I hope you're right that they'll entrench, but they may see a window here where she's got some cover ("to protect my children from the vicious liberal attacks"), and a very small window within which cutting her loose could actually help McCain win some sympathy votes.

But that won't work so well later, and for all the "game-changing-ness" (the double-or-nothing baby-needs-a-pair-of-shoes go-for-broke variety) of the choice, the evidence that she was selected in a rash and ill-considered decision is piling up fast. You can see how they're panicking over that impression having created, but they don't have much to counter it with ... because the decision really does seem to have been rash and panicky.

That's a deadly impression for McCain to be saddled with, mostly because it's accurate.

The thing that makes me think she's more likely to go sooner than later is not just that this fatal impression is growing like a tropical storm, but that McCain has mostly been letting surrogates defend her. That's the tell. He's not out there forcefully defending and explaining his choice, he's got Cindy and others doing it. A lot of them not even officially part of the campaign. If he and his advisors are having second thoughts, then they'll jump at the chance to cut their losses early.

She's gone. I give her a 50% chance of lasting to the end of this week, and a 5% chance of being on the ticket in November.

When I was referring to the broader society, I was thinking about all the sexist commentary about Hillary that bubbled up during the primaries in the MSM. Huge email-protest campaigns were waged against MSNBC because of it. Media Matters and a few bloggers documented some of it. But in the end, the mainstream bloggers like Josh and Ariana Huffington reflected it and therefore permitted sexist comments on their sites. People like Gloria Steinem and others who pointed out how entrenched sexism is in our discourse were summarily reviled and trashed by women and men alike.

I can't accurately speak to the broader Obama coalition. I feel the Obama coalition represents a split within the Party that has existed for almost 30 years (since 1980, perhaps, maybe longer). Unlike you, I don't think the Obama coalition is a new or a generational shift. I think it's an old garage band that finally found a lead singer in Barack Obama and a critical mass in fans. Look at the people in the Party who back Barack: Dean, Kerry, Hart, Daschle, Kennedy. All the losers who never got to be president. Carter, the one-term president.

I realize it's a cynical take on what is happening to the Party, but I'm a member of Barack's generation, and I feel no connection with him whatsoever. He doesn't represent me and what I know of our age group and the period of history we lived through (probably because he didn't experience it). I watched some of the convention speeches, and quite a few Obama surrogates or VP short-listers sucked, IMHO: Kaine, Kerry, Jackson, Chet Edwards, Mark Warner, Susan Eisenhower, Jay Rockefeller. I know I'm in the minority in thinking that these people (especially Kerry) sucked. But they made me extremely uneasy if not queasy, like I was listening to Republicans. A notable exception was Deval Patrick.

You and I may have different takes on what Obama supporters here at TPM are like, Billy. Since Obama did get 18 million votes, I think that TPM must represent something of the broader coalition for him. I do not think it is a happily united Party, however, and I doubt it ever will be. After reading that Ryan Lizza article in the NYer about the demographics of the West, I have been wondering if I might get to see the formation of a viable third party in my lifetime.

Anyway, to me, the broader Obama coalition appears to (ironically) stem from an older, more conservative offshoot of the Party. More conservative = more buried issues. Of course I want the Dems to win in November, I'm just skeptical that even a gigantic group of longtime losers can do that. With any luck, though, I'll be proven wrong. I can live with that.