Got this from the Obama campaign a little while ago:

Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

[snip]

The point has been made, abundantly, by Hunter, et alia: they don't like Obama's stance on the FISA compromise bill.

Can we move on now?

I'm going to skip over the Veepstakes discussions, which are largely moot since Obama will make his choice for this office in good time and for the good of the nation.

I also take Hillary Clinton and her supporters at their word for their pledged support to Obama and the Democratic party. I believe the Clintons can do a good job in supporting Obama -- if they take direction from him and his campaign about what to do.

And my suggestion for Job One for the Clintons is: deliver Arkansas's electoral votes to Obama and the Democratic column in the fall. My reasoning for why this should be their first job (and only, until the first job is accomplished) on the flip.

I'm a proud and patriotic person, but I have always felt the greatest part about America is, in large part, not what we were or are, but what we aspire to be. We talk about the American dream; the American character, the best part of it, always strives to be better. To choose satisfaction is to become complacent, and in turn to wither and die.

We can do better, I know and have always known we can. In Barack Obama I have seen a person who seems uniquely equipped to show America the America we know can be.

In honor of this historic occasion, of this great night for Obama, our great Democratic Party, our fine nation, and this precious planet of ours, for my family and yours, I want to quote (in full) below the fold the Langston Hughes poem I go to for inspiration time and again. It's an artifact of its time in some ways, but the basic sentiments are timeless.

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed!

This morning in the news there were reports about a Brookings Institution Study that analyzed carbon footprints in the top 100 US Metro areas by carbon footprint per capita.

In looking at the map, something looked awfully familiar.

DHinMI did a couple of front-page stories about Obama's Appalachian problem, with nice color-coded maps of the vote by county where Clinton got more than 50%.

Strange but true: the top 12 worst carbon-emitting metro areas in the report are in a band stretching right through "Clinton Country." Why? Who knows? Call Mark Penn for an explanation! Speculation and a map on the flip.

(auto-promoted from comments)

Is it the map or the math...?

Hey, we have two nominees, and it's the silly season for speculation on VP candidates and somewhat less so on the electoral map in the fall.

The media's started to play the horse race game with the electoral college already, and the Clinton campaign has been all too eager to embrace the conventional wisdom about which states "matter" in the general election and which don't.

Ignoring the fact that the "swing states" in question have only really been established as such in the last two election cycles, I also think it's clear that Obama's got appeal that will play in many states the national Democratic candidates might've written off in the past. To that end, I got out the electoral map and figured out a plausible path to the Presidency for Obama that doesn't involve any of the allegedly vital "big swing states". Read more on the flip.

You think it's bad news being a Republican these days?

Apparently so do Republicans. Let's pretend you're a County Supervisor, appointed by a Republican, now running for a full term for that office. You're supported by the usual suspects: Republican Party, Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Foundation, various pro-development interests, rich land-owning families with agribusiness interests. You're running against a non-profit executive, who's worked on anti-hunger programs, local hospitals, and has worked as a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood, who's endorsed by every pro-environment group there is. What do you do? PRETEND YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT.

That's what Ila Mettee-McCutchon is doing here in Monterey County, California, in her race against Jane Parker in a "non-partisan" election. Read about the scurrilous phone calls I've been getting and the extremely misleading campaign fliers in which Col. Mettee-McCutcheon tries to pretend she's a Democrat to try to fool voters into voting her and her business crony-loving agenda into office for a full-term on the flipside.

Alright, so George W. Bush has the lowest approval rating ever in the history of public polling. As he's fond of saying, the previous winner, Harry S. Truman, has been looked upon far more approvingly by history, and he was involved in taking the United States into an unpopular proxy war in the midst of economic turmoil, a housing crisis, and what we would now call stagflation. So W. can't be all bad, er, right?

Before you start frantic troll-rating, let's just agree: Worst Ever. But for the basis of comparison, let's review the other candidates (below the flip) so we can put damage to the Republic, the Nation, and the Planet in appropriate context.

I hesitate to devote a diary to a topic that will no doubt gain me the enmity of both my fellow Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, but in fairness I feel we need to recognize Clinton's right to remain in the contest.

There's no love lost between myself and Hillary Clinton, make no mistake about that. I have gone from having a mildly positive view of her when the campaign started to having a very negative view of her character and executive abilities.

I also strongly disapprove of the way she's run her campaign recently (and in general). Incompetence in framing her message for democratic primary voters is not an excuse to go nuclear on another member of the party during the primary, particularly with respect to the specific tactics that have been used. I think she needs to drop that approach, and drop it now, and run on her own merits. But I defend her right to stay in the race at this point. More on the flip at the risk of being, um, nuanced and hated by friends and opponents alike.

(promoted from comments)

Leaving aside the fact that historically probably 90% of all our ancestors were illegal immigrants (even my ancestors who came over on the Mayflower were violating the King's charter, which allowed them to settle only in Virginia), here's why Conservatives should LOVE illegal immigrants.

They're the embodiments of entrepreneurial capitalism, family values, respect for authority, fiscal responsibility, and devotion to the military. Details on the flip.

It's been said in some quarters that the Democratic party would not be in this "mess" if it didn't use a proportional system of representation in the primaries. In other words, if we were more like Republicans and the winner-take-all mentality, the race would've been over a long time ago with a clear victor.

Reading through the lines with the "big blue primary states only" argument, the suggestion is we would've had Clinton as the nominee.

I can't comment on what effect "momentum" would've had in those circumstances, but I can get out the spreadsheet and do a little experiment with the results we have so far. So, what if each primary or caucus thus far were a winner-take-all affair? Where would the Democratic race stand?

Results (drum roll please...) on the flip.

I floated the idea in these pages some weeks back that Clinton would do anything, including burning down the Democratic party, to gain the nomination because this is basically her only shot at the Presidency, and when it comes down to it, that's all she's interested in -- not a Democratic President, but a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

There was some controversial discussion about that proposition at the time, but I believe the last three weeks of the campaign have clearly indicated that, indeed, Clinton is in this for herself first. She's elevated John McCain's qualifications over Obama's, used every Lee Atwater-Karl Rove trick in the book, focussed on trivia while avoiding issues, claimed to be ahead while she's behind, and we now hear very explicit threats to sue over Michigan and Florida because it's clear that's the Clintons' only path to the nomination.

In short, she's exercising the nuclear option: she's pushing the button and hoping when the clouds of radioactive dust settle, she's in the best position to be leader of the crumbled ruins she's leaving behind.

How does Obama fight this? How do you fight this? By Mutually-Assured Destruction, the only means of deterring nuclear madmen. Or madwomen. More on the flip.

It's election day, and that means the weird spin of ever-moving goalposts can't be far behind! It's just more proof that HRC will be ready on Day One to continue the present administration's successful policy of changing the goalposts on Iraq, the economy, fighting poverty in America, preparing the country for disasters, and securing telecoms from lawsuits our borders.

Join us below the flip to play the interactive game of Hillaroullette, in which we try to identify the spin on the results of today's primaries.

Like many Democrats, I've been puzzled of late by Hillary Clinton's seemingly erratic, occasionally desperate, often shrill intemperate approach in the campaign in the last month after starting out the campaign in 2007 on a relatively high road.

Much has been made of the reasons why the Clinton campaign imploded, but in looking forward, many are now asking the question about what she has to gain by helping the Republicans rehearse attack lines on Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Yes, it's possible this is a genuinely-formed strategy about the best way to become President in 2008. But increasingly I'm wondering if Clinton might be tempted by the devil's bargain -- to position herself for 2012 by weakening the Democratic nominee in 2008. More on the flip.

I'm applying for a job as the chief engineer of the largest construction company in the world.

I have lots and lots of experience. You see, I am married to somebody who was an engineer for ten years -- albeit at a small regional firm -- and then was married to that same person when he was also, coincidentally, the chief engineer of the largest construction firm in the world.

I also have been a junior engineer for just over eight years at a large regional company, on the strength of the recommendation of my spouse. But when I put "26 years of engineering experience" on my resume, the head of the firm interviewing me scoffed at me! <more on the flip>

Two years ago, I posted a diary on John McCain's naked political ambition extending to the point of the asburd accusation that the Clinton administration was responsible for North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons, even though Korea had acquired them five years into the Bush administration.

I was reminded of this in the context of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama last night on the subject of when, and whether, to negotiate with hostile foreign governments. I sort of wished at the time McCain was in on the conversation, so we could see exactly how illogical and dangerous a thinker he is in contrast to our two leading Democrats.

Follow the link to my original post above for full context, and more on the contrast to the Democrats on the flip.

Hey, I'm not saying McCain's age is an issue.

But I hear an awful lot of nervous Republicans eager to point out his mother, with her loose mouth and nimble step, is 95, as some sort of genetic bona fide.

Of course, I never hear these same folks point out that when McCain's father was the age McCain is now, he had been dead for two years.

More on the flip if you want to look at the actuarial tables for a hypothetical average 72-year old.

I have been supporting Edwards since 2006 for a variety of reasons. He's a good man, with a good message, and good policies. I would gladly have him as my commander in chief, and I hope he remains in American political life.

However, I've been struggling of late with the question of my proper role as a Democratic voter in the primary. I believe I have an obligation to have my beliefs expressed through my vote. I believe I also have an obligation to express what I believe is best for the party, and the nation, through the ballot box. Crassly, sometimes these latter points might be reduced to "nominatability" or "electability" but in turn, it's also partly a process of myself listening to what other voters are saying about why they are choosing a particular candidate.

Oddly, it was in consideration of my reaction to Clinton's media bounce and a thoughtful self-consideration of why I have been opposed to her candidacy, and the re-consideration of the three major candidates' positions that made me decide, finally, that I am indeed going to jump from Edwards to Obama, and cast my vote in the February 5th California primary (absentee, soon) accordingly. More explanation/rationalizations on the flip, and your opportunity to express your reaction, of course.