Who's screaming now?

Remember that much laughed about "Dean scream" in 2004? In a very loud auditorium on the night of those archaic Iowa caucuses, candidate Howard Dean reacted to a third-place finish not with a glum supplication before voters, but with a defiant promise to supporters. It ended with a "yeah" from the hoarse doctor, which came out strained and was cheap media fodder for the next week or so. It was a strong blow against Dean's hopes. The text:

Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York ... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House!

Despite the hopes of Very Serious Democratic Powerbrokers, Dean became Chair of the DNC in 2005 after John Kerry's wobbly run for the presidency. A full election cycle after the speech which caused Important Members of Punditocracy, Inc. to write his political obituary, let's take a second look.

"We are going to New Hampshire..." Under Dean, New Hampshire overwhelmingly re-elected a Democratic governor, and two for two Democratic Congresspeople. Both were first elected in 2006 under Dean's leadership of the DNC. In 2008, Bush ally John Sununu was replaced in the Senate by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, a Kerry supporter. Barack Obama won every county in New Hamspshire.

"...we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma..." Okay, not an awesome result. Oklahoma is one of the few areas tending more Republican. However, Bob Conley received the highest result for a Democratic Senate candidate in decades in South Carolina. All but one county in South Carolina voted more Democratic in 2008 than in 2004.

"...and Arizona..." John McCain's home state was a swing state in 2008, unlike in 2004. McCain was forced to spend money to defend his home state. AZ-1 went from Republican to Democrat this year. The Republicans are barely clinging to the state legislature.

"...and North Dakota..." North Dakota spent time as a swing state as well. It voted significantly more Democratic this year than in 2004 and re-elected its Democratic Congressman, who opposes continued occupation of Iraq.

"...and New Mexico..." Red in 2004, New Mexico is now a solid blue state under Governor (hopefully soon-to-be Secretary of State) Bill Richardson. Again, it voted much more Democratic in 2004. In 2008, four Republican members of Congress were replaced with four Democratic members of Congress: 1 in the Senate, and all three members of the House. Under Dean's leadership.

".and we're going to California..." A sadder case; we lost one House seat in California. It also voted more Democratic in 2004, significantly so.

" and Texas..." Under Dean's leadership, the Democrats did not let up on Representative/Prominent Republican/Convicted Criminal Tom Delay. His toxic personality is no longer in Congress. Democrats held his seat in 2006, but lost it in 2008. The Republican margin of victory in the presidential was halved, and Jon Cornyn retained his seat by single digits. Democrats are flooding into the state legislature.

"...and New York..." In 2006, Democrats won the governorship of New York. Democrats now control the New York State Senate. Democrats now control four more New York Congressional seats than in 2006.

"...And we're going to South Dakota..." Another blueing state that is beating back extreme anti-choice activists, with an all-Democratic delegation. In 2006, Stephanie Herseth won by the greatest margin of any Democratic Congressional candidate.

"...and Oregon..." Another Republican Senate seat becomes Democratic in 2008, as does another Congressional seat. On the presidential level, Oregon has gone from swing to safe Dem, and got bluer in 2008.

"...and Washington..." Another once-swing state, Washington is now safe blue. The governorship went from barely Democratic in 2004 to a convincing win this week."

"...and Michigan..." Michigan is bluer now than in 2004. It is not a swing state; McCain abandoned it in the thick of the campaign. Two Michigan seats went from red to blue this week.

"...and then we're going to Washington, D.C..." With a Democratic Congressional majority bigger than Gingrich ever had, with at least 57 Democratic Senators.

"...to take back the White House!" To work with President Barack Obama.

Yeah!

Irish punter: McCain and Hillary almost even chance to win on Nov. 4

Once in a while, I like to look at how professional gamblers handicap the race. Not InTrade, but people who've been taking bets on politics for decades. So I slipped over to the Irish punter Ladbrokes.

Ladbrokes is offering odds on John McCain winning the presidency that are far below those of Obama -- and only slightly better than those for Hillary Clinton.

Obama: 4:5 ... 80%
McCain: 12:1 ... 8.33%
Hillary: 16:1 ... 6.25%

McCain's odds are 667% higher than Obama's.
Hillary Clinton's odds are 133% higher that McCain's.

(You can also take flyers for Al Gore at 33:1, Brian Schweitzer at 66:1, or Ron Paul at 100:1).

How's O-bama feel about O-hio?

Exciting times for left-wing pollwatchers, as polls from a number of companies and a number of states flood us every day. Everybody seems to be trending Obama: Pennsylvania and New Hampshire away from the center, as well as Michigan thanks to a good shove from McCain. The Bush state of New Mexico and Iowa are called "safe Obama" by a number of prognosticators. Entering the swing zone from the right are Indiana and North Carolina as well as West Vriginia and even Georgia. The main exception seems to be Ohio -- go ahead, ask the pollsters. More on Ohio in a second.

With this multiplicity of swing states and routes to 270 challenge the Obama campaign to balance these opportunities. There are more states in play this election, and Obama has to prioritize, a tricky balancing act for the Senator.

Using the WashPo's handy candidate tracker, I counted up the number of Obama visits to each state since September 1. I count September 1st as the beginning of the true campaign, as opposed to fundraising. I counted up the number of Obama's visits to each state, as opposed to the number of events during visit or the duration in days of a visit. I do this because regardless of number of events, each news cycle is one day long, and the main impact of visits is news coverage. "Obama still in Florida" doesn't really have much impact on the news as "Obama arrives in Florida", and the investment of resources to move the entire campaign is a bigger statement than renting two buses to drive 150 miles down the road. Here's what I found:

State and number of visits:
Michigan 4
Florida 4
Virginia 3
Wisconsin 3
North Carolina 2
Ohio 2
Pennsylvania 2
Nevada 2
Colorado 2
New Hampshire 1
New Mexico 1
Indiana 1

New York (9/11 and debate) 2
Mississippi (debate) 1
Tennessee (debate) 1

An odd collection. There are many calculations that go into these visits: it's often a question of where Obama exhibits more "value-added" over a surrogate, such as Biden, Michelle or the Clintons. However, there are a couple things that jump out at me on this list:

* Obama has spent a lot of time in Michigan.
* Obama evidently feels rather comfortable about Iowa, ignoring the state altogether.
* For a state into which Obama has put much field effort and money, I'd have expected more than one visit -- and a single event at that -- in Indiana.
* Ohio, I'll note, has many multiple-event visits. But still, only two visits?

This is a rather incomplete picture, but I'd like to consider that last question in more depth. Ohio is becoming a bit like New Hampshire, perversely proud of being undecided and prevaricating. In short, Ohio is getting needy. After a high-spirited primary battle in 2008 and a arm-wrestling match in 2004, Ohioans may have become resistant to appeals and attention from campaigns. Just as we've seen over-entitled pigherders and farmers in Iowa and New Hampshire demanding more toadying with every cycle, so too are Ohioans. A recent photo showed some smug idiot wearing a sign that proclaims "undecided Ohio voter". The nastily entitled grin on his face told everyone just how special he thinks we should all consider him. He could be an embodiment of the state.

Yes, Ohio has 20 electoral votes, but that is a number reached through all sorts of combinations from other states. I have no idea, but if I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the Obama campaign privately feels that Ohio is too much of a headache, and there are much easier way to gain that yield of 20. Media is expensive and jaded, if not downright nutty. For example, Virginia + Colorado = 21, and those states seem to show more impact from visits and attention. The Ohio "ground game" in 2004 wasn't exactly gang-busters, especially compared to the operation that's been in put in place in Colorado and Virginia. (Remember what I said earlier about Colorado? I still stand by it. If this election is close, I'm glad Obama will be able to look back at having invested a great deal out there.)

I'm not at all saying abandon Ohio, but I'm not sure we get much bang for the buck there in terms of candidate visits. They both have a higher "return on investment" according to Nate Silver, as well. So while we may expect that Obama Road Show to stop by Ohio from time to time, I'd guess that not too many eggs are being nestled in the Buckeye Basket.

McCain: Arab or family man. But not both.

The most notorious moment of the McCain campaign this month comes from a McCain rally, as he has to correct a supporter:



Supporter/ Bigot: I can't trust Obama. He's a...he's a Arab.
(McCain takes mic away from her.)
McCain: No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a...he's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with.

So McCain is going through the motions of denying the lies he helped spread. And the media is giving him plaudits for the equivalent of giving up on beating his wife. True, though, that at a time when the line between Palin rally and lynch mob keeps narrowing, this is probably a good thing. But what isn't a good thing is McCain's reaction.

McCain doesn't tell the lady that no, Obama isn't an Arab but an American with African and European heritage. He doesn't tell her that Obama can't be an Arab because McCain knows his background. The way that McCain can tell Obama isn't an Arab, apparently, is that Obama is a "decent family man".

To McCain, Obama can't be an Arab because he's a decent family man. And apparently, McCain can assure us, Arab-Americans -- the 3.5 million in this country -- simply aren't decent family people. I guess McCain saw how Obama loves his kids, loves his wife, and tries to do the right thing, and thought "there's no way somebody like that is an Arab." How sad that this represent progress for McCain and his supporters.

What's left?

I knew the 1992 election was over when President Bush got up there and said of Clinton and Gore "look at these guys...they're a coupla bozos!" It was an attack so disconnected from any larger narrative, any important issue, anything that the voter remotely cared about, you could tell it was garbage time. There were questions (I suppose) about Clinton's judgment, experience, priorities, dedication, morality, sincerity, perspective -- but nobody could question the man's intelligence. I didn't understand the psychology of it in technical terms, but at 14 years old, I could tell Bush was not just out of ideas, but out of motivation to find them. He was done. When you saw Bush using a taunt a 9-year old would find passé, you saw raw frustration. Desperation is trying to start a conflagration from the dying embers of dark suspicions...frustration is fire-starting with a lighter and cup of water just to have a flame to wave around.

There are many, many reservations about Obama -- not too dissimilar from Clinton back then, I guess. But "bozos" is grandma-talk compared to what we're seeing. A campaign staffer wrote an op-ed, something to be published, that reads as a white guy trying to update Parliament Funkadelic's Chocolate City> Sample line: Obama's administration would divert more foreign aid to Africa so 'the Obama family there can skim enough to allow them to free their goats and live the American Dream.' " Our would-be vice president says that Obama pals around with terrorists! She is suggesting that Obama likes to hang out with somebody at least two people who actively try to change political discourse through violence and spreading fear. Her crowds have picked up the message, too: slandering African-Americans, while McCain smilingly presided over a supporter labeling Obama a terrorist. His brother tagged northern Virginia as "communist".

Hunter Thompson wrote that McGovern's team knew he was going to lose one month out. Hillary Clinton knew she was going to lose a coupla weeks out from the final primary. They finished with style and dignity. Here, it's October 7th, We've four weeks to go. For McCain and Palin, that's four weeks to kill.

But we have seen little to think that McCain will show the dignity and grace of Thompson or Clinton. Even the comparative restraint of Bush. But if you're already calling your opponent a terrorist with 4 weeks to go, doesn't that imply that you're still "saving up" some blockbusters in the final moments? That's the way campaigns usually work, but ya gotta wonder what names are still left after you've spent "communist" or "terrorist", the dirtiest terms in contemporary American discourse. We're past desperation, and into frustration -- can McCain and Palin survive the next 4 weeks without grevously wounding the Republicans?

What angles are available to a once-promising Republican now drowning in the Titanic's backwash, who looms larger in the history of Saturday Night Live than American history?

What rhetorical attacks remain for an angry man who will die without clawing his way into the White House?

What's left?

PS: For my friends in the Republican Party:

Could Dean Barkley return to the Senate?

One of the most vicious Senate fights in the country is in Minnesota, where Republican Norm Coleman is running for re-election. If you'll remember, Coleman was elected because his opponent, the late great Paul Wellstone, died late in the campaign. Walter Mondale was rushed in his place as the Democratic nominee, but to no end.

Now, Coleman is looking to earn his seat against a living, breathing opponent, jokester Al Franken. Of course, a liberal Jew who worked in Hollywood, used drugs, and made distasteful jokes may have trouble in Minnesota, so things are essentially tied. Tied as in low-40s to low-40s, depending on which poll you read.

The polls are so low largely because of a third-party candidate, Senator Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, a breakaway faction of Perot's Reform Party. Barkley actually gets to use the title (as he does in his website address www.senatorbarkley.com) because he was appointed to the office to fill out the remainder of Wellstone's term by governor Jesse Ventura. So naturally, people may wonder if Minnesotans were crazy enough to elect Ventura, why not Barkley?

Well, Barkley is running on familiar stances, a pox on both houses kind of thing. On issues, he's (like Ventura and his mentor, Perot) anti-bailout, hawkish on the deficit, pro-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-withdrawal from Iraq, pro-clean money, pro-free market health care. Pretty much a libertarian approach.

Oddly enough, Barkley hasn't garnered much attention on the blogs or news that I could find. The venerable Senate Guru has little to say, and MN Campaign Report is similarly quiet. But there are reasons, I believe, that this bears watching:

• Minnesotans have elected one libertarian type before and liked him while in office why not again? Oh, and the guy is appearing in Barkley's ads.
  
• His poll numbers have been slowly but consistently rising since he got into the race. Considering that he started in July, he's already having quite an impact. In a recent poll, Barkley hit 19% -- already half of Ventura's total when he was elected.
  
• Minnesotan Democrats haven't exactly united behind Franken. Popular attorney Mike Ciresi ran a bitter race against Franken before dropping out shortly before the primary.
  
• Minnesota is a swing state in McCain's sights. Combined with a heated battle for Senate, we can expect the Republicans to get unimaginably dirty in that state. I think this dynamic frustrates and angers voters, and makes them more open to voting for an independent as the GOP tries to drag Democrats into the muck with them. He's doing a great job of using that angle in his campaign.
  
• A good appearance in Sunday's debate can help Barkley gain exposure against two much better funded candidates.
  
• Barkley is no stranger to campaigns, having run for Senate twice, served in the Senate briefly as mentioned, and for the US House. He also managed Ventura's winning campaign for Senate.
  

Of course, this guy was earlier this year driving a bus for a living -- we're not talking an experienced hand. He doesn't have any real party infrastructure, nor even Ventura's high profile before entering the race. But he does know campaigning as a Minnesotan third-party candidate at a time when dissatisfied Democrats and fiscal conservatives just might say "the hell with both of you" and put this guy in the Senate.

Which would be interesting, to say the least.

It'll be Colorado

Wherein I lay out my forecast for the denouement of this marathon process to replace President Bush. Many of us have put more work into influencing the presidential election than Bush has apparently put into being president.

I think Stuart Rothenberg is right...mainly because we agree. So I'm willing to put down my prediction right now. I think the fulcrum state of 2008 will be Colorado.

I can't imagine Obama losing the Kerry states. Even the ones on the edge -- Wisconsin and New Hampshire -- have shown small but consistent leads for Obama. Ditto Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Among Bush states, Obama's got so Iowa well wrapped up that it's not really a swing state anymore, and is narrowly ahead in Minnesota.
That makes it 259-252 Obama.

Leaving Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and maaaaybe Nevada up for grabs. As in undecided territory.

As time goes on, I find myself more firmly believing that the final disposition of a swing state is strongly wrapped up in the instincts of its last-minute voters. And the more I contact these people, the more I read about them, the more convinced I am that undecided voters are basically morons. McCain and Obama have been running for president for 18 months, and they have very different visions of the future. Yet somehow these people haven't yet made a choice. This isn't a decision between Coke and Pepsi, it's a decision between Poland Springs and Wild Turkey.

If at this point a voter finds them of equal value, that's probably because they don't know much, or care much. The ones who don't care that much, don't vote -- so we're left with the ones who don't know that much. Christopher Hayes writes one of the best profiles of the undecided voter I've ever read...here's a snippet:

Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the "issues."...The majority of undecided voters I spoke to couldn't name a single issue that was important to them...the very concept of the issue seemed to be almost completely alien to most of the undecided voters I spoke to...As far as I could tell, the problem wasn't the word "issue"; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the "political."

The whole thing is worth the read, and it makes anyone who believes in a rationalist approach to politics and campaign agog. I submit that without any grounding in political reality, these last minute "decision makers" go back to instincts, gut level. I believe Bush got close enough to win thanks to undecideds in Florida and Ohio feeling that they knew someone like Bush and were comfortable with him. Whether they agreed on the issues wasn't as important -- better to avoid Kerry or Gore, who were nearly identical in broadcasting waves of privilege and remove from the working people of America.

In 2008, then, I feel compelled to look at "instinct" of undecided voters in the swing states. And the simple breakdown for me is this:

• If any of those 5 states is unlikely to vote for an African-American for the color of his skin, it's Virginia. I think this reason alone makes the pursuit of Virginia a waste of time for Obama.
• Ohio's an interesting case -- a hard-scrabble state built to compete in the 20th century. Which doesn't work out too well in the 21st century. Which candidate does that describe?
• Nevada...I don't get Nevada. But I do understand we've been teased by Nevada repeatedly, and it's a very chaotic state. Their caucuses were a disaster, they have Harry Reid and nobody else as high-profile Democrats, and the mayor of their largest city seems insane. I wouldn't want to rely on the Silver State for anything.
  
• My best hopes are New Mexico and Colorado. These are states where the future hasn't past them by, but is now arriving. These are states where the culture is one of excitement and crescendo. More people, different people, are moving into those states, with a good amount of money not far behind. The future looks better than the past, and any time spent in those places makes it easy to read the air of vibrancy. If there's one region of America for whom the future is most promising, it's the American Southwest. And at the end of the day, that's the attitude and the approach of Senator Obama.

While we have to run through the motions, I expect that by mid-October we'll be seeing lots of time spent in Colorado. Ohio will receive visits because it's so big and close, and the third state will be either New Mexico or Virginia -- whichever's closer. However, I still expect the first to go for Obama, the latter to finish for McCain.

I would also point out that moving to a Colorado and New Mexico approach and forgoing Ohio is a great way to focus money and manpower, more bang for the buck. Hopefully, Obama will stay in the game in Ohio and Florida, but but their best people out west. This lose-Ohio-win-Colorado scenario is also given heavy play on the fivethirtyeight.com which runs all manner of simulations -- it comes up about half the time.

Now the bad news. The bad news is named Mike Coffman. Coffman may well end up the third of an unholy trifecta that runs Harris...Blackwell...Coffman. Mr. Coffman is presently the Secretary of State for Colorado and is responsible for supervising its election, but is seeking a promotion -- he'd like to be a Congressman. The ad on his campaign website ominously declares him to be a "proven conservative leader". In other words, he's probably a Republican on the make who will be supervising the election in Colorado in a certain direction. Coffman shares the trademark Republican contempt for ethics, using state time on his Congressional campaign. He seems to play fast and loose with contracts for election machinery, though he has mandated the use of paper ballots in 2008. He's pretty dang favored to win the Congressional seat, but he may have much greater impact on the next four years in his "old" job. There's some minor hope that he'll follow the example of Washington's Secretary of State, Sam Reed, who supervised the fair resolution of 2004's razor-thin gubernatorial election despite the wishes of the state's Republican Party. Moral courage is in short supply in the GOP, however, so I remain skeptical.

As goes Colorado...

Fessing up: I like national conventions

One doesn't have to look that far to find people bemoaning the massive spectacle that is the national political convention. This post was inspired by one recent conversation at my second blogging home at BlueMassGroup. But I'll admit that I like conventions. I hung around the 2004 gathering in Boston, and have attended every Democratic state convention for the past several years. Here's why:

First off, one common complaint is that such a large amount of money is being wasted. Well, NASCAR strikes me as a waste of money, too -- people driving large machines in circles is a billion-dollar industry. But heck, it isn't my money so I don't really care. Same deal on national political conventions. It's not really my money that's being wasted...it's the money of the big-ticket donors to the parties. Sure, one can complain about the easy access of corporate suitors to politicians, but that isn't really the dominant argument. So if the Republicans and Democrats want to blow tons of money into putting on a show, go right ahead.

Secondly, I do love a show. I have no grudge against the feting of men and women who can throw a ball or swing a bat, but if they get such adoration, why not offer a little of the same every four years to people who will be spending our money, and making life-and-death decisions on a daily basis? The Opening Ceremony has no real significance to the athletic competitions, but is an inspiring spectacle. It is a key part of the Olympic experience, as the conventions are a key part of the political experience in our country. It's emotional to see Teddy up there, knowing this will likely be his last convention as Senator. I like pageantry, and I mention later on, it is a key part to raising consciousness and excitement about politics in this country.

Thirdly, I think that there is something important that happens at the state and national conventions. The kind of cross-fertilization of activists and politicians from across the country is important to exchange ideas and foster a feeling of community within the party and the country. Robert Putnam isn't the only one to note the gradual fading of American community, and that includes a sense of political community. This line of work that has such a direct impact on the American quality of life is held in such disrepute by Americans -- politics is universally seen as bad. Conventions give Mario Cuomo, Ann Richards, and Brian Schweitzer -- and Barack Obama -- platforms before audiences across America, establishing common touchstones in America that wouldn't otherwise be known. I've blogged in the past of the disastrous state of Belgium because there is no truly national political conversation, and these shows are a key part in avoiding the same fate in our nation.

If we can give over endless hours of primetime to a glorified singing contest that emphasizes the worst of the worst, to watching a parade of men hit a small white ball and wander off after it, to the solving of grotesque fictional crimes in all its gory forensic detail, we can bloody well examine and celebrate the machinery of American democracy. Politics should be seen as honorable and exciting again, and the conventions are part of approaching that change.

Fourthly, politics is a subject about which Americans are pretty ignorant. Take the example of the recent poll wherein 1% of respondents said they thought that Obama was Jewish. Americans are clueless about where things are in the Middle East, and are seemingly ready to give away the Bill of Rights as they don't know what's in it.

If it takes endless stagecraft, bad cover songs, dozens of speeches, and funny hats by the hundreds to hit Americans over the head until they come to understand the broad outlines of the American political scene, so be it. They may be excessive and strictly speaking not necessary to political process, but it is one of the few remaining keys to American political community -- and that I think makes them a good thing. Besides, you can always change the channel.

Electoral news

Rasmussen says that Mark Begich has opened up a 9-point lead over the incumbent in the Alaska Senate race. But he still could use your help.

And do you think there's any chance that Colin Powell could end up addressing the Democratic convention this year?

Reaction from IN and NC

So Hillary got fairly pasted in North Carolina, where she'd hoped to narrow the lead. And she barely won in Indiana, a state that she was expected to win fairly well by many (including me). Granted, the shenanigans in Obama's home base of Gary were eyebrow-raising...heck, they were outright suspicious of a Daley-type flavor. But that doesn't change the net result of Tuesday.

I think that short of an Obama meltdown, the Senator from Illinois will become the Democratic nominee. While I have thoughts about the likely consequence for the party and country, I won't get into that here. But here are some simple thoughts for now:

• Obama is most likely the nominee, as is apparent to most who follow politics closely. This includes superdelegates. I don't think anyone who can be convinced disagrees. Note that doesn't include Clinton die-hards.
  
• There is frankly nothing that Clinton can do to change the dynamics of the race...nothing that will grievously drive his numbers below Clinton's. If there were, she'd have done it by now. All Clinton can do is remain alive in case Obama completely implodes.
  
• Given that Obama will almost definitely win the nomination, and Clinton pretty much can't win, there's little point to destructive attacks. Peddling Jeremiah Wright, or Bill's marital infidelities, hurts the Democratic Party far more than it helps change anything. This wasn't true in March -- a fluid race meant a possible 5 point swing when the race could turn on that, which would mean many delegates. Plus, America would have 8 months to forget.
  
• That said, authentic disagreements on policy issues -- such as education -- still belong in this discussion.
  
• Also, over 40 states have participated in a meaningful primary season. It would be disastrous to cut short this process for the sake of some nebulous early start on McCain, especially when doing so would leave out swing states such as Oregon and West Virginia. At this point, it would seem grossly preferential to void the quality and gravity of the late voting states' choice for...what? "Healing"?
  

From now until June 4th, I would like to see a respectful policy-based campaign, mentioning differences yet aiming squarely at McCain where he stands against the Democratic Party and the American people.

And while that last statement may seem Pollyanish in the wake of this campaign season, the thing that I maintain is that at this point, there's nothing to be gained from anything else. Sure, in a fluid race there is something to be won from driving candidates up and down. But at this point, the numbers won't be moved enough to change much.

(Granted, where this turns into a grey area is a scenario where something bad does come out about Obama, and he truly struggles. How much does Hillary help? If her campaign has learned anything from the campaign so far, the answer is: don't bother.)

Obama today

Desperation will do this to a man. Obama condescends to working voters, and Hillary talks up her experiences learning to shoot. Then we have:

"She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her...she is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley.

Ladies and gentlemen, your candidate of hope.

One argument for a "dream ticket"

I have argued elsewhere that a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is a bad idea. It puts two Senators on a ticket, that wouldn't include any executive experience, or foreign policy bona fides. Hillary has little true foreign affairs experience, and Obama has none. I've said in the past that I think that the national security/foreign affairs credibility that a Jim Webb or Wes Clark would bring to a ticket would be vital.

That's one way of looking at how to balance a ticket. Such a view tries to balance off issues and personalities in a global sense. Another approach to ticket building is purely electoral math, talking about what states a VP candidate can make competitive (indeed, the ability to bring in New Mexico is a big part of the 'Richardson for VP' argument). Nothing is guaranteed, however...if you remember, John Edwards delivered nothing to the ticket in 2004 -- not his home state, nothing in the South. I realize that he finished second in the race, but Edwards lent nothing to the Democratic ticket in 2004 from an electoral point of view.

In an ideal world, you expand the field of play by adding a VP candidate who can bring in states and issues. Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia, does bring with him serious foreign policy and national security heft. Also, it does up the Democratic argument in Virginia. However, given how close Webb's election was (.3%), I don't know how much extra he'd offer.

However, there is one Democrat running who single-handedly flips a state from sure-red to true-blue...Hillary Clinton. In a recent poll, there is a notable gap in the fortunes of Obama and Clinton in that state. Against McCain, Obama would lose Arkansas by 16 points, whereas Clinton would win by 15 points. That is a 31-point difference between Clinton and Obama in the state. Furthermore, Hillary is polling at above 50% in Arkansas against McCain, which means a victory even with undecideds breaking for McCain.

Now, this swing would be diluted if Hillary were the VP. Even if the impact of Hillary's presence were cut in half, we're still talking about a 15 point swing. We're still talking about the difference between losing Arkansas and winning Arkansas -- and a 12-point swing in the electoral vote count. Should Obama become the nominee, I can't imagine him finding a VP candidate who can single-handedly swing the EV count by 12 outside of Hillary. If he's in it to win it, then it would be up to him to swallow his pride and ask her to join forces, for the good of the party.

Thank You New Hampshire!

Bill Richardson is still my first choice. Let me make that clear.

The voters of New Hampshire value content and substance. You don't survive those winters by being soft...or smarmy. Great credit to them.

Nice to see my governor on tv, too for the first time in a while. I thought we ditched Romney because we were sick of governors running around the country and ignoring the state. Now Deval's doing the same.

Because I think it's funny...

...and because I desperately don't want to see Obama as our nominee, here's an excellent remix/edit of a couple Obama ads:



PS: Corrente brilliantly lays out the fallacies of Obama's appeal. One snippet:

Obama presents himself as post-partisan, but partisan politics are needed. The "food fight," obviously a partisan food fight, is purest Equivalation. The Democrats didn’t break the world record for filibusters when they were in the minority; but the Republicans just did....And last I checked, Democrats were allowing anybody to come to their election rallies, but Bush was screening his to make sure only Republicans attended. This is the Conservative Movement in action. Sure, there’s a "food fight," but most of the food that’s in the air is coming from one side of the cafeteria!

So why on earth would Obama think that "tearing down" the Conservative Movement and "lifting this country up" are opposites? They’re the same!

Obama's Momentum: Dead

Hillary Clinton is the New England Patriots of the presidential campaign cycle -- just awesomely awesome in awesomeness. Not that I like her, and she's not in my top three, but she knows how to run a campaign. And she just took Obama's best shot, and this is the brick wall he hit:

Indeed, Obama, [Clinton's] chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.

The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country.

That is from the Des Moines Register the single most important endorsement in Iowa, and possibly the primary process. They hit up Edwards in 2004 (and abandoned him this time around!), which probably got him his second place finish in Iowa. What's odd about this is the Reg's history of endorsing candidates further back in the field, such as John Edwards in 2004 and Paul Simon in 1992. In both cases, the endorsement had a measurable affect. This ain't the Ragtime Daily, whose endorsements do nothing but stroke editors' egos. Iowans care about the Reg's endorsements.

And punch two in the ol' 1-2 is a first-ever endorsement from Congressman Leonard Boswell of Des Moines, the first caucus endorsement of his 28-year political career. The less-than-articulate Boswell said "She sees the need...You listen to what she's said and what she's done and what her experience factor is -- she gets things done so I'm endorsing. My family's endorsing with enthusiasm because we want to win and we've got to pull on the best experience we possibly can."

Seriously, people, do you want to be standing between Hillary and the presidency? That's why I fear for the next few months of Obama's campaign. This is a glimpse of what's comin'.

My favorite pander of the week

In case you missed it:

"To get elected, I need your support. And North Dakota can play a big role."

-- Rudy Giuliani

As goes Wahpeton, so goes...suburban Wahpeton (moo).

Statements I Question: Barack Obama

At the 11th second of this television ad, Barack Obama says something curious:



"I don't accept that we should be still sending $800 million a day, part of it to hostile nations because of our addiction to foreign oil."

Now, I dislike our addiction to foreign oil (as does Obama considering that he -- gasp! -- made a speech!). But who are these "hostile nations" who sell us oil or petroleum? This DOE table lists our top petroleum sellers in Sept. 07, in thousands of barrels:

1. CANADA 2,467
2. SAUDI ARABIA 1,560
3. MEXICO 1,429
4. VENEZUELA 1,325
5. NIGERIA 1,181
6. ALGERIA 701
7. IRAQ 603
8. ANGOLA 591
9. VIRGIN ISLANDS 381
10. RUSSIA 348

Okay, let's see. The Virgin Islands are American. Canada and Mexico are staunch allies.

The people of Saudi Arabia and Iraq may dislike us, but their governments are close to us.

The Chavez v. Bush thing is great theatre, but the Venezuelan economy is utterly dependent on oil sales to the United States. In words our governments are mortal enemies, but Venezuela has never seriously threatened our country.

The State Department has only good things to say about our relations with Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria.

Our choices are four:
1. Obama doesn't understand from whom we import petroleum;
2. Obama thinks nations are hostile that are not;
3. Obama is publicly calling out the Putin government as a "hostile nation" (likely correct but astoundingly undiplomatic)
4. Obama thinks voters are too stupid to listen to what he actually says.

Take your pick.