You're Busted!

---

---

I've been an advocate of freedom of the press all my life.

And let me tell you, it hasn't always been easy. Because if you're going to support something like freedom of the press, by definition you just about have to be opposed to censorship.

But then we get into something of a gray area. You see, even the most ardent supporters of freedom of the press will agree that there are times when censorship is necessary — and, so, certain concessions had to be made.

We've tried to be careful, even grudging at times, about the restrictions we as a society impose on the press — and we expect publications to honor the restrictions we do deem necessary.

Within the sometimes vague framework our lawmakers have created to govern the behavior of the publishing business (which, for the interests of this article, include broadcasting outlets and any other news gathering/writing outfit), I have found myself supporting some groups I never thought I would support — all in the name of protecting freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

I have always believed those freedoms were essential, but they are not absolute. Certain things are not in good taste. Certain disclosures really could jeopardize national security. People's lives can be unnecessarily threatened if you inject chaos into a previously calm situation — for example, standing up and yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There tend to be very good reasons behind the restrictions that exist, and most newsgathering organizations make an honest effort to follow them. Most of the time it works out pretty well. Credibility is very important to most newsgatherers. Things may have been different when "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was made, but I have never worked for a newspaper that did the kinds of irresponsible things portrayed in the attached clip.

So I would applaud Jimmy Stewart — to an extent — for his defensive response. But his character was a public figure, and he would be sure to attract some attention for it.

---

---

Which brings me to today.

I was taking care of some personal business this morning, and, while I was driving around, I heard the end of a radio report about a new publication that currently appears to be available only in Michigan and Oregon, but the goal seems to be to make it available from coast to coast. It is called Busted, a tabloid–style newspaper.

Busted apparently publishes the names and mugshots of people who get arrested for anything and everything.This publication, we are told at its website, is printed weekly and can be found at "convenience store(s), liquor store(s), independent market(s) and gas stations."

---

"Each week BUSTED publishes hundreds of Mug Shots of Local People throughout your community who were arrested during the previous week.

"Murder to Misdemeanors, Possession to Prostitution. Each week the Busted Crime Investigation Team scours the files of county courthouses across the country, Searching For the Truth!

"Was your neighbor Driving While Intoxicated, Is there a Registered Sex Offender living around the corner; What about that Rapist you heard about on the news; BUSTED Lets You Know!

"Who tops your communities (sic) Most Wanted list. Have you seen a list of Missing Children lately — BUSTED Keeps You Informed!"

---

I don't know how this publication presents these police reports. But I know that, when I was a student and then when I was a reporter and an editor, the usual procedure was to say — if it was even deemed necessary to report that someone had been arrested (and if the person was not well known, the tendency was to say, "Who cares?") — that So–and–so was arrested or charged with an offense.

We never referred to anyone in a way that suggested, directly or indirectly, that he/she was guilty. If the case went to court and the defendant was convicted, then we would use that. But we never presumed that an arrest was the same thing as a conviction.

Yet, that is what it seems to me that this publication does — perhaps not so much by design as by implication.

What happens if the charges are dropped? Or if the person who was arrested contests the charges in court and wins?

If that scenario seems far–fetched to you, I can tell you that I was once selected to serve on a jury in a case in which a middle–aged woman had been charged with driving while intoxicated and entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecution had a video tape of the defendant failing field sobriety tests (although other tests revealed no alcohol in her system), but the charges were dropped midway through the prosecution's presentation when her doctor arrived and verified, in a closed–doors conference involving only the judge and the attorneys, that what she had been telling the officer repeatedly on the night she was arrested was true — that she was driving in an unfamiliar area, that she hadn't been drinking and that she was on a prescription medication.

Why hadn't the woman's doctor been consulted before the case wound up in court? I don't know. No one ever told us. Perhaps the doctor had been consulted, but the medication was fairly new and little was known about it when the woman was arrested — and now, the doctor had the results of recent studies that shed new light on the drug's effects. Perhaps the woman had been specifically instructed to take the drug before or after eating and she had done the opposite. Or maybe she had been told not to operate any kind of vehicle after taking the drug.

No such details were provided to us. We were just told that the charges had been dropped, and we were free to go.

Before her arrest, the woman was not a public figure. As I recall, she worked as a secretary. Somehow, her employers found out about her arrest and she was dismissed. I don't think her initial arrest was publicized in any way, but, if it had been, that might have opened the door for a lawsuit against the police (and the media outlet that reported the arrest) that could have been very costly, in more ways than one.

You see, private citizens are entitled to their privacy. Police departments — and news departments — are staffed by people. And people can and do make mistakes.

It's different with public figures. The mayor of your town was willing to trade the privilege of privacy for the honor of serving the public. A star athlete or a rock musician or a popular actor will know he/she cannot go to a restaurant or a bar without somebody noticing — many somebodies if he/she engages in objectionable behavior of any kind.

And if the mayor or a quarterback or the lead singer for a popular band or the star of a popular movie gets arrested for driving while intoxicated, the news will be on TV, radio, internet and the morning newspaper. Then, if it turns out to be a mistake, those outlets will run retractions.

Juries also are staffed by people, and it is possible for a jury to make a mistake as well. But it seems less likely that 12 people will make the same mistake than it does that a reporter and a couple of editors — or a police officer and a couple of his superiors — will make the same mistake.

In other words, when it comes to matters involving criminal justice, we can usually trust the judgment of juries more than we can trust a policeman or a reporter, either of whom may have an ax to grind. Jurors are summoned to a place they seldom visit to hear the facts of a case involving a person whose name they have never heard. They might make a mistake, but, theoretically, they have no prejudice, no agenda.

If Busted is prepared to run a retraction every time an arrest turns out to be unwarranted — and that could be a lot more frequently than anyone bargained for — the editors had better be prepared to set aside a lot of space for that purpose. That shouldn't be a problem in cyberspace, but what about the printed product?

But is a simple retraction enough? Some people may feel that the damage to their reputation and their privacy was so great that the retraction should take as much space and be as prominently placed as the original report.

It may sound like a good idea to publicize every single arrest — maybe it satisfies some internal need — but not every arrest is justified. Busted does post a disclaimer that says, "Any indication of an arrest is not intended to imply or infer that such individual has been convicted of a crime," in the fine print beneath the mugshots, but will that be sufficient as a CYA? Or will those who feel their good names have been smeared by Busted demand that as much space be devoted to the retraction as was dedicated to the report of the arrest?

And which side will justice's scales favor?

We'll find out when the first test case comes up.

A Dubious Distinction

It was reported today that Michigan became the first state in a quarter of a century to exceed 15% unemployment.

In fact, as CNN observes, Michigan has had the nation's highest unemployment rate for 12 consecutive months. That isn't the sort of list that any state wants to be leading.

Let's let that sink in for a minute, shall we? It wasn't so long ago that economists were saying that unemployment would start to go down in midsummer; now they're saying that unemployment will continue to rise until, perhaps, 2010.

And we're getting closer to the time when one of every five adults in Michigan will be jobless.

It probably isn't too surprising that Michigan's unemployment rate is so high, being the home of the beleaguered American auto industry. But it should give everyone pause.

We've had recessions, but no state has had an unemployment rate of 15% or higher since March 1984.

I remember March 1984. Gary Hart had come out of nowhere to challenge former Vice President Walter Mondale for the Democratic presidential nomination. Mondale won the nomination, of course, and went on to lose to President Reagan in a landslide, but in March, Hart was riding high and drawing big crowds wherever he spoke.

In March of 1984, I was working at the Arkansas Gazette in Little Rock. It was a morning newspaper, and I worked on the copy desk so that meant I worked nights. In 1984, I think Arkansas chose its delegates in a caucus, not a primary, but Hart came to Little Rock to speak, anyway, and his appearance happened to be on a night that I wasn't working.

So I went to hear him speak, and I was amazed at the crowd he drew.

I don't recall whether he got many delegates from Arkansas. After 25 years, one's memory can be a little fuzzy, but I recall that most of the state's white Democrats supported Mondale and most of the state's black Democrats supported Jesse Jackson.

In fact, many of the people who attended Hart's speech that night may not have supported him at the caucus — if they participated in it at all. Many may have come because Hart was the fresh face in the political race. Many may have come simply because they were curious.

But the recession that plagued the nation in the early 1980s was over, for the most part, by March 1984. I'm not sure why West Virginia's unemployment rate was so high at that time — but CNN says it was the last state to exceed 15% unemployment.

Anyway, Michigan's unemployment rate is quite high — but it certainly isn't the only one in double digits. Rhode Island and Oregon are both over 12%, CNN says. In fact, 15 states and the District of Columbia are in double digits, CNN reports.

So there is no reason for anyone or any state to feel safe.

A Slight Revision

Nearly three months ago, I made my first prediction on the ultimate outcome in the Electoral College between Barack Obama and John McCain.

It was a few days after the final presidential primaries had been held, and Hillary Clinton had conceded to Obama. For the first time in 2008, the Democrats had a presumptive presidential nominee.

At the time, I predicted that McCain would win 295 electoral votes and Obama would win 243.

It is traditional, on Labor Day, to make a prediction in a presidential race. That prediction is then revised periodically in the two months leading up to the election.

Well, I really only want to make one adjustment to my earlier prediction today — although there are a few states I plan to keep my eyes on for awhile.

Originally, I predicted that Michigan and its 17 electoral votes would go for McCain. But, today, I believe the state will vote for Obama.

That reduces McCain's margin in my scenario to 278 to 260.

A couple of states that I'm going to be watching are Colorado and New Hampshire, which are both predicted to be swing states. I still feel fairly confident that New Hampshire will vote for McCain, but I'm not sure about Colorado.

If Colorado, with its 9 electoral votes, supports Obama — and the rest of my prediction is correct — the electoral vote will be tied, 269-269.

And the decision will go to the House of Representatives.

Since the Democrats are expected to hold the majority in the House, that would mean that Obama would be likely to win. Right?

Well, not necessarily.

It's my understanding that, in this kind of proceeding, each state counts as one vote. Instead of relying on more than 400 individual votes to select the president, the emphasis would be on the 50 states.

In Texas, we have 30 congressional districts. But our House delegation would have only one vote in determining the president — the same as Illinois, which has 20 congressional districts, or, say, Delaware or Alaska, each of which has only one congressman.

In the House of Representatives, you must win a majority of the states to win the presidency.

There could be all sorts of situations going on.

For example, a state might vote for the nominee of Party A in the presidential race in November, but its congressional delegation has a one-seat margin favoring Party B. When the issue is brought to the House for a vote, will the state's House delegation respect the initial wishes of the voters? Or will it vote along party lines?

We could witness a frenzy of political lobbying that we've never seen before in this country.

A Look at 'The Map'

During the weekend, I wrote about the Electoral College and how it works (read: how it really elects the president), and I made my first assessment of Barack Obama and John McCain in their head-to-head matchup in the Electoral College about a month ago.

Today, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics weighed in.

"[E]xcept for the guessing game about the vice presidential nominations," Sabato writes, "there's no greater fun to be had in July."

And he affirms some of the points I've been making.

For example ...

Sabato concedes that "[i]t is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides," but he confirms my point, which has been that past election results are a pretty good way to assess the chances that a party's nominee has of winning a given state.

If, as Sabato says, "a half-dozen or more" states switch party allegiances this fall, "that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme."

And, Sabato writes, "If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances."

The key word in that sentence, whether you're Obama or McCain, is "temporarily." The winner of such a state can't count on its support when the next presidential election campaign rolls around.

For example, if Obama carries Colorado, as many people are suggesting that he might, that would be a significant shift in voting behavior. Colorado has voted for every Republican since 1968 — with the solitary exception of voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 (but the voters there resumed their Republican pattern when Clinton ran for re-election).

At this stage of the campaign — nearly four months before Election Day without knowing the identities of either running mate or what may happen in the world before the voters go to the polls — Sabato says it is necessary "to assume that the election will be basically competitive, let's say with the winner receiving 52% or less of the two-party vote."

A lot can happen in four months, and Sabato says "If one candidate's proportion of the vote climbs above 52%, then virtually all the swing states will move in his direction."

In Sabato's current scenario, there are eight states worth a total of 99 electoral votes that qualify as "swing states" — Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. It's a mix of small states (New Hampshire and Nevada), mid-sized states (Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin) and large states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

If these states are still the swing states by the middle of October, states like New Hampshire and Nevada can expect to get as much attention from both parties as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

If this race is as close as it was in 2000, every electoral vote will matter.

Which leads me to another interesting point that Sabato makes.

"History also suggests that the Electoral College system is only critical when the popular vote is reasonably close or disputed. That is, the College can potentially or actually upend the popular vote just in elections where the major-party candidates are within a point or two of one another."

---

---

So where does Sabato think things stand on July 10?

Well, he starts with the states that appear to be "solid" for one party or another.

Obama has 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and D.C. in that column, worth 183 electoral votes.

McCain has 17 "solid" states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) worth 144 electoral votes.

Sabato thinks it would be futile for either candidate to make much of an effort to win any of the "solid" states from the other, and I'm inclined to agree.

I think Sabato is right when he says McCain "will end up wasting a lot of money" if he tries to win a state like California. And I also think Sabato is right when he says he "will be surprised" if Obama is successful at capturing any of McCain's "solid" states — although he acknowledges the possibility that Obama could win Indiana if he puts Sen. Evan Bayh on his ticket.

From the "solid" states, we move on to the ones where the candidates are "likely" to win. These are also states where the chances are better for the opponent to pull off an upset.

Sabato lists only two "likely" states for Obama — Oregon and Minnesota — worth 17 votes (that gives Obama a total of 200 electoral votes from 15 states and D.C.). He lists five "likely" states — Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana and North Dakota — worth 30 electoral votes for McCain (and that gives him 174 electoral votes from 22 states).

From Obama's list, Sabato says McCain's best shot at an upset is in Oregon. "The only way McCain could steal Minnesota is by picking Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate," Sabato says. "However, even a McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have a 50-50 chance, at best, of carrying Minnesota."

Sabato rates Obama's chances of winning some of McCain's "likely" states as better than his opponent's chances, but he's skeptical about the claim that Obama can produce enough of a turnout among blacks to reverse voting patterns of four decades in the South.

"If Libertarian nominee and former Georgia GOP Congressman Bob Barr wins his projected 6 to 8% in the Peach State, or if Obama chooses former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Obama could have a shot at a plurality victory," Sabato says, "but for now we'll bet on McCain ... A giant African-American turnout might shift Mississippi (38% black) to Obama, but that is not our gamble."

That leaves the states that are "leaning" in one direction or another.

Again, there are two states in Obama's column — Iowa and New Mexico — worth 12 electoral votes. If those two states, along with the "likely" states and the "solid" states that Sabato has identified, do indeed vote for Obama, that gives him 212 electoral votes from 17 states and D.C.

McCain has three states "leaning" in his favor — Florida, Missouri, North Carolina — worth 53 electoral votes. If McCain sweeps all the states in his column, he will receive 227 electoral votes from 25 states.

Of the leaners, Sabato seems confident that Obama can hold both Iowa and New Mexico, especially if he puts New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on his ticket.

In McCain's case, Sabato says, "If he loses even one of them, he will be up against the Electoral College wall."

So then it's up to the states that are too close to call.

"If Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he's already at 269 (one vote short), and would need just one of the following states: Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia," Sabato writes.

"Of course, if McCain managed to secure Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia, we'd be at that fabled 269-269 tie."

And, Sabato continues, "If McCain can grab Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, while holding Ohio, he's back in the hunt, with smaller toss-up states proving decisive."

Actually, Sabato's prediction isn't that much different from my own. He allowed himself the luxury of putting the troublesome states in the "toss-up" column. But, excluding the "toss-ups," our predictions were identical.

In my prediction, I gave McCain six of the eight states Sabato lists as "toss-ups" — and, in my scenario, that gave him a 295-243 victory in the Electoral College.

It's all a guessing game right now.

Will the running mates make a difference?

What will happen in the world between now and November 4?

Who Is the Best Choice for Democrats?

As the backdrop to the compromise on the Michigan and Florida delegations, Democrats heard talk about "electability" and threats from some Democrats that they will abandon their party if their candidate isn't nominated.

The compromise didn't resolve the matter of which candidate will be nominated -- so it now appears that the decision will be left to the superdelegates.

Who's it going to be, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

When all is said and done, the Democrats can say that it was a virtual split. Obama has a slight edge in popular vote and delegate support, but timing is everything, as the saying goes.

And that leads, inevitably, to "What if ... ?" questions.

What if Texas and Ohio had voted with most of the other states in early February instead of early March?

What if voters in West Virginia and Kentucky had held their primaries in February instead of May? Would Obama have been able to build his remarkable primary/caucus winning streak?

Obama withdrew his membership from his church yesterday. If he had done that earlier, would it have changed the outcome in some of the states that followed? Would he have been able to secure the nomination by leaving his church?

What's the situation in states that will clearly be battleground states in the fall?

Here's a peek at a few of them.

• Clinton appears to give John McCain a tougher fight for Florida's 27 electoral votes than Obama.
  
  Quinnipiac University says Clinton leads McCain in Florida (48% to 41%) but it says McCain leads Obama (45% to 41%). Rasmussen Reports has different margins but identical outcomes -- Clinton over McCain (47% to 41%) and McCain over Obama (50% to 40%).
  
  
• The race for Michigan's 17 electoral votes seems to be favoring McCain, although polls suggest Clinton might be more competitive there than Obama.
  
  Neither Democrat has been leading in recent head-to-head polls.
  
  EPIC-MRA's latest surveys for WXYZ-Action News report that McCain leads both Democratic challengers (44-40 over Obama, 46-37 over Clinton).
  
  According to those results, Obama is more competitive against McCain than Clinton. But it's worth mentioning that EPIC-MRA's survey on McCain-Clinton was completed April 8 and I have found no surveys on that question that are more recent. The survey on McCain-Obama was completed May 22.
  
  But Clinton is tied with McCain (44-44) in the latest Rasmussen Reports while Obama trails by 4 points (41-37).
  
  
• It seems likely to me that California (55 electoral votes) will remain in the Democratic column, where it's been since 1992.
  
  Both Clinton and Obama have been leading in every California survey I've seen. The numbers are similar for both candidates -- one may lead McCain by a slightly higher margin than the other, but the polls consistently show the Democrat winning in California.
  
  At this point, I can't see anything changing the outcome in that state.
  
  
• In Ohio, there are 20 electoral votes available. Polls are mixed on Obama vs. McCain, with Obama leading the latest Survey USA poll (48% to 39%) and McCain in front in the latest Quinnipiac University survey (44% to 40%) and Rasmussen Reports (45% to 44%).
  
  Against McCain, Clinton leads Ohio by 7 percentage points in Rasmussen (50% to 43%) and Quinnipiac (48% to 41%).
  
  Survey USA apparently is only asking respondents about Obama-McCain, because I have seen almost no results of a Clinton-McCain inquiry since early April (the exceptions to this are Missouri and North Carolina -- see below).
  
  The advantage in Ohio appears to belong to Clinton.
  
  
• Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral votes, appears to be favoring the Democrat, whichever one that is.
  
  Obama's lead in the polls is pretty consistent, generally between 6 and 8 points (46-40 in Quinnipiac, 48-40 in Survey USA, 46-39 in Susquehanna Polling), a little narrower in Rasmussen Reports (45-43).
  
  Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is consistent as well. It's also consistently a little higher than Obama's -- 11 points each in Rasmussen Reports (50-39) and Susquehanna Polling (49-38), 13 points in Quinnipiac (50-37).
  
  I'd say Democrats can expect to carry Pennsylvania for the fifth straight time.
  
  
• Georgia (15 electoral votes) is one of those Southern states in which Obama is expected to benefit from a large black turnout. (Blacks acccount for just under 30% of Georgia's population.)
  
  But the latest surveys of likely voters indicate McCain leads both Democrats by margins in double digits. Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading Clinton, 48% to 37%, and leading Obama, 53% to 39%.
  
  Strategic Vision's latest survey seems to confirm Rasmussen. It has McCain leading Obama, 54% to 40%. Apparently, it didn't ask respondents about McCain vs. Clinton.
  
  
• North Carolina (15 electoral votes) is another Southern state where Obama's race is expected to work in his favor. (About 21% of North Carolina's residents are black.)
  
  And the conservative Washington Times says Sen. Elizabeth Dole faces a tough battle for re-election this year.
  
  But, even though the climate for Republicans isn't good in North Carolina, McCain has been leading in most of the recent polls I've seen. And the only exception has been in Clinton's favor, not Obama's.
  
  Survey USA has McCain leading Obama in North Carolina, 51% to 43%, but it has Clinton leading McCain, 49% to 43%.
  
  Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading both Democrats by 3 points in North Carolina -- 48-45 over Obama and 43-40 over Clinton.
  
  And Public Policy Polling reports that McCain leads both Democrats as well. McCain leads Clinton in that survey, 48% to 40%, and he leads Obama, 49% to 42%.
  
  
• I've heard talk suggesting that Obama should pick Virginia Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate.
  
  The thinking is that a traditionally Republican state like Virginia (13 electoral votes) is a viable Democratic target in the presidential election -- if only because Virginia rejected incumbent Republican Senator George Allen in 2006 and put Webb in the Senate in his place.
  
  That logic may be correct, but the polls aren't all that favorable.
  
  Obama does run closer to McCain than Clinton in Virginia, but the polls still lean Republican in that state.
  
  Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Obama 47-44 and he leads Clinton 47-41. The latest VCU Communications and Public Relations survey finds McCain leading Obama 44-36 and leading Clinton 47-38.
  
  In the interest of fairness, Obama led McCain in Survey USA 49-42.
  
  
• Missouri (11 electoral votes) is a bellwether state, having voted for the winner of almost every presidential election for a century.
  
  When polls ask voters in that state to choose between Obama and McCain, McCain leads in every survey. Sometimes the lead is slim (48-45 in Survey USA), sometimes it's wider (47-41 in Rasmussen Reports).
  
  But the last time I saw a poll that showed Obama leading McCain head-to-head in Missouri was in a survey from December. That was before the Iowa caucus, which gave Obama the early momentum he needed to overtake then-front runner Clinton.
  
  The results are more mixed when the choice is between Clinton and McCain.
  
  Survey USA apparently asked Missouri voters about Clinton vs. McCain and came up with Clinton 48%, McCain 46%. Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Clinton, 45% to 43%.
  
  
• Historically, New Mexico (5 electoral votes) is another bellwether state.
  
  Rasmussen Reports found that Clinton leads McCain in his neighboring state, 47% to 41%. Rasmussen says Obama's lead is even higher, 50% to 41%, but Survey USA says Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico, 44% to 44%.

Time to Settle It, Once and For All

As the Democrat National Committee meets to discuss what is to be done with the Michigan and Florida delegates, it's worth noting a few things.

• First, it is beyond dispute that both states scheduled their primaries before party rules said they could -- and apparently with both states' party leaderships' knowledge of the probability of severe ramifications if the rule was violated.
  
  You may not agree with the rule, but it is a rule. I'm sorry for the voters in Michigan and Florida. They did their part -- they participated. It isn't their fault that their states jumped the gun in scheduling the primaries.
  
  
• Second, it also appears to be likely that this is going to settle things in the race for this year's nomination -- possibly before the primaries on Tuesday.
  
  I'm sorry if it turns out that a ruling on the Michigan and Florida delegations minimizes the importance of those final primaries -- but on the positive side, almost every state got to take part in a genuine debate over the Democratic nomination this year. That's a victory for democracy.
  
  
• Third, we'll probably hear talk about "electability" from both the Hillary Clinton and the Barack Obama camps during this committee conference. That's important, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor in a decision about a rules violation.
  
  And supporters of neither candidate should threaten to punish the other by staying home on Election Day if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. Participation by all groups in this year's primaries has been admirable, but it's only half the battle. You have to vote in November if you want to help make your candidate(s) president, senator, congressman or governor.
  
  The only clear preference being indicated by any group of voters seems to be coming from Democrats themselves -- polls now show more than 50% of Democrats prefer Obama for the nomination and he has a double-digit lead in most surveys.
  
  But national polls show both Democrats leading John McCain among all likely voters by margins that are within the margin for error -- numbers that will fluctuate during the summer as running mates are named and conventions are held.
  
  Apparently, neither Clinton nor Obama can legitimately claim to have an advantage over the other against McCain -- at this stage.

Being There

The horse race for the Democratic nomination is shaping up to be a photo finish.

But neither horse may have what it takes to make it to the finish line.

Even after you factor in all the super-delegates and the delegates that were committed to each candidate based on the popular vote in each state -- and you allow for the delegates that are left in the primaries that haven't been held yet -- the numbers don't add up to a majority for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

And that means revisiting Michigan and Florida, which held Democratic primaries on dates that violated party rules. Consequently, their delegations were barred from the convention in Denver this summer.

But now it appears that no one can be nominated for president, under the party's existing rules, without those delegations. Unless the party wants to break -- or rewrite -- a bunch of rules.

Party chairman Howard Dean told CBS' Face the Nation he thought it was "very unlikely" that the Michigan and Florida delegations would be seated at the convention without some concessions on both sides.

Dean also said that the party would not pay to hold "do-over" primaries in both states.

"[O]ur job is to tell the American people about Senator McCain's record on Iraq and the deficits and so forth, and convince the American people that our nominee is better than Senator McCain," Dean said. "And that's what we're going to be using our resources for."

Well, that's fine, Mr. Chairman, but you haven't got a nominee yet. And, like it or not, there are some differences between Clinton and Obama. Right now, the choice is between McCain and a shadow candidate, Sen. Generic Democrat. McCain will have the opportunity to sharpen his attacks once he can stop referring to the nominee as "my opponent" all the time.

It may not be what the Democrats wanted, but something will have to be done about Michigan and Florida.

Part of this mathematical quandary could be resolved fairly simply, it seems to me. If the delegations from Michigan and Florida aren't being included in the decision, why are their numbers still included in the total? Doesn't that artificially inflate the majority number a candidate needs to win the nomination?

Florida originally was allocated 210 delegates. Michigan originally received 156 delegates. Based on the original delegate totals, a candidate needs 2,024 delegates to be nominated (currently, Obama has 1,527 and Clinton has 1,428).

If you take away the delegations from Michigan and Florida, a candidate needs less than 1,850 to win the nomination.

If you adjust the math, it's still a tight race, but, with the bar lowered appropriately, it doesn't mean that Obama or Clinton must win four-fifths of the vote in every primary that's left in order to be nominated.

Two Days Until the Michigan Primary

It is the Sunday before the Democratic and Republican primaries in Michigan.

* The Detroit Free Press reports that the latest poll shows Mitt Romney leading the Republican field. Romney grew up in Michigan, and his father was governor of Michigan for six years, before becoming the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Richard Nixon.

The poll says Romney is supported by 27% of Michigan's Republicans. Running second in the poll is John McCain, with 22%. Third place belongs to Mike Huckabee, with 16%.

Respondents who cited the economy as their top concern favored Romney over McCain, 42% to 25%. Approximately the same percentages favored McCain among Republicans who cited the Iraq war as their top issue, according to the poll.

The Free Press endorsed McCain more than a week ago. The newspaper endorsed McCain over George W. Bush in 2000, and McCain won the Michigan primary that year.

The Democratic primary in Michigan is hardly a primary at all. Most Democrats agreed back in October not to participate because of a conflict over whether Iowa and New Hampshire should be allowed to be first on the calendar. As a result, two of the top three Democratic contenders -- Barack Obama and John Edwards -- will not be on the ballot.

But the Free Press says Michigan's Democrats can "send an important message" by their participation in the admittedly sparse primary, even if their choice is not on the ballot. They can't write in their choice -- if they do, their ballots will be thrown out. But they can vote for an uncommitted slate of delegates to the convention.

* The Detroit News found a virtual tie in the Republican race, with McCain holding a narrow lead over Romney, 27% to 26%. The newspaper's survey says Huckabee is "still a factor." He's in third place with 19%.

Michigan's Republicans are "waiting to be moved," writes Detroit News editorial page editor Nolan Finley. "Michigan's Republican primary is in bad need of a Misty Moment."

* According to CNN/Opinion Research Corp., whoever wins the Republican nomination has a lot of work to do. Only one Republican -- McCain -- is seen as capable of challenging either Obama or Hillary Clinton. The others are far behind both potential Democratic nominees.

The Republicans may need several "Misty Moments" in this election.