Will McCain Swing for the Fences?

As we finally enter the homestretch of the 2008 Campaign, Barack Obama should probably have a 5- to 10-point lead in the polls, but instead finds himself effectively tied with (or even trailing) John McCain. In generic poll after generic poll, Democrats are decisively favored over Republicans, yet for some reason, Obama lags. The Obama Campaign knows this, is nervous about it, and their anxiety has started to show. In choosing Joe Biden as his running mate, Obama made a tacit admission that a bolstering of his experience and qualifications – particularly with regard to foreign policy – was necessary. Biden is not likely to do any harm for Obama’s chances, particularly given that I would expect the Obama Campaign to have him speak only on a scripted basis to avoid his infamous propensity to put his foot in his mouth. On the other hand, it’s difficult to make the argument that choosing Biden will help much either. Would a president and vice president who were both sitting senators – Biden for 35 years – really represent a departure from the “same old Washington politics”? Does that truly represent change?

Switching gears, John McCain made a colossal mistake last week. Just at the moment when he seemed to truly be gaining some momentum, he committed a gaffe that will likely haunt him all the way until Election Day. Asked by two reporters from Politico.com how many houses he and his wife own, McCain offered the following answer:

“I think – I’ll have my staff get to you – It’s condominiums where – I’ll have them get to you”.

Wow. That one hurt. In McCain’s defense, were one to take the time to try to understand the reason he could not provide a clear answer (namely that there are properties owned by his wife’s family trust of which he may not be aware and probably cannot actually be considered an owner), it becomes easier to understand his hesitation or inability to answer the question. Unfortunately for McCain, no one is going to take that time. The national media certainly won’t, though were Obama to commit a similar mistake I feel confident his fourth estate admirers would quickly come to his rescue. No, regardless of the nuances or complexities that led to his non-answer, the narrative has been established that John McCain is so “rich” and so “out of touch” that he cannot even keep track of how many houses he and his wife have. In a time of economic weakness – especially when the housing market is bearing much of the brunt – this is the type of answer that loses elections.

Meanwhile, back at the Democratic Convention, Monday night was initially billed as Michelle Obama’s time to shine. This changed slightly when Ted Kennedy – “’lion’ of the Senate” – opted to make the trip to Denver, and then further, to address the convention. It is truly sad that Kennedy is gravely ill with a terrible disease I wouldn’t wish on anyone. But can the Democratic Party and the media spare me some of the sycophantic coverage of the “heroic” Kennedy making the “courageous” journey “against medical advice” to “summon the strength” to speak in order to symbolically “pass the torch” to Barack Obama? As John McCain might say, let’s have a little straight talk, my friends. To the extent that Ted Kennedy was ever worthy of holding the same torch as either of his late brothers, that torch was extinguished by the water underneath Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick in 1969 – along with the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. I couldn’t help but wonder if Chris Matthews was aware of the irony when he said on MSNBC Monday night:

“He’s a sentimental guy, whatever you think of Ted Kennedy, and he looks out for other people”.

Really?

Speaking of Democratic political giants prone to moral failings, when Bill Clinton addresses the convention on Wednesday night, many in the Obama Campaign will be watching nervously to see just how warm or sincere he seems in his support of Obama. Already controversy has surfaced over the former president’s reported displeasure at being scheduled to speak on a night the DNC has themed “Securing America’s Future”. Apparently “The Man from Hope” would much rather speak on economic issues and is bitter about a missed opportunity to do what he loves most: talk about himself. Obviously Clinton believes the economic strength of the 1990’s is his best chance for a lasting legacy not involving the name “Monica”, and it’s a safe bet that the narcissist-in-chief will say as little about Obama as he thinks he can get away with, attempting instead to better his own political standing first and foremost, and if he has extra time, that of his wife too. I remain puzzled that Obama did not dispatch with both Clintons on the convention’s first night, much as McCain is smartly doing with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Day One of the GOP Convention. The Clintons and the ever-present melodrama in their wake pose a real threat to distract from one of the Obama Campaign’s best opportunities to introduce their candidate to the nation on their terms. And the Clintons wouldn’t have it any other way.

Looking ahead to Thursday night, Obama is slated for his own star turn. Rather than address the convention in the convention hall as is traditionally done, he and his campaign have opted instead to use neighboring Invesco Field (home of the Denver Broncos) so that “The One” can make his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 adoring disciples. I predict that, like his “premature victory lap” in Europe, the Obama Campaign may come to regret sensationalizing and over-hyping what is almost certainly the most important speech any presidential candidate ever gives in the course of a presidential campaign. American voters get it by now. We understand that people literally faint at his rallies, that it’s “cool” to support Obama, and even a Republican like me can’t help but find the Illinois Senator awfully likeable at times on the surface. What American voters may not get, however, is just precisely what is in store for us if Obama becomes president. It seems unlikely we’ll learn much more on Thursday, as a speech in an outdoor stadium to such an enormous crowd is not a setting that lends itself to a serious and sober discussion of what specifically Obama plans to do as president. In making this choice, the Obama team will only perpetuate the very negatives so aptly pointed out in McCain’s “Celeb” ad. Hope and change are wearing thin, and “I’m not George W. Bush” is in and of itself not sufficient rationale for being elected to the highest office in the land. Voters want a president, not a rock star.

With back-to-back party conventions likely nullifying the usual post-convention “bounce” in the polls, there’s a great chance that the fall campaign will officially begin in a deadlock. John McCain is likely to name his running mate any day now, and the Republican Convention begins next week. McCain needs a game-changer to break the tie and build a legitimate lead over Obama, and he has a remarkable opportunity for just that after Obama’s bland, status quo choice of Biden. The how-many-houses gaffe should effectively eliminate Mitt Romney as a potential vice president for McCain, because having an honest-to-God multi-millionaire join the ticket with a man now being portrayed as fabulously wealthy and aloof would make the Obama Campaign’s ads too easy. On the other hand, an argument could be made that McCain’s misstep last week boosts Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s chances given his bona fide blue collar background, but in many ways, Pawlenty represents the Biden equivalent of the potential GOP vice presidential candidates. He’ll do no harm, but it’s not clear he’ll help much either. McCain can fundamentally alter this race and gain back his lost momentum with a bold and surprising veep choice, particularly in going with a woman after Obama disappointed the Hillary supporters by not choosing her. But who? Unfortunately for McCain, there is no Republican female who perfectly fits the bill, but there are a few names to keep in mind as we await the official announcement: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell; Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Each has pros and cons to be sure, but unlike Obama, McCain’s vast experience affords him more leeway to swing for the fences in selecting his running mate. If he wants to win in November, he may have to do just that.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

So It's Biden...

So Barack Obama has opted to go with Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. I have been ruminating about this since the news was confirmed late Friday night, and I still haven't quite been able to crystallize my thoughts on it.

Bottom line: good choice, but not a great choice. I still argue (as I did here last week), that if Obama wanted a guaranteed win in November, Hillary Clinton was the right choice. He's gone another way, however, and in doing so, he has picked someone who I certainly don't think will do any harm, though I question how much Biden will help.

More on this later today or later this week...

"Dream Ticket" Déjà Vu

Here's a slight follow-up to today's earlier post: Can Obama Close the Deal?

As I wrote, with all of the bumps in the road for Obama and his team lately, it should come as no surprise that the Obama Campaign leaked Monday evening that his vice presidential selection was imminent. It was a good move, taking the focus away from Obama’s shaky weekend performance at Saddleback, and probably attempting to preemptively bury news of a McCain lead in the polls that their internal polling may have already indicated was coming. Indeed, since Monday night, the Obama veep frenzy has been at full steam, and the three names that are most commonly mentioned now as the likely choice are Delaware Senator Joe Biden (this week’s fashionable pick), Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (the flavor du jour in early August), and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (the first trial balloon floated by the Obama camp last month). Each man has his strengths and weaknesses, and Biden and Bayh in particular would represent very safe choices. But I smell a rat, and I think Obama has a surprise up his sleeve.

All of this week's buzz and especially the heavy focus on Biden, Bayh and Kaine may be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In fact, I suspect this is an elaborate ruse designed to give maximum impact and surprise value to the person who I now believe (and who Republicans most fear) Obama will tap as his running mate: Senator Hillary Clinton. Yes, I’m aware of the many reasons why he wouldn’t or shouldn’t pick her, and I feel certain that in his heart-of-hearts, he does not truly want to pick her. But if today's Reuters/Zogby poll is correct and he is now trailing McCain, he may just need Hillary, her electoral strength, and perhaps most importantly, her supporters. Choosing Clinton would ensure that next week’s convention would be a veritable love-in for the Democratic Party, and the groundbreaking ticket of an African-American and a woman would be historic manna from heaven for the media. The GOP largely recognizes this, and I think any realistic Republican would admit that if Obama picks Hillary, it’s game, set and match for the Democrats.

Could the “dream ticket” become a reality? More and more, I think it just may.

(A version of this post can also be seen at amNewYork's Politirazzi).

Can Obama Close the Deal?

Barack Obama’s trip overseas last month was designed to bolster his commander-in-chief bona fides and show American voters how well regarded he was by our international allies. An argument can be made however, that the trip was a mistake, and that in fact, it marked a turning point in the campaign at which McCain began to gain momentum for the first time. Have the last few weeks simply been bumps in the road for the usually brilliant Obama Campaign, or do they portend the beginning of a McCain resurgence?

Obamamania reached fever pitch in July as Obama traveled overseas, first to Afghanistan and Iraq, then to Israel and Jordan, and lastly to Berlin, Paris and London. The Illinois Senator was on a roll as he prepared to hop the pond, generally enjoying leads in the polls of anywhere from 6 to 10 points. As a Republican, I was admittedly nervous about the photo-ops that might result from the trip: Obama with smiling troops; Obama charming the leaders of Israel and Jordan; Obama received with open arms by European allies; Obama cheered by tens of thousands of Berliners gathered to hear him speak. The whole trip had a very presidential feel to it – certainly by design – and while I was apprehensive about the Obama Campaign’s ability to help the voters envision a President Obama, it now appears they may have overplayed their hand. The bottom line is that the trip was over-the-top. No presidential candidate has ever attempted such a bold maneuver during the campaign. There were meetings with foreign heads of state, one-on-one sit-downs with all three of the major network news anchors, and there were even two separate occasions where the media caught Obama Campaign staffers in Freudian slips and had to remind them that their boss was not yet, in fact, the president. Then, of course, there was the speech at the Victory Column in Berlin, a second-choice venue after the campaigns request to use the Brandenburg Gate – site of JFK’s and Ronald Reagan’s famous presidential speeches – was denied. Tens of thousands did indeed turn out to hear Obama’s speech, one in which he proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” and that included lines such as “People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.” This line epitomized the hubristic nature of the entire trip, and ultimately, I believe many Americans were put-off by the presumptuousness of a candidate taking what the McCain Campaign smartly called “a premature victory lap.” I think the Obama Campaign recognized this too, evidenced by the fact that I have yet to see a single Obama ad featuring photos or videos from his travels.

Upon his return to the States, the poll numbers soon reflected Obama’s miscalculation. Initially expecting to receive a “bump” in the polls from the foreign tour, the campaign was surely disappointed to instead see the gap between Obama and McCain narrow. Here, too, began some real signs of life from John McCain and his campaign. First there was the now well-known “Celeb” ad released by McCain, comparing Obama and his fame to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. While many in the media echoed the Obama Campaign’s response that the ad was silly or juvenile, McCain surrogate and friend, Senator Lindsay Graham pinpointed the ad’s purpose, and likely the reason for its subsequent effectiveness. When asked about it, Graham said the primary theme of the ad was, "fame without portfolio. [There is this] hysteria around a personality that's attractive, but when you look under the hood there's not a whole lot there. So fame without portfolio is sort of fashionable. But leadership without experience is dangerous." This ad represented one of the deftest moves to date by McCain and his campaign. By using Hilton and Spears in the ad, attention was guaranteed, but more importantly, they used that attention to shrewdly call attention to a key argument of theirs that Obama is the proverbial “empty suit”. The ad was effective, and was followed up by another tongue-in-cheek McCain ad entitled “The One”, poking fun at the hero worship of Obama in some quarters that sometimes seems to border on fervor of religious proportions.

And the hits kept coming. Not long after that, Obama was speaking to supporters in Missouri and opined as to the strategy he felt McCain and the GOP would use against him. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” he said. “You know: ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’” The McCain Campaign reacted immediately, and with intensity, accusing Obama of “play[ing] the race card,” which it seems obvious was the case. In a slow pre-Olympics news cycle, this was the primary story for several days, eventually forcing Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, to respond. When he did so, his explanation of the Senator’s comments was laughable. “What [Obama] was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs claimed, though most saw through this feeble defense and recognized Obama’s comments for what they were. Obama had used a similar line before, but the irony was that neither McCain nor the RNC, (or anyone else affiliated with either) have ever made comments or claims like those Obama referenced. Doing so, they realize, would be extremely unwise politically, and so the McCain campaign was very wise to promptly call Obama out on his ploy, as doing so was the best way to prevent him from trying a similar, racially-tinged maneuver later in the campaign.

Obama’s late summer of discontent was still not over yet, though. Towards the end of July and first part of August, stories began to surface about Democratic “nervousness” about Obama’s apparent inability to “close the deal” against McCain. Generic polls show the American public decisively favoring Democrats this election year, yet the party’s nominee was finding himself in essentially a statistical tie with McCain in the polls. There was chatter about the party having “buyer’s remorse” in selecting Obama over Hillary Clinton. Exacerbating this was Obama’s curious decision last week not only to give both Hillary and Bill Clinton separate primetime speaking slots at next week’s Democratic Convention, but also to allow Hillary’s name to be officially placed in nomination. While the joint statement released by Obama and Clinton touted this as a way to help unify the Democratic Party behind Obama, the argument can be made that it will do just the opposite by only perpetuating the divisions in the party, and perhaps more damaging, sustaining the discontent of hardcore Hillary supporters such as the so-called P.U.M.A. ("Party Unity My Ass") group who still are extremely reluctant to embrace Obama. This should be his convention and his alone, but instead he’ll now be largely sharing it with not only the woman he defeated in the primaries, but her vitriolic and increasingly unpredictable husband too. It’s inconceivable that this subplot and the almost certain drama that will follow won’t distract from the Democratic Party’s “official” introduction of Obama to the nation. Further, Obama’s acquiescence to the Clinton’s demands prolongs some of the doubts many Democrats may have about him, and calls into question his willingness or ability to take a stand for himself.

Barack’s bumpy ride culminated this past weekend during a joint appearance with McCain at Saddleback Church in California. Both candidates appeared there for the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, author of the very popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. The candidates sat down with “Pastor Rick” one-on-one, for an hour each. Obama went first, and the consensus from both left and right was that he did not fare well. He equivocated, he evaded, and he arguably gave poor and alarmingly shallow answers to some important and significant questions, such as the one he offered on the issue of abortion. He was asked by Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded, telling Pastor Rick “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering this question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”. Regardless of one’s views on abortion, the issue is one on which a presidential candidate is expected to have an informed opinion, and in the federal government, there is no “pay grade” above the president’s. McCain, by contrast, had his best performance of the campaign thus far. He was energetic and likeable, and he was as forceful, warm and resolute in his answers as Obama was weak, aloof and wavering. On issue after issue, McCain gave answers that seemed to have far greater depth than those of his relatively inexperienced opponent. As a Republican heretofore more opposed to Obama than for McCain, this was the first time I actively felt enthusiastic about John McCain, Republican Nominee. I believe this was a crucial moment in this campaign because Obama’s dearth of experience – both political experience and life experience – was impossible to miss. The Obama Campaign’s subsequent unsubstantiated (and since proven invalid) claims that McCain effectively cheated by possibly knowing the questions beforehand clearly show their recognition of the fact that their man was damaged by the drubbing he took at Saddleback. Of the many issues Obama has reversed himself on in the last several months – none of which the media have held him accountable for, incidentally – perhaps there is at least one flip-flop for which Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief. In May, Obama somewhat cockily expressed his willingness to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” The teleprompter more and more appears to be Obama’s oratorical pacifier, and had he kept his pledge and agreed to McCain’s June offer of 10 one-on-one town hall meetings, I suspect Obama would be in serious trouble by now.

And maybe he is. In a bit of shocker, a Reuters/Zogby poll released today shows McCain with a 5-point lead over Obama -- a 12-point shift in the Arizona Senator's favor from July, when Obama led by as many as 7 points. In reality, the polls fluctuate frequently, but it's obvious that this race is very close – probably tied or with Obama leading very slightly. So perhaps Democrats should be nervous, and maybe there is just cause for buyer’s remorse. After all, as the stakes increasingly rise and the spotlight progressively brightens, it seems as though Obama and his campaign are more frequently failing to rise to the occasion. But as much as Obama has only himself to blame for a tumultuous few weeks and a statistically insignificant lead, McCain and his campaign deserve some credit, too. McCain seems to have awakened and has shown flashes of competent campaigning. Likewise, his campaign appears to have finally found a rudder, and to have developed a better understanding of how to best utilize the skills he does have, while avoiding situations not conducive to his strengths. Unquestionably, McCain has managed to gain control of the national “conversation” over the last few weeks, and he and his campaign have taken full advantage of the increased attention. The Obama Campaign realizes this, and the primary reason the Obama campaign leaked news of an impending vice presidential selection yesterday was almost certainly to place the focus back on their candidate, on a new story, and to return to some of the excitement and energy surrounding Obama that they have used to such great effect throughout this election year. Obama’s advantages remain numerous and daunting, and despite the last few weeks, the election is still his to lose. With that said, the stakes are about to reach the highest level yet, and the spotlight will never be brighter. Can Obama and his campaign begin to again rise to the occasion? Can he close the deal?

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Not the Hillary We Thought We Knew?

Despite being a Republican, I will readily admit that I gained newfound respect for Hillary Clinton during the course of her campaign, particularly the tenacity with which she continued to battle Barack Obama until the very end. I was frequently impressed by her command of facts and the ease with which she could articulate her positions. She debated well, and showed flashes of humor and charm that I had not previously seen. I had decided a few months ago that if there had to be a Democrat in the White House, I hoped it would be Hillary. I felt she was more qualified than Obama, and from the standpoint of national security and foreign policy, I felt that she’d be less likely to “go wobbly” on us, to quote the great Margaret Thatcher.

With that said, in reading Joshua Green’s much-discussed article this month in The Atlantic, I feel as though a Hillary Clinton presidency might have been far worse than I had begun to think. Green’s article is a must-read for political junkies (particularly the juicy memos and emails that Green obtained and provides), but for Clinton supporters – especially those who contributed to or raised money for her campaign – I recommend a stiff drink prior to, during and probably after reading it.

The article exposes a campaign riddled with paranoid infighting, hurt by damaging leaks, weakened by inept financial management, crippled by an absence of contingency planning and, most of all, fundamentally flawed by shockingly poor leadership from the top – from Hillary, herself. Green paints a picture of a candidate who, despite starting her campaign with a seemingly insurmountable set of advantages, still managed to make mistakes often enough and significant enough to squander everything. A Hillary Clinton is revealed in the article far different from the one we saw on the campaign trail, often exuding confidence and strength. Instead, the reader meets a Hillary who is unwilling and/or unable to make the tough decisions, incapable of maintaining cohesion among her senior staff, and alarmingly unskilled at quickly adapting her strategy, message and resources on the fly – an imperative in a national campaign.

For those who supported Hillary, I suspect reading this will be unsettling and almost incomprehensible. After all, presumably so much of what attracted them to her in the first place seems to be completely lacking. For those who contributed to the Clinton Campaign, the mismanagement of campaign resources chronicled in the article is staggering, and sure to prompt stomach-turning regret about where that check could have been spent instead. For me, someone who had started to reconcile himself to the real possibility of a President Hillary Clinton, there is great relief. If a President Hillary had exhibited the indecisiveness and ineptitude of Candidate Hillary, the country would have paid the price. Speaking of paying the price, if a Hillary Clinton Administration had mismanaged taxpayer money as woefully as they did campaign funds, the consequences would have been tremendous.

In many presidential campaigns, an important test of the candidates is often overlooked, particularly for those candidates who lack “executive experience”, such as Clinton, Obama and McCain this year. In actuality, running a campaign – now nearly a billion dollar enterprise with thousands of employees, incredibly high stakes and stratospheric stress levels – is perhaps one of the best indicators of a candidate’s executive ability and skills. There are few governors (even few CEO’s) who have had to deal with an operation as complex as a presidential campaign. If Green’s article is accurate, Hillary failed this test spectacularly. On the other hand, to Barack Obama’s credit – and as much as I might worry about his lack of experience – his campaign has been run to near perfection thus far. Should he go on to win in November, I’ll be able to take some comfort in that knowledge.

---

As an aside, I was recently asked by amNewYork -- an excellent and growing publication here in NYC -- to contribute to their political blog, Politirazzi (http://weblogs.amny.com/news/politics/newyork/blog/). My first post -- the same content you just read -- was published there today. I'd encourage you to check out Politirazzi frequently, as there are 11 other individuals blogging there as well, and the commentary is intelligent and thought-provoking. In addition to my new work with Politirazzi -- and those of you who have been reading BraggingWrites for awhile probably know this already -- I have also been contributing a weekly column to a fantastic website called SpliceToday (http://splicetoday.com/) for a few months now. My column -- called "Far Corner, Right Side" -- is political in nature every other week, and about basically anything else in between. I would also encourage you to check out SpliceToday as often as you can for an eclectic mix of content and commentary. This happened to be a non-political week for me at Splice, and so if you're a football fan, you might enjoy this week's column about Brett Favre's move to the New York Jets. As always, thanks for reading, thanks for commenting, and thanks for the support!

Veep Watch

In the last two weeks there has been a great deal of speculation that either Barack Obama, John McCain -- or both -- may be on the verge of naming their running mates very soon. Given all of the chatter, I thought I'd offer a little guidance for you on what to expect (or not to expect) in the coming days and weeks.

First and foremost, let's keep a few dates and events in mind:
1) August 8th - August 24th: The Summer Olympics in Beijing;
3) August 25th - August 28th: The Democratic National Convention in Denver;
4) August 29th - September 1st: Labor Day Weekend;
4) September 1st - September 4th: The Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.

Now let's look at a few other factors to keep in mind:
1) It's unlikely that either candidate will announce his running mate on a Saturday, Sunday, Monday or Friday -- those are not ideal days in terms of being able to capture the attention of voters. (Wednesday or Thursday, I would argue, would be the best days of the week to announce in order to have the greatest impact on the news cycle -- an important consideration).
2) If neither candidate announces prior to the start of the Olympics on August 8th, there is almost no chance that the announcements will come during the Olympics. (In other words, if we don't hear from either Obama or McCain before August 8th, we almost certainly won't be hearing until after the end of the Olympics on August 24th. Neither campaign wants to compete for media or voter attention with the Olympics).
3) Obama absolutely has to name his running mate by August 27th, the third night of the Democratic Convention when the vice presidential candidate is officially nominated by the delegates to the convention.
4) McCain absolutely has to name his running mate by September 3rd, the third night of the Republican Convention when the vice presidential candidate is officially nominated by the delegates to the convention.
5) McCain will almost certainly not announce his choice right before Labor Day Weekend on August 29th as the news would be lost amidst most Americans enjoying their long holiday weekends.

So what can we deduce from all of this information? I think we can assume that one or both candidates may indeed be close to announcing his choice. Certainly in the case of Obama, if he does not announce before the Olympics begin on August 8th, he is boxing himself in given that his convention begins the day after the Olympics end. McCain, with the later convention, has more flexibility, though the Labor Day Weekend holiday complicates things for him too.

Are you with me so far? I hope so, because here come the predictions...

I suspect Barack Obama will name his running mate on one of the following days, with my guess for the most likely day in bold:
1) Thursday, July 31st (tomorrow);
2) Tuesday, August 5th;
3) Wednesday, August 6th;
4) Thursday, August 7th;
5) Monday, August 25th.

I suspect John McCain will name his running mate on one of the following days -- though his timing is likely subject to whether Obama names his prior to the Olympics -- with my guess for the most likely day in bold:
1) Thursday, July 31st (tomorrow);
2) Tuesday, August 5th;
3) Wednesday, August 6th;
4) Tuesday, September 2nd;
5) Wednesday, September 3rd.

If you're wondering why I think Obama will go on August 6th and McCain on September 3rd, here's why...

In the case of Obama, the Olympics complicate things greatly. He basically has to announce before they start or after they finish, and if he goes after they finish, he's already looking at Day 1 of the Democratic Convention. I suspect Obama would prefer to go after the Olympics, but if he does so, he would likely be announcing his choice on the Monday that his convention starts, not an ideal day of the week to garner the most attention. Further, if Obama waits until the start of his convention to name his pick, he risks the distraction of further speculation and debate over whether Hillary Clinton may be his running mate choice. Since -- in my opinion -- she won't be, he may actually need the weeks between the Olympics and the start of the convention to mend a few fences with Hillary supporters, and to give them time to reconcile themselves to the fact that their woman will likely have no place in a potential Obama Administration. Therefore I believe he needs to make his move pre-Beijing, and by announcing next Wednesday, he's guaranteed two or three days of wall-to-wall coverage before the Olympics capture the majority of Americans' attention.

As for McCain, I can see no real reason for him to beat Obama to the punch on this. In fact, I suspect McCain could easily be poised to alter his selection criteria or decision-making process in reaction to whomever Obama selects. For example, should Obama choose a white male, I would think the chances of McCain selecting a female running mate would increase -- if for nothing else to possibly win over any of those disenchanted former Hillary supporters so bitter that Obama did not pick Clinton as his #2 that they might consider supporting McCain. Like the Olympics for Obama, Labor Day Weekend is an inconvenience for McCain, and it would be unwise for him to announce his pick the day after Obama's big convention speech -- August 29th -- also the first day of Labor Day Weekend. So I think McCain waits, takes advantage of the political lull provided by the Olympics, and strategizes with his team about who best adds a jolt to his ticket, and who best trumps or at least offsets the person that Obama has chosen. Given the obvious public fascination with Obama, he should have no trouble in attracting voters to tune in to the coverage of his convention. The same cannot be said for McCain and the GOP Convention, however, and so if he waits until the last possible day to make his choice (the day that his running mate would be nominated at the convention), he would create a suspense and a buzz around the Republican Convention that otherwise wouldn't be there, intriguing voters and, not insignificantly, the media as well.

I hope you're staying with me. Now to the all-important question: Who will each select?

If you recall, I made my predictions on this question here last month, expressing my belief that Obama should select former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, and that McCain should pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Nunn remains in the running for Obama, but Jindal appears unlikely to be named the #2 for McCain, having seemingly removed himself from consideration last week, (though there is some debate as to whether or not he may still be in the running). So while I've still got a chance for my initial picks to be correct, I wouldn't put Nunn or Jindal at the top of my prediction lists anymore.

There's been a lot of buzz lately about a few candidates in both parties. For Obama and the Democrats, there was a bit of a media frenzy on Monday when word allegedly leaked that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was at or near the top of Obama's short list. For McCain, meanwhile, the recent speculation has centered largely around former Massachusetts Governor (and former GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. We should perhaps take all of this buzz with a grain of salt though, as it seems to me that the people about whom we hear the most in the run-up to the selections are rarely the ones who actually end up being chosen. Could this year be different? I think possibly so.

With that said, here are my categorized short lists...

Obama's Likely Choices:
1) Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
2) Delaware Senator Joe Biden
3) Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
4) Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn
5) New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
6) Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius

McCain's Likely Choices:
1) Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
2) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
3) Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
4) Former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman
5) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
6) South Dakota Senator John Thune

Obama's Long-Shot Choices:
1) Former Maine Senator George Mitchell
2) Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (a Republican)
3) New York Senator Hillary Clinton
4) Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill
5) Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
6) New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a Republican)

McCain's Long-Shot Choices:
1) Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge
2) Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell
3) Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
4) Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
5) Former Ohio Congressman John Kasich
6) Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

So there you have it, folks. These are the men and women who I believe stand the best chance of being chosen by Obama and McCain as their running mates, and Wednesday, August 6th and Wednesday, September 3rd are the days, respectively, when I predict the picks will be announced.

But what do you think? I'd appreciate any thoughts or feedback you have, any reasons why you think these predictions will or will not pan out, and/or any questions or comments in general. Simply click on the comments section below to weigh in if you'd like.

In the meantime, stay tuned, and thanks for reading!

A Fly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign Wall

Earlier this week, I had a unique opportunity. A friend of mine was very involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign, and indeed, raised a significant amount of money on her behalf. So significant, in fact, that he still has a voicemail message saved from Hillary Clinton herself thanking him for everything he did. As a result of his esteemed status in "Hillaryland", my friend (as well as others who had raised extraordinary amounts of money for Hillary) were invited to participate in something of a post mortem conference call this week with some of the very top members of Clinton's campaign staff . Knowing that I'm a political junkie, he invited me to listen in on the call. I swore that I would keep my phone muted, and I did, even though I was tempted at several times to speak up! Here are a few of my observations and reactions from this conference call -- the closest I will ever come to being a fly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign wall...

1) Because of Hillary's perceived inevitability early on in the election, she and her campaign raised enormous amounts of money. So much so, in fact, that many contributors "maxed out" for the primary election period, giving their limit of $2300 per person. As a result, the Clinton Campaign began (quite presumptuously) accepting contributions for the General Election, a period in which another $2300 per person can be given, and ultimately she received a reported $24 million in contributions for the General Election. Since Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, she obviously will not be participating in the General Election now, and so there is a significant amount of money in the Clinton Campaign coffers with no precise purpose or destination. Most campaigns would, I believe, return this money to the donor given that the reason for which it was initially contributed has been rendered moot. And though it shouldn't have surprised me, it still did when I heard what the Clinton Campaign would like to do with that money. Understanding that my friend and the others on the call who had raised this General Election money would likely be receiving calls from people who had contributed to Hillary at their urging, a top Clinton official explained that there were two options. The first would simply be a refund, and if that is what a contributor wanted, the campaign would be cutting checks within the next couple of months in order to refund that money. The second and clearly preferred option for Clinton and her campaign was for the donor to indicate his or her approval for their $2300 General Election contribution to be allocated to Hillary's Senate Reelection Campaign in 2012! 2012? Four years away? And from donors who -- in many cases -- are not even residents of New York, the state in which Hillary would be running for reelection? I thought this was a remarkably audacious suggestion -- even by Clinton standards -- particularly when I and everyone on that call know full well that the money will not be used for her reelection campaign in four years -- an eternity in politics. No, that money would, through some undoubtedly obscure campaign finance law loophole, be used to pay down the enormous amount of debt her campaign incurred -- allegedly over $20 million. If I were a Clinton contributor, I would not be too eager to have my $2300 go toward retiring the campaign's debt, particularly when much of the debt epitomizes the mistakes Hillary and her team made, the same mistakes that find her now watching from the political sidelines as Obama assumes leadership of the Democratic Party. The Clintons simply never cease to amaze me. (In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, an article by Christopher Cooper explains all of this extremely well. Take a look here).

2) The Clinton supporters on this call -- while obviously among the most devoted -- are likely representative of at least a portion of Clinton supporters across the nation. And they are really, really mad. They are mad at Obama, they are mad at the media, and they are just plain mad that Hillary lost. Big deal, right? Of course they're mad -- but they'll get over it, won't they? After hearing them on this phone call, I'm not so sure. They made it very clear to the Clinton Campaign bigwigs on the call that they had absolutely no intention of raising money for Obama, in any way helping Obama, or, most ominously, perhaps of even voting for Obama, UNLESS he picks Hillary to be his running mate. Now that is newsworthy, because guess what? Obama is not going to pick Hillary as his running mate. He'd be crazy to do so. They not only dislike each other, but she actively undermined and openly disrespected Obama and his candidacy -- particularly in the last couple of months. Not only that, does Obama really want to have to deal with Bill Clinton hanging around the White House? I think not. Bringing the Clintons back to the White House is not "change we can believe in". So that presents a potentially prickly issue, then. If the people on this call are sincere, (and presuming Obama does not, in fact, select Hillary as his vice president), Obama is going to go to battle against McCain without the support of some key fundraisers in the Democratic Party. Further, if one presumes that the people on this call are even partially representative of the "rank-and-file" Hillary supporters out there, Obama may have to face McCain without the support, help and, most importantly, the votes, of a significant number of people. The conference call participants genuinely believe that Hillary was wronged, that Obama mistreated her, that the media were conspiring against her, and that in general, she was the victim of sexism in falling short of winning the nomination. Setting aside for a moment the validity or accuracy of those beliefs, their anger was very apparent, it was intense, and it was real. Obama needs the people on this call as well as the many others like them to be behind him between now and November. He faces quite a challenge now, as the only way that he can seemingly appease these Clintonites is by adding Hillary to his ticket. If he does that though, he risks turning off an even larger number of voters in the process.

Like everything else in this absolutely extraordinary election year, this will be interesting to watch, and I'll do my best to help guide you through it all here at Bragging Writes!

The Obama Strategy: Can It Work In November?

In casting himself from the beginning as a fresh-faced candidate who has not spent a great deal of time in Washington, D.C., Barack Obama clearly sought the “outsider” mantle in the 2008 election. Running as the outsider promising “change” and “hope” was a politically pitch-perfect strategy for an electorate who are largely dissatisfied with the current administration and its policies. This was also a deft tool for countering claims that Obama lacked the experience or qualifications required for the presidency. By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s inability to read the collective mood of the voters resulted in a campaign with the wrong tone and message, and is a primary reason why she lost the race for the nomination. By the time Hillary realized that “change” was the buzzword of this election year, Obama had already opened up a considerable lead in delegates that he has never relinquished.

Left largely unaddressed as Obama campaigned was the issue of his race, and that was exactly the way he and his strategists wanted it. Obama did not want to be known simply as “the black candidate”, a label previously applied to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and one that does not paint a portrait of electability. It was an effective gambit as indeed, part of Obama’s wide-ranging appeal initially was his ability to seemingly transcend the issue of race, fashioning himself as a “post-racial candidate” and attracting the support of African-American and white voters alike. This carefully crafted strategy was executed to near perfection until March, when the controversy over his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, threatened to derail it. In response to the media firestorm over Wright, Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia designed ostensibly to serve as damage control. He also shrewdly used the opportunity and attention to address the much broader and more complex issue of race relations in America. In some sense, his efforts paid off and, with the help of the majority of the media, he not only managed to (at least temporarily) put the Wright fiasco behind him, he also managed to deliver a speech that was almost universally lauded. It may have been a Pyrrhic victory of sorts, however, because in taking the issue of race head-on, he lost much of the transcendent, “post-racial” magic he had previously enjoyed.

As Obama’s strategy for his General Election battle with John McCain begins to take shape, watch for Obama and his campaign to attempt to use his inexperience and his race as veritable shields against any and all criticism. If this act of political jujitsu is successful, it very likely will lead to an Obama victory in November.

The strategy was first evident when Obama gained “front runner” status and began to attract the scrutiny and political barbs that accompany it. If Hillary Clinton attempted to contrast herself with Obama or questioned his readiness for the highest office in the land, the Obama Campaign immediately accused her of employing “old-style Washington politics”. For someone with negatives as high as hers, Hillary could not risk being viewed any more unfavorably than she already was, and so she was forced to curtail asking questions about Obama that are absolutely relevant in a presidential election. Is a first-term senator who has been running for the Oval Office since essentially day one in the senate really qualified for the presidency? This is a legitimate question. But if Hillary asked the question, she was tagged as just another cynical, mud-slinging Washington politician. The media, largely “in the tank” for Obama, allowed the questions to go unanswered and perpetuated the impression that Clinton was out of bounds in asking them.

When Obama’s association with Reverend Wright threatened to torpedo his campaign, the same strategy was employed, with race now injected into the mix. In his Philadelphia speech, Obama himself arguably played “the race card” when he seemed to imply that the anger expressed by Wright was something that white Americans should not find surprising, and something that could not be understood or appreciated by those who were not black themselves:

“That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table…And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

By saying this, Obama appeared to justify Wright’s anger (if not his incendiary words) while simultaneously attempting to now use his race to fend off critical questions about his association with the man. But as millions of Americans saw the clips of Wright shown on the news and all over the Internet, questions lingered. How could Obama not have known about this side of his pastor of twenty years – the man he referred to as his “spiritual adviser” and “sounding board”? Here again, this is a legitimate question, but when it and others like it were asked, the Obama Campaign quickly labeled such inquiries as below the belt, and merely “distractions” from “the real issues” affecting Americans. Michelle Obama herself employed the tactic after being asked by Meredith Viera on The Today Show whether she felt Wright had “betrayed” her husband. Mrs. Obama was almost scolding in her response:

"You know what I think, Meredith? We’ve got to move forward. You know, this conversation [about Wright] doesn’t help my kids. You know, it doesn’t help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we’re going to better fund education."

America is in a perilous time. We are engaged in a war on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the true number of unconventional fronts on which the country battles in the larger campaign to prevent domestic terror attacks is likely astronomical. The economy has unquestionably slowed, and plenty of Americans are hurting financially as a result. The problems that will face the next president are many, and they are very complex. Voters have a right to know if a person who may be the next president has the knowledge and experience necessary to handle the job. Similarly, Obama’s association with Wright raises important questions about his character and judgment. Many of the anti-white beliefs that Wright espouses and promotes are, quite frankly, the same beliefs that scare many white voters about “the black candidate”. While there is no reason to think that Obama subscribes to any of Wright’s absurd views, the nature and length of his relationship with Wright are significant enough to make the questions fair game.

If John McCain wants to defeat Barack Obama in November, he would be foolish not to contrast his decades of experience with Obama’s lack thereof. And while it is unlikely that McCain himself will raise the Reverend Wright issue, it will certainly be raised by independent “527 groups”, and perhaps even by the Republican National Committee or other groups not directly affiliated with the McCain Campaign. When pressed on either, however, watch for Team Obama to attempt to turn these potential vulnerabilities into strengths, and to cast Obama as being above the fray by branding the contrasts and questions as more of the same Washington politics, as simply distractions from the issues that matter, or even as racist in nature. Should the majority of the mainstream media continue to be complicit in this effort, it is a near certainty that Obama will never have to fully address many questions for which the American people deserve answers.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/)

Game Over. (Now Who's Going to Tell Hillary)???

After a seemingly endless primary season, I think it is safe to declare today that Senator Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. Obama absolutely crushed Senator Hillary Clinton in yesterday's North Carolina Primary, and nearly pulled out a victory in Indiana where she had been favored to win. For Clinton to continue the campaign with any degree of credibility (if not self-respect), she had to have a far more decisive win in Indiana, and a far less decisive loss in North Carolina.

For a short period of time late last night when it appeared that Obama might win both states, some of the communications from the Clinton Campaign seemed indicative of an impending withdrawal from the race. There was word that she would hold no public events today, and even an apparently erroneous report that she had canceled her morning news show appearances for today. Apparently, though, while flying back to Washington from Indiana (during which time she was declared the winner in Indiana), Hillary and/or her advisers had changed course, announcing a campaign stop today in West Virginia, site of the next primary on Tuesday, as well as fundraiser in Washington this evening. Early this morning, news broke that Clinton had loaned her campaign nearly $6.5 million recently. Even as I write, the Clinton Campaign has announced that Hillary will also appear in South Dakota on Thursday -- a state whose primary is not for another four weeks! None of this sounds like a candidate who is ready to quit.

Remaining in the race now as it certainly appears she intends to do is not only stubborn and ill-advised, it really borders on the delusional. Quite simply, without some catastrophic implosion of the Obama Campaign, there is no way Clinton can now win the nomination. The sheer mathematical hurdles she faces alone are insurmountable, but when you add those to an obvious shift in tone from the media and political pundits and what I expect will be an imminent and significant shift of superdelegate support to Obama, it becomes even more crystal clear that for Hillary Clinton, this game is over.

My personal opinion is that Hillary and her inner circle are well aware of the reality of the situation. They have seen the numbers, and undoubtedly have crunched them in every conceivable way in search of positive spin. After last night, there is no positive spin to be found. I suspect that the reason she sounds today like a candidate who intends to continue (and indeed who is backing her rhetoric up by making additional campaign appearances) is to attempt to increase her leverage when it comes to the customary bargaining that will take place between Hillary, Obama and their respective campaigns when she inevitably throws in the towel. Whether she wants the vice presidential slot on the ticket, a cabinet position or who knows what else -- the longer she stays in the race and effectively denies Obama the ability to officially claim the nomination, the more desperate he will be for her to withdraw, and the more inclined he might be to give her what she wants to make that happen. A good test of this theory will be to watch over the next few weeks -- assuming she does continue her campaign -- to see if she avoids negative attacks on Obama. If while continuing her run she hesitates to inflict further political damage on him, that could be a sign that her continuing campaign efforts are no longer about winning, but instead about improving her strategic position for an eventual exit.

Regardless of her motive for remaining in the race, I believe it is now time for Hillary to withdraw if she values her own political future. A graceful exit -- even after a fairly bruising campaign against Obama -- would almost certainly result in enough goodwill on the part of the Democratic electorate to give her a future -- whether it be running again for president in 2012 (if Obama loses this year), running for Governor of New York, or seeking the position of Majority Leader in the Senate. On the other hand, if she continues to campaign in earnest, attacking Obama and pulling out every conceivable stop despite reality of her situation, she risks diminishing Obama's chances in November, further dividing the Democratic Party, and earning (rightfully) the permanent anger and resentment of her fellow Democratic officeholders and the Democratic voters. The choice should be clear, and the route she chooses to take will tell us more about exactly who Hillary Clinton is than anything else she has ever done or said.

It's Groundhog Day for the Democrats

On Groundhog Day every February 2nd in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, the world's most famous groundhog, "Punxsutawney Phil" emerges from his burrow amid great fanfare. If Phil sees his shadow, the legend holds that we can expect six more weeks of winter. If he does not see his shadow, we can look forward to an early spring.

Today, Punxsutawney -- and all of Pennsylvania -- will take center stage again to offer another prognostication of what lies ahead. The Pennsylvania Primary is today, and the political stakes are enormous for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as they continue to battle for the Democratic Nomination. Today we wait to find out if we can expect six more weeks of what is quickly becoming a political winter for the Democratic Party, or if spring will finally arrive for Obama and his supporters. Pennsylvania, we again leave our fate in your hands!

In the latest RealClearPolitics "RCP Average" of the Pennsylvania polls, Clinton holds a 6.1 point lead over Obama, reflecting a much closer race than even a few weeks ago when she led by double digits. So let's look at four potential outcomes of this political Groundhog Day, and what each outcome would likely mean for the Democrats...

1) Barack Obama beats Hillary Clinton: In this scenario, Spring will arrive in all its glory for the Obama Campaign and their supporters. If he is victorious in Pennsylvania -- regardless of the margin -- the race for the Democratic Nomination will be over. Hillary will face insurmountable pressure to withdraw from the race, and the remaining undeclared superdelegates will begin flocking to Obama. Even Clinton -- as tough (stubborn?) as she is -- would realize that it would be time to go.

2) Hillary Clinton beats Barack Obama by 5 points or less: This scenario would be characterized as a narrow victory for Clinton and, while it would be a victory, I do not believe it would be by a margin large enough to allow her campaign to continue. I suspect that in an outcome like this, Hillary would continue to argue that she should continue her campaign, and perhaps her absolute most die-hard supporters would back her up on that. But many Democrats -- and even many current (if less die-hard) Clinton supporters and superdelegates -- would begin a noisy call for her to quit, and I think it would be just loud enough to force the issue.

3) Clinton beats Obama by 6 - 10 points: Based on the most recent polls, this is the most likely outcome, and the political ramifications of this outcome are the hardest to predict. After Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas six weeks ago, the conventional wisdom was that she probably needed to go on to win in Pennsylvania by at least 10 points. As Obama has flooded the airwaves with ads and as the voters of Pennsylvania have begun to pay more attention, the race has become closer, and as it stands now, I think that Clinton and her campaign have possibly managed to (somehow) successfully lower expectations to the point that a victory of this magnitude would allow her to continue -- at least through the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries in two weeks. There will still be some calls for Clinton to bow out, but I think this scenario would lead to her surviving at least two more weeks.

4) Clinton beats Obama by 10+ points: If Hillary wins by 10 or more points, the Democratic nomination contest is likely headed for six more weeks of what has already been a long winter for the party. (Quite frankly, this would really more like hell for the party, so if it's any consolation to the Democrats, the weather should actually be quite balmy)! Should she manage to beat him this soundly today, Hillary and her campaign will absolutely continue through Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, and probably for several weeks beyond that including West Virginia on May 13th, Oregon and Kentucky on May 20th, and Puerto Rico on June 1st. Additionally, this may initiate a period of real concern and doubt about Obama's strength as a candidate -- to the point that it could do the improbable and resuscitate the Clinton Campaign. On the other hand, this is the best-case scenario not only for Hillary and her supporters, but for John McCain and his too. There is absolutely no doubt that the continuing squabble between Clinton and Obama has helped McCain, and were that to continue (most likely with increased acrimony and negativity), he would only continue to reap the rewards.

The protracted fight we are now witnessing between Senators Clinton and Obama for the Democratic Nomination is rather extraordinary, really. At this point, I can see no truly legitimate or plausible way that Hillary will be able to wrest the nomination from Obama's grasp. His advantages in terms of his delegate lead, his popular vote lead, his financial lead and even his lead in sheer momentum are nearly impossible for her to overcome. Even if Hillary were to somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, the resulting damage to the Democratic Party and the fracturing within it would be catastrophic. Additionally, I can think of no candidate other than Hillary who would not have already faced overwhelming pressure to relent by now. It's a testament to her remarkable ambition, that (in)famous Clintonian "never say die" spirit, and the fact that she is a unique candidate as the first plausible female candidate, and a former First Lady at that. This has been a truly historic and exciting election year so far, and if the nomination contests have been indicative of what we can expect from the general election, it will be one fascinating summer and fall for political junkies everywhere!

Wanna Get Away? So Do Republicans...

All vacations are good. Some vacations, though, are better than others. A truly great vacation is marked by the ability to all but forget the worries or stresses of work or home awaiting your return. Then, before you know it, there are only three days left, then two days, and soon those concerns and anxieties creep back into your consciousness. And while you know the end is near and the real world must soon be faced again, another drink, another swim, or any of the other wonderful distractions of the trip allow you to sweep it all under the rug for just a bit longer. But deep down, you know what’s coming on Monday morning.

If this sounds familiar to you or is something you’ve experienced, then you – regardless of political affiliation – know what it feels like to be a Republican today. Because today and for the last two months, Republicans have effectively been on a vacation courtesy of the Democratic Party.

For Republicans, the best part of the ongoing nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is that with the focus squarely on the increasingly hostile and internecine squabble between the two candidates, the GOP faithful have been able to temporarily forget the candidate who they will put forth against the Democrats’ ultimate victor in November.

A stronger Republican candidate would be much better than tied with or slightly trailing Clinton and Obama in general election polls. A GOP candidate with solid and sincere support from the party’s base would see his campaign coffers overflowing with contributions. Neither is the case for John McCain, however.

Despite the thumping that Obama took at Wednesday night’s debate and despite the fact that it will “take a village” to convince Hillary Clinton to drop out, the reality is that this wonderful trip is coming to an end sooner than the GOP would like to think. Even if Hillary holds on to win in Pennsylvania, current polls indicate she’ll likely lose to Obama in both Indiana and North Carolina two weeks later, putting the nail in the coffin of her presidential hopes, and putting an end to the Republican vacation.

Over the last two months, Republicans have delighted in watching Obama squirm under the uncomfortable scrutiny of the Reverend Wright controversy, then watched in amazement as the media seemed to forget it entirely while tripping over themselves to exalt his much-ballyhooed “More Perfect Union” speech about race in America. GOP voters again high-fived as the Illinois Senator stuck his foot in his mouth last week in San Francisco, declaring that small-town voters in Pennsylvania are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”, then again watching as he apparently suffered no backlash in the polls as a result.

If Ronald Reagan was “the Teflon President”, many Republicans probably think they are seeing the closest thing to a Teflon Candidate in Barack Obama. While Obama’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities are apparent and likely not yet fully discovered, an honest Republican would admit that Obama and his campaign show every sign of being winners. This is evident in the size of the crowds he attracts, the frenzy into which he whips those crowds, and the staggering fundraising totals he has continued to post every month.

An honest Republican would also accept the reality that current political circumstances nearly guarantee a Democratic victory in November. The Republican incumbent continues to garner anemic approval ratings, the economy is hurting, and the Iraq War remains very unpopular among the majority of Americans. Perhaps a truly phenomenal GOP candidate could overcome these long odds, but even then, probably only with the help of a horrendous (think Dukakis or worse) Democratic nominee.

John McCain, though, is not a truly phenomenal candidate, and Barack Obama has shown no sign that he would be a horrendous nominee – particularly if the majority of the media remain in the tank for him, and if the majority of voters continue to ignore some very real concerns about him, seemingly transfixed by his brilliant and eloquent (if empty) rhetoric.

Is an Obama victory a foregone conclusion? Not definitely. A lot can happen between now and November – both geopolitically and on the campaign trail – that could alter the electoral landscape in ways impossible to predict today. McCain could catch fire somehow, or Obama could crash and burn. All of these what-ifs and contingencies, however, are the stuff of happy thoughts born of the surf, sun and umbrella drinks the Democrats have given Republicans over the last two months.

Unfortunately for Republicans, when the alarm clock goes off on the last day of this wonderful getaway, they will awaken to the harsh truth that John McCain just doesn’t feel like a winner in November – a deep-down realization that while hard to accept, is impossible to ignore – even while on vacation.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

None of Our Business ???

By now, almost everyone has heard about the two uncomfortable encounters that Chelsea Clinton has had on the campaign trail over the last few weeks.

The first instance was at Butler University in Indianapolis two weeks ago as Chelsea made another of the many college campus appearances she has made in the last few months on behalf of her mother, Senator Hillary Clinton, and her presidential campaign. While taking questions from the audience of college students, Chelsea was asked by Butler student Evan Strange – a Clinton supporter – whether Hillary’s handling of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that engulfed Bill Clinton’s administration had damaged her mother’s credibility. Chelsea appeared taken aback by the question, responding:

“Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business”.

(Here's the clip if you'd like to watch for yourself):

Not surprisingly given the media attention Strange’s question received, another college student made a similar attempt early last week. At North Carolina State University in Raleigh last Monday, N.C. State student Bryce Davis asked Miss Clinton essentially the same question. Chelsea’s response was likewise similar, dismissing Davis by telling him, “It’s none of your business”. Davis disagreed, however, and pressed on, indicating that he felt it was, in fact, his business given that Bill Clinton – Chelsea’s father and Hillary’s husband – was President of the United States when the scandal unfolded. Chelsea was unconvinced, however, and stuck to her guns:

“Well sir, I respectfully disagree. I think that is something that is personal to my family and I’m sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don’t think are anyone’s business either”.

(Again, here's the clip if you'd like to see and hear it):

Let me first express my sympathy for any child who has to observe and endure significant marital problems between his or her parents, particularly when those problems involve something as painful and destructive as adultery. In many ways, I have even more sympathy for Chelsea Clinton given that she had to observe and endure her parents’ issues along with the rest of the world.

With that said, if Hillary Clinton (presumably with Bill Clinton’s knowledge and approval) is going to use her daughter as a campaign surrogate and expect her to be able to answer complex questions about the details of Hillary’s health care plan, for example, how can Chelsea not be expected to address an issue that, while undoubtedly painful and arguably private to her, was certainly not private by conventional standards? If the same parents who so admirably protected Chelsea during their White House years are now willing to use Chelsea as the political asset she appears to be, that bubble of protection that has previously surrounded her no longer applies, and therefore no question, whether it be about health care, foreign policy, or even the Lewinsky scandal, should be off-limits.

Further, it is my belief that Davis was correct. While what her father did with Lewinsky may have been “personal to [her] family” for Chelsea, he did it on government property and on government time. The American people elected Clinton to run the country, not to run around on his wife. In addition, by lying to the people (not to mention perjuring himself under oath) and by sending his wife – now presidential candidate Clinton – out to propagate that lie, Bill made it our business.

For Hillary’s part, how can she claim to have “over sixteen years of experience”, thereby including her time as First Lady, but then expect that she and her campaign can pick and choose the aspects of those sixteen years that they wish to be considered? In this respect, Strange was correct, because he was almost certainly referring principally to Hillary’s infamous appearance on NBC’s The Today Show in the first days of the Lewinsky scandal. After spending the first part of her interview with Matt Lauer dodging questions and denying the accusations that her husband had engaged in and lied about an affair with Lewinsky, Hillary made the following comment:

“This is – the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it – is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president”.

As we now know, and as I feel certain she knew then, the allegations were true, and regardless of the existence of any “vast right-wing conspiracy”, Hillary was joining with her husband in an effort to mislead the American people to secure his (and her) political survival. How, then, can her credibility not be an issue – a question only underscored by her recent admission that she “misspoke” about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia in 1996?

Perhaps if Hillary (and Bill) didn’t have a consistent record of misleading statements, the questions posed to Chelsea would be irrelevant and would be “none of [our] business”. Perhaps if Hillary had said to Matt Lauer that day, “It’s none of your business”, Chelsea could now rightfully do the same. She did not, however, and Chelsea cannot either.

Note: Recently I was asked to contribute a weekly column on a new website called Splice Today. My first effort -- this very post -- was posted on Friday. Please visit Splice if you have a moment (http://splicetoday.com/), not only to check out my weekly piece, but also for the other thoughtful writing and commentary that can be found there. My Splice column will be political in nature every other week at most. (I'll keep the majority of the political commentary here at Bragging Writes).

Between My Job and This Writer's Block...

...I'm having a tough time getting any blog posting done. So while I am tied up with my "day job" and working through a bit of writer's block, I figured the least I could do was offer you some entertainment!

As I'm sure anyone reading this has already heard, Hillary Clinton recently ran into some trouble about some factual discrepancies between her telling of her 1996 trip to Bosnia while First Lady, and what actually occurred on that trip.

First, a straightforward report from CBS News explaining the controversy:




And now, the good folks over at Barely Political have a little fun with it:




I hope that gave you a laugh half as big as the headache it gave the Clinton Campaign!

Could John Edwards Be the King (or Queen) Maker?

The Democrats, plainly, have a bit of a mess on their hands. By any reasonable measure, Barack Obama is leading Hillary Clinton. He's won more primaries and caucuses (29 - 15), he's won more votes (13,280,770 - 12,577,044), and he's won more pledged delegates (1403 - 1239).

So it's clear, right? Obama's obviously the frontrunner, and he has the nomination all but locked up, doesn't he? Well, no, not quite. So why, with such a numeric edge, is he unable to put Hillary Clinton away? There are a handful of reasons:

1) The Democratic Party's Nominating Process, Part A:
In the Democratic Party, the nomination is won differently than in the Republican Party. Pledged delegates are awarded proportionally, reflecting the popular vote tally. So, for example, while Obama did win the Alabama Primary on February 5th by a 55.8% to 41.7% popular vote margin, because of the proportional allocation of delegates, he only received 27 of the state's 52 delegates, while Hillary, despite losing rather convincingly, took 25 delegates. Such a system makes it very difficult for either candidate to put significant distance between him/herself and his/her opponent. (In the GOP, by contrast, regardless of how narrow or wide the victory, all delegates go to the winner). So even though Obama has won nearly twice as many state contests as Hillary, the manner in which delegates are awarded has prevented him from amassing the 2025 delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.

2) The Democratic Party's Nominating Process, Part B:
The other fundamental difference for the Democrats is the existence of the so-called superdelegates. As you've probably heard by now, superdelegates are a group of individuals (primarily various current and former elected officials) who are free to support any candidate they wish for the Democratic Nomination. There is nothing in the rules of the party specifying that a superdelegate must choose according to the popular vote in general, or in the case of current officeholders, the popular vote in their city, district, state, etc. There are nearly 800 superdelegates, and over 3200 pledged delegates (those delegates who are bound by popular vote to support one candidate over another). As 20% of the approximately 4000 delegates in total, the superdelegates can, and in this extremely close election will, play a very important role in selecting their party's nominee. In fact, at this point, neither Obama nor Clinton can secure the 2025 delegates needed to win the nomination solely through the pledged delegates that remain in the states who have yet to hold their primary or caucus. Currently Hillary actually has more superdelegates who have pledged to support her than does Obama, with 248 to his 212. There are, however, 344 more superdelegates who have yet to declare their support for either candidate, and it is these 344 individuals who will likely end up deciding the party's nominee.

3) The States Obama Has Not Won:
Among the states in which Hillary has bested Obama are several of the most populous states in the country (California, New York and Texas), several of the most important "swing states" for the General Election in November (Ohio particularly, but also Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Tennessee), and four states that are considered "must-wins" for a Democratic victory in November (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York). This, in fact, has been one of the arguments the Clinton Campaign has most frequently and vociferously made over the last month. If, they argue, Obama cannot win these crucial states now, there is a very good chance that he will not carry them in November which, if true, would mean a sure victory for John McCain. This is not as valid or clear-cut as the Clintons would like us to believe, however it's been repeated so often that it has become a source of concern for the Democratic Party, and another reason that Obama has been unable to put Hillary away.

4) Michigan and Florida:
Because both Michigan and Florida moved their primaries ahead on the electoral calendar in clear violation of the rules specified by the Democratic National Committee, the DNC decided last fall -- with the support of all the candidates and their campaigns -- that those states' delegates would not be seated (not counted, in other words) at the Democratic National Convention in August. As a result, the candidates and campaigns made a mutual pact not to campaign in those states since they would effectively be non-binding popularity/beauty contests with no delegates at stake. In Michigan, several candidates including Obama went so far as to have their names removed from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot in deference to the DNC. Hillary did not. Not surprisingly, Clinton "won" the state, though with Obama's name not even on the ballot, her claims of victory were dubious at best. In Florida, Senator Clinton also "won", and much to the consternation of the other Democratic candidates, flew to the state on the night of the primary to again declare "victory" in a contest that was not considered legitimate. This is potentially the biggest mess of the 2008 Election for the Democrats, particularly given the importance of both states to a Democratic win in November, as well as the significant number of delegates at stake: 128 in Michigan and 185 in Florida -- 8th and 4th most in the country, respectively. (In fact, the numbers I listed at the beginning of this post for state contests, votes and delegates won did not include Michigan or Florida. If they are included with their original -- if not flawed -- results, the mathematical picture becomes far brighter for Hillary). Predictably then, once the Clintons found themselves in political peril after Obama's momentum (and numbers) grew, they argued that the delegates from both states should, in fact, be seated and counted. Obama and others have argued that this tactic is nothing more than an attempt by the Clintons to change the rules in the middle of the game -- a game in which they find themselves trailing. This argument is particularly absurd in Michigan given that Obama was not on the ballot, but not much more valid in Florida given that Obama did not even campaign or advertise there. With that said, because of how very close this race is, both the Clinton and Obama Campaigns have now agreed that some solution must be found in order for these two delegate-rich states to have their say in the party's nomination process. As I write, the precise solutions for Michigan and Florida have not yet been decided upon, and there are several ideas being considered. It seems almost certain, however, that in some form or fashion, both states will have a "re-vote" -- perhaps a vote-by-mail arrangement, or maybe even entirely new primaries. This bears watching closely, because the eventual course that the DNC and the two states take could have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome. The current state of limbo in which these states exist, however, is yet another obstacle to Obama's ability to clinch the nomination.

5) Hillary Clinton:
No, not Hillary's success as a candidate or her out-campaigning of Obama since, quite frankly, he's proven himself to be a better candidate and campaigner than she. What I am referring to, rather, is Hillary Clinton's uncommonly intense ambition, arguable stubbornness, and her vintage Clintonian trait of being willing to do anything and everything to win. Some candidates would acknowledge that winning the nomination in a traditional and uncontroversial fashion is nearly impossible at this point, and accordingly might withdraw from the race. But not Hillary. Some candidates would be unwilling to win in the manner in which she would now have to win -- namely by having the majority of the superdelegates select her over Obama such that she attains the 2025 delegates needed to win, debatably subverting the choice of the majority of voters. But not Hillary. Some candidates would refuse to resort to the "kitchen sink" strategy of throwing every negative the campaign could find at their opponent prior to the Texas and Ohio Primaries -- attacking a fellow Democrat and doing so at the risk of damaging that opponent's (and therefore the party's) potential electability in November. But not Hillary. No, in Hillary, Obama faces an opponent who will "not go gently into that good night". To be fair, this is a quality of hers that is likely admired by just as many who disdain it. Regardless of what one thinks of this aspect of Hillary's candidacy and personality, though, it's a very real hurdle for Obama to clear before he can be assured of the nomination.

So what happens now? Well, the next stop is Pennsylvania, which holds its primary on April 22nd. The media have set expectations such that the state is a likely win for Clinton. It is also generally acknowledged that it is a must-win for Clinton, and all signs do currently point to her beating Obama there, with the latest polls giving her a lead of between 13 and 19 points. The Obama Campaign almost seems resigned to this fate, recently lowering expectations for an upset win for him in the Keystone State. Should Obama upset Clinton in Pennsylvania, however, the race would be effectively over, and he would win enough support from a combination of undecided superdelegates and superdelegates switching from Clinton that he would secure the nomination . In the more likely event however that she does win in Pennsylvania, she and her campaign will argue that she has again won another large, populous state, and another state that is essential for victory in November. Pennsylvania offers a total of 158 delegates (only California, New York, Texas and Florida have more), and should she win by a margin consistent with the current polling data, she would stand to gain a significant number of delegates, more momentum, and the campaign would continue.

Next up would be the North Carolina and Indiana Primaries on May 6th. North Carolina, with 115 delegates, is something of a sleeper in my opinion, and a state whose importance I believe the media are currently overlooking. Conventional wisdom currently argues for North Carolina being favorable territory for Obama, an assertion backed up by recent polls that show him leading Clinton by 4 to 8 points. But it is here that I believe John Edwards -- somewhat forgotten by the press and potentially by the voters -- could be a difference-maker -- and potentially a king maker or a queen maker.

The expectations have already been established: Clinton should win Pennsylvania, and Obama should win North Carolina. As the race grinds on and remains tight, the only way I can see Hillary regaining sufficient momentum to realistically recapture frontrunner status is if she is able to defy expectations in such a way as to trigger the superdelegates to begin lining up behind her en masse. The best chance for such a moment would be for her to "upset" Obama in North Carolina, and this is the way I could see that scenario potentially playing out...

Should Hillary win Pennsylvania, she'll have some wind in her sails. Obama will still lead her in every measurable category, but the media, nevertheless, will still present her victory as momentous. If we assume she receives even a slight "bump" from a win in Pennsylvania, it's conceivable that Hillary and Obama would enter North Carolina in a dead heat, he in need of a win to reestablish his momentum, and she in need of a win to potentially regain the overall edge. In such a close contest, there would not be much needed to tip the scales in either candidate's favor. Enter John Edwards. A resident of North Carolina and one of the state's two senators from 1998 - 2004, Edwards could likely provide just enough of a boost for Clinton or Obama to put one of them over the top there.

While Edwards was not successful in his own run for the White House in 2004 or 2008, and while he was unable to put North Carolina into his party's winning column as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, there likely remains enough affection for him in the state from the people who count -- the faithful Democratic voters who will go to the polls -- to allow him to potentially play king maker, were he to endorse Obama, or queen maker should he side with Hillary. Getting the nod from Edwards could also have national implications for whichever candidate receives it. Even though Edwards did consistently place third behind Obama and Clinton when he was in the race, his support could not be called insignificant, and again, when things are this close, not much is required to alter the dynamics of the race substantially. Both Obama and Clinton seemed aware of this in the wake of Edwards' withdrawal from the race, as both went out of their way to praise him and his candidacy, and to pledge to assume the role of championing the poor, Edwards' signature issue and cause. Indeed, both candidates even took valuable time away from campaigning to surreptitiously fly to Edwards' Chapel Hill, NC home, presumably in search of his endorsement, Clinton on February 7th, followed by Obama on February 17th. Despite the two meetings, no endorsement has followed.

I suspect an Edwards endorsement of Obama to be more likely, but I would argue that an Edwards endorsement of Clinton would be more significant. The reason that Edwards' support would be more important for Hillary is because the contest immediately after North Carolina and Indiana is the West Virginia Primary on May 13th, and West Virginia is a state whose demographics would seem very favorable to Clinton. A Clinton win in Pennsylvania, followed by a Clinton "upset" victory in North Carolina (presumably with help from Edwards), capped off with a third consecutive win by Clinton in West Virginia, just might provide her the momentum (and the media the narrative) to convince the superdelegates to decide that she is the candidate now on a roll, and that she is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating John McCain in November. She knows this, Edwards knows this, and I would watch carefully to see what Edwards does as the North Carolina Primary draws closer, and likely becomes more and more important in determining whether Obama or Clinton emerges as the Democratic Nominee.