The Denver Post reports on news for protesters headed to the Democratic National Convention:

The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today. That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

That's how it was done by the Democrats in 2000 as well. If you follow the link you can see a picture of how that scene looked. I doubt you'd find too many people opposed to basic security measures, but is that the scene Barack Obama wants during convention week?

One campaign theme I've reiterated several times here is that John McCain and Barack Obama will be attacked on grounds that are perceived to be their greatest strengths.

The Democratic attacks on John McCain's military service has now become too frequent and well-chronicled to be brushed off as coincidence. Yesterday, Wesley Clark drew the ire of the McCain campaign (and likely many supporters) for questioning whether McCain's service qualified him to be president. As National Review's Jim Geraghty writes:

After statements by a half-dozen high-profile Democrats and Obama surrogates, you cannot persuade me that there is not a concerted effort on the part of Obama Democrats to criticize McCain on his war record. George McGovern, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Democratic congressional candidate Bill Gillespie, Ed Schultz, Tony McPeak, and now Clark. Way too many to be coincidence.

And the attack umbrella extends beyond Democratic politicians. Highly influential AMERICAblog's John Aravosis says McCain accomplished nothing while serving in the military, other than being tortured and throws this low-blow in for good measure:

A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?

On one hand, these attacks come from partisans not to be confused with objective observers. On the other hand, these are many of the same people who have loudly complained about John Kerry being "swiftboated" in the last campaign.

I'll be on the Fox News Channel today at 1:20pmEST discussing John McCain and the judiciary. Are conservative judicial activists warming up to McCain after his opposition to recent Supreme Court rulings on prisoner rights at Guantanamo Bay and new restrictions on the death penalty?

Those two SCOTUS decisions, along with the recent second amendment ruling, allowed McCain an opportunity to reassure conservative judicial activists and he largely succeeded.  The "Gang of 14" is still unpopular with conservatives who focus on judicial matters, but his role in supporting the group actually enhances McCain's crossover appeal with moderate and independent voters. In reality, it's also now good for Republicans in general, because of Democratic congressional majorities.

Unfortunately for McCain, he has the same problem on the bench as he does with the gun rights question; both issues are and have been ascendant for conservatives the past several years, diluting their potency as wedge issues.  His challenge here is simply to hold voters who are motivated by judicial issues, rather than having them sit this election out.

Charles Krauthammer continues the conservative line on Obama's policy shifts and says:

By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

So, is creating a negative Obama/Clinton association the new way for conservatives to attack Obama, or is it more a media creation? Salon's Joan Walsh says the media may have fairly criticized Bill Clinton during the primaries, but should back off:

Clinton has finally listened to his critics, left the spotlight to his wife, and nursed his grievances in private -- and he's still getting criticized!

Over at the Commentary magazine blog, Max Boot argues that Iraq will need a large American military presence for many years to come. He uses the comparison of U.S. troops stationed in Geramny and Japan to make his case, while allowing:

Granted, the enemies that Iraq faces aren't as formidable as the enemies that West Germany faced for so many decades, but Al Qaeda, Iran, and its various proxies are dangerous enough, and Iraq isn't nearly as strong as West Germany was.

No doubt Boot was looking for a fight when he entitled his post, "Klein and Sullivan." Sure enough, Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein have responded, arguing that Boot is comparing  "apples helium balloons," by measuring Iraq against post WWII Germany. That's certainly a legitimate line of criticism,  but isn't it also a bit shortsighted to assume that any American presence in Iraq will be rejected by its populace and manifested in the form of continued insurgent attacks?

While all three men are well-versed in Middle East politics, none know exactly what is going to happen. But from an outside point of view, it seems to me equally unlikely that any U.S. presence in Iraq will result in permanent war, as does the assumption that a longterm presence in the country will be warmly received. What I'm guessing John McCain, and even to a less extent, Barack Obama, are aiming for is that point at which a drop in troops levels and a corresponding drop in violence intersect.

The Observer Group's Politicker.com has picked up two leading voices from the web 2.0 community:

The Observer Media Group has announced that Juan Melli will join Politicker.com next week as the Associate Editor. Melli founded the New Jersey-based political blog BlueJersey.com in 2005 and has since served as publisher and managing editor. He is completing a PhD in Mechanical Engineering at Princeton University. Melli will no longer write for BlueJersey.com.

Earlier this month, Justine Lam, the eCampaign Director of the Ron Paul presidential campaign, joined Politicker.com as Director of Online Marketing. She is a graduate of University of California, Berkeley, and was recently named by Politics magazine as a "rising star."

The MoveOn sponsored ad, "Not Alex," has to be my least favorite of the campaign season so far. First, it uses an underage child to score political points, which is bad enough. But it's also loaded with logical fallacies.







From the script:

"Hi, John McCain; this is Alex. He's my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog -- that, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."

Of course, John McCain won't be president by the time "Alex" is eligible to serve in the military, unless they start employing 9-year-old strike force teams. And I seem to remember something about the U.S. having an all-volunteer military. So, if baby Alex really wants to sign up, that's not his mom's decision.

Anyway, Ania Egland, wife of Eric Egland, who is running for the 4th congressional district in California, has recorded her own response to the "Not Alex" video. In the script she says:

"Hello Senator McCain, these are my precious boys Noah and Daniel. Their daddy served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I grew up under communism. So, when you say we have to protect freedom in Iraq, I understand. And, someday, I would be proud if they volunteered to serve this great country. Senator, thank you for your leadership."





At least she's acknowledging it would be her children's decision whether or not to volunteer. But using children to make an emotional argument, children who are not old enough to make up their own minds about politics, is still very bad form in my book.

I'll be on MSNBC this morning at around 11:30 to discuss Bill Clinton's reported "beef" with the Obama campaign.

In short, I'll argue that while Clinton may be upset at how his reputation was dinged during the Democratic primary, the best remedy is for him to campaign as enthusiastically for Obama as possible. Politics does not tend to be kind to those who feel sorry for themselves.

Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader is accusing Barack Obama of trying to "talk white," and appealing to "white guilt" in his quest for the White House. The immediate response has been to call Nader's comments "racially divisive." That's obvious enough. But I disagree with the quickly forming conventional wisdom that these comments are "racist" against Obama. But the comments are really racially charged against both black and white Americans. After all, Nader is literally saying that to be all things he opposes, "pro-corporate," is to be "white." At the same time, he assumes that Obama must address certain issues like poverty because he is African-American.

As Ed Morrissey writes:

I'm not here to defend Obama, but this attack is simply despicable.  It demands, as the Left often does, that minorities subjugate their own opinion for groupthink, and that they offer no deviation from the Leftist orthodoxy, lest one give up their own ethnic identity and be called a traitor merely for having their own opinions.

Protein Wisdom's Karl adds:

In short, Nader's attacks were every bit as incendiary as -- and more defective than -- the rear end of a 1975 Ford Pinto.

Focus on the Family President James Dobson is accusing Barack Obama today of "distorting" the Bible and espousing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson has also been highly critical of John McCain, whom he says may not be "conservative" enough. I use the scare quotes here because one Republican's definition of what it means to be conservative doesn't always comport with another's.

The Dobson attack is a good development for McCain, in so much that it takes the heat off of him and places it on Obama. McCain will never get the high-profile evangelical endorsements that he wants, but second-party attacks on Obama may be even more effective for his cause. As we saw in the 2004 general election with the battle over gay marriage, negative campaigning often drives more voters to the polls than a positive agenda. Secondly, I don't believe McCain needs to worry too much about getting Dobson's endorsement. He'd probably have to spend more time defending the endorsement than bragging about it, and there's just not a lot of evidence that endorsements from any public figures, even those in the evangelical community, sway too many voters. Besides, McCain is already scoring a solid majority of evangelical voters in polls. His fairly recent conversion to the Baptist faith could help him in the South as well (along with helpful campaigning from Mike Huckabee).

Is John McCain's $300 million prize for car battery innovation a stunt? The proposal would give the prize money to whoever can come up with a viable car battery that is produced at 30 percent of the current of the costs. Critics say McCain's "energy prize" is a gimmick, but it's probably the first such plan that offers a high enough dollar total to match the innovation required to make such a proposal work. After all, the U.S. government is only offering $25 million for information leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Nation's like Europe have been offering prizes for innovation for years and with some success.  And as Jonathan H. Adler writes in National Review:

Another virtue of government prizes is that tax-payer dollars only get spent if the prize goals are met. Traditional subsidies, on the other hand, are paid out up front. Doled out in accord with politically determined criteria, and often awarded to the most politically connected firms, traditional subsidies often fail to generate anything approaching a positive economic return.

Today's biggest political story is Newsweek's new poll showing Barack Obama with a 15-point-lead over John McCain. Given that we're also mourning the death of legendary comedian George Carlin today, it's only appropriate that we call out this poll, and the treatment it has received in the press today, for its absurdity.

Progressive blogs like Daily Kos have been blogging about the Newsweek poll findings today, but it's conservative blogs who have been digging through the poll's methodology. After all, nearly every other poll has Obama up between 2 and 5 points. As Outside the Beltway's James Joyner writes:

Newsweek has huge swings from month-to-month that just aren't showing up in the other polls. Simply put, there's either something serious wrong with their methodology or that of all the other major polls.

The problem with Newsweek's methodology is that they vastly oversampled Democrats in the poll compared to Republicans. Granted, there should be some degree weighted sampling in favor of Democrats, considering national poll numbers. But most of that shift will already be represented in independent sampling, where Obama has a measured advantage. Conservatives have often complained about Republicans being unfairly undersampled in national media polls. Newsbusters says this is no exception:

As the reader should suspect, the poll questioned more Democrats than Republicans: 231 Republicans to 324 Democrats, plus 307 independents

So, if the poll was so poorly conducted, why no outcries from the McCain campaign? Well, McCain does relish the "underdog" role, so maybe that's part of it. The other major political story of the day is about how McCain's monthly fundraising for May was on par with Obama's. Maybe the McCain campaign wants to use the underdog status to further prod those sometimes reluctant Republican fundraisers who seem to be coming on board?

Over at National Review, Byron York writes that there is a "fundamental misunderstanding, perhaps willful in some cases," of what it means to be "swiftboated" by the political opposition:

Today, there is a tendency to describe any criticism of Barack Obama as "swiftboating."  So far, it's been a pretty effective attack pre-emption device.  But it has nothing to do with "swiftboating"; you can't just "swiftboat" somebody.  Now, if all of the pastors who worked with Obama when he was a community organizer in Chicago came together to criticize his behavior back then, that would qualify.  But until something like that happens, could everyone -- at least those not working for the Obama campaign or the DNC -- dispense with the "swiftboating" talk?

I largely agree with York, both that Obama's surrogates have been effective is employing the term as an attack on Obama's attackers, and that the term itself is not used in a way that properly references its origins.

But there's another problem with the revisionist history that goes into discussing the actual impact of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Democrats, liberals in general, and large segments of the media, have created a narrative in which John Kerry was unfairly attacked, or, "swiftboated," over his Vietnam record, and that he would be president today if not for those unfair and inaccurate allegations.

In reality, the Swift Boat attacks came in two stages. The first stage sought to question Kerry's war record. Most of those attacks were allegations largely based on personal accounts from 30 years ago. So, if liberals want to decry that form of "swiftboating," that's probably fair. But the second, and far more effective public relations battle waged against Kerry concerned what he did after returning from Vietnam. Those attacks were rooted entirely in factual evidence, including video of Kerry's testimony before Congress that Democrats themselves used to promote his biography.

So, swiftboating has lost both its original context and meaning. You might then say that the Obama campaign, and its many surrogates, have succeeded in swiftboating the actual Swift Boat Vets.

The media and the two presidential campaigns are swept up in a debate today over whether Barack Obama broke his word by opting out of the public financing system for the general election. Yesterday, the argument was technically won by McCain. But the upside for Team Obama is that very few low intensity voters seem to feel strongly about the campaign finance issue and there's no history of a single-issue voting bloc either. After all, if there was, we'd probably be marking the end of McCain's second term, not his fight to start his first.

Ultimately, this should be good news for McCain, who has come under criticism from liberal blogs, who allege that he is continuing to break the CFR laws during the primary season, which technically continues until this summer's conventions.



Today, the argument has shifted somewhat. The best conventional wisdom understands that Obama did this because it was the most pragmatic move for him to make. As David Brooks writes, it would  cause more concern if Obama were to sacrifice his greatest campaign advantage to keep a "promise" that almost no one cares about. But it also fits the growing meme that he will sacrifice allies and principles if it helps further his political ambition.

To that end, Rick Klein, author of ABC's The Note, says Obama is Bush, McCain is Kerry:

It's Barack Obama who is running for George Bush's third term, while John McCain just might be pursuing John Kerry's first.

Obama also takes some harsh criticism from the Washington Post editorial pages. They go after McCain a little too, but not until the end of the piece.

While the Post editorial may be a little heavy-handed, it's not quite as bad as Keith Olbermann's distorted take on the debate last night. Olbermann danced around the facts to argue that Obama had never offered to engage in a discussion with McCain about public financing, when multiple sources indicate otherwise.

OLBERMANN:  Mr. McCain has tried to make this about Obama's word and it sounded a little bit like, I don't know, the bride jolted that the altar or something here.  But it seems that Obama fulfilled that word, he agreed to negotiate the thing with McCain, obviously, that didn't work.  Is the McCain version of this dependent on really severe oversimplification of this whole thing?

If Olbermann wanted to make a more convincing argument, he should have followed the lead of progressive blogs like Talking Points Memo, who focus on McCain's alleged own transgressions with real evidence, rather than making a weak theoretical argument. After all, a broken law should be more damning than a broken promise.

UPDATE: Robert A. George has an excellent post railing against both candidates, the "frick and frack" of reform.

Ground Game is taking a mini vacation and will return this Thursday. See you then.

I have a story on the CQ Politics main site today about how Democrats are working to make Arizona a swing state even with John McCain headlining the Republican ticket. Dems are so confident they believe they will have the advantage this fall if their popular governor, Janet Napolitano is selected as Barack Obama's running mate.

Townhall's Matt Lewis has a post today catching Time's Jay Carney misidentifying the source of the Michelle Obama "whitey" rumors. While Carney was appearing on MSNBC he claimed that conservative bloggers were to blame for spreading the rumor (video here). Of course, anyone following the story knows that's exactly wrong.

Before correcting Carney, there are two points worth making. First, is that he was on TV, where unintentional slips happen all the time. However, he hasn't corrected himself yet either, so maybe he is in fact saying things on air without knowing what it is he's actually talking about. Which brings up the second point: this is not the first time Carney has been caught in a mistake by bloggers. Both he and fellow Swampland blogger Joe Klein have had their share of foul-ups with both the conservative and liberal sides of the blogosphere. Maybe it's an old-school journalism, "boy's club" thing, as Time's female bloggers haven't run into the same traps.

But back to the original point. The Obama campaign has received much attention in the past few days for its new website dedicated to addressing rumors about the candidate. On a side note, can someone please retire the word "smear" from the online debate? It really has become the "Hey Ya!" of the blogger lexicon.

Anyway, as Lewis points out, it was liberal blogger, and former CIA operative, Larry Johnson who was most recently circulating the Michelle Obama "whitey" rumors. Fellow Democrat Bob Beckel also hyped the video during a Fox News appearance. And it was Daily Kos himself, one of the least likely individuals to show restraint or a nuanced point of view, who yesterday acknowledged that National Review's Jim Geraghty, played a major role in tearing down the "whitey" rumors.


UPDATE: Carney apologizes for his mistake

I'll be on News Chanel 8 tonight at 7:30pm discussing the presidential election. You can watch the broadcast online here.

*Appearances are subject to change due to breaking news, etc.

Barack Obama has come under scrutiny from the media and conservative bloggers for what they see as hypocrisy from a candidate who has attacked John McCain for his ties to lobbyists. That's because two of the three people (Jim Johnson, Eric Holder) working to screen Obama's possible running mates have close ties to the industry and the "old style" politics Obama frequently attacks.

As I've often noted here, a candidate's perceived strengths often become targeted weaknesses in the heat of a campaign. The best, most recent example being John McCain, who has largely risen to prominence for his passionate opposition to George Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, but is now tagged by Obama and other Democrats as running for Bush's "third term."

There's little evidence to suggest that either Johnson or Holder are corrupt or that Obama is ill-served by employing their talents in his VP vetting process. But conservative bloggers are  nonetheless scoring points in their attacks for two reasons. First, highlighting Obama's alleged hypocrisy on the issue pressures the mainstream media to cover the issue. The specific details may not resonate with independent or Democratic voters, but for vulnerable Republicans, any dents in the Obama armor are seen as significant victories.

But the second, and arguably stronger "victory," came in Obama's explanation of Johnson and Holder's role. Obama appeared unprepared and somewhat uncomfortable standing up to the scrutiny, which is making several conservatives optimistic, like Red State diarist "Moe," writes that Obama isn't nearly as impressive in impromptu settings:

I'm laughing too hard at the sight of watching someone who is supposed to be the second incarnation of Demosthenes fumbling his way through an explanation of how you can get somebody to do your VP pick for you while still not having them actually work for you.

UPDATE: That didn't take long. Johnson has stepped down from the VP committee.

Earlier today, Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush. It's not the first such stunt Kucinich has pulled. Last year, he tried to do the same against Dick Cheney. Nancy Pelosi herself has said that impeachment is "off the table," but it's proven itself a great attention getter for Kucinich, who hasn't done much of note since bowing out of the Democratic primaries.

All the attention may have taken out Kucinich's campaign website. But his staff is alleging that more nefarious elements may be at play. From an email sent out today:

According to officials in the re-election campaign, Kucinich website managers and staff were beginning to post detailed information about the Articles and related news stories on the website early this morning when they noticed irregularities - possibly external tampering - with various private and protected codes used to format information and to create links to photos, videos, and external websites. Within less than two hours, the entire site was non-functional.

The problems struck at a time when the website was receiving an estimated 100,000-plus hits per hour from visitors seeking additional information about the Articles of Impeachment. That volume should have been manageable, campaign officials said.

Over at the CQ Politics' VP Madness, Janet Napolitano is about to be eliminated after the first wave of reader votes. She's getting crushed by Jim Webb, 69 percent to 30 percent. That's understandable, if only because Webb is an ascendant political figure with much-higher name recognition (not everyone loves the Webb idea though).

That's too bad, because Napolitano offers Barack Obama some real assets. First, she's a governor. Second, she's a woman. And on that point, the first female re-elected as governor in Arizona. She's also reportedly gets along well with Obama.

But if you're an Obama supporter or strategist, the most appealing possibility may be the fact that Napolitano could put McCain's home state into play. Not only does that open up the electoral map and play into Obama's strength in the Western states, but it would put McCain on the defensive in what should be his most fertile ground.

The downsides? It's debatable as to whether a VP candidate can carry a state. And if Napolitano doesn't finish her term, she'd be replaced by Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer.

The Barack Obama website allows supporters (or anyone, really) to start their own blog. That led The Urban Grind blogger, "a conservative woman in Manhattan," to see just what kind of crazy blogs she could start on Obama's site. Fake blogs on the "Jewish Lobby" and 9/11 conspiracies were filtered by the site's administrators, but another, equally controversial site, made it through:

I made a page called Jemaa Islamiyah, and called myself Fatima. And sure enough, there was no message saying that my page would have to be approved by an administrator. It went up immediately. And this was back in March. I was surprised at the friendly welcoming comments I received. In fact, I even received an invitation from one guy to be a friend.

Just to refresh your memory, Jemaa Islamiyah was the group behind the Bali bombing. And just so you know, that page is still up on the Obama site.

The site content has been taken down, but it does make for an interesting debate as to how much freedom political campaigns should give to their supporters. News sites like the Washington Post have had their own issues with profane commentors. But unsavory supporters posting on candidate web sites could become the new unwanted campaign contributor/spiritual adviser. How long before we see the McCain or Obama campaigns having to explain the "support" of a political extremist who has posted something controversial on their website?

The Huffington Post talks to a few anonymous GOP "insiders" and pulls public quotes from a few other disgruntled movement conservatives about John McCain's chances in the fall. The post has generated more than 700 diggs, but there's really not much there. Why should it be news that McCain is viewed as both unpredictable and vulnerable in a general election against Obama? That unpredictability is what has been McCain's biggest liability with fellow Republicans for nearly a decade. And those same Republicans who dislike McCain have created the conditions which made his election all the more of an uphill climb.

The most accurate assessment in the piece comes not from author Thomas Edsall, but from conservative columnist Bay Buchanan who is quoted in this piece. Buchanan makes a point that is starting to gain traction in conservative circles: for whatever strengths and/or weaknesses McCain possesses, this election is about Barack Obama. That worked well for President Bush in 2004 when his strategists succeeding in making the election about John Kerry. But there's no guarantee that past success equals a winning formula for Republican candidates. Buchanan:

[I]n reality there is only one candidate.  Barack Obama.  In November he will win or he will lose.  John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama.

In a post entitled "Out for Awhile," The Moderate Voice's Pete Abel grapples with a dilemma that has afflicted several high-profile bloggers, how to walk away from the keyboard:

Shortly after I started blogging in the fall of 2006, I was surprised by the anxiety I felt whenever I faced an extended absence from this voluntary practice. Eighteen months later, I'm still surprised by that emotion. Worse: I can't explain it. There's not a shred of logic behind it. I don't get paid to blog. The world will survive just fine without my voice. So why do I experience this addict's withdrawal?

One thing that's always bothered me about the prevalent anti-Bush arguments is that they are framed on a belief that the administration is simultaneously incompetent and engaged in large-scale conspiracies meant to mislead the public.

Fred Hiatt's new column pulls excerpts from the new Democratic Senate report from the Select Committee on Intelligence that make dents into the various "Bush Lied" arguments about Iraq. Hiatt says that while Bush, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, "spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq," there is little evidence in the new report that either "lied."

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Conservative bloggers are praising the column, but considering the best outcome is that your party's leader, and our country's president, relied on false information rather than intentionally misleading, bragging rights only extend so far. Liberal bloggers are largely ignoring the column, and those that are paying attention, are using it as a pivot point to attack John McCain.

The progressive blogosphere was largely responsible for pressuring several prominent Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama, to boycott a Fox News Channel sponsored debate earlier this year. So, it's been surprising to see a few examples of praise, or even just positive citations, of the network from left-leaning blogs. It shows how divisive the primary was when Clinton supporters find solace with the same network most liberals say been a "mouthpiece" of the Bush administration. Though in fairness it also credits Fox for producing quality content even non-Clinton supporting progressive news blogs think is worth linking to.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh says she still believes Fox is staffed by "conservatives," but also says she thinks Obama will end his Fox boycott soon and praises the network for its treatment of Clinton:

There's been a progressive ban on all things Fox for a very long time, for good reasons. But I walked away from that strategy when the only fair press Clinton was getting came on Fox. That doesn't mean they'll be "fair and balanced" to the Democrats during the general election. Because we all know that Brit Hume and company are conservatives. But including Juan Williams, Fox has been fair to Clinton, which is where my prism of judgment lies right now.

Talking Points Memo also posts a video complication highlighting Fox's negative reaction to John McCain's speech on the same night Obama wrapped up the nomination fight.

Meanwhile, conservative media site Newsbusters looks at a Pew survey of political bias in cable news coverage and finds that while Democrats and Republicans are split in their preference for MSNBC:

Far more Republicans (24%) than Democrats (10%) get most of their campaign news from Fox [News Channel], while the opposite is true for CNN: 24% of Democrats look to CNN compared with just 13% of Republicans.

As has been widely reported, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama met privately in Washington yesterday. Most of the blog discussion concerns whether Clinton was lobbying for the VP spot. Could part of that bargaining be a deal with Obama helping to retire her $30M campaign debt in exchange for the help of her big fundraisers, who would pull in an estimated $50-$100M?

While Obama certainly would welcome the financial support of Clinton's backers, he's also not desperate for cash. Robert Stacy McCain muses:

This will be a chance to see how Obama, who has said he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, handles very sensitive diplomatic negotiations.

There have been a number of polls and stories about Bob Barr's potential impact on the 2008 presidential election. Specifically, how might his candidacy as the Libertarian Party's nominee affect John McCain? And more specifically, how might Barr hurt McCain in key states like Barr's home state of Georgia, and North Carolina, where he recently polled at 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

One thing I haven't seen is what actual Georgia Republicans feel about the Barr campaign. Single digit polls aren't very reliable and I find the 8 percent estimate a little hard to believe. However, when I put in a call and email to the Georgia Republican Party to ask about Barr's impact, I got a canned quote instead of the forthright interview I was asking for. Does that mean the state GOP is genuinely worried about Barr, and thus not wanting to talk about him directly? Or, are they just busy with their own campaigns? Here's the quote, for what it's worth:

"Conservatives will support Senator John McCain in November because of his commitment to lower taxes and smaller government.  He is a candidate with the judgment and experience we need in a Commander in Chief.  The choice in November will be clear and Georgia voters will support Senator McCain and his agenda to deliver the right change for America."

Sue P. Everhart

Chairman, Georgia Republican Party

It's being reported this afternoon that Barack Obama has decided to keep Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. CQ's Emily Cadei also reports that the DNC will abide by Obama's rules on lobbyist donations.

In short, it's a good move by Obama. First, Dean's 50 state strategy has become extremely popular with state party chairs. Second, it would be hard to fire Dean after the Democrats' huge wins in 2006, even if that success likely had little to do with Dean's 50 state strategy. Dean himself has said the effects of his plan aren't likely to be seen for a few more years at the earliest. Retaining Dean also will please the netroots, who like Obama, but haven't always felt the endearment was reciprocated.

The reaction so far from progressive bloggers have been mostly positive. I agree with Ari Berman's general assessment of how Dean and Obama complement each other:

Dean and Obama complement each other in unlikely ways, with many Dean insiders viewing Obama's campaign as Dean 2.0, the next iteration of the grassroots-fueled, people-powered, bottom-up, web-savvy operation that Dean pioneered in 2003-2004.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr appeared on The Colbert Report last night to discuss his anti-libertarian views while serving as a Republican member of Congress:

My CQ Politics blogging colleague David Nather brought first news yesterday of Barack Obama and Joe Lieberman chatting in the Senate chamber yesterday. We still don't know the exact details of the conversation (Iran?) but we're learning a little more about the tone:

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Joe Gandelman says that even though most Democrats now despise Lieberman, his support of McCain and criticism of Obama could have an effect on Jewish voters:

with Lieberman attacking him, essentially taking on the role of the Zell Miller of 2008, it could hurt Obama's efforts to make inroads with Jewish voters.

Did you get this earlier? I got my concession email from Hillary Clinton at 1:36am this morning. Clinton says she'll have an as yet unspecified "event" in DC this Saturday, during which:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

Barack Obama and John McCain are two of the most popular politicians in a generation. So, it must be burdensome that each has been endorsed by, and receiving advice from, the two least popular presidents in a generation. President Bush's electoral drag on McCain has been well-documented, but now Jimmy Carter has not only made a high-profile endorsement of Obama, but is offering advice on choosing his vice presidential running mate. Saying that picking Hillary Clinton would be the "wost mistake that could be made," Carter says:

"If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman also thinks Obama won't be looking to Carter for sage advice:

Carter's clout is limited within the Democratic party since he is not exactly the epitome of either electoral success or a successful President. In fact, if he is looking better and better to some these days, it's mostly because President George Bush is now considered by some historians to be a bigger failure as President than Carter was.

Read this post by Citizen Mom and you'll get a very strong sense the challenge Barack Obama faces in the aftermath of his Democratic primary victory. Nearly all the Democrats who voted in this year's primary states will surely support him. That's not the variable. It's whether they will vote for him, raise money for him and tell their friends to vote for him. It would be the same challenge facing Hillary Clinton had she won the nomination:

I'll still vote for Barack Obama in November. But you should understand why I'm not feeling great about it this morning.

...

Here's what that non-concession sounded like to my ears:  Obama may have garnered a sufficient number of delegates to secure a historic nomination for the presidency. He may even beat John McCain, with the support of many Democrats who cast their primary ballots for Clinton -- including me. But he certainly hasn't "won" my vote.

Liberal bloggers, and Barack Obama's online supporters in general, have been cool to the notion of having Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. However, heading into yesterday's final day of Democratic primaries, there appeared to be some cracks in the opposition, as even some of those aligned against Clinton conceded that her close primary finish gave her a strong bargaining chip for the VP slot. And then last night's speeches happened. Obama's has been near universally praised. The pundits have also largely praised Clinton's speech, saying if she had run her campaign this way, she would be the nominee. But the netroots have responded much, much differently. If they were already largely opposed to Obama picking her, Clinton's refusal to withdrawal last night, or even suspend her campaign, is getting more attention than Obama's actual victory. It may have been "her night," as some Clinton insiders insisted, but certainly not in the way they'd hoped.

Making matters worse, the Republican National Committee posted a video today entitled, "Democrats vs. Obama," that includes footage of both Hillary and Bill Clinton attacking Obama, and Hillary offering some praise of John McCain's experience compared to that of Obama's "speech from 2002."





Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term.

Andrew Sullivan:

But to have endured the kind of campaign the Clintons ran and concede to her wishes now would be an act of weakness that the Clintons would exploit were he to become president.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis:

Obama won tonight and she still can't concede. Take a flying leap. You lost. You nasty woman.

During a conference call with bloggers today, John McCain announced that he has sent an invitation to Barack Obama to participate in 10 townhall debates between now and the Democratic National Convention in August.

McCain said he suggested the first debate take place at Federal Hall in New York City on June 12th, describing the format as, "something that really changes the debate in America."

McCain also suggested that the townhall participants could be selected by a respected third party. Asked if he was suggesting the townhall format because that appears to be one of his strengths, McCain noted he's conducted 102 townhall events so far this campaign, saying, "I think it's the best format." And of the American people, "I think they want to participate, they want a great debate."

He was also asked about his speaking style compared to Obama's, after initial reviews of the two speeches last night heavily favored Obama. "I intend to address the substance of issues," McCain said.

more from the conference call after the jump...

UPDATE: McCain's full letter to Obama here.

In an email just sent to supporters, John McCain says what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are unwilling to:

Tonight, we can say with confidence the primary season is over, and the general election campaign has begun.

And in a nod to his opponent, the email makes use of the word "change" 11 times, though it is primarily used in the context of the "right change."

Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe just sent an email to supporters entitled, "Amost there." The email itself is more reserved than the clickable icon which notes that only 10 more delegate are needed for Obama to "clinch" the nomination. In other words, Obama may not declare absolutely victory in his speech tonight, but the message being sent to supporters is clear. From the text:

We will need 2,118 delegates to secure the nomination, and we're closing in fast -- we're less than 40 delegates away. There are 31 total delegates at stake in today's contests, and a good showing in Montana and South Dakota should take us another big step closer to the magic number.

Via Drudge, we have excerpts from the speech John McCain will give tonight signaling the launch of the general election campaign against Barack Obama. What's interesting is that McCain will deliver the remarks in New Orleans, site of the biggest domestic failing of the Bush administration. In the leaked remarks leaked to Drudge, McCain spends as much time distancing himself from President Bush as he does going after Obama:

You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false.

The Politico is also reporting that McCain will actively court Hillary Clinton supporters.