Category Archives: Election

Underestimating McCain

“Of the three people running for President, he’s the only one to have thought that far ahead.”

Saturday, March 8, 2008

He doesn’t speak particularly well.  He tells us we could be in Iraq forever.  He keeps referring to us as “My friends” which I find really annoying.  Foreign policy and national security, maybe, but what if anything does he know about the economy?  (And don’t think for a minute that a strong economy isn’t essential to our national security.)  Did I mention he’s old?  At 72, there’s a significantly higher probability that he’ll be a one term President which I think is a real problem for getting things done in Washington where he may well be viewed as a lame duck on day one.  (…not to be confused with our current President, “Daffy Duck.”)

So what in the world do the Democrats have to worry about?  John McCain may be right about Iraq – and about the larger issue of how to handle the threat of terrorism.

The question is not whether or not we should pull out of Iraq.  No.  The question we should be asking Senators Clinton (my personal favorite) and Obama is what do we do after we pull out?

What do we do if well armed and well funded insurgents threaten to overthrow the Iraqi government in our absence?

Even worse, suppose there’s no violence involved, but that, through its own internal political process, the leadership and composition of the Iraqi government changes, becomes fervently anti-American.  It is, after all, the right of any sovereign, democratic nation to make whatever foreign and domestic policy it deems to be in its own best interests – even if that includes forming anti-American alliances with the likes of Iran.

What if the Iraqi government finds itself unable or, more to the point, unwilling to deal with anti-American terrorist elements operating within its national borders?

What do we do if any or all of this happens, and the usual talks and sanctions fail?

Nothing? Something?  No kidding, what do we do?  You’re President of the United States.  What do you do?

You see, this isn’t a problem John McCain faces.  Senator McCain is already sure that one or all of the above are going to happen if we leave.  When you think about it, he’s the consummate executive.  He doesn’t care what’s happened up until now, not really.  He’s only concerned about what happens next, and the relative costs and benefits of pulling out versus staying put.

If we stay there, maintaining the peace as best we can, we stand to keep Iran at bay while taking advantage of our in-country position to attack terrorist elements.  (They may not have been there under Saddam Hussein, but they are now, and we need to deal with them.)  Staying buys the government and economy the time to stabilize, to mature to the point of self-sufficiency.  The downside is the loss of lives, ours and Iraqis, and that our very presence encourages anti-American sentiment in the region.

If we pull out, well then, for all intents and purposes, we’re not going back any time soon, and whatever is going to happen in Iraq and the region is going to happen without us.  Simply put, Senator McCain believes that the current costs of a continuing presence are less than the future costs if we walk.  It’s just that simple.

The only way you counter his point is to argue that none of the negative futures is going to happen.  And you don’t know that.  In fact, you don’t even believe it, do you?

Unfortunately for whoever runs against him, Senator McCain understands that it’s sometimes more practical to continue a foreign occupation, then it is to start a new one – and that this is one of those times.  I suspect a majority of American voters will agree with him – particularly if something happens to threaten our security between now and November.  Of the three people running for President, he’s the only one to have thought that far ahead.

Game, set, match, McCain.

Question of the Day

Friday, March 7, 2008

If it’s “warmongering” when one candidate raises the specter of real threats to our country, what do you call it when the other candidate prefers not to discuss those threats, or downplays their seriousness?

Obama’s Slight of Hand

Avoiding the question:  Was opposing the use of military force in Iraq the correct decision to have made at the time?

Friday, March 7, 2008

Those of us who live in the real world don’t have the luxury of making decisions retrospectively.  We use the best information available to us, choose the most responsible course of action, and hope for the best.

Who among us hasn’t made a well informed, righteous decision that turned out to be wrong?  It is, in other words, entirely possible to do something perfectly intelligent, to make the right decision, only to regret it later.

The trick, and I mean that literally, is to do just the opposite, to make a bad decision which turns out to have been the right thing to do – and then take credit for it, as if you actually knew what you were doing in the first place.

When State Senator Barack Obama made his speech on October 2, 2002, in front of that anti-war rally in Chicago – the speech which is the basis of his claim, “I opposed this war from the start.” – he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was a “brutal” and “ruthless” dictator who had biological and chemical weapons, and “coveted” nuclear capabilities.  He then blithely offered his opinion, as if it was a point of fact, that we were in no immediate danger, and that the use of military force to protect the United States from these threats was, in his word, “dumb.”

Turns out, he was right, that by going into Iraq we would create more mess than we resolved.  Given that the WMD proved to be non-existent, the use of military force to protect us from those weapons was obviously inappropriate.  The problem is, he had no way of knowing it at the time, no way of knowing that the threat of these weapons of mass destruction wasn’t real.  Quite to contrary, he acknowledged the threat, but then chose to ignore it.  The wisdom of his statements that day in October, is hindsight.  It’s retrospective which takes his opposition to the war out of context.  He is, in other words, cheating, denying the reality of the original situation to make himself appear wise, when in fact he was lucky, at best.  Think about it.  He actually believed the weapons of mass destruction were real, and yet was willing to do nothing about it, other than make a largely ordinary, almost academic point about the consequences of any military police action, and wait for “the dustbin of history” to resolve the problem for us.

There’s nothing “dumb” about the old adage, “better safe, than sorry.”  That’s how it got to be an old adage.  Far from being insightful, the Senator’s comments were proof positive of his immaturity, naiveté, and lack of preparedness to be President.

You have to ask yourself, if not to abate the acknowledged threat of biological, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons in the hands of an anti-American despot – all negotiations and other non-violent means having failed – under what circumstances would he consider the use of our military to be warranted?  If the weapons had been as real as he believed them to have been, did he understand the risks he and the rest of us would be taking?  I’d almost prefer to believe he was just pandering to the crowd that day, rather than that he really wouldn’t have done anything as a matter of choice.

There’s another old adage that seems equally appropriate:  “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool…”  You know the rest.  The question is, can the Senator keep it up through the Democratic convention in August, and the general election in November?  (Saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln.)

I’ve decided to hold my own “Obama for President” rally.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

This will be brief, and without parking problems.  All quoted materials are from Illinois State Senator Obama himself from the landmark (his notion, not mine) speech delivered before an anti-war rally on October 2, 2002.  For your benefit, I will listen carefully, and report readings on the WordFeeder “Applause-ometer” in response to the Senator’s comments.  The excerpts are extensive to be fair to the Senator, and so that you don’t think I’m editing his remarks to make my point.

“Good afternoon.  Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.”

Well, that’s a relief.  Heaven forbid we should elect a President who is opposed to war under all circumstances.  Note to Senator Obama:  This notion of “war,” as opposed to the “use of military force,” needs definition.  In your head, as President, are we really “at war” whenever we use our military?  Maybe we’ll work on that together in another article.

Polite applause, but then he’s just warming up, and it was probably cold that October day in Chicago.  Hard to hear clapping from people wearing gloves.  Back to the speech.

“I don’t oppose all wars.”

Okay, we get it.  You’re in favor of some wars, not others.

“After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.”

And yet, he made no attempt to enlist?  Much more, much louder applause.  People in the audience are taking off their gloves.  He’s cashing the “we’re still pissed off about the attack on September 11” chip.  Trite, but effective.

“[For those of you who don’t remember me having said this 30 seconds ago,] I don’t oppose all wars.  And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or patriotism.  What I am opposed to is a dumb war.  What I am opposed to is a rash war.  What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Applause continues to build as the anti-war audience gets into his speech, and is becoming desperate to keep warm.

I particularly like the reference to “arm-chair, weekend warriors,” but thought, for a moment, that he might be talking about himself.  Besides, if you’re going to offer advice from the sidelines, which is the right and duty of all Americans, might as well be comfortable.

“That’s what I’m opposed to.  A dumb war.  A rash war.  A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

Well said!  Wild applause, but now he calms the crowd, reserving their energy for the big finish, preparing them for the harsh reality of the current situation, as we all believed it to be at the time.  What skill.  What talent.  To borrow from Jerry Seinfeld, he is the master of his domain.

“Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people…”

Hold on, I think I’m going to be sick.

“…to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”

The audience is quiet with shock and awe.

“Coveted” nuclear capacity.  Wow.  Can that man turn a phrase, or what?  I can almost see Saddam drooling over the potential for nuclear weapons, like the rest of us (men) pretending to ignore the cover of the SI swimsuit issue in the checkout line at the grocery store.

“He’s a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

The crowd’s confused.  Up to this point, they could have been listing to a speech by John McCain.  They agree, but it is, after all, an anti-war rally.  They’re damned if they applaud, damned if they don’t.

“But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, …”

Wait a minute.  How does he know that?  No, he doesn’t know that.  This is his opinion.

“…that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

Individual members of the crowd shout out their approval.  What a relief.  This Saddam person is nothing to worry about.  History will take care of him.

This is change alright.  The plan seems to be to wait for Saddam to evaporate, with State Senator Obama’s personal assurance that we will all be okay in the meantime, that Saddam will not use his weapons against us, or share them with others who would.

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.  I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

There is strangely little applause, in deference to Senator Obama, mostly because the crowd is frozen and has lost the ability to move their arms.  Frostbite is becoming a real potential, but fortunately everyone in the audience has medical insurance.

Is this guy (State Senator Obama) psychic?  In retrospect, he was right on the money, but was it the right argument to have made at the time?  Was it gifted foresight, superior judgment, or just a re-hash of the then justified opposition to the war in Viet Nam 40 years ago, without rhyme or good reason?

“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

And the crowd goes wild?

Hey, com’on.  He just acknowledged the brutality of a ruthless anti-American dictator who has weapons of mass destruction, which everyone believed at the time, but has reassured us that we’ll all be okay if we just wait for the “dustbin of history” to do its job, that the use of military force, as a last resort, to protect these United States is “dumb.”

This is your future President of the United States making the “I opposed this war from the start” speech he keeps talking about.  Why aren’t you on your feet, wild with applause and cheering?

Senator Obama’s Problem with Religion

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Senator Obama has been very careful to make sure people don’t think he’s a Muslim.  Heaven forbid.  I’m not a Muslim, by the way, and neither is he.  But so what if he was?  True, some of our country’s current enemies are followers of the Islamic faith – however distorted and ill-applied their understanding of its tenets.

The United States has had many enemies over the years, adversaries who have cost us far more than the terrorists of today have so far, and none of them were Muslims.  In all likelihood, there will be others in the near and distant future who will use violence to challenge our way of life, but who will be of different religions.  Are we not to the point where we understand that it is wrong, unfair, and fundamentally un-American to generalize the acts of these relatively few to the far greater numbers of people who may, incidentally, share their nationalities or religious beliefs?  I certainly hope so, and find it particularly immature of Senator Obama, who would be President and in charge of our foreign policy, to behave differently.

Maybe it’s just political.  (That’s not an excuse, just an observation.)  Maybe he’s concerned that many voters will think his being an American Muslim might affect his judgment, and imperil our country under his leadership.  (Can there never be a Jewish President for fear he or she will be bias in her handling of problems in the Middle East?)  Then he should say so in as many words.  He should demonstrate the leadership he is forever promising by telling us, in no uncertain terms from the pulpit at one of his famous rallies, that while many terrorists are Muslim, their religion is irrelevant. The problem, he should explain, is their personal beliefs –political and economic, as well as spiritual – which allow them to condone violence as an acceptable and perhaps even preferable tool for accomplishing their objectives.

Senator Obama is Christian, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.  It is a church with a reputation for its ministry endorsing anti-Semitic beliefs, including those of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan.  According to a CBS News report, Senator Obama has characterized the prejudicial rants of former TUCC Pastor Jeremiah Wright as those of “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.”  (References to Senator Obama’s relationship to the Trinity United Church of Christ and Pastor Wright are from the CBS News report, “For the Record:  Barack Obama,” February 28, 2008, currently running on www.CBSNews.com.)

The thing is, Senator, he is not your uncle.  He was your Pastor, and spiritual mentor.  If you honestly found his preaching and advice to be unacceptable, you could have acted over the past 20 years to have him replaced, or affiliate you and your family with another church.  How would you feel if you were running against Mayor Michael Bloomberg or some other Jewish candidate who was a member of a Temple where the Rabbi professed prejudice against African Americans?  I’m pretty sure you’d be out there insisting that he resign his membership, and chiding him for having put up with it for the past 20 years, calling into question his qualifications to be President.

So, Senator Obama, let me get this straight – because this is the message I’m getting.  There’s something wrong with being a Muslim, and you can tolerate some anti-Semitism as long as the ones professing it are people you like.  And you want to be President of the United States?  Well, let me give you some advice in the form of a quote from another US President:

“We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

That was written by Thomas Jefferson, Section II from a draft “Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia,” 1779.  The italics are mine.  Jefferson, in Section III to this same bill, further asserted that freedom of religion was one “of the natural rights of mankind.”

It’s not just about the right to worship, is it?  It’s also about not being penalized for holding any particular religious belief, about appreciating the fact that people of different religious beliefs can share the same core principles of our democracy, and can be equally effective in the management of its government.  This may not be something every American accepts today.  If not, that’s a change you can help accomplish.  Before that, you’ve got to believe it yourself. 

“I opposed this war from the start.”

A Criticism of the Clinton Campaign

February 27, 2008

Today’s quote is offered, in the strongest possible terms, as a criticism of the Hillary Clinton campaign.  I’ll be brief.  Let me refer you to a more explicit piece I wrote a few days ago called “Reckless Endangerment.”

The title quote, in case you didn’t recognize it, is by Barack Obama, said innumerable times.

From the outset of his campaign, Senator Obama has had Senator Clinton on the defensive regarding her vote to permit the use of military force in Iraq.  That vote, which she explained in her speech on October 10, 2002, on the floor of the Senate, was to authorize the use of military force, as a last resort, to protect the United States against what were then believed to be chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons in the possession of, and/or under development by Saddam Hussein.  In retrospect, that vote, which was approved by three quarters of the House and Senate, is regrettable – but that’s hindsight.  It was the right thing to have done at the time

Senator Obama did not vote for that resolution because he was an Illinois State Senator.  What he did instead was deliver a short speech 8 days earlier in front of an anti-war rally in Chicago.   He acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein and the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and yet, in the same short speech, called the use of military force, as a last resort, in defense of the United States, “dumb.”  His word.  His opposition to the use of military force – There was no “war” at the time. – is not something about which he should be boasting.  It was then, and still is  a sign of immaturity, of naiveté and irresponsibility – proof positive of his lack of readiness to be President.  The question isn’t whether or not Senator Obama “opposed this war from the start,” it’s whether or not opposing the war from the start was the right thing to have done.

Not interested in my opinion?  Fine.  Read his speech, and then ask yourself, if you were President and believed that a “brutal” and “ruthless” dictator had “developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity,” would you have considered the use of military force, as a last resort, to defend your country against these weapons “dumb”?

In his speech, Senator Obama says “I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States.”  Excuse me, but he had no way of knowing that.  It was his opinion, not an assertion of fact that he was offering.  So just how certain was he, or could he have been given what was known at the time?  It’s one thing to believe in something as a matter of principle, or to pander to a crowd.  The man does love his rallies.  To be President, and actually responsible for the lives of your countrymen and women, is another thing altogether.

Senator Clinton, if you or any of your campaign staff are listening, instead of defending your position or apologizing for it, you need to stand by it and challenge Senator Obama’s on the basis of his own words delivered in that October 2, 2002 speech.  Ask his supporters what they would do as President, if they believed, as he did, that the threats against our country were real.  Make it clear that his mantra, “I opposed this war from the start,” is the best argument yet, certainly on the subject of national security, in favor of your candidacy.

Either you make this point now, or I assure you John McCain will make it later.

“Doctor, Doctor”

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

For those of you who are missing the point about Senator Obama’s relative lack of experience, or who believe you get the point, but have convinced yourselves either that he’s sufficiently experienced or it doesn’t make any difference that he’s not, here’s a simple exercise to help you test the strength of your convictions.

Close your eyes – after you’re done reading this.  Pretend for the moment that, instead of Senators Obama and Clinton, it’s Doctors Obama and Clinton.  They’re both surgeons, with experience in their medical professions comparable to their respective histories as politicians.  You need to pick one to perform a complicated, life saving operation on you, a loved one, or friend.  Assume that, even if you or they survive, a botched operation could be at worst, catastrophic, and would at least affect the quality of your life and ability to earn an income.

Which one do you pick?  On which one of these doctors/candidates are you willing to bet your life?  Think the analogy is too severe, too personal?  Then you need to think again.

Blinded By the Light

An Open Letter to the Obama “Rally People”

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Clinton campaign has been making the argument that Senator Obama is all talk and no substance, that the hysteria of his rallies is impressive, but irrelevant to the job for which he is running.  The clear implication is that it’s only a matter of time before voters come to their senses, put aside their initial infatuation with the man, and focus on what should be the meat of the election, experience and program design.  Needless to say, Senator Clinton is doing her best to slap Senator Obama’s supporters back to reality.  What else can she do?  She’s running against a phenomenon.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama’s counterpunch proved her point.  Using a textbook, but still effective tactic, he denounced her argument by telling his audience that Senator Clinton was talking down to them, telling them that they were shallow, mindless lemmings for supporting his candidacy.  And the crowd went nuts with approval.

Give me a break.  “Rally People,” as I like to call you – It was either that or “Obidiots” or “Obincompoops.” – listen up.  If you don’t recognize a manipulative pitch when you see one, you deserve the criticism your candidate claims his opponent has leveled at you.

Rally People, you get what you pay for.  The problem is, you’re electing the President of my country, too.

Plenty of Time for Second Thoughts

Why Senator Clinton needs to stay in the race until the last delegate sings.

Monday, February 25, 2008

As of the today, Senator Obama has 1,374 delegates of which 181 are so called “Super Delegates.”  Senator Clinton has 1,275 delegates of which 241 are Super Delegates.  The allocation of Super Delegates varies somewhat from source to source, which is to say these people are still making up their minds.  A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to be nominated.

Further complicating the race for the nomination, Edwards has 26 pledged delegates.  Clinton won 50% of the Florida primary vote to Obama’s 33%, but Florida’s 210 delegates have been ruled ineligible to vote for their nominee due to a dispute over the scheduling of their primaries.  The same is true for Michigan’s 156 delegates.  Senator Clinton won 55% of that state’s primary votes, to 40% which were “Uncommitted.”  Senator Obama was not on the Michigan primary ballot.

There are 14 states and Puerto Rico which will be awarding a total of 977 delegates, through primaries and caucuses, between now and the convention.  Let’s be optimistic on Senator Obama’s behalf and assume that he wins two thirds of all the remaining delegates, including in larger states such as Texas (193 delegates), Ohio (141 delegates) and Pennsylvania (158 delegates) where the races will likely be much more even.  Two thirds of 977 is 651.  Add these 651 to the Senator’s 1,374, brings him to precisely the 2,025 he needs to win.  Allow a good number of the Super Delegates to migrate his way, and he’s home free with room to spare.

Suppose, on the other hand, the Senators basically split the vote in the three largest states where there are a total of 492 delegates at stake.  Let’s assume they win 246 each, and that Senator Obama gets two thirds (323) of the other 485 delegates to be elected.  Senator Clinton picks up the other 162.  These gains bring their delegate totals to 1,943 for Obama, and 1,683 for Clinton.

There are many other possible scenarios, but this one as reasonable as the next, so let’s stay with it.  Senator Obama is close, but no cigar, not yet, not unless there is mass migration of Super Delegates his way.  Why wouldn’t there be?  For that matter, why wouldn’t the Clinton campaign just cave, graciously of course, in the interest of party unity?  In fact, this might be exactly what happens, but then there is a reason why it might not – and why Senator Clinton should stay in the race.  Today’s February 25th.  The Democratic convention isn’t until August 25th, 6 months from now.

There are some of us who believe the Obama candidacy is mostly hype sparked by Senator Obama’s oratory, driven by a widespread exuberance for any alternative to the last 8 years of the Bush Administration in particular, and to the Washington establishment in general.  The problem is, so some of us believe, Senator Obama is inexperienced and naïve, that he will waste valuable time we can’t afford to lose learning how to relate to Congress, and could misstep badly given his lack of foreign affairs experience.  We’re also concerned that he can’t beat Senator McCain regardless of what some current polls are saying, 8 months in advance of the general election in November which, in Presidential politics, is a lifetime.

For those of us who watch and read way too much news, there’s clear evidence that the media (and perhaps some prospective voters and party professionals as well?) is beginning to turn, to reconsider its infatuation with Senator Obama in favor of a more studied, more realistic understanding of his programs and experience.  They are beginning to wonder what “The Rally People” will be the last to figure out on their own:  Can he beat McCain and, even if he does, will he make a good President.  Not that he wouldn’t eventually, maybe in 2017, but what about now?

Could be, if we get to the Democratic convention on August 25th without a done deal, the Super Delegates that were moving to Obama find themselves re-examining their party’s prospects – particularly if polls begin to show Senator Obama running even or, heaven forbid, behind Senator McCain who will have been campaigning against him for 6 months by then.  Elected Democratic delegates will vote for their designated candidate on the first ballot.  Two or three ballots later, who knows?  The convention may just decide that the primary votes which made sense during the initial hysteria of the Obama campaign months earlier will no longer assure them of a victory in the Fall, or a solid, dependable Presidency beginning in January.

Betting the Farm

Sunday, February 24, 2008

This piece is about the polls the media and the Obama campaign keep using to argue that the Senator is the better bet to beat McCain in the Fall.  Rest assured, the Clinton campaign would be pointing to these same polls if their indications were in her favor.  The question is whether or not we should pay any attention.  Are these polls a reasonable basis for Democratic primary voters to support the candidacy of Barack Obama?  …or Hillary Clinton were the results the other way around?

Take, for example, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamis poll taken February 19th and 20th.  The question asked was, “Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were…”  Only two candidates were presented at a time, Democrat and Republican, and the order of the names was reversed from respondent to respondent.  According to that poll, McCain beats Clinton 47% to 44%, while Obama beats McCain, 47% to 43%.  Good for Senator Obama, so it would appear, but consider the following:

1.          Obviously, the general election is not going to be held today.  A lot is going to happen in the next 8 months during which McCain, the poster boy for experience in general, and national security and foreign affairs in particular, and his entire Republican party will be coming right at Barack Obama.  Do you really believe that voter opinion will not be affected, one way or another, between now and then?

2.          The “margin of error” was plus or minus 3%.  What you think that means is that the results could be off, either way, by no more than 3%.  And it does mean that, sort of, but not exactly.  What the pollsters are saying is that they are 97% certain that their sample is representative of the total population of likely voters.  The problem is, the 97% is a guess on their part, an intelligent, scientifically based guess, but still a guess nonetheless.  If their assumptions about who’s going to vote are correct, and nothing happens between the date of the poll and the election to change the opinions of those likely voters, then the margin of error will only be 3%.  If they’re wrong, it could more, affecting not only the spread, but the direction of the victory they were predicting.  Witness, for example, the inaccuracy of polls take recently, prior to the New Hampshire primary which Senator Obama should have won, but didn’t.  The polls were probably wrong for two reasons:  voter opinion was highly fluid, and their sample of “likely voters” was not, in fact, representative of the total population of actual voters within the 3% margin the pollsters were claiming.

3.          In the two comparisons – McCain/Clinton and McCain/Obama – there were 9% and 10% undecided.  These percentages of undecided voters are 3 or more times the margin of error.  These people may be undecided now, but they’re going to vote for someone on election day.  When they do, the outcome of that election could be completely different than what the pollsters are predicting now, 8 months in advance of the real thing.

4.          More than 121 million of us voted in the last Presidential election.  That’s over 60% of the electorate.  The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls interviewed 900 respondents over the phone.  Round numbers, that’s a sample size of .00000743 which, in English, is about ¾ of 1 one thousandth of 1 percent of the voting population – scientifically selected, of course.  (A friend of mine, who studied statistics in graduate school on the way to getting her degree in Sociology, argues vehemently that the sample may be tiny, but, if intelligently selected, still meaningful.  She is a true believer.  I’m not, but pay her respect by including her point of view.  It’s the “if intelligently selected” caveat that concerns me, and the undeniable fact that polls are sometimes wrong, more so the farther in advance of what they are predicting.  The pollsters are sophisticated professional social scientists doing their best, but they’re neither perfect or psychic.)

5.          Roughly 30% of estimated registered voters have been voting in the primaries this election season.  That’s only half of the total that will vote in November.  What does the other half think?  Clearly, most of them don’t care enough to have voted so far.  What does exactly does that portend for the general election?  I haven’t the slightest idea.

6.          In another poll, this one conducted by Financial Dynamics, February 14th through the 17th, of 803 registered voters, the question was different:  “If the election for U.S. President were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic or the Republican candidate?”  Simpler question, without the mention of any candidate names.  Democrats win 46% to 35%, an 11 point spread, but with 5% voting “Neither,” and 14% more “Unsure.”

Confused?  Uncertain about what to think?  My point exactly.  Do you really want to allow these polls to influence who you nominate for President?