…is this idea floated in an online-only essay by The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg–complete with a smart P.S. on why Hamas might have talked up Obama. Here’s the gist:

One thing Obama and McCain have in common is that they each have a Vice-President problem. In both cases the choice is fraught with peril. Do you go for someone who strengthens your base or extends your appeal? Do you try for balance or amplification? How do you avoid saddling yourself with one ingrate and a dozen disgruntled spurnees?

The solution is obvious. Obama should ask McCain to be his running mate. McCain should ask Obama to be his. And both should say yes.

Apparently there are throngs of female supporters of Hillary Clinton threatening a boycott of Obama. In other words, they’re not going to make him sandwiches or iron his shirts. (Zing.)

According to ABC’s Rick Klein, a group of decidedly non-sweetie women in Ohio have organized a group called “Clinton Supporters Count Too.” (It meets after the ultra-competitive weekly quilting bee.) Cynthia Ruccia, the group’s spokesperson, said they have also rallied the troops in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. They are currently awaiting their orders.

If Hillary does not win the nomination (if?), they will declare war: against the party, against the superdelegates, against their own husbands, against any household pets who happen to be male.

“We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee,” the group said in a press release Thursday. “We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don’t listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later.”

And they said the Battle of the Sexes was over.

“We’re just at the boiling point,” Ruccia said. “Women will sit back and be quiet about things for a while, but we’ve had enough. Unless Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we are not going to support the nominee.”

First, a sneak attack. The women plan to boycott NBC and MSNBC during next Tuesday’s primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. Another group calling itself WomenCount PAC is running an ad entitled “NOT SO FAST…Hillary’s voice is OUR voice, and she’s speaking for all of us.”

So, if I cross the picket line on Election Day at the polls, does that make me a (*gasp*) scab?

1.7 percent.

NYT columnist David Brooks, the only Bush apologist I’ve ever seen wearing a pink shirt, has a weird history with Obama, having ridden at the fore of both the Man-Crush and the Baracklash eras of Obamamania. In this column today, Brooks gives Obama a chance to explain his planned approach to Hezbollah, i.e. what exactly Obama means when he says he’s willing to talk to our enemies. It will be one of the hot button topics on the morning news shows on Sunday, and it’s interesting that Brooks give much of the column–almost all of it–to Obama’s explanation, rather than spending his time trying to shoehorn Obama’s comments into some kind of endorsement of appeasement. Brooks actually writes respectfully of Obama’s position. Almost admiringly.

One more sign that the bigger pendulum is swinging back Obama’s way.

The Clinton campaign is airing a new ad in Oregon, or “Obamagon,” of all places. Now, this is the Hillary we know and love (OK, just me), and hate (all of you). She takes on the punditry naysayers (Chris, Tim, George, Evan) and vows to fight on. And on. And on.

Personally, I would have liked to see her directly addressing Keith Olbermann, Keith Olbermann-style — you know, where he launches into a rant against whoever he feels like it at any given moment, staring straight into the camera while smugly reprimanding the…camera.

Whatever gets you through the campaign, Keith.

[via The Page]

Check out the new forward-looking RNC ad promoting John McCain. It’s…I don’t know…slightly terrifying? I mean, when’s the last time you saw a mushroom cloud in a political ad?

Amateur Analysis: Apparently by the year 2013, after McCain has served his first term as president, we will have achieved nirvana. The Middle East is no longer a hotbed of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather a peaceful haven for a boy and his camel. Iraq will be a Sandals honeymoon destination. Although the threat of thermonuclear war has been “reduced,” it’s still there, which is why you have to re-elect McCain.

Border security? Check. Energy independence? Yes indeed. The end of Congressional pulled-pork spending. Health care? Maybe. (Don’t be greedy.) The housing crisis will be restored, the lame shall walk, the blind shall see, and American Idol will finally go off the air.

It’s incredible that all this can be achieved by 2013. Unfortunately, it’s 2008 and we’re still screwed.

Obama had to apologize yesterday to a female reporter for calling her “Sweetie.” What’s next? Cat calls?

While speaking in Detroit, a local ABC reporter asked him about his plans to help American autoworkers. The candidate, who doesn’t especially like being unprepared for questions shouted in his direction, responded, “Hold on one second, sweetie, we’re going to do — we’ll do a press avail.”

But…he never did do that press avail. Or answer the reporter’s question, which is, I think, more offensive. I mean, it’s not like he called her “honey bear.” Later that day, he did make a personal call to apologize via voicemail.

“That’s [using the word sweetie] a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next.”

Among the seven superdelegates to announce their support of Obama in the wake of Edwards Wednesday were the President and Vice President of the College Democrats of America.

In a race where their vote matters more than ever before, they tried to get opinions from as many college students as possible. Which means taking it to the internet. On April 28, they posted a video on YouTube soliciting comments through email, Facebook, you name it. I was one of the over 1,000 people to send them a message or wall post on Facebook in support of a candidate, along with the 5,000 to email. It was such a powerful thing to be able to do, and just another indicator that this really has been the internet campaign.

Karl Rove on unprecedented GOP losses in special elections for Congressional seats:

The string of defeats should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting “liberal! liberal! liberal!” in hopes of winning an election.

Eileen’s idea of a joke. She can’t bear the fact that Edwards has indeed endorsed Obama. No big deal, she said. I asked her if it would have been a big deal for Edwards to endorse Hillary. She hung up on me. (I always said she was the one with the hang-ups. Eileen, I mean.)

With all this talk about black voters and white voters, elitists and blue-collars, young and old, latte-sippers and coffee-slurpers, it seems like the Democrats are taking the crucial Hispanic vote for granted. Again.

Which is one reason, perhaps, that Bush has been in the White House for eight years — his support from Hispanics, thanks to Karl Rove. In 2000, the Hispanic share of the vote was 5.4 percent. This year, it’s roughly nine percent. That record-breaking turnout in the Democratic primaries? The Hispanic vote — not just the college vote, not just the black vote — has a lot to do with that.

Assuming (like everyone else) that Obama will be the nominee, he needs to start reaching out. Now. Yesterday, Obama approached members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, mostly consisting of Hillary loyalists. Hispanic lawmakers favor Clinton 4-1.

In fact, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, the last uncommitted House Hispanic superdelegate, just came out for Clinton. It’s highly unlikely that McCain would get the Hispanic vote (who campaigns on Cinco de Mayo?), but Obama has some catching up to do.

Thanks to the toothless and the ruthless in Coal Country, she’s up 1.3 percent to 2.9 percent.

Mark Halperin is teasing the possibility. Hard.

Last night, I watched Hillary’s victory speech from West Virginia. I believe I was the only one, and, if I’m not mistaken, Hillary personally thanked me at the end for hanging in there. And urged me to make a donation at hillaryclinton.com.

Unfortunately, I was watching the primary results on MSNBC, where I was subjected to the latest phase of the Great Piss-Off between Chris Matthews and Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe, who has accused Matthews of being “in the tank” for Obama. Be that as it may, McAuliffe himself is tanking. He used to be the pied piper of fundraising. Now, he’s digging for spare change in his couch.

Both talking heads are literally losing it — McAuliffe has convinced himself that Hillary will be the nominee (and last night, he looked like he might have some sort of seizure). Meanwhile, Matthews has deluded himself into thinking that MSNBC isn’t going to replace him with Keith Olbermann.

In the end, really what they’re arguing about is who has the bigger…mental health issue.

The following paragraph in the New York Times‘ postmortem on the West Virginia primary is framed, it seems to me, in an alarmingly casual manner. Reporter Patrick Healy summarizes the exit polls:

The number of white Democratic voters who said that race influenced their choice on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the Clinton-Obama nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said that race was an important factor in their vote, and more than 8 in 10 of them backed Mrs. Clinton, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls.

How can this polling data be mentioned but not explained? For these two in 10 — in what sense is race an important factor in their vote? The word “factor” can be among the most imprecise in the idiom, and it certainly is here. I am afraid — legitimately afraid — that for these West Virginians and others who vote along similar trend lines, race is a factor in this sense and in this sense alone: they won’t vote for a black candidate simply because he’s black. In what other way could race be a “factor”?

This horrifies me. And I don’t intend to be overly naïve. I know there are people “out there” who still operate under what we would like to think are outmoded racial attitudes. But how can they exist in such numbers, and how can they be so emboldened as to announce to a clipboard-wielding exit pollster that they voted for Hillary — fine, perhaps only in part — because she’s white?

Hey, West Virginian voters. It is 2008. Feel free to base your future political support on something other than skin color.