Sooner or later, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is going to lose the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. This, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, is a "known known." So the question arises: what should whoever loses do next?

Now, while many are holding out hope for a "Dream Ticket" with both their names on it, I personally don't think it's going to happen. Choosing a running mate is just about the only fun thing the candidate gets to do during their entire campaign. And they rarely choose the person everyone expects them to. They also rarely choose former contenders for the nomination, although it does sometimes happen. They usually either choose someone who they are personally comfortable with (think: Dick Cheney), or someone who their campaign managers assure them will "bring them votes" either geographically or otherwise (think: L.B.J.).

Continue Reading »

While I remain officially neutral in the Democratic presidential nomination race, I have been accused lately of writing nice things about Barack Obama, and not doing the same for Hillary Clinton. To tell the truth, I had been formulating an article in my mind on this subject, but I hadn't gotten very far.

Riding to my rescue was one of Huffington Post's own commenters, who not only suggested I write a pro-Hillary article, but also outlined what I should say in it. I thought the idea had merit, but instead of just swiping his idea and writing my own words around it, I offered him the opportunity to write it himself.

Continue Reading »

If the President of the United States appeared on your doorstep and asked you to do something both you and he knew was illegal, would you do it?

I ask this question, because that is what is at stake in the showdown over the FISA law, warrantless wiretapping, and giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the request of the federal government. In other words, if the president does it (no matter what "it" is) is it therefore legal? This question was famously asked of Richard Nixon, and we all know what he had to say about it.

Continue Reading »

Mulligan -- (noun)  A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.

This is about fairness. Because with the delegate count in the Democratic presidential nomination race so very close, every state is going to matter this year. Which should include Michigan and Florida. But, as amateur golfers know, sometimes you have to take a Mulligan. And get a "do-over."

Democrats in Michigan and Florida need to vote again. It's as simple as that. Because it is the only fair thing to do. People are already shouting "Unfair!" about the situation, from many directions. Most of them are right, or at least have a valid point. The only way to resolve this mess is to go back to square one and do it all over. Because while it's not the best outcome for every faction, it is the only truly fair way to handle the situation as it stands now.

Continue Reading »

I'm going to start off with a quick piece of advice for both Democratic campaigns (or perhaps for Howard Dean) -- spend the next few weeks taping everything John McCain says publicly. He is in the midst of shoring up his support in the Republican conservative base, and hence will be in full pander mode. Tape everything that comes out of his mouth during this period, because you are going to need it as ammunition for campaign ads this fall. After he locks up his party, he's going to try to tack back to the moderate middle, and the voters will need to be reminded of how desperately he courted the far right wing of his party.

Like I said, this advice should be followed by both Obama and Clinton now, so they'll have the footage to use later, no matter which of them becomes the eventual Democratic nominee.

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama has victory within his grasp. All it would take is one masterstroke of political tactics, and the race would be all but over.

To accomplish this seemingly-impossible feat, all he would have to do is, first, immediately agree to a debate within the next week. The debate begins. The moderator asks some inane first question to Barack. Instead of answering it (no matter what he has been asked), Obama instead looks directly into the camera and says the following:

Continue Reading »

I generally avoid writing self-serving "I told you so" articles. This is not because I don't enjoy patting myself on the back (who doesn't?), but because most writing of this type is actually pretty boring. Since I don't like to bore you, the reader, I usually shy away from such articles on general principles.

Having said that, I have to say I did pretty good picking Super Tuesday winners. But since I do this rarely, I'll get to the winner tote board in a minute, as I'd like to review my writing on the presidential race in general. If you just want to see the numbers, scroll down to the end of this article.

Continue Reading »

If you could spend $50 million of someone else's money to save your job, would you?

I suspect most people would answer "yes" to that. Actually, that's not true -- I suspect most people would say "Forget the job, can I just have the 50 million dollars?"

But this isn't just an amusing thought exercise, it is really happening today in California. The jobs in question are politicians' jobs. The $50 million (some estimate as high as $80 million) they're spending is tax money. And the only reason it is being spent -- in the midst of a state budget crisis, mind you -- is to secure the re-election of a few people in Sacramento.

Continue Reading »

Tomorrow is... (drumroll, please)... Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday!

[OK, I'm already tired of typing that, so henceforth it will be referred to as SDTT, which makes it sound like something you could catch from a toilet seat. Ahem.]

This means we return to our "pick the primary winners" series, for what could be the last time. One program note: because of the tidal wave of primaries tomorrow, the rules for picking winners need a little revision. Because there are so many states voting tomorrow, because there are effectively only two candidates left on the Democratic side, and because most of the Republican contests are "winner take all" as far as delegates go; I will only be selecting the winner for each party and each state today. Sorry Mitt, but silver and gold just don't count for much anymore.

Speaking of Republicans, Tom Toles drew the best (and most hilarious) political obituary for Rudy Giuliani last week, which is worth a look if you need a chuckle.

Continue Reading »

This column is dedicated to the idea that Democrats can learn to use talking points as effectively as Republicans often do. This idea annoys many who feel that Democrats using talking points is degrading, and stoops to Republican tactics; a position I don't agree with, but still respect. But sometimes even I have to take Democrats to task for not backing up such talking points with action, or at the very least a plan of action.

And I have to do so now with a brilliant talking point that Barack Obama has been using quite frequently: "There is something wrong when Warren Buffet pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary." This is true (Buffet himself was the originator of the line), and it is an excellent talking point. It uses an example most people can relate to -- the patent unfairness of a billionaire making his money buying and selling stocks who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does, for actually working for her money.

Continue Reading »