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.

The last Hiatus?

As the final big primaries approach Democrats Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama remain locked in a tight race, though many think that if Obama wins in two or even one of the three remaining big states he will effectively "earn" the nomination by making it very hard for Clinton to continue to claim she has more broad based support than Obama and very unlikely for her to exceed his popular vote totals.

Although Pennsylvania still appears likely to go to Clinton, Ohio is getting closer and Texas now appears to favor Obama.

March 4 will be a big day for both candidates. Big wins for Obama likely will mean the race is over, but more close races will probably keep Clinton in through the convention when a lot can happen quickly. For example if the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, and if a majority of superdelegates switch to Clinton she could gain the nomination even after losing most of the states in the popular vote. Given the Democrats concerns in 2000 it's hard to know how all this will shake out. Disenfranchising voters has been a key Democratic criticism of Republicans yet this is exactly the penalty they extracted from Michigan and Florida for holding primaries early. On the other side of the coin is the fact that Superdelegates have far more voting power than regular people, leading many to consider this elitist politics.

McCain successfully lobbies himself out of a problem

The McCain Iseman scandal died as fast as it sprung to life with the New York Times making weak supporting gestures about the story in the face of an almost blanket McCain denial. I'm guessing there was a small amount of smoke here but no fire, and that if anything this episode helped galvanize support for McCain among the hard core conservatives who have shunned him until recently.

However, if recent polls are close to the truth, McCain is going to have a very tough time competing with Barack Obama. Most polls put Obama up by close to 10% in a faceoff with McCain, and in my view this number is likely to *increase* if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and Hilary Clinton supporters start to rally more strongly behind him.

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.

Corruption in Politics is rare

I'm tired of hearing people talk so much about corruption in politics when it is really very rare. Few endeavors are held to as close a level of scrutiny as politics, and although there are many very minor abuses throughout the system, major corruption is very rare.

We want to find individuals at fault when it is our seriously flawed money-driven-political-marketing-pork-barrelling political nightmare that is to blame.

The McCain non-scandal is a great example of how a personally virtuous person, acting reasonably, will still be viewed as engaging in questionable activity. Yet even as his personal actions appear to have been perfectly legal and reasonable, they reflect the deeper problems with the system where a cute young lobbyist is a lot more likely to get the ear of a Senator than a dedicated balding gadfly.

Contrary to what most people think there is almost NO voting in direct exchange for political contributions. However contributions play a huge role in the process and certainly distort it, but much earlier on. How? Only people who have the support of a broad section of special interest groups that can fund them have much of a chance at political success. Lobbies and money come in to play before the election, when candidates are picked for their views. Powerful lobbies do not change votes with campaign contributions, rather they change the *candidates* into those more likely to vote for them. It's more subtle than buying votes and perfectly legal, but reflects the key problem with the system which is NOT personal corruptibility, rather it is marketing and finance driven politics.

What is the solution? Public funding hardly seems the answer, though better forms of free public information may be helpful. The internet is already helping to level the playing field such that information can be disseminated at a fraction of the cost of other media.

Nader Enters the Race

Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race, though his effect this time will be trivial as Nader last much of his support during the 2000 Presidential campaign when many feel his 5% of the popular vote effectively threw the race to George Bush in his win over Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote handily but Florida's razor-thin vote margin eventually was decided in Bush's favor, giving him the electoral votes and win.

Personally, I've lost most of the respect I had for Nader feeling that his economic philosophy is more anti-corporate than it is pro-people. Corporate abuses - even in the past when they were arguably more flagrant - pale in comparison to the disadvantages people face if they cannot participate in the big corporate economy that drives our world. Roadblocks of the type Nader favors that put legislation and regulation in the way of corporate progress hurt the poor, because they raise prices on products and make it much harder for companies to deliver goods and services effectively. There is a minor safety advantage but it's trumped in most cases by the cost disadvantages.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this - where safety is worth the cost to the corporation - but I don't think Nader advocates for intelligent ROI analysis. Rather, like many people who are mathematically challenged, he simply won't address the huge costs to society of regulatory structures that inhibit innovation and profit.

McCain's non-scandalous scandal

The John McCain lobbyist scandal seems to be dying down in light of the New York Times' failure to produce anything other than rumors of the appearance of impropriety combined with McCain's sharp denial of any romantic involvement or betrayal of the public trust.

Frankly, I think the story's somewhat foolish original intention was not to accuse McCain of illegal or immoral activity, rather to suggest that even McCain is not immune to the lure of the huge gray areas in political ethics. These are challenges McCain has talked about times both in regard to his involvement in the Keating S&L scandal and challenges with our process in general.

McCain's case is interesting because I'd suggest it is pretty clear what happened, but media speculation and frenzy simply cannot handle middle ground very well:

McCain had a friendship with lobby girl which was flirtatious but probably not scandalous - I doubt they slept together and may never have had any romance, though I'm guessing he technically lied saying "no romantic involvement".

Like other Senators, McCain participated in our crappy lobby system in legal ways.

Vicki Iseman's influence over McCain him was a notch above the normal due to the flirtatious and/or romantic overtones, but she did not *directly* ask for favors and he did not *directly* offer them. McCain is a man of honor and it would have been totally out of character for him to act otherwise.

Isemant did get more attention than average, but nothing that would approach illegal preferential treatment or breach any reasonable ethical standards other than the one that suggests our current and past lobbying systems are poor ways to do the people's business.

Note that decisions and clients are on the record, so where is the record of corruption here?

Appearance of impropriety here? Sure, but that's not enough.

American Politics: Shame on us all

While issues go largely ignored in the media we've got politics center stage pretty much 24/7 now as personal attacks go overreported, indiscretions are speculatively addressed, and pundits spend most of their energies on irrelevant analyses of the horserace.

Shame on the big media.

It would not bring as many viewers, but it would be helpful to have a thoughtful examination of the various policy platforms of all the major candidates. The debates to their credit often address these issues of subtance, but the big media generally fails to follow up on the details or the implications of these platform differences. It's not really their fault, rather it is ours, becausa we don't want the complicated truth - we want the simple sexy nonsense.

Shame on us!

Lot is at stake in Texas Primary, March 4th.

The March 4 Texas primary was not expected to be all that significant in the early stages of the Democratic primary process, but it is now clear that Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are close to "must win" states for Hillary Clinton. Clinton still leads the polls in all three although her Texas-sized lead in Texas has evaporated, leaving Obama and Clinton within a few percentage points in the Texas primary.

If Obama wins Texas it weakens Clinton's case even further that she is the best choice for the Democrat who can win in the general election. With most polls showing Obama as the stronger candidate against John McCain and many Democratics shifting from undecided to Obama, the Clinton Campaign arguably must sweep the 3 big states in a few weeks or start to prepare to conced the race to Obama.

Clinton to Obama: Kum-ba-ya dude, Kum-bay-ya

The Clinton Obama debate was almost as civil as the previous one, with the exception of a Clinton shot regarding Obama's use of one of his supporter's turn of phrase - a ridiculous accusation Clinton feebly tried to support only to be booed by the crowd. Yet Clinton also had the nights most appealing exchange where she called for party solidarity, expressed respect for Obama, and got the crowd to their feet.

Clearly, Democrats will be pleased with either of these candidates. What isn't clear is whether Obama might choose Clinton as VP if he wins. Clearly she'd be foolish not to choose him, creating a ticket that would likely be invincible against any McCain combination.

Huckabee's Hooters

MSNBC is reporting that Mike Huckabee's wife spent the night at Hooters Las Vegas after taking in some sort of boxing match or show. This is not news, but the headline was irresistable, and news worthiness hardly drives presidential politics. In fact one could argue that debates aside, the media has virtually no interest in issues - they are reporting the titillating nonsense that appeals to the prurient interests of our ill-informed American public. That would be you and me folks.

McCain Iseman New York Times .. Scandal...or not?

John McCain's candidacy may be threatened as what appears to be a fairly explosive revelation comes to light that he was romantically involved with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist who was representing companies that were affected by McCain legislation.

Details of the situation so far are not clear, though it seems more likely to me that the New York Times has left out unverified details than included spurious ones. That said, the story as written does not necessarily suggest anything other than bad judgement. I have seen nothing to suggest McCain treated Iseman's companies any differently, and in the game of power politics I think we tend to see corruption where it simply does not exist. Senators are hardly going to jeopardize their careers and reputations

Rush Limbaugh is absurdly suggesting this is some sort of left wing NYT conspiracy to endorse and then derail McCain. Limbaugh should have no credibility with anybody with an IQ above 70 - his snake oil politics and hypocrisy are so glaring it is a wonder anybody listens to his nonsense.

McCain and Vicki Iseman

A breaking story in the New York Times is suggesting that there may have been some form of inappropriate relationship between John McCain and a Lobbyist by the name of Vicki Iseman.

McCain's campaign seems to be handling this without denying the reports, rather suggesting that this is an inappropriate topic.

Based on the New York Times reports, McCain and Vicki Iseman developed a very comfortable relationship during her lobbying efforts several years ago. The Times suggests that McCain aids felt so strongly about the potential problems that they effectively broke up the two, who they feared were having a romantic relationship.

Unfortunately for Republicans, it is not going to be easy to gloss over this type of relationship given the powerful attacks against Bill Clinton for his many dalliances which led to Clinton misleading legal authorities and impeachment proceedings which failed to remove Clinton from office but created one of the great political crises in recent history.

Who is Vicki Iseman? See her bio here

Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii. TEN primaries in a row. Check please?

The Barack Obama juggernaut moves on with clear wins tonight in Wisconsin and Hawaii, leaving little doubt that Obama is the clear Frontrunner in the democratic race. Polls which only a month ago were strongly in Clinton's favor are evening up and the Wisconsin and Hawaii results are likely to keep the pressure on as young voters and *men* swell the Obama campaign ranks.

The male vote appears to be an important factor in the Clinton Obama race, where men appear to have concerns about a woman in charge. However I think a key factor that is now clear is simply that Obama proved himself viable as a Democratic candidate, and electable in the national race against the Republican contender. Democrats have been conflicted about Hillary Clinton for some time, and Obama appears to be their way "out" of that conflict.

All that said the

Pundits and Plagiarism: Shut UP!

As the USA enters an era of challenged prosperity, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, global responsibilities that are greater than at any other time in history, and many challenges here at home....

The pundits are talking about whether Barack Obama copied a few words from his friend in a speech.

This is *complete* nonsense and although I don't blame the Clinton campaign for cleverly misdirecting everybody into this absurd issue, I *totally* blame Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Chris Mathews, and more and more for buying into this absurdity. This absurdity simply should not make the news, but like other mildly contentious stupid points it trumps real issues - really the *only* thing these clowns should be reporting.

What is wrong with TV news people? They rarely choose to report anything but items of entertainment value and the horserace details. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear some intelligent discussion of policies? Is that too much to ask?

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.

On, Wisconsin!

Primary eyes are on Wisconsin this week as that "all American" state votes for the Democratic nominee. While McCain has only the finishing touches to put on his nomination, the Democratic race is very likely to go to convention, and the outcome there is not at all clear.

Obama has run a virtually flawless campaign, rising from near political obscurity to the be new national favorite and arguably the most likely winner of the big prize - the Presidency of the USA.

Presidential heir apparent Hilary Clinton is now locked in the tightest of races with Obama - a race that ultimately could hinge on how she manages issues such as inclusion of Florida and Michigan delegates, states banned by the Democratic national committee for holding early primaries, and superdelegates, most of whom remain uncommitted.

My take on superdelegates is that they will *not* necessarily help Clinton even though she currently has more of them pledged to her, though last week it was reported that she has lost 3 superdelegates during a time where Obama has won 13.

I think the most likely outcome at the convention is that many superdelegates will agree to support the person with the most popular votes and this will give that person a strong lead. Of course there could even be debate about who won the most votes as the Florida and Michigan voting legitimacy is debated.

Campaign Hiatus

It feels odd, but nice, not to hear the overwhelming and excessive coverage of the primaries for these few days between the last set of primaries and Wisconsin coming up in three days. Washington is voting as well but most of the delegates are distributed there via the caucusing which is completed already.



The superdelegate issue now takes front stage as it is extremely unlikely that either Obama or Clinton will go to the convention with enough votes to win. Many superdelegates appears to be holding off on committment, partly because they probably want to go with the winner, and partly because they are concerned about their own political reputations if they pick people that were not in favor in their own district or election territory. Superdelegates are about 20% of the total.



At this stage of the game it appears unlikely that we'll see superdelegates *overturn* the verdict of the popular vote. If Obama continues to perform in future primaries as he has in the last 8 primaries, his vote and delegate totals would be high enough to make if very hard for Clinton to convince superdelegates to vote for her as well as hard to justify a superdelegate win. A more likely scenario however is that Clinton will win in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, making the total delegate count *so close* that the party will need to do some soul searching to determine how to avoid contention at the Democratic convention.

Democratic Superdelegates

It's now very clear that Clinton Obama is likely to go to a convention for decision, perhaps making superdelegate voting the key to the nomination. CNN reported this morning that without *huge* winning margins for one candidate, neither can clinch this nomination without superdelegate votes.

So, how will this shake out? I'm guessing most of the superdelegates are waiting to jump on board with the winner of the popular voting, which may be just as well. If the "popular" nomination is overturned by insiders many will be angry, though I continue to think the most likely scenario is Clinton/Obama, a combination that may be dictated at the party level during the convention.

Delegates

McCain has all but sewn up the nomination, even before his impressive win in Virginia that should prove Mike Huckabee is simply not viable as any threat to the McCain Campaign. In fact the best strategy for Huckabee now is to suck up to McCain in the hopes of a VP nomination that is less likely to be forthcoming if he simply gums up the works and makes McCain look bad. That said, he's clearly hoping to have some leverage at the convention with enough delegates to be able to secure a VP spot. This appears less likely after yesterday's loss in Virginia.

What about Ron Paul? Arguably the most passionate and articulate spokesperson of the values Republicans claim to hold dear remains in the race, but with too little support to make much of a difference. His internet popularity was very interesting but failed to turn his campaign into the powerful force that Huckabee's became. I think Paul actually had more money initially than Huckabee and may still be pulling in more donations.