Obama's Dwindling Coalition

I think it is all but sure that Barack Obama will get the nomination of the Democratic Party. Paired against Hillary Clinton, he really didn't get a landslide of votes. Hillary actually did better in big states and in traditional primary type elections. Barack Obama got his number one position by mostly appealing to Blacks and White males. And, that may be a problem for Obama in this Fall's general election.

If you look at California as a micro-view of the general election, Barack Obama only got 29 percent of the Hispanic vote while Hillary Clinton got 69 percent. This is a problem for Obama. Unfortunately for Barack, the Black v. Hispanic race-based politics may play a bigger part in a possible loss in the Fall than any Black v. White issue. Over the years, Black and Hispanics have become at odds with each other. Blacks view Hispanics as "job takers" because Hispanics are willing to work for lower wages. To get a feeling of the animosity of these two races, you need only look at our schools and, surprisingly, our prisons. In both cases, you will find that Blacks tend to segregate themselves more strongly away from both Whites and Hispanics. Much of this has a lot to do with neighborhood gangs which tend to be mostly comprised of these two races. In the fall, Senator Obama might find that the traditionally strong Hispanic vote may go for McCain or just might stay home on election day.

Another problem that Obama may have is within the Jewish community. His affiliation with Reverend Wright may do him more harm with this typically strong Democratic voting group. Wright's anti-Jewish views and his support of the truly anti-Jewish Louis Farrakhan has not really been addressed by Obama. He also has some known pro-Palestinian/anti-Jewish members on his advisory team like the retired General Tony McPeak. Like the Hispanic votes, this voting block may not turn out at all or, worse yet, vote for McCain who is a strong Jewish ally.

In recent polls, about 28% of Hillary Democrats said they would "defect" if Hillary didn't get the nomination. Most of those were women. This is really a gray area. It is sort of like listening to Rush Limbaugh saying he won't vote Republican if McCain gets the nomination. But, the women's vote is even a bigger voting block for the Democrats than males. They tend to show up on election day while men might be a little more inclined to stay home. The real issue is whether or not women will be so turned off by not having their day in the sun over "another" male getting the Presidency and whether or not some will stay home on election day. Some might feel that this was going to be a major step for women and it was being snatched away by Barack Obama. Consequently, if even a third of those 28 percenter's don't vote that day or vote against Obama, it could be another significant voting block that could swing things to McCain's way.

Another problem facing Obama is the fact that polling is being skewed to his favor by "lying". Yes, that's right...lying! Pollster's like Pat Cadell, who helped Jimmy Carter get into office, have noted polling inconsistencies that might be reflecting an overstating of who will actually vote for Barack Obama. The way this shows up is in the details. Within the same poll results, you might see higher poll numbers for Hillary or McCain on specific issues and on favorability. Then, when the issue of "who will you vote for" comes up, you see higher numbers for Barack Obama. This indicates some lying to the pollsters. It may be that, on the phone and in front of your listening spouse or family, the polling respondent will say they are voting for Obama but have no intention of doing so on election day. The extent to which this is going on is hard to say.

Obama's problems may be in all these numbers. Recent history has shown that the winning popular vote is usually only within two percent of the votes for either candidate. In the case of Gore v. Bush, Gore actually won the popular vote but lost the election to the electoral vote count. For this reason, Obama can't afford to lose any of the typical coalition of Democratic voters. John McCain has demonstrated his appeal to Independents and the Reverend Wright issue may have limited Senator Obama's chances with that group. To have Democrats cross over to McCain or fail to show up at the polls could seriously hurt Obama's chances of winning.

Hillary's Phone Calls

Hillary Clinton must think that every emergency that befalls the Presidency must come in the middle of the night and via a "red phone" telephone call. First, she had her "red phone" moment with a potential international crisis. Now, the phone is ringing in the White House to announce the economic crisis.

I would hope that the next President of the United States would have a cabinet and a staff of advisor's who would be on top of things so that there would be a "heads-up" long before the need of a phone call at 3 o'clock in the morning. It might be a surprise to Hillary but, a lot of professionals in the stock market were predicting the housing bust and a potential recession as early as 2006. And, while all three of the Presidential candidates are now making comments about the crisis, it is a little like the scenario of the "horse already being out of the barn"!

More than likely, the only call that Hillary might get at 3 AM would be a "heads up" on Bill's latest exploits as she lays, alone, in bed! While that might be a cheap shot, I think her latest 3 AM political ad is a cheap shot against McCain. Hillary has a bigger problem with her Bosnia lie. Quite frankly, any hopes that she had of winning were dashed when she "supposedly" mis-spoke on that one. That was Hillary's equivalent of the Howard Dean "yow...wee" moment.

As far as the economic crisis goes, as a United States Senator, she had ample opportunity over the last year-and-a-half to submitted legislation to address and head off the crisis before millions of Americans lost their homes. Now, she acts like Bush was asleep at the wheel. But the President, Henry Paulson, and the Federal Reserve are all doing something about it now. They're not, like Hillary and Barack Obama, running around talking about what they "would" do, a year from now, when they might become President.

Why Hillary Stays

A lot has been written as to why Hillary Clinton is staying the race. Opponents of the Clinton nomination, ie. Senator Leahy (an early Obama support), keep calling for her to withdraw. But Hillary stays the course.

I think that the Hillary camp firmly believes that there is a chance to win this. I think they believe that the Obama/Wright controversy has had some effect on the "magic" that was seen early on. Further, Hillary has shown that she can carry the big states that have primaries as opposed to Obama taking small states with somewhat left-wing-biased caucuses. Additionally, Hillary's people probably think that Obama will implode as revelations about his past keep coming forward.

If Hillary does sweepingly well in Pennsylvania, she might have a change to close the gap on both delegates and in the popular vote. Further, anything could happen between now and the Democratic Convention. I believe Obama's people and supporters would like to see Hillary leave the contest as an insurance policy against the possible implosion factor for Obama.

One problem that is sure to exist with Hillary staying in is the damaging effect of all the body blows. The longer that the two candidates fight it out, the more both become damaged goods that could sink their chances in the fall election cycle over John McCain. While the hardcore Democrats will almost always vote for their party's candidate, the moderate Democrats and Independents could be influenced to vote against a Democrat and for McCain because of all the bomb throwing between Hillary and Barack.

Hillary's chances looked a helluva lot better before her Bosnia-buffoonery. She was doing well in the polls against Obama following the Reverend Wright expose. Now, in terms of the Democratic nomination, the polls are showing Obama up and Hillary back down; so, its hard to tell how much damage Hillary's shoot-herself-in-the-foot Bosnia lie has had on her chances.

For sure, Obama's Wright-wrongs and Hillary's Bosnia-fiction has given McCain a leg up in the general election. For once, the saying "it ain't over till it's over" is as true as it will ever be!

In the Fall --- The Unholy Wars

Right now -- or, should I say Wright now -- the focus is all on Obama and his unholiest of Pastor's, Jeremiah Wright. But, in the Fall, as we slog on through the November elections, the unholy war will explode into a full blown assault.

While I don't expect the McCain campaign to directly address the Wright-wrongs during the fall campaign, I do expect surrogates like the RNC (National Republican Committee) and/or some Swiftboat-like Republican 527 group to address it. When the first Wright-torpedo is launched against Obama, you can expect a quick salvo from the Left (a counter Wright move) that will attempt similarly paint McCain as the bigot by bringing up John Hagee's endorsement (which McCain has quickly and loudly denounced) and the speech that McCain gave at Bob Jones University.

Unfortunately, the Left will be out-gunned. Their use of the Hagee/Jones analogy in the defense of Wright will be like pitting a pea-shooter against a Howitzer. The Left will have one puny shot -- hoping it sticks - while the Right will have shell after shell to use with the Wright-wrongs. It won't be pretty

Never Spit Into the Wind

On Thursday, when the State Department Passport scandal broke, the Barack Obama campaign was screaming. Barack Obama, himself, called for a congressional investigation. At the the core of the scandal was that the State Department passport files for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain were accessed by contract employees. They were caught when an "electronic flag" signaled an unauthorized access.

Of three candidates, Barack Obama and his campaign were screaming the loudest. Bill Burton from Obama's campaign stated the following (See Full Associated Press Story):

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years...Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

From that statement, he squarely put blame on the Bush Administration as if it was commonplace for this to happen.

Well, now, it appears that the Obama campaign is somewhat connected to the break in of those passport files. One of those contract employees, who snooped into the passport files of Barack Obama and John McCain, worked for The Analysis Corp (TAC) which is headed by a security adviser to and campaign donor for Barack Obama, John O. Brennan. Talk about spitting into the wind!

It took awhile for me to find this story this morning. (See the Full CNN Story). I heard it on the TV morning news but you would be hard pressed to find it on the Associated Press or Reuters headline list. It just shows how the liberal media loves to "aid and abet" the Obama campaign. Could you imagine all the high level headlines this story would have gotten if the contractor had been affiliated with Halliburton or one of its companies that were formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Of course, the Obama campaign disparately needed to highlight this story on Thursday in order to take the attention away from the Reverend Wright problem. The liberal press obliged the Obama campaign by "blanketing" the national TV, radio, paper, and internet news with the story. Now, with a possible Obama connection, the media is nearly silent!

Will a Democrat Really Pull Us Out of Iraq?

Yesterday, with all of the political candidates for President making their 5th Anniversary of the War in Iraq speeches and commentary, it was no wonder that the cable news stations were filling their airtime with discussions about that war. Most networks used the point-counterpoint tactic by having both Democratic and Republican surrogates on at the same time so they could slug it out over their respective candidate's positions of either get-out (for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) and stay-in (for John McCain).

There is really no fun in listening to John McCain on the war because he's been a consistent hawk. But, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are a stitch. Since the campaign started, it is as if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater and the both of them are scrambling over each other, like two of the three stooges, to see who can get out the Iraq door the fastest. It is somewhat like that old game show, "Name that Tune", where the two contestants try to top each other by alternately declaring that they can name that tune in fewer and fewer notes. Except, in the case of Iraq, it is who can start pulling troops the earliest in their new Administration and who can get them out in the shortest amount of time. Of course, if things go awry, both Hillary and Barack reserved the right to put troops back in.

I was listening to one round table discussion on the topic, yesterday. Two of the panelists, both left but both moderates, thought that "neither" Hillary or Barack will actually pull troops out as fast as they have declared. Their consensus thought was that both Clinton and Obama would "not" go through with their campaign rhetoric on pulling the troops because of the grave consequences. Both thought that the two candidates have enough wiggle-room in their campaign promises that they can actually renege on those promises without looking badly. For example, they can start pulling troops from the day they take office and this will make the anti-War Democrats happy. However, they could slow the overall process to a snails pace so we, as a country, could continue to take advantage of the stability afforded by the surge while maintaining our commitment to the Iraqis and, while assuring our allies that we won't just dump them once we have made a commitment. Of course, that kind of logical thought won't sit well with the far-left anti-war Democrats who contribute a lot of money to the Democratic Party.

One of the panelists thought that the "polls" will ultimately drive what a Democrat as President will do. If we start pulling troops and things start to go badly, with public support waning, the troops will stay in Iraq. Knowing how poll-driven Democrats can be, he is probably right in this regard. However, my take on whether or not a Democrat, as President, will "actually" pull the troops out of Iraq is completely different. I think that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will "have to" because they will be "forced to do so" by the far-left-driven Congress that exists today. The only reason that the current Congress has not been able to do so, thus far, is because of the existing "balance of power" that gives President Bush the power veto their attempts. And, because this Congress doesn't have enough non-Democrat votes to override it. But, if a Democrat becomes President, the balance will probably shift because, more than likely, both Houses of Congress will remain Democratic. In that scenario, I hardly think a Democrat, as President, will override the wishes of his or her Democratic Congress; and, the Republicans will be in the minority and totally unable to launch any effective veto-override. My guess is that the a Democrat-controlled Congress will either de-fund the war or mandate a withdrawl and a Democrat, as the President, will be forced to comply with his Party's wishes. It's just that simple.

Let's not forget that the Democrats are being "steered" by a vast amount of campaign funding from the likes of George Soros (through his well funded, far-left political organizations), by other groups like MoveOn.org, and by the members of organizations like Code Pink and the Daily KOS. "Not" to get out of Iraq and "not" to do it quickly may jeopardize the flow of all that money; and, as had been said many times throughout history, money talks.

Will the Real "Gallup" Poll Please Stand UP?

I know that a lot of people believe in polls. They live and die by them. Well, if you look at this screen shot from todays Real Clear Politics Head-to-Head polling data, you might be left scratching your head.

(Note: Click on Chart to see enlarged view)

In a just release of a National USA Today/Gallup poll, Barack Obama has a 2 percentage point lead over John McCain. In a national daily tracking poll, also released as of today and also conducted by Gallup (sans USA Today), John McCain has an identical percentage point lead over Barack Obama. Go figure!

Please note that both the Gallup tracking poll and the USA Today/Gallup poll have 3-4% margin of error. So, technically, they are both saying the same thing: a virtual tie. I just like to point out that, sometimes, it "looks like" the right hand doesn't really know what the left hand is doing!

A Senator as President?

It has been a long time since this country has elected its President from the ranks of the United States Senate. The last one was John F. Kennedy in 1960; nearly a half century, ago. And, any Senator becoming President has only happened 15 times (out of 43 Presidents) in all U.S. history. Only two Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Warren Harding, were elected to the Presidency while still actively serving in the United States Senate. And, of those two, only Warren Harding had any previous experience in serving in the Executive Branch of any State or Federal Government.

Typically, a Senator has been elevated to the Office of President after having left the Senate to serve in some other capacity such as Vice President, Secretary of State, or a State Governor. 8 of those 15 Senators who were elected to the high office, had previously served in an executive capacity as a Governor of some State. One other, William Harding, had at least served as a Lieutenant Governor. Four of those 15 previous Senators (John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson) were serving as Vice President while the then-current President died in office. Only 3 of all those 15 Senators, who became President, actually served for more than one term as President. And, of those 3 that served two terms, only one, Harry S. Truman, had no previous executive experience as a Governor of a State.

In 2009, it is almost an absolute surety that a U.S. Senator will, again, be elected President. It will be either Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or John McCain. And, this time, unlike any other time in our history, none of them will have had any previous "executive experience" as a State Governor; or, as Vice President; or, has served in any cabinet capacity such as the Secretary of State. And, the least senior of them, Barack Obama, will not have even served a full term as the Junior Senator from Illinois. Nor, did he have any previous experience in Washington such as a House Representative. And, Hillary Clinton is barely into her second term as the junior Senator from New York. Prior to that she was the First Lady to President Clinton and the same position to Bill Clinton as the Governor of Arkansas. At least John McCain has served as a Senator since 1987; and, before that, served a single term in the United States Congress.

As pointed out in the first paragraph of his post, "statistical history" has a lot going "against" these three candidates. At the very least, historical fact says that the odds are almost "nil" that any of them will be able to go beyond a second term. And, it all comes down to administrative experience.

Most all two-term Presidents have had prior experience as a military leader or as a Governor. Obviously, that gave them the experience in managing people, tasks, disasters, and budgets. Senators just don't carry those credentials. They typically try to spend money without "any" regard as to where the funding will come from. It's part of their "inborn" and "pork barrel" genetic structure. And, the same it true with regard to managing people. There is a total disconnect between adding people and what those new jobs will actually do to the Federal budget. Often, if they can add some big government program, with lots of people, they view it as a political feather in their cap. When it comes to the day-to-day operations of government or to any disaster recovery, Senators, like all members of Congress, are great at hindsight; especially when things have gone seriously wrong. They are always on the outside; looking in. Rarely, do any of them even know how to implement all the programs and laws they enact. They are certainly clueless as to the everyday operations within government.

So, here we are. In the fall, we will be faced with two Senators vying for the Office of President. While I can't predict whether or not either of them will be good President, history has spoken and it says, more than likely, neither one will be good enough to be elected for a second term. My concern is that we will probably elect the "most junior" of them to lead this country: Barack Obama. If so, we will have someone in office who, just three years ago, was shown the locations of the restrooms in the Senate Office Building. He has never managed an operating budget. He has never served in the military and has no understanding of its organization and operational concerns. He has never manage people in a broad organization. While it is true that John McCain is also a Senator without people or budget experience, he did get military leadership experience as being a Navy Officer. Further, he has spent a lot more years in Washington and has a better understanding of the operation of Government.

Barack Obama says he will "change" Washington. To change something, you must have a good, working knowledge of that something. Barack Obama doesn't have that experience. I liken this to Bill Clinton's stumbling attempt to mandate that gays could serve "openly" as members of our military. It was one of his first executive orders after taking office. It was a political payoff for the "gay" support he received during his campaign for the Presidency. It was a total disaster because Bill Clinton never served in the military and never understood the close quarters that military personnel must live in. His "backtrack" from his original "gay order" resulted in the "Don't ask...Don't Tell policy"; a policy which received nothing but criticisms from both sides of the political aisle, then, and still continues to receive criticism, today.

I guess we prepare ourselves for the potential of having the "least" qualified President, Barack Obama, in the history of United States.

Huckabee: In or Out?

I have no idea what Governor Mike Huckabee is up to, but I think he should pack it in. I know he claims that, in college, he majored in miracles and not math. However, my guess is that the blind will see again and the lame walk before he gets enough delegates to win the nomination. Further, if it does come down to a brokered convention, my guess is the Republican powers-to-be would prefer a Mitt Romney over a Mike Huckabee; anyway.

Statistically, he would have to get nearly 90% of the vote from here on out. Sure, the winner take all states are possible "plums" that could get him closer to that improbable, possibility. However, those states where the delegates are apportioned as a percentage of votes earned, are just out of the question. There is no way that Huckabee is going to achieve a 90+ percentage of the vote in every remaining state that apportions their votes.

As Huckabee continues to contest the nomination, in state after state, he is forcing McCain, the presumptive winner, to use up more and more cash in pitting himself against Huckabee. And, that cash would be better served later on in the battle against the Democratic candidate. Romney realized this and bowed out for his own sake and for the sake of the Party's chances in the Fall. Huckabee just can't get it.

Obama Narrowly Leads McCain????

Over the years, I have developed nothing but disrespect for the seriously politically-biased Associated Press (AP). And, as usual, they didn't fail to measure up to that opinion, again, this time.

Based on a poll that was recently commissioned by the AP, the headline reads: "Obama Narrowly Leads McCain in an AP Poll." If you read on, the story states that Obama leads McCain 48% to 42%. Further, Hillary leads McCain 46% to 45%. Wow! One can only conclude from this poll that either Democratic candidate would beat McCain in a head-to-head match up; especially Obama, who, with a 5 point lead over McCain, clearly exceeds the margin of error (assigned to this poll) of plus or minus 3.1 points.

But is this poll really being honest? Not hardly! And, the devil is in the details!

First, of the 1029 people who were queried in this poll, 520 or 51% of them were declared Democrats. Only, 357 or 34% of them were declared Republicans. That means that nearly 46% more Democrats were surveyed than Republicans. Can anyone guess why two Democrats would beat McCain with a built in, political bias like that? For a national poll to be truly accurate it should reflect, as much as possible, the actual percentages of registered independents and registered members of the two major political parties (Republicans and Democrats). That means that about 42% of the surveyed should have been declared Democrats; not 51%. Also, Republicans represent 32% of the registered voters; not 34%. Further, 25% of the registered voters in this country are declared independents. But, only 15% of the respondents were declared as other or as independents.

Even though the results are definitely skewed in favor of Obama/Clinton, we can still glean some truths out of this poll, by normalizing the number of Democrats in the poll. To do this, we will only focus on Barack Obama's numbers against McCain.

First, with percentages of 48 to 42, Obama over McCain, we know that these numbers fail to add up to 100%. Therefore, 10% didn't respond to this question in that poll; either way. So, we need to adjust the 1029 total respondents that were surveyed down to the 10% less that answered the "head-to-head" question on Obama versus McCain. That adjustment leaves us with 926 that answered the question.

Now, we need to determine the proper amount of Democrats out of that group. That would be 389 if we assume the national average of 42% of the registered voters.

Third, we know that 51% of the total respondents to this survey were declared Democrats. However, Obama only got 48% of the tally when up against McCain. That means, at the very least, 6% (48% divided by 51% of the survey) of the Democrats defected to McCain. Of course, in assuming only 6%, you would have to assume that "all" of the independents and all of the Republicans cast their vote for McCain; which isn't realistic. But it will work for the purpose of the exercise.

Given these facts, we can now determine that an adjusted 365 democrats went for Obama out of 1029 total respondents. Conversely, McCain got the nod from 561; assuming he got those 6% of the Dems, all of the Independents and all the Republicans. Of the total of 1029 respondents, that means McCain beats Obama by 55% to 35%. Even if I'm half wrong and we adjust McCain and Obama by half the value between my numbers and the original numbers, McCain will still win by 49% to 42%.

I know that some will argue that they expect the turnout for the energized Democrats to be high and I am not accounting for that. By all logic, you can't assume that. Further, Ralph Nader has already declared that his will run again this year. Against Gore, he may have stolen enough votes to have cost Gore the election. He may do the same to Obama. I would also point out that the original poll was weak on Independents; and, this is one group (maybe, even more than Republicans) that McCain attracts.

The full story of the Associated Press poll can be read at this link: (See Full Story).

A Red Tricycle With Blue Trim for Christmas

Well, McCain has all but won the nomination as the Presidential Candidate for the Republicans. If you listen to the far right of the party, you would have thought they were in the process of "having" to swallow a big spoon of castor oil. They wanted that gleaming red tricycle for Christmas. Instead, they got one with some blue on it. And, they "just" can't take their eyes off of the blue. Even though the tricycle is predominately red, all they see is blue!

And, so, the temper tantrum under the Christmas tree is being unleashed with tears, kicking, and screaming! Boo-hoo! Wah! They cry out that McCain will bring an end to the conservative movement. The sky is "definitely falling! They wanted a red-blooded Reagan conservative, and they got one that has a touch of blue blood.

Please! This is just unbelievable! McCain was elevated to the nomination by Republican voters. Not by Rush Limbaugh... Not by Ann Coulter... And, not by the rest of the far right radio personalities and pundits. Instead of looking at McCain as the "most electable" candidate that the Republicans could possibly put up against a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama (based on the current polling), the far right sees him as the "gate" to hell.

These people seem to forget that the Republican party (and the conservative movement) may have reached its peak and might be on its way down. The conservative movement seems to be on its wane "because of" this current President and "because of" the former conservative control of Congress. They blew it! The Republicans decisively lost both Houses of Congress in a "sweep" the last time out. And, without McCain, they are well on their way to losing control of the White House. There will be no "house" they can claim as their own. They will be "homeless" in the world of government. McCain is the only chance they have to cling to some control. Without him, and his appeal to a broad range of the national electorate, the Democrats will have a near-complete and veto-proof control of government. The 60 vote threshold in the Senate, that Republicans "now" enjoy as the "minority" party, will vanish. The Democrats would have the near-unfettered ability to pass tax increases; repeal the Bush tax cuts; get out of Iraq; implement the first steps to socialized medicine; slash military spending (again, and at a time of war); hamper our intelligence community's ability to eavesdrop; install liberal judges throughout the Federal system, and probably vote in, at least one, liberal, Supreme Court justice in the next four years. The balance of power will decidedly tip to the Democrats, and their "doing over" during the next four years (and possibly longer) will take a decade or more to undo.

Just listen to the polls. In poll after poll, the concept of "change" keeps ringing out. And, in poll after poll, the President and Congress' approval ratings just keep falling to new lows. The concept of "change" is hard to "specifically" put your hands around because it means different things to different voters; the better and bottom-line concept of "change" seems merely to be the getting away from business-as-usual "partisan" politics. I believe that the electorate is tired of partisan politics that always puts the needs of the political party in front of the needs of this country. McCain offers that change. He is "the" more middle-of-the-road candidate that is now left standing; on either the right or the left. And, while Obama and Hillary talk that game, neither has ever really demonstrated that fact. Their actions as politicians have clearly proven their partisan behavior. That is why Hillary has such a far left voting record. And, Obama is even farther left in his record. McCain has crossed over to the other side of the aisle.. That is why he is well known as the "Maverick". And, that is why this massive "hissy fit" on the far right proves that McCain is the "right" candidate to lead this country, at this time in history; and, not just the "right" candidate - politically.

Tuesday's Winners and Losers

After the dust has now settled following Super Tuesday, I think the "biggest" winners of the day were Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee. The losers for the day were Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

Certainly, with a literal tie in delegates, Barak Obama has now put Hillary Clinton on notice that she is losing ground. Hillary's only bright spot is that she won Massachusetts. That was a sweet victory because it proved that not even a "truckload" of Massachusetts Kennedy's could sway the state to vote for Obama. Based on the fact, one might even venture to think that the Kennedy's might have even impaired Obama from winning even more votes that night.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney fell short; proving that money can't buy you love. He spent millions (especially in California) and he came up short. In fact, Huckabee, on a shoestring budget, has managed 142 delegates to Romney's 222. I don't know exactly how much Romney spent on getting those 222 delegates but I'll bet it is more than anyone in the history of politics. My guess it is he spent close to a half-million dollars per delegate. I think Romney's biggest problems were his past waffling on issues and his attack-dog tactics against McCain, Dole, and Huckabee. His ads over the last week went after Hillary Clinton as if he already had the nomination. He seemed to forget he had to overcome McCain and Huckabee before that fact ever was a reality. And, his religion, Mormon, may have had some minor influence on his loss, also. Certainly, his biggest percentage win, Utah, was only because of his religion.

I would be remiss in not mentioning another big loser for the night. That loser is the "right-wingers" of talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, and Laura Ingram and the right-wing madwoman, Ann Coulter. Their late-in-the-game efforts to promote Romney and defeat John McCain just didn't work. In fact, they may have shot themselves in the foot because the voting public may have reacted negatively to their tactics. I liken their stupidity to the tactics of Moveon.org to try and defeat Joe Lieberman in the last Senatorial election in Connecticut. Of course, Lieberman easily won as an Independent over that far-left machine that thought it could trample him. The far right and far left have to understand that the world doesn't believe in "their" extreme views. Sorry, Rush! Sorry, Ann!