The first time it came up, Chelsea replied “I do not think that it is any of your business” (and for emphasis pursed her lips and nodded her head several times). Since then, the AP says she her  responses have been “less blunt” — she says it’s a “personal matter” and that she doesn’t think the issue is germane to the election.

But is it purely a personal matter? Is the question out of bounds?

I suppose it depends on how it is asked. Surely, asking the daughter about her father’s horndog reputation, or about her parents’ marriage, is tacky and indeed personal. But  Ms. Clinton went on national TV to infamously ascribe the allegation that the president had had an extramarital dalliance in the White House with an intern as the product of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and said “this is not going to be proven true.”

Is it not fair to ask whether her public performance during the Lewinsky scandal says something about her judgment and how she would respond in a crisis? After all, the scandal and subsequent impeachment were signature events in Bill Clinton’s presidency. The sordid details are not relevant, but how the White House operated during those times is, especially since Hillary has said her experience not just as first lady, but as adviser to the president, make her qualified for the Oval Office.

Chelsea’s not a child anymore (she’s 28). And she’s voluntarily entered the political arena by hitting the campaign trail and opening herself up for questions. I think the issue can be addressed in a respectful and substantive way.

Post from: The Ballot Box

Lately, Clinton has been dropping hints about how maybe it would be better for her and Obama to join forces rather than wage civil war all the way through to Denver. A Democratic Dream Team?

Who would be at the top of the ticket? The knee-jerk response is of course Hillary — if for no other reason than it’s hard to imagine her playing second fiddle anymore. Plus, Barack is young, he could serve as VP and still have a long time to run for the top job in the future. Right?

Well, Obama has been squelching that talk, saying he’s not in the race to be a veep. He also questioned the logic of him being a running mate when he told a town hall meeting Monday: “If I am not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?”  Meanwhile, there’s a rumor  from Chuck Todd, NBC News political director, that he heard from Hillary’s people that she would accept the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

Could those two co-exist as one? For the good of the party? Who should be at the top of ticket?

Post from: The Ballot Box

That’s a bum deal for the 2 million Democrats who voted anyway. They’re being punished for the sins of their legislatures. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm issued a joint statement Wednesday urging the DNC to seat their states’ delegates.

But how do you fix it?

The DNC could simply reverse its decision and recognize the delegates. That would be a boon to Hillary Clinton, who won both states and is trailing Barack Obama in the number of pledged delegates. But did she win them fair and square? It’s hard to argue that she did in Michigan — Obama wasn’t even on the ballot there.

How about holding new primaries — basically, letting Democrats vote again? That would solve Michigan’s ballot problem. But it would be expensive — Florida estimates it would cost $25 million. Crist says he doesn’t want taxpayer money to be spent on it, and the DNC doesn’t seem eager to spend any of its war chest on a re-vote.

Then there’s the issue of getting a second bite of the apple. Voters in Michigan and Florida would get to base their decision on information that wasn’t available to them in January. I wonder how many people in other early primary states would like to go to the polls again and change their votes, especially knowing what the impact would be on the race now as opposed to then.

What’s the fairest thing to do: Abide by the rules, or change them?

Post from: The Ballot Box

What are we supposed to glean from this picture?

1) That Barack Obama, like many politicians, is willing to don the native garb of the foreign nation he is visiting (in this instance, Kenya in 2006) as a show of respect.

2) That Barack Hussein Obama has some Muslim roots (his late father was raised a Muslim), and do you really want a dark-skinned man in a turban and robe as your president? Maybe he’s a “Manchurian Muslim,” secretly groomed and programmed over the years to infiltrate the U.S. government and destroy America.

3) There’s nothing inherently wrong with what he’s wearing, but why is he so willing to “go native” in Kenya while refusing to wear an American flag lapel pin in this country?

There’s a lot of chatter out there about just who and what Obama is. A lot of it is false. Read this Snopes piece to separate fact from fiction.

Post from: The Ballot Box

Of course, the question to ask is: Why now? The Democratic Party didn’t suddenly become liberal after Dean (a 2004 presidential candidate) became party chairman in 2005. Why didn’t Meadows switch parties in 2005, 2006 or 2007?

Switching now allows him to avoid a Democratic primary contest in his quest to get re-elected as State Attorney this year. Hmmm, what other potential Democratic candidates could there be out there that he doesn’t want to run against? I’m sure if I think hard enough at least one name will come to mind.

Do many people support a State Attorney candidate based on party affiliation? Does it matter if a prosecutor has a D or an R after his name? I’ve always believed that party meant little at the local level, especially in smaller communities, mainly because the candidates are better known by the voters, both ideologically and personally; they don’t need a party ID as a shorthand. I certainly can’t imagine anyone who’s paid an ounce of attention to Meadows’ career or the upcoming race changing their vote (for or against) based on his new party.

Note:  Original post has been edited to reflect the correction to the news story, published 2/22, about state law regarding returning campaign donations.

Post from: The Ballot Box

But picking Crist would have to involve more than just returning a political favor. The running mate has to give the nominee broader electoral strength. He’s often seen as shoring up the top of the ticket’s weaknesses, be they ideological (such as a conservative to balance out a moderate), regional (a Southerner to balance a Northerner) or personal (think of Dick Cheney providing “gravitias”  to G.W. Bush).

What would Crist bring to the GOP ticket? He’s not more conservative than McCain, nor is he appreciably more liberal — they seem to be fairly congruent on most issues. He’s not a true Southerner, in that Florida is  more culturally diverse than its geography. McCain doesn’t need an influx of experience or gravitas — that’s one of his selling points.

Some say that Crist is “the future of the GOP.” Hey, Republicans, is that what you want your party to look like in 5-10 years?

And all you Crist-haters: Would it be worth it to have him as VP if it meant getting him out of Florida?

Post from: The Ballot Box

But picking Crist would have to involve more than just returning a political favor. The running mate has to give the nominee broader electoral strength. He’s often seen as shoring up the top of the ticket’s weaknesses, be they ideological (such as a conservative to balance out a moderate), regional (a Southerner to balance a Northerner) or personal (think of Dick Cheney providing “gravitias”  to G.W. Bush).

What would Crist bring to the GOP ticket? He’s not more conservative than McCain, nor is he appreciably more liberal — they seem to be fairly congruent on most issues. He’s not a true Southerner, in that Florida is  more culturally diverse than its geography. McCain doesn’t need an influx of experience or gravitas — that’s one of his selling points.

Some say that Crist is “the future of the GOP.” Hey, Republicans, is that what you want your party to look like in 5-10 years?

And all you Crist-haters: Would it be worth it to have him as VP if it meant getting him out of Florida?

Post from: The Ballot Box

The superintendent’s job has been a revolving door for principals to jump back and forth between 1311 Balboa Ave.  and their schools. That can make for an incestuous relationship among administrators and staff — and for some awkward moments. Look no further than the epic clash between current Superintendent James McCalister and former Bay High Principal (and former Superintendent) Larry Bolinger. Mac defeated Bolinger for the super’s job,  and later was responsible for hiring him at Bay — and then transferring him to Jinks Middle School. That sparked a costly legal battle between the School Board and the Superintendent over who had the ultimate authority to place personnel. You can’t help but think the whole thing started as a clash between political and professional rivals.

Does the current setup make for a healthy system? Once you’ve held the top spot, how hard is it to transition back to being a principal? As a superintendent, how hard is it to oversee people who have been in your shoes — and might think that they did a much better job than you?

Furthermore, what about all the politicking that a principal may do to earn the votes of other school personnel? Does that corrupt the educational system by highly politicizing it? Does a superintendent who was part of the school administration — and who may be interested in returning to it after he leaves the super’s job — be inclined to operate in the best interest of his former (and perhaps future) colleagues than that of the taxpayers?

Would it be better to have the superintendent be an outsider appointed by the School Board? That would eliminate the politics, the power struggles (if the super doesn’t do what the Board wants, he gets fired) and all the potential conflicts of interest between current and former supers and principals.

Post from: The Ballot Box

The surest thing to emerge from Super Tuesday was John McCain’s inevitability. Coming out of Florida, Mitt Romney had one last chance to make a case to Republican voters that he was the “conservative” alternative to McCain, and polls showed him making inroads in Georgia, Missouri and California. However, when the dust had settled Tuesday, Romney had failed to win a major primary (other than his home state of Massachusetts). He cleaned up in the caucuses, but they don’t provide enough delegates for him to seriously challenge McCain for the nomination. Mike Huckabee had more impressive victories, albeit regional ones that also demonstrated his limited appeal.

Yet, McCain’s numerous victories are a bit less impressive when looked at closely. Other than South Carolina, he’s done poorly in the South (unless you count Florida, which is only Southern in the north). As John Judis of the New Republic points out:

McCain continues to depend on moderate, non-evangelical Republicans for his victories. In California, conservatives made up 62 percent of the primary electorate; McCain only won 30 percent of them. In Tennessee, 73 percent of the voters were conservatives; McCain won 22 percent. In Missouri, 65 percent were conservatives; McCain won 25 percent. In these states, McCain failed to win a majority of Republicans.

One group that is clearly dissatisfied with McCain are Republican evangelicals. In Tennessee, which Huckabee won, 73 percent of the primary voters described themselves as born-again Christians. McCain won 29 percent of these voters. In Missouri, 54 percent of voters described themselves this way; McCain won 24 percent. The other group that doesn’t like McCain is Republicans who think illegal immigration is the most important issue. In California, 30 percent of the Republicans thought it was; 23 percent voted for Republicans; in Tennessee 25 percent thought it was the most important. Only 21 percent went for McCain. It’s not clear how McCain can win these voters over.

Indeed, McCain may have secured the GOP nomination, but in a way that may portend trouble for him in the general election. Will Romney and Huckabee supporters — conservatives and evangelicals — climb aboard the “Straight Talk Express” in November? Will McCain attract enough independents to offset possible conservative losses?

Here’s a question for those who haven’t supported McCain: What could he say or do to assuage your concerns and earn your vote? Will whoever the Democratic nominee is influence how you vote — or don’t vote — in November?

Now, from the Democratic side, the race is even messier. Hillary Clinton won a lot of big states Tuesday, but Barack Obama held his own. The nomination is still a toss-up, in large part because the Democratic Party awards its delegates on a proportional basis (unlike many GOP states that are winner-take-all). So a second-place finish can earn a candidate enough delegates to deny the front-runner the number necessary to win the nomination outright.

If the delegate count remains close heading into the convention, things could get ugly. First, Clinton is going to fight hard to get the party to count delegates from Michigan and Florida, which it had pledged to ignore after those states moved their primaries up against DNC wishes. Of course, most of those belong to her. Obama will oppose that move.

Next, the Democrats have nearly 800 “superdelegates” who are essentially free agents — they are not picked by primary or caucus voters. Rather, they are usually officeholders and party officials — i.e., the party establishment. Many are considered loyal to the Clinton political machine. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which Obama stays neck-and-neck with Clinton in the primaries, maybe even enters the convention with a slim lead in delegates — only to see Hillary seize the nomination by calling in her political chips and claiming most of the superdelegates. That could spark a Democratic civil war, with Obama supporters claiming a democratic victory (via the popular vote) is being stolen by bare-knuckle, backroom political wheeling and dealing.

How far would Hillary go to get the nomination? Would she risk alienating large segments of the party at the convention, perhaps confident she could rebuild the coalition before November?

Post from: The Ballot Box

It turns out that the race was over by 8 p.m. Central Time. McCain won the biggest prize yet in the primary season — the largest, most diverse state, once much more reflective of the nation than previous primary/caucus states — AND one with a closed primary. That means that he couldn’t count on independents to vote for him as he had in the open-primary states. Considering McCain’s stormy relationship with the conservative GOP base, this was seen as an advantage to Romney. And indeed, according to a CNN exit poll, Romney won conservative voters 37 percent to 27 percent for McCain. But that was not a big enough margin (credit Mike Huckabee for siphoning off some conservatives from Mitt). Maybe if it had been a two-man race, the results would’ve been different. But you can’t play “what if” games like that.

It now looks like the Republican nomination is McCain’s to lose. He heads into Super Tuesday with real momentum, competing in states that he already had an advantage in (New York, New Jersey, Arizona, California). But will a McCain victory split the  GOP? Will conservatives hold their nose and vote for him in November vs. the Democratic nominee? How much difference does it make if that nominee is Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Would McCain’s choice of a running mate smooth things over?

Post from: The Ballot Box