Do signs point to an Obama blowout?

Some pundits — primarily left-minded ones — believe the 2008 presidential election will be a blow-out, with Barack Obama handedly defeating John McCain. Reporters say “nonsense . . . look at the national polls.” And the national polls, of course, have the 2 candidates neck-and-neck; Saturday’s daily tracking poll from Rasmussen showed McCain and Obama deadlocked at 46% with leaners considered.

Yet, the state-by-state polls undeniably show an unfavorable trend for McCain, and that’s where it matters. National figures are almost always close, even when electoral figures aren’t. In 1984, Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in every U.S. state, with the exception of Minnesota. The popular vote total was lopsided, but not as much as winning 49 of 50 states might seem to indicate, as Reagan captured 58% of the vote. A better example is 1996, when Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole. Clinton captured 379 electoral votes to Dole’s 159, but only 49% of the popular vote (to Dole’s 40%).

But back to those state-by-state polls: Granted, polling averages from Real Clear Politics shows most states still very much up in the air; only 12 states’ averages find either candidate ahead by double digits. Those are California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin for Obama, and Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas for McCain.

However, if the election were held today and state-by-state polls were accurate, the election would fairly easily slide Obama’s way. The best way to analyze the 2008 election is to use the 2000 election as a starting point. The electorate hasn’t changed significantly since 2000, and it was one of the closest elections in history; had Gore won just about anywhere he lost, the final outcome would’ve been reversed.

For the most part, poll averages currently find McCain ahead in states Bush won in 2000, and Obama ahead in states Gore won in 2000. But there are several exceptions. The most important of the exceptions is Ohio, where Bush twice won, but Obama leads by 5 percentage points. The poll averages find that recent Democratic inroads in the West are being exploited by Obama, and that also spells trouble for McCain. The number of states relied upon by Democrats recently may have been relatively few in number, but they packed an electoral wallop. Thus, unless the Republicans can change outcomes on the West Coast and in the Northeast — and that ain’t happening, obviously — they sorely need the West, along with the Southeast and at least a couple of the key Midwestern swing states.

McCain’s hold in the traditional GOP zones will be solid enough that he could worry less about the West if he could save face in Ohio and pull off an upset in either Michigan or Pennsylvania, but that appears relatively unlikely at this point. Obama has stretched his lead to 8% in both states, according to poll averages.

In addition to Ohio, Obama holds a lead (albeit razor-thin) in the key Midwestern swing state of Indiana, as well as New Hampshire, which Bush won in 2000 (but which Kerry won in 2004). Obama also holds a slim lead in Virginia. And then the West: Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico could all go to Obama, if poll averages are correct. Of that trio, only New Mexico went Gore’s way in 2000. In addition, McCain’s lead in Montana is too close for comfort.

On top of that, McCain’s lead in North Carolina leaves that state (which Bush won by double-digits) too close to call, and Missouri is also too close to call. McCain’s once comfortable lead in Florida has shrunk to just over 2%, and it goes without saying that while McCain might, with a little luck, win the presidency without Ohio, he has no chance if both Ohio and Florida swing the other way.

RCP’s prediction, with all the toss-up states divided according to these early polls, is that Obama would win with 322 electoral votes to McCain’s 216. Not a huge blow-out, but lopsided nonetheless. And, that doesn’t take into account the 27 electoral votes that McCain could lose in Florida if trends continue in Obama’s favor, or the 11 in Missouri or the 15 in North Carolina. If those states, where Obama has closed earlier gaps, swung in Obama’s favor, the tally would be 385 to 163 . . . a bonafide blowout in just about anyone’s book.

On the other hand, the polls in most Bush states that are counted in the Obama column are close. In many of them, the averages are within the margin of error. And this comes despite the media blitz that Obama has enjoyed and a McCain campaign that many observers have complained is too stagnant and unexciting. If McCain can survive the bounces that will likely follow Obama’s overseas trip this week and the Democratic convention next month, what could be a blowout is still very much a possible McCain victory. In fact, the race could be close enough that the “hundreds of thousands or millions of votes” some of Hillary Clinton’s top supporters have pledged to send McCain’s way if he can convince them he’s worth their vote could make or break the race.

McCain’s wasted opportunity?

Dave at Race 4 ‘08 has an interesting perspective on the McCain campaign thus far.

A couple of “must reads” today, for those who missed them. First, Charles Krauthammer has a good take on Obama’s “audacity of vanity.” I typically don’t get into these op-ed pieces, but Krauthammer makes some good points.

And the second is the Washington Post’s weekly rundown of the top 5 most likely veep candidates for both Obama and McCain. This is not earth-shattering stuff; Romney is their #1 on the GOP side, which is expected. Others near the top include Tim Pawlenty and Rob Portman. Again, that’s all pretty cut-&-dried. But I mention it for who finally cracked their top 5: Alaska governor Sarah Palin. I’ve become sold on Palin in recent weeks. To be honest, I hadn’t paid much attention to her until Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted that she would be McCain’s pick. But as I’ve researched her and her stances, I think the Post has it exactly right: She is the kind of candidate that Americans could fall in love with. More importantly, she’s the kind of candidate that women could fall in love with. It’s no secret that McCain isn’t faring well among women. Look at state poll after state poll and you’ll see McCain outpolling Obama among men, but Obama outpolling McCain among women. If McCain could somehow get the female vote, he would win this race. Let’s not forget that there are still a lot of Clinton supporters who feel disenfranchised. Sure, most of them are going to wind up pulling the lever for Obama. But some may not, especially if there’s someone else out there they can get behind. And unlike Clinton, or Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (who has been getting some talk as a VP long shot for McCain), there are really no drawbacks to Palin. There’s very little about her that draws controversy, which is probably why she has the highest approval rating of any American politician.

The battle for 60

A Barack Obama win in November would put Democrats in hog heaven. Gaining enough Senate seats to control the chamber would be purely paradise.

The 60-seat majority is, as the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza puts it, the “holy grail” of the Senate. Obtain it, and the opposing party is virtually powerless. Filibusters are useless. There’s nothing to stand in the way of the controlling party’s agenda. For all their successes, George W. Bush didn’t have such a luxury, nor did Bill Clinton. For that matter, neither did George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. To find the last 60-seat majority, one has to go back 3 decades to the Jimmy Carter era, when Democrats held 61 seats for 2 years.

But the pendulum of American political opinion has swung back left over the past 2 years, and that has Democrats talking control of the Senate. Their 6-seat pickup in the ‘06 midterms gave the Democrats the simple majority, with 51 (actually, it’s a 49-49 tie, but independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats). Now, the Dems have their sights set on loftier goals.

A 60-seat majority isn’t likely. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility, either. This much seems certain: The Republicans aren’t going to regain control of the Senate this year. They need only 2 seats to do so, but it isn’t likely to happen. For starters, the raw numbers are tilted severely against them. The GOP has 23 incumbents up for re-election, and 5 are retiring. The Democrats have only 12 up for re-election, and none are retiring. Throw in the Democrat-tilted public sentiment, and it seems likely that the Republicans will not only remain in the minority, but that they will lose ground.

But can the Democrats get to 60? Probably not. National Public Radio predicts at least 4 pickups for the blue team, which is about as middle of the road as predictions get; some pundits are more bullish about the Democrats chances; some, not so much so.

The only Democrat incumbent likely to be in danger of losing this November is Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu. Louisiana is traditionally a reliable blue state, but has been shifting right. In 2004, David Vitter became the first Republican since Reconstruction to be sent to the Senate by Louisiana voters. And, last year, Louisiana voted Republican in its gubernatorial race. Landrieu won by a razor-thin margin in 2002, and faces opposition this fall from state treasurer John N. Kennedy, himself a former Democrat who switched parties last spring. The latest Rasmussen poll finds Landrieu ahead, but only by a 6-pt. margin, close enough to leave the seat in play.

Aside from that, Democrats should be safe. In fact, the only Democrat who could conceiveably struggle are New Jersey’s Frank Lautenberg. The aging Lautenberg (84) has the lowest approval rating (39%) of any Democratic incumbent facing re-election. He waltzed through primary competition, leading pundits to declare him safe, but a Rasmussen poll last month found him only 1 point ahead of Republican challenger Dick Zimmer. Many pundits felt South Dakota’s Tim Johnson might be a target this fall after surviving a 2002 challenge from John Thune by the slimmest of margins (500 votes). But, Johnson’s approval rating is quite good (70%), and he’s well ahead of challenger Joel Dykstra in the polls.

The picture isn’t as rosy for Republicans. Thad Cochran is probably safe in Mississippi, Lindsey Graham is almost certainly safe in South Carolina, and Michael Enzi and John Barrasso are probably safe in Wyoming. Jeff Sessions (Alabama), Saxy Chambliss (Georgia), Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma) and Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) are presumeably safe.

But after that, it’s anybody’s guess as to how many states the Republicans can save. Some, like North Carolina’s Elizabeth Dole and Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, are breathing fairly easy at this point in the campaign. Others, such as John Sununu from New Hampshire, are not. Sununu is the most likely Republican incumbent to fall. He faces opposition from former governor Jeanne Shaheen, who has been consistently leading in polls. It seems likely at this point that Sununu will be defeated and the GOP will lose his seat to the Democrats.

Republicans are also likely to lose seats in New Mexico and Virginia, where Republican incumbents Pete Domenici and John Warner are retiring. The Republicans have virtually conceded the New Mexico race already, to Democrat Tom Udall. In Virginia, former governor Mark Warner (D) is soundly whipping former governor Jim Gilmore, polls show.

That brings the likely Democratic pickups to 3, which would give them 54 seats in the Senate. It’s a pretty safe bet that this will happen. From here, the attention will turn to a couple more seats where incumbents are retiring: Colorado and Mississippi. In Colorado, Wayne Allard retired and will watch as fellow Republican Bob Schaffer is the likely candidate to seek his seat. Congressman Mark Udall will be the Democratic nominee. In a normal year, the battle would likely be a toss-up. But given the sentiment, it’s likely a slight leaner for Democrats this fall.

A similar situation is developing in Mississippi. This is actually an incumbent state, but Roger Wicker was appointed to the seat by Gov. Haley Barbour last December, and will face strong opposition this fall from Democratic former governor Ronnie Musgrove.

Those 2 seats are not as likely for the Democrats, but it seems reasonable that they may split the 2, putting total gains at 4, and a Senate majority of 55 seats.

After that, the Democrats would need some luck to pick up 5 more seats. They would need to capture some states they aren’t expected to capture, but that they have an outside shot of winning. The most likely among such states is Alaska, where incumbent Republican Ted Stevens is aging (85) and the target of an FBI probe into allegations of misconduct. Alaska is among the union’s most conservative states, but a formidible opponent has qualified on the left side. Mark Begich, mayor of Anchorage and son of popular Alaskan politician Nick Begich, will challenge. The possibility remains, however slim, that Stevens won’t survive the primary.

In Minnesota, freshman Senator Norm Coleman faces opposition from comedian Al Franken in the most talked-about race of the season. Coleman narrowly won in 2002 after Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, defeating Carter VP Walter Mondale. Franken led in some polls early, but has suffered setbacks of late, mostly related to his ability to insert his foot into his mouth, and Coleman has surged back in front.

Another state where Democrats could potentially pull off a minor upset is Oregon, where junior Senator Gordon Smith is facing a challenge from Gordon Leitch.

The problem for Democrats is that even if they get lucky and win those 3, they would still be 2 short of the number needed, and it’s not too likely that their luck could continue to take them much further, unless something changes in the next 3.5 months. On the other hand, even the best-case scenario for Republicans this fall would likely leave the Democrats within striking distance of the 60-seat majority for 2010. On the other hand, if Democrats win the White House in November and don’t bring about change on the economic and foreign policy fronts, it’s possible that the pendulum will be swinging back to the right by the ‘10 midterms.

Fundraising revisited

Remember that speculation about Barack Obama’s fundraising? Forget about it.

After a lackluster May that saw Obama raise just $22 million — which was just $1 million higher than John McCain — Obama rebounded in a big way, netting $52 million in June. McCain raised $22 million in June. That’s his best of the year, but pales in comparison to Obama’s haul. Also, the DNC’s cash-raising was up substantially from last month’s paltry $4.5 million, helping Obama/DNC pull closer to McCain/RNC with cash in hand. McCain/RNC began June/July with $95 million, while Obama/DNC began the month with $72 million.

Throwing the election for sake of party

The Wall Street Journal blogs today about North Carolina congressional candidate Carl Mumpower, a Republican challenger who has stopped campaigning and says he won’t resume until the GOP committees in half his district’s counties sign off on the party’s “core principles.” And, he says, the Republican Party must agree to work against GOP’ers who are not in tune with those principles.

It’s an interesting approach for Mumpower; perhaps even an admirable one. The currently-sour-on-the-GOP Conservatives With Attitude praises Mumpower’s actions, saying he is “Forcing the GOP to buy into” his platform.

The skeptic in me can’t help but wonder whether Mumpower’s really a man of principle bent on preserving the GOP, or whether he’s looking for cheap publicity. He is working on what the WSJ defines a “shoestring budget,” having declined funding from political action committees and the Republican Party, which suggests both that he’s a man of principle . . . and that he may need some cheap publicity. His race isn’t an easy one; the mountainous district of western North Carolina typically leans conservative, but his opponent is freshman Congressman Heath Shuler. Shuler, a former NFL quarterback who finished 2nd in the Heisman Trophy balloting during his playing days at the University of Tennessee, has persuaded constituents to buy into his moderately conservative Blue Dog Democrat agenda.

Speculation theory ain’t fickle

Apart from the new liberal (and OPEC) mantra that it is speculators — not supply & demand or other factors — that are responsible for driving up the cost of oil, there is a much more right-minded faction who believe that if the U.S. were to announce an aggressive energy policy, that alone could drive down the cost of oil. In other words, while opening the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling might leave us years away from more oil, it could have an immediate impact on the price of oil by dropping prices on the futures markets.

And this week, we’ve seen this theory proven (seemingly, at least). As National Review’sLarry Kudlow pointed out yesterday, the price of crude futures for August delivery dropped $9, or 6%, on the heels of Bush’s announcement Monday that an executive moratorium banning offshore drilling would be lifted. Coincidence? Perhaps, but not likely. Bush’s lifting of the executive order was largely just theatre, since it is meaningless without similar action by Congress, but it was still enough to drop the futures market by 6%. In theory, then, similar action by Congress would have an even more dramatic impact on the market.

Says Kudlow:

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

Hugh Hewitt blasts Congress today for doing nothing as the financial markets groan in the wake of the Freddie-Fannie debacle, saying that an aggressive energy policy would help ease market anxiety. “Signaling seriousness about energy production — and not just offshore drilling though it should be step number one, but nuclear power and refinery construction as well — is a huge hammer the Congress could use to smash the beginnings of panic,” Hewitt says.

Powerline’s John Hinderaker predicts that Congressional Democrats will buckle before the arrival of the autumn season:

I don’t think the Democrats will be able to take the heat that is coming from voters. My guess is that between now and the election, they will pretend to give in on the energy issue. If that is correct, they will not renew the ban on OCS exploration and will purport, in other ways, to remove government restrictions that keep the price of energy high. In doing so, they will be counting on the one-two punch of regulatory morass followed by litigation initiated by “environmental” groups to prevent any actual energy production from taking place, probably for decades.

Hinderaker is probably right. But if the Democrats stubbornly hold their ground, their hard-headedness could be Barack Obama’s kiss of death. As I’ve pointed out more than once (here and here), the drilling issue has the potential to be John McCain’s defining moment in November. Marc Ambinder suggests that McCain use Obama’s absence in the Democrat candidate’s upcoming trip overseas — a time when candidates typically refrain from attacking their opponents out of courtesy — to hammer home his energy policies.

The thin-skinned Obama

Right-minded comedian Dennis Miller has Barack Obama pegged: “I don’t ever notice the color of [Obama's] skin,” Miller said in an appearance with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, “But I do notice the thinness of it.”

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama has taken exceptional offense to, well, just about everything. While partisans on the left were criticizing Cindy McCain for being slow to disclose tax records, Barack Obama was declaring his own wife, Michelle, off-limits to campaign scrutiny. While John McCain was being mercilessly hounded about his age, Obama complained that conservatives were using “fear tactics” by painting him as inexperienced, funny-named, and black.

But you thought this was going to be about a certain satirical cover on a certain New York magazine. Of course it is. What else has the blogosphere chatting about these days?

The now-infamous New Yorker magazine cover was actually twisting the knife in the gut of conservatives; poking fun at the outrageous claims made by some of them. The cover depicted Obama in traditional Muslim garb, fist-bumping an AK-47-toting Michelle as an American flag burned in a fireplace in the Oval Office, the decor of which was completed by a wall-hanging bearing a likeness of Osama bin Laden.

I am a conservative. My response was, “Touche.” An all-too-accurate satirical depiction by the magazine that defined the art of satire. It wasn’t long ago, after all, that the magazine played on leftist claims by portraying George W. Bush as a Roman emperor. But the Obama campaign didn’t get the satire, calling it “tasteless” and “offensive.”

Tacky? Definitely. Over-the-top? Perhaps. But we’re less than 4 months removed from a presidential election. Political cartoonists will do what political cartoonists do, and as conservative columnist Michelle Malkin puts it, “Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one.” And Doug Ross assembled a collage of satirical portrayals of Bush: Bush as the Devil, Bush as a gun-toting madman, and et cetera.

But while the Obama campaign was taking exception to the New Yorker’s cover, the obvious was being pointed out in pundit-land: Why is Obama off-limits to political humor? From Letterman to Leno, late night hosts have graciously spared Obama. Ann Althouse writes, “Why can’t we joke about Obama?” Good question. Althouse cites an article in today’s New York Times quoting several late night writers who excuse the lack of Obama subject matter. One writer went so far as to say, “He’s not a comical figure.”

I’m not a comic, but I think I could carve out a meager living by finding something about Obama to poke fun at. If nothing else, there are his big ears . . . and stand-up comics have cashed in with jokes about human anatomy since the dawn of show biz.

Althouse points out the obvious, which pundits have thus far been painfully slow to point out: Obama gets a free pass because he’s black, and because comedians don’t want to be seen as being racist. It’s a legitimate concern. With the doctrine of political correctness already working against them, the powerful lobbying punch of the Jacksons and the Sharptons, et al, further tilts the table away from their favor. A joke not intended to be racist could be perceived as racist. And racists comments can be career-busters. Just ask Don Imus, John Rocker, and a host of others. Sure, their comments were blatant. But, sometimes, the only thing separating a comment from borderline and blatant is intense media scrutiny. And, whether a conscious effort or not, the Obama campaign has likely helped make funny-pundits more skittish by harshly criticizing anything it perceives as negative.

There’s a fine line between fair play, crude, and downright unacceptable in the world of satire, and it’s a line that should not be crossed, obviously. But one can’t help but wonder: Given the response thus far, what would the mood in the Obama camp be if he were subjected to the same satirical onslaught as, say, George W. Bush?

Obama: McCain flip-flops more

Politico’s Jonathan Martin has this exerpt from an Obama appearance scheduled for PBS tonight:

[I]f you compare sort of my shift in emphasis on issues that I’ve been proposing for years, like say, faith-based initiatives, which have raised questions in the press, … if you compare that to John McCain’s complete reversal on oil drilling, complete reversal on George Bush’s tax cuts, complete reversal on immigration where he said he wouldn’t even vote for his own bill, that I think is a pretty hard case to make that somehow I’ve been shifting substantially relative to John McCain.

First, there’s no doubt that McCain has flip-flopped on several issues. But there’s a glaring difference here. McCain’s flip-flops have come over time. Offshore drilling and tax cuts were issues McCain flipped on between well before the 2008 presidential campaign began, and now. By contrast, Obama has drawn criticism for his flip-flops that have come in the midst of this election season, such as gun control, Iraq, and others. Not that McCain hasn’t changed his stance on some issues during the course of the campaign, though it might be a stretch to call what he’s emphasizing and what he’s backing away from flip-flops. Nevertheless, consider:

• Public financing: In late 2007, Obama challenged whomever the Republican nominee might be to enter into a public financing agreement, which provides (and limits) candidates $80 million for post-convention spending. By last month, he said he was opting out of public financing.

• FISA: In October 2007, Obama was against it, promising to filibuster in the U.S. Senate when such a bill arose. By this month, he was voting for it.

• NAFTA: Last year, he was blasting NAFTA and hinting that it might need to be abolished. In less time than it took a campaign aide to assure the Canucks that his boss was only kidding, Obama had backpeddled, calling his comments “over-heated.”

• Gun control: Last November, Obama was saying the Washington D.C. gun ban was constitutional. The reading of the majority opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court last month apparently changed his mind; Obama expressed his support for the court’s decision and said that D.C. had obviously overstepped its bounds with the prohibitive gun law.

• Iraq: He was for immediate troop withdrawals in Iraq. Perhaps it was the constant chiding of the GOP, but more likely it was the success shown by the surge and Gen. David Patraeus in Iraq. After numbers at the start of summer showed a significant reduction in violence in Iraq, Obama decided it was time to visit the country and better define his plan for Iraq.

As Charles Krauthammer points out, the mainstream media has largely given Obama a pass on his flip-flops:

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech — designed to rationalize why “I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother” — then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great “race speech” now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Jackson remarks: Calculated or crazy?

Did Jesse Jackson make a major blunder earlier this week when he made some off-color comments about Barack Obama that were caught on tape? Or was the entire thing carefully calculated; a fabricated spoof to help Obama among undecideds?

While waiting to go on air at Fox News Channel, Jackson whispered to another guest that Obama was “talking down” to black people, and that he would like to “cut [Obama's] nuts off.” The comments were aired on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor Wednesday evening. By the time the comments were actually aired, they had already made news coast-to-coast . . . from the blogosphere to the network newscasts.

In a twist that was borderline absurd, the comments-to-come first made news when Jackson called CNN to offer a preemptive apology. Fox, the cable network would later reveal, had contacted both Jackson and the Obama campaign after an intern discovered the comments while transcribing the show segment overnight.

Shortly after Jackson’s apology was aired on CNN, a strongly-worded smack-down was issued by — of all people — Jackson’s son, Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.:

I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career. …Instead of tearing others down, Barack Obama wants to build the country up and bring people together so that we can move forward, together — as one nation. The remarks like those uttered on Fox by Reverend Jackson do not advance the campaign’s cause of building a more perfect Union.

The pundits are in agreement: Jackson’s words likely helped Obama validate his campaign among undecided voters. The comments help Obama distance himself from the Jackson-Sharpton fringe movement and establish himself as something other than “just another black politician.” A sort of Sister Souljah moment in a round-about way, as a blogger put it earlier today.

So, the question that begs asking is this: Did Jackson, with his television background and knowledge of the inner workings of news TV (never, ever assume the mic is turned off . . . because it rarely is), make an incredibly foolish blunder? Or was the entire thing cooly calculated? Was Jackson called upon to fall on his sword for the Obama camp? Is the Obama camp vaguely playing the race card, fooling the 99.9% of legitimate political bloggers, who haven’t pounced upon the possibility (however slim the possibility may be)?

Pawlenty not being vetted

Contrary to a report by Mark Ambinder earlier this week, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is not being vetted by the McCain campaign as McCain’s possible running mate.

So says the governor himself, according to a Minnesota newspaper.

Ambinder’s report quoted sources close to the McCain camp as saying that 8 to 10 candidates, including Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, were being vetted.

According to today’s report:

“I have not been asked to provide any documents or information to the McCain campaign,” Pawlenty said as he headed into a noontime speech to an energy conservation group at the St. Paul Hotel. He also said he hasn’t authorized anyone to provide information about him to the campaign.

That doesn’t mean Pawlenty isn’t being considered, of course. But let’s assume he isn’t in the running. This would probably be yet another indicator that Romney is going to be the eventual choice.