The conspiracy theorist in me wants there to be some angle here, as to why McCain is playing chicken with the debate. Of course, I know Occam's Razor demands that we just assume that this is not the politics of distraction, but the politics of "Hey! Look over there!" But here's the best I can come up with. Maybe this is the biggest debate-expectations-setting stunt in the history of debate-expectations-setting. Because of course, he's all up in Washington, y'know, screwing up the bailout negotiations. He can't possibly prepare for a debate. Sure, at the last minute, he'll decide that, you know, since Obama insisted and all, he'll fly to Mississippi and do what he can with just his straight talk(tm)ing self, while Obama and his fancy Harvard education who has been rehearsing or whatever it is that these elitists do...you see where this is going. Meaning, because he swoops in to save the debate (after saving the economy), as long as he avoids drooling on himself visibly, he wins the debate (Of course, him not drooling is only at 53.6% on Intrade).

This is just a theory, and possibly not a very interesting one, so indulge me for a moment.

If you haven't heard, the right is all in a tizzy about Obama speaking about his great-uncle liberating Auschwitz, when in fact it was the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz.

The Obama campaign quickly (too quickly?) corrected the record that he meant Buchenwald. They further elaborated with a thrown together history lesson on the liberation of the camps at Buchenwald and what unit, etc. Obama's great-uncle was in.

The speed at which they did this made me think...maybe he botched the name on purpose, because now what is the story? Not "Obama lies about family's service" as the right would have it be, but now we're talking about a member of Obama's family serving in the military. Seems to me the best way to combat the "secret Muslim" excrement would be to highlight his family, and their story. So my money is on it being a plant. Anyone who remembers 12th grade History knows the Red Army liberated Auschwitz. So the demonstrably false claim (which is quickly corrected, because the story is the same, only the name of the camp is different) can be an effective tool.

Speaking of effective tools, then consider the demostrably false claim that Bill Clinton didn't wrap up the nomination until June. I remember Bill standing on stage at the Hyatt (Hilton? I can never remember) in Chicago with confetti falling around him. The Illinois primary (which, to my recollection happened on St. Patrick's Day, maybe the day after didn't actually put him over the top, but it gave him momentum that he never lost.  Most sources put his clinching of the nomination in April or so.

Why mention that one? Because, ignoring for the moment the shameful reference to RFK's assassination, I think it was another intentional misspeak. On one level, the Clinton's still believe in the pre-internet, pre-YouTube world where a fact that skirts credulity is more likely to be believed than the one where  we can easily see things like Hillary strolling down a tarmac in Tuzla. But also, wasn't it cool to go back, even if only briefly, to a time when you were rooting for Bill and Hillary Clinton to overcome the odds and get to the White House? To remember the time when "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow" was the coolest song around, because oh my god, the president is young enough to like rock music!

Referencing the 90s is tricky, because we're more likely to remember the blue dress and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the finger wagging "I did not have sexual relations..." blah blah blah, ugh. But by finding that sweet spot, the 1992 campaign, where we all believed in the Man From Hope, she almost pulled it off and let us remember a different time. Where she messed up was by includin the RFK reference and the word "assassinated."

Another lost opportunity for her, another gained one for him. Look for more of the intentional misspeak, coming soon to a campaign near you.


(hey, if you like the post, please feed my meager ego and recommend. I could use it.)

But t

...but I do. I'm watching Countdown last night, and I see the segemnt where they chide Obama's campaign a little bit about the Politico interview where Axelrod (or "a key staffer") went with the "she'll do anything to win" theme. Bad timing, not a productive meme right now, etc. etc. except I'm not paying attention, because on the B-roll (for those not privy to arcane TV terms...that's the footage they run of the subject of the story while they talk over it, mainly so the show isn't just two talking heads all the time) I see Clinton giving her remarks this morning...and there's a black dude behind her.

I'm sure that was a prominent local official , or the host that introduced her, or there was some reasonable reason that this guy is standing behind her, framed within the shot the whole time. But I couldn't help but think of Clinton, riding to the event, asking her advance people "hey, today's Obama's race speech, right? Do we have a black guy that can stand behind me today?" 

Again, I hate that I think that. I liked Clinton, I really did. Thought that a lot of the attacks on her in the 90s were ridiculous. But the last 10 weeks, all the labels..calculating..willing to destroy the party to win...triangulating...they all seem to fit. 

After all, you've got one candidate who went big yesterday, took the game to another level. Attempted to singlehandedly raise the level of debate not just among Democrats, but the whole country. And her response (at least my pereception of her response)? Make sure there's some brown skin in my shot today, too.

I'm sure it  

This might be outside theconventional wisdom, but Obama should push as hard as he can for re-votes in MI and FL.

I've come around 180 degrees on this. Previously I thought that having revotes would be changing the rules in the middle of the game (it still might be), but the practical considerations make it the right call.

Two reasons...the first is the math. Obviously, he'll do well in MI, the latest poll I saw was a tie. History has shown that Obama does 5-10% better from inital polls to  actual results, so let's call that one a 53-47 win for him. By the same logic, Florida becomes a 55-45 loss. The delegates are likely to cancel each other out, which is to his favor since he still has a lead (think of golf match play. If you're two holes up with five to play, a tie on the next hole is almost as good as a win, becuase time's running out on your opponent).

The other reason is the "moral claim" to the SuperDs. Part of the argument is that Obama can't win the big states. If he wins MI, that argument (which is garbage anyway) is gone.

But here's the thing...Clinton doesn't want re-votes. No really, she doesn't, no matter what she may say, because then she loses the issue. If the results go as expected, then that's one less state she can trumpet. But more importantly, they aren't wildcards anymore, floating around in the ether as these unknown quantities. They're just two more states. Her argument right now looks something like this: 1.  I won the big states (which becomes "more big states" rather than "all the big states except Obama's home state"), and 2. I really won these delegates that I've been cheated of...

And that's the rub. Her campaign has thrived on the slights, perceived and real, of things like this. First it was "the mean boys are ganging up on me in debates," then it was mean Obama saying "you're likable enough" and then it was mean Chris Matthews and  David Shuster, and then it was mean Howard Dean taking away two of my states... 

So Obama's option here is easy: push hard for the re-vote, offer to pay for it even, and when suddenly Senator Clinton's campaign isn't so enthusiastic about it, point out why that might be.