The Great North Korean Thaw?

What's up with Lil' Kim and the gang over in North Korea? First, they release two American journalists who they accused of "hostile acts." Then they send their condolences to South Korea on the death of Kim Dae-jung, and plan to send a delegation to the funeral, an unusual show of diplomacy between the two countries who are technically still at war. And then, they set up a meeting with Bill Richardson, out of the clear blue sky:

Senior North Korean diplomats are heading to meet with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Wednesday, opening a new front in informal discussions the country has sought in recent days.

The two diplomats, who are with the North Korean mission to the United Nations, sought out Richardson for the latest encounter, an official said. Richardson is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He last visited North Korea two years ago, on a mission to retrieve the remains of Korean War veterans.

The DPRK has not committed to returning to six-party talks. But there are a lot more constructive actions going on now than when they were firing off rockets every two weeks. Perhaps the nuclear tests actually failed? Maybe Bill Clinton let them know that the US knew about that? Or maybe they just wanted the respect of an ex-President coming to their doorstep?

Who knows, but aside from Afghanistan, which is a horror show, Obama's foreign policy is really starting to pay off.

Paging Bill Richardson

First I heard that my acquaintance Euna Lee was captured at the border by North Korea. Then I heard she was headed to Pyongyang. And now I hear that they are putting her on trial.

SEOUL (AFP) – North Korea is preparing to indict two detained US journalists after it accused them of illegally entering the communist country, state media said early Tuesday.

"The illegal entry of US reporters into the DPRK and their suspected hostile acts have been confirmed by evidence and their statements," the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

The report said "a competent organ of the DPRK (North Korea)" had investigated the pair.

"The organ is carrying on its investigation and, at the same time, making a preparation for indicting them at a trial on the basis of the already confirmed suspicions," the report said.

The pair, Euna Lee, a Korean-American, and Laura Ling, a Chinese-American, who work for Current TV in California, would be allowed consular access and would be treated according to international law, it added.

This could not have come at a better time for the North Koreans, just when they are forcing a confrontation over what they term a satellite launch but which the international community considers a missile test. Obviously they are using Lee and Ling as bait so they can continue their launch without American interference.

There is really only one man for this job.

Pyongyang has in the past freed Americans it has detained.

In 1996, former US congressman Bill Richardson negotiated the release of US citizen Evan Hunziker, who had been detained for three months on suspicion of spying after swimming the Yalu river.

Richardson, who is now the governor of New Mexico, at the time described Hunziker as a confused young man who had engaged in an "adventuresome frolic apparently under the influence of alcohol."

In 1994, Richardson helped negotiate the release of a US military helicopter pilot shot down after straying into North Korea.

Dear Bill Richardson,

You are wanted in Pyongyang.

Best,
D-Day

Change Comes From Bill Richardson

Not only do I like Gov. Richardson's conclusion, I appreciate his deliberative thought process. A two-term governor has spent time with victim's families, no question. He has witnessed the grief and the anger and the frustration. But in the end, he went with his own moral precepts.

Gov. Bill Richardson signed legislation Wednesday to repeal New Mexico's death penalty, calling it the "most difficult decision in my political life."

The legislation replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe," the Democratic governor said at a news conference in the Capitol.

New Mexicans will be safer with the punishment of life in prison without parole because the worst criminals "will never get out of prison," he said.

The language of "safety" remains prevalent, but I admire the recognition that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a sufficient deterrent, rather than using the power of the state to roll the dice on killing a potentially innocent human being.

15 states now have no death penalty, but New Mexico is just the 2nd to ban the practice since the Supreme Court's reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976. New Jersey did the same in 2007, suggesting that the issue is somewhat less politically charged. It remains a very tough move, however, and nobody really knew what Richardson would do after the legislature voted to repeal. He sought guidance from the people who elected him, a novel idea:

In preparing for his decision, the governor solicited input over the weekend from state residents. According to his office, he got more than 9,000 responses by e-mail and in person.

"In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings," Richardson said in prepared remarks. "That is why I'm signing this bill into law."

As a practical matter, the consequences are relatively small: New Mexico has executed but one prisoner in the last 49 years. As a moral matter, inching this country closer to the international consensus that state-sponsored killing does not comply with modern civilization, speaks volumes.

CA-31: Becerra To Join Cabinet After All?

I'm not really much for forcible identity politics, but some Latino leaders are making noises that a Hispanic ought to replace Bill Richardson (who withdrew his nomination) as the Secretary of Commerce, making the argument that the Latino population must maintain its representation in the Administration. I'd prefer the best man or woman for the job, but this is a case where there already is a Hispanic who Obama considered for a separate cabinet appointment who may be able to be persuaded into accepting this one. That would be Xavier Becerra.

An Obama transition team source said a veteran California congressman, Xavier Becerra, has emerged as the leading congressional candidate to replace Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, as President-elect Barack Obama's choice for a job that will include overseeing the 2010 U.S. Census.

“Even though he turned down the trade representative slot, Becerra is not only Hispanic, but he has the skill, talent and experience to do the Commerce job,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak for the president-elect.

“Xavier's name has gone to the top of the list of potential replacements in part because he is a member of the House leadership, he is well liked, he has very good credentials, and, of course, he was an early Obama backer,” the source said.

It's all speculative at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if this happened. Becerra wanted a bigger role in the Administration than trade representative, and certainly the Commerce Department would give him a better opportunity to shape White House policy.

Obviously this would create another special election in an adjoining district to incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis' CA-32. Los Angeles County from Hollywood to points east would be ground zero for political wrangling this spring.

UPDATE: Becerra's spokeswoman says he's not interested.

Xavier Becerra is not considering an appointment to become Secretary of Commerce and will remain in the House, his spokeswoman told Politico.

"The Congressman has already expressed that he is staying in Congress and looks forward to working with the Obama Administration from his position as House Democratic Vice Chair," said Fabiola Rodriguez.

Vetting?

Bill Richardson has withdrawn himself from consideration for the Commerce Secretary job, particularly because of a grand jury investigation into a possible pay-to-play scheme in New Mexico state government.

A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a New Mexico transportation contract worth more than $1 million. Richardson said in a statement issued by the Obama transition office that the investigation could take weeks or months but expressed confidence it will show he and his administration acted properly.

A senior Obama adviser said that when Richardson was nominated, he gave assurances that he would come out fine in the investigation and the president-elect had no reason to doubt it. But as the grand jury continued to pursue the case, it became clear that confirmation hearings would have to be delayed for six weeks or even longer until the investigation was complete, said the adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity about the discussions because they were private.

I find it very surprising that this transition team obsessed with vetting their appointees, armed with a massive application that's something like 70 pages long looking into all aspects of the public and private lives of those appointees, would go simply on Richardson's word that nothing was untoward in the investigation and that it would be wrapped up within weeks. Not to convict Richardson before the trial, but what corruption investigation fizzles like that? The probe was in a highly active stage at the time. It's simply not credible to think it would be over quickly, no matter what Richardson did or didn't do. He's stepping aside to avoid a delay that should have been fairly obvious at the time. I'm shocked that Obama's team would just let that go, and it speaks to a flaw in their process, where celebrity or the "team of rivals" approach trumps sound decision-making.

Steve Clemons has some thoughts on a replacement.

I think that the Obama team needs someone who understands the economy and the vital need to reinvest in high wage job growth creation, who understands the importance of redesigning America's domestic social contract between labor, firms, capital and government, and who is familiar with business -- and liked by labor.

There are very few who fit that bill, and Leo Hindery -- who was senior economic advisor to the John Edwards campaign and then was an economic advisor to the Obama campaign as well and authored the interesting book It Takes a CEO -- is a real stand out who the Obama team should consider for Commerce.

Don't know a whole lot about him.

UPDATE... The transition is playing the blame game:

Sources tell ABC News that Obama transition officials "feel that before he was formally offered the job of commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was not forthcoming with them about the federal investigation that is looking into whether the governor steered a state contract towards a major financial contributor."

"Once the investigation became more widely known through national media reports last month... the Obama Transition Team realized the FBI would not be able to give Richardson a clean political bill of health before the new administration is ready to send his nomination up to the Senate for confirmation."

That's not Richardson's fault, that's the fault of the transition for taking Richardson at his word and not exploring the matter more fully. A politician is going to put him or herself in the best light. Major fail by the transition here.

The Exodus Of The Governors

With Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano now ensconced in Barack Obama's cabinet, and with perhaps Kathleen Sebelius perhaps joining them as Secretary of Agriculture (I don't know if that will please the foodies who want a "sustainable choice"), the number of Democratic governors leaving in the middle of their second terms rises to three. That's 3 out of 28 Democratic governors, which seems to me to be a high number. From a party-building standpoint, this doesn't seem to be a great idea, particularly in Arizona, where a Republican Secretary of State will now replace Napolitano as Governor, and Kansas, where there's a conservative Republican legislature and Sebelius vetoed a lot of bad bills. However, as FMguru noted in the comments the other day, this is a bad time to be a governor. Revenues from state taxes and property taxes are way down, and budget gaps are growing. In fact, Arizona has the biggest budget deficit in the nation, at a whopping 24% of total spending. And balanced budget amendments demand that either taxes rise or services get cut. There's no way out of the mess (save for a more generous stimulus package to state and local governments than I expect) and the pain will be deeply felt. These governors are leaving at the right time for their credibility.

The question is whether the Republican governors, who are stuck at their posts, will make good choices or drown the government in the bathtub, which would have catastrophic consequences.

In the wake of a dreary election for Republicans, the quest to find their new leaders is on, and the party's governors think they can fill the void. The problem is their states are heading for budget difficulties that may compel the governors to swallow hard and either propose or accept tax increases.

And there is no better way to alienate the base of the Republican Party than to push for, or acquiesce to, tax increases.

"This is a tremendous opportunity to separate the sheep from the goats," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "The guys who turn around and say 'I can't rein in spending, I must raise taxes'...are going to have a hard time."

It must be so easy to be a mewling child like Grover Norquist, playing to the selfish fears of his base, acting like a three year-old at the mall. This crisis will hopefully domesticate him, so that he might pee on the furniture a bit, but he won't be much of a problem anymore.

By the way, his Governors aren't listening to him anymore.

Among the states led by Republicans, Florida may have the biggest headache. Gov. Crist faces a $1.7 billion mid-fiscal-year shortfall, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, tax revenue in the state, which doesn't have an income tax, plunged 8.2% in the quarter ended in September from a year earlier as sales took a hit, according to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Seeking to balance the budget, Gov. Crist has said he would consider a cigarette-tax increase of 50 cents a pack.

A similar situation is playing out in Mississippi, where Gov. Haley Barbour, widely viewed as a star among Republicans, proposed a 24-cent-a-pack cigarette-tax increase and a host of other tobacco-related fees. The combined fees, if implemented, are projected to create $80 million in revenue for a state with a roughly $24 million midyear shortfall.

It's called reality, and it's hitting governors in the face. The real problem is all the balanced budget amendments, which paralyze states and force cuts at the worst possible time. But poor Grover probably was a cheerleader for them as well, so he's going to have to take the tax hikes like a good little boy.

Understatement Is Back!

A couple things on today's now-wrapped up press event introducing Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary. It appears that Obama envisions the Commerce job as a diplomatic job, both to businesses and interests abroad, and specifically talked about opening markets. Richardson certainly has the diplomatic chops, so he's perhaps more well-suited for the position than I initially thought. Richardson definitely comes from the New Democratic school, so he'll need to be watched on trade agreements, though his remarks during the primary on that subject were decent. In addition, his interest in energy and green jobs does suggest that Obama wants to move toward a new energy economy, which is hopeful.

Second, it's become a cliché to reflect that it'll be great to have a President speak in complete sentences again, but how about how great it will be to have a President that can tell a deadpan joke?

I’m going to answer this question about (Bill Richardson shaving his) beard. I think it was a mistake for him to get rid of it. I thought that whole western, rugged look was really working for him. … We’re deeply disappointed with the loss of the beard.

You have to see it to get the full effect:



Some good comic timing there.

...in addition, I think the reason Obama is attracting all these "stars" for his cabinet is because he CAN. Oftentimes politicians with their own designs won't leave their cushy jobs, but Richardson, Napolitano, etc. know that the Obama Administration is where the action is, and that this is an auspicious time to be in public service at the highest levels and make a difference, paradoxically.

Cabinet Report

Quite a Friday news dump on the Cabinet front.

• Timothy Geithner, a Summers/Rubin acolyte and the current chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, looks to be the next Treasury Secretary. I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot about him. Apparently he was the only member of the current "brain trust" who advocated for saving Lehman Brothers, so at least he showed sound, forward-thinking judgment there. But he's not what I'd totally call a progressive economist.

• Bill Richardson looks to be the favorite for the Commerce Secretary position. This seems like a slightly less powerful job than UN Ambassador or Energy Secretary, Richardson's roles in the Clinton Administration, so I'm not sure why he would want it. Also, I always considered Richardson to be more progressive on foreign policy issues than domestic ones (he wanted a balanced budget amendment), so that bugs me as well. His energy policy was excellent in the primary, however, so hopefully he can bring corporate America along on green issues.

• There are scattered reports that Hillary Clinton will accept the Secretary of State position. I've gone back and forth on this one, and I'll have a much longer post on this later.

• And retired Marine Gen. James Jones is the pick for National Security Advisor. Politically he's an independent, but he supported McCain in the election, and was offered deputy staff positions in the Bush Administration. On the other hand, he didn't TAKE the positions with Bush, and he wrote a very well-regarded report about the Iraqi security forces earlier this year. He has been a critic of the war and of Don Rumsfeld's management style at the Defense Department.

As I said, I'll have more analysis later, but the nickel version is that I think there's some reason for progressives to be concerned.

Campaign Coverage Fever - Catch It!

ABC News sez Clinton told Richardson Obama can't win. But wait, according to Mark Halperin Richardson told Clinton Obama can't win!

Tune in for the exciting conclusion!

Alternatively, take opium and fall asleep for seven months.

UPDATE: Read this. Can we get a moratorium on any "news item" that begins with "On a conference call today, campaign surrogate X said..."? Who cares? Are we all in third grade?

In a high-minded alternate universe, the news media might briefly note the Carville and McPeak comments before returning to in-depth analyses of the economic theories undergirding the Obama and Clinton responses to the subprime mortgage crisis. But in a world of TV ratings, online traffic tallies and fast-vanishing newspaper circulation, trumped-up controversy (surprise) beats ponderous policy. According to a wide-ranging (and, at press time, unpublished) media-monitoring analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), Carville and his Judas crack about Richardson were mentioned in 13 percent of all political campaign stories charted so far this week. At the height of Richardson's own ill-fated presidential campaign, the New Mexico governor was lucky to be mentioned in paragraphs that began, "Also on the ballot are..."

Cable TV deserves much of the blame for fanning the flames of these irrelevant controversies. According to the invaluable content analysis by Project for Excellence in Journalism, the three cable news networks have devoted a stunning two-thirds of their entire news coverage to the presidential campaign this year during key time slots. With a seven-week gap between major primaries, there is an alarming amount of airtime that would otherwise be filled with the mysterious deaths of photogenic blondes. As Mark Jurkowitz, the associate director of the PEJ, put it, "As the media platform most invested in campaign coverage, cable news seems to abhor a vacuum. And when people aren't voting in primaries, we find that tends to take the form of expansive coverage of potential gaffes, perceived insults and loose-cannon surrogates."

Can we turn in this media for a disount media?

Richardson Endorses Obama

And he'll be on the campaign trail with him Friday in Portland. We've seen throughout the course of the campaign that these endorsements end up meaning little, but this one is interesting because Richardson appeared to have been swayed by Obama's race and politics speech. From his email to supporters:

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them. We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

What's notable here is that, as a superdelegate, Richardson was moved enough to endorse, when it was really past the time when that endorsement could have an effect. The superdelegates can end this thing now if they wanted to, and that Richardson decided to endorse at this moment suggests that they might. At this point it looks like the superdelegate fight will be dead even by the convention, meaning that they won't be a factor. The nominee will be the winner of the pledged delegate battle, which mens it'll be Senator Obama.

That the speech itself had the power to move people is also very notable. I don't think a politician like Bill Richardson is a sample of the Democratic electorate per se, but clearly Obama changed the conversation and dominated the news for the entire week. And he did so by weaving the progressive message into that complex and difficult discussion about race. I think Drew Westen penned one of the best essays about the speech.

But from a political standpoint, at least as important as the primary message of his speech was a series of meta-messages he conveyed as much through his actions as his words. Obama's speech was in many respects a rejoinder to a number of questions raised about him over the last few weeks that contributed to defeats in Ohio and Texas.

...he did more than talk about race. He began to build a progressive narrative that Democrats, and the progressive movement more broadly, have had difficulty developing. He offered a progressive vision of patriotism, integrating a more traditional view -- referring to his grandfather's service under General Patton, and the military service of Reverend Wright -- with the notion that love of country is not blind love, that forming a more perfect union -- the essence of progressivism -- is part of what it means to love one's country.

Does he have the courage, capacity, and cojones to lead? Yesterday, he led us as a nation, and he showed a firm, steady, and unflinching hand. Not only did he utter words most Democratic politicians don't speak in polite company but should have spoken years ago, but he refused to take the low road -- to denounce and cast aside someone who clearly matters dearly to him simply because he had become a political liability -- displaying both courage and conviction.

I think that's what many found touching. The speech was a discourse on race but also a display of character. That's what Bill Richardson saw as surely as whites and African-Americans and Asians all over the country saw. It does feel like something new is in the air.

Math Is Hard

But it happens to be the determining factor in who will be the nominee on the Democratic side, so it can't be shifted aside in favor of talk about "momentum" or "buyer's remorse. Frankly, Senator Clinton's campaign has waited too long to rally. She has a serious math problem. Considering that the nature of proportional delegate allocation means that it's highly unlikely to get more than 60% of the delegates in any one state, it is virtually impossible for Clinton to catch up in the pledged delegate count.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi—where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary—she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania—and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 56-delegate lead.

It's just not possible. And before you think that all Clinton needs to do is get close enough in the pledged delegate race to have the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, it's actually just the opposite: the superdelegates are going to try and push Clinton right out of the race.

Tom Brokaw Says Obama Has 50 More Superdelegates in His Back Pocket

NBC News superreporter cites a source "very close to the Obama campaign" who says the additional superdelegates are "ready to go public before too long."- The Page

That would completely wipe out whatever gains Clinton may make tonight and then some. And I'm not even certain that, despite late movement to Clinton, she's going to be able to pull off a sweep of the big states tonight. Though turnout in Ohio is considered high, you can't tell me that the horrible weather in the southeastern part of the state, Clinton supporter and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's home turf, isn't going to be a factor, particularly for seniors. And the ridiculously large early voting in Texas, which appeared to favor Obama, is going to be a big hurdle, not to mention the hybrid primary/caucus setup.

There are also election irregularities in Ohio to track.

But what happens tonight, whether it's a victory for Clinton or Obama, will be across a very narrow band. Realistically, there's not much that Clinton can do to make up that delegate lead. As Markos says:

. If Clinton doesn't make substantive gains on the race that matters -- the delegate race (remember, the Clinton campaign said it was all about delegates after Iowa) -- then there will be a major push from Obama and the party to shut this thing down.

Bill Richardson has already said the delegate leader after today should be the nominee (which by default is Obama, since Clinton couldn't possibly overtake him today). There's the Tom Brokaw announcement that Obama has 50 super delegates in his pocket, ready to announce post-election. And aren't you wondering why Obama's campaign hasn't announced its February fundraising numbers yet?

Expect Clinton to get the early media spin victory, but soon expect the hammer to fall -- 50 supers, a gazillion raised in February, and high-profile converts like Richardson will create intense pressure for Clinton to call it a day.

If she doesn't, she can continue running. It's a free country, and I like the thought of both campaigns building infrastructure in Pennsylvania. This primary season has done wonders for party building, and I'm under no hurry to shut it down. And Hillary's campaign can continue to play "Karl Rove" to Obama's effort. It's good practice for the shit Republicans will fling at Obama this fall. And if Obama can't handle the Clinton crap, how's he going to handle the McCain crap? So I'm cool with that as well.

But realistically, Hillary Clinton would be little more than our version of Mike Huckabee, nominally in the race, but everyone else having moved on.

Those are cold, hard facts. They really can't be spun away.

UPDATE: It's brilliant that MSNBC's mannequin is getting the information on delegate counts from a 14 year-old girl reporter from Scholastic News. And then Contessa Brewer goes "Do you really care about this stuff?" Because if you do, young lady, you'll never make it as a reporter!

Kneel Before Richardson

"The New Mexico Governor is stronger than Superman!"

In the same post where I found this, by the way, Ezra Klein makes a very good point about Massachusetts:

In other news, MSNBC is calling Massachusetts for Clinton, which means she overcame the combined force of John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Deval Patrick, their attendant political machines, the media coverage generated by their endorsements of Obama, and Barack Obama's charisma. That seems pretty impressive to me.

I thought Massachusetts would flip, but it looks like Connecticut might, instead. Both campaigns are going to be able to call this a winning night, with all-important California lurking in the distance. And the delegates, why won't the news nets tell us about the delegates? Because it requires math?

...AHA! This is what I was looking for.

Arkansas
Clinton 23
Obama 12

Georgia
Obama 60
Clinton 27

Illinois
Obama 100+
Clinton 50+

Massachusetts
Candidate who wins popular vote could lose the delegate split (93 delegates total)

Tennessee
Clinton 38
Obama 30

Oklahoma
Clinton 23
Obama 15

That appears to favor Obama.

UPDATE: Obama looking good in Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota and Idaho in early returns.

...CNN calls North Dakota for Obama. But Missouri looks good for Clinton, and her leads in Massachusetts and New Jersey are very healthy (New Jersey, with all those suburbs, is kind of a can't-miss Clinton state, I'm surprised I was duped into thinking it was a bellweather). Clinton's having a good night.

...Fox News apparently just called Connecticut for Obama. But that state is so close that the delegate count will be a tie. Significant in the spin game, however.

...Utah goes to Romney and Obama. But I thought only black people vote for Obama? I guess the Utah Jazz came out in FORCE!

Romney is having a TERRIBLE night, only winning his home states and losing significantly in the South as Huckabee overperforms to a significant degree. We knew McCain would win big tonight, but I thought Mittens would at least put up a fight. He's banking everything on California and I don't think he'll be able to make it.

...State updates:

Hillary Clinton:
New York
Tennessee
Oklahoma
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Arkansas

Barack Obama:
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Alabama
Kansas
North Dakota
Connecticut
Minnesota
Delaware

Markos sez Survey USA is doing well, which means Clinton is poised for a 10-point victory in California. Of course, he's basing that off of current numbers, and in a lot of states, the urban districts report late. Not sure if that's the case in NJ and MA, but if that's the final spread, why did it take so long to call the states?

If the MA and NJ numbers hold, Clinton has something to crow about. But with 9 victories already, so does Obama.

Richardson Out

So now we're down to three (five with Kucinich and Gravel, if you want to be charitable). This "Iowa and New Hampshire didn't matter meme" is simply wrong. It mattered plenty. In these states where retail politics is supposed to be important, where you can't buy the race, they winnowed the field down to the two candidates who raised $100 million dollars. And I would argue that it was because there was this February 5th backstop that demanded a quick start. If raising money is a key factor in picking a candidate then so be it. But let's be honest about it.

Don't be fooled into thinking this primary system is somehow fixed.

On a side note, I met Bill Richardson out in San Diego at the state convention. Nice enough guy, couldn't stand his domestic agenda, particularly the insidious "I'm a pro-growth Democrat" theme.

Election Eve Musings

Well, tomorrow there IS going to be an election in Iowa, despite the fact that nobody really wants them to make the decision. The Democratic race hasn't been totally clean, with push-polling galore, but on the surface it looks less nasty, and I think we're going to see record turnout, and by "record" I mean 15%.

And the smart money is on Barack Obama winnning, especially now that Jo Biden and Bill Richardson appear to be steering their folks to choose Obama as a second choice. Now, people have their own minds, and so I'm dubious of whether or not these "deals" actually come to pass in all 1,700 or so caucus sites, but in a close race even some of that going Obama's way will help him. And there are other indicators.

With the most recent polls trending in favor of Obama, the pieces really seem to be falling into place for him now. There are those who argue that the pro-Obama polls are based on unrealistic turnout expectations, but I believe the record-smashing amount of resources campaigns have spent in Iowa will make those predictions more or less true. Further, there are very good reasons to believe that, because of the demographics of holiday travel, Obama is doing even better than polls suggest, not worse.

You know, Obama winning by explicitly running to the right of the leading candidates is a little depressing. But overall, it's not like nominating Lieberman. His economic proposals are in general sound, like requiring opt-outs for 401(k) plans, and across-the-board tax cuts rather than these targeted tax credits for this behavior or that. His open government proposals are laudable, and his foreign policy team is probably the best on paper (Samantha Power's presence alone - make her Secretary of State! - gets me excited about an Obama Presidency).

I simply think that Edwards is in a better place on the issues and also on where the country is at right now. He actually drove a lot of policies to the left throughout the campaign season, particularly on domestic issues. Far from being a divisive figure who would bring the US economy crashing down, he just seized the endorsements of 30 leading economists. On foreign policy, this interview with Michael Gordon, a longer version of his front-page NYT story today about Iraq training missions, shows that he's really not a lightweight and has a keen understanding of these matters.

Again let me go back to the bigger picture. The question from my perspective is that I have never believed that there was a military solution in Iraq, don't believe it today. I think the issue is how do you maximize the chances of achieving a political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia because I think that political reconciliation is the foundation for any long-term stability in Iraq. They have now, at this moment, had well over four and a half years to make some serious progress toward a political solution. They have not done it, and so what we have been doing has not worked. It clearly has not worked. And my view is that we need to shift the responsibility to them, make it clear that we are leaving. That is where the eight to ten brigades come from. Then, as aggressively as can reasonably be achieved, to continue a steady redeployment until all combat troops are out in roughly nine to ten months. Now I am not married to that specific timetable. If my military leadership came to me and said we need another month or some additional time, I would certainly take that into consideration what they are saying. But it is my job as commander in chief to set the policy parameters, which is exactly what I was doing.

(You owe it to yourself to read that whole thing.)

One thing that's interesting is how Hillary Clinton has become somewhat marginalized in this conversation. I think Chris Rock summed up a piece of conventional wisdom, something people might think too crass to hear, but it's definitely part of what people are thinking, I'd bet.

“I’ve been with my wife for 10 years now,” he said. “If she got onstage right now, y’all wouldn’t laugh at all.”

But back to Obama and Edwards. It wasn't that long ago that bloggers were calling them "Edwama." So on one level, there's no major difference. But they are opposites in how they see the political world.

Barack Obama and John Edwards are just now having at it, and each is touching distinct themes in the final appeals to Iowa voters. Obama seems more in the tradition of the early-20th-century progressives, middle-class reformers who sought to clean up politics to restore a functioning democracy. Edwards is more in the tradition of the early-20th-century populists, railing at the monied interests that really ran the country.

But Obama is a rather populist progressive, a onetime community organizer who understands the power of organized popular protest. And Edwards is a progressive populist, heir to Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, not William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long.

Time was when the Democratic presidential field would extend from the hawkish Henry Jackson to the dovish George McGovern, neither of whom could count on the other's Democratic supporters in a race against the Republican. These days, the differences dividing the Democrats are far narrower, and the Democrat who wins the party's nod will command nearly consensual Democratic support. The same cannot be said for the Republicans.

That's very true. Progressive populist versus populist progressive. I'm somewhat comfortable with those options. And I want to believe that progressives will have the ability to impact the process whether either of them (or even Clinton) eventually makes it into the White House.

Maybe We Can Leverage This World Wide Web Thing

I'm not Bill Richardson's biggest fan, but his online phone banking tool is one of the first smart uses of the Internet by a Democratic candidate. And putting up a list of top callers provides a kind of social networking angle to it as well.

Hopefully the other Dems will catch on. One of the more disappointing elements of this election cycle has been Republican candidates leapfrogging the Democrats in using the Internet to their advantage.

Presidentials on the California Wildfires

Gov. Richardson, Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Edwards have offered both statements and resources for those suffering in our state this week.

John Edwards: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the more than 300,000 families who have been forced to flee their homes to escape the wildfires spreading across southern California. Those affected by this tragedy should take comfort in the fact that their fellow Americans are standing with them and will do whatever it takes to fight the fires and rebuild the homes and businesses that were destroyed."

Edwards is calling on his One Corps volunteers to assist in local projects in and around San Diego. You can sign up here.

Bill Richardson: "Today, we all extend our sympathies and prayers to those devastated by the wildfires in California. Millions of Americans are impacted by this natural disaster.

Neighbors should help neighbors in their time of need. As Governor of New Mexico, I ordered two fire crews (strike teams, with 5 engines and 21 crew members each) to California. As a candidate for President, I donated to the American Red Cross and I encourage you to do so as well, click here to do so.

But as someone who believes the war in Iraq is a complete disaster and that we need to get our troops out now (www.getourtroopsout.com), I look at the natural disaster in California and feel compelled to also ask President Bush and every candidate who thinks it is okay for our troops to remain in Iraq until 2013 or longer - where is our National Guard?

It is a sad irony that yesterday, the very day I sent fire crews to California, 300 more New Mexico National Guard members were sent to Iraq. Just when we need them most at home, more of our brave men and women, true public servants, are sent away to a war we cannot win."

Chris Dodd: "As you know, Governor Schwarzenegger has had to ask other states for help because so many of California's National Guard, who provide critical support to the citizens while you are fighting the fires, were deployed to Iraq. In a Dodd Administration, never again will our houses be on fire because our troops are taking fire in Iraq. Never again will our first responders be left without the support they need because our President failed to do what it took to keep our communities safe. That is why in 2008, nothing will be more important than leadership that can get results that make us stronger and more secure. That's the first responsibility of an American President."

And, he's asking for volunteers at California Volunteers.com.

How are the Republicans handling this, you ask? In case you were wondering:

Rudy Giuliani: Nothing.
John McCain: Nothing.
Mitt Romney: Nothing.
Fred Thompson: Nothing.
Mike Huckabee: Nothing. A 30-minute interview with Glenn Beck on his front page.
Duncan Hunter: It's his frickin' district and it's hard to find anything outside of this news article.
Tom Tancredo: Nothing.
Ron Paul: Nothing. And he's doing a "Hollywood fundraiser" tonight.

They just don't care.

Had Enough Of Having Enough

Bill Richardson sends an email around saying he's "had enough" of Congress in the wake of their failure to override Bush's SCHIP veto. It's about the Republican leadership, but gets in some gratuitous slaps at the Democrats too by saying "no one is standing up to them," citing negative poll numbers, etc. It's hard to know just who he's angry at.

I don't know, every single Democrat save two Bush Dogs voted to override. And veto overrides themselves are exceedingly rare. This is bigger than Richardson is willing to admit. This is about an angry, eliminationist conservative movement that is seeing their power slip away inch by inch and is lashing out in increasingly nasty and heartless ways. They can't reconcile the fact that they've created a myth that Daddy Government can protect you completely in foreign affairs, but must not be trusted whatsoever in domestic ones. So they're just being bastards. And they have a base that won't let them deviate from anything but the most extreme course of action.

I don't know what Richardson thinks he can do about this, other than getting 290 and 67 Democrats in the House and Senate. And even then I don't expect much from this generation of Grover Cleveland clones. And I don't see Mr. "Pro-Growth Democrat" Richardson as all that different.

There aren't many Democrats out there who understand just what they're up against with the cornered animal that is the conservative movement. Real change is simply unlikely until that movement is fully repudiated.

Superficial AND Ignorant!

It's true that this story on the New York Times' blog, listing what lapel pins were worn by what Presidential candidates at particular debates, is maybe as vacuous as anything you'll see in a supposedly political story. But it's actually worse than that.

The NYT reporter couldn't figure out what Bill Richardson's lapel pin was, and put in an unanswered call to their HQ (if a media figure called me about a frackin' lapel pin, I wouldn't call back either). If you've spent two minutes in Iowa, you would know that it's a figure from Iowans for Sensible Priorities showing the percentage of the federal budget that goes to defense spending. I was only there for a weekend during the Harkin Steak Fry and you couldn't miss it. I have the magnet on my refrigerator now.

Not only is this NYT reporter bringing up a B.S. issue, they show themselves to be completely ignorant about what's being talked about in Iowa and throughout the nation. What, nobody at the New York Times has been to Iowa?

Pushing the Iraq Debate Left

I didn't see the Presidential debate last night, but apparently the residual forces issue took center stage, with Richardson and Dodd committed to ending the war by taking all troops out, and Clinton and Obama and Biden opposed. John Edwards, who was unfairly lumped in with the status quo, residual force crowd despite being fairly clear on this for some time, gave specifics:

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

Chris Bowers considers this a step forward, but it's pretty much what Edwards has been saying for quite a while now. I will say that Bowers' insistence on this issue, along with the recent Bill Richardson ad featuring bloggers, has done what it set out to do - bring the debate on residual forces out into the open. It's pushed Dodd fully into the no residual forces camp, and allowed Edwards to honestly put a number on what we will see in Iraq during his first term. Better to have this debate out in the open so the American people know what they're getting with a Democratic President. And I think this helps Edwards a lot (he apparently had a very good showing last night).

E-Gaffe

I know that it's common to use whatever metaphor that's in the cultural zeitgeist, but don't you think that, with all the data mining and microtrending research out there, the Richardson camapign wouldn't send a Michigan graduate a campaign fundraising email with the title "Appalachian State's victory over Michigan," referring to the candidate as said Appalachian State (who lost last week, by the way, so you might not want to identify so strongly)?

Of course, this is the same guy that said he was both a Yankees and Red Sox fan, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.