Campaigns like people go through life phases, and nothing can be more distressing to a candidate and his/her supporters as when journalists start reporting a political death rattle. That now seems to be the stage of the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

You can hear the characterizations in the reports of TV news journalists and read references to it in some news reports. MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported that Senator Clinton knows the race is over. But it now seems like that narrative in a campaign’s cycle has kicked in, given a report in the New York Times:

On the day Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed by the governor of North Carolina, a supporter gave her a three-foot-long balloon replica of herself, complete with blond hair, black pantsuit and wide pink smile, which Mrs. Clinton promptly took on her plane and laughingly showed off to reporters.

On Thursday, little more than two weeks later, the doll lay on the sofa by her seat on the plane, shriveled and deflated.

With her candidacy running out of time — and perhaps air — the Clinton campaign has taken on a distinctly subdued mood.

Mrs. Clinton found herself largely ignored on Friday while a battle raged between Senator Barack Obama on one hand and Senator John McCain and President Bush on the other.

This has been a week of agony and ecstasy for the Clintons - and she could face the same kind of week again.
Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t take politics TOO seriously, enjoy it with the Capitol Steps!

TUNE IN your radio to these fine public radio stations for the April Fool’s Day edition of “Politics Takes a Holiday”

MSNBC:

BREAKING NEWS: Huckabee concedes defeat: ‘I fought the good fight’

A MUST READ from The Washington Post.

I could point you to more bandwidth and pulp that contains information you should know as you monitor headlines and the Internet over the next three days for any and all news related to the Democratic presidential primary competition between Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL) than you would ever be able to consume, but what will any of that tell you that you can’t already figure out if you’re enough of a wonk or wonkabee that you’re reading this blog post or this blog at all?

If it sounds like I’m eschewing most of the conventional wisdom, nothing new there.

However, if you want the down and dirty news you can use version, a crash course in how to manage what will be unleashed by voters in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont, here’s Jill’s Must-Read Before You Rant List:

Morra Aarons: Who You Gonna Call? Obama, or Hillary? (be sure to see the open dissent flourishing in a civilized way in the comments)

Polls, polls and more polls

Clinton’s last ad, Obama’s last ad

How we hope Texas voters remember to do the Texas Two-Step (thank you, Dori!)

Predictions from inside Ohio on how many will vote (52%), weather and winning and delegate totals by congressional district

Anxiety over whether Ohio’s voting system will work (the Plain Dealer asks if we’re ready)

An informal poll of whether Ohioans are voting at all, absentee or in person (guess before you look; my hint to you is, well, if you read all the stories we do here about confusion and cynicism around the system…)

A video of a townhall session the Cuyahoga County BOE had last Wednesday (the post at that link has an excellent rundown of key points from the meeting)

To give background to why Ohio suffers from Post-Traumatic Voter Disorder, I wrote this post in 8/06 which links to a Salon article about six cases of voter suppression. I wrote, in response to Salon’s shameful six which included Ohio and Ken Blackwell, the following: Read the rest of this entry »

From the Ohio Poll (it’s a PDF) (dates taken: 2/28/-3/2):

Clinton 51%
Obama 42
Edwards 6
ME: 3.9%

Republican:

McCain 53%
Huckabee 24%

ME: 5.4%

I sense Clinton will pull it out in Ohio but it’s hard to say. The most disturbing thing I’m seeing in the Ohio blogs is a mini-blog swarm about how Clinton is paying people $10/hour to get out there for her, when I know for a fact that ACORN is paying people very well to do the exact same of Obama - I’ve even emailed the bloggers writing about the Clinton pay with the letter from ACORN asking me to help spread the word about paying people to canvass for Obama and so on - still, nothing posted from them.

This is part of what bothers me about Obama’s campaign - it’s like the voting present and the it’s okay because he’s my friend. I know a lot of people don’t agree with my take, but it’s a pattern of how Obama deals - he doesn’t. He does what some might call staying above the fray, but in a president, don’t we need someone who will get right into the fray and maybe even do things that start the fray?

Editor’s note: A controversy raged yesterday in the blogosophere (but not as much in the mainstream news media) over a Canadian news report involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, his position on NAFTA and what his camp might or might have not privately told the Canadian government. Weblogs in many cases took predictable partisan positions. In this Guest Post blogger Kathy Kattenburg looks at the new media/political furor surrounding the story. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

Obama, NAFTA, Canada And The Blogosphere

by Kathy Kattenburg

Yesterday, a new controversy blew up over a report by Canadian CTV alleging that an Obama campaign staffer had contacted the Canadian embassy and told an official there that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA is “just campaign rhetoric.”

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.”

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

“Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,” the spokesperson said.

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

During Tuesday’s debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA “unless we renegotiate it.”

Despite the fact that (a) the Obama “campaign staffer” was not named, and that (b) the allegations in the story were blindly sourced — meaning that the article does not state how they got this information, who told them about the campaign staffer, who they interviewed for the story — Clinton supporters jumped on the charges without hesitation:

… The above should be even more alarming to the Obama campaign than the other video being circulated. A report out of Canada says Obama’s promise on NAFTA is just words. …

When contacted, an Obama aide basically delivers a non-denial denial, as you can see in the video. Obama keeps his promises? What kind of blathering is that? When you think about Obama’s moves on Exelon, rewriting legislation for them, juxtaposed against him telling Iowa voters tougher legislation had passed, instead of the truth, I’ve done enough research on the guy to know when smoke is being blown for votes. Obama’s team is not denying the conversation CTV is reporting and it’s quite plausible the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value, and to add, because Obama has no intention of doing what he’s campaigning on with regards to NAFTA. Obama welshing on his pledge to take public financing for the general election also comes to mind. It’s not like Obama hasn’t said one thing then done another before.

Over the screaming headline Shocker: Obama Reveals Fake Stand on NAFTA, Larry Johnson writes:

A Canadian medical professional (no more to protect anonymity) reports to me: “This story made headlines tonight in Canada in all major Canadian news networks. Barack Obama has been caught lying. Spread this as much as you can because it is true and factually supported. I think the people of Ohio as well as the rest of America, deserve to know this.”

(Original) Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Canadian media reveal Obama’s posture on NAFTA is solely “campaign rhetoric.” …
[snip]
Oh, that bamboozler. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re the head of state or diplomatic corps, or one of the chief politicians or government officials, for the hundreds of nations across the world. Wouldn’t you read this article and wonder WHICH OBAMA you’ll be dealing with, and IF he means anything he says?

The blogosphere has been buzzing about this story since early yesterday morning. Unfortunately, even bloggers who are not dedicated Clinton partisans — even some who like Obama – kinda lost their critical faculties on this one and accepted it at face value, despite the red flags all over it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Almost a year ago, the Crystal Ball took a first crack at listing the vice presidential possibilities in both parties (LINK). The list has held up surprisingly well. But the justifications for various candidacies have changed, and now that we know John McCain will make the choice, it’s time for reconsideration. (We’ll await the unofficial crowning of the Democratic nominee to play this game on the Democratic side, unless Democrats keep the game tied through the spring. Our discipline can only last so long.)

Let’s start by revising and extending our earlier remarks, and asking the most important question. Ideally, what does a presidential candidate need in a VP ticket-mate? Here are the most important elements, and a second-banana nominee ought to meet most of these criteria:

I showed up a few minutes early yesterday to pick up Adorable Child from a birthday party, and as has happened with nearly every adult encounter in the last week, another parent and I began talking about the primary election. While people eddied about us (including an entire family decked out in Obama t-shirts), our dialogue ran along now-familiar lines: he watched the Democratic debate in Austin last week; he still isn’t sure he’s fully informed; he’s leaning toward Obama.

Having these conversations is odd in its own right; I can’t remember ever talking with strangers about politics prior to now. More strange, though, is that nearly every person I’ve talked with has turned out to be a Republican who is a) not impressed with their candidate choices, and b) thinking of asking for a Democratic ballot in this primary.

I’m seeing this everywhere, from my own household to Texas bloggers… and many of them (though not all) sound like this (from the Houston Chronicle):

Michael Jones, a 39-year-old self-described conservative Republican who is involved in marketing, said he will cast his vote for Obama in the primary “so Hillary gets out.”

But he isn’t enamored of Obama, a first-term senator whose experience has come under fire from both Clinton and McCain.

“I just wish he would get some substance,” Jones said. Yet Jones said he is undecided about the general election because he doesn’t like McCain, whom he described as “just another Washington senator.”

Not exactly a ringing endorsement — for anyone – but my overall impression is that both McCain and Clinton are in trouble down here.

In my own neighborhood, I’ve seen only one yard sign… and it’s for Mike Huckabee. Similarly, although the early voting location near me is plastered with campaign signs for various candidates, there are none for McCain. And when I posted about that yesterday, the only commenter said, “How can one possibly get excited by a candidate who is soon to be an octogenarian, for crying out loud!“

Yet there’s something more than Republican apathy and anti-Clintonitis going on here in my crimson corner of Texas… because while Fort Bend County includes CD22 (the former seat of Tom Delay), and CD14 (Ron Paul’s district), we have this (from Fort Bend Now, our local online news):

In a county known as a bastion of GOP conservatism, more than twice as many Democrats have cast ballots in early voting so far than Republicans. […]

According to early voting totals compiled by the Fort Bend County Elections Administration, 7,563 people had cast ballots in the Democratic primary as of the end of the day Friday, while just 3,677 did so in the Republican primary.

That represents a major reversal from March 2006 primary numbers, when 9,101 Fort Bend County residents cast early ballots in the Republican primary, while a scant 1,619 cast ballots in the Democratic primary.

Major reversal indeed.

For a wide variety of reasons, it seems that people are highly motivated to participate in this primary. They’ve been energized enough to have conversations, watch the debates, do the research… and most importantly, to vote.

And many of them are voting as Democrats.

It probably won’t make much of a difference for McCain, but if it’s true that Hillary must win both Texas and Ohio to stay in the nomination race, then judging from activity in my neck of the woods, she’s in even bigger trouble than recent polls indicate.

(Cross-posted from Polimom Says…)

What do people in Latin America think about Barack Obama’s difficulties with Hispanics? In the first article of its kind translated by WORLDMEETS.US, Alfredo Toro Hardy of Venezuela’s El Universal writes, ‘Curiously the biggest obstacle to overcoming the taboo that closes off the White House to non-Whites comes from Hispanics. The Hispanic community, which has always played a decisive role in opening the racial floodgates, is now being transformed into the last containment wall to the arrival of a Black man to the U.S. Presidency.’

By Alfredo Toro Hardy

Translated By Barbara Howe

February 14, 2008

Venezuela - El Universal - Original Article (Spanish)

Like a bulldog and despite having no chance of winning, Mike Huckabee refuses to withdraw from the Republican contest. That obliges John McCain to devote time and energy to prevailing over him instead of concentrating on reorganizing the party to confront the Democrats. Moreover, the face-off with Huckabee implies a confrontation with the Christian right and the more conservative elements of the party.

Meanwhile, this difficult effort to differentiate himself from Huckabee threatens to distance McCain from this high-powered faction of the Republican Party, which has so many financial and media resources to draw upon and such a capacity to mobilize voters.

This is a component of the party that McCain has never liked, but without their participation it will be difficult for him to win in November. It seems inevitable that this will lead McCain to forge an agreement between Huckabee and those factions that back him, perhaps offering him the Vice Presidential ticket. In that case, McCain will alienate many of the independent and centrist voters that that support him, and which he needs to prevail over the Democrats. McCain finds himself caught between the conflicting demands of winning the support of the Christian right and of centrists.

The Democrats, however, are breaking the mould and making history. By some unknown method, a woman and a Black man, representatives of the country’s so-called minorities, are competing to run for the nation’s highest office. Breaking the gender barrier would be impressive, but overcoming the barrier of race would be much more so.

Curiously the biggest obstacle to overcoming the taboo that closes off the White House to non-Whites comes from Hispanics. The Hispanic community, which has always played a decisive role in opening the racial floodgates, is now being transformed into the last containment wall to the arrival of a Black man to the U.S. Presidency.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.

Is the system of American electoral primaries really in the national interest? According to some on the other side of the Atlantic, the answer is an emphatic no. Philippe Marliere writes for France’s Rue 89, that not only are people around the world ‘exasperated,’ and demanding to know, ‘why the BBC is paying such costly attention to non-decisive votes more than ten months before the presidential election,’ he continues that, ‘With few exceptions, the primaries create a democratic parody, from which the main socio-political stereotypes and prejudices emerge reinforced. … One could laugh at such practices if they weren’t about to appear in Europe.’

By Philippe Marlière, Translated By Kate Davis February 19, 2008 France - Rue89 - Original Article (French)

Never have the American primary elections generated such a strong and sustained interest in the rest of the world. Media coverage of the first vote held in the state of Iowa sparked a media frenzy that was out of all proportion to the importance of the event. The extraordinary candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side, and of John McCain on the Republican side, only partially explain this craze.

THE PUBLIC FATIGUE Read the rest of this entry »

KXAN in Austin, TX has commissioned two polls related to the Austin debate this evening. Read more here.

The results of the first poll, pre-debate, look like this:

If the election were held today, who would you vote for? Democrats:

Clinton 46%

Obama 45%

Undecided 9%

Margin of error: +/- 4%

If the election were held today, who would you vote for? Republicans:

Huckabee 30%

McCain 52%

Paul 9%

Undecided 9%

Margin of error: +/- 4%

Voter interest is high for the March 4 primary and as Texas plays a role in deciding the nominee, the expected voter turnout is historic.

Do you plan to vote in the March 4 primary?

Age	Democrat	Republican
18-39	55%	45%
40-59	61%	39%
60+	49%	51%

Hattip to Liza at Culture Kitchen who adds:

They are going to conduct the poll again after the debate. What’s really interesting is the reason why they chose the company conducting the poll, Constituents Dynamics:

Our second poll will be conducted after Thursday’s debate with results airing next week. Both polls are being conducted by Constituent Dynamics, a Seattle-based company which uses an automated polling method. We chose the company, because the automated method increases sample size (1,340 registered voters) and includes calls to voters on their cell phones.

I’m really curious if they keep demographic information during these polls beyond the age range. I’m particularly interested to know the ethnic and racial composition of the first age bracket, the 18-39s. I’d love to know if the majority is minority, which is the trend of millennials.

And so voters in yet another primary state that Hillary Clinton never took seriously enough in her march to inevitability have added more fuel to Barack Obama’s improbable quest, putting her a step closer to possible electoral oblivion.

Another chapter was writ large in the extraordinary saga of the firestorm versus the firewall last night as Obama beat Clinton by a 58 to 41 percent margin in Wisconsin for his ninth straight win. To put Clinton’s loss in stark relief, there was nothing positive in her showing and she did almost as poorly as Mike Huckabee in his lopsided loss to John McCain in a state that she had been expected to win.

Obama also easily won the Hawaii caucuses after a record turnout to increase his overall lead in convention delegates and the primary popular vote.

Losing Wisconsin and a big chunk of its 74 delegates should be a mere bump in the road for Clinton. But she now finds herself having to decisively win her firewall state primaries — Texas and Ohio on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22 — or her coronation may be on hold indefinitely.

Read the rest of this entry »

Barack Obama and John McCain were the winners of their respective parties’ presidential primaries in Wisconsin today. Obama appears ready to win the Democratic caucuses in Hawaii and McCain in the Republican caucuses in Washington, each candidate winning the sole contests happening in their respective party.

The math is inexorable. Mike Huckabee cannot defeat McCain for the Republican nomination. And only a collective decision on the part of the Democrats’ superdelegates to ignore the verdicts of primary and caucus voters this election season, the political equivalent of drinking Jonestown Cool-aid, would result in a Clinton nomination. In order for the superdelegates to go for Clinton in a big way and deny Obama the nomination he’s earning, she will have to roll up massive majorities here in Ohio and in Texas in two weeks. Unless Obama self-destructs, that won’t happen.

So, both Huckabee and Clinton need to design their end games.
Read the rest of this entry »

It’s hard to imagine the impact of a visit by an American head of state on an obscure country like Benin, but one can get a gist of it by reading the almost unimaginable local coverage of President Bush’s visit. According to this article from Benin’s Liberte, “An accurate accounting of the American Number One’s praise is capable of raising the Boni Yayi regime to a well-deserved pedestal. Judge for yourselves! … ‘It’s not by chance that I started with Benin,’ George Bush commented, adding: ‘I am visiting serious governments.’ Thus, the White House statement raised the Beninese government to the rank of a great student of democracy. … It was Bush who decreed the axis of evil and who ‘divinely’ proclaims the nations of virtue.”
By Sulpice O. Gbaguidi, By James Jacobson, February 18, 2008, Benin - Fraternite - Original Article (French)

With legitimate pride, [President] Boni managed the visit of the White House chief to Cotonou. And with reciprocating virtue, George Bush is “proud to be the first American President in Benin.” The United States came to buck up Benin’s chief of state in his management of change. When Bush communes with Yayi, and Laura bridges the gap with Chantal, Uncle Sam gladly sings, “The Dawn of a New Day” [Benin’s national anthem ]. Long live America, long live Benin. But the American dream has taken the form of a challenge as well.
This visit was seasoned with a healthy dose of statements by President Bush, which were event-driven Read the rest of this entry »

If you try really hard and know where to look, you can find the major presidential candidates’ positions on important issues. But you sure won’t learn these things from what passes in this country for prime time election coverage…

Election (Under)Coverage

The media treats this election
Like a sporting event where the need
Ain’t informing the voters’ ’bout issues
But simply who’s holding the lead.

I know Hillary’s demographics
I know that Obama speaks well
How either might govern the country
Is something my TV don’t tell.

McCain’s big comeback was covered
‘Bout Huckabee’s faith I have heard
Their plans for improving our futures
On prime time there’s nary a word.

The economy has people frightened
Foreign policy has many scared
Our next president’s plans for these matters
Talking heads could care less…
Ain’t that weird?

Copyright 2008 Michael Siliverstein

For more poetic commentary visit Wall Street Poet

NOTE: This is a special Guest Voice sent out by Political Scientist Larry Sabato, whose Crystal Ball is required — and reliable — reading for all political junkies and concerned citizens. Read and get it HERE.

THE ENTHUSIASM GAP
Voter engagement in the presidential race

By Alan I. Abramowitz
Special Guest Columnist

Dr. Alan Abramowitz is one of the most distinguished and best known political scientists in the United States today. He has a rare talent for distilling data into appealing, fascinating accounts about American politics, as you will see in his guest column for the Crystal Ball today. Alan is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States (2004, McGraw-Hill).
–Larry J. Sabato, U.Va. Center for Politics

There is a large enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters in this year’s presidential campaign. The gap is evident in polling data, crowds at campaign rallies, turnout in primary elections, and campaign contributions. In a January 10-13 Gallup Poll, for example, 74 percent of Democratic voters said that they were “more enthusiastic than usual” about voting this year compared with only 44 percent of Republican voters. Forty-eight percent of Republican voters said that they were “less enthusiastic than usual” about voting this year compared with only 15 percent of Democratic voters.

The Democratic advantage has also been evident in turnout in presidential primaries. On February 5th, Super Tuesday, almost 15 million voters participated in Democratic primaries compared with fewer than 9 million in Republican primaries. One week later, more than 1.8 million voters in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia participated in Democratic primaries compared with fewer than 800 thousand in Republican primaries. Even in Virginia, until recently considered a solidly red state, Democratic turnout more than doubled Republican turnout.

The Democratic advantage in turnout represents a big change from the 2000 presidential primaries, the last time both parties had competitive nomination races. In that year over 19 million votes were cast in Republican primaries compared with only 14 million in Democratic primaries.

Last but certainly not least, the leading Democratic candidates have raised far more money from individual contributors than their Republican counterparts. During 2007, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised a combined total of 208 million dollars from individual contributors. During the same period, the three leading Republican candidates, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, raised only 99 million dollars from individual contributors.

Like the Democratic advantage in primary turnout, the Democratic advantage in fundraising represents a reversal of the situation that existed during the 2000 presidential campaign. In that year, the two leading Republican candidates, George W. Bush and John McCain, raised a total of 130 million dollars from individual contributors while the two leading Democratic candidates, Al Gore and Bill Bradley, raised only 105 million dollars from individual contributors.

While the enthusiasm gap between the parties is real and important, there is also strong evidence of an enthusiasm gap within the Democratic Party: supporters of Barack Obama appear to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than supporters of Hillary Clinton. This difference is reflected in the larger crowds that Obama has been attracting at his campaign rallies and the larger number of individuals who have contributed to Obama’s campaign.

Although Obama and Clinton received about the same amount of money in individual contributions during 2007, 26 percent of Obama’s contributions came from individuals giving less than 200 dollars compared with only 12 percent of Clinton’s contributions. As a result, Obama’s contributor base was much larger than Clinton’s. And this gap appears to have expanded dramatically the first few weeks of 2008 according to reports issued by the two campaigns. As of the end of January, the Obama campaign claimed to have received contributions from over 350 thousand individuals while the Clinton campaign claimed to have received contributions from about 150 thousand.

Obama’s enthusiasm advantage may also explain his dominance thus far in the caucus states.
Read the rest of it HERE.

NOTE: This is a special Potomac Primaries edition of our famous Around The Sphere link-fest: it gives you reaction to weblogs of many different viewpoints on yesterday’s primaries and the political scene. Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.

REACTION TO THE VICTORIES OF DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA AND REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN IN THE VIRGINIA, MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON D.C. PRIMARIES:

– Don Surber:

The people in nearly 40 states have spoken and most Democrats prefer the junior senator from Illinois and more Republicans prefer McCain over the Huckster.

And 7 months out, Obama looks to be a lock in the general election.

The best the Huckster could do was lose by “only” 9 points in Virginia. McCain had majorities in all 3 states. We can talk about conservatives vs. RINOs all we want but the truth is the party does not belong only to those who pretend to speak for Ronald Reagan. A photo op with Nancy might make it clear that his name on some bad legislation aside, McCain is a conservative and has been since before Goldwater.

Obama’s campaign need not worry about superdelegates. They are like the Electoral College and will obey the will of the people of their states. They will side with him before Hillary departs this race. And Florida and Michigan will get full delegations.

–Andrew Sullivan:

She [Hillary Clinton] can’t win this on technicalities - without pitching the Democrats into a civil war. But does she even know how to concede?

–James Fallows:

I was feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton just now, when I saw the expression on her face as she waited to go onstage in El Paso. This process is so grueling. And the rejection, when it comes is so personal, in a way “normal” people never experience. Even a performer as professional as she couldn’t conceal the bone-tired, beaten-over look on her face.

But now, fifteen-plus minutes into a dreary recitation of policy-points that will do nothing to satisfy those who want her to say what her campaign is for, I am feeling less sorry. She has not had the grace to mention Barack Obama’s name, nor his existence or success…. This is not classy and does not help.

–Ed Morrissey:

Huckabee hasn’t won more than 45% in any state, and he didn’t get to 45% in Virginia last night, either. Virginia’s winner-take-all primary was his last hope of affecting McCain’s trajectory in any meaningful way, and he lost by nine — as I had predicted earlier in the day.

McCain has already started shifting his focus to the general election. He offered nothing but kindness to Huckabee, but began challenging Barack Obama. Expect to hear McCain repeatedly dismiss Obama’s platitudes on “hope” and get him into a debate on specific policies. Obama will lose that fight, but if he doesn’t engage McCain, he’ll look like an empty suit. McCain has a lot more time to focus on Obama than the reverse, and he can do some damage to Obama’s momentum among independents while Obama tries to finish off Hillary Clinton.

--Taylor Marsh:

Obama’s got everything going for him right now, including momentum. There’s only one thing he doesn’t have and that’s more scrutiny. Yet…Superdelegates will now come into play, but there’s also Michigan and Florida. Somebody in charge better get a firm grip, because these forces could collide….Tough going ahead for Clinton, but also for Obama as well, only for different reasons. The gloves will come off, if only subtly and more pointedly. Clinton is left with no other choice. As for Obama, he’s now going to have to tread on territory where he’s weakest. Defining himself. Better to do it now before the Republicans do it for him.

–The Liberty Papers:

McCain now stands just under 350 delegates short of clinching the nomination, and he’ll get it by March 4th….Not only did Barack Obama sweep the Potomac Primary, he did so decisively and, in Virginia, beat Clinton in almost every demographic category. That would seem to bode well for states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. More importantly, he’s ahead in the delegate count and, as Howard Fineman argued last night on MSNBC, there’s almost no way that Hillary can win based on the pledged delegates alone

Questions For The Future

As we head into the third act of this campaign, this seems to be what people will be talking about

1. How will the DNC handle the fact that Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates?
2. Will the Democratic superdelegates go against the popular vote?
3. Who’s in the running for McCain’s Veep?
4. Will there be a big third-party run?

Plenty to talk about, I would think.

Read the rest of this entry »

NBC has projected that Arizona Senator John McCain will be the winner of the Virginia and Maryland primaries — and has just projected he will win in Washington D.C. as well, virtually assuring what was already assured: that he will be his party’s 2008 Presidential nominee.

But McCain got good news — and bad news.

The good news is that exit polls shows that a large portion of Republicans — a chunk of conservative voters who don’t go along with conservative talk show hosts and that increasingly vanishing species called “moderate Republicans” — are willing to accept him. The bad news is that a hard-core group of conservatives, most typified by conservative media establishment types such as top radio talk show hosts, continue to reject him.

CNN reports:

Despite strong opposition from many conservative voters in Virginia’s GOP primary Tuesday, three-quarters of Republican voters surveyed said they would be satisfied with John McCain as the party’s standard-bearer in November.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is the Democratic Party about to rip itself asunder just before the general election begins? Pierre Rousselin of the Le Figaro warns, ‘For a party that thought it would prevail easily, in this division there is the germ of an identity crisis even more menacing, given that the Obama-Clinton duel risks deepening the fissures.’

By Pierre Rousselin

Translated By Kate Davis

EDITORIAL

February 7, 2008

France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
The first stage in the race for the White House just ended on a Super Tuesday that, as expected, turned the dual competition in a new direction.

In the Democratic camp, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton essentially tied. To break the tie, they’ll fight it out for a long time yet, perhaps up to the convention in August. In the interval, they are likely to divide the party, making it more difficult to mobilize voters when it’s time to win the battle in November.

Among Republicans, in contrast, John McCain rose to the top. He can begin preparing his strategy for a head-to-head with the man or woman who will prevail among Democrats. On both sides, the spectacle continues.

The first act was played under the banner of change. Very far behind and confronting a candidate who a bit too early had presented herself as inevitable, Barack Obama has surfed on the need for renewal, which is breaking over the United States at the end of two terms under the unpersuasive George W. Bush.

With panache, the Black candidate has emerged as a serious challenger capable of lifting peoples’ enthusiasm. On another note, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the strength of her organization and the seriousness of her program. She has stood up very well. For these two, the second act will be as hard fought as the first.

For the Republicans’ part, they have taken up the battle in great disorder, without really believing in it. The game had been very wide open before John McCain turned out to be the best. Despite his 71 years, he’s the one considered the new man, with an atypical candidacy that doesn’t really conform to the orthodoxy of the Republican Party. With no serous rival, he can begin organizing his camp.

READ THE REST ON WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.