Clinbama or Obamaton?

What happened:
Hillary Clinton said a Democratic presidential ticket that included both her and Barack Obama “may, you know, be where this is headed,” and suggested that she would make the better candidate for the top of that ticket. Obama was cooler to the idea of a “Dream Ticket,” saying “it is premature to talk about a joint ticket . . . right now.” (ABC News)

What the commentators said before Tuesday’s primaries, the chances of a joint ticket were “somewhere between slim and none,” said Bonnie Erbe in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but the idea looks more likely on the “morning after.” Clinton should get preference for top billing “on the basis of age," but “a reasonable price” for this concession would be to give Obama “responsibility for some major issue” and the chance to succeed her after just one term. If they can put aside “the massive issue of egos,” a Clinton-Obama ticket “could be unstoppable.” If they can’t, “there is the real possibility” that “neither one wins.”

A Clinton-Obama ticket would never fly, said Allahpundit in Hot Air. Clinton would loathe being “outshone by a vice president with ten times the appeal she has,” and Obama would never agree to “languish for eight years in a do-nothing job Hillary will only use to try to isolate him.” Besides, Obama is well positioned to be the “presumptive nominee next time” without being VP, and he’d be better off “taking the edge off that inexperience rap” by accomplishing things in the Senate.

Clinton doesn't really expect top billing—she's angling for the VP spot, said Justin Gardner at Donklephant. She knows she “can’t win this thing outright,” but she can force Obama to make her his running mate by threatening to keep bloodying him up with “her ‘kitchen sink’ strategy.” This gambit “makes even more sense” when you consider that as No. 2, Clinton can still “ride the Obama wave into the White House” the next time there’s an opening.

Obama has to accept “that Clinton has earned something” with her “millions of votes,” said Marc Ambinder in The Atlantic’s Current blog. And by adding her to his ticket, Obama would unite “both durable, distinct factions of the Democratic party” and run “full throttle” over John McCain. Obama knows he’s not “an executive,” but “Vice President Clinton” could be his de facto “prime minister, tending to Congress and health care reform and trade agreements” while he “travels and inspires and thinks.” Everyone wins, except maybe McCain.

SNL and Politics

How can you not love SNL's take on the currect political landscape!

It's 3 a.m.

This is the Clinton ad that has been discussed in some of the posts.
First, do you think the ad is an effective one and second, do you think it does it's job?

The Real Threat to McCain

By Alan I. Abramowitz

A lot of Republicans are unhappy with their party this year. Some conservative Republicans, following the earlier lead of talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have been threatening to sit out the November election or vote for a third party candidate because they don't consider their party's presidential nominee, John McCain, to be sufficiently conservative.

Since emerging as the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday, Mr. McCain has been working hard to win the support of conservatives by stressing his hawkish views on Iraq and his conservative positions on social issues such as abortion. In a further effort to ease the concerns of conservatives, McCain recently promised to oppose any tax increases during his term as president.

But a careful examination of the evidence from the 2006 midterm elections as well as voting patterns in recent primaries indicates that it isn't conservatives who pose the biggest threat to Republican unity in the fall. It's moderate-to-liberal Republicans who represent the biggest challenge to John McCain in uniting his party against the Democratic nominee, especially if that nominee is Barack Obama.

While conservatives may continue to complain about McCain, they will almost certainly end up voting for him against a much more liberal Democrat. But a large number of moderate-to-liberal Republicans could actually defect to the Democratic nominee if they perceive McCain as moving too far to the right in his effort to appease party conservatives.

In the 2006 midterm elections, defections by moderate-to-liberal Republicans contributed to the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives and were largely responsible for Republican defeats in three major Senate races in states that had voted for George Bush by wide margins in 2004: Missouri, Montana and Virginia.

According to national exit poll data, 14 percent of moderate-to-liberal Republicans in districts with competitive House races voted for Democratic candidates. This was more than four times the three percent defection rate among conservative Republicans in these districts. And defections by moderate-to-liberal Republicans played a crucial role in narrow Democratic victories in those key contests (MO, MT and VA) that enabled Democrats to seize control of the Senate in 2007. According to the exit polls in these states, the defection rate among moderate-to-liberal Republicans was13 percent in Virginia, 16 percent in Missouri and 17 percent in Montana. In contrast, the defection rate among conservative Republicans was only 3 percent in Virginia, 2 percent in Missouri and 7 percent in Montana.

The reason that moderate-to-liberal Republicans defected to the Democrats at such a higher rate than conservative Republicans was that they were much more dissatisfied with the performance of President Bush in general and with the war in Iraq in particular. According to the 2006 national exit poll, 25 percent of moderate-to-liberal Republicans disapproved of President Bush's job performance and 31 percent disapproved of the war in Iraq. In contrast, only nine percent of conservative Republicans disapproved of Mr. Bush's job performance and only 13 percent disapproved of the war in Iraq.

These results suggest that John McCain's efforts to woo GOP conservatives by stressing his support for the war and his determination to continue President Bush's policies if he is elected are likely to cost him support among moderate-to-liberal Republicans in November. Further evidence of this danger to Mr. McCain can be seen in turnout patterns in some recent presidential primaries.

Turnout in the Democratic presidential primaries this year has greatly exceeded turnout in Republican presidential primaries. Moreover, evidence from exit polls indicates that in states with open primary laws that make it easy for voters to cross party lines, a good many Republicans have been casting ballots in Democratic primaries. Evidence of this can be seen in two states with open primary laws that held their presidential primaries in February: Virginia and Wisconsin.

Based on the overall turnout in the Democratic and Republican primaries in these states and estimates from the exit polls of the size of the crossover vote in each party's primary, we can calculate that about 16 percent of Republican voters in Virginia and 25 percent of Republican voters in Wisconsin cast their ballots in the Democratic primary. In contrast, only 2 percent of Democratic voters in Virginia and 3 percent of Democratic voters in Wisconsin cast their ballots in the Republican primary.

Both Virginia and Wisconsin are likely to be battleground states in the November election. The fact that one seventh of Republican voters in Virginia and one fourth of Republican voters in Wisconsin chose to participate in the Democratic primary should be a clear warning signal to the McCain campaign, especially if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. According to the exit polls, 72 percent of Republicans who voted in these Democratic primaries cast their ballots for Obama. Obama's ability to lure large numbers Republican crossover voters in these Democratic primaries indicates that there could be a high rate of defection to Obama among moderate-to-liberal Republicans in the November election, especially if John McCain continues to focus on shoring up his support among GOP conservatives.

10 Reason Why Obama Slipped

Published in the Progressive

As it became clear that Hillary Clinton was gaining ground on Obama, especially in the last week, his usually flawless campaign made several blunders. Here, in order of importance, are ten reasons why Obama slipped.

1. NAFTA Flap

When Obama’s leading economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with a Canadian official and allegedly told him that Obama’s stated views on NAFTA during the campaign amounted to “political posturing,” this was a huge blunder. It undercut Obama’s attack on Clinton for NAFTA, where she was vulnerable, especially in Ohio. It raised serious issues about Obama’s credibility with the American public, which is just getting to know him. (Especially since Obama first denied that the comment was ever made.) And the NAFTA flap called into question his leadership abilities. As I’ve been saying for days, and as Paul Begala said Tuesday night on CNN, as soon as this story surfaced, Obama should have said that Goolsbee was not speaking for the campaign and should have given Goolsbee the heave-ho. Instead, the Goolsbee comment keeps stinging him.

2. Rezko

It certainly didn’t help the Obama campaign that Tony Rezko’s trial began on Monday. The Rezko story has been lying around like a pulled hand grenade next to Obama’s headquarters for months now. Rezko is the Chicago wheeler-dealer who stands accused of money laundering and extorting bribes. He’s a longtime friend, funder, and supporter of Obama’s. And he helped Obama buy his house in Chicago. The Rezko ties, which the media finally began digging into, cast a shadow not only on Obama’s judgment but on his claim to want to clean up government.

3. A Blunder in the Last Debate

The Clinton camp wisely picked up on an Obama error in the Cleveland debate. Clinton had criticized him for never holding an oversight hearing on NATO’s role in Pakistan, even though he chairs a subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that deals with NATO. All Obama could say to that was, “I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” He all but admitted he shirked his duties to run for President! Clinton used this footage of Obama’s answer in an effective ad against him in the final week.

4. The Red Phone Ad

Negative advertising often works. That’s why we see it so much. And the “red phone” ad, I’m betting, did a lot to sow doubts in voters’ minds. Clinton almost split the male vote in Ohio and Texas, which is a huge switch for her. This ad helped position her as the “tough” candidate.

5. No Effective Counterpunch to Clinton’s “Fighter” Image

In the last debate, and in her speeches in the final week, Clinton stressed that she was a fighter not only for herself but for people in need. This resonated with the public, who admire her if for no other reason than she’s taken a lot of hits but keeps coming out of her corner with her head high. And this image contrasts well with Obama in two ways: First, it suggests that he’s all talk and no action. And second, it hints that his cool, low-key demeanor may not be steely enough either to take on McCain or to represent the country.

6. A Weak Economic Message

With the economy sliding deeper and deeper downward, Obama needs to strengthen his economic message. Throughout the campaign, Clinton has been beating him on the urgent issue of home foreclosures (calling for a moratorium, and a freeze on interest rates). He’s been slow to respond.

7. Too much time in Ohio

In the two weeks after the Wisconsin primary, Obama spent an inordinate amount of time in Ohio when all he needed to do, as Bill Clinton himself recognized, was to win either Texas or Ohio. As it became clearer that Ohio was going to be the tougher nut, Obama should have concentrated more of his time in Texas.

8. An Improvident Trip to Rhode Island

For some ridiculous reason, Obama went to Rhode Island on Saturday to campaign. By all accounts, he was always going to lose Rhode Island. And he needed that day—just three days before the primaries—to round up more Texas voters.

9. Failure to Bring Bill Richardson and John Edwards on Board

On Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico was one breath away from endorsing Barack Obama. Had Obama grabbed his endorsement (even in exchange for serious V.P. consideration, which Richardson was salivating about), Richardson could have done Obama a world of good with Latino voters in Texas. Similarly, Obama has been unable to seal the deal with John Edwards, who seemed such a natural fit with Obama during the debates. Obama needed to get Edwards’s endorsement for help among working class white voters. And it would have been of enormous help in Ohio.

10. SNL, Jon Stewart, Letterman

“Saturday Night Live” helped Clinton out two weeks in a row by showing the media as biased in favor of a hapless Obama. And Clinton made a conscious effort to inject some warmth into her personality by appearing on the show last Saturday, and by appearing on Jon Stewart Monday night. She also has done herself well by being cozy with David Letterman.

McCain Seizes the Republican Nomination

John McCain capped one of the most remarkable political comebacks in American history by seizing the Republican nomination Tuesday. With decisive victories in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, McCain surged past the needed 1,191 delegates to win the GOP nod.

Mike Huckabee, the last remaining obstacle in McCain’s path, withdrew from the race and offered his support to McCain. Minutes later, McCain took the stage along with his wife, Cindy, to thank voters from the four states and claimed the prize he was denied eight years ago by President George W. Bush.

“And I am very, very grateful and pleased to note that tonight, my friends, we have won enough delegates to claim with confidence, humility and a great sense of responsibility that I will be the Republican nominee,” McCain said Tuesday to loud applause from supporters.

On Wednesday, McCain begins the process of taking over the party apparatus from the man he lost to in 2000. He’ll meet in the White House with Bush and then head over to the Republican National Committee to meet with Chairman Mike Duncan and top officials there.

The symbolic meetings are meant to convey a passing of the torch and to underscore McCain’s role as the party’s standard bearer. It is a role few saw McCain fulfilling when his campaign crashed last summer. Broke, reduced to only a handful of loyal aides and plummeting in the polls, McCain hung tough and pinned his longshot hopes on a New Hampshire victory and the GOP electorate’s reluctance to embrace any of his rivals. Which is exactly what happened.

McCain noted his improbable success tonight, calling it “an accomplishment that once seemed to more than a few doubters unlikely.” And when Mitt Romney withdrew from the race on February 7th, it became nearly inevitable that McCain would win his party’s nomination.

After Huckabee called him to concede Tuesday, it became official. "My commitment to him and the party is to do everything possible to unite our party, but more important to unite our country so that we can be the best we can be,” Huckabee told his supporters in nearby Irving after placing the call to McCain. McCain returned the favor by calling Huckabee his friend and “a great and fine and decent American.”

In his speech, McCain previewed his coming general election themes – reiterating that he would make the war central to the debate. “I will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime,” McCain said to applause from the Republican crowd, before adding a reminder for the broader audience at home, “as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country's interests secure and our honor intact.”

He also suggested he would hew to the traditional GOP line of attack by labeling the candidate who emerges as his Democratic opponent as insufficiently devoted to free enterprise and overly wedded to government solutions. “I will leave it to my opponents to claim that they can keep companies and jobs from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business here at home,” McCain said, promising “lower taxes and less regulation.” “I will leave it to my opponent to propose returning to the failed, big government mandates of the sixties and seventies to address problems such as the lack of health care insurance for some Americans,” he said, promising health care reforms and cost control measures that don’t endanger the current system.

Despite the elation of the moment, McCain and the GOP face a difficult task. Retaining the White House for three consecutive terms is no easy feat. And with an unpopular Republican incumbent, deep concerns about an uncertain war, a shaky economy and a better-funded and more-energized Democratic party, it will be that much more challenging for the Republicans to win this fall.

“The party obviously has to regain its brand on fiscal responsibility,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a up-and-coming young conservative present at the McCain party Tuesday. But he said McCain, with his hawkish spending credentials and cross-over appeal, was well-positioned at a time when the party is imperiled and in need of a makeover.

And Republicans have something else going for them – a hard-fought Democratic race that apparently will continue past Tuesday. “I never thought I would root for Hillary Clinton, but it’s going to be fun watching this thing go on for a while,” said Hensarling with a smile.

Dems Can't Make Up Their Minds

By Gary Andres
My two younger kids love to watch the NBC television game show "Deal or No Deal." Contestants pick a suitcase that could include up to $1 million in cash. And then, guided by host Howie Mandel, they sweat out a series of decisions between accepting a known offer of money to buy their suitcase (for less than a million) or playing on in hopes of winning the big prize.

It's a nerve-wracking process, and the players express wild swings in emotions including fear, greed, doubt, joy and anguish. In the end, some are ecstatic winners and others disappointed losers -- and the calculus of choice is often agonizing and exhausting. It kind of reminds me of the Democratic primary process.

Over the past week, Barack Obama's inevitability has appeared less certain, his political mortality more evident than ever. How the process will end remains unclear, but there is a growing sense among Democrats that choosing Mr. Obama is not a risk-free exercise. Is he the suitcase with the million-dollar jackpot or a risky political bust?

Several factors contribute to a growing sense of anxiety about the Obama drama. First, how does he handle big political stumbles? The answer: like a minor leaguer. In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

This week's heightened press scrutiny on several issues, like the trade matter, made the Illinois senator's cool approach to difficult questions look clumsy for the first time. At a minimum, it lowers "Saint Obama" a few notches off his heavenly perch. How to define victory is also beginning to raise doubts among Democratic voters. As Jay Cost accurately points on his HorseRaceBlog at RealClearPolitics.com, while Mr. Obama likely will maintain his lead among pledged delegates due to the proportional nature of the selection process, wins for Sen. Hillary Clinton in big states like Texas and Ohio continue to close the popular vote gap. As Mr. Cost argues, if you add in the disputed Michigan and Florida results (both states were stripped of delegates due to holding their primaries early), it wipes out most of Mr. Obama's lead in the popular vote.

If Mrs. Clinton does well in the remaining primary states, she could conceivably come out on top in the popular vote, while still lagging behind in pledged delegates. As Mr. Cost observes, that could represent a compelling argument to superdelegates and might tip the balance in her favor.
Mrs. Clinton's performance among key Democratic constituencies also raises doubts about the Obama candidacy. She reasserted her strong showing among lower-income whites, union members, seniors and the all-important Hispanic vote, according to exit polls.

Other surveys demonstrate another ominous finding: There are more Democrats willing to vote for Mr. McCain than Republicans crossing over to support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. If Mr. Obama were to capture the nomination, disappointment among Hispanics and lower-income whites could provide a big plus for Mr. McCain in the general election.

Finally, Democrats express other worries about how Obama matches up against Mr. McCain in the general election. The efficacy of Mrs. Clinton's "3 a.m." national security ad suggests Democrats sense Mr. Obama's vulnerability on the key issue of keeping America safe. Mr. McCain could easily capitalize on those concerns. Moreover, Mr. Obama faces ongoing risk in the gap between his rhetoric and his record. When it comes to bipartisan talk versus bipartisan action, the contrasts between Mr. Obama's talk without action and Mr. McCain's record on issues -- ranging from immigration to judges to environmental policy, to name a few -- could produce some devastating results.

Until Tuesday, it looked like Democrats had reached a collective decision, but that now appears in doubt. Do they take the risk, choose the unknown and possibly win the big prize? Or, do they go back to the original frontrunner, who carries her own set of risks and baggage? Or, do Democrats choose another solution -- one that several pundits and superdelegates now suggest more openly: Why not a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket?

The only thing missing is a deal about who gets top billing. Maybe Democrats need Howie Mandel, not Howard Dean.