But, on the other hand...

...maybe there are some, in the Republican establishment, who are beginning to think that Obama actually might be able to beat McCain.

New York Times columnist David Brooks -- who has long provided the conservative "balance" on the Times editorial page -- was suspiciously enthusiastic for Obama in the early days of the primary season. In point of fact, it was Brooks who first got me wondering if there might be some Republican money going to the Obama campaign.

Then, a couple of days ago, I read a column by Brooks called "When the Magic Fades." With uncharacteristic sarcasm, he describes "Obama Comedown Syndrome," with observations like "His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?" (I admit it: I thought that was moderately clever.)

Well, what do you think? Is it a good sign that Brooks has gone negative?

On the other other hand, however, the Times recently added another conservative columnist, William Kristol. (A prominent neo-con, Kristol actually balances Paul Krugman a lot better than David Brooks ever could. Brooks may now be relegated to balancing Nicholas Kristoff.) A recent column by Kristol absolutely revels in Obama's wins over Clinton. Of course, Kristol typically revels in any defeat of any Clinton by anybody.

So, who knows? As for me, I'd vote for Zippy the Chimp if he got the Democratic nomination. I'm anticipating our current economic problems getting significantly worse, and lasting a lot longer than most of the "experts" would like us to believe. A McCain administration will be about as effective as the Hoover administration was in the 1930s. This is not to say that I think Hillary, Barack, of Zippy could be a new FDR, but I'm sure we're ready for a little less Milton Friedman and a little more John Maynard Keynes.