In the first of Gallup's Daily Tracking polls (based on a 3-day rolling average of data collected in phone interviews conducted in late afternoon/early evening hours (daily sample of 1,000 adults)), to include a window in which respondents will have viewed convention coverage, Obama has moved forward slightly, polling at 45% to McCain at 44%, with a margin of error of 2%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109873/Gallup-Daily-Race-Still-Close-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx

Perhaps, the beginning of a very modest bounce.  Tomorrow's results will include respondents who had the opportunity to view Warner (yawn), Schweitzer (fun!), and Hillary (...mixed reviews?). 

I predict Obama takes another 1 point lead tomorrow and yet another point on Friday reflecting reaction to speeches from Bubba and Biden tonight.

That leaves the impact of Obama himself, which won't show up in the polls until Saturday - which you have to keep in mind are tricky polls to interpret as people are often not home on weekends - and note that this is a holiday weekend.  Full impact of the convention won't be apparent until you look at the Daily Polls for next Mon and Tues, I'd say.

After that, you'll start seeing the impact of reaction to the Republican Convention.

That's my 2 pennies!

Obama delivered a speech today at the Lansing Center near Michigan State University. It's an excellent outline of his energy policies and does a nice job of tying in some economy themes as well. More importantly, he speaks to his recent willingness to consider offshore drilling and his reasoning:

But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away. Last week, Washington finally made some progress on this. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I've worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I've been calling for in this campaign. It's a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy. Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good - particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

So, there will be those out there will be profoundly disappointed in Obama's position on this issue. There will be others who take this opportunity to jump out and point and scream "flip flopper!" But, Obama does appear to be showing consistency in how he intends to govern, doesn't he? He is indeed a pragmatist. And he will support solutions to problems that ensure progress on an issue, even if it means sacrificing some ground on his position going in. He has the ability and willingness to compromise. Can we live with that? Will our personal ideologies and our own commitment to specific issues leave room for any compromise on those issues? Here's the link to the full article for those who are interested to the details:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/ELECTIONS01/80804004

I see no further reporting in either the print or electronic versions of WaPo, but the NYT online has a full follow-up story on McCain's false ad on the topic of Obama's cancelled visit to the wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us/politics/29truth.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin). 

The article clearly states that the Obama campaign never planned for reporters to accompany him on the visit to the troops.  It further states that, after the Pentagon contacted Obama's campaign advisor, Major General Scott Gration, and advised him that the Pentagon considered the visit inappropriate as the trip was now viewed as political, they decided that it would be best to cancel the visit, rather than involve wounded troops in political controversy.

The article goes on to point out that Obama could have possibly continued with the visit to the medical visit by leaving his campaign staff behind.  They conclude with a statement from Robert Gibbs, a strategist for the Obama campaign, who states that this position was not considered advisable, as it was still likely that controversy would result from the visit, and Obama preferred not to have wounded troops in the middle of it.

Overall, I think this is good follow-up on the part of NYT and I appreciate it and will send an email to the author (Jeff Zeleny) letting him know. 

If you wrote to NYT yesterday challenging them on this issue, thanks so much for participating, and please take some time to follow up today to thank them for their thoughtful follow through on the issue. 

Hi Everyone!  Our hardworking TPM-EC host, Greg Sargent, kindly scanned the several of the biggest mainstream media outlets today to determine how they had covered the McCain’s political attack ad against Obama in regard to his cancelled visit to the U.S. Army bases in

Hi Everyone!  Our hardworking TPM-EC host, Greg Sargent, kindly scanned the several of the biggest mainstream media outlets today to determine how they had covered the McCain’s political attack ad against Obama in regard to his cancelled visit to the U.S. Army bases in