Saint Patrick Link to His Life and History

36 million people in the United States claim Irish ancestry (more on St Patrick's day!) At least 23 of the 43 US presidents had at least some Irish ancestry (from the Wikipedia's Irish American entry):

1. George Washington 1st President
2. Andrew Jackson, 7th President 1829-37
3. James Knox Polk, 11th President 1845-49
4. James Buchanan, 15th President 1857-61
5. Andrew Johnson, 17th president 1865-69
6. Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President 1869-77
7. Chester Alan Arthur, 21st President 1881-85
8. Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President 1885-89, 1893-97
9. Benjamin Harrison, 23rd President 1889-93
10. William McKinley, 25th President 1897-1901
11. Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president 1901-09
12. William Howard Taft, 27th President 1909-13
13. Woodrow Wilson, 28th President 1913-21
14. Warren G. Harding, 29th President 1921-23
15. Harry S. Truman, 33rd President 1945-53
16. John F. Kennedy, 35th President 1961-63
17. Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th President 1963-69
18. Richard M. Nixon, 37th President 1969-74
19. Jimmy Carter, 39th President 1977-81
20. Ronald Reagan, 40th President 1981-89
21. George H. W. Bush, 41st President 1989-93
22. Bill Clinton, 42nd President 1993-2001 (his mother's maiden name was
Cassidy)
23. George W. Bush, 43rd President 2001-2009

Barack Obama's problem isn't just distancing himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's intemperate bile. You can't undo the fact that Obama has been a member of Wright's church for over 20 years, or that the title of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" comes from a Jeremiah Wright sermon. Just asking Wright to resign from Obama's campaign or disavowing Wright's comments now that they showed up in the news on video doesn't quite do it. It's not like he was some political functionary someone gave a job to, like, say, Geraldine Ferraro who shot off her mouth embarrasingly.

This is much deeper.

Obama's real problem here is not only substance, it's style.

If you view those YouTube videos of Wright's preaching what you see is a holy roller preacher shouting fire and brimstone and most of all hate. Most of us don't need a preacher to hear this sort of crap, we can just take some unsavory buddies out for drinks and bring up politics and we'll get an earful.

To many americans, certainly not all, this isn't their idea of how a president gets religion. Outside of the holy rollers, and similar, americans tend towards orderly and respectful reverance in their churches. "All now turn to page 137 in their hymnal..." and that sort of thing.

So that leads to the question of whether this could be labelled a racially charged observation? Is this a shot at "black" religion?

We don't know. We don't think so.

There are plenty of white (and other) fire and brimstone preachers, poisonous snake handlers, charismatic churches with people falling down and shouting in tongues, faith healers, even hate mongerers, all that. Many are in churches which are by far predominately white. The message won't be exactly the same, but the tone will be familiar.

That aside, Barack Obama has a problem of style. He spent 20 years listening to Rev Jeramiah Wright sermonizing. He needs to explain what he saw in those sermons, not try to disavow them now that they've become politically inconvenient.

Here is an article Obama wrote for the Huffington Post in response:

Obama response article

One-line summary: Yes I was a member of that church for 20 years and was close to Rev Jeremiah Wright but I swear he never, ever spoke like this, I'm shocked, shocked!

Our reaction: Bullshit.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is, in our humble but correct opinion: Delusional.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Every member of the house of representatives will also be up for election on 11 November 2008. Let's meet them!

Representative Steve King (not to be confused with horror-meister Stephen King) is the republican congressman from the 5th congressional district of Iowa which covers approximately the western 1/3 of the state including Sioux City and Council Bluffs.

We found a choice bit of wisdom from Rep. King to help you better understand your elected representatives:

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa regularly accuses illegal immigrants of committing sex crimes against "eight little girls" a day as part of "a slow-motion terrorist attack."

— Wall Street Journal, 06 September 2006

The deadline to register for the district's 2008 election is tomorrow, 14 March. Thus far democrat, Vietnam veteran, and former Presbyterian minister Rob Hubler is the only registered challenger (other than King) though E. Joyce Schulte, educator and former hospital chaplain, (lost twice to King previously in 2004 and 2006) is expected to enter the race.

Here's that "funny" Bush singing youtube video.

Let's see, Geraldine Ferraro (who? Mondale's female VP running mate in 1984) makes a brainless remark suggesting that Obama's race may've helped him in his campaign and she's publicly skewered (not that she doesn't deserve it, why doesn't she reserve her bile for republicans?)

But Bush sings to a laughing, applauding audience about "Brownie", the guy who screwed up the Katrina response, and "Scooter" Libby being "free of the prosecutor" (try it, it sort of rhymes), who he pardoned, and this isn't a disaster for the republicans?

The biggest question for our time is: Why isn't George W. Bush in jail???

Today is also Mississippi's republican primary but McCain is basically the only candidate. He'll pick up another 36 delegates.

20:19: MSNBC projects Obama the winner in Mississippi.
20:31: CNN projects Obama the winner in Mississippi (still no voting results available.)

Democrats
	Clinton 1,467	Obama 1,591
MS 33 99%	155,254/37%/14	253,837/61%/19

Mississippi State Flag

Mississippi, also known as The Hospitality State, votes in their democratic primary today. The state is about 60/40 republican and about 60/40 white/black. The state still proudly displays the confederate battle flag in their state flag. Mississippi is also the poorest state in the country, the most obese, and their population was predominately African-American until the Great Migration of 1916-1970.

There are a total of 33 delegates at stake. Polling suggests that Barack Obama will win the primary with about 60% of the vote. Polling closes at 8PM EST.

17:24 With 87% of the Wyoming caucus voting in we'll project Barack Obama the winner. 7 more delegates for Obama.

Democrats			Republicans
	Clinton 1,424	Obama 1,520	Huckabee	McCain	Paul
WY 12 100%	3,312/38%/4	5,378/38%/7*	—	—	—

Wyoming Governor (1925-1927) Nelli Tayloe Ross

Today is International Women's Day. Coincidentally, today is also the Wyoming democratic caucus. When Wyoming was a territory they granted women the vote in 1869, a first, and in 1924 elected the first US woman governor Nellie Tayloe Ross (served 1925-1927.) She later became the first female director of the US Mint under FDR. Governor Ross passed away in 1977 at the age of 101, well within the lifetime of many reading this.

There are about 59,000 registered democrats in Wyoming out of a total state population of slightly less than 500,000, about the same as the number of residents of New York City's Co-Op City apartment complex (pop. 55,000.) Not exactly a stronghold of democratic support. Wyoming has 12 democratic delegates. 7 of them are at stake today which isn't going to change this race one way or the other. The remaining 5 will be allocated May 24 at Wyoming's democratic convention. The current count is Obama 1,520 delegates and super-delegates, and Clinton 1,424, a difference of less than 100 delegates.

Barack Obama has done well in caucuses and most expect he'll win this Wyoming contest despite the state's feminist heritage.

Guam Republicans Caucus

Guam republicans caucus today. Their caucus was originally scheduled for 16 February. John McCain already has enough delegates to clinch the republican nomination so the contest has little meaning to that outcome.

Ron Paul Smells the Coffee

In other news Ron Paul has ended his bid for the republican presidential nomination and will focus on his upcoming bid to retain his Texas congressional seat.

02:13 EST The big story from these 3/4 primary results is that Hillary Clinton has now taken the big, populous states: New York, California, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey. Obama's largest states are Illinois, Georgia, and Minnesota. She'll probably win Pennsylvania, another big state, and if Florida and Michigan somehow get counted or vote again they're also likely Clinton wins.This could be important in the general election in November. If neither Obama nor Clinton win a clear majority going into the convention then the super-delegates will have to consider issues like winnability against McCain as a reason to swing their vote to settle the race.

00:56 EST CNN has projected Hillary Clinton the winner of the Texas primary in a very close race. With over 2.3 million votes counted the two candidates are separated by only 81,000 votes.

00:35 EST It looks like a big, big night for Hillary Clinton. She's won Ohio and Rhode Island. Obama won Vermont. With 66% of the primary vote in it looks like Clinton might win Texas, it's going to be very close. Out of 2,185,871 votes counted thus far they are separated by only 52,365 votes (quick! calculate each candidate's votes! Or see the table below.) Even if they split Texas evenly it looks like Clinton has swept the big state of Ohio nearly 60/40 giving her 46 of Ohio's delegates to Obama's 24. Vermont (Obama) and Rhode Island (Clinton) practically cancel each other out with a net gain of one delegate for Clinton between the two states.

FLASH! 21:00 EST: McCain wraps it up! He's now got over 1,200 delegates, 1,191 were needed to win. Reportedly Huckabee has called McCain to arrange a formal concession. McCain will be at the White House tomorrow to make a public declaration with George Bush at his side. Next we wait for McCain to name a running mate.

21:10 EST Huckabee is about to make a concession speech for the cameras. Wow, if this guy made it to president you'd have to brew the coffee to make to the end of his State of the Union speeches! A little long-winded there Mike!

Democrats			Republicans
	Clinton 1,269	Obama 1,378	Huckabee 247	McCain 1,095	Paul 21
OH 228 100%	1,207,806/54%/71*	979,025/44%/59	325,581/31%/0	636,256/60%/79*	49,027/5%/0	OH 31 100%
RI 33 98%	106,471/58%/13*	73,609/40%/8	5,766/22%/4	17,342/65%/13*	1,761/7%/0	RI 20 98%
TX 228 99%	1,453,139/51%/65*	1,354,672/47%/61	521,951/38%/16	707,622/51%/121*	69,824/5%/0	TX 140 100%
TX Votes Separating Clinton/Obama			98,467 (3.5%)
TX Dem Cauc. 36%	18,689/48%/0	20,209/52%/0	—	—	—
VT 23 99%	59,828/39%/6	91,770/59%/9*	5,598/14%/0	28,538/72%/17*	2,619/7%/0	VT 17 99%

* Projected winner.

Programming note: Full 3/4 Primary Coverage will begin about 8PM or whenever the first results start coming in or the spirit moves us, polls in Vermont close first at 7PM so perhaps 7PM.

The media is being pretty riduculous about the meaning of today's democratic primaries in Texas, Ohio, oh yeah and Rhode Island and Vermont also. They make it sound like it's an all or nothing contest which it certainly is not.

Going into today Obama has 1,184 pledged delegates and 194 superdelegate for a total of 1,378. Hillary has 1,031 pledged and 238 superdelegates, total 1,269. That means Obama is ahead by about 100 delegates. 2,025 are needed to win.

Texas has 228 delegates with 126 tied to today's primary, 67 tied to today's caucuses (Texas has both a primary and caucus), plus 12 super-delegates.

Ohio has 162 delegates, 141 tied to today's primary and 21 superdelegates.

Vermont has 23 delegates, 15 tied to today's primary voting, 8 superdelegates.

Poor little Rhode Island, smallest of the 48 (hmm, that lyric doesn't work anymore) has 33 delegates (more than Vermont! Go RI!) with 21 tied to today's primary and 12 super.

So there are 370 delegates at stake today in voting and the Texas caucus, plus 53 superdelegates, 423 total.

If Obama were to win all of them he'd have 1,801 which would be pretty close to victory (2,025), but not quite there. Hillary would have 1,692 if somehow she were to win 100% of the delegates and superdelegates up for grabs today.

But that's not going to happen! More likely one candidate will grab between 175 and 250 and the other will grab between 180 and 225, more or less, that is slightly more or less than the 423 up for grabs because the delegates are awarded roughly proportional to each candidates votes.

Let's use the typical business plan strategy of trying optimistic, average, pessimistic analyses. 60% is 254, 40% is 169:

	Optimistic (60%)	Average (50/50)	Pessimistic (40%)
Clinton (1,269)	1,523	1,480	1,438
Obama (1,378)	1,632	1,589	1,547
Result	Obama: +24	Obama: +109	Obama: +194

Granted this says that in all cases tried above (60/40 and 50/50) Obama comes out ahead, but not by much. Even in the most optimistic case for Obama he ends up with 1,632 delegates, 194 ahead of Clinton but still 393 away from clinching the nomination. In the most optimistic scenario for Clinton Obama ends up only 24 delegates ahead. There are other scenarios possible of course.

After today the next big state is Pennsylvania on April 22 with 188 delegates at stake (158 regular, 38 super.) Still not enough for either candidate to clinch the nomination under any of the above scenarios. Note: 12 PA superdelegates have already committed to Clinton, and 3 to Obama, 23 remain uncommitted as of 3/4/2008. Current polling shows Clinton holding a double-digit lead over Obama in PA, but April 22 is a long way off.

Our conclusion is that today's primary isn't likely to be decisive unless we see an incredible sweep, like 70/30 or 80/20, across the all states for one candidate which is highly unlikely.

Our prediction: The two democratic candidates will slog on.

So why does the media say this is "make-or-break-do-or-die" (CNN), Chris Matthews just opened Hardball with "today is judgment day for Senator Clinton!" and proceeded to talk about whether Hillary staying in the race helps or hurts the democratic party, etc.

Answer: To make it all sound like a horse race, like it's really important to keep watching, don't touch that dial!

So we suggest: Stay with the-election.com! We're not a bunch of emotionally manipulative suck-ups! We just calls 'em likes we sees 'em.

Oh yeah, what about today's republican primary between McCain and Huckabee? YAWN! DOUBLE-YAWN! The only interesting thing at this point is that it's theoretically possible for McCain to wrap it up today, though not likely.

Senator Larry "Wide-Stance" Craig is soliciting for summer interns!.

"Interns have the chance to be an essential part of a working congressional office," said Craig. "They participate in the legislative process as well as ensure that constituent services run smoothly. For those interested in politics, it is an incredible opportunity to get a behind-the-scenes look at how our government functions while serving the people of Idaho."

No word yet on whether that "working congressional office" also provides shared rest room facilities or what, exactly, that "behind-the-scenes" look is referring to, perhaps via the official congressional glory-hole.

What's the cause of the current economic mess? The cause were the huge deficits run up by the republican administration and congress.

What caused the deficits? Spending more while cutting taxes.

But wasn't that a necessary result of the war? Some of the highest estimates of the cost of the wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) are about one trillion dollars.

The republicans ran up about four and a half trillion dollars in new debt. The huge deficits are not accounted for by the wars.

So how do the huge republican deficits affect the economy negatively?

In order to run a deficit the government has to borrow. The way the government borrows is by selling treasury bonds and notes ("treasuries"), just like the savings bonds you might be familiar with, trillions of dollars of treasuries must be sold on the open market.

In order to sell such a massive amount of treasuries the government had to make them more attractive to buyers by increasing the interest rate the treasuries paid. This is why the interest rates kept going up over the past several years, to entice buyers to buy our debt (treasuries.)

Interest rates increased faster than most people expected. Lending rates are all closely tied together whether they're the government selling its treasuries (debt) or credit cards or mortages, it's all one big market which varies by risk and other factors. But current lending rates tend to not be lower than whatever the federal government is asking for since they're the lowest risk possible (they've never defaulted on treasuries.) This trapped a lot of people who had bought homes with adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). The rates are tied to the same federal interest rates used to sell treasuries. When rates went up faster than expected then many people found their monthly payments going up faster than they could handle so defaults increased rapidly.

Defaults (late payers) became foreclosures which flooded the housing market with homes which had to be sold by banks and other lending companies who seized homes.

This in turn depressed home prices (more homes trying to be sold) which put more and more troubled home owners and in particular their lenders in trouble. Banks didn't want to negotiate a mortgage if the value of the home securing that mortgage was dropping below the amount owed. They wanted you out so they could sell that house before it went down further.

More foreclosures, more homes on the market, prices go down further, vicious spiral.

Besides this effect on the housing market when the federal government sells trillions of dollars in treasuries to cover their deficits they compete for credit dollars with other parts of the economy. Investors who invest in underwriting credit, such as treasuries, tend to be very conservative and there's nothing more conservative than United States treasuries.

For example when you borrow money for a mortgage that money comes from someplace. It's a little complicated, but basically there are investors who buy pools of mortgages so they can get the interest home owners (really home "owers") are paying. But why buy mortgages when treasuries are paying better and better interest rates?

This is true of many credit markets where money is loaned by selling the loans to investors. Student loans are in trouble right now because credit has dried up. Most businesses thrive on credit, for example to buy inventory to put in their store. They don't pay cash, they borrow the money for the products you see on the shelves. Manufacturers borrow to buy raw materials, steel or plastic for example. Farmers borrow to plant their crops and to harvest them hoping the final net proceeds of their crop will pay for those loans plus a little profit.

Another problem is that people who buy "debt", such as the people who underwrite mortgages, also buy insurance on that debt in case something goes terribly wrong. That "insurance" also dried up because of the fear that the problems in the housing markets (and its rippling effects) might make it impossible for those insurers to meet their insurance obligations and they would just go bankrupt.

One recent and dramatic casualty was when The Port of New York tried to sell some debt they needed to raise at an auction (the normal way to sell it) and because no insurers would step forward on this very high quality debt The Port of New York had to pay 20% interest on the new debt! That's the sort of interest deadbeats pay on questionable credit cards, not what a major government (ok, quasi-government for PoNY) organization pays for some debt.

Many republicans both in the White House and Congress kept saying that the huge deficits were no problem and that cutting taxes while running up huge debts would straighten itself out somehow.

People tend to be gullible to such promises because no one seemed to be able to articulate what exactly might happen as a result of all this debt. No one was really sure, in the past we'd never created this much debt and it did manage to work itself out though we did see similar effects when the previous Bush and Reagan administration also ran up huge deficits. Credit became unavailable and the economy went into serious slow down. Remember Bush Sr's loss to Bill Clinton on the slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid!"? That was similar to what is happening today, huge deficit spending in the early 1990s eventually caused a recession. Jokes were made about the government defaulting, the US government has never defaulted on its debt, there must be some way to resolve all this so why worry?

Conversely, when Bill Clinton and the democratic congress balanced the budget and brought down deficit spending to zero, even ran a surplus, the economy boomed. Remember how well the economy did in the late 1990s? It was no accident. It was the result of Bill Clinton's policy to eliminate the deficit which now the republicans have increased more than any other time in US history.

Well, here we are and we're seeing exactly how the deficits come due, they come due by crashing the credit markets which are the lifeblood of the US economy.

The current approach by the government to try to get out of the mess we're in has been for the fed to reduce interest rates. Won't that fix the problem? If rising interest rates caused the problem won't lowering interest rates help?

Not really. The fundamental problem is that we borrowed trillions of dollars and need to borrow trillions more unless this behavior is stopped. You can't really put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Lowering interest rates while continuing to borrow also has the effect of devaluing the dollar. This is why oil and food have been getting more expensive, the dollar is becoming worth less and less so you have to pay more and more dollars for goods and services. The dollars has fallen about 30% in the past few years. That means if you put $20,000 away in a your dresser (didn't get any investment return) a few years ago then today it's only worth $14,000 in buying power.

Your home is losing value, any cash you've saved is losing value unless you're getting very good returns and those returns have to be discounted by the devaluation, energy, food, and everything else is getting more expensive.

Do you still believe those republican tax cuts were a good deal?

Do you still believe republicans when they tell you they're the party of fiscal responsibility?

A republican will try to dismiss all of the above as just "liberal" propaganda because they have no other response.

The simple facts are that the republicans really screwed up, they have nothing to say in their defense, and now we're all paying the price.

Representative John Boehner is the leader of the republicans in the House of Representatives. Recently he was on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday talk show.

Wolf asked Boehner about how the republicans are going to explain the huge deficit and fiscal mess the republicans got us into to the voters?

Boehner replied: Wolf, this election is about the future, not the past.

No cheating, drunken, gambling, good for nothing spouse has ever said it better when caught: C'mon honey, let's not dwell on the past...

The sad thing is we believe that's the best answer republicans can come up with, c'mon voters, let's forget about the past...

If Barack Obama is elected president he'll be the first president born into a United States with 50 states. Obama was born 4 August 1961, Hawaii was admitted to the union as the 50th state on 21 August 1959. The other likely candidates (Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee) were all born in a US with 48 states.

Further, Obama was born in Hawaii, that 50th state.

Ok, it's not earth-shaking but it is another potential first in this election.

Hillary Clinton opens emphasizing there are differences between her and Obama, on health care, etc.

Brian Williams asks Clinton about the tribal dress photo. Clinton says as far as she knows it wasn't anyone from her campaign and if it is she'll ask them to leave the campaign.

Obama brushes by the photo flap and digs right into health care. Obama agrees there are differences between their two plans. Obama says Clinton's plan is mandatory, you have to purchase health insurance. But if it has some sort of hardship opt-out then it also doesn't cover everyone just as she claims about his plan.

Clinton responds that everyone has to be in the health care system or else the insurance companies will cherry-pick, sell health insurance to those who are healthy and not to those who aren't. She says Obama's mailing is almost as if the health insurance companies and republicans wrote it. She "stakes out a claim" for universal health care.

Obama responds that he does stand for universal health care. He says experts agree that anyone who wants health care can get it under his plan. He says his approach saves more money than Clinton's. We don't know how Senator Clinton's plan will cover those who can't afford it. He then seems to ascribe details of Massachusetts' health care plan to Senator Clinton.

Again Senator Clinton defends, says Obama's plan would be like if FDR said let's make social security voluntary. Again asserts we have to have everyone in the health care system otherwise we won't get effective preventative medicine.

Obama again. Claims Senator Clinton's plan penalizes some parents. Says medicare part B is voluntary but people choose to purchase it because it's a good deal. So voluntary can work.

Clinton again. Many of the 20% who are uninsured can afford insurance but don't buy it because they're young and think they're immortal. Obama's plan says that when they come into the hospital sick or injured then they should be forced to buy insurance.

Brian Williams moves on to NAFTA.

Clinton opens by complaining that she's always asked the question first, why is that? Makes a reference to a Saturday Night Live skit where they ask Barack if he's comfortable, needs another pillow?

On NAFTA she says that she has opposed NAFTA, wasn't a policy maker in the (Bill Clinton) administration, but since she became a senator she has stood against it. We need to fix NAFTA, she'll take a tough position on that.

Obama responds that it's inaccurate for her to say she's always been against NAFTA. That in her (senate campaign) she said NAFTA has been good for New York and good for the country. Obama says it hasn't been good for many, cites his state (Illinois.) Says the net costs of these agreements can be devastating and if president will make sure that the contracts are adhered to, and if that happens he believes Ohio will be back on the path to growth.

Tim Russert tells Clinton she did say NAFTA was good for NY and good for the country. In 1996 she said it was proving its worth. In 2000 she said it was pretty good. Al Gore said if we don't like NAFTA we can be out of it in six months. Senator Clinton, if president would you get us out of NAFTA in six months?

Senator Clinton says we can renegotiate NAFTA. Parts of it have been good for New York, Texas. Russert badgers. Clinton says he doesn't have a complete record, she's voted to toughen trade restrictions. It has worked in some parts of the country, it hasn't worked in Ohio, it hasn't worked in some parts of upstate NY.

Russert: Let me button this up, we'll opt out of NAFTA in six months? Clinton: Doesn't agree, says it can be renegotiated.

Russert passes question to Obama. Obama says he basically agrees with senator Clinton, we need to tighten up the restrictions. NAFTA and other trade deals can be good for the US. Wants to be an advocate on behalf of workers.

Russert: (Someone) says it hasn't been trade agreements, it's been lack of patents and other problems.

Obama responds that policy has been weighted towards the multi-nationals, towards corporations. We need green jobs, windmills, alternative fuels, making buildings more energy efficient. All sorts of things to make the economy more competitive.

Russert holds up Clinton economic blueprint, says it says you've pledged five million jobs. But in Buffalo you pledged 300,000 new jobs but in fact they lost 30,000 jobs. You said you were too exuberant, are you too exuberant now?

No, Tim, in 2000 I thought Al Gore was going to be president. Proceeds with "green collar job" training, green jobs. Uses Germany as an example which has invested in solar and created several hundred thousand new jobs. At least five million jobs can be created in the next ten years.

Brian Williams on foreign policy. Clinton has compared your (Obama's) experience to Bush's experience in 2000. What's your reaction?

Obama said that he was very clear why he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, that it's caused anti-american sentiment, strengthened Al Qaeda, we have to target terrorists in northern Pakistan. He believes his judgment has been sound on issues which matter.

Passes question about Obama inexperience to Clinton. Cites her own experience. In 2002 he gave a good speech against the war, but since he's come to congress he's voted the same as her, so where's the difference? Last summer he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan which she doesn't think was a wise approach. He's said he would meet with some of the world's worst dictators without preconditions about what we plan to get out of those meetings. She believes she'll do better.

Obama responds that his objection to the war wasn't just a speech, it was part of a senate campaign. He thought the war was a big blunder, that we've driven the bus into the ditch. She facilitated and enabled Bush to make bad decisions. He says he never suggested bombing Pakistan, only that if Pakistan won't strike against our enemies there we should do it, and we (the Bush administration) recently have and took out the number three of Al Qaeda. Emphasizes that he can have a stronger debate with John McCain.

Russert poses the possibility that if we announce that we're getting out of Iraq in a year what if the Iraqi government says then get out now?

Obama responds that if they ask us to leave we have to leave, they're a sovereign nation as George Bush keeps reminding us. Iraq is distracting us from Afghanistan, we're spending money in Iraq we could better be spending elsewhere.

Russert passes same question to Clinton. She gives basically the same answer.

Russert now posits what if we leave and Al Qaeda resurges? Will we go back?

Clinton says these are a lot of hypotheticals. Russert asserts these are not hypotheticals, these are realities. Clinton disagrees, these are hypotheticals. Russert sputters meaninglessly from time to time as Clinton tries to answer. She wants to coordinate with NATO on Afghanistan, to stabilize Afghanistan, get the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their country.

Russert passes the same question about going back into Iraq to Obama. Obama talks about Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have permanent troops in Iraq. He reserves the right as president to look out for American interests and if Al Qaeda were forming a base in Iraq then we'll have to protect our interests.

Clinton tries to respond but Williams pleads that he has to go to break. Something about Stickley chairs :-)

Back, Brian Williams, much hooting and hollering and cheering in the background, candidates come back in.

Williams refers to hyperbole on the campaign trail, switches to a video of Clinton making a sarcastic speech about the heavens opening and we'll know what to do. Williams said that was supposed to be Obama so passes the question to Obama.

Obama says he gives senator Clinton points for humor, Clinton laughs out loud. Obama talks about his track record with getting welfare for poor in his district, helped soldiers in Walter Reade hospital who had to pay for meals and phone calls, etc. Tells story about how he was in Cincinnatti with four women who did everything they were supposed to but never imagined how they're having to dip into retirement to pay for health care, kids' college, all kinds of sad stuff, aging parents, disabled children, no one has been listening to these people.

Williams passes question to Clinton, what was that video about (the sarcastic one)? She was "having a little fun", it's hard to have fun on the campaign trail. Turns to health care, credit card companies, college affordability, wants to get money back to working people, talks about $55 billion she can get back from various special interests and invest in the middle class, they feel like they're invisible. When it came time to vote on Dick Cheney's energy bill she voted no, Obama voted yes, when it came time to cap credit card interest rates at 30% which was too high but a cap she voted yes but Obama voted no. "I believe that I am a fighter".

Switch to Obama video of Obama saying Clinton selectively picks from her experience. Obama says Clinton picks from her time as first lady, uses the term "co-president". He doesn't begrudge that. But she can't take credit for the good things that happened while on issues like NAFTA say that behind the scenes I was disagreeing. On the caps on credit cards Obama says he objected to the whole bill. We have to mobilize the American people. We have to go after the special interests, (quoting Clinton) you can't just wave a wand and make them go away.

Russert asks you said last year if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing. McCain has challenged you to opt for public financing, will you? Obama answers that he's not yet the nominee, when he is the nominee he'd be happy to sit down with McCain and figure out a way to make that fair for all parties. We have raised 90% of our donations from small donors, $50, $100. Russert: So you might opt out of public financing? Obama: When the time comes I'll sit down with McCain.

Russert asks Clinton about releasing her tax returns. Why won't you release your tax return and your husband's tax return so the American people can see who is funding your campaign? Clinton answers that the American people are funding her campaign. Russert presses if she'll release them before the Tuesday primary. Clinton says no time before Tuesday but she will.

Russert to Obama. Louis Farrakhan supports Obama, do you accept his support? Obama says Farrakhan is anti-semitic, he can't censor him, but it's not support he's sought. Russert: Do you reject his support? Obama: I've rejected his support. Russert quotes Farrakhan as saying Judaism is a gutter religion. Obama rejects his comments. Russert points out that the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope" comes from a Reverend Jeremiah Wright sermon, Jeremiah Wright has supported Farrakhan, went to Libya with Farrakhan. If he were seen to be supporting Farrakhan his Jewish support would dry up like a snowball in hell. Obama asserts he has had strong support from the Jewish community, that he wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Jewish support for the civil rights movement. He's spoken out about anti-semitism in the African-American community.

Clinton wants to interject that when she ran for the senate in New York she was supported by the New York Independence Party but she rejected their support because their leader, Lenore Fulani, had made anti-semitic remarks, even though she thought it might hurt her politically. Russert: Are you saying Obama isn't rejecting...? Hillary: I just think it has to be stronger, rejecting is stronger than denouncing. Obama: I don't see the difference between denouncing or rejecting, if Clinton thinks rejecting is stronger than denouncing then I reject AND denounce.

Brian Williams: The National Journal rates your voting record as more liberal than Ted Kennedy, how can you run on a record more liberal than Ted Kennedy's? Obama responds that the ratings are silly and cites some things he's supported like independent investigation of ethical violations of senators. The National Journal said this was a liberal position. Obama doesn't think ethics is a "liberal" issue. Why do I (Obama) get so much support from independents? Because the old labels of liberal versus conservative don't make sense anymore.

Tim Russert: There's an election in Russia on Monday for the man to replace Putin, what does Clinton think of the replacement of Putin. Clinton says we know that he's a hand-picked successor, hand-picked by Putin. This is a clever but transparent way for Putin to hold onto power. She has been very critical of the Bush administration for what she perceives as an incoherent policy on Russia. We need a more realistic policy towards Russia. Technically meetings will be with the man who replaces Putin the power will be with Putin.

Obama responds to the same question, says he basically agrees with Clinton. Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and said this is someone he can do business with. Obama doesn't think that sent the right message. Russert asks what if Putin's replacement says he's going to re-take Kosovo etc.? Obama responds that we work with the international community on the problem. We recognize Kosovo as an independent sovereign nation as has Britain.

Russert: Any votes you'd like to take back? Clinton: My 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq, knowing what I know now I would not have voted that way. But the election has to be about the future, not the past. We could talk about Darfur, the Middle-East and Israel's security, an entire program on what we will inherit from George Bush. My experience has prepared me to deal with these issues. Russert: To be clear you'd like to have your vote back? Clinton: Yes, I've said that many times.

Obama, same question? The Terry Schiavo matter, I wish I had stood on the floor of the senate and stopped that vote, it was a question of inaction. There's still a lot of fight in this, senator Clinton has campaigned magnificently. There's a vanity aspect to politics, but when you spend as much time as senator Clinton and me have spent campaigning, you find that people's desires are modest, they don't want a lot, they don't want the government to solve all their problems. But I hope the democrats can restore hope to this government.

Brian Williams: What is the fundamental question that you believe senator Clinton must answer in order to prove her worthiness. Obama responds I have to say she would be worthy as a nominee, there's no doubt that she's qualified, I think I'm more qualified or I wouldn't be running. McCain has tethered himself to the policies of George Bush. I don't think senator Clinton has to answer a question as to whether she is capable of being president. I think I am capable of bringing this country together in a unique way, I have a track record from the days when I moved to Chicago as a community organizer etc, I have a unique bias. Those are qualities that I bring to this race, and I hope those are qualities the people of Texas, Vermont, Ohio, will think will make me a better president.

Same to Clinton: It has been an honor, it's been a campaign that has been history making, I'm proud to be the first woman running to be president, that will be a challenge to the way things have been done, either one of us will make history. Who can actually change the country? I believe my experience over thirty-five years gives me an understanding and an insight into making the changes we all want to see. Health insurance, I want to help give the people of this country the chance that they need to have. We need a fighter back in the white house, the wealthy and well-connected have had someone in the white house.

Ralph Nader (74 this Wednesday, 2/27) threw his hat into the 2008 presidential ring today.

We've already commented on a Nader run, and even on the likely timing of an announcement.

Each candidate opens with the usual idealistic platitudes. Hillary sounds stronger and more confident than in the recent past. Obama is his usual optimistic self.

First question from Jorge Ramos (Univsion) is to Hillary, will you meet with Raul Castro now that Fidel has stepped down? Hillary dodges the third rail and says not until and unless the usual grab bag of complaints about Cuba (political prisoners etc) is being resolved.

Campbell Brown pushes Barack Obama on the same subject, Obama basically makes the same statement. Brown counters that he's supported normalization with Cuba previously. Obama says yes but not until there's some sort of progress on human rights.

Hillary responds agreeing that we should speak to our adversaries such as Iran, even those with whom we don't have diplomatic relations. She would get back to "very vigorous diplomacy" (as opposed to the Bush administration.) The era of arrogance of the Bush administration is over.

Obama responds underscoring how the Bush administration has done so much damage to our international relations, how the damage has to be undone.

John King asks about the economy, raise the minimum wage? trade deals? As specifically as you can how would President Obama be different than a President Clinton? Stop giving tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, stop the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, international trade is ok but with strong labor and safety standards, no toys with lead paint on them. Invest in alternative energy. No real distinction, suggests perhaps how we'd each approach getting a similar agenda implemented is a difference.

Hillary responds with much the same platitudes, how this is all the democratic agenda. Again with the lead paint. Immediately she'd take steps on the foreclosure crisis, moratorium on foreclosures, single mom and postal workers hoodwinked into unfair mortgages! If adjustable rate mortgages keep going up MILLIONS of Americans will be homeless! Invest in our infrastructure, green stuff, end George Bush's War On Science (big applause)!

Jorge Ramos again, would you (Clinton) consider stopping raids on undocumented immigrants until there's comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary says yes, children are being left in the US with no one take care of them because of these raids and that's not American. Deport them if they're criminals, but otherwise provide a path to immigration.

Campbell Brown asks if Obama agrees. Obama says that the tone of the immigration debate in Washington has promulgated hate crimes. Crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers, safety. Fix the legal immigration system, there's a huge backlog, it places unfair legal expenses and delays on immigrants. Bush promised a new relationship with Mexico but he's dropped the ball, Obama says he'll change that.

John King asks about the border fence. Senator Clinton, you voted for construction of that fence. Clinton points out that both her and Senator Obama voted for that construction. She tells an anecdote about how when she was at Univ Texas, Brownsville recently that under the current Bush plan part of the campus would be cut off! The Bush administration has gone off the deep end. She would have a review with the people who live along the border. John King presses, do you mean you think your vote was wrong? Again, Bush's approach makes no sense, eminent domain filings, use technology and personnel better.

Campbell Brown passes the question to Obama. The Bush administration is "not real good at listening, that's not what they do well." He says Clinton and him pretty closely agree on this issue. Comprehensive reform is important but can't deal with this issue unless we deal with the influx of undocumented immigrants. Also, pass the (?) act to protect children of immigrants who have been born here and raised as Americans.

Jorge Ramos asks Clinton whether this nation could possibly become a bilingual nation? Clinton says that english should be our common, unifying language. She's against making english the "official" language. She encourages people to become bilingual.

Obama also thinks everyone learning english is important, and every student should learn a second language. Launches into a general comment on education, studying foreign languages is an example of this. There wasn't a lot of meat on that bone.

John King tries to get a little contention going, aims some quotes from Clinton at her which she's used in her stump speeches which were critical of Obama. Clinton says her and Obama have a lot in common, she's not taking the bait. Whoops, she strikes anyhow, how a supporter was on TV the other night (reference to a senator on Chris Matthew's Hardball Tuesday night) and when asked what are Senator Obama's accomplishments he couldn't list any.

Campbell Brown passes it to Obama. Lists some accomplishments, says the implication that the 20 million people who voted for him are delusional, the newspapers who endorsed him, all have been duped?! Clinton is visibly laughing. The endless bickering has to stop. Senator Clinton and I share the same visions, I'm running for president to stop (various suffering) and so are the people behind my campaign.

Campbell Brown pushes on. Accusations from the Clinton campaign that he plagiarized from Governor Deval Patrick and others. Obama says the notion that he plagiarized from someone (Patrick) who is one of his co-chairs who suggested he use the line is silly, we're getting into silly season in politics. How do we make health care, college affordable? A $4,000 tuition credit in exchange for national service. Bring an end to this war in Iraq, bring the troops home, and invest that money here at home. Senator Clinton has a fine record, so do I, we shouldn't be spending time tearing each other down, we should be spending time lifting each other up.

Campbell Brown asks Clinton whether it's silly season? She says if your campaign is about words then your words should count. Obama mutters in disapproval. Hillary says look at the videos on Youtube, it's disturbing. She fires a few more, she wants universal health care, he doesn't, she wants a moratorium on foreclosures, he doesn't support that. There are differences.

Obama responds: We both want universal health care. 95% of our health care plans are similar. Goes over his health care plan. We have a philosophic difference. Senator Clinton wants to force everyone to purchase it, he believes everyone wants it, they just can't afford it, so make it affordable. He recognizes there are arguments for a mandate, let's debate those points. She deserves credit for her attempts at health care in 1993. We have to change how politics are happening in Washington or else four years from now we'll be debating health insurance again.

Jorge Ramos, do you believe that you are the only candidate fit to be commander-in-chief? Hillary Clinton insists on going back to health care. She doesn't believe voluntary will work. If it's not universal then the health insurers and others will nibble it to death. Obama wants to respond! In Massachusetts where health care is mandated people who can't afford health insurance are being fined for not buying it! Clinton jumps in! Senator Obama would fine parents for not insuring their children, if they show up at the hospital sick maybe then we'll fine them. We would not have social security or medicare if it were voluntary. Obama responds that that mother (she made reference to a mother who can't afford an operation for her child) will be able to get the operation. He insists that it's the parents' responsibility to make sure their children have health insurance.

Jorge Ramos again, Senator Clinton are you suggesting Obama is not ready, not qualified, to be commander-in-chief? Hillary lists qualifications, served on Armed Services committee, Homeland Security something or other (commission?) Lists some current events (elections in Pakistan, our embassy burned in Kosovo.) She would be working with Serbian security forces to secure our embassy there. She feels she has the experience to inherit those problems we are inheriting from George Bush.

Obama responds that he wouldn't be running if he didn't believe he was prepared for the job. He'll do better than Bush. He'll use our military wisely, he showed better judgement than Clinton about going to war in Iraq. Lists various examples he believes were indicators of his good judgement.

John King, question on supporting the surge. Some say Iraq is better today, are they better off because of the surge. Clinton responds that the purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time and opportunity to make decisions (?), but they haven't done that. Reiterates that if president she would begin to withdraw troops within 60 days and the Iraqi government will have to make those decisions. It should be up to the Iraqis.

Campbell Brown throws the same question to Obama. Says the surge is a tactical victory tacked onto a huge strategic blunder. He'll be in a better position to argue the point with John McCain. Our entire aid to Latin America in a year is about the same as we spend on Iraq in a week. McCain would have our troops over there for 100 years, McCain says he doesn't really understand the economy.

John King says both candidates were critical of secrecy in this administration. Claims that Obama snuck earmarks into legislation, will he own up to it? Obama says they have owned up for it. Wants a google-like access to the federal budget so anyone can check any spending like no-bid Halliburton contracts.

King throws the same question to Clinton. Says McCain has never and will never ask for an earmark. Does John McCain have a better record on this? Clinton says no because he supported the Bush tax cuts, the new Bush budget has a $400 billion deficit, we borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis, she'll stop that and get the budget back onto control as it was when Bush came into office.

John Ramos asks what if the superdelegates over ride the popular vote? Clinton says there is a process, it will work itself out, and we will have a nominee. Obama responds that he believes in the will of the voters, it's important that voters believe that the government listens to them. The american people are tired of politics dominated by the powerful.

Campbell Brown asks what was the moment that has tested you the most in crisis? Obama says it's the trajectory of his life, his father leaving, periods he made mistakes and his life went off course, and getting his life back on track. Working as a community organizer, a civil rights attorney. He's determined that the american people get a govt worthy of their decency.

Campbell Brown passes the same question to Clinton. She comments that she's had some tribulations in life herself! Tells an anecdote about being with injured troops, couldn't walk, faces disfigured, the problems she's had in life are nothing compared to what these people go through every day of their life. Ends on a warm note with Barack Obama, our family, our friends, etc.

Yawn! Ok, Wisconsin could be sort of interesting to see if we can read any momentum change for Clinton or Obama. Wisconsin polls close at 9PM EST.

21:37 and CNN projects Obama and McCain the winners in Wisconsin.

Democrats			Republicans
	Clinton 1,263	Obama 1,212	Huckabee 217	McCain 881	Paul 16	Romney 286
HI 20 100%	8,835/24%/0	28,347/76%/0*	—	—	—	—
	—	—	82,253/22%/0	187,051/%49/6*	28,260/7%/0	75,548/%20/0	WA 6 57%
WI 92 100%	452,757/41%/8	645,954/58%/13*	151,181/37%/0	224,209/%55/13*	19,146/5%/0	8,082/2%/0	WI 40 100%

The media is all a-twitter over a comment Michelle Obama made yesterday:

"For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country" Video

Cindy McCain, world's oldest trophy wife (why does she dress just like a trophy wife with the harsh bottle bleach hair and form-fitting patent leather short jackets), shot back this morning with:

"I am proud of my country. I don't know about you? If you heard those words earlier, I am very proud of my country" Video

Well, for starters, if we take them both at their words they both said the same thing more or less — that they're both currently proud of their country.

But that's not what the foofraw is all about. Michelle Obama seemed to be saying that in the past she was not proud of her country, but now she is. And Cindy McCain seems to be saying she has always been proud of her country.

Cindy McCain is 54 years old so let's limit ourselves to events in her lifetime for analysis.

Was she proud of her country when we had black and white bathrooms and other segregated facilities, something which only ended around 1964? Was she proud of her country the day Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, and the events which led up to that? Is she proud of how we've treated Native Americans? Given her husband's opinion, which we assume she supports, was she proud of her country when the United States Supreme Court gave women the right to choose abortion? Is she proud that George W. Bush has the lowest rating of any president in modern US history?

We suspect, to some extent, that Michelle Obama's words were borne of a life of growing up in poverty, as a black woman in a country where she (ok, she was born in 1964, her parents if they travelled down south) couldn't even use the bathroom of her choice, and the many other trials and tribulations of growing up black, and female, and poor in America must have confronted her with.

And now, with her husband within striking distance of the nomination for president and her chance to be first lady, and all the changes that implies we can understand why she said what she said.

Our suggestion is for the pundits to unwrap themselves from those flags and get their collective heads out of their asses and admit once and for all what it must have been like to grow up black, poor, and a woman, and the injustices we the people inflicted on people like Michelle Obama, and what a powerful healing this experience must be as we show, once and for all, that we no longer stop her children from going to the local public school or stop her from using bathrooms, hotels, etc., and instead have come to the polls and cast millions of ballots for Barack Obama. What a proud day it is indeed!

The idea that "pledged" democratic delegates are, well, pledged, committed, obliged to vote for a particular candidate is A MYTH.

Clinton can poach Obama's delegates, and Obama can poach Clinton's delegates.

Richmond, VA mayor Doug Wilder has gone so far as to say that there could be rioting in the streets to rival the 1968 democratic convention if this comes down to poaching. His implication is if Clinton wins it by poaching.

Well, for those of you too young to remember the rioting at the 1968 democratic convention was over the Vietnam war, not the democratic party's interpretation of Robert's rules of order.

If the poaching starts both sides will do it, they'll have to. And once there are credible accusations of poaching on both sides the moral outrage will be blunted.

Besides, let's say Hillary pulls off the nomination by poaching delegates, presumably in a very close race. What are the Obama supporters going to do, vote for John McCain? Oh perhaps one will, maybe even two, (three?), but let's be honest, they're going to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and pull the levers for Hillary.

According to the Guam Pacific Daily News the Guam republican caucus originally scheduled for 16 February has been rescheduled to 08 March.

Suddenly we're seeing Barack Obama's name alongside that of Deval Patrick, the current governor of Massachusetts. The main reason, striking all the excuses, is that Gov. Patrick is African-American, and Gov. Patrick won his office recently, in 2006.

So maybe Gov. Patrick has the magic formula for blacks to win major elections. Importantly, Massachusetts may be a fairly liberal (read: non-racist) kind of place, though some would dispute that, but it doesn't have a very large black population. As of 2005 only about 363,000 of over 5,000,000 people were "black or African-American" (can you be just one?), about 7% [1].

We'd be the first to agree that Gov. Patrick is an attractive, intelligent, well-spoken man. As residents of Massachusetts we watched his 2006 race for governor closely. But the reasons for his success were probably not as germaine to Barack Obama's upcoming challenges as some might have you believe.

Gov. Patrick's predecessor was Mitt Romney. Romney didn't run for re-election, so his Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey threw her hat in the ring as the republican nominee for governor. There we have another parallel, Patrick ran against a woman!

But we still think the comparisons are weak.

Some states, such as New York, have upstate/downstate rivalries in statewide elections. Massachusetts has something like this, you can see statewide elections as contests between Boston and the rest of the state. Boston tends to lean democrat, the rest of the state is where the republicans are found, outside of Beacon Hill.

Massachusetts has another important fault line which is often characterized as the Boston Brahmins (old WASP wealth) versus those Irish-Catholic upstarts. Ok, if you don't like the Irish-Catholic characterization call it the old wealth versus the working class. But politically the latter are mostly Irish-Catholics going back over 100 years.

In 2002 Mitt Romney ran against, and beat, former state treasurer Shannon O'Brien. Again, a woman!

But do you see the obvious pattern? Mitt Romney beat Shannon O'Brien. Deval Patrick beat Kerry Healey. In both cases the Irish-Catholic candidate lost.

If you don't follow Massachusetts state politics take us at our word or start following. That is the proper insight into those elections. Think Kennedys, John Michael Curley, etc.

You're sputtering, we can hear you, Deval Patrick is hardly a Boston Brahmin, what are you talking about? Boston Brahmins are wealthy WASPS, and we all know what that "W" stands for, it stands for *white*.

You're still missing the point. Patrick's not Irish-Catholic, his opponent was. Consider that Deval Patrick wasn't some sort of black power street activist, he's a Harvard law school graduate, was an assistant attorney general under president Clinton, and went on to serve as executive vice president and general counsel of Texaco and later executive vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary of The Coca Cola company.

Forget Deval Patrick's race, this is the sort of resume most any Brahmin mucky-muck can get behind. Brahmins don't often run their own for office, sometimes they do, but the pay is too low and it's too much like real work.

In that sense Barack Obama is a lot like Deval Patrick, but least of all by the racial history they might share. Both even share a history in Chicago (Patrick was born there, Obama spent much of his adult life there.)

We continue to be astounded at the apparent mind-numbing affect of race on political analysis. It's there, but it often distracts people from the more important story.

One pattern which we've seen over the years is that the democrat tribe gets together, mostly agrees on what's important and what their principles are, and who their favorite people are, and from that pick a presidential candidate.

The problem is that the nominee is too often someone core democrats like, but not anyone with a chance of winning. Dukakis comes to mind. Although quite a few years ago McGovern and almost every other front-runner in the 1972 nomination race come to mind (Eugene McCarthy anyone?) To a great extent Bill Clinton in 1992 was a fluke along these same lines. Few stood for nomination in that year because GHW Bush seemed like such a shoo-in. Bill Clinton charmed the democratic party and managed to charm much of the rest of the country. In retrospect Bill Clinton does seem to be more a story of Bill Clinton's extraordinariness and not really a story about how well democrats can pick a candidate. And the recession of 1991-1992 didn't hurt either.

That brings us to the current democratic nomination race. Has the democratic party fallen in love with "Obama The Image" and forgotten that, ultimately, it's not Hillary he has to beat. It's McCain he has to beat.

Admittedly this election thus far seems like it might be an easy sweep for the democrats simply because of the animus the polity has towards Bush and his republicans. That McCain seems more and more to just be "George W. Bush – The Sequel" seems to seal that, as well as the incredible timing of the recession or near-recession or whatever it is. But it's likely that unemployment will be rising sharply this summer just as the election gets into full gear.

But these things can change, fast.

McCain vs. Obama is going to be, to a great extent, a battle of who you want as your authority figure. For many people John McCain would seem to have an edge; he's older, more experienced, etc.

Hillary, on the other hand, probably isn't as vulnerable as Obama to this authority figure approach. She's older, she was first lady a hundred years ago, we all know that. About the only attack the McCain campaign can use is whether or not being first lady counts as "experience." But she's a two-term Senator also.

McCain could paint himself into a corner which would drive a lot of women, regardless of political leaning, to Hillary if he characterizes her as "inexperienced" for being the first wife and ignores her own very really accomplishments in the senate. McCain had better realize that this is the kind of stereotyping women fight every day. That is, that any role as a wife or mother somehow invalidates other life accomplishments.

But we don't see the downside for McCain with Obama. Obama simply is young and less experienced. We don't think this will harken to some sort of anti-black stereotype he can exploit, assuming McCain doesn't call him "boy" or something stupid like that. Besides, anything short of real racism which offends whites doesn't stand to gain votes for Obama as a slight against women might for Hillary. Only about 10% of the US population is black, slightly over 50% are women.

The point is the democrats had better think more in terms of who can win the upcoming election and less in terms of who might be their favorite democrat.

First things first: Happy Valentine's Day! St. Valentine's day, named after at least two saints named Valentine, was mentioned by Geoffrey Chaucer in his 1382 (yes, over six hundred years ago) poem Parlement of Foules:

For this was on seynt Volantynys day
Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese [choose] his make [mate]

Wikipedia entry on Valentine's Day

It's probably reasonable to speculate that Romney is interested in running as McCain's vice president. On the plus side it could play well with some republicans. On the negative side perhaps McCain would prefer some relative unknown, and why choose a running mate who has proven his views don't play all that well with his audience?

It's been said that the republican party's polity these days consists of three distinct parts: The religious right, national security types, and traditional conservatives.

The religious right tend to be concerned with a narrow range of issues, primarily abortion and some general interest in injecting religion and their notion of morality (e.g., the gay marriage issue) into everyday life.

The national security crowd were who Rudy Giuliani tried to appeal to while he mostly ignored or even flouted the other two groups. Their issues are 9/11, terrorism, a strong defense, and increasingly immigration and the secure border issue.

The traditional conservatives tend to focus on federal fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget by cutting spending, cutting taxes, shrinking government in general, some notion that we should turn back the clock on constitutional matters and adhere more strongly to the founders' original intent as they interpret it, and some amount of overlap with the other two groups.

Of course many people straddle more than one of these categories but the question is which stress will sway them to a candidate and which of these issues will they actually make themselves heard on. For example, campaign donations, putting their money where their mouth is.

McCain is an odd choice considering the above. For the religious right he's not particularly one to gaze into the horizon and wax rhapsodically about being moved by his faith as Huckabee or Romney will, though he's never particularly offended them as Giuliani did with is pro-choice choice.

For the security republicans McCain is seen as soft on immigration though probably very strong on terrorism and defense in general if you don't try to characterize illegal immigration as a defense matter. And, for the more generous in nature, McCain's strong defense views can probably lead some to conclude that his rogueish views on immigration are at least nor borne out of some sort of soft-heartedness for immigrants (we suspect they have more to do with the value of cheap labor in his home state of Arizona.)

Traditional conservatives seem to have had all sorts of problems with McCain's record as the constant excoriations of Rush Limbaugh and others seem to voice. Ann Coulter said she'd work for Hillary over McCain though maybe that's just her shock media style which is speaking. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts (though one could argue that his concern was the yawning deficit), and his avoidance of rhetoric which places any limits on what the federal government should dabble in such as the McCain-Feingold bill limiting campaign contributions or supporting federal regulation on cable TV bundling.

So what might Romney bring to that party (so to speak)?

Romney sort of appeals to some members of the religious right, but others have problems voting for a Mormon. He's rock-solid on national security issues and says what most want to hear though McCain does fine on defense without Romney. Immigration remains a slippery matter because no one seems to be very clear about what they think must be done except for Huckabee who just mouths platitudes like send them all home. Romney's strong business background would probably appeal to traditional conservatives and could counter-balance McCain's lack of experience in the private sector. Has McCain ever had a job in the private/business sector? Even as a grocery bag boy or delivering newspapers as a kid? Probably not.

On the private sector McCain reminds us of that awkward scene in 1992 when the senior George Bush stopped by a Wal-Mart for a photo opp, brought a package of tube socks to the check-out, and remarked to the press how amazing the technology of scanning a barcode was, as if he'd never seen anything like it. The rest of us had seen barcode scanning at cash registers for over a decade so concluded candidate Bush had simply never been in a grocery or department store before. One suspects McCain had better be careful not to repeat that sort of embarrassment given his work history.

Republicans don't tend to be in a majority in the electorate in this country, so in order for republicans to win they have to appeal to independents and some democrats in large numbers. Romney probably would increase a ticket's appeal to business-minded independents and some democrats. About the only hope either of them have to draw from democrats is to pound on defense and morality issues such as abortion. Some democrats find McCain's run-ins with conservatives appealing, or at least make him less forbidding. But Romney brings little to democrats except perhaps on immigration issues for some.

All that said, and we admit we rambled but it is Valentine's Day and our minds may be elsewhere, we doubt Romney is a likely vice-presidential short-lister for McCain but could see the logic if he were.

Obama and McCain sweep District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Obama picks up 57 delegates, Clinton 27, McCain, in the winner take all republican primaries, picked up 73.

---

Chesapeake Tuesday? The Potomac Primary? THE BELTWAY BLOWOUT!

Whatever.

8PM EST and Obama is already the projected winner by both CNN and MSNBC in Virgina. Huckabee and McCain are neck and neck in Old Dominion (that's a nickname for Virginia, ok? learn something!)

Kweisi Mfume former congressman (D-MD) is on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann. He just called his preferred candidate ``Oback Barama''. Oh well. He is also a former president of the NAACP so maybe that's why Olbermann keeps badgering him about why the NAACP is lobbying to seat the Florida (and Michigan?) delegates. He keeps telling Olbermann to ask the NAACP, specifically their current chairman Julian Bond.

But how come it seems like the only reason networks bring on a black commentator from outside (other than a journalist) is to ask him or her about racial issues in the election? Do you think whites this? Do you think blacks this? Do you think white women this? Do you think black women that? And on and on. I'm sure an intelligent guy like Mfume has something else to offer other than trying to divine the groupthink of all blacks in the United States for MSNBC's curiosity.

A judge has ordered Maryland polls to stay open an extra 90 minutes, until 9:30PM, because of bad weather. That's really going to cut into Jericho's return to CBS.

8:30PM CNN and MSNBC have both projected McCain the winner in Virginia. They're both projecting Obama wins DC on exit polls alone, no results yet.

Democrats			Republicans
	Clinton 1,164	Obama 1,159	Huckabee 217	McCain 723	Paul 16	Romney 286
DC 15 98%	27,326/24%/0	85,534/75%/3*	961/17%/0	3,929/68%/0*	471/8%/0	350/6%/0	DC 16 98%
MD 70 60%	175,236/37%/5	289,170/60%/11*	54,126/30%/0	98,832/55%/13*	10,005/6%/0	11,121/6%/0	MD 34 60%
VA 43 99%	344,970/35%/22	618,933/64%/43*	197,711/41%/0	242,507/50%/60*	21,914/5%/0	16,991/3%/0	VA 60 99%

There are 34 democratic delegates from Maine, 24 decided in this caucus and 10 super-delegates.

Democrats
	Clinton	Obama	Uncommitted
	1,396/40%/9	2,079/60%/15*	18/0.5%/0
99% reporting

* Indicates presumed winner.

The Washington republican caucus was interesting in how close the three remaining candidates ended. McCain 26%, Huckabee 24%, and Paul 21%. This was a very strong showing for Ron Paul, one wonders who he takes votes from? We won't even hazard a guess.

Obama did very well in all four democratic contests, 70/30 in Nebraska and Washington, 60/40 in Louisiana, and 90/10 in the Virgin Islands.

Overall we don't think a lot can be concluded from these results, for either party, other than to note that McCain being all but crowned the republican nominee apparent hasn't hurt Huckabee's continuing quest. Huckabee handily took Kansas, won a squeaker in Louisiana, and lost a squeaker in Washington. The voters haven't given up on Huckabee, yet.

The score so far: Clinton 1,108 delegates, Obama 1,049 in the democratic contest (2,025 needed to win.) On the republican side McCain 714, Huckabee 217, and Ron Paul 16 (1,191 to win.)

As to those out: John Edwards hangs onto 26 democratic delegates, and Mitt Romney 286 republican delegates.

Democrats			Republicans
	Clinton	Obama	Huckabee	McCain	Paul	Romney
	–	–	11,627/60%/36*	4,587/24%	2,182/11%	653/3%	KS 36
LA 55	136,959/36%/22	220,588/57%/33*	69,655/43%/0*	67,609/42%/0	8,595/5%/0	10,232/7%/0	LA 47 [1]
NE 24	12,396/32%/8	25,986/68%/16*	–	–	–	–
WA 50	9,992/31%/15	21,629/68%/35*	3,226/26%/0	3,468/26%/0*	2,799/21%/0	2,253/16%/0	WA 40 [2]
VI 3	149/8%/0	1,772/92%/3*	–	–	–	–

* Indicates winner.

Notes:

1. Louisiana republican primary is winner-take-all only if a candidate receives 50% or more of the vote. Otherwise the delegates are uncommitted until the 16 Feb state convention. Only the 20 at-large of the 47 delegates were at stake in the 09 Feb primary vote.
2. For an explanation of the Washington republican delegate apportionment see The Green Papers.

Mike Huckabee won the 36 Kansas delegates handily in their republican caucuses today with 11,627 votes (60%) versus McCain's 4,587 (24%), Ron Paul 2,182 (11%), Romney 653 (3%) and 84 uncommitted.

20:45 – CNN projects Obama takes Washington and Nebraska caucuses. Washington: 16,430 Obama, 7,700 Clinton, 175 uncommitted with 75% of the vote counted. Nebraska: 18,557 Obama, 8,914 Clinton, 14 uncommitted, with 85% counted. Both states went roughly 70/30 in favor of Obama. No numbers from Louisiana for either party yet.

21:38 Louisiana: Obama 3,646, Clinton 3,298, McCain 1,586, Huckabee 1,164, Romney 880, Paul 186 with 1% counted.

We put all the numbers from Super-Tuesday into a spreadsheet (below) from states where both parties had a primary contest. We included all reported candidates even if they had dropped out, such as Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, and Richardson because we were more interested in turn-out than per candidate analysis.

The first thing which struck us was that a total of 14,321,767 democrats voted, while only 8,517,805 republicans voted. That's roughly 5:3, only about 60% as many republicans as democrats voted.

Looking at the big states, California had almost a 2:1 turnout with 4,037,284 democrats voting against 2,275,429 republicans. New York was even more dramatic, 1,721,262 versus 602,747 republicans, nearly 3:1.

How about some favorite son states? In Massachusetts, where Romney was governor 2003-2007, 1,244,133 democrats voted, 496,171 republicans or well over twice the number of democrats, over 2.5 actually.

John McCain's home state of Arizona fared better for republicans with more republicans voting than democrats, 467,762 republicans versus 390,016 democrats. In Huckabee's Arkansas there were 294,633 democrats voting and 215,950 republicans, or about 35% more democrats.

What's interesting about Arkansas is that it's considered a solid red (republican) state. Yet democrats voting far outweighed republicans. Arizona is also generally considered a red state and more republicans voted, but nothing like the disproportionate democrat numbers in other states. About the only state republicans swamped democrats was Utah and with Romney receiving 90% of that republican vote we'll have to consider Utah an "outlier" (although it is included in the overall numbers we reported.)

Obama's home state of Illinois had 2,003,800 democrats voting and 885,009 republicans, a more than (much more than) 2:1 margin.

Other interesting data points are Colorado where democrats turned out 2:1 to republicans (119,184 vs. 55,845). Connecticut and New Jersey were no surprise with roughly 2:1 turnout of democrats over republicans. Minnesota democrats outnumbered their republicans by 3:1 (212,079 vs. 61,953.)

In Georgia voter turnout of the two parties was close, 1,046,485 democrats and 954,462. Still somewhat surprising for a southern red state. North Dakota democrats outnumbered republicans 2:1 (18,856 vs. 9,743.) Even Oklahoma showed a similar bias towards democratic turnout (401,230 vs. 329,843), as did Tennessee (614,096 vs. 547,614.) Both Oklahoma and Tennesee are generally considered solid red states. Little Delaware was unsurprising with democrats outnumber Republicans roughly 2:1 (95,979 vs. 50,062.)

What can we read into all this? It's hard to say. It might be just what it says: More democrats turned out on super-Tuesday than republicans, and nothing more. It might say that the contests between democrats drew more voters out than the republican contests perhaps because of more passion for each democratic candidate, or even better organizing to get out the vote by democratic candidates.

Or maybe we're seeing a follow-through from the 2006 election which put the democrats back into control of both houses of congress, a voter tilt towards identifying themselves as democrats. If I were in charge of worrying about the November general election for republicans I'd be just that: Worried.

Super-Tuesday 2/5/2008
Alabama
	Clinton	226,454		Huckabee	230,608
	Obama	302,684		McCain	210,989
	Edwards	7,933		Romney	103,295
	Uncommitted	2,672		Paul	14,454
				Giuliani	2,224
				Uncommitted	1,252
			539,743			562,822
Alaska
	Obama	302		Romney	5,126
	Clinton	103		Huckabee	2,548
	Uncommitted	1		Paul	1,955
	Edwards	0		McCain	1,804
				Uncommitted	187
			406			11,620
Arizona
	Clinton	201,396