According to Rasmussen, it's 48 McCain, 43 Obama.

This result means that the electoral college is the closest it's ever been. 270 Obama - 268 McCain. And I fully expect McCain to pick off New Hampshire in the end as well, which would give McCain the win.

This cannot be happening.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/ohio/election_2008_ohi o_presidential_election

There are so many intentional leaks, misdirections, headfakes going on here that I have no idea what to make of it.

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf and Jennifer Parker reports: As Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was leaving his house in Wilmington this afternoon, he slowed down and said to the gathered news reporters outside his home: "Hey guys, I'm not the guy. See ya."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/08/biden-on-obamas.html

If this is true and it's not Biden than that leaves Clinton, Sebelius or Kaine (Sweet God, anyone but him).

I hope that it's Hillary, but given how much Obama loves him, I won't be shocked to see him pick Kaine.

According to Greg Sargent at TPM.

The McCain campaign has outspent the Obama camp by hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in some cases by as much as a million dollars or more, in virtually all of the nearly dozen battleground states where both campaigns are up on the air, according to a firm that tracks national advertising.

Evan Tracey, the chief operating officer of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, confirmed to us in response to our questions that McCain's campaign has racked up a huge ad spending advantage in what he called "traditional battleground states," the states that both campaigns are sinking cash into.

McCain is advertising heavily in 11 traditional battlegrounds; Obama is advertising in those same 11 plus roughly seven more; and McCain holds a heavy advantage in virtually all the 11 shared states.

The comparison is significant, and in one sense it lends comfort to Obama, because McCain has not been able to pull ahead in those states despite vastly outspending him in them. But the flip-side of this is that Obama has not been able to make significant enough headway in many of the seven states where Obama has the airwaves to himself.

Here's the comparison of the two camps' spending on ads up to the present in the 11 states where both are up on the air, according to Tracey:

   Iowa: McCain has spent roughly $700,000 more than Obama.

   Missouri: McCain has spent roughly half a million more than Obama.

   Ohio: McCain has spent approximately one million more than Obama.

   Pennsylvania: McCain has spent roughly a million and a half more than Obama.

   New Hampshire: Spending is about even.

   New Mexico: McCain has spent approximately $300,000 more, and has outspent Obama by roughly two to one.

   Nevada: McCain has outspent Obama by $800,000, also roughly two to one.

   Missouri: McCain has spent $500,000 more than Obama.

   Virginia: Obama has spent a million more than McCain, largely because Obama is advertising statewide while McCain is only up in the northern part of the state.

   Wisconsin: McCain has spent roughly a half million more than Obama.

   North Dakota: Obama has outspent McCain by around $170,000.

I can personally attest to the Wisconsin numbers. Over the past week, I've seen at least 6 McCain ads here in Milwaukee, compared to the first Obama one last night during the Olympics. That McCain is spending so heavily in Milwaukee is itself astonishing. This is a city that voted 73% for Kerry in 2004 and went almost as massively for Obama over Hillary during the primary. But McCain has gained significant ground in the past month, having been down by 13 to now only 5. Obama really needs to step up his game otherwise I fear that this could become a red state in November.

Yikes. This narrative has been playing out for much of the past week in the terrifying corridors of the right wing, but to see it land on the front page of today's New York Times is very worrisome. McCain's already making significant movement in both the national and state polls within the past couple of days. If this becomes the new CW, I think we're in for some big trouble.

For the last several days, Senator Barack Obama has seemed to fade from the scene while on his secluded vacation here, as his opponent, Senator John McCain, has seized nearly every opportunity to display his foreign policy credentials on the dominant issue of the week: the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

Only once, at the beginning of the week, did Mr. Obama discuss the fighting in public, when he emerged from his beachfront rental home to condemn Russia's escalation, in a way that seemed timed for the evening television news. He took no questions whose answers might demonstrate command of the issue. [ --- Wow!]

Mr. McCain and his surrogates, however, have discussed the situation nearly every day on the campaign trail, often taking a hard line against Russia to the point of his declaring the other day, "We are all Georgians."

It is as if the candidates' images have been reversed within a matter of a few weeks. When Mr. Obama was overseas last month, Mr. McCain's foreign policy bona fides seemed diminished, if only because he could not attract the news media attention received by Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Now, Mr. Obama's voice seems muted at a time when much of the world has been worriedly watching the conflict.

A spokesman said that Mr. Obama had interrupted his vacation several times to get updates on the situation in the Caucasus and that he had been in "constant contact" with his national security advisers. He has spoken to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, as well as former Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia; Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana; and former Defense Secretary William J. Perry.

For his part, Mr. McCain has fielded questions daily, batting back criticism that his tough stance is reminiscent of the language of the cold war. On the other hand, the fluency with which Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, discusses Georgia, citing the history of the region and the number of times he has visited, lends an aura of commander in chief. And as if he already had a cabinet, Mr. McCain said he was dispatching his allies Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, to the region.

Remember all the news that Obama made last week by purchasing $5 million worth of national airtime during the Olympics? It was the most significant national ad buy in 16 years. It was supposed to show off Obama's financial prowess (despite the fact that McCain and the RNC have a $21 million CoH advantage).

Well, John McCain just announced that his campaign is topping that buy with a $6 million purchase of his own:

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is buying into NBC Universal's Olympics coverage.

The McCain campaign made a last-minute $6 million ad buy, which tops the $5 million Sen. Barack Obama's campaign had announced last month it was buying during the Olympic Games, which begin Aug. 8.

Like the Obama team's ad buy, the McCain campaign's purchase includes network and cable spots. NBC Universal is airing 3,600 hours of Olympics coverage on its broadcast network and cable networks including NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Oxygen and Telemundo

The latest media outlays of both presidential campaigns are the first substantial buys of network TV by any presidential candidate in 12 years, though Rudy Giuliani's campaign had two smaller national buys on Fox News Sunday broadcasts earlier this year.

In recent years presidential candidates have targeted their advertising to battleground states, with some cable as their only national advertising.

Clearly, McCain is not willing to give an inch here. Anyone think that this will make the Obama campaign increase their purchase?

According to the LA Times:

Democrat Barack Obama called today for tapping the nation's strategic oil reserves to help drive down gasoline prices, a shift from his previous position on the issue.

The reversal is the second refinement in Obama's energy policy. Last week, he said that he would reluctantly consider accepting some offshore oil drilling. Obama had previously said he opposed such drilling, which is strongly backed by rival John McCain, who has urged that states be allowed to decide whether to drill.

This prompted Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly to say:

Every single story I've read about Obama's energy speech today has the exact same lead: it's yet another switcheroo from the Democratic candidate. Flip flop, flip flop.

And we can't blame this one on the media, folks: Obama really is flopping around on energy policy, and he's doing it in the most craven possible way, switching from correct but politically risky stands to dumb panders. In fact, between the two of them, McCain and Obama have now pretty much written the handbook on idiotic energy pimping: a gas tax holiday, offshore drilling, opening up the SPR, a windfall profits tax, and nukes for all. I don't think either one has come out for a massive coal liquification program yet, but since that's about the only thing left that's worse than what they've offered so far, I assume it can't be more than a few days away.

And yes, I know that underneath the BS Obama has a pretty good energy policy and McCain doesn't. Big deal. That energy policy isn't going to see the light of day unless Obama starts building public support for it. So far he isn't even trying.

Yes, yes. I know it's Zogby and the poll should be taken with a huge grain of salt, but it's the second poll today showing McCain leading after trailing for months. Earlier this month, Obama was sporting a 10 point lead over McCain, 46%-36%.

   *  McCain gained 20% and Obama lost 16% among voters ages 18-29. Obama still leads that group, 49%-38%.
    * Among women, McCain closed 10 points on Obama, who still leads by a 43%-38% margin.
    * Obama has lost what was an 11% lead among Independents. He and McCain are now tied.
    * Obama had some slippage among Democrats, dropping from 83% to 74%.
    * Obama's support among single voters dropped by 19%, and he now leads McCain, 51%-37%.
    * Even with African-Americans and Hispanics, Obama shows smaller margins.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=15 35

According to ABC News:

But before everyone gets ready to anoint Tim Kaine as Obama's VP, consider this startling fact, which has some of the liberal blogs up in arms:  Tim Kaine endorsed Joe Lieberman for president in 2004--over both John Edwards and John Kerry.

Here's what Kaine said then, according to a story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

"Joe's record as a state official and senator shows he has the qualities necessary to lead our nation, strengthen our economy and promote a safer world," Kaine said. "Joe is the right person to revive the Harry Truman wing of the Democratic Party, which has traditionally been strong for national defense, strong for the economy and strong for equal opportunity."

The story goes on to say that Kaine had applauded Lieberman's nomination as Al Gore's vice president because "he clearly personified the party's commitment to faith, family and a values-based approach to public life."
Of course, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman is now one of McCain's closest advisers and most dedicated campaigners--and on McCain's own shortlist for VP.

It's entirely unclear whether or not Lieberman will be John McCain's VP--the prospect is on the table, but it's obviously an enormously risky move that could inflame the Republican base.

But even if he's not the pick, it's easy to see how much fun the McCain folks would have pointing out that VP nominee Kaine thought so highly of Lieberman he endorsed for him for President just four years before.

And if Lieberman and Kaine were the actual VP nominees? Imagine the potential for a Bensten-Quayle moment in the VP debate.

Lieberman could point out Kaine's position two years ago that it would "send a horrible message to cut and run from Iraq." And then he could have this kicker: "you even endorsed me in 2004!"

So what say you all? Is this a big deal or no? I don't really think so since Barack Obama himself endorsed Lieberman over Ned Lamont in 2006.