It’s 3 a.m. Do you know where your President is?

The Hillary Clinton campaign has a new attack ad designed to scare the hell out of anyone considering voting for Barack Obama.

(You can view related videos below)

"It's 3 am and your children are safely asleep, but there’s a phone in the White House that’s ringing. Soemthing’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Who do you want answering the phone?"

We see that Hillary is still in her pants suit and "I'm burning the midnight oil" reading glasses at her desk at three in the morning to take the call. God knows where Obama would be.

The message is clear: Vote for Obama and the terrorists win.

Obama responded in a speech today.

"We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

The same theme was echoed in an Obama campaign ad responding to the Clinton 3 a.m. phone call spot.

If this sounds familiar, you have a good memory. Walter Mondale used a similar ad against Gary Hart in 1984.

Forget hope. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A few days ago Clinton criticized Obama mimicking Karl Rove, the man George W. Bush called the architect of his winning election campaigns.

“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged."

Who’s using tactics from the Rove playbook now?

If it’s News, It’s News to the President

Remember when we found out that the first President Bush had no idea how much a gallon of milk cost?

After all he got his for free, courtesy of us the taxpayers so why should he give a damn.

If he was paying for it himself, the household staff would deal with it. Even if it was $100 a gallon, no problem, he’s rich.

Alas, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in the Bush clan.

During his press conference today, the president seemed startled that some industry analysts say it’s possible we could soon be paying $4 a gallon for gas.


QUESTION: What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now — facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing...

BUSH: Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gas?

QUESTION: A number of analysts are predicting $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

BUSH: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

I just did a google news search for “$4 gas.” 3040 news stories, and yet the President had no clue.

Now that he knows, what advice does he have for struggling consumers?

A. Make tax cuts for billionaires permanent

B. Keep tax brakes worth $18 billion for oil companies making record profits

C. Drill for oil in ANWAR

D. All of the Above

E. There is no E


OK, he did talk about renewable sources of energy after a while, but he still lives in a bubble.

Many President suffer from this disconnect from the reality that dominates the lives of most people.

Hopefully the person who takes over from the George W. Bush will remember all the sad stories they’ve heard from people while they are campaigning do a better job of paying attention to everyday issues like how much it costs to live if you don’t have all your expenses paid as a fringe benefit of your job.

Dodd Hops on Obama Band Wagon: “Can I be Treasury Secretary Please?

Politicians with a firm grasp of the obvious, including those with long standing ties to the Clinton, are deserting Billary hoping to score some Brownie points with Barack Obama.

"He's ready to be president and I am ready to support him in this campaign" said Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd at a joint news conference with Obama.

Dodd called off his campaign after getting crushed in the Iowa caucuses, despite the fact that he and his family had moved to the state.

Clinton and Obama have both tried to gain the support of the other democratic candidates who have dropped out of the race.

Dodd had a thinly veiled reference that Clinton’s flailing before she goes under for the last time threatens to take the Democratic party down with her.

"I don't want a campaign that is divisive here, and there's a danger in that,” Dodd said. “Now is the hour to come together.”

In cold political terms, it’s a tough call figuring out when to bust a move. Depending on what happens on March 4 in Texas or Ohio, does your limited clout increase in value or is it rendered worthless? Chris Dodd clearly thinks earlier is better. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some others who would like high profile jobs in an Obama administration to follow suit.

Maybe Dodd’s endorsement it came with a copy of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals,” a book about how Abraham Lincoln signed up his former political opponents to work for him.

Debates: 20 Down, None to Go?

Will they or won’t they? Fight, that is. That’s what many of us were wondering about the Clinton Obama debate last night in Cleveland. After last debate’s love-fest turned into a decidedly mean spirited week of campaign charges and counter charges, you might have expected that the plot would thicken when they were actually in the same room.

Not so much.

Admittedly, it’s more difficult to bash someone when they’re sitting two feet from you at the same table, but since there’s not much to debate on the issues (who hates NAFTA more? Me! No, Me! My health care plan’s mandate is more comprehensive than yours! and so on) maybe we get some entertainment value out of than slapping each other around a little bit.

Mostly, Hillary just managed to beat herself up. Just before she tried to sell us on the fact that she’s “a fighter” who’s tough enough to tackle special interests to deliver health care for all, she complained that she’s being treated unfairly by the media, who she accused of genuflecting before His Hopefulness.

“Can I just point out that in the last several debates,” Clinton said, channeling her inner Jan Brady. “I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow.”

(Video of this and the Saturday Night Live skit she referenced are below.)

After she stood by her earlier accusations that Obama had misrepresented her positions in campaign literature, he essentially reminded her of the harsh and enduring reality embodied by the famous Finley Peter Dunne quip that “politics ain’t beanbag.” Then Obama ratched it up a notch and used the W-word.

“We haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.”

Increasingly desperate as the evening progressed, Hillary pounced after Obama tried to confront the issues raised by the unwanted endorsement he recently received from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who, among other claims to fame, has made anti-Semitic comments.

Obama said he has denounced Farrakhan, but that wasn’t good enough for Clinton.
Napoleon once said “never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake,” which is what Hillary should have done as Obama squirmed with his rather tepid attempt to distance himself from Farrakhan, continuously referring to him as “Minister Farrakhan,” as Nation of Islam members do. At that moment, there were probably more than a few guys in Texas picturing Obama in a bow tie and one of those angry black man hats, but she just couldn’t stop herself.

“I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it,” she said, “and there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.”
She’s accused Obama of being all talk and no action, offering words, not solutions. He turned this around her quickly showing how skillful use of words can deflate a sanctimonious attack.

“I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” Obama said. “There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

I call your verb and raise you two.

Hillary also blew her chance to dismiss the controversy over the picture supposedly sent to the Drudge report by her campaign staff of Obama in local African clothing when he visited Kenya. The whole affair threw her campaign off balance off a whole day and this was her opportunity to rise above it.

She should have said something like “I think he looks good in that picture” and moved on. Instead, she let herself get dragged into a discussion of campaign tactics and tacitly accepting the premise that anything that would link Obama to being foreign or God forbid a Muslim (he’s not) is only a negative if you’re a bigot.

Nothing Hillary Clinton is doing is working. Before anyone actually voted, her campaign ran like a Swiss watch. Now it appears perilously close to spinning out of control. Last night’s debate performance was solid, but probably didn’t give anyone a reason to change their minds.

Help Wanted: Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig Looking for Interns

Now is your chance to spend quality time with the politician who made the Minneapolis airport men’s room a tourist destination.

If some parents will let their kids have a sleep over at Michael Jackson’s house, I suppose anything is possible, but it’s tough to imagine that there’s a lot of competition for this gig, unless you’re hoping to cash one of Larry Flint’s checks for exposing sexual escapades of famous people.

http://www.larryflynt.com/mycms/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=77&cntnt01returnid=15

Amazing that Senator Craig is still with us. Seemed like everyone in the Republican party would rather cash a campaign donation from Ossama bin Laden than be in the same time zone with the senator from Idaho.


Of course, this could be like flying on an airline that just had a plane crash. No one is going to be more concerned with safety than someone who just had a big problem. Craig probably isn’t allowed to go anywhere without adult supervision these days.

Here's the press release from his office:

Craig Accepting Applications for Summer Interns
Deadline Quickly Approaching

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Idaho Senator Larry Craig is currently seeking intern applications for the summer term, which runs from May to August.

The application deadline is March 15, however if more time is needed for the application process, please contact Senator Craig's office for an extension. Craig offers paid internships within the Washington, D.C., office.

Preference is given to Idaho applicants attending Idaho schools who are in their junior or senior years of college (including graduating seniors).

'"Interns have the chance to be an essential part of a working congressional office," said Craig. "They participate in the legislative process as well as ensure that constituent services run smoothly. For those interested in politics, it is an incredible opportunity to get a behind-the-scenes look at how our government functions while serving the people of Idaho."

Interns are paired with staff members based on experience and interests, in order to best utilize their talents. They are also expected to fulfill some administrative duties such as answering phones, sorting mail and greeting constituents.

Applications and more information about the internship program are available on Craig's website at http://craig.senate.gov/internships.cfm or at any of Craig's six regional offices in Coeur d'Alene, Lewiston, Boise, Twin Falls, Pocatello and Idaho Falls.
It is recommended that applications be delivered personally to the regional offices or sent via fax to (202) 224-2573.

Applications can also be mailed, but delays are likely due to heightened security measures for Senate mail. Mailed applications should be directed to:

Office of Senator Larry Craig
ATTN: Internship Program
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1203
(202) 224-2752
[30]

What the Senator Meant to Say was...

John McCain’s Straight Talk Express made a detour on the campaign trail when he made a classic Washington mistake. He told the truth.

In Ohio today, McCain said to win the general election in November, he must convince voters U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can't do that he said, "then, I lose. I lose.”

The words were barely out of his mouth before he starting backing up so fast he should have been making a loud beeping noise.

“Let me not put it that stark,” he said. "Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security.”

Later in the day, he tried again.

“I quickly retracted that. I was not allowed to retract it obviously,” he joked. “I don’t mean that I’ll lose. It’s not often that I retract a comment. I retracted the finality of that statement, I think that the issue of the war in Iraq is important to the American people and it will be a major factor in their determining who they are going to support in the election in November.”

Maybe he was right the first time.

The Ego Has Landed: Nader Runs Again

If you thought George W. Bush was disconnected from reality, tune in to Ralph Nader, now making his third run for the presidency and a leading contender for the most politically tone deaf person in the known universe.

“When you see the paralysis of the government,” he told NBC’s Tim Russert on Meet the Press, “when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, one feels an obligation, to try to open the doorways.”

I edited his rambling statement because he couldn’t get to the damn point if his life depended on it, but if you must convince yourself watch the video below and drink deep the confusing oratory that is Ralph Nader.

I covered one of his campaign stops in 2000. He showed up even later than is typical in Political Standard Time (candidates are always at least 30 minutes behind schedule unless it’s first thing in the morning). With no time left before deadline I anxiously waited as he started speaking. A good candidate would have come right out with a couple of good quotes that summed up what message he wanted voters to take away from the event. Instead, he spent 13 excruciating minutes talking about legalizing hemp.

Anyone with a firm grasp of the obvious realizes that if you want to persuade people to share your point of view you need to make sense and cut to the chase. I listen to Ralph Nader and I often can’t tell what he’s talking about, except I know he’s angry and corporate greed heads are conspiring against us all.

Nader still seems to think he’s relevant, but does anyone else care? Nader only won 2.7% of the vote in 2000. In 2004 he dropped off the map with just 0.3%. If both of his remaining supporters get to the polls this year, it will be an accomplishment. The only people likely to vote for him this time are probably as far off in the fringes as he is and likely wouldn’t show up to cast a ballot unless there was some other long shot gadfly running.

After that you have to wonder why he bothers with yet another futile effort. Although he makes lofty claims about spotlighting important issues like single payer health care in the candidates’ debate, he does not have the popular support or money to force the mainstream candidates to address his agenda.

I suspect his actual motivation is captured perfectly by line of Prom Dresses for high school girls: All About Me. Despite the good work he did as a consumer advocate, this is his sad legacy now and if he doesn’t continue to beat a dead horse, no one pays any attention to him. Nader just can’t stand that.

Savor the moment Mr. Nader, it’s all downhill from here.

Hillary to Obama: “Quit it! You’re hurting me! I’m telling!”

Hillary went so far over the edge on her Scoldy Locks rant in Ohio this weekend that she may have engendered more sympathy for Obama than herself.

At issue were a couple of campaign flyers mailed to Ohio voters by the Obama campaign that Clinton says misrepresented her stand on health care and trade.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said "It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages and public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior on this campaign."

Words on a page can’t quite convey the venom, so watch the video and see if it makes you feel like you’d rather be someplace else, like when you end up having dinner with a couple in the middle of a major argument. I half expected her to start wagging ehr finger at me and say "I did not have politcal relations with that man, Mr Obama!"

So much for going gently into the night for Hillary Clinton.

Trouble is, she’s playing rough herself and calling foul at the same time.

FactCheck.org says both campaigns use commonplace political tactics of misleading voters about the other candidate:

“We said the mailer "lacks context" and stretches the facts, but we can't agree that it is "false" as Clinton says.

“We find that a mailer criticizing her position on trade is indeed misleading. One that attacks her health care plan we have previously described as straining the facts, though not exactly "false."
• Trade: A mailer showing a locked plant gate quotes Clinton as saying she believed NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy. Those are not her words and Obama was wrong to put quote marks around them. In fact, she's been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House.
• Health Care: A second mailer said Clinton's health care plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." We have previously said that mailer "lacks context" and strains the facts. But both Obama and Clinton have been exaggerating their differences on this issue.
“We've also previously criticized Clinton for sending a mailer that twisted Obama's words and gave a false picture of his proposals on Social Security, home foreclosures and energy.

“Clinton is no innocent on sending out misleading mailers. We reported on Feb. 6 that a mailing by her campaign contained a "big distortion" of Obama's position on Social Security taxes and falsely implied that he had "no plan" to address mortgage foreclosures. It also attacked him for voting for a "Dick Cheney" energy bill that gave "huge tax breaks to oil companies," when in fact the bill gave a net tax increase to oil companies.”

The next debate probably won’t be nearly as civil as the last one. Try taking a drink every time one of the talking heads in debate analysis invokes some version of the phrase “the gloves come off” and see how long you last.

It’s Not Plagiarism, It’s an Homage, Part 2: Hillary Rips off Bill Clinton & John Edwards

“Hello Kettle? It’s Pot. You’re black.”

In the Texas debate, minutes after she condemned Barack Obama for copying part of a speech made originally by his friend and supporter, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Hillary Clinton borrowed lines from her husband and former rival candidate John Edwards to make her closing statement.

"If your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words,” she said.

But her campaign is about solutions, not words, so apparently it’s cool if she appropriates good words from other people.


Hillary Clinton, February 21, 2008: “The hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

Bill Clinton, 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

Hillary Clinton, February 21, 2008: “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”

John Edwards, October 30, 2007, Democratic candidates’ debate: "As a matter of fact, it's not about any of us. The truth is, when this election is over, I'm going to be fine. Senator Clinton is going to be fine. Senator Obama's going to be fine. Will America be fine? "-

Maybe Obama can Xerox a quip to call attention to that renewable resource that seems inexorably intertwined with politics—hypocrisy.

You can just imagine John Edwards, if he can stand to watch one of these debates at this point, saying, “Great! First she rips off my health care reform plan, now she’s giving my stump speech.”

Perhaps all the good rhetoric has already been written so we’re condemned to listening to the same speeches and talking points for the rest of eternity. Maybe when a primary aspect of your daily routine is to blather endlessly and associate with others who do likewise, you just absorb speech patterns by osmosis.

She was standing right next to John Edwards when he delivered the lines she later commandeered. She was probably nearby when Bill Clinton said the words that were the other part of her moment of eloquence the other night.

If it were a spontaneous statement, then it might be more forgivable, but it was quite clearly a prepared monologue. Odd that what has now been revealed to be plagiarized was seemingly her most genuine moment. Part of Hillary’s problem has been that she usually can’t manage to fake sincerity as effortlessly as more natural politicians like her husband. She finally manages to pull it off and she gets caught cheating.

If you’re going to steal, why not go for grand theft. Why steal purses when you can embezzle millions? Forget Bill Clinton and John Edwards. How about a rehash of one of FDR’s Fireside chats? What the hell, why not recite the Gettysburg address?

Obama called the scandlette of borrowed words “silly.” Indeed. As Alice in Wonderland might have said, “Sillier and sillier.”

Incidentally, I stole my lead sentence from an episode of “Friends.” If people who want to be President of the United States can’t be bothered to write original material, why the hell should I?

Debates of Debatable Value

Having watched 18 of the 19 democratic debates I am now officially fed up with the entire exercise. They seem to offer an ever diminishing return on the time we invest in watching them. And this from a guy who Tivo’s C-SPAN.

The rules of last night’s edition were an improvement over some previous events. No strict time limits allowed for more substantive responses, but it would be even more informative and certainly provide superior entertainment value if they were allowed to pose questions to each other.

I suspect if you listened on the radio rather than watching on TV you might have had a different sense of what happened. Like Nixon vs. Kennedy in 1960, radio listeners would focus on what was said. TV viewers mix that with their more subtle impression of facial expression and body language. Unfortunately for Hillary, she’s playing the role of Tricky Dick this time and almost everyone watches on TV.

On the merits of the arguments, particularly on health care, Clinton offered a compelling contrast to Obama. She managed to cut through some of the confusing policy wonk fog on her plan’s (and John Edward’s) mandate that everyone buy health insurance and Obama’s decision to make his proposal voluntary. Finally she offered a clever analogy to help illustrate why allowing relatively healthy people to game the system is extremely problematic.

"We would not have a social compact with Social Security and Medicare if everyone did not have to participate," Clinton said. “I want a universal health care plan."

Insurance only works with shared risk. When you’re healthy you pay more into the system than you take out. When you’re sick it’s the other way around.

Obama had his standard answer to this question.

"Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it, and my belief is the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it. And so I emphasize reducing costs. Now, there are legitimate arguments for why Senator Clinton and others have called for a mandate, and I'm happy to have that debate. But the notion that I am leaving 15 million people out somehow implies that we are different in our goals of providing coverage to all Americans, and that is simply not true."

Granted the President’s proposal is only the starting point of the debate and the final plan would likely take a different form, this is a critical difference that often gets lost because the distinction can seem esoteric. It’s not and Clinton finally found a way to make the point.

Obama scored some points on the judgment issue again reminding us that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and Hillary voted for it.

Obama has steadily improved his performance in these exercises. A dozen debates or so ago, he seemed to be afraid of Hillary (I would be too). Now he looks more presidential, perhaps leading you to have more confidence that if he actually met with some of those world leaders from hostile governments that they wouldn’t kick his ass and take his lunch money.

Aside from health care reform, that difficult area of foreign policy seemed like the only other area where the two have a significant divergence in their plans.

Clinton pounced on Obama in the first YouTube debate when he accepted the idea of meeting leaders of countries like Iran and North Korea without preconditions. It seemed like a rookie mistake at the time, but he never backed away from it and the issue flared up again in Austin last night when it was posed in reference to post-Castro Cuba.

"A presidential visit should not be offered,” Clinton said, ”and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest and in the interests of the Cuban people."

Obama said the next President needs to take some risks to restore our battered image overseas.

"I would meet without preconditions,” he said. ”Although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press."

The most likely repeated sound bite fell flat with the people in the live audience. On the recent controversy of Obama using the same lines in a speech as Massachusetts Govern Deval Patrick, Hillary was ready when she got the chance to rub his nose in it.

"If your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That I think is a very simple proposition," Clinton said. "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

And your little dog too!

Having heard this from her speeches lately, Obama was also prepared and managed to deflate the argument.

"The notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who was one of my national co-chairs, who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly," Obama said. "And you know, this is where we start getting into silly season in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it."

Clinton’s best moment and perhaps Obama’s weakest came at the end when CNN’s Campbell Brown posed a philosophical question.

“You’ve both spent a lot of time talking about leadership, about who’s ready and who has the right judgment to lead if elected president. A leader’s judgment is most tested at times of crisis. I’m wondering if both of you will describe what was the moment that tested you the most, that moment of crisis.”

Admittedly, it’s hard to go fist, but Obama had little to say that, like a fortune cookie or horoscope, would not apply to almost anyone who’s a reasonable responsible adult.

“I wouldn’t point to a single moment,” he said. “But what I look at is the trajectory of my life because, you know, I was raised by a single mom. My father left when I was two, and I was raised by my mother and my grandparents.

“There were rocky periods during my youth, when I made mistakes and was off course. And what was most important, in my life, was learning to take responsibility for my own actions, learning to take responsibility for not only my own actions but how I can bring people together to actually have an impact on the world.”

Clinton, with a deft but understated reference to difficulty posed by her very public marital problems, quickly pivoted and put her own life and ambition in a greater context.

“People often ask me, ‘How do you do it?’” she said. “’How do you keep going?’ And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I’ve had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.”

She went on with a lengthy tribute to wounded soldiers and the struggles of many people who have it much worse than a millionaire senator with a philandering husband.
Then came the moment that seemed like an acknowledgment of what appears to be an all but doomed campaign.

“No matter what happens in this contest,” she said, “I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”

Today she’s been forced to say that this was not meant to be a farewell address, but prepared zinger lines notwithstanding, for the most part Clinton looked like she knows that she’s already lost and has opted to do so relatively gracefully.

Tactically, she and her campaign brain trust seem to have rightly concluded that negative attacks aren’t working against the Kevlar coated Obama. No, she’s not angling for Vice President, that’s not going to happen and she’s probably not interested anyway.

Maybe in the end she’s decided to retain that one intangible commodity that politicians often sacrifice in the desperate struggle that precedes the end of a long but losing campaign. Dignity.

A Tough Day at the Office For John McCain

When you’ve spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, it probably puts a lot of life’s trials and tribulations into perspective. Nevertheless, this had to be a difficult day for John McCain.

The New York Times published a story today questioning McCain’s relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

“Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

“A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.”

Full story is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

The response from the McCain campaign:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

If there was no hint of sex, this probably wouldn’t be a story. Having done pieces like this myself over the years, I would say it’s likely there’s a whole lot more to the story that the Times didn’t have enough confirmation to print. No matter what this story might make you think of the Times, there’s an enormous level of apprehension at work before you go to press with a story that’s a major hit piece against a front runner presidential candidate in the midst of a campaign.

Just ask Dan Rather what happened to his career for a sense of the consequences of getting it wrong, even if you think you have solid evidence.

Most of the Times report is insider intrigue, behind the scenes from the campaign about which aide said what to whom and whether the Senator know about it all.

What seems to be the real issue is whether McCain used his influence for the lobbyist and her clients, whether he had a romantic relationship with her or not.

That part of the story is buried at the end and is, at best, convoluted. It does evoke some painful memories of McCain's role in the 1980's as a member of the infamous Keating Five, tied to the multi-billion dollar savings and loan scandal which was ultimately paid for by taxpayers. Since then, McCain has been a crusader against special interest money in politics, but this issue tends to undermine his credibility on that front.

On the up side for McCain, he finally has something in common with Rush Limbaugh and the conservative talk show crowd- an antipathy toward the New York Times. The very same conservatives that had been relentlessly bashing McCain for weeks saying he would ruin the Republican party have now come to his defense and a welcome opportunity to bash a news organization perceived as hostile to their issues and beliefs.

The McCain campaign denial seems ill considered, especially since they had a long time to craft it as the Times had been in touch with them for weeks prior to the story’s publication.

“He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists.”

Never, never, never say “never” in a denial. It just sets the bar way to high when you can have widely varying differences of opinion on what defines favors or violation of the public trust.

If other news organizations have more salacious details about McCain and Vicki Iseman, this story may continue. If not, it may fade away and we can get back to talking about McCain’s lack of a real plan on health care, his support for continuing tax cuts for billionaires and his strategy of long term military involvement in Iraq.

But as Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and many others can attest, we’d much rather obsess about a tawdry affair than issues that actually affect our own lives.

McCain Takes Aim at the Kevlar Candidate

Pundits used to refer to Ronald Reagan as the Teflon President because nothing seemed to stick to him. Enter the 21st century Gipper: The Kevlar Candidate.

So far, Barack Obama has proven practically bullet proof against whatever Hillary Clinton has launched in his direction. Some of the shots from her husband have even ricocheted back and wounded Hillary.

But she’s not the only one searching for something in their arsenal that can put the hurt on Barack.

In his victory speech last night after winning the Wisconsin primary, John McCain had fond words for pesky but now practically irrelevant opponent Mike Huckabee and saved his hollow points rhetoric for Obama.

“Will we heed the appeals for change that ignore the lessons of history and lack confidence in the intelligence and ideals of free people?” McCain said. “I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.”

Translation: voting for Obama means the terrorists win.

“Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan stand and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?”

My, my, my. If these two ever get back on the Senate floor it’s going to be a chilly reunion. Maybe there’s a not so hidden agenda at work here. McCain would likely prefer Clinton rather than Obama as the democratic nominee. “Hillary” and “Clinton” are fighting words for a lot of hard-core Republicans and McCain desperately needs something to gin up some enthusiasm. If it’s not for him, then against her still works.

If and when the rhetoric fueled euphoria fades in Obama Nation, perhaps these issues may gain some traction. It may also be a preview of the rest of the campaign.

Danger Will Robinson! McCain raises legitimate questions about judgment, but the underlying strategy seems uncomfortably similar to the tactics our current president used to win the last election.

In the grand tradition of Joe Biden and Barack Obama, allow me to borrow from Gordon Gekko: Fear clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of what drives voters to make a decision. Fear is good. Fear works.

Obama Echoes Patrick: It's Not Plagiarism, It's an Homage

Maybe it’s a mini-controversy/scandal that’s only making news because there are few developments to feed the news beast at the moment or maybe it’s an example of some lack of judgment that might just be important for a potential president.

At issue, the remarkable similarity between some recent Barack Obama speeches and those made by Massachusetts Governor and Obama supporter Deval Patrick

Watch the videos below and judge for yourself.

No big deal?

Just don't try to tell that to Joe Biden, who had to drop his first bid to become president in 1987 after it was discovered that he had copied lines from a speech made by British politician Neil Kinnock.

Clinton Campaign Strategy Version 4.5: New AND Improved?

Expect Hillary Clinton’s campaign in search of a strategy to crank the compare and contrast ads from slow simmer to full boil if she wins in Wisconsin today, or loses by a small margin (5 points or less).

The ads are tame so far by modern political standards, but the pressure has been slowly increasing. There’s none of the usual harsh black and white images or ominous music and voice over of the typical attack ad, but Clinton has been trying to draw more clear contrasts between herself and Obama on core democratic issues like health care and the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

Also, he’s a scaredy-cat because he wouldn’t debate her in Wisconsin.

“Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions,” the ad charges.

So far the ads Clinton is running in Texas and Ohio are more about why you should vote for her rather than why you should vote against him. Reminiscent of John Edwards’ impassioned populist message, Clinton promises real solutions to difficult problems faced by ordinary voters. She feels our pain and promises to help.

Conventional wisdom in the commentariat (at least those who are well paid to pontificate) seems to be that this is a risky tactic. I have heard and read many of political analysts say that this paints Hillary into a pessimistic corner, her equivalent of Eeyore’s Gloomy Place. It often appears that American voters want cheerful bromides and simple solutions to complex problems. Remember “Morning in America?”

Maybe so. Difficult to go wrong underestimating the level of intellectual engagement among voters on big issues. After all, a huge majority of us bought the Reagan promise that we could cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget, than shrugged off huge deficits under the heading of “two out of three isn’t bad.”

Hillary’s current strategy does show some possible chances of developing traction with voters, especially down on their luck manufacturing economy workers in Wisconsin and Ohio. If Hillary can reframe the debate from hope versus business as usual to words versus action, she might break through the inspiring rhetoric that so far has enveloped Obaba in a shield that’s been virtually impervious to criticism.

“He asks “What can you do for your country?”

She asks "What can your country do for you?”

Hillary is calling Obama’s implicit message of a return to Camelot and raising him that fundamental and often more compelling issue for many voters facing a tough economy: “What’s in it for me?”

If it works, she’ll hit him hard with it on TV and in the debates before Texas and Ohio voters cast their ballots. If it doesn’t, be glad you're not part of her campaign brain trust trying to figure out how to pull the rip cord to stop the free fall of the once inevitable front runner. If they haven’t run out of ideas yet, they’re getting very close.

Campaign Finance: Obama’s First Moment of Truth?

The lofty idealism of Obama Nation will face a litmus test if he becomes the Democratic nominee. He has said previously that he would accept public financing if the as then undetermined Republican opponent would do the same. That was before Obama raised $32 million this month alone and expanded his pool of campaign contributors to 650,000. Many of those people contribute online in small amounts so they can be repeatedly tapped for additional money at virtually no expense to the campaign.

John McCain upped the ante recently and said he would do just that. A strong advocate of campaign finance reform, McCain’s name (along with liberal democrat Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold) is on the most recent major campaign finance reform law. Sticking with his principles on this issue has cost McCain support within segments of his own party that view this as a restriction on First Amendment rights of free speech.

So if you’re Obama, what do you do? If he takes public financing, he agrees to restrict spending to about Candidates who accept public funding are eligible for about $85 million, which is tens of millions of dollars less than he is likely to raise privately. So far, Obama has not faced serious challenges in terms of matching his actions to his rhetoric. This issue could prove to be the first of many such ethical dilemmas and may provide some additional clues as to Obama’s priorities.

My guess is that if Obama is the democratic nominee, he’ll reject public financing, endure the hit on reversing himself and take the money. As vitally important as campaign finance reform is, it often seems as if there’s a serious disconnect on this issue with many voters. A lot of people seem to recoil at the idea that funding for a political campaign should come out of their pocket. They generally fail to see that the special interests with deep pockets that are now the lifeblood of a corrupt system cost them far more in the long run.

Perhaps Obama will surprise us, but I doubt it. He’s a good politician and in terms of balancing risks and benefits, this would be a very difficult juncture to side with ethics and reform rather than doing what it takes to win.

Will The Democrats Self Destruct Again?

This is why Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean dreams of a convincing Obama sweep in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder today warned there will be riots in the streets if the candidate with the most delegates coming into the democratic convention in Denver were to lose the nomination because the party’s super delegates, made up of members of congress, governors and party leaders, were to award the nomination to the other candidate. The most likely scenario being Hillary Clinton snatching victory from Barack Obama.

“If the super delegates intervene and get in the way of it and say “Oh, no we’re going to determine what’s best, there will be chaos at the convention. If you think 1968 was bad, you watch 2008, it will be worse.”

In 1968, Vietnam war protesters gathered in Chicago and send a message to candidate Hubert Humphrey and the Democratic party. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sent 12,000 police officers on the streets, and called in the Illinois National Guard. As the nation watched on TV, a bloody riot erupted. Police arrested over 500 people. Hundreds of police and demonstrators were injured.

If Hillary Clinton arrives at the convention with fewer states, fewer votes and fewer delegates, it would be very surprising if the she walks out as the nominee. If the picture is less clear, especially pending how the delegates votes in Michigan and Florida are distributed, the deciding vote of the super delegates would be more complicated.

The deck is stacked against Hillary right now. Since convention delegates are doled out on a proportional basis, even if she wins in big states like Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, it will be difficult to look like a clear front runner again because Obama will continue to amass delegates. If Obama has more votes, more states and is close in terms of earned delegates and then he is not he nominee, his supporters are going to feel like this year is an echo of 2000 when democrats felt like George W. Bush stole the lection from Al Gore.

Even if there aren’t any riots, the level of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton in the general election would likely be very tepid in comparison to what Obama is generating right now.
That’s one reason why you’ve heard John McCain launching assaults at Obama. Hillary as his opponent is better than an endorsement by Rush Limbaugh.

If there were ever an election teed up for the democrats to win, this is it. Then again, so was 2004. An unpopular president who began an unpopular war with nothing but fear going for him and he won in part because the democrats over thought the race and ran someone competent on paper but not very likeable and definitely not inspiring in person.

Any of that seem familiar this time around?

“Democrats. We never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Right On, Mia Farrow

Until recently all I knew about Mia Farrow was Rosemary’s Baby and Woody Allen. Boy was I wrong.

Our story begins in Hollywood, where, generally speaking, celebrities who try to wield influence on political issues are at best annoying and at worst counter-productive trying to achieve their stated goals.

Hopefully, that will not be the case with Steven Spielberg taking a stand by quitting his role as an artistic advisor for this year’s summer Olympic Games in China because of that country’s role in the ongoing horror in the Darfur region of Sudan.

(China gets a lot of oil from Sudan and doesn’t want to put human rights above its need for energy.)

What triggered Speilberg to bail out? Enter Mia Farrow stage left. She’s spent years trying to get the rest of us to take meaningful steps to help the people in the oppressed region of Sudan where as many as 400,000 people have been slaughtered and 2.5 million people have been left homeless.

Farrow launched a full throttle campaign to persuade Spielberg to use his influence with China and its very protective attitude toward its public image relative to the Olympics. In a March 28 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal she wrote that Spielberg ran the risk that he would "go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games." Riefenstahl was a filmmaker who made Nazi propaganda films.

Less than a week later, Spielberg wrote to Chinese President Hu Jintao asking the Chinese government to “bring an end to human suffering” in Darfur. Shortly after that, China dispached Zhai Jun, a senior government official, to Darfur, where he toured three refugee camps.

It’s a beginning, at least. After years of shouting at the wind, Farrow’s efforts have a started to move the process that resisted years of international diplomacy. Continued pressure is needed to make sure the Chinese don’t just go through the motions and stall for time until after the Closing Ceremonies in Beijing.

I’ve heard Mia Farrow speak about the people of Darfur. It’s excruciatingly painful to listen. You can’t begin to imagine how hard it would be if that was your life. Day after day, with no hope in sight.

The only difference between the people of Darfur and you and me is where we were born. Listen to someone like Mia Farrow who knows what life is like for them and I defy you not to be appalled.

Alas, when confronted with such horror, the natural inclination is to push it out of your mind. After all, what can you do? You’re not a famous.

Turns out, your opinion might just matter. Money is the lifeblood of the Olympics and it’s sponsored by some of America’s biggest and best known corporations. They don’t want to have their customers to associate them with underwriting the “Genocide Olympics.”

You can let them know what you think, just point your browser here for more information:

http://miafarrow.org/sponsors_genocide_olympics.html

In a world where many of us feel that important problems are beyond our influence, it's truly encouraging to see that one person, fueled by boundless compassion and righteous moral outrage, can make a difference.

Let's give her the help she and the people for whom serves as a compelling champion, so richly deserve. Write a few emails. Tell them Mia sent you. That should get their attention.

Valentine’s Day Edition: America Wants to Have Obama’s Baby

As we while away an hour in Study Hall, a friend passes us a note that says Barack thinks we’re cute.

Oh, be still my heart, could it be true?

And we were just writing our first name and his last name over and over again in our in the margins of our textbook.

The country’s smitten with Obama, but it’s like a Hollywood romantic comedy. It’s all about the chase, the build-up to when the couple actually gets together, hooks up or whatever euphemism you prefer. Then we roll the credits and assume they live happily ever after.

The heavy lifting of any long term relationship, whether it’s romantic or political, comes after the hormone filled swooning phase we’re in right now. That’s when you realize some of those quirks you thought were cute have devolved into annoying habits.

Barack wants to lie on the couch in his underwear watching sports all weekend instead of going antiquing with you. You catch Barack checking out your friend’s rear end. Now he wants to borrow money.

You think you’ll change him, like a little home improvement project, but he‘s happy with the way he is, so now you’re stuck with him.

After the giddy euphoria that follows the historic inauguration of the nation’s first black president, he announces that his team has determined that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq could create more problems than we have already.

“But you promised!”

The best we can get on a timetable for bringing the troops home is an eloquent version of “we’ll see.”

Interest groups stall his health care plan and its lack of mandatory insurance that will allow young healthy people to game the system and sign up only after they dislocate a shoulder playing pick-up basketball.

His ambitious jobs and green energy program have to be scaled back to a pale reflection of the original proposal because of skyrocketing budget deficits.

His first meetings with Mahmoud “I’m a Dinner Jacket” Ahmadinejad , crazy eyes Hugo Chavez, and Bond villain Kim Jong Il turn out to be humiliating public relations disasters, just like Hillary said they would be. Pundits quip he’s “over his head” and “not ready for primetime.”

It would be easier to leave him, but that’s not in the cards. So you stand by your man and try to remember why you loved him so much in the first place.

Viral Video Face Off: Preview of Obama vs McCain

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video that spreads like a virus across the internet may be worth more than a super bowl commercial.

Case in point, the "Yes, We Can" music video version where famous people form a musical duet with Barack Obama's stump speech.

If you haven't seen it, it's the first video below. If you have, you can go directly to the next one which is the McCain version. "Like Hope, just different."

For McCain. it's a reality check for an unavoidable reality of being the poster child for failed policies from the Iraq war to tax cuts for billionaires: The truth is out there and it hurts.

Hillary’s New Campaign Ad: Obama is Scared of Me

Hillary updated her facebook page today:

“In Case You Missed It: Hillary accepted an invitation to debate Sen. Obama in Wisconsin, but Sen. Obama refuses to debate Hillary in Wisconsin.”

You can view the new TV commercial below. Pretty timid by attack ad standards, but the underlying message is she’s tougher and he’s afraid to fight.

Another posting to her facebook page tries to convince us that despite what we’ve read and seen and heard,the campaign has not hit dire straights:

“As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates – not the candidate who wins the most states.

“In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He ceded Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota.

“Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale also lost a series of major primaries before winning the nomination, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Ohio, and California.

“And in 1976, Jimmy Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination, including: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.”

So just because you’re losing, it doesn’t make you a loser.

The Day After: Is Hillary’s Campaign DOA?

Imagine the morning meeting of the Hillary Clinton campaign brain trust on this the day after she was crushed in the latest of eight straight contests.

If you were one of her advisors, desperate to acquire that West Wing power broker job you believed was your destiny until the Iowa Caucuses, what’s your bright idea to turn this around? Because one thing’s for sure, stay the course won’t work.

Interesting comparison of some of the options likely being discussed behind closed doors detailed in today’s Fix:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/post_5.html

They could go negative. It’s not pretty and people say they hate it, but fighting dirty works. Bush used to defeat McCain. Bush used it against Kerry.

But they don’t seem to have anything left to throw at Obama. Hillary already hit him in a debate with his ties to “slum lord” Tony Rezko. Plus, Swift Boating Obama is risky because it deprives her of her victim status. We saw how sympathy helped push her over the top in New Hampshire.

There’s the economy, which seems to be spinning out of control like Iraq was last year. Trouble is, you have to get into the details and being the better policy wonk pales in comparison to Obama’s lofty, but vague Camelotesque call to action. Also, Bill Clinton is the one with the record on that front and reminding us of the positive elements of the 1990’s also brings flashbacks of the drama laden nature of a Clinton White House.

The spin from the campaign to date is that they are focused on big states with large numbers of delegates at stake, Texas and Ohio on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22. They’re writing off Hawaii since Obama’s childhood home is expected to give him another win.

Right now, Clinton has signaled that she is also resigned to losing Wisconsin on February 19, which would be her chance to derail the Obama juggernaut and give her a chance to regain some traction headed into the critical face-offs in Texas and Ohio. Perhaps she’s trying to downplay expectations, but last night she was in Texas and Obama was in Wisconsin. Clinton could have a good shot there so it would seem foolish not to put some serious effort into the race there. Go figure.

Does this strategy seem familiar? Remember Rudy’s plan that Florida would bail him out? Granted, unlike Giuliani’s operatic march to his own doom, Clinton has won a bunch of states, but there’s only so long you can keep losing before voters start viewing you as, well, a loser.

The remaining path to the nomination is ugly, perhaps handing John McCain a much better chance of winning in November. In this scenario, the super delegates and the tainted contests in Michigan and Florida decide the nominee. It would be the Democrats version of Bush vs. Gore 2000. If that’s the road Hillary takes to the nomination, the contagious enthusiasm that is driving record numbers of new voters to the polls is likely to disappear and independents may move to McCain.

Hillary’s not the type of politician to go gently into the night. She doesn’t have many options left and they're all bad.

See if you can find a vintage “Hail to the Thief” sign on eBay.

Potomac Primary Pounding: A Night Hillary Would Rather Forget

Watching Hillary make her speech in El Paso after being crushed again by Obama in the Potomac primaries, you can appreciate what moxie it takes to put yourself through this process. Granted she’s surrounded by an adoring crowd, but still, after the night she’s had, you have to figure giving another speech wasn’t her first choice on how to spend the evening. More like a double sized adult beverage and some reruns of Sex and the City.

Predictably ignoring tonight’s election results, She’s channeling her inner John Edwards (and Bill Clinton) right now feeling our pain and promising to go to bat for us against the powerful special interests that prevent us from having health care and good jobs.

Her rhetoric is a contrast to Obama whose stump speech is long on inspiration and short on what details of how we get to his shining city on the hill. Listening to Obama, it’s hard not to be “fired up, ready to go.” We’re not exactly sure where we are headed, just that we’ll be ecstatic once we arrive.

Maybe this is what Hillary needs. If I’m feeling sorry for her, I suspect some of her core supporters not in possession of a y chromosome really want to give her a hug and some words of encouragement.

The tears helped in New Hampshire. This year, everyone seems to thrive as the underdog, but for Hillary Clinton that’s not likely to be enough. Don’t be surprised if she comes looking for a fight next time she debates the opponent who beat her 8-0 in the last week.

Election Coverage: Thin Gruel Leaves Me Hungry

It’s all well and good that Obama has increased his margin of victory by 12.3 percent among left-handed Armenian pick-up truck driving dog owners, but could we ever possibly do an exit poll or primary night post mortem about what issues are influencing the voters?

Hey, inside the beltway know it alls! I’m talking to you.

Yes, I know polls show the economy and the war and health care top Democratic voters’ list of concerns. It might be instructive to connect the dots between the issues that are important to voters important and the choices people are making when they cast their ballots.

Making broad generalizations based on demographic categories offers a convenient means for parsing the results, but people don’t walk into the voting booth and say, “I’m young and well educated so I must be for Obama, but wait, I’m also Latino, so that must mean I should vote for Hillary. What to do, what to do?” It’s more like, “I want to end the bitter partisan battles in Washington DC and I think Barack’s the guy to do it or Hillary’s health care plan would cover me and the economy was good to me in the 90’s so I’m for Clinton.”

So, chattering classes on MSNBC, CNN, NPR and yes even FOX, give us some analysis that actually links the election results with the concrete details of exactly what we’re trying to “change.”

I double dare you.

Bush’s War May Doom “Yes We Can” Bipartisan Dream

Are you one of the 70 percent of Americans who would like to time warp themselves right past the remainder of the Bush administration and start fresh on inauguration day?

Not so fast.

President Bush has left an enormous mess to clean up and the process could unravel all the idyllic visions many democrats have of the future.

Case in point, today’s thought provoking op-ed piece by David Brooks the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?hp

where he outlines an eerily plausible scenario on how a democratic president will likely have their lofty vision of a the future derailed in short order if they follow through with their campaign promises to bring American troops home soon after taking the oath of office.

“There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

“There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

“There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

“All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

“Because the Democratic candidates appear to agree on so much, they’ve never tested each other’s policy proposals or exposed each other’s assumptions. But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind. The artificial unity between the Democratic center and the Democratic left would be smashed by the harsh choices of 2009.”

Remember how Bill Clinton tried to make good his promise to end the ban on gays in the military? His political capitol evaporated faster than you can get an airline clerk to reschedule you after a cancelled flight. Ending the war is more difficult by several orders of magnitude.

Thank you George W. Bush. Your legacy will live on well past January 20, 2009.

Potomac Primary Preview: Why the Delegate Count Doesn't Add Up

Who's ahead? Depends on whose count you look at because they're all over the map.

A lot of media are reporting the Associate Press counts:

Clinton: 1147
Obama 1124

with 2304 remaining. You need 2025 to win the nomination.

Doing the math is harder than you might expect. New York Times doesn't count their chickens until the hatch.

Their count:

Clinton 1045
Obama 922

"Many news organizations include delegate projections in their counts that are based on nonbinding votes for candidate preference, such as the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences."

Today's Potomac primary looks good for Obama. Virginia's a close call, but he could well win all three on top of winning for states and the Virgin Island this weekend.

Hawaii follows, but Obama grew up there and is expected to win. After that is Wisconsin on February 19, but even if Hillary wins there will that be the tourniquet that stops the bleeding? Polling data available online doesn’t paint a clear picture in Wisconsin, but wasingtonpost.com's overview of the state's demographics might tend to favor Hillary:

(http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/states/wi/r/)

Wisconsin 2006 Census
Population: 5,556,506
Gender: 49.6 male, 50.4 female
Race: 87.5 white, 5.9 black, 2.0 asian, 0.3 indian, 0.0 pacific islander, 4.6 hispanic,
Age: 76.3% 18 years and over; 13.0% 65 years and over; Median age:
Median Household Income: $48,772
Families Below Poverty Level: 7.3%
Education: 11.1% of those over 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher

Next big stop, Ohio and Texas, where conventional wisdom seems to think Hillary will win, based on the relatively fewer affluent and educated types that tend to be in the pro-Obama demographic. But if people only vote because they're in a certain category, what happened in Massachusetts? I've been there and the place is full of six figure PhD's, so it's anybody's guess why Hillary cleaned Obama's clock there despite (or because of?) the Kennedy's anointing him the heir apparent to Camelot.

Ohio and Texas don't vote until March 4. In political terms, it's a couple of lifetimes between now and then so if Obama makes a clean sweep today, he may suck all the oxygen out of the room as the Clinton campaign tries to spin us on why she's not losing.

Ron Paul, Pimp My Blog

Want to gin up some attention to your internet soapbox? Write something about Ron Paul.

Wonkette’s story on Dr. Paul’s decision to suspend his campaign

http://wonkette.com/354581/ron-paul-basically-gives-up

generated about 25 times the normal traffic last time I looked, so I figure move over, Tool 4 the Man is climbing on the band wagon.

Truth be told, I have been too consumed mocking Mitt Romney to give Dr. Paul his due. Now that he’s gone, I suspect we’ll miss him and the boundless passion of his Shoot Me Up with Thorazine Quick or My Invisible Friend Will Kill You followers or Paultards as they are not so affectionately know here in the blogosphere.

There’s something vaguely compelling about the libertarian philosophy embodied by Paul and his followers. They avoid the inherent contraction of the “fiscal conservative, social liberal” who essentially wants the government to provide a mountain of services, but doesn’t want to pay for them.

At least libertarians are consistent. Do what absolutely needs to be done and then leave me the hell alone. If we had affordable health care and some semblance of an equitable distribution of wealth in this country, I might well be a passionate Paultard myself. Alas, the deck is so heavily stacked against everyone who’s not among the mega wealthy that we need a strong government to be our advocate before we can move to safely retire to Walden Pond.

Watching the presidential debates on Tivo, I often found myself fast forwarding through the likes of Mike Gravel and Duncan Hunter, but even though I knew he had no chance of winning, I enjoyed the way Ron Paul made the other Republican candidates squirm with their mindless support of the war in Iraq.

Without Ron Paul, expect to see remaining candidates John McCain and Mike Huckabee throttle up on who’s tougher than Clinton and Obama, laced with hyperbole full of loaded terms like “surrender” and “defeat” and “Islamic fanaticists.”

We’ll also be deprived of the entertainment value of some Ron Paul followers, who give Tom Cruise a run for his money on who we suspect is likely to have his hat lined with tin foil to keep the mind control rays out.

Yes Paultards, I know a lot of you are playing with a full deck, but you're not the ones getting the attention, like your friend here on YouTube.

Obama is King Caucus, Hillary Dumps Campaign Manager like a Wet Rag

Hillary Clinton is Oh and four this weekend, having lost yesterday’s Maine caucus after losing Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington the day before. Obama shows that despite his relative youth and thin political resume, he has the managerial savvy to run a national campaign that’s now running like a Swiss watch.

Winning a caucus, particularly in a state with a lot of small town, rural voters, is no cake walk. You have to log your ballot where everyone else can see. If you live in Mayberry RFD, that’s likely to mean that most of the others voters know you, since they are your neighbors, co-workers, bosses. Winning takes organization with a lot of ground troops and that takes passion and motivation. It’s the democratic version of the evangelical zeal that turned out religious conservatives for George W. Bush in the last two elections.

The Clinton campaign isn’t exactly in panic mode, but they’re defense is on the field again late in the 3rd quarter and they’re out of breath. They desperately need to win something to stop the hemorrhaging.

Step 1, defenestrate your longtime friend and campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. Must be her fault. Can’t be the candidate shortcomings, or the opponent strengths. Solis-Doyle does have young children and since the campaign had been structured to be over now with Hillary coasting to her coronation perhaps her campaign manager did sign on for more than she bargained for, but in presidential politics it’s hard to buy the “leaving to spend more time with the family” line.

What’s next?

If they follow their usual tactics, they’ll go negative. If I was Obama that might be a dream come true. Starting to throw mud again runs the risk of backfiring in a major way. Tough to see what else they have to hit Obama with, rehashing the connect ion with indicted businessman Tony Rezko seems unlikely to gain any serious traction. Now Obama’s early disclosures of youth drug use and other errors in judgment underscore his skills as a political tactician.

The New York Times is reporting that John Edwards had a “secret” meeting with Hillary Clinton. You have to wonder what she has to offer. The odds of her offering and him accepting another shot at becoming vice president is about as high as Mike Huckabee winning the Republican nomination. Attorney General? A weekend in Cabo with Chelsea?

He won’t do it. After what he’s said about Hillary, an endorsement now, even if he goes with “she’ll fight for the little guy” would be unlikely to have that much influence on his supporters.

As we enter the end game of run for the White House 2008, Hillary Clinton is looking more like The New England Patriots than the New York Giants she invokes as she seeks a comeback.

What’s Huckabee Up To?

Mike Huckabee certainly has every right to stay on the race, but why? Do the math and you see there aren’t enough delegates left to win to get him the nomination, so what does he stand to gain by staying in? It’s more that for the time at least, he has nothing to lose.

Huckabee isn’t bashing McCain or vice versa, so now with Romney gone, the former Arkansas governor continues to build up his political brand image. By his own admission, it’s probably unlikely McCain would choose him as a running mate, but the more states he wins, the higher his stock value goes as long as he doesn’t cross the line start to undermine the Republicans already limited chances of victory in the general election.

Right now, Huckabee is the lone remaining outlet for Republicans’ sense of buyer’s remorse at having wound up with McCain as the de facto nominee. Want to rub John McCain’s nose in how much he aggravates you because of immigration, stem cells, campaign finance or whatever, about the only thing you can do at the moment besides calling Rush Limbaugh is to vote Huckabee.

For now, Huckabee seems content to bask in the limelight. The worst thing that will happen is he’ll wind up with a seven figure deal doing his own talk show. If you had your choice between that and being Vice President, what would you want to do?

Don’t Cry for me Louisiana

After Barry Hussein served up a double order of whoop-ass on Billary in the primaries in Kansas, Louisiana and Washington, she may be tempted tear up once again reminding voters that she actually can mimic human emotion. Probably can’t go back to the well again, but what can we expect from the Clinton campaign moving forward? They are likely to be casually dismissive of the Louisiana results because of the predominant role of black voters and say they expect to do very well in big states like Texas and Ohio later.

Momentum, which is with Obama right now, hasn’t been much of an asset so far this year, as it keeps shifting. Obama seems well positioned for the upcoming Potomac Primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington. D.C. That makes the subsequent primaries in March in Texas and Ohio especially important because they are home to fewer of the better educated, higher income voters that are part of Obama’s core supporters.

That’s a problem for Obama. There are a lot more poor and stupid voters than ones who are affluent and educated. Poverty and ignorance are renewable resources. Too bad we can’t use them to run our cars or heat our homes.

But If Obama can win in Texas or Ohio, the hill Clinton must climb to the nomination gets a lot steeper. Expect Obama to devote a significant portion of his campaign warchest flooding the zone with operatives and TV spots in those two states.