This election has been really great at scraping up the stuff that had settled to the bottom.  And the narrative is really interesting.

She is all but anointed as the presumptive nominee.  And why not?  She raised a ton of money.  Had great name recognition.  Was the consummate party insider.  Married to the most successful Democratic politician in 50 years.  An unbelievably disciplined campaigner.  Former First Lady, current Senior Senator from New York.  Strong campaign team.  What could go wrong?

Only one thing.  A candidate whose native charisma and communications skills could make the party activists heart's beat faster, and knees go weak.  Obama is a force of nature, and if he wasn't running against Hillary, it would have been over long ago.  

This is a classic case of the charismatic outsider vs. the establishment insider.   It may pain baby boomers to think that one of their own is now the establishment, but the truth hurts.

Barack and Hillary's substantive differences are essentially trivial.  An appeal to the head isn't going to create the separation a candidate needs to win. So the campaign has to be won or lost on appeals to the heart or... spleen?

Look at the different emotional memes that have gained purchase at one time or another during this campaign.

Don't let them abuse the long suffering wife.
Don't trust the scary black man.
Pointy headed elitist intellectuals don't understand you.
Clinton's are consumed with ambition and will do anything to get elected.

Her strategy is clear.  She needs to convince the super delegates that he is not electable.  Obama has an interesting call to make.  Can he pull it off without taking a metaphorical 2x4 to her head?

If he does, he is just another politician.  If he doesn't, he looks like a wimp.

If, and it is a big IF, he is going to do it then he should accept the North Carolina debate, and just lay in to her.

It would go something like this:

Why don't 60% of poll respondents trust her?  

Because she can't be trusted.

She has a history of distorting the truth and playing loose with the rules.

She didn't dodge bullets in Bosnia.
She did support NAFTA
She did vote for and support the war in Iraq
She had to go on national TV to defend her commodities trading.
Her friends did serve time in jail to protect her over Whitewater.
Her campaign manager did do anti-union work, support Columbia's free trade agreement, etc..
Do we remember her comments about the "vast right wing conspiracy?"

Is this really what we want to go back to America?

If Obama goes nuclear, likely result is he wins the nomination.

But I wonder what it sets him up for in the General?  Really hard to run as a different kind of politician when you just used good old fashioned hardball politics to win the nomination.

There's more...

Hillary Clinton has said that she has won more popular votes than her opponent, Barack Obama and is, therefore, more electable than he.  Some call this an outright lie and others, like myself, call this typical Clinton Triangulation, or, saying whatever it takes to win.

There's more...

First, I must say that I'm excited about this 23 point lead!  Really excited!  However, I'm also worried.  Republican's are armed for winning elections (even when they don't technically "win"!).  Their extensive talk-radio and right wing media will repeat a very consistent, focuses, and often deadly message (even if that message is a lie).  They are very good at finding messages that stick (e.g. flip-flopper, cut and run, etc...).  Their "Voter Vault" surgically targets their likely votes and ensures they show up at the polls.  They are well connected with the election administrators and voting machine vendors (e.g. Blackwell in OH and Katherine Harris in FL).  They (read "Rove") have continually been successful at destroying a candidate's character (albeit with lies) and rendering them "unelectable" (e.g. Ann Richards' sexuality in TX and McCain's love-child, and with Pelosi right now).  Lately, I've been listening to some right-wing talk radio (during commercial breaks on Air America), and they tell a confident convincing story for somebody who doesn't have the full set of facts (I am continually appalled by how they unabashedly still spinning the Foley sex scandal as a Democratically lead political ploy and not about the actually sexual harassment of minors that it really is).  They have a ton of cash.  They don't mind lying.  They have the advantage that their spokes person is the leader of free world (that would be Bush) and will always draw a crowd and free press.

As a scientist, I have trusted data my whole life, and therefore love these polls and the whole approach taken by Chris and the MyDD team!  However, I have also observed that the Republican war machine (that is, the machine that consistently wins elections) is aimed, armed, and desperate.  They are still on talk shows saying that they will keep control (despite come counter examples) with great confidence.  When Ed Gillespie was on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart asked him (somewhat rhetorically), "Why are the Republican's so effective at managing/winning elections, but so bad at governing?" (not direct quote).  Winning elections is what this group does best.  

So, my question to this group is this:  Despite these great poll results, why shouldn't I be worried about everything I just mentioned above?  I don't want to wake up with the same hangover I had on November 8th, 2004.  

There's more...

The House passed a bill Friday that would provide congressional authorization for President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program.

Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, charged: "Hidden in the fine print are provisions which grant the administration authority to maintain permanent records on innocent U.S. citizens, granting the administration new authority to demand personal records without court review, and terminating any and all legal challenges to unlawful wiretapping."
Link

Today a staggering amount of personal information is being collected by the government on millions of Americans. This information is being used to compile a massive social network of American citizens that we are told is for the purpose of identifying terrorist cells. But others say it is easy for terrorists to avoid being caught up into this type of data-mining. I find it curious that what may be of little value in uncloaking terrorist cells is precisely the type of data-mining you would dream about for political election microtargeting.

There's more...

Cross posted at For Our Future

The Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University recently released a report, funded by CRICLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement), called Young Voter Mobilization Tactics. The report outlines what methods work in turning out young voters, arguing that method is more important than message, with an emphasis on face-to-face contact.

Alex Urevick outlines the argument that groups that work to increase general turnout may hurt Democrats in elections. He argues that the turnout methods described in this report are good, but the message is really what is important in getting out Democratic voters. I agree completely; we need to fund trained activists that know how to turn out voters with the progressive message.

There's more...