So Mark Penn implies that if Obama doesn't win "states that count" then even if he has more elected delegates he should not be nominated at the convention.

By "states that count" Penn apparently means mostly states that Clinton won or that have not yet voted.

But either Democratic nominee, or for that matter any of Edwards, Dodd, Richardson or Biden, will win in November in states like California, New York, and New Jersey. These are are not the states that anyone should worry about if the goal if, as it should be, to nominate not only a fine President but someone who is most likely to win this fall and do well nationally so as to bring in a large Congressional majority. Of course they "count" but they aren't where Democrats should look to see who would best lead the party this November.

Those states, of those that have voted so far, include

Read more »

While the current economic slump is of unknown depth and duration, there's no doubt that if half of what we have spent on Iraq had been spent on American infrastructure and non-carbon energy generation, we would have much greater job creation, higher wages per job, more economic growth, and a better quality of life in the United States.

I admit we need economists to study this issue and prove the magnitude of the difference between spending our treasure in the desert sands instead of within our national boundaries. But I'm not in doubt that I'm right on this one.

This superdelegate hullabaloo is completely mistimed and off the subject: what matters is who wins Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio.

Obama has by no means won; the Clintons have many advantages in Ohio and Texas, and if they win both of those states, then she is in front again.

The supertruth about superdelegates is that they should all vote for the person who has the most non-super delegates. That's the purpose of superdelegates: to turn a plurality into a majority so as to avoid a floor fight about Fla or Mich or anything else.

And Obama's infrastructure spending plan is exactly what is needed to create new jobs and a new footing for the economy; it is exactly what should have been done in the 90s instead of cooperating with the Republicans to stint on public good creation.

What's he up to?
Making the case for being McCain's VP, and hence becoming the face of the Republican Party in the future: 2009 if McCain loses or later if McCain wins.

Romney is the other contender for the future face of the Republican Party.

Neither is going away.

Subtly, continuously, President Clinton invokes identity politics: he tells everyone all the time that Obama is the black candidate, Mrs. Clinton the female candidate.

Bill Clinton grew up with the identity politics of the 60's and 70's. Barack Obama is talking about a politics that does not start and finish with demographics, but instead depends on common ethical principles that don't so much cross, as they ignore lines drawn by race, gender, and religion.

The choice now is between the old identity politics -- the politics that gave the Democratic Party nominees like Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis, honorable people whose candidacies did not inspire -- and a new kind of politics that might build a large, winning, and effective coalition.

By talking daily about identity, President Clinton is rooting himself and by extension Mrs. Clinton in an old, out-of-date reference scheme. Maybe it will work; maybe in some other big blue state this old language will still resonate. But increasingly I doubt that.