Hung Out to Dry

"I am not shocked. I am not appalled. This is a political campaign.

"Do I wish he did not attack Clinton? Of course. I wish Clinton did not attack him. But all this shock and outrage going around about political attacks in a political campaign is a bit much."

How can Obama close the deal? Andrew Sullivan has some advice:

"Obama needs to get out there door-to-door again, talk to the working poor, engage Reagan Democrats, explain his positions on the war, and the economy and healthcare, reiterate why he can get stuff done in a way that the polarizing psycho-drama of the Clintons cannot. Save the great speeches for later. More round-tables; get on a bus; show you can work as hard as she can. Stop looking so aloof."

Yesterday, we took a stroll through the Democratic veepstakes, but the game isn't limited to one party, of course. Fred Barnes has a running mate for John McCain, and his name is Mitt:

" Romney is a known quantity. Romney has three other add-ons. He's acceptable to conservatives and especially to social conservatives, who disproportionately volunteer as ground troops in Republican presidential campaigns. He's unflappable in debates. With the downturn worsening, the economy may surpass national security as the top issue of the campaign. And after years of success as a big time player in the global economy, Romney understands how markets work. He could shore up McCain's admitted weakness on economic issues . . .

"President Bush favors him as McCain's veep."

Really! Barnes doesn't say how he knows this.

"But there's just one problem: McCain doesn't like him."

Oh, that.

Marc Ambinder all but rules it out:

"No amount of assurances, cajoling, convincing, pressuring and persuading can build a level of trust between Mitt Romney and John McCain."

But Romney says he'd do it.

In the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg suggests a different veep choice--Condi:

"It's true that her record in office has been one of failure, from downgrading terrorism as a priority before 9/11 to ignoring the Israel-Palestine problem until (almost certainly) too late. But this does not seem to have done much damage to her popularity . . .

"Choosing Rice would be a trick. Her failures would be buried in an avalanche of positive publicity for a personal story as yet only vaguely known to the broad public. (One of the little girls who died in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing was her playmate? We didn't know that!) But the trick would not be an entirely cynical one. Her ascension, though nowhere near as momentous a breakthrough as the election of Obama or Clinton, would be a breakthrough all the same."

At Real Clear Politics, Blake Dvorak couldn't disagree more:

"We've already seen how the Democrats are going to tie McCain to the administration, and choosing someone like Rice -- or anyone in the Cabinet -- would only hurt McCain's efforts to blunt those attacks. Moreover, whether we're talking about Rice or any other potential minority pick, Republicans aren't going to win the identity-politics game against Democrats."

Bill Kristol says a great running mate would be . . . Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas? Is he going to appeal to swing voters?