John McCain is now the official and undisputed GOP nominee as he has enough delegates to win the convention and Mike Huckabee has bowed out.
Many pundits are foolishly suggesting that the Clinton Obama race is helping McCain. That race is still tight after Clinton victories tonight in Ohio and Texas and will almost surely go to the convention. However the Dems should be thrilled with this result - media attention has been squarely focused on Obama and Clinton for months and this will continue. McCain will be almost a news afterthought until the Democratic nominee is decided, so regardless of whether the Dems choose Obama or Clinton at the Convention the free publicity from an ongoing race is - almost literally - priceless as it places these two squarely in the minds of the undecided and apathetic voters who ultimately make the decisions in American politics - decisions based largely on name recognition, negative campaigning, and other trivialities.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Clinton Wins Texas
Exit polling is so close that they are not calling Texas for Clinton yet, but she's likely to win given the current totals which have Clinton up by about 2%. Exit polling is closer:
Exit polling shows this:
Male (43%) Clinton: 46% Obama: 52%
Female (57%) 53% Obama: 46%
Note even before the math that since there are more women voting than men and Clinton is winning with women more than Obama with men she's probably got it barring glaring exit poll errors.
The maths suggest the final tally is this:
Clinton: .43 x .46 + .57 x .53 = 49.9%
Obama: .43 x .52 + .57 x .46 = 48.58 %
OK, this is *so close* I can see why they are not calling it for Clinton. But President Picker is not so cautious, because we are a blog and have far lower journalistic standards than, say, Fox news. Wait .... let me rephrase that...
Exit polling shows this:
Male (43%) Clinton: 46% Obama: 52%
Female (57%) 53% Obama: 46%
Note even before the math that since there are more women voting than men and Clinton is winning with women more than Obama with men she's probably got it barring glaring exit poll errors.
The maths suggest the final tally is this:
Clinton: .43 x .46 + .57 x .53 = 49.9%
Obama: .43 x .52 + .57 x .46 = 48.58 %
OK, this is *so close* I can see why they are not calling it for Clinton. But President Picker is not so cautious, because we are a blog and have far lower journalistic standards than, say, Fox news. Wait .... let me rephrase that...
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.
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.
It's mini-Super-Tuesday - have you won yet?
With Texas and Ohio on the line John McCain may lock up his nomination today, and certainly is well on the way to the Republican Nomination. A recent BBQ at his house had McCain sizing up some potential running mates, though it's not at all clear who he'll choose. Although Huckabee may be appealing to the right wing of the party it's not clear McCain would gain a lot of votes with Huckabee because conservatives are either going to vote McCain or sit out this election. A more likely strategy than to go for conservatives is probably to shift to the center and try to play the "liberal" card against the Democrats, painting Obama or Clinton as far left. This strategy worked very well for Richard Nixon vs George McGovern and to a lesser extent in Bush v Kerry in 2004, where the Democrats were painted as "unpatriotic" despite the fact both had served in active military where the opponent had not.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Marc Andreessen on Barack Obama
Internet legend and pioneer Marc Andreessen has some detailed and interesting observations about Barack Obama, who Marc, his wife, and a friend met with at some length a year or so ago.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html
As he notes himself Marc is not necessarily a political expert, though I don't think anybody can really hold that title. Andreessen is, without doubt, an extremely sharp and influential technology guy so his effective endorsement of Obama is yet another feather in Obama's cap, with tomorrow's Texas and Ohio outcomes looking like they may effectively be the *national* outcome.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html
As he notes himself Marc is not necessarily a political expert, though I don't think anybody can really hold that title. Andreessen is, without doubt, an extremely sharp and influential technology guy so his effective endorsement of Obama is yet another feather in Obama's cap, with tomorrow's Texas and Ohio outcomes looking like they may effectively be the *national* outcome.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
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).
Saturday, March 01, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, February 22, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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.
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.
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
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
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)