HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MINNESOTA
Either way, Minnesota is not nearly as old as the nation of which it is a part, but in the first few years of its statehood it did play an integral role in the Civil War, during which it fought for the North. (A Minnesota regiment was one of the very first promised to President Lincoln in the run-up to the war.) Though the thirteen original colonies (which, of course, became states) are far older than Minnesota, folks in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" can take heart in the fact that their home state is about a hundred years older than the most recently added states, Alaska and Hawaii, which were long-standing U.S. territories before achieving statehood in the second half of the twentieth century.
ALMOST HEAVEN, WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is on life support (the funding for which has in large part come from herself, as she has loaned her campaign over eleven million dollars in the past few months...), but she is hoping that a big primary win in West Virginia this coming Tuesday (May 13), coupled with another big win in Kentucky on May 20, will at least in part offset Senator Barack Obama's projected victory in Oregon on the same day of the Kentucky contest. The "math" (as pundits have taken to calling it of late) suggests that even huge West Virginia and Kentucky wins will do little to cut into Senator Obama's delegate lead; it further suggests that Senator Clinton would have to win late contests, such as those in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, by enormous margins (the latter two of which would be difficult for her to win at all, let alone by large margins) if she is to make any sort of run at Senator Obama's pledged delegate lead. (A surprise big Clinton win in Oregon, on the order of about ten points, may also have to factor into the equation, which is not likely to happen.) And even if all of these things were to unexpectedly occur, she is likely only to get close to Senator Obama's delegate totals, as opposed to pulling even with him.
So why in the world is she staying in the race? I think she's staying in for a variety of reasons, the first of which is the fact that she would be perfectly positioned to be the Democratic Nominee if Senator Obama's candidacy were to unexpectedly and spectacularly implode, in a Gary Hart-esque manner, or the like. (I'm reminded of the popular British politician who once answered a question regarding how he could possibly lose the upcoming election in his district by stating, "Two ways come to mind--one being if I were to be found in bed with a dead twelve-year-old girl; the other being if I were to be found in bed with a live twelve-year-old boy....")
Such an Obama-implosion is not likely to happen. But Senator Clinton is also probably staying in the race in order to rack up big margins of victory in West Virginia and Kentucky, which would work in a psychological manner on the remaining undeclared superdelegates in the sense that they would be given reason to pause regarding Senator Obama's "electability" in swing-states (such as West Virginia) and amongst necessary blue-collar white voters (such as represent a large percentage of the voters of such states as West Virginia, Kentucky, and any of a number of other states in that general region, such as the electoral-vote-rich swing-states of Ohio and Pennsylvania).
Senator Clinton is not playing the more straight-forward "pledged-delegate game" any longer (in fact, she hasn't been playing it for quite some time), but rather the trickier "psychology game," in the hopes of turning the tide against Senator Obama and stemming the slow-but-sure movement of superdelegates into his camp. It's a good strategy for her to utilize now because it's the only one left available to her, and, given her rather impressive wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as her impressive poll numbers in Florida and her upcoming assured-victory in West Virginia, she most likely senses that her path to the nomination is very slim and it would have to be done in a rather insidious, almost anti-Democratic manner (the superdelegates would have to essentially overturn the pledged delegate totals, which are based on the popular vote...), but it is still a possibility nonetheless.
The Obama camp is most likely happy that Senator Clinton is carrying on, because Senator Obama would most likely lose West Virginia and Kentucky even if she were to drop out today, so her continued presence in the race gives him a little bit of "cover" for those contests. Once May 21 rolls around, however, watch for the Obama camp to put added public pressure on Senator Clinton to stand down and concede the nomination to Senator Obama. (I, on the other hand, would still like to see both of them compete up to and including the final--not counting Florida and Michigan messes--June 3 contests, so that there is less of an understandably frustrated "...what might have been..." general grumbling from Clinton supporters nationwide.)
SOON-TO-BE-OBSOLETE WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY PREDICTION
She's been there this past week, he hasn't. She's way ahead in the polls. The state is tailor-made to her still relatively recent blue-collar political re-invention. She's going to win, and big. My guess is: CLINTON BY THIRTY-TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS.
A READER ASKS, IF NOT OBAMA/CLINTON, THEN WHO COULD WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS?
A Hasslington reader recently commented that an Obama/Clinton ticket may be the only winning one for the Democrats in November (I guess this might translate into a Clinton/Obama ticket if the highly improbable happens and she pulls the nomination out of a hat...). Though I think such a ticket would be electoral gold come November, I'm not so certain it's the only winning combination.
I have previously posted my ideas regarding potential running mates for Senator Obama (I believe that Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Sam Nunn, Bill Richardson, and Kathleen Sebelius were in my top five just a few weeks ago; all but Sam Nunn have received a lot of media attention regarding the V.P. slot of late, from both domestic and international media outlets). If asked to expand that list I would add such names as Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Chris Dodd, Clare McCaskill, John Edwards, Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell, Jim Webb, and, of course, Hillary Clinton. (And, as "...why not?..." choices, George Mitchell and John Kerry). I realize that some of those folks are fervent Clinton supporters, but I guess that's part of my point. I also realize that some combinations would likely be stronger than others (an Obama/Dodd ticket could surely get pegged, rather unfairly, as "'Elitist' Obama meets New England 'Privilege' in Dodd"; and an Obama/Kerry ticket...really?!?).
I have also stated that Senator Clinton would surely have to ask Senator Obama to be her running mate. If he were to turn her down, I suppose her list would include many of the aforementioned names (minus Bill Richardson, due to recent tensions between the two), and would look something like this (in no particular order): Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Sam Nunn, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, etc. Given his youthful nature and African-American ethnicity, surely Harold Ford, Jr. would also be on her list (despite being only in his late-thirties).
I still assert that Senator McCain's field of potential running mates looks quite weak by comparison, and that he may be forced to settle on the young (47) and conservative (but not tainted by Bush associations) John Thune, who would prove a safe but far from electrifying choice. If not Thune, then two women (Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sarah Palin), a friend (Tim Pawlenty), a "tough guy" (Tom Ridge), and a few others (Charlie Crist, Rob Portman, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, etc.) are amongst the rather uninspiring group from which a running mate may be chosen. (Obviously, if Colin Powell, etc., were to imply interest, the playing field would shift rapidly.)
Given the present possibilities in front of us, if someone is likely to choose a "surprise" running mate, it would almost assuredly be Senator McCain who does so, and not either of the Democrats.
If you care to, let me know what you think about an Obama/Clinton ticket, or any other combination....
BOOKS
* Fareed Zakaria's new book titled "The Post-American World," portions of which I referenced in a recent post, is indeed now available at book stores and on-line. If you find the title a little off-putting, the first two sentences of the book may put you a bit more at ease: "This book is not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else. It is about the great transformation taking place around the world, a transformation that, though often discussed, remains poorly understood." I think that it is essential for the future of American global influence to understand what Zakaria and others are writing about...and what many of us Americans have encountered while working overseas during the last several years.
* As one part of my "get to know your country again" re-exploration of America, I've been reading many American-themed novels of late, among which was David Wiltse's 2001 novel "Heartland," which is set in his native Nebraska (the state I lived in for four years in the 1990s while attending Creighton University in Omaha). Clearly written prior to the September 11, 2001 Twin Towers terrorist attacks, the novel is evocative of the tail end of a somewhat more insular era (the still-influential vestiges of which we still see woven in manners both subtle and overt into many parts of American culture today), when our collective national paradigm had not yet been shaken by another seismic--and in this case tragic--shrinking of the geo-cultural world. The story follows Billy Tree, a recently-injured Secret Service agent, as he returns to his home town in rural Nebraska, and is confronted by a multiple shooting at the town's high school. As he attempts to solve the mystery of who the gunman (or -woman) might be, he is confronted by the duality of life around him, and in particular the sense of general emotional repression that becomes so stunningly apparent as the story unfolds.
"Heartland" is a wonderful singular achievement, and I plan to read the follow-up Billy Tree adventure, "The Hangman's Knot" (published in 2002), sometime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment