Obama

by folkbum

For more than a year, the sidebar has read, "folkbum's rambles and rants officially endorses the Democrat for president."

Tonight, we change that to read, "folkbum's rambles and rants officially endorses Barack Obama for president."

Feels good to have a nominee.

Race and the Race

by folkbum

One of the last times I ran for any elected office was when I ran for treasurer of my high school senior class. (I lost.) The day before the vote, the school dragged all the kids in my class down to the gym and sat us on the bleachers where we were forced to listen to speeches from all the candidates for all the various offices.

My high school was suburban, but racially integrated as the result of a merger between a number of districts a couple of decades before. In the district's single high school, perhaps 30 or 35% of the students were of African or Asian descent, and the rest of us were white. I do not remember the complete breakdown of who from what racial background was running for which meaningless post my senior year, but I do remember one jerk from the audience that year, a white jerk.

As the students were streaming out of the gym back to class, speeches finished and hopes lifted, this guy yelled out, several times, "Vote for all the white people!"

Let me show you a map:


You've probably seen that map already; it's the counties so far that have voted 65% or more for Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. I took this from DHinMI from before the West Viginia primary, and could not find an updated one from afterwards, but imagine, if you will, that most of the gray WV-shaped area there is also purple (not all, just most).

It's pretty easy to see that Clinton excels in a range stretching from the Appalachians across the Ohio River valley to the Ozarks. (At the link above, you can view the 65% maps for Senator Barack Obama to see that he, too, has areas of strength.) Let me blow up that segment of the map:



I've added a yellow circle showing, roughly, where I come from, where my high school was located that some idiot in a mullet and a heavy metal-band t-shirt can shout out "Vote for all the white people!" before the election of senior class officers. I'm from right there in the thick of it. (It will look even more like it after Kentucky votes on Tuesday.) These voters you hear about in West Virginia who still think Obama's a Muslim or who can't imagine relinquishing control of the US to a black man are, in a very real way, my people.

I knew well enough at 17 that I didn't want the vote of our racist antagonist here, but I also knew that I would be getting it whether I wanted it or not. In this one small way, I think I can say I know how Hillary Clinton feels.

I do not want to suggest in any way that Clinton has gotten as far as she has solely on the basis of some racist vote. On the contrary, when you look at the map of Clinton's 55% and higher victories, you can see that she pulls in the votes pretty well in minority-heavy districts all across the country. I voted for Clinton here in Wisconsin for two solid reasons that had nothing to do with race, making up my mind literally in the voting booth that afternoon. (And if that racist vote were really that powerful, I would have been treasurer of my high school senior class.)

However, it is clear that race is playing a role in this primary for Clinton, as sure as it is for Obama--many of his 65% counties are concentrated across the South where blacks are often the bulk of Democratic primary voters. But there is, I think, a very real difference in the two.

For Clinton, not because she wants it, not because she's cultivated it, not because she deserves it, there is a "vote for all the white people!" mentality that is boosting her vote totals across a limited geographical spread. Again, please do not think that I am accusing Clinton of being racist--she is not--or accusing all those who voted for her of being racist--the vast majority are not. But the difference between a mere victory for Clinton and a blowout across a swath of America has been, I think, those who are motivated by race.

And the same for Obama. However, instead of an antithesis of the "vote for all the white people!" mentality that Clinton has benefited from, there is instead an energy and excitement among African American voters about the chance to finally vote for someone who isn't white. Obama has motivated black voters in this cycle like no one has before, theoretically putting states into play--like Mississippi, where the biggest Democratic upset of the year came largely thanks to black voters even as whites were winning West Virginia for Clinton--that would not have been in play in anyone's wildest imaginations a year ago.

I do not think that my Ohio Valley brethren are enervated over the opportunity to vote for a white presidential candidate. Seems to me that they've had the chance to do exactly that for the last, oh, 200-some years. Rather, a "vote for all the white people!" mentality is a move to protect perceived power as opposed to spread power to traditionally disenfranchised groups.

The irony, of course, is that the poor whites who inhabit the Appalachians and Ozarks and points in between, and who have been giving Clinton her blowout margins, are the furthest thing away from any source of real power. In the same way, the kid who shouted out to my senior class was someone I didn't know (in a class of more than 450 students, that's not that hard), and who likely didn't have any connection to any of the other non-mulleted candidates for any of the offices in that year's low-impact election. Yet at least in the white candidates, there's enough of an "us" (versus "them") to believe.

African Americans across the South, too, who gave Obama his biggest margins, also lack access to traditional structures of power, but are turning out in record numbers.

In many ways, this is perhaps what's most exciting about this election: Both candidates are drawing in huge numbers of Democratic voters whose interests are usually not served by the primary or general election process. No one would have guessed a year ago or even a few months ago the nomination process for either major party would be fought out among those whose voices are usually silenced in the decision-making process. (Both parties count, often too heavily, on the votes of those out of power to help maintain their power; see, for example, What's the Matter with Kansas?, or any one of a billion internet screeds about how the Democrats take the black vote for granted.)

Much about this election season has made me uneasy, not the least of it the bringing back up unpleasant high school memories. But a lot of it has also left me feeling pretty positive about the direction of my party, specifically, and of the country, more generally. The incidental ugliness from some voters will end up, I believe--I hope!--no more significant in the long run of this election than a solitary mullet-head shouting out to 450 kids in a hallway.

In the end, we'll have made history--and that's something people from all different backgrounds should be proud of.

Where are the concern trolls "professionals" now?

by folkbum

Two weeks ago, after the Pennsylvania primary, the "professional" Brian Fraley wrote that it was all over for Barack Obama because "[b]lue collar white catholic swing voters, who may have been warming up to [Barack] Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves."

Let's look at Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, shall we?
White Obama Clinton
OH     34%    64%
PA     37%    63%
IN     40%    60%

Cath. Obama Clinton
OH     36%    63%
PA     30%    70%
IN     41%    59%

<$50k Obama Clinton
OH     42%    56%
PA     46%    54%
IN     50%    50%

Running away in droves my foot. And, no, Obama didn't win clear majorities in these categories; but the predicted collapse didn't happen in PA and it didn't happen last night, either.

Vote-suppressing, Pro-Hillary Group Operated in Wisconsin

via MAL Contends

A voter-suppression group operating in North Carolina, exposed in the journal Facing South (see also Talking Points Memo), was operating in Wisconsin before its primary on Feb. 19 as part a national voter deception strategy targeting black households and those likely to vote against Sen. Clinton.

And with the same apparent motive: To suppress voter turnout and minimize the margin of an expected Clinton defeat.

The story, broken by Chris Kromm, and aired on CNN, exhibits another example of Hillary Clinton borrowing from the Karl Rove playbook; and Hillary can expect a serious backlash.

Writes Kromm:

Who's behind the mysterious 'robo-calls' that have spread misleading voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North Carolina residents over the last week?

Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to boost voting among 'unmarried women voters.'

What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law. ...

In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: 'One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters,' sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing 'hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance' to actually not be. ...

... Bob Hall at Democracy North Carolina said in a statement:
'This is another in a long line of deceptive practices used in North Carolina and elsewhere that particularly target African-American voters. In our view, this phone message plainly violates North Carolina law. We ask the Attorney General, State Bureau of Investigation, and the State Board of Elections to investigate, expose, and prosecute the sponsors of these calls.'

[UPDATE by folkbum: The WVWV response; perspective from Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers; and note my official skepticism that there was any tie between the Clinton campaign and WVWV, as that would be both fairly easy to prove and so incredibly illegal.]

Update II: See WVWV staff bios and Kos by stefanielaine for additional Clinton connections; also see DKos, Women's Voices has not answered our investigation: ["First, it's important to note that Gardner's statement in no ways refutes, or even addresses, any of the basic facts put forward by our investigation."]. Let the stonewalling begin.

Via Kos by stefanielaine

(John Podesta) actually responded, which I didn't expect, though his response was less than satisfying:

Podesta:
Believe me, you were no more shocked than I was. WVWV has a strong record of registering disenfranchised people so that they can participate in the political process. Over 400,000 in this cycle. With respect to North Carolina, remedial action is being undertaken. While I believe the calling program there was a mistake of judgment and execution, and not an attempt to disenfranchise voters, as a board member, I have asked for a full accounting of the circumstances of the North Carolina events.

stefanielaine

It's great that he's asked for "a full accounting of the circumstances," but seriously, I don't understand thinking this is all a big coincidence. So, my response: Thanks for responding, John. I'm glad to hear that you've requested an accounting of what's happening in North Carolina but frankly North Carolina is just the tip of the iceberg - WVWV has apparently executed similar "lapses in judgment" in Virginia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas, usually immediately before those states' primaries. I have an incredibly difficult time believing this is anything less than voter disenfranchisement - if their intentions were good, why wouldn't WVWV identify themselves on the call? Why target black voters? Why use a fictitious identity for the call, and why else use the name Lamont, if not to immediately establish the caller's racial identity? Why choose the week before an election to suggest to these (largely black) voters that they may not be registered to vote? From my perspective, the odds of all these factors being coincidental is virtually nill. But I look forward to the full accounting, which I hope you will encourage WVWV to make public.
Thank you. Stef

Leave it to the professionals, indeed

by folkbum

When Brian Fraley wrote that "Blue collar white catholic swing voters, who may have been warming up to [Barack] Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves," and I calmly pointed to the exit-poll data to show where that was wrong, he eventually resorted to a sad kind of argument from authority:

Jay, I realize that while I’ve only been doing this for 16 years, you teach in MPS and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but let me try to explain.

First of all, Fraley should know that a teacher's salary cannot provide posh Holiday Inn Express kinds of lodgings--more like Motel 3-and-a-half. Second of all, he never answered my questions, which were simple and direct. What evidence did he have that these voters were leaving Obama, let alone "in droves"? Why was he not making a similar argument about Hillary Clinton, that black voters were "leaving" her "in droves"?

I mean, she lost the "black vote," if you want to call it that, by far more than Obama lost the "white vote." Obama won 90% of blacks and Clinton won only 63% of whites. (In Ohio, Obama won only 87% of black voters--clearly they are "running" away from Clinton!)

As I said, Fraley could not answer the question except to pat me on the head (electronically) and to say, "Trust me, I'm the professional." This was a theme picked up on by an ex-professional, James the Son of Wigder, in a post he actually had the nerve to title "Some things are best left to professionals":

I was really laughing when I saw Brian Fraley's response to an attempt by Jay "folkbum" Bullock to spin Pennsylvania for his candidate.

Wigderson did not read very carefully, since he didn't catch, apparently, that Obama was not "my candidate." He also didn't bother to offer an answer to my questions, either, or to explain to me how Fraley's statement that "blue collar white catholic swing voters [. . .] are running away from [Obama] in droves" was anything approximating the truth. Neither could say anything more than that Obama had lost a state primary that he was never predicted win, and that he lost constituencies in that primary that he was never predicted to win. And yet, somehow, that's the equivalent of voters "running away from him in droves."

Thick as thieves, these "professionals."

So let me offer a counter argument from authority, from the "professionals" at Real Clear Politics, who, more than anyone else out there, are providing thorough and invigorating coverage of the primary. Their numbers are cited far more often than just about anyone else's when it comes to primary and delegate analysis. Here's the "professional":

We might expect Obama to have improved relative to Ohio in the southeast [of Pennsylvania, the Philly area]. However, this does not appear to have been the case. When we control for race, income, and age, we get roughly the same results in Ohio and southeast Pennsylvania. The same goes for southwest Pennsylvania [Pittsburgh].

What is significant is the variable that captures counties in central Pennsylvania. This was surprising. The model indicates that, controlling for race, income, and age, Obama performed better in central Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio. Additionally, there is a modest statistical significance to the variables for the northeast and northwest segments of the state. However, when we use a more expansive definition of central Pennsylvania, re-classifying the counties in the northeast and northwest segments that abut the center segment as part of the center, this significance washes away.

What is the upshot of this? Obama did not improve relative to Ohio in Erie, Pittsburgh, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, or even Philadelphia. However, he did improve in the "Middle T" of the state. This improvement was not puny. [. . .]

This is not to imply that he did particularly well in central PA. Clinton still won the counties by an average of 25 points. The point is that, if this area were behaving like Ohio or the rest of Pennsylvania, she would have won them by something closer to 33 points.

That is nothing close to "running away from [Obama] in droves." Obama did better in Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio, almost completely across the board, even in demo- and geographical areas of Clinton's strength. But the McCain voters out there like Fraley and Wigderson--knowing, perhaps, that their guy runs really, really weak against Obama in places like Wisconsin--have to do everything they can to cut Obama down, even if it means fudging the truth.

Yeah, because when I want cogent commentary on the Democratic primary, I'll ask a Republican. Whatev.

by folkbum

There's nothing quite so insulting as what we in the business call a "concern troll." They're everywhere, these days, even if they don't know what they're doing, talking about Democrats and the nomination process. Just trolling away, sounding quite, quite sincere in their wish for the Democrats to nominate someone who can win in November. Who are these people?

McCain voters.

I know, I know, it doesn't compute on its face, or even, for that matter, several dense troll-packed layers down. What possible reason could Republican, conservative, McCain-voting bloggers have for tsk-tsking the Democrats over our rush to nominate Barack Obama, whom they see as the weaker candidate against McCain? Well, it's the same reason why the Republicans are planning to air some pretty ugly ads against only Obama--not Hillary Clinton: Obama is the presumptive nominee (no matter what Clinton thinks) and, frankly, they're scared pantsless of how bad for their side a McCain-Obama race would turn out.

Maybe not all of them got a memo, no. But you can bet it's the talking-point of the rightward set, circulated at all levels and bubbling forth in public for consumption from a number of otherwise-reasonable people.

Exhibit A would be Rick Esenberg. He sidled into concern troll mode with a post early election morn, wondering, goshdarnit, what's making it so hard for that nice man to seal the deal with Democrats?

But don't Democrats have to be worried about a guy who can't put away such an empty suit? And no matter what the polls say about a race that hasn't started, it's hard not to conclude that Obama has left folks in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio unimpressed. You can make a fairly strong argument that, for a Democrat to win, Pennsylvania shouldn't even be in play. How do you get to 270 if, after McCain actually campaigns there, it's in the GOP column?

So many breathless questions, so much concern trolling. If there were a concern troll scale--like, say, the Richter Scale, or the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender--this would be peaking at a fairly solid 6 or 6.5, starting, of course, with his labeling of Clinton as "an empty suit." It takes a lot of, erm, concernes, as they might say en espanol, to paint someone who still can win a hot primary and run neck-and-neck with Obama with that kind of brush. Voters clearly don't see that suit as empty at all; in fact, one Clinton voter (*cough*me*cough*) highly resents the implication that I'm too dumb to pick an empty suit out of a crowd. But because Obama is presumptive nominee, such lies are not intended as lies per se; rather, they are to be read as an acknowledgment of reality, sort of a paternal pat on the head to reassure us that he, too, knows Obama's in the driver's seat of this race, something most Dem readers of Esenberg's blog figured out weeks ago. (NOTE: Had he gone with "an empty pantsuit," as many of his colleagues are wont to do, he would have slipped from concern trolling right into flat boorishness and lost credibility. That's what I like about Rick--he knows which lines to dance up to but not cross.)

Further, there are some other Esenberg concern-troll lies not meant to be read as such. For example, suggesting that Obama has not impressed the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It feels true, again, because, well, Obama lost those states. But there are any number of ways to put the lie to it. For example, since the start of the elections this year, Obama has drawn more money in contributions from Ohio and Pennsylvania that Clinton has. Two-thirds of Ohio and Pennsylvania primary voters said in exit polls that they would be satisfied in Obama won the nomination--considerably more voters than actually voted for him. And while Obama may be behind McCain in Pennsylvania according Pollster.com's trendlines this morning, that's almost entirely because of Republican polling firm Strategic Vision, as opposed to non-partisan polling firms finding Obama ahead for the last month. Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican since they voted against Dukakis--and they keep electing Democrats lately to state-wide office. It's nice Rick, that you seem to care, but, please, keep it and your falsities to yourself.

The Recess Supervisor makes a lot of the same concern-trolly points Esenberg does about Obama's losing to Clinton in states that will be important in November (apparently, McCain's losses in key Republican swing states like Colorado, Minnesota, and Louisiana don't matter). But RS's additional complaints concerns--not to mention his use of ultra-violent bullet points--put him onthe concern troll scale at about a 7.5 to 8. Here's some of his "concern":

Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania and lost by ten. Shouldn't that be story? [. . .] Why won't the talking heads mention how Obama's narrow lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote owe largely to his running up the score in states in the Great Plains and the Mountain West that Democrats have absolutely no chance of winning in November? Are Obama's whopping victories in states like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas really the stuff that Democratic superdelegates want to base their decision on? The voice of voters who will do NOTHING to bring them the White House come November? [. . .] Obama's spent a year trying to sell voters the yellow brick road, and it's starting to come up short. Swing voters aren't buying it.

Money: I think the story is that Obama is outraising Clinton three-to-one. How in the world can we expect Clinton to compete with McCain's campaign finance shenanigans if she can't raise money herself? That is my real concern as a real Democrat, not some phony ginned-up trollishnes of the Supervisor's.

"No chance" states: Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska have been electing Democrats state-wide lately. There will be close House contests in Utah. Colorado and Nevada--not on RS's list, but implied--will be battleground states in this cycle, based on changing Demographics if nothing else. As a Democrat, I want a candidate who can make those states more competitive. I want a Democrat who can have coattails in states like Utah or Kansas. I want Republicans to have to spend money to defend in those places, instead of in Ohio or Pennsylvania, and I want Nevada and Colorado to go blue this year. The Dems' win without the South strategy has always gone through the Mountain West, and if Obama can make it happen, that's a good thing.

The "yellow brick road": I see that RS has bought into the BS that Obama's campaign is some kind of fantasy of hope and change rather than a coherent and extensive collection of detailed policy proposals. It's funny--Esenberg calls Clinton the empty suit, and here the Recess Supervisor implies that it's Obama, instead, whose suit is empty. Is it too much to ask that the concern trolls settle on a single storyline?

But the concern-troll cake of the week has been taken by Brian Fraley, whose post yesterday goes off the scale completely. What makes Fraley bury the needle is not merely that he's demonstrably wrong in his concern trolling--and in total denial about it--but that he does it with a snippy I-told-you-so attitude:

After Obama’s ‘Bitter, Cling to Guns and God’ jab was made public I wrote:

If he actually said this condescending, elitist claptrap it will take all his vast rhetorical skills to talk himself out of the firestorm heading his way. And not because us rubes are going to merely cling to our guns and our religion. But rather, because he just insulted the largest block of swing voters in America.

Well, how did my prediction shake out after the first contest since his San Francisco treat? Well, look at how Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in Pennsylvania’s rural counties and the northern suburban counties outside Philly. It’s not a matter of her winning there. Look at the numbers. The percentages are staggering. White middle class, and Catholic voters went to Clinton by unbelievable margins.

Lucky for us, we can actually look at some polling data to find out if what Fraley said here is true. We can compare what happened in Pennsylvania to what happened in neighboring Ohio, as the states share some demographic qualities as well as a border, and Ohio was the last major primary before Obama's "cling" statements were made public. (In general, Ohio's electorate is a little more amenable to Obama--more black voters and more younger voters than Pennsylvania--so that fact that Obama did better in PA is itself notable.)

Comparing CNN exit poll data (same company, same questions, already linked above) between Ohio and PA, you find that Obama actually improved this week! More whites voted for Obama in PA (34% OH, 38% PA). Obama gained among white men (from 39% to 44%) and white women (from 31% to 34%). He gained among those earning less than $50k a year (from 42% in OH to 46% in PA). He did fall among Catholics (from 36% in OH to 31%) but he gained among Protestants (from 36% to 53%)–and remember, his “cling” to religion comment was not specific about which religion, so it should have offended everyone equally. Fraley restated his claim in a comment even more explicitly: "Blue collar white catholic swing voters, who may have been warming up to Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves." And to prove it, he reiterates his point about Obama's losing Tuesday in areas that were Clinton strongholds. I don't see anyone leaving Obama "in droves," though. Maybe you can, and if so, I would appreciate it if you explained it to me.

And if you're thinking about concern trolling, please, keep it to yourself.

POST SCRIPT: Former Republican John Cole has a solid take on all of this:

I have had the tv on for 2 minutes and am already ready to scream as Joe Scarborough asks why “obama can not close the deal.”

Gee. I dunno. Because he is running against an exceedingly popular candidate who has a 16 year advantage building a political machine who just a few months ago was Mrs. Inevitable?

No Excuse for Supporting Hillary Now

by Michael A. Leon

Update: A reader left this comment worth posting: "Hillary is a political succubus. She will suck the energy and will from this party until we are broken and defeated. ... Even if one does not consider the supposedly inflammatory nature of the Wright sermons, she took an opportunity to promote healing or at least thought provoking discussion, and instead parroted a line that even the conservative nominee and the man he defeated has abandoned. ... I have no doubt Hillary would have left her church and the place that introduced her to Jesus because it is abundantly clear that there is no belief, no ethic, no moral, or important relationship she would not gladly sacrifice in order to further her own naked ambition."

"And you know I'm just speaking for myself, and I was answering a question that was posed to me," said Hillary Clinton as she reads from her notes. TPM video of Clinton:

Does anyone have any doubt now that Hillary Clinton has crossed the line using racism in her pursuit of political power?

And Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a superdelegate pledged to Hillary, will you now disavow Hillary Clinton? Tammy, you know appeals to bigotry when you see them, and Hillary's is as ugly and potentially destructive as the national Democratic stage has seen in decades.

Clinton's latest tactic came in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, during which Clinton suggested that Reverend Wright is guilty of "hate speech," and said, "He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Obama's campaign has hit back immediately:

"After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it's disappointing to see Hillary Clinton's campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor's offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech. The American people deserve better than tired political games that do nothing to solve the larger challenges facing this country," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

But Hillary is threatening the historic coalition with black America and her attempt to secure the nomination has to be shot down now and hard. I mean playing on racism, are we going to countenance this?

A piece in Kos eloquently calls for an end now to Hillary's appeals to hate. Personally, I think Hillary is considering a third-party run. From Kos:

Clinton is not only presumptuous, she is vicious and divisive and hurtful. She should be defending Barack Obama against unfair attacks, and defending and contextualizing the tradition of black sermonizing. In his speech, Barack Obama sought to educate and bring reconciliation. Clinton's response is to throw it all back in his face and suggest that there is something wrong with him for
attending his church. ...

If Clinton succeeds in pushing this racial polarization to the point that white people will not vote for Obama, the black community will never, ever, forgive her. ...

At this point it is absolutely imperative that the party leaders step in and stop the Clinton campaign from inflicting lasting damage to the relationship between the party and the African-American community. She cannot be allowed to even try to win the nomination this way, let alone actually win it.

This is poison of the worst possible kind. It will destroy the party's electoral viability more swiftly and more surely than anything I can think of.

I call on Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Dean, and the other leaders of the party to step in right now and call this contest.
The Clintons absolutely must not be permitted to do this. It must be stopped.

Myself, I call on Tammy Baldwin to step up right now and denounce Hillary Clinton. Silence is a betrayal to every progressive who has worked with you and the cause of justice.

Hillary: I'm Losing, Change the Rules

Update: Listen to Hillary on Michigan: Pathetic.

After agreeing not to campaign in Florida and Michigan last year, Hillary Clinton now wants the elections, such as they were, to count.

From the Miami Herald:

Trailing Democratic rival Barack Obama in delegates and running out of options, Hillary Clinton's campaign on Tuesday launched a two-pronged attack in Florida.In Fort Lauderdale, supporters brandished petitions and called for the Jan. 29 primary -- which she won -- to count toward delegates.

If you're losing the game, change the rules, the goalposts, and make a new game.
Reminds me of Bush on the Iraq War for which Hillary voted, though she still denies that she did so.

From Time:

The Pledge Clinton Signed

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I, [Name], Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Fact: Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination by running like a Republican

It's true.

Clinton's Hail Mary

via MAL Contends

Let's put tonight’s democratic presidential debate in football terms.

Hillary is down by 13 points, her team has the ball on her own 30-year-line with four minutes to go in the fourth, having displayed no ground game and an inconsistent passing attack.

Her opponents’ defensive cornerbacks are Lester Hayes and Mark Haynes (of Raiders fame), the pass rush is the 1985 Bears, and the linebackers are a bunch of LTs.

MSNBC bills the debate as Hillary’s Last Stand. The debate’s headline ought to read: Abandon hope, Hillary, if ye enters here.

It would take a hail Mary pass, an immaculate reception, a drive to end all drives, and Barack Obama's invoking the name of Satan for Hillary (the let's-trust-George W. Bush-to-do-the-right-thing-on-Iraq Hillary (Vote: Oct. 11, 2002)) to win this game.

Your Liberal Media In Action

by capper

I just posted on the first debate between Senator Taylor and Walker. It was difficult to do this post. Not because the results weren't to be as expected, with Taylor winning, but because the local media did such a lousy job covering it.

First, they gave two different reports. There was the immediate JSOnline Newswatch report that was posted yesterday afternoon. Then there was the one that was heavily edited and put in this morning's paper. Go ahead and compare the two.

And while you're at it, count how many times they highlight Walker against how many times they mention Senator Taylor.

And to top it off, check out the last part of the edited version:

Both Walker and Taylor said they'd be advocates for education, another area not directly under the county's purview. Both said they were backers of school choice, though Taylor later qualified her stance. She said she favors requirements that choice teachers and administrators have state certification, a stand not shared with many choice proponents.

Some choice advocates have viewed Taylor as anti-choice, particularly for her lack of support for a plan last year to provide additional state funding to offset property taxes paid for the Milwaukee choice program.

Not only do they report on something that has absolutely nothing but then gets it wrong. With reporting like that, Senator Taylor will have to beat two opponents.

To help Senator Taylor get her message out, please go here and help anyway you can.

Hillary Clinton: Winning the hearts and minds of wingnut bloggers all across Wisconsin

by folkbum

No, I don't know who I am voting for yet. But the conservative side of the Cheddarsphere has made up its mind: Hillary FTW!

See, just on my first run through the dark side, Lance Burri, The Game, Fred Dooley, Patrick Dorwin. There are undoubtedly more. (In comments below, 3rd Way points us to Sarah Kirby.)

Now, there are also plenty of people that I actually like who are voting for Clinton, out of much more pure reasons, like Mike Plaisted.

But the growing pro-Clinton wave on the right ... I feel like I need to take a long shower.

Vote Tuesday, with recommendations

by folkbum

The more often I do these kind of posts, the more often I'm convinced that they have little effect. But I do them anyway--people grow to expect them and sometimes they even help me work out some of my own messy thinking.

City of Milwaukee
There are a handful of primaries around the city, only two of which are really getting any attention. For the city's 6th Aldermanic District, I recommend Una Van Duvall--as I did during the recall election last year. There is a great deal of speculation about whether Michael McGee, Jr., the incumbent, can hold the seat from behind bars. Let's hope this is the year he is let go. In the 3rd Aldermanic District, there are about a bazillion candidates. I think many of them would do well on the Common Council, but I think my readers could do a lot worse than electing Sam McGovern-Rowen to the post.

Less visible are two campaigns closer to my home. The 13th Aldermanic District is just across the street, literally, from me; I recommend current alderman Terry Witkowski in his primary. In the 14th Aldermanic District, which is mine, I recommend Tony Zielinski, the incumbent. I do not always agree with him, but he has got to be the hardest working man on the Common Council right now. His opponents, to put it mildly, are nuts. Arthur Kimball seems to be on a personal vendetta against Zielinski, lobbing attack after attack at Zielinski at the forum last week--most of the attacks were quite baseless. Andrew Reid seems to be running on a platform of "I don't know the answers, but I'd like to be the guy you elect to try to find out the answers." That did save him the trouble of having to answer the questions at the candidate forum, but I don't think it makes for a very good campaign. (The candidate forum I tried to live-blog--before my battery ran out--is YouTubed here. Watch it if you don't believe me about Kimball!)

Milwaukee County
Again, not a lot of primaries, and I will only comment on two. In the 15th Supervisory District, I recommend a longtime friend of this blog, Dan Cody. In the 14th Supervisory District, where I live, I recommend Chris Larson. Jason Haas, also a longtime friend of this blog, is a good guy, but this is not his time. Steven Kraeger, who told a Bay View-centric audience at the candidate forum last week that he would "have Scott Walker's back," couldn't even earn Walker's endorsement. That honor(?) went to Sebastian Raclaw, who at the forum seemed more reasonable that I thought he would be. But Raclaw also plans not to devote his full-time attention to the work of the County Board, planning instead to keep his day job as a Milwaukee police detective. Hence, I plan to vote Larson.

President
In my head I have a long series of on-the-one-hands, pro-con lists that go on for pages and pages and pages. In the end, I come back to a few paragraphs I've written over the last year or so:

On the Democrats' side, I will repeat what I've said before about Hillary: I really, really, really want to have an election sometime in my lifetime without someone named Bush or Clinton on the ballot. Please. (Technically, 1976 was "in my lifetime," but I obviously couldn't vote then.) We don't--we shouldn't--have an aristocracy in this country; another eight years of a Clinton would make it feel uncomfortably like we do.

I have little doubt that Hillary would make a good president--and I think she can, indeed, win--so I will vote for/ volunteer for/ get excited about her candidacy should she be the nominee. But I don't think I'll be connecting the arrow next to her name.
*******
Obama has the potential to be a transformative candidate, a transformative president. As a veteran of the Dean campaign in 2004, I love transformative campaigns. Obama has the potential--indeed, he has fulfilled it in some early contests--to motivate younger voters and others often left out of presidential politics to vote in large numbers. His rhetoric and his tone is all about unity and hope and change, and he's a much more convincing agent of change in that sense than Clinton. Obama's Democratic majority would be larger, have longer coattails, and would look more like 21st-century America.

Clinton, on the other hand, would not be transformative. But she would be a fixer. Again, I think back to what drew me to Richardson--the idea that we'll need someone in the White House who has the ability to pick up all the severed threads of American democracy and secure them before this thing really falls apart. I have no doubt that Clinton can do exactly that.

Which is not to say that Obama couldn't also assemble a team who can handle the mundane, real, and practical challenges he would inherit next January, or that Clinton wouldn't be able to put together a wide and historic voting coalition with coattails and all in November. It's just that each seems to have a different key strength, which leaves me at this point unable to recommend voting against either one.

To be consistent, I'd have to not vote for Clinton. On the other hand (see?) I think she is the more liberal candidate, and a few of Obama's positions--like how he Harry-and-Louised Clinton, or his saying Social Security is in crisis--undermine Democrats and Democratic themes. I think Obama has the momentum, has had since Iowa, really, to win the nomination. On the other hand (I promised myself I wouldn't do this!), if Clinton and Obama both camp out for two weeks in Ohio--a must-win in November--because Wisconsin didn't settle this thing, it can only be good for organization-building leading up to the general this fall.

In short, I still don't know what to do. I will enthusiastically support Obama in November, but does his being the likely nominee tip the scales to make me vote for him now? Should I try to keep Clinton in the race longer to keep the excitement building and keep McCain shut out of the media spotlight? Should I cross over and vote for Huckabee to try to keep the Republican process extended and nasty?

I probably won't know until tomorrow afternoon when I have the pencil in hand. And even then, I may flip a coin.

Candidates and Content

by bert

A throng of republicans are right now turning their doleful eyes upward to right-wing radio sages for help. These people need to know why they should loathe Barack Obama.

So far, that help has been unsatisfactory.

The best thrust the right wing can orchestrate at the moment against Obama is that he is empty. This is obviously the talking point. Obama offers no specifics, they tell us. He is “content free”.

I don’t think that’s going to work, though. I was struck, after attending a Mike Huckabee rally last Wednesday for the heck of it, that Huckabee’s speech was no more full of “content” than a speech I heard Obama deliver last year at a rally in an Iowa gym.

It’s okay for Huckabee to stir applause and “amens” with wispy code words about “respect for life”. (I don’t even recall that he used the word “abortion” at this speech.) But apparently Obama needs to deliver a powerpoint lecture to the good people of Waterloo-Cedar Falls on his future trade policy with Azerbaijan. Otherwise, he’s a rock star and an empty suit.

It is laughable to hear Charlie Sykes dutifully talk this Obama point this week on his radio show. As a matter of fact, today Charlie again said Obama is “content free.”

It’s naïve for me to ask this, but why doesn’t Charlie have Obama on his radio station, as he has had Republicans like Huckabee this week, and ask Obama to give some content? If Charlie thinks it is a problem that people don’t know enough about Obama, Charlie and his transmitter possess a solution.

Like I said, naive question. Of course the right wing’s real problem is not what they say it is. Their honest-to-goodness problem is that their project to destroy Obama is not getting traction, yet.

Have a Super Tuesday: Vote Democrat

by folkbum

I have been pretty steadfastly adamant about not endorsing anyone during this primary season. This is in large part because I felt, for a long time, that when the time came to cast my vote on February 19, the Democratic Party would have its nominee. That's still possible, but it seems less and less likely, and, two weeks from now when I fight my way through the inevitable blizzard to vote (seriously--can we have a week sometime without 10 inches of snow?), I may have to make up my mind for someone.

I'll cross that bridge when I get there. In the meantime, let me assure my readers in states that vote today that they should make the right choice, and vote Democrat.

The Democratic field has been an embarrassment of riches. Two years ago, I was ready to back Russ Feingold. He was making all the moves one associates with presidential candidates--buying friends with a PAC, giving big speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire, and so on. If Feingold's people had called and said to me, "It's on," I would have had a hard time saying no to packing it up and moving to Middleton for the campaign.

Alas, that was not to be. The day Russ announced he wasn't doing it remains, so far, the most heartbreaking day of the 2008 season.

Yet the rest of the field remained awesome: Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are long-standing, fairly well-respected senators. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich--unelectable as they are--remain right on many important issues that the other candidates won't touch.

For a long time, I kind of leaned toward Bill Richardson. When the next president takes the oath of office in January, there will be a tremendous mess to be cleaned up. Richardson's experience in Congress and in the cabinet and as UN Ambassador left him uniquely qualified to come in and clean up that mess. Foreign policy or domestic, Richardson has a track record to love. But he proved to be a lackluster--really, bumbling--campaigner and just never could seal the deal with me.

John Edwards, too, offered one of the best hopes of the entire campaign. As much as everyone figured that Iraq would remain the big issue in the 2008 election, as it turns out it looks like the economy will be it. No one in the campaign has made more sense or presented a more compelling narrative related to poverty than Edwards. But he couldn't muster the support, either.

Which leaves us with two also-great candidates--Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Obama has the potential to be a transformative candidate, a transformative president. As a veteran of the Dean campaign in 2004, I love transformative campaigns. Obama has the potential--indeed, he has fulfilled it in some early contests--to motivate younger voters and others often left out of presidential politics to vote in large numbers. His rhetoric and his tone is all about unity and hope and change, and he's a much more convincing agent of change in that sense than Clinton. Obama's Democratic majority would be larger, have longer coattails, and would look more like 21st-century America.

Clinton, on the other hand, would not be transformative. But she would be a fixer. Again, I think back to what drew me to Richardson--the idea that we'll need someone in the White House who has the ability to pick up all the severed threads of American democracy and secure them before this thing really falls apart. I have no doubt that Clinton can do exactly that.

Which is not to say that Obama couldn't also assemble a team who can handle the mundane, real, and practical challenges he would inherit next January, or that Clinton wouldn't be able to put together a wide and historic voting coalition with coattails and all in November. It's just that each seems to have a different key strength, which leaves me at this point unable to recommend voting against either one.

A year ago, I kind of wished we could have stuck all our candidates in the transporter machines from The Fly, leaving us with one candidate who had Richardson's resume, Clinton's influence, Obama's wide appeal, Edwards's platform, Kucinich's pot of gold, and so on, and a whole bunch of flawed remainders. In the end, we're left with two candidates who will make history and could easily be the answer to all the questions and challenges the next president will face.

However you vote when you vote today--if you vote today--as long as you vote Democrat, you'll be voting for a winner.

Are we seeing the death of negative campaigning?

by folkbum

I am the furthest thing from an expert on such matters, but I am noticing two trends related to the Democratic primary process so far.

1. The polls of primary states (New Hampshire, South Carolina) have been way off from actual results, while polls of caucus states (Iowa, Nevada) have been dead-on. This is the opposite of how things usually go.

2. The negative campaigning seems to be failing--and that may well be what has caused number one.

Consider New Hampshire: In the week before the primary vote, Hillary Clinton had an emotional moment--she teared up, but did not actually cry--at a diner. The media was harsh, and her opponents (and surrogates) were hardly less so. John Edwards let loose with "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve," and Barack Obama laid a "you're likable enough" on Clinton at a debate. As a result of this pummeling, many of the voters in New Hampshire (17%) made up their minds in the last few days, and Clinton won those, even though the pollsters had shown all the momentum heading Obama's way.

Now consider South Carolina: The polls all showed Obama winning, but not by the massive margin that he did. One very real possibility for the discrepancy is that Obama took a beating in the last week from Clinton and her surrogates, including Bill Clinton. And, indeed, late-deciders went for Obama at an even greater rate than they did for Clinton in New Hampshire.

So what's the lesson? Democratic voters--as opposed to the Democratic activists (using the term, er, liberally) who show up to caucus--seem to have decided to reject negative campaigning. They are taking their cues from the attacks, yes, but to move in the opposite direction, against the attacker rather than the attacked.

Conservative Bias about Media Bias

by folkbum

The right-o-sphere is a-flutter over this:

NBC's Brian Williams took to MSNBC today at noon and had this to say:

WILLIAMS: I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama, while we were out yesterday and posted the interview on the web. Lee says it's hard to stay objective covering this guy. Courageous for Lee to say, to be honest. The e-mail flood started out we caught you guys, we never did trust you. That kind of thing. I think it is a very interesting dynamic. I saw middle-aged women just throw their arms around Barack Obama, kiss him hard on the cheek and say, you know, I'm with you, good luck. And I think he feels it, too.

For example, there's The Game ("Created to give example after example of media bias, left wing lies, and the PC world"), who said, "Give him credit for admitting what he thinks. Now if we could get the other 90% of the media that thinks like him to be honest maybe we can get somewhere."

Rick Esenberg opines (his emphasis), "Perhaps it is courageous to admit your man crush, but it would be professional for a journalist not to compound it by announcing that this candidate is so wonderful that we can barely hang on to our virtue."

I'll begin by pointing out that Brian Williams clarified his point:

Lee admits "...it's almost hard to remain objective..." which as he implies is our goal in our work every day. He's referring to what all of us who have covered campaigns have felt from time to time: it's impossible to get the long view...the view from 40,000 feet...while operating at sea level, and inside the bubble. Lee was talking about the swirl of excitement that has hit the Obama campaign after Iowa -- the crowds, the hoopla -- all of it.

Which is not quite the same as the fawning over Barack Obama that our Right Cheddarsphere friends presumed.

But that's not my point. What I find most bothersome about the whole affair is that as quick as the right has been to denounce this supposed pro-Obama bias (Game and Esenberg are not the only two by any means), they seem perfectly willing to let more blatant examples of bias slip by. Take this one, for example:

Hillary stepped onto the parked press bus in Indianola for about 90 seconds to deliver bagels and coffee, and I'm not sure what this says about Clinton and the press--the chill, I think, comes from both sides--but it was a strange moment. She expressed her sympathies that we're away from our families and "significant others," tried a joke at the expense of her press secretary, and paused. Nobody even shouted a question, whether because of the surprise, the assumption that she wouldn't actually answer, or the sheer desire to end the encounter.

One reporter compared the awkwardness to running unexpectedly into an ex-girlfriend.

"Maybe we should go outside and warm up," said another, as Clinton exited into the freezing air.

For our friends on the right it's horrible when a reporter covering the candidate gets caught up in the excitement of that campaign--even as that reporter makes it clear he's trying to keep an objective sensibility. Moreover, the right assumes that Cowen is representative of the whole media enchilada, that the press covering the campaigns is inherently pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. But the right's just willing to let it slide when the press covering Hillary Clinton hates her. And there's more:

As is so often the case, Maureen Dowd today unintentionally provides a perfect view of the core sickness of our press corps:

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?"

Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships."

Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.

Dowd is describing here the conversation that took place in her "office"--which happens to be the newsroom of The New York Times--between what are undoubtedly very Serious Journalists, including one who covers (said with whispered reverence) "security issues."

This isn't even some second-hand reporting of a conversation on the bus. This is a premier columnist for the New York Times laying bare the hatred that press of all stripes--even the "liberal" NYT!--have for Clinton.

This rightie hand-wringing over Cowen is unimpressive, to say the least, when they are perfectly happy to let the press hate Clinton with abandon.

Well, it's not me, if that's what you're thinking

by folkbum

Obama: major Wisconsin endorsement
By Craig Gilbert
Saturday, Jan 5 2008, 07:11 AM

Nashua, New Hampshire -- The Obama campaign says it plans to announce a "major" Wisconsin endorsement this afternoon. Speculation centers on Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. More later.

I have nothing against Obama--I will be excited to see him as the nominee (or Clinton or Edwards)--but I am not endorsing at this time. But thank you for wondering if it was me.

I was not entirely wrong

by folkbum

A few weeks ago, back when it was still 2007 and I could still eat solid food (yesterday I ate soup!), I made a few predictions about Iowa.

If I had to bet--and I don't think I would, because there is no clear frontrunner in Iowa on either side right now, but if someone gave me two quarters and said, "Here, bet these"--if I had to bet, I would bet on Hillary Clinton and Willard "Mitt" Romney.

I missed that, but hedged enough, I think, that I'm in the clear. Look, it was close, particularly for the Democrats. When you look at the totals, in fact, you see that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are estimated to receive 16, 15, and 14 of Iowa's delegates to the convention--aside from a three-way tie, that's really as close as you can get to even.

Even if Clinton comes in second--I have a hard time seeing her third--the other two will have to work hard to stop her.

That "I have a hard time . . ." aside is where I most blew it, because, despite the fact that she's being estimated to receive one delegate more than Edwards, she lost to him by about a quarter of a percent. In real terms, that's negligible. In rhetorical terms, that huge for Edwards. He's still the longest shot of the three, of course, but those few hundred extra caucusers are a big get for him.

If Obama can turn out independents the way he did students in Iowa, then this is over--two for two is going to be the media's definition of de facto winning, even though there could be time for Clinton to catch up.

So, Romney-Huckabee-McCain (probably) or Huckabee-Romney-McCain

The second of those two was right. Fred Thompson made a better showing than I expected, tying McCain for third--beating him, actually, by a couple hundred votes, though the full totals still aren't in for the GOP. Although for both McCain and Thompson, that's kind of academic, as they were a full 20% behind front-runner Huckabee, and more than 10% behind Romney.

Everyone is loving on McCain--he didn't campaign in Iowa but still did as well as people who did--but will it be enough to win him Hew Hampshire over Romney? We'll see.

Thompson's finish means the odds are about 50-50, I think, that Sean Hackbarth will really need a couch to sleep on next week. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have already dropped out on the Democrats' side, and Republican Duncan Hunter will also find the exit soon.

In any case, I still don't see how our votes here on February 19 will matter much. In fact, most of the Milwaukee area won't even have reason to turn out and vote in local races that day--though I will have two primaries to vote in.

Here's the best news I've read, though:

Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000

Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama (D)
20.5% Edwards (D)
19.8% Clinton (D)
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Democrats are as fired up this year as we were in 2006. That's a very good sign.

Holy Crap, There's an Election Soon

by folkbum

Hard to believe, but the Iowa caucuses are less than two weeks away. It's hard to believe in part because I just haven't gotten myself into the presidential race the way I did four years ago. I started blogging in 2003 because of Howard Dean (and have kept it up because of a lack of anything better to do), but this year I have not campaigned for a candidate, endorsed a candidate, given money to a candidate, or anything of the sort.

So it's kind of weird to think that, here we are, just moments away from the thing already. It seems to have snuck up on us, sprung up from behind a snow bank or something. And now we have to deal with it.

At any rate, I would like to offer my brief predictions and thoughts, for what they are worth.

Winners: If I had to bet--and I don't think I would, because there is no clear frontrunner in Iowa on either side right now, but if someone gave me two quarters and said, "Here, bet these"--if I had to bet, I would bet on Hillary Clinton and Willard "Mitt" Romney. I would bet on them just simply on the theory that, all else being equal, the candidate with the most money usually wins.

Democrats: There is tremendous pressure on the three leaders, all of whom have a real chance at winning. Clinton is a monolith: She has the money, a well-oiled machine, and deep support; she led in the polls for much of the fall, after all. Barack Obama will do well if the traditionally unreliable youth vote actually gets to the caucuses--but they traditionally don't, which will be his weakness. John Edwards is in year six of his campaign in Iowa, and has probably the best ground game.

The pressure comes from this: If Clinton wins, the game is pretty much over; she will run the rest of the table. Even if Clinton comes in second--I have a hard time seeing her third--the other two will have to work hard to stop her. Obama must come in first if he wants a chance at New Hampshire voters' confidence that he's a closer. A second-place finish won't kill him, but it will make his chances of winning anything before February 5 much slimmer. Obama in third, though, means the end of that campaign. Edwards must finish first or he will have to drop out--he's not got the support in any of the other early states and needs the momentum.

As I said, any of the three could win. And I will happily support any of those three in the general election come November. On February 19, when I actually get to vote, the nominee will probably be long since decided.

Republicans: The top two will be Romney and Mike Huckabee. Someone recently asked--I think it was the Recess Supervisor, though now I can't find the post--who could have predicted Huckabee's rise to frontrunner status. Well, not to brag or anything, but I did, a year ago. Huckabee's got a natural constituency among the religious conservatives who always, always go to the caucuses in Iowa. (They are the ones who stayed home in 2006 and allowed Democrats to make gains there--they were getting tired of faux-Christian Bush and the faux-Christian Republicans in Congress.) Romney is throwing around money in Iowa like Mardi Gras beads. John McCain will probably finish third, just because he's a better second choice for the Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani supporters; McCain lacks the constituency of Huckabee and the walking-around money of Romney, and so cannot win. Thompson's fizzled, Ron Paul's counting on even less predictable caucusers than Obama is, and no one else is even registering in the polls. (Did anyone even notice Tom Tancredo's exit?)

So, Romney-Huckabee-McCain (probably) or Huckabee-Romney-McCain. Either of which sets up an interesting run at the next few primaries: Huckabee cannot win New Hampshire, and Romney probably cannot win South Carolina. Huckabee is leading in Florida and Romney's got family history in Michigan. Republicans may well get to February 5 with two candidates having won three contests each. Pass the popcorn, I say, because the Democrats' primary will probably be over by then.

The most interesting thing that could happen: Hillary wins big in Iowa, convincing New Hampshire independents--currently about 3-2 planning to vote in the Democratic primary--to vote in the Republican primary instead. That could only help McCain. What Obama or Edwards voter would support Huckabee or Romney? If McCain can win New Hampshire, we might hit February 5 with three Republicans winning two contests each (McCain won Michigan in 2000). Mm, mm, juicy fightin' goodness. (Watch, though--the media story, even as the Republican fight gets nasty, will be that Democrats are divided over Hillary.)