...about beating Jim Oberweis. The guy has now lost the GOP Senate primary in 2004 (maybe you've heard of the guy who won that election), the GOP primary for governor, and now this. He's a hysterical radical righty who famously ran ads in the Senate campaign where he flies over Soldier Field in a helicopter, then explains that enough illegals cross over the border every day to fill this stadium blah blah blah I can afford a helicopter.

Then, of course, came the inevitable "hey, so I couldn't help but notice that a lot of the cleaning crews in your crappy ice cream stores (he made his millions running Oberwies Dairy) are undocumented..." and poof when that campaign. The guy is regarded as a dilettante and a joke here. His commercials for this race were 95% negative, and they were the really basic Liberal vs. Conservative (He'll raise your taxes and force your underage girls to have abortions!!!!!) ads that would've been effective in 1994, but just seem dated and pathetic now.

So, while this is a great pickup, as Winston Wolf would say, let's not start sucking each others' d*cks just yet.

I have a great idea for a SecDef for you, McCain. His friends call him Rummsy...but he doesn't have any friends.

Oooh, and for Attorney General...there's this guy who, get this, has the SAME INITIALS, AG...Alberto something...

FOUR MORE YEARS!!! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

And I'm genuinely confused about this, not being a concern troll.

Is the campaign really in disarray, or is that the story being floated around because, for some weird reason, that story was also floating around in NH, and floating around in OH? Maybe it's part of a "comeback" narrative, where Clinton says "I made some early mistakes, but I'm in control now, superdelegates, so thank you to my 1st choice for VP Barack for giving me that wake-up call, I'm all ready now" (sorry, that's convoluted, I'm trying to work this out).

Or maybe this is just old news from before the "revitalization" of Ohio.

Or maybe this is a campaign that is crumbliing from the inside, as evidenced by a 20 point Ohio lead becoming a 10 point Ohio win, and desperately clinging to hope that PA will save them.

1. @mjkoch, who said if this was a Republican, he'd be forced to resign...you mean like Vitter? And Craig?

2. @ljwalker53...sell your sexist crap somewhere else, we're all full up here.

3. I've got Thursday in the over/under to see T-shirts with "I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex?" for sale in NYC.

I'm not the most qualified to make this arguement, but I'm going to try to put the lie to the myth that since all their names were on the ballot and nobody campaigned there, it was a "level playing field" (btw, the cable ads that Obama ran were specifically cleared by the DNC as within the "no campaigning rules". Meaning Clinton was free to run them as well).

To say that having no campaigning creates a level playing field means saying either a) campaigning hasa no effect on the outcome (in which case, why do they do it?) or b) both candidates, without campaigning, have an equal chance at winning.

Of course this isn't true. Name recognition is a huge factor in any campaign, and while yes, Obama had already won Iowa, he still was a lesser-known quantity than was Hillary Clinton.

So what people are saying when they say it was a "level playing field" is that the playing field from a certain point forward was level, but that point occurs AFTER one candidate has enjoyed a huge natural advantage. One then must conclude that those people are ok with that initial natural advantage being decisive, in which case, why do we hold primaries to begin with?

Maybe someone else can say it bet

I almost hate to say this, but McCain has done several things that show actual class and dignity befitting a national campaign, which a) makes me cynically wonder how long it will last and b) completely explains why Republicans hate him so much.

Second, how long until we can officially call this kind of attack "pulling a Ferraro?"

I think the reason we haven't seen any Ferraro entries is because Alex is still busy watching Hardball frame by frame to make sure Chris Matthews doesn't say/do anything mean to Her Imperial Majesty.

I think it's absolutely correct to say that "she's only where she is because she's married to Bill is a nepotism charge, not a sexist charge. It's because she's part of his family, the same as it would be if Bill's *son* uh, "Chester" Clinton (taking gender out completely, and also not wanting to get suspended by MSNBC, even though I don't work for them) was running on an "experience" theme.

By her measure of experience, by the way, there is a more qualified candidate out there. She would be groundbreaking as the first woman president. Her experience is nearly triple what Hillary Clinton's is. And she's also a "fighter." I'm talking, of course, about Barbara Bush. Think about it...

8 years as the VPs wife (Second Lady?)

4 years as First Lady

8 years as First Mother

4 years as First Mother of Texas

4(8?) years as First Mother of Florida

4 years as a Congressional Spouse

2 years as UN Ambassador's wife

2 years as CIA Director's wife

And remember how she said that the Astrodome was "working out pretty well" for Katrina victims? She's got public housing experience!

/ubersnark

This whole thing has me disgusted. As Olbermann said last night, this is now officially a pattern. Just borderline enough so as not to be overt, but certainly the dogwhistle politics of old.

And I'd love to parrot Olbermann's earlier line about how she's running to be VP...McCain's VP, but so far McCain has behaved himself much better (over/under for that is 2 weeks, but still...)

Please, SuperDs, see this for what it is. End this thing now.