This post is cross-posted to The Ward Report.

With the election just days away it's time to take a realistic look at the senate.

The Democratic caucus enters this election with 51 members including Joe Lieberman (I - CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VM). No Democrats are retiring and no incumbents are in danger. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (+11) was believed to be in serious danger but the NRSC pulled out of her race a couple weeks ago essentially conceding her reelection.

But there is a complication. Joe Lieberman is a closet Republican whose chairmanship needs to be stripped which would likely cause him to leave the caucus, and he's not a reliable vote anyway.

So, while it would seem the Democrats need 9 pickups, they actually need 10 for 61 seats.

Five Republicans are retiring this year and the Democrats are poised to pick up three:

52. Mark Udall (CO) +11
53. Tom Udall (NM) +17
54. Mark Warner (VA) +29

In addition, 18 Republican senate seats are up for reelection. Of those the following appear in reach:

55. Jeanne Shaheen (NH) +8 over Sununu
56. Jeff Merkley (OR) +6 over Smith
57. Kay Hagan (NC) +4 over Dole
58. Al Franken (MN) +2 over Coleman
59. Mark Begich (Ak) +4 over Stevens

60. Bruce Lunsford (KY) -3 under McConnell (Minority Leader)
60. Jim Martin (GA) -3 under Chambliss
60. Ronnie Musgrove (MS) -3 under Wicker (Lott's seat)

The conventional wisdom is that Martin knocking off Chambliss is the most likely of the 3 long shots, but as I explained earlier, a runoff in GA makes this an unlikely pick-up. But, really big Democratic turnout (which appears to be materializing) could give Martin the 50% plus 1 he needs to win the seat outright.

Knocking off Mitch McConnell would be a dream come true but his lead appears rock solid and the polls are trending his way.

Wicker's lead is also rock solid with the polls trending his way as well. Again, large Democratic turnout in Mississippi could potentially swamp him, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And of course, Norm Coleman could win reelection making 61 even further out of reach.

Bottom line: I'm having a heard time envisioning more than 59 seats with Lieberman.

But, if the Dems pick up 60, should they suck up Lieberman's betrayals and let him keep the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee?

Joe Biden's campaign appearances which seem to be including a loving and literally gushing ode to his dear friend and "great guy" John McCain are a real problem, as I explain in more detail here.

And Democrats cannot accept that kind of conduct on the campaign trail directly undermines Obama's attempts to run a message that John McCain and his scurrilous campaign are neither "great" nor "courageous" to borrow just two terms Biden used yesterday to describe McCain.

Democrats who show up at appearances of Biden's need to boo him off the stage if/when he launches into loving remembrances of McCain. 

This is the big leagues and Obama is going to lose this election if he and Biden don't go on offense. 

When are Democrats going to learn this fundamental lesson?

Clintons surrogate Lanny Davis was just on MSNBC and signaled that the Clintons are not going to stop their campaign until the convention. Lanny chose his words carefully and said the nomination would not be over, "until the votes are cast" which, of course, will happen in Denver.

The Rules Committee will meet on Saturday (and probably Sunday) and seat a compromise slate of FL and MI delegates which will give Obama nearly as many delegates as the Clintons.  After Tuesday, superdelegates will rush to Obama giving him sufficient "pledges" to secure the nomination, but of course, the votes won't be cast until the convention.

Lanny continues to make the Clintons case that they are the most electable.  As soon as the Clintons step aside and at least suspend their campaign (ala Edwards and Romney) the party will solidify around Obama and their electablility argument will vanish in the wind.  They won't let this happen.

When you only listen to what the Clintons and their surrogates are saying, their goal is really clear.  They are setting up the 'we told you so argument' which only works if Obama loses in November.  How else to run as the nominee in 2012?

I know that a lot of people say this and we've all been prone to dismiss it, but listen to the Clintons and their camp.  They are going to tank Obama.

Cross posted at The Ward Report.

The Clintons campaign manager Terry McAuliffe was on Meet the Press today and laid out the Clintons best case to be the nominee.

McAuliffe argued with a straight face that by June 3, if you count the votes of states were Obama was not on the ballot and did not campaign, Hillary will lose by 100,000 votes, and having lost must be the parties nominee.   Delegates, super or othewise, do not count.

When this is the Clintons best case to stay in the race, why shouldn't we believe they are now motivated by malice?

Über Clintonista Harold Ickes told Mark Halperin of Time's The Page tonight:

We don’t know enough about Senator Obama yet. We don’t need an October Surprise. And (the chance of) an October Surprise with Hillary is remote.

This has been a major Clinton theme and I find it strange that no one has challenged them on these comments.

Who will be the first member of the press to ask Sen Clinton to guarantee the American people that there will be no more blue dress moments?  How many times has Bill embarrassed the party and the nation, not to mention Hillary, with his philandering?  Does anyone honestly believe he has been a faithful husband since Monica? 

If the Clintons are going to ask voters to speculate on Obama, should we not ask for guarantees from her and her husband?

If history is prologue we have every reason to be concerned.

Bill Clinton's endless contorted 'down is up' arguments never fail to amuse. 

Just saw a clip on MSNBC of Bill whining yesterday  that the "crazy process" the Dems use  to choose their nominee by counting every vote was unfair to he and Hillary.

If votes didn't matter, Bill argued,  and the Dems chose delegates like the electoral college than their failure to win the most votes wouldn't matter and they would be ahead like Bush in 2000.

The 'big state' line is a favorite of the Clintons, but the Clintons never suggest that Obama wouldn't win NY, NJ or Cali.

What the Clintons need to understand that they won't be the next Presidents if they don't win Wisconsin or Missouri or Minnesota.

And speaking of NY, check out this 'super fun fact' from the Clintons latest FEC filing on fundraising:

Clinton New York intake: $2,304,612.54
Obama New York intake: $3,162,956.99

Please explain to me -- and I really do want to know -- why we should not hold Harry Reid responsible for this mess?

Do I just not appreciate the dynamics of the Senate which places the minority in charge? The minority wasn't running the Senate when Harry Reid was minority leader.

From The New York Times,

The Senate proclaimed a fierce bipartisan resolve two weeks ago to help American homeowners in danger of foreclosure. But while a bill that senators approved last week would take modest steps toward that goal, it would also provide billions of dollars in tax breaks — for automakers, airlines, alternative energy producers and other struggling industries, as well as home builders.

The tax provisions of the Foreclosure Prevention Act, which consumer groups and labor leaders say amount to government handouts to big business, show how the credit crisis, while rattling the housing and financial markets, has created beneficiaries in the power corridors of Washington.

The House Dems finally stood up to the Repubs on telecom immunity and not only did the world not end, but the WH for the first time I can recall, actually began to seriously discuss compromise.

Why shouldn't we throw the flaccid Harry Reid overboard?

In the Washington Post today, the Admin plants the latest reason for never leaving Iraq.

Here's the very telling money quote,

With "al-Qaeda in retreat and disarray" in Iraq, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, "we see other obstacles that were under the waterline more clearly. . . . The Iranian-armed militias are now the biggest threat to internal order."

Partly in response to advice from Petraeus and Crocker, the administration has initiated an interagency assessment of what is known about Iranian activities and intentions, how to combat them and how to capitalize on them. The review stems from an internal conclusion, following last week's fighting, that the administration lacked a comprehensive understanding and a sophisticated approach.

It appears that Karen DeYoung, who wrote the piece, is oblivious to the possibility that she and her paper are being used, exactly as they and the NYTs were both used in the run up to the war.

The bottom line is that there will always be an enemy, and never a good reason to go, and anyone who wants to go is a coward and a traitor.  

Does that pretty much sum it up?

In a Politico piece up today recapping pressure on the Clintons to exit the race, a "Clinton family adviser" was quoted as suggesting Hillary might be trying to leverage her position into the VP slot on the ticket.

I freely concede my predictions on Hillary have been off the mark nearly every time, but I just can't see Hillary on the number 2 spot of a ticket.

First, what's in it for Hillary?  She will be 61 years old in October making her 69 at the next opportunity.  Even as VP, Bill will have to give up the millions and millions of dollars he's earning on the international speaking circuit, and for what?  The use of a house at the Naval Observatory?  

Perhaps more significant, who in their right mind would want the Clintons as the number two on their ticket and in their administration?  It would be a nightmare, with Hillary trying to steal every headline and Bill making his own headlines doing what he does best.  No POTUS wants to be upstaged by the VP and worst still, the spouse of the VP.  Who needs that?

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the Clintons will extract something significant to leave the race.  That's just who they are.  I heard a talking head on NPR a few days ago (don't remember who and make no representations that he didn't just make it up on the spot) suggest that one possible deal would be for Harry Reid to offer Hillary the Senate Majority Leader in exchange for a polite exit which makes much more sense to me.  And besides, I think she would make an extraordinary majority leader, but then anything is better than the flaccid Reid.

What do you think?

Cross posted at The Ward Report.

From MSNBC,

And, in a move that's becoming more and more common, [Bill Clinton] favorably aligned his wife with the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

"We now have a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate, bipartisan, to do something about global warming and do more buildings like this,” Clinton said, “because she and John McCain took reluctant Republicans all over the world and showed them how the planet was changing. She will work with anybody, go anywhere, do anything to move America forward.”

As I said earlier, the Clintons fawning praise of McCain is just bizarre so I want to start documenting it here.

The more conspiracy minded among us think the Clintons want to throw the election to McCain if they are not the nominee to set up 2012 with Obama destroyed and out of the way. I take the Clintons at their word when they say they are loyal Democrats and would never do such a thing.

So is this a somewhat subtle attempt -- almost subliminal -- of calling Obama un-American without actually saying it?

Seriously, what do you think? 

Clinton supporters, what say you?

Two thoughtful TPM readers make pleas for calm as the Obama / Clinton fight to the death moves forward.
Here is the gist,

This talk of mortal peril for the Democrats is crazy. The idea that where the primary stands here in March jeopardizes the outcome of the election in November strikes me as wildly ahistorical. And I say that as an Obama supporter who believes that Hillary should have gotten out of the race a month ago when the central premise of her campaign became the proposition that superdelegates should overrule the outcome of contested primary elections.

Didn't Bill Clinton have to fight primary battles well into May and June? He managed to beat an incumbent President a six months laters. Didn't George W. Bush have to contend with John McCain in 2000 even after Al Gore had basically finished off Bill Bradley early in New Hampshire? Didn't Jimmy Carter manage to beat Ford despite Jerry Brown winning a string of late primaries in 1976?

Of course those readers are correct to point out that we are only in March and concern today that the Obama / Clinton fight will spoil November is very premature. Yes, the Clintons in 92 had to beat back Brown into June. But this misses the point.

So what happens in June? The Clintons have no intention of ever stopping until the delegates nominate them or reject them in Denver (feel free to make the case that I’m wrong about this -- nothing would please me more!).

The proper analogy is not 92, but 80 when Teddy Kennedy took his losing battle to the convention and broke the party. The Clintons are planning their floor fight now and not really being very shy about it. It was as recently as this week that Hillary pointed out again that no delegate is pledged – how many times has Harold Ickes reminded us of this fact. Harold Ickes – Teddy Kennedy’s floor manager in 1980.

There is good reason to be very concerned if this fight goes past early June. The 8 weeks between the Democratic convention at the end of August and the November election  is not enough time for the bloodied nominee to run a general campaign and beat back McCain.  And there is no reason to believe this will end in June.

The biggest problem facing the Democratic party is a leadership vacuum exacerbated by the losers being the Clintons. Who is going to tell the former president in June to STFU and bow out gracefully?

To borrow the Bush/Cheney 2004 re-election theme, “be afraid, be very afraid”.

Cross posted at The Ward Report.

The blog world (Right and Left) was a buzz yesterday with the news of the rapproachmont of The Clintons to Richard Mellon Scaife, the actual head of the vast right-wing conspiracy.  (see <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDA2YTFkMmUxNjliNDIzODU1MWQxZmY1MjdiMDE0OGM=">here</a>, and <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/25/hillary-goes-there.aspx">here</a>, and <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185608.php">here</a> for examples).

But yesterday's meeting with Sciafe was not the first Clinton meeting of this campaign with their old enemy.  <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/69545">Bill met with Scaife</a> last November at his Harlem office which resulted in Scaife expressing "admiration" for the former President (and erstwhile <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project">homicidal maniac</a> if Scaife is to be believed).

So it's no surprise that out of this meeting comes Hillary raising the Jeremiah Wright issue again.  And anyone who thinks that the Clintons didn't provide their new friend with every bit of  oppo  research they have on Obama is naive.   Look for Scaife's minions to start a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project">Chicago Project</a>.

The Clintons really could not care less about the future of the nation or the Democratic party.  They care only about themselves and their hold on power. 

This rapproachmont with Scaife is just another step in the <a href="http://donspoliticalblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/tonya-harding-option.html">Tonya Harding Option</a>.

Cross-posted to The Ward Report.

Speaking about a November match-up of Hillary and John McCain while campaigning in Charlotte, N.C., on Friday, Bill Clinton said, "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

This statement is of course outrageous and over the top. No more than any of the other and frequent Clinton attacks on Obama's readiness to lead, be Commander-in-chief, answering the phone at 3 AM, blah, blah, blah. (nor more outrageous that suggestions of 'McCarthyism' which the Clintons have themselves used to great effect.)

So when will someone summon the courage to ask the Clintons the obvious question:

Do you intend to endorse John McCain for President should you not be the nominee?

Their answers would be much more informative that the current tit for tat nonsense to which we are all being subjected. And the follow-up questions would extremely entertaining.

Can we all agree that should McCain win the November election that Laura Bush will be on the short list for next Secretary of State?

The Clintons Sicilian Cajun errand boy James Carville thinks Clinton and Obama should raise cash for re-votes in MI and FLA.

First of all, the cost to actually open every precinct could easily be more than $20 mil for each state. Such a full scale re-vote would require the cooperation of both state governments (would the legislatures have to act?) who own the equipment and infrastructure (including personnel) necessary to run the elections, count the votes and certify the results. It's not as simple as writing a check. Would each state advance all the costs and expenses and bill the DNC? I will predict that they will not.

Mailing ballots would be much cheaper but even so, the logistics are still significant. Someone has to canvas the election records for the names and addresses of each Democrat. Do people register in FL and MI by party? In MI, independents can vote in primaries. How would this be handled and what measures could be used to prevent tampering in each state?

The most particle solution would be to hold caucuses (as MI is rumored to be planning) in each state but the Clintons would flip-shit at that proposal. Add to this the fact that the Florida Democratic party has no interest in a re-vote in any form.

But logistics aside, why would Obama want to burn some of his fund raising dollars to pay for revotes? He has an insurmountable delegate lead without either state.

The DNC's dispute with MI and FLA is all about the rules that those states refused to follow. Not a day goes by that the Clintons don't speak passionately of the rules of the DNC that would allow them to loose the popular vote and delegate race and still be the nominee. They are Bush-like in their passion to lead without the support of the voters.

Über Clintonista Harold Ickes was on the Rules Committee of the DNC and in fact voted to strip both states of their delegates.

So why now should Barack Obama use any of his ability to raise money to pay for a second vote in two states when he has nothing to gain from the process?

The Clintons are desperate for those delegates, let them raise the money.