I noticed something as I was reading two stories about Barack Obama and the 2nd Amendment. From Reason’s Jacob Sullum:

Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that “Obama has been consistent.”

From USA Today:

Obama also said he no longer supported broad licensing and registering of firearms, as he did when he was in the Illinois Senate.

So which is it? Has the Senator been consistent in his position on gun control? Or has he in fact changed his mind?

By the way, another question for Senator Obama on the 2nd. He says he supports the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to “hunt, fish, protect their families.” Can someone explain to me then how he can also support the D.C. Gun Ban, which prohibits the possession of a functional firearm in the home for self-defense?

Look, clearly if Obama comes out and says the D.C. Gun Ban is unconstitutional, then that would almost bring up questions about Obama’s support for Chicago’s gun ban (in place since 1983). If he feels that ban is unconstitutional, why didn’t he ever work to get it overturned?

But if he holds with the statement that he believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the D.C. Gun Ban somehow passes constitutional muster, I think it’s fair to ask (as Jacob Sullum suggested when I interviewed him today) Senator Obama to name an example of a gun control law that he thinks does or would violate the 2nd Amendment. As it stands, Obama’s turning an “individual right” into something the goverment can violate at will.

How’d you like to be the candidate who says “Doesn’t look like I’m going to be able to run after all. I’m just too darn busy these days!”

I understand not having enough time in the day to do everything I want to do. Hell, that’s the main reason I rarely blog anymore. But you don’t run for Congress unless you’ve decided that it’s your top priority. Even if that means resigning from your other public offices.

Ugh. Drives me crazy. It’s not like Republicans are trying to retain a House seat or anything…

A few weeks ago, I read this excellent column by Peggy Noonan discussing the fact that Senator Clinton, unlike most politicians, doesn’t seem to know how to lose gracefully. It was an intriguing prospect, and one that seems confirmed by the news today that, despite losing ten primary and caucus votes in a row, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has established a special website dedicated to their effort to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic convention.

Jake Tapper, presently of ABC News, broke the story on his blog this morning, and is unreservedly critical of Mrs. Clinton for taking this path.

Clinton’s own senior adviser, Harold Ickes, voted as a member of the DNC committee to not recognize these two state delegations because they violated the rules of the primary scheduling process. Now as a Clinton campaign representative he’s making the case that they should count…

There’s a difference between pressuring/lobbying/strongly suggesting that superdelegates follow the will of regular delegates — that ultimately will be decided by each individual superdelegate — and trying to change the rules of the nominating process…

More and more, this reminds me of the Florida recount.

Don’t like the rules? Change the rules.

Count every vote — except the ones for the other guy.”

I agree with Tapper. The DNC vote to strip Michigan and Florida of their convention votes was nearly unanimous. The move was supported by a broad cross section of the Democratic party’s core constituencies. And, most importantly, it was the right decision. Without sanctions like this, the nominating process would continue to shift earlier and earlier as states jockey for position — and attention.

But Clinton’s move also gives us an interesting insight into her psyche, and it’s a significant one as we the people evaluate our choices for President. Do we want a President who knows how to compromise? To argue effectively for principle while giving ground when necessary for the good of the nation? Who will follow and respect the law, even the ones he or she doesn’t like?

I’ve never thought that Mrs. Clinton had the temperament to be President. But should she proceed in forcing a pitched parliamentary battle from a position of weakness, I think even her most zealous supporters will have to reevaluate their views of her.

Jim: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and Clintons have to fight on, endlessly, long past the point of common sense, oblivious to their own long-term interest, the good of their party, the good of their country. It’s who they are. Think of the Lewinsky scandal.

Concede? Give up? Come on, Mike Huckabee’s still in the race, when he’s not giving speeches on tropical islands. Why should she give up her lifelong dream because Obama’s been on a hot streak, mostly in a bunch of states her campaign foolishly thought wouldn’t matter? Obama’s not gonna win this through regular delegates. It’s most likely going to go to the superdelegates, and if she has to bribe, cajole, intimidate, arm-twist, and mob-tactic her way to victory in that kind of a contest, so be it. This is the Clintons. They didn’t quit with Gennifer Flowers, with the draft dodging, with the “I didn’t inhale,” with Paula Jones, with Whitewater. When Kathleen Willey described Bill groping her on 60 Minutes, did they give up? No! When Juanita Broderick told Lisa Myers of NBC News of Bill Clinton sexually assaulting her in Little Rock decades ago, did they give up? No! Missing billing records? Ha! Innappropriate use of FBI files? Big deal! Chinese money going to Clinton’s 1996 run? Yawn! Johnny Chung? Charlie Trie? Questions about her $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit on cattle futures? Marc Rich’s pardon?

After all of that, you expect her to give up just because Obama’s getting more votes?

The Clintons are like a Terminator. You can’t negotiate with them, they feel no remorse, they feel no empathy, they never stop.

I never wish death upon political enemies. But if the Clintons die, they will come back as ambitious, power-hungry, zombies seeking higher office. (Zombie Bill will argue that only the living are limited to two terms.)

Hillary’s dream of being the first woman president cannot simply lie down quietly and pass from this earth. A stake must be driven into her ambition’s heart, and it must be buried at a crossroads like the old legends of slaying a vampire.

Yesterday, the Post ran a column of sorts from a guy name Chris Richard, who had lived in D.C. his whole life, but recently moved to New York. It was his list of things that he had to do one last time before leaving his hometown behind. The concept of the story hit home for me as I am about to move to another great capital city in a couple of weeks after 11 years in Washington. But Richard’s list for the Post was, I thought, pretty lame.

So, I’m crowdsourcing a list of my own.

What’s the one thing I should do in D.C. and its environs before leaving for London?

Jim: Tough call, and ironic, since I faced the same decision a few years ago. Right around the same time of year. Spring and fall in DC are strikingly nice, but February is pretty blah…

I would say Fado’s in Chinatown, but you actually won’t lack for pubs in your new home… I’ll bet southern barbeque is hard to find in London, so I’d hit Old Glory one more time to devour all things pork… I want to hit Palace of Wonders again, for its surreality… Mrs. Campaignspot and I hit Jaleo Sunday night and enjoyed it a great deal, but again, finding good Spanish food might not be too tough in London; if all else fails, it’s a short flight away.

Cam: I suppose “unpacking” isn’t an option? Let’s see… you made it to the Mardi Gras party, so that’s taken care of. Good bar-b-que IS going to be hard to find, so definitely eat some before you go. I’m guessing good Tex-Mex is also going to be hard to find, but then again, I haven’t found good Tex-Mex here to begin with.

How about one last night at Union Street with Jim and me since I won’t be able to make your happy hour tonight?

Forget politics. Let’s get to the important news of the day. For the first time ever — that’s more than a hundred years — a Beagle took the top “Best in Show” honors at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show last night in New York.

Uno, a beautiful, sturdy beagle of the 15″ variety prevailed, barking, howling and baying throughout.

As a beagle owner and lover of the breed, I couldn’t be happier for Uno, his handler and owners. Congratulations. We’re lifting an On Tap pint in your honor this morning.

I realize I’ve been a ghost around here, but the day job blog has kinda been a marathon lately.

Anyway, I said long ago I wouldn’t endorse any primary candidate (I don’t think anyone is looking to me for guidance on how to vote) but that I would reveal who I voted for in the primary. Virginia’s primary was today, and I voted for…

…John McCain.

I realize Marshall is letting out a deep groan right now, and I see all of his flaws. [Er, McCain’s flaws, not Marshall’s.] Looking at the top five Republican candidates, I like Rudy Giuliani and admire his accomplishments in New York City, but know he would deeply divide the GOP. I think Mike Huckabee is a great communicator with a great future, but I don’t see him as a commander-in-chief. I would have voted for Fred Thompson if he were still in the race, but he departed a while ago, and I understand the concerns of how much his heart was in this. Finally, I think Mitt Romney would have made a fine president, but I suspect his Democratic opponent in a general election would have made mincemeat out of him, using his liberal-sounding campaign statements from 1994 and 2002.

I’ve got gripes with McCain on campaign finance reform, on immigration, on cap and trade. But he’s rock-solid on the war on terror; he may be remembered as the man who saved the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. (Bit by bit, I’m inching his way on interrogation techniques. Some methods may simply be more trouble than they’re worth.) Only Tom Coburn fights pork as tenaciously, and McCain remembers that conservatives are supposed to fight for cuts in spending as well as taxes. He’s got a pretty solid pro-life record, and I think he’ll appoint the right judges and justices — the ghost of Harriet Miers will hang over many Republican administrations…

If somebody out there is saying, “Jim, you’re settling,” I respond, “Well, yeah. Welcome to politics. In fact, welcome to life.” I can hold myself to the highest of standards, but if I hold politicians to that, I’ll always be disappointed. You rarely get somebody who agrees with you 10 out of 10 times. And some folks are acting like they’ve never had their preferred candidate lose a primary before. It happens. Sometimes the electorate prefers the war veteran with some non-conservative stands to the guys who check all the boxes. I’m not going to rage at Republican primary voters in this process; they’ve made their call. (And the terms, “liberal,” “not conservative” and “not as conservative as I would like” are being treated as synonyms in this process.)

As for the temptation to vote in the Democratic primary, I’m a right-leaning guy. I don’t mess in the other guy’s primaries, I don’t want him to mess in mine.

Governor Romney just gave the best speech of his campaign. It was, of course, announcing his withdrawal from the Presidential race. But it was, in my view, the first sincere thing he’s done. And doing so earns him, deservedly, a tremendous amount of goodwill from conservatives and Republicans.

With Romney’s withdrawal, the Republican nomination belongs to Senator McCain. Governor Huckabee may continue for a bit, but he’s a non-factor.

Meanwhile, the Democratic race will continue, very likely until early summer or even the Democratic convention.

BTW, I should be over at CPAC later. For now, I’m liveblogging via television.

This is the funniest political video that I’ve seen in a long time.

And true to form, MKH makes a great serious point with it, too.

Go. Watch. Laugh. Vote.