A few weeks ago on OTB Radio, Dave Schuler predicted that Timothy Geithner would be out as Treasury Secretary by the end of the year.  At the rate he’s going, he might not last to summer.

It’s bad enough his every public appearance causes the Dow to plummet.  Now, he’s been openly contradicted by his boss on the AIG creating what NYT correspondent Jackie Calmes has dubbed “perhaps the worst week in a string of bad weeks for the Treasury secretary.”

Mr. Geithner’s once-heralded credentials with Wall Street were already marred by false starts in revamping the Bush administration’s bank rescue program, even as his perceived closeness to financiers — he is the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — and unease with populist politics left Main Street skeptical.

On Wednesday, a junior Republican in Congress and some traders on Wall Street went so far as to call for him to quit or be fired. The Republican leader of the House, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, told a conservative talk-radio host that the secretary is “on thin ice.”

But Mr. Geithner’s boss, the president, interjected a vote of “complete confidence.”

Which is Washington speak for “I haven’t fired him yet.”

And, it turns out, Treasury knew about the AIG bonuses days earlier than we’d been led to believe (albeit not nearly as long as the Fed knew.)

Already, Politico has a “Can Geithner Bounce Back?” story.

If Geithner is to survive, Democrats, analysts and even experts in crisis public relations say the Obama White House must find some way to improve the public image of a man who is becoming closely identified in the public mind with the ugly side of the Wall Street bailouts, including the controversy over AIG’s use of taxpayer money to pay $165 million in bonuses to top executives.

Put it this way: Obama’s made clear he’s not getting rid of Geithner. Now he needs a game plan for an urgent rehabilitation — which imagemeisters say will likely mean throwing Geithner a life raft by keeping him out of the limelight, giving him a more aggressive policy stance to sell and even filling out his depleted ranks at Treasury.

The problem is that there’s nothing in Obama’s short history in public life to indicate that he’s willing to spend that much energy — indeed, any energy at all — to prop up an associate who’s creating a distraction. Jeremiah Wright — gone.   Samantha Power — gone. (That one happened so fast it didn’t merit a second post. She is, to be fair, quietly back.) Jim Johnson — gone.  Bill Richardson — gone. Nancy Killefer — gone. Tom Daschle — gone. Rodgin Cohen, Chas Freeman, and Annette Nazareth — gone.

Indeed, the only notably exception was Geithner and the flap over his failure to pay taxes. But that’s not a storm he had to weather long and it was obvious that Geithner would nonetheless be easily confirmed under the circumstances.  If Geithner continues to be an obstacle to Obama’s agenda, he’ll soon be — gone.

Photo: Reuters Pictures

Update (Steve Verdon): I think this part is important,

And, it turns out, Treasury knew about the AIG bonuses days earlier than we’d been led to believe (albeit not nearly as long as the Fed knew.)

Lets not forget where Secretary Geithner came from: The Federal Reserve. Further, as head of the New York Federal Reserve he was likely very involved in the AIG matter. The idea that he was caught flat footed on this strains credulity to the breaking point, for me at least. Geithner has been involved in all of these bailouts for months. His work spans both the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration, and he was picked by President Obama. The idea that this can all be blamed on Bush is just not believable either. I think that if Geithner makes it to August it will be surprising at this point.

Oh, can anyone check the In-Trade contract on Geithner’s demise as Secretary of Treasury and post it in comments?

H. Rodgin Cohen, “the leading candidate for Deputy Treasury Secretary, has withdrawn from consideration,” George Stephanoupoulous reports.  He adds, “Cohen had risen to the top after the withdrawal last week of expected deputy treasury secretary pick Annette Nazareth.”

Something’s wrong with this picture.

To be sure, Cohen wasn’t technically an appointee.   Still, as Glenn Reynolds pointed out yesterday, the list of failed appointees is long, including “Chas Freeman, Sanjay Gupta, Annette Nazareth, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer . . . Judd Gregg . . . [and Anthony] Zinni.”

In our discussion on this topic on last night’s edition of OTB Radio (”Obama’s Appointees Keep Fallin’ Down“) Dave Schuler, who reluctantly voted for Obama despite concerns about his managerial experience, blamed the vetting process whereas I, who reluctantly voted for McCain considering the alternatives, blamed the process itself.

David Broder agrees.  So does Dan Drezner, who asks, “Has the vetting process in DC become too absurd, or are Obama’s subcabinet candidates too thin-skinned?”

Paul Light wrote about the problem last June.  He notes, as I did last night, the sheer scope of the process:

The reality is that the appointments process has been getting later and later with each passing administration. John F. Kennedy had his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet in place by early spring of 1961, Reagan by early fall of 1981, Clinton by early winter of 1992 and George W. Bush by mid-winter of 2002.

There are two reasons for the increasing delay. First, the number of presidential appointees has more than tripled to 3,000-plus over the past 40 years. Roughly 600 of the total are subject to Senate confirmation, which operates on a first-come, first-served basis and can only accommodate so many nominations at a time.

The rest of the 3,000 are “at will” appointees who serve at the president’s pleasure. These alter-ego chiefs of staff and assistant assistants are nearly invisible to the public, but wield enormous influence in the executive branch by acting as closely watched enforcers for the White House agenda. As such, they receive just as much scrutiny in the review process as their much more visible Senate-confirmed bosses.

Second, the process itself is nasty, brutish, and not at all short. Nominees must wait for months as the White House, FBI, IRS, Office of Government Ethics, and Senate inspect the 60 pages of forms that must be filled out on the way to confirmation, including one that still has to be completed by typewriter. The process produces tons of paper, but has almost no bearing on the quality of the nominee.

To be sure, quite a few of the top jobs were filled essentially by acclamation, with several confirmed on or within a week of the inauguration.  But there are simply too many confirmable positions and too much room for lobbying and political backstabbing even on “at will” appointments such as Freeman.

There’s got to be a better way.

I was talking recently with a senior European official, who remarked about the fact that so many European officials were in town anxious to talk to their counterparts in the new administration only to find out that, as Drezner points out in a separate post, there’s nobody in those posts yet.

By contrast, Europeans manage to hold elections and bring in not only the new head of government but a functioning ministry within days.  It’s harder in the United States, since we don’t have a parliamentary system and thus have no shadow government.  But, surely, we could figure out how to appoint 600 people and get them cleared for duty between the second Tuesday in November and noon on January 20th — a period of over ten weeks?

UPDATE: A Senate staffer sends along a floor speech from earlier this week by Lamar Alexander on the subject.  Partly, he blames Obama for trying to do too many things at once.  But he admits that the process needs to be fixed.

The President has brought on himself some of the difficulty of putting together a team. In addition to having too many balls in the air at once, in my opinion, his standards for hiring sometimes seem to have the effect of disqualifying people who know something about the problem from being hired to solve the problem.

But another part of the President’s difficulty in filling jobs — one that has afflicted every President since Watergate — is the maze of investigations and forms that prospective senior officials must complete and the risk they run that they will be trapped and humiliated and disqualified by an unintentional and relatively harmless mistake.

[...]

Washington, DC, has become the only place where you hire a lawyer, an accountant, and an ethics officer before you find a house and put your kid in school.

The motto around here has become: “Innocent until nominated.”

Every legal counsel to every President since Nixon would, I suspect, agree that in the name of effective government, this process needs to be changed. Most have tried to change it, but in Washington style, new regulations pile up on top of old ones, creating a more bewildering maze.

His solution, frankly, is uninspiring:  a blue ribbon committee headed up by Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.  But the first step in solving a problem is recognizing you have one, so we’re at least 1/100th of the way there.

Photo: Reuters Pictures

Hilary Bok is rather bent out of shape at a Washington Whispers poll which asks “If you had a choice of four daycare centers run separately by Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, which would you choose for your kids?”

She suggests some alternative poll questions:

If you needed some yard work done, would you hire Mel Martinez, Henry Cisneros, Xavier Becerra, or Bill Richardson?

If you needed a rap DJ for a party, would you hire Barack Obama, Charlie Rangel, John Lewis, or Michael Steele?

If you needed an interior decorator, would you choose Jim McGreevey, Barney Frank, Larry Craig, or the disinterred corpse of Harvey Milk?

She believes that “they would probably recognize any of these other appeals to stereotypes as offensive. And yet, oddly enough, asking which one of four prominent women we’d like to have running our children’s day care center is A-OK. ”

Are these really comparable?  None of the men listed have any association aside from ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation with said stereotypes.  Conversely, all four women are, in fact, mothers.

Is it any worse than asking whether you’d rather have a beer with George W. Bush or John Kerry?  Heck, Bush doesn’t even drink! Ditto, “Who would you rather be in a foxhole with” questions.

Further, as it turns out, we do in fact ask “Who would you rather have watch your kids for a couple of hours on a Saturday?” and “Who would you rather have as your dad?” about male presidential contenders.

Beyond that, leaving aside that this was just a fun poll rather than a deep psychological exercise, it is simply true that women are generally the primary caregivers to their children and that we judge women with children on that basis more than we do men.   And while some of that is a function of culturally imposed norms, it’s not entirely a social construct but rather hard-wired into human biology.

My wife’s an educated, successful career woman.  She’s the Chief Operating Officer of a major polling firm.  My jobs give me more flexibility than hers, in that I can often work from home and time shift and she can’t.

We do not have equal roles in raising our daughter.

I’m an active father and try to do my fair share of diaper changes, burping, bouncing, and so forth.  I was there for the ultrasounds, labor, C-section, and have made all the pediatrician visits so far.  But, for example, because of my biological limitations, my wife did one hundred percent of the gestating.  She also endured the lion’s share of the pain associated with labor and delivery.  She’s still recovering from the C-section.  She plays a role in every feeding, whether by actively nursing or having pumped milk that I later bottle feed.   She got two months’ paid maternity leave, whereas I went back to work immediately.  (It helped that Katie was born on New Year’s Eve and our office was closed until January 5th).

My wife will go back to work soon and the division of labor will shift somewhat to a more balanced role.  In a few months, once Katie starts eating solid foods, things will balance even further.  But the reality will almost certainly be that she’ll cry out for mommy more than for daddy for years to come.

Getting back to the poll, then, it strikes me as an interesting way to get at public attitudes about these women.

Two of the women, Clinton and Obama, played second fiddle to their husbands’ careers during their children’s formative years while the other two, Pelosi and Palin, are the public faces of their marriages (although Pelosi’s husband is a multi-millionaire investor, he’s a virtual unknown; nobody outside Alaska and perhaps the “snow machine” racing community had ever heard of Todd Palin until his wife got tapped to be John McCain’s running mate).

They’ve all been pretty good moms, it would seem.  The Pelosis raised five children to adulthood, largely keeping them out of the national spotlight.  So far as I’m aware, they’re all productive members of society. The Clintons raised one daughter to adulthood entirely in the spotlight.  They managed to mostly shield her from the worst of it and she’s doing well for herself.  The Obama girls are living their formative years in the White House.  By all accounts, they’re doing well. The Palins, too, have five kids including, famously, one with Down Syndrome.   Their oldest is serving as an infantryman in Iraq while their middle daughter has had some well publicized issues.

If I had to send Katie to day care with one of them, I’d pick Obama, who’s warmer than Clinton and Pelosi (at least in public persona) and brainier than Palin.

President Obama is considering Republican Senator Judd Gregg for the Commerce Secretary post, Sam Stein reports for HuffPo.

There is a strong possibility that Barack Obama will ask Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as his Secretary of Commerce, Democratic Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

The move would fill a vacancy that has lingered since Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination. And provided that Al Franken emerges victorious in the Minnesota recount, it would give Democrats in the Senate a 60th caucusing member, as New Hampshire’s Democratic governor John Lynch would appoint Gregg’s replacement.

[...]

The potential of Gregg leaving the Senate will almost certainly set off an intense lobbying effort from his fellow Republican senators to persuade him to turn down the Commerce post. Already, a GOP operative writes in to say: “No way that Gregg takes it.”

Given that handing over the seat to the opposition party — and giving them a “filibuster-proof” majority — would make him a hated figure among Republicans, it’s virtually inconceivable that he’d do this.  Frankly, I can’t imagine leaving the Senate to be Commerce Secretary even without the political fallout.

Another shrewd move by Obama, though, if he goes through with this.  At the very worst, he comes across as being “bipartisan” while making a bold partisan power grab.

Governor Bill Richardson has withdrawn his name from consideration for the position of Secretary of Commerce due to a pay for play investigation.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Sunday announced that he was withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama’s commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract.
Richardson’s withdrawal was the first disruption of Obama’s Cabinet process and the second “pay-to-play” investigation that has touched Obama’s transition to the presidency. The president-elect has remained above the fray in both the case of arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the New Mexico case.

A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson’s political activities won a New Mexico transportation contract worth more than $1 million. Richardson said in a statement issued by the Obama transition office that the investigation could take weeks or months but expressed confidence it will show he and his administration acted properly.

Good for Richardson for doing the honorable thing. With the information to date, I think it’s likely it’s going to be found that he did nothing improper. If that’s the case, I hope he has another opportunity to serve on the Federal level. He’s a capable politician who has done, from all accounts, a good job as governor of New Mexico.

Bill Richardson is under investigation for allegedly steering state funds to a major contributor.

It seems that Illinois’ legally challenged Gov. Rod Blagojevich is not the only close Barack Obama associate and Democratic governor being investigated by the feds for possibly selling government business in return for campaign contributions.

New Mexico’s Gov. Bill Richardson, who is the newly named Secretary of Commerce in Obama’s about-to-be Cabinet, is also being investigated by a federal grand jury in his home state for possibly steering state bond business from the New Mexico Financial Authority toward David Rubin, a significant campaign contributor, according to an NBC News report, among others.

NBC’s Lisa Myers reports that two former state officials say they’ve recently been questioned by a federal grand jury specifically about allegations that Richardson or aides pushed state business worth nearly $1.5 million in fees toward CDR Financial Products in 2004. The company is headquartered in Beverly Hills.

[...]

The probe is part of a broad national federal exploration of “pay-to-play,” in which government officials reap financial or other benefits in return for state business.

Richardson has ignored reporters’ questions on the federal investigation, while a spokesman says he’s confident the relationship was entirely appropriate and the governor expects state employees to cooperate fully with federal investigators. A CDR spokesman also said the transactions were appropriate.

Richardson has been in public life for a quarter century and this is the first I’ve heard of his integrity being questioned. “Under investigation” is a far cry from “strongly suspected,” let alone guilty. So, while I agree with Jonathan Stein that this is an annoyance for “No Drama Obama,” I’m not sure it’s any more than that.

What’s more interesting, really, is that there’s apparently a widespread federal probe of high level officials across the country engaging in this sort of activity. One wonders what this is based on. Is true graft (as opposed to the “The real crime is what’s legal” murkiness of political fundraising) much more common than realized? Or is this just a fishing expedition?

It appears that Barack Obama’s economic team is set, with Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Bill Richardson at Commerce.

President-elect Barack Obama has selected Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, charging the respected head of the New York Federal Reserve with pulling the United States out of an economic nosedive, NBC news reported on Friday. Geithner, 47, had been seen as one of two main candidates for the job along with former Clinton administration Treasury chief Lawrence Summers.

U.S. stocks soared on the news, pushing major indices up more than 6 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 8,000, an important psychological trading level.

“A fantastic choice to help lead the financial markets out of the wilderness,” said Chris Rupkey, senior economist at The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York, of Geithner. “A crisis manager par excellence who will hit the ground running as he has been on the case since the global funding crisis began way back in July 2007.”

That the stock market can jump six percentage points on the announcement of a political appointee is worrisome on a variety of levels. But there you go.

Barely rating a mention:

NBC also reported that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — who was one of a crowded pack of Democratic presidential early this year — could receive Obama’s nod to become commerce secretary. Richardson’s elevation to the cabinet would give the Obama administration its first high-profile Hispanic member as its main liaison to the business community. Richardson was a United Nations ambassador and energy secretary under former President Bill Clinton.

While discussions of tokenism are inevitable, I suppose, it seems odd in the case of Richardson. He’s superbly qualified. If anything, Commerce is something of a demotion for him.

The big political news this morning is the buzz surrounding speculation that Hillary Clinton could be tabbed as Secretary of State.

Politico’s Mike Allen:

Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of state, a move that would create the ultimate “Team of Rivals” Cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions.

President-elect Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of state, and Clinton is among those being strongly considered, the officials said. Some even call her the favorite.

It is not known what Obama himself thinks of the idea. But the fact that it is being entertained within his camp shows how much things have changed in the months since he defeated her for the Democratic nomination in a protracted primary marathon.

Al Kamen and Philip Rucker, WaPo:

There’s increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There’s talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women’s issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama’s efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell:

Two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state. Would she be interested? Those who know Clinton say possibly.  But her office says that any decisions about the transition are up to the president-elect and his team.

Clinton was seen taking a flight to Chicago today, but an adviser says it was on personal business.  It is unknown whether she had any meeting or conversation with Obama while there.

Other Democrats known to want the State Department post are Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Bill Richardson. A possible compromise choice would be former Sen. Tom Daschle.

Clinton is from the Chicago area, so I wouldn’t read much into the trip.

While a “Team of Rivals” concept is a good one, Clinton for State isn’t.  She’s simply not qualified.  Aside from some dog-and-pony show trips as First Lady and Senator, she’s got no foreign policy credentials whatsoever.  Her training, experience, and demonstrated interests are in domestic issues.

Nunn would be the most interesting of the above picks, followed by Richardson and Hagel.  Only Daschle makes less sense than Clinton.

In terms of a fence mending make-nice move, she’s too old for a Supreme Court appointment, which would otherwise be attractive.  I’m not sure there are any other Cabinet jobs that would be particularly attractive, given her stature and presumptive competitiveness for Majority Leader once Harry Reid steps down.

UPDATE: Slate’s Emily Yoffe has a brilliant and amusing observation:

I wonder if the Obama administration would waive the 63-item questionnaire all potential administration officials are required to fill out before naming Hillary secretary of state. There are so many questions that might be troublesome, from No. 6, concerning “whether you or your spouse” ever received money from any foreign entities (See Bill’s amazing Kazakhstan adventure), to No. 8, asking for a description of the “most controversial matters you have ever been involved in,” to No. 12, “Please identify all speeches you have given” to my favorite, No. 13, in which the candidate is asked to describe any electronic communication they have ever sent that might be “a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect.” There isn’t enough bandwith in the world for Hillary to attach all the documents that answer these questions.

Heh.

The GOP has come up with a clever yet bizarre line of attack on Barack Obama: How dare he pass over Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden as his running mate?

As WSJ’s Amy Chozick reported last night, Team McCain debuted a new spot, “Passed Over,” at 3 a.m.:

The timing is a reference to Hillary Clinton’s national security ad during the Democratic primary and the same time the Obama campaign sent out its text message announcing Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as the vice-presidential nominee.

“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why?” an announcer says in the 30-second spot.

The answer? “For speaking the truth.”

The ad, which has not yet been released [as of 6:29 yesterday evening], then ticks off a litany of criticism Clinton used against Obama in the prolonged primary, according to a transcript sent to reporters.

“You never hear the specifics,” Clinton says.

“On the Rezko scandal,” the voice says.

“We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama,” Clinton says in footage from the primaries.

“Senator Obama’s campaign has become increasingly negative,” Clinton says in another scene.

The announcer closes by saying “The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it.”

The ad is the latest sign that the presidential contest has grown increasingly personal. It’s also proof that the some times bitter battle between the two Democratic senators has provided useful fodder to the Republican opposition.

The campaign also quickly emailed around a CNN Political Ticker story headlined “Some in Clinton circle ’outraged’.”

Evan as Hillary Clinton praised the newly-minted Democratic presidential ticket Saturday, some in her circle are furious Barack Obama did not appear to give the New York Democrat serious consideration for the No. 2 spot, or even ask for her consultation on the matter.

“Set aside that Obama said she’d be on anybody’s short list, set aside anybody’s feelings on whether she was deliberately snubbed and the pros and cons of whether it should be her,” a former Clinton strategist told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “Focus on the politics of it and you have about a quarter of Clinton loyalists still not joining the caravan…for God’s sake, not to even make a show of taking her seriously is flatly stupid.”

A top Clinton advisor also told CNN they were “outraged,” over how the process was conducted.  “You can’t put [Obama VP vetters] Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy on an hour plane ride to Chappaqua just to check the box? They should have done it just for the optics,” this person said. “Barack never even said to her, ‘Here’s how I envision the job’– not one discussion with her about [the position].”

“They thought her supporters were mad before? They are really mad now,” this person also said. We knew it was never going to happen but you would have thought they might at least make a show of it.”

Not to be outdone, Bill Kristol weighs in with a blog post entitled “The Democrats’ Glass Ceiling.”

So Hillary Clinton gets about 18 million votes in 2008, and isn’t even considered for–she apparently isn’t even given the courtesy of being consulted–the vice presidential pick. Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it’s the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).

What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)–neither Biden nor Hillary has any.

Stoking the lingering resentments of the Hillary camp is probably smart politics, although doing it so brazenly could backfire and cause more of them to realize that they’re playing into the Republicans’ hands.  But the idea that Clinton was somehow owed a VP offer is silly.

By Kristol’s logic, Mike Huckabee should be McCain’s running mate.  At the very least, he should be be seriously interviewed and Mitt Romney should get the nod, under the theory that Huckabee only surpassed him because he stayed in the race long after it was over.  Does anyone think McCain is seriously thinking about Huckabee?

Did Obama take “seriously” the idea of putting Hillary on the ticket?  I can’t imagine he didn’t given the delegate math.  But he and his team surely came to the conclusion that giving her the nod would be a disaster, given the hundreds  of sound bytes she gave the GOP and the complications that Bill Clinton brings to the mix.  Having decided that, pretending to interview her for the gig would have arguably been more insulting than moving on to other candidates.

And, please, let’s not pretend that Hillary Clinton has anything like Joe Biden’s foreign policy gravitas.  It’s been his bread and butter since Hillary was in law school.  She’s a junior Senate backbencher whose “experience” until eight years ago consisted of being married to a powerful man.  Did she learn a lot as a result of that partnership?  Sure.  Is it comparable to chairing the Foreign Relations Committee?  Not hardly.

Republican delegrate graphic via CNN.

Barack Obama’s vice president may have a last name that starts with “Bye,” CNN’s Alexander Mooney reports.

The two senators widely believed to be at the top of Barack Obama’s shortlist for VP have been given prime-time speaking slots at the Democratic convention Wednesday night — the very same night the vice presidential candidate is slated to speak.

According to the Democratic National Convention Committee, both Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden will deliver speeches on national security during the marquee night — the same evening former President Bill Clinton is also scheduled to speak.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar will also speak Wednesday evening, according to the convention committee.

Of course, it could mean nothing. After all, Harry Reid surely isn’t going to be VP, even though he’s speaking that night.  And it’s not like the DNC couldn’t switch around the schedule to accommodate their vice presidential nominee.  Obama’s vising Richmond next week:  Could it be Tim Kaine?  Marc Ambinder thinks so.  And don’t dismiss the possibility of a dramatic wild card.  Robert Kuttner thinks Al Gore could be sweet talked into lending his stature to the ticket.

Of the above list, Kaine strikes me as the most obvious choice because of the executive experience and his helpfulness in bringing Virginia.  Bayh is largely unknown but he’s young and considered a rising star.  Biden brings national security gravitas but a lot of baggage.  And he’s a little long in the tooth to be the attack dog in an “the other guy is too damned old” campaign.   Al Gore on the ticket is a lefty fantasy.  He still thinks he won the presidency in 2000; no way he plays second banana to a guy who was a year out of law school while Gore was vice president the last time.

Reading the tea leaves is fun but it’s just pure wild guessing at this point.  It’s fully possible that even Obama doesn’t know yet who he’ll pick.

John McCain is taking advantage of Barack Obama’s “foreign vacation” in Hawaii and using the crisis in Georgia to showcase his foreign policy prowess.

He’s dispatched his minions, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, to Georgia.  TPM’s Greg Sargent figures,

The idea is to showcase himself as a man of action during a time of international crisis and to remind people that the world is a dangerous place that’s still filled with aggressive actors, something that the McCain camp presumably thinks will play in his favor.

McCain’s announcement of his key campaign allies’ trip abroad also seems designed to shoulder Bush aside as the primary GOP leadership figure here.

Politico’s Jonathan Martin agress and observes, “McCain’s declaration has something of a shadow government feel to it, as though he’s sending his own emissaries into the war zone.” Over at News Hounds, Melanie finds that FOX News — or at least Neil Cavato — is treating McCain like he’s already president.  Why, they’re even covering McCain’s foreign policy speeches!

Andrew Sullivan thinks we’re getting a preview of what a President McCain would look like and he’s less than impressed:

He’s giving press conferences. He’s warning of a new Tsarist empire. You can tell what sends him into high-energy zones: a clear enemy abroad. He knows black and white; and he knows war. It gives him clarity and strength. Up next: Iran and China. Oh, the conflicts we can have …

Various comment sections have the inevitable jokes about McCain being “presumptuous” and “uppity” for acting like he’s already president, an allusion to recent controveries over Barack Obama’s overseas adventures and various campaign logos.

Even AllahPundit thinks this is a bad idea.

Do Committee members really need to conduct their own fact-finding missions in the middle of a hot war? State and Defense briefings could probably get them up to speed. And what would the reaction have been if The One had made this move first with Bayh and Webb in the surrogate roles? Would have seemed to me like a transparent attempt to squeeze a photo op from a crisis that the administration’s already straining to manage without needing any extra distractions.

Foreign policy isn’t golf.  One doesn’t get to shush the galleries.  Presidents have to juggle multiple international crises, make domestic policy decisions, and deal with political campaigns all at the same time.

I say:  More of this, please.  After months of campaigning about nothing, we’re seeing how the two men who could plausibly get elected president less than three months from now are reacting to a big time foreign policy situation.  While I’m frankly not sure what Lieberman and Graham could possibly accomplish by going to Georgia, at least we see that McCain gets how important this is.

Interestingly, as Dave Schuler and I discussed on last night’s installment of OTB Radio, there’s very little light between McCaina and Obama on this issue, at least on substance.  Obama is more low key and McCain is more emphatic about Russia’s outrageous conduct but they’re landing in pretty much the same place: work with our NATO Allies, use the G8 and WTO for leverage, and otherwise engage in diplomacy; military force is decidedly not an option.

McCain’s more visible on the issue, to be sure, which points to both his being behind in the race and thinking foreign affairs is his long suit.   Aside from Obama surrogate Bill Richardson’s bizarre suggestion of having the UN Security Council — where Russia has a veto! — solve this and McCain’s rather humorous suggestion that “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations,” both teams are playing this rather well.

Photo: Shakesville

Beldar, commenting on my recent analysis of Fred Thompson’s chances in tomorrow’s South Carolina’s primary, observed, “you have far more faith in polls than I do, or than their results (especially recently) would merit.”

There’s certainly reason to suspect the polls, given Hillary Clinton’s surprise win in New Hampshire and Mitt Romney’s larger-than-projected win in Michigan. But let’s look at the overall picture.

Iowa Poll Results vs. Iowa Vote

Caucuses are notoriously difficult to project because of their dynamic nature. That’s especially true under the rules the Democrats used in Iowa, where those who voted for candidates who get very little support were then asked to chose from the more viable candidates. But look at the final pre-caucus RealClear Politics average* versus the final results:

Democrats:

They got the Biden-Richardson order wrong; then again, they were marginal candidates and it’s incredibly hard to predict what their supporters will do to begin with, let alone on a second ballot. Otherwise, only Obama’s vote total was outside a +/-3 margin.

Republicans:

The razor-thin order of finish between Thompson and McCain was reversed; then again, that’s well within the margin of error.* Otherwise, the polls were uncannily accurate.

New Hampshire Poll Results vs. New Hampshire Vote

Here’s where the pollsters got it fantastically wrong, right? Well, let’s look.

Democrats:

The polls showed Barack Obama winning handily and had the pundits, myself included, speculating as to whether Hillary Clinton could survive two straight losses in the traditional bellweather states. Instead, Clinton got nine percent more than expected and won rather easily. Oops.

It’s worth noting, though, that the numbers for Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson were spot-on. The undecideds simply broke overwhelmingly for Clinton, for a variety of reasons that we’re still guessing about.

Republicans:

A few more undecideds broke for McCain than predicted. Otherwise, no surprises here.

Michigan Poll Results vs. Michigan Vote

Another odd one. The Democratic primary was uncontested, with everyone but Hillary Clinton dropping out after the party stripped the state of its slate of delegates for voting early. On the GOP side, a favorite son was facing a guy who’d won the contest eight years earlier and was coming off a bounce from New Hampshire.

Democrats:

More people bothered to show up and vote Uncommitted than expected. But Clinton’s numbers are amazingly accurate in a contest that didn’t matter and where there was enormous incentive to cross over to the Republican side.

Republicans:

The pollsters got the order of finish exactly right but were again off by nine points in predicting the winner’s total. But it’s worth noting, too, how inconsistent the polls were here. Let’s move beyond the average and look at the individual polls:

For whatever reason, the pollsters had an incredibly difficult time predicting who would win here; the McCain and Romney numbers were wildly disparate from poll to poll. The speculation is that Democrats and Independents who were leaning McCain ultimately didn’t bother to turn out but there are other theories, too.

That’s always the trickiest part in polling: predicting whether behavior will follow attitude. The best are very, very good at screening for likely voters in general elections. It’s much harder in primaries because every season has a different dynamic. We’re in the first two party wide-open contest in memory, so weighing results by what has happened in the past is dicey.

South Carolina

So, what does this tell us about tomorrow’s Republican primary in South Carolina (the Democrats don’t vote there for another week)? Close races between viable candidates can surprise us but nobody’s going to get twenty points more than expected and shock the world, either.

Let’s look at the most recent polls, then:

It’s quite reasonable to conclude that we have no idea whether McCain’s 4.4 percent average margin will translate into victory tomorrow. Were Huckabee to win, it wouldn’t be any shock whatsoever.

At the same time, I think we can say with very high confidence that Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul have no shot at winning tomorrow. If anything, their numbers are likely overstated somewhat because some of their supporters are likely to find better things to do on a Saturday while others will likely decide to cast a vote for Huckabee or McCain.
_________

*Technically speaking, averaging polls using different methodologies, as RCP does, is problematic and it’s improper to speak of a “margin of error.” For the purposes of our discussion, though, it’s close enough.

One thing worth noting about the results of the Michigan primary was the extremely large Democratic vote for “Uncommitted”. Clinton took 55% of the total vote, while “Uncommitted” took 40%. This is actually out of whack with the most recent polls in Michigan, which showed an average of about 53% for Clinton and only about 29% for “Uncommitted”. That’s about an 11 point difference in favor of “Uncommitted”, meaning that Democratic voters appear to have gone out of their way to not vote for Clinton.

That’s pretty amazing to me. And I think that those folks who truly believe that Clinton is the most “electable” of the three Democratic candidates really needs to start looking at the evidence about her unfavorability.

(A little full disclosure here: I have, as of today, announced my intention to caucus for Obama on Super Tuesday. This opinion regarding Obama is, as far as I known, unique to the staff of OTB and shouldn’t reflect upon them.)

UPDATE: Dave Schuler

No, Alex. I’m a Democrat, I always vote Democrat in primary elections (in Chicago the primary is the election), and, since Bill Richardson has pulled out and had campaigned so poorly anyway, I’ll be voting for Obama. The top-tier Democratic candidates don’t really differ that much in their stated policies and I think that style and attitude matters. Of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama I prefer Obama’s style and attitude. So that’s two of us at OTB.

As widely anticipated, Bill Richardson is ending his quest for the presidency.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is pulling out of the presidential race, after coming in fourth in both the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses. Mr. Richardson made the decision after returning to New Mexico yesterday and meeting with his top advisers. He is expected to make an announcement Thursday, according to sources with knowledge of the governor’s decision.

Mr. Richardson’s withdrawal removes a candidate who had a hard-edged message of immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but tempered it with humorous television advertisements that emphasized his wide-ranging credentials in a clever and effective way.

The Democrats with the most impressive résumés, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and now Richardson are gone. Left standing are two one-term senators and a senator in her second term who is best known for having been married to a two-term president.

Given Richardson’s virtually non-existent support base, it’s doubtful his withdrawal will have much impact. The NYT speculates:

As the lone Hispanic in the race, Mr. Richardson was expected to draw on support from the sizable Latino population in upcoming Nevada and California primaries. His withdrawal could see these voters swing to either Mr. Obama, who had a strong Hispanic following in Iowa, or to Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign is making an equally vigorous outreach effort.

There also had been a report, carried in the NewMexican.Com, which is based in Mr. Richardson’s home town of Santa Fe, that Mr. Richardson had considered remaining in the race at least through Feb. 5, in order to control the New Mexican Democratic delegation and deliver it to the candidate of his choice. While Mr. Richardson had hoped to do well in Western states, polls showed that he remained in the single-digits in that region, except for in New Mexico.

Iowa is 3.8 percent Latino; he got 2.1 percent of the vote. How strong could his support have been?

And, please, California votes on February 5th. A sizable number of people were going to waste their vote on Richardson rather than choosing between Clinton and Obama?

Mr. Richardson has also repeatedly denied that he was in the race to secure a vice-presidential bid or to get a major appointment should Democrats re-take the White House. Under New Mexico’s term-limits, he must leave office in 2010.

He was widely considered a solid choice for veep or Secretary of State before the campaign season started. If he does get such a nod, it will be because of his competence and likability, not political calculation. By running, he showed that he had no national political appeal to speak of.

Ronald Bailey has a helpful article over at Reason Online that describes each candidates stance on evolution. The Democrats all believe in evolution.

The Republicans…well you have quite a selection there. You have guys like Mike Huckabee who think the world was literally made in a week. To more sophisticated views like those held by Romney that can be described as theistic evolution. That evolutionary processes are at work, are what has shaped man, but that there is no reason that God might not have had some role in the process. McCain seems to be all over the map. In 2007 he stated he believed in evolution (which is a good thing since evolution is a fact*). However, in 2005 he expressed sympathy for the psuedo-scientific concept of intelligent design and that it should be taught in schools. In 2006 McCain also expressed sympathy for those who hold the view that the world was created in a week. Rudy Guiliani seems to have been very coy with his views on evolution, and true to form Dr. Congressman Ron Paul has a rather kooky view for a medical doctor that evolution is bogus.

Overall, on the Republican side I find Romney’s views the most appealing. However, given some of his speeches on religion and so forth, I don’t find him a very appealing candidate in general. That and some of his economic views also leave me quite cold.

Damn, but it is going to be a long year. Good thing I have access to lots of good scotch.
_____
*For the scientifically illiterate: Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory is just a theory…just like the theories of gravity are just theories, but please feel free to disbelieve them then jump off a building. If you’ve found this footnote offensive, please read the long winded explanation below the fold.

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about those who support creationism, intelligent design and oppose the concept of evolution is that they are amazing hypocrites. They will say things like, “Evolution is only a theory.” No. This. Is. Wrong. Evolution–i.e. that organisms change at a genetic level–is an observed fact. The theory man has constructed to explain the myriad of facts that fall under the broad umbrella of evolution is “just a theory”. However, this applies to other real phenomena such as gravity. Take a penny and drop it. It falls to the floor. It always falls to the floor. Of all the billions and billions of times people have dropped pennies (hear on earth) there is not one instance where the penny has not fallen to the floor. Do we fully understand gravity and how it works? No. Is there a single theory of gravity? No. Are there “gaps” in the theory? Yes. So why don’t all these people who fight so vigorously against evolution fight just as vigorously against gravity? My guess is because they know that people will regard them as irrational kooks who really and truly are anti-science. But evolution and evolutionary theory…why that is hard to understand without lots of set-up costs. So evolution is a “soft target”. But the exact same arguments that the Creos use against evolutionary theory can be leveled against any and all scientific theories. The bottom line is that these people are either ignorant or willfully obtuse. In either way, I don’t see it as a good thing in a candidate for any office including dog catcher.