A storm is brewing on Capitol Hill, the likes of which has not been seen since 2006, when the Bush administration secretly signed off on a deal with Dubai Ports World to allow that foreign firm to manage six Americanports. Dubai Ports World was forced to sell the contract due to the unprecedented adverse public backlash the news generated, which subsequently fostered congressional opposition as well. The storm currently brewing is a controversy also with national security aspects.

The Air Force has awarded European-based Northrup Grumman a $40 billion contract to build a much-needed fleet on in-flight refueling tankers -- and Congress wants to know why. Why has a national defense contract been given to a foreign company? Why does the Air Force believe that awarding a national defense contract to a foreign company is not a possible national security problem? With the current economic woes confronting the United States, would it not be more advantageous from a public relations perspective for a defense contract to remain with an American firm, even if that American company charged a few more dollars to fulfill the contract?

CNN reported Friday on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that the Air Force awarded the contract to Northrup Grumman EADS (Airbus) because the European company presented a larger, less expensive aircraft than did Boeing, which had held the government contract for 50 years. Officials at the Pentagon said that those factors and the fact the European model could refuel more aircraft at one time, coupled with Northrup Grumman's reputation for timely delivery, helped decide the issue. Some of the Air Force's refueling tankers are 50 years old.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Kitty Pilgrim on CNN that the contract was a good one for the United States, that the aircraft would be assembled in a plant in his home state, that it would create jobs instead of ship them overseas, and that national security would not be a factor since the parts being manufactured overseas weren't crucial and the aircraft being built was simply a reconfigured jet airliner, not a sophisticated fighter or bomber. Sessions also said that many parts for American military aircraft were contracted to manufacturers overseas.

Congress is in such an uproar that they scheduled a hearing Wednesday, March 5, for top Air Force officials to justify their actions before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

Sessions' reassurances aside, there is little doubt in this writer's mind that no job or manufactured part should be outsourced to another country if it involves a defense contract , even if it is for a vehicle that does not have classified military hardware as part of its design. It is amazing that the Pentagon, which is notorious for buying thousand-dollar hammers and million dollar bolts, should suddenly become fiscally conservative and worry about cost. The Pentagon could not be worried enough over a better designed Humvee to protect our troops out on patrol in Iraq, but they will choose a better designed "nonessential" aircraft to be manufactured.

This country has lost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs in the past several years, some of them in the defense contracting sector, but the Pentagon is going to award a defense contract and send American tax dollars to EADS (Airbus) in Paris, use tax dollars to buy parts made in other countries, potentially cost 44,000 Americans their jobs, but justify it all by the fact that Northrup Grumman (which is based in Los Angeles) EADS will build the actual aircraft manufacturing plant in Alabama, creating 2000 jobs. A contract that could potentially be worth $100 billion dollars will for the most part be carried out by EADS (based in Paris), which means the money will be more than likely be banked in Europe.

And then there is that troublesome little tidbit of knowledge:  Parts used in the defense of the United States are being and are going to be manufactured in a foreign country. This reeks of national security breach. No foreign company (not even one that is half foreign) should have access to anything having to do with national security matters of the United States. All designs, actual parts, and assemblies of any kind that will be used in the defense of the United States should never be outsourced, nor should they ever be considered for outsourcing. And it is just bad business all around. If a foreign nation wants to know more about American military vehicles, let them get them the old fashioned way -- espionage.

This deal not only lends itself to bad publicity and controversy, it sets a dangerous precedent. It should be placed on hold, stopped, and the contract placed up for bid among American companies.

        

While the Democrats showed division, the Republicans began the process of regrouping and consolidation.  Republican voters voted overwhelmingly in all four primary states for John McCain, but it was the voters in Texas that pushed McCain over the 1191 delegates needed to secure the nomination from his party.

McCain will meet with president Bush at the White House on Wednesday, March 5.  The president will formally announce his official endorsement of Senator McCain for president, something he could not do until there was a clear winner in the contest.

And McCain became the clear winner when former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee conceded the primary race to Senator McCain and endorsed him for president. 

David Gergen, who worked for several presidents and is a political analyst for CNN, stated that John McCain will want to distance himself as much as he can from the sitting president, since the Democrats are going to draw parallels.  Gergen also suggested that McCain go to Iraq and formulate a plan for Iraq to show that he is not continuing a failed mission leftover by a failed administration.  Iraq has become McCain's defining issue due to his continued insistence on American involvement there (100 years he has said).  His promotion and support of a troop "surge" in Iraq has also met with success and could be used to his political advantage.

But keeping a studied distance from the political leader of his party is definitely in John McCain's best interest.  The Democrats adamantly accuse the Arizona senator's policies as being carbon copies of those of the Bush administration: the failed War in Iraq, the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, continue tax cuts (which only help the affluent), etc.

It's a long campaign trail that leads to November, though, and the Democrats, no matter how divided they are at the moment, will be united to a certain degree by the first of September.  In the meantime, Senator John McCain will not only have to dodge all the Bush comparisons but the rekindling of interest in the Savings and Loan scandal he was associated with two decades ago.   

        

If I were a member of the Democratic Party, I think that I'd be just a little bit annoyed with Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks made to a group of Texas reporters Saturday, March 1, just three days before the Texas Primary.  Not that taking potshots at your fellow party candidates is not part of the political game during primary season.  No, that is expected.

What is not expected is the acknowledgement that Senator John McCain, a Republican rival and supposed ideological opposite, would be a better president than Senator Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat and supposed ideological equal (more or less).  According to Fernando Suarez of CBS News in Forth Worth, Clinton told the reporters: “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say.  He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” 

The speech she referred to is an anti-war speech Obama made in Chicago before assuming his duties as a U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois.

But let's skip forward in time and say that Senator Obama sweeps the four state primaries on Tuesday (Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island).  Democratic Party officials have already intimated that it would be best for there to be one Democratic contender for the nomination after Tuesday's voting, so as to give the nominee more time to consolidate support against the Republican nominee (who, for all intents and purposes, will be John McCain after Tuesday's primaries).  So, in our future scenario, Barack Obama has become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

And then the highly aggressive, expertly manipulative GOP party machine starts running political ads with Senator Clinton's aforementioned endorsement of McCain's experience.  The most famous person in the Democratic Party not having confidence in her fellow party candidate to be an effective commander-in-chief. 

Clinton needs to be careful with her "kitchen sink" strategy, the "do anything to win" mentality that her campaign seems to be fueled by at present.  There are a lot of Independent voters and her ambitions for the White House could cost the Democratic Party the general election if she's not careful.  Could she have handled that situation better, phrased it more favorably to reflect that both she and Obama would make better presidents than McCain?  Of course she could have.  But she did not.

It was the verbal road not taken in this case that says it all.  Senator Hillary Clinton apparently sees nothing wrong with denigrating the assumed governing abilities of her own party member, even to the point of favorably comparing herself to a Republican rival.  She also apparently does not see that it makes her look desperate, pulling out all the stops, doing anything it takes to gain the nomination of the Democratic Party for herself.  And if that means taking the low road and aligning herself momentarily with the Republican frontrunner, so be it.

But if I were a Democrat (or an Independent with Democratic sympathies), I would not think too highly of this tactic of Senator Clinton's.  In fact, if I were a Democrat (or an Independent leaning toward the Democratic ticket), I might find this the deciding factor in which of the two candidates I would want running for president. 

        

Last week, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama was not simply sparring with Democratic rivals, Republican candidates, and anyone with an anti-Obama agenda. No, last week Illinois Senator Barack Obama began dodging dangerous political bullets aimed at ending his candidacy for president. Before last week, a strategic punch or a deniable low-blow here and there was part of the campaigning gameplan. But as Barack Obama has become the Democratic frontrunner and the list of potential candidates for the presidency has basically dwindled to three or four, some have decided that the rest of the campaign season should be played for keeps and have leveled some heavy artillery at the candidate.

It began when Senator Hillary Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, accused Obama of plagiarism for remarks he had made during a speech in Wisconsin. A ridiculous accusation since all candidates borrow material from other sources at some time (and some of them all the time), Obama still had to defend himself, his remarks, and enlist the help of his friend and author of the remarks, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. And while this topic was still a hot issue, a buzz began about some words uttered by Michelle Obama that questioned her patriotism. The Senator's wife made a comment that she was "really" proud of her country for the first time in her life, making reference to the fact that a woman and a black man were the main contenders for the Democratic nominee for president. The Obama camp spent a few days quieting down the furor generated by this nonissue and, along with combating the plagiarism issue, played both episodes off as nitpicking and grasping at straws by Obama's political rivals.

Those sniping shots were just a prelude.

After a very amicable debate in Houston on Thursday, February 21, Senator Clinton's camp decided to fire from a different position. An angry Hillary Clinton, with the governor of Ohio at her side, remonstrated Barack Obama for a couple of campaign fliers that called her to account for NAFTA and her health care plan. She called for Obama to begin running his campaign in an honest manner and to meet her in Ohio for debate, the latter of which had already been agreed upon and scheduled. She took a shot at both his inexperience and age, positioning herself as the outraged mother figure, stating, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

The next day, Senator Clinton made headlines with speeches mocking Senator Obama. Using grandiose and melodramatic phrases, Clinton told Ohio audiences that, despite all the rhetoric and inspirational oratory, Washington would not be changed simply by another person taking the position of president. She even made reference to waving a "magic wand" to change things, perhaps attempting to reignite the "fairy tale" idea presented by President Bill Clinton (that Obama's stand against the Iraq War was significantly different from Hillary Clinton's) just before the South Carolina primary.

Then came the picture in "The Drudge Report" of a young teenaged Obama in traditional Somali dress, a thinly veiled attempt to fan the flames of fears that Obama may be secretly Muslim, a rumor that keeps having life breathed back into it every few weeks. Although "The Drudge Report" claims that their source came from the Clinton camp, Senator Clinton denied such allegations at the debate in Cleveland, Ohio on February 26. Clinton would later claim that the Obama camp was using the photo as a distraction from his weak platform.

So far, Obama seems a bit like Keanu Reeves' character in "The Matrix," subtly moving out of the way of the bullets fired at him. Shots made at his character, his wife's patriotism, his rumored religious affiliations, his inexperience, and his campaign platform have all missed their mark. He has shown great resolve and restraint when dealing with these attacks, often coming away looking more presidential than those that have attempted to bring him down. Whether he has laughed at the attacks, underplayed their importance, or evenly rebuffed them, Obama has done much in the past month to dispel any fears that he cannot handle himself diplomatically. And that just within the confines of party infighting.

Then there came a shot from the right from Republican frontrunner John McCain. His remarks came as a response to Obama's statement during the Democratic debate in Cleveland on MSNBC that "If Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." McCain told an audience the next day: "I have news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. And that's why we're fighting in Iraq, and that's why we're succeeding in Iraq." To which Obama promptly fired back: "I have some news for John McCain, and that is there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

As has been noted, Senator Barack Obama has not only been deft at dodging some political bullets but can sometimes fire a well-aimed shot himself. And he had best arm himself with bigger and better firepower if he wins the Democratic nomination, because, if history is any indicator, the GOP does not politically arm themselves for sport -- they gird themselves for war. Standing and winning against the Clinton political machine will be as nothing compared to fighting everything the GOP can and most assuredly will throw at him before November.  If he needs a grim reminder, he can always ask John Kerry to tell him a war story.


Source:

CNNPolitics.com

"McCain, Obama Clash Over al Qaeda In Iraq," USNews.com

        

Most political experts and analysts agree that John McCain has a problem.  (Besides former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee staying in an already lost race.)  The conservative base of the Republican Party sees the Arizona senator as just shy of moderate and – on some key issues, like immigration reform – far too liberal for their liking.  Many conservative leaders, like the Reverend James Dobson, have publicly said that they will simply not vote for John McCain.

So John McCain has a problem.

Enter President George H. W. Bush, the 41^st president of the United States.   On Monday, February 18, the former president endorsed Senator McCain in Houston, Texas, stating that John McCain was the person best prepared to lead the United States in “these trying times.”   Although his son, the current president, has not yet endorsed the Arizona senator, the patriarch of the Bush clan joins his other son, Jeb Bush, in endorsing John McCain.

And this should go far in eliminating John McCain’s problem with the conservative base.

It should.

But it may not. 

The Republicans want and need unity going into the general election.  Having the Bush family supporting McCain is a definite plus and might sway many of the old Reagan Republicans.  However, the Republican Party is in search of a winner.  But not just a winner – a winner who reflects the core values of the party’s ideology.

Which most conservatives do not believe John McCain reflects.   And perhaps one of the reasons why President George W. Bush has not endorsed Senator McCain thus far.  Being an unpopular president that seems to have strayed from the true conservative path (President Bush also supported the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, an extremely unpopular measure, especially among conservative Republicans), the president’s endorsement will only be so much “window dressing” for McCain.  As far as aiding in reaching out to the conservative base, an endorsement before John McCain clinches the required number to secure the Republican nomination might remind voters how much McCain’s policies coincide with Bush’s.  An endorsement after securing more than enough delegates will not only be expected but undamaging. 

It is not difficult to imagine that the Republican Party had a hand in directing former President Bush’s endorsement, its timing, and its message of unity.  It is not difficult because it is not imagined.

        

It is doubtful that there has ever been a politician who has not borrowed from great orators in the past, lifted a turn of phrase from another politician, flat out stolen the words of great authors, poets, and playwrights. Nobody thinks anything of it. Why? Because they're just talking, they're haranguing, they're "speechifying."

That is really all there is to it. Unless...

Unless there is a presidential nomination on the line.

Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to be grasping for anything, trying desperately to do whatever it takes, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, to stop the Obama momentum train dead in its tracks. Or to just slow it down.

On Monday, February 18, the day before the Wisconsin Primary and the Hawaii Caucus, Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, accused Senator Barack Obama of plagiarizing the 2006 speech of Deval Patrick, who at the time was running for the governorship of Massachusetts. Obama used Patrick's words at a speech given in Milwaukee Saturday night.

Patrick's words, which have become known as the "Just words" speech, were an answer to his opponent's attacks at the time on his lack of experience, that his words did not have substance. Patrick then quoted several famous lines from history, paused after each quote, and said, "Just words." Obama followed the same pattern on Saturday to great effect.

Patrick has said that he and Obama are friends, have spoken about using the phrasing, and that he does not mind Obama using his words. Obama says it is no big deal, just a simple mistake, that he has no problem giving full attribution to his friend.

According to CNN, Clinton's headquarters have said Obama's failure to attribute Patrick undermines "the premise of his candidacy."

Bay Buchanan told Anderson Cooper on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" that Senator Clinton had a lot of nerve accusing Obama when she keeps using the catchphrase, "Take back America!", which her brother, Reverend Pat Buchanan, used during his run for the presidency.

All politicians do it, according to most analysts.   This attack on the Obama camp is seen by many political experts as simply a ploy by the Clinton camp to derail the juggernaut that has stolen their thunder, their nomination. But will it get any traction? The controversy certainly is getting plenty of attention in the blogs and on the news.

But will it have an effect on the voters in Wisconsin and Hawaii? With 94 Democratic delegates at stake, it could mean a lot if people think Obama's small mistake reflects his character.

However, if people have been paying attention to politicians for the past several decades, they will realize that this is actually a political nonissue brought up by the Clinton camp to help stop Obama's momentum and not be swayed by it. But with the race as tight as it is between the two Democratic contenders, something that may seem unimportant may in fact loom large in the eyes of voters. Either way, it makes for great pundit fodder. Expect to hear a bit more about it in the next few days...

Sources:

Jeff Zeleny, "Clinton Camp Says Obama Plagiarized in Speech," NYTimes.com

Suzanne Malveaux, Mary Snow, Robert Yoon, Bill Schneider, and Eli Sanders, "150 delegates up for grabs Tuesday," CNNPolitics.com

"Anderson Cooper 360," CNN television

        

Three more primaries down and Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are sitting a little closer to the delegate total needed to capture their parties respective nominations. Illinois Senator Barack Obama won by considerable margins in all three of the so-called Democratic "Potomac Primaries." Arizona Senator John McCain had a little trouble in Virginia with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, but Maryland and Washington, D.C. were won overwhelmingly.

Those who believed that Obama's momentum might be thwarted in Virginia by Senator Hillary Clinton found nothing of the sort in Tuesday's results. In fact, Obama won by some very large margins (51% in Washington, D.C.).

And Obama's wins put him finally in the lead in the number of delegates.

According to CNN, Clinton's camp responded to these crushing defeats by another personnel shake-up. Mike Henry, Clinton's deputy campaign manager, resigned Tuesday night. Henry is the second high-level Clinton campaign official to resign in a week. On Sunday, Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager, resigned. Doyle hired Henry after he masterminded now Governor of Virginia Tim Kaine's successful campaign.

Obama's continued success and the dominating percentages by which he has won will undoubtedly place considerable pressure on the superdelegates to support Obama's nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Unless the Clinton camp can stop Obama's run - and the New York senator could do just that in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin - the Democratic superdelegates, upon who the eventual Democratic presidential nomination will most likely now rest, will be extremely hard pressed to follow the will of the Democratic electorate.

As for Senator John McCain's nomination, and he will be the Republican nominee, the question has come down to a question of when, not if, he will gain the number of delegates to secure the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee has stated he will not step aside and concede the nomination, even after McCain's sweep of the Potomac Primaries, making the rest of the primaries for the Republicans a matter of interesting contests forestalling the inevitable.

CNN exit polls are showing a shift in the Democratic voting electorate as well. The base of Senator Clinton's voting strength has been the blue-collar white male vote. Obama took that vote in Virginia. This could bode ill for Clinton in Ohio and Texas, which have huge blue-collar populations.

Where is all this going?

It seems that John McCain will win enough delegates in the next few weeks to secure the Republican nomination. And perhaps his opponent is being chosen by the Democrats fear of losing the general election. According to RealClearPolitics.com, their average of national polls has McCain defeating Senator Clinton (46.6% - 45.6%) but losing to Senator Obama (43.7% - 47.4%) in the general election. These numbers could also influence the final superdelegate vote as well, giving Senator Obama the Democratic nomination this fall.

Sources:

Candy Crowley, Suzanne Malveaux, and Jessica Yellin, "Clinton's deputy campaign manager resigns," CNNPolitics.com

"Exit Polls: Virginia," CNNPolitics.com

"General Election: McCain vs. Clinton," RealClearPolitics.com

"General Election: McCain vs. Obama," RealClearPolitics.com

        

As the nation has been caught up in the daily drama of the unexpected excitement generated by this year's political campaigns, something seems to be missing. With all the worries generated by a downturn in the housing market and the subprime mortgage collapse, something that once was commonplace is gone.

(Then a bomb goes off in Baghdad - there's a war going on in Iraq...)

Since the "troop surge" began and has met with initial success (questionable) and the number of American troops killed every month has dropped (along with most other violence statistics associated with Iraq), the War in Iraq has become a news afterthought and a political subtopic. News of an impending recession and the reduced state of the American economy has surpassed the average American's interest in the War in Iraq. Besides, Iraq is a half a world away. The economy is more immediate, more personal.

The War in Iraq has gotten relatively little attention of late because the news there is not bad enough. Good news does not sell (except maybe around Christmas).

Bad news sells. A horribly corrupt and inept administration is in the process of being replaced. That story is selling on a daily basis. Dark economic clouds are gathering on the other side of Wall Street. That story leads most others.

But unless the War in Iraq is mentioned by one of the political candidates or a suicide bomber kills dozens of people in Baghdad, the amount of time given the Iraq War is minimal at best. And this is to the shame of the news organizations.

Because the war continues...

And people continue to die, even if it is not the most important issue on the mind of the voting public anymore.

To date, according to CNN, 3,960 American military personnel have been killed in Iraq. And more will die in the months to come.

It must never get to the point that the War in Iraq becomes a secondary issue.  It must remain at the forefront of our thoughts and our awareness, so as to never lose its importance. Too many people have already died for the stories of Iraq to be relegated to fillers on a slow news day. Too many people will continue to die in a war that is a main contributor to the economic slide that has become the primary concern of too many in the United States. Far too many...

Source:

"U.S. and Coalition Casualties: Iraq," CNN.com

        

Illinois Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic Maine Caucus Sunday, February 10, making a clean sweep of all the Democratic caucuses and primaries over the weekend. Obama won the Louisiana Primary and the caucuses in Nebraska, Washington state, and the Virgin Islands Saturday. The victory in Maine made it four in a row and gives him the lead in won delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. However, Obama still trails Senator Hillary Clinton in total delegates because of the superdelegates pledged to her campaign thus far.

Obama took 15 of the 24 delegates tied to the caucus in Maine, winning 59 % of the vote. Clinton received 9 delegates, having pulled 40% of the vote.

According to CNN, Joe Trippi, an advisor to former Senator John Edwards' suspended campaign, Senator Clinton may not win another primary until Texas or Ohio. Trippi also stated that those states might be in jeopardy considering the amount of momentum Obama has picked up in the last two weeks.

This could be problematic for the Clinton camp, since there are elections in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, February 12. The demographics of these primaries favor Obama.

In a move perhaps resulting from the relative poor showing Clinton has had since Super Tuesday, Clinton representatives announced that the campaign was replacing campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle with advisor Maggie Williams. The Clinton camp is looking towards March and the large primaries in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas to downplay any successes Obama may have throughout February.

Caucuses and primaries weren't the only things Barack Obama won during the weekend. At Sunday night's Grammy Awards, the senator from Illinois beat out two former presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, to win Best Spoken Word Album for the recording of his book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.

Source:

"Obama wins Maine caucus, CNN projects," CNNPolitics.com

"Election Center 2008: Primaries & Caucuses," CNNPolitics.com

        

This may be the craziest primary season ever in the history of the American election process. The Democrats look as if they're going to have a brokered convention where the superdelegates get a chance to actually cast meaningful votes. This is causing concern among the Democratic purists who do not mind the superdelegates as long as their function is purely honorary, which, up until this election year, they have been. And in the Republican camp, Mitt Romney's suspension of his own campaign and Mike Huckabee's decision to run until someone has the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination has thrown the Republican Party into a polarized tailspin.

Saturday's primaries and caucuses in Washington state, Kansas, Nebraska, and Louisiana did nothing to alleviate the problems facing both parties.

For the Democrats, with both candidates running an almost dead-even race (Obama trails but has the momentum), Senator Barack Obama's sweep of the three states casting ballots proved that the senator from Illinois was a viable contender for the nomination. His three state wins (and a win in the American Virgin Islands as well) pulls him to within 60 delegates of Senator Hillary Clinton. With the Democrats primary system given to representational apportionment of delegates, neither of the two candidates can hope to get the required 2,025 majority they will need to secure the nomination before the Denver national convention.

And this is to be feared, according to many Democratic strategists.  A convention that does not select a nominee by unanimous decision or by simple majority will lead to a brokered convention, where delegates will become part of a wheeling-and-dealing and advantage/tradeoff politicking for one of the candidates to secure the nomination - in effect, negating the primaries and caucuses that put the delegates there in the first place. If a decision by majority still cannot be reached, the superdelegates will be allowed to cast their votes. Strategists fear this even more than the internecine struggle for votes on the convention floor. Superdelegates are not elected to the convention by popular vote. Superdelegates are delegates that attend the convention because of Democratic Party affiliation, status, and being an elected official and are not representative. The Democrats fear their voting will alienate the electorate, making it seem as if the convention was 'rigged' toward the candidate who eventually wins.

The Republican National Convention may not be as divisive at the convention itself when it comes to voting for the nominee, but the Party itself may be divided so much that it impacts negatively its chances for a win in the general election. Arizona Senator John McCain, barring a miracle of biblical proportions (remember, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is a Baptist preacher), will secure enough delegates to win the Republican nomination going into the convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul. However, Mike Huckabee's wins in Louisiana and Kansas on Saturday, February 9, not to mention a close second in Washington state, might signal a key shift in momentum within the Republican electorate. The deeply conservative and religious base of the Republican Party, now no longer divided between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, may pull Huckabee's numbers up considerably by the time the convention rolls around.

And what about those nearly 300 delegates pledged to Romney? If they all voted for Huckabee, would this not place the former governor in a more advantageous position? Although delegates are pledged to a certain candidate, there is no guarantee that those pledged delegates will vote for the candidates they're pledged to vote for. With McCain's problems in appealing to the conservative base of his party and Huckabee's rise as a contender, the Republicans may end up with a brokered convention as well.

Broadcast live on CNN, Senator Barack Obama told a boisterous crowd in Richmond, Virginia, Saturday night that six recent national polls resulted in him beating John McCain in a head-to-head race for president, something that the Clinton camp cannot claim. This not only bolsters Obama's chances of getting the nomination, it gives Huckabee's case a boost as well (or at least gives him a shot at becoming McCain's running mate). With his momentum and his ascendancy in the polls, Obama could become the favorite at a brokered convention in Denver.

But as CNN's chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Tubin, told his fellow political panelists on "Anderson Cooper 360," a poll in February means absolutely nothing in the extended context of things. November - in political time - is a long time away.

It probably would be safe to say that anyone who had ventured forth the idea that both the Republican and Democratic parties would be in such divisive contests after two-thirds of the primaries and caucuses had been held would have been dismissed as a remote possibility even just a few weeks ago. Political strategists in both parties are worried about what it will do to their respective parties' chances in the general election. And it looks as if everything will pivot around the national conventions in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Sources:

CNN television

"Election Center 2008: Primaries & Caucuses," CNNPolitics.com

"Obama fires up Virginia," CNN.com