Real Clear Politics Election 2008

Find more at www.realclearpolitics.com

Democrat delegate count

Obama

Total: 1983

Super: 324

Pledged: 1659

Clinton

Total: 1782

Super: 283

Pledged: 1499

Margin: Obama +201

Obama Vs. McCain-Obama +1.8

Clinton Vs. McCain-Clinton +2.0

RCP Average

Real Clear Politics State Polls

Michigan Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/9-1/13
Romney-27.0
McCain-26.3
Huckabee-15.9
Paul -6.6
Giuliani -5.7
Thompson-5.4
Romney +0.7

Nevada Democratic Caucus
Research 2000 1/11-1/13
Obama-32
Clinton -30
Edwards-27
Obama +2.0

South Carolina Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Huckabee-26.5
McCain-22.8
Romney-16.8
Thompson-10.3
Giuliani-6.8
Paul-5.0
Huckabee +3.7

South Carolina Democratic Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Obama-42.7
Clinton- 32.0
Edwards-16.0
Obama +10.7

Florida Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/7-1/13
McCain-21.3
Giuliani-21.3
Huckabee-18.3
Romney-17.0
Thompson-8.8
Paul-4.8
Tie

Florida Democratic Primary
RCP Average1/7-1/13
Clinton-49.0
Obama-27.5
Edwards-11.5
Clinton +21.5

Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The Inevitable Hillary Clinton

I usually find myself flipping around to the many news channels, CNN, Fox News, etc. These shows usually have one or more pundits that are called upon to prognosticate and reveal their wisdom and truth about future political happenings. I do not doubt the sincerity or intelligence of these people, but I think darts thrown at dartboard might be able to come up with the right response with the same degree of success. I figure if those people can do it why not me? For the purpose of this article I will become a pundit and try to forecast the political future.

I mean to focus my prognostication on the Democrats and their choice to run for president. Hillary wins. Yes that is the extent of my psychic abilities. To some it might seem like an easy pick, I would classify it as inevitability. You must understand how that disappoints me on many levels. I see the eventual nomination of Hillary Clinton as a foregone conclusion. There are many reasons for this feeling.

Senator Clinton surely is not going to be changed by the current lot of candidates seeking her party’s nomination. A newbie senator, a one-term, once rejected presidential candidate, an expired Alaskan senator, and a United States representative fighting to win the hearts of out-of-this-world beings does not evoke great excitement. This group as is currently composed on top will hardly rattle the Clinton machine. That machine in and of itself is a reason to bet on Mrs. Clinton’s nomination. The machine is to well oiled and practiced in picking up and chewing out opponents. Add to this a seemingly endless supply of money from contributions, assuming they do not have to be returned. There is still one factor that I have forgotten about, Bill. The former president and hopeful first man is still a beloved commodity around Democrat circles. This has proven useful as his wife advances in her political career, a mutually beneficial relationship that might yield historic returns.

Well I will not have to wait long to see if my prediction comes true. The Iowa caucuses are right around the corner and the Democrat presidential nominee will probably be known soon after. If I am right my career as a pundit will be off to a great start. It might show that Democrat know the difference between a candidate qualified to be president and someone who was simply married to one. One does not qualify the other. There are many are many adjectives I could use to describe Hillary Clinton, for the sake of propriety I will use only one, inevitable.

Giuliani Gets Evangelical Leader's Endorsement

With the endorsement yesterday of the 700 club's Pat Robertson, Giuliani may have silenced his critics who claimed he would be unable to draw evangelical support. In a surprising move the ultra-conservative Robertson threw his support to Giuliani who has supported gay marriage and is a pro choice Republican. The surprise is that Robertson chose not to endorse more traditional conservatives such as Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. This move might help conservatives and evangelicals coalesce around one candidate. As we have seen from past campaigns conservatives and evangelicals have been a major force in Republican politics. The move should help Giuliani in the south which tends to have a more conservative voting base.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071107/D8SOTN7G1.html

The Case For Mike Huckabee by Jonathan Alter

The GOP race for president may be as open as it has been in a long time. This is compounded by the fact that no clear successor is in place. Another issue is that conservatives have not coalesced around one particular candidate. This leaves a certain mystery and uncertainty as to who will command the party going into next fall's election. Many candidates are vying and wooing conservatives for their support as they declare themselves, the real conservative. Each man appears to have his positives and negatives that may cast doubt on their true conservative credentials. One of the men who seems to have a solid case to be the conservative candidate is Mike Huckabee. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter takes a look at the former governor, and in doing so makes the case for Mike Huckabee as the best hope for Republicans.
http://www.newsweek.com//id/57616
Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com

A Hillary by Any Other Name

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the former first lady. I will admit my thoughts are not positive in nature. I try to not let them seep into a hateful rage and remain grounded in the truth that this is a women with the wrong set of ideas. I think many individuals are thinking about this women especially as she runs for our nation's highest office. But I wonder sometimes what the fate of this women would be if her last name was Smith or Jones? Would we be talking about Hillary Smith as the next President of the United States? I am of the opinion that we would not and there is where I see the real problem.

I suppose by my comments that I imply a certain illegitimacy to Senator Clinton's presidential run. The problem is that without her infamous attachment with her president husband I do not see how politician Hillary emerges to run for chief of the West Wing. Certainly I think most would have to admit this fact and in doing so might have to concede, Hillary Clinton is an artificial candidate created by creators of the Bill Clinton mystique.

I would say that Mrs. Clinton has used this mystique and the presumed glamorous times of the nineties with the Clinton White House occupation in her quest to fulfill her ambitions. Ambitions that have recently come to light in books detailing the Clinton's partnership and alliance to make all of their political dreams come true. It happened for Bill and as his time in the sun set Hillary's was beginning to rise.

She was not content to live out the behind the scenes life of a former first lady but instead to seek out some of the same glory and power her husband enjoyed. So she pursued a Senate seat in New York, a state very accepting of her kind, liberals. She now had the position to cultivate real political experience. She was not long for the Senate and we now have candidate Hillary again, but this time she wants her own keys to the White House. And with her husband's political machine, and deity-like image among Democrats behind her, she has vaulted to position number one for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary finds herself in a top three with a one-term senator and a first-term senator. Not a group with a vast amount of political dirt under the fingernails. No, the real experienced pols have been relegated to the proverbial second-tier status. The Democrats say they want change, maybe shying away from experience is what they mean by that?

Not that I am saying that Washington experience is the be all end all or even preferred in most cases. I just cringe when I hear the pundits and sycophants drool over their top-tier candidates and most notably Mrs. Clinton. All I hear is how experienced she is and how that will be a welcome change from our current president. Well from reading her bio on Wikipedia I have found that before becoming a senator she was a lawyer, served on some corporate board, and was wife to a philandering pervert. That may qualify her for life in Washington D.C. but does that constitute a presidential resume?

I think it is great if some no-name American wants to throw their hat into the ring of politics. It is certainly every citizens right to run for public office. I just have a problem with this one particular politician because of the office she is running for. Seething rage will only get you so far before you have to look at the opposition's ideas. The truth is I believe that the junior senator from New York is wrong on the ideas. I worry that she may get that chance to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, because at this point in history she just might get that chance. I just hope there are enough worriers out across the country who see the disaster on the horizon. Because that is what I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be, a disaster. Whether it be a naive approach to foreign policy or an over expansion of government control of our lives, I think selecting such a leader would be a mistake. My point is that I wonder if we would even have these concerns if she was a Hillary by any other name?

What Experience?

It has become standard for political candidates to try and distinguish themselves from their opponents by touting their experience. Each candidate points to their long public service records and commitment to serving the people as a reason why people should vote for them. This is not anything new in politics nor is it exclusive to the Republicans or Democrats. We have already seen many examples of this in this presidential election campaign season. But I got to thinking about those touted Democrat front-runners who each has declared they are the most experienced and qualified to sit behind the desk in the oval office. One would only have to look at the experience of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards to wonder what experience they are referring to. I start with John Edwards who is in the third position of first-tier candidates. What experience does he have? Well we know that he is a very wealthy man who made his millions as a slip and fall lawyer as Curtis Sliwa might say. I must not forget his forgettable term in the U.S. Senate where he was apart of so much important legislation, none comes to mind of course. Then we have the rock star Barack Obama. We know that he served in the Illinois legislature and is presently serving in the Senate. Certainly he has served the people of Illinois and continues to serve them, but does he have the experience necessary to run a country effectively? And finally we have the leader of the pack, the former first lady, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I got to thinking about her experience that she claims to have over her opponents. It may be that I am not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of her experience that would make her the ideal person to lead the world's superpower. I know she used to be a lawyer, but with people's opinions of lawyers I do not know if that is something to run on. We know that she has been a spouse of a politician, a first lady of Arkansas and later the United States. Maybe that is the experience Mrs. Clinton is referring to? But I almost forgot that she serves the people in New York as their junior senator. Each of the three is lacking when it comes to meaningful legislation attached to their names. But yet we will constantly hear from the candidates or their handlers that each is more qualified then the other and infinitely more than the Republicans whose first-tier candidates have actually run major cities and states. I am sure this trend will continue as each candidate tries to convince the electorate that they can lead and preside where others cannot. I will continue to ask and wonder and I would hope for others to ask an honest question of these candidates, what experience?