Bob_Tarlau's Blog

KEY DEMS SEND WORD TO HILLARY:  “IT’S OVER!”

I predicted two months ago that North Carolina would seal the fate of one of the remaining Democrats seeking the White House.  I believe that happened this past Tuesday… with an impressive double digit victory for Barack Obama.  Plus, of course, we had that squeaker in Indiana… a 20-thousand vote Clinton win, out of about a million votes cast.  She had to do better this week, a lot better.

His 240,000-vote victory in North Carolina, coupled with her narrow, 18,000-vote triumph in Indiana, all but assured Obama will finish the primary season with a lead in the cumulative popular vote.

But Hillary Clinton is the ultimate fighter.  She is all about tenacity with a capital T and apart from George McGovern, a plainspoken man who knows something about losing elections, not a single Democrat of national stature publicly urged Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday to end her campaign for the White House.

They didn't have to.  There’s no shortage of other ways to signal, suggest, insinuate or instigate the same thing.  Besides it would be unseemly to publicly pressure a historic political figure, a woman who has run a grueling race, won millions of votes and drawn uncounted numbers of new Democratic voters to the polls.

Instead, many Democrats preferred to say softly what the party's 1972 presidential nominee said for all to hear. Barack Obama has won the nomination "by any practical test," McGovern said.    He was an early Clinton backer but has now switched his allegiance to Obama.

The bottom line is that barring a sudden huge negative revelation or an act of God, the Illinois senator is on track to become the first black presidential nominee of a major party.   The latest Time magazine cover really says it all… sporting a picture of Obama with a million-watt smile… the headline says:   “And the winner is….”

Yet Obama and his key spokespeople are giving Clinton some breathing room.   "I think that it would be inappropriate and awkward and wrong for any of us to tell Senator Clinton when it is time for the race to be over," said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, speaking on a campaign-sponsored conference call with reporters.   "This is her decision and it is only her decision.”  Sen. Chuck Schumer, a staunch supporter of his fellow New Yorker, said, "It's her decision to make and I'll accept what decision she makes." Asked about her chances of still capturing the Democratic nomination, the normally loquacious Schumer fell silent.

Other Democrats preferred to speak more freely, but only on condition of anonymity. They, too, said that Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana had effectively sealed the outcome.

SHIFTING SUPERDELEGATES

The only yardstick by which Obama still trails Clinton: the 796 party insiders and elected officials, known as superdelegates, who are free to back either candidate.   And if the trend of the past few days continues, Obama will soon overtake Senator Clinton on this final frontier.   That will be a tipping point that’s likely to encourage a cascade of endorsements from holdouts and seal the nomination for the Illinois senator.

THE CASH GAP

There’s also the money matter.  With six primaries to go, Obama is flush with cash.   Clinton’s campaign concedes she’s out of dough… and on Wednesday we heard she had pumped another $6.4 of her own money into her campaign.   So Bill and Hillary Clinton have poured $11 from their own nest egg into her increasingly bleak prospects of securing the nomination.

Obama has led the money race throughout the primary season and he already has more offices in the upcoming primary states.   He is advertising in several of them, including Oregon and Kentucky.   And – as Politico.com noted this week -- the extreme financial imbalance between the two candidates at this phase underscores the strategic advantage Obama gained by forcing Clinton to spend all her money to capture Pennsylvania and stay in the race.

Clinton's dire financial condition was evident Tuesday night when she opened her Indiana victory speech with an appeal for donations to her web site.   That request was followed up with a late night e-mail blast to supporters celebrating the win and soliciting money.   In that message:  "Tonight's victory in Indiana was close, and a margin that narrow means just one thing: every single thing you did to help us win in Indiana helped make the difference."

The question is:  How many will need that call for help… with the likelihood their cash will wind up going down the drain?

Now… your turn.

I’ll be back with another THIS POLITICAL WEEK on Fri May 16.

Cheers, Bob

The rocky last few days for the Obama campaign clearly top THIS POLITICAL WEEK. There was certainly little nuance in his subdued news conference on Tuesday in North Carolina (where Democrats – along with those in Indiana – decide next Tuesday between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). At that presser, Obama pronounced himself saddened, angered and even outraged by the antics of his former pastor at the National Press Club a day earlier. "I find these comments appalling," he said. "It contradicts everything that I'm about and who I am." What a different tone that was from the finely tuned speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia in March, shortly after some of Jeremiah Wright's most inflammatory comments first come to light. That clearly reflects the new political reality Obama is now confronting.

It might seem that Obama’s most important audience during that news conference were the voters of North Carolina and Indiana. But actually I think he was speaking most directly to 300 or so remaining undecided Democratic superdelegates, the party regulars who are likely to determine the eventual nominee. They have become increasingly concerned in recent days that the Democratic frontrunner lacks the fire and the fight he will need to prevail in November. Hillary Clinton frequently reminds us she’s long had that fire and fight. And she’s right, she does. I’ve always thought she’s better positioned to take the fight to John McCain, and especially the crafty Republican campaign machine behind him, in November. (Remember Swift Boat – expect GOP operatives to roll out something just as harsh… whichever Democrat claims the nomination). Not that Obama wouldn’t battle hard. The question is – with the Rev. Wright mess looming over him – would it be hard enough?

Did you catch Hill with Bill the other night… not Bill Clinton but Fox’s Bill O'Reilly – who has made something of a cottage industry of bashing Bill and Hillary over the last 15 years. But O'Reilly loves ratings, and his large right-wing audience of white male voters is attractive to a Clinton campaign working to take advantage of a suddenly stumbling Obama. So Wednesday night, Clinton and O'Reilly sat down together. Topic number one: Reverend Wright.

Among the many negative things that Wright has said is that the United States Government could be behind the AIDS epidemic and that the U.S. engages in terrorism. About that, Clinton declared: "People have to decide what they believe, and I sure don't believe the United States government was behind AIDS." And about Obama on Wright, she told O’Reilly: "He spoke out forcefully yesterday. I think that he made his views clear finally, that he disagreed. And I think that's what he had to do."

As one Democratic strategist put it: "You could sense, if not a turning of the tide over the past couple of days, that people were getting back on the fence." Indeed, on Tuesday, Clinton picked up the endorsement of one important superdelegate: North Carolina Governor Mike Easley, who is backing her despite the fact that much of the rest of the state's political establishment has lined up behind Obama, considered a strong bet to win the state's primary next week. 'There's been lots of 'Yes we can, yes we should,' " Easley said in a dig at Obama. "Hillary Clinton is ready to deliver.''

The setbacks for Obama's seemingly charmed presidential campaign have come one on top of the other lately. There was his admittedly clumsy comments in a private fundraiser about "bitter" small-town voters who "cling" to religion and guns, questions about his association with a 1960s-era terrorist and nit-picking in a recent debate over why he doesn't wear an American flag pin on his lapel.

But potentially worst of all was his association with Wright, particularly after the retired pastor launched what amounted to a media tour, and suggested that any efforts that Obama had made to distance himself was posturing. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls," Wright said dismissively of his former congregant. Even former President Jimmy Carter, who normally avoids commenting on the presidential race, told CNN that Wright had "really been damaging" to Obama's presidential campaign.

Clinton appeared this week to be gaining on Obama in both of the key primary states voting next Tuesday. Though Obama leads in nominating contests, elected delegates and the all-important fundraising stakes, Clinton's overall message – not just what she’s saying about Rev. Wright -- seems to be hitting home after her campaign-saving victory in Pennsylvania.

In Indiana, a Howey-Gauge poll in Indiana released Tuesday had Obama up by just 47 to 45 percentage points, well within the margin of error, with eight percent of likely primary voters undecided. Clinton had trailed by 15 points in the same poll in February. A Public Policy poll had Clinton up eight points, weighting the average of recent polls in the state by RealClearPolitics.com in her favor, showing her up two points.

Indiana is a true battleground between the rivals, as it is packed with blue-collar white voters feeling the economic pinch who normally favor Clinton, but much of it is blanketed by the media market in Obama's hometown of Chicago.

In North Carolina, a state where Obama hopes a large African-American population will help carry him to victory, he leads the RealClearPolitics average by 10 points, but a Survey USA poll Tuesday had him up by only five.

Now we have a deadline imposed by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean – who says either Clinton or Obama must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries in order to unify the party by the convention and win the election in November.

But Dean still isn’t saying which candidate should drop out, only that it should happen after all the primary voters have been to the polls. That will be on June 3. Dean also said that while the party rules say Democratic superdelegates can wait until the party's August 25 convention to make up their minds, that would be too late to unify the party and defeat McCain.

I think what Howard Dean says is true: The Democrats “really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards.”

Again your take on all of this is very welcome. Thanks to those who write me on a regular basis. Your comments often make me smile (and sometimes frown). Either way, they’re great to get.

One more thing… a program plug: Please watch THE NAVY WAY, hosted by Carlos Amezcua, photographed by Ken Moore, edited by Mark Sudock, with graphics by Miguel Valdivia on Thr May 8 at 10:30P. I produced and wrote the program, which is about a side of the Navy you may not be familiar with – from what goes into the training of a Navy SEAL to the wonderful humanitarian work of the hospital ship Mercy, one of America’s greatest ambassadors. And discover a remarkable wildlife habitat inside the naval weapons station at Seal Beach. Again that’s THE NAVY WAY next Thursday – at 10:30P, right after the Fox 11 news.

And I’ll be back with another THIS POLITICAL WEEK blog the next day, Fri May 9.

Cheers, Bob

We’re certainly into the twilight of this long presidential primary calendar and this morning (Fri Apr 18) comes word of a dramatic reversal in the Obama vs. Clinton clash. An Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll finds a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Clinton.

While Obama and Clinton are both sustaining dents and dings from their lengthy presidential fight, the former first lady is clearly suffering more. Democratic voters no longer see her as the party's strongest contender for the White House.

Voters of all types have gotten a better sense of Obama, who was an obscure Illinois legislator just four years ago. As more people moved from the "I don't know him" category in the AP-Yahoo! News poll, more rated Obama as inexperienced, unethical and dishonest. And 15 percent erroneously think he's a Muslim, thanks in part to disinformation widely spread on the Internet.

But Obama's positive ratings have climbed as well, while Clinton — widely known since the early 1990s — has been less able to change people's views of her. And when those views have shifted, it has hurt her more than helped. The New York senator's ratings for being honest, likable, ethical and refreshing have fallen since January, and Obama scores higher than she does in all those categories.

Key dates remaining on the primary calendar are the votes in Pennsylvania next Tue Apr 22 and in Indiana and North Carolina two weeks later. My emphasis this week is on Pennsylvania.

First, it’s of note that while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to compete against each other in Pennsylvania, both have opened a lead over John McCain there. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds Obama leading McCain 47% to 39% and Clinton with a 47% to 38% advantage. That’s a significant change from a month ago when McCain was essentially even with both Democrats.

It’s especially interesting to note that the Democrats have gained ground on McCain during their Pennsylvania Primary battle. Just the opposite happened in neighboring Ohio. McCain took the lead in the Buckeye State following the Democratic bickering and has retained that lead over the past month. Democratic struggles in Michigan also appear to have benefited McCain.

Rasmussen figures the six-week pace of the Pennsylvania Primary has worked to benefit the Democrats’ general election prospects. Over the past month, favorable ratings for both Democrats have improved a bit. Obama is now viewed favorably by 57% of the state’s voters, Clinton by 53%. A month ago, those figures were 53% and 50% respectively. McCain is now viewed favorably by 50%, down from 55% in March.

Trailing in delegates, Clinton has staked her candidacy on a strong showing in the Pennsylvania primary. Obama has eroded Clinton's lead in several state polls and an upset could irrevocably damage her candidacy.

Second, there was one Obama-Clinton pre-Pennsylvania primary debate this week and that was in Philadelphia on Wednesday evening. The most interesting part was Clinton saying emphatically – for the first time -- that Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her earlier efforts to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat. When pressed about Obama’s electability, she said: “Yes, yes, yes.” Asked a similar question about Clinton, Obama said "Absolutely and I've said so before" — a not-so-subtle dig at his rival who had previously declined to make a similar statement about him.

Third, it’s important to take note that while Pennsylvania is military serviced-oriented, it’s also war-weary. Both candidates promise to end the war, but in a state with a remarkable history of venerating military service, how that end should be achieved weighs heavily with many voters. Polling shows Democratic voters overwhelmingly disapprove of the war. What divides them is a quick withdrawal versus a longer drawdown of troops.

For many voters, the anger over the war that helped push five Pennsylvania GOP lawmakers out of office in 2006 has turned to almost a resigned acceptance that little will change quickly.

Military service is commonplace in communities across the state. During World War II, one in seven U.S. war fighters was from Pennsylvania. The state sustained heavy casualties then, and later in Vietnam. Today, one in 10 residents is a veteran.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 17,000 members of the 19,000-member Pennsylvania National Guard have deployed in support of the nation's war on terror. About 6,000 troops assigned to armories from Philadelphia to Erie have been alerted that they could be leaving for Iraq early next year in what would be the Pennsylvania Guard's largest Iraq deployment yet.

In a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 84 percent of likely Democratic voters in Pennsylvania said going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. That's similar to Democrats nationally, but higher than the roughly two-thirds of all voters who say it was the wrong thing.

And, 58 percent of likely Pennsylvania Democrats said a timetable should be set for withdrawal, while nearly a third — 29 percent — said troops should be immediately withdrawn.

Nearly 200 troops with ties to Pennsylvania have died in Iraq. More than a thousand troops have come home to Pennsylvania wounded, often to small towns where jobs are scarce.

Clinton is perceived by Pennsylvania's conservative Democrats to have a more cautious, less liberal approach to withdrawing troops than Obama, and that could be a factor in why she's ahead in polls.

Both candidates support a phased withdrawal of troops. Clay Richard, a pollster with Quinnipiac, has this interesting comment on Pennsylvania’s war quandary: "It's kind of a strange dichotomy that they are more skeptical about the war on one hand, and they question why we're there and what we're doing. But on the other hand, there's a built-in patriotism that is not found in other states to the degree that it exists in Pennsylvania."

So through a broad scope of issues… from the war through the economy… observing the Pennsylvania outcome should tell us a lot about what an important segment of this country is thinking.

How about predicting the Clinton vs. Obama outcome in Pennsylvania?  My guess is that it will be very close… with a Hillary win.

Finally about the bitter battle over “bitter.” Personally I think too much was made of the Obama comments. Having said that, I do feel Obama’s words were poorly chosen and he’ll need to be both careful and sensitive in future. As for Clinton’s on-going critique of Obama’s words, when you are in her position you have to make the most out of whatever you’re handed.

Cheers, Bob

The Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama duel has been filling most of this blog in recent weeks… enough to where some of you loyal readers might be thinking: Hey, what about that Republican fellow who has already secured his party’s nomination? You’re right, so I’m blogging this week about Senator John McCain.

He’s long been a GOP agitator, but now McCain is easing into the role of its newfound leader.   He has met abroad with world leaders, intensified fundraising and taken control of the party apparatus. He is thinking about running mates and is introducing himself to the country. He's also made a few missteps and watched a challenging political terrain that favors Democrats grow more troublesome for Republicans.

A CBS/New York Times poll at the start of this month found Americans are more dissatisfied with the country’s direction than at any time since a major poll started asking about the subject in the early 1990s. Eighty-one per cent say they believe “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.” That 81 per cent is up from 69 per cent a year ago… and 35 percent in early 2002.

McCain seemed to be addressing that downbeat view when, on Thursday, he called for federal aid for well-meaning homeowners who can't pay their mortgages. That was clearly an attempt to fend off criticism that he has been indifferent to the housing crisis and the market upheaval it has spawned. He sketched out a plan that would cost up to $10 billion to help 200,000 to 400,000 homeowners trade burdensome mortgages for manageable loans. As usual in these kinds of overtures, nothing said about where the money would come from and exactly who would be eligible. Hillary Clinton was quick to call the McCain plan a halfhearted version of her own efforts. And from Obama: "I'm glad he's finally decided to offer a plan. Better late than never."

McCain certainly knows what he’s up against in trying to keep the White House in Republican hands in spite of the dust kicked up by the most unpopular President in at least a generation. Yet in the weeks since he clinched the GOP nomination, his White House campaign has entered an important new phase and he’s managed to move forward on all fronts — from message to mechanics — to position himself for the November election.

There have been speed bumps on the road. McCain faced fallout from an endorsement by a televangelist who has made anti-Catholic comments and confronted questions about his ties to lobbyists. He invited criticism with a speech that derided aggressive federal intervention in the housing crisis but offered no immediate relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure. And, he mistakenly said Iran was allowing al-Qaida fighters into its country to be trained and returned to Iraq. On the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, he found himself having to apologize for initially opposing establishment of a national holiday marking MLK’s birthday.

In spite of the hurdles, McCain is saying: "I'm glad to be where we are. We're going to keep working hard." Polls put him in strong contention against either Clinton or Obama in a head-to-head match up. And McCain has the luxury of focusing on the general election while his Democratic rivals remain embroiled in their tight contest. And each day we hear Clinton and Obama assail McCain in hopes of appearing to be the strongest one to take him on in November.

Obama is fond of saying: "John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq. I want to end it." And one of Clinton’s Pennsylvania TV ads proclaims: "John McCain just said the government shouldn't take any real action on the housing crisis, he'd let the phone keep ringing."

As Democrats bicker, these are the areas McCain needs to keep his focus on:

+ Money: Fundraising is arguably his biggest weakness and, thus, should be his highest priority. He raised only $11 million in February to a combined $80 million for Clinton and Obama, and has been slow to sign up many of Bush's big donors. Obama reported raising $40 million in March; Clinton said she raised $20 million. McCain is likely to surpass his February total but still trail his rivals. He held dozens of fundraisers last month and set up joint fundraising accounts with the Republican National Committee to encourage donations.

+ Unity: Trying to heal wounds from a divisive GOP primary is a high priority for a candidate who has spent decades bucking the party on issues that resonate with conservatives. In hopes of getting critics to swing behind him, McCain recently appeared with Bush in the White House Rose Garden and received Nancy Reagan's endorsement. He also campaigned with former GOP rival Mitt Romney to show solidarity. He’ll also need to play to the party’s middle-roaders and political independents… a tough tight-rope act especially given his continuing hard sell for the Iraq war.

+ Message: Speaking to a broader electorate, McCain, a former Navy pilot held prisoner during the Vietnam War, has cast himself as an experienced wartime commander in chief and statesman with his own vision, despite Democratic efforts to paint him as a Bush clone. McCain visited the Middle East, including Iraq, and Europe, where he met with allies. Stateside, he staged a weeklong biographical tour and began an ad campaign.

+ Vice President. McCain has a list of some 20 names from which he could choose a running mate and says he's in the "embryonic stages" of selecting someone. Aides say little to no significant vetting has occurred. The goal is to select someone before the nominating convention in early September, and McCain says he's mindful of the enhanced importance of the task because of his age. He is 71 and would be the oldest president elected.

Do you have any thoughts on who McCain should be considering for VP? Condi Rice perhaps? There sure was a lot of talk about that this week… but I’m tossing the chances of that happening into the “pretty slim” box.

I’ll be blogging at you again next Friday for another THIS POLITICAL WEEK. In the meantime, I’ll be looking forward to your comments.

Cheers, Bob

Last Friday, I wrote that North Carolina’s Tue May 6 election would likely be the decider of the Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama battle.  Part of my thinking was that Clinton has been so far ahead in the Pennsylvania polls that victory there would be seen as status quo, a confirmation that the race continues.   Yet according to a couple of indicators this week, perhaps we won’t get that far.

For one thing, the Clinton campaign is cash starved… with big bills in her “to be paid” basket.  Secondly, her once rock solid Pennsylvania lead is shrinking – fast.  The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in PA has Clinton leading Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a 10-point lead just a week ago.  She enjoyed a 13-point margin in mid-March and a 15-point advantage in early March.

Rasmussen's statement on these findings says:  “Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.”

Over the last two weeks, the news for Obama has gotten much brighter.  First, The nightmare presented by his former pastor is on the back burner (perhaps until the GOP revives in the fall), with polls showing his campaign hasn’t really been hurt by Rev. Wright’s disgusting remarks… or Obama’s failure to confront him while a member of Wright’s church.

Second, Obama has also picked up some key congressional endorsements… including one from Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey… and a second female senator, freshman Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.   She had recently voiced concerns about the rancorous tone of the Democratic primary, and said she was now forced to choose because she found remaining uncommitted difficult.   In her words:  "Between Barack and a hard place, I chose Barack."   Klobuchar joins Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill in backing Obama.

And there was an important Obama endorsement from one of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy figures, Lee Hamilton, a former U.S. House member from Indiana, where an important primary vote occurs May 6.   Hamilton, who co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and headed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he was impressed by Obama's approach to national security and foreign policy.

Third, the Obama campaign is flush with cash… and is already spending a good chunk of that to run TV ads in the remaining states.   Figures out yesterday (Thursday), show that that the Illinois Senator raised more than $40 million in March.  Clinton raised half that.

Now let’s say that Obama really is able to pull off an upset in the Keystone State.  I believe a Clinton loss in Pennsylvania would effectively end the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.  Obama would certainly pick up the momentum to win most if not all of the remaining states – including that all-important North Carolina contest.

If it turns out to be Barack Obama vs. John McCain in the November election… Obama will face a tough sell job to bring over Hillary’s loyal base.  Rasmussen finds just 56% of Clinton’s current supporters say they are likely to vote for Obama against John McCain. Forty percent of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania say they are not likely to vote for Obama.

Just 21% of Pennsylvania’s Primary Voters say that Clinton should drop out of the race while 18% would like Obama to leave. Those figures are similar to results from a recent national survey. Fifty-one percent (51%) in Pennsylvania say it’s very likely the contest will not be resolved until the convention in Denver. That figure includes 61% of Clinton voters and 38% of those who support Obama. Overall, another 33% say a convention decision is Somewhat Likely.

Clinton – out on the Pennsylvania – campaign trail this week says she has something in common with legendary film boxer Rocky Balboa -- she's not a quitter.  Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art from the 1976 Oscar-winning film "Rocky," Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.  Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up.”

The day she does quit – if it comes to that – will be a tough one for both her and the former president.  I wonder what she does then, endorse Obama?  At this point that’s hard to imagine but there have been stranger political bedfellows.

So if those 33% who say a brokered convention in late August is Somewhat Likely are actually right, how much damage does a floor fight do to the Democrats in the fall campaign?   I think not much.   For one thing, if the battle actually continued that far (and I don’t believe it will) the convention news coverage would be unbelievably heavy… surging right over the Republican Convention (or coronation) which comes the very next week.  McCain could find himself facing a case of damaged momentum.

OK, so I’ve posed some questions—and given you my take.  Now it’s time for yours.

Have a good week ahead… and I’ll be back here with THIS POLITICAL WEEK next Friday.

Cheers, Bob

Let’s start THIS POLITICAL WEEK by looking ahead to the Democratic Party contests in future weeks… and months.  

+ On Tue Apr 22, we have the much-anticipated Pennsylvania Primary, with its 188 delegates.  All the polls have Hillary Clinton far ahead there.

+ On Sat May 3, the Dems on Guam vote to instruct nine delegates.  

+ On Tue May 6, 84 delegates are at stake in Indiana, 134 in North Carolina.

+ On Tue May 13, it’s West Virginia’s turn; 39 delegates there.

+ On Tue May 20, we turn to Kentucky (60 delegates) and Oregon (65).

+ On Sun Jun 1, it’s Puerto Rico with 63 delegates.

+ And then on Tue Jun 3 this long long primary/caucus season wraps up with votes in Montana (24 delegates) and South Dakota (23).

Of those, most of the media and candidate attention is concentrated on Pennsylvania.  But what’s much more important is the crucial importance of North Carolina.  The vote there has the real potential of determining the Democratic nominee.  Clinton can only win if there’s a radical realignment of the super-delegates.  Enough would have to move into her camp despite the popular appeal of Barack Obama and the political peril of denying the nomination to the first African-American with a real chance to become President.   There is a way that can happen, however.  Read on.

As I noted earlier, Clinton is so far ahead in Pennsylvania that whatever the margin of her victory there it will be seen as status quo… basically a confirmation that the race continues.

On the other hand, North Carolina is an ideal state for Obama: large college towns, large black population, and higher than average income for a Southern state. His lead there has been so commanding that most watchers figure it’s his… much as PA has been ceded to Clinton.

Let’s suppose Clinton takes both Pennsylvania and Indiana.   That would make an Obama victory in North Carolina especially important.   Vital, in fact.  If he wins NC, he can show that he has staying power in spite of the Rev. Wright mess and it would keep the glue in his super-delegate majority.   A loss in NC would be very costly for Obama in a state tailor made for him.   It would sow real doubts in the minds of the super-delegates currently leaning his way.   I think under that circumstance (however unlikely) she wins.

That’s why I believe the vote in the Tar Heel State is ultra important.  Back with you next Friday.

Cheers, Bob

Certainly, very few presidential candidates have ever faced a test of the scope Obama did in confronting the racially divisive remarks of his church's former pastor.  "God damn America" was among the more outrageous statements made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

If Obama defended Wright's remarks, he surely would have lost support. But if the Illinois senator rejected Wright, he could have been seen as throwing overboard a longtime father figure for the sake of political expediency.

Instead, Obama did neither.  As the Philadephia Inquirer editorialized:  “He condemned the sins but embraced the sinner.”    The editorial goes on to cite this section of the candidate’s speech:  "Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.  We would be making the same mistake that Rev. Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."

Obama was strong in showing he has the capacity to explain to black listeners the frustrations of whites.   He also argued that overcoming racial divisions will make it easier for this nation to work on solutions to health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

Yet it appears that not many minds were changed.   Those opposed to Obama (both Republicans and Democrats) felt, both before and after his speech, that the divide between black and white is not the issue here, that what’s key should be Obama's longtime association with Jeremiah Wright.

They contend that rather than break ties with his pastor of 20 years, Obama is excusing his behavior while sweeping the controversy under the rug.   An Investors Business Daily editorial says:  this amounts to “just passing the buck and it’s not very presidential.”   In what I think is a rather far-fetched view, the paper says:  “Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer responding to his getting caught patronizing an international prostitution ring by giving a speech on the female physique.”

Reaction to the speech certainly ran the range:  a CNN analyst compared the Obama speech to Lincoln’s 1858 “A House Divided” classic.   Reuters headlined:  "Obama denounces preacher, urges race healing." The Boston Globe titled its story "Obama calls for racial unity." And the Washington Post proclaimed: "Obama Confronts Race in U.S."

There was this surprisingly tough, but sharp bit of analysis on Obama's speech from, of all people, the liberal Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

“The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naive and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments - echoing his naive and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko - will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech.”

My take is that Obama waited too long to deliver it, but I certainly welcomed the speech.  It was temperate and built on logic, not fiery or laden with passion.  It was meant to be calming and for those who just wanted to be reassured, I think it served that purpose.

Where it was strongest was in recasting Rodney King’s notion that we can all come together.   Where it was weakest was in explaining the very reason for the speech:  why the Rev. Wright would even make his inflammatory, repugnant comments.  Also for the first time, Obama admitted what he previously had denied: that he was present when Wright had made some of his outrageous comments.   Why didn’t he confront and condemn the pastor then?

Did he, at that point, ever attempt to get Wright to moderate or change his views?    Those are questions he didn’t answer this week and still needs to.

Speaking of views, time for yours… and I’ll be back with another THIS POLITICAL WEEK next Friday.

Cheers, Bob

It was indeed another wild political week… although it didn’t start out that way. Early on, Barack Obama captured both Wyoming and Mississippi as expected. But then, Eliot Spitzer and his high-priced hooker were completely unexpected. So – for a change -- let’s start with the non-presidential politics.

I’d certainly like your take on the dirt that’s overwhelmed New York City’s Mr. Clean. First a couple of things to keep in mind: Resigning won't spare Eliot Spitzer from the heat of a criminal investigation — federal prosecutors must still decide what to do with the case of the disgraced New York governor and the prostitutes. There’s no question a plea deal is in the works between those prosecutors and Spitzer's high-powered defense team over his connection to a high-end prostitution ring. But, so far, no one who knows is saying anything.

The Associated Press quotes Evan Barr, a private practice lawyer who once handled such cases for the same Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office that is now weighing how to proceed with Spitzer, as saying: "Corruption cases often pose a dilemma for the prosecutor. If you charge a public figure under an obscure or rarely used legal theory, the critics will say the prosecution is politically motivated; if you decline to charge under the same circumstances, the critics will say the prosecutor is going easy on the would-be defendant because he or she is a prominent person."

What’s certain is that Spitzer, a married father of three teenage girls, faces a dubious future after he was accused of spending tens of thousands of dollars on prostitutes — including a tryst with a 22-year-old call girl in Washington the night before Valentine's Day. Officials said Spitzer initially drew the attention of authorities with suspicious money transfers that will be a key part of any possible criminal case. Among the possible charges that could be brought against him are: soliciting and paying for sex; violating the Mann Act, the 1910 federal law that makes it a crime to induce someone to cross state lines for immoral purposes; and illegally arranging cash transactions to conceal their purpose.

But legal experts said bringing charges and getting a conviction would be unusual, considering federal authorities rarely charge the customers in illegal sex or drug cases. So what’s the likely outcome? Many legal eagles figure it could be what’s called a "deferred prosecution agreement," which could leave Spitzer on probation with charges dropped if he did not get into any more trouble.

The collateral consequence of scandal often is newfound celebrity. So now we have the rising prospects for the 22-year-old call girl involved in the Spitzer scandal. At least those prospect are momentarily rising. Identified in court papers as “Kristen,” it turns out she’s an aspiring musician named Ashley Alexandra Dupre. Her identity was only first reported Wednesday, but already her fame is skyrocketing.

Curious about the woman so integral in the New York governor's downfall, many have flocked to MySpace to view her photos, music and biographical information. That material was removed Thursday after over more than 5 million visited her page. Dupre's page had portrayed her as a New Jersey native who left a broken home to pursue a music career in New York. Court papers allege that Spitzer paid thousands of dollars for her services with the Emperor's Club VIP.

Dupre had also posted two songs at the music sharing site Aime Street, which allows musicians to earn a 70% cut of download fees, which are determined by their popularity. The songs, What You Want and Move Ya Body are dance-pop tunes a la Britney Spears. In the past few days, they’ve been downloaded at least 200,000 times. On What We Want, she sings: "I know what you need / Can you handle me?" Ironic, isn’t it?

But will her fame be just a quick flash… not something that will generate big profits? Those who follow the music industry say major labels will be unlikely to sign her, but in the past smaller labels have taken a stab at capitalizing on such notoriety. The AP recalls that Koch Entertainment profited by releasing an album in 2004 by William Hung, the American Idol castoff who horrendously sang She Bangs.

Following the scandals of former President Clinton, Gennifer Flowers published a memoir in 1995, and Monica Lewinsky made inroads into the entertainment industry, hosting a short-lived reality TV dating program called Mr. Personality in 2003. So what do you think? Can “Kristen” (aka Ashley Depure) make it in the pop world? From the little I’ve heard of her songs on the radio, I’ve got to think it’s a long shot.

Enough – at least for this blog -- of the Spitzer self-destruction and its multi-headed fallout. But please be sure and send along your comments on it. For now, let’s get back to presidential politics.

We’ve entered a respite from all the primaries, at least for now. Next up is Pennsylvania on April 22nd. And that, of course, will be very important to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Who is favored? Let’s look at the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey. It shows Clinton leading Obama 51% to 38% in Pennsylvania. Clinton now leads by twenty-five percentage points among women and is essentially even among men. She attracts votes from 69% of white women while also leading among voters over 40 and those with incomes under $75,000 a year. Obama leads 79% to 13% among African-American voters.

Rasmussen Reports also provides a glimpse of the November results. In Pesnnylvania, this survey found 44% believe Clinton will do better in the fall campaign against John McCain. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe Obama will be the better general election candidate. By a 43% to 38% margin, Likely Democratic Primary voters in Pennsylvania believe Obama will be the nominee. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Obama voters believe their candidate will win. Twenty-two percent (22%) of Clinton supporters expect Obama to win as well.

If Obama does, in fact, win the nomination, just 57% of Clinton voters say they are even somewhat likely to vote for him against John McCain. If Clinton is the nominee, just 64% of Obama voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for her against McCain. Again these figures come only from Pennsylvania, but they are interesting when we consider Campaign ’08 in the long term.

Finally – this matter of whether and how Michigan and Florida should re-vote. Today (Friday) a Michigan congresswoman says the state's Democrats are working on plans for a June 3 primary. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick said the primary would be statewide and would be funded through party money. She is one of four Democrats who are not endorsing either candidate who are working together on a plan for a repeat primary.

Clinton won a primary the state held in January, but Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. He had it removed because the primary was held too early to comply with national party rules, meaning no delegates were at stake.

Florida also had its delegates stripped for holding a primary in January. This week, the Florida Democratic Party offered a plan for a mail-in primary, but admits it doesn’t have a good chance of being approved.

What do you think should be done to have Michigan and Florida represented? We’re talking about a sizeable chunk of electoral votes. I think both states should be represented and it seems the mail-in method would make the most practical and economic sense.

That’s my take on This Political Week. I’ll be blogging back back to this spot on MyFoxLA.com next Friday.

What a wild week in a wild political year! We’ve had comebacks, concessions, victories and one big wakeup. The wakeup was for Barack Obama – who discovered the hard way that he doesn’t have the Democratic nomination in the bag. At least, not for now.

Some thoughts on John McCain and his success in locking up the GOP nomination a little later.

But first the Democrats: While Hillary Clinton won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island on Tuesday night, the way Obama’s campaign tells it, nothing has really changed. They’re quick to point out their man has won nearly twice the number of states she has and that he leads in both the popular vote and in pledged delegates. And strictly by the numbers, that’s true. He’s 101 delegates closer to the magic 2,025 number than she is.

But now it’s more than math. For the dynamics of the Democratic race have shifted sharply. HillaryClinton.com carried the banner headline "MOMENTUM: KEEP IT GOING" on Wednesday morning.  Defying political gravity after 12 straight primary losses with wins in two major states, Texas and Ohio, she’s already been able to quiet the calls for her to get out of the race for the sake of party unity.

The divided and excited electorate has once again thrown her a political lifeline. It seemed like New Hampshire all over again, where she won after her third-place finish in Iowa.

The New York Times said it well on Wednesday: “Those two states were the battlegrounds where Mr. Obama was going to bury the last opponent to his history-making nomination, finally delivering on his message of hope while dashing the hopes of a Clinton presidential dynasty.”

She’s in it now until the next big primary, Pennsylvania, on April 22 and I think – win or lose – at least until this long primary parade ends in June. If she takes Pennsylvania, she will surely claim she’s won all the "big" states (including California, New York, Texas and Ohio) and has the best shot at winning the general election - an argument that just might help sway enough Democratic superdelegates to help her secure the nomination.

Clinton won't still can’t catch Obama in the race for Democratic delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses, even if she wins every remaining contest. But Obama cannot win the nomination with just his pledged primary and caucus delegates either. That sets the stage for a pitched battle for support among those superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose.

You can bet on one thing: in the six and a bit weeks until Pennsylvania, the Clinton vs. Obama affair will continue to be a nasty one. Obama had a slick campaign running since Super Tuesday, but he will need to ratchet up the rhetoric on such issues as national security and NAFTA, which many think helped her surge in the last few days leading up to Texas and Ohio.

How will Clinton do in Pennsylvania? According to the latest Rasmusssen Reports telephone survey, released on Thursday, she has opened a fifteen percentage point lead over Obama, 52 to 37 per cent.

Many Democrats were hoping this divisive race might have ended this past Tuesday night. Of course, those wanting that were pretty much all Obama supporters. Now this thing just could go all the way to the Democratic Convention which is the last week of August in Denver. Somehow I doubt that because there’s a strong possibility it won’t be settled with Pennsylvania.

Of course, if the Florida and Michigan mess is tidied up by actually having new primary elections in both states, Clinton is likely to get a surge. She won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

Amid all this, there’s renewed talk of a ticket with both of them on it. Do you think John McCain could beat that?   I doubt it.  Clinton said on Wednesday that it might come to that but then chuckled as she stated the obvious: Who would top that ticket?  For his part, Obama said again it’s too early to consider it.

Now to the Republicans… and congratulations to McCain who sped across the finish line with victories in all four states that voted Tuesday, leaving his sole surviving competitor gasping in the dust. Mike Huckabee dropped out, with grace.

On Wednesday, McCain was summoned to a White House political love fest. In the Rose Garden, they he stood side by side with a man he once despised, George W. Bush. It was an ironic photo, one that the Democrats are sure to use in the fall campaign with a caption something like this: You want four more years of this?

McCain was a maverick in his campaign for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination when he gave then-Texas Gov. Bush a scare by winning the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire by 18 percentage points. But he lost to Bush in South Carolina after bitter state primary campaigns.

But McCain – in becoming a major cheerleader for the Iraq war – has fallen into lockstep with some key Bush policies. That’s helping McCain with the already committed. But it will continue to hurt with the majority who are weary of the conflict and eager to get U.S. troops home.

Looking ahead—and raising some questions: The Democratic convention – whether or not it turns into a floor fight over the nomination – will be rousing affair and the nominee will come out with a lot of momentum. (Heck, even John Kerry had the big mo coming out of Boston in 2004, although his drive died fast when he got Swift Boated – a brilliant tactic by Republican operatives). This time, the Democratic momentum might just wash right over the Republican convention which will be held the very next week (in Minneapolis). Once again – as it was in 2004 – the presidency will become the Democratic Party’s to loose.

Will the Dems slip and stumble when (that’s WHEN not IF) the GOP once again greases the skids? Clinton is better prepared to wage a defensive battle than Obama. I’m not saying she would be a better President than Obama. I’m just saying she has the savvy and strength to fight it out in the trenches. And that’s what it’s going to take to win the White House.

Your comments please. And you can read my earlier political posts with a click on this link:

http://community.myfoxla.com/blogs/Bob_Tarlau

Thanks for surfing by. I’ll blog right back here next Friday.

Cheers, Bob

Over the past several months, I’ve often wished that I were back in one of my university political science classes.  Admittedly, those were a long way back -- in the 60’s.  Yet I still think about what it might be like to be taking those courses today, and getting an academic overview of this year’s exciting presidential campaign.   It just doesn’t get better than Campaign ‘08. 

This week (starting Sun Feb 24) alone has been a good example.  It started with Ralph Nader – a man with some heartfelt ideas but clearly a gigantic ego – tossing his tattered hat back into the ring.   On NBC’s Meet the Press, Nader once again denied the obvious, that he was the spoiler in the 2000 presidential election.  Without him, Al Gore clearly would have won Florida.  And just in case you missed it:  Nader was back in the news on Thursday, revealing that his vice presidential candidate this time around will be Matt Gonzalez, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.     Gonzalez, a Texan, ran for mayor of San Francisco as a Green Party candidate in 2003 but lost to Gavin Newsom.

That brings us to a bit of political trivia:   Who were Nader’s VP candidates in 2000 and 2004.  Keep guessing as you read this.  I’ll have the answer at the bottom of the column.  No scrolling ahead now!

On Tuesday we had the final Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama pre-“Super Tuesday 2” debate.   No knockout punches thrown.  And by mid-week we witnessed the significant defection of Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a leader of the civil rights movement from the Selma march onwards.  He acknowledged this was a very tough decision, but he swung from strongly supporting Clinton to backing Obama.   The same day, a black state lawmaker and superdelegate from Texas also announced she would no longer support Clinton.

Let me take side road for a moment for a thought about Democrats who are African-American.  A pair of columnists on Politico.com (a favorite website of mine), note:  “The pressure on black officials to switch may increase as they realize not supporting Obama could be detrimental to their own political careers. Obama has regularly won large majorities of the black vote throughout the primary process, so many black pols who support Clinton not only are not supporting a black politician with a realistic chance of winning the presidency, they are supporting someone whom a majority of their constituents do not support.  Always a risky move.”

And now back to the political week.

By Thursday, we had New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg finally foreswearing a presidential run.  Good for you, Mr. Mayor.  I wish Nader had done the same.   Bloomberg doesn't mention any names but dangles the prospect of an endorsement, writing in the New York Times:  "In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. … If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I'll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."

All through this political week past, we had far-right elements of conservative talk radio condemn Obama, in a harshly personal and demeaning manner.   Twisting the dial through the week, I heard one after another mock the candidate’s middle name, Hussein.   “Barack Hussein Obama” they kept chanting.   Some substituted other middle names, making them up as they went along.   It was like a kindergarten class.  If the Republicans really want to debate the now likely Democratic Party nominee, they should do it on the issues.  Same applies to the Democrats:  don’t make it a personal attack on John McCain.

On this same subject, you probably heard about Cincinnati talker Bill Cunningham's act at a McCain rally in Cincy… the warm-up-act that left the candidate cold.  Cunningham – standing on stage in front of sign-carrying McCain supporters delivered a 10-minute speech in which he insulted Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the media in general.   He called Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politician’’ and twice used Obama’s middle name, joining the others in the shrill radio chorus.

An infuriated McCain apologized, saying such a thing would never again happen at one of his events.  "I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said."

Later, Cunningham – reacting to McCain’s condemnation of his remarks – told his radio audience he had “had it with McCain. I’m going to throw my support to Hillary Rodham Clinton.”   It’s hard to image she would want it.

By week’s end the Republican National Committee chair had had it with all this, with national party chairman Mike Duncan issuing this statement:  “The RNC rejects these kinds of campaign tactics.  We believe this election needs to be about the critical issues confronting our nation.”    Well said.

Also this week, we’ve been looking at the polls forecasting the outcome of the balloting on four states next Tue Mar 4.  The most important of those, of course, are Ohio and Texas – with the general consensus that if Clinton can’t capture at least one, her campaign will be off the rails.    Clinton is ahead by a bit in Ohio but now trails in Texas.

Turning to money—we learned on Thursday that Obama and Clinton both had a record-breaking month of fundraising in February, bringing in more than $80 million combined, but Obama again raising significantly more than his opponent.

As of this writing, Obama’s campaign had not released an official estimate of its February fundraising, but it’s thought to be about $50 million.  On many days, the campaign took in as much as $2 million.  The Clinton campaign was busy trumpeting the $35 million it took in. 

Please read the new issue of Time magazine, out today (Friday).  The cover – with a picture of Obama -- asks:  "How Much Does Experience Matter?"  The answer to that question, found in the article is that character matters more.  The piece is a very good read.

The Time article makes the point that some of the most experienced candidates turned out to be lousy presidents, while some of the least experienced — Lincoln for one — turn out to be among the greatest.  Time says:  "An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé."   Wise words to consider – whether you are Democrat, Republican, Green, American Independent or just plain independent.  

And before I sign off, a note of tribute to William F. Buckley – who died this week in his library at home in Stamford, CT.  He was 82 and had spent much of those years stoking and riding a right-wing wave as an erudite commentator and conservative herald.  Whether I agreed with him or not, he was a joy to listen to and a pleasure to read. 

George W. Bush said of Buckley:  "He brought conservative thought into the political mainstream, and helped lay the intellectual foundation for America's victory in the Cold War and for the conservative movement that continues to this day."  And from Rush Limbaugh: "He had time for everybody. Look, he had an ego, he knew who he was, but he was modest and he was humble."

Finally—the answer to my quiz.  Who were Ralph Nader’s prior VP candidates?  The answer:   Winona LaDuke in 2000 and Peter Camejo in 2004.   Come on now, did you really know?   I’ll be honest.  I had forgotten about LaDuke.

I’ll be back with my next “This Political Week” blog next Friday.  Now it’s your turn to comment.

Cheers, Bob

It’s time to take a pause from partisan politics to remember a party-line Democrat – who today was saluted by the Republican White House.   I mourn – with so many others – the passing of an original… Congressman Tom Lantos of California.   He’s left us at age 80 after a battle with esophageal cancer.

To me, he embodied the definition of a hero.  Not just because he was the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress.  He spent 27 years on the Hill and was forever a champion of human rights.

He never lost his Hungarian accent, or his love for animals, or his stubborn belief that political leaders have a duty to speak out against tyranny and oppression, no matter where it happens.  The prime minister of Hungary had wanted to honor Rep. Lantos last week with the highest honor that country can bestow.  But that didn’t happen.  The congressman was too sick.

If you didn’t know the Lantos story until now, you’ve certainly been reading and hearing about it in the many long obits.   So just a quick summary here:  He survived the Holocaust by twice escaping from a Nazi labor camp in his teens.   Lantos survived the final years of World War II living in a complex protected by storied Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. He came to the U.S. with nothing but a salami that was confiscated by border agents.

He achieved his goal of chairing the Foreign Affairs panel.  Sadly he only held the gavel for a year. 

Lantos co-founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus 24 years ago, was a tireless supporter of AIDS relief for Africa and raked a number of high-profile corporations over the coals for doing business in countries with questionable civil rights records.   He was almost strong and articulate in his beliefs.  Wow, could he ever speak out.   That got him in trouble in 2006 when he was one of five lawmakers arrested during a demonstration at the Sudanese Embassy to protest ethnic killings in Darfur. 

And – in a scene I will always remember -- he berated and belittled executives from Yahoo last year for providing information to Chinese authorities that eventually led to the imprisonment of a journalist.  At the end of a three-hour hearing, he told them:  "While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies."

Lantos' final years in office were marked by a running battle with Bay Area liberals, including many in his own district. They were angered by Lantos' early support for the war in Iraq and his refusal to say that the U.S. was wrong to overturn Saddam Hussein.

It was only last month that Tom Lantos revealed that he had been diagnosed with cancer during a series of routine tests in December.  He said then that he wouldn’t be running for re-election this fall.  That was a hard decision for the congressman, who had said that he would never retire. But with the cancer already wearing him down, he was left with no choice but to concentrate on finishing his final term.  He left public life with no regrets.

The San Francisco Chronicle quotes him as saying:  "It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust ... could have received an education, raised a family and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a member of Congress," he said as he announced his retirement. "I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country."

The White House issued a statement from President Bush who said: “Tom was a man of character and a champion of human rights.  Tom was a living reminder that we must never turn a blind eye to the suffering of the innocent at the hands of evil men.”

Well said Mr. President. 

How things change in politics and how they changed again last night. The Wednesday wash-up shows us there’ll be a continuing fight within each party… through the next set of primaries… for maybe months to come… right up to the possibility (which I doubt) of contentious conventions.

Sure we have Sen. John McCain who with the absolute right to claim front-runner status. But that’s not scaring Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee out of the race. And on the Democratic side, what a fascinating duel this is between a white woman and a black man. Exit polls show yesterday’s Democratic voters were divided much more along race and ethnic lines and than they were by ideology.

I do want to hear from you – where you think this race is going? Be bold and give me a pick of not only the eventual nominee but also the name of the man or woman who take the oath of office on January 20, 2009. Personally, I’m guessing (only guessing here) that it will wind up being McCain versus Clinton with Clinton the favorite to make it all the way.

First, however, some thoughts from others in the news biz. Reading through the various newspapers and websites this morning, these were some of the thoughts that stood out.

From Doyle McManus and Peter Wallsten in the Los Angeles Times:

“The overall outcome: These primary races are not over in either party. The battle between Clinton and Obama will continue, probably through the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas and possibly beyond. McCain appears almost certain to win his party's nomination, but only after battling Romney and Huckabee for delegates in more states. For Democrats, Tuesday's results showed both candidates strengthening their natural bases of support, with Clinton exerting dominance among Latinos and Obama beginning to show progress among white voters. In fact, Obama proved, just as he did in last month's Iowa caucuses, that many whites will vote for a black candidate.

Those numbers could help Obama's campaign convince potential donors and voters in future contests in the coming weeks that he can go the distance, particularly with important primaries coming up in Washington state, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

From the always enjoyable site Politico.com comes an article by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen called “Five Reasons Hillary Should Be Worried.”

“1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.

3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.

4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.