McCain: Grey Cell Green.

“I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.” Wait…John McCain was a POW? Who knew? (And how big of him to run the first completely selfless and ego-free presidential campaign in American History. A true patriot, he.)

I suppose I should’ve gotten my post up about McCain’s speech some time yesterday…but, really, what’s the rush? However well-watched, John McCain’s nomination address to the nation on Thursday night felt like a virtual political non-event. [Transcript.] I mean, c’mon now: I sat through three days of mind-numbing inanity and blatant falsehoods, distasteful 9/11 videos and endless surge talk, for this? (By the way, memo to Lindsey Graham, Tom Ridge, and anyone who happens to buy into the oft-repeated line of argument that “McCain was right in Iraq because of the surge.” Our recent involvement there began several years earlier, with McCain cheering on Dubya’s idiotic invasion and boasting of an easy victory. Remember that?)

Now I don’t think the speech was as woefully terrible as some — it was probably better than his last greenscreen speech, for example. (I am struck by the fact that today’s decaying GOP is so sickly it can’t even manage to exploit veterans for political gain properly anymore. What happened to you guys?) But, to my mind, Sen. McCain’s remarks definitely didn’t get the job done, unless — like me — you think the job that needs doing right now is getting Barack Obama elected to the Oval Office.

The most affecting moments of McCain’s speech were, naturally, in his discussion of his POW experience, and if the Republicans hadn’t beaten this point into the ground over the past few days, his retelling of those dark days might’ve packed a real emotional wollop. (“After I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.“) But, after all the reveling of late in McCain’s horrible stay in the Hanoi Hilton, and all the attendant plaudits to military heroism and sacrifice, country first etc. etc. served up as sides by the GOP during thus, McCain’s humdrum delivery of an otherwise subpar nomination address reminded me of nothing so much as another praiseworthy war hero wounded in his nation’s service: Bob Dole.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a nomination address in today’s GOP without some highly dubious propositions therein:

“A word to Sen. Obama and his supporters. We’ll go at it over the next two months. That’s the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration.” Oh, really? After several days of throwing chum in the water to get the fundies fired up, particularly on Wednesday night, this hail-fellow-well-met bow to the opposition felt ludicrous. You can’t have it both ways, y’all.

“And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: Change is coming.” As you know, and as Sen. Obama noted last week, McCain voted with Dubya a whopping 95% of the time. That’s not change we can believe in. And just because the president’s name went unmentioned over the past few days doesn’t mean we all just up and forgot about his awfulness.

“I’ve fought corruption, and it didn’t matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans.” Uh, unless those Dems and Republicans were doing business with Charles Keating. Ok, that may be a bit under the belt, but the fact remains: His opposition to pork barrel spending aside, McCain was mostly AWOL in the recent fights against GOP corruption that marked DC during Boss DeLay’s rule. His campaign is veritably drowning in lobbyists. Like so much else that once made McCain a relatively appealing figure, even his well-known advocacy of campaign finance reform has been thrown under the bus of late. And derailing the Alaskan probe into Palin’s illegal firings for electoral purposes is emphatically not fighting corruption.

And so on. I’d spend more time picking McCain’s address apart if I thought it had been in any way effective. But, the POW-section notwithstanding, it felt rote as written and rote as delivered, and — in opposition just as in support — it was a hard speech to get all that fired up about. With Sen. Obama up in the states he needs and Dems mobilizing new voters all across the board, McCain needed a real gamechanger Thursday night. (Imho, the automatic dispenser of lousy headlines that is Sarah Palin is just going to keep backfiring, and the party of Lincoln continues to toy with the disgusting “Uppity Sambo” card at their peril.) In short, he didn’t get it.

There’ll be a bump — there always is. But, to my mind, John McCain’s climb just got a whole a lot steeper. Barring some monumental revelation, egregious debate flub, or international incident over the next two months, it’s hard to see McCain getting any closer to victory in 2008 than he is right now. And over the next eight weeks, I would nevertheless expect a lot of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, perhaps momentarily flush with good feeling for McCain, to think it over, remember the past seven years, look over at Sarah Palin in the veep slot, and decide to put their country first…by voting for Sen. Barack Obama for president.

Underneath the Bunker.

“In the bunker there exists a different reality. In the bunker, Hillary is the winner: of the popular vote, of a series of big swing states, of the authentic American vote. In the bunker, Hillary is introduced by the indefatiguable Terry McAuliffe as ‘the next President of the United States!’ When asked about the reality outside the bunker — that Obama supporters were in a minor rage over Hillary’s speech — McAuliffe looked at me incredulously. ‘Tonight was Hillary’s night!’ he exclaimed. ‘We won tonight! We won in South Dakota! We keep winning!‘”

Sigh. Or, put another way via R.E.M.’s Life’s Rich Pageant: “I will hide and you will hide, and we shall hide together here. Underneath the bunkers in the row. I have water, I have rum. Wait for dawn and dawn shall come, Underneath the bunkers in the row.“

Also, on McAuliffe’s point about it being “Hillary’s night,” see Jeffrey Toobin on CNN yesterday, referring to “the deranged narcissism of the Clintons.” They really don’t make it easy to cut them a break.

Update: The endgame is now Saturday: “Clinton will host an event in Washington on Saturday ‘to thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity,’ according to Howard Wolfson, who did not explicitly state that Clinton is dropping out of the race. But other campaign officials said the event will coincide with her departure, despite her earlier reservations about stepping aside.” Well, better late than never.

Deep in the Heart of Texas.

In case you missed it, debate No. 19, held in Austin, TX, came and went this evening. (Transcript.) My quick take: Not all that much news made here, and, as a tie goes to the defender, that’s a win for Barack Obama.

The big question coming in tonight was whether, after losing eleven contests in a row, Sen. Clinton would go into relentless-attack-mode (as desired by Mark Penn) or instead try to reassert her positives and perhaps prepare for a dignified exit to the race (as advised by Mandy Grunwald.) Well, the answer turned out to be yes. The first forty-five minutes or so were civil, agreeable, and thoroughly stultifying, basically a duller continuation of the LA debate of three weeks ago. Then, in the middle going, Sen. Clinton began trying to score some points, for example, by (once again) calling Obama a plagiarist and saying the Senator represented “change you can xerox.” (That canned line backfired rather badly, and drew the only boos of the night. I hope this is because most people realize the plagiarism charge is absolutely moronic.)

For his part, Sen. Obama — looking ever more presidential, as is the frontrunner’s wont — took the high road, correctly calling such maneuvers part of the “silly season” of politics and keeping the conversation mostly about substantive differences, such, as, once again, the interminable mandate question. (He had a particularly good response to the “cult” charge: “The implication has been that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional…The thinking is that somehow they’re being duped…and that eventually they’re going to see the reality of things. I think they perceive the reality of what’s going on in Washington very clearly.” Touche.)

The moment that’s getting a lot of the buzz right now is Sen. Clinton’s closing statement, which (Xerox alert!) borrowed heavily from both John Edwards and Bill Clinton in 1992. (I actually don’t care at all about that, but if you’re going to throw around spurious claims of plagiarism, you’d best be careful about that glass house.) More troublingly, in her close Sen. Clinton explicitly invoked her surprisingly game-changing Reverse Muskie back in New Hampshire. (She began this particular lip-quavering moment by asking herself the same goofy question she got in the diner: “How do you do it?”)

Now, I don’t want to claim Sen. Clinton is a fraud, even if she’s seemed considerably less than “absolutely honored to be here with Barack Obama” over the past three weeks of scurrilious charges and no concession speeches. If anything, I agree with CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, who was much less enthralled by the moment than that venerable Establishment Davos-boogier, David Gergen. I think she got genuinely choked up for exactly the same reasons as she did back in NH. With the writing on the wall for her candidacy, this was a valedictory moment of sorts. Fine, she’s earned it, and I applaud her for seemingly choosing, at least for a few moments, a graceful exit that will help bring the party back together. That being said, I wouldn’t get such a guilty twinge of Bernie Birnbaum-ish grandstanding about it all if she hadn’t explicitly invoked the diner tear, and/or if Clinton flunky Howard Wolfson hadn’t immediately try to tell us afterward that this was “the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.” Um, no, not really.

In the City of Angels.

Heya. Sorry this is going up so late…I spent the evening at the Generation Obama event in Midtown, so my usual prObama take on the debates got even more reinforcement than usual…

First off, it was heartening to watch a surprisingly substantive debate. The Nevada roundtable was too sweet, and the Myrtle Beach slugfest was too sour, but tonight’s much-heralded showdown in Los Angeles actually seemed just right. [Transcript.] Both candidates were able to tease out and discuss notable differences in their policies, particularly on health care, immigration reform, and Iraq, while keeping a civil, friendly tone that didn’t seem as unnaturally forced as back in Vegas.

With all that being said, and to no one’s surprise, I thought Barack Obama came out ahead this evening. (In fact, I agree with Andrew Sullivan — this might’ve been his best debate thus far.) He showed a clear and nuanced command of policy. He made a solid case for his strengths, most notably on the question of judgment (“Right on Day 1.”) He explained well how he’s more electable, particularly against John McCain. He was wry and personable. And — when it came to the Republicans — he was often devastating. (That Romney takedown was too rich.)

Hillary Clinton was also good tonight, but she gave more than a few answers that were real groaners. On immigration reform, her attempt to be Obamaesque by invoking the Statue of Liberty was strange and flat. More problematically, her answer on drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants made no sense (She’s against licenses for illegals, to protect illegals?) And, worst of all, when given the chance to defuse a zero-sum understanding of the immigrant issue, she instead told a story about an African-American man who blamed Latinos for his job loss, and it was hard not to read an off-putting Bendixen subtext into it.

Most notably, when it came to Iraq in the final third, Clinton was terrible. Rather than just admit she made a mistake in either [a] supporting the war or [b] believing Dubya, she seemed unwilling to concede any possibility of error, and got stuck in an increasingly tortured answer about her position on the AUMF vote. It was unseemly, to say the least, even Dubyaesque. And the more she spun her wheels, the better Obama looked. Update: Apparently, she also butchered the truth about the Levin Amendment.

Still, my general impression is that CNN’s Jeff Toobin basically got the larger chess game right: As a TPM commenter well put it: Hillary Clinton is currently in the lead and is trying to run the four corners until the clock runs out. Barack Obama is surging massively right now and didn’t want to upset that o-mentum unduly. So neither candidate felt they needed to shake up the current paradigm all that much, which helped keep everything friendly.

Instead, Obama wanted to show undecideds that he has presidential gravitas and can policy-wonk as needed. Clinton wanted to staunch her negatives and get the focus back on her rather than Wild Bill. (Which reminds me, no question about Kazakhstan?) In that sense, both candidates accomplished what they came to do.

Now, it’s up to us.

Here Comes the Judge.

With talk of Supreme Court vacancies opening up over the summer, the Post sits down with White House counsel (and prime contender) Alberto Gonzales. Good to hear that private sources find him “insufficiently conservative”…there might still be hope for the guy. In related news, Jeffrey Toobin surveys the judicial confirmation battlefield for the New Yorker.