Hillaryland Hits Back

One of several suggestions: "In the 2004 election, voters repeatedly expressed their preference for a 'strong leader,' but Obama has yet to establish himself in this respect. He is regularly judged more 'honest and trustworthy' than Clinton, but those qualities have proved less important to choosing a president. In Indiana, voters thought Clinton more qualified to be commander in chief by 54 to 43 percent. Nine percent of Obama voters acknowledged that Clinton was 'more qualified to be commander in chief.' In North Carolina, eleven percent of Obama voters preferred Clinton. Obama appears to be somewhat effete, which will, unless remedied, cause him difficulty against McCain in the fall, particularly among white males."

At Power Line, though, Paul Mirengoff sounds resigned to an Obama administration:

"I consider Obama the favorite. One can usually predict the outcome of the general election, and come pretty close on the margin, by considering just a few variables: how the economy is doing, whether we're at war and how popular the war is, which party holds the White House and how long it has held it, and how popular the president is.

"This year, these 'fundamentals' point to a Democratic victory of at least 10 percentage points.

"Weighing against this outcome is, first, the fact that McCain is a better than average nominee in terms of electability. For one thing, he does not have a close association with the unpopular president. In addition, his appeal to independent and centrist voters is well known. Second, Obama may well prove a worse than average nominee. He lacks anything like the experience voters look for in a president, and he's an extremist as presidential nominees go, a perception that now is reinforced by some of his unusual associations.

"At this stage, though, it seems more likely than not that these factors won't overcome the fundamentals.

"What about all those Clinton voters who say they will vote for McCain? The short answer is, if they're Democrats I don't believe very many of them. Look for the party and its rank-and-file to rally around Obama."

For the first time in modern memory, the New York Times is firing people. Here is Bill Keller's memo:

"While the overwhelming majority of our reductions did indeed come from volunteers, we have been forced to resort to a relatively small numbers of layoffs to meet our assigned goal. (We are not going to discuss numbers or the details of the staff reduction, nor will we be releasing a list of names.) All of those who are leaving will do so with a financial cushion that should carry them to other endeavors or to retirement, but that will not eliminate their sense of loss, or ours."

Was it the shirtless Vanity Fair photo? Miley Cyrus's ratings are down.