It's time to start thinking.

The Political "Brief"
The Religion Question


Barack Obama is not an Evangelical Christian. Nor is he Mormon. He does go to church, is good friends with his pastor and even counts him as a close adviser. He belongs to the Trinity United Church of Christ in our fair city of Chicago. The United Church of Christ is, on the whole, an institution of moderate leanings, not as conservative or fundamental as some (they are one of the branches of Protestantism ordaining gay ministers) but also not as ground-breakingly liberal. In other words, the United Church of Christ, again overall, is not extreme.

Let's make an exception.

With Geraldine Ferraro's comments still fresh, some reporters have been looking to Obama for any controversial aspects of his campaign. Wouldn't you know it, one's been staring them in the face since before Michelle became Mrs. Obama. The man who married Michelle to Barack, who baptised their children, who has been preaching to the Obamas for nigh on two decades, is now coming under scrutiny. And rightly so.

In a political time when our personal religious choices drastically impact the coverage and quality of campaign reporting, it's no surprise we're where we are with Barack Obama and his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A sampling from Rev. Wright's sermons:

*"Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run."
*"America is still the number one killer in the world...We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers...."
*We started the AIDS virus...We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty...."

Cherry-picked quotes, as Obama claims, or indicative of further scrutiny? Both, really. Wright was formerly of the African American Religious Leadership Committee, a group under the umbrella of Obama's campaign (he resigned last week, amid the growing firestorm). His influence was less political and more social and personal with Obama, helping shape the crusader he is striving to become. Fight the ills of poverty, racism, inequality, war, intolerance, hegemonistic & capitalist interests seeking to trod all over the man on the street. The reverend is Barack's spiritual go-to man, his main counselor in that arena, and since we've scrutinized Falwell and his ilk, we'd damn well better look at Jeremiah Wright.

We must also consider the policy impact and personal viewpoint resulting from their relationship. I have listened to many speeches by Barack Obama, read a number of his sound bites and quips, the quotes that get people revved up for his campaign. But between the lines of all those words is space and void, an absence of committed ideology. What we have is the facade of a house: it looks great, can't wait to move in...but when's it gonna get finished? Does Wright help furnish those ideological trappings?

Wright has led a distinctive life, and hopefully, when the clamour has died down and he is allowed a more graceful entrance into retirement, people will remember his outstanding military and academic service, his religious and community leadership. Right now, though, he doesn't have the luxury of being out of the limelight, as ideas of his are now being spoken through another who may one day lead the free world.

Take away the yelling. Remove the FOX News sound clipping and YouTube videos from your senses. Read the sermons, see what's there. Really, a lot of what we're getting up in arms about is the outrage and hurt of black man who aches for the country he's been promised. I'd argue that his life is an example of the American dream, of the great leaps individuals can take when motivated (The US helps those who help themselves...). He's a conspiracy theorist, placing the ills of the ghetto squarely at the feet of the government, which could be construed as the white man. This is a long-standing argument, that to keep blacks and minorities down, the government has been funneling drugs into poor neighborhoods for decades, creating the current climate. To me, that smacks of victimhood, of not taking responsibility for yourself. This is the first thing that we should take from the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. It leads to a welfare state, to a possibility of reparations (but all the slave owners are dead, you say. So what!, some yell back) and to taking the blames for a group's ills away from the group.

Let's be cynical and agree with Wright - the government distributed crack in large quantities to the ghettos as cultural oppression, a form of chemical slavery. Did the poor or downtrodden have to light up a crack pipe? I guess I'm a sucker for believing in personal choice, in the free will to do what you want. Shouldn't Wright be instead denigrating his own house, his own community for inculcating the culture of drugs and violence and single-parent homes and petty crime, like Bill Cosby has done? But no, Cosby says "We have to order our own house, because it's our fault," and he's an Uncle Tom, supporting white oppression of blacks. I see a terrible line of reasoning here, and Obama's been listening to it for twenty years.

The only other thing I take away from this is the heat of Wright's words. He is a black man, and welcome to his anger at the horrendous treatment of his ancestors, of his parents and no doubt himself (to a lesser degree). I am a white man, and cannot know the hurt, shame and rage at being called a nigger, without any recourse, or being refused seating or service. Let's all understand my logic, my reasoning, is drawn purely from the experiences of others and observation. Hatred doesn't lead to victory. Hatred leads to division, to segregation and strife.

Wright's rhetoric, and the ideological trappings he's been using to help Obama build his house of ideas is supported by hatred. Winning the civil rights war again, solving the broken homes and streets of our inner cities and ghettos won't come by yelling at them. He's stirring up the pot, some say, getting middle- and upper-class blacks engaged in the dialogue again by igniting their passions. But do we want this leading our country? I'm not saying I know the right way to erase poverty and the crushing life of a black kid in any of Chicago's poor black neighborhoods, but I do know that making people angry just leads to an aggressive stance.

And good for him for speaking out, but bad for Barack for listening and not leaving. Hillary Clinton recently said you can't choose your family, but you can choose your church. Why stay to have such invective woven in and out of the religious dialogue? Not every Sunday can be Jesus knocking over the money changers' tables in the temple. The question we ask of Obama is simple: why stay? The answer is also easy - he connected with Wright. The two must share many of the same thoughts, if their relationship is as close as we are led to believe. Drawing this out to a logical conclusion, one can say the same passion (anger/hostility/rage) that permeates Wright's outward statements also resides within Barack Obama.

So what does this matter, you ask me. Why did I read all of this nonsense? This in an election where you have to think. You have to rub those grey cells together, spark some ideas, test some others, discover sound reasoning and ultimately make an informed decision. This is just to inform. Even if you don't agree, at least you've started thinking.



Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

A house divided cannot stand...but makes for great press.

The Political Brief
A Look at Democratic Loyalty

A note on spelling: for some reason, I cannot correct the errors from work. Bear with me, for by Odin's bristling beard, they will be fixed!

And they are!!

This really has nothing to do with Bill Richardson decamping to Obama from Clinton. He made a political choice that best positions himself with the probable nominee for future appointment. Richardson doesn't want to be Governor of New Mexico until he's dead and gone; he wants a challenge, something new. His support of Obama is his way of putting his hat in the ring for one of two positions: the obvious, VP; the not-so-obvious, Secretary of State. The progression to the head of the State Department is natural for someone who's worked from Congress to Cabinet to the UN to running a state. His ability to handle such an important leadership position isn't in doubt. What success he gets, however, will be cold comfort to the people who got him there, namely the Clintons.

***

What I'm here to talk about in my triumphal return is voter loyalty to the Democratic candidates. The Gallup organization is the most recent to run this interesting poll: if your Democratic candidate doesn't get the nomination, what will you do? The choices are usually 1) vote for the (D) nominee, 2) vote for someone else or 3) abstain from voting. Previous polls have come to the conclusion that Obama's support among the disenfranchised (predominantly black) and youth demographics would melt away if asked to vote for Hillary Clinton. He is an all-or-nothing candidate for many, truly the figurehead of a movement. People will vote for him or no one. Hillary's supporters would vote, but for McCain.

In the recent Gallup poll, some of the findings backed this up, but more interestingly, we get a new set of numbers to play with.

Were it Obama as the candidate, 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. Flip that with Clinton leading the ticket, and 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain, a small change from previous polls where he his supporters were shown either staying firm with the Democrats or not participating.

The Gallup organization's interpretation of these results is sound - division runs deep in the nomination fight, and some of this may be posturing; regardless, the numbers are significant and bear attention. Can we draw this out further?

The Clinton backers who would switch sides number nearly three in ten, a major percentage by any calculation. Why are they so quick to say right now that they would buck the party line to vote for McCain over Obama? Some could be racist, as campaign workers claimed, through anecdotal evidence gathered in Texas and Nevada. Obama is half black, and that probably scares, upsets or unnerves certain in the Democratic (and Republican) party. But I doubt that is the key reason. More probably factor in experience in politics, in originating and moving legislation at a national level, and the connection with the Democratic establishment.

There could be more fear present that Obama's backers are too Left-of-Center, too close to Socialism, and his fiscal policies and social plans would prove more harm than good. I doubt there is that much thought going into this; more likely there is an indescribable sense of unease that if Obama got in office over Hillary, the country would not have moved a step forward but to a tangent they might not want to explore. He spearheads a movement, and Movements can be dangerous, right?

Another key reason not brought up is the "railroaded" argument, in that Hillary has been by Democratic regulars eager to see their poster boy/golden child in the top seat, easy to puppet around. Hillary has paid her dues, has worked hard in the positions she's had and suffered through a humiliating series of marital woes. As a woman, she is an example of strength and perseverance in Man's world. To see her be cast to the side for this young buck is probably too much for many, both man and woman, to stomach. Especially when it's someone who doesn't have the same caliber of experience that she has.

I think the backlash against Obama, at this stage, is more for this reason than race or policy fear. Some Democrats really like and respect her, and don't like to see her treated as she has been. Up until the Iowa caucuses, Clinton was the anointed choice for the Dems, and the bitterness created by the new crowd coming in, claiming it's far better than what's here or been before, has to rub a lot the wrong way.

The 19% who have decamped from Obama's base for McCain...I'd chalk most of that up to dislike of Hillary Clinton. What support she gets from Obama is for the Democratic party first, her second. For those middle-of-the-road Dems who see in Obama a new way, they might view McCain as a better short-term choice to Hillary's divisiveness. Others might not want to see a woman president, just like some of her backers might balk at a black in the Oval Office.

Still, a fifth of his supporters saying they'd vote for McCain over Hillary is no small number either. The race between the two front-runner Democratic candidates has been bloody, far more damaging to the party than any the 2000 war between the Republicans. Back then, it was politics as usual, much bloodletting for the main prize but no real ideology at stake (well...in hindsight, we see it was Neo-Con vs. Moderate, but back that they were all conservative).

With the Democrats in 2008, the fight is clearing DNC Establishment vs. Neo-Liberal Movement (bear with me). Both have similar aims in mind and the general framework ideas (socialized health care, stronger welfare system, higher taxes for the "rich", etc) but different plans for execution. You can almost equate it to the ideological differences between the New Deal Democrats of FDR's hey-day and Eugene Debs' supporters in the Socialist party. Much of the latter's policies were shared by FDR but adopted in different ways, partly to appear less, well...socialist.

Never mind the aptness of that analogy, the division is calcifying between Obama and Clinton the longer they drag this out. If the PLEOs/Superdelegates do end up deciding the nomination, possibly in a suggested mini-convention for just Superdelegates, with no regard for the popular vote, this could be the year you see a major political party split in twain.

Or a third party born.

Until next time, I remain your radical moderate,



Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Mr. McFinney, welcome back. We...missed...you.

The Political Brief
There's still politics happening, people!


I've been away from this place, this house of mystery and skulduggery. Between plumbing, taxes and the economy, I haven't had time to post here. But there have been interesting stories, and I will post about them in time.

Honestly, do you think I don't have something to say about Rev. Wright, Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor for two decades? Or the five-year anniversary of the Iraq conflict? When I have a little more time to put my thoughts together, I will let you know, my faithful few.

Until then,

Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

M-I-C-K-E-Y O-B-A-M-A

The Political "Brief"
Star Power, Mississippi Primary, Wyoming, Client No. 9 & Etc...


When is celebrity too much in politics?

Some people think that having a name that sounds like he's the 20th hijacker handicaps Barack Hussein Obama. Not so. "I'm on the train with Hussein" is a saying gaining steam with the Democratic underground, acknowledging and poking fun at the negative stereotypes attached to a name linked to 1) a brutal dictator & enemy of the state and 2) Islam, what many view to be the Enemy.

It's only one indication of the celebrity of Obama, the broad appeal he has going for him. He's won a Grammy, has a hit music video, was photographed swimming and shown off in People. Few politicians ever reach this level of stardom, but he did it with relative ease and quickly. Does this bode ill for him as a President, to be seen as a rock star before policy-maker? His supporters say no. In fact, this helps him reach a broader audience, couching his candidacy in terms of "star power" and not politics as usual.

The meteoric rise of Barack Obama began before he gave his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, eclipsing Kerry's own speech later in the event. As soon as he began moving through Illinois' state house, there were whispers among Democratic rank-and-file - and kingmakers - that he was the star to guide to the top of the heap. Peter Fitzgerrald leaving after one Senatorial term, and the IL Republican party awash in scandal and apathy, opened the door for a Democrat to step onto the national stage. Obama handily won in the primary and beat the carpetbagger Alan Keyes in November '04. It was a big year for him, and since then, he's been running for president, whether he knows it or not.

Some have cynically referred to him as the Great Black Hope, the one black man (who is half-white) who has a real chance to win the Presidency. The young, the old, the disenfranchised, the Hollywood liberal elite - all have flocked to his banner, shouting "Change!" as though he is the only person who had the ideas he has. But what are those ideas? Let's not think about that; why not watch him give a speech set to a hip pop music video on YouTube? It's far more fun to celebrate the cult of personality that has erupted around him over the last four years than worry about such silly things as concrete policy. His speeches are rallying cries for hope, for change, for telling the naysayers that Yes we can!

Thinking this way, as many of his supporters do, Obama's campaign runs the risk of his message - and his Movement's - being lost in the cheers when he walks into a room or repeats that mantra as though it were a catchphrase for some sitcom character. We haven't stopped to look at the man in the suit as much as we've been entranced by the Beatles-like frenzy that surrounds him. SNL did a parody a few weeks back where the debate moderators were fawning all over him as some sort of second coming; they were honored - privileged - to be in his presence. Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and John Legend are hosting a contest to see what supporter can come up with the best 30 second ad spot for Obama.

When will we stop focusing on the sensation and start honing in on the substance?

***

At this point, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, there'll be a political split the likes of which we haven't seen in modern political history. He will come out of the primary season with the most pledged delegates and votes. Right now, according to CNN, he leads 1,404 to Clinton's 1,243. The major debates of the week center around the delegations from Michigan and Florida, as well as Geraldine Ferraro.

Florida Democrats have concocted a plan combining in-person voting and mail-in votes, the former taking place June 3rd. 210 (D) delegates were stripped from FL, and when the state voted anyway in January, it went for Hillary (50%, over Obama's 33% and Edwards 14%). Does that mean the re-vote would fall the same way? Hard to say with Obama's momentum what it is, but it's likely. That would give her another "national state" in her column, giving her all of them so far (save IL, which blah blah blah). She says go for it! with a revote, and Obama wants the DNC to decide, reminding us rules were broken.

The rational for the Dems' primary schedule revolves around history and demographics, wanting a mix of the party base to participate before the country as a whole dives in. Florida and Michigan are diverse states, and give a national perspective to the vote, but that's what Super Tuesday is for, DNC officials argue. Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC and still bitter in voice and demeanor, is open to suggestions but offers no direct solution to cut through the controversy. We'll no more over the next few weeks.

***

On the primary front, Obama won in Mississippi (61% to 37%). Granted, this only nets him 5 delegates, and the he got the black vote by over 90% (Miss. is 1/3+ black); it's not some huge shocker here. Were this Ohio, yes, but not Mississippi. The shocker would've been a 51/49 win for him, with Hillary barreling up from behind, cutting into a state demographically in Barack territory. That all said, she should've broken 40%.

Obama also won the Wyoming caucus, first Democratic contest there I think since ever. Like that enthusiasm was centered around Hillary....

***

As mentioned earlier, Geraldine Ferraro made some comments this week: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he were a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." How could she not think this would raise hackles?

Regardless of the accuracy of the statement, and the cynicism it means is inherent in the country and political system, such a key player in Clinton's campaign and Democratic history (first woman VP candidate...or woman on a major party Presidential ticket, for that matter) should've known better. That comment of hers was going to be said by someone, but it should have been and underling, a disposable element. Now, Ferraro handicaps Clinton, attaches the spectre of racism and brings any positive media spin she had since mini Super-Tuesday (March 4th) to a standstill.

She claims reverse racism, that because she is white, people are in an uproar. Hypothetically speaking, were it a black Clinton supporter, would her claim hold water? I tend to think there would still be a furor, but not to the same degree. Instead of "racist," we'd hear terms synonymous with "traitor." What rankles some is that Ferraro is actually a charitable person, and a champion of civil liberties. Her comment comes from her position as a female politician seeing a sexist media keep Hillary's notable and historic candidacy as somehow less than Obama's. Which matters more, the first black or the first woman as President? It's a question she posed, in a roundabout way, and the uproar provides and answer.

***

Who is Client Number 9? Gov. Elliot Spitzer of New York, a crusader against corruption, graft, prostitution and organized crime has admitted (more/less) to using a prostitution agency, at least once. He did not live up to his own standard, he said in a statement, his shattered wife numb at his side, and he will resign as of Monday, 3/17/08. What does this matter? Aside from the wild hypocrisy it raises, Hillary loses a superdelegate. The Lt. Governor takes over (he's also legally blind, so he could always claim he thought it was his wife...) and his position remains vacant until the state gov't can straighten it out with an election or legislated appointment. Because both Gov. and Lt. Gov. are superdelegate positions from New York, and both were for Hillary, she loses Spitzer's vote and doesn't make it up with a replacement for soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson.

The Democratic nomination might come down to a few dozen votes, but not one.

***

What more can I say? We're weeks out from the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary is polling in a statistical dead heat nationally vs. Obama and in a head-to-head with McCain (so is Obama) and Romney is jockeying for the VP slot. Republican news is slow, Democratic news keeps recycling and scandals are perennial.

More news later, as I see fit to plagiarize other blogs.

Hooper, Agent of H.A.M.M.E.R.*



Heirarchy for Annihilation, Mass-Murder, Extortion and Ruin
A Republican P.A.C.

Read on, faithful few!

Everything's bigger in Texas, including Obama's frustration!

The Political "Brief"
Democrats blunder into Spring while McCain basks in acceptance, younger wife


Well, that does it for Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, former Baptist minister, failed fatty. With McCain's official delegate position surpassing the required amount to secure the Republican nomination, Huckabee has kept true to his word and withdrawn from the campaign trail for now. Should McCain lose, no doubt both he and Romney will be back (and what happened to Elizabeth Dole?), having tested the waters and found them not nearly as frigid as one might've thought.

But enough about Republicans. Lets talk about those saucy liberals.

***

Barack Obama has, surprisingly, not committed mass murder in Texas after losing it by a nose hair to Sen. Clinton. His surge northward in the polls in the Lonestar State over the last few weeks only underscores his loss even more, but he can cheer up. From what I am told, and the math is still waiting final TX caucus numbers, Hillary only netted FOUR delegates total last night, including her wins in Ohio (by a large margin) and Rhode Island. The story this morning was not, however, how few delegates she truly got but how many contests she won. 3 out of 4 is good on any standard.

This further goes to support the big-state theory of Clinton, and should concern any Obama supporter. Wyoming votes this weekend (caucus, for Obama no doubt, unless the rugged frontiersmen identity more with an "iron lady-in-training") followed by Mississippi (again, Obama - it's demographics, people). Neither of those predestined wins for Obama matter compared to his solid loss in Ohio or his narrow defeat in Texas. By not winning one or the other - at least the popular vote - Obama fuels Hillary's campaign, gives her ammunition for her war chest and prolongs what is turning out to be a distance race to the Democratic National Convention. It was supposed to be a sprint for him after Feb. 5th' strong showing and the 11-contest victory streak, with Texas at least falling in place. No knock on him, he's up against a determined fighter and maybe that's why he lost.

Hillary is rough-and-tumble, not afraid to use Karl Roveian tactics (which are, by the way, the best tactics in political campaigning EVER) like the "3AM phone call" ad - "It's 3 AM and your kids are asleep and the phone is ringing in the White House...who do you trust more with their security in the dead of night etc etc etc." Obama doesn't do that. He's about change, right? Decency in politics, perish the thought? You can be decent and still throw a good punch, Barack. The stereotypical "angry black man" persona won't be applied to you, because you defy stereotype in all forms, so your racially frightened opponents can't hit you on that. Being aggressive about your ideas and in defense of them (maybe a little proactive defense. Hmmm....?) only engenders you to those who want spine and grit in their President. Commander-in-Chief, Barack, is more than a title; it's a role you have to embrace. If you can't take on Hillary Clinton, Carville & Begala might rant, how can you take on Al-Qaeda? Or genocide in Africa?

Pennsylvania looms, a broken state full of rusted out people, Hillary's people. The blue collar worker is not Obama's. Ohio and Michigan neighor this state, if just in spirit only (yes, I know my geography): Ohio is next door and full of the same manufacturer woes as PA and Michigan, across the lake, defines unemployment. Both went for Hillary. Yes, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, but - BUT - Hillary polled well there regardless and one could construct a victory for her there from her win in New Hampshire. Blue collar workers, usually white men, supported Hillary Tuesday and in many contests before. One thinks their voting block will keep her propped up in the PA polls as April 22nd approaches.

***

And that's how long we have to wait until something else major really happens. Observe who McCain deals with, to see the shape of his official campaign staff, advisers and proto-Cabinet. Also, start pondering running mates.

On the Democratic front, supporters of both, cross your fingers. It's going to be a bumpy ride through March and April with acrimony and thinly veiled insults seeping across the airwaves.









Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Clinton's Last Gleaming

The Political Brief
The Democractic D-Day, McCain Charges to the Finish


Tonight, when you tuck yourselves into bed and pretend the covers are a fort because you can't go to sleep, will you also be thinking about the Democratic and Republican nominees for President, decided earlier in the evening? The contests in Ohio and Texas, nevermind Rhode Island and Vermont, will decide who goes to bat for the Dems come this fall. We know McCain has a lock on the (R) nomination, but Clinton still battles Obama tooth-and-nail to make her own sort of history.

The odds are not in her favor.

Support for Obama sprung fully formed from the hardscrabble Texas plains, urged on by a surprisingly small campaign staff. His cut into double-digit Clinton leads across the state, shored up his demographic, got the undecideds and then started in on Clinton's own base. According to virtually all major polls, they are in a dead heat. What matters is not that it appears to be a tight horse race, but that Obama has bullied through the Clinton machine (though set up late in the state, still present) and hasn't shown signs of stopping.

Second to that, however, is another little bit of polling trivia: he has yet to take a statistical lead, meaning, breaking enough points ahead to take into account the statistical margin of error all polls have. He can win the popular vote, a slim majority of delegates, but lose Ohio and the delegate totals for the night. His overall lead will remain, and I don't think anyone expects Hillarious to do more than pull even, but he needs to show that big states like him as much as smaller, less important caucus states.

Because let's face it: Iowa, despite its "heartland" appeal, or Washington or Nevada or so many other states Obama's won through caucuses, isn't really a state that shapes national agendas. Texas, California, Illinois, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these are key national policy states, and he won in IL in large part because he's from there. Winning even by a vote in OH and TX means he can claim Big State Support, which until now he doesn't really have. Clinton is the big-state candidate, the old school democrat who rallies better in primaries, who plays better on the national stage and therefore those "national" states.

Clinton holds a lead, though only a few points, on Ohio. This is down from as much as an 18 point spread going into the first half of February. Barring a radical shift at the voting box, she'll win there. Obama has Vermont, she has Rhode Island so call those matched out. I know I'll be flipping to CNN in between garish American Idol performances, much to the chagrin of the lovely Mrs. McFinney.

***

McCain has nothing to worry about in any state voting today. He just might get that delegate lock tonight and Huckabee's concession speech. If not...oooOOOO!! Fight! Fight! Fight! Schism!!!

***

Michelle Obama still lingers in the news for her comments about only recently being proud of her country. Poor word choice, because how could a 40+-yr-old woman not be proud for so long in her life? Wouldn't you leave if you felt no warmth towards your native land? Again, poor word choice that bit her back, and hard. Also makes her look a bit snooty.

***

On the issue side, I cannot speak until we have two defined candidates and get these popularity contests over and done with. I know you can't wait to hear what each nominee has to say about NAFTA or abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, Iraq and Iran, military bases in foreign lands, etc. I cannot talk explicitly about all areas of the economy, but I can quote others on their stances.

Thank you as always for reading. I look forward to the hoosgow going down tonight.

Let's light this monkey!



Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

"Hillary, these aren't the delegates you're looking for...."

The Political "Brief"
Obamamentum tramples Hillary, McCain continues to slap Huckabee


When discussing last night's Wisconsin primary with M. Hunter Griffin, reviewer for Time Out Chicago, I made a prediction that I'll repeat here: if Hillary loses by more than 10 points in WI, she loses overall. Now I know she didn't fully compete in WI, that she has been focused on Ohio and Texas since the Chesapeake disaster, but there is still, demographically, strong support for her in WI. Not enough for her to win, I argued, but enough to keep it closer than not, and if she did lose big, it would mean her base voters - blue collar, women, low-income - were abandoning her.

I consider the returns to be damning for the carpetbagger Senator from New York. With his stunning victories in WI and Hawaii, Obama has captured TEN victories in a row. Arguments can be made for caucuses going his way, for large blocks of blacks, for Hawaii being his homestate, but that doesn't explain Maryland or Wisconsin. It doesn't explain why Virginia was such a catastrophic loss for Hillary, not entirely. Her support is slowly eroding, even as senior party officials wring their hands at their choice's fading numbers.

March 4th: mark that on your calendar. It will be the day Hillarious Clinton sees Obama mercilessly beat her campaign to death. She will win Ohio, if the poll numbers hold, but will lose Texas in the delegate battle. Her supporters there are latino, and they haven't voted as much in the last two primaries as Obama's key racial demographic, blacks. See, this is how Texas awards delegates to districts, based on voter turnout in the previous two primaries. The Texas Democratic party basically rewards voter turnout, regardless of population. If it were up to raw popular vote numbers, I'd say Hillary has a stronger chance, but she doesn't.

What follows is a little opinion, a small amount of sympathy for what Hillary's no doubt thinking, and a brief departure from the tenuous grip on balance I've tried to maintain.

Her only saving grace is hammering to the voters her record of, you know, doing stuff. Obama, some argue, has been running for President since he was first elected to the Illinois state house. He'll have been a US Senator for less than a full term, introducing no major legislation, campaigning on rhetoric and the ephemeral "hope" platform where concrete successes are absent. I know his supporters argue otherwise, that he is the fresh voice we need, that his experiences trump Hillary's experience, but dreams need anchors in reality. MLK marched for his dreams, he forced awareness and created beachheads in the greater public consciousness of civil rights absence or abuse. Obama is no MLK; his speeches, filled with amazing control and excellent pacing, are more examples of how to give a great speech than provide a concrete foundation for change. This is where I'll agree with Hillary that we need a candidate with solutions, not speeches. Great success begins with expansive vision; it moves from conception to reality by hard work and intelligence and laying out that elusive roadmap. I've listend to Obama and read his press and have yet to see that roadmap, or a glimmer of it.

Okay, I got that out.

Michelle Obama also claimes that now is the only time she has ever being proud of America, or being an American. One of the two. So, 44 years living here, and now that she and Barack are famous, it's all good? If you guessed she's being ripped apart by the Clintons, McCain, talk radio and pundits, you'd be right.

***

McCain beat Huckabee, surprise surprise.

If Huckabee stays in after the (eventual) McCain victories on March 4th, know this: he does not want to be VP - he's trying to be a third party candidate. He claims he is in for principle, for ideas, not ego. Does that mean he is gathering "conservative" support around him for an eventual schism in the Republican party? Maybe. I think he is shaping himself into a leader of the "true" Right, while Romney is wisely supporting McCain and realizing that fomenting a major split in the (R)s damages any chance they have of winning this Fall.

***

If something politically noteworthy happens, I'll post a bit. If not, I'll see you March 3rd.


Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

"You like delegates? Well how do you like THESE delegates!"

The Political "Brief"
Obama takes the reins while McCain slaps Huckabee around


Yesterday's Potomac/Chesapeake Primary (Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC) put Obama in command of the delegate count in a way no one can argue: pure and simple, he has won more competitive delegates than Hillary. Take Superdelegates into account, and Hillary might be in the lead. That is a big might. Last night, Obama proved his support surpasses race (though that was a huge factor in winning) by claiming victories in all major demographics save white women.

So what is Hillary to do...? Sorry to say, she won't curl up and say die. This is going to be a prolonged battle, going at least another month if not more. Texas and Ohio loom large in the primary horizon. Despite Obama's string of victories, the successes themselves can be largely written off by the Clinton camp as a demographics battle (Did you know Obama is black? Black people now do, after being unsure for a while) and the "caucus argument." Due to his wild popularity with youth - and those strange feelings of hope and optimism engendered in many hearts - Obama is well-positioned to win any caucus, as the whole point is to persuade your fellow voter why you are right. And how better than with soaring rhetoric and mental bridges to the shining future?

So losing at those caucuses over the weekend is no great blow. Maryland is, Virginia not as much. Clinton still leads Obama 56% to 38% in Ohio as of a poll released today (Survey America? ABC? I forget), and taking error margins into account, she still trounces him. Texas looks thusly: 48% Hillary vs 38% Obama (Feb. 1). I'm sure these numbers will flex a little differently after this current round.

Clinton and Obama are exactly tied according to an average of the last twelve days of polling, with 44% apiece. Hawaii is coming up, but Obama was born there and has home field advantage.

***

McCain came away with victories across the board, and though close for a while in Virginia, was there ever any doubt? Huckabee remains in the to prove one of two points: "conservatives count!" or "I should be your VP." McCain is three hundred delegates (roughly) from the Nomination, and Huckabee - were he to win everything else - would come up very short. Unlike Romney, who knows he's not first choice for VP and that he had no chance winning after his poor Super Tuesday performance, Huckabee sees his victories last week and over the weekend as proof of his beliefs and electability. Really, this can also be chalked up to conservative backlash that's already fading.

While the Democratic party will face a brokered convention in August (unless someone drops out...), the Republicans look to have a nominee after the next three weeks of contests. That helps them immensely in fundraising and exposure; it also gives the nominee a break from the rigors of the primary season (let John go back to work for at least two days in a row!).

***

Washington and Wisconsin Primaries next Tuesday (19th), along with the (D) caucus in Hawaii (prediction: Mike Gravel from left field!).

Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont take place on March 4th, and Hillary absolutely has to win Ohio and Texas to remain viable. Ideally...this will all be over the evening of March 4th. Huckabee will be defeated, and some Democrat will pull ahead by more than a few dozen delegates (this would be Obama sustaining growth, or Hillary stepping up her campaign).



Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

"I'll chase him 'round the bayous of Louisiana and 'round the Chesapeake maelstrom and through Perdition's flame!"

The Political "Brief"
Super Tuesday Wrap-Up; The Race Moves On...

Pardon the delay, but I'm in the midst of bathroom renovation and...y'know...work. I wanted to get a far more detailed summary of what happened, but there's too much real stuff in the way. If I get requests (hah!), I'll post per candidate what their wins mean.

So onward and upward!

***

Barack Obama won the following states: Alaska , Alabama, Colorado, Conn., Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, N. Dakota, Utah

Hillary won the following: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee

New Mexico is still being processed.

Barack is a force, a Movement unto himself, but there's little more than hot air in his sails right now. Give him a chance to unwind some sound proposals, and he'll without a doubt beat Hillary. So long as she looks like the one more able to propose valid, liberal legislation and win in a tough election, he'll just be the untested JUNIOR senator from IL. Both are virtually tied in delegates.

***

The Republican side was a three-way tussle, but McCain still came out ahead.

McCain: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma

Romney: Colorado , Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah

Hucabkee: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia

Huckabee kept Romney from a position of strength, splitting conservatives, and though he went far to proving it doesn't take money to buy states, it also proved him a regional candidate. Outside of the South, Huckabee is that funny-named Baptist guy who used to be a fatty. His support is purely based on being a Southern two-term governor. Romney is similar, and his wins have all along shown him to be a Western regional candidate, with his support stemming from a Mormon base, so much so that other candidates didn't really run around Utah at all. Mitt also won Michigan and Mass., but he was 1) from there and 2) governor, so if he lost, he lost.

McCain now has the unenviable job of proving to conservatives that he's not a patsy for the left, a liberal in Reagan's clothing. If remains to be seen if Romney and Huckabee will stump for McCain and seek to shore up that "right" that fractured this primary season.

***

Super Tuesday came and went, and the first casualty has been felt. Mitt Romney announced yesterday in a fiery speech that he was withdrawing. Hanging around in the race delayed the launch of a national campaign, John McCain's essentially, and in a time of war, he could not stand to do that. You can find his speech here, and boy is it full of gutfire and conservatism. It is my opinion that Romney wishes to position himself for a major leadership role in the Republican party, and could make a run for some other governmental position in 2010 should he be kept out of the Cabinet or not offered the VP slot. But he definitely said to all conservatives that he is their man, despite his past record.

***

This Saturday, there are several more contests:

Washington (D)
Louisiana (D, R)
Nebraska (D)
Kansas (R)
Virgin Islands (D)
Maine (D; Sunday)

There's no use talking about the Republican aspect of the race, though Huckabee, if he didn't make a deal with McCain to hurt Romney, might still make some trouble. And Romney didn't explicitly state he was backing McCain, just that he didn't want to delay a national campaign.

Each of the contests for the Democrats are caucuses, and Obama does well in those. Just ask Matt Saniie, Obama staffer and caucus organizer from Iowa. The logic here is that those passionate, idealistic Obama supporters are 1) more likely to show up and 2) great arguers for their side. The fervor surrounding Obama is more intense than Hillary, and it shows everywhere. She's in for a tough few days between Saturday and next Tuesday, the Chesapeake primary (DC, Maryland, Virginia) where demographics key in on Obama (ie, there's a reason Old Man Cochran called it Chocolate City).



Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

A Brief Review of Super Tuesday

I'll have the full report later today or tomorrow. What a wild night...

For the Democrats in the audience

Obamarama sweeps the country in what can only be seen as a stunning upset of Clinton's march to the White House. Winning across more states than expected, and several key states of strategic importance (like Missouri, of all places, and Georgia), Obama legitimized - if he hadn't already done so - his campaign and the made tatters of the idea that a black man can't get votes at this level in our fair country. Clinton probably comes out ahead right now the delegate total, and surely will rack up more wins, but not only is the wind our of her sails, I think her ship's taking on a little water. Both are a few hundred votes shy of just half what they need for the nod. Brokered convention? More possible today than yesterday. The level of vitriol spewed between the lines of each campaign's speeches and statements is high enough to pretty much mean a ticket with both of these folks on it looks like a bleak prospect. Then again, GHW Bush and Reagan were far from buddies in the 1980 campaign, and look what happened there.

Long/short of the night for the (D)s: Obama defines momentum, defies "Washington" politics; Hillary wept.


For the Republicans in the audience

If you are on the Straight Talk Express with John McCain, be glad, but not overjoyed. Coming away with a commanding delegate lead and some big states, he nevertheless failed to clinch to nomination. Not that he had to; the Obama camp has stated he is the man to beat in November, ignoring the other challengers. Huckabee, by staying in the race, denied Romney scores of delegates and a true second place finish. Instead, while Romney did well, he's got a long way to go to beat McCain. If he catches up, he might only delay the inevitable and cause a brokered convention, a prospect the news mongers (like myself) would love to see. I think we need to take Huckabee's wins with a grain of salt, as they were regional only (though so were Romney's; the West is largely his). Some have whispered of a deal between the Mac and the Huck, keeping the latter in the race to defray conservative support for Romney, with the VP slot as the reward. Personally, Romney as the VP makes more sense, with Huck as a campaign advisor and potential Cabinet official.

Long/short of the night for the (R)s: peaceful resolution in the party is elusive, as McCain is denied the crown.


-Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!

Everybody votes, nobody quits. If you don't do your job I'll kill you myself...

The Political "Brief"
It's all about today...until this November.

Today, nearly half the country will vote in primaries or caucuses across the country. Some states will vote just for Republicans or Democrats, but most will have the option of both ballots for its voters. Some major states are up for grabs, over a thousand delegates per party and possibly the lead or nomination in all but name. This is also a great test for the idea of several large-scale primary days opposed to a dragged on process that lasts nearly half the year. But there are arguments for both sides, and I want to eat lunch, not argue.

***

Moving on! Obama is closing fast to Hillary in not only key states like California, but also nationally. Did the Kennedy clan endorsement (strengthened by Maria Shriver the other day) actually do the good the media claimed it would? Or is this backlash against Bill Clinton's antics? Whatever the reason - and I think it's a combination of the two, as well as a great stump speech strategy and decent debate showing - Obama has pulled from a double-digit deficit in the national polls to a statistical dead head, according to CNN, USA Today, Gallup and CBS News. Others have Hillary up slightly, or Obama way up and past the error range. The running average over the last four days sees Clinton with a scant point lead. What is in both their favors (and counting against them) is the proportional awarding of delegates, where "losing" a state's popular vote by a few hundred might still net you the same number of delegates.

Is Hillary really on the outs? I doubt it. She has the experience card and the hard data that Obama lacks. He's running a far more ideological campaign, whereas Hillary sees it as a political horse race and tries to add some degree of substance to the themes of "change" and "hope." My prediction isn't really crazy, as I don't think the Democratic nomination will be decided today. It will rage for another month or so as each tries to reach the magic number.

***

On the Right side of the aisle, McCain continues to steamroll across the country, but Romney isn't going down without a fight. California is heating up to be the major battleground today between Romney and McCain, as well as Hillary and Obama. McCain held the lead there, tenuously at times, over the last week, but Romney's performance at last Thursday's Reagan Library Republican debate underscored his conservative credentials and he is seeing a boost in his standing. One poll has him seven points ahead of McCain. This might matter, if he wins California. Should he lose, it's over.

McCain has a solid block of states for him, including NY, NJ, CT and IL. He is giving the Huck a run for his money in Missouri, which has a great record for picking presidents. Nationwide polling is on Mac's side, but the downward trend in CA is troublesome for him. While there certainly is a strong conservative base in California, many Republicans are moderate, and there are also independents there attracted to McCain - ideally. Romney steals from Huckabee, who is spoiling Romney to begin with, and the conservative vote remains more/less intact against McCain.

***

An interesting point is brought up by Papa McFinney, the Hon. R. Slade: with certain candidates ahead by such leaps and bounds in many states, a vote for the opposition that you were going to cast, though in little way capable of changing the outcome, can tell the eventual victor, "I cast my vote for this person and for these ideas, so you remember in November that I disagreed with you on key points." Conservatives might vote for McCain in Nov., but Romney in a primary state where the Mormon has zero chance, in essence voicing a mild disapproval but not condemnation.

***

The states participating today:

Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa (participates in both primaries, but not the general election)
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia

***

Of course, make sure to jettison cynicism before proceeding.

We should all be proud to have such a spirited contest - on both sides, Republican and Democrat. For many election cycles, they've been just that: our system stuck in a loop. A few times we see new candidates with ground-breaking campaigns that challenge our notions of politics. Even rarer is the introduction of a new party or independent candidate, like Ross Perot, the Bull Moose Party (for TR's 1912 bid) or to a lesser extent, the Green Party & Nader (who has filed, by the way). Savor the choices you have and the influence your vote brings.



Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!

...and then there were two. Sort of.

The Political "Brief"
Giuliani out...so is Edwards?!, FL crowns a Republican & possibly Hillary; Who is Governor Sebelius?

With his poll numbers folding faster than the French army, Rudy Giuliani is set to announce his is bowing out of the race for the President...but not Vice-President. He will endorse John McCain, another atypical Republican, and this will lead to a further view of the "Mac" as inevitable nominee. The former mayor of NYC had a great run-up to his swift collapse. Over much of 2007, he was seen as the frontrunner, or at least tied with McCain until the latter's campaign imploded. With Romney and Huckabee still ramping up their efforts and Thompson undecided, Giuliani enjoyed a summer and early fall at the head of the pack. All that came to an end when serious campaigning started in the primary states and it became apparent Rudy wasn't sustaining in the face of stronger competition.

He withdrew, essentially, from all but the Florida primary saying he would win there, and in doing so, begin the serious part of his campaign. Huckabee took Iowa, McCain New Hampshire and South Carolina, Romney Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming - Rudy was no longer seen as viable with these new poll leaders. While he may still play a part in McCain's campaign - and possible presidency, should that happen - it is certain that he's the first major withdrawal from the primary season. The Republican contest has ratcheted up a notch.

***

More surprising that Giuliani's rise and then utter collapse is the exit of John Edwards after his third place showing in Flordia, a popularity contest in the absence of any delegates (remember? Early schedule = punishment (stripped delegates)). What did we find out? Edwards really isn't all that popular. No matter how much Hillarious and Obama snipe at each other - directly or through proxy - Edwards just didn't get the boost he needed, the footing, to place himself even with them in the polls. It could be his policy ideas, which fly in the face of his Senatorial voting record and his millionaire status, or the appeal of the "new" and ground-breaking (first black, first woman). Whatever the reasons you bandy about, he just didn't resonate with enough voters, didn't raise enough money and can't compete with the Obama and Clinton celebrity machines.

I doubt he's now in it for the VP, maybe cabinet or another shot in Congress. He might try to become an Al Gore, championing a cause across party lines, raising awareness of poverty ("We live in two Americas...where some people pay others to make them lattes, and some have to make their own..."). He will participate in Habitat for Humanity for a while in New Orleans. He doesn't have enough delegates to be a kingmaker, unless it is so close in August that his several dozen will make a difference.

There was no endorsement from Mr. Edwards, but both his rivals praised him for bringing the struggle of many Americans to rise out of poverty to the fore of political discussion. His wife's health (her breast cancer returned last year) was not cited as a reason, as she campaigned just as hard as he did.

***

The Republican nomination is not locked. However, there is a clear leader in the diminished pack. John McCain won with 36% of the vote to Mitt Romney's 31%. Rudy Giuliani trailed in third with 14.6% and close behind was Mike Huckabee at 13.5%. Ron Paul (3%) and Fred Thompson ( 1%, though he's out of the race) rounded it off. With a solid win in a state more diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire, McCain proves he has a broad appeal to Republican votes. And that last part, he hammered home: this was a closed primary, Republicans only, and he finally won without independent help. Granted, the conservative wing still sided with Romney and Huckabee, but not all.

Of course, this was the apocalypse Giuliani feared, and he's out. Huckabee will stay and run with no money, hoping for a delegate - and press - boost after Super Tuesday and the Southern contingent cast some votes his way. I heard it said last night that he's hoping whoever wins will forgive his war debts, as it were, and he's playing nice with Mitt and Johnny Mac to get some of their eventual cash. Paul is still Paul, and you can't trust a guy with two first names, right? Not exactly, as he still holds a hardcore group of supporters scattered nationwide who hope to make a dent in things Feb. 5th.

Romney has several hundred million (MM) dollars. Let that sink in. He has also spent $40MM of his own loot in the election so far. Let that sink in even more. Insiders say he's willing to dump another $20MM in, 'cause he's in it to win it (...or buy it). Like Paul with isolationists, like Huckabee with evangelicals, Romney appeals to the fiscal conservative, a strata of voter that cuts across many other factions of the party. Hundreds of delegates are up for grabs next Tuesday, and many will go to McCain. But Romney is no also-ran, but still a major contender.

A personal aside on Romney: he is the wrong candidate to run against a woman or a black man. He is too white bread without anything to offset his own whiteness. McCain at least has military service and bi-partisan legislation to fall back on. Mitt's religion though black people were smart monkeys - not people - until the 70s. Elect him, and you choose the unelectable and defeat.

***

Hillary won the popularity contest in FL with 50% to Obama's 33% and Edwards' 14%. Them's big margins. But she has to soldier on through Super Tuesday, when 22 states will apportion their delegates commensurate with the raw numbers - no winner-take-all. Given his level of support and the famous people that like him, Obama is not out and could chomp away at Clinton's national numbers (she leads him by double-digits among Democrats as their choice for nominee) this week and come out of Feb. 5th with enough delegates - and maybe a few wins - to really get things cracking. Brokered convention! I say it again!

***

Mike Gravel has still not dropped out.

***

There will be a "special update" later this next week on two-term Kansas (D) Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and what she might mean for Obama's chances.



Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!

Just Like JKF, and He Doesn't Even Need Penicillin!

The Political "Brief"
Florida Primary, Obama advances...(Camelot 2), Apathy & Energy


We are less than a day away from the (potential) anointing of the Republican nominee for President. Forget Super Tuesday or a primary season that stretches into June. The way the four lead candidates are positioned politically, in the media and monetarily, Florida is of paramount importance. But with all the backbiting in the last week and change, and a Republican party struggling to find cohesion, will Florida decide anything or muddy the waters further?

Giuliani needs to win to stay in the race, or he's effectively out; he is spending a million dollars a week there on ads. Huckabee needs 2nd or he's dead where he stands; there is no money left and he desperately needs to appear relevant. The frontrunners, McCain and Romney, aren't in as great of money woes, though the former could use a cash boost. This primary is essentially a test for McCain to see if he can strike a chord with Republicans - honest-to-God conservatives - the block he's been trailing with throughout the contest. Romney has money, the look and sound bites, but can he wrestle control of the conservative side of things past the economic angle? Ron Paul will not win anything, but may act as a spoiler of sorts in a Republican-only contest.

According to Zogby, the numbers stand at McCain (33%), Romney (30%), Giuliani (14%), Huckabee (11%) and Paul (2%).

Giuliani's number here represents a hovering pattern for the last few rounds of polling (if a round is from primary to primary), and a probable bronze medal. If he wins, the Votemaster at Electoral-Vote.com says pigs will fly, and I have to agree with him. Unless the strife betwixt Romney and McCain overshadows their strong points, leaving Giuliani the only feasible, non-argumentative candidate (Huckabee is the latter, but hardly the former), the vast majority of data points to a loss for the Mayor.

***

The Democrats aren't counting Florida, as I've said. But they are. Though really...not exactly so, but still keep it on the radar! Their delegates, reinstated, could be vital in August, so pay attention to Hillary as she stumps around there tomorrow night after the voting and see if anyone else visits there after Super Tuesday if the results are evenly split.

***

The Kennedys - remember them? - are endorsing Barack Obama as the heir to the JFK presidency. To some, this means civil rights progress and social reform, while to other historians (and Republicans), the JFK inheritance is one of a mismanaged administration that was in serious reelection trouble in the fall of '63. The gloss of "Camelot" covers the reality of a troubled presidency, but in a way, this is perfect for Obama. He needs some gloss to mask his deficiencies in foreign policy, defense and a lack of hard numbers-backed plans (though early in the game, to compete these days one needs more than "hope" and "change" to get elected; a few Perot charts could go a long way). The Kennedys provide a sheen to Obama's candidacy, old guard liberal quality epitomized in JFK now reflected in the eyes of Illinois' junior senator.

Though not all of the Massachusetts brood are backing Obama (RFK Jr. backs Hillary, for example), it certainly helps to have JFK's last brother and daughter on your side. Caroline Kennedy sees in Obama the promise of her father, and Ted sees "extraordinary gifts of leadership and character, matched to the extraordinary demands of this moment in history."

***

In discussing the Democratic and Republican primaries/caucuses with a friend and Obama campaigner, we touched on the numbers game going on that cold spell, regardless of candidate, a victory for Democrats in the fall. In South Carolina, there were approximately 530,332 votes cast for Democrats. (Only) 442,918 voted for the Republicans. It may not seem like much, but extrapolate that over the country and in areas far less Republican. Is this early apathy on the Republican side indicative of a "wait and see" approach to the convention and declaration of a nominee or of a deep-seated apathy in the Right caused by seven years of difficult legislation, war and factionalizing within the GOP?

Surely the Democrats are suffering from no lack of enthusiasm. Has there been a Democratic competition filled with such electricity thrumming behind every word and idea, with the idea of something at stake, instead of the same old game?

Battered by scandals and an unpopular, though somewhat recovering President, the Republicans have no leaders right now to really gather around, and beyond that, no core message. Is there some immigration package they all gather around? A way to approach Iraq (and in doing so, leave)? What about gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and other domestic affairs? The divides are sharp and deep in the party of Lincoln. As we move towards what may be the defining moment for McCain or Romney, our thoughts are cast months ahead to November. Can a Republican win in this political climate?

In 2006, the Republicans "went into the wilderness" after a brutal Congressional and gubernatorial defeat and have yet to emerge. While the Democrats have realized that hating Bush isn't a strategy, they can hate the GOP platforms - in all its myriad forms - and march under a banner of "change."



Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!

"You won't have Dennis Kucinich to kick around anymore...hello, I'm still talking!"

The Political "Brief"
Kucinich Out, NYTimes Endorses..., S. Carolina (D) Primary, FL Run-up


Dennis Kucinich, bastion of ideals, has taken his graceful bow from the presidential (campaign) stage. And boy (mayor), is his supporter going to miss him. All kidding aside, we must respect the former mayor of Cleveland and current US Representative for sticking in the race for purely ideological reasons. He never had a chance of winning. If all the other candidates blew up, well...then they'd just vote for Pedro.

Obama will win the South Carolina Democratic primary, all sources are saying tonight. This is a major win for him and not a major loss for Hillary, despite what you might think. Demographically, she was up against a wall, with a popular black candidate running in a state that's 50% black. If Obama didn't win here, his candidacy would've been over, as that would've said to the world, "Black people don't even like him! They'd rather vote for the ice queen!"

***

The New York Times named its endorsements for each party, and I find them not surprising at all. They name Hillary Clinton for the (D)s and John McCain for the (R)s. Hillary, they say, is extremely bright, driven, has experience and can bring America to a better place internationally. That isn't to say Obama wouldn't do the same, but he is "incandescent if still undefined," and the Democratic party needs a strong hand at the tiller. McCain is obvious, becasuse despite what they call "pandering" to a faction of the party (the conservative Right), he is still the candidate who best epitomizes the social change and forward momentum they want to see out of a Republican.

That they didn't choose Obama is a little surprising; it would make sense for them to hope that his lack of experience would be compensated by advisers and a cadre of Old Guard Dems. We'll see how his win in South Carolina turns their opinion page.

***

This week has seen two debates, the Democrats in South Carolina and the Republicans in Flordia. I commented earlier on the Dems, and how if you can, you should find some video of the crossfire between Hillary and Obama. That is past, though the enmity it created lingers.

The Republican debate in Boca Raton was not as hostile for the candidates on the Right side of things, but Clinton sure took a whalloping. The idea was to gang up on her, their most-desirable Democratic opponent, and in doing so clearly defining her as the one they are concerned about. This is strategic: McCain can win against Hillary in November, as his "personal" rating is higher than hers. More Americans, in short, trust him to lead them. That, and there's no huge target like Bill Clinton hanging on his back. That's not to say they didn't take some swipes at each other, but this was far more restrained than the Democratic debate. In Florida, they have to appear presidential, whereas in South Carolina, it was a brawl to see who came out with the boldest words and ideas and made the others look like fools. Floridian voters, the elderly a large group, don't want the mud-slinging. That's old hat in Carolina.

Currently, McCain (28.75%, avg over four recent polls) has a slim lead over Romney (26.25%), Giuliani (15.75%) and Huckabee (13%). One poll (ARG, done on Jan. 24) has the breakdown as follows:

McCain - 31%
Romney - 26%$
Huckabee - 15%
Giuliani - 14%
Paul - 3%

Were those numbers to hold, or McCain at least to keep the barest of margins, he would win. You see, Florida has a few quirks going for it: it's a winner-take-all primary, and it's a closed primary. "Closed" means that only Republicans can vote in it, the demographic that (haha) McCain does worst in. However, Romney and Huckabee are still splitting that vote, and the recent exit of Fred Thompson - lacking and endorsement - means his conservative backers are directionless. Thompson backed McCain in 2000, not Bush, and he could do so again before Super Tuesday, to add a little gasoline to this contest.

The Florida primary is Tuesday, with the polls closing at 7PM Central. Find yourself a news station at 7:15PM to see how things are shaping up, and be in for a long count. Half the delegates in the state are up for grabs; the others were stripped as punishment for the early scheduling (before Feb. 5th), but will probably still sit at the Republican National Convention come September, should the 1) need arise or 2) a clear winner magnanimously request it.

***

The Democrats next "compete" in Florida, though like in Michigan, it doesn't count. As Florida was stripped of its Democratic delegates for scheduling its primary so early (again, before Feb. 5th). Though, for the same reasons above, these delegates may still sit in August at the DNC, it's unknown right now. Should they sit, and the voting on Tuesday tie - proportionate to the vote - delegates, it could mean a heck of a lot. I believe the big three are still all on the ballot, though don't quote me. It might just be Hillary again.

Aside from Florida, the next step is Super Tuesday, the de facto national primary, and the Democrats proportion their delegates by popular vote percentage, no winner-take-all. This means that it's unlikely one person will take every delegate. It also means no one will come out with the required 50% +1 delegate to secure the nomination. A clear frontrunner may be determined, making the rest of the primaries a formality on the road to coronation. I think it'll be tooth and nail between Obama and Clinton, with Edwards bogarting his delegates until he is asked to choose sides and make the pick (a theory).

Going back to South Carolina, this will boost Obama tremendously going into Super Tuesday. Truly, his loss there would've been catastrophic, but the victory propels him like a rocket across next week. Provided he can stay above the Clinton machine's slander and craftiness, he should make this a contest worth watching.



Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!

"Looks like it's back to the security of a scripted drama for me..."

The Political "Brief"
Fred Thompson exits, per script

So the crystal ball was a little cloudy.

I was honestly convinced that, with no major announcement Sunday, Thomspon would tough out Florida and Super Tuesday, despite a lack of funds, just to get some more delegates away from Huckabee and for his friend McCain. The prevailing wisdom there being that McCain couldn't get these votes by himself, as they would normally go to a "conservative" candidate, like Thompson or Huckabee; better Fred than Mike.

The Republican field has been officially winnowed by two since Saturday, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. This leaves us with still a four-way race for first: McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Ron Paul soldiers on and continues to get a wider audience for his views so long as he makes it into the debates. View him as the Dennis Kucinich of the Republicans, in it long after hope has faded (with no upstart victory so far, it ain't gonna happen, Tex), but remaining to spread his message and decrease the overall votes and delegates the leads can get. He is denying any one of them a clean victory, because he'll always be there, that little imp at their elbows.

***

Last night the Democrats - Clinton, Obama and Edwards; no Kucinich - debate in Myrtle Beach, and let me tell you it was a really corker. Find some video of the Obama/Clinton exchanges to see the heat that needs to start entering all political discourse. Whether its passion for the job/ideals or simple rage at being challenged, the two threw down without bothering to include lost puppy John Edwards.

***

One interesting bit of trivia that came out of it all: during his time in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama voted "present" around a hundred times, instead of yes or no. Now, Hillary and Edwards did bend this out of proportion; while there, he cast around 4,000 other votes. The question that arises - and his reaction - is what did he vote "present" on? Voting "present" in IL means essentially "no," without having to take a position that puts you in a vulnerable spot later on (politically) and allowing you to register dissatisfaction with the legality or structure of a proposal. There were times when Obama, a law professor, was the sole "present" voter, or one of a small group. Really, it's a non-issue on the whole. If people want to attack Obama's voting record or legislation, they'll go after the concrete positions instead of the frustrating neutrality of just being in a room.


Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!

"Hey...you wanna score some delegates, man?"

The Political "Brief"
Post-Mortem: Nevada Caucuses & South Carolina Primary (R)


Saturday was busy. Long/short: Hillary (51%) comes out with a win in the Nevada caucuses over Obama (45%) and Edwards (4%).

Romney (51%), by dint of being the only one campaigning in Nevada outside of Ron Paul (14%; go TV ads!), wins the Republican NV caucuses over the other serious contenders, McCain (13%), Huckabee (8%) and Giuliani (4%).

Though not a commanding win at first glance, McCain (33%) beat out Huckabee (30%), Thompson (16%) and Romney (15%) in South Carolina's primary.

What does this mean for Florida, South Carolina (D) and the overwhelming Super Tuesday?

By winning South Carolina, McCain has reinvigorated a campaign that faced serious questions after Michigan. Yeah, I know, Romney came from Michigan, but McCain should've been able to close that gap easier. Still, the "gateway to the South" is a major win for any Republican candidate because every one to secure a victory there in the last 20 years has gone on to win the party's nomination. Thompson is effectively out, as his scored half the votes of McCain. Expect to see him throw support behind McCain either right before Super Tuesday or right after; he can wrest a few more delegates out of Huckabee's hands and place them in his old Senate buddy McCain's lap.

With the most gold medals of any Republican, and the most delegates, Mitt Romney should be gracing more headlines, but the truth is, he's made it in 1) his homestate and 2) the West, where Mormons are a lot more common. One in four voters in Nevada was a Mormon, and over 90% voted for Romney. He won't see those numbers west of the High Plains, though, but he'll still rack up a fair number of delegates on Super Tuesday.

Giuliani, even if he loses Florida, has a chance come Super Tuesday when CT, NY and NJ all vote. He's holding steady around 20% nationwide if you bend the numbers right, and I'd guess many are waiting for Florida to see if he has what it takes. Should he lose in the Nation's Retirement Village, expect quick poll plunging.

Duncan Hunter is out, Ron Paul will have some delegates to assign in September and Huckabee is praying the South rises in better numbers than the North has.

***

John Edwards is a man on a mission. He was trounced on Saturday; no hyperbole does it justice. Yet he remains. I've stated before he has his sights on the Vice Presidency...again...but personally, I see him as poison for a Democratic ticket. For those of us who have no lives around election season and watched the 2004 VP debate, we saw VP Dick Cheney mercilessly eviscerate then-Senator Edwards for all to see with logic, facts and wit. I cannot see the Republicans choosing a VP nominee who couldn't mop the floor with Edwards. No, Johnny sticks around on the off-chance of a VP-ship, cabinet position or just simple kingmaker. HE HAS NO CHANCE AT WINNING THE NOMINATION, MUCH LESS THE OVAL OFFICE. His delegates will be a key part in what is shaping to be a brokered convention for the Dems.

Brokered conventions are not new in American politics, but because of delegate totals, the major parties haven't entered that back-door territory in decades. Basically, when two or more candidates enter the convention with a goodly number of delegates, but not the required amount, supporters and bosses go around and try to get those delegates to change sides after rounds of voting. Since 1980, the nominees have all been picked in first-round voting, as clear choices enter the conventions without any major opposition. Reagan almost upset the apple cart in 1976 by winning only 17 less delegates than President Gerald Ford, who had the required majority. Both the Republicans and Democrats may face a tough nomination process if the fractured voting continues through Super Tuesday.

Hillary's decisive (popular vote) win in Nevada keeps her rolling to Feb. 5, even if she takes 2nd in S. Carolina. Obama may have gotten more delegates in NV, due to the district split they each took, but the headlines read "Hillary Wins!" I can pass on how honestly frustrated the Obama campaign was at losing, and there are talks of disenfranchisement, caucus bosses closing doors early in the hopes of keeping black voters out. The theory there, racist of course, that black people are lazy and would show up at the last minute. Arguments were had to keep the doors open, but alas, they fell on deaf ears. "But this is democracy!" "My caucus, my rules!"

I don't think this really puts a major kink in Obama's campaign. He has yet to go South, where blacks make up a far larger proportion of the primary/caucus-goers. No, that isn't a racist thing, but a racial thing: he is identified as the candidate of choice by over half of black voters (according to several polls), and that is no doubt due to his being the first, serious black candidate for the Presidency. Who counts Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson anyway? I thought so. Expect Obama to win in S. Carolina in a week, but not by much. If he messes up, if Clinton can sneak her claws into his image somehow, that lead he enjoys (45% vs 39%) will quietly vanish, like in New Hampshire.

***

Next up is South Carolina for the Dems, Saturday the 26th, followed by the Flordia primaries for both sides, though like in Michigan, only the Republicans are campaigning. Maine has a nominal caucus (R) on Feb. 3.



Hooper McFinney

Read on, faithful few!