Election 2008

The NYT warns today that Barack Obama, if he wins the Democratic nomination, will be subject to a withering Republican attack based on much sharper policy contrasts between him and McCain than those that exist between Obama and Clinton.

Such media coverage is creating a fascinating story line in the run-up to the critical March 4th primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. Are we seeing a preview of an Obama-McCain campaign to come?

If so, expect foreign and security policy to occupy a major part of a no-holds-barred debate. Consider, for example, the rhetoric McCain and Obama employed today at separate appearances in staunchly pro-military Texas. McCain cited (as he often does) the “transcendental challenge of the 21st Century, which is Islamic extremism,” and his commitment to track Osama bin Laden “to the gates of Hell” in order to “bring him to justice.”

Obama’s comments, in front of a veterans’ group, gave greater emphasis to fulfilling the country’s commitment to caring for returning veterans, as well as his own standard rhetoric about being “right” on Iraq — unlike Clinton, McCain and Bush.
However, McCain took an additional line of attack in his remarks today. Not only focusing on the dangers of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, McCain jumped to Obama’s critique of NAFTA as implicitly undercutting the Canadian consensus needed to continue Canada’s military engagement in Afghanistan.

This is a more nimble and nuanced reference to the links between different foreign policy issues than we have seen so far in the primary season. It may presage a more serious and (hopefully) substantive foreign policy debate over the summer.

There is a tactical danger for Obama in looking beyond the March 4th primaries. (Hillary is still ahead in Ohio, according to all the polls.) But he has no choice. Obama is now being forced to carry on two simultaneous campaigns — against McCain as well as Clinton. If he appears weak or ineffective in responding to a feisty war hero on security issues, he will give Hillary a boost going into next Tuesday.

The twentieth debate featuring Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, broadcast this evening by MSNBC from Cleveland, covered a fair amount of foreign policy waterfront, without either candidate getting very wet. Tough questioning on NAFTA was to be expected, given Hillary’s contretemps over Obama’s pamphlets attacking her stance. But Tim Russert’s quiz on Putin’s probable successor, Dimitri Medvedev, caught both candidates a bit flatfooted. Hillary mispronounced his last name, and Barack didn’t seem to remember his first. But I thought that Barack’s further discussion of Kosovo, dealing with Russian opposition to Kosovar independence, was well-formulated:

RUSSERT: [Medvedev is] 42 years old, he’s a former law professor. He is Mr. Putin’s campaign manager. He is going to be the new president of Russia. And if he says to the Russian troops, you know what, why don’t you go help Serbia retake Kosovo, what does President Obama do?

OBAMA: Well, I think that we work with the international community that has also recognized Kosovo, and state that that’s unacceptable. But, fortunately, we have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with this issue.

We don’t have to work in isolation. And this is an area where I think that the Clinton administration deserves a lot of credit, is, you know, the way in which they put together a coalition that has functioned.

It has not been perfect, but it saved lives. And we created a situation in which not only Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies and enter into the broader European community.

But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.

Between Iraq/Afghanistan, NAFTA, and Russia, foreign affairs topics accounted for about half of the debate. Some observers who are offering first impressions (Mike Todd on MSNBC, for example) credit Clinton’s spirited attacks, but I felt that Obama’s statements offered more by being more measured, lucid and calm.

There has been a rash of anti-Obama outbursts in last 48 hours: the photo on Matt Drudge’s website (which he says was provided by Clintonites); the inflammatory shock-jock intro to McCain at a campaign stop in Ohio today; Hillary’s exaggerated “Shame on you, Barack Obama!” denunciation of Obama’s pamphlet (referred to above).

These non-substantive (but distasteful) incidents have the feel of last-stage political desperation, broadly substantiated by yesterday’s NYT report that quotes an unnamed Clinton staffer as saying that they are “throwing the kitchen sink” at Obama in the final days before the March 4 primaries.

Such tactics, by their evident lack of scruples and substance, are more likely to sully the attacker. After all, picking up the sink to throw it can be a messy exertion.

It wouldn’t be Ohio if the candidates weren’t discussing NAFTA. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are “skeptical” of the trade agreement, and are promising “renegotiation” of the agreement with Canada and Mexico.

What is lost in the discussion of the 90’s-era free trade agreement is a broad, long-term plan and objective for what American trade policy will be in the 21st Century. Should we reengage in the Doha Round, and what should our approach be? Would we seek out additional free trade agreements with other countries and regions around the world? What should we do to remedy the trade imbalance? What plans do the candidates have to strengthen the dollar?

The NAFTA issue was addressed again tonight in the last Democratic debate before the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas, and trade is a clear issue to the many Ohioans who have lost employment as a result of free trade agreements. The candidates’ views are largely similar, though both are attempting to make it wedge issue in order to win Ohio. The battle will rage, until March 4 at least.

Now former Edwards foreign policy staffer Michael Signer writes in today’s Washington Post of the lack of an imperative campaign reporters feel to cover foreign affairs. Signer says that his team had difficulty getting coverage of any foreign policy statements or issues, and he expects the same to be true of the McCain, Obama, and Clinton campaigns.

If you’ll recall, this was to be the foreign policy election. Iraq. A resurgent Russia. Iran. Afghanistan. Iraq. There have been questions in debates and internal policy statements proofed, but have campaign reporters done their duty, Signer asks?

The media business is a complicated one, especially now (reminder: the first fresh episode of Saturday Night Live in months aired last night due to the writers’ strike, a stand-off between writers and media companies over a share of online profits). Newspapers are forced to become more creative in attracting audiences (once upon a time known as “circulation”), while they make substantial lay offs to their business and editorial enterprises. Newspapers particularly and media companies generally are under greater pressure to produce revenue. The unfortunate reality of American journalism is that the horse race and dramatic storylines sell. That being the case, it’s not just foreign policy stories that are not written, but policy stories in general.

Signer was right to point out the new vehicle for comparative and comprehensive policy debate: the Internet. Signer mentions several blogs that have come to be a beacon of light in the foreign affairs reporting: The American Prospect magazine, who owes much of its online presence to Ezra Klein; The Atlantic Online, where much of the foreign affairs discussion occurs on Andrew Sullivan and Matt Yglesias’ blogs; TPM Cafe, aligned with Josh Marshall’s left-leaning political blog; and Democracy Arsenal, insightful running commentary from the national security network. There are others, of course, but Signer names some of the most influential in the blogosphere, many of which happen to lean to the left. Conservatives are chatty online too, but generally the right side of the blogosphere is moderately less developed than the left. To return to the point, few of these sites bring in profit. Many political blogs are able to match their expenses and no more, never mind fund mobile, full-time campaign reporters. That leaves the burden with the television industry which, amid hours of campaign and 24-hour news coverage, rarely takes time to discuss policy positions.

Signer speaks of the immediacy reporters should feel about covering foreign affairs. I happen to agree with him: there should be more in the mainstream media. But the realities of media today are not easily overcome, and us foreign policy wonks should not feel as though we’re the only ones being ignored.

With the Austin debate just ended, we can see both candidates moving toward the end — of the beginning. As I write these words, Jeff Toobin on CNN is saying something similar. The latest polls rate the two candidates as running even in Texas — a make or break state for Hillary. Tonight, Clinton made some effective points, especially during an emotional monologue at the end about the suffering of veterans and about having been “blessed” and “called” to a life of service. But Obama was at his most effective in envisioning his role as Commander in Chief, fundamentally a foreign policy role:

My number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. I will do whatever is required to accomplish that. I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm.
Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth, which means that we are training our troops properly and equipping them properly, and putting them on proper rotations. And there are an awful lot of families here in Texas who have been burdened under two and three and four tours because of the poor planning of the current commander-in-chief, and that will end when I am president.
But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. And I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that.
Now, that has consequences — that has significant consequences, because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.
You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
Now, that’s a consequence of bad judgment. And you know, the question is, on the critical issues that we face right now, who’s going to show the judgment to lead? And I think that on every critical issue that we’ve seen in foreign policy over the last several years — going into Iraq originally, I didn’t just oppose it for the sake of opposing it.
I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment; it’s going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military. And I was right.

Obama has delivered these lines many times before, but tonight he delivered them with greater authority and self-assurance. Similarly, the other continuing foreign policy disagreement between Clinton and Obama — over when a president should talk to the U.S.’ enemies — was another occasion for Obama to repeat his talking point, this time focused on Cuba, and with greater confidence:

CNN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.
OBAMA: That’s correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba after over half a century.
I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.
But I do think that it’s important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that’s where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.

According to some initial reaction, this position will make Obama vulnerable to criticism within the Cuban American community, but maybe not. In any event, this is more an argument for the general election, when Florida next becomes an election battleground. And that tells us something about where we are in this campaign — heading toward the end of the beginning.

In roughly twenty minutes, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will engage in yet another (what is it, 19 now?) debate as they campaign for their Party’s nomination for the Presidency. Obama has won the past ten primary contests, most recently in Wisconsin and Hawaii, granting him worthwhile momentum, but only a slight lead in delegates to the convention. Hillary Clinton is in need of a win, and has focused on the upcoming primaries in Ohio and Texas. Both states carry with them a large number of delegates, but Clinton hopes to regain credibility and front-runner status after possible wins on March 4.

The New York Times has a nice “primer” to tonight’s debate, in which many expect to see Mrs. Clinton go negative. Will that pay off? Let’s wait and see.

(On a foreign policy note, I’m eager to see whether the candidates discuss the developments in Serbia and Kosovo, Fidel Castro’s recent resignation, or President Bush’s trip to Africa.  Perhaps the international portfolio in the debates will broaden as time goes by. )

The nine distinguished foreign policy experts who serve as the appropriators of Barack Obama’s foreign policy positions have come under various degrees of criticism, according to an article published today in the New York Sun.

Much of the piece, “Obama’s Brain Trust Taking Shape,” focuses on what it calls “intense speculation on the Internet and through often anonymous e-mails warning Jewish voters that Mr. Obama’s team may be neutral or indeed hostile to Israel.” Regardless of the controversy over Israel, the story gives a view into the campaign’s decision-making processes on foreign affairs.

The group of chief advisers includes Gregory Craig, Richard Danzig, Scott Gration, Anthony Lake, Samantha Power, Denis McDonough, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, and Daniel Shapiro.

As Obama gains momentum and Hillary Clinton finds herself in need of new ways to distinguish herself from Obama’s policies–especially if the Democratic nomination remains up in the air until the convention this summer–these advisers and their recommendations are likely to experience increasingly intense criticism.

In any Presidential election year, candidates and their staffs spend endless hours worrying about last-minute, election eve developments — and often planning them. This year, given the neck-and-neck Democratic race, the whole timetable for such interventions is changed. Forget about the classic “October Surprise.” That’ll come after eight more months of monthly, weekly, daily “surprises” that are the product of everything from campaign dirty tricks to random international events.

Today we have examples from across the spectrum, just in time to influence voters in Wisconsin, Hawaii and Washington state.

Take, for example, the “plagiarism” charge that the Clinton campaign lodged against Obama on Sunday. Well-timed and serious enough, as charges go, to require a rebuttal. So an entire TV news cycle (actually more) gets monopolized by the charge and the explanation. Tactically, a brilliant move if one thinks that a charge of this nature will pay dividends among primary voters. Without knowing for certain, in a close race the temptation is great to try it. One of the blogs yesterday said that Clinton’s campaign was using Wisconsin as a test of negative ads. If she wins today, we can expect more of the same — more tactical “surprises” — in the two-week run-up to Texas and Ohio.

The Castro announcement and the Pakistani election results are examples of another kind of “surprise” — the foreign affairs event that suddenly inserts itself into the campaign. By late this morning, all the candidates, Democrat and Republican, had issued statements, on camera when possible, stating essentially the same thing: We hope this means freedom soon for the Cuban people. Ditto for the clear defeat of Musharraf in Pakistan. Such an important and apparently positive development, impacting a key U.S. ally, rates a rapid, authoritative comment by all the candidates. Here the wordsmiths in the various campaigns compete to produce “earned media” — quick, newsworthy comments that can get their candidate a few more seconds of airtime that they would otherwise have to pay for.

We are at opposite stages in the two Parties’ struggles: Democratic partisans are looking for a victor among two evenly-divided candidates, Republicans are looking for closure. But late-breaking policy pronouncements offer all camps something.

Stay tuned.

This week, as the Democratic party’s superdelegates come under increased scrutiny, Representative John Lewis, a superdelegate from Georgia sent a high-profile signal that he would move from the Clinton to the Obama camp. Lewis’ announcement played into the ongoing firestorm of critique that HRC’s chances of winning the nomination are decreasing. Liberal commentators around the web are convinced Lewis’ switch connotes a tipping point in the race in Obama’s favor.

Josh Marshall:

the most immediate and significant import is Lewis’s signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party.

MotherJones:

Lewis noted that he could not vote against the clear wishes of the voters in his Georgia district, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in that state’s Democratic primary. And as perhaps the leading African American member of the House, he was, with his opposition to Obama, in an awkward position. How could he stand against the first African American (and Democratic) candidate with a decent chance of becoming president? But it turned out not to be such a tough spot to escape. The Clintons must be seething. Not just because they have lost Lewis’s vote but because of the signal he sends to other superdelegates committed to or leaning toward Clinton: Yes, you can.

Matt Yglesias:

This kind of thing is probably a leading indicator of what I expect will be a looming collapse in her superdelegate lead if she doesn’t start making a quick recovery in the ranks of pledged delegates (something I think she may well do, I don’t really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week).

Those watching CNN these days (and their numbers are growing) are likely to be impressed by the discussion of superdelegates and their role in the Democratic race. CNN pundit Donna Brazile, herself a superdelegate, jokes self-deprecatingly about how she doesn’t “wear a cape.” Now everyone has the imagery. Last evening, as Obama captured the Chesapeake, CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed a 21-year-old superdelegate from Wisconsin, who these days steps into a phone booth (well, not quite), to take calls from Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and has photo-ops with Michelle and Barack Obama.

You realize, don’t you, that they’ll drop you right after the Denver convention? Cooper asked young Jason Rae, well-spoken but looking more like a paperboy than Superboy. So what? In the meantime, there’s no Kryptonite that can weaken the Superdelegates, whose power seems as unlimited as it is inherently undemocratic. Some of the CNN crowd maintain that Superdelegates would never dare to contradict the popular will; Bill Schneider even speculated that some Superdelegates might become Supercowards and skip the Convention rather than cast a controversial vote.

But the truth is no one knows. No one is quite sure about these 796 Persons of Steel and exactly how many have fallen for one of the candidates. Look how cautious the NYT is this morning on delegate counts:

Obama aides calculate [emphasis added] that he also leads in delegate counts that include so-called superdelegates, the party officers and elected officials who control 20 percent of the total delegates to the Democratic convention…

Many of the Superones are being coy because they know that their power starts to weaken the moment they make their allegiance public. Meantime, John King has a Supermap that calculates that even if Obama sweeps the remainder of the primaries with a 55% majority in each state, ordinary delegates’ votes will not give him the 2,025 votes he needs to win the nomination.

Holy Democracy, Batman! Or, as Orwell would have put it, all delegates are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Washington, D.C.–Never mind the icy roads and sleet, voters in the Potomac primary states/commonwealths/districts of Maryland, Virginia, and D.C awarded Barack Obama and John McCain a sweep. The Clinton campaign expects only losses for the rest of the month, putting Mrs. Clinton’s stock in Ohio and Texas.

While the Republicans grant all delegates awarded to the states to the winner, Democrats abide by a more complicated system. After tonight, Obama is likely to be ahead in the total delegate count–determined by proportion of vote cast–whereas Clinton seems to remain ahead, though slightly, in the battle for superdelegate support.

This poses several problems for the Clinton campaign, the first of which is the reference, once again, to Clinton as the “establishment candidate.” It fits in nicely with Obama’s narrative of the “change” and “anti-Washington” candidate, and posits Clinton in opposition to progress. (This is, after all, the Democratic primary.) Clinton, as of now, has yet to discover a formidable counterargument, which is, surely, at least part of the reason for her recent campaign shake-up.

Secondly, and not to point out the obvious, but this is the campaign trail. Obama is a formidable campaigner, excelling in front of the ever-growing crowds, delivering uplifting stump speech after uplifting stump speech. Clinton has more to overcome while campaigning than policy differences. How do you stand in opposition to hope?

If it all comes down to superdelegates, which it might, the Democratic base will be loathe to hear that the “privileged” within the party are tilting the scales in favor of Clinton. As the weeks and primaries progress, and Obama performs well in upcoming Wisconsin and Hawaii, a formidable victory in Ohio and Texas will be essential for the Clinton campaign.

Image: NOAA, http://newweb.erh.noaa.gov/images/ahps2/lwx/gtnd2/ice.jpg

As Democrats prepare for tomorrow’s votes in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, the spinmeisters are at it again. James Carville, a Hillary supporter and a familiar face of punditry, is trying out the following line of argument today on CNN: Forget the votes between now and March. Unless Obama can win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Carville says Democratic superdelegates will conclude that he cannot deliver “a knockout punch,” and will have to swing their support to Clinton.

This is a beguiling tactic and a tacit admission that the Clinton campaign expects mainly losses between now and March 4 (the date for the primaries in Texas and Ohio — Pennsylvania’s is April 22).

Playing into this is the just-announced CNN Clinton-Obama debate — for Austin, Texas on February 21. Hillary will now try hard to keep the focus on Texas in particular, given her strength so far with Hispanic voters. (Univision, the Spanish-language broadcaster, will co-sponsor this debate with simultaneous Spanish translation.)

Keep in mind Obama’s showing on February 5 in California, where according to latest analyses, Latinos went 2 to 1 for Hillary. In Texas, Latinos may be as much as a quarter of the Democratic electorate.

Meanwhile, even though Obama has won the last five state-level contests, he has only barely pulled even — or slightly passed — Hillary’s delegate total. This is mainly due to the proportionality rule that gives losers a share of a state’s delegates, but is also due to the greater support that Hillary has so far among the superdelegates. That’s why Carville is trying to influence their direction now.

For an interesting history of how the Democrats came to their current apportionment scheme, read this article in the SF Chronicle.

Two candidates continue to battle for the Democratic nomination, but the Party itself is suffering a Super Tuesday hangover.

The Democrats’ practice of awarding convention delegates on a proportionate basis — according to the results of primaries and caucuses — is threatening to result in a Clinton-Obama statemate.

And this, in turn, could move the Party’s decision-making back into the shadows, into the hands of “super delegates,” 796 Democratic power brokers obliged to follow no vote result and accountable to no one for how they cast their ballot.

Even after his decisive victories yesterday — in Washington State, Louisiana, and Nebraska — Obama didn’t fully close the gap in delegates.

He started off the day behind Hillary, 1,031 to 1,081. He ended the day 1,120 to 1,123 (according to Real Clear Politics) or 1,070 to 1,095 (according to the AP). Both tallies try to include super delegates that have indicated a preference.

Of course, if Hillary wins big states such as Texas and Ohio on March 3, and Pennsylvania on April 22, she will not take away more than her majority share of delegates. So proportionality still rules.

But this system of awarding delegates — dating back to the 1970s — only works well when there’s a clear front-runner or multiple candidates. When there are only two, closely-matched candidates, the results are about as decisive as an Italian coalition government.

Party Chairman Howard Dean’s comments yesterday certainly give cause for concern. If the remaining primaries don’t yield a clear winner, he said, it would be good for the two sides to work out a deal.

Fat chance.

This is a dream scenario for the Republicans. They could say (with reason) that the Democratic Party was broken and wasn’t very, well, democratic.

While this danger looms, the fight over who will challenge John McCain continues, and Hillary and Barack are each using the tactic of projecting themselves as the prospective candidate by attacking McCain instead of each other. Last night, Obama emphasized foreign policy:

Finally, it is time to turn the page on eight years of a foreign policy that has made us less safe and less respected in the world. If I am the nominee of this party, John McCain will not be able to say that I agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; agreed with him on giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; and agree with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like. Because that doesn’t make us look strong, it makes us look arrogant. John F. Kennedy said that you should never negotiate out of fear, but you should never fear to negotiate. And that’s what I will do as President. I don’t just want to end this war in Iraq, I want to end the mindset that got us into war. It is time to turn the page.

Before any “pages” can be “turned,” however, Democrats have to resolve their internal struggle, which is itself becoming a real “page turner.”

On the day that Obama sweeps primaries in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Washington, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia delivers an impassioned plea of support for the Senator at Saturday’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond, Virginia, rallying supporters to the cheer of “Yes, we can.”

Hillary Clinton spoke earlier on Saturday, both candidates seeking the 101 delegates the commonwealth of Virginia would confer.

The “Potomac primary”/”Chesapeake contest” is next up this Tuesday, and Obama has won the all-important momentum.

Mitt Romney suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination today, as he stood before the CPAC conference in Washington. Like Giuliani as he aborted his bid, Romney did not shy away from sharing the truth as he sees it as his final contribution to the 2008 campaign.

In many ways his speech was ordinary. It proffered American culture as the city upon a Hill–the envy of the rest of the world–and the victim of various threats, both domestic and international.

Culturally, while there are flaws, Americans have yet to fall to the threats of atheism:

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality.

Twentieth-first century economics threaten our culture in a way not seen before:

We face economic competition unlike anything we have ever known before. China and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative, and ambitious. If we do not change course, Asia or China will pass us by as the economic superpower, just as we passed England and France during the last century.

Both of which are statements one could expect to hear in a speech presented to such a conservative audience. But finally, Romney announces he will no longer pursue their (electoral) support.

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. …

If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

There it is: if Romney were to continue in the race, he would be complicit in surrendering to terror. (Never mind that this seems to be along the lines of a logical fallacy), Romney is stepping aside in the interests of the Republican party to combat a Democratic nominee in the fall.

The effect is to leave a front-runner, John McCain, with minimal support from the conservative base of the party. He leaves himself the opportunity for a role on the Republican ticket or in a Republican Administration, in a final dramatic attempt to position a Republican to win the White House.