Throughout this cycle the timing of events has seemed as peculiar as the circumstances.  There seemed to be an anxious atmosphere, a feeling of frantic hastening jacked up on uncertainty.  I know how vague this sounds, but I sensed a subtle, strange timing undercurrent which has been hard to define.  Today I realized a component of this sense while reading Hendrik Hertzberg's post, Timing is Everything:

If the order of this year’s Conventions had been reversed, we would now be looking at a very different set of story lines. The final, reverberating impression left by the Conventions would not have been Sarah Palin’s everygal charm but Barack Obama’s stirring specifics delivered to a cheering throng of eighty thousand under the lights. The TV commentaries, once the Conventions were over, would have found time to contrast the Republicans’ relentless negativity to the positive tone struck by the Democrats.

   Honestly, I hadn't even considered that alternative.  The cacophony from our fine outlets during Palinpalooza drowned out my reason; I actually thought that she legitimately garnered all that focus all by her lonesome.  Someone so new, so exciting, so - dare I say - daring!  She was absolutely unknown and the press would hastily vet her with much fanfare.
   But this process took time and time was what the GOP had.  By merit of their party's incumbency, their convention came second and allowed them to call dibs on the echo chamber.  Meanwhile the acceleration coil of time was winding more tightly toward its conclusion, amping up the drama of what was already a full blast affair.  Hertzberg again:

“History shows that a five-point convention bounce has been typical, no matter the particulars of the convention in terms of political party and incumbency/convention order,” an analyst for the Gallup organization wrote last month, using data from 1964 to 2004. But this year, history is bunk. A Convention bounce needs time to develop. No time, no bounce. Obama got neither. McCain got both.

      Unobstructed media space and time were critical ingredients for McCain's bounce to arch high and hold.  And considering the context more carefully in retrospect, I'd have expected McCain/Palin's to have been loftier and held longer. Though I have my doubts that they will have another high point the likes of their convention and the immediate time corridor thereafter. 

Time will tell.

Press: Wait a minute.  Aunt Jemima is a brand of syrup, an inanimate object!  This is beyond ridiculous!

Jemima spokesman Rick Davis: Wrong. That's racist, sexist and un-American.  Aunt Jemima has a storied history in this great country and has none nothing but bring smiles and happiness to millions of American families.

P: But that's not the point - this isn't a candidate, it's a product placement!

RD: Hold on - a brand represents an idea, and this idea is wholesome, sweet and pure.  Americans yearn for a fresh start, a renewal, and Aunt Jemimah will restore our pride, return us to our roots.  It should also be noted that Aunt Jemima has a full staff so it's not like she'd be making decisions by herself.  Any suggestion that a black woman cannot lead is representative of the darkest undercurrents of hate in this country.

P: But, but...  It's not a "she," Mr. Davis, it's a label!  I can't believe you're serious.

RD: We are serious.  And WE can't believe that just when we're trying to make the American people more secure, more prosperous and display the diversity of the the Republican base, the Democrats and the press want to tear down a woman simply because she has done so much good.  It's an outrage that no able-bodied, white, male candidate would have to endure.

P: That's not hardly the point....

RD: Wrong!  That IS the point and you don't get it.  This isn't about records, even though I would point out that there is nothing, NOTHING, in Aunt Jemima's past to suggest that she's anything but wholesome, anything but America's beloved aunt!

P: Okay, let's talk about issues.

RD: We welcome a debate about issues, so long as it is focused squarely on how we're representing the truth.

P: She's done nothing.  And I don't mean that figuratively.  Nothing.

RD: That is obscene!  Here you go again, distracting voters with smears and ugly nonsense.  Listen, we are fielding a candidate who has added to the health, well-being and happiness of a majority of Americans.  Her candidacy is historic and she will make us all proud.  Unlike any candidate the Democrats put forward, we can legitimately say that ours has done nothing wrong, ever!

P: This is absurdity.  Straight up, your campaign is a lie, top to bottom.

RD: Is not.  Anyway, this election is not about who's telling the truth or who's lying, but who makes the American people feel good, feel safe in their homes and can restore this country's pride.  Aunt Jemima is the only candidate qualified for that job and Americans know it.

P: How will you stage debates?  Negotiate with foreign powers?  Appoint Supreme Court justices?

RD: Aunt Jemima cannot speak due to a physical disability and I am frankly appalled that you would again attack this historic candidate - a disabled black woman running for the highest office!  Obscene.  This is exactly the dark politics that the American people will reject - attacks, racism, sexism and discrimination against the disabled.  How dare you?
But to the larger question of how she will navigate the State of the Union address or talking tough to our enemies, we are more than confident that Vice President McCain will confidently support Ms. Jemima in her duties, restoring our historic toughness which has been so greatly diminished by the left.

Honestly I cannot remember a time when a candidate for high office sealed themselves in a bubble transmitting only pre-scripted smears and shaky denials.  Yet here's Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign doing just that.

I would love to see Joe Biden to come out strong, pointing out that if she is too afraid of the press to field questions then she is in no position to assume the role of VP. 

It's just a matter of time before the first button-making entrepreneur or bumper sticker press gets out a cartoon image of a pitbull with lipstick.  Then perhaps we will see myriad variations of that pitbull chewing up corruption or maybe an Obama / Biden sign or, for the more discriminating GOPer, an Obama-in-Muslim-garb chewdoll. 
This sort of banal, petty marketing plays well to the base and I can see McNeed-a-Cane playing for women this way.  Wouldn't all moms like to be pitbulls with lipstick?  Can I get you the bumper sticker or t-shirt?

Yesterday, on Hendrik Hertzberg's blog he outlined how "Frank Luntz, the Gingrichian pollster and word technician" went so badly off message on Hannity & Colmes.  Luntz dared to praise Obama:

LUNTZ: You have to give Obama credit for having the ability, the poise, and the presentation skills to be able to capture the hearts and the passion of almost two hundred and fifty thousand Berliners—and this is a guy, of course, who is just a candidate for President of the United States.

Hannity goes apoplectic and proceeds to twitch, froth and flop around, unable to grasp what rift in the universe caused Luntz to spew such nonsense on his show.

On Hendrik Hertzberg's blog yesterday, he took on Zev Chavets' lengthy profile of Rush Limbaugh in Sunday's New York Times Magazine.  Chavets was given unprecedented access to Limbaugh, documenting previously unpublished details about the talk radio star's lavish lifestyle.  But there is something missing according to Hertzberg:

Limbaugh is an important person because he broadcasts hard-right political commentary—more precisely, propaganda—to an enormous national audience for three hours a day, five days a week. And about this Chavets and the Times tell us nothing.

It is a tart, pertinent remind of how access can alter ever critical objectivity.

Much of what I am hearing from the Clinton side right now is, "Let's vote McCain!"  I understand that this is a sharp reaction to the current unfolding of events and that many Clinton supporters now professing to support McCain will in time find Obama the better candidate.   But among those who are particularly hardened in their Clinton-or-McCain view, is there a desire to have McCain reach out to them?  Will he?  What would this look like?  With McCain not finding good traction even among Republicans, it's easier to imagine him angling for a disgruntled Clinton voting bloc threatening (promising) to go his way.

Curiosity drives me to hillaryis44.org sometimes.  I suppose I'm looking for insight into Clinton's support, particularly as the days get bleaker, the odds impossibly longer.  Also I'm looking for, hoping for a softening of position, something that telegraphs an acceptance of the trajectory we're on.
However that website is more shrill, more vitriolic than ever.  Not only are the isolationist walls going higher and growing thicker, they're closing in.  Today I read rage driven posts that paint Edwards as: 1) unimportant; 2) contemptible; 3) traitorous.  Many say NARAL committed an unforgivable sin with their endorsement of Obama.
Could it be that everyone who goes for Obama is an enemy?!  Really?  Are we not all Americans?  Democrats?  Friends, or at least friendly colleagues?  How can we be this divided?  You'd think Obama was Rumsfeld judging by the hatred.
Perhaps this is not the sampling of Hillary supporters I should be looking at to guess the baseline thinking of that group.  There are many reasoned, balanced Clinton supporters here on TPM and elsewhere. 
But it is getting harder for me to envision party reconciliation when many of Clinton's supporters are concretizing their myopic view that only Hillary can be president - and any alternative perspective, no matter how grounded in reality, is to be vilified.

05/07/08:

Clinton did not mention Obama during her visit to Shepherdstown, W.Va. – a late addition to her schedule, located just 80 miles from Washington, D.C.

While she delivered a familiar message focused on the bread-and-butter economic frustrations of working voters, she dropped the central contrasts that had driven her stump speech in the closing days of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries: Attacks on Obama’s position on home foreclosures, healthcare, and the gas tax holiday, and the accompanying implication that he is “out of touch” with their views.

“Next Tuesday, I hope you will give me a chance to be your president,” she said.

02/24/08

Today, Clinton was at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, and she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.

The more dubious Clinton's claims, the more her supporters come out and vote.  Iran obliteration, gas tax and the breakup of OPEC.
What could be next?  What wild new claims will Clinton dangle like fish bait over the next few primaries?  Five ideas:

1) Lower the price of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and offer a 20% case discount.
2) Offer one-time tax rebates to those without a college education - the We're Not Elite Relief bill.
3) One free boilermaker for all 21+ Americans!
4) High Society Liberal tax on hybrids, lattes, solar panels and Birkenstocks.
5) A complimentary "Denigrate Your Fellow Democrat" kit, complete with: Mischaracterization 101, Exaggeration tips, 'Get Out Of Lies' card and a copy of Smear & Fear by Karl Rove.

Nice to see this story picking up traction:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party's nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.

"It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis," he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

"This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

Surely these economists are out of touch elitists.  Right McCain?  Clinton?

Some thoughtful fine tuning of Obama's tone and focus:

ABC News -

Obama said he has gotten wrapped up in negative campaigning recently, which has distracted him from his reason for running, and said he spoke with his campaign team about changing the focus.

"I noticed over the last several weeks, I told this to my team, you know we are starting to sound like other folks - starting to run the same negative stuff. And it shows you  that none of us are immune from this kind of politics. But the problem is that it doesn't help you.  Having politicians bickering back and forth doesn't help you. Having them worry about superdelegates doesn't help you."

Again, Obama repeated his new focus, not the other candidates, but he says, the American people.

"This election is not about me. It's not about Sen. Clinton. It's not about John McCain. It's about you. It's about your struggles, your hopes, your dreams."

    More than breaking with the recent negativity, more than connecting with blue collar workers, he's turned his focus solely to the populace and its needs.  This is where Obama should be to connect more broadly, to hit the wider harmonies among people. 
    This honed message also reflects a core strength of Obama's, something neither Clinton nor McCain are especially know for -- the capacity to draw in all kinds of perspectives and foster agreement.