Wednesday's Debate: The Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party

I was going to live blog tonight's debate, but I bagged on it. Just didn't have the fire.I figured that no one was going to win the race based on tonight anyway, but I suppose someone could lose it. I'm not sure either of them happened, but here are my thoughts...

Mike Capuano and Steve Pagliuca appear to have embarked on a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction. Capuano is right on this one: Pags is lying about his record. But the two of them go back and forth at each other like schoolyard rivals, and it ends up sullying both of them. Capuano just keeps sniping at Pagliuca for his wealth and ability to run TV ads. For two straight nights, he's accused Pags of being willing to send women into back-alleys to get abortions (for what it's worth, Martha Coakley lent credence to his charge by not disavowing the point when given the chance).

Pags volleyed back by comparing the abortion charge to the Republicans' nonsense about "death panels." He then called Capuano the "Sarah Palin of the Democratic Party." Which is just ridiculous. Pags is not a fighter. He comes across like the nerd who makes fun of the class bully than tries to find a way to keep his nose from getting broken. His charge fell as flat as you would expect.

Of course, the more those two guys fight, the better off Martha Coakley is. I have to say, she is looking better and better to me with each performance. I'm not sure if it's because she is becoming a better candidate or if it's because she is elevated purely by the Capuano-Pagliuca sideshow, but whatever the reason, I would be much more comfortable voting for her next week than I would have been had the primary been held three weeks ago. I still think she's too cautious and I disagree with her on important issues like the PATRIOT Act, but I haven't ruled her out.

As with last night, I thought the other candidate who did well was Alan Khazei. If I were scoring a winner, I'd give tonight's debate to Coakley and give second place to Khazei, but that isn't to say that Khazei did poorly. On the contrary, I think he again made a very good case for his election. He spends too much time talking about PAC and lobbyist money (I really don't think that wins too many votes--certainly not enough to warrant the attention he gives it), but he also articulates more solutions than any of the other candidates.

I'm still not sure which direction I'm headed, but I guess it's about time to get off the fence.

Tonight's debate: Khazei wins; Pagliuca is "proud of Burger King"

Tonight's senate debate is in the books and my reviews are in: Alan Khazei was fantastic. He was easily the winner. He gave specific proposals on the big issues and has finally found a way to present them without sounding long-winded. Martha Coakley also did very well. If it really is her race to lose, she isn't doing much to lose it. She seems like she's loosening up a little bit and actually showed some warmth and passion when talking about health care. Michael Capuano let his anger show, and it hurt him quite a bit. He was alternately passive agressive and whiny when dealing with Coakley, and downright nasty to Pagliuca. It's almost as if he knows he's not going to win and is getting pissed about it. Steve Pagliuca? You know you're having a bad night when you're relegated to saying "I'm proud of Burger King." Pags, you had a bad night.

Live blog starts...now!

---

You are looking live at a nondescript studio in Needham where...my God! Ed Harding is going to moderate this debate? Ed Harding? Was Butch Stearns not available? Congratulations to all of the candidates. It doesn't matter how bad you flub an answer or how stupid you sound, you're going to be light years ahead of the moderator on the seriousness scale.

Anyway, on with the show...

• The infinite black background makes each of these four look like zombies. Pagliuca looks particularly ghoulish. If the kids were still up, they'd run away screaming.
  
  
• The first question is on Afghanistan, and I have to admit, that I am resigned to the fact that we're putting more troops in, and none of these guys are going to stop it. In the end, they are going to vote for authorizing funds because this or that will be tacked on to get their votes. Not to mention that it's going to be tough to "vote against funding the troops" when a Democratic president is asking for it.
  
  
• On the PATRIOT Act, Coakley says we need to "build in the kind of civil liberties that we need." No, we already have civil liberties. We don't start with a law and then find a way to fit in our civil liberties. We start with our civil liberties and find a way to build laws around them. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with the Attorney General (and generally with other candidates that come from a law enforcement background). She is conditioned to fight crime first and worry about liberties second. I guess that's OK if your job is to put bad guys in jail, but that is not the job of a Senator.
  
  
• And instead of calling Coakley out on it directly, Capuano pulls some passive aggressive nonsense about "I heard three nos and one non answer" and has to be asked three times by Harding who he's talking about. This isn't high school, Mike. If you have a problem with the AG, you need to call her out. Hinting and rolling your eyes and generally being a pissy bitch isn't going to get you one vote. Your point (which essentially was my point above) is completely lost in your childish peevishness. Grow up!
  
  
• While they go around on this, why isn't anyone directly challenging Coakley on her defense of the PATRIOT Act as AG?
  
  
• Oh, now we're getting twitter comments scrolling across the bottom of the screen. Hey Channel 5, I have an idea, how about completely distracting from the debate itself by filling the screen with stuff that a bunch of people who aren't running for senate have to say.
  
  
• While I've been distracted, Janet Wu has been berating Coakley about her personal finances and the other guy with the beard has been trying to get Khazei to admit that he thinks people who buy scratch ticket are immoral and that he wants to restrict civil liberties by opposing casinos. See, this is what I hate. Small-time reporters trying to impress themselves by being tough. You don't appear tough, you appear petty. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Ed Harding has been a bright light so far.
  
  
• Pags is uncomfortable talking about his political background. He shouldn't be. He's got this question before. In fact, the four questions from Wu and Grizzly Adams were all rehashes from the first debate. A waste of time.
  
  
• Khazei has been impressive. He has specific plans and is able to articulate them. His answers on Afghanistan and job creation have been better and more specific than Capuano's, and the congressman should be the best candidate on specifics.
  
  
• Arrgh! They are missing the point on the footbridge at Gillette Stadium, a park and ride lot, and the Nantucket Bike Path (and for what it's worth, a bike path and a park and ride lot help the entire community, so they shouldn't be lumped in with the footbridge). It's not about who gets the end result, it's how many jobs are added to build these projects.
  
  
• Khazei mixes up TARP and the Stimulus. Capuano and Pags let him know.
  
  
• How can these guys whiff on the question of what they've done in their own home to save money during the recession. Capuano: light bulbs. What about them? Did you switch to energy saving models, just buy new ones? Pags: We've redoubled our energy efforts and given more money to charity. What? Coakley: We cook a lot more. Grocery shop, eat in, and don't go out as much as we used to. And she has a little smug smile because she knows she got the answer right and the other two muffed it.
  
  
• And then she comes out with one of the most absurd things I've heard in a long, long time. She claims that one of the reasons she opposed the decriminalization of marijuana was that it would lead to more public transportation workers driving trains and buses under the influence of pot. Where the hell did that come from?
  
  
• Janet Wu wants to know why Khazei thinks he will be more successful than Deval Patrick has been. Huh? These are the people who bring you the news every day. Scary, isn't it?
  
  
• More Pags, this time on health care: "There are 45,000 people dying. I talk to them every day." "I see dead people!
  
  
• Capuano has really developed a dislike for Pagliuca. He's really going after him hard on Pags' charges that Capuano would not vote for health care reform. Really nasty.
  
  
• I know I'm hammering on Pagliuca--probably too much--but here is a great example of how he just doesn't get it. Coakley gave a really good, personal, heartfelt answer about end-of-life issues. She talked about her experience with her mother, and how they dealt with her mother's terminal leukemia diagnosis. No one was going to give a better answer. Yet Pagliuca jumps in before Harding can ask the next question and spews a series of statistics. He has no sense of when to talk and when to shut up.

The candidates are on to their closing statements, so I'll give you mine: Khazei was fantastic. He was easily the winner. He gave specific proposals on the big issues and has finally found a way to present them without sounding long-winded. Coakley also did very well. If it really is her race to lose, she isn't doing much to lose it. She seems like she's loosening up a little bit and actually showed some warmth and passion when talking about health care. Capuano let his anger show, and it hurt him quite a bit. He was alternately passive aggressive and whiny when dealing with Coakley, and downright nasty to Pagliuca. It's almost as if he knows he's not going to win and is getting pissed about it. Pagliuca? You know you're having a bad night when you're relegated to saying "I'm proud of Burger King." Steve Pagliuca, you had a bad night.

Magic Number: 7

Jim Tankersley at the Chicago Tribune takes Barack Obama's lead in the Democratic Primary race and compares it to a baseball pennant race. If anyone has been having a hard time figuring out exactly where things stand, this analysis might help bring it into focus (at least if you're a baseball fan):

Clinton and rival Barack Obama have combined to secure about 88 percent of the available delegates in their nomination battle, the rough equivalent of playing 142 games in a 162-game baseball season...

At a similar point in a baseball playoff race, fans start obsessing over their team's "magic number," the games it must win--or its opponent must lose, or a combination of the two--to wrap up a postseason berth.

Obama needs to win about 36 percent of the remaining delegates, according to The Associated Press, to wrap the nomination. If the primaries were a baseball season and Obama were a team, there would be 20 games left to play, Obama would have a 14-game lead and his magic number would be seven.

If this were baseball, a Clinton comeback would be the greatest comeback in baseball history. It wouldn't happen in baseball and won't happen in politics. That's why Obama has started working on his getting his playoff rotation set instead of worrying about remaining contest.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton baseball

Mail bag: Whither Hillary?

I present to you the first No Drumlins mail bag (and most likely last, since it's taken me three years to get a letter) . Earlier today, a reader e-mailed:

[Will] Hillary back out now or will she refuse? ... When will she realize what is best for the party and just stop?

You will be proud. I'm leaning to vote D in 08. However, if Hillary happens to get the nomination, all bets are off.

I think she will go the Huckabee route and stay on for the next two weeks, then drop out after the May 20 primaries. She might as wellhold on a little longer, since she will win West Virginia May 13. Oregon and Kentucky will split on May 20 (OR for Obama and KY for Clinton) and Clinton will drop out the next day. That will allow her to drop out on a high note without embarrassing Obama, since he will also post a victory on May 20. If she drops out now, big losses in WV and KY could be embarrassing for him.

But I think the tone of her campaign will change. I think she will be going hard after McCain and stop the negative stuff against Obama. In a sense, Hillary will use the next two weeks to help mend the fences and start the process of getting her supporters to line up behind Obama, the same way Huckabee did after McCain essentially wrapped up the Republican nomination.

(By the way, this isn't original thinking on my part. One of the talking heads on MSNBC last night was passing on this scenario and I think it's right on. But you can give me credit for it if you pass it along.)

Now I am hoping against hope (and against "a place called Hope") that Obama resists calls to put Hillary on the ticket as VP. I think that would hurt him quite a bit in the general election. Obama won't pick up one vote by adding Hillary, but I'll bet there are those who would turn away from him if he did. If he feels like Hillary needs to be rewarded, he ought to promise her a spot on the Supreme Court with the caveat that if anyone in her camp breathes even a word of it, the deal is off. Not only would that reward Clinton (and she would probably make a good Supreme Court justice), it would keep her out of the 2012 race if Obama wins.

You'll be sorry to hear that Jackson is becoming a little Hillary supporter. He couldn't get to sleep last night so I brought him downstairs to watch the end of the Celtics game with me. During a commercial, I switched over to MSNBC to check the results and Hillary was just starting her speech. Every time her supporters would cheer he would clap his hands and yell "yay!" I asked him if he wanted to watch basketball and he said "No."

He was absolutely mesmerized by the speech (which wasn't very good, she sounded defeated. And by the look on Bill's face, it was clear that he had just realized that there would be no interns frolicking with him in the White House for the next four years. He appeared devastated). At one point he was chanting "Hill-a-ree! Hill-a-ree!" along with the crowd on the TV. When he got up this morning, I asked him who the lady in the blue jacket on TV was last night and he replied "Hillary."

On the bright side, he's developing his father's antipathy toward the NBA.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

Charlie Gibson: Don’t know much about history

Last night, while hosting what is being widely criticized as the worst-moderated of the dozens of debates in this cycle, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson asked what might just be the stupidest, most ill-informed, must-have-gotten-an-F-in-high-school-civics question imaginable. In an attempt to play gotcha with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they each declined to name the other vice president should they win, Gibson followed up with this:

Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case" -- Article II, Section 1 -- "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president."

If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?

The question is so bad on so many fronts; it’s hard to know what he was thinking.

The qissue was whether or not the nominee would choose the other candidate to be their running mate. But the section of the Constitution that Gibson quotes refers to speaks about the general election. “After the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors” would be the loser of the general election. Applying that section of the Constitution to the current election would mean that John McCain would be the vice president of a Democratic president. It would have nothing to do with selecting a VP during the nomination process.

Further, it “wasn’t good enough in local times.” The elections of 1796 and 1800 were so divisive that they nearly brought the government down, as the vice president was essentially the president’s fiercest opponent. It was bad enough that the process was scrapped with the ratification of the 12th amendment in 1804. In other words, Gibson was quoting a section of the Constitution that was repealed 204 years ago.

“Why not in these times?” Is Gibson proposing to repeal the 12th Amendment and go back to the original design of the Constitution? Or is he proposing that the political parties should follow the same design? That might at least be entertaining. Could you have seen John McCain as George Bush’s running mate in 2000, after the way Bush and his machine just eviscerated McCain in South Carolina? Or going back to 1980, could you envision Ted Kennedy as Jimmy Carter’s running mate as brutal as that campaign was?

And on a semantic note, nothing that happened when the Constitution was written in 1789 “was good enough in colonial times” since the United States hadn’t been colonies of Britain since July 4, 1776, in case Gibson forgot (and I can’t believe that he did, since he and co-moderator George Stephanopoulos spent plenty of time asking about the patriotism of Barack Obama and his acquaintances).

If you didn’t watch the debate, you might get the impression that Gibson was just following up off the cuff. If that were the case, then one might be able to argue that he just mangled the history a little in his mind. But those of us who watched the debate know that Gibson planned to use this line of questioning all along, because they flashed a graphic with this quote on the screen as he spoke. So the only conclusion is that Gibson either intentionally quoted a section of the constitution that had been repealed over two centuries ago in an effort to take it out of context, or he didn’t realize that the clause he used as the basis for his question was no longer operable. Either way, it was shameful.

What was also shameful was the fact that neither candidate either had the quickness on their feet or the intestinal fortitude to call Gibson on his outrageous premise. The follow-up went first to Clinton. Her best answer would have been something like “Do you realize that what you are suggesting would mean that John McCain would be my vice president? I don’t think it was ‘good enough’ for our forefathers, since the repealed it almost as soon as they enacted it 200 years ago.” Or something like that.

Not to mention that Obama is a constitutional law scholar. I’d have expected that he would be jumping out of his suit to rebut the absurd premise of the question. I realize that standing on stage in front of 11 million people probably puts enough strain in the mind, but he is supposed to know that stuff inside and out. I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard the question, and all I have is a pedestrian bachelor’s degree in history.

At least it appears that this will end up being the last debate of the primary season. The next one we hear will be between Obama and McCain sometime in October, with the less-historically-challenged Jim Lehrer most likely in charge. What a breath of fresh air that will be.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Charles Gibson ABC News

Nothing new to discuss: tonight's Democratic debate

You are looking live at Philadelphia, where the 21st debate of the Democratic campaign is about to begin. Frankly, I expected this would be over long ago. I mean, it is over--Clinton's chances of willing are nearly zero--but on we go. Will Hillary be on the attack? Will Obama try to run out the clock? And away we go...

• Beginning with opening statements? We haven't had a debate with openers yet, have we? Barack tells a story right out of the gate about a "bitter" voter, but he uses the term "discouraged." Is he baiting Hillary? Or by mentioning that theme in the opening, is he trying to get out in front of it.
  
• Hillary is looking above the camera. It looks like the spectators in the hall are all above the eye level of the candidate. It feels like she's talking past me.
  
• What? A commercial right out of the gate? What is this? There blunts the impact of either of those statements.
  
• Oh come on, Charlie. You know that question not going to be answered. Neither of them want the other as a running mate.
  
• This had better be good. I'm passing up Red Sox-Yankees for this.
  
• Charlie pulling out a clause of the constitution that was amended 200 years ago. That clause would mean that either McCain or Obama/Clinton would be the other's vice president. It was such a bad idea in practice that the country got rid of it almost as soon as they ratified the constitution.
  
• Barack, are you patronizing working class people? I didn't like his answer. I know exactly what he is trying to say. He's saying that people vote values issues because they don't think the government can help them. If they believed that a candidate could help change their economic situation, they would vote that way.
  
• Hillary won't come right out and say that Barack can beat McCain. She talked around it. Now she gets to it. She's off to a pretty good start, actually.
  
• Obama slips in Hillary's baking cookies flub from 1992! Kapow! She wasn't elitist then, and I'm not elitist now. Such a nice, soft little dig. I'll bet this gets play tomorrow.
  
• Back to Reverend Wright...I'm having a hard time staying engaged. It's all a rehash. This issue is what, five weeks old now? Hillary would have walked out if she'd been in church the Sunday after 9/11, Barack wasn't there. So on and so on. Why are we spending 10 minutes on this. Clinton ought to just stand out of the way. If the Wright comments are bad enough, let them stand on their own. She's going to get in the way by pushing the issue.
  
• Hillary, why did you lie about Bosnia? Pretty good answer. She admitted that she embellished the story, and that she knew she was overreaching. She's overtalking a little--trying to explain it away--she just can't be "one and done."
  
• We have yet to get to any of the "issues" in this campaign. As good as the last Charlie Gibson debate was--it seemed to be so centered on the issues--this one has been all about "gotcha" questions and inside baseball.
  
• Obama doesn't seem comfortable at all. He needs to be a bit more off the cuff.
  
• Oh God! The flag-pin question! Is there truly nothing new to talk about?
  
• It's about time Obama asked the question of whether he is going to be held accountable for the statements of anybody who knows him? Good for him for calling George Stephonopolous out.
  
• Hillary refuses to let Obama stew in his own trouble. If he's being hammered, she ought to let him be hammered. She tries to keep the issue of the weathermen alive, and Obama hits back with the reminder that Bill Clinton pardoned two of them. She can't leave well enough alone.

Alright, I just switched over to the Red Sox game for a moment and it's 9-7 Sox in the 5th. I'm not going to spend another hour and a half of this kind of old news. I've got the thing on DVR. If it turns out that there is something important that I missed, I can always watch it later.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

Hillary's last stand: tonight's Democratic debate

Well, it's Hillary's last stand. Which version of her will show up? The one who is proud to share the stage with Obama, or the one who cries "Shame on you!"? Let's find out...

• Clinton says she's "disturbed" by Obama's tactics. Here will be a good test for Obama. Is he going to be playing prevent defense tonight, or is he going to counter attack? Yes and no. A good answer pointing out that Clinton has distributed plenty of negative literature, but he did it in the context of the differences between their plans. So now they are debating the differences in the plans, not the tactics.
  
  
• Obama has a speech affect or something that causes him to say "Mass-a-too-setts." Tough on my ears.
  
  
• We're in the same place we were last Thursday, arguing along the margins. I guess that's a good thing...at least they are debating the specifics. It makes the debate fairly yawn-inducing. I realize it's very important and that the audience may be different this time than the last and the last, but when you've watched all of the debates (as I have) it gets a bit repetitive.
  
  
• Clinton complaining about her treatment by the moderators, bringing up the Saturday Night Live skit. It sounded like she got a couple of groans from the audience. She's got to stop whining. It didn't work with the Xerox line in the last debate, and it's not working here.
  
  
• Obama has become a much better debater as the campaign has gone on. His demeanor is quite a stark contrast to Hillary's.
  
  
• And just like that, Tim Russert makes Hillary look like a sympathetic figure. Russert is who he is, but when he goes on the attack it gives the candidate a great chance to play the victim.
  
  
• Obama seems completely in control of the debate. And yes it seems like I'm swooning.
  
  
• Russert playing the Buffalo card. The whole "gotcha" line of questioning works on "Meet the Press," but I don't think it works nearly as well in a debate.
  
  
• "Senator Clinton equates experience with longevity in Washington." He is so good and so matter-of-fact when he attacks, it doesn't sound like an attack.
  
  
• The whole "Senator Obama basically said he wanted to bomb Pakistan" is a Republican talking point. Clinton should be more original than that.
  
  
• Man, Obama just hammered her on Iraq and Pakistan.
  
  
• Russert is trying to win the debate. Good for Hillary for calling him out on his hypotheticals. And good for Obama that Hillary is the one to whine about it.

It's halftime, and Obama is winning, fairly handily. Clinton just can't lay a glove on him, and he has been quite aggressive in his own right, but with a calm, easy-going demeanor that masks his attacks.

Late edit: I've been watching the second half of the debate, but I just haven't been awake enough to blog it. Nothing I've seen has changed my mind that Obama is tonight's winner. Barring some unforseen event in the next week, this campaign should be over next Tuesday.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

We need to be an "innovation nation" and other thoughts from tonight's debate, part 2

Taking an hour or so to watch "Lost" was definitely the right choice. But watching the rest of the debate is a good second choice, and through the magic of DVR technology, I'm ready to go. Part 1 is here.

• John King tees it up for Hillary...Is Obama "all hat and no cattle?" Other than a mention of the state senator that whiffed in his attempt to defend Obama a couple of nights ago, she lets it go. Obama does a much better job defending his hat and cattle.
  
  
• Campbell Brown brings up the plagiarism charge. Barack defending his position, calls this discussion part of the "silly season." He seems to be getting the crowd on his side. He's put Clinton in the position of defending her charges.
  
  
• Clinton getting booed for the line "it's not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." A little too harsh, I say. I think she may have dropped the line to get Obama mad. She has to know that the line was going to make the audience cringe. It might not be a bad line in a 30-second ad, but it comes across as a bit unseemly iin a face-to-face confrontation.
  
  
• The people in the basketball bleachers stomping their feet in lieu of cheering is annoying.
  
  
• Obama has been much better in the first 15 minutes of the second half. His answer on health care was good. While he does not mandate that everyone purchase coverage, he makes sure that everyone can buy it. As long as the health care system is going to be based on private insurance plans, it's fundamentally wrong to force people to pay the insurance companies. The only way I'd support that sort of universal health care is as part of a single-payer system, and that is not realistic anytime soon.
  
  
• This extended applause out of the commercial break can only help Obama. Keep on running out the clock.
  
  
• President Johnson, check.
  
  
• These guys are talking past each other. We've got the idea.
  
  
• I've never bought into the idea that Hillary's time as first lady should count as "experience."
  
  
• It's interesting how the experience vs. hope themes permeate nearly every issue. Clinton spoke in terms of how what she has done and seen over the last 15 years qualify her to be commander-in-chief, while Obama talks about the things he will change as president.
  
  
• Obama makes the point that he is a better opponent for McCain since he can argue the strategy (not in Iraq at all) vs. the tactics (surge, etc.). Now he's taking on McCain pretty hard. "It's clear by his embrace of Bush's policies that he doesn't [understand ecomomics]."
  
  
• Another commercial? What is this, and NFL playoff game?
  
  
• Hey, it's been an hour and a half, why aren't they finished?
  
  
• The AC keeps blowing Obama's scratch pad around. It's been distracting me all night.
  
  
• Clinton: "We borrow money from the Chinese to pay for oil to the Saudis." Talk about plagiarism. That is taken almost verbatim from an argument that Ron Paul, of all people, has been making in nearly every Republican debate.
  
  
• I appreciate the fact that Obama's cuffs have buttons instead of links. I've always thought cufflinks are pretentious and give the appearance that the candidate is on a differnt plane from most of the rest of us.
  
  
• Clinton finished with an excellent answer about the challenges she has faced and how they compare to the challenges of many Americans. She was also very gracious to Obama about the race. It almost sounded like she was conceding.

I thought the debate was a draw. Clinton won the first half, Obama won the second. But Clinton couldn't afford a draw, she had to take advantage of the opportunity. Obama will continue running out the clock if she doesn't change the dynamic.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

We need to be an "innovation nation" and other thoughts from tonight's debate, part 1

You're looking live at Austin, Texas, where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are about to face off in what will either be a bloody fight to the death, or another day off the schedule for Barack Obama. Not that it will matter that much, since most everyone has spent the last 24 hours wondering if John McCain has been plying lobbyists with pork (double entendre absolutely intended). And away we go...

• Oh good grief, some lady in a red suit just came in and told the candidates where to stand. How about having the press back up if there is a problem.
  
  
• And they didn't even shake hands! I can't believe they didn't at least shake hands. I don't even think they said hello. Although Barack did pull Hillary's chair out for her.
  
  
• Obama elects to receive!
  
  
• Barbara Jordan, check. Ann Richards, check. Hey, did you know Hillary is a woman too?
  
  
• I wonder if they split the audience, putting Obama's people on one side and Clinton's on the other. If they didn't, they should.
  
  
• Obama has quite a cold. Might not be a bad thing, if he's hopped up on Sudafed. Might keep him energized.
  
  
• Or not. He seems flat. I hope he is ready to punch back.
  
  
• Why is George Lopez on TV? Get him off my TV. I can is grab the DVDs of his show in the two-dollar bin if I want to watch him.
  
  
• Well, there went the Republican viewers. A brown man with an accent? Can't be bothered with that.
  
  
• Clinton has the same approach to Cuba that Bush has to Iran. Do what we want first, then we'll meet.
  
  
• And we have a real policy difference right off the bat. Obama would meet with the Cubans and would ease travel restrictions. "We have to talk with our enemies as well as our friends."
  
  
• Or maybe not. Now Hillary is suggesting the only difference is that the president would not visit Cuba in a Clinton administration.
  
  
• I can't believe we're having a long discussion on relations with Cuba.
  
  
• John King is not wearing a wedding ring. For what it's worth.
  
  
• Barack needs the audience. As soon as he gets applause, he perks right up. He's outlining his economic plan, but not contrasting it with Clinton's. King will probably mention that he didn't compare, as the question was asked. Obama should reply that it's not up to him to outline his plan.
  
  
• Hillary wants a "trade time out." What exactly does that mean? Are we not going trade for 60 days? What would that do to the economy?
  
  
• Michelle thinks Hillary's hair looks awful. I noticed that too, but hadn't got around to mentioning it.
  
  
• What's with all of the rhymes, Hill? An innovation nation? Clean green?
  
  
• Early on, it appears that the Clinton theme of "Obama's not specific enough" or "Obama doesn't have any of his own ideas" has been accepted by CNN. King asked Obama to articulate how his economic position is different from Clinton's. Campbell Brown asked Obama "Isn't your position the same" after Clinton answered a question on immigration.
  
  

• I just can't get going on the fence debate. The fence is a dumb idea, at least in Texas. You already have a river. This isn't East Berlin.
  
  
• CNN just tossed up a graphic telling me to go to cnn.com for Bill Schneider's analysis. Why would I want to know what Dr. Benson Honeydew thinks about this debate?
  
  
• 120 million Hispanics in 2050? The remaining Republicans watching just went screaming from their living rooms.

Commercial. I'd say Hillary is winning on points, but it doesn't feel like she's done anything to blunt Obama. I'm going to stop to watch Lost. Will share the rest of it later tonight. Here is part 2.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama for President

When I go to the polls tomorrow, I will cast my vote in the Democratic Primary for Senator Barack Obama, and I urge all of my readers to join me.

There are not significant policy differences between Obama's platform and that of Senator Clinton. For the most part, any differences in their positions are subtle. I would be comfortable with the policy direction of either candidate.

But there is a difference in the tone of the campaign, and the consequences of the election. The Clinton campaign has demonstrated that they will resort to Rovian tactics in order to win. The direction their campaign took in the days preceding the South Carolina primary was an affront to me and many other Democrats who want this election to be about issues and the direction of the country, not about the politics of racial and gender division.

It validated my long-held belief that we need to move away from the Bush/Clinton oligarchy that we have created over the last 28 years. Almost all of Washington is beholden to one family or the other for their jobs, their status, and their influence. The Washington class cares less about governing than it does about keeping it's power firmly entrenched, and the Clintons betrayed their desperate need to hold that power by risking Democratic party unity in an effort to keep it.

As such, I am casting my vote for Obama as a vote against the entrenched power of the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

I am not calling my vote tomorrow an "endorsement," as Obama is not my first or second choice for the nomination. Had he stayed in the race, Governor Bill Richardson would have received my vote (and endorsement) enthusiastically. In his absence, I planned to vote for John Edwards, but that too is not an option. Obama is now the best hope for the Democratic party, and America.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Massachusetts

Doddering old man

I'm watching the Republican Debate (not live-blogging it) and John McCain is coming across as a rambling doddering old man. The worst thing that happened to him tonight was the decision not to have a time limit on answers. The sun literally set during his rambling, stream-of-consciousness answer on California's energy plan.

Romney is running circles around him. Just when I think I've got a handle on this race, something new happens. Romney's victory in this debate (if it turns out that way over the last hour and a quarter) probably won't be enough to make up for Rudy Giuliani's endorsement of McCain. But man, is McCain just killing himself tonight.

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Primary Mitt Romney John McCain Debate

OK Mitt, now what?

Well, I was wrong about tonight's results. Mitt Romney did not win, and now he's in a bit of trouble. In fact, tonight probably couldn't have gone much worse for Willard. Not only did John McCain beat him in a "closed" primary, but Rudy Giuliani will drop out tomorrow and endorse McCain, and Mike Huckabee will not drop out, causing Mitt to split the votes of social conservatives with the Huckster.

It's been clear to me for a while now that Romney just can't stand losing. Not that he is a "bad loser" in the classic sense--it seems that he is gracious to a fault--but he doesn't know how to deal with it. To a certain sense I guess that's a good thing--no one wants to accept failure--but man it's hard to see mi try to deal with it.

In his concession speech tonight, Mitt seemed to be almost on the verge of tears. Perhaps he was just losing his voice a little (it has been a long campaign) but I thought he was going to break down during his speech. He also rushed through it and was almost hollering, like a kid trying to convince himself to be tough in the face of adversity. It was almost uncomfortable to watch.

It will be very interesting to see how Romney responds. When he went negative in New Hampshire, it turned voters away and sealed the victory for McCain. But he can't win without being aggressive. The other part of the problem with ratcheting up the fight is that Mitt doesn't take it nearly as well as he dished it out. His Achilles has always been his loss of composure in the face of direct attacks. He imploded in the final 1994 Senatorial debate when attacked by Ted Kennedy, and his worst debate performances in the presidential cycle have been those where he was attacked by his fellow candidates.

Just as an aside...one of the things that bothers me the most about Romney is his compete inability to do anything original. His surfing for positions and pandering for votes has been well documented, but now it's gotten to the point where he is stealing the campaign signs of his opponents, right down to the font.

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Primary Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee John McCain Rudy Giuliani Florida

Quick Florida Prediction...Romney by a hair

A perfectly styled and sprayed hair...

Romney.......34%
McCain........32%
Giuliani........17%
Huckabee.....14%
Paul............3%

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Primary Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ron Paul John McCain Rudy Giuliani Florida

Big big big big big big big week

This week is shaping up to be one of the most interesting political weeks in decades. Starting tonight, the next four days will be crazy, and then half of the country holds primaries on February 5. After all of the buildup over the last 14 months, here we go...

First--and probably least consequential--is tonight's state of the union address. It's a little hard to believe that President Bush has squandered so much political capital that nobody cares about what the President has to say tonight, but there you go. Despite the general sense that the country is just running out the clock in hopes that he doesn't screw anything else up, I may look to blog the speech tonight.

Then Tuesday, the Republican primary in Florida will decide who is left to fight in February. Rumors are that Rudy Giuliani--who may have run the worst campaign in my lifetime--will drop out if he doesn't win. He won't. If McCain can hang on to win, he will probably coast through Super Duper Tuesday. If Romney wins, the boost might be enough to allow him to draw even in the national polls, setting up a wide open February 5.

Wednesday, whichever Republicans remain standing (Probably McCain, Romney, Paul, and perhaps Huckabee) will debate in California. Romney had a great debate last week in Florida, primarily because McCain and the others inexplicably declined to attack him. I'll bet the gloves will be off.

And then Thursday the Democrats debate in Florida and that will probably be the highlight of the week. If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were at each other throats before South Carolina--a contest that wasn't really contested--I can't wait to see how they face off five days before the biggest single day in this campaign.

And because I know that all of you hang on my every word, I hope to blog all of it. At some point, I'll also announce my endorsement as well as plans for special coverage of the February 5 results. Bet you can't wait, huh?

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Florida Republican Mitt Romney John McCain Rudy Giuliani

"How pathetic!" and other thoughts on tonight's Dem debate

You're looking live at Las Vegas, where the three remaining significant candidates for the Democratic primary are meeting for tonight's debate. They get to ask each other questions tonight, so it will be interesting to see if the dynamic changes at all. Hopefully it does. Assuming MSNBC keeps a ticker at the bottom of the screen, we'll also be following the results of the Michigan primary. And away we go...

• And MSNBC is calling it for Romney. He must have cleaned up in the exit polls, since he's only got a six-point lead.


• Natale Morales looks a bit skeletal. She needs a cheeseburger, methinks.


• Hillary, how did the campaign turn into a race war? Because your supporters have made it that way. How about coming out and disavowing the statements of Bob Johnson and Charlie Rangel?


• It's easy to forget that someone of John Edwards' age would have grown up in a segregated community. I have a hard time contemplating that.


• How is it that Obama is getting asked about "pushing the story" of Clinton's race-baiting supporters? It's her campaign that started this, not his.


• Clinton accepts Bob Johnson at his word. She knows better than that.


• Can't Natalie Morales get a seat at the table? They've given her a desk out in the hallway somewhere.


• The echo in the hall is annoying. So are Brian Williams' torturous questions. Get to the point, Brian!


• These flashing red white and blue stripes cascading across the bottom of the screen are going to give me a seizure.


• Someone in the hall is hollering about "race-based questions." I can't tell if the protester wants more or less of them. Russert appears unnerved.


• "The president is over in Saudi Arabia begging for them to drop the price of oil. How pathetic!" Good answer.


• Then she refuses to say if the other candidates are qualified. Bad answer.


• Obama is now backtracking on his recent comments about not being an "operating officer." He's been backtracking on almost every answer so far. He also looks like he needs a nap.


• Obama's weakness is that he's not well organized. That's almost too honest. 50 cents says Hillary won't mention a real weakness.


• Like Edwards didn't mention a real weakness. "I get too emotional about the pain of others." Bah! Sounds like a bad job interview.


• Hillary gets impatient when people don't see the potential in America that she does or some such bunk...And then she lowers the boom on Obama for not being a good organizer and manager. Compares the CEO model to George Bush.


• Obama says Bush is always on time, so he's not a good example. Gets a laugh.


• Hey Barack, aren't you really a Muslim who hates Christians and Americans? This email says so.


• And now for a commercial break. This first 30 minutes has been a colossal bore. When do they get to ask each other questions?


• The discussion on banking is causing my eyes to glaze over. But I don't entirely get the idea that mortgage companies need to disclose more. How many more hundreds of pages does my mortgage agreement need to be. Maybe I'm more educated than most, but every time we've bought or refinanced, I've known what the terms were before signing.


• Clinton is happy that the bankruptcy bill she voted for never became law. Sounds a lot like John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."


• According to the crawl, Romney is up 10 points with 43% reporting. Looks like a good night for Mitt.


• And now to Natalie, reporting from someplace on the roof.


• This debate about the economy is probably the most important discussion they have had in weeks, and I'm just glazing over.


• Edwards is wearing the largest digital watch I've ever seen. Despite the fact that I'm distracted by the HDTV on his wrist, I heard him smack Obama and Clinton on their fundraising from the pharmaceutical and other big industries.


• Why is Brian Williams backtracking on how many questions the candidates can ask? He should encourage them each to ask more questions of each other, not less. And while we're on the question of questions, is it too much to get the candidates to ask questions, instead of making a speech followed by a close-ended query?


• Another break. Obama just bolted backstage before the cameras even faded to black. I wonder what that was about. He's looked tired all night. Maybe he's a little under the weather.


• Whoa. Hillary just said she would vigorously enforce a law that requires colleges to allow ROTC and military recruiters. Probably not a popular position with the anti-war base.


• Do they really call it "rot-zee"? I've always called it "R O T C". Barack would also force Ivy League and other schools to allow recruiters. And Edwards would too, so I guess it's a non-issue.


• Here comes the pandering portion of our show. Obama will kill the Yucca Mountain project. I'd like to hear where in the country is a better place to bury nuclear waste than the middle of the desert.


• Obama loves the nukes. Edwards hates them. Clinton doesn't care.


• Clinton has been proposing an awful lot of new spending tonight. $50 billion for clean energy, $30 billion to bail out foreclosed families. Where are we getting the money?


• John Edwards, why shouldn't immigrants be forced to learn English to become a citizen? They should. Huh.


• Hillary, do you agree that Hispanics won't vote for Blacks? No, but thanks for the opportunity to pander.


• Barack Obama: "Two years ago, I stood with Ted Kennedy and John McCain" on the issue of immigration. That's going to end up being in some Republican's anti-McCain attack ad within the week.


• I can't believe there are still 20+ minutes remaining. Whoever thought a two-hour debate was a good idea should be out of a job.


• Clinton's continues reference to this as a "Black-Brown debate" makes me uncomfortable.


• Hillary running to the right on gun ownership. She almost sounds Republican with the "we need to enforce the laws we have," and "I support the second amendment."


• Barack says it's very important to hunt, fish, and teach kids how to shoot. Someone should tell him you don't fish with guns.


• Brian Williams wishing he was in Los Angeles. I don't blame him for thinking of being somewhere else.


• Now they are debating Clinton's fear mongering. She can split hairs all she wants, but she's clearly been playing the terrorism card.


• When did you decide to run for president? Clinton: New Year's 2007. Edwards: December 2006. Obama: December 2006.

And it's over. I thought Edwards won. Obama didn't appear to be energetic or particularly engaged. Clinton was up and down, more up than down.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John Edwards Nevada

Michigan Prediction: Romney Wins

Who wins tonight in Michigan? Here is my prediction:

Romney. . . . 35
McCain. . . . .31
Huckabee. . .15
Thompson. . . 7
Giuliani. . . . .7
Paul. . . . . . . 5

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Primary Mitt Romney Fred Thompson Mike Huckabee Ron Paul John McCain Rudy Giuliani Michigan

I'm a free agent

While it's been appearing inevitable for some time, my candidate Bill Richardson finally pulled the plug on his campaign. So I'm a free agent, and I'm not yet sure who will get my vote in the February 5 primary.

There is no doubt in my mind that Gov. Richardson would have made the best president of all of the candidates running, but the fact is that he did not have enough of what it takes to win. Candidates either need a built-in constituency, the support of the party establishment, or a personal connection that trumps the other two factors in order to become president. Richardson had none of those.

What he did have was a plan for Iraq, the credibility to deal with both our allies and enemies, and more experience than any of his rivals. Unfortunately, he also had an inability to answer debate questions in 30 seconds and an odd penchant for outfits from the Kim Jong Il collection.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Bill Richardson

"We had no bridges falling down in Arkansas." and other thoughts on tonight's GOP debate

I had just about lost interest in blogging the presidential debates, since there are just so many times that the same candidates can answer the same questions from the same reporters. Then, just like that, the whole campaign became compelling again. So here we go with tonight's big Republican debate from South Carolina…

There is nothing less shocking than the head of the South Carolina Republican party being named Katon Dawson.

Hey look, the Lawrence Welk singers are bringing us the national anthem.

Brit Hume is wearing a Robert Kraft shirt. I don't get the white collar with the blue shirt.

Saying that Massachusetts keeps adding jobs after he left office doesn't speak well of Mitt, it speaks well of Deval Patrick.

Mitt and McCain mixing it up already on jobs in Michigan. Let's hope they keep this up all night.

Shorter McCain: Vote for me. I'll be mean to Congress.

Huckabee knows his audience. He says "dudn't" instead of doesn't.

I wonder how Giuliani decides whether or not to wear glasses on a particular night. He's wearing them right now. Saturday, he went without them for the first half and wore them for the second half.

I'm not really listening to the answers very closely. I don't think I've missed much.

McCain talking about Reagan being both a tax cutter and a spending cutter is revisionist, to say the least. While the economy improved under Reagan, the deficit exploded. He certainly was not a balanced budget guy.

I'm convinced that Fred Thompson is just stringing together clichés and cute sayings. 80% of what he says is just filler to get from one slogan to another.

Huckabee seems tentative.

Reagan! Reagan! Reagan! Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!

Looks like Romney is going to wrench the anti-Washington thing into every answer.

That Fred Thompson tirade against Huckabee seems like a set-up. "Hey, can I jump into answer a question I wasn't asked and not answer it, but list all of Huckabee's faults instead?"

Giuliani worked for Reagan. I don't know if you knew that.

Brit Hume looks bored. I don't blame him.

Brit's question to Huckabee essentially is suggesting that the US should have attacked Iran over the naval incident a few days ago.

Now there you go, Fred. Nothing brings down the house of Republicans like jokes about Muslims and virgins.

Hume is desperately trying to get someone to say they would blow up those Iranians boats.

Funny that Mitt Romney, who cries about the way other candidates speak to him, insults Ron Paul in almost every debate.

McCain says that General Petraeus is the one who should decide when the troops come home. I don't like that idea at all. I don't think our civilian leaders should abdicate their responsibility to run the military. Our military leaders should be answerable to civilian leaders, not the other way around.

I don't get McCain's joke about trading with Al Qaeda and one-way tickets. Not funny. I find it interesting that none of the candidates will debate Paul directly, they just snipe at him with one liners.

I can't believe that Romney thinks we can prop up moderate Muslim states. He is so naïve.

Paul isn't getting a lot of traction with voters, I suspect, but he seemed to set the debate in that section. And I take back what I said about no one addressing his points directly. To his credit, Huckabee was willing to debate him.

If Romney has been hearing so much about how Washington needs to change, why did it take him two losses to finally start talking about it?

"We had no bridges falling down in Arkansas." That was part of a very good defense of his record as governor, but I think he muffed the line I think he meant to say "we had no tunnels falling down in Arkansas," which would have been an excellent jab at Romney.

Carl Cameron looks like a frog.

I wonder if Rudy is aware that he's been lampooned about his constant mention about 9/11. He got a question about his leadership on 9/11 making him qualified to be president, and he skirted it. We're 85 minutes into the debate and I don't believe Rudy has mentioned it once.

Gov. Huckabee, why do you think women should be slaves to their husbands? What an excellent answer. Marriage is not a 50-50 deal; it's a 100-100 deal. Carl Cameron thought he would play gotcha, and Huckabee hit that one out of the park.

The answer about electability may have been Paul's best moment of the campaign. For the first time, I heard him succinctly describe why he is running and why the current Republican party as lost its way. Not that it will get him elected, but it's about time.

These commercials with the frightening old people that look like food creep me out.

Same old same old on immigration, so I'm going to wrap this up...

I thought Huckabee did well. He was under attack (both from Thompson and the Fox questioners) and he answered the questions confidently. McCain was also credible. I don't think he was great, but he didn't hurt himself.

If there was a loser, it was Fred Thompson. He was a caricature of a political candidate. He just indiscriminately tosses one-liners out there. I also thought Giuliani did poorly. He needed a breakthrough and didn't get it. After being the center of attention for the last few debates, Romney seemed to just be there.

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Primary Mitt Romney Fred Thompson Mike Huckabee Ron Paul John McCain Rudy Giuliani South Carolina

Hillary wins a stunner. Game on!

There is an old saying in sports that a seven-game series isn't really contested until the home team loses a game. I guess that's not the perfect metaphor--since none of the candidates is at home in New Hampshire--but in this case, the primary season isn't really contested until the front runner loses.

Now we have a race.

Like many, I expected that the game would nearly be over tonight. With the expected big Obama victory, the question going into tonight was whether or not Hillary would even survive until the February primaries. Well, now it looks like not only will she survive, but she'll be at least even with Obama.

This election just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton New Hampshire

McCain and Obama to win N.H., Romney survives

Quick predictions on tonight’s election results from New Hampshire. First the Republicans:

McCain........34%
Romney.......32%
Paul...........13%
Huckabee.....10%
Giuliani.........5%
Thompson......4%
Others..........2%

I had originally thought Mitt Romney would be finished if he lost here. But now I’m not so sure. He’ll probably be able to spin the result as a virtual tie, and try to get his first win in Michigan next week, which could set up an interesting dynamic.

Where exactly do we stand if Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee have each claimed one state going into the back-to-back primaries in South Carolina and Florida? And let’s say for a moment that Rudy Giuliani is able to win in Florida, which he is counting on in order to stay in the game into February? Could we have four “front-runners” going into February 5? Could the nomination still be up for grabs after that date?

And does Paul get a boost by finishing in the top three?

The Democrats look to be a far less muddled picture:

Obama........43%
Clinton........33%
Edwards.......15%
Richardson.....6%
Kucinich........2%
Others..........1%

It ought to be over tonight with a 10-point win for Barack Obama. John Edwards will probably hang on through South Carolina, hoping that he can beat out Hillary Clinton there and be the last opponent for Obama going into February 5. I’m guessing Clinton is in the race to February one way or the other, since she has support in some of the big states of the Northeast and in California. But regaining footing after another big loss might be impossible. I see two potential wildcards:

What does Richardson do before Nevada? He has a lot of support from the unions there and could sway the outcome in that state if he drops out. If the unions throw their support behind Clinton, does she have a chance to stop the bleeding with a win there? Does Edwards gain their votes and push Clinton to the margins?

The other issue is what to do with Florida. If Clinton is desperate for a win before February 5, does she defy the party (who has pledged to shut out Florida’s delegates because they scheduled their primary too early) and campaign hard in Florida? Maybe a win in a crucial swing state would give her momentum going into February even if the result is cosmetic.

But all of that is probably moot unless Obama commits a huge blunder. After tonight, he will have an air of inevitability around him that should easily carry him to the nomination.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary John Edwards Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Republican Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ron Paul John McCain New Hampshire