Progressive is Pragmatic, Not Punishment

There has been a lot of talk about taxes lately, as in a desperate attempt to regain control in the election John McCain is accusing of Barack Obama of raising taxes on the middle class while simultaneously claiming that his tax cuts on the middle class, which he insists won’t exist, paid for by rolling back tax hikes of the Bush administration, which he was originally against, are some form of socialism.

Of course, the American tax system has been a progressive tax system since the passage of the 16^th Amendment in 1913. There were two income taxes prior to that, during the Civil War and the 1880’s, which had flat rates. However, both of those taxes were only levied on the wealthiest of individuals in America, and therefore still adhered to the principle of the progressive tax which claims that those who make the most should shoulder the largest burden.

The historical battle between America and communist/socialist governments has made throwing around the terms “communist” and “socialist” very attractive. But I don’t know anybody in this country who is completely against any government program which dabbles in socialist ideology. I would have very little respect, and suspect very, very few Americans would oppose this view, of those who wanted to eliminate some of our programs which are quite socialist in operation, such as Social Security, Medicare, the postal service, the military, or Major League Baseball. But I digress . . .

There are two prevailing arguments against any sort of tax increase on the wealthy. The first is that the rich already pay far more than their fair share. You hear all sorts of statistics like “the wealthiest six Americans pay more in taxes than the rest of the US population, the crew of the Starship Enterprise, and every Chinese person since the beginning of time combined.” The part they leave out is that they make much more money than everybody else. So I set out to find some statistics which compare income distribution with tax burden. And I stumbled upon a very cool Excel spreadsheet (if there was ever a such thing) made up by the Congressional Budget Office. Check it out here. Unfortunately, it evidently takes two years to come up with this data (as a government employee, I should not have been as surprised as I was), because the most recent data was compiled in December 2007, but is only through 2005. Still, more recent data would actually prove my point better, because Bush helped push through another tax cut on the wealthy in 2006, as one of the Republican Congress’s last actions.

Instead of spouting a mountain of numbers, I decided to create some graphical evidence that our tax system is merely progressive and not some punishment for making money (click on the graphs to see a larger, more legible size):

I stumbled on another interesting little tidbit. Since the other popular argument among the right is that decreasing taxes for the rich increases wealth for all individuals, al la trickle down (I prefer the term “voodoo,” originated by someone whom I’m sure was ultra-liberal) economics, I decided to see how damaging increasing tax rates on the wealthiest individuals was for their earning power. Turns out, it’s not much damaging at all. In fact, their pre-tax income follows their tax rate much more proportionally than inversely:

And mean tax rates vs. mean income follows the same trend:

So it looks like demand side economics isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Of course, I’m not advocating for WWI tax rates, when the richest were taxed at about 70%. But it would appear that rolling back Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest while providing breaks for those who can least afford their taxes would hardly be the fatal mistake some would imply it would be.

Many argue for the flat tax as a way to eliminate the “redistribution of wealth.” But since we currently have a progressive tax system, doing so successfully could only result in one of two outcomes: either tax rates on the lower and middle classes would sharply increase, with the increase most severe on those making the least amount of money; or a drastic cut in government spending, inevitably targeting the most drastic cuts in programs designed to support the poorest individuals. Either way, it would also be a massive redistribution of wealth, this time from those most incapable of affording it to those who need it the least.

The Real Cause of Economic Discourse (Hint: It’s not socialism.)

I’d like to take a little time to address an issue which, I thought, was pretty much common knowledge – the way we got into the economic mess we now see ourselves in. I have been keeping at least a passing attention on the economy since, well, just about forever, and am astonished by the lack of respect some people have for the general population’s ability to retain information over the course of several years, but even more amazed by a general willingness to soak it up.

Mostly what I am referring to is the misplaced belief that somehow the economy was moving along swimmingly, and then Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae came out of left field and just messed the whole thing up for all of us. The truth is the economy has been struggling for quite some time. Heck, earlier this year Bush had to convince America that, based upon a very technical meaning of the word “recession,” we were merely in an “economic slowdown.” This was months before the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We don’t argue about technical meanings of the word “recession” when everything’s going fine. And meanwhile the American dollar was decreasing in value while American’s purchasing power was being decreased by, among other things, the high cost of energy and oil for a couple of years. So how people can believe that the economic mess is being caused by the collapse of the housing market, and not the other way around, is a little confusing to me.

But the reaction du jour for the far-right conservative movement has been to deny that any economic uncertainty was taking place, and throw the burden of the current economic crisis directly on the shoulders of 1977’s Community Reinvestment Act, with the proverbial back-breaking straw coming in the form of a Clinton amending bill in 1995. This does not seem to be done as a means to blame Bill Clinton for our current economic strife per se, but rather to shift the responsibility from the economic policies of the Bush administration to a much more wide-reaching ideology; that in an attempt to destroy American capitalism and replace it with a neo-socialist liberal agenda which rewards the lazy and indifferent at the expense of the hard-working, God-fearing aristocracy (a la the beautifully poetic dung slinger Ayn Rand), the liberal left has destroyed America’s economy under the name of – get this – equal housing legislation (poor people owning homes: how delightfully evil!!)

A succinct illustration of this argument is an article supposedly passed from an economic professor to a Republican State Senator and former Governor, to the fun loving people of the internet (probably not – these things are seldomly written by those whom it’s attributed to.)

First, it says that the base for this problem was first laid in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  It tells you to look it up, but doesn’t actually provide any evidence or reasoning to back up the claim.  Evidently, since it says to look it up we’re just supposed to blindly accept that this statement is true without any sort of validation whatsoever.  I called their bluff.

The bill was actually designed to prevent lending institutions from denying credit to deserving applicants based solely upon the location of the applicant or the general economic status of those in his or her area.  The bill specifically stated that these loans be “consistent with safe and sound operation.”  In other words, contrary to the implication of the article, the bill was not designed to provide credit to those who should not get it, but rather to force credit agencies to end discriminatory practices which denied credit to those who would have been approved if they lived in another area.

And as for that heinous 1995 adaptation?  Well, in 1995 both the House and the Senate was under Republican control.  So this wasn’t something those socialist liberals could have passed without Conservative agreement on the issue.  In fact, according to an article from 1995, most of the law was written by Republicans in Congress, and was almost vetoed by Clinton.  But again the argument damming the liberal agenda makes a claim that it doesn’t bother even attempting to substantiate, and hopes that it’s not checked out by making the assertion that you should.  I did.

The majority of the 1995 amendment was actually aimed at changing the regulatory practices to make them more streamlined, easier, and cost-effective for the lenders.  So the claim that it was targeted towards people who cannot afford to buy a house is patently false.  Contrarily, the biggest impact this bill had on the current economic crisis was the inclusion of subprime securities (which I’ll get to later).  Democrats were originally against these new rules, while the securities lobbyists fought hard for it.

We’re supposed to take it on faith that because the bill was passed during Clinton’s Presidency, he must be to blame for any problems it caused.  In reality, the bill that was passed was a mostly Republican bill with appeasements to Democrats to allow its passage and veto-less escape.

At any rate, CRA loans are typically profitable and safe for the companies which provide them, according the Federal Reserve.  Also, most of the sub-prime loans were not held under CRA oversight, so it couldn’t have been to blame, anyway.  According to an article in Business Week, over 50% of the bad loans were made by an independent lenders not privy to the CRA, and up to 30% were made by lenders associated with CRA institutions but not under CRA regulations.

Finally, it should be noted that CRA lenders were some of the most heavily regulated institutions, and these regulations were becoming more and more lax under the Bush administration.  Since virtually all of the loans which were bad were made during the lessening of the CRA, and not very many were even a part of this program, it’s simply not logical (never-the-less factual) to blame the mess on the CRA at all.

But I’ll let Ben Bernacke, the chairmen of the Fed who was put into place by George W. Bush sum up the “mess” caused by the CRA:

“The managers of financial institutions found that these loan portfolios, if properly underwritten and managed, could be profitable. In fact, a Federal Reserve study found that, generally, CRA-related lending activity was at least somewhat profitable and usually did not involve disproportionately higher levels of default.”

Now, as far as the Freddie and Fannie claims – it is true that some Republicans wanted to change the regulations but ultimately failed in part due to the opposition of some Democrats.  But just as in 1995, to blame this solely on the Democrats is to ignore the makeup of Congress.  As in 1995, both Chambers of Congress were under Republican control, so ultimately if the Republican Party had wanted these reforms they could have just outvoted the Dems on the issue and that would be that.

Also, the changes in regulation which Bush and McCain wanted would have changed the agency under which they would have reported, and would have been a far cry from guaranteeing the defaulted loans would not have occurred.

However, even ignoring that, and even if the claims that the CRA caused the high number of faulty mortgages are true (which they aren’t), it still doesn’t explain the mess that everything’s in now.  Why?  Because if that was the case then Freddie and Fannie would have been bailed out and that would have been the end of the story.  The truth is that, in an attempt to assign blame to the current economic problems on a specific ideology (the evil, communist idea that people in poor neighborhoods should be able to own their own homes, too), the argument misrepresents one major factor in the subprime mortgage crisis, and completely ignores the real crux of its effect on the economy as a whole.

The biggest problem here is not regulation, but deregulation.  The most guilty acts of deregulation fall under Bush’s terms, but also Clinton’s last term, so it is fair to say Clinton shares some of the blame.  In the late ’90’s, regulations put in place after the Great Depression started to be relieved due to a perception (real or imaginary) that American banks could not compete with European and East Asian banks.  This lead to two problems – speculation and securitization.

First, the problem started with the housing boom that began in the 1990’s and continued for upwards around a decade.  Some market correction was going to occur after a while, and that is neither the Democrats or Republicans faults.  But the economy never completely recovered from the tech-bubble bust in 2001 (and has a completely partisan comment, Bush’s economic policies caused downward trends to continue and increase), and interest rates were seemingly being lowered every quarter.  This had the very intended consequence of making credit exceptionally easy to obtain, which played a much bigger role in the ability of people to obtain mortgages they couldn’t afford than the CRA ever could.

As the economy started to tumble lower and lower in 2005, credit started tightening and interest rates rose.  The worsened economy caused many people in sub-prime mortgages to default, but the real killer was the adjusted-rate mortgages (ARM), which were given to many people who actually could have afforded their mortgages with higher, fixed-interested rates.  While it is true that the people who signed these mortgages have some culpability and should be held responsible, there is virtually unanimous consent that many or most of these individuals were at least somewhat victimized by unscrupulous lenders and policies whose risks were not made clear.  And as interest rates climbed and some of the sub-prime mortgages started to go bust, ARMs rates were getting unreasonable and forced many people who otherwise could have afforded their mortgages to default.  (I thought this was pretty well understood, but evidently I’m mistaken.)  This can in no way be attributed to the CRA, especially considering most of these ARM issues were centered in suburbia and were typically causing defaults by lenders not covered under CRA regulations.

When this occurred, housing prices started to plummet.  This caused an even larger problem because people now owed more on their houses than they were worth.  For the average homeowner, this is probably not a big deal because (assuming they have the more traditional fixed-rate mortgage) it doesn’t actually affect their ability to pay the bills.  But at this time speculation was a major wealth builder for many people, who viewed their mortgaged property not as homes, but investments.  When people could no longer turn over their investments for profit, they panicked and got out from under them, causing housing values to fall even lower.   This was a major contributing factor in the collapse of the housing market and since banks could no longer make up the loss on a faulted loan due to recessed pricing in the open market, ultimately helped create the necessity of a Freddie and Fannie bailout.

But even though all this is the case, it’s still not really what caused the extent of the wider impact on the economy.  The real reason why it hit so hard was the securitization of these loans.

Lenders were able to take these sub-prime and ARM mortgages, cut them into little pieces, pool them with other mortgages and types of credit, and then sell these pool on the open market.  This is called securitization, and due to Clinton and Bush deregulation, they were able to inflate the market value of these securities to make them more appealing.  In theory, this spread the risk of these mortgages along to several investors, but in practice some banks were either keeping the securities on their own books, or buying up large amounts of them, centralizing the risks.  And again, though this started under the Clinton administration, it was a Republican addition to the bill, not a Democrat.

In fact, during the Bush years, the percentage of these loans which were securitized rose from just over half to over 75%.

When the mortgages started to go bad, it was this centralization of the risks by the use of securities which caused the most trouble, not the defaulting of the mortgages themselves.  When these securities defaulted, credit froze, causing a halt on the issuance of corporate paper, which locked up the credit market.  The biggest impact on the market was not caused by the loan the bank made, but how they proceeded to package that loan to other investors.

But you don’t have to take my word for it.  A Mr. Alan Greenspan, nominated by Reagan and head of the Fed through the W. Bush administration, agrees, claiming not only that “subprime mortgages are risky, but they are worth it,” but also that the economic downturn was caused by “not the subprime problem itself, but to the securitization of subprime.”

I tried to keep it relatively unpartisan.  (Note that my position is bolstered by the comments of two conservative Republican Federal Reserve Chairmen.)  But since I can’t resist, here’s the partisan timeline of events:

Bush’s failed policies cause the economy to falter.  This causes poor people to lose their homes.  This causes interest rates to increase.  This causes ARMs to become unmanageable.  This causes subprime securities popularized by conservative ideology (i.e. blanket deregulation regardless of original necessity of regulatory action) to fail.  This causes the credit market to lock up.  This causes the Stock Market to suck.

Palin’s Fiscal Hypocrisy

As (hopefully) everybody in America knows, McCain picked Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his Vice President nominee.

I really did not think this was coming.  Word had been skewed about the political lair for a while, and over two months ago I wrote a response to a comment about why Palin would not be a very successful VP pick.  Which I stand by.

People asked me how I felt about Biden.  Excited I was not, but neither was I disappointed.  He is a safe pick, one that will help Obama in a general election in several ways, and who won’t convince any Obama supporters to defect to McCain.  I was going to write a post about the man, but didn’t.  Work has been busy lately, and they expect me to keep up at the expense of my blog.  Horrible.

But I am very excited about Governor Palin.  She’s given us more dirt in the last week than McCain and Obama have all summer.  As an Obama supporter, it’s hard to imagine a better McCain Veep pick to help achieve the goal of an Obama Presidency.

After watching highlights of the Democrat and Republican Conventions (the Cubs have been playing a lot of night games lately), I’m certain of two things.

1. If I hear the term “red meat” one more time I’m going to start systematically incorporating pundit carcass into the actual material.
2. Palin is a liar.

I don’t want to rehash on stuff that’s been said for a week.  So I won’t get into the vetting process that didn’t, or the irony of Palin’s pregnant daughter, or the ethics investigation which could conceivable recommend her impeachment less than a week before the election.

Though I have to point out that Palin named her children Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.  Can you really trust this person’s judgment??

There’s not much material to pick through, as Palin has only had one real speech enter the national conscience, and that was Wednesday night.  But she spent a considerable amount of her time speaking of her grand accomplishments enacting fiscal responsibility in Alaska, which should work well in the party of fiscal responsibility.  Even though the U.S. Government reports Republican administrations seem to be the only ones which increase the national deficit, Bush’s tax “cuts” didn’t do anything for most people but were targeted towards the wealthiest individuals (linked figure taken from this story), and Obama intends to decrease taxes for most Americans.

And even though Palin wasn’t nearly so responsible.

First, she has talked in great lengths about killing the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere.”  Sounds good – it was turned into a symbol of government waste and McCain has used it on more than one occasion to show how bad earmarks are.

Problem is Palin was not only hesitant to cancel it, she supported it in the first place.  In a questionnaire by The Anchorage Times she said she supported using state funds to build the Gavina Island bridge.  Tonight she said she told the nation “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.”  But a year ago she said, “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.”  And she didn’t exactly tell the government “no thanks” on the money they were willing to spend, anyway, but rather spent half of it on other road projects before officially axing the bridge project.

In related news, it turns out that the pipe line she droned on about her Governorship created hasn’t actually been created yet.  It’s still in the planning stages.  And by “planning stages” I mean still awaiting approval from the people who are actually going to build the thing.  But if she works real hard, it’s estimated to come online sometime around the year 2020.  So worry not; McCain/Palin has energy assistance on the way – you just have to wait about twelve years.  No big deal.

She also got things a little fuzzy when she said she enacted massive budget cuts which brought the Alaskan budget to more responsible levels while creating a budget surplus.  This is not exactly accurate – Alaska had a budget surplus in 2006 (she was elected in November 2006 so you do the math).  The reason for the surplus?  Not budget cuts, but oil.  Oil taxes, royalties, and fees account for at least 80% of the state’s revenue.  This makes sense, since it’s the leading oil producer in the nation and its next best export is tundra.  Of course, it should be noted that gas prices in Alaska are the highest in the country, which could say something about McCain’s plan to drill to lower gas prices.

Oh, the surplus was also due to federal government spending, since Palin asked for more federal money to Alaska in earmarks per capita than any other state in the union.  Of course, Palin claims to be against these earmarks.  She just doesn’t mind asking for them, spending all the money before saying “no thanks,” and then taking credit for the surpluses they helped achieve.

And not only was Alaska’s surplus not due to Palin’s budget cuts, but Alaska’s 2007 capital budget was one of the largest in the state’s history, and the $6.6 billion operations budget escaped veto-free as the largest Alaska had ever had – despite a promise to cut $150 million from it.  But she had a good excuse; there’s not enough time between her becoming Governor and the passage of the budget.  So let me get this straight:  when she’s in Alaska she didn’t have enough time to adequately cut the budget, but when she’s in Minnesota she’s a shining example of how to do so?

Though to be fair, she did cut money from the capital budget in 2007 and 2008.  Programs that were cut included housing for homeless and runaway youths, grants to schools and nonprofit organizations, a learning center, a library, and a government transparency program (seems kind of counter to McCain’s government transparency arguments).  She also cut spending on youth sports, but allowed full funding for sport fishing hatcheries.  Probably because sport fishing brings money into the state, but youth sports only bring money into individual schools.

My two favorite program cuts?  A 20% cut in funding to help support teenage moms, and a 62% cut in special needs education funding.

So she may not be completely honest, but she seems to be winning major points for hypocrisy.

Drilling is Not the Solution

The public outcry over $4 a gallon gas (and rising) has spurned somewhat of a college industry among the press in the woes and perils of high energy costs. The latest news is that unsigned bands will have to cancel national tours due to the high fuel costs. Heartbreaking, I know.

Actually, despite my sarcasm my second dream job was rock star. I found out I couldn’t throw 90 mph, so that ended my first, and then I found out that most rock stars spend years living on cheap beer and sand, which ended my second. So I support small bands and wish them the best. (I still think of you, Julie!! Hope Portland’s better than BFE, IL.)

And raised energy prices are nothing to disregard so lightly. After all, Hillary Clinton “heard from some folks” that things are getting rough. So both candidates are starting to showcase their plans for relief. For example, they both support closing loopholes which allow oil company speculations to drive prices up. Some are saying Obama is merely following McCain’s lead on this (thanks, liber.rhetoricae), but it’s good that both candidates agree.

However, McCain has taken the extra step to try and end the 26-year moratorium on drilling off the U.S. coastlines, a plan that is even having a hard time convincing many coastline Republicans.

I think many people along the coastlines are having a “not in my backyard” type reaction. We get that a lot in central Illinois when companies want to start building wind turbines. But in this case I have to agree wholeheartedly with those who oppose it. It’s just not a smart, responsible way to deal with the fuel costs.

First, the Senate has already turned down such a measure, by a 56-42 vote. This is a plan championed by Bush, which means (fair or not) it’s not going to get a lot of air play in a Democrat-controlled Congress before January. So far from offering immediate help, it won’t even be approved for at least seven more months.

Further, though both Obama and McCain agree that at least part of the gas price problem is a lack of oil supply, even Bush admits that it will take years, as long as a full decade, for drilling to start pumping more oil into the U.S. economy, and hence years before any sort of relief at the pump.

When you couple this long time line with the increase in demand that will continue due to higher oil consumption from large countries such as China and Brazil, this is a plan that will bear no fruit for the average American consumer.

McCain has voted against such a measure before, and as little as three weeks ago stated that such actions “would take years to develop, [and] would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.” This change of heart seems to be little more than the same political posturing used to champion the ill-advised gas tax cut.

(To his credit, he continues to express opposition to drilling in ANWR.)

The truth is, the time and resources spent drilling for oil in our coastline could be much better spent developing ways to alleviate our dependency upon oil, which is going to be the only way we can ultimately provide permanent relief from high gas prices. Ten years is along time to wait for help at the gas pump, but it’s also a long time to incorporate solar power, or find new ways to reclaim all the lost energy involved in driving a car, or establish a hydrogen infrastructure to power fuel cell or liquid hydrogen vehicles, or increase electric engines which run on American made energy using coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or nuclear energy, or even something really cool that we haven’t even thought up of yet.

Working to expand the energy matrix, and not just our oil supply, also has an added benefit – it provides relief not just from the gas station but the electric company. Focusing our solutions on providing more oil does us no favors when the price of energy required to power our homes is also increasing. I must admit, McCain seems legitimately interested in helping expand our nation’s ability to provide cheap, clean, renewable energy. But framing the energy debate on the price of gasoline only limits the nation’s sense of expediency in accomplishing this goal by suggesting the problem is not the status quo, but rather our capabilities in sustaining it.

Many people are complaining that Obama’s opposition to this drilling is merely representative of a larger “can’t do” ideology of the Democrat party, if not liberal thought as a whole. Obama has an extensive policy of things we can do to help provide cheaper energy – at the pump and at the home. In fact, focusing our attention on increasing the oil supply is actually much more of a “can’t do” policy – we can’t increase fuel efficiency to levels already demanded in much of the world, can’t increase it in a financially viable manner, can’t create automobiles or technologies which rid us of our dependency on oil to begin with.

We can, we must, and it’s time that we do. For Julie’s sake.

The Two Ironies of Public Funding; How the Electoral Map Favors Obama

The big news over the last couple of days is Obama opting out of public funding for the Presidential Election. (Not Michelle Obama’s dress. I can’t believe this stuff gets on the air.) McCain has claimed this is evidence that Obama “is just another typical politician,” which is ironic because he’s the first to opt out of public funding since the system was established in 1972. By definition, that makes him atypical.

In fact, the biggest reason why Obama has opted out of the public funding is due to his unique ability to raise large sums of money from small donors. Truth is, there is absolutely nothing “typical” about this decision.

Of course, that is merely a point of irony, and not what McCain was referring to at all when he stated this is just an example of political expediency. Obama had famously stated that he would accept public funding if the Republican candidate and he could work out a reasonable system for doing so. But since he no longer needs to do so, McCain argues, he is going against his word and taking the path which will allow him the most money to spend come September and October.

Still, the decision to opt out of funding has few objective detractors in and of itself. And if the system is as broken as Obama believes it is, this decision may provide him with the perfect opportunity to scrap it and begin anew. Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough presents the perfect illustration of the real issue the press has with Obama: opting out was the right decision, but he’s using the wrong explanation to justify it. Earlier this morning, he said the appropriate explanation would be to just say that due to the millions of small donors online, things have changed to a degree he just couldn’t have imagined a year ago. Dan Rather agreed, saying the reason why he did not do so is because politics at the top is like “dancing like you’re barefoot on August asphalt.”

You have to love Dan Rather.

Finally, Wednesday Quinnipiac University released an interesting poll which showed Obama ahead of McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The margin was all below ten points so, while they were all above the margin of error, the data’s not entirely useful this far from the election. However, it has to be comforting for Obama.

But the interesting data was not the leads in these three states, but the impact that Clinton has, or more to the point has not had, on the general election. In these three points, Obama leads McCain among women . . . by ten to twenty-three points. What’s more, when asked if Obama should put Hillary Clinton on the ticket, Democrats in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania say yes by margins of 57-33, 58-31, and 60-31 percent, respectively. However, independents in these two states oppose the idea by wide margins: 46-37, 47-31, and 49-36 percent, respectively. And the biggest Republican support she gets for the Veep nod in any state is 20%, in Pennsylvania.

So it would be safe to say the fact that Obama is not Hillary Clinton is not going to cause McCain to carry those states. But perhaps more importantly, it would actually be a detriment to him to put Hillary on the ticket.

If Obama carries all three states, it’s going to be virtually impossible for McCain to win. Quinnipiac seems to be generous to Obama in Florida. Realclearpolitics.com has an average polling line of +5% for McCain. And I’ll be honest; I don’t see Obama winning Florida. I didn’t think Kerry could win it, and I don’t think Clinton could have won it. It would certainly make things easier if Obama can grab it somehow, but I’m more than willing to concede it to McCain. However, the average line for Obama in Ohio is +5.3%, while in Pennsylvania it’s 7.3%. Ohio has 20 electoral votes, and Bush won that in 2004. If Kerry had carried Ohio he would have won. So hanging on to these two states means he doesn’t have to win Florida.

But looking deeper into realclearpolitics.com’s website reveals something even more interesting, and exciting for the Obama fan. It may not come down to Ohio after all. They list the battleground states for 2008 as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Of these states, the only ones McCain currently have a polling lead in are Michigan and Florida. Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico and Nevada, though several others are virtual ties (leads of less than 2%). This includes Michigan, New Hampshire, Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado.

So let’s say that the map stays the same from 2004 to 2008 with the exception of these states and Iowa, which very narrowly went to Bush but Obama is currently leading. And let’s give Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada to McCain, let him keep Michigan, and throw Colorado and Virginia to him for good measure. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by accruing 273 electoral votes.

And if the leads all hold up and McCain takes New Mexico and Nevada? Then Obama

wins easily, 295 – 243. With ten electoral votes up for grabs in those two states, Obama could win over 300 electoral votes.

In fact, if he wins any two out of the seven “tied” states he would win the election. More interesting, though, is if he wins only Michigan he could lose all the others and still get to 270. Of course, this is all predicated upon him winning Ohio and Pennsylvania. So the big trifecta for Obama is Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Win those three, and it’s in the bag. Win two of those, and it would be virtually impossible for McCain to win. McCain has to win two of those three in order to have a legitimate chance of winning the election (though at that point it’s unlikely he would lose).

With that in mind, I would not be willing to say at this time that any single state is going to determine the election. However, if it’s close, and certainly if McCain wins, I predict it will all come down to Michigan.

You heard it here first.

McCain’s Iran Ignorance: Updated

Late last night (technically early this morning) I wrote that McCain doesn’t even know who runs Iran. The point I was trying to make was that he (and Bush, for that matter) are trying to scare Americans into a Cold War-type fear of Iran using their eccentric (and crazy) President, Mahmoud Ahmanidejad. Of course, Ahmanidejad doesn’t actually run the country; he doesn’t even have control over the country’s nuclear or foreign policy. Iran’s Supreme Leader, currently Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, is named by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the highest ranking official, and dictates the country’s policies in these two areas. To be honest, I didn’t actually think McCain was unaware that President Ahmanidejad held a mostly ceremonial post, but was using a high-visibility official most Americans thoroughly despise as a way to garner support for his viewpoint. Pretty bad, that one would lie about such things in order to slant public opinion. And since he made the claim, I thought the tongue in cheek comment of “how can we expect McCain to appropriately deal with the leadership of Iran when he doesn’t even know whom the leadership is?” was legitimate.

Well, it turns out that I was wrong. Not that it was a low blow, but that McCain apparently doesn’t know who Iran’s real leader is. In fact, when confronted with this information, he not only admitted he was unaware that Ahmanidejad was not the de facto leader of the country, but even denied that Ayatolla Khamenei held that post.

Now, lest you think John McCain might be better informed on such matters than I, you don’t have to take my word for it. The CIA lists the “Chief of State” as Khamenei. According to, you know, our own government, evidently he is appointed to a life term by the “Assembly of Experts,” has control over the appointment of “more sensitive ministries” in the Cabinet, and appoints many of the members of the Executive Branches’ three oversight committee. Oh, and he also determines the country’s foreign and military policy (did I mention that?)

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (so what would he know, anyway?), broached the subject to McCain because it turns out, in contrast to the Senator’s statements, Barack Obama didn’t actually ever say he was going to engage in formal discussions with Ahmanidejad. McCain objected to this correction, at which time Klein promptly informed him that he had said meeting with the leaders of the country may be appropriate, but not necessarily Ahmanidejad himself. McCain laughed, and alerted us to the (incorrect) fact that Ahmanidejad is the leader. And when Klein said that he “might be mistaken,” McCain’s response was “he’s the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country’s policy . . .”

Of course, the President of the United States very seldomly goes to the United Nations to declare our policies. Currently, the person who does that job is Zalmay Mamozy Khalizad. So by McCain’s logic, Mr. Khalizad, and not George W. Bush, is the leader of the United States. (Boy, if the people who don’t like Obama because they think he’s Muslim ever find out about that . . .)

But the fact that he speaks in front of the U.N. was not the only evidence McCain brought out to support his position. He reinforce the accuracy of his claim by stating “I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.” So evidently countries half way around the world determine who their leader is based upon public opinion in the United States. Now, six out of ten 18-24 year olds in the United States can’t even find Iraq on the map, so these countries may want to think twice before picking their leaders based upon what Joe Sixpack in Biloxi thinks.

Of course, 68% of Americans think that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the same margin thinks we should either withdraw all or some of our troops in Iraq, so I’m guessing a McCain speech detailing a shift in policy regarding the war will be forthcoming very shortly.

Senators are weighing in on the feud between Obama and McCain. Take these two partisan comments, one by a Republican Senator and one by a former Democrat Senator, and try to guess which one made which.

First: “I’m very upset with John with some of the things he’s been saying. And I can’t get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he’s been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things.”

Second: “There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as President, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.”

I’ll give you a hint – you’re wrong. The first statement was made by the Senator of Nebraska Chuck Hagel, a Republican. The second was made by the Senator from Connecticut and former Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, in case you forgot, was the one who clued McCain in that Iran wasn’t providing weapons to al Qaeda because, to put it bluntly, Iran hates them. (Also, his claim that Obama has “a blanket policy of meeting personally as President” is incorrect. He stated that the Obama White House would meet with leaders, not necessarily Obama personally. I’m quite certain that’s not even logistically possible.) The good news for Democrats is Lieberman might end up being on the McCain ticket.

Finally, an interesting story came across the wire today that two superdelegates were bribed into endorsing Clinton with a one million dollar contribution to their organization, Young Democrats. They declined the, um, “offer.” Man, she can’t even buy votes these days.

McCain’s Foreign (to Reason) Policy, Fun with Math

John McCain thinks that Iran has the power to be every bit as threatening to the United States as the Soviet Union in its prime. If I was Russian, I’d be pretty insulted.

At the time, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were competing for supremacy in mid-Europe, the Mideast, Central America, and Southeast Asia. Iran and the U.S. are fighting for supremacy in a couple of areas in Iraq. The Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal larger than every other country on earth combined, including the United States. Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear power plant, let alone a nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R. had the world’s second largest economy; Iran doesn’t have the second largest economy in its region. The United States was fearful of Soviet weapons in space. Iranian space travel requires the use of heavy psychedelics.

But where McCain’s statements turn from moronic to Iranic (get it?) is that he made them to illustrate the fact that negotiations with Iran should not be on the table, that the U.S. needs to take a hard line with the country and not engage in discussions which “would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically.” I tried to find some quote in which McCain explains how a country which is so powerless they need open negotiations with the U.S. in order to “confer international legitimacy” poses such a great threat to us.

More to the point, McCain seems to forget that when confronted with a foe as dangerous at the Soviet Union, intense discussions were necessary for thirty years in order to prevent war between the two states. If Iran poses such a great danger, shouldn’t similar policy be enacted to confront it? And wouldn’t the policy of “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” be a little, um, crazy?

The truth is, McCain doesn’t really seem well prepared to deal with Iran at all. Forgetting for a moment that he seems to forget what side they fall on in the whole “shiite vs. sunni” thing, the primary focus of his fear-mongering against Iran seems to be the dangerous and unstable leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Funny thing about that is the President of Iran is largely a symbolic position, with no power over the country’s military capacities and no authority over its foreign affairs. That honor goes to Ayatollah Alie Khamanei. How can we expect McCain to appropriately deal with the leadership of Iran when he doesn’t even know whom the leadership is?

And in another showing of complete international idiocy, he chided Obama for claiming that dialog should be initiated between the U.S. and Cuba; on Cuba Day no less! He claims: “These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators — there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms.” Instead, he says his Presidency will ensure that Cuba releases all political prisoners; legalizes all political parties, labor unions, and media; and holds internationally monitored elections. All very good ideas. Of course, since we’re not going to have dialog with the Cuban government, evidently he’s going to wish these reforms into existence. The United States policy in Cuba has not worked for fifty years; Fidel Castro was the world’s longest leader until he finally had to give up his position . . . to his brother. If the United States truly wants reform, we’re going to have to engage in open discussions with the leadership of Cuba. Otherwise all we’re doing is enabling the continuation of the dictatorship which McCain so despises.

By the way, one interesting little note about how much McCain values labor unions in Cuba. On the same day, the exact same day, he insulted Obama by claiming he was merely “a tool of organized labor.” So labor unions in Cuba good, labor unions in the U.S. bad. I’m sorry, but I’m missing the connection.

Obama is a big jerk, a “tool of organized labor,” if you will, because he has the audacity of being against free trade with such wonderful countries as Colombia. Evidently Colombia is a “beacon of hope” in the region and deserves the free trade agreement because they have illustrated such wonderful worker and human rights activities as the murder of thousands of union leaders, illegal child labor, arbitrary arrest and detainee mistreatment and torture, and, of course, the largest provider of narcotics to the United States. But, in showing his fanatical devotion to American labor unions, Obama seems to think that American jobs are more important. Tsk, tsk.

I learned some fun delegate math!!:

Right now the number of pledged and superdelegates required to win the Democractic nomination stands at 1026. If that number holds, Obama could actually have that wrapped up on June 3 with solid showings in the two remaining states and Puerto Rico. Probably not, but it will certainly be close enough that Clinton could concede that night. However, the Clinton camp argues the magic number should be 2209, which would include Michigan and Florida. That number doesn’t quite hold up, though, because if Michigan delegates were to be awarded based solely upon election results, some 58 delegates would be in limbo as they would be awarded to an “uncommitted” candidate. So the total would really be 2151. But Florida and Michigan won’t be awarded in full; Clinton’s own campaign manager (Terry McAuliffe) says the “rule is fifty percent” while Howard Dean and members of the DNC have made it very clear that Michigan and Florida need to be punished in some way. The specifics will be hashed out on May 31, when the DNC Rules Committee meets. Probably the most likely scenario is that Michigan and Florida are halved, and if the full amount of superdelegates are awarded (which should be in Clinton’s favor) the magic number will be 2131. If delegates are halved, I would expect the pledged delegate counts to be 35-29 in favor of Clinton in Michigan, and 62-31 in favor of Clinton in Florida (estimations are made using Slate’s handy-dandy delegate calculator). Obama will probably end up with about 1700 pledged delegates from the other states and providences, giving him 1760 total. Clinton will have about 1545, giving her a total of 1642. He already has 305 superdelegates to her 281 (per NBC’s count, which is the most pro-Clinton of the major news companies), meaning Obama will need to pick up 66 more superdelegates while Clinton would have to pick up 208. In other words, under the best conditions, Clinton would have to pick up over three times the amount of superdelegates Obama has to pick up to win the nomination. Just over 75%

Considering most of the remaining undeclared superdelegates in the Congress have said the winner should be the candidate with the most pledged delegates, and Obama will win the pledged delegate count under any scenario, it is certainly not unreasonable to see the total amount Obama would need to clinch the election less than two or three dozen within the next week after May 31. This could push the margin of victory required for Clnton to take over the nomination well over 85% going into June. And keep in mind that’s with things more or less working out for Clinton.

As it stands right now, there are 314 total delegates (counting both pledged and superdelegates) yet to be allotted. Obama needs 72, or a mere 23%. Clinton needs Florida and Michigan not to win, but to merely survive.

More fun with math: With Clinton’s big win in Kentucky and Obama’s large but not-so-big win in Oregon, two things have become clear in regards to the popular vote. It will be virtually impossible for Clinton to win the popular vote without counting Michigan, where Obama is not on the ballot, and virtually impossible for Obama to win it counting the Wolverine State. Of course, this is ignoring the caucus states. Still, an interesting little tidbit, albeit meaningless (is Michigan going to sway the superdelegates, who are more likely to decide upon the nuances and intricacies of the party rules than a candidate’s notion of fairness? Obviously not.)

Politics (mostly) Riff

A few news stories that I find interesting but not necessarily worth a full blog:

First, according to Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, the fight over seating the Michigan and Florida delegates has actually led superdelegates to support Obama. Mostly his piece is about how Clinton could use the issue to help define her role in the convention, or even the party as a whole, in a post-Hillary ticket. But he does say the effect will be limited because, at the end of the day, the people who make the decisions in the DNC don’t really feel sorry for Michigan and Florida, and view Clinton’s stance on it as somewhat hypocritical, given that she agreed the votes shouldn’t count last fall and her chair (Terry McAuliffe) held a similarly hard line against Michigan when he was running the DNC. It’s been so distasteful for some, that Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network said it was “instrumental” in securing many of Obama’s superdelegate support.

Now, the New Democrat Network is a combination of a (527) group and a PAC, and that’s always dangerous. But Simon Rosenberg was a finalist for the DNC chair in 2004 before ceding the position and putting his support behind Dean, so he obviously has some high-powered information. It’s not surprising that the superdelegates didn’t put much weight on the role of Michigan and Florida when casting their decisions. One thing that has always confused me is Clinton keeps making public arguments out of the nuances of the nominating process, when her only hope now lies in the superdelegates. She can try to sway her supporters into believing that caucuses aren’t democratic or that Florida and Michigan Democrats did nothing wrong and shouldn’t be punished, or that we should only count the votes in a certain, convoluted way, but she’s had the delegate count lost for quite some time now and her campaign has admitted for the last couple of months that she would need strong superdelegate support to win the nomination. The problem is, these superdelegates are party insiders; they know how the system works, are (assumedly) very well informed of its developments, and have gotten their prestigious jobs from this process. It’s absurd to think they’ll bite into the propaganda just because the Clinton’s ask them to.

But to hear that it not only didn’t sway support to Clinton, but actually led to support for Obama, did take me aback. Evidently, they were just as insulted by the rhetoric as I have been.

In related news, Democrat Rules Committee Member, former chairman, and Clinton supporter Donald Fowler said that Obama could pretty much let Hillary have her way, within reason, without “threatening his postion.” In other words, a very powerful Clinton superdelegate admitted that Obama’s more or less got this locked up and Florida and Michigan cannot make a meaningful impact. “If he thinks he’s threatened, he won’t do it, and I don’t blame him. But unless something unusual happens between now and then, he will be in good shape.” Not only is the writing on the wall, but Peter Parker took its picture, printed it in the Daily Bugle, and it’s now on page 537 of your son’s high school history book.

To her credit, Clinton has done her part and laid off the rhetoric lately, apparently abandoning her “kitchen sink” strategy for one which, while ultimately ineffective (of course, so was the kitchen sink), should help make her case without damaging Obama for the general election. Yesterday she went so far as to express regret for saying that he won’t be able to win over “hard working Americans, white Americans.” In an interview with ABC News, she was told that Congressman Charles Rengel from New York called the remark “the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.” Clinton’s response? “Well, he’s probably right.”

Her only real argument for staying in the election seems to be that she’s “not a quitter,” and it would be wrong to leave before every state votes. This was pretty much Mike Huckabee’s argument before McCain won the nomination. As long as she continues to be more Huckabee than, let’s say, Hillary Clinton, this thing should end pretty smoothly.

Though Clinton supporters will have another “Obama’s sexist” log to throw on the fire. Evidently, Obama had to call a reporter and leave a voice mail (he’s been leaving a lot of voice mail recently) to say he’s sorry for calling her “sweetie.” This is really a non-story; I don’t know how many times a black woman has called me “honey.” I find it rather endearing. But since some of these Clinton supporters (in my belief, a very small but much too vocal minority) seem to want to find sexism in every thing about this nomination, I’m sure it will come up. Be forewarned. I guess I can’t seem to blame them too much. A person they thought was entitled to win the nomination lost, and of course that can’t be the candidate’s fault. Human nature. How can the Patriots lose the Super Bowl? Obviously they weren’t outplayed; the officials must have screwed up the timing, or something.

Finally, I would like to say something about fantasy baseball. I love fantasy sports. I’ve been in two leagues; I was the champion in my football league debut and took home the (digital) third place trophy in my baseball debut. And now I’m tearing up, absolutely shredding, my second baseball season. How good am I? Jake Peavy, one of my starting pitchers, was hit hard by the Cubs, giving up four runs in only four innings of work. Then Kerry Wood, one of my closers, gave up a run and let four people reach base in his only inning of work, which wasn’t even a save situation. And yet my lead against my poor opponent increased from 6-5 to 9-2. Last week I won 12-0 in the league’s only shutout of the year, and over the last two weeks my record was 22-2.

That, my friends, is a powerhouse.

Timing is Everything

Last night I was watching a losing campaign and starting to get a bit depressed (of course, I’m referring to the Cubbies), and I thought to myself; I wonder if Obama asked any superdelegates to hold off on publicly supporting them until tomorrow, to offset the expectedly large loss in West Virginia?

It seems like I was correct.

Before the sun came up today, Obama’s camp announced the support of two superdelegates, Rep. Peter Visclosky of Indiana and Democrats Abroad chair Christine Schon Marques. Later in the day, pro-choice group NARAL gave him their endorsement (I’m going to vote for Obama anyway).

And just about an hour ago it was announced that a very (un)important person endorsed him: John Edwards.

Let me tell you, John Edwards looked good standing next to Barack Obama. He looked like a VP standing next to his Commander-in-Chief. I’m not sure picking Edwards is the best move for a variety of reasons (mostly because he didn’t do much for Kerry), but I do thoroughly like him, and wouldn’t complain at all about seeing him in the White House come next January.

We’ll see what his endorsement does. He has seventeen to twenty delegates (depending on the source), which means his endorsement could potentially be a bigger prize than Hillary’s “big” (meaningless) win in West Virginia. More importantly, it could start a flood of superdelegates to Obama’s side.

Personally, I doubt that this will clinch the nomination. For example, I don’t think older women and “working-class” whites (I hate that term; I’m a college grad who makes more than $50,000, and I work harder now than when I was a poor, “uneducated” HR rep) won’t start flooding to him. But what people forget is that Clinton is winning this segment; not McCain. Just like the party rallied around McCain after he got the nomination, the Democrats will rally around Obama. The only reason there’s even a doubt is because Clinton is exploited it for political gain (though she’s said time and time and time again Obama will beat McCain). Nor do I think the flood will actually occur (not that it’s needed; there will continue to be a steady stream for the next three weeks, but he will have the necessary votes shortly after June 3, if not before). However, I do think it will sway a few delegates over and I find it hard to believe any of Edward’s delegates will come out for Clinton. Most importantly, it should push the endorsement of several unions to Obama’s corner, which will be big in the primary, if not in the general election (I have doubted a union’s ability to bring their members to an individual ticket for quite some time).

I would say it should show some people who’s biggest strength seems to be denial that this thing really is over for Clinton. It seems like Clinton is staying around until June 3, at which point she will quickly drop out. It’s her own comments, as well as interviews with her staff, that lead me to this conclusion. This way she gets to take the high ground and say she made sure “every vote counts.” (Well, not every vote. Caucus states don’t count.) She will also get to claim the high ground when Florida and Michigan get some of their delegates seated (even Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe admits that “the rule is 50 percent.”). Of course, by that time it won’t matter.

I’ve gotten used to the fact that Obama has won the nomination, but this is pretty sweet. The only thing that would be better is if Gore endorses, and I would be surprised if that happens before the convention regardless of the outcome of the primary. Excuse me if I crow for a little while.

Now it’s the Cubs turn . . .

A little point of irony. I just heard on MSNBC that George W. Bush gave up golf for lent. No, just joking. But he did give up golf for the Iraq War. He said that “playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.” I wonder where he could have possibly gotten that idea?? Hmmm . . .

I guess he does listen to his father, after all.

Edward’s Isn’t Important; Race and Gender in 24 Hours

Evidently John Edwards is not a very important person. I know this, because he told me so.

In two interviews given today, on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and on Morning Joe, he downplayed his importance with, well, everybody. Stating several times that he doesn’t have much, if any, influence on either campaign’s strategy or who people are going to vote for, and claiming on both shows that “Barack Obama has done very well without John Edward’s endorsement” he quelled any hope that an endorsement would be forthcoming prior to a candidate being named. There seems to be a lot of speculation why, ranging from an ongoing feud between him and his lovely wife, Elizabeth, to a push for a vice president seat (again). His argument seems to be that it doesn’t matter much anyway, so why muddy up the waters.

It’s an argument that seems to be well shared. Much to the chagrin of the Obama campaign, many in the media report there are a number of potential supporters who have not sided with Obama because the race is going to be over soon enough anyway. To this end, Obama may have actually hurt his case by more or less declaring himself the presumptive nominee. It’s hard to go to the superdelegates and say “I need you to support me now to end this” when you’re telling the public the contest is over, even if there’s still a few more minutes left in the game. Why not just wait those extra few weeks? After all, better safe then sorry.

I’m not sure that Edwards has any ulterior motives to withholding an endorsement. There’s not really a “poverty czar” in the U.S., so a cabinet position is probably not going to be in the cards. And I highly doubt he’s going to be a finalist for any candidate’s veep. To be frank, Obama doesn’t need him. Obama has won over the majority of the crowd that Edwards could help him pull in; he does very well in the deep south and Edwards didn’t help Kerry bring in the “Mason-Dixon” states like Kentucky or North Carolina. And he wasn’t really an effective running mate for Kerry; many people in the Democrat party blamed him for Kerry’s loss because he did not fight hard for Kerry and seemed more interested in using his candidacy as a stepping stone to the Presidency than winning the 2004 campaign. Personally, I think this argument, and the same was given to Lieberman in 2000, has some merit, but the biggest problems of Kerry and Gore have more to do with bad Presidential candidates than bad V.P. choices (to say I think Gore would have been a terrific President is a bit of an understatement, but didn’t exactly run a flawless campaign). So it’s difficult to see either candidate opening up to him.

However, I do think Edwards is doing some political posturing. He does want to be important; by his admission he’s gotten a taste of what it’s like to not be, and is not putting it past Clinton to somehow squeak out the nomination. One thing the Clinton’s have made clear so far is their (mythical) administration is not going to be kind to the Obama supporters. So if Edwards does respect Hillary Clinton and also thinks she has even an outside chance of pulling an upset (and I do not doubt either claim), then it really doesn’t make any sense to endorse now.

And I would certainly hesitate to say he is unimportant. Edwards was the only white male candidate who seriously contended for the Democratic nomination. Given the length of the race, that is really saying something. And I do believe an Edwards endorsement would make other superdelegates think long and hard about the candidate he gets behind, and may be enough to drag some other committed “uncommitteds” away from their faux-neutrality. Further, Edwards does have a very important role to play in the future if a democrat wins the Presidency. He may not get a cabinet position, but I think it would be an error for either candidate not to keep him close by in some sort of official advisory role. Especially through the nomination. Relying on a populist message doesn’t win a lot of elections in its own right, but having a populist surrogate doesn’t hurt anybody, either.

Not that there aren’t very good signs of who he’s leaning towards. On Morning Joe, he was asked if he would endorse the candidate he voted for in North Carolina’s primary. His response: “It’s highly likely.” He stood by the remark later in the program, after he said that it was “clearly likely” that Barack is going to be the nominee. So this really only leads to two conclusions: either he voted for Obama, or it’s highly likely he’s going to endorse the candidate that ends up losing, after she already lost.

Fortunately for Clinton, his endorsement doesn’t really mean that much.

I must say, Clinton has really gone off the deep end. I’m sure she’s more stressed out than she’s letting on. Her campaign aides are saying things like: “There is a profound sadness . . . I don’t think anyone sees that there’s a clear path to victory here.” Ouch.

But in justifying her own existence in a race which, to put it bluntly, she’s not going to win, she’s started to really lay it out on the line. And it ain’t pretty. Yesterday she said “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on . . . Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” She did not speculate on why she’s losing if her coalition is so much stronger, nor did she explain why people who completed college or non-whites should not be insulted with the implication that we aren’t “hard working Americans.” The day before, she justified her continuation by claiming “Too many people have fought too hard to see a woman continue in this race, this history-making race, and I want everybody to understand that.”

So putting two and two together, I guess blacks will be too busy sitting on their lazy asses to go to the polls, while us “college folk” are too persnickety to vote, so only white women have really worked hard enough to get “their” candidate elected. Meanwhile, you’ve played the race card and the gender card in less time then it takes Jack Bauer to save the world. Wow. Congratulations on hitting a new low, there. (And that’s quite an accomplishment, as the Clintons could beat Hermes Conrad in a limbo contest.) Well, I guess when you’re losing on the issues, losing the popular vote, losing the delegate count, running out of cash, and no less than the American government itself treats your opponent like he’s a “rock star,” race and gender are all you’ve got left.