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).

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

The Internet and Politics

Say what you will about Obama, he's inarguably running the most tech-savvy campaign this cycle. Both he and McCain have slick, visually appealing websites, which is the least you'd expect from a pair of presidential contenders.

But McCain is still a few years behind the cutting-edge applications of the Internet in the political realm (surprising for a guy who made the most of the Internet in his insurgent campaign back in 2000). He's got everything you would want, including omnipresent donation links, if you're older than thirty or so. But his ability to get news to you is limited, and he boasts only a video archive that is on the same menu as print-news stories. His campaign blog isn't bad, but his RSS feeds are sorely under-subscribed. The site also lacks links to his presence on Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, and other social networking sites, as well as widgets for blogs or websites (something I emailed the campaign about). There's a noticeable absence of action links on every page - nothing about calling other voters or volunteering; it's focused more on winning your vote than getting you to sway others. It's a website for an older generation, and cedes the e-edge and the initiative among youth voters to Obama.

Obama's website, by contrast, is absolutely masterful. His blog is more picture- and video-intensive than McCain's. Whereas Mac's is largely devoted recently to refuting the Times story, and hasn't been updated since 2/25, Obama's has been updated five times today and addresses several different topics. He's got the volunteer and phone links on every page, as well as the donate links. He has a separate tab for states, so you can find what's going on in your hometown and get involved. And the coolest? Under the media tab, he's got a whole package of mobile options. The ability to download Barack ring tones just creeps me out, but the ability to get policy updates texted to your cell phone is the new frontier of tech-savvy campaigning. It's actually fast becoming redundant as the proliferation of Internet-ready cellphones means that email is always accessible, but it's still fascinating. It's not just updates, however, which some other candidates (such as Steve Sauerberg) boast, it's the fact that you can receive updates on specific policies. It's self-selected micro-targeting via an always-connected medium. Oh and of course there are links to Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn and every other social network you can think of (and some I've never heard of), as well as widgets.

I'd never vote for Barack, but Republicans looking to be competitive in the new realm of political competition need to look at Obama's site. It recognizes the power of the Internet and breaks further away from the traditional media to media that focus on the individual consumer and on how they want to get their information. In a word, it's effective.

Obama's So-Called "Accomplishments"

Browsing around on DailyKos (thesis research, really), some diarist was screaming about Obama's legislative "accomplishments" and begging his fellow Kool-Aid drinkers to get the word out that, yes, Obama's done something other than just vote present (129 times) in his career as a public servant. The diarist then pointed elixir-imbibers to this blog entry, which has a long-winded list of the alleged accomplishments. It's a snorer - Obama doesn't win a prize for sexy legislative accomplishments. But has he just introduced a pile of bills, or has he gotten them passed? Let's take a look - from the top:

• Nonproliferation: So he worked with Lugar on nonproliferation. Admirable, but really, who's in favor of loose Russian nukes? I'd be impressed if he had proposed a bill establishing Alcoholics Anonymous chapters at all WMD-related military facilities in Russia - that'd be a big step forward. In reality, he just coauthored things with the nonproliferation Senator. Obama gets to look like he's playing with the big kids, Lugar gets to appear bipartisan.
• Avian Flu: Again, admirable. This is a public policy issue that I don't think we've talked enough about. All Democratic efforts on the issue can be found here. Obama's succeeded with two amendments that, combined, appropriate a whopping $50 million for international efforts. As successful amendments go, this one may be tough to defend - after all, foreign aid never sells well (obviously H5N1 should be an exception to that rule). He's also introduced the AVIAN Act (I swear there must be a government office devoted solely to filling out acronyms), which was read twice, referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (what was I saying about acronyms), and then came back to the floor where Obama made introductory remarks. Three times. A rousing success, that one. He also cosponsored an amendment (along with the rest of the Democratic leadership) that actually got a meaningful chunk of change, sent a letter to the HHS secretary about bird flu (again, with other Democrats - and HHS, clearly the Bureau of Acronyms was asleep on that one), and...yeah. That's it. On his own, $50 million and a bill that didn't go anywhere. Setting the bar pretty high here, Barack.
• Regulating Genetic Testing: Again, noble. Again, who's opposed to misdiagnosing Tay Sachs, Down Syndrome, or another equally tragic illness? Bold leadership, nonetheless. This time, our Savior/Messiah/Empty-Vessel-Onto-Which-We-Can-Project-Our-Dreams has introduced another visionary piece of legislation. The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 was introduced, referred to the Committee on Finance (why this isn't HELP's territory is absolutely beyond my sleep-deprived mind), and there languished till the end of Congress. One small step for man, one giant accomplishment for Obama? Note, too, that he didn't even have any cosponsors on this one. Yikes.
• Reducing Medical Malpractice: I read this, and all of a sudden thought that I might be crazy. Obama, taking on trial lawyers? Not to be - according to our intrepid blogger, who clearly has too much time on his hands (what does that say about me, taking the time to refute him), "medical malpractice claims do not do much to drive up health care costs." I think you could wiggle the Titanic through that, but that's another story. According to this fellow, all we've got to do is apologize (and presumably sing Kumbayah afterwards - Osama's invited and bringing punch). Obama and Hillary teamed up to introduce a bill "aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors." This particular bill, clearly touched by the geniuses of the Bureau of Acronyms and thus cleverly entitled the National Medical Error DIsclosure and Compensation Act (MEDiC Act), was read and referred to the HELP Committee. A day's work well done for our acronym allies. Again, beyond Hillary and Barack - no cosponsors.
• Tax Privacy: I don't want my tax-preparer selling my personal information, I doubt you do either. Thankfully Barack's here to help with his Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Act. He actually got cosponsors (eight of 'em, all Democrats) but this bill, too was simply referred to committee, never to see the light of day again.
• Chemical Plant Security: Again, admirable. Why we're not letting plant owners see to this themselves is questionable, but Barack's insistent that they don't care (or something). Obama's presser wasn't kind enough to provide a bill number, but a little bit of THOMAS (another acronym...) sleuthing dug up S.2486, the Chemical Safety and Security Act of 2006. Co-sponsors? 5 (not counting Obama and Lautenberg). Progress. None - but a new committee this time, Homeland Security (actually seems relevant to the bill at hand).
• Lead Paint: Stop the presses - the Messiah is against lead paint! I never would have guessed...he's must be taking money from the water-based paint industry under the table. What's he done here? Actually passed something! An amendment to an Interior Department (which has oversight of everything in the nation's interior - trees, corn, buffalo, trees) appropriations bill that, according to a third-party presser, "would help speed the creation of regulations to protect our nation's children from dangerous lead-paint poisoning." Good job, Barack! The EPA was nine years late with the regulations, but Barack's on the job. Amendment regarding lead paint? I think even Teddy Kennedy can be convinced to get out of his car (and put down his drink) long enough to vote for this. No word on whether Obama's crowning achievement thus far survived the conference committee wrangling that nearly all appropriations bills undergo...
• "Health Care for Hybrids:" This bold bill - with a House cosponsor! - would burden the government with part of Detroit's bloated pensions so long as Detroit promised to reinvest the saved money into hybrids. Sound stupid to you? The Senate thought so too - damn thing was consigned to committee. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
• Energy Security: The resource cannot be found. Seems fitting, right?
• Aid for Katrina Kids: "Dear Children: Since your parents didn't bother to get you out of Nola before Katrina wrecked your city (a marvel of engineering seeing as it is underwater and all), they'll get a tax credit to be just as responsible next time! Love, Barack." Hate me, if you wish. I won't even bother plugging Child Tax Credit extension into THOMAS, so I can't inform you whether this, too, is one of Barack's (actually completed) "accomplishments." This generous amendment was tacked onto a "$70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected" - since when are those of us with fat Outlook contact files being lumped in with those of us with fat wallets? Senator, I'm sure a lot of high-priced escorts are "well-connected," but I'm not sure if they qualify as wealthy. Empty rhetoric aside (why does this seem familiar?), the unfortunate truth of the matter is that tax cuts for the poor don't work. They don't spend more, thus defeating the aim of tax cuts in the first place (confronted with this rhetoric, we thus hear "well let's raise taxes and see what happens!")
• No-bid contracts for FEMA: Fourth time may be the charm, according to The Hill. No word from the compiling blogger as to whether it was the charm - were they being sloppy or merely omitting the sad truth that this too didn't work? And this is a bit incongruous when contrasted with the previous item - Obama wanted cleanup and reconstruction to happen quickly, no? A lengthy, bureaucratic bidding process would throw a jar of molasses and a monkey wrench into the process, no? Barack, buddy, you can have your cake or you can eat it - the federal government could be timely or it could be cheap. Odds are it won't be either, but it certainly can't be both.
• More FEMA/Katrina-related legislation!: All sorts of good ideas - for what that's worth. Also, an acronym-tastic title: the "Oversight of Vital Emergency Recovery Spending Enhancement and Enforcement" (OVERSEE) Act. This one, cosponsored with a Republican (how can any Democrate dare vote for this evil man?!), actually made it as far as the Senate's Legislative Calendar. Slowly, slowly getting there - there being an actual accomplishment.
  
• Coburn-Obama Spending Database: It passed! It's happened! It's out there somewhere, and the one time I tried to use it, I became hopelessly lost! Still, it's out there! ACCOMPLISHMENT!
• Hiking CAFE Standards: The Fuel Economy Reform Act - read twice, referred to committee. Nice try buddy. Even had eight cosponsors!
• Health Care for Veterans: Well-meaning, no doubt. And I, for one, think that we cannot do enough for those who have risked life and limb for our country. No doubt much of the Senate agreed in principle with the Lane Evans Health Care Benefits Improvement Act (using proper nouns precludes fun acronyms), but in reality they apparently had issue - condemned to committee, and briefly released for introductory remarks. Honestly: if you have the choice between Obama mouthing pretty-sounding platitudes on the Senate floor or Bob Byrd ranting incoherently and drooling on himself in his dotage, which would you pick? I can't stand him and I'd still go for the platitudes.
• Banning "certain kinds" of voter intimidation: Because only the kinds Republicans use are bad. He wrote a bill, the "Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005" - and it soon found itself languishing in committee.
  
• Lobbying Reform: Page not found. Maybe he thought Mark Foley was the love of his life? What intrigues me is the brief description provided by our intrepid glosser (nevermind Barack's done nothing, A for effort!): "requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them." Like the time Dick Durbin derided Jim DeMint for not having read the 3,417 page, $554.7 billion (34 pound!) omnibus bill in the 46 hours since its publication, saying “I would just say to the Senator from South Carolina: Welcome to the world of the Internet. This bill has been posted since 12:15 a.m. Monday morning on the Internet for your perusal ... You have had your chance. Every Senator has had a chance.” Which of course suggests that Durbin, Dick is a phenomenal speed-reader - to read that behemoth in the time allotted, "the Durbin Speed Reading standard required senators to read and comprehend 1.25 pages per minute, non-stop, for 2,768 minutes." I feel like I have the two stooges representing Illinois - no doubt their mother had a late-term abortion for the third.
• A proposal revamping ethics oversight: Again, sounds nice. But did it get anywhere? No clue. Any guesses?

I'll admit, the post I'm lambasting here was written on October 24th, 2006. So it's entirely plausible that Obama might have done something in the intervening 14 months. But since he's been running for president since kindergarten, I'm disinclined to believe such a proposition. And what of this lot? Three amendments and a succesfully passed earmark transparency program. That's a presidential resume, all right.

And in sympathy for the rest of his legislation, languishing somewhere in the Senate Office Buildings (their House counterparts are referred to as HOBs...Senate buildings aren't thusly abbreviated), I'm indulging a trip down memory lane to 4th grade social studies:

G'night, folks.