Just when I thought the 2008 RNC was the worst-run political organization in America, the DNC decided to have a meeting of the Rules Committee and determined not to be outdone. The DNC has proven itself, yet again, to be one horribly managed and bloated example of Democratic irresponsibility, stupidity, arrogance, and ultimately failure.

Let's take a moment to look at the current political landscape of the presidential election. The current president is a Republican, a very conservative one at that. Our economy is in a "recession," at least according to MSNBC. Inflation is increasing. Gas prices are obscenely high. An unpopular war drags on. Never in a situation like this does the incumbent party even have a chance for another term. But McCain is polling extremely well. He is neck-and-neck with both Obama and Clinton, several polls pegging him in the lead. Rasmussen Reports has him with 10 more electoral votes than John McCain, with a hundred electoral votes too close to call.

How can this be? How is it that, as Paul Krugman said, (I love this quote) the Democrats are going to "snatch defeat from the claws of victory"? It is due to 2 things: bad candidates and bad party organization.

Today, the DNC Rules Committee met to discuss the seating of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Because the primary season moved up this year, these two states decided to follow New Hampshire and Iowa (which are exempt from party punishments from either side...I don't understand it, don't ask me). To punish them for breaking the rules, the DNC stripped them of all of their delegates. Zero. None. Two extremely important general election swing states completely alienated from the party's nomination process. For comparison, the GOP faced the same problem. Several states moved forward as well. But the RNC voted to strip half of each state's delegates. This way, they were punished for breaking the rules, but the voters still had a voice in the nomination. Problem solved.

The DNC's meeting today decided to allot the delegates between the two in the following manner: 87 to Clinton, 64 to Obama. I will not go into the math or process; read about it here. But in short, this is an absolute outrage. If I were a Clinton supporter in Michigan or Florida, of which there are many, I would be furious with my party. This was not a "compromise," an agreement designed to mollify both sides. The pure and simple motivation behind this decision was to squeeze as many delegates as possible out of the contests for Barack Obama. An unelected group of 27 party leaders heard arguments, then, behind closed doors, decided on how to best count the votes from the two states. Casting math aside, a conviluted mathematical formula was developed to give Obama a delegate victory.

Fallout? Hardly a rally behind Obama's cause. According to the above-linked article, angry supporters had this exchange:
Obama supporter: See you in Denver!
Clinton supporter: See John McCain in November!
Clinton supporters are furious over the way the party and the media is absolutely screwing their candidate. Whether this is true or not, feel free to argue, but in their minds it most definitely is. Votes are not being counted for the sake of a quick Obama victory! And now, Clinton has the ammunition to take the case all the way to Denver, even if Obama accumulates the majority. She can contest that these 64 delegates were unfairly assigned.

This is an absolute mess. Democrats can tell themselves that it is good for their party: record registrations, more excitement for the party; but deep down, the smart ones know that this is bad. A weak McCain campaign is being completely ignored due to crap like this, and it will continue to be until August. It will be a bitter fight to the death, and John McCain will triumph (unless Clinton manages to steal the nomination, which I see about a 10% chance of happening).

This isn't a presidential campaign. This is a chaotic scramble to the finish line. And a man not even in the race is going to benefit the most.

So I realized today that I haven't posted on here for a long time, and that I haven't really had any big political discussions or arguments in about a week. So I felt like writing a post, and what better than on a pressing issue of our time and the topic of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain's speech today: national security.

Ronald Reagan summed up what American national security should be in a simple phrase of three words: Peace through strength. This has been misconstrued by many liberals to mean a kind of "fake peace" constructed only by force and coercion. There was definitely peace in Auschwitz and the Soviet Union under Stalin. But this is not what Reagan meant; otherwise, he would have used the words "force" or "coercion" in place of "strength."

What Reagan meant was that the presence of enforcement will always ensure justice and peace. The United States is, and isn't, an international policeman. It is not in the sense that we do not have the responsibility (or the means) to resolve or become involved in every conflict throughout the world. But it is in a sense that virtually every conflict affects U.S. interests merely due to its huge size and tremendous influence. The Israel-Palestine conflict interests us; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons interests us; even a Chinese economic law can change our domestic stock markets. But I digress.

When the United States is subtly sitting in the background with a substantial, but fair, military force, it keeps the world in line. During the Somalia fiasco during Clinton's administration, we pulled out after eighteen casualties. Osama bin Laden pointed this out and described America as a "paper tiger." This single display of weakness set in motion the planning of a massive terrorist attack on American soil, eventually evolving into 9/11.

George W. Bush has responded to this in a way precisely the opposite of what the terrorists wanted or were expecting. In the 80s, while distracted with single-handedly toppling the evil empire of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's policy towards Islamofascism was going after only the individuals or organizations responsible. During the 90s, we ignored Islamofascism completely, including half a dozen attacks on U.S. soil such as the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and several embassy bombings in the Persian Gulf region. In 2000, there was a direct attack on a U.S. naval vessel that went completely unaddressed.

Finally, in 2001, we got our policy right. We took the fight to the terrorists. George W. Bush appropriately used a horrible attack as an opportunity to wage a war on all terrorists, not just a few. He took the fight to the entire Taliban in Afghanistan rather than just Osama bin Laden. He took the fight to Iraq, a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny, not to mention a dictator who has been seeking weapons of mass destruction for over a decade and has been a U.S. military interest since the Reagan administration.

This policy has had the terrorists in complete disarray. They say that we have created terrorism; this is completely false and untrue. Terrorists have been flooding into Iraq to fight Americans, but they haven't been becoming new terrorists. This is the equivalent to the Union Army in the Civil War crossing into the South for almost all the battles. We took the fight to them. If we invaded North Carolina but all the Confederate Armies stayed in Georgia, would that do much good? Hardly. This is what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists know that if they can get us to leave and retreat as we did in Somalia (and as Obama would have us do next year), they will have a landmark victory and inspire more terrorism there and abroad.

It is the pressure Ronald Reagan exerted (via the U.S. military) that caused the Soviet collapse. It was the weakness of the Clinton administration that culminated in the weaknesses allowing for 9/11. And this will happen again if Obama is elected.

The Republican Party is not the only one in this century to have such an attitude. The Democratic Party was just as fine on foreign policy as the GOP during and after World War II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wisely used Pearl Harbor as a reason to declare war on the entire Axis of Evil, including Japan and Germany. After winning WWII in Europe, his successor Harry S Truman smartly dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of American lives that could have been lost in an invasion and quickly ending the war in the Pacific. The civilian casualties were a tragedy, but it has ultimately led to the success of a capitalist Japan that is one of the most successful nations in the Far East.

When did this change? JFK was a bridge between the old and new Democrats. JFK was known to be weak on foreign policy. This is why Kruschev put a bunch of nukes 50 miles off our coastline. JFK held a tough stance, risking nuclear war but ultimately saving us from it. But after his assassination, Democrats embraced socialism rather than feared it. Lyndon Johnson made the New Deal permanent, something FDR did not intend or want, screwing every low-class worker into government dependence that is still a major problem in this country. Social security is falling apart and will be, according to one estimate, $53 trillion in debt in a few decades.

The point is, a strong national security is necessary for American safety and security. "Diplomacy" will only get us so far, and it also implies legitimacy. We cannot sit down with Ahmadenijad because it will legitimize his tyranny. We must pressure him through economic and social means, and, if necessary, military action. Yes, military action is a last resort, but diplomacy isn't even on the list of options, nor should it be.

There can be peace throughout the world. But it depends on the strength of America. America stands for justice and freedom. And that is the force that needs to have power in the world, not Iran or North Korea or Iraq which stand for oppression and tyranny.

"We will always be prepared so that we may always be free."

Tonight's two contests fulfilled virtually every prediction. Clinton is winning a narrow but decisive victory in Indiana, but losing by a very large margin in North Carolina. It is still early in the returns, but it is no question that he wins NC, and by a larger margin than he loses in Indiana.

What does this mean? Let's first look at how the Obama camp will spin it.

Obama's victory means that he is the more popular. He was able to win big in North Carolina and lose small in Indiana. The pure math is in his favor and indicates him as more electable, and thus more appropriate for the nomination. It is just another in his long list of states that he has racked up and indicates a will among the electorate for his nomination.

This is what the campaign will say, and most likely what the Democratic leadership will take into consideration. It is now extremely difficult for Hillary to steal this nomination, even though I still believe she is the one who should run against McCain. Why do I think this, even after this night that looks so good for Obama?

What I think tonight really proved was Obama as the race candidate. He won over 90% of the black vote, and in NC this is over 1/3 of the electorate. This allowed every network to call the state the second the polls closed. In Indiana, he did just as well among blacks, but there simply weren't enough to counter Clinton's popularity in the other groups. Clinton won, in both states, both white men and women, seniors, uneducated citizens, and working class voters. This is the majority of America and the majority of voters.

Tonight should prove to the superdelegates that Barack Obama cannot win outside of the "black belt" if you will, such as the south. He won other states early on because of a wise campaign strategy that focused on caucus states and his messianic speeches about change and hope. But he lost that magic. He looked like an absolute idiot at the debate in Philadelphia, is on record for insulting the religious beliefs and gun ownership of the majority of Americans, is close to a pastor that has repeatedly insulted his country and associated Obama with him, is close to a terrorist who has attempted to bomb multiple government establishments, and is married to a woman who has never before felt proud to be an American. This will all come out again in the general election.

Clinton carries baggage as well. But she is doing an incredible job lately overcoming these negatives. She looks vibrant, looks happy, looks friendly, and looks like she's having fun. Her interview with Bill O'Reilly was smart, and she looked on her game and intelligent. She is down to earth and has a clear set of solutions.

Barack Obama seems to have a golden road to the nomination because of the thick-headedness of Democratic party leaders. But he cannot beat McCain. He will get eaten alive by not only McCain but by independent groups that will do everything they can to keep him out of the White House. He just claimed, in his NC victory speech, that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat! Watching this speech, he sounds like he is trying to rejuvenate the magic that got him through the string of states after Super Tuesday. That is what it was: magic. Barack Obama is a complete moron with no qualifications whatsoever for president. He will absolutely destroy this country for every American, rich and poor. His policy is unwise, unsound, and poorly thought out. This will be proven when McCain spars with him and shows that this guy just doesn't have a clue.

Barack Obama is change we can't believe in. He hasn't done a thing in the name of change for his entire career. He is in it for a promotion; if he really cared about the party and the country, he would drop out and throw his support behind Hillary. Same goes for her. They are selfish and only in it for themselves. I want Hillary Clinton to win the national to avoid the redefinition of the GOP while still maintaining some semblance of a successful America, but if Obama gets in there is no avoiding the disasters he will incur.

Tonight means that Obama is the race candidate. He cannot win in the general election, where blacks don't make up 1/3 of the electorate. McCain will win the south, and Obama will get creamed in the swing states. So who knows: maybe a few smart Dems will realize it's Clinton's chance. But I doubt it. And the Democrats will, as Paul Krugman said, "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

Happy April Fool's Day! I just want to make it clear that this post is not humorous or satirical in any way. I actually attempted to write one about how Obama is the second coming, but realized that too many people already believe it to be true for it to be effective. But I digress.

As the poll numbers begin to take shape in the two situations for the general election, Obama's prospects are darkening by the day. While McCain has a very good chance of beating either candidate, he has not yet been touched in general election campaigning which could turn the tables. The real question is which Democrat can do better in the electoral college, the thing that really matters as we have seen in both 2000 and 2004.

There are certain states that either party always win (except for the presence of an extraordinary leader, such as Ronald Reagan). In fact, if you look at the only 2 Democrats to be elected of the past 7, the only way they could accumulate enough electoral votes is by garnering southern states (which, in both cases, were because of their home states: Carter of Georgia, Clinton of Arkansas). Every other election, the Democrats have only gotten votes from the urban, liberal strongholds of the Northeast and West Coast, with major cities like Chicago and Minneapolis delivering a few states in between. Other than that, the Republican can be relatively safe in assuming that the South and the majority of the Midwest will go red. This election is no exception in this regard, both Democrats being from traditionally left-leaning states anyways.

What does any of this mean for the battle between Clinton and Obama? Let's look at the primary results. Clinton has done very well in the two swing states: Florida and Ohio. She has won virtually all the states that Democrats need in November: New York, Pennsylvania, California, and much of New England. Obama has won more states, yes, and therefore more delegates; these states, however, are going to go to McCain anyways.

Now we have to decide which poll numbers are the most important. National polls are more like a gauge of popularity as opposed to a legitimate predictor of election results. Obama has been ahead of McCain nationally for most of the election, until recently when McCain has pulled ahead narrowly. McCain has been ahead of Clinton for most of the election, and remains so by a greater margin. However, this does not truly show whose chances are better in the general election. The three most interesting states I want to mention are Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Here are the numbers, according to the RCP average of all major poll data:

Florida:
McCain-Obama: McCain +6.8
McCain-Clinton: McCain +2.8
Ohio:
McCain-Obama: McCain +7.0
McCain-Clinton: Clinton +0.3
Pennsylvania:
McCain-Obama: McCain +2.2
McCain-Clinton: McCain +0.4

These are very bad indicators for Obama, because it shows why Clinton is the more electable of the two. She can accumulate electoral votes more easily, and is more popular in the Democratic states. The superdelegates will see this and will vote for her. I find the Democratic nomination process hysterical in its confusion, especially after some of the comments of some prominent party leaders. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson are all supporting Obama (and are all superdelegates themselves). And they claim that superdelegates should reflect the popular vote (which favors Obama). They conveniently forget, however, that the states they represent (Massachusetts and New Mexico) voted for Clinton! So they are completly ignoring the will of their constituents, but yet they want all the other superdelegates to do the opposite? Which popular vote do you wish to reflect? In fact, even the regular delegates can vote unbound for whomever they want! The party is in madness.

The reality is, now, that Obama is the less electable of the two. The polls and electoral college show this to be true. As Clinton gears up to win Pennsylvania in exactly three weeks, the superdelegates can decide to run Clinton (who has a moderate chance) or Obama (who will get destroyed by McCain). Knowing the Democratic Party and the geniuses running it...


the choice is not so obvious.

As the national average of gasoline soars yet again, approaching new records over $3.20, the complaining also ensues to new heights. Every time you turn on the news, they are discussing the high gas prices and the murder at the pump. Some say they are being robbed, and blame can be laid on pretty much anyone.

But I am sick of hearing Democrats complain about high gas prices. In fact, I am implementing a new rule: Democrats, you are not allowed to whine and moan about high gas prices ever again, at least until you get your fuel policies in order.

There are a handful of reasons for this rule, and I am using only the things Democrats claim about themselves:

1. Democrats are the party of progress, and energy is one area that they believe needs more progress than other, less important issues (like better armor for our troops, for example). Clinton, Obama, and even McCain (he's an honorary Democrat) have pledged investing in the research for renewable resources. Don't high gas prices create an even greater incentive to do this? Won't it influence public opinion to push toward other sources of energy? They should be enjoying the high gas prices. It will simply limit the amount people drive, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It works in Europe, why not try it here? In all honesty, that is a legitimate argument if you really want to get people to stop driving. So go ahead, argue tha we're going to tax the hell out of gas just to get you on the subway. But do NOT claim that a) companies are stealing honest Americans' money and b) that gas prices are too high.

2. Representative John Dingle (D-no idea), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gas in the country. This brings us to the whole tax issue. Democrats like to blame all the high gas prices on the big companies like Chevron or Exxon. They claim that they are stealing our money and must be broken up. But in reality, these companies never make more than a nickel in net profit from each gallon. (The reason their profits are so high each year is because that is a TON of nickels.) In fact, Gannett Publishing, parent company of USA Today (which, ironically, voices concerns about high gas prices), has a profit margin roughly ten times that of Exxon Mobil. Why isn't the government stepping in to lower the cost of their papers? Taxes account for 30-40 cents of each gallon, depending on which state you live in; that translates into roughly ten times the amount the oil companies make. It's the government robbing you at the pump, not the corporation. Because Democrats favor higher taxes, and most of these taxes were introduced and passed by them, they caused these high prices and should therefore not complain. Unless, of course, they want to repent.

3. Democrats have prevented the construction of a new refinery in this country for decades. The most modern one was constructed in 1972. They are inefficient and dirty. But because of their opposition to common sense, Democrats won't allow new, more efficient ones to be built due to environmental and progressive energy reasons. Per gallon of gas, over $1.25 goes to the refining process. This could be reduced drastically by building new and better refineries.

4. Democrats oppose the drilling for oil in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge (pictured). There is no logical reason for this. ANWR is not the Yosemite Park they make it out to be; it resembles the surface of the moon. There are centuries of oil supply underneath this one spot, but they'd prefer to allow a couple blades of grass live undisturbed than to facilitate lower gas prices to aid hard-working Americans. Not only do they oppose this drilling, but they also clamor for our independence from foreign oil. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!! Or just shut up and let the adults work in peace.

Several studies have conclued that there are over 5000 years of oil left on this planet, even if we account for the exponential increase in consumption we are seeing. The "years left" figure is only based on known reserves, which is constantly growing as we discover new sources. It has fluctuated between 30 and 60 years left ever since oil became such a huge commodity.

So Democrats, or any Republicans who agree with them for that matter, you are not allowed to complain about high gas prices anymore. If you agree that a) companies are stealing your money at the pump; b) global warming is being caused by our cars; or c) that higher taxes are a good thing, then you are responsible for those high taxes and therefore should be celebrating. Thank you.

The Obama campaign has finally proven why they are going to have a hard time winning the superdelegates this summer and possibly even the election this fall. He is an unknown quantity.

To sum up recent events, videos have come to light of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years and extremely close friend and mentor, making extremist and frightening anti-American and anti-white sermons. His message is one of hate and racism, claiming such things as:

• 9/11 was simply America's chickens coming home to roost;
• "God bless America? God-damn America!"
• The U.S. of K.K.K. A.
• America created HIV/AIDS to start a genocide in Africa

The list goes on, and it is painful to even listen to. You can look them up for yourself on YouTube; I, for one, do not wish to embed such horrible videos on my site.

But what does this mean for Barack? Whatever it means, it is not good. In fact, this could single-handedly tank his campaign. Barack has been campaigning on "change we can believe in" and "yes we can." These bumper sticker slogans sound great...until we learn that they are quotes from Rev. Wright. He quoted an entire speech of his in one of his books, which included the line "Where whites breed, troubles seed." Wright was the first man he called for thanks after winning his Illinois State Senate seat.

The idea that Barack was unaware of such outrageous statements is preposterous. He would not allow Wright to deliver the invocation because he knew that this would simply turn the public eye on him, revealing these sermons that have scared so many Americans.

I will say this: if my own father were a pastor and began making statements like this from the pulpit, I would walk out and never come back to that church. And I expect every self-respecting American to do the same. Barack Obama is an unknown quality, with no track record to speak of or back him up. When you are an unknown, these seemingly little things are very important to who you are and what the public should think of you. We all know what kind of man Hillary married. We all know the types of tactics they use in their campaigns. These all go to her character (or lack thereof). But Obama has no such public record, and this is a major addition to that resume.

But what is really important here, at least to the Democrats, is not what was said, but the sheer surprise it has provoked. This is exactly the type of thing the superdelegates would fear in an Obama nomination, and why they would stay with the safe choice of Hillary Clinton. Obama will not come from this unscathed by any means; in fact, for the first time in a while, McCain has surged past the declining Obama in the realclearpolitics.com poll average since these videos have aired.

His speech today was supposedly brilliant, but it was about race and the deep divisions of America. While these are important issues, the president is not some type of cultural healer. We have major economic and national security problems to deal with right now; frankly, I'd take someone with the public face of Richard Nixon if I knew he could take care of these. Maybe in ten years we can handle a Barack Obama to close our cultural gaps, but right now we need an economic and military leader. Obama is not it.

Furthermore, I would like to know how Obama unites. He can't even get half of his party to support him, much less half of the country. That's because most of the people in this country realize he is full of crap, and a pretty picture on the wall may look nice but is only that: a pretty picture. Geraldine Ferraro was half-right: his success is due to his great ability to communicate (albeit nothing) and to his race.

While his speech today might put a band-aid on the wound so deeply inflicted, not by Wright himself, but by Obama's foolish and despicable maintenance of a close relationship with this horrible individual, it will not help to convince the superdelegates that he can win in November. In fact, it will only prove that this mystery man is exactly that, and nothing can change that between now and election day. Now more than ever, Hillary is going to be the safe vote. It will be close, but she will win Pennsylvania in a few weeks, and she will win the nomination in a couple months.

God BLESS America.

The Obama-Clinton battle is getting more furious every day, and is causing chaos and confusion among the entire Democratic Party. It has come to a point where no matter who is nominated, a significant number of Democrats will be greatly alienated; the question now is which candidate will create a smaller one of these groups.

Hillary Clinton wants this win more than anyone can imagine. This has been the plan of the Clintons since their aspirations began, and she is not going to let some junior senator newbie from Illinois ruin it because of a bunch of crazed lunatics that support him. Her gloves have truly come off.

Over the past few weeks, especially since the rejuvenation of her campaign on March 4, we've heard the bitter words being bounced around by these two candidates. Clinton especially has been noted as being extremely vicious toward Obama's campaign.

The most recent wave is Democratic Party relic and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first woman on a presidential ticket as Mondale's VP in 1984. She basically claimed that if Barack Obama weren't black, he wouldn't be anywhere near as successful in this election as he is.

First a quick aside as to the validity of this statement. It is curious. What are his merits? He is an excellent speaker, very personable, and says what we all want to hear. Are these really the only qualities that have led to his success? I'm not so sure. There are plenty of white politicians with the same qualities. Why aren't they leading a cult of delusional followers?

That being said, in the days since she said this statement, she has been bombarded by attacks from the media and the Obama campaign calling her a racist. Obama on the Today Show told Matt Lauer that he would never say Hillary has gotten to where she is because she is a woman. But Ferraro, being a tough and loud-spoken individual, is not backing down. Instead, she is stating how offended she is to be called a racist. All she did was make an observation about Obama's success and its relation to his skin color; she never said she preferred black or white, etc. etc.

The way Ferraro was pounced upon sounds awfully familiar to me...oh, that's right, that happens to every single Republican who even mentions race. "Macacca," which was used by the Democrats to tank a very successful and viable Republican Senator; many of Ann Coulter's comments; and even Rush Limbaugh when he claimed on ESPN that McNabb's success is due in no small part to his skin color.

It is fascinating to see the Democrats being shocked at the tactics that they have employed towards Republicans for so many years, but only when they are employed at each other. Articles pop up every day about how Clinton is doing some sneaky this or tricksy that, how she is throwing cheap shots or low blows. But we Republicans knew this would happen; we experienced them completely unleash their tactics on us for nearly a decade.

This, of course, is highly beneficial to the GOP, for multiple reasons. For one, McCain has no grapes, and his campaign has even issued "talking points" about what can and cannot be said about Barack Obama so as not to set off the sensitive issue of his race, middle name "Hussein," and other things. It appears that even Hillary is more readily going after Obama than McCain will, which is dangerous considering Obama's possible (if not likely) nomination.

But also, as the Democrats tear each other apart, the rift in the party will be far more damaging than the rift on the Republican side. Yes, many Republicans have their differences with McCain; but in the end, the party wins us over. (Who am I kidding, I don't think I'll be flicking that Clinton lever in November, regardless of my feelings about McCain.) We've been grappling with this party battle for decades. But the Democrats have never experienced such a split, and it should be interesting to see how this nominating process pans out for them, for us, and for the country.

As Hillary took the stage for her victory speech in Columbus, Ohio, last night, there was one thing going through our minds: "Welcome back." (Or "Crap, why won't you just go away, you witch!") After a long stretch of losses to the Magic Negro, Clinton's massive and surprising victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island have rejuvenated her campaign and put her back on the map.

What does this mean, and why did she need it?

The Democratic race is no longer about delegate count. It is about the unaffiliated superdelegates that get to decide the nominee regardless of popular opinion. Technically before last night there was a chance either could gain the 2025 delegates needed, but it was unlikely. It is now impossible; there simply aren't enough delegates to go around. This election is probably going all the way to the convention this summer.

These big wins are about showing the superdelegates who is the real nominee, and who the mainstream electorate wants to be president. She didn't pick up any significant delegate numbers last night; in fact, Obama may have come out with more in Texas. But the state still gets put in the Clinton column, and that's all the superdelegates will care about. She has won all the major states, while Obama has won the little ones. The next primary is Pennsylvania, but it's not for another 7 weeks, which will continue to bleed each candidate dry on the campaign trail. Clinton is all but guaranteed a victory there, with double-digit leads in the polls.

It is impossible to say who is going to get the superdelegates' votes. I think it will split very evenly down the middle. There is a valid argument for each side. For Clinton: She is a known factor, she's been around for a long time, her ideas are more concrete and logical. For Obama: He is a new face, his numbers are better for electability, he will be much prettier compared to the 72-year-old McCain, and he is a brilliant speaker.

As I predicted, crunch time is approaching and the party is fleeing from the unknown Obama to the safe Clinton. She demonstrated her "experience" over the NAFTA deal these past weeks, as she was in the White House for its creation. The SNL skit mocking the media's Obama-favor also definitely helped, especially because of its accuracy. (83% of "objective" news coverage of Obama was positive. That is ridiculous!)

A group of Democrat leaders were about to approach Clinton requesting her to drop out in order to maintain unity in the party. But there is no way she will now. She wants this more than anyone can imagine, and she has a real shot. She'd rather take her chances in the general election for her own benefit than drop out for the benefit of the party.

Congratulations, Mrs. Clinton. Welcome back.

Super Sunday was all fine and dandy (go Giants!), but now it's time for Super Tuesday. There always is a super Tuesday during the primary election season, but this year it is far more "super" than ever. Because February 5 was the new earliest date set by the two parties for state primaries, Nearly every state moved its election up to it. Tomorrow, 22 states will be opening their polling places for Democrats and Republicans to choose their nominee.

I was extremely excited for this day ever since a few months ago, but my reasoning behind this excitement has shifted. I couldn't wait to see which Republican was chosen, which I believed would be unclear until tomorrow's results were in. Furthermore, the Democratic race was all but finished, with Hillary getting the nomination. It seems, however, that the winds have changed.

The Republican nominee is clear, and tomorrow proves to be a blowout for him. John McCain is going to take the cake in nearly every state that votes tomorrow, securing his nomination for the GOP seat in November. I really have to stop endorsing candidates; every time I do, they drop out within a week. It's going to happen again tomorrow, as Mitt's campaign goes up in smoke.

The Democrats are going to be far more fascinating. While Hillary maintains a significant lead in the majority of states, it has been slipping over the past few days. It is now unclear whether she will gain enough delegates tomorrow to effectively finish Barack Obama, especially with most of the states awarding delegates proportionally. We could see a brokered convention in Denver (I believe) this summer.

I'll be examining the long-term effects for the Republican Party after the results tomorrow, which will (most likely) result in McCain's massive victory. Mitt Romney still has a part to play in our party's future, but it just might have to wait four years. He might just be that champion of the "shining city on a hill" that our party needs after Bush's sundering of our coalition. And maybe I can stop writing about this blasted election and cover some real issues!!

Enjoy the returns on your network of choice, although I'll be enjoying Brit Hume's superb coverage on FoxNews.

On Wednesday, Rudy Giuliani decided to drop out of the GOP race and endorse John McCain. This is yet another windfall for the senator in this latest string of victories. As he gains support from more and more leaders of the Republican Party, his garnering of the nomination is all but inevitable. Mitt Romney is doing all he can to expose McCain as the true threat he is to conservatism and the future of this party, but this is the only way he can win. McCain is now on track to becoming the 44th president, and while I would not vote for his nomination, he would be far more tolerable than any Democrat. He can also handily defeat either Democratic candidate in November (more on them below).

Ron Paul is not worth mentioning. Crap.

Mike Huckabee is slowly dying out, as I predicted he would. Ever since his Iowa win, he has become less relevant every day. He can't even appeal to the evangelicals in South Carolina, who went for McCain, let alone broaden his base.

Rudy Giuliani's early endorsement of McCain may indicate a back-room deal made between the two. I believe that Rudy will be McCain's running mate. He can attract northern voters, possibly even stealing New York from the Democrats.


The Democratic race, which as been a one-on-one from the beginning, is now official with John Edwards departure. The only surprise here is that he waited so long. This race is very fascinating and highly unpredictable. It's almost ironic: 2 months ago, Hillary was the Democrat but the Republican was all but impossible to know. Now, McCain is the Republican but both Dems have a real chance.

I still stick by my prediction that Hillary will be the Democrat. She has the base of the party and is the machine candidate, which historically always wins in that party. The only group she doesn't have going for her is the black vote, which is how Obama won in SC and how he is leading in Alabama. She is still up by double digits in California, New York, and New Jersey. But the DNC awards delegates proportionally, which could provide for a brokered convention. This is Obama's only real chance at being nominated.

A major question going into the election process that voters have to ask is that of electability.

The Democrats

The Democratic field only consists of 2 candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Electability doesn't appear to be going through the minds of any voters at this point, which is actually typical of Democrats. Clinton has a major advantage in the nomination race: She is the establishment candidate. And in the Democratic Party, the establishment candidate has always won. 2000: Al Gore defeats insurgent Bill Bradley. 2004: John Kerry defeats insurgent Howard Dean. It is very likely that now, in 2008, Hillary Clinton will defeat insurgent Barack Obama.

But in a national race, electability is a difficult question between these. They are both very similar on the issues, but likability is a big difference. Barack Obama is just more likable than Hillary Clinton. This gives him a much greater chance over any Republican, none of which seem to have the likability that Obama enjoys.

The Republicans

The GOP field is interesting because each candidate has individual obstacles to overcome. However, what will become the primary difference between the candidates will be the issues and conservatism. None of the candidates are Ronald Reagan, but some are more conservative than others. Conservatism wins in this country every time it runs against liberalism, and Republicans need to choose a conservative. This rules out both McCain and Huckabee, who are blatantly liberal on several issues, not least of which include immigration and taxes. If we nominate any of the candidates except for these two, I believe that ticket can defeat either Democrat.

The Last Word

For the Democrats, the most electable nationally is probably Barack Obama, not because of the issues but because of how likable he is. For the Republicans, any candidate other than Huckabee or McCain can defeat either Democrat.