Advertising Age has just released details of Barack Obama's cross-channel media buy on the Olympics.

From the online article

I'll start with the end: even without re-voting in Michigan and Florida, Barack Obama can win the Democratic nomination, somewhat easily, and Hillary Clinton cannot.

I'm going to run through the delegate situation so far and show you the math. I'll incorporate a few safe assumptions in an attempt to make sense of the situation.

At this very moment, the estimated pledged delegate situation (not including superdelegates yet) looks like this, according to AP:

For the first time, I am disappointed in you.

For nearly two years, "Countdown" has been a kind of religion for me.  I watch nightly, come hell or high water, and I look forward to your unique perspective, your sarcastic brand of humor, and your willingness to call bullshit when bullshit needs to be called.

Now I'm calling bullshit on you, and on far too many of your colleagues in the world of television journalism.

Six days to Iowa, and while the jury remains deadlocked after a year-long trial, the Democratic candidates are unveiling their closing arguments.  Each has its merits.

Somewhere inside every blogger is a political speech writer struggling to get out.  In that spirit, I offer what I wish would be the text of John Edwards’ closing argument – the one I think would really seal the deal.

Ahem.  

{Crossposted at The 44th}

Yesterday, I painted a picture (mercifully rescued) of all the disinterested, disaffected, uninformed voters who walk among us every day. We know that the vast majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to this (or any prior) election. But we don't know why.

It's probably a combination of countless factors: lack of time, lack of trust in the news media, confusion over who's telling the truth and who's spinning what...or maybe just a general, aching sense that it doesn't really matter because all politicians are the same.

Whatever the reasons for this cynicism and disenfranchisement, I can't help but think that we could get people interested again (and simultaneously purify the electoral process itself) if we just made a few common sense changes.

Think about the aburdity of this for a moment...

{Crossposted at The 44th}

I'd like to tell you a little something about your friends, family and neighbors -- the folks who aren't paying nearly as much attention to the 2008 election as you and I are. If you had been watching them last week, here's what you would have noticed before being arrested:

More of them watched Dancing With the Stars than watched the Evening News on ABC, NBC and CBS -- combined. Of the 220 million adults in the United States, less than 10% of them tuned in to a network newscast.

The average age of those 10%: 60.5 years.

I don't know about you, but when I talk to people about the presidential election and the candidates they prefer, I hear a lot of things like "I don't like him/her" -- and when I probe, I learn that "like" and "dislike" often have very little to do with where candidates stand on the issues.

It's sad commentary, but the disengaged among us -- those who vote on sound bites and headlines -- are turning a vital election into a personality contest.

Today, I posted an interactive poll at my blog containing 50 issues that a person might base their candidate preference on.  It's too many choices to include as a poll here at Kos, but I thought I'd list them for you and get your thoughts in the comments.

Crossposted at The 44th.

Since all the other kids are doing it (and apparently enjoying it), I've decided to try my hand at psycho-analyzing the latest chapter in the exit of Karl Rove -- you know, the one that has him all "obsessed" with Hillary Clinton.

In case you've been in a cave for the better part of the last 10 days, let me catch you up. Rove resigns. Rove grants multiple interviews on GOP-friendly talk shows. Rove bashes Hillary. Journalists and politocos the world over attempt to crawl inside the dark, dark mind of Rove, flick a Bic, and see what's going on in there.

I'm not a psychologist. I don't even play one on TV. But this is easy stuff from both a political and marketing perspective.

Crossposted at The 44th.

I’m in seat 2B on Northwest flight 734...37,000 feet above Wyoming or South Dakota (who can tell?)...headed home from a grueling week in Salt Lake City.  And from this big picture perspective, I’m finally starting to gain some personal insight into the soon-to-be-suspended legacy of Karl Rove – or at least, the current chapter of that legacy.

The man who choreographed two of the most unlikely electoral victories in U.S. history has been called many things – Bush’s brain, the "architect," and a host of nouns and adjectives not suitable for a family blog – but Karl Rove is, above all else, a marketer.  Having spent the better part of two decades building the Bush brand, first in Texas and then nationally, Rove’s work culminated not in the initial selling of his human product in 2000, but in the reselling of it, against all odds, four years later.

The unwritten joke might begin, "So, three New Yorkers walk into a presidential race..."

That is, if the next election pits a Senator from New York, the Mayor of New York City, and the former Mayor of New York City.

A year from now, when the nominating process is just a memory (except for the formality of the conventions) and the general election is in full-sling (not a typo), the New York-only scenario could be a reality.  But it's only one of many intriguing scenarios that could play out between now and then.

I'm prone to dabbling in hypotheticals, and for me, the current polls and debates are a mere appetizer for the main course ahead.  And as you'll read below, there's a good chance that the main course isn't even on the menu yet.

Follow me over the jump for my take on some (very realistic) hypotheticals and how they could impact the nominees, the eventual winner, and history's epilogue on the 2008 Presidential.  

As promised in yesterday's diary, this diary represents a petition of sorts -- a pledge to not financially support OR vote for any Democrat who votes "Yes" on the watered-down, Bush-friendly Iraq spending bill that has been agreed to in principle by both parties.

The goal is to get representation from all 435 congressional districts.  When this diary is dead (and I hope you'll keep it alive by recommending), I'll print it out, comments intact, and mail it to all 281 Democrats in the House and Senate.  I'll also send it to some of our favorite media outlets.

Don't sign it unless you mean it.  But if you mean it, please let me suggest the following format:

For all of our anger, disgust and collective kvetching over our party's unceremonious surrender on the issue of meaningful benchmarks, timetables and redeployment, we, too, seem to be lacking something meaningful: a plan to respond.

To be sure, blog rants -- as impassioned and entertaining as they might be -- aren't a response; they're an outlet.

Those of you who know me know that I live my life in the world of message management, marketing, advertising and public relations.  I invent brands for a living, and I've diaried often about the fall of the Republican brand and the Democrats' perpetual inability to muster one.  

But we here in the netroots do have a brand, and it centers around action, creativity, mass assembly and unpoliticized truth.  With that as our starting point, please allow me to offer some talking points to get us singing a common tune, and one participation-required action plan to get the song heard.

This afternoon, I participated in an automated Survey USA telephone poll -- the first call I've ever gotten from SUSA.  This was your typical political poll, including:

...approval/disapproval for Bush
...approval/disapproval for my Wisconsin Governor and Senators
...political affiliation
...approval/disapproval for social issues like abortion and gay marriage
...conservative, moderate or liberal
...the need for a military draft

...and of course, hypothetical presidential match-ups pitting Hillary against the top 3 Republicans -- Guiliani, McCain and Romney.  But what was atypical for this poll was a 3-party hypothetical, pitting Clinton against both Guiliani and Al Gore as an Independent.

On January 2nd, in a diary titled, "9 Things I'm Thinking About Today," I unwittingly lied to you (on the second of those nine things).

I haven't decided yet that Edwards is my man, but I have decided when I'm going to decide: March 1st.  By then, whoever's going to be in will be in, and I'm not inclined to wait for debates and commercials and YouTube stunts before I throw my time, money and support behind someone.  I want to decide and get involved fast, instead of pretending that I'm undergoing some sort of personal, highly-intellectual debate about our best opportunity to win.

And so here I am, nearly two weeks past my self-imposed deadline, undergoing some sort of personal, highly-intellectual debate about our best opportunity to win.  And about who I truly like.

There.  I said it.  It hurts.  It's my personal "inconvenient truth."  But it's true.

When it comes to the politics of the Iraq War, "we" are no better than "them."

The greatest electoral mandate in recent history -- our November smackdown -- has been responded to thusly by my fellow Democrats: screw the truth; let's play politics.

Seriously, folks.  I'm watching Al Gore blow everyone else to smithereens in Meteor Blades' Gore-inclusive straw poll, and as much as I admire and like Al Gore, I'm afraid I don't understand the fascination, presidentially speaking.

I'm serious when I say I like him.  I liked him even more after An Inconvenient Truth.  It's just that aside from the environment and global warming, I've not heard a policy-related issue come out of his mouth.  So I'm wondering what it is 60% of us are so enthralled with.

I have a theory.

Set aside for a moment everything you've come to expect about the way Americans elect their Presidents.  File away, just for a minute or two, everything you know about the election "season" and the primary process and momentum and debates and political advertising.

We can start electing our Democratic President in 2008 now -- long before we even know the name, race or gender of our eventual nominee.  And the DCCC can play a pivotal role in making it happen.

Join me below the fold for a brief discussion of marketing, message management, and the American voter.

If you're looking for a good, in-depth, single-topic diary to contemplate, share with friends, and debate incessantly, you're in the wrong place.

Instead, I'd like to throw a whole bunch of shit at you at once and let you choose where to respond -- not to be a trouble-maker, but because this is how my brain is working lately.  

I'm afraid I've come down with the blogger's equivalent of Attention Deficit Disorder.  My mind seems to race from one thought to the next.  Each thought is relevant here, to a degree, but I'm not focused enough to embellish any single theme.  So if you'll indulge me, these are the 9 things I'm thinking about today.