Quick Update on the Obama Veepstakes

Hello readers. Just taking a quick moment to comment on the ongoing watch for who Barack Obama selects as his vice-presidential nominee. I've commented previously on my thoughts as to who would make a great candidate, and who I thought Obama should pick. Nonetheless, the senator seems unlikely to select any of my prior top three candidates. The latest credible reports center around another person who I believe would be an excellent pick for "resume" reasons but who I did not seriously consider before because I thought it was unlikely that he would be selected. What I failed to focus upon were two other key qualities this man would bring to the ticket--superb debating & speaking skills, and the ability to pointedly criticize McCain's record in a "sunny" way.

This man is Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

He is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (on which Barack Obama serves), and has been in the Senate since the Carter Administration (1976). There are few, if any, political figures who are as learned and perceptive about foreign policy as is Biden. Combine that with his demonstrated history of being very sharp witted (if somewhat long-winded) in public settings, and you have a very good choice as VP. Biden could serve well an "attack dog" who can raise the more negative parts of McCain's terrible record on so many issues (because he's served with McCain for the latter's entire Senate career (McCain elected in 1986), thus leaving Obama dedicated to advancing the positive message of his camapaign, which he does so well.

One final subtle piece of evidence suggests that Biden is the likely selection--we've not heard a single word out of him or his office about ANYTHING for weeks, politics or policy. If he's in the final stages of vetting by the Obama team, it would make a great deal of sense for him to be off the political radar screen.

I could be wrong; I certainly have been before. But watch for developments over the next week or so, as the VP is likely to be named next week, prior to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, which begins on August 25. The more I think about it, the more I'm excited about the possibility.

My Perspective on Likely Vice Presidential Selections


Sorry for my extended absence from opining on all matters political. The whole Hatch Act thing keeps me from the blog at work, and I've been uncommonly busy on the weekends and let it slip. Anyway, while I'm late to the game, I have some thoughts on Washington's favorite quadrennial parlor game--the Veepstakes!

Now, to those people who I think would both be the best selections by Obama:



1. Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham (FL). This is my dark horse candidate (who recently was announced as a headliner for a West Palm Beach fundraiser for Obama). There are two major reasons why he's a great choice. First, he was a very popular Senator AND Governor of Florida over a 20 year political career, which could help make the state more competitive for Obama. Second, he's a recognized expert in national security policy, having chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee and having voted against authorizing the Iraq War in 2002. Graham actually read the National Intelligence Estimate (which almost 90% of the Senators at the time did not), and determined that it would be damaging to the U.S.'s interests to invade Iraq. These facts buttress Barack Obama's arguments on the war, and provide him a credible validator of his judgement in Bob Graham.


Keep an eye out on this candidate. I would be beyond excited if Obama chose Graham.


2. Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (GA). Nunn has had his name thrown around a bit by other media outlets, and for good reason. His national security credentials from his Senate service are at least as strong as Bob Graham's, and his signature foreign policy acheivement was to help secure nuclear weapons held by the former Soviet Union when it dissolved. Working with Republican Senator Dick Lugar (IN), he established a security protocol and helped provide funding to make sure these weapons didn't fall into the hands of "bad actors" in the former Soviet republics and elsewhere. Same "elder statesman" role as Graham could play, and electorally speaking, Nunn absolutely strengthens Obama's push to win an upset in Georgia, given Nunn's popularity as a moderate Democrat in the state.

One caveat advanced by some quarters about Nunn is the fact that he led the opposition to Bill Clinton's effort to change military policy with respect to the service of gays and lesbians. Not Nunn's finest hour, to say the least. Self-identified gay and lesbian voters are generally strong supporters of the Democratic Party. However, I do not believe that potential displeasure from this segment of voters will be dispositive as to whether Nunn is selected. Nunn has recently expressed that he is now not categorically opposed to gays and lesbians openly serving in the military. In addition, Obama would be setting policy, and he is in favor of homosexuality being eliminated as a bar to military service.


3. Governor Ted Strickland (OH). To begin, I am well aware that Strickland has publicly expressed his opposition to serving as Vice President, in rather clear terms. I'll get back to that in a bit. Electorally, I believe that having Strickland on the ticket locks up Ohio for Obama in November. That is an incredibly important swing state, with 20 electoral votes, that comes off the table. Strickland is incredibly popular in Ohio, and would be another great "validator" for Obama, helping him shore up support from undecided voters.

Regarding the "I do not want to be Vice President" thing, stranger things have happened in the Veepstakes' history, and if things were to develop such that Barack Obama came to the conclusion that Strickland would be the best pick, I believe that Strickland would not say no if he were personally asked to serve his country in this way.

As for the Republicans, John McCain's selection doesn't concern me greatly, since I think there are really only two likely picks for him at this point, former MA Governor Mitt Romney, and current MN Governor Tim Pawlenty, both of whom have been circulating as likely selections in much of the rest of the media for a number of months.

A Republican friend of mine, a former supporter of Romney during his governorship, went as far as to say that, were McCain to select Romney, "he should just announce that he's conceding the election." I completely agree--I spent the last year hoping against hope that Romney would win the GOP nomination, because he would absolutely have been the easiest candidate to beat--largely due a record completely devoid of any political or policy values that couldn't be changed if the winds were blowing the right way.

Pawlenty would probably be a decent pick for McCain, but I don't believe that the pick would help McCain actually win in Minnesota, despite the fact that Pawlenty's supposed ability in this regard is the only reason he's actually being considered. Pawlenty won two terms as governor by only a plurality vote--he did not receive a majority in either election. This is not a recipe for strong performance in a state that, while closely contested the last couple of cycles, has been a strong Democratic performer in presidential elections for over a generation.

As a final thought, I yield to my wife, who offers her pick for McCain's VP--former Governor Mike Huckabee (AR). She believes that his strong support among religious conservatives is an important element to consider, given that McCain is not really a trusted person among this slice of the electorate. Add to that the fact that McCain and Huckabee got along very well in an otherwise acrimonious primary season, and it certainly bears watching as to whether Huckabee will get the nod.

Mandated Hatch Act Absence from the blog

Hello! A quick note to ensure readers that I haven't disappeared from the blogosphere. Certain well-intentioned and appropriately enforced federal rules governing permissible political activity by those in the employ of Uncle Sam--colloquially encompassed by the term "Hatch Act" (look it up)--preclude any daily commentary from me, unless I can manage to squeeze it in in the late evening or on the weekends.

Anyway, I promise to have a fuller explanation of the Hatch Act, as well as my extended thoughts on how Barack Obama will likely benefit from the latest kerfluffle over his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This will mostly entail how he benefits politically from a broad realization among Americans that Wright is batshit insane, as evidenced by his NAACP event comments on April 27, and his National Press Club appearance on April 28.

Rev. Wright is, to paraphrase Senator Obama's remarks today (April 29), one who gives encouragement and sustenance to purveyors of hate. Plain and simple.

More to follow, hopefully this weekend.

The Campaign Marches On

A short note to start the work week, concerning how I think things might play out in the Democratic nomination fight in the coming month or so.

First, my latest read on how things have developed in the last week or so suggests to me that, aside from Hillary Clinton's determined refusal to concede anything, seemingly in the near or distant future, I expect that since only 10 contests remain on the primary calendar, there will be no effort by influential Democratic Party figures to negotiate a resolution prior to the final contests on June 3 (SD and MT).

Setting aside the particularly gratuitous negative attacks of recent weeks, this election season has been a largely positive affair that has increased Democratic turnout and enthusiasm exponentially. Most states' voters don't really get to weigh in on presidential nominating contests, so now that we're at the point where most voters have had a real voice, it would be very dispiriting and disappointing from a democratic (small "d") standpoint to somehow not permit the remaining states a chance to express their preferences in a consequential election.

As such, barring an unexpected withdrawal from Hillary Clinton at some point before June 3, we'll have a competitive contest until that date. I believe that the last remaining, albeit remote, chance that she'll withdraw is if she somehow loses Pennsylvania on April 22. I believe that she will win there, but it will be a far narrower victory than current polls suggest. Nonetheless, I believe the chances of Obama winning PA are far greater than the infinitesimal chances Clinton has of actually ending up with the party's nomination.

Second, there have already been increasing signs that Obama may be maneuvering to finish the nominating season in a manner similar to that of John McCain--in practice if not in style or deliberate design. Influential endorsements by superdelegates, featuring but not limited to those last week's by NM Gov. Bill Richardson and U.S. Senator Bob Casey (PA), and today's by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN), suggest a movement towards a specific goal.

This may take a while, so bear with me. Obama would very much like to catch up to Hillary in the category of overall superdelegate support--he now trails by just over 30. However, the McCain analogy applies in the following context: It has been widely noted that superdelegates will be required for either candidate to clear the 2,024 overall delegate hurdle and claim the presumptive nomination. Political observers may recall that, in the GOP race, Gov. Mike Huckabee stayed in the race because, to paraphrase, the party does not have a nominee "until someone gets to 1,191" (the magic number for the GOP nomination).

Obama is likely working on obtaining the public commitments of enough superdelegates over the next month or so, such that he might be able to clear the 2,024 hurdle in projected delegates on one of the closing primaries' election nights--perhaps May 20 when OR and KY vote, or perhaps on June 3 when SD and MT vote. In any event, if he were to be declared a "presumptive nominee" during election night coverage, that public perception would be like a bell that one can't un-ring. Just ask Al Gore about when the networks projected FL for Bush in 2000 and declared him the next president, before taking it back a few hours later.

Will it play out this way for the Obama-Clinton race? Difficult to say for sure, but I believe that Obama is certainly trying to make it happen, and it would be quite an exclamation point on his nomination fight if he can pull it off.

Democratic Nomination Endgame in the Works?

I was very intrigued by a recent story concerning the remarks of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about how the Democratic nomination battle will ultimately be resolved (The story can be found at <http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html>).

The essence of the conversation he had with the Las Vegas Review Journal was as follows:

"Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it."

Now, Senator Reid is a VERY knowledgeable and canny political operator, and any smart observer will take particular note of the meta-message of this media exchange. He is a force to be reckoned with, and he doesn't talk about this stuff just to hear himself talk. There is something going on here. I don't know whether the particulars of the role Senator Reid is playing right now, or what he was talking about, will become publicly known anytime soon, or perhaps until well after the election. But he will be involved in the resolution--I guarantee it.

A bit of background on Senator Reid. His position as Senate Majority Leader is the most powerful in the Senate. He controls the Senate's debate agenda, and has a privileged status under the rules to receive priority recognition to speak and to engage in several parliamentary actions.

He was elected U.S. Senator in 1986, following two terms of service as a member of the U.S. House (elected 1982, re-elected 1984). He was elected Democratic Whip (Deputy Leader--2nd highest ranking position among Senate Democrats) in 1999, and became Democratic Leader in 2005 (minority leader until the Democrats won control of the Senate following the 2006 elections).

Reid was a competitive boxer in his youth, was formerly Lt. Governor of Nevada, and subsequently he was the head of the Nevada Gaming Commission. The commission is the ruling regulator over all things related to the casinos in the state. During his service, he took on the mob corruption that was infiltrating the casinos, and as a result, was the target of an ultimately unsuccessful mob assassination attempt via car bomb.

Needless to say, the guy has seen and experienced quite a bit in his life. As someone who has met the man a couple of times, I will say that his personality and demeanor belies his past. He's like a kind old uncle--a very genial man. But many have learned over the years---some the easy way, some the hard way--that he is not to be underestimated or recklessly opposed.

Perhaps My Faith Will Be Restored

I posted yesterday on the distressing lack of media cajones when it came to actually calling the bald-faced lie that Hillary Clinton told repeatedly about her 1996 Bosnia trip a LIE, and not simply reporting that she "mis-spoke" or "mis-stated" something.

Well, I have subsequently noticed a distinct drumbeat of negative coverage in my subsequent reviews of media items on this topic, with many media reports and news analyses portraying this incident in a very harsh light, as is appropriate. Of particular note is the following online commentary by Dan Kennedy on a blog hosted at the British newspaper website of the Guardian:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_kennedy/2008/03/clinton_under_fire.html

Very cutting, but honest essay about Hillary Clinton and the issues of trustworthiness and credibility. Dan Kennedy is a journalism professor at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

Attention All Media

If facts are to be the purported stock in trade of journalism, then the rest of the mainstream media ought to emulate Washingtonpost.com, and should not be shirking its duty to report the truth that Hillary Clinton is a liar, and has been caught red handed by the videotape and by multiple witnesses to the events in question during a trip to Bosnia in 1996.

I would commend readers to view this link in its entirety, <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/more_incoming_for_clinton.html>. Be sure to watch the videos, especially the last one in the post. Clinton's pathetically prevaricating and dissembling statement trying to explain away her lie is particularly good reading, in the same way that a movie car chase scene is particularly good theater when it ends in a wreck.

As U.S. Air Force journalist Don Jackson states: "Mrs. Clinton arrived to a flight line full of well-wishers, both military and civilian, accompanied by her staff as well as comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow who were there to entertain troops. To set the record straight, there was no enemy fire, and no imminent danger. If there had been any danger, "well-wishers" would not have been allowed on the tarmac, much less allowing me to stand above everyone else on the back of a truck. And Sinbad and Sheryl Crow would've been running for their lives instead of taking the time to be interviewed by yours truly, on the tarmac. Mrs. Clinton's [claim] is a lie, plain and simple."

Hillary Clinton has now claimed that she "misspoke" about her supposedly daring arrival, under fire, at an airbase in Bosnia. Setting aside the complete implausibility of her contention, the fact remains that she made a detailed statement about her actions that was materially untrue, and not for the first time. Even if her statement was not deliberately intended to mislead or deceive (which it demonstrably was), she still lied, by dictionary definition. And the press ought not to be reporting her claim of simple "misspeaking" as fact.

Mrs. Clinton's actions during this episode make me sick, because they reveal the most conclusive, but certainly not only, evidence of her utter contempt for the intelligence of the American people, and of her zeal to destructively pursue the presidency for her own ends and not for the betterment of the people at large.

Update at 11:44 AM

I just came across a great blog post at RealClearPolitics.com by Tom Bevan, deliciously titled "Pantsuit on Fire." Great item on how Hillary flat-out lied (thought he still doesn't use that word), and how it feeds into a negative narrative about her character and personality.

<http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/pantsuit_on_fire.html>

I Seek Unanimous Consent to Revise and Extend My Remarks

The "revise and extend" phrasing in my subject borrows from a standard parliamentary request in the U.S. Senate whenever a senator speaks on a topic. If approved, and it always is (senatorial courtesy and all), the request allows the Senator to submit in writing any technical corrections to what he or she says on the floor, as well as to add additional text (such as if he or she only delivers part of his or her statement on the floor, and wants to put the whole thing in the Congressional Record).

Now, to the substance of my statement, for which I techinically don't need unanimous consent since it's my blog, but which I have politely asked for nonetheless. In the tradition of the Senate, most all statements are phrased with good manners, even if the substance is hardly polite. Think something with the essence of "I would ask my very good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, if he would be so kind as to shove his amendment up his ass," only without the profanity, since that would be uncouth.

But I digress. In my first post concerning political predictions for the Democratic presidential race, I made brief reference to the likely outcome of Pennsylvania's primary, in the context of a larger discussion of all remaining states in play. A second assessment of the prevailing opinions among certain demographic groups in the state has led me to modestly revise my predictions for Pennsylvania, and to expand my discussion of the particular dynamics at play in this state.

There are certain resentments that exist within broad swaths of the lower to middle income blue collar population about a number of things, which are very likely to be inflamed by the demagoguery being peddled over the offensive statements by Senator Obama's former minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but which are unlikely to be as powerfully impacted by Senator Obama's recent discourse on race in America, as Obama's eloquent discussion of a very nuanced issue does not lend itself to the same kind of "soundbiting" coverage that our rabid 24-hour media culture has perpetuated for too long.

That being said, I am now not as convinced that Pennsylvania will look very different from Ohio for the above reasons. However, there are two other elements of the equation that may come into play, which could have some positive impact on the Pennsylvania race from Obama's perspective.

The first issue centers on a documented body of evidence that shows Obama's performance in states with purportedly "hostile" demographics (lower income, blue collar, traditional white Democrats) improving when he has the opportunity to spend an extended amount of time in a state speaking with as many voters as possible. His vision, intellect, and reasoned approach to politics and governing has moved many people--of all races--throughout the nation thus far. Is there a ceiling to his performance in Pennsylvania, particularly in light of the issues raised in a very unfavorable media-cycle in the past week? Perhaps. But there are still nearly 5 weeks left until April 22. Speaking of performance among Demographic groups, I find it a bit frustrating that the mainstream media consistently harps on perceived deficiencies when it comes to Obama, but pays scant attention to the fact that Hillary Clinton's performance among other important demographic groups (as far as Democrats are concerned) has been abysmal--chiefly, African American voters and highly educated, progressive voters.

In fairness, the media has covered the race-baiting tactics of the Clinton campaign in a critical way, rightly calling out disgraceful and divisive actions. But the issue is then mostly left alone as somehow unconnected to her purported strength as a general election candidate. Her fundamental weakness among African Americans is not something that will automatically evaporate as a major issue if she were to become the nominee. And what does it say about the Clinton campaign that a group of educated, financially well-off people who are basically in agreement with her ideologically on policy issues nonetheless are decisively backing Obama?

The second issue concerns a recently renewed effort by Obama to illustrate to all voters, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale, how our terrible economic situation is directly tied to the disasterous management of the Iraq War and the staggering federal spending on it and on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The war is an incredibly unpopular issue among Democrats (and most Americans), and Obama is the better candidate on this issue, since Hillary Clinton enabled Bush's march to war voting to authorize military force, and has yet to take responsibility for it, offering a panoply of excuses and distortions. If Obama can make "economic distress" and "Iraq War" become consciously linked in the minds of enough voters, he can persuade them to follow his lead and his plans for handling both.

I know Obama will make some inroads on the strength of his campaigning skills, but it is not clear whether he will make enough progress to at least make Pennsylvania a narrow Clinton win. Whether he can make a breakthrough on the question of more powerfully linking the economy with the disaster in Iraq is an open question at this point. Thus, it remains to be seen whether Obama can outperform what are now very low expectations for him in the state. A silver lining for Senator Obama--as Hillary has demonstrated more than once during this campaign, if you set yourself up with low expectations that become accepted wisdom, you can "win" even by losing if you can then exceed those expectations.

In closing, I wish to reinforce the essential point of my inaugural post. Senator Obama will end the primary season with a clear lead in both pledged delegates and in overall delegates (incorporating superdelegates who have already declared their support for one of the candidates). The superdelegates will not move en masse to Clinton and deny Obama the nomination, or they will absolutely fracture the Democratic Party and guarantee the election of John McCain. This is the nightmare scenario, and Democratic officials with superdelegate votes are simply not kamikaze pilots.

Barack Obama on Race and Forming a More Perfect Union

Yesterday, March 18, 2008, was a seminal moment in this presidential campaign, and in the history of American politics. Speaking at the National Constitution Center, Senator Barack Obama engaged the nation in a powerful examination of race in the United States, offering an emotional, intellectually sophisticated, and brutally honest perspective on the role of racism in our history, the still influential role it plays in our contemporary society, and, perhaps most importantly, on the role he hopes racial reconciliation will play in our nation's future as we pour our best efforts into making real progress on the social and economic concerns that affect all Americans.

As the son of an African father and white Kansan mother, Obama has lived his life as a bridge between two segments of society that are far too divided, and often very mistrustful of the other. His life experience has uniquely enabled him to speak with authority and conviction about how we might begin to move forward as one America, and it has uniquely enabled him to be a leader that can help guide us down that new path.

The New York Times editorial board justifiably described Obama's effort and performance as nothing less than a "Profile in Courage." I indeed believe that Senator Obama's actions merit inclusion in with those historical American political figures who were described in John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer-Prize winning book of the same name.

When Barack Obama gave his now famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I was amazed, inspired, and hopeful about his vision for the future of the United States. I've watched him speak many times since then, and consistently, I have been inspired and proud of where he could take our country. Nonetheless, I believe his address yesterday was the best, most powerful speech he has given since his call to action at the 2004 convention.

I strongly recommend that readers watch this speech for themselves in its entirety, if you have not already done so. It is approximately 37 minutes in length, but I believe it is well worth it. Just follow this link: <http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f16fa04507a57ff5/faVeqi/VEsE/>.

In closing, I want to note a truly remarkable historical parallel between the March 18 speech and that given by another Presidential candidate during the 1980 campaign.

During that cycle, Ronald Reagan chose to give a major speech, in which he extolled the virtues of "states' rights" in an unmistakable, racially polarizing effort to inflame the bigotry of whites againsts blacks. The rallying cry of "states' rights" was the calling card of Southern states in the U.S. who stood against the federal government "meddling" in the issue of slavery. These states, and the supporters of slavery, held the view that slavery was a matter that, as to its practice, ought to be left to the judgement of each individual state, under the pretense of "sovereignty."

This speech by Reagan was given in a city where there occurred a well-known, gruesome lynching of several black people during the dark days of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Reagan's 1980 campaign was one that perfected the politics of exploiting race and racism for electoral benefit, but to the manifest detriment of our social fabric.

Ronald Reagan's divisive electoral appeal was issued in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama chose to give a major speech, in which he held forth on the lingering anger, bittnerness, and resentment over race in the United States, and issued a powerful call to action. That Americans of all races embrace the essence of change that has enriched our nation in so many ways, recongnize our shared humanity, and genuninely embrace our shared hopes and dreams, so that we might actually start making some of them a reality.

Obama's challenge for all Americans to take that first unifying step was issued in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

We may yet be a distance away from where we want and need to be as a nation. But in order to get there, we must start the journey here and now.

<http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f16fa04507a57ff5/faVeqi/VEsE/>

Inaugural Post for Politics Over Drinks

Introduction
Item 1: Democratic Presidential Nomination Endgame
Item 2: Thoughts on the politics of NY Governor Paterson's Disclosure of Infidelity

I welcome readers to this new blog, which was the brainchild of my wife. She has been tirelessly lobbying me to start this blog because she has a high opinion of both my writing skills and of my capacity to astutely interpret events in politics and in government. She also believes that conversations I have with her and some of my good friends on these topics are very informative, and would be of interest to a larger audience.

Setting aside the question of whether her views on such matters are accurate, I have decided finally give in to her lobbying efforts. I hope to make use of this forum to periodically offer my thoughts about various matters, as well as to make the case for why I believe certain political developments either will happen, or have happened. I expect that this blog will include additional authors as we move forward, likely including one or more of the friends I referenced above, as well as my wife, who has an intuitive behavioral understanding of people that often translates into remarkably accurate insights into political behavior.

Now, onto my first topics!

Democratic Nomination Battle

There has been much discussion in the media and elsewhere about how the Democratic Party is faced with a potential disaster of a nomination fight that could fracture its potential winning coalition in the general election. Senator Barack Obama has amassed a modest, solid lead in convention delegates that, due to the proportional-allocation rules of the DNC, is unlikely to be eclipsed by Senator Hillary Clinton at the conclusion of the nominating season--which, at present, would be the elections in South Dakota and Montana on June 3. Michigan officials have proposed a new primary for that date as well, but no final determinations have been made as to its feasibility or likelihood of occurrence; Florida officials have abandoned plans to schedule a new primary election. As the issue has been beaten to death elsewhere, I need not elaborate on why the two states are in their current predicament.

Senator Clinton, while having been outpaced in the nominating process by Senator Obama, has nonetheless secured significant victories and demonstrated strength among certain demographic groups that have convinced her to continue pursuing the nomination. These circumstantial grounds for continuing the contest combine with her obvious belief that she is the best candidate. Her campaign's personal attacks on Senator Obama's candidacy and competence have raised serious concern among some in the party establishment, but I'll get back to that in a bit. Senator Obama obviously believes he is the best candidate, and, as discussed above, he is nearly guaranteed to end up as the leader in delegates at the end of the primary season.

The dilemma, of course, is that neither Obama nor Clinton has anywhere close to a realistic chance of securing a nomination-clinching 2,024 delegates total on the strength of delegates won in state primaries and caucuses. Thus it falls to the "superdelegates," or those to whom the DNC grants an automatic convention vote as a consequence of an individual's particular position with the DNC or of an individual's status as the occupant of certain elected offices (Members of Congress, State Governors). Of these 794 superdelegates (of 796 original superdelegates), the CNN count has 237 declared for Clinton, and 207 declared for Obama.

Now that I've finally gotten through the somewhat tedious background, I offer my assessment of how these superdelegates will seek to ensure that the primary fight does not continue beyond the late spring.

The next primary is in Pennsylvania on April 22, and Senator Clinton is favored to win there by many observers. I believe that she does have the upper hand, but that Senator Obama will do better there than he did in Ohio. Two weeks later, on May 3, North Carolina and Indiana will hold primaries. If Senator Obama wins both states (and I expect that he will win in NC and win a much closer race in IN), it will serve as an affirmation of his performance thus far, and lead significant numbers of superdelegates to declare their support for him.

Perhaps they will wait until the May 13 WV primary (probable Clinton win) and the Mary 20 primaries (OR--Obama; KY--Clinton) have passed, but there will be a movement to push Obama's delegate total above the clinching threshold, since, a la Mike Huckabee of the recent Republican nomination race, that may be the only point at which Clinton would drop out.

NY Governor David Paterson

Today it was reported that new NY Governor David Paterson has publicly disclosed marital infidelities that occurred nearly ten years ago, of which his wife was already aware for many years. This disclosure comes less than a day after he was sworn in to replace Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in the wake of disclosures that he had been using the services of a high-end prostitution ring for some time.

I believe this disclosure, at this time, was remarkably astute from a political perspective. First, he demonstrates transparency and honesty with the people of New York up front, on an issue that would absolutely have come out sometime down the line. Second, the lesser informed and/or attentive among the populace would likely read only the headline of "NY governor admits affairs," and presume it had something to do with Eliot Spitzer, since it fits the narrative of his latest problems. Third, and most important, it allows the more learned observers of the situation to view Paterson's transgressions as far tamer than Spitzer's, and more easily dismissed as a private matter by a public that has been fed up with sexual witch-hunts since Bill Clinton's impeachment debacle.

Thanks for reading, and please feel free to leave any comments and/or questions you might have. I will not have a particular schedule for posts as I move forward, but I hope offer my thoughts as often as my work and leisure schedules permit.

Cheers!