Barack Obama is proving himself to be one of the most talented political leaders in decades.  He defeated the heavily favored Hillary Clinton and is on his way to possibly leading a landslide Democratic victory in November.  I agree with most of Obama's political positions and look forward to a Democratic victory.

However, there are things about the Democrats (in general) and Obama (in particular) that make me cringe.  And one of them is ethanol policy.

Here's an article from MSNBC today, reprinted from the New York Times, on Obama's ethanol policy.  Though I single his policy out for attention, as he is our presidential candidate, my guess is that his position is pretty similar to that of much of the rest of the Democratic Party.

I have voted for the Democratic Party every election since 1972. I have also been a full-time organizer for the United Farm Workers union and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. I have a long history as a progressive activist.

Yet I disagree with virtually the entire netroots in the issue of FISA and telecom immunity. Let me state my position and please tell me why  you disagree.

Peniel Conin, President & CEO of Global Basic and eNameWiz.com, has written a detailed 13-page statistical report and analysis of caucus vs. primary results from the 2008 Democratic nominating campaign.  (This has been reported at Talkleft here and here and here.)

Conin suffers from a disability resulting from a car accident 40 years ago, which left her wheelchair bound at  a time when there were no curb cuts or ramps and many places were inaccessible.  That is what fueled her passion about caucus information.

Among the information available in the report:

We can argue how much difference these last two states make, and there will certainly be arguments about the credibility of the pollster, but ARG has startling polls out today from Montana and South Dakota.

First, from Montana, where most people have been expecting an Obama blowout, ARG shows Obama ahead by 4 (with twice that many still undecided):
Obama 48
Clinton 44
Undecided 8

Then, in South Dakota, which was expected to be closer, ARG shows Clinton with a huge 26 point lead:
Obama 34
Clinton 60
Undecided 6

ARG has been widely criticized, and has been way off-base in a number of states, but they pretty much nailed West Virginia and Kentucky.  These South Dakota and Montana polls were both taken on the weekend, which may have tilted them in Hillary's favor.

Obama-supporter Poblano has one of the most interesting electoral analysis sites around.  He keeps tracks of all recent polls and weighs them according to the pollster's historical track record, sample size, and recentness. He also adds a regression analysis to the collection of polls, taking into account 16 variables related to states' political makeup, religious identity, ethnic and racial identity, economic factors, and demographics.  Then, he combines all this together to run electoral simulations.

According to Poblano's analysis, Clinton has improved her likelihood of winning the election relative to Obama's likelihood of winning the election by 20 percent in the last month.  More specifically, one month ago, Obama had a 7% greater chance of winning the GE than Clinton.  Today, Clinton has a 13% greater chance (62.8% for Clinton to 49.9% for Obama.)

Idaho held a non-binding primary last night.  More than twice as many Democrats cast their votes in it as in the Idaho caucus on Feb 5.  But whereas Obama won the caucus by 62 points (79 to 17), he won the much larger primary by 18 (56 to 38), exactly the same margin as in the primaries in neighboring Utah and Oregon, both of which he also won by 18, suggesting that the margin may be an accurate reflection of a regional preference.

And even though more than twice as many people voted in the primary, Obama's margin in votes cast was also substantially smaller -- less than 8000 in the primary compared to more than 13,000 in the caucus.

The 44 point Obama-Clinton swing from caucus to primary confirms previous trends in Texas (20 point swing), Washington (32 point swing), and Nebraska (34 point swing).

Further evidence that the undemocratic caucus system is the basis for Obama's pledged delegate lead.

(Thanks to an anonymous commenter at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/s enior-surge.html for bringing this to our attention.)

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/results/e nr/statewide_total.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#ID

Hillary,

Your chances of winning the nomination this year are not great.  And who knows what the future will bring?

How about throwing caution to the wind and taking a bold stand?  This is what I would love for you to say (and, who knows, it might even bring you a few votes in Oregon :-)).

----------

Clinton and Obama are nearing the end of their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.  I strongly believe that  whoever wins the nomination should definitely offer the Vice Presidency to the other.

Overall, conditions are very favorable to the Democratic Party this year, as witnessed, for example, by the recent victory in Mississippi.  There is probably only one thing that can hold us back, which is disunity among the Democratic base.  Yes, it's true that whoever wins the nomination will have the support of the second-place finisher, but there are serious questions as to how that support will translate into mobilization of the Democratic Party apparatus and base throughout the country.