FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 8,  2008

•  First, a warm welcome to new readers in Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, South America and Africa.  It's good to know you're with us.

•  We begin with the Democratic dilemma.  The Republicans have now, barring some disaster, selected their presidential candidate.  The Democrats are nowhere near doing so.  While there is dissension in the Republican camp, it does not compare to the racial and gender tensions among the Democrats.  We've never had direct, first-person racial or gender strain at the presidential level because we've never before had a credible African-American or female contender who was close to a major-party nomination.  It's remarkable that both have emerged in the same year.

And that's the Democratic dilemma.  Many people will come away from this race disappointed, or bitter.  It would be far better for the party if one candidate wins decisively, but the math, at least at this point, doesn't seem to be going that way.

So what will happen?  Consider these possible scenarios:

1.  One candidate pulls somewhat ahead in the primaries, and the other simply decides to withdraw.  Look, that could happen.  For Barack Obama, a withdrawal would be better than a humiliating defeat.  He lives to hope Hillary loses in November, making him the obvious candidate for 2012.  Hillary might feel the same way should Obama pull ahead.  She's only 60, and could have a future.

2.  Obama is slightly ahead in the delegate count going into the convention, meaning the 792 superdelegates - party officials and elected officeholders - will decide.  They will decide for Obama.  The Democratic Party needs the black vote.  It doesn't need the Clintons.  If Obama is ahead, and is denied the nomination, you can imagine the response in black America.  The Supers will just go along, despite any personal feelings. 

3.  Clinton is slightly ahead in the delegate count going into the convention.  The superdelegates will decide.  Here, the situation is more complicated.  While Clinton's supporters would be angered if the supers deny her the nomination, there would not be the fury, fueled by history, that we'd see in black America if Obama is "cheated" out of it.  And there's something else:  It's probable, if trends continue, that polls will show that Obama would be stronger against McCain in the general election.  Those polls would give the supers cover to go with Obama, even if Hillary had more delegates going in.

4.  There's an unexpected development.  A single news story can change the race.  Something could come out about one of the candidates.  It would probably be about Obama.  Hillary has been a national figure for 16 years, and it's unlikely there are more skeletons than the ones we've seen parading before us in mass formation.  Obama is just now going under the microscope.  He is vulnerable.

Or, there could be a terrorist attack.  In that case, the advantage would probably go to Hillary, who's seen as more engaged on national defense.

Which of these scenarios is more likely?  I have no idea, but I'd have to say that the advantage probably lies with Obama.  That is not a prediction, though.  It's an informed guess. 

•   Susan Estrich, with years of experience in Democratic politics, gives a good analysis of where the Demoratic race stands.  She credits John McCain with being a very formidable candidate.  The quote:

Can Obama stand up to the Clinton operation? It's a proper and necessary test. However tough the Democratic race, it's nothing compared to what the victor will face in the fall. The Clinton brand of hardball is no tougher than what the Republicans have played in every election in the last two decades, and what they will play against either Clinton or Obama.

The good news for Democratic voters is that the next two months -- and my guess is that it will take that -- will be a time to judge the candidates not only in terms of how they measure up against each other, but more importantly, how they will measure up against McCain, without question the Republican who will be the toughest for Democrats to beat.

The Democrats expected an easy time this year.  No one told them that Bush wasn't on the ballot, although some will probably imagine that he's secretly there.

•   The great and gentle unifier, Barack Obama, is starting to sound more like a kid with a grudge.  He's insisting, as reported here, that Hillary release her tax returns.  He's especially interested in where that $5-million she lent her campaign came from:

''I'll just say that I've released my tax returns. That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down,'' he told reporters on the flight to Omaha, Neb., for a rally.

''I've disclosed my income tax returns,'' he said. ''I think we set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure that has been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics.''

There was no immediate comment from Clinton's campaign.

I think he's right.  But if he is, then fairness demands that he answer questions that he'd prefer not to answer.  If he wants Clinton's returns, then we're entitled to hear a clear explanation of why, out of thousands of churches in Chicago, Obama chose one with a radical political agenda.  The press must start peeling back that Teflon.

•  Mike Huckabee is staying in the race on the GOP side, leading to this view that he could play a reckless role, if he carries things too far:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a tremendous long shot for winning the Republican presidential nomination, but he has the potential to undermine Sen. John McCain's general election prospects, as Pat Buchanan did to President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

"If he stays, he might indeed become like Pat Buchanan — not that he'd represent a serious challenge to McCain, but that he'd be seeking to establish himself as a national representative of largely southern evangelicals," said Hoover Institution scholar and former presidential speechwriter Peter Robinson.

My gut feeling is that Huckabee is a shrewd operator, and is looking to the future, unless, through some political blunder by McCain, he's offered the vice presidential slot on McCain's ticket.  But you never know the kind of flattering advice a candidate might get, and you never know when he starts believing it.  Watching Huckabee will be a new political sport, and might have some implications for 2012. 

 
•   The great Claudia Rosett asks some very tough questions about our bizarre negotiatons with North Korea over its nuclear program.  In effect, she asks which side our own State Department is on.  It's a reasonable question considering the softening, and blurring, that Condi Rice has given our foreign policy.  Rosett, in discussing testimony by Christopher Hill, our chief negotiator with North Korea, says: 

Glance down in this link for a video of Hill’s spoken testimony, now posted prominently on the State Department web site. It’s about 23 minutes long, so if you have better things to do than watch the entire performance, the part to catch is the opening statement in which Hill mentions the Dec. 31 deadline missed by North Korea. Except he doesn’t put the blame squarely on North Korea, where it belongs. What he says is: “We have not met that deadline.”

Stop that tape. Who is “we”…?

Later in Hill’s testimony, he does it again. “We are not at all happy that we’ve missed our deadline.”

Right-o, but who is “we” working for?

That’s just a sample of the statements here that start to sound like out-takes from The Manchurian Candidate. There are such stunning moments as Hill’s mention in passing that North Korea needs to improve its human rights record -which is true in spades. But then, presumably lest he offend what is arguably the world’s most brutal regime, Hill adds, in that same spirit of “we” (yes, you, me, America, North Korea, and perhaps any future nation state established on Mars, all of us striving together): “Every country needs to improve its human rights record.” 

For some diplomats, any agreement, any piece of paper, is worthwhile.  The agreement becomes everything, the center of a career.  North Korea has not lived up to its end of the nuclear agreement under which it operates.  There doesn't seem to be much push to make her do so. 

We can only imagine how the Democrats will improve things - not.

•   And we'll have a new movie about Amelia Earhart, the aviatrix who disappeared in 1937 during a flight over the Pacific.  I know none of you can wait.  In the list of high social priorities, a new movie about Earhart must rank near the top.  Given Hollywood's recent track record, I hope we don't see a movie about a vulnerable woman sent on a secret spy mission by BUSH, who was trying to start a war with New Zealand to expand the American empire. 

Come to think of it, that's not a bad story.  I want George Clooney to play Earhart.  It's a stretch, but it's box office.

 •   Finally, there's a story making the rounds about an item called a "dental vacation."  I call it something else.  Please read this and see if the term "personal responsibility" doesn't keep flashing through your mind.  If it doesn't, Howard Dean wants you on the front lines of liberalism.

Posted on February 8, 2008.