Race and Gender? let's talk about it.

The media discussion about the role of race and gender is almost hopelessly naive and misguided. By any reasonable measure the Democratic primary process has blown completely out of the water the notion that race or gender bias are key driving forces in our society. They are *factors* but they are no longer major factors.

Lost in much of the debate is the fact that relating to a candidate on the basis of race or gender is NOT an indication of prejudice. I was glad to see two high level insiders on Bill Moyers tonight essentially agreeing that the WV vote for Clinton was not so much about race as it was about relating to the candidates. Obama as a northern bright and dynamic guy would have lost regardless of race. Perhaps a small percentage is a "racist" vote, but the fact he's the presumptive nominee of the party and the national frontrunner really should give pause to the many who think the national dialog remains too racially or gender biased for clarity. On the contrary I worry that we are now at risk for making too many topics off-limits because they will be unfairly labelled as "code" for race or gender issues that should not be discussed.

So the news is good - America is a more open minded society than many have suggested. Let's honor this and stop trying to take so many topics off limits. Talking about gender and race - rather than stifling debates and questions - is the best way to honor the national diversity we all enjoy in this country.RR

Florida voters disenfranchised ... again

The extremely poor coverage of the big story of this election has been a disgrace of mainstream media incompetence more than bias but I think both are a problem in this election. Party insider politics rather than voting are determining the outcome of the election. Most in the press are fretting that it will be Clinton who would pull a backroom play while they fail to talk much about the most significant aspect of the Democrat primary so far - the disenfranchisement of *every voter* in Florida and Michigan.

The first problem is that the popular vote should be determining things rather than state by state voting. The idea is to mimic our seriously problematic electoral college system which determines the national election, but with all the superdelegate and back room disenfranchisements it's not having that effect anyway. The people - not the party hacks - should control all the elections and America is dangerously close to failing in that area ... yet again.

Did the voters make the decision to hold these primaries early? NO! Did Florida and Michigan voters decide to delete their votes? NO! Party hacks determined this outcome though I don't understand how or why. Presumably both the Obama and Clinton campaigns saw strategic advantages to this or they would have bitched louder. But that is not particularly relevant. The key question regarding teh nominee should be simply this: Who do Democrats want to represent them? Party insiders have made it hard to determine this with clarity. The race is extremely close and a huge number of delegates may not be seated. The superdelegate process is an anti-Democracy outrage, clearly designed to take control away from voters and give enough control to party insiders to determine the outcome.

Florida voters must be getting used to being disenfranchised - in 2000 the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County were seriously flawed (they were designed by Democratic Party officials). Ballot spoilage threw the entire state - and the presidency - to George Bush. The focus was all on the chads which would *not* have affected the outcome had a recount been allowed. However the Palm Beach Butterfly ballots - Designed by a democrat - almost certainly threw the election to Bush.

Yet the Democratic Party had few qualms about the decision to delete the Florida vote from the current primary.

It is certainly true that rules should matter, both campaigns agreed to these rules (why?!), and Obama supporters are right to say that it's not "fair" to allocate to Clinton votes that might have gone to Obama if Florida party hacks and national party hacks had not mangled this process, but it's *even more unfair* to disenfranchise the Florida voters - again.

However if they did allocate the delegates according to votes in Michigan and Florida here are some scenarios:

Michigan popular vote: 55% to Clinton, 40% Uncommitted to Obama -
Clinton gains 23 delegates.

Michigan split the uncommitted vote: 75% to Clinton, 20% Obama -
Clinton gains 85 delegates

Florida: 50% to Clinton, 33% to Obama. Clinton net gain of 36 delegates.

Thus if we count these states Clinton would gain a net of either 59 delegates or 121 delegates depending on how you allocate the Michigan uncommitted vote.

As of today 1884-1718 = 166 votes separate Obama and Clinton so even the rosiest picture for Clinton would still have her trailing Obama by some 55 delegates, throwing the election squarely to the superdelegates and more party hack back room wheeling and dealing.

A solution to this mess? Clearly, new elections are needed in Florida and Michigan. Party hacks decided against this earlier in the year, but they were wrong to discard the only fair option. However this is very unlikely to happen. Welcome to our new Banana Republic voting system.

Gamesmanship is deciding the outcome of the election. Ironically this is likely to lead to an Obama victory as his strategists have more masterfully played their cards than Clinton's have and Obama really does seem to have a kind of groundswell support sorely lacking in Clinton voters.

Historically there has always been gamesmanship and strategy - but the extent to which that trumps the pure and unadulterated Democracy we all should seek is the extent to which we have a good vs a bad system. What shoud be clear to all after the elections debacle of 2000 and the questionable backroom politics of 2008 is that we have a bad system that is subject to uncertainty and manipulation.

The solution is simple - one vote to one person and no electoral college.

Clinton Wins West Virginia

The votes are not yet in but Clinton will certainly win the West Virginia Democratic Primary, throwing somewhat more uncertaintly into the complex and poorly constructed Democratic primary process. Although most pundits are exaggerating the demise of the Clinton dynasty West Virginia to some extent confounds the notion that "it's over", given that Clinton is likely to win by as much as 20% or more. Race appears to be a key factor in this victory, though it's simplistic to see race as a one way factor in an election where Obama consistently can count on some 80 or even 90% of the African American vote in most states.

Surprisingly few have challenged the incomprehensible system that almost all the candidates and parties signed on to over a year ago, but it's making it very hard for the Democrats to define their process clearly in the face of this close election.

If Clinton can leverage this victory into better treatment for the Florida and Michigan delegations which in turn might shift superdelegates to Clinton, the race would become even closer, and Obama's "frontrunner" lead could evaporate overnight. Is that likely? No, but neither was the GW Bush victory over Al Gore in 2000, and the Democratic process is looking more like it could hinge on defects in the process or on elitist insider plays rather than the popular vote.

Battleground: Oregon

Here in Oregon the TV advertising is starting to get very heavy, especially for Obama. It appears he may be trying to set up the campaign to effectively "declare victory" after this primary, arguing that his delegate total is greater and superdelegate total about equal.

However I'm inclined to think that both campaigns are going to settle this at the convention- probably in an amicable fashion and probably with Obama as the victor although skeletons in the closet could still rear their ugly heads and totally derail either campaign. This election is in the hands of the superdelegates now and it is not at all clear how they'll respond to the circumstances.

The Democratic party really should be ashamed to have such an un-Democratic process for choosing candidates. Although there are a handful of justifications for having "elite" voters with much more power than regulary people, the notion flies so flagrantly in the face of true Democracy and good elections practices that it's surprising the party hacks didn't realize this would create problems in a close election.

On to Indiana

As the already small delegate gap between Clinton and Obama narrows the campaigns head to Indiana, largest of the remaining states in the contest. It's now very clear that a convention decision will determine the outcome and it is possible that decision will be made on a second or later ballot. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough Delegates on the first round unless most of the Superdelegates commit to one or the other. I'm guessing we'll see superdelegates who are very reluctant to commit, fearing they'll pick the wrong side. That in turn may lead to a lot of back room bargains as the convention approaches. Stay tuned because the game is just beginning.

Pennsylvania Penses

With less than a day before Pennsylvania voters take to the polls Hilary Clinton maintains an edge in most polls. Many pundits suggest that an Obama win, or perhaps even a narrow Clinton victory, could end Clinton's race for the presidency but I think this is foolish. The Dems are heading for a convention decision and that decision will depend to some extent on Clinton's performance in the Pennsyvania and Indiana primaries. Losses or very narrow wins by Clinton probably mean that superdelegates will be going with Obama and the popularity that he still seems to have going even if Clinton "catches up" somewhat in delegates based on these later races. It'll be hard for superdelegates to vote against the majority of delegates decided by voters, though certainly stranger things have happended in American politics.

Odds? I'd say 57/43 in favor of Obama with little chance the PA vote will change things.

McCain's Temper, Obama's Associates, and Hilary's Cookie Baking. OMG, what scandal!

I'm so sick of TV media's pitiful coverage of the issues in election 2008. I used to blame .... us ... because clearly people are more interested in nonsense than important stuff, but I now think that the media is as guilty as our own prurient interests in creating the superficial nonsense that passes as presidential analysis.

So, I encourage you to shut off your TV and simply visit the candidate websites. They aren't completely forthcoming but at least they address real issues there:
Hillary Clinton John McCain Barack Obama

Democratic Debate on ABC crosses the line of reasonable dialog.

The normally insightful David Brooks of the NYT is defending many of the preposterous questions in the ABC debate where substance did not just take a back seat to prurient stupidity, it was almost totally eclipsed by nonsense questions and trivial commentary.

Brooks is certainly right that people have a right to know more about Obama, but this was not by any means the way to understand a candidate.

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolis are better than this - way better - so I'm not clear why they decided to replace questions of substance with lapel pins, guilt by association, and Bosnian sniper silliness.

Obama Clinton Debate. Civil and Thin

The Clinton Obama debate last night was very unsatisfying as both Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolis persisted in asking silly or irrelevant and "guilt by association" questions rather than trying to dig into the candidates policies and differences.

Stephanopolis really has no business working on these debates given his former close associations with President Clinton's campaign. I understand he is no longer even a friend of the Clintons but he's hardly a good choice for the most impartial person in the ABC crowd of political reporters. Gibson, a well informed and thoughtful anchor, continued the media's foolish and shameful focus on irrelevancies such as Obama's Reverend Wrightnesses and Hilary's Bosnia Bulletizing.

Guilt by Association, Guilt by Exaggeration?

The media frenzy over comments by Hilary Clinton that she was under fire in Bosnia when in fact she was only under the threat of fire are really a stretch by pundits who have tired of the real issues or simply do not want to address them in any depth.

TV Journalists - and one has to use that term very lightly these days - are failing in dramatic fashion to inform people about issues and pit the candidates against each other for the right reason - addressing policy differences. Instead, we see nonsensical concerns over exaggerations and personal associations.

Comments by Barack Obama's bombastic former pastor, Rev. Wright, are also being discussed breathlessly as if Obama's sitting in a church pew during a handful of emotionally charged rants by his pastor somehow means he has become a disciple of some anti-US cult.

Clearly, many of Wright's views are not in synch with most of mainstream America although these views are in touch with perhaps 20-40% of the public here (and perhaps 70% of the European Union) who view the USA as a modern capitalist empire that facilitates much of the exploitation in the third world.

Although personally I find the controversial Wright views about the USA *profoundly* naive and rationally unsupportable they represent debatable positions. The ignorant TV punditry should be talking about a national dialog on why these issues have such traction in some intellectual communities rather than giving them the blanket dismissal and angrily attacking Obama for not leaving his church in protest.

It is crystal clear that Obama totally disagrees with many of the characterizations Wright has used over the years.

The guilt by association is nonsense and a sign of the foolishness of liberal pundits combining with the strategic plays by conservative pundits to keep this in the news.

Obama: 1 Million on Google in February!

Daya over at WebGuild is tallying up the Google advertisnig campaign spends, noting that Obama spent a whopping one million on Google advertising in February vs Clinton's 67,000.

Analysts generally credit Obama with a brilliant use of online social networking and resources.

Democrats benefit from extra exposure on the campaign trail

Although most pundits suggest that the Democrats are suffering from the extended battle for the nomination between Clinton and Obama, I think this is giving them a huge advantage in the national election. While Clinton and Obama still have legions of reporters and reports following their every move around the USA, McCain has become something of a footnote to the process after wrapping up the Republican nomination. In short, the amount of *free media* for Obama and Clinton is huge compared to McCain's exposure.

This will change after the Democrats pick a candidate and McCain and either Clinton or Obama start the "real" fight for the Presidency, but by then voters will be much more familiar with the Democrat and also will be suffering from campaign fatigue after a national process that started earlier and has lasted longer than any Presidential (or any other?!) race in history.

Obama still leading nationally in most polls

Barack Obama is still favored by most Democrats even after over a week of mostly negative news centered on Obama´s close personal association with the outspoken former minister at Obama´s church.

Addressing the nation and the situation in a recent speech Obama is credited by most with providing one of the most articulate and positive expositions on race in America. Although it is not clear that this speech settled all the issues, it is clear that it provided a high level of damage control and probably the mainstream media, feasting on the controversy, will leave the issue behind as soon as another easy talking point challenge comes along.

Geraldine Ferraro. Feminist pioneer or ranting racist?

The new political sensibilites are really straining my credulity.

Reasonably, Barack Obama invokes MLK and other themes that very appropriately draw on his African American heritage on pretty much a daily basis. Obama appropriately and accurately expresses his pride in his heritage and the fact the Democrats deserve a lot of social credit for having a woman and an African American as the top nominees of the party.

Enter Geraldine Ferraro, a feminist pioneer and civil rights *activist*, who suggests the transparently obvious notion that race is a factor in Obama's success.

Then..... all hell breaks loose and Ferraro is branded a racist.

There is a a rational argument that suggests that although Obama is certainly *gaining* some votes because of race he is also *losing* some because of his race. Thus the balance in voting is hard to calculate and if race is invoked it is some sort of code language that is trying to pull him down.

Yikes - but that argument is not being made and is pretty questionable mathematically.

Rather I'm hearing otherwise intelligent people suggesting that "race has nothing to do with this" even as they themselves express approval about the racial diversity of the campaign. Folks you simply cannot have it both ways. Race is either a factor in this or it is not a factor. If you think it's a minor factor say that, but to suggest that race is of zero consequence in this campaign is, in a word, nonsense.

So, how is race and gender influencing the Obama Clinton contest? This would require a close look at exit polling, and hopefully we'll see more of this rather than the nonsensical punditry going on all over the networks as this mini-scandal dominates the coverage of the election.

Clinton about to win Texas

Although the networks, cowed by exit polling errors in New Hampshire, are afraid to call Texas for Clinton it appears very clear she's the likely winner in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island with Obama winning Vermont.

Although one can reasonably question what relevance "win" has in a contest where delegates are propotioned according to vote rather than "all or nothing" as in many Republican races, media attention focuses so narrowly on "wins" that this is an important metric.

What is clear is what Tim Russert pointed out tonight on MSNBC - the race will continue for through the convention and seating of Michigan and Florida will be a very important issue, as will superdelegates.

Donna Brazille, a superdelegate and CNN analyst, seemed to make a FreudianEsque slip tonight when she suggested the superdelegates would lean to the candidate with the best chance of a Presidential win. Based on almost *every single poll*, this is Obama rather than Clinton.

FOX News on March 4: Hilary Clinton's Last Stand

Chris Wallace on FOX news today is calling Tuesday "Hilary Clinton's Last Stand" and although this is not entirely inappropriate it seems to be overly dramatic. The likeliest outcome for Tuesday will keep Clinton and Obama close in total delegates, and leave the complex issues of superdelegates and seating Michigan and Florida delegates squarely on the table. Ultimately party insiders are the most likely to have the key say in all this as they can convince large blocks of superdelegates to vote "for the party". The most likely beneficiary of a brokered deal is probably Obama who seems to have more popular support now as well as a much better chance of beating McCain. This last item is key, and will sway Party management to encourage Clinton to back out of this and annoint Obama, perhaps in exchange for the VP slot (doubful) or a key cabinet post (somewhat likely).

RealClearPolitics has a great summary of major polls over the past year that show the remarkable and recent Obama surge among Democratic voters:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

The graph results seem to suggest that at about the time of Obama's strong Super Tuesday showing, Democrats stopped simply assuming Hilary Clinton would be the nominee and gave careful consideration to Obama who they found more appealing. Given Clinton's consistent showing in polls of some 47% probably Clinton simply didn't gain any converts, while Obama has pulled in the undecideds and shifted a few making him the presumptive nominee.

One of the many great challenges of the American Democracy process is the fact that in one sense it is the undecided voters that ultimately make the decisions. Because voting can't assign extra points for being better informed or caring "more" than your neighbor, votes all count equally (Democrat superdelegates aside!). Thus those who have only marginal interest in the outcome and are easily swayed by campaign tactics are a key voting block, and may ultimately hold the key to success in this presidential election.

Obama's Momentum into the final stretch

Although neither Obama or Clinton will have enough votes to win from the primary voting, most analysts reasonably suggest that if Obama wins Texas and Ohio he will effectively be the presumptive nominee.

More complicated are the scenarios where Clinton wins narrowly in the last three big states of TX, PA, and Ohio. This would leave Obama and Clinton with similar delegate totals and put the race firmly in the hands of the superdelegates as well as a possible change in the elimination of the Floridan and Michigan delegates from the process.

It appears increasingly unlikely that Florida and Michigan delegates will be included given the Obama momentum and also the polling indicating he's far more likely to beat McCain than Clinton. Democratic Party players want to win in 2008 far more than they want a particular candidate, so expect the party to rally around Obama if his March 4 performance is good. If not, expect more indecision as the wild workings of American politics move along.

Clinton still leading in several upcoming primaries

Many polls continue to show Clinton ahead in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio as the Democratic Primary continues in a virtual delegate dead heat between Obama and Clinton. Most polls are showing Obama with a lead in Wisconsin and Hawaii today. Wins in those states will demonstrate even more clearly how powerfully the Obama campaign has emerged as the front running campaign.

Today's absurd accusations from the Clinton campaign about speech plagiarism by Obama appear to be a strange way to score negative attention points during this critical time, and are likely to blow over tomorrow during the Wisconsin and Hawaii primary reporting frenzy.

Obama extremely likely to take the delegate lead after today's results

Polls show Obama with a large lead in Virginia. After the Virginia Vote is in tonight, and even with Clinton's superdelegate advantage, Obama is likely to have the higher delegate total though regardless of today's result Clinton and Obama will remain within dozens of delgates of each other.

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio's importance are increasingly with each passing Obama victory. Most see all three of these big states as likely to go for Clinton. Some of last month's Ohio polls had Clinton more than 20 points over Obama, though recent Obama victories could change all that.

However, based on all the information available to date we are still predicting a narrow Clinton victory - probably at the convention - and probably with the announcement of Obama as Clinton's VP. This would be the killer combination for the democrats and likely make them virtually unstoppable in the general election against McCain and his likely running mate, Huckabee.

Stay tuned...