Obama blasts through cable news flak

Well, I watched several consecutive minutes of cable television news last night and at no point did I feel the need for alcohol. That's a good night. Barack Obama has Fort Clinton surrounded on all sides. He should offer to pay her campaign debt and end this thing.

Meantime, let's take a look at his speech from last night. Not quite as good as Iowa, but a reminder of why folks like me like this guy. Don't worry, baby boomer friends. He'll be fine.

Obama, Clinton bar fight reaches "hard to watch" stage during awkward moment between de facto conclusion and police arrival

So you all know I'm in the tank for Obama so I'll spare the feigned objectivity here. I am, however, finding ways to enjoy this protracted race for the Democratic nomination even though it hasn't been very good for my guy.

Have you ever been to an Iron Range bar? At night? Sometimes, around 11 or so, a fight breaks out. Maybe between guys, maybe between girls. Doesn't matter because everyone's drunk. Every once in a while you have this dude or lady who, by points, is losing the fight. They're bleeding out their nose and eyes. Their t-shirt is all messed up. But they don't think they're losing. They take a punch and pretend like that was all part of their fight plan, to weaken their opponents fist with their face and neck. And for some reason, even though it's hard to watch and that everyone in the joint knows that the night will end with this person in the hospital, it invokes sympathy if not outright admiration from those watching. "Woah, she's up. She got up again! Damn!" That's kind of how I feel about Hillary Clinton in this whole deal. By the numbers, this is pretty much over. She had a clear path to victory before Iowa and then blew it by not having a Super Tuesday plan and by choosing an incumbency message in a change year. The only path to the nomination for her now involves both a complete collapse of Obama and a coup at the DNC. That could happen, but it probably won't. Still, in a strange way my view of Hillary Clinton is higher now that it has been in months.

I'll still be pulling for Obama tonight. Come on, Indiana and North Carolina. He's telling the truth about the ridiculous gas tax holiday (even Bill Hanna agrees with me) and he's survived the worst month of sustained negative TV coverage of any candidate in the race so far. Obama has been tested and he's ready. He's still basically even with McCain and poised to pull ahead when the Democrats unify. And they will. One way or the other.

But oh, what a fight! I'm betting that Clinton will still be standing in the corner of the bar, motioning for more tomorrow morning. The regulars are going to be talking about this fight for a long, long time.

The Empire Strikes Barack

Got five minutes to burn on Friday afternoon? Familiar with the Star Wars series? Support Barack Obama? Or, do you support Hillary Clinton and want to see the what these crazy kids voting for Obama can do with all their digital editing software and idle time? Check out this video. That's right, folks. We can do this all damn summer! We haven't even tapped all the Star Trek footage yet. That's the nuclear option.

(For McCain voters, just click on the tubes below and see what the internets are capable of).

Souls of future candidates at stake in Democratic race

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic has a good post today putting perspective on the situation for Barack Obama and his supporters.

Watching shows like "Good Morning America" and any of the 24-hour cable news networks reminds me that the national media is increasingly devoid of perspective. Hence why the last 72 hours of news has focused on Obama's former preacher's speaking tour.

You know, I used to be upset that the hyper-charged media coverage was producing national candidates unwilling to take risks or say what they mean. "Serious" candidates were those that spent decades of their life avoiding anything that would be considered controversial, resulting in more vacuous, poll-driven politicians who suppress their practical strengths in the interest of political victory. But this latest cycle, with the focus on Obama's past minister the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, carries another risk for future politicians. If Obama is dragged down the only successful future candidates will be those who not only purge their own biographies of political will, but who are also willing to purge their lives of any loved ones or associates who hold unpopular views. In other words: soulless, vacuous, poll-driven politicians. Oh, boy!

To me, that's why it's more important than ever that the Democratic Party nominate Barack Obama and get him elected President. We've learned that he's not perfect, but he still provides a strong vision and an extraordinary contrast to the conventional wisdom of today's lousy political culture. This is a generational political struggle. The thing about struggles is that they often involve struggling. Struggle on!

Pop a top to get through another month

Wednesdays remain busy at my real job so I didn't get to offer my post-Pennsylvania analysis this morning. Just as well. I had nothing to add that others weren't saying. Clinton won by 9 points giving her a reason to continue the campaign while Obama ensured that he will win the pledged delegate race and probably the nomination unless the remaining uncommitted super delegates overrule the blah blah blah. You've heard this.

Here's the thing. Practically, Obama has won the nomination. If all the remaining voters and superdelegates announced their intention tomorrow it would be done. Instead we must endure traditional existence within the space time continuum. Thus, the next several weeks are going to be really ugly in the Democratic party. Democrats have a chance to end it with an Obama sweep of North Carolina and Indiana, but Clinton might well eke it out in Indiana. After that it's nothing but miles and miles of Appalachia. We will endure more moronic pandering (enough to make Monday night's WWE appearances by Clinton and Obama seem like JFK in East Berlin) through these heavily pro-Clinton but delegate-poor states like West Virginia and Kentucky. I fear many in the progressive blogging community -- heavily pro-Obama -- will suffer serious medical problems. Thus, my advice.

Get drunk. Stay drunk.

If you can't afford it make your own. That's what they do in Appalachia. And they might vote Clinton there but they also don't worry about things Joe Scarborough says on MSNBC and that's where I want to be.

The outcome (Obama wins) will be assured in June, but June is far away. Keep blogging if you want. Post to your heart's content. Media people, keep on pontificating. Political observers; keep on observin'. Hey, I don't even care if you're with Obama or Clinton. But for everyone's sake we've all got to figure out some way to keep heart rates down. It's a long haul to November.

I know it's tacky for the Iron Ranger to pitch drinking as a problem solver. Don't take me literally here. I'm just saying that ONE way to make the next two months seem fuzzy and more pleasant than they actually are is to drink a lot. There are probably others. Ideas?

Hey Pennsylvania relatives, please end this

Oh hell, let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm trying to avoid excessive thought about today's Pennsylvania primary. I'd really like this race to wrap up soon, not because I'm an Barack Obama supporter (I am, but that's so cliche) but because this campaign has become something of a self-satire. In other words, paid satirists couldn't invent a scenario more ridiculous than reality.

Normally, I'd be on the phone to my relatives in Pennsylvania, but most of them are Republicans (at least last we talked about it). My grandparents and I were going through the family history last summer. Everything my Pennsylvania family wrote in the 1860s and '70s reads like a political ad for Ulysses S. Grant (they loved Grant ... a lot). By and large the family has kept voting "R" ever since.

Obama's back in command of the national polls, but Hillary Clinton has a lot of built-in advantages in Pennsylvania and will probably win. My prediction is Clinton by six. I should be doing the political hack thing and lowering expectations but if she wins by more than six I'll be depressed anyway.

Rangers polled on bitterness, result: bitterish

I suppose this was inevitable. Larry Oakes of the Star Tribune localized the two-week-old "bitter" comments of Sen. Barack Obama by interviewing Iron Rangers. You know, because Rangers get laid off a lot and like guns. Opinions about the comments (that Obama himself has expressed regret over wording poorly) vary widely based on who the opinion holders support in the first place. Who knew?

And the sun rises again on America ...

Debate analysis: Media hungry! Media feed!

From the wooded wilderness in the shadow of the Mesabi Iron Range's western ridge, I offer a brief commentary on the national political scene.

The progressive blogs are hammering last night's ABC Democratic Presidential debate moderated by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (along with more objective media critics and journalism experts). I'm glad that I purposely avoided watching it because I feared the debate would go down this way. I have since read the transcripts and agree that the thing was a disaster. The first half was relegated to tough but largely trivial questions primarily focused against the frontrunner Barack Obama. Vast swaths of important issues were ignored, including the economy and health care. And yes, Obama's performance was only so-so while Clinton was polished but unappealing in her zeal to join in the mud-fest. Basically, no one won, which is what is being repeated all over the Internet today.

I mean, really. "Do you believe Rev. Wright loves America as much as you, Sen. Obama?" and questions about why Obama doesn't wear flag pins. That's a Toby Keith song, not a debate.

Here's my unique contribution to the day-after debate, however. A lot of people are arguing that this debate had an anti-Obama or pro-Hillary bias. And on the surface it could seem that way, but the truth is much more depressing. I have long contended that the national media is neither liberal nor conservative. The national media is a hulking, bloodthirsty animal focused on self-gratification and preservation. It will feed on any ideology so long as its checks keep cashing. Last night, ABC did everything it could to keep the Democratic nomination race A) alive and B) ugly -- two things that will provide another good month of ratings and revenue for the national news media.

I watch "ABC World News" every night and "This Week" every Sunday morning. I basically like and respect Gibson and Stephanopoulos. But this was a very bad debate and spoke very poorly of political discourse in America today. The polls won't move, the results won't be affected, but everyone will feel just a little bit dirtier on the inside. Hooray for the Fourth Estate!

What my TV told me this morning...

As many who consume political news online know, the only reason to watch political news on television is to see how political events are playing "on the street." For instance, I read Barack Obama's comments about the frustrations of small town voters in context last weekend and formed my own opinion. Then, over the course of watching television, I learned that I was supposed to be more outraged and/or concerned than I actually was.

In short, I believe Obama was right about everything he said at that fundraiser (except for one phrase, "clinging to guns or religion," which is the part I'm sure he specifically regrets right now). Clinton is a metaphorical shark, swimming to stay alive, so her reaction was more comical to me than it was political impressive. ("I used to go shootin' with my pappy," et al.) But what I heard on "Good Morning America" as I left for work this morning from political analyst George Stephanopoulos was truly amazing. I paraphrase:

GS: Hillary Clinton may have gone too far in her reaction, with her comments about using guns and "doing those boilermakers in Indiana."

It's 2008. A leading candidate for the Democratic nomination made a valid point about the real frustrations of rural voters and his opponent's reaction was to do boilermakers and tell everyone that she's "just folks like you." What a country! I'm not exactly objective in this debate -- I like Obama a lot -- but his response seems to be spot on.

I was talking to a friend this morning and have come to this conclusion. Obama in 2008 is a transition candidacy. The question is whether folks who are sick of all this crap can overcome those who are content to keep eating the crap for breakfast. I'd say it's 50/50 at this point. That still doesn't mean we should eat the crap for breakfast, though.

I may, however, switch to boilermakers if this continues much longer.

UPDATE: Someone who was at the Obama fundraiser in San Francisco puts his widely reported comments in context and shows that this HUGE STORY is really just more distracting bullcrap that reflects more about Obama's opponents and the media than it does about Obama and his actual positions. While regular folks (including small town folks) are hungry for something different, the forces of the status quo are hungry to put their foot down on this skinny kid with a funny name.

Snow Day Roundup

Schools are closed across Northeastern Minnesota today, including the college where I work. I get another day (two in one week!) to catch up my ungodly to-do list.

• One item on my to-do list is to compile the results of the Dylan Days Creative Writing contest. We should be announcing winners soon. We run five categories (open and student fiction, open and student poetry and one-act plays) and got about 750 entries from all over the world. The quality of the entries this year was excellent. Stay tuned. (And check out Dylan Days, May 22-25 in Hibbing).
  
• The PUC was supposed to meet yesterday to render a couple somewhat important decisions about Excelsior Energy's Mesaba Energy Project. I'm trying to find out what happened.
  
• For national political junkies, I am now of the opinion that Barack Obama supporters need to brace for a Pennsylvania disappointment. I still think Obama is likely to win North Carolina and has a good shot at Indiana, but I am getting a big time "Ohio" vibe from the Pennsylvania tracking polls. Clinton's numbers, even during bad news cycles, remain rock solid at 48-50 percent. The only real chance at knocking her out of the race will come in the first week of May with N.C. and Indiana. After that comes a string of Appalachian primaries where the Clintons are revered like Hillbilly royalty. She can run the table and would still likely lose the nomination, but oh how the press will chatter. I am an Obama fan but my desire to end this primary "contest" has more to do with party well-being and the potential stomach ulcers that come from watching too much cable news these days.

All this and more shoveling today ...

Iron Range editor pens fascinating Obama speech analysis

Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race, "A More Perfect Union," was designed to open a national dialogue to chart a way past the racial bitterness of the past. It was also, from a practical standpoint, designed to put out the flames of controversy that had engulfed Obama's campaign after inflammatory video of hateful comments by his former minister were widely circulated. On both counts I believe the speech has been a resounding success. Obama leads by 10 over Hillary Clinton in today's Gallup tracking poll, his biggest lead ever in that poll. In addition, the speech has prompted an amazing column today from Hibbing Daily Tribune editor Mike Jennings. (Disclosure: I write a column for the Tribune and technically report to Mike, but I am not contractually bound to say nice things about him on this blog).

Jennings is in his first year at the head of the Tribune newsroom after a long career in the newspaper business in several southern states. His perspective of growing up in a family with roots across the South channels the themes Obama addressed in his speech. Here's an early paragraph to provide some foreshadowing.

A few weeks ago Barack Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia that some have called the most probing and deeply truthful speech in a generation about race in America. Others have called Obama’s speech an adroit but unconvincing effort to explain away his adherence over many years – and beyond that, his professed love and loyalty – to his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has uttered vicious, racially divisive views from the pulpit.

I don’t know which of those perspectives on Obama’s performance contains the greater truth. I do know that both contain a measure of truth because, like every white Southerner of my generation, I have spent my life swimming through the intricate cross-currents of race. Reading Obama’s speech, I often felt he was giving clear voice to a muddled narrative that has been going on in my own head since I was a child. My family straddled two versions of Southern racism, the genteel version and the open, vicious version.

Giving you the ending and Jennings' conclusion wouldn't do the column justice. I really must recommend you go to the Tribune site to read the whole thing. You might need to create a free account to read the whole article, but it's worth it. Though Jennings doesn't apply his argument any further than his experiences in the South, I share some of the same thoughts about growing up on the Iron Range where racial and ethnic resentments also have a long history.

'Round the dinner table on the Iron Range

I can't stress enough the importance for Democrats to resolve the presidential race soon, before the convention, before June and preferably before Memorial Day.

I write from the Iron Range, a place that gets little attention in political coverage ironically because of its reliably important role in Minnesota's electoral makeup. The Range delivers 40 point margins for statewide and presidential Democrats every election. Except when it doesn't, which is when statewide or presidential Democrats lose.

Around the dinner table at a recent family function, I was surprised by the discussion on national politics. First off, my family is not overtly political, and tends to eschew extremism of either liberal or conservative variety. This group of white males I was talking to (you know, the hot new 2008 demographic) wasn't really charged up by the racial tones of the election, but more so by the Democrats inability to settle the nomination. The tit for tat arguing and endless news cycle was the most troubling factor for my family members and for most blue collar, working folks I talk to around here (the ones who pundits worry will defect to John McCain). If this continues, I get the impression that Obama's margins on the Range in November will suffer. This puts Minnesota in jeopardy for the Democrats, and victory requires Minnesota in the blue coalition.

That's the problem with this year's campaign. If Barack Obama had put Hillary Clinton away a month ago, as McCain did his opponents, we'd be settling in for the long haul of the November campaign. And yes, all the same issues that are now being discussed (Obama's experience, the preacher controversy, etc.) would still come up, but would be part of the larger campaign. Obama's ability to answer these charges (wisdom is more important than years in Washington, we should open the conversation about race to include all parties and their legitimate grievances) would be winning him points against McCain, instead of a primary opponent.

So while Clinton continues to hold on to an outside chance to win the nomination, her ability to win requires at least three more months of this same campaign dynamic. Obama will win states, delegates and probably popular votes at this point. For this reason alone, the Democrats' best hope requires Clinton to cut a deal with Obama now. Supreme Court? Vice President? Senate Majority Leader? She should take a deal and we should move on.

I recognize this is unlikely. Clinton is starting to use the preacher controversy in her speeches and interviews now, which means they've focus group tested it and determined that it works with all the right demos. (You can tell the politicians that do this testing when they wait three or four days before talking about important news stories). But I hope that fellow Democrats recognize the damage we cause by allowing this to continue much longer.

Quick, before the malaise breaks through the dam

The good news (if you're an Obama supporter and/or sick of primary election news coverage): The media, at least the pieces I saw on "Good Morning America" and in the New York Times today, are finally starting to openly question how Hillary Clinton could win the Democratic nomination at this point. The likelihood that Barack Obama will win the most pledged delegates, states and popular votes is now seen as almost inevitable since no one has quite figured out how the remaining unaffiliated superdelegates would overturn those results and keep the party from imploding.

The bad news (unless you're a McCain fan): The last month of ugliness has put both Clinton and Barack Obama 7-10 points behind John McCain in the latest Rasmussen poll. (Amazingly, despite more than a week of constant bad news, Obama is still doing better than Clinton).

Remember folks, John McCain is a very acceptable second choice to a lot of Democrats, including many Clinton and Obama supporters. (I've written here that if a Republican is going to be elected, I'd rather it be a guy like McCain). He carried half the Democrats in Arizona. The longer the Democratic party chooses to sit back and watch this dogfight the wider it opens John McCain's path to victory. If Obama emerges with no more damage than he already has, he can continue to build his message and show the stark contrast between him and McCain not just on the issues but in style and symbolism. If all the traditional Democratic groups now backing Clinton are completely turned off to Obama by her attacks, then Democrats have real problems.

For once, I agree with Dick Morris. The primary is basically decided. The question is how are Democrats going to start the national campaign, with a battle cry or an exhausted sigh?

Aftermath of 'the speech'

Daily Kos has a good roundup of the reviews of yesterday's Barack Obama speech. First Read also has some good reactions. There are all overtly positive in their appraisal of the speech, but I'll take on the task of looking at this from another point of view.

The real question here is whether the American people want to talk about race, or any other real problem, in stark, specific terms that involve work. Since before Reagan politics has been an abstract art, promising vague good things in exchange for one little vote from you, the citizen. Barack Obama is taking a much different approach, an unprecedented approach for a frontrunner.

The question raised by critics is that his speech will not win over the white, working class voters who have been skeptical about Obama all this time. The speech will cause them to continue seeing him as a racial candidate, critics say, and make them uncomfortable about him. This is valid criticism. I live in a place much like the rural areas of Pennsylvania or Ohio, the places described as "Clinton Country" on the cable news. Several parts of the Iron Range tilted slightly for Clinton in a state that went 3-1 for Obama. So I think I understand the mindset of some of these voters. The problem isn't that these people are racist, it's that they just don't want to talk about race. Obama is forcing the question. That's what we need a president to do, but it's not necessarily what voters reward.

The million dollar question: Is this extraordinary, but risky, speech going to expand Obama's support because of his courage and honesty, or shrink his support because of the uncomfortable conversations it will spur around the country?

Obama delivers unprecedented speech today

Barack Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech on race issues in America and how they have become a divisive factor in this presidential campaign. He addressed the matter of his controversial former pastor, but did much more than that.

Read the text of Obama's speech today from the Obama website. This also includes a video link.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I know that Obama is not perfect. What I like about him is that, when confronted with what is the greatest strain of his campaign, he didn't lay up or dodge the real issue. This speech addressed the real problems of race -- shared by whites and blacks alike -- in a very courageous way. Some of the commentators say it may have been so honest that it will hurt him in the election. I don't know. But Obama laid it all out there. He said what needed to be said. I can't imagine either of his opponents, Hillary Clinton in the primary or John McCain in the general, showing this kind of political courage under similar duress. I really think this guy is for real.

Generational change in the Democratic party

For all we see in the media, especially television, you would think that the campaign for the Democratic nomination is all about the identity politics of race, gender and style. But that's just what's visible on the surface. When you consider history, voting trends and technological advances, what we're seeing in Obama vs. Clinton is more the inevitable conflict that occurs during a major generational transition.

We see two distinct coalitions of Democratic voters lining up behind Obama and Clinton respectively. Obama: young people, the more educated, African-Americans, independents and disaffected Republicans. Clinton: older people -- especially women, the less educated, Hispanics, and low-income whites. With the exception of Hispanics, a more recent demographic in America, Clinton has the old Franklin Roosevelt coalition and Obama has a coalition of people who have been slowly leaving the Republican party since Teddy Roosevelt. Clinton's coalition has been responsible for every major Democratic win since 1960. It has also failed to produce a majority in a presidential race since 1976. In the last eight years, Obama's coalition has been the difference-maker in just about every victory the party has won. Notable examples: Sen. Jim Webb's 2006 defeat of George Allen in Virgina. Jon Tester in Montana. This guy Bill Foster who just won a Republican Congressional district in Illinois during a recent special election. (Note: Illinois 14 is not only the district of former Speaker Dennis Hastert, it's where my wife was born and where many of her family still live). Take Minnesota in 2006. Amy Klobuchar united these coalitions to win a landslide victory in the Senate race. Mike Hatch could only hold the Franklin Roosevelt DFLers and lost the governor's race to Tim Pawlenty.

So if the question is which coalition will defeat John McCain, the answer must be both. And the numbers in the primaries seem to indicate that these coalitions are roughly the same size and hold roughly the same amount of power. But it seems to me that when you look at trends regarding union membership, population growth, and the core values of what is a surprisingly huge generation of people under 30 right now, you see that Obama's coalition will probably continue to grow while Clinton's will continue to shrink. I base that on the last two presidential years.

In 2000, we saw Al Gore and Bill Bradley emerge as the two contenders in the Democratic primary season. Gore was then the quasi-incumbent front runner with the backing of labor and most traditional Democratic constituencies. Bradley was the oratorical "change" candidate who was running on the need for a new kind of politics. Bradley came close in New Hampshire, but never caught fire nationally. Gore won the nomination easily. Today, perhaps ironically, Gore has adopted a mantra of change, especially in his most recent books, that sounds much more like Bradley 2000 than Gore 2000. I don't know, of course, but I infer that this might have something to do with Gore's experiences of watching the nation divide before his eyes after the experiences of the 2000 election. Gore's a smart guy. I think he sees how the nation and the Democratic party are changing.

In 2004, Howard Dean was at one point the presumptive nominee. Of course, that was before there was any voting. But in that moment, when Dean was leading the field by huge margins and raising what was then record-breaking amounts of money online, we saw the potential of this new independent-minded, younger, modern coalition. But it wasn't quite time yet. Dean was saying the right things, but didn't quite close the sale in Iowa. In the end, people went for the comfort and war hero credentials of Sen. John Kerry, then running with the traditional Democratic coalition. Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire and, though facing a tough challenge from John Edwards after the Dean implosion, largely swept his way to the nomination. Then, like Gore, he lost to the Bush by a nose in the general.

Here we are in 2008. Obama was not the presumptive nominee before Iowa, but seized that title through impressive modern political organization and commanding victories in key states. Clinton, who has held a strong grip on traditional Democratic constituencies throughout this process, has yet to crack the code in stopping Obama. And while she still has an outside chance of snatching the nomination by way of superdelegate revolt, Obama has already shown that this coalition that started with Bradley and Dean and now rests with Obama has grown both in size and in sophistication. In short, this coalition -- once and if it absorbs the traditional Democratic groups now loyal to Clinton -- could represent a new majority for the next generation of American politics.

That is, if Democrats don't throw it all away. Following these trend lines, I see two truths emerging.

1) If Clinton is the nominee she faces the same problems that Gore and Kerry did -- the alienation of the new coalition, a close election, and possible defeat -- perhaps more so because of how she'd have to win that nomination.

2) No matter what, the coalition of young, educated, technologically savvy, racially mixed, global minded folks that supported Bradley, Dean and now Obama will be back in 2012, and 2016, and beyond. And they'll probably win next time if they don't win this time. It's interesting that Al Gore, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, John Edwards -- who once fought one another -- are all now saying something similar to Barack Obama's central message, even though Dean, Gore and Edwards remain neutral in this year's race. America's problems can't be solved the same old way, but only by building a new, better organized and more transparent majority.

It's not a matter of if change will occur, but when. The Democratic Party and the United States of America are changing. Barack Obama is the change candidate; Hillary Clinton is the traditional candidate.

Which way are we going to go here?

I return, bearing the head of the dragon called First Draft

I still have to mop up the blood on the last essay, but I've had a good week of writing for my book of Iron Range essays and finally feel like I can dabble in the time vortex that is blogging.

Thanks to the person or persons who contributed so many fine lines of dialogue for the Obama/McCain cop movie. I think I have enough to write a good trailer now that I might share over the weekend. If anyone has more, jump in.

Also thanks to the many who continue to vote in the"Most plausible Range statewide candidate" Quick Poll on the right column. Tony Sertich appears to be leading as we enter the last day of voting, but he's only got a few votes over the guy who posts the xenophobic signs along Highway 53 south of Cotton. (Watch out, T-Money, this guy lives in 5B). Bakk and Rukavina continue to chase the rainbow, but kudos to the Bakk camp for your late surge. It's not over yet. I'll decipher the results when the last votes are cast Friday afternoon.

Also over the weekend I'll review the Range, state and national news that I've missed. Friday I'll post my preview of the Itasca County and SD 05 DFL conventions and Saturday night I'll tell you if I was right or not. It would appear that, in regard to the Democratic presidential nomination race, certain candidates (I won't name names) have decided to poop in the pool during the water polo championship and that we have to keep playing anyway. Hooray! I didn't want my faith in American politics to be restored anyway. As an educated white male under 30 I need to wait and see how my demo performs in suburban Pittsburgh before I know what I'm supposed to think about this whole ordeal. (Confidential to Mark Penn: I drink BEER you overpaid hack!)

Oh, and there's a legislature here in Minnesota that is apparently in something called a session. I sure hope Viceroy Pawlenty suppresses this nonsense and lowers my sales tax by a tenth of a penny on the dollar. Think of all the extra things I could buy over a vast, incalculable amount of time!

Glad to be back!

Obama/McCain cop movie taking shape

I continue to be intrigued by the concept for a buddy cop movie featuring John McCain and Barack Obama as mismatched detective partners and Hillary Clinton as the hard edged "by the book" precinct captain. I already asked you to think of titles for such a movie, but I'd like to further ask you for scenes or potential lines of dialogue that could be part of the movie. If this goes well, we might have a script ready before the Pennsylvania primary.

1) At a club owned by the bad guy (Putin? Or for a twist, Stephen Harper?), we enjoy a lighter moment as Obama teaches McCain how to dance in order to blend in.

2) Crawling out of the debris after McCain crashes a small airplane as part of an elaborate chase scene, Obama asks, "Tell me again why they let you fly airplanes."

3) Clinton to McCain, "This is your last chance, McCain. You break regs this time and you'll be back in the House shuffling cable access legislation."

4) McCain and Obama attempt to disarm a ticking bomb. Obama offers suggestions about red wires and blue wires before being interrupted by McCain: "You keep talking, legs, I've got business." (clips both wires, tosses bomb off warehouse roof).

I'm sure there could be more. Any suggestions?

Sounds like a summer blockbuster ...

From a piece called "The Dude Vote" by Edward McLelland of Salon.com, by way of the Star Tribune.

"I wish [Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama] could run together," [blogger Thomas] Stodder swoons. "They'd be like one of those old 1970s cop shows -- the crusty old seen-it-all guy who goes by his gut, partnered with the brilliant rookie who's got courage to match his brains.

"They both seem like leaders to me. ... If they end up running against each other, I don't yet know which way I'd go. But if only one of them is in the race, that's the one I'm voting for."

If "Saturday Night Live" was smart, they'd have six or seven sketches based on this premise in the can for summer. I don't know if I'm proud of this or not, but I would SO go see that movie. I see Hillary Clinton as the "by the rules" precinct captain. By all means, use the comments section to suggest titles. Here's mine: "Joint Powers."

Seven weeks is a long damn time

Today is the political equivalent of Groundhog Day. The sewer rat saw his shadow, so now we have seven more weeks of bullshit.

I need to take a break from worrying about the national presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton had a good night in Ohio, Rhode Island and the Texas primary. My guy, Barack Obama, won Vermont and is leading this morning in the Texas caucus counting. According to the DailyKos, the biggest dent Hillary might make in her big delegate deficit is about one stinking delegate. There is an alternate scenario where Obama's approximately 150 delegate lead remains exactly the same or even grows. Either way, Hillary has to duplicate her 18-point R.I. victory margin in most of the future primaries to close that delegate gap. That's just not going to happen. So the question is if Clinton can raise enough doubts about Obama to get the superdelegates to switch back to her.

I'm thinking Obama is going to get a little rougher with Clinton than he has so far. She's going to push the "red phone" crap because it works, despite its appeal to the worst elements of humanity.

One thing's certain, the Democratic nominee will be stronger and battle tested as a result of this process. It's a shame they might burn a quarter billion dollars just getting to the convention, but hey -- it's just money. Vast, unfathomable amounts of money.

On to Pennsylvania in seven long, probably unbearable, weeks of political campaigning and analysis.

UPDATE: DailyKos and the Obama campaign now say that Clinton's delegate pickup from Tuesday will be more like 4-9 delegates, not just one. Still not much movement when she's down anywhere from 80 to 150. And, when you include the Texas caucus results it's looking like Obama will beat Clinton by three delegates there.