Right Wing Nut House

Say all the bad things you want about the two Democratic candidates for president as far as what they believe and what they espouse. It is immaterial to the raw excitement generated by their hotly contested race for the nomination. Both candidates are scrambling for every available delegate. Each individual contest becomes hugely important, generating the kind of excitement in a political party not seen for a generation.

Here’s a report from a Washington state caucus goer on Saturday to illustrate the point:

After convening my precinct’s caucus nearly an hour ago, and screaming myself hoarse to the HUGE crowd of people gathered in my precinct, I think the appropriate word to describe turnout today is megagigantic-massive.

I was not prepared for this. None of the organizers at our area were.

We ran out of chairs.

We ran out of sign in sheets (had to send someone to the copier for more).

We ran out of pens.

We ran out of tables.

Press reports had thousands of people attending a caucus where they expected only hundreds. Overflow caucuses were reduced to straw poll sites as people unable to get in to caucus were given paper ballots to mark their preference.

In the past, Washington state always held its caucuses too late to make an impact on the nomination. Not this year. With 78 precious delegates at stake, both sides poured resources into the state. Both candidates paid several visits to Washington in the last hectic days before the caucuses.

For Obama, the effort paid off with a big victory, 68-31. So far, Obama has been awarded 45 of those 78 delegates with Hillary Clinton getting 15. Obama is likely to pick up a few more after a very complicated district, county, and state convention process ends in May.

Obama ended up winning the rest of the contests this past weekend as well. Nebraska caucus (67-32), Louisiana primary (57-36), and the Maine caucuses yesterday (59-41). But despite these big wins, the Democratic nominating rules requiring proportional awarding of delegates is keeping Hillary in the race. The latest RCP delegate count has Obama ahead by 4 measly delegates, 1139-1135.

Other tabulations, according to Salon’s Walter Shapiro:

But this mini-surge has not brought clarity to the overall delegate counts by major media organizations, nor is it likely to. When it comes to landslide leads in the quest to win the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, there is the CBS News tabulation, which currently has Obama besting Clinton by exactly three delegates, 1,134-to-1,131. The Associated Press has them flipped with Clinton leading 1,135 to 1,106, while the New York Times, using a very conservative methodology and not counting some caucus results, has Hillary ahead of Barack 912 to 745.

The New York Times is not awarding caucus delegates who must be chosen at district and state conventions, although the caucus results will be used to seat convention attendees who support the candidate who won at their caucus site thus assuring a very close tally of national convention delegates compared with the winner of each individual caucus.

Obama will be able to give himself a little breathing room on Tuesday where he is expected to sweep the so-called Potomac Primaries of Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. And if he does it by similar margins he won by this weekend, some people are going to start asking if Hillary Clinton should still be in the race.

This is nonsense. Unless the Superdelegates start coming out in droves for Obama this week, Hillary will stick it out for a while longer. Why should she quit when even if Obama blows her out on Tuesday he only gets at most a couple of dozen more delegates than she does? Clinton will stay in until at least the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. An Obama sweep there will probably be the ballgame not because she’ll be so far behind in delegates but because the Superdelegates will almost certainly start to weigh in heavily for Obama. At that point, the writing will be on the wall for Clinton and for the sake of unity, she will make her exit.

Hillary will be limited only by the amount of money she can raise to compete with Obama’s mega-treasury. The fact that she’s raised more than $10 million in less than a week would seem to indicate that there is a vast wellspring of support for her still out there. Her problem is that there doesn’t seem to be a real “firewall” state where she could make a stand and stop Obama’s momentum. She still has a chance in Wisconsin with the latest ARG Poll (2/6-7) giving her a 50-41 lead. But a week is a lifetime in this race and Obama’s momentum may have made that poll moot already.

However, a victory in Wisconsin for Hillary would definitely stop the Obama juggernaut and give her some momentum going into the March 4 races. At the very least it will hold off the Superdelegates from beginning a parade for Obama. There are two weeks between the Wisconsin primary on February 19th and the mini-Super Tuesday of March 4 and one can imagine party pros lining up behind Obama in the interregnum if Hillary hasn’t won a state or caucus since Super Tuesday.

If it sounds like Clinton’s options are closing down you would be correct. Shapiro highlights some of the endgames for the candidates:

THE OBAMA AVALANCHE: Even though 2008 so far has been a momentum killer (think of Clinton’s comeback in the New Hampshire primary), it is arguable that Obama’s string of February victories is a predictor of shifting Democratic sentiment. (He is likely to add two more trophies to his collection on Feb. 19 in liberal Wisconsin and his birth state of Hawaii.) If Obama somehow triumphs in Ohio and Texas on March 4, he will have filled in the one blank on his political résumé — his ability to win primaries in major states outside his own Illinois. At that point, Clinton may sound desperate to restless superdelegates as she pleads with them (probably in vain) to wait until the next major contest, the April 23 Pennsylvania primary.

THE OBAMA BANANA PEEL: Clinton has been pushing (unsuccessfully so far) for weekly debates for a simple reason — she excels in the format and she keeps hoping that Obama will make a fatal miscue. What might peril Obama would not be just a tart remark (such as his suggesting that Clinton was “likable enough”), but an error that dramatically highlights his inexperience. The question that Clinton wants Democrats (super and ordinary) to be asking themselves is, “Do we want to go up against John McCain with a candidate who was in the Illinois state Senate just four years ago?”

THE CLINTON COMEBACK (MARCH 2008 EDITION): While statewide primary victories do not radically alter the delegate calculus (Clinton, for instance, only won 44 more delegates in California than Obama, despite carrying the state by a 10-percentage-point margin), they do create a compelling political narrative. If Clinton wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she will end April having won virtually all the big primary prizes. It will be hard — but not impossible — for Team Obama to argue that caucus landslides in smaller states (Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota and Washington) should count more than the traditional building blocks (California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey) of a Democratic Electoral College majority.

To me, the first scenario seems the most likely at this point. However, Hillary will be able to point to the delegate total after March 4 in this scenario and ask a good question; why should I get out when I’m only a hundred or so delegates behind? This is where the Superdelegates will make the difference by moving to Obama and proving to Clinton that she has no chance to win it on the convention floor.

As for the “Banana Peel” scenario this is always a possibility with Obama. Some of the truly dumb things he has said in debates were ignored by the press earlier. Now that he is the front runner, that would change and the media would jump on a statement like his suggestion we bomb the Taliban in Pakistan without the permission of Musharraf or that he would meet with Ahmadinejad, no preconditions. And he could still be tripped up by Hillary on health care, especially since Obama’s plan doesn’t include mandates for people to buy insurance and yet claims it covers virtually everyone. Every time Obama tries to explain how his plan would still cover everyone, he steps in it a little deeper.

But Hillary can’t count on Obama at this late stage to screw up in the one debate they have left in Ohio.

The final scenario is probably her best bet. It’s the argument Republicans are using against McCain - that the candidate can’t win where he’s supposed to. If Hillary were to win Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, not only would she make the case that Obama can’t win in Democratic bastions, she will also be very close to Obama in the delegate count - probably less than 100. At that point, Obama’s “inevitability” argument falls a little flat and the heat would really be on the Superdelegates.

One final thought on those Superdelegates. Since they are made up of politicians, I think it is possible that a large group of them - perhaps a couple of hundred - will form an “uncommitted” bloc and take a wait and see attitude between the last primary in early June and the last week in August when the convention convenes. They would agree to throw their support en masse to one candidate or the other thus putting them over the top.

That’s if the #3 scenario is in play. I really do think Obama running the table on March 4 will mean it would be all over for Clinton. It is hard to see the Superdelegates giving Hillary enough support to overcome Obama being the obvious preference for a majority of the party - especially since he is currently polling better against McCain than she is.

A somewhat clarifying weekend for the Democrats to be sure. But it’s still far from over. And anyone who underestimates Hillary Clinton would be foolish. She proved it in New Hampshire. She can prove it again.

Mike Huckabee continues to win southern primaries, taking the Louisiana contest yesterday while also demonstrating strength in the bible belt by taking the Kansas caucuses. Not only does the Huckster reveal his strength by winning these races, at the same time he shows the entire world McCain’s crippling weakness.

The frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president cannot win the base of his own party.

Losing the south in November would be tantamount to a realignment. Regardless of which candidate wins the nomination on the other side, a northern Democrat will have defeated a Republican in the south for the first time since 1960 when John Kennedy won 7 southern states, including all states in the deep south except Florida (Alabama ended up splitting its vote in the electoral college). To say that would represent a sea change in electoral politics would be a huge understatement. Without the south, Republicans may as well get used to the idea that they will be a minority party for a very long time.

McCain’s problems have gone far beyond the tactical necessity of winning over conservatives. He faces a strategic dilemma of the first magnitude. And Mike Huckabee isn’t making things any easier for him.

Huckabee is making the case loud and clear that he deserves the second spot on the ticket. By embarrassing McCain in the south, Huckabee reveals McCain’s electoral dysfunction - and his desperation. His well-known appeal to independents is based on the fact that he is not a doctrinaire, hard core conservative. What would happen to his independent/moderate base if he were to choose a rabid social conservative like Huckabee whose past statements on everything from gays to women’s rights leave the ticket wide open to devastating attacks by the Democrats?

Such a ticket might help in the south. But everywhere else, it would damage McCain’s own base of support among the indies thus causing him to lose states that he will absolutely need in order to defeat the Democratic nominee.

If one were to overlay a map from the 2000 election on top of a map from the 2004 election, you would see that it is almost identical. Only one state switched from red to blue and 2 states from blue to red.

But McCain’s problems come into stark relief if you were to overlay a map of Democratic gains in the 2006 mid terms. The mountain west states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada are looking bluer all the time. Iowa seems lost as does Ohio. The GOP has virtually disappeared in the northeast. Meanwhile, those blue states got a lot bluer.

In practical terms, McCain has a whole lot more territory to defend than his opponents. This frees the Democrats to target those states mentioned above and perhaps some others in the upper south like Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri.

Only McCain’s appeal to independents might yet save the day because Republicans, with McCain running, will have some rich targets of their own to go after. Suddenly, the upper midwest - where Bush lost some very close races - looks to be in play. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and perhaps even Michigan might be had for the taking. Pennsylvania also becomes a possible GOP target. And with McCain’s popularity in New Hampshire, New England comes back into play for the GOP.

All of that might be moot if McCain is forced to choose Huckabee as his running mate. This is not to say that the Arizona senator shouldn’t choose a good conservative - I think that’s a foregone conclusion. But a conservative with a lot less baggage would be better than a Huckabee whose shameless pandering to the religious right would not sit well in states where McCain has a chance for a breakthrough.

So McCain’s dilemma is simple; does he choose a running mate who can help him in the south but hurts him elsewhere? Or does he choose a candidate whose impact on the south is unknown but will almost certainly aid him in blue states?

No doubt they will ponder those questions in the McCain camp long and hard before reaching a decision.

A while back, I got fed up with the stupidity of the Republican party and disassociated myself from its intolerance, corruption, and milquetoast adherence to conservative principles.

That didn’t mean I would not support or vote for Republicans. Only that I was no longer a “party man.” No longer would I stretch my conscience and principles to defend those who failed so miserably in acting on their supposed beliefs while stinking up the Capitol with their pork happy spending, their deviant personal peccadilloes, and hypocritical actions on a wide range of issues from immigration to earmarks . I was comfortable with that decision then as I am now.

In fact, the recent tantrums thrown by many over John McCain’s candidacy and inevitable nomination has reinforced my decision ten fold. Party activists have proven themselves just as blind, just as arrogant, just as stupid as GOP politicians - perhaps more so. Taking action by sitting home on election day that will insure the election of a Democratic president and Democratic lawmakers who will seek nothing less than a political realignment of the country is beyond madness, beyond suicide.

I refuse to follow those of you who insist that it is a viable option to deliberately allow the election of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, thinking that they will make the American electorate so angry that a victory by “true” conservatives in 2012 will be a cakewalk. This is not an option. It is delusional. It is equally ridiculous to suppose that conservative sabotage of a McCain candidacy will somehow strengthen our position within the party. Like the old joke about the pope giving advice on a couple’s sexual problems - “You no playa the game; you no maka the rules.” How much influence did sitting out the 2006 election get those of you who chose not to vote? You sure showed ‘em, didn’t you?

I regret to inform my friends who are taking this tack, but my self destructive behavior only extends to eating too much red meat and smoking.

I know exactly where these people are coming from. It’s not that I am insensate to their abhorrence of Mr. McCain. The Arizona senator will see to it that conservatives are largely frozen out of policy and personnel decisions. If he doesn’t do that, the media will be all over him for not living up to his label as a “maverick.” Judging by many of his campaign aides, I fully understand the anger directed at him.

But it cannot be said enough that elections are about choices. And politics is a business that is bound to break your heart if you live it long enough. This is why cynicism is so dominant among the pros and political press. Unless you drop your silly illusions about ideological or personal purity of one candidate or another, you will end up like those who are stomping their feet like three year olds and refusing to come when mommy calls.

Here’s a toddler who has the routine down pat:

I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

How will your conscience feel, Mr. Dobson, when gay marriage is the law of the land? Or embryonic cell research is federally funded and widespread. Try putting this on your conscience; it will be your fault.

Better yet, how will it feel to watch our boys coming home from Iraq while al-Qaeda dances in the streets with glee before moving back into places that many of our soldiers paid the ultimate price to clean them out in the first place? How does re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine grab ya, Doc? You’d be off TV quicker than you could say “equal time.”

And how long would it take for your head to explode before a Hillbama administration named a couple of Supreme Court Justices who would laugh in your face if you suggested overturning Roe v Wade?

Your choice was to allow this to happen. My choice is to prevent it at all costs. Who holds the moral upper hand here, Doc? Whose position would end up being best for America?

But its not about America. It’s about selfishness. It’s about the arrogant belief that your conscience is more important than the future of the country. That’s one helluva conscience you’ve got there, Doc. Why not feed it a little more self-inflated ego and top it off with a little moral blindness while you’re at it.

And lest you think Republicans are the only ones with arrogant sophists, how about this bit of idiocy from Chris Bowers of Open Left:

If the institution that exists to resolve disputes within the American center-left does not operate according to democratic principles, then I see no reason to continue participating within that institution. If that institution fails to respect democratic principles in its most important internal contest of all–nominating an individual for President of the United States–then I will quit the Democratic Party. And yes, I am perfectly serious about this. If someone is nominated for POTUS from the Democratic Party despite another candidate receiving more poplar support from Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, I will resign as local precinct captain, resign my seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, immediately cease all fundraising for all Democrats, refuse to endorse the Democratic “nominee” for any office, and otherwise disengage from the Democratic Party through all available means of doing so.

Holy Jesus could this guy act any more like a 13 year old drama queen? Forget about the personal preference of a superdelegate - who after all was given the power by the party to act in just such a situation that exists with Hillary and Obama. What matters is that he follow “intra-party democracy.”

Bowers wants elected Democrats who make up the large majority of Superdelegates to forswear their own judgment of who the best nominee for the party might be in favor of voting for whoever has the most delegates or votes come convention time. One might note that it would be entirely possible for one candidate to have a majority of primary votes while the other had a majority of delegates - a dilemma Bowers can’t comprehend in his tiny, narrow version of “democracy.”

So much for “intra-party” democracy - especially since, most undemocratically, Bowers wants to force people to vote for a candidate based on entirely arbitrary and capricious criteria. What about electability? What about personal preference and judgment? These things don’t exist in Bower’s democracy because they would likely lead to a result he opposes.

One party’s base will refuse to vote for a candidate because it troubles their conscience. The other because the process might favor one candidate over another. Two parties. Two ideologies. Two polar opposite reasons to stay home on election day.

But one bunch of spoiled brats.

Michelle Malkin has the only principled option for those who believe they cannot support McCain but refuse to allow a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office; stay calm, stay rational, keep your powder dry, and use your support as leverage to try and alter the direction of the McCain campaign. She approvingly quotes See-Dubya:

Conservatives’ one card left to play is whether we endorse McCain or not. Why should we show it now? If all conservatives declare unanimously against him, pledging undying hostility and staking our reputations on opposing the guy, well, he may decide (as we did with him when he and his partisans like Lindsey Graham and Juan Hernandez fumed about us) that we mean what we say.

Likewise, if we all fall into line, even grudgingly, well, we’re taken for granted…But if we keep our cards close to our chest, McCain still has to work for our vote. He can’t take us for granted and he dare not alienate us any more…

…Just to clarify, I’m not telling you whether to vote for him or not. I see the arguments on both sides. My point is that whether you wouldn’t vote for McCain if he was the last Republican on earth, or if you’ll probably just pinch your nose and pull the handle anyway, or whether you’re genuinely undecided, it’s in the interest of conservatives everywhere to act as if you could possibly be won over by credible and verifiable movement to the right on McCain’s part…Oh, and when pollsters ask you who you’re voting for, tell them you’re undecided.

I don’t agree with the strategy but I think it a defensible position to take and at least has the advantage of being based on principle and not the personal pique of a selfish adolescent mind.

I care about the outcome in Iraq. I care about staying on the offense in the War on terror. I care about the danger of Iran. I care about getting conservative judges on the bench. I care about tax cuts, entitlement reform, drastically reducing earmarks, preventing mandated health insurance, and 100 other things that a Hillbama Administration would do or fail to do.

Those who intend to sit at home in order to assuage their “conscience” can go to the devil. With so much at stake, sticking your head in the sand, hoping that this will win conservatives power and influence in the Republican party is a ludicrous strategy and will only end up setting the conservative cause back years if not decades.

The choice in November will be between a wildly imperfect John McCain and a Democrat. Not much of a choice to be sure but a clear one nonetheless. And if you’re an adult, an easy one.

UPDATE

Regular readers of this site may recall that about the time Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, I said that if Fred weren’t nominated, I might not vote in November.

It’s true that I wrote it. But further reflection (and getting farther away emotionally from my investment in Thompson) showed me the error of my ways and I have since adopted my current position of purchasing one of these gadgets to assist me in the most unpleasant task of punching the hole next to McCain’s name on election day.

Many of you are probably a little upset at my language, thinking that a more moderate tone would be more conducive to changing people’s minds.

That’s a laugh. My language is not meant to persuade but to chastise. To believe that any of you close minded, stubborn as a mule conservatives would change their minds and vote for McCain is laughable. Might as well try to lever the earth as alter the universal constant of the extremist’s position once his mind is made up.

When I was about 14 years old, I picked up a paperback box set of The Iliad and the Odyssey that one of my siblings had already abandoned. It was the Penguin Classics edition (Fagles translation) that so many of us would come to know in high school or college in the 1960’s and 70’s.

The Iliad mostly bored me, although I loved the character of Patroclus because he reminded me of myself at the time.

But the Odyssey enthralled me. The adventures of Odysseus were exciting, made for a teenager’s imagination. He was a flawed hero, of course. He played around on his wife. He thumbed his nose at the gods. And his hubris got him into trouble more than once - most dramatically when he challenged the might of Poseidon himself by killing his son Polyphemus, the cyclops. This so angered Poseidon that he caused Odysseus to wander many years before he could return to his home in Ithaca.

But of all the adventures and misfortunes to befall Odysseus, the most compelling has to be his journey past the islands where the Sirens sang their songs to bewitch unwary sailors. It was said that mariners went mad upon hearing the achingly beautiful music so of course, Odysseus being Odysseus, he had to tempt fate by finding a way to hear the songs but not come under the Siren’s spell. Circe informed him that if he ordered his men to plug their ears with beeswax while Odysseus tied himself to the mast, giving his men orders not to release him no matter how insistent he became, he might safely traverse the waters near the Siren’s island.

So they sang, in sweet utterance, and the heart within me
desired to listen, and I signaled to my companions to set me
free, nodding with my brows, but they leaned on and rowed hard,
and Perimedes and Eurylochus, rising up, straightway
fastened me with even more lashings and squeezed me tighter.

Odysseus was able to resist the Siren’s call only be being physically restrained by his men. But it appears to some observers that when it comes to Barack Obama’s feel good, cotton candy campaign and its vapid call for “change,” the great mass of his supporters may be better off if the plug their ears with beeswax or lash themselves to a sturdy timber somewhere.

Jack Tapper:

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she’s “getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama’s supporters. On listservs I’m on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, “Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of ‘coming to Obama’ in the same way born-again Christians talk about ‘coming to Jesus.’…So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work.”

Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes “something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism” he sees in Obama’s Super Tuesday speech.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Obama said. “This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you.”

Says Klein: “That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. “

I too feel the magnetic pull of the man. I have expressed my admiration for Obama on many occasions, complimenting him on his political gifts and that rare ability to inspire hope in people.

But c’mon people. Get a grip. Better yet, take another look at Obama not as a “charismatic” politician but as a potential president of the United States. Charisma don’t cut it when sitting in the Big Chair. All one need do is look at the presidency of that other “change” artist and charisma freak John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy is much more consequential of an historical figure when looking at him retrospectively than he was while in office. His apologists in the academy (and the relentless Kennedy PR machine’s 40 year effort to canonize him) have turned a mediocre presidency into some kind of Golden Age of American politics. This is nuts. Kennedy was not much of a reformer nor was he much of a chief executive. His introduction of the Civil Rights Act came only after the standoff between Wallace at the University of Alabama forced his hand. He opposed the Freedom Riders (even though he assigned Federal Marshalls to protect them) and he had no qualms about J. Edgar Hoover bugging Martin Luther King’s sordid private life.

Kennedy’s “charisma” couldn’t move the Civil Rights Act in Congress one inch. Nor could his “charisma” give him the foreknowledge not to increase our commitment of “advisors” in Viet Nam from Eisenhower’s 800 to an eventual 16,000 with “free fire zones,” napalm, and defoliants. Charisma is a fine attribute for a politician to have in running a campaign. But it doesn’t make a dime’s bit of difference when confronting Congress or the truly evil people in this world that Obama has promised to sit down with. I daresay that President Ahmadinejad would probably be immune to Mr. Obama’s charisma as would Baby Assad in Syria and perhaps even Hugo Chavez although the Venezuelan dictator might be eager to share his insights into how to build a cult of personality here in America.

This hasn’t stopped people - young and old - from comparing Obama to JFK and reveling in their ignorance. Here’s Ian Rock trying to break through the hysteria and ask some pertinent questions of the Obamamaniacs:

I have been listening to many of your reasons for supporting Obama. I have watched a good number of interviews on CNN, MSNBC and YouTube to better understand why you think Obama will be great president in 2008, and I keep hearing things like:

“It’s just the way he lights up a room”

“We haven’t seen a candidate this charismatic since JFK.”

“It’s just hard to be objective with this guy”

Obama fans seem to give you the same general answer. Mostly, it has something to do with this charisma. If you want a good example check out a recent interview George Clooney gave explaining his reason; you get the same JFK personality “thing.”

To me, it’s like you are all voting for Obama because of some unexplainable aura he exudes. Everyone is swooning over this almost mysterious attraction he exudes. “Electric” is another word I have been hearing.

Mr. Rock calls these Obama supporters “groupies” which may be a little unfair. “Disciples” may be more to the point. Make no mistake. There is a religious overlay to the Obama campaign. Not necessarily in direct appeals to God but rather in its portrayal of the candidate as savior of America. And Obama himself uses the cadence and imagrey when speaking that calls to mind the Sunday sermon.

I can see where some liberals might find this “creepy” although I think it more pitiful than dangerous. Eventually, Obama is going to have to start filling out that empty suit he’s been walking around in these past months. Or Hillary (or McCain) will do it for him. Either way, his doe-eyed supporters who look at him as the answer to our civic prayers will no doubt become a little less enamored of their hero once his Dorian Gray facade starts to crumble as a result of media scrutiny and opposition attacks.

Vanity Fair writer and left wing hate monger James Wolcott also raises an eyebrow at the Obama supplicants:

“(p)erhaps it’s my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can’t picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don’t look to politics for transcendence and self-certification.”

There is no way that Obama can transfer this “idealistic zeal” to any policy prescription or grand idea because once he fills in the blanks of specificity on any issue, he is bound to lose support. The press is just now catching up to the fact that even for a politician, Obama is incredibly vague. This, he must be since getting specific will necessarily destroy Obama’s strength as a candidate; the fact that he can currently be all things to all people -an empty vessel filled with the hopes and dreams of millions.

It will be interesting to watch over the next several months whether Hillary Clinton can fill in some of the blanks deliberately created by Obama and thus peel away some of his less enamored followers. It’s one thing to be an agent of change. It’s quite another thing to get specific about exactly what kind of change you are proposing.

I daresay that not all of today’s Obama supporters will be there at the end once that specificity is given life either by a desperate Clinton or a press grown tired of the platitudes and moralizing of the candidate himself.

What with the primaries and politics in general taking up an enormous amount of my time, I have failed to post the winners for the last three Watchers Council votes.

As pennance for this oversight, I must now take a caning from the Chief Weasel himself - a rare event in Watcher’s history but a task I understand he takes great relish in.

Here then are the results for the last three weeks:

Results from 1/18/08

Council

1. Ed. Schools: They’re Awful (for the most part) by The Colossus of Rhodey
2. The Race Card, Liberal Guilt and Our Next President by Wolf Howling
3. 500,000 Iraqis Did Not Die by Cheat Seeking Missiles
4. Paul of Mises; or How the New Republic Bewitches the Right by Big Lizards

Non Council

1. Kangaroo Court by Ezra Levant
2. Ashamed to be Canadian! by Covenant Zone
3. Barack Obama — I’m Sure We’ve Seen Him Somewhere Before by Guardian Unlimited
4. The Media Does It Again by Winds of Change

Results from 1/25/08

Council

1. Liberal Fascism by Done With Mirrors

Tie for Second

2. Grim Choices Confront GOP by Right Wing Nut House
2. I Have A Dream’ — The Democrat’s Version by Joshuapundit
2. Hillanomix 101 by Wolf Howling
2. The Radicalization of American Politics by The Glittering Eye
2. Di Caprio Lies and Hustles Bucks by Cheat Seeking Missiles
2, Our Out of Control Borders: Who’s Accountable? by The Education Wonks
2. What Is “Freedom”? by The Colossus of Rhodey

Non Council

1. Bylines of Brutality by Iowahawk
2. It’s All Israel’s Fault by Gates of Vienna
3. About the Anarcholibertarians by The QandO Blog
3. Doctors and Death and Doctors Death by The IgNoble Experiment
4.The Navy’s Failing China Policy by Pajamas Media

Results from 2/1/08

Council

1. Energy Independence — What It Am And What It Ain’t by Joshuapundit
2. About Those “Lies” by The Colossus of Rhodey
2. The Media, Richard Scaife, and the Never Ending Soros Connection by Bookworm Room
2. How to Lie About Lying by Big Lizards
5. Complicit by Soccer Dad
6. Orwell’s Britain Is Halal Toast by Wolf Howling

Non Council

1. The Conclusion We Dare Not Face by Dr. Sanity
2. A Moral Core for U.S. Foreign Policy by Hoover Institution
2. Be a Victim! Or Else! by Classical Values
2. The Muslims of Europe Charter by Gates of Vienna
5. On Term Limits and Government Power by Somewhere On A1A…
5. John McCain’s Open-Borders Outreach Director: The Next DHS Secretary?; Update: 5. A “Non-Paid Volunteer” by Michelle Malkin
5. Treaties and Executive Agreements by Outside the Beltway
5. The Audacity of Questioning Obama’s Commitment to Israel by American Thinker
5. Capitalism Doesn’t Work, Mr. Gates? by Rasmussen Reports

John McCain stood before a mixed crowd of rabid supporters and skeptical activists and promised to be a good boy. Whether his words were enough for the conservatives present to put away the strap and forgo punishing the senator for his past apostasies by staying home on election day is unknown at this point.

One first has to admire McCain’s courage in going to CPAC in the first place. His excuse for missing last year’s confab - that he was busy running for president - fell pretty flat and no one believed him anyway. Every other candidate found time to speak before conference goers last year and McCain’s absence was largely seen as a snub.

Not so this year. After an overly defensive introduction by Senator Tom Coburn (he almost seemed whiny at times) McCain strode to the podium to a thunderous ovation generated by his numerous supporters who were present and the polite if restrained applause of the rest. McCain seemed a little nervous at the beginning, trying to rush into his remarks - as if he could forestall any booing that might erupt when the applause died down. But attendees seemed on their best behavior, holding their fire for later.

McCain then launched into a spirited if somewhat disjointed defense of his conservative credentials. He didn’t say anything everyone hadn’t heard before. He repeated himself a couple of times, perhaps hammering home the point that he shared the basic values and principles that conference goers believed. He reminded listeners a couple of times of his pro-life beliefs. He hit his opposition to pork time and again, going so far as to say he would never sign a bill that had any earmarks in it. That very well may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater - some earmarks like Charlie Wilson’s add ons for Afghan rebels are useful - but perhaps when the baby is so infected with the earmark virus, it needs to be tossed just so the disease can be arrested.

Although his speech was interrupted several times by applause, there were an awful lot of CPAC’ers sitting on their hands. They were polite. They listened carefully to what McCain had to say. But they were in no mood for unity and good will. This became evident when McCain talked about his differences with the base over illegal immigration. The cascade of cat calls and boos that greeted his mention of that issue showed McCain that he has a long way to go until people believe his pledge to secure the borders first.

Raising the issue took some courage and McCain should be praised for taking his critics head on. But nothing he said would have changed anyone’s mind on the issue. And the senator said precious little about campaign finance reform which almost certainly would have produced an even sterner outcry by CPAC attendees.

There’s “courage” and then there’s political courage, I guess.

All in all, McCain did a fine job. He said what he had to without being overbearing or condescending. He was jovial. His eyes twinkled when he mentioned immigration, almost relishing the clash with his detractors. And he was suitably solemn about his commitment to “conservative principles.”

But besides the fact his appearance made good political theater, I doubt whether McCain made any progress in convincing conservatives that they should get behind his candidacy with enthusiasm. It was pretty much the same case we’ve heard made at the debates. And since those performances didn’t convince the base of his sincerity, this appearance at CPAC didn’t either.

Perhaps if he named a few high profile conservatives as his campaign advisors, that would help the base to rally to his cause. As it stands now, his stature may have been elevated just enough to encourage him to continue to reach out to conservatives and bring them into his campaign for what promises to be a bruising general election race.

MUST CREDIT RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE

A secret operative working for this website has gotten a hold of the speech John McCain will deliver to attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference. She says I shouldn’t ask how she got it although she mentioned that she had a real good time getting it and to thank all the guys in oppo research for the pizza, beer, and for being such good sports when playing “Hide the Salami.”

So here it is. Unedited and uncut. There appear to be some very strange stage directions included. Take them at face value.

====SPEECH FOR THE CONSERVATIVE RABBLE AT CPAC===

My fellow conservatives. (Duck)

My thanks for that warm greeting. I was unaware that the salad portion of the meal would be delivered in such a unique manner although someone should talk to the chef about the freshness of the produce in his kitchen.

I would like to thank all of you for your generous support of my campaign. (Hit the dirt.) For those of you who may not see eye to eye with me on an issue or two, allow me to explain why you are wrong and I am right.

I am always right. It doesn’t really matter why, although I could bring up my many years of experience and the fact that the New York Times agrees with me so often. What matters is that you forget about all the differences we’ve had and simply go to the polls next November and vote for me. (Try not to sneer.)

Trust me. I won’t disappoint you. (Try not to laugh.) Last summer during the debate on my Amne…my Immigration Reform Bill, I heard you loud and clear when you said you wanted the borders closed and protected. And believe me my friends, there will be no backtracking when it comes to me fulfilling that promise.

Of course, I may make some small alterations - like changing the definition of “closing” the borders. And we may want to attend to some small, insignificant details dealing with undocumented workers first - such as giving them some documents. But I can promise you unequivocally that once we take care of that, we’ll close the borders right quick. All I ask is that you put your racist, xenophobic feelings aside so that we can work together.

I’d like to say a few words about Campaign Finance Reform. Get used to it. It ain’t goin’ anywhere. (Try not to gloat.)

Some of you may be worried that I won’t appoint the kind of judges to the federal courts that you can support. Let me put your minds to rest. I will appoint the most conservative judges possible - just as long as they don’t wear their conservatism on their sleeves and as long as the Washington Post doesn’t criticize me too much. But rest assured, the judges I select will be strict constitutionalists - on many things. Oh they may fudge around the edges a bit but after all, the darn thing is 219 years old and sometimes, it’s good to let the old girl have her head so that she can breathe a bit.

I know that many of you doubt my conservatism. I am shocked that you could be so deranged in doing so. I was there at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. I even had my picture taken with The Gipper. (Try and look humble.) Surely that should be enough proof of my conservative bona fides. Are you saying that you doubt the word of Reagan? What kind of conservatives are you?

Of course, there are varying degrees of conservatism. I’m from the “Maverick Conservative” wing of the party. This is the wing of conservatism that believes anything the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news nets will praise me for is probably conservative enough. If it’s not, tough. If you think I’m going to change my position on an issue and get the media upset with me, you’re dreaming.

The Maverick Conservative wing of the party - both of us - want to be clear that we support many of the same issues that you “movement” conservatives support. All we ask is that you ignore us when we thumb our noses at you. You can’t expect us to maintain our status as “Mavericks” with the media without deliberately undercutting your agenda while hinting what barbarians you truly are. Therefore, I ask that you simply accept us for who we are.

And calling us “self aggrandizing media whores who care more for pleasing our liberal friends than in working to enact conservative legislation” may be accurate but please - keep it to yourselves.

We can do great things together - as long as you just shut up and vote for me. After all, if it’s between me and Hillary, are you really going to let the Democrats win in November by staying at home? (Try not to look too smug.) And let me remind you. As the man who has single handedly turned the Iraq War around by my invention of “The Surge,” electing a Democrat will probably mean bringing our troops home too quickly and leaving Iraq in the lurch.

That is, unless I do it first because as you all know, the true mark of a Maverick is unpredictability. Trust me when I say that being unpredictable will be my first priority while in office. I promise to be so unpredictable that you won’t know from one minute to the next just what surprises I will pull out of my hat.

That’s all I have to say. I’m glad I came today and I hope you take my words how they were intended - in the spirit of cooperation and friendship (Try not to look too contemptuous.)

Let us begin.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin asks that CPAC attendees not boo McCain when he speaks later this afternoon.

I would like to second that notion although I think hissing might be acceptable if it is done tastefully and as unobtrusively as possible.

John McCain may not have done as well as the media expected on Super Tuesday but he nevertheless acquired a stranglehold on the Republican nomination and only a total, unmitigated collapse by the Arizona senator could possibly deny him the prize awaiting him in the Twin Cities.

To his great credit (and my surprise), Hugh Hewitt sees the writing on the wall and makes a heartfelt plea for unity:

Senator McCain has a clear path to the nomination, Romney a very uphill battle, and Huck is fighting for 2012 at this point and for a win in a major vote outside of the south. Certainly they should all stay in through the primaries ahead because it isn’t over and because our side needs the excitement of a campaign in such key falls states as Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania to keep the MSM from turning 100% of its attention on to growing the Obama phenomenon. They ought to be scheduling three man debates in every state, making their points and taking every opportunity to look ahead to the fall.

At the same time, Romney and Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain’s lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party’s eventual nominee. Senator McCain would do well to make a similar statement though his lead is significant and his collapse unlikely. Putting Humpty Dumpty together again cannot wait for St. Paul. Each of the three need to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is.

Frankly, the way that Hugh and other conservatives had been carrying on since the Florida primary, I thought Hewitt would be with the bitter enders who believe that if Mitt can’t get the nomination, some kind of Republican Götterdämmerung should be initiated and the party and its apostates consumed in some cataclysmic immolation complete with fat ladies in Viking helmets and sturdy, Aryan warriors with great, bushy beards.

Thankfully, Hugh at least has more sense - and class - than that.

For in truth, Mitt Romney is toast. He’s a gone goose. He is finished. Fertig! Verfallen! Verlumpt! Verblunget! Verkackt! .

In fact, this candidate is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!

‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the lectern last night ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!

‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!

‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!

Or, he could be pining for the fjords?

Seriously, Mitt made a good run but anyone who harbors the illusion that the race is not over need only look at the numbers. Come to think of it, if anyone still believes Romney has a chance in hell of winning the nomination, the probability exists that facts won’t matter much to them anyway - only fairy tales and bedtime stories.

That’s okay. I have to put something on the blog today anyway so let’s examine the race from the standpoint of where we are now, how many delegates are left to be awarded, and what that means to the viability of candidate Romney.

With 1191 delegates needed to win, McCain has 615 delegates according to CNN to Romney’s 248. McCain is likely to pick up 20-30 more delegates as soon as California and a couple of other proportional delegate states are completely counted. Romney also should pick up a couple of dozen additional delegates when all is said and done.

With barely 1300 total delegates left on the table, McCain would only need around 550 of those delegates to claim victory. Romney would need to win 900 of the remaining 1300 delegates to overtake McCain.

Can he do it?

McCain would have to totally collapse for that to happen. After next week’s “Potomac Primary” involving Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. - where Virginia and DC are winner take all states and where McCain is comfortably ahead - only Vermont remains as a WTA contest. All the rest of the states in play will award delegates proportionately.

Romney would have to win virtually all the remaining contests by at least a 3-1 margin - and even then you can’t ignore the presence of Mike Huckabee in the race. The Baptist preacher helped put the stake through Romney’s heart last night when he stole 5 southern primaries. This denied McCain the overwhelming victory he needed to put both candidates away but it also killed Romney’s chances of getting close to the Arizona senator.

Not enough states, not enough delegates, and not enough time. The fat lady may not be singing in the GOP race but she’s certainly warming up in the wings.

My latest Pajamas Media column is up and I guarantee controversy.

I take a look at Barack Obama’s candidacy and place it in some historical perspective:

An extraordinary statistic jumped out of the jumble of numbers and percentages that pulled me up short and caused me to reflect on the past as well as the future. In the exit polls from the Democratic party primary in Georgia, nestled in with indicators of age, income, and religion was the vote cast by white males. When you think about it, this is startling:

I suppose it’s no big thing for many younger Americans who weren’t born and raised with the idea that there were limits inherent in the American political system that would prevent a black man from achieving what Mr. Obama has achieved. It is a shameful thing to believe in those limits – bred to it by history and circumstance as we of my generation were.

Read it all before commenting please.

The Rick Moran Show will go live tonight at the special time of 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM Central Time.

Tonight, I’ll have my trusty sidekick and co-host Rich Baehr, Political Correspondent of The American Thinker with me for the entire 2 hours as we examine the Florida results and look beyond to Super Tuesday next week.

Joining me will be Ed Morrissey of Captainsquartersblog.Com and Tom Lifson, Editor in Chief of American Thinker.

For the best in political analysis, click on the button below and listen in. A podcast will be available for streaming or download around 15 minutes after the show ends.

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.