A Glance at the Race for the White House

---

---

Each time we prepare to elect a president, there always seems to be someone seeking a party's nomination who sought it before but fell short. Most of the time, that candidate (or those candidates in especially active presidential election cycles) is said to be taking a different approach this time — presumably because the original approach failed the first time.

The message may be different, or the candidate may choose a different way to convey that message. The latter appears to be what Hillary Clinton is doing. "Clinton plans to forgo the packed rallies that marked her previous campaign," writes the Associated Press' Lisa Lerer, "and focus on smaller round-table events with selected groups of supporters."

Sometimes that is a good idea; other times, not so much. I am skeptical that it will help Clinton avoid questions about her email or acceptance of cash contributions from foreign governments seeking access while she was secretary of State. In the context of previous presidential campaigns, that isn't really surprising. It is frequently — but not always — difficult to know whether changing the message or how the message is presented is the right approach the second time around — until after the campaign is over.

By that time, of course, one need look no further than the election results to decide if the candidate (should he or she win the nomination) made the right choice. If it wasn't, there will be no shortage of scapegoats and other excuses in what boils down to a circular firing squad.

What is more certain these days is that it is difficult for a party to prevail in three consecutive national elections. Some people attribute that to fatigue with the incumbent party. Since the postwar era has coincided with the advent of television — which, in turn, has led to Americans having unprecedented access to a president's daily activities — that makes sense.

And I do think that plays a role in it, but I think it is more complex than that. Now, I'm going to lay a little groundwork here. I apologize in advance if it seems elementary.

There are two kinds of presidential election years — incumbent years and non–incumbent years. An incumbent year is when America has an incumbent president who is eligible to run for another term — and usually does. I think the last such incumbent who chose not to seek another term was Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Three other presidents in the 20th century made the decision not to seek another term when they legally could have — Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, Calvin Coolidge in 1928 and Harry Truman in 1952.

(Truman was president when the 22nd Amendment was ratified. He had served nearly two full terms by 1952, having succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, but the amendment made the specific point that it would not apply to whoever was president upon its ratification.)

Since we always have an incumbent, the matter of eligibility would seem to be the determining factor, but it isn't. LBJ's decision, which was largely the product of the public's increasingly sour mood about the war in Vietnam, not to seek another term as president instantly turned 1968 into a non–incumbent year. That's a year when the incumbent is not on the ballot in the general election, whether by choice or circumstance.

In recent times, non–incumbent years have tended to favor the nominee of the out–of–power party because those years have come when the incumbent usually is ineligible to seek another term.

It wasn't always that way. For whatever reason, it seems to have been largely a byproduct of World War II that parties almost never win three straight national elections. At least, that's when this pattern emerged. Before that, victories tended to come in bunches. Democrats won five straight elections between 1932 and 1948. The Republicans won the three elections prior to that — and 11 of 15 between 1860 and 1916.

Of course, it was after World War II ended when the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two full terms in office was ratified, and that was a game changer. Few presidents were tempted to seek a third term before the amendment was ratified, but it was always a possibility. Since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, it has been generally understood that, after winning his second term, a president gradually slips into irrelevance, essentially becoming a lame duck the day he takes the oath of office for the second time. Maybe that explains the pattern that has emerged in the last 67 years.

Since Harry Truman's "upset" victory in 1948, Americans have voted for the same party's nominees for president three straight times only once — in 1988 when Vice President George H.W. Bush was elected to succeed Ronald Reagan. Otherwise, it has been so predictable you could set your calendar by it.

Bush was helped by the fact that President Reagan was still popular after eight years in office — Gallup had Reagan at 51% approval just before the 1988 election — but the popularity of the incumbent does not necessarily help the nominee of the president's party.

Prior to the 2000 election, Bill Clinton's approval rating was between 59% and 62%. Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, narrowly won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote — in large part because he did not take advantage of Clinton's popularity and political skills during his campaign against George W. Bush.

Of course, if the incumbent's popularity is below 50%, his party's nominee to replace him is probably toast before the convention adjourns. George W. Bush's approval ratings were mostly in the 20s just before the 2008 election, which John McCain lost in a modest landslide.

And Lyndon Johnson's approval rating just before the 1968 election (42%) almost precisely mirrored Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey's share of the popular vote — and 1968 turned out to be a cliffhanger but only because independent candidate George Wallace was on the ballot.

When Vice Presidential Candidates Collide

---

Walter Mondale and Bob Dole met in the first vice presidential debate in 1976.

---

History will be made tomorrow night in Danville, Ky., when Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan meet in the vice presidential debate.

This isn't the first time a debate has been held in Danville (population about 16.000). Nor will it be the first time vice presidential candidates have debated. In fact, it will be the ninth time.

It has been said that vice presidential debates have little, if any, influence on the outcome of a presidential election. But they have often been noteworthy.

The first time that vice presidential candidates debated was 36 years ago next Monday, when Walter Mondale and Bob Dole met in Houston.

That night, Dole made a sneering comment about "Democrat wars" and Mondale called him on it.

The vice presidential candidates did not debate in 1980, but, on this day in 1984, the first woman on a major party ticket, Geraldine Ferraro, debated Vice President George H.W. Bush in Philadelphia.

---

---

What stands out in my mind about that debate was the blatantly obvious condescending tone of the vice president's remarks. He was a man with an extensive background in foreign affairs, and he appeared to feel that it was beneath him to debate Ferraro, who had a certain amount of knowledge about foreign policy acquired in three terms in the House as well as her experience dealing with appropriations on the House Budget Committee — but nothing remotely comparable to Bush's resume.

Ferraro was right to tell Bush that she "resented" his attitude, but my memory is that Bush was judged the winner that night.

The victory gave a much–needed boost to 73–year–old President Ronald Reagan's campaign for re–election. Reagan had stumbled badly in his first debate with Mondale only four days earlier, and public opinion polls had begun to show some shakiness in his standing with the voters.

(In the aftermath of his widely panned debate performance last week, Barack Obama can only hope that Biden hands him such a gift tomorrow night.)

When Reagan met Mondale in their second and final debate a week and half later, he seemed energized, and he gave a much stronger performance, essentially locking up his 49–state landslide.

---

---

The vice presidential candidates debated early in October in 1988 — on Oct. 5, a date that has been chosen for vice presidential debates three times. It was on that first occasion — in Omaha, Neb. — that Sen. Lloyd Bentsen told Sen. Dan Quayle that he was "no Jack Kennedy."

Twenty years ago this Saturday, the first — and, so far, only — three–way vice presidential debate was held in Atlanta.

(The first–ever three–way presidential debate was held 20 years ago tomorrow.)

---

---

The vice presidential debate in 1992 was memorable for the things the third wheel in that debate — Ross Perot's running mate, Admiral James Stockdale — said.

I always thought that was something of a pity because Stockdale was an intelligent and exceptionally brave individual. He spent seven years in a Viet Cong POW camp and suffered severe physical injuries during his captivity.

He had earned the right to be treated with respect, but the fact that he was not a career politician worked against him in an arena where that kind of experience would have served him well.

After the debate, jokes were made about his halting and confused delivery, his opening statement ("Who am I? Why am I here?") and other nifty sound bites that, taken together, made Stockdale look old and foolish.

But the truth was that Stockdale did not know he would be participating in the debate until about a week before, and he got no advice from Perot. He was about as unprepared as a man could be for a nationally televised debate — and it showed.

---

---

Two days ago was the 16th anniversary of the debate between Vice President Al Gore and Jack Kemp in St. Petersburg, Fla., during the 1996 campaign.

On Oct. 5, 2000, Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman debated in Danville.

Four years later, to the day, now–Vice President Cheney debated John Edwards in Cleveland.

Four years ago, on Oct, 2, Biden debated Sarah Palin in St. Louis.

If you have no real memory of those debates, don't worry about it. As I say, they don't seem to matter much when people make up their minds how to vote.

But they can be quite entertaining.

What Democrats Learned From Bush

---

---

Today, George W. Bush is widely regarded, by Democrats and Republicans alike, as a failed president.

Most Democrats tend to go beyond that point in their assessment; Republicans not quite so far. In the absence of a clear consensus, I suppose failed is a good, fairly middle–ground term.

One thing I noticed about Democrats in the Bush years was their growing frustration over constantly being in the minority. When Barack Obama came along, Democrats had reclaimed majority status in both chambers of Congress only two years earlier, and it had been 14 years since the Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House.

They craved what Bush had enjoyed for three–quarters of his presidency — a Congress of the president's party. It wasn't exactly a dictatorship, as Bush famously lamented, but when the Republicans controlled Congress, they frequently served as a rubber stamp for Bush.

And they deliberately divided Americans. If you supported Bush, they said, you were a patriot. But if you didn't agree with him, you were not a patriot.

Democrats learned the wrong things from the Bush experience. They saw Bush's smear of Kerry as the route to re–election.

During the 2008 campaign, I never felt comfortable with Obama. It had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his policies and philosophy. Too far to the left for my taste. But, when he was elected, I was willing to give him a chance, the same chance I give every new president, whether I agree with him or not.

Patriots do that.

He has been given the same amount of time to implement his policies that most presidents have been given (except for those who were completing someone else's unfinished term) — four years.

Thus, I — and, frankly, anyone else who participates in this year's election — have no choice but to judge Obama on his record in office. Whether that record has been a success or failure will be up to the voters.

But you can get an idea of how Obama feels about it. It's the same record he avoids discussing at every opportunity. The president who campaigned four years ago on the theme of hope and change and the pledges of transparency and uniting Americans demonstrates daily that all he knows about seeking re–election he learned from George W. Bush.

I've seen his advertisements on television, and they are all attack ads.

I guess I expected more maturity from the Democrats, that they would have learned what not to do after being restored to power — especially when it became clear that economic conditions would be worse when Obama took office than they had been in more than half a century.

Even before the 2008 election, I was saying that the next president had to focus on encouraging job creation because very little can be accomplished in a consumer–based economy when the consumers can't afford to consume.

Anything else the next president wants to accomplish, I said, will have to wait until the jobs crisis has been dealt with.

It's four years later, and I'm saying the same thing. There's just more urgency now. And the majority of voters agree with me.

But Democrats in 2012 are acting like Republicans in 2004. Instead of presenting a vision for the future and legislation designed to achieve it, Obama is doing what Bush did.

Eight years ago, opponents of the president were dismissed as unpatriotic. Supporters of the president currently seeking a second term dismiss his critics as racists.

After being smeared as unpatriotic, I believe Democrats felt a certain amount of pressure (internally if not externally) to reassure voters of their dedication to homeland security in the first presidential election following 9/11. Consequently, they nominated John Kerry, a hero of the Vietnam War, to be their standard bearer in 2004.

To discredit the Democrats' nominee, the Republicans countered with their shameless swift boating smear.

If Democrats had made a really honest assessment of the Bush years, they would have concluded that it is essential to maintain Congress' independence, that it is crucial to discuss legislation in a full, open and candid way and that they must realize that presidents and their parties do not have the luxury of selecting the sort of times in which they must govern.

In 2007, Obama did not enter the race because of economics. He entered it primarily because of his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans — including many Republicans — have been pleased with Obama's handling of foreign affairs.

But that isn't the issue that matters to most Americans.

It is a different time, and the emphasis is on the economy — poll after poll has indicated, for well over a year, that the economy is the most important issue in the campaign. By far.

History demands that Obama must justify his economic agenda and its results through 3½ years. He must make the case — convincingly — that his policies are working. He can't just say they are and let it go at that.

"Circumstances rule men," Greek historian Herodotus wrote. "Men do not rule circumstances."

If you go back and look at the transcripts of the debates and speeches in the 2000 campaign, you will see that very little was said about terrorism — but it came to define the Bush presidency (and, consequently, Bush's bid for a second term). And the fact is that he did win a second term — but with highly questionable tactics that did not tell the voters much about what they could expect from a renewal of the Bush presidency.

His record helped him with just enough voters for him to win re–election by the narrowest Electoral College margin since 1916, but his conduct during the campaign was misleading and deceptive.

The economic data that has been accumulating has not helped Obama's economic record. Unemployment has been stuck at 8.2% for the last few months, and the Commerce Department reported Friday that GDP in the most recent quarter sagged to 1.5%.

"A growth rate below 2% isn't enough to lower the unemployment rate," writes Tom Raum in the Washington Post.

I'm not an economist. I can only guess that Raum knows more about this than I do. But we'll find out soon. The next jobs report comes out this Friday.

I'm not what you would call a gambling man. I've been to the race track a few times in my life, but I can't recall the last time I made even a friendly wager on something.

But if I was going to make a bet, I'd bet that no one in the White House is looking forward to Friday's jobs report.

After all, it is still the performance of the economy on which many Americans will be judging this president.

Some of the president's supporters cling to the notion that likability will be enough. But after more than four rough years, voters won't be satisfied that easily. This isn't about who you want to drink a beer with after work. This is about who will do the most to make sure you have a job.

But there are those who insist it is all racial. And they will try to distract voters from the record and make them believe that voting to change presidents is somehow the act of racists.

I'm not naive enough to believe that race does not play a role in the decisions of any voters. Certainly, there are some voters who will vote against Obama because of his race — just as there are some who will vote for him because of his race.

And that, it seems to me, makes the latter just as racist as the former. How else can you explain the nearly unanimous support the president enjoys in the black community?

Of course, Democrats have done well with black voters for decades, but never as well (or with as great a turnout) as Obama did four years ago. Were those voters being racist in reverse?

It's a divisive brand of politics. It's polarizing, and it does nothing to promote the post–racial society of which Obama spoke in 2008.

Or to tell voters what kind of president he will be in a second term.

Third-Rate Romance

---

"I've never really done this kind of thing before, have you?"

---

A news item from the other day ...

---

(Reuters) — President Barack Obama's re–election campaign, worried about the influx of money to groups supporting Republican candidates, said on Monday it would start supporting the struggling Super PAC designed to help Obama stay in office.

---

"Yes, I have. But only a time or two."

---

What About Bob?

When I was growing up in Arkansas, the Arkansas Gazette — which was, at the time, the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi — would run editorials endorsing candidates in various races during the campaign and then would publish a list recapping those endorsements in the days just before the primary or election.

I knew people who would cut out that list and take it with them to the polls so they would know who not to vote for.

Now, I grew up appreciating the writing in the Gazette — and I was proud to work for the Gazette for nearly five years — but I would be the first to tell you that the Gazette's editorial board and its readers seldom saw eye to eye on the candidates and issues of the day.

Even when the candidates who were endorsed by the Gazette actually won, it often seemed that, when the voters went along with the Gazette's choices, they did so grudgingly — as if they really had no alternatives. That wasn't true, of course. There were almost always other choices, but sometimes they were so objectionable that even voters who habitually voted against the Gazette's selections really could not rationalize voting for them, even out of spite.

The Gazette went out of business nearly 20 years ago, and sometimes I wonder what some of those Arkansans do for political guidance now.

I can't provide them with a website or the name of a local publication that can fill that particular void.

However, if they are looking for a crystal ball in reverse, I'd like to point them in the direction of Bob Shrum, a Democratic political adviser.

In The Week, Shrum writes of his concern about "the emergence of a consensus that Barack Obama could lose next year."

Until recently, Shrum writes, his perception was that there was sense of "a gradually strengthening if not yet popularly perceived recovery" combined with "a weak Republican field most notable for those who opted not to run," all of which indicated that Barack Obama was on course to win a second term next year.

But some clouds have appeared on his sunny horizon — in the form of the latest unemployment report, an article in the New York Times that points out that no president since FDR has been re–elected when unemployment was 7.2% or higher and a Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows disapproval growing over Obama's handling of the economy.

But not to worry, Shrum assures his readers, even though he acknowledges that the "bump" in popularity that Obama enjoyed after the killing of Osama bin Laden disappeared almost as quickly as it came.

"[M]uch of the new mood is too instant, too superficial, and too casually ahistorical," Shrum writes.

And I will admit that he makes a good point when he says that perception is really what matters when voters go to the polls — not necessarily those troublesome facts.

When Ronald Reagan — who was re–elected with a 7.2% unemployment rate in 1984 — won his second term, Shrum observes, "joblessness was almost exactly the same — only one tenth of a point lower — on Ronald Reagan's 'morning in America' [as] it had been on his inaugural morning four years earlier."

In the interim, "the rate spiked to 10.8 percent; what Americans believed and felt when they re–elected him was that the subsequent decline proved the economy was on a steady upward trajectory," writes Shrum. "That's what counts, not any absolute benchmark for jobs or growth."

We'll see if Shrum is right. After all, this is the guy who assured Democrats last fall that they would retain control of the House.

And history tells you how accurate that prediction turned out to be.

The Circus Is In Town

---

"Everyone is makin' love
Or else expecting rain."

Bob Dylan
"Desolation Row"

---

The Republican presidential field for 2012 is taking shape, like it or not. I'm already hearing the mutterings from Republicans who don't like any of their choices.

In the nascent days of the campaign — when no one had actually entered the race yet — a premium was being placed on maturity and experience, someone who had dealt with budgets and had to forge compromises, a governor, perhaps.

Barack Obama, the argument went, is in over his head. He didn't have enough experience — or he didn't have the right kind of experience. Anyone could see he isn't up to the job. The unemployment rate is nearly twice what it was when he took office. The price of a gallon of gas has already doubled.

The key to victory in 2012, went the thinking in Republican circles, is to nominate someone who has demonstrated that he/she is, in the words of George W. Bush, a uniter, not a divider. (Bush himself was never a uniter, but, ironically, his own words may point the way to post–Dubya success.)

Republicans will vote for their nominee. They always do, but they can't win it alone. They need to persuade enough independents — many of whom have been disenchanted with Obama for quite a while but probably still would vote for him over someone who is seen as an extremist — to vote Republican as well.

There will be a few supporters from the other party — there always are — but that is a bonus. If either party starts winning over the other party's members in even modest numbers, that is a signal that things are not going well for the other party.

The battle for the presidency will be decided by the independents.

So the search was on for a "grown–up" — and some noises were heard from some of the petulant children in the GOP's wannabe section who prefer a more extreme style — if not necessarily more extreme politics (although the two are not mutually exclusive).

As those who have been mentioned previously in conversations about the 2012 nomination have been making up their minds about whether to make the run, the field that is emerging does, in fact, lean toward what many folks originally said they wanted.

But now there appears to be a concern that the prospects lack pizzazz. The Republican field is competent enough, say some critics — but boring, too boring for the 21st century.

• Boring is in, says Howie Carr in the Boston Herald, and that should favor a guy like Mitt Romney, who was a Republican governor in Massachusetts.
  
  Romney is a "grown–up." Whatever else he is — or isn't — depends on your point of view, as it does with anyone else, but, when all is said and done, he is still a grown–up.
  
  On that, I think, most of us can agree.


• "But with eight months to go before the Republican primaries," writes Elaine Kamarck in the Washington Post, "will voters be content with this group of boring guys or go looking for someone more exciting? What, exactly, does being a grown–up mean? And, more important, do grown–ups win?"
  
  For Republicans who have been living for a chance to "make Obama a one–term president," that is certainly a valid question — especially if you read "grown–up" as meaning stodgy, immovable, old school.
  
  People have grown accustomed to a new kind of intimacy with their politicians in recent years, and it is only going to get bigger in the future. Savvy political consultants have been making texting and tweeting integral parts of their strategy to personally bond with voters, digitally sidestepping the media. That seems a little too clever — by half — but who knows?
  
  It tends to be the young who are the first to embrace new technology, and politicians who find ways to tap into and mobilize the young voters will have the inside track for electoral success in the future.
  
  So the challenge is to present a package that combines appeal to the young with reassurance for older voters that the candidate actually knows what he is doing.


• Being able to defeat Obama shouldn't be a problem for this group, writes Shelby Steele for the Wall Street Journal.
  
  He has a record to defend, but his persona, cultivated in 2008 and sharpened in office, outshines his performance. Voters are blinded by the "myth," Steele suggests.
  
  "There have really always been two Barack Obamas," Steele writes, "the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling."

Steele makes a point of which many Republicans are justifiably fearful — criticism of Obama, even honest disagreement, is dismissed as racism.

And no one wants to be labeled racist.

That is no different, in my mind, from the Republican smokescreen after 9/11 that contended that anyone who disagreed with the president in his conduct of the war on terror was unpatriotic.

Such arguments do not address legitimate concerns. They appeal to emotion, not reason.

The next presidential election must be fought on the grounds of reason, not emotion. There have been many very important issues in recent decades that should have been discussed at length during presidential campaigns — but, instead, got swept under the rug in favor of such diversionary issues as gay marriage, flag burning and swift boating.

That cannot be allowed to happen again.

Steele touches on another important point. Obama does have a record to defend. That is the nature of an incumbent election, and Obama must defend that record. That is what presidents who seek re–election must do. The fact that Obama has never had to do this for any office beyond Illinois state senate is irrelevant.

He must do it now even though his opponent is the generic Republican to whom Gallup polls have shown the president losing ground.

Roland Martin of CNN insists that we won't know the real GOP field until after Labor Day — and he may be right.

I know he would be right if this was 1984. Republican Ronald Reagan waited to declare his intention to run for re–election until early that year — even though some of the biggest names in Democratic politics were lining up to seek their party's nomination.

But, contrary to what Martin contends ("the old model of announcing early is over") things are more accelerated today. Obama's re–election campaign has already been under way for a couple of months — and not only are we months away from the first primary but Obama doesn't even have a challenger in his own party.

That might change, but, for now, it must be assumed that Obama will have no opposition (other than the general Republican field) for more than a year. Nevertheless, his campaign has begun.

It makes sense to me that the serious contenders in the Republican race will be known before Labor Day, even though Martin writes that "[w]ith social media and the ability to raise funds online, it's not that critical to announce early. In fact, the earlier you announce, the more time the media and your opponents have to define and/or attack you."

That's true to a point — but the early announcers also get first crack at the big–money donors. That individual contributor stuff made good copy in 2008 — but a lot more people are out of work (and therefore have less disposable income) now.

Like it or not, Republicans, these are the choices from whom your 2012 nominee is likely to come.

If you aren't pleased with the choices, just remember the campaign that was waged 20 years ago. In 1991, most people thought President George H.W. Bush was invulnerable — in large part because of his whirlwind success in the Gulf War — and, one by one, the big names in the Democratic Party opted out of the race.

In the end, the Democrats nominated some bumpkin named Bill Clinton — who went on to become the Democrats' only two–term president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Pain at the Pump

Economists believe the recovery slowed as gas prices jumped in the first quarter of the year, writes Timothy Horman for Bloomberg.com.

I'm no economist, but I could have told you that. I've seen it before. The most extreme example, I suppose, was about three years ago, which was the last time gas prices were this high.

Barack Obama, as focused as he is these days on his re–election campaign, is clearly influenced by what is happening at the pump. His predecessor's approval numbers in his final year in office were never impressive, but they were at their worst when gas prices were at their highest.

I have no doubt that Obama remembers those days — and perhaps with some personal fondness. I don't mean that Obama was glad that prices went so high and, in the process, hurt so many people, but they did help him present himself as the anti–Bush during his last campaign — and Obama obviously would love to recapture the messianic feeling of that time. It propelled him to the presidency.

But now rising gas prices threaten to undermine Obama's re–election campaign, and he needs to project the image of a forceful president who is being proactive. Consequently, even though he himself has acknowledged that there is little, if anything, that a president can do to influence gas prices, he promised to form a task force to examine the situation and investigate whether something illegal was being done to take advantage of consumers.

Sounds good — except, of course, that it's nothing more than a P.R. stunt.

Obama is right when he says that out–of–control speculation is to blame. But excessive speculation is based on anxiety, not necessarily criminal intent.

In my opinion, a task force simply fuels (pardon the expression) the belief that someone out there is behind this.

The anxiety might ease if, as more and more people are suggesting, the situation in Libya is resolved. Libya itself produces a relatively small portion of the world's oil supply, but there are no oil producers who can make up even a small disruption in supply so, as long as the conflict in Libya continues, it seems likely to me that gas prices will remain high.

Some contend that America could make up for that disruption by drilling domestically — in Alaska or offshore. Again, I'm not an expert in these things, but there are at least two problems I can think of with that — there isn't enough oil in those locations to radically alter prices, and it would be years before the oil could be retrieved.

I've also heard talk of eliminating tax breaks for oil companies or adding a gas tax, neither of which seems likely to have much positive short–term impact.

If oil companies lose tax breaks, the most likely outcome, I believe, is that domestic production, not prices at the pump, will be reduced to make up for the lost revenue. And a gas tax is going to raise prices, not lower them.

Either of those (or a combination of the two) could provide funds for the development of alternative energy sources or mass transit expansion, but those are long–term solutions.

There are no simple answers in the short term.

The Cart Before the Horse

Mike Allen reports for Politico that the White House is already making plans for the 2012 presidential campaign.

Things seem to be in an embryonic stage right now. Democratic sources tell Allen "[t]he planning for now consists entirely of private conversations, with Obama aides at all levels indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions while focusing ferociously on the midterm elections and health care reform." Allen says one official contends "[t]he gathering storm is the 2010 elections," but the president "has given every sign of planning to run again and wants the next campaign to resemble the highly successful 2008 effort."

I think it's going to be hard to recapture that 2008 feeling. Seems to me, if the president is still obsessing about health care reform, he hasn't gotten the message about the urgent need for job creation — lip service to the contrary. And that is going to have an effect on his re–election plans.

Granted, Obama's lowest approval rating (46%) is higher than the lowest such rating recorded by any of his previous eight predecessors, but it took most of them longer to fall to that level. Obama has been in office for 13 months. There are millions of Americans who have been jobless longer than that. And, I would venture to add, many, if not most, of them got good performance assessments.

The Obama campaign staffers aren't printing up bumper stickers or campaign brochures yet, but, if they were, I wonder what Obama would put in his brochure as a justification for a second term. Health care reform? Hasn't been achieved yet, and the prospects seem more remote with each passing day. A Supreme Court nomination? Obama's nominee drew a lot of criticism, but, in the end, opposition to her probably would have been seen as racist or sexist so she was confirmed in spite of any reservations some of the senators may have had.

And there hasn't been any improvement in the unemployment numbers to crow about. In January 2009, when Obama took office, unemployment was at 8.5%. One year later, it is 10.6%.

The way Obama has re–fixated on health care reform suggests to me he only plans to mention unemployment on those occasions when the monthly jobs report shows an aberration — a one–time drop (by a fraction of a percentage point) in the unemployment rate that will, undoubtedly, be erased a month later. But those in power will seize on it as proof that their "policies" are making a difference — when, in reality, they are not.

It has been said by many Democrats, including Bill Clinton, that 2010 will not be as disastrous for the Democrats as 1994 was. They got an early warning, they say, with the jolt they got from the loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

If that is true, they don't seem to be acting on it, which makes me doubt that it is as valuable as an early warning as Clinton and others say it is. After all, if your smoke alarm goes off when there is only the slightest hint of smoke in the air and you do nothing to prevent the destruction that will result, how much benefit did you gain from the advance knowledge that a fire was coming?

• In Pennsylvania, Shashank Bengali of McClatchy Newspapers reports that Pennsylvania, a state that voted decisively for Obama in 2008, is not entirely in his corner now. And Arlen Specter, the former Republican who switched to the Democratic Party (helping the Democrats achieve a short–lived filibuster–proof majority in the Senate), appears to have some obstacles to overcome in his bid for another term.


• The Rothenberg Political Report has more bad news for Democrats. California Sen. Barbara Boxer's "poll numbers are less than intimidating," according to the Report, so today it moved Boxer's bid for another term from "Currently Safe" to "Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party."
  
  Appears the Report will be keeping an eye on the race. Before the special election in Massachusetts, the notion that Boxer might be denied another term might have been unthinkable. But, as the Report says, "The contest is worth watching because of the building GOP wave."
  
  Who'da thought the Democrats might have to fight to keep a Senate seat in California? Then again, who would have thought unemployment in California would exceed 12%?


• Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball reports that, if the midterm elections were held today, Republicans would gain seven seats in the Senate and 27 in the House. They would also pick up six governor's offices.

A couple of points here.

1. On the positive side, it is still February. There is a lot of time between now and November. But there isn't so much time that the Democrats can afford to squander any of it.


2. On the negative side, that is how things look after one year of Obama, a year that was spent largely in a futile attempt to pass health care reform. How will things look after nearly two years with Obama at the helm?

That is a big piece of the puzzle. It will be a huge factor in 2012.

And that is what should have Obama's undivided attention this year.

Parallel Lives

---

---

The recent release of Sarah Palin's memoir, "Going Rogue: An American Life," has made me ponder the course of her political career and that of the other woman who was a running mate on a major party ticket a quarter of a century ago, Geraldine Ferraro.

Certain similarities jump out at me, starting with their ages. Both were in their 40s when chosen to be running mates. Ferraro was 48, which was within the range of most previous Democratic running mates. Palin, on the other hand, was 44, the youngest Republican running mate in 20 years (considerably younger than Dick Cheney or Jack Kemp had been).

Initial surveys indicated that both were popular choices, although they ran into trouble once their conventions were over and the campaigns began in earnest. Palin's problems in the 2008 campaign have been well documented, but, in case you need a reminder (or you are too young to remember the 1984 campaign), not only was Ferraro criticized for a style that was regarded by some as reckless and defiant, but she had problems with her family as well. Less than a month after being nominated, Ferraro had to face relentless questioning about her and her husband's finances.

That was a distraction, but Ferraro wasn't helped by her shoot–from–the–hip style. After telling reporters that she would release her tax returns but her husband would release only a tax statement (his explanation to her, she said, was "Gerry, I'm not going to tell you how to run the country, you're not going to tell me how to run my business"), she made a remark that dogged her: "You people married to Italian men, you know what it's like." Republicans sensed a gender–neutral opportunity to attack and they didn't let it go to waste.

Both Palin and Ferraro had somewhat limited political careers prior to being nominated, and their lack of experience frequently was compared (unfavorably) to the abundance of experience possessed by their opponents. After Ferraro's debate with George H.W. Bush and Palin's debate with Joe Biden, both were said to have performed better than expected, but they were hammered, nevertheless, by the opposition for their "extremist" political views, and both lost the general elections by wide margins — even though it could be rightly said that the opposition's presidential nominees were more popular personally than their policies.

Ferraro and Palin were chosen in large part to appeal to female voters. It was a roll of the dice that didn't pay off. They may well have attracted some female voters, but exit polls indicated that neither succeeded in winning the women's vote. After the 1984 election was over, most political observers agreed that no potential Democratic ticket could have defeated Ronald Reagan, and, following last year's economic meltdown, the same probably could be said of any potential Republican ticket in 2008. Blaming the female running mates strikes me as convenient but ultimately indefensible.

Like Palin, the year after the campaign, Ferraro published her memoir, "Ferraro: My Story," which was a bestseller. There was talk about her political future, and she was labeled a "rising star" in party politics, but, beyond founding a political action committee that had as its mission the goal of electing 10 women in the 1986 Congressional elections and two unsuccessful bids for the Senate in the 1990s, Ferraro's political career was over.

There is talk today about Palin's political future as well. What that future holds has been debated since Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska a few months ago, but she still clearly appeals to some Republican voters.

I hear some of today's Democrats fretting about Palin. What will become of the nation, they ask, if Sarah Palin is nominated for president in 2012 — and, God forbid, actually wins? I've heard some cite, as an ominous sign, reports from the Des Moines Register that suggest that more than two–thirds of Iowa Republicans have a favorable opinion of Palin.

"That's close to the 70 percent who hold favorable views of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 caucuses," writes the Register's Thomas Beaumont, "and it's higher than the 66 percent who view former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich favorably. Palin's number is also higher than that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, runnerup in the 2008 caucuses, who is viewed favorably by 58 percent of the state's Republicans."

I would give a lot more credibility to those numbers if this were November 2011 and the Iowa caucuses were a few weeks away. But even that couldn't be viewed as conclusive. In mid–November of 2007, polls indicated that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would win the Iowa caucuses.

I may be wrong, but my inclination since July has been that, unless she runs for and wins a seat in the Senate or the House next year, Palin ultimately will not pose nearly as much of a threat as many Democrats fear. She will have no recent achievements to bolster a political record that was — to put it charitably — quite thin in 2008, but it was acceptable for a vice presidential nominee. It will be far less plausible for a potential president.

Beaumont quotes a former director of the state's Republican Party, who claims Palin is misunderstood and has been victimized by mistakes that were not hers. Therefore, this isn't about achievements. "She's getting the chance to set the record straight."

Fine. I'm all in favor of personal redemption. But my belief has been that resigning her post will work against her when many Republicans ask themselves the tough questions that caucus participants must ask about every candidate. Typically, if you don't have recent achievements, you'd better have a record of achievements. Palin doesn't have the latter and she quit the former. That's not exactly a bumper sticker slogan.

Even today, more than two years before the next Iowa caucuses, there are signs that decision will hurt a potential Palin candidacy. A GOP activist told the Register that Palin "needs a policy platform, with a conservative organization or media outlet, to boost her credibility."

And, even though she enjoys high favorable ratings from Iowa Republicans, Beaumont reports, "24 percent of Iowa Republicans view Palin unfavorably, compared with 12 percent for Huckabee." Party activists told Beaumont they believe the decision to resign has a lot to do with that.

Democrats who are worried about 2012 are getting ahead of themselves. They need to be promoting the idea of getting all their senators and representatives on the same page.

History says the party in power will lose ground in the midterm elections. Lately, public opinion surveys are saying the same thing.

Without the bullet–proof majorities in Congress, how much of his agenda can Barack Obama expect to push through in the last two years of his term? How will his record of achievements look then? I suppose that depends on exactly how much ground is lost in 2010.

See, that achievements thing works both ways.

The Blame Game

In the aftermath of a presidential election, there's almost always a certain amount of blaming and finger pointing that goes on within the party that comes up short — which tends to be exaggerated, to a certain degree, by the media.

The scapegoat in 2008 appears to be Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

At least, that's the impression one gets from reading Ari Berman's article in The Nation.

"Angry McCain aides, who believe the Alaska governor harmed the GOP ticket, are going to do their best to make sure Palin gets the blame," Berman writes.

"Already," Berman continues, "word is emerging that Palin

• "'didn't know that Africa was a continent rather than a country,' reported Fox News's Carl Cameron, based on conversations with McCain aides;


• "didn't know which countries were in NAFTA and


• "didn't prepare for her disastrous interviews with Katie Couric."

But is that really fair?

Was the election a mandate for Obama? Or was it a repudiation of Palin?

I guess that comes down to whatever the motivation was for each person's vote. People are unique and, therefore, what motivates them to vote one way or another is unique as well.

I have heard some people say that Palin was a factor for them when they voted — that they didn't like her views on issues or they didn't feel she had enough experience. Those are legitimate concerns, ones that voters on the opposite side of the spectrum could (and, in fact, some did) express about Obama.

But I don't think any of the Obama supporters who expressed such concerns about Palin said that they would have voted for McCain if she had not been on the ticket with him.

And I think Berman may be failing to recognize what motivates the McCain staffers who insist on trashing Palin.

While I think it's clear that Palin brought much of the derision on herself, I also think you have to keep in mind the source of the complaints — McCain staffers, who probably would like to work in other political campaigns in the future and would prefer to see someone else take the fall for losing this election — while they remain comfortably above the fray.

One conservative isn't blaming Palin — Ann Coulter.

"Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin," Coulter writes. "He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as 'The One' these days."

It's obvious that there's no love lost between Coulter and McCain. But Coulter makes the same mistake (albeit in reverse) as the Palin bashers. Both give Palin more credit than she deserves.

Palin was elected governor two years ago, and she's never served as much as a single day in Congress. She didn't introduce or help pass any of the legislation that either authorized George W. Bush to give the green light to the invasion of Iraq or led to the economic meltdown.

She is not culpable for any of the problems that are linked to Bush and the Republican Party.

She may have been — and may still be — a supporter of most or all of the policies that were rejected by the voters. But she supported or opposed legislation in the same capacity as anyone else — as a citizen.

I'm not saying that there isn't a cause-and-effect relationship between policies and the results in elections. Clearly, there is.

But is it fair for Republicans to blame Palin for John McCain's defeat? McCain, after all, has been in Congress for more than 20 years. During the campaign, Obama frequently observed that McCain had supported Bush's legislative policies 90% of the time.

When voters elect a president, they focus on the candidate at the top of the ticket — not the running mate. McCain was too closely linked to an administration that the voters judged to be a failure.

Palin didn't bring in the disaffected female voters who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That was the main thing the McCain campaign hoped for.

But, while Palin energized the conservative base of her party, she was unable to attract most centrist and progressive women because they disagreed with her on issues.

I'm inclined to think those voters would have responded in the same way to a male running mate with the same political philosophy as Palin.

Which underscores the real problem that McCain was never able to overcome. He should have been able to count on his conservative base. He should not have felt compelled to appeal to it through his choice of a running mate.

The problems that plagued the Republican Party during the mid-term elections two years ago and again in this year's presidential election simply were not of Palin's making.

This defeat was John McCain's. Palin may have cost the ticket some votes here and there.

But the responsibility for persuading the voters always rests with the presidential nominee.

It is a test of that nominee's leadership. And this was a failure of McCain's leadership.

In all fairness, not everyone is making Palin the GOP's scapegoat. Indeed, a certain segment of the population insists that we haven't seen the last of her, that she will be a candidate for president in 2012.

But Palin insists, in USA Today, that she "cannot even imagine" seeking national office four years from now.

That's OK. Some people are doing the imagining for her.

Late Endorsements

Usually, at this point in the election cycle, most people have decided how they plan to vote.

But, as the Denver Post points out, Barack Obama's leads over John McCain in many so-called "battleground" states — Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Post's own Colorado — are slender indeed.

So activists on both sides have remained busy in those states. And endorsements issued there in the final days may yet make a difference.

• Few people are suggesting — even in the aftermath of Ted Stevens' conviction — that the McCain-Palin ticket won't carry Alaska.
  
  But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Anchorage Daily News did endorse the Democratic ticket. Of course, it also endorsed John Kerry in 2004, but the state's voters supported George W. Bush.
  
  Now, the Juneau Empire has weighed in — with its endorsement of McCain.


• Likewise, I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating the possibility that McCain's home state of Arizona will not vote for its senator.
  
  But Tucson's Arizona Daily Star endorsed Obama. It also endorsed Kerry four years ago.


• Even though one of Connecticut's senators, Joe Lieberman, has been an outspoken supporter of McCain, the state seems likely to support Obama on Tuesday.
  
  But the Stamford Advocate is resisting the Democratic tide. It endorsed Kerry in 2004, but it supports McCain in this election.


• Illinois, of course, is the state Obama represents in the Senate. Many of the state's newspapers have endorsed his candidacy, and I'm not aware of anyone who has said Obama will fail to carry the state on Tuesday.
  
  In the past, a rhetorical political question has centered around whether a candidate or issue would "play in Peoria." Today, the question of how the presidential campaign is playing in Peoria received a partial answer. The Peoria Journal Star, which supported Bush in 2004, endorsed Obama's candidacy.
  
  We'll find out on Tuesday how the choice is playing with Peoria's voters.


• Minnesota appears poised to vote for Obama, but the Duluth News Tribune, after endorsing Kerry four years ago, endorsed McCain, saying "[d]uring these difficult days, our nation can’t risk an unproven hopeful in the White House."


• Some political observers think North Carolina is in play, but I find that hard to believe. It may be close in North Carolina — it frequently is — but I think it will be in the Republican column when all the votes are counted.
  
  The Winston-Salem Journal endorsed McCain. It endorsed no one four years ago.


• In Oklahoma, where Republican nominees have prevailed for 40 years, the Tulsa World added its name to the growing list of newspapers in Oklahoma that support McCain.


• Massachusetts is another state in which the outcome is probably a foregone conclusion.
  
  Massachusetts seldom votes for Republicans, and most of its newspapers have endorsed the Democrats, but the Springfield Republican switched sides. After supporting Massachusetts' favorite son, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, last time, the Republican is living up to its name and supporting McCain this time.


• Earlier in the campaign, I heard talk from some people that a "surge" of black votes in Mississippi would carry the day for Obama in that state. Such talk appears to have died out as reality has settled in for most of those people.
  
  Nevertheless, the Jackson Clarion-Ledger has endorsed Obama, which is, I suppose, a victory for Obama. The Clarion-Ledger endorsed Bush in 2004.

But, as I say, voters in these states appear to have made up their minds. So let's take a look at the battlegrounds.

• In Ohio, a newspaper that was once run by a future Republican president (Warren Harding), the Marion Star, has endorsed the Republican in this race.


• In Pennsylvania, where McCain has been campaigning feverishly in an attempt to flip the state and win its electoral votes, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has given its blessing to McCain.
  
  Obama, meanwhile, has received a recent endorsement from the Lebanon Daily News.

For the most part, endorsement activity seems to be tailing off. Almost all of the large newspapers have chosen sides, and most newspapers in the battleground states seem to have done so as well.

More endorsements may come on Election Eve, but it appears that it's up to the voters now.

God and Politics, 2008 Style

As North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole's beleaguered re-election campaign has chosen to raise the specter of God in the waning days of the campaign, I decided to pay a long-overdue visit to the God-o-Meter, belief.net's ranking of each candidate's faith.

It's been months since I visited the "God-o-Meter," but it appears to give Barack Obama a higher rating on religious issues than it gives John McCain.

It also had immediate reflections on the "godless" campaign commercial the Dole campaign has used recently.

Dan Gilgoff writes for the God-o-Meter that the rapid response ad produced by the campaign for Kay Hagan, Dole's opponent, "is a very post-2004 way for a Democrat to respond to a faith-based attack: quickly responding to the attack head-on and testifying unabashedly about one's faith commitment."

Hagan's tactic, Gilgoff says, is "a very 'Obama' way to respond to a faith-based attack, as opposed to the 'Kerry' way of responding: wringing one's hands and marrying each public pronouncement about one's faith to a reaffirmation of support for the complete separation of church and state."

As for Dole, Gilgoff observes, her commercial "is a stark reminder that faith-based attacks have been kept to a relative minimum in the presidential race."

Gilgoff goes on to point out that McCain has not used religion as a wedge issue in this campaign, not even using Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright to "skewer him for cozying up to a man of the cloth."

Although many voters have welcomed the de-emphasis of religion in the political debate, Gilgoff appears to draw the conclusion that refraining from "faith-based attacks" will cost McCain the election.

And he warns that could be the lesson Republicans take into the next presidential election cycle.

"[I]f [Sarah] Palin, Mike Huckabee, or another social conservative gets the nod in 2012, due to a post-McCain religious right uprising, we could be looking at more faith-based attacks at the presidential level," he writes.

Heaven forbid.

The Ego Has Landed

Following his conviction in his corruption trial on Monday, Sen. Ted Stevens is due to resume his campaign for re-election in Alaska on Wednesday, reports the Anchorage Daily News.

Even though both of the candidates on the national Republican ticket, John McCain and Sarah Palin, called on Stevens to resign Tuesday.

"Stevens, 84, faces a challenge of historic proportions with just one week before the election," write Sean Cockerham and Don Hunter in the Daily News. "He'd be the first convicted U.S. senator ever elected, on appeal or not."

Due to the rather unorthodox nature of Stevens' race against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, voters can't be blamed for being unsure about a few things.

Tom Kizzia of the Daily News tried to anticipate and answer all of the readers' questions.

For example ...

1. Can Stevens run for re-election, even though he's been convicted of a crime? Yes.


2. If Stevens is re-elected, can he keep his Senate seat if he loses his appeal? That depends on his colleagues in the Senate.


3. If it is necessary to replace Stevens, how would his successor be chosen? That's uncertain because the law was changed twice in 2004 and, while the two laws agree to a point, there is some uncertainty about an interim appointment.

Stevens isn't due to be sentenced until January 26.

In his initial statements following his conviction, Stevens sounded like a man who believes the jury was a voting group that didn't get the message and he was trying, once again, to win the jurors over. He was angry, defiant, as he proclaimed, "I am innocent!"

"Uncle Ted" hasn't lost many votes over the years.

If Stevens believes he can pull it off on appeal by being the political infighter he's always been, who can blame him?

He has carefully cultivated an image of bringing home the bacon for his constituents, an image that may still play well in Alaska, with a weak economy and oil prices dropping dramatically in recent weeks.

Voters may conclude his seniority means economic clout for the state — and that may be especially true of Alaska natives, who represent about one-sixth of the state's population and depend on many of the projects Stevens has supported over the years.

Common sense would suggest that the voters would not send an 84-year-old man back to Washington for six years, especially since it's not even clear he would be allowed to remain in office a week after the next president is sworn in.

But stranger things have happened in American politics.

Dancing the Virginia Reel

For months, political observers have been saying Virginia was in play in the presidential election.

As a long-time political observer myself, I find that hard to believe.

Especially when people act as if the state has gone from being lopsidedly Republican to competitive virtually overnight.

What has been lopsided in Virginia is its support for the Republican presidential nominees. It is the only Southern state to vote Republican in every election since 1968.

But the margin hasn't always been lopsided.

When I was in high school, Democrat Jimmy Carter of Georgia was elected president, primarily with the help of a nearly Solid South.

The only Southern state that didn't support Carter against President Gerald Ford was Virginia.

It was close — Ford defeated Carter in Virginia by less than 24,000 votes out of nearly 1.7 million that were cast.

Prior to Election Day, both sides poured a lot of resources into the state. Democrats felt they had a good chance to win, even though Virginia had only voted for the Democratic ticket once in the previous six presidential elections.

Nevertheless, Virginia resisted the Carter candidacy.

When another Southerner, Bill Clinton of Arkansas, was elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1996, the results were close in Virginia again. Both President George H.W. Bush and Sen. Bob Dole carried the state for the Republicans, but both were held under 50% — due, in part, to the presence of Ross Perot on the ballot both times (although Perot's share of the Virginia vote was smaller than his share of the national vote in both elections).

George W. Bush kept the presidential streak going for the GOP with 52% of the vote in Virginia in 2000 and 53% in 2004, even though Democrats have been winning statewide races for governor and senator in recent elections.

I've never lived in Virginia. But it seems to me that the demographics show that there has been a population explosion in the northern part of the state, near the nation's capitol and various centers of economic development.

Conservatives in that part of the state appear to be economically conservative, not culturally conservative.

When Republicans lose the support of those voters, it appears to be largely because they've presided over an economic disaster. It is not a reaction to emotional issues — like abortion or gun control or gay marriage or flag burning.

In Virginia, cultural conservatives tend to live in areas farther south and west, in rural communities and military installations. But those areas haven't experienced the kind of growth northern Virginia has.

As for the polls ...

If you watch the polls, they've been all over the place in Virginia this year.

Lately, two pollsters completed surveys on the 21st. The NBC/Mason Dixon poll found Obama leading in Virginia, 47% to 45%. The CNN/Time survey found Obama's lead in the state was 54% to 44%.

Survey USA concluded a poll on the 19th and reported Obama was leading by 51% to 45%. On the 16th, Rasmussen said Obama's lead was 54% to 44%.

Add to the mix the theory that is going around these days — that Obama will lose up to six percentage points because of his race.

What can you believe?

Personally, I tend to put my faith in Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics who runs a political web site called "Crystal Ball '08," who also happens to be a long-time Virginia resident and observer of its political scene.

Today, Sabato writes that, in his revised projection for the general election, he is shifting Virginia from "toss-up" to "leans Obama."

Because of "Bush, the disastrous economy, the demographic growth of Northern Virginia and its strong Democratic tilt, the momentum built up by recent Democratic victories and the remarkable voter registration and voter contact efforts of a literal army of Obama staffers and volunteers," he believes Obama has built a lead of 2-3 percentage points in Virginia.

He also suggests that the Republicans' own campaign decisions should share the blame for whatever happens in Virginia on Election Day. "McCain's staff refused to believe Virginia was truly competitive for too long," he writes, "and the McCain-Palin visits were few."

That perception doesn't appear to be confined to Sabato.

In fact, it seems to me that it prompted McCain to make a deal with the devil.

I get the feeling that McCain and his running mate have redoubled their efforts in Pennsylvania to compensate for the anticipated losses of Virginia and Colorado to the Democrats.

Mathematically, McCain could afford to lose two previously dependably Republican states like Virginia and Colorado if he wins Pennsylvania. But I'm dubious about his ability to pull off.

Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the last four elections. The margin has been closer since the end of the Clinton administration, but Gore and Kerry still managed to win the state with some breathing room.

I also remain skeptical about whether the Republicans actually will lose either Colorado or Virginia. Realistically, they cannot afford to lose any of the states that supported Bush four years ago.

But if McCain is destined to lose in Colorado and Virginia, he will have to compensate for losing those electoral votes by winning elsewhere. When you look at the voting results of the recent elections, you realize that there aren't too many plausible alternatives in that kind of scenario — for either side.

To date, most newspapers in Virginia haven't endorsed anyone in the presidential race. Some may be planning to do that this weekend — or next week.

Of the few that have endorsed a candidate, the Daily Press of Newport News has picked up some attention because it endorsed Kerry in 2004 but chose to endorse McCain this time.

Sabato may be right. Virginia may be leaning to Obama. With the financial resources Obama has been able to devote to states like Virginia, it wouldn't surprise many people.

And strong Democratic candidates for open Senate seats currently held by the Republicans could provide whatever additional acceleration the national ticket needs in traditionally Republican states like Virginia and Colorado.

But can a media blitz reverse a state's political preference? That's one of the questions that will be answered on Election Night.

Based on the state's voting patterns, the fact that polls have shown that Virginia has been competitive this year hasn't surprised me.

But, frankly, what will surprise me is if Virginia votes Democratic for only the second time in more than half a century.

Obama and Crisis Management

Joe Biden has a long history of service to his country as a senator.

He possesses a depth of knowledge of the issues facing this country that is unmatched by almost anyone else in political life.

Even if he were not running for vice president, he would have made a fine addition to the next administration as attorney general or secretary of state.

And, to the chagrin of the Obama campaign, the vice presidential nominee is gaffe-prone.

Lately, spectacularly so.

With two weeks to go before the election, the Democrats did not need him to remind people that Obama's lack of experience could encourage foreign adversaries to manufacture a crisis early in his presidency — in much the same way that John F. Kennedy was tested shortly after taking office.

It gave John McCain the opening to focus attention on his long record of service to the country, which he says would discourage America's foes from testing him. But Obama, he says, is a different story.

"[T]he thing that probably may encourage them a little is that Sen. Obama has been wrong," McCain told CNN. "He was wrong about the surge in Iraq. He still fails to acknowledge that he was wrong."

On the other hand, McCain said, "They know I've been tested. I've been tested many times."

McCain's supporters seem to have taken the cue.

Kirsten Powers asserts, in the New York Post, that Biden's remarks are being shrugged off by a "biased" media.

The Oklahoman ponders the possibility that the Democrats may choose to put a muzzle on Biden for the rest of the campaign.

"You’ve got to wonder if Joe Biden will be seen or heard much between now and Election Day," writes The Oklahoman.

"If Obama wins, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin and others will try to size him up early, and it won’t be anything like community organizing in South Chicago," The Oklahoman tells its readers. "This concern is unique to Obama. His is the thin résumé; he’s never faced live fire.

"On the other hand, John McCain would come to the Oval Office with more world experience and a track record that would give adversaries pause, not invite mischief."

If there's one thing the Democrats don't need with less than two weeks remaining in the campaign, it is to remind the voters that they're running against a war hero.

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

The old adage is true in baseball and it's true in politics. It ain't over 'til it's over.

What's over, for good or ill, is the 2008 presidential debates.

And, in three weeks, the election campaign will be over as well.

Speaking of the debates ...

I give a narrow edge in tonight's debate to John McCain, for a few reasons.

• I thought McCain seized the moment at the start of the debate while Barack Obama stumbled along. If the course of the evening's competition shifted, it started doing so about halfway through the debate, when the discussion moved to the nasty tone of both campaign's commercials.
  
  McCain seemed obsessive about his treatment by Rep. John Lewis and mostly remained on the defensive the rest of the way. But Obama never really took control of his opportunity.
  
  And neither candidate could give a satisfactory answer on balancing the budget.


• It shouldn't be necessary to do it, but McCain emphasized for Obama as well as the viewing audience that he is not George W. Bush.
  
  So great is the public's anger with Bush that the Republican nominee must remind the voters (as frequently as possible between now and the election) that Bush is not on the ballot.
  
  And basic American fairness dictates that one is not held responsible for the actions of someone else.
  
  But that doesn't mean the voters won't punish McCain, anyway.


• The fact that the debate was on domestic issues in an election campaign in which the economic dynamics clearly favor Democrats should have contributed to an easy win for Obama.
  
  But, while I give Obama credit for managing to introduce topics like health care into the discussion and thoroughly confronting the subject of abortion while answering the critical question of judicial appointments, I felt that McCain won the debate, if only because he was actually scoring points on economic questions — on what is, in effect, Obama's home turf.
  
  Perhaps it was a result of sufficiently lowering the pre-debate expectations.

Will McCain translate an apparent debate victory into gains in the public opinion polls? And, more importantly, will it lead to more actual votes in the election?

Is Either One Ready to Be Vice President?

About 30 minutes into tonight's Biden-Palin vice presidential debate, I was asking myself the same question, over and over and over again.

Is either candidate ready to be vice president?

Forget — at least temporarily — about the possibility that either one could become president because of unforeseen events or causes. That's always the gamble with the vice presidency — will the individual be ready to become president if the need arises? You have to hope you'll never need an answer to that question.

The rest of the time, the vice president's job is pretty routine. He/she simply has to be there — whether that means presiding over the Senate and casting tie-breaking votes or attending high-profile foreign weddings and funerals.

It requires tact and diplomacy. It requires the ability to keep the Senate running smoothly even when tempers are running a little high. It requires knowing any special protocol that needs to be observed at a foreign social function.

But if you like one party's presidential candidate and another party's vice presidential candidate, you're out of luck. You've got to vote for them as a team — even though the voters in the Electoral College don't have to.

To be chosen to perform the typical tasks of a vice president, it is not necessary for the public to know a vice presidential candidate's views on much of anything — which means most of the questions that were asked tonight had little bearing on what the candidates will do if elected — except for the hypothetical question that asked what each would be likely to do differently if called upon to assume the duties of the presidency (which came near the end of the debate).

If we were going to judge the potential each candidate has to perform the job of vice president, we would have asked hypothetical questions dealing with procedure in the Senate or protocol at a royal wedding.

But we really didn't get much from either candidate except prepackaged sound bites — even in response to the hypothetical question, which had the potential to give voters real insight into each candidate's mindset.

Palin is scheduled to campaign here in Dallas Friday. Perhaps she'll be able to answer that question while she's here.

I heard the same talking points I can hear on the TV ads — or read on the websites. I did not hear a genuine discussion of the issues.

Let’s call it a draw — if not a waste of time.