P.M. Carpenter

Events move too quickly. I was prepared to write this morning only about the GOP's increasingly sticky wicket and what it portends when John Edwards, with daring belatedness, up and endorsed his party's surefire nominee last night and thereby became the political centerpiece du jour. I wish he had checked with me first; but that's OK, I'll fit him in.

Actually, unlike the hordes of talking heads that crawled before a camera to wax profoundly on the Edwards endorsement, I question how much of real

Look at it this way: West Virginia's combined Democratic vote last night -- in a primary -- was roughly 25,000 more than what John Kerry generated there in the general election of 2004.

Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Now, does it mean anything? I haven't a clue. Nor does any other political scribe this morning, but it's the sort of analytical entree they'll have you feasting on throughout the day, most commonly served with side dishes

Well, technically speaking, there is another 'Stop-Obama' primary today, so I suppose it's incumbent on me to say something about it. But come to think of it, John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times offered on "Meet the Press" last Sunday what I thought was a judicious appraisal in response to Tim Russert's first question to his panel: "Is Obama going to be the nominee?" Said Harwood:

"Tim, let me qualify that this way.... Stuff could happen to Barack Obama. If

I don't know which side is feeling more desperate: the McCain camp for having proposed the idea of a series of "unmoderated debates" throughout the summer, or the Obama camp for having seemingly accepted it.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

True, it's a vastly appealing idea -- the New York Times calls it "a sign of what could be an extremely unusual fall campaign"; "an idea that is by any mea

Rare is the occasion that Fred Barnes can brighten. But on the occasion of this morning, this he has done, with his latest addition to the Weekly Standard titled, "Gloomy Republicans: For good reason?"

After reading it, one can only assume the question mark was inserted by other WS editors as an afterthought of readership appeasement, because Barnes leaves little doubt -- for numerous, and

This morning we have a tie in the stumbling-around, lost-bearings contest: John McCain and the New York Times.

Yesterday, straight-talkin' McCain again accused Barack Obama of being in the ideological pocket of the terrorist organization Hamas, an accusation based solely on an unsolicited comment made by one of Hamas' advisers in a radio interview last month: "We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election."

Being ill content with 

"Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.... Whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There’s a pattern emerging here."

No, that wasn't Orval Faubus speaking, and you haven't been transported back to the Arkansas politics of 1957. Instead, you have entered the modern sewer of Clintonland, where anything goes and it commonly stinks to high heaven.

I'm su

In describing -- or dismissing -- Hillary Clinton’s "endgame" as "a fond wish wrapped in a desperate hope," The Politico's Roger Simon granted her a narrow opening and closed it at the same time.

His piece following Hillary's North Carolina and Indiana losses -- admit it, buckaroos, Indiana was a loss -- "Clinton desperate for super turnaround," was written in the present tense; so when he ventured that "she needs momentum, spin and fear" to transf