Oswald's Ghost

Coincidentally, at the same time the Obama/Kennedy connection is being played out on the cable channels, "Oswald's Ghost", a new documentary on PBS, explores the growth of the various 'conspiracy theories' that developed shortly after the events of November 22nd. It's hard to have a new take on the events in Dallas, but filmmaker Robert Stone focused on how the theories developed, rather than which one is most realistic.

Or perhaps not.

The Kennedy Legacy and the Gopher State

The last 48 hours have been an interesting time to think about the role of the Kennedy legacy in Democratic politics. Beginning with Caroline Kennedy's endorsement in the New York Times (which captured more press interest than the endorsement of the Times editorial board itself), and followed up by an endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy, who stands as the symbol of the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic party,' it's been a great weekend for Barack Obama.

And Kennedy will undoubtedly be valuable to Obama in Latino barrios, in union halls, and among old-school liberals. After all, his endorsement of Al Gore in 2000, and his series of stemwinders in union halls in Iowa, was key in that caucus. His help -- in both staff and 'gravitas' -- to John Kerry helped steady that ship during the rough waters in late 2003.

But what Ted Kennedy's endorsement may signal is more subtle: that other superdelegates should 'hold on' in case this race is not clearly settled on February 5th. In such case, the race may go on to Maryland, Virginia, Ohio and other states, and if no single candidate can achieve a majority of delegates, the role of the "supers" may be increased. (The role for John Edwards, to the degree he can continue to accumulate delegates and prevent any other candidate from achieving a majority, is similar.)

Hillary's greatest source of strength (as this is written) is her large leads in the vast majority of Super-Tuesday-states. It is becoming clear that where Obama can set up shop and campaign (Iowa, NH, Nevada, and South Carolina), he can compete with the inherent Clinton advantages. Unfortunately, he has to try do the same across 20 states simultaneously between now and next Tuesday.

The categorical rejection by the voters of South Carolina of the 'old style' politics -- slash-and-burn, distortions, and personal attacks -- does not bode well for the Clinton future. After all, the 1992 campaign was defined by the Clinton "War Room", where these tactics were perfected -- at least on the Democratic side (until Karl Rove expanded micro-targetting to new levels.)

Bill Clinton famously analogized the results in SC to those of 1984, where Jesse Jackson won. Like Walter Mondale in 1984, Hillary seems to be a vestige of an older age, and one the country has passed by; she may be able to hold on to the majority of delegates on Super Tuesday, but she does not seem to embody the future.

But a better analogy is Obama to RFK, who brought a new coalition together for a few short weeks in 1968. And Hillary is certainly no "Happy Warrior."

He Covered

And then some. The 2-1 margin of victory was well beyond what anyone in either the Obama or Clinton camp could have imagined, or feared.

The victory speech capped off an historic week. One paragraph that has seemingly been missed:

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

He engages the listener on a much deeper level than a politician normally does; your fears of change are what is preventing us from accomplishing it.

The rhetoric through the rest of the speech is now almost moving behind the Clintons, who are reminders of all the partisan gridlock that Obama is running against. (Whether this proves to be 'too-much-too-early' is basically immaterial; it is clear that that is the way he can win.

Covering the Spread

Halfway through the regular season, the Patriots were 8-0, and even more impressively, were 8-0 against the 'spread' -- the Vegas line indicating the number of points by which a favorite should beat an underdog.

In the second half of the season, as bettors tuned into to how dominant the Patriots had become, the spreads on each game widened, such that the Pats have been just 2-7 in their last nine games (covering only against Buffalo (16 point spread; 46 point margin) and Pittsburgh (-10.5, won by 21)).

And its clear that Vegas has learned. The Pats were installed as 14-point favorites for next week's "Big Game"(*), but the line has slipped to 12, where it sits today. (Quick review: the line dropped because more bettors took the Giants and the points than the Pats (minus the line); Vegas makes money when there is approximately the same amount of money on both sides of the bet.)

But while the Vegas odds-makers have learned their lessons, political odds-makers have not. For the third week in a row, Barack Obama is perceived to be a heavy favorite going into an election.

On January 8th, Hillary Clinton escaped political death by pulling out a close victory in the New Hampshire primary when the pre-election polls had her trailing by double-digits. On January 19th, the endorsement of the Nevada Culinary Workers, together with a judge's decision to allow caucusing at the casinos (over a Clinton-supported, if not -financed, lawsuit) was supposed to insure Obama's victory. Instead, Clinton won the 'popular' vote in the caucuses, although Obama apparently eeked out a narrow 13-12 victory in national delegates awarded; regardless, the press considered Hillary to be the winner.

Now in South Carolina, Obama is again burdened by high -- and perhaps unrealistic -- expectations in the press. Hillary abandoned SC this week to campaign in the Super Tuesday states, leaving 'only' Bill Clinton and Chelsea behind. The presence of a significant African-American vote in SC is also supposed to be a huge advantage to Obama, although the Clintons have long been overwhelmingly supported by the black community.

The reality is that any win in a state where Obama trailed badly less than a month ago should be seen a 'victory'; after all, this was supposed to be an unstoppable coronation of Hillary as the Democratic nominee. But reality may not be what the press -- and the blogosphere -- has 'baked in' to the expected results.

For that matter, if the Patriots win next Sunday to go an unprecedented 19-0, whether they win by 1 point or 13 will make no difference.

At least outside of the sports books.

The Debate We REALLY Want to See

Hillary Clinton has taken to defending her husband's (un-Presidential, to some) conduct on the campaign trail with a variation on 'everyone's-doing-it':

[From Monday's South Carolina Debate]

CLINTON: Now, I just -- I just want to be clear about this. In an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I'm here. He's not. And...

OBAMA: OK. Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I'm proud of that.

It's true that all three spouses are 'passionate' and 'committed', but only one has the megaphone of being a former POTUS.

So, while there's a debate next week at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles among the three remaining candidates (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards), there's still time to schedule a debate among the Democractic spouses:




Now that would be Must-See-TV.