Obama Shouldn't Waste Money On Television Advertising

Here's a piece with which we thoroughly agree: "Why TV Ads Are A Waste Of Money."

Steven Stark, in the Boston Phoenix, hits the nail on the head here. Not only is the era of effective television advertising in a national campaign past us, but the notion of spending money on television in JUNE of an election year--as Obama evidently is doing now--is just silly.

It's nice that the Obama campaign has the money, but they'd be far wiser to invest it in infrastructure, especially for getting the vote out in swing states, and especially in those swing states that permit "early voting."

McCain = Bush: More O' The Same!

Let's face it, a McCain presidency would just be four more years of the Republicans who have f'd our country for the past eight years. McCain = Bush. Or Mc = W. With the help of our friends Cathy H., Nancy H. and Joe T. (the latter two graphic artists) we're delighted to unveil our anti-Bush = McCain logo for the campaign, above.

Makes a great bumper sticker, or T-shirt. We hope to have more info soon on where you can get one!

Bandon Dunes: An Invigorating Golf Challenge

When we go on one of our periodic golf boondoggles, we like to give our readers and prospective golf boondogglers a report on the courses we played.

We just returned from Bandon Dunes, a golf resort on the southwest Oregon coast that has justifiably earned a terrific reputation as a destination stop for golfers. Bandon is not easy to get to, even in Oregon. For us East Coasters it was certainly a challenge, but one well worth the trouble.

We flew from Washington to Portland, Oregon, then drove the four and a half hours to Bandon. Other possibilities: fly to Salt Lake City, then to Eugene, Oregon, which is only two and a half hours from Bandon. Or fly the final leg from Portland to North Bend, Oregon, which is still a good 30 minutes from Bandon. (Or fly your personal G-5 to a local airstrip.)

We suggest you consider the drive from Portland. The first 2-2.5 hours is pretty boring, on interstate 5, but the last two hours is a great introduction to Oregon. (Since we arrived at night, we drove the first half, to Eugene, and spent the night, then finished the trip in the morning. We would not recommend the latter half of the trip at night.) About half that final drive is through the fir forested hills of western Oregon, where logging operations are plainly in sight. Much of it parallels the tranquil lower Umqua River with its RV parks and houseboats. Along the way is an elk viewing station, but we didn't see any elk (wrong time of day).

The other half of the final drive is down the southern Oregon coast with its massive dunes and small coastal towns. During the summer this is RV heaven (at least unless gas prices kill the trade) as well as a magnet for ATV'ers running through the dunes. You'll be happy for the periodic passing lanes on the narrow roads as you come up behind the RV's pulling trailers full of ATV's.

The Bandon Dunes resort itself is pretty isolated, about three miles up the road from the tiny coastal town of Bandon. (You'll see "tsunami evacuation route" signs in the lower lying towns--a major fault line lies off the Oregon coast, which could trigger a tidal wave with only a few minutes of warning.)

Bandon Dunes has three golf courses: the original, aptly called Bandon Dunes; the newer Pacific Dunes; and the newest Bandon Trails. A fourth course is almost complete, and plans are on the board for a fifth, along with a world class par three. There is also a little advertised par three next to the ginormous practice area adjacent to Pacific Dunes.

Pacific Dunes (pictured at the top of this post) is currently rated number 14 on Golf Digest's Top 100 courses in the U.S., with Bandon Dunes at number 31. Both are terrific courses, but don't bypass Bandon Trails (pictured below). In some ways Bandon Trails is the more distinctive course, but it lacks the Pacific Ocean vistas (and punishing winds) that are the signatures of the other two tracks.

We played Pacific twice, Bandon Dunes twice and Trails once. If we had it to do over, we'd have done Trails twice and maybe Pacific just once.

A word to the wise: after all that travelling to get there, most golfers will be anxious to conquer the more highly rated Pacific Dunes course as soon as possible. Our advice: hold off, if you can, especially if you are a mid-to-high handicapper. Pacific Dunes is a very difficult course, with lightning fast greens, hard fairways that always seem to lead to impossible bunkers, ball-eating gourse, occasional fog and constant wind. The greens at Pacific Dunes, in particular, take some getting used to, and trying Bandon Dunes first will be an easier introduction to this type of green.

All the courses at Bandon represent true "links" golf. The fairways are hard, with a thin layer of grass packed with sand. A well struck ball will roll for quite a ways, which is nice if it rolls closer to the pin and ends up in a (rare) good lie, but no so nice when it goes into a pot-bunker, or into the heather, or down some huge hill (or over a cliff onto the beach a 100 feet below). It is very difficult to spin a ball off these fairways.

The greens are sometimes difficult to distinguish from the fairways. They are also quite hard--there's really no use for a ball-mark repair tool here because there are no ball marks. Playing these courses gives you a real appreciation for the strategies employed at the British Open. Often, you want to land your ball well in front of the green and let it roll up, instead of landing on the green in what seems like a perfect position, only to watch your ball roll, and roll, and roll some more and then disappear over a 20 foot embankment. That happens a lot, especially on Pacific Dunes.

You can also putt from well off the greens. In effect, every green is about 100 yards deep and 50 yards wide, and you'll find yourself taking some of the wildest putts you've ever attempted, often from the bottom of some hillock that obscures your view of the flag. Unfortunately, judging the speed necessary to get a putt up one of those hills--without rolling back down and past you--without having it then scoot to the other side and down another hill takes considerable practice. Again, the problem is most evident on Pacific Dunes.

[Just to prove a point, two of us tried putting on one hole from 120 yards out after each hitting short irons to the green. Both of us easily got it to the green, the Curmudgeon actually chasing through the green and up a little hill (where his 120 yard pitch had also ended up).]

The bunkers on all three courses are quite fearsome and often in the line of a good shot. The sand in the bunkers on Pacific is pretty thin--it gets blown out--so you have to learn to pick the ball out without sailing it over your objective. Some rather unprintable words were heard emanating from members of our group down in those bunkers.

In the summer it's pretty dry along the Oregon coast, so rain is not a big deal. But wind is. We were fortunate that the wind didn't get much above 15-20 knots during our visit. Our caddies said 25-35 knots would be more typical, especially in the afternoons.

The climate in Oregon is quite cool. During our stay--this is late June, mind you--the highest temperature was probably about 64 degrees. It's not unusual for the high to be in the 50's this time of year, along with all that wind. So bring long pants and windgear. Don't worry if you forget or are just ignorant of conditions, however, as the Bandon pro shops are heavily stocked with the latest in gear to keep you warm in a howling wind.

We should also mention that Bandon--as any true golf resort should--prohibits golf carts and requires walking. The terrain is hilly, so you might not want to play 36 holes your first day there. Since everyone walks, they have a very active caddie program, employing more than 300 caddies during peak season. The four caddies we had for our group of eight over four days were all excellent. If you don't want to spring for a caddy, you can take a "trolley"--a wide-wheeled pull cart that you're allowed to drag right across the greens. We'd STRONGLY recommend caddies, however, unless you've played the courses a few times. Many times our first thought as to where to put a tee ball would have been a disaster but for the correct advice of our caddies.

Accommodations at Bandon are quite nice, but (like most first rate golf resorts) pricey. Not surprisingly, Bandon draws a lot of groups--foursomes, eightsomes, etc.--of mostly male golfers, so much of the lodging is designed to fit those golfers' needs. Four of our group of eight stayed in a suite at the lodge that had four individual bedrooms. The other four of us stayed in some very nice double rooms--two king-size beds, working fireplace, split bathroom, sitting area. (One of our two-somes split up the first night due to alleged snoring.)

Most of the architecture is post and beam using Oregon's timber, with lots of windows and a modern feel.

The dining at Bandon is ok. As with many isolated golf resorts there's really no competition and the fare is somewhat lowest-common-denominator. Don't get us wrong--the food is fine; just maybe not quite so fine as the price! At least we had no trouble getting tables for our large group, without advance reservations, at the various Bandon restaurants and bars.

If you're there for a few days, however, you may want to venture out of the enclave. We did so one night, eating at a charmingly small Italian restaurant in the town of Bandon called Alloro. We heard there are a couple other decent options in the town as well. We wouldn't recommend driving all the way up to Coos Bay/North Bend, unless you have a craving for gambling that might be satisfied by the Indian casino up that way.

Getting around the resort is easy with a shuttle system that is frequent and reliable. The staff is quite friendly. Evidently the area was quite economically depressed before the resort was built, so many of the workers there are thankful for their jobs. We wish there was room for a practice area/range by each golf course, but there's not, so instead there is one massive practice facility adjacent to Pacific Dunes. It's not far to go, but when your tee time is only 20 minutes away it is a bit inconvenient.

If you take the trouble to go to Bandon, then you're going for the golf. And that, we can assure you, is worth the trip. Just don't be surprised if your handicap is a point or two higher when you leave than when you arrived.

Virginia Battleground: Obama By One Point

Astute readers will note that the Curmdugeon has already said that summer polls are meaningless. They are.

Notwithstanding that, here's a Rasmussen poll of Virginia showing Obama up by one point (statistically, a dead heat) over McCain in the Virginia battleground.

Could be the best battle here since Lee versus Grant, but not quite as deadly.

DC Fundraiser for Tom Perriello

A little while back, we wrote about Tom Perriello, Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia's 5th Congressional District, which includes Charlottesville. (See "Meet Tom Perriello.")

Tom is running against Virgil Goode, an incumbent Republican somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. Tom's been effective at raising money and has made it into a competitive race.

You can come out and support Tom at a D.C. fundraiser next Monday evening (June 23), from 6:30-8:00 pm, hosted by Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro at her home on Capitol Hill. Minimum contribution is a mere $100. For more info, go to the campaign website, or email lisa@perrielloforcongress.com.

Tiger Woods Ate My Blog!

What's up with the Curmudgeon's blog you ask? He hasn't posted anything for days!

The short answer is: Tiger Woods.

Yes, as a Tiger fan, the Curmudgeon spent many hours over the past few days in front of the telly, rooting him on. Why it took Tiger so long to finally secure his third U.S. Open title is beyond us--guess he just liked making it entertaining.

And for those who though Rocco Mediate had a chance, just remember--it's really "The Tiger Woods Show" and those other golfers are just extras. In the end, it's all about Tiger.

We hope to get back to some serious posting shortly.

What're The Odds?

Here's an interesting legal story buried in today's Washington Post: It seems that Washington & Lee professor who likes to play the Virginia scratch off lottery figured out the lottery was cheating it's customers, and decided to sue.

In the scratch off lottery, players purchase tickets at various outlets such as convenience stores and gas stations. W&L professor Scott Hoover purchased tickets hoping to win the grand prize of $75,000, but later learned that all the grand prize tickets had been redeemed before his purchase.

In other words, Hoover's chances of winning the grand prize were exactly zero, which was pretty easy for the the professor of statistics to figure out.

According to the Post story, Virginia Lottery officials are supposed to have all the scratch tickets removed within one day of the last grand prize ticket being redeemed, but Hoover learned through a series of freedom of information requests that the Lottery had routinely been ignoring that rule. (And you thought those crossed fingers in the Virginia Lottery's logo were for good luck!)

So now he's filed a class action suit, asserting that the Commonwealth earned $84 million since 2003 with this little trick.

Bully for Hoover. We doubt he'll ever win millions in his lawsuit--despite his lawyer's dreams (lawyers typically seek roughly 40% of the cut of any recovery in suits such as this; it's known as the legal lottery, or to regular folks as the "tort system.") But at a minimum he'll surely cause the Virginia Lottery to begin following it's rules and maybe cause a shake-up in the Lottery administration.

What Should Barack Do This Summer?

We hope you noticed that things pretty much played out the way we said they would over the past week or so in the Democratic presidential race. As the last primaries wound down, a flood of superdelegates went Obama's way. He declared victory, but gently. He let Hillary find her own way. And she did. By Saturday, she not only conceded, but did so in a gracious and terrific speech. So now the world is all right again, correct?

Well, not quite so. But we think Obama is in better shape within his party than McCain is among the Republicans. Just look at today's column from Bob Novak on the continuing animosity between McCain and evangelical leaders.

So, what should Barack do this summer?

Here's some short answers. First, and foremost, unite his party. Reach out to Hillary supporters, as he's already doing. See if he can have some high profile events with Hillary and Bill. Just as important, give it time. Many of Hillary's supporters will need the time; let them mourn. Be sympathetic.

Second, raise money. Scads of money. And he will.

Third, don't spend all that money stupidly during the summer. Buying television time in the summer is a complete waste of money. Sure, there will be "media advisers" urging him to do that, to "define yourself" before McCain does, blah, blah, blah. These people make their money selling TV. Ignore them. NO ONE IS REALLY PAYING ATTENTION except those who've already made up their minds.

Instead, concentrate on the ground game and uniting the party. The ground game in most campaigns is like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it. Make this time different. Obama had an incredibly impressive and effective field operation in the primaries. Now, do the same, on steroids, for the general election, especially in battleground states. And really focus on how to take advantage of early voting in those states that allow it.

AFTER the Democratic convention, with it's inevitable "bounce" (followed by the GOP bounce), Obama can start the television campaign and begin pulling out the paid media stops. That's when the real campaign begins. Obama needs to remember that most people aren't like the political junkies and media punditocracy he's surrounded by. Most people can only focus on this for so long without burning out, so don't bug them during the summer, and don't overreact to McCain and his people (react, but be cool about it).

And don't pay too much attention to the polls during the summer either. We know it's going to be a pretty close election. The polls will wax and wane a bit, but not too much. Until Labor Day they're pretty meaningless, except maybe on how Americans feel about issues (instead of candidates).

And have a nice summer--you earned it!

Time To Go Back To Work?

Every now and then the Curmudgeon will find himself doing something that makes him ask: is it time for me to get a real job and go back to work?

Fortunately, the feeling is usually fleeting.

This morning, the Curmudgeon found himself in one of those situations. Son #2 needs to bring a "candy topping" to his religious school class tonight as part of the kids' ice cream sundae celebration of the end of their school year.

Sounds simple enough. But then we found ourself not only buying M&M's and Butterfingers at the store, but putting them in little baggies and pounding them with a hammer so they'd have the consistency of those candy toppings you get at any good ice cream shoppe (a good ice cream outlet, by definition, being a shoppe, with the "e" on the end, not just a shop).

This took a surprisingly long while because it turns out you pretty much need to pound each M&M separately to shatter it into topping-sized pieces. (Butterfingers are easy--but don't pound too much; also, the chocolate coating tends to stick to the baggie.)

It's also not a good idea to do this right before lunch, especially if you're in weight loss mode and strictly avoiding sweets.

Mind you, we're not against doing our fair share of mommy-like activities around the house. Mrs. Curmudgeon will gladly tell you we're not too good at a lot of them, like arts and crafts projects (unless it involves blowing up or burning something).

On the other hand, we ARE pretty good at some of the things that occupy any good mom's day: shuttling the kids to scheduled activities (especially sports) with all the right gear and on-time is one (and bringing them back with same said gear).

Anyway, we've found the best way to put those pesky thoughts of getting a "real job" out of our head is simply to call Mrs. Curmudgeon and ask what she's doing. Unless she's at Morton's on a client lunch, that usually does the trick.

Of course, we can also take our mind off such perilous thoughts by doing something important, like posting on our blog.

Obama Rally At Nissan Pavillion

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama will lead a rally at the Nissan Pavillion this Thursday at 6:00 pm, just in case anyone was wondering if Virginia would be a battleground state this election cycle.

We hope Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart won't be on hand with a phalanx of local police demanding Obama's citizenship papers!

And, if you want to get there on time, leave plenty early--I-66 will be a huge mess out that way as a result of the timing.

Gilmore's Narrow Victory For Virginia GOP Senate Nomination

While we're waiting for Barack Obama to clinch the Democratic nomination sometime tonight, we thought we'd comment on the Virginia Senate race.

This past weekend, Virginia Republicans held their state convention. Former Governor Jim Gilmore barely obtained the GOP nomination for the open Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. Uber-conservative Delegate Bob "Taliban" Marshall almost pulled off a stunning upset, coming just 70 votes shy of taking the nomination after a quiet, underground campaign amongst the most conservative of the party faithful.

While Marshall didn't pull off the upset, his shock troops did manage to unseat pragmatic state party chairman Henry Hager (Jenna Bush's father-in-law) and replace him with a young conservative firebrand.

What does all this mean? For starters, it certainly means more trouble for those Republican officeholders still clinging to seats in Northern Virginia. Party insiders blame their recent losses on not being conservative enough, especially on social issues and taxes. In fact, it's the other way around: more moderate independent voters have been so turned off by the Republican Party of Virginia's brand of intolerant conservatism that they have virtually abandoned the GOP's candidates. That's especially true in Northern Virginia and in the Hampton Roads area.

This is nothing new, mind you. The Virginia GOP has been battling itself for a number of years, with the conservative purists gradually driving out the more moderate wing while shrinking the party.

The ideological purists will no doubt defeat Governor Tim Kaine's proposal to pay for desperately needed new roads with additional taxes, while making no practical proposals of their own. Evidently, Republicans in the state are content to just let the roads and transportation infrastructure gradually crumble away rather than come up with a fair way to pay for improvements.

The party is also likely to be lukewarm to McCain's campaign for President, thereby increasing the odds that Virginia will be "in play" in November. And it appears that many in the party aren't all that enthusiastic about Jim Gilmore either, whose chances in November against the well-financed and popular Mark Warner are pretty slim to begin with.

Maybe when the Virginia GOP finishes driving out all but the most ideologically pure, and becomes a minority party in the state, it will start trying to figure out how to broaden itself as a means of winning. Don't look for that to happen too soon, however.

The Denouement? Hillary's Tuesday Night Speech In NY

This just in:

Clinton plans New York speech

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton will give her post-primary speech in New York Tuesday night, a rare departure from the campaign trail.

Staffers who have worked for her on he ground in Puerto Rico , South Dakota and Montana have been invited to attend the event or go home for further instructions, campaign aides said. The New York senator had no other events Tuesday. She planned to address AIPAC Wednesday in Washington .

But she is under increasing pressure to cede the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama after the final primaries. There was a sense of denouement in the campaign. She planned to rally with husband and former President Clinton and their daughter Chelsea in South Dakota Monday night — a reunion usually reserved for election nights.




We might add that we expect her to do a bang-up job, giving an impressive speech and a warm endorsement to Senator Obama.

Although much of the press focus on the Democratic Rules Committee hearing was on the more vocal and distraught of Hillary's supporters, our Obama supporter source at the hearing told us she ran into many Hillary supporters who were gracious and prepared to fully go for Obama as soon as the primaries end, i.e., tomorrow.

Michigan & Florida: Don't Worry About Ickes' Threat

The Democratic Party's Rules Committee has decreed that Michigan and Florida will each have all their delegates seated, with each getting a half a vote.

Is half a loaf better than no loaf at all?

Not according to Clintonista campaign poobah Harold Ickes, who "reserved" Hillary's right to take the fight over Michorida all the way to the convention floor in Denver at the end of August.

Relax. Calm down. Don't get all pissed off at Ickes and the Clinton campaign.

All Ickes is doing is what lawyers do. They bluff and bluster. And they do so the loudest just before they cave in and settle. Believe us--we've seen it, and we've done it over a long legal career.

Ickes is the designated bulldog. He has to do this because Hillary hasn't quite yet conceded. She can't play her own barking dog, because then it would be strange indeed for her to concede a few days later.

At this point, the Clinton campaign is holding out one last hope: that it can pull upsets in Montana and South Dakota, proving to superdelegates that Obama has indeed been weakened of late.

We're not saying it won't happen--there's always a chance. But it's not likely. If Hillary doesn't win those states, and can't claim the popular vote title, then look for her to concede by the middle of next week.

[In case you're wondering, the new delegate math is as follows:
Delegates needed to win the nomination: 2117
Obama delegates to date: 2053 Additional needed: 64
Hillary delegates to date: 1877 Additional needed: 240]

Eat This, Not That--How To Keep Thin[ner]

As a follow-up to our recent posts on the obesity epidemic, we thought we'd point our readers to a helpful website that provides insight to proper portions and hidden calories in restaurant meals.

[We also note data released by the federal government suggesting that the rate of childhood obesity has plateaued, albeit at a Himalayan level.]

The website is sponsored by Men's Health and is called "Eat This, Not That." The editors review various chain restaurant meals, give you the gory details on how bad they are, and suggest alternatives.

What we like about this site is that they don't tell you useless things like "eat a plain turkey sandwich with no condiments in place of a double-cheeseburger." Yes, we all know that; but the plain turkey just doesn't taste that good.

Instead, they alert you to seemingly healthy dishes--such as the Cosi Signature Salad--that are in fact packed with calories, fat and sodium, and then suggest an alternative at the same restaurant that might still be tasty. (We had kind of suspected that those delicious Cosi salads weren't particularly healthy.)

They'll also send you a free weekly email newsletter with their latest tips. In today's email, we learned that the Albacore Tuna Panini Melt at Einstein's Bagels--which sounds healthy enough--has far more calories, fat, saturated fat and sodium than the Albacore Tuna Salad Sandwich on whole wheat at the same restaurant.

It's really pretty eye-opening, and sometimes shows that you'd be better off with the meal you crave than the seemingly healthier alternative.

If you're planning on a trip to a specific restaurant--say Applebee's--you can target your research to that chain's meals.

They also have some eye-popping lists of the "worst foods" in a whole lot of categories. For example, the Worst Breakfast is the Bob Evans Caramel Banana Cream Stacked and Stuffed Hotcakes (pictured here), with 1540 calories--the same as FIVE egg mcmuffins. You'd be better off with the Bob Evans Western Omelette at 654 calories.

We like the site for it's practicality--the editors know we all like food that tastes good, and realize we just need a little guidance to make better decisions, even if they aren't ideal.

Obama On The Brink

By this time next week, Senator Barack Obama will have wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination.

At present, Obama is less than 50 delegates shy of the 2025 he needs for a majority excluding any Michigan or Florida delegates. [According to Democratic Convention Watch--usually reliable--he needs 44 more as of this morning.]

Obama should reach that number by Tuesday night, after the last primaries are done in Montana and South Dakota. CCPS Blog, which has a good track record of forecasting delegates, projects that Obama will pick up an additional 41 pledged delegates between the Puerto Rico primary on Saturday, and the Montana/South Dakota primaries Tuesday. Surely, Obama will also get a handful of superdelegate endorsements in the meantime.

In any event, Politics 1 reports that the Obama campaign is stockpiling a large number of superdelegate commitments to unveil next week, presumably right after all the primary voting is done, which would put him over the top even with just about any Michigan/Florida resolution.

We've already said that we expect a gracious concession speech from Hillary next week, followed by an equally gracious--and rousing--victory speech by Obama.

For many Democrats, these events can't come soon enough. But not to worry--Obama wrapping up the nomination in June is plenty of time to bring the Democratic Party back together, let Obama get some rest, start the general election fundraising and prepare for the fall election.

Will Bob Barr's Libertarian Run Impact The Presidential Race?

Over the weekend, conservative--and occasionally colorful--former Georgia Republican representative Bob Barr earned the nomination of the Libertarian Party to run for President.

Barr has at least the potential to impact the presidential race come November, although had the Libertarians nominated Ron Paul the effect would likely be much greater.

The conventional wisdom is that Barr hurts the Republicans and John McCain more than the Democratic nominee. That's probably true. Indeed, since many Republicans seem to view McCain as nothing more than a warmed-over Democrat, a serious alternative candidate with solid libertarian value could prove quite appealing to some members of the GOP.

Will Barr run as a true Libertarian, or will he run as a true Republican? If you talk to some Republicans, they will say the real reason the party is doing so poorly is that it has abandoned it's own core principles. There's some truth to that, but that's not really why the party is doing so poorly--the real reason is incompetence, especially at the very top.

In any event, Barr--a disaffected Republican himself--may use the Libertarian platform to espouse a conservative philosophy that is more in tune with "traditional" GOP values, i.e., small government, low taxes, free markets. If he gets entangled in religious right "values" issues, however, he'll lose the support of true libertarians: yes, they believe in religious freedom, but that means not imposing evangelical beliefs on the rest of the population (which, we believe, is one reason the GOP has lost it's mojo).

There is certainly room in this country for a candidate or party that espouses reduced government spending, lower taxes, simpler regulation, extreme caution about engaging in foreign adventures, while also being relatively liberal on social issues.

Where would Barr have the biggest impact? Probably in the the mountain west, where many voters with libertarian tendencies have gone with the GOP in the past, only to be dissatisfied with the results. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, there are signs that he can make Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps a few other western states pretty competitive. If Barr siphons off 3-4% of McCain's vote in those states, things could get very interesting.

Barr might also have an impact in the upper south battleground states of Virginia and North Carolina, although the Republicans most unhappy with McCain in those states are social conservatives, not true libertarians.

For the Libertarian Party, Barr offers the potential for greater media exposure and fundraising appeal than some unknown party insider.

If we going to bet on it right now, however, we'd say Barr's impact will be pretty minimal. Now, ask us how many times we've been right this electoral season!

The Government's Fattening Food Pyramid

As the Washington Post winds down its five-part series on childhood obesity, we thought we'd take a look at the U.S. government's "food pyramid" to see if it is helping--or hurting--in the fight against obesity.

From 1992 to 2005, the USDA promoted a food pyramid (at right) that showed various categories of food--grains, fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat--and stacked them up in a way to suggest which you should get more of versus which you should get less of.

The old food pyramid, pictured here, surely contributed to obesity. If you tried to follow the guidelines for number of servings of each type of food, you'd likely eat WAY too much. For example, the food pyramid says you should have 6-11 servings of "bread, cereal, rice, pasta" and it includes photos of a loaf of bread, a plate of pasta, and bowls of rice and cereal.

Okay, so let's say you eat six bowls of cereal in one day--the low end of the scale. Whoops--you've probably already eaten too much, and that's without getting to fruit, veggies, dairy and meat. What you couldn't tell from the pyramid is that a "serving" of cereal was meant to be one cup, and that a "serving" of bread was meant to be one slice (not the bowl of cereal or loaf of bread pictured).

Similarly, many of the other food items pictured in the old pyramid constituted more than a single serving under the government's guidelines, but no one would've known that.

Another problem is that most people eat meals that combine these food elements. Let's say that I have a six inch Subway roast beef sandwich on wheat bread, with swiss cheese, lettuce, tomato, pickles, onions, and oil/vinegar. That's actually a pretty healthy meal. It should count for at least two--maybe three--"servings" of bread grains, 1-2 servings of veggies, one of dairy, and one of meat. But how many people would look at it that way? A lot would view it as, essentially, one "serving."

The new pyramid, pictured here, appears intended mainly to get you to eat a diverse diet that includes grains, fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products. The new pyramid doesn't make the mistake of including recommendations for number of "servings" of each type of food.

Still, it visually suggests that you should eat a LOT of food. At the bottom of the pyramid are pictures of all kinds of different foods. The problem here is that about 3-4 days worth of food are pictured. It certainly looks like you should be eating many portions of each of these. It's probably also no mistake that the dairy side, in particular, looks like you should be consuming quite a bit of milk, cheese and yogurt.

We wish we had some graphics arts skills here at the Curmudgeon. If we could, we'd picture some sample meals--breakfast, lunch and dinner, with maybe one midday snack, that would provide the requisite variety and balance, yet still be reasonably sized.

For example, breakfast would be a modest bowl of cereal, with skim milk, a small glass of orange juice and maybe one slice of toast. Lunch would be a small sandwich, with whole wheat bread, a small amount of meat, one thin slice of cheese and some veggies, with a piece--or couple slices--of fruit on the side and a bottle of water. And dinner could be a variety of things, but what about maybe a roasted chicken breast, side salad, small serving of rice and 2-3 strawberries. Most people--if they aren't already obese--could get by pretty nicely on meals like this. We'd show various other combinations--the point would be to keep the portion sizes reasonable.

The government should do away with the pyramid altogether. They might as well have used a sphinx for all the good it has done.

Even With Michigan And Florida Counted, Obama Has A Comfortable Margin

Honestly, the Hillary supporters need to give it up and move on.

Under any reasonable scenario, Obama has at least a hundred delegate lead over Hillary with the contest winding down.

For a neutral account of all the potential scenarios involving Michigan and Florida, take a look at Democratic Convention Watch.

The salient points are these:

If you exclude Michigan and Florida, per the DNC rules, then Obama needs just 61 votes to clinch the Democratic nomination, and he leads by 185. This is the scenario the mainstream media will most likely follow--for now. Accordingly, it won't be too long before he is "officially" declared the victor.

But, you say, Democrats ultimately won't entirely exclude Michigan and Florida, so that scenario may be wrong. True, but it won't make a difference.

There are a lot of options for dealing with Michigan and Florida. They range from seating half the delegates from both states, to seating half the pledged delegates and all the superdelegates, to seating the delegations "as is" under the votes that occurred to various other options in between. Under all but one of those options (nicely laid out by the folks at Democratic Convention Watch) Obama has a lead over Hillary of at least 120 delegates. Under all but that same outlier option, Obama needs no more than 122 delegates to clinch the nomination.

That one outlier scenario is the one under which Hillary and Obama both get delegates from the Florida and Michigan elections exactly as they voted. That would mean NO delegates from Michigan for Obama, because his name was not on the ballot. It would, however, add 55 uncommitted delegates to the Michigan delegation.

Now, if you don't count any of those 55 uncommitted delegates for Obama, then his lead is down to 70 delegates and he needs 166 more delegates (out of a total of 381 not yet allocated) to win.

Of course, the bulk of those 55 uncommitted delegates would go for Obama. Let's say he gets just 40 of them. Well, then his lead is back up to 110, and he needs only 126 delegates to clinch.

In short, the delegate math heavily favors Obama UNDER ANY SCENARIO.

The same is largely true with respect to the "popular vote." We've seen a few Clintonites still out there arguing that she leads in the popular vote. Yet, the only way you get to that conclusion is to include all of Hillary's Michigan votes and give Obama NO votes for Michigan. Talk about stacking the deck.

In short, even with Hillary's recent lopsided wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, and even if you include Florida, Hillary is still behind in the popular vote--and that's excluding all the voters who overwhelmingly favored Obama in the caucus states.

Little will be served by having the Clinton campaign engage in a "fight to the last man (and woman)" strategy all the way to the convention. We think Hillary knows this. We'll see a concession speech around June 3. We hope it will be in conjunction with a satisfactory solution to the Michigan and Florida problems as well.

Rock Star Versus Rocking Chair

The stage is set for a historic battle this November, between Sen. Barack Obama--the rock star--and Sen. John McCain, in the rocking chair.

Okay, that's unfair. We actually have a lot of respect here for Senator McCain, although we expect to lose it in the next few months.

Here's some things to expect: first, Hillary Clinton will keep at it for a couple more weeks. After the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, she will give a gracious concession speech, and Obama will formally claim the mantle of the Democratic Party nominee.

Obama will then spend the summer fence-mending and uniting his party, recruiting some new people into his campaign to help especially with (1) blue collar whites; (2) middle-aged women; (3) the elderly; and (4) Jewish voters.

Us bloggers will go into full-time speculation mode on both nominees' VP picks. At some point, Hillary will declare that she is not interested (we were intrigued by the suggestion in today's Post that she should be appointed to the Supreme Court; she'd be an excellent choice).

A bunch of irrelevant polls will be released, showing a close race. The worst of these polls will be national polls, based on phone calls to a few hundred voters, which won't really tell us anything. (Indeed, if you look at such polls now, you'll see that McCain is beating both Obama and Hillary; that Obama is beating McCain, but Hillary is not; and that Hillary is beating McCain, but Obama is not. Take your pick.)

There will be a lot of speculation about the impact of racism on the election, and the so-called "Bradley effect" (voters who tell pollsters they'll vote for Obama, but who won't vote for him because of his race). Maybe some voters will figure out that Obama is just as white as he is black.

Finally, a couple reflections on the Democratic nomination race. When the race started, Obama was questioned as not black enough for African-Americans. Hillary had significant African-American support, and many whites despised her for being part of the rich, liberal elite. Then, in the South Carolina primary, the Clintons stumbled on the race issue, allowing Obama to be viewed as sufficiently black to garner the overwhelming support of African-American voters. When that happened, Hillary suddenly became popular with blue-collar white males. Only a black man could've accomplished that!

Team Obama out-organized, out-energized, and out-strategized team Hillary. Frankly, we here at the Curmudgeon wish it had ended up the other way around, with Hillary winning by a small margin and then offering the vice presidency to Obama. That would've worked. But for all the mistakes team Hillary made, for all they got out-maneuvered, there was one mistake that was fatal: the failure to plan for and organize the caucus states.

For the all the post hoc moaning and whining of Hillary supporters about the "unfairness" of the caucus system, we should remember that when this started, Hillary assumed she'd be the beneficiary of caucuses dominated by party activists and insiders--the liberal elite. Little did she know she was going to become the NASCAR candidate. In the end, Hillary lost in the nomination in the caucus states, but not because of any unfairness. It was, instead, bad strategy. Her campaign took those states for granted and never bothered to organize them properly, leaving a huge opening for Obama. Future campaigns should take heed.

Childhood Obesity: Help Parents With Portion Sizes

The Washington Post yesterday launched a five-part series on childhood obesity in America. Although the Curmudgeon kids are skinny, this is an issue of interest to us as we see so many young children whose future is already being robbed by struggles with weight and obesity, including many of the kids in our soccer programs.

The Post series is important, but like many debates about obesity and its causes, it mixes together a lot of disparate information, much of which is mere noise. A good deal of the confusion comes from advice about what constitutes good nutrition, versus what will keep kids from getting fat.

Our youngest child undoubtedly has poor nutrition in his diet. He avoids vegetables and has a huge sweet-tooth. But he is small for his age, and skinny. That may in part be due to the struggle to get enough protein in him. But his diet is not going to make him fat, because he eats very little of anything. He's also incredibly physically active.

The point is, you can have a bad diet--nutritionally--without getting fat. Conversely, you can have good nutrition and still be overweight.

The weight issue is a function of how MUCH one eats. As the Post notes today, the difference between what an average person consumes each day and what is burned off by physical activity is about 100 calories. Doesn't sound like much, but over a year that's 36,500 calories, or about 18 days worth of excess food for an adult woman! (Adult women consume approximately 2000 calories per day on average.)

For many who are obese, that calorie gap is actually a good deal higher, too.

In today's article, the Post explored the government's failure to do much about the childhood obesity epidemic. But really, most of the potential actions mentioned in the Post wouldn't accomplish any reduction in obesity. More nutritional labelling, or eliminating trans-fats, or restricting soda machines in schools--none gets at the root problem of people simply eating too much.

What would help? We don't have all the answers, but parents desperately need some easy to use, practical guides to how much food their children should be eating, and they need help getting servings of the proper portion size.

Let's take McDonald's, ubiquitously blamed (for good reason) for America's obesity epidemic. There's no reason you couldn't take your child to McDonald's and get a reasonably sized meal that the kid would like. But the way Mickie-D's is set up, it ain't easy.

For a typical 10-year-old boy, a basic McD's single cheeseburger, with a SMALL packet of fries and a 10 oz. soda would be fine. Sure, it's nice to fantasize about having the child eat something more nutritious, with maybe fruit juice and some real vegetables, but let's start by getting the portion right and then work on the content. The government, and nutritionists, doctors, public health experts, etc., would do parents a huge favor by telling them that such a meal would be okay, instead of saying "don't eat fast food." In other words, the single cheeseburger with a few fries is MUCH better than the "value" meal with Big Mac, "medium" fries and 20 oz. drink pictured above.

Then we'd also have to get McDonald's to make that meal easily available to parents at a price competitive with their larger, calorie-packed meals. Again, if the government were in a position to identify what WOULD be appropriate for McD's (and other fast food outlets) to give a kid as a meal, then maybe they'd comply, or could be embarassed into doing the right thing.

Perhaps the government could also develop a standard system for labelling portions, with an attractive seal of approval for those approved for kids of a certain age.

It would also help to have labels that say something is NOT approved for kids of a certain age. We'd love to see labels on ALL packaged drinks--not just sodas (juice has a lot of calories too)--with more than 10 ounces saying they are inappropriate for children. Other packaged foods could earn similar labels.

You'd be surprised how many parents think they are giving their kids the right-sized portion when they aren't, just out of ignorance. (At our local Wendy's, the "small" combo meal comes with a 16 ounce drink and what used to be called a "large" fries; a lot of parents probably think that looks okay compared to the even bigger other options.)

There are probably other ways to give parents more practical advice on HOW MUCH food is appropriate for their children. We should look for opportunities to help.