What the hell are we to make of this?  In yesterday's Times (or is it today's?), the last two sentences,

"The solid Democratic South became the solid Republican South. At least until last year, when black Southerners came out in record numbers and Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina were won by Barack Obama." http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/how-kennedy-won-the-house-and-lost-the-south/

"And South Carolina"?!  Real Clear Politics reflects South Carolina's 8 electoral votes having gone to McCain and that Moose Queen of his:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

No?!  The Grey Lady herself had McCain winning South Carolina back in November -- http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/votes.html   They said it was always expected to go to McCain and it did.  By jiminy, that's what I recall too!

Still, the above quote, "By Richard Reeves".  I can't even believe this.  They may take it down, but my quote above is what it says right now, I cut and pasted it from NYT -- supposedly posted by them at "10 pm", I presume that means Eastern Time but don't know for sure.

Postscript -- Q: Reeves is almost right, yeah?  I mean, Obama *nearly* won the state didn't he?  A: Who's kidding who, its South Frickin' Carolina!  He was trounced by nine points, as many or most of you (roughly) remember!

UPDATE:  I finally snarked them directly in their comments section a long time ago.  You can say it's cruel, but I only did it after they pretended that they meant to say Florida instead of South Carolina and it's some kind of typo, a transparently ridiculous strategem.  They're still moderating my snark after a couple of hours -- they must be looking for some "valid" journalistic reason not to put it up there ("We were required by journalistic ethics not to publish", blah-blah.)  Technically, my name is required, so they might be tempted to reject a nick, but the problem with that is that lots of other commenters used nicks, so that would be pretty thin.  Here it is:

Am I being unfair with this?  I mean, again, I cannot even *believe* they went into print with this!

Gingrich is obviously trying to assert that *he* is the leader of Republicans, i.e., the only one that can stand up to that fat misanthrope.  They seem to have bet on a bad pony in Steele, but you hear Cantor's name.  And even Romney's, despite his problems with the Talibangelical base.

No one's much saying it's Klondike Barbie, though.  Hardly surprising, the dame is so clueless and wacked out.

Still, some claim she's playing her cards just right, building her reputation through hard work in Alaska while she studies up, so as to then come and claim her rightful mantle. Think so?

I don't.  While you mull that, tune in to Tina Fey discussing that voice et al on Letterman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBAqGSbPwkQ&NR=1

and for a little schadenfreude, have a re-listen to those clever lads from Montreal chat up the Moose Queen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbEwKcs-7Hc during a darkening period of her "historic" campaign.

As to his leadership, Limbaugh did us a favor by bullying McCain into taking her.  It showed spectacularly that the latter lacks all judgment, and thus was utterly unqualified for the Presidency.  And I see her as marching toward irrelevancy.   Hope I'm wrong, though, 'cause I'll really miss her riling up all those mean-spirited bigots and ignoramouses at her rallies!