This is going to happen.

Until now, the idea of Hillary Clinton either primarying Obama or being picked to replace Sheriff Joe has been little more than wishful thinking, whether by increasingly nervous Obama-backers looking for a game changer, by Republicans drooling at the spectacle, or by simple fans of high political intrigue, regardless of partisan stripe.

Biden's uselessness itself wasn't enough to warrant such a drastic, high-risk shakeup.  As Vice President, uselessness is central to the job description.  Nor has his sensational gaffe propensity, nor his inexplicably high self-regard as an unparalleled genius, made him much of a liability, given the media's aggressive disinterest in portraying him as a irredeemable buffoon.

Still, as the Obama re-election playbook has gradually fanned open, the idea that the President might reluctantly accept Biden's ostensibly self-initiated departure appears more and more likely, approaching the point of inevitability.

Every day we draw nearer the election without the economy managing better than an anemic recovery (with ever fewer poll respondents indicating optimism about the year to come), Obama's re-election hopes dim.  With his re-elect numbers consistently under 50% (and tied unmistakably to his handling of the economy), he has no choice but to change the subject.  But how to change the subject when it's all your 300 million constituents want to talk about?

Enter the already well-dissected shiny object campaign, a misdirection two-step.  #1 - Assign blame elsewhere: an obstructionist Congress, George Bush, rich people, bankers, George Bush, the middle east, Japan, and George Bush.  #2 - Glitter bomb the American public with a thrilling series of wholly non-economic distractions - headline-grabbers that tend to rank at the bottom of American voters' priorities lists.  They've become too numerous to catalog, but of course they include the "war on women" (beginning in earnest with Sandra Fluke and still going great guns with a self-invited lecture to Barnard's graduating class); completion of a 16-year, full-circle evolution on gay marriage (which doesn't move the needle on the administration's policy prescription); rooftop dogs; long-haired classmates; race-baiting, class-baiting, gender-baiting, etc.

An obliging media has given each new shiny object its due oohing and ahhing, committing days or weeks of coverage to its sheen and luster, but alas, each has failed to sustainably divert Americans' from their enduring malaise.

No object, in other words, has yet proven quite shiny enough, to get voters to quit obsessing over their damn livelihoods.

Enter Hillary, the most blindingly shiny distraction an underwater incumbent President could hope for.

The media narrative writes itself (literally, not figuratively (as the imminently-erstwhile VP likes to say), I'm confident this copy is already drafted in finer newsrooms everywhere).  "Obama Buries Hatchet With Clinton(s), Proves Himself the Uniter We Always Dreamed" and "Obama Once Again Proves New Kind of Politician, Doesn't Play By Old Rules" and "As Two Privileged White Males*, Can Romney-[TBA] Ever Overcome The Naked Racism of Opposing a Minority AND a Woman?"

* Rubio- and Martinez-boosters need not email angrily.  George Zimmerman helped the world realize that Hispanics are, when politically expedient, white.  And Republican women are traitors in the Gender War who may as well be male.

With all this in mind, I strain to imagine a world in which Team Obama hasn't already and at length war-gamed the Joe-Hillary switcheroo.  The holiest of all Hail Marys, this ultimate "evolution" wouldn't be without significant risks (perceived disloyalty and weakness, not to mention the threat of being overshadowed by such a politically weighty runningmate and her illustrious spouse), but as November grows larger on the horizon and hopes for a sudden economic resurgence fade further, "risky" starts to sound a whole lot better than "hopeless."  And if Obama feels a little smaller sharing the stage with the Clintons, rather than Jenius Joe, the fundraising bonanza Bill and Hillary would trigger ought to help cushion any collateral bruising to the Presidential ego.

As we creep up on convention season, one presumes the formal announcement is now withheld only to await the release of another several weeks' worth of crummy economic data (such that all advisers may concur on precisely how royally screwed the re-election effort has become) and to allow the optimal ripening of the election year calendar.  This is a bullet that can only be fired once, of course, and it wouldn't do for the public to tire of the sensation by election day.

Until today, I would've said that means at least another two months until Obama tells us how heartbroken he was to accept Biden's unexpected withdrawal.

Joe Biden may not be much help to Barack Obama in key swing states this fall.

In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Americans split on whether they like or dislike the vice president – 42% said they had a favorable opinion, 45% said unfavorable – but the numbers are worse in key swing states.

In the 12 swing states likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election, only 40% of registered voters view Biden favorably, while 54% view him unfavorably.

That leaves Biden fully 10 points behind his boss in swing-state popularity, enough of a drag that the Vice President may have just graduated from dead weight to gangrenous.

I'd still guess we won't be treated to this "Most Courageous Act In Modern Political History" until mid summer, but if Joe continues to flame out this magnificently, we may have this Shiniest Conceivable Object to play with a little sooner.

I was on FoxNews.com Live this morning from 9-10, discussing Washington lobbyists, Chicago riots, European crises, and Presidential politics.  If you missed it live, you can catch a replay at the link until Tuesday morning (dial the wheel back to 9:00:00).

Will update with any clips that make the highlight reel.

You'll die before you even make it a billion miles.

I am not a fan of texting while driving, but I’m even less of a fan of ill-considered federal interventions. My new Bloomberg View column concerns Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s war on “distracted driving,” and the dubious evidence behind it.

Advocating the [National Transportation Safety Board]’s preferred ban, its chairman Deborah Hersman noted that 3,092 people had died in distracted-driving incidents in 2010. The Transportation Department estimates that Americans drove 3 trillion miles that year. That works out to 970 million miles driven for each distracted-driving fatality.

No, Rasmussen's not as Obama-tilting as most of the other pollsters, but this reversal is pretty dramatic.  A 10-point turnaround in just over a week.

This is the first time Romney has reached the 50% level of support and is his largest lead ever over the president. It comes a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy.

Thanks once again to the magic of one-way revisions, the Labor Department was able to report a drop in weekly jobless claims this morning, from 368,000 all the way down to... 367,000.  The previous week was (unsurprisingly) revised upward from 365,000.  Upon next week's revision to today's number, it will assuredly show an increase, not a decrease.

The 4-week moving average declined by 5,250 to 379,000, thanks to the whopping 390,000 from early April dropping out of the mix.

Economists had expected the weekly number to stand pat at the (unrevised) 365,000, but stock futures moved moderately higher following the report, which was also accompanied by international trade data.

Everyone else is.

Anemic job growth, Greece in directionless turmoil, yadda yadda.  We've been playing this tape for a while now, haven't we?  The question isn't why stocks seem to pining for their fall 2011 doldrums; it's why they ever rallied 20% from those levels in the first place, when these headwinds, uncertainties, fiscal cliffs, and political indifference toward all of the above never left us.

See also: The Life of Julia

At 8:15 this morning, ADP will release its de facto preview of Friday's jobs report.  The market expects to see 170-175k private sector payrolls added in April, down from ADP's March estimate of 209k.  The usual caveat applies, namely that ADP's predictive powers are mixed at best.  But with investors closely watching the swift erosion in payroll growth over the last couple months, a big surprise - while not atypical or necessarily meaningful - is likely to set the tone for early trading.

Estimates suggest Friday's report will show payroll growth rebounding from March's morbid 120k to 160k, so a downside miss could ratchet back even that relatively modest optimism.

I'll place my chip on 95,000.

Stay tuned.  Moments away.

Update:  Well, it's a big miss, but not quite as big as I predicted.  119,000 (more than 50k below expectations), versus a downwardly revised 201,000.

I'll be on FoxNews.com Live this morning from 9-10, discussing the general election and the anniversary of the Bin Laden raid.  If you  miss it live, you can catch a replay at the link until Tuesday morning (dial the wheel to 9:00:00).

If this morning's dreary snapshot didn't have you down in the dumps about the ostensible and three-years-delinquent labor market recovery, give it a week.

The idea that the warm winter and its seemingly encouraging employment data may have robbed job creation from the spring looks to gel with the release of the April jobs report (emphasis mine).

The claims numbers are “a little concerning,” [Dow Jones’ Kathleen Madigan] said, and suggest that the April payrolls number, coming next week, “is not going to be a good one.” Not to overplay this, but she said there was a chance the number could even be negative, albeit just slightly so.

Either way, not good. What we’re finding out, she said, is that the economy wasn’t as good as it looked in the first few months of the year.

A negative print would be a huge whammy, even versus March's surprise disappointment of +120,000, and would pull the 2012 year-to-date monthly average down from over 200,000 to around 150,000, crossing under the breakeven threshold needed to keep up with population growth.

You know, in the private sector, you go to jail for what used they used to winkingly call "managing" earnings - using accounting gimmickry to nudge revenues and expenses from period to period in order to meet analysts' expectations or smooth volatility.

But in the realm of government data reporting, the art of data massage has become impressively robust.

For the 59th week of the last 60, the previous initial jobless claim report was revised upward, from 386,000 to 389,000.  And once again, this enables the Labor Department to report a week-over-week decline in new jobless claims, from the adjusted 389,000 to an unadjusted 388,000.  Upon next week's revision, this week will almost certainly have shown another increase.

If that sounds familiar, it may be because last week, the government reported a decline of 2,000 (but only after upwardly revising the previous week by 8,000).

Looking back over the last five weeks, the cumulative reported weekly changes (from previous weeks' adjusted data to the new unadjusted numbers) showed a net decline of 1,000, despite an actual cumulative net increase of 24,000.  And that's without the 5th revision factored in, at which point the cumulative increase will be closer to 30,000.

In addition to serving as fodder for another round of "Jobless Claims Fall" headlines, this week's underestimate has the additional side effect of avoiding the probably true headline "Jobless Claims Reach New 2012 High" from being written (at least for another week).  They started at 390,000 in early January and, assuming next week brings an upward revision of more than 2,000 (revisions have ranged from +3,000 to +10,000 over the last month), then we're already sitting at year-to-date highs.

The lie of unadjusted unemployment claims at least used to be a predictable one.  For the last year or so, the upward revision was almost invariably 3,000 or 4,000.  While last week's oops was only 3,000, the two preceeding weeks were truly wild pitches that needed revisions of 8,000 and 10,000.  So we no longer have the luxury of appplying a known truth adjustment factor to reveal the real data.  Alas, the only thing we know for sure is that initial unemployment claims are some amount higher than 388,000.

Update:  Ed at Hot Air has more, including some of the early media reports, dutifully noting that jobless claims "eased" last week.

Those zany terrorists.

In the wake of three national polls (Fox, Rasmussen, and Gallup) all showing Mitt Romney with a national lead over Barack Obama in the immediate wake of Rick Santorum's exit from the primary race, CNN bravely to kiboshed the ugly narrative with a poll of its own, showing Obama up by a mighty 9 points (outside the margin of error, unlike Romney's lead in the other surveys).

Naturally, they opted not to disclose the partisan split used in their polling sample, as such things can sometimes take the bloom off an otherwise rosy story.  That lack of disclosure isn't wholly unprecedeted by big media pollsters, but its obfuscation does have a curious tendency to correlate with Dem-friendly outliers.

But if you imagined stuffing your own ballot box with like-minded respondents was the only way to coax a poll into yielding the proper result, you underestimate CNN's considerable mathematical creativity.

Turns out the raw data required a deeper-than-usual tissue massage to produce the trend-busting insight its sponsors required...

I'll be on FoxNews.com Live this morning from 10-11, discussing what remains of the GOP primary, the senior vote, and Super PACs.  If you  miss it live, you can catch a replay at the link until Tuesday morning (dial the wheel to 10:00:00).

Update:  Here's a clip.