incumbent party

The Washington Redskins lost at home last night.

Why does that matter to Obama, you may ask?

As loathe as I am to weigh in on the side of Glen Dean, the simple fact is that he is right in a backwards kind of way.

Sully talks up the tightrope walk John McCain must walk when it comes to the economy:

Douglas Rushkoff explains how the speeches of Rudy Guiliani and Sarah Palin disclose what the GOP is. It's the Hate Party:

And that’s bad news, says CNN, for John McCain:

In both the 1980 and 1992 elections, poor economic conditions led voters to overwhelmingly reject the incumbent party, a trend that appears to disadvantage the Republican presidential presumptive nominee.

Nashville Post Politics pundit A.C. Kleinheider offers this sobering analysis for Democrats who might be upset over their candidate’s loss in the presidential primary race:

Instapundit on the division in the Democratic party:

Obama supporters really don’t like Clinton, and vice versa. Some of that will fade by election day, of course. But how much?

Newsweek has some background on that extraordinarily lame video being pimped by GOP hacks to try and scare Democrats into nominating Hillary. The sponsor of the bill Obama voted against said:

It has been noted the much greater enthusiasm in the Democratic campaign and debates compared with the Republican. The huge turnout in the Dem primary compared with the Republicans is dismissed by some as irrelevant. Not all are blind to the facts.

"Since the midterm election of 2006, Democrats have had an enthusiasm gap with Republicans. They have big crowds, raise more money and appear to have more excitement on the campaign trail. Couple this with turnout numbers, which