Competing "Blowout" Narratives

Last Friday, Politico ran a story suggesting that McCain might win in a blowout (50+ electoral vote margin) in November. The piece, based largely on interviews with political consultants and the like, started with the near-certain argument that any Republican but McCain would have been a dead man walking. They then assume that McCain will carry nearly every state that Bush carried in 2004, save for perhaps Iowa and Colorado, which he'll compensate for by winning New Hampshire and Michigan and/or Pennsylvania.

It took Democrats nearly a week to counter this narrative, but yesterday Bob Beckel penned a column for RCP arguing that while it'll be a blowout, it will be an Obama blowout. A side note to whoever asked Beckel to write this piece: pick someone with a little more credibility than Walter Mondale's campaign manager; I'll grant that the man knows something about blowouts, but only from the receiving end. Beckel's argument is that McCain will lose far more states Bush won than just Iowa and Colorado, and won't find the votes to make up for those losses.

I'm not sure who's right. Obviously, I'm hoping that the consultants quoted in the Politico's story are. But I have a sense that one of these two is correct - this won't be a squeaker like '04 was but will rather be a pretty clearcut affair. Call it a 60% chance of a 50+ vote margin either way/40% less than 50 votes. If I get time soon, I'll try and analyze where I think those votes are going.

This is Getting Pathetic?

We all know Obama's gaffe-prone; the media tries to cover up the smaller ones, and Obama turns the bigger ones (e.g. no preconditions for negotiations with Iran) into policy papers.

But being a naive idiot is one thing - rewriting history is an entirely different animal. And that's what he's done this time, claiming that his uncle (or maybe it's his grandfather - the article says both, but it's highly unlikely that both were actually involved in the war) was traumatized by the experience of liberating Auschwitz. Hey Barry, your Gramps served with Uncle Joe Stalin's 322nd Rifle Division? Or you're a misspeaking idiot? Which is it?

CBS doesn't even bother to fact-check the story, rather just spits out the contradictions about grandfather and uncle without referring to Wikipedia and its notation that the Soviets overran the camp. But then again (and this one's stuck in my craw all weekend), when the Tribune refers to a veteran of the 2nd Airborne Unit in a story - Unit?! What the hell is a unit? - why should I expect anything from the media anymore? All of this media idiocy and Obama BS is heightened against the Memorial Day backdrop.

UPDATE: The plot thickens! A closer reading of CBS's story causes this speed-reader to realize that Obama claims his uncle liberated Auschwitz. One problem. According to this Tribune article from last March, Obama's (white, Kansas-born) mother was an only child. No uncle. But of course Barry's daddy could have had an uncle fighting in World War II, and perhaps liberating another concentration camp with an American brigade as he says. Another problem. Barry's father is, as we all know, Kenyan. Had he had a brother, he would have had to have fought with British forces, as a member of one of the Empire's African Divisions. These forces were either commited to Africa for the entirety of the war or sent to Burma. No Kenyan uncle in Europe. So it's not just that he misspoke - he didn't mean Dachau, for example (which US forces did liberate) rather than Auschwitz - he flat-out invented an uncle. The Obama family is certainly a casualty of this campaign; first grandma's tossed under the bus in his race speech, now he's inventing uncles out of thin air. Especially against the backdrop of Memorial Day, on which we memorialize the sacrifice of real Americans, this story is so jarring that the media may be forced to take notice.

UPDATE 2: A lot of good stuff on this is getting compiled over at Hot Air - including the fact that he peddled some version of this BS back in 2002. Check it out.

(h/t LGF)

Kossacks Drinking Koolaid

The title isn't anything new, of course, just that when Dear Leader Kos himself speaks, they don't even bother to follow a link and check it out. Case du jour: Ohio polling. Kos busily hypes up a new SurveyUSA Ohio poll showing Obama with a 9 pt advantage over McCain and pointing to the trend lines from a previous poll (McCain +2 at 47-45) as evidence that Obama is uniting the party; he also points out that this is a poll of likely voters.

Now that struck me as odd - I haven't been poll-watching too closely of late, but I didn't think SUSA (an automated phone polling company) surveyed LVs, only registered voters. A quick visit to RealClearPolitics' Ohio polling page showed me to be correct. It also showed that Kos omitted any mention of a few other polls: a Quinnipiac poll of over 1200 RVs conducted during roughly the same period showing McCain up 4, and a Rasmussen poll of LVs (single-day, too so mostly unaffected by the news) showing McCain up 1. What's especially galling about this is that all one needed to do is follow a link provided by Kos to SUSA's site to see that indeed, it was a poll of registered voters. Currently the story's got 163 comments, not one of which seeks to correct Dear Leader's misstep. Listen, I'm not expecting these folks to get a whiff of reality anytime soon - but please, can they at least get the small stuff right?

Also, for what it's worth, I have to think that those Rasmussen numbers are closer to the truth than the SUSA numbers. Why? Well for one thing SUSA's crosstabs indicate that 17% of black voters in the sample support McCain. Case closed. Bunk poll. Interestingly, Rasmussen's poll also indicates that Obama has higher unfavorables, and lower favorables, than McCain in the Buckeye state.

This isn't to say that McCain is going to win Ohio, which he basically must do to win the White House, just that he's probably in a better position to do so than Obama. After all, Ohio Democrats are the sort that Obama has such trouble with - the kind who might confuse white wine and vinegar (and for whom screw-top bottles of vino are no longer just edging into acceptability) - which is to say blue collar types. Sure the state of the economy as portrayed by the media helps Obama, but it may not be enough if he comes across as a guy you wouldn't want to have a beer with (a metric I personally dislike, but appreciate when Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Obama-types).

How Long/Short is Congress's Institutional Memory?

Whereas the Republican-controlled 109th Congress was derided as the "do-nothing Congress," Pelosi & Co. seem determined to make the 110th the "do-something Congress" - even if nothing would be better. Lately, these do-something efforts in the House are aimed at undercutting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been conducted with a surprising amount of cleverness. To begin with, they've split the war funding into three parts: the funding itself, a much-hyped GI Bill, and the obligatory sop to the far-left mandating withdrawal.

On the funding portion, Republicans too showed that they could play cute, and borrowed a play from the Audacity of Hope (or at least Obama's play book): 132 Republicans voted present, protesting the fact that they had not been permitted to offer alternative legislation.

But the real cute part of this whole legislative mess is the benefits for veterans, a new "GI Bill" extending educational benefits for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. To fund these programs, an estimated $52 billion over ten years, Democrats could have slashed discretionary spending elsewhere - the farm bill, for example. Instead, they chose to further burden their favorite target: the successful. Thankfully, unlike Obama's bone-headed conception of wealthy, they set the bar at a reasonable (though still outlandish in principle) $500,000 for individual filers and $1,000,000 for joint filers. The tax hike is also a relatively insignificant .47 percent.

But it's the principle of the matter. Congress has used taxes on the wealthy before to fund wars. Perhaps most notably, in 1898 Congress passed a 3% excise tax on telephone usage. In that day and age, such a tax was a tax on the wealthy. Unlike this tax, the Spanish-American telephone tax was likely proposed without the "screw the rich" intent - after all, no one can dare claim that the country's elite sat out the war (just look at the roster of the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry Regiment). But the telephone tax holds a lesson for Congress, and questions its institutional memory, as it wasn't repealed until 2006.

Now I dare not expect too much of Congress; it's unlikely that most remember when the Spanish-American war was fought, or where - though I do hope they can name our opponent and perhaps (though it may be a stretch) the conflict's casus belli. But they should clearly remember that such taxes outlive their usefulness by years, decades, even centuries, and should be levied carefully. Some enterprising Republican in the Senate (Gordon Smith or Susan Collins, perhaps, who are both moderates and facing stiff reelection battles) should attach an amendment putting a sunset on this tax, or perhaps even an annual renewal.

Democrats also engage - shocker - in some martial relativism here. While all wars are no doubt hell, as Sherman said, they aren't all the same. Congress enacted the GI Bill after the war to reward a whole generation of American men, many of whom had been drafted into the service (though the vast majority went willingly). In contrast, all of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are volunteers. I know, not a distinction I expect 435 of our not so bright and hardly best to grasp, but still.

32 Republicans voted in favor of the bill; many of those are facing tough battles for reelection and represent moderate districts where supporting the troops likely outweighs fiscal responsibility. Some of those 32, however, are just asshats such as Don Young, who no doubt understands that the revenue raised by this tax is fungible and could be diverted to...a bridge to nowhere? If it survives the Senate in its present form (where it'll put McCain in a hell of a bind), Bush will likely veto in the name of fiscal responsibility and urge Democrats to find the money elsewhere. Whether or not the veto gets overridden will likely be a result of two things: whether Boehner and the Republican leadership chooses to whip the vote and keep their party in line, and if not whether individual Republican representatives put fiscal responsibility over a vulnerability to cheap attacks that they don't support the troops (by Democrats and the media who keep twisting the knife in the back of the troops at every opportunity they get).

Poll: McCain, Obama, and Jewish Voters

An eight-day old Gallup poll had some interesting findings that I hadn't seen analyzed anywhere else: Obama leads McCain 61%-32% among Jewish voters. I'm hard-pressed to believe this - after all, Obama has been making some pretty absurd, patently anti-Israeli statements (e.g. Israel's a "constant sore"). If McCain can make serious inroads into Obama's support among Jewish voters, it'll help him put some additional states into play. Given Obama's history of outrageous comments, such inroads may not be out of the question.

Mississippi Musings

Almost unreported by the media on Tuesday night was Democrat Travis Childers' special election victory in Mississippi's First Congressional District. Democrats were ebullient, as well they should have been: Bush carried the First with 59% of the vote in 2000, and 62% in 2004; former Representative Roger Wicker (picked to serve out the remainder of retired Senator Trent Lott's term) won with 66% in '06 and a mind-boggling 79% in '04, when he didn't even have a real Democratic opponent.

What does this suggest? I'll take the optimistic position that it's a special election, that it means little or nothing. Only 107,239 votes were cast Tuesday night; Childers' win, by a margin of 57,800 votes, was a comfortable, though hardly earth-shattering 53.9%. Those 57,800 (a suspiciously nice number?) would admittedly have swung the election to the Democrat in the low-turnout '06 midterm, but in 2004 a swing of that magnitude would have reduced Wicker's margin of victory to a still-impressive 58%. Put another way, Childers received just 8,626 votes more than the Democratic candidate did in 2006. All in all, the numbers are a mixed message. Specials are all about turnout and some combination of pissed off/fired up Democrats, disaffected independents, and dispirited Republicans gave Childers the win. But in this "who knows what it says but it ain't earth-shattering," sky-is-partly-cloudy, glass-is-half-full analysis, I'm something of a voice in the wilderness.

Perhaps the dominant interpretation (voiced by Fred Barnes on Fox News last night) is that Mississippi's special election was driven by a rejection of Republicanism. It's plausible, given that this wasn't a truly anti-incumbent election, but rather may have been an anti-incumbent party election, which could be bad news. Yet while Mississippians sent a Democrat to Congress, McCain remains highly competitive with Obama nationally. Just how deep the GOP's woes are remains unclear, though retiring Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) released a 20-page memo outlining the dismal state of the party (in which he created a furor by using Obama and tar baby in the same paragraph, god forbid); this, of course, comes less than ten days after Newt Gingrich's widely-reported and similarly apocalyptic warnings.

The state of the party deserves a post in itself; right now I'm interested only in the state of the state (of Mississippi). Does Travis Childers' victory suggest that Mississippi is in play in November? This is a state that Bush carried easily, with 59% in '04 and 58% in 2000. On the face of things, it's a stretch to argue that Obama can make up that sort of deficit to put the Magnolia State in his column. But Mississippi also has one of the largest proportions of African-Americans in the nation - 36%, or using '06 census estimates from National Journal, 1,053,615(.48...) black voters. If all of the voting-age members of this demographic came out and voted, Obama would be in a much better place. If Childers' victory is indicative of widespread dissatisfaction among independents, and demoralized Republicans, it could be within the realm of possibility (thought at its outer reaches) that Obama could win. Perhaps more darkly still, if Obama wins, does Democratic Senate candidate Ronnie Musgrove win as well? Upsets like that are the sort that will give Democrats what I fear most: a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Arrogant and Nonsensical

This particular combination often takes talent, and seems to be exclusively the purview of elected Democrats (see: Obama, Barack: Gaffes: "bitter"). This morning, a rank-and-file Obamamaniac got in on the act with this letter to the editor:

I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind voters choosing Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot in order to defeat Barack Obama.

Voting is a privilege and if voters can't take the process seriously, I wish they would stay away from the voting booth.

Republicans should be embarrassed by this fiasco and so should all the talk show hosts who have encouraged it.

If Clinton wins the election, the same voters will have themselves to blame, but it will be too late to do anything about it. I find Obama a refreshing voice in this election and a man I can support to be president. I find Clinton a woman who will say and do anything to win the election. I find her disingenuous and untrustworthy.

I feel Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. has contributed to this mess because of his ego and his legacy will be forever tarnished.

I am proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of how little some Americans value the election process.

—Gloria Loehr

Ummm...? Choosing to defeat Barack Obama? They can't choose to support a candidate they believe better supports their values? Voting for a candidate with less than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination isn't taking voting seriously? Hordes of college students flocking to the polls and voting for "Change" is taking voting seriously?

The arrogance is overwhelming. The cogency is utterly absent. It's possible that Ms. Loehr is venting primarily at those Republicans who crossed the aisle to keep Hillary in the race, but she fails to make that distinction thus portraying herself as a raging ignoramus. I imagine the Tribune was having some fun when they chose to print this one.

Noteworthy and Under-Reported

The Marines - and all the other branches of the armed services - exceeded their April recruitment goals. Even in a three-paragraph article, AP puts into play the inevitable Democratic talking point: "Recruiting is easier in a slow economy." That being said, the economy isn't as slow as AP would like to believe; perhaps improving conditions on the ground are causing young Americans to once again consider serving their country?

[I first caught this in the Tribune this morning, but couldn't find it on their website; the first Google News searches I ran yielded some interesting and irrelevant results]

Only in North Carolina?

I'll try not to say too much about yesterday's presidential primaries (a promise I intend to break promptly in my next post), but I'll shine some light on other items of interest.

North Carolina had a full slate electoral contests this year - the presidential nomination, of course, but also contests for the two parties' nods for Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and a whole slew of down-ticket offices (around here, even officials such as the Commissioners of Insurance, Labor, and Agriculture are elected, which presumably asks a lot of voters).

None of that has anything to do with this however: a candidate for the State House, Stan Morse, arguing that his challenger was more electable (to say nothing of "better looking and smarter"), endorses his opponent and goes so far as to make a preemptive concession speech and campaign on his supposed opponent's behalf. The voters, however, were not having any of it and simply renominated Morse with nearly 55% of the vote.

Only in North Carolina? Perhaps not, but it's certainly amusing.

Two additional, tangential notes: first off, for all things political in the state, there's no better source than the Raleigh News & Observer's blog Under the Dome. Second, the N&O should be congratulated - their reporting on state and local elections provides an incredibly detailed accounting of voting, including maps of geographic distribution and turnout data. I wish every publication was this committed covering elections.

I'm Back

Yes, again, I'm back. For an indeterminate length of time. To produce an unspecified and entirely random number of "intellectual" "gems" for you to admire. Enjoy!

More Veep Speculation

In his weekend column, Bob Novak suggests that former Congressman, US Trade Representative, and OMB Director Rob Portman is somewhere near the top of the McCain campaign's VP list. As Novak says,

"Portman's background is legislative (House Republican leadership), executive (George W. Bush's Cabinet), diplomatic (U.S. trade representative) and economic (Office of Management and Budget director). He comes from a swing state (Ohio), is young enough (52) to contrast McCain and conservative enough (89 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating)."

I see the argument, and again I think that McCain's not forced to pick a governor because of the absence of governing experience on the Democratic side. Also, we have to assume he's vetted and thus free of any skeletons in the closet.

Wow

Davidson's something special, that's all I can say.

Electorate Muddled on Obama's Religion

The Wright flap would seem to indicate, as in 2x4 across the face indicate, that Obama's a Christian. Apparently 1 in 10 voters don't read the news and still think he's a Muslim (that includes 10% of Democrats).

Wright himself is a mixed bag - a new poll suggests his disgusting comments don't actually hurt Obama - but the AP would have us believe that faith isn't exactly helping him either.

Yikes.

Dean Tries To End This Party Early (& Other News)

On Good Morning America today, Howard Dean tried to lay down the law, announcing that he wants superdelegates to make a decision by July 1.

Personally speaking, I think it will be decided by then - unless Hillary somehow puts together a late-season run which I view as increasingly unlikely. Among other things, some of the as yet-uncommitted supers can probably be be put in the Obama column; here in North Carolina, Congressman Mel Watt (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus) is almost a sure-thing Obama super, yet hasn't officially endorsed. Even the letter from her moneybags supporters to Pelosi, chastising her for suggesting that supers should back the pledged delegate leader, may not save her if it's not close (this merits a story in itself...).

But Dean didn't say, at least not this morning, what others in the party have been repeating in recent days: supers should not override the "will" of the electorate - basically refuting the Clinton supporters. If the supers do? Goody. But again, doubtful. What's interesting is in that Politico piece, both Pelosi and TN Governor Phil Bredesen are quoted; might Bredesen be making a play for the #2 spot? Chris Dodd has also urged the party to find a way to end this mess...("I know! Nominate me!").

Speaking of Obama picking up supers, it's come out this morning that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has endorsed Mr. Change, and will join him on the bus tour. On the face of it, this is significant because Casey could give Obama some badly-needed help among the white working class voters who were decisive in Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas. But that's not the fun part about Casey's endorsement: the fun part is that Casey's father, Bob Casey Sr., was governor back in the 80s and 90s. He tried to get a speaking slot at the 92 Democratic Convention to voice his opposition to abortion. Organizers, probably pressed by the Clintons, refused. Revenge, unlike a Philly cheese steak, is a dish best served cold.

Choose Your Own Adventure

Or at least your own Democratic outcome - RCP's Jay Cost has put together an HTML-based spreadsheet (Google Docs, perhaps?) which allows you to play with potential outcomes of the remaining Democratic nomination contests (super-delegate primary not included) and see how that affects Hillary's final vote total.

Me? I don't think she's going to lose Montana by 10 points, even though Chris Cillizza took a good look at that yesterday and Obama's clearly got the edge in the ground game; I also think that South Dakota's being closed will result in a closer race or even a Clinton victory (though the fact that SoDak's sole Rep, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, is an Obama supporter - thanks to CC for that tidbit as well - probably helps him in a big way).

Of course, Hillary's trying to move the goalposts, so to speak, once again, with surrogate/super-del Evan Bayh arguing a few days ago that the real metric should be comparing the electoral college votes of states Hillary won versus those Obama own. This is a new spin on Clinton's tired old "I won big states therefore I'm more electable" argument, which no one bought; whether the change of clothes will change perceptions remains to be seen. The irony, of course, is that a few years ago Hillary was all for doing away with the Electoral College and going to a popular election - popular election=popular vote=Obama's winning - thus she's switched sides. However, it's interesting to compare those numbers. So, using the Post's fun Electoral College tool, let's take a look.

Clinton's Wins:


Obama's Wins:


Clinton's got a 61 vote lead by this count, and isn't far from "victory," though the visual effect of this is to show just how many states Obama's won. How many of those he'd carry in a general election is a different question. If Clinton somehow pulls off a near-sweep in the remaining contests, that'll even at least the coloring but only narrow the popular vote and delegate counts (barring a resolution of Florida and Michigan). I'm not going to predict this one...

Intriguing Possibility

A few weeks ago, the folks over at Hot Air brought attention to a new initiative of Mitt Romney's, an effort to become the "ideas factory" of the GOP and presumably pour some money into candidates. Can we say running again? (Which of course shows a lack of confidence in McCain's prospect). Any sort of unstructured group like a 527 is obviously ideal for Romney as he can dump unlimited amounts of his own cash in, though I didn't think he would.

I didn't think he would, at least until Chris Cillizza blogged about a new Republican soft money group calling itself the American Future Fund. It's not a 527 per se, rather it's a 501(c)(4), which according to CC means "it is a nonprofit that can engage in some political activity and is not required to disclose its donors, all of whom can give unlimited sums to the effort. It cannot directly advocate for or against a candidate and its pitch must be issue-centered." The emphasis is my own; issue-centered is exactly what Romney would be going for. Obviously, we don't know who's funding this group, but I immediately found myself wondering whether Mitt did indeed have a role.

That thought was strengthened when CC listed who was involved, a top-notch slate of Republican activists, most of whom were involved with Romney's campaign. It's entirely plausible that the ex-governor's behind this; he attempted something similar before his presidential campaign using his Commonwealth PAC, but that was limited. If he's behind the AFF, he can pick up some serious IOUs: IFF is on the air in Minnesota in support of threatened incumbent Senator Norm Coleman, and could do the same thing elsewhere.What's fascinating about this ad, as CC noted, is that it's issue-based; but it's not just issue-based, it plays up his record of bipartisanship in the Senate, an intriguing twist. Even if the NRSC had the money to go on the air up this early in the Gopher State, it'd either be attacks on Al Franken or pro-Coleman ads that might not play too well in such a purple state. The other value of this ad is that it puts Coleman astride the aisle, allowing for some pretty easy contrasts against Franken, who I think Merriam-Webster would define as left-wing extremist.

All in all, very curious.

Heh

I awoke to the usual slew of emails today. One of them announced that an ACLU speaker was coming to speak here - but not just any ACLU speaker, a fellow named King Downing, head of the group's national Campaign Against Racial Profiling. CARP. Obviously I was amused, given that Merriam-Webster defines carp, when used as a verb, as "to find fault or complain querulously." How apropos.

What's Going On in Pennsylvania?

The expectations game in Pennsylvania's April 22nd primary is already underway: Clinton's predicting (and needing) a win. Obama manager David Plouffe has also set her up for a win, saying she "should win by a healthy margin given where they start....We'll try and get as many votes and delegates as we can, but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania ...."

Demographically, the state favors Clinton. Western PA is heavily white, working class, and Catholic - think Steelers fans. Much of the central region is also white and middle- or lower-class. Those demographics are also the kind of voters who are leery of Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright - a leeriness reflected in a new poll showing her up 51-37 among likely Democratic voters.

Clinton's chances are bolstered by the endorsement of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a pretty serious party boss who topped the ticket in a great year for Democrats in the state in 2006. An additional boost is the fact that the state's is a closed primary: only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary; the independents who have fueled Obama elsewhere won't be able to take part unless they re-register their affiliation (playing back into the import of that poll).

Obama should fare better in the eastern part of the state - urban Philly's minority voters as well as the wealthy, educated suburbs surrounding the City of Brotherly Love. The area is rife with classic swing voters: While delivering the state to Kerry in '04, they also sent their Republican representatives back to Congress; in '06, they voted solidly Democratic. So the fact that it's that area that has seen one of the largest increases in Democratic registration may be very telling; ironically, this was the territory Rendell carried en route to his primary victory in 2002 against now-Senator Bob Casey.

In one of the most interesting Keystone scenarios, a pair of state political observers make the argument that this primary replays that '02 gubernatorial between "the son and heir apparent of the former Governor Casey against the liberal, urban, upstart Rendell." Rendell won just ten of the state's 67 counties enroute to a 54-46 victory. Can Obama do it? Maybe. Wright's a cross he has to bear among increasingly suspicious voters outside of the guilt-ridden liberals who are his base. Philly's also got about a billion colleges and universities, meaning that if his campaign has its usual success in getting students to the polls, he could do pretty well there.

For Hillary, Pennsylvania may be do or die again - just like New Hampshire and then Ohio and Texas were do or die. Should he somehow win here, Obama may run the rest of the table. However, his prospects may have become complicated by Wright, reflected in developments like the poll in North Carolina that has his lead down to one; Allahpundit situated that poll in the larger picture of a campaign hemorrhaging support across the country. If he loses PA, and loses (or almost loses?) NC, it's all eyes to Indiana, where popular Senator Evan Bayh has endorsed Hillary. So, once momentum's tossed into the mix, there's an argument to be made that Pennsylvania could be do-or-die for either candidate [ed: this may not be entirely clear right now; perhaps I'll flesh it out later].

Another element that I haven't seen discussed anywhere is the cost of running a campaign in Pennsylvania. There are two major media markets - Pittsburgh and Philly - and a handful of smaller ones. Philly's DMA (designated media area), bleeding into New Jersey, is among the most expensive in the nation. Both Hillary and Obama have a ton of cash, but both will have to throw a ton of it into the state to pull out the W. We're not talking break-the-bank expenditures, but enough that whoever comes up short may wonder if they got their money's worth.

What of al-Sadr?

Moqtada al-Sadr is one of the biggest players in Iraqi politics, a Shiite cleric with plenty of influence and a private army to boot. Yet he's been out of the limelight in recent months. A must-read article from the Journal explores the man and the present situation.

Uh-Oh Hillary

Senator Clinton's campaign has been trying to make as much hay as possible out of Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright. Those efforts stop now, as photos emerge of Bill Clinton and Wright together at a White House prayer breakfast in 1998; more damningly, Hillary's recently-released First Lady schedules indicate that she, too, was in attendance. Obviously Clinton & Co. are doing their best to spin this, noting that Clinton met and took photos with untold numbers of people in his eight years in the White House. While there's truth in that, Obama can push back hard.

This one should be fun...

UPDATE: The photo may have come from Obama' s campaign, and Hillary's camp is spinning hard.

Barack's Bracket

Interested in who Obama likes in March? Take a look.

Is it all politics? Thoughts:

• Wonder how Indiana feels about him throwing IU under the bus? I mean it's Clinton country, obviously, but UNC's clearly more important to him. After all, he only leads by 1 point there.
  
• In fact, two Indiana schools lose - he toys with Notre Dame till the Sweet Sixteen, then sacrifices them to UNC as well.
• He also likes Duke, a little bit, thus winning over some elite liberals down here.
• After day 1, he's only missed three games: Wazzou/Winthrop, Purdue/Baylor, and USC/KSU. Not too shabby.

UPDATE: Is he fishing for Edwards' endorsement? As I noted months back, Edwards was endorsed by UNC legend Dean Smith.

More on Mac's Missteps

The tempest in a teacup continues over McCain's true-in-the-real-world/fake-in-liberal-la-la-land statement that Iran is supporting al Qaeda. The Weekly Standard's got more evidence supporting the Senator here, here; HotAir adds their two cents as well.

Meanwhile, as noted by HotAir, the McCain campaign is standing by their candidate's statements;; for their part, Obama & Co. just keep digging. Elsewhere on the Left, Think Progress is so addled by their fantastic version of events that, as Michael Goldfarb points out, they actually agree with McCain. The Boston Globe does their part, and Threats Watch calls them out for this egregious statement:

Iran and the United States have a common interest in a stable Iraq. Tehran does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas. Before cooperating to stabilize Iraq, however, Iran wants assurances that the United States will not use it as a base for covert action and military attacks against the Islamic Republic and will gradually phase out its combat forces.

Really? Really? Start by playing the peaceful Iran card, move on to accusing the US of being aggressive bullies seeking to start a war with Iran. Also, let's play fill-in-the-blank: "______ does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas." I'm not entirely convinced that they didn't confuse Turkey and Iran...

Finally, I know Brendan Nyhan; I like Brendan Nyhan. But with regard to this particular story, his partisan blinders are on snugly. Nyhan conflates a truly egregious story from 2006, when the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Democrat Silvestro Reyes, couldn't say whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, with McCain's comments. To Nyhan, the so-called gaffe suggests that McCain "apparently doesn't understand the most basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shiites (i.e. Iran is Shiite, Al Qaeda is Sunni)." It's getting to be a tired old meme that Sunnis and Shiites won't put aside their sectarianism in the face of a common enemy, and it shows a disturbing close-mindedness on the part of its adherents.

Econ Blogs

Given the tumult of the market, and a general interest in economics without any real training, I'm drawn to economically-oriented blogs. A few of the good ones I've dug up in recent days:

• Kudlow's Money Politics on National Review: National Review's economic editor, and CNBC host blogs on economically-related issues...
• Kudlow's Money Politics: Same guy, different blog; this one is a bit more related to his show.
• Greg Mankiw's Blog: Random Observations for Students of Economics: Mankiw's a Harvard professor as well as the former chair of President's Council of Economic Advisers. His focus is a bit more on economics students, particularly those at the graduate level, but that doesn't diminish the value of his insights.
  

Cool

Perhaps it's been around for a while and I've just missed it, but meet ScotusWiki. Yes, it's a Supreme Court wiki...and it's pretty cool.

Maybe this just says something about me.

Speaking of Foreign Policy Missteps

Maybe McCain misspoke, maybe he didn't. Either way, he's got a fall back position in those reports of Iran's ties to al Qaeda. Now I'd like to turn the spotlight to both Hillary and Obama, and turn the clock back to their sparring match in Cleveland. Russert asks Hillary about Putin's handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev. From the official transcript:
"Russert: Who will it be? Do you know his name?

Sen. Clinton: Medvedev -- whatever."

Whatever, Hillary? Obama then gets his bite at the apple, a long-winded reply that tries to blame Bush for everything. But Marc Ambinder, writing immediately after the fact, poses an interesting question:

Although Clinton had trouble pronouncing his name -- Medvevev, it was clear that she knew it, and that she was at least cursorily familiar with the details of the election and the challenge it poses for the U.S. As NBC News’s hounds noted, Obama appeared to defer to her. If you were watching closely, you might have wondered whether Obama had received a briefing recently on Russia, rather than a recitation of the case against George W. Bush’s relationship with Putin.

Too bad that one didn't go to Obama - and it suggests that if he secures the nomination, McCain & Co. would do well to hammer him on all things international.

McCain's Alleged Misstep

The Left has their collective (unisex/un-gendered) panties in a bunch over John McCain's comments while on tour in the Middle East that Iran was supporting Al Qaeda. It's not clear whether his comments were made thrice over two days - as some allege - or simply twice in a single day. The "he said it thrice" argument centers on a statement from the campaign, which is interesting and, if you believe the Lefty spin on things, potentially damning because he and his campaign must be chugging the neocon kool aid.

Their spin, sold as indisputable truth, is simply that Iran can't be funding, or in any way supporting, Al Qaeda. Why? Because Iran's Shiite and Al Qaeda's Sunni, duh. It's a simple redux of the old Saddam can't support Al Qaeda argument because he was a secularist (though a man of faith when it fit his needs) and they were zealots. Same story, new characters. Stephen Hayes took that one to town, pretty conclusively I'd say, back in 2006.

But what about this new one - is there any reason to believe Iran is backing Al Qaeda? As Ed Morrissey demonstrates with a variety of sources, yes, yes indeed there is. Morrissey draws primarily on "untrustworthy" conservative sources - the Standard and New York Sun to name two, but if you like your media more mainstream, try this one from the Post ('04 instead of '06/'07, so based on the 9/11 Commission instead of sources in Iraq).

So why'd McCain say it? Was it sleep deprivation and jet-lag? That was my original thought, based in part on the fact that that Times piece claims he only came back onto the PC reservation when "he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman." They go on to quote a McCain spokesman who says the Senator misspoke; at the time the Senator himself made a clarification of sorts, saying that “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.” Of course, Al Qaeda would be extremists of a sort, so it's an interesting walk-back.

The DNC immediately fired a salvo at McCain; I'll quote at length from the Times:

“After eight years of the Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

The bold highlights are my own; it goes without saying that that statement contradicts evidence presented by the US military, facts on the ground so to speak.

Obama, in a campaign stop here in North Carolina, also pounced on McCain, saying that "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Again, Obama's statement stands in contradiction to a considerable body of evidence on both the alleged AQ/Iraq and AQI/Iran ties.

The Democratic/media (Democratic media?) narrative is that McCain's misstep was a serious gaffe, contradicting his experience and foreign policy credentials. Perhaps, and if so, it'll take some damage control - though it'll also get somewhat buried given the preponderance of the news coverage being devoted to Obama's speech yesterday.

But instead, indulge me in the product of a heavily caffeinated mind. Perhaps, just perhaps, McCain's "misstep" was intentional. I imagine that for him, the reports of Iran's ties to Al Qaeda are credible. Indeed, who's to say that there aren't more reports to that extent coming out in the near future? He might be privy to them, either from his recent trip in Iraq or his stop in Israel. If so, he just drew both the DNC and Obama way out, essentially invited themselves to put their own necks on the block. If there is more compelling evidence about those ties, if the other shoe's about to drop, their gooses may be up in smoke. Obama proves himself to be inexperienced. A devastating ambush, convincingly set by the wily old Senator, right down to the "correction" by Lieberman and the nuanced "extremists" walk-back with its avenues of wiggle room. Perhaps. Am I crazy? Perhaps not.

Two exhibits in my defense, if you please. First off, McCain's trusted adviser (and coauthor) Mark Salter has already fired back at Obama: "Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of." Your move, Barack - dig in deeper, or go look at that evidence? Second, and perhaps more telling, Hillary's been mum on this. Maybe she wants McCain and Obama to throw a few punches at one another - if they hurt each other, she wins. But maybe, just maybe, she's aware of the evidence that Salter cites, the evidence that Obama (and the American public) seems oblivious to. If so, she's quite content to say nothing and let Obama hoist himself by his own petard.

An additional exhibit, though of a less proximate nature: McCain's hammering Obama a few weeks ago for saying that he would reenter Iraq "if al Qaeda was forming a base" there. McCain slapped him around for suggesting that Iraq wasn't already there, and rightly so.

Another intriguing thing: who is McCain's audience on this present trip; who, outside of devoted Democrats, is most likely to note his apparent "misstep?" Israelis and American Jews, two groups who have plenty of reason to worry about Iran, and who fear the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not saying all Israelis or American Jews, mind you, but substantial portions of each population. I suspect that many American Jews were already starting to feel a bit alienated from Obama, given the raging anti-Semitism present in some of the Reverend Wright's sermons (for example, the revelation that in one of his bulletins, Wright republished an infamous LA Times editorial penned by a Hamas member). On the heels of that mess, McCain sends a strong signal of his support for Israel. Call me crazy?

So to recap, and I may be crazy: McCain "missteps." McCain's correction doesn't actually withdraw the allegedly incorrect statement, only one part of it. Democrats call him crazy, media claims he's tarnished his foreign policy credentials. Salter fires back at Obama, Hillary says nothing. Obama's just been drawn out and shown up again on foreign policy, twice in a month. Was it an accident, or is the old man that good?

The DC Gun Ban Case

Among the most anxiously-awaited decisions of the Supreme Court this term is that in Washington DC v. Heller, a challenge to the constitutionality of the district's handgun ban. Given that I enjoy, and have some understanding of, con law, but am no expert, I'll shy away from analysis and mostly just go link happy. The usually far-left Lawrence Tribe has a more nuanced view of the Second Amendment, and writing in the Journal a few days ago, advocates the most narrow possible ruling.

The peerless folks over at SCOTUSBlog penned a rather lengthy dissertation on the meaning of the right of self defense, but it's worthwhile and touches on the apparent feelings of many of the justices. My reading of what they have to say is that if we see a narrow, vintage Roberts ruling here, it may be as strong as 6-3 in favor; such a narrow ruling might win over both Kennedy and Breyer. Of course I also looking forward to the dissents of the other three...

They've also pulled together links to a bunch of coverage both in the media and the legal world in the wake of the arguments in two posts; one is just straight coverage, while the other includes links to the audio files of the hearings.

One blogger they link to echoes my predicted decision above, but takes a more nuanced approach with Breyer writing a separate concurrence in part and dissent in part (have your cake and eat it too while wearing a long black robe!) in which Ginsburg might join; such a 5-2-2 split would leave Stevens and Souter dissenting, and depending on what Breyer says, could be interpreted as a victory for 2nd Amendment activists.

How Cute (And Telling)

I don't buy into the whole Obama campaign meme regarding Hillary and the divisive politics of old; it's an especially hollow line in light of recent events. But I'll say that Hillary has displayed a tolerance for some pretty questionable characters; as I noted last year, Alcee Hastings, an impeached federal judge, was her Florida campaign co-chair.

In that vein, the Post's Anne Kornblut reports that Clinton just snagged the nomination of Western Pennsylvania power-broker John Murtha. Murtha, of course, is among the most corrupt members of the House, being nearly netted in the infamous Abscam sting back in the '80s. Now he runs a "trading post" on the House floor, steering massive amounts of pork back to his district and generally abusing his position as chairman of the Defense subcommittee of Appropriations. He's also been an outspoken critic of the war, at one point suggesting that troops be redeployed to somewhere nearby (Okinawa, anyone?), although more recently he's seen some of the light on the surge.

I doubt that Murtha understands the meaning of principle, so I'll take this endorsement as an indication of the way the wind is blowing in the Keystone State. Everyone expects Hillary to win the April 22nd primary there, the only question is by how much.

The #2 Spot

FDR's first VP, Cactus Jack Nance, once famously described his job as not being worth a bucket of warm piss. That, of course, was before the days when vice presidents could do fun things like invent the Internet and take off for lengthy vacations in secure, undisclosed locations.

But given that McCain's locked up the GOP nomination, much speculation turns to the question of who he will pick as his running mate. The Journal has been running a series of pieces that act as interesting conversation starters, so I figured why not toss my two cents in. I'll start by toying with the assertion put forward in one piece, that "the old rules that chose vice presidents for sectional balance or the ability to win big states are out of date." Perhaps that's true, at least with regard to the states, but isn't picking a candidate to assuage the conservative base a form of "sectional balance?" If not, what is it? Anyways, the fact that most big states don't have a Republican governor at present makes that point somewhat irrelevant. I'll also say that the pick shouldn't be a Senator. For one thing, most of the more intriguing names have already begged off - Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, for example. More importantly, McCain needs someone with real governing experience on the ticket; he's too Washington by himself, and another Beltway insider will just reinforce that perception. Thus no Senators.

The first piece, in late February and written by a Minnesota conservative, assails the conservative credentials of Tim Pawlenty, that state's governor. Certainly, some of the author's grievances resonate with me; for example:

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. "It looks like we should have listened to President Carter," he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. "He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don't think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices

Listen to President Carter? Really? Yikes.

But some of his points go over less-well with this particular pundit:

Mr. Pawlenty supported a 75 cents per-pack cigarette tax. He called it a "health impact" fee. No one was fooled. User fees are generally charged to ensure that those who use a government service pay for the cost of providing that service. In this case, however, it was obvious that smokers were just being tapped to fund health-care entitlement programs. Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days -- although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

To me, smoking bans are a good thing - at least in places where one's action can negatively affect others both in terms of health and pure comfort. A tax on cigarettes, whatever the purpose of the revenue, is also something I'm not going to get riled up over.

On healthcare, he appears to be a Romney-esque "new Republican," favoring healthcare for all children as well as a mandate for all residents. I'll never advocate universal, single-payer healthcare; my own internal jury is out on a mandate. But healthcare for all children? To begin with, it's the right thing to do. It's also a no-win situation if you try and block it. Some handful of real conservatives (in a place like Minnesota) may love you for it, but the media's going to crucify you.

Finally, Pawlenty's favored bigger mandates on renewable energy use in the state. Go to Minnesota; look around. There's nothing there. Wind and solar are great uses, and strongly encouraging the state to use them is a good thing. 30% by 2020 is steep, but why not just like the state's western border, with the absolutely uninhabited Dakotas, with wind turb"ines?

Verdict: Some interesting policy ideas, but if this is an honest representation of Pawlenty's policies, he's probably a no-go for conservatives at large. However, if McCain can assuage the conservative base come the convention, he may be useful. The Midwest, in part because of economic concerns, has been turning purple (or even blue) in recent years; a local, however obnoxious the accent, may bring them back into the fold. But he shouldn't be the top of the short list.

The second piece isn't about any potential VP candidate, but is by one of the most talked-about names: South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, discussing why in light of the looming entitlement crisis, McCain's the only acceptable candidate. While I agree with him, his excessive use of bad analogies and metaphors:

"To use a football analogy, we're at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game. I sat out the first half...But I'm now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It's important that conservatives do the same...Hope alone won't carry us through the valley of the shadow of debt....A number of us tried to apply the brakes to the Washington spending train...The contrast between the two opposing teams is stark. It is time for the entire conservative squad to step onto the field. Who will join me in helping our team get the ball and move it down the field?"

Besides the fact that he's desperately in need of a new speech-writer, one free of such badly cliched language, he makes some good points. McCain's got the record here; his opponents have not only failed to acknowledge the need to rein in spending, they're actually talking about increasing spending.

But this begs another question, one with regard to Governor Sanford himself. The most prominent reason to include him on the ticket are his fiscal credentials. If McCain's got those, why do we need to double up on them? Of course, he's also got great social con bonafides, but he's such a fiscal hawk that members of his own party despise him down in South Carolina.

Verdict: Another interesting choice, and one who might rise in prominence if McCain hasn't gotten the party's conservative base in line by late summer. Sanford will largely lock up the South, and will significantly assuage conservative concerns about McCain's health; if, God forbid, he expires in office, they won't be anxious about his replacement.

The third and final of the WSJ's articles concerns in the author's words, "the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal." His argument, based largely on the fact that Jindal's resume is enormously impressive, has merit: The guy graduated high school at 16, a graduate of Brown, Rhodes Scholar, stint at McKinsey, made secretary of the Louisiana department of health and hospitals in 1996, executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in 1998, named president of the University of Louisiana System in 1999, assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from 2001-2003, served in the House from 2004-2007, governor 2007-present. He's also a yet-tender 36.

Verdict: That Jindal can clearly out-wonk just about anyone the Democrats could field against him, no one will dispute. But despite his experience, I think his youth is a bit much to be considered for national office. Certainly, he'd rally the base to McCain, but I wonder if putting him on the ticket without a really compelling reason is rushing things. Should McCain lose, Jindal may be tainted by it. Why not let him keep his powder dry down in the bayou; in 2016 (or if necessary 2012), he'll have a nice set of gubernatorial accomplishments to campaign on. But the author's last point may be the most valid: "If Mr. McCain is to win, he needs not just numbers but enthusiasm. The Democratic primaries consistently have brought out twice as many voters as the Republican primaries. Mr. Jindal has already demonstrated that he can get voters enthused." Jindal should be treated as the GOP's ace in the hole. One last point for consideration, and I don't know the answer to this, but what does Jindal bring to the table (besides intellect) that Sanford doesn't?

Of course the Journal's not the only one running pieces on potential veep picks. The Chicago Trib had a brief article late last week floating the notion of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. There's a lot to like about Palin. She's conservative enough to placate the base, she's youthful, and she may make inroads among women, a traditionally Democratic constituency. She's also hugely popular, with approval ratings somewhere in the 80s and even 90s.

But she's been a bit lefty on global warming and climate change, a stance that may alienate some Republican voters. And while she herself has been ardently anti-corruption (endemic in Alaska), the fact that the rest of the state Republican Party is in hot water for it may cause her to be tarred with the same brush. Because since when does the media make distinctions?

Palin and Jindal have something in common: They both have an irrefutable air of trying to match the Dems. You have a woman on the ticket? We can put a woman in the #2 spot! You have a non-white guy on the ticket? We can put a non-white guy in the #2 spot! Like Jindal, Palin is recently elected without much of a portfolio to run on. Further, while I think the era of picking a candidate because of geography is over, I also think going to the other extreme is pretty crazy. Alaska's got a whopping three electoral votes - tied for least in the nation. I'm also worried about the notion of corruption by association; that concern becomes more valid if (when?) Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young are indicted.

Verdict: A dark horse, no doubt. Alaska's out of the media spotlight, so I'm not really if there are any concerns to be had. Her anti-corruption priorities match those of McCain; he's also shown himself to be a liberal thinker on climate change. But as with all of these candidates, I think she's selected as the party determines is necessary. However, she certainly deserves a hard look - even if she does bring a measly three votes to the table.

Florida's Charlie Crist is another name often tossed about. Like Palin, he's enormously popular. His endorsement probably won the primary for McCain, a big, fat IOU. Similarly, his being on the ticket could lock up the state in the general. Thus the frequency with which he is mentioned as a candidate (especially since the state of the economy probably puts Ohio solidly in the Democratic column).

But there may be an enormous skeleton in the closet: him...so to speak. There are widespread, but largely unsubstantiated, rumors that until his star began to rise, Crist was way out of the closet. Is there truth in the matter? Well he is divorced; he certainly wouldn't be the first gay Florida Republican...Mark Foley, anyone? I'm not sure what he brings to the table - could he deliver Florida just campaigning for McCain instead of running with him? - and even if he's not gay, if Clinton's the nominee her smear machine won't hesitate to spread word that he is.

And if he ends up on the ticket? Either the RNC did an awful vetting job, or he's actually not gay. That's all.

PS: Chris Cillizza tossed out a few names for both Democrats and Republicans a few weeks back; I covered three of the five Republicans, and will dismiss his other two out of hand. Chris, c'mon - Republican voters won't back a qualified presidential candidate in Mitt Romney, in large part because he's Mormon, but they'll accept a Mormon veep? Utah's Jon Huntsman brings a lot to the table, including scads of cash and strong credentials, but I think the Mormon factor would be a big negative - and if it isn't, why not look at Mitt again? His business credentials are stellar and given the jittery state of the economy (those might be needed in months to come), he too is filthy rich (okay, hundreds of millions instead of billions, but at that point who's really counting?), and instead of Utah, which McCain can't lose, Romney puts Michigan and potentially Massachusetts in play. The fifth name on his list, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, is DQ'd by my original rules at the top of the post. Anyways, three electoral votes again.

The most interesting name on the list, far and away, is on the Democratic side, that of former Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni. Maybe a topic for another day.

CC also did video interviews with Pawlenty, Sanford and Palin, as well as Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas back during the National Governors Association meeting. I haven't watched them just yet, but I suspect they're worthwhile.

That's all, folks.

Obama and Clinton Bicker...

...while John McCain not-so-subtly demonstrates that he's got experience and leadership ability.

Meanwhile, Hillary, in a classic Clintonian balancing act, goes after both McCain and Obama on the war. I especially like this bit of verbal jujitsu: "Withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years." So on the Hillary Clinton SAT, withdrawal : victory :: staying there : defeat? Please, someone enlighten me on this one...

UPDATE: McCain, of course, isn't buying her BS for a minute. He fired back (via Ambinder) in an interview with CNN's John King. He gets it, she doesn't. End of story.

New Favorite Blog?

Hyperbole, I promise, but The Pour - the blog of Times wine critic Eric Asimov - is certainly amusing and interesting.

Netroots Fractures

The Hillary-Obama brouhaha appears to have claimed, or is beginning to claim, another victim: the netroots. These clowns, who took credit (without any evidence to support this claim) for the outcome of the '06 midterms, used to be unified in their support of Democrats and their hatred of any and all Republicans (most of them are a half-step away from Stalinism vis-a-vis the bourgeoisie).

Now, however, Marc Ambinder reports that netroots anchor DailyKos is being boycotted by Clinton supporters; they claim that Kos has become hostile to any who don't buy into the Obama fad, and have boycotted, taking their writing elsewhere.

Does it matter? Yes and no. The latter argument: Dick Meyer criticizes what he terms "blog triumphalism - the idea that a Web format could dramatically change human communication, journalism and the mechanics of democracy;" this triumphalism "exists only in its own echo chamber." So in that sense, this particular falling-out is of limited importance to anyone.

So why is there a yes? Because these people are the activists within the Democratic Party - the ones who walk precincts, recruit friends, donate, and vote. No one can predict whether this factionalism will subside once Hillary or Barack clinches the nomination, or whether the losing party's aggrieved partisans will become embittered and sit out the rest of the cycle. If that's the case, it does matter.

Only time will tell.

A Tournament Weekend Storyline

Pitt beats Georgetown; UNC beats Virginia Tech and VT coach Stan Greenberg says that anyone who doesn't think his team belongs in the Big Dance is insane. But that stuff pales to Georgia, which played two games in one day on Saturday after Mother Nature disrupted the Bulldogs' scheduled SEC quarterfinal game against Kentucky on Friday. First, they beat UK's Wildcats in overtime then a few hours later they beat Mississippi State. Now they've got to take on Arkansas.

Of course they didn't just play two games yesterday en route to the championship game: they'd won a total of four conference games all season. More than that, Georgia coach Dennis Felton's job was on the line after the Dawgs' disappointing regular season. So this afternoon, the team is playing not just for the SEC Tournament title and a ticket to the Big Dance, but also for their coach.

It may not be just a losing season, however, that has Coach Felton's fate hanging in the balance. As ESPN's Mark Schlabach chronicles, it's the fact that, after Georgia brought him in to clean up a scandal-ridden program, Felton did too well. He dismissed players for disciplinary issues so that his squad started the season with just eight scholarship athletes. Additional transfers and injuries complicated the issue. But other coaches think the problem is the fact that Felton has brought the hollow old phrase "scholar-athlete" back into balance:

At least one college basketball coach suggested Georgia's new academic standards, which require student-athletes to attend dozens of tutoring, study hall and advisement sessions each month, make it too difficult to build a program that will consistently win.

"The job is too hard," said the coach, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "You can't find enough good players who are willing to do all of that."

But Evans, who instituted the policies last year to improve Georgia's lagging graduation rates, defended the new plan. Evans said Georgia's other athletic teams haven't struggled to adhere to the policies.

"First and foremost, we're about academics," Evans said. "Aren't we supposed to encourage our kids to go to class and do what they're supposed to be doing academically? We should be asking more of them academically, to be honest. We've had other teams at Georgia have success under the same guidelines. We want to graduate players from this institution and win basketball games." [Bolded emphases are my own.]

Let's get this straight: UGA's thinking about throwing him under the bus for maintaining his principles and making a commitment to his kids that extends beyond the court. Georgia shouldn't even consider firing Felton - the NCAA as a whole needs more coaches like him. Maintaining a healthy balance between the two halves of the scholar-athlete isn't impossible; just ask Coach K. In my eyes, most coaches are derelict in their responsibility to their players off the court - making sure they get an education of some sort while in college, preparing them for a future that may not involve the NBA.

Here's to hoping that the Dawgs win the SEC this afternoon and get a ticket to the Dance. Even UGA's apparent win-first culture would be hard-pressed to fire Dennis Felton then. And if they do? Quoth Felton, "I promise you this: If I were to get fired, it would be for not winning enough games. It would not be for a lack of our guys consistently representing our university and our program with class."

Fun With Earmarks

Thursday night, Jim DeMint forced a vote in the Senate, looking for a one-year moratorium on earmarks. However noble it may have been, only twenty-nine Senators voted in favor. Obama, McCain, and Clinton all voted yea. The peerless Dick Durbin voted nay. But this post isn't about him, it's about Obama getting tripped up in his own stupidity yet again (see previous post).

Because in the same week that he voted for that one-year moratorium, it emerges that in 2006 he requested a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago hospital. Where his wife just happened to be Vice President of Community Affairs, a position created especially for her. [Jim Geraghty adds a spicy detail about this that makes following that link worthwhile, and a hat-tip to the HotAir folks for bringing it to my attention in the first place.] You have to wonder - did the conversation occur over dinner? "Honey, can you pass the salt and, you know, get a million in federal dollars for the hospital?" "Sure Michelle, and dinner's delicious." Elsewhere? I won't speculate.

So given that Obama = Change, one might expect him to recant and say that he shouldn't have requested the earmark in the first place. Instead, in that same Tribune interview, he says that he should have asked Dick Durbin to get the money instead. Imagine that conversation. "Dick, Michelle's asking me to, you know, steer federal funds to her employer. It looks bad, so can you do me a favor and get it?"

Apologies in advance for the weakness of what I'm about to say: given the old line about a million here and a million there suddenly being real money in Washington, one wonders whether a "paltry" million is the sort of change Obama stands for. Weak sauce. Feel free to hate.

Media Scrutinizes Obama

What do CNN, Fox News, the Baltimore Sun (admittedly using a Trib blog), LA Times and CBS News all have in common? They're all talking about the absurd and reprehensible comments made by Obama's religious adviser and pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright has alleged, among other things, that the US created AIDS; his sermons have also invoked at least once the evils of Zionism. Starting around the :45 mark, Wright also goes off on the US, proclaiming "God damn America," claiming that the US is ruled by the KKK, and essentially claiming the US deserved the 9/11 attacks in language reminiscent of Ward Churchill. I'm surprised to see this damning a report on the man from ABC (who I guess I should also credit up above). I'm also sad to hear a woman call it "not radical" but instead "being black in America." Really?

Let's clear some things up: Wright's radicalism wasn't hidden from Obama. As I noted last March, Trinity UCC's 12 precepts are all about black power; presumably Obama read these? Wright's history of controversial comments also meant that at the last moment he was asked not to speak at Obama's campaign kickoff in Springfield. So it shows a serious lapse of judgment, after all of that, to get him back into the campaign.

So the campaign has done what it can to minimize the damage. Obama, in an interview with the Tribune ed board yesterday, ascribed Wright's comments - and those of Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro - to the 1960s. So Ferraro makes comments widely derided as racist, and that's flower power for you? Wright goes off on America, and that certainly is the sixties, or at least the Black Panther version of it. Seems like a stretch, Barack.

He also repudiated Wright, and offered a three-part defense. Part two, the "I didn't know," flies in the face of what I said previously. Again, why pull him from the campaign kickoff if not for fear that he'd go off on America in front of national TV? Amusingly, and fittingly, his statement of repudiation was first posted of Huffington Post...real critical audience, that one.

But finally, the campaign corrected a mistake they never should have made: they showed Wright the door, cutting all official ties to him. Now someone needs to ask Obama whether he'll quit attending Trinity UCC, seeing as it was Wright's church embodying his principles, or whether he'll continue to seek the Holy Spirit there. Quick tip: try being an Episcopal. Nothing says establishment WASP quite so clearly!

Finally, let's put this in perspective. This is the second week in a row where the Obama campaign has had to play defense, thrown violently off message by campaign advisers who don't know when to keep their traps shut. Difference being, of course, that Samantha Power didn't seem to understand "on the record," while Wright was so on the record that he never should have been allowed near the campaign to begin with. Combined with the fact that the Rezko trial may be picking up steam, one has to wonder whether Obama's window of opportunity is closing fast. In light of all of this, will voters in the remaining states give Hillary a fresh look? Will we, in retrospect, understand Hillary's wins in Ohio and Texas (where Obama actually won more delegates) as the beginning of the end of "Yes we can?"

PS: Wright was apparently also Oprah's spiritual adviser. Why am I not all that surprised? Will this tarnish Oprah's star power too? We can only hope!

Shows What I Know

Although nobody has officially called the race, it would appear that Hillary Clinton's caucus losing streak continues: with 78% of precincts reporting, Obama leads 59%-40%, or in real terms, 4,000 votes to 2,756 votes. As CNN's cool graphic shows, the majority of the counties have reported (with 2 exactly tied and fully reported); only five remain. Most of these are sparsely populated, with Sheridan being the most populous at 26,560 (thanks Wikipedia!). It would appear that Obama did well in the populous parts of the state (a relative term, I admit), while Clinton carried more rural areas. Still, she could pull it out. This is more about momentum than about delegates, so a loss isn't too crushing for her.

Still nothing from IL-14.

Three Events Today

Three events worth taking note of today:

1) Special election in the 14th CD of Illinois to replace retiring Representative Dennis Hastert. This isn't an especially juicy prize, as whoever wins will have to run again in November's general election. However, in a normally safe Republican district the Democrat is running almost even. Special elections such as this one are often considered bellwethers for the coming general - Paul Hackett's August '05 near-miss in the bright red Ohio 2nd presaged the Democratic gains in 2006. To that end, the NRCC has dumped almost 20% of their cash on hand into the race. Part of the GOP's issue here is their candidate - no one really likes Jim Oberweis, and if he wasn't a self-funder the party bosses likely would not have coalesced behind him like they did. Some of his attacks on his opponent have also been questionable in their accuracy. Democrat Bill Foster's also helped by the fact that Illinois is Obama country, and Obama's endorsed Foster; to me, at least, an Oberweis win may be another sign that Obama is losing some of his aura. Coverage from CQ (and CQ) and The Fix are worth reading. If the GOP's using its 72-hour GOTV program, I think Oberweis pulls out a narrow win.

2) The Wyoming Democratic Caucus. Wyoming Republicans caucused months ago - 2 days after Iowa to be exact. Democrats are only now getting around to it, but it's a lot more significant than the GOP contest which Romney won. There are eighteen delegates at stake, and for the life of me, I haven't found any polling on the race. Neither Kerry nor Gore cracked 30% in the state, but Republican Representative (the only one) Barbara Cubin's victory in 2006 was a relative squeaker. I think the outcome is a result of who shows up; fundamentally, I think it's a Clinton state: 89% white, a median income just under $38,000 (less than that of Ohio). But I also have to wonder about immigration to the state from elsewhere, specifically wealthy, liberal voters flocking to places like Jackson Hole. Obviously, they'll be Obama voters and thus could make things interesting. If Clinton wins, expect her to make a lot of noise about it - she hasn't won a primary in a long time. She also needs a win to slow Obama down a bit more; Tuesday's Mississippi primary is demographically Obama country. Coverage from the WaPo and the NYT is worth taking a look at, the latter piece describes essentially record turnout.

3) Duke-UNC: Go to Hell Carolina, Go to Hell! It's at Cameron Indoor, but Duke's been inconsistent of late (though they looked pretty good in their road win over UVA on Wednesday) and UNC's been looking pretty good. The Heels should also have their starting point guard back, though no word on whether he'll start or whether he's 100%. All that being said, Duke won in the Dean Dome by 11, raining 3 pointers. Assuming Demarcus Nelson doesn't get into foul trouble, and that the shooters aren't laying eggs all day long, it should be interesting. It's sort of a mismatch game as Carolina (really, Tyler Hansbrough) dominates the front court while Duke dominates the back court with legitimate marksmen in Paulus, Scheyer, Singler, and occasionally King; both teams have productive benches, and Scheyer has been known to have game-changing performances. Both teams also have that extra motivation. For Duke, it's a home game in the biggest rivalry in college hoops (if not college sports), and the last time senior captain Demarcus Nelson will step foot on Coach K Court. For Carolina, they're looking to protect their #1 ranking, as well as perhaps distract their fans from the tragic death of student body president Eve Carson. For both teams, the ACC regular season title is on the line. Duke's got their 6th man in the Cameron Crazies, so I'll (not entirely neutrally) give the Blue Devils the edge in this one - but expect it to be a classic.

A Passing Worth Noting and Mourning

I may not hate the Packers, however, I most certainly, utterly, despise UNC. But this morning I, along with the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the Duke community, are putting the hatred aside: yesterday morning, UNC student government president Eve Carson was shot and killed in a random and senseless act of violence.

I've got a handful of friends at UNC; Eve was not among them and in reading what's been written about her in the latest twenty-four hours, I'm indubitably the poorer for that. On ESPN this morning, they quoted UNC President (and former Clinton Chief of Staff) Erskine Bowles as saying she had more potential than anyone he had ever met. High praise, indeed. The Daily Tarheel's memorial wall is worth reading. The remarks by UNC-CH's chancellor are worth watching (I won't embed the video). But most of all, say a prayer for her friends and family who are left with a great, gaping hole in their lives.

The bitter, tragic irony of her death is that it came just two days before the second Duke-UNC game, this one within the walls of one of the greatest sports venues in the world. By all accounts, Eve was a rabid Tarheel fan and was no doubt was looking forward to the game. It had promised to be a titanic match-up, what with UNC point guard Ty Lawson expecting to play after being sidelined with an ankle injury in Duke's 11 point win in the Dean Dome. The regular-season ACC title is on the line, and UNC's the #1 team in the country. Don't think for a moment that this game will not be intense, probably a classic given how much there is on the line for both teams and the new motivation for Carolina.

But I think the focus for many people in the two communities separated by just eight miles will be elsewhere, on Eve. Although I'm glad it's going to be played in Cameron, in front of the Crazies, part of me wishes it was in the Dean Dome instead, so that UNC students had something to take their mind off of this tragedy if only for a few brief hours. She'll be remembered at the game with a moment of silence. I won't be surprised if Coach K, who wore a Wake Forest-colored tie in memory of the late Skip Prosser when Duke played Wake recently, has some subtle personal tribute of his own. GTHC, and RIP Eve Carson.

Brett Favre's Retirement Press Conference

I'm a Bears fan. As such I'm supposed to hate the Packers, Brett Favre, the Lambeau Leap, and cheeseheads. I do hate cheeseheads, but I've never been able to bring myself to hate Brett Favre. #4 has always been a class act, a fantastic competitor, a guy who put a great face on the sport even while others - the entire Cincinatti Bengals organization comes to mind - besmirched its reputation. Yes, he kicked us around the NFC North, but then again we deserved to be kicked around.

His leadership of the team this year was amazing; after nearly retiring last season, with a receiving corps composed of nobodies, they went 13-3. (Two of those losses, I must note, were to a Bears squad that otherwise did nothing of note.) He took them to the NFC Championship game, which everyone expected they'd win, but they lost to a destiny-driven Giants team.

What all of this means is that I'm truly sad to see him hang up his cleats. All his best qualities were on display in his retirement press conference.

On to the Aaron Rodgers era.

Live-Blogging Rezko

The Tribune's doing it here; sadly it doesn't seem to have an associated RSS feed.

Oh and did Rezko pay to play for an Iraqi contract? It's not just his political ties that are so interesting, it's these foreign ties...which raises the question of the origin of that money he loaned to Barack Obama.

Obama, Tony Rezko and More!

Although the majority of Americans won't notice them right away, clouds are beginning to gather behind Barack Obama. The line of attack, or at least of questioning since day 1 has been simple: how in God (aka Mike Ditka)'s name did Obama rise so fast in Chicago's political machine? He got some lucky breaks in South Side politics, yes, including throwing his political mentor (and state senate predecessor) under the bus.* But any Chicagoan for whom Obamamania didn't require psychiatric evaluation has and had doubts. The media's starting to get on the trail, both in the city itself and nationally - and while it's only the Journal right now, events in coming weeks means that it'll be hard for the others to follow suit.

John Fund wrote a worthwhile piece for yesterday's Opinion Journal asking that question, especially with regard to indicted Chicago fixer Tony Rezko. But it's deeper than just Rezko - who will soon stand trial - and the story of Obama's dream house, which has actually received some play in the media. It also ties in one of Rezko's close partners, a secretive Iraqi-born billionaire property developer, who may or may not have had dealings with Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War. Rezko himself, Fund notes, "traveled 26 times to the Middle East between 2002 and 2006, mostly to his native Syria and other countries that lack extradition treaties with the U.S."

Barring hard evidence of wrongdoing - or at least sufficiently damning circumstantial evidence, it's hard to push this line of questioning too far without giving the Obama campaign a prime pushback opportunity; they'll just claim it's the old "Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim" story in a new burqua.

John Kass is one of the Tribune's most undervalued columnists, nationally speaking. But I have a feeling that if there turns out to be any juice in the Rezko trial, he'll quickly become pretty famous. He isn't so much conservative as he is contrarian - an old-school political muckraker raking the muck around an old-school political machine.

His latest column asks one of the big questions to non-Chicagoans: why isn't the McCain campaign more outwardly jubilant about the pending trial? The reason: it's Chicago and everyone pays to play - and Rezko could easily take down Republicans as well as Democrats (potentially including Governor Rod Blagojevich, an Obama ally). One of those Republicans may be Bob Kjellander, an RNC committeeman.

Thus the McCain campaign's unwillingness to pop the champagne too soon becomes evident: if a big elephant goes down too, that may be the part that dominates the media headlines (especially if Obama doesn't take any serious hits); worse, that Republican might have donated to McCain.

But there are other reasons for McCain & Co. to back off. Letting the trial run its course, and claim its victims, will generate its own media maelstrom. They may have to give it a gentle nudge once in a while, but odds are this one will generate headlines. Further, as Charlie Cook noted yesterday, they're understaffed and underfunded; a trial that may or may not blow Obama up isn't their primary worry at the moment.

*I realized that I made reference to this without it being a well-known phenomenon. I wasn't aware, either, till the Politico buried it on p.2 of that story about Obama's ties to unrepentant members of the Weather Underground; I'll go ahead and quote it in full: "The exact date [of a meeting between Obama and the terrorists] is not known, but it was in the second half of 1995, before Palmer’s [his predecessor and mentor] decision — late in her losing congressional primary against Jesse Jackson Jr. — to jump back into the special election for her state Senate seat. (Her decision produced a rift between her and Obama, who was able to get her thrown off the ballot on technical grounds.)" That's change you can believe in!

A Sad Blogosphere Development

[I'd meant to mention this days ago...] Ed Morrissey has long been one of the best conservative bloggers out there, providing fantastic analysis and insights as the Captain of Captain's Quarters.

He's now packed up his bags and is blogging over at HotAir. I don't particularly like the HotAir layout, but the move unites him with Allahpundit - thus making a pretty dynamic duo. I've removed CQ from my blogroll and added HotAir.