Hillary Clinton is helping Barack Obama.

Let's say for the sake of argument--and only for the sake of argument--that Barack Obama is on his way to becoming the Democratic nominee. Weeks ago, when the GOP race basically ended and McCain became the presumed GOP nominee, pundits were suggesting that the Democrats would be at a disadvantage because their hard-fought nominee contest was going to continue for weeks, if not months. McCain and the Republicans, they said, would have extra months to prepare for the general election, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be left behind, punching and poking at each other.

Yet so far that prediction--like many this political season--has not come true. McCain has not reached cruising altitude. Instead, he has been drawn into intra-conservative squabbling. Prominent rightwingers continue to decry him. And this week, McCain got into a fight with a rightwing radio host in Cincinnati. Talk about a unpresidential sideshow. This battle previewed a problem McCain may well have throughout the general election: rightwingers with extreme views of the Democratic candidate--whether it is Clinton or Obama--will be mounting extreme assaults on the Democrat, and McCain may find himself repeatedly in the position of having to distance himself from such attacks. This will peeve his reluctant supporters on the right.

Meanwhile, Obama is contending with Clinton, a first-class and topflight rival. As Tuesday night's debate demonstrated, Obama is getting better as a debater and as a candidate. Competition often is good. In this case, it has pushed Obama to improve his performance in the debates. This was once a weak link in his chain. In earlier debates, he often was tentative and not all that persuasive. In the past two debates, though, he was firm, confident, smooth.

Being challenged by Clinton--in and out of the debates--has forced Obama to hone his already-attractive message. On Tuesday night, he had a good response to her (and others') claim that all his talk of hope and unity is naive:

I am absolutely clear that hope is not enough. And it is not going to be easy to pass health care. If it was, it would have already gotten done. It's not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up those profits easily.

But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we're going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they're paying attention to what their government is doing. And that's what I've been doing in this campaign, and that's what I will do as president.

And there's nothing romantic or silly about that. If the American people are activated, that's how change is going to happen.

With this reply, Obama connected his hope-mongering to practical politics. It was an effective formulation of his general campaign pitch--one he will need if he wins the Democratic contest. All the trench warfare with Clinton has strengthened Obama. He will fare better against McCain--should it come to that--because of it.

BYE-BYE BLOOMBERG. I've repeatedly said that I doubted Michael Bloomberg would run for president (particularly because the billionaire apparently had nothing substantial to say about the Iraq war) and even chided my fellow CQ blogger Richard Whalen for pining for the New York City mayor. Recently, a Bloomberg associate told me that Bloomberg was utterly obsessed with running for president--that he talked about it incessantly, that he was poring over polling data and other information related to a possible presidential bid, that he really, really, really wanted to run. But the businessman has yielded to reality, and today, Bloomberg pulled the plug on his nonexistent presidential campaign. Richard, sorry, you'll have to find another dreamboat.

We interrupt political reality--such as the impending Iowa caucuses--to bring you this....

A few days ago, David Broder, Washington Post columnist and reporter and unofficial dean of the DC press corps, offered another heartfelt cry for political unity. In a page 4 news story, he noted,

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Broder was hyping an effort for which he has much affection. But it's hard to take this endeavor--and this pining for beyond-D-and-R politics--seriously. First, the poohbahs of unity participating in this January 7 confab at the University of Oklahoma include former Democratic Senators Sam Nunn, Chuck Robb, David Boren, and Gary Hart, former Republican Senator John Danforth, former GOP New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and current Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. A few on this list are political has-beens. (Quick name Robb's greatest accomplishment. It might be having kept Oliver North out of the Senate.)

And some of these political unitarians have stains on their crossing-the-aisle credentials. Danforth is a decent fellow, but he guided Clarence Thomas through his Supreme Court nomination process, thus giving tremendous power to one of the most polarizing ideologues to sit on the highest court. That was hardly striking a blow for unity government! And Whitman, when she served as George W. Bush's first EPA administrator, provided moderate cover to the Bush administration's do-nothing extremism on global warming and other environmental matters. In other words, when she had a chance to make a difference, she punted. It's tough now to give a damn about anything she has to say about the decline of governance and political discourse.

But the real reason not to be too impressed by this bunch: Iraq. That word does not appear in Broder's article once. The war is the most pressing matter facing the nation and the next administration. What would these folks--who supposedly are preparing to back Bloomberg or another nonpartisan and independent candidate--do about it? For that matter, what would Bloomberg? He has said precious little about the war. When he does, I will consider him a serious independent presidential contender. But until then, Bloomberg and the others are just playing at nonpartisan politics. The guys and gal running in the Democratic and Republican primaries each have had to address the issue.

So don't order your Bloomberg bumperstickers yet. For now, it's back to the real world and waiting to see which of the partisan candidates will be taken seriously by the people who count the most: the voters.

I can see the ad:

Would you vote for a political candidate who said that Christians not in his church were following 'the spirit of the Antichrist'? Of course not. Now, what would you vote for a candidate who eagerly accepted the endorsement of someone who said that?

Or a press conference in which Rudy Giuliani is asked:

* Do you believe Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists represent the spirit of the Antichrist?

* Do you believe liberal Jews are mounting an ongoing attempt to undermine the public strength of Christianity?

* Do you believe Hinduism is devil worship?

For Pat Robertson has indeed said all of that. (I've placed his actual quotes in italics.)

Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is a perfect marriage of expedience--and it showed that neither fellow will let principle get in the way of politics. You know the drill. Giuliani supports gay rights and even used to--gasp!--live with a gay couple. Robertson considers homosexuality a deadly sin and once said that God directed a hurricane at Orlando and Disney World to punish both for permitting Gay Days at the theme park. Giuliani favors abortion rights. Robertson believes abortion is mass-murder (and that God, because he was pissed off at abortion in America, allowed 9/11 to happen). And there's more; Giuliani was mayor of a diverse metropolis. Robertson is a bigot and, to be blunt, nuts. As I detailed here, in addition to crudely denigrating religions other than his own, Robertson has peddled absurd, theology-driven conspiracy theories. In 1992, he wrote a book claiming that there was a global plot of elites to create a one-world government that would wipe out Christianity and that Satan, naturally, was behind this secret scheme. One prominent actor in this conspiracy: President George H.W. Bush. I kid you not.

So Giuliani is welcoming the support of a fellow who's view of global politics is about as reality-based as that of Lyndon LaRouche. (And I'm not even bothering with Robertson's shady business dealings. Anyone who was tight with Bernard Kerik cannot be expected to be vigilant about such matters.)

This partnership shows that neither man really cares about the core issues. Robertson equates abortion with murder, but he's willing to help an abortion-enabler become president. Giuliani says he is concerned about the troubles of gay Americans, but he's willing to get in bed with a fellow who believes homosexuals are an abomination (and are coming for your children!). Sure, politics is often about bridging differences. But when a politico abandons a foundational position, it tells you he or she is not to be trusted.

This move could prove to be trouble for both. Robertson looks pretty craven in signing up with Giuliani. And other social conservative leaders are not going to let this pass quietly. My favorite email of Wednesday came from a religious right group called Campaign for Children and Families:

Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading West Coast pro-family organization, condemns the selling out of family values in the U.S. presidential race by national pro-family leaders, such as Pat Robertson, who today endorsed liberal Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.

It's well known in New York City that former mayor Rudy Giuliani marched in "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" parades, held "lesbian and gay pride breakfasts" at Gracie Mansion, dressed up several times as a woman, led the hijacking of marriage rights at New York City Hall, and personally demeaned marriage by divorcing his first two wives and committing adultery.

Yes, you should fear lesbian-pride flapjacks.

Certainly, CCF is no major mover in the conservative movement. But if I were James Dobson, the Focus on the Family leader and bigtime social con, I'd be saying, "Now, here's an opportunity...." Robertson's slice of the Christian right--once known as the mighty Christian Coalition--has been withering for years. This desperate attempt to get on board with a winner (who's no Mormon) may end up being the self-inflicted wound that takes Robertson out of the game.

As for Mr. 9/11, good luck now persuading moderate suburban voters in Ohio you're not in league with yahoo conservatives who care more about creationism than education, who would rather round up gays than lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The Robertson endorsement discredits both endorser and endorsee. Liberals, Democrats, and secularists ought to thank God for it.

DREAM ON. Richard Whalen, my fellow CQ blogger, keeps pining for the perfect candidate to enter the 2008 race. First, it was retired John Abizaid. More recently, it's Michael Bloomberg. Yet Bloomberg has said he's not interested in running. And I believe him for one simple reason: this fellow has said virtually nothing about what promises to be the primary issue of the general election--the Iraq war. Currently, the war is not defining the election. The leading Democrats agree that the war should be ended. The leading Republicans back the present course. So there's not been much debate within each of the parties' presidential contests (despite Dennis Kucinich's and Ron Paul's best efforts).

But after the nominees become clear, the war will likely become the number-one fight of the campaign. And what would Bloomberg's position be? Would he take a stand: leave Iraq or stay there? If he choses one stance or the other, he will divide that vote. But could he straddle the two sides? That could be tough task, policy-wise and politically. The fact that Bloomberg so far has no clear policy regarding Iraq signals he's not seriously pondering a run. Whalen should find someone else to dream of.