Ever since Nouri al-Maliki endorsed Barack Obama's plan to withdraw most US troops from Iraq within about 16 months, John McCain has been agitatedly trying to find a cloud in the silver lining. He's opted to belittle Obama's judgment for opposing the "surge" - implying somehow that the US has won the sectarian civil war by placing more troops in the middle of it. What we won is left unclear, but whatever it is McCain is keen to take the credit.

Speaking to Hispanic vets on Friday in Colorado, however, McCain moved beyond mere vaunting to full mouth frothing. In situations like these the temptation is always to rebut McCain point by point. But sometimes you have to resist the easy route. Sometimes, tactically, it's more effective to force yourself just to stand back and report the Berserk as you happen to find it.

Without further ado, then, McCain's insights on the Iraqi civil war:

Because drawing fire is more hopeful than evading it.

'Unconditional withdrawal' - a cute turn of phrase. Makes you wonder whether McCain would prefer, say, negotiated violence.

McCain doesn't grade on a curve, America! And just look how Obama even failed at his attempts to fail.

Boy is he lousy at predicting things.

Is John McCain trying to convince us that he's the smart one, or the angry one?

CO-Sen: Several polls out over the past few days. Rasmussen showed the race at 47% for Udall, 44% for Republican Bob Schaffer yesterday.

Previously, four polls in a row had showed a 9-10 point lead for Udall.

Now, two new polls are out with contrasting results. From Frederick:

And from Quinnipiac:

Could be statistical noise, or it could be the race closing a little. Conventional wisdom (and most other wisdom) rates the race "Leans Democratic, and that seems accurate. But this race is not money in the bank, and never has been.

ME-Sen: Here is a Maine poll, showing Republican incumbent Susan Collins with a substantial lead over Democrat Tom Allen. From Critical Insights:

Swing State Project notes that when the sample is limited to likely voters, there is only a 10-point margin for Collins, 50% to 40%.

This race has leaned towards Collins from the get-go, and Allen has been slowly closing the margin throughout the campaign. It's certainly not unreasonable to think he can catch her by election day, but this is still Collins' race to lose.

AK-Sen: Ted Stevens doesn't like us. And he doesn't like ActBlue. Here's a recent Stevens fundraising email attacking Democrat Mark Begich:

Fortunately the Begich campaign has a stinging response:

The campaign also notes that Begich received far more donations in Q2 from Alaskans alone than Stevens received in toto. But why bother with facts if you're a Republican?

NH-Sen: UNH's polling showed this race tightening, with Democrat Jeanne Shaheen up only four points on Republican incumbent John Sununu.

Now, Rasmussen has a similar result:

Sununu had been compared to this cycle's Rick Santorum, as he had consistently failed to close what had been solid double-digit polling leads for Shaheen. Now, it seems as though the race may well be tightening, at last. Shaheen still has an edge, but these polling results seem more in line with what one might have expected from this race.

OK-Sen: Orange to Blue candidate Andrew Rice diaried at Daily Kos today. Rice is trying to raise money to keep his latest ad on the air, so feel free to head over to the Orange to Blue page and help him out.

House Races:

MI-09: Democrat Gary Peters' campaign brought in an impressive $570,000 last quarter, and now sits on $1.1 million cash on hand.

It should be a tough fight against Republican incumbent Joe Knollenberg, who brought in even more - $713K, and now has $1.8 million. Still, it's good to know that Peters will have the financial resources to take this race.

OH-02: Not a good sign for Republican party unity in this district; even they don't like Jean Schmidt. From her former primary opponent, Tom Brinkman:

Oh, dear. That kind of rancor cannot be good for Republicans in the district.

IA-04: Republicans are scared all over. From a press release from Democrat Becky Greenwald's campaign, it appears that Karl Rove himself is coming to Iowa to fundraise for Republican incumbent Tom Latham.

Latham is hardly on the top lists of vulnerable Republican incumbents, although his district is quite winnable (D+0.4). The fact that Rove is actually going out to fundraise for Latham seems to indicate that Latham is some part of a Republican firewall. One which it would be delicious to break.

On the web:
Orange to Blue ActBlue page

Lots of gnashing of GOP teeth in the Senate today:

In other words, the motion to invoke cloture was defeated. There were 43 Senators voting to continue a filibuster of the bill, including James Inhofe (R-Exxon).

He votes to continue a filibuster... and then he puts out this unbelievable mountain of craptacular spin, accusing the Democrats of trying to cut off debate on gas price relief:

Wow.  Just... wow.

(From the diaries -- Susan)

Conservative columnists have been trying to make a big deal about a paper that Barack Obama wrote when he was a student at Columbia University - they seem to think the fact that no one has a copy is a sign that Obama has something to hide. MSNBC's First Read has the whole story.

Here's the reality - which I happen to know as a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University:

Hey, this whole subject is a good topic for a paper - maybe I'll assign it to my students at Fordham this Fall.

Coming Up on Sunday Kos ...

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 7/22-23. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)

Obama is getting only 15 percent of the white vote. Kerry, for his part, got 22 percent of the white vote in 2004. This poll closely tracks black turnout with the 2004 election (31 percent versus 30 percent in 2004), and we can assume those numbers will be greatly boosted thanks to Obama's presence in the field. However, those white numbers make it extremely difficult to make a go of this state. Perhaps that's why the Obama campaign talks more about Georgia than they do about South Carolina.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

I am a citizen of the United States. I am a citizen of the world. And I am a citizen of late night snark:

And our favorite:

Tag, you're it. Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Having created their "drill more" catchphrase, dictating that the only solution is to continue beating our heads against the same wall that's already given us an economic and national security concussion, Republicans used a technical maneuver to defeat the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Democrats had a plan to release 10% of the reserve's light sweet crude over a six month period, helping moderate prices on the market.  Republicans moved quickly to protect their talking point, and got what they wanted -- higher prices.

Is releasing oil from the strategic reserve a long term solution?  No, but unlike anything the Republicans have suggested, it actually would help relieve prices at the pump today and give the market a chance to moderate.  And there's a record amount of oil in the SPR, so a minor adjustment in the reserve's composition (the plan required that this oil be replaced by heavier crude) would represent no problem for US security.

Of course, selling that 10% would both reduce ExxonMobil's bottom line and damage the GOP talking point.  And their leverage was already being eroded by the damage they've done to the economy, which was putting demand in doubt.  That had to be stopped!

Republican plan from now until November?  Continue talking about drilling that won't help prices so they can avoid talking about anything that will.  Oil prices were edging down on more economic worries on Friday.  That has to have them worried.

With C-SPAN still on in the background after the non-impeachment hearing, I just heard Barack Obama say in response to a question about his schedule and his short stay in France:

So, how long before he's attacked as "elitist?"

Every once in a while, it's important to go back to basics. Now, this is a lesson the talking heads need to learn, but it is helpful for us to learn the same things.

They are not predictive. They are not definitive. They are, however, representative. To insist the data shows a lead today is not to insist that the lead translates into a win tomorrow, next week or next month.

The art of the pollster is in getting this part right. It's not easy, and some pollsters have a track record of doing this better than others. Party ID is a variable, for example, so decisions about weighting affect the results of the poll. However, huge fluctuations generally raise red flags, particularly when no event to match the fluctuations occurs. Gary Langer (ABC):

It's actually more important since we elect via the electoral college, but it's harder to do. But there is nothing more infuriating than having a blowhard like Chris Matthews insist, as he did today that this election is a dead heat. Take a look at the electoral estimate from fivethirtyeight.com to the right. Or take a look at the electoral estimate from pollster.com. Does that look like a dead heat? See the tracking poll data below for more.

It is difficult to know, in a change election, who the likely voters are. Right now, LV based on past elections favor older voters, who skew McCain. Before the convention, it's best to rely on registered voters, but always make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

Compared to 2004, there are many more polling resources available on the internet. Invaluable sites like pollster.com, www.fivethirtyeight.com, and www.realclearpolitics.com as well as Mark Blumenthal's Thursday series in National Journal should be consulted regularly (and there are others who specialize in electoral college estimaters). Other terrific resources include News University's online course in how to read polls (partnered with American Association for Public Opinion Research) and 20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results from the National Council on Public Polls.

There are also pollsters who write regular columns about their findings, and the art of polling. Not to be exclusionary, but Scott Rasmussen, Frank Newport at Gallup, Kathy Francovic at CBS and Gary Langer at ABC come to mind as frequewnt posters.

Some sites, like pollster.com or fivethirtyeight.com (personal favorites) allow comments. Read the comments. Ask questions. It's the best way to learn.

Look at them all. If the NBC/WSJ poll has Obama up by 6, and the average of polls has him up by three, then a new Gallup tracker that is tied doesn't 'change everything' - nor does the WSJ/NBC poll, for that matter.

None of that predicts who wins in the fall, but data will enhance your commentary. And the use of data would be a useful habit to get into. But don't be assuming a Bradley effect exists, for example, when that may or may not be the case.

Remember, when  polls don't fit the news or the feel you have for the campaign, something is off. It may be the polls, and it may be you.

But if you missed what's going on, and the polls pick up something happening, don't blame the polls and don't blame the pollster. Just use them to expand your world view. And, of course, wait for the next poll to tell you if it's a trend. And, for God's sake, don't compare a 14 point lead in Zogby (internet) to a new Q-poll that shows a 4 point lead in MI and claim this is a remarkable change. The previous month's Q-poll had Obama up by 6, so that's just noise. And as per First Read:

Rasmussen, meanwhile, says Obama got a bounce from the overseas trip, and the speech was well received by voters. Gallup today has Obama up by 6.

Take deep breaths and stop hyperventilating over those, too. And go back and review what happened in 1980. Ronald Reagan was the risky unknown. Reagan's move in the polls was very late, but it was decisive.

In the meantime, ask yourselves if the networks are cherry-picking polls they want to use to sell their narrative of a close race (particularly the usually ignored Q-polls) and ignoring the Rasmussen and Gallup polls today. The real picture requires looking at all the polls, not just the ones you like.

Earlier I wrote about the startling Pew poll showing Latinos breaking for Obama at a 66-23 clip. Jonathan Singer over at MyDD crunched some state-level numbers, and the results are also startling.

Bush managed 59 percent of the Arizona white vote in 2004, per the exit polls. He also got 43 percent of the Latino vote in the state.

Go down the list of swing states with large Hispanic populations -- Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, and you see that right off the bat, McCain faces some serious structural disadvantages in losing this vote by so much. Throw in states with large African American plus Latino populations -- Georgia (59 percent non-Hispanic white), North Carolina (68 percent non-Hispanic white), Virginia (68 percent non-Hispanic white), and Mississippi (59 percent non-Hispanic white) -- and suddenly you have a whole swath of states, with a great deal of electoral votes, in reach by Democrats because of McCain's inability to garner the brown vote.

And that's just this year. Long term, of course, the situation is even more dire for the Republican Party.

Used to be an ironclad rule of American politics that partisanship ended at our shores. Even in the depths of the Cold War, few of Washington's commie-baiters dared to trash the political opposition while abroad. But for Republicans, 9/11 changed everything. This year we're getting used to seeing Bush, McCain & Co. taking partisan pot shots at Barack Obama before foreign audiences. Addressing the Israeli Knesset in May, Bush likened Obama's policies to Nazi appeasement. Several weeks ago McCain used a trip to Colombia and Mexico as an occasion to attack Obama's trade policies. All that came immediately after McCain had promised to forego partisan sniping while abroad; classic McCain double-talk, that.

Now real bottom-feeding surrogates are getting into the act. Yesterday while Obama visited Germany the country's newspaper of record, Die Welt, published a crude op-ed by GOP Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (MI) deriding him. It caused enough of a stir that the AP report quoted it. McCotter hasn't had the guts to put the English version up on his Congressional website, but he did post it at The Hill blog and Redstate. Here's a taste of what a Republican member of Congress thinks is the appropriate use of partisanship overseas.

You get the idea: a semi-coherent rant dripping with sarcasm, the kind favored by wingnuts. Bad enough that Americans should be exposed to this offal. But why do Republicans believe that foreigners need to be drafted as extras into their partisan spectacles?

Yesterday, during a campaign stop at "Schmidt's Sausage Haus und Restaurant", John McCain criticized Barack Obama's speech before 200,000 people at Berlin's Victory Column, saying:

Does John McCain have a valid point? Or, could it be argued that while there aren't any electoral votes to be won in Germany, we do have many shared interests that need our attention? And given that Germany is a friend to our country, wasn't Obama's speech both necessary and appropriate?

Let's check with noted foreign policy expert, Senator John McCain:

Uh oh. Does that mean John McCain isn't proud to call Germans his friends? Or was he just having some whine with his sausage?

Back in February, the Republicans knew they had a losing issue on their hands.

What to do?  What to do?  After years of pushing multi-billion dollars tax breaks into the overflowing coffers of oil companies -- all in the name of encouraging exploration -- the Republicans had only managed to fatten company bottom lines while emptying American pockets.  

But wait!  They could just turn it around.  Blame Democrats for blocking the very thing the GOP had been funding year, after year, after year and pretend it never happened.  "Find more, use Less" became the new GOP talking point.  And boy, this idea's a three'fer.  You get to blame Democrats for a problem you caused, keep the tax breaks you've been feeding your oil buddies, and tear down the restrictions around the last protected places.  If that's not making barrels of light sweet Texas lemonade out of sour lemons, I don't know what it.

Best of all, the American people are behind it.  The GOP drank the shake and stuck Democrats with the tab.

Only... maybe not.  A poll conducted by the Wilderness Society delivers very different results from the Faster, Democrats! Drill! Drill! line that's being pushed on the 24 hour talking head-a-thons.

George Bush, John McCain, and the Republican Chorus think that the way to turn attention from their disastrous oil policy is repeat the same thing, only more so.  But somehow, people aren't buying.

Republicans think they have a winner here.  But then, when's the last time the Republicans were right about anything?

Oh, and someone might want to talk to George Voinovich about the "use less" part of "find more, use less" motto.

Uh, yeah.  That seems to sum up the Republican plan for our future.  No doubt after we've burned that last drop, we will use less.

Pew Hispanic Center. 7/9-13. Registered Hispanic voters. MoE 4.4% (

Remember, exit polls gave Bush 44 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, with Kerry getting just 53 percent. These Pew numbers represent the utter collapse of GOP support amongst Latinos which started in 2006, when xenophobic anti-immigrant rantings scared Latinos away from the GOP. Only 30 percent of Latinos voted Republican that year. I'm guessing today that Democrats earn as much as 75 percent of the Latino vote this year.

That will be significant, as the rest of Pew's report (PDF) makes clear.

By 2010, the Census Bureau expects the Latino population to be at 47.8 million, or 15.5 percent of the total population. By 2050, they project 102.6 million of us, or 24.4 of the country's total. With Republicans assiduously alienating this key and rapidly growing block, to the point that just 6 percent think Republicans are better for them, it has put a serious strain on their future ability to win.

So yes, this is all great news for Obama this year, but it portends huge things for the future of American politics, quite possibly the death of the modern Republican Party.

As for Obama, we've been mocking the whole "Latinos won't vote for a black guy" thing for months, ever since the Clinton campaign first used that ridiculous (and insulting) line of attack. The numbers since then have been quite clear. Latinos are more than happy enough (and excited) about voting for Obama as anyone else, and likely more so. I'm glad we're finally moving on from that ridiculousness.