Chelsea Clinton is Fair Game for Questioning

(Danville, California)

 

Controversy is mounting over the role of Chelsea Clinton in her mother's campaign and whether or not she should avail herself to questions from the press and public, especially on sensitive, personal matters.

 

You may recall I wrote praisingly about Chelsea during the Wisconsin primary on February 18.(That column is still posted on this blog. Just scroll down!)

 

Her appearance at Beloit College that day was truly remarkable. She took dozens of questions from students, but steadfastly refused to answer questions from the press there and elsewhere.

 

That is just plain wrong! She is an official surrogate for her mother's campaign; and all other surrogates are obligated to speak on behalf of whom they officially endorse and campaign for.

 

Back in New Hampshire, I interrupted Sen. Lindsey Graham while he was eating lunch. He is one of Sen. John McCain's chief surrogates, and it was my only chance to speak with him briefly. He was more than happy to oblige me and even posed for a photo (posted below, on January 6 pt 7, I believe). He wasn't mad at all that I interrupted his meal. Quite honestly, he was more than happy to talk to any reporter he could find.

 

As a surrogate, he's out selling his candidate and by doing so has put himself in the line of fire. And sometimes it's a tough spot. Just ask former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, an outspoken surrogate who got drummed out of the Clinton campaign for her candid remarks. So being a surrogate comes with a lot of responsibility and pressure. It's hardball politics.

 

Which brings me back to Chelsea Clinton. When her dad was elected President, she was just 12. Bill and Hillary Clinton declared her "off limits" to the press, and they were good parents for doing so. I worked in DC in those days and - by and large - the press corps left her alone, as we should. She was a child.

 

Today is a far different "kettle of fish." Chelsea is 27 years old, a graduate of Stanford and, in my opinion, a very confident and impressive young lady. I understand her distaste for the media, but since she's out there in an official campaign capacity, trying to elect the next president, she's fair game for questions.

 

But because she won't talk to reporters, the questions are being peppered by largely college crowds. Last week, she was asked about Monica Lewinsky, the woman with whom her dad had an affair. She refused to answer.

 

Monday at North Carolina State she was asked again by another student about Lewinsky. This time she fired back. "It's none of your business," Chelsea Clinton responded. When the student tried to respond, she cut him off by saying: "Well, sir, I respectfully disagree. I think that is something that is personal to my family. I am sure there are things that are personal to your family, that you don't think are anyone else's business either."

 

It was a fair question (as unseemly as the topic was), and it was a fair answer on her part. Maybe she didn't answer his specific question, but she broke her silence and made a case for her family's privacy.

 

So she's taking baby steps, but she really needs to avail herself to the press, like the other surrogates. She's bright, confident and capable. No one knows Hillary Clinton better than Chelsea.

 

If she gets to ask us to vote for her mom, then at the very least, we get to ask for reasons why. It's in the best traditions of our best amendment, the First Amendment!

 

I have my plane tickets in hand for Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

 

Until then, stay tuned to www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com for the latest from politics.

---

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

Bill Clinton's Voice of Reason

(San Jose, California)

Whether you like him or not, Bill Clinton's voice was one of calm and reason as he addressed the California State Democratic Convention on Sunday. While others view the race between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as a "bloodbath" and a "civil war" within the party, the former President is telling people to lighten up.

"Don't you let anybody tell you that somehow we are weakening the Democratic Party. Chill out! We're going to win this election, if we just chill out and let everyone have their say!" said Clinton. "There is somehow the suggestion that because we are having a vigorous debate about who would be the best president, we are going to weaken this party in the fall," the former President said.

Democrats are gearing up for another long string of primaries beginning April 22 in Pennsylvania; and Mr. Clinton said this is the time for Democrats to showcase their party, not their infighting. "We are a national party, and we want you," he told the crowd in San Jose.

He is right on some accounts. First of all, the Democratic race is the talk of the nation and is making banner headlines. That helps the fundraising for both Obama and Clinton. It has also knocked Sen. John McCain off the front pages. While he is fundraising too, he has also had to produce and air his first TV ad of the general election, since that's about the only way he can get airtime. That's expensive right now, when he would probably like to have waited until August.

So Bill Clinton actually sees an advantage right now in continuing to let the Democrats' debate go on. That's a reasoned approach. Last Friday Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) asked Mrs. Clinton to drop out of the race in the interest of party unity. That is NOT a reasoned approach, considering she still has a chance to win. As I said in a previous column, being a quitter is not the kind of quality we want in a President, be it Democrat or Republican.

Of course the Clinton theory could change. Sunday he was the voice of reason, contrasted to the Bill Clinton who spoke earlier this year in New Hampshire and South Carolina, where he was the voice of division (and to some critics the voice of race baiting). That did not help the party or his wife at all. But now he's toned it down and changed his tune! Classic Clinton.

On Sunday part of Bill Clinton's job was to woo 21 undecided Super Delegates from California to endorse his wife. We'll see in the coming days whether his voice of calm and reason prevailed.

I will be on "live" with Ross McGowan Monday morning on KTVU's "Mornings on Two" at 7:45. Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com.

The Politics of Money Always Smells Funny!

(Danville, California)

Money makes the world go 'round and the world of politics is no exception. It's hard to win if you don't have a fat campaign war chest. Whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, I will leave to others to debate today.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, DC campaign watchdog group, has done an excellent job tracking candidates and donations over the years, and this election is no exception.

In a report released by the McClatchy Newspaper Group's Washington Bureau, the Center found that "who" donated to Democratic Super Delegates had an interesting relationship with whom those delegates are supporting. Many of the Super Delegates are elected party officials, from Members of Congress, down to local County Commissioners.

85% of the Super Delegates who received campaign contributions from Sen. Barack Obama are now pledged to vote for him. In all his campaign gave $710,000.00.


75% of the Super Delegates who received campaign contributions from Sen. Hillary Clinton are now endorsing her. In all her campaign gave $236,000.00.

Now did the money come before the endorsements, or as a consequence of them? Probably some of both, although the newspaper report does not address it. Check www.capitaleye.org/superdelegates.asp for details.

Is this legal? Most of the time it probably is. However, if there was a deal, say "you vote for me and I'll give you money," then it's bribery which is illegal. Will we ever know if deals were made? Probably not.

Do Republicans have similar arrangements? Of course they do! The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of "free speech." Giving money (within limits) is a way of expressing one's political views. And it makes practical sense too. If you are running for President, you want as many people as possible from your own party elected to Congress so they can pass your bills.

So it's part of our system. Undoubtedly some deals are made that break the law or violate certain ethical standards. Sometimes as in the "ABSCAM" case, Members of Congress are caught and sent to prison.

Even if it's legal and even if it's ethical, it still smells bad. First of all, it implies favoritism whether there is any or not. We are always left to wonder and that spells political mistrust. Second, it's a function of who can give or take money. Those who are not in the position to give become voiceless. Who represents them and their interests?

Sen. John McCain (D-AZ) along with with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) have been the champions of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Where are their voices on this, especially the GOP nominee, who a year ago had a campaign that was broke.

The Center for Responsive Politics has been doing fascinating studies on the influence of money in politics for many years. It is to be commended for another fine (if not disturbing) report.

Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

(Moraga, California)

The heat is on!

No not here in California, where it's rainy, chilly and in the 30s.

The heat is on Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race. The latest volley comes from Sen. Patrick Leahy. He told the Associated Press that Clinton was never going to win enough delegates and he suggested she should throw in the towel in "the interests of a Democratic victory in November."

Clinton e-mailed her supporters saying she will not quit:

"Have you noticed the pattern?" Clinton said. "Every time our campaign demonstrates its strength and resilience, people start to suggest we should end our pursuit of the Democratic nomination. Those anxious to force us to the sidelines aren't doing it because they think we're going to lose the upcoming primaries. The fact is, they're reading the same polls we are, and they know we are in a position to win."

And she should NOT quit, yet!

With two big primaries to go (Pennsylvania and North Carolina), and a bunch of smaller ones (Oregon, Indiana, West Virginia, et. al.), it would be foolish to drop out. Would you quit the Indianapolis 500, with ten laps to go and a half a tank of gas, just because you are in second place? Of course not!

Being a quitter is not exactly the quality we want in a President, regardless of party.

People make the argument that she cannot win even if she wins all the remaining primaries and that is true. And they argue Barack Obama will still have the most popular votes, the most primary wins and the most regular delegates.

But that's not how the system works.

She can still win on the "Super Delegates." Whether that is fair or not, is not the point. It's how the system works. The best analogy is the 2000 election. People still gripe that Al Gore had the most popular votes and he did! But the Constitution and election laws provide for the Electoral College, and the winner of that count becomes President.

Is that fair? I'm not sure! Is it the rule of law? Yes, and that's what we live by.

So the "Super Delegate" issue is a mess and I think the Democrats should dump it for future elections. But, this is the set of rules we play by NOW! Once this election is over, fix the rules.

Hillary Clinton should stay in the race even if it goes to a brokered convention.

I will be reporting from the Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Oregon primaries and perhaps more if need be. Check back often at http://www.markcurtismedia.blogspot.com/.

---

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

How Do Democrats Handle Florida and Michigan?

(Plantation, Florida)

I have been reporting from South Florida all week, but I must confess that I still have no better idea what is going to happen to Florida's Democratic convention delegates. The state party is against holding another primary, as is Michigan's, so another way to count the delegates must be found.

You'll recall that both states jumped the gun and held primaries before the national Democratic party's designated date. In return the results in Florida and Michigan have not been recognized.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has been pushing hard for a resolution, since she has little chance of winning without these two states. Barack Obama's campaign wants "redo" primaries in both states, since he was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

The big danger for all Democrats is that the national party so angers voters in Florida and Michigan that they lose the November election. As former President Bill Clinton has said, "It's hard to imagine Democrats winning in November without winning Michigan, and it's hard to imagine the Democrats losing in November if they win Florida." Like him or not, the man knows how to read the electoral map.

Option A: Don't seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at all. The result: McCain wins in November.

Option B: Redo the primaries. Result: Doubtful the states will reconsider saying no to this.

Option C: Seat the delegations based on the ill-gotten primary results. In Florida the result was Clinton 49.7%; Obama 33%; Edwards 15%. In Michigan it was Clinton 55%; Uncommitted 40%. One idea is to just give Obama 40% of those uncommitted delegates. The result: Obama's delegate lead shrinks to about 110 as we head into Pennsylvania on April 22.

So Option C best benefits Hillary Clinton, because it narrows the Obama delegate lead, and she can conceivably catch him with the "Super Delegates." But, option C also benefits Obama if he is the nominee. It ensures that Democrats in Michigan and Florida will come back to vote in November.

If the Democrats drop the ball on this primary mess, it will be a "one-two" punch (along with the "Super Delegate" fiasco), that ensures John McCain will be hearing "Hail to the Chief" for at least the next four years.

Friday it's back to California. Check in often at http://www.markcurtismedia.blogspot.com/

A Footnote!

(Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

We've all said things we later wished we wouldn't have said. The same goes for writers, sometimes wishing they could take a column back.

In some respects, when I wrote my Easter Sunday column on the "most inspiring politician of 2008," I "wish I'd known then, what I know now."

The recent revelations that Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) and his wife both had affairs and that he used cocaine in his 20s are hardly qualities that many would find admirable.

To be fair, everyone I wrote about, from Hillary Clinton, to John McCain, to Barack Obama has their share of "personal baggage" in their lives.

What I was trying to make a point of in the column, was something each has done in their careers that was inspiring and all of them have done so. The article was about a "most inspiring political accomplishment." It was not for "most virtuous person of the year!"

As we have all seen this year, electing a president is a flawed process. Finding a candidate without personal flaws may be the only thing more difficult.

Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

OUCH!!!! Can It Get Any Nastier Than This?

(Fort Lauderdale, Florida)



If the last two Democratic candidates for President wish to "kiss and make-up" they'd better hurry. In fact this may require a quick trip to Reno, "shotgun marriage" and all. Either that, or their hopes of a so-called "dream ticket" are toast.



The latest volley came Easter Sunday, two days after former presidential candidate and two-time Clinton cabinet member Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. Longtime Clinton strategist James Carville, described it in Biblical terms:



"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Carville said.



OUCH!!!!



Sen. Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson said he would apologize, but since he didn't say it, he has no plans to retract or apologize for the Carville comments!



Double OUCH!!!



So can the Democrats survive this type of fight, and "marry" in time for November? It gets harder as each day (and each nasty comment) goes flying by!



In truth, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson despised each other, but their "shotgun wedding" worked in 1960. And remember George H.W. Bush referring to the Reagan tax cut plan in 1980 as "voodoo economics?" But they eventually got "hitched" for one of the greatest Presidencies in American history.



But in 1960 and 1980, most of the barbs were political. The latest volleys between the Clinton and Obama camps are downright personal. That is a bit harder to overcome!



Not to be lost in all this, was the speech by Hillary Clinton talking about arriving in Bosnia years ago, to sniper fire. Archived news footage from the day shows nothing of the kind. Triple OUCH!!!



Clinton's spokesman now says she "misspoke" and was referring to a different event on that same trip. Whatever the case, it hurts her credibility when she claims greater experience than Obama in dealing with foreign affairs.



As for John McCain, he's able to stay out of the fight and above the fray. He's traveled to Iraq, Great Britain and other world spots, looking "presidential." That has helped him, even as he "misspoke" about Iran (Shiites) training Al-Qaeda (Sunnis), something most experts find highly improbable.



His comments paled in comparison to the Democratic infighting and might quickly be forgotten. But they could reappear in a campaign ad this fall.



Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton have probably learned a very important lesson this week. Be careful what you say on camera, as it can live forever on videotape.



I am reporting on the campaign all this week from Florida, where no one really knows what will happen to this state's Democratic delegates. OUCH, again!!!!!



Check back often at http://www.markcurtismedia.blogspot.com/

Obama Support Narrows; Nomination Up For Grabs

(Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

Barack Obama's once commanding lead in the Democratic Presidential polls has weakened in the past couple of weeks. In fact, Obama's national approval rating dropped 10 points from 57% to 47%, according to a poll aired on CNN.

Why has this happened so late in the campaign?

Perhaps as the final decision nears, people re-think their votes. Can this person really serve as President? The "3 a.m. White House Phone Call" ad for Hillary Clinton really struck a nerve in Texas and Ohio, the last two big primaries. In fact she may have at least won Texas, because of it. Obama's two years experience in the U.S. Senate is indeed raising doubts about his readiness to be President.

The controversy over his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has hurt Obama as well. A lot of people wonder "How could he hear these controversial statements, and not distance himself sooner?" It wasn't like this was some out-of-town preacher who endorses, then embarrasses a candidate by saying something hurtful or illogical. This was his own pastor!

Both issues may fade, but since Hillary Clinton is strongly favored to win the big Pennsylvania primary on April 22, there will be a tidal wave of media proclaiming a sea change in momentum from Obama to Clinton. That could have a big influence on all those undecided "Super Delegates."

I'll be reporting from Florida all week! Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot,com

Most Inspiring Political Story of the Year

(Plantation, Florida)

Since it's Easter weekend, I thought I would dedicate my Sunday column to what I feel is the most inspiring political story of the year. Through all the cynicism of politics there are some great stories out there, especially in this year's presidential race.

Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not, (and there are plenty of both), there is inspiration in her story for many of us. Even if she does not win the nomination, the seriousness of her campaign says a woman can now compete for and win the highest office in the land. To our mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters, that is a powerful message. Just as Sandra Day O'Connor broke the glass ceiling at the Supreme Court, Sen. Clinton has done the same for women seeking to be President, whether she makes it or not. The campaign itself was groundbreaking.

John McCain has an inspiring tale for us, too. A year ago many polls and pundits had him in dead last place. Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, (and there are plenty of both), McCain certainly showed guts by backing an unpopular President and his troop surge. Even many critics now agree the surge is working. McCain, a dark horse, is now the GOP nominee. Perhaps it was the courage from his 5 1/2 years as a POW in Vietnam that is the basis for his political backbone. Even without his modern political heroics, McCain's tale of military survival will be inspiring till the end of time, whether he becomes President or not.

Certainly when people talk of inspiration this year, the name Barack Obama is on the list, too. A year ago, many said Obama could be a viable presidential candidate "some day, but not now." A year later he's on the verge of being the first black, multi-racial American to be nominated. His stirring speeches about hope and unity have at times driven his supporters into frenzy. His story of a white mother and a black father,and growing up in racially divisive America is inspiring, too. Whether you like Obama or not, (and there are plenty of both), his improbable rise to the top of American politics is inspiring, even if he doesn't become President. Millions of minority kids can now say "I can have that dream too! The pursuit of the White House is mine, if I want it!"

So which is my choice for the MOST inspiring story of the year in politics? None of the above!

Instead, my choice is Gov. David Paterson (D-NY). Be honest now, did anyone know who he was two weeks ago? I'm a political junkie and I never heard of him. I do this for a living, and he wasn't even on my radar screen.

But the hooker scandal that leveled now former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has brought Paterson to power. Spitzer, who certainly would have been a viable presidential candidate from 2012 through at least 2028, will now be nothing more than an obscure question in future versions of "Trivial Pursuit."

Paterson, on the other hand, is a great story of inspiration. Yes, he's the first black Governor of New York, but not in the nation. African-Americans now have a significant seat at the table of American politics, so that's not the most inspiring thing about him.

What is most inspiring is the fact that he is legally blind. The disabled are still shunned in many quarters of this nation. In fact over 70% of disabled adults are unemployed, even though many want to work and are able. So for a blind man to rise to the top job in one of our largest states is truly inspiring.

Now, he's not the first in this category. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was also once the Governor of New York, and he was disabled, too. But in his days there and in the White House, he was rarely-- if ever- depicted in his wheelchair. In fact, the people who designed the FDR memorial in Washington, DC, did not show him in a wheelchair, until activists for the disabled spoke up loudly.

That was just a few years ago! So we've come to the point in American politics where you can win if you're black and you can win if you're a woman, but we still try to hide those with disabilities.

Not any more! What FDR and Sens. Dan Inouye, Bob Dole and Max Cleland did for those disabled by war, David Paterson has now done for the blind.

You see, he and others might argue the term "disabled" to begin with. Yes, they are challenged by a physical issue, and maybe even impaired, but they are not handicapped or disabled.

To the thousands of people who read their newspapers in braille, Gov. David Paterson is the most inspiring American political story of 2008.

It's a wonderful story any day, but particularly meaningful this Easter season!

I'll be covering politics in Florida all week. Check back at http://www.markcurtismedia.blogspot.com/

---

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

Richardson Does NOT want to be VP!

(Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

In a strange political twist, Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) has made a late endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for President. Richardson, was thought to be on a short list of VP choices for Sen. Hillary Clinton is now "toast" for the number 2 spot. Here's why:

Well if Clinton somehow wrestles the nomination from Obama (and she certainly could), Richardson's betrayal will get him no where. Clinton won't pick the one-time close friend of her husband to be VP. That spot will almost certainly go to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

Democrats can win the White House without winning New Mexico; but the probably cannot win the Presidency without Ohio!

Still the endorsement was odd, and so was the timing. Clinton has done very well with Latino voters (Richardson is Hispanic), but it's a little too late in the game for that influence to help Obama. Six weeks ago it might have delivered the knockout punch to Clinton. Today it makes news, simply because nothing else is going on.

So who will Obama pick for VP, if he wins the nomination? I still say he at least offers it to Clinton, and she'd be foolish not to take it.

What does Bill Richardson get? Well he was once U.N. Ambassador and he often served as a "roving" international trouble shooter when he was in the House (even though some Presidents resented it). And he's a graduate of Tufts University, which has perhaps the best school for foreign service around.

I bet you a couple of chocolate Easter eggs, that Richardson will be named Secretary of State, if Obama wins the White House! You heard it here first!

I will be reporting from Florida all week. Check in often at www.MarfkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

The Role of Religion in Politics

(Danville, California)

In a week where there has been a big upheaval over Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, and to a lesser degree controversy over pastors who support Sen. John McCain, it's probably time to talk about the role of religion in American politics.

Perhaps lost in all the debate is the coincidence that this is Holy Week, leading up to Easter, certainly equal in importance to Christmas week on the Christian calendar.

There are those who feel religion should play a central role in public life, i.e. allowing prayer in school. And then there are those who feel there should be no reference to God in the public square, i.e. remove "In God We Trust" from our coins.

In the modern debate, it has always been whether to include or exclude religion from public policy. The country was indeed founded on the merits of the two contradictions. Many people came here seeking religious freedom, and freedom from oppression of monarchies in Europe. At the same time, people came here making it clear they wanted no state religion. To some that means no religion at all, in the town square.

I thought about the irony of that this week, as I watched Barack Obama make his eloquent address about racial issues in American, but also about his controversial Pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The fact that Obama is a hair's breath away from winning the White House is historic, in that he would be the first African-American (in truth the first bi-racial President, as his mother was white). The point is, that Obama would not be where he is today, if not for his religion. Follow me along in this argument!

Remember that big debate between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton this year, over who was more crucial to the Civil Rights movement, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., or President Lyndon Johnson. The true answer is BOTH! If we truly have a separation of church versus state in this country, and both remain influential, then many times you can only succeed by working both sides of the aisle. King was the church, Johnson the state. One could not succeed without the other.

The key to the Civil Rights movement's success was the church. If not for the fervor (and the organizational skills of the black Baptist, AME and Catholic Churches, the movement would have collapsed.) King drove the movement from the pulpit, to the street and ultimately into the hearts of opponents. Why did he succeed?
Black America listened to a man who drew his reason from passages in the Bible, as well as the Constitution. Much of white America, which read the same Bible and Constitution, could not refute the passion or the arguments. But it's one thing to convince people to be on your side from a moral standpoint and quite another to get them to agree from a legal stand point. Enter President Lyndon Johnson.

For all his failings and mistakes, the Civil Rights movement may have been Johnson's stroke of genius. And as a Southerner (or near Southerner, as many don't consider Texas "the South"), he was able to persuade many white Southern politicians in Congress, it was time to support the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Johnson was an astute politician who saw the tidal wave on race relations as unstoppable. The recorded phone calls between him and Sen. John Sparkman (D-AL) that were made public a few years ago, are just as stark and raw and as gut level as politics gets. It was as if LBJ hired Bob Dylan to sing "The Times They are a Changin'" to those who needed final persuasion.

So MLK won the moral argument from the pulpit to the street, but it was LBJ who had to change the law, from the courtroom gavel to the floor of Congress.

People can argue for the "separation of church and state" all they want, but sometimes they are liked conjoined twins: two separate bodies, but joined at the vital organs. Over the years I have had the chance to interview Sen. John McCain and his fellow POWs in Vietnam, about how they survived. The answer was two-fold: an undying faith that their government would come rescue them, and the daily prayers they said together because their faith in God was all they had to hold them together in hope. It's a powerful combination in the face of despair!

As we celebrate the historic and miraculous Resurrection of Jesus Christ this week, it is important to remember, that church and state remain indelibly intertwined, no matter what certain court decisions say; its hard for one to grow and thrive, without the other. This country would never be what it is, without the good forces of both.

I will be reporting from Florida during Easter season, as the political future of that state's delegates remains in the balance. Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch AOL.

Obama's Future May Depend on Preacher

(Danville, California)

 

If people were looking for a reason not to like Sen. Barack Obama or a reason not to vote for him, they surely found it in Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama's flame throwing pastor and his caustic language on race relations have really stirred up a hornet's nest. The fact that so many of the comments were aimed at the Clintons (heretofore huge allies to the black community), is downright bizarre.

 

But politics is a strange, unpredictable and in many cases unforgiving business. Obama likely came to Philadelphia today looking for some forgiveness and redemption, even though Rev. Wright spoke the angry words and not Obama.

 

That Obama and his campaign did not see this day coming, is just plain politically naive. If you run for office, especially president, someone is going to look in every closet and under every rug in your house. Back in 2000, George W. Bush's worst fear was probably "I hope no one finds out about my DUI in Maine." Two days before the vote, it was made public.

 

I just bet at some point in time, while sitting in a pew at church, Obama thought "I hope the press never finds out about what this preacher is saying!" Now I give him the benefit of the doubt, that he was probably not at some of the real controversial sermons. But it is his preacher, and people talk to each other about church, especially if it's stirring: "Wow, did you hear what Rev. Squawkbox said last Sunday?"  The Obama campaign should have known this was a time bomb, waiting to go off, and it now has.

 

Is the damage permanent? I doubt it. The "shelf life" of news stories in this country is about as long as for a loaf of bread. Last week we spoke of Eliot Spitzer. Next week we'll be saying Eliot who?

 

So how effective was Obama today? The first big test will be the Pennsylvania primary April 22. If he loses by a smiliar margin as he lost to Hillary Clinton in the "twin sister" state of Ohio, he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if there is enormous movement away from some of his key constituencies, then Hillary Clinton has a big opening among the uncommitted Super Delegates who may decide the race. Obama, despite all the talk of racial divisions, has won among white males this year on the Democratic side. Some of that is disdain for Clinton, but much of it is from Obama's charismatic appeal. He can really stir a crowd like no one else in this race, on either side of the aisle.

 

Today, he was different. He was serious, sober, measured and all business. I've been to several Obama speeches and have never seen him appear this contrite, if not downright worried. This was not a day for fiery rhetoric and the "call" and "response" of a black Baptist Church sermon. That he did it in Philadelphia was smart, especially uttering classic lines about "we the people in order to form a more perfect union..."

 

He reached back into his own unique story about having a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, and recycled maybe the best line of his campaign this year: "And for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible," Obama said.

 

He refused to abandon his friend Rev. Wright, just as he said he refused to abandon his white grandmother who said things he considered racially insensitive when he was a child. "These people are part of me and they are part of America, the country I love." But he did condemn Wright's remarks calling some of them "comments that are simply inexcusable." And he added that "they expressed a profoundly distorted view of America."

 

Will he survive this? Only the voters know that! Can he survive this? Sure, just as Bill Clinton survived  Gennifer Flowers's claims and George W. Bush survived the late DUI report. John McCain was recently lambasted for standing with, and being endorsed by an anti-gay minister in Texas. It was a hot story for a couple days, but has long since faded.

 

Timing helps too. It's better for Obama that the Rev. Wright surfaced now, instead of say October 15. So, we shall see. It will also be interesting to see how many times Obama attends the Rev. Wright's church, between now and election day!

 

I will be in Philadelphia covering the Pennsylvania primary in late April. Until then, keep tuning to www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com.

---

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

Time for....Equal Time!

(Danville, California)

 

OK, last week I blasted the Democrats for this bizarre concoction of "Super Delegates" and how it potentially undermines the will of the people.
The GOP has no such delegates. But lest you think I believe the Republican system is without flaws, guess again.

 

At least Democrats have proportional voting. If a candidates gets 55% of the popular vote, generally speaking they get 55% of the delegates (not counting the unelected "Super Delegates, which can skew the whole thing).

 

But Republicans have something equally as bizarre and undemocratic. Its called the "Winner Take All" primary system.
John McCain used it for a sustained knock out punch. Without it, we might still have a "barn burner" of a race like the Democrats. The fact that we don't is kind of sad.

 

For example, 13 states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico have a winner take all system for Republicans. That meant 637 delegates for McCain, even in some races that we squeakers! Kansas was the only "winner take all" state Mike Huckabee won for 36 delegates. Mitt Romney did not win any of these states.

 

If McCain's votes had been handed out proportionally, Huckabee and Romney would likely still be in this contest and McCain would still be about 350 votes short of the nomination.
For example, Florida awarded all 57 delegates to McCain, even though the results on election night were McCain 36%, Romney 31% and Rudy Giuliani 15% (he might still be in too).

 

In Missouri its even more stark: McCain 33%, Huckabee 31.5% and Romney 29.3%. But based on a very narrow win, McCain took home all 58 Missouri delegates.

 

So both parties are guilty of a shoddy process. Democrats violate the "will of the people" while Republicans have a system that essentially violates the principle of "one person, one vote."

 

To many outside observers, it gives the impression that the system is "fixed" especially in favor of those currently holding power who make these silly rules. Turnoff affects turnout! No wonder voter turnout is often under 50%

 

Here's hoping both major parties fix their broken, unfair rules!

 

Tuesday Barack Obama is scheduled to give a speech in Philadelphia regarding race relations. In it he may talk about his controversial Pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I'll have some commentary on that tomorrow.

 

Check in at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

 

 

 

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

A Political Junkie's Worst Nightmare

(Moraga, California)

 

Politics are like a drug and I am an addict. They call it being a "political junkie." I am one. So this is a tough time of year. We are now 5 1/2 weeks between primaries. The longest stretch without a vote this year. Of course this week, we've had the scandal involving now former Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) and the fiery, caustic sermons of Barack Obama's preacher to keep us busy.

 

Still, it's not the same as waiting for primary returns to come in. And the high drama of the Democratic campaign, is still the year's top political story.

 

Despite the week's two scandals, the number one question people keep asking is: "Who do you think is going to win?"

 

So here is the latest from Real Clear Politics, even though we are still weeks (if not months) away from the next primary drama:

 

Pennsylvania April 22, 188 delegates. Clinton 52%;  Obama 36%;  Undecided 12%.

 

Pennsylvania represents the best chance for Hillary Clinton to make another comeback, as she did last week. Pennsylvania is very much like Ohio, a heavily unionized industrial state with high unemployment and high resentment over the NAFTA trade deal. Expect Clinton to hit Obama hard on that.

 

Tip: Clinton will face increasing questions about how she can claim a victory in the nomination process through Super Delegates, even though Obama has more primary wins, more regular delegates and more popular votes. It's the "will of the people" issue.

 

North Carolina  May 6, 134 delegates  Obama: 47%; Clinton: 39%  Undecided:   14%.

 

Obama has done very well and not just among black voters. His message of hope and optimism and a unified country has played well to mixed electorates in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and elsewhere in the South. A big boost in North Carolina could help him fare far better in the Florida "re-do" primary, whenever that happens.

 

Tip: Obama will continue to face questions about his minister and other backers. His relatively thin legislative record will come under greater scrutiny. He'll also face more pressure about how he'll answer those 3 a.m. White House crisis phone calls. 

 

As for John McCain. Time to fundraise, fundraise, fundraise, but to dance carefully as a campaign finance reformer. It's a tough trick!

 

There will be plenty to keep us all busy until April 22 in Pennsylvania! I'll have lots to say about it all.

 

Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

 

 

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Whom Should McCain Pick for VP?

AOL News is running an interesting poll today on whom John McCain should pick to be his running mate. According to the survey 71% of respondents think the VP pick is "very" important to them. Cynics say only the top of the ticket really counts, but this shows otherwise. And with talk of an Obama-Clinton ticket or a Clinton-Obama ticket, the VP interest is at an all-time high.

But the AOL survey was interesting because it offered a choice between four white men for McCain to chose from. My instincts tell me otherwise, that there will be tremendous pressure on the GOP nominee to do something more unusual to try to match or counter the Democrat's ticket.

Even so, the AOL poll opens the discussion. The four choices it listed are former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA); former Gov, Mike Huckabee (R-AR); former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN); and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY). All are intriguing, but some are more plausible than others. I will evaluate each:

ROMNEY: Assets: Brings big business and economic experience that McCain does not have; was a state chief executive; Olympic experience is impressive; and he's young. Drawbacks: he bombed in the primaries; can he win his own state of Massachusetts?; What other states can he help win for McCain? (My Rating: B+)

HUCKABEE: Assets: He can help solidify the "solid South" since he won most primaries there; he has chief executive experience; he's much younger than McCain; he has an inspiring story to match Obama. Drawbacks: Critics don't like that he was a Baptist minister; he has no foreign policy experience; does he help anywhere outside the South? (My Rating: C+)

THOMPSON: Assets: Telegenic, most people love him as an actor; solid conservative, who can carry the "solid South"; strong background as a Senate lawyer and a Senator; Drawbacks: weak, lifeless campaigner. His primary run was awful; Most people only know him as an actor; can "two old White guys" run on the same ticket? (My Rating D)

GIULIANI: Assets: Still America's Mayor, the man can lead under pressure; tough prosecutor, so he helps the GOP "tough on crime" message; he potentially carries NY state; Drawbacks: His campaign was a disaster. Can he get better?; He and McCain are moderates. Will the "right wing" support them? Can he overcome his personal "baggage". Even his son backed another candidate. (My Rating: C)

So no one here blows people away. There is no talk of a GOP "dream ticket" like the Democrats are discussing. Maybe a good, solid, straight forward "McCain-Romney" ticket can beat back the "star talk." Maybe not.

I still doubt the Obama-Clinton pairing, but nonetheless it does put pressure on the GOP to think differently. Here are some other options:

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON - (R-TX): Tough, smart, savvy Texas pol who has already announced she is retiring in 2010. But Texas should go GOP with or without her.

SEN. ELIZABETH DOLE - (R-NC): Could help secure the "solid South." She has deep DC experience having held two Cabinet posts and presidency of the Red Cross. Probably the most qualified woman in America to be President. But many in GOP blame her for loss of control in the Senate when she ran the campaign committee 2 years ago. She's also the same age as John McCain. Still, her name is not being floated much. Expect that to change with heavy pressure from her husband.

SEC. OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: She's as smart as they come, Ph.D. and all. But many blame her as much as Bush and Cheney for Iraq, so will voters hold that against her? She's also single, which shouldn't matter. But voters like to see a family standing on stage. Fair or not, that's a reality in American politics.

So what do you think? Does McCain stay with tradition and pick the best man out there. Or does he do something different, such as picking a woman?

Tell me your opinion. Just click on the "comments" box on any post at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

Mark Curtis' TV Talk Back With KTVU

Be Original in Politics and in Political Coverage

(San Ramon, California)

 

Is this becoming the year for plagiarism or what? Is this becoming the year for plagiarism or what?

 

No you aren't seeing double. What you are seeing is a disturbing trend among the politicians and the media this year: The "copy cat" syndrome.

 

I was on the tread mill at my gym Tuesday, watching the latest political coverage on MSNBC, when the anchorwoman suddenly announced, "MSNBC, the best political team in the business!"  I just about vomited!

 

What????  CNN has been branding itself the "The Best Political Team on TV." And on more than one occasion I have heard the anchors on Fox News Channel, say something to the effect of: "Fox News Channel, the Best Political team in........." You know the rest!

 

Of course, if we want to lay blame this year, we can always say the candidates started it. Remember back in Iowa, when Barrack Obama and Mike Huckabee won as the "candidates for change"  All of a sudden just about every candidate out there became the "pilot of change," "the change agent," "change you can count on," "the candidate who changed his underwear!"

 

OK, they didn't go that far, but almost!

 

My point is, doesn't anyone want to be original anymore? Why try a potentially failing new theme, when you can steal someone else's tried and true phrase? The TV networks are just as guilty as the candidates. Whatever happened to great books on writing, such as "The Elements of Style" or "Creative Writing" handbooks. Every newsroom and newsperson should own them!

 

The problem is the public doesn't like copycats (or thieves!). Remember that theme McDonald's made famous so many years ago, "You Deserve a Break Today?"  What if Burger King had also used that line? It would have been sued for copyright infringement and the ploy would have been scoffed at by the public.

 

The trick in marketing is to be original, or to counter punch, but not to imitate. Define yourself; don't steal your identity! Back to my food analogy, remember when McDonald's introduced the Big Mac, Burger King countered with the "Whopper!" and then said, "have it your way!" BOTH products and marketing campaigns were wildly successful. Had Burger King simply copied the "double-decker" burger and called it the "Big King" it likely would have bombed. So be daring, be different, be original, even at the risk of failure!

 

In the world of politics, no one bought the "change" mantle when it was hung on anyone else but Obama on the Democratic side. On the GOP side, it worked for awhile with Huckabee, but wore off when he looked less electable than the "maverick" McCain. Critics would say McCain is a long-time Washington insider, who hardly seems a change agent. But the "maverick" label proves that "what's old, is new again."

 

Anyway, let the politicians call themselves what they want. Truth in advertising should weed the field.

 

As for the media, they should know better. They are writers with an eye out for the new and different, not the "same old, same old." It is supposed to be a creative profession!

 

Yet the reports (and promo lines) are filled with tired cliches, weak analysis (Red state vs. Blue state) and  inane questions. Yesterday an MSNBC anchor asked Congressman Peter King (R-NY) the following question, which I am paraphrasing: "Congressman, how long will the bad taste of the Spitzer sex scandal, remain in the mouths of New Yorkers?"  I kid you not!  That was the insightful question on a huge political development!

 

So you can criticize the candidates all you want for stealing each others' lines, but let's hope the level of originality rises in the media coverage.

Speaking of which, hats off to Jeanne Moos of CNN for some wonderful and wicked reporting on the "Hillary Clinton 3 a.m. Phone Call" campaign ad. FUNNY stuff! Now I'm just wondering if I'll see the SAME story pirated, pilfered and re-packaged on Fox or MSNBC.

 

Check in often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

Check in often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com.

 

 

 

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Obama Wins Mississippi; Widens Delegate Lead

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) won his second straight Democratic contest, by taking the Mississippi primary tonight. It was a near landslide with Obama at 59% and 39% for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

 

The state has 33 delegates, 17 of which went to Obama and 11 for Clinton, with the rest still being decided.

But after a win in the Wyoming Caucus on Saturday, and tonight's victory, Obama has expanded his lead by another 8 delegates. Not counting "Super Delegates," Obama leads Clinton by about 130 delegates nationwide.

 

With only a handful of primaries left, neither candidate may have the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination. That could mean a brokered convention this August in Denver.

 

In a footnote from last weeks Texas primary, which Clinton won, it was announced today that Obama actually won the Texas caucus that occurred right after the primary. It was called the "Texas Two-Step" and for all the clamoring of a Clinton win in Texas, Obama winds up with the most delegates there, even though she won the primary. It's a weird system!

 

Next stop on the primary trail is Pennsylvania, in six weeks!

 

Wednesday morning I will be "live" from San Francisco talking with Ross McGowan on KTVU's "Mornings on Two." Tune in at 7:45.

 

Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

 

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Polls Open in Mississippi; Obama Comeback Looms

Polls are open in Mississippi today as Democrats wage their latest primary. This could mark another big comeback day for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). After getting beaten badly in 3 out of 4 primaries last week (after winning 11 straight), Obama is on the verge of another winning streak, albeit a short one.

 

Obama beat Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in last Saturday's Wyoming caucuses. The latest polls in Mississippi have it Obama 58% to Clinton 34% with 8% uncommitted or undecided. Two wins in a row and a net gain in delegates could really boost Obama. There is not another primary or caucus until Pennsylvania on April 22.

 

Check back later for Mississippi results.

 

Thanks for being a loyal viewer of www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com.

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Mississippi Vote Looms; So Does The Politics of Fairness and Race

(Danville, California)

 

Next stop on he presidential campaign trail is Tuesday in Mississippi, with 33 Democratic delegates on the table. It is fascinating that in the Deep South this year, Barack Obama has done exceedingly well. But a lot has changed since the Civil Rights era of the 1960s.

 

Who'd have thought a Black man would be winning Southern primaries 40 years later, and Northern primaries too for that matter. That Obama can win South Carolina, which is racially mixed, and Iowa, which is predominately White says that most American's are far minded people these days. He's leading in votes among White men, and giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money with all female voters, and beats her in most other demographic groups.

 

Why is that? The answer appears simple. People want to vote for the person they believe is the best candidate, regardless of gender and skin color. It's truly a remarkable transformation in American society, in all corners of this country!

 

So if race and gender aren't big issues anymore, then why do I bring them up? Well, because they could resurface again. At their core, American's debates and struggles with race and gender issues have been about fairness and equal opportunity, the core of our Constitution.

 

What Democrats are facing is the possibility that one candidate may get the most popular votes, but that another candidate receives the most convention delegates. This could happen though un-elected "Super Delegates" or "re-dos" of primaries that were already held.

 

The possible results are ironic, given all the Democratic posturing in 2000 about Al Gore winning the popular vote, but George W. Bush winning the Electoral College (which is what counts). Now the Democrats are facing the same kind of system they attacked (which they re-created within their own party).

 

So what to do? Well, the system is potentially even more volatile. For example, Barack Obama could win the most popular votes; he could win the most primaries and caucuses; and he could lead the national delegate count at the end of the formal primary season.

 

Despite all that he could lose the nomination to Hillary Clinton if Super Delegates and Michigan and Florida "do overs" go her way.

 

That could lead to a Democratic backlash. Black voters (and many White, Latino, Asian, etc. Obama supporters) are bound to cry foul and say the nomination was stolen. The question becomes, will disenfranchised voters return to the fold and support the Democratic nominee (or select-ee) in November?

 

Some might, but many, particularly Blacks may not. Keep in mind that African Americans represent just 10% of the U.S. population, but they vote 92% for Democrats. They are put of the party's core base. So they aren't likely to go running to GOP nominee Sen. John McCain. Instead many disenfranchised African-American voters, feeling the nomination was stolen, may simply stay home. If they do, President McCain may be what the Democratic Party gets for creating such a fractured process.

 

Check back Tuesday, as we will post pictures and results from the Mississippi primary at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com.

 

 

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

What to Do WIth Florida and Michigan?

(Danville, California)

 

What a treat it is to be sitting at home this Sunday, after being on the campaign trail most of the year. It's sunny, clear and in the 70s in Northern California. What's not so sunny and clear this weekend is what to do with the primary votes for Democrats in Florida and Michigan.

 

Both states were penalized when they disobeyed the orders of the Democratic National Committee and moved their primaries up ahead of February 5 "Super Tuesday."

 

There are a few options out there, but none with unanimous appeal.
Delegates could be apportioned according to the votes already held, but Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will never go for that, since he was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

 

Option two is a "do-over" primary, either with people going to the polls, or having mail-in ballots. But who pays the bill? Michigan is estimating another primary will cost $8 million, and Florida's governor says his state would have to pay $22 million. Should taxpayers (including Republicans and Independents) be stuck with that bill. Or should the state and national democratic party be forced to pay? National Democrats warned the state parties there would be consequences for breaking the rules. Multiple lawsuits could be coming.

 

It's quite possible the person with the most popular votes, will NOT have the most delegates. Does this sound familiar?

 

Option three would be to not recognize the delegations from either state. But Democrats need those votes in November and an angry backlash could put John McCain (R-AZ) in the White House

 

Michigan has a Democratic governor, Florida a Republican. But in an act of bipartisanship, they issued a joint statement, asking that their delegates be seated:

 

From Govs. Charlie Crist of R-Florida and Jennifer Granholm of D-Michigan:

"The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right, and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence the voices of 5,163,271 Americans. It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective national conventions."

So I am curious what our readers think. At the end of each blog entry, there is a space for people to write in their comments. Tel me what you think we should do with Michigan and Florida, by clicking on the comments page below!

Thanks for choosing www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Barrack Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses

Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL) got a much needed comeback win in the Wyoming Caucuses today.

After a tough Tuesday where he lost 3 of 4 primaries, Obama beat Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) today, 59% to 41%. Wyoming only has 12 delegates with 7 likely going for Obama and 5 for Clinton.

As with every other state, there was a record voter turnout in Wyoming.

Obama leads in overall delegates, 1,571-1,462, but Clinton has the edge with superdelegates — the party and leaders — 242-210. A total of 2,025 delegates is needed to be nominated. The next primary is Tuesday in Mississippi where 33 delegates are on the line.
Stay tuned to www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com for the very latest!

Who'd Have Thought? Wyoming and Mississippi Matter!

(Danville, California)

 

The other night in Dallas I was joking with my old friend Carl Camerom from Fox News Channel. He laughed when I asked if he had his plane tickets book for Wyoming this weekend. "I never though the Mississippi Primary would loom so large," I joked back to him.

 

But it's not laughing matter. Two of the traditional "also rans" of the primary season, all of a sudden mean something (though they can't put either Clinton or Obama over the top!).

 

Still there is a lot of interest, where there normally would have been zero. And they keep the candidates on the front page, no matter how few delegates are actually on the line.

 

Saturday they vote in Wyoming, with just 12 delegates at stake. Pollsters put Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the lead.

 

Tuesday they vote in Mississippi, with 33 delegates at stake. Political watchers put Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) in the lead. Both states distribute delegates on a proportional basis, so the margins may not change much!

 

According to Real Clear Politics, the national count including Super Delegates is:

 

OBAMA:           1,581

CLINTON:         1,460

NOMINATION = 2,025

 

So yes, Wyoming and Mississippi finally matter (truth is they always have in a system where President's keep winning by just one state!).

 

In case you're curious. The final primary is Puerto Rico on June 7, when 55 delegates are up for grabs. Even I will buy a plane ticket for that one!

 

Tune is daily at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Dream Ticket or Disaster Ticket? Democrats Dilemma

 (Pleasanton, California)

 

If you ever want to know what average Americans think of politics, you must get OFF the campaign trail, rather than on it!

 

I've been on the road with the candidates almost all year and just returned home from the Texas primary. Today I had the pleasure of speaking at the luncheon of the Pleasanton Rotary Club and seeing many old friends. I speak to about 20 different Rotary Clubs around the San Francisco Bay Area on a regular basis. I like these folks because they are community leaders from all walks of life, who selflessly give to various charities and good causes, to make their communities and world a better place. They are the backbone of society, "Main Street USA."

 

So a lot of today's questions focused on the campaign, especially who would be the running mates.

 

I shared a theory I have been toying with for weeks because there is so much interest in a "Clinton-Obama" or an "Obama-Clinton" ticket. Would they really run together, especially given some of the nasty barbs back and forth from each campaign?  Here are my theories:

 

"CLINTON-OBAMA" - I don't think she'll pick Obama as VP. Here's why: Assume Clinton wins her home state of New York; Remember she grew up in Illinois, a fairly strong Democratic state (at least in the urban areas), and very much a solid union state. That means she can win Illinois on her own, without Obama's help.  I suspect Hillary Clinton will pick either Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) or Gov. Ted. Strickland (D-OH) as her running mate. Why?  The Democrats only need to take back ONE Republican state from 2004, assuming they win all others they won last time. If she can win New Mexico (which Gore took by 300 votes in 2000), or if she wins in Ohio (where she just won the other night!), she's your next President. She does not need Obama as VP.

 

"OBAMA-CLINTON" - I think he WILL pick Hillary Clinton if he is the nominee. First of all he needs to win New York, and may not be able to do that on his own, especially if John McCain picks Rudy Giuliani as VP. He also needs to pick someone with more experience than he has. (Sen. Joe Biden is another possibility).

But my big reason is party unity. If the Democrats have a civil war, and the nominee emerges fractured they just can't win in November. Obama may need Clinton as a gesture to heal the party. So he needs her, more than she needs him. Now, would she accept? I say YES she would. First of all being VP is the most likely venue to become President. It has a higher likelihood than being Senator or Governor. Second, she could direct the Health Care Reform effort as VP (and perhaps break the tie on close votes). And finally, she is not up for re-election in 2008, so her Senate seat is safe, should the ticket lose.

 

Sen. Clinton nailed the question yesterday when she talked about running together with Obama but said they still "must decide who tops the ticket!"

 

My bet?  It's either "Clinton - TBA" or "Obama-Clinton" as your November ticket!

 

Thanks to the Pleasanton Rotary for a fine lunch at the Pleasanton Hotel and God Bless their work with the international "Wheelchair Foundation." www.wheelchairfoundation.org.  Pleasanton Rotary has a team in Ecuador right now, delivering wheelchairs to those in need!

 

Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com for more Politics 2008.

---

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.