Friday, March 07, 2008


Open Thread

Consider this a "monster" thread.

Bookmark and Share

GOP Not Dead Yet?

The Democratic presidential candidates are raking in the money.

The Democratic National Committee? Hmmm...not so much. That could have interesting developments down the road in terms of limiting some of the damage in House and Senate races (the Democrats have an edge in fundraising in their respective congressional and senate campaign committees). Indeed, the NRCC is in the middle of major scandal out of its fundraising shop.

However, the RNC numbers are something of a bright light in an otherwise dismal political picture.

But, some people say, what about the fact that conservatives are demoralized and may not turn out?

Well, trust liberals to come through and fire up part of the social conservative base -- the homeschoolers, for example. (Thanks to ERA for the tip.)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 06, 2008


No Shame

Asking for Hillary Clinton's tax returns is, of course, equivalent to being Ken Starr.

If the Clinton campaign wants to go there, perhaps it's time Obama surrogates brought up other names -- Marc Rich? Charlie Trie? Former Rose Law Firm partner Webb Hubbell?

Or just make the point that Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few people who takes being one of the "most investigated" individuals in history as a badge of honor.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 05, 2008


Well, As I Said...

Networks call Texas for Clinton.

Earlier, she won Ohio in close to a landslide.

Oh, and Rhode Island, too (making Obama 0-4 in states where Kennedys who endorsed him reside).

Not to say I told you so, but, well...cue up that Elton John track, folks! Mrs. Clinton ain't going nowhere for quite a while (if ever)!

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 04, 2008


Which Numbers Matter?

Because of the delegates, Hillary can't win.

But, perhaps those aren't
the only numbers that matter.

The comparison to the 2000 election may go beyond just the importance of Florida. It could be the party version of Electoral College vs. popular vote:

If Clinton pulls ahead of Obama in this count, she could make a compelling moral claim. I think her argument would consist of a positive and a negative component. First, she can assert that, as the popular vote winner, she is the rightful nominee of the party. She can remind super delegates that the last Democrat who won the nomination without a popular mandate was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. The debacle that followed convinced Democrats to open their process to the public. Nominating Obama would thus be inconsistent with the party's forty-year commitment to openness and inclusiveness.

Second, she can run against the nomination process itself. As I noted last week, this is a procedure that few politicos have paid attention to. So, there is little emotional investment in it, which makes it easier to attack. Imagine a split in the popular vote and the Electoral College - only this time the Electoral College does not have the Constitution conferring upon it moral legitimacy. Which count will people prefer? Similarly, Clinton can argue that Obama indeed won a plurality of pledged delegates - but that is merely a testament to the fact that the party's process is not as open as they thought. They shouldn't let the vagaries of the party's antiquated, undemocratic system determine the nominee.
Cost doesn't bring up this point, but there's certainly no reason why this set of circumstances couldn't spur an Obama v. Clinton sequel to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court pointedly said that the 2000 case shouldn't serve as any sort of precedent. Considering that a political party nominating contest doesn't have the constitutional implications that are attached to a presidential election, one could conclude that the Supremes wouldn't get involved. But a legal battle between Obama and Clinton would inevitably raise civil rights and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment issues given the overwhelming number of African-American voters participating in Democratic primaries and caucuses. It would be almost impossible for the Court not to get involved.

Hmmm...sounds like some real fun.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Ed's Long National Nightmare Is Over

RT's NFL blogging partner-in-crime, Ed McGonigal is a happy man today:

Brett Favre is finally hanging them up!

Brett, as Ed pointed out to RT readers a few months back, is to sports media what Barack Obama is to the political journalists.

On a completely unrelated note, doing a bit of Googling, I discovered that there is another Ed McGonigal, one who lives above the Mason-Dixon line. And, what a coincidence, this one is making a career out of what I do on the side -- stand-up comedy! Small world!

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 03, 2008


Rise Of The Warrior Queen

As Michael Godwin suggests in the Daily News today, if Obama doesn't put Hillary Clinton away tomorrow, it will be nearly impossible to stop her -- regardless of how many Democrats want to "turn the page" on the Clinton era.

My hunch, based on the last few days, is that Hillary Clinton will narrowly win the popular vote in both Ohio and Texas (even assuming Obama ultimately wins the most Lone Star state delegates), this battle goes through to the convention and the likelihood of her being the Democratic nominee is now about 65 percent.

Her 3 A.M. commercial which is getting criticism from all sides, I think was a masterstroke of targeted marketing. Hillary was casting herself as the ultimate "security mom." The commericial opens in the home, with a child sleeping in her bed. That ad was for women with children (it closes with a mom looking in on her child, just before the viewer sees Hillary on the phone). The subtext of it is that Hillary will work like a hawk -- not in a bomb's away, kill all the terrorist hyper-'masculine' way, but as a strong protective mother -- to defend America's kids. That was also the basis of her otherwise-odd Huffington Post blog on making child poverty a front-and-center public policy theme. Since every campaign is, in some way, "about the children," it seemed that it was unusual that Ms. "It Takes A Village" would use that topic -- in a forum that has hardly been friendly to her -- in the last week of a critical primary race. But it makes sense if one sees this through the prism of "economic security" and she presenting herself as the one who will "fight" on that issue.

But, the polls show she has moved back to a statistical tie with Obama in Texas and most polls have her ahead in Ohio (though dramatically reduced from two weeks ago). Rasmussen, incidentally, has her moving ahead of Obama in
his national tracking poll for the first time in three weeks.

Meanwhile, Hillary had one of the best cameos any politician has had on "Saturday Night Live" in recent memory. She's done comedic appearances before (she did Letterman for the nth time last week), but this was perhaps the warmest and at ease she's ever been (maybe because SNL has essentially admitted that it's going "in the tank" for her, by making media fawning over Obama the target of the opening skit for the second week in a row). [She comes on at about the 8:01 point.]

Note, by the way, that she mentioned Pennsylvania (in addition to Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont) in her "Live From New York" shout out -- a suggestion that she'll be competing for that state in about a month. With Charlie Crist's
endorsement of a Florida do-over, how ironic it would be if the Democratic nomination were decided by the state that determined the 2000 presidential race and ushered in our current era of red-blue politics.

Regardless, don't count the Clintons out.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Technorati search
Search Now:
Amazon Logo
  •  RSS
  • Add to My AOL
  • Powered by FeedBurner
  • Add to Google Reader or Homepage
  • Subscribe in Bloglines
  • Share on Facebook