A Political story discusses the large number of Pennsylvania voters switching party registration from Republican to Democrat:

That statewide Democratic surge has been accompanied by a flood of party-switching. More than 178,000 voters have changed their party status since January — and the Democrats have captured 92 percent of those voters.
. . .
Those party-switchers now represent about 7 percent of the roughly 2 million Democratic voters expected to turnout Tuesday, said [Terry] Madonna.

Which candidate does this help? The Politico analysis infers the switching is concentrated in areas that benefit Obama:

For instance, about 143,400 Democratic newcomers – including newly registered and party switchers — are in Philadelphia and its suburbs. Those numbers could help Obama rack up big margins in what is considered his strongest turf.
About 28,400 of them are in or around Pittsburgh, an urban area Clinton needs to counter Obama’s Philly support. Another 30,000 of them hail from the generally smaller, conservative counties in the state’s northwest and southwest, a region that Clinton is hoping to draw Reagan Democrats back to the party and to her cause.

There’s also a poll of these switchers which purports to give Obama the edge:

A poll [Franklin & Marshall College Poll] of those switchers and new registrants released by Madonna last week found that Obama was the preferred candidate for 62 percent of them. Clinton insiders said they are also bracing for the same 60-40 split among newly registered Democrats.

I’m not going to put much weight on either of these indicators. I think this is a hard phenomenon to measure and thus I’ll wait for the exit polling to sort it out.
It’s been amusing listening to comedian Rush Limbaugh puff himself up for weeks with his so-called “Operation Chaos,” wherein he directs listeners to cross over and vote for Senator Clinton. One wonders how he can credibly claim to be influencing the Democratic primaries, when he obviously had very little impact in his own party’s primaries. Perhaps that’s the point–to mask his earlier failed effort to shape the election.

I only caught the last half hour or so of the ABC debate the other night in Philadelphia. At the time, I thought it very curious that the questioners only allowed a minute to discuss high gasoline prices. After all, that’s one of the primary issues you hear most people complaining about these days. Shouldn’t the topic be given a greater emphasis than a throw-away question near the end of the evening?
Turns I actually caught the more substantive part of the debate. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos wasted most of the evening focusing on what D.C. pundits are chattering about rather than what American voters are talking about.
Earlier I criticized the candidates for wasting time talking about silly, non-issues rather than the big problems America faces. And it’s true that the campaigns have been pushing these type of stories.
But what I neglected to mention, and what was evidently and painfully on display Wednesday, was the national news media’s responsibility in dumbing down our electoral process.
Let’s face it, candidates, being “rational” actors, are going to respond to media coverage which they believe is giving them a competitive advantage. If there’s a story out that a candidate believes is hurting his or her opponent, that candidate has an incentive to keep it alive as long as the news is going to keep talking about it.
How has the main-stream media been handling its responsibility of shaping the electoral conversation? Just look Wednesday night. In an era of teetering financial institutions, falling home values, rising energy costs, and a fiasco in Iraq, could a debate host come up with a lamer issue than a flag pin? You’d have to try to come up with a stupider question than that.
And yet these are the things the beltway pundit class apparently believes our elections should turn on.
UPDATE: Jon Stewart, quoted at Crooks and Liars:

The first hour of last night’s debate was a 60 minute master class in questions that elevate out-of-context remarks and trivial, insipid miscues into subjects of natural discourse…which is my job! Stop doing my job! That’s what I’m here for! I’m the silly man!

Kidding aside, I suspect Stewart could have done a better job than the “serious” news people who were running the show Wednesday night.

I was riding my bicycle along Neyland Drive yesterday evening and looked up the access ramp as I rode underneath the Buck Karnes (Alcoa Highway/Highway 129) Bridge. I noticed construction barrels stacked along the side of what appeared to be a bicycle lane leading up to the bridge.
Could the bicycle/pedestrian lane project that I had read about be completed?
I turned around and went up the ramp. Sure enough, the lane is finished–or at least it appears to be. All the construction machinery has been removed, leaving a smoothly-paved lane spanning the bridge. Designers appear to have done a fairly good job with the lane (a few construction pictures are currently available here). There is a concrete barrier on the highway side so you feel sufficiently isolated from the oncoming traffic. The vertical railing on the river side does not over-obstruct the scenery.
I rode across the Tennessee River just as the Star of Knoxville riverboat was paddling underneath. It’s a nice view from up there.
I went to the other side of the river and spent a few minutes exploring the old service roads that the path connects to. The problem is that there currently aren’t many riding options on the south side. Cherokee Trail isn’t very bicycle-friendly, and there aren’t any other thru-roads in that area. I understand the longer-range plan is for the greenway to be extended to Marine Park, and eventually on into Blount County. But there’s not much there for now.
Nonetheless, the bridge bike lane extension is a welcomed improvement in the non-motorized infrastructure. I hope to see more of this kind of progress.

Although Senator Obama all but mathematically clinched a plurality of the elected Democratic delegates for the nomination weeks ago, I’ve resisted suggesting that the race is over and that Senator Clinton should gracefully exit. Generally speaking, I’m for meaningful state primaries and against media-driven pressure for candidates to quit races.
That, of course, is premised on the assumption that the campaigns are offering voters meaningful policy choices. Unfortunately, that’s not what we are getting. The two candidates offer quite similar agendas. So, instead of this being a contest on which direction our nation should take, it’s often descended into contest revolving around who does a better job apologizing for something or renouncing a supporter.
This brouhaha regarding Senator Obama’s comment on “bitter” Americans is but the latest example. What has this episode reveled about who is best equipped to solve problems? Does anyone really think that Senator Clinton, whose family reported $100+ million in income since leaving the White House, is any more in touch with average Americans than Senator Obama is, simply because she fired a gun when she was a kid? Is this the kind of thing that makes her more qualified to be commander-in-chief?
We’ve got some serious issues for the next president. For example:

“Food Inflation, Riots Spark Worries for World Leaders“

Jesse Eisinger adds:

From the moment the next president takes office, one issue will overwhelm all others: the American financial crisis. The Federal Reserve has been taking extraordinary measures for more than half a year to contain the spreading misery, including recently brokering the bailout of Bear Stearns. But the damage continues to spread.
Is it that bad? Well, yes. The threat now is to the foundation of our economic structure. Faith in the financial system is crumbling. Because of the scope of the problem, dealing with its aftermath will dominate the next president’s entire agenda.

I could add more, but you get the point. We’ve got serious storm clouds on the horizon. If we must carry on this Democratic nomination battle, the candidates should be focusing on those issues, not playing silly rhetorical games.

A lot of people in Washington DC are regurgitating talking points regarding Iraq today. So why not join in?
There’s plenty of debate regarding “victory” or “winning” in Iraq. What do those words mean?
Here’s my definition:

America will be on the path toward success in Iraq when we are able to remove a substantial number of American troops (more than 50%) without the country descending into chaos.

Five years into the conflict and I’m still waiting to see signs that we are anywhere close to victory.