Hacks and and attacks and rackets and numbers, oh my...

Another hack attack? Just now, I tried to gain access to the Democratic Daily, not known as a vigorously pro-Obama forum. Before I could enter, Google flashed a warning that I was about to enter an "Attack" site, and that "malicious" software had been found on July 12 (today).

Malicious software includes 17 trojan(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new processes on the target machine.

In light of the previous co-ordinated attacks on anti-Obama Blogger sites, this news is indeed troubling. (Google owns Blogger; Cannonfire was unaffected.)

Polls: Can anyone explain Obama's poll numbers to me?

Last month, he had a 15 point national lead over McCain according to a surprising Newsweek poll, suspected by many to be an outlier. Those suspicions lessened when a Bloomberg/LAT poll gave Obi a 12 point lead. Now, the latest Newsweek results have Obama ahead by only 3 points, a figure similar to most other polls.

Did the earlier Newsweek poll rely on a skewed sample? Or has Obama's popularity suffered a genuine hit?

Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the poll for NEWSWEEK, says some of the discrepancy between the two most recent polls may be explained by sampling error.

So sayeth Newsweek. But how to explain the LAT/Bloomberg results?

Digby thinks the drop is real, and blames Obama's alleged shift to the center (which I prefer to call a revelation of true colors, if that phrase is still permitted):

His message of change has taken a severe blow with this somewhat crude lurch to the right and embrace of conventional wisdom and he's going to need it back to appeal to those who haven't yet fully engaged.

The rationale for his campaign is almost entirely based on the message of change and I doubt that they can make a credible case that he's a steady-as-she-goes, practical, engineer type who makes the trains run on time...

Either the Dems were grossly oversampled in two separate polls -- hard to believe -- or the Lightbringer's radiance has begun to dim.

Money. One does not normally see conspiracy theories on The Confluence, but on this morn, the exemplary riverdaughter features a lovely little piece of paranoia.

It seems that Obama's fundraising numbers have dropped even more precipitously than have his poll figures. The chart displayed here tells the story. What caused the slump?

Riverdaughter suggests one possible answer: The numbers dried up after Hillary's concession because the Republicans were secretly feeding the Obama campaign, in order to insure that the most vulnerable Dem got the nod.

Before the primaries began, Obama had amassed $99 Million, almost as much as Hillary Clinton who had been amassing her warchest for years. Where did that money come from? Not only that but since Obama became the Presumptuous Nominee the money kind of dried up. As Steve points out, the Obama campaign will try to pin this on Clinton and say that her supporters are holding back. And this may very well be true. But the decrease in funding started to happen back in March.

You should be able to guess where she is going with this. March, says riverdaughter, was when the big blogs started talking about the "mathematical" inevitability of an Obama win.

Now, I love a good conspiracy theory, but I also recognize that many such theories rely on post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. Riverdaughter seems to have fallen into that trap here. Back in March, the talk of "inevitability" had a desperate, whistling-in-the-dark quality; the race was, in reality, still quite undecided.

What else happened around that time?

The Rezko trial.

In March, it became clear that Fat Tony would be found guilty, and that the Illinois Combine would have to lie low for a while.

What does the Combine have to do with Obama's funding, you ask? Perhaps nothing. Then again, perhaps the Combine had everything to do with that $99 million kick-start referenced by riverdaughter.

Consider: The Obamafolk had predicted a $100 million June. Instead, they got $30 million. (Although the campaign now says that the $30 million figure is "way off," I'm inclined to accept it.) How did Obama rustle up a comparable figure in a short time back in the early early days, when he was a little-known longshot candidate?

Where did that money come from?

Evelyn Pringle says that the Combine hoped, not so long ago, to put Blagojevich in the White House. When the Governor's legal/ethical troubles became too public, the crooks turned to Obama.

Yes, I've just posited an alternative conspiracy theory. Yes, I'm speculating. No, I have no proof. But this idea makes more sense to me than does riverdaughter's blame-the-GOP-for-everything scenario.

Play nice. Skinner, head honcho of Democratic Underground, informs us that he has told moderators to delete inappropriate posts about the early passing of Tony Snow. All well and good. But this ruling only proves a larger point I've made for weeks: A handful of people control the tone of the major blogs.

If Bush's spokesperson merits an enforced decency, then why couldn't Skinner control the vile lies and insults directed at Hillary Clinton?

Not only that. Progressives, it seems, must now be compelled to behave in a civilized fashion -- otherwise, they are likely to cackle at the recently deceased. What does this fact tell us about the modern progressive movement?

Annabelle, one of our favorite Pumasphere bloggers, was interviewed by the Pakistani Spectator, of all publications...!