I have to admit it: I'm not smart enough to follow Hillary Clinton's line of reasoning. In an interview on Saturday, she declared she was in the race until the convention. And in making this vow, she cited Florida and Michigan:

"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."

Clinton and her spinners keep saying that Florida and Michigan could be lost to the Democrats in November if the Democratic National Committee does not accept the delegates elected in those states (in early primaries not approved by the national party) or if there is no do-over in those states (as now appears unlikely). But do they have any basis for saying this? Presumably, the Republicans and independents in Florida and Michigan won't give a damn that the Democrats (with help from Republicans in the legislatures) screwed up the primary elections in these two states. The Rs and Is who can be won over by either Barack Obama or Clinton (whoever is the nominee) are not likely to be swayed against the Democrat because Democratic delegates from their states were not recognized by the national party. What sort of ads can change that? ("Republicans, the Democratic Party doesn't care about Democratic voters in your state.")

As for the Democrats, HRC appears to be suggesting that if she is the nominee she will not be able to excite the Ds in Michigan and Florida--where she did well in the unapproved primaries. (Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan; and neither he nor Clinton campaigned in Florida.) Does she truly believe that Democrats eager to punish George W. Bush's Republican Party will vengefully vote for John McCain or stay home because of a procedural matter? Will they really respond to a GOP ad that says, "The Democratic Party did not want to count your vote, so you should vote for the Republicans"? Would that play with Democrats in, of all places, Florida, where GOPers shut down the 2000 recount? And if Clinton was not the nominee but campaigning hard for Obama, could she and Obama not rally the Democratic faithful in Michigan and Florida in the general election?

It seems that Clinton's argument is predicated on the assumption that Democratic voters are peevish, resentful grudge-holders willing to cut off their noses to spite the national party--and hand the White House back to the Republicans. Are they really sooooo sensitive and beyond the reach of the persuasive powers of Obama and/or Clinton? If Clinton believes she cannot win over the Democrats in Michigan and Florida in November, maybe she shouldn't be in the race.

I'm on the run today. Will be back with new postings next week. Remember, only 25 more mud-slinging days until the Pennsylvania primary....

Here's a good justification for war: you create the conditions for genocide and then you have to stick around to prevent that genocide. In a foreign policy speech on Wednesday, Senator John McCain said,

We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.

No one--that is, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama--are calling for a reckless withdrawal. But who advocated the war that has already caused "horrendous violence" and "ethnic cleansing" for millions of Iraqis? McCain, for one. About 4 million Iraqis have been driven from their homes. Scores of thousands of Iraqi civilians--perhaps hundreds of thousands--are dead due to the war. Where was McCain's concern for such tragedy earlier?

In any event, what McCain has to say about the war will have less impact on his electoral prospects than what Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has to say. In recent days, due to the actions of Shiite militias, George W. Bush's so-called surge--mistakenly hailed by pundits and war-backers as a success--doesn't look like such a complete success. The fighting in Iraq this week shows that the fundamental conflicts of Iraq have not been addressed by the surge. The Iraqi government remains hapless and corrupt. Most Iraqis still go without many essential services. Violence--until the last few days--had dipped, but only down to 2005 levels. That was hardly a cause for celebration.

No matter what happens in the Democratic contest, no matter whom McCain ends up facing, his chances in November are tied directly to the war. He has no room for maneuvering. As a laissez-faire Republican who has little to say about the current economic crises, he will not be able to campaign as a Mr. Fixit for the economy. (If the economy is tanking, will voters appreciate his tough-love talk and calls for letting the market work?) Advantage: Democrat. On national security, all McCain really has is Iraq. If the situation there is relatively calm in the fall, he will be able claim credit for having pushed policies that led to this relative calm. If not, well...

Sadr and his lieutenants have more sway over the ground reality than the senator from Arizona. McCain better hope--or pray--that the Iraqis find reasons of their own for tamping down the violence in the fall. Just one word from Sadr could put McCain in deep electoral peril.

Believe me, it does get tiring to write repeatedly about the anti-Obama excesses of the Clinton campaign; I wish her aides would spend as much time pushing her proposals for Afghanistan and the housing crisis. But every day there's more negative material. So here's a piece I just posted at MotherJones.com.

The Clinton campaign keeps insisting that Hillary Clinton is the victim of a sleazy Obama campaign--though it engages in nasty tactics to denigrate Barack Obama. The Clintonites, it now seems, will even make common cause with the rightwing Hilary-haters to do so.

As Marc Ambinder reports, the Clinton campaign has distributed an American Spectator article that claims that retired General Merrill McPeak, an Obama foreign policy adviser, is an anti-Semite and a drunk. An anti-Semite? Supposedly because he has noted that the Israel lobby in America influences Mideast policy and because he advocates Israel withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. Of course, that definition of anti-Semitism is absurd. But for the Clinton campaign to turn to the American Spectator, a rightwing publication that led the Clinton witch-hunts of the 1990s (and which published stories by David Brock and others regarding Bill Clinton's personal life), shows a certain desperation--or a damn-history opportunism. The article argues that Obama is bad for the Jews. The Clintonites are disseminating it. That would be ugly enough. The source renders the episode damn ugly.

Meanwhile, Clinton herself cozied up to the Richard Mellon Scaife--the man who funded the "vast rightwing conspiracy" (which included the American Spectator) that tried to destroy the Clintons in the 1990s--in order to take a swipe at Obama. On Tuesday, Clinton met with editors and reporters of the archly conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which Scaife owns. At that session, she did what she could to keep the Jeremiah Wright controversy alive by saying, "He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." In attendance was Scaife. ("Hell has officially frozen over," rightwing journalist Byron York commented.) So has Clinton no shame? No pride? Or merely a sharp sense of political calculation? Did she ponder the irony of using Scaife's platform (in the key state of Pennsylvania) to discredit a fellow Democrat?

All's fair in love, war, and hotly contested primaries? Maybe. But that doesn't make it right. Clinton might be willing to put aside her grudge against the American Spectator and Scaife because doing so helps her politically. But in the 1990s this band of Clinton-haters were out to ruin not merely her and her hubby but the entire progressive agenda. (They always believed the Clintons to be far more left than Bill and Hillary actually were.) But now, for Hillary Clinton, they're good enough to use against Obama.

On Monday, during a conference call with reporters, Phil Singer, a senior Clinton aide, expressed tremendous outrage that an Obama supporter in Iowa had blogged that a Bill Clinton remark (which may have been a poke at Obama's patriotism) was "a stain on [Bill Clinton's] legacy much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress." Singer went on about how this was proof the Obama camp was running a tawdry campaign reviving the rightwing Clinton hatred of the past. That was hyperbole, of course. But it was hypocritical hyperbole. If Clintonites can use an over-the-top American Spectator article to try to whip up trouble between Obama and Jewish voters and if she can sit politely next to Scaife because doing so affords her a good media opportunity for slamming Obama, her campaign has no basis for comparing criticism from the Obama camp to the misdeeds of Kenneth Starr and the Clinton pursuers of the 1990s. By legitimizing the "vast rightwing conspiracy" so she can put down Obama, Hillary Clinton may be confirming one of the Klinton Krazies perennial talking points about her and her husband: they will do anyting--anything!--to win.

The communications strategy of the Hillary Clinton campaign reminds me of the old gag about the kid who killed his parents and then begged the court for mercy because he was an orphan.

Howard Wolfson, please don't now say I'm comparing you and other Clinton aides to murderers.

On Monday's conference call, Wolfson and Phil Singer were in a huff. Though Clinton that day was giving a major address outlining her proposals for dealing with the housing credit crisis, her two top spinners were not hailing her initiatives. Instead, they were beating on the Obama camp for mounting what they claimed was a mega-negative campaign against their gal.

What had their tail feathers all ruffled this morning? Well, an Obama national security adviser, retired General Tony McPeak, had compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy after Clinton had made a remark that some Obama-ites believed slighted Obama's patriotism and then Gordon Fischer, a leading Obama supporter in Iowa, wrote on his own blog that this Clinton comment was "a stain on his legacy much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

Fischer quickly apologized for the remark. But that didn't stop Wolfson and Singer from pointing to this one sentence as proof, yes proof, that the Obama crew was running a super-sleazy crusade against Clinton. By the way, in the same call, they noted that Obama has so far "failed" the commander in chief test. What's their basis for such a claim? He did not win a majority of the votes in Ohio and Texas. By that standard, Clinton has "failed' the commander in chief test in more states than Obama and with more Democratic voters than he has. But I digress.

The point is this: The Clintonites denigrate Obama on one of the most critical fronts of this campaign, with Clinton herself having gone so far as to suggest that John McCain would be a better C-in-C than Obama, but then they build up these tempests-in-a-blog to play the victim. On the conference call, Singer acted so outraged over Fischer's one sentence, saying it was too awful a "personal" remark to repeat. Reality check: Bill Clinton did stain that dress; he did have an affair with a subordinate in the White House; he did put at risk his presidency and the work of thousands of people who supported him, and he did lie about it. The stain is there. Even if the impeachment crusade of the self-righteous GOPers was misguided and excessive, that does not mean Bill Clinton should get a pass on all that.

As for McPeak's comment...so what? He thought Clinton was questioning Obama's patriotism. He fired back hard. It's not a big deal--especially when James Carville, a top Clinton supporter, has called Bill Richardson "Judas" for having endorsed Obama instead of HIllary Clinton. In human history, Judas outranks McCarthy in villainy.

As I write, there's another Clinton conference call scheduled in 30 minutes. I shudder to think what new offense against humanity the Clintonites will ascribe to the Obama campaign. For a gang that's willing to blast Obama with practically anything at any time, the Clintonites are far too sensitive about the incoming. Rather than hype controversies that barely exist, they ought to stick to promoting Clinton's proposed remedies for the economy--that is, provide more light and less smoke.

The 4000th American GI has been killed in the Iraq war.

Such numerical milestones are damn silly. Every dead soldier counts. As does every dead Iraqi civilian--even though no one keeps accurate stats on the scores of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi civilians who have died because of this war. And so much of what occurs in Iraq--so many of the deaths--are barely covered by the U.S. media, which is woefully underrepresented there.

That is partly due to the cost and danger of covering the war. But writing for Columbia Journalism Review's website, Paul McLeary, a reporter who recently embedded with an Army unit in Iraq, makes a stellar point that's worth repeating at length:

Five years into the war, news organizations have understandably cut back a bit, given the immense cost of maintaining a Baghdad bureau. From life insurance for reporters to guards, armored cars (which not all bureaus have), and fortified houses outside of the Green Zone, reporting from Iraq is an incredibly expensive proposition.

But embedding with infantry units is free. Flights to Kuwait, where the Army public affairs team picks you up and puts you on a military aircraft to Iraq, and insurance still cost, but once you're embedded, your expenses end. And that's why I can't understand why every major news organization doesn't have one reporter embedded with a combat unit at all times. They won't always be able to file stories, but they can contribute a steady stream of material about the fight-and the ground-level diplomacy-being waged by young American captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. The fact that I spent four weeks in Iraq and only ran into one stringer working for an American newspaper is testament to how few reporters are out in the field. Of course, there are reporters in Iraq, and my time bouncing between combat outposts constitutes an official census; but it is significant that in every unit I was with, I was the first reporter they had seen. It was the same story back in 2006, with I embedded with the 2nd Marine Division in Fallujah.

If this were another kind of war, a conventional war in which two armies faced off along set lines, things might be different. A fight like that is easier to understand, easier to wrap your head around, than complicated counterinsurgency campaigns like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan which involve ancient cultural and tribal equations. But understanding what the military has taken to calling the “human terrain” is what these new wars are all about, and it's this aspect of the fight that the mainstream media is doing a scattershot job in explaining to the American people.

The media (collectively) has let down the 4000 dead GIs by not doing all they can to explain fully the ever-changing context for their deaths. And the public also has not been true to those who have sacrificed all, for, as Pew studies have shown, most of the public does not follow the Iraq story closely. The media will make news out of the nice round number of American fatalities, and such stories may briefly cut through the clutter of media and everyday life. But that's not much of a way to honor the fallen.

Updated with video below.

I'm not naive about how politicians use dramatic license to make a point. Earlier today, I noted that Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, went too far in slamming Hillary Clinton by claiming she supports "George Bush's policy of non-engagement." Though she helped to enable Bush's war in Iraq, this just ain't so.

But Plouffe's truth-stretching is nothing compared to the whopper that Hillary Clinton has been telling about a trip she took to Bosnia in 1996. Days ago, she described the visit this way:

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

The "Factchecker" column of The Washington Post examined this claim on Friday--and showed it to be an outright falsehood. As in completely made up. As in a lie?

The problem is, the trip was covered by dozens of reporters, including the Post's John Pomfret, and none of them saw anything like Clinton reported:

A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret....

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss....

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Others who were present--former Major General Bill Nash, comedian Sinbad--also recall that danger was not near during this event. And in her autobiography, Clinton did not mention such drama at Tuzla. The "Factchecker" awarded her four Pinocchio's for her claim. That's the most a politician can earn.

So why did Hillary Clinton make up such a tale? This is not an instance when a politician did not tell the truth in order to prevent disclosure of negative information. Such un-truthtelling--though not forgivable--are understandable. But to cook up a dramatic but easy-to-check story? There were scores of witnesses to the event. Did she think she could get away with her fiction?

This is different from saying (as Clinton has) that you were actually voting for diplomacy when you voted for the Iraq war resolution. That's spin. And what Plouffe said about Clinton in his fundraising letter was typical campaign BS. Clinton's Balkans tale, though, may be worse and even more troubling than such conventional political prevarication. Is she cracking under the pressure? Does she really believe what she said? Her supporters better hope not.

And here's the video:

Just so you know: my opinion is that between now and Election Day in November, we cannot obsess about Ohio enough. Can Barack Obama, a black guy (did you know that?), or Hillary Clinton, a woman with high negatives, win the White House against John McCain, an old white war hero? All either has to do is win every state that John Kerry bagged in 2004 and swing Ohio from red to blue. The latter seems particularly doable given that the Republican Party has imploded in the Buckeye state thanks to a series of scandals and now Ohio is ruled (so to speak) by Ted Strickland, a popular Democrat, who just might end up in the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket. And it does seem hard to envision a McCain victory without Ohio on his side.

So any Ohio-related news is national news. That's one reason why I thought it's important that McCain has campaigned in Ohio with a megachurch pastor who has literally called for the eradication of Islam. If this story comes to hurt McCain--and he has to disavow this pastor--it could damage his effort to turn out fundamentalist voters in Ohio. (I may have more on that story soon.)

Today the political news out of Ohio is that the top-ranking Republican in the state has called McCain a liar. Well, kind of. At a forum of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, Senator George Voinovich said, "We're going to have to raise more money in this country. Did you hear me? We're going to have to increase taxes in order to do the job. Anyone that tells you that's not the case isn't being truthful with you. They're not being intellectually honest with you."

As the Ohio state Democratic party was lickety-split quick to point out, McCain has declared that under no circumstances will he increase any taxes if he is elected president. By Voinovich's standard, then, McCain is not being honest.

I doubt this disagreement will prevent Voinovich from campaigning for McCain in Ohio. But the anti-McCain ad writes itself: juxtapose Voinovich's declaration against McCain's. If Ohio is tight any issue could tip the national race one way or the other. This particular matter not end up the decisive one. But pay attention to each and every bump encountered by either party's nominee in Ohio--for any one of them may be what throws an entire train off the tracks.

I don't like it when people on television say things that are not accurate.

On Tuesday night, I appeared on PBS's Newshour, as part of a panel, to discuss Barack Obama's speech on race. I salute Newshour for playing extended excerpts of the speech and then hosting a long discussion of this address. It was refreshing to have the chance to dig deep into a substantial matter and not merely have to toss off competing soundbites.

Another member of the panel was Earl Hutchinson, a political analyst and an author of a book on race and politics. He was far less impressed with the speech than I was, dismissing it by saying, "Well, we have heard those speeches before. You know, politicians in the past, when forced to, have addressed race. However, they've done it in a very abbreviated and truncated way. As we well know, Bill Clinton, midway through his second term, he actually took a stab at it with a commission. And actually he made several speeches when he did candidly talk about race."

Hutchinson is entitled to an opinion--though he does Obama a disservice by comparing his speech (in which Obama dared to criticize his own community and dared to recognize the reasons for white racial resentments) to those of others, including Bill Clinton. Clinton did develop an initiative on race, but then it petered out. While president, he promised to write a book on race--and never got around to it. And as a candidate in 1992, he dealt with the issue primarily with his Sister Souljah moment--decrying a rap singer who had made controversial statements in what seemed a calculated effort to show white voters he could be independent of the Democratic Party's most loyal base.

If Hutchinson doesn't want to recognize these critical differences, so be it. But what was worse was that he then picked up the old talking points of Obama's political foes. From the transcript:

EARL HUTCHINSON: For the first time, you really heard him put his finger on three or four areas which have been of great concern. He talked about disparities in the criminal justice system. He talked about disparities in the education system, which I presume to mean failing inner-city public schools. And he also talked about disparities in the health care system. So all of these areas, people have asked over and over, "You know, Barack, you make great rhetorical speeches. You're very eloquent. They're very poetic. They're even moving and inspiring, like today. But we really want to know a little bit more to really understand who you are and where you're coming from and what we could expect if you get the nomination and perhaps even win the election." Namely, put some body. Let's see some initiatives. What can we expect, in terms of public policy changes? What are you going to put your political muscle in and behind if you're in the White House? These are things that people are asking, not only about race -- although that's there -- but also in other areas. But especially we hear that a lot from, under the table, not overtly, but from a number of those who are sympathetic toward Barack Obama. "We want to hear more. We want to know more. We want to know specifics."

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you're saying he didn't do enough of that today?

EARL HUTCHINSON: No, I think what happens with Barack's speeches, you know -- and this has been pointed out many times before, not just by opponents, but also supporters....We need to have more details, more specifics in which to gauge and judge you, not only as a candidate, not only as a possible or the possible nominee, but also as a possible president.

It was as if Hutchinson was a spinner for the Clinton campaign, accusing Obama of being mostly talk, and ignoring details. This was so last summer. Did Hutchinson somehow miss the whole debate over the candidates' competing health care plans? That was details ad nauseam. And a quick trip to Obama's campaign site would yield Hutchinson a flood of policy proposals and specifics. Drug sentencing? Obama's site notes that he "believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated." He couldn't be much clearer than that. There are proposals for various education reforms. And like Clinton, Obama issued a platform of proposed economic initiatives. There's a heap of stuff for an analyst like Hutchinson to analyze. (Mother Jones did a piece comparing the top ten economic policies of Obama and Hillary Clinton.)

Obama's campaign has produced as much policy nitty-gritty as any. (Dems usually go overboard on this front.) What would cause Hutchinson to suggest Obama has not done so? I don't know. Perhaps he needs to spend more time at the keyboard.

It was not surprising to me that the first cable-news analysis of Barack Obama's speech on race--delivered on Tuesday morning in Philadelphia--focused almost entirely on what he had to say about Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor. A good chunk of the speech was indeed devoted to Wright--but in a bigger context than gotcha journalism. Obama's speech was daring and unique. No modern-day presidential candidate has ever given such a speech and taken race so head-on--and, perhaps, dead-on. But it's not surprising that the larger accomplishment of the speech will be lost in the nitty-gritty of controversy-driven journalism.

Jay Rosen, press critic, immediately took CNN to task for this:

I was watching CNN for Obama's speech. Moments after it concluded Wolf Blitzer was asked to tell us what he heard in it. Wolf's ear is the big ear for the Best Political Team on Television, according to CNN. So he went first. And according to Blitzer, Obama's speech boils down to a “pre-emptive strike” against various attacks that are still to come, in the form of videos, ads, and news controversies that are sure to keep Reverend Jeremiah Wright and “race” in play as issues in the campaign. (I don't have his exact words; if someone has does, ping me.)

Wasn't the speech about that very pattern?

This is a style of analysis and a level of thought we have become utterly used to, especially from Blitzer but many others on TV: everything is a move in the game of getting elected, and it's our job in political television to explain to you, the slightly clueless viewer at home, what today's tactics are, then to estimate whether they will work.

That Blitzer, offered the first word on that speech, did the horse race thing tells you about his priorities (mistakenly “static,” as Obama said about Wright) and his imaginative range as an interpreter of politics (pretty close to zero.)

In fact it was a speech aimed right at him, at the best political team on television, and all the makers of our election year spectacle.

Obama had moments earlier told Blitzer. “You've scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.” And so he had- him as much as anyone on television.

Obama had just said to Blitzer, look: “If all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way…” And so if the reactions you report on are reactions to your reporting and video looping how are you, the talent in political television, not an actor with me in this cycle?

I'm not sure that Blitzer deserves such harsh singling-out. But Obama's speech certainly deserves deeper treatment than cable news shows are accustomed to granting such events. Fortunately (for you, dear reader), I've done just that at MotherJones.com:

With racial sentiments swirling in the 2008 campaign--notably, Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Barack Obama is not much more than an affirmative action case and the controversy over his former pastor's over-the-top remarks-- Senator Obama on Tuesday morning responded to these recent fusses with a speech unlike any delivered by a major political figure in modern American history. While explaining--not excusing--Reverend Jeremiah Wright's remarks (which Obama had already criticized), he called on all Americans to recognize that even though the United States has experienced progress on the racial reconciliation front in recent decades (Exhibit A: Barack Obama), racial anger exists among both whites and blacks, and he said that this anger and its causes must be fully acknowledged before further progress can be achieved. Obama did this without displaying a trace of anger himself.

Speaking in Philadelphia, Obama celebrated his own racial heritage but also demonstrated his ability to view the black community with a measure of objectivity and, when necessary, criticism--caring criticism. But this was no Sister Souljah moment. He did not sacrifice Wright for political ends. He hailed the good deeds of his former minister, noting that Wright's claim that America continues to be a racist society is rooted in Wright's generational experiences. And Obama identified the sources of racial resentment held by whites without being judgmental. With this address, Obama was trying to show the nation a pathway to a society free of racial gridlock and denial. Moreover, he declared that bridging the very real racial divide of today is essential to forging the popular coalition necessary to transform America into a society with a universal and effective health care system, an education system that serves poor and rich children, and an economy that yields a decent-paying jobs for all. Obama was not playing the race card. He was shooting the moon.

Obama delivered his speech in a stiff manner. The melodious lilt and cascading tones that typically characterize his campaign addresses were not present. This was a speech in which the words--not the delivery--counted. He began with a predictable notion: slavery was the original sin of the glorious American project. Removing that stain has been the nation's burden ever since, and he tied his campaign to that long-running endeavor: "This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign--to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America." And he proclaimed that due to his own personal story--"I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas"--he both recognizes the need to heal this divide and possesses an "unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people." Unlike the black leaders of recent years, Obama identified with both the winners and losers of America: "I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible." He is E Pluribus Unum.

You can read the rest here.

Might we have to wait until the first ballot at the Democratic convention at the end of August to know who will be the Democrats' presidential nominee?

It's already a much-noted mathematical fact that it is virtually impossible for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to win enough pledged delegates (via the primaries and the caucuses) to grab 2025 delegates, a majority of all the delegates (pledged delegates plus superdelegates). So the nearly 800 super Ds will be a decisive bloc.

The superdelegates, of course, do not have to say for whom they expect to vote at the convention, though they are free to do so. HRC has been faring better than Obama among the superdelegates who have committed publicly. But Obama has been steadily closing this gap, and Clinton leads 248 to 213 in the superdelegate race. Now that it seems possible--and probable--that this close Obama-Clinton race will continue on competitively through the final primaries in June, there is incentive for those 300-plus undeclared superdelegates to stay mum and see how the contest plays out.

Come the end of the primary and caucus season, even with the declared superdelegates factored in, neither candidate may have enough delegates to claim the prize. At that point, more undeclared superfolk may start proclaiming their preferences--or they may not. Which means that for June, July, and August--when the elections and debates are long done--the race may be shaped by the public and not-so-public hunt for superdelegates. The media will try to track the SDs, as the campaigns pursue them with vigor.

But remember that a committed superdelegate does not have to keep his or her word. They can flip. So even if one candidate claims a majority of delegates based on the public declarations of superdelegates, that will not mean that he or she has the nomination in his or her pocket. Life is change, right? External events--or internal deals--could intervene and cause committed superdelegates to reconsider for the best or worst of reasons. Whichever candidate is in second place in total delegates will have a strong incentive to remain in the race (as long as the gap is not so large) until the convention, just in case anything happens.

So prepare yourself for several months of waiting and jockeying and perhaps even....suspense at the Democratic convention. In a close race, it will be hard to call the contest on the basis of superdelegate pronouncements. A commitment is not a vote--especially for politicians.

I'm traveling today, so no new postings. But there's this update to the below item: I called McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker again on Friday morning--for the third day in a row--and was told she was unavailable. So as of yet no comment from the McCain camp on Parsley's call for the destruction of Islam.

Yesterday, I posted a piece at MotherJones.com that disclosed that a megachurch pastor whom John McCain has hailed as a "spiritual guide" has called for the destruction of the "false religion" of Islam. This fundamentalist televangelist, Rod Parsley, who is an important political ally of McCain in the all-important state of Ohio, means this quite literally. In a 2005 book, he writes that there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization" and notes, "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Being a responsible reporter, I called both Parsley and the McCain campaign's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, before posting the story. I had to leave a message for Parsley and didn't hear back from him. And I never got through to Hazelbaker, but I spoke to another communications aide at the campaign. I explained why I was calling: I was about to publish an article noting that a prominent McCain supporter, with whom McCain had campaigned in Ohio last month, advocates a holy war with the aim of eradicating Islam. "Oh," she said. Can I read you some of Parsley's quotes? I asked. Go ahead, she said reluctantly. I got through three sentences, and she said, "That's enough."

"There's a lot more," I told her. I hadn't gotten to the portions where Parsley calls Allah a "demon." I don't need any more, she said, and she asked, "Can you give me a few minutes to get a response?" Sure, I replied. She promised to call me within 15 to 20 minutes.

Twenty minutes went by. Nothing. I called after half an hour passed. This staffer, I was told, could not be reached. Another fifteen minutes. Nothing. I called again. Once more, I was told that this staffer could not come to the telephone. Hazelbaker, too, was unavailable. Yet another fifteen minutes--and another call from me to the McCain press office. I was now informed that the staffer who had promised a response was in a meeting. Would this meeting be over soon? I asked. We don't know, said the person on the phone. Can I get a message to her now? No, she's in a meeting. Can you find out if this meeting will last hours or minutes? No, I cannot. Is Jill Hazelbaker available? No.

I got the picture. Stonewall. No straight talk.

I posted the article and never heard from the McCain campaign. When I called this morning and asked for Hazelbaker, I was told she was "not available" and the person handling the phone in her office hung up before I could leave my cell number.

Nothing personal, I know. But shouldn't McCain have to answer questions about his endorsement of a fundamentalist who calls for holy war? Will McCain reject and denounce Parsley?

I am not on the campaign trail with McCain. If I were, I'd bird-dog him on this. But the reporters covering him ought to press him to respond. Imagine what the headlines would be if Obama campaigned with and praised a minister who called for destroying Judaism? How long could Obama go without having to deal with that?

McCain, what say you?

During a conference call on Wednesday morning, David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Barack Obama, pointed to what he called a "warning sign" for Democrats: the exit polls from Mississippi, where Obama on Tuesday beat Hillary Clinton 61 to 37 percent. Plouffe noted that when Democratic voters who participated in this primary were asked "which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy," 50 percent said Clinton was not. Seventy percent of the Democrats polled said Obama was honest and trustworthy. That's a 20-point integrity gap--and its among Democrats. Certainly, many Democrats elsewhere--such as in states where Clinton won big--do not share this distrust of Clinton. But Plouffe is right: numbers like these ought to give Democrats, be they voters or super-delegates, pause.

Another interesting factoid from the exit polls: who's the more vicious candidate. The exit pollsters asked Democrats in Mississippi if either Obama or Clinton has attacked "the other unfairly." Sixty-one percent said that Clinton has; 39 percent said that Obama has. So in addition to the integrity gap, there was a 22-point nasty gap. Again, Democratic voters in states that went for Clinton may not see this the same way. And given that the Mississippi Democratic electorate included many African Americans, this number may reflect a sentiment held more by black Democrats than white Democrats. (Remember South Carolina?) Nevertheless, all this is food for thought for Democrats: do they want a presidential candidate that many voters within their own ranks consider unfair and not honest?

For more of a breakdown of the Mississippi vote--particularly the racial component (short answer: Clinton won whites; Obama won blacks)--see my colleague Jonathan Stein's posting at MotherJones.com.

The question I have is not why did he do it? That's obvious. Sometimes sex is just sex. I'd like to know the answer to this one: why did the affidavit in the Spitzer case single out Spitzer in providing details about his intimate interaction with a hooker? The affidavit, written by an FBI agent to justify an arrest warrant for the proprietors of the Emperor's Club V.I.P. escort service, covers the misdeeds of 10 clients--all to show that this outfit was indeed a prostitution ring.

Most of the 10 mini-narratives are cut and dry: Client No. Whatever called and arranged for a woman and that's that. The account covering Client 9--whose been identified in news reports as Spitzer--is more elaborate. Not only does it detail how he plotted with one of the defendants to get a prostitute from New York to Washington, where he would rendezvous with her at the Mayflower Hotel; it also includes portions of a wiretapped conversation between the prostitute and her boss after the prostitute's appointment with Spitzer was done. And that transcript includes statements suggesting that Spitzer preferred out-of-the-ordinary services:

LEWIS asked "Kristen" [Spitzer's prostitute] how she thought the appointment went, and "Kristen" said that she thought it went very well. LEWIS asked "Kristen" how much she collected, and 'Kristen" said $4,300. "Kristen" said that she liked him, and that she did not think he was difficult. "Kristen" stated: 'I don't think he's difficult. I mean it's just kind of like...whatever...I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a...moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that's why girls maybe think they're difficult..." "Kristen" continued: "That's what it is, because you're here for a [purpose]. Let's not get it twisted - I know what I do, you know." LEWIS responded: "You look at it very uniquely, because...no one ever says it that way." LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know - I mean that...very basic things...." Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that...I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex?...You know what I mean."

Was it necessary to put in the part about unsafe sex? Did the FBI and prosecutors in the case want to hammer Spitzer more than the other clients? According to The New York Times, the investigation into the Emperor's Club was triggered after I.R.S. agents were informed by one or more banks that Spitzer was engaging in suspicious cash transactions. (How hard is it to take cash out of a bank and hand it to a prostitution ring without being noticed? Shouldn't a former prosecutor who once headed an organized crime task force know how to do such things?) Perhaps that's why Spitzer receives special attention in the affidavit--which was first filed secretly but which was destined to become public. Or maybe the prosecutors and investigators wanted to give the New York governor, who has cultivated the image of Mr. Clean and who has prosecuted prostitution rings, an extra-sharp poke in the eye.

I'm certainly not calling for sympathy for the fellow. But there is a question to be raised about selective enforcement when it comes to high-priced prostitution rings. Go to the Yellow Pages for Washington, New York, or any other major city. You can find pages and pages of escort services. An undercover agent in a matter of nanoseconds could call any and gather enough information to mount an investigation. Yet only once in a blue moon do any of these enterprises receive such notice. The D.C. Madam still wonders why she was picked on. In this case, it seems that Spitzer led the feds to hookers--not the other way around. And that--fairly or not--makes him the star of the show.

On Friday afternoon, the Clinton campaign took the unusual step of convening a second conference call of the day for reporters. And it was a sorry spectacle.

What had prompted the call was the report that Samantha Power, who that morning had resigned as a foreign policy aide to Barack Obama after a news story noted she had called Hillary Clinton a "monster," had told the BBC, during an interview, that Obama's withdrawal plan for Iraq was a "best-case scenario." In that interview, she said, Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."

On the conference call, the Clintonites pounced on these comments. Retired General Wesley Clark said he found Power's remarks about Obama's Iraq policy "quite disturbing." Jamie Rubin, a Clinton foreign policy aide, derided Power as Obama's foreign policy "Svenagli or guru" and claimed her remarks about Iraq were proof that Obama cannot create an efficient and effective foreign policy team, calling the episode "amateur hour" for the Obama campaign. He claimed Power's comments showed that Obama's private position was different than his public posture on Iraq. Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications direction, insisted that Power's statements meant that Obama's vow to withdraw troops from Iraq was nothing but a political promise. Also on the call for the Clinton campaign was Lee Feinstein, another foreign policy adviser to Clinton, and Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachussetts liberal and leading member of of the Out of Iraq caucus in the House.

This was overkill. During the BBC interview, Power had said that Obama, in removing troops from Iraq, "will rely upon a plan--an operational plan--that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think--it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'" In other words, a campaign proposal is just that: a proposal. And only a fool would think that a military plan would be applied to reality without change a year after it was devised.

But the Clintonites campaign saw an opportunity to go for the jugular. And they did--jumping up and down on Power's not-yet-cold dead (politically, that is) body. On the call, I wanted to ask, "Have you no decency?" I did inquire why the Clinton crowd was attacking Obama for a policy that in this regard mirrors Clinton's position. (Her plan for withdrawal: get into the White House, spend the next 60 days consulting with national security aides and Pentagon chiefs, and cook up a plan for a withdrawal that would aim to bring back one or two combat brigades a month.) Rubin and the others replied by emphasizing Power's statement that Obama's plan--and his call for a withdrawal within 16 months--was a "best-case scenario. They insisted this meant Obama was not committed to his deadline and was, consequently, misleading voters.

Their response was not persuasive--at least not to NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, who asked them to explain why this attack on Power and Obama was "fair."

It was an ugly moment. Power, a talented journalist, academic, and thinker who has done tremedous work regarding genocide, had been driven off the campaign, in part because the Clinton campaign had immediately called for her head after news hit of the "monster" remark. (A classier move for Clinton would have been for Clinton to have sent a note to Power saying, "Let's have lunch. You'll see I'm no monster.") Now on what was probably the worst day of Power's professional life, the Clinton camp was trying to use a comment of hers to undermine a key selling point of the Obama campaign. At the same time, Rubin kept saying how bad he felt for Power this afternoon.

The Democratic foreign policy gang is not that big. Everyone knows one another. (Think chess team in high school.) And Rubin and the others were doing all they could to slam Power, an important member of this group, for political gain. I've known Rubin and Feinstein for decades and have appreciated their hard work in the field of foreign policy wonkery. (I met Rubin in the early 1980s when he was working on arms control matters for a public interest outfit.) I was sorry to see them a part of this.

After the conference call, the Obama campaign sent out an interesting Washington Post clip from 2004. Headline: "Comments on Iraq War In Error, Says Kerry Aide." The article begins:

A top national security adviser to John F. Kerry said yesterday that he made a mistake when he said the Democratic nominee probably would have launched a military invasion to oust Saddam Hussein if he had been president during the past four years.

On Aug. 7, Jamie Rubin told The Washington Post that "in all probability" a Kerry administration would have waged war against Iraq by now if the Massachusetts Democrat were president.

The Bush campaign, eager to portray Kerry as holding the same position as the president after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, seized on Rubin's comments as evidence that the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates share similar views on the war, in retrospect. On NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said the two candidates agreed about "sending our troops to war."

"To the extent that my own comments have contributed to misunderstanding on this issue....I never should have said the phrase 'in all probability' because that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it," Rubin said in a statement. "That was my mistake."

On the conference call, Rubin had been doing to Power and Obama what the Bush campaign had done to him and Kerry. For many Democrats, that is the big problem of the Clinton campaign.

Let me stipulate that the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign, like all campaigns, spin and do their best to present facts and assertions in the manner most advantageous to their candidates. But so far in the Democratic presidential contest, the Clintonites have pushed the envelope of spin further than the Obama crew. Their Ken Starr attack is the latest proof of this.

In the days leading up to the March 4 primaries, Clinton aides repeatedly blasted Barack Obama for his ties to Tony Rezko, a developer whose corruption trial began this week. They constantly prodded journalists to grill Obama about Rezko. Obama has not been accused of anything improper in the Rezko affair, except becoming involved in a personal real estate transaction with Rezko when Rezko was already under investigation. But his relationship with Rezko is certainly fair game for reporters, even if the Clinton spinners are suggesting Obama engaged in significant wrongdoing without being able to back up such allegations.

Even though Rezko was a prominent part of Hillary Clinton's "kitchen sink" attack on Obama before March 4, Clinton aides fiercely maintain that questions about Clinton's personal finances are out of bounds. Yesterday, her campaign hurled the ultimate insult at the Obama camp, complaining that it "mimics Ken Starr," the onetime independent counsel who holds a rather high spot on Democrats' list of Most Hated Republicans of All Time.

What caused the Clinton campaign to throw this ultimate insult at Obama? The Obama campaign, following the losses in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, raised the issue of Clinton's missing tax returns. For months, she has refused to release her tax returns. At one point, she said she would only make the records public if she were to become her party's nominee. Now her campaign's position is that the returns will be released sometime around April 15. Her tax returns could answer some intriguing questions about her husband's sources of incomes. (For example, is Bill Clinton receiving money from foreign individuals or entities that would be quite happy to have a First Lad in the White House?) While other past and present Democratic candidates (including Obama) have released their returns, HRC has been overly--some might say, suspiciously--reticent. She even recently complained she was too busy to do so. (She doesn't have an accountant?)

There is nothing wrong with the Obama crew making a fuss about this. (In the past, Clinton complained about a political rival who was not forthcoming on this front.) Still, the Clinton crowd responded with the over-the-top Starr comparison. It was an obvious ploy to immunize Clinton from any and all criticism from the Obama camp: Asking questions about the Clinton's business dealing. See? He's just as bad as that nasty Ken Starr.

How can the Clintonites justify tossing questions about Rezko at Obama but decrying his questions about her tax returns, equating his queries with Ken Starr's inquisition into Whitewater and Monicagate? Well, they don't have to justify this absurd contradiction. They can just keep spinning, throwing what they can at Obama and crying foul when anything is tossed their way. Presenting an honest, logical, fair, and consistent argument is not their aim; winning is.

In January I observed that Barack Obama had a problem:

If the Democratic presidential race is between him and Hillary Clinton--sorry, Senator Edwards--it boils down, in a way to this: Clinton says, believe in my resume; Obama says, believe in me.

Clinton is pitching herself as a woman of experience who can start working for you and our children on Day One. Look, 35 years of policy wonkery and advocacy. Look, a record of accomplishment. (Fill in the number of children in fill in the state have health insurance because of her.) Look, years of traveling overseas as First Lady, years of hard toil--including working with (gasp!) Republicans--in the Senate, and years of doing political battle in the trenches. All of this is measurable and confirmable. A voter can easily evaluate her case and judge whether she's right for the job.

Obama is selling himself as...himself. That is, Obama is insisting that he has the ability to create a new politics--a transformative, overcoming-the-divide politics--because of who he is, because of his character and considerable personal attributes. Sure, he points to his past as a community organizer and civil rights lawyers and to his work in the Illinois state senator and the U.S. Senate to bolster his argument that he possesses the right stuff. But his is not a campaign of resume-waving. He's running on his soul. And Obama goes further than asking voters to hire him as their advocate. He issues an invitation: join me in this grand cause to change politics, change government, and change the nation. He speaks of his campaign as a movement and compares it to the great social movements of America's past.

With Obama, it's not about his career highlights, it's about him. To buy his case, a voter must believe in him, have faith in him, place hope in him--must have (or feel) a connection with him. And this is where the problem kicks in.

I noted that given the short time available to Obama prior to the Super Tuesday contests of February 5, he would not have the opportunity to connect directly with enough voters because he would be busy hopscotching about the country. Now he has the opposite problem.

After the Wyoming caucus this Saturday and the Mississippi primary on Tuesday, there will be no caucus or election until the critical Pennsylvania primary on April 22. That means: five weeks of campaigning uninterrupted by actual events (i.e., elections). One question for Obama is, in this period of too-much time, can he sustain his pitch?

Clinton's selling point is a conventional one: I'm experienced, I know policy, I'm a fighter on pocketbook issues, I can do the heavy lifting. In other words, she wants voters to make a rational decision and hire her on the basis of her resume. Obama wants voters to feel a certain way about him, his campaign, politics, and the potential for change. He inspires. She PowerPoints.

Obama has demonstrated he can bond with voters and motivate them--even if he failed to do so with the majority of voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. But the issue is, if he does connect with Pennsylvania voters, can he keep that up over a period of five weeks? Clinton's mundane argument for herself may lend itself better to repetitive recitation than Obama's unconventional case. If Obama does indeed succeed in stirring that intense feeling within Pennsylvania voters, will it be susceptible to fading over a long stretch of time. Put simply, what will wear least well: Obama's increasingly familiar rhetoric of hope, change, and new politics, or Clinton's prosaic policy pronouncements and resume-pushing?

There's no need to make a prediction. But Obama, this year's fresh candidate, may have a challenge keeping things not only real but fresh over the long pre-Pennsylvania slog. Clinton, for good or bad, has no such burden.

I was right about Pennsylvania, wasn't I?....Here's the dispatch on the March 4 election results I posted at MotherJones.com:

Now it's on to the Democratic death-march in Pennsylvania.

By winning decisively in Ohio and Rhode Island and narrowly in Texas, Senator Hillary Clinton managed to keep her presidential aspirations alive and guaranteed that the bitterly-fought Democratic contest will slog on for weeks, at least until April 22, when Pennsylvania (with its 188 delegates) votes. With these victories, Clinton put an end to Barack Obama's streak--though he still maintains a significant, if statistically slight, lead in the delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses. (Due to the rules governing Texas' odd joint primary-caucus, it seemed possible on Tuesday night, even probable, that Obama would pocket a majority of the delegates there, despite placing second in he popular vote.) More important, Clinton earned the right to claim that her case against Obama, which she and her aides sharpened in recent days, has been seconded by Democratic voters, including two important blocs for the party: blue-collar Dems in Ohio, a decisive state in general elections, and Latino Democrats in Texas. Obama netted his only primary win of the night in Vermont.

At long last, Clinton and her strategists seemed to have gained traction with their attacks on the candidate of hope. As Firewall Tuesday approached, the Clinton campaign did not introduce any new themes. But it did tinker with the mix and accused Obama of falling short on integrity, credibility and experience. This new mash-up was a success. Catching a break because the corruption trial of Obama's onetime friend and contributor Tony Rezko began this week, Clinton aides repeatedly clamed there were "unanswered questions" about Obama's relationship with Rezko. Obama's aides countered that there were no unanswered questions about this much-investigated episode. (Obama, accused of no wrongdoing in the Rezko matter, has acknowledged it was dumb for him to have entered into a real estate deal with Rezko, especially since the politically-wired developer was under investigation at the time.) Prodded by the Clintonites, reporters started grilling Obama anew about Rezko. And being asked about the dirty dealings of a former pal is never helpful to a candidate selling change and reform. Simultaneously, Obama came under fire--from the Clinton campaign--for falsely denying that a campaign adviser had met with Canadian officials and discussed Obama's position on NAFTA. (The aide denied press reports that he had told the Canadians that Obama's criticism of NAFTA was merely political posturing.) It looked as if Obama the Inspirer was not playing straight.

While casting Obama as just another shifty, sleaze-tainted pol, Clinton and her lieutenants pumped up the volume on their well-worn charge that he's not ready for prime time--that is, when the phone rings in the White House in the middle of the night because there's a crisis somewhere. The Obama camp quickly cooked up a clever retort--Clinton failed her red-phone moment by voting for George W. Bush's Iraq war measure--yet Clinton's heavy-handed commercial, if did not persuade any individual voter in Texas or Ohio, did define the discourse (and media coverage) in the days before these primaries. Experience, not hope, was the main subject of the debate. Advantage: Clinton.

On top of all this, Clinton succeeded where she had recently faltered: convincing working-class Democrats that she's their woman. In the contests after Super Tuesday, Obama penetrated into Clinton's base and coaxed away such voters, as he racked up eleven wins in a row. In Ohio on Tuesday, Obama fared well among Democrats who attended college (53 to 46 percent), but Clinton clobbered him among Democrats who did not (62 to 37 percent). She also walloped him in union households (54 to 45 percent). With the economy rated as the top concern of Democratic voters in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island (it tied with the Iraq war in Vermont), Clinton scored with her steady--if not always inspiring--insistence that she's a heavy-lifter when it comes to kitchen table issues. She also renewed her bonds with other core voters: women and the elderly.

In Texas, the Democratic electorate was more split. Clinton won 64 to 34 percent among Democrats over 65 years of age. Obama led narrowly in the under-64 group, 51 to 48 percent. In other words, the old folks kept Clinton competitive. So, too, did Latinos, who went for Clinton 63 to 35 percent. White Democrats in the Lone Star State favored Clinton by an 11-point margin. Voters with incomes over $50,000 supported Obama, 52 to 48 percent. Those earning less went with Clinton, 51 to 49 percent.

Clinton's advocates will now argue it's back to the pre-sweep days--when she won in New Hampshire, Nevada and several Super Tuesday states by assembling a coalition of classic Democrats--and the race is on. But the math doesn't change. As Obama's campaign aides have been maintaining for weeks, Clinton's triumphs in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas will not net her a significant pickup in delegates. "We have nearly the same delegate lead we had this morning," Obama told supporters at a rally in San Antonio, as the Texas results came in.

The Obama and Clinton spinners will bicker over the significance of the March 4 contests.....

You can read the rest here.

Get ready to get sick of Pennsylvania.

I m not making any predictions about what will happen in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island, but my hunch is that, whatever the final tallies will be, when the dust and rust settles, Hillary Clinton will still be in the race. Clintons don't quit. And she will not be forced out of the race short of a cataclysmic event (say, Bill endorses Barack Obama).

That means, Helllllloooooooo, Keystone State. The Pennsylvania primary--in which 188 delegates will be on the line, is not until April 22. Between March 5 and then, there are only two other contests: a caucus in Wyoming on March 8 (18 delegates) and a primary in Mississippi on March 11 (40 delegates). Otherwise, there's nothing but weeks and weeks of time before Pennsylvania. The campaigns will be able to camp out there and treat the big state almost like Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidates will load up on Philly steak sandwiches and overdo the Rocky metaphors, and the politerati (and viewers of cable news) will, by the time the primary occurs, know details of Pennsylvania counties (Hey, what's the unemployment rate in Lycoming? Who did the Susquehanna Shopper endorse?) they never expected they would care about.

With Pennsylvania looming large on the horizon, Clinton will have a mathematical (even if unlikely) possibility of gaining on Obama's pledged delegates lead. And she and her allies can use this possibility to justify prolonging the battle. Moreover, they would have six weeks to throw not only the kitchen sink but the kitchen cabinet, the hallway armoire, the bathroom bathtub, the bedroom chifforobe, and the rec room media unit at Barack Obama. A month and a half is quite a long time in a presidential race. (Ask John McCain.) With all that time to attempt all sorts of stratagems and raise all sorts of questions (real or trumped-up) about Obama, the contest is certainly not beyond hope (there's that word) for Clinton and her posse. And there's always the chance that external events will intervene in her favor. (Perhaps a news story will reveal that Obama once attended a meeting of community organizers at a--gasp!--mosque.)

So get accustomed to the Interstates 76 and 80 and pack your bags--literally or figuratively--for Pennsylvania. It may well be the Democratic contest's Gettysburg.

McCain's Nuclear Waste. John McCain is known as a Republican who has been a leader in the effort to redress climate change. But when it came to passing global warming legislation in the Senate, he sabotaged his own effort because he was gaga about nuclear power. I've posted a piece about this episode at MotherJones.com. It starts:

On January 9, 2003—five years before he would become the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee—Senator John McCain strode to the Senate floor and began a speech by citing the National Academy of Sciences: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." He then pointed to a host of scientific studies that had outlined the negative consequences of global warming. "The United States must do something," he proclaimed, announcing that he and Senator Joseph Lieberman were introducing legislation that day to establish mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and set up a system for the trading of emissions credits.

Environmental groups endorsed the McCain-Lieberman bill, which compelled major industries to reduce greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010. The League of Conservation Voters called it "a relatively modest reduction" but an "important first step" that would "send an important signal to the global community." It was indeed the first serious attempt in the Senate to impose a cap on global warming emissions.

Ten months later, the bill was defeated by a relatively close margin, 55 to 43. (Then-Senator John Edwards, who missed the vote, had indicated he supported the bill.) Environmental advocates in Washington considered this a decent start considering that six years earlier the Senate had voted unanimously for a nonbinding resolution that signaled opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty. With this bill, McCain established himself as the undisputed Republican leader on climate change. Convinced that global warming had already led to more droughts and wildfires in his home state of Arizona, McCain vowed to keep fighting for the measure. But within a year and a half, McCain would lose ground and set back the effort to reduce emissions because of a profound political miscalculation, his own stubbornness, and, most of all, his deep attachment to nuclear power.

You can read the rest here.

Talk about generalizations!

In a front-page article on Saturday, the New York Times' Neela Banerjee examined Barack Obama's attempt to gather support among the Jewish electorate, "a cornerstone of the Democratic base." She reported that "in doing so," Obama is "navigating one of the more treacherous paths of Democratic politics."

To set up her piece, Banerjee wrote, "Winning the trust of Jewish Democratic voters is all the more difficult for Mr. Obama because of the tenuous relations between blacks and Jews." That's some declaration. She neither explains nor sources that assertion of fact. What blacks? Which Jews? She makes it seem like Jews and blacks fight more than Christians and blacks, or Latinos and Muslims. This sort of shortcut journalism simplifies a complex matter and lumps together all blacks and all Jews into enemy camps in a cultural war (or cold war). My hunch: a higher percentage of Jews have supported Obama in the Democratic primaries than white Southern Baptists. So maybe it's the white SBers who have "tenuous relations" with blacks?

Banerjee then goes on to make another error:

Other [Jewish-related] issues [Obama] faces arise from his newness to national politics. While his positions hew to mainstream Democratic views, some critics have expressed concerns that they are not heartfelt.

“His record is relatively sparse, so I want to look at the totality of influences that might bear on Senator Obama,” said Ed Lasky, news editor of the online magazine, American Thinker, whose criticisms of Mr. Obama for aligning himself with allegedly anti-Israel advocates have been widely circulated among Jewish voters.

Do you know who Ed Lasky is? Probably not. A quick Google search shows that he is a conservative and that his on-line magazine is conservative. Nothing wrong with that, right? But look at the article, he wrote in 2004 entitled Why American Jews must vote for Bush:

[T]he anachronistic tendency of American Jews to vote Democratic must end.

This is one tradition that Jews, a people united by their traditions, should put aside. They should refuse to vote for John Kerry for President. Bluntly speaking, his words and actions reveal a man who would imperil our community. Our concerns should not just be about Israel but for the future of the entire Jewish community. It is imperative that Jews understand that the hatred being promoted around the world is directed not just at Israel, but also at Jews as Jews.

Lasky is no honest broker trying to assess Obama. He's a fierce (and apparently religious) partisan who hopes to drive Jews from the Democratic Party into the GOP. He has an agenda--a stark one that obviously colors his approach to Obama. Yet the Times failed to note that. Instead, it cited Lasky as evidence that Obama may have a problem among Jewish Democrats. That would be like saying that McCain has a problem among Republican veterans because retired General Wesley Clark opposes him. Lasky wants to sink Obama because he wants to sink Democrats. His crusade against Obama says nothing about Obama's ability to attract Jewish Democrats.

All this goes to show that when it comes to covering the minefield of race, religion and politics, it's easy for the leading national newspaper to crash into the shoals.

In an earlier version, I referred to Neela Banerjee as a man. I'm told she's a she. My apologies.