Setting the primary aside for a moment...

McCain has proven time and again how little he understands about Iraq, it's structure, it's people, and our involvement in being there.

The RNC is suing the DNC (or whatever their respective titles are) over the ad showing McCain stating he is fine with America being in Iraq for 100 years.  The Repugs claim it is misrepresenting what he said because he was talking about being their peacefully.

Josh has a nice video on the front page of McCain explaining the comment.  In it he states 100 years, 1000 years, 1 million years.  He then says, that it is not the American presence that bothers people, but rather American casualties.  Well obviously the problem really is American casualties (though the MSM has suddenly stopped reporting on them), and like Vietnam, they aren't going to go away.

McCain then says we have a presence in Kuwait, Japan, South Korea and Germany.  Now, my question to Senator McCain is (are you listening John?):

Since our military action phase ended, victory was declared, and our occupation/presence began in each of those countries, how many American soldiers have been killed in each of those countries?  Same question for Iraq?

Respectfully,
B.Dub

Follow up question to Senator McCain:
Could you please break down the American casualties into those killed by Sunni Muslims and those killed by Shiite Muslims?  Open book, please feel free to use Wikipedia or Joe Lieberman for references as necessary.

Howard Dean and a lot of Obama supporters have been calling for this to 'end' sooner rather than later, but perhaps in the end, it will turn out that the prolonged primary really has been good for Obama.

Here's my thoughts...

1.  One thing that keeps coming up by the pundits in the MSM (why I watch CNN on primary nights, I have no idea) is that Obama is a new comer, unknown to voters.  Well, the prolonged primary has allowed him to get a jump start on power campaigning in 50 states.  All 50 states are getting to know him, and that will help him in November.  He is still packing in the crowds in each state he goes to because the race is ongoing.  It will serve him well when he re-visits leading up to November.

2.  He's now been vetted.  I think Hillary has thrown every she's got (and that the republicans are likely to have) at him and he has come out looking stronger each time.  I think he will stand up to the Republican attack machine better for having dealt with it early.  So, perhaps Hillary is right, and she is doing him a favor by vetting him now.  Had this ended after OH/TX, the vetting wouldn't have happened, and for Wright to break for the first time in September / October would have been much worse.

3.  He has established an amazing grassroots / internet / blogosphere campaign machine.  As with the 50 state benefit above, he is continuing to grow the huge grassroots movement, heading for 1,500,000 donors in this primary.  Had it ended early, it would actually be smaller going into November.

So, as much as I am an Obama supporter, and as much as I would like to see him as the nominee now (we are so into instant gratification, aren't we), perhaps the best course for November is for the campaigns to go into June and Obama to win it after having the opportunity to present himself in and campaign in all the states.

In a previous post, I commented on how Utah voted in the primaries, and how exit polls showed Obama would beat Huckabee, and could be competitive against McCain/Huckabee.

Now, Utah is one of the most Republican states in the union, and it is a long shot to believe that Obama would actually win Utah's few delegates in November.  NB, it would be impossible for Clinton.  However, Obama's impact is being felt here and democrats do stand to gain and make Utah more "purple" if Obama is the nominee.

The down-ticket positive effect of Obama as the nominee would go a long way to helping Democrats in Utah win over state legislature seats.  In my very district, the "Obama effect" has encourage the best democratic candidate we have ever had for state legislature and he may very well unseat the Republican incumbent.

This effect is also being felt at the top level in Utah.  One of our non-publicly elected super delegates had committed for Clinton in October, and now is sitting on the fence.  Officially in the Clinton column, she may very well vote for Obama.

Here is a great story from NPR discussing it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89408886

Hillary has always included Utah in the states a democrat will never win.  It pains me every time she says that.  With her approach it's true.  With Obama's approach it isn't.  We need Obama for the good of the whole party!

To Hillary supporters, please realize that Hillary's approach to marginalize "red" states has a very negative impact and is damaging to the party both nationally and locally.  Obama's inclusive approach will help to capture not only the Presidency, but also Senate seats, House seats, and improve Democratic positions in State and local governments.

Per  CNN:

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she
would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in
the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.”

So, Senator Clinton, if you believe that Democrats should not vote for McCain in November, then PLEASE,

1.  Stop claiming only you and McCain have passed some imaginary CiC threshold.

2.  Denounce and reject Bill's assertion that only you and McCain are patriotic Americans

3.  Realize that you cannot win the pledged delegate count, and blackmailing the Speaker of the House isn't going to work or win over positive public opinion.

Senator Clinton, if you want to "make a wise decision for yourself and your country" and to see a Democrat win the election in November, then PLEASE,

Step aside and concede the election, endorse Senator Obama, and then work to encourage your "intense" supporters to also endorse and support Senator Obama.

This is how you can accomplish your stated goal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html

Senator Bayh suggested today that the superdelegates will choose to back Senator Clinton because she leads in an imaginary "Electoral College" count of the state she has won compared to Senator Obama.

I realize the Clinton campaign is running out of positive material to spin, but the logic in this one seems so flawed.  The logic is very similar to the "big states" argument.  That being that because Senator Clinton won the big states like NY and CA that she is a better candidate than Senator Obama. 

The thing the Clinton campaign refuses to acknowledge is that this is a primary and not the general election.  These big states will almost certainly vote democratic in November whichever of the two is on the ballot. 

The Democratic candidate isn't running against a Democrat in November, he or she is running against a Republican.

The longer the Clinton camp keeps pushing and spinning these flawed arguments, the worse it looks.  Now, it doesn't make Senator Clinton look worse, she's doing the best she can to ensure that on he own.  But, it is starting to put some of her prominent supporters in awkward positions.

Gov. Rendell has already had to backtrack and declare he will deliver PA for Obama if he is the candidate.  Yes, he will spin, but he isn't stupid.  This recent comment by Senator Bayh makes him look like he is disregarding his intellect to spin and it won't help his credibility or reputation.

At what point will state and nationally elected Clinton supporters wake up and smell the coffee and realize that they are hurting themselves with this almost humorous spin?

Recently, Nancy Pelosi commented that the winner of the pledged delegate count should win the democratic nomination and disregarded the popular vote totals.  Others have commented on how flawed the popular vote total is because it has no way to include those who vote in caucus states.   The other significant problem is that it doesn't accurately reflect the will of Americans, specifically democrats in who they would like as their candidate.

The Boston Globe yesterday ran this article on Republicans voting in Democratic primaries:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Things to note from this article:

1.  In Texas, exit polls showed that 119,000 Republicans voted for Clinton but fully intend to vote for McCain in November.  Clinton won the Texas primary by almost exactly 100,000 votes.  Remove the Limbaugh effect and Obama actually wins the Texas primary.

2.  In Ohio, Clinton received 100,000 votes by Republican loyalists.  Now Clinton would have still won Ohio, but it would have been by a much narrower margin.

3.  In Mississippi, Clinton received 38,000 Republican loyalist votes, which made the blowout look smaller than it was.  As most of these were white voters, it also skewed the vote to look more racially divided than it really was.

So, in total there have been 257,000 votes for Clinton by Republican loyalists which will be votes against the Democratic candidate in November.  This makes the argument that the popular vote should count in determining the way the superdelegates should vote an absurd one.  Take these votes out of the "total" and the popular vote is no longer even close.

The take home point is one that hopefully the superdelegates have noticed.  Hillary Clinton's new best friends are John McCain and the Republican loyalists.  When the these are the best friends of a Democratic candidate, it is time for that candidate to be done.

Utah is a deep red state that finds itself in an interesting situation this year that relates to so many parts of this primary election as it has played out.

Some demographic background about Utah may be helpful.  Utah is a mostly white state, with the largest minority being the hispanic population at about 10%.  The African American population makes up less than 2% of the total population.  Religiously the state is 61% LDS (Mormon).

In the Utah primary this year, Senator Obama won convincingly over Senator Clinton on Super Tuesday (57-39%).  Of course, Utah is a good example of where Gerry Ferraro is completely wrong.  Utah did not vote for Senator Obama because he is black, Utah voted for him because of his message and his vision.  People believe in him.

What makes the Democratic contest even more interesting is what happened in the Republican contest.  Remember, Hillary has repeatedly used Utah as an example of a "red" state that has absolutely no chance of voting Democratic in November.

The thing to remember is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and a real darling to Utahns.  On Super Tuesday, Mitt scored 90% of the Utah Republican vote to McCain's 5%, and note Huckabee's 2%.  Utahns, Mormons, and Utah Mormons in particular have felt that McCain wronged Romney during the campaign, and that Huckabee ran against Romney on a flatly anti-Mormon stance.  Real or not, that is definitely how it was perceived here.

So, what does this all mean.  There were interesting exit polls taken in Utah on Super Tuesday.  They showed that if the contest was between McCain and Clinton, McCain won by a wide margin.  If between McCain and Obama, McCain still won, but by a fairly narrow margin.  And, if it was Huckabee vs. Obama that Obama would win Utah.  This is due to the very positive view Utahs have of Obama, and the very negative one they have of Huckabee.  Even with this however, in this same exit poll, Huckabee beat Clinton.

So, now that McCain has the nomination, for Utah voters it will depend somewhat on who he picks as a VP.  If Romney, then Utah will stay overwhelmingly red.  If however, McCain picks Huckabee to woo the southern conservatives, Utah may actually be in play for Obama.  Under no circumstances is it in play for Clinton.