Congresswoman calls Barack, Michelle, others, anti-American

Can anyone say, Joe McCarthy?

After she was on, Matthews asks Pat Buchanan his thoughts and whether any members of Congress were "anti-American." He doesn't think so. When you're way out further than Pat Buchanan, you're pretty crazy! Minnesotans have been waiting for Rep. Michele Bachmann to make an embarrassment of herself since she was elected in 2006. She gets into the anti-American accusation after the three minute point.

She also attacks Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, college professors, students, and leftists, and their friends.

Tiebreaker? Obama tries to snag Omaha

For most of us regardless of political persuasion, I present a nightmare scenario:

<p><strong>><a href='http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/'>2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election and enter to win a $500 prize.</p>

An electoral college tie, in which case (as long as there are no faithless electors) the House of Representatives will decide who fills the White House in 2009. We have not seen this situation since the Adams-Jefferson contest in 1800.

Yeah, yeah, I know this is unlikely. If you believe Pollster and other sources, Obama will comfortably win next month. But a tie is within the realm of the possible.

Let's suppose McCain and Obama win the states as shown above. You could have a situation where an electoral vote is pealed off in Maine or Nebraska, the two states that don't award all their electoral votes carte blanch. The Obama campaign has evidently put some resources in Omaha, home of the second congressional district. If Obama won the majority of the vote in Nebraska's 2nd, he'd get one more electoral vote and win 270 to McCain's 268. Nebraska awards 2 of its electoral votes to the statewide winner and 1 each for the winner of its 3 congressional districts.

Is that at all likely to happen? Short answer: Maybe. Omaha is more Democratic than the rest of the state, but this is still Nebraska after all.

In both 2004 and 2000, Douglas County (which contains 4 out of 5 voters in the district) voted for Bush by 18% and 16% respectively. Of course, compare that to the state as a whole, which voted for Bush by 30% and 34% margins respectively. The other part of the 2nd, with 20% of the voters, is a slice of Sarpy County. This part of the 2nd is more Republican and closely mirrors the rest of the state's voting.

For their part, the Obama campaign is being clear they're making an effort. They've opened an office in Omaha. Just today, the campaign snagged the endorsement of Lilibet Hagel, wife of the very popular and renegade Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. (Sen. Hagel, a former friend of McCain, has declined to endorse anyone.)

The Republicans aren't taking this lying down. Recently, Gov. Palin herself did a campaign stop in Omaha.

Can the Obama campaign pick up a third of the districts voters who supported George W. Bush and win the district?

No public polling has looked at the district, but a handful of statewide polls have come out. McCain is unsurprisingly in a comfortable lead by a 19% margin in the most recent poll. Using the statewide result as a starting point and assuming that the 2nd district will vote a fixed amount more Democratic, we can estimate some possible scenarios.

SCENARIO 1: Current Pollster statewide margin for McCain +22.3
This scenario assumes that the strong Obama organizing machine will increase turnout a bit more in the almost Democratic Douglas County than Repbulican stronghold of Sarpy (10% versus 7.5%). It assumes that Sarpy votes the same way as the state and Douglas votes with a margin of 15% towards the Dems (a change of 7.5% for each candidate). Using Pollster's most recent calculation McCain wins the state and the 2nd district comfortably (in red).

SCENARIO 2: Obama's best showing in the polls (way back in February!); statewide margin for McCain +3.0
Same assumptions as the first scenario. In this unlikely electoral shocker, McCain squeaks out a win statewide, but Obama grabs a hold of the 2nd by a 9 point margin. If this is the way it turns out on election day, we wouldn't be facing an electoral tie, but an unprecedented nationwide landslide. If Obama could get within 3 points of McCain in Nebraska, he's winning a lot more states overall.

SCENARIO 3: Election decided by less than one vote per 2nd district precinct; statewide margin for McCain +12.2
Could we have a national election won by a thinner margin than the several hundred (that were counted) in Florida in 2000? Here we have a situation where Obama takes the White House thanks to 122 voters that decided to turn out and vote for him in Omaha, Nebraska. Unlikely, sure, but possible. Only in America...

*****

Now, of course, the campaigns have much more sophisticated tools for analysis than this. The Obama campaign is probably counting on a bigger turnout of their voters, though one shouldn't automatically assume that the Republican voters won't turn out in force.

What we have is a rough sketch of at what point Omaha becomes truly in play. Current polling suggests that it is still out of reach for Obama, but not necessarily a fools errand. If statewide polling for Nebraska shows it to be a 10-15% margin instead of the more recent 20% plus margin, pay attention, and start figuring out if you know anyone in Omaha who needs a voter pep talk before next month.

God bless America

We have freedom of speach, apparently still, in this country.  So it's great to see people exercise it, but  it would be better if they used their brains first.

According to the A-P, these real boxes of waffle mix were selling like, uh, hotcakes, at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit this past weekend.

But they are satire!  That's what the mix makers are saying.  According to the Encylopedia Britannica, satire is "human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement."  I don't know how reinforcing a distasteful stereotype and outright lie (that Obama is Muslim) among the constituency that has invented and benefits from the racism and anti-Muslim sentiment is holding anything up to censure.  It's less clear to me how the creators intend to bring about an improvement.

But of course I'm playing into their hand.  This kind of thing should generally be ignored, but for the fact that millions of voters are swayed by racism and hateful lies.

Electoral College Predictions

I love making political predictions. Sometimes I've got to pat myself on the back for my astute observations and ability to prognosticate the future. One of my best predictions was to say that Howard Dean was going to become a real force in the 2004 primary a full year before Iowa. One of my worse predictions was to say one week before the election that Tim Pawlenty would come in third in the open race for governor in Minnesota in 2002. (He won.)

Right now the polls are saying so many different things about the presidential election. I for one don't think much stock should be put in the polls until mid-September. Obviously, a lot of voters are waiting things out before firmly making up their minds. Still, it's fun to guess where things are going.

Obama clearly has the advantage this year. He's a better candidate than McCain. It is a toxic environment for Republicans this year. Obama has a huge money advantage. But that isn't to say it is going to be a blow-out or that even Obama has a lock on it. I've been saying for the past nine months that the race is going to be tight and we'd really have no idea who won until late on election night.

That being said, here's my stab 2 1/2 months out on what it will look like. If I'm right, the Washington Post will give me a $500 Best Buy certificate. I do think that Missouri, Ohio, and Florida will be close, but that McCain will edge out Obama. Obama wins by holding on to the upper Midwest and picking off some key Western states.

<p><strong>><a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/">2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election and enter to win a $500 prize.</p>

Quote: Dobson on the Bible

James Dobson ripped into Barack Obama's version of Christianity with strong words:

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

Yeah. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, is accusing someone else of distorting the bible to conform to their own agenda. This is the organization that somehow finds religious justification for discriminating against gays, opposing same-sex marriage, spanking kids, opposing embryonic step cell research, advocating "reparative therapy” for gays, and allowing coercive prayer in public institutions.

Welcoming Republicans to Minnesota

I've been checking out the website for the host committee for the Republican National Convention. Mostly, I want to see what businesses will be promoting themselves for special discounts to Republicans with the GOParty card. (Yes, it is called that. No, they haven't released the details yet.)

The website has some Minnesota trivia. I always like trivia, especially history trivia, so the first question caught my attention:

Click on image for larger size.

If you can't see, it says:

"WHO KNEW? The last Republican National convention held in Minnesota was in 1892. President Benjamin Harrison got the nomination. He lost in the general election."

If you are a superstitious Republican, this 116 year old fact isn't encouraging. I just love how this "fun trivia" just gives the bare facts so plainly. The reader can take his or her own meaning from the trivia item. Of course, the raging liberal in me would love to see John McCain's name a century from now as the answer to the question: "Barack Obama was the first African American to win the White House, but who opposed him as the Republican nominee in the lopsided election of 2008?"

In my fantasy, no one gets the answer.

Another Obama endorsement

Obama got another endorsement today. This time it is not from another Superdelegate, but from the political arm of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has waited out their endorsement decision for a bit, but it is clear as can be now: Obama is the presumptive nominee. Both Clinton and Obama are firmly pro-choice and NARAL was wise to stay out of the primary contest. (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, etc were pro-choice too.) NARAL has rightly recognized now is the time to move forward and ready for the general election marathon.

McCain is a conservative Republican. He may buck the party on some hot issues now and then (immigration, campaign finance, etc). But the guy's entire career has been as a social conservative. He has voted 100% their way, including on abortion and birth control, even when he was calling evangelical leaders nasty names.

Here's NARAL Pro-Choice America's scrappy announcement:



NARAL Pro-Choice America has a site devoted to McCain's shameful record on women's reproductive options and health:


* Necessary disclosure: I formerly worked for NARAL, but have been out of their employ since June 2007.

A little worse than "monkeys"

Republican congressman, Geoff Davis, put the recent mini-controversy over a Democratic convention delegate referring to kids climbing a tree as "monkeys" into perspective.

Rep. Davis talked about participating in a "highly classified, national security simulation” with Sen. Barack Obama.

Davis went on to say:

“I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Yes. Davis called Obama a "boy." Davis did have the wisdom to apologize quickly after the Obama campaign took him to task.

via Pol Watchers

Making mountains out of molehills

It is the presidential election after all. It's time to make mountains out of molehills! (Or children into monkeys...)

• Illinois delegate for Obama resigns after 'monkeys' remark
  

She complains to her neighbors about their children climbing in the tree, which she sees as dangerous. She tells the father "the tree is not there for them to be climbing in there like monkeys." The mother calls the police, she gets a $75 ticket, and is now resigning as a delegate to the national convention because she has been labeled a racist.

Referring to children of another race climbing in a tree as monkeys is apparently verboten.

Science Debate

Quote: Crowds are fickle!

My freshman high school English teacher taught me two things that I remember to this day. The first was the basic formula to write a paper: Intro paragraph with thesis, three body paragraphs each supporting the thesis, conclusion paragraph repeating thesis and summarized version of the body in three sentences.

The second thing was the theme of Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. She kept on repeating it over and over through each of the five acts of the long play: "Crowds are fickle."

Mark Mellman, who was the lead pollster for Kerry for President way back when, reminds us how fickle the public at large can be. Mellman (who is not connected to either the Obama or Clinton campaign) dismisses the head-to-head polls of McCain vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Obama.

"People are very mediocre predictors of their own future behavior."

A helpful reminder indeed. I remember reading in 2002 when Bush's popularity was through the roof. Pollsters asked respondents not only did they approve of the job the president was doing, but who they voted for in 2000. One would assume that about 50% of the people would say they voted for Bush. But in poll after poll 60% or 70% of people said they voted for Bush. The most obvious conclusion is that a large number of people remembered voting for someone they didn't actually vote for. If people are that bad at honestly remembering the past, can we truly expect them to give us a useful picture of how they're going to act eight months down the road?

(In fairness, there were probably some afraid in those months after September 11, 2001 to give an answer that could be construed by some stranger as being unpatriotic. The caller could really by John Ashcroft.)

We also don't know what will happen in the world during the next several months that will undoubtedly shape the election.

Frankly, I don't think the argument of electability illuminates an obvious choice for Democrats. I've argued before that I believe Obama is more electable. I still believe that, but not overwhelmingly more electable. The same goes in the reverse. At most, one can credibly argue that Clinton has a slight, but not overwhelming, edge. The real question for the lucky, remaining Democrat primary voters is which candidate do you trust and will better promote your ideals in the White House?

Remember Mellman's words as you see the results of a new poll about next November. I wouldn't take any general election poll at much value until mid-September, a week or two after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention.

Pelosi dismisses Obama and Clinton shared ticket

Here's the end of a recent interview with Nancy Pelosi. When she pauses it's clear she is wishing she didn't go there, but then decides to finish her thought anyways. I think it is safe to say that Pelosi is a bit irritated with the Clinton campaign. Earlier in the interview (shown in full here) she discusses the need for both campaigns to realize the Democrats have to be able to win in November and to cool down. She says in the middle: "There's a lot at stake; the presidency for sure. We must have a Democratic president, but how these races proceed can have an impact as to whether we will carry the Congress of the United States for the Democrats as well. And so that is my responsibility as Speaker of the House."

But the best part is the last 25 seconds:

pelosi by krs601

Eh, predictions, shmedictions?

So, I asserted a couple times that the days were numbered for Clinton. Whoops. She still has quite an uphill battle though. The media, loving the back and forth drama, again exaggerated the meaning the the results by implying a 180 degree turn-around for Clinton. It was a victory for Clinton. The race truly could have been over for her Tuesday night. But Obama is still in the lead in terms of delegates and raw primary votes. Pennsylvania is the next big prize. Here we go!

I've also pooh-poohed the notion that an Obama-Clinton ticket is feasible or desirable. What do I know? As the race goes further along and as the Democrat Party becomes further fractured, that may very well be seen as necessary. This morning, Clinton gently suggested that possibility. I agree with an NPR commentator I heard today who theorized that may have done more to create a tone of conciliation from Clinton rather than a bona fide commitment to that idea. Still, the more that is put out there, the more the supporters of whoever is not on the top of the ticket will expect it.

Most Obama or Clinton supporters who say that they'll vote or stay home on election day if the other becomes the nominee are full of it, whether they know it or not. Still, division and nastiness within the party close to the election will not help the Democrat nominee against McCain.

Who can best wake up at 3 AM?

Everyone has probably heard about the latest Clinton-Obama ad war. Here is Clinton's original "3 AM" commercial followed by Obama's response. I think that the Obama campaign effectively pulled out the rug from under the Clinton folks.

The third ad is another humorous take.





Showing us how silly this all is...

New rule in satire

The old standing rule of humor states that if you are going to poke fun at a group, you must be a member of that group, otherwise it's not funny. Or at least, it's not tasteful.

Now there is a new rule! According to some, when engaging in satire, you can only satirize someone who matches your exact racial and ethnic background. Otherwise, it's out of line.

We learn today that some people were miffed that on Saturday Night Live last week, Fred Armisen, played Barack Obama in the debate sketch. This is bad, we're told, because Fred Armisen is not African-American. Incidentally, Armisen is biracial too, but the wrong kind; he's half white and half Asian. Since his ethnicity only matches with Obama's halfway, the sketch would have been better served by Kenan Thompson, whose ethnicity technically also only matches with Obama's halfway. Kenan Thompson is probably the least talented current castmember and doesn't really resemble Barack Obama.

With this new standard, I guess Maya Rudolph can only satirize people with an African American mother and a Jewish father. No more Donatella Versace skits! She's not qualified.

I don't remember a response to this below sketch from last year, which seems to be a little more edgy and also has an actor whose ethnicity does not match his subject's:

Today's Quote: Divisive politics

Clinton campaign staffers have apparently distributed a 2006 photo of Barack Obama in traditional Somali clothes when he was on a trip in northern Kenya. (Available here) Of course, we know photos like this feed into the racist misconceptions about Obama's background. Via Politico, here is the response from Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe:

“On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.

It does indicate how low the Clinton campaign may go this next week as we approach the Texas and Ohio contests on March 4. Clearly, the Clinton campaign is no longer worried about damaging Obama in such a way that may dramatically hinder him in the general election.

This latest controversy started when someone form the Clinton campaign emailed the photo to the Drudge Report. The fact that the Clinton people are using Drudge as a dissemination tool may further irritate Democrats who often see the website as the lowest of the lows. Ironically, it was Drudge who broke some of the initial allegations of the Lewinsky scandal.

Running mate possibilities

The Washington Post's The Fix blog has begun to run weekly predictions on likely running mates on the presidential candidates. Right now I'm going to look at Barack Obama's most likely choices.

To start, The Fix lists former North Carolina Senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, retired general and head of the U.S. Central Command, Tony Zinni.

I agree that Kaine, Sebelius, and Zinni would be good bets for the short list, but I would be surprised with Edwards or Webb. First, they are both from the Senate and aren't long in the experience realm. In 2000, George W. Bush "assured" voters with the implication that he surrounded himself with experienced experts from his dad's administration, so we wouldn't have to worry about him not knowing who the prime minister of Canada or Pakistan was. Second, they wouldn't do much to deliver either of their states (Virginia or North Carolina). I do think Obama can be competitive in both states in the fall, but neither of those two men do a lot to improve his odds. Gov. Kaine, however, is more highly respected in and out of Virginia and could give a boost.

Obama is not going to offer a second spot to Clinton and she wouldn't take it either. It wouldn't be smart politics. Obama needs a vice president that underscores what his candidacy is about in the general election and maybe shore him up in some way. Geography is clearly a component, but not of the utmost importance. The last running mate who probably made a difference in winning their home state would be Carter's running mate Mondale. One could argue Gore helped Clinton in the south. Though Clinton himself is probably primarily responsible for winning southern states.

Obama needs a running mate with serious foreign policy credentials or someone with leadership experience on important domestic issues. Sebelius and Kaine would fit in the latter manner, with the added benefit of making their small and medium-sized states competitive. Zinni of course helps in the former way. (Where is Zinni from, Virginia?)

I'd also add the following names:

• Bill Richardson - Is a double-whammy of foreign policy cred and a governor working on healthcare and economic solutions. He is both an insider and outsider at the same time and would probably help make New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe even Nevada competitive
• Jim Doyle - As the second-term governor of Wisconsin, Doyle is a respected centrist who could help shore up the Midwest possibly.
• Janet Napolitano - The Arizona governor is a tough-as-nails, centrist westerner. If the Republican nominee was not John McCain, I would put her at the top of the VP list. As it is, she was unable to deliver Arizona to Obama in the primary and is less likely to be able to deliver the state in an Obama-McCain contest.
• Tom Daschle - The former senate minority/majority leader has been an early and close adviser to Obama. He is respected, experienced, a centrist, and his quiet manner means he would not outshine Obama. He might not deliver his home state of South Dakota, but may help in western and plains states.
  
• Ed Rendell - The Pennsylvania governor is a Clinton supporter. Still, he is a two term centrist governor from an important electoral state. If Obama wants to try to patch things up with the Clinonites, Rendell might be a good pick.
  
• Joe Biden - Strong on foreign policy and a good campaigner. On the other hand, he is a senator, a Washington insider, and someone who wouldn't bring additional states to the table.
• Eliot Spitzer - The New York Governor is a Clinton supporter, but he is another tough centrist who has prosecuted all sorts of bad guys: white collar criminals, drug traffickers, human traffickers, violent criminals, and terrorists. He'll probably run for president himself in 4 or 8 years.
  

Election day in Wisconsin and Hawaii

Today on the Democratic side of the presidential run features Wisconsin and Hawaii. Expectations are that it will be close, although Obama is favored in both states. One article I read from the AP notes that Obama is from Wisconsin's neighboring state of Illinois, implying that gave him an advantage. It fails to note that Clinton is a native Chicagoan herself, or that being from Chicago is not necessarily an advantage with Wisconsin voters.

Each summer, thousands of tourists from Illinois flood over the border to Wisconsin. They practically take the state over. They do much for the Wisconsin economy, and probably wouldn't offend the natives too much if it weren't for their overwhelmingly aggressive driving. If it's summer and someone cuts you off on the highway in Wisconsin, chances are they have an Illinois license plate. The decal in the back window for the Chicago Bears just adds insult to injury.

I'm looking curiously to how the media will spin the results of today's primaries. They've been kind of ignoring them, looking more at the March 4 primary contests in Ohio and Texas, which are more advantageous to Clinton. One kind of thinks that there must be a media conspiracy to keep the nomination contest alive by downplaying Obama's recent and anticipated successes and passing on Clinton's flimsy attacks on Obama without any critical investigation. I say "almost." I don't really believe in media conspiracies, or most other conspiracies for that matter. I do wonder if the conventional wisdom of media professionals is to handle Clinton with more kid gloves after their New Hampshire embarrassment. Of course, there are some notable exceptions to that trend.

Who can beat McCain?

MORE PREDICTIONS! Yes! So, the debate is now who can better beat John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? The Republicans appear to be doing what I didn't think they could do this year: choose the most electable candidate. Despite this, I'm going with conventional wisdom and saying the Democrats still go into this election with an advantage. That being said, it's no done deal. This will likely be a competitive election.

I've never been of the camp that holds Clinton is not electable or that the Democrats shouldn't nominate her because of her electability. I do, however, believe Obama is more likely to prevail against McCain. That just adds to the many reasons I voted for him on Super Tuesday.

A few head-to-head polls show Obama doing better against McCain. That is part of the picture, but we should go straight to the Electoral College to investigate true competitiveness.

Below I've made my own assessment of the competitiveness of each state in the two match-ups. In both, Clinton and Obama are likely to prevail in the same states. Obama's advantage, in part because he isn't as devisive of a candidate as Clinton, is where he can make traditionally Republican leaning states competitive.

The winner needs 270 electoral votes to win. Both Democrats start with an advantage. But Obama is going to be able to go after some additional states. Just by picking up one or two of these Republican leaning states he can increase his margin substantially. What's more, this will allow the financially-advantaged Obama to make McCain spread his resources wider as he will have to shore up states like North Carolina and Virginia.

Some of my designations would probably spark some disagreement, which is fair. This is all highly speculative. My main point is that Obama is competitive in more states than Clinton in a match-up with McCain. I think it is difficult to assert the opposite.

STATE	Electoral College Votes	MCCAIN V. CLINTON PREDICTION		MCCAIN V. OBAMA PREDICTION
California	55	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Connecticut	7	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
DC	3	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Delaware	3	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Hawaii	4	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Illinois	21	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Massachusetts	12	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
New York	31	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Rhode Island	4	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Vermont	3	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Washington	11	SOLID CLINTON		SOLID OBAMA
Iowa	7	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Maine	4	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Maryland	10	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Michigan	17	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Minnesota	10	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
New Jersey	15	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Oregon	7	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Pennsylvania	21	LEAN CLINTON		LEAN OBAMA
Colorado	9	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Florida	27	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Missouri	11	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Nevada	5	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
New Hampshire	4	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
New Mexico	5	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Ohio	20	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Tennessee	11	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
West Virginia	5	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Wisconsin	10	TOSS-UP		TOSS-UP
Arkansas	6	TOSS-UP		LEAN MCCAIN
Kansas	6	LEAN MCCAIN		TOSS-UP
North Carolina	15	LEAN MCCAIN		TOSS-UP
Alaska	3	LEAN MCCAIN		LEAN MCCAIN
Montana	3	LEAN MCCAIN		LEAN MCCAIN
Georgia	15	SOLID MCCAIN		LEAN MCCAIN
Louisiana	9	SOLID MCCAIN		LEAN MCCAIN
Virginia	13	SOLID MCCAIN		LEAN MCCAIN
Alabama	9	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Arizona	10	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Idaho	4	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Indiana	11	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Kentucky	8	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Mississippi	6	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Nebraska	5	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
North Dakota	3	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Oklahoma	7	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
South Carolina	8	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
South Dakota	3	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Texas	34	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Utah	5	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN
Wyoming	3	SOLID MCCAIN		SOLID MCCAIN

CLINTON v. MCCAIN

SOLID CLINTON: 154	ALL CLINTON: 245
LEAN CLINTON: 91
TOSS-UP: 113	TOSS-UP: 113
LEAN MCCAIN: 27	ALL MCCAIN: 180
SOLID MCCAIN: 153

OBAMA v. MCCAIN

SOLID OBAMA: 154	ALL OBAMA: 245
LEAN OBAMA: 91
TOSS-UP: 128	TOSS-UP: 128
LEAN MCCAIN: 49	ALL MCCAIN: 175
SOLID MCCAIN: 116

The little things

I'm getting a little tired writing about the politics of the presidential contest, but I can't seem to help myself. Right now, I'm going to go halfway and use a political story to make a non-political point.

The Washington Post today ran a piece about former candidate Bill Richardson's struggle on whether to endorse Clinton or Obama (presumably not Edwards by his omission in the piece). Richardson is under a lot of pressure from all sides to commit. He likes Clinton and feels loyalty towards her. He then tells the reporter one of the reasons he likes Obama, stemming from an experience at a Democratic debate last year:

"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"

I'm not going to claim that this says anything specifically noteworthy about Barack Obama. I'm sure most the other presidential candidates have also said and done nice things in the past, even to political rivals. (Well, maybe not Rudy Giuliani.) What's noteworthy is how a little gesture can make such an impact.

We never truly know how and when the little things will matter. Of all the interactions we have every day, which one is going to carry us forward? Stories like this serve as a reminder to be on one's best behavior in all circumstances and with all people. You never know when a good deed will pay back or when a misdeed will bite you back. Some may call that karma. I think it's just common sense.

Although it might have felt like a big deal at the time, asking the moderator to repeat the question wasn't going to seal the fate of Richardson's campaign. Maybe Obama was thinking ahead when he gave a helping hand to Richardson or maybe it was automatic. In any case, now Richardson is in the position to have an impact with an endorsement and this little gesture may make a difference.