It's a long time from now until July 26.  Many, many media cycles between now and then.  Plenty of time for Palin to reconsider her hasty, crazy decision.

I'm taking the 13th. 

Daschle: I would like to leave the lucrative private sector for a public-sector job that pays low-six-figures and subjects me to constant public scrutiny.

Senate: We like you, but we're concerned about the gobs of money you made in the private sector.  I mean, you made huge gobs of money.  Really huge.  And we're also concerned about the private cars, corporate jets and expense accounts you had available to you --- the private sector really treated you like a king.  Plus, we worry that you had so many connections and wielded so much influence in the private sector. 

Daschle: Is it too late to withdraw my application?

Something struck me when I was looking at the RCP tracking poll.  Like other tracking polls, it shows that Obama has been consistently ahead since April, except for a one-week inversion due mainly to the Palin pick.

Now, if I'm John McCain or one of his top advisors, the tracking polls show one thing: McCain will lose on November 4 unless he gets a Palin-like poll bounce which coincides with election day.  The daring gambit of picking Palin has been the only thing which has put McCain ahead, albeit just for a few days.  Therefore, McCain needs to pull another daring gambit in the days just before the election, in hopes that he'll get another bounce at the right time.

It's a given, really, that McCain will try a final gambit.  The only question is what form it will take.  So, TPM readers, what do you think?  Will it be some horrible and completely fabricated smear about Obama?  A "Hillary moment" by McCain in which he tearfully renounces his lying campaign and promises to honorable going forward?  The possibilities are endless.

My guess is a last-minute substitution in the VP slot.  A bold, daring VP pick is what got McCain a poll bounce the first time, so he'll do it again.  He'll keep Palin around until the weekend before the election, when she'll drop out to spend more time with her family, etc.  Then McCain will pick another left-field candidate for his new VP -- probably someone with economic expertise, the better to take advantage of the public's #1 issue.  Fiorina, maybe? 

"It's true that people like me.  But if people are enthusiastic about me and my campaign, then it's because they like my ideas.  They like me as a legislator, and they like the idea of me as President of the United States.

"I'm not a movie star.  I don't sing.  I'm not a supermodel.  I'm not famous for any of those things.  I'm known for my political ideas, my political philosopy, and my record as a legislator.  I'm popular because people want change in Washington, and they see me as the best person to bring that change. 

"Let's not forget that Senator McCain only clinched the Republican nomination after all the other Republican candidates had been rejected by voters for some reason or other.  John McCain was the fourth or fifth choice of Republican voters -- he's not very popular even within his own party.

"If people like me better than John McCain, it's because they think I would be a better president than John McCain.  If his campaign wants to keep highlighting that fact, that's fine with me."  

Hillary's latest "electability" argument: While most of Obama's supporters would support me as the nominee, many of my supporters (i.e., working class whites) would vote for McCain over Obama.

The subtext: Obama's supporters are smart; they understand their political, social, and economic interests.  While they might prefer Obama over me, they correctly realize that I'm still miles better than McCain, and they'll vote accordingly.  My supporters, however, are not so bright and tend to fall for the dirty tricks and divisiveness dealt by the GOP.  In what's-the-matter-with-Kansas fashion, my voters are likely to get suckered into voting for McCain even though it's clearly against their own interests.  I'm the only person that can un-sucker these voters.

It's fitting that today, we should be reminded that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.  Gallup says: 69% disapproval, 28% approval.

This is a great reminder that it doesn't matter -- no, it doesn't matter -- who wins the Democratic nomination.  Hillary or Obama, who gives a damn; either will beat McCain.

Whoever gets the nomination, the message will be the same: "Want four more years of a George W. Bush presidency?  Four more years of the same economy, the same foreign policy?  Then vote for McCain.  Want something different?  Vote for me." 

It's a winning message, no matter who delivers it.  (Either would be smart enough to use it.)  As soon as the Democratic race is over -- even if it's not until August -- the nominee will start delivering the message, and McCain's numbers will fall.  No matter how damaged the eventual Dem nominee is, he or she will not be 69% damaged.  And McCain is too close to Bush to separate himself from that 69% disapproval.

We'll have a Democrat in the White House come January.  I am done caring about Hillary vs. Obama.  What a blessed relief! 

The uncommitted superdelegates will not go against the will of the voters; they will vote for the candidate who won the most pledged delegages (i.e., Obama).

Let's take a look at that bit of conventional wisdom.  Does it hold up?  Not necessarily. 

We do know that: (1) there will be no revotes in Michgan and Florida; (2) therefore, Obama is virtually certain to win the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes; and (3) a drawn-out, bitter primary fight damages the party and the eventual nominee's chances against McCain. 

Given these factors, why are the uncommitted supers not lining up behind Obama, the candidate who has already won the mantle of "the will of the voters"?  If the supers are going to follow the will of the voters, why aren't they following already?  Let's consider the possibilities.

1.  The supers are afraid that declaring "The people have spoken, and they chose Obama" would piss off voters in the states which have not yet voted.  Although the supers know the pledged-delegate and popular-vote contests are over, the public (thanks to the MSM) sees the race as neck-and-neck.  The supers do not want to be seen as the undemocratic overlords who decided the race prematurely, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.

2.  The supers do not want to piss off Hillary if there is even a 2% chance she can win the nomination.  The supers do not want to be on the bad side of a President Clinton, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.

3.  The supers want to move as a group at the convention to ensure that they are all on the winning side.  They are unwilling to step forward now, individually, because there is still the theoretical chance that the bulk of supers could move in the other direction.  They do not want to risk being on the wrong side of history, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.

4.  The supers accept the possibility that Obama might have a fatal weakness in his electability.  They do not want to endorse Obama and then have Hillary expose a fatal weakness, causing the other supers to break for her.  The supers do not want to embrace a candidate who then collapses, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.
 
5.  The supers have decided, but they do not want to publicly commit to (a) Hillary, who will probably lose the primary, or (b) Obama, who can still theoretically lose the primary.  The supers do not want to endorse a candidate who then loses, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves. 

Let's face it, folks: however you slice it, the uncommitted superdelegates, by remaning uncommitted, are looking out for themselves, putting their own interests above those of the Democratic party.  Therefore, we can expect their eventual vote to be guided by their own self-interests -- not by "the will of the voters." 

Now as it happens, their self-interest will probably dictate that they vote for the pledged-delegate winner.  If they don't, they risk being seen as the people who tore the party apart -- never good for your image. 

But we must also recognize the possibility that their self-interest could dictate that they go against the pledged-delegate winner.  Hillary may make a convincing argument that the superdelegates would be seen as greater villains by denying her the nomination.  (She's got the momentum, she's more electible, dreams of American women, etc.) Maybe she will offer all the supers ambassadorships.  Maybe Hillary's supers will make a strong early case and the herd mentality will kick in.  Who knows.  But make no mistake: at the convention, the question foremost on the minds of the uncommitted supers will not be, "What do the voters want?" but "What is the best for me?"  If they were looking out for Democrats, they wouldn't still be uncommitted.

You Obamaniacs better quit your whining about Hillary acting as a McCain surrogate.  This helps Obama.  This is a huge help to Obama.

"Hillary can't win, so she should just drop out and let Obama focus on McCain!"  The moment that Hillary drops out of the race, McCain will start saying the same things about Obama that Hillary is saying -- except worse and much more forcefully.  And the media (and public) will pay a lot more attention, because the general election will be officially on.  Hillary insulates Obama by giving him similar but gentler criticisms than will come from the GOP.

"But Hillary is hinting that Obama isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief!"  Yeah, well, McCain is going to come right out and claim that Obma isn't ready to be Commander in Chief.  If Obama can't defend himself against an insinuation, how is he going to defend himself against an accusation?

"Hillary's criticisms of Obama are fodder for the general election!"  Do you really think McCain needs Hillary's authority to attack Obama on anything?  The volume and intensity of GOP attacks will dwarf Hillary's soft digs.  And since when do swing voters take Hillary's word on anything?

Sure, you can criticize Hillary for being a win-at-all-costs meanie.  But I suspect that Hillary knows she can't win and is staying in the race to help Obama.  Frankly, he needs some toughening up.  Hillary staggered him with her "kitchen sink" attack.  He needs more practice defending himself and punching back when attacked.  If he can't knock out his sparring partner, he's not ready for the big fight.  He needs to spar a few more rounds.

So say what you want about Hillary, but her staying in the race benefits Obama.  Quit your whining.   If Obama is the guy, he can take whatever Hillary throws at him.  It's just practice -- and will hopefully turn him into a lean, mean, campaigning machine.  

It looks like the TPM crew will have to find something else to keep them busy for the next nine months:

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Once again, Josh cuts through the noise to make an incisive point: the superdelegates are unlikely to decide the Democratic nomination.

The majority of the superdelegates have not yet committed.  Why?  Because they are politicians (or, similarly, political operatives) who made a risk-averse political calculation: they are waiting to see who becomes the inevitable nominee and then jump on the winner's bandwagon as it passes by.  They are uncommitted because they want to make a safe choice.  These folks are not about to take the politically incendiary step of nominating a candidate who got fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates.

Look at it this way: If you were a superdelegate who wanted Hillary to get the nomination, and were willing to vote for her even though another candidate won more pledged delegates . . . then wouldn't you have already endorsed Hillary?  If you felt that strongly about Hillary being the nominee, wouldn't you have already put your money where your heart was?  An early endorsement would at least give you the cover of consistency -- "Well, Obama did win more pledged delegates, but I've always supported Hillary, I gave her my promise, and I can't back out now."

The superdelegates who might be willing to buck the will of the people have already committed.  But there just aren't enough of those.  The rest -- the majority -- are waiting to back the people's choice.