Now that I've had a night to sleep on it, I feel much better.

The kind of speeches were heard last night from Romney, Rudy, and Palin get the our blood boiling.  I was pissed, no question.  

Republicans know how to play that game.  Their speeches are designed to illicit emotional, irrational reactions.

But, if we cool down and look at the night's speeches objectively, I think a number of good things can be taken away from them.

1.  Republicans got <i>nothing</i>.  No discussion whatsoever of policy detail or proposals.  The attacks we all saw on Obama and his supporters are all they have.  This is fodder for Obama and fits precisely in the message he is already advancing.  No need to change the message.

2.  McCain is abandoning the center.  This was speculated before as a consequence of the Palin pick, but last night confirms it.  Clearly, they will try to hold some center ground with the "reform" argument, but McCain has shown that he is "all in" with the Rove strategy "spread fear and lies about your opponent and energize the base."  Lots of reasons why this is good news for us, but number 1 is that it undermines the entire logic for McCain's candidacy in the first place (remember, he was considered by many the only viable candidate because of his appeal to the center.)

3.  McCain's move away from the center signifies that his campaign believes they are losing the election.  They are retreating, building reinforcements.  Again, many people saw the Palin pick as an indication of this, but the tone last night reinforced that belief.

4.  This is subjective, but I do not believe Palin made a good case for her own candidacy.  I can not recall a single thing she said that showed she would be a good VP or competent CiC.  She provided some biographical information (PTA, etc.) and read a pre-written, canned speech that tried to make the case that Obama would be a bad president, but anyone who can read a teleprompter could fill that roll.  It was boilerplate and generic.

5.  Probably most importantly, Obama knows McCain's strategy clearly now.  We've seen it before, he knows what they will try to do.  

The Obama campaign will need to prepare a tactical response to the speeches, but they do not need to change their overall strategy.  Obama only needs to stay on message and not get drawn into a battle with Sarah Palin.

We can now all rest assured that this election is about what Obama has known it was about from the beginning: CHANGE.

McCain/Palin call it "reform".  It is their last, best hope to appeal to the center.  Obama will focus like a laser on dismantling and discrediting the reform claim.  Once that meme is thoroughly dead, so will be the McCain candidacy. 

The wingnuts open their wallets:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/30/mccain_gets_7_million_bounce_f.html?hpid=topnews

You know the drill.  Time to pony up!

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/augeomshirt?source=20080830_D1_R_S

I certainly have to give credit to McCain for this: He got people talking. There has basically been an unbroken thread on Sarah Palin for the last 24 hours on TPM, probably everywhere else as well. But here's the thing I don't get about this. McCain may have made this move to "shake things up" or to steal the media spotlight from Obama. But why? Shining the spotlight on McCain is not good for him. He should know that. He had this election setting up pretty nicely as a referendum on Obama. Every grenade he lobbed had the talking heads chattering. And, as we all know, Obama was not benefitting from that chatter. Maybe the convention changed the calculus and McCain's people decided that if it's a referendum on Obama, they are going to lose because he's just got too much firepower. Whatever the reason, McCain has got the spotlight on himself now and suddenly this looks more like a referendum on Palin. Beside the obvious fact that she is not prepared to be president - even the McCain campaign admitting as much - we're going to have to "get to know" Palin and all the radical right wing positions she has. McCain's "hidden" policy agenda will now get exposed to the light of day, and all the ways that Palin either agrees or doesn't agree with them (I imagine before long she will agree with them). McCain and Palin will also have to answer the question of how it is that these positions - essentially the same as Bush as Obama has been saying - really constitute anything remotely resembling "reform" or "change". In a nutshell, it seems to me all the work that the McCain campaign had done to define Obama as a celebrity, as an empty suit, as being not ready to lead, etc, is flushed down the toilet and suddenly, it is the McCain/Palin ticket that looks like the less experienced, more risky choice in this election.
Is McCain crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy?

How should Obama and/or Biden respond when they are inevitably asked this question about Sarah Palin?

The Star Tribune of Minneapolis is now the latest, and largest, newspaper to drop AP.
The reason is given is recent rate hikes announced by AP, taking effect in 2009.
A number of other newspapers have announced their cancelation, including The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., The Post Register of Idaho Falls, The Bakersfield Californian, and The Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World, both in Washington.
<a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003843111">Story here</a>

Chris Matthews just asked an interesting question about who among them had picked Obama to win the nomination in the beginning of the race.

Nobody on his panel.

The only one I can think of among the punditocracy is former McCain strategist Michael Murphy.  Got to give him credit.

Anyone know of any others?

This little nugget came from a story on Rupert Murdoch's gloomy  take on the economy at a recent conference:
So is he optimistic about anything? Yes, he is: He's cautiously intrigued by... Barack Obama. Murdoch, who said that he was responsible for the New York Post's endorsement of Obama during the New York primary, said he wasn't ready to endorse Obama or to vote for him. But he's pretty close: "I want to be convinced that Obama is the real thing, that can really carry through. I'm open to that."
On McCain: "has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. So what's he really stand for?... I think he has a lot of problems."
What on earth with Fox News do if Murdoch comes out for Obama?  Brit Hume's head might explode.
Link here:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/murdoch_u_s_economy_in_for_a_very_hard_time_

It has been conventional wisdom, and I have also believed, that once Obama wrapped up the pledged delegate majority we would see a rapid consolidation of remaining super delegates behind him.  Yet since Obama crossed the pledged delegate threshold on Tuesday, there has not been much movement.
So what's going on?  What are they waiting for at this point?
My thoughts:
Waiting for resolution to MI & FL.  They don't want to appear that they are rendering the decision on that moot.  Although, on the flip side, how will Obama ever agree to anything that risks his majority?
Waiting for the end of the primaries.  This is out of respect for Clinton, allowing her to finish the way she wants to before officially backing Obama.  
Waiting for the summer or the convention.  This would be if the remaining super delegates are genuinely skeptical about Obama's electability and are still weighing whether on not they should back Clinton.  But it would have to be a vast majority of remaining super delegates thinking this way, which seems very unlikely.
Any other possibilities?

PA GOP senator Arlen Specter said candidly on Bill Maher's show Friday night that Obama would be a tougher general election candidate than Hillary.  Also, Specter described Obama as a "phenomenon".  
This coming from a GOP senator I think is generally regarded as a straight shooter.  Watch the interview, I don't think you can interpret this as anything other than an honest answer by Specter.  Certainly he isn't buying any of this "unelectable" nonsense.
The question comes at about 1:44 into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghbTxHctFwQ

One of the arguments being put forth by the Clinton campaign is that the caucuses aren't truly representative of the popular will of the voters.  What logically follows is that even if she loses the pledged delegate race, the super delegates are fair game to swing the nomination because of the "illegitimacy" of the delegates awarded from caucuses.
For the sake of argument, let's say she's right.  Let's say caucuses are not legitimate determiners of popular vote.  Where does the pledged delegate race stand if you eliminate all the caucuses?  
A good question, I thought.  I used the CBS delegate totals, copied them to a spreadsheet and deleted all the caucus states.  The results?
Clinton:  534Obama:  593
Uh oh.  Clinton is still losing the delegate battle in primary only states.  Seems to undermine her super delegate argument a bit.
Not sure how to attach the spreadsheet, but here are the numbers:

Clinton Obama DC 15 Delegates 3 10 Maryland 70 Delegates 24 44 Virginia 83 Delegates 27 56 Louisiana 56 Delegates 22 34 Alabama 13 Delegates 4 9 Arizona 56 Delegates 31 25 Arkansas 35 Delegates 27 8 California 55 Delegates 13 32 Connecticut 48 Delegates 22 26 Delaware 15 Delegates 6 9 Georgia 18 Delegates 3 15 Illinois 32 Delegates 9 23 Mass. 72 Delegates 24 48 Missouri 72 Delegates 36 36 New Jersey 107 Delegates 59 48 New York 232 Delegates 139 93 Oklahoma 38 Delegates 24 14 Tennessee 68 Delegates 38 28 Utah 3 Delegates 2 1 Dems Abroad 7 Delegates - - Florida 0 Delegates - - South Carolina 45 Delegates 12 25 Michigan 0 Delegates - - New Hampshire 22 Delegates 9 9 Total Primary Dels 534 593