Both the Senate race and the presidential race are closer than one might expect.

Barack Obama will spend more on education, but he stresses that none of this will matter if parents don’t do their job of parenting.

Far left liberals do not speak about personal responsibility like this. Those who want to paint him as an extreme liberal will be very disapppointed.

The 2008 general election will be about issues, and abortion will resurface as an issue this fall.

Right now, McCain’s “maverick” reputation is causing many to think he’s a moderate on many issues. That is not the case, and the misperceptions are significant when it comes to abortion.

What John McCain really stands for came up most recently in light of his position on abortion. Planned Parenthood commissioned a survey showing that more than half of those women polled don’t know much about McCain’s stance, and a quarter of those who are in favor of keeping abortion legal mistakenly think the senator agrees.

These misperceptions will be corrected by November. Writers like Anna Quindlen are talking about it, and it will certainly come up in the campaign. McCain has been a favorite of many independents, but that was when he was running against Bush. Now that he faces a general election in a tough year for Republicans, his abortion stances are likely to hurt him with independents and some moderate Republicans.

In 2004, Peggy Noonan was savoring George W. Bush’s victory over John Kerry. Reality has been setting in for Peggy and other conservatives since then. and she explains in her latest column that the country is sick of Bush. Thanks for the news flash.

She does have some helpful advice for Barack Obama, however. He can help himself by talking more about why he loves his country. Of course he has been doing this, but he always does it from an intellectual point of view. Law school geeks like me love this stuff, but he could use some more imagery. He has talked about his grandfather being in Patton’s army in WWII, and he needs to do more of that. The right is trying to paint him as a left-wing radical, and he needs some stories from his life that contradict that silly caricature.

Barack Obama talks about the economy and taxes with Maria Bartiromo. His proposals make sense. Some taxes will go back to the rates during the Clinton years, while many middle class Americans will get a tax cut. When asked about some of the tax increases, Obama has a great response:

Why raise taxes in a slowdown? Isn’t that going to put a further strain on people?

There’s no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office next January. The thing you can be assured of is that I’m not going to make these decisions based on ideology. I’m not a dogmatist. My opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wild-eyed liberal, but I believe in the market. I believe in entrepreneurship. I believe in capitalism, and I want to do what works. One of the problems with the Bush Administration has been its rigidness when it comes to economic policy. It doesn’t matter what the problem is, they’ll say tax cuts. Trade deficit? Tax cuts. Slowdown in manufacturing? Tax cuts. At a certain point, if you’ve only got one arrow in the quiver, you’re going to have problems.

I doubt that Glenn’s endorsement of Hillary will make much of a difference. Older Dems who remember Glenn are probably in her corner already.

Connecticut is seeing a surge in voter registration, particularly among young people, and many independents are switching their registration status, with many more choosing to register as Democrats as opposed to Republicans (13,000 to 4,000)

Another Republican endorses Barack Obama in an eloquent op-ed peice in the Washington Post.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather’s did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation’s impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first — ahead of our own selfish interests — must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

Every once in a while, and election comes along that restores my faith in Democracy. Not simply because my candidate won, but because the more qualified and honorable candidate won.

Jim Webb’s victory over George Allen is one of those elections.

Nine former Republicans are running in Kansas as Democrats. Most of them are moderates who are sick of the religious right. If the polls are correct, this trend will continue across the country.

The Republican Party has been taken over by the religious right. This is not a controversial statement when speaking to Democrats, but most Republicans would have strenously argued this point in the past. Not so much any more.

This editorial from a Kansas newspaper’s editorial board is fascinating. In it the writer explains why the paper is reversing over 100 years of supporting mostly Republican candidates.

The Republican Party has changed, and it has changed monumentally.

You almost cannot be a victorious traditional Republican candidate with mainstream values in Johnson County or in Kansas anymore, because these candidates never get on the ballot in the general election. They lose in low turnout primaries, where the far right shows up to vote in disproportionate numbers.

To win a Republican primary, the candidate must move to the right.

What does to-the-right mean?

It means anti-public education, though claiming to support it.

It means weak support of our universities, while praising them.

It means anti-stem cell research.

It means ridiculing global warming.

It means gay bashing. Not so much gay marriage, but just bashing gays.

It means immigrant bashing. I’m talking about the viciousness.

It means putting religion in public schools. Not just prayer.

It means mocking evolution and claiming it is not science.

It means denigrating even abstinence-based sex education.

Note, I did not say it means “anti-abortion,” because I do not find that position repugnant, at all. I respect that position.

But everything else adds up to priorities that have nothing to do with the Republican Party I once knew.

That’s why, in the absence of so-called traditional Republican candidates, the choice comes down to right-wing Republicans or conservative Democrats.

And now you know why we have been forced to move left.

Hat tip to mcjoan at DailyKos.

Moderates are fleeing the Republican Party and are finding a welcome home in the Democratic Party. Fiscal conservatives and libertarian conservatives tolerated the religious right for years because they helped them form a winning coalition in the GOP. Moderate Republicans went along for the ride, even if moderate Republicans stopped getting on the ballot. Hopefully this unholy alliance is coming to an end.

Many Democrats are worried about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2008 and are therefore looking for a “fallback” candidate. In an excellent profile in the New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai explains how Mark Warner might become that candidate.

Warner is a moderate, and he’s incredibly popular in the red state of Virginia. He makes a strong argument that Democrats need to field a candidate who can compete in red states.

Bai does a good job of summarizing the themes Warner will use in his campaign:

Warner’s constant theme, which a lot of Washington politicians talk about but few seem to actually understand, was the need to modernize for a global economy. The days when you could walk down the street and get a job at the mill were over, Warner would say, and new jobs — the state gained more than 150,000 of them on his watch — would require new skills and infrastructure. So Warner, working with Nascar, pushed through an accelerated program that enabled 35,000 more Virginians to get high-school equivalency degrees, and he introduced a program to deliver broadband capacity to 20 Southern counties. “In the 1800’s, if the railroad didn’t come through your small town, the town shriveled up and went away,” he told me once, explaining his rural program. “And if the broadband Internet doesn’t come through your town in the next few years, the same thing will happen.”

If he ultimately decides to run for president, Warner will try to build a national campaign around this same technology-driven approach. When I asked Warner to name the issues that would be most important to him, the four domestic issues he ticked off, before he got to terrorism and national security, were fairly standard for a Democratic candidate in the era after Bill Clinton: slashing the federal deficit, improving schools, working with business to reform the health-care system and devising a new energy strategy. What makes Warner, the former entrepreneur, sound more credible than your average Democrat is that he comes at these issues primarily from an economic, rather than a social, standpoint. On health care, for instance, most Washington Democrats will, as a matter of both habit and perspective, talk about the moral imperative of covering workers and the uninsured — and only then might they add, as an afterthought, that the current morass is an impediment to business too. Warner, on the other hand, begins with the idea that if American businesses can’t keep up with spiraling health-care costs, the nation will lose the competition with India and China for jobs. The same principle applies with education and the deficit. His fixation on the global economy brings a coherent framework to issues that otherwise seem disparate and abstract.

It sounds like a great message. Warner is a pragmatist who could offer voters a refreshing alternative after eight years of George W. Bush.

Yet Bai also points out that Warner is very weak on foreign policy, and he refuses to address the issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq. His positions on the war sound earily like the bland positions Kerry embraced in 2004.

This could be the issue that sinks his candidacy. More and more Democrats and Americans have concluded that the invasion was a tragic blunder.

Warner seems to be waiting things out, hoping that by 2007 the Iraq issue will be old news. It’s doubtful he (or the country) will be that lucky.