In the two month lull between the end of the primary season and the national party conventions in 2004, Sen. John Kerry lost the presidential race.  He made the mistake of not defending himself against personal attacks on his military record.

During the summer of 2004, an independent group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began a methodical, multimedia effort to call into question Kerry's war record. Kerry, who was saving general election funds while waiting for Bush to officially start the fall campaign, failed to respond effectively. His image never recovered.

Sen. John McCain isn't going to let that happen to him. Yesterday, retired Gen. Wesley Clark derided McCain's military credentials. McCain has also been subject to a wave of recent attacks on his service record across the blogosphere:

Critics have accused McCain of war crimes for bombing targets in Hanoi in the 1960s. Sunday, a widely read liberal blog accused McCain of "disloyalty" during his captivity in Vietnam for his coerced participation in propaganda films and interviews after he'd been tortured.

However, this morning McCain launched a "truth squad" to respond quickly to such attacks. It's proof he learned the lesson from Kerry's 2004 campaign.

Postscript: Ironically, one of the people McCain enlisted to defend him was Colonel Bud Day -- also a member of the Swift Boat group that attacked Kerry. Time will tell whether this was intentional hardball politics or just a dumb mistake that backfires.

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council holds its national meeting in Chicago -- just a block away from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign headquarters. However, Obama will not attend.

Even though the Illinois senator has moved to the center on so many issues in recent weeks, he's not willing to incur the wrath of liberal Democrats by speaking at the convention of the group described by many as "Republican-lite."

With none of the Democratic presidential candidates in attendance at last year's meeting either, it's fair to say the DLC has officially lost its mojo.

Now that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have held their unity rally and a joint fundraiser, the focus turns to Bill Clinton. Will he join his wife in graciously supporting Obama for president? Though the former president has written a check for Obama, he hasn't done much more.

Thomas Edsall puts it best: "Bill is more complex. He wants respect, absolution and love."

As The Swamp notes, before this year, the former president "was moving comfortably into a perch as an elder statesman, even if the old whiff of controversy never quite went away. But Bill Clinton received decidely mixed reviews this year as he careened across the political stage during his wife's recent campaign, and it's not clear where its end leaves him, especially since much of the commentary suggests he is sulking."

Like it or not, at some point Obama will need help lift the former president out of his funk and back into place as Democratic party hero.

He took a first step praising Clinton as a "brilliant politician" and "outstanding president." But it's time to pick up the phone and call him.

Noting how Sen. Barack Obama has moved to the center on several issues recently -- gun control, the death penalty for child rapists and domestic wiretapping -- the RNC sends daily blast emails calling these "flip flops" actions of a "typical politician."

In one way, Obama certainly is typical. During primaries candidates often curry favor with base voters and then move to the center during the general election. It's the way elections are usually won.

However, given the historical nature of Obama's candidacy this attack line often falls flat. Sen. Hillary Clinton tried it in the primaries and failed. That's because there is nothing "typical" about a black man winning his party's nomination and having a good chance to be leader of the free world.

However, First Read sees Obama continuing "to fuel this line of attack by making conventional decisions like ducking the town hall idea, flipping on campaign finance, trying to straddle the fence on guns, etc. And unlike McCain, Obama doesn't have years of good will with his brand; he only really has about 18 months. McCain has made a lot of subtle shifts away from his so-called maverick independent streak. But because his brand was cemented over years, he's been given more of a benefit of the doubt with the public. Obama's brand reservoir isn't as deep, and he should be much more sensitive to this collecting narrative that he isn't what he claims."

Republicans haven't exactly been consistent on their attempts to define Obama, but he's got to realize that he's not immune to these attacks either. As Gloria Borger notes, the last thing Obama wants is people asking the question, "Is this the man I thought he was? Because once the question is asked, it's already answered."

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the District of Columbia's 32 year ban on handguns as incompatible with the 2nd amendment is not exactly a win for Republicans  -- even though it went farther than even the Bush administration hoped.

By re-affirming that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the court effectively takes the gun issue out of the fall campaign. Republicans will now have a very hard time arguing that if you elect Democrats they will take away your guns.

With Karl Rove's latest attempt to define Sen. Barack Obama -- this time as an arrogant country club elitist -- it's clear Republicans haven't yet settled on who the man is they are facing in the presidential election.

Sometimes he's part of the country club set, other times he's an outsider with a strange name raised by a hippie mother.

Sometimes he's a Christian with a controversial pastor, other times he's a secretive Muslim.

Sometimes he's the black activist who resents white people, other times he's the Ivy league lawyer who doesn't understand the working man.

Sometimes he's naive to the ways of Washington, other times he's politically ruthless and overly ambitious.

Though Sen. John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination early, he's made almost no progress in defining his opponent. In fact, many of the attempts actually contradict each other. It's the biggest failure so far of McCain's campaign.

Sen. John McCain has already shown his ignorance of the Internet, but this morning at the Personal Democracy Forum conference, Mark Soohoo, speaking on behalf of the the Arizona senator's Internet team, was asked whether McCain even uses a computer. 

His response: "You don't need to use a computer to know how it shapes the country."

The admission that McCain doesn't use a computer is startling. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush took a beating for not knowing the price of milk as the country slipped into a recession. It's hard to imagine anyone in 2008 electing a president who doesn't know much about a fundamental building block of the modern economy.

If you're looking for a timeframe when Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama announce their picks for running mates, think early August.

The Obama campaign would like their pick to be after McCain's if possible to give them a nice run up to the Democratic convention in late August. Of course, McCain would prefer to name his choice after Obama to mitigate any bounce his Democratic rival gets from the announcement.

However, the Olympics begin in Beijing on August 8 and run about two weeks. Therefore, both campaigns will have a limited window to announce their picks and will probably try to do it in the first week of August.

As expected, Sen. Barack Obama opted out of public financing for the general election. So, what does this mean?

1. Obama has the potential to raise an enormous amount of money. First Read does the math: "Assuming each of Obama's 1.5 million-plus contributors gives him $100, that comes to $150 million; if they give him an average of $200, that's $300 million." By contrast, public financing would give him about $85 million.

2. It's clear the McCain campaign was caught off guard that this decision was made so soon. Their initial response was to show Obama as a "typical politician" breaking a promise he made earlier in the campaign. It's really a long shot gamble that the American public will pay attention to the subtleties of campaign financing.

3. By launching his first general election advertisement on the same day -- and running it in 18 states, including some long shots -- Obama dramatically increased the pressure on McCain's fundraisers.

4. McCain must now decide whether he will also reject of public financing -- or take it and likely be outspent by a large margin.

The conventional wisdom has been that Sen. John McCain holds a solid advantage in Florida over Sen. Barack Obama due to favorable demographics -- especially the large number of older voters and those affiliated with the military.

Perhaps that's why McCain felt it was acceptable to reverse himself this week and back lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling -- something Floridians have long fought. In doing so, McCain provided an opening for Democrats, who accused him of flip-flopping on the issue and bending to the desires of big oil companies.

It's an easy prediction that Democrats are already making television ads featuring oil spills ruining Florida's pristine beaches and tourism industry.

Today, a new Quinnipiac poll actually shows McCain trailing Obama in Florida by four points.  At best for McCain, Florida is going to be competitive and oil drilling will be a key issue in the campaign. At worst, McCain just seriously hurt his chances in a critical swing state.

Meet the Press ran at it's usual time this morning but there was an empty chair where Tim Russert used to sit. It was a very nice tribute to the finest political journalist of his generation, but soon NBC News executives will have to find a new host for television's longest running show.

Of course, Russert is irreplaceable. No one will ever be able to emulate his style or his grace -- nor should they try. The next host will have to create a show that fits his or her style.

But the next host must know and love politics as much as Russert did. In my view, there is just one possible candidate: NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

It's probably a long shot choice, but in a just few short months as an on-air political analyst, Todd is now the best on television. He understands politics better than anyone. He's the best choice to carry on Russert's legacy.

So far in the presidential campaign we've seen Sen. Barack Obama cut ties with his preacher for making controversial comments. That was followed by Sen. John McCain disavowing an endorsement from a preacher who also made politically unwise remarks.

This week -- after a media firestorm this week created by McCain's campaign -- we saw Obama toss veep vetter Jim Johnson overboard due to his ties to a mortgage lender. Now, Obama operatives are dropping hints to look at McCain advisor and former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina's business dealings in Iran.

Isn't there a time when guilt by association shouldn't be allowed to work as a campaign tactic?

Time notes there "are a lot of ways to choose a Vice President, and each comes with risks."

Here are five:

1. Play to Your Strength: "Perhaps the fastest way to send a message about who you are is to pick someone...who appears to be just like you."
2. Look at the Map: "The map can help a nominee make a play for a state that is crucial in November, though that is never a sure bet."
3. Shore Up Your Weak Side: McCain may choose someone younger, like Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, while Obama could choose someone more experienced, like U.S. Senator Joe Biden.
4. Hug Your Rival: "The other party is certain to dredge up every damaging sound bite...that your former rival hurled in your direction back in February. These worries are usually overcome."
5. Hire Some Pizzazz: Possible pizzazz choices for McCain include Colin Powell, and Obama could choose Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Meanwhile, political strategists talk to Mark Halperin about how to increase your chances to be picked as a running mate.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's decision to suspend her presidential campaign might be the best thing to unite Democrats, but political junkies are left a little sad. Most of us have waited a long time to see the excitement of a brokered convention in our lifetimes -- where no candidate wins the nomination on the first ballot.

Reader William Arnone took a look at the history of presidential nominating conventions and found two patterns. First, open multi-ballot conventions have been common for most of their history. Second, being nominated at such a convention did not invariably result in a general election loss.

Here's an excerpt from Arnone's analysis:

Beginning with the first Democratic Party nominating convention in 1832 in Baltimore, Maryland, there have been 44 national Democratic Presidential conventions. For many years, the Democratic Party required a Presidential nominee to receive the votes of two-thirds of convention delegates. The two-thirds rule virtually guaranteed multi-ballot votes, until it was eliminated in 1936. The first Republican Party national convention was held in 1856 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There have been a total of 38 national Republican Presidential conventions.

Out of the combined Democratic and Republican total of 82 Presidential conventions, 23 renominated the incumbent President on the first ballot (10 Democratic, 13 Republican). Of the remaining 59 conventions, 26 (44%) involved multiple ballots (16 Democratic, 10 Republican) before a nominee was chosen. Prior to modern times, the vast majority of nominating conventions involved multiple ballots. The last Democratic convention with multiple ballots was in 1952 when Adlai Stevenson of Illinois was nominated on the third ballot. The last such Republican convention was in 1948 when Thomas Dewey of New York was nominated also on the third ballot. Since then, both parties have moved away from the traditional role of nominating conventions, negatively characterizing them as "smoke-filled rooms," dominated by party "bosses" making "back-room deals."

Did multiple-ballot nominees fare worse at the polls than single-ballot nominees?

Of the 26 multiple-ballot nominees, 11  (Democrat James Polk of Tennessee in 1844, Democrat Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire in 1852, Democrat James Buchanan of Pennsylvania in 1856, Republican Abraham Lincoln of Illinois in 1860, Republican Rutherford Hayes of Ohio in 1876, Republican James Garfield of Ohio in 1880, Democrat Grover Cleveland of New York in 1884, Republican Benjamin Harrison of Indiana in 1888, Republican Warren Harding of Ohio in 1920, Democrat Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey in 1912, and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt of New York in 1932) went on to win the Presidency in the general election. This represents a success rate of 42%. Of these successful multiple-ballot nominees, the most ballots it took to nominate were 49 for Pierce, 46 for Wilson, and 36 for Garfield. Three of these multiple-ballot nominees - Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt - are considered to be among our country's greatest Presidents.

Of course, Clinton didn't really end her campaign, she merely suspended it. By not releasing her delegates, they are still free to vote for her on the first ballot at the convention. So, if something caused enough superdelegates to switch to Clinton between now and late August, there is still at least the possibility of a brokered convention.

It's a long shot, of course, but political junkies can still hope.

While many think it's too early to pay much attention to national polls at this point in the presidential race, it will be very interesting to see how much of a "bounce" Sen. Barack Obama received now that he's wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination. The strength and longevity of an Obama bounce could be an early indicator of his chances in the general election.

Early tracking polls from Gallup and Rasmussen already show Obama getting an initial bounce. As Obama is increasingly portrayed in the media as the Democratic nominee, conventional wisdom suggests his bounce will increase his national lead over Sen. John McCain into the double-digits. However, if it's less, it suggests Obama may have lingering problems from the tough Democratic primary contests.

First Read argues the bounce is important for Obama because "it will determine the strength of his hand regarding Clinton as veep. If his bounce is tiny and his lead over McCain remains in single digits, there will be a lot of whispers from pro-Hillary circles that he needs her constituency. If Obama's bounce pushes his national poll lead into double digits, then he can more easily dismiss the idea of adding Clinton to the ticket."

Meanwhile, Dick Morris suggests Clinton could actually still replace Obama on the ticket: "If Obama makes a mistake and begins to drop in the polls or some other tape comes out or a new pastor emerges with more racial rhetoric, Hillary still has her 1,639.5 delegates. Count on her to back Obama in public, but look for her aides and supporters, and perhaps her husband, to raise the question of whether or not the results of the primaries should not be revisited in light of the trouble in the Obama candidacy."

News of a secret meeting between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton tonight in Washington, D.C. blankets the cable television channels. When books are written about the 2008 presidential race, this meeting could be an entire chapter.

Here's what we want to know:

• Who arranged the meeting? One of these two men?
• When was it arranged? In a hallway?
  
• Which campaign leaked news of the meeting to Matt Drudge?
• Was a condition of the meeting Clinton's disavowal of pressuring Obama to be his running mate?
• Are they coordinating Clinton's message for her Saturday withdrawal from the race?
• Is Bill Clinton at the meeting?
• How much will we ever know about what happened tonight?
  

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008
St. Paul, Minnesota

Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said - because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Two key Democrats are very well positioned to be possible brokers between the campaigns of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama as they work to unify their party:

• Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), who has close ties to Clinton and Obama -- and has stayed neutral in the race so far by hiding under his desk -- is likely to play a big role.
• Book agent and lawyer Robert Barnett, who represented both Clinton and Obama on their lucrative book deals, may also play an important role.

If Clinton is angling to be Obama's running mate, both men are likely to play a direct role between the two campaigns.

There are just two primaries left and the math makes it extremely unlikely Sen. Hillary Clinton will be able to beat Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. But that doesn't necessarily mean she's going to drop out anytime soon. In fact, her aides have said that she reserves the right to fight on.

Here's what we know:

1. Senior advisers to the campaign are now suggesting she needs to drop out.
   
2. The campaign is shedding advance staffers and junior staffers are making vacation plans with no push back from superiors.
3. After a campaign swing through South Dakota, Clinton will return to Chappaqua later tonight and will "huddle with advisers" and husband Bill Clinton all day Tuesday.
   
4. Clinton will hold a rally tomorrow night in New York at Baruch College that the campaign is calling a "celebration." Ben Smith notes the event "appears to be something a bit bigger than a minor election night in two small states she's likely to lose might suggest."
5. Bill Clinton acknowledged that today "may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind."
6. Staffers are being urged to turn in their receipts for reimbursement.
7. Clinton summoned top supporters to attend her speech tommorrow night.
8. Most Clinton aides still don't think she'll drop out.
9. One report says Clinton spoke to Obama about exiting the race last night. However, another report says Obama just called to congratulate her on winning in Puerto Rico.
   

Check back later as we will add to this list as we know more.

In the latest sign Sen. Hillary Clinton "isn't yet preparing to bow out of the presidential race," her campaign is "launching a new television ad Monday that highlights her claim she is beating Barack Obama in the popular vote," according to CNN.

The only problem is that it's not true.

Clinton's claim to winning the popular vote count includes counting the primary results in Michigan, where Sen. Barack Obama's name was not even on the ballot. In addition, her count doesn't include some caucus states won by Obama -- Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state -- where the popular vote was never reported. And she also includes the results from Florida, where none of the Democratic candidates campaigned.

Furthermore, even using her methodology, the low turnout over the weekend in Puerto Rico likely guarantees she will not end up winning the popular vote anyway.

Of course, there's one other major factor to consider: Democratic party rules never consider the popular vote as a benchmark for winning the party's nomination. It's the delegates that count.