The Campaign Goes On

The polls will be closing in Wisconsin in a few hours. The Democrats and Republicans are holding primaries there today -- and in Washington state. And Hawaii's Democrats are holding caucuses today. In case you didn't know, Barack Obama was born in Honolulu.

After that, there will be a two-week break before primaries resume. Two big states -- Texas and Ohio -- will be holding their primaries on March 4. Rhode Island and Vermont will be holding primaries that day as well, but, for obvious reasons, Texas and Ohio will get most of the attention. Both parties will be holding primaries in all four states that day.

Obviously, with last week's endorsement from his nearest competitor and the delegates he had captured in the previous primaries and caucuses, John McCain will be hoping that Texas and Ohio put him over the top -- if he isn't able to reach that point in today's contests. It is certainly to his advantage to wrap up the nomination and have about six months to choose his running mate and preserve his resources for the fall campaign.

A presumptive nominee always has to contend with media speculation about the running mate. In fact, writers are already weighing in with their choices for McCain's No. 2. In today's USA Today, DeWayne Wickham proposes the selection of Condoleezza Rice.

"[N]o matter what the outcome, the Democratic Party will make history by selecting either a white woman or a black man to head its presidential ticket," Wickham writes. "[McCain] can make history of another sort by picking Condoleezza Rice as his running mate."

By wrapping up the nomination early, McCain would also have the opportunity to put an end to the questioning of his conservative credentials. If he's going to retain the conservative base of his party and make sure those conservatives come to the polls on Election Day, this is something that must be done.

It does seem odd that McCain should have to defend his conservatism, but it's really nothing new in Republican politics.

Christopher Buckley, who worked for George H.W. Bush when he was vice president under Ronald Reagan, writes in today's New York Times that Reagan faced the same kind of skepticism when he sought the presidency in 1980.

Believe it or not, there were conservatives in those days who didn't think Reagan was conservative enough.

"Funny," Buckley observes. "Mr. Reagan, to judge now from utterances by presidential candidates on both sides -- ahem -- of the political divide, appears to have survived that charge."

Indeed. Reagan has become an icon of conservatives, and virtually every Republican who ran for the nomination this year was eager to wrap himself in Reagan's legacy like a cocoon.

The day before Buckley's column appeared, his old boss was doing his best to promote McCain. Former President Bush endorsed McCain's candidacy Monday, saying "This criticism of conservative or not conservative is absurd."

If you look at McCain's ratings from groups like National Taxpayers Union, it's hard to imagine him being considered anything else. Yet he still must defend his credentials.

With McCain all but assured of the GOP nomination, most attention is focused on the race for the Democratic nomination between Hillary Clinton and Obama.

No matter what happens in today's contests, the Clinton-Obama race won't be decided tonight. Nor will it be decided in two weeks, when Texas and Ohio vote.

In fact, that leads me to an unusual request I'd like to make of anyone who reads this blog. But I'm going to save that until the end of this article.

Interestingly, as the debate continues in the Republican Party about just how conservative John McCain is, a similar debate seems to be brewing in Democratic circles.

Scott Moss of The Politico wonders whether Clinton or Obama is more liberal.

"We could stand to hear a little more on issues and a little less on polling," writes Moss, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School.

Speaking of the polls, American Research Group reports that, in a poll concluded Monday, Obama leads in Wisconsin, 52% to 42%. That's a reversal from an ARG survey a few days earlier that showed Clinton leading in Wisconsin, 49% to 43%. Public Policy Polling finished a poll on Sunday that had Obama leading in Wisconsin, 53% to 40%.

Draw whatever wisdom you may from those numbers. It may not matter now. Max Brantley writes, in his blog for Arkansas Times, that the Democratic race is over. Brantley acknowledges that he supports Clinton, but he goes on to say that "The media talk, the popular mood, the times -- they all work for Obama."

Brantley continues, "Obama will win the nomination. Polls today say he'll beat McCain everywhere -- in every key state and nationally. Those same polls said the same thing about Hillary Clinton's sure dominance a few months ago. For the record."

John Brummett, writing for Arkansas News Bureau, apparently doesn't think the race is over. He thinks Clinton's "inevitable comeback-kid heroics" could begin in Wisconsin tonight.

Stay tuned.

Assuming the race hasn't been decided today, Obama and Clinton are supposed to have a debate from the University of Texas campus in Austin on Thursday night. It's set for 8 p.m. Eastern time, and you can see it on CNN.

And now, for my request.

As a resident of Texas, I will be voting in the primary in two weeks, and I need some advice on how to vote.

Although it is possible for me to vote in either party's primary simply by declaring my preference at the polling place, I have always voted in Democratic primaries and I consider myself a centrist Democrat. Originally in this campaign, I supported John Edwards.

And, while I believe Edwards' name will remain on the ballot and I could probably vote for him, the fact is that the Texas primary has rarely been important in my lifetime and I would like to cast a meaningful vote instead of one that says, basically, None of the above.

The polls seem to show a tight race here. Survey USA released its most recent poll of Texas Democrats on Monday; Clinton led Obama, 50% to 45%. CNN/Opinion Research concluded its latest poll on Sunday; Clinton led in that poll, 50% to 48%. On Valentine's Day, Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing Clinton ahead, 54% to 38%. That same day, American Research Group released a poll that had Obama leading in Texas, 48% to 42%.

In order for me to decide whether to vote for Obama or Clinton, I need more information about the candidates.

Particularly in Clinton's case, I don't know enough about her accomplishments -- which is odd, I suppose, since I grew up in the state where she was first lady for a dozen years. I know some things about her activities as Arkansas' first lady and as America's first lady, but I don't know much about her actual achievements.

In Obama's case, I realize he's in his 40s, and he hasn't had as much time as Clinton to build up his resume, but I would still like to know why his supporters believe he would make a good president.

I've listened to the speeches, I've watched the debates. They don't tell me everything I need to know.

Voting is a very personal thing, and people often can't put into words what moves them to vote for one candidate or another. A friend of mine told me her vote in her state's primary was based more on instinct than logic. When it comes to picking a president, instinct may be more valuable than logic, since there is no job I can think of that will adequately prepare a person to be president.

In just the last century, for example, history recorded the election of presidents who had backgrounds in farming, acting, retail clothing sales, the military, newspaper management and academia. The current occupant of the Oval Office was co-owner of a baseball team at one time.

But if you can share some insights with me, I would appreciate it very much.

Just try to be civil!