Palin's pairing with McCain has emboldened his campaign to issue a new battleground states ad proclaiming the GOP ticket as the harbinger of "change."  She's a fresh, cheerful face on the scene and has put a whole new spring in McCain's step.  Together, they're the reform ticket now, don't you know.  And that other celebrity guy, Obama...hell, he and his Democratic cronies in Washington are just "more of the same"...

Galling, oh yeah.  We could fulminate into a frenzy over this latest GOP crookery, but with only 60 days to go, we've no time to waste.  Don't get mad, get even, claimed one of our own many years ago.  We really must heed the call.   And Palin's downsides give us a whole new opportunity to seriously recast this "new" Republican ticket.

The public is very aware of how McCain moved to the Right to keep his campaign from diving deep. Now, with Palin, he's gone there even further, but her extreme views are just starting to become known.  He wants folks to think of his team as a fresh new face of change - the face of the future.  But, in fact, we can cement him to both the past and a more frightening future by stoking an already-established and not very flattering image of him as a captive right-winger - and then add Palin's beliefs to the mix.

McCain/Palin: The Right Wing Ticket, goes straight to the heart of their ideologies, and the best part about it is the public will know this to be true.  This GOP team is not only about voting with Bush 90% of the time (which is one message the GOP can't cop from us), it's still about giving tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and overturning Roe v. Wade and prohibiting abortions even in the case of rape and incest and putting Scalia/Thomas Supreme Court justices on the bench and drilling the hell out of our Alaskan national park and teaching creationism in our schools and….

American voters like to hew to the center; extreme ideologies one way or the other are too frightening.  And, frankly, the McCain/Palin ticket IS frightening when you really think about it.

Let’s think this one aloud.

I have to dash to work, folks, but just stumbled upon this bit of news, first from Halperin's The Page and now from this link.  It's almost too good to be true:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/barack_obama_im_still_here.html

Jonathan Martin writes in Politico this afternoon that Obama will find more sympathetic voter terrain in Indiana, which has a surprisingly high urban makeup among other traits.  And - just as important if not more so - he's on equal footing with Clinton from the start.  No 20 point come-from-behind gap to contend with, no Clinton home-state advantages to overcome.

Anyway, it's an interesting read...I'll share a few quotes below, but here's the link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9817.html

For Obama, the raw math suggests a slight advantage. Upwards of 25 percent of the primary vote will come out of just two counties: Marion and Lake. The first is home to Indianapolis, the capital and state’s largest city, and the second is home to industrial Gary, located in the northwest corner of the state and part of the Chicago media market.

Both will strongly favor the Illinois senator, predict Indiana political observers, thanks in part to large African-American populations.

...contrary to some stereotypes of the state, Indiana’s population is largely packed into small and medium cities — not spread out in rural areas. It’s more than 70 percent urban, and 30 of the state’s counties produce 81 percent of the vote.

Clinton's risen from the dead, but is the stake yet aimed? While The NYT says she scared up the PA votes with a sad display of negativity, Dick Morris has more heartening words.

Writing today, he makes a good point about the PA voter composition:

"Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

"Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage."

The next races, he adds, are different:

"But don't expect the open primaries of Indiana and North Carolina to behave like Pennsylvania's geriatrics. Both states are younger, especially North Carolina, and independents can vote in each primary. (North Carolina is where a lot of the young people who fled Pennsylvania winters and job losses ended up).

"Over the next two weeks, we'll be treated to much hoopla about how the Democratic race is once again up for grabs. Then, on May 5, Hillary's hopes will be dashed once more.

"But consider that a New York Times editorial painted Clinton's PA success with a different brush - that she won handily thanks in large measure to heavy-handed punches and fear-inducing ads."
 
So I come to wonder: was her win more about the demographics to which Morris points or was it more about her negativity?  Would she need both to win Indiana as she did in Ohio and PA or would negativity alone be enough for her?

And will Obama HAVE to go seriously negative in Indiana so as to beat her, even with more favorable voter composition?   I really hope not, but I want him to win.

Oy!

Sorry for the lack of narrative here, but in the interests of keeping each other posted... 

From Halperin on The Page:

Obama campaign to hold 12:30 pm ET media call with Clinton Pennsylvania supporters who are switching their support to Obama due to the “recent wave of negativity.”

Link:

http://thepage.time.com/

I'm amazed at the shallow analyses of much of the MSM regarding this debate last night.  Many pundits pronounced  that Clinton was more on top of her game while Obama wasn't and that somehow his lack of attack was indicative of trouble ahead in the GE.  

Indeed, the attack "game" played for irrelevant issues like Ayers and Bittergate is where Clinton wants to take her campaign into these waning hours, as she feels the negative way is her only way to the GE.  Obama, on the other hand, facing a fellow Democrat with voters he will really need in November, holds back and doesn't drum us in Clinton-like fashion with snide remarks about her Bosnia gaffe, Penn's disgraceful Columbia activity, her campaign mismanagement, etc.    He HAD to stay above the fray because he is not facing a Republican.   He is facing a fellow Democrat with an important group of supporters for whom he must maintain respect!

A debate of Democrats is not the same thing as a debate of a Democrat and a Republican, and certainly not when the end is so very near for the Dems and a frontrunner must keep an eye on the Big Picture.  Obama did that last night and I think it was a very smart move.

This story captures the true essence of ABC's so-called Democratic debate on TV last night.  I was glad to see it in Pittsburgh's major newspaper:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08108/874187-457.stm

In Phoenixville, PA, a local Democrat reports on how the game is played...

http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FPVN%2FOpinion&r21.content=%2FPVN%2FOpinion%2FHeadlineList_Story_1901899

Thanks to news reports and to our fellow TPM blogger, observer2, we are able to see and listen to Obama's response to Clinton/McCain about his so-called "small town elitist" remarks.   And what a powerful response it is!

If he put together an ad based on this clip and ran it all over PA this week, he'd turn this issue on its head!   I loved it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

I posted this as a comment and thought others might be interested.   If you look at the history of the more recent polls, it would appear things are holding steady:

SurveyUSA:
On 4/8: Clinton 56 and Obama 38
On 4/1: Clinton 53 and Obama 41
On 3/11: Clinton 55 and Obama 36

Quinnipiac:
On 4/2: Clinton 50 and Obama 41
On 3/18: Clinton 53 and Obama 41

Rasmussen:
On 4/8: Clinton 48 and Obama 43
On 4/1: Clinton 47 and Obama 42
On 3/13: Cinton 51 and Obama 38

Whether it's a more favorable poll or a less favorable poll, things don't seem to be moving quickly in any one direction. Those of us able to volunteer need to keep our heads to the grindstone...there are still two weeks to go!

PA Governor Ed Rendell's latest comments (see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/gov-rendell-the.html) illustrate the Clinton campaign's obvious strategy of arguing against Obama's ability to win the general election versus arguing for hers.   Jake Tapper, who spoke with Rendell, countered the comments noting that some yet unopened Clinton Presidential library records and such could harm her in any GE campaign. 

No matter.  I have only one question for the good Governor:   Who would've thunk Hillary was attacked by sniper fire in Bosnia?   Her thorough "documentation" may be public, but - given her veracity - all this vetting would ironically do her in.   Just imagine the GOP's fun with THAT.

So he shares DS's novel notion of Obama taking a VP slot, this time as pennance for supporters wanting Clinton to step down.

Give it a rest, DS.  We're WAY past that....

You heard her finally say it:  it's all the way now.  There's no relenting.

She believes she's on a roll since she won the last two matches in Ohio and Texas (popular vote, anyway).   And she sees nothing ahead but blue skies in a few key states. 

Next up, she figures, a blast in Pennsylvania on 4/22.   Then, a couple of weeks later on 5/6, well, OK, she might lose NC but she's feeling pretty damn sure she can take Indiana that same day.  So, she'll crow, that's two out of three.  With Texas and Ohio, she'll add, that's four out of five!  Only one week later (she's getting excited now) she'll wham him in West Virginia on 5/13 and then, with a bare seven days for that last key state, she'll cram it down the superdelegates throats with 5/20 in Kentucky.   That will make her "roll" look like a path to coronation...

That's her momentum argument - and then she'll bully her way through the rest of it.   

It's a  game plan - and not a bad one, folks, considering how the press will help her make such hay out of it - but this game plan can be busted..  Her big advantage in these (and all) states is huge name recognition.   The very opposite is Obama's disadvantage.  Once he makes himself known in a state, he does very well.  But he needs that time and that effort.  And the only stretch of time he actually has left before those primaries start crashing in on us in rapid succession is these next few weeks before Pennsylvania and Indiana.    If she lost those two, her snowball gets seriously smashed before it even gets going.    

So get thee to Pennsylvania or get thee to Indiana as soon as possible, whenever possible!  I volunteered for Obama's campaign a week ago and plan to do so again next weekend, though I live relatively close to one of the borders (my advantage).  But if you can pitch in some way, it's going to matter. 

Maureen Dowd cautions it's now making its way 'round the bend.  And Beckel in RealClearPolitics tries to float it himself:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clinton_obama_need_to_cool_it.html

Can you imagine?  I think we've all had quite enough of this joint ticket talk no matter how they shake up the seating.  She's lucky anyone even considers her a potential Senate Majority Leader...after Tuzla, I can't imagine that, either.

I have been reading lots of columns both pro and con about Obama's speech and its casting of Wright as a product of the 50s and 60s and as a friend whom Obama - for profound reasons he cites - will not abandon.   In TPM blogs, a number of us were advocating for Obama to make a broader speech about race the minute Ms. Ferraro opened her mouth, but he waited until the strong words from his pastor became public before taking this plunge.

As were many others, I was blown away by the depths of understanding Obama shared and his essential truths about our country from the perspective of race relations. But since the speech was given, I've noticed that colleagues in my office who once thought Obama was very viable as a candidate now think his 20-year relationship with this "flawed" pastor is still problematic and that the speech was merely an attempt to convince others that it is OK for Obama to REMAIN friends with Wright despite the pastor's anti-USA rhetoric.   They just don't understand where Obama is coming from.  They no longer trust his intent.  Right or wrong, and interestingly enough, it is this trustworthiness they have come to question and that now seems to threaten his candidacy.

I am an avid Obama supporter, but this change in my colleagues and some of the more literate and thoughtful critiques of his speech concern me, as these indicate a change in the landscape, what I'm fearful may be a sea change.    I'm hoping Obama will realize his important speech looking long-term on race relations in the US - as amazing as it was - may not be enough to convince voters in this very short-term Democratic primary of his mindset.  I believe he may have to speak yet again - formally or in interviews over the coming week - about how and why the specific remarks of Rev. Wright are not in what he, himself, truly believes.

Obama has been attending services at Trinity Church for 20 years, so he has had a good long time to absorb the pastor's messages and ponder them and then discard them as over-the-top.  His protectiveness of this church and the pastor's ragings are, in light of this kind of time and the bonds this kind of time can forge, very understandable.  This is one of the points he was trying to make in his speech, and he continues to defend the church even recently ("it's not crackpot" etc). 

But the rest of America has not been sitting in that church for 20 years with all that time to ponder the pastor's ragings and, thus, many of these folks are downright shocked by these words, as Obama himself may well have been when he first heard them - or something like them - years ago.   Even if, at the time they were spoken, he understood the origin and root pain of them, he was no doubt aware of the shock value of Rev. Wright's expressed frustrations. 

The two or three short weeks between now and PA (and the rest of the states coming up) will be a major challenge for Obama with these very skeptical voters who were once in the palms of his hands.  Clinton is a known candidate whereas he is not known...people are still trying to figure out who he is.  He needs to address much more directly and SOLELY the Wright remarks and make sure folks know that he, himself, felt uncomfortable when they were first spoken and that he, himself, has never and will never advocate these feelings.  Otherwise, folks like my colleagues will continue to worry that Obama may be an adherent, perhaps even an unwitting adherent, of the YouTube Wright philosophies and that he carries deeply resentful feelings of his own somewhere in his heart...feelings that could reflect upon the kinds of decisions he makes once in the White House.    

As so many of us did when Don Imus spewed racism, these folks need Obama to say even more directly that while he understands where Wright is coming from - the very basis of his excellent speech - his own personal feelings, about which he did not dwell at length in the speech, are very different.  He can remind folks yet again of the various ways he has pulled people of all races and ethnicities together to address broader problems.   His story, his community organizing, his career, have tons of examples of these efforts and serve as multiple proofs of his claim.  

He went long-term when he spoke before us with a speech for the ages, and he gave us fantastic perspective.  I think he needs to go short-term now - and build that personal trust.