Let's hope it releases better than Vista.

John McCain is an interesting nominee. Mostly because he's best known as for critically acclaimed but popularly unsuccessful McCain 2.0 -- the version released in the late 90s that appeared to threaten the dominant Bush 2.0 (Code Name 'W'), an operating system so full of flaws it is now nearly universally reviled. McCain 1.0 had security concerns due its close relationship with a package of programs called the Keating 5.

Unfortunately, the McCain 2.0 release found itself unable to stand up to Bush 2.0, so starting in 2004, programmers appear to have cut a deal, merging the Bush 2.0 core code with the McCain 2.0 user interface, giving rise to McCain 3.0.

Now the big question is whether this 3.0 release gets overhauled in time for November -- and whether the public catches on that it's basically nothing but Bush 2.0 with a new face. Time will tell.

Reading posts like this one, I'm mildly confounded. Sure, in a close race where two candidates are reaching a virtual draw in electoral fights, Superdelegates are going to provide the crucial margin to the winning candidate. But let's stop pretending that these Superdelegates are operating as some kind of voting bloc. They simply aren't.

2008 Dem Con Watch is a great blog to track this stuff. As their writing makes clear, the vast, vast majority of superdelegates have electoral constituencies. Whether we're talking U.S. Representatives who represent the Dems of their own district or Democratic Party leaders who were voted in by their local grassroots, these folks are accountable, ultimately, to democratic processes. As my friend David Sirota notes, superdelegates are even pledging (of their own accord) to respect the desires of their constituents.

As Democrats in Super Duper Fantastic Tuesday of the Century^TM states get ready to cast their ballots, the stylistic differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have started to mirror their central arguments for being more electable, for being more capable of strong governance, and for being better suited to this race and this office.

In that sense, this is a fundamentally fascinating moment -- when Democrats will be casting their ballots for one of two candidates and, in doing so, be making a statement about their own view of modern American politics.

Last night was the first real win of the Democratic Primary. Why do I say that? Didn't Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan already vote? Haven't we had winners so far?

Sure -- so far we've had a bunch of photo finishes. The widest margin in a contested race (Michigan wasn't a real contest; neither Edwards nor Obama appeared on the ballot, in compliance with DNC rules forbidding campaigning there) until last night was in Iowa, where Obama beat Edwards and Clinton by 8 percent (and Edwards and Clinton, for all reasonable purposes, flat-out tied). New Hampshire was a couple point spread. Nevada was about five.

Last night was a 30-point landslide for Barack Obama - simply huge. There's no other way to look at that number, especially in the context of other contests. Obama got basically the same percentage of the vote in South Carolina, a highly contested state, as Hillary Clinton got in Michigan, where she was the only top tier candidate on the ballot (a huge portion there went to uncommitted).

I find myself with less and less time to devote to presidential politics as my own day job heats up, but I couldn't help but take a look at Barack Obama's "controversial" remarks about Ronald Reagan. Why the scare quotes? 'Cause I can't for the life of me figure out what is controversial about Obama's statement.

Watch it for yourself:

Chris Bowers pulls post-Iowa polling in New Hampshire and concludes that New Hampshire will be close. Well, maybe. Wasn't Iowa supposed to be close, too? Anyone's game? And didn't a bunch of young people show up and vote overwhelmingly for Barack Obama to create an eight point race -- a far wider margin than anyone expected?

In the past, Pew has found that on general political surveys, the impact is minimal. But time has past, more people are landline-less. And the cell phone crowd's demographics indicate that the group, if they show up, are likely to be Obama supporters, not Hillary-backers.

Who Will Have Iowa's Biggest After Party?

It's Closing Time at the Iowa Bar. And Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama are all trying to bring as many voters home as they can. In the contest to have the biggest after party, it's utterly crucial to pull out all the stops. The terrain in Iowa is extremely fluid and polling shows the race as anyone's game (McClatchy has a 3-way tie; Zogby has a 3-way tie; ARG has a Clinton lead, but a very tight voter frame that may distort results; Research 2000 has a 3-way tie; etc.). But that won't stop junkies from trying to make heads or tails of what's happening.

So let's take a closer look at the Iowa Bar.

Looking at the polling trends in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is pretty clear that Barack Obama's campaign is picking up some crucial momentum in this final pre-holiday period before voters check out (sure sign that average voters are checking out is that I'm starting to check out -- and I'm a pure junkie). Even the national numbers show Obama recovering from a stumble.

This is surely the right time to be grabbing the momentum -- even if the national numbers still show Hillary Clinton as a strong frontrunner. In fact, it just may be the perfect combination. The political establishment continues to operate as though Clinton is the frontrunner, setting up expectations for her. If Obama outperforms her in Iowa and takes momentum into New Hampshire five days later, he is well poised to rocket into the next round of primaries with a surge of adrenaline, as the Clinton campaign faces negative press coverage.

The Clinton campaign is pulling an audacious move in New Hampshire, trying to use Barack Obama's (non-controversial) admission of past drug use as an electoral wedge, threatening that Republicans will manage to turn it into an issue. Yeah, sure, whatever.

Your husband may or may not have inhaled (it probably depends on the definition of 'did'), but don't go thinking that we're all drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid, Hillary.

Here's the reality: according to polling data, as of 2002, roughly half of Americans had smoked pot at some point (and nearly all of them inhaled). I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that virtually all of the serious contenders in both parties have experimented at one point or another. At least Barack Obama is being honest and human. If Hillary Clinton's campaign thinks either of those attributes is a negative, they should be more open about that fact.

Expect to see some guns come ablazing very, very soon now. His numbers are getting scary. Newsweek's new poll puts him at a 39-17 lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa. That's more than a 2-1 lead. Meanwhile, Rasmussen's tracking poll and a national poll average put Huckabee strengthening against Giuliani.

Mike Huckabee simply is running the most incredible race in America, dollar-for-dollar, that we've seen.

So what happens? Do the wolves come out? Do independent groups tied to Romney or Giuliani start hitting hard? Does the Club for Growth attack Huckabee for being insufficiently pro-business? Do other candidates amp up their own attacks, as Fred Thompson is?

No matter what they decide, they're running out of time. If they let Huckabee keep surging unchallenged, it'll be game over soon.