Cross-posted at Bugs and Cranks..

Here's an AL Preview, attempting to compare every team with a polticial candidate.  

American League East

1. Boston Red Sox:

Political Figure: Senator Barack Obama

Both were once well-regarded underdogs, now overwhelming favorites.  Both hope to incorporate youth movements to propel them to another victory this fall.  Both Obama and Red Sox Nation sport an absurdly devoted and vocal fan base, to the point that detractors refer to them as cultists.  Both the Obama campaign and Red Sox management have a predilection to hire extremely organized numbers geeks.  In all likelihood, thankfully, Jimmy Fallon will not star in any movie concerning the Obama campaign.

2. New York Yankees:

Political Figure: President George W. Bush.

Both the product of a decades-long dynasty, with the current incarnate lacking the class and success than previous generations.  Also both are boorish and have a sense of entitlement they haven't earned since the early years of this decade.  The Yankees, like this Administration, are suffering from the ramifications of decisions that were popular at the time, but in retrospect were strategic mistakes and an utter waste of resources resulting from potentially illegal and certainly misleading conduct. (Iraq, Jason Giambi).  Both Bush and the Steinbrenner Yankees spend money like drunken sailors and are prone to ostentatious, coerced displays of patriotism.

3. Toronto Blue Jays

Political Figure: Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Plucky but completely overmatched. Fans of both bitch that we don't pay attention, but call us when they appear in the fall. Female Blue Jay supporters presumably bathe in something other than petulie and shave their armpits. I think.

4. Tampa Bay Devil Rays

Political Figure: Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Both hang out in Florida, hoping that transplanted New Yorkers turnout in huge numbers. It never occurs.

5. Baltimore Orioles

Political Figure: Sen. Hillary Clinton

Last truly relevant in the 1990s, but ultimately thwarted by unfair tactics that kept them from victory (Harry & Louise, Jeffrey Maier).  Like Peter Angelos, Hillary's campaign spends tons of money on overvalued and useless employees (Mark Penn for Hillary, Albert Belle's $65million, 5 year contract for the O's).  Both have frequent turnover in senior management and change strategies on a frequent basis.  Orioles fans ignore the standings.  Hillary's supporters cover their ears when "delegate counts" are mentioned.

American League Central

1. Cleveland Indians

Political Figure:  Sen. John Edwards

Both are talented and young and have everything going for them.  On paper, should win every time and yet have a legacy of disappointment to their previous efforts.  It is like there is a curse or something.</span><span> </span>

2. Detroit Tigers

Political Figure: Sen. John McCain

The Tigers, like McCain, sport a long and distinguished history.  In the last year, frustrated by previous failures, both radically changed their strategy in a last-ditch effort to achieve victory.  Detroit's trade for Cabrera and Willis, however, makes more sense that McCain's recent flirtations with Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. Also, McCain hopes Hillary and Obama attack each other forever, while the Tigers hope that the Red Sox and Yankees pay more attention to each other while Detroit sneaks into the Wild Card.

3. Chicago White Sox

Political Figure: Sen. Fred Thompson

Incredibly hyped, but ultimately fail due to a lackadaisical approach and age.  In his defense, Fred Thompson does not say nearly as many stupid things as Ozzie Guillen.

4. Kansas City Royals

Political Figure: Gov. Mike Huckabee

Both Huckabee and the Royals are not competing to win this year, but are hoping for a distant, theoretical future. Royals fans look for a future where KC can produce and retain talented players; Huckabee's supporters await the End Times envisioned in the Book of Revelations. Huckabee prefers miracles to math; the Royals' roster is evidence that they need a miracle with their pitching staff.

5. Minnesota Twins

Political Figure: Gov. Mitt Romney

The Twins play on plastic.  Mitt Romney is plastic. Both abruptly ceased competing this year in an effort to save money.  Both are looking forward to becoming league leaders in coming years and building on this year's campaign.

American League West

1. Los Angeles Angels

Political Figure: Gov. Bill Richardson

The Angels' owner is the first Latino to run a Major League Team, while Bill Richardson is the first major Latino presidential candidate.  On paper, both should succeed and compete for victory:  Richardson has a vaunted resume, while the Angels are loaded with talent.  Both ultimately fail in the end and are surprisingly uncharismatic.

2. Seattle Mariners

Political Figure: Sen. Joe Biden

Significant international experience.  Boring.  No one ever pays attention to them.

3. Texas Rangers

Political Figure: Sen. Mike Gravel

Only reminded of the existence of either when they inexplicably appear on my television.

4. Oakland Athletics

Political Figure: Rep. Ron Paul

Both team's supporters have a vocal cadre of supporters that are often more interested in theoretical concepts than actual results.  A's supporters are active on line but this does not translate into attendance in Oakland, while Ron Paul's Internet support does not translate into things like "votes."

Well, I'm finished. Hope you enjoyed it. Join me in October, when I compare each playoff team to a member of the G-7.

AL(52) 27 -25 Obama.  Too southern.  So discount.
AK(13)  9-4 Obama.  Discount.  Too Red.
AS(3)  2-1 HRC.  Counts, even though not held in state.
AZ(56)  31-25 HRC.  Counts, even though McCain from the state.
AR(35)  27-8 HRC.  Arkansas is the birthplace of democracy.
CA(370)  202-161-7  Largest state in country.  Although both will carry in November, Hillary would double plus carry the electoral votes.
CO(55)  32-13 Obama.  Caucus state.  Therefore, undercounts "real" Americans who are too busy to caucus.  PS:  Screw that open Senate seat -- can't you see we're trying to elect a President?
CT(48)  26-22 Obama.  Don't you know that Obama endorsed Leiberman?  
DE(15)  9-6 Obama.  Too small.  Also, borders a much more important Pennsylvania.
DA(7)  Obama.  Too foreign.
DC(15)  Obama.  Not a state.  For crying out loud.
GA(87)  60-27 Obama.  Democrats there don't really vote, they aspire.
ID(18)  15-3 Obama.  Larry Craig's from there.  Also, a caucus.  Counting a caucus makes the terrorists win, as it disenfranchises the military.
IL(153)  104-49 Obama.  You have to be kidding me.
IA(45)  Obama 16-15.  Caucus state.  Also violated rules by voting before Michigan and Florida.
KS(32)  23-9 Obama.  Caucus, red state.  Also, very flat.  Sebelius' son joked about prison, too.
LA(56)  34-22 Obama.  Uses French law.
ME(24)  15-9 Obama.  Invaded by Canadian latte sipping African Americans.
MD(70)  42-28 Obama.  Too many black people.
MA(93)  55-38 HRC.  Now you're talking.  Take that, KERRY AND KENNEDY!!!
MN(72)  48-24 Obama.  Mondale was from there.  Also, a caucus, thereby disenfranchising the elderly and those who work the night shift.
MO(72)  36-36 Tie.  I allow them to stay, despite the temerity of so many voters going for Obama in a swing state.
NE(24) 16-8 Obama.  Caucus.  Bill Nelson should just switch parties.
NV(25)  13-12 Obama.  I recall it differently, so I'm changing the results to 15-10 Hillary.
NH(22)  Technically, a tie, but again I'm changing the results to 15-7 HRC to reflect the massive wonderful supercomeback.
NJ(107)  59-48 Hillary.  They count.
NM(26)  14-12 Hillary.  They chose not to secede, but barely.
NY(232)  138-93 Hillary.  Counts a great deal.  
ND(13)  8-5 Obama.  Caucus state.  We shouldn't even field Senate candidates there.
OK(38)  24-14 HRC.  Here's a tricky one.  Although a red state, they are allowed to have their delegates seated because we might win this due to a massive influx of women voters who will carry the state.
SC(45)  25-12 Obama.  Jesse carried this.  Twice.  Also, Ft. Sumpter.
TN(68)  40-28 Hillary.  They're allowed to stay, if only to prevent a Gore endorsement.
UT(23)  14-9 Obama.  No Ds reside in this state.  They also don't drink coffee.
VA(83)  54-29 Obama.  Too many black people.  Also, Jim Webb isn't a real democrat.
VI(3)  3-0 Obama.  They're not in the country, unlike American Samoa.
WA(78)  52-26 Obama.  Latte land.  Also, a caucus state and therefore chose to secede.
HI(20)  14-6 Obama.  One of ten home states for Obama.
WI(74)  42-32 Obama.  Although a swing state and not a caucus, discounted because Hillary didn't "try."
OH(141)  74-65.  Clearly one of five states that matter.  Ohio, ohio, ohio.  God, don't you listen to Tim Russert?
RI(21)  13-8 Hillary.  As Rhode Island goes, so goes the nation.
TX(193)  92-92.  Screw this.  Only count the primaries.
VT(15)  9-6 Obama.  You're kidding.  Freaking lefties.
WY(12)  7-5 Obama.  Caucus state, which only disenfranchises people.  You're about democracy, right.

To my count, Hillary should win the nomination as a result of her clear, unambigious victories.

1)  Wyoming voted today in record numbers in a Democratic Party caucus,

2)  Obama happened to win.

What is the reaction by Hillary supporters.  That largely because of #2 (and I don't think we heard this during Nevada and Iowa, at least not to the extent we have recently), the vote is undemocratic and therefore should be discounted.

Sorry, but no.

Wyoming Democrats voted in the only way they could -- in caucuses.  Much like Mississippi voters will vote Tuesday in the only way they can -- in the MS primary.  Both contests will be discounted rhetorically by some advocates and even some campaign officials because of demographics and those pesky "rules."

But.  Doing so means rhetorically disenfranchising voters.  Wyoming's Democratic voters should count, as should Mississippi's -- not as much as Ohio's or Texas', but they should be counted.

HRC supporters:  you may hate caucuses.  I feel some of that anger should be directed at the campaign you support for blowing off so much resources early and not having enough $ to allocate to these states (what, you think HRC supporters are less committed or you think Wyoming is somehow in Obama's wheelhouse demographically?).  But don't discount what happened today.  You shouldn't disenfranchise voters through your rhetoric.

PS:  The reason we don't have primaries in every state is that they cost money.  To fund them, we would have to 1)  have the states fund them, which isn't possible in every state because sometimes state legislatures don't want to do so (and some of those states are run by Republicans), 2)  have the state parties fund them, which isn't possible because of $, 3)  a third party fund them, which is an incredibly dangerous idea, 4)  the federal government fund them or mandate the state fund a primary, which is a horrific precedent to set.  Do we really want the Federal government mandate rules for a party nomination fight?

oh, and pps:  the caucuses were on the schedule for a while.  it wasn't like Wyoming or Texas or any state decided to caucus this week.

On the front page right now:
----------------

Nope, sorry, I won't be defending language like this:

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

"Certainly Senator McCain has done that?" Really? How? By promising to continue the neo-con bully Bush doctrine for 4 more years? By escalating and perpetuating a tragic war?
---------------------

How dare Mydd provide such venom to Hillary Clinton, who after all must be the nominee or America is filled with misognyist sexists?   How dare Mydd criticize a word that the Democratic Nominee (according to Ohio, Texas, New York, Florida and California -- the only states in MY UNION).

Mydd has become part of the corporate structure.  By that, it is a clever and subtle conspiracy.  Pretend to be progressive, at first lulling us into a false sense of complacency, than use Hillary's words against her in a clear and unambigious way to curry favor with Mydd's clear corporate masters.

How dare anyone post anything here, when it is clear that citing her language in such negative terms can only stop what is a clearly anoited candidate, once one ignores things like "voting" and "delegates"?  I'm including the diaries and comments, as clearly anything that is within this site is fruit from a poisoned tree.

Oh, its very clever, Mydd.  V-E-R-Y clever.  

and Hillary had said the following in a primary fight against Obama, would Hillary supporters agree with it or defend it?

"I think that since we now know the President will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, the President has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.
--------------------
Like it or not, if the "threshold" for national security street cred is supporting the war resolution or the Leiberman Iran resolution, I'd like some inexperience, please.

Its speculative, but seems to make sense:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/03/06/breaking-michigan-ca ucus-likely-says-dnc-rules-committee-mem ber.aspx

"A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."
---------------------

As much as people (including myself, I dislike caucuses) dislike caucuses, it seems to be one of the few options available -- who is going to fund a primary?  The state isn't going to fund two, the state party doesn't have the $ and it may not exactly be a great precedent for unions and/or the candidates to do so.

IMHO, this is and isn't good news for Hillary and Obama.  It increases the total amt of delegates needed to win (helping Hillary), it increases Hillary's superdelegate count, it helps her set up a compelling campaign narrative to superdelegates if she wins (she's won CA, NY, FL, MI, OH).

For Obama?  Its a caucus and he does well in that format.  Hillary didn't exactly dominate the last time despite being the only person on the ballot.  The longer this stretches out helps Obama (he has more $ for an extended war of attrition and possibly a lower burn rate -- HRC spent $7 M in SC alone according to the WaPo).  He can, conversely, negate her narrative partially by winning MI.

The big losers?  Puerto Rico, as its voters were hoping desperately for massive pandering by the fact that they were once the last state on the calendar.

OK, I don't know if the Clay rumor is true in the Columbia MO paper (having read that paper, I'm a little shocked they broke news, to be honest), but....

Let's assume Obama gets 50% of the delegates the rest of the way.  Excluding MI and FL, he has 1676 pledged delegates to Hillary's 1538.  Before you quibble w/the 50%, Hillary had a huge night last night and I don't think got 55% of the delegates.  Not to mention caucus results lead to blowout wins b/c of the way the #s work, etc., etc...

Anyway, 1676-1538.  According to this valuable site, http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/, Clinton currently has a 240-199 superdelegate lead.

Add 50 to Obama.  That's 249+1676=1925.  He would need 99 of the remaining 232 remaining superdelegates in order to win the nomination.  Given that his argument, if Michigan and FL are not seated, is that he has won more states, more pledged delegates, I suspect he'd have a good chance of

That's why the 50 delegate p/u is huge.  If my math is right.  Which, of course, may well be wrong.

Well, here it is:

http://cbs11tv.com/politics/obama.clinto n.poll.2.662519.html

Limited cross-tabs here:

"The biggest change comes with Hispanic voters. A week ago, Senator Clinton had a 30 point lead, but now that lead is down to 13 points.

Even among females in Texas, Clinton is losing her grip. She was up 27 points last week. her lead has now dwindled to 11 points among women voters."

------------