Ugh. Does this sound like someone prepared to run the eighth largest economy in the world? Funny thing. It turns out that trying to manage the press by refusing to take questions at press conferences, limiting interviews to a bare five minutes, nasty and annoying ads against your primary rival and a sketchy record of Republican stances in an era that demands ideological purity doesn't get the media warming to you and therefore, tends to make your support erode.

How can a candidate who has already lent her campaign $59 million and hired the best consulting team money can buy find herself in a dogfight with three weeks to go?

In conversations with close observers of California politics, a few reasons for Whitman's struggles stand out.

First, the state has a history of wariness toward free-spending business people running for office. From Michael Huffington to Al Checchi to Steve Westly, candidates whose money stands at the center of their campaigns have been rejected. (Poizner is something of a flawed messenger on this issue, having already donated $19 million of his own money to his bid.)

Second, Whitman has allowed herself to be defined as the insider in a year when being the outsider represents the political high ground. With former governor Pete Wilson serving as her campaign chairman and endorsements from national political figures such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Whitman has turned into the de facto incumbent. Poizner has sought to drive that point home to voters with an ad in which Whitman morphs into Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) -- a decidedly unpopular figure among Republican voters.

Third, Whitman's adversarial relationship with the press -- she has had several high-profile run-ins with the media in the state, and her campaign has been accused by Poizner of hiding her from reporters -- has contributed to a sense of entitlement and aloofness that voters find unattractive.

While there is little debate in California Republican circles that Whitman has lost considerable altitude in the primary, there is far less certainty about where the race is headed.

Susie Bright's Journal (not always safe for work):

Let me introduce you to the swan-song poster girl of the abstinence education movement: TV actress and celebrity-sister, Jamie Lynn Spears. She's pregnant.

Jamie, raised to be a Baptist Good Girl by her devoted Church Stage Mother, was "shocked" to learn she was expecting, according to her tabloid confession.

Jamie is so... typical.

...The abysmal failure of purity balls and chastity rings and "Just-Say-No" is one of the most under-reported stories of the year. The numbers are in, and they are deafening. Read more...

Open thread below...

AP Via Yahoo:

A judge on Monday voided a 10-year sentence for a man accused of having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. He instead gave Genarlow Wilson a 12-month misdemeanor sentence with credit for time already served.

Wilson's original sentence, for aggravated child molestation, was widely criticized on the grounds it was grossly disproportionate to the crime, and state lawmakers later passed a law to close the loophole that led to the 10-year sentence.

A jury found the honor student guilty in 2005 of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl during a 2003 New Year's Eve party involving alcohol and marijuana. Although the sex act was consensual it was illegal under Georgia law. Read more...

In the Bizarro World of Purity Balls and abstinence only sex education we live in, this was a positive sign of progress back to reality. The new sentence may save the day for this young man, but it will take him years to shake the stigma.

Does this creep you out too?

In what is becoming a trend among conservative Christians in the United States, girls as young as nine are pledging to their fathers to remain virgins until they wed, in elaborate ceremonies dubbed "Purity Balls."

This takes the phrase "Daddy's Little Girl" someplace where it was not intended.... (h/t Richard)

Mike's Blog Round Up

Iran Body Count: The Oxford Research Group has a comprehensive look at the Military Consequences of going to war with Iran. Attacking Iranwould be only the beginning of a long struggle and will have many unexpected and unwelcome side effects.

Super Frenchie: When was it again that the stated goal of the Bush administration’s foreign policy was the promotion of democracy in the world? And that they would stop considering dictators as friends? And why are US taxpayers still footing the bill for that finishing school for future torturers and dictators, the School of the Americas?

The Brad Blog: The approaching 2006 E-voting trainwreck continues on course

Pandagon: Father/daughter "purity balls"? Arghhh!

Democracy Now! Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner says "the issue is not whether the military option would be used, but who approved the start of operations already."

Unqualified Offerings: Civil War re-enactment?...NO, Marvel Superheros Secret War re-enactors!

Boy, it seems like it was only yesterday that Obama was cheered as the end to Clintonian triangulation. Does Obama have serious problems with the base? Bob Brigham seems to think so:

If Obama were leading the Democratic Party in accomplishing good things that made voters' lives better, an increase in Obama numbers could be seen as a sign that Obama could have coattails, that his popularity would bring Democrats along for the ride.

Unfortunately, Obama seems to be pursuing a different strategy. Instead of leading Democrats, Obama is triangulating against the Democratic base. This became clear in the administration's failure on health care turning into attacks on the left.

For Obama, health care seems to be following a model of raising the president's approval at the expense of depressing the base during the midterms. Everyone on the ballot this fall with a 'D' after their name should be alarmed by this:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

This is triangulation at its worst. This is personal gain at the expense of the party.

There is a reason Obama campaigned on the public option and against mandates, instead of vice-versa. Same with his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. Yet now, instead of Democrats being able to campaign on the popular public option, Democrats will have to play defense as to why they raised taxes on middle class health care plans while turning the IRS into the bagman for some of the most hated companies in America.

In conclusion, Obama isn't in good shape. Halfway through the midterms, Obama as coach is giving a lockroom pep talk that is little more than "we couldn't have done any better in the first half because our team is so bad." And his strategy in the second half appears to be focused on making himself look good even if it is at the expense of the rest of the team. Which means even if he does start looking better in the polls, it might not be good news for Democrats in 2010.