Political Ramble

Contrary to the absurd media line that Hillary Clinton halted Barack Obama's momentum on Super Tuesday, the correct storyline should have been Obama's rapid ascent up the polls to pull virtually even with Hillary by the big day. The idea that Obama's loss in Massachusetts was a "disappointment" was ridiculous. That he pulled close to even in exit polls was a major victory in a state where he was down by double digits in the weeks before the big day.

InTrade.com recognizes this. Here's the Dem nomination:

Obama - 65.1
Hillary - 35.9

And here's the general, which takes a few more things into account....

Obama - 43.5
McCain - 34.0
Hillary - 21.5

So, Hillary's chances are diminishing, it seems. Obama is on the verge of some serious momentum, going seven for seven in contests during a single week. That's a good run, and it might convince some superdelegates to abandon ship. Moreover, as Obama continues to seem more viable against McCain, he should pick up steam.

So, my opinion? Obama is winning this race largely because his January fundraising. It proved his viability and grassroots popularity and it gives him freedom nationally. His rapid surge to pull even on Super Tuesday has thrust him into the lead. Obama is winning the delegate race, actually; it remains the superdelegates who are holding back.

I think it boils down to this: this may be Hillary Clinton's last shot. She'll be 60 by the general election. Obama winning this year would ensure that she wouldn't be able to run again until she were 68. It's not out of the question, but a lot can happen in eight years. New political stars will rise. The Clintons will seem AWFULLY stale 24 years after Bill took the inauguration, particularly after this cycle. In other words, this is pretty much it for her. She's been planning it for a while. It was either '08 or '12 the whole time.

And even though McCain seems to have bucked that age threshold, he's probably not going to beat the younger, more dynamic Obama.

So the Clinton mindset is probably something like: Obama should wait his turn; he's still a young guy. I would have put him on my ticket if he hadn't run this campaign. He'd get it in 2016, easily!

And, although Obama probably would be extremely well positioned to win the presidency if he just accepted a spot on the Hill ticket rather than run his own campaign, Obama saw he had a moment, and his chance for "change" will never be greater than it is now. It's why I thought running made more sense than not running during this cycle. I think the war has a lot to do with his rise. That war might not be an issue in the next electoral cycle.

Here's the way I see the scenarios:

If Obama wins the presidency:

- Mission accomplished, for him. The Democratic era of Clinton is probably over.

If Obama wins the nomination and loses the presidency:

- This is an interesting proposition. Only Richard Nixon managed to lose one presidential election and then win another, at least in the last 120 years or so.
- I have no idea how this would work. He would probably be back at some point.

If Hillary wins the presidency:

- Obama may/may not be on the ticket.
- If things hold, Obama is a legitimate star for 2016. He will have experience (either as VP or as governor of Illinois for a term) and an unthinkably strong fundraising base.
- The only thing that would hold him back would be if the country sours on government, or if the Hillary VP slips into successful "heir apparent" mode.

If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the presidency:

- Obama will probably be the nominee in 2012. There will be little debating him as the frontrunner, unless he somehow loses his Senate seat in 2010.

So, it's all pretty interesting. I almost feel like the LEAST likely thing to happen would be for Obama to never lead a Democratic ticket.

What about the Republicans? Let's face it: the GOP is floundering right now. They don't have a standard-bearer. Hell, their ideology appears to be floating dead in the water. In some ways, an electoral defeat is just what they need to reinvigorate themselves.

Because the future of the GOP is an attractive, 43-year old mother of four who is running the nation's largest state. Yep, it's Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.

In a year deadly to Republicans (2006), Sarah Palin shot through the ranks of Alaska by attacking corruption and ethics violations in a notoriously corrupt state. As Fred Barnes said, commentators talk of the "body count" of rivals who have crossed Palin. She had approval ratings hovering around 90% last year (yes, 90%; that's high even in Alaska). She line-item vetoed 13% of the Alaska capital projects budget, which is amazingly high. She supports low taxes and limited government. She is pro-life, and she is pro-gun. This is the future of the GOP.

Palin needs to establish this for a fact. It should start this summer in Minnesota: Palin should be given a prime-time speaking slot at the convention. Her speech should be a sort of rebuttal to Obama's '04 speech: not downplaying unity, but saying that there are legitimate differences between the parties. Not downplaying people's concerns, but offering a full-throated defense of classical liberalism, federalism, and governmental honesty as the means to political success. The convention this summer might be a bit problematic for the GOP. There won't be much energy, certainly not with Huckabee and McCain as the two leading figures. Palin should be enlisted to rescue it.

Assuming the speech is well received, Palin will get covers and stories in Time, Newsweek, US News, National Review, etc. This, of course, is how you build a candidacy from the ground up.

We'll see what happens.