But it doesn't have to be this way. Nancy Pelosi and all the other undeclared superdelegates have it within their power to call "Palomino!" on this whole process. Because there are enough of them left to swing the contest to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They should do so now.

But the first of these ends is definitely odd: is it just my imagination, or did Charles Krauthammer (of all people) read my earlier column before writing his own? You be the judge.

This is historical fact. We've come a long way since those days. But nobody is pointing out that it is now 2008, and not 1964. The big difference (as it relates to this argument) between then and now is that now we have a black man who has a very good chance at actually becoming president on his own.

The whole inevitability thing didn't work out the way it was supposed to. Likewise the electability thing. "Change" may gain ground, now that it's the official buzzword of '08, but the change Clinton really needs to make is in her style. The campaign is now about emotion, and Hillary needs to get back to the point where she was earlier in the contest, when she was actually showing a decent amount of emotion and connecting with her crowds on a personal level. The wonky "I'll be ready on day one," and reciting lists of reasons why she should be nominated needs to change to actually connecting with people emotionally in the final stretch.

Which is a shame. If political writers (both professional and amateur) aren't willing to run the risk of being wrong (and looking foolish), then what are they in the prognostication business for anyway? After all, every two-bit local news sportscaster is willing to tell you his picks for the outcome of each week's football games, why shouldn't our national political press be just as willing to do the same?

Unfortunately (as of this writing) the transcript for last week's McLaughlin Group is not yet available on their website, so you'll have to check it later to compare how I did with the actual McLaughlin Group themselves.

But 2008 is going to be a watershed year for the Republican Party, because they seem to be having their own set of factionalist problems. Which means the fortunes of the GOP will be a lot more interesting than usual next year.

Because I had so much fun doing it last year, I present for your amusement, agreement, and/or rage my selections for this year's awards. This is a two-week event, so check back here next Friday for Part 2.

As always when this column hands out awards, our eminent jury consists of me, my wife, and our cat (who breaks ties with her vote). So I wouldn't take it too seriously.

I'll do a better tally of all these last-minute efforts when the dust settles next week, I promise. But for now, I'd like to pause for a minute to reflect on the past year of Democratic majority rule in Congress. Putting aside legislative issues, and even putting aside the war for the moment, one thing many partisan Democrats were hoping for this year was some scalps nailed to the wall.

I have to admit, I didn't come up with this idea myself. I heard it as an offhand comment on one of the news shows (PBS' News Hour, I think) -- that if the strike went on, the candidates will all get a "free pass" on any amusing foibles during the campaign because the late night shows were on hiatus. The person who said this wasn't serious, or at best only half-serious, but it got me to thinking. What if this does have a major effect on politics? What effect would it have, and would it be a good thing or a bad thing?

What if (insert crescendo music here for effect -- dom Dom DOM!!) it already has had an effect?

To begin with, Mitt Romney gave a speech on religion. This speech was brilliantly summed up in a comment to Chris Kelly's recent Huffington Post column:

1. We should all be tolerant of religions, even ones we don't agree with.

2. Secularism/atheism is a religion.

3. Let's all hate on those traitorous, treasonous, blasphemous secularists/atheists!

Because I've been away for a few weeks, I have to apologize in advance if I've missed something obvious this week (I'm still getting back up to speed on the American political scene). Hopefully I won't have missed too much!

You both knew that voting for Mukasey was the wrong thing to do, and yet you did it anyway for reasons that can only be described as "political expediency." Not exactly a profile in courage for either one of you.

You may well wonder why I, a (mostly) serious political analyst, begin my weekly Wednesday column with the images of two Simpsons characters. The answer is: these two images are the story. More on that in a bit.

Well done Senator Dodd! The first ever Golden Backbone is yours in a landslide!

A little background is necessary for those who don't know the history of this testimony. This hearing was pushed by a group calling themselves the "Parents' Music Resource Council," (PMRC) which was comprised of four wives of Washington politicians. One of the most prominent was Senator Al Gore's wife Tipper. Al Gore himself sat on this committee and questioned Zappa. This is why she occasionally (even today) gets booed at any event which has music-lovers in the audience.

She has earned those boos, in my opinion. The PMRC was trying to get legislation passed to put warning stickers on albums (yes, actual "albums" -- this was pre-CD) so parents could see what their children were buying. They really didn't want legislation as much as they wanted the music industry to institute its own ratings system, much like the MPAA does for movies (the people who decide whether a movie is "R" or "PG"). They were basically Senators' wives with too much time on their hands (they also were upset over Satanic lyrics supposedly recorded backwards on Led Zeppelin albums).