As Becky and I were driving back from a workshop about Loyette’s brain at the Fountain City library this evening, we drove past an establishment called Lambert’s Health Care. Becky asked: “You see that sign that says Lambert’s? When I was a kid…” — I already knew what she was going to say — “…there was a cartoon called…”
“Lambert the Sheepish Lion,” we finished the sentence simultaneously, then started singing the theme song aloud, in unison. Laaaambert, the sheepish lion / Laaaaambert, there’s no denyin’…
We’d never talked about that particular cartoon before in the eight years we’ve been together (eight years this month!), but we both remembered it very well from our respective youths, having watched it multiple times on the Disney Channel. I have no idea why it made such an impression, but practically whenever I see the name “Lambert,” it’s the first thing I think of. (Sorry, Terrail and Miranda.)
Naturally, when I got home, I Googled it — and was delighted to discover that the whole thing is on YouTube:
Considering how well Becky and I each independently remembered that cartoon — and considering it’s been around for 57 years — I figured a few of y’all might get a kick out of it. :)
Mark Halperin makes a good point: Romney’s departure from the race, and McCain’s consequent coronation by the media as the nominee presumptive (Huckabee notwithstanding), could help Obama by bringing over more McCainiac independent voters to the Democratic side in the open primary states — which include Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Indiana.
Of course, if that happens, it will also help Huckabee, as I noted vis a vis Virginia in comments earlier.
Speaking of Obama, Andrew Leyden sends along an interesting article about the cult of Barack. Although a few of my recent posts about Obama might lead some to conclude that I’m a cultist, I actually understand and sympathize to some extent with the sentiment being expressed. I do think Obama has the potential to be a transformational politician, but it’s important not to get too carried away in praise of him. And I, like Joe Klein, was a bit put off by his comment that “we are the change we seek,” and annoyed by the flatly untrue “it’s not different because of me, it’s different because of you.” I think I even objected to it aloud while watching the speech with Becky.
(As an aside, I actually thought his Super Tuesday speech was by far the weakest of his post-election speeches thus far. It went on about five minutes too long, it repeated too much material from earlier speeches, he flubbed a line or two, and the implicit swipe at the Katrina response in his reference to the hours-old devastation in Tennessee and Arkansas was grossly inappropriate in its timing.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still on the Obama bandwagon, but that doesn’t mean I won’t criticize him — or his “cult” — when I think it’s deserved.
Anyway, one last link before I stop: Five reasons Hillary should be worried.
[Actually posted at 10:17 PM, but timestamp bumped backwards. -ed.]
Time’s Joe Klein says that Obama "should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania."
Let’s fact-check that assertion, shall we? As I mentioned yesterday, there are 1,428 pledged delegates still outstanding. Of those, 193 are from Texas, 158 from Pennsylvania, and 141 from Ohio. That’s a total of 492 — barely a third of the total.
Now, if it were possible for one candidate to sweep all of those delegates, that could certainly be decisive. But as we know, and presumably Klein has figured out by this point, the Democratic delegate allocation system is proportional, not winner-take-all, so the most Hillary can hope for is something like a 100-delegate edge in those states (that would be if she earns about 60% of the delegates), probably less.
Even in Clinton’s best-case scenario, Obama has more than enough opportunity to make up that hypothetical 100-delegate edge in the various other states that make up two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates — including ones more favorable to him, like, oh, pretty much every state that votes this month (total delegates: 538). And of course, that all ignores the superdelegates, who, contra Klein, are truly the constituency in which "this nomination is likely to be decided."
If they aren’t already, I predict that the national media — once they wrap their collective head around the fact that we are now looking at a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee — will soon begin saying that Virginia is Huckabee’s last stand. With its 63 winner-take-all delegates and its North/South split personality, the Old Dominion, which votes next Tuesday, is the place where Huck must prove he can beat McCain head-to-head (and, more importantly, deny him 12.8% of the 492 additional delegates he needs to wrap up the nomination).
Of course, first the Huckster needs to win Kansas and Louisiana (on Saturday), but those ought to be gimme states for him. (Right?) Virginia is a less obvious possibility, but, looking at the calendar and crunching the numbers, I think he absolutely needs it in order to maintain any sort of rationale for continuing his campaign.
Ultimately, to stop McCain from getting a delegate majority, Huckabee is going to need to win states like Wisconsin and Ohio, which strikes me as highly unlikely. (He won Iowa, of course, but that was in a five-way race.) But I think he can remain a viable candidate through at least March 4 (when not just Ohio but Texas, which presumably is friendly Huck territory, holds its California-style, district-by-district winner-take-all primary) if he wins Virginia on Tuesday. Otherwise, forget it.
UPDATE: Okay, a slight modification to the above. As I glance at a couple of the sites in my blogroll and see that the pundits are basically saying that Romney Dropping Out = McCain Wins, I think it might be more accurate to say that Huckabee needs to win Kansas and Louisiana on Saturday just to get (or recapture) the media’s attention. Then the "Virginia is Huckabee’s last stand" talk can begin in earnest.
Fellow horserace-watchers: Am I wrong to just assume that Huck will win those states? (I also assume McCain will win Washington state on Saturday, and D.C. and Maryland on Tuesday.)
P.S. WKRN-TV’s "Volunteer Voters" blog — which, incidentally, has been linking to me a lot in recent days (thanks, guys!) — says that even if there’s a McCain-Huckabee back-room deal, as many expect, Huck will nevertheless stay in the race for a while to prevent Ron Paul from getting too many delegates.
A pair of UW researchers has studied the polls and the primary results, and has concluded that the Bradley Effect is happening in states with small (<10%) black populations, causing Clinton to do better against Obama than the polls suggest — while, in states with large black populations (>25%), a "newly discovered" Reverse Bradley Effect benefits Obama. (Hat tip: CD.) Here’s the chart of their results. (It doesn’t state which pre-election poll numbers they were using.)
It is important to note, as I stated Tuesday in a comment after somebody accused me of smearing Hillary supporters as racists because I brought up the Bradley Effect, that "people who fall prey to the Bradley Effect are not necessarily racists. They may be voting for the white candidate because they feel she’s genuinely the better candidate, but lying about it [to pollsters] because they feel social pressure to vote for the black candidate just because he’s black." Similarly, black Reverse Bradley voters may be voting for Obama for non-race-related reasons, but lying about it because they don’t want to be pigeonholed as "racial loyalty" voters. Or are the Reverse Bradley voters white, and they don’t dare admit to pollsters that they prefer a black man because they think they’ll be perceived by their redneck buddies as racially disloyal? Hmm…
Anyway… I’m curious what our resident pollsters and statisticians think of this. Do the finding appear to be sound, or do they look like bunk?
If the findings are accurate, some upcoming primary states to watch for possible Bradley Effects (via this PDF) are: Wisconsin (5% black), Rhode Island (4%) and Vermont (0.3%), with the "big kahuna" states of Ohio (11%), Texas (12%) and Pennsylvania (9%) all borderline. Upcoming possible Reverse Bradley Effect primaries: Louisiana (31%), Maryland (25%), D.C. (66%) and Mississippi (36%).
Republican Mitt Romney will suspend his campaign for the presidential nomination, sources tell CNN.
The Stormin’ Mormon storms no more: Mitt Romney will quit the race, according to Mark Halperin’s sources. "Withdrawal could come at CPAC speech at 12:15 pm ET," Halperin writes.
I thought he’d withdraw this week. He doesn’t seem like the type to keep fighting a clearly hopeless battle, especially with his own fortune. (The delegate math makes it pretty well impossible for Romney to beat McCain.) Better to save that money for a possible second shot in 2012 — or, you know, other stuff he might want to spend it on.
Anyway, as Mike Huckabee said: "It’s a two-man race — and we’re in it!" Not for long, though…
Via e-mail, Derek points out that there’s a webcam showing the progress of construction on the new Notre Dame Law School building. Cool!
This is how you know Becky and I are both huge dorks. We had the following exchange in bed last night, as we were each starting to drift off to sleep:
Brendan: "You know what would be awesome?"
Brendan: "If there was a superdelegate with superpowers. He could be called Super-Superdelegate."
Becky: [pause] "That would be awesome."
Heaven help poor Loyette. ;)