Political enthusiasm

Democrats always start off well so Barack Obama's early lead could evaporate quickly. But a very interesting stat in the latest LA Times poll:

Are you enthusiastic towards your candidate?

Barack Obama Yes=81%, No=17%
John McCain Yes=45%, No=51%

Here's the analysis:

How should Obama play it?

A really interesting poll appeared in the Washington Post yesterday on the Obama-McCain head-to-head. Two features particularly stood out: (i) Independent support for Obama and McCain is split evenly between the two candidates; (ii) Eight out of ten Democrats support Obama but nine out of ten Republicans support McCain. So there seems to be a challenge for Obama: shore up the base, pitch for the centre-ground or can he pull off both?

Actually, from the detailed poll data there is evidence that Senator Obama is very well placed: leads on the economy (the most significant issue by a 14-point margin), gas prices, age is more significant that race according to these poll findings, levels Iraq War policy (though underlying attitudes seem to be more in his favour), ties leadership, crucifies McCain on change in an election where voters want change and a massive number believe the country is headed in the wrong direction (85% or so.) In fact, if one were to induce Obama's poll rating from the these factors, you would expect a much greater lead than the 6% lead that he has.

So there is something holding back Senator Obama. Something which is not revealed in these polls. It could be the overhang of Hillary support from the primary campaign which he hasn't yet been able to dislodge. Maybe voters just like John McCain despite their ratings of him when its broken down into sub-issues. Maybe they just haven't quite taken to Senator Obama yet. The one area where Senator McCain enjoys a significant lead over Senator Obama is on counter-terrorism. Perhaps, despite misgivings about his economic policy, they just feel a bit safer with John McCain.

Looking at these polling data, Obama may be able to pitch both left and centre by driving home his advantage on economic and gas price policy. This feels like an economy election with the normal caveat of 'events, dear boy, events.' He will have to accept a score draw on foreign policy I suspect (which given where John Kerry was is a monumental achievement if he can pull it off.) On the economy, that is where he can build a real coalition of support. Given it is area of self-confessed weakness for John McCain also, the sun could well be shining on such a strategy.

Post script: I have changed the Electoral College counter to Real Clear Politics data. The www.electoral-vote.com data seemed to be too generous to Senator Obama and I'd rather go with the cautious assessment. Nothing scientific, just a hunch.

So long, farewell and thanks for all the fun Mrs Clinton

A few weeks ago I argued that Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit the race quite yet and instead continue in the campaign but do so in a more magnanimous fashion. It seems that magnanimity is a bit too much for Ms Clinton just yet. Her surrogate Harold Ickes has been all over the news channels this weekend raging about 4 delegates taken from her tally in Michigan in opposition to the will of 600,000 voters.

Four things: 

(i) Barack Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan as the ruling at the time was that NONE of Michigan's delegates would be seated. The Obama campaign consequently didn't compete the seat following the DNC's ruling. 

(ii) It is clear that turnout was completely suppressed in Michigan so it is not at all clear that it can be counted as a proper primary in any sense. Compare Ohio, which has a similar population to Michigan and had a turnout of 2.2million. 600,000 or so voted in the Michigan primary in a more Democratic state. It is also a state in a geographic region where Obama has done well.

(iii) The decision was made by the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on the basis of a proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party. 

(iv) We are talking about FOUR delegates. Perhaps the Clinton campaign, in a characteristic act of denial, has not noticed that it is in deficit by over 150 delegates! Is it really worth ratcheting up the rhetoric to such a degree when the potential gain is so little?

So this is all a bit silly now. At a time when the rhetoric should be dampened, Clinton surrogates are still trying to stoke up resentment. What can they possibly gain? Nothing. The Democrats could pay a heavy price, however. Even the Clinton loyalist www.mydd.com concludes that her chances are 'near to nothing' as she now has to win 82% of the remaining delegates.

A few weeks ago, 'not yet' was my conclusion about whether Hillary Clinton should quit (with the important 'be nice' caveat which has been broken.) The final primaries take place in Montana and South Dakota tomorrow. The minute those polls close provides a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton to show her political courage and deep commitment to the party. 

Yes, Hillary, the time to quit has come. So long and thanks for all the fun.

The British Obama?

Fraser Nelson is a very talented commentator. I don't think that this line, good though it is as a journalistic construction, will be seen as his finest hour:

"Cameron has plenty heavyweight ideas, he just needs a good slogan. Obama has the reverse problem."

Hmmm. Let's compare. Here is the Conservatives' policy page:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.opportunity.page

Three pages, three basic areas, not many actual policies and certainly very few costed policies.

Now compare Barack Obama's policy-rich agenda:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

There is no comparison. Just take one critical area, both America and Britain are both facing difficult economic times. Barack Obama's economic plan (notice the link), whatever you may think of its merits, is clearly something that is thought through and actionable. The Tories' economic plan (notice the absence of a link)? Do they have one apart from the usual platitudes? It's certainly not any of the 'policies' listed on their website.

It's interesting watching the US elections- the early attacks on Obama for lacking substance have completely disappeared from the terrain. Experience is now the dividing line. Clearly the collective conclusion of media commentators, political opponents and friends alike is that Obama is a candidate of substance.

The off-the-mark attacks on Obama's lack of substance of a few months ago still ricochet around the UK political landscape. It's time that the bullet hit the ground- how on earth could anyone get through the most gruelling political process in the world without having solid and defensible policies? It just doesn't make sense.

The suggestion that David Cameron has the substance where Barack Obama just has rhetoric is just a tad fanciful. OK, it's utterly ridiculous. David Cameron's challenge is to find the slogan AND the heavyweight ideas. We'll wait with bated breath.

What is the point of the BBC's Justin Webb?

John Edwards has been flagging the fact that he was about to endorse Barack Obama for a few days now through his appearances on a variety of political agenda-setting shows. And now he has actually endorsed Obama.

The BBC's Justin Webb says....it helps Obama. Genius. Justin you had to put your reputation on the line there. Some might question what you are doing apart from watching US TV and looking at US political websites. But not me (I'm doing the same.) We know that you're there to be Mr BBC: boring and slightly patronising and very much behind the curve.

If the BBC doesn't raise its game on political reporting, surely there should be a franchise system to enable other broadcasters to provide a genuinely high quality service (and this does not mean audience numbers.....) In fairness, Matt Frei is excellent. The fact that the BBC messes around with Justin Webb shows that the organisation isn't.

Mike Smithson of www.politicalbetting.com is equally perturbed at the BBC's political coverage.

Hillary as Vice President?

Michael Tomasky runs through the negatives for Hillary becoming Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee: he would inherent her weaknesses, her foreign policy stance, they couldn't work together, and then there's Bill. I would add the negative of some of her comments and insinuations during the campaign about his ability to be Commander-in-Chief in particular. Republicans would have her comments on a loop during the whole campaign if she was VP nominee.

I guess it comes down to whether he thinks he can win over her voters. He will be fairly confident of achieving that and so won't risk the negatives that Hillary represents in my view. Also, he's in such a strong position now that he can avoid having a unity ticket foisted upon him by the party. If not Hillary then who? Well, I've always thought that Bill Richardson would make an interesting choice but let's see how the debate shapes up.

Obama takes lead in super-delegates

This is a critical turning point in the campaign. Obama now leads in super-delegates (party elders, representatives, and officials) according to ABC News. He already has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates (based on caucuses and primaries.) The party is rallying behind him.

Why Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit......yet

The result is now all but beyond doubt. Yet that doesn't mean that how this is resolved does not matter. The dignified retreat by Mike Huckabee should be the model for Hillary Clinton. She is still campaigning and that is absolutely right but how she campaigns matters.

The tone of this battle needs to be brought down. Right now, many of Hillary's supporters are smarting, especially in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and other recent states where she has won on the basis of a tough campaign against Barack Obama winning the white, blue collar vote in the process. Up to a third of her voters currently say that they wouldn't vote for Barack Obama. Hillary has to manage the upset down to give Obama every chance to reclaim those voters for the Democrats. That process is best achieved on the basis of Hillary seeing this race out to its conclusion but in a positive manner that unifies the party. She needs to start saying lots of very nice things about Obama.

A cynical viewpoint sees Hillary's strategy as a destructive one. There is a theory that she is trying to destroy Obama's candidacy with a view to running again in 2012. She has gone too far on a few occasions- by pouring petrol on the flames on a number of controversies, by suggesting that Obama had not been properly vetted, by suggesting that only John McCain and herself have the experience to be Commander-in Chief. I don't believe that is her strategy at all but we will see in the next few weeks.

Clinton is an exceptional but highly flawed candidate. She hasn't won this battle but boy did she turn it into a fight. Now is the time to show the political world her very best side. If the great divider in American politics can be the unifier of the Democrats she will do herself no end of good. And who knows, if Obama doesn't quite make it, she may get another shot in 2012 and this time she could win.

Postscript: Some good articles shamelessly pilfered from Real Clear Politics are linked below.

Joe Klein foresees an uplifting battle of ideas and personalities in the McCain v Obama race (Cindy McCain was also on MSNBC yesterday saying that her husband wouldn't go negative.....but his surrogates?) but the media needs to give that type of campaign the oxygen it needs. Klein's conclusion:

"A general-election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama doesn't need any hype. It won't be boring. The question is whether we, politicians and press alike, will grant this election — and electorate — the respect that it deserves."

Dick Morris, a wily and utterly unsentimental political titan, doesn't see Hillary letting this defeat go lightly. Instead she will hang and chop Obama ready for display in the butcher's window.

And finally, David Ignatius discusses how the situation in the Middle East could project itself into the campaign over the coming months- continuing Iranian training of militia in Iraq and a potential US military response, a possible Israel-Palestine 'shelf' peace deal, and an interesting diplomatic initiative by Turkey to broker a peace deal between Syria and Israel.

Obama bounces back

It's been a rough few weeks for Barack Obama but last night's results are a big moment for him. To win North Carolina by a mile and to lose Indiana so narrowly has reclaimed the momentum for Obama. If he can now maintain the momentum once again the almost inevitable nomination will become inevitable.

The discussion about Hillary being his running mate has re-surfaced and it has some superficial attraction. It would re-unite the party and make Obama more appealing to some of those demographics that Obama has had relative difficulty in wooing. White, working-class voters is the demographic that springs to mind. It seems like a crazy idea in reality though. After all that Senator Clinton has said about and implied about Barack Obama it would be a difficult match to make work. Not only that, there is still the impression that Hillary and her cheer-leaders believe that Obama has stolen this nomination from them and she is the rightful nominee- a nomination that he has tactically deprived her of.

On top of that and more crucially, what may make some sense in the campaign most definitely will not make sense in the White House: there's two of them to contend with, all the baggage from the Clinton White House will return once again, the Republicans may be going easy on Hillary right now because they want to face her in the election (How do I know this? They keep on saying how she is the better candidate than Obama) but just wait until she's either on a ticket or in the White House itself. The logic of Hillary as VP nominee just doesn't stack up.

Obama throws Jeremiah Wright under a bus

Star Wars metaphors are cliched and geeky. Here is one. In Star Wars IV: A New Hope, Obi-Wan Kenobi allows himself to be slayed by Darth Vadar in order to induce the type of rage in Luke Skywalker that will allow him to reach the outer limits of his power to defeat the empire. I wonder if that is exactly what Jeremiah Wright has done for his parishioner, Barack Obama, over the last few days in his preposterous tour of TV studios and the like.

Well, whatever the mad pastor's motivation, Obama finally threw his religious mentor under a bus (see Monday's very well timed post!) yesterday in unequivocal terms. I hope that this is the end of the matter. I suspect it won't be but it had to be done nonetheless.

Here is the video:

Why is Obama not doing worse?

He's just had a bad loss in Pennsylvania (though it was expected, the cash he piled in should have resulted in a better outcome), he has accused traditional working class voters of clinging to religion, guns, and harbouring hostility towards immigrants through bitterness, and the mad pastor is on the prowl. Obama's poll position is remarkably solid.

David Brooks in the New York Times has part of the answer. America is divided, this is a demographic election. Obama and Clinton have different appeals to different demographics and that is just playing out. As E.J.Dionne of the Washington Post has said, this primary is just like the census. You know how each candidate is going to do in each group then you can predict the outcome in any state once you know its demographic configuration.

What I have seen less of and will look out for is why Obama and Clinton have different appeals to different demographics. There will be positive and negative reasons. A major reason for Obama's difficulty in most states with the white, working class could well be that the familiar has more appeal when you find yourself in an economically and socially precarious position. So it may not just be guns and god that you cling to. Perhaps you cling to Clinton as well?

Postscript: The mad pastor problem is becoming corrosive for Obama and it is clear that his brilliant speech on race has failed to limit the damage. I wonder what Jeremiah Wright's tour of Town Halls and TV studios is designed to achieve. Self-rehabilitation would seem to be the obvious motivation but the more he speaks, the more ridiculous he sounds. Perhaps he is not throwing Obama under a bus but, rather, encouraging Obama to throw him under a bus. Obama has a difficult choice to make. Should he disown his former pastor and former church? It may become inevitable. If it does, it is a decision he needs to make sooner rather than later.

Democrat doom-mongers

Two very similar articles appeared in the New York Times and The Times of London with a deeply pessimistic outlook for the Democrats' chances in November. Paul Krugman argues:

"Well, now he [Obama] has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain."

Krugman goes on to argue that the rightful path is for the Democrats to re-connect with the old certainties: the successful Clinton economy, and the great social programmes of the past, Medicare and Social Security. And unfortunately, the desire to create a 'new politics' just doesn't mesh well with that narrative. It has left the Democrats in a 'self-inflicted state of confusion' Anyone guess who Krugman is backing?

And in today's Times, Gerard Baker argues a very similar thing. He dismisses Obama and Clinton as 'two cynical losers' and goes on to say:

What they want is a man - or a woman - of character and record to inspire and lead them. That may be why the Democrats are in trouble.

Now. Let's just steady up here for a while. Contrary to what Krugman and Baker argue (both of whom I respect as commentators) the Democrats are not hurtling towards a defeat just yet. In fact, there has not been a national poll that has McCain ahead of Obama for a number of weeks. See here for the latest Real Clear Politics list of polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

The average also has Hillary ahead. So actually, the portents at this stage are quite good. Despite a bruising and negative primary battle, the only time that McCain has stepped ahead of Obama is around the time of the Jeremiah Wright affair (which hit Clinton as well.) Actually, while Obama has been wounded in recent battles and that harms his chances against McCain or of being a 'transcendent candidate' he is still in a remarkably strong position. A third of Hillary's voters say they won't vote for him and he's still ahead!

Now let's deal with that 'petulant vote' once again. Remember when people were saying that the conservative right would not vote for McCain during the Republican primary? Well, guess what, nobody's talking about that now. Though I haven't seen any figures on this, my guess is that a lot of those nay-sayers are now returning to the fold. It will be more tricky for Obama to win back white, socially conservative, middle class Democrats, i.e. the Reagan Democrats, but not impossible. He will need an 'I get it' moment but he is more than capable of that.

A final point worth making is that the Democratic Primary is focusing relentlessly on the negatives of Obama and Clinton and not on those of John McCain. Anyone who thinks that a candidate with who is comfortable with the notion of 100 years in Iraq for US troops, confesses that economics is not his strongest suit when the US is in an election, can not tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, cosies up to lobbyists, maintains a Bushite foreign policy and has a vicious temper will not face a hard time come the Presidential election proper is in for a major surprise.

So the doom-mongers are too hasty. The only confusion is the notion that what is happening now is a definitive guide to what will happen in the election. We ultimately have no idea what will happen post nomination. But we do know that both potential Democratic nominees start off from a remarkably high base.

Hillary Clinton on Iran

There's something about Hillary's promise to 'obliterate Iran' if it launched an attack against Israel that I find deeply concerning. Surely the one thing that we've learned about international conflict is that to escalate rhetoric unnecessarily is hugely dangerous? Just such an escalation day by day made the Iraq conflict more and more inevitable.



A more lithe and sophisticated politician would surely make the important point that Iran does not have nuclear weapons as the latest CIA National Intelligence Estimate shows and is at the very least a number of years away from acquiring them, that America would work with its international allies in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere as well as with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, and if we found ourselves in a situation where Iran had nuclear weapons and was threatening Israel with them that would be a monumental and avoidable failure? There are just too many 'ifs' in the question of what would you do if Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel. The politician might also say that to accept those hypotheticals is to escalate a situation unnecessarily which is ultimately against US security interests. It is grossly irresponsible to play rhetorical or political games with people's lives or the national interest.

I am worried that Hillary Clinton feels the need to prove herself in the national security arena (particularly following her Tuzla 'sniper fire' political humiliation.) That could have severe consequences.

Whatever Hillary may say about withdrawal from Iraq (which she is in favour of), there has to be a question about whether her election would mark a continuation of a Bushite foreign policy. Sure, there has been criticism of Barack Obama for saying that he would launch strategic air strikes should he receive actionable intelligence even if those camps were based in an ally's territory (i.e. Pakistan.) Actually, Obama's policy doesn't sound so mad. Besides there is a slight difference between shelling terrorist camps and 'obliterating' a nation.

The rest of the world is thirsting for a definitively post-Bush foreign policy (not just on Iraq.) There are now question marks about whether this is what Hillary Clinton is offering.

Postscript: A great 55-45 win for Hillary in Pennsylvania last night at the upper end of expectations. What does it change? It changes two things and emphasises another. It puts the momentum back with her and that will be maintained if she can snatch Indiana on May 6th. Secondly, it means that she is ahead of the popular vote if Michigan and Florida are included. At the very least that undercuts Obama's popular vote argument.

Finally, it emphasises that he is still have a lot of difficulty with less affluent, working class, white voters. As the race proceeds in this bitter fashion the chances that these Democrats will automatically fall behind Obama as a nominee recedes. So Obama still ahead but a very good night for Hillary indeed.

Postscript 2: It appears that Simon Jenkins covered a similar topic in his Guardian column this morning. I am pleased to say that we came to the same conclusion, i.e. that only Barack Obama is likely to mark a decisive break with recent US foreign policy.

Obama the Orthodox

A few weeks ago I wrote that the impact of the protracted Conrad-esque Primary campaign would be to normalise Barack Obama. David Brooks of the New York Times analysed it brilliantly on Meet the Press yesterday. He described how Obama has become an orthodox liberal and orthodox politician over the last few weeks.

In some respects the former is more concerning than the latter. I suspect the anti-liberal attack will not be as effective in a year where the American economy is rocking and the Iraq occupation shows no sign of any conclusion.

The main problem though is what happens when the candidate assumes office. As Brooks pointed out, some of the positions being adopted in these primaries are going to prove impractically limiting in office. Withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the circumstances and absolutely no tax increases for anyone earning less than $200,000 were two commitments made in Wednesday's debate that will soon provide unnecessary obstacles to a new Democratic President (I can see early betrayal coming on....) For Hillary's part, she placed Saudi Arabia under America's security umbrella. For me, this was the stupidest thing said by any candidate in this election so far.

As Robert Novak noted, Obama's post-partisan appeal is being undermined in this process. Once Hillary finally falls he will quickly have to re-discover some of the transcendent appeal that launched his campaign into the stratosphere earlier this year.

What of Hillary? Well, it would be amazing if she doesn't win tomorrow. But increasingly her function in this campaign seems to be to remind independent voters that Democrats are conventional Washington politicians really.....

Her new Chief Strategist, Geoff Garin, who seems like a genuinely nice guy, someone with real integrity, revealed the strategy, also on Meet the Press yesterday. When pressed what was Hillary's path to the nomination, his response was basically that the campaign was just going to stay alive as long as possible and see what happens. Does survival count as strategy? Whether it does or not, the longer it continues the more orthodox Obama seems. Maybe that is strategy after all......

Barack Obama draws crowd of 35,000

What can you say? Wow.

Postscript: But the Pope drew a crowd of 65,000 in New York. Let's put it down to the fact that the Pope isn't seeking election....

Obama's gaffe and what it means

Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama's comments about people in small town America being bitter about their economic hardship then clinging to verities of old such as guns and God and becoming hostile towards immigrants, free trade and people who are different have been gleefully seized upon by his opponents. Is it not concerning that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now hunting as a pack?

That aside, perspective is urgently needed. Ed Kilgore on Real Clear Politics provides it. The gaffe (and it was a gaffe: a much too sweeping a comment that left him open to his opponents' attacks) has presented the Clinton campaign with an opportunity to emphasise that Obama has had some relative difficulty in swaying white, middle-class America to vote for him thus far. There is an under-current to all this but the argument neutralises a core element of Obama's claim on the nomination. He has emphasised that there is large portion of his vote that just won't transfer to Hillary. Now she is emphasising the same and what's more those white, small town, economically alienated, socially conservative Democrats will be attracted to McCain. For some figures see the 'Obama and Clinton's petulant vote' post. Super-delegates get ready to play piggy in the middle (but you're used to that, right?)

Where does this leave things? In limbo really. Clinton will win Pennsylvania by a healthy margin. She will probably win Indiana by a narrower margin. Obama will have a very healthy win in North Carolina. Narrow advantage Clinton on April 22nd/ May 6th. Obama still well ahead overall. Things will have moved a millimetre towards Clinton.

More broadly, either Democrat candidate will face a challenge in converting all their opponent's vote later in the year. In this, both Clinton and Obama have a point. But they both have a three month Presidential campaign in which to achieve the shift. The polls in August rarely relate to the result in November. As James Carville never tires of pointing out on Meet the Press, Clinton was third place in the polls in July 1992 and Kerry was 14 points clear in Summer 2004.

So what to do? How about deciding the nominee on the basis of who has the most delegates? And it would be a very brave decision indeed for the super-delegates to flip the candidate with the most pledged delegates....

Is that John McCain I can hear whistling in his bath?

Postscript: Clinton's ad following Obama's comments can be seen below:

Clinton and Obama's petulant vote

An interesting analysis of recent poll data on Real Clear Politics breaks down the latest Clinton/Obama v McCain poll. Most interestingly, one third of Hillary Clinton's supporters would back McCain over Obama and one quarter of Obama's supporters would go for McCain over Clinton. The Clinton statistic is even more remarkable when your consider that her support is essentially less affluent, less educated voters plus Democrat women who are in their middle-age and older. These demographics are a core component of Democrat support in any election.

Any pollster will tell you to treat questions such as 'what would you do if...?' with extreme caution. Nonetheless,these numbers must cause concern for the Democrats. It is clear that the ongoing contest between Obama and Clinton is dragging both their ratings down. Obama leads McCain in States such a Wisconsin where he enjoyed support and Clinton enjoys the same advantage in States such as New York. Slightly worryingly for the Democrats, McCain enjoys a significant lead in Ohio over both candidates in the latest poll though Clinton does enjoy a lead there on average.

So both candidates' supporters are showing a degree of petulance. Obama's appeal to independents, Republicans, and the young (all groups that do not necessarily vote for the Democrats- rather obviously in the case of cross-over Republicans!) suggests that these are voters that could be lost to the Democrats should he not be nominated. In other words, they are in it for Obama and no-one else. Cart-loads of independent and Republican voters are being registered for the Democrats so that they can vote for Obama in Pennsylvania. The closed primary there means that you have to be a registered Democrat to vote.

Clinton's supporters should well be different. Given unity, a good Convention, a ringing endorsement of Obama by Clinton, and some sidewalk pounding, it should be within the Obama campaign's capability to win them over.

In a sense, the Obama 'quarter' is more worrying than the Clinton 'third.' But both represent significant challenges for the Democrats and the nominee's ability to sway the petulant refuseniks could determine which way this Presidential election goes.

Barack Obama buys surge

Barack Obama's surge in Pennsylvania has begun. It is partly explained by a phenomenal outlay of advertising spend- $2million in a single week. For a moment yesterday I did a quick on-line search for flights and checked my passport but it is still very likely that Hillary will win so I'm staying put for now. He's catching up in a similar way to his surge in Ohio so he'll fall just short in all likelihood. But he will slash Hillary's delegate and vote take and that is crucial.

The race still winds forward like a Joseph Conrad novel- when will it end and how many bodies will be strewn on the riverbank by the end?

Hillary Clinton's strategist misses the point, loses his job

Mark Penn, former Chief Strategist to the Hillary Clinton campaign, wrote a (rather fun) book, Microtrends, in which he analyses how by targeting small groups that are on the rise, you can have a big impact. An article in Portfolio magazine explains how he did precisely the opposite with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Penn tried to move the mountain rather than quarrying and mining away at a victory for his candidate. I suspect that he actually did apply his theory but just targeted the wrong groups. Penn went for the old micros traditional to the Democratic base rather than the new micros that Obama has attracted: independents, college students, affluent and well-educated liberals, disillusioned anti-Bush Republicans and so on....

What Penn's failure shows is that for all the polling in world you can't beat good old-fashioned political instinct. Any old mathematician can sit down to read and interpret polls. But it takes real political instinct to inspire whole new (and some old) groups of people. Obama has pursued his message of inspiration because that's what he believes. His organisation have maximised that appeal into a fund-raising and campaigning machine that is formidable and incredibly innovative.

Candidates that are built from the bottom up lack authenticity. Hence the likely failure of the say anything candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Better to have a candidate who lives and breathes their beliefs then work out how that can have maximum impact.

In politics it is not just about making a profit, it is about winning an election (or primary.) If you are an electronics manufacturer and sell millions of MP3 players because of clever targeting and marketing that's great. But in politics you have to get more than your rival not just satisfy your shareholders. Microtrends are fine but they rarely suggest a winning strategy. That is down to good old-fashioned policy and politics.

Barack Obama re-establishes lead. A matter of time?

It is clear that Barack Obama has found firm ground again following the Jeremiah Wright hiccough . Most polls are showing him back in a solid lead. The Real Clear Politics poll average shows him back ahead of McCain also.

So what is Hillary up to? Some have suggested that she has a financial issue and that is why she is staying on. You can understand why she is concerned at the prospect of quitting the campaign with an $8million debt with $5million of her own money in the race as well. But no, that doesn't really explain it. She still believes that Obama will stumble. And she wants to be around to save her party when he does.

My guess is that he's been through the worst of it. The Jeremiah Wright stuff has blown over. It will come back from time to time but he won't be fatally wounded. The Rezko link is unfortunate but that sort of thing tends to frustrate the voters as it's like trying to clench yoghurt. An excellent summary of the current state of play is in this week's New York Review of Books. It includes a quote from James Warren, Managing Editor of the Chicago Tribune, about Obama. For him, the 'vetting' has happened.

Though he's unlikely to win it, he's closing the gap in Pennsylvania, and he just has to keep to his current course. Nancy Pelosi who will chair the convention has said that the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win. Expect Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Edwards and Jimmy Carter to start to suggest the same thing.

Obama is good to go.