Is Hillary Clinton a theocrat?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I think it's a question that needs to be asked -- and answered. Like this one, posed by Mother Jones: "Is she triangulating -- or living her faith?" Or both. Consider:

Clinton's God talk is more complicated -- and more deeply rooted -- than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful religious strand in her own politics. Over the past year, we've interviewed dozens of Clinton's friends, mentors, and pastors about her faith, her politics, and how each shapes the other. And while media reports tend to characterize Clinton's subtle recalibration of tone and style as part of the Democrats' broader move to recapture the terrain of "moral values," those who know her say there's far more to it than that.

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't... there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

Make sure to read the entire piece. It's quite long, but it's also extremely important.

I have no doubt that Clinton is a solid liberal, progressive on some issues, less so on others, and is not some sort of christianist theocrat out to impose a right-wing religious agenda on America. And yet, one wonders:

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

It would be good to know what Clinton's views are with respect to this "spiritual war," would it not? Surely there are other faith groups she could have joined. Why this one? Was it all an act of triangulation, an effort to reach out to conservatives -- and in particular to her conservative colleagues in the Senate? Or does she actually believe in the Fellowship and its goals, in bringing Jesus, the christianist Jesus, into public life, into her public life, into whatever office she holds? If so, what specifically does she believe? Or is she somehow being duped, an victim of the christianist strategy of "cobelligerency," whereby "conservatives sit pretty and wait for liberals looking for common ground to come to them," pulling them to the right and turning them into allies, witting or otherwise, of their noxious agenda?

More urgently, what would any of this mean if she were elected to the White House in November? Are we confident we know the real Hillary Clinton? Would she work to guide the country in a more progressive direction, or would she be, in essence, the Fellowship's liberal in the Oval Office, a friendly liberal willing and eager to do some christianist bidding?

I'm not at all confident. For a long time, my reservations about Clinton had largely to do with her triangulating positions on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy generally. More recently, I have been appalled by some of what I have heard from her on the campaign trail. But there is this other Hillary, the Hillary who reaches out to, and cozies up with, the likes of Brownback and Santorum, the Hillary who attracts Newt Gingrich, the Hillary who wants to work with Republicans to get things done, things Republicans but not her fellow Democrats may want done. This other Hillary is hardly someone I want in the White House.

Again, we need answers to the questions posed above. But since there likely won't be any answers forthcoming, and certainly not satisfactory answers, we need to think carefully about what a Clinton presidency, a second one, would mean.

**********

As I have said before, I think that both Clinton and Obama could be good, even great, presidents but that I do not much care for either one. (For a thoughtful critique of Obama, see here.)

Just days before Super Tuesday, I'm still not sure where I stand. (It was with Edwards, alas.) Which is perhaps for the best. I'll support whoever emerges as the nominee, no matter what. (There's no way I'm supporting a Republican.)

It's just that these reservations are tough to overlook. And they seem, on both sides, to be growing.

The foreign policy of George W. Bush, "the man who learned too little"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

That's the title of Fred Kaplan's excellent analysis of President Bush's comments on U.S. foreign policy, including the Iraq War and Occupation, in Monday's SOTU. It's a must-read, and I've been meaning to post on it all week as a sort of follow-up to my live-blogging of the SOTU, which included a few remarks on Iraq, but, alas, the SOTU was quickly forgotten, more or less, put aside, tossed into the dustbin, a lame address from a lame-duck president, more of the same delusional drivel that hast come to characterize so much of this presidency. And we all moved on to seemingly more important things, like the Florida primaries -- yes, Bush has been eclipsed by Clinton and Obama, McCain and Romney, two close races, fascinating politics, and we are all, or so it seems, looking ahead eagerly to the end of the Bush presidency and the start of whatever is to come.

But not so fast. Bush offered up more of the same happy-talk, but the Iraq War and Occupation is very real, and what is going on there still matters, lest we forget.

And so I turn to Kaplan. His dissection of Bush's comments asks the right questions and makes the right points -- for example, Bush's talk of democracy and freedom is just that, talk, with nothing to back it up, a reflection of ignorance and delusion, self-righteousness and complacency, gross negligence and utter cluelessness -- but, Bush aside, his examination of the situation in Iraq is brilliant. I rarely post such long excerpts from other sources, but here it is, the truth about Iraq:

On Iraq, Bush had some genuinely good news to tell, but he overstated it and distorted its implications. The past few months have witnessed a dramatic decline in casualties (civilian and military, Iraqi and American). The "surge" — which Bush ordered into effect nearly a year ago, in the face of much skepticism — is indisputably one cause of these trends. But it is just one cause, and the effects being celebrated, salutary as they are, are not the effects that were intended.

Certainly the additional 25,000 troops that the surge has brought to a few areas of Iraq — along with Gen. David Petraeus' more aggressive strategy of using them (putting troops out on the streets instead of retreating to the superbases) — has increased security in the areas they've been able to occupy.

However, much of the reduced violence is related to the "alliances of convenience" between U.S. forces and Sunni insurgents against the common enemy of al-Qaida in Iraq. These alliances were initiated by the Sunnis and antedate the surge. There is also the matter of Muqtada Sadr's moratorium on violence (which, in fairness, might be due in part to the surge). And there is the simple fact that U.S. forces are paying insurgency groups not to attack them (a wise use of money, until it runs out).

More to the point, Gen. Petraeus said at the beginning that there is no strictly military victory to be had in Iraq; that the point of the surge was to provide "breathing space" to Iraq's political leaders, so that, amid improved security in Baghdad, they might settle their sectarian disputes. This political settlement does not appear to be happening; the political objectives of the surge are not being met.

President Bush said the proof of our strategy's success is that "more than 20,000 of our troops are coming home." (The congressional crowd went wild with applause.) These are the 20,000 troops that were sent over as part of the surge. The simple fact is that, by the summer, the 15-month deployment tours of the last of these surge brigades will have run out. There are no brigades ready to replace them. So, they will come home — and this would have been the case, no matter what had happened in the past year. The surge has always been short-term; that's why they called it a surge.

As for the prospect of future withdrawals, Bush said, "Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders." He added, "Gen. Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, al-Qaida in Iraq regaining lost ground, a marked increase in violence."

Don't bet on any more troops coming home for good before Christmas. And if a reduction from 160,000 to 140,000 puts the situation back on the precipice, below which further cuts trigger disaster, then the situation cannot be considered at all stable.

And it isn't stable, not really. Violence has been reduced in certain areas, that is true, but the surge has not worked -- certainly not as intended, and only temporarily, and Iraq remains not just deeply divided but in a state of relative calm before the coming storm. And, yes, the storm is coming.

Kaplan is right that it will take another president to demonstrate that Americans are "a compassionate people," as Bush put it in his address, but it will also fall to the the next president to deal with Bush's mess in Iraq.

How can we reclaim a sense of security in this climate?

By Carol Gee

Several forces conspire to steal our sense of security. They are man-made, not natural forces. These forces, however are not conspiring with each other to steal from us. I say that to allay any suspicion that I am a conspiracy theorist or that I am paranoid. I am sane and rational, though not always perfectly so. But these are truly dark times.

Today I am relieved that one of the conspirators, Rudy Giuliani, will no longer be as active among us. His endorsement of another of the current players of the "fear card," Senator John McCain, reminded me that they do not want us to relax. The forces of aggression that set in motion the loss of a million Iraqis, are now supported by McCain's seeming commitment to a "forever war." Because our nation is an integral part of such violence, his candidacy does not allow us normal folks to feel at ease.

Other maladaptive psychological traits in and out of our current administration tend to keep us agitated. Let me give you another example example. You could see much agitation on C-SPAN yesterday when Attorney General Michael Mukasey (the 3rd member of Mr. Bush's Tough Guy Triumvirate that includes Mike McConnell-DNI and Michael Hayden-CIA Director) testified before the Senate yesterday. The most prevalent questions from Senators to our nation's most senior legal official, were about water boarding. Mukasey, seemingly in absolute psychological denial, refused to rule it out, at the same time as he termed it "repugnant." How are we to feel he will staunchly defend the rule of law? He will not, according to the New York Times story on 1/31/08. To quote:

The legality of waterboarding, in which a prisoner experiences a sensation of drowning, has been come under fierce debate since the acknowledgment by Bush administration officials that a small number of prisoners who were members of Al Qaeda had been subjected to it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Mr. Mukasey said in a letter delivered to the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday night that he had been authorized by the White House to reveal that waterboarding was no longer being carried out and, for now, was considered an unapproved interrogation technique within the C.I.A. He repeated that assurance in his testimony Wednesday.

Legislative leaders formulate the laws that are then to be executed by another branch of government. The U.S. Constitution assures us of those basics. It does not make me feel more secure to suspect that the CIA sees itself as above the law. How am I to believe that my civil liberties and those of others will be protected as the agency goes about its business? The following story is another example of ignoring the basic rules of evidence. The headline reads, "Detainee's Lawyers Rebut C.I.A. on Tapes" -- NYT 1/19/08. To quote:

Lawyers for Majid Khan, a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have challenged the Central Intelligence Agency’s assertion that videotaping of interrogations stopped in 2002, saying that Mr. Khan’s interrogations after that time were recorded on videotape.

In papers filed Jan. 4, Mr. Khan’s lawyers challenged a Dec. 6 statement by the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden. General Hayden, addressing agency employees after being told that The New York Times was about to publish an article about the tapes, wrote that the taping stopped in 2002.

Having a responsible position and years of experience does not necessarily endow a man with integrity or the ability to do well by his subordinates. General Mike Hayden's predecessor, Porter Goss was a high ranking legislator just prior to his appointment to head the CIA. And he left his staff member hanging out to dry with a decision on the side of the law, that should have been his own to make. We should have been able to trust him to do the right thing. Goss chaired the House Intelligence Committee; Rep. Jane Harman was the Democratic ranking Member. Headlined Porter Goss and the tapes (1/17/08), the story came from the AP. To quote:

Former CIA Director Porter Goss never criticized plans to destroy interrogation videotapes, a lawyer said Thursday as the investigation began shaping up as a matter of competing storylines.

Jose Rodriguez, the CIA official who gave the order to destroy the tapes, is at the center of Justice Department and congressional investigations into who approved the plan and whether it was illegal. His attorney, Robert Bennett, said Goss and Rodriquez met several times to discuss the tapes and Goss was never critical of Rodriquez' decision.

Many of us began to feel more secure back in December when Congress sought to ban torture altogether. The NYT headline read, "House Votes to Ban Harsh C.I.A. Methods." It was by AP from December 13, 2007. To quote:

The House approved an intelligence bill Thursday that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.

The 222-199 vote sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.

The bill, a House-Senate compromise to authorize intelligence operations in 2008, also blocks spending 70 percent of the intelligence budget until the House and Senate intelligence committees are briefed on Israel's Sept. 6 air strike on an alleged nuclear site in Syria.

The 2008 intelligence budget is classified, but it is more than the $43 billion approved for 2007.

The New York Times editorialized at about the same time with this headline: "In Arrogant defense of torture."

According to GovTrack.us, HR. 2082 has not been signed by the president. So, despite passing laws, an active opposition from a leading newspaper, and with yesterday's AG refusal to disavow torture, we cannot yet feel secure that our government is operating under the rule of law.

Update: Senator Whitehouse told us -- during his very effective C-SPAN call-in this morning -- that the Conference Report on the Intelligence bill must still be accepted by the Senate. So it is not yet on the President's desk, to be fair.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Bush balances budget on backs of the elderly

By Libby Spencer

So let me get this straight. We're in a health care crisis in this country. Almost 50 million Americans can't afford health insurance and Bush recently told us that it's not a problem because anyone can go to the ER for critical care. We'll leave aside that this still leaves millions without the ability to get preventive care that would keep them out of the ER in the first place.

Now comes Bush with his budget proposal designed to cure the deficit he created by 2012 and how does he propose to do that? Our compassionate conservative came up with the brilliant plan to cut billions in spending from the two programs that assist those who have to rely on near death experiences in the ER for their health care, namely Medicare and Medicaid.

The cuts won't be made to corporate welfare payments to private insurers who offer overpriced supplemental plans. No, he wants to slice the guts out of the safety net that the poor literally rely on to stay alive. He proposes to kill Medicare by cutting already inadequate reimbursements further.

Most of the Medicare savings in the budget would be achieved by reducing the annual update in federal payments to hospitals [especially teaching hospitals], nursing homes, hospices, ambulances and home care agencies.

So I guess the plan is that the elderly and the poor are supposed to wait until their health has critically failed to go to ERs that won't exist because hospitals will fail without proper reimbursement, which will solve the problem of the doctor shortage since there won't be there any place for them to practice. I don't know if Bush has come up with one of those pithy Orwellian names for this proposal, but I think I'm going to call it the Genocide Budget. I can't think of more accurate description.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

The politics of unity

By Carl

"If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he'd [Clinton] be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm after him."- Congressman Dan Burton (R: Indiana)

It's nice to see that the bitch doesn't fall far from the tree. I'll bet her mother is very, very proud of her. - Support Your Local Gunfighter (Moron: Blogosphere)

I draw your attention to the above quotations of two of the more, um, OK, less polite Republicans on this planet, and ask you to consider the politics of unity that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both espouse.

Why?

After all, much sport has been had with Obama's middle name already and he hasn't even won the nomination. And of course, Hillary herself has such groups as CLIT and CUNT on her trail.

How long would it take for the Monica Crowleys and Roger Stones of the world to create National Investigative Group: Get Erudite Race-baiters or some other rejiggering (FReeper alert!) of the word?

These kind of attacks will continue and it's still early. I suspect there will be many more and many worse slights to come. Which raises the issue: should the lamb lie with the lion (or in this case, the jackals)?

I think it depends. And this is where Hillary has an huge advantage over Barack Obama.

Obama has revealed a very thin skin. Remember Clinton's "fairy tale" comment?



Obama surrogates unloaded their guns at Clinton, drawing the race card, and in the process, making Barack Obama look foolish AND spilling blood into the water for the sharks of the right wing to smell. Dumb. DUMB move. Obama didn't do much to dissuade them, nor did he do much to mend fences until days later.

This is one of a couple of slights to Obama that he's gone "drama queen" on. The Clintons have kept the gloves on, yet they've managed to take Obama off message and into the gutter. That has dampened his message of hope and unity.

The right wing, particularly Karl Rove, is paying attention. Yes, the cocaine story was a nothing deal, but it came out in the Democratic primaries before three-fourths of the country was even paying attention. Imagine nominee Obama being asked by moderator Chris Wallace in an October debate, "Sir, how many times did you do cocaine and did you ever sell it?"

We'll all be sitting for a McCain inauguration, to be sure, if Obama's answer to that lacks candor and forthrightness. After all, he put it in his book that he used, as opposed to Dubya, who ducked, weaved, and denied.

Hillary has shown she is more than tough enough to take the right wing hate-mongers on, and beat them. It concerns me that we might select a man who's going to get thrown off course for the lack of a backbone and stiff upper lip.

Too, Hillary's "sins" for what they are, are out there for all to see. There's no real October surprise (hell, they even found a boyfriend for her assistant!) here. We can't say the same about Barack Obama, particularly when his truth can be so easily twisted (madrassah in Pakistan, Muslim father, yadayadayada...you can work that one out on your own).

This is not to suggest that "thick skin" is the only criterion on which to base the selection of a nominee, and as I've said before, despite my endorsement of Senator Clinton, I would be as fervent in my support of Senator Obama as nominee as I would her selection.

But the two are so much alike in so many policy arenas despite their reported differences and the notion that Obama is running neck and neck with her. People who are reading the papers and looking at issues are seeing no difference and thinking about the '90s and seeing the early attacks, and I think they're thinking like I am: We need someone who can shrug off the attacks, and put forth a case to elect Democrats in 2008.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Emanuela De Paula the new Victoria's Secret girl

NICOLE EGGERT STILL IN CHARGE AT 36

JULIE NEWMAR "ORIGINAL CATWOMAN" AT 70 !

CONDOM MAN ON THE BEACH ???

A man dressed up as a giant condom costume gives out smaller condoms to beach goers, during a summer campaign by the Chilean Corporation of the Prevention of AIDS, on Vina Del Mar beach in Chile on Sunday.

OK, hands up if you can honestly say that you've never spent a lazy Sunday strolling about the beach dressed as a massive penis. Anybody? Anybody? Thought not.

"My mission is to protect you."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Uh-oh. More trouble for the Hugh Hewitts of the world, the purificationist ideologues of the conservative movement. They hate McCain and are pitching Romney as the saviour of "the Reagan Coalition," but McCain is now the frontrunner, Huckabee's still in the race, draining much-needed christianist support from Romney, who has his own impurity problems, and Giuliani and other insufficiently conservative Republicans are enthusiastically lining up behind McCain, who, by the way, is stridently conservative, whatever the maverick myth, don't let them fool you.

And one of the next big additions to the McCain fold could be one of the superstars of the GOP, the insufficiently conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, CNN is reporting, is in talks with the McCain campaign regarding a formal endorsement -- which, if the governator is to be believed, may not come before Super Tuesday, which includes California's primary, but which would, I think, be a major boost for McCain. I'm hardly an admirer of Arnie the Politician (except on global warming), but it's probably worthwhile to have him on your side.

And just imagine how much more enraged McCain's conservative enemies would be.

**********

Update: MSNBC is reporting that Schwarzenegger will endorse McCain today. Yes, a huge boost for McCain. Romney will look awfully small next to the McCain-Schwarzenegger combo. As will the Hugh Hewitts of the world.

See here for a wrap-up of Wednesday's GOP debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.

**********

The title of this post is taken from what may be Schwarzenegger's best movie, Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

As for the photo below, maybe they're talking about Skynet. You never know.

Kennedy for Obama

Guest post by Greg Prince

I'd like to welcome back one of the good friends of The Reaction, Greg Prince, who hasn't guest-posted here in some time but who, hopefully, will do so more frequently once again.

In this post, Greg raises serious concerns about Obama -- concerns I share, for the most part, and that have prevented me from a) being more enthusiastic than I am about his candidacy and the whole phenomenon that has built up around him, and b) supporting him in a two-way race with Clinton, particularly now that my preference, Edwards, is out of the race. Back when he first jumped into the race, I wrote that he had a lot of potential but also a lot to prove. He has proven to be a viable, exciting, even inspirational candidate with a good shot at the nomination, but, to me, he still has a lot to prove in terms of substance. And it's getting awfully late in the process to do much more proving of anything. -- MJWS

**********

Obama has received the endorsement of the Kennedy dynasty, and the media's hearts are a flutter. Here's a very well done ad featuring Caroline Kennedy (h/t: MNPublius):



It's a well-done ad, and at a very fundamental level I "get" the excitement over Obama's candidacy. Indeed, I have myself been looking forward to his greater exposure in the national media and his viability as a candidate for higher office for some time.

It goes without saying, if he's the candidate for the Democrats this go-around, he'll have my vote. But I'm afraid at this point in time he's still my third choice, not my first. For all his motivational rhetoric and bipartisan platitudes, there are some genuine concerns about what it might all mean in terms of an Obama administration.

Melissa McEwan has also been thinking in this direction and has compiled a list of concerns that is a wonderful place to start. She begins by pointing out that Obama says he wants to be applauded by both sides of the aisle in the annual SOTU ritual. She observes:

1. Why will the Republican members of Congress rise to applaud you, and the conservative half of the nation tune in to support you, unless you pursue an agenda that appeals to them? How do you pursue an agenda that appeals to conservatives, but is also progressive?

2. What is the common purpose around which you envision the country rallying? Do you regard "transcending partisanship" an end in itself, and do you foresee the GOP rallying around this goal? If so, how and why do you imagine that will happen?

These are important. The vision thing is wonderful and exciting to behold. But what do you actually plan to DO that is different in a meaningful way from what has been done before? I'm sick of partisanship getting the short end of the stick, particularly when it comes about in part due to legitimate and significant disagreement on major issues, and a desire to bring about policy change for the better.

What the hell does "bipartisanship" mean anyway? As practised by the Republican'ts since 1994, it means, "You be bi, while we are partisan," and unless one is in the habit of bending over and saying "ahhh" on every substantiative policy debate, you're criticized as a partisan hack and divisive. Bipartisanship is not a virtue in and of itself but only as a means to an end, and the only thing it's accomplished over the last eight years is a spasmodic dance toward the extreme right in terms of policy.

Look at the Senate. A Democratic "moderate" is one who votes with Republicans an unfortunate percent of the time. A Republican "moderate" is one who quietly thinks unkind thoughts about Bush before falling into line and voting like a good doobie. The whole reason Arlen Specter's recent (correct) vote on FISA closure is noteworthy is precisely that he actually DID instead of just talked.

3. Assume for a moment that you are nominated and subsequently elected, and, despite being "the kind of president" in whom Americans can believe, the profound partisan rancor that currently plagues the nation doesn't evaporate, that Americans fail to rally around a common purpose. What is Plan B? Do you move ever rightward trying to find support among those who refuse to rally, or do you say, "Screw 'em," and go leftward to honor those who voted for you?

This is a question that simply MUST be addressed. Look, there are a lot of people out there with a process fetish. These are the "Unity '08" nerds who whine about partisanship and conflict but lack any signature issues -- other than the process itself -- to drive their campaign forward or give it meaning.

Dialogue for the sake of dialogue, negotiation for the sake of negotiation, compromise for the sake of compromise... it's all moot if the end result isn't defensible policy. We've been working for years to find a happy middle, a reasonable compromise. And the results are not pretty.

So Obama, I'm not interested in compromise and discussion with the wingnut caucus. Been there, done that. It's time to recalibrate and I want to defeat them utterly. Can you be trusted to use your bully pulpit to move things in the correct direction? And don't feed us the lines about limited presidential power, congressional responsibility, etc. Clinton and Reagan both had hostile Congresses during parts of their administration, and they made progress on their agendas notwithstanding.

What are YOU willing to go to the mat on?

4. Noting that the most bitter partisan divides on domestic policy regard issues of basic rights, such as reproductive rights and marriage rights, and noting further that the two sides of these issues are unlikely to come to spontaneous agreement, those subjects are likely to continue to play a divisive role in American politics. How do you plan to prevent such bedrock divisions from undermining the national unity you imagine? Do those of us on the progressive side of these issues have reason to worry that you will not be a vociferous advocate for any controversial or ideologically discordant issues?

Obama, let's be brutally honest here. You've thrown gays under the bus, you've attacked your primary rivals using the same right-wing talking points that would be used against you in the fall, you've fallen into scaring people about Social Security... Your track record here doesn't lend itself to optimism. What are the issues on which you have distinguished yourself as a real leader, and what are your policy goals in those areas?

Don't get me wrong -- there are legitimate concerns about Hillary, too. But at least she has a lengthy record on the national stage. We have a sense that there are lines she's willing to draw in the sand, battles she's willing to fight. Obama... still hearing crickets chirp in the background.

So what are we to make of the Kennedy endorsements? Certainly, they're significant in terms of nostalgic yearnings for Camelot and a passing of the torch of sorts. But we can't get starry-eyed and forget that the Kennedy mystique is what it is in large part because JFK was assassinated. In objective terms, his record was mixed, and the real accomplishments of the times were driven by LBJ.

Which isn't to say Caroline and Teddy didn't do a good job -- they did, and the symbolism is powerful. But let's not lose our heads and think it means more than it does.

Sometimes even Hugh Hewitt is right

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can't believe I just wrote that. But, well, it's true.

And he's right about this: A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. How so? Because a vote for Huckabee is a vote less for Romney. (He's right, but there's nothing new here. See what I wrote last night in light of the Florida primary. I've been saying the same thing for some time.)

What is interesting here is that Hewitt speaks for many in the conservative movement that still dominates the GOP. Right now, conservatives -- Hewitt's conservatives -- are splitting their vote between Romney and Huckabee. This has allowed McCain to emerge as the frontrunner in stunning fashion. Part of the problem is that Romney isn't a terribly desirable conservative. Try as he might to overcome it, he has a liberal past -- liberal in some key respects at least -- that conservatives simply cannot ignore. And the flip-flopping and general inconsistency, other than on business-oriented economic matters, hardly help endear him to an ideological movement that, more than ever, emphasizes purity. Simply put, he is not pure enough, and many conservatives just don't trust him. And the fact that he's a Mormon hurts him among the evangelical christianists of the right. They just don't much care for Mormons.

Still, to Hewitt, and to those for whom he speaks, Romney is far preferable to McCain. And what they want is for Huckabee to drop out, or for conservatives to stop voting for him, so that Romney can go up against McCain in a head-to-head fight. They predict -- rightly, I think -- that Romney can beat McCain in such a fight.

But Hewitt is not entirely right here. Let me address two points:

1) Hewitt seems to think that the future of "the Reagan Coalition" rests with Romney. If conservatives remain divided, it will be the end of that coalition, and hence of conservatism as a viable electoral movement controlling the Republican Party. If McCain wins, that is, it's over. If Romney wins, conservatism lives. Now, I understand that McCain is deeply unpopular in some corners of the conservative movement, and I understand why. He is no ideologue. He is not pure. He is a maverick who breaks from his party and reaches out across the aisle, who is comfortable sitting across from Jon Stewart, who is definitely not a theocrat. And yet, he is nonetheless deeply conservative, thoroughly in line with the Hewitts of the world on many of the issues that matter to them. He has his conservative supporters, of course, but much of the conservative movement has given up on him for good. No matter what he says on the campaign trail, he'll never get the benefit of the doubt, let alone secure the support of the ideologues of the right.

2) Hewitt worries that McCain will pick a Giuliani or a Lieberman as his running mate -- two horrible men, I hasten to add, but, to Hewitt, what matters is that, like McCain, they simply aren't conservative enough. He worries that McCain will pick one of those centrist types and play to "the muddled middle of the country". While it is true that McCain would reach out to Democrats and independents even as he stresses his conservative bona fides to the GOP base, I just can't see McCain picking a running mate who is similarly unpopular with the Hewitts of the world. Instead, I see him picking, say a (Fred) Thompson or a Huckabee -- or some other neo-Reaganite and/or christianist social conservative. (On this, I agree with Kevin Drum.)

However this turns out, we can at least take pleasure in watching conservatives like Hugh Hewitt squirm in disgust over what is happening in their party.

The Bob Dole for the new millennium

By J. Thomas Duffy

So, Johnnie McCain survives in the Sunshine State, besting Make-Up Mitt, Rudy911 and The Huckster.

Or, as Melissa McEwan put it, over at Shakespeare's Sister:

As Petulant mentioned in his Morning Readings, John "The Defaultinator" McCain took the all-important GOP Florida primary yesterday, eking out another win on the basis of merely not being a cross-dressing philanderer, a lying dog-torturer in magic underpants, or a virulently misogynist theocrat. Way to be the least objectionable specimen in a barrel of worm-infested apples, McCain! A hearty congrats from all your fans at Shakesville.

The prediction, according to the babbling talking heads last evening, is that the GOP will, slowly, begin to stand in line behind Johnnie Boy, for he, with his war heroism, deep Senatorial experience, and, by gosh, his Come-Back-Kid determination, is the only one, the gallant RNC soldier-in-shining-armor who can take on the Dragon Hillary.

The GOP, for many reasons, is on their knees every night, praying for a Hillary-McCain showdown.

It will be the 1990s all over again, with needing little more than to pull out the Clinton Bashing box from the archives.

If you were, during the South Carolina Primary, confused as to which Clinton was running, wait'll a general election of McCain-Hillary ... You'll have a clearer vision looking through the bottom of a Coca-Cola bottle ...

For, if they get Obama, it will be the Kennedy-Nixon Debate every single day of the campaign, McCain tripping over his Father Time beard, a skeletal-dust-filled suit laying in front of the voting stations by the time election day rolls around.

The youth and exuberance, the oratory skills, of Obama will paint the Straight Talk Express bus into a hearse, McCain's campaign posters into The Picture of Dorian Gray.

And that's just the visuals.

McCain's going to have an arduous campaign, having to carry The Commander Guy on this back throughout.

It will be hope, and rebuilding America's integrity, versus the 100-year war candidate.

No doubt, the McCain crew is already starting to put the bus in reverse, and will frame McCain's hawkish embrace of the Bush Doctrine as a Korea-like, policing mission.

Good luck, and order some neck braces.

Driving in reverse for so long a period of time is surely to cause some discomfort.

Hmmm ... Didn't Bob Dole have his own bag of war heroism, and his own deep Senatorial experience?

If Dole isn't plagued by raging hard-ons, maybe, just maybe, the GOP will really reach into the "It's Your Turn" bag and match up Dole with Johnnie for another run at it, punching the All-Time, Grand OLD Party ticket ...

To steal from The Commander Guy ... Bring 'em on!


Bonus Johnnie Boy Riffs

Barry Crimmins: Whispering John's big night

ABC News: High School Student to McCain: You're No Leader

Arianna Huffington: Those Were the Days: Bush and McCain Use 9/11 Nostalgia to Sell the Surge

McCain Sings: "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran," At Campaign Stop

McCain Calls For MoveOn.Org To Be "Thrown Out of the Country"

McCain says he wants to shoot Osama

Ari Melber: LIEBERMAN'S NEW KISS OF DEATH

John McCain & Miss Teen SC on Economics

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

The Coming Showdown -- 3: FISA fight in a nutshell

By Carol Gee

On amending FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Once again lots of action bubbled on and off the floors in the U.S. Congress Tuesday. Various elements of the House, the Senate and citizen activists went toe to toe over what to do with this highly contentious legislation. Those of us who are "little bloggers" need to give well-deserved kudos to the "big bloggers" taking the lead in such magnificent ways. They deserve the country's gratitude for public service: Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, Jane Hamsher and "empty wheel" at Firedoglake, Chris Bowers and Tim Tagaris at Open Left, and "mcjoan" at DailyKos. We couldn't do it without you!

The Protect America Act (PAA) would have expired February 1 at the end of its six month limit, but it has been extended. By voice vote, the House of Representatives passed a 15-day PAA extension that had been agreed to by the White House. Then the House promptly left to go on retreat for the rest of the week. The Senate has also agreed to the extension, according to Rep. Steny Hoyer. (ht to FDL)

The blogosphere went into action against this backdrop with a contact-your-senator campaign urging wavering lawmakers to stand firm against the Republican tactics. Thousands of e-mails, phone calls and faxes bombarded senate offices urging support for Senator Reid's announced position of opposition to a Republican cloture motion set for a Monday afternoon vote. The motion failed, as did a subsequent cloture vote on a proposed 30-day PAA extension. Informal debate on the FISA issues has continued in the Senate.

In the Senate two bills are in play. A bipartisan compromise bill demanded by the administration came out of the Intelligence Committee and eventually to the floor for debate. It featured retroactive immunity for the cooperating telecommunications companies that have allegedly been helping the government with the spying program since the beginning of this administration. A Judiciary Committee version, offered better civil liberties protection and omitted the "telecom immunity," was never brought to the floor. However a number of Senators wanted to offer key elements of it as amendments to the Intel Committee bill. So far, the Republicans have successfully prevented that, demanding that a so-called "clean" bill the president would sign, be passed without amendment. Now the Senate will likely have an opportunity to actually debate and amend the flawed Intel bill, title by title.

Key Senators -- Significantly, key bloggers met with Senator Russ Feingold, who gave them a little demo about the FISA bill. Senators Clinton and Obama were on the Senate floor to vote Monday afternoon and Senator Obama's statement is here DailyKos' mcjoan provided the latest on this whole episode, including the upcoming action needed with Senators who need propping up by the blogosphere. To quote:

So here's our new target. Call, fax, and e-mail Senator Rockefeller and the likely suspects among the Democrats to urge them to make sure that all of the Democratic caucus's FISA amendments get to the Senate floor and that they establish a 50 vote threshold on Democratic amendments.

• Rockefeller, (202) 224-6472 phone, (202) 224-7665 fax
• Bayh (202) 224-5623 phone, (202) 228-1377 fax
• Carper (202) 224-2441 phone, (202) 228-2190 fax
• Feinstein (202) 228-2190 phone, (202) 228-3954 fax
• Inouye (202) 224-3934 phone, (202) 224-6747 fax
• Johnson (202) 224-5842 phone, (605) 341-2207 fax
• Landrieu (202)224-5824 phone, (202) 224-9735 fax
• Lincoln (202) 224-4843 phone, (202) 228-1371 fax
• McCaskill (202) 224-6154 phone, (202) 228-6326 fax
• Mikulski (202) 224-4654 phone, (202) 224-8858 fax
• Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274 phone, (202) 228-2183 fax
• Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551 phone, (202) 228-0012 fax
• Pryor (202) 224-2353 phone, (202) 228-0908 fax
• Salazar (202) 224-5852 phone, (202) 228-5036 fax

Here is a list of free "800" numbers at the capitol, through which you can call Senate offices (courtesy of Firedoglake). I can verify that they work. Within the past few days I reached 14 different Senator's staff members directly. To quote:

• 1-800-828-0498
• 1-800-459-1887
• 1-800-614-2803
• 1-866-340-9281
• 1-866-338-1015
• 1-877-851-6437
  

The PAA is only the latest iteration of FISA updates or changes to the original legislation passed in 1978. Though the temporary PAA will sunset, the main law, FISA remains in place to offer the basic needed framework for surveillance of suspected enemies of the U.S. Despite claims to the contrary, there will not be any lapse that puts the U.S. deeply at risk of a terrorist attack. Emergency measures are available for whatever eventualities occur with the NSA surveillance apparatus.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Change, anyone?

By Capt. Fogg

As for the Republican issue, none of it was unpredictable: the beautiful, sunny 74 degree day, the end of ridiculous Rudy, the recrudescence of the McCain campaign, the Floridian fizzlement of Ron Paul and the success of Governor Charlie Crist's Cure All tax cut. As for the Democratic, officially moot exercise in electronic voting, it was less so. I suspected that Obama might edge out Clinton, but I was wrong and of course we lost Edwards and I'm sad to see him go.

Apparently saying change a lot wins the cigar although the notion that McCain represents change in any discernible direction other than a less hysterical approach to immigration seems unsupported. I've seen him making out with George and talking up the forever war too often. Obama was my choice, which figures, since anyone I vote for usually loses, but don't ask me why. I actually didn't decide until I was in the booth. OK, so I thought he represented change although I still don't know why or what or how he would change anything.

So Nothing but Ambition Hillary scored a big win, but no delegates against Barack who won't get any Florida delegates either leaving Nothing but Ambition Edwards to go home. Nothing but Ambition McCain will get all the Republican delegates Florida has to offer. Nothing but Ambition (and bucks) Romney will have to keep slogging and smiling and pretending while Nothing but Ambition Huckabee has yet to decide whether God has forsaken his campaign along with Florida's Evangelicals.

So it's another gorgeous morning. Perfect day to put the top down again and go visit a local yacht broker to talk about boosting the local economy. Is there any change yet?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

John Edwards out

By Libby Spencer

I see Edward has already broken the news that John Edwards will withdraw from the race, so I'll so I'll skip most of the quotes and go straight to my reaction.

I'm sorry to hear this. Although he never built up enough steam to get his train rolling, he's been invaluable in injecting progressive issues into the debate. They say he plans to stay in NOLA to work on a Habitat for Humanity project.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

It's difficult to figure why Edwards campaign never took off with progressives. He was voicing our concerns and willing to buck the establishment to promote them. Certainly his failure to acheive any crossover momentum was partly driven the hateful media vendetta against him but his failure to energize 'the left,' including myself, always surprised me.

I never could quite put my finger on why I didn't see a champion for our cause in him. In retrospect, I have to think that in some part, it all went wrong when he allowed himself to be browbeaten by the right wing rage machine into firing Amanda and Melissa. I was really encouraged when he hired them and extremely disappointed when he let them go. It made it difficult to believe he could lead us, when he caved so quickly to the fringers. I think subconsciouly, I never quite got over it. I have a feeling, I'm not the only one. [via]

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

We're not in Kansas anymore?

By Carl

I happened across this article, and I wondered what to make of it. I have a couple of theories in mind, which I'll expound on (don't I always?) after the break:

More than just a trip to his Kansas roots, Sen. Barack Obama's visit to his grandfather's home town Tuesday is part of a broad and unorthodox strategy to build support in Republican-dominated states.

In Kansas and Idaho, Utah and Alaska, Obama's goal is to win delegates on Feb. 5 and to convince voters that he can compete where Democrats normally cannot.

OK, fair enough strategy: show voters in states after Feb. 5, states like Texas and Ohio, that Obama has support in red states that normally would skew Republican.

Too bad that's not what he's doing. Think about it, get past the bull, and ask yourself: why does a guy go to states that he wouldn't likely win in the general election, and push to win them in the primary? Kansas hasn't supported a Democrat for president since Johnson won his sympathy election in 1964 and the only Democrats to win Kansas were Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Bush won 62% of the vote there in 2004, and had a 25 point plurality over Kerry, who barely carried two congressional district statewide. Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1932.

That said, in 2006 Kansas re-elected a Democratic Governor, Kathleen Sebelius (who is widely expected to endorse Obama) with 58% of the vote. Democrats also picked up six seats in the Kansas House of Representatives, and Democrat Nancy Boyda defeated conservative Republican Congressman Jim Ryun in the 2nd Congressional District.

Still this is a staunchly conservative, staunchly and proudly Republican state. Obama will not win a majority in a general election.

Sounds like a fool's errand, particularly in a red state that's, well, mostly white. You'd think he'd be pushing his case in Alabama and Mississippi. Unless...

A few possible explanations pop out:

1) Obama has, in the back of his mind, all but conceded the race to Hillary Clinton, who is dominating him in states with sizable delegate counts, like New York, California, Texas, Missouri, and New Jersey, while Obama has tied her in Connecticut and the Kennedy endorsements likely will give him Massachussetts (and not much more, possibly Rhode Island). The bounce Obama expected from South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsements simply hasn't showed itself, neither has the Oprah endorsement. Therefore, he's running to show he is more than an Illinois/black candidate, and running for Veep.

Not likely, true. The bad blood and animosity between the two camps (particularly with respect to the Big Dog himself) has all but made a Clinton/Obama ticket impossible. Still, politics makes strange bedfellows.

2) The strategy of campaigning in Kansas for delegates might be a stalling tactic, a slash-and-burn to keep Hillary from reaching the necessary 2,025 delegates before the convention, thus forcing a brokered convention. This would make more sense if Kansas was a "winner take all" state, but it's proportional. It's possible that Obama's camp has done the math and realized a minimum number of delegates they need to win to force the brokering, and that in Kansas, they come up a little short.

3) Obama could be positioning himself for a run in either 2012 or 2016, depending on if Clinton wins. By making a strong showing on the momentum of the Democratic victories in 2006, he could be shoring up a machine, similar to what the Clinton's established in New Hampshire in 1992, which will pay dividends for decades. An Obama endorsement, regardless of whether he is the nominee this year, could pay broad and deep dividends in the next twenty years for Democrats.

4) Which brings me to my last point: kingmaker. Obama's expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan...I know what you Obamites will say, so let me qualify that statement...his expressed admiration for Reagan as a political animal is probably in his mind. Reagan was the go-to guy for Republicans from the end of his election in 1980. Anytime a Republican was in trouble, they wheeled out the Gipper. He won more than he lost, to be sure, but the country was turning more conservative anyway.

Obama might sense what I sense: the country is tired of hackneyed, "look behind you" thinking, and is ready to move forward. By leading the party in that direction, Obama can ensure himself a lush retirement after he (eventually) wins the Presidency.

I want to stress that all these alternative explanations should NOT be interpreted to mean that Obama has completely given up hopes of beating Hillary. It is, however, a monumental undertaking he's set out on, and a smart politician always keeps the options open that can gracefully let him back away from a losing battle (which is one way we know Bush is not a smart politician).

It's true, for example, that Kansas' delegates could make or break the nomination, if the battle gets that close. Think of how Karl Rove fixed the Florida vote in 2000 or the Ohio vote in 2004, and you'll see a textbook example of anticipating an outcome and planning ahead.

Obama and Clinton both have the funds to fight this right down to the wire, to be sure, so every vote might count. Still, by the end of next week, Hillary Clinton will be about halfway to the nomination and Barack Obama will still be pulling off his warm-ups, even if he sweeps all the red states. That kind of momentum, as Rudy Giuliani's idiotic strategy shows, can backfire big time.

So why IS Barack Obama campaigning in Kansas so hard?

**********

UPDATE: Not to toot my own horn too much, but just remember, you heard this here first.

Next time, Senator Edwards, e-mail me. I'll be happy to run your winning campaign for you.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

A sad farewell

By Edward Copeland

John Edwards is quitting his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president today. While I voted for Obama, I was always torn since I admired Edwards a great deal and I will miss his voice in the race.

On the other hand, Edwards' timing is impeccable. By quitting now, that means Thursday night's Democratic debate will be Obama vs. Hillary, one-on-one, for the first time. It also means that a great many of Edwards' supporters, who most likely are also anti-Hillary voters, will switch to Obama's camp in an effort to stop her, just in time for Super Tuesday.

I hope Edwards doesn't leave the national stage for good. If Obama should win, perhaps Edwards can be his attorney general and try to repair the damage that the Bush appointees of Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey have inflicted over the past seven years.

John Edwards, I commend you.

ALESANDRA AMBROSIO - SEXY SOON TO BE MILF

LOOKS INCREDIBLE AT 3 MONTHS PREGNANT !!!

LATE NIGHT TALK SHOW WARS "WHO MADE WHO" ?

TOP TEN THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM A GUY DRESSED AS A MONSTER

MOST ARE LAME BUT ITS WORTH THE WAIT FOR #1

McCain wins Florida, Clinton shamelessly declares victory

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Let's try to get through this quickly. For whatever reason(s), I seem to be rather impatient today.

CNN's recap is here. The results are here.

**********

Hillary wins! (Who cares?)

Not that it matters.

As in Michigan, state Democrats broke the rules and moved up their primary vote and were punished by the Democratic National Committee. No delegates were allocated, and, prior to the vote, the leading candidates didn't bother to campaign there.

But then... why did she declare victory? "I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence that you have given me today," Clinton told supporters. "I promise you I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated, but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008."

So Hillary played along with the ruling, avoiding Florida, until it was in her self-interest, after her bad loss to Obama in South Carolina, not to. And, in declaring victory in what was a non-competitive race, she now wants the vote to count, for Florida to get its allocation of delegates after all? What do you think she'd be saying -- what do you think her husband would be saying -- if Obama were trying to pull a stunt like this? Or what if Obama had simply won and was respecting the ruling? There wouldn't be a peep out of the Clintons. And so she's declaring victory and her supporters are lapping it up. It's all quite despicable. She wants the delegates, but she also wants the momentum heading into next week's Super Tuesday. And apparently she'll stop at nothing to get it.

And the Obama campaign is right: "When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she said that states like Michigan and Florida that won’t award delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton has lost badly in South Carolina, she’s trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred."

I've been trying to remain detached, still talking up Edwards and hesitant to endorse either Clinton or Obama. As I've said many times already, I think either one would make a good (and potentially great) president, but I don't particularly care for either one, at least not in the way I cared for Gore and Kerry. But now? I was sympathetic to Clinton after Iowa, pulling for her to win New Hampshire, if only to keep the race competitive, but the events in South Carolina and now Florida are turning me against her -- perhaps for good.

**********

McCain triumphs in key all-Republican vote

This is big.

And I'm beginning to wonder about those "why Romney will win" posts I wrote a while back -- you know, this one and that one. I still think Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, but McCain may now be the genuine frontrunner on the Republican side after beating Romney in Florida, 36 to 31, with Giuliani and Huckabee back in third and fourth with 15 and 14, respectively.

My argument for Romney was essentially this: The Republican race will soon become a two-man contest between Romney and McCain. And Romney will win that contest because social conservatives (the christianist theocrats of the right, the base of the GOP) will pick him over McCain, as will the pro-business, low-tax conservatives (the plutocrats, like the Bushies) who make up the Republican establishment. McCain will still have the neocons on his side, of course, but he is way too much of a maverick and has done way too much to alienate, and arouse the unforgiving wrath of, his party's core elements and constituencies, to win the nomination. To be sure, Romney is hardly an ideal candidate, whatever his appeal to the theocrats and plutocrats, but, in the end, Republicans will turn to him as the preferable option. Yes, McCain will pick up support from Thompson and Giuliani, but Romney will attract most of Huckabee's support.

But maybe not.

McCain's victory in Florida was all the more impressive for being a victory in an all-Republican primary. The question all along was whether he could win his own party without the support of independents (and Democrats). That question may have been answered in Florida. McCain now has significant momentum heading into next week.

It is far too early to call it for McCain, though, and Romney could still do well on Super Tuesday. He has a lot of money and the massive advertising and ground campaigns to rebound from this defeat. As I put it last week: Romney still has a decisive and perhaps insurmountable advantage over McCain in all-Republican primaries where money/advertising and extensive/effective ground campaigns matter. McCain is the likeable, straight-talking guy who does well in states like New Hampshire, where more personal interaction with voters is stressed, that is, where door-to-door and pancake-breakfast campaigning is what matters, but Romney is the image-conscious guy who can get his message out on a mass scale. Florida proved that McCain's appeal is more extensive than I had thought, and that is capable of beating Romney on a larger stage than New Hampshire, but, again, Romney isn't done yet.

The point is, it is still not clear to me -- and here are CNN's exit poll results, by the way -- that McCain can beat Romney in other all-Republican primaries. Indeed, Florida seems to have been a particularly good state for McCain. He benefitted in Florida from large numbers of independent, Hispanic, and elderly voters (he easily won Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties). However, Romney did very well among evangelicals and social conservatives.

But there may be new a dynamic at play. It is possible that a "Stop Romney" coalition is emerging among Republicans, with the ultimate beneficiary, of course, being McCain. (It has frequently been noted that Romney is rather unpopular among his fellow candidates -- they just don't like him (and how he has conducted himself on the campaign trail).) It wouldn't be anything formal, of course, but it does seem that their rivals are turning to McCain, and not Romney, when they drop out of the race. Thompson may not have endorsed anyone yet, but he is known to be close to McCain. Huckabee may be a theocrat, but he seems to like McCain a great deal, or at least to dislike Romney a great deal. And, with the results still fresh, it is being reported that Giuliani will drop out of the race after his lackluster third-place finish in Florida and endorse McCain. In other words, although McCain is deeply disliked among many in the Republican Party and throughout the conservative movement, he seems to have emerged as a sort of unifying figure both because of his personal popularity and because he's the only one left to prevent Romney from winning the nomination.

How will this play out? As long as Huckabee stays in the race, he will drain potential social conservative support from Romney, thereby helping McCain. If Huckabee drops out, much of his support will go to Romney, but perhaps not as much as previously expected. After all, theocrats are generally uncomfortable with Romney -- partly because of his more liberal (or at least vague and inconsistent) past, partly because he's a Mormon -- and a Huckabee endorsement of McCain would immediately boost the latter's credibility with Huckabee's base. (And note that in his victory speech McCain reached out to Giuliani, played up his conservative bona fides, said nice things about those he had just defeated, talked about winning an "election" (which it wasn't), and otherwise looked and sounded like a confident frontrunner.)

Romney, I think, would still have the advantage in a two-man contest with McCain -- again, because he is more solid with both the theocrats and the plutocrats -- but the (formal or otherwise) backing of Thompson, Giuliani, and Huckabee (and the acquisition of much of their former support) would make McCain much more competitive in such a contest than previously expected.

So competitive, in fact, that he could very well win it. And who, prior to New Hampshire, or back when McCain's campaign was in disarray and on the verge of collapse, could have predicted that?