My top ten Obama VP picks attracted a huge number of hits and a good deal of comment, not all of it entirely flattering about my political judgment.
However when I went through the suggestions made by commenters I didn't feel constrained to make too many changes before putting it to a vote.
I removed Oprah because she had only been included to be puckish and because, as an Illinois resident, she is ineligible. I also took out Al Gore and John Edwards because, while they might have made sense at an earlier stage - to help Obama win the nomination - they are now unlikely.
I added in Rendell and Strickland because they make sense in terms of demographics and Hagel because, although a long shot, he would strengthen foreign policy experience, wrong foot McCain and make Obama look more independent and less classically liberal.
Over to you. Vote by clicking by one name and clicking the Cast Your Vote button. Closes midnight Thursday 15th.
UPDATE: Unfortunately our original poll omitted Jim Webb. We spotted this very shortly after the poll began when only a few of you had voted. If you are one of those few, please cast your votes again. And thanks to those who pointed it out.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's still over.
There is a great deal of excitement about the way Hillary is catching Barack. And she clearly is. The numbers show it.
In some states she could win with huge margins. Jay Cost, for instance, thinks that will happen in West Virginia. And clearly Obama is fading, which might have a real impact on the general election.
However, the simple fact is that Clinton's surge has come too late.
The maths are forbidding. Clinton will have to win in the region of 80 per cent of those superdelegates who have yet to declare. This is incredibly unlikely to happen. Indeed we can see, as these superdelegates are declaring all the time, that it is not happening.
Of course there are bandwagons in politics and the remaining superdelegates will copy each other to some extent. Just not enough.
For those interested in the Obama-Wright saga, this Chicago Sun Times article is worth a read.
(Hat Tip: Giles)
This business with Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a disaster for Obama, right?
Not according to Bill Clinton's former strategist Dick Morris. Here's his view: At the start of his campaign, Obama ran in counterpoint to the previous candidacies of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Here was a black man running for president on issues that had nothing to do with race as he rose above the victimization rhetoric that characterizes so many speeches of African-American political figures.
Now, in attacking the Rev. Wright as he did Tuesday, Obama can further define himself in contrast to Wright, just as he did earlier vis-à-vis Jackson and Sharpton.
So if, as the Chinese ideogram suggests, crisis is a synthesis of danger and opportunity, the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright presents plenty of both for Obama.
I think he is correct.
That Wright poses a great danger to Obama is obvious. How the Senator deals with his identity as an African-American is central to his candidacy. Wright threatens his control of this issue. He might also make Obama look weak (he can't shut his old friend down), less than honest (did he really not know what this man was about) and threatening (maybe Wright's views are secretly Obama's).
But as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton demonstrated again and again, every crisis is really an opportunity.
Obama can exploit the attention now being paid to Wright to show that he is strong (he slaps down those who cross him, even old friends), on the level (he speaks out clearly) and on your side (he defines himself against Wright).
This is a difficult trick because the story has started badly and it is always quite a challenge to turn such things round.
But one reason I believe he can pull it off is this - he is going to win the Democratic nomination anyway. he is too far ahead to be stopped. If he plays it right he can have his victory (actually won for other reasons) portrayed as partly the outcome of resilience and courage in the face of the Wright issue.
He can make it look like a triumph. And if he does, then pretty soon it will be a triumph.
 Hungry for change? Well, you've missed the chance to fill up on Barack Obama's breakfast.
The svelte senator managed to get through just half of his waffles and sausages on Tuesday before dashing off to his next PA commitment. The enterprising diner owner - quick to spot a lucrative leftover opportunity - swooped down and put them on eBay.
Bidding soared to $20,000 before the food was taken down and given to a regular customer.
While this tale of edible memorabilia may take the cake waffle, here are five more permanent items that you might like for your collection.
 
1) Some snazzy folding chairs complete with the donkey or elephant of your choice. The perfect relaxation for rallies
2) The infamous Hillary nutcracker
 3) Election Protection condoms (see above)
4) Hillary Clinton toilet paper
5) And let's not forget my all time favourite...The Barack Obama thong
In my latest Twofer, I talk to Sarah Baxter about the impact of Pennsylvania on Clinton and Obama's chances. What does all of this mean for the Democratic party?
Geraldine Ferraro thinks Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man running for President. Most others believe that there is enough prejudice in America that race will hinder rather than help him.
What is the truth?
There is no point simply asking people whether they are racially prejudiced. Some may be proud of it, but most people would not admit to their prejudices. In fact most wouldn't be aware of their prejudices, even if they were willing to be open.
So what would be a good test?
You need to examine instinctive decisions. You are looking for something measurable and where it is possible to isolate a racial component. It just has to be.....sporting data.
Joseph Price of Cornell and Justin Wolfers of Wharton have been studying the NBA. Their question - do those split-second basketball refereeing decisions have a racial element?
Here's what they found: The essentially arbitrary assignment of refereeing crews to basketball games, and the number of repeated interactions allow us to convincingly test for own-race preferences.
We find - even conditioning on player and referee fixed effects (and specific game fixed effects) - that more personal fouls are called against players when they are officiated by an opposite-race refereeing crew than when officiated by an own-race crew.
These biases are sufficiently large that we find appreciable differences in whether predominantly black teams are more likely to win or lose, based on the racial composition of the refereeing crew.
This suggests, at the very least, that Ferraro is wrong.
Another blow for Obama following his blunder on "bitter" gun-owners.
It turns out that the people who "cling" to weapons aren't so miserable after all.
The Wall Street Journal reports that armed Americans are considerably happier than their unarmed peers: In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
(Hat Tip: Boing Boing)
Alice Fishburn
You know things are bad when a man can't even itch his face in peace.
Wonkette points to the latest madness to emerge from the US election. Did Barack Obama swear at Hillary Clinton in a post-debate address? Make up your minds here.
Alice Fishburn
What was the problem with Obama's "bitter" comments? Isn't he right that many people are bitter about their economic circumstances? Isn't he right that some of those people turn to guns and religion?
Well, yes, he was right and that is what he did wrong.
Lots of people believe that Obama's big difficulty in the general election will come from his race. I think it will come from his famous detachment.
There are things that politicians can say and things that analysts can say, and they are not the same thing. Inevitably, for instance, his comments will be interpreted as a patronising slur on religious people, even though he is religious himself.
But Obama didn't respect that distinction. And I think his slightly lofty, stand-off manner is the reason.
He seems sometimes to be looking at the election from the outside. He sometimes seems to be standing back and marking his nation like an independent assessor. And, although this may seem to some like an odd comparison, there is a little bit of Michael Dukakis's emotion-free character lurking even in Obama's most rousing rhetoric
Republicans are concerned that McCain is too hot tempered. But Obama may prove to have an even bigger problem arising from something usually seen as an advantage. He is the cool candidate.
Could he be too cool to win?
 Desigher Tom Ford is living the the dream.
When he's not posing with a naked Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley for a Vanity Fair cover, he's measuring the thigh length of Daniel Craig for the new James Bond tuxedo.
But there's one final target in his sights. Some spiffy designer wear for a certain would-be White House occupant.
Here's Ford on Barack Obama: I think he's a great-looking guy but I think his suits don't fit him very well...
I wouldn't mind dressing Obama. I wouldn't say he's badly dressed, but he could sharpen up his look a little better.
Which begs the question, who's bidding to sharpen up Hillary's pantsuits? Anyone? Anyone...
Alice Fishburn
Barack Obama is still trying to pick himself out of the gutter after his disastrous bowling episode in Pennsylvania.
He may have lost but not everyone's finished the game. Yesterday, Clinton suggested a bowl-off as an April Fool. And now Jon Stewart queueing up for a turn.
Alice Fishburn
 Every few days, it seems, there is a resignation.
Someone from the Obama camp lashes out against Hillary and has to go.
Someone from the Hillary camp makes an inappropriate remark and it's goodbye. It's all fun and games.
Is the case of Rev Jeremiah Wright any different. Do his comments (his ranting sermons were taped, including his phrase God damn America) pose a bigger threat to Obama than any of the other incidents?
Shelby Steele, the African American author of Bound Man, a compelling book on Obama, believes that the Wright stuff is indeed more damaging: Human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."
Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").
How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother.
What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity.
This video is just crying out for adaptation for the Obama campaign, either as homage or satire. One or two people have tried, but not that well.
Can you fix it?
Ron Kirk may have lost an election, but he has no doubt that Barack Obama can win one. The former mayor of Dallas detailed in the Times last week why Obama should take Texas today.
Now in this new Fora video, Willie Brown, famed mayor of San Francisco, adds to the reasons why Obama will triumph. If all voters were ex-mayors, it seems Obama would have nothing to worry about.
If you can't see this video, click here
People scream. They actually scream. And they cheer when he blows his nose. How do you beat a man like that? Is it possible? Can Barack Obama be beaten?
Dick Morris, Bill's former strategist, believes it is too late for Hillary. Even if he is right, the question still holds. If Hillary can't beat him, can McCain?
Michelle Obama's comments (that now was the first time she could love America) have suggested to some that the problem with Hillary has been that she has given the wrong answer to the Obama question.
She has chosen to assert that Obama stands for nothing. But Obama's real weakness is that this isn't true. Gerry Baker argues that Obama left liberalism is his true Achilles heel. And Peggy Noonan suggests his problem may be that he could be portrayed as a liberal elitist.
Both really great pieces.
But switching to this characterisation of Obama, while it may be truer and more effective, is not a winner. It won't take you all the way to the White House.
Why?
Because of a lesson from British politics.
Over here campaigns generally take an age selecting a way of characterising their opponents. And the time is all wasted (I know because as a senior campaign staffer in two elections I have wasted quite a bit of it).
In the end it is the behaviour of your opponent that determines how he is seen and you can't do much about it. All you can do is adjust how you are seen.
The critical point is this - what you say about your opponent mainly reflects upon you rather than upon them.
Voters watch your negative messages and instead of listening and taking them on board they think about the messenger. Are they nice? Are they reasonable? Are they preoccupied with the right things?
Now the traditional view is that while this may be true in Britain it isn't true in America. Americans can use TV advertising after all. But I wonder. I think in tight races, where money is reasonably even, I think the rule holds even in the US.
What does it mean for fighting Obama?
It means, effectively that you don't fight him. You accept his rock star status. You grit your teeth through the windy speeches. You let the plagiarism go. And you make a virtue of doing so.
You make yourself look good by acting well towards Obama. You score points by showing that you get it. You look reasonable, calm, a person who gets things in proportion.
And then you concentrate on building your own profile.
I believe the problem Hillary is facing is because she has so far proven a weak candidate herself. Where was the fabulous Clinton message machine? If she was strong she could have swept Obama aside. It is the failure to get the positive side, the positive messages right, that has dogged her, not the failure to get the negative side right.
And if Obama encounters someone along the rest of the route to the White House who gets this, he can still be beaten.
Shades of Oscar Wilde this morning as the great Obama-Santos debate continues.
We've speculated before about life imitating art when it comes to parallels between the West Wing finale and Obama's presidential campaign.
Now Jonathan Freedland reveals the truth. Art actually imitated life. When the West Wing scriptwriters first devised their fictitious presidential candidate in the late summer of 2004, they modelled him in part on a young Illinois politician - not yet even a US senator - by the name of Barack Obama.
"I drew inspiration from him in drawing this character," West Wing writer and producer Eli Attie told the Guardian.
But is that all there is to it? Or do the West Wing writers really have prophetic powers? Here's Freedland on the success of Santos: But the soaring power of his rhetoric, his declaration that the old divisions belong in the past and his sheer magnetism, ensure that he comes from behind in a fiercely close primary campaign and draws level with his once all-commanding opponent. Every aspect of that storyline has come true for Barack Obama. Axelrod, now chief strategist for the Obama campaign, recently joked in an email to Attie: "We're living your scripts!"
How very postmodern.
Alice Fishburn
 What is the meaning of Wisconsin?
Since Super Tuesday Obama has won one victory after another. But they all had a similar quality. As Jay Cost argued on his invaluable Horserace Blog, the states he won were states in which his voting coalition was demographically strong.
There wasn't any sign of momentum.
Wisconsin is different.
This was a state which demographics would have given to Senator Clinton, but he won at a canter. It is the first serious sign of momentum.
Jay Cost's new calculations suggest that Hillary should be afraid.
Is an Obama victory now becoming inevitable? The momentum towards him seems strong, Hillary is loaning her campaign money, Clintonistas are being sacked and he is making clean sweeps in state after state.
Looking good, eh?
Well, hold on a cotton pickin' moment.
There's some maths to be done. And once it has been, it's clear this primary battle isn't over or close to being over.
Jay Cost, on his invaluable Horserace Blog has been tapping on his pocket calculator. He has built up a picture of the demographic features that make it more likely for people to vote for one candidate or the other and then used that picture to make judgements about future states.
It is well known that African Americans vote in greater numbers for Obama and women for Clinton. But it is possible to drill down far, far further than that.
So Cost shows (using regression analysis) that: As the median income of white voters increases, Obama does better; Clinton does better as the number of candidate visits increases; Obama does better in states that are "homogeneously white";
Clinton does "better" as we move to the South (However, remember that we included this variable to account for the inclination of southern whites to go for Clinton);
As the union population increases, Clinton does better; As the Catholic population increases, Clinton does better.
Now this can be applied to the remaining states.
Here we go: we could easily envision Obama doing well in states like Hawaii, Montana, Oregon and a few other smaller ones. Clinton, for her part, should do well in states like Kentucky, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. Texas and Ohio play to many of her strengths, and she should be quite competitive in Pennsylvania.
All in all, this implies a rough parity from here until the end of the primary season. Approximately speaking, neither candidate seems to have an advantage in the remaining contests.
But finally there is the question of momentum. Won't Obama's bandwagon simply run over Hillary? Not necessarily.
Momentum is important but there are two reasons for caution. The first is that, mathematically, there is little sign of it so far. The results post Super Tuesday appear to be driven by the demographic groups not by the acceleration of support to one or other candidate.
Second, these are two well known and well financed candidates. Momentum is much less a factor when candidates are already established in the field.
Altogether, Obama can take heart from his current position but the best bet is that this one is staying tight for quite a while longer.
Barack Obama has finally got his feet under the most coveted desk in America.
Unfortunately for Obama, they were feet of wax. Yesterday, the presidential candidate became the latest politico to go on display in the DC branch of Madame Tussauds. The Caucus has all the details: For Mr. Obama’s premiere, museum curators decided to stand him behind the desk of the museum’s Oval Office stage. He’s flanked by the museum’s pre-existing figures of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton on the left, and John F. and Jacqueline Kennedy on the right.
The arrangement is in no way meant as an endorsement of Mr. Obama, said Shameka Lloyd, a museum spokeswoman. It was just set up that way because Mr. Obama is the newest member of the museum’s wax family.
Occupying this position of power may represent the waxing of Obama's dreams. But it didn't take long for their Tussauds equivalent to wane. Later, in fact, the Hillary Rodham Clinton figure was moved to join Mr. Obama behind the fabled Resolute desk.
Both will soon be moved to another room altogether. Now all they need to focus on is avoiding total meltdown - in art and reality.
Alice Fishburn
Why is Bill Clinton so determined to racialise these primaries? Why would anti-racists not support Obama? And how has Obama's political strategy of bargaining threatened those such as Jesse Jackson who prefer challenging?
Daniel's column this morning deals with these questions. In it, he draws on the work of Shelby Steele. You can see Steele discuss his theories in this new FORA video. Well worth a watch.
If you can't see this video, click here
The headlines told the story of Obama's endorsement by the Kennedys, his taking the mantle of JFK. But it's all a bit more complicated than that.
You see, the Kennedy family is split.
So Ted Kennedy (JFK's brother) and Caroline Kennedy (JFK's daughter) are with Obama. As is Ted's son, Patrick Kennedy, a US Representative.
But the family of the Kennedy Obama really admires, Robert, are all over the place.
His widow Ethel Kennedy supports Obama. But those of his children who have expressed a preference - Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Bobby Jr, Kerry and Rory - all back Hillary.
It gets more tangled.
One of the reasons Ted Kennedy delayed his endorsement was that Christopher Dodd was still in the race. And Dodd is a close friend of the Kennedy family.
So Ted's sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver and a half-dozen other family members (including Timothy Shriver) put money on Dodd.
Perhaps now they will come in behind Obama too.
UPDATE: Rory Kennedy has now endorsed Obama in this article. My source for her backing Clinton was Politico on December 16th - usually a reliable source but this time wrong.
In this new FORA video, the controversial Randall Kennedy grapples with how Barack Obama presents himself and why he has chosen to identify as black.
If you can't see this video, click here
If you want to understand Barack Obama's appeal you should read the speech he delivered in Alabama Atlanta yesterday.
Yes, it entirely lacks specific proposals. Yes, it contains its share of left wing claptrap.
But, my God it's a brilliantly written address. Awesome.
[UPDATE TUESDAY 11.30: Fresh poll news and whether Hillary is doomed]
What about the weekend polls in New Hampshire? They seem to be bouncing about a bit, don't they.
Real Clear Politics records the numbers since Iowa. They show Obama +10, +13, +3, +9, +12, +1, -2, +12. The average is +7.2.
The basic explanation is the margin of error. Most of these polls have a sample of around 500 or so with a margin of error of plus/minus 5. That's pretty big and allows wildly different results from the same samples.
But there is one other reason to treat this bunch with caution. They are weekend polls, all of them.
One of the best US poll analysers is Mark Blumenthal on his site Pollster.com. He warns us all to beware weekend polls: or more specifically, surveys based on interviews completed entirely on Friday night and Saturday. Most campaign pollsters are reluctant to put too much faith in interviews conducted at those times, when younger and more mobile voters are less likely to be home.
In my 20+ years of looking at surveys conducted for campaigns, I can remember only one we did based solely on Friday and Saturday interviewing.
In that case even after we weighted by every demographic variable available to make it comparable to others conducted just days before, we produced a weighted sample that appeared much more engaged in politics and better informed about issues and candidates (and thus, more likely to be "certain" about their initial vote preferences).
He also says the vote in New Hampshire is very fluid, with many still undecided. I think this is much more likely to help Obama than hinder him, though.
What do you do when the 25th most powerful woman in the world is giving you a hard time?
Well, if you're Barack Obama, you wheel in the 21st.
The Oprah Winfrey machine will start purring through early-voting states this weekend. Her popular draw is such that organisers have already upgraded her South Carolina location from an 18,000 seat arena to an 80,000 one.
This is, after all, the woman who managed to propel Anna Karenina to the top of US bestseller lists. Now can she do the same for Obama?
Alice Fishburn
A conundrum for presidential candidates.
Are many small contributions better than a few large ones?
Andrew Sullivan points to this breakdown of the numbers from Think on These Things. Obama Size of Donations:
Under $200: $34,512,100
$200-$2299: $19,481,410
Over $2300: $25,268,200
Clinton Size of Donations:
Under $200: $9,460,880
$200-$2299: $23,504,390
Over $2300: $46,676,500
So, who should be more pleased?
Alice Fishburn
Barack Obama starts campaign emails with 'hey', fuels his teenage audiences with pizza and likes to listen to Beyonce in his spare time.
Clearly he knows the way to a student's heart. But will this pursuit of youth votes help Obama in the long run?
Real Clear Politics thinks not. In the following post, they suggest that courting this demographic is not actually as useful as many Democrats think: But, as Nagourney notes, the youth vote is largely an illusion. The larger point is that he or she who tries to capture the "youth vote" is probably on a fool's errand. Even John Kerry, who again we were told had captured the "youth vote," couldn't overcome all the other voting blocs in Ohio, where the "youth vote" is abnormally large due to the abundance of college campuses. Indeed, whatever gains a candidate might receive by appealing to the 18-to-24-year-old crowd are probably lost by alienating the population that actually does vote.
Alice Fishburn
Jay Cost has had enough. He has read too many pieces headed 'Is Obama doomed?' that really say 'Obama is doomed.'
Here is his spirited reply to the question of why Obama's campaign hasn't ignited yet: Because the race has not really begun! Because he has wisely not been spending any money on advertising! Because he does not have the advantage (or disadvantage) of being a known quantity like Hillary Clinton! Because voters are not paying all that much attention! Because the polls reflect the media dialogue, and therefore the media's infatuation with the Clinton campaign! And on and on and on.
Obama has raised a lot of money and he is going to give Clinton a run for hers.
A victory for Obama depends entirely on momentum. He doesn't want to have his at the wrong time
Favourite song selection can say it all for a political candidate.
Barack Obama recently announced that he enjoys 'Crazy in Love' by Beyonce. Reading: I'm with it enough to appeal to today's youth.
John Edwards has previously picked 'Small Town' by John Mellencamp. Reading: I'm a milltown boy made good - just one of the people.
And who can forget John Kerry's 2004 selection? 'No Surrender' by Bruce Springsteen. Oops.
But what about the rest of our '08 crew? Which melody best sums up Hillary Clinton? Or Mitt Romney? Send in your suggestions.
Alice Fishburn
Ben Smith, who writes an entertaining blog about the race for the Democratic nomination, has been speculating about Al Gore's endorsement.
He suggests that this time out it will matter. In 2004, famously, Gore endorsed Howard Dean just before Dean went down in flames.
This raises an interesting question. Endorsements are much prized. But why would they work?
Let's take Gore. He is widely known to dislike Hillary Clinton. If he endorsed Obama it would obviously be for his own purposes and to settle old scores. Anything he said about Obama wouldn't really be about Obama at all. So why would it make a difference?
Over on Influence at Work, where my favourite group of social psychologists ply their trade, Noah Goldstein cites some new research: Participants were asked to imagine themselves in the role of senior editor for a book publisher. In this role, they had a specific job of dealing with an experienced and successful author. They were asked to read excerpts from a negotiation for a sizeable book advance. One group read excerpts touting the author’s accomplishments spoken by the agent’s author, whereas a second group read identical comments made by the author himself.
The data verified our hypothesis: participants rated the author more favourably on nearly every dimension — especially likeability — when the author’s agent sang his praises as compared to when the author tooted his own horn.
In other words the public doesn't discount as much as it should for the fact that the endorsement is self-serving. However self-serving a Gore endorsement might be, those watching it wouldn't care about that as much as they ought. They will still take it seriously.
This is a fascinating video. Not for what it's in it really. No, it's just fascinating for what it is.
One of the most common refrains in politics is this - "If you could only meet him, you'd be blown away". There is a gap between a politician's public image and his personality that is so hard to bridge, something that many a campaign manager would simply love to be able to do.
This video comes as close as I've seen to achieving this, giving you a close look at what Barack Obama is like to meet.
It consists of four donors dining with the candidate and engaging in the sort of low key, slightly rambling discussion that you have. It is boring and riveting at the same time. And a breakthrough form of political communication.
If you want to watch the internet change politics, tune in.
(via Real Clear Politics)
How much should one read into the stories that Barack Obama is raising more money than Hillary Clinton?
There is certainly a strong relationship between money and election results in the US. If you like this sort of thing, you might want to read a study of the North Carolina House and Senate elections of 1998 and 2000. The main conclusion was: Among the findings we found a statistically significant and positive relationship existed between campaign expenditures and the total number of votes received by a candidate. Our model specification enabled us to estimate the net price of a vote to be $33 for Republican candidates, and $37 for Democrat candidates.
But Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics explains why we shouldn't get carried away. He argues: Is it [money] a necessary condition for electoral success? Yes. Is it a sufficient condition? No. It is a necessary, but insufficient condition. If you don't have enough money, you won't win. But it doesn't mean that if you do have enough money, you will win.
By turning the race for dollars into a proxy for the race for votes, pundits implicitly turn fundraising into a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. They see that Obama has raised more than Clinton, and assume that Obama somehow has an advantage. In reality, the question that they should ask from the money is: are these candidates on track to raise enough to compete? And the answer is yes, they are! Obama is on track to raise enough, and so also is Clinton.
For all the Obama hype it remains striking that Clinton retains a double digit lead.
Last night was the first night premiere for the 2008 Presidential election, as the eight Democratic candidates starred in a televised debate. So here are the reviews of last night’s performances.
 Hillary Clinton
The general consensus seems to be Hillary was the winner. Our very own Gerard Baker, usually a trenchant critic, thought: Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and now New York senator, reminded everyone why she has long been the favourite to win the Democratic nomination. In a controlled, highly disciplined performance which emphasised her experience and knowledge of all the big issues, she looked presidential
The Guardian and The Politico also hand her a points victory. But Slate’s John Dickerson didn’t join her on a lap of honour: She didn't do anything to fix her big problem which is improving her image as too divisive to get elected. The latest Gallup survey found that 52% of respondents have an unfavorable view of her. She never got a chance to connect with voters the way Edwards did and she didn't confect such a moment
 Barack Obama
The Obama bandwagon seemed to stall during tepid performance last night. John Dickerson summed up the consensus: Barack Obama did just fine, but he wasn't the magical character who turns out massive adoring crowds at his rallies
Gerard Baker agreed: Hesitant and slightly tongue-tied at first, he fumbled through his early answers and took too long to get to the point. More importantly, he didn’t really flesh out his long vaunted claim that he stands for a new kind of politics
But The National Review’s Kate O’Beirne awarded the debate to Obama, but still managed to take a pop at him: Overall, I thought a comfortable and self-confident Obama held his own on a stage with far more seasoned politicians. But his demeanor was more impressive than his content
 John Edwards
He might have had the best hair, but the big loser seems to be the former South Carolina Senator. Gerard Baker thought “the spoiler” candidate had the worst night: John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, and John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 election, probably had the most disappointing night. Perhaps unsettled by an early question about his infamous $400 haircut recently, oddly he largely failed to get across his populist economic message
And Mickey Kaus was left distinctly unimpressed: Edwards kind of faded into the background. Crickets didn't chirp - they completed their entire life-cycle during the pause after Edwards was asked to name his "moral leader"
Best Supporting Actor?
Joe Biden’s one word wonder was enough to take home the best-of-the-rest award. John Dickerson explains: Senator Biden had a great moment when Brian Williams asked with a long wind-up if Biden had the discipline not to be a "gaffe machine" and exhibit "uncontrolled verbosity." His response: yes
Of the other whatjamacallem candidates, Chris Cillizza writing on the Washington Post's The Fix blog said: Former Sen. Mike Gravel was downright mean, repeatedly attacking his fellow candidates; he even referred to Biden as "arrogant" at one point. He made Kucinich seem like a teddy bear by comparison
And Kate O’Bierne sums it up nicely: The only obvious mistake of the evening was failing to figure out how to deny podiums for Kucinich and Gravel
And finally, on Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd – well, no-one really had anything interesting to say about them, which tells you all you need to know.
Murad Ahmed
We shouldn't be surprised that politicians use tragedies like Virginia Tech to giddy-up their high horses. But some remarks by Barack Obama on Monday seem remarkably dumb. He gets a good drubbing at Reason for comparing the violence of Cho Seung Hui to the "violence" of outsourcing.
Robbie Millen
|
