Poll dancing

The Obama camp must be reeling. Polls are showing the Illinois senator trailing.

A reference to the latest polls showing McCain ahead of Obama by 10 points (says USA Today)? No, that first sentence is a throwback to polling data between April 28 and May 4, which showed Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama (depending on which poll you followed).

Three polls had Clinton's lead nationally between 3 and 7 percent. It should also be noted five polls that overlapped the same period showed Obama with leads of 1 to 12 percent. Also,

Now if you're looking at Sept. 8 polls, (and Real Clear Politics keeps track of current and past polling data) McCain leads by 1 percent (Rasmussen) or 10 percent (USA Today/Gallup). One only needs to go back to Friday, Sept. 5, to see Obama with a 6 percent lead (Hotline/FD).

With all these numbers jumping back and forth, what to they mean? Nothing - and everything.

If the McCain/Palin bump is because voters are supportive of a woman on the VP slot or sympathetic to "negative" Palin stories, that's likely a temporary cycle. What can Obama do about that? Send Biden to Switzerland for sex-change operation? Dump old Joe for Hillary?

If polls favor one candidate over another on the issues, then a candidate might address those perceptions to win over those potential voters. That's a potential risky proposal, depending on the issue. If surveys showed people heavily in favor of the war in Iraq, it would be unrealistic for Obama to suddenly change course and say he now supports the war. But if it's an economic issue and the landscape has changed (i.e. - the government control of the mortgage crisis) that action can change what a candidate had previously said on the issue.

There's only one true "poll" that matters. That will occur on Nov. 4, and the answer made in ballot boxes across the country will be binding.

Labor Day news

The news that broke on Labor Day had nothing to do with working and everything to do with the impending labor of Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old pregnant daughter of GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin (seen at right with infant brother, Trig).

As if the Republicans already had enough to worry about with Hurricane Gustav stealing some of their conventions' thunder.

I feel sorry for the girl, who now becomes the center of a "controversy." Maybe before reporters start making the trek to the Great White North, they should read up on stress and pregnancy. And I won't even include a link to the wild stories that Gov. Palin's infant son is actually the offspring of one of her daughters.

What's interesting in this case is the responses from both sides on the pregnancy.

Obama has essentially said, "Leave the kids alone." I even heard a Republican operative on the Today Show credit Obama for taking such action.

Response from The Republicans and family values groups range, "At least she's keeping the baby" to "this shows Gov. Palin relates to the average American."

Still, you wonder if the baby booty were on the other foot, would those same "family values" group be as supportive if, say, a Joe Biden's unmarried kid was having a baby. Cynical? Yes. Would it happen that way? Likely.

Can't wait for the jokes on how Sarah Palin went from a MILF to a GILF.

Stunning? Or just stunned?

John McCain will have two good looking women up there now that's he chosen Sarah Palin, 44, to be his vice presidential choice. She certainly is something to look at, but she brings some real non-Washington politics to the table.

We’ll know in about a month if this was brilliant strategy to win the race or if he gambled big and lost. He’s certainly trying to appeal to a lot of people here.

This certainly takes the news-cycle winds out of a strong Obama acceptance speech on Thursday night.

Now we've got two 40-somethings on national tickets.

Dems hit the halfway point

The Democratic convention hit the halfway mark on Tuesday, and so far the women are doing the heavy lifting.

Michelle Obama delivered a performance that took the edge off of earlier reports that took shots at her likability.

Hillary Clinton, while infusing much of her campaign into her speech, came out enthusiastically for Barack Obama. Hard to tell is the references to herself and her husband were laying the ground for 2012 (if Obama loses) or serving as a national political obituary. Stay tuned.

And the No. 2 Democrat is ...

The New York Times is reporting that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may make an announcement on his vice presidential pick as early as Wednesday morning, Aug. 20.

The inside track of candidates includes Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware. On the outside looking in are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Kaine and Biden give Obama geographic balance on the ticket. Bayh is a conservative Democrat who has appeal among Republicans, given his large gubernatorial and senate victories in a largely Republican state. Clinton, of course, brings instant name recognition - and potential baggage - to the ticket, while Sebelius is a popular choice, but as widely known.

While Bayh's Indiana roots are right next to Obama's Illinois home, that isn't necessarily a negative: Bill Clinton of Arkansas picked Al Gore of neighboring Tennessee in 1992.

Politics via the Best Seller's List

Barack Obama aims to put his policies directly in the hands of people via a book called "Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise" scheduled to come out Sept. 9.

Obama appears to be taking a page out of Bill Clinton's book (yes, pun intended) when the former president published a policy book during his first campaign in 1992.

While the contents remain to be seen, the book is a strong move by Obama to put his policies in print. There is a chance it could backfire if he alters his stance after the book hits the streets, or if the printed version doesn't mesh with what he's said to date.

Commentators and conservatives will jump on any inconsistencies. Changing direction on a policy because you've learned new information is one thing. Altering your course because of political pressure or poll data is a sign of weakness. Don't take a stand on something if you're going to cave in when you see the latest Harris Poll results.

Not sure what John McCain will plan as a rebuttal. But wouldn't we all like to read about John Edwards' latest scandal. Then again, maybe not.

To VP or not to VP

The vice presidential choice can be a milestone - or a millstone. The good folks at Yahoo! (via ABC News) have a great piece on historically poor picks for VP and why a good No. 2 is important.

It's hard to believe that before the first George Bush (that's H.W. - not W), the previous person to ascend directly from the vice presidency to the presidency was Martin Van Buren, who was vice president served as VP from 1833-1837 under Andrew Jackson before winning the 1836 election. Like Bush I, he was a one-term president.

Equal opportunity bashing

While Obama and McCain are playing nice (for now), I've linked the Top 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency and a laundry list of Bill Clinton's issues.

Although this link is from 2006, you can check out the Top 10 Presidential Errors.


And if you're in need of a light moment, there's always Hillary Clinton's Top 10 Campaign Promises as told to David Letterman, plus links to Letterman's Top 10 lists concerning Bill Clinton.

War and economic impact

So who is right between McCain and Obama when it comes to the war in Iraq?

It’s impossible today to predict the political landscape on Nov. 4. But Americans in general vote their pocketbook.

A recent Gallup poll shows 61 percent of Americans saying the economy – not the war in Iraq – is the No. 1 issue.

While the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict may not be on people’s minds as much, the question is what is overall economic impact of its cost? (FYI: The Congressional Budget Office put war’s outlay at $170 billion in 2007– that’s $465,753,424 per day, $19,406,392 per hour, $323,439 per minute, or $5,390 per second.)

A story earlier this year in MarketWatch.com offered pros and cons to the war’s impact on the U.S. economy.

On the plus side, the money spent is a “just a drop in the bucket” compared to overall government spending, while citing that the economy is stimulated due to the extra expenses for the way.

(C)old war strategies switch parties

With war waging in a far-away land, one political party opts to escalate the conflict with higher troop numbers and extend the time commitment to fight. The opposing political party leader decides a better tactic is meeting with the enemy and withdrawing soldiers from the conflict.

John McCain and Barack Obama? No. The above is a simplified version of the Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam War.

During Vietnam, the Democratic leadership of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson escalated soldiers – which carried the euphemistic title of “military advisers” – from the Eisenhower-era number of less than 1,000 to more than 500,000 by the time Johnson left office in 1969.

Republican President Richard Nixon halved the fighting force by the end of his second year in office and had his foreign policy expert Henry Kissinger begin secret peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese.

Fast-forward to 2008, and it’s the Republican McCain who had made statements about staying in Iraq “100 years” if necessary and the Democrat Obama who wants begin troop withdrawals and meet with foreign governments that pose a threat to U.S. interests.

The problem in affixing general labels to elected officials is that the “party line” doesn’t always fit.

By definition – if not by his actions as a congressman and vice president – Nixon should have been a staunch anti-communist for life. Instead, one can connect the dots on America’s foreign policy achievements back to Nixon, whose mastery of world politics thawed relations and opened doors from China to the Soviet Union to the Middle East.

Until the 1930s, black voters traditionally voted Republican, thanks in large part to President Lincoln’s push to abolish slavery. When Democratic administrations introduced the New Deal and subsequent Civil Rights legislation, blacks switched parties.

That doesn’t mean Democrats always work for the betterment of blacks. “American Pharaoh,” a book by Adam Cohen and Elizabeth Taylor about late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, cites references to official and unofficial policies under the city’s Democratic mayors that gave Chicago the most segregated public housing projects in the nation.

Poll: Hillary out of veepstakes

In the Obama veepstakes, visitors to this blog said Barack Obama should not choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

Among those voting in an unscientific poll on this site, 45 percent said Obama should not choose Hillary. Of those, 27 percent said they lack the chemistry to work together, while 18 percent said her negatives would drag Obama down.

Hillary supporters wanted the former First Lady at a 36 percent clip. Of those, 27 percent said Obama would need her supporters in November, while 9 percent felt it would be like having two presidents.

Another 18 percent – perhaps sensing a McCain victory – said they would leave the country with Susan Sarandon. She might be 61, but she’s holding her age quite well. I wouldn’t leave the country with her, but maybe a weekend would be nice. (I don’t think my wife would agree to that).

Next up on the poll: Gas prices.

President and President 1A?

The Democratic race is over. Regardless of Hillary Clinton's claims of winning a.) the popular voting, b.) states that matter (which not be any state she lost), or c.) winning states with an even number of consonents in the second half of the alphabet, the simple fact is Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee.

The $64,000 question (or maybe the $20 million question for Hillary) is who will be No. 2 on the ticket? And if it's Hillary, is the No. 2 slot really 1A?

The former first lady brings a ton of positives to the slate: Millions of people voted for her in the primaries. She's got great name recognition. Veep candidates typcially wallow in the mud a little more during the general election season, and nobody is more suited than transplanted Razorback Hillary C.

The negatives? Former President Bill Clinton - the once Democratic savior-turned-albatross - needs to be muzzled or at least sent to a strip club for the next five months. Republicans would open a double-barreled attack on both Obama and Hillary, slinging the mud that would have been reserved for her presidential run. And most pressing is Hillary's controlling nature. How hard will it be for her to tout Obama's position on health care, foreign policy, etc., when she (at least in her mind) believes her ideas are better?

Obama faces a tough choice. Weigh in on the poll at right or toss out your suggestions for Democratic VP choice.

Note: Given the title of this blog, it's worth noting that Obama is 46. A hearty congrats to a fellow 40s member!

Rules are rules (unless they are not)

Let me see if I've got this straight:

- All the major candidates running for the Democratic contest agree to the rules that Michigan and Florida will not be counted.

- One of the major candidates - after a disorganized campaign blew its built-in advantage of name recognition and a huge lead in the polls - decided that the voters (and, though not said out loud, the delegates) must be counted in those two states.

- Supporters of that major candidate cry foul when the DNC Rules Committee awards half delegates in the disputed states (as opposed to zero, which would have been the case).
According to the Clinton math, Hillary is leading in the popular vote, if you include the disputed states. She's also leading the delegate count in states that begin with letters in the second half of the alphabet and have even numbers of vowels, not to mention her overwhelming lead in the "important" states. If you're keeping track, the important states are those won by Hillary.

It's 3 a.m. The phone rings in the White House. Who's going to answer it? Hillary - because the only time Obama is going to let her within granade-throwing distance of the Oval Office is when he's not in there.

Hillary's not upset that Obama came in and "stole" the nomination. The Illinois senator likely swiped the big prize: The presidency. In her mind, the weak GOP choice - McCain - is very beatable, and an Obama win means she's out of the running for the presidency until 2016.

All of this is moot if Hillary takes her ball and goes home, sabotages the election for Obama, and re-emerges as the person to beat in 2012. Stranger things have happened...