Any honest analysis of the election takes into account that the candidates act and react as the situation changes. Primary elections are fluid and dynamic. As a Californian, I am certain that Senator Obama would have done much better if our primary was not held on Super Tuesday, or if John Edwards had dropped out a week earlier. He chose to limit his campaign in this state and fight for delegates elsewhere, presumably in less expensive media markets.

Hillary Clinton won California with a large popular vote total and a moderate advantage in delegates. Barack Obama, however, won the most delegates on Super Tuesday. The rules and schedule dictated the strategy. IMHO, Obama waged a wiser campaign under the agreed-upon rules.

Current polling shows Obama has significantly more support in California than Hillary Clinton. All this retrospective MI and FL hogwash ignores the simple fact: the candidates waged their campaigns according to the rules and the schedule that were set before them. Different rules or different schedules would have meant different strategies.

For the past month, with the knowledge that his lead in delegates is virtually insurmountable, Barack Obama has brushed off most of the Clinton campaign’s attacks and focused his attention on John McCain. Undoubtedly, he could have spent more time in WV and KY and kept her popular vote numbers down. He chose to concentrate on building a general election campaign and has started visiting battleground states such as NV, MI and FL. If the popular vote were all-important, he would be waging a different campaign.

I feel this is obvious, but I get so angry at the goalpost moving that sometimes I need to restate the obvious.

Dick Cheney, thrill seeker.  There is no way a man with multiple heart surgeries should be taking these types of chances.  It seems that Cheney saw something interesting while fly fishing.  No word on whether he caught anything while on the fishing trip.  Hopefully, he left his gun at home.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7363634&ch=4226716&src=news

The "God da*n America" sermon isn't quite the offense I thought at first.  When seeing 10 seconds of it on endless repeat, it is offensive.  When seeing this clip, it is well within theological and historical bounds.  This sermon is much more complex and historical than presented on the cable news providers.  See for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw

Put another way: Is Fox News and the conservative commentariat really defending slavery, internment camps, reservations, etc?  We report, you decide.

I've noticed in several website comment threads that folks are having a fun time mocking John McCain for his age.  I expect it will continue and it's tempting to join in. We can have fun with "McThuselah" jokes up to a certain point without a problem.  But I'll play the part of the scold and make a prediction: nasty age-related comments will be used in an attempt to neutralize racist comments against Barack Obama. "How can you get upset about (insert racist statement here) while saying (insert ageist statement here)?  It's harder to notice age-based discrimination and  harassment than it is to notice race-based discrimination and harassment.  After all, we all get older, right?

Discrimination and abuse against the elderly is a real and under-reported problem in our society.  Most older Americans can take a light-hearted jab without a problem; there's no need for over-sensitive "political correctness."  But as the intensity of the campaign shifts from Obama/Clinton to Obama/McCain, I'm making a plea to be careful with what you say.  Anger against McCain and his policies: yes.  Anger against McCain and his age: no. 

Age may become an electoral landmine.  Older Americans aren't the heaviest internet users, but they are the most likely demographic to vote.  And every vote counts.  Be careful out there.

It is interesting that the candidate that most emulates the Bill Clinton '92 campaign style is not Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama.  Directly confronting the uncomfortable realities of American racism, this was the '08 campaigns' Sistah Souljah moment.  Just as Bill Clinton used the offensive words of an obscure rapper to demonstrate his ability to cross the racial divide, Barack Obama has used the offensive words of his own pastor to establish himself as a leader for Americans of all races.

Obama's speech addressed racism in a way that confronts and elevates all Americans.  With honesty and passion, he spoke his truth and his story to America.  Now we await America's response. 

Crooks and Liars has a much more detailed, well written version of the thoughts I was trying to convey in my previous post.  Give it a read and pass it on.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/16/remembering-another-jeremiah/#more-27328

Here's a contrarian view on the flap over the comments by Barack Obama's minister.  Rev. Wright, in full fury, said, "God da*n America" in a fiery sermon.  All good Democrats ran scurrying for cover, including Senator Obama.  The Republican spin machine, without even trying, went effortlessly into faux outrage mode.

And America yawned.

Americans go to church and Americans have heard passionate preaching since, well, the beginning of America.  For the past two decades, the outrage, the prophetic voice of the American church, has been from the right.  The Moral Majority, Promisekeepers, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and thousands of associated ministries have pounded the message that America is in danger of suffering for its sins.  Remember the instant reaction to 9/11 from many ministers was that God was giving the U.S. its' due. 

The message from the right, while not as direct as Rev. Wright's statement, is not much different.  Primarily because of abortion and gay rights, God's judgement is coming upon this country.  AKA God da*n America.

The prophetic voice of the church has taken a left turn in the past few year.  Primarily because of concern over the environment, but also due to poverty, genocide, third world development and (still) civil rights concerns, the liberal church is capturing the ear of America.  Even the Southern Baptist Convention is engaged in dialogue.

Don't hear me wrong; Rev. Wright crossed a line and his intemperate remarks could not be ignored by Senator Obama.  But the anger from the left that used to be a cardinal sin is now a simply a venial sin.  The reason for this is simple:  Americans understand Rev. Wrights' viewpoint and increasingly agree with it. 

Here's a half-formed thought about the intensity of the current state of the Democratic campaign. One of the root causes of the Clinton/Obama divide springs from the different reactions to the Florida 2000 constitutional crisis.

There were a variety of responses to the events that led to the inauguration of President Bush, but I believe there were two main reactions among Democrats. (Of course this is a simplified, generalized opinion, and these two reactions are not mutually exclusive.) I hope my theory may improve the dialog and explain things from a new perspective.

The first reaction to FL 2000 was to counter-attack, to get into the ring with the Republicans and fight it out blow by blow. Don't be afraid to get dirty, because politics is about winning and losing. We lost in Florida because we did not fight hard enough and ruthless enough. The Roves of the world only respect one thing: political power. This constituency is drawn to Hillary Clinton and her dogged pursuit of the presidency. Her willingness to skirt the edges of Democratic campaign etiquette are a feature, not a bug. Hillary Clinton will not be swift-boated like John Kerry in 04. The Republicans will throw the kitchen sink; Democrats better be able to do the same. The shifting rationales for counting delegate votes shows that the Clinton campaign will do whatever it takes to win. Again, that's a feature, not a bug.

The second reaction was more ephemeral, but no less intense. Civic institutions need to be rebuilt. The principle of one person, one vote is paramount. We lost in Florida because political gamesmanship became more important than the first principles of our democracy. It is just as important to rebuild our democracy as it is to gain political power. Maintaining our own dignity and respecting honest opposition are key virtues to winning a new liberal majority. Rising above the will to power and earn the trust of a new American coalition is the way to gain victory. There are enough independents and open-minded (or disgusted) Republicans to create a new majority. This partially explains the 04 Dean phenomenon and is represented clearly in Barack Obama.

The campaign styles show the values important to the candidates. True, the debate over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations is flaring up because of the closeness of the race and few people anticipated the controversy. I believe that the two reactions to FL 2000 explain to some degree the reasons the debate has developed in this matter.

Campaigns are funny.  Millions of people line up to support a candidate running a positive, inspirational campaign and then urge him to go negative once a (minor) rough patch is hit.  Obama supporters--the reason you were attracted to this candidate is that he can win with honor and integrity.  He can help improve the nation's civil discourse while helping down-ticket Democrats win elections as well.  Stay with the script.

The Clinton kitchen sink-style attack is not sustainable.  It is an indicator of a flailing campaign and it happens in most elections.  It is the very definition of "old style" Bush-Clinton politics and it does not attract new voters or independents.  The blowback is already forming.  Attacking, desperate politicians almost always go too far in their attacks and have to face the blowback. 

Barack Obama needs to continue to campaign in his own voice.  He will win if he maintains his integrity.

Is Senator Clinton really so afraid of being called a monster?  If so, she should pull out of the race, she's not ready to be commander-in-chief on day one.

More of the same contrived Washington controversy mongering.  A slip of the tongue followed by an apology.  End of story.

Unless you're afraid of monsters.

This evening reminds me of Super Tuesday, when the huge Clinton lead that was going to end the contest evaporated and Obama won about half the delegates.  Today, Obama hit the Clinton firewall and will apparently win half the delegates. 

No matter what they say on the cable networks, the delegate numbers didn't change much and there isn't much time left on the clock. 

Wyoming and Mississippi become the new firewall states in the campaign. 

This Democratic campaign has, by historical standards, been somewhat of a tea party.  The arguments have been mostly measured and civil.  That dynamic is about to change.  The kitchen sink approach seems to have produced some results for Senator Clinton, look for her to continue to throw a multitude of charges.  The dynamic that will change is that Senator Obama will likely need to respond with a more direct counter attack.  While at the candidate level, things should stay fairly civil, look for Obama supporters to go negative if Clinton stays in the race.

(WARNING: GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD) I've noticed that the level of vitriol from Clinton supporters has gone through the roof lately.  The campaign's kitchen sink approach apparently signalled to Clinton supporters that they should not hold back.  The attacks on Obama and his supporters have intensified.  Often Obama supporters have been annoying in their support, focusing on counting the chickens of victory (before they've hatched) rather than attacking candidate Clinton personally.  If they start to get nervous, look for more aggressive attacks.

Their is plenty of Clinton baggage that has not been unpacked.  If the Obama camp and his supporters start to feel threatened, that baggage will soon be on display.  Yes, the Republicans would let it all fly anyway, but it's different when the criticism comes from the same party.  It would be better for the Democratic party if that didn't happen, so I hope I'm wrong.

Well, I'm thirsty now, time to drink more kool-aid.

As a long-time lurker on liberal sites, I'm going to take the jump and make my predictions public.  My previous claim to fame was my December prediction that McCain will shoot the gap and win the Republican primary by taking advantage of the splintered GOP.  But I never imagined he would have such an easy time of it! 

This is the most interesting Democratic primary since the 80s.  My Tuesday predictions:
TX  Obama by 6%.
OH Clinton by 2%
RI  Clinton by 5%
VT Obama by 15%.

Senator Obama will win a slight plurality of Tuesday delegates. 

The race will continue for at least another week. 

Full disclosure: I voted for Obama.  Clinton was my third choice until Edwards dropped out.  I kind of like Hillary personally but she has surrounded herself with a wretched political team and I'm suffering from a mild case of Clinton fatigue.  I believe Obama has the possibility of leading the way to a Democratic wave this fall.