John Zogby may not be the most reliable of pollsters, and his "interactive" poll of this week is probably skewed toward internet junkies who are more likely to include Libertarians and disappointed Ron Paul supporters.

Zogby's poll has Bob Barr in high single digits in a number of states, not just the "quirky" places like Oregon, Minnesota, and his home state of Georgia.  And some of the other more conservative polls have Barr pulling in what would otherwise presumably be GOP voters in states like Colorado and Arizona.

But are Libertarian-leaning voters really turning away from McCain?  Why?
Because McCain is not close enough to Bush?  Give me a break!

As something of a Libertarian myself, I think Obama has some appeal to those who now may say they support Barr.  On several important issues, Barr is closer to Obama than to McCain.  This is especially true in matters of civil liberties and Presidential powers.

I predicted this some time ago in another forum, and after Wesley Clark's "gaffe"--what Michael Kinsley famously termed an instance where a politician tells the truth--Clark has become too much of a controversial figure for VP.  But I like what he said because it shows that at least some Democratic surrogates know how to make news and to spread key points.

How do you do that?  You say something that appears to be so outrageous that it gets a lot of coverage.  Cheney did it successfully in 2004 when he told a carefully selected crowd that "if we make the wrong choice, we'll get hit again..." or something like that.

Anyway, it's clear to me that Webb will be the Veep for the Dems and Romney will be McCain's running mate.  

I may have mentioned this before in comments and also think someone else may have proposed it.  I know I e-mailed the proposal to friends a few months ago when I was visiting my hometown and noticed that the nearby bowling alley is not as busy as it used to be.

I was reminded of it by the "Bake for Barack" diary.  Or "Bake Sale" or whatever.

So here is the concept:  You solicit friends, especially perhaps friends who maybe learned to bowl, as I did, when I was ten, but have not done it for years.  (Roller skating is another option.)  Everyone pays say $25 to participate and you get the facility to donate the lanes for a tournament.
Why do they agree to do that?  Because you have scheduled it for their slowest day of the week and they would rather have people in there buying beer and food than not have anyone there.  And they can use the publicity.

The winner of the bowling tournament wins, say $100, but he or she is eventually shamed into donating the winnings to the campaign.

It goes all the way back to Hubert Humphrey and maybe back to Adlai Stevenson.  Stevenson also had a "funny name" and was characterized as an "egghead".  My parents explained that to me when I was not even five years old in the 1956 election.

Let's face it; Humphrey was effeminate. That is why he lost in 1968.

Stevenson famously remarked, in response to a suggestion that any thinking person would be voting for him, that this would not be enough; he needed a majority.

It's related to the "elitism" problem.  Back in 1960, John F. Kennedy was greeting workers outside a plant somewhere, maybe in West Virginia.  Some guy said, "Senator Kennedy, I hear that you've never worked a day your whole life."  Kennedy seemed a little uneasy until the guy followed up with, "Let me tell you, you didn't miss a thing."

Kerry's windsurfing video was a dealbreaker.  Obama's hoops can maybe close the deal.  How I would love to see an ad with Charles Barkley and Bill Bradley, maybe some more.

It should be clear by now that the McCain campaign and the GOP surrogates are all over Obama's allegedly being "soft on terrorism".  "Terrorism" is the new Communism.  But it's not an ideology. Just a time-honored tactic that almost every ideological, nationalistic, or patriotic movement has used. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism in some ways.  I cannot understand how the Democrats have bought into the terminology of the "War on Terror". Edwards came close to bringing this out into the open when he called it a "bumper sticker slogan" or something like that.

OK, never mind all that.  Maybe it's too late to educate the public on this issue.  Perhaps the public understands that the "war on terror" means how to prevent radical Islamic terrorist attacks.

But the "pre-9/11" failures are those of the GOP, not the Democratic administration.  Who is making this point besides Vincent Bugliosi in his new book, THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER?

This, and foreign policy in general, should be our issue, not theirs.

Texas has not voted for the Democratic candidate for President since 1976, when it was still largely a Democratic state. In 2002, the Democratic Party tried a "Dream ticket" trio of wealthy businessman Tony Sanchez for governor, African-American former mayor of Dallas Ron Kirk for U.S. Senator, and popular moderate to conservative white-bread John Sharp for Lieutenant Governor (arguably the most powerful state office).

That didn't work.  Sanchez was a lousy candidate, Kirk ran as Bush Lite
(and backed down from his originally courageous stand against the proposed Iraq war), and it was probably hopeless anyway in that year of fear-mongering and flag-waving.  The GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor, David Dewhurst, won even though Sharp was endorsed by Nolan Ryan.

But this year we have another chance to get a coalition together in Texas.  If the early polling is correct, Obama is getting about 60% of the Hispanic voters nationally, and that should rise as McCain continues to flip-flop on issues like immigration.  Texas has a huge African-American population in the big cities.  Texas is a state like Florida and Ohio; the GOP cannot win without it.  There is a lot of enthusiasm here.

I haven't had too many doubts about this campaign since its inception.  For one thing, they did not seem to be hiring former Gore or Kerry staff.  That was a good sign.  Let's face it:  the Gore campaign in 2000 and the Kerry campaign in 2004 were disasters.  And you could argue that even if Gore and Kerry did not have Barack's charisma, they might have been easier to sell if their campaign staffs had had any sense.

But there were some arguable missteps in the past few days, with the Johnson thing, and I agree with Gail Collins's piece in the NYT, "What was he thinking?"   Johnson may not be a hack, but he sure looked like one.  Was Bob Schrum not available?  I can think of a dozen better people for that job, starting with almost anyone who is not a Washington insider.

Today was also the debut of the fightthesmears site and I am relieved to see that.  

An event that was originally planned to be at a private home here was moved to the foyer of the local opera house, a crowd of about 300 people.
I thought I would be spotting the usual suspects, but I only saw a few people I knew.  Not too long ago, at any given Democratic event here, you would expect to know 85% of a huddled group.  So that is a good sign.

I heard David Gergen repeat it again last night on CNN.  "Iraq and foreign policy are McCain's strength" or something like that. This and the myth that the Republicans' strength is national security are repeated over and over as accepted wisdom by the media or in the GOP campaign in the manner of the "Big Lie" technique perfected by certain totalitarian regimes trotted out routinely by the GOP anytime they want to demonize some tinhorn dictator or quasi-dictator.  How many U.S. citizens know that Iran's "I'm a dinner jacket" is far from being a dictator?  He's more like a cheerleader.

This is the crowd that ignored the serious threats of imminent attacks in the summer of 2001, opposed the 9-11 Commission, and misled us into a war in 2003.  How many Americans recall that there were UN inspectors in Iraq just before we invaded and that they were making progress?  The fact is that Bush was determined to start a war, regardless of the facts. McClellan's book and the record show that this was a war not only of choice but of Bush's vanity.  He wanted to be a "War President". And that is not good foreign policy or prudent national security.

The right wing media had been breathlessly anticipating the release of a tape/video where Michelle Obama supposedly lashes out at "Whitey" and Clinton for all kinds of things, and yes, it was supposedly from the family church.

At least one Hillary supporter had also warned about it.

This tape was supposed to appear a few days ago and to land the final blow to the Obama campaign, coupled with the theme that he limped to the finish line.  I guess it did not happen. Maybe because it was a hoax, but this garbage is all over the place.

Andrew Sullivan's site offers enlightenment on this:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...

At least I hope so.  Talk about a no-brainer.  How in the hell can McCain oppose this thing?

Here in Texas we have a U.S. Senate race where the Democrats have a chance to pick up a seat in Bush's back yard.  The Democratic candidate, Rick Noriega, is a veteran and still serving in the military.  The GOP incumbent, John Cornyn, is a political dud who was lucky enough to run for his first term back in 2002, the year of the "run-up" to the war.

The Democratic candidate in 2002, Ron Kirk, an African_American who had some broad independent and even Republican support, had a chance.  In my opinion, he made some mistakes in his campaign but probably did not have that good a chance in that messy year.  I think his biggest mistake was taking back his early and prescient comments about the proposed war.  

Now we have a chance to avenge what happened in 2002.  Obama should campaign in some of these states where there are large military and retired military populations, places like Virginia, South Carolina, and maybe even Arizona.

GOP incumbent John Cornyn is a dud candidate and only won in 2002 because his opponent, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk, ran a "Bush Lite" campaign and it was a difficult year for Democrats anyway.  Some polls show Cornyn consistently under 50% approval and that his challenger, Rick Noriega, a veteran of Afghanistan and opponent of the Iraq war, behind by single digits, only four in some polls.  Yet according to my sources--local Democratic fundraisers and local candidates who are expecting to win because Obama will bring out African-American votes in Dallas and Houston--Noriega has a money problem.  So maybe if the Noriega campaign is not getting funding from national sources, he could use some help from grassroots.

I don't fly that often, but I recall running into intense scrutiny in August 2004, September 2004 and October 2004, and again in October 2006.

My 89 year old mother routinely gets searched since 9/11/2001, since she usually has a one way ticket.  A plastic comb was seized from her on one occasion.

And we all remember the terrorist alerts throughout 2004, while the Kerry campaign never once asked why George W. never bothered to talk to his dad and to James Baker about Iraq.  And I don't recall any journalists asking just what "intelligence" was responsible for the increasing alerts as we approached Election Day--other than Olbermann.

And never mind that the next terrorist attack--some problems can only be managed, not solved--will likely not resemble the last successful or unsucessful ones.

I'm told that Rush has more listeners in Texas than in any other state and I find that believable, having lived here for over thirty years and seen this state deteriorate steadily since then.  We once had among the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation and we've had some prominent Democratic senators and congressmen and women over the years.  But I digress.

I had my own experiences at the polls and caucuses Tuesday night.  Now I am getting reports from diverse people all over the state about what happened at their local polling places and caucuses.

It is clear to me that the talk radio crowd crossed over for Hillary Clinton, because in part they know that Barack Obama is the kind of candidate who not only could win the Presidency for the Democrats.  They also realize that this is a candidate who could win Texas for the Democratic party for the first time since 1976. Yes he can!

Maybe somebody, especially on the Democratic side, will suggest not only that he or she will repair the damage done by Bush and Cheney--restore civil liberties, stop the war, fix the tax cuts, reclaim our place as a benevolent nation, etc.

Why shouldn't Clinton or Obama call on Bush to refrain from doing any more harm?  It's purely a rhetorical point, but it's a good campaign issue against McCain and the implicit general election theme that a vote for McCain is a vote for a third term for Bush and a vote to continue the war--with no end in sight and no clear long-term goal.

One has the sense that most Americans would love to see Bush and Cheney gone NOW.  So why not call for Bush and Cheney to pledge to do no more harm?  We have a start on that by Congress's supposedly trying to stop Bush from making committments to Iraq that would bind his successor (though exactly how any agreement could do so is unclear to me).

John McCain is a U.S. Senator. The Democratic candidates can call on McCain to help them NOW to prevent further damage.  If McCain opposes torture and truly wants to close Gitmo, why hasn't he called on Bush to stop torture and to close Gitmo?  Why hasn't he helped us on global warming, the war on science, and SCHIPS? And just what is the long-term goal in Iraq?

Rush Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to vote for Hillary so as to prolong the Democratic contest.  McCain clinched the GOP nomination a long time ago.  So if you are a Republican in Texas, why not vote in the Democratic primary?

I saw a lot of that today while acting as a poll-watcher in two precincts in probably the most affluent area of Houston, River Oaks, where you cannot buy a house for less than probably 1.5 million dollars.  I also saw it in my own precinct, adjacent to River Oaks and also affluent for the most part, combined with another precinct for voting and also caucuses/conventions.  Both Democratic-only locations.

I don't know yet the results of the vote in the two precincts I monitored, where things could not have been smoother.  One of the poll workers was an Obama precinct captain and we had no "issues" come up other than some complaints about a huge Obama sign that was fastened to school property.

In my voting precinct and the one combined with it for voting and caucus locations, HRC won narrowly.  I don't know about the more affluent River Oaks precincts.  My precinct caucus and the adjacent one went for Barack by about 56-44.  What does that tell you?

What a bizarre contention, but one that the pundits are pushing, particularly the right wingers like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC  (and he is one of the moderates among them).  The idea that Hillary is winning, will win, or has won primaries in the states that Democrats must win--you know, states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts.

These are not states that Democrats must win.  These are states that the Democrats WILL win.  We won these states with lousy campaigns for candidates like Gore and Kerry.  We could win these states if we nominated Krusty the Clown.  But with a divisive and annoying candidate like Hillary, we could see reliable states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, even Michigan and Pennsylvania, in play for the GOP.  How the hell did Kerry lose Iowa and New Mexico?  Do you really think that all the blue states are in the bag if we nominate Hillary?  Maybe it's not an accident that she is campaigning as if those states have to be won.

I'm in Texas where I am also doing some volunteer work for one of the Democratic candidates.  On the way to a volunteer event last night, I ran into a couple of young gay men.  (I can't always tell, but these guys were really obvious, holding hands walking along a street in Houston, which is significant progress already.)  When I offered them literature for my candidate, one accepted, the other said he was voting for McCain.

I'm a lawyer and could easily bore someone on the street or in these brief encounters about how perverse the so-called "conservatives" are when it comes to the right to privacy.  Basically, they seem to think that we get our rights from the Constitution, not that the Constitution is there to protect the rights we have naturally.  So-called "strict constructionists" pay no attention to the Ninth Amendment.

Anyway, as the race tightens in Texas, it is increasingly about electability if you are concerned about the U.S. Supreme Court.  I am confident that if a Democrat is elected, John Paul Stevens will resign,
Ruth Bader Ginzburg will resign, and maybe even David Souter will resign, to be replaced by a President Obama or Clinton.    If McCain wins, he likely replaces maybe all three of those and Scalia as well.

It's the best of times; it's the worst of times.  Obama is a great candidate with appeal to voters who ordinarily don't vote, and cross-over appeal that we haven't seen since--well, maybe never.

But the nasty tactics of the Clintons' campaign have possibly revealed or presaged what an Obama campaign may face in the general election.  And of course these things need to be considered in the primaries.  It comes down to matters of race and name--or could.

So can he be painted black, or is he somehow "post-American"?  I wrote about this before in connection with Shelby Steele's observations.  "Opposition research" shows what else may be out there.