It's only May, but I like the trend lines.

Great, so we're replacing a meaningless national poll against Clinton with a meaningless national poll against McCain. But I guess it keeps us occupied.

And yes, it drives narrative, yada yada.

Stilton appears to be engaged in a conversation with himself.

Sadly, even himself doesn't seem all that convinced of what s/he's saying.

This is great news for Obama. As he pivots towards McCain. McCain will be exposed as the old Washington insider he is.

No no no to Obama-Clinton ticket. She'd be no good as second in command. She wouldn't like it and she'd always be fighting (after all, that's her own self-description). Plus, honestly, most non-democrats hate her passionately. She'd be an albatross around his neck (I really disagree with her self-assessment that she's more electable than Obama. I think had she won the nomination, the Republicans would be frothing at the mouth). Plus she's got Bill attached to her. No way. Plus she's about the past and he's about the future. And really, neither one of them has a ton of executive experience. He would do well to have a governor as VP.

Interesting on gender, age, and race. Race SHOULDN'T matter - I think its been as close to proven as possible that there are no real differences between races other than fairly innocuous physical differences like skin color, eye-shape, etc. And some cultural differences that have evolved over time but are far from static or uniform. And don't exist when the cultures aren't different.

But age and gender are REAL. Men and women are different. Biologically, hormonally, emotionally. Not that one is better or more qualified or capable than the other. Both have enormous strengths and weaknesses. But the differences are real. I think that both need to be represented at the highest levels of leadership and we should have had a woman president by now. And probably will soon. But not this year. Wrong woman, sorry. There have been excellent leaders from both genders, but they're not the same and voters of both sexes can and will take these real differences into account.

Age is also REAL. I've been young and I've been middle aged and they're not the same. I have friends and relatives who are or have been old (I hope to get there myself some day) and they ASSURE me that its not the same either. I've known some enormously capable, energetic, and wise old folks who would make great leaders. And many who aren't and wouldn't. McCain seems very very on top of his game, but when the old-age slide starts, it can be a quick descent. His mother is an indication that he's built for old-age, but only an indication. There's nothing wrong with taking this into account. I've known some old folks with tremendous wisdom, but I don't know that I've ever met one who is as flexible a thinker as they were when they were younger. These times may require flexibility and age is a very real consideration - it's not discrimination.

Some differences are real, some are imagined - we should be able to talk honestly about them, no?

As Hillary becomes more and more a remote memory, the polls of the democrat versus the republican will look starker and starker for McCain. Obama's election will be a historic landslide.

That's Hillary's Plan B, can you say Trojan Horse?

Time to pass the torch.
The republicans obviously don't know how to do it.
Hopefully, the Democratic party will be able to show them how it's done.

The republican playbook isn't going to work this year. People are tired of distractions, and Obama seems more reasonable on foreign policy than John "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" McCain.

I think McCain's vast experience would be an asset in this election if he were running as Legislator In Chief, but it's not going to be effective when compared to the contrasting theme of Judgment which Obama successfully used to counter Hillary's claim to the same.

Moreover, the Distraction Du Jour that was becoming the lovechild of republican operatives--the "Pastor's Gone Wild" meme-- isn't playing well in a places where it was born to succeed: the deep south. We'll get a barometer of that strategy in the Childers special election contest in Mississippi today.

This election is shaping up to be Obama's to lose. Ultimately, I have faith in his campaign to win the day. Particularly when the media stops swooning over the "Maverick" and starts spotlighting his troublesome gaffes.

two great videos that will get endless play for the next six months...lying joe whispers "al quaeda is sunni" and hunched john posits "make it a hundred years"....and there are probably more to come

If Obama chose Hillary as Veep, I would have serious doubts about his judgment.

McCain leads on . . . who has better knowledge of world affairs (65%-24%)

A tribute to the mainstream media's cover-up of McSame's inability to distinguish between Sunnis and Shiites.

By contrast (for those of you old enough to remember), consider the uproar when President Ford said that Poland wasn't under Soviet domination in 1976. In fairness, I think Ford misspoke and was trying to make the point that Poland shouldn't be under Soviet domination. McSame did not misspeak. He repeated the same statement over and over again and clearly has no clue. But, outside of the blogosphere, where is the uproar?

Considering the same tortured logic . . . The SECOND TO THE LAST idiot standing should be Vice President. We should be arguing that McCain should choose Ron Paul . . . Hey! Gravel is still in the race! Obama NEEDS Gravel. Gravel failed way earlier and hung in there longer without hope. Choosing Clinton is Obama choosing his battering spouse just cuz she's a loser.

There are over 100 million Democrats. Any of them would be a better choice than Clinton . . . including the ditto-head-like Clinton devotee . . . gotNOlife.

Is this "change" in the sense of positive, clearly identified and achievable goals, or is this "change" in the sense of ABR (Anybody But a Republican)?

Because for the life of me I haven't been able to figure out what Obama wants to change and why, let alone how he would go about doing it. And since "change" is such a general term, I wonder if he is elected whether he and his supporters will justify anything they wish to do under the banner of a "Mandate for Change". I'd really like to see some specifics. It's like going to the hospital and the doctors telling you they're going to "change" some things inside you, and it would be really nice to know what the heck they're planning on changing exactly. I mean, I like my arms, legs and bodily organs pretty much as they are.

you fucking idiots:

1. it's not a national vote, it will come down to FL, PA, OH and maybe MO, NH and WV. Nobody here seems to understand that.

2. the one question none of you morons ask is, maybe the superdelegates should vote for whoever they think would make the best president? Ever think of that criterion?

3. I met some Americans in a bar last night, God what a bunch of fucking dolts. But you people are 3x more doltish, at least these clowns had the gumption and ambition to get out of the US for a change.

It's funny so many are balking at the Clinton/Obama ticket, when just today:

"A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that 55% of Democrats want Sen. Barack Obama to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate."

It's sad and strange to see so many of us political-junkies completely missread what the voters want. The majority of voters aren't reading TPM, nor Eschaton, nor any other blog. They're wanting to kill the GOP in November, and it seems that they think the best way is to have both powerhouses smash their machine down the throat of McCain.

time to get rid of the pollster graph (at least the republican one) on the right with mccain-obama