From his new perch as Fox News political pundit, Karl Rove explained how Sen. Barack Obama might deal with the problem of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic convention -- and win the Democratic nomination at the same time.

Rove suggested that by agreeing to seat the delegates according to the results of the "illegal" January primaries -- even if that would give a slight advantage to Sen. Hillary Clinton -- Obama could actually persuade a majority of the remaining superdelegates to back him. It would show Democratic leaders that he's willing to put the party's interests above his own. It would show confidence in his own ability as a leader. And, perhaps most importantly, it would be a gesture that Clinton could not match.

Joe Klein develops our speculation that Al Gore could possibly rescue the Democratic party from a divisive convention battle.

"Let's say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let's also assume—and this may be a real stretch—that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they'd have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party—and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate?"

Probably an unlikely scenario, but fun to think about nonetheless.

As the Democratic presidential nomination fight moves into April, the only thing certain is that superdelegates will ultimately pick the party's nominee. Supporters of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are now engaged in a fight of picking the appropriate metric for how the superdelegates should vote at the convention.

Some say they should vote the same way their constituents did. Some say they should vote for whoever wins the most pledged delegates. Some say they should vote for whoever leads in the popular vote. Some say they should just vote their conscience.

The confusion is made worse by a nomination race that awards delegates differently in nearly every state. Some states have primaries. Some states have caucuses. Some states even have both.

To further confuse matters, some states let only Democrats vote. But others let Democrats and independents vote. And some states even let Republicans vote in the Democratic primary.

The idea that the Democratic nominee will be chosen democratically is fiction. There is little that's democratic about this selection process. In fact, two of the largest states -- Michigan and Florida -- will probably have no say at the convention since they broke party rules in scheduling their primaries.

Considering many Democrats feel Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000 in an un-democratic way, it's surprising the party would tolerate such a mess in choosing their nominee.

Preliminary reviews of Hillary Clinton's just-released schedules as First Lady haven't yet found anything earth-shattering or controversial. Instead, the biggest danger for Clinton's presidential aspirations in having journalists comb through the documents is that unpleasant memories of the Clinton years may soon be back in the headlines.

An early example from ABC News: "Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives."

Another example: "In December, 2000, when both of Hillary Clinton's brothers were involved in trying to broker pardon arrangements for associates, several days of documents show only a long list of 'private meetings' at the White House."

The other big danger is that the schedules will shed some light on some of Clinton's claims of "35 years of experience," such as this headline from The Guardian: "Clinton a long way from the White House at key foreign policy moments."

Or this from the AP: "She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change."

With five weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, expect political journalists to use these documents to source many more stories on Clinton's White House years.

What would it be like if America actually had a president who knew how to write and speak?

After watching Sen. Barack Obama's brilliant speech this morning -- and seeing reports that he actually wrote it himself -- it makes you realize that a president can actually inspire an entire nation. It's been a long time since we had someone who could do that.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's hopes for winning the Democratic presidential lie in her ability to twist arms in the "smoke-filled room" and convince superdelegates to switch to her. However, according to NBC News, Clinton hasn’t publicly announced the support of a new superdelegate since just after the February 5 primaries. In fact, she's actually lost seven while Sen. Barack Obama has gained 47 new superdelegates during this time.

Her only real hope now is to convince superdelegates that Obama is completely unelectable. She needs big wins in Pennsylvania and North Carolina but also must make the case that Obama will ultimately lose to Sen. John McCain in November. That's why Obama took steps to get in front of two potentially damaging stories on Friday evening that each have the potential to undermine his candidacy.

Watch this race get even uglier in the next few weeks.

With several people now forced to leave posts in the presidential campaigns of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama because of controversial remarks, I was going to write about the ridiculousness that has become the Democratic presidential race. However, Michael Kinsley has already done it in a great column today:

Let me be absolutely clear where I stand on all of this. There is no room for sexism in a modern political campaign. There is no room for racism either. There is no room for remarks that could reasonably be interpreted as sexist or racist. In fact, given the history of sexism and racism in this country, there is no room for remarks that could even be willfully misinterpreted as sexist or racist. There is no room for rudeness, or for the appearance of rudeness. There is no room for comments of any sort by anybody a candidate might have met under any circumstances in the course of his or her life, unless they have been vetted for sexism, racism, rudeness, or the appearance of these qualities by the campaign's senior staff. There is no room for unfair accusations that the opposition candidate has engaged in sexist, racist or rude remarks, or that anyone he or she has ever met has engaged in such remarks. And of course there is also no room for perfectly fair accusations of this sort, which can be misinterpreted, and usually are.

Basically, in the modern political campaign, there is no room for remarks of any sort on any subject which could be interpreted as giving offense to anyone, and that covers just about every subject there is. Therefore, my campaign will enter a cone of silence from now until I am sworn in as president next January. And I call upon my distinguished opponent and her campaign to do the same. The stakes in this election are much too high for anyone to say anything.

Two days ago, few New Yorkers even knew who their lieutenant governor was. On Monday -- due to Gov. Elliot Spitzer's sudden resignation in response to a sex scandal -- David Paterson (D) will be sworn in as New York's 55th governor. He has just five days to make the transition.

Other than a New York Times piece that says Paterson has a "history of defying expectations," there are few clues as to how he'll govern. In fact, due to his current mostly ceremonial role, he's probably given it little thought himself. So, with such little time, Patterson should pick up the phone and immediately call two politicians in neighboring states.

The first call should go to Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R), who served as lieutenant governor when Gov. John Rowland decided to step down in 2004 prior to an indictment on corruption charges. Rell had just 10 days to make the transition. Knowingly, she told Governing that Paterson "must be shaking in his boots." She's since become an extremely popular political figure in her state and was overwhelmingly elected in 2006 to a full term. 

The second call should be to New Jersey Senate President Dick Codey (D), who served as New Jersey's governor after the sudden resignation of Gov. James McGreevey (D) in 2004. Despite having no advance warning that he would be pushed into the top job, Codey also proved to be a very popular governor. 

Longtime readers know I don't like making predictions. Unpredictability is one of the great things about politics. However, I've told my New York friends that Gov. Elliot Spitzer's downfall was inevitable ever since his landslide gubernatorial victory in 2006. While the details were surprising, the warning signs of scandal were just too clear.

Rule #1: If you ride into elective office as a crusader on your white horse, people will try to knock you off. If you're arrogant, they'll try harder. In Spitzer's case, he came into office on a streamroller but the lesson is the same. The forces of bureaucracy and the status quo are incredibly powerful. Show any sign of vulnerability or hypocrisy and they'll stop you right in your tracks.

Rule #2: You need friends and allies in politics. Even politicians with the best intentions get pushed off course. But without people on your side, you'll spend most of your time trying to get out of a ditch. Your adversaries will work tirelessly to keep you there. Since his inauguration, Spitzer has even had people in his own party cheering for his demise.

If last weekend was any indication, Sen. Barack Obama has lost control of the campaign story line to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Talk of a potential Clinton-Obama "dream ticket" and how best to conduct a re-vote in Florida and Michigan dominated cable news networks. Scenarios of what to do if Clinton won the popular vote and Obama won the most delegates tied pundits in knots. Clinton even suggested again that Obama's pledged delegates were potentially hers for the taking.

Confusion is exactly what Clinton strategists want as the message of the day. As Democratic strategist Joe Trippi told New York magazine, "if this keeps up, it is the one opening Clinton has to getting past him."

The current focus is even more significant considering Obama's convincing victory in Wyoming's caucuses on Saturday and his double-digit lead in Mississippi which votes on Tuesday.

To regain control of the campaign narrative, Obama needs another big show of strength. He needs to demonstrate his ability to bring out tens of thousands to new voters whenever he speaks. He needs to convince Democratic superdelegates that ignoring the will of his supporters could make the 1968 Democratic convention look like a peaceful affair.

Unless he does this soon, the Democratic presidential nomination could be snatched out of his hands by Clinton -- or even someone else.

Reader Dan Conley emails with an interesting point about superdelegates and their historic role in deciding the Democratic presidential nomination:

"I think this whole argument that neither can win with pledged delegates, therefore it's a tie, is completely bogus. The same could have been said for Dukakis in '88 ... who needed superdelegates to overcome the Jackson and 'suspended campaign' Gore delegates ... Clinton in '92, where a combination of Brown, Tsongas and Kerrey could have deprived him an outright pledged delegates victory if they'd played the hand and superdelegates did not pledge ... and 2004, where Kerry did not win by 'clinching' a pledged delegates win, he won because everyone else capitulated.

"Superdelegates are always needed to win the Democratic nomination because the rules divide the delegates so closely. Obama has as much claim to have won this race as Kerry, Clinton or Dukakis had. The only difference here is that we have a challenger willing to contest it to the end."

It's clear that for either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination, they'll have to win the majority of superdelegates at the convention. But what if the superdelegates split right down the middle like Democrats across the nation?

Talk of a joint ticket -- Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama -- might be an elegant solution to the problem. But what if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama wins the majority of delegates? What if the next two months of campaigning turns so ugly they can't stand each other? Would either candidate willingly step aside to take the number two spot?

The answer might be for someone else entirely to step into the race at the convention. The most likely candidate would be Al Gore. Most Democrats think he was robbed of the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court and could be the only one to unite the party.

On television news shows this morning, DNC Chairman Howard Dean disputed my belief that the Democratic party nominee would ultimately be decided in a "smoke filled room." He argued that there are no "party bosses" and that the superdelegates who will pick the nominee were a very diverse bunch and representative of Democrats nationwide.

At the same time, Dean proved he was not a party boss by providing no leadership on what to do about Michigan and Florida. He said the states have two options: Prove to the DNC that they can conduct a "fair contest within the rules," or appeal the decision in July. While he could have used his position to argue for new elections, he instead pushed the issue back to the two renegade states.

Said Dean: “You cannot violate the rules of a process, and then expect to get forgiven for it.”

Michigan and Florida Democrats are working together to decide what to do, but there is little consensus. Both states are being pressured by Obama and Clinton supporters. In fact, NBC News suggested Michigan may favor a re-vote, while Florida may appeal to the credentials committee in July.

In the meantime, there is clearly a void in leadership in the Democratic party and the question is whether someone will try to step into it. Here's a thought: Imagine how powerful it would be if Al Gore called for a new Florida primary?

As you listen to campaign strategists talk today about various delegate counts and make assumptions and projections on upcoming Democratic primaries, remember one thing: It's not about the math, it's about the politics.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary because they made the math work for them. Pretending the nomination battle is like a precise mathematical formula ignores the messy political realities. As we noted yesterday, the nomination will be won through old-fashioned arm twisting and political persuasion.

There are many still undetermined factors that can change the math quickly for either candidate:

• What do the superdelegates do?
• What about the add-on delegates that haven't even been picked yet?
• What about Florida and Michigan?
• What about John Edwards' delegates?
  
• Will Al Gore play the role of impartial party elder?

In fact, the ultimate Democratic nominee may be determined through negotiation. As Craig Crawford notes, "They might have to run together, whatever the order and whether they like it or not."

Harold Ickes and Mark Penn, who haven't exactly been getting along lately, are out with an interesting memo this morning detailing Sen. Hillary Clinton's "path to the presidency."

Along with the usual spin, are important comments about Florida and Michigan. A re-vote in those states -- this time under DNC rules -- is increasingly likely.

With Sen. John McCain clinching the Republican presidential nomination tonight, expect increased urgency among Democrats to wrap up their own race and coalesce around a nominee. Giving McCain a two or three month head start in the general election campaign is the last thing Democrats want.

The pressure, of course, will be felt mostly by the superdelegates who are free to choose between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. They will be the people to blame if the Democratic race drags on through the summer until the convention.

Based on the delegate math and a reasonable forecast of the remaining primary races, it's highly unlikely Sen. Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic presidential nomination. But it's still possible -- if she can send the decision into what used to be called the "smoke-filled room."

Ultimately it will be superdelegates that decide the nomination. These are the 719 unpledged delegates -- not including the 76 add-ons -- that make up approximately 20% of the delegates at the convention. They are the closest thing Democrats have to "party elders" who can safely pick the most electable nominee. And they will make their decision based on old-fashioned back room politicking.

But Clinton needs to change the campaign narrative to have them break her way. Here's what she needs to do:

• Win Ohio and Texas by decisive margins tonight and follow up those wins with another big win in Pennsylvania on April 22.
• Continue to raise doubts about Sen. Barack Obama's electability in a general election contest against Sen. John McCain.
  
• Convince the DNC to seat Florida and Michigan delegates without necessarily holding new contests.
• Hope the media finds a scandal that will take Obama down as quickly as he rose up.

It's a tall order, but until she's mathematically eliminated from the race, it's hard to see her dropping out.

With a few tough campaign ads putting him on the defensive and several polls showing Sen. Barack Obama's momentum stalled, the storyline for the Democratic presidential race is primed for yet another twist: Can Sen. Hillary Clinton be the comeback kid?

It's been the most remarkable race of our generation. When Clinton needed a win after losing Iowa, she came through in New Hampshire. When Obama needed a big win, he came through in South Carolina. Now, with Clinton forced into a corner after 11 defeats in a row, early signs indicate she might survive to fight on until Pennsylvania.

Of course, the voters haven't weighed in yet and the polls have been notoriously unreliable this year. Add to this the implications of open primaries, early voting and bad weather and it's really anyone's guess who might win tonight.

But I am certain of one thing: It's going to be very exciting.

To make Tuesday's Democratic primary contests even more exciting, you would need evidence that Sen. Hillary Clinton may have stopped Sen. Barack Obama's momentum and could pull off the pair of victories that she desperately needs. 

Several new polls out today give the Clinton campaign some reason for hope.

In Ohio, three new polls give Clinton the lead -- SurveyUSA, Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac -- of which two actually show Obama stalling.

In Texas, two polls shows a statistical tie -- Zogby and SurveyUSA -- while a third, Public Policy Polling, gives Clinton the lead.

Polls haven't seemed very reliable during this primary season, but today's numbers may change the narrative as we await Tuesday's results.

To see where Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton think they might have an edge in Tuesday's voting, it's useful to know where they plan on spending election night. Obama will be in San Antonio, TX while Clinton will be in Columbus, OH.

If there's one thing we know before Texas and Ohio voters head to the polls tomorrow it's this: Sen. Barack Obama will face a tougher campaign trail in the months ahead than he has to date.

If Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the two big states tomorrow, the momentum shifts once again and the Democratic presidential race will continue for nearly two more months until Pennsylvania votes on April 22. It's not going to be pretty.

In Obama wins on Tuesday, he'll likely win the Democratic nomination, but he'll also face a new round of scrutiny from Republicans and the media. Yet another skit on Saturday Night Live over the weekend made the point that Obama has been pampered by political reporters. This resonates with voters and will probably be reversed in the coming weeks as reporters ask tougher questions of the Illinois senator.

With her presidential campaign possibly in the final days, Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to play the experience card to make her case that Sen. Barack Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief. The red phone ad was a good attempt to frame the weekend conversation. She also hauled out more than a dozen generals and admirals on a conference call to discuss her readiness for the job.

Today, ABC News had a spirited debate between Obama's David Axelrod and Clinton's Howard Wolfson over national security credentials that shows how the issue is playing out.

However, this all comes after a Friday afternoon conference call in which Clinton's normally talkative aides seemed at a loss to point to a single foreign policy event in Clinton's career where she's actually been tested by crisis.

It was an awkward moment that made Clinton's "35 years of experience" look little different than that of her rival and may have shown the issue isn't going to be enough to help her in must-win primaries on Tuesday.