Dem race is finally over.

Well the end is in sight for the dems, happily. Hillary has been on her best behavior recently, doing a whole lot more criticizing of McCain than Obama. She knows he's won, and for the first time in a long time is doing the party some real good. Amazingly, she seems to badly want the # 2 slot. The Clintons are savvy political animals and they think Obama will win. Being a sitting VP isn't the worlds worst place to run for President. Just ask President Gore. Oh wait....

First, a look back. I have been busier and not posting. Had I posted after Rev. Wright's more recent eruption, I would have predicted that it would measurably eat into Obama's support and favored Hill. I would probably have predicted that the supers would stop endorsing and play more a wait and see. And I would have been WRONG. Nothing has changed the view of dem primary voters since late February. Nothing. ALL the races have gone as the experts have predicted. Hill crushes in West Va and Kentucky? Check. Obama wins NC and Oregon? Check. And so on.

Anyway, Hill wants to be Vice. If you're there, something may turn up. Or she'd have to wait 8 years. She's a healthy 60, and would likely be more than up to it at 68 if she sets her mind to it.

Anyway, the race is done. And my (modest) fan club is clamoring for my views on who Obama will pick as VP.

First, he doesn't actually "pick" the VP nominee, the delegates at the convention do. Typically this is a formality. But there's been a lot of speculation recently about the Clintons lobbying Obama supers to promise to pick Hill as Vice. Now if I were a super that owed the Clintons a favor, and went against them and went with Obama and they called me again and asked me to jam Clinton down Obama's throat, that would be a very appealing request. I would almost certainly agree to do it. I could win back favor with the Clintons and the Clintonites without really pissing off anyone.

Having said that, I'll work from the bottom.

America has about 300 million people.

My 300 millionth choice for Vice is Dick Cheney.

My 300 millionth and first choice, just one person BEHIND Dick Cheney, is Hillary. I just want her and Bill to GO AWAY. Her campaign has enraged me. She has violated what SHOULD be the first rule of politics-- what I call the Frank Sinatra rule. Do it MY WAY! To thine own self be true. She didn't do it her way. As Andrew and I put it, "She did it Dick Morris' way-- triangulate, triangulate, triangulate -- and never get out in front of the people by suggesting a smart solution that isn't a consensus opinion." She pretended to be anti-free trade, she supported a gas tax holiday, she attacked Obama hard personally and pretended to have policy differences. Just what difficult truths did she tell the democratic party in this endlessly long and monumentally expensive race? That we need nuclear power to transition away from oil? That fighting for national health care will require just HUGE political battles with insurance companies? That it will cost MORE money to fix the broken military W is handing off? Not so much. (Though she did, to her great credit, sound a very hawkish tone on Iran).

As an added bonus, no extra charge, she and her darling hubby injected race wherever possible. "He's black, HE'S BLACK," they whispered, said, and once in a while screamed. Yes, Hillary, he is. Thanks for that.

Although I don't take back my view that she'd make the best president of the dem candidates, she ran, in my opinion, a largely dishonorable campaign. I just want her to go away. If we need to make her Senate Majority Leader for life as a nice consolation prize to get her to go away now, fine. God knows she's a big improvement over Harry Reid, who I suspect may lose his seat anyway in 2010 when he's up.

Politically, I think she does the ticket harm not good (though probably not much harm). I think having BOTH Clintons around will get in Obama's way, I think she repels some voters, does bring some others, and besides, Vice Presidential choices are badly overrated. Lastly, Obama's glaring weakness is in national security matters, and well-crafted images to the contrary, Hillary's experience here, while deeper than his (whose isn't?) is not real deep. She didn't serve in the military, hasn't held a military related position, and hasn't been a longtime national leader on national security issues, as McCain has, as Sam Nunn did once upon a time, as Joe Biden has.

I just don't want her around. My first choice, pending a detailed interview and background check, is Jim Webb, Senator VA. He fought in Vietnam, was Navy Secretary under REAGAN, switched parties a while back and won a Senate seat from Virginia as a democrat. His being from a swing state is a small plus (yes, Virginia is seriously in play with Obama as the nominee), but MUCH more important is that he's a straight shooter, funny, engaging, a populist streak, and is up to the job of Commander in Chief.

My second choice, *sigh* is Senator Joe Biden. Dull as dishwater except when he's funny, and I don't always agree, but a democratic leader on national security for 2 decades.

My 2 A choice is Bill Richardson. Good national security profile, but doesn't look the part (short, very chubby). Americans are ignorant, and base a lot of their views on images, and he doesn't LOOK the part. But he IS the part, though he can be more than a bit odd in what he says. Being hispanic is very nice as well. Hispanic voters have been left cold by Obama (there are often tensions between black and Hispanic politicians in big cities), and McCain is even better placed than Bush was to make a real run at them, because he has sensible views on immigration, which he held reasonably fast to despite enormous pressure to bend.

Ok, my REAL first choice, the potential game-changer, the way out of the box choice is Al Gore. Sure its pathetic to be Vice President AGAIN. But he's got the experience, he can help on security issues, he has the sex appeal of an Oscar AND a Nobel. Suffice to say he'd be a HUUUUGGEEEEE plus. I doubt seriously he'd accept the offer, but if I were Obama I'd sure as heck offer.

These are my HOPES. If I had to PREDICT, I would be at this point pretty surprised if HILLARY wasn't the V.P. nominee. She seems to really want it, she got a ton of votes in the primaries, and can make life absolutely miserable for Obama if she chooses to take her marbles and go home. If she's on the ticket, she and Bill will work hard for it. If she isn't they won't, and may even do it active harm. Not a pretty picture, but then the Clintons aren't pretty people. Happily, she'd make a useful Vice, and if something happened to Obama, she'd be instantly ready to step into the Big Chair.

The direction of interest rates in the coming months.

Well, onto the next few fed meetings. I told Fed Chairman Bernanke that I was opposed to his last interest rate cut, and dissented. He told me to shut and stop whining-- that he had enacted my plan WHOLESALE, and I was quibbling. Well he was right, of course. But he did promise me that the fed was done. "We're followers Dan. We followed right where the markets led us, and now we're going to continue to follow. They are the people, we MUST FOLLOW THEM!" He cried, as he leaned back in his $4,000 leather chair, sipping a bottle of imported spring water. "Well ok Ben," I said, sipping my Diet Pepsi (whiskey is so 1985). "But what's next? We're all going on interest rate vacation right? You and the boys that monitor the financial markets are pulling all nighters, but you sent the FOMC crowd home for the Summer, right?" "Yup. You win again, Dan." "Ok Ben, but please tell me we're also done injecting money, making new guarantees, doing more feel good?" "Only if we fucking have to. We've done ENOUGH! The destruction of the dollar is giving me the screaming heebie jeebies. I aint going down in history as the Fed Chairman who turned the dollar into toilet paper!"

"FANTASTIC BEN! You're heading right where I want to go. I AM SO IN LOVE WITH YOU BEN!" "Um, Daniel, you really scare me sometimes."

So that's where we are. The FOMC is on vacation. The Good Lord himself couldn't move interest rates for the next several months. The next move is very likely up, sometime very late this year or more likely early next year, barring complete abject disaster in the financial markets. At my urging, Ben has widely signalled to the markets that the FOMC is in fact on vacation. "Ok, Ben," I asked, "may I now provide you with the plan for getting the dollar back to being worth something again? When a simple sandwich on a Paris street corner costs literally $18, something is badly wrong." "Shoot."

"Well Ben, my plan for the next 6-9 months is benign neglect. Its very unfortunate, but we can't just raise rates to defend the dollar 28 nanoseconds after we cut them to the floor. We'll look like the gang that can't shoot straight, both to the stock and currency markets. It'd be a disaster, worse for the dollar by far than benign neglect." "Duh," he eloquently replied. "But after we're reasonably sure we're out of the financial markets woods, and we can clearly see the economy rebounding, it'll be time to take some money out of the system. First we can do so via open market operations, just sell some bonds, and seriously slow the growth in the money supply the old fashioned way. The markets will get the hint after a few weeks, that Dollar Sheriff Ben has replaced Panic Ben, and that help is on the way for the beleaguered greenback."

"Next, a few short months later, an initial 50 basis point rate hike. The Federal Funds Rate will still be real low; at 2.5% rates will be WAY below what will be the nominal GDP growth at that time (figure 4.5% inflation and 2% growth, so 6.5% nominal GDP growth and 2.5 % rates-- not exactly restrictive policy!) Then rates will have to go up as fast as they went down, so we can race back towards a slightly stimulative or neutral real rate. So 2009 will, hopefully, involve a series of sharp rate increases."

"I note, Ben, that these rate hikes will likely devastate the equity markets in the very short run, but the sagging dollar ought to spring back to life as the real economy should be able to absorb these blows by then, and of course interest rate differentials between the US and the rest of the world will level out." If the real economy holds up, and the dollar rebounds, the equity markets will of course take care of themselves."

"Well done Daniel my boy. My thoughts exactly. I would add that I would expect that by the time we start frog-marching interest rates north, late in 2008 or early in 2009, that the Euros will be about ready to cry uncle and cut theirs a bit." The shock to the currency markets will be profound. All of their assumptions have been based on the Euros' heads in the sand while we cut rates to the floor. When BOTH of those assumptions go out the window at the same time (with or without coordination)-- well let's just say I'd sell Euros and buy dollars ahead of all this. Oh, and between you, me and the wall, hopefully Obama will have won the presidency and the markets will realize that it is no longer open season on the dollar from the administration. Hopefully Bob Rubin will pull Obama aside and tell him what's what. Lord knows someone has to." "Hey Ben, what happens if god forbid McCain wins?" "Don't even think it. I talked to him by phone earlier this year. He may not be dead serious about even lower taxes, but he's a lost cause on actually raising them. And the spending cuts he's talking about-- well 'puny' about covers it. I think Obama's higher taxes and slightly higher spending are BETTER for the dollar than McCain's Bush light policies. But if you put that up on your fucking blog I'll personally hang you by your thumbs!"

Obama's Texas strategy.

I assume that Obama will be the democratic nominee. Maybe I'll make yet another post about that. Anyway, this post is even more valid if Hillary somehow ends up as the nominee.

I think Obama should make a huge push to win Texas in the general election in November. A huge push, where a lot of time is spent and, in particular, where a lot of money is spent. Here's why.

I don't think Obama can win Texas (bear with me). In the best election in recent years for the democrats, 1996, Dole beat Clinton by just under 5 points in an election Clinton won by 8.5 points. In other words, Texas was 13.5 points more Republican (or redder) than the whole country (including Texas). So it would seem that trying to win Texas is a lost cause for a democrat just now. And it may well be. I still think Obama should spend huge resources trying.

First, as more Hispanics register and vote, and as immigration becomes a huge issue, that may well add a few points to the democrats (although McCain is widely seen, rightly, as not anti-immigrantion/anti Mexican immigration, as so many Republicans are).

Second, campaigning in Texas is excellent practice for campaigning in states democrats can win, namely neighboring Louisiana and Arkansas (which Clinton won twice) and in my opinion could be won by Obama in 2008, New Mexico (won by Clinton twice and Gore by a hair, but lost by Kerry) and to a lesser extent Missouri and Colorado. Colorado is trending democratic, big time, and is expected to be in play this year, although its similarity with Texas is, to say the least, tenuous. Missouri is always a swing state, but again, it isn't really similar to Texas. Still, campaigning more in the region and less in the Midwest and Florida can't hurt in Missouri and Colorado.

Finally, the main reason by far for my Texas Strategy is money. Obama will have more of it than he knows what to do with. I expect that assuming he wants to, Obama will raise north of $1 billion dollars! In contrast, in 2004 Bush raised $360 and Kerry raised more than $317.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/index.asp

I expect Obama to be an order of magnitude better, both because of the enthusiasm he generates, and because of the enthusiasm of democrats following 8 years of Bush, who democrats loathe. The huge sums he has raised in the primary season seem clear evidence to me that, at a minimum, he will blow Bush's 2004 fundraising numbers out of the water.

McCain and the Republicans, in contrast, are struggling financially. This is a stunning turn of events. I asked myself how Obama could best to use a boatload of money, I looked for an expensive big state to spend it in and Texas jumped off the page. It is the second biggest electoral prize (34 electoral votes, compared to Florida's 27) behind huge California (55). In addition, the GOP can't win without it. Not a chance in hell. If Obama spends time and big big money in Texas there is every chance that the polls will show him within striking distance of McCain there. This will inspire raw panic on the GOP side, which is a good thing, and will divert precious money the GOP would much rather spend in the traditional swing states (Florida, Ohio, Missouri, the Midwest).

As an added bonus, the democrats might even begin rebuilding their name in Texas, which if you ask me is a hot idea. Simply writing off gigantic swaths of the country is lousy politics and is bad for the nation as a whole. Much better for the democrats, as Howard Dean has emphasized, to compete in all 50 states (or at least as many as humanely possible).

If the election is a landslide none of this matters a bit. And a landslide is what I expect, in favor of the democrats. Still, you always plan for failure, and if the election is close my strategy (particularly if money is the main resource poured in rather than time) could swing Arkansas, Louisiana and New Mexico (which borders Arizona, McCain's home state). Had Gore won either Arkansas or Louisiana he would have won, regardless of Florida. It may seem like a lot of money and effort for small states, assuming Texas is unwinnable. But again, Obama will have more money than he can possibly effectively spend, and as between a ton more ads in Florida or Ohio in freaking September, or a whole new battlefield, which may help in a few neighboring states, I vote to flood Texas with money.

The other new expensive battleground, which Obama is 100% certain to go after, vigorously, is Virgina. Bill Clinton came within 2 points in 1996, and Virgina is much less unfavorable for the democrats now than it was then. Ask Senator Webb. Advertising in Northern Virginia, near DC, is very expensive. Obama cleaned Hillary's clock in Va., and should run very well against McCain. But this is low hanging fruit-- an obvious choice to spend money and time. Texas is much more subtle. Potentially more powerful. And more useful as a party building strategy/mandate strategy.

Fight for Texas Obama!

Fed's next steps.

The fed next meets to discuss monetary policy on April 29/30, next week. I hearby call on the fed to stand pat, and leave rates unchanged.

As you all know as loyal readers, I have advocated a policy of dropping interest rates, fast, and keeping them low, as well as fiscal stimulus, to prevent a possible implosion of the financial system, and to prevent the recession we are in from becoming needlessly deep. Fortunately, Fed Chairman Bernanke has been thinking along exactly the same lines! I love Bernanke!

The Federal Funds rate, the most important rate set by the fed, is now at 2.25%. With inflation higher than that, at between 3-4 % depending on which measure you look at, interest rates are, in the jargon, highly stimulative. Real short term interest rates are negative, a fairly rare condition, which only occurs when the fed is worried about DEFLATION (2001-2004) or when the fed is concerned about a recession becoming severe (1990-91, 2001-2002, and now). In simple terms, the fed has the pedal just about to the medal, and is willing to let the dollar twist in the wind in order to try and stimulate the economy.

As my friend Andrew and many others predicted, the previous rate cuts have caused the dollar to continue to tank, gold and oil prices to explode, and other commodity and food prices to rise sharply. I consider these reasonable prices to pay to try and ensure that the economy doesn't slide into a deep and long recession.

I now call on the fed to stand pat. I am delighted with interest rates exactly where they are! I'm not worried about inflation, at all. The US economy will weaken, north of a million more jobs will be lost, and consumers will continue a shopping strike. (Read this interesting article to learn why. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_great_shopping_spree.html )

The weakening of the US economy and the consumers' shopping strike will put sharp downward pressure on prices, even oil prices (for complex reasons). So it is not because of a fear of inflation (the usual argument against interest rate cuts) that I advocate the fed standing pat. Instead, I want the fed to have further ammunition in case the financial markets weaken further, or there is some crisis. If rates are lowered much more the fed will have run out of bullets, a really bad idea in a world full of armed people trying to sneak up on you.

In addition, I think standing pat will signal to the oil and currency markets that the fed isn't on a wild, drunken, damn the dollar spree (unlike the Bush administration, which has been on one since January of 2001). By standing pat, the fed will say in essence, "don't worry, competent adults are in charge of economic policy now. Fear not, and invest in the US).

This is what I would like to see. As for a prediction, a 25 basis point, or .25% point cut would not surprise me in the slightest.

Oil prices. Where do they go from here.

First, oil prices have gone NUTS. As any of you who own a car are painfully aware, oil prices have gone through the roof. As I write this on 4/16/08, oil is at $113 a barrel. This is staggering! It is also a classic BUBBLE. This bubble, like the recently burst housing bubble, the tech stocks bubble, the baseball card bubble of the 1980s (yes, there was one, a BIG one for that tiny market) and all other bubbles down through history occur when, for various reasons, prices get completely out of whack with a "normal" supply and demand curve. For example, the demand for tech stocks with few revenues, no profits (laugh) and no clear way to BECOME profitable grossly exceeded the supply for several years. Accordingly the prices shot through the roof. Now of course the main reason why demand consistently exceeded supply was the greater fool theory. That is, you could always unload the thing on some other sucker. Until the game of financial musical chairs ended, that is.

Look up the tulip bubble, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania for an absolutely fascinating story of how prices can get out of line. What a mind boggling bubble that was!

Anyway, oil prices are now in a bubble, a BIG one. Well, partially a bubble. Demand has soared in recent years, and that's no bubble. China, you may have heard, is fast growing. REALLY REALLY fast. India too. The US has grown. In fact, the world economy grew more in the last few years than at any time since the 1950s. It was quite the boom while it lasted. So part of the oil price run up is "real," by which I mean demand really has sustainably increased. But part of it is a fear in the oil markets regarding Iraq, possible war with Iran, instability in Venezuela, and so on. And a bigger part of it, imho, is that there is a LOT of money sloshing around the world financial system that needs a home. Interest rates have been low and are now dropping some in the US, so bonds aren't too attractive. Why not buy commodities (or more accurately bet on oil prices increasing)? People have. In HUGE amounts. Some of this is well outside of my knowledge, but the people I read have long felt that a fair bit of the run up in oil prices the last few years is simply speculative froth that will wear off.

Another part of the oil run up is the precipitous fall of the US dollar. For historical reasons, nearly all oil contracts are priced in DOLLARS. Well, you're Saudi Arabia. The dollars you get don't buy nearly as many Euros/Yen as they used to. Figure it out.

Why will oil prices very likely decline from here:

A) Demand growth will slow considerably. The US is in recession, which slows demand growth. The Euro economy is slowing, and the UK is probably headed for a housing led recession. This will slow growth. China is trying to slow its economy. This will slow growth.

B) The dollar will not keep falling for the next few years. I think. (Heaven help us all if it does).

C) The Bubble will burst. Demand on the spot market will drop as betting on oil prices is no longer a one-way winning bet.

On the political instability front, I don't know what will happen. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the situation in the world oil producers became more stable. A perfect storm is possible, where oil prices quickly crater (to a still high number, say $70 a barrel).

Which brings me to my last point. Andrew and I have made one of our periodic wagers. Now my record in these wagers is NOT good. I am approximately 1-7. That is, I've won 1 (I think) and lost around 7. With that in mind:

I have wagered that sometime between now and the end of the decade, 12/31/09, Oil will drop below $80 a barrel. Andrew has wagered that it will not. A fancy dinner, plus the more important bragging rights, are at stake. It has a relatively long way to drop and a somewhat short time to do it, but I'm convinced this is a bubble, and bubbles DO burst. The only question is when. Wish me luck. Against the Goliath that is Andrew, I'll need it.

Injustice in Japan.

In its March 15, 2008 print issue, the Economist wrote about Japan's criminal justice system. For those not in the know, Japan works very differently than the west in the criminal justice arena. Criminal defendants are generally expected to confess, and most do so. The conviction rate is "over 99%." "Investigations" often take years.

Recently, there was a case of alleged vote-buying which collapsed where it became "plain that the police had fabricated the evidence -- though not before one defendant had died and another been subjected to over 700 hours of interrogation and 400 days in detention."

700 hours of interrogation. Stop and think about that. That's 24 full days of interrogation. Or, assuming 10 hours for sleep and other activities per day, 50 full calendar days of interrogation. That's completely insane.

Heaven knows the US has enormous injustices in our criminal prosecutions. But sometimes you read something from an allegedly civilized country that just jumps off the page at you. This is a screaming injustice of the very first order. In fact, I wonder if a case could be made (literally and figuratively) that at some point this interrogation crossed over into torture. 50 days of interrogation (with 8 hours of sleep and 2 miscellaneous hours per day). 50 days. I just can't get past that. Japan should be ashamed of itself, and fix, root to branch, a system which allows this awful result. And the individuals involved in the ultra-marathon of interrogation should at the very least be fired.

The Fed will cut rates 75 or 100 basis points today. Full fledged, all out panic has set in at the Federal Reserve. The Fed's coordination of Bear Stearns' rescue over the weekend typifies the fear at the Fed that the problems in the credit markets will worsen, and that financial institutions may fail. This would be disastrous for a variety of reasons which I don't have time to go into right now.

The Fed has chosen to follow a course of action I have advocated, which is to cut rates to the floor, fast, flood the financial markets with money/loans as needed, and generally err heavily on the side of aggressive measures to limit the duration and magnitude of the recession we are now in, and protect the financial system from a disaster. I will go into much more detail in a post I've been meaning to put up for days explaining why an analogy to Japan's severe problems of the 1990s is badly inapt in discussing the United States' current problems. For now, I'll leave you all with this: the fed will cut rates at least 3/4 of a point today, which will leave the federal funds rate (assuming a 3/4 point cut) at 2.25%. Given that inflation is higher than that at the moment (by a fair bit), this means that in the jargon, real (inflation adjusted) short term interest rates will be sharply negative. This means that in terms of the economy the fed has the gas pedal to the floor and is pushing almost as hard as it possibly can to try and get the economy moving. This is, imo, exactly what the fed should be doing to mitigate the spread of the mortgage based credit crisis, inflation be damned, and the dollar be damned. This is an incredibly bold course of action, kudos to Bernanke. I think I'm in love!

Spitzer will go. He both should resign and will resign. Fundamentally, no one loves a hypocrite. Both as Attorney General and as Governor he aggressively marketed himself as a totally upright (holier than thou!) fine man who would protect us from society's degenerate elements, such as prostitution rings (he zealously prosecuted these), gambling and Wall Street shenanigans. He has now been revealed as a full blown hypocrite. Everyone from the Village idiot to me to William F. Buckley, Albert Einstein et al, can can smell a hypocrite a mile away. And no one loves a hypocrite.

This however has almost nothing to do with why he WILL resign or why he should.

He will resign because he was already deeply unpopular among his fellow democrats in New York for his ham-handed imperious style and his my-way or the highway attitude. Unlike Republicans (see Congressional, Republicans), democrats really don't like when an autocrat tells them what to do. His natural friends aren't being real friendly right now. There are myriad other reasons. Here is one article detailing just how lousy a fellow Spitzer is.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112008/news/columnists/bully_gets_his_comeuppance_101383.htm

To give you a flavor of his standing in New York these days, democratic House Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Spitzer ally (if he had any) said, "The allegations against the governor are before the public. I have nothing to add at this time."

When your friends pull out the long knives and ask you to turn around, you know things aren't going real well....

An incredibly sharp friend in the PR biz told me yesterday he would resign by the end of the week. My friend is right. My guess is that he resigns Thursday. He COULD try and stay, but the democrats might well impeach his sorry ass. Goodbye Elliot. You won't be missed.

Israel & Gaza-- Take 5,381

The New York Times recently opined about Israel and the ongoing Gaza situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08sat1.html

Continuing its perfect record, the Times is, yet again, almost entirely wrong regarding what Israel should do.

First, the Times reflexively calls for a ceasefire every time Israel defends itself. Now I'm the first to admit that Israel generally manages to be both ham-handed (attacking and often killing people not directly responsible for attacks on it, or engaging in collective punishment, such as checkpoints with dubious security rationales) and ineffective (in general Israel recoils from taking the sort of military actions which would actually make a difference in its security, such as enforcing a large exclusion zone in southern Lebanon during the 2006 war, which would be depopulated and thus could not be used for rocket attacks against Israel. Israel prefers looking tough (partial blockade of Gaza, air strikes, pinprick strikes against militants) to taking decisive actions which would actually be tough. Israel's current actions in Gaza fit this tragic pattern all too well.

Still, the New York Times advocates:

1) A cease fire;

2) Negotiations between Abbas and Israel; and

3) Outside pressure on Hamas to behave.

I am absolutely opposed to numbers 1 and 2 above, while # 3 is surely destined to fail and fail spectacularly. Thus the New York Times has it almost perfectly wrong. Impressive, but unsurprising, the Times is always wrong about Israel.

I'll address in turn:

A) I am opposed to a cease fire

A nation does not enter into a cease fire with an enemy bent on its destruction and actively doing damage (lobbing rockets) as Hamas is without a really good reason. Now if Hamas put out a statement, "we recognize Israel's right to exist but only on its 1948 borders. As long as it occupies one millimeter beyond that we are at war, but we are willing to talk to it," that would be a sea change, and could and would justify a cease fire. But the Times seems to think a cease fire is a good thing for its own sake. That is where I part company with the vast majority of the unthinking Israeli left (of which the Times, sadly, is a proud member as the above editorial makes painfully clear).

Now violence for violence's sake is even worse than a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire. Accordingly, I sadly agree with this piece from Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546390315&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Glick is a right wing hawk, opposed to a Palestinian state regardless, and seeing the Ps as always wrong. However, she sees Israel's government as nearly always wrong, incompetent, and bone-headed when it comes to Israel's security. Thus although I vigorously disagree with her on settlements and the benefits of a P state (I am bitterly opposed to any Israeli settlement whatsoever, and am strongly opposed to the ongoing occupation, 40 years and counting), I do very much agree that Israel's security efforts are generally lame and lacking. Specifically, Israel's military actions rarely have clear goals, and when they do those goals rarely result in Israel's security being enhanced.

Andrew has often criticized Caroline Glick for not taking her own ideas to their logical conclusion. She is pretty much an unrelenting hawk on how Israel should respond to P actions, yet rarely spells out just what she does want Israel to do, preferring instead to viciously criticize Israeli actions. Now bitterly criticizing the Olmert government is low hanging fruit indeed. Rarely if ever have I seen an elected government so grossly incompetent, and so obviously disinterested in the welfare of the country and instead solely interested in its self-preservation. These people are enough to make me long for the Bushies....

To circle back, I am bitterly opposed to a cease fire. Hamas has fired any number of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, resulting in some casualties. The quality of the rockets has improved, and Iran is almost certainly supplying them. This is intolerable! I support whatever level of force is necessary to eliminate this threat, or at least to very very radically reduce it. If that requires reoccupying Gaza, I support it. If that requires that Israel evict every civilian for several kilometers or more from the border so as to provide a buffer zone, I support it. Needless to say, I do not support reintroducing settlements, which I imagine even the stupid bumbling land-grabbing Israelis won't do.

B) I am opposed to negotiations between Abbas and Israel.

I believe in diplomacy and peace generally, so it very much goes against my beliefs to oppose negotiations. Yet I have been opposed for several years and remain so. The reason is simple. Abbas speaks for almost no one. He sure as heck doesn't speak for Hamas, and really barely speaks for Fatah. As I understand it, he has very little sway with the average P. In short, even if Israel and Abbas came to an "agreement," it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, because no one on the P side would take it seriously. In particular, Hamas, the most virulent P enemy, certainly wouldn't. Indeed they have repeatedly condemned negotiations with the "Zionist entity." So why on earth would Israel negotiate with a man (stipulating to his good will and good faith) who cannot deliver any peace? It defies imagination.

You may ask, Ok, what's YOUR solution? Well here it is. Israel should decide on what it sees as the endgame, and simply impose it. Israel should call on the world to recognize a P state, right now, on 100% of Gaza (less perhaps a piece from which civilians have been excluded, as a buffer zone) and whatever percentage of the West Bank Israel is prepared to leave. It should of course police the borders of the P state indefinitely. (That Israel apparently relied on Egypt and the Ps to police the Gaza/Egypt border is an action of such rank idiocy as to defy imagination, but what can I tell you, Israel didn't ask me). That's it. No negotiations, no discussions, no handshakes, no contact, no trade, no nothing. Israel should then bar any Ps from entering its territory, no exceptions. Israel should not trade at all with the fledgling P state, and should disentangle from any assistance/cooperation. Israel should police the borders of the P state, vigorously. But it should end the occupation, immediately. It should have no role in the lives of the Ps, period. If military action against this state is necessary, as is almost certain, Israel should of course take such action, as it would against Jordan, Syria, etc. But with the occupation over, and a P flag hanging in the UN, Israel would be in a good position to tell the world, "that's it, we're done with the Ps." Now I realize Israel would get zero credit for this in the Muslim world, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to clarify the security situation nicely, and so that there are no more damn negotiations.

Look, if I thought negotiations with Abbas even might yield security benefits, I'd be all for them. But I don't. So why negotiate?

C) Pressure on Hamas. Yeah, right. Egypt and Co. are going to exert REAL pressure on Hamas? And how about Iran? Maybe if Israel and Hamas held hands and sang songs that would help too? What on earth is the Times smoking? I'm not opposed to such pressure per se, but I am highly dubious that it would work, and even if it did it would only prove a temporary expedient at best, with Hamas resuming firing rockets at a time and place and manner of its choosing.

There. Comment away.

Here is how the democratic primary race may end.

First, Hillary absolutely cannot catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. Here is a piece (thanks Bryan!) which outlines a long string of Hillary upsets and landslides from here on out

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

Under this scenario, enormously favorable to Hillary, she ends up 58 delegates behind Obama. If Florida and Michigan re vote, which looks increasingly likely, Hillary will clean Obama's clock in Florida and probably win Michigan, and could cut this lead to almost nothing. But remember, this scenario has Hillary winning EVERY state from here on out, which simply won't happen. In other words, when all the voting is over in June, Obama will have more pledged delegates (and more popular votes) in all likelihood.

Under a more plausible scenario, Obama will be up more than a token number of delegates, but still short of the 2,025 needed for nomination without a lot of superdelegate support. Fill in your own scenarios using slate's delegate calculator,

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/, if you're really motivated.

Here's what I'm beginning to think may happen.

First, this race is very likely not to be decided until all the votes are cast. Even if Obama wins in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, Hillary's position will be strong enough that she's unlikely to be persuaded to drop out.

Second, there will likely be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. The current situation, with neither state getting any delegates or superdelegates at the democratic convention stinks on ice and everyone knows it. The "problem," is that those states are very favorable for Clinton, especially Florida, which she won in a landslide in January, even though no one campaigned. Seniors are her best demographic bloc, and Florida has a few.

So sometime in June all will be said and done and most likely Obama will have more pledged delegates and more votes overall than Hillary. At that point, the combined total of the pledged delegates he has earned in the primaries and caucuses plus the number of superdelegates who have said they will vote for him will be somewhat close to the 2,025 needed to be nominated. Let's make up a number and say he's 150 short. That's where Al Gore comes in.

With Bill Clinton an interested party, Gore is the most prominent democrat not directly involved in the race. He is thus in the best position to try and organize the superdelegates. Gore should, starting about today, reach out to the uncommitted superdelegates and say the following: Hey folks. Don't commit to either of them until mid-June. Let all the votes play out. Then, when its over and Obama is a given number short, say 150, Gore should get 175 superdelegates to agree in essence to vote for Obama on the conditions he outlines. Stay with me. Gore would (after disclosing his plans to all the superdelegates before earning their support) go to Obama and say, "Barack, I'm prepared to deliver you these 175 uncommitted superdelegates, which will give you the nomination. All you have to do in return is to give me your word, man to man, that you will pick Hillary as your #2, whether she accepts or not. If you don't agree, the race is in chaos, and you could lose the nomination." I think Obama would readily agree. This would (if the 175 superdelegates were believed), end the race and give Obama the nomination, regardless of Hillary's response.

Next, Gore can go to Hillary with an ultimatum. He'd say, "Hillary: I have 175 superdelegates who have promised me that they will vote for Obama, thus putting him over the 2,025, and giving him the nomination. Its over, he has won. Obama has privately promised me he will make you the Vice Presidential nominee. Agree to drop out now and it all ends, you get the # 2 slot, and we wipe the floor with McCain and live happily ever after. You're still young enough to run again. Disagree and you lose everything. The 175 superdelegates will vote for Obama anyway (think they would change their minds if Obama agreed to Gore's plans and she didn't?) and there will be a ton of general bitterness towards you. You lost the delegate race, you lost the popular vote. Yes, yes, you were very close. Trust me, I know the feeling!!!! Under those conditions, Obama will likely be DISinclined to pick you as the Vice President, and I know I will speak for a lot of people who wouldn't want him to.

Hillary may conceivably not play along, but if the 175 superdelegates stuck together she'd lose any floor fight, and would, I think, be vilified by democrats all the while, spoiling her chances competely for the future. Heads she gets the V.P. slot, tails she gets nothing.

Gore's role is necessary because the 175 people need to be organized, and he's in by far the best position to do it. So I call on Al to get to work!

Got my mojo back.


For my abject failures in predicting the outcome of the March 4 Ohio and Texas races, I have had my hearing before the Accuracy Police Commission of the Blogosphere. The Accuracy police sentenced me to 5 months of remedial future prediction training. I was lucky it wasn't 10 years.... In any event, that's it, my blogging license has been reaffirmed, and I have my mojo back.


First a little back-patting and history. Towards the end of last year, both my friend Andrew and I agreed with the strong consensus of the pundits that McCain was finished. No money, unpopular with the voters due to immigration, and very unpopular with the GOP moneyed interests because he is notoriously hard to buy, I figured that the GOP would settle on someone more malleable, and that McCain was finished. Oops.

On January 15th, when only the Iowa caucuses (won by Huckabee) and the New Hampshire primary (won by McCain) had been completed, I told you all that McCain would be the nominee, and that I was certain of it. Andrew, the inspiration of many of my ideas (but not this one) demanded that a price be paid for such certainty if it proved wrong, and I agreed in a blog post on January 30th to a series of pricey and humiliating things I would do if I were proven wrong. Of course, McCain clinched the GOP nomination on Tuesday. Good to be so right about something I was so sure about. Happens now and then.

So where does the Presidential race go from here? If the dem race were over today as I'd hoped, Obama/Clinton, or Obama/Mark Warner (fmr Gov, Va), or Obama/Barney (the Purple Dinosaur) would beat McCain. Say 55-43. Clinton/Obama would also win, but much much closer. 51-48 or 50-49. (Hillary aint exactly beloved, and McCain's great appeal to indys would really really hurt her). But she'd win. With the dem primaries looking to go on and on and on and on, I'm not sure right now of the general. Karl Rove (today's WSJ) may well be right that the ongoing dem primary HELPS the dems in November. But not if Hill tears Obama to pieces and Obama wins anyway (the slightly most likely scenario).

Which is a long winded way of saying I don't know. The dems are still the clear favorite to win in November, as of now. The situation favors them, the electoral map favors them, and McCain's being probably 4-5 points better than a random ok Republican in a national election because of how compelling he is STILL probably isn't enough to make up for it in 2008. As of now. But who knows what will happen, how badly the dems will damage each other, and even if the party will unify afterwards. If Clinton savages Obama and superdelegates her way to the nomination, Obama may well NOT accept the # 2 slot, and his followers will take their marbles and go home. In that scenario, McCain probably wins. That is nowhere near impossible. Sorry, not clean predictions, because the dem field is still unsettled, and there's always the possibility of a big outside event (Iran tests, Al Queda hits the USA, Pakistan goes to hell in a handbasket) that could seriously favor McCain.

Still, if I had to put money on the winner of the 2008 election, dem or GOP, I'd pick Dem w/o hesitation. Then again, I picked the dems in 2000 and 2004.....

Oops. I was completely, absolutely and utterly WRONG about Hillary. Please post any and all mocking, laughing comments in this post, not in any others. Kick me. Make fun of me. Ask why you should bother reading my blog. Insert red face here.

Clinton won Texas narrowly and absolutely cleaned Obama's clock in the small, obscure, and utterly unimportant state of, um, Ohio. Oops.

What a stunning comeback for the comeback Queen. What a stunning margin of victory in Ohio. Hey, they stayed on one message, muzzled Bill, and attacked Obama. I think they have stumbled upon a winning formula, and just in the nick of time. Get ready for weeks and weeks of partially negative campaigning. Oh joy!

Even if my prediction was reasonable when I wrote it, and it may well have been, I didn't even begin to see how much the campaign changed in the last week. Hill finally had a really good week, and questions finally began to really hit Obama hard. In Ohio both candidates were insincerely campaigning on reforming or ending NAFTA (which wouldn't save a single job, literally, as I said a few days ago). However, one of Obama's staffers was caught having in essence told a Canadian consular official, don't worry about the silly things Obama is saying, this is just politics, we won't disturb NAFTA. When confronted about it, Obama's people said the meeting didn't happen. Obama himself said the meeting did happen. Well, the Canadian consular official wrote a memo, leaked of course, about the meeting. Then the Obama people lied, then they stopped lying and started spinning. All in all not an optimal situation for the "above politics candidate."

Texas was close, but Hill's huge lead among Hispanics was dispositive, from what I have seen.

So where does the campaign go from here? I'll write more on this, but the short answer is, "how the heck should I know?" It is EASY to see how this could go all the way to the convention, in late August in Colorado. Obama's lead in pledged delegates is slightly under 100 at the moment. The most likely scenario is that at the end of all the primaries and caucuses he has a small lead. There is also the issue of what to do about Michigan (where no one campaigned and where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot) and Florida (where no one campaigned, both names were on the ballot, and Hillary kicked Obama's arse). There is just no way either state's delegates will count as is, but there is a real possibility of a re vote in either or both states. None of which changes the fact that neither of them are likely to be able to come real close to the magic # of delegates needed for nomination without a lot of help from superdelegates. So it seems to me that this campaign is no longer about delegates alone, but is also very much about superdelegates, and public relations.

Tomorrow's the Big Day.

Looks like the polls aren't cooperating with my predictions of a blowout in both Ohio and Texas for Obama. Still, the polls have been way wrong before, as have I. I still think he wins both and she drops out by Friday. But if she wins Ohio, even by 1 or 2 points, she may well soldier bravely on, to the benefit of no one. Here's hoping Ohio lives up to its usual role of voting with the winner (as it almost always does in the general election) and votes for the dem winner (Obama) tomorrow evening.

The Democrats and NAFTA.

The GOP candidates said a world of insane things in their debates. I was not kind to them in this space, and I don't take back a comma of what I wrote. The democrats were quite insane on the issue of NAFTA last night in what may be the last debate, and I'm going to tell you about it.

NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) apparently allows the US to pull out from the agreement with 6 months notice. On Tuesday the two big states voting are Texas (which borders Mexico, and has seen an economic boom in no small part because of increased trade with Mexico) and Ohio (which has lost a LOT of good-paying manufacturing jobs in the last 20-25 years, mostly NOT due to NAFTA, but some surely due to NAFTA). As the candidates pander to the voters of Ohio, both Obama and Clinton promised to renegotiate NAFTA to improve labor and environmental standards, and to pull out entirely if negotiations were unsuccessful.

They are lying through their teeth. They would do no such thing, and if they did, it would have precisely ZERO impact on manufacturing jobs in Ohio. Literally zip.

A) They won't actually pull out of NAFTA, no matter what happens. I can't prove it, or even logically back it up well, but that's my opinion. Even if they did it wouldn't save a single job in Ohio, as discussed below.

B) The proposed improvements in NAFTA have nothing to do with past or future job losses in manufacturing in Ohio (or anywhere else): Um, have these people ever heard of CHINA. To refresh, its in Asia, has 1.3 billion people, lots of new manufacturing in recent years, a rapidly growing economy, will host the Olympics this year..... They managed to discuss the impact of NAFTA as it effects manufacturing jobs in Ohio without mentioning CHINA. Well let me help them. Jobs moving to Mexico is the day before yesterday's news. Nowadays even China isn't the only destination; jobs are moving to Vietnam and Indonesia as well. But let's focus on China.

Let me back up. LOTS of manufacturing jobs HAVE left Ohio in the last 20 years. Why? Is it because of high taxes and oppressive regulation, like the GOP seems to say? Lawsuits? Because the owners hated America? Well, no. Its because wages in Mexico, China and elsewhere are FAR lower than here, and ESPECIALLY far lower than the high wages union workers receive. Think $50-60 an hour (counting benefits) in the US (higher for UAW workers), and maybe $4 an hour in Mexico (counting all costs associated with the worker, the individual worker gets well less than that) and maybe $2 an hour in China, if that. These differences are enormous, and REALLY add up. There are other advantages to manufacturing in Mexico or that tiny obscure Asian country called, oh, what is it called again? China, that's right. And yes, these include laxer labor and environmental laws. If we could somehow force Mexico to tighten up its labor and environmental laws that may be a positive outcome, but it will NOT save jobs. It won't bring Mexican labor costs anywhere remotely near those of the US (that will take decades) and, of course, will not address the even lower wages and welcoming economic climate of China. The savings from lower wages which result when jobs are moved to China or Mexico will absolutely overwhelm any additional tariffs required due to NAFTA's possible termination. It won't even be close. Even if NAFTA disappeared tomorrow jobs would still be moved overseas as economics and convenience allowed. Only ultra-drastic measures would stop this from happening.

In other words, Obama and Clinton were lying through their teeth, and saying something with about as much basis in reality as a flying pink unicorn. See any flying pink unicorns recently? I'll venture you've seen precisely as many flying pink unicorns in the last month as jobs which would be saved by the proposed changes in NAFTA or its elimination.

Goodbye Hillary. She's toast.

The democratic campaign effectively ended yesterday, in cold Wisconsin. In a very white middle class state, where demographics favored Clinton, Obama wiped the floor with her, winning among white men by 19 points and losing white women, CLINTON'S BASE, by only 2. This race is over, Obama has won. I am now 99.9% positive. Its pretty obvious really. Counting Wisconsin, Obama has now won 10 states in a row, and won them all BIG. The closest Hillary has come to a win since Super Duper Tuesday was yesterday in Wisconsin, which she lost by "only" 17 points. She's a political corpse. Its been obvious for a week, I should have seen it sooner. I'm sorry, I let you down a bit.

Why has Obama been cleaning her clock? Like Kerry and Gore before her, Hill doesn't wear well. The more you see of her the less you like her/more you dislike her. Obama does wear well. After Super Duper Tuesday, when it was clear that Obama might win, voters in states still to come took a careful look, liked what they saw, and easily said "NO," to voting for Hillary. In short, she has just no mass appeal, despite having a great deal going for her policy-wise and otherwise.

Here's what will happen next. Hillary will get more and more negative, to no good end. Bill will get back in the spotlight, making some wild charge or another. Obama will win Ohio decisively and Texas much less decisively (hispanics will be the last to flock to Obama) but he WILL win Texas. Calls will then mount for Hillary to drop out. She and Bill are nobody's quitters, so although I can't be sure when she'll drop out, after she loses both Ohio and Texas it will be clear to Hillary that she won't win. I now predict she will drop out by March 7. In addition, more and more superdelegates will either SWITCH their promised votes from her to Obama, or will change from undecided to Obama, as the results sink in. The risk of a protracted fight all the way to the convention has all but ended.

The democrats will win the presidency, and will do extremely well in the congressional elections. My much hoped for GOP wipeout will happen.

First the presidential. As you all know, I think McCain is an extremely strong candidate. I think in practically every election cycle since 1948 (perhaps literally every one except 1964 and 1996) McCain would win. But not in 2008. A combination of a recession and severe Bush fatigue has combined for a country raring and ready to elect Barney the Purple dinosaur if he were running as a democrat. This year, the GOP just can't win.

I'll write more soon about why the dems will do so very very well in 2008. In this post I'm going way out on a limb and predicting which states the dems will win. I hope I look back on this post in November and don't feel absolutely stupid. Here goes.

Start with the states Al Gore won in 2000. There are many web sites which tell you this, including www.270towin.com. Select 2000. Obama (or Clinton in the very unlikely event she is the nominee) will carry every state Gore carried). The democrat will also carry: Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and New Hampshire. This would give the democrat 364 electoral votes, way more than the 270 needed. This margin is solid enough that the democrat could lose BOTH Ohio and Florida and still win with room to spare. This map that I am projecting is similar to Bill Clinton's easy 1996 reelection win.

As for Congress, the dems will gain seats in both chambers. I couldn't guess at the number in the house, but it won't be tiny. There is a gigantic $$ and enthusiasm gap, and that will translate into D gains, especially with a large number of open seats.

As for the Senate, the GOP has TOUGH seats to defend. First, the GOP retirements. The Senate seats in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico and Virginia are open due to GOP retirements. Mark Warner, a former Governor of Virginia, is nearly a sure thing to pick up that seat. Colorado also looks very good. New Mexico is possible, and Nebraska and Idaho will stay with the GOP unless 2008 is a wipeout for the GOP. I thus predict that the dems pick up Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico.

GOP incumbents in trouble include Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConell, the Senate Minority Leader, in Kentucky, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and possibly Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina (who has been a real disappointment). I could see a bunch of these losing on a good night for the democrats. As of now I pick the dems in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. This is a total of a 6-seat gain for the democrats.

The only democratic held Senate seats that are seriously up for grabs are in South Dakota and Louisiana. In South Dakota, a very GOP state, Tim Johnson, who won very narrowly in 2002, suffered a serious stroke a few years back, and is recovering. I'm guessing he wins, but I have no confidence in this guess. I predict that Mary Landrieu loses in Louisiana, for the GOP's only pickup on what will be a disastrous night for them. So I predict the dems will pick up 5 Senate seats. Those seats, plus a bunch of house seats, plus 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will be a big night indeed for the Dems. There'll be a lot of crying elephants.

It'll be fun to look back on this post after the election and see how I did.

Obama is the nominee. He will be the democratic nominee, and the next president. I will discuss his upcoming November election landslide over McCain in another post.

I'm not quite as certain as I was when I wrote on January 15th that McCain would be the GOP nominee, but close. The lead paragraph in an article in the most recent edition of the economist perfectly sums up why I think Obama will win the nomination:

ON SATURDAY February 9th an overflowing crowd of Virginians got a chance to see
the Democratic presidential candidates giving dueling speeches at the
Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond. More interesting than anything the
candidates said, however, was the detritus afterwards. The crowds stripped the
place clean of Obama signs, tearing every last one off the walls. Hillary signs were abandoned on chairs and trampled under foot.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about democratic enthusiasm for Obama. He is a phenomenon. Hillary is a candidate, an appealing one to some. I supported Gore for president, with Hillary my strong second choice. See my post on my support for Hillary analogizing to the prom. http://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/search?q=prom. I always recognized that she left a lot to be desired as a candidate. And that her signs were left to be stomped on while Obama's were treated like $100 bills to be fought over tells you all you really need to know about the relative enthusiasm each generates among democrats. I can't tell you precisely how Obama will get the nomination. My best guess is that he wins Wisconsin today, solidly (5-10 points, maybe more), wins Ohio, is competitive in Texas and wins Pennsylvania. Under that scenario, there is every chance Hillary will actually drop out long before the convention, although "quitter," isn't a word that even her harshest enemies would toss her way. Many of the superdelegates supporting Hillary are apparently dying to jump ship and ride the winner's wave in Obama. But they don't want to piss of the Clintons, just in case. But as soon as they can, a goodly number of Clinton's delegates will move over to Obama. At some point the dam will burst, and a flood of them will move over to Obama. That's the most likely scenario. He's up in the national polls (for the first time) he has MUCH more money, he has MUCH more enthusiasm, and he's won a whole bunch of primaries and caucuses in a row, by a wide margin. He has more popular votes and more pledged delegates. It was a close competitive race, but Obama will prevail.

Hillary's in trouble. At least that what it seems like, though during this campaign season many things which seemed to be true (Rooody the GOP front runner, Hillary inevitable) sure didn't turn out to be true.

Nevertheless, the margins of victory for Obama in yesterday's DC area (Obama got 60% of the vote in Maryland and a stunning 64% in Virginia, a state democrats have their eye on flipping in November, as well as an expected 75% of the vote in DC itself tells us that he is on a serious roll. Hillary's hoping to win in both Texas and Ohio on March 4, which would again make this a total toss up race. But if Obama wins both of those states (difficult but not impossible) the race will probably be over. Theoretically Hillary can do better with the superdelegates (important democrats like congressman, governors, etc, who can go with whoever they want regardless of the delegates voted by the states), and these could push her over the top, but if Obama wins noticeably more delegates than Clinton and the superdelegates flip the nomination to Clinton there would be holy hell to pay within the democratic party. Think the fiasco of 1968, which led to a narrow Nixon victory (and the 72 landslide that followed). An awful lot of people do NOT want to see that happen. Hill's not a quitter, to be damn sure, but I could forsee a scenario where Obama is up by enough of the pledged delegates (the ones won in the state primaries and caucuses) that a movement ensues among the superdelegates to ratify the voters' choice and nominate Obama.

Among pledged delegates (those won in state contests and NOT counting the superdelegates) Obama is now up about 1104-979. 2,025 are needed for nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Hardly insurmountable, but it is a clear lead. There is also the matter of Michigan and Florida, which as of now will not be sending ANY delegates to the dem convention in Colorado. This is of course completely intolerable, and it is entirely possible that there will be fresh elections in both states, which should, in theory, favor Hillary strongly.

So its all a bit of a mess still. Dick Morris has predicted for nearly 4 years now that Hillary would be the nominee and next president. Yesterday for the first time he predicted Obama would win the nomination. Its easy to see why. He probably will. I sure as heck hope he's ready. A lot will depend on him if he's the nominee.

McCain is the strongest GOP candidate since Eisenhower. He really is. I know that sounds real strong, so let me back it up.

I'll begin with a few anecdotes. My late mother was a reliable democratic voter. She almost never voted for a Republican period (voted for Rooooooody both times if I recall, and voted for Pataki the first time). She never, not a once, voted for a Republican for President. Mom was also not political, and not at all politically knowledgeable. She told me in 2000 that if McCain was the GOP nominee, she would have voted for him.

Similarly, a few democrats have recently told me that they know die-hard democrats who say they will vote for McCain over Hillary at least. These people speak for an awful lot of others. I'll try and explain why.

John McCain is the son and grandson of Navy Admirals. He requested a combat assignment in Vietnam, and boy did he get one. As most or all of you know, he was flying a bombing mission when his plane was hit, he was forced to eject, and he was captured by the Vietnamese, spending more than 5 years as a POW, the first several under absolutely awful conditions. He was grieviously wounded in the initial shoot-down, and was often beaten senseless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain#Naval_training.2C_early_assignments.2C_first_marriage_and_children

In the most famous incident of his POW-hood, he was offered early release when the Vietcong realized how powerful his father was. He refused, unless everyone taken prisoner before him was also released. His refusal is required by the Code of the US fighting force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_U.S._Fighting_Force

Still, I imagine a lot of people, having been seriously injured, and having been repeatedly tortured, would have leapt at the chance to accept early release, damn the code. One assumes the Vietnamese could have simply ignored his wishes and thrown him out of prison and told him he'd be shot if he didn't make his way back to US lines, but still, the courage he showed is almost unimaginable.

While in the Senate, McCain bucked his party by taking on big tobacco by, among other things, calling for increased cigarette taxes to reduce smoking, co-sponsoring the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law (more on that later), working with Bush on the only sensible measure of the entire Bush presidency, the immigration reform/amnesty bill that died last year, opposing both rounds of Bush tax cuts, saying of the first round, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." He has also supported certain gun control measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain#Naval_training.2C_early_assignments.2C_first_marriage_and_children

Most significantly perhaps, although McCain was a strong and valuable supporter of Bush's reelection in 2004 (a fact which Hill or Obama SHOULD make great hay out of in 2008), he was, virtually alone among Republicans (Chuck Hegal a notable exception), critical of the Bush war effort in Iraq, at times FIERCELY critical. As far back as 2004 (right after the election, note), McCain said he had "no confidence," in Rumsfeld. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141374,00.html That may not sound impressive now, in 2008, but it was a radical position for a Republican then, with the Presidential etc. talking points being that Iraq was tough but going reasonably well. At that time he called for an additional 110,000 additional troops. (I note parenthetically that I was calling for huge #s of additional troops at the time as well. Given that what I know about the nitty gritty of fighting a ground war would fit inside of a thimble leaving plenty of room for your thumb, I give McCain little credit here). So although he's been properly branded as a supporter of the war effort in Iraq, the reality is quite a bit more complicated.

McCain has made his brand as a straight talker-- he calls his campaign bus the "straight talk express," and is, in my view, significantly more honest/less dishonest than any Republican has been in my lifetime, and is in fact more of a straight shooter than nearly anyone in our political class. In Iowa, each of the other GOP candidates pandered to local farming interests by supporting an enormous Ethanol subsidy. McCain didn't, either in 2000 or in 2008, and he did very poorly in Iowa, in part as a direct result.


Not to say that the Straight Talk Express hasn't come off the rails a time or two.

Campaigning for Bush in 2004 calling him a great leader in the war on terror, knowing what he knew THEN, constitutes at least the lead car of the straight talk express heading off the rails. Some of his other Iraq comments are a few more cars careening off of the tracks and down the valley.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/01/bush-talk_not_s.php

Also, on the campaign trail this time around, McCain is claiming that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because there were no spending cuts along with them. This is directly at odds with what he said at the time, which was that the tax cuts were giveaways to the rich, and appears geared to winning over GOP primary voters' hearts. When you market yourself as the straight talk express, lies which in another candidate would be no big deal become somewhat glaring.

But to return to my original thesis-- Here's a Republican who is, imho, a genuine war hero, who is NOT wedded to tax cuts for the wealthy, took on tobacco, has a sensible position on immigration, and is significantly more honest than most politicians. Its no wonder he appeals so strongly to independents.

Romney quit today. McCain will be the GOP nominee.

I congratulate Romney for finally doing something right; he quit exactly at the time he should have-- after the results from Super Duper Tuesday showed everyone that McCain is the certain nominee. Its the first thing he's done right during his entire campaign.

Romney's departure reminds me of the old saying: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Romney leaves no discernible imprint on the Republican body politic. He stood for nothing at all of his own, merely adopting positions he thought would be pleasing to GOP primary voters. He repeatedly said, "Washington is broken," but couldn't bring himself to criticize George W. Bush, as though some democrat had been in Washington for the last 7 years, and the GOP hadn't controlled Congress for the vast majority of that time. He stood for no outside the box thinking, for no rethinking of conservative principles. He ran away from much that he believes in.

The REAL Mitt Romney, the moderate reasonably successful governor, the wildly successful businessman, the guy who rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, would have been a very attractive candidate for president. The one that ran in the GOP primaries was nothing of the kind.

Mitt Romney had a lot to offer American voters (though maybe not GOP voters...) he spent a TON of money and left no footprint at all. Goodbye Mitt, and good riddance. You stood for nothing and you won't be missed.