“Let’s never forget, we’re the real story, not them.”

“What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit.” – Aaron Altman, Broadcast News

I was thinking of Broadcast News last night, because I was more or less fuming at the empty suits the major networks are using to cover the DNC.

Now, I’ve gone out of my way in the past to defend the media. It’s an easy target that everyone likes to pick on. When you feel strongly about a party or a candidate you’re bound to see bias in the way that the media covers elections. It’s pretty much human nature. So I don’t buy the “the media has a political axe to grind” conspiracy theories for the most part.

But last night was a shining example of how it’s not the bias, it’s the stupidity that is the real problem with television news coverage of politics.

I was trying to watch the gosh-darned convention, and I couldn’t because these plastic people were talking nonstop, telling me what I should think about the convention. On six out of the seven channels, the pundits were blathering on over the speakers. At one point, one of them was saying, “The Democrats should be attacking McCain more!” I then turned to PBS (the one channel that seemed to actually allow us to see the convention speakers not named Clinton) and the guy at the podium was bashing McCain! At the very same time! If the pundit had turned around and listened for one minute, he’d have seen the very thing he claimed was missing!

And then there was the reaction to Clinton’s speech. I turned to Fox News and they were somberly saying how she didn’t seem to “really” praise Obama and support his candidacy. I then turned to CNN and they were saying what a great job she did in praising Obama and supporting his candidacy.

It just goes to show how useless these pundits are. Let’s be honest, most of them are paid to look good in a suit and speak clearly. They’re not great thinkers. They don’t even have to be well-informed, obviously.

So why are they on my television??

If you missed it, here’s Sen. Clinton and Mark Warner. Warner’s speech was more low-key, but a good message for Democrats, I think. “This election is not about liberal versus conservative. It’s not about left versus right. It’s about the future versus the past.”

Michelle Obama's Speech

I thought it was good.

Morning, Joe

So, we just got back from a few days on the North Shore, far from the city, jobs, internet connections, etc.

Did anything happen over the weekend?

Oh, that. Well, I can now crow about how I correctly picked Biden as Obama's VP choice. Me and about 4 billion other people.

I think it's a good choice; every candidate would've had strengths and weaknesses, but I like Biden's working-class background and lengthy foreign policy resume. All indications are that Biden will make an effective attack dog--and there seems to be some consensus around the idea that Obama needs one.

As I mentioned below, I also think the selection of Biden complicates things for McCain in picking a VP. Going with Pawlenty, who I think was a top contender, seems a little more dicey now because Biden might really take him apart in the VP debate, and might seem more "vice-presidential" in general. I'm kind of a fan of Pawlenty, but I really don't see that comparison working too well for the R's.

But then who does McCain go with? Romney was the other strong contender, but this whole "housing confusion" issue has got to make the McCain camp skittish about picking another ultra-wealthy guy. So now what? The Lieberman/Ridge trial balloon has not gone well for McCain, the R base is just not going to go for a pro-choice VP pick. Who does that leave?

You got me. I wonder if McCain might pick Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. One of the big problems demographically for McCain is that women break strongly for Obama (and in general for D candidates). However, with the Hillary issue, McCain seems to think he has an opening to pull in a few more women voters who are dissatisfied with how the Dem. primary came out. I personally doubt that the Hillary issue is that big of a deal, but McCain has been pushing that button pretty hard. So maybe go with a woman VP? That would also make it harder for Biden to dominate the VP debate--he would have to worry about coming on too strong against a female candidate and generating a backlash.

The problem for McCain is that most of the likely women contenders have their own downsides (lack of experience, for one). Hey, maybe he'll pick Michelle Bachmann. She's about as pro-life as you can get, a very gung-ho supporter of the military, and a poster girl for the religious right. She's also a little crazy, but in a pleasant, photogenic way.

Come on, John. Shake things up a little! McCain/Bachmann 08!

Always a Risky Tactic

"In one sense, the grand experiment at the heart of the Obama campaign is an effort to win the election by speaking to the voters like adults."

From a post at TPM.

Recipe for a Landslide: Let Obama be Obama

People on the Obama side of this year’s election are little stressed right now. The polls are starting to look better for McCain (he’s up five points in one poll today), and there’s the whole slimy “Obama is a celebrity” attack ad phenomenon—which reminds people of Swiftboating and seems to be working, unfortunately. Plus the Georgian crisis plays into McCain’s strengths. And now that “Saddleback” forum, where McCain got good-to-glowing reviews, has a lot of people worried. Shocking, isn’t it, that a conservative evangelical forum, where McCain tells the audience what it wants to hear and Obama doesn’t, turns out to work better for McCain?

I understand the anxiety. But the campaign really has barely gotten out of the starting gate at this point. We have VPs to pick, conventions to get through, debates, and any number of new, unforeseen developments ahead of us as the race progresses.

To me, the odds are still strongly in Obama’s favor. In fact, if I were to bet, I would bet that Obama will win decisively in the fall. Keep in mind, I’ve been very wrong before. But just looking at the challenges before both candidates, I like Obama’s chances much better. And I think the key to his chances is to let him be himself.

Town hall meetings are fine, and Obama should keep doing them. But he also needs to do rallies, speeches, and big events to fire up his base and get the attention of independent voters. Let the McCain campaign call him a “celebrity.” Ronald Reagan was a celebrity. John F. Kennedy was a celebrity. Obama should stand up in front of 50,000 people and say, “Are you here to see a celebrity, or are you here because you want to see a better tomorrow for this country?” And put the response in every TV ad he broadcasts.

People in this country want change. They need to be reminded that John McCain, despite his maverick image, has come to embrace Bush Republicanism. That is a tragedy for McCain, and it will be a tragedy for our country if we vote for four more years of it.

The polls at this point are not meaningless, but they are not at all a good guide for the outcome in November. Barring torrential rain or a Clinton meltdown, Obama should get a good bounce out of the Democratic convention. I think the debates will also be better for Obama than some might suspect. And Obama’s ground game, the enthusiasm gap, the number of new voters, all of this gives him advantages that no other Democratic candidate has had in recent memory.

There’s a long way to go. McCain’s doing better than expected. But things really are just getting started. And Obama is a proven winner.

Biden, His Time

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I could not resist...

OK, so it's looking more and more like Obama's pick for VP is going to be Sen. Joe Biden. Of course, nothing's for certain. Bayh is a possibility, as are a couple of other people. But just looking at the way things are going right now, I'm thinking Obama wants to send a signal that he's going to have an experienced, well-respected foreign policy guy at his side. Biden's the best fit for that.

So what's interesting to me is: what McCain does do in response, assuming that Joe B. is the guy? Obviously, he doesn't need to shore up his foreign policy credentials (oh, we could get into that, but I'm not gonna). So does he pick the Pride of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty?

He could do a lot worse. Pawlenty is a very likable and smart politician. He doesn't come across as extreme or inflexible. He could appeal to younger voters while not alienating older voters. People say his lack of a national profile is a minus, but as someone who's been following his career, I've seen him on the national stage in various capacities, and he does allright in the spotlight.

But how does picking Pawlenty look if Biden is the VP candidate on the other side? I’m wondering if memories of Dan Quayle will scare off the McCain team. Now, Pawlenty is no Dan Quayle, far from it. But will they give him a chance to prove it?

Obviously, McCain doesn’t need an older, experienced hand as No. 2; he’s got the old, experienced thing down pretty cold. Still, when the VP debate rolls around in the fall, are they gonna want the relatively inexperienced Pawlenty to go up against Biden? Or will they see such a matchup as a plus?

EFT on the Turnabout post

EFT has commented on the Turnabout post below, but Blogger apparently is having issues ... so I'm just reprinting it as a new post. I'll probably have a response in the comments section. Thanks for the feedback!

from EFT:

That video is a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. And its hypothetical pro-Republican/anti-Democrat counterpart would be as well. That's not to say that it doesn't leave us some points to ponder.

Looking at history, it's difficult to find a well-known president who isn't associated with a war or tough guy image: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, etc. Sometimes a president's military training is the source and sometimes it's circumstances, but either way it seems that strong, memorable presidents are linked to war and it certainly shaped their policies and politics. I don't know if that's necessarily good, but it's a fact that those are the leaders that stand out in the history books. BTW, those same history books usually fail to point out that even after a victory, the US maintains a military presence in the country-sort of an occupying force though that's not the term used. We have bases in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and now Iraq. Apparently, it's easier to keep an eye on your former enemy if you're closer to them--and there's over 60 years of evidence to show that, despite changes in administration.

Being a Cold War kid, I have always been suspicious of Russia-regardless of how many times that country is classed as our friend or ally. As a nation, they have allowed their nuclear arsenal to be distributed to their former republics and rogue nations...seemingly without any concern for passing along the knowledge, restraint, and guidance needed to handle those weapons responsibly.

It's kind of like having a gun in the house. If the owner isn't responsible and fails to make sure that everyone with access has been properly trained, then it's just a tragedy waiting to happen.

But, to answer your last question, I do feel lucky. The election this fall pits a former POW against a candidate who is truly free of military influence. Either way we'll win. If McCain is in, then we'll have a president who understands deeply what can happen when things go awry in a war. If it's Obama, we'll have, for the very first time, a president untouched by war as a veteran or a draft dodger...a clean slate if you will. Both bring a fresh perspective to the questions surrounding the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Middle East situations.

Biden for VP?

There's some talk of it amongst Obama watchers. I think that would be great. He has experience, plenty of cred in the foreign policy field, is old, and is really pretty down to earth. I don't think you can hit him with the "elitist" tag (he rides the subway to and from work every day, according to WaPo), and yet he's smart and talks to people like grownups, something the current prez and Sen. McCain don't always do.

I think it's fair to say that people want change with this election, but they are still needing some reassurance about Obama. Biden helps him with that, more than a lot of the names that have been thrown about. Maybe more than anyone. Oh, and he's Catholic, too, so there's another voting bloc checked off the list. (I realize the D's won't get all the Catholics. But Biden could help.)

What else is going on? Republicans are supporting Obama.

Also, there's a campaign, to put the Obama logo on barns in Ohio, which I think is cool. Who knows how it will affect votes, probably not much, but it's good to see the Dem candidate's campaign trying to appeal to rural voters and being creative about it.

Turnabout: Fair Play?

Republican candidates in recent years have been pretty straightforward with the equation--A Vote for a Democrat Endangers America. I mean, they don’t always come out and say it just like that. But that’s pretty clearly the message at times. At other times they do come out and say it just like that.

Well, here’s a twist on that approach.



At first, I felt this video could be dismissed as a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. One can make the case that the McCain statements quoted here are just typical Republican tough-guy posturing that’s necessary to win the nomination.

But hold on a minute. Isn’t typical Republican tough-guy posturing kind of the point here? Hasn’t that been, at root, a large part of the problem that has led us to disaster in Iraq and impotence elsewhere?

It ‘s pretty clear that McCain is surrounding himself with Rove and Cheney apostles, who believe that saber-rattlin’ and war-presidentin’ is both good policy AND good politics. A frightening combination, in my opinion.

One thing is beyond doubt: the threat posed by what might happen if someone like Bin Laden somehow someday gets ahold of nuclear materials is drawfed by the threat posed if a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and high-tech delivery systems is suddenly back in an antagonistic posture with the United States.

And here is McCain, talking very belligerently about Russia. I guess the question that remains is: do you feel lucky, nation?

Well, do ya?

Deja Vu All Over Again

I recognize that it’s not only possible to get too caught up in McCain’s attack ads from last week, it’s probably exactly what the McCain campaign wants us to do. But I do think it’s worth a little further comment, since last week was really pretty remarkable both in what happened and what it suggests for the campaign to come.

What we seem to be seeing is the McCain embrace of Rovian, Atwater-esque, good-old fashioned GOP attack politics.

We’ve seen it clearly in the past few presidential elections. In the mid-summer of 2000, the “Al Gore is an exaggerator/liar” theme was introduced and became the conventional wisdom of that fall, even though it was based on very little of substance. In mid-summer 2006, we saw the Swift Boat smear get its start, and the “Kerry is a flip-flopper” theme take hold. The Swift Boat stuff was despicable and dishonest, the flip-flopper theme, unfortunately, was not entirely without substance. One can argue that anyone in the Senate could be hit with that tag (and McCain is a great example of this), but Kerry’s difficulties in communicating well and acting decisively was a gift to his political opponents.

So now the GOP candidate is once again seeking an angle to attack. And so here in mid-summer, the “Obama is an elitist/celebrity” theme has been unveiled. And really, for the McCain camp, you have to say, so far, so good. Obama’s poll numbers seem to be going down a bit, the media is jumping all over itself to examine the signficance of what kind of tea and salad Obama prefers, and as an added bonus, Sen. McCain was able to grasp the thin reed of “I don’t look like the presidents on the currency” remark and turn it into The Race Card, thereby claiming victimhood. It was a solid week for him.

Of course, it was also Exhibit A of why we should all be embarrassed and angry over what our electoral politics have become.

So what should we expect in the coming weeks? Well, it would be easy to say “more of the same.” And I expect there will be more of the character attacks on Obama. But will it be effective in the long run? It could backfire on McCain; he’s obviously taking a bit of a beating over this strategy from at least some pundits.

Say what you want about celebrity, it was John McCain’s celebrity with the media that allowed him to build his image as a bi-partisan, reasonable, fair-minded politician for all these years. This strategy puts all that at risk.

Obama has a very fine line to walk between responding in a strong, effective way, and sounding angry, bitter, etc. But based on how he’s handled stuff so far, and on his performance against HRC, I’d say he’s better equipped to deal with this than any Dem presidential candidate since at least 1996.

Note for comparison Obama’s hard-hitting ads released this week, which do criticize McCain, but over a legitimate policy difference with real implications for voters.

Maybe Americans would rather talk about Paris Hilton and arugula than the issues. I hope not.

The Race Card. Really?

“McCain Camp accuses Obama of playing the race card”— AP

Let me get this straight, McCain campaign. You run an ad attacking Obama for being a “celebrity,” and you show pictures of him, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton in the ad. And then you accuse him of taking the low road? Really?

You put an African American man in an ad with two young white girls, and then you act shocked that someone draws a racial inference? Really? That surprises you? Huh.

When Obama says of himself: “He’s new, he doesn’t look like other presidents on the currency. He’s got a funny name,” you say that he’s playing the race card from the bottom of the deck? Really? That seems out of line to you? Really?

You criticize Obama for not going to Iraq, for not having international experience, and then when he has a successful trip to the Middle East and Europe, you criticize and mock him for doing so? Really? That seem consistent to you? Really?

You say he won’t make time to visit with US troops because he’d rather go the gym, and then the shot of him at the “gym” is actually a shot of him visiting with US troops? Really? That makes sense to you? Seriously?

But my question to you is, really, what happened to John McCain? Really. Is this slimy rope-a-dope, taunt your opponent and then use his mild response to attack him some more really what McCain thinks is going to win the election for him? Really? You think Obama is going to fall for this stuff like Kerry did? Really? Seriously?

You think that being popular, being a “celebrity” is really a bad thing? Really? You sure? ‘Cause it seems like when you’re whining about not getting enough press coverage that you kind of want to be more of a celebrity yourself. Really, it does.

You think the American people are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit again? Really?

(I don’t know if I have a lot of conservative readers, but I’m pretty sure I have some Independent ones. I’d be interested in hearing how they see this tactic that the McCain team has embraced. This stuff working for you?)

More Documentation that Sen. McCain's Pants are on Fire

"McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence" - Washington Post

"McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military."

That's their story and they're sticking to it. Even though they made it up. Karl Rove is smiling. Hey, it worked for the Swiftboaters.

McCain: Into the Mud

Today I saw two items that nicely sum up my mixed feelings about Sen. John McCain. One was how he has to be very vigilant about skin cancer, due to his time as a POW, where he was apparently in the sun an unhealthy amount (added to all the other unhealthy things that happened). It reminded me of how much he sacrificed for this country, and how much I respect that.

But on the other hand, he is now running a campaign that regularly resorts to outright lies and smears in its political ads. The latest is the TV ad that claims Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded US service members because he couldn't take along TV cameras. As Andrea Mitchell (a journalist who has well-known conservative links) points out, this is simply not true.




There's more on this here

McCain vowed to run an honorable and dignified campaign. That is a broken promise. And we're only in July.

Not-So-Quiet Desperation

John McCain wants you to know the Surge is working. No, scratch that, it is succeeding. Actually, it already has succeeded. We’re not only winning, we’ve won, and we’ll continue to keep winning, for however long it takes. Maybe a hundred years?

This incoherent line of thought is, believe it or not, McCain’s strongest argument at the moment. It is a relatively strong point to note that Obama said the Surge would fail, when as it turns out, the Surge seems to be a factor in the improving security situation in Iraq. This success can be overstated—Americans, being human, tend to oversimplify and see their own actions as being the most important. The reasons for the improving situation in Iraq are many, and they include the Surge. Be that as it may, Obama’s call was wrong on this one. So he’s batting 800 instead of a 1,000 on Iraq. That’s still a better average than McCain or most Republicans can claim.

As Obama’s overseas tour continues, though, it seems to me that McCain has made a significant mistake. His campaign was obviously worried that Obama’s trip would suck up a huge amount of oxygen, and that people would forget about McCain. That’s a legitimate worry; the media are treating this as a Very Big Deal.

But in his efforts to remind people that this is a two-person campaign, McCain has resorted to shouting, jumping up and down, and waving his arms. It’s not a good tactic for him. It might have been better to concede the national media to Obama for a week, and continue to campaign on a more regional basis.

Instead, we’ve had McCain on TV, blasting Obama for being wrong, wrong, wrong on the surge. “How’s the weather there in New Hampshire, Senator?” “Well, we’ve had some rain—it reminds me of how Sent. Obama’s claims about the Surge have turned out to be all wet. He was wrong on that, you know. And I was right!”

This kind of peevish, single-minded focus is hardly the stuff of great leadership.

What’s worse is that the McCain campaign has really started to sound a little unhinged. They put out an ad blaming Obama for the high price of gas. I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. They blame Obama for the high price of gas. Desperate, much?

They also put out a three-minute YouTube video purporting to show how the media is fawning over Obama. You know, McCain has been a favorite of the media for a long time. One of the reasons he is the presumptive nominee is that his years of positive media coverage gave him the name recognition and good reputation to win primaries. It seems little silly for him to be complaining now about not getting enough media coverage.

Patently false ads, bitter denunciations, whining about the media. Not a great way to get people excited about your campaign, in my opinion.

This race is a long way from over. Heck, Obama’s trip is still not over. Things could happen to swing opinion one way or the other, but it appears to me the McCain campaign has made the worst of a bad situation.

Oh, and here’s a pertinent quote from Joe Klein of Time Magazine.

“John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

‘This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.’

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.”

Obama and the Evangelicals

Headline from US News and World Report:

Obama Campaign is Making Progress With Evangelical Voters

"They've researched where the votes are, and they've thrown away the old Democratic playbooks," says Brinson, who is among the evangelical leaders the Obama camp has reached out to. "Instead of just relying on a large number of urban votes, they're going to suburban areas and reaching out to a large number of conservatives."

I think this is great. It's about time someone on the Democratic side of politics went right after the church-going vote. Those folks tend to be more conservative, sure, but they're not all exactly the same. Despite what some on the left like to believe, evangelicals are not all marching in lock step. Some are going to be open to a centrist like Obama.

I like this approach that says, "We're not going to just try to win with 7 East Coast States and three West Coast states and try to pick up a few in the middle." If the Dems want to really lead this country, they are going to have to be a national party. They are going to have to have support outside the traditional strongholds. And Obama seems to get that.

The article ends by asking whether there are risks: whether Obama's outreach to the evangelicals will alienate traditional Dem voters. We've already seen some backlash over his supposed "change" in positions, which have been largely cases of media hype and selective memory. But let me put the question to my readers:

What do you think of Obama's efforts to win evangelical votes?

Wall-E

"While the real-life grown-ups on TV were again rebooting Vietnam, the kids at “Wall-E” were in deep contemplation of a world in peril — and of the future that is theirs to make what they will of it. Compare any 10 minutes of the movie with 10 minutes of any cable-news channel, and you’ll soon be asking: Exactly who are the adults in our country and who are the cartoon characters?"

Frank Rich pretty much hits it out of the park with his column that skillfully uses an animated children's movie to illustrate what's wrong with our political process.

By the way, I saw Wall-E a few days ago and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not sure it's quite as spectacularly good as some of the reviews suggest, but it is very enjoyable, and the social/environmental commentary is on target and not heavy handed at all. It's hard to focus sometimes when your 2-year old is complaining of being "caird" and your five-year old is consuming a bag of popcorn nearly as big as he is, so I think I'll need to watch it again to really catch everything. But I recommend it.

Change You Can Be Comfortable With

Doesn’t have much zip to it, does it?

But that could well be the unofficial theme of the Obama campaign these days.

Since become the presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama has carefully been moving back to the middle, making statements and policy proposals that are aimed to appeal to—and perhaps reassure—independents and more-conservative Democrats. This is nothing new at all, we see it pretty much every four years. And Sen. McCain made a similar move after he wrapped up his nomination; going on a poverty tour with a “Message: I Care” flavor to show Americans that compassionate conservatism was not dead. (Message: nice try.)

But while McCain is still exhibiting some minor symptoms of schizophrenia with his efforts to win over both independents AND the Republican base, Obama has morphed into Mr. Moderate, with a healthy helping of Bipartisan to go.

Obama has weighed in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun control by more or less agreeing that citizens have an individual right to bear arms. It’s not going to save him from the $40 million “Obama’s coming for your guns” attack ad campaign that the NRA has planned, but it might help him convince a few independents that he’s not as big a liberal as the NRA fanatics say he is. (My apologies to NRA members. But let’s be honest. The NRA is pretty out there at times.)

Obama has also recently changed his position on the FISA crimes that the current administration and telecom companies want immunity for. He’s taking a very middle-of-the-road stance here, and he’s right in step with most congressional Democrats at this point. But as far as I can tell from this rather complicated issue, the Dems are kind of caving on this one. We probably won’t know for sure how illegal the Bush Administration’s actions were until they’re out of office, but they really seemed to bend the laws here past the breaking point. “Bygones!” says Obama and the Dem leadership. Big of them.

And it’s been kind of sad watching Obama try to convince people that he doesn’t hate America. God knows he’s in a tough position there. I’ve seen some of the emails, and it is not pretty. So if he feels the need to wear a flag pin and make a speech on patriotism, all I can do is wish him luck. Some people are determined to find fault no matter what, and the patriotism issue gives them an excuse because it can be so subjective. “He didn’t say the Pledge LOUD enough!”

And then there’s the Wes Clark thing. I think Clark’s comments were unfortunate, but not scandalous. Yes, in fact, being a POW is not in itself a qualification for being Commander in Chief, but why even make that statement? Why give the McCain an excuse to act outraged and more patriotic-than-thou on the same day Obama is giving his speech dealing with that subject? It was a boneheaded move. And though many bloggers are mad at Obama for condemning Clark’s statement, the fact is it’s a huge mistake to start having arguments about Vietnam AGAIN, after we are all so sick of anything that remotely resembles Swiftboating.

If anything, Obama’s condemnation of Clark fits with his pledge to run a different kind of campaign and avoid the personal attacks and distractions. I honestly don’t think Clark was trying to make a personal attack on McCain, but it sounded petty.

Obama’s embrace of faith-based programs is also interesting, although I need to hear more details to comment on that at any length.

But all in all, Obama’s not looking like an agent of radical change as we enter the national stage of this campaign, and I think that’s both to be expected and appropriate. The county is hungry for change, but too much change is scary. Obama’s trying to find a balance. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, but that’s what all presidential candidates do to some extent.

Pundit Heaven

The announcement that Sen. Hillary Clinton will end her campaign Saturday, along with Sen. Obama's wrapping up the needed delegates for the nomination, has produced a deluge of "how he won"/"how she lost" post mortems.

Two that gave me a lot of good information were Chris Cillizza's blog and Sabato's Crystal Ball blog. The Cillizza [horrible misspelling corrected, sorry!] piece is a good rundown of the strategies and philosophical approach of Obama's campaign, while the Sabato piece (written by Justin Sizemore) is full of crunchy goodness such as charts, graphs and plenty of numbers. Both are good reads and very informative.

There's been some talk in the comments about the likelihood of Obama picking Clinton as a running mate. I would say the chances are extremely slim. Obama just named a three-person team to manage the selection process, which I take as a sign he's going to be very deliberative about this and let the "Dream Ticket" talk die down a bit. Hopefully it will, because it's hard to imagine Sen. Clinton being a good fit. The Clintons of course come as a matched set, and they tend to overshadow anyone else in the room. Obama doesn't need that. I see the appeal of the Obama/Clinton ticket, but I also see the risks, and they really look overwhelming to me. Just my 2¢.

Garbage Time and Trash Talking

I hesitate to raise this point. Supporters of Sen. Clinton have taken her loss very hard, and they have every right to feel that she deserves respect and credit for the incredible race she ran. I was very impressed by how she finished so strong in the last month or so.

But I do think this talk of "winning the popular vote" is a bit disingenuous. By the most fair count (including all caucus state estimates and excluding Michigan, which was not a fair election by any stretch of the imagination), Obama won the popular vote, albeit narrowly. Still, there's nothing wrong with Clinton supporters being proud of her big wins at the very end--IF they also acknowledge the reality that Obama had this thing wrapped up some time ago. That reality seems a little hard to grasp for some.

There's an expression in sports which I think applies here. "Garbage Time" is often referred to in basketball games and football games as a time in the game where the outcome is not in doubt, but the winning team is just running out the clock, while the losing team is doing everything they can to make the score respectable, or pull off a miracle win.

Sound familiar?

(Of course I don't mean to imply that any candidate or state or voting group is garbage. Let's make that clear.)

But In the last month of the campaign, Obama was transitioning to the general election, engaging the McCain team on a series of issues and going to swing states to address voter concerns there. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, was still campaigning full bore in the final states. Obama could have decided to continue to fully contest the primaries and leave the national stuff 'till later, but I think he was right to move on. If Obama had really contested every state, those popular vote totals would be different. Not that it matters much. But it's a little annoying that even at the end, Clinton was making that "we won the popular vote" claim. It's not true, and even if you accept the Clinton campaign's fuzzy math, it would only be true because of garbage time.

Now that I've offended the few (any?) Clinton supporters who read this blog, I'll move on to John McCain's speech Tuesday night.

Hooo boy, that did not look good. Forget the comparison with the dynamic Obama or the impassioned Clinton, just watch the thing for what it is. An extremely uncomfortable man giving a leaden, awkward speech. The weird thing is, I don't believe the speech was badly written. McCain just seemed incapable of delivering it in a convincing manner. The refrain "That's not change we can believe in," should have been a rallying cry, a phrase with some anger or at least determination behind it. McCain treated it like a punch line in a weak joke, plastering on fake smile every time he repeated the line. I thought maybe he was trying to go for a Reagan-esque, "there you go again," genial feel; but it totally didn't fit the material.

McCain has been trying to talk tough in the early part of this national campaign, trying to make Obama look young and naive, trying to raise fears of appeasement or weakness. But if you're going to trash talk, you better sound like your heart is in it. Because it wasn't Obama who looked weak Tuesday night.

The End of the Road

Remarkable. Extraordinary. Unprecedented.

Those are the words that come to mind when I think of the primary campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This has been a riveting, hard-fought race from the first caucuses in Iowa to the moment the final polls close tonight in Montana.

The Republican side was interesting in its own way, with a very colorful cast of characters and plenty of interesting issues to work out. I agree with the conventional wisdom that almost despite itself, the Republican party is nominating the candidate with the best chance of winning. Whether the base can really get behind McCain remains to be seen. I was visiting some conservative relatives recently and there was very little enthusiasm for McCain. I sense they will vote for him, but they are not excited.

But the D side is excited. Maybe a little too much so in some cases. I’ve been checking out some of the pro-Clinton blogs lately and boy, talk about some raw nerves. They are not happy with the media, with Obama supporters, and in some cases, with Obama himself. I keep hearing him say nice things about Clinton, but many of these HRC supporters are having none of it. They are, to borrow a word, bitter. I believe that will change.

But overall, this has been an historic primary on the Dem side, and both candidates have run admirable campaigns. Both have stumbled at times, but they both showed real resilience and strength of character. That’s just my take, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that this has been one for the history books.

I’ve felt for some time that Clinton simply was not going to win; that it was a case of too little too late. And I think that’s playing out about as expected. But give her credit for fighting to the last. We can argue about whether it’s good for the party or divisive, but the fact is she ended up coming very close, which is a credit to her. And she almost certainly will concede in the next few days, which gives Obama plenty of time to unite the party.

An African American is going to be the nominee for President from the Democratic party in 2008. And I would say he has at least an even shot of winning the general election in the fall. This is a good day for our country.


Prediction:
South Dakota: Obama 52, Clinton 48
Montana: Obama 58, Clinton 42
(Sorry I missed Puerto Rico — I was traveling and just couldn’t get something written.)