Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis there by a comfortable 8-point margin, handing the GOP its third consecutive Congressional special election loss of the year, all in solidly Republican districts. No doubt last night extended NRCC head Tom Cole's already lengthy stay at the Heartbreak Hotel. (We know, it's bad, but we couldn't resist.)

For all the hand-wringing about what the ongoing Democratic primary contest may or may not be doing to soon-to-be nominee Barack Obama's prospects in November, these three recent actual D vs. R election results spell bad news for Republicans this fall. (The two previous losses were in Denny Hastert's Illinois district and last week in Louisiana.)

The GOP brand has been gravely wounded, and most of the damage has been done by an unwitting assailant, President George W. Bush. The president, who recently achieved the dubious distinction of having the worst job approval numbers (71% disapproval) in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll, has single-handedly driven the Republican Party, not to mention the country, off a cliff.

Even here in his home state of Texas, Bush ain't what he used to be. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey gave George W. just a 39% job approval rating in the Lone Star State. His negative coattails are even reaching down to the U.S. Senate contest between incumbent John Cornyn and challenger Rick Noriega, where Cornyn's once comfortable lead has dwindled to just 4 points before campaiging has even begun.

To boot, Republicans have a 2008 presidential nominee who hardly seems to excite the party faithful. Little noticed in recent primary results have been the consistent 25% of GOP primary voters who have backed someone other than John McCain, despite him being the de facto nominee. This lack of unity suggests McCain has a "base" problem in the making, one which could be exacerbated by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr's presidential candidacy as a Libertarian. Indeed, Barr could reprise Ralph Nader's 2000 spolier role in the fall, this time doing in the Republican candidate.

The news media have focused on the Democratic contest in recent months, to the exclusion of almost all else. And given the historic and extraordinarily competitive nature of the Democratic race, such focus is understandable. It has obscured, however, a very important dynamic shaping up for November 4th -- Republicans on the ballot, from top to bottom, are in big trouble. And for that they can think their fearless leader, President George W. Bush.

Let's begin with North Carolina. Polls in the last week have shown a range of Obama leads, from as small as 5 points to as large as 15 or so. What accounts for the differences? Some of it, of course, is explained by normal margin of error from sample to sample. More important, however, is each poll's turnout model -- specifically, what percentage of the electorate is African American.

Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com posted an excellent piece on the subject this morning. He shows that in recent NC polls, the African American percentage of the sample has been as low as 25%, and as high as 37%. Given the black community's nearly unified support for Obama in previous primaries (support that has become more monolithic as the contest has polarized along racial lines), it's share of the total electorate is crucial to Obama's fortunes in the Tar Heel State tomorrow.

Early voting in North Carolina ended Saturday, and a look at the demographics of that vote is instructive. Blumethal cites analysis of the early vote showing African Americans constituted 40% of the total. Should that percentage hold through Election Day, Obama will have a very good night in North Carolina. Even if it drops a bit, to say, 37% of the total, a double digit win for him is likely.

FiveThirtyEight.com has posted a nifty interactive spreadsheet to play with tomorrow's possible NC results. Our bet? Obama by 11 points.

As for Indiana, Blumenthal has posted similar analysis for the Hoosier State. Here, we see African American vote share in polling has ranged from 9% to 20% of the total. He notes that there is far less historical context in Indiana on which to gauge likely black participation, so everyone's flying a bit blind.

Our decidedly unscientific guess for Indiana tomorrow night? Clinton by 6 points. In other words, on the race goes.

Yes, that's right -- as deeply ironic as it may be for Karl Rove to offer sound advice to a Democratic candidate, some (not all) of it has merit. Rove has six suggestions for Obama, so let's quickly examine them.

1. Obama needs a new stump speech. We agree. Rove recommends introducing something fresh that focuses on the general election. Obama has often looked lately like he's going through the motions rhetorically, undermining his top-notch oratory skills. He's also looked tired. Some fresh text might liven him up a bit and help him recapture his political mojo.

2. When faced with a political problem, pick an explanation and stick to it. Again, we agree. One of Obama's chief selling points has been his straightforwardness and refreshing lack of double-talk. His gradual backsliding on the Rev. Wright controversy has made him appear more like any other politician.

3. Bolster your Senate record to improve your resume. This one, not so much. After all, this advice is coming from the man who masterminded the election of the current president, who had few life achivements of any kind, much less governmental.

4. Spend less time campaigning and more in the Senate. Again, not so much. First of all, it's not realistic. How much can he actually get accomplished legislatively in the next few months? More important in the short term is to communicate more specifically and effectively with voters about a policy agenda that is relavent to them.

5. Stop attacking. We're of a mixed mind on this one. Yes, he needs to preserve, as much as possible, his fresh approach and departure from politics as usual. On the other hand, you cannot sit back and allow your opponents to attack and negatively define you. Just ask John Kerry (and Karl Rove.)

6. Be concrete about what the American people can expect from you as president. Sure. Here Obama's relative inexperience hurts him. He simply does not have the breadth of political and policy experience of either of his two opponents, so he's learning as he goes. He's proven a quick study in this regard, but needs to get better still, and fast.

Obama has had a difficult period in his campaign of late. We view it as an unpleasant but necessary rite of passage if he is to be victorious in November. He needs to take his licks, adjust and emerge stronger than before his troubles began. We think he can.

It has been fascinating to observe, without comment here, the continued drama of the Democratic presidential nomination play out on the national stage. True to form, the mainstream press has gone beyond the call of duty in over-hyping and over-analyzing the most sensational aspects of the contest, likely to the detriment of the eventual nominee (who will almost certainly be Obama), but clearly at the expense of both candidates (note the sharp rise in Hillary Cltinon's negatives in polling of late.)

Jeremaiah Wright, Bosnia, "bitter" -- these have been the topics of focus of our esteemed political press (taking the bait of course, from the two rivals and their Republican opponent in waiting) in recent weeks, and the results have been predictable. Wild fluctuations in poll numbers, sophomoric behavior by campaign surrogates (including a certain former president) and incessant puling by the candidates themselves have sullied the field, and a familiar, unpleasant odor has begun to permeate the political scene, making 2008 start to smell a whole lot like years past.

That said, we don't think GOP standard bearer John McCain has leveraged the situation much for his own benefit. He remains tied or slightly behind in most national polls (at a time when he should have his largest lead of the race), he is hardly out defining his candidacy, and his fundraising remains lackluster. McCain's failure to capitalize to date on such favorable circumstances suggests he may not be the general election juggernaut Republicans are hoping for. While beating him won't be easy, it is most certainly doable.

The Democratic contest will certainly continue through May 6th, and likely until June when the last of the 50 states have voted. Tuesday's Pennsylvania result -- a 9% Clinton win -- changed nothing about the dynamic of the race. Clinton won, as expected, but not by enough to significantly erode Obama's delegate or popular vote lead. And while HRC has enjoyed a fundraising boost from her victory, Obama's efforts forced her to spend everything she had in PA. Debts are mounting, huge expenditures in Indiana and North Carolina (the next states to vote) are needed, and Obama continues to raise about $1.5 million a day. Still, she won, so it hardly seems appropriate for her to quit the race at this point.

Obama has had a rough few weeks. A verbal gaffe at a California fundraiser, a poor PA debate performance (even considering the worse performance by the ABC moderators), and a loss Tuesday night tarnished his once infallible political image. On a positive note, Obama did cut Clinton's Pennsylvania lead in half in just a few weeks, and performed better with Anglo voters there than he had in Ohio last month. Frankly, he's looked exhausted in recent days, and might be well served in the long run by getting a little bit of rest to recharge his batteries.

While the Democratic candidates have both taken hits to their respective images lately, we don't believe at this point that the damage will prevent the party from uniting around the nominee this fall. Let's face it folks, the race has hardly been a mud bath. Hell, we've been involved in city council races that were far more brutal than Hillary v. Barack, so people who say the sky is falling simply need to calm down. That said, if this thing goes on too long it will become a problem, because some time is needed to bring everybody back together. A convention fight, for example, could be disastrous.

Since it is highly unlikely Clinton can win the nomination at this point, some speculate her hanging around is designed to make Obama unelectable in November and leave the field open for her in 2012. We doubt it. One need only look at modern presidential election history -- losing Democratic candidates rarely, if ever, get a real second chance from the party; just ask John Edwards. We don't think Hillary would either.

Understandably, the RNC is pushing this message out in hopes of bolstering McCain's standing with the press (as if he needed that), as well as the electorate. The Republican establishment likely wants to set the race up as McCain's to lose, as the two Democrats continue to duke it out for the nomination. Again, makes sense.

GOP spin of the polling in Martin's story, however, in our opinion exaggerates McCain's prospects for the fall. The RNC poll gives him a decent lead over either Democrat -- 6 points over Obama and 11 points over Clinton. But a lead right now is hardly surprising. McCain is the presumptive nominee, has bested his Republican rivals and is yet to take the hits coming his way in the general election. Meanwhile the Democrats continue to rough each other up and their primary race goes on. To boot, while many Americans do not yet have a clear idea of who McCain is, they have vaguely positive feelings about him based (understandably) on his long military and public service. In other words, his poll numbers now are about as good as they're likely to get.

As the story notes, Democratic National Committee polling shows that while McCain is viewed favorably by the electorate, much of his support is soft, given that most Americans know little about him. Also problematic for McCain is that the public is not with him on key issues such as Iraq and the economy, distinctions that will undoubtedly be drawn by the Democratic nominee this fall.

Our favorite line in the piece came from Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who, in attempting to play up McCain's advantage while Democrats continue to fight, said that McCain can begin to define himself now and the days tick by where Democrats cannot. Nice try Ed. This argument would make sense if McCain had any resources with which to define himself to the public, but he's broke. In fact, day after day passes where John McCain loses the opportunity to define himself while Democrats stay in the forefront of public consciousness.

John McCain is at his apex in the race for the 2008 presidency. Given that there are 7 months to go before the election, don't prepare his inauguration just yet.

The long but fascinating article focuses heavily on NRCC head and Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole, who comes across as a sharp and sympathetic, if unrealistic operative turned legislator. Cole has the tall order of trying to reverse the GOP's declining fortunes in the U.S. House of Representatives, after taking a 30 seat bath in the 2006 elections. With 28 Republican retirements this year (compared to just a handful of Democrats) and a stunning special election loss of retiring former Speaker Denny Hastert's semmingly safe seat, the NRCC's prospects don't look particularly promising. But Cole remains sunny, at least outwardly -- hey, what else is the guy supposed to do? It's his job.

Cole's challenges are many. No money, a lack of quality candidates willing to run, and perhaps a fundamental electoral shift, particularly among once reliably Republican suburban voters. This last point is the article's most interesting, though it may be too early to confirm. As we've written many times, however, it is clear the GOP brand just ain't what it used to be. And confirmation comes in the piece from no less a source than former RNC Chair and George W. Bush campaign guru Ken Mehlman, who warns that the 2006 election result was not a one-time blip but indicative of a deeper problem for the party.

The article offers delicious food for thought. Be sure to add it to your weekend menu.

Lisa Falkenberg has an interesting column on the subject in today's Chronicle. In it, she surveys local Republican and Democratic candidates for County Judge and District Attorney, and a clear divide emerges.

The Democratic candidates, C.O. Bradford for District Attorney and David Mincberg for County Judge offer unqualified support for establishment of a public defender's office. The Republicans -- Kelly Siegler and Pat Lykos, who are in a runoff for the D.A. nomination, and Ed Emmett, the incumbent County Judge -- were decidedly less committed to the concept.

Emmett's response to Falkenberg was especially interesting -- he hasn't thought about it. Troubling if true, particularly in light of the fact that the sitting District Attorney just resigned in disgrace. One wonders, how many people did Chuck Rosenthal send to lengthy prison terms or even death row, while impaired by drugs or alcohol? How many defendants might have prevailed if they had access to effective legal counsel? (We by no means suggest that all public defenders here are ineffective, but under the current system it is clear many defendants do not receive quality representation.) In light of the media firestorm surrounding the District Attorney since Christmas, has Judge Emmett really not bothered to consider the problem? Perhaps it's time for that reading material to go to the top of the pile.

As everyone who follows American politics is now aware, Barack Obama gave a remarkable speech yesterday in response to controversy created by his association with his now-retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who's inflammatory remarks from the pulpit about racism in America have no doubt damaged his former parishoner's presidential prospects. How much, is not yet clear, but the situation is a real problem for Obama.

The speech was superb. It was honest and groundbreaking in its head-on tackling of the very thorny issue of race in America. Unlike Mitt Romney, who's supposed speech on his Mormon faith scarcely mentioned it, Obama did not shy away from discussing Wright; no way he could have, in our judgment, and survived politically. Rather, he once again repudiated Wright's overheated and sometimes anti-American rhetoric without rejecting the man, whom he characterized as family. Not dumping him was frankly crticial to maintaining the speech's authenticity. Throwing Wright under the bus after sticking with him and the church for more than 20 years would have reduced Obama to little more than a Romneyesque panderer.

The master stroke of the speech was Obama's ability to pivot the discussion from a specific response to Wright's damaging sermons, to an equally difficult but much broader discussion about race in America. While Obama refused to excuse Wright's comments, he did seek to explain the black American perspective that informed them - pretty effectively, we thought. But Obama also sought to offer the white American perspective on race (remember, he's half white too), and made a quite reasonable case.

Finally, Obama challenged Americans to approach race with eyes wide open, and begin to transcend it. He did not offer a naive wave of the magic wand and make it go away approach. Rather, he suggested a start at healing old wounds and beginning to move beyond. Again, quite effective rhetorically, and genuine but plausible in its aim.

The big question is, did the speech help Obama politically? Probably some, but it's too soon to say. We'll all watch the polls over the next week or two and gauge what lasting damage has been done to his campaign. We shall see.

We're going to go out on a limb and suggest that the timing of the Wright controversy was perhaps as good as could be expected for the Obama camp. That's right folks, the press may have done him a favor by airing this now. Think about it, for maximum electoral damage, wouldn't this story have been most effective two weeks before the next set of primaries begin, rather than six weeks out? Or from the Republican perspective in say, late September or early October? To boot, folks are somewhat distracted now by Eliot Spitzer and the cratering economy.

Insiders have known (including the Obama team) that this Wright story was coming. Recall that the campaign disinvited Wright from Obama's kickoff speech in Springfield, Illinois over a year ago. There was clearly good reason for doing so. Now, Obama is solidly in the lead for the primary nomination, a lead that virtually all experts acknowledge will be very difficult for Hillary Clinton to overcome. 80% of the primary states have already voted, and nobody votes again for another month, by which time the story likely will have lost much of its punch and Obama will have had time to rebound with a new positive narrative.

If you're the Obama camp, and you knew you were going to take the hit at some point, what better time than now? Surely not right before Pennsylvania, North Carolina and other states vote. Surely not in the fall when the GOP would swiftboat him with it. If it had to happen (and clearly it did), now was the time. It's out there, you take a punch and a dip in your polling, but you have time to deal with it and recover to finish strong for the nomination. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?

At the risk of sounding heretical, perhaps the Obama folks wanted this now. What better way for their guy to solidify his place in the history books than to take a potentially fatal hit like the Wright story, meet it head on, and rise again? Highly risky of course, but hasn't that been his entire campaign? Future developments may prove us crazy, or maybe not, but it's worth contemplating.

One last unrelated item from the GOP side of the presidential equation. A bit has been made on the blogs and in the press the last day or so about John McCain's blunder in describing Iran as having trained Al Qaeda in Iraq. Keep an eye on these blunders and how they are covered. An important, if subtle attack on McCain in the general election will be that the Arizona senator is simply past his prime mentally (think Reagan in the second term.) Gaffes, mental fuzziness, lack of knowledge of or interest in key issues, such as the economy will be used as a weapon against McCain, and could be quite effective. Remember Bob Dole falling off the stage in 1996?

On the Republican side, Texas helped officially lock up the presidential nomination for Arizona Senator John McCain, and at the end of the evening his chief remaining rival - Mike Huckabee - exited the race. Just under 1.4 million Texans voted in the Republican primary, double the number who voted in 2004.

On the Democratic side, Texas was ground zero in a titanic struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was the only close contest of the four around the country decided on Tuesday, and it basically ended up a draw. Nearly 2.9 million Texans voted in the Democratic primary, shattering the state record of 2.1 million set back in 1972, when this was still a one-party Democratic state. Clinton eeked out a narrow popular vote victory, while Obama looks like he will end up with a small delegate advantage based on the complicated system of awarding primary delegates, in addition to his victory in the caucus portion of the election, where one-third of the delegates were designated.

Needless to say Texas, like Ohio, was a must-win state for Senator Clinton, and she can make at least a partial claim to that effect after Tuesday, allowing her to go on. Her modest combined net delegate take (less than 10) from the evening's four contests, however, did not significantly erode Obama's advantage of 100 or so. In other words, the Clinton campaign's death-defying Tuesday night performance largely halted calls for her to drop out, and certainly gave her candidacy some much-needed momentum. Her fundamental position, however, did not change. Clinton remains behind Barack Obama in both delegates and the popular vote count, and is running out of time to catch him. More on that in a future post.

The unprecedented explosion in turnout no doubt also had a profound effect on down ballot race across the state. Thankfully, U.S. Senate candidate Rick Noriega was able to avoid a runoff against three minor candidates and sew up the Democratic nomination. Tight races in a number of Democratic and Republican primary state house contests resulted in a pretty good night for Speaker Tom Craddick. Here in Harris County, one "Craddick D" went down, while another was returned to office after being defeated in 2006.

Nearly 410,000 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary in Harris County, five times the number cast in 2004. This much larger, much less locally focused electorate made for a most unpredictable result for down ballot local candidates, particularly in judicial races. Simply having first position on the ballot, for example, seemed to be worth quite a bit in many of these races. Not necessarily an ideal way to choose judges for the bench, but that's the way it is.

Evening precinct conventions were hugely attended, and while there were some reports of difficulties at some of them, for the most part this potentially catastophic process ran very smoothly, which is a credit to the local Democratic Party and scores of very dedicated volunteers.

It has been an mind-boggling, exhilirating few weeks in Texas politics. Don't know about you, but we're pooped.

While the Republican presidential nomination has effectively been decided, (tomorrow's contests may well push McCain across the delegate threshold he needs to wrap the race up), for the two Democratic contenders, Tuesday's big showdowns in Texas and Ohio are hotly contested, and could prove decisive, or not. Early voting participation in the Texas Democratic Primary was unprecedented, and there is no sign of a let-up on Election Day.

And as the Clinton and Obama campaigns slug it out at the top of the ticket, the tremendous increase in voter turnout they have generated in Texas has profound implications for candidates below them on the ballot, from Rick Noriega and the nobodys running for United States Senate down to folks running for local office like constable. What do those 2.5 million or so Texans voting in the Democratic Primary do in those down-ballot races? Most will know little if anything about the other races. How many skip them? How many just pick a name?

And on the Republican side, what does a fairly average turnout mean for their down-ballot contests, like the race for Harris County Judge between Ed Emmett and Charles Bacarisse, and several contested State House primaries? Given that Republican moderates seem to be heading for the other primary this year, we think it favors the more definably "conservative" candidates, but we'll see.

As our last posting warned, prepare for a long day tomorrow. We expect lines to vote, particularly in the urban areas, and the possibility of having to extend voting beyond 7pm. We expect a chaotic caucus process, and significant delays in reporting the primary results. Meanwhile, the nation will be watching. No pressure, right? Here we go!

In Harris County, roughly 170,000 folks voted early in the Democratic primary, compared to about 52,000 Republicans. Last night here in Houston, there were reports of people standing in line to vote until nearly 10 p.m. -- three hours after the polls officially closed. Enormous excitement among voters here in Texas and huge early voting participation are no doubt developments we should all be proud of, but as a practical matter they hint at big potential problems on Tuesday.

Typically, early voting in Harris County accounts for roughly 35% of the total election vote. Let's be conservative and say that this year, given a highly motivated electorate, early vote is half the total. That means Tuesday we will see at least 220,000 people turn out to vote in the two major party primaries -- several times the participation normally seen.

Can the county's election apparatus handle it? Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman runs a pretty tight ship, but it is not difficult to imagine the system being overwhelmed on Tuesday. Polling locations have already been consolidated. Will there be enough machines, and more importantly, enough workers to accomodate the huge crowds?

In recent history, Texas has been largely irrelevant in national political contests, in both the primary and general election seasons. On the Democratic side, we have a bizarre, arcane caucus system for selecting presidential delegates that has also been irrelevant, since the nomination has been decided in recent years long before the Texas primary. 2008 is obviously very different, and the Texas result may be determinative in selecting the Democratic presidential nominee. (McCain's got it locked up on the Republican side.) Hence, for the first time in a long time, our state has a bright national political spotlight on it.

What happens if the election system is overwhelmed Tuesday? What happens when, after the polls close at 7 p.m., there are still thousands of people waiting to vote, as there were just last night? How will that affect precinct caucuses? And when will we see returns? The early vote and absentee results will likely be released shortly after the polls close, but it could easily be hours after that before we see any further returns. With the national press foucsed here, and millions of Americans waiting for definitive results in the Clinton-Obama contest, how long will we keep them waiting?

Just a few more questions, among many others, to ponder during this unprecedented election season.

CNN/Opinion Research -- Obama 50% - Clinton 46%
Rasmussen -- Clinton 46% - Obama 45%
American Research Group -- Obama 50% - Clinton 42%
Survey USA -- Obama 49% - Clinton 45%

Clearly some variation by poll, but unquestionably a close race. Why the variation? Well, just random sampling error accounts for some of it, but more important is what likely voter model the poll used. Meaning, were those polled reliable Democrats only, or were there Independents and others in the sample, and if so, how many?

These are very important questions, because as early voting across the state indicates, non-traditional voters are participating in the Democratic Primary in droves. It is this much larger than normal electorate that signals to us an Obama victory in Texas next week. Quite simply, Obama is attracting enormous numbers of folks who have rarely, if ever, voted in a Democratic Primary, not to mention large numbers of people who have never voted at all.

Harris County, for example, will likely vote between 125,000 and 150,000 Democrats just during early vote. This probably means a total primary vote well north of 200,000 and possibly upwards of 300,000 -- record-breaking stuff. In the state as a whole, we very likely are looking at over 2 million votes in the Democratic Primary.

More on some Harris County specifics tomorrow, but suffice to say, it is one hell of a year shaping up.

In just the first two days of early voting in Harris County, 23,947 voters had cast ballots, compared with 3,092 in 2004. Of this year's eager beavers so far, 18,146 voted in the Democratic primary, compared with 5,801 in the GOP contest -- a simply stunning gap in a county that Republicans have controlled for the last dozen or more years. At this rate, Democratic Primary turnout could exceed 300,000 -- gulp. Remember folks, just 79,000 voted in the 2004 D Primary.

The pattern is not just confined to Harris County either. Austin consultant Ed Martin has circulated some staggering numbers about the state's 15 most populous counties. In those counties, Democratic turnout through two days of early vote was 118,756 compared to 38,251 Republicans. Wow.

Perhaps more fascinating was Martin's finding that of the Democratic voters in the five largest counties in Texas, about 40% had no recent history of voting in Democratic primaries, and about 20% had no history of voting, period.

Something very interesting is happening right now. Not quite sure what, but it most certainly is interesting.

Of that 2 million, 250,000 or so could come from Harris County. (Greg thinks that estimate is on the high side, and has some interesting posts debating the subject -- here , here and here.) Whatever the total ends up being on March 4th, there is no question this county this whole area is in a full-on political frenzy.

Suddenly, Houston is becoming a celebrity hangout. Over the weekend, George Lopez and America Farrar were in town to campaign respectively for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and tonight we enjoyed an opportunity to hear Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (a Hillary supporter) address the Houston Democratic Forum on her behalf. We can only guess that once the Wisconsin and Hawaii contests are over with tomorrow, Texas will become ground zero, along with Ohio, for intensive, high profile campaigning, not to mention national media coverage.

Indeed, for a few weeks, Texas will matter in the national political drama, before we are once again relegated to our role as ATM machine. Hey, we'll enjoy it while it lasts, right?

As we previously mentioned, the likely explosion in Democratic primary turnout here will dramatically impact down ballot local races, though no one quite knows how. Certainly, many of these new primary voters will pass on voting down ballot, but many will go ahead and vote, perhaps with less information about these races than more habitual participants.

We have a few suggestions for local contests -- here, here and here. Happy voting everyone, and hang on to your hats!

McCain overcame a shaky beginning to the evening. As early returns came in from Virginia, he trailed Mike Huckabee, only fueling further media speculation about a repudiation of the Arizona senator by conservatives in the GOP. McCain eventually pulled away in Virginia, and moved out to big leads in Maryland and D.C. as well. His team must be breathing a big sigh of relief tonight. After a lousy weekend result, including controversy surrounding his narrow win in Washington state, the last thing McCain needed was more weakening of his already shaky frontrunner brand. Still, there is a notable lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for their presumptive nominee which does not bode well for November -- though things obviously can change very quickly in politics.

It was another boffo night for Barack Obama. He won today's three contests in blowouts, running his current winning streak to eight states, and continuing to crescendo toward what could quite a finale on March 4th. Simply put, Obama is building momentum that is going to be very difficult to stop. One could almost sense this watching Hillary Clinton speak at a rally in El Paso tonight. (It is telling that she was nowhere near today's primary states, nor the two upcoming February contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii.) The smile was there, as was the normal substance in her remarks, but one could detect deflation in her mood, and given what's transpired over the last few weeks, who could blame her?

By contrast, Obama rocked the house at a packed arena in Madison, Wisconsin. And we began to see the Illinois senator perhaps move beyond the primary and turn his attention toward his likely general election opponent. He took some direct, if respectful shots at John McCain, in the midst of his otherwise lofty remarks. McCain, almost serene in demeanor and surrounded by fellow aging white guys (note to the McCain team -- not a great visual), offered an eloquent, if sing-songy oration about conservative principles and the duty to serve the greater good, and landed his own veiled jabs at Obama about the folly of youth.

Tonight we glimpsed the contrast the two likely nominees will set for the American public this fall. Obama -- tall, vital, unconventional and inspirational. McCain -- wizened, wise, principled and solid. It will be fascinating to watch how that contrast is drawn and received by voters. What was also evident in both men, and something that has been sorely lacking in our recent political discourse -- class. Fleeting though it may be, as the nasty attacks are sure to emerge, it was refreshing to see these two aspirants for the most powerful position in the world acquit themselves as statesmen. We sincerely hope it continues; God knows the country is ready for it.

Finally, if McCain and Obama are to be our two major party nominees (by no means yet a certainty), it is to us a clear signal that the country is ready to move on from the poisonous national political environment of the last 15+ years. Here are two candidates who in different ways defy convention. McCain, though a rock-ribbed conservative, has never been afraid to assert his independence. And Obama... well, as he says, he shouldn't even be here!

We can only continue to shake our head and say it again -- what a year.