http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-humor.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-humor.html

Just when you thought Obama was on the ropes, he comes out with his broad attack on McCain: he is out of touch with ordinary Americans. This ad came our quick didnt it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo

This, I feel, could be a game-changing moment for the campaign. It seems very strong and very easy to make and understand. McCain, for his part, is not doing himself any favors.

McCain is clearly not doing himself any favors.

Just yesterday he made two huge errors:

He could not count how many homes he owned.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html

In another answer, he said that he didn't think income should be counted by income and that billionaires could be poor.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html

Just a few days ago, McCain "joked" at Saddleback that 5 million dollars was middle class. 

And everyone knows what he said on the trail months ago: 

"The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should..."

Let's see if Obama can continue pursuing this narrative.

Well, it's not official yet, but there are a number of signs that are strongly suggesting Kaine will be the pick, perhaps announced as early as next week.

- Just released on the NYT website is a pro-Kaine article putting him on the short list:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/politics/14kaine.html?em

-Earlier today, Obama announced that Bayh and Biden will be speaking on Wend. night at the convention, making their VP prospects doubtful. While this may be some sort of media head-fake, both Markos at Daily Kos and Jerome Armstrong at MyDD think not:

 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/14/185633/744
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/8/14/165253/550

- Finally, according to Ambinder and a secretive source, Obama will probably be making an appearance in Virginia next Thursday:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/obama_richmond_va_next_thursda.php

I always thought that Webb would have been a great choice, and I'm still trying to get over his decision to withdraw his name, but I see Kaine as a good Virginian replacement!

Copied from The Plank:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/10/mccain-s-memory-excuse.aspx

There's a LAT piece today about how, in her wooing of women voters, McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina isn't above stretching the truth about the candidate's positions. For instance, Fiorina recently suggested that McCain took issue with insurance companies who pay for Viagra but refused to cover birth control. (As you might imagine, this a sore spot with many gals.)

The folks at NARAL were quick to point out that, in fact, Senator Straight Talk has twice voted against measures--once in 2003 and once in 2005--that would require insurance companies to pay for birth control. When asked about this apparent discrepancy, McCain insisted that he did not recall those votes and noted, "It's something that I had not thought much about."

This response brought to mind an episode from last month regarding McCain's record on supporting probes of the Katrina disaster. While campaigning in Louisiana, McCain boasted that he had "voted for every Katrina investigation"; when a New Orleans reporter pointed out that the Senator had, in fact, twice voted against establishing an independent panel along the lines of the 9/11 Commission, McCain insisted that he was "not familiar with exactly what you said."

Now, Senators cast a lot of votes that they don't pay that much attention to. They also cast a lot of votes that they wish people would forget. But Senator Straight Talk should be careful about falling back on the I-don't-remember-or-I-wasn't-paying-attention excuse. Some people might get the idea that McCain doesn't give a damn about his domestic policy votes. Worse still, others might start to wonder if perhaps the 71-year-old candidate's memory isn't what it used to be. McCain cannot afford for either of those concerns to start tickling the electorate's brain. 

What are your expectations for Tuesday?

Today, Joe Andrews said that Obama would win "both states."

A few days ago, Obama said that Indiana would be a "tie-breaker."

Does anyone think he can pull it off and, if so, what does that mean for the candidates?

I personally feel a little momentum for Obama in both NC and IN. The gas-tax debate seems to be turning in Obama's favor and the local media has focused on its controversy. Obama has gotten over Wright for the most part, and for the few people who still questioned his motives in denouncing him last week, Obama clearly answered doubts on Meet the Press. Obama has obviously invested  a lot in Indiana and his closing ad is expensive at 2 mins long, but very efective. Finally, demographics obviously favor him in NC and pose a favorable oppurtunity in IN. IN's demographics seem much more like Wisconsins. There are certainly a lot of blue-collar folks, but they seem educated and bit racist for the most part.

I won't make a numerical prediction just yet, but I do believe that with this late momentum, Obama will win NC decisivly and will upset Hillary in IN. 

Hillary, pressured by superdelegates and media, will be forced to drop out later in the week.

Thoughts?   

I've been told that Indiana's electorate is much more educated than some assume and so I've been hoping that Obama's stand against the gas-tax holiday might trump Hillary-McCain's pandering.

Today, Chuck Todd suggests that Obama might be getting some traction from this:

"Obama's gas tax pushback seems to be getting real traction in Indiana..."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/03/976658.aspx

As reported by Marc Ambinder:

"At a high school here, she led the crowd, mostly students and in their parents, in a chorus of "Yes we can!"s."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

Following Obama's now infamous remarks in San Francisco over a week ago, Hillary Clinton has tried to portray this "gaffe" as the undoing of Obama. Over the weekend, Clinton and McCain tag-teamed to incite the electorate and the media to be insulted and snubbed. Yet, ironically, it has become increasingly clear that "Bittergate" is backfiring in a potentially major way for Clinton.

It began within hours of the story breaking on Huffington Post: Obama, in Terra Haute, Indiana explained his statements and pivoted off his remarks to attack McCain and Clinton, recieving a standing ovation.

Meanwhile, as most pundits reacted in shock, the CNN Political Team was in full support of Obama.

Saturday and Sunday brought more calls of gloom, but also brought about a large number of calls of support for Obama. Many felt that the controversy was being largely overblown. On Sunday night, at the Compassion Forum, Obama was recieved warmly by the crowd, while Hillary's continuing attacks seemed innappropriate and poorly recieved.

And on Monday, Obama's explanation and "counter-punch" at the AAM Forum was met with cheers, while Clinton's attacks were met with jeers.

How has Bittergate potentially turned the tables on Clinton?
Well there are a number of reasons.

First, the "gaffe" was not that controversial. As Ambinder pointed out on Friday night and as many have posted throughout the blogosphere, there's a whole lot of truth to Obama's words. Many folks are feeling bitter and for Hillary to claim that people are so happy and optimistic seems, well put quite frankly, out of touch with today's electorate. Moreover, there was no video of the remarks that could be played over and over on the TV and Youtube, reinforcing Obama's poorly constructed words.

Second, Hillary overplayed her hand on the story and instead of simply pointing the media towards the story and/or using surrogates to drive the story, she herself took on the attack. She seemed to drive home a narrative of Obama being elitist, when she herself has no room to talk what with 109 million dollars being claimed in her recently released tax returns. She began pandering to the voters by talking about gun rights and her history with guns. 

Third, Clinton made the mistake of attacking Obama on the "bitter" part of the remarks, instead of the "cling to guns and religion" part that seems now much more controversial. PA voters and Americans in general are bitter and thats why this is a change election. Because of this initial misfire, Clinton allowed Obama to respond with this acceptance of the bitterness and turn it towards his own message of change against the status quo. Indeed, Obama's remarks are now part of "Bittergate" not "Cling-gate."

It is yet to be seen how strong this backlash against Clinton will be. But it has the potential to turn the tables on Clinton in a major way. By accepting and clarfiying that America is indeed bitter about politics, and by pivoting that to a message of real change, Obama can now drive home the perception that it is actually he, not Clinton, who understands the hard-working, but often ignored voters of central PA. It is just the kind of turnaround perception that Obama can use to win PA.