It looks like French President Nicolas Sarkozy is likely to win a second term. This isn't really because he's a great president, the French don't even think he's a good president but he's still better than the alternative:

Barring scandal or economic collapse, he seems likely to win. The forecast is premature, but it can be made because he faces no real opposition and he wields direct or indirect power over much of the media.

The Socialists, who ruled for much of the 1980s and 90s, have sunk into a coma. Despite Sarkozy's poor ratings, the polls show that the majority do not believe that the leftwing party would do a better job at running the country. According to Bernard Henri-Lévy, the grandee penseur, the party is already dead. Manuel Valls, one of its young Turks, wants to change its name. The party's most plausible présidentiable is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a baron whom Sarkozy deftly exiled to Washington as head of the International Monetary Fund. Sarkozy's recruitment of leftwing luminaries to his government may turn out to have been the coup de grace for the Socialists.

Too bad Manuel Valls was caught on tape talking about how the city of Évry didn't have enough white people.

Anyway, this is interesting and lately the state of the G.O.P. has largely been forgotten with healthcare taking a front and center stage. I wonder if the reverse is what's happening here. Even if President Obama fails in healthcare is the G.O.P. in a mess similar to the leftwing in France? Probably. Obama fails on healthcare the G.O.P. still has an abyssmal record and Obama couldn't do what FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter and Clinton couldn't do. That still doesn't look so bad.

Also, isn't it interesting that one of the most viable Republican candidates for president was promptly incorporated into the Obama Administraton like Strauss-Kahn and shipped off to China? Presidential minds may think alike sometimes.

I'm with this anonymous source in Chris Cilizza's Morning Fix post today. The Specter townhall debate that's been floating along the airwaves is great news for Specter. By taking heat from the protesters Specter looks like a Democrat (which is really important for his reelection campaign). It's not something Joe Sestak wants but instead of going critical Sestak could go positive and spin it in his favor. According to the source:

One Democratic consultant not affiliated with either candidate said that Sestak's silence regarding Specter's raucous town hall could undermine that argument, however.

"I think Sestak could've shown he is putting party ahead of politics by somehow coming to Specter's defense," said the source who has worked extensively in the state. "It seemed like a good opportunity to reinforce the Sestak message that he's for party and principle ahead of personal gain."

But Sestak didn't do that. Instead he responded in a watereddown email:

Dear Ds4,

I am a public servant. I work for the people of my District, and after next year's election look forward to working for the people of Pennsylvania.

I cherish Town Halls, I really do -- it's the fullest expression of our democracy at work. I hosted a Town Hall on health care reform in my District the day after the Congressional recess began, and another last night in Philadelphia.

This upcoming election really is about change ... about putting principle over politics and a reminder that public service is a noble cause ... in the service of others.

I disagree with Arlen Specter's statement at his Lebanon, PA Town Hall on health care reform, when he said "I could be somewhere else. I don't get any extra pay. I don't have any requirement to be here".

We do have a responsibility "to be here" ... for others, not ourselves, which is why Pennsylvania needs a change. Please support that change.

Please contribute now: Contribute

Warmly,

Joe Sestak

P.S. Please continue to spread the word about our growing campaign by forwarding this e-mail onto your family and friends asking them to get involved by making a contribution to bring needed change to Pennsylvania.

Weak sauce.

I think these are particularly strange results, no?

According to Rasmussen, "Among voters who favor the congressional health care plan, Specter leads 55% to 26%. However, among those who oppose the plan, Sestak leads 61% to 25%." It's unclear how this divide emerged, but since support for reform among Democrats in the state is around 70 percent, don't be surprised if you see both candidates try to stake out the reformer position on health care.

Strange because Sestak and Specter both support a public option (although I'm skeptical of whether Specter really supports it but for the moment lets take things at face value). My best guess is that these days Specter is perceived as a Washington-insider since he has the support of the White House and Sestak's rebellious campaign implies to some that he's radical in his policies and doesn't fall lock step with the regular White House Democratic circle. Or maybe it's just a bad poll.
Of course, the truth makes this all rather ironic since Specter is the real radical and Sestak is more the Obama Administration darling but I suppose it's ironic too that in this situation the White House is supporting Specter.

This morning Chris Cilizza had a run-down of the Sestak-Specter Pennsylvania primary. Most of his points were sound with this exception:

* Black Vote: Roughly 11 percent of Pennsylvanians are African-Americans but blacks are a larger and more influential segment of the vote in a Democratic primary. With Philadelphia and its suburbs one of the crucial battleground between Specter and Sestak, whoever is able to make a more compelling case to black voters living in the city should have a leg up. Specter's past affiliation with the GOP won't be helpful to him but the prominent support of the nation's first black president should go along way to countering those negative effects. Sestak, as a Member of Congress, has spent little time courting the black community and must move quickly on that front.

I think that's unfair. The black vote isn't lock step in line with Obama. They like Obama --they like him a lot-- but that doesn't mean they'll follow his every bidding where voting for other politicians are concerned. Frankly assuming otherwise strikes me as more than a little condescending. And I'm not totally convinced that President Obama really wants Specter to win. Officially he does but really? I haven't seen the White House break its back to promote Arlen Specter's campaign. 

Beyond that though, why should blacks trust Arlen Specter? I mean if we're going to stand by crude, overarching logic then blacks aren't likely to vote for an ex-Republican recently turned Democrat who can't really be trusted on a whole bunch of issues that affect the black community.

I think the Cilizza got his migration patterns wrong here. There is a racial element involved. Blacks are more likely to vote for a trustworthy democrat if he's black but there's no such viable candidate between Specter and Sestak thus it's a bit harder to predict which way the black community will go.

John McCain, douche to no end. 

Earlier today Eric Kleefield reported that Arlen Specter has been "consistent" on his stance on EFCA even though...he hasn't, as Kleefield explains. Well, for now, Specter can keep saying he's been consistent on his stance and keep saying he supports EFCA (sans card check which almost totally relinquishes the point of the bill) because the bill isn't going anywhere for a while. So he can keep saying he's a big EFCA fan without actually proving it. That's just Arlen's style. 

Arlen Specter:

"There's nothing wrong with a little ethnic pride."

Ummmm...

So here's the breakdown for the Obama-Gates-Crowley happy hour:

Obama: Budweiser
Crowley: Blue Moon
Gates: Red Stripe or Beck's

I'm partial to Blue Moon myself. It's a well balanced Belgian beer (always go with the Belgian beers). Never had Red Stripe so I don't have anything to say on that but I do have a thought on Budweiser: nobody would possibly choose Budweiser if there are other options and the President undoubtedly has access to a great assortment of beers. The only possible explanation: this is the beginning of Obama's reelection campaign in Missouri. Remember how close it was?

So Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak are going to hold a forum at Netroots Nation next month. Greg Sargent had this to say:

Specter's willingness to brave the precincts of Netroots Nation with netroots hero Sestak underscores how seriously Specter takes Specter's underdog challenge. Given that Specter has the backing of the White House and the Democratic establishment, his scheduled appearance is also a sign that even the most established incumbent can no longer risk taking netroots-backed challengers for granted.

I think it also shows that Specter isn't getting the sincere support of the White House. He's getting "support" but he's not having people from the Obama Administration out in rural Pennsylvania talking up the many merits of keeping Arlen Specter in the senate. Well, there aren't many merits so might as well save on air fare.

I'm really not surprised that Robert Gibbs is cleaning up President Obama's statement last night about Henry Louis Gates being arrested by the Cambridge Police Department or that the GOP is attacking President Obama in a way that twists his words. That's what happens when you weigh into a situation like this.

I'm not saying that President Obama shouldn't have been allowed to say that or that what he said was untrue, I'm saying that if he's going to say that the Cambridge Police Department acted "stupidly" he should expect a less than positive reaction.

Again let me stress that I'm not saying what Obama said was factually wrong but I do think it was strategically wrong because it leaves Obama's opposition open to criticizing him, especially when he says he doesn't know all the facts which I assume is meant as a precaution if something else comes out of the case.

I'm happy to have a discussion on race --more than happy in fact, especially one which involves President Obama who I think, like me, as a biracial American, has a deep and rare view on race and racial relations (which he expressed in the press conference last night but nobody is focusing on that. Surprise.). But that's not what calling the Cambridge Police Department stupid does. It just encourages talking points and a smear campaign.

On the otherhand, this may turn out advantageous and perhaps even tactically astute. As Greg Sargent points out in the post I linked to above, Obama is siding with the black guy who was arrested, and the GOP is siding with the white guy who arrested him. It's not a helpful split for the right but I'm pessimistic that anyone will pick up on that.

Eric Kleefield has a post up about recent polls for the Pennsylvania senate race which I think are rather significant. In a Specter-Toomey matchup it's basically a dead heat. A little while back, that same matchup had Specter with a 9% margin with a fair amount of undecideds (which isn't huge but it isn't tiny either).

Meanwhile, Sestak versus Toomey is much closer with Toomey leading Sestak 39% to 35%. Kleefield notes that a big factor in those results is that Toomey and Sestak both could earn considerably more name recognition. So on the nominate-who-could-win argument --which I don't like-- perhaps Sestak would be the right choice.

To make matters worse, in the Specter-Sestak matchup Specter leads Sestak 55% to 23%. Sestak probably doesn't have a lot of name recognition there either but that's still a huge margin to fill.

Over all, I think things don't look good for Sestak or Specter. Sestak seems unlikely to beat Specter in the primary and Specter seems increasingly unlikely to beat Toomey in the general election. Toomey must be pretty happy.

I want to also note that Sestak's name recognition problem is very serious. A few days ago I met a girl from rural Pennsylvania, a Democrat, who hadn't heard of Sestak. She's the exact kind of voter that Sestak needs and that she had never heard of him is a big problem.

UPDATE: Nate Silver writes: Ultimately, I'd still rate either Democrat as about a 2:1 favorite over Toomey, this poll not withstanding. But Pennsylvania will certainly be moving up in next month's Senate race rankings.

Illinois Dems aren't giving Republican Congressman and Senate hopeful Mark Kirk any breathing time. He announced his candidacy for office and the Dems, who must be inspired by a recent viewing of the new Transformers movie, are already flaunting a new aggressive ad. Kirk has quite a hill to climb and the Dems don't even have a decided candidate yet! 

So Carolyn Maloney used the N-word. She wasn't using it to express her disgust with black people, she was quoting someone. I don't think she should have done that but she hardly deserves the fate of a racist politician that uses the n-word to denounce black people. I'd still rather have her than Gillibrand and thankfully, New Yorkers seem to agree with me. 

Robert Farley, in a post about Kentucky politics:

Apart for the electoral stupidity, the notion that Louisville isn't the "real Kentucky" rankles in the same way as Sarah Palin's assertions about "Real America." Dividing the country between the pure heartland and the decadent urban cesspools has been a Republican electoral tactic since at least the 1960s, and it still carries a heavy stench of exclusion. One out of every six citizens of Kentucky lives in Louisville, and they're just as real as anyone else in the state. More importantly, their votes count just as much; there is no Electoral College for the US Senate in Kentucky. I detest the notion that rural voters are somehow more authentic than urban voters, and this seems to be what the Mongiardo folks are pushing in order to explain away a weak fundraising quarter.

The thing is, that tactic is less effective than it used to be as there seems to be an inverse ration between the power of divisive politics and the size of cities: as cities get bigger (which they are doing) the power of trying to get people to come together against the urbanites becomes weaker. It once made sense to rally the various suburbs together by creating a common foe but not anymore. A successful politician has to look toward unity instead of division to get elected. 

He deserves props for this. Many a politician might've "diplomatically" implied something to appease the crowd. Good for Mike.