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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Democrats and National Security

The latest Gallup poll found that, for the first time since they started asking in 2002, Democrats "will do a better job than the Republican Party of protecting the country from security threats, 47% vs. 42%."

Hillary immediately disproved this silly notion by coming out against torture even in the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. What is especially juicy about this is the fact that not only does it put her and Slick Willy on different sides of the issue (as if that's never happened before), it also contradicts statements she's made previously. So she was for torture before she was against it, or to frame it another way, she was for drastic measures in unforgiving situations for the sake of national security before she was against them. Ladies and gentlemen, the party the American people trust on national security. Cue the Churchill: "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

So what caused the change of heart? Knowing Hillzilla, most likely a poll. But more specifically, she's probably decided that leading in the polls isn't sufficient when the left wing hates you - case in point, the DailyKos diary entitled "Why It's So Important that Hillary be defeated" which has garnered over 1,200 comments (if you choose to visit, please remember to disinfect your browser. It may otherwise become progressive and start demanding union hours or similar follies.).

It's also possible that Hillary's looking for a bomb in New York, if only to end the recent suffering (dare we say torture?) of Mets fans, who have lost ten out of the last fourteen and four in a row.

[[I'm not even going to bother apologizing for my lengthy absence. Also, I amuse myself when I can link to Gallup, Politico, and ESPN in a post, as well as cite Churchill.]