Deja Vu?

When Rudy Giuliani decided to skip the traditionally important contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in favor of a strategy focusing on big states like Florida, New York, and California, nobody knew whether he was making a brilliant move or the biggest mistake of his life. After Giuliani's candidacy imploded in Florida due to a lack of momentum, it became clear that it was the latter.

Using 20/20 hindsight, we can see the obvious reason for Giuliani's strategic failure. Simply stated, winning is a good thing. When voters across the country see someone losing pathetically in state after state, he gets branded as a loser, even if he wasn't really trying to win those states in the first place. And no one wants to vote for a loser.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton didn't get the memo.

After mediocre results on not-so-super Tuesday, and decisive defeats in places as varied as Washington state and Washington DC, it's getting harder and harder for Hillary to poise herself as the inevitable nominee. But she's still trying to do just that.

As each loss rolls in, the Clinton campaign haughtily dismisses them:

The state was too black.
Too white.
Too red.
Too blue.
That state? She was planning on losing that one.

But regardless of how she spins the latest round of losses, Hillary can't sweep them under the rug. They're still losses. They still hurt. And slowly but surely, they're undermining her frontrunner status.

Did I say undermining? Allow me to correct myself: they have undermined her frontrunner status.

Obama now leads Hillary by around 100 pledged delegates -- delegates selected democratically through primaries and caucuses. Hillary still retains her lead among super delegates, high-ranking members of the Democratic party who can change sides whenever they want to, but even when these delegates are added to Hillary's column, Obama has a 22 delegate lead.

More importantly, Obama has momentum on his side. Following his majestic sweep of the Chesapeake bay primary contests yesterday, Obama can claim a grand total of 8 wins in a row. When Hawaii and Wisconsin vote next Tuesday, that number is expected to rise to ten. Needless to say, Hillary has plenty to worry about.

In fact, Hillary only has one path to victory open to her: landslides in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, three delegate-rich states she currently leads in.

But in a presidential race where double-digit leads have evaporated overnight, betting an entire campaign on a few big states is a risky strategy.

Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

Et Tu, Coulter?

The story of John McCain's life has always been full of drama, but now that McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, some people are determined to turn it into a Shakespearean tragedy. Namely, Julius Caesar. Frightened by the thought of an ambitious, moderate Senator like John McCain seizing the leadership of the American Empire, a veritable who's who of the conservative movement has gathered to plunge their verbal daggers into McCain's political chest.

The first stab came from Rush Limbaugh, who proclaimed that a McCain nomination would spell the end of the Republican party as we know it. Ann Coulter, refusing to be outdone, proclaimed that she would campaign for Hillary if McCain became the Republican nominee. Talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrahm have openly endorsed Mitt Romney, a step that blogger/talk show host Hugh Hewitt had already taken months ago.

All of them cite the same reason for their fervent opposition: John McCain is a Kennedy-hugging liberal.

There's nothing wrong with opposing a candidate you disagree with, but the recent flurry of anti-McCain vitriol has a disingenuous ring to it. For eight years, the same conservative commentators who are currently heaping contempt on John McCain have continuously defended a man with strikingly similar positions: George W. Bush.

The notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law? Bush signed it.

The even-more-notorious McCain-Kennedy immigration reform law? Bush supported it.

On the issue of taxes, it's true that McCain sided with the Democrats against Bush's tax cut packages in 2001 and 2003 -- but it's also true that McCain has a strong history of battling pork barrel spending, while President Bush has passed hundreds of pork-laden bills without the slightest threat of a veto. That's not to mention the fact that John McCain now supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. It may be a flip-flop, but Mitt Romney, McCain's only viable opponent at this point, has more than a few of those in his recent past.

And yes, John McCain vehemently opposes torture -- something he personally endured in Vietnam. But if conservatives have become so out of touch with basic decency that support for torture is considered a positive thing, call me a liberal.

The reality of the situation is that when you look at the respective political records of President Bush and Presidential candidate McCain, they both have roughly the same number of liberal and conservative positions. If conservatives want to raise a ruckus about a moderate Republican getting a shot at the White House, they ought to apply the same standards to the moderate Republican who already occupies the place.

Today, Republicans in 24 states will decide for themselves who they want to represent their party on election day. If Mitt Romney goes down in flames, a score of vocal conservative commentators will have two courses of action to choose from: they can swallow their pride and support a Republican they detest in order to stop the Democratic nominee, or they can keep beating up on John McCain and pave the way for President Hillary or Obama. Something tells me that there'll be more than a few talk show hosts eating crow on February 6th.

Unfortunately, if Romney does pull off a miraculous victory, we'll all have to suffer through hours of talk radio gloating on the subject. No matter who wins, America always seems to lose.