TB there is something else at work here. McCain has the GOP nomination, but he has it with as much enthusiasm from the GP base as George Bush Sr. had it 1992. His findraising is anemic. Plus the more "bipartisan" and "centrist" he appears, the more he will cause the nut cases to stay home. He is moderate on abortion (pays lip service to being against it, but no one believes him) does not believe in torture, believes in global warming, believes in free trade (which hurts among "Reagan Democrats") and is willing to reach across the aisle to get things done. These are IMHO good qualities, but for the far religious right they are not, and I see them not raising money and staying home.

His big issue is experience and basically "Who do you want as commander in chief in the next four years?" This is what the GOP always wins on, and for the Dems to win they have to be able to counterpunch. Here I think Obama may have a huge advantage. If he picks, as I think he will, Senator Webb from Virginia, a man of impeccable miliary credentials, their "outside the box" response to the anticipated "Democrats are weak" is this: McCain's concept of "strength" and "national security" is flawed and out of date. By focusing so much on "winning" Iraq, we face a pyhrric victory. The army is almost broken. Mid level officers are leaving in droves, and the next generation of generals will be second raters. We face danger elsewhere, and we have put all our eggs into one basket, which basket is a flawed policy. Better a sensible way out of Iraq even if there is Iraqi bloodshed and a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East to more shia strength (actually this might be a good counter balance to the Sunni extremeists), than an ongoing expensive war without end. Bottom line... if we bleed to death in Iraq, and wind up with a broken and weakened army, AND have bad economic consequences at home are a weaker or a stronger nation? It can be made into a compelling argument and it can winn in November.