It's over

That's the only conclusion you can make after last night's results. When you delve into the math, Hillary has very few (if any) legitimate arguments left. First let's give the sobering reality of cold facts.

Fact: Obama will have a huge pledged delegate lead once the primary season.

Fact: Obama has won at least twice as many states.

Fact: Even adding in Florida and Michigan along with the caucus totals, Obama will win the popular vote.

Fact: Obama has won among Independents in all but 4 states (AR, OK, MA, RI). While Hillary can point to her double digit wins among Independents in Massachusetts and Arkansas, Obama has won by double digits in battle grounds like Missouri (67-30), Iowa (41-17), Virginia (69-30), Wisconsin (64-33), New Mexico (65-29), Nevada (47-33) and New Hampshire (41-31). What's really striking is that Hillary's biggest win among Independents is in Arkansas (home state edge) by 24. Obama's managed to win by bigger margins in several battleground states (VA, WI, NM, IA, and MO). For all of Obama's perceived struggles in Pennsylvania and Ohio (we'll come back to that), people have forgotten he won among Independents in both states (50-48 in Ohio and 54-46). Moreover Obama won Independents 55-45 last night in Indiana. What's striking is that since the Reverend Wright scandal broke, he's actually done better among Independents in two demographically similar states to Ohio.

This leaves Hillary with one argument that we heard repeatedly last night from Clinton surrogates. She does better against McCain than Obama does in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While true at the moment, it omits the obvious that I hinted at above. There was no exit polling in Florida. However Obama outperformed her among Independents in Ohio and Pennsylvania and he seems to be improving in the key demographics in those states. Moreover Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in all of the following possible battlegrounds: MI, CO, NV, NM, WI, MN, WA, OR, MO, IA, VA, and NJ. In other words out of 15 realistic (16 if you count Arkansas) battle grounds, Obama does better in 12. He wins among Independents in 14 of them. Who's the electable one, again?

Still Beating those War Drums

As if the election weren't providing enough reasons for Americans to collectively pull out their hair, we have that wonderful cauldron of instability, the Middle East. Particularly is the latest in the round of hatchet-wielding rhetoric to gin up support for what is likely some action against Iran. Some stories of note:

US Cites New Evidence of Iranian Support for Taliban

Iran tops state-sponsored terrorism

US Military Chief Slams Iran's 'Irresponsible Influence'

Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is 'reminder' to Iran

It seems irresponsible and dangerous for such rhetoric to emanate from the highest levels of American government. If I'm remembering Daniel Ellsberg's critical risk concept correctly, this increase in accusations and movement of ships into the region make war with Iran more likely. The possibility of an accidental launch or mis-step increases (due to misinterpretation on either side). The potential for an Iran first-strike increases because the value of waiting for an American first-strike decreases (the rhetoric increases Iranian fears which decrease their reasons to wait for something that is likely to happen). It puts Iran into a corner.

But, are we dealing with a rogue regime? I don't think so, and it's very easy to see why that is.

1. Russia has faith in the Iranian program and has stated that the country will work with Iran to resolve this issue. A re-emergent Russia, regional power that it is, is a formidable and credible ally to have to counterbalance the pressure from the US, Israel and other allies. This alone ought go go a long way to refute the (mis)perception that Iran is a "rogue" state.

2. Iran seeks to develop stronger ties with regional states. An example is India, which has recently concluded a recent meeting with the Iranian president. Iran is an important ally to India for a few reasons: it is the 2nd largest exporter of oil to India; it has influence in Afghanistan, whose stability is a security concern of India, and, Iran has an influence on India's Shi'ite Muslim India population. Iran is also involved in a pipeline with India (Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline; though the competing Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline may have more support). Both of these pipelines will connect the countries (and the region) closer together and allies them with each other which has the potential to undercut American influence (a concern the US already has given the decision by India to meet with Iran and extend a relationship with Iran contrary to American requests and law).

3. Iran has recently transferred its reserve currency from dollars to a currency basket (yen and euros). This decreases the pressure of the American sanctions and economic power on Iran. Iran is also developing energy deals with individual European countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Austria. These deals can decrease the reliance of European countries upon Russia for its energy supply. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves and also the 2nd largest natural gas reserves (behind Russia). It presents a valuable alternative to the European countries as well as a valuable resource of energy for Central and Eastern Asia (e.g., India, China and Pakistan).

4. Iranian sponsorship of terrorism is rational, if condemnable. It serves to balance American power in the region; counterbalance Sunni influence in the region; and, permits it to assert influence in its traditional spheres (e.g., Afghanistan). The Taliban is still the enemy, for example, but it is less of an enemy than the US (which is saying a lot, because Iran does not like the Taliban). The same can be said for its support of proxies in Iraq or against Israel: it serves to destabilize the area and permits Iran to assert its role as a regional power.

Iran can be balanced, deterred and engaged diplomatically. It is within the US' regional interests to avoid war and to strike out on a new policy toward Iran.

There is a great fear that this rhetoric, which continues a history of misinterpretations, misunderstandings and miscalculations on both sides since the advent of the Islamic Republic, will lead to conflict.

That's all for now. More needs to be discussed and developed, however.

Why the 24 hour newsmedia sucks (yet again)

What if two of the three major candidates running for president came up with a proposal that was so bad that economists from both the left and right opposed it? Would the 24 hour news media cover the story? Well, we're finding out our answer and the result isn't promising. Hillary Clinton and John McCain crafted a gas tax holiday proposal. From Gregory Mankiw to the Brookings Institute to Paul Krugman and the National Bureau of Economic Research, to Thomas Friedman; this is being hailed as possibly the dumbest economic stimulus proposal ever created. And yet, the news media has barely even mentioned this story. Instead they're focused on Jeremiah Wright who has already been repudiated by Barack Obama. Now maybe it's just me but when the two "experienced" candidates sign on to a terrible piece of legislation while the inexperienced candidate voices opposition, I'd say it's a huge deal. While I may not agree with Obama's choice of pastor, it doesn't personally offend me as much as two candidates using blatant pandering to support a bad piece of legislation. For the news media to miss this story is at best negligence and at worst a bastardization of their duties as journalists. Anyone who didn't cover this story should be ashamed or embarrassed.

Why the Clintons are fighting so hard for now and why Obama must win

One thing that had stumped me until a few days was why Hillary was fighting hard when the math and odds are so clearly against her. Then the Pennsylvania primary happened and I figured it out. Clinton has realized that she's fighting a generational battle. The exit polls bear this out. The under 40 set and the Millennials have decided that Obama is their guy. Now for the Clintons to see the next generation as vehemently opposed to them is dangerous to their SOP. Also the future doesn't bode well because of obvious next step. The currently under 40 set will hold more wealth and be even more motivated if their guy wins. In other words, the Clintons are drawing the line in the sand for the baby boomers to extend the fight for at least one more round. The only way for the Clintons to stop the flood gates is to win now and win ugly to the point that the under 40 set has had their political wills utterly destroyed. This is also why Obama has to win. If he doesn't win the present, an entire generation filled with promise will be totally disillusioned and may never recover. It may not be the reason why he originally chose to reason. However, it's the biggest reason left why he has to succeed and manage to do so while staying above the fray.

The danger of CW and last night (i.e. the conventional media must go)

I have a confession to make. I didn't watch last night's Democratic debate. My thought was that after 20+ debates, nothing new would come out of the next one. Boy was I wrong. Last night symbolized the tipping point of the DC media's relevance and why conventional wisdom is a bad thing. When you read 20 different sources with varying view points all completely ream the moderators of a debate, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the crowd booed the moderators during the commercial break, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the first question about Iraq (the number 1 or number 2 issue according to votes) came almost two-thirds of the way through the debate, you know something is wrong. The first question about the economy came even later. Health care wasn't even asked about. Instead the viewers were subjected to questions about pastors, lapel pins, Bosnia, and Bill Ayres. That is flat out disgraceful. What's even more disgraceful is that the conventional pundits were talking about how Obama was the big loser. Guess what, morons. Look in the mirror for the biggest loser. All of you idiots beginning with the two moderators (Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos) need to go. What's even more disturbing is find out that a clueless hack like David Brooks loved the questions. I'm sorry but David but voters won't give a rip about symbolic issues. They want answers to real issues and very little of the debate was spent on real issues. Hell, if I had been involved in the debate, I probably would've said at one point that the voters want answers to real issues and here's where I stand on ____ while completely ignoring the idiotic questions about lapel pins, etc. However in the traditional media, you'll see the conventional media protecting their own and bringing up more trivial garbage. However, it's time to call out the media for their hackery. Here are some examples of CW from the past 10 years:

1. Howard Dean would be the worst DNC chief ever- What happened. Dean created the 50 state strategy and the Dems took back the Legislative branch for the first time since 1994.

2. Being anti-war would kill the Dems- In reality, the Dems weren't anti-war enough.

I could go on for days. However, this quote that I stole from Daily Kos sums up the problem of the conventional media's conventional wisdom pretty well.

From November of 2002:

FRED BARNES, CO-HOST: [...] I wanted to ask you about something else, and that's someone that you have, you know, criticized very strongly in The New Republic, Nancy Pelosi, the new leader of Democrats in the House of Representatives. What, what's your problem with, with her?

BEINART: I think twofold. First of all, I think that Nancy Pelosi, even though she's now trying to appear as more of a moderate, was really elected by a House Democratic caucus that has moved to the left, and specifically wanted to elect someone as a repudiation of Dick Gephardt's pro-war stance.

And we very firmly believe that if the Democratic Party becomes the anti-war-with-Iraq party, the kind of soft-on-war-on- terrorism party, we really will no longer have a 50-50 nation, we'll have a 60-40 Republican nation. The Democrats will be in a kind of McGovernite wilderness for a generation.

That says it all.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

Has Hillary Clinton forgotten what party's nomination she's seeking. That's about the only explanation I can think of for making this run at party elder, loved statesman, former Vice President (for Bill Clinton, no less), and un-pledged Superdelegate Al Gore. Think about it, Al is about respect among the Democratic party faithful. Many still think he won in 2000. He managed to win a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2000 than Bill Clinton did in 1992 or 1996. Making a run at him as out of touch seems like the equivalent of political suicide for a Democrat. There's also another aspect of this slash and burn politics that scares me. If this is Hillary will do to a long time friend to score a cheap political point, what would she do to an enemy?

A one year anniversary of sorts and a story

As I told Joe yesterday, I'm in the middle of celebrating an odd anniversary. The day before the Final Four 2007 was the day I came home from a bad situation in Japan. However, the good thing about anniversaries is that they force you to reflect on the events leading up to the anniversary. One thing, I've realized is that my time in Japan is a major reason why I support Obama for President. While over there, I heard Obama was running and was happy in the sense that maybe a strong anti-Clinton rival had the chance of emerging in the Democratic Party. However, it was the next two months (coincidentally my last two) that made me a believer. From the minute he announced he was running for President, one of my roommates (a foreigner) asked me what I thought of this minority candidate. I told him that I would probably support Obama. At that point, he asked me pointedly why only probably. He found Obama's positions on the major issues and pointed out that I shared most of them for the same reasons. He also pointed out that I was worldly just like the Illinois Senator and that some of my drunken comments seemed to reflect Obama's vision of hope. He then asked again why I couldn't say for certain that I would support the Illinois Senator. I told him I would think about it for a month or so. A week later at work, in the mixed level section of my work a Japanese student of mine asked me point blank what I thought of this Obama guy. I didn't answer and asked the room (there were only 5 students) what they knew of him and thought about him. They all thought the world of him from what they had seen and read of his speeches. At that point, I knew why Obama was the right choice for President. Here I was in late February of 2007 and the foreigners were telling me that Obama would restore credibility to the US's image. A few days later, I confided in my roommate that I had become a believer in Obama not just because the US needs him but the world needs him to have confidence in the US, again. Looking back, it's interesting that the rest of the world knew what this country was ready for before we did.