The Tiger at Home

This article is very good: Keep reading →

… from Senator McCain:

It’s a tough business. And though we are rivals, we should respect each other’s willingness to hazard it. Senator Obama is a man of unusual eloquence, who has performed the very worthy service of summoning to the political arena Americans who once wrongly thought it of little benefit to them. Senator Clinton has demonstrated great tenacity and courage; two qualities I have always esteemed. I count myself among their many admirers. Please join me, then, in a toast to my opponents and compatriots, Senators Clinton and Obama, and to the noisy, contentious, striving, beautiful country we hope to lead.

I think a lot of Democrats would agree with this right now:

There’s a transcript here, but you really have to hear the audio to get the full flavour of it…

Update:  A slightly edited version is here.

The dynamic duo of Jim Pinkerton and David Corn manage to tease out of Pinkerton what I suspect will happen this fall.

Here.

Everything old is new again — lonely victory.

1. Our minister of foreign affairs had too hot a girlfriend, apparently.

2. Stephen Harper = a would-be Mackenzie King? So says Paul Wells. [via Wells]

(I wonder what Jarrett thinks about it. He’s the big King guy.)

So says James Taranto: Keep reading →

McCain’s co-author gets stuck into Obama in a memo.

And what an opening:

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama’s attack today: He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

Whew!

The ending:

We understand why Senator Obama doesn’t want to engage in a debate over leadership and judgment with John McCain, but the American people demand that debate take place.

Indeed.

It’s going to be a barnburner this fall.

Update:  Advice here:

Obama could easily make this go away: “Hamas will be VERY sorry if I am America’s president. They need to be careful what they wish for.” He doesn’t have to say anything else, but I doubt it occurs to anyone on his staff to go after Hamas instead of McCain. To me, that’s the obvious fix. What could McCain possibly say after that?

He won’t say it.

The trained seals, I mean, party-list deputies, of the Duma have voted 392-56 to confirm VVP as prime minister.

A round-up of just what Clinton is up against now, here.

In other news, see John McCain (again) on the Daily Show.

Maybe. This is consistent with a Mike Huckabee-type race.

Will the dream die?

[Funny thing: I read Bob Shrum's book last weekend... (Admirable guy, even if he stands foursquare against most of what I stand for.)]

But no, she’s got to get out.

Right?

Update:  I laughed at this:

One is perfectly capable of acknowledging that the identity of the nominee is no longer in dispute and still find that, aside from morbid speculation and existential unknowability, there are reasons for her to postpone any plans for a concession. Some of these reasons may be unpalatable for Democrats and for Obama, but they are not entirely irrational.  …

3. Embarrassment. If she drops out tomorrow and winds up winning in West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama will be mightily embarrassed. Having her in the race gives him an excuse for losing those two states. (I ran this by an Obama adviser who said, “We’ll take our chances.”)

Ha ha.

That’s what Obama locking up the Democratic nomination (if indeed he has) means.

And so, dear readers, here’s a flashback to Wisconsin (the first time we thought he’d locked it up).

What did Michelle Obama’s comment about being really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life mean?

“It means she’s a liberal.”

Update:  Longer version.

Being proud when your political opponents are taking all the bows and getting roses thrown at them — it can be done, but you have to take a deep breath…

I actually agree with this.

It’s crazy that we’ve gone from Indiana being the jump ball and NC being Obama territory, to the possibility of a sweep, back to Indiana being a jump ball going for Hillary and Obama winning NC by less than 15 points and that being enough to knock Clinton out.

But then, if we were being rational about it all, Wisconsin and the 11 primary win streak ought to have closed it all off…

Here’s how it’s going to be for the Dems:

Who’d have thought that that would be the winning coalition, those states in red?

It’s rather elegant, too, in terms of the geography of it all.

Update: We were thinking this after Wisconsin, weren’t we?

Update again: But this was devastating. Not unlike the Super Tuesday blow for Mitt Romney in California.

The only question now is, will she go now (i.e. this week), on May 20th when Obama clinches a majority of pledged delegates, or at the end of the primary season, in early June?

Love isn’t always on time:

(A musical interlude.)

1:59 PM: But perhaps this is the Tuesday that will direct the actions of the supers.

Hillary wins both — they freeze.

Split — status quo ante.

Obama wins both — it’s over.

Predictions made. Keep reading →

I’ll go on the record again.

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton will win Indiana by ten points, give or take one or two.

2. North Carolina will have less than a five point margin separating Clinton and Obama. My head says Obama holds on, given his steady lead in the polls — but just barely. (My gut tells me that Clinton is coming on, hard. It could get darned interesting.)

Update, 8:30 PM: Make your own predictions, dear readers! The time stamps will keep you honest.

Oh, and here are the Indiana polls.

Update, 10:45 PM:  I’m apparently going against Richelieu.  [via Hot Air]

Me neither.  I voted for Nader in 2000.

Different times, different issues, different priorities, different philosophy.

“Dude, where’s my recession?“

Before you declare a recession, as many economic pundits have, shouldn’t the economy, well, actually recess a bit — if only for a quarter?

Remember, the shorthand rule for declaring a recession is back-to-back quarters of negative growth. The semiofficial recession judge, the National Bureau of Economic Research, has a more complex formula, but I am not sure it has ever declared a recession when the economy never actually shrank.

Heh.

But no, I’m sure we’re due for a recession, so we’ll probably see one sometime in 2008, 2009, or 2010.

The intersection between demographics and politics is an interesting topic.

They’re kinda depressing for my guys, these days — see the data heading into this fall’s election from Pew.

In 2006, 48% of young people identified themselves as Democrats or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while only 35% identified themselves as Republicans – the lowest number recorded by Pew in its nearly 20-year trend. … It is not the case that young people have always been more Democratic. In fact, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, 18-25 year-olds were more Republican than older age groups. Keep reading →