If you’re a Democrat who thinks everything that has happened since 2000 was just a nightmare, check out this analysis from Politico on the possibility of Barack Obama pulling an Al Gore–and I’m not talking about winning a Noble Prize.

What are the chances that Obama could win the popular vote but lose the election? Not very good, but for Democrats, if it were to happen again, especially after eight years of George Bush, I think the heads of roughly 50 million voters would explode the morning of November 5.

It was an election that says volumes about what citizens want in more traditional parts of the country. Apparently tired of what they have had for years, voters turned out more of the same and voted for a new, fresh face.

The day has finally come: Pennsylvania primary day!

I’m an Obama supporter, but personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass what the outcome is as long as it goes as planned and we don’t have to hear about it any more. I couldn’t believe how much press the Pope’s visit got last week, but at least it meant I didn’t have to listen to HIllary’s campaign throw everything they’ve got at Obama. The closer we can get to the end of the primaries the better. Their are bigger fish to fry in a race with John McCain.

Hillary will likely win, but it will likely not make any difference. Obama will still win the war. Also notable is that even if Hillary loses, it will likely not make any difference, because she will have plenty of excuses why Obama won but she should have - i.e. he outspent her, she’s the underdog, blah blah blah - and she will still continue with her scorched earth campaign policy of not letting any Democrat win if she doesn’t win the election she apparently feels she’s entitled to.

My future in punditry grows brighter by the day! “Why?” You ask. Well, I’ve seriously blown a major election prediction. Huzzah! Move over Rachel Maddow and John King, and make room for another empty-headed windbag! (*note: I actually like both Maddow and King. They don’t hold a candle to the vast wasteland of brainlessness at Fox News.)

Now that I’ve gotten my mea culpa out of the way, let’s move on to why last night does not signal the demise of Obama ‘08.

Do we have to keep talking about this? I don’t mean Hillary winning big last night, or Obama losing, but the Democratic race. I mean, seriously, is this still going on? Do we have to keep talking about this? I’m ready to hear something else in the morning when I wake up besides Clinton Obama Obama Clinton Obama Obama Obama Clintion Clinton Obama.

Of course, while I’m getting woolly… uh, weary* over it, I wonder if maybe it’s not good for the Democrats in the long run. McCain is just a side show right now. No one cares about him, it’s all Democrat all the time on the national scene. Blame it whatever conspiracy theroy you want, but it’s true.

From a different angle, I watched Obama’s speech in San Antonio last night, and I wonder, or worry, if this was the pin-prick moment and all the air is about to come out of his balloon. One of the most appropriate bumper stickers I saw between the 2004 Iowa caucus and the November election said, “Dated Dean. Married Kerry.” I wonder if in four months we will see some similar stickers that fill in the names of this year’s rock star and establishment candidates, respectively. I sure hope not.

*Name that movie reference.

The day of reckoning is upon us! (Oy vey, a little over the top Huffington Post?) Today’s primaries (and prima-caucus) have been spun as the pivoting point of this election. The shift to the general or the launch of a Hillary comeback. Polls out today have me a bit nervous about yesterday’s prediction, but the majority of them are within the margin of error so this baby could fly any which way.

Let’s get primed for the March 4th battle! I’ve got a bunch of links below the fold to guide you to whatever knowledge you seek…

A couple of months ago I wrote an article about how Obama’s 2008 Presidential run is eerily similar to Deval Patrick’s 2006 run for governor of Massachusetts. I then went on to suggests that Obama will probably ruin the country, much the same way Deval is gearing up to ruin my state.

Well today we’ve got a fascinating story from the Big Head DC Blog - which alleges that Obama’s latest speech, informally titled “Words Matter,” is actually plagiarized from a 2006 speech by Deval Patrick entitled “Just Words.” You MUST check out this blog post, its fantastic - not just because of the eerie similarities, but also because both of these guys have the gall to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr.

I try not to hero worship, especially with politicians. I see no reason. With all of the build-up and hype surrounding any campaign, I tend to get either disgusted with or caught up in the hype. If I get caught up, I try to take a step back and ground myself. Politicians are only men and women, just like you and me. They are not gods, nor are they superhuman. So, while I have tentatively been supportive of Barack Obama’s campaign since my man John Edwards dropped out, I have held off from throwing my support behind him entirely, mainly because of the hype but also because of my belief that Hillary Clinton could do an excellent job as president.

It’s very rare for our nation’s capital to have a stake in any consequential federal election where we might honestly have even a little effect on the outcome. As most of you hopefully know, we do not have voting representation in Congress despite having a larger population than a few states (looking at you, Vermont) and only carry 3 electoral votes which automatically go to the Democratic candidate in the general election.

My adopted city is often disparaged, sometimes for good reason. We’ve had terrible bouts with crime and corruption, and the simple notion of the federal government draws the ire of many “regular folk.” But this is a great city. A city that, because of this disparagement, is brushed aside as a simple breeding ground for political insiders.

That’s really too bad.

After the Super Tuesday ”draw,” pundits across the land have been hyping up the long, long journey we’re in store for that will conclude, as their thinking goes, with a brokered convention. In what would seem near impossible in today’s media driven elections, we may be staring at a major party nomination coming at the hands of delegates via back-room deals in Denver.

The pundits may be prepping their audiences for the inter-party fight, and I imagine they’re relishing the opportunity at watching the “drama” unfold, but there are two other scenarios that could thwart this possibility.

If you live in… Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, or Utah … and your registration allows, you best GO VOTE!

Otherwise, you deserve neither to complain or merely express an opinion about any policy issue or state of affair. If it were up to me, not voting would be tantamount to losing a good deal of rights as a citizen. That’s right. If it were up to me and you didn’t vote, then no habeas corpus for you!

Oh, well I guess that’s a bad example… but anyway, here’s a rundown of some links to get you primed and ready for SUPER DE-DUPER TUESDAY!

With John McCain’s win in Florida, for the first time in around seven years, I am reminded of the amazing benefit of the electoral college and all that it has spawned in American politics - in particular the primary process that mirrors it. If it were not for the small rural states that began the primaries, we could have ended up with Rudy Giuliani in the White House.

When Giuliani decided on his “big state” strategy to win the Republican nomination, I was skeptical, yet nervous. I am not a fan of the overwhelming power that Iowa and New Hampshire hold in the presidential election process and think we need a change, but at the same time, I realize the benefit it provides in letting states that are not New York, California and Florida actually have a say in the election process.

If it were not for the state-by-state primary process, everything that is not a major coastal population center (including the Great Lake coasts), would get ignored almost entirely. For a while, I was worried that Giuliani had figured a way to outsmart the conventional wisdom of campaigning in the cornfields and living rooms and that the man who doesn’t include more to a sentence than a noun, a verb and 9/11 might actually end up winning the nomination. However, tonight, after the 2000 election when the electoral college elevated the Moron to the Oval Office, its little sister, the state-by-state primary starting with Iowa and New Hampshire has redeemed the process.

For full disclosure, I am a red state liberal who happens to prefer city life personally. I have spent around 4/5 of my life living in the Deep South states of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi even though I now live in New York. So while I hated to see Bush lose the popular vote and win the White House in 2000, I understood why the process is the way it is - unlike Hillary Clinton and her shrill screeches against it in her first year in the Senate. Without the electoral college and the states’ primary process, the voices of Iowans and Nebraskans and Alabamians and others would be lost amid the glamor and glitz of New York and Los Angeles-based campaigns.

Now, with McCain’s win in Florida due to the momentum he built up winning in the great states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, maybe Giuliani can realize that all those people he ignored and didn’t care about in Iowa and New Hampshire actually do matter. If you want to be president of these United States, you can’t just understand life in the city; you also have to understand life in the country. This country is about more than New York and L.A. It’s about Omaha and Birmingham and Tulsa and Portsmouth and Cedar Rapids and thousands of other small cities and towns across the country.

Go back to New York, Rudy. The rest of the country doesn’t want you there either.

I woke up this morning in the usual manner. Brewed some tea and fired up the computer… only to be greeted by these lovely headlines.

It appears we are staring down a recession.

This is obviously not a good thing… at least for the present and immediate future. Investments will stagnate, as will job growth. Inflation might increase, along with consumer pensiveness. I’m no economist so I won’t attempt to give any sort of analysis based on market models and crap like that. I will however state that this might be a good thing for America in the long term… politically and in turn, economically.

In recent history, economic fears lead to support for Democrats in our election. We, as a nation, tend to trust them with our domestic well-being. The prime example is the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, as a stagnating economy took down a rather popular George Bush. This cycle appears to be no different. Polls are showing that voters are becoming increasingly anxious about the economy and are voting with it as their most important issue… more so than the Iraq War. It just so happens that turnout in the Democratic primaries (and caucuses) is setting records. (And Republican turnout is down in roughly every state so far.)

If the economy continues to sink towards a recession, voters will once again turn towards the party they trust with taking care of the house. I don’t think they’ll be disappointed they did so, either. A Democrat in the White House means that the debacle of the Iraq War and its billions of dollars a day price tag will soon be ended. (The Seminal has a great piece on why Iraq War spending should be blamed in part for the recession.) The massive spending from the war can be refocused (hopefully not ALL of it – the government probably shouldn’t be spending THAT much money) on economic stimulus among other domestic priorities (health care, fully funded education reform, etc) that will positively affect our economy.

This shift in dynamic with regards to how we spend our money is desperately needed. For the past 7 years, we’ve been teetering on economic uncertainty. The Administration continually tells us how great the economy is doing, but only bases it on some economic indicators (the stock market index and unemployment, mostly). Many other indicators have shown signs of trouble… wage stagnation, weak and/or inconsistent job growth, inflation, and the trade deficit. Our country’s economy is in serious need of an Administration that can openly handle shaky economic times… not one that will get lost in futile foreign pursuits and relying on the good ‘ol private industry as the sole source of prosperity.

The looming recession seems to have woken up the American electorate to this Administration’s ignorance and arrogance (with regards to the economy… not just Iraq!). Let me be clear, I’m not rooting for a recession. Too many people lose jobs. Quality of life for many goes down. It’s a bad thing, and I think the mere threat of one has sufficiently arose the fears of the masses.

But if it does happen, it should lead to good things in the long term. I’ll paraphrase a classic Seinfeld quote… recession now, economic stabilization later.

While walking out of work yesterday, I was considering the potential outcomes of the Democratic primary. Even though I tried to convince myself all the ways John Edwards would win, I kept coming back to the conclusion that this is Hillary’s nomination. It’s a strong feeling I have, perhaps spurred on by the comparisons of Obama to Gary Hart or my recent realization that Hillary is actually a good candidate (sunshine alert: I support Edwards, but am perfectly happy with any of the three Democratic candidates). Regardless of its origins, I’m now of the mindset that Hillary is once again the inevitable nominee.

This would understandably irk many progressives. Her waffling stances on Iraq, support from DLC insiders, and the morons running her campaign like Terry McAuliffe turn off a great lot of us from the progressive camp. Just look at any of the DailyKos straw polls, she’s well behind Edwards and Obama (and previously behind Richardson, Dodd, Biden, and sometimes Kucinich).

If/when she gets the nomination, the progressive base will be very important to her general election. Running to the middle hasn’t worked well for Democrats in recent years (see: Gore, Al; Kerry, John). The progressive base has shown its fund-raising prowess and rabid activism on behalf of respected candidates (see: Dean, Howard; many examples from ‘06). How will Senator Clinton be able to convince the legions of the left to not only stand behind her (they will regardless, if only because she’s not Mitt Romney/Mike Huckabee/John McCain/Fred Thompson), but to fight for her?

Easy. She should convince Senator Russ Feingold to be her running mate. Senator Feingold’s progressive credentials precede him. He has vigorously fought the Patriot Act, has always opposed the Iraq War, consistently stands for fair trade, introduced a resolution to censure President Bush (my personal favorite), and boasts an impeccable record on the environment. Not to mention he is a champion for campaign finance reform, which if John McCain is the Republican candidate would further annoy his base when they are reminded that he championed this too.

Hillary Clinton for President is infinitely more appealing to progressives if that ticket reads Clinton-Feingold. It would signify Hillary’s intention to run in the general election from the left (not pandering to the middle) and to show that she’s willing to bring in strong minded and outspoken progressives/liberals for leadership positions.

Former Prez nominee and current Senator John Kerry has endorsed Barack Obama for President, passing over his own former running mate (and fellow northeastern Senator).

I heard he was against him before he was for him. Perhaps he sees a future wind-sailing buddy in Obama? Was a bro tased in the process of endorsement? Ok, I’ll stop now, but seriously we know how previous nominee endorsements can pan out.

At least for the Obama campaign this sticks him back in the headlines, bumping Clinton for a day.