absolutely alex’s adventures & times

Well, it looks like the halo over Senator Barack Obama’s head is starting to lose its shine.

It took Obama’s former pastor, the incendiary Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to cause likely voters to take a longer, harder look at Obama. And they don’t seem to like what they see after the hullabaloo of the past week, going by new polls.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, only 30 per cent of those surveyed thought Obama broke with his pastor because he was truly angry with what he said.

58 per cent thought Rev. Wright’s words were prescient, that Obama was just another politician, and dumped Wright for his own political expedience.

People were not fooled by the hastily-called news conference the Obama campaign arranged on Tuesday for the candidate to denounce Wright and distance himself after a 20-year relationship between the two men.

52 per cent thought Obama was not surprised by Wright’s controversial views, as the candidate had claimed, while only 33 per cent thought Wright’s words at the recent National Press Club, which included his reiteration that the US government unleashed AIDS on minorities and brought terrorism upon the nation with its policies, took Obama by surprise.

Perhaps more damagingly, more than half of the respondents (56%), felt that Obama is at least “somewhat likely” to “share some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.”

More bad news for the Obama camp on other fronts too.

The latest Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll saw the lead that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has over Obama in a hypothetical match-up open up, 48 per cent to 42 per cent. Before the Wright controversy, they were even at 46 per cent.

His remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, improved in the fight against him in the race for the nomination. She now has a 46 per cent rating, compared to Obama’s 44 per cent. Close, but it is still a demonstration of the tide turning against Obama, who was eight points ahead of Clinton before the Wright saga blew up in his face.

Obama remains on track to win the North Carolina primary next week, but his lead over Clinton there has shrunk from double to single digits. Meanwhile, Clinton seems to have gained in Indiana, according to the Rasmussen poll, with a five-point lead.

Even if Obama eventually beats Clinton to clinch the Democratic Party nomination, it looks like the Wright controversy will continue to dog him in November. The superdelegates might have to ponder very carefully about which horse to back if they are keen on winning back the White House.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

With 44 percent of Americans telling a recent poll that rising gas prices is a serious economic concern, it is no wonder that the presidential candidates have weighed in on the issue.

But it would be a mistake to cave in to populism and enact a gas and diesel tax holiday, as proposed by both presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton. Only Barack Obama has refrained from jumping on the bandwagon, arguing that the idea is too flawed.

Both Clinton and McCain want the federal government to suspend the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day, traditionally a peak travel period for American families. 

I myself will be doing a 2-week road trip this summer and should be enthusiastic about Clinton and McCain’s proposals, but it is a bad idea at the end of the day.

For one, the savings are small. Experts have calculated that the average driver would save about $2.35 at every trip to the pump, based on a 13-gallon full tank estimate.

But the fiscal hole caused by the gas tax holiday in the federal coffers would be considerable — to the tune of some $10 billion.

That means less investments in roads and infrastructure, at a time when heavier usage of roads and highways would presumably occur. Remember the deadly bridge collapse into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis last summer that took 13 lives and injured 100 others? There should be no compromise in the up-keep and repairs of infrastructure and we can ill-afford to gamble with chance as the nation’s roads and bridges get older.

The politicians have also forgotten to factor in another casualty should the gas tax suspension become reality: jobs. According to a US Transportation Department study, every $1 billion spent of federal highway investments helps support 34,779 jobs. Extrapolating from that, $10 billion in revenue lost to the federal government could mean 347,790 less jobs, if construction projects were halted or killed due to a lack of funding. While it might not ultimately hit that kind of numbers, it still looks like a substantial number of jobs could be lost due to the gas tax holiday. 

Finally, cutting the price of gas for the short-term would only make demand rise and gas prices to follow suit. If prices were artificially lowered this summer, consumers might drive more (not to mention the environmental consequences of that), causing demand to rise, which inevitably leads to higher prices. It would also fail to wean Americans off gas dependence, perpetuating the misery in the long term, making oil producers the only winners.

And after Labor Day, wouldn’t everybody get a rude shock at the 18.4 cent tax being put back in place?

It is election season and it might be clever politics to ease things like taxes. But pandering is short-term and myopic. McCain and Clinton would be better off thinking up more sensible policies that will take the US towards the long-term goal of energy independence rather than scoring small political points that has dire consequences in the long run. 

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has said that economics isn’t his strong suit.

His economic policies speech on Tuesday in Pittsburgh shows why.

The bulk of his focus was on tax cuts, such as making permanent the income tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush, proposing the elimination of the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500. He also wants a simpler tax system.

AP photo

Sounds suspiciously like Reaganomics.

While he railed against the high salaries of Wall Street executives and called for tougher regulation, he proposed slashing corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, businesses be allowed to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes and tax credits for research and development.

The cost of all his proposed cuts? McCain says it would cost the Treasury $200 billion annually. The truth is probably closer to $400 billion, according to analysts.

To offset that, McCain has suggested cutting spending, such as getting rid of earmarked pork-barrel projects, economic growth and other savings in government programs such as reducing spending in Medicare’s prescription drug program.

Which are still unlikely to balance the budget, something he had often mentioned as a goal before.

In a populist measure, McCain called for a tax holiday on the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax and 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel from this Memorial Day until Labor Day, which is a seriously bad idea.

Not only will that give a false sense of how much oil costs, it will not help the US lessen its extreme energy dependence on fossil fuels and love of gas-guzzling vehicles, which have contributed to much of the US’ geopolitical headaches in the first place.

Making gas cheaper would only encourage more people onto the roads, which also means more carbon dioxide emissions — didn’t McCain pledge to do more for the environment? The whole idea of those gas taxes is to have money to pay for the roads. But McCain’s proposal will only cause more wear and tear on roads and highways, while the revenue to upkeep them will be lost during that period. Fortunately, that proposal is unlikely to become reality.

McCain might be trying to assuage the perception that he is weak on economics and proving that he has plans to get things under control as the economic picture gets gloomier. But he ought to play up his abilities in national security and foreign policy more. That could get him a better shot at the White House.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Just watch as Republican presidential nominee John McCain gets slapped with the blame of US aerospace company Boeing losing a $35 billion contract to European rival European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), to supply the US Air Force with new aerial-refueling planes.

Never mind that EADS won fair and square as they listened to what the Air Force wanted and came up with a better, cheaper and more cost-efficient aircraft than Boeing. Facts are facts and there is no point for silly, calculating politicians to argue against them. EADS’ tanker is bigger, can carry more of everything that matters — fuel, cargo, passengers — and they could also be delivered more quickly.

Apparently, Boeing, which had provided the Air Force with tankers in the past, was so confident of its win that it got arrogant. In contrast, EADS was eager to please and put its money where its mouth is by splashing on a $100 million prototype to demonstrate its proposal to the Air Force.

Politicians, especially Congressional Democrats, have been quick to point a finger at McCain and build a case against him for being the point man that broke up an earlier Boeing-Air Force tanker replacement deal in 2004 after allegations of corruption surfaced, leading to the present result.

McCain should not crumble and backtrack on his role that exposed the scandal. In the details that were unearthed, one of the Air Force’s top weapons buyer was found to have channeled deals to Boeing in an effort to get high-paying jobs there for herself and her family members. That led to the collapse of the contract for Boeing to be the supplier of the tanker and opened it up, which could ultimately be worth as much as $100 billion, to a new round of bids.

McCain is also being targeted for having advisers who had worked as lobbyists for EADS. Thomas Loeffler, McCain’s campaign co-chairman, Susan Nelson, the campaign finance director, and William L. Ball III, were part of the lobbying firm, the Loeffler Group, which worked for EADS, says the New York Times. There are yet other McCain campaign staffers who had worked in other firms lobbying on EADS’ behalf.

Protectionist and anti-trade politicians had bought into Boeing’s argument that the deal would put a huge military contract into foreign hands and cause an American company and its employees to suffer. But an examination of the details does not quite bear this argument out.

General Electric will be the engine supplier of EADS’ tanker, while its assembly will be carried out in Alabama. Northrop Grumman, which is also an EADS partner, would hire engineers in Florida to work on the aircraft. Although Boeing had claimed that its winning of the contract would create or support 44,000 jobs versus 25,000 jobs by EADS, analysts said these numbers are tough to verify.

Boeing is hardly bleeding. Its commercial division has been doing splendidly and has its hands full working on delivering planes such as its 767 to commercial airlines. No layoffs are expected at its plants, despite the loss of the Air Force contract.

But Boeing is proceeding with its protest of the Air Force’s decision, claiming that specifications were changed in the middle of the bid. Its quest seems quixotic and would only delay the replacement of old tankers.

The government has to stand firm on its decision and not be swayed by irrational anti-trade rants by politicians eyeing only short-term gains. Caving in to their demands would only further disadvantage taxpayers who would be left shouldering the burden of paying more for a lesser craft. The Air Force would also be at the losing end for having to use an inferior aircraft. And the US could potentially suffer, especially its businesses, if foreign governments responded by putting up protectionist barriers against US companies in retaliation.

Democrats really should remember that a rising tide floats all boats and not go overboard in persecuting McCain and fighting for Boeing’s cause. They could end up jeopardizing a better deal for both the Air Force and taxpayers.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can squabble all the want about who will make the best commander-in-chief or be the toughest in safeguarding the nation.

But if they want to win in the general election, they should do well to remember, especially Clinton, what helped Bill Clinton win in 1992 — “The Economy, stupid.”

The economic news keeps getting grimmer everyday. February saw the second straight monthly decline of job figures, with a 63,000 plunge in the number of jobs lost. The US dollar continues to lose its value against other currencies, oil prices persist in challenging their record high prices and the stock market cannot seem to stop swooning.

And while the housing market has been giving countless heart attacks to homeowners, the credit and the construction industries, the gravity of the situation really hit home when the Federal Reserve announced a $200 billion fund to ease illiquidity in banks.

The New York Times sure got it right when it said the good times as we know it, could well be over very soon.

So it’s no wonder that poll after poll showed that the economy and/ or jobs is the topmost concern or issue of those surveyed.

One of the most recent, a CBS News/ New York Times poll had 33% of respondents naming the economy and jobs as the most important problems facing the country. The second most important, the war in Iraq, was cited by 20% of the respondents.

A USA Today/ Gallup Poll yielded similar results, as did those done by NBC News/ Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.

On this issue, the Democrats seem to have an edge over the Republicans, when it came to perceptions on which party would be better able to handle the economy.

A survey sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 53% of respondents thought the Democrats would be better at dealing with the economy, versus 34% who thought the Republicans would be better. More also believed that the Democrats would handle the tax system better than the Republicans (49% to 37%).

Clinton herself got a first hand experience of the urgency of the economic issue. Her campaign was recently given a lifeline by Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, many experts say, because of her “red phone” advertisement. But in Ohio where she beat Obama by a 10 percentage point margin, those Ohioans who strongly stated that the economy is their biggest priority went for the New York senator.

So while the debate about who can out-Rambo the other is important enough, the candidates really ought to beef up their economic messages and come up with well thought-out plans about how they are going to deal with the economy and get the good times rolling again when they get into the White House. It’s most probably the biggest thing on which they would be judged.

And actually, the candidates could also benefit from referring to former president Clinton’s campaign strategist James Carville’s two other points in the campaign’s central goals and core messages, as they still make pretty good sense in 2008: “Change vs. more of the same” and “Don’t forget health care”.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: The more things change, the more they stay the same, indeed.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

It is finally official.

John McCain has won enough pledged delegates to clinch the Republican party’s presidential nomination and he will be a tough opponent for the eventual Democratic nominee, be it Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Reuters photo

Though his party has not been behind him unequivocally, especially not the evangelical and conservative wings of the party, McCain was able to draw on more moderate Republicans, as well as independents, to battle his way towards the party nomination.

His task ahead is perhaps even harder than his slog to the nomination. He has to first win over unconvinced Republican voters, and then inspire them to go to the polls for him in November. He would have to do so much more to turn out the vote, given how fired up the Democrats are this year and are likely to flock to the polls.

McCain also has to walk the fine line of wooing the Republicans who are still not sold on him, but in a manner that would not alienate the constituency that has always rooted for him, independent voters.

McCain faces another potential liability. He is scheduled to meet Bush at the White House later today to collect an endorsement from the president. While it could be helpful in McCain’s quest to gain more Republican support, he has to bear in mind that perceptions of being too close to Bush could be detrimental, given how unpopular Bush is with the general electorate.

Money will continue to be another issue. McCain has not enjoyed the kind of donations that the Democratic contenders had been able to command and with the nomination wrapped up, McCain could concentrate on getting supporters to open their checkbooks.

McCain’s only other serious opponent, Mike Huckabee, conceded the impossibility of his quest and dropped out, calling McCain an honorable person and threw his support behind the Vietnam War veteran.

NYT photo

It has been quite a run for Huckabee. Viewed not only as an outside chance, the former governor of Arkansas was simultaneously bogged down by insufficient cash and little political staff expertise. His most famous endorsement came from action star Chuck Norris.

But even without anyone giving him a chance, Huckabee’s was a campaign that could, outlasting and outperforming other so-called more viable candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Huckabee surprised many by winning a string of Southern states, which is more than could be said of some of his more illustrious fellow candidates.

Huckabee’s never-say-die attitude, coupled with his rapier wit and folksy personality drew a sizable number to his side and inspired many young evangelicals to volunteer for his campaign by building a movement, Huck’s Army, for the former Baptist preacher.

Let’s hope this engaging personality does not leave politics. While his platform, such as getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, are way too out-there, Huckabee displays a common touch and an ability to connect with voters that many politician would kill for. Talk has it that he could soon be coming to a small screen near you.

Huckabee is still only 52, a young age in politics. With the name recognition he has garnered this time, he would definitely be able to take another shot in 2012 if a Democrat wins this year. If not, there’s always 2016.

Whatever happens tomorrow in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, Hillary Clinton should hang in there all the way to the Democratic party convention in Denver, if the Democrats are truly serious about capturing the presidency from the Republicans.

After months of being impotent against the might of the Barack Obama phenomenon, the tide finally seems to be ebbing for the Obama movement.

While Clinton could be credited for having found her groove (a little more anyway) by fine-tuning her experience-is-more-vital-during-a-crisis message, the bigger truth is that Obama is finally facing tougher questions and could unravel further if the race goes on longer.

Obama has been gleefully criticizing Clinton’s judgment, especially about Iraq. But he is getting a taste of his judgment being questioned as the corruption trial of his long-time friend and supporter, Tony Rezko, opened today in Chicago.

The media has only just started to give Obama the grilling that Clinton had to endure, by pressing him on how much Rezko raised for his campaign and the real estate deal Rezko helped Obama broker to buy his home in Chicago.

They have also pounced on the NAFTA trade agreement issue, an incident that only starts to hint at how Obama is really politics as usual, despite claims to the contrary.

After days of denying that Obama’s camp had sent an adviser to reassure the Canadians that Obama’s rhetoric on the campaign trail of re-negotiating the trade agreement was just, well, rhetoric, a memo has surfaced from a Canadian official from the consulate in Chicago, stating that they had in fact spoken to Obama’s adviser, Austan D. Goolsbee. According to the memo, he had told the Canadians that Obama’s talk was meant to win votes in rustbelt states like Ohio and should not be seen as policy.

Then, there is the business of Obama not having held a single meeting since becoming the chairman of a Senate oversight committee on the forces fighting in Afghanistan. But Obama, while busy running for president, also made a fair retort by pointing out that Clinton had missed hearings on Afghanistan before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Contrary to what many of Clinton’s critics have claimed, the continuation of the Democratic race is not going to hurt the party. In fact it would strengthen the party by keeping attention on it well and alive.

More people than ever have turned out for the Democratic primaries and caucuses, overwhelming and delighting party operatives. Record amounts were donated to either Clinton and Obama and the appetite for the race has grown to the extent that “primary parties” are held on voting days for friends to gather and get the results together. The sustenance of the Democratic race would maintain buzz and interest and help the Democrats stay focused and geared up for the general elections.

That amount of excitement and enthusiasm also bodes well for the state of politics in the US. Remember when analysts were fretting about the indifference to the presidential races, with falling voter turnout over the years? If things remain as they do, this year’s turnout could buck the trend and see a spike.

In contrast to those who worry that more bitterness would ensue from the prolonged Democratic race, the intense campaigning and strategizing is actually going to sharpen the eventual nominee’s skills for the general elections. Moreover, the better they are at countering accusations and dealing with the blows from a fellow-Democratic opponent, the more it would help them face the Republican machine in the run-up to November.

The only problem seems to be that Obama’s supporters seem less inclined to vote for Clinton in the general elections if she does prevail, but Clinton supporters do not appear to have that same sentiment. They said they would be just as fired up to take back the White House and vote for Obama should he be the party’s nominee. That is a revealing hint of the level of maturity of Obama’s supporters, not necessarily a reflection of the candidate himself, but the animosity was certainly not helped by his wife Michelle’s equivocal attitude towards closing ranks with Clinton if she does beat her husband.

With the race going on, the attention of the media and the country remains trained on the Democrats. The Republican front-runner and almost certain nominee John McCain features in the coverage, but to a lesser degree than the Democrats.

It is interesting that on the Republican side, hopefuls like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul but seen as long-shots, are still hanging on. Not as much rancor is directed against those two for “splitting” the Republican party nor is the clamor for their withdrawal as loud. This despite the fact that John McCain could actually get the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican party’s nomination directly from voters, which is not likely to be the case for either Obama or Clinton. Already having won 1,014 delegates, McCain will get the 1,191 needed to be the party’s nominee if he wins in tomorrow’s races. Mathematically, on the other hand, it is improbable that either Clinton or Obama would clinch the Democratic party’s nomination through pledged delegates and the party’s superdelegates would still have to be evoked to settle the race.

With the race being so close, it would be unfair to the voters of impending primary states not to have a chance to at last have their say. This race has been one of the most democratic and exciting in the history of primary races, which had usually seen a front runner wrap up the ticket months ahead of the party convention. So why not let people from the states who traditionally had a candidate foisted on them, only because they vote later, have a vote that matters?

Based on a just-released Washington Post-ABC News poll, voters want Clinton to remain in the race if she wins either of the big states, Texas or Ohio. Two thirds of Democrats feel that she should stay on and fight even if she takes one of the two. But if she does not prevail in either, she faces less enthusiasm, with 51% stating that she should bow out if she loses in both states.

Besides voters, the only other person who should decide when to call it a day is the candidate, certainly not pundits and party apparatchiks. For Clinton, she has to weigh whether the fight is futile or she really stands a chance. And for those who criticize her for being ruthlessly ambitious for wanting to win at all costs, consider this — Obama had only been in the US Senate for three years and has spent half of that time running for president, but has not been as harshly denounced as Clinton for his ambitions.

Things are getting close and Democrats deserve to have a longer and better look at whom they will nominate as their candidate, especially since they have such rich pickings this year. So let the primaries run their course before any premature obituary on either candidate is written.

If the Republicans are serious about retaining the White House, it should stop squabbling right now, be pragmatic and close ranks behind John McCain.

Mitt Romney sure did not, and probably still does not, like McCain, who is now the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. But Romney, always the pragmatist, had come round and actually endorsed McCain. McCain now stands to gain the 280 delegates Romney secured, if they followed Romney’s urging to throw their weight behind McCain.

It would be a disservice and downright silly for the far-right wing of the Republican Party to continue in its senseless internecine battle against McCain.

True, McCain does not pass the litmus test of conservatism in their eyes and thus is deemed unworthy to be the party’s flag-bearer.

But let’s be realistic here. Just raging at McCain will not make him go away. He will be the Republican Party’s nominee and these detractors have to get over it. Besides, voters in many states have spoken, and McCain is their man.

Even a bitter rival such as Romney has come round to the notion. “Even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent,” Romney said at a news conference announcing his endorsement of McCain. “Right now, the Democrats are fighting; let us come together and make progress while they are fighting.”

Critics might say that is pure Romney, flip-flopping and telling people what they want to hear. They might even accuse the governor of Massachusetts of having worked out a deal with McCain, possibly as his running mate in the general election or an important position in the McCain cabinet should he take the White House.

Debatable as Romney’s intentions may be, there is no mistaking the logic behind his move to support McCain.

Conservatives should stop feeding Rush Limbaugh’s ego and telling him that they would stay home on election day.

How foolish to sabotage the chances of one’s own party! In a year that the Democrats are energized and hungry to take back the White House and unprecedented numbers are either turning out or starting to get involved in the election process, Republicans have to fall behind McCain, who is the Republican candidate most likely to help them keep the presidency, if they do not want a landslide victory by the Democrats in November.

With the way things are shaping up on the Democratic side of the race, they also should not count on Hillary Clinton’s nomination to fire Republicans up to vote in large numbers and deny her the presidency.

McCain might have voted against tax cuts, sponsored immigration reform and committed other kinds of Republican heresy. But he is one politician who has pandered the least and still can lay claim to being a man of his word. In this climate where voters are tired of slippery shape-shifting politicians, McCain’s authenticity counts for a lot. Together with his heroic service in Vietnam and his years of experience in the Senate, he has what it takes to win over independents and even some Democrats. The final piece of the puzzle, voters of his own party, has to be there to help him make that ultimate step into the White House.

If they abhor the thought of McCain running the country, they should think of how much more horrifying it could be if they blocked McCain’s entry and a Democrat captures the presidency – universal health care will mean higher taxes, liberal judges will be appointed for life to the Supreme Court and immigration reforms that might push through what conservatives see as “amnesty”.

So before getting too carried away, Republican voters should really consider the consequences of their petulant reaction towards McCain. Between the lesser of two evils, it surely must be better to go for the devil one knows.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have both worked closely together on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, sometimes even traveling together to places like Iraq for their work on the committee.

Bill Clinton himself had said that his wife and Republican presidential hopeful McCain both admire and respect each other and would conduct “the most civilized election in American history” if they were both their respective parties’ nominees.

Now, that respect seems to have gone a step further – Clinton is taking a leaf from McCain’s campaign strategy.

Just as McCain rose from being left for dead politically last summer when his campaign was broke and top campaign advisers were deposed of, to now become the most likely Republican nominee, Clinton is shaking things up on her side as things are not going her way, in the hope of emulating McCain’s success.

Clinton has replaced campaign manager Patty Solis Doyle with a former chief of staff, Maggie Williams, after this weekend’s string of losses in the presidential-nominating races in Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington.

As she watched her lead over Barack Obama disappear while funds continue to dwindle from a campaign burning through cash faster than it had planned for, Clinton is hoping that a change of management would give her campaign a new lease of badly-needed life.

The overhaul of Clinton’s team had already been planned for since she lost Iowa in December but was not put into action following her unexpected comeback in New Hampshire, followed by Nevada.

Her campaign team needs to be at its sharpest and shrewdest if it wants to stay in the race against an insurgent Obama, who has broken through and is still gathering momentum. The tide turned in his favor following the Super Tuesday contest on February 5, his campaign war chest is bursting and he is loosening Clinton’s stranglehold on certain constituencies, such as Hispanics.

With the make-or-break states of Ohio and Texas coming up, Clinton will absolutely have to hang on to her faithful.

Besides working on sharpening Clinton’s message and ability to resonate with voters, her team has to find creative new ways to raise funds and expand the contributer base to keep up with the Obama camp. Organizationally, the team must beef up on local experts and volunteers so that they can face the highly-effective grassroots movement that Obama’s campaign had amassed.

They might also have to do damage control from the possible fall-out of Doyle’s departure at this crucial juncture – Doyle is a Latina and there are worries that her ousting might affect Clinton’s votes among the Hispanic community, an important constituent in Texas.

Clinton has this last crucial chance to turn things around. Hopefully, her new team would be able to pull it off and allow her to face McCain in November.

Former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney has thrown in the towel in the presidential race for the Republican party’s nomination, after a disappointing showing in the Super Tuesday primaries.

His action clears the path for current front-runner John McCain to be the party’s virtually undisputed nominee in November’s elections, while sparing the party of a bruising fight – a situation that the rival Democratic party is facing, as both its contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still neck-and-neck in the battle for their party’s delegates and nomination.

(photo from mittromney.com)

One other contender remains in the Republican race, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who did surprisingly well in the Super Tuesday race, not only siphoning votes from both McCain and Romney but winning a number of significant states in the South. But Huckabee, even less so than Romney, does not realistically have a shot at winning the party’s nomination, despite demonstrating tremendous campaigning skills and finding resonance with evangelical voters in the bible-belt.

It would be interesting to see what Huckabee would do now that Romney is out of the picture – step aside or join McCain’s ticket?

Despite his massive personal wealth, which Romney has employed to try to crush his opponents and win the nomination, his campaign has never quite taken off. Romney has spent more than all his rivals combined, aggressively buying ads and building organizations across the country but his investment has not paid off.

“I must now stand aside, for our party and our country,” Romney told the delegates at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington, D.C. “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win.”

It is interesting that a person with the breadth of Romney’s executive experience and qualities – successful businessman at Bain, rescuer of the 2002 Winter Olympics, leader of the state of Massachusetts, who is intelligent and even looks presidential – could not find traction with Republican voters.

One wonders how much better he might have fared had he stuck to his strengths of being a proven business leader with wide-ranging executive experience as a platform, rather than tacking too far right and appearing like a shift-shaping flip-flopper to please the Republican base.

Even though Romney sold his soul and changed his stand on abortion from being pro-choice to pro-life, he only drew derision. In a year when voters on both sides are tired of politics as usual and personality trumps issues, voters had been flocking to McCain, who is viewed as being steadfast and true to himself, even if he is not quite conservative enough for many Republicans.

Romney’s Mormon faith is another huge stumbling block – proof that the evangelical wing of the Republican party, though diminished, still holds hefty clout and acted as a deterrent against Romney’s success. In a party where religion is one of the paramount pillars and Mormonism is still viewed as a cult in some quarters, Romney needed all the charisma, and pandering he could summon to sway the base, but ultimately could not, despite his “Mormon speech” last year.

It did not help that there was the sudden rise of Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher by training, who thrilled crowds with his folksy ways, witty humor and soaring speeches. Huckabee came from nowhere to propel himself into the equation when he stunned the establishment by winning Iowa, and claimed five states on Super Tuesday. Huckabee, despite kooky stands like his rejection of evolution and a campaign to get rid of income taxes (or perhaps because of them), has won large swaths of the South and evangelicals, although he has no money and not much of an organization.

Romney also has himself to blame. He was the one candidate among the Republican slate that ran numerous attack ads on his rivals and persisted in negative campaigning, earning himself the role of enemy number one among the other Republican contenders, as seen by how they piled on him and gave him grief during debates.

Is there also the unfortunate case of schadenfreude working against Romney? Here’s a man who has the money, the looks and the intelligence. Unlike the rest, he did not need to go begging for campaign contributions and easily dipped into his own funds to finance his bid. Romney is also good-looking, has an adoring wife, five sons and numerous grandchildren, and had always been successful in everything he seemed to touch, until his latest attempt at the presidency. It sure did not help when Huckabee quite accurately pointed out that Romney looked more like the guy who fires you than one of the guys. So among the presidential hopefuls, voters probably feel the least sympathy or empathy with him.

But it is still not all smooth-sailing for McCain. He would still have to win over his party’s conservatives to convince them to get out and vote for him in the general election, which is crucial if the Republicans intend to hold on to the White House. The Democrats are all fired up this year and with either Clinton or Obama leading the ticket, there is much excitement, and desire to cleanse themselves of the memories of the Bush years. You can bet that Democratic voters will be turning out in force.

At the end of the day, whether a Republican or a Democrat wins the White House, there will be a senator running the place, which has not happened since John F. Kennedy.

Oh, by the way, does this mean Ann Coulter will be campaigning and voting for Clinton now?