Force Majeure
Is it significant that four of the states hit by tornadoes on the same day voted for Huckabee?

Yesterday's Voting
Still underway, back in the podes (and pending here in the antipodes), and I don't know much about delegate allocations, within or between the states, but here's a prediction anyway: even pending California, the Obama/Clinton match-up will continue all the way to the national convention, but McCain will lock up the Repugs. What I'm really interested in now is, who are the possible VP's? You wouldn't think it's a job that has much push, but when it comes to the general election, it seems to count for a lot.

Ballot Initiative
My primary ballot has gone out and should arrive in time to be counted for “Super Tuesday.” I was intrigued to see that not all the candidates were present, and that the convention delegates were “committed” to either Clinton or Obama, with none listed for Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, or Biden. Not that I think any of the latter three have a chance, and it’s looking a lot like Edwards will soon be done, too. My guess is that the Republicans will come down to Romney and Huckabee, maybe Giuliani, but McCain, for all his popular appeal, might just as well head off with Thompson and Paul now. What happens at the conventions thereafter is still hard to prognosticate, although I’ll happily vote for either the first female President or the first African-American against whatever GOP candidate ends up taking the nomination. If I have to guess, I’ll say it’ll be Romney. Huckabee may not be a Mormon, but he’s still a nut, with a bad Presidential name (too much like a bad movie, too), and Giuliani, in addition to being a bully with nothing to say that isn’t belligerent, is far too bald (although thank God he’s stopped with the comb-over).

Micro-Manager and Commander
The President appears to have made a concession regarding his status as Commander-in-Chief, saying ”[Congress has] the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy.” Well, there’s two things about that statement that strike me. One, of course, is the word “try.” Congress can try to shape policy by tightening up on spending, although they may not succeed. The other element is more interpretive. If the President were to change tactics, or otherwise alter the conduct of policy in Iraq, as a result of spending measures enacted by Congress, then he’s off the hook for any failure as a result of that change. Now, that doesn’t mean he has to follow precisely any strategic conditions attached to a spending bill, but it does mean that the new Democratic majority could walk right into a giant bear trap of blame over whatever Bush does in accepting those conditions. And then nobody wins. Except maybe the GOP in ’08.

Weekend Politics
On the train coming home from Ikea Saturday, we ran into two fresh American ex-pats, in Sydney for a year now, lately working on a rap video for Anthony Mundine, and started up a conversion to recruit them into Democrats Abroad. They seemed very enthusiastic, and I hope they’ll come to a meeting, but I mention it because, now that Barak Obama is officially in the race, it was somewhat notable to me that they were suggestive of their support for Hillary Clinton, Obama’s biggest rival for the nomination.

That aside, Obama’s in, and he’s getting a lot of notice, including this latest nonsense from John Howard, interjecting himself in American politics, in a way that if an American was doing it during one of his campaigns, we hear plenty of complaints about. Is he going to start calling Obama “Osama” next? Mr. Gibbs, the Obama campaign spokesman, is right, up to a point, about the commitment to Iraq; although I don’t intend any criticism of the soldiers, on a pro rata basis, Australia’s troop deployment is 15% of America’s, and faces apparently far less immediate danger. Mr. Howard should just butt out. Or, as Obama suggests, supply more troops (although my calculations suggest only an additional 7-8,000, not 20,000).