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.

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).

Poll: McCain, Obama, and Jewish Voters

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

Mississippi Musings

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

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

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

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

More Veep Speculation

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.