The money quotes:

But then there was another interview – this is yesterday, same day – where somebody asked John McCain, how many houses do you have?  And he said, I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff. True quote. I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff, and he said, at least four. At least four. Now, think about that.

And by the way, the answer is John McCain has seven homes.

As we all know by now, McCain's really stepped in it with this nonsense about not knowing how many houses he has.

I mean, he might really not know, but what he was hoping to do with his non-answer was obfuscate the reality that he's kept and pampered by simply refusing to be the first one to put a number on it.

But could his flippancy be indicative of more than just not wanting to admit he collects houses like crazy old ladies collect stray cats? Isn't it really a sign that a McCain administration would bring us another four years of "I don't recall" governance? I mean, I know the play worked for Reagan, Bush I, and the Pretzeldent too. But haven't we had about enough of Republican "leaders" who can never recall a damn thing about anything they do? Puh-lease.

Anyway, in addition to laughing your ass off at how ridiculous McCain is, you should also take a moment to thank Brave New Films for sparking this latest round of questions for Mr. Furious. They did a lot of legwork and research that they put into a video about some of the vast real estate holdings McCain just can't seem to remember, and it's looking like that was what set off the questions that led McCain to stuff his $500 loafers in his mouth:

The McCain camp's response has been equally predictable: Obama's not exactly destitute himself. And that's true. But not being able to answer the question "how many houses do you own?" without having staff look it up is not in the same league as having made some money. Let's fact it, it's not in the same league as 99.9% of the planet. And this from the guy who just suggested that it took $5 million a year to be considered "rich," and had an auditorium full of his would-be evangelical base literally laugh in his face for it.

Good to see it's finally getting some attention, because it didn't when the same subject came up four months ago. And doubly delicious that it really got legs when McCain phumphered his way through a non-answer on a question that reg'lar Amur-kins have sooooo much trouble with themselves, "How many houses ya got?"

I think America deserves an answer, to borrow a phrase too often annoyingly parroted by the other side any time they can gin up something as dumb as what a candidate drinks at breakfast. Only this time, we really do deserve an answer. We have disclosure laws for candidates in this country for a reason. And given that the best his staff could come up with was, "at least four," I think it's fairly clear they don't want to give us that answer. It ought to be an question he's asked everywhere he goes, and frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to hear anything else from him until he answers it straight up. People ought to remind him of the fact that if he's hemming and hawing on a pretty damned basic question, they're never going to be able to believe him on anything else.

So why not remind him that it's time to answer the question whenever and wherever you see him? Maybe just with something as simple as what another blogger well known to you all once suggested: holding up your own house keys and jangling them at him next time he shows his face in public?

The McCain camp attempts to deflect criticism over McCain having so many damn houses, he can't even keep count:

"Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people "cling" to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

"The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans." --McCain spokesman Brian Rogers

Hmm. $4 million? John McCain said just the other day that's not "rich." So yeah, let's have that debate.

Question one: How many damn houses do you have, Grumpy?

Answer: Umm, umm...

Sorry, you lose.

"It's seven."

"Hmm."

Three words lay the McMaverick low.

No, really.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Granted, McCain has a lot of houses, but even the highest estimates are like a dozen. That's not some ten-digit number like 1,537,993,625 (which anyone would have trouble remembering) where if you transpose the five and the three it's a major misrepresentation.

Is McCain's memory really that poor, and if so, what does it say about his ability to be president? Or is the number of houses he has such an unimportant question to him that it's not worth remembering? That he has a house everywhere he goes, so why bother singling them out to remember?

Or maybe it's a politically inconvenient question and he knows most reporters will give him a pass.

Matt Yglesias has another possibility:

When one of your homes is really a combination of two different luxury condos the metaphysical status of your property comes into question. You’d really need to ask a trained professional mereologist to resolve the issue and can’t expect McCain to speak to it personally.

(h/t Atrios)

Oh. Shut. Up.

ROMNEY: Well, Hugh, my own view is as the Caucuses are a hot spot, and as Russians have shown their willingness to act militarily against a sovereign nation, that the International Olympic Committee ought to revisit locating the Games elsewhere.

Just stop talking. Go away. Shut your malevolent gob. I'm sorry, but it'd be something akin to a sin to be even remotely polite about it anymore. Listening to people like Mitt Romney and Hugh "I have absolutely no memory of the last week, much less the last five years" Hewitt... listening to Grandpa McBombsalot declaring that in this century, "nations don't invade other nations"... our U.N. Ambassador Zalmay NotBoltonThankGod saying "the days of overthrowing leaders by military means (in Europe!), those days our gone"... Russia "expert" Condi Rice furrowing her brow and declaring military intervention is "not the way to deal in the 21st century"...

Just. Shut. Up. Do you think, do you honestly think that there is anyone on the planet that has less credibility on this issue than you? Seriously?

And then we've got Joe Lieberman warning against people who exhibit "moral neutrality." No, "moral neutrality" is what you get when you assert that any action on the part of the United States is moral by definition, regardless of how transparently malevolent the same act is when taken by someone else. It's not even moral neutrality, it's complete abdication of any premise of morality or desire for morality. It is pissing on the very concept of morality, and doing so gleefully, and for no reason more substantial than mere convenience.

Yes: one of the problems with tenuously premised "preemptive war" is that it is an vacuous notion usable by any nation to justify any action -- it legitimizes even egregiously premised, first-strike military action by blandly painting it as moral necessity. That was, you know, one of the major arguments against it, not that anyone actually listened to two damn words worth of those arguments. The United States has squandered, nearly entirely, its moral authority in matters of war and peace, and for that we will be paying a price for decades. Yes, the Georgian-Russian conflict is abominable, but people like McCain, Rice, et. al. are so thunderingly flawed, as the voice of those sentiments, that they make a mockery of the moral authority of the United States merely in expressing them.

So, to put it succinctly... piss off. The greatest moral failing of the United States in the last forty years has been to continue to give credence to the architects of "preemptive" invasion. Active promoters of those wars should at the very least be condemned to lives of solitude, in which not a damn word they say is ever reported on again.

David Gergen: I, adviser to four Presidents, will lay out What Obama Must Do. The fact is, as long as terrorism is the number one threat, the GOP will win. Ignore the polls that say it's not. Here's my recipe for a game changer (and the reason it's needed is that the McCain campaign has been better at impressing voters): lay out your Cabinet. Now. [And do not click this link].

Gail Collins:

Lieberman used to be a perfectly good senator, but somewhere along the line he began thinking of himself as being above the partisan fray, and it had a terrible effect. When he ran for vice president, he was so busy being pompous that he didn’t notice that Dick Cheney had won the debate. (Of all the negative achievements in Lieberman’s career, it’s hard to top making Cheney the most likable man in the room.)

But wait! There's more!

John Nichols:

This column has been pondering and predicting an Obama-Biden ticket for some time now. That's still the best bet, and now that the announcement is finally imminent, everyone is talking about it.

So, what the heck, let's run the Hillary Clinton scenario one more time...

George Will: Teachers, and by extension, Democrats, are bad for children.

David Broder:  I'm in NH, and guess what? You remember when Chris Matthews left DC and discovered people didn't like Bush? Well, outside the Beltway,

The negative judgments about the economy and the Bush presidency were unequivocal. That makes it Obama's race to lose. But there's still a need for reassurance from him.

Breaking.

Harold Meyerson:

The Democratic Party has a compelling story to tell about African Americans and women -- groups, suffering from huge and historic discrimination, that the party has championed and whose interests it has helped advance. For the white working class, the Democrats can point to discrete pieces of economic legislation (some, like retraining programs for jobs that don't exist, hardly worth pointing to), but they offer no such narrative.

Yet if Obama cannot tell this story, of workers deprived of economic opportunity and security through no fault of their own, cannot convey his empathy with these workers and his outrage over Wall Street discarding them like so many gratuitous spare parts, he probably cannot win the election.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

(Applause)

Bit of an energy crunch we're in, ain’t it? I was pondering how we got caught so seemingly flat-footed, so I went back and revisited President Bush's State of the Union speeches to see if there was a way we could've avoided this mess. (He said nothing about energy in either his 2001 or 2005 inaugural addresses.) Turns out he was quite the visionary:

2002:  "Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil."  (Applause.)
-
2003: "Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. (Applause.) I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home." (Applause.) ...
-
2004: "Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run---so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy." (Applause.)
-
2006: "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion [Less than the cost of waging the Iraq war for one month. --BiPM] to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources---and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. (Applause.)
-
2007: "For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. ... It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply---the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.
-
2008: "Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. ... Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.)

Now he's down to his last five months---goals unmet and promises broken---and the best he can do as he sleeps through the rest of his term is this:

"And so we discussed a variety of strategies about how to affect the supply of oil, and one way that we can affect the supply of oil is to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. ... Once they solve this problem, they can allow us to drill in northern Alaska."

Great president...or Greatest President Ever?

P.S. Congressional Dems, if you're gonna collapse on drilling, at least try to collapse intelligently. I know, I know...probably too much to ask.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

News of her passing unfortunately complicated by premature reports, several media outlets are now confirming that Ohio Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones died this evening.

From the New York Times:

Considered a liberal, Ms. Tubbs Jones was a co-sponsor of legislative efforts to broaden health care coverage for low- and middle-income people and of programs supporting the re-entry of convicts into their communities. She was also the author of legislation requiring certification for mortgage brokers and stiffer penalties for predatory loans.

In June, Ms. Tubbs Jones voted against emergency supplemental financing for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I feel it important that we have a plan for a timely redeployment of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before we continue funding what has become a seemingly endless war," she said at the time.

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Louisiana 1976, jlms qkw, HansScholl, dopper0189, BentLiberal and ItsJessMe, with jennyjem spinning around in the editor's chair. Wheeeee!

The diaries up for rescue tonight are:

• While the warmongers beat their chests over Georgia, ignatz uk writes about a brewing humanitarian crisis in a forgotten corner of the world in 160,000 refugees at risk as Tamil Tigers face defeat. (HansScholl)
• ClimateLurker writes on the importance of satellites in saving the environment in Global Warming and the Next Administration: Save Our Satellites! (BentLiberal)
• The Ghost of Bobby Kennedy poignantly reminds us there is a war happening in The War Hits Home For This Liberal Elitist. (jlms qkw)
• What happens when former prisoners of war play soccer against the forces occupying their country? Read all about it in gjohnsit's Games of Life and Death. (BentLiberal)
• strobusguy provides a disturbing anecdote showing how this Olympics represents the ultimate marriage of global corporate power and the Chinese totalitarian-capitalist regime in "Elderly Chinese Women Sentenced to Labor Re-education" An Olympic moment. (ItsJessMe)
• Gary In Los Angeles shares this great community project in Twenty-Two Children Write & Sing for Obama in Venice. (jlms qkw)
• tarheelian51 reminds us of how disaster relief is closely connected to politics in How Republicans Use Hurricanes in Florida. (Louisiana 1976)
• dinazina shares her cool art work for Obama in My Obama art submitted to MoveOn contest. (BentLiberal)
• abrauer provides us with some comic relief and priceless photos in Memo to St. Paul RNC protesters: break out the tiaras! (ItsJessMe)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: August 19, 2008.

Carnacki has Top comments - Taking On the System review.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

Construction is underway on the Big Tent in Denver. Hosted by Daily Kos, ProgressNow, and The Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, the Big Tent will be the place to be for new media journalists, bloggers, and non-profit leaders covering the Democratic National Convention. The Alliance for Sustainable Colorado has graciously given their building, parking lot, and untold hours of staff time to make this event a reality for the mass of bloggers descending upon Denver.  The Alliance Center is one of only two double-LEED certified buildings in the world and 27 non-profit organizations currently call it home. They represent a range of educational and advocacy interests -- social justice, environmental protection, consumer awareness, public health, and cultural diversity.

In addition to resources like WiFi, podcast areas, Fat Tire beer, food, and much more for the registered bloggers, the Big Tent has a Digg Stage featuring national leaders and speakers like Van Jones, T. Boone Pickens, Carl Pope, Majora Carter, James Rucker, Donna Edwards, Donna Brazille, John Conyers, and our very own Markos Moulitsas.  The growing schedule of speakers can be found at the Big Tent website. Can't make it to Denver? Don't have a Big Tent pass?  No worries, you don't have to be in the tent to be a part of the tent. The Digg Stage will be streamed live, courtesy of UStream, on the Big Tent website, beginning with the Media Consortium's Live from Main Street Denver event this Sunday at 4pm MDT.

We'll be reporting from the Big Tent throughout the convention, so stay tuned to Daily Kos and The Big Tent website for the latest and greatest from Denver.

Yesterday I ranked Senate races per Rasmussen polls, based on the latest Louisiana Ras poll. Today, let me do a better version of that post, this time using the Pollster.com polling composites (a more accurate way to gauge the state of these races).

I've ranked them in order of likelihood of switching, including all races within 20 points:

So there are 14 Republican-held seats that are more endangered than Louisiana. New Jersey, always such a tease, is actually close than Louisiana, though Republicans seemed to have wised up to the Garden State's shenanigans. Too bad. The more money they sunk into NJ, the less money they'd have to try and hold those other 14. And there are signs that Oklahoma may be more competitive.

Bottom line? NM, VA, AK, and NH look like solid pickups. Colorado is shoring up, likely (D) in my book. I think we pull off Mississippi, which gets us to six.

If the elections were today, I think that's where things would settle. Can we get four more from that list in the next 2 1/2 months to get to a Lieberman-proof 60? I'm increasingly optimistic. It's not just the favorable political climate, but also this:

That's the Senate party committees cash on hand at the end of July. Democrats quite simply have the cash to create mass havoc behind enemy lines. Republicans barely have enough to keep the lights on at party HQ, much less actually play defense. While Republicans spent $2.8 million in July, Democrats have been barraging Republicans with over $8.5 million in ads and other spending.

The DSCC artillery assault has already begun, and Republicans have half the cash the Dems have to respond.

The new NBC/WSJ and CBS/NY Times polls are out and there are no radical changes from yesterday's poll tightening. As previously noted, we pay special attention to media polls because of their ability to drive narrative. (For a complete view of all the polls, see pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com.)

One narrative that seems clear as a short term gain and long term pain: McCain is perceived as running a negative campaign.

By a nearly six-to-one margin, voters say Republican presidential candidate John McCain is running a negative campaign against his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Nearly three in 10 voters, 29%, pointed to McCain as the candidate running a negative campaign, compared to just 5% who said Obama is running a negative campaign. McCain’s 29% rating is the highest of any one candidate in the previous two presidential elections according to the WSJ/NBC News survey.

In October 2004, 15% of voters identified both President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry as negative campaigners. In July 2000, 8% identified Bush as a negative campaigner, while 13% said Vice President Al Gore was a negative campaigner.

However, 41% of respondents said neither McCain nor Obama is running a negative campaign, while 19% said both men are guilty of using negative tactics.

NBC/WSJ Presidential choice
          8/08 (6/08) (5/08) (4/08)
Barack Obama  45 (47) (47) (46)
John McCain   42 (41) (41) (43)

CBS/NY Times Presidential choice
          8/15-19/08 (7/31-8/5/08) (7/7-14/08)
Barack Obama  45 (45) (45)
John McCain   42 (39) (39)

For CBS/NY Times, it's 45 (45) Obama, 42 (39) McCain, also a tightening. The enthusiasm gap is 48-24 (guess who), and 28% of McCain's supporters are either 'he's the GOP nominee' or anti-Obama. And like the NBC/WSJ poll, more people perceive McCain as negative on Obama than positive on McCain. From NY Times (my bold):

There were indications that the more negative tone Mr. McCain adopted this summer could prove risky. Attempts by Republicans and the McCain campaign to cast Mr. Obama as elitist, or out of touch, do not seem to have moved popular opinion much yet against the Democrat, but they appear to have led more voters to view Mr. McCain as a negative campaigner.

Obama leads 20 points with 18-34s, McCain leads by 1 with everyone else.

Back to NBC/WSJ: Hillary Clinton's voters are half the 13% undecideds. See Ruth Marcus:

It's not that Obama has a problem with female voters. To the contrary, he does significantly better among women than among men. It sounds paradoxical, but the campaign, lagging badly among white men, may have its biggest growth potential among female voters. Women, especially women without a college education, tend to make up their minds later. Recent polls show twice as many women as men are undecided.

77% still think McCain will follow Bush's policies. Not good for McCain.

In any case, with both polls, there's a 3 point Obama lead, well within the MoE (usually +/- 3). That feels about right. McCain, as noted throughout this week, is consolidating his (smaller) base).

For perspective, I like Marc Ambinder.

McCain has given them something to think about this summer: Obama. And Obama hasn't returned the favor. He hasn't defined McCain in a visceral way, yet. He hasn't demonstrated that he can connect with working class white voters, although voters do find him empathetic enough. He can do both of these at the convention, and there are indications that he's doing the former in states with advertising.

With the convention coming up, there's lots of upside for Obama to do the same, and more talk about Lieberman for McCain. Now, that may be a head fake to distract and get some attention away from Obama's VP, and it would severely hurt with the religious right. But the fact is the next week belongs to Obama. We'll see what he does with it and how well the numbers look afterwards. McCain has built up some significant negatives, he's still tied to Bush, and the economy is still the driving force in this election. Think about what that means in the long run. From NY Times:

Slim majorities said neither candidate had yet made clear what he would do as president, suggesting that both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain need to use their conventions to provide voters with a better sense of their plans for addressing the deteriorating economy, high energy prices, access to health care and national security.

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is still closely associated with the deeply unpopular President Bush: nearly half of those surveyed said they expected him to continue the Bush administration’s policies if he is elected president. But voters, by a wide margin, view Mr. McCain as better prepared to be president than Mr. Obama, and as more likely to be an effective commander-in-chief.

My read is that McCain is spoiling his own brand with independents in order to consolidate his own base (my prediction from way back was that he can't have both) while the Democrats take their time to make up their mind. We will see what happens, starting with the next eight days, but I don't think this is great news for McCain no matter how the media spin goes. For all his vaunted "great couple of weeks" McCain is still stuck in the low 40's and has an unenthusiastic base behind him (one that's smaller than Obama's.)

Plus, yesterday's LA Times/Bloomberg and Q-poll both show Obama winning with indies, and McCain is perceived as a negative camapigner closely associated with the unpopular George Bush (CBS/NY Times: 47% think he'll continue Bush's policies but only 9% want him to. 48% want him to be less conservative.)

Finally, it would seem this year, the Obama campaign, as has been posted at fivethirtyeight.com, is investing in the ground game rather than blowing their wad on negative ads with limited effect, the way McCain did.

Can McCain win? Maybe. Obama still has plenty of work to do, and there are no guarantees (and, in fact, the real campaign starts Monday) but McCain might just have hit his ceiling with these polls while Obama still may have a lot of upside.

^{Note on CBS poll: Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones.}

Stevens' gamble for an early trial suffered its first setback, when a judge refused a motion to move the trial to Alaska.

Sen. Ted Stevens cannot move his corruption trial from Washington to his home state of Alaska, a federal judge ruled Wednesday in a decision that could hamstring the powerful Republican's re-election bid [...]

Stevens, 84, had hoped to stand trial by day and campaign on nights and weekends. In a state where he is known as ''Uncle Ted,'' he could have faced a more sympathetic jury. Stevens was named the Alaskan of the Century in 2000, the Anchorage airport bears his name, and he has brought billions in federal aid to the frontier state.

Wednesday's ruling puts a damper on his campaign plans. Stevens asked for, and received, an unusually speedy trial that he hopes will clear his name before voters go to the polls. But with the trial in Washington, Democrats will have the state largely to themselves while Stevens is tethered to a defense table in the weeks leading up to the November election.

There's still about three weeks for Stevens to withdraw from the race. He'd have to do it after next Tuesday's primary, or one of his no-name primary challengers might end up being the nominee. But if he does it between next Wednesday and September 17-ish (give or take a day), state Republicans can replace him with however they want.

But the defense also rejected an offer by the judge to hold trial only four days a week so Stevens could spend more time in Alaska. The deal would've delayed the verdict, and the overriding Stevens bet seem to be that acquittal will boost his electoral prospects. So given that they've decided for early decision over more time at home, it suggests that Stevens intends to stick it out to the bitter end.

And if he's convicted? Who cares? It wouldn't be any worse than the big, double-digit deficit he currently faces against O2B Democrat Mark Begich.

On the web:

Mark Begich for Senate
Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Leaving aside the idea that illegal immigrants are enjoying the best medical care that this country can offer, this is a shocking admission from John McCain...from a town hall meeting earlier today:

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disabled veterans, especially in this state, have horrible conditions [...] My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can't even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don't reenact the draft I don't think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

JOHN MCCAIN: Ma'am let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.

Someone is sending out fake text messages to people's cell phones claiming to announce Obama's veep pick. Some say it's Clinton, others Gore, and they look like this:

"Dear supporter, today our campaign joins in a historic partnership with Al Gore.  Together we will move America forward.  Yes we can."

The messages seem to come from 62262, which is the Obama text number. I don't know how easy or hard it is to spoof text messages, but someone is doing it.

Update: Ahh, Wonkette has instructions on how to do it.

Here's a new ad, Three Times, from the Obama campaign, scheduled to air in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia beginning today.