Rumors are currently swarming around the possibility of Evan Bayh for VP.  It's not just HuffPo any more--Indianapolis's largest paper, John Nichols, and HoweyPoliticsIndiana (HPI) are all reading the tea leaves.  

Tactically, there's a logic behind such a move, given the $5mm Olympic media buy planned by Team Obama.  That buy would offer them the perfect chance to introduce their new ticket.  It would also allow a campaign that appears to abhor loose ends to have everything wrapped up well before Denver.

In an op-ed piece in today's LA Times, Nate Silver, as usual, offers a trenchant analysis of the current political lay of the land.  His analysis is reassuring in the face of tightening national horse race polls, but it also offers a cautionary tale about the future course of the Obama campaign.

Silver offers a persuasive argument as to why Obama is not establishing a double digit lead despite the generic Dem party ID lead of roughly that margin.  According to Silver, the Dems start w/ a structural disadvantage in that, since 1976, while GOP nominees have been supported by 87% of self-identified Goopers, our nominees have only been supported by 80% of self-described Dems.  Siver also addresses McCain's ability, thus far, to define himself as a "moderate."

Today's FiveThirtyEight.com (538) and Electoral-vote.com (EVC) projections are more than enough to send any Dem's heart aflutter.  The former site projects Obama w/ a (rounded) EV lead of 307-231, while the latter projects Obama 316, McCain 198, and tied 24.  The former site includes FL as a McCain state, but the latter site lists it as being "Barely Dem."

For purposes of this hypothetical, let's follow EVC's lead and put this state in the Obama column.  The latest Pollster.com average gives Obama a 45.7-45.3 lead, and the trendline is moving in his direction.  Obama outspent McCain by over $5mm on advertising here in June/July.  While 538 still gives McCain a 64% chance of winning FL, Obama's chances appear to be better than that at this point.

As many of us know, the title of this diary was borrowed from Barry Goldwater's (in)famous 1964 GOP acceptance speech.  While this is the first (and likely the last) time I will ever quote a Goldwater speech here (or anywhere else), there's another line that's equally applicable today:

That, let me remind you, is the land of liberty built by decentralized power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at every level.

Those words need to be seriously contemplated by every House Dem today.  Yesterday's Judiciary vote on contempt for Rove and today's district court ruling rejecting spurious Executive Privilege claims make it painfully clear that the time has come for a more aggressive approach.

While the 2008 electoral map has its obvious differences from the prior 2 maps, once again, FL and OH appear to be the 2 most hotly contested big states.  Based upon current projections in FiveThirtyEight.com (538), half the states and DC are unlikely to be competitive this year.  In only 10 states is the currently trailing candidate given a shot of 32% or better.  IOW, it is likely that the focus of the rival campaigns will narrow in the coming weeks.

538 currently projects that 1 candidate has a 90% chance or better in 25 states, including megastates NY, TX, IL, and CA.  While Obama only leads in 11 of those 25 states, McCain's include 9 states w/ 6 EVs or less, while Obama's states include 3 of the 4 megastates.  Obama's 90% states total 165 EVs, while McCain's 90% states total 139 EVs.  If, furthermore, one drops the bar to an 86% probability, Obama picks up another 42 EVs, while McCain only picks up another 13 EVs.  

Rev. Martin Niemoller was a Lutheran pastor in Germany who became an outspoken opponent of the Nazis.  His famous poem about those who failed to oppose the Nazis in the 1930's is still quoted today:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Frank Rich's Sunday column is, as usual, a worthy read.  It offers an interesting application of the new movie "Wall-E" to our contemporary political situation.  Its most relevant portion, however, comes near the end, where he addresses the malaise that currently appears to be infecting the Obama campaign.  

WTF is going on here?  The top diary on the recc list personally insults the site's founder, and comments w/i the diary go downhill from there?

I don't always agree w/ Markos.  I still think, for example, that he too casually dismissed the cloud of suspicion that hung around the 2004 election results.   I would never dream, however, of engaging in such personal invective against any poster on this site.  I sure as hell wouldn't do it against this site's founder.

Most of us recall WJC's "Sister Souljah Moment" in 1992 and how that term entered our national political lexicon.  That year, Sister Souljah was a hip-hop artist who made virulently racist comments after that spring's Rodney King riot in LA.  That summer, WJC publicly blasted Souljah at a Rainbow Coalition conference to which Jesse Jackson had invited both WJC and Souljah as speakers.

Since then, a "Sister Souljah Moment" has been defined as follows:

 a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position perceived to have some association with the politician or their party. Such an act of repudiation is designed to signal to centrist voters that the politician is not beholden to traditional, and sometimes unpopular, interest groups associated with the party, although such a repudiation runs the risk of alienating some of the politician's allies and the party's base voters.

As others have noted here, Sy Hersh's new piece in the New Yorker is enough to scare the s**t out of anyone who has followed the rumors about a potential attack on Iran.  Hersh is now giving interviews further sounding the alarm.  

It has been obvious for months that the Cheneyites want to bomb Iran.  The Olmert govt has made its plans equally clear.  The US buildup in the Gulf and the recent Israeli exercises all demonstrate the fragility of this moment.

As yesterday's NYT noted, Obama is now consciously tacking to the mythical "center" for his GE run.  It's not merely his pulling a 180 on telco immunity, nor is it his arguing both sides of the highly contentious 5-4 Heller decision on the DC gun ban.  It's his openly changing his tune on NAFTA, too.

I am not thrilled about any of these developments.  Like Jim Hightower (and Obama supporter), I believe that there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos.  Placing these developments in the context of a recent Esquire piece by Charles Pierce, however, makes them far more understandable.

Back on 2/26, Sen. Obama said the following in his remarks accepting Sen. Dodd's endorsement of his prez campaign:

We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.  

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.  

I've been around the block more than a few times.  I understand that we live in a relative world and that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I knew all along that Obama had some obvious limitiations.  I never dreamed in a million years, however, that he'd pull a Hoyer on FISA.

Pelosi's recent incoherent double talk supporting the cave in of her and her House "leadership" colleagues was a disappointment.  It was, however, somewhat understandable.  She's not an attorney, and she appears to only have a dim grasp of the issues involved w/ this bill.  She has a ML who's desperate to pass it, and she has a restive bloc of Blue Dogs who currently hold the balance of power.  

Since no one diaried it yet, here goes.  Kos was in slot 4 on "Countdown" discussing Obama's approach to FISA.  He correctly noted that none of us will be supporting McVain, but our degree of enthusiasm will be affected by what Obama does between now and the final vote.

As much as I'd like to think that Obama will lead a successful filibuster stripping immunity from the final bill, there's currently no indication that he will do so.  Filibusters require spadework, and they require the development of a critical mass.  There's no indication that Obama has done any spadework for a filibuster, and there's no evidence of even the beginnings of a critical mass for one.

While Kos did a fine job representing all of us, I'll be very surprised if anything happens here.

There is, of course, considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth here about the imminent final capitulation on telecom immunity in the FISA bill.  There will be much more of it as the deal is consummated in the next few days.  While I respect and I understand this anguish, I will not be joining in it.

McJoan's 6/5 diary answered all doubts on this issue.  In just the first 3 mos of '08, the telcos spent $14mm lobbying on this issue.  They utilized former aides of Reid's and Hoyer's to steer this bill through.  God knows how much campaign swag they've given out in the past, and how much more they've promised for the future.

A column by David Carr at the front of today's NYT business section offers valuable perspective on the untimely passing of Tim Russert.  In particular, it places his death in the broader context of the waning influence of the TM in the political process.

Tim Russert the father, the son, and the friend obviously had many admirable qualities.  The profound sense of loss that KO conveyed Friday evening made it clear that Russert was an ally of KO's in a business in which, generally w/ good reason, KO has made his share of enemies.  The hagiography we've seen on NBC in particular and on network TV in general, however, has been disproportionate to his contribution to our public debate.

I read most of David Mendell's Obama:From Promise to Power on a long flight* yesterday.  There is much to recommend about this book, and I understand that Mendell issued a follow-up tome  .

There is much to digest from this bio, such as Obama's relationship w/ Rev. Wright, his becoming a client of Axelrod's, and his ties to the late Paul Simon.  The book reminds us that Obama is very much in the Paul Douglas/Adlai III/Simon lineage of IL good govt liberal senators.  Even more significantly, however, it gives us an in-depth account of how he came to give the speech on the IWR in 2002 that came to define his presidential candidacy.

*While the country looks big on a map, its size becomes more apparent when one flies round trip from Ft. Lauderdale to Seattle over 4 days.

40 years ago tonight, RFK was shot while walking through the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in LA.  The current occupant of his Senate seat recently reminded us that this anniversary was coming up.

There is nothing I could say here today about RFK and his legacy that has not already been said by those who are far more eloquent than I will ever be.  This Vanity Fair piece   offers as good a synopsis as any of what was and what could've been.  Suffice it to say, the likes of that campaign have really not been seen since then.