Barack Obama's Secret Weapon: Tom Ridge?

I was thinking today, could Barack Obama's secret weapon against John McCain be none other than former Pennsylvania Governor and first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge? May not be as crazy as it first sounds. Here's why.

As Marc Ambinder brilliantly points out today over at the Atlantic, John Mccain is running into a real problem with his choices for Vice President. A week ago, Mitt Romney was the odds on favorite, and I was a firm believer that even if McCain didn't like or trust Romney, he still had to pick him politically. Romney, because of his Michigan connections, would give McCain a coin-flip (or better) chance to win here (and Barack Obama, barring a very strange election, cannot win without Michigan) and Romney also could put both Colorado and Nevada, two traditionally Republican states Obama is showing real strength in, out of reach by maximizing Mormon turnout. But, Romney's chances took a real hit when McCain made his housing gaffe last week. After being painted as out-of-touch with middle-class Americans, can McCain really put Mitt Romney, worth north of $250 million, on the ticket without playing right into Obama's hands? And not only that, look at the ads McCain has run since Joe Biden was named as Vice President. Ads of Biden and Clinton bashing Obama. Mitt Romney said much worse things about John McCain during the Republican primary. And even worse, McCain said horrible things about Romney. Imagine those ads. And McCain opened the door by running his anti-Obama ads starring Joe Biden.

And as Ambinder notes, even the other supposed finalist, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, doesn't look that attractive anymore now that Biden is Obama's VP. Pawlenty, aside from being as inexperienced (if not more so) than Obama, would be eaten alive by Biden in the Vice Presidential debate (just as John Edwards was by Dick Cheney in 2004). And how can McCain continue to attack Obama for not being ready to lead, and then pick Pawlenty as his second in command?

So how does Tom Ridge play into all of this? In his heart of hearts, McCain would almost certainly choose Ridge as his VP. The two are very close, Ridge has both executive experience (Homeland Security Secretary and as Governor of Pennsylvania) and knows Washington well enough to help get things done on the Hill. Plus, electorally, he puts Pennsylvania very much in play, and if McCain wins Pennsylvania, just as does if he wins Michigan, he makes the electoral math very very difficult for Obama. The problem with Ridge? Just one. He's pro-choice. And the so-called "Maverick" of politics has given in to the right-wing of his party and has eliminated Ridge from consideration.

As soon as McCain names his VP, especially if it's Romney, Obama needs to come out with a Tom Ridge ad, very much in the same vein as McCain's ad today about Hillary Clinton and the Vice Presidency. The ad needs to tout Ridge's credentials, his closeness to McCain, and then ask "So why is he not on the ticket? Because he's pro-choice and John McCain gave into the right wing of his party and chose ____ instead. Some Maverick." Or something like that. Maybe "Is he looking out for your values or theirs" while flashing pictures of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

The ad would accomplish multiple goals. First, it would remind women, especially those Hillary supporters, that McCain is staunchly pro-life. Because of his "moderate" imagine, many women wrongly believe McCain is pro-choice, and because of that, they find him easier to support, especially given their feelings about the Hillary Clinton-Obama primary. This would show them how pro-life he really is. Secondly, it would show that McCain is giving in to the far right, and doing so against his own better judgment, and in many ways, against what's best for the country. And it would instantly create credibility questions about McCain's decision making process.

Would it last long in this era of a 24-hour news cycle? Maybe. But it would make a powerful point, and maybe help change the public's perception of John McCain.

This Is Why Super Delegates Shouldn't Be Counted -- Yet

Every news organization, have it be the Associated Press, or CBS News, or NBC, or the New York Times, has their own calculation of the delegate fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Some of the discrepancy is because somehow many of the states that have already voted have yet to finish allocating their delegates, many from states Barack Obama won, like Colorado and Illinois, and even Senator Clinton's win from California has yet to be fully reported. New Mexico hasn't even figured out who won that state's popular vote yet, and they voted over a week ago. But, the big reason why CBS News has Obama winning the delegate race 1134-1131 while most other news organizations have Clinton slightly ahead is because these networks are counting these uncommitted Super Delegates. No network has the same list of supposedly pledged Super Delegates and even 2008 Democratic Convention Watch an invaluable blog covering these Super Delegates is having a hard time keeping it straight. Tonight the site posted an "Ultimate Delegate Tracker" which showed that none of the major news networks can arrive at anywhere near a consensus on whose up and whose down. All they can agree on, apparently, is that it's close. Barack Obama's official "Results Center has him leading 1031-944, but that doesn't include the Super Delegates, and it includes projections of delegate allocations which the news networks have not yet added into their tallies.

The biggest problem, though, is the networks shouldn't be counting the Super Delegates at all in their reporting. And I'm not just saying that because currently Senator Clinton has anywhere from a 75-100 lead among those Super Delegates (almost mirroring Obama's lead in the pledged delegates). First, the media has been talking about how if Barack Obama wins the most pledged delegates, but loses the nomination fight because of these Super Delegates, the party will fracture. And that's probably right, but only if people understand that the election is being taken away from him. By reporting the inflated Super Delegate numbers, it appears Obama has been fighting from behind, when in truth, he's never trailed among pledged delegates. He started ahead in Iowa, and has never trailed, not one day of this primary campaign.

But the real reason I have such a problem with counting Super Delegates is they are uncommitted and change their mind at any time, for any reason. Tuesday's New York Times has a story about how Hillary Clinton supporters believe she must win both Texas and Ohio on March 4th to remain a viable candidate. And it quotes some of her Super Delegates as considering bolting and moving their support to Barack Obama.

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

These Super Delegates are so uncommitted and so free to change their minds at any time, there is no credibility in any tally of Super Delegates. Just because Super Delegate X tells NBC she's supporting Hillary Clinton on Monday doesn't mean she won't tell CNN she's supporting Barack Obama on Wednesday and tell the Associated Press she's undecided on Friday. There's a reason these numbers aren't consistent, because the Super Delegates themselves have no obligation to be consistent, and can change their mind up until they vote (if they do) at the Democratic Convention.

So to keep reporting this facade of Super Delegate support, which at best is a rough estimate subject to wild swings in support, and at worst is a misleading total which causes average observers to believe in a lead which is only on paper, and which isn't inductive of anything other than how the morning went for any particular Super Delegate, is pretty irresponsible. Reporting on the Super Delegates is necessary, and important, but to include them in the totals which news networks report as the current delegate count isn't right, especially given these comments in the New York Times that the delegates aren't even fully committed to the candidate they claim they are for. NBC News does not include Super Delegates in their calculations (their current count is Obama 959, Clinton 905) and other networks should follow their lead.

And a quick aside, how impressive is Michelle Obama? A lights-out performance on Larry King tonight, showing that she's every bit as smooth and solid as her husband is, if not more-so. As Clinton supporter Paul Begala said afterwards, Obama should be wearing a "I'm Michelle's husband" button when he campaigns. You really get the feeling like we saw in the 1990s with Hillary Clinton, if Michelle wanted a future in politics, it would suit here just as well as it does Barack.

Wrapping up Super Tuesday: Obama Wins More States, Likely More Delegates

So, it's 1:00 on Super, well, now Wednesday, and do we know anything more than we did before the voting started? Well, according to NBC, Barack Obama will likely end the night with more delegates won tonight than Hillary Clinton. He won many more states (13) than Clinton did (8) including Connecticut, which was unlikely, and Missouri, which is a big victory even though it was only by roughly 5,000 votes.

The problem for Obama? Clinton won California. And despite momentum being on Obama's side, she held on in New Jersey and won big in Massachusetts. Even though Hillary was leading by double digits in those states, because of Obama's recent surge, his losses though look much worse than they would have otherwise.

The other problem is the calculation of delegates. The Obama campaign claims they will have the most delegates at the end of the night, and NBC's Chuck Todd agrees, but other networks have Clinton with an edge. I trust Chuck Todd, who had the delegates within 5 or 6 of each other, a virtual tie even though Hillary won the big states (New York and California).

Overall though, this was a big night for Obama. 13 wins for Obama, likely/possibly more delegates, and maintain their overall lead in pledged delegates (though we likely have to wait until tomorrow to find that out for sure). And the upcoming states favor Obama like Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.

It's still anybody's race, and if the delegates stay in Obama's favor, that's a big, big victory.