A little background: I'm a lobbyist in Washington, DC, and I got my start here working for a national presidential campaign. From up close, I think I say with some authority that the murky legal status of online poker is due to these fundamental political realities:

1) There are not many elected officials sympathetic to libertarian arguments, even in the Republican party. This is why I've long felt that the PPA's (pre-D'Amato) policy arguments were so politically ineffective.

2) Churchgoing Protestants and Catholics are the backbone of the Republican coalition, but also a constituency that Democrats are going after in earnest. An Ohio "swing voter" is probably the Catholic, church going wife of a union worker. Democrats might persuade her on economics if they can convince her that they don't like cultural permisiveness.
see, e.g. http://www.slate.com/id/2148547/
see especially http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...642649,00.html

3) Being "against gambling" is a way for elected officials of all political stripes to appeal to the aforementioned voters' concerns about social permisiveness. Notably, the two most articulate proponents of a sensible online regulatory scheme are secular liberals Robert Wexler and Barney Frank. Neither of these gentlemen play well with the church-going mom in Ohio.

4) There is a generational divide among "values voters" on the morality of gambling, including online poker. Case in point: my evangelical Christian 62 year old mother (who is a lovely woman) believes gambling is always morally wrong and detests my online poker playing. Meanwhile, my evangelical Christian 29 year old sister has worked for (youth dominated) Christian organizations that have "Poker Nights" all the time.

5) The key to a sensible regulatory scheme regarding online poker is based on politically convincing people akin to my mom that at least some forms of gambling are not seedy and evil. We know this is possible, as young, otherwise conservative people already tend to take this view. Some possible set of political circumstances could hasten this generational transition.

6) Jerry Yang is the PERFECT poker ambassador for these people. He's a family man, a church goer, and a guy who's going to be asked in EVERY interview for one year about online gambling's legal status. Hearing from this religious dad is going to have a really major impact.

7) And think about this: Chris Moneymaker (hard-drinking frat boy-type), Greg Raymer (nice guy, but one spouting libertarian arguments that don't work), Joe Hachem (nice guy, but professional gambler), and Jamie Gold (cocky Hollywood type) do not appeal to moms in Ohio the way a religious father does.

8) So much of politics and legislation is based not upon logical validity, but anecdote and "optics." Jerry Yang's personal story is part of a political story that can be told in the coming debates about poker regulation.

Again, he's PERFECT.

Knights,

You make an interesting argument here. But, your betting on one thing that may or may not happen. Since Yang is a religious man, you are assuming that he'll be able to connect on some wavelength with the "Mom's in Ohio" group (maybe better defined as the group of people who have no interest in gambling). I think many people who don't gamble are anti-gambling. They will just assume that Yang has been seduced by the greed of gambling, and is a man that needs to be saved, more than anything.

Really, I think you've had a string of great ME champions for this. Most of these men are famly guys who make a good case. Most pro gambling people are libertarian in ideals, so it makes sense that those are the arguments.

If you want to wish for a great champ, wish for an average attractive (not ugly, not beautiful) woman who is educated and well spoken to win. This is the sort of person that could reach an entirely new group, and show that gambling isn't that bad.

I think we have to realize. Many of these people equate poker with their husbands going down the street, smoking cigars, getting hammered, and looking at naked women in magazines. There is nothing wholesome about it. I think we've brought some very good guys to the forefront, but they can't reach everyone. In many ways, a woman winning (or even just going very deep), might do a lot more than someone throwing Jesus's name around during a gambling event.

Yang was just more blatant about it.

Did he qualify for the ME online, or in a casino...I think in a casino, yes? Does he play online?

I didn't see what Yang actually did...Sounds like he recited a prayer while playing...if he did its really no different from what a lot of football teams used to do...where they got down on 1 knee in a group and asked for a blessing...Its just he had the balls and the faith to do it by himself...Its interesting how those 2 go together....

When football teams pray they usually pray that they play their best and that no one gets hurt. Yang was saying he would glorify God if he could just hit the card that he needed.

most christian churches don't even accept donations from gambling winnings, so again i doubt this affects anyone.

and why does it matter if the "Ohio mom" is appealed to.. this isn't really the target audience

If you are going to sin by playing poker, might as well do it in the name of the lord.

I think Yang may bring new fish, or a new type of fish. But, I disagree that he helps us politically in any way.

The swing voters are not on the fence because they are undecided on whether or not online poker should have it's own carve out (or regulation, or back to the way it was, or whatever it is that online poker players need) they are undecided on things that they feel are MUCH more important.

Online poker is in the most unfair court our country has to offer...the court of Public Opinion. In this court, you are guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not enough to be proven innocent, there has to be NO DOUBT whatsoever.

So, when someone "clicks their mouse, and loses their house" that sticks in these voters mind for virtually the rest of their lives. Come on, you know people like this...."they're everywhere." They are the predominant amount of voters.