DebateGate

Commentary: McCain's trials on right similar to Schwarzenegger's

Story Highlights
Race has divided the Democrats -- female vs. male, white vs. black, black vs. Latino
Navarrette: GOP should be celebrating, but the right declares McCain unacceptable
McCain's trouble reminds one of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- For Democrats, this has been an inspiring election -- and a devastating one. They have two strong candidates, who have thus far wrestled to a draw.

As of today, according to CNN's calculations, Hillary Clinton has 1,148 delegates; Barack Obama, 1,121. Yet the race has divided the party -- female vs. male, white vs. black, black vs. Latino.

The Virginia primary is Tuesday. The Clintons have to get past former Gov. Doug Wilder who thinks Bill Clinton went too far in using race to scare up support from white voters. All the king's horses and all the king's men can't put this rainbow back together again. What was once an embarrassment of riches is now, in many ways, just an embarrassment.

But Democrats do have one thing working in their favor -- Republicans. With their nominating process all but wrapped up and with a head start over squabbling Democrats who are going to spend the coming months destroying one another while the GOP can concentrate on unifying the party for the big show in the fall, you'd think Republicans would be celebrating. Instead, they're suicidal. Or at least that's the case with the loud and radical fringe that has declared John McCain unacceptable because he's a free thinker they can't control.

What if they could control him? So what? Where would they lead him -- to victory? C'mon. This bunch only knows how to lose. What good did the right-wingers do for their candidate, the cashmere chameleon Mitt Romney, who managed to run several campaigns at once, telling different groups of voters what they wanted to hear? Romney, in all his incarnations, washed out.

McCain carried 13 states, won about 5 million votes, and racked up more than 700 delegates. And, all along, he represented the best chance that Republicans have to stay competitive in this election.

A recent CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corp., shows Clinton 3 percentage points ahead of McCain, 50-47, in a hypothetical matchup. That's within the poll's margin of error, so it'sa tie.In the same poll, Obama leads McCain by just 8percentage points, 52-44. This was always going to be a tough year for the Republican nominee no matter who he was, but McCain keeps it close.

McCain's trouble on the right reminds one of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Here you have someone at odds with members of his own party who are eager to school him on how to be a real conservative -- on guns, gays, health care, immigration, abortion, and other issues where Schwarzenegger is too liberal for their taste.

And California Republicans have plenty of time to teach class because many don't have jobs. They've been voted out of office. And when they run for new offices, they get wiped out. All Schwarzenegger has done is win two statewide elections and earn a favorability rating of more than 60 percent. So who should be learning from whom?

Who is Schwarzenegger's choice for president? Oh look. It's John McCain.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/11/navarrette/index.html 

This is my last post. It is just one example of how the Muslim community treats women (MT and I were going to discuss it. This will have to do...)

Goodbye all...

Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest mother for sitting with a man
Sonia Verma in Dubai

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's ?Mutaween? police.

Her story offers a rare first-hand glimpse of the discrimination faced by women living in Saudi Arabia. In her first interview with the foreign press, Yara told The Times that she would remain in Saudi Arabia to challenge its harsh enforcement of conservative Islam rather than return to America.

?If I want to make a difference I have to stick around. If I leave they win. I can't just surrender to the terrorist acts of these people,? said Yara, who moved to Jeddah eight years ago with her husband, a prominent businessman.

Her ordeal began with a routine visit to the new Riyadh offices of her finance company, where she is a managing partner.

The electricity temporarily cut out, so Yara and her colleagues ? who are all men ? went to a nearby Starbucks to use its wireless internet.

She sat in a curtained booth with her business partner in the caf�'s ?family? area, the only seats where men and women are allowed to mix.

For Yara, it was a matter of convenience. But in Saudi Arabia, public contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited.

?Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked ?Why are you here together?'. I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin,? recalled Yara, who wears an abaya and headscarf, like most Saudi women.

The men were from Saudi Arabia's Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayers.

Yara, whose parents are Jordanian and grew up in Salt Lake City, once believed that life in Saudi Arabia was becoming more liberal. But on Monday the religious police took her mobile phone, pushed her into a cab and drove her to Malaz prison in Riyadh. She was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her ?crime?.

?They took me into a filthy bathroom, full of water and dirt. They made me take off my clothes and squat and they threw my clothes in this slush and made me put them back on,? she said. Eventually she was taken before a judge.

?He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell'. I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless,? she said.

Yara's husband, Hatim, used his political contacts in Jeddah to track her whereabouts. He was able to secure her release.

?I was lucky. I met other women in that prison who don't have the connections I did,? she said. Her story has received rare coverage in Saudi Arabia, where the press has been sharply critical of the police.

Yara was visited yesterday by officials from the American Embassy, who promised they would file a report.

An embassy official told The Times that it was being treated as ?an internal Saudi matter? and refused to comment on her case.

Tough justice

? Saudi Arabia?s Mutaween has 10,000 members in almost 500 offices

? Ahmad al-Bluwi, 50, died in custody in 2007 in the city of Tabuk after he invited a woman outside his immediate family into his car

? In 2007 the victim of a gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six years in jail for having been in an unrelated man?s car at the time. She was pardoned by King Abdullah, although he maintained the sentence had been fair

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece

And they say Americans are over the top!

UAE goes CR4ZY over license plates

Story Highlights
UAE puts up for auction the mother of all vanity plates: the number "1"
Tiny oil-rich nation already holds world record for a plate: $6.75M for number 5
Abu Dhabi has held five auctions, selling 300 plates and raising $56 million

By CNN's Wilf Dinnick
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- You expect a motorist to shell out a little extra cash for a vanity license plate.

But nowhere is the craze for a unique plate more intense than in the United Arab Emirates, the oil-rich Persian Gulf nation that holds the world record for the six most expensive plates.

Here, it's all about how low you can go -- with people battling it out at auctions to win the chance to show off license plates with the lowest digit.

The numbers "5" and "7" have already been snapped up, sold for 25 million dirhams ($6.75 million) and 11 million dirhams ($2.97 million) respectively.

Next week, the country will put up for auction the mother of all vanity plates: the number "1." It is expected to immediately set a new record for the most expensive plate in the world.

"As low as the number goes, as high the price goes also," said Abdullah Al Mannaei, who runs the license plate auctions in the capital city, Abu Dhabi.

"If it's a two-digit number, if it's similar like '99' or '22,' that goes (for) a higher amount."

It's no surprise that license plate craze has such a grip on the United Arab Emirates. The tiny nation, slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Maine, is prone to thinking big.

It is already home to the world's largest mall, the world's largest tower, and -- despite being in the Middle East -- boasts the largest indoor snow park in the world.

Talal Khouri, a stock broker in Abu Dhabi , is the proud owner of "5" and "7." He sheepishly admits that yes, it's a status thing.

The license plate "5" hangs from his shiny red Rolls Royce. An expensive car, but still, 10 times less so than the plate itself.

It's not all ego though. The money that the government raises auctioning off plates goes to a fund that helps victims of car accidents.

Abu Dhabi has held five such auctions, selling 300 plates and raising an astonishing $56 million.

For the business savvy, there's an added attraction: it's a good investment.

"I have a number plate on my car, which was worth 35,000 (dirhams) four years ago," Al Mannaei said. "And I have an offer now for 400,000."

Khouri has his eyes set on snagging the number "1," but he is being practical about how much he is willing to spend.

"Um, I (will) not pay more than, maximum 15 (to) 20," he said.

Fifteen to 20 million?

"Yes," he said, seriously. "Not more."
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/04/uae.plates/index.html 
 

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET
 


Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."

Clinton also suggested that Obama would be more susceptible to Republican attack ads in a general election because he has not been scrutinized for years as she has.

"I've been through the Republican attacks over and over again," she said. When Obama was elected to the Senate from Illinois in 2004, she said, he "didn't face anyone who ran attack ads" comparable to those aimed at her.

The presidential contenders in both parties campaigned all-out on Sunday, two days before the Super Tuesday voting in 24 states holding primaries or caucuses.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31&printer=1;_ylt=Ak654_GmiCUIoV5goAjf9lJh24cA

February 3, 2008

Flawed Cindy McCain has a grudge list

ON almost every step of his march towards the Republican nomination, John McCain has relied on the support of his glamorous second wife Cindy. Yet she has not always been a political asset. A Republican victory in November would bring to the White House a formidable but flawed first lady.

McCain?s marriage has long attracted attention both for the 18-year age gap between husband and wife and for their adopted Asian daughter, who became the focus of one of the most vicious dirty tricks of the 2000 presidential campaign.

The couple have also overcome daunting health problems that included McCain?s bouts with skin cancer, a stroke suffered by Cindy in 2004, and her admission a decade earlier that she had become so addicted to painkillers that she was stealing them from a medical charity she ran.

Yet somehow the McCains have emerged as a potent and durable political partnership. Cindy McCain was at her husband?s side last week as he celebrated the Florida primary victory that has put him at the front of the Republican field.

A former Arizona rodeo beauty queen and daughter of a millionaire Phoenix businessman, Cindy McCain was 25 when she met her future husband at a cocktail party in Hawaii. John McCain was a 43-year-old naval liaison officer travelling with a congressional delegation, his sights already set on a political career.

He was also still married to his first wife Carol, although the couple had recently separated. Carol later attributed the breakdown of the marriage to ?John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again?. McCain fell like a brick for Cindy, who was the heir to a brewery distribution business worth millions. For several years afterwards the McCains endured Washington gossip that he had dumped his first wife - who had been crippled in a car accident - in favour of a trophy bride to enhance his political ambitions.

It was in the late 1980s, after a series of miscarriages and giving birth to three children, that Cindy developed spinal problems and was prescribed painkillers after surgery. Her husband and family had no idea she was secretly taking pills stolen from a charity she had created called the American Voluntary Medical Team, which sent mobile surgical units to war zones. When federal agents began to investigate gaps in the charity?s records, Cindy telephoned her husband, a senator in Washington, and confessed.

She admitted at the time that the 1994 episode had ?nearly destroyed both of us?. But she underwent treatment and attended meetings of Narcotics Anonymous as part of a deal with prosecutors who dropped charges.

A few years earlier she had visited Bangladesh with a different charity and decided on the spur of the moment to help a little girl with a cleft palate whom she met in Mother Teresa?s orphanage.

The McCains eventually adopted the girl, named her Bridget and raised her as their daughter. She is now 16, but during McCain?s ugly presidential primary fight against George W Bush in 2000, voters in South Carolina began receiving telephone calls suggesting the senator had fathered an illegitimate black child.

The authors of the smear have never been identified, but Bush was the beneficiary and went on to win the South Carolina primary and the Republican nomination. The McCains have never publicly blamed Bush and their relations have been outwardly cordial. But Cindy recently admitted that she keeps a ?grudge list?.

Cindy McCain, now 53, claims she has no interest in policy making - ?I am not the legislator in this family. He is? - and that she intends to keep busy running her charities and her family?s company. As first lady, it is clear that she would play a key role. Acknowledging that McCain had made many enemies in Republican ranks, she added: ?The only person my husband can trust is me.?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3295472.ece

Why job market is even worse than you think
Nation's first job loss in more than four years tells only part of the story of the weak labor market. The ranks of the long-term unemployed are growing.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 2 2008: 9:05 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A government report on January jobs showing that employers trimmed payrolls for the first time in four years set off alarm bells.

But the report, which was released Friday, tells only part of the story about the underlying weakness in the labor market.

The number of Americans out of work for at least six months is rising - reaching levels more typically seen deep into a recession or period of job contraction, not at the beginning.

And while some economists believe that the drop in jobs reported in January might later be revised away to show a narrow gain, it's clear that the rise in long-term unemployment is a far more established trend and one economists say isn't going away anytime soon.

Harder to find a new job. The number of long-term unemployed stood at a seasonally-adjusted 1.4 million in January, up about 21% from year-earlier levels and up 3% from the previous month. The full-year average for 2007 was 1.2 million long-term unemployed, nearly double the reading for 2000 - just before the last recession.

For all of 2007, about 17.6% of those who were unemployed had been out of work six months or more. That compares to only 11.4% who were long-term unemployed in 2000.

And while the unemployment rate dropped to 4.9% in January from 5% in December, the latest reading showed 18.3% of the unemployed have now been out of work for at least six months.

"You have to understand that 5% unemployment today is worse than 5% unemployment 10-15 years ago," said Jason Furman, senior fellow, Brookings Institution.

Furman and others say long-term unemployment is not just a problem for those struggling to find jobs. It poses a risk for the economy as a whole and cuts into household earnings and economic output.

If 5% of the labor force is unemployed for a short time as they switch jobs, they could keep spending, drawing on a combination of government assistance and personal savings.

But those who are unemployed more than six months lose unemployment insurance benefits and are more likely to deplete savings to the point where they are forced to cut back on spending.

They also will be far more likely to accept jobs at lower pay than their previous positions, which puts downward pressure on wages.

"We are looking at a labor market already that is weak and set to get a lot weaker," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Job seeker surprised by difficulty. Les Tarlton had worked in the telecom industry for eight years when the company he was working for shut its operations near his suburban Dallas home in January 2003.

"I thought surely I can go out and get a job," he said. "I had a good reputation in the company. I had survived a lot of earlier layoffs. It wasn't like I lost my job because of anything I did."

But five years later he has yet to find a permanent job to replace the one he had doing business performance analysis. He's had a variety of short-term contract positions, but nothing long-term.

"Part of it is my age," said Tarlton, 54. "They can hire a person straight out of college for a lot less money. And while I have skills in business and finance, my college degrees in are in Christianity and psychology, my master's is in theology. That doesn't help."

Tarlton is now home schooling his six-year old and taking care of his other four children while his wife works. But the total household income is a fraction of what it used to be. While he still sends out about five resumes a week, he said he essentially gave up hopes of a new job about two years ago.

"We've burned through all of our retirement trying to survive," he said.

Problem could get worse As the stimulus package makes its way through the Senate, there have been pushes to extend unemployment benefits beyond six months.

Even if it's not included in this bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would support separate legislation to address the growing problem.

"While it might have been premature to extend benefits in the past at this level of unemployment, today it could be overdue," said Furman.

If the economy does enter a recession, the problem of long-term unemployment could reach levels not seen since the early 1980's, according to Baker.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office last October confirmed that the long-term unemployment problem is a growing one, suggesting there could be a fundamental shift in the labor markets.

"People are less likely to become unemployed than in the past, but those who do become unemployed are more likely to remain unemployed for more than half a year," said the October 2007 report.

Older work force playing a role The CBO report didn't have any easy answers for this trend. But it suggested that the aging of the work force might be a major contributing factor.

Baker agrees that the demographic shift is probably part of the problem.

"Someone well into their forties who loses their job at their peak earning potential, they might be expecting a higher pay than someone in their twenties," Baker said. "Even if they're willing to take a lower paying job, the employer might decide not to offer it to them because they'll fear the older worker won't be loyal."

The CBO report added that some firms are using temporary layoffs less frequently than in the past. When someone loses a job today, it's likely a permanent separation.

Employers and workers getting more picky Officials in job outplacement firms, hired by firms to work with employees who have lost their jobs, say they're seeing some increase in the time it takes to find new positions even for those generally better educated workers with whom they work.

Cory Holbrough, senior vice president of Lee Hecht Harrison, said that employers for skilled positions are becoming more selective about new hires than they used to be.

"In the past they might have hired the best person who had eight or nine of the ten skill sets they were looking for," he said. "Now they are saying, 'We want all ten skill sets.'"

John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said the much-publicized downturn in the housing market is also playing a role, as some job seekers are less willing to relocate to take a new job if it's going to mean taking a large loss on their current home.

Along those lines, he noted that 11% of job seekers relocated in the fourth quarter of 2007, down from 15.6% in the fourth quarter of 2006.
 
Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/economy/longterm_unemployment/index.htm?cnn=yes 

Decline in U.S. Jobs Could Prove Costly to GOP Nominee

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; A08



The economic storm clouds gathering over the 2008 presidential race burst open yesterday with news that the economy shed 17,000 jobs in January, the first job loss in 52 months and the clearest sign yet that the economy may be in a recession.

For Republicans already facing an economic headwind, the jobs numbers could prove punishing. Traditionally, the party holding the White House is blamed for bad economic times -- and credited for booms -- and economists said yesterday that this year should be no different, even if GOP candidates continue to distance themselves from President Bush.

For Democrats, job losses could complete the anti-Republican narrative their candidates have been building for months.

"This isn't a random event. This is the culmination of a bunch of disturbing trends we've seen in seven years," said Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist and chief economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "Stagnant incomes, rising costs in energy and food, and little to no personal savings have left families with no margin of error."

Economists forecasting the 2008 race have given a slight edge to the Democrats. Global Insight, a Massachusetts-based forecaster, was predicting that the Republican nominee will garner 49 percent of the vote in November, based on recent income growth, unemployment and the power of incumbency. With yesterday's jobs report, that forecast will slip to as low as 47 percent, said Nariman Behravesh, the firm's chief economist.

The GOP contenders "are far enough away from the Bush administration where they won't be completely tarred by the Bush brush," he said. "But, nevertheless, there will be a tendency to see Republicans as responsible for this mess."

Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) pounced on the jobs data. Clinton proclaimed "a second Bush recession," while Obama blamed the news on "seven years of George Bush's failed economic policies."

Of all the indicators of late, including stagnant economic growth and falling housing prices, job losses have particular political resonance. "When job numbers go down, it's a trumpet sounding that the economy is in trouble and the economy is going to be the number one issue," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

In economic terms, a loss of 17,000 jobs is statistically insignificant. For example, the Labor Department's initial report that only 18,000 jobs were created in December was later revised to a gain of 82,000 jobs, leading some economists to say that January actually may have created a few jobs.

But few economists put a positive gloss on the labor market.

"It's pretty sobering news on the economic outlook," said Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director and now chief economic adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The manufacturing sector -- seen in political circles as a sign of national economic might -- has lost 269,000 jobs over the past 12 months, and 28,000 jobs in January alone. Manufacturing employment now accounts for less than 10 percent of the job market for the first time since data began being collected in the 1930s, said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Meanwhile, construction employment, the engine of the Bush expansion, shed 27,000 jobs in January, and has fallen by 284,000 since peaking in September 2006.

Those indicators "clearly point to an economy that has, in our view, turned the corner" into a recession, said Bernard Baumohl, managing director of the Economic Outlook Group.

If so, Republicans will have a hard time outrunning Bush's shadow, said Ray C. Fair, an economist at Yale University who has modeled the economy's impact on elections for decades. Because of slow economic growth, Fair had already predicted that the Republican nominee -- weighed down by voter demands for change after eight years of GOP control -- could hope for only 48 percent of the vote. If growth turns even barely negative, the share drops to 46 percent, he said.

"There's no case in history in which we've had a bad recession and the incumbent party has won," he said. "Never."

Advisers to both McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said both GOP candidates are far enough away from the White House to blunt the damage.

"Governor Romney is running as an outsider with experience in the business world, not as a vice president trying to replace a president," said Jim Bognet, a Romney economic adviser.

McCain aides privately acknowledge that their candidate must learn to speak more forcefully about the economy, citing Wednesday's debate in Los Angeles, where he avoided specifics on the issue.

However, his advisers also emphasize that McCain voted against the president's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Those votes have been a point of contention in the fight for the Republican nomination, with Romney using them to question McCain's conservative bona fides, but they could prove to be a plus in a general election, as McCain looks to separate himself from Bush, an aide said.

Others are skeptical. McCain has virtually disavowed statements he made in 2001, when he said Bush's tax cuts were too heavily weighted in favor of the rich, and in 2003, when he questioned cutting taxes in wartime. He now wants to extend the cuts, which are set to expire in 2011.

"It depends which John McCain we're talking about," said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, as he questioned whether McCain could distance himself from Bush. "If you're talking about the John McCain that wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, the answer is absolutely no. They're not called the Bush tax cuts for nothing."

Florida Fallout: Super Tuesday Looks to be a McCain Blowout
by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney (more by this author)
Posted 01/30/2008 ET
Updated 01/30/2008 ET


The combination of Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) unexpected landslide in South Carolina and Sen. Teddy Kennedy's (Mass.) dramatic endorsement mean real trouble for Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.). This is not what she expected on a smooth run to the nomination. Her name ID may be enough in Super Tuesday states, but she can no longer be so certain.


Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) successive wins in South Carolina and Florida mean he clearly is the front-runner in a two-man race with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Everything is in his favor in the high population states, and he could come close to wrapping up the nomination because of winner-take-all Republican rules. Time is growing short for the right wing of the GOP to stop McCain or even wrest concessions from him.


Republican political leaders are split over whether they would rather run against Clinton or Obama, but the big majority of them see Clinton as a more beatable foe. There is no difference of opinion among Democratic political leaders. They see McCain as the most difficult Republican to defeat.


Progress in fighting earmarks is more apparent than real. The half-measure approved by the House Republican retreat requires the Democrats to act and is far short of a self-imposed moratorium. President Bush's proposed earmark reforms are more complicated than effective.
White House

State of the Union: In his final and least significant State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush did relatively little in the way of laying out an agenda.

On the domestic front, Bush picked two fights: his "growth package" and making permanent the 2001 tax cuts. The growth, or stimulus, measure he negotiated with House leaders is hardly a conservative measure. But senators, who were left out of the negotiation, likely will append more Keynesian and big-government add-ons. An unpopular lame duck's tough talk on this issue is not terribly intimidating to senators of either party. (The House passed the package on Tuesday, and the Senate moved its vote up to later this week, after realizing that next week is Super Tuesday. The quicker vote aids Bush.)


Bush's other fiscal issue was earmarks, where he again had tough words not backed by much. He announced his executive order to block any earmarks slipped into the conference reports that were not in the final bill. This does not impose any meaningful restrictions on pork-barrel spending, does not worry congressional spenders, and does not satisfy fiscal conservative activists.


Partisan divides shone through on issues of healthcare and embryo research. Democrats refused to applaud for the ideas of keeping healthcare out of government hands or for biomedical research that does not destroy human embryos. In 2004 and 2006, Democrats considered embryonic stem-cell research a winning wedge issue for them, and the party's presidential candidates are united on increasing federal control over the healthcare sector.


On two issues, the parties appeared to be closer than in the past: Social Security reform and global warming. Whereas in 2004 Democrats loudly booed the President for suggesting Social Security might be in danger, many Democrats, led by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), agree on the problem and the need for some sort of change. Bush's comments on "global climate change" showed that he thinks the Republican Party should surrender on the issue and move towards federal curbs on greenhouse gases or at least heightened subsidies for low-greenhouse gas energy sources.


While proposing a handful of new spending initiatives, this was probably Bush's least expensive State of the Union.


On the foreign front, Bush used this as an opportunity to paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq. Because of the decreased bloodshed and political advances since the beginning of the surge, the war has disappeared from the front pages of the newspapers. The State of the Union -- to the extent people actually watched it -- allowed Bush to lay out the significant advances there over recent months. His talk on Iraq was almost unequivocally positive. Bush holds out hope that Iraq will be a bright point, and not a stain, on his legacy.


The talk of troop withdrawal was new for Bush, and, although, couched in refusal to draw down troops faster, reflected the desire the American people have to end this war quickly.


The Wilsonian language of spreading Democracy in order to make a safer world was prolific, but not as strident as it has been in years past. His tough talk on Iran was shy of the "axis of evil" talk from 2002.
Democratic Presidential

Overview: Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) is still the front runner, heading into Super Tuesday, but the race could certainly swing in Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) direction.

The endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Caroline Kennedy, and just about the whole Kennedy clan was not just the best political theater seen in Washington in some time. It was a dagger through the heart of the Clintons that they tried hard to prevent. The sense of entitlement and inevitability for Sen. Clinton continues to decline.


If the Clinton strategy of elevating race as an issue (see South Carolina section below) works for her in other states, she could win handily on Super Tuesday February 5 and put herself in a commanding position for the nomination. The recent bad press for her campaign and the flood of endorsements for Obama gives him momentum coming out of his South Carolina victory.


Because the Super Tuesday primaries for the Democrats all award delegates proportionally, it will be impossible for either candidate to come even close to clinching the nomination mathematically. A big sweep for Clinton, however, would resurrect the idea of her inevitability and could all but end the race.


Former Sen. John Edwards's (N.C.) withdrawal will probably help Obama, but the full effect is not clear. Because of the complexities of delegate allocation (many states award delegates by congressional district, and all states, at the district and statewide level, have a 15% viability threshold), Edwards' continued presence likely would have hurt Obama wherever Edwards was not viable. Not all of his supporters will go to Obama, but on net, the withdrawal helps the Illinois senator.


Clinton handily won the Florida primary, which was technically boycotted by the Democrats for violating party rules. Hillary, however, had some fundraising stops in the state and says she'll fight for Florida's delegates to count.


Looking ahead to Super Tuesday, the Democratic race is difficult to read. Most of the 22 states do not have reliable polls conducted in the past week, and the shifting landscape following Obama's South Carolina win and his flood of endorsements could move things in either direction. In general, though, Clinton was leading in most states. She is the favorite to win the nomination, though the battle is far from over.
South Carolina: Obama's huge win kept the contest alive but also may have advanced the Clinton race-based strategy.

A Clinton victory or even a close contest would have basically ended the nomination battle by confirming the pattern of New Hampshire and Nevada, where she overcame deficits in the polls and distinct disadvantages to win. Now Obama and Clinton each have two victories.


The role of former President Bill Clinton, combined with Hillary's abandonment of the state, made it look like they were throwing the primary in South Carolina. The Clintons focused on race in a state where such focus could not help, and Bill never stopped talking about race. Cloaked as a campaign to win the black vote, it was, in truth, an effort to paint Obama as "the black candidate." Bill Clinton made this explicit the day after the primary when he painted Obama's win in the same light as Jesse Jackson's South Carolina caucus victories in 1984 and 1988.


On the merits, Jackson and Obama could hardly be more different. Where Jackson relied on racial differences and resentments for his support, Obama has run the opposite sort of campaign. Indeed, nearly every mention of race in this primary contest has come from Bill or Hillary Clinton. They succeeded to some extent, as the exit polls showed Obama pulling 79% of the black vote and 24% of the white vote (though the latter was better than the 10 percent reflected in polls).


Edwards' third-place finish in his native state confirmed that this is a two-way race, as it has been since at least New Hampshire. His withdrawal today was probably overdue.
Republican Presidential

Florida: Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) win in the winner-take-all primary solidifies his position as the GOP favorite.

Spending a fraction of what former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney spent, McCain outperformed the polls and won Florida's 57 delegates. This shows he has broad popularity in the GOP and that moderate voters are a significant bloc.


Romney was gaining on McCain last week, helped along by a fierce barrage from conservative talk radio. McCain rallied, partly thanks to endorsements from two key Florida Republicans: Sen. Mel Martinez (who solidified the important Cuban vote) and the popular Gov. Charlie Crist. Martinez was infuriated by what he called Romney's demagoguery on the immigration issue. Crist's final decision was influenced by former Gov. Jeb Bush's unofficial backing for Romney.


Once again, exit polls suggest that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney split the bulk of the conservative vote. McCain picked up some of the conservative vote and most of the moderate-to-liberal vote.


Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ended his race here with a distant third-place finish. Across the country, once voters got to know him and the other candidates, they didn't like Giuliani.


Giuliani's weakness was McCain's windfall. Where Romney competed with a spirited Huckabee for the conservative vote, McCain was competing with a lackluster Giuliani for the moderate vote.


Romney's second-place finish here highlights his shortcomings. He is not nearly as appealing personally as either Huckabee or McCain, and his conservative credentials are not strong enough to carry him on ideological grounds.


Exit polls and county results suggest that Huckabee again was unable to reach outside his evangelical base. While his voters are ideologically closer to Romney's voters, it's unclear if many of them would support Romney.
Overview: McCain does not have the nomination wrapped up yet, but it is undoubtedly his to lose.

Giuliani's withdrawal leaves Super Tuesday looking very promising to McCain, even aside from Giuliani's endorsement of McCain. Giuliani's presumably strongest states -- New York, California, and New Jersey -- all likely will shift to McCain now.


Romney simply has not shown a broad appeal. His three wins have been in his native state and two basically uncontested caucuses. He tends to finish second quite a bit, but now that the field is basically narrowed down to two men, that's not worth much.


Romney's ability to mount a comeback based on anti-McCain sentiment is crippled by the short timeframe. If Super Tuesday were in a month, conservatives might have time to rally behind Romney.


Huckabee does not have a realistic chance of winning the nomination. He can take votes away from Romney (though this is an open question) and collect delegates, while also bolstering his case to be a running mate.


McCain cannot coast to a victory, but barring a major misstep, he should be the nominee.
Super Tuesday: On the Republican side, reading Super Tuesday is a bit easier than on the Democratic side. One startling, but possible outcome: Romney could be in third, behind McCain and Huckabee, in the delegate count after next Tuesday.

Twenty-one states will hold Republican contests next Tuesday, with 1,033 delegates at stake. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 1,191 delegates, meaning it is impossible for a candidate to clinch the nomination next week.


Seven states have winner-take-all primaries, and McCain is likely to win some of the biggest -- New York, New Jersey, and Arizona -- as well as Connecticut. Romney should win Utah. The others -- Missouri and Delaware -- are unclear, but Romney is not likely to carry Missouri. From those seven states, Romney's best-case scenario is winning two, while Huckabee carries Missouri. This would give McCain 230 delegates from four states, Romney 54 delegates from two states, and Huckabee 58 delegates from one state.


The other 14 states all allocate their delegates through some combination of proportionality and congressional districts, except for Illinois and Colorado, where all the delegates are unpledged and the February 5 contest is more or less a "beauty contest."


The proportional or district-by-district states are largely in the South -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. While McCain and Huckabee battle over these states, Romney likely will run third across the South, further extending McCain's lead.


Romney's best hope is to win a bunch of congressional districts in California, where each is worth 3 delegates. He also will do well in Massachusetts, but McCain will also win delegates there.


It is very possible that Huckabee will pick up more delegates on Super Tuesday than will Romney. If Romney is in third place in delegates on February 6, that could end his bid.


In short, Super Tuesday looks to be a McCain blowout, putting him on the threshold of the nomination.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24747