What We Learned

Well, I'm not sure how much we can legitimately learn from yesterday's election results. We got our butts kicked, and good (and that's to say nothing of the 1st District, which I'll speak to once we have a result). Here are some of the lessons learned from the 2008 Presidential Election.

• Democrat Light is no way to go: Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of the calls of the Anybody but McCain camp from 2006 looked increasingly prescient. McCain was never a darling of conservatives due to his generalized support of larger government. Sure, McCain always stood up for lower tax cuts and an end to pork-barrel spending, but his comments and support of the Wall Street Bailout were consistent with many big government positions that he has taken over the years.
  
  What the American public told Republicans yesterday was that when Republicans race toward the center in an effort to look like Democrats...voters select the genuine article.
  
  
• The Republican Brand Sucks: We have talked extensively about the branding of the Republican party over the years, and I'm pretty sure that the value of the brand has reached its post-Watergate era nadir. I said back in July:
  

  the problem with Republican politics in the 21st century is not the ideology of conservatism, but leadership that itself is not conservative. Once we figure out how to fix that, Republicans will reassume the mantle of ascendancy that we lost when Congressional leadership went native a few years back.

  And it's pretty clear that we didn't do a very good job of that recently. Just take a look at the results and you'll see that. How else can you explain losses in North Carolina, a near loss in Georgia, a razor thin win in Missouri. These are Republican strongholds in Presidential Elections, and we couldn't hold on to them. It's not because these voters aren't naturally conservatives, it's just that they could no longer tell the differences between the Democratic Party and their own.
  
  
• Sarah Palin saved the day: Anybody who thinks that Sarah Palin lost this election is out of their mind. This election was realistically over not too long after the convention, we can see from hindsight. And let's face it, can you look me in the eye and tell me Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, or anybody else would have made a significant difference in the outcome, enough to tip the election? Of course not. People blaming this loss on Sarah Palin simply do not understand electoral politics.
  
  What Sarah Palin did do, however, is energize the conservative base. When conservatives are energized, they go to the polls, and take their friends and family to the polls with them. And what that did was get enough conservatives in the booth voting for downballot Republican candidates, particularly members of Congress. It seems pretty likely that the reason that we lost but 12 seats in the House of Representatives is squarely because of Sarah Palin.

Now, we put it all behind us, but we do not forget. It's our job to move forward, take what we have learned, and put the best foot forward for 2010 and beyond...

Lost in the Cacophony

Lost in the midst of reports of Democratic violence and the return of the incessantly whiny urban liberal set, there is actually, you know, an election going on. In case you forgot, the Obama campaign spent millions on a particularly milquetoast propaganda piece might have jolted you back into that reality.

What has been lost in the cacophony of whining and relatively irrelevant issues is the fact that this election next Tuesday could realistically be on of the biggest fundamental changes in the American body politic. While Obama plays make believe and runs as a centrist (or, if you watched his little movie, damn near a Republican) his campaign has been running on a platform that is possibly as far to the left, as far outside of the political mainstream as any "major" candidate for President since Henry Wallace. This is a fundamental shift in American politics, and a fundamental shift in the American ideology. Obama's campaign to date essentially boils down to the following points:

• Government spending will increase: With all of Obama's pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about all of the new programs that he is going to implement, government would need to exponentially grow in an Obama administration. Which means....
  
  
• Your taxes are going to go up: if you earn a paycheck, your taxes are going to go up. There is no earthly way with all of the programs and increase in government spending that tax hikes are not going to be part of the equation. You can forget a $250,000 threshold, or a $180,000 threshold ; if you make money, your taxes are going to up, as Barney Frank recently promised the Democratic congress will pass.
  
  
• American Retreat: Precisely at the time when the U.S. needs to become more engaged in fighting international terrorism and to work to stop nuclear proliferation, an Obama administration would signal retreat, not just in Iraq but also in the international arena. That's not to say that we would be isolationist, but that Barack Obama cannot be trusted to be tough with our enemies, something that has given pause to our European allies (immature is what Nicolas Sarkozy said).
  

While we argue about stupid who struck John stuff, these issues that matter to American voters are still out there on the table. Those are the issues, the issues where Barack Obama falls substantially out of the mainstream, that we need to be talking about. These are the issues that are lost in the cacophony that we need to be focusing on; that fact that on the issues, Barack Obama policies will make the American people less secure and threaten to bankrupt American middle and working class families.

What else matters besides that?

The Palin Pick: THIS is Change we can actually believe in

Six months ago I wrote this:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin brings a lot of things to a potential national ticket. First off, she already has a record as a reformer. She challenged a Governor of her own party in a competitive primary and defeated him easily. She also brings a different demographic to the ticket. While Senator McCain can easily be portrayed as an old Washington insider, scarred from battles both real and political, Governor Palin will give voters something different. A feeling of vibrancy, of renewal. About as far away from being a Washington insider as you can possibly get. She's so popular, both inside and outside of Alaska, that a Draft Palin for VP movement has existed on the internet for over a year....

...The people of Alaska probably don't want to lose Governor Palin yet, given that she has just started her work as their Governor. However, I'm not sure there are many other choices Senator McCain can make that would energy the base as much as the selection of Governor Palin would. I hope that Senator McCain calls her to serve her country, something she would do admirably

So needless to say, I am downright giddy today. So you can consider this and the shoutout Media Superstar Mark Newgent gave me on WBAL today as part of my Victory Lap.

Needless to say, I am surprised, and I shocked, I am ecstatic, and I am extremely enthusiastic about this pick. Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party. She's both conservative's conservative, and a reformer. She took on the corrupt Stevens/Young/Murkowski wing of the Alaska State GOP and has succeeded in changing her state and her party for the better. THIS is the type of change that Barack Obama wishes he could bring; Sarah Palin has been there, and she's done that already.

What's best is the fact that it seems like the Palin Pick left Team HopeChangeHope in complete disarray, with the Obama Camp launching an insulting attack on Governor Palin's experience (never mind the fact that she has more experience than Tim Kaine, an Obama shortlister, plus they skewered small town America to boot) before Obama himself had to try and smooth over the damage prior to the start of his three day campaign trip through several swing states. The left blogosphere is reacting poorly too. America's biggest hatesite, DailyKos, is laying into Governor Palin, with posters there calling her selection unserious, a distraction, the worst VP pick ever, and asserting that her husband is the "Shadow Governor." So much for supporting the equality of the sexes fellas.

Obviously, Senator McCain did something right in order to get the Obama folks in a panic and the leftroots in a lather.

The Maryland leftroots have not reacted too poorly to date, though I want to point out something Isaac said:

I think we can also discard the question of whether the candidates have enough experience, since Palin has even less political experience than Barack Obama.

Except it doesn't. Sarah Palin has more experience in government than Barack Obama does. She has no less foreign policy experience than he does. And, unlike Obama, she is the # 2 on the ticket. Obama's glaring lack of experience to be President still shines through. Friends, this is what we have been waiting for. This is what we have wanted to see all along. We have had our ideological issues with Senator McCain, but he has selected as his running mate somebody who most embodies the conservative movement and the movement of reform. I wrote a while back:

the problem with Republican politics in the 21st century is not the ideology of conservatism, but leadership that itself is not conservative. Once we figure out how to fix that, Republicans will reassume the mantle of ascendancy that we lost when Congressional leadership went native a few years back.

THIS is the first step back. Governor Palin is a conservative reformer, and one with results to boot. This is how we are going to restore conservatism in the Republican Party. Senator McCain did us and the nation a great service through her selection.

Barack Obama talks about change, but who wants the failed liberalism of the past thirty years disguised as change? Barack Obama is the posterchild for identity politics and the politics of failure. McCain-Palin is the ticket that will truly be able to reform Washington.

Sarah Palin represents change that we can actually believe in...

Yowzah

Just watch it (H/T Ed Morrissey)

You Gotta Wonder

Maybe this explains why the left wing doesn't get economics. FSP'er Scott Goldberg said this:

In order to help John McCain find out exactly how many houses he actually owns, I have decided to stop drinking Budweiser beer. Hopefully, his wife's income will slow down long enough to get an accurate count before they buy a few more places.

Yeah....well, Hensley & Co. distributes Anheuser-Busch products in Arizona. The decision for Maryland's left wing to stop drinking Budweiser will have zero economic impact on the McCains. In fact, Goldberg's protest does what Maryland liberals love to do best: take money from local businesses, specifically one of the ten Anheuser-Busch wholesalers who distribute their products here in Maryland.

Goldberg's comment is as silly as four years ago when some Republicans stopped buying Heinz ketchup. I'm not going to stop buying a quality product just because somebody I don't like is making money off it (though by no means am I calling Budweiser a quality product).

The Weakness of the Biden Pick

The continued, ongoing feigned enthusiasm that the FSP crowd is pretending to have for the selection of Joe Biden as The One's running mate notwithstanding, Obama's selection of Biden makes sense for several reasons.

1. The decision was not political: like the selection of Dick Cheney in 2000, Joe Biden does not assist with any electoral math (unless you count his connection with Scranton, a city he has not lived in for 53 years, as mattering, which I do not). Obama was going to win Delaware anyway, and Joe Biden is not going to bring any new state to the ticket.
   
   
2. Foreign Policy: If there is any one area that Barack Obama has shown himself to be clueless above all other areas it's in foreign policy. Like him or not, Biden has an extensive and noted background in this area. And even from the Republican perspective, it's not all bad.
   
   
3. Energy: Joe Biden, for all his faults, takes Amtrak too and from Wilmington every day, as you might of heard in the press the last few days. What better way to differentiate the ticket from the Republicans by highlighting somebody who uses (for this country) alternative transportation?
   

Of course, that's about all the positives you can accentuate for Obama in this regard. Now, how does the Biden selection accentuate the fact that Obama's campaign is in trouble?

1. This is not HopeChangeHope: Joe Biden was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. Barack Obama was 11. It's usually a good idea to select a running mate who does not contradict the major theme of your campaign merely by his selection. The only Senators with more seniority are Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Daniel Inouye, and Ted Stevens; that's not exactly a distinguished list of Senators.
   
   Think about this as far as change goes. Have at this quote:
   

   So now Biden is Obama's pick, and he's clearly not a reinforcing one. If Obama's core message is "change" and "judgment" based on his prescience on the Iraq War vote, well then, Biden is the exact opposite of those things. And the media has reacted accordingly.

   Who said that? Kos.
   
   
   
2. War, War what is it good for?...or not: Joe Biden voted for the war. Barack Obama didn't. Since Obama got where he is today predicated a lot on the fact that he wasn't at the pay grade to vote on things like war back in 2002, and despite the fact that Obama admitted that Bush's surge plan worked, it seems a little curious to pick a running mate who you stadfastly disagreed with.
   
   
3. Who's leading the ticket?: Yesterday Barack Obama made a gaffe on the stump (what's new?) and introduced Biden as "The Next President of..." before correcting himself. Of course, that's the thing a lot of people see. Democrats like to kvetch that Dick Cheney has been pulling the strings of this White House; couldn't their fears come true again with Biden, the ultimate insider, running with Obama? Because Biden has literally been a major player in D.C. since Obama was in middle school.
   
   
4. Gaffe, Gaffe, Gaffe: Biden has a tendency to shoot his mouth off at times which he really should keep it shut. And hey, that's a sometimes admirable thing and a way to actually get to the truth of the matter, but Biden makes it an artform. Of course, if you a Barack Obama, you're probably hoping and praying to keep Biden away from a live mic for the next 72 days because you know that he is going to spout off about something.
   
   
5. The Senator from MBNA is Recognized: While Obama has his ties to a convict and a terrorist, there was a reason that Biden was known as the Senator from MBNA. He often put the credit card company first and foremost in his mind during his service as a U.S. Senator. And true, MBNA was a large employer for his home state of Delaware (after fleeing high taxes in Maryland, incidentally) Biden went above and beyond for this big business. Given the "credit crunch" here in the U.S., can Obama afford someone with such close ties to big credit?
   
   
6. Truthiness: The use of accurate facts and original material has never exactly been Biden's strong suit, a point that Dan Spencer at RedState strongly reinforced today.

The moral of the story is this. Obama selected Biden from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. Biden was picked to overcome Obama's noticeable shortcomings in experience and knowledge. And Biden was selected in an effort to stop the bleeding. Somebody in Obama's campaign thinks that the selection of Biden is going to shore up concerns with Obama's inexperience, and that the selection is going to reinforce the ticket's foreign policy credentials. Problem is, the selection only accentuates the weaknesses the American people already knows Barack Obama has.

And let's face it; running mate selections made from a position of weakness never really work.

• Gore picked Lieberman because he was the polar opposite of Bill Clinton;
• Mondale picked Ferraro because of the movement to select a female running mate, and because he needed to try something to save off Reagan.
  
• Reagan picked Schweiker at the 1976 Republican National Convention in an effort to balance the ticket, and it cost him the nomination.
  
• McGovern picked Eagleton in 1972 because Ted Kennedy said no, and because he needed somebody to run with him.

Will the Biden selection rank up there? Probably not? But it makes it clear that the Obama campaign is on the run.

Let's hope that Senator McCain makes a wiser selection...

Hope? Change? Nope

If what ABC is reporting is true (H/T Erick Erickson), and that Joe Biden is now receiving Secret Service protection, can somebody explain how somebody who has been a United States Senator for 36 years signify the "HopeChangeHope" that Obama allegedly represents?

Class? Class? Bueller?

He doesn't. It's just another realization for a lot of people that Obama is just like any other politician, just in a slightly more scandalized format...

Why # 2 Matters

Back during the primaries, the McCain Campaign floated a trial balloon about John McCain only serving one term as President. So it was only a matter of time before that idea resurfaced as it did this weekend:

John McCain's White House campaign manager refused to be pinned down Sunday on whether the 71-year-old Republican might commit to serve only one term as president if he is elected in November.

Rick Davis, interviewed on Fox News Sunday, was asked if the Arizona senator might pledge at next month's Republican convention to serve a single term and decline to run for re-election in four years' time.

"You're going to have to come to the Republican convention to find out what's going to happen there," Davis said ahead of the September 1-4 gathering in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota.

Asked if he was ruling out the idea or not, the campaign manager said: "I'm not talking about it at all."

Obviously, Davis' refusal to talk about it means, at the very least, they have considered it in the past. Perhaps the campaign's refusal to go into details it to maintain an element of strategy and surprise, but still the idea has obviously been discussed within the campaign braintrust.

But if Senator McCain is going to do this, he is going to have to do what is right for the country and for the party, not just what is right for the election. Clearly, moreso than even the usual situation for a running mate, McCain's selection will clearly be the frontrunner in 2012. It means that McCain's selection of a running mate needs to be a conservative that we can trust to govern, and not just the right guy who happens to be from a swing state.

If Senator McCain is to only serve one term as President, he needs to select somebody in the mold of a Jindal, Palin, or Cantor moreso than the mold of a Crist or Pawlenty. If he is going to make such a bold announcement, he needs to make the right choice to serve as Vice-President. He owes that to the people who support him.

Whose Side is Arnold on, anyway?

All of the Republicans who flocked to ensure that Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California.....here's your reward:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who endorsed John McCain's presidential run before his state's February primary, said Sunday he would consider accepting an energy-related cabinet position from Democrat Barack Obama if the offer were extended.

"I'm always ready to help in anyway I can," the California Republican told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, describing himself as a committed public servant. "I'd take his call now, and I'd take his call when he's president anytime."

The former box office star-turned-politician said he is through with his days acting and body building, and plans to travel the world promoting energy independence after leaving the governor's mansion, whether or not he joins the next administration.

That's a great reward to the GOP, to start to jockey for posts in a Democratic administration months before the Presidential election. I wouldn't even begrudge him for this if the election were over, but there is a long way to go between now and November 4th.

Having a Republican Governor of the nation's most populous state saying these things are, shall we say, not useful.

Obama: A Scandal in a Box

What is it about Barack Obama that makes him what he is? Just take a look at the people he surrounds himself with:

• Obama fundraiser and friend Tony Rezko was convicted a few weeks back on mail fraud and wire-fraud charges surrounding pay-to-play scandal with local officials in the Chicago area;
• Jeremiah Wright pretty much speaks for itself;
• You have Jim Johnson in search of his Vice-Presidential search team, who as RedState's Soren Dayton points out, has all sorts of character flaws: an old Mondale and Carter flunky, sweetheart mortgage deals, foreign agent, and disgraced-former Fannie Mae CEO.
• And then we have Penny Prtizker, which again Soren Dayton tells us Chaired a bank that had to buy its way out of a racketeering lawsuit.

And that's just what we know about, not counting all of his gaffes (57 states anyone?) plenty enough to seriously question the man's judgment.

Here's what we do know: Obama has surrounded himself with some bad people. And these are the people who he has brought along board to get him to the Oval Office. If Obama were to be elected, I cannot imagine the type of folks that he would try to put into positions of power and authority. This could make the Clinton Administration look like the minor league stuff.

Unfortunately, we have seen Barack Obama consistently lack judgment in the people he associates with in his political life. With that lack of judgment in character, it makes an Obama Presidency a pre-made scandal in a box. If he becomes President we could see the highest level of corruption in a Presidential Administration since Harding, and that's not something our country needs at this or at any other time...

The Democrats are going to continue to eat their own

I think it is getting to the point where Republicans have to hope not necessarily that John McCain's campaign goes and wins the election, so long as they don't go out and lose it. The Democrats seem to be taking care of the winning part for us. (H/T Soren Dayton of Red State via Marc Ambinder):



You just can't make this stuff up....

No, No, No

There is nothing that could possibly be any worse for the Republican brand than this:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Sunday he'd like to be John McCain's running mate.

"There's no one I would rather be on a ticket with than John McCain," said Huckabee, who was a stronger than expected challenger against McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. "All during the campaign when I was his rival, not a running mate, there was no one who was more complimentary of him publicly and privately. ... I still wanted to win, but if I couldn't, John McCain was always the guy I would have supported and have now supported.

I'm glad that Huckabee wants to be a team player and all, but there is no possible scenario in which the presence of Huckabee on the ticket enhances McCain's chances in November. There is a pretty widespread consensus that McCain needs to put a conservative on the ticket to balance on his more moderate credentials. Having Huckabee on the ticket gives the party two big-government Republicans on the ticket, and that is something which could make the doom and gloom scenarios surrounding Bob Barr's candidacy prophetic.

Huckabee, though, would probably do best to suspend his campaign for the 2012 or 2016 nomination that he seems to be running right now...

As if I needed another reason to hate the Steelers...

.....team owner Dan Rooney endorsed Barack Obama today.

"Our country needs a new direction and a new kind of leadership – the kind of leadership, judgment and experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated in more than 20 years of public service, and in a particularly impressive way in this campaign."

Well, there is no accounting for judgment or taste, I suppose.

Believe it or not, this could be important

Seriously. Read it for yourself....

To hear Jesse Ventura tell it, he’s either out to become president or an expatriate.

In the opening to his fourth book, due out April 1, the former wrestler and governor of Minnesota writes: “As I begin to write this book, I’m facing probably the most monumental decision of my 56 years on this planet. Will I run for president of the United States, as an independent, in 2008? Or will I stay as far away from the fray as possible, in a place with no electricity, on a remote beach in Mexico?”

Why in the world is this important? Because let's face it, while I am supporting John McCain to become our next President, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people who are opposed to the Democrats may not. And they may look to a third party candidate as a way to not make the choice between McCain and Obama, or McCain and Clinton, or McCain and Gore.

The thing is, we've seen it happen with Ventura before. When Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998, he was running as an alternative to then Attorney General Skip Humphrey and then St. Paul Mayor (now U.S. Senator) Norm Coleman. Coleman and Humphrey weren't all that dissimilar, and neither one was popular. Ventura ran against "politics as usual" and got himself elected Governor.

What does all of this mean for 2008? Well, Ventura almost certainly cannot be elected President. The likelihood of that is almost impossible given that one reason for Ventura's success in 1998 was due to Minnesota's same-day voter registration policy. However, that is not to say a Ventura candidacy won't gum up the works more than a Nader candidacy ever could. Could Ventura win states with a more libertarian bent who would be opposed to both the Democratic nominee and McCain? Yes, I think it is possible; certainly more so than with Nader or Bloomberg. And that would send the mess to the next Congress in January 2009, and all bets are off if it goes that far.

While the likelihood of a Ventura candidacy, to say nothing of a meaningful Ventura candidacy, is slim, the unusual election year we find ourselves in actually makes it something worth keeping an eye on...

They want to do what?

This seems like a ridiculous concept until I realize that they are serious:

Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.

The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated.

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

So.....because they violated established rules, the Democratic Party is now going to allow them to do it all over again so their delegates count? What's worse is the fact that the farther you get into the story, the more ridiculous it sounds as they take about do-over alternatives to "traditional" primaries.

As an outsider looking into their process, I see it this way; Florida and Michigan made their beds, and now they need to lie in them. If the DNC does not want to look like a fly-by-night operation that's in the back pocket of the Clinton Campaign, they need to stick to their original guns....

McCain should pick Palin

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin brings a lot of things to a potential national ticket. First off, she already has a record as a reformer. She challenged a Governor of her own party in a competitive primary and defeated him easily. She also brings a different demographic to the ticket. While Senator McCain can easily be portrayed as an old Washington insider, scarred from battles both real and political, Governor Palin will give voters something different. A feeling of vibrancy, of renewal. About as far away from being a Washington insider as you can possibly get. She's so popular, both inside and outside of Alaska, that a Draft Palin for VP movement has existed on the internet for over a year.

And don't let her looks and vibrancy fool you; she is also a conservative's conservative. She believes in limited government, in rooting out corruption, the Second Amendment, and in fiscal responsibility. Governor Palin represents a lot of the things that we as conservative Republicans have been concerned that Senator McCain is not.

You can take a look for yourself how impressive Governor Palin is by checking out this video from washingtonpost.com:



It's refreshing that somebody would actually admit on the record that she would be interested in serving her country in such a capacity.

The people of Alaska probably don't want to lose Governor Palin yet, given that she has just started her work as their Governor. However, I'm not sure there are many other choices Senator McCain can make that would energy the base as much as the selection of Governor Palin would. I hope that Senator McCain calls her to serve her country, something she would do admirably.

My honorable mention choices include Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, and JC Watts.

Hard to argue with this logic

People need to get in the game, and apparently they needed some....er, extra motivation:

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) challenged Republicans on Tuesday to get off their "dead asses" and start raising money for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

And the Republican leader wasn't the only lawmaker berating his GOP colleagues to raise more money for the committee's March 12 fundraising dinner: According to sources in the room, NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) also used a closed-door session at the Capitol Hill Club on Tuesday to challenge Republicans to raise more campaign cash.

The normally upbeat Cole told Republicans that if they don't start raising more money for the committee, they should get used to life in the minority. Blunt told his colleagues that Sen. John McCain's spot atop the ballot should give Republicans the opening they need to regain their majority.

Well, it's a sad state of affairs if the party in Congress cannot get motivated to try and win back the majority. But these members of Congress do have a responsibility to try to work to restore the majority the way it should be. A lot of these members are Congress are the ones who got us into this mess; they need to do the work to try to get our party and our nation out of this hole.

Of course, one could also argue that if we're having a hard time getting our Representatives motivated, that's probably not a good sign for getting the base motivated. I just hope that notion is incorrect...

Spot On

Victor Davis Hanson describes the long and circuitous road that led us to see Barack Obama be the likely Democratic nominee for President.

News flash: Republicans in Congress (rightfully) take a lot of the heat for it, too.

I just hope sometime, at some point in the future, we find out what Barack Obama actually stands for, other than being for himself winning and against somebody else winning....

The Stark Reality for Democrats

This is something I have been telling people offline for a few weeks, but it's something that is getting more mainstream play and is becoming more of a potential factor. The 2008 Democratic nominee just might be......Al Gore:

Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It goes like this: We love them both, but neither is a sure bet when it comes to electability. It's not about gender and race, each has more mundane vulnerabilities. Hillary's negatives will drive white men to John McCain; Obama's inexperience will require a gut check on the part of voters. What if the super delegates decide not to decide, denying either candidate the requisite number of delegates to secure the party's nomination. Democrats want to win. The new rallying cry: Gore on the second ballot.

Read the whole thing.

I just would like to say that Al Gore may be the one Democrat who can unite all factions of the Democratic party after the convention, yet I cannot possibly fathom a scenario where he can beat John McCain in November...

Dems will give great TV, but not democracy to their fellow Dems

Now that we are past Super Duper Tuesday, it looks like more and more that the elite within the Democratic Party and not the Democratic voters are going to be selecting the nominee, a lament that many on the left are starting to realize:

So, there you have it. Unless either Obama or Clinton drops out before the convention, there is simply no way that the nominee can be determined without the super delegates. In the broadest definition of the term, "a brokered convention" is a convention that is determined by super delegates instead of nominating contests. Through a deadly combination of a primary calendar race to the bottom and an anachronistic method of delegate selection, we Democrats seem to have already arrived at that point. Short of one candidate dropping out, there is simply no easy way that this situation can be resolved. Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.....

....My instincts tell me this is a complete disaster, since it will shine light on complicated bylaws and the questionable democratic nature of the delegate selection process instead of on voters. As fascinating as it might be for political junkies, it is not the kind of image Democrats need. We need to figure a way out of this situation in a hurry.

And yes it is going to be fascinating television to watch as the Democrats start to eat their young in Denver. Of course, these are the rules that the Democratic Party apparatus agreed to live with, so they will in fact have to accept the consequences of a brokered convention, and the first true national exposure to the byzantine rules in which they select their party's Presidential nominee. And lord only knows what will happen to their party unit after the fur really starts to fly...

I just find it odd that the party that talks about "fighting for every vote" is going to be the one that goes in to wheel and deal mode to select its nominee...