McCain's Hail Mary to Hispanics

Adapting an emailed tip in my own words here ....

The McCain team has sent 25,000+ of these two-sided prayer cards (PDF) to Hispanic churches and prayer groups in NM and CO. They contain an image from when McCain visited Our Lady of Guadalupe as well as a prayer for John McCain. More pictures of McCain's Mexico visit are available here.

The text of the prayer:

God, our Father, all earthly powers must serve you. Help your servant, Senator John McCain, to fulfill your plan for him. By honoring and striving to please You at all times, may he continue to defend the right to life of the unborn and promote peace, justice and freedom for our Nation. We ask this through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother and Patroness, Our Lady of Guadalupe.

The text is in English and Spanish.

Latest numbers: McCain back up among Catholics

Signs of hope?

Two weeks ago McCain and Obama were nearly tied for the Catholic vote 42%-43% with 15% undecided.

A week ago Obama support among Catholics peaked at 49%-38% with 12% undecided.

Today, Catholics have flipped back to McCain 40-47% and 13% undecided.

Obama polls extraordinarily high among those who report "no" religion (74%) and Jewish (69%), he leads McCain in "Other Christian" (47%-42%) but falls behind among "other" religion (40%-52%) and Protestants (40%-53%).

Yes, it appears McCain continues to do less well among Catholics than Protestants (which presumably includes evangelicals).

But then again, this is just polling.

Million dollar question: does this recent shift have anything to do with the fact that over 100 bishops have published statements arguing for the priority of life issues?

update: if you want a taste for what these bishops are saying, read an excerpt from this one:

"In the U.S. Bishops' document, Faithful Citizenship, there is a section which addresses whether it might ever be morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports and intrinsic evil, such as abortion – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil. In response, the Bishops note that it might be possible if another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion.

While this is sound moral guidance, I ask you, are there truly any grave moral and proportionate reasons, singularly or taken together, that outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year?

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver puts it in perspective when he says: “What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life – which we certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed." - Bishop James Johnston of Sprinfield-Cape Girardeau

And this statement was heard from the pulpit of every Mass this weekend. That has to have an effect.

Purely political

The last week before an election is always crazy. The atest communiques from the battlefield:

• "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he would hold regular press conferences and "not just call on my four favorite reporters." But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn't held a full press conference -- submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps -- in more than a month, since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla. (ABC Blog)
• "Newspapers and magazines swarmed around the first black student to win the most coveted spot at the most vaunted club at one of America’s most prestigious institutions. In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”) He signed a contract to write a memoir." (NYT)
• Chuck Norris: "I'm voting for those not yet born" (guess who he's not voting for)

Priority items:

• "A taped radio interview from 2001 that has re-emerged has Barack Obama saying the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income. (FoxNews) [Watch the YouTube clip here.] {Fallout tracking here, excellent and insightful NRO commentary here.}
• WaPo: "Almost Everyone Would Do Better Under the McCain Health Plan ... His tax credit is larger than the current tax subsidy for insurance."

Charles Krauthammer on not voting Obama

I feel bad giving away the ending, but if you like this, read the rest:

How has [Obama] fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it, and — finally — deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Well....

Never trust a blogger when he says "this will be my last post..."

Anyway, what Drudge described as the "Most accurate pollster in 2004 election" is today showing Obama 44.8%, McCain 43.7%, Not Sure 11.6%...

McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.

Interesting. {update: link fixed - thanks Edward!}

update: are people listening?

Claim: Obama's strenuous Catholic outreach making inroads

Could they be buying it?

"... the bigger news is Obama's jump among white [non-hispanic] Catholics, where he's totally reversed McCain's lead. Last month, McCain led 48-percent to 41-percent among white [non-hispanic] Catholics. Now, Obama's up 49-percent to 41-percent. And here's a fascinating tidbit: McCain's 16-point lead among White Catholics [overall] from last month has evaporated. The candidates are now dead even among those voters. Obama's strenuous Catholic outreach is finally starting to pay off." (BeliefNet)

Can you hear the glee in Dan's voice?

Related: Shock Poll: Dems Favor Obama (CMR)

Making the Catholic case for McCain

As I've noted in my writings about the Presidential race, my main question has been to determine whether or not it is acceptable for Catholics to vote for Barack Obama. I also have not missed opportunities to point out where John McCain fails to abide fully by Catholic social teaching.

SDG has a lengthy post at JA.O on the Catholic case for McCain, taking into consideration the objections raised about Obama, and weighing the prudence of voting for a third party (or not voting) instead:

"As I noted in my first post, some serious and thoughtful Catholics, including my friend Mark Shea and his sometime co-belligerent Zippy Catholic, have suggested or argued that to support and vote for a candidate who advocates any intrinsically immoral policy, even if the only other viable alternative is far worse, is objectively wrong. Thus, the argument goes, given McCain's support of embryonic stem-cell research, Catholics who support and vote for either major-party ticket, whatever their sincerity or their culpability may be, are engaged in objectively wrong behavior.

... However, to the extent that quixotic-vote advocates have been influenced by concerns over the alleged unjustifiability of voting for any candidate who supports any intrinsically immoral policy, even when the only other viable candidate is far worse, they have been led astray. Such concern is, I submit, unnecessary, unfounded and deeply unfortunate. Catholic moral theology does not support the scrupulous conclusion that one cannot support or vote for the candidate one regards as the least problematic viable candidate unless that candidate is free of all support for intrinsically evil policies."

He goes on to post a brief summary of his argument.

Slideshow: Cardinal Egan, Obama & McCain together

Al Smith was the first Catholic Presidential candidate. My father has one of his campaign buttons. Yesterday Cardinal Egan hosted both John McCain and Barack Obama at Al Smith's fundraising dinner:

Coverage at WSJ.

So what do you think of this?

1. A perfect image of the Church transcending politics and bringing people together?
2. A pitiful depiction of the worst sort of pandering for political expedience?
3. An unconsciounable ignoring of the differences that truly divide us?
4. A benefit dinner - what else?

Obama's mind might have been elsewhere during the evening:

Cardinal Edward Egan, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama were staged for their grand entrance in seating order. However, all did not go as planned.

McCain's name was called, and the Republican nominee took the stage. Obama's name was called in the midst of the applause and he appeared to not hear and did not take the stage, producing an awkward moment where the Democratic presidential nominee was chatting unknowingly as people waited for him to take the stage.

The announcer then went on to introduce Cardinal Egan instead.

Obama was then introduced - for a second time - and he finally took the stage to sustained applause. (ABC)

(Unendorsed) commentary at Commonweal. And interesting observations from the National Post.

update: Diogenes is not pleased.

In the spotlight: Pro-Obama Catholics

The question of whether one may, in good conscience, support Barack Obama as a Catholic after taking into account his positions and views will be an ongoing AmP feature leading up to the November election.

After last night's debate, it's a perfect time to survey what top Catholic writers and intellectuals are saying about the decision-making process, and about the recent minority phenomenon of (militant, vocal) Catholic Obama supporters.

As an important qualification - one that I thought could be presumed but judging from the comments and emails is evidently not apparent - arguments that raise questions about the prudence of voting for Obama do not necessarily constitute an argument for a McCain vote. That's a separate question, and while I realize a consideration of either men does not occur in a vacuum, it is crucial to realize that my reservations about Obama are not the result of a prior decision that McCain is the right candidate. That said.

Point one: Some people are arguing stridently that Obama is the more acceptable candidate to Catholics.

Point two: When Archbishop Wuerl was presented with the dominant strains of the pro-Obama argument by Catholic journalist John Allen, he repudiated them.

Point three: Robby George has published a comprehensive overview of Obama's positions on the life issues, and talks about an often-neglected aspect of Obama's anti-life views, namely, his desire to proliferate embryonic stem cell research:

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

He sandwiches this point around two statements:

"I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying...

... In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies."

Point Four: George Weigel in Newsweek has also heard the arguments and contributes in his response a summary of the current situation and a prediction of the future should Obama win:

The argument [of pro-Obama Catholics] is, some might contend, a bold one. Yet it is also counterintuitive, running up against the fact that, by most measures and despite his rhetoric about reducing the incidence of abortion, Barack Obama has an unalloyed record of support for abortion on demand. Moreover, he seems to understand Roe vs. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions as having defined abortion as a fundamental liberty right essential for women's equality, meaning that government must guarantee access to abortion in law and by financial assistance—a moral judgment and a policy prescription the pro-life Catholic Obama boosters say they reject.

About the growing boldness of the American bishops, he observes:

Many U.S. bishops, in other words, seem exasperated with Catholic politicians who present themselves as ardent Catholics and yet consistently oppose the Church on what the bishops consider the premier civil-rights issue of the day. It seems unlikely that the bishops, having found their voices after discovering the limits of their patience, will back off in an Obama administration—which could raise some interesting questions for, and about, a Vice President Joe Biden, whose fitness to receive holy communion may well be discussed in executive session at the bishops' annual meeting in mid-November.

Indeed, the questions and problems we are facing now will only increase - dramatically - if this will come to pass. I join Weigel in waiting to see what the likes of Kmiec, Kaveny and Cafardi will have to say about this. I'll be here, blogging about it when that happens, but I'm not looking forward to it.

As context to this whole debate, let's add a few remaining points.

Point five: Raymond Arroyo notes that this remains a seriously open question mostly to those who have not examined the questions carefully and at length:

"The real swing voters in this election will be the Easter/Christmas Catholics — those who infrequently attend church, but consider themselves in the fold. They too will be influenced by the cultural tug of the faith described above. How to capitalize on the inherent tendencies of Catholic voters will be for the candidates to discover. But it will take real savvy and sensitivity to win over this block — and a few novenas couldn’t hurt."

Point six: But for all that, ignorance of Obama's true positions are not just found among Catholics. Average Americans are decidedly more pro-life than Obama:

A new national poll of Americans finds a large majority take one of three pro-life positions opposing all or most abortions. The survey also finds more than one-quarter of people who say they are "pro-choice" on abortion really take a pro-life position against abortions.

Some 60 percent of Americans say abortions should never be allowed or only in the rarest of circumstances, such as rape and incest, that constitution less than two percent of all abortions nationwide. (LifeNews)

Point seven: Amazing as it might seem, I'm approaching this issue not just because of the upcoming election. Obviously we stand at a crossroads and Catholics have a critical part to play in the upcoming election. But we also have a critical part to play the whole year round, year by year, in forming a culture of life. Election moments, especially when candidates such as Obama are on the ballot, provide special opportunities to examine how, as Catholics, we form our conscience and prudentially strive to participate in building that culture of life.

I'll leave off at this point since I've already compiled a huge amount of information here to read through.

Open thread: final presidential debate {updated}

High stakes, McCain's last chance to change the trajectory - yadda, yadda. What do you think?

update: the abortion question came up as the second-to-last question. I am aware of several grassroots efforts that petitioned the moderator to ask such a question, though I'm not sure those are directly responsible for it being asked tonight.

There is much to talk about here, but I'll summarize my impression (and I'll wait to comment further until I have access to a transcript): I think McCain missed a golden opportunity to press Obama on his pro-abortion positions. I can't even feel confident that McCain is aware of these positions or gives them much priority. Obama's support of FOCA and repealing the Hyde amendment are two examples of his radical positions that polling shows are unappealing to the American populace. Moreover: I have never heard Obama say before that he supports a ban on partial birth abortion (can someone track this down?) - such a position cannot co-exist with his unwavering support of abortion on demand, and on removing all restrictions to abortion access.

I think the question posed about supreme court justices gave us a small taste of what we simply have not seen in the debates this far - substantive questions about moral issues and cultural ones. What a difference a fourth debate might have made. The fact that Obama was so on the ropes and so disadvantaged when these topics came up would account heavily, I would argue, for his repetative insistence that all American's really care about is the economy ... surely we do, but we care about so much more. Economies ebb and flow, but the moral and cultural fabric is what sustains a nation throughout good times and bad. How will Obama support the government policies that will allow us to remain a great nation regardless of whether we are rich or poor?

Anyway, waiting for the transcript, the video, and the fact checks....

Open thread: reactions to the debate

I watched about the first hour of it or so. I found the conversation monotonous.

Sure, the economy, health care, foreign policy and energy are important topics, but they are not the only topics, and yet these were the only things talked about.

Fred Barnes agrees:

"The problem was the questions .... No doubt there were some questions that would have surprised McCain and Obama or caught them off-guard or forced a moment on candor. But those weren’t asked.

The candidates were queried on a narrow range of foreign, economic, health care, and environmental issues--the stuff they talk about every day at rallies and fundraisers. These didn’t come close to what voters at a real town hall meeting might have asked. There was no mention of abortion, immigration, moral values, same sex marriage, guns, their role models, their view of the presidency, or their religious faith.

... The result was questions that reflected what interests an East Coast newsman.

... Oddly enough, it wasn’t a journalist who staged the best debate between McCain and Obama. It was an ordained minister, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, the author of best-selling The Purpose-Driven Life. In separate sessions, he asked the same questions, first of McCain, then of Obama. Their answers gave voters a far better idea of what makes the two candidates tick than all the policy-reality questions asked in the two official presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

So what did you think? Who did better? Did your opinions on anything change? Any off-hand observations?

Video: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

It may generate some heated debate, but this video has become very popular (6ook+ views) and makes the case that the current economic woes can be directly tied to democrat-mandated programs under the Carter and Clinton administrations which forced banks to issue faulty loans to people who could not repay them.

The video, while clearly partisan, does not contradict, for instance, the situation described by this 1999 New York Times article.

A root question about this economic downturn must be "what caused it"? Right now, democrat-proposed legislation to force the availability of "affordable home loans" to those who could not repay them seems high on the list of likely causes. Not the exclusive cause, mind you, but an important one.

Okay, have at it....

Bishops invite presidential candidates for a sit-down

They're saying "stop on by!":

Leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have invited both major party presidential candidates to meet with them before the election, reportedly to discuss social issues. The bishops who would attend any such meeting are chairmen of USCCB committees on pro-life issues, education, migration, international affairs and communications.

A spokeswoman for the McCain campaign told the Wall Street Journal that the Republican senator wants to accept the invitation, but does not know if he can fit a meeting into his schedule.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Media Director of the USCCB, confirmed to CNA that neither candidate has accepted the invitation yet. (CNA)

As I've noted before, McCain has squeezed-in meetings with several bishops during his journies across the states. Obama? Not-a-one (that I've seen reported, anyway).

Again, this really makes me wonder about the sincerity of Obama's Catholic outreach, when he himself refuses to pursue a meeting with our bishops and the head of his Catholic outreach committee refuses to debate any notable Catholic representatives.

Basically, it makes me think they just want our votes, not our input.

Breaking: Has McCain "softened' his position on embryonic research?

Deal Hudson points out this Wired article published yesterday claiming that McCain has taken a "Sharp Right Turn on Stem Cells".

Hudson credits McCain's "shift" to the tireless work of Senator Sam Brownback. I directly asked Sen. Brownback about these ongoing efforts earlier this year, and wrote-up his answer here.

I think the jury is still out on this one, but judging by the reaction of pro-embryonic stem cell research scientists, I think there are more encouraging signs than before.

Therefore when someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute says that he reads McCain's statement as a "bad omen," I hear "good omen."

The substance of the Wired article is based on a single paragraph response that McCain recently made to the Sciencedebate 2008 forum on the question of stem cells (scroll down to question #8).

In a nutshell, McCain's position remains that he opposes the creation of new embryos for research purposes, but supports the use of already-existing embryos (for instance, "discards" from IVF-treatments).

What is new in McCain's position, or at least features prominently, is this language: "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress." That's the qualification that has all the scientists skittish, along with McCain's reminder that he voted to outlaw a form of cloning currently allowed (SCNT).

Again, when the pro-ESCR scientists say stuff like this...

"McCain cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer can only be read as such."

... I hope to heaven they're right.

Palin takes center stage (and wows) {updated}

{updated 10:45pm - see below}

I just finished watching Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention (click here for text).

I was very impressed. She held herself well, came across as confident and forceful, and delivered some of the best one-liners in a night of memorable one-liners. The audience ate it up and couldn't stop cheering. The dems are reaching.

I think she compliments the McCain ticket very well.

What are your thoughts?

update: Joseph Bottum notes the lack of explicit references to abortion in her speech.

update 2: sed contra, Amanda Shaw doesn't think Palin needed to - she showed it.

In Philadelphia, McCain meets with Cardinal Regali

I received this tip the day it happened, but for some reason forgot to post it. Now the media knows:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain is in Philadelphia, but his campaign staff is saying little about what he is doing.

McCain met with Cardinal Justin Rigali at the Catholic leader's home on Monday afternoon. (source)

The meeting was about 25-30 minutes. Cardinal Rigali recently made the AmP radar for his involvement in Pelosi-Gate where, as the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, he helped issue the initial response to Pelosi on behalf of the American bishops.

So what did he and McCain talk about? It's anyone's guess.

McCain also took time to privately meet with Archbishop Charles Chaput about a month ago.

(How many bishops has Obama met with privately so far...? None, to my knowledge.)

McCain chooses pro-life Sarah Palin for veep

The Associated Press says its a lock (as does everyone):

John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, two senior campaign officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

A formal announcement was expected within a few hours at a campaign rally in swing-state Ohio.

Palin, 44, is a self-styled hockey mom and political reformer who has been governor of her state less than two years.

update: Some quick facts:

• She has an 80-90% approval rating in Alaska, the most popular governor in America
• She's been described as a "crackerjack governor, a strong fiscal conservative and a ferocious fighter of corruption, especially in her own party."
• A lifetime member of the NRA, she also has a son in the army
• She appears to be a "non-denominational protestant"
• She aimed "to reduce general fund spending by $150 million" in Alaska
• She belongs to Feminists for Life

And Palin is not just pro-life politically, she is also amazingly and joyfully pro-life personally, and not only because she has five kids (ph/t: SBA):

In April of this year, Sarah Palin give birth to her fifth child, Trig, who was born premature with Down Syndrome. Recent statistics show that in the U.S., approximately 90% of Down Syndrome diagnoses end with the mother choosing abortion. Palin on her family’s reaction to the diagnosis, in her own words:

“We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.” (April 18, 2008, Anchorage Daily News)

[Read more from the SBA statement.]

The "Draft Sarah Palin for VP" blog is going crazy. MM has a play-by-play.

update: some helpful links...

• John McCain's official press release
• Palin's Wiki Page
• Jack Kelly on why McCain Should Pick Sarah Palin for VP
• Deacon Keith Fournier on McCain's choice
• Fox News: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's Newest Star
• Sarah Palin's On the Issues

update 3 (finally managed to get a photo of her family on the blog succesfully - sheesh!):

There's a huge glut of information flooding the net right now on Palin. Here's some of the best:

• Boston Globe Blog: Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation
• CNA: Conservative leaders react to McCain’s VP choice of pro-life Gov. Sarah Palin
• CNS Blog: Sarah Palin’s pro-life credentials
• Jill Stanek: McCain picks Palin!
• NewsBusters: Palin Might Neglect Her Disabled Infant? (rediculous)
• InsideCatholic: A question for the ladies
• Off the Record: Especially troublesome
• (CNN links to welcome outside visitors)

I thought this point especially good: "[Palin as VP] makes me trust McCain's judgment much more than I would have if he had gone for Romney, Ridge, or Lieberman. Brownback or Pawlentey would have signaled "more of the same." But Palin? That's "change." - Eric Pavlat

I'm also thrilled to see, based on the visitor count today, and the increased number of email tips and links I'm receiving (thank you!), as well as the record-high activity level in the comment boxes (awesome!) ... that papists and other readers are beginning to treat AmP as the one-stop newsblog where they can discuss and stay up-to-date on (usually up-to-the-minute) the most important stories in American politics, the Catholic faith, and the intersection of same.

Thank you, let's keep a good thing going, and get it better.

update 5: on the evangelical side...

• AP: McCain's VP Choice Reassures Evangelicals
• John Allen: McCain's choice a nod not only to women, but post-denominationalists

Noted: McCain to announce veep pick at noon on Friday

Politico has the story and Todd M. Aglialoro has some useful odds listed for the top contenders.

update: Tim Pawlenty? Early word is that he's the pick, and a good one.

Catholic Perspectives on the Political Race - 8/20/08

A link depository:

• McCain's campaign is getting savvy to the embarassment Obama has opened himself up for as a result of trying to hide his voting record on the born alive infant protection act.
• Black pro-lifers plan to protest at the democratic national convention:

"Colorado Right to Life and American Right to Life will stand with black leaders from around the country at their Power in the Park rally and press conference on August 25, 2008, 8:30 am at Martin Luther King Park, one block from the largest Planned Parenthood abortuary in the nation.

The killing center, dubbed Auschwitz, by local opponents of the racist organization, is situated in north Denver’s minority neighborhood - consistent with the patterns of targeting minorities noted by Blackgenocide.org.

... [they] will expose the tragedy that although black women comprise 6% of the population, they receive nearly 40% of the abortions in America. The leading abortion providers exploit blacks by placing 94% of abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations." (source)

[Michelle Malkin even picked this story up.]

• More veep rumors for Obama. Seriously, just wait until Saturday and we'll all know.
• Meanwhile, the latest "Poll shows McCain in 5-point lead over Obama".
• But at the same time, "McCain refuses to defuse rumors about pro-choice VP pick".

That last factiod is really becoming annoying to me, and not just me.

Also, the keynote GOP speaker will be Giuliani (why?), and Bobby Jindal will be speaking after the VP nominee. It's good to see some high visibility for Bobby - they should have given him the keynote I think.

update: Sen. John McCain has ruled out pro-choice running mate, reports say while LifeSiteNews asks "Is it True McCain "Got the Message" About not Running a Pro-Abortion VP?"

Reports: 3 of 6 VP-candidates are Catholic, 3 of 3 are pro-abortion

With veep-announcements for both Republicans and Democrats expected soon, CNA reports on the short-list of candidates, and finds all of them on the Democrat side to be pro-choice Catholics.

But first, on the Republican side:

Presumptive Republican nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain will reportedly announce his running mate pick on August 29, his 72nd birthday, at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, UPI reports.

His leading choices reportedly include former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

"McCain views this as the one decision that he has total, utter, non-negotiable control over," one campaign official told the Washington publication Politico.

Pawlenty was raised Catholic but now attends an evangelical Protestant church.

McCain recently said that he would not rule out a running mate favorable to abortion rights. Romney had a pro-abortion record as governor but professes to have become pro-life.

And now, on the Democrat side:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is also expected to announce his running mate choice soon, amNewYork reports. amNewYork lists possible choices as Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed.

amNewYork describes Gov. Kaine as a “religious Catholic” and Sen. Reed as a “devout Catholic.”

Sen. Biden, too, is reportedly Catholic, yet all three Catholic Democratic contenders are supportive of abortion rights.

The AP (and others) include Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius in that short list. I would be shocked if Obama chose her, considering the run-in she's already had with local Bishop Neumann (and other reasons).

But we'll see. It appears on the Democrat side that we can expect a repeat of the controversies which surrounded Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry and his reception of the Eucharist in 2004.

... oh yeah, he's also a (long-shot) veep candidate for Obama.

Video: Pro-Obama ad features Catholic theologian Lisa Cahill

AmP Reader Damian of Conservathink notes the inclusion of Catholic theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill in a pro-Obama ad which implictly criticizes John McCain's poor marriage record. This ad played on CNN (and possibly MSNBC) during Saturday's values forum.

Over at ultra-liberal haven Daily Kos, someone from the Matthew 25 Network - the team that put this ad together - claims it is "the first time clergy have appeared in a [television] commercial to speak out in support of a Democratic Presidential Candidate." It describes Cahill as "one of the biggest names in Theology Today. Lisa Cahill is a major voice for Catholic Women, and will be a great voice for Barack in the coming month."

Cahill made it onto the AmP radar last November when she "predictably [made] the case for continuing the status quo in regards to the USCCB's public instruction on voting, pro-abort politicians, receiving Communion, etc." Obviously, the USCCB did not follow her advice in their publication of Faithful Citizenship.

Well, Cahill is back in the public eye:

She is described in this video as a "Catholic theologian", or at least Boston College thinks so.

This is her script:

Cahill: "He understands the pressures families are under. And what it takes to help families thrive."

Unfortunately, one of Obama's solution to the pressures families are under ... is to abort their offspring, even through partial birth abortion.

Matthew 25, meanwhile, promises "In the coming months you will see more ads spots in various formates on Torture, the Poverty, the AIDS crisis, and the Environment from us."

... and yet no mention of moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

Ph/t: Hot Air, which asks:

Exit question: Which opportunistic reversal is more shameless? Democrats suddenly deciding that infidelity is a serious electoral issue or Democrats suddenly deciding that no, on second thought, military experience isn’t essential in a commander-in-chief?

Now that's a new take on Obama's "new politics."

And do note that this video is an example of Obama's outreach efforts to Catholics and other Christians. Does it strike you as genuine?

nota bene: Obama's prime vice presidential candidate is a pro-abortion Catholic - Tim Kaine.

A quick political check-up

On the one hand:
"McCain has not ruled out pro-choice running mate"

On the other hand:
"Evidence shows Obama misrepresents his opposition to Born-Alive Infants Protection Act"

Meanwhile, Obama's people are quick to issue a 40-page rebuttal of The Obama Nation (by all accounts, a screed), and yet they are remaining strangly silent about David Freddoso's new book, The Case Against Barack Obama, which is quickly climbing the Amazon.com charts (#11 as of this posting).

Why the silence? Having read the book, I'd say "because it's hard to rebut the truth."

"Sen. McCain holds private meeting with Archbishop Chaput"

Scant little details:

Senator John McCain is paying his second visit to Colorado in less than a week and on this trip he is taking time to meet privately with Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.

At 9:30 on Wednesday morning, John McCain and his wife Cindy met with Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput. The archbishop described the meeting as private and told CNA that no comment would be forthcoming. (CNA)

Off the top of my head, Abp. Chaput has been an active supporter of immigrants' rights (where he would find common ground with McCain), and also Abp. Chaput has a forthcoming book on Catholic faith and voting (which Inside Catholic mentioned will be published "well in time for November's election").

Most to the point, I think, with Abp. Burke out of the country, Abp. Chaput is the most notable bishop who "strongly implied in 2004 that voting for a pro-choice candidate was a serious sin" (this blogger's words, not mine).

Abp. Chaput has, for instance, called out the group "Roman Catholics for Obama '08" and demanded they ask Obama to "become pro-life, instead of overlooking his support for abortion in favor of other issues of concern to Catholics" (derivative source: CNA).

More than a throwaway meeting, this sit down of McCain and Abp. Chaput.

"Rebel With a Cause: Bobby Jindal's Spiritual Journey"

Bobby Jindal has been in the news again lately, this time being mentioned as a short-list candidate for McCain's VP. I frankly hope and believe that won't happen. He's such an appealing figure, however, that I'm sure McCain is happy to have an association with him, even rumored.

Today the Wall Street Journal has a story about Bobby's faith, and specifically his conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism as a young man:

... Twenty years later, Mr. Jindal, a convert to Roman Catholicism, is being mentioned as one of John McCain's top choices for the Republican vice-presidential nomination. And his strong religious faith is often cited as a potential bonus for the ticket.

Hinduism is a diverse religion, with varying interpretations. Mr. Jindal, speaking from his office in Baton Rouge this month, said his parents raised him "in a monotheistic home with a firm belief in a God with traditional values -- the same sort of values you find in the Ten Commandments and other mainstream religions." Recalling their religion as "not a faith that was necessarily tied to a particular historical scripture or revelation," Mr. Jindal said, his parents "made their faith their own."

It is rare for Hindus to convert to Christianity or any other religion. According to a survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life earlier this year, eight in 10 American Hindus who were raised in the faith remain so as adults.

"I did not have an overnight epiphany like so many people do," said Mr. Jindal, calling his conversion a "very intellectual-based journey," where he studied countless religious texts. "Given my background and personality, that was an important part of the process." But, he notes, "I don't think you can 'read' yourself into faith. I had gotten to the point where I knew what history had to say about this person named Jesus and what he had done on Earth. . . . I think at some point you have to take a leap of faith."

And while we're doing a bobby post, you can watch him respond to the question about whether he is being considered for McCain's veep:

I frankly wonder if he's been asked to not categorically deny the possibility of being asked, just to keep the talk going (and therefore, his excellent track record in the public eye).

My previous posts on Bobby Jindal can be found here.

Obama's director of Catholic outreach dodges Catholic radio

Nick Thomm, who recently facilitated my appearance on Al Kresta's program, was recently given the run around by the director of "Catholic Outreach for Obama":

Mark Linton, director of Catholic Outreach for the Obama Campaign, refused to appear on a Catholic radio show to explain Obama’s views regarding abortion and address his accusations of supporting infanticide.

...

After successfully contacting Hudson, Thomm was unable to find a contact number for Linton on the party’s website. When he contacted Obama’s Senate office, he told that they couldn’t give out Linton’s phone number and that he would have to send Linton an email.

After sending Linton an email on Monday afternoon and another Tuesday morning, Thomm called Senator Obama’s office once again to try and reach Linton in time for Kresta’s 4 p.m. (ET) radio show.

Thomm explained that when he called Obama’s senate office he told the Obama staffer, “we have no choice but to think that he’s trying dodge us. He’s supposed to be a National Catholic Outreach coordinator and we’re a Catholic radio show, so who’s he doing outreach to?” (CNA)

Meanwhile, McCain's folks are actively courting the Catholic vote:

John McCain is preparing to ramp up his efforts to reach out to Catholic voters with a “very, very aggressive” campaign, spearheaded by his newly created Catholic Outreach Coalition.

Frank Donatelli, the Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee, spoke to reporters and Catholic media on a conference call this morning about the efforts that the McCain campaign is planning to reach Catholic voters.

Donatelli described the Catholic Outreach Coalition, chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback and Frank Keating, as “first-rate” and said that it will be “very well-funded.” (CNA)

Why the disparity? Why does the McCain campaign seem so much more "at home" talking to Catholics about the issues that matter most? And why does Obama's supposed appeal among religious voters seemingly falter when it comes to Catholics? And finally, why do Obama's defenders rarely, if ever, consent to debating their candidate's positions in a free public forum?

And finally, why isn't the answer to all these questions "because Obama's platform is less acceptable to Catholics than McCain's platform, and Obama's people know it."?

Okay, have at it.

Bobby Jindal goes to Arizona - McCain VP chance?

Goodness. This is interesting:

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on Friday is scheduled to meet with two Republican governors who have been prominently mentioned as potential running mates, according to Republicans familiar with McCain's plan.

The two governors, Charlie Crist, of Florida, and Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana, have both accepted invitations to meet with McCain at his home in Arizona, according to Republican familiars with the decision. One Republican said that Mitt Romney, a former rival of McCain for the presidential nomination was also expected to visit him this weekend. Romney's advisers declined to comment.

McCain, after a week of campaigning, is heading home on Friday for three days without a public schedule. His campaign declined to comment on the meetings.

"We don't talk about the V.P. selection process," said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser.

Still, the names of McCain's visitors and the timing — coming three weeks after the Arizona senator told reporters that he had a list of 20 potential running mates — strongly suggested that he was moving into an intensified phase in his search for a vice presidential candidate.

Everyone who I've talked to about Jindal as a potential republican VP this year has said it's too early and that he is too needed in Louisiana to clean up after Katrina.

But still, this report would seem to imply that he's on the shortlist. Perhaps his presence is intended as a nod to Katrina victims and McCain's desire to rebuild and avoid such future debacles. Mitt Romney will also be in attendance it is believed.

But back to Bobby. This is a nice opportunity to quote the article at length and thereby get a feel for what his reputation is like in the media:

Of all the names being mentioned as McCain's potential running mate, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, the 36-year-old first-term governor of Louisiana, is not only the youngest and least experienced, but also the only one who is not white. Yet in a year in which Democratic voters have raised few objections to such traditional "obstacles," Jindal may be especially attractive as Republicans seek a way to offset the "post-racial" and youthful appeal of Senator Barack Obama.

Jindal, who was born in Baton Rouge to a family that had just arrived there from the Punjab area of India, took office in January after serving three years in the House of Representatives. In a race with four candidates, Jindal, who was born a Hindu but converted to Roman Catholicism as a teenager, won 54 percent of the vote after campaigning as a social conservative, opposing human embryonic stem cell research and abortion in any form and favoring teaching "intelligent design" in schools as an alternative to evolution.

But Jindal also has a reputation as a policy wonk, like the Clintons, with a specialty in health care issues. After graduating in 1991 from Brown University, where he majored in biology and public policy, and attending Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, he worked for the management consulting firm McKinsey and Company and was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. He later served as Secretary of the Louisiana state Department of Health and Hospitals and in the Bush Administration as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for planning and evaluation.

Why I am excited about Bobby:

• 25 Apr 2008 McCain-Jindal spotted in New Orleans, VP rumors denied
• 14 Mar 2008: LA Gov. Bobby Jindal for Republican VP?
• 22 Oct 2007: Keep your eye on Bobby Jindal, new Gov. of Louisiana

And while it's on topic: "Grants ensure future for two New Orleans Catholic landmarks" (CNS).

Obama begins to shake Clinton off, leads McCain in poll

Just a matter of time:

Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton. (Reuters)

Get ready for it.

Political aside: the state of the presidential nomination race

Yes, even as we prepare for Pope Benedict XVI's visit, we should keep in mind that there's a race happening.

The news de jour for the Clinton campaign is that her top strategist, Mark Penn, has quit "amid criticism of his public relations firm's contacts with the Colombian." MM for more commentary.

Sure, I'm sure the Colombian government ties are the cause of his departure, but at the same time, if you're a savvy rat, it's nice to have an alibi for why you're jumping off the sinking ship. I'm not saying he's a rat.

AP: "It was the second major departure of a Clinton campaign official this year. In February, Patti Solis Doyle stepped down as campaign manager and was replaced by Williams...Penn's consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid $10.8 million so far by Clinton's campaign."

This WaPo Politics blog intimates that Penn "was a major influence in Clinton's decision to focus on her toughness and readiness to be commander in chief during the campaign [and the 3AM ad as well]."

Meanwhile, in the wider picture, Obama has a double-digit lead in North Carolina, has narrowed the gap between him and Hillary in mutch-watched Pennsylvania, and now leads Clinton 50%-42% nationally.

Interestingly, Obama also leads McCain 46%-42% in a hypothetical Iowa matchup. McCain is far ahead of Hillary.

Here's something: Dan Senor at ABC News makes the case that Condoleezza Rice is actively pursuing the republican VP spot. LifeSiteNews did a report on her abortion position in 2005, where she described herself as "mildly pro-choice." See her respond to the question on 60 Minutes here:



And that's the state of the presidential nomination race.

If I missed someting important or noteworthy, tell me below!

AmP Exclusive: Sen. Browback on John McCain's support of stem cell research + an overview of his true position

This week I attended a book launch hosted by InsideCatholic in Washington DC that included a Q&A with author Deal Hudson and Senator Sam Browback.

I posed a queston for both men which went like this (according to my memory, their responses are also according to my memory):

Recently, in a conference call with Catholic representatives, John McCain restated his support embryonic stem cell research, but also said that he was open to further dialogue on the topic. Do we know if this dialogue is in fact taking place, and is there any chance McCain will change his position before the general election?

A paraphrase of Hudson's response:

I believe McCain is hoping that scientific progress [on alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells] renders the question academic [in other words, irrelevant in terms of policy]. One of the things about McCain is that once he takes a position he's very persistent about keeping it.

A paraphrase of Senator Brownback's response:

I can personally assure you that dialogue is ongoing with McCain about this issue [i.e., he is one of the persons doing it], but it is true that right now McCain supports the research.

The video of my question and the two responses it received will be aired on C-SPAN in the next 2-3 weeks. When it is aired, I will provide a link to it and update this post with the exact quotes.

More research on John McCain and federal funding of embronic stem cell research:

It is important to note that, from my research, McCain supports the use of fetal stem cell lines that would otherwise be discarded but opposes the creation of new fetal stem cell lines.

Pew Forum on the issues:

McCain opposes embryonic stem cell research that uses cloned human embryos, but supports research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments. In 2006, McCain supported a trio of Senate bills designed to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research, ban the creation of embryos for research and offer federal support for research using embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics.

McCain's all-important statement on the question at the May 3, 2007 GOP primary debate:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

CNN provides video of his expanded response, in which he again states that he hopes new scientific breakthroughs make this question "academic." He also mentions his 24-year pro-life voting record.

John McCain's position from an article published on his official campaign website last year:

"John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of 'fetal farming,' making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law. As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos. Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines."

To recap:

• From what I've found, John McCain opposes federal funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but supports the use of embryonic stem cell lines already in use.

Readers should not take this post to necessarily mean that I support McCain's position on this issue, nor that I support John McCain for president, but these remain the facts, as I've discovered them.

I've often heard the claim made by some that "McCain supports embryonic stem cell research." That claim, however, ignores the distinction between killing further unborn human life through the creation of new stem cell lines, and using stem cell lines derived from embryos already destroyed.

Both forms of research are objectionable, but the former kind is far more objectionable because it entails the willful killing of human embryos, which one can never do nor support.

The use of already-derived embryonic stem cell lines, on the other hand, is closer to the moral category of using vaccines derived from research done on embryos, which can (I would argue) be legitimately done in some circumstances, but in general should be avoided, if possible, as a witness to the dignity of human life.

In conference call with Catholics, McCain re-asserts ESCR support

The thorn:

While McCain is pro-life on the issue of abortion, he differs with the Catholic belief that embryonic stem cell research is immoral. The Catholic Church teaches that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it involves the killing of embryos.
Austin Ruse from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) raised the issue with the Arizona senator by asking him whether he had considered changing his position on embryonic stem cell research given the dramatic scientific advances of the last two months.

McCain responded to Ruse’s question by saying that while he is “very encouraged” by the advances, he has yet to see “sufficient scientific evidence” to change his support for the practice. He added that he will continue to examine the issue and receive briefs on any progress being made.

This news item contradicts the rumor I had heard earlier that Sen. Sam Brownback had managed to persuade McCain to change his position on embryonic stem cell research. This is a troubling development.

After all, now is the perfect time for McCain to revise his position on this important issue, before he gets more media attention in the general election, and before a change could be construed as last-minute "flip-flopping."

On the other hand, I wonder how much pressure there is from Christians on this issue. It would not surprise me if we have ourselves to blame in some part for McCain not recognizing the importance of the issue.

John McCain accepts endorsement of undisputed anti-Catholic John Hagee

A conscientious reader brought this to my attention earlier in the week, but I didn't get a chance to look into it more closely until today.

Associated Press gives us the gist:

Endorsed by an influential Texas televangelist, Republican John McCain endeared himself to one group of voters but risked alienating another with the pastor's anti-Catholic views.

...The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.

McCain said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments. "It's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views," McCain told reporters at a news conference Monday in Phoenix.

After additional pressure from Catholic groups, including the Catholic League, McCain clarified:

"... in no way did I intend for his [Hagee’s] endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not."

McCain also said he appreciated Hagee's support for the state of Israel and admired his spiritual leadership:

"And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel."

Before we look at the fallout, this video of Hagee in action speaks a thousand words:


... this is what we are dealing with: flagrant anti-Catholicism.

It's interesting to watch the outrage from such inveterate liberal critics of the Catholic Church such as Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Somehow, I don't see in their response so much concern for respecting the Catholic Church, as interest in seeing Catholics leave McCain over this spat.

A secondary, but important discussion is being generated which asks whether McCain/Hagee is being treated differently in the public forum than a related case with Obama/Farrakhan. More on that here.

Stephen Bainbridge gets the last word: "... this is even worse than McCain’s about face on Bob Jones University. It’s extremely disappointing."

Reactions?

update: John Hagee writes a most unconvincing defense.

The definition of a slow news day....

"The day when there's really only politics to talk about."

And even that topic is sparse.

For the Republicans, the New York Times ran a story trying to claim, with almost no evidence, that John McCain had an affair. McCain has denied it, and it seems that everyone is collectively fed up with the NYT on this one.

MM first covers the story here; HotAir has video of McCain's press conference and more backstory here, and MM has since pointed out the NYT's incredibly hypocrisy here. TownHall does the same, notes the NYT is in full retreat, makes the paper look bad, and concludes that the story may end up helping McCain.

Huckabee trusts McCain's word. Some folks have tried to claim this will hurt McCain among the evangelicals and conservatives, but I think they are intelligent enough to not countenance such baseless claims (and they are baseless, it seems). If anything, this prompts sympathy for McCain. Well played, NYT.

For McCain's first exposure to the trial by fire of being the party's presumed nominee - he's doing pretty well.

For the Democrats, Obama just added an 11th-straight democratic primary win to his column - the "democrats abroad" vote. Tonight, Hillary gets her last chance to debate him before the March 4th primaries in Texas and Ohio. They haven't debated in three weeks, and much has changed since then. Details on the debate here.

There you have it.

Observations?

update: Katherine from the comments:

I don't know about the appropriateness of the NYT story. However, Mrs. Cindy McCain response that "More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character."

Wasn't Senator McCain carrying on with her while still married (always married in God's eyes) to his first wife?

Here is the first source I found for this claim:

"McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure."

Anyone have something to add on this topic? Did McCain really accede this claim by the NYT?

update 2: some folks are calling Hillary's closing words at tonight's debate her prepatory concession speech.

Coverage of Today's Political Contests

update: Obama wins Wisconsin, Hawaii handily. McCain wins Wisconsin and Washington.

From MSNBC's First Read, the facts:

Wisconsin (D). Open primary (independents can vote) -- 74 delegates up for grabs (48 proportional by CD, 15% threshold; 26 by statewide vote, 15% threshold).

Wisconsin (R). Open primary (independents can vote) -- 37 delegates at stake (24 winner-take-all by CD; 16 winner-take-all by statewide vote).

Hawaii (D). Closed caucuses (independents cannot vote) -- 20 delegates up for grabs (13 proportional by the state’s two CDs, 15% threshold; 7 based on statewide results, 15% threshold).

Washington (R). Open primary (independents can vote): Feb. 9 caucuses were used to determine 18 (or 49%) of the state's pledged delegates. Today's primary will determine the back half (or 51% -- 19 delegates) -- 10 proportional by statewide vote, 20% threshold; 9 WTA by CD.

Some brief comments if you click through.

I haven't been following the contests as much lately. Briefly, McCain is the heir-apparent for the Republican nomination, even as Huckabee continues to compete (inexplicably? am I missing why?). Oh yeah, and Romney endorsed McCain. Most of the focus has shifted now to speculation about who McCain will pick as a running mate. No sure bets on that one, and I'm pretty sure we won't know until right before it happens. It's too early for Bobby Jindal, so I'm preparing myself for dissapointment.

On the Democrat side, more confusion, but things continue to go Obama's way. Hillary will probably lose the contests today, putting her at a dismal 0-10 in the most recent elections and caucuses, and Obama already has her tied in Texas, and she is losing ground in Ohio. See Peggy Noonan's most recent column here.

I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again - it's going to be a very long Lent.

AmP's Super Election Tuesday peremptory comments

On Tuesday the 6th (also Mardi Gras, which should make for a good party), 21 republican and 20 democratic contests will take place across the United States. It's the closest thing to a "national primary" in the nation's history. Here's my quick summary of the DNC/GOP state of the union.

On the republican side, McCain and Romney are tied in national polling at 30%, with Huckabee trailing 3rd at 21%, and Ron Paul hovering somewhere around 5%, as Rasmussen reports.

However, the nature of most republican primaries is that the winner takes all delegates, leaving nothing for even second place, which is good news for McCain, who holds significant or small leads over Romney in almost every state, as this table illustrates. Romney is closest in California, which is good news because it has the most number of delegates. He is very far behind in New York, but not giving up.

Thus, after Super Tuesday, if McCain is able to hold onto his slim leads and sweep those contests, he will be almost unstoppable through the rest of the voting.

On the democratic side, as a switch from the earlier trends, the race actually has the potential to remain more cloudy and undecided than the republican situation. This confusion is caused by the fact that democrat primaries grant delegates proportional to votes, and so while Obama trails Clinton in national polling 37-45%, those numbers are tightening up, and a string of second place finishes for Obama would not disqualify him to the degree it would in the republican system. Indeed, he is making fast gains in delegate-rich California, while far behind in New York. Get the full breakdown of the polling here.

Therefore, after Super Tuesday, Hillary would still have to fight very hard to establish herself definitively as the democratic nominee. Matters are further occluded because the democrats allow certain "superdelegates" to vote at the convention who are not tied to any particular state, making them essentially free agents (I personally don't understand how this system doesn't get close to disenfranchising the democratic voter, but that could be purely my own ignorance). These delegates count for 800 votes.

To review: McCain, barring a 11th-hour surge by Romney, can have the nomination all but won, while Clinton can at best hope to re-establish herself as the default choice over Obama.

Something to consider before we put all this out of our mind and receive our ashes the day after.