John McCain's campaign has a new ad out on the economy running in Iowa. The :30 second spot is titled "Accountable."

George Stephanopoulos reports (via RealClearPolitics):

"I think it's very much a possibility and there are others around Sen. Clinton, other top Democrats who think the strongest ticket would be a joint ticket," George Stephanopolous, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent, said Monday on "Good Morning America."

The dream team ticket was discussed earlier this year, but fell by the wayside as both sides ramped up the rhetoric against each other, intensifying their battle for the Democratic nomination.

The talk has revived as Clinton now looks like an ultra-long shot for the presidential nomination, and her disappointed supporters are threatening to vote for presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., instead of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"There are intermediaries discussing this very scenario," Stephanopoulos said on "GMA".

Absolutely. I expect this to be the natural outcome of this primary (also see Tommy's piece). At this point Hillary is doing enough damage, she can demand it if she wants it. And Obama has proven that he is extremely weak where Hillary is strong. He must be loathe to admit it, but he needs her.

One question is whether she is demanding that he pay her debt off. That could be a grating thing to do, and my initial response would be to go pound sand. But again, if she wants to be veep, she could probably get that spot and her debts paid off.

If this comes off, I hope McCain enjoyed his little holiday, because the fun time is over. We will now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle stat... Oops wrong movie. Anyway, Obama and Clinton will come together, their supporters will come together, and they will destroy him with full on attacks and endless sniping. Age, ties to Bush, Iraq, connections to lobbyists, Keating five, temper and temperament, it's all out there and waiting. And it's going to be ugly.

Oh and one other stipulation that Obama should demand: Bill Clinton must NOT be a part of the package.

After months of advising his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton in open Democratic primaries, ultra-conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is changing his tune by urging Democratic superdelegates to force the issue and make Barack Obama their nominee. From CNN:

"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. "I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama."

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people," Limbaugh said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

But Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter, disagreed, saying the Democratic Party has "the best coalition to go out and talk to people across racial lines, which are the unions."

Limbaugh's plan to interfere in the Democratic Primary process, dubbed "Operation Chaos," was given legitimacy yesterday when Obama supporter John Kerry attributed Hillary Clinton's victory in Indiana to the gabber's tactic. What is behind this reversal? Is Rush being sincere? Is he mad at Bill Clinton for "hitting on" his "date?" Or is it all some kind of triple-reverse psychology?

I watched Obama give the speech of his political life Tuesday night, full of soaring platitudes. He's so good at the speechifying, I shudder to think of McCain (or Hillary) getting within an order of magnitude of his raw talent in the matter.

Maybe it was just pent up frustration, because I'm sure he's been wanting to give that speech ever since Super Tuesday, but unfortunately Hillary kept. On. Winning. Even after it was supposed to be long over. But tonight, with an overwhelming victory in North Carolina (nearly 16 points at this point) and even a chance at winning Indiana (a few points down and closing fast), he finally has the opportunity to give the big general election speech.

Key phrase: "This has been one of the longest campaigns in Democratic primary history." Note the use of the words "has been." As in, it's over now. Where he goes from here is easy, he can simply assume the mantle of the winner. Be gracious in victory, and let the chips fall. Most Democrats, it now seems clear, while they may be nervous about his chances, their hearts really are with him, and they really do not like Hillary. I now expect a full stampede of superdelegates, making this a fait accompli. I do not expect the Democratic leadership to risk outrage in the ranks in order to reinstall Hillary Clinton. He didn't collapse in the face of the Wright scandal. He's not John Kerry (at least in the speech making) and so, he's good enough to be the front man.

For Hillary it's gut check time, but I'll save that for another post.

Sen. John McCain's campaign is reportedly set to accept public financing for the general election campaign in the fall according to documents released by the campaign on Sunday. Members of McCain's finance team tell the Politico that the campaign will share expenditures with the Republican National Committee in a bid to stretch its campaign dollars and keep up with its Democratic rivals. McCain has thus far raised a total of about $72 million dollars for the primary, and reports having $11.5 million on hand. By contrast, Democrats Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have raised totals of $195 million and $236 million respectively. Clinton reports having $32 million in the bank, while Obama has $51 million.

But while the numbers make his situation look bleak, the impact of McCain's decision to use public money may not be as great as it appears. McCain will be allocated $84.1 million for the general election to be used once he is officially nominated at the Republican National Convention in September. The general election ends on Election Day, November 4, leaving a little over two months for the general election season. That breaks down to $42 million per month for McCain, more than enough money to mount a vigorous campaign. In addition, should the Democrats nominate Obama, McCain will be able to criticize his rival for breaking a campaign pledge to accept public financing.

Judging from the title, you may think this is another post about Obama's small-town comments, but it's not. As it happens, the excellent political analyst Jay Cost has taken a deep look at the Ohio numbers and has offered a thesis for why it is that the Democrat superdelegates have not already swung over to Obama. In short, they're worried about Obama's performance among the swing voters.

Rather, the concern for Democrats is whether Obama's poor performance among white, strongly partisan Democrats is a sign he will be weak among white, persuadable voters. We're talking about weak partisans and Independents. They're the ones who swing elections in Ohio. Obviously, they differ from strong Democrats in terms of partisanship - but they still have many socioeconomic characteristics in common with them. The weak partisans and Indies are the relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers of the strong Democrats who voted so overwhelmingly for Clinton last month. While the persuadables do not share their strong partisan orientation, they might share the same disinclination to Obama. The strong partisans expressed it in March by voting for Clinton; the weak partisans and Independents might express it in November by voting for McCain.

He'll have plenty of chances - what with Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia all coming up. There are lots of these types of voters for him to win over, and thus lots of chances to show that the Buckeye State was an outlier, that it just takes him longer to catch on with these folks.

This is why his comments in San Francisco were so unfortunate. If they are going to turn off anybody, it's the people we've been discussing. Obama really has to do just one thing in Pennsylvania. He doesn't need to win. He just needs not to get blown out among downscale whites like he did in Ohio. His comments - delivered at a time when about 12% of the Pennsylvania electorate is making up its mind - impede this task. Consequently, they may ultimately serve to extend the length of this primary battle.

Barack Obama has been on the defensive over his remarks that Americans who live in small towns are "bitter" and "...cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama has since expressed regret:

Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.

But the sniping continues. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are piling on. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, wrote in an email to supporters:

These words are revealing on a number of levels, and expose the out-of-touch beliefs to which John McCain offers stark contrast.

Clinton called the remarks "elitist, out of touch and frankly, patronizing." She is running a new ad, "Pennsylvania," in which supporters assert she understands "the citizens of Pennsylvania better."

At the Associated Press annual luncheon, Obama dismissed his political foes:

As I said yesterday, I regret some of the words I chose, partly because the way that these remarks have been interpreted have offended some people and partly because they have served as one more distraction from the critical debate that we must have in this election season.

Obama downplayed criticism of his "ill-chosen words" as "fake controversies" and lamented that "politicians [are] trying to divide us with their own political game."

Will this be the be one of the dog whistle phrases used in the general election season if Obama is the Dem nominee?

Before attending the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings today, McCain attended a rally held by Vets for Freedom and was introduced by former Army Staff Sargeant David Bellavia. While not mentioning either Dem candidate by name, but by way of saying who he'd rather have as a role model for his kids, Bellavia refers to McCain as the "real audacity of hope".

While the Woods' analogy is by no means trashing Obama - Tiger has come to represent strength, tenacity and drive - it's an intellectually lazy comparison of one multi-racial newsmaker and another expecting to find that these people are all the same. Barack Obama is not the Tiger Woods of politics. But hey, they're both light brown, right?

It's not the first time this comparison has been made and certainly won't be the last I'm afraid. Dog whistle politics, including code words like 'states rights', have been used effectively by the right for some time now. Some famous examples - Ronald Reagan in Philadelphia, MS, Bush II at Bob Jones University and the legendary Jesse Helms' "Hands" ad.

While McCain will claim to keep race out of his campaigns, his surrogates will feel free to make these and other much darker analogies couched in symbolism understood by the right if Obama is the nominee. If Clinton is the nominee, we'll see much less symbolism and much more rehash of the Clinton scandals of the 90's.

Here's your preview to Election '08 part deux.

From ABC News:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior o the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Color me, D-Fl., surprised. While this is the lead story for a variety of news outlets this morning, and described as a "Clinton Bombshell" by Matt Drudge, I'm scratching my head and thinking, what's the big deal?

The My-Opponent-Can't-Win-In-The-General-Election line is not exactly new to American politics. Nor is it new to our current campaign. In fact, for a good many people who pay attention to such trifling matters as who our next president will be, it is the first question they ask when assessing a candidate: Can he or she win?