Even as the debate over whether Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) age -- he will be 72 on Election Day 2008 -- is a legitimate campaign issue rages on, a group of Democratic operatives are out with a campaign jingle that is sure to inflame passions on both sides.

The song (and video) speak for themselves, so let's look at them first.

(Our favorite line: "He's older than his wife and he's younger than his mama/He's old enough to be one and a half Barack Obamas". Our second favorite line: "John McCain is older than the Golden Gate Bridge/ He's younger than Bob Dole but only by a smidge.")

"McAncient" was produced by the Organizing Group, a Democratic consulting firm run by longtime AFL-CIO political operative Steve Rosenthal. It's the same group that produced a video earlier this year on McCain's age and maintains a website called "Younger Than McCain". (Boston-based playwright John J. King is the lyricist and vocalist for the song.)

McCain's campaign has been vigilant about seeking to keep discussion of the candidate's age outside of the sphere of acceptable campaign discourse; when Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) recently said that McCain had "lost his bearings" during an interview with CNN, the Arizona senator's campaign immediately released a tart rebuke from senior adviser Mark Salter -- is there any other kind? -- that accused Obama of purposely injecting age into the race.

While Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said his party will not make McCain's age an issue in the campaign, groups like Rosenthal's seem set on doing so.

We want to hear from you. Is McCain's age fair game in the fall campaign? Why or why not?

Two interesting things have happened over the last month that threaten to drastically reshape the political landscape for the fall.

First, Republicans lost their second and third special elections of the cycle in congressional districts that gave President George W. Bush 59 percent (Louisiana's 6th district) and 62 percent (Mississippi's 1st district) in the 2004 election.

Second, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has broken with the Bush Administration not once (global warming), not twice (handling of Hurricane Katrina) but thrice (victory in Iraq by 2013).

The factors that caused the first set of events are almost certainly the cause for the second set. That is, the Republican brand is badly damaged -- due in large part to Bush's prolonged disapproval rating of nearly two thirds -- and, as a result, House districts that are not normally considered competitive territory have suddenly turned into pickups for Democrats.

Sensing that dynamic, McCain and his campaign have made a concerted effort to break with Bush on several high-profile issues -- both foreign and domestic -- early and often.

McCain is in the midst of an attempt to re-brand the Republican party, knowing that simply running under the current voter perceptions about the two parties is a stone-cold election loser.

Congressional Republicans seem to just now be wising up to that fact, as evidenced by their statements in the wake of the Mississippi special election loss earlier this week.

"The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general," acknowledged National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.). "Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) described the Mississippi race as a "wake up call" to his colleagues. As the teenage version of the Fix used to say in the '80s: "No duh."

At issue for McCain and congressional Republicans is whether the re-branding of the party will work in time for the November elections.

McCain has a head start in repositioning himself for the general election campaign, and he is helped by the general voter perception that he is a different kind of Republican -- a remnant of his losing 2000 presidential primary bid. This all makes him more likely than many of his colleagues in Congress to jump off the sinking ship and seek safe ground.

"McCain's long established brand as a rebel in the Republican Party is serving him very well at a time when the Party brand is in tatters," said GOP consultant Curt Anderson.

Recent national polling bears this out. In a Washington Post/ABC News survey, McCain trailed Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) by seven points while those same voters chose Democrats 53 percent to 32 percent over Republicans in terms of who was better equipped to handle the problems facing the country. Digging deeper into those numbers, McCain outperformed congressional Republicans across a variety of key demographic groups as well.

Given that dynamic, don't be terribly surprised if McCain essentially cuts loose his congressional colleagues this fall in an attempt to save himself. The phrase "triangulation" that symbolized Bill Clinton's administration could well return to the political lexicon if these numbers don't change, as McCain will feel compelled to distance himself not just from Bush but also from Republicans in Congress if he concludes they are bogging down his presidential prospects. That struggle will be made all the more intriguing by the fact that people like Cole and Boehner seem to be counseling their House colleagues to hew as closely as possible to McCain in hopes of catching some residual re-branding.

Much has changed since 2004 when President Bush insisted he did not want a "lonely victory" and actively sought to campaign in places where he could broaden his party's House and Senate majorities. In 2008, a lonely victory for McCain may be the only possible victory for his party.

Progressive Media USA, the group organized to be the main soft-money advertising vehicle for Democrats in the fall, will dramatically scale back its efforts in deference to the wishes of the party's presumptive nominee.

"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," David Brock, the head of the organization, confirmed in a statement obtained by The Fix this morning.

"Progressive Media was established to be an independent on-going progressive issue advocacy organization," Brock added. "We were not established for one issue, one candidate or one election cycle. But donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."

Those familiar with the group's decision cast it as largely the result of the stated desire of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to not direct funds to outside organizations in hopes of better controlling the Democratic message in the fall. (Note: Ben Smith of Politico first reported this story.) But the group was also struggling to raise the money necessary to be a major force in the presidential race and was riven by internal divisions.

During a gathering of Obama's national finance committee earlier this month in Indianapolis, it was made clear to these top donors that they should concentrate on raising money for the candidate and not spend their time funding independent organizations of which Progressive Media USA is one.

That warning made Progressive Media USA's already difficult task -- raising tens of millions of dollars in short order from skeptical donors with the unsuccessful soft money efforts of 2004 still on their mind -- almost impossible. Without buy-in (literally) from Obama's major donors, it's extremely unlikely deep-pocketed Clinton backers would fund the effort to help elect the Illinois senator on their own.

The downscaling of Progressive Media USA is the latest chapter of the group's short but turbulent history. The group, which was initially led by Tom Matzzie, former Washington director for Moveon.org, was originally known as Campaign to Defend America when it was formed in the fall of 2007. The budget for the effort, according to Matzzie, was $100 million.

The group struggled to gain traction, however, and in early April liberal media critic David Brock took control of the group -- promising a $40 million media onslaught against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

(Those familiar with the group say that Brock and Matzzie were like oil and water stylistically, and their differences made it difficult to put everyone involved with the organization on the same page.)

The reformed group drew immediate attention with an ad that painted McCain as a clone of President George W. Bush on the economy. But the extended ad campaign promised by many within Progressive Media USA never materialized -- likely due to a lack of available resources.

The financial struggles of Progressive Media USA are the rule not the exception in this presidential election. Soft-money groups seemed to have reached their zenith in 2004 when progressive-aligned organizations like America Coming Together and Media Fund as well as conservative-backed groups like Progress for America and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had an undeniably large influence over the outcome of the election.

Four years later, outside groups on both sides of the aisle have experienced all sorts of problems in securing the cash to fund any sort of serious independent effort. That lack of success is particularly true at the presidential level, where Progressive Media USA's collapse comes on the heels of a decision to turn Freedom's Watch from a conservative-aligned presidential vehicle to one that spends its time and money on House races.

It's hard to imagine that big-dollar donors won't seek to exert their influence in some substantial way in the run-up to the 2008 election. But so far the vehicles that have tried to do just that have run out of gas after traveling just a few miles.

"I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate. ... The White House is won in the swing states and I am winning the swing states."
-- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) during her victory speech Tuesday night in West Virginia.

The debate over whether or not Clinton can best Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the Democratic nomination is all but over; the endorsement of Obama by former senator and two-time presidential candidate John Edwards (N.C.) late Wednesday was yet more evidence that conventional wisdom assumes this race to be nearing a conclusion.

That said, is Clinton right about the general election? Would she be the stronger Democrat to run against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)? There's no easy answer to that question, but those are just the sort of questions The Fix is most intrigued by.

Let's start with the fundamentals.

While the presidential election is cast as a national race, those in the know have always seen it as a series of contests often fought in a dozen (or so) traditional battleground states. The existence of the Electoral College adds another layer of complexity -- running up the vote in a state or states that are solidly in hand for one party or the other is far less important that winning (even if by only a handful of votes) in the so-called "swing states."

So, the best way to analyze whether Clinton would indeed be a stronger general election candidate than Obama is to take a look state by state at the playing field on which the race will be fought in November.

Each party has a group of states that -- barring some sort of fundamental political realignment -- should go safely for whichever candidate is nominated.

For McCain, that list includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona (a potentially competitive state typically but the Republican nominee's home state), Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Those states total 132 electoral votes.

For Clinton and Obama, the list includes: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Those states total 165 electoral votes.

Once you get beyond those two sets of states, 22 total states remain -- about two-thirds of which are almost certain to be competitive regardless of the identity of the Democratic nominee. The remainder would likely only be competitive under a specific candidate scenario.

Let's take those latter states first. If Obama is the nominee, it's likely his campaign plays in the non-traditional battlegrounds of Kansas, Montana, North Carolina and North Dakota -- states totaling 27 electoral votes. It's hard to see how Clinton could make a serious play in any of those four. By the same token, Clinton would likely run real campaigns in West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee (30 electoral votes) where Obama would not likely do so.

When you total up the traditional state strongholds for each party and the potential growth areas for Clinton and Obama, it's essentially a wash.

That means that the 14 states likely to be competitive between McCain and either Obama or Clinton form the crux of the New York senator's argument that she gives Democrats a better chance of reclaiming the White House in the fall.

A glance at these 14 states -- and the polling to date in each -- suggests that Clinton is clearly the stronger Democrat in three: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That trio of states, which includes the two central battlegrounds in the 2000 and 2004 presidential contests, have 68 electoral votes between them.

Obama would seem to have a discernible edge over Clinton in six states: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. These states have a total of 57 electoral votes.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can make an air-tight case that she (or he) would be stronger against McCain in Maine (4 electoral votes), Michigan (17), Missouri (11), New Hampshire (4) and New Mexico (5).

Taken as a whole, Clinton's argument that she is the stronger potential general election candidate against McCain is true -- to a point. She is stronger -- although not by much -- if the playing field in 2008 is a mirror image of the battlegrounds of 2004 and 2000. Clinton, at the moment, is more strongly positioned to win in three states -- Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio -- that have decided the winner in the last two presidential contests.

But that argument only holds if you believe two things: First, that the playing field will be essentially unchanged between 2000/2004 and 2008 and, second, that current polling is an accurate predictor of what things will look like in November.

On the first point, Obama's campaign insists that the idea of a static group of battleground states between 2004 and 2008 is old thinking and misunderstands the nature of Obama's candidacy. Campaign manager David Plouffe has insisted that places like North Carolina and North Dakota could be competitive due to the unique appeal of Obama's change message. (The Fix is somewhat skeptical of this argument, but time will tell.)

On the second, it's difficult to predict whether Obama's inability to win primaries in Ohio, Pennylvania and West Virginia against Clinton will translate into weakness in a general election when voters are faced with the choice between the Illinois senator and McCain. Current general election polls in each of the states (as well as Florida) show Clinton as the stronger candidate. But if Clinton is removed from the race, it seems likely that some of those voters who are skeptical about Obama will ultimately come home.

Just how many Democratic-leaning voters defect to McCain is the key question. And, as of today, it's impossible to know.

Put simply: A traditional and static map would seem to affirm Clinton's argument. A changing battlefield with a series of newly competitive states plays to Obama's strengths. Which one do you believe is the more likely scenario this fall?

Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) decision to endorse Sen.Barack Obama's (Ill.) presidential candidacy is sure to draw wall-to-wall media coverage over the next 12 hours or so.

Barack Obama, right, is joined by former Democratic presidential hopeful, John Edwards, at a rally Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Mich. (AP Photo)

But, what impact -- in practical terms -- will it have for Obama's chance at both the Democratic nomination and the presidency?

The short answer is: less than you might think.

As we've seen time and time again throughout the 2008 presidential race, endorsements -- even those as high profile as this one -- have less impact than initially thought.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's (Mass.) endorsement of Obama was covered as though it would effectively end the race, but in the end the Illinois senator wound up losing Massachusetts to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on Feb. 5. Outgoing Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (D) was a major Clinton backer, but his support didn't keep the New York senator from finishing in third place in the state.

The general rule of thumb on endorsements is that even the most popular politician struggles to transfer his or her base of supporters en masse to another candidate.

That's not to say, however, that Edwards's endorsement is meaningless.

As always, we use The Fix Endorsement Hierarchy to better understand what it means and why.

Edwards's endorsement of Obama fits easily into the top tier of all endorsements -- the symbolic endorsement. As we wrote in our original Endorsement Hierarchy post, the symbolic endorsement is the "most coveted of all because it is not simply the typical pat on the back and photo-op, but rather it signifies something larger about a candidate."

In this case, Edwards's support for Obama symbolizes the former North Carolina senator's belief that his one-time rival is the de facto nominee and is ready for the office to which he aspires.

Edwards, one of the few major party figures to remain on the sidelines for much of the nomination fight since dropping out Jan. 30, is clearly seeking to assert himself as a party poo-bah in signaling his belief that Obama is and should be the nominee.

That decision could theoretically influence other undecided superdelegates looking for cover to announce their support for Obama. The argument goes that if such a major figure as Edwards is comfortable publicly endorsing Obama, the race must for all intents and purposes be over, so now is the time to get behind the nominee.

That said, Obama was the presumptive Democratic nominee before Edwards's endorsement and he will have that same status after it.

The other major implication of Edwards's endorsement of Obama is that it may well help to foster something of a detente between the Illinois senator and working-class voters who
have shown very little inclination to date to support Obama over Clinton.

Throughout the 2008 primary season, Edwards, a wealthy trial lawyer, demonstrated his appeal with that group of voters -- heavily targeting his up-from-the-bootstraps message at that group to prove he was one of them and was best positioned to represent their interests in the White House.

While the strategy ultimately fell short, Edwards' populist message and support among middle and lower-middle class voters pushed him to a second-place finish in Iowa and his current status as a spokesman for that often-overlooked bloc. (Despite having dropped out of the race months ago, Edwards still received seven percent of the vote last night in West Virginia, not a bad showing when considering that Obama took just 26 percent.)

At issue is whether Edwards's endorsement will fundamentally alter the way in which working- class voters view Obama. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is making a major push for these so-called "Reagan Democrats" and, if Obama's showing last night in West Virginia is any indication, he has a long way to go before he can claim these voters as his own.

Will Edwards' backing help in that cause? Sure. But, remember that Edwards has been out of the race -- and the limelight -- for months now and his endorsement doesn't matter as much as it might have three months ago or even one month ago.

Make no mistake: Both Clinton and Obama worked hard for and wanted Edwards's support. But, his endorsement alone does not -- and will not -- drastically affect the race.

Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) will endorse Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) tonight in Grand Rapids, Michigan, ending a long period of neutrality for the two-time presidential candidate and giving the Illinois senator another boost of momentum as he draws ever closer to the nomination.

The endorsement was confirmed by a source familiar with Edwards' thinking.

Edwards has long been courted by both Obama and Clinton as he built a considerable constituency during his two unsuccessful runs for president. Edwards' strength was among rural and working class voters -- Obama's weakest area of support to date in the primary.

Edwards had largely disappeared from the political scene since dropping from the race in late January amid money troubles and daunting odds of ousting Clinton and Obama from their perches in the top tier.

In the immediate aftermath of Edwards' decision to drop from the race, both Clinton and Obama made a pilgrimage to North Carolina to huddle with the former candidate and make their pitch for his support.

By all accounts, those meetings left Edwards genuinely undecided. Obama's message of change and his call to end the influence peddling in Washington were clearly an obvious fit for Edwards' sympathies, but he retained some lingering concerns about Obama's depth of experience. Clinton, on the other hand, had considerable experience but struggled to represent the sort of change that Edwards believed was necessary to win the nomination.

Rumors flew for months about Edwards's leaning although of late it had been expected that if he endorsed a candidate, it would be Obama.

Matt Bennett, a former Clinton Administration official, described Edwards as the "troubadour of the working class" and said the North Carolina senator's endorsement of Obama makes it "tougher for Clinton to make the case that working class Democrats can't [or] won't support Obama."

During his 2004 bid for president, Edwards focused his campaign message almost exclusively on middle-class and lower middle-class people -- insisting that his southern roots, his father's experience as a mill worker and his own up from the bootstraps success story uniquely positioned him to represent their interests in the White House.

Edwards's populism found root in Iowa as he managed a second-place finish in the state's caucuses despite being dramatically outspent by Clinton and Obama in the state. Edwards was unable to rekindle that magic in either Nevada or New Hampshire and, in his home state of South Carolina, his third-place finish in late January effectively ended his campaign.

Despite coming up short in two consecutive presidential elections, Edwards -- and his wife, Elizabeth -- remain beloved figures among the party's loose conglomeration of online activists -- known as the netroots -- as well as many within the liberal wing of the party.

Aside from the obvious demographic benefits an Edwards endorsement could have, his decision to throw his backing behind Obama also has symbolic import. Edwards is widely seen as one of the major party figures who had remained on the sidelines in the race between Clinton and Obama. That he has stepped in to the fray in hopes of, perhaps, bringing this race to an end should send a powerful signal to undecided superdelegates about the direction of the contest.

Former senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a major Obama backer, told CNN: "I think John Edwards is a tremendous national leader and obviously it's no seceret that we've been trying to get his support, his endorsement, his supporters, his counsel as we go through the balance of this campaign for a long period of time."

"All I know is that it's very, very important that as we go forwards, we unite this party," Daschle added. "John and Elizabeth Edwards have a tremendous following in our party. The more we can unite along with their leadership and their followership, the better off our party and the better off Barack Obama is going to be in November."

Another primary night is in the books. But for once, it was a House race -- a special election in Mississippi -- not the presidential contest that served to surprise.

Hillary Rodham Clinton won a massive -- albeit expected -- 41-point victory over Barack Obama in West Virginia's Democratic primary, a result that is likely to keep Clinton in the contest all the way until June 3 but is not likely to change the overall fundamentals that have installed Obama as the presumptive nominee.

But it was a special election down South that had tongues wagging among political insiders in Washington. Democrat Travis Childers's win in the state's conservative 1st District was a huge stunner, as the race was barely on either party's radar screen a few months ago. It marked the third Republican seat that Democrats have won in special elections this cycle and is widely being interpreted as a sign of things to come in the fall.

Below you'll find The Fix's May 13 winners and losers -- the obvious and the not-so-obvious. Agree or disagree with our picks? Have winners and losers of your own? The comments section awaits.

WINNERS

Hillary Clinton: We usually avoid picking the most obvious winners (or losers), but it's hard not to include the New York senator after her showing in West Virginia. She endured a week of press coverage that concluded the race was over, only to score a 41-point victory -- a stunning result given the context. She followed up the victory with a terrific speech in which she laid out in stark terms her case to superdelegates. Will either the win or the speech change the ultimate outcome? Almost certainly not. But Clinton has proven -- yet again -- her resilience and resoluteness.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: There's no question that the national political environment played a powerful role in Democratic special election victories in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi. But to underestimate the role of the DCCC in the wins is a mistake. The House campaign arm recruited credible candidates in each of the districts and funded extensive independent expenditure operations. By laying the recruitment and financial groundwork, the DCCC ensured it would be in position to strike when opportunity arose. As a result, the Democrats' House majority is three seats larger today than it was after the 2006 election.

John Anzalone: The Alabama-based pollster is the hottest commodity in the consultant business these days. Anzalone handled polling for Childers as well as Rep. Don Cazayoux, who won the Louisiana 6th District special election earlier this month. Among the other candidates in Anzalone's stable: State Sen. Kay Hagan, who is challenging Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) this fall; and state Sen. Debbie Halvorson, the odds-on favorite in the open-seat race in Illinois's 11th District.

Robert Byrd: The legendary Democratic senator from West Virginia got a shout-out from Clinton in her speech last night, despite the fact he has yet to endorse either of his party's candidates for president. In addition, Anne Barth, a longtime Byrd aide, easily won the Democratic primary in the state's 2nd Congressional District and moves on to face Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) in a potentially competitive general-election race.

John Denver: First, a mention in The Fix. Then, Clinton uses the "almost heaven" line to open her victory speech. What a day!

LOSERS

"Obama as Anchor" Advocates: For the second straight special election, Republicans and their affiliated groups sought to hang Obama around the neck of the Democratic candidate. And for the second straight time, it didn't work. Before Obama allies begin celebrating, however, remember that Childers publicly made clear that Obama had not endorsed his campaign and that the two candidates had no contact -- not exactly a ringing endorsement for the party's presumptive nominee. Still, what the last few weeks have shown is that tying Democratic candidates to Obama is not the silver bullet strategy that many Republicans had hoped. Back to the drawing board.

Tom Cole: The Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee isn't entirely to blame for his party's three straight special-election losses. The political environment is toxic for Republicans and, as a result, candidate recruitment and fundraising are nowhere near where they should be at this stage of the game. Regardless, Cole is likely to bear the brunt of the blame over the next few days as House Republicans search for some way to see their way through the current morass. Cole acknowledged the tenuousness of his party's standing with voters in a remarkably frank statement released last night; "the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general," said Cole. "Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for."

Jay Rockefeller/Nick Rahall: Both Rockefeller, the Mountain State's junior senator, and Rahall, who has represented West Virginia's 3rd District since 1976, endorsed Obama over Clinton in the nomination fight. While no one -- not even Rockefeller or Rahall -- expected Obama to carry the state, his 25.7 percent of the vote was lower than almost anyone imagined. What does it mean for the political futures of Rockefeller and Rahall? Probably nothing. But it's never good to appear that out of step with your constituents.

Nebraska: With all the focus on the presidential primary in West Virginia and the House special election in Mississippi, little ol' Nebraska got short shrift in the coverage. In case you care (and we readily admit you may not), former governor Mike Johanns (R) and 2006 3rd District candidate Scott Kleeb (D) cruised to their respective party nominations for race to succeed Sen. Chuck Hagel (R). And yes Nebraskans, The Fix was watching!

This is the first installment of a new occasional, collaborative feature between The Fix and Capitol Briefing. When interesting political news happens, we'll exchange a series of e-mails offering (we hope) trenchant analysis of "what it means" along with some informed, witty banter. Please let us know, via the comments sections of both blogs, what you think of the new feature.

UPDATE, 3:35 pm: Ben replied to my question about the possibility of another Democratic wave in 2008 by writing "Republicans will lose A LOT of seats in November unless they can figure out how to completely divorce themselves from President Bush's record and legacy."

Can that be done? Here's The Fix response:

Dear Ben,

Re-branding the Republican party isn't a task that can be accomplished in its entirety between now and November. But, Republicans have to figure out a way to start that process immediately or an election disaster seems imminent.

On a conference call with reporters this afternoon, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole again and again said that GOP candidates should follow Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) lead in terms of redefining what it means to be a Republican, which, of course, is a nice way of saying finding ways to distance himself from President Bush.

McCain has had two high profile breaks with the Bush Administration of late -- on global warming and the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Neither are issues that would seem natural fits for the average House member but it's a start.

My suggestion for House Republicans: Figure out what you stand for and, as a group, roll out that vision over the next few months. The root of Republican successes in the 1980s and 1990s was that their organizing principles could be boiled down into four words: Less government, lower taxes. That message has been diluted and convoluted over the years to the point where many voters -- even those with GOP tendencies -- have no idea what the party believes at its core.

Ben, I'm interested in what you think the two or three core issues Republicans should use to united an obviously fractured party. Or do you think such agreement is impossible in this political climate and a go-it-alone strategy is the only one that will work?

Eagerly awaiting your thoughts, I remain,
The Fix

ORIGINAL POST

Ben Pershing (of Capitol Briefing fame) started the conversation off by posing three questions about last night's results.

From Ben's post:

1) The "Wave" Angle. Look out, because we're about to be hit by, well, a wave of "wave" stories. We both know that reporters love groups of three, so three special election wins means the press will be writing today and tomorrow all about the possibility that Democrats are going to put dozens more seemingly safe Republican seats in play this fall and build up an old-school supermajority.

2) The Obama Angle. Republicans tried their best to tie Childers to Barack Obama. It didn't work. That's after they tried to tie Don Cazayoux to Obama in the Louisiana special election race. That didn't work either. Obama's campaign absolutely loves this.

3) The Tom Cole Angle. Tom Cole, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has definitely had better months than May 2008. He's losing GOP seats, and spending a lot of his precious cash in the process. He's had his critics since he got this job last year, and now they'll be out for blood.

And, now for The Fix response:

Dear Ben:

To my mind, there's no better day than the day AFTER an election. There's numbers to sort, spin to sift through and conclusions to be drawn.

So, let's get to it.

The three questions rightly summarize the three possible narratives that could emerge from the vote in Mississippi last night, which, no matter what Republicans are saying today, was an unmitigated disaster for their party.

Given their previous losses in Illinois' 14th district and Louisiana's 6th district -- both seats that clearly favored their party -- Republicans should rightly be concerned about double-digit losses at the ballot box this fall.

I did a little bit of research on Mississippi's 1st district over the weekend to try to get an accurate read on just how Republican it is. The Cook Political Report -- a Fix alma mater -- produces something called the Partisan Voting Index, a system that compares all House districts to one another based on their vote for president. That comparison produces a PVI score; if a district, for example, carries a PVI of D+5, it means that the seat voted five points more Democratic than the nation as a whole. Mississippi's 1st has a PVI of R+10; only seven (now eight) Democrats represent districts with a PVI score of R+10 or higher.

That's a long-winded way of saying that, if last night is any indication, Democrats may have a MUCH broader field of targets this fall than we previously thought.

Assuming the results in Mississippi are no fluke, here's a few GOP-held districts that may well be more competitive than previously imagined: Louisiana's 4th, Florida's 21st, Maryland's 1st, Missouri's 9th and New Mexico's 2nd.

Combine a wider target list with the large number of Republican incumbents already heading into retirement (26 and counting) as well as the massive cash edge the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has over its GOP counterpart and a double-digit seat gain for Democrats starts to seem like a real possibility.

It's too early to predict a wave but something is going on in the water out there.

Over to you, Ben.

Sincerely,
The Fix

Hillary Rodham Clinton's convincing victory over Barack Obama Tuesday in West Virginia's Democratic primary virtually ensures that she will remain in the race through the formal end of the nomination fight in June, despite her decidedly long odds of winning her party's nod.

Barack Obama smiles as he is introduced at a Tuesday town hall meeting at Thorngate Ltd., in Cape Girardeau, Mo. (AP Photo)

So, with at least three weeks left in the nomination fight, Obama must find ways to ensure nothing catastrophic happens in the primary race while also pivoting toward the general election fight to come against John McCain.

McCain has been his party's de facto nominee since mid-February and, since that time, has worked to distance himself from President Bush on several high profile issues -- most notably the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how to confront the problem of global warming.

With McCain already several months along in his general election strategy, the pressure for Obama to hit the ground running is heightened. Seeking to compile a list of specific steps Obama could take in the next few months to do just that, The Fix chatted with a wide cross-section of Democratic operatives with a vested interest in seeing Obama strengthen his hand as much as possible in the next few months. Most of the consultants were granted anonymity so that they could speak more freely.

The suggestions -- as well as The Fix's own thoughts -- fell generally into a few broad categories. Agree or disagree with the thoughts listed below? Have your own ideas for the Obama campaign? The comments section is open for business.

* A Middle East Pilgrimage: Obama continues to face questions about his commitment to the Jewish community -- questions he needs to resolve and resolve quickly. For months, Obama has been engaged in largely low profile outreach -- huddling with reporters for Jewish publications, meeting with small groups of Jewish leaders to reassure them and granting a recent interview to The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg to directly address questions about Israel and Hamas among other topics. But a more high profile gesture -- in the form of a trip to Israel as well as Egypt and Jordan -- could help dispense with concerns among Jewish leaders. One Democratic consultant suggested the symbolism of Obama at Yad Vashem would send a far more powerful message about his commitment to the Jewish community than a series of speeches on the issue. (UPDATE, 12:15 pm: The Obama campaign notes that their candidate has already been to Yad Vashem and even provided a picture of the event.)

* Blow the Caps?: Obama has wavered somewhat about whether or not he will participate in the public financing system in the general election. McCain is playing within the system and, if Obama opts out, is likely to use it as a way to show that the Illinois senator says one thing or does another. On the other hand, Obama has demonstrated during the primary season a nearly unlimited fundraising capacity and, if he chooses to take public dollars, he could be unnecessarily handcuffing himself. The news that Obama's finance chair urged its donors to focus on donating and raising hard money rather than funding soft money, 527 organizations seems to suggest Obama has already made his decision in favor of opting out of the system. Either way, the sooner Obama makes his choice the more time the various organizations seeking to help elect him can make their own financial plans.

* Revisit the Rust Belt: While Obama's losses in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are not going to keep him from winning the Democratic nomination, his demonstrated struggles in those states to win rural, blue collar, white voters is of concern when it comes to the general election. To a person, the consultants and strategists I spoke with said that Obama should find a way to visit (and then visit again, and then again) states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. One intriguing suggestion: Launch a series of "Ask Barack" forums in which the candidate takes on all comers, seeking to answer questions about issues like religion and patriotism that could be major hurdles in a general election. Another suggestion: Share a meal with working class voters -- maybe via a visit to a workplace at lunchtime.

* Big Rhetoric, Big Ideas: No one who has followed the primaries with even a passing interest would question Obama's unique speech-giving ability. But many within the party worry that Obama is open to attacks that while he gives a good speech he has few specific ideas to back up that rhetoric. To counter that messaging, Obama should take on big issues -- affirmative action, Social Security, education -- with serious policy fixes that map out a path to addressing these long-standing problems. Is it a risk? Yes. But if 2008 is truly a change election, then the country is at a moment where a candidate can prosper by outlining policies to address the big issues of our times.

* Take Five: For the last 18 months (or so), Obama and his top campaign staff have been working nonstop to craft what will go down as one of the biggest upsets in the history of modern primary campaigns. Nick Baldick, who managed John Edwards's presidential campaign in 2004, advocates a break in the action. "Before the next stretch run, they should take a couple of weekends off," said Baldick. In that same vein, several strategists suggested some changes in Obama's inner circle -- not because of problems at the top but rather to ensure that the same level of energy and activity that led to Obama's all-but-certain primary victory is carried on in the general election. One Democratic operative cast such a staff shuffle as a "tune up" rather than an "overhaul."

* Pull Back the Curtain: Unlike congressional races, a vote for president is more relational than transactional. Voters aren't looking for a presidential candidate to deliver on any one specific promise. Rather, they are trying to gauge the measure of the men (or women) who are seeking the nation's highest office. Voters like to feel as though the person they are supporting in the presidential race understands them and their concerns. Obama, to date, has largely flown at 10,000 feet; it might be time to campaign at ground level for a while. Maybe a few more games of basketball with voters, trips to a NASCAR event (or two), a tour of state fairs over the summer. As one Democratic consultant put it: "Look like you're really enjoying being with people, eating corndogs etc. ... You've got a killer smile -- use it!"

Following Sen. Hillary Clinton's (N.Y.) convincing victory tonight in West Virginia she delivered a defiant speech in which she insisted that the outcome of the Democratic nomination fight remained very much in doubt.

"I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard," said Clinton at her victory rally in Charleston, West Virginia. "I can win this nomination if you decide I should."

Clinton also reiterated her argument that she is the better candidate to win back the White House in the fall. "I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate," she said, adding: "The White House is won in the swing states and I am winning the swing states."

Regardless of which candidate you support, does that argument move you? Why or why not?