What happened was that the conservative press — Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk — went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way ... and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in, day out, that'll drive up your negatives.

http://www.glamour.com/...

They're coming into the final turn in the race to be Obama's running mate.  Some, like Strickland, Webb and Warner, have taken themselves out of the mix.  Others, like Clinton, don't stand a chance, in my view.

Here's a rundown of the contenders as I see it.  A poll follows.

With commanding leads among women and young voters and near unanimous support from black voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 50 - 41 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters released today.

Independent voters split 44 - 44 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Sen. McCain has a slight 47 - 44 percent edge among men voters and a larger 49 - 42 percent lead among white voters.

But black voters back Sen. Obama 94 - 1 percent, while women support him 55 - 36 percent. Obama leads 63 - 31 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old and 48 - 44 percent among voters 35 to 54, while voters over 55 split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

Usually when a Democrat wraps up the presidential nomination, he seeks to move to the center. (Republicans don't have to.  After all, IOKIYAR).  That Obama has sought to do so is not surprising.  What is a surprising is that he appears not to be stopping at the center, but moving further right.  Right in the direction, and the arms, of the DLC.

Let's take some examples.

I used to have some admiration for John McCain.  In the 2000 primary, he took on the religious right, and was the victim of the Bush dirty tricks squad.  He fancied himself as an environmentalist.  He opposed Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  He opposed torture and expressed doubts about Guantanamo.  He co-sponsored the campaign finance law with Russ Feingold.

But now it's clear that John McCain is a fraud.  Almost every day he's changing his position on one issue after the other.  Rejecting nearly every shred of progressivism and independence from the right-wing party line he had previously expressed.  People are starting to take notice, and Democrats should be hammering him with the flip-flop charge daily.

If the election were held today, 44 percent would vote for McCain, 42 percent for Obama, while 14 percent of likely voters remain undecided, according to the poll of 625 likely voters, conducted Monday through Wednesday by Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. for the Review-Journal and reviewjournal.com.

. . . .

Voters age 18 to 34 preferred Obama by a wide margin, 55 percent to 31 percent. Among voters age 35 to 49, the two candidates were tied at 43 percent each. But McCain was preferred by voters 50 to 64, 48 percent to 39 percent, and by voters 65 and older, 50 percent to 34 percent.

http://www.lvrj.com/...

The process of elimination is well underway.  Strickland and Edwards have withdrawn their names from consideration.  I remain convinced that Obama will not pick Clinton, and will not pick another woman so as not allienate Clinton and her hardcore supporters.  I also remain convinced that Obama will not choose a minority, which eliminates Richardson.  The General Jones rumblings should not be believed because he is tight with McCain.  I also don't think Obama will pick a senator that would cost the Democrats a senate seat, which rules out Dodd and Bayh.  Sam Nunn is no spring chicken, has been out of the game for over a decade, is too conservative, and would resurect the whole gays in the military business.  I also don't think Obama will pick someone to his left, which eliminates Feingold and Sherrod Brown.

Not leap year.  Not the Olympics.  No, it's the Republicans smearing the wife of the Democratic nominee as unpatriotic.

This is the '08 version of a really weird conservative urban legend that pops up every four years, The names change, but the basics remain the same: 1) It always involves the wife of the Democratic presidential candidate; 2) It always portrays the wife -- not the candidate -- committing some anti-American, unpatriotic act.

http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/...

Time once again to engage in everyone's favorite pastime, handicapping the VP field.  Four years ago I ended with Gephardt and Edwards 1-2.  Right individuals, wrong order.

I think the choice this time will be made sooner rather than later, if for no other reason than to forestall the Clinton for VP pressure.  It wouldn't surprise me to see the announcement being made around July 4.

Now, to the line.

As Israel's prime minister prepares to arrive in Washington, and Obama and Clinton prepare to follow McCain's panderfest before AIPAC with a panderfest of their own, Israel has announced that it is building approximately 800 new homes in occupied East Jerusalem.  Despite its promise to the U.S. as part of the so-called "road map" not to do so, and, of course, in violation of international law.

The government announced plans Sunday to build more than 800 homes in East Jerusalem, a move that could hinder international efforts to secure a peace deal by the end of the year.

http://edition.cnn.com/...

Geraldine Ferraro's "black obsession" is on display again.  This time on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe.  Half the column is devoted to the claim that Clinton was the victim of sexism.  I'm not concerned with that claim right now.  More revealing is Ferraro's renewed claim that, in effect, whites, specifically "Reagan Democrats," were the victims of the Obama campaign's utilization of the "race card."

As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening.

http://www.boston.com/...

Poll by EPIC-MRA, one of the state's most prominent pollsters.

McCain is favored by 44 percent of Michigan voters compared to 40 percent for Sen. Barack Obama in the new Michigan survey, whose error margin is 4 percentage points. But the survey also shows teaming up with Sen. Hillary Clinton could boost Obama, the likely Democratic nominee: an Obama-Clinton ticket leads McCain-Mitt Romney, 51-44. The poll of 600 likely Michigan voters was conducted May 19-22.

The survey may reflect McCain's popularity in Michigan, where he won the 2000 Republican primary and challenged Michigan native Mitt Romney in the state's Jan. 15 GOP primary. Obama likely suffers from the ongoing Democratic nomination fight, the dispute over Michigan's Democratic primary and the fact that, until a one-day Michigan trip this month, he had not campaigned here in nearly a year. Obama will be in Michigan, in Oakland County, on Monday, the day before the final primaries.

http://www.detroitnews.com/...

Someone not being talked about much as a running mate for Obama is Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina.

Profile.  Easley is 58 and a Roman Catholic.  From the Rocky Mount area in the north central part of the state.  He is a lawyer, as is his wife.  He served two terms as state Attorney General, before being elected Governor in 2000.  He was re-elected in 2004 by 13 points, while Bush was carrying the state.  His focus as Governor has been on education.  As many will recall, he endorsed Clinton for president.  He is a huge NASCAR fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Despite a whitewash report issued by the Harper government  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/... a column by one of Canada's most respected political reporters reveals that the source of the leak that damaged Obama's Ohio campaign leads directly to the Prime Minister's office, and that the recipient of the leak was the son of a Republican congressman.  This is clear evidence that the Conservative party in Canada is working hand-in-hand with the Republicans to damage Obama.  Democrats need to highlight the Republicans' improper use of secret information from a foreign country to affect the course of the election.

Fingers are pointing at Conservatives close to Stephen Harper for leaking a diplomatic memo that badly embarrassed Barack Obama and put Canada's vital cross-border interests at risk. Multiple sources say the Canadian note questioning the Democrat frontrunner's public promise to reopen NAFTA was leaked from the Prime Minister's Office to a Republican contact before it made American headline news.

http://www.thestar.com/...

That's what the HBO movie could have been subtitled.  In addition to bringing back all the outrages of Florida 2000--the butterfly ballot, the "bougeoris" riot, the disenfranchisement of black voters, the ineptitude of many in the Gore team, Lieberman's stab-in-the-back, etc.--the movie highlighted perhaps the biggest outrage of all.  That being, the unprecedented decision of the Supreme Court to shortcircuit the political process.  A process provided by the Constitution, and given to Congress.

The same, or similar, process that was permitted to run its course in 1800, 1824 and 1876.  Yet in 2000, five activist justices of the Supreme Court decided that letting the constitutional process run its course was too dangerous for the country.  They knew better and decided that it was time to declare one candidate the winner.  In making that determination, the court brought shame upon itself, and ensured that it would go down in infamy with the courts that gave the nation such decision as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.

From some of the same group that couldn't vote straight in 2000, comes folks who can't think straight in 2008.  Many in the Jewish community in the southeast counties of Broward, Dade and Palm Beach, who nearly always vote Democratic, are planning to vote for John McCain this November.  Not because of McCain, although Zell Lieberman's support is a factor.  But rather because of Barack Obama.  And though they cite his perceived failure to toe the Zionist line as a factor, dig a little deeper and you'll find the real reason.  Plain and simple bigotry.  His race, his ancestors' religion, his name.  Whatever.  Those are the real reasons.  

First off, people don't vote based on who the running mate is.  Historically, running mates have made little difference in the outcome of elections.  The classic example pointed to is LBJ in 1960.  But even had Kennedy lost Texas, he still would have won the election.  Moreover, in two elections where the public recognized a vast difference in the quality of the running the mates, 1968 (Muskie v. Agnew) and 1988 (Bentsen v. Quayle), Humphrey and Dukakis still lost.

Not George Bush.  Not Condi Rice.  Not Hillary Clinton.  Not Barack Obama.  Why it's none other than . . . Israel.  Yes, that Israel.  Despite its own government's stated policy.  And that Hamas.  However, what's good enough for Israel is apparently not good enough for Bush and McCain.  Apparently, they want to out Israel Israel.  And apparently they think they know what's better for Israel than Israel's government does.

Over to you, George and John.  And the talking heads at Faux.  I wait for you to include Israel on your list of "appeasers."