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."