According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.87 million more jobs in the household employment statistics than when Bush took office, and 1.9 million more jobs now than the previous all-time peak of March, 2001.

I understand that payroll employment is the standard used, but nobody has explained this discrepancy to me yet. It isn't just self-employment and farmers. If the household number is useless, why calculate it in the first place?

The unemployment rate, being studiously ignored in this discussion, is 5.5 percent. It was 5.6 percent when Clinton won reelection.

Why job creation month to month is now considered a critical issue compared to unemployment rate puzzles me a bit. Nobody paid attention to this before. In 2000, after the economy started to tank, there were two months when over 25,000 jobs were actually lost. Did this make headlines?

The low point of payroll jobs was August of last year. There are now almost 1.5 million more jobs than there were then, and there has not been a single negative month that whole time.

Anyway, I discussed before how it wouldn't buy Bush anything with his opponents if there had been ten million jobs created. I watched the news the two consecutive months when over 300,000 jobs were created. The media didn't give a rat's ass. The mode immediately shifted to salaries, and the "wrong kind of jobs." It's a no-win.

The people who hate Bush are going to vote against him no matter what. Victory overseas, booming economy, millions of jobs. None of that would change their minds. Or yours.