Delegate Obsession Update [UPDATED Thurs 5/1. 2 PM]
It will take 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. That number goes up and down slightly as superdelegates are added and removed for various reasons.

Article 19 Delegate Projection (current pledged count + superdelegate projection + projection of upcoming states that have been polled)
Barack Obama--2053
Hillary Clinton--1955
(John Edwards--19)
Obama +98

Details below...

Current Pledged Delegate Count [UPDATED Sat. 4/26 3 PM to reflect PA results.]
Obama 1490
Clinton 1336
Obama +154

Current Superdelegate Count (and superdelegate projection, supposing the remaining split evenly)[UPDATED: Thurs 5/1 12 pm]
Obama 244 (389)
Clinton 260 (405)
Clinton +16 (+16)

Projection of upcoming states which have been polled (based on average of 3 recent polls, plus assuming undecideds break for Sen. Clinton 2:1) [UPDATED Thu 5/1 2 PM to reflect new polls in NC and IN.]

NC (115): Obama - 51.2 - 48.8 (59-56) O +3 [O +36k of 1.5m]
WV (28): Clinton - 67 - 33 (19-9) C +10 [C +134k of 400k]
IN (72): Clinton - 55.8 - 44.2 (40-32) C +8 [C +104.4k of 900k]
KY (51): Clinton - 69.9 - 30.1 (36-15) C +21 [C +199k of 500k]
OR (52): Obama - 54 - 46 (28-24) O +4 [O +48k of 600k]
SD (15): Obama - 52.6 - 47.4 (8-7) O +1 [O +4.2k of 100k]
PR (55): Clinton - 58.7 - 41.3 (32-23) C +9 [C +156.6k of 900k]

Obama 174
Clinton 214
Clinton +40
Clinton +505,800

Total (current pledged + projected superdelegate + projected polled states)
Barack Obama--2053
Hillary Clinton--1955
Obama +98

What's left to consider[UPDATED Mon 4/26 3 PM to reflect polling in PR, SD, OR]:
That still leaves 20 pledged delegates yet to be assigned from those yet to vote for which there are no polls: Guam (4) and Montana (16).

Calling Stevie T
If you are a longtime reader of this blog, you know that a common topic here relates to childhood development - even though I gots no children. I don't know how it got to be that way (a common topic that is, not my lack of children - that, I understand). Maybe it's fascinating because it's so darned perplexing, and because we do all have that in common: we once were children. Maybe it's because we all know that it's the one thing we really can't afford to screw up badly, I dunno. Anywho, a story on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday highlighted one (new?) philosophy toward what kids need and aren't getting so much these days: focusing on something curiously called "executive function."

Of course, everyone, chime in with your reaction. But I'm hoping our resident expert Stevie T will give us the scoop. Specifically, are these ideas new, this "Tools of the Mind" curriculum? Do they conflict with current standard ways of thinking? How does it comport with approaches like the Montessori school (not that I really know what that is)? What's up with this "executive function" lingo? Is that standard and old? Or a new buzz-phrase? I'm not giving any specifics here I know. You actually have to click through and listen to the story, or read it, but you can do it.

Only 326 Days
Until Bush's last. It can't get here soon enough.

The House on Wednesday approved a bill to extend more than $17 billion in tax credits and other incentives to encourage the production of energy from solar, wind and other renewable sources, and to promote energy conservation. The bill would be financed by ending tax incentives for oil and natural gas producers.

Democratic leaders in the House hailed the legislation as a step toward energy independence and a moral victory for protecting the environment, by encouraging production of clean alternative fuels. But the White House threatened to veto the bill, saying it would be a mistake to increase the tax burden on American oil companies.

Wouldn't want to do anything to burden the oil companies...

Does Prozac Work?
Maybe not.

When all the data was pulled together, it appeared that patients had improved - but those on placebo improved just as much as those on the drugs.
...
"Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe antidepressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed," says Kirsch. "This study raises serious issues that need to be addressed surrounding drug licensing and how drug trial data is reported."

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Oscar response
What did you think? I was most glad that the song from Once won, and Daniel Day-Lewis, though really he couldn't have lost.

Hillary
No longer believes in a "place called Hope." Sure does seem like a strange campaign strategy - uniting America around a shared sense of pessimism. Frank Rich has more on that subject, and says it much better than I could.

Sunday Deep Thought
Whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination had better win the general. If not, the supporters of the spurned will be pretty well insufferable.

Debate Watching
Who saw it? What did you think? I missed it myself. From the sounds of it, they both did well, and Hillary impressed all with a moving closing statement. I find it a bit humorous - if not, dare I say, ironic - that the Clinton campaign is now pinning its hopes on this one rhetorical debate moment turning around all the momentum in the race, when their major complaint about Obama is that he's all rhetoric and no substance. Even if those 10 seconds somehow changed the dynamics of the race in her favor, it will not be because of some substantive policy position or credential, or any of the things she is arguing should be the reason for choosing her.

But like I say, I missed it. Somebody who saw it, speak up.

McCain Scandal [UPDATED]
The NYTimes is reporting tonight - and MSNBC interrupted into its regular programming to announce it as breaking news - that John McCain had a friendly relationship with a female lobbyist that was troubling enough to his staff that they confronted both the Senator and the lobbyist in an attempt to to "save him from himself," during the 2000 presidential campaign. Most of the story frankly is not about the relationship, it's about the ongoing allegations that his relationship with lobbyists generally - from the Keating 5 on - belies his image as a staunchly ethical reformer.

Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.
...
He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

As a sex scandal, this is a bunch of crap. The scandal here is that Senator McCain is as vulnerable as the rest of them when it comes to lobbyist influence, and always has been.

[UPDATE: McCain just conducted a press conference to answer questions. In the pantheon of great sex-scandal-driven press conferences this one had to be the most boring ever]

Random Links
Not too much time to post lately. Here are some things I've been reading and thinking about though. Pick one and tell me what you think.

Law professor and author Larry Lessig is considering a run for Congress to fill the seat left vacant by recently deceased Tom Lantos. As I said to a friend about this, what if congressional races were filled with brilliant honorable forward-thinking people? I hope he runs and wins one for the nerd set. A nice 10-minute video at the website introduces the idea behind his candidacy.
----------
Don't look now but our year-to-year inflation rate is as high as it's been in decades.
----------
Obama gained somewhere around 20 delegates last night with big wins in WI and HI
----------
Bush's Presidential approval rating has plunged to 19%. How low can it go?

Pakistani Progress?
Military rule has been voted down, and Musharraf sounds willing to concede defeat, and for his party to become the opposition.

A key factor in the relatively smooth election was the decision of the new chief of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, to ensure that the military stayed out of the campaign and did not interfere on election day, analysts said.

General Kayani, in turn, appeared to be a promising partner for the United States, according to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph P. Biden, Jr., who also met with Mr. Musharraf on Tuesday.

Mr. Biden, who has criticized what he called the “Musharraf-centric” policy of the Bush administration, said that the new head of the army was a “rational man who understands the obligations and limitations of the military.”

One of the implicit arguments of the Bush administration has been that - his love of freedom fries not withstanding - military rule in Pakistan might not be such a bad thing because we need tight reins in such proximity to nuclear weapons. Hopefully a new coalition government there will bring more stability and not less. With things like that and news that Castro has resigned, it makes you wonder what the world will look like in 10 years or so. And which Bush will be President then?

For some insight and good questions, read Steve Clemons today.

MEDIA MONDAY
what have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Weekend Box Office
1. Jumper
2. Step Up 2 (God help us..)
3. The Spiderwick Chronicles
4. Fool's Gold
5. Definitely, Maybe

Article 19 Film Recommendation
I finally saw the film Winged Migration (2001) last week, a kind of documentary (nominated for an Oscar) showing the yearly travels of birds around the world. This will sound strange, but the footage of flying is astonishing. I know you think you know what it looks like - that you've seen birds fly before, but not like this, trust me. Here's the thing: as amazing as the pictures are, what you really have to see is the "making of" documentary in the DVD special features. As soon as I finished with the actual film, I was thinking "How the hell did they do that?" So, I flipped through to the extras and watched the background story. The answer was much more amazing than any I imagined.... one of the damnedest things I have ever seen, actually. It may have been more interesting than the film itself.

Any new podcasts worth listening to?

Article 19 Exclusive! The Most Complete Delegate Projection on the Internets [UPDATED Thurs. 2/26.--2 pm]

Barack Obama--1,868.5
Hillary Clinton--1,804
(John Edwards--26)

[Updated most recently to reflect: the latest superdelegate count, and the latest polls in RI, TX and OH. Obama's gains in polls in OH and especially TX makes the math virtually impossible for Hillary if they hold up on Mar. 4, even in this assume-things-goes-her-way scenario. All the trends - polls and superdelegate endorsements are trending Obama.]

So here you have it - the absolute best, most complete, most up to date, most rational delegate projections on all the Intertubes. If you're not into pointless number-crunching and obsessive displays of statistical fantasy, this is the part of the post where you may want to step away.

My starting point is this handy chart at demconwatch. There they have compiled current delegate counts by major news organizations. Some of those organizations are behind in projecting some states, and ahead in others, and some are just plain behind in keeping up with facts. For example, Tennessee has already made our delegate allotment basically official - we had our county conventions last week with firm delegate numbers in place - 40 for Clinton and 28 for Obama. As you can see though, on their list, only CNN has kept pace with that development. But CNN is behind in other states like Maryland, where The Green Papers has projected all delegates. So I'm adding each state with an eye toward whichever news org. has projected the most delegates - hoping that their projections might be based on something actually real.

CBS has alloted the most pledged delegates overall, 2,188 (Obama 1175, Clinton 1013) for an Obama lead of 162). When I add to that the states for which other organizations have projected more delegates (CO, DC, IL, MD, TN, WA, HI, WI, DA) - hopefully properly - that adds 28 for Hillary and 18.5 for Obama, giving Obama a lead of 152.5 pledged delegates to date, 1193.5-1041. (In CA and WA, where 2 different orgs. project all the delegates, but differently. I chose the total more beneficial to Hillary.) There are still l1.5 delegates not yet projected by any news organization: 9, for some reason, in CO, and 2.5 still to be allocated by Democrats Abroad.

Summary: Current pledged delegate count
Obama 1193.5
Clinton 1041
Obama +152.5

Looking Ahead: Poll-Based Speculation
Polls have been published for these upcoming states: VT, RI, TX, OH, NC, and PA. For the sake of argument and pointless speculation, let's assume the delegates shake out according to the average of the 3 most recent polls in each (if there are that many) with the leftover undecided number breaking to Hillary 2:1 to make things interesting. The results looks like this [percentage (delegates)]:
VT (15): Obama - 62.0 - 38.0 (9-6) O +3
RI (21): Clinton - 58.8 - 41.2 (12-9) C +3
OH (141): Clinton - 55.0 - 45.0 (78-63) C +15
TX (193): Clinton - 50.7 - 49.3 (98-95) C +3
PA (158): Clinton - 56.1 - 43.9 (89-69) C +20
NC (115): Obama - 52.3 - 47.7 (60-55) O +5

Those poll averages, plus sending the undecideds Hillary's way 2:1, would give her a net delegate gain in those 6 states of 33 (338-305), cutting Obama's overall 152.5 pledged delegate lead to 119.5, 1498.5 - 1379.

Summary: Delegate Projections for Upcoming States Based on Poll Averages, Assuming Undecideds Break for Clinton 2:1

Obama 305
Clinton 338
Clinton +33

Summary: Current Pledged Delegate Count PLUS Projected Pledged Delegate Count in Upcoming Polled States
Obama 1498.5
Clinton 1379
Obama +119.5

That still leaves 349.5 pledged delegates yet to be assigned - the 11.5 in the section above from CO, plus 338 from those others yet to vote for which there are no polls: Wyoming (12), Mississippi (33), Guam (4), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Montana (16), South Dakota (15) and Puerto Rico (55).

What's Left? Can Hillary Win the Pledged Delegates?
If Obama keeps her that far away (119.5) after the 6 states above, as the polls suggest she could, overtaking Obama in pledged delegates would require a Clinton win of the remaining 349.5 delegates by a count of 235-114.5, a margin of 67.2%-32.8%. That would put her ahead in pledged delegates 1614-1613, with only the Edwards 26 delegates left out there to account for the total 3,253 pledged delegates in the whole process (absent FL and MI). The problem for her there is that 128 of those remaining are in states (WY, MS, OR, MT, SD) that would seem to favor Obama, given the way others have gone. If she even managed to tie him in those, she would have to win the rest 171-50.5, a margin of 77.2%-22.8% to accomplish that gain and take a pledged delegate lead heading into the Convention. Impossible.

She will have to significantly outperform current polls in TX and OH to have a chance at the pledged delegate lead.

That's why she faces such a tall order in the pledged delegate count, and why her strategy to ignore smaller states has been such a disaster. Even giving her the benefit in the close calls, and if she wins OH by only 10 and TX by only 5, it won't matter if she crushes PA 60-40 and splits delegates in those later states that seem to favor Obama. She still has to dominate what's left.

Back to the Present: Add in the Superdelegates
Back to our status now - with Obama leading by 152.5. DemConWatch has the most open count of the superdelegates anywhere. They give Hillary a superdelegate lead of 54, 239-185. If we add those in, that cuts Obama's current lead to 98.5. As things stand now, combining pledged delegates and superdelegates who have endorsed, Obama leads by that margin, 1377.5-1278

Summary: Current Pledged Delegates + Current Superdelegate Endorsements
Obama 1377.5
Clinton 1278
Obama +98.5

Superdelegates have been trending slightly Obama lately. By the time of the Convention, there will be 795 total. If the 379 left to endorse split evenly - no reason to think they won't - 186-185, for Hillary let's say - the superdelegate total would be 425-370, Clinton +55.

Superdelegate Projection Summary
Obama 370
Clinton 425
Clinton +55

Add it all together
Add that superdelegate projection to the current pledged delegates count (1193.5-1041, O) and the poll-driven projection of 6 upcoming states above (338-305, C), that would have Obama in the lead 1,868.5-1,804 in the official Article 19 Delegate Projection. Separated by 64.5 delegates. First one to 2,025 wins.

That leaves us essentially tied with the 349.5 other pledged delegates yet to be determined, as described above. Plus John Edwards' 26. But it requires an awful lot of things to go Hillary's way to get her just to tied. She has to hope that a huge win in March goes hand-in-hand with a surge in superdelegates to create momentum allowing her to dominate the late states and get close, then make the case that the primary participants across the country have narrowly made the wrong decision for the party. He has to not screw up, and hold on to his superdelegates.

If Hillary doesn't gain at least 40-50 delegates in OH and TX combined, her hope of gaining the pledged delegate lead before the convention is virtually nonexistent, barring a major change in the dynamics of the race.

A couple of notes:
1. Assuming Obama maintains a pledged delegate lead heading into the convention, there will be plenty of pressure on superdelegates to not overturn that decision. I don't know that Hillary could count on an even split of the remaining superdelegates in such a case.

2. There's something funny about Puerto Rico, which has 55 pledged delegates, the last to be determined, in June. In the Wikipedia article I read for help with the numbers, there is this note:

Puerto Rico issue

Journalists at several news outlets have indicated that in the tradition of the island's party politics, Puerto Rico's 63 delegates will all be awarded to a single candidate and not necessarily follow the majority of the popular vote. This would give Puerto Rico Democratic Party leaders the greatest single influence in the 2008 primary, with a 43% greater disparity than the California primary produced. In contrast, the party's Delegate Selection Plan states that delegates are to be allocated in a manner similar to other state caucuses.

I don't know what that means exactly. If it means the PR caucus can be counted on to result in a unanimous, or near unanimous selection, it would end up being one of the largest prizes of all, which may be why Hillary has opened a campaign office there, despite its late date.

Democrats in Congress
Showing some backbone. We might as well take notice and applaud to reward good behavior. The White House's anger here is illogical to the point of stupidity. Bush is basically saying Democrats are failing to protect Americans - actually endangering lives - by letting recent changes to the FISA law expire, but he can't possibly give in on telecom immunity, which would restore those changes. He's essentially saying that protecting telecom companies is more important than protecting the lives of supposedly endangered Americans. Good for the House for calling his bluff.

The sad part is, usually that would have worked for him.

John Lewis
Switches to Obama.

Bio-fuel Won't Help
The Washington Post yesterday reported on a study looking into the ramifications of using ethanol and other bio-fuels as a tool in the fight against GHG-induced global warming. Their finding? By the time you clear off all the land necessary grow the crops , you might as well just burn gasoline.

One study -- written by a group of researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University along with an agriculture consultant -- concluded that over 30 years, use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline. Another analysis, written by a Nature Conservancy scientist along with University of Minnesota researchers, found that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades, if not centuries.

Tim Searchinger, who conducts research at Princeton and the D.C-based German Marshall Fund of the United States, said the research he and his colleagues did is the first to reveal the hidden environmental cost of producing biofuels.

"The land we're likely to plow up is the land that we've had taking up carbon for decades," said Searchinger, the lead author. Estimating that it would take 167 years before biofuel would stop contributing to climate change, he added, "We can't get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits."

The climate change problem needs a bold set of solutions. Ethanol has always been presented as a kind of half measure. Now we know it's worse than that. Like Kevin Drum says, now that the Iowa caucus is long gone, maybe we can get away from pandering to the corn crowd with policies that won't work.

Momentum
Election talk is getting tired, I know. So much more out there and all. Still, as a junkie it's hard not to focus on such a fascinating and close race. Today, I'm wondering this: after Super Tuesday, Clinton folks were saying that they knew Obama had an advantage in February and would win delegates, and that she would have the advantage after that with bigger states worth more. Hard to argue with that analysis, looking at the states in question. But now that he's winning those February states as predicted, they're freaking out. What gives?

As Giuliani found out, the bad vibes of a string of losses over several weeks can be pretty damaging, even if numerically that was your plan. More problematic in this case, however, may be that math. Hillary's path to victory may work to perfection. Clearly, though, she'd like to enter the superdelegate hunt with a lead in pledged delegates. Obama is ahead in that category by some 75-80 right now, depending on the count. If he wins big again today, and gains in Wisconsin next week, his lead could be 125 or 130, even more heading into March. There are big states left, but after February, only 1,195 delegates are still up for grabs. If he's ahead by 130 going in, she has to win the remaining delegates 55-45. If he were to be up by as much as 150 - which seems feasible to me unlikely but possible judging from polls and the last weekend - she would have to win 56-44 the rest of the way. And if you consider that some of those remaining states - MS, MT, SD, WY - should be good ones for Obama, that squeezes the window further.

So far, she has only won 5 states with a 12-point margin or greater: AR, TN, OK, NY, MA. But she may have to do that in PA, TX, OH and NC just to keep going. The margin today - and the outcome in WI coming up - will be a big factor in considering where we are. But I don't think the Clinton plan included losing those recent states as soundly as she has. More of the same today will start to make the math look a bit tough. Of course, the superdelegates can come along and save her. But I'm sure she doesn't want to win that way.

On Superdelegates
I have to admit my thinking on superdelegates is evolving the more I consider it. I have lots of sympathy with Chris Bowers' point of view (which Donna Brazile has also voiced) - that if Democratic superdelegates vote in a nominee that is not the one leading in pledged delegates based on the voters' selection in the primaries, it would be a huge travesty, worth leaving the party over. I wouldn't do that, of course. But I understand the sentiment. I also see the benefit of Tad Devine's similar position in today's NYTimes, that all superdelegates should "back off" and not announce a position until the convention, and then only to move in to affirm the choice of voters.

I think there's a strong one-person, one-vote principle at stake that the Democratic Party should stand for. But there's also a long-term political calculation that should come into play. If pledged delegates favor one candidate, but superdelegates choose the other, the party risks alienating either African-American (and young) voters, on the one hand, or women voters on the other, for a generation. We can't afford the perception that the shenanigans of insiders thwarted the will of the party to make whichever historic choice they do.

On the other hand, my indignation instinct is a little tired here, isn't it? I mean who are we kidding? There are problems with all of these complaints. For starters, is anyone paying attention to the strangeness of the delegate allocation process? In a congressional district with an even number of delegates, it's difficult for either candidate to get enough of a majority to gain a delegate advantage. In districts with an odd number, only one vote more translates to a delegate lead. In Nevada, Obama earned more delegates even though Hillary had more supporters. In Alabama, Obama won 56%-42%, but because of the way the districts panned out, he gained only 27-25 in delegates.

So, what is a superdelegate committed to democracy supposed to do? If you prefer Clinton and you're a Nevadan, and the pledged delegates after this convoluted system favor Obama slightly, which choice honors the voters? If your state went for Hillary, but your congressional district went for Obama, which allegiance is more honorable? If the delegate count favors Hillary, but you believe she can't win, or that her name on the ballot will hurt other Democratic candidates in your state, which choice better fulfills your duty to the Party? And after all, these aren't governmental elections, really, they're Party operations.

As for waiting until the Convention, that's not simple either. Why not make clear your preference when your state votes so everybody knows where we stand? What will make it appear that superdelegates swoop in and take control more than if they all announce their preference right at the end en masse?

I don't know. Maybe it's not so bad for elected officials - who stick their necks out with the party name - to have a little extra say in who their figurehead is vying for the White House. Maybe it's a decent test of a candidate's ability to work with and persuade exactly the kind of leaders they will need to to be successful. Kenny B will notice that this is the exact opposite position from what I was taking over the weekend, but like I say I'm thinking about it. If there was one simple way to "honor the voters" and if the system itself "honored the voters" more clearly, then I would think all of these hysterics might be more warranted. But it is a bit complicated, at the very least.

Saturday Deep Thought
Supporting Obama over Hillary doesn't make you a sexist, any more than supporting Hillary over Obama makes you a racist.

Friday Fun
Maybe only Deb and I would enjoy the "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, but that still makes it worth a link.

Late-Night Multiple Choice
Now that Republicans have decided on McCain as their candidate, the rest of the primary season...

A) Independent voters in states yet to be decided will no longer have to choose between McCain and Obama, and will vote for Barack.

B) Mischievous Republicans will cross over and vote for Hillary, thinking her general election chances are the slimmest, with the best chance to unite their own Party against a hated foe.

C) Mischievous Republicans will cross over and vote for Obama, because they can't pass up the chance to vote against their nemesis Hillary in hopes of ending her national political career.

Mark all that apply.

Just a Thought
I may be a little biased here in TN. But I have an idea for the Obama campaign. His supporters have done an extraordinary thing in response to the news that Hillary loaned $5 million of her own money to her campaign. After a request from the campaign, asking them to match Hillary's money in 24 hours or so, they did that and then some.

My suggestion - to demonstrate real desire to follow Obama's lead and serve the needs of the country - is for the campaign to shut off the online contribution mechanism for a day, and ask supporters to donate to tornado relief and rescue efforts instead, maybe promote the American Red Cross' efforts. Perhaps even challenge Clinton, McCain and Huckabee's campaign to join in. This shows leadership, a spirit of volunteerism and American unity over something besides politics, and acknowledges that we know we can't depend on the current Administration to address this kind of calamity effectively. It also would build on Obama's reasonable claim that government alone can't solve these kinds of problems.

Money is rushing into campaign coffers the last day and a half, and that's as it should be. Democrats are excited about this election and I'm one of the first to argue that a political donation is an important way to help serve your country with your money, if you believe that institutional change is the best and most needed way to better the lives of Americans. But that alone isn't enough. It strikes me that re-directing that energy for a day or so is good politics too, as well as maybe even helping some people that - trust me from seeing the reports here - could really use it. Without actually shutting down the online fundraising effort though, just asking doesn't really amount to much of a statement.

Momentum and Coast Bias
The closer I look at the numbers, the better yesterday looks for Obama. You'll remember, I was expecting a 70-delegate loss, not because of team Obama's expectations spin, but because of the real average of the recent poll numbers in each state. For weeks, keeping Hillary's gain to less than 100 seemed like a worthy goal. Now, not only did he not lose 70 delegates yesterday, it is looking like he actually expanded his slim delegate lead. Obama won more states, and won more delegates yesterday than Hillary did. The margin was slim, indeed. But a win is a win. After 5 big days of Democratic voting, Obama has won the delegate battle now in all but one - New Hampshire - and that one was something of a shock.

I do understand Kevin Drum's feeling of let-down:

[A]lthough Obama obviously made up a huge amount of ground over the past two weeks, what it felt like to me was disappointment. He seemed to be coming on so strong that it seemed inevitable he'd win one or two of the big Hillary states — or at least make them into close races — but he didn't. In the end, Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts by double digit margins. It really seemed to take a lot of wind out of the Obama surge.

Still, I think he's off the mark, because we did indeed see that wave of momentum yesterday - and it put Obama over the top into a surprising delegate victory for the de facto national primary. It's just that the wave didn't crash the coasts like we had anticipated. Hillary's the one that matched or beat expectations in NY, NJ, MA and CA.

But look at what happened virtually everywhere else. While the bright lights of the media focused on her solid win in 93-delegate Mass., Obama pounded her 2-1 in 72-delegate Minnesota. Yeah, she opened up a 10-percentage point lead in 107-delegate NJ, but he turned an expected win into a 30-pt. rout in 87-delegate GA, and an anticipated nailbiter (according to the polls) into a double-digit victory in 52-delegate AL. The size of his homestate win in IL neutralized hers in NY. And while she was winning big in Ark and Ok, the size of his victories in UT, ND, ID, CO, AK and KS were even more astonishing. I know, I know, many of those are caucuses and, somehow, Obama's supposed to have a bizarre advantage in the caucuses (??). My feeling is - no matter what the voting method is, when you beat someone 80-20 like he did in Idaho, you've got a wave of overwhelming support. And the 12 delegates he gained in that 18-delegate state count every bit as much as, indeed 20% more than, the 10 he lost in 68-delegate Tennessee.

The truth is the Clinton campaign thought they could play to the coasts, sell out give up on black voters, split the rest, and wind up with a 100-delegate win and momentum. Frankly, the coasts did their part, but a wave surged in much of the rest of the country. So, yeah part of the story is Obama's momentum stopping short in those few big states. But an equal story - if not bigger - is the absolute thumping he gave her in DE, GA, IL, AL, UT, ND, ID, KS, AK, CO to widen his earned-delegate lead, if only slightly.

If he had won MA, NJ, and CA but only 5 or 6 others and wound up with the same slim delegate gain of 9 or so overall, wouldn't the media be crowing about his momentum surge and huge unexpected victory? They think those bookend coastal states are the only real ones. I cry big-state bias!!

Delegate Counts
Are slow in coming, which I don't really understand. And many of the counts being thrown around include the superdelegates, which I don't think is right. DemConWatch is a good site for all things delegate-related. They have Clinton gaining 20 so far in Tueday's voting, 670-650, with 361 still to be alotted. I'm thinking that will put the total pretty close to my projection earlier of of 70 to 80 delegate gain for her, which will inch her ahead in the earned delegate count. (Obama went in to yesterday ahead by 15).

2 other thoughts:
What the hell is wrong with MSNBC, which claimed victory for Hillary in Missouri, allowing her to claim that in her speech, when Obama in fact went on to win. Have we learned nothing from FL, 2000? I guess not.

I'm surprised he couldn't come any closer in MA and CA, but equally surprised he beat her handily in places like Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Alabama, and especially GA which turned into a blowout. Those wins almost overcame the losses in the big states. A little close there and he could really claim victory for the day. As it is, about tied, with her inching forward.

List of Poll Closing Times
Here

Hillary Surging in Last Day?
I hope not, but it's looking like it. That 100 delegate threshold is looking pretty tough right now, but is how I'll gauge Obama's success. The closer it is to even, the better it is for Obama. If Hillary's advantage heads upward of 100, it could be a tough night. If I have time I'll put together an Obama-centric Super Tuesday Watching Guide later.

Super Tuesday Delegate Projection
Ok, it's Tuesday now, and here are my delegate projections. (I don't teach on Tuesdays, so I have some extra time on my hands tonight.) The newest polls suggest this: Hillary has stemmed the Obama rush in the last 24-48 hrs and turned things back her way. If you average the last 3 polls for each of tomorrow's states and assign those percentages to delegates - using the latest 3 national polls for states that don't have 3 recent polls - below is what you come up with. In parenthesis, I assigned the leftover/undecided vote proportionally based on the same percentages to arrive at a total.

Hillary wins 10 states. Obama wins 6. 3 are tied, another 3 essentially tied. I'm giving Obama a win in American Samoa for no reason other than the current natl poll avgs which give him a slight lead. Following this crazy formula, which is my official prediction, in terms of delegates, Clinton wins 768. Obama wins 704, with 211 undecided. If you split each state's undecided delegates proportionally, that's a total of 877-804, a gain of 73 delegates for Super Tuesday Hillary. Obama was leading 68-43 coming in. So, totals would be 945-872 Clinton, before the superdelegates. I think that would add up to a decent-to-good night for Obama, to be within 100 earned delegates when the night is done.

It's worth remembering that only the Nevada polls so far have been close to the outcome. Iowa and SC polls underestimated Obama by a sizable margin. NH polls underestimated Clinton. Still, here's what the polls basically predict about tomorrow, on average.

Alabama - Clinton 23, Obama 23, Undecided 6 (26-26)
Alaska - Clinton 6, Obama 6, Undecided 1 (6-7)
American Samoa - Clinton 1, Obama 1, Undecided 1 (1-2)
Arizona - Clinton - 24, Obama 21, Undecided 11 (30-26)
Arkansas - Clinton - 17, Obama 9, Undecided 9 (23-12)
California - Clinton - 178, Obama 154, Undecided 38 (199-171)
Colorado - Clinton - 22, Obama 23, Undecided 10 (27-28)
Connecticut - Clinton 22, Obama 21, Undecided 5 (25-23)
Delaware - Clinton 6, Obama 6, Undecided 3 (7-8)
Georgia - Clinton 29, Obama 43, Undecided 15 (35-52)
Idaho - Clinton 8, Obama 8, Undecided 2 (9-9)
Illinois - Clinton 48, Obama 88, Undecided 17 (54-99)
Kansas - Clinton 14, Obama 15, Undecided 3 (15-17)
Massachusetts - Clinton 49, Obama 37, Undecided 7 (53-40)
Minnesota - Clinton 30, Obama 30, Undecided 12 (36-36)
Missouri - Clinton 35, Obama 30, Undecided 7 (39-33)
New Jersey - Clinton 52, Obama 45, Undecided 10 (58-49)
New Mexico - Clinton 11, Obama 12, Undecided 3 (12-14)
New York - Clinton 124, Obama 84, Undecided 24 (138-94)
North Dakota - Clinton 6, Obama 6, Undecided 1 (6-7)
Oklahoma - Clinton 18, Obama 8, Undecided 12 (26-12)
Tennessee - Clinton 36, Obama 24, Undecided 8 (41-27)
Utah - Clinton 9, Obama 9, Undecided 5 (11-12)

MEDIA MONDAY
Plenty of time to obsess over Super Tuesday tomorrow. Be sure and come around often tomorrow for updates of polls, plans, concerns, numbers, goals, etc., from a pro-Obama perspective. I'll be in pure nervous, neurotic, election nerd mode. In the meantime, let's have some talk about the arts. There is, as they say, more that unites us than divides us, right? Like the need for great movies, books, music, etc. What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Keeping it Fresh (Sort Of)
To combat the dearth of new TV material thanks to the writers' strike, major networks are importing popular shows from their cable sister channels. NBC will start airing USA's Monk, and more interestingly, CBS will run the entire first season of "Dexter," whose central character you may recall is a somewhat lovable serial killer with an honor code to take the place of a general lack of conscience. They also may run "Weeds" about a suburban mom who makes ends meet by selling pot.

My prediction? One of two things will happen. Either network TV audiences will discover how much more interesting cable shows are, and realize what crap they're routinely fed, or the shows will be ruined by the editing that will be necessary to fit both the time slots and the mores of commercial television.

Weekend Box Office
1. Hannah Montana (jeez, there's a movie?)
2. The Eye
3. 27 Dresses
4. Juno
5. Meet the Spartans

I have a question. I notice plenty of movie parodies coming around the last few years, including this Meet the Spartans. I haven't seen any of them, but they look dumb as hell. Am I missing something worthwhile?

Polls Are Here and There
Gallup shows Obama closing to 2 in national polling, Rasmussen has Hillary surging to 11 up. Zogby has Obama up 4 in California and close in Missouri, McClatchy has Obama close in AZ but down 9 in California. Hard to know what will happen. They are all over the place. All the early voting that has already happened in Tuesday's states will benefit Hillary. I think Obama has to do this: win big enough in GA and IL to offset delegate gains by Clinton in CA, NY and NJ. Then, find a way to win a couple of other states -- maybe from CO, AL, AZ, MO -- to cut into gains she makes in TN, MA, OK, and keep everything else close enough so the delegate gain is minimal for Hillary. If she gains less than 100 on him Tuesday, it would be a dramatic victory for him.

I'm Not Ignoring You, I'm Out of Town
Shilling for Obama will re-commence over the weekend.

I caught just enough of the debate between Hillary and Barack to notice that Senator Clinton still won't admit her Iraq vote was a mistake. I don't understand why that doesn't disqualify her. It's so obviously a huge mistake. In fact, what would be a bigger mistake for a Senator to make than to authorize an incompetent administration to conduct an unjustifiable war?

She's ready to go on Day 1 after making the most harmful mistake a Senator can make, while cynically trolling for votes to show she's not afraid to use force?

When has her judgment on the war *not* simply tracked right behind the popular opinion polls?

Delegate Count [UPDATED]
Numbers are updated to reflect Edwards dropping out, and to reflect other/undecided numbers that now will only have 2 places to go. Polls used are the most recent for each state, or the most recent national poll if no recent state poll is available.

Alabama -- Clinton 24, Obama 21 Undecided 7
Alaska -- Clinton 6, Obama 5, Undecided 2
American Samoa -- Clinton 2, Obama 1, Undecided 0
Arizona -- Clinton 21, Obama 15, Undecided 20
Arkansas -- Clinton 17, Obama 13, Undecided 5
California -- Clinton 159, Obama 148, Undecided 63
Colorado -- Clinton 18, Obama 19, Undecided 18
Connecticut -- Clinton 23, Obama 17, Undecided 8
Delaware -- Clinton 7, Obama 5, Undecided 3
Democrats Abroad -- Clinton 3, Obama 2, Undecided 2
Georgia -- Clinton 31, Obama 45, Undecided 11
Idaho -- Clinton 8, Obama 7, Undecided 3
Illinois -- Clinton 37, Obama 84, Undecided 32
Kansas -- Clinton 15, Obama 12, Undecided 5
Massachusetts -- Clinton 53, Obama 31, Undecided 9
Minnesota -- Clinton 29, Obama 24, Undecided 19
Missouri -- Clinton 32, Obama 27, Undecided 13
New Jersey -- Clinton 47, Obama 40, Undecided 20
New Mexico -- Clinton 12, Obama 9, Undecided 5
New York -- Clinton 125, Obama 88, Undecided 19
North Dakota -- Clinton 6, Obama 5, Undecided 2
Oklahoma -- Clinton 17, Obama 7, Undecided 14
Tennessee -- Clinton 33, Obama 24, Undecided 11
Utah -- Clinton 11, Obama 5, Undecided 7
Feb. 5 Totals-- Clinton 736, Obama 655, Undecided 297

Already Earned - Clinton 43, Obama 68, Edwards 26
Total Earned Del. after 2/5 -- Clinton 779, Obama 723, Edwards 26 with 297 to be determined between Obama and Clinton.

Where's Oprah?
Obviously, there's a huge gender gap in the Clinton-Obama matchup. So, why aren't we seeing Oprah hit the trail before Feb. 5? Does she not help with women? Just wondering.

"It is Time For a New Generation of Leadership"
In case you missed it, here's Ted Kennedy's speech today endorsing Obama. He goes right after the Clintons. The best line..."From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one - no one - deny that truth."

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, reading, watching?

Weekend Box Office
1. Meet the Spartans
2. Rambo (you've gotta be kidding)
3. 27 Dresses
4. Cloverfield
5. Untraceable

Diving Bell and the Butterfly
I caught the new Julian Schnabel flick over the weekend. It really is quite good, harrowing, beautiful and - in all honesty - scares the hell out of me. But deserving of all the attention it's been getting.

Oops
In my cynical attempt to lower expectations for Obama I seem to have foolishly ruled out the possibility that he would completely kick Hillary's butt, as he indeed did, 55-27. Who knows what will happen next.

Warning for Saturday
Lest you are confident Obama will win SC easily. Hillary is surging in the last 24-48 hours in tracking polls, just like in New Hampshire. If this trend continues, in which she picks off the undecideds, and it turns out that women are voting for her in the booth in greater numbers than they are polling for her on the phone (in front of their husbands and indignant Obama supporters), Hillary will not only make it a close race, she may win. That despite a shocking 20-point lead in the latest PPP poll. Obama really screwed up the expectations game in South Carolina, if you ask me. Unhelpfully, everyone seems to think he will coast to victory there.

More Clinton Dirty Tricks
Now trying to get the MI and FL delegates seated...

The Deep Thought That's Bugging Me Today Since Lunch
Yeah, actually I *can believe* it's not butter. What I would like to know is: what the hell *is* it?

I Forgot About NAFTA
But that's another initiative Clinton was squarely behind that's not very popular these days in economically troubled states. I'm reminded of it because it's mentioned in a new Obama radio ad playing in South Carolina. It's a good one. Here's the transcript. I wouldn't mind seeing a TV ad along the same lines, but really to make news he needs to integrate this line of thinking into his speeches and debates.

It's Annoying That...
...Obama's likely win in South Carolina will be spun as somehow less important because so many of the Democratic voters will be African-American, as if their votes really count less. Sounds to me like they're saying: he will only win because black Americans support him...as opposed to regular America.

Not That I Believe It
A new South Carolina poll has Obama up on Hillary 44-28, with Edwards at 15. Of course this "Public Policy Polling" firm had McCain beating Huckabee by 8 and he only won by 3. So there's no telling what will happen. And also, as the good Rev. Jesse Jackson (after Kenny B and I were just praising him for staying out of the spotlight in this race) just said on Hardball, if Obama wins South Carolina, but with 70% of the black vote, and only 20% of the white vote, he will have lost by winning. That's why he has to find a way to stay on the unity message. Would be nice to see a broad-based win.

Fighting Back
You have probably seen by now the contentious barbs Obama and Clinton threw at each other in last night's debate. Overall, I thought Obama did fair, considering Hillary's a pro at gutter politics and that he's not so great generally in the debate setting. But there's one lesson I wish Obama would learn, and it wouldn't be so hard: he played too much defense. One moment in particular made me cringe: when Hillary brought up Obama's voting record in IL - the (trivial, in my view) fact that he voted present about 100 times (out of 4,000 votes) - and framed it as the Senator not taking responsibility for his votes.

I would have much preferred for him to not spend one second explaining himself and instead declaring this: that he's not going to take lectures on legislative accountability from a Senator who voted for the Iraq War and now refuses to say it was a mistake, who refuses to take any responsibility for the extreme harm that has come to Americans and the world thanks to the vote that she cast to support President Bush in preparing to send hundreds of thousands of US troops in harm's way. We can already hear Republican attacks on her, that she was "for the War before she was against it". It would also have been a good time to bring up the quote he's been using in his speech, in which she apparently said she voted for the Bankruptcy Bill (the 2001 version) but she wished it wouldn't pass. I mean, the nerve of a person with her history of triangulation, and dissembling in the face of her own votes, to attack him for not being accountable is truly astounding.

Instead...he spent minutes explaining the minutiae of state legislative strategy in Illinois, never turning the question back to where it's much better suited - back on her.

And now Bill Clinton is still on tv now mis-quoting Obama's statement about Republicans being the party of ideas during the 90s. I'm sure that offends Bill. But that doesn't justify his repeatedly saying that Obama said they were "good ideas" when he clearly did not, and would not, have said it. Hillary's campaign - and her husband's involvement - is growing increasingly odious.

Bye Bye Fred
Dropped out.

Oscar Nominees
Read the list here. But we don't really need the ceremony for many awards. Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men) and Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood) are locks, as is, I think, Cate Blanchett (in I'm Not There).

Nice to see both Sicko and No End in Sight getting Documentary nominations.

"Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

The "Single Garment of Destiny"
Senator Obama gave a sermon at Dr. King's old church on the eve of MLK day, reminding me why I hope he wins, and believe he would offer the country a valuable perspective. It's worth reading the whole thing. But here's a little bit that stuck out to me because I was at a party last night where someone - I honestly forget who - made mention of Obama being homophobic. I presume that misperception is due to his sharing the stage at a couple of campaign events with various gospel artists, homophobes among them. In fact, if any candidate, it's John Edwards who has openly admitted that his church-going past leaves him unable to fully get on board with gay rights, due to the way he was brought up. Anyway, here's a passage of Obama's speech delivered to the largely African-American congregation of the famous Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart - that puts up walls between us.

We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

And then this...

But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.

The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.

And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.

It's a really good speech, and it highlights why I'm for him, I think. Because, mostly, I believe him. And while I'm at it, worth saying that, clearly, he didn't have to mention our gay brothers and sisters, not at all. The only reason to do that is because you think it's right.

1-20-09
One year from today will be Bush's last in office. Just saying.

Hillary Wins Nevada
Bummer. Edwards is barely on the screen. South Carolina is a must-win for Obama, right? Hopefully Nevada won't cause too much of a bump. If she wins SC too, I would think there's no stopping her.

The Gambling Vote
No time until this afternoon, but this may explain why Hillary is doing well - and likely will win - Nevada. Obama really needs to win out there.

Bill Moyers and Shelby Steele on Race in America
Kenny B pointed me to last weekend's Bill Moyers Journal, specifically his interview with conservative Shelby Steele, who I'd never heard before. I listened to it yesterday and not sure what I think, apart from feeling like it's worth thinking about. You can read the transcript of the episode here - Steele comes in for the last half of the show. Here's a bit:

SHELBY STEELE:...
Whites know never tell blacks what you really think and what you really feel because you risk being seen as a racist. And the result of that is that to a degree, we as blacks live in a bubble. Nobody tells us the truth. Nobody tells us what they would do if they were in our situation. Nobody really helps us. They use us. They buy their own innocence with us. But they never tell us the truth. And we need to be told the truth very often.

You know, America is a great society, a great country. Has all sorts-- the values have gotten us to this place where we are the world's greatest society in many ways. Well, those values, yes, we had a history of terrible racism. But those same values will work for blacks. They will help us join the mainstream, become a part of it. But whites can't say that because then they seem to be judgmental. They're seen as racist. And so, no one says it to us.

BILL MOYERS: So you can understand though, why some whites would look to Obama as a redeemer from that--

SHELBY STEELE: They think that Obama is a way out of all of that. That he will bring an American redemption. And whites are very happy for that bargain and show gratitude and even affection for bargainers. Oprah Winfrey is the classic bargainer who has also a kind of magic about her that I think again reflects the aspirations of white America.
....
Barack Obama is the first black American to bring bargaining into the political arena. Barack Obama is saying, I'm going to give you the-- I'm going to treat you as though you're not a racist. And I'm going to simply ask you to treat me as though I'm not black. Treat me as just-as an individual. Well, it's a nice bargain. But boy, does it make blacks nervous. Our blackness is our power. We think. I don't think it is. But we have the-- that's the delusion I think.

BILL MOYERS: What do you think is your power?

SHELBY STEELE: I think our power is the same as it is for anybody, any other group - the collective energies, imagination of the individuals within the group. We're no better than what our individuals achieve. Identity should be the result of effort and achievement. It's not an agent. It's not going to bring you there.

BILL MOYERS: But you can't escape a part of your identity because it is about, as you say, blood and color. You can't escape that.

SHELBY STEELE: You can't escape it. And I certainly don't want to escape it. I, you know, I am black and happy to be so. But my identity is not my master. I'm my master. And I resent this, you know, civil rights leadership telling me what I should think and what issues I should support this way or that way. And that's where-- in-- black America, identity has become almost totalitarian.

Late-Night Thoughts
Given the incompetent governance of the last 7 years, Obama's answer in last night's debate about not being so much into the day-to-day management of the government was not the smartest, or the most confidence-building. Hillary's predictable attack today on the subject seems deserved.

Is Fred actually making a move? How high can he finish in South Carolina? I tend to think that Huck and Romney will split the crazy religious vote, Huck and Fred will split the crazy Southern vote, and Fred and Romney will split the crazy anti-immigrant vote, leaving McCain well positioned to win SC with the just-plain-crazy vote that's leftover. Still, I can't help but notice Fred's 3rd-place 14% in a new national poll, the highest I've seen for him in a while, and looks like he's sporting a new commercial set to show in SC. Maybe he can surprise? Even then is there a path to the nomination for him? Not without a floor fight.

Huckabee seems crazier and crazier the more the campaign goes on.

Edwards has to hate the way that - 2 states in - everyone's basically declaring it a 2-person race, with him out of it. He deserves better. But since he's not getting it, what's his plan? Is he serious about the convention-talk? Or will 3rd place in NV and SC spell the end? If not, what's he really up to? My prediction? As long as he gets delegates in both states he continues. If he gets shut out, he gets out. Otherwise, the first 5 questions he will get every day will be some version of "When are you dropping out?" and "Why have you not dropped out yet?" That's not the kind of coverage you want in a campaign.

The Limbaugh Test
Rush Limbaugh is telling his listeners, with some urgency, that 2 of the candidates for the Republican nomination - McCain and Huckabee - are simply unacceptable to his version of the conservative movement:

“I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.”

He can't be too thrilled then with the latest national primary polls that show those 2 battling for the lead. Take, for instance, the last CBS poll (pdf) of "Republican primary voters" taken Jan. 9-12.

McCain 33
Huckabee 18
Giuliani 10
Romney 8
Thompson 8
Paul 6

As you can see, those 2 unacceptable Republican candidates are polling at 51% -- if we include Ron Paul, who presumably also fails the Limbaugh test, that makes 57% of GOP voters actively choosing candidates who would "destroy the Republican Party." Only 26% are choosing one of the others he would find acceptable. Given the dwindling Republican Party identifiers these days, that's quite the marginalization of Limbaugh-style wingnuttia. What is 30% of 30%, anyway? Whatever it is, that would seem to be the remaining size of the pro-torture, anti-immigration, anti-environment contingent in America today. Better yet, that low number represents the odds today that Rush has of avoiding his GOP doomsday.

Just thought you might like that bit of good news on a Wednesday. Democrats have a tough choice these days, but the Republicans are cracking at the seams. Since they will likely eventually pull themselves together one way or another, we should enjoy this meltdown while it lasts.

It's the Bad News Playoffs
Which news is worse and will move on to the next round? The highest inflation rate in 17 years? Or the outbreak of a horrific drug-resistant strain of staph infection?

Michigan Exit Polls
Some got leaked here. Romney 35, McCain 29, Huckabee 15. If it holds up, I think it's good news, keeping the McCain train from rolling unfettered. I guess we'll see. Anybody watching the Democratic debate tonight?

Mike Huckabee Now Running on the Taliban Platform
Info at my other place here.

Late-Night Deep Thought, Part II
I'm no fan of McCain - if for no other reason than he would keep us in Iraq forever. But one thing would come from his nomination that's not so bad: the environmental question would be over.*Both parties* will have nominated a candidate that believes in global warming - believes in the role of GHGs - and believes that it's high-freakin time we did something about it. Should be the final nail in the denialists' coffin. The American people will have spoken on that, anyway, no matter what November brings.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been watching, listening to, reading?

Weekend Box Office
1. The Bucket List
2. First Sunday
3. Juno
4. National Treasure
5. Alvin (still...?)

I Saw Movies
Like Jenifer said last week, The Orphanage is really good. Yeah, lots of ghost movie cliches, but they pretty much all worked on me. Spooky.

Also saw Juno, which was good - maybe not great. Funny-charming and not completely utterly predictable.

The Greatest Award Show Eva
If only they were all as fabulous as The Golden Globes this year. Somebody get up on a freakin podium and tell us who was nominated and who won. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes. This year, it didn't. Here is a list of winners. The version of the awards I saw was on CNN during Larry King. He basically talked over them - "oh, was that ever a good movie"; "maybe the best performance OF ALL TIME - trust me". It was hilarious.

Late-Night Deep Thought After Reading the News
It's really depressing how easily the campaign has derailed into largely irrelevant non-issues: first, crying; now, who loves and respects Dr. King more. So many important things to deal with, hard to believe these kind of spats are going to decide the nomination. For the record, the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with some version of this.

Mostly I wish they would talk more about their respective plans for the economy, the war, and health care reform. If we had a decent press corps, they'd demand the discussion be focused on those things. But I would settle for more run-of-the-mill character generalities. This stuff is just getting silly, and it's hard not to blame all three of them.

The "Stupid" Virus Mutates
into Lawrence O'Donnell.

His piece is so wrong on so many levels, but let's just start with the most fundamental: strategy. If you want Obama to be the nominee, and think you need Edwards supporters to put him over the top, the absolute last thing you should do is berate and deride Edwards for staying in the race, especially with such vitriol and intent to humiliate.

I remember back in the Dean days too, it was common for his supporters to absolutely blast Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards supporters for being so off in their choice. Yeah Dean was ahead for a little while so we felt on top of the world, but some of us forgot - he was ahead with only about 20% of the vote! We kind of needed some of the others, and instead many Deaniacs made pretty much everyone else hate us. He didn't so much fall off once the primaries came around, he failed to add anyone else's supporters or any undecideds, similar to what happened to Obama in the last day of New Hampshire - he met most of his poll estimates, but Hillary got all the undecideds in the end.

Politics is about persuasion and consensus. Obama people should be looking to inspire Edwards supporters to believe in him as well, in the event their candidate does leave the race, or his supporters decide to leave him. This idiocy by O'Donnell will not do that, and will of course do exactly the opposite - making it, in political terms, totally f'ing stupid. People on the fence will gravitate toward the guy being kicked if they like and respect him - same as they did with Hillary. And his supporters will not have a good feeling about moving to your side if you've been calling them losers. Hillary couldn't have scripted it any better. What's worse, O'Donnell's piece is so hateful he will probably get some attention and media interviews from it.

For the record, I have no qualms with anyone who wants to stay in a primary race for any reason, especially a candidate getting delegates. That's what primaries are for. And if Obama can't beat both of them, he doesn't deserve it. Primaries are different. In the general we need to come together, which is why Nader is a jerk who I blame for Gore's electoral college defeat. If Nader wants to run, he should do it like Kucinich, inside the primary. If Edwards wants to stay until the convention, good for him. He's a powerful voice for change and he's getting delegates,which is what it's all about. In fact he could get enough delegates to keep both of the other 2 from winning the nomination without a floor fight. There are plenty of reasons for him to stay in. I do wish he would be smarter and not send any more support Hillary's way by attacking her on foolish grounds. And at any rate, who's to say Edwards people would go to Obama? I don't think that's at all settled. In fact the exit polls are showing that Edwards supporters and Hillary's are more alike than Edwards and Obama's.

Why do so many pundit types not seem to understand that for the most part, Democrats like and admire all three candidates, and many are having trouble deciding between them?? (In my opinion that's what makes the polls so tricky with support so soft). Bashing any one of them in any way that could be perceived as unfair is a huge mistake. Especially on such a personal level. I don't think this piece could be much dumber. You see what happens, Larry?

Mitt in Michigan
An interesting idea for Democrats...

Um, What?
There's a virus going around made of stupid.

New York Attorney General [and Hillary Clinton supporter] Andrew Cuomo used some words with a very troublesome racial history, apparently in reference to Barack Obama. [See update below.]

"[The New Hampshire primary]'s not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. He then added, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference."

No, he didn't catch it from Jesse Jackson, Jr. He caught it from this woman.

I'm nearly speechless. It's not funny, and it's not insightful, to suggest lynching black people, or refer to their speech as a "shuck and jive". This is not a tyranny of political correctness to point out.

[UPDATE: Thanks to Lewberry for this link that shows Cuomo apparently was not referring directly to Obama in his remarks. I think you can argue that there couldn't be anyone else he was thinking of, actively campaigning for Hillary and all....but in any case good to read more of it in context. Still, is there a non-offensive use of "shuck and jive"? I hadn't thought so...but what do I know. Either way, I don't think it will make it into my regular vocabulary.]

Who Cares?
John Kerry is endorsing Obama. And Josh Marshall says "the big question" is who will Al Gore endorse? I say who freaking cares. They should all keep their traps shut, or at least let their preference be known in a low-key way. I suppose Oprah's endorsement might have helped. But short of that - someone popular, influential, and outside of politics - these endorsements are a waste of time at best. At worst, and more likely in my opinion, it's a turn-off. Anyway, how can you be the candidate of change and fundamentally alter American presidential politics if your campaign is riding in on the shoulders of the last 2 Democratic nominees? If you're Al Gore and you want Obama to get the nod, I say - in the immortal words of Elmer Fudd - be vewy vewy quiet.

Seriously, Kerry's damaged goods, fairly or not, and even he knows it - it's why he's not running himself. Why on Earth would you appear on stage with him?

Pollster.com
Highlights possible theories for why the polls between Iowa and New Hampshire predicted the NH outcome so poorly on the Democratic side. Given all the choices, I go for this explanation: undecided voters at the end - many of whom were picking Clinton in pre-Iowa polls when she had a big lead - were not significantly covered in media reports of the polls, neither was the softness of Obama's support. (The same polls everyone's whining about being so wrong did warn that there were 20% undecided and 30% of Obama's supporters saying they could change their mind.) People deciding on the last day went (back) to Clinton.

No, that doesn't make me feel any better, but it does make some sense. The stories about Hillary under attack for getting choked up simply came later, and swayed more voters, than the story of Obama's surge. It resonated.

Yet Another Way of Looking at New Hampshire
Obama actually wins NH right now, in terms of the delegate count. He and Hillary each garnered 9 awarded by primary voters. Obama has 3 of the 5 superdelegates to Hillary's 2. So NH's 27 delegates are awarded: Obama 12, Clinton 11, Edwards 4.

2,025 delegates are needed to win the nomination.

What's Wrong With People?
Here's a hint - free advice for Obama people: how about we try changing the subject from the thing being talked about non-stop during Hillary's amazing 24-hour comeback, instead of keeping it up like this.

One Way of Looking at New Hampshire Results

State-wide vote in combined Democratic and Republican primaries

Clinton 112,238 - 21.8%
Obama 104,757 - 20.3%
McCain 88,447 - 17.1%
Romney 75,202 - 14.6%
Edwards 48,666 - 9.4%
Huckabee 26,760 - 5.2%
Giuliani 20,283 - 3.9%
Paul 18,245 - 3.5%
Richardson 13,245 - 2.6%
Kucinich 3,912 - 0.8%
Thompson 2,884 - 0.6%
Hunter 1,220 - 0.2%

A precinct or 2 still outstanding from the totals I used here, but the point is, Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republican 282,000 - 233,000 (55% - 45%). I would have thought it might be an even larger margin, but I would take a 10-point Democratic victory in New Hampshire in November. And it's pretty remarkable that our top 2 candidates both outpace the Republican winner.

Predictions [UPDATE]
[UPDATE: Wow. Clinton looking good with 20% counted. Up by 6. How could polls have been so far off I wonder? I assume she will hold on...these things never seem to turn around.

2nd UPDATE: Obama's not coming back. Down 4 with 47% in. Also, MSNBC says women went for Clinton by 13 points, and men went for Obama by 12, and women made up 57% of the voters. I'm no genius, but that tells me Clinton wins. What a shock! Last polls showed Obama up by 10.]

Based on absolutely nothing:

Dems
Obama 38
Clinton 34
Edwards 23
Richardson 4

GOP
McCain 33
Romney 31
Huckabee 15
Paul 11
Giuliani 7
Thompson 2

Will Obama and Clinton both have more votes than McCain?

New Hampshire
Dems are turning out more than Republicans. Republicans are turning out more than Dems. Take all turnout reports with a grain of salt.

Coverage of Hillary is maddening - sexist, petty, contemptuous. When she is strong and disciplined she's portrayed as a cold, heartless woman; raise her voice a little and she's out-of-control angry; show a little bit of emotion and she's suddenly weak, or - if not to be believed - even more coldly calculating. Meanwhile, the men are alternatively passionate or warmly sensitive, not angry or weak. Jeebus people!

I found Edwards' response yesterday very disappointing, and read it the way Todd Gitlin does. Makes me feel better about my move to Obama.

Still, Hillary makes it difficult to rally around her with moves like this one, taking up Republican talking points to criticize Obama on taxes of all things. I'm not sure her campaign quite gets the intensifying Democratic opposition to Clintonian ideological triangulation. Say what you will about Obama's naivety or determination to build consensus, he at least doesn't try and win independent votes by framing progressive positions as the enemy. In fact, the governing philosophies we are choosing between are actually pretty well laid out. I thought the last ABC debate did a great job of doing that.

Not sure why - if you're Hillary - you want to campaign as LBJ over JFK, and even spell out that comparison, but that seems to be what she's doing. Obama's no JFK (yet). Still, it seems dumb to continue to re-run both Humphrey's and Nixon's failed 1960 campaigns, going so far as to *argue against raising the hopes of the American people.* If Obama's taking the mantle of JFK in this opposition, she's the one that's painted their difference in a way that asks for it, seemingly forgetting that for all of LBJ's legislative accomplishments, the torch was passed to a new generation, not to a seasoned back-room veteran of beltway battles. In fact, her comparison might be a bit more apt than she intends...rather makes Obama's point if you ask me. Surely she wouldn't say Democrats made a mistake nominating Kennedy as opposed to LBJ in 1960. And yet her recent comments read like she does in fact believe that.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, watching, listening to? Anyone had time to make it through any interesting holiday gifts? I've started reading Bill Bryson's short book about Shakespeare. So far that's about it. Any post-holiday recommendations?

Weekend Box Office
1. National Treasre
2. I am Legend
3. Juno
4. Alvin
5. One Missed Call

Republican Debate
I didn't see it, but thinking it must have been worth it. Just read Josh Marshall's live blog here and here. Here's one of my favorite lines:

Mitt's inner humorlessness did not serve him well.

Election Notes and Speculation Thread
I've been leaning Obama for a while now, though flirting with Edwards and frankly not too anti-Hillary.

Edwards has been the strongest in substance so far, with the clearest presentation of the challenges that face most Americans every day, and of the corporate interests that stand in the way of addressing them. He would be a great President. Or - now - a great Senator. He might be the most determined to bring about change of all three.

Hillary would also be a strong President - she's smart and tough and knows how the system works, and can be used to piecemeal solutions together - a la Bill. That also makes her a great Senator. And it really pisses me off the way media types and the right wing are gloating over her loss.

Obama has something else. Can I be swayed by mere rhetoric of change if beautiful enough? Can I be motivated by talk of a more unified country when it seems a pipedream? Can I be inspired by the excitement of young supporters and their increased engagement in politics? By the sight of a black American claiming victory in US politics? Yes, yes, yes and yes.

I don't know if he would be as successful a President as Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, I really don't. But Obama's is the presidency I want to see.

I don't have to decide until Feb. 5. Depending on how the other primaries go, I could still vote for Edwards. But I'm on board now - Obama '08.

Now, for your weekend speculation, let's think about Lewberry's question. VP choices, for Obama? for Hillary? Edwards? While we're at it...who might McCain's running mate be? Huckabee's?

"They Said This Day Would Never Come"
A perfect opening to an amazing speech by Obama.

If You're Following At Home
This looks to be a decent place to see caucus results on the Democratic side, but you never can tell which sites will be up to date and which running behind.

Update: Looks like Obama might win...pretty remarkable really. We'll see where we go from here. If he actually becomes the nominee it will be an amazing historic moment. If he becomes the President, it will be a truly awe-inspiring development to witness.

Senator Barack Obama : 618--35.96%
Senator John Edwards : 530--30.60%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 527--30.41%

Last Polls + A19 Prediction
ARG's Iowa poll today shows Clinton (34) - Obama (25) - Edwards (21).
Zogby's last 3-day tracking poll shows Obama (31) - Edwards (27) - Clinton (24)

Who knows. Over the last week, I've been prepared to predict each of them the winner. Hard not to see Hillary doing well, but tough to ignore the 2nd-choice status of Edwards, and Obama, especially with rumors of Biden and Richardson both making strategic decisions to push supporters in his direction. Still, here's the official Article 19 predictions, pulled out of my official Article 19 ass. It's based on signs of momentum and the thought that with all of those candidates spending all of that money to turn out caucus-goers, that turnout really should be higher than avg., which will help Obama. On the other hand, I could also see more people heading to the caucus in raw numbers to support Obama than the others, but his support being too concentrated and not broad enough across the state to win in the bizarre delegate system. Still, thinking that momentum + 2nd choice + turnout will have him at the top. Barely.

Obama -- 32.9%
Clinton -- 32.4%
Edwards -- 29.7%
Richardson -- 3%
Biden -- 2%

(Of course, you will remember that I once described Giuliani's chances in glowing terms, and called Huckabee's campaign over just prior to the straw poll that propelled him to a strong finish.) Let's hear your predictions in the comments.

I would not be surprised though by any order of finish among the three, and not really sure who I'm rooting for. Would like to see Obama and Edwards do well. The truth is that all 3 would make excellent candidates and great presidents. We just need to pick the one that can win in November.

Here's the fun part to watch for me. It looks like Fred wants out. He's all but announced he's quitting unless he gets a strong 3rd place in Iowa. But now it looks like he may in fact finish 3rd if he can squeak by McCain - they're practically tied in recent polls. If he beats him, it will do 2 interesting things: maybe make him stay in the race against his wishes, and slow down McCain, who seems to be on the move.

Which Is It?
Is David Letterman not as funny as he used to be? Or am I not?

At least I am not watching Leno. Go writers.

De-Coding the Iowa Polls
At pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal has a helpful roundup of what we know (not very much) and don't know (lots) heading into tomorrow's caucus. One thing we do know is something about how turnout will effect results on the Democratic side:

On the Democratic side, it has long been clear that John Edwards does better in polls that include bigger percentages of past caucus goers, and more recent surveys show Hillary Clinton and especially Barack Obama doing better as the samples include more first-time caucus goers.

...(D)ifferences in method produce huge variation in the kinds of voters selected as likely caucus goers. And what is truly surprising is that those differences appear to be growing in the final round of surveys.

On the GOP side, he also reminds that in 1988, despite being far behind in single digits in most polls (as high as 17% in just one poll), Pat Robertson finished second with 25% in 1988. Good news for Huckabee?

More Iowa Caucus Info
Like Steve Benen says, the more you learn about the caucus process, the less there is to like about it.

First off, I was wrong in an earlier ramble when I mentioned the Republicans. It turns out they have a completely different - and more sensible, frankly - Iowa process. There is no realignment, no viability threshold. They vote by secret ballot and the results are counted and reported. Voila. The Democrats meanwhile have a process that is more exclusive, more secretive, more open to shenanigans, and generally more bizarre.

I would think that if we want to overhaul the primary process, a good first step might be to shine a bright light on the Democratic version of the Iowa caucus. Voting shouldn't be so interesting, and certainly not so difficult, so time-restricted, so manipulated. This process is not quaint, and definitely not worth the deference it's given. (Of course, as it is, I'll still be following closely)

Read Jeff Greenfield's piece in Slate.

Michael Moore Endorses John Edwards
Essentially.

Iowa Stuff
Because what else will we talk about for the next 2 days?

Kucinich has had enough of Edwards and is asking his supporters to back Obama. Nader is backing Edwards.

Who's ahead? Who knows. CNN's poll has Obama and Clinton out in front with Edwards 9 back. Insider Advantage has Edwards and Clinton neck and neck with Obama 7 behind. The Des Moines Register has Obama out in front on his own.

Obama is taking heat for criticizing the Gore and Kerry campaigns for being too polarizing, (though frankly I don't see the need to read his remarks that way) and for taking a bit of a shot at Edwards for being a trial lawyer.

Just a thought. In a sane world, this close a three-way race, in this quirky a voting system, would be seen for what it is: a tie. Then, more of the rest of us would have a say, things not having been decided. Instead, whichever candidate manages to eke out a tiny win will get a disproportional bump, and whichever ends in third will get an unfair negative spin. But that's the way it is.