The Triumph of Hope Over Experience

---

---

That is said to be writer Samuel Johnson's assessment of a man who married for a second time after the death of his first wife ... to whom he had been unhappily married for many years.

I have come to the conclusion that it has many potential applications to Barack Obama and his campaign for a second term — but I'm having some difficulty narrowing it down to the best one.

You see, I have long felt that it is an accurate appraisal of any voter's decision to vote for Obama.

Based on his record in office, it's hard for me to see how anyone who did not vote for Obama in 2008 would be inclined to vote for him now.

2008 was when his appeal was at its zenith, when his soaring rhetoric reminded many people of American presidents from the past who are still admired today.

And, perhaps more than any other presidential election in my memory, 2008 was a choice between a candidate in whom voters saw themselves as they wished to be — and a candidate in whom voters saw themselves as they really are.

The voters selected the idealized version — and many have been disappointed. Clearly. Only 45% of Americans approved of the job he is doing in a recent poll on the subject. That's quite a tumble from the 70s and upper 60s of the early days of his presidency.

But 2012 is a different election. Ultimately, Obama will be judged on whether he has delivered on his promises — as is every incumbent president.

Thirty–two years ago, Ronald Reagan summed it up for fence straddlers who were trying to decide whether to give President Jimmy Carter a second term: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Reagan asked, and a majority of voters decided the answer was no.

Reagan the challenger was elected.

This is the eighth election since Reagan asked that question in his debate with Carter (ninth if you count the election in which Reagan defeated Carter). It is the fifth election in which that question has been relevant to one of the candidates (again, if you include 1980, it is the sixth such election).

When the answer has been yes, as it was in 1984 when Reagan sought a second term and in 1996 when Bill Clinton sought a second term, the incumbent has won a resounding victory.

When the answer has been no, though, incumbents generally lose (i.e., Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992) — although they have been known to pull out narrow victories once in awhile (i.e., George W. Bush in 2004).

I have no doubt that many of those who voted for Obama four years ago expected more from him than has been delivered.

Some probably feel obliged to support him now because they share the same party affiliation. For others, he pushes the right buttons when he speaks, whether his actions in office have matched his rhetoric or not.

Still others, I have concluded, feel compelled to support Obama — even if they are not satisfied with his performance in office — because they have decided that it would look bad to the rest of the world if the first black president is rejected by the voters.

Those people, I have noticed, are the first (but hardly the last) to point fingers at Obama's critics and label them racist — whether the label is deserved or not.

Now, I know that there are some people who will vote against Obama because of his race (which, as Morgan Freeman rightly pointed out recently, is not black but, rather, biracial). But far more of those who dissent from Obama do so from deeply held personal convictions.

I learned a long time ago that voters evaluate political candidates on the basis of what matters to them. Politicians (and their most devout supporters) do not get to choose what voters use to make their evaluations.

For some voters, what matters is a candidate's race (or gender or religion or sexual preference). I pity them because they are blind to the experiences and talents that many people bring to the table.

But we have been conditioned to assume that racism only works one way.

Lately, I have been wondering something: If we acknowledge that a certain portion of the vote that will be recorded against Obama in November will be due to his race, shouldn't we also acknowledge that a certain portion of the vote for him will be because of his race?

I know there are people out there who support Obama solely because he is black. I know some of them personally, and I know others from their arguments.

Arguments like ...

"Well, I know he isn't perfect, and I disagreed with him when he did W and X, and I didn't approve when he said Y and Z. And I don't feel comfortable with his positions on A, B and C.

"And he could have done more than he's done, but I'm going to vote for him, anyway."

These are the enablers.

And then there are excusers:

"None of this is his fault. He inherited a terrible mess that was years in the making, and it's going to take years to clean it up."

Perhaps, but recent polls I've seen say that about three–quarters of the voters believe the economy and jobs are the most important issues facing this nation.

That really isn't new. A majority of Americans believed that the economy and jobs were the most important issues facing us in 2008.

Or they will say, "We're screwed either way," and then they will tell you that they will vote to keep the guy who is in office.

I've asked some people if they would be inclined to re–elect a white president under these circumstances. They all said no, but they all said they would vote for Obama.

Four years ago, I told anyone who would listen (and even some who didn't want to) that whoever was elected, Obama or John McCain, his urgent mission would be to put America back to work.

If he did not, I warned, he would pay a severe price when he sought re–election.

Well, here we are, four years later. Obama has done little, if anything, to promote job creation. His policies have, in fact, restricted job creation.

And he continues to blame his predecessor — who certainly deserves his share of the blame for what he did in office but not for decisions that have been made since he left the White House.

This is pass–the–buck politics. It used to stop at the president's desk but no more.

This is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Ronald Reagan didn't continue to flog Carter after he had been in office for 3½ years. Nor did Clinton continue to flog the first George Bush when he had been in office for 3½ years.

But Obama feels entitled to play by different rules, and some of his supporters — in what must be the ultimate example of the triumph of hope over experience — are willing to permit him to do so in spite of mounting evidence that points to the folly of such an approach.

I guess those people never watched a carnival shell game — because that's how it works. The guy who is playing the game keeps talking and keeps distracting, and the mark loses track of where he thinks the pea is.

We are about to embark on a week of shrill, unfounded name calling and mudslinging at the Democrats' convention in Charlotte, N.C., on behalf of a man who hasn't been able to bring unemployment below 8% in the entirety of his term.

That must be evidence of reverse racism.

Certainly, it is proof that Samuel Johnson was right.

The Emerging Electoral Map

---

---

Thirty weeks from today, America goes to the polls.

With the exception of the farthest corners of the extreme right, it seems that more and more Republicans now are acknowledging that Mitt Romney will be their standard bearer in the fall — and that he will be the only realistic alternative to Barack Obama.

The plausible scenarios in which Romney could be denied the nomination on the first ballot are dwindling.

Thus, attention is shifting to a different kind of math from the delegate math that has obsessed Republican observers to this point — electoral vote math.

Each presidential election is unique, of course. The circumstances are unique, and the candidates, even those who are not running for the first time, are unique.

Incumbents usually have evolving philosophies shaped by their time in the White House. They learn — sometimes early, sometimes late — that things are not as simple from the inside as they appear to be from the outside. Their rhetoric tends to reflect that.

Presidential nominees who lose a general election, even one that is close, almost never get a second chance anymore, but Richard Nixon did, and he was triumphant the second time in part because of a strategy built around the idea that he was a "new Nixon" who had learned from defeat.

Nixon also followed strategies that played on lessons from history. Faced with two rivals in 1968, he devised a "Southern strategy" that exploited racism and used fear as a wedge tactic. Nixon — and, in a more primitive form and with considerably less success, Barry Goldwater four years earlier — laid the foundation for the GOP's steady takeover of the South in the latter 20th century.

Knowledge of electoral history often makes it easier to predict the outcome of a current race — in some states anyway. For example:

---

The Sure Things

---

These are states that have regularly favored one party over the other or recent margins have been lopsided — sometimes both.

Both Romney and Obama can expect to win some states like that — and, frankly, little needs to be said about them.

Romney has 14 states in this group: Alabama (9 electoral votes), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), Oklahoma (7), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), Wyoming (3). Total = 120 electoral votes.

Obama has 10 states (and D.C.) in this group: California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), D.C. (3), Hawaii (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12). Total = 145 electoral votes.

---

The Probables

---

The outcomes in these states appear likely to favor a particular nominee, but, for one reason or another, there is some residual doubt — and that doubt likely will remain until the election is over.

Romney has nine states meeting this description: Arizona (11), Colorado (9), Georgia (16), Indiana (11), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), West Virginia (5). Total = 70 electoral votes.

• Arizona, of course, is John McCain's home state, but it probably would have supported him in 2008 even if he was from a state two time zones away. It has consistently supported Republicans for more than half a century. Since 1952, Arizona has supported only one Democrat, but that exception is noteworthy. It was Bill Clinton when he ran for re–election in 1996.
  
  Will Arizona vote for another incumbent Democrat seeking a second term? It didn't vote for President Carter in 1980 or President Johnson in 1964.
• Colorado voted Republican in nine of the previous 10 elections before voting for Obama in 2008. It was reminiscent of 1992, when Clinton snapped a six–election Republican winning streak in the Rocky Mountain State. But Colorado turned against Clinton when he sought re–election, and it is a good bet that the same will happen this time. Colorado hasn't voted for Democrat nominees in consecutive presidential elections since the 1930s.
• I have a friend who assured me in 2008 that Georgia would vote for Obama. My friend lived in Atlanta at the time, and I think his judgment was clouded somewhat by his enthusiasm for Obama. Anyway, Georgia's black population didn't turn out to have nearly the clout he thought it would, and Georgia voted Republican, as it has in six of the last seven elections.
  
  Georgia bucked the Republican trend in the South in 1980 when it stood by native son Jimmy Carter and in 1992 when it endorsed Clinton; other than that, it has been in the GOP column for the last three decades.
  
  I expect Georgia to remain in the Republican column this fall, but it is possible that the progressive element in Georgia could carry the day.
• When Indiana voted for Obama in 2008, it snapped a streak of 10 consecutive elections in which the Hoosier State voted for the Republican. It seems likely that Indiana will return to its traditional ways this November. Indiana has not voted for Democrats in consecutive elections since the 1930s.
• Montana's incumbent Democrat senator is facing a tough fight for re–election, and that could mean trouble at the top of the ticket. It isn't as if Democrats have a lot of wiggle room in Montana, anyway. The state has voted Republican in 10 of the last 11 elections. As it is with Colorado, the exception is 1992, when Clinton carried Montana as the challenger.
  
  But incumbent Democrats usually struggle there. That's not a new development for the senator, who won the seat by less than 4,000 votes, and LBJ was the only incumbent Democrat who was able to cruise to victory there in a presidential race since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor seven decades ago.
• North Dakota has only voted for one Democrat since 1936, and Republicans usually poll in the upper 50s or low 60s there, but Obama held McCain below 55% last time.
  
  I don't know if that will be important or not, but, if the race is as close as many observers seem to think, even three electoral votes can be significant.
• South Carolina has voted Republican in every election but one since 1960. The exception was Carter's near–sweep of the South in 1976. But the Republican share of the vote declined in 2008, which made me wonder if the times were changing in Strom Thurmond's stomping grounds.
  
  Such thoughts seem to have been premature. South Carolina voters elected a Republican governor, re–elected a Republican senator and ousted a Democratic incumbent who was a 28–year House veteran.
• South Dakota has only voted Democrat three times since the dawn of the 20th century, but the GOP share of the vote there declined in 2008.
• Until George W. Bush won West Virginia in 2000, that state had not supported a non–incumbent Republican since before the Great Depression. It's been nearly a century since West Virginia voted against an incumbent Democrat, but the state has been trending Republican, having gone for the GOP nominee in the last three elections.

Obama has five states meeting this description: Delaware (3), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14). Total = 51 electoral votes.

• One would expect the Democrats to hold on to Delaware. It is the home state of the vice president, and it has voted for the Democratic nominee five straight times. But Delaware is streaky that way. In five of the six elections prior to that, Delaware sided with the Republicans.
• Illinois is the state Obama represented in the U.S. Senate. He should be expected to win that one, right? He probably will, but Illinois is large enough that, if other states in that part of the country are in play, Illinois will be the target of some spirited campaigning on both sides as well. I think it will be a battleground in 2012.
• Maine wasn't always the apparently solid Democratic state it is today. Before its current five–election streak, Maine usually supported Republicans. It voted for the Democratic ticket in 1964 and 1968 (when its junior senator was nominated for vice president), but it voted heavily against Jack Kennedy in 1960, and it was one of two states (Vermont was the other) that never supported Franklin D. Roosevelt.
  
  Recent elections would suggest that Maine will be back in the Democrats' column this fall — but if the GOP nominee is a former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, who knows (especially with an open Senate seat and the leading contender for it being a former governor who is an independent)?
• Minnesota has the nation's longest active uninterrupted streak of endorsements of Democratic tickets. The last time it voted for a Republican was 40 years ago, in 1972 — and, based on the numbers, it did so reluctantly that year — but no Democrat has received 55% or more of Minnesota's popular vote, other than Lyndon Johnson, in the last 60 years.
  
  Minnesota probably will be in the Democrats' column in November — but it might be vulnerable if other large midwestern states are competitive.
• New Jersey, too, appears to be a lock for the Democrats. It has voted Democrat in five straight elections, but it voted Republican in the six elections before that. In fact, in the last half of the 20th century, New Jersey often gave the winners slender margins of victory — even in years when other states were voting heavily for one side or the other.
  
  That primarily seems to be due to cultural issues. Jersey doesn't seem to be as responsive to conservative positions on social issues as other states are, and its rather large ethnic population (18% Hispanic, 13% black, 8% Asian) tends to favor progressive positions on immigration.
  
  All that could be rendered irrelevant, though, if New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is chosen to be Romney's running mate.

---

The Leaners

---

These states seem likely to vote in a certain way, but history suggests the results may be much closer than expected. Romney has two states in this column: North Carolina (15), Virginia (13). Total = 28 electoral votes. Before 2008, I would have said both of these states would be in the Republican column. North Carolina hadn't voted for a Democrat since 1976, and Virginia hadn't voted for a Democrat since 1964. But Obama won both in 2008. They weren't decisive victories, though, and there is no reason for Democrats to take them for granted in 2012. Obama has two states in this column: Michigan (16), New Mexico (5). Total = 21 electoral votes. "For a moment in history," write "The Almanac of American Politics" authors Michael Barone and Chuck McCutcheon, "Michigan was a bellwether state," explaining that, in the elections of the 1980s, Michigan voted within 1% of the national average. Those were clearly Republican years, though, and, in the elections before and since, Michigan tended to vote a little higher for Democrats than most states. A noteworthy exception was 1976, when Michigan voted for native son Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. Thirty–six years later, another Republican with ties to Michigan will be on the ballot. Michigan was hit hard by the recession and struggled with high unemployment. Will it vote for Obama again, or will it support the son of a popular former governor? New Mexico voted for Obama by more than 15 percentage points in 2008, but the vote is usually much closer than that. The 2008 election was the first time a presidential nominee carried New Mexico by a double–digit margin in nearly a quarter of a century. Now, if all those states really do vote as I have indicated, that would mean Romney would carry 25 states with 218 electoral votes and Obama would win 17 states worth 217 electoral votes. Which brings us to ...

---

Too Close to Call/The Battlegrounds

---

I believe these eight states (worth a total of 103 electoral votes) are where the election will be won. Florida (29), Iowa (6), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10). If you look at the results of the last 10 elections (1972–2008), you will find that Republicans have won Florida, Missouri and Nevada seven times and New Hampshire and Ohio six times. On the flip side, although Florida voted against Clinton when he was elected in '92, it supported his bid for a second term. In fact, in its entire existence as a state, Florida has only voted against one incumbent Democrat (Jimmy Carter) seeking another term. New Hampshire, long a sure thing for Republicans, has voted for Democrats in four of the last five elections. Obama's share of the vote there in 2008 was greater than any Democrat's since Lyndon Johnson, but the 2010 vote implied that New Hampshire will probably be close this fall — a Democrat was re–elected governor, a Republican was elected to the U.S. Senate and Republicans seized both of the state's House seats from the Democrats. Ohio and Missouri have been 20th–century bellwethers. Ohio has been on the winning side in every election since 1964, and Missouri was on the winning side in every election from 1960 to 2004. Democrats have won Wisconsin seven times and Pennsylvania six times. Most people would probably concede Wisconsin to the Democrats (they've won the state six straight times), but I'm inclined to wait and see the results of the gubernatorial recall election in June. For more than 30 years (from 1976 to 2004), Pennsylvania was the scene of spirited campaigns on both sides and never voted for either party by more than 10 percentage points. In 2008, Pennsylvanians gave Obama a double–digit victory over John McCain (just barely), and most observers would probably expect the Democrats to win there again, as they have in every presidential election since 1992. But in 2010, Pennsylvania elected a Republican governor and a Republican senator. Seems to me that casts a certain amount of doubt over the eventual outcome there. Iowa has split down the middle, voting for each party five times. It tends to support most incumbents these days, but that was not always the case. Iowa voted against the last two presidents who were denied a second term (Carter and George H.W. Bush), and the outcome there may hold significant implications for the rest of the country. If history is any guide, the last four decades indicate that Republicans are likely to win 67 electoral votes, Democrats are likely to win 30, and Iowa's six will be up for grabs. But that is strictly a look at how states have voted in the last 40 years. Things can always change. If that is, indeed, how things turn out, though, Iowa's vote won't produce a cliffhanger like the one in 2000 when the press camped out in Florida for a month waiting for the historic Supreme Court ruling that determined the winner of its electoral votes. Nevertheless, it certainly isn't as cut and dried as all that. Florida's population differs greatly from other Southern states in nearly every demographic category imaginable and, while other Southern states were giving Republican nominees double–digit margins, the tallies in both Florida and Ohio tended to be much closer — less than 7% in both states in the last five presidential elections and less than 5% in both states in the last three.

Clearly, neither party can consider either state locked up until the votes are counted in November.

PDQ Bachmann

The last presidential election demonstrated rather vividly that growing portions of both political parties are embracing the idea of electing a woman to the executive branch of the federal government, as either president or vice president.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was narrowly beaten for the presidential nomination by Barack Obama in a race that came to be seen by many as a battle between historical guilt trips, misogyny and racism. And, on the Republican side, of course, Sarah Palin became the first woman nominated by the GOP for vice president.

But each party wants different things from its female candidates — and will tolerate nothing less from the other side. And both continue to hold female politicians to expectations they would never impose on men. In that regard, I suppose, women continue to be subjected to a political double standard if not a societal one.

As far as they have come in my lifetime — and that includes occupying seats on the Supreme Court, traveling in space, acting as diplomats on behalf of the United States and serving as speaker of the House — women are still expected to do things that no man is expected to do — like remain young and attractive long after it is natural for anyone to be young and attractive.

In our highly visual age, appearances have taken on more influence than ever before, but men are not subjected to anything like the scrutiny that women are. Gray hair on a man is seen as distinguished; it is a sign of advanced age in a woman. A few extra pounds have seldom stood between a man and electoral victory; on a woman, they can be politically fatal.

I suppose that accounts for the reaction to Newsweek's unflattering photo of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann on its cover.

Such negative stereotypes are offset, to a degree, by positive ones — such as the image of nurturer and healer — that make the idea of electing a woman president an appealing one for so many in these troubling times. They see a dysfunctional political system that needs a "woman's touch" after being taken to the brink of catastrophe too many times in recent years.

In Republican circles, Palin had that market cornered for a long time because she was really the only female whose name was being bandied about. But things have changed. While Palin has been motoring around the country, Bachmann jumped into the 2012 race and won yesterday's straw poll in her home state of Iowa — and some are wondering if Palin's moment in the spotlight has ended. She is supposed to reveal her 2012 plans next month.

(Personally, I would think that Palin — if she really does intend to run for president, and I am inclined to think she will not — would not mind relinquishing the spotlight for awhile.)

It's made me think about expectations, cliches and modern "firsts" in the American presidency in ways I never did before.

There is a desperation in people's expectations these days, I believe, born in part from a certain amount of disappointment in the policies of the current administration. Many of the president's supporters seem content to give him the benefit of the doubt — and additional time for these saplings to bear fruit. But not everyone, particularly the unemployed, is so generous — and patient.

This president was symbolic, of course, because of his race. He was the first black president. Whatever history may ultimately say about his tenure in the Oval Office, he will always be the first black to be nominated for — and elected to — the presidency.

When a female becomes president, she will be the first of her gender — and therefore will be symbolic as well.

Such distinctions may have made Barack Obama — and may someday make the first female president — sensitive (and vulnerable) to allegations of favoritism or preferential treatment. The religious issue presented similar challenges for John F. Kennedy half a century ago.

My experience is that, after a certain point, most historic "firsts" in the American presidency became isolated, no matter how successful the groundbreaking president may have been, and that the second of whatever it is hasn't come along rapidly.

Kennedy, of course, was the first Catholic to be elected president. He wasn't the first Catholic to be nominated, but he was the first in more than three decades. As president, his job approval ratings never fell below 56%.

Well, it's been more than 50 years since Kennedy was elected and nearly 50 since he was assassinated, but America still has not elected its second Catholic president. Catholics have sought the nomination, including JFK's younger brothers, but only one has been nominated for the presidency.

That's three Catholic presidential nominees in 83 years.

This applies to the vice presidency, too. Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman on a Democratic ticket. There have been half a dozen Democratic tickets since then, and none of the nominees was a woman.

I strongly doubt that Bachmann will be nominated in 2012, but if Republicans really are strongly considering nominating a woman for president, it may be largely because they and the voters who support her believe the kind of healing and nurturing the nation and its economy need can only be provided by a woman.

To meet the unrealistic expectations of the voters, that woman would need to revive this economy P.D.Q. — in an era long before texting, that was a well–known abbreviation for "pretty damned quick." Given the dire forecasts from economists, that doesn't seem likely.

With unemployment stuck in the 9% range and the stock market bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball, the experiment with a black president (whether it is acknowledged as such or not) may come to be widely regarded as a failure, and it may be as long before America elects its second black president as it has been between Catholic presidents.

Even if Barack Obama turns things around and manages to win re–election, my gut feeling is that it will be decades until another black candidate is nominated for the presidency. If he is replaced with a woman — Bachmann, Palin or someone else — this economy may prove too stubborn for her, and the next female presidency will be a long time coming as well.

I don't know what to expect in 2012. There are times when I think Obama is on the verge of righting the ship and really living up to the standards he set for himself and the nation — but then he does something that tells me that my original conclusion, that he is in over his head, was the correct one.

Sometimes, though, presidents rise to the occasion.

And if there is anything of which I am certain, it is that the next president, whoever he or she turns out to be, must rise to the occasion.

Or he/she seems likely to be the last American president.

No Republican Frontrunner

---

---

I didn't watch Monday night's Republican debate from New Hampshire, but I've been reading a lot about it.

And I have come to the same conclusion as Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner — there is no frontrunner yet.

How could there be? I mean, this is June. The party conventions won't be held for more than a year. Primary voters won't start going to the polls for another six or seven months.

The debate, as Barone observed, "was a New Hampshire debate, but it has serious ramifications for Iowa as well."

Beyond that?

Well, I guess it can also have important repercussions throughout the party, but right now it is one small piece of a still–emerging puzzle.

Immediately, I don't think it registered with many people. A lot can — and probably will — happen between now and the first primaries and caucuses of the 2012 election cycle. This is a time when voters traditionally (and mostly silently) take the candidates' measure. Debates and straw polls have little real meaning at this point.

What matters most right now — when there are no delegates to be won — is perception, and, as Barone suggests, Romney may have the edge in that department. His "behavior," as Barone put it, was that of a frontrunner, "one with confidence and sense of command and with the adroitness to step aside from two major issue challenges."

That could be what a party that is nostalgic for the days of Ronald Reagan needs.

As I recall, "confidence and sense of command" were mostly what Reagan had going for him as the 1980 campaign began. He had been vetted against Gerald Ford in the battle for the GOP's 1976 nomination. Prior to that, he had been governor of the largest state in the nation for eight years, and he had spent decades in front of motion picture and TV cameras.

There really wasn't much left that voters didn't know about him. His challenge was to project an image of strength that would serve him beyond the primaries — which had only begun to assume their prominent role in the nomination process.

When Reagan memorably protested that "I am paying for this microphone!" at a New Hampshire debate in February 1980, it solidified his status as frontrunner for his party's nomination, and he wrapped things up quite early.

No such line appears to have emerged from the June 2011 New Hampshire debate.

There may be no frontrunner yet, either, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't legitimate news coming from the debate. Michele Bachmann, who can be something of a loose cannon, announced that she will be a candidate for the nomination.

Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post that she stole the show with that "bombshell."

Jackie Kucinich of USA Today said that Bachmann "emerged from the pack" with her debate performance.

I think that perception derives mostly from the fact that she made her candidacy official. Most people already suspected that she was going to run, though — why participate in a presidential debate if you aren't planning to run? — so the announcement really didn't come as a surprise.

But neither did the announcement automatically confer upon her the title of frontrunner. That, it seems to me, is still up for grabs.

From what I have read, all the participants said things that should appeal to the Republican base — which strikes me as being decidedly more conservative than it was four years ago.

I mean, when I look at the 2012 field of GOP candidates, the class of '08 appears practically centrist by comparison. That suggests, to me, that politics in America has become more polarized, not less, in the last four years — and that whoever is elected will most likely be the survivor of a tug–o–war between political extremes unlike any we have witnessed.

Unless the congressional majorities with which that president must work are made up of like–minded individuals, that doesn't seem encouraging for the passage of landmark, historic legislation.

Compromise will be harder to achieve, and economic recovery will take much longer to accomplish.

That's a gloomy forecast, I know, but these are gloomy times.

The Plot Thickens ...

John McCain is only a few hours from naming his running mate.

And the choice remains a closely guarded secret.

The "favorites" who appeared to be emerging last night are not turning out to be such hot prospects in the light of the new day.

CNN's Dana Bash has been reporting this morning that the Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty camps are both saying that their men will not be traveling to Ohio to be with McCain today. And I've also heard reports — apparently from Ridge himself — that the former Pennsylvania governor doesn't plan to be in Ohio today, either.

If you read my earlier blog entries, both Romney and Pawlenty were being mentioned prominently last night — especially Pawlenty. Ridge seems to have cooled off quite a bit.

Bash is also saying that a "mysterious" airplane from Alaska — possibly carrying Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and two teenagers — arrived in Ohio in the last few hours.

Palin, of course, has been mentioned as a possible running mate — although her name hasn't been mentioned very often lately. Even so, if the running mate turns out to be Palin — or another woman, whether her name has been mentioned in connection with the running mate spot or not — such a choice may be intended to lure disaffected supporters (especially females) of Hillary Clinton.

However, reports from Alaska suggest that Palin is still in her home state.

If true, that would make it awkward — if not impossible — for her to travel to Ohio in time for the big rally McCain has planned for mid-day.

In Denver, which just played host to the Democratic National Convention, an Associated Press report in the Rocky Mountain News is saying that Palin is emerging as the favorite. "Two GOP strategists close to the McCain campaign said all indications pointed to Palin, 44, a self-styled 'hockey mom' and political reformer."

I guess we'll have to wait until McCain is ready to make his announcement.

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.

A Modest Prediction

I'm not gifted with insights that tell me when the presumptive presidential nominees will announce their selections for running mate.

Nor do I have any inside information on who those choices will be.

But Barack Obama will accept his party's nomination in a little more than two weeks.

And John McCain will accept his party's nomination in a little more than three weeks.

So I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb here when I say that we'll know both parties' tickets within a month.

And my predictions on the identities of the running mates aren't based on any scientific methodology — just gut instincts (which means I'm just as likely to be wrong as I am to be right!).

Anyway, here (briefly) is my prediction:

• Democrats: I think Obama's best choice is Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. With experience as a representative, governor and diplomat, Richardson has a résumé that few people can match.
  
  He's ready to be president if needed, and, being part Hispanic, he can attract support from the fastest-growing ethnic community in this country — a minority group that the Democrats haven't already tapped (unlike, for example, the black community — which has been voting nearly unanimously for Democrats for generations).
  
  Based on what I've been reading lately, I would say Obama's most obvious choice, at this point, is Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia. I don't think he brings to the table what Richardson does, but he has gubernatorial experience in a Southern state, and his popularity in his home state could help flip Virginia to the Democrats after spending four decades in the Republican column.
  
  I'm just not sure Kaine is quite as prepared to step in as Richardson is.
  
  So I predict that Obama will pick Richardson to be his running mate.


• Republicans: McCain has less of a margin for error — and he has fewer solid options than Obama does.
  
  It's a critical decision that McCain must make.
  
  I think the most obvious choice is Mitt Romney, McCain's former rival for the nomination who has been openly campaigning for the No. 2 spot on the ticket. I'm not convinced that McCain and Romney have patched up their differences, though, and I think being able to have a good personal relationship with his running mate is important to McCain.
  
  So, in spite of all the things that Romney could bring to the ticket, I believe McCain will go with the choice that I think best suits his need for someone he can get along with — former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.
  
  Ridge has a varied résumé of his own — in addition to being a former governor, he's been a representative and a Cabinet member.
  
  He may not be as conservative as some would like — he favors an accelerated death penalty process and he's against gay marriage but he's pro-choice, in spite of his Catholic upbringing.
  
  And he doesn't provide much contrast in age to McCain — Ridge will turn 63 on Aug. 27, and McCain will turn 72 two days after that.
  
  But there's a strong chemistry between the two men, and I think that's something that is important to McCain.

So that's my prediction.

Obama-Richardson vs. McCain-Ridge.

We'll find out soon if I'm right!

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."

More Running Mate Talk

Please, Senators Obama and McCain.

Make your running mate selections soon. I can't take much more of this guessing game.

• Dan Schnur of the New York Times ponders this question: "Who would be the worse selection? Mitt Romney or Tim Kaine?"
  
  That's a tough one.
  
  Romney and Kaine "seem to have emerged as among the most likely vice presidential choices for their party’s nominees," Schnur writes. "But both men exacerbate the greatest weaknesses of Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama ... rather than addressing them."
  
  Of course, none of the people who have been mentioned as possible running mates would be in that position if not for the support of others.
• Whatever one may think of Romney, there are many people who are urging John McCain to pick him.
  
  Like Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics' HorseRaceBlog, who says McCain should waste no time in offering the spot to Romney.
  
  Cost has four reasons for McCain to pick Romney:
  
  
  1. Romney will energize conservatives. (Seems to me I've heard that one about a lot of prospects.)
  2. Romney will bring Michigan. (Well, that would be a big prize — if Romney can really deliver it.)
  3. Romney will bring economic credibility. (That, too, is important. Can Romney really deliver that one as well? And, if he can, if that's what Republicans want, why isn't he the presumptive presidential nominee, since ...)
  4. Romney can raise extra cash. (And against an opponent with the warchest Obama has at his fingertips, raising extra cash is an attractive asset, not merely a "delightful dividend.")
  
  
• And, on the Democratic side, there are many people who think Barack Obama should make a similar gesture to a former rival and put Hillary Clinton on his ticket.
  
  Like Lanny Davis, who writes, in the Wall Street Journal, that picking Clinton would be in Obama's best interest "[n]ot just to enhance his chances of winning — but, more important, to help him be a more effective president."
  
  It's questionable, of course, just how objective Davis is. He was President Clinton's legal counsel, and he was an active supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. And he acknowledges a 39-year friendship with the former First Couple.
  
  Hardly an impartial observer.
  
  I'll give him credit for taking on the primary objections that have been raised to the notion of putting Hillary on the ticket:
  
  
  1. Sen. Clinton is polarizing and will rev up the Republican base.
     
     "In fact, the data proves the reverse is true," writes Davis. "Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain — and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats."
  2. Choosing Sen. Clinton would be counter to the Obama message of "new politics" and change.
     
     "Barack Obama selecting her as the first female vice president would reinforce his change message," Davis says, "not detract from it."
  3. She would not be a team player, and her husband would be a distraction or worse in an Obama White House.
     
     "Hillary Clinton is the ultimate team player," Davis writes.
     
     Well, I'm not so sure about all that. But, as positive press goes, it doesn't get much more positive than Davis' article.
  
  
• The articles about Hillary's chances haven't been all favorable. Jennifer Parker and Sunlen Miller report, for ABC News, that Hillary's supporters are miffed because Obama, apparently, "may choose another woman" to be his running mate.
  
  Sounds like the kind of argument Obama would be wise to avoid.

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.

Romney Endorses McCain

Mitt Romney endorsed Arizona Sen. John McCain, his former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, today.

"This is a man capable of leading our country in this dangerous hour," Romney said.

The endorsement apparently includes Romney's urging to his delegates that they give their support to McCain at the Republican convention this summer. Romney doesn't command a huge bloc of delegates. At a glance, it wouldn't appear to be a meaningful number.

But, according to CNN, McCain has 827 delegates he's won in the primaries and caucuses. Romney has 286 delegates and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has 217.

And if you combine Romney's delegates with the ones McCain already has, that would give McCain 1,113 -- only 78 delegates away from the number (1,191) needed to win the Republican nomination.

I don't mean to suggest that Romney isn't sincere in his support for McCain. I think Romney probably did look at McCain and Huckabee and decided that he believes McCain is the better choice.

But I also think there's more to it than that.

I think Romney is angling for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

Romney isn't stupid. He has an M.B.A. from Harvard. I think he looked at the numbers and the lukewarm response that McCain has been receiving from conservatives -- and possibly the actuarial tables.

I'm not suggesting that Romney would be hoping that McCain would die in office. But anyone who votes for McCain has to be aware of the possibility that a 72-year-old man might not survive a four-year term as president. His running mate has to be viewed as a potential president.

In the American Spectator today, Quin Hillyer writes about the qualifications for McCain's running mate.

Hillyer doesn't go through a list of prospects and narrow them down to a perfect choice. But we do get a summary of what McCain needs -- "a solidly 'full-spectrum' conservative, reformist, youngish, cool, well-rounded, brainy, all-media-respected, articulate, telegenic, border-state/constituency-challenging, non-party-weakening, executive-experienced, running mate who can handle the presidency at a moment's notice."

Does Romney fit the bill? My feeling is that he delivers on some points, he doesn't on others.

On some of Hillyer's points, Romney seems made to order. "It is preferable ... for the running mate to have some executive experience ... Why? Because voters usually like executive leadership. McCain, despite his heroism, doesn't have that."

And while some people dismiss the importance of geographical balance, Hillyer does not. "McCain ought to choose somebody who can plausibly make him at least competitive in a state or region or constituency where he otherwise would not be," Hillyer writes.

As a native of Michigan and a former governor of Massachusetts (both states he won in the primaries), Romney could conceivably put two states in play that haven't voted Republican since the 1980s.

And Romney's presence on the ticket would give the GOP its own opportunity to make history while the Democrats are making history by nominating the first woman or the first black. Romney would be the first Mormon on a national ticket.

Romney does have his drawbacks, and there are other prospects who might meet more of Hillyer's requirements. But, frankly, I don't know if there's anyone who can meet all of them.

So, in Hillyer's words, "Good luck to McCain in finding such a candidate."

By the way, a little presidential trivia.

They were pointing out on CNN last night that this will be the first presidential campaign between two sitting U.S. senators. And Hillyer's article makes a reference to that, too.

But did you know that only two senators have been elected president? Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy.

They were both elected in years ending in a zero, and they both died in office in years ending in a 3.

Neither lived to seek re-election. Of course, Kennedy was assassinated. Harding died of a heart attack.

As They Prepare for the Caucus and the Primary ...

Today is Christmas, and my gift to my readers is my view of the presidential races and what is likely to happen when Iowans hold their caucuses a week from Thursday and voters in New Hampshire hold their primaries two weeks from today.

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton likes to use the word "experience" to describe her qualification to be president. But this is her first national campaign as the candidate. Previously, she was in a supporting role.

The one with the experience in a national campaign is John Edwards, and he has a network of support in place in Iowa that propelled him to a second-place finish there four years ago. The question in the caucus is whether those supporters will actually turn out this time. Are those voters as reliable in 2008 as they were in 2004?

I've heard political analysts say that only about 10% of Iowa's electorate turn out for the caucuses, so the old adage about how "every vote counts" really is true in Iowa.

I have the feeling that Edwards is poised to spring a surprise in Iowa. He can survive until the New Hampshire primary the following week, even if he finishes second again in Iowa. But to remain in the race, he needs a strong showing in one or both of those states -- if only to demonstrate his appeal and vote-getting ability outside the South.

Can Barack Obama fail to win Iowa and New Hampshire -- and still be a factor in the race? That depends on how well he does. If he loses either state -- or both states -- by double digits, it may be over for him. If he is close to the top finisher, his campaign can survive awhile longer.

If Mrs. Clinton finishes first in both states, the party is over for the rest of the field, and momentum will take over. If she loses in both states, the party may be over for her.

REPUBLICANS

I think Mike Huckabee is likely to win Iowa, where evangelical Christians represent a sizable bloc. They seem comfortable with him. He's apparently the kind of candidate those voters thought they were getting when George W. Bush first sought the nomination in 2000.

Mitt Romney will likely finish second in Iowa. I think he and Huckabee will combine for perhaps 60% of the Iowa vote. The remaining 40% will be divided up among the rest of the Republican field.

After that, Romney's main challenge in New Hampshire appears to be coming from John McCain. Like Edwards in Iowa, McCain has a strong core of support in New Hampshire from his successful primary campaign there eight years ago. But McCain must contend with questions about his age. He will be 72 when the next president is sworn in.

I think Romney may be able to pull off the win in New Hampshire, but I think he will be wounded in Iowa and may not be an effective candidate in the other primaries that are coming up in January and early February.

If he's unable to win in New Hampshire, McCain's campaign is probably finished.

I think Rudy Giuliani's best chance to win comes later in January when voters in Florida will vote. Giuliani has been polling well in Florida. American Research Group, for example, has been reporting that Giuliani consistently has been receiving between 26% and 33% in Florida, which leads the field there.

If Giuliani's support in Florida collapses in favor of McCain (following a hypothetical McCain triumph in New Hampshire), Giuliani should consider withdrawing from the race.

Fred Thompson needs to win somewhere early in order to establish the momentum he needs in the primaries to come. The super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5 will be costly for candidates and only those with the best financing and the best organizations will be competitive that day.

One last thing ... VOTE! If you live in Iowa, participate in the caucus. If you live in New Hampshire, vote in the primary.

And a Merry Christmas to all.

Romney's Strategy in Peril

I guess it comes as no surprise to anyone that Mitt Romney's blueprint for winning the Republican nomination is in trouble.

A few months ago, polls showed him coasting along in Iowa and New Hampshire, and his strategy of winning the early states and building momentum seemed to be succeeding.

But polls in Iowa show that Romney's lead there has eroded as Mike Huckabee has gained support from social conservatives, many of whom are uneasy with Romney's Mormonism, even after his speech on religion (which included a reference -- now being challenged -- to his father joining in a civil rights march with Martin Luther King in the 1960s).

And polls have been showing a rise in support for John McCain in New Hampshire. Eight years ago, McCain beat front-runner George W. Bush in New Hampshire, paving the way for a bitter campaign in the South Carolina primary. It's worth noting that, in the last two presidential campaigns in which the Republican nomination was seriously contested (1996 and 2000), New Hampshire's voters rejected the eventual nominees. They may be poised to do so again.

The Washington Post says Romney and his staff are working on a strategy to beat back Huckabee in Iowa. The Post points out Romney's campaign devised the "early state" strategy in December 2006 -- a year later, Romney's advisers find themselves improvising in the hope of halting Huckabee's momentum in Iowa.

"Are there moments of quiet and sometimes not-so-quiet desperation? Of course. But . . . this is the strategy we have. We don't have the option of doing anything else," the Post quotes one of Romney's advisers as saying.

When Romney and his staff began planning their strategy for the campaign, the Post reports, it was always assumed that Romney would have to face a challenge from within the party that would cast doubt on his conservative credentials. But the thinking was that his main rival would be Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani or McCain, not Huckabee.

Nevertheless, Huckabee it is, which appears to be causing some scrambling from within the ranks in the Romney campaign. Huckabee wasn't a factor a year ago, but the former Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor has emerged as Romney's nemesis in Iowa. A win there could make him a factor in New Hampshire five days later as well.

The good news for Romney, the Post suggests, is that Huckabee's rise has changed the expectations for Romney. At one time, anything less than a resounding win in Iowa would have been considered a defeat. Now that polls have shown Romney falling behind Huckabee, the Post says, "Huckabee's meteoric rise has reset expectations for Romney, who will be credited with a meaningful win in Iowa should he pull it off."

The Post also reports that Romney has changed his approach in campaign speeches in Iowa lately. He seldom mentions Giuliani, McCain or Fred Thompson these days. Instead his message has focused on Huckabee.

But with McCain's rise in New Hampshire, Romney suddenly finds himself in the position of a general who must wage a two-front war.

And, as the Nazis found out in World War II when they were fighting Britain and the United States to the west and Russia to the east, winning a two-front war is extremely difficult.

Huckabee is not without his own problems. Elsewhere in the Post, Peter Wehner writes that, as a conservative and evangelical Christian, he is "queasy" about some of the things Huckabee has said. It leads Wehner to this question: "Is Mike Huckabee, a man of extremely impressive political gifts and shrewdness, playing the Jesus card in a way that is unlike anything we have quite seen before?"

And Jonathan Martin observes, in The Politico, that Huckabee resembles the last three insurgent Republican candidates -- Pat Robertson in 1988, Pat Buchanan in 1996 and John McCain in 2000 -- as he assumes the role of rebel.

Bear in mind that rebels seldom win nominations. When they do, they seldom win the general election. George McGovern can tell you all about that. So could Barry Goldwater. They both won the nomination, only to get buried in a landslide loss in November.

Even so, it's hard to argue with a Huckabee observation that an insurgent victory will mean that no candidate can take Iowa for granted in future campaigns.

So Huckabee faces his own questions about politics, insurgency and religion. And an insurgent from the past, McCain, has to deal with the issue of his age (71).

My question is: Can the Romney campaign overcome the challenge from Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire -- and win its two-front war?

The New Definition of 'Flip Flopping'

I don't know which candidate or which political party most people associate with the phrase "flip flop."

Although it may have been used by earlier campaigns, I guess the first time I remember being exposed to the concept was when I was 12 and Richard Nixon was running against George McGovern. I remember a TV commercial that was aired by the Nixon campaign (which, as we all learned later, was engaged in many more sinister covert acts in that election season).

This commercial showed a picture of McGovern on a yard sign. McGovern's face was staring directly in one direction, but it was a two-sided sign, and McGovern was looking in one direction on one side and in the other direction on the other side.

In the background, the narrator described an issue and told the listeners what McGovern's position on that issue had been in the previous year (1971). Then the narrator described McGovern's position on the issue this year. Over and over again.

The point was that McGovern's positions in 1971 were not the positions he was taking in 1972. And the sign kept switching sides as the narrator described one position, then the other, and the camera showed McGovern looking to the left, then showed him looking to the right.

At the end, the sign was practically spinning like a top. And the narrator said solemnly, "Last year. This year. The question is, what about next year?"

Since then, "flip flopping" has been largely a factor Democrats have had to battle. Jimmy Carter was accused of it in 1976, but it wasn't severe enough to cost him the election. After four years in the White House, Carter was more vulnerable to the charge and wound up losing the general election to Ronald Reagan.

Subsequent Democratic nominees Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis never overcame the stigma of being labeled "flip floppers." The terminology changed during the Bill Clinton era, and he was accused of being a "waffler," but Clinton seemed to have fun with the label and it didn't seem to hurt him until the impeachment proceedings began.

"Flip flopper" was back in vogue when Al Gore and John Kerry were the nominees.

But, if Jane Swift is correct in today's Manchester Union Leader, 2008 may be the year when the Democrats turn the rhetorical table on the Republicans.

Swift was the interim governor of Massachusetts in the years prior to Mitt Romney's election to that post. She stepped aside to give him a clear shot at the nomination in 2002 -- and ultimately helped elect him governor. But she was a supporter of Romney's when he sought a Senate seat against Ted Kennedy in 1994 -- so she's familiar with his record on a long-term basis.

"Mitt Romney is campaigning on his record as governor," Swift writes, "yet he has become unrecognizable to the citizens who voted him into office."

Swift, who supports Arizona Sen. John McCain, says Romney has become a "chronic flip flopper," and she says that is the reason why Romney will be doomed to fail in the general election if he wins the nomination.

"Democrats need only take a page from the George W. Bush playbook," she says. "Undermine the voters' sense that Romney can be trusted by highlighting the number of times he's conveniently changed his mind. And don't forget: He will have to do some more flipping if he becomes the party's nominee."

Romney on Religion: Hardly a JFK Speech?

I didn't see Mitt Romney's speech today. But from what I've heard, the buildup to this "Kennedyesque" moment was much ado about nothing.

From what I've heard, he raised more questions than he answered.

"No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith," Romney said. "For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

I can't argue with that. But I'd still like to know how Romney stands on a few issues that were key components of Mormonism in the old days.

Romney's family has been part of the Mormon church for many years. I don't know precisely how long the Romneys have been Mormons. Were they practicing Mormons before the church banned polygamy in 1890? The acceptance of polygamy by the Mormons was one of the main reasons Utah was denied statehood six times before 1887. After a politically expedient "revelation," the Mormons banned polygamy, and Utah became a state.

I know the Romneys were part of the Mormon church in the 1970s, which is when the church stopped practicing racial discrimination after being put under pressure again. That policy reversal was the result of another "revelation."

How does Romney feel about those two issues? I gather from what I've read that he didn't really address either one today. The main subject today appears to have been whether Mormonism is a "cult" or not. That's a rather odd position for a presidential candidate to have to take concerning his religion.

For a long time, the racist doctrine of the LDS church was based on the following writing from Brigham Young:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."

Romney has pointed out that his father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. at a time when the Mormon church had not reversed its discriminatory racial policy. That's commendable, but it only addressed the issue of equal rights under the law, not whether Romney or his father believed the church's teaching about blacks' standing in the eyes of God.

Worldly law and heavenly law are two different things.

Romney has a lot to say about religious tolerance, but his church hasn't been tolerant of many groups, and it remains intolerant of homosexuals. How would those teachings affect a President Romney, who claims that he wants to serve "no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest?"

Fred Barnes writes in The Weekly Standard that Romney "made the most of the opportunity the speech gave him. It was a very impressive speech."

Meanwhile, The New Republic's "quickie reaction" brought responses from all corners of the spectrum. And John Podhoretz writes about "Romney's boilerplate mistake" in Commentary.

I think the fact that Romney felt compelled to make such a speech, just as Kennedy did 47 years ago, proves my point.

Mike Huckabee is making gains among Christian conservatives, a group Romney needs to capture the nomination. Today's speech was a warning shot that it is open season on Christian conservatives.

Separation of church and state has never really existed in the United States. It's one of those thing people tell themselves to feel noble. It sounds noble to say that separating church and state is part of the foundation of the United States.

But that's as much a myth today as it's ever been.