Saul Relative

The Risky Business Of Outsourcing National Defense Contracts

2008-03-06T15:31:00Z

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.

John McCain Wins Enough Delegates For Republican Nomination

2008-03-05T06:46:00Z

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.

McCain Would Make A Better President Than Obama -- Clinton Said?

2008-03-04T17:01:00Z

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.

Bringing Down Obama

2008-02-29T06:56:00Z

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

Was Former President Bush's Endorsement Necessary For McCain?

2008-02-20T05:05:00Z

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.

Clinton Camp Accuses Obama Of Plagiarism

2008-02-19T23:18:00Z

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

Obama And McCain Sweep Potomac Primaries

2008-02-13T06:32:00Z

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

Elections Aside, There's A War Going On

2008-02-12T07:32:00Z

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

Obama Sweeps Weekend Elections And Wins A Grammy

2008-02-11T22:42:00Z

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

Obama Sweeps; Huckabee Takes Two Out Of Three

2008-02-11T05:52:00Z

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

Superdelegates: Will Obama Or Clinton Be Nominated By Them?

2008-02-10T03:05:00Z

It has been determined by experts and analysts that the Democratic National Convention in Denver could become an internecine struggle that could ultimately injure the party and destroy its chances of winning the general election in November. Those determinations come from looking at the numbers. The numbers come from the each candidate's delegates acquired thus far and the number of delegates left to be won in the remaining Democratic caucuses and primaries. The only way either of the remaining two candidates, Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, can get enough delegates to win is to decisively defeat their opponent in almost all of the upcoming elections. The problem with that is that these candidates are nearly equal in the polls for several of these elections.

And then there is the problem with the superdelegates.

Superdelegates are a Democratic Party invention that have played basically an honorary role at the conventions since their introduction in 1972. But this year those 796 superdelegates could decide who the Democratic nominee will be - and that is the problem.

The Democrats have been criticized by Republicans, fellow Democrats, and political experts as having instituted a non-democratic process in their nominating procedure, since the superdelegates get to vote simply because of appointment and position. They are not representative of the voters who vote in the caucuses and primaries to elect delegates to go to the national convention. And, by Democratic Party rule, they are technically unpledged delegates that can vote for anyone they choose, including candidates no longer in the race.

At present, Senator Hillary Clinton has a little over half the delegates needed to win the nomination (2025). This number includes both pledged delegates (won in primaries and caucuses) and pledged superdelegates. Senator Barack Obama is trailing, but by a mere one hundred delegates. Over half of the states have had their primary elections, including the two states with the largest delegations (California and New York). Although there are some big states left (Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia), there is no way that the representative way most states break down their delegate apportionment is going to give the Democrats a clear winner before the National Convention in Denver.

Some have suggested that there may be wrangling over the two states stripped of their delegates, Michigan and Florida (for moving their primaries to earlier dates, against party mandates). And one can see why the Clinton camp would want those delegates to be included, considering that the senator from New York won both states by a considerable margin. But one can see the argument the Obama camp would have for disallowing those delegates as well - since the voters knew that they weren't electing delegates to the national convention, there is the question of the number that did not bother to vote, thereby skewing the delegate count.

There are more than a few who believe the superdelegate vote might not only be necessary to decide who the Democratic nominee will be (which was why they were introduced in the first place - to decide undecided nominations in the party's best interest) but that it will hurt the Democratic Party, especially this campaign season. With the superdelegate vote going one way or the other to decide, many voters may become disaffected and disillusioned, believing that they voted for nothing, that perhaps the voting might be rigged through unseen political machinations and backroom dealing. Ultimately, Democrats are afraid that if the nomination cannot be handled on the floor of the convention, the superdelegate vote that would give one of the candidates the nomination will result in Democratic voters becoming bitter and/or disillusioned and not voting in the general election.

Other experts and party representatives fear an ugly battle on the floor of the convention. A prolonged battle over who becomes the Democratic nominee could affect voter turnout in November, not to mention driving Independent voters and disappointed voters away.

Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist, told CNN that the convention should not be settled by superdelegates. Brazile, a superdelegate herself, stated, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. There's no reason why we should decide."

Speculation as to how all the uncommitted superdelegates and the unawarded delegates awaiting primaries and caucuses might vote or not vote has become a hot and, for some, worrisome topic. The bottom line remains: not one delegate at the Democratic National Convention, pledged or unpledged, has to vote for a certain candidate. Essentially, a convention floor battle could potentially result in the nomination of John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, or any other Democrat. Although this might be welcome news to these once presidential hopefuls, presenting a fractured and internally warring party to the world at the Democratic National Convention is something no Democrat wants going into the national election.

Sources:

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

Dave Helling, "Superdelegates could hold key in Democratic nomination," KansasCity.com

Christian Leader James Dobson Endorses Mike Huckabee For President

2008-02-08T17:16:00Z

The reverend James Dobson, leader of the influential Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family, endorsed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee Thursday, February 8. Dobson had made it clear that he would not vote for Arizona senator John McCain because of his voting record on family and conservative issues. Dobson said he was making the statement as a private citizen and had not endorsed a single candidate because he did not wish to make a choice between Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

That changed early Thursday when Mitt Romney announced the suspending of his candidacy yesterday, stating that the longer he stayed in the race, the better the chances the Democratic nominee would have to win the general election in November.

Considering that he had won less than half the delegates McCain had, it is possible that that was his reason. But it is doubtful.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee destroyed Mitt Romney's chances at becoming the nominee. There were several instances. His surprise win in Iowa. Huckabee's strong showing in South Carolina, where he received twice the votes Romney did, but only 3% less than McCain, who won (Romney finished a disappointing fourth, with 15% of the vote). The McCain contingent's strategy move in West Virginia that gave Huckabee the win there early on Super Tuesday. Then, Huckabee winning Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Arkansas.

No, Romney more than likely saw the writing on the wall. The next two Republican primaries are in Kansas and Arkansas, which Huckabee has a chance of sweeping, considering their large evangelical populations. And although Huckabee has less delegates than Romney, trailing McCain by five hundred, Huckabee has a chance of getting the Romney delegates, due to the acrimony between the Romney and McCain camps, and winning more delegates in the upcoming primaries, giving McCain a run for his money in the last stretch of the primaries.

Dobson stated that he would vote for Huckabee because of the former governor's "unwavering positions on the social issue, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life..." He went on to say that he believed Huckabee was the "best remaining choice for President of the United States."

Dobson's endorsement changes the voting equation. Knowing that his opinion counts immensely among the millions of evangelical voters in America, his endorsement, along with Romney's absence, will more than likely give Mike Huckabee a better chance to win the Republican base voters and perhaps most of the remaining primaries. These two factors could also put him in a position to win the Republican nomination for president.

Sources:

Fin Gomez, "Influential Social Conservative, James Dobson, Endorses Huckabee For President," FoxNews.com

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

The Republicans Are Down To Two?

2008-02-02T21:17:00Z

At the Repbublican Debate Thursday night, January 31, the four remaining candidates sat at a table. Two of them answered questions and debated issues almost the entire debate. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is currently third in most polls, spoke a few times. Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, spoke even less.

Sadly, the CNN-televised debate from the Ronald Reagan Library in California was a two-person affair. The more colorful candidates still in the race barely were allowed time to respond or comment on anything. Most of the debate centered on the differences in the platforms of Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. That, and the relative nonissue of whether or not Mitt Romney actually said that he wanted "timetables" or not for the possible withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.   An inordinate amount of time was spent going back and forth on this nonissue.

Who cares? The semantics of Romney's statement do not matter.

What matters are the overall policy issues that these men will attempt to implement and maintain while in office. All four of them.

Huckabee and Paul deserve to be heard as long as they are still in the running. Marginalizing their candidacy by generally ignoring them and pandering to sensationalism and controversy by allowing Romney and McCain to childishly engage in a "you said" "no, I didn't" argument was beneath the journalistic excellence CNN has built its reputation upon. If I wanted to watch this kind of infantile, confrontational dialogue, I would simply have turned on FoxNews (anytime).

So, now that CNN and most of the popular media have decided that the Republicans are down to two candidates, it is up to the voting public to follow through and do what they did in Iowa -- vote for Mike Huckabee. Or Ron Paul, because the point is not that Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul are better choices for president, but that they do deserve consideration.

And it isn’t as if we have not seen this before already. On the Democratic side, every candidate but Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former senator John Edwards was virtually ignored.

When the electorate allow the media to drive the scope of our elections, we lose most of the power of our vote.   When we allow the media to funnel our votes through sensationalism, we allow them to trivialize our vote. When we allow the media to marginalize certain candidates and focus on certain others, we allow them to take away our vote.

John Edwards And Rudy Giuliani Drop Presidential Bids

2008-01-31T07:52:00Z

Former senator John Edwards announced from New Orleans Wednesday, January 30, that he was “suspending” his candidacy for the nomination of the Democratic Party for president. From the same place that he had announced his candidacy, in New Orleans’ Katrina-devastated 9^th Ward, Edwards disappointedly told a small crowd that it was time to step aside and let history be made by the Democratic Party. He did not endorse either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, but he admitted that he had spoke with both candidates earlier, apprising them of his intentions, and getting from them their word that they would do as much as possible for the poor, the key issue in Edwards’ campaign.

Several hours later, former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani also bowed out of the race at a press conference at the Ronald Reagan Library, site of the Republican debate held later in the day between the remaining four Republican candidates. In a much-publicized press conference, Giuliani, with John McCain at his side, announced his withdrawal and his endorsement of the Arizona senator for the Republican Party’s choice for president.

The withdrawal of Rudy Giuliani was expected. Having bet his entire candidacy on a first-place finish in the Florida Primary, his disappointing third-place finish was a sure indicator for most political analysts that he would step aside.

Edwards’ removal of himself, however, came as a bit of a shock to everyone. Stating as late as Tuesday that he was in the race until the end, his announcement early Wednesday was so unexpected, it has led many to believe that the decision was not solely based on the former senator’s distant third-place finishes in South Carolina or Florida. Many speculate that it may have had a lot to do with his wife, Elizabeth, who was diagnosed with cancer (the day John Kerry conceded defeat to George W. Bush) in 2004.

This leaves the Republicans with four men standing: Arizona senator John McCain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Texas representative Ron Paul. The Democrats are left with two candidates: New York senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois senator Barack Obama. With Super Tuesday looming, the race just got a little tighter on both sides of the political fence.

Does the departure of Edwards and Giuliani benefit or hurt any of the other candidates? Doubtful. Edwards’ supporters were primarily blue collar white males. Clinton may have a slight edge over Obama, unless Edwards actually endorses Obama over Clinton. As for Giuliani, his open endorsement of McCain certainly did not hurt the Arizona senator. Representing the left side of the GOP as both these men do, Giuliani’s supporters would more than likely have drifted toward McCain without the endorsement, considering the similarity in both men’s ideologies.

One thing is certain, the absence of these two men loosed quite a few voters back into the pool of voters for Super Tuesday.

Sources:

Nedra Pickler and Becky Bohrer, "Edwards Drops Presidential Bid," KansasCity.com

Jonathan D. Salant, "Giuliani Abandons Presidential Race, Endorses McCain," Bloomberg.com

John McCain Wins Republican Florida Primary

2008-01-30T07:22:00Z

Arizona senator John McCain edged out former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the Republican Florida Primary on Tuesday, January 29, by nearly 100,000 votes, 36% to 31%. The Republican Florida Primary was a winner-take-all affair, giving McCain 57 delegates, the lead in total delegates, and a tremendous momentum boost going into Super Tuesday next week, when nearly two dozen primaries will be held. McCain's victory is a testament to hard work and perseverance, because back in mid-December, according to a Rasmussen poll of Florida voters, McCain rested at a dismal 6% and was 17% behind Mitt Romney.

Ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani finished a disappointing third, far behind the frontrunners, pulling in only 15% of the vote. Consider this as opposed to August of last year, when Giuliani (again according to a Rasmussen poll) was enjoying a 15 percent lead over Mitt Romney and a 23 point lead over a lagging McCain.

Giuliani had made no attempt to hide the fact that he was placing heavy emphasis on the Florida Primary, wanting to use Florida as a jumping off platform for a run at the presidential nomination. But his narrow focus on Florida (and a few other states with large delegate counts) seemed to dismiss the smaller states' primaries and caucuses that led up to it.

Many political analysts and experts are expecting Rudy Giuliani to announce his withdrawal from the Republican race shortly, if not within the next few days. John King, political reporter for CNN, announced late Tuesday night that sources in the Giuliani camp have informed news organizations that Mayor Giuliani would announce his withdrawal from the Republican race and would endorse Senator John McCain's candidacy for president on Wednesday, January 30.

So what does this mean going forward for McCain, Romney, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Texas representative Ron Paul? It probably means that McCain and Romney will starts attacking each other again, something that the two have become accustomed to of late. Huckabee, who won the Iowa Caucus, pulled down 14% of the vote in Florida and will remain to be a thorn in Romney's side, draining away Christian voters from Romney. As glowing as McCain's remarks about Huckabee and Giuliani have been, it would not be a great leap to think that one of the two might become McCain's running mate if he gets the official nod. And Ron Paul? Ron Paul simply keeps his candidacy alive.

The Democrats also held their Florida primary on Tuesday, but there were no delegates involved since the Democratic National Committee had stripped the state of its delegates for allocating delegates outside the DNC approved timeframe. Senator Hillary Clinton won the purely symbolic race, 50% to 33% over Barack Obama. Former senator John Edwards came in third with 14% of the vote.

And they are all -- Republicans and Democrats -- headed to California and Super Tuesday.

Sources:

"Florida Republican Primary," RealClearPolitics.com

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

"Sources: Giuliani Will Endorse McCain," CNN.com

Rudy Giuliani Betting The House -- The White House -- On The Florida Primary

2008-01-29T20:28:00Z

What a difference a few months make. On the campaign trail, you could actually say weeks or even days make a difference. A year ago it would have been safe to say that the general election was going to be a voting slugfest to the final count between ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. According to recent polls, the senator is losing ground and the ex-mayor may not win even one primary.

It does not look good for Rudy Giuliani in the Florida Primary. According to a Rasmussen Poll taken in mid-July last year, Guiliani was 9 percentage points ahead of both Arizona senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (22, 13, 13). Three weeks later, the ex-mayor would enjoy his largest lead in the Florida polls, surging well ahead of Mitt Romney and watching as John McCain reached almost his lowest point in the polls (30, 15, 7, respectively). By December, as the media touted of the important upcoming Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, Giuliani, who decided not to campaign in either state, began to slip, falling behind Romney, 23% -19$ (McCain would be at his lowest in mid-December, with only 6%). But by January 9, Rasmussen would poll a resurgent Senator McCain, fresh from a win in New Hampshire, one percentage point ahead of his two closest rivals. Today, Rasmussen has McCain and Romney in a dead heat for the Florida Republican vote with 31 % of the Republican Primary vote and Rudy Giuliani a distant third with 16%.

How in the world did that happen? Several factors seem to have come together to give McCain his momentum, Romney his steady growing numbers, and Giuliani his consistently falling points. One was that Giuliani came off as arrogant when he decided not to campaign in the smaller primary and caucus states, focusing on Florida and states with high delegate counts. As a result, he finished poorly in the contests leading up to Florida. McCain just steadily plugged his message. Romney did the same. Occasionally McCain and Romney would take time to take shots at each other and now seem to do it as a matter of course.

Another factor was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s surprising win in the Republican Iowa Caucus. It brought another element into the Republican fray that had seemed to lie dormant until Iowa - the Christian factor. Huckabee is an evangelical and a former minister. Giuliani is pro choice when it comes to abortion, sees nothing wrong with domestic partnerships, and was responsible for major New York City anti-firearms legislation while he was mayor -- and these get him in trouble with evangelicals in particular, conservatives in general.

And then there is the factor of Giuliani's bad press in the last few months. His fallout with his alleged estranged son. His daughter posting her support for Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, on a website. His three highly publicized marriages and two divorces have tarnished him slightly. And the neverending onslaught from pundits, comedians, reporters and tabloids on his personal life and his constant use of September 11 (he was major of New York City on that fateful day, his strong response leading to the nickname "America's mayor") as a political pitch has been troublesome.

Giuliani was open about his strategy to win the Republican nomination for president. He stated a month ago that he would concentrate on the larger states and bet his chances on Florida. Even when he began slipping in the polls - and three of his opponents began to rise dramatically - he made only token appearances in the other primary and caucus states, if at all. And this may have been a mistake. Many saw his focus on the "big picture" of the general election as a blatant dismissal of the smaller states and their delegates - and it showed at the voting polls. Giuliani finished behind most of the Republican field in South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan.

Florida has become an all or nothing gamble for Rudy Giuliani. By no means does a losss in Florida mean that Giuliani has to drop out of contention, but a third-place finish would be damaging to his chances for nomination. By ignoring the other states running up to the Florida Primary, however, he may find that betting the White House to win on a race in Florida may not have been the best strategy.

Sources:

"Florida Republican Primary," RealClearPolitics.com

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

"Rudy Giuliani On The Issues," OntheIssues.org

Obama Rising Above It All

2008-01-29T08:05:00Z

Senator Barack Obama is proving a bit of a problem for the Clinton political machine. The woman (and heir apparent -- or so some thought) that seemed so invincible just a few short months ago has been defeated in Iowa, barely won New Hampshire, comfortably won Michigan (no delegates) and Nevada, and was soundly thrashed in South Carolina. Is this to be an expected pattern throughout the course of the primaries? Can the Obama campaign carry on a series of worrisome wins to build enough momentum to stop Senator Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democrats next presidential nominee and instead replace her with the junior Senator from Illinois?

Perhaps.

Invoking the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama is calling for a change. Not just a change of allegiance and vote. But a change to help alter the course of the United States. In his speeches, he tells people that there is no room for divisions among Americans, that color is not an issue. He calls for solidarity, he calls for strength, he calls for hope, and he calls for your vote.

But is hope enough? Do the people of the United States have enough trust left within their hearts to follow a man they barely know? Can the cult of personality that has become part of the message of the Barack Obama campaign sway enough people to gain him enough delegates to see him nominated as the Democratic candidate for the presidency? Or are the people of the United States so hardened to political maneuverings over the past few decades, so jaded by the corruption and scandal of the past couple administrations, so dampened by the disappointment and frustration that they have become too cynical to let that flame of hope ignite?

Surprisingly, it is beginning to look as if hope just might be enough. The Obama campaign has taken on a life of its own. Led by a figure that doesn't seem to let the adverse deter him, he has risen above the pettiness of the racial questioning and the attempts to draw him into a mud-slinging competiton, whether it be media driven or part of his opponents' strategy. He has managed to keep anything said about his fellow Democrats low-key, nothing to be considered disrespectful or overly contentious. He has defended himself with grace and even tones.

And he is winning over a vast majority of the undecided and the directionless.

Not since the Kennedys in the 1960s has the United States seen such enthusiastic support for a candidate, such a groundswell of popular movement. Not since Bobby Kennedy has there been a young candidate who has captured the imagination of the American people and kept it focused. Not since John and Bobby Kennedy have so many Americans actually believed the words of a candidate and been inspired enough to become politically active. Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, wrote a glowing endorsement of the Senator from Illinois in the New York Times. "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Senator Barack Obama believes he can be that president as well. In a couple of days -- after the dust of Super Tuesday has settled -- we will know whether or not his message has gotten through...

Source:

Caroline Kennedy, "A President Like My Father," NYTimes.com

Can John Edwards Win The Democratic Nomination?

2008-01-26T08:41:00Z

Polls, depending upon which ones you look at, are showing Senator Barack Obama ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton by as many as 9 or 10 to 16 percentage points in South Carolina just hours before the polls open in that state's Democratic Primary. But the polls have been wrong before. They were wrong in Iowa. They were really wrong in New Hampshire.

The polls put Barack Obama well ahead. Why, when just a few short months ago, Hillary Clinton led the polls? Simply because Obama has gained the confidence of the African-American electorate, something he did not have a few months ago. And some feel confident he could become the next president, also something they did not believe a few months ago. But that is what a victory in Iowa and an extremely strong showing in New Hampshire will get you - confidence.

John Edwards is a distant third but has picked up ground in the last week, rising as much as 9 percent, which still puts him behind Clinton by at least 11 %. According to a Mason-Dixon Poll, Obama leads with 38 %, Clinton with 30 %, and Edwards with 19 %. Reuters/C-Span/Zogby has it 38, 25, 21 - in the same order. The latter gives Edwards more leverage and puts him and Clinton in a virtual tie. If Edwards pulls off a second-place finish, there could still be a chance for him to capture the nomination. But he has to do well in South Carolina, or so say the analysts.

I disagree. John Edwards could lose South Carolina and on Super Tuesday, February 5, do well enough in those elections to put himself in the lead (or a really close second) in this race. As long as he remains in the race, Edwards has a shot. Admittedly, it is a long shot, but with Clinton and Obama sniping at each other, Edwards has become the voice of reason in the Democratic Party. As he told David Letterman the other night, he now represents the "grown up" part of the Democratic Party. And he could be right. Saturday's primary will be a good indicator.

Democrats, in order to win the general election, have to start thinking with their heads instead of with their hearts. A woman or an African-American in the White House sounds great and would be a great thing to see, but it probably will not happen if John McCain is the Republicans choice. John Edwards is probably the only Democrat who can beat McCain in the general election (that is assuming that McCain wins the Republican nomination and, given the mood of the country, if the Republicans want to win in the fall, he will be their candidate). Clinton cannot beat McCain because she galvanizes Republicans. Too many of them simply hate her (and her husband). In fact, the only two choices the Democrats have now are Barack Obama and John Edwards. Barack Obama will also galvanize the Republicans, but for different reasons. One of them is race (and I'm not talking about voting against him because he's black, although that, unfortunately, will be a factor for some). Take a look at the CNN exit polls for South Carolina. There isn't even a 1 % showing for African-Americans or Latinos voting in the Republican Primary. There are considerably more white eleigible voters registered to vote all across the United States. If McCain gets the Republican nomination, not only will he get almost all of the registered Republicans, he'll also get most of the moderate and conservative Democrats as well if Clinton or Obama is nominated. Independents will split.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cannot beat those numbers.

But Edwards can.

Romney Wins Michigan Primary Handily

2008-01-16T07:37:00Z

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Michigan Primary tonight with 39% of the vote. Senator John McCain came in second with a 30% showing. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee came in third with 16% of the vote.

With Wyoming, that gives Romney two states that he has won. Many pundits and analysts were stating that Michigan was a make-or-break state of Romney, but, given that it is his home state (where his family's name still carries a lot of nostalgic weight), this may be a false positive for the campaign. South Carolina should give us a more true picture of how the Republican voters really feel about Romney. If he is a viable candidate, this pro-Bush, pro-military state should give Romney at least a second place finish behind Huckabee. Huckabee stands to gain from South Carolina's predominant evangelical voters. It could go down to the wire.

Ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani came in a distant 6th place behind Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. Giuliani did not campaign much in Michigan, basing his nomination strategy on winning Florida and a few other states in primaries to be held on Super Tuesday in February. Whether or not this is a wise move on his part remains to be seen.

According to CNN, Mitt Romney not only had the advantage of being in his home state (he was born in Michigan) but received most of the female vote and the vote of those most loyal to president Bush.

And that last little tidbit should tell us something. Do we really want a president (Romney) that people still loyal to the worst president this country has ever seen (Bush) are voting for? It is something to think about...

Working On A Legacy, A War, Or Arms Deals?

2008-01-16T06:42:00Z

Depending upon whom you listen to or read, president Bush is in the Middle East for the first time (in his presidency) working on a peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Well, sort of. Many believe he is attempting to find his legacy there. Some think he already has...

Then there are those who believe he is there to drum up support for attacking Iran. This faction believes that he's attempting to get the good will of all these Middle Eastern nations he is visiting so attacking Iran won't hurt the U.S. economically. And by "economically," of course, the meaning is "a diminishment of oil supply."

The third faction believes Bush is simply there to sell arms to Middle Eastern countries.
Help stabilize the region, as it were. (Stabilizing the most volatile region on the planet by an infusion of war materiel just sounds counter-intuitive, does it not?) And that may be the plan. He's announced a $30 billion package to Israel. He also announced a $20 billion package to Saudi Arabia. Other arms packages are sure to come as he makes his way through his 8-day tour.

This writer proposes a fourth faction. How about all three of the other schools of thought combined? Why not? He's already there. Might as well kill three birds with one trip in installments. Pitch the Palestinian-Israeli peace deal. Push the as-you-guys-all-know-Iran-is-part-of-the-"Axis-of-Ev il"-so-attacking-them-is-a-good-thing argument. Make a few billion dollars in arms deals. Who would have thought that Dubya the Dimwit was a multi-tasker?

Let's just hope the moron doesn't get us involved in another war while he's touring. While in Israel, Bush visited the Palestinians. He joked that he didn't have a problem getting his 45-car entourage through the Israeli checkpoints (those same hated checkpoints maintain a chokehold on Palestinian movement within the region). Thank heavens he is taking his one-man act back to Crawford, Texas, in a year.

Of course, the faction this writer sides with also believes that that isn't soon enough...