‘08 will determine the future of the current conglomeration of the GOP. And I think they’re all out of bailing wire.

But with that said, this country is chock-full of stupid people who’ll vote against their economic interests just because they are fooled into believing that certain wedge issues (which do not directly affect their lives, such as abortion and race) are actually more important than Iraq and the Credit Crunch….so nothing’s assured.

I’ve argued before that I think that Obama is working on getting to a larger goal — not just winning, but winning with a true governing coalition, which you don’t really get with 50+1. Certainly it is too soon to know if he can pull it off, but it is an honorable effort.

Making Howard Dean the center of the MI and FL delegate controversy is emblematic of the character of the Clinton campaign. He is in a tough situation — he either has to advocate damaging the credibility of the process or he insists that these delegations live with the consequences of breaking the rules they agreed to. Either way he gets to be a bad guy for somebody. I hope they stick to the rules, and hope that this entire fiasco provides some incentive for both parties to radically change the primary process for 2016.

http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=opinion

*
I concur.
He even promised Kilroy that he would back transparency in school district funds and reneged in the space of a month’s time according to the blog. This is the guy who likes things the way they are and who says that this is the way things have been done since he got to Dover thirty years ago and he refuses to change a thing.

Meanwhile the state is sinking under the weight of the good old boy give-aways.

First, you’ve got Dean’s 50-state-strategy that is engaging people who haven’t ever been engaged before.

Next, you’ve got the “environment”, if you will, which is bringing out record numbers of voters.

Finally, you’ve got Obama who seems to be able to reach across party lines.

This could be the most participatory election we’ve seen for a long time. And that’s what it will take to shake up the corporate culture in Washington. It won’t happen in one cycle but 2008 could be a cornerstone for change.

Here’s why I disagree with Steve. The last three or four Presidential elections have been fought on a circumscribed battlefield, where relatively small segments of the electorate in just a handful of states have ultimately determined the winner. The Roves and McAuliffes of this world are skilled in getting to 50% plus one.

The Dean 50-state strategy effectively alters the calculus by putting more states in play. The Obama campaign really alters the calculus by attracting record numbers of volunteers and primary voters.

It is why the Clinton campaign seems to be litigating more than they’re campaigning: if they can’t control the calculus, they can’t win on a reshaped battlefield.

While I agree with Steve that Hillary’s campaign is doing the eventual nominee no favors, I think that once the spotlight shifts to the Democratic nominee vs. McCain, McCain is gonna be in a very shaky position, perhaps even worse than Bob Dole was. After all McCain is largely defending the record of arguably the least popular president in our history.

I cannot think of anything that would be worse for progressive government in Delaware than giving Bob Gilligan and his party control of the House. I’ll change my mind the next time — rather, the first time — Gilligan does something progressive.

You’re kidding here, right? Dems have been well known for almost as long as my political memory as a bundle of special interests groups that often sound like the “Peoples Front of Judea” bit from the Life of Brian movie. Dean has largely served as a flash point between the D grassroots advocates vs the D machine advocates. It can be hard to tell, but Dean has been winning this battle too.