Obama's renewed fire

What's clear to me watching Obama in the last week or so is the renewed vigor he's displayed. It's clear to me that he's feeding off the challenge of going up against McCain. He seemed pretty annoyed and frustrated with Clinton until his big nights in NC and IN a couple weeks back. Now he's on fire again. Check out his speech in Las Vegas today: a bit of video, the full text.
This bodes well for the future. If he runs a general election campaign with the kind of skill, patience, creativity, and strategy that he has in the primary (so far--knocking on wood as we speak), I like his chances in November.

49 and 10

Obama is very very very close to the nomination. According to the latest delegate count (including supers) from 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, he's 49 delegates away. But in a sense, he's really 10 superdelegates away. If you give Clinton a 60-40 win in Puerto Rico and give Obama 55-45 wins in South Dakota and Montana, Obama will pick up 39 pledged delegates, putting him 10 away from the nomination.

I'm certain that the Obama camp is doing anything it can to get 10-20 more superdelegates to announce this week before the Puerto Rico primary on Sunday. Will be interesting to see if they can do it.

Me me me me me me

What strikes me about this clip from Bill Clinton is how he is so focused on him. How he's not racist because he has an office in Harlem and how he has 1.4 people all around the world on inexpensive AIDS medication. Just more proof that, for the Clintons, it's them, the country, and the Democratic party . . . in that order.

More politics of fear from HRC

She's invoking the image of Osama bin Laden to try to scare voters into voting for her. We've seen this before . . . from Bush/Cheney/Rove. And it sickens me that this is coming from one Democrat against another.

Here's the ad, and the Obama response.

Masters Picks

To me, this is pretty much the first day of Spring: Day 1 of the Masters. And without further ado, here are my picks:

1. Barack Obama. His reach-for-the stars approach and deft touch make him a great choice to break through and win his first major.

Oh, wait. Sorry . . .

1. Tiger Woods. Anyone who picks against him is an idiot. If you pick against him you're just guessing. There's no logical argument to be made to not pick him.
2. Ogilvy. He's hot right now. Long hitter. I don't he's going to win, though. But it's crazy not to put him up there somewhere. But my gut tells me he's going to disappoint. He's not shown he can stay up in the top 5 week after week. So I think he's due for a dip.
3. Mickelson. Yes, I'm a hater but I'm putting him up here because former champs still in their prime seem to always do well at Augusta. He'll be lurking all week (and may lead after day 1), but I think his putting will be his undoing.
4. Angel Cabrera. Long hitter. Has a great attitude out there. Can handle the heat. Always around the leaderboard in majors, at least lately.
5. Paddy Harrington. Has grown in confidence since British Open win and has played well at Augusta in the past.
6. Vijay. You're crazy not to put the second best golfer of the last 10 years in your top 10. He's the real thing. But if he has a long putter, he won't win.
7. Stewart Cink. Will contend. But again, a long putter will kill him.

That's enough. This week is all about Tiger. I feel the intensity on him this week is as high as it's ever been. Will be interesting to see if he can handle this. Of course he can, but I have a sense if things don't go his way as often as he'd like in the majors in the next few years, the frustrated Tiger could come out. Staying even keeled as he climbs Mount Nicklaus will be a challenge, even for Le Tigre.

Reason #832 that Obama should be the nominee

He's been fulfilling the long-promised, grassroots, bring-in-new-voters, bring -in-young-people, and-get-them-all-to-vote campaign: LINK.

Money quote:

Together with Obama's proven appeal to independent voters, his campaign's focus on increasing turnout of younger and black voters -- his base -- could counterbalance hints of weakness among more traditional swing voters like the working-class whites known as Reagan Democrats.

Senator John McCain is running strong in many polls in key states, and is expected to challenge Obama for many of those voters. But McCain lacks a motivated new cadre of supporters, and even the traditional Republican volunteer base - evangelical Christians - views him with skepticism.

"Where Obama really has the comparative advantage is his volunteers," said Michael McDonald, an expert on voter turnout at George Mason University. "When you look at McCain, one of his weaknesses is that he's not a candidate who is going to excite the Evangelical hard conservative base. He's not going to have the volunteers in place to do the same sort of mobilization efforts that an Obama would do."

Clinton can't do this. How do I know? Because she's not doing it. She didn't commit to this early and even now her on-the-ground organizing is no where near Obama's. And it's not really been a clear, sustained effort like Obama's has. It's a potentially game-changing approach for Obama. It's worked in the primary and it can work in the general because they are so committed to it.

DMX on Barack Obama

Thank you, Mik. I mean seriously. Thank you. What could be better than this on a random Wednesday morning?

David Brooks on Clinton's chances

Here's his latest. Peep this:

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Read this one, people; it's good. Agree with him or not, David Brooks is someone worth reading.

(Thanks Nicole and Andrew.)

Obama's speech about race

He's giving the speech now (I think) but I wanted to give you part of his prepared remarks. This is really why I became part of the campaign: for a new kind of politics, for new ideas coming from anywhere (right, left, and middle), for government to show me that it truly believes that it can work to make the country better for all. Here's Barack:

. . . we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

Kos speaks

A great post on Daily Kos. Kos clearly lays out the civil war that Clinton is inciting.

I've said it many times: nearly all Democrats agree that the Obama campaign--50 states, networked, grassroots--is the future of the Democratic party. But if party leaders choose Clinton over Obama--after all the good that he's done to re-energize the party--they'd be saying that it's not the future's time. That we have to wait a few years. To some, that might not seem all that bad, but it's a dangerous game. I'm not sure that that future will be waiting at the end of another old-time, 16-state, bi-coastal, losing campaign.

Frankly I don't see why you'd want to nominate someone with such limited upside potential over someone who has shown extreme upside potential. Clinton has taken probably one of the best set of advantages ever in politics (extreme name recognition and massive financial and political connections) and squandered it. She's totally missed the moment and run a foolishly top-down (endorsements!), arrogant (inevitable!), undisciplined (Bill), financially wasteful (it'll all be over Feb 5!), patronizing (blacks and young people vote for Obama; see, he can't win!), strategically-blind (only the big states matter!) campaign that played right into the most (rightly or wrongly) negative stereotypes of her. And her poll numbers and especially her negative ratings, have not moved in over a year. The more people get to know her . . . nothing happens. She has a strong core of support, but she's not been able to break the needle nationally or in favorability polls.

Obama, on the other hand, has gone from relative obscurity to the cusp of the nomination. In nearly every state, the more he campaigns the better he does. He's built a strong coalition from very little. He built a 1,000,000-person donor list. He's raised more money than Clinton. The more people get to know him, the more they like him--which is a rare and valuable commodity in a politician. And it seems that superdelegates are getting this--unpledged delegates, and some Clinton supporters, are moving toward Obama.

Clinton has messed up her campaign so badly that the only thing she can do is all-out negative war--even going so far as saying that McCain is more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief--and pray that Obama looks nearly as bad as she does when it's all over and that after the bruises and the beatings that party leaders get worried and go for someone they "know" better. It's a bitter, hateful, damaging way to win. But it's clear it's the only chance they have. It's a campaign of fear over hope, cynicism over inspiration, the past over the future. It's taking what we can get instead of reaching for the best we can be.

64

Tiger's 3 for 3 this year. And yesterday he won his 64th tournament in dramatic fashion, draining a 25-foot curler on the 18th hole. This win puts Tiger among the game's biggest names:

Most PGA Tour Wins
Sam Snead: 82
Jack Nicklaus: 73
Tiger Woods: 64
Ben Hogan: 64

These are the guys with the sweetest swings (especially Snead) and best mental games (Hogan and Nicklaus). Being able to groove that swing and be that determined for decades made these guys the most consistent players ever. And now Tiger is officially in the club. And check this:

Tiger as of March 17, 2007
64 total wins/216 starts as a pro = 30% winning percentage
13 majors/44 starts as a pro = 30% winning percentage in majors
104 top three/232 starts (including amateur) = 45%
147 top tens/232 starts (including amateur) = 63%
193 top 25/232 starts (including amateur) = 83%
219 cuts made/232 starts (including amateur) = 94%

These percentages are sick. (Vijay, who started is career on the PGA Tour fairly late and has been one of the most consistent in the last 10+ years has started 389 events, won 31 [8%] and made the cut in 352 [90%].)

I never thought anyone would dominate golf again. Remember the 1980s and most of the 90s? If you won two tournaments you'd probably be the player of the year. The best golfers in the world then were Greg Norman, Fred Couples, Davis Love III and Payne Stewart. How many majors did they win? Seven (total). Norman only won 20 PGA Tour events. Think about how large a figure he was in golf and how his career comes nowhere close to Tiger's (or Mickelson's or Vijay's for that matter).

But now Tiger is killing people. 64 wins. There are only four active golfers (besides Tiger) who have more than 15 career wins (Els--15, Love III--16, Vijay--31, Mickelson--33). And if you haven't noticed, Tiger has as many wins at Vijay and Mickelson combined.

We will be telling our grandkids wistfully, "I watched Tiger play," telling them that we were actually there when he chipped in at Augusta or went 15 under at Pebble or pointed at the putt at Valhalla, not knowing that the memories that TV made are too strong to not have them be truly ours.

We're living in the Tiger Woods era. I hope y'all are paying attention.

Clinton camp writes to Obama camp re: FL and MI

Williams write Plouffe. It's the kind of stuff that I can't believe the Clinton camp is still saying:

In Florida and Michigan, nearly 2.5 million Americans made their voices heard and participated in primary elections. We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored.

There's always a clear angle that's being played for no other reason other than to help them get to where they want to go. Fairness is rarely if ever a criteria. Winning justifies all moves. (See also the BS about "Yeah, Obama might be my VP" and "McCain's more ready to be President than Obama.")

I've written about the fact that strategy (so easily seen) might not be a good strategy. So often I hear pundits saying that some move by the Clintons is "brilliant strategy." Right when someone says that, the effect of that strategy is minimized, if not totally lost, because of its transparency (this was clearly the case with the Clintons' racial antics in SC).

But more importantly, the Clintons seem to feel that the American people are stupid, that they can't see through their obvious strategies. I remember an exchange from The West Wing when Bartlet is running for reelection (this is from memory so might not be 100% accurate, but you get the point):

CJ: Everbody's stupid in an election year.
Charlie: No. Everyone just gets treated like they're stupid.

Obama is usually very good at debunking Clinton lies and exposing Clinton strategies. He often tells people to not be "hoodwinked" or "bamboozled." He's trying to get at the best in people, not heighten the worst in them. That's refreshing in a politician.

But back to FL and MI. It's absolutely nuts to call those elections "fair." Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI and no candidate was supposed to campaign in either state.

Part of me wants Obama to say, "Okay, you've whined too much and I can't take it anymore. Go ahead and take what you got in MI if you give me the votes and delegates assigned to 'uncommitted.' And we'll just take our vote totals and delegates from FL. I'll still win the pledged delegate count." It would be a bold move and would get him a lot of props.

But here's the problem. It's not the delegates that Clinton is worried about; they know they can't win the pledged delegate count. Their strategy is to get as close as they can in delegates and then to win more of the popular vote. That would give them one of the four major criteria most sane superdelegates would use to make a choice (most pledged delegates, most states won, most popular votes won, most money raised). So there's no way Obama is going to take his current vote totals in FL and MI.

So Williams goes on to say that there should be a re-vote in FL and MI. And maybe that's a solution. But I don't think it's one the Clinton camp really likes. Re voting means a campaign. And when Obama campaigns he always closes the gap. Does anyone think Clinton's margins will be larger with re-vote?

Whether a re-vote happens or not, what Hillary is doing what she's done from the beginning: meeting people's negative expectations of her (whether or not those expectations are fair). People think that she's a calculating person who will do anything (including bending voting rules and tearing down people from her own party, even those who clearly represent the future of that party) to win.

Old politics at its, uh . . . best. . . . if you can call it that.

Matt Santos = Barack Obama?

As many of you know, I'm a huge (some would say obsessive) fan of The West Wing. I've long been following the many parallels between Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits) and Barack Obama. Slate has an excellent video post on just this subject:



The parallels are so clear that I wondered if some of the writers--maybe even Aaron Sorkin, though he wasn't writing for The West Wing when Santos was running for President--must be writing for Obama. (As far as I know, they're not.)

One parallel that Slate makes clear and I didn't think about: Alan Alda's character (Arnold Vinick) is pretty darn close to McCain. Though Vinick is pro-choice and McCain is not, Vinick does have a lot of "cross over" appeal, putting states in play the GOP usually doesn't try to fight for.

One think that Slate didn't include: Santos' announcement speech is all about--you guessed it--hope.

If it walks like a duck . . .

Some interesting Ohio exit poll numbers, as reported by MSNBC/First Read:

In Ohio, 1-in-5 Democratic voters said race was an important factor in making their decision. In that group, 8-in-10 voted for Hillary Clinton.

That's roughly 350,000 (mostly Democratic) voters who said race was an important factor in their decision to vote for Clinton. And remember, these polls are based on actual interviews with voters on their way out of polling places. I wonder what the numbers would be if they were fully anonymous.

For some reason I thought Ohio was better than this. No offense.

Pennsylvania Numbers

Actually, with almost no campaigning started yet, shouldn't Obama feel encouraged by these numbers?

And the headline of this article, 11% is not a big lead, especially when the state should go for you overwhelmingly. PA has one of the oldest populations and it holds a closed primary. If Obama can stay within 10 points, it's a win.