looking strong in New Hampshire, the state that made him a very temporary front-runner back in 2000. A good showing there could keep him viable for the big payday on Feb. 5.

Mitt Romney seems to be the only GOP candidate whose fortunes haven't changed all that much since April. He's still in the mid-teens in national polls but putting up strong numbers in the early-voting states. His strategy of winning early and riding the momentum still seems to be intact.

So, that pretty much brings us up to date. Rather than report the tit-for-tat and play-by-play of each day on the trail, we hope to report and comment on the bigger events in the campaign.

Come back and watch it with us won't you?

2007-04-09T19:07:00.000-04:00

PEOPLE'S POCKETS POWER SOME CAMPAIGNS

Well, we're back from San Francisco and getting slowly back into the day-to-day.

Financing was the biggest story on the campaign trail while we were gone.

Of course Hillary Clinton led the pack, or would that be PAC?

But there is some good news for those of us who abhor the current campaign financing system.

Barack Obama was nearly toe-to-toe with Clinton, and he did it with 100,000, mostly small, donations. John Edwards finished somewhat behind Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side, but he too raised an impressive $14 million or so in the quarter, and most came from donations from the Average Joe.

Also surprising, the top Democrats raised more than one-and-one-half as much as the top Republicans. And John McCain's totals were dwarfed by contributions to the Mitt Romney campaign, which topped even Rudy Giuliani's totals.

The blog Uncle Sam Wants You has a great rundown of the totals and what they say about the campaign so far.

ROMNEY, EDWARDS PICKING UP STEAM

In keeping with their strong fundraising performance, the two third-place candidates - Edwards for the Democrats and Romney for the GOP - are showing strength in recent polls as well.

Take a recent Zoby Poll of New Hampshire, released last Wednesday.

In that poll Romney surged to a first-place tie with John McCain at 25%, while Rudy Giuliani came in third at 19%. One month earlier Romney had been at 13% in Zogby's New Hampshire poll.

Edwards made a similarly impressive jump in the latest Zogby New Hampshire poll, bounding 10 percentage points from a month ago to 23%. That was good enough for a second place tie with Barack Obama and puts Edwards only 6 points behind Clinton in the early-primary state. Couple this result with Edwards' neck-and-neck showing with Clinton in various recent Iowa polls and he could pull off two big wins right at the get-go.

A recent Diageo Hotline Poll showed Edwards' favorability rating jumped to 54% at the end of March from 38% at the end of February.

GIULIANI PULLS AHEAD OF McCAIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA

One other key polling note. On the GOP side of things, Rudy Giuliani has taken a one point lead (essentially a tie) over John McCain in South Carolina in the latest Fox News poll. McCain has recruited and campaigned heavily in South Carolina and the results (Giuliani 26%, McCain 25%, Romney 14%) provide further evidence that McCain's campaign is on the rocks.

One other note of interest, for me at least. New York has voted to move up it's primary to Feb. 5. So, for the first time since I cast my very first presidential primary vote for Mo Udall in the Ohio primary in 1976, my primary vote may count for something.

These are certainly not all the key developments in the race while we were away, just the ones that caught my eye.

2007-03-30T16:23:00.000-04:00

HEADIN' OFF TO SAN FRANCISCO

We're on vacation!!

Heading off to San Francisco. Won't be anywhere near a computer until the Monday after Easter.

For those of you who check in every day, thanks for that!; and we hope you'll be checking in again when we get back.

2007-03-26T17:19:00.001-04:00

McCAIN REGAINS GROUND ON GIULIANI

As we said in our earlier post, John Edwards and Fred Thompson are the stars of today's presidential polls.

But there's a curious wrinkle at the top of recent the GOP polls that has been little noticed but is quite newsworthy. (Or as newsworthy as any poll can be a year out).

John McCain is regaining some ground on Rudy Giuliani.

In particular, McCain is doing well in the races that matter, the individual state races.

American Research Group has put out seven state polls this month. In five of the seven (Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Arkansas), McCain leads Giuliani. The two are tied at 29% in Iowa and Giuliani is ahead in Texas.

(McCain and Giuliani are top-two in all of these polls except in Arkansas, where home-stater Mike Huckabee has a big lead.)

Throw in a victory for Giuliani in his home state of New York, in a Siena Poll released today, and McCain still wins the lion's share of states in this recent spate of polling.

The American Research Group's most-recent national poll, released March 8, shows Giuliani leading McCain by just four points, 34% to 30%. In today's USA Today Gallup poll, Giuliani's lead over McCain is down to 9 points. Just three weeks ago he had a 22 point lead.

We'll check on the weekly Rasmussen Reports Republican Poll tomorrow to see if it further supports the notion that McCain is experiencing a rebound.

Perhaps McCain's "Straight Talk Express" is really a magic bus (apologies to The Who and their fans).

2007-03-26T15:40:00.000-04:00

EDWARDS, FRED THOMPSON JUMP IN POLLS

Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson make the biggest splash in presidential polls released today.

Edwards jumped five points in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll and six points in the weekly Rasmussen Reports Democratic poll, both released today.

Edwards is still fourth among Democrats in the USA Today/Gallup poll, but he is up to 14% from 9% three weeks ago. He trails Hillary Clinton (35%), Barack Obama (22%) and Al Gore (17%).

The poll was conducted Friday to Sunday, just after Edwards' wife Elizabeth announced that she had had a recurrence of cancer.

Given the fact that two out of three of those polled back Edwards' decision to stay in the race (though nearly 40% think he'll eventually have to pull out), the temptation is to consider this a sympathy jump or a reflection of admiration of the Edwardses for their courage.

However, today's Rasmussen Reports poll shows Edwards with a six point jump from the prior week, and the Rasmussen poll was conducted from Monday through Thursday of last week. That means the poll was nearly complete when the Edwardses went public with the cancer news.

It's Obama who took a bit of hit in this poll, dropping five points from last week, and putting him right where he was two weeks ago.

The latest poll shows Clinton in the lead at 37%, Obama at 25% and Edwards at 17%. One week ago Clinton was at 35%, Obama 30% and Edwards 11%

THOMPSON DEBUTS WITH A SPLASH

Actor-turned-senator-turned actor Fred Thompson, who plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's Law and Order, has not said he's running yet, and in fact he is only in the being-urged-by-freinds-to-do-so stage. But Thompson's been showing up big-time in his first round of polls.

In today's USA Today/Gallup poll he debuts at 12%. That's third behind Rudy Giuliani (31%) and John McCain (22%). Newt Gingrich is fourth at 8%

The Thompson Factor seems to be hurting Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Giuliani dropped to 31% from 44% three weeks ago, while Romney dropped to just 3%, from 8% in the previous USA Today/Gallup poll.

We'll find out tomorrow where Thompson places in the weekly Rasmussen Reports Republican poll, but Rasmussen paired him late last week against the top two Democrats in the race, with mixed results.

In a poll released Friday, Thompson essentially tied Clinton in a one-on-one matchup, scoring 43% to Clinton's 44%. Obama topped Thompson one-on-one, 49% to 37%.

In four individual state polls released last week by American Research Group, Thompson is in the low double digits in three of the states (Texas, Iowa and New Hampshire) and finished at 5% in Arkansas, a poll which saw the state's former Gov. Mike Huckabee get a 40% score.

These are somewhat startling numbers for someone who has not announced and just a couple of weeks ago started making noise about giving it a go. They seem to indicate that GOP voters are still wide open to anyone they think they can rally behind.

2007-03-24T14:07:00.000-04:00

SHOULD EDWARDS STAY IN RACE ?

It's been a couple of days now since John and Elizabeth Edwards announced the recurrence of Elizabeth's cancer and I've waited a while to express an opinion on their decision to continue the presidential campaign so I could do so with a mind clear of the emotion of Thursday's press conference.

A story in today's New York Times sums up the wide-ranging public reaction to the Edwardses decision to continue the quest for the White House.

In the article the couple are praised for their graciousness, toughness and commitment to their goals. Others say the Edwardses are showing themselves to be slaves to ambition or unrealistic about the challenges that lie ahead.

The article also examines the effects these attitudes may have on John Edwards' chances of winning the Democratic nomination.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is this; The Edwardses are grownups who have been through the ringer before, with the death of their son in a car crash, and the initial diagnosis of Elizabeth's breast cancer coming in the waning days of a vice- presidential race that ended in bitter defeat.

So let's assume the Edwardses can decide for themselves what's best for them, and that their decision to continue was made because they both feel it is how they want to deal with their latest challenge.

It's not for the rest of us to decide what they should or should not do. Or what their decision says about them as people or what's in their heart.

But we, as voters, do have a decision to make that is rightly ours.

I have to say I like Edwards the candidate very much and from his public persona he seems like the type of person we could use as a leader. To be honest, he's in my top three of the 20 or so people running at this early stage.

But as a voter I have to consider the consequences of putting a man in the White House who might have to face the suffering and eventual death of his wife while trying to tend to the business of the nation at a very precarious time in history. In addition, he would be doing so while tending to the emotional needs of two still-young children who would be grieving as well.

There is plenty of time between now and the primaries. In the interim, the Edwardses may find that the task is too tall. Or they may prove to themselves and the rest of us that they are clearly up to the battle.

For now, I'm still very open to being convinced.

2007-03-23T16:11:00.000-04:00

BILL SAYS HILLARY BASHING OVER WAR IS UNFAIR

The critics of her 2002 vote on Iraq continue to greet Hillary Clinton at every campaign stop and that continues to gnaw at Clinton's husband.

Former President Bill Clinton is befuddled and somewhat frosted his wife is being villified by the anti-war left for her vote to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq while two other polticians are being feted by the left-wing blogosphere as anti-war champions.

Clinton, in a conference call with donors last night, reiterated a complaint he made in a more private setting earlier this week, that Clinton's current stance on the war isn't much different than that of Barack Obama.

As quoted in The Hill today, Clinton said:

"I don't have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this," but "to characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous."This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate." --Bill Clinton as quoted in The Hill

To be fair, Obama, in his public statements since 2002, has been steadfast in his opposition to the war. But his voting record in the Senate has been a little less radically anti-war.

This week the Illinois senator introduced a measure to begin troop withdrawals in May, with complete withdrawal set for next March. But he voted against a pullout in 2006. In explaining his change of position, Obama, quoted in The Portsmouth (N.H.) Herald, said things have changed since 2006.

"Obama (said) the 2006 bill came on the heels of popular elections in Iraq that created a new government and that he wanted to send that government a message of U.S. support. 'The Iraqi government has not used that time (since the 2006 legislation was defeated) to try to bring the parties together, but has used it to dig in to their sectarian agendas,' Obama said." -The Portsmouth Herald

Clinton, meanwhile, has in recent weeks said she'd bring the troops home in 2009 if they're not home before she would be in the White House, but also said some troops would remain in Iraq if she is in charge.

Bill Clinton also wondered aloud in last night's conference call why Republican Chuck Hagel, another possible presidential candidate, is being hailed as a hero of the anti-war left, when his justification for his vote in favor of war in 2002 is the same as Hillary Clinton's. To make his point, Clinton recalled a recent article featuring Hagel in GQ magazine.

GQ: Do you wish you’d voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?

Hagel: Have you read that resolution?

GQ: I have.

Hagel: It’s not quite the way it's been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That's not quite what the resolution said.
GQ: It said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”

Hagel: In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.

So, in his point about Hagal, former president Clinton may be on slightly firmer ground. The left's embrace of the ultra-conservative Hagel based on his anti-war stance is a bit like the right winger saying to Rudy Giulani's three marriages are fine with them and he can lock up their guns if he wants to as long as he can win an election and keep them damned terrorists from "fighting us over here."

OBAMA LEADS IN DFA POLL

Democracy For America today released results of a poll of its members and the results spotlight Clinton's trouble with the left.

Barack Obama 28.1%
John Edwards 24.6%
Other 12.4%
Dennis Kucinich 10.3%
Hillary Clinton 8.7%
Bill Richardson 7.6%
Undecided 4.9%
Joseph Biden 1.9%
Christopher Dodd 0.5%
Mike Gravel 0.3%

Note that Clinton, who leads most of the statewide polls and all of the national polls conducted by the professional pollsters, comes in behind "other" and Dennis Kucinich in the DFA poll.

On the other hand, Clinton got good news today from one of the few states where she's not ahead in most polls - Iowa, which has belonged to John Edwards so far.

Former Democratic presidential candidate and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is expected to announce on Monday that he is backing Clinton, which should be a major jolt for her campaing in the state because of the local knowledge and goodwill he and his backers can bring to the Clinton campaign effort there.

2007-03-22T22:29:00.000-04:00

GUILIANI PIPES UP ON PROSECUTOR FILINGS - SORT OF

I'm not sure this is even worth mentioning, because very little was said.

But since we've been waiting for several days now for any of the Republican candidates to weigh in on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the prosecutor firings I guess we should pass this along.

Giuliani, the only former U.S. attorney in the presidential race, said today we shouldn't presume anything about Gonzales' actions in the matter until he goes to Capitol Hill to say what happened.

"I think that’s what these inquiries are going to be about, right? To determine that,, he said," at a news conference in Chevy Chase, Md. "And I think we should have an open mind about it, and not, you know, not come out of it - come at it with a kind of partisan spirit, whether you're a Democrat wanting to find something wrong or whether you're a Republican wanting to justify. The Attorney General's going to have to explain, and I’m more than willing to listen to his explanation.” --Rudy Giuliani as quoted by New York Times blog The Caucus.

That's 79 words for Giuliani to say pretty much nothing, which, I'm going to presume, is not a world record for a politican.

Giuliani made his comments while in Maryland to receive the endorsement of the state's former governor, Bob Ehrlich.

2007-03-22T13:55:00.000-04:00

GINGRICH SEEKS RETURN TO REAL POLITICAL DEBATE

For once I have to say I agree with Newt Gingrich.

The political process in this country is broken and it needs fixing.

"It is very clear that our current political system is utterly and totally incapable of serious conversation.

To support his assertion. Gingrich points to the Clinton 1984 ad that lit up You Tube in recent days as an example of political discourse gone wrong.

I've steared clear of posting about the ad until now because everyone else has beaten it to death and because I'm hoping to avoid talking about these online ads unless they either say something rather than smear someone, or they become so big I can't ignore them.

Anyway, back to Gingrich.

He says the ad is "utterly, totally destructive of the process of thought," and "there is not a single thing in that commercial that enables America to solve a problem."

Gingrich calls the ad and others like it "The Entertainment Tonight version of governing a great country and it's really very dangerous"

The former House Speaker challenged all of the current candidates for president to pledge - should they win the nominatiuon of their party - to commit to a 90-minute "dialogue" with their opponent once a week, every week, from Labor Day '08 through the general election two months later.

Gingrich proposed there be no moderator "no Mickey Mouse questions" and "no gimmicks" just discussion about the future of the country.

Gingrich's call for a return to real poltical debate comes shortly after call by fellow Republican John McCain to keep personal lives out of the campaign.

While I strongly agree with both Gingrich and McCain, I must say I wonder about motivation.

Gingrich hasn't declared his candidacy yet, but he is seen more and more likely to do so as the ultra-conservative wing of the GOP continues to wander in the dark looking for someone to support.

Gingrich, who's picture was only recently replaced by that of Karl Rove in the dictionary under the listing "dirty politics," was among the most divisive figures of the political wars of the 1990s.

Now that he may run, he's seeking a truce. And one wonders whether it is because his personal life has been less than exemplary.

Whatever the motive, I'm all for the plan. But I don't think we'll see a return to the Lincoln-Douglas days any time soon.

For additional reading:

"2008 Campaign Will Test Privacy of Candidates’ Personal Lives" - Steven Thomma, McClatchey Newspapers

"Obama Vows Not To Raise Rival Candidates' Personal Issues" - CNN Political Ticker

"Don't be Cruel; Divining the New Moral Code" -- New York Times

2007-03-22T12:30:00.000-04:00

"THE CAMPAIGN GOES ON" - EDWARDS

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth confirmed today that Elizabeth has had a recurrence of cancer, but both said the campaign will continue.

Elizabeth Edwards said the breast cancer, which she made public just after Edwards lost his VP bid in 2004, has re-emerged in a different form. Tests this week have determined that she has cancer in the bone of one of her ribs.

Candidate Edwards said despite the diagnosis, "the campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly." He said there will be no change in plans.

The couple said the decision to continue was made only after word from their doctor that the disease and subsequent treatment should not be something that should be debilitating enough to keep either of them of the campaign trail.

John Edwards said he decided to continue the campaign only after he was assured that would be the case and said he will be where his wife needs during her new bout with cancer.

"Any time any place that I need to be with Elizabeth I will be there," Edwards said during a press conference held by he and his wife in Chapel Hill, N.C.

"We are very optimistic about this (the diagnosis)...the key is to keep your head up, keep moving and be strong," he said.

Elizabeth Edwards said she has no intention of allowing the recurrence of cancer to slow her down.

"I expect to do next week all of the things I did last week," she said. I'm as ready for this as any person can be."

The Edwards said they plan to do much of the campaign travel together.

2007-03-20T16:05:00.000-04:00

WAR STANCE BRINGS OBAMA-CLINTON RIVALRY TO A BOIL

The Clinton and Obama campaigns have butted heads three times in recent weeks, twice resulting in some rather nasty confrontations.

In the first two instances Clinton's camp was trying to protect something Obama was threatening to take away. In the third - last night at Harvard University - the Clinton team was trying to mitigate Obama's advantage on what may be the key issue of the campaign.

The first confrontation came weeks ago. The Clintons were frosted when Hollywood producer David Geffen - a long-time Bill Clinton supporter until a tiff a few years back - put his support ($$) behind Obama and held a lavish fundraiser for him in La - La land. The Clinton reaction was an attempt to put the Hollywood set on notice that further defections would not be tolerated.

Then came the march on Selma. It was supposed to be a Barack Obama moment, comemorating the famous 1960's civil rights march. In this case the prize - African American support - was even bigger than the campaign dollars thrown around in Tinseltown. Once Clinton got wind of Obama's plans to appear, she hurriedly booked her own place on the Selma program and reserved a spot for her husband, the former president, as well. It was an effort to keep to a minimum the damage Obama could do to Clinton's strong support among black voters.

Which brings us to the latest confrontation, over Iraq.

Clinton would clearly love a clean, consistent record opposing the war in Iraq. But, short of that, she wouldn't mind muddying-up Obama's record a little.

The effort started last week when Bill Clinton, at a fund-raising dinner in New York, seemed to be questioning whether Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the war.

The New York Post's (in)famous Page Six gossip column reported on a conversation New York radio personality Curtis Sliwa said he had that evening with the former president about what Clinton felt was a free pass being given to Obama by the New York Times.

Clinton focused on the fact that three years ago - shortly after Barack Obama burst onto the world stage with his speech at the Democratic National Convention where John Kerry was nominated- Obama was asked how he would have voted on the Iraq war if he'd been in Congress at that time. "And Obama said, 'Im not sure,' " Sliwa recalled (Clinton saying). "Clinton said the Times has a duty to report on Obama's initial ambivalence." -- Curtis Sliwa quoted by the New York Post

The Obama camp struck back the next day, saying his opposition to the war has been unwavering.

Which brings us to last night in Cambridge, Mass., where a shouting match between senior advisors from the two campaigns startled students, faculty members and reporters attending a forum at Harvard.

Here's a bit of the back-and-forth between Clinton's senior strategist Mark Penn and Obama advisor David Axelrod as reported by the New York Times blog The Caucus:

PENN:"Hey, people can say, 'I wasn't in the Senate, here is what I would have done,' or 'Hey, I left the Senate, let me tell you what I would have done now.' Senator Clinton has taken responsibility for her vote."

AXELROD: "I agree with you that the future is what's important. I did not sit here and comment on Senator Clinton's decision in 2002. You found it necessary to draw Senator Obama into the discussion. This goes back to the discussion we had before: Are we going to spend 10 months savaging each other? Or are we going to try to lift this country up?"

The Obama camp - perhaps coincidentally - today released a video time line of sorts, backing the senator's claims that his opposition to the war has been steadfast.

But the Boston Globe reported today there is some evidence that Obama's positioning on the war has been a bit nuanced over the years.

"Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would 'unequivocally' vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.

Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an 'arbitrary deadline' could 'compound' the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq." -Boston Globe

Whatever your take on all this, Obama has been gaining steadily in the polls. The latest example is yesterday's Rasmussen Reports poll which shows the Illinois senator just five points behind Clinton, 35% to 30%. A week ago in the same poll he was behind by 12. Clinton lost three points while Obama gained 4.

2007-03-19T16:59:00.000-04:00

McCAIN SLAMS, STIFFS CLUB FOR GROWTH

Once again, it's hard to see where John McCain is going with this one.

McCain has turned down an invitation to speak to the Club for Growth, a group of fiscal conservative heavyweights who also control lots of Republican campaign dollars.

McCain is skipping the group's annual conference at the end of the month and also slammed the organization, saying it may be responsible for the GOP's minority status in the Senate,

In a clip on Pat Robertson's CBNnews.com McCain said the Club for Growth's opposition in all liklihood cost former liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee his seat in the Senate, throwing control of the body over to the Democrats.

So last month McCain blew off the social conservatives at the CPAC conference and this month it's the fiscal conservatives at the Club for Growth. Curious moves for the candidate seen as the GOP establishment favorite who still has some work to do on his relations with the far-right.

However, I will say this. We're finally hearing some straight talk from the Straight Talk Express.

2007-03-17T23:38:00.000-04:00

RICHARDSON SIGNS MEDICINAL MARIJUANA LAW

"So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do."

What did he say?

"So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do."

That's what I thought he said.

But how can this be?

Isn't Bill Richardson a presidential candidate?

Doesn't it make sense for him to take the politically safest stance on any and all issues.

For once, I'm happy to say, that's not the way this politician made his decision.

Earlier this week Richardson, New Mexico's governor and a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, talked with enthusiasm about his expected signing into law a bill that permits the use of marijuana for medicinal (pain-killing) purposes.

Richardson did so even though he knows his decision might work against him in his bid for the presidency.

"This is for medicinal purpose, for ... people that are suffering. My God, let's be reasonable," Richardson told the Associated Press.

Richardson has little to gain politically by signing the bill, and probably - quite honestly - not that much to lose in the Demcratic primary contests. But his decision could came back to bite him should he ever find himself as the Democratic candidate in the general election.

But Richardson put politics aside to do what he thought was right.

A rare occurrence in politics and, for that reason, worth a mention.

I still am baffled as to why this guy is not getting more attention from Democrats.

He offers experience as a governor, a member of Congress and an ambassador and global trouble-shooter.

He could help his party make gains with the fast-growing Hispanic population and in an area of the country - the West - where the Democrats need to improve their lot if they are going to pick up the electoral votes they need to take back the White House.

He's not pretty. He's not especially eloquent. He doesn't have boatloads of money and notoriety. But he may just have the attributes the Democrats need and he deserves the chance to prove it.

2007-03-17T15:52:00.000-04:00

TONGUE-TIED ON THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS

In an effort to kick-start his sputtering presidential campaign, John McCain revved up the old Straight Talk Express this week - resurrecting the name of the campaign bus which became synonomous with his free-wheeling style in the 2000 GOP primary campaign.

This time around though, the road has been a little bumpy for McCain and something seems to be missing.

A couple of recent campaign anecdotes illustrate this point.

On Friday, McCain used the term "tar baby" when trying to express the thought that the federal government should not get involved in matters of child custody because it risks creating problems rather than solving them.

Without getting into the whole literary derivation of the term, McCain probably could have used the term "can of worms" instead, and avoided the other - racially tinged - meaning of the "tar baby" phrase.

Then there was this little tongue-slip by the senator at another stop in Iowa this week.

``The reason Republicans lost the war -- sorry, the last election -- was because of spending,'' he said.

While both missteps were small matters, they seem to be indicative of a candidate who - after being seen as the GOP's 2008 frontrunner for years now - is on edge, playing it safe and just hoping to get through the campaign without any major gaffes.

An incident on the campaign bus yesterday is probably a still-better example of a candidate - unlike the 2000 McCain - who is too beholden to handlers and strategists. Too afraid to say the wrong thing as he tries to be all things to all Republicans, particularly those of the religious-fanatic variety.

As reported on the New York Times political blog The Caucus, McCain was literally tongue-tied when asked a question about the distribtion of U.S. taxpayer-purchased condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa.

What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain's aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain's side.

The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.--The Caucus (emphasis mine)

While McCain fired up the Straight Talk Express to try to recreate the spark his candidacy had last time around, it looks like just another gimmick by the "establishment candidate" this time. Just another image-guy's idea to bring some life back to a stagnant campaign.

The problem facing McCain is not new. John Kerry was "handled" to death. The 2000 model of Al Gore suffered the same fate. And, to a great degree, Hillary Clinton is facing the same problem - as she continues to suffer from the perception that she is too stiff and too contrived.

McCain seems to be trying to play prevent defense in an effort to hold on to a lead he has already surrendered to Rudy Giuliani.

The resurrection of the Straight Talk Express indicates McCain realizes he's no longer winning the race. Now if he could just shed his self-imposed shackles and hit us with some actual straight talk, he might be able to turn his bus around.

2007-03-14T12:47:00.000-04:00

EDWARDS CAMPAIGN GOES CARBON NEUTRAL

The prosecutor-firing furor, which hit a crescendo yesterday, remains on center stage today - where it belongs.

So not much else got noticed yesterday.

One thing that went ignored was an announcment by the John Edwards campaign that it is going carbon neutral.

Edwards is the only active candidate to take his campaign in that direction, although Tom Vilsack had announced a similar plan before he dropped from the race a few weeks ago.

What exactly is the Edwards campaign doing to meet its claim of being carbon neutral?

Using timers and motion detectors to control lights and shut down office equipment when not in use and turning off computers, televisions, and lights when not in use.

Online monitoring and management of heating and air conditioning to conserve energy.

Buying 100% post-consumer recycled paper and other recycled paper products.

Recycling paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, and other products.

Encouraging staff to adopt energy efficient practices in their office and homes. (About a quarter of John Edwards for President headquarters employees walk to work, according to a campaign press release).

After conserving energy, the campaign will purchase carbon offsets to make it carbon neutral

Edwards' has been in the lead on a few issues lately.

He was the first to pull out of the now-canceled Nevada debate which was to have been carried by FOX News, which is notoriously unfriendly toward Democrats.

Edwards was also the first of the 2008 presidential candidates to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign over the DA controversey.

And, he is the only candidate talking about poverty.
Edwards was the first Democrat to formally announce his candidacy, but his numbers had been slipping in the weeks following the official entry of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton into the race, as the media focused almost exclusively on that duo.

Edwards is still firmly in third place in the polls, but after slipping to the low teens - and even single digits in some case - three recent polls show him in back in the mid-teen range. He's at 16% in the latest New Hampshire and Nevada polls, and 15% in this weeks Rasmussen Reports poll.

Edwards' gains are likely the result of the post-announcement hoopla wearing off - at least a little - for Obama and Clinton.

Whether Edwards can boost himself close to even with one or both is something to watch over the next several weeks.