You've got tolove the creative spinmeisters at Fox News with that headline.

Reminds me of the literally true "Sonny Liston Blocks Cassius Clay's Fist With His Face".

^{photo credit : AP}

PS If you want a more resonable take, see First Read on McCain's weaknesses in the NBC/WSJ poll:

For one thing, 77% believe that McCain would closely follow President Bush’s policies, which is unchanged since March. NBC/WSJ co-pollster Neil Newhouse (R) says that if one of the McCain camp’s goals this summer was to distance McCain from Bush, "that wasn’t achieved." In addition, November is still shaping up to be a change election (60% say they want a president who will focus on progress and moving America forward, versus 35% who want the next president to focus on protecting what has made America great), and yet McCain has to seize the "change" mantle or even try to...

Yet even though Republicans appear to be coming home, McCain is still facing a tremendous enthusiasm gap. In the poll, 46% of Obama voters say they are excited about voting for him. Just 12% of McCain voters say that about him. In a close race -- if the Clinton voters don’t come home for Obama -- that could be a HUGE factor. By the way, don't miss the fact that McCain has slightly more Republicans supporting him (85%) than Obama has Democrats for him (79%). McCain leads among indies, but it's within the margin (42%-38%). Also, the party ID split in this poll between Dems and GOPers was just nine points, a low for the last year.

Uh-huh

David Gergen: I, adviser to four Presidents, will lay out What Obama Must Do. The fact is, as long as terrorism is the number one threat, the GOP will win. Ignore the polls that say it's not. Here's my recipe for a game changer (and the reason it's needed is that the McCain campaign has been better at impressing voters): lay out your Cabinet. Now. [And do not click this link].

Gail Collins:

Lieberman used to be a perfectly good senator, but somewhere along the line he began thinking of himself as being above the partisan fray, and it had a terrible effect. When he ran for vice president, he was so busy being pompous that he didn’t notice that Dick Cheney had won the debate. (Of all the negative achievements in Lieberman’s career, it’s hard to top making Cheney the most likable man in the room.)

But wait! There's more!

John Nichols:

This column has been pondering and predicting an Obama-Biden ticket for some time now. That's still the best bet, and now that the announcement is finally imminent, everyone is talking about it.

So, what the heck, let's run the Hillary Clinton scenario one more time...

George Will: Teachers, and by extension, Democrats, are bad for children.

David Broder:  I'm in NH, and guess what? You remember when Chris Matthews left DC and discovered people didn't like Bush? Well, outside the Beltway,

The negative judgments about the economy and the Bush presidency were unequivocal. That makes it Obama's race to lose. But there's still a need for reassurance from him.

Breaking.

Harold Meyerson:

The Democratic Party has a compelling story to tell about African Americans and women -- groups, suffering from huge and historic discrimination, that the party has championed and whose interests it has helped advance. For the white working class, the Democrats can point to discrete pieces of economic legislation (some, like retraining programs for jobs that don't exist, hardly worth pointing to), but they offer no such narrative.

Yet if Obama cannot tell this story, of workers deprived of economic opportunity and security through no fault of their own, cannot convey his empathy with these workers and his outrage over Wall Street discarding them like so many gratuitous spare parts, he probably cannot win the election.

The new NBC/WSJ and CBS/NY Times polls are out and there are no radical changes from yesterday's poll tightening. As previously noted, we pay special attention to media polls because of their ability to drive narrative. (For a complete view of all the polls, see pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com.)

One narrative that seems clear as a short term gain and long term pain: McCain is perceived as running a negative campaign.

By a nearly six-to-one margin, voters say Republican presidential candidate John McCain is running a negative campaign against his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Nearly three in 10 voters, 29%, pointed to McCain as the candidate running a negative campaign, compared to just 5% who said Obama is running a negative campaign. McCain’s 29% rating is the highest of any one candidate in the previous two presidential elections according to the WSJ/NBC News survey.

In October 2004, 15% of voters identified both President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry as negative campaigners. In July 2000, 8% identified Bush as a negative campaigner, while 13% said Vice President Al Gore was a negative campaigner.

However, 41% of respondents said neither McCain nor Obama is running a negative campaign, while 19% said both men are guilty of using negative tactics.

NBC/WSJ Presidential choice
          8/08 (6/08) (5/08) (4/08)
Barack Obama  45 (47) (47) (46)
John McCain   42 (41) (41) (43)

CBS/NY Times Presidential choice
          8/15-19/08 (7/31-8/5/08) (7/7-14/08)
Barack Obama  45 (45) (45)
John McCain   42 (39) (39)

For CBS/NY Times, it's 45 (45) Obama, 42 (39) McCain, also a tightening. The enthusiasm gap is 48-24 (guess who), and 28% of McCain's supporters are either 'he's the GOP nominee' or anti-Obama. And like the NBC/WSJ poll, more people perceive McCain as negative on Obama than positive on McCain. From NY Times (my bold):

There were indications that the more negative tone Mr. McCain adopted this summer could prove risky. Attempts by Republicans and the McCain campaign to cast Mr. Obama as elitist, or out of touch, do not seem to have moved popular opinion much yet against the Democrat, but they appear to have led more voters to view Mr. McCain as a negative campaigner.

Obama leads 20 points with 18-34s, McCain leads by 1 with everyone else.

Back to NBC/WSJ: Hillary Clinton's voters are half the 13% undecideds. See Ruth Marcus:

It's not that Obama has a problem with female voters. To the contrary, he does significantly better among women than among men. It sounds paradoxical, but the campaign, lagging badly among white men, may have its biggest growth potential among female voters. Women, especially women without a college education, tend to make up their minds later. Recent polls show twice as many women as men are undecided.

77% still think McCain will follow Bush's policies. Not good for McCain.

In any case, with both polls, there's a 3 point Obama lead, well within the MoE (usually +/- 3). That feels about right. McCain, as noted throughout this week, is consolidating his (smaller) base).

For perspective, I like Marc Ambinder.

McCain has given them something to think about this summer: Obama. And Obama hasn't returned the favor. He hasn't defined McCain in a visceral way, yet. He hasn't demonstrated that he can connect with working class white voters, although voters do find him empathetic enough. He can do both of these at the convention, and there are indications that he's doing the former in states with advertising.

With the convention coming up, there's lots of upside for Obama to do the same, and more talk about Lieberman for McCain. Now, that may be a head fake to distract and get some attention away from Obama's VP, and it would severely hurt with the religious right. But the fact is the next week belongs to Obama. We'll see what he does with it and how well the numbers look afterwards. McCain has built up some significant negatives, he's still tied to Bush, and the economy is still the driving force in this election. Think about what that means in the long run. From NY Times:

Slim majorities said neither candidate had yet made clear what he would do as president, suggesting that both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain need to use their conventions to provide voters with a better sense of their plans for addressing the deteriorating economy, high energy prices, access to health care and national security.

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is still closely associated with the deeply unpopular President Bush: nearly half of those surveyed said they expected him to continue the Bush administration’s policies if he is elected president. But voters, by a wide margin, view Mr. McCain as better prepared to be president than Mr. Obama, and as more likely to be an effective commander-in-chief.

My read is that McCain is spoiling his own brand with independents in order to consolidate his own base (my prediction from way back was that he can't have both) while the Democrats take their time to make up their mind. We will see what happens, starting with the next eight days, but I don't think this is great news for McCain no matter how the media spin goes. For all his vaunted "great couple of weeks" McCain is still stuck in the low 40's and has an unenthusiastic base behind him (one that's smaller than Obama's.)

Plus, yesterday's LA Times/Bloomberg and Q-poll both show Obama winning with indies, and McCain is perceived as a negative camapigner closely associated with the unpopular George Bush (CBS/NY Times: 47% think he'll continue Bush's policies but only 9% want him to. 48% want him to be less conservative.)

Finally, it would seem this year, the Obama campaign, as has been posted at fivethirtyeight.com, is investing in the ground game rather than blowing their wad on negative ads with limited effect, the way McCain did.

Can McCain win? Maybe. Obama still has plenty of work to do, and there are no guarantees (and, in fact, the real campaign starts Monday) but McCain might just have hit his ceiling with these polls while Obama still may have a lot of upside.

^{Note on CBS poll: Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones.}

Wednesday's a good day to abbreviate.

Thomas Friedman:

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

So, basically, everyone was wrong except me. What did we expect?

Michael Gerson: I agree with Tom about the first two, but we did everything right. I never criticize my former boss, anyway. That's not why the WaPo gave me this column.

David Ignatius:

McCain likes zingers. We've all seen that mischievous look -- just before he shot a quip or sarcastic one-liner at GOP rivals such as former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. It's one of his appealing qualities, but in this case it worries me. Zingers don't make good foreign policy. They embolden friends and provoke adversaries -- and in the Georgia crisis, that has proved to be a deadly combination.

Maureen Dowd: What if Clinton and McCain each, for their own reasons, wanted Obama to lose? How clever of me to think of that all by myself.

Kathleen Parker: I agree with the mainstream Daily Kos; that church venue should never have happened. Thomas Jefferson's rolling over in his grave.

Ruth Marcus:

It's not that Obama has a problem with female voters. To the contrary, he does significantly better among women than among men. It sounds paradoxical, but the campaign, lagging badly among white men, may have its biggest growth potential among female voters. Women, especially women without a college education, tend to make up their minds later. Recent polls show twice as many women as men are undecided.

John Stossel:

The Idiocy of Energy Independence

It's amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good.

It's amazing how pundits with shit for brains become popular merely because they get column space.

As we stand on the eve of the real election season, two new national polls today (LA Times/Bloomberg and Q-poll) along with the daily trackers (Rasmussen and Gallup) continue to show a tight race with a small Obama lead.

LA Times/Bloomberg
Registered Voters (June) MoE +/- 3
Obama  45 (49)
McCain 43 (37)

This poll shows the most movement, with the last polling in June.

The latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that Obama, the first black major-party nominee, may have defused the issue of race, particularly among independents who will form a crucial voting bloc in the November election...

The deteriorating economy and rising energy costs "have been major issues for so long and voters blame the Republicans and George Bush for the problems," says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director. Still, Pinkus says, McCain has benefited from voters' concerns about Obama's experience and ability to handle an international crisis.

Note that when this poll had Obama up by 12 in June, it was dismissed as an outlier along with the equally volatile Newsweek poll. Today's numbers are consistent what other polls show (see rest of post.) According to the news article, Obama still benefits from increased D enthusiasm. The LA Times version speculates on McCain negative attacks because Obama's fav/unfav now resemble McCain's. OTOH,

The poll found that McCain, long an unpopular figure among conservatives, has had more success than Obama in rallying his party's base. Nine out of 10 Republicans favor McCain, while just under 8 in 10 Democrats support Obama.

But independents, who could wind up deciding the election, favor Obama, 47% to 36%.

And Obama's backers are more enthusiastic than McCain's, suggesting that the Democrat holds greater potential for a strong turnout of supporters. The poll found that 78% of Obama's supporters were enthusiastic about his candidacy; 61% of McCain's backers felt that way.

Bottom line is that, like in other polls, the GOP base has consolidated while the Dem base, while more enthusiastic, has not. Obama has room to move up, but it'll take work to get there. And then there are the conventions, which, based on these numbers, come at the right time for Obama. How much upward room there is for McCain remains unclear, based on what is a poor showing amongst indies (Obama favored by 11) and the stated 9 in 10 GOP voters picking McCain. In all the polls, base support is a major difference between the candidates, though I haven't seen the cross-tabs or the exact figures (or the party ID numbers, for that matter.) But if indies favor Obama by that much, he's in decent shape.

Quinnipiac
Likely Voters  (July) MoE +/- 2.5

Obama   47  (50)
McCain  42  (37)

Notes:

In the presidential matchup, McCain leads 46 - 41 percent among men, up from 47 - 44 percent July 15, and 48 - 40 percent among white voters, compared to 49 - 42 percent last month. He also leads 65 - 25 percent among white Evangelical Christians, up from 61 - 29 percent.

But Obama leads 53 - 39 percent among women, compared to 55 - 36 percent last month, and 94 - 4 percent among black voters. The Democrat leads 55 - 36 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old, compared to 63 - 31 percent last month. Obama's strength among voters 35 to 54 is up from 48 - 44 percent to 49 - 41 percent. McCain leads 47 - 40 percent among voters over 55, compared to a 45 - 44 percent split July 15.

Independent voters shift from a 44 - 44 percent split to a 45 - 39 percent Democratic tilt.

"The poll underlines Sen. Barack Obama's strengths and weaknesses. Strengths: He leads overall and he's strong with women, even stronger among young folks and astronomically strong with blacks. Weaknesses: Sen. John McCain beats him among white voters, men, older folks and white Catholics," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Also, theGallup tracker has Obama 45 and McCain 44 (RV) while Rasmussen has Obama 47, McCain 45 (LV, with leaners).

With the VP choices and conventions about to start, the polls reflect the state of the race as of now. As of now, Obama as a tightening but small lead. And as of now is about to change. Maybe McCain will figure out how to get above 44% (or, for a change, lead.) Maybe Obama will finish consolidating wavering Dems and shore up his standing with the senior set.

We shall see in the next two weeks. Since polling over Labor Day is tough, the first helpful polls will be right after that. But if you want to look at historical VP bounces while you await the VP choices, try this recent post by Mark Blumenthal.

Visiting the other guy's home field, and holding his own, Obama was feisty today at the VFW in Orlando, FL. And like the Olympics obscuring the appearance at Saddleback, Tropical Storm Fay will distract a bit from Obama's remarks. From First Read:

Before McCain’s oil rig visit, Obama addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Orlando, FL -- a day after McCain told the group about Obama’s "ambition to be president" and declared that "both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first." Per the campaign, Obama "will discuss his veterans policies and his commitment to continuing support for America’s service men and women after their deployments have ended." (Of course, whether Floridians will notice Obama in the state due to preparations for Fay is another story.) After that, he embarks on a two-and-a-half day economic bus tour through North Carolina and then Virginia.

But more importantly, the vet vote is the same as in 2004, and Gallup notes that the demographic of old white men is singularly skewed GOP.

McCain clearly holds an advantage over Obama among veterans, but that is probably due more to the fact that veterans tend to be Republicans than to the fact that McCain himself served in the military and is regarded by some as a war hero. Veterans showed similarly strong support for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. The data suggest there still is an effect of military service on candidate preference, but it is rather small and is overwhelmed by the effects of party affiliation.

Once again, Obama's task is not to 'win' over a GOP-oriented audience but to show up and be credible. That, he did. And that he keeps going to unfriendly audiences and holding his own is great news for when he actually has to be President of everyone.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I warned that war would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East, create new centers of terrorism, and tie us down in a costly and open-ended occupation. Senator McCain predicted that we’d be greeted as liberators, and that the Iraqis would bear the cost of rebuilding through their bountiful oil revenues. For the good of our country, I wish he had been right, and I had been wrong. But that’s not what history shows.

Senator McCain now argues that despite these costly strategic errors, his judgment has been vindicated due to the results of the surge...

But understand what the essential argument was about. Before the surge, I argued that the long-term solution in Iraq is political – the Iraqi government must reconcile its differences and take responsibility for its future. That holds true today. We have lost over a thousand American lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars since the surge began, but Iraq’s leaders still haven’t made hard compromises or substantial investments in rebuilding their country. Our military is badly overstretched – a fact that has surely been noted in capitals around the world. And while we pay a heavy price in Iraq – and Americans pay record prices at the pump – Iraq’s government is sitting on a $79 billion dollar budget surplus from windfall oil profits.

In the end, all these speeches and appearances have less to do with how people vote than party affiliation. As long as there are more Dems than Rs, Obama will do all right for himself, regardless of how these pre-season maneuverings go. But removing the caricature drawn by his opponent by showing up and addressing and engaging the audience is always a plus, and looking to see who gets more applause misses the point entirely.

Here it is, three days after a nationally televised honor-system "cone of silence" discussion on faith (during the Olympics), a week before the Democratic convention, and a lifetime after 2004.

The thing that strikes me is how short-sighted and shallow the "McCain won!" sentiment is. While it's true that McCain did very well Saturday, he was speaking to a receptive audience that was leaning toward him from the get-go (more on that in a moment). But McCain also made by far the two biggest gaffes of the night. He, of course, didn't arrive on time, opening him up to suspicion he cheated by listening to Obama's responses on the radio. That was totally under his control, but his chronically error-prone campaign blew that one, and now they are doing damage control.

The John McCain campaign fired off an angry letter to NBC News criticizing Andrea Mitchell's comments regarding the "cone of silence" at Saturday night's presidential candidates' forum at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.

And his flippant answer on how rich is rich is going to haunt him. Obama:

[McCain] was in a panel the other day with me, Rick Warren, some of you may have seen it -- and Rick Warren asked him -- how do you define rich? He said, maybe he was joking, he said, "$5 million." Obama added, "Which I guess if you're making $3 million a year, you’re middle class. But that’s reflected in his policies -- where, you know, for people making more than $2.5 million, he’s giving folks a $500,000 tax break. And so this is a fundamental difference in this election. What I've said is we're gonna give 95% of working families a tax break, but it's gonna be ordinary folks."

As far as the night went, History professor Alan Lichtman notes,

"New evangelical stars such as Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, who have built associations of many thousands of churches, are less politically active than Falwell and Robertson. They are also more open to liberal ideas about civil rights, the environment, and social justice, and less inclined to back moral crusades by government, either at home or abroad." Thus through his session with Warren and other forms of outreach, Obama has an historic opportunity to make inroads into a constituency that has been overwhelmingly Republican in recent years.

Kevin Drum pointed me to this post (Cogitamus) that put it more bluntly:

I've said before that Barna Evangelicals are unreachable, so Obama's performance doesn't matter with them.  McCain's performance was acceptable, making it easier for them to support him.  However, he didn't really say anything other than his abortion response that would excite and motivate Barna Evangelicals to get out and vote for him.

As for other Christian groups, I think Obama came out ahead because of his aforementioned ability to speak about faith in an intimate, dynamic way.  Obama talks like a Christian.  McCain talks like a politician being made to talk about Jesus.  Not a disaster, but not much help either.

From CBN's David Brody:

The fact that Barack Obama would show up at an Evangelical Church and take the tough questions is a credit to him. I mean he knew he was the visiting team so to speak yet he handled these questions like he has in the past: with relative ease [...]

Overall the night was a success for Obama. He didn’t get put on the spot too much with the abortion questions. He handled the "Jesus" question about his faith with ease and maybe most important he looked comfortable up there.

It may not matter altogether that much when it comes to the election (Obama will not win a majority vote of white evangelicals, who went 78% for Bush in 2004), but making inroads here will go a good way toward improved governance after he wins, and that, of course, is the Big Picture. Picking up a percentage or two is a smart move, and so is reinforcing his Christian faith (since 8% of voters are ill-informed enough to think he's Muslim). And there's always the "hey, he's really thoughtful. Maybe I don't hate him" factor, which will be needed for the anticipated GOP onslaught of negative advertising.

Meanwhile the tightening race (you won't see it in the unchanging tracking polls, which continue to have Obama up by a tad) takes us through to the conventions, when things can change for the first time since Clinton dropped out.

Regardless of the exact timing, the voter is going to get two vice presidential nominations, and two sequences of four nights of party conventions -- all within the time period from now through Sept. 4.

A few days after that, say about the weekend of Sept. 5-7, we'll know where things stand as a baseline and starting point for the sure-to-be-hyperactive fall campaign. Meanwhile, our Gallup Poll Daily tracking will monitor the ups and downs of the candidates as each day's new events unfold.

Pre-season's coming to an end. Obama needs to be more succinct, start throwing in better sound bites, and needs to reach the gut as well as the heart and the head. He needs to get over the C-in-C threshold, but the key to the election is the economy. And he needs to better define McCain. But, you know, these aren't great mysteries, and the campaign has done pretty well so far. So, rather than give advice to people that don't need it, I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the next two weeks. If you can't do that, you're really not a political junkie.

Don't worry. There'll be plenty more advice to be given come September and beyond. This week (maybe tomorrow) is the VP and I don't vote for VP. But in the end I suspect I'll prefer ours over theirs, whoever it is.

What would we do without NRO? The only thing missing was a post from K-Lo suggesting that McCain was great but Santorum would have been greater.

Byron York: "In an unusual setting, [McCain's] experience overwhelmed Obama" and made him seem small in comparison. While most other reviewers give credit to both men for good, albeit different, performances (see below, emphasis on Obama's thoughtfulness and McCain's brevity and personal history), I'll demonstrate who's really 'small' with my review (hint: it's moi.) Don't try this at home; I'm a professional.

Mark Hemingway: I'll go you one better, Byron, and deliberately misinterpret this:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

 Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.  

That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States.

What's that? A God reference? Nah. It was a civil service reference, I'm certain of it. Anyway, what's God got to do with GOP faith®?

And now for serious analysis (remembering this was a McCain-inclined audience):

Jonah Goldberg: I'm the grown-up today? Scary. Anyway, Obama did well in a setting he didn't have to win, but McCain had his best performance of the election so far.

Katharine Seeley: "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’"

CNN: "Same tough questions, different approaches".

Gergen said McCain's personal stories helped him connect with the audience...

Obama, on the other hand, also gained ground with skeptical Christians, Gergen said.

Chris Cillizza:

The much-anticipated religion forum hosted by mega-church pastor Rick Warren and featuring Barack Obama and John McCain last night in California passed largely without incident -- as both candidates successfully navigated the occasionally treacherous waters of a detailed discussion about faith and values.

John Marelius: the winner was Rick Warren.

In a recent editorial, Rob Eshman, editor in chief of The Jewish Journal in Los Angeles, called Warren's coup in landing Obama and McCain "a victory for the good guys in the cultural wars."

"After years of watching the debate over faith and values in America play out with all the finesse of MTV's 'Celebrity Deathmatch,' we will now get to see what happens when a thoughtful adult takes over from the goofballs, windbags, con artists and media whores who have led most of the battles until now," Eshman wrote.

USA Today:

Both candidates impressed Charles Huettner, of Alexandria, Va., who describes himself as an "independent Christian voter."

He found Obama "to be a humble and thoughtful responder" and cited "McCain's knowledge and strong stance for what is just and right. He also expressed a sense of humor that I have not seen before.

"Senator Obama spoke to the heart and mind where Senator McCain spoke from the heart and mind."

WSJ:

The event may have helped him dispel false notions that he is a Muslim. A July Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 8% of voters wrongly thought that was the case.

The forum also gave Sen. Obama the opportunity to speak to an evangelical community that might not typically hear from him. Sen. McCain, too, is viewed with skepticism by many evangelicals because of his support for federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and his opposition to a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"There's some question -- is McCain really a conservative, really a social conservative?" said Mr. Black, his adviser. "McCain being McCain will reassure a lot of people."

He succeeded in that, said Alan Smith, 60, a leadership coach who works with Republican candidates and attended the forum. He said he was worried that this would not be a comfortable setting for Sen. McCain. "I thought he hit a home run," he said.

He added that while he still supports Sen. McCain, "I felt more comfortable with Barack Obama in terms of his genuine desire to do good."

add

Sally Quinn:

I would rather live in McCain's world than Obama's. But I believe that we live in Obama's world.

Afterward, the commentators talked abut how Obama needs to have better stories, to be more accessible and less aloof, and to have sharper, shorter, simpler answers rather than be so cerebral. But Obama is authentic. He is who he is. To try to change would be a mistake. Al Gore's handlers decided he was too stiff and tried to loosen him up. What they did was rob him of his authenticity instead.

David Brody:

But Obama has very little chance with die-hard pro-lifers anyway. Instead, Obama’s goal is to come across as a caring family man who takes his faith and set of values very seriously. That plays to the broader audience. A forum like this only helps him in that regard.

It doesn't matter how many times good reporters like Marc Ambinder report that the Obama-Clinton discussions are smooth and the plans for the convention are amicable, and it doesn't matter how often Hillary stumps for Barack, the media love a good fight.

Reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated and the two sides are nearing an agreement on how Clinton's delegates will participate in the formal nominating process at the Democratic National Convention, according to advisers to both Democrats.

The trouble is, they are missing the real feud, which unlike the made-for-TV stuff on the D side has serious bad blood potential .

"I think that there are better choices for Sen. McCain [than Mitt Romney] that will have the approval of values voters," [Mike Huckabee] added.

Huckabee denied an earlier media report in which he seemed to suggest that it was Romney's Mormon religion that should be a disqualifying factor.

"There is absolutely no issue about Mitt Romney's religion. I have never said that," Huckabee said.

But his comments renew what had become a nasty spat between the two politicians during the Republican primary. Huckabee's come-from-nowhere victory over Romney in the Iowa caucus was a big reason that Romney lost the nomination.

and

Yet as Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, is said to have emerged as a top contender to be Senator John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, a vocal segment of conservative leaders and grass-roots activists have mobilized against him, with some going out of their way to block his path to the Republican ticket.

and

"I think when you look at Mitt Romney, he's not in the totally uncomfortable column, but he's not in the completely comfortable column," said Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council. "Those that do have opposition to him, they're pretty adamant in their opposition."

The social conservative wing and the Club for Growth wing really dislike each other, to the bone. When McCain sent up that trial balloon about pro-choice Ridge and Lieberman as VP, it sank like a stone.

That thud you just heard was the Ridge/Lieberman VP trial balloon that social conservative activists quickly popped. They couldn't find reporters fast enough to denounce the prospect of McCain adding a pro-choice pol to his ticket. "It absolutely floored me," Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, told the Politico’s Jonathan Martin. "It would doom him in Ohio." Home School Legal Defense Association President Mike Farris said to the Washington Times: "If Tom Ridge is on the ticket, I will not be voting Republican." Then again, if this was a trial balloon, wasn’t this the response McCain is looking for?

So where are the rest of the divided GOP stories? Oh, sorry. With our media, that narrative only applies to Democrats. I forget that, sometimes.

Sunday already? Oh, and I have it on good authority that Michael Phelps is part dolphin.

Frank Rich: The main reason the polls seem close (they really aren't tied, Obama is ahead) is because the press won't tell the public about the real McCain. Here are some examples (long article) and they aren't pretty.

David Broder: Well, I must say, the Obama campaign is impressively calm and businesslike. Not like the other Democratic campaign this year. No siree. Not at all.

Chuck Todd: A commenter re Saddleback:

Our political commentary summed up in a blog entry.
One candidate was more thoughtful and authentic so the other one won.
Urgh.

Guess which candidate was which.

Alan Wolfe: Saddleback was important.

Politically, the joint appearance is good news for both candidates--but better news for Obama.

Christopher Caldwell: Obamicans? Bullshit. A bunch of washed-up has-beens.

There has been a former assistant secretary here and a former deputy secretary there. But not a single prominent conservative with either an ongoing political career or a continuing affection for the Republican party has yet chosen to back Mr Obama. The endorsement of General Colin Powell, for instance, or Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska senator, would be an election-shifting coup. Unless and until that happens, Obamacans will be a media phenomenon, not a political one.

Tim Rutten:

Jerome Corsi, author of a pitiful new slam on Obama, is the product of a publishing industry that feeds off extremism.

Jake Tapper: Assisting ABC into political irrelevance, let's go over why Obama is at fault and not Corsi.

Much of what Corsi writes in his book is demonstrably false, irresponsible, and feverishly conjured. The book is indefensible, as are Corsi’s many bigoted remarks about Arabs, the Pope and others.

But the Obama campaign got a little greedy in their refutations.

First of all, on the front of the response, is a labeled stamped "Brought to you by Bush/Cheney Attack Machine."

Of course, Corsi is totally independent of Republican smear politics (noted is the Matalin imprint.) He said so. End of thought process.

Colbert King: Corsi isn't the only practitioner of the divisive.

It's clear from the memo exactly what type of politics Penn would practice.

What is unclear, though, in an increasingly diverse and multicultural America, where merit and not lineage or class should be deciding factors, is why the salons of Washington, the boardrooms of corporate America and the doors of foreign governments are open to such a divider and fear-exploiter as Mark Penn.

It's fair to ask about his roots in basic American values. Why do business with him?

added

BBC:    

By contrast, it was Barack Obama who made much of his Christian beliefs and how they would underpin his presidency. And the audience appreciated this too.

Yet Mr Obama had the harder time. America's conservative Christians traditionally vote Republican and - even though they are less enthusiastic about John McCain than, say, George Bush - the majority still look likely to support him come November.

Mr McCain was, as it were, preaching to the converted, and drew many more cheers, quite a few laughs and louder applause.

   However, this huge voting group (one estimate suggests 1 in 4 American adults call themselves born-again Christians) is fragmented as never before.

   Some 12% of them, according to opinion polls, say they are undecided. That is a lot of votes and Mr Obama and Mr McCain both know that.

Well, this is interesting. While the Gallup does its periodic undulation (McCain and Obama are now tied at 44%), the site also breaks down particulars.

For example:

Candidate Support by "Red," "Purple," and "Blue" States

Aug 4-10 (last week)                 Obama      McCain
Red states                  40 (41)   49 (48)
battleground/purple states  47 (46)   41 (42)
Blue states                 54 (49)   35 (39)

and the fascinating

Candidate Support by Region

Aug 4-10 (last week)          Obama      McCain
East                   51 (46)   38 (41)
Midwest                50 (46)   38 (42)
South                  40 (42)   50 (48)
West                   50 (47)   40 (42)

Looking at those numbers, again through Aug 10 (five days ago), you might get the impression that McCain's strength in the South obscures his problems in the Midwest, East and West. Now, the West might be dominated by CA, and the East skewed by NY/NJ/CT, but the numbers certainly highlight the importance of the electoral college race (Obama has 284 at pollster.com today, not counting toss-ups, while at fivethirtyeight.com Obama is at 288 predicted for November.)

Tight, but not even, and certainly not radically changed from the last several weeks. Though everyone (including me) sees slight improvement for McCain, he never seems to break 44% (the South can only help him so much and no more.) So, it appears we are frozen until the conventions and maybe even right through the VP choices. That's not the first time we've noted that.

Take some time to delve into the "key indicators" Gallup provides (scroll down). Some of those numbers seem pretty stable, though Obama is doing better over time among women, and McCain among men. This has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism - the numbers are the numbers. And if you want a rough thumbnail to compare to Bush-Kerry, go here.

Ah, Saturdays in August...

Bob Herbert: It's the mayors.

At a press conference after the meeting, Mayor Bloomberg said, "We’ve got to make infrastructure investment a national priority," and he took the federal government to task for "walking away from its responsibility in this area."

Gail Collins:

PUMA, or People United Means Action [Party Unity My Ass], is an excellent example of the Ossetia branch of the Hillary camp.

They might as well be content with their 15 minutes of fame, because that's all there is for them until Putin invades Denver.

Yes, down in the grass-roots, there are still some sullen stalks. But the vast majority of Hillaryites seem prepared to accept the new accord as an indication that their heroine will get the proper respect. The tanks have turned around.

Sarah Posner (Salon, view ad):

Speaking on behalf of Obama's heart was the Matthew 25 Network, a new political action committee launched by Democratic operative Mara Vanderslice, who served as John Kerry's religious outreach coordinator. The PAC, not affiliated with the Obama campaign, is named for the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus is said to have told his followers to feed the hungry and clothe the naked: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these, my brethren, you did for me."...

But [Pastor Dan] Schultz, the United Church of Christ minister, objects to the kind of evangelical language that Matthew 25 uses in its advertising. "If evangelicals are the dominant voice, where does that leave the mainline perspective? Or Jews, or anyone? The question my secular friends would have about that is, 'So do I have to pledge eternal faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior if I want to run for president?'

Peter Wehner: When it comes to Jerome Corsi and his smears, even conservatives can't stomach him.

Conservatism has been an intellectual home to people like Burke and Buckley. The GOP is the party that gave us Lincoln and Reagan. It seems to me that its leaders ought to make it clear that they find what Dr. Corsi is doing to be both wrong and repellent. To have their movement and their party associated with such a figure would be a terrible thing and it will only help the cause of those who hold both the GOP and the conservative movement in contempt.

Peter Keating: McCain's age? It's his aging mind, not his aging body, that should worry us.

Rich Lowry:

McCain-Lieberman is a more desperate move than McCain should feel compelled to make right now. But check back after Denver.

David Harsanyi: As a committed ideologue I thoroughly resent the Democrats' attempts to not be like me on abortion, and their commitment to Roe v Wade while respecting others. How dare they?

Stuart Rothenberg: None of it matters... not the commercials, not the money.

So be prepared for more mindless chatter on the cable television networks, and more guests described as "Republican strategist" or "Democratic strategist" that nobody in politics has ever heard of.

Call me when we're done. Oh, well. We'll always have - erm - Beijing.

Third Bush term? "Nonsense," say McCain's buddies in the press. "Don't you remember the McCain of 2000?"

Alas, that McCain has no resemblance to the McCain of 2008. The McCain of 2008 has no issue with Ralph Reed, recently implicated in an Indian gambling scandal with Jack Abramoff, fund-raising for him.

Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, was tied to the corruption scandal involving Jack Abramoff, the highly paid Washington lobbyist now serving a six-year prison term. Much of the Abramoff scandal was exposed by an investigation led by McCain when he chaired the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

McCain's campaign said Tuesday that Reed has no official role in the presidential campaign. But that didn't stop Democrats from castigating Reed's participation in Monday's fund-raiser at the Marriott Marquis.

Anything to win, be it character assassination, acceptance of Rove's hirelings as campaign strategists, lobbyists running his campaign, and kissing the ring of lobbyists and crooks.

Reed, whose [GA Lt. Gov.] campaign was torpedoed by his affiliation with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, noted he's also agreed to serve as a member of the McCain Victory 2008 Team, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

That's the John McCain of 2008, Republican through and through. And since he's running a third Bush campaign, there's no reason to think his term in office won't be a third Bush term, except that McCain is far more undisciplined than Bush. But, as he reminds us every day, he loves hanging out with the same people Bush did, especially if it will get him elected.

Do you know what's refreshing? It's reading a GOP strategist's real opinion, instead of the manufactured made-for-cable pap we are all too often subjected to in the name of balance and infotainment. I actually prefer reading GOP strategists because Dem strategists tend to be too nervous, too conventional or too far out of the game to be interesting (e.g., see anything written by Susan Estrich).

Try Tom Davis on congressional prospects, though (.pdf from 5/08):

The loss of three straight special elections, in once solidly Republican districts cannot be explained simply by "bad candidates", or by being out-organized. They are canaries in the coal mine, warning of far greater losses in the fall, if steps are not taken to remedy the current climate.

Retirement can sure sharpen the mind as well as the pen. And for another example, here's John Weaver on the Presidential race. Weaver's an ex-McCain guy who has no patience for Karl Rove (a rival Texas strategist) or his campaign shenanigans.

Weaver’s flirtation with the Democrats was partly a reaction to the nasty turn Bush’s campaign took after McCain’s primary victory in New Hampshire, and he sees the Republican party’s current malaise as at least partly related to the divisive tone set by Bush and Rove in that election. "The chickens have come home to roost" is how he put it to me. "Their policies are all about politics. The government is out of step with the hopes and dreams of Americans. The party is at its nadir. The president has had Nixon numbers for three years. We can’t go on being the all-male, gated-community party. We now know who our twenty-seven percent is. Parties that oppose immigration end up on the dust heap of politics."

Weaver's not alone in thinking that. The fact is there's no data to support the negative ads by McCain as having any success.

Neither candidate, de Marchi said, is doing a great job with TV political commercials. Obama "still isn't presenting bold enough policy," and McCain's "idiocy" for airing an ad comparing Obama to vacuous Hollywood celebrities "isn't helping him with anyone" who remains undecided.

Oh, sure, people will blather that "negative ads always work", even though we know that's not true (see Party Like It's 2002.) They work sometimes, but it's all a function of who is doing the ads, whether a positive tone has been set first, how the subject of the ads reacts, and how late in the game they run. And since Obama is neither Michael Dukakis nor John Kerry, parallels don't automatically hold (which hand-wringing Dem strategists never seem to get.)

Further, you'll see Republicans like Jim Leach endorse Obama and Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell avoid endorsing McCain. They aren't any happier about the Swift Boat style character assassination than Weaver.

Those are lessons to be learned from those counseling Obama to hit now and hit hard. This is where being smart makes more sense than being vicious. McCain's negative ads during the Olympics are just stupid, but given their respective "brands", it'd make even less sense for Obama to follow suit. Weaver again:

"They want to get Obama’s negatives up, but the country doesn’t want to hear it," Weaver said. "If we run that kind of campaign, Obama could win by a landslide." Indeed, McCain’s recent "celebrity" television ad, which featured shots of controversial celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, turned out to be a hanging curve for Obama, who responded immediately: "You’d think we’d be having a serious debate. But so far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I do have to ask my opponent: Is that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?"

In fact, one of the sweetest things about an Obama win would be the shaping of a new conventional wisdom that a negative campaign can't make up for a lousy candidate and bankrupt policy, and that Rove and his protégés really aren't that smart. I don't think John Weaver would mind that kind of result, even if McCain loses.

David Brooks: Wandering around China, and interviewing earthquake survivors, I've managed to turn the tragic and inconceivable into something superficial, political and crass.

I don’t know if it’s emotionally sustainable or even healthy, but it raises at least one interesting question. When you compare these people to the emotional Sturm und Drang over lesser things on reality TV, you do wonder if we Americans are a nation of whiners.

The shoddy school construction (due to corruption) that took so many children's lives doesn't fit into my world view, but they're not whining about it the way we would; punishing the truth tellers does have that effect. Add this to the growing list of things I really shouldn't try to analyze.

Paul Krugman: You want serious? This is serious. The Georgia conflict is all too reminiscent of pre-WWI, wherein the great age of globalization came to a halt, foundering on waves of nationalism. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned...

Eugene Robinson:

Here come the goons, right on schedule.

The "author," and I use the term loosely, whose vicious lies damaged John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign has crawled back out from under his rock to spew vicious lies about Barack Obama. Right-wing radio talk-show hosts are dutifully transmitting this concocted venom. This presidential campaign has officially gotten ugly.  

Thomas Frank: Obama's main task, that he will be elected to do, is to obliterate the long national nightmare of Republican rule.

Mark Davis: Let me reinforce Thomas Frank by exhibiting the kind of ignorant hate-filled Republicanism that represents the nightmare.

One of the ways Mr. Obama differs from most Americans is his breezy indifference for the nation, which may extend, at times, to active distaste. The flag pin as Kryptonite, failing to place his hand over his heart for the national anthem in Iowa - these are symbolic, but symbolism means something.

They reveal a man who gladly tolerated two decades of America-bashing in his church and even worse among his friends and associates. It is, in fact, more relevant than any position paper you might find at his Web site.

If only Hillary had the balls to listen to Mark Penn... well, never you mind. What Hillary couldn't accomplish by way of character assassination, McCain will. It's the Republican way.

Steven Stark: In my own self-congratulatory way, I will explain to you dumb-asses why I always thought Obama would beat Clinton (she was really a weak candidate), and why McCain will beat Obama (because Republicans always fall in line, and because it's all about working class whites, which we all know Obama has trouble with even though he's doing better than Kerry did.) Ground game? Not my thing. Electoral vote counters? Nyet. But I'm right and you're not, so that clinches it.

David Paul Kuhn: Actually, it's about white males (see above link compared to Kerry-Bush). They are 1 in 3 indie voters. If Obama begins to reach them, it's a landslide. If not, it's Democratic Presidential politics as usual.

The next President has a problem on his hands, known to public health officials and non-partisan flu bloggers, but all too rarely discussed in the general press. Indonesia, the world's most populous Moslem country, and the epicenter of H5N1 infections in humans (135 confirmed human cases and 110 deaths) has decided that the H5N1 virus should be owned by Indonesia, and sold to whomever they deem worthy. In the meantime, Indonesia has stopped reporting human cases in a day-to-day basis,  rebuffed WHO requests for a shared approach, and condemned humanitarian assistance fro the US by demanding NAMRU-2 (a Navy health lab stationed in Jakarta for many years) leave the country and let Indonesia manage its own internal problems.

Richard Holbrooke and Laurie Garrett write up the folly of this approach today in the Washington Post.

Here's a concept you've probably never heard of: "viral sovereignty." This extremely dangerous idea comes to us courtesy of Indonesia's minister of health, Siti Fadilah Supari, who asserts that deadly viruses are the sovereign property of individual nations -- even though they cross borders and could pose a pandemic threat to all the peoples of the world. So far "viral sovereignty" has been noted almost exclusively by health experts. Political leaders around the world should take note -- and take very strong action.

The vast majority of repeated avian flu outbreaks the past four years, in both humans and poultry, have occurred in Indonesia. At least 53 types of H5N1 bird flu viruses have appeared in chickens and people there, the World Health Organization has reported.

Yet, since 2005, Indonesia has shared with the WHO samples from only two of the more than 135 people known to have been infected with H5N1 (110 of whom have died). Worse, Indonesia is no longer providing the WHO with timely notification of bird flu outbreaks or human cases. Since 2007, its government has openly defied International Health Regulations and a host of other WHO agreements to which Indonesia is a signatory.

Moreover, the Indonesian government is threatening to close down U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit Two (NAMRU-2), a public health laboratory staffed by Indonesians and U.S. military scientists. NAMRU-2 is one of the world's best disease surveillance facilities, and it provides health officials worldwide with vital, transparent information. The Indonesian government has accused NAMRU-2 scientists of everything from profiteering off its "sovereign" viruses to manufacturing the H5N1 bird flu in an alleged biological warfare scheme. There is no evidence to support these outlandish claims.

For those of us concerned about tracking emerging infectious diseases, be it by government agency or private citizen networks, Indonesia's approach to intellectual and sovereign property is both dangerous and short-sighted. Viruses know no international boundaries, and as the Toronto experience with SARS shows, an infectious disease problem in Asia can quickly become an infectious disease problem in North America. There are great sensitivities about such things. By international agreement, there'll be no "Hong Kong flu"designation in future. All H5N1 flu viruses will be known by a boring and bland string of letters and numbers:

The initiative, which was encouraged and approved by 3 international agencies (the World Health Organization [WHO]), the World Organisation for Animal Health [OIE], and the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]), set out to unify the nomenclature system to simplify interpretation of sequence and surveillance data from different laboratories and to remove stigmatizing labeling of HPAI virus (H5N1) clades by geographic reference.

Many other positive things could be accomplished by international agreement, including tracking and mitigating the next influenza pandemic, which could easily start in a remote village in Indonesia with a story just like this from the IHT on aug 8, 2008:

JAKARTA, Indonesia: Health workers rushed to a village in western Indonesia to test for bird flu Thursday after 13 people were hospitalized with symptoms of the disease and dozens of chickens died, a government official said.

It will take days for test results to come back, said Memed Zulkarnaen, spokesman for the National Bird Flu Commission, adding that the condition of those suffering from high fever and respiratory problems "appears to be improving."

The 13 were admitted to two hospitals in the past week after chickens started dying in Air Batu, their village on Sumatra island, 680 miles (1,000 kilometers) northwest of the capital, Jakarta. The birds tested positive for the H5N1 virus.

This is what Holbrooke and Garrett and public health officials and countless flu preppers are worried about. Preliminary reports are that these suspected cases are negative, but the lack of transparency about reporting, coupled with Indonesia's stated hostility to international cooperation make this an extremely pertinent and timely WaPo column.

The pandemic threat has not gone away just because other stories supercede it in the media. Alas, it sees that it will take a crisis to break through the indifference, and in that, we are no different than we ever were. And that is a public health problem and an international shame.

Eighty-eight days from now, we will be having ourselves a historic election.

David Brooks: Today I'm pretending to be a pseudo-intellectual and a poseur. Now, I know what you're thinking... that's what I get paid to do twice a week. But I thought I'd be explicit about it lest the technophiles get presumptuous ideas about where they fit in the social hierarchy.

Michael Gerson: You people just don't get it. George Bush, my former boss proved every day that if you just talk nonsense and avoid reality, the press won't pay attention to facts. Watch a master manipulator at work: Obama's maintaining his lead and that's good for McCain. See? All the Beltway heathers are asking why Obama's not ahead by more. If that doesn't drive home the point about how easily the press is manipulated, I don't know what does. Now don't ask why McCain is behind and can't ever catch up. That's a good reporter. Here's some BBQ.

Daniel Henninger: Obama and the Democrats are enviromaniacs, who along with Asylum Chief Al Gore are willing to forgo economic growth in favor of an untried and untested transformation of the American economy. They're bashing Big Oil when in reality it should be called Smart Oil, the only people with the knowledge and experience to produce energy on a world scale. And yes, I am writing this with a straight face.

Charles Krauthammer: Drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill.

Paul Krugman: When it comes to energy policy, Republicans really are the party of stupid.

In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

Joe Conason: Let me take that one step further.

Touring America's oilrigs and nuclear plants, John McCain sometimes sounds as if he'll produce enough wind to power the nation all by himself. So strongly does his current rhetoric smell of methane -- the gas emanating from manure -- that he might even qualify for an alternative energy tax incentive.

Greg Hitt: The Democrats' new Southern strategy: run good candidates, and win. Even if they might be less progressive than Democrats elsewhere, they'll be responsible for a working majority in Congress.

Mark Blumenthal: More about 'likely' voters than you really want to know. Still, it's a good thing Alan Abramowitz looked into it. Otherwise, Gallup would have given us the impression young voters don't count.

Democracy Corps:

The most recent national survey of young voters conducted by Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner finds that the last six weeks have not dulled young people’s support for Barack Obama, despite the inauguration of a Republican attack machine. The new research finds the same convincing margin (27 points) as last month.

CBS 7/31-8/5/08 (RV) (July):
Obama 45 (45)
McCain 39 (39)

Obama's lead over McCain is built on stronger support from Democrats, liberals, African Americans, voters under age 45 and women. Most former supporters of Hillary Clinton are backing Obama, as are a plurality of working class whites, a group Obama struggled to attract during the primary.

McCain leads among conservatives, Republicans, white evangelicals and voters age 45 and over. The presumptive GOP nominee has a narrow lead with men and with whites.

Independents are evenly split between the two candidates.

From the detailed .pdf:

The enthusiasm gap remains: Obama’s supporters are three times as likely as McCain’s to be enthusiastic about their candidate.

BTW Bush's job approval is at 25%, equaling his all-time low (only Nixon at 24% and Truman at 22% were ever lower).

AP-Ipsos 7/31-8/4/08 (RV) (June):
Obama 47 (50)
McCain 41 (43)

TIME (LV with leaners) 7/31-8/4/08 (June):
Obama 46 (47)
McCain 41 (43)

For those who care, the Wednesday Gallup tracker has Obama +2, and Thursday Rasmussen has Obama (with and without leaners) +1. As usual, they run a few points behind the national polls.

Meanwhile, McCain is not making any headway despite the plethora of negative ads. Since the talking heads can't sell their Main Theme A 'race is tightening' idea (always relevant whenever it can be pushed), they've all moved on to Backup Theme B, which is "Obama is not closing the deal'. But why should he? It's summer, the conventions are a few weeks away, and there are plenty of undecideds out there who want to hear more about policy and learn more about the candidates before they make up their minds. CBS on uncommitted voters:

CBS News re-interviewed voters who said they were uncommitted, including those who had a candidate but said their minds could change, when we first spoke with them in a CBS News/New York Times poll in mid-July. In the July poll, that was about 36 percent of all registered voters.

The most recent round of interviews suggest that these uncommitted voters remain largely up for grabs.

Seven in ten remain uncommitted. And while a quarter of this group now say they have made a commitment to a candidate that they don’t think will change before the election, about as many as a month ago don’t have a candidate choice at all yet.

This group seems to have become less interested in the campaign since last month. When asked in mid-July how much attention they’d been paying to the 2008 campaign generally, 45 percent said they’d paid a lot. When asked in this poll how much attention they’d been paying in the last few weeks, only 18 percent reported paying a lot of attention.

On the one hand the race is stable because Obama has kept this lead up since clinching. On the other, the race is fluid because the undecideds have not  - erm - decided. Keep that in mind when looking at pushing leaners to decide. Does it really make sense to do that? They'll make up their mind when they're ready...

So, back to basics. The convention will be the next big shift in the numbers (not the VP choice, which excites only the talking heads). As far as Obama's standing goes, the negative ads have not hurt, the trip overseas has not hurt, the idea that "whatever you can possibly think of is good for McCain" has not hurt.

Like it or not, this is hurry up and wait stuff (wait until September). And it doesn't matter how many journalists like McCain and carry his water. He's not doing any better because of it, even in TIME's LV poll (who can figure what an LV is this year?). Obama will neither clinch the election nor lose it in August. In fact, it's looking more like 1980 every day. But in the meantime, Obama's lead holds.

Update [2008-8-7 12:43:21 by DemFromCT]: from First Read:

If it’s August, that means that Democratic politicos are wringing their hands about their presidential candidate’s campaign strategy, even though this guy -- unlike the guy four years ago -- is actually winning in the mid-single digits.