He Gets the Farmville Vote

One of the "perks" of working in biglaw is that occasionally you get attention from political candidates looking for checks.  Today, we had a lunchtime talk with Chris Kelly, the chief privacy officer of Facebook, who is running for AG. 

The Good?  I thought it was refreshing to see someone running for AG who is not termed out (see Ricky Delgadillo) or just simply shuffling from one office to the next (see most previous AGs and remaining candidates in the Democratic primary).  He's clearly very bright and a policy wonk.  He also hales from the tech sector, which along with the entertainment industry and to a lesser extent agriculture, forms the backbone of California's economy.  Given the status of California's finances, I think any statewide officeholder has to understand the state of our economy and use his/her office to its betterment.

The Bad?  He's not a politician.  Some positions are not completely thought out.  For example, Chris states, "I believe deeply that we need early intervention and drug courts for those offenders who are only beginning along a criminal road, before they're too far along that dangerous path."  Well how would this work in practice?  We have a non-functioning juvenile justice system.  This might be a chicken or the egg problem, but juvenile delinquents are not dealt with in any way on their first, second, third, or fourth offenses because of overcrowding in juvenile halls (I realize offense is the wrong word for juveniles, I just can't think of the right term).  So they only get attention from the system when they are very far along down the Recidivism Road.  How would early intervention work then?  On the other hand, the other solution, eliminating mandatory minimums and returning sentencing back to judges is just good policy with or without prison overcrowding.  Just ask Scalia.

Anyway, Chris struck me as an interesting candidate.  You should stalk poke invite him to Mafia Wars add him as a friend.

Why the Senate Should Seat Burris

If you are confused about the Burris debate (that's Burris, not Burress) yesterday's NYT has an excellent Op Ed, which nicely describes the issue and argues the Senate should seat him. The article makes the same points I would make except, you know, way better.


[Update: Oh, goody. Today Senate Democrats have agreed to a compromise, whereby Burris will be seated as long as he meets "certain conditions." The article doesn't specify what those conditions are, but the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times suggested yesterday that they could include a promise from Burris to not run in 2010 -- for the record, think that's bullshit; I don't think the U.S. Senate can make that demand any more than they can refuse to seat a properly appointed Senator. But then again, last semester I was publicly branded as a pre-14th Amendment anti-reconstructionist, so take my assessment for the curmudgeonry that it is worth.

Anyway, it looks like the Senate majority has come to its senses. Elie at ATL captured part of the issue when he said: "[Despite Democrats' Legislative majority and control of the Executive] Looks like the Invertebrate party hasn't lost it's talent for folding like a cheap accordion under the slightest bit of pressure." The only thing Elie failed to mention was the reactionary, groundless, knee-jerk-grandstanding that started this ball rolling.]

(Re)calling ASUC Senator John Moghtader

Five Boalties are attempting to initiate a recall of ASUC Senator John Moghtader.

According to the Daily Cal, the recall follows an altercation in Eshleman Hall on Nov. 13 between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students, after which three people were charged with battery. Though Moghtader was not charged, he has been criticized for his involvement. As one Boaltie put it: "I believe he has created an atmosphere that is detrimental to balanced debate."

Moghtader disagrees: "The bottom line is that the people who are trying to recall me are people who didn't think I should get elected in the first place."

(Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't that perfectly compatible with the possibility that he has been a bad apple from the get-go? He may not be, but surely he could have come up with a more persuasive counter-argument, no?)

To be honest, I don't know much about the story, though I do remember the Cal articles after the fight. Here is one, and here is another. I'd love to learn more.

HRC as SoS?

Rumors were that she was in consideration. Now Nico Pitney at HuffPo is reporting that she has been offered the job, and that she has asked for time to "consider".

Two things:

1. While I didn't support Clinton in the primary, there is no doubt that she is tough as beans, and has the street cred to represent the United States on the world stage admirably.
2. I'm not personally offended that I wasn't offered this position, as I'm still holding out for Secretary of Awesome.

Thoughts?

Berkeley Parties for Obama

Is this it? Is this how it feels to be proud of your country? Not to go all Michelle Obama on you, but that's all I could think as I traversed three of the undoubtedly many Berkeley block parties that sprung up around town tonight. Don't get me wrong. I've loved U.S. and A. ever since learning about the revolution and founding fathers way back in first grade. But my first political memory is the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and I think it's safe to say things have pretty much gone downhill since then. Until now. I can't recall another moment like this, when I've felt so much joy over something my country did. In fact, just that phrase feels a little odd jostling around in my brain. "My country." Mine. At least 52% of the country agree with me that Obama is the man for the job. For the first time, I'm in the majority.

Sure, my first impulse is to take that lead and run with it, to pull the same bullshit conservatives have for the last six years or so. "You don't agree with President Obama? What, do you hate America?" Or, "Hey buddy, he's commander in chief of this country. You're with him or you're with the terrorists!" Maybe we could even get Toby Keith to write a new America-lovin' anthem for us that we can shove in dissenters' faces! I'm thinking "Birkenstock in Your Ass."

But the beauty of Obama--and also McCain in his concession speech--is that he ran on putting an end to that kind of bullshit. He single-handedly destroyed the power of Rove-ian politics by calling them out directly in his 2004 "Purple America" speech. No red states, no blue states, just United States of America. This is his most fundamental message, and one we should embrace. While I am proud of my country tonight, I recognize that it is not just mine. And that getting out of this mess depends on everyone finally coming together, to the extent possible in our democratic system.

I think that was the real source of euphoria on Telegraph Avenue tonight. Sure, Berkeley's candidate was backed by a majority of the nation. He won. That's enough to make any Democrat happy. But I think what elevated tonight from just another election victory to the kind of pure ecstasy I saw throughout town this evening is the possibility that Obama may just be the miracle he appears to be. He might be that rarest of politicians who actually brings people together. I'm too jaded at this point to count on it, but I think what I felt tonight was the acknowledgment of that possibility, that this country might not be yours or mine anymore, but ours.

Of course, with Prop 8 still ahead as I go to bed tonight, it's clear there are going to be issues that sharply divide us. They're worth fighting for, and I plan to fight. But Obama argues that what unites us is more powerful than what divides us. He might even be right.

I'm not sure what we're in for in the next four years, but for the first time I can remember, I'm optimistic. Here's hoping that feeling doesn't go away.

----

Disclaimer: I recognize this blog was pretty self-indulgent, but such is my power. We're all feeling something tonight, and I figured I might as well share. Please do the same below.

DO NOT VOTE

...for Shirley Dean. 

Okay, here are Carbolic's local election recommendations.

Do not vote for Shirley Dean for mayor. (I'm sick of Berkeley looneys; also, she wants to make UCB pay millions to Berkeley. My response: Screw off. We were here first.)

2. Do not vote for Phil Daly. (Hayashi worked on civil rights for Bill Clinton!)

3. Do not vote for Judy Shelton for the Rent Board. (She looks crazy. I don't trust any candidate who lists "artist" or "activist" as an occupation.)

5. Do not vote for Prop. 2. (How the hell do I know what kind of chicken cages should be used? This is a regulatory issue best decided by experts at the CA Dept. of Food and Agriculture, not a bunch of people who think that bunnies are cute.)

6. Do not vote for granting marijuana permits "as a matter of right." (Damn hippies!)

Funnier than Fiction

"In an over-the-top accent, one half of a notorious Quebec comedy duo claims to be the president of France as he describes sex with his famous wife, the joy of killing animals and Hustler magazine's latest Sarah Palin porno spoof.

At the other end of the line? An oblivious Sarah Palin."

News article here, Mp3 of the call here.

The Blue-ification of the Mountain West

The most reliably Republican section of the United States in the last 40 years has been the Mountain West - the birthplace of both Patrick and yours truly - which comprises the states of Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and the Dakotas (few mountains, but similar political atmospheres). I made it blue because of my keen knack for irony:

View Larger Map

In presidential elections for the last 40 years (from 1968 to present), the Democratic candidate has won only 11 of Mountain West's (MW) collective 293 electoral votes. In fact, these 11 EVs all came in the '92 election which saw Independent Ross Perot run on people's fear of the deficit, and pull in 19% of the national vote. In the end, Clinton won Montana (3 EVs) by 2.5% and Colorado (8 EVs at the time) by 4.3%.

A lot of this has to do with the political philosophies of the citizens of the MW. The MW comprises, as the NYTimes (click "Republican Herd") puts it, the "leave us alone" coalition of the Republican Party - the Libertarian branch of the party (officially known as the Republican Liberty Caucus). There are several theories as to why the Republican Party has received the support of the MW Libertarians (one well thought out theory suggests that it was because vote-hungry Republicans needed the MW's electoral support in the face of fierce competition with the Copper Democrats of the 1860's, and granted statehood to these territories to secure it), but this is beyond the scope of this musing. I'm focusing more on the future of the MW's political leanings.

People in the MW are more Catholic and Mormon than evangelical - the group that has been the "bedrock" of the Religious Right arm of the Republican party. Presidential candidate (and Libertarian Republican... AND MW neighbor) Barry Goldwater accused the religious right of "bullying" government, not "using their clout with wisdom", and said that he would "fight them every step of the way". The people of the MW's values are nicely summarized by the Libetarian Party's motto: "Small government, Lower taxes, More freedom". The Republican Party and the Bush administration may have lowered taxes, but the government has become bloated, and privacy violations have run amok (partisan link, but it seems pretty well established that Bush & Co. have disregarded citizen privacy in many, many ways).

As a result, the Republican party has become less desirable to the people of the MW. On a Senate and House Level, Democrats have made gains in the last few elections. John Tester joined longtime Democratic Montana Senator Max Baucus in 2006. Tim Johnson is cruising to reelection in South Dakota, despite suffering a stroke in late 2006 and being nearly incapacitated since. Mark Udall is whooping up on Republican Bob Schaffer for Wayne Allard's old seat in Colorado. Heck, even BFI (butt-freakin'-Idaho), the most Red state by several measures (such as economic policy), looks like it might pick up it's first US House Rep since Larry Larocco was elected in '93. Of course, it has taken stud Walt Minnick (a man-crush of mine), an endorsement by Democratic Idaho legend Cecil Andrus, and an incumbent with the nickname Bill "the idiot" Sali. But these Democrats are a different breed than those on the progressive forefront of the culture wars: Tester was a farmer who lost three fingers as a child working in the family butchery; Walt Minnick is a gun-owning outdoorsman/longtime-forester.

The Republican Party's jump to it's present state as neo-conservative Bush-doctrine adherents has hurt them at the presidential level this election cycle. The non-partisan Pollster.com has Obama ahead in Colorado and North Dakota, and within 3 in Montana and 7 in South Dakota. His superior get-out-the-vote operation is likely to pay dividends for future elections and in down-party races, which will only help him once he reaches office and in the future. Wyoming, Colorado and Montana all have Democratic governors which will help eliminate voter suppression. Heck, even Utah has a Democrat in the House.

All in all, the MW is surely trending blue. Arguments can be made that because these Democrats aren't as socially progressive as the more-left-leaning branch of the party that this could end up hurting the Democrats' message. But my opinion in the matter is that even if they only caucus with Democratic leadership 75% of the time, that's better for the Democratic Party than the nearly 100% adherence that their fellow GOP Congresspeople have given to the neo-con leadership. Anyway, keep your eye on this region, and not just because of my overwhelming love for the most beautiful place on Earth, but because regionally, this is one of the fastest changing political ecosystems in the country. And if you love politics as much as me, when the philosophy of an entire region evolves, you pay attention.

Vote early, vote often

Yesterday, Florida governor Charlie Crist declared a State of Emergency. Why? To enable polls to stay open 12 hours a day in order to accommodate the number of people who are voting early.

Meanwhile, a judge in Ohio has ruled that homeless people must be allowed to list the place where they sleep most often, such as a park bench or doorway, as their address.

And in Colorado, more than 3000 voters may be declared ineligible to vote under a law that lets county clerks purge newly registered voted if mail sent to their registered address comes back.

I see recounts and lawsuits looming large on the horizon.

Presidential Debate, Round 2, FIGHT!

Will John McCain bring the hurt? Or will Obama duck-and-stick? Will it get dirty? Will we hear about Ayers or Keating? Or will they just make up and hug, because hey, we're all brothers?

The debate starts at 6:00 PST.

Law Talking Guys (and Gals) for Change

Four years ago, I was a mindless 1L watching my classmates get involved in the election. Now is your chance. Instead of just walking precincts, you can put your legal education to good use. Sign up here.

Commencing World's Longest Wince, 6pm

It could be really, delightfully ugly tonight. In fact it already IS ugly, based on intel from the CBS "presidential questions" series.

----------
[UPDATE (Armen): In honor of Sen. McCain's love of gambling, I propose a Palin Pick 'Em contest. In your opinion, what is the easiest question that Palin cannot answer? I'm talking in general, but you can limit it to tonight's debate if you want. I honestly can't decide between, "What's the square root of 49?" and "What's the capital of Canada?"]

An Electoral College Tie? Goodbye Legitimacy of American Elections!

One of the more interesting political developments of my lifetime has been the increasing uncertainty in American elections.  It used to be over when it was over, but since 2000, you never really know.  Each side deploys hundreds of lawyers to the closely contested states (how do you get to be one of those?) and awaits the potential streetfight that may result from the words "too close to call."  A lack of legitimacy in elections is a staple of third-world governments, and it's a little disconcerting to see America slip toward that path in our collective zeal to see our side win no matter the cost.  Think 2000 was a fluke and those days are behind us?  Well, buckle your seatbelts:

"What really strikes you is how easy it would be for a tie to occur.  Take the 2004 map and switch Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado into the Blue column, which is what the poll numbers indicate.  Then, take New Hampshire and give it to McCain, which is what two recent polls suggest is going to happen.  There is your tie." (Washington Times article here.)

269-269.  An electoral college tie.  Apparently, it's possible under a number of different scenarios given the current toss-up states.  It's still not exactly likely, but can you imagine the possibilities?  You'd think they'd just break an electoral tie with the popular vote, but you'd be wrong! 

According to the constitution, the House would pick the president and the Senate the V.P.  Given the current make-up of each body, and assuming Lieberman would defect, this would leave us with President Obama and Vice President Palin (with Dick Cheney breaking the senate tie in Palin's favor).  

But this is not the most likely scenario.  A number of disputes remain about the process of a breaking a tie, including how many votes each state would get in the house vote (originally, they had only one each), whether the sitting or new congress would be the decider (constitution says "immediately," which suggests sitting, but a subsequent law sets up January 6th as the day for the vote, which would be the new congress), and one can assume, a number of smaller disputes about the result of each state similar to what we saw in Florida 2000.  The most likely scenario is an extended legal battle over one or all of these issues that would push us well past January 20th with an undecided election.  In that case, Speaker of the House Pelosi would become Acting President Pelosi.  From there, it's anyone's guess!

Constitutional procedure is a bit of a hobby of mine.  It's always interesting to see how these arcane procedures would apply in modern times.  But the prospect of a tie is truly terrifying.  I'm a fan of the electoral college, but I doubt it can survive any more blows, and this would be a big one.  It's fun to speculate, but let's hope this election is decided by November 5th, for the sake of our entire system's legitimacy.  

Palin on Foreign Policy

I don't think I was brought on staff here to provide political analysis, but I just couldn't resist this. The first in Charles Gibson's three-part interview with Sarah Palin aired last night. Some highlights:

1. She clearly does not know what "The Bush Doctrine" is. To be fair, neither does Prsident Bush.

2. There is an Alaskan island from which you can actually see Russia. Good enough for me!

3. My personal favorite was her response when asked to sum up what experience she's gained from living so close to the former reds:

"Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relations with our allies, pressuring also, helping us to remind Russia that it is their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along."

Well said, Sarah! Would you also like to tell us about how you personally believe that the U.S. Americans need to provide maps for the Iraq?

I'm really not bashing Sarah Palin as a person. Why should the governor of Alaska have to consider the Bush doctrine? Or Georgia's admission to NATO? Or U.S. military operations in Pakistan? She shouldn't. Neither should I! But neither of us should be vice president.

Why Palin Is Suddenly Scaring Some Dems

There’s a bizarre unease among the Democratic commentariat today – a vague feeling that Palin did something pretty good last night, and whatever it is, it might be trouble. No one seems quite sure what it is, so let me try to articulate:

Palin is the first person on a Presidential ticket in thirty years who isn’t rich. Who is genuinely middle-class, without any need for artifice or guise.

With the country in a populist mood, it makes her “elite-bashing” surprisingly authentic, honest, and effective. (Even if still mindlessly stupid).

Of course, the GOP has been bashing elites ever since Nixon told us in 1952 that he and Checkers had earned every penny they’d got.

But the problem has always been that most Republicans are charter members of the elite – multi-millionaires like Romney, McCain, the Bushes, Cheney, Quail, Reagan….even old Tricky Dick, who by 1968 had made more than enough to live in comfort as a Manhattan lawyer. (TNR pointed out that the average Wasalia citizen would have to work for ten years to afford Cindy McCain’s outfit last night).

To be sure, the GOP still does an amazing job of pretending to be jus’ folks, with the ludicrous “cultural” signals we’ve come to know and love: clearing brush, mispronouncing words, trashing your own Ivy League diploma, etc.

But there is a natural limit to the effectiveness of this message, because the messenger himself isn’t an average American—he’s an elite in every possible meaning of the word. This tension is something most Americans vaguely understand -- sometimes clearly (1992), sometimes not so much (2000, when their gullibility particularly infuriated liberals).

Dems, of course, share this problem from another angle: professing economic solidarity with the middle class, but nominating candidates who are still, well, rich (as a commenter to my Biden post noted).

In short, everyone is for the regular guy. But no one is a regular guy.

But now we have a regular old girl.

Palin’s family has never made serious money, not before she took office, not after. So, for the first time in a generation, her elite-bashing doesn’t need to come with an asterisk or a caveat, and that's the 'authenticity' people are sensing today.

(Postscript: I personally thought her speech was insipid and grating – like watching someone interview for the Women’s-Wear-Over-50 counter at Macy’s. The burgeoning scandals and her embarrassing lack of experience will frame her candidacy in the end, I'm confident. But I thought I’d try to explain why we're stuck with this "She's a New Star!!" narrative for a couple of days at least.)

A Cynic's Summary of Huckabee's RNC Address in 25 Words or Less

Mike Huckabee just gave his address at the RNC, and *surprise!* it was nearly identical to every other address at the RNC. It's almost like Karl Rove wrote out a speech at one sentence per flashcard, and each speaker just shuffles the cards around on the floor, picks them up, and reads them off in the order that they're in. Awesome. Here's what he said (very very slightly paraphrased):

"Hello Republicans! The media is elitist and liberal. I respect Obama, but he's ivy league educated and gets all his policy ideas from his recent European tour. McCain is a PoW. Democrats will tax you 140% of your salary. McCain was tortured because he was a PoW. Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, liberal, liberal, liberal. McCain being a PoW hero earned your child his or her school desk. Vote for me in 2012. Liberal."

(Disclosure: That may or may not have been more than 25 words.) Now, I realize that America's executive leadership hasn't exactly set a pristine example, but it's almost embarrassing to see a complete lack of policy discussed. Even wrong policy is better than no policy; at least you know what you're getting yourself into. But this is a campaign resorting 100% to scaring people away from them damn liberal agitating God-haters with pre-determined catch lines and cardboard slogans. It's almost like you could replace the speakers with customized magic 8-balls. Or better yet, a customized magic 8-ball iPhone application... wait; I think I just found my calling. Politics here I come!

Best. Sentence. Ever.

From the NYT's profile of Palin's stint as Mayor of Reno 911, it's hard to find a pithier example of the intersection of evangelical politics, blissful ignorance, and old-fashioned conservative contempt for America:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Update: I am enjoying this whole thing way too much.

McCain Selects Palin as VP Candidate

Some rather historic news this morning: McCain selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Palin becomes the first woman to serve on a GOP presidential ticket and the first Alaskan to appear on a national ticket. Her selection guarantees we'll see either a non-white President or a female Vice President.

My initial reaction was that the selection may backfire, and voters will write it off as "pandering" or somehow disingenuous. But, upon reflection, I realized those motivations have resulted in every other VP selection in the past - what good is the VP anyway?

Then I became concerned with whether she has sufficient experience to run the show (should McCain kick the bucket).

Let's compare Palin and Obama...

Palin, after a stint as a city mayor, won a huge victory over an incumbent Governor - in the primaries no less - and has since managed state affairs with a very high approval rating. She's guided budgets, managed the national guard, and pushed through the single largest construction project in North America (a new natural gas pipeline).

Obama, on paper at least, has really only been a successful state senator. Sure, he won a [largely uncontested] election to become a US Senator, but he's practically been running for President since. I'm unable to think of any major piece of legislation he's championed since getting elected.

Upon comparing these two, I think it's going to be hard for Democrats to attack Palin as "unqualified."

Instead, I think Democrats are going to turn to REAL issues when attacking Palin: just off the top of my head there's gun control, abortion rights, and capital punishment. And that makes me happy - like many Americans, I hate when the election rhetoric devolves into petty attacks. So strap yourselves in, it's going to be a very interesting couple of months...

Any other thoughts?

The Real Significance of the Biden Pick

Forget what you’ve been reading about “experience.” Forget about foreign policy. Forget about working-class. Forget about Catholic. Those themes are just a self-justifying narrative from the Obama campaign meant to buy a few good news cycles before Denver. The fact is, come November, voters don’t really care who the VP is when they vote for a President.

But they do hear what he says. The real reason Biden got the nod tonight is because Obama needs a pit-bull, and Joe Biden is ready to bark. This is someone who will, as my father put it rather scatologically, “Shove it up their ___.”

Sort of like this:

And that’s what Obama needs. Consider: One of the most ludicrous aspects of American politics in the last generation is how Republican politicians in Washington—who live in perfect gilded opulence, and who devote their professional lives to servicing the rich—somehow became the party of the people. And Democrats, whose legislative agenda revolves around helping the middle-class, turned into effete elites.

For most of this summer, Obama thought he was immune to this narrative. (In the reality-based community, it’s hard to fathom how the African-American son of a single mother who worked his way through school can be an ‘elite.’) He ignored the GOP attacks on his character, went on his “world citizen” tour, and left McCain untouched.

But as the polls suddenly tightened in the last few weeks, the Obama campaign realized it was in a dogfight, and they needed to shoot back. Their apoplectic (and successful) reaction to McCain’s fuzzy memory about his houses shows they’ve figured this out (even as they let other McCain gaffes slide by all summer). The Joe Biden pick is part-and-parcel with this new strategy. He has the manner and elocution to shred Republican myths: that McCain has demonstrated foreign policy judgment, that he’s a “maverick,” that he cares about working-class Americans.

Tell Hillary Clinton that “rich” is defined as making over $5 million a year, and you’ll get a five-minute lecture on what she learned in the Senate and as first lady. Tell Evan Bayh and he’ll calmly talk about his Indiana boyhood. Tell Tim Kaine and…well, who? But tell Joe Biden and you’ll get the kind of look he delivers in the last second of this video:

And that’s the kind of thing (the ONLY kind of thing) that a VP can do that will actually resonate with voters.

To be sure, you won’t see the fangs immediately. The start of the DNC in Denver and the meme about Biden’s verbal gaffes means it’s going to be all scripted smiles and a short leash for the first few weeks.

But starting on about September 15 I'd guess, Biden will come out swinging. If I had to predict, I’d say the Obama campaign is basically going to purchase a permanent sleeping car on Amtrak’s Capitol Limited corridor, and Biden’s going to spend the entire fall traveling between Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburg, and Philadelphia, reminding out-of-work and underemployed Americans that John McCain’s entire solution to their woes is…to cut taxes on Mitt Romney.

The best historical analogy for all this is Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon in 1952. Like Obama, Eisenhower was a genial, sunny guy trying to end a long period of dominance by the opposing party—but unable to attack on his own because of his disposition.

Despite despising him personally, Ike put Nixon on the ticket to go after the Democrats and do his dirty work—something Nixon relished and Ike detested.

I see Obama’s pick of Biden in the same light—the guy to attack the GOP while Obama floats above it all with his promise of a “different kind of politics.” It’s a great 1-2 combination. And it means, thankfully, Obama finally figured out how to throw a punch—or at least hire someone else who could.

Running Mate Predictions?

The NY Times thinks Obama has chosen a running mate, and could release a name as early as Wednesday morning.

I'm no Election Wizard, and I realize the question is becoming a bit of a yawn these days, but after kicking around the Times website, I couldn't help but hope for the most trusted man in America . . .

Any other (more realistic) predictions?