Every now and then I am amazed to see reporting like the following. We all know how the press adores John McCain, and always gives him a pass on the issues, while intensely grilling the Democratic candidates. With more honest examinations like this one, and the maverick may actually have a few difficult questions to answer. Please note, the author of this piece is normally not what you would call an ...er, left-winger. In fact, he normally gushes with praise for all things Republican. Not this time, strangely enough. Enjoy this breath of fresh air!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum nists/chi-oped0306chapmanmar06,0,4554495 .column

I don't get it. Wisconsin's demographics are very similar to Missouri's and Ohio's. Why is it that we are now told that WI is MUCH more friendly to Obama than Clinton? Shouldn't it be Clinton that is the heavy favorite here? Because of demographics and January polls, shouldn't this contest be hers to lose? She recently had double-digit leads here, and her campaign-defined "favorable demographics" for her. So why is the Clinton campaign pretending to be the underdog in WI?
  Is it:

1. The expectations game--by pretending to be the underdog and then emerging with a win, this might make good spin. And, if the "expected loss" occurs, then "see, we told you so,and because we told you so, the loss is no big deal".
   
2. Internal polling shows Obama with a huge lead, and spending time here is a waste of resources.
   
3. The Clinton campaign really believes its own spin: Only large states matter, smaller states aren't important.
   
4. Gross mismanagement.

  Really, I am at a loss trying to figure out what is going on here. How can the Clinton campaign write off the Wisconsin primary? And why? Think of how a Clinton win here would boost her prospects (and numbers). The turf should be favorable for her, so why isn't it being aggressively contested?

During hizzonor's concession/withdrawl speech on Tuesday evening, we were informed that McCain will be representing the, I quote, "party of Bush" for president. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for clarifying that; honesty is a refreshing and commendable thing. Lest there be any doubt, make sure to spread the word--John McCain is to be the nominee for the party of Bush this fall. Just in case you had any doubts about this...

     Anybody watch the debate between Jennifer Granhom and Rick DeVos on Oct 2? The Michigan PBS station has it as streaming video on line. I didn't watch all of it, but I thought the governor did very well in the part I saw--I caught about half of it. The Amway rep acted, well, like an Amway rep--lots of doublespeak, not much substance, and very unconvincing, to me anyway.
   Thoughts, anyone?
   

I've been watching with great interest the last several weeks as pundits, bloggers, columnists, some pollsters, and other "experts" have made a big deal of the "Bush bounce" that they clearly see in some poll numbers,  and how this points to a big shift in momentum back towards Republican candidates for Congress this fall.  With the flood of conflicting poll numbers out there, it does get difficult at times to separate the real trends from statistical noise. So what's going on here? Is the president's popularity really coming back, and more importantly, will this help Republicans stem their losses in November? And, almost as importantly, what is causing this upswing in presidential approval?