The Beltway Tuesday Blues

Today the Beltway votes. Half the supposedly "strait" news staff and most of the chattering bobbleheads that populate the political round-tables on on Fox and MSNBC and CNN have zip codes in North-West, Georgetown, and Chevy Chase - the tonier neighborhoods of the states and districts that are participating in today's Chesapeake Tuesday.

This is my home territory. Prior to relocating to Ohio I grew up in 'DC' - the natives almost never call it Washington, except when making categorical statements about it's unique culture - and I make it back there a few times a year. In many respects I call Ohio my home now, but there are often times when I'm reminded that, at heart, or perhaps by virtue of my disposition, I'm an East Coast guy.

As I've been watching the coverage today I've noticed a certain soul-searching tone. David Gregory looks a little less spry, and Andrea Mitchell seems to be wringing her hands more about Hillary's ultimate prospects. It occurs to me that these folks have had, or will soon have, a moment of truth in the intimate confines of the voting booth.

And the media blues may be related to the fact that we've been grinding away on the same stories for a while. To the extent that the media can muster any interest in the GOP side, there are two tired memes: McCain versus talk radio (Part LXXVII) and the likely-meaningless Hucakbee protest vote.

Everything else is Obama and Hillary. The Clintons have set very low expectations. This is done so that they can either chide the media for wrongfully covering a non-story - because Obama was supposed to win anyway - or they can chide the media for getting the story wrong, because she pulled off an upset. The common feature of both tacks is that the Clinton campaign has a choke collar on the fourth estate and a spiked heel on their back (just ask David Schuster).

One thing is for sure - this temporary stasis pattern cannot be tolerated. The media cannot abide the same political story for more than a week. Momentum has to shift in ways that make a headline. That means Obama pulls far ahead, or Hillary retakes the lead, or Huck somehow solves the math problem. Or a celebrity dies, or a bomb goes off. Something. The beast must be fed.

These February doldrums cannot be allowed to last.

The Hawkeye Howdown

You can come up with any plausible scenario: Romney seems to be leading the pack on the Republican side, at least the last time I refreshed my web browser. But Huckabee went Hollywood last night with an appearance on Leno, and McCain has mustered a sudden burst of support - to the point where a 3rd-place showing in Iowa would be a victory. Any combination of Hillary, Obama and Edwards in the top three spots seem squarely within the realm of possibility for the Democrats, although with vastly different implications for each conceivable order.

Some observations:

• Romney might be emerging as split-the-baby consensus candidate. Mormonism is somewhat strange, but leave it to the Lefties to hammer away on that issue and thereby appear intolerant.
  
  
• Fred should hang it up. A likable old hound dog, but zero competitive chops.
  
  
• It's hard not to want Obama to trounce Hillary. She's ultimately a dreary candidate, and despite what legions of pure Democrats would like to believe, Bill won't be president again - and what does that say about women that people would think along such lines?
  
  
• The nightmare scenario: Hillary against Huckabee. The next ten months would become the most brutal chapter of the American culture war imaginable - a bone-shattering, blood and viscera duel between the Sean Hannity and Michael Moore wings of the electorate. And whatever the outcome, it would continue long after the inauguration.
  
  
• It's extremely unlikely Edwards will take first place, but he's the Republican dream candidate. His message would seem very sour in the general election.
  
  
• Guiliani is playing a very, very risky strategy by waiting out these early contests. He may be buried in the mind of the general voting population in the next two weeks, since all of the talk will be about Romney, Huck and (possibly) McCain.

Let's play ball. Also, don't miss Novak's column, titled (ahem) Hillary's Premature Triangulation. He may be a flinty old gorgon, but old man Bob has lost none of the gimlet-eyed political analysis that has made him notorious.

Try to Make Me Go Third Party, I Won't Go, Go, Go

"Google Ron Paul" has been appearing everywhere - including on an overpass above the local interstate.

Somebody probably thinks it's a clever marketing ploy. But it seems to me one of those phrases that comes bundled with it's own inevitable irony - sort of like that "Rehab" song by train-wreck chanteuse Amy Winehouse. It's a catchy, non-self-aware epitaph. One day we will read a sad headline about the singer; and likewise, in the years ahead, only Wikipedia will remember Mr. Paul's run for the White House.

Was his name Ross Paul? No ... Google it. Ron Paul, right.

Every election cycle seems to come around with several "daydream" political candidates. They cannot conceivably be elected, but they provide for some entertaining "what if" possibilities. Usually these involve some kind of highly speculative third party scenario - and now the whispering has begun in the case of Mr. Paul.

But an American third party never seems to congeal - involving as it does a hodge podge of pseudo-socialists, Libertarians and renegade would-be populists from all political backgrounds, united only by an disgust with for both parties. Everyone nods their head vigorously over the need for alternatives, but at the end of the day there are huge disagreements about the role and size of government, and our place in (and approach to) the community of nations, including belligerent powers. It's all fun and games until you hash through the issues.

Ron Paul is nevertheless intriguing.

When The Dice Are In The Air

People who study addiction claim that gamblers are not hooked on winning, contrary to what one might expect.

It's not the occasional lucky hand or big payout that brings them back to the table or the slot machine again and again. Instead, it's that moment before fate is cast, those fleeting indeterminate seconds when anything is possible. Gamblers, regardless of whether they are on a winning or losing streak, experience the same opiate-like high when the dice are in the air, not after they land.

It gets to the root of human behavior and psychology. Anything can happen, and those encounters with chance address our need for hope. And they seem to put us in touch with something eternal - as if some primitive god had tipped back the lid of the cosmos for a second, allowing a glimpse at the quantum uncertainty boiling underneath events.

The actual face of gambling is profane, often pathetic, and very seldom glamorous.

And that's where we are with the national election. A wide variety of outcomes are possible for both major political parties - momentum is changing daily, but all of the candidates are clustered close together in the polls. At this point the election is like a town in the Wild West, with two saloons standing opposite each other, and a chair-breaking, fist-fighting brawl has broken out in each one while the piano players pound the keys madly, and the press looks down from the top of the stars like jaded, old fashioned hookers.

Soon enough one candidate from each side of the fray will stagger out into the street to face each other. But for now anything could happen, and for us political junkies and gamblers it's that sublime moment of uncertainty.