Reading Bill Kristol's colunmn in today's New York Times, I had the following thoughts...

1.  I think his column today is a trial balloon. It looks like a plant from the McCain camp.

2.  It underscores the rock and a hard place position that McCain has put himself in.

3.  If McCain follows Kristol's advice, does a little mea culpa, and then moves on in a positive tone it creates huge problems for him:

   A.  Anything even the slightest bit negative will ring of hypocricy, and the MSM will take great pleasure in calling McCain on it.

   B.  It undermines McCain's unique value proposition, "seasoned judgement."  If he has such good judgment, why did he choose to run his brand, and his campaign into the ground with negative attacks, which he concedes was the wrong thing to do?

4.  If McCain continues as is, then only some kind of earth shattering external event can bring him within reach.  This could be another attempt by Bin Laden to influence the election, or it could be some truly disturbing dirt on Obama, but it has to be of that magnitude.

5.  My prediction...  McCain will do a little of both.  He will not attack Obama on Wednesday, and he will try to take a more positive tone, but he will not issue any mea culpa, and it will be framed by EVERYONE except his immediate campaign staff as a last failed opportunity to change the trajectory of the election.

If I were Charlie, here is what I would ask Palin.

1.  You are opposed to abortions in all cases, including when a women is pregnant as the result of a rape.  Explain why you think a women who is the victim of a sexual assault should have to carry the child to term?

2.  If you were able to succeed, and make abortion illegal, what punishment would you propose for a women who broke the law, and had an abortion?  What punishment for the doctor?

3.  Is America a Christian nation?  Do you feel that world conditions point to the rapture, Tribulation, and return of Christ occurring soon?

4.  What role do you think scripture should play in politics?

5.  Is it fair to say that you have almost no foreign policy experience?  If yes, in times where we face so many challenges from overseas, explain why American's should support your candidacy to be a hearbeat away from President, and Commander in Chief?  If no, it isn't fair, tell me what foreign policy experience you do have, and what foreign policy decisions you have made?

6.  What foreign countries have you visited?

7.  Why did you attend so many different colleges?

8.  In your address before the RNC, you said you were opposed to pork barrel spending and earmarks.  You said that you were opposed to the bridge to nowhere.  But we now know that at one time you were in favor of the bridge to nowhere, and you personally sought and obtained $27 million worth of earmarks for Wasilla, while you were mayor.  Tell us why we shouldn't view your current position as poltical opportunism and hippocritical?

9.  Recent turmoil in the home mortgage industry has called in to question the role of the Federal Reserve.  What do you think the proper role of the Federal Reserve should be and why?

10.  What countries would you be in favor of adding to NATO and why?

In Sarah Palin's interview with People magazine, it is reported that she had amniocentesis, and that she knew that her son Trig would be born with Down's Syndrome.

Why did she have this test performed?

She is opposed to abortions in ALL circumstances.  If her position became the law, there would be no point in having amniocentesis done for anyone, as it would be illegal for the women to terminate the pregnancy.  Indeed, the test itself carries with it the small risk of triggering a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion.

By having this test, she put the fetus at risk for no reason at all.   She took a chance at ending an otherwise "normal" pregnancy in order to get information which she is completely opposed to acting on.

It makes no sense, and her physician wouldn't have recommended a procedure that was ultimately pointless, and was a small risk to the fetus.

It makes no sense, unless...  When she agreed to have the test done, she was willing to consider the option of terminating the pregnancy. An option she wants to prevent other women from having the opportunity to consider were they in a similar circumstance.

We of course don't know her thinking at the time, but it would be interesting to hear her explain why she had this procedure done.  There is certainly the suggestion of profound hypocrisy going on here.

Why has the race tightened up?  I think it is a combination of three factors.

1.  The Republican base is coming home to McCain.  Of course if he picks a pro-choice VP, then he will put this group into a lather which will like cost him a point or two in the polls, but probably less, when all is said in done in the voting booth.  Its one thing to tell a pollster you haven't made up your mind because you are pissed off, its another to not vote at all, or, gasp, vote for the all pro-choice ticket.

2.  The attack ads have had a modest effect on Obama, by playing to the meme of "otherness."  This has lead some independents who were earlier saying they would vote for Obama (based largely on general anti-Republicanism) to slip back to "I haven't made up my mind" when polled.

3.  The whole VP dance, and "putting her name in nomination or not" dance has served to reopen the barely scabbed wounds of the really angry part of Hillary's support.  Let's call it about 20% of her primary season voters.  When the pollsters call these women (my assumption is that is mostly women) they are too angry to say that they will vote for Obama.  And McCain's flirting with a pro-choice VP, gives them a little cover, as they toy with the idea of violating every core principle they have, out of anger.  But again, it is hard to imagine that in November, with a pro-choice, progressive ticket within smelling distance of the White House, that they will stay home, or vote McCain.

So..  If I were McCain, I would shoot for the independents, reclaim my maverick brand, and pick Tom Ridge, let the base chips fall as they may.  But, I don't think he will do that.  He will pick a safer VP, who is anti-choice, firm up his base, but also further dilute his "maverick" brand, and look like just another Republican in a year when the Republican brand is toxic.

If Obama picks a women VP, the Hillary really angry group will come home to him sooner than if he picks a white male, but either way, when it comes time to vote, that group will sigh deeply about how close they came to electing one of their own President, and vote for Obama.  Indeed, they may well deny it to pollsters right up to the moment in the voting booth, but when the actual votes are counted, I bet more than two-thirds of that group comes home to Obama.  

OK, here is a wacky thought.  How about BHO picks Rahm as his VP?    While the obvious downside is two guys from Illinois, there is quite an upside.

1.  White male on the ticket.

2.  Young guy, but with plenty of WH experience.
   
3.  Solidifies support with the Jewish Community.
   
4.  Puts a Clinton loyalist on the ticket.
   
5.  Puts one of the Democrat's most talented politicians front and center.
   
6.  The VP is the hatchet man, and who better than Rahm?

Sure, many non-college educated white southern males are not going to vote for a black/Jew ticket.  But heck, BHO wasn't getting those votes anyhow.

I had a conversation today with a friend who is a researcher, which put things in an interesting perspective.  The point he made was that just because Hillary out-performs Obama with certain constituencies when she is head to head with him, doesn't mean that she will outperform him vs. John McCain.  Indeed if there is a correlation, it is probably a relatively small one.

Look at it this way.  Let's say you take a population of people and offer them ice cream.  They have two choices - vanilla or chocolate.  Let's for the sake of argument say that more people pick vanilla.

Then, on another day, we offer the same population ice cream again, but this time the choice is vanilla or strawberry.  The fact that people chose vanilla over chocolate gives you almost zero information about whether people will pick vanilla over strawberry.

And... it will also give you no information for predicting whether the same people would pick chocolate over strawberry.

This entire effort on behalf of the Clinton campaign to show that  HRC's stronger performance in one contest is predictive of what her performance would be in another is completely illogical.  Its like saying people who choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate will also choose vanilla over strawberry.

There has been much discussion in the blogosphere regarding electability.  Kos has some analysis up regarding HRC's appeal (or lack thereof)to independents, in essence an electability argument.

But in today's world.  The political strategy seems to focus on energizing the base.  And of course the base of the Democratic Party starts with its most loyal constituents, African-Americans.

If the Super Delegates break for HRC, and she becomes the nominee, it is quite possible that some percentage of African-Americans, who would have voted, might instead stay home.  Not vote for McCain, but just choose not to vote at all.

What impact would a decline in African-American turnout have? I did a little math.  My question was, what if 1 in 5 African American voters stayed home, fed up by a process that gave them Hillary as the standard bearer rather than Barack?

I took the totals from the 2004 election, and split them out based on the exit poll data (still available on CNN.com!)

Nationally, Kerry would have had over 2.3 million fewer votes.   This impact is greater or less state by state.  I looked at NJ and PA, and the results are striking.  20% fewer African American voters would translate into a loss of 82,000 votes in NJ and 126,000 votes in PA.  In NJ, Kerry still wins by about 158,000 votes, but in PA the election is essentially tied, with only 18,000 votes separating the two - Kerry still ahead.  

This assumes that McCain does no better than Bush.  

If he actually does better than Bush (perhaps because the right hates HRC more than McCain and so comes out to vote, and he does better with Independents than Bush 2004 did), and HRC does as well as Kerry with non-African American voters, but loses 1 in 5 African American voters to indifference, then both states could tip.  Other states, such as Michigan look the same, though I haven't the time to do the math.

But that isn't the end of it.  Think about how this plays out further downstream in close Congressional districts or State Assembly/Senate districts where the percentage of total Democratic votes cast by African Americans can be much higher than on state wide basis.  

If I am a Super Delegate, this has to weigh on my mind.

This election has been really great at scraping up the stuff that had settled to the bottom.  And the narrative is really interesting.

She is all but anointed as the presumptive nominee.  And why not?  She raised a ton of money.  Had great name recognition.  Was the consummate party insider.  Married to the most successful Democratic politician in 50 years.  An unbelievably disciplined campaigner.  Former First Lady, current Senior Senator from New York.  Strong campaign team.  What could go wrong?

Only one thing.  A candidate whose native charisma and communications skills could make the party activists heart's beat faster, and knees go weak.  Obama is a force of nature, and if he wasn't running against Hillary, it would have been over long ago.  

This is a classic case of the charismatic outsider vs. the establishment insider.   It may pain baby boomers to think that one of their own is now the establishment, but the truth hurts.

Barack and Hillary's substantive differences are essentially trivial.  An appeal to the head isn't going to create the separation a candidate needs to win. So the campaign has to be won or lost on appeals to the heart or... spleen?

Look at the different emotional memes that have gained purchase at one time or another during this campaign.

Don't let them abuse the long suffering wife.
Don't trust the scary black man.
Pointy headed elitist intellectuals don't understand you.
Clinton's are consumed with ambition and will do anything to get elected.

Her strategy is clear.  She needs to convince the super delegates that he is not electable.  Obama has an interesting call to make.  Can he pull it off without taking a metaphorical 2x4 to her head?

If he does, he is just another politician.  If he doesn't, he looks like a wimp.

If, and it is a big IF, he is going to do it then he should accept the North Carolina debate, and just lay in to her.

It would go something like this:

Why don't 60% of poll respondents trust her?  

Because she can't be trusted.

She has a history of distorting the truth and playing loose with the rules.

She didn't dodge bullets in Bosnia.
She did support NAFTA
She did vote for and support the war in Iraq
She had to go on national TV to defend her commodities trading.
Her friends did serve time in jail to protect her over Whitewater.
Her campaign manager did do anti-union work, support Columbia's free trade agreement, etc..
Do we remember her comments about the "vast right wing conspiracy?"

Is this really what we want to go back to America?

If Obama goes nuclear, likely result is he wins the nomination.

But I wonder what it sets him up for in the General?  Really hard to run as a different kind of politician when you just used good old fashioned hardball politics to win the nomination.