At the Times Caucus blog, Kit Seelye, has a tic toc of Friday for the Clinton campaign, as it unfolded, or perhaps imploded, from the perspective of the traveling press.

If you haven't already had read it, let me recommend George Packer's piece in The New Yorker on the "fall" of conservatism. He weaves together a thousand threads of the story in a way any magazine writer knows is terribly difficult to pull off. For the article Packer had a long conversation with Pat Buchanan, who, for the younger folks among our readers, isn't just a vinegary TV right-winger with a punchy turn of phrase. Buchanan is a very important figure in the last half century of American history -- for the forces of darkness perhaps, but important no less for that.

Buchanan gave Packer a copy of a confidential memo he wrote for Richard Nixon in 1971. ("A little raw for today," he warns Packer.) The memo is about what Buchanan and his Nixon aide colleague Kevin Phillips called "positive polarization," ways to divide the country for political advantage. Some of you will remember the key line that Buchanan ends on because it's quoted in Jonathan Schell's magnificent 1976 book, Time of Illusion. The aim, wrote Buchanan, was to "cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."

Those of us who look at politics from moment to moment tend to look at gaffes, campaign strategies, the foibles of this or that politician. But it's always important to step back from the particulars to see the broad sweep of political and social change. It's almost always dominated by long term trends -- demographic, ideological, economic. But particular events can pivot history off in dramatic new directions.

Back in the early part of this decade two friends of mine, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority. It's a very good book -- and not just in the sense of the happy prediction. Unluckily, though, for the authors it came out just a few months before the Democrats' big thumping in the 2002 midterm elections. And because of that, the book, after a lot of initial fanfare, got sort of pushed to the back of the collective shelf.

But I'm starting to wonder whether we might not see the first decade of this century similarly to the way we now look back on the 1970s. Packer's piece is a loosely structured review of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland. (I just dipped into it for the first time a few nights ago and it was like eating some incredibly rich food. I can't wait to get back to it.) Nixon's resurgence began in those mid-sixties rumblings which we can now see from the perspective of history were the onset of the era of conservative ascendence that we've been living in now for the last four decades. But it wasn't an unbroken trajectory. The Democrats had a huge year in the post-Watergate 1974 mid-term elections, with a big class of new self-consciously reformist House Dems. Then Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976.

In retrospect this was only a Watergate-induced hiccup, an Indian Summer of mid-century liberalism and Democratic ascendency, in a decades long trend toward conservative dominance. And I'm beginning to wonder whether we might eventually see the 2002 and 2004 elections in a similar light.

I say this for a couple reasons, and hopefully not just out of wishful thinking. Clearly much of the Republican party's current state of disrepair is due to the disastrous record of George W. Bush. But all of it? There's a great deal of continuity between the demographic and regional voting trends we see today and those Judis and Teixeira noted through the 90s and the first years of this decade. 9/11 juiced President Bush's standing and massively reinforced the advantages Republicans have historically had on national security issues -- at least over the last forty years. And the Bush White House pressed that advantage mightily. But hidden underneath was the same ideological and electoral decay. Perhaps we will see the Republican party in this period as akin to the doped up athlete whose drugs enable him to achieve amazing feats in the short-run but also lead him to gravely exacerbate existing injuries because they inure him to the pain.

I'm intrigued by the series of veep selection polls SurveyUSA released last week, putting Obama up against McCain with different vice presidential possibilities in a few key states. As noted previously, I'm skeptical about the significance of the veep matchings because I think much of the variance is simply a matter of name recognition. But each poll also has a straight head-to-head match without other names attached.

In Ohio, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 9 points.

In Pennsylvania, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 8 points.

In New Mexico, SUSA has Obama tied with McCain.

In Virginia, SUSA has Obama beating McCain by 7 points.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are at the center of arguments that Obama runs weak with non-college educated and rural whites in Appalachia and surrounding regions. I'm cautiously optimistic that Obama can win both, especially Pennsylvania. But is he really that far ahead? Other recent polls of Ohio have shown it consistently within the margin of error but with McCain slightly ahead. Pennsylvania meanwhile has been trending in the direction of an 8 point. And the most recent poll, by Quinnipiac, has Obama up by 6.

Each of these results are consistent with the trend from other polls. But they're definitely on the high end of Obama's leads. SUSA has had a pretty respectable record this year. So I'll be curious to see if leads of that size firm up. If McCain lost Ohio and Pennsylvania, he'd be toast.

Late Update: TPM Reader DE follows up ...

My uneducated opinion is that we're now seeing a "post-primary" Obama bounce. I expected it to be between 10-15 points, and that looks about right. Some Clinton supporters, who'd previously picked McCain over Obama in these polls, are now switching over to Obama.

I think the gap tightens over the summer until the media really does some vetting of McCain. They've started, but it's only in first gear so far. Whereas with Obama, they've already run the Indie 500........

The first point especially is a shrewd one. Remember that both Obama and Clinton were at least even with McCain even as substantial numbers of each Democrats' supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for the other Dem if he or she were nominee. How much headway Obama makes with these hardcore Hillary supporters remains an open questions. But certainly some of that animus from the heat of the primaries will dissipate. So in addition to the bounce any nominee gets after the securing the nomination, I think we will see that both Democrats' numbers were artificially depressed vis a vis McCain as long as the nomination battle continued.

Terry McAuliffe, we salute you ...

If you're wondering what that boomlet about 'formal veep' talks between Clinton and Obama was all about, I direct you to this snippet from a piece in tonight's Post ...

A report in Time magazine said that former president Bill Clinton is driving the effort to secure a slot for his wife on the ticket, and Clinton campaign aides said it would not be the first time that he has ventured out on his own.

Latest from Newsweek.

Clinton (48%) vs. McCain (44%)
Obama (46%) vs. McCain (46%)

Newsweek's article, linked above, breaks down the numbers to look at the role race is playing in the contest.

Everybody's talking about Hillary's RFK remark. So without getting into what it means, since we're getting inundated by all sorts of interpretations, we wanted to share the actual video with you, to draw your own conclusions ...

Late Update: Here is Sen. Clinton's statement clarifying her earlier remarks a few hours later ...

CNN seems to be walking back its report about those "formal talks" between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, supposedly involving her withdrawing and him naming her as VP. Formal talks have devolved to "Clinton insiders and close friends are actively floating three scenarios which they believe will influence whether or how the two teams merge."

Here's how CNN describes it now:

Several close friends and supporters of Hillary Clinton tell CNN they are pushing for a "graceful exit strategy" that would allow the Clinton and Obama camps to come together, and for the New York senator to save face should she fail to become the nominee. The discussions are not taking place between the campaigns, but rather among informal campaign advisers on both sides who are trying to actively influence and shape the debate as the competition nears a close June 3.

Meanwhile, Hillary claims it was the Obama camp that planted the CNN story; and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a prominent Hillary supporter, is pushing Obama-Hillary as "the strongest ticket" (assuming Obama gets the nomination, of course).

Colin McEnroe has the latest on Joe Lieberman.

SurveyUSA has another vice presidential choice run-down, this time of Ohio. The baseline number -- McCain vs. Obama without any veep name attached -- has Obama up by nine points. Obama 48%, McCain 39%.

Rarely do the two chief campaign flacks, Howard Wolfson and Bill Burton, agree. But they both tell TPM Election Central that CNN's report this morning that there are formal talks between the Clinton and Obama campaigns over her dropping out of the race and getting the VP nod are "100% false."

Now that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't some sort of back-channel communications going on. I'd be surprised if there weren't. These people aren't strangers to each other. They've all been involved together in Democratic politics for a long time. They talk. But as I said before, I'm skeptical that these discussion amount to anything approaching "formal talks."

At the same time, I don't doubt that CNN had what it considered to be well-placed Clinton sources feeding them these various scenarios for how the VP selection will play out and what her role might be. As I said before, it's noteworthy in itself that some elements of Clinton's supporters are making these kinds of noises.

In fact, Hillary's top fundraiser, Hassan Nemazee, in an interview with TPM Election Central today, may have gone as far anyone in the Clinton camp thus far in essentially demanding she get the vice presidential nomination -- or else:

"[T]here's a risk that if she isn't invited on the ticket, Hillary's political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he'll need to prevail in November."

If she does get out of the race before the convention -- which I think is still the most plausible scenario -- it will be only after extensive negotiations over all manner of issues, political as well as personal. Today's rumblings may just be the start to those negotiations. And as any good negotiator knows, your opening position better be as favorable to you as possible and then some.

How the Bush Administration ignored the plain meaning of "exclusive" to launch its warrantless wiretapping program.

TPM Media is announcing a job opening for a news editor working in our New York City office. The news editor has primary responsibility for running and updating the news section on the front page of Talking Points Memo (TPM), working closely with the site's managing editor. Key responsibilities include staying on top of breaking news, finding current news items, working with our reporters to find which TPM stories to feature, writing headlines and story descriptions, as well as selecting news photos and video to complement our front page news coverage. Applicants must be inveterate news and politics junkies and be able to work in a fast paced news environment every day. Their job is to make sure our front page is always on top of everything and putting everything in front of our readers' eyes from a witty, TPM perspective.

If you're interested please send a resume, two clips and a letter describing your interest and qualifications for the job to talk (at) talkingpointsmemo.com with the subject line "TPM News Editor Job".

This is a full-time position, with health care. Salary is negotiable.

CNN is reporting this morning that the Obama and Clinton campaigns are in formal talks about ending her quest for the Democratic nomination and possibly giving her the VP slot.

These apparent talks are described by CNN as being in a ``very preliminary'' stage and as "difficult."

It's really unclear what this means or what's really going on here. CNN doesn't have anyone on the record. Just anonymous sourcing. We'll have video of their report up shortly.

On first blush I'm skeptical that there really are "formal talks" in the usual sense of that phrase. The report appears to lean heavily on sourcing from within the Clinton camp, which is notable. The significance here may not be that there are formal talks underway or that the vice presidency is under discussion. The real significance may be that this is the opening salvo from the Clinton camp ahead of the negotiations that would likely accompany her withdrawal from the race.

Like everyone else, we're trying to track this down now. But this may be the beginning of the beginning of the end.

Late Update: Here's the video:

It's like McCain's Thursday Night Preacher Massacre.

Fresh off the defenestration of Rev. Hagee, now he's dumping Rev. Parsley, the right-wing preacher-power-broker of Ohio, who says -- inter alia -- that America was founded to destroy Islam.

May 31st, 2008: the survivors will call it Judgment Day, the day that Hillary Clinton tries to push the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee to achieve the full seating of Florida and Michigan's disputed delegates and perhaps wrest the nomination away from Barack Obama. But wait... can this really happen? We take a look at the actual situation behind the hype in today's episode of TPMtv ...

High-res version at Veracifier.com.

Republicans were hoping Rep. Vito Fossella would retire from his Staten Island House seat (which he now has). And the hope was that Daniel Donovan, the Staten Island DA, would run for the seat. The consensus seemed to be that Donovan was a solid candidate for the district. But now Donovan has decided to take a pass.

This is a good example of the compounding effects of a bad political season. This is a Republican district, though not by a big margin. In another year, presumably, Donovan would have gone for it. But it's not that great a prize since the House Republicans seem destined to remain in the minority for some time. For that and other reasons, it's not an easy environment to raise money in. And given how bad a year it looks to be for Republicans in general, there's a good chance that Donovan could lose.

So Republicans have a tough environment to operate in. And they strike out when trying to recruit a good candidate to overcome that bad environment because the bad environment makes the good candidate not think it's worth the risk.

As you can see, Sen. McCain has now definitively "rejected" John Hagee's endorsement. Yesterday's story about Hagee's suggesting that God used Hitler to facilitate the departure of the Jews (sort of a gentle word) from Europe, broken by Huffpo, was I guess the final straw. (A few weeks ago McCain said that trying to get Hagee's endorsement was "probably" a mistake but that he was "glad to have" it anyway.) But since we've been on this story from the git-go I wanted to review the history on this one to take stock of the whole story.

I don't doubt for a moment that the McCain camp didn't know about this Hitler quote. But if you know Hagee's history, it's hardly surprising. And Hagee's statements about Catholics, his claim that God destroyed New Orleans because of an over-the-top gay pride parade, and his claim that God was using Muslim terrorists to create a "bloodbath" in America because of US support for a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine were right out there in the public domain. And certainly McCain's camp did know about them.

The March 5th episode of TPMtv had a run-down of each of these statements from Hagee and McCain's statements embracing Hagee ...

Given that McCain has now clearly rejected Hagee's endorsement, perhaps it's time that he, a la Obama, give a speech on the topic of Republican presidential candidates pandering to lunatic fringe right-wing preachers at election time. It could start a whole national conversation.

Late Update: Dan Gilgoff at BeliefNet says the Hagee debacle is another example that McCain is a novice on cultivating evangelicals.

A semi-contrary view from one of our shrewdest readers ...

You argue that "the evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think [that Florida and Michigan were] a problem at all." That's one way to read the factual record.

But I'd suggest that there are compelling reasons to reach the opposite conclusion. After the 2000 election, she called for the abolition of the electoral college. "I believe strongly," she said, "that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people." She argued then that "the total votes cast for a person running for president in our country should
determine the outcome." Sound familiar?

Of course, as you point out, that's not what she or her supporters were arguing when the convoluted rules of the nominating system seemed likely to deliver her the nomination. And that, I think, is where she lost her bearings. She and her aides decided not to rock the boat. Instead of using their clout to fix the problems with the system, thereby alienating voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, she and her surrogates mouthed the same platitudes we hear every four years about the unique role played by
early states and the lovable quirks of the caucuses. But when the rules she had always disliked started to work against her, she lashed out with righteous indignation.

I think Hillary is genuinely convinced that this election has been a travesty. That elections ought to be about who wins the most votes, full stop. Never mind the innumerable problems with applying that argument to the contests this cycle; it's what she believes. And it's of a piece with a set of grievances that she and her surrogates have voiced: that the media has treated her too harshly, that her candidacy has been hobbled by sexism, and that her opponent has enjoyed unfair advantages. Each of these complaints
springs from a common premise - Hillary could not have lost a fair fight for the nomination. And working from that premise, she sees herself not only as a victim, but also as a champion of those who, like her, have been wronged by the system. This really has become a moral crusade for her, and that's impelling her forward long after she's lost any realistic chance of winning.

Perhaps she can be persuaded to back away from the edge. But now that the dictates of her conscience and of political expedience have at last converged, Hillary is finally giving voice to the grievances that she's long held back. As she's done so, she's tapped into a deep and powerful strain of resentment and - dare I say it - bitterness in the electorate. It's not easy to put that genie back in the bottle, and it's not at all clear to me that she wants to.