With Friends Like These...

Karl Rove's take on the decisive Basketball Primaries (from the RCP Blog):

Fox News's "Fox and Friends"
Karl Rove on Obama's win in North Carolina: "He had a big victory last night. ... On the other hand, he won because of the dynamics of the state. There's a state that has 35 percent African American population, probably closer to 40 percent in terms of those that voted. And his vote among [blue collar], working-class people is terrible. He basically got a quarter and a third in the two states. ... It's a very big problem for him. The industrial Midwest -- from Pennsylvania through Wisconsin -- becomes in play if he's the nominee."

Is it just me, or is Rove sounding a lot like Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis?

I hope Republicans buy into this analysis and build their general election strategy along the same lines as Hillary's. Obama will shake his head and shrug, "this again? can't they come up with something original?"

On the other hand, Rove did acknowledge the Clinton-Obama extended tussle has been good for Obama (again, from RCP):

On the downside to Clinton staying in the race: "I'm not certain there's a downside if she remains in, and he has a tone that he had last night. ... They continue the dialogue, they continue to dominate, and he gets to be a better candidate. Part of this process is to make yourself a better candidate, and he has become a better candidate than he was at the beginning."

Chuckie Says: Hoosier State in Play???

During last night's coverage of the Indiana squeaker, MSNBC's political bean counter extraordinaire Chuck Todd made a stunning statement (just prior to Barack's victory speech):

"This state could be in play in the fall. You're going to have over a million people turn out in this primary. That's even two hundred thousand people more than they expected in a high turnout election."

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Limbaugh.

Could you imagine Election night coverage that doesn't start with the network anchors quadrennial pronouncement, "With the polls now closing in the State of Indiana, the XYZ Network calls the Hoosier State's 11 electoral votes for the Republican nominee?"

If that's the case, John McCain should consider forfeiting now.

KeithO: The Magical Moving Goalposts

Olberman determines which voter counts:

Is Anyone Welcome Aboard HMS Hillary?

One of TeamHillary's primary themes developed during this interminable nomination battle (alongside the concurrent Magical Moving Goalposts strategy) has been the shrinking number of people who matter.

The campaign's willingness to toss overboard key constituencies from the HMS Hillary is counterintuitive to any campaign whose only remaining argument is based on ELECTABILITY.

Despite arguing she wants every Democrat in all fifty states to have a chance to vote, Senator Clinton continues her march into oblivion by dismissing every voter (or voting bloc) who votes for "her opponent." By the way, does it annoy anyone else out there that Mrs. Clinton can't seem to remember Barack Obama's name unless he happens to be in the room? It has that "nails across the chalkboard" effect on me similar to when Republicans use their juvenile "Democrat Party" label.

TeamHillary's laundry list of Those Who Do Not Matter has grown with each passing contest.

First, she dismissed caucus state voters.

Then, it was African-Americans.

Next, we learned that small-state voters don't count, either.

Activists were next forced to walk the plank from the HMS Hillary when they proved mutinous to the Clinton Party restoration.

Red State Democrats, who began to believe they may actually play a role in a rejuvenated national party, were told they weren't welcome.

College educated, middle and upper income liberals soon joined the ranks of the "to-be-disenfranchised."

Now, after her ridiculous GOP gas tax holiday proposal, economists and policy experts who have universally criticized her for shameless, if not dangerous, political pandering, we can add policy wonks to the list of Those Who Do Not Matter.

How ironic that the renowned policy wonk herself has tossed aside the experts? More ominously, doesn't this seem frighteningly similar to the current Oval Office occupant's behavior vis-a-vis military and foreign policy?

Who is winning this war for oil?

Keith O and Rachel Maddow turned to the topic of Straight Talk Express' derailment over McCain's war for oil comments tonight. As we've come to expect, Rachel proves she is one of the sharpest Talking Heads in Punditland.

Rachel M: The press corps has not been enthusiastic about following up on John McCain gaps. This one seems to me to be such a big one on such a big important issue. And, it's on tape. There's video that it has to be followed up on. So, he's either going to need a new explanation or he's actually going to have to run with it and defend this idea. I think he might actually end up defending it.

Keith O: Well, I mean, this, this raises the point that Bush and Cheney have raised recently. Oil, the price of oil, the idea of Al-Qaeda getting hold of the control of oil as a justification for staying in Iraq. And that bring you this, to McCain. Five years ago anybody who suggested there was the slightest hint of a connection, a rumor, of a hint, of an innuendo of a connection between going into Iraq and the price of gas was considered a lunatic, unpatriotic, terrorist,lefty. How and why did this suddenly change into John McCain's campaign platform?!"

Rachel M: I, I honestly think that the most likely outcome here is that McCain end up defending this, at least at the end. But then, Karl Rove has recently – and I realize he's not in the White House anymore. But, he's still influential for these guys, especially for their talking points. He has recently raised the prospect of $200 a barrel oil if we leave Iraq. So, they are explicitly willing to tie oil and gas prices to what's going on with that conflict and what our troops are doing.

The problem is, though, if you actually make the case to the American people that we are there for oil, well, we've spent a trillion dollars, we've lost four thousand Americans, we've spent five years and now we're paying $4 a gallon? We are not the beneficiaries of the War for Oil. It does not redound to the American consumer.
I think the real Mission Accomplished moment right now, that we can see in Iraq, is when the oil companies getting precleared by the Iraqi government to bid on the Iraq oil fields service contracts ended up on the front page of the business section last month instead of the front page of the international section.

Straight Talking: War for Oil

McSame stumbles into a political minefield. At a forum in Denver, the Republican admitted what many opponents of the Iraq Quagmire have claimed all along:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Chris Matthews was atwitter about this new Straight Talking. He asks his panel, "How does McCain explain this one away? Just when have we gone to war over oil?"

Listen Up, Folks!

Hillary was on Nightline last night discussing Super Delegate Joe Andrew's decision to switch his support from her to Obama. Predictably, she dismissed the impact of his choiced and disagreed with his assessment that the prolonged campaign is now damaging Democrats' chances in November. "Anyone who believes that this is bad for the party, I just don't think is paying attention," she said.

Today, Gallup released a poll showing over 60% of Democrats believe this nomination fight is "doing more harm than good." While three out of four Obama supporters feel this way, a full 43% of Clinton supporters agree.

Let's review.

After telling us activists don't matter, caucus states don't matter, African Americans don't matter, college educated voters don't matter and young voters don't matter, Mrs. Clinton is now lecturing us that a majority of the Democratic Party doesn't matter.

Who's the elitist candidate?