Jumping the Gun

The Daily Kos just can't resist the bait.

Of course, CNN helped.

Apparently, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman hasn't decided whether he will be a Democrat, a Republican or an independent when he seeks re–election in 2012.

Based on Dana Bash's report for CNN, Lieberman says it is "unlikely" that he will run as a Republican.

"I like being an independent, so that's definitely a possibility," he said. "But I'd say all options are open."

Hmmm. Sounds to me like Lieberman hasn't made up his mind.

But Jed Lewison at the Daily Kos is eager to leap into panic mode, calling it a "kick in the groin" for Democrats who have counted on Lieberman to give them their filibuster–proof majority.

That doesn't really hold up when someone from the majority threatens to support a filibuster, though, does it?

Isn't all this talk about Lieberman's plans for 2012 a bit premature? Democrats appear likely now to lose ground in Congress in 2010. They may lose seats in the House or the Senate or both. If they lose even one seat in the Senate — and I discussed several seats that were in jeopardy a few days ago — they will lose their filibuster–proof majority, anyway.

That's when they will need to decide whether they want Lieberman to remain in their caucus — or if they would prefer to recruit top–notch Democrats to run for Republican–held or open Senate seats in 2012.

Until then, they may not like having him in their caucus, but he agrees with them on most issues and will make many things easier to achieve because he is on their side.

For the long haul, though, Lieberman may be too much of a loose cannon for Democrats' tastes (which is saying a lot) — but, really, is Arlen Specter less of one? And Specter will face the voters next year.

Lewison, without the slightest shred of evidence that Lieberman's defection to the Republican Party is in any way likely, concludes that "[e]very day that Joe Lieberman remains a member in good standing of the Democratic caucus is yet another day that Joe Lieberman makes Democrats look stupid."

Actually, Democrats don't need Lieberman's help to look stupid these days. For that matter, neither does Lewison.

Well, I guess they need something to moan about, now that the New York Times has published survey results that show the unemployed do not blame Barack Obama for the bad economy — but the results are decidedly mixed when they're asked how he is handling job creation.

Until there is improvement in that category, Democrats can rant all they want about Lieberman. The perception will continue to be that they have abdicated their responsibility to the jobless.

And perception, like it or not, is reality.

Lieberman, Democrats and a Sense of Entitlement

Sometimes I think Democrats (keep in mind that I have considered myself a Democrat all my life) believe that their success in the 2006 and 2008 elections proved that they are entitled to be in charge indefinitely.

And then there are times — like today — when I am sure of it.

Alexander Mooney writes for CNN Politics that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman has said that he will probably campaign for some Republican candidates for the House and Senate next year.

Mooney reminds readers that Lieberman campaigned for John McCain in last year's presidential campaign, and he also campaigned for Maine Sen. Susan Collins and New York Rep. Peter King.

Lieberman, of course, once was a Democrat. He ran on the Democratic ticket as Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and, initially, sought re–election to the Senate as a Democrat in 2006. But he became an independent after he lost the Democratic nomination and was re–elected that way.

So he is not, technically, a Democrat, although many of the readers who left comments do not seem to be aware that he made that official during his last re–election campaign.

• "Lieberman is a turn-coat, a traitor, to his Party and the state of Connecticut!" wrote one reader.


• "Well, it is about time the Democratic Party let the good senator from NH go his way," wrote one reader who apparently doesn't understand that New Hampshire and Connecticut are two different states.

It is fascinating to read some of the comments that readers (many of whom appear to be Democrats) have posted with this article. Their comments clearly show a lack of understanding of how things are done. (By the way, misspellings, punctuation and grammar errors are reproduced as they appeared):

• One reader wrote, "democrats should get rid of this moron asap. don't understand why obama let democrats let lieberman back on the committee."
  
  The way that the federal government is set up in our republic, the president, as the head of the executive branch, doesn't "let" the members of his party on the legislative side do anything. They are supposed to act (pardon the expression) independently.


• "I wish the president would take this guy aside!" another reader wrote. As I was trying to say, the executive branch has no constitutional authority in this matter. We elected a president in this country, not a dictator.


• And several wrote, either in these words or words to this effect — "Who needs him?"

Well, fact is, the Democrats need him to have their filibuster–proof majority. Having those 60 votes (even cobbled together with two independent senators) is so important to the Democrats that, in his last days, Ted Kennedy lobbied the Massachusetts legislature to make it possible for someone to be appointed to take his place after he died — instead of waiting a few months for a special election.

Kennedy, in case you didn't know, was behind the adoption of the law he sought to overturn. He promoted it in case the Democratic presidential nominee that year, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, defeated George W. Bush, leaving a vacancy that Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would fill. If that happened, Kennedy preferred the seat would remain vacant until a special election could be held instead of allowing a Republican governor to fill the vacancy with another Republican.

But when he was about to die, Kennedy didn't want the filibuster–proof majority to die with him.

No matter what the Democrats in D.C. say, next year's midterm elections are very important for them, precisely because no party is entitled to hold a majority. The Founding Fathers wanted to be sure that political power rested with the people and that they could change the balance of power if they wished.

I think it's a safe bet that none of the Founding Fathers possessed a functioning crystal ball. If they had, I suspect they would have written something into the law restricting the influence of lobbyists.

Some short–sighted readers flippantly dismissed the need for a filibuster–proof majority. These are Democrats, remember? In three–quarters of a century, Will Rogers' declaration that "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat" remains valid.

And so does another observation: "The more you read and observe about this politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

In nearly every midterm election since Rogers' death in 1935, the party that was out of power was the winner. Sometimes its victories were narrow. Sometimes they were lopsided. But the president's party almost always took it on the chin.

The historical trend suggests that the Republicans will regain some lost ground next year — probably not enough to change the balance of power, although, as I recall, that's what they were saying in 1994, just before Newt Gingrich and the "Contract With America." I know Republicans would like to see massive gains next year, but if they just manage to gain a single Senate seat, they can break that filibuster–proof majority and kill just about any Democratic initiative.

Which shouldn't be too hard to do. Republicans prize loyalty. Democrats reward individuality, even though it frequently works against them. Already this year we have seen a handful of Democrats break ranks on various issues.

Loyalty has its good points, but when the party is marching in lockstep off a cliff, it takes on an unstoppable momentum of its own. Likewise, individuality is a good thing, but it can make the Democrats look disorganized, like ducklings scattering in all directions.

As you may have guessed, I'm a fan of Will Rogers. And today, almost a year before the 2010 midterm elections, it isn't a bad idea for everyone to remember one of his lesser known — but still pertinent — remarks:

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

Lieberman Keeps Chairmanship

The New York Times reports that the Democratic caucus has voted, 42-13, to condemn "statements made by [Joe] Lieberman" during the recently concluded general election campaign but permit him to retain his chairmanship of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee.

The vote was motivated purely by politics — just as Lieberman's ouster would have been if Democrats had not been in a position to at least hope of getting a "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority.

This decision, I presume, will keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus. Earlier, the word was that he would bolt to the Republicans if he was stripped of his chairmanship.

So, with Lieberman apparently safely tucked away in the fold, the Democrats still have a chance of getting a "filibuster-proof" majority — if they win the race in Alaska (where the last votes are supposed to be counted today) and if they win the recount in Minnesota (which is supposed to begin this week but could, according to reports, go on into December) and if they win the Dec. 2 runoff in Georgia.

For those three seats to give Democrats the three-fifths majority they desire, they need to keep Lieberman and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders in their caucus.

Speaking of Sanders, I'm inclined to agree with him when he wonders if "change" was merely a campaign buzzword for congressional Democrats.

"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in,'" Sanders said in a statement.

On the other hand, perhaps it's the best way to demonstrate a true spirit of bipartisanship.

Begich Takes Lead in Senate Race

The Anchorage Daily News cautions that Alaska must "count roughly 35,000 more ballots over the next week" — so, presumably, anything could still happen — but Democrat Mark Begich has taken the lead over Republican Ted Stevens by a little more than 800 votes in the Senate race.

The latest tally, which was reported at 7:30 a.m. (Eastern), showed Begich with 132,196 votes and Stevens with 131,382 votes.

That is where things stand after the state Division of Elections added roughly 60,000 "absentee, early and questioned" ballots to the total on Wednesday, the Daily News reports.

It appears that it will be next week — at the earliest — before the final result is known.

The Daily News quoted the state elections chief as saying that "most regional elections headquarters will count their remaining ballots on Friday. But the most populous region, based in Anchorage, won't count its ballots until either Monday or Wednesday."

Even so, a spokesperson for the Alaska Democratic Party told the newspaper that Begich's supporters are "cautiously optimistic" about the lead.

Alaska is one of three states with an as-yet unresolved Senate race. In each state, a Republican incumbent is seeking a new six-year term, and each one was leading after the votes were initially tabulated on Nov. 4.

If Democrats win all three seats, they can put together the three-fifths "filibuster-proof" majority they openly desired during the campaign.

Assuming that Begich is able to hold the lead, then, in order to reach the number Democrats desire, Al Franken must overtake Sen. Norm Coleman in the recount in the Minnesota race, and Jim Martin must win a Dec. 2 runoff with Sen. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia.

If Begich, Franken and Martin all emerge victorious, Democrats will need to keep independent Joe Lieberman and socialist Bernie Sanders in their caucus to achieve the three-fifths majority.

But if they fall short of their goal, Democrats will have to decide what they want to do about Lieberman, a former Democrat who has caucused with Senate Democrats for the last two years (allowing them to maintain a somewhat brittle majority) but supported Republican John McCain in the presidential race.

Politico.com reports that some Democrats in the Senate have been making behind-the-scenes efforts to permit him to keep the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

An ironic angle to the story, write Ryan Grim and Martin Kady in Politico.com, is that Lieberman is backed by his home-state colleague, Chris Dodd. In the 2006 Senate election in Connecticut, Dodd supported Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic primary over Lieberman, forcing Lieberman to run (and eventually win) as an independent.

One Senate Democratic aide told Politico.com that Democrats "don’t want to start off a new era with retribution," but other Democrats apparently aren't as conciliatory.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee reportedly has told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, that he will leave the Democratic caucus if he is stripped of his chairmanship.

Politico.com says "a number of options are being considered that would allow [Lieberman] to keep his chairmanship and remain in the caucus but still suffer some sort of penalty."

On that matter, John Nichols says, in his blog in The Nation, that it would be "smart politics" to keep Lieberman in the Democrats' caucus — for now.

Lieberman remains valuable to the Democrats, Nichols suggests, until such time as the three-fifths majority is no longer possible.

That would be the prudent thing to do. The fate of the "filibuster-proof" majority could be up in the air until nearly Christmas.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the recount in Minnesota could drag on until mid-December.

"Recount junkies will be able to view updates daily on a website the secretary of state's office will construct," the Star Tribune reports, "and all recounts will be conducted in public places."

Ready or Not, Here Comes 2010 ...

It's been a mere week since Barack Obama was elected president, but it's been busy.

He and his family paid a courtesy call on the White House. There has been much speculation about who will be chosen for Cabinet posts in the new administration. And Obama apparently wasted little time after winning the election before launching a new web site to communicate with the public.

But if you thought we were finished with campaigning for awhile, you can forget it.

The conservative Washington Times reports that the Dec. 2 runoff for the Senate seat from Georgia is being viewed by prominent politicians and their strategists as the "first race of the 2010 election cycle" — and "an early clue to [Obama's] clout and coattails."

It's still possible that Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" majority of 60 seats in the Senate — that they so clearly desired and openly sought during the regular election campaign — if they also can win a recount in Minnesota and overtake the Republican when all ballots are counted in Alaska.

(The Times incorrectly suggests, by the way, that Alaska is holding a "recount." In fact, as the Anchorage Daily News has been reporting, thousands of ballots have not yet been counted there — although the tabulation of those votes should be completed, the newspaper says, by Wednesday.

(This may seem like a technicality to the Times — but you can't "recount" what hasn't been counted.

(Perhaps that's a subtle difference. Perhaps what the Times should have said — in trying to draw its distinction between what is happening in Alaska and Minnesota and what is happening in Georgia — is that Alaska and Minnesota are counting ballots that have already been cast while Georgia is preparing to hold a whole new election.

(The difference between Alaska and Minnesota is that Alaska is still counting the ballots for the first time. Because the initial outcome was so close in Minnesota, a recount is required by state law.)

Politicians like to draw favorable comparisons to history.

Like an eager lawyer who discovers a long-forgotten ruling that can serve as a precedent — and save a court case that was thought to be a lost cause — a politician who is perceived to be trailing inevitably will invoke the memory of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the banner headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" — as if to say, "See? My cause isn't hopeless."

But there's a reason why such examples live in the public memory. The dream scenario usually remains in the realm of dreams, rarely venturing into reality.

And Georgia history, as the Times points out, does not have a favorable precedent for Obama or the Democrat in the race, Jim Martin.

Sixteen years ago, when Bill Clinton was elected president and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, a similar drama was unfolding in Georgia.

In the 1992 general election, three third-party candidates combined for 3% of the vote and prevented both the incumbent, Democrat Wyche Fowler, and his Republican challenger, Paul Coverdell, from receiving a majority of the vote. Then, as now, a runoff was required by state law.

During the runoff, both Clinton and Vice President-elect Al Gore (who, unlike the Obama-Biden ticket, managed to win Georgia in the 1992 presidential race) tried to use their electoral popularity to help Fowler by campaigning for him.

The Times suggests that a "high-profile presence" by the president-elect in the 2008 runoff campaign would be a "potent demonstration of his clout."

But before Obama does so, he might want to review what happened in 1992.

Clinton and Gore's efforts did not succeed. Coverdell received 51% of the vote.

In hindsight, it's hard to say whether there was much that either Clinton or Gore could have done to help Fowler in that race.

As Michael Barone, co-author of the "Almanac of American Politics," observed in the 1994 edition of the book, Fowler "was in trouble because he was seen for what he was, a national liberal on most issues, with strong convictions and great political skills, blessed with a folksy rural manner, but also one of Majority Leader George Mitchell's chief lieutenants."

It didn't play well in Georgia.

Did Fowler's loss foreshadow what was coming in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of Capitol Hill? I doubt that. Yes, the Democrats lost a Senate seat in that 1992 runoff, but they lost it in the South, where Democrats have had problems across the board for decades.

And one could argue that things like the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and the 1994 health care reform efforts supported a growing public perception that both the administration and the Democrats in Congress were out of step with average Americans — and laid the foundation for the so-called "Republican Revolution."

Fowler may have sympathized with those policies and others, but they were not factors in the runoff.

A "filibuster-proof" majority was not on the line in 1992 — and it might not be in 2008, either.

It seems likely that, by the time the runoff is held in Georgia on Dec. 2, the final outcomes from Alaska and Minnesota will be known. If either Ted Stevens or Norm Coleman prevail, that 60-seat majority is off the table, no matter what happens in Georgia.

Or, for that matter, what happens with Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who has been caucusing with the Democrats for two years but supported John McCain in the presidential campaign — and some Democrats, reportedly, are eager to jettison him and free up the chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.

There are those in the media, like Ezra Klein in The American Prospect, who openly urge the Democrats to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship.

"[I]t's about to be 2009 and there is no reason to keep an anti-Muslim bigot who believes the United States is being subverted by Muslims from within in charge of a committee that handles national security affairs," writes Klein.

With the domestic and foreign problems confronting the incoming administration, my feeling is that it's best for Obama to avoid becoming personally involved in the Georgia runoff.

Unless that "filibuster-proof" majority appears to be a real possibility, my advice would be to dispatch high-profile surrogates to Georgia — and save the political capital.

Another Senate Pick-up for Democrats

Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith has conceded to his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley, who has built a lead of about 50,000 votes with more than 90% of the ballots counted.

Counting independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have caucused with the Democrats for the last two years, the Democrats have a 57-40 advantage with the outcomes in three Senate races still undetermined.

Here's how things stand at the moment in those three races:

• Alaska — Incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial a week before the election, leads his Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by less than 5,000 votes.
  
  That's with 99% of the precincts reporting.
  
  However, the Anchorage Daily News reports that "[s]till to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots."
  
  Clearly, a 4,000-vote lead might not hold up if about 50,000 ballots haven't been counted yet.


• Georgia — Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss leads with nearly 50% of the vote, but state law says he has to receive 50% plus one vote. With 99% of the precincts in Georgia reporting, Chambliss is less than 8,400 votes from his objective.
  
  The fly in the ointment for Chambliss was an independent candidate who received about 3% of the vote. That translates to more than 125,000 votes. Chambliss led his opponent head to head by just under 120,000 votes.
  
  So, even though Chambliss leads Democratic challenger Jim Martin, he's apparently going to have to win a Dec. 2 runoff to retain his seat.
  
  It is likely that some of the independent's supporters will not vote in the runoff. It is also possible that some of the people who supported Chambliss or Martin the first time won't participate the second time.
  
  However, because Chambliss came so close to the votes he needed the first time — and I presume a voter will only be eligible to vote in the runoff if he/she voted in the general election — I think Martin will have to persuade some of Chambliss' original supporters to switch to him if he is going to have a chance of victory.
  
  Perhaps Martin can accomplish that by arguing that, with the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Georgia needs to elect a Democrat to the Senate in order to have any real voice in the federal government.
  
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution anticipates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin — who carried the state on Tuesday — will come to Georgia to campaign for the senator during the runoff. I expect the Democrats to make a similar effort on Martin's behalf.


• Minnesota — Incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman leads comedian Al Franken by 221 votes out of nearly 2.9 million counted. An independent candidate drew 15% of the vote.
  
  Coleman's margin was so small that it will apparently trigger a state law that requires a recount. "Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one-half of 1%," reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
  
  Less than one-half of 1% would be about 14,000 votes — which means that Coleman's lead clearly is narrow enough to trigger a recount.

So there you have it.

Three Senate races in which Republican incumbents lead narrowly — and in which circumstances exist that could hand victory to their Democratic challengers.

When the final results are known, a decision apparently will need to be made by the Democrats about what is to be done with Joe Lieberman.

Ryan Grim writes at Politico.com that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell — who narrowly survived in his own bid for re-election on Tuesday — has been trying to get Lieberman to join the Republican conference.

Lieberman apparently has been bargaining with the Democratic leadership over his future as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Chairmanship assignments will still be the domain of the Democrats, whether they win those three remaining seats or not.

Lieberman, of course, was once a Democrat and, although he supported John McCain in the presidential election, he did so almost exclusively because he supports the Iraq war and he is a close personal friend of the Arizona senator.

On most issues, however, Lieberman agrees with the Democrats, so he has continued to caucus with them, even after switching to independent status when he was rejected for re-election by the Democrats in his state two years ago.

Grim warns that Democrats may hold a secret vote on Lieberman's future in their caucus. Such a vote, I'm sure, won't occur until we know more about the Senate races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota.

Following the 2006 elections, Democrats needed Lieberman and Sanders in order to establish a majority in the Senate. Will they still need him — to achieve greater control over that legislative body?

With a sweep of those last three races, the Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority they've been coveting — but they can only do so if Lieberman and Sanders continue to caucus with them.

But if even one of the Senate seats remains in Republican hands, the Democrats will fall short of the three-fifths majority.

And then Lieberman may not be viewed as necessary.

To be continued ...

Clues About the GOP Running Mate?

I presume that, within 24 hours, we'll know who John McCain has chosen as his running mate.

There's a certain amount of pressure being applied by interest groups as the deadline gets closer.

For example, the Washington Post says that "[c]hoosing [Joe] Lieberman or someone else who supports abortion rights, such as former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, would be risky for a candidate who has worked hard to rally conservatives to his side, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"The survey indicates that 20% of McCain's supporters would be less likely to vote for him if he selects a running mate who supports abortion rights."

A friend of mine was telling me that anyone who votes on the basis of a single issue (like abortion, for example) shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm inclined to agree with him — except that, in a democracy, everyone has the privilege of voting — and using whatever information he/she wishes. It does not depend on the individual doing the responsible thing and studying the issues and each candidate's opinions on those issues.

And that's part of what makes it hard to predict what McCain is going to do.

Clearly, McCain doesn't want to alienate part of his political base. Especially if the race is as close as it appears to be.

From that standpoint, one would expect him to choose a pro-life conservative. (I wonder. Does Romney — an habitual flip-flopper — qualify as a pro-life conservative? Not too long ago, he was pro-choice.)

But if what matters the most to McCain is the Iraq War and the global war on terrorism — and a candidate's views on domestic issues don't matter to him (nor does it matter if McCain's running mate "could be someone who voted against the confirmations of conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.") — I could see McCain choosing someone with whom he feels comfortable — like Lieberman or Ridge.

Frankly, I don't know which McCain will make this decision.

Will it be the principled maverick who ran against George W. Bush in 2000?

Or will it be the pandering McCain of 2008, who was last seen in public at Saddleback a couple of weeks ago?

There's a lot of speculation about McCain's running mate — although not nearly as much as there was when Barack Obama was about to introduce Joe Biden as his choice last Saturday.

But many people think they're finding clues in seemingly little things.

• Michael Shear reports, for the Washington Post, that the so-called "Veep Watch" is on "high alert" for clues to the identity of McCain's running mate-to-be.
  
  "The top possibilities continued to be former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and ... Lieberman," he writes. "Other names included ... Ridge and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
  
  "One senior Republican who has talked personally with Romney, Ridge and Pawlenty during the past two days said none of them had been told yet by McCain. 'All of them believe that it's not them,' the GOP source said."


• The Bipartisan Rules blog says "Pawlenty looks to be a much better choice at this stage of the game than does Romney."
  
  The blog lists several "compelling reasons" to choose Pawlenty.
  
  
  1. "Pawlenty has been in McCain's corner ever since McCain announced his candidacy; Romney has been a supporter for about four months."
  
  
  2. "Pawlenty is a true-blue conservative; Romney is a flip-flopper."
  
  
  3. "Pawlenty is a fresh face and 47; Romney is not and is in his early 60s."
  
  
  4. "Pawlenty offers McCain a clear electoral advantage; Romney's advantage in Michigan and the mountain west is somewhat speculative."
  
  
• Marc Ambinder's blog at The Atlantic is reporting that Pawlenty's schedule for Friday has been cleared.
  
  Is that an indication that Pawlenty is preparing to appear with McCain as the designated running mate?
  
  Perhaps.
  
  But, as Ambinder points out, "McCain's campaign could have made similar requests of other candidates. But Pawlenty's is the first we know about."
  
  I would add to that one more thing — it's nearly 10 p.m. here in the Central time zone, and I have seen no similar reports about any of the other prospects.


• "If security sweeps are the giveaway," writes David Drucker in Roll Call, "Romney may be on the brink of being selected as ... McCain’s ... vice presidential running mate."
  
  Drucker reports that "[a]ccording to sources with strong Michigan ties, the Secret Service has conducted a security sweep of the home of Romney’s sister."
  
  But he has a caveat.
  
  "[A] sweep of such a location could have been conducted in advance of Romney appearing as a surrogate — not the vice presidential nominee — at an upcoming McCain campaign stop in Michigan" where Romney was raised and his father was governor.


• It may turn out that McCain chooses a former rival for the nomination to be his running mate.
  
  It wouldn't be the first time. That's what Obama did, after all. John Kerry did it in 2004. Ronald Reagan did it in 1980. John F. Kennedy did it in 1960.
  
  But if National Review's Campaign Spot blog is correct, Fred Thompson isn't going to be the former rival who occupies the No. 2 spot on the GOP's ticket in 2008.
  
  "[T]here's no sign that Fred Thompson is the pick," the blog states — before asking an intriguing question.
  
  "Wouldn't a Biden-Thompson debate be worth the price of admission?"
  
  I don't know if it would resolve anything — but it sure would be entertaining!

The Buzz About McCain's Pick

The deadline for announcing John McCain's running mate still appears to be Friday.

I haven't heard his name mentioned much recently, but I'm still predicting that McCain will pick Tom Ridge as his running mate.

Everyone's got an opinion.

• Steven Thomma writes, for McClatchy Newspapers, that McCain is under some pressure with the deadline looming.
  
  Thomma also writes that the "fast-changing landscape in recent days has helped some potential choices and hurt others."
  
  Thomma proceeds to list these changes:
  
  
  1. "McCain has pulled into a neck-and-neck fight with Obama after trailing for weeks."
  
  
  2. "He's shored up support from social conservatives and has seen a payoff in the polls."
  
  
  3. "Obama picked Biden ... which could put a new emphasis on finding someone who could take on Biden in the vice presidential debate this fall."
  
  As a result, he suggests that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney have the inside track. But Pawlenty has said he is happy as governor of Minnesota, and it has been widely reported that McCain doesn't like Romney.
  
  
• Julie Mason writes, in the Houston Chronicle, that one of the senators from my home state of Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, is "getting a push from conservative and other pundits in the lead-up to next week's Republican National Convention."
  
  It seems, as Mason writes, a longshot. Hutchison has spoken openly of her desire to run for governor of Texas in 2010 (even though the incumbent, a fellow Republican, Rick Perry, indicates that he wants to seek another term), so a four-year hitch as vice president doesn't appear to be in her plans.
  
  But, with so many of Hillary Clinton's backers apparently looking for someone to support in November, McCain might be thinking about putting a woman on the ticket.
  
  And Hutchison is Texas' senior senator, with 15 years' experience in the Senate. She was elected to finish the unexpired term of Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, who resigned to take a Cabinet post under Bill Clinton, and she has been re-elected easily ever since.


• If the choice was up to Henry Olsen, I'm not sure who he would pick. But he's pretty clear, in the Wall Street Journal, that he does not believe McCain should put Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman on the ticket.
  
  Olsen points out something that has already been pointed out several times — Republican Abraham Lincoln put Democrat Andrew Johnson on his ticket when he ran for re-election in 1864.
  
  "That episode ended unhappily," Olsen writes, "for reasons directly relevant to the current situation."
  
  Perhaps the most significant point Olsen raises is this: "One must also contemplate the awful possibility that President McCain will not survive his term. Do Republican voters want to see a President Lieberman negotiate with a Democratic Congress on taxes, entitlements, judicial nominees and abortion? To ask this question is to answer it."

The Revival of Mitt Romney?

Now that Barack Obama has chosen his running mate, attention is gradually shifting to the final piece of the puzzle — who will be John McCain's running mate?

Most of the attention for the next few days will focus on the Democrats and their convention. But the last report I heard was that McCain would announce his choice on Friday — the day after the Democratic convention wraps up.

So I wouldn't be surprised if we hear more and more speculation about the identity of McCain's running mate the farther we get into the week.

• I haven't heard Mitt Romney's name mentioned too often lately in discussions that focus on the identity of John McCain's running mate.
  
  But if the San Francisco Chronicle is correct, Romney might be the answer the Republicans are looking for in the West.
  
  In particular, the Chronicle reports, McCain's campaign would like to inspire the Mormons who live out West.
  
  And not all of them live in Utah. "We have a lot of Mormons in Colorado," a Democratic activist told the Chronicle.
  
  Colorado is already being mentioned by many as a battleground state in the election. So the mere mention of a demographic group that could be a recipient of some attention can be meaningful.
  
  Candidly, however, the Mormon vote doesn't seem to be all that significant in Colorado — roughly 2% of the state's residents are Mormons.
  
  But 2% can be important in Colorado. Yes, Colorado has been in the habit of voting for Republicans, but frequently it's been by slim margins.
  
  George W. Bush received less than 52% of the vote there in 2004 — and less than 51% in 2000. In 1996, Bob Dole's margin of victory over Bill Clinton in Colorado was less than 1.5%.
  
  Colorado has only 9 electoral votes — but in many of the election projections I've seen, that would be enough to tip the balance from one side to the other.
  
  Can McCain overcome his discomfort with Romney and put him on the ticket?
  
  If so, will he be doing it because Romney can make a difference with the Mormon constituency?
• CNN's blog Political Ticker says, "[T]he Republican campaign to take advantage of fresh reports of friction between the Clinton and Obama camps shifts into high gear" with its second advertisement aimed at "wooing the New York senator's disappointed supporters."
  
  Is that an indication that McCain is planning to put a female on the GOP ticket — like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, perhaps?
  
  Obama might not want it that way, but Hillary does seem to be a factor, even though she won't be on the ticket. Rich Lowry writes, in the New York Post, that "[i]t's Hillary's convention. ... [T]he convention narrative revolves around her in important ways."
  
  And Susan Page reports, in USA Today, that a USA Today/Gallup survey of Clinton supporters indicates that less than half are planning to vote for Obama in November.
  
  Sean Wilentz may have the answer for Obama in Newsweek. He points out something that resembles what one of my Clinton-supporting friends said. "Obama must convince the country that he is a man of substance, not just style," Wilentz writes. "History suggests this won't be easy."
  
  The Obama campaign has been dismissive of what the New York Times calls the "Clinton fallout."
  
  Perhaps he shouldn't be so dismissive.
• Bill Kristol, writing in the New York Times, contends that McCain needs a "bold" choice for running mate.
  
  (Palin might be a bold choice, but Kristol doesn't think she has enough experience.)
  
  Kristol thinks Connecticut's Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent, is the choice.
  
  "Lieberman could hold his own against Biden in a debate," Kristol writes (well, I know some Democrats who would cite Lieberman's performance against Dick Cheney as evidence against that).
  
  "He would reinforce McCain’s overall message of foreign policy experience and hawkishness. He’s a strong and disciplined candidate."
  
  OK, I'll concede the last couple of points.
  
  But Kristol sees some drawbacks as well.
  
  "[H]e is pro-abortion rights, and having been a Democrat all his life, he has a moderately liberal voting record on lots of issues."
  
  Of course, if Lieberman wound up on the GOP ticket, he could occupy a unique niche in history as the first Jewish nominee for both parties.

McCain's Running Mate Dilemma

The Wall Street Journal says Barack Obama has an easier assignment than John McCain has when it comes to picking a running mate.

And the Wall Street Journal is absolutely right.

"As a young, rookie candidate running on 'change,' Barack Obama can help himself by choosing a safe, seasoned politician like Evan Bayh or Joe Biden," observes the Journal.

"As the trailing candidate from an unpopular party, John McCain has the harder decision because there really is no obvious candidate."

The Journal proceeds to list all the names that get mentioned frequently in this conversation — and includes the reasons why those candidates would be a drag on the Republican ticket:

• Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — "[W]rong last name."


• Florida Gov. Charlie Crist — "[T]oo-frequent political opportunism that would disappoint much of the party."


• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — Ditto.


• Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romeny — "[He] failed to catch fire in the primaries ... and ... his Mormonism seems to be an issue with many evangelicals." The Journal, for its part, finds fault with Romney because he "continues to defend his state health-care reform."


• Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — "[H]e'd probably alienate too many social conservatives."

With some of the other names that have been mentioned, the Journal raises objections that aren't quite as severe — but it still raises objections:

• Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — A conservative who is "as confused as Mr. McCain on global warming, but he seems to have more principles than Mr. Crist."


• Former Management and Budget director Rob Portman — "Some McCain advisers will say his Bush experience rules him out, but he has depth as a policy wonk."


• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — Has "potential and appeal" but lacks "stature" and would "give up Mr. McCain's clear experience edge over Mr. Obama."


• Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — Ditto.


• Meg Whitman of eBay — "[The] magnitude of press scrutiny that any nominee must endure today is a lot to ask of someone who's never sought elective office."


• Fred Smith of FedEx — Ditto.


• South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford — He "did stumble recently during a CNN interview ... . Still, it was a minor misstep, and Mr. McCain could do worse."

The Journal admits to favoring former Sen. Fred Thompson, who "might make sense ... (for) promising to serve one term, clean up the mess, and go home. On the other hand, he might be better suited for Attorney General if Mr. McCain prevails."

When all is said and done, the Journal concedes, "If there were a miracle choice for Mr. McCain, that person would be obvious by now. There isn't, and an attempt to find one can easily backfire."

Jindal Says No to No. 2 Slot

Louisiana's young Indian-American Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, took himself out of the running for the running mate spot on John McCain's ticket today.

"I’ve got the job that I want," Jindal said, insisting that he will do everything he can to promote McCain to Louisiana's voters.

Jindal, reportedly, has been on McCain's "short list" for the vice presidency, but it's probably best that he won't be running. McCain has often criticized his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for being too young and inexperienced — but Obama is a decade older than Jindal, who was elected governor last fall.

Having Jindal on the ticket, even with his conservative credentials, could have undercut McCain's argument about Obama's youth and inexperience.

If Jindal had been nominated for — and then won — the vice presidency, he wouldn't have been our youngest vice president ever.

Close — but not quite.

Most inexperienced? Well, who's to say? I guess it would be fair to say that Jindal would have one of the thinnest résumés of an incoming vice president — although Obama doesn't exactly bring an extensive political résumé to the fall campaign, either.

Who are McCain's top prospects now?

Well, Dana Bash of CNN says "a Republican source ... tells CNN that [McCain] dropped a serious hint about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty."

I'll say this much — with the Republican convention being held in Minnesota, naming the state's governor as running mate would produce a dramatic story.

And Mitt Romney continues to get talked about. Hillary Chabot writes, in the Boston Herald, that Romney is "near the top of a very short list."

At least, that's what one of Romney's confidantes apparently has told Chabot.

And Romney has made no secret of the fact that he'd like to be on the ticket.

But, as I've mentioned before — and, as just about everyone already seems to know — Romney and McCain don't like each other.

Dick Morris writes, in The Hill, that choosing Romney as his running mate would be a bad idea for McCain.

"Would he help McCain win fiscal conservatives?" Morris asks. "If Obama’s tax plans don’t accomplish that, one has to wonder about their sanity."

Morris apparently likes four other prospects — Condi Rice and Colin Powell ... "Or McCain could send a statement to Democrats and independents and become the first candidate since Abraham Lincoln to cross party lines and put a person from the opposite party on his ticket by selecting Joe Lieberman. ...

"Any of these three choices would make a 'wow' statement that would make voters see McCain in a new light."

Morris also likes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a "a slightly less radical" option.

"With almost nothing but his innate skill as a speaker and his warm, friendly personality, Huckabee was able to energize the evangelical base as nobody has since Pat Robertson," writes Morris.

"But, in the process, he challenged it to move on to new issues and embrace causes like global hunger as ardently as the right to life."

McCain's Memorial Day Weekend Guests

Sen. John McCain has been spending the Memorial Day weekend at his Arizona ranch -- with three potential running mates.

His guests for the weekend were Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal and Charlie Crist.

All three have been mentioned as prospects for the vice presidency. I don't think any of them fit the bill.

And no clues were forthcoming from the gathering, which apparently wrapped up on Sunday.

"The McCain campaign was tight-lipped about the agenda for the weekend, which aides described as purely social," reports Michael Falcone in the New York Times.

• It isn't necessary for the candidates on the ticket to get along, but in McCain's case, I think it's pretty important.
  
  There have been rumblings in the media about problems the senator has with anger management. And it was pretty clear during the Republican campaign that he and Romney don't get along.
  
  So, although Romney has the economic credentials that McCain lacks -- as well as the ready support of many social conservatives who have been lukewarm to McCain's candidacy and ample financial backing -- I don't think he's right for the spot.
  
  I just can't see McCain and Romney forging a strong working relationship.
  
  
• Jindal provides the youth (he'll be 37 in about two weeks) to contrast with McCain's age (72 before the GOP convention).
  
  But the flip side to Jindal's youth is the absence of experience. Jindal was elected to two terms in the House of Representatives before being elected governor of Louisiana last year.
  
  He's off to a strong start in his efforts to reform the state's government -- but that's a long-term project.
  
  Jindal's been in office for, what, half an hour?
  
  He can afford to put any national ambitions he may have on the back burner until he has some solid accomplishments to add to his résumé.
  
  
• Crist (pictured above) is a contradictory sort.
  
  His support for McCain apparently helped the Arizona senator seal the deal in the Florida primary, which led to Rudy Giuliani's withdrawal from the race in late January.
  
  And we all learned how vital Florida's support can be during the recount in 2000.
  
  But, if McCain is going to give serious consideration to Crist as a running mate, he needs to clear the air of the persistent rumors about Crist's sexual orientation.
  
  As I understand it, there has been talk about Crist being gay for quite awhile.
  
  Talk that has been reported in journalistic circles.
  
  Sexual orientation may not work against Crist in state politics, but rumors that he is gay won't help McCain win over the social conservatives who have resisted him, even after clinching the nomination.

Here's a partial list of some of the sources of things that have been written on the subject of Crist's sexuality:


1. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, March 2008.


2. Orlando Sentinel, February 2008.


3. Broward-Palm Beach New Times, October 2006.


4. Online Journal, October 2006.


5. Orlando Weekly, September 2006.


6. St. Petersburg Times, January 2005.

I've heard a number of intriguing possibilities brought up, and the three men who spent the weekend with McCain haven't been included on hot prospect lists very often.

The most frequently mentioned names that I've heard are people like Condoleezza Rice, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Joe Lieberman.

I think Rice is too intimately connected to the Bush administration's policies. Pawlenty has said he is committed to his work as governor. And, although Lieberman has been a strong supporter of McCain's presidential bid, the only issue on which the two men seem to share the same opinion is the war.

McCain doesn't need another "Me, too!" voice in support of the Iraq War.

Personally, I still think J.C. Watts is McCain's best choice -- for a number of reasons.

A 'Near-Perfect' Pick?

Hardly a week goes by that there isn't a column by someone who claims to know the best choice John McCain can make for running mate. Stuart Rothenberg is no exception.

Rothenberg says, in Roll Call, that he knows who would be a "near-perfect pick" for McCain -- Joe Lieberman.

It's an intriguing notion.

I know there have been times in American history -- primarily in the early days of the republic -- when an individual was elected vice president under two different presidents.

But I believe Lieberman would be in a position to make his own kind of history. I don't think anyone has ever been nominated for vice president by both of the major parties -- and in elections separated by only eight years.

Lieberman could be the first Jewish nominee in both parties. He's already been through one national campaign so he's been thoroughly vetted. No unpleasant surprises in his closet.

And he's devout in his support for the Iraq War -- and McCain. Lieberman, after all, endorsed McCain in December -- when the Arizona senator's chances looked somewhat bleak.

Offhand, though, I can think of a couple of drawbacks. For one, Lieberman is 66 years old. He doesn't exactly add the elements of youth and vigor that the 72-year-old McCain needs in a running mate. And I'm not sure he brings the kind of social conservatism that McCain needs to improve his standing with those voters.

Lieberman has been given a grade of "F" by the National Rifle Association. He has been critical of George W. Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell research. He criticized Bush's Medicare plan. He voted against Bush's Social Security plan.

Yet, he did stand with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, some Democrats, and the Republican-controlled Congress in opposing the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube three years ago.

Is Rothenberg right? Is Lieberman a "near-perfect pick" for McCain?

Will Lieberman Address GOP Convention?

Is Joe Lieberman going to speak to the Republican convention in September?

That -- to use a phrase of which my late mother was fond -- would be a real "show stopper."

Lieberman, of course, was the Democrats' nominee for vice president on Al Gore's ticket in 2000. But Lieberman supports John McCain for president this time -- apparently because Lieberman shares McCain's position on the Iraq War.

And now, according to Manu Raju in The Hill, the now-independent senator from Connecticut "is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address ... at the Republican National Convention."

If it seems odd that a prominent member (or, in this case, former member) of one party would give a speech at the convention of the opposite party, it shouldn't.

Former Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, a Democrat, spoke to the Republican convention four years ago, Raju points out. And, Raju continues, "Miller, who was planning to retire from the Senate at the end of 2004, had little to lose by crossing his party."

If Miller's objective was to "cross his party," then he was to be congratulated for doing such a good job. Raju rightly observes that Miller's speech was "scathing" in its criticism of Democratic nominee John Kerry.

Miller, it might be noted, has not -- to my knowledge -- been invited to so much as attend either of this year's conventions.

After Connecticut's contentious Democratic primary in 2006, it was somewhat doubtful that Lieberman would be invited to this year's Democratic convention. And it became less likely when Lieberman endorsed McCain's candidacy in December.

But, as Raju observes, Lieberman's "decision to caucus with Democrats ... allows them to hold their narrow 51-49 majority." Aside from the war, Lieberman's voting record seems to be in line with most Democrats in the Senate.

Lieberman could be expected to be somewhat restrained in a hypothetical speech to the Republicans later this year, if only to protect his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

After all, if the Democrats add to their majority in the Senate this year, as expected, they would be free to replace Lieberman as a committee chairman.

And, even if things remained unchanged in the Senate, if the Democratic nominee for president is elected, the party wouldn't lose its control of the Senate if forced into a tiebreaker. The new vice president, as president of the Senate, would be expected to support the party.

So Lieberman has plenty of incentive to avoid burning any bridges with the Democratic leadership -- unlike Zell Miller four years ago.

A Noteworthy Day

Whether one is talking about current or past events, February 27 is a noteworthy day.

* For starters, today is the 75th anniversary of the Reichstag fire. Hitler used that event as the pretext for grabbing power in 1933, but, as Deutsche Welle observes, the fire only "accelerated" Hitler's rise. "[H]e would have seized power even if the blaze hadn't occurred."

The Reichstag fire occupies an important spot in the 20th century history of the world. But if one could go back in time and somehow prevent it from happening, that wouldn't keep the Nazis from taking over Germany or putting the world through the pain of the Holocaust.

* Perhaps the most legendary living conservative, William F. Buckley Jr., died today.

Joe Lieberman, a senator from Buckley's home state of Connecticut, offered some thoughts in the publication Buckley founded, the National Review.

The one-time Democrat, now Independent, wrote, "There's so much I could say about Bill Buckley’s contribution to our country, about his openness to ideas, about his civility.

"One could disagree with him -- as I did quite frequently -- and never lose respect or affection, dare I say love, for a wonderful human being."

Lieberman had Buckley's support when Lieberman successfully challenged incumbent Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker in 1988.

* The battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be about over. The general consensus is that, in last night's debate, neither candidate won a clear victory. And Clinton needed a clear victory to change the dynamics of the race.

The two candidates have now taken part in 20 debates. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to have any more. The voters have seen both candidates and they've apparently made up their minds.

The latest delegate count, according to CNN (and I presume this accounts for the defection of super-delegate John Lewis of Georgia from Clinton to Obama), has Obama with 1,365 and Clinton with 1,268.

Dick Morris, who once advised President Clinton, left no doubt what he thinks in The Hill: "Whether one likes, dislikes, loves, hates, admires, fears, despises, or envies them, every Clinton watcher has this in common: They are dumbfounded both by the incompetence with which Hillary has run for president and her intransigence at sticking to a failed message. ...

"Even now, with her back against the wall, fighting for her political career, Hillary, presumably with Bill’s acquiescence, insists on making the same mistakes that landed her in the soup. No new tactics, no new strategy, no new message emerges."

* Obama is getting some negative press today as well.

In The New Republic, Sean Wilentz says Obama has played the "race card" in Ohio, but it's a continuation, he says, of a tactic that has been in use at least since before the Iowa caucuses at the start of January.

"It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate's campaign and its supporters," writes Wilentz. "But this is an American presidential campaign -- and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected."

I don't know if the accusation against Obama's campaign is correct. But I do know that, in my attempt to learn more about the two candidates who want to be the Democratic nominee for president so that I could make an informed choice when I vote in the Texas primary next week, I've been accused of sexism by Clinton's supporters and racism by Obama's supporters.

Now, that hasn't been true of everyone. But it has been true of several of them.

Hey, all I asked for was some information! As Steve Martin used to say, "Excu-u-u-u-use me!"

So if the accusation is true, it wouldn't surprise me.

And then there's the matter of what Byron York of National Review calls "the Farrakhan trap."

In the debate, Obama tried to sidestep it by saying it was a matter of "semantics," but York makes a valid point, wondering what the response would be if one substitutes the name John McCain for Obama and the name David Duke for Farrakhan.

A little hypothetical reverse racism appears to be the result.

One may not like the presence of race or gender as factors in this campaign, but they won't be ignored, will they?

What will it be like if voters choose Obama or Clinton this fall? After they ponder the matter for the next several months, will voters decide to elect the old white guy rather than put up with frequent references to race or gender for the next four years?

* That leads us to something else. The Wall Street Journal is wondering if McCain is too old to be president.

But the Journal answers its own question by providing a list of people who rose to leadership positions at advanced ages -- including Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Golda Meir and Charles de Gaulle. In addition to that, McCain's own mother is still alive at the age of 95, which, as the Journal points out, indicates that "Mr. McCain's own genetic material appears to be strong."

Even so, I think McCain needs to prepare himself for this kind of question on a regular basis. He'll be 72 by the time he gives his acceptance speech at the Republican convention.

* Attention, Texas Democrats:

Read this editorial from the Dallas Morning News.

Thanks to a complicated process, delegates will be committed in part based on the results of Tuesday's popular vote and in part based on the results of caucuses to be held after the polls close. You almost need an advanced degree to make sense of it all.

"Why does the Texas Democratic Party insist on giving its voters such headaches?" asks the Dallas Morning News. "The idea is to promote participatory democracy, not drive voters to the point of exasperation."

(By the way, I like the word "exasperation" because it implies -- to me, anyway -- that the speaker is deadly serious. I suppose that harkens to my childhood. When I was a boy, there was a mother in my neighborhood who had a rather extensive vocabulary, and most of it seemed to define her level of annoyance with something we kids were doing -- whether we were being too loud or running too much in the house or whatever it was.

(When she told us she was "exasperated," we knew she was running out of options and her next move would be to start calling our parents.)

Amen to that. Read the editorial, do your civic duty -- and then contact the party leadership and demand a process that encourages participation.

Lieberman Takes A Stand in the Campaign

Back in 2000, Joe Lieberman was the Democratic nominee as Al Gore's running mate. Today, he is an unapologetic supporter of the Iraq War, and he is no longer a Democrat. He is still in the Senate, but he's now an Independent who usually lends his support to the Democrats in the Senate.

When it comes to his choice for the next president, although Lieberman is supporting one of his colleagues from the Senate, it's not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd -- or even John Edwards, who is now a former senator. It's John McCain, Republican senator from Arizona.

This makes three endorsements McCain picked up in roughly 36 hours. The others were the endorsements from the Des Moines Register, which I discussed here yesterday, and the Boston Globe.

It remains to be seen whether the Register's support will make a difference in the Iowa caucus, scheduled for Jan. 3. But Lieberman's endorsement and the support of the Globe may help McCain when New Hampshire voters hold their primaries on Jan. 8.

McCain's chances may be better in New Hampshire than they are in Iowa. Eight years ago, McCain was a distant fifth in Iowa and he hasn't put much of an effort there lately, either. But New Hampshire voted for McCain over George W. Bush in the 2000 primary.

The snow storm seems to have bumped just about everything else to the back burner in New England, as it has in just about every other place in the northern United States. But the Lieberman endorsement caught the attention of the Washington Post.

Actually, things might not be over as quickly as you might have anticipated. Adam Nagourney writes, in The New York Times, that there is a "growing sense among Republicans" that their nomination won't be wrapped up when the primary-laden date of Feb. 5 comes and goes.

And, if that is the case, all it will take is a handful of wins to keep someone in the race beyond Feb. 5.

Stay tuned.