The latest New York Times/CBS News poll is out, and it appears to be good news for both Barack Obama and John McCain. Of course, there’s more good news for Obama on the horizon, and some bad news for John McCain. Here’s a little excerpt from the NYTimes poll:

Republican voters have sharply altered their views of the party’s presidential candidates following the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, with Senator John McCain, once widely written off, now viewed more favorably than any of his major competitors, according to the latest nationwide New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The findings underscored the extraordinary volatility in the Republican race and suggested that the party was continuing to search for a nominee whom it could rally around. Nearly three quarters of Republican primary voters said it was still too early for them to make up their minds “for sure,” meaning that they could shift their allegiances yet again if one or more of Mr. McCain’s rivals breaks through in the two Republican primaries this week, in Michigan and South Carolina.

On the Democratic side, Senator Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa has improved his standing within the party on a critical measure: his electability. The percentage of Democrats who say he would be the strongest candidate against the Republicans has more than doubled in a month, to 35 percent from 14 percent in December.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who won her party’s primary in New Hampshire, still has an edge on electability, a substantial advantage on experience — the central selling point of her campaign — and leads among Democrats nationally. But Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now viewed by Democrats as almost equally qualified on a variety of measures, including the ability to serve as commander in chief.

Americans’ priorities are also in flux early into the primary season. The survey found voters to be in their darkest mood about the economy in 18 years, by some measures; 62 percent said they believed that the economy was getting worse, the highest percentage since the run-up to the recession in 1990. Seventy-five percent said they believed that the country has “seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” also similar to levels in the early 1990s, when such discontent fueled the presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton.

Worries about the economy now dominate the voters’ agenda, even more so than the war in Iraq, which framed the early part of this campaign. While change has emerged as an abstract rallying cry in the campaign debate, what the voters mean when they talk about change is clear — new approaches to the economy and the war, according to the poll. Issues that have loomed large in the Republican debate — notably immigration, taxes and moral values — pale by comparison.

That last bit says bad things for any Republican out there, though it may solidify Republican support for McCain. Still, he’s been a supporter of the “wrong track” of President Bush. The thing is, a “wrong tack” sentiment by the public might also count against Hillary Clinton, since she’s not only comnnected to a previous administration, quite intimately, but also because she’s been a powerful voice in the Seante. Still, that’s only a marginal advantage for Obama. The real disadvantage we’re seeing is for any Republican candidate. They’re having money troubles. Here’s a bit from the LA Times:

Republicans’ fundraising has lagged far behind the Democrats’ in a primary campaign that has no clear GOP front- runner. Many voters are dissatisfied with their choices, and many analysts are predicting a Democratic victory in the fall.

One measure of Democrats’ advantage: In the wake of her New Hampshire primary victory, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York received more than $6 million in cash and pledges in a matter of days. The Republicans’ New Hampshire winner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, raised less than $1 million, even though the day after the primary was his biggest fundraising day of the campaign.

As of Sept. 30, the Republican candidates combined reported having $42.7 million in cash on hand, which was $8 million less than Clinton alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

It is a remarkable reversal for a GOP that has dominated politics for more than a decade, in part because of its significant financial advantage.

“It really is a sea change,” said Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who is not involved in the presidential campaign. “If it continues, it could change the fundamental balance of American politics.”

Republicans’ financial woes are a reflection, in part, of an enthusiasm gap: Polls indicate that GOP voters are less excited about their candidate field and their party’s prospects than are Democrats.

I’m thinking any Republican who comes out of the primary fight is going to have troubles, so I want a fight to the last primary over there. Meantime, Barack Obama picked up another endorsement from a swing state, Semator Claire McCaskell from Missouri. From the NY Times:

Since losing the New Hampshire primary last week, Senator Barack Obama has won a string of endorsements. The latest one came Sunday, with Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri announcing her support for Mr. Obama’s presidential candidacy.

“It would be a terrible disappointment to our country if we didn’t grab this opportunity now,” Ms. McCaskill said in a morning conference call. “This is not an easy decision for me. I have deep respect for Hillary Clinton. She’s a smart woman and a strong leader, but at this moment in history it is very important that we look forward with optimism and hope that we’ve not been able to gin up in this country for awhile.”

The Obama campaign has strategically rolled out endorsements day-by-day since last Tuesday, particularly highlighting Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. With Ms. McCaskill formalizing her long-held plans, the Obama campaign has endorsements from six senators, compared with nine for Mrs. Clinton.

So why did she support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton? During the conference call today, she pointed out more than once that it was a difficult decision to make. Turns out, it was partly because of her daughter.

“At the fierce urging of my 18-year-old daughter, I could not sit in the bleachers any longer,” Ms. McCaskill explained. “I felt like I needed to get down on the field, fighting for what I think is so important for our country.”

It was an endorsement that was aggressively sought by Mrs. Clinton, particularly because Missouri is among the states holding a primary on Feb. 5. The Obama campaign hopes Ms. McCaskill’s organization from her 2006 Senate race will be helpful to his candidacy. As with all endorsements, it is impossible to know whether they motivate voters – or not.
Her praise, though, was was effusive. And she said she intended to help introduce – and defend – him to voters.

“A lot of people talk about his ability to give a great speech. And there’s no question that he is truly gifted by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches them,” Ms. McCaskill said. “To me, that is the whip cream in the cherry. To me, this is a man who has incredible intellectual heft, he’s a very smart guy with a wide soul who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems.”

It’s important to note that McCain will have some trouble raising money, even if he does win the Republican nomination. It is probably more important to note that Claire McCaskill was swayed by her daughter to support Barack Obama. Sure, energizing the vote of young people will be tough, but it is good to see Barack Obama garnering that kind of support.