The Winds Of Change

A funny thing happened to Barack Obama on the way to the Democratic nomination; He started getting criticized in the press. I know this is hard to believe considering the unprecedented level of adulation that he has received to date, but if you sample the political headlines, you will see that the number of critical articles has expanded exponentially. Perhaps it just goes with the front runner status that he now enjoys, or perhaps reporters are just responding to the criticisms that that they have been giving Obama a free ride. Or perhaps Hillary Clinton's campaign's talking points are finally starting to take hold (this photo of Obama in traditional African garb was circulated by Clinton staffers this weekend and picked up by the mainstream press).

The Clinton campaign must be thrilled to see that the press is finally starting to turn a more critical eye toward her opponent, but they must be asking themselves, "What took so long"? For months Hillary has been hammering the point about her opponent’s lack of experience, but the press seemed not to care. The articles questioning whether Obama could actually deliver on any of his rhetoric are now starting to appear with much more frequency. There is an actual point to make about whether Obama, with an essentially liberal platform, would be able to somehow bring enough Republicans over to his side to move legislation forward in Congress. The Republicans will no doubt pick up on this tact and try their best to label Obama a typical, liberal, tax and spend Democrat. While Hillary cannot attack Obama for being a liberal, the Republicans will have no problems in making that argument.

I have also read a few articles about another subject, which up until this point has been only whispered about, and that is the subject of assassination. Obama was provided with secret service protection at the earliest point of any nominee for President in history. However the press has been reluctant to even broach the topic. The New York Times broke that unspoken pledge when it ran a front page story about the real concern over the safety of the Senator as he moves further along in the primaries.

There are also articles which try to link Obama to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern's disastrous '72 campaign. Here's just a list of titles of the some the recent articles about Obama, "1972 All Over Again", "Turning Obama into Jimmy Carter", "Inexperience Can Look A Lot Like Change", "Obama, It's about Me", "Hillary has a point, Obama is a Gamble", "Obama, the Messiah of Generation Narcissism". There have always been negative stories about Obama, but it seems to me that the volume has certainly been turned up in the past few days.

Will any of this have an impact moving forward? Undoubtedly it will sway some voters; the real question is how many. Has the press' long standing infatuation with Obama finally come to end? Has that Wizard been unmasked? I don't think so. The last debate showed that Obama has come a very long way in this campaign. He is now able to sit and debate Hillary without appearing to be outclassed. There are very real questions that he has to answer (especially the seemingly conflicted goals of a liberal agenda along with bi-partisan cooperation), but he has managed to fend off every challenge to date (bringing to mind another Teflon candidate, Bill Clinton). Hillary has a chance to bring out some of the concerns that the press has raised tomorrow night in their last debate before "HIGH NOON TUESDAY". Perhaps this is her chance to try and make something negative actually stick to Obama. If she can successfully point out the inherent contradiction in his message, her campaign might just live to see more than one more Tuesday.

I Hear The Train a Comin'

The Showdown in the lone star state was fairly anti climactic; especially after a day of the McCain press frenzy. The lasting memories of last nights debate may just be Hillary Clinton getting booed and Hillary Clinton getting a standing ovation. She got booed for once again bringing up the plagiarism argument and she got a standing ovation when she appeared to be basically giving a concession speech. In my opinion the later moment was a direct result of the earlier one.

The Clinton campaign has been trying to find an attack issue that would resonate with the voters since it became clear in Iowa that they were in a dog fight. The latest attempt has been to try and paint Obama as someone who steals his best lines from someone else and doesn't give them any credit for it. This issue first came up in Wisconsin and they have been trying to hammer this point home ever since. However there has been little interest among the Democratic ranks. This issue has lived among the pundits on TV and in print (as they continue to get email blasts from the Clinton campaign harping on the subject), but there seems to no traction among Democratic voters. Hillary tried last night to once again raise this issue by using a clearly prepared line ("change you can Xerox") and was met with open hostility from the crowd in the form of boos and hisses. I believe that was the turning point of the debate. Up until then, she had at least attempted to engage Obama with a somewhat competitive tone. After that moment, her will to fight seem to have been taken from her.

Her closing comments, in which she said that she was honored to share the stage with Obama and that she would be "fine" regardless of the outcome of the election, was a moment of resignation. She actually admitted to herself, in front of a live TV audience, that she might lose this race. I don't think that it was akin to a concession speech, but it did show the toll that this contest has taken on her. It played as a genuine moment and although some have questioned just how calculated that was, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

There are many in the press who say that this is the Hillary that we need to see more often, but that's just nonsense. Could you imagine what the press reaction would be to Hillary breaking down and crying every day? They talk about the genuine moment in New Hampshire when she was brought to the verge of tears while answering a question. Many credit that moment for her comeback win in that state. But seriously folks, who wants the leader of their country always being on the verge of tears?

Will that moment energize the Hillary supporters as it did in New Hampshire? Will women once again come to her aid? Obama has been making significant in roads into her base of white females, but will her performance last night stem that tide? Stranger things have happened. However, given her performance last night, it looks like Hillary has decided that the scorched earth plan is not the way to go. She played it nice last night and with only one more debate between now and "High Noon Tuesday" (I've got the trademark on that one), her opportunities to score a big blow against Obama are dwindling to a precious few.

All The News...

The New York Times had a front page story today in which they detailed a supposed inappropriate relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist during McCain's failed bid for the Republican nomination in 2000. The story claims that members of McCain's staff had to intercede to end the relationship for "his own good". While both parties involved have denied that there was a physical relationship between them (McCain most recently in a press conference this morning), the article hints that their relationship may have been more than just friendly.

The story is based on a "number" of unnamed inside sources from the McCain camp. This story has apparently been in the works at the NY Times since January. In fact it was leaked on the Drudge report and McCain denied any wrong doing at that time. The lobbyist has also denied that she had any time of physical relationship with McCain. McCain's record of voting in the senate from that time period also does not have any red flags that would show that he was being unduly influenced by any outside forces.

So the NY Times, the gold standard of American daily papers, decided to run what amounts to a rumor, on the front page today. They might as well have turned into the NY Post and run a real tabloid headline. How about "Lobbygate: McCain caught in sex scandal", or "Mac in the Sack: McCain gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar". I have no idea if this story will turn out to be true, but neither do the editors of the NY Times. Unless they have some real evidence of inappropriate behavior, they should not have run this story. To sully the reputation of a public figure based on innuendo and conjecture is National Enquirer territory. There have been reports that The New Republic was about to publish a story about the in fighting that had been taking place over this story and so the NY Times felt that they needed to get to press with it before that story came out.

The NY Times may eventually produce information to support this story, but to publish it at this point was a mistake. This isn't fact based, it's rumor based. The NY Times should not be in the rumor business. What's next, Brittney Spears rehab stories? All the news that's fit to print? I think not.

A Train To Nowhere

There is apparently a struggle in the Hillary Clinton campaign about what their next steps should be. One side is arguing for a full on frontal attack, while the other side is arguing for a more positive campaign. The answer to which tact they chose will show if Hillary really is willing to win at all costs or whether she has any concern about the future of the Democratic Party.

At this point her message has been unable to sway enough voters to her side to tip the delegate count in her favor. If she goes negative from here on out (the scorched earth plan), she may indeed end up the victor in the Democratic primary, but it would at a tangible personal cost. Her already high negatives would undoubtedly inch higher and she may end up alienating a large portion of the very voters that she would need to win the fall. Negative campaigning has been shown to be effective in the past, but it usually works better when the opponent is from the other party. Taking down people in your own party is seen as political suicide by many political insiders. Even if you end up winning against your opponent, you end up causing a fracture inside your own party and most times leaves your campaign a loser on Election Day.

The voters in this country are clearly unhappy with the way the country has been managed for the past seven years and for the most part they blame the party that controls the White House. The Democrats therefore, are positioned very well to add seats to slim majorities in both houses of Congress. What could derail that? A bitter and divisive campaign between the two candidates for the Democratic Party nomination would go a long way to assuring that doesn’t happen. Also by attacking your opponent, you give the other party ammunition to use against that candidate in the upcoming race (assuming that the attacks don't work well enough to ensure his defeat). The rest of the party would also look none too kindly on a candidate who was willing to destroy their parties chances just to avoid a personal defeat.

Hillary could decide that the best thing to do would be to run a positive campaign (the good neighbor strategy). One that focuses on her own vision of the future and her past accomplishments and rely on the debates to show the contrast between the two candidates. If she feels her experience makes her a better candidate, then she should feel confident in allowing the American people to make an honest evaluation. If she were to win, it would show that she had the superior plan and that the majority of voters agree with her. I'm sure that she feels frustrated at this point by the fact that Obama has been given something of a free ride by the press. However if she were to adopt the Good Neighbor strategy her only recourse would be to continue to point her strong points and hope that the contrast gains her the greater share of votes. The key benefit to this strategy is that if she were to lose the nomination, she would maintain the moral authority to be perhaps the dominant democratic voice in the US Senate or position herself for another run at the presidency in 2012 if McCain were to win.

Win at all costs or preserve dignity with an eye toward the future? That's the choice that she is faced with. Of course Obama could make a major mistake in the upcoming months or her message could actually begin to break through. If either of those things happens, the Democratic Party may be spared all out catastrophe at the convention or at the polls in November.

Don't Call It A Comeback

I know that Hillary Clinton has been all but dead and buried by the mainstream media outlets, but the Clinton's are at their most dangerous when they are counted out. The race is still extremely close and it certainly could turn around based on a major gaff by Obama or one of his minions (his wife's statement about this race being the first time that she is "really" proud to an American is a place to start). Post Super Tuesday, Hillary has lost 8 straight contests. Will Wisconsin and Hawaii make it 10? That remains to be seen. I do have a blueprint for her to get back in the race and it really wouldn't be very hard for her to get that ever elusive and basically non-existent "momentum" back on her side.

Here are the next 10 states to vote after today: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia. In theory, out of the next 10 states, Obama might be favored in two races; Mississippi and Wyoming. Clinton should have the edge going into every one of the remaining states. So her run may be 8 out 10 including the huge states of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The press would have to admit that she has "momentum" on her side and that Obama would be in desperate need of wins to stem the tide. This scenario is not just a pipe dream, it's very possible. If Obama where to falter in Wisconsin and not pull off the upset in Texas, then he would be in for 7 weeks of consistent bad news. And while I have never seen a group political crush like the press are currently engaged in with Obama, even they would have to admit that things were not going his way.

The final primaries are in Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico. Hillary would be favored in at least Kentucky and Puerto Rico, so that she would end the primary season on a definite upswing. Would those victories be enough for her to retake the delegate lead? I haven't done the math and frankly, I was told there would be no math, so I'm not going to try. However the "momentum" would undoubtedly be hers. She could end the primary season on a 10-5 or better streak. What would the super delegates do then? I'm sure that Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic leadership are going to bed praying that his scenario does not come true, but I put the chances at 50/50 this will actually happen. An Obama win in Wisconsin and then in Texas can derail this scenario. In fact if Hillary loses both Wisconsin and Texas, I think that on March 5, she will be fielding calls from every non-committed party leader asking her to step aside.

As we have seen, the pundits are very impressed by what is happening today. It's almost as if they an extreme case of myopic vision. In a race where Obama leads by 130 pledged delegates out of more than 2,000, I don't think it's time to throw in the towel quite yet. A surprise win by Hillary in Wisconsin tonight can start the ball rolling toward the democrats may yet come to call, "March Madness".

Be Careful What You Wish For

On the eve of the Wisconsin and Hawaii vote I just wanted to write about something that Barack Obama has said repeatedly during the campaign that I have to take issue with. He has said that he's not sure that Hillary can attract his voters, but he's sure that he can get hers. On the face of it, the statement seems to have some merit, but on closer inspection, I don't think that it holds up.

In order to take apart that argument, you just need to look at the bases of each of the candidates. Obama's base is made of African-Americans, college educated whites, and young people. Clinton's base is non-college educated whites, elderly white women and Hispanics. The question is which base is more likely to vote democratic even if their candidate loses? I would argue that Obama's base is much more likely to go along with a Hillary candidacy. While Blacks and college students may be somewhat deflated if Obama doesn't get the nomination, I still believe that they will tow the line and vote for the party ticket. I don't believe that the opposite is true for Clinton's core supporters.

Clinton core group of supporters would be faced with a very hard decision if she is not the candidate. I think her supporters would splinter into three groups. One group would vote for McCain, one group would vote for Obama and one group would stay home. The percentages would probably be fairly evenly split. The Obama supporters would more likely be split between staying home and voting for her (with the much larger percentage voting for her), while the Clinton supporters would provide a boost for John McCain. Elderly white women are her most loyal support group. She has never lost them in any primary to date. I think that they, in particular, would be drawn to John McCain as an alternative to Obama.

Obama has run as the "unity" candidate, but the truth is that he may be more divisive to the democratic base than Hillary would be.

Hope Spring Eternal

The Clinton camp has decided to follow Pat Buchanan's advice which was "to go negative, or go home". They have staked everything on the outcome in Texas and Ohio and they have decided that their best hope and maybe last hope is to begin attacking their opponent. Their new line is that Obama makes good speeches, but she offers solutions. I don't know if this new tactic will work, but the truth is that they have to try something. Bill Clinton has been especially fervent in hammering this point home. It can be hard to be the anti-hope candidate, but that is exactly what the Clinton campaign is now trying to sell.

The Clinton camp has also finally decided to start contesting every primary. Their strategy going in was to basically win the big states and bypass the smaller ones. That strategy has backfired however. As an example, in New Jersey (with 107 delegates), Clinton netted 10 delegates, but in Idaho (18 delegates) Obama netted 12. In a race where delegates mean everything, the strategy to give up on the smaller states was a critical error. The margins that Obama ran up (sometimes as much as 4-1) have allowed him to gain a commanding lead in the pledged delegate count. At some point the campaign probably realized their error but didn't have the funds or the organization in place to do anything about it. This week, they have decided to contest Wisconsin, but Hillary herself won't show up until Saturday. It may be too little too late, but Wisconsin does show some promise for her and if she doesn’t win, she can at least make it closer than it would have been if she skipped the state altogether.

The latest polls show Clinton with a commanding 20+ point lead in Ohio, but a much smaller 8 point advantage in Texas. With more than two weeks before the big primaries, it certainly leaves enough time for Obama to try and cut into her lead in Ohio and perhaps even build a small lead in Texas. The upcoming debates are critical to the success of each campaign and with Hillary being in the more vunerable position she will certainly come out with both guns blazing. I think that Obama needs to be able to defend himself from the onslaught that is coming.

During the first debate, I think he should make a pledge to the American people, that even if neither of them have the required number of delegates, he will not take the race to the convention if he ends up with both less pledged delegates and overall sanctioned votes than Hillary (not including Florida and Michigan) after the primary season. He should then ask Hillary to make the same pledge. Since her campaign has been making the most noise about seating Michigan and Florida delegates and about the super delegates not being swayed by the primary process, this would put her on the defensive immediately. He should couch it in the terms of party unity. He should make it so that Hillary couldn't possibly disagree, less she be seen as wanting the nomination at any cost. Of course he won't do it, but I'm just saying it might well be enough to seal the nomination for him.

I'll leave you with a few words from a presidential candidate offering up some hope:

"Though our challenges are fearsome, so are our strengths. And Americans have ever been a restless, questing, hopeful people. We must bring to our task today the vision and will of those who came before us. From our revolution, the Civil War, to the Great Depression to the civil rights movement, our people have always mustered the determination to construct from these crises the pillars of our history. Thomas Jefferson believed that to preserve the very foundations of our nation, we would need dramatic change from time to time. Well, my fellow citizens, this is our time. Let us embrace it".

"Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. And so today, we pledge an end to the era of deadlock and drift; a new season of American renewal has begun. To renew America, we must be bold. We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest more in our own people, in their jobs, in their future, and at the same time cut our massive debt. And we must do so in a world in which we must compete for every opportunity. It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done, and done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own sake, but for our own sake. We must provide for our nation the way a family provides for its children".

"Our Founders saw themselves in the light of posterity. We can do no less. Anyone who has ever watched a child's eyes wander into sleep knows what posterity is. Posterity is the world to come; the world for whom we hold our ideals, from whom we have borrowed our planet, and to whom we bear sacred responsibility. We must do what America does best: offer more opportunity to all and demand responsibility from all".

"Americans deserve better, and in this city today, there are people who want to do better. And so I say to all of us here, let us resolve to reform our politics, so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of the people. Let us put aside personal advantage so that we can feel the pain and see the promise of America. Let us resolve to make our government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called "bold, persistent experimentation," a government for our tomorrows, not our yesterdays. Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs".

-William Jefferson Clinton (first inaugural speech)

Bittersweet Symphony

The really sad thing about the race for the Democratic nomination is, they've both destroyed any chance of one selecting the other for a running mate. The fallout from their campaign strategies have spawned a heads or tails scenario. Clinton (feels weird referring to Hillary and not Bill) has repeatedly maintained that Obama is just not experienced enough (read: qualified to lead) to be president. So how could she now turn around and ask him to be her second in command? Obama has repeatedly painted Hillary as a part of the '90s Washington establishment (read: corrupt). Conversely, how then, could he pick her as a running mate? With both of them inspiring "unheard of" numbers at the polls, in historically apathetic counties and states, it would be a shame to see any of that now active, energized Democratic voting block staying home should their candidate not get to the nomination. Why is this important? Because a Democrat, any Democrat, has to win. The Supreme Court has several judges over the age of 70. It's entirely possible that the next president will have the opportunity to replace them... scared of a McCain/Huckabee ticket yet? McCain himself is 71, approaching the age Reagan was at the end of his second term. Should he die in office... ladies and gentlemen of the United States, I present to you, President Huckabee. Yeah, the apocalypse just keeps rolling along.

- SJ

The Big Mo

Barack Obama scored another round of impressive victories last night in the "Potomac Primaries". He won with impressive margins in Maryland, Virginia and DC. He has now overtaken Hillary Clinton in the overall delegate count and is now officially the front runner. Everything really does seem to be going his way. Of course we've been here before. After his victory in the Iowa caucus, he seemed to have a head of steam that could not be stopped heading into the New Hampshire primary. And then he lost. To paraphrase a baseball axiom, momentum is only as good as your next days starting pitcher.

The states have lined up perfectly for Obama since Super Tuesday. It would have been a surprise if he had lost any of them. What has been surprising has been the margins of victory. The polls showed Obama with about a 15 point lead in Virginia and Maryland heading into the primary. He ended up winning Virginia by 29 points and Maryland by 22. And while he may have made some inroads into Hillary's core constituency in those two states, I would not be too quick to proclaim that this is the beginning of a trend. Momentum is a strange beast and just as quickly as you can claim it, "Poof, it's gone".

The pundits are falling over themselves to be the first to predict the end of the Clinton campaign. She has had a particularly bad week. From losing 8 straight contests to the resignation of the first and second in command of her campaign to money issues, the wind is definitely not at her back. But at every moment in the past when the Clinton's have been counted out, they have always been able to rise from the ashes in spectacular fashion.

There are two more contests before the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio and the Clinton campaign seems to willing to concede those to Obama. No one knows what exactly Hawaii will do since there has been no polling done there (It is assumed that Obama has an advantage in the state because he was born there, but I really have no idea), but Wisconsin seems like a very winnable state for her. Given the makeup of the voters (white, working class), she seems to have a natural advantage. Polls taken a week ago gave her a 10 point advantage, while polls taken this week show her behind by a few points. Wisconsin is more than Madison and Milwaukee and the Clinton campaign needs to spend some resources in order to try and get the more rural voters to the polls. She can offset Obama's natural strength among young voters and the well educated, but taking her campaign to the farms and fields of the state. The problem is that while Obama gave his victory speech from Madison last night, Clinton was holding a rally in Texas. That sends the wrong message to the people of Wisconsin. Basically what she is saying is that Texas matters more to her. And while that may be true because of the greater number of delegates at stake, no state wants to be perceived as an afterthought.

So what happens if she does lose Wisconsin and Hawaii? Not much really. Her strategy now seems to be to focus all her energy on winning in Texas and Ohio (which is well within her grasp). The "Firewall" strategy, which was made infamous by Rudy Giuliani, is what the Clinton camp is counting on to turn this race around. Their thoughts are that big wins in both Texas and Ohio will basically put them back on equal footing with the Obama campaign. As with the Giuliani campaign, there are significant risks to this strategy. The first has already shown up, which is the press coverage of constant loses becomes a major theme. The second is that your supporters start to become disheartened and are less like likely to contribute money or turn out to vote. The third risk is that you can become irrelevant as Giuliani did by the time his firewall burned down in Florida.

Currently Hillary is running ahead in both Texas and Ohio (she has almost a 20 point lead in the most recent polls). The conventional wisdom is that the Hispanic vote in Texas will carry her to victory because they represent about 20% of the vote. What has been overlooked by most observers is that Black vote in Texas is roughly equal to the Hispanic vote. Obama has shown that he can carry the Black vote by a 4-1 margin, while Hillary can count on about a 2-1 margin among Hispanics. This will leave the decision in the hands of the white voters. Obama has shown surprising strength among white males in some of the most recent primaries, but Texas ain't DC or Virginia or Maryland. Texas borders Oklahoma and Louisiana where Obama has had particularly poor showings among white voters. Rural portions of the state are where Clinton will probably run the strongest. Obama has to hope that his support in the big cities of Houston, Dallas and San Antonio can offset some of her strength elsewhere. I think this race will end up being a lot closer than Clinton really needs it to be. I don't think that Obama can win, but I think he can keep the delegate count within 10 or so (or about the difference in delegates that he picked up DC alone).

Hillary's best bet for a big win comes from Ohio. Her current 20 point lead in the polls notwithstanding, Ohio sets up perfectly for her. There are a lot of people who have been affected by the economic downturn; there a lot of rural areas and the African-American vote is minimal. I think Obama will make some headway here, but she should win the state comfortably by something in the 10-13% range.

Will a close win in Texas combined with a comfortable win in Ohio be enough to reclaim the front runner status for Hillary? Probably not, but those wins along with toss ups in Vermont and Rhode Island will be more than enough to stem the supposed Obama steam roller. Before March 4 there will a lot of commentary about the race possibly being decided on that date. I think that most of it will be wishful thinking. Plus, the press doesn't want this to end. This is too good a story. We may see the press do slightly less fawning over Obama in the coming weeks and perhaps be a little more critical of him and his ideas.

Of course if Obama does happen to win in Ohio or Texas then the race will be all but over. He still won't be able to get to the number of delegates needed for the nomination before the convention, but the Super Delegates will step in and put him over the top. Now might be a good time to take up hot air ballooning. There's going to be so much hot air expended between now and March 4 that you should be able to stay afloat for weeks.

End Run

The campaign continues to roll on with the chance of the contest continuing to the convention growing every day. Obama has been on a roll of late and Hillary has had some internal issues to deal with, but the delegate count remains a virtual dead heat. Both candidates continue to try and paint themselves as the underdog as they make their stump speeches. While the online money is still coming in at an incredible rate for the Obama camp, the Clinton camp has said that they have been collecting money at a rate of over $1 million a day since Super Tuesday.

There is a dark specter hanging over the race however. The Clinton's camp call for the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention could throw the entire process into absolute chaos. If the possibility of a brokered convention wasn't enough to provide the members of the DNC with endless sleepless nights, the chance that there may be a serious push to get the delegates of both states seated might be forcing them toward thoughts of suicide. Both Florida and Michigan primaries were penalized for moving up their dates to take place before Super Tuesday. All the candidates agreed not to run advertising or to campaign in those states before the primaries were held. In fact all the candidates, except Hillary Clinton, got their names removed from the Michigan ballot. No one could have foreseen the current situation in which both candidates may actually come up short of the required number for nomination before the convention.

The issue at hand is that both the Michigan and Florida committee's were informed that their decision would result in severe penalties and ALL the candidates agreed to abide by those rules. The Clinton campaign has now begun to make noise about allowing both delegations to be seated. Hillary Clinton happened to win both contests and her campaign is talking daily about the fact that it would a mistake to disenfranchise the voters of the state by not allowing their voices to heard at the convention. I wonder if the calls would be as loud if they had lost both of those states. Would we hear Hillary or Bill bemoaning the fate of those delegates if the count would favor Barack Obama? Call me a cynic, but I think not.

The DNC has said that both states can file to have another primary or caucus in their states to decide the correct apportioning of their delegates. So far neither state committee has taken any steps in that direction. The Clinton campaign wants no part of a caucus in either state because of the strength that Obama has shown in those contests. The Clinton camp likes things the way they are now. They would like the votes in Michigan to stand when the voters weren't given a choice of who to vote for (45% of them still decided to vote "uncommitted" instead of pulling the lever for her). And they would like the votes in Florida to stand, where Hillary made several fundraising visits before the vote took place (while not a violation of the letter of the agreement not to campaign before the primary, it certainly looked like a violation of the spirit of the agreement).

There have been some suggestions made, such as having the delegates be apportioned based on the national delegate total (which would basically split them 50/50), but the Clinton campaign seems hell bent on having these delegates split based on the primary results. If for some reason this gambit were to pay off and the delegations were seated and allowed to vote based on the unsanctioned primary count, it may very well set off a catastrophic upheaval in the democratic party. The Obama camp would undoubtedly cry foul and his supporters would be up in arms. The prospect of the super delegates casting their votes for the candidate who is trailing in the pledged delegate count and thereby usurping the will of the voters is unappealing enough, but having the election rules changed at the last second to benefit one candidate over another could result in the worst split in the democratic party in modern times. Obama supporters would leave the convention at best disillusioned and at worst angry. They would probably take their votes and go home and stay home for the general election as well.

The democrats have always protested that the Supreme Court overturned the will of the voters in the Bush-Gore contest and have always presented themselves as the party of the people. It would be contrary to everything they stand for as a party to have the nomination decided, not by the people, but by a small group of DNC members on the rules committee (who will have the ultimate say about who will be seated at the convention). This is a crisis that would for all intents and purposes, rip the party in two. Any candidate coming out of that kind of convention would be mortally wounded. The general election in November would be a forgone conclusion. I would ask this question of the Clinton campaign, "Is it worth destroying the party to secure the nomination"? I don't have the answer to that question, but my gut tells me that at Clinton headquarters, nothing is off the table.

Roll With It, Baby

Super Tuesday has come and gone and we are no closer to anointing a winner in the Democratic primary than we were on mundane Monday. Both camps are claiming a victory after yesterday's showdown. The Clinton camp can point to the big states of NY, NJ and California as proving that their candidate is the one who has appeal to voters on both coasts. The Obama campaign can point to Missouri, Illinois, Connecticut and Georgia as good indicators of their candidates appeal.

My pre-vote predictions (of Hillary winning 13 of the primaries) took a hit when Obama eked out a win in Connecticut. That state along with Delaware and Missouri provided him the margin of victory in the "states won" category (although I did point out in my predictions article that those states were among a group of five that he could win). It was very important for the Clinton camp to hold on to NJ and Massachusetts because some late polling indicated that Obama might actually have overtaken her in those states. If Obama had been able to pull off the upset in either one of those states, he would have been anointed the front runner. His campaign prefers the underdog role, so it would not have been a label that they would have been comfortable with, but the press would have done so anyway.

The delegate count will be fairly even between the two candidates when all the dust settles. Obama may actually come out with a very small lead in actual pledged delegates from Super Tuesday. The Obama camp will point out that it is all about the delegates and at the end of the day; they performed better than Clinton did. The Clinton camp will say that he built that small advantage in small states that traditionally vote Republican in the general election and where they didn't spend any money to try and compete. However those delegates count just like the delegates in California do (however unlike the delegates in Michigan and Florida).

The next group of primaries and caucuses may in fact provide Barack Obama with the momentum that he needs heading into the next "Super Tuesday" in March when Ohio and Texas voters will head to the polls. There have been no polls taken in those states recently, but Hillary should have a natural advantage given the make up of the states. Obama's hope is to build up a significant head of steam with victories in Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Maine, Hawaii and Wisconsin in order to try and cut into Hillary's lead in the Texas and Ohio primaries. It is possible that he could sweep all those states, but Hillary will try to make a stand in Virginia and possibly Wisconsin in order to blunt his charge. At this point her campaign will try to focus their resources on the March states. They will depict themselves as the underdog and try to minimize any victories that Obama racks up, while making the most of any "upset" that might occur in Hillary's favor.

The race still has a long way to go, but for the first time I can actually see a way for Obama to win. It has been proven that the more time that he has in front of the voters of a state, the more support he picks up. Given the lag time between the remaining primaries and his significant lead in fund raising, he may be able to simply overwhelm the Clinton campaign. If he were win both Texas and Ohio (an extreme long shot), I believe the chorus of people calling for Hillary Clinton to step aside would become too loud for her to ignore. I still think that Hillary will find a way to win. She is certainly competitive with Obama in all the states before March and if she can win a couple she can stem his momentum. Also, Obama has yet to show his ability to beat Hillary in a big state where the African American vote is not decisive (Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania would all fall into that category). She can parlay her wins in those big states to corral as many super delegates as possible in order to win the first vote at the convention.

It is starting to look like this may very well go all the way to Denver and the democratic convention (In fact I see that as the best bet for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination). I think every political reporter and political junkie would feel like they had died and gone to heaven if that were to happen. A brokered convention is the stuff of legend and hasn't happened in over half a century. It's probably not the best thing for the Democratic Party, but at this point it may be inevitable. And while the back room deals are being cut with the super delegates, the future of the country could be decided on which side is willing to give out the better deals.

Bean Counter

Here's my estimate of the Super Tuesday Delegate count: Clinton 871/Obama 819. After today's voting the totals will be (not including super delegates): Clinton 919/Obama 882. So Clinton will emerge from Super Tuesday with a lead approaching 50 delegates. That is a conservative estimate which could swing more heavily in her favor if the early voters in California actually push her to a victory in the 10% range. I'll let you know how I did tomorrow.

Close Call

Here's how I see the Super Tuesday results breaking out:

Clinton:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oklahoma (which will provide her with her biggest margain of victory) and Tennessee.

Obama:

Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois (his largest margain of victory), Kansas, Minnesota, Utah and North Dakota.

The final tally will 13 to 9 with Hillary claiming most of the big states. I think her win in California is all but sealed because of the number of early voters. The early votes (over 2,000,000) will most likely provide her with the margin of victory. Obama will get close in a number of states (AL, AR, NM, NJ, MO, CT, CA, DE), but close is not a win and the Clinton spin machine will be out in full force to make sure that the press reports the story that close only counts with grenades and horseshoes.

Of course if just two of the battleground states swing the other way, the Obama camp will be able to claim a victory because they would have been able to stand toe to toe with Clinton in a national primary. The most likely to switch to the Obama column are Delaware, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut and Missouri. While Minnesota and Colorado could end up as part of the Clinton tally. So while the final tally of states could be fairly even, I see it as more likely that Hillary will end up with even more than 13 that I have predicted.

It's Just a Flesh Wound

A new poll came out today showing Barack Obama with a slight but statistically irrelevant lead in California. It's the first time that any poll has shown him ahead in that state. There are also other polls showing him closing the gap in Missouri and New Jersey. It appears that the endorsements last week by the Kennedy's and the momentum are helping Barack Obama. What didn't help him, or at least hasn't helped at this point is John Edwards dropping out of the race. Nationally, the Edwards vote seems to have split equally between the candidates with a small portion heading into the undecided column. What we do know about the Edwards voters at this point is that their support is fairly soft. Meaning that come election day those voters could change their minds when they cast their votes. That could make a huge difference in a few of the close states.

While it does appear that the more people see Obama, the more like him, I just don't believe that there is enough time for him to overcome the huge lead that Hillary enjoyed early on in the campaign (which amazingly was only a month ago). As I've stated before, the delegate count will not be decisive coming out of the Super Tuesday, but will make a difference is the perception that Hillary Clinton will be seen as the winner. She will win the majority of the states including the big prizes of New York, New Jersey, Missouri and California. The only big state that Obama will win is Illinois. He may also win Alabama, Colorado, Georgia and Kansas (and few other small caucus states), but it won't be enough to offset the sheer number of victories that the Clinton campaign will claim. She may exit the day with about a 100 delegate lead which will be practically impossible to overcome considering that delegates are awarded proportionately.

A lot of the so called "super delegates" have been non committal at this point and I believe that they have been waiting for the winner of the super Tuesday vote. Even though the delegates will be split, Hillary will be the winner and the super delegates are sure to follow. Delegate count and money will keep Obama in the race, but come Wednesday morning, he will know that the race is lost.

Democrats have been given a historic choice and they will have made the choice not based on policy (where they both mainly agree), but with who they feel more comfortable with heading into November. The latest polls show that Obama would actually win a head to head showdown with McCain, while Hillary would lose. However there is a long way to go between now and November. Early polls, as we have seen in this primary season, are practically useless. Just six months ago Rudy Giuliani was the overwhelming choice of Republicans and now he's out of the race after spending upwards of $50 million and winning one delegate.

Watching the pundits on TV is like watching a bunch of kids in high school climb all over themselves to heap praise upon the most popular boy in school. I don't think I've ever seen a love affair of the scale that the press in now engaged in with Obama. The press usually leans to the left, but this love affair may just be unprecedented. In the end though, I don't think it's going to matter. Obama has shown that Clinton does have chinks in her armor, but after Super Tuesday, it's Obama who is going to playing the role of Monty Python's Black Knight. His spin machine will go into high gear to try and convince America that close losses are indeed victories. He will try to convince the voters that losing a leg is "only a flesh wound". The press will eat it up and the race will go on. Obama certainly has the money to compete beyond Tuesday, but it's a damaged campaign that will head into the next primary.

There is one chance for Obama and that is if he can somehow pull off an upset in California or Missouri. California is important because of it's size and Missouri is important because they are almost never wrong. Missouri is a moderate to conservative state and like the saying about NY goes, "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere". If Obama can somehow convince the voters of that state that he is the best candidate for the Democratic party then he stands a good chance of getting to the convention with no worse than an even split of delegates. California isn't really a good indicator for the rest of the country, but they the sheer number of delegates at stake means that it will be very important in picking the next nominee. I have to say, that in my mind, it's a longshot that one or both of those states are going to go Obama's way, but then again, I have been wrong before.