Geraldine Ferraro's constituents!

DOWN GOES FRAZIER, DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!!!!!

This is worth watching in full

Slip-sliding away...

From the Wall Street Journal Blog - "The Numbers Guy"

March 10, 2008, 4:43 pm
Obama’s California Comeback

A little-noticed shift in the tally of California’s Democratic delegates may affect the primary between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton as much as the heavily hyped results last Tuesday in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.

election

Sen. Clinton won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Sen. Obama won the Vermont primary and appears likely to win the Texas caucus. For the day, Sen. Clinton is likely to trim fewer than 10 delegates from Sen. Obama’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, which by most counts stands at about 100 delegates.

But Sen. Obama may make up all that lost ground in the media counts that are the closest this race has to an official scoreboard. A California politics blogger has argued that Sen. Clinton won 36 more pledged delegates in the state than Sen. Obama, rather than the 44-delegate margin that has long been included in the news organizations’ tallies. A spokesman for the state party confirms the blogger’s numbers.

The shift, if validated once the state certifies its election results this week and the party chooses its delegates, is a reminder that the commonly reported delegate totals are mere estimates, subject to change as states finalize election results. It also highlights how a blogger with intense focus on the numbers may be faster than the established delegate counters.

David Dayden Dayen*, who blogs at the site Calitics and serves on its editorial board, wrote last week that Sen. Clinton won 203 of the state’s 370 pledged delegates — and not the commonly reported total of 207. He relied on updated vote totals from the state, based on late counts of absentee and provisional ballots. Later, when he noticed that several major news organizations still were showing Sen. Clinton with 207 delegates, he wrote a follow-up post explaining his calculation and exhorting, “I know math is hard and everything, but get out your calculators, people.”

It’s hard to explain the difference because most news organizations don’t provide a breakdown of projected delegates, district by district. Some of the discrepancies may arise from the peculiar math of congressional districts. For instance, in the 16th district, Sen. Clinton received 50,056 votes; she needed about 58 more votes to get three of the district’s four delegates, but instead she split them evenly with Sen. Obama. In the 53rd district, which has five delegates, Sen. Clinton received a small plurality of the early returns, but has fallen behind, which swings that fifth delegate to Sen. Obama.

The statewide vote matters, too. On primary night, it appeared Sen. Clinton won the state by 10 percentage points. Now she’s up by 8.7 percentage points. That means she gets an 11-margin win among delegates apportioned on the basis of the statewide vote, rather than a 13-margin win.

There won’t be an official delegate total until California certifies its results and the state Democratic party chooses delegates, Bob Mulholland, advisor to the California Democratic Party, told me. But he confirmed that the party’s unofficial count is 203-167. “It’s been this way for a couple of weeks,” he said. The earlier counts, he said, were based on preliminary results, before all of the ballots had been counted. Mr. Mulholland estimates that more than one in four ballots weren’t counted on primary day: “We’re a big state. We have lots of ballots.”

On Monday, some news organizations were updating their totals. Earlier in the day, CNN showed Sen. Clinton up 204-161, with five delegates unallocated. A spokeswoman told me the site was waiting for California to certify its results before updating, but by this afternoon, the site’s California results page was in line with Mr. Dayden’s Dayen’s* 203-167 margin. The New York Times’s page for California results shows the 207-163 result, but a page listing delegate totals for each state showed the 203-167 margin. NBC and CBS still showed the 207-163 margin. An inquiry to New York Times polling editor Janet Elder wasn’t returned. An NBC spokesman told me, “Apparently, there are discrepancies between the state count and the individual county tallies.” Kathy Frankovic, director of surveys for CBS News, told me, “delegate allocation is a work in progress.” (UPDATE: Ms. Frankovic told me later Monday that CBS would update its totals to reflect the 203-167 margin. “Thanks for alerting us to the problem,” she said.)

Mr. Dayen, who identifies himself as a 35-year-old television editor in Santa Monica, Calif., told me, “I think the 207-163 number was flagrantly wrong and nobody bothered to change it.”

*Correction: The California blogger who counted delegates in his state is named David Dayen. This post previously spelled his name incorrectly twice.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/obamas-california-comeback-295/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: campaign08, politics, Global

Eliot Spitzer scandal...

There is only one person you can trust with this story.

From the Huffington Post today

The Clinton camp has released a memo questioning Sen. Obama's capacity to be Commander-in-Chief:

Please note my commentary mixed in between in red.

Senator Obama has thus far failed to answer key questions about his qualifications to meet the Commander-in-Chief test. The following are questions that Senator Obama should address:

Will you stand by your definitive commitment to removing all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, or will you, as your former advisor said, not rely on "some plan" you "crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator?"

No, Obama should not paint himself into a corner like this. If Clinton thinks that it is a good idea to say in March 2008 that all troops should, without a doubt, be removed on a set timeline without consideration of changing events, let her look foolish.

Do you regret that you have never held any substantive hearings on Afghanistan or any other subject, since you became chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs in January 2007?

No, because the Bush administration wouldn’t have listened to the recommendations anyway. With the filibuster, the Senate would never be able to force changes in policy. Stop treating the Senate as a training ground for being Commander in Chief.

Do you agree with General McPeak that you are more qualified to be commander in chief because you don't "go on television and have crying fits?"

Blah, Blah, Blah… Did you hear something?

Are you prepared to remove General McPeak from your campaign for what is viewed by many as a sexist comment?

Yawn! Two word: Gerrie Ferraro!

Are you still willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of an Obama administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Are there any circumstances in which you would not conduct such meetings?

Yes. Just because you talk with someone, doesn’t mean they will be able to extract concessions from you. Is Clinton really that gullible and cowardly? Maybe we should meet with them all at once! Party on with Raul Castro and Kim Jong Il!

As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it's legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?

No! Next question. Having had tea in 80 countries doesn’t impress.

Earlier in the campaign you were asked how you would respond to a terrorist attack on two cities in the United States. You talked about the need for an effective emergency response but were initially unclear about the need for a military response. What do you think that says about your readiness to be Commander-in-Chief?

It means that dealing with hypothetical scenarios is pointless. It means that the President should never view the world in two dimensions. Obama can leave that approach to George W. Bush (and Clinton apparently).

You publicly broadcast your willingness to attack Pakistan unilaterally, a statement which caused unrest in that country. Recognizing that we need to combat terrorism wherever it exists, do you wish you would have made your comments in a way that didn't cause unrest?

No, the Commander in Chief needs to reserve the right to act to protect the national security of this country. That is their first and foremost responsibility. Stability in other countries is important and the decision to act should consider this, but if there is a imminent threat, and it is the advice of the National Security Council to act immediately, action in Pakistan is not out of line.

It seems to me that Barack Obama does not need to beat Hillary Clinton. She is basically screwing herself in the general election to beat Obama in the primary. It is a dangerous tactic. Obama should turn to focus on the domestic agenda. Let Clinton ask all the questions that she wants. Obama isn’t trying to court her vote. New York already had their primary. Keep talking about your agenda Barry. Talk about what your vision is and don’t get sucked into every little tit-for-tat that Clinton lobs your way. It makes her look very small and unpresidential.

Will she do anything to win?

From Arriana Huffington's piece entitled: Democratic Scorecard: The Lizard Brain Wins Again!

"When Clinton was still pitching the inevitability of her candidacy and fending off attacks from her opponents, she roundly disavowed these kinds of tactics. 'I'm not interested in attacking my opponents,' she claimed in Iowa in November. 'I'm interested in attacking the problems of America and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans.'

"Terry McAuliffe reiterated the do-no-harm-approach: 'We're going to focus on the Republicans. We're going to focus on winning the White House. We're not going to attack our fellow Democrats. That's not what we want to do.'"

Here is Terry McAuliffe on HBO with Bill Maher:

Barack Hussein Obama... Is he a Muslim?

A lot of questions about whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. I confess to being incredibly underwhelmed with his campaign's inability to get back on message this week. But allow me to help dispel one myth right here and now. Barack Obama was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents. Do they look like Islamo-fascists to you?

Is Experience The Only Thing?

Geeking out with exit polls!

I have been reviewing the CNN Exit Polls from the Texas Primary and have found some very interesting information.

Voting by age:
18-64 (87%)
BO – 50%
HC – 49%

65+ (13%)
HC – 65%
BO – 32%

The coots carried Clinton last night.

Gender split:
Men (43%)
BO – 51%
HC – 47%

Women (57%)
HC – 54%
BO – 45%

The gender split was not as pronounced as it has been. It seems like Clinton’s appeal to women is muted south of Mason-Dixon. The thing that got Obama here was huge turnout by women. Judging from my caucus, particularly older women (50+)

Race/Ethnicity Split:
White (46%)
HC – 55%
BO – 44%

African-American (19%)
HC – 16%
BO – 84%

Latino (32%)
HC – 66%
BO – 32%

More likely to win in November:
Hillary Clinton (40%)
Voted for HC – 93%
Voted for BO – 6%

Barack Obama (52%)
Voted for HC – 17%
Voted for BO – 81%

Can I just ask? 40 percent of Democratic Primary voters thought Clinton was most likely to win in November, 52% Obama was more likely…

…do the other 8% have an IQ high enough to breath, let alone vote?

By Educational Attainment:
Less than a college degree (57%)
HC – 57%
BO – 42%

At least a college degree (43%)
BO – 55%
HC – 42%

Why do we always get screwed by our plumber? He over bills us and then votes the wrong way.

People who thought gender was important:
Most Important (8%)
HC – 64%
BO – 36%

One of Several Factors (15%)
HC – 58%
BO – 42%

Not Important (75%)
BO – 50%
HC – 48%

By feelings on how to handle illegal immigration:
Path to citizenship (52%)
BO – 51%
HC – 47%

Temporary Worker Program (26%)
HC – 52%
BO – 47%

Deport them (18%) [18% of Democratic Voters!!!]
HC – 57%
BO – 41%

So Hillary won both the Hispanic and the Minuteman vote. Which side got it wrong?

By Income:
Less than $100K (75%)
HC – 52%
BO – 47%

Greater than $100K (25%)
BO – 56%
HC – 48%

Less than $50K (39%)
HC – 52%
BO – 47%

Greater than $50K (61%)
HC – 51%
BO – 47%

By Party Affiliation:
Democrats (66%)
HC – 53%
BO – 46%

Republicans (9%)
HC – 46%
BO – 53%

Independents (25%)
HC – 48%
BO – 49%

Would be satisfied if…
Hillary Clinton is the nominee:
Yes (70%)
Voted for HC – 67%
Voted for BO – 32%

No (30%)
Voted for HC – 10%
Voted for BO – 87%

Barack Obama is the nominee:
Yes (66%)
Voted for HC – 31%
Voted for BO – 68%

No (32%)
Voted for HC – 91%
Voted for BO – 7%

Barack Obama won among urban voters: 51% to 48%
Hillary Clinton won among suburban voters: 51% to 47%
Hillary Clinton won among rural voters: 61% to 37%

Super Delegates should vote based on:
Who can win in November (33%):
Voted for HC – 61%
Voted for BO – 38%

The results of the primaries (62%):
Voted for HC – 45%
Voted for BO – 54%

Candidates Attacked Unfairly:
Only Clinton (25%):
Voted for HC – 15%
Voted for BO – 85%

Only Obama (7%):
Voted for HC – 80%
Voted for BO – 20%

Both (28%):
Voted for HC – 62%
Voted for BO – 35%

Neither (36%):
Voted for HC – 61%
Voted for BO – 38%

This is even more interesting when asked differently:

Did Hillary Clinton attack unfairly?
Yes (52%):
Voted for HC – 40%
Voted for BO – 32%

No (43%):
Voted for HC – 64%
Voted for BO – 35%

Did Barack Obama attack unfairly?
Yes (35):
Voted for HC – 66%
Voted for BO – 32%

No (60%):
Voted for HC – 42%
Voted for BO – 57%

Overall, a majority of Democratic voters thought that Hillary’s attacks were unfair. In addition, a larger majority of Dems felt that Obama did not attack Clinton unfairly.

Voting by region:
East Texas (20%)
HC - 53%
BO - 45%

Dallas/Ft. Worth (16%)
HC - 41%
BO - 56%

Houston (13%)
HC - 45%
BO - 55%

South-Central Texas (19%)
HC - 42%
BO - 58%

West Texas (8%)
HC - 57%
BO - 41%

Rio Grande Valley (23%)
HC - 65%
BO - 33%

So, Barack Obama won the three delegate rich regions of the state. We’ll wait for the apportionment of delegates to be officially tallied.

Sometimes Entourage Nails It...

Well, the March 4th firewall has come and past. Hillary Clinton has succeeded in placing doubt in the hearts of people in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas (Vermont, as per usual, comes out as the bedrock of New England! Big ups Catamounts!)

So the news is treating this like a wide open horse race to the finish line. It reminds me of a scene from Entourage where Johnny Drama gives up and begins reading his reviews in the Hollywood press. The result is ugly...

E: “What's up Drama?”
Drama: “I got every paper in the country.”
Vince: “How's it looking?”
Drama: “It's a bloodbath, bro.”

My advice to the Obama Campaign, and contrary to popular belief I am not on the payroll, is to ignore the press today. Get in a room, slap each other around a bit and fire yourselves up for the second (or third, or fourth) half. They need to write yet another kick ass speech. That speech needs to address readiness to lead, judgment, concrete examples of leading on issues, and true tests overcome. Obama has never run against a credible opponent before. He has to show that he can take one on the chin and fight back. He cannot under any circumstances play the game the way they want him too. He needs to talk about a united Democratic Party. He needs to talk about how great it is to be a Democrat, how all the candidates this year have added to the great Democratic dialogue. Obama needs to be very complimentary toward Clinton, talking about her honorable service, but pointing out how she can NEVER be an agent of change. She and her husband are not responsible for the rancorous tone of politics, but they played a starring role in the escalation of the war of words.

For people who want this to be over, this is a definite buzzkill.

- Did going negative help the Clinton campaign? Yes.
- Did they raise doubts? Yes.
- Is this going to go on way past the point of being fun? Yes.
- Will Clinton try to get Florida and Michigan in on terms that will give her the lead? Yes.
- Is this going to get ugly before it gets better? Yes.

You have to respect the way Republicans approach nominations. Nothing quite like the bloodsport of all or nothing delegate apportionment. It is like having your head taken in one clean swing of the axe, Braveheart style vs. being killed by a million paper cuts. You don't know you are in trouble until it is over. The Democrats can see the plane crashing into the mountain but can't, or won't, do anything about it.

If this was about ideas and a difference of leadership styles, it would be a great way to keep them on the front page and limit the damage done. But Democrats never miss a chance to miss a chance. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like they are the political equivalent of the Chicago Cubs! (Sorry George Will, ya' bastard!)

So, what comes next?

Here is the calendar:

March 8
Wyoming caucus
Pledged Delegates – 12, Superdelegates – 6

March 11
Mississippi primary
Pledged Delegates – 33, Superdelegates – 7

April 22
Pennsylvania primary
Pledged Delegates – 158, Superdelegates – 30

May 3
Guam caucus
Pledged Delegates – 4, Superdelegates – 5

May 6
Indiana primary
Pledged Delegates – 72, Superdelegates – 12

North Carolina primary
Pledged Delegates – 115, Superdelegates – 19

May 13
West Virginia primary
Pledged Delegates – 28, Superdelegates – 39

May 20
Kentucky primary
Pledged Delegates – 51, Superdelegates – 9

Oregon primary
Pledged Delegates – 52, Superdelegates – 13

June 3
Montana primary
Pledged Delegates – 16, Superdelegates – 8

South Dakota primary
Pledged Delegates – 15, Superdelegates – 23

June 7
Puerto Rico caucus
Pledged Delegates – 55, Superdelegates – 8

Who does the calendar favor? The best analogy I have heard thus far is this is like the story of the tortoise and the hare only the tortoise is a few steps behind and then the hare tears off, only to stop for a little while and let the tortoise get close again.

My feeling is that this result only delays the inevitable. I can only hope that my suspicions are wrong about HillBill. I suspect that salvaging the Clinton myth is more important to them than the Party. If Hillary Clinton loses, it tarnishes their legacy. I fear that they are willing to throw the Party under the bus to protect it.

Clinton can't pass Obama without the Michigan and Florida delegates. That is where the fighting goes. In a poll on this blog, readers (a biased sample) were not in favor of rewarding the rule breakers in these two arguably crucial states.

Enter the superdelegate strategy stage right.

Make no doubt about it; this is nothing less than a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party between the Clinton faction and the progressive/populist wing. I wish Paul Wellstone was still around.

And the saga continues...

Does Art Imitate Life, or Does Life Imitate Art???

Get out and vote for CHANGE!!!

Democrats love chaos!

I have a feeling that Clinton will win tomorrow, but not by enough to make much of an impact in Obama's lead.

Here are the demographics of the major polls in Texas...



...and Ohio.




So now the question is; who is going vote? Are you in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, or Vermont? Get out there are do your duty.

A crack in her base...

The new New York Times/CBS News poll shows a sea change in the balance of support that is propping up Hillary Clinton's campaign.



This is a problem for her campaign. Is going negative the solution? I would imagine that those who have trouble envisioning a female Commander-in-Chief will not be swayed with Hillary's new bid to be Mother-in-Law-in-Chief.

Is this man a dangerous Islamic fundamentalist???

Hillary Clinton's campaign would have you believe so.



And then if you ask why this should invoke fear, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

Isn't this what elected officials do when they go abroad? Isn't it a good thing that they experience other cultures and are curious about the world. Even this is a good thing...



...Goofy, but a good thing. President Bush is a goof ball, but I guarantee that this endeared him to his hosts. Being willing to look goofy in the name of bonding is about the best piece of foreign policy of his Presidency.

The O-mentum is O-verwhelming!

Well, the debate was pretty canned tonight. Senator Obama seemed sick at the beginning and I think there was an opportunity for Senator Clinton to land one on his chin early and leave him reeling a bit. But ol' Tin Ear Clinton never misses a chance to miss a chance. She attempted to be genial, and that gave his DayQuil time to kick in.

Clinton is kind of stuck. She can't really attack Obama on policy, because they agree on 99% of the issues. Her only hope was to make him look bad, unprepared, or lacking in composure. But since he comes across as more Presidential than her, the attacks she launches invariably backfire on her.

Perhaps you saw Chris Matthews kicking Texas state Senator Kirk Watson-D from Austin around on the MSNBC the other night. I won't provide a link, but you can google it. Senator Watson was sent to represent Senator Obama as a surrogate on the air and flopped heroically. It was ugly. I should say that Senator Watson is my Senator and that I have met him in a professional capacity on a number of occasions. It was a shocking lack of composure from a guy who is generally very sharp on public policy. (Time to get off the mat Senator Watson!)

The blogs and media exploded in mocking Watson for his gaffe. He probably knew he had it coming. And to a certain extent he deserved it. How could you go on national TV so un-prepared? How could your policy staff not have prepped you better?

But in a stroke of luck, the campaign with no grace or professionalism (that of Billary) used this as an opportunity to poke fun at the Obama campaign. This undid any damage that Watson could have done to Obama in Texas. It only serves to show that Hillary will do anything to win, including mocking a fellow Democrat. She cracked a joke about it in the debate tonight, in Austin, Texas, in a room full of Senator Watson's friends (some of whom were siding with Obama and some with her). LOW CLASS!!!

In the end, the debate was essentially a draw, which in my book means Obama won. Clinton was unable to appear convincing on any points, until the closing when she seemed for the first time to acknowledge that victory for her is a long shot. She spoke eloquently about her passion and why she was working so hard.

I believe that she loves this country, but she is stuck on ideas and can't seem to grasp process. That is evident in how she runs her campaign. Why should we believe that it would be any different were she elected President. Clinton is right, being President is more than just speeches. But is also more than just ideas. It is about being in tune with the national mood. Is she so isolated by yes-men (and women) that she can't grasp that she is not in tune with our current needs as a country?

Any hack can string together sentences...

A Republican sent me this “policy analysis” and asked; “so, tell me what is wrong with this?”

I wrote a really long reply via e-mail on my “smart phone” and then the e-mail crashed. It was a very dispiriting moment, but I will soldier on and try to recreate the mojo that I had while punching out that e-mail while holding my napping daughter.

Let’s go back to the orginal question, so, tell me what is wrong with this? My reply is, I don’t even know where to begin. OK, yes I do. First off, I think that we need to review what constitutes a public policy analysis. Rule number one when analyzing a particular policy, in this case health coverage policy, the analyst must be free of preconceived notion and allow the data to direct the outcome.

Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh certainly have a preconceived notion and they don’t even try to hide it. Everything they say is absolutely true. So what’s wrong? Well, while they use fact to make their case, Zinser and Hsieh do so by using only half the story. The analysts methodically leave out key details that conflict with their outcome. It could be possible when conducting an analysis, with the incredible amounts of health policy data, that the analysis is innocently incomplete. Not in this particular case. Zinser and Hsieh actually tell half the story and omit key variables. As such, this analysis is half true. It is also half false. Thus it is not particularly interesting.

This analysis attacks “universal health insurance” as a policy program. This is almost idiotically off base. Universal health insurance is not a program, it is a goal. To achieve universal coverage there are many different approaches that could be pursued. Zinser and Hsieh call universal health insurance “socialized medicine.” This is what conservatives do when they can’t attack something on its merits. They try to create fear, in this case they go back into the vault to try to wake up the dormant fear of communism that is hibernating in the hearts of Americans. It rings hollow. What they are actually attacking is a national health system like they have in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Japan, to name a few.

The “analysts” rightly point out that the current system is broken. They also rightly point out that it is not a free market approach. But make no mistake about it, a free market approach will not move towards significantly expanding health coverage. This betrays the fact that the authors are not interested in moving towards universal coverage.

Zinser and Hsieh say that the current system is crippling American businesses. They are right, but the business community (led by the giants, GM and GE) fought hard in the 1950s to block an organized labor proposal to move towards some form of national health insurance. They were afraid of handing too much power and influence to the [communist] unions. Are you sensing a theme here?

Simply shifting the financial burden from employers to employees will not expand coverage. Working men and women have enough stress making ends meet. What would make us believe that they could or should become health care consumers that are well enough informed to be discerning. Health technology, as the authors point out, has become incredibly complex. People ought to be able to rely on their doctors to steer them towards the most cost effective care alternative. This is a system known as managed care. Managed care failed because people chose alternative plans (like PPOs) which offered them the opportunity to bypass the primary care physician and see a specialist, even in cases that could have been handled by PCPs at a lower cost.

Managed care only works when it is the only option. That is why care in the United Kingdom is half the cost for the same health outcomes. In Scandinavia, if you are rich, you can still bypass the system and go to private clinics, but most people choose not to. Care is prioritized and managed care is truly managed. Here that is called rationing by critics. But in actuality it is allowing doctors to determine severity of cases and triage based on priorities. A quadruple bypass surgery for an 80 year old is not as important as when the patient is 50. This may seem cruel, but it cannot really be refuted. Is the national health system approach perfect? No, it is not. At times people do have to wait for important tests and procedures.

But let’s be honest; the ship sailed on a national health system in the United States a long time ago. There are too many entrenched interests and too much money in the current system to do away with it all. I won’t even dare to dream. The eventual solution will likely be some sort of public-private partnership.

This could be a great debate topic in this year of politics. The solution could be crafted by uniting the liberal goal of equality and inclusiveness and conservative goal of individual responsibility.

But unfortunately only one side has showed up to the debate and won by debate. John McCain’s health policy platform focuses on controlling costs and increasing competition without getting specific. This is like nibbling around the edge without taking a bite out of the apple. Controlling costs and creating competition are certainly topics that need to be addressed, but they alone will not fix our system.

The authors of this “analysis” want a level playing field and free market solutions. That would be nice, but the playing field is not level. Free market solutions are not the best approach to ensuring that the least of us catch a break. This “analysis” is like watching the first half of the Godfather but then skipping the second half.

Do you have any race cards? Go Fish!

Still think the Clinton campaign isn’t playing the race card? Read this!

Recipe for disaster?

Republicans face an interesting challenge that could spell doom simultaneously for Democrats and the values conservatives clinging to the extreme right fringe. It has not gone unreported that the right wing of the Republican Party are less than thrilled with the idea of Senator John McCain as the GOP nominee. Rush Limbaugh has said that it will destroy the three legged platform that Ronald Reagan created. It should be noted that Limbaugh (should we call him gas bag?) has equal disdain for the former governor of Arkansas. Ann Coulter has said that if McCain gets the nomination, she’ll vote for Hillary Clinton (probably not an endorsement that the good Senator from New York wants). Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, the list goes on and on. Why do these people hate McCain (and Huckabee for that matter?). Liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call us would absolutely never call either of these guys liberal. These two politicians are conservatives. They are not ever moderates. Make no mistake about it. But I will tell you this much; I don’t hate these guys.

Rush, Ann, Sean, Laura and the rest of the angry heads dislike McCain and Huckabee for one simple reason; neither of them are political partisans. They are not rigidly dogmatic. They don’t accept that one has to kill the enemy to win.

In that regard, a President McCain or President Huckabee would be bad for business for these fear mongers. Imagine a conservative president that doesn’t want to destroy anyone or anything that presents an alternative approach. I can respect these guys even if I could never vote for them.

If either of these candidates gets the chance to run against Hillary Clinton in the general election they can and probably will win. Don’t get me wrong, Clinton’s policy positions are better, her policy platform is better thought out from an economic and public policy perspective. She will likely eat both of these guys for lunch on policy in the debates. Ever compare the issues section of a Democratic candidate to those of the GOP candidate pages? Take a look…

http://www.barackobama.com/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

vs.

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

On public policy: check Mate, Dems win!

So if she is better on policy, why would Clinton likely lose? Clinton could do the job on a day to day basis, if we put aside the fact that she is boring and inspires no one. It isn’t because she isn’t tough enough. Clinton is up to the fight. She is right, she won’t get Swift Boated by the right. But that won’t matter. What matters is that Senator McCain can run to the middle knowing that he doesn’t need to rally the Republican base. The opportunity to vote against her will be enough to turn out the base. Ann Coulter isn’t voting for Hillary, Rush isn’t sitting this out. Don’t be fooled. This is a carefully orchestrated effort to by these angry heads to promote McCain’s independent appeal. The heads realize that Supreme Court Justice appointments are at stake. As good for business as it will be for them, the base can’t wait 4-8 years to be back in the White House.

Clinton has very little appeal among independents. McCain will clean up the middle and even if the conservative right turnout is low, it won’t matter. I just don’t see how Hillary can win.

Does that mean Senator Obama can definitely win? No it doesn’t, but this post isn’t about him!

There is a potential perfect storm on the horizon. Can the Democrats avoid it?

Don’t forget the petition

We need to make it clear that the Superdelegates are secondary to the members of the Democratic Party.

Don’t forget to sign the petition. Please send the link to the petition to as many people as you can. We need this one to spread around.