The SurveyUSA polling firm's blog has just posted an interesting breakdown of how all 50 states would vote if the presidential election were held today. In both scenarios, John McCain loses a relatively close election. However, when I looked at the 50 state breakdown in a Clinton vs. McCain pairing, a number of very questionable results jumped out.

The Obama vs. McCain states look much more believebale, with Obama taking 280 electoral votes to 258 for McCain.

According to the SurveyUSA polling, Clinton beats McCain with 276 electoral votes to 262 for McCain. But here are the states that jumped out to me as questionable at the very least:

*Arkansas: Clinton carrying the state by 11 points? Sure, it's her "home" state, but what about Huckabee's influence?

*McCain carrying Colorado and Hillary carrying Florida? I would guess the reverse in each case is more likely, as they are in the Obama vs. McCain results.

*McCain narrowly carries Iowa -- this is just too close to call. Neither Clinton nor McCain are particularly popular here, but I'd give her the edge thanks to major issues (Iraq, economy) trending against the GOP.

*McCain carries Missouri and Michigan? Both are certainly possible, but again, far from locks.

*McCain carries Oregon by six points? Please. I'm from Oregon and there's basically no way this happens. Historical precedence, the issues and voter demographics all weigh heavily against this far-fetched scenario.

*McCain carries Virginia by 10 points? With the recent Democratic ascension in the state? Unlikely.

*McCain carries Washington by 2 points? Again, who was being polled here? Every Republican in the state? This state hasn't gone GOP since Reagan's re-election. It would take a historically disastrous Clinton campaign for McCain to even think of carrying the state.

The Washington Post reports that even in victory, many of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff are still eager to have Mark Penn off the stage:

Many of her advisers are waging a two-front war, one against Sen. Barack Obama and the second against one another, but their most pressing challenge is figuring out why Clinton won in Ohio and Texas and trying to duplicate it. While Penn sees his strategy as a reason for the victories that have kept her candidacy alive, other advisers attribute the wins to her perseverance, favorable demographics and a new campaign manager. Clinton won "despite us, not because of us," one said.

Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan says:

It's Bush-Cheney all over again, but less disciplined, more narcissistic, more cynical.

And Carol Platt Liebau over at the Town Hall blog wisely asks:

Reporters and political junkies may lap up every juicy detail about what's gone (or going) wrong, who's to blame, and who's blaming whom.  But in the end, isn't this all just a really big distraction -- one that's likely only to grow worse were Hillary to win?

Meanwhile, Kos catches this nugget, sure to anger many progressives, that former DLC Chair Bruce Reed is working for the Clinton campaign.

NBC's First Read and the New York Post both raise the possibility of Al Gore entering the debate over Florida and Michigan's delegates in the Democratic primary. Since both states violated national party rules, their delegates are currently excluded from this summer's party convention. But with the primary battle dragging on, there is a growing debate over whether there should be a second, sanctioned vote in each state, allow the delegates to be seated, or leave things as is. It's not just an academic exercise. Clinton and Obama supporters will push their respective cases because the nomination could literally hang in the balance of what happens with these two states.

The Corner's John Derbyshire thinks Gore can't help but get involved:

He'll answer the call even if he doesn't much want to. And he does much want to.

But James Joyner pours cold water on any notion of Gore stepping in, not to help the party, but to make himself the nominee:

I tend to agree with Derbyshire that Gore would relish the idea of being the savior. He might well be able to get the nomination if there’s no clearcut winner after Pennsylvania and he’d get to avoid the mess of a long primary battle. But I’m not sure how this saves the party. Indeed, both Obama and Clinton supporters would rightly feel cheated if Gore swooped in and was handed the nomination.

Appearing this morning on CBS's "The Early Show," Hillary Clinton marked her comeback victories in Ohio and Texas by raising the possibility of a "dream ticket" with Barack Obama ... as her vice president. Obama appeared after Clinton and downplayed the possibility, stressing his overall delegate lead. Nonetheless, the story has caught fire in the blogosphere.

Michelle Malkin, under the heading, "The Glacier-Messiah ticket?" writes:

Spine-chilling to contemplate. But also ridiculous. About as likely as a McCain-Tancredo ticket. I mean, come on. Hillary Cackle Count: 1.2

Meanwhile, Say Anything speculates:

That would certainly serve to unite the left against McCain who is still suffering from lackluster support from his base.

And Wonkette, as usual, puts things in perspective:

Of course, the chances of Obama returning the favor if he's the nominee are pretty much zero because he knows that she will try to poison him the day after he's sworn in.

You can watch the Clinton video here.

While the netroots continue to debate the pros and cons of an extended primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, conservative bloggers are all-but-unified in their hopes for a protracted contest on the left. Their hope is that the longer the two Democrats fight it out, the more diminished their chances are for the general election. Delaying the general election contest also gives presumptive Republican nominee John McCain more time to solidify his support on the right and to narrow the substantial fundraising gap.

NRO's Jim Geraghty says some of his Republican readers in Texas and Ohio are crossing party lines to support Clinton, and adds:

Rush is urging his listeners to vote Hillary, too. This letter contends it is because he wants the weakest candidate, but the bottom line is that the longer the Democratic primary goes on, the more Hillary and Obama spend their resources hitting each other instead of McCain.

 American Spectator's Philip Klein takes a nuanced view of the possible outcomes:

If Hillary wins both Ohio and Texas and stays in the race, the Democrats keep bludgeoning each other for another few months. If Obama knocks her out of the race tonight, the Clinton era is over. Sounds like a win win to me.

Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn says Hillary Clinton's "3am" ad is resonating with Ohio voters and creating some momentum for the embattled candidate:

Penn said the ad, which began airing Friday, effectively framed the question of "who's ready and prepared to be commander-in-chief." Penn added: "Just by merely asking the question and nothing more, millions of people understood what is the answer to that question." He called it a "tipping point" in the race that has signaled a "change in momentum."

Bloggers were certainly skeptical of the ad when it debuted last week. Most saw it more as a sign of Joementum.

Byron York says the only problem with the national security argument is that Democrats don't care about national security.

Meanwhile, Michael Goodwin argues against the conventional wisdom, suggesting that tomorrow may be Obama's third and final chance to show he can knock Clinton out of the race.

And MyDD's Jerome Armstrong says the Obama campaign is "crouched on the defensive" in light of the Canadian minister/NAFTA story and the Rezko trial.

One day before Texans and Ohioans cast their votes, a number of polls show both contests looking too close to call. The blogger/reporter/pundit classes are putting the smart money on Obama winning Texas and Clinton winning Ohio. The only major poll showing Obama with a lead in Ohio is Zogby, who has had a mixed record this cycle.

The Moderate Voice says liberal activist group ACORN is paying people in Ohio to vote canvas for Obama. I suppose that's one way to boost the state's economy.

Meanwhile, while some local blogs are questioning a Columbus-Dispatch poll showing Clinton with a supposed 16 point edge.

CQ Politics' own Greg Giroux provides a helpful primer on why tomorrow's Texas results may be murky.

UPDATE:  ACORN is paying individuals to canvas for Obama, not literally paying them to vote for him.
A Wiki history of ACORN's previous conviction for, and other allegations of, violating election law can be found here.

The conservative Just One Minute blog takes umbrage at criticism of conservatives who are referring to Barack Obama by including his middle name, Barack Hussein Obama:

Geez, if we can't call the Dem front runner "Barack Hussein Obama", I guess my own contribution - "Barack Hussein Il Jong Obama" - is really dead in the water.

Poster Tom Maguire goes on to ridicule Talking Points Memo for their post he believes attempts to hold McCain accountable for every campaign attack targeting Obama.

Blogs are reacting heavily to this CTV report claiming that a "top staff member" from Barack Obama's presidential campaign called a Canadian official to both warn him of Obama's forthcoming NAFTA criticisms, and to assure that same official that such attacks were purely rhetoric:

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

The Obama campaign has denied the allegation, which is being met with a mixed reaction from bloggers. The Huffington Post's David Sirota finds change he can believe in:

On balance, I'm strongly inclined to believe the Obama camp on this one.

The Canadian Embassy has now officially denied that such a phone call took place, but Shakespear's Sister still wants Obama to come out swinging:

Obama should begin to talk about this story like a constructed smear job.

Meanwhile, some conservative bloggers like Q and O are saying the story plays into a larger Obama theme of, "don't take this seriously, it's something I have to say on the campaign trail to gather the votes I need for office"

Seriously, Obama must be feeling supremely confident these days. Less than a week before pivotal primaries in Texas and Ohio, he took a few minutes to talk with Greg Oden on the phone. Yes, that's #1 NBA draft pick Greg Oden, who plays will hopefully someday play for my hometown team, the Portland Trailblazers. You see, Oden hasn't played a single minute of NBA basketball because he's sitting out this year after having surgery on his knee. But he does write a blog. So, again, Obama took several minutes out of his day to chat up an injured NBA blogger who isn't even playing this year. How awesome/crazy is that? Really, what's he going to get out of it? Another vote in Oregon? Isn't that sort of like Darius Miles adding a few more inches to his car rims? Anyway, take it away Mr. Oden:

The conversation was quick - like two minutes but I got to talk to him like a real person. What I got from talking to him is that he is a real sports fan and he knew about the Blazers. He said that when I come back Brandon, LaMarcus and I will be a force next year. He also asked me about my knee, and he said he wasn't feeling my mohawk - lol. I laughed and explained to him that it's just a haircut to me and he told me he liked how I handle myself as a young man - "Thanks Mom." I did not talk politics with him. He talks about that stuff all the time and I'm going to keep learning more about the issues.

Ok, enough with the shameless Blazers love. I don't want to go all Lee Cowan on you guys.

UPDATE: Fellow Blazer believer Ian reminds me of what should be an obvious point: Oden went to Ohio State and his endorsement is listed on Obama's website.

Two Hillary Clinton stories are dominating the blogs this afternoon.

Dana Milbank's account of yesterday's breakfast chat with Clinton campaign strategist Harold Ickes and campaign spokesman Phil Singer; and the New York Times' story on Clinton's "five point plan" to attack Barack Obama before next week's Ohio and Texas primaries.

Asking for a "little more butter with that popcorn," Red State's streiff declares:

Now that power has started to slip from the grasp of the ersatz political jalopy constructed by the Clintons, they are fast finding out who are their real friends. It is becoming increasingly clear that the national media is not among them.

Of course, the Clinton campaign wouldn't disagree, as a considerable amount of their time lately has been devoted to accusing the media of favoring Obama over Clinton. On the Clinton's comparing Obama's foreign policy experience to that of President Bush, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis writes:

Does she really want to go there? I mean, she was the one who supported giving Bush the authority to go into Iraq - not Obama. Actually, I think she wants a fight on anything she can get at this point.

Just days after Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of using campaign tactics, "right out of Karl Rove's playbook," her campaign has begun distributing a photo of Barack Obama "dressed" in what appears to be Muslim garb. From the Drudge Report:

The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya. The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.

Progressive Texas blog Burnt Orange Report asks:

You think this is going to slow him down? We'll see. But nothing has yet...and that's why the "electability" argument is bunk.

National Review Online says of the photo:

The first is that it is a sign of the desperation of Team Clinton. The second is that it is pretty nasty stuff,

James Joyner adds:

The attack is backfiring on Clinton, feeding into the “she’s desperate and will do anything to win” meme.

There isn't a lot of blogger reaction to Ralph Nader's decision to once-again run for the White House this year. There is little affection left for the citizen's advocate whom many Democrats believe cost Al Gore the election in 2000. To that end, former Nader protege James Fallows captures the sentiment of so many:

That he stayed in the race in 2000 was tragedy. (See: Invasion of Iraq, 2003, and subsequent occupation.) That he came back in 2004 was unfortunate; his entry in 2008 is farce. Farce because it suggests detachment from political reality (the differences between the Republican and Democratic nominees are so faint that we can say, What the hell!) and, worse, narcissism. The fact that it won't make any difference in the outcome actually is sad.

My CQ Politics colleague Craig Crawofrd writes that Nader may still have an impact:

We could be witnessing why Obama should have tried a little harder to court Edwards. And why the Democratic frontrunner should not have dissed Nader, as Al Gore did eight years ago.The spoiler is back.

But conservative Blake Dvorak also dismisses Nader, even if many conservatives wish he could hurt the Democrat's candidate this time around:

Let's get through this up top: Ralph Nader has run for president twice -- once as a factor and once as a non-factor. The question is whether Nader's fortunes are cyclical or whether they're on a steep slope of rapidly diminishing returns. He'll have his supporters, but his candidacy isn't the third-party run that will dramatically change this race.

Unfortunately, I did not get to ask John McCain my question during today's blogger conference call. It concerns word choice and may sound insignificant to some, but I think says something important about McCain's strategic outlook.

During a question about last night's Democratic debate, McCain described Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's answers on Iraq to be "almost Orwellian." However, during the same answer, he referred to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party." It's a two-letter subtraction that Democrats have described as a "smear" by Republicans who have previously used it, including President Bush, Tom DeLay and several other prominent Republicans. The obvious intended effect is to disassociate the neutral semantic use of "Democratic," which one assumes conjures positive feelings, from alignment with the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the questionable word choice occurred midway through the conference call, far too late for my trigger finger *1 request to reach the front of the pack before the call ended. McCain even shut-down his handlers, taking an additional question after they tried to cut things off. But again, unfortunately, I wasn't the guy picked to ask.

Still, I'm very curious if this word choice was intentional, and if so, what does McCain believe is its desired effect?

Just got off another John McCain conference call for bloggers. There weren't too many items that jump out, but a few interesting questions and answers. McCain has said he has nothing left to say about the New York Times story, but nonetheless was asked about whether it had rallied conservatives to his cause. "I don't know the answer to that," McCain said, adding, "I really have to move on in all aspects of this issue."

On Barack Obama's debate answer last night in which he offered to meet with incoming Cuba leader Raoul Castro without conditions: McCain said such a meeting, "has the effect of legitimizing him." But this did allow McCain the chance to work in a decent joke, saying of Fidel Castro, "We eagerly await his chance to meet Karl Marx."

On whether indicted Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who currently serves as McCain's honorary Arizona campaign co-chair, should step down: "I'm sure congressman Renzi will probably move to step down and that we would accept that."

While bloggers remain almost exclusively focused on John McCain and the New York Times, there was a Democratic debate last night on CNN between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Most bloggers and analysts came away feeling that both performed well, but Clinton did not land the necessary knock-out punch to put her back in serious contention.

Over at MyDD, Glenn Smith says few enough people were paying attention for Hillary's high points to matter:

The most striking thing about the debate in Austin last night:  it was barely news even in Texas, which hasn't hosted such an event in many, many years. Oh, everyone was ready for news. The crowd was keyed up as they entered the hall. They left kind of sagging, a little disappointed, happy enough to have seen the candidates, but not sensing they had witnessed a turning point in history.

Meanwhile, Tom Hayden of the Huffington Post says Clinton's final debate statement could boost her campaign or at least be a respectable and graceful campaign farewell:

I thought Clinton excelled with her wrap up, which led to a standing ovation...Her performance might re-ignite her campaign, but also could be a memorable farewell, a dignity in defeat, for which she will be well remembered and honored

As the McCain/NYT story develops, it's interesting to review how it is being both perceived and discussed by the traditional media and by the blogs. The two mediums often have problems with one another, but there is a convergence of sorts so far on this topic.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer editor David McCumber explained his paper's decision not to run the McCain story, calling it "pretty thin beer," (a fitting metaphor for those of us native to the micro-brewing hub that is the Northwest):

This story seems to me not to pass the smell test. It makes the innuendo of impropriety, even corruption, without backing it up. I was taught that before you run something in the newspaper that could ruin somebody's reputation, you'd better have your facts very straight indeed.

Michelle Malkin sifts through the Seattle P-I's story's "interesting" comments section.

In what Ed Morrissey calls "a rather telling denunciation," on the Los Angeles Times' blog, Andrew Malcom explains why the Boston Globe, a paper owned by the New York Times, also passed on the McCain story in favor of the latter version penned by competitors the Washington Post:

That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at but did not describe or document and which the senator and lobbyist have denied.

On Thursday the Globe's website, Boston.com, did provide a link to the Times story on the Times' website. But such a stark editorial decision by a major newspaper raises suspicions that even the Globe's editors, New York Times Co. employees all, had their own concerns about the content of their parent company's story.

Rainey asked the Globe's editor, Martin Baron, about that decision. His eloquent reply: "No comment."

When journalists hear such rhetorical avoidance from public figures and politicians, they usually take it as confirmation of their suspicions.

The fallout continues from yesterday's New York Times' piece on John McCain's ties to a female lobbyist. 24 hours later, the story continues to be the most-discussed item in the blogosphere, with the NYT hosting a Q&A with its readers, addressing criticism of the piece's merits and timing.

The Moderate Voice says if/when McCain and Barack Obama are held under the lights of scrutiny for their related lobbyist connections, Obama will come out looking better:

But the story, warts and all, further reveals McCain to be an idiosyncratic Washington insider who plays by the rules only when it suits him. Yes, Barack Obama rubs shoulders with lobbyists, but the contrast between he and McCain — if that is the fall line-up — inevitably hurts the elderly gentleman from Arizona and helps the whippersnapper from Illinois in this year of contrasts and change.

However, over at Commentary, Jennifer Rubin rhetorically asks, "Why is John McCain Happy?" before explaining how the story is finally uniting the conservative base. Rubin also decries the paper's self-defense:

“In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported.” That howler was part of a statement issued yestersday by New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller. It would be true, if you did not include John McCain, his lawyer, his aides, his surrogates, the woman in question, and a large percentage of the media.

Gothamist notes the McCain has already used the story in a fundraising pitch to supporters.

There's a diverse set of opinions in the liberal blogosphere today reacting to the NYT/Mcain story questioning his personal and professional conduct with a lobbyist.

The Nation's Ari Melber argues that conservative objections are focused more on their dislike of the paper, rather than the substantive questions raised:

Conservative elites do relish attacking The Times, and their default reaction to bad news is to attack the messenger, whether it's Joe Wilson or a newspaper. But The Times editorial staff endorsed McCain, and its news staff held the story for months while McCain trailed in the primaries -- when it would have done the maximum damage.

Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo goes a different route:

If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn't we all be yelling and stamping our feet about "panty sniffing" and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn't directly alleged by anyone?

They add:

To be clear, there very well may be much more to the story that is yet unknown. As Josh wrote last night, the story reads as if it had the meat lawyered out of it, and it's perfectly possible that The Times went with this because it knew lots more that it couldn't report. And as Mark Kleiman notes, more reporting by the AP is showing that there may be some meat to the lobbying side of the story.

Here's a wrap from the McCain press conference in Toledo, Ohio this morning denying today's New York Times story, which asks whether McCain had inappropriate dealings, both personal and professional, with a lobbyist who had business before the Senate. The CNN wrap also has video of the press conference.

The political blogosphere discussion today is dominated by the New York Times story questioning whether John McCain compromised his ethics, and perhaps engaged in infidelity, while maintaining a professional relationship with a female lobbyist.

In some ways, the story may be a gift to McCain, because nothing will align conservatives behind him faster than what they are perceiving as an unfair attack from the liberal media. Along those lines, Ed Morrissey declares the story will not hurt McCain, adding:

The effect is likely going to produce more support for McCain among the GOP base, especially given the egregious and salacious nature of the controversy.

Ankle Biting Pundits scribe Patrick Hynes, who is also working for the McCain campaign, writes that the NYT reporters who wrote the piece refused his request for an interview.

Local rival the New York Daily News opines:

The long-winded article The New York Times dropped on McCain Wednesday night falls between an impeccable investigative project and the "hit-and-run" smear job his campaign calls it. It is a meringue of tantalizing hints and innuendo about the steamy nexus of sex and power. It's all there - except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.

Marc Ambinder says there's "nothing to suggest that McCain compromised his political principles."

McCain critic Matthew Yglesias rehashes some of McCain's less-than-admirable past personal stories, but says of the piece:

The Times story is a bit odd and innuendo-y, hinting at a sexual relationship between McCain and Iseman but they clearly don't have the goods.

While T-STEEL over at The Moderate Voice speculates:

Mike Huckabee and his campaign may have the opening they were looking for and needed if this story has legs (which in today’s media, it probably will).

ABC News reports that Hillary Clinton's campaign has launched a new website arguing why Michigan and Florida's delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention. Both states had their delegates stripped after violation party scheduling rules.

ABC's Jake Tapper broke the story, and writes:

Clinton's own senior adviser, Harold Ickes, voted as a member of the DNC committee to not recognize these two state delegations because they violated the rules of the primary scheduling process. Now as a Clinton campaign representative he's making the case that they should count.

Balloon Juice's John Cole says the story made him donate "25 more bucks to Obama,":

Don’t like the rules- change them. Isn’t that precisely what has been wrong with the criminal Bush administration the past eight years?

As to be expected, conservative blogs are having fun with the story.

More like after all the crying it's over...

Over at NRO's the Corner, Larry Kudlow writes the Hillary Clinton obit:

Obama got to the far Left faster than she did. He out organized her in the precincts. He out fundraised her. He out speechified her. He out-hustled her. He out-dressed her. He out-presidentialed her. He outdid her and he outbid her for votes, one promised government check at a time.

James Joyner agrees and Instapundit adds from last night's speeches:

Okay, I've watched Hillary and Obama speak. Hillary did a fine job, but she looked -- and sounded -- tired. Obama looks energized and happy. She gave a laundry list of policies. He's telling people to go vote for him in early voting.

Some bloggers apparently think Barack Obama is about to become the "Hey Ya!" of the 2008 election.Talk Left links to a Paul Krugman article and a Washington Monthly blog post contemplating, "when the 'Obamamania' bubble will burst."

Last time I checked, Obama has been both a media and grassroots darling going back to his July 24, 2004 Democratic National Convention speech in Boston. Obama critics like Krugman may be engaging in wishful thinking if they think his substantial popularity with liberals and many independents is a fluke. It's no guarantee he'll win the election, but a safe bet he will not suffer such a fate outlined by Kevin Drum:

This backlash meme is already widespread, and you can almost feel in the air that it's about to explode into a feeding frenzy.

Barack Obama and John McCain have yet to secure their respective party's presidential nominations, but that hasn't stopped their wives from entering the political fray.

Yesterday, Michelle Obama stirred up a blogosphere controversy by declaring:

“For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback… not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." 

Many bloggers found the comments offensive, and it adds to a potential attack storyline on Obama that he lacks conventional patriotism, including his decision to not wear an American flag pin on his lapel.

The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last, who co-authors one of the better pop culture blogs around, asks:

Do these comments provide a glimpse of her general political worldview--one that is surprisingly critical of America for the wife of a presidential candidate? Or do they suggest a certain narcissism about the Obamas and their view of themselves? Or both?

P.S. I guess this is my second U2 headline reference this month and I don't even like U2. On the other hand, should this blog become diluted with references to Sergio Leone movies and video games, I accept full responsibility.

A primary/caucus mix and focusing on the more liberal districts. Local and influential blog Burnt Orange Report endorses Obama and explains the two-step delegate system in detail:

Key Point: Senator Obama can win Texas if he can hold his own on March 4 with the 126 Delegates that will be allocated based on the votes in Texas' 31 Senate Districts, and then do well (as he has in the past) with the 67 delegates in the caucus-system that will fully be realized at the Texas Democratic Party Convention in June.

Will the Texas and Ohio primaries create another pollster showdown in the blogosphere? Zogby appeared to miss the mark on Super Tuesday, when compared to SurveyUSA. Now, a new Rasmussen poll showing Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by double-digits in Texas is generating a lot of blog traffic from the left and the right.

Hot Air asks:

Serious question. If the party elite gets to pick the nominee, what’s the case for them picking her over Obama?

However, there are some questions worth asking about the survey, primarily, "How many undecided or 'Hillary-lite' voters have had adequate time to consider voting for Obama?" The survey's summary notes:

However, just 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in Texas say they have made up their mind and are certain about their vote. Ten percent (10%) remain undecided, 5% say there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and 16% say they might change their mind.

And now Drudge is topping with this new American Research Group poll - showing Obama leading Clinton 48 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent undecided.

Ari Melber reports that an emerging story from attorney Donna Edwards' Tuesday primary win over eight-term Rep. Al Wynn (D-MD) is the rise of the "Blackroots," web community, which he calls:

[N]ot only a triumph for progressives and prominent bloggers. It is also the most successful web-powered challenge to the Congressional Black Caucus in the history of the "Blackroots," a less hyped but increasingly effective network of bloggers, activists and groups that are using online and traditional activism to advance a new type of open, transparent and progressive politics.

It's been a great fundraising year for Democrats across the country, including in the netroots community:

Across the country, over 7,000 netroots activists donated $400,000 to Edwards via ActBlue, spurred by a diverse range of blogs, while labor, environmental and women's groups spent nearly $1 million backing her candidacy.

ALSO: CQ Politics look at the top 10 best-funded primary challenge campaigns.

Conservative bloggers are beginning to digest the breaking news that Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain during a 3:30pm EST event today:

They said Romney wants the 286 delegates he won to go to McCain, who now has 827 delegates, and is the Republican front-runner. To clinch the Republican nomination 1,191 are needed.

That would leave McCain just 78 delegates short of the nomination. Probably not enough to give Romney a real shot at VP since it doesn't push McCain across the finish line. Romney supporters can point to the unexpected Reagan/Bush alliance in 1980, but it will depend on whether Romney's endorsement carries weight. The initial reaction doesn't look so good.

Michelle Malkin, asking if Romney would need "nose plugs" sharing the stage with McCain today:

Now, that’s a Valentine’s Day gift.

And NRO has only mentioned the endorsement without commentary, but Kathryn Jean Lopez has a Valentine's Day campaign fairwell piece on Romney today.

Now that Barack Obama has completed his dominant sweep of the Potomac primary, liberal bloggers are looking ahead to the primary's last big showdown: Ohio and Texas. Specifically, a new Survey USA poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Obama handily in Ohio, 56 percent to 39 percent, and leading in statistical categories across the board. Of course, elections are all about the ever-changing dynamics. With momentum and money on Obama's side, there's every reason to expect Clinton's substantial leads in both these states to shrink dramatically before voters go to the polls.

Over at TPM Election Central Eric Kleefeld writes:

The March 4 primaries here and in Texas are quickly turning into Hillary's new firewall, in the face of expected losses this month. Of course, there's no telling what happens in the next few weeks as the campaign truly hits Ohio in earnest. But Hillary definitely seems to be starting from a good position. Now she just has to maintain or even extend it.

While MyDD's Todd Beeton adds:

Notice the gender gap here. As SUSA points out, "Clinton's lead comes entirely from women," it is women she needs to hold onto. But the latest media narrative of how Barack Obama is going to break out of his own voting coalition and into hers is that "women are switching to Obama."

Just finished a blogger conference call with John McCain. Most of the questions centered on who he would select as his vice presidential candidate. McCain punted on that one, saying he'll wait until he first secures the nomination before looking into possible running mates, "Because we haven't started the process, it's hard for me to say who's in the mix."

In a bit of news, McCain announced he had just returned from a meeting with the House Republican Conference, where he had a "great discussion," and received an endorsement from the House Republican leadership. McCain called the meeting, "another step in the process ... of uniting the party." "I understand I have a lot of work to do," he added.

McCain also dodged a question as to whether he would resign his Senate seat, allowing outgoing Rep. John Shadegg to make a run for it. McCain said he'd wait until after he was officially the nominee, adding, "Right now, I have no inclination to leave the Senate early." Which, in Washington vernacular, means he's definitely thinking about it.

As I noted in my wrap-up of McCain's Potomac primary rally last night, the campaign and the candidate are both clearly transitioning into an attack stance against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general election.

On Obama, McCain said: "It's not an accident that [according to National Journal rankings] he's the most liberal senator in the United States Senate." McCain also promised to run on his "principles and specfiics ... rather than platitudes."

He also took a hard shot at Iraq war critics, noting he had recently received a phone call from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is in Iraq, and reported political progress to go along with the recent military success of the surge. On war critics, McCain said: "They've been wrong on both counts [political and military] and I hope they'll own up to their absolutely wrong assessment."

Finally, discussing what kind of principles he'd look for in cabinet choices, McCain was vague, except when hinting at his environmental policies, saying he'd take the Republican Party on a "return to the kind of Teddy Roosevelt outlook on things."

John McCain's victory rally in Alexandria, VA last night was a celebration of what he called a "clean sweep" in the region's Potomac/Chesapeake primary. I was at the rally last night and with CQ Politics' video producer Andrew Satter, brought back some highlights from the evening's festivities:

 

It's won't have quite the feel of a Peach Pit After Dark celebration, but we'll be heading over to John McCain's post-Potomac primary party in Virginia tonight with CQ Politics' video guru Andrew Satter. Video antics to ensue... 

Not really, of course. But Robert Bluey, one of Washington's leading conservative voices online, explains why he cast a vote for Barack Obama in today's Virginia Democratic primary. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Bluey sees Obama as a weaker general election opponent against John McCain than Hillary Clinton:

Although national polls give Obama a small advantage over John McCain in the general election, I firmly believe that McCain would handily defeat the inexperienced Obama. Secondly, I fear what the Clinton attack machine would do to McCain. Their ferocity would be worse than George W. Bush’s ugly attacks in 2000. Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows how much I dislike negative campaigning, and a Clinton-McCain matchup would be just that.

Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham says,"unlike Rob, I feel much better about going up against Hillary in the general than Obama," but adds this comestible caveat:

It remains to be seen if I can cast a vote for a Clinton without throwing up a little bit in my mouth. I'll keep you posted.

It is widely assumed that Republicans will have both less source material and less motivation to criticize Barack Obama if he's the Democratic nominee, as opposed to Hillary Clinton. But now that Obama has transitioned into  the frontrunner, Republicans are going through their ideological calisthenics. Conservative media watchdog site Newsbusters posted a picture last night from Obama's Houston, TX campaign HQ, where a Cuban national flag with a photo of Che Guevara superimposed on it hangs from the walls.

Ok, conservative bloggers, pop in your "The Lost City" DVD and get to work...

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey:

Does Obama know his Houston supporters honor a terrorist in his campaign office? I'm sure he doesn't. However, it would behoove him to ensure that the flag gets taken down and that he renounces any affinity for Che and the Fidel Castro regime.

Little Green Fottballs' Charles Johnson:

When you actively pander to and encourage the radical leftist elements of your party, as the Democrats have been determinedly doing for the past eight years, you're going to end up with embarrassing scenes like this.

Time's Ana Marie Cox looks at Karl Rove's positive "Face the Nation," assessment of John McCain from this past Sunday, and finds a very different Rove take on the same man from eight years ago. As Cox says of the striking differences in the two takes:

I know, I know: he hasn't really changed his mind. Before, he was just lying.

Earlier in the presidential primary season I used to say that Fred Thompson was "the 48 percent solution," for the Republican base. In other words, core conservatives had already given up on their hopes of retaining the White House in 2008 and were instead looking for a candidate who could lose respectably and minimize the damage done in congressional races across the country.

Well, Thompson is long gone and his good friend John McCain is set to take the reins as his party's presumptive nominee. Balloon Juice's John Cole floats an unusual theory of his own: The base wants to "sabotage" McCain as the nominee because they know they're going to lose already and can blame the loss on the "outsider" McCain, instead of on themselves:

So here is why they are sabotaging McCain- they want him to lose, or at the very least are hedging their bets. They want and need to paint him as not conservative, not pure enough to really represent the wildly successful (in their minds) conservatism that makes up the Bush dead-enders. That way, when they are blown out of the water in 2008, they don’t have to do any reflection, they don’t have to assess, re-prioritize, or re-think their policies. They can simply pin it all on McCain, claim he lost because he didn’t offer the voters a “real” conservative alternative, and get back to championing the end of the “death tax” and other important issues without skipping a beat.

In other words, McCain is the fall guy, and they are just distancing themselves from him.

Interesting theory, but I just don't see the Lee Majors resemblance.

While we in the media love to speculate over the endless possibilities this political season offers, most progressive bloggers are not proving very receptive to the possibility of superdelegates deciding who will be the Democratic Party's nominee.

Former Gore '00 campaign manager and longtime Democratic strategist Donna Brazile has threatened to quit the party over the potential fiasco, and Open Left's Chris Bowers follows suit:

If the institution that exists to resolve disputes within the American center-left does not operate according to democratic principles, then I see no reason to continue participating within that institution.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis asks:

Again, why do these people even get a vote? Oh that's right, they were created to steal the election in case the party thought your choice was stupid.

 

 The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is less outraged, correctly noting the lack of democracy throughout this process, including caucuses, delegate allocation, etc:

I'm not very excited at the idea of superdelegates deciding the nomination either, but the only way that will happen is if the primaries end up nearly tied in the first place. Then factor in the number of ways in which the primary/caucus process is nondemocratic from the get go, and it hardly seems practical to insist that superdelegates should all somehow divine a single "democratic" result from a very close race.

Rahm Emanuel is one of the more influential members of Congress. His brother, while inspiration for Jeremy Piven's character in Entourage, is not. Nonetheless, he has a post up at the Huffington Post deriding the influence of superdelegates, a title his brother Rahm holds, in the Democratic nomination process.

There is much discussion about how these so-called superdelegates, which include former presidents, members of congress and party activists, could affect a deadlocked nomination during the Democrats' convention. In short, there is speculation that one candidate could win the popular vote, and even be leading the delegate count, but lose the nomination if enough superdelegates go for the other candidate. Advocates for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been trying to lock down pledges from the super delegate pool, but Ari says not so fast:

The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.

Obligatory The Hollies reference 

A John McCain versus Barack Obama 2008 match-up would present all kinds of problems for opposition research types trying to frame the two candidates most-popular with independents. The opposition to McCain from within Republican circles has been well documented. But as he moves closer to securing his party’s nomination, McCain is increasingly becoming the target of Democrats, eager to chip away at his appeal to moderates and non-party affiliated types.

MoveOn.org has put out a memo on McCain, also posted at votevets.org, tying him to President Bush and even Donald Rumsfeld. This is one association that may actually benefit McCain. His campaign should be happy to go against MoveOn, which often infuriates and energizes the Republican base. In particular, McCain has already spoken out against the group after their “General Betray Us” ad campaign targeting Gen. David Petraeus.

McCain is also taking heat from “The Real McCain,” website over at bravenewfilms.org. Cliff Schecter has been compiling and distributing anti-McCain videos on the site, such as this “John McCain is Dr. Strangelove,” video produced by Robert Greenwald.

UPDATE: Fifty minutes after this post went up, Andrew Sullivan puts up his own post about a pair of McCain attack videos. It must be a trend.

John McCain, Mitt Romney and even Ron Paul all received some form of promotion from CPAC in advance of their respective speeches yesterday. While McCain didn't appear on the initial agenda because his appearance was only confirmed in the past week, CPAC posted a separate note on their website announcing that all four remaining Republican presidential candidates would be appearing and speaking.

But some Huckabee supporters believe CPAC is snubbing their candidate by taking down any mention of the former Arkansas governor's appearance. From a commenter at Huckabee's campaign site:

I just wanted to point out to you that cpac.org does not mention Mike Huckabee on their list of 2008 speakers on the front page or the agenda page of their web site. Huckabee supporters are very angry about this and have emailed CPAC, but we have received no response. Mike Huckabee is scheduled to speak at 9:00 A.M. on Saturday. This is just another example of the unfair treatment Mike Huckabee is getting from the news media and his own party!

A few Huckabee supporters say they have written in to CPAC but haven't received a response. In fact, I was just browsing the CPAC site going over tomorrow's agenda and trying in vain to double-check the time for Huckabee's speech, which is scheduled for 9am.

I missed this yesterday because of all the attention being paid to CPAC, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both recently reported some pretty impressive online fundraising numbers.

Obama has already been outperforming Clinton with online donors throughout the campaign, but he added another edge when he won the endorsement of the MoveOn.org PAC, which channeled thousands of potential new donors and activists toward Obama. The first results of that endorsement are coming through already. The Nation reports:

Members of MoveOn donated over $320,000 to Obama in an overnight web campaign, according to estimates provided to The Nation. "The Obam-a-mentum fundraiser has been our biggest fundraiser yet this year," said Executive Director Eli Pariser. "There's been an overwhelming response from our members directly, and from past experience we're guessing up to the same number of our members have given through the Obama site as well," he added.

And as further testament to the Democrats' edge in online fundraising, Clinton's campaign reported having raised $4 million from 35,000 donors online. Clinton has been just about the least favorite Democratic candidate amongst liberal bloggers. So, the fact that she raised so much online, even without a natural constituency, is significant. It helps illustrate that Democrats as a whole appear to have the edge not only in enthusiasm, but in a sophisticated understanding of how online fundraising works.

My take on McCain's CPAC speech.

CQ Politics's Greg Giroux and Jonathan Allen on Romney, with an assist from yours truly.

Despite a mixture of boos and applause when McCain took the stage at today's Conservative Political Action Conference today in Washington, the speech appeared to "go about as well as it could have," according to many in attendance. I'll have a full write up on the main CQ Politics site in just a little bit. In the meantime, some excerpts and highlights:

Although McCain appears to have his party’s nomination all-but-secured, he has acknowledged the pressing need to unify the competing sectors of the conservative base before heading into a general election contest against either Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Barack Obama (D-IL).

Speaking about two hours after former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told the same CPAC crowd that he is suspending his own presidential campaign, McCain had kind words for his one-time bitter rival, calling Romney a “great governor.” “We agreed to get together and agreed on the importance of unifying our party,” McCain said.

Americans for Tax Reform President Pat Toomey offered mixed praise for McCain’s CPAC address. “Senator McCain deserves some credit for making a conscious effort to reach out to conservatives at CPAC today, but over the next couple of months, he will need to go beyond talking about those issues on which he agrees with conservatives and address those areas in which we’ve had strong disagreements,” the former Pennsylvania House Republican said in a statement.

McCain offered an olive branch to conservatives, saying, “Even in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of conservatives.” McCain also promised to change his stance on some issues if he was shown to be “wrong,” by conservative colleagues. In another attempt at reconciliation, McCain told the audience he could not win the election, “without the support of dedicated conservatives.”

The most receptive applause lines for McCain came when he addressed the war in Iraq and national security, his signature issues in the campaign. Saying that both Clinton and Obama would withdraw American forces from Iraq and invite terrorist attacks in the United States, McCain said, “I will not allow that to happen,” and promised to “win the war.”

I'll be at CPAC tomorrow, along with about 6,000 conservative activists, eagerly awaiting John McCain's afternoon address. We'll have all the details on the blog here tomorrow, as well as a wrap-up on the main CQ Politics site.

So, what to expect from McCain's highly-anticipated speech tomorrow? First, boos. Then, another marginal step in the reconciliation between the Republican outsider and the activists/elites who so very much fear the idea of him taking control of their party. Remember, it's not really about ideology. McCain has been a life-long conservative, as my CQ Politics colleague Richard Whalen forcefully notes. It's about control - McCain wants it and the elites don't want to give it up. But winning is just about everything in politics and McCain looks like the closest his party has to a winner these days.

McCain's like Sigourney Weaver's Ripley character in Aliens. The troops she accompanies on their mission don't consider her one of their own and think she might be more than a little crazy. But she's got that fighting spirit and they like that. Plus, much like the futuristic U.S. Colonial Marines of the film, right-wingers just hate (illegal) aliens.  The only thing missing is an exoskeleton suit wearing Mike Huckabee coming to McCain's rescue while facing off against Alien Queen Romney, "Get away from her, you b*tch!"

Marc Ambinder confirms blogger speculation by reporting that Hillary Clinton is loaning her campaign $5 million dollars. The Nation's Ari Melber adds:

The timing suggests that the campaign has been much tighter on cash than most observers realized. If Clinton had the resources to compete through February, she could have delayed the loan by a few days, and federal rules would not have required its disclosure until March. But announcing the loan now -- after narrowly losing Tuesday's delegate battle and watching Obama raise $32 million from over 220,000 new donors in January -- projects financial weakness at a pivotal time for Clinton.

Over at NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru weighs the up and downsides of having Mike Huckabee on the ticket as John McCain's VP: He could help deliver evangelical voters and the South, but may further alienate the anti-McCain conservatives. After all, Huck often conjures the ire of the far-right in ways only Ron Paul seemed capable of:

The upsides are obvious. They're the first- and third- best vote-getters in the Republican field. Huckabee helps to make up for McCain's weakness with evangelical Protestants and, to a lesser extent, his weakness on domestic policy. The most frequently mentioned downside—the further alienation of

And over at New York Magazine, John Heilemann adds:

So long as Huckabee maintains his sanity and doesn’t go mad-dog on the front-runner, every vote he gets from here on out only enhances his profile, builds his stature, and advances his ultimate cause — which, as everyone with half a brain comprehends, is to land himself the VP slot. Will McCain give it to him? Seems plausible to me. In the primaries, Huckabee has been the answer to McCain’s prayers. In the general, he might, just might, be the solution to McCain’s most nagging problem.

Hugh Hewitt is often-ridiculed for his sometimes over-the-top support of Mitt Romney. While Hewitt and Andrew Sullivan have little in common politically, they both have a reputation for spinning just about anything into a favorable outcome for their respective candidates. But Hewitt offers a thoughtful post today on why conservatives should support the eventual GOP nominee, even if it's not Romney. Sullivan mocks, with a post entitled, "Hewitt Surrender," but the post is actually far more nuanced and compromising than anything Sullivan has said about Hillary Clinton recently:

There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is:  The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.

Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for "fairness."

UPDATE: Over at Commentary's blog, Jennifer Rubin advises Romney to graciously withdrawal from the race and says that Haley Barbour might make a good VP:

Having done so poorly in the South, come in third in Missouri, and lost California, there seems to be little point–other than to perpetuate the animosity within the GOP–to forging on. I think it is telling Romney did not in his speech last night argue that he was the conservative hope for the party or that only he could keep the Reagan coalition together.

Human Events editor Jed Babbin outlines the three things he believes John McCain must address at tomorrow's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington: His views on judicial nominees, the war, and other signature issues where McCain has drifted from much of the conservative base, such as immigration:

One source told me last night that McCain is planning an all-out push at CPAC.  At 3 pm tomorrow, McCain is scheduled to address the crowd expected to number over 6,000 activists.  And McCain plans a very special introduction. 

According to my source, McCain has prepared a video featuring President Ronald Reagan to make the introduction. If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly.  This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” 

Babbin's advice is sound in the context of CPAC, but flawed when viewed entirely on its own merits. Conservatives may still be feeling burned by McCain's role in the formulation of the Gang of 14, but that coalition helped usher through John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and many other very conservative justices. And with Democrats now in control of the Senate, how many conservative judges do folks like Babbin think Bush would be getting approved if Republicans had eliminated the judicial filibuster back in '05?

And does John McCain really need to explain himself on the war to conservatives? It's the one issue they strongly agree with him on. Little doubt he'll discuss it, and it would be nice to see him break out of Donald Rumseld/surge talking points, but McCain believes national security is his singular strong point, so why would he avoid it?

Progressive bloggers are looking at the delegate counts from Super Tuesday to measure both who won the tally and who has the momentum going into next week's contests. Each side is spinning for their preferred candidate, but it's a fair argument to be made that Obama won simply by not losing. The next month's calendar heavily favors him and the growing conventional wisdom is that an extended campaign now benefits Obama, not Hillary, because of his widening financial lead and general likability.

Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan notes the media are calling it a “narrow victory” for his candidate:

But it allows the Obama camp to point out - correctly - that they won a majority of the contests yesterday, won in a wider variety of red and blue states, and won in the number of delegates counted. Obama is also winning in fundraising. That's a pretty impressive tailwind for this weekend and next Tuesday.

And some liberal bloggers are trying to refute this John B. Judis post over at the New Republic:

It’s hard to say, but if you put a gun in my head, I’d say John McCain and (very slightly) Hillary Clinton, but the elections revealed weaknesses in McCain and in both of the leading Democratic candidates.

But Jone Cole points to the underlying details as a sign of a clear Obama victory:

Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that.

Powerline's John Hinderaker praises John McCain's victory speech tonight and lays down what may become a regular criticism of Obama from the right:

John McCain did very well, I thought. He struck the right notes of confidence and conciliation, pledged allegiance to the party, saluted the party's conservative principles, and offered an olive branch to the Romney campaign.

Barack Obama is his usual self. It's hard to tell sometimes whether he actually thinks he is saying something coherent, or whether he is delivering a parody of a gasbag politician. Time will tell, I guess; at some point, he's going to have to come through with more substance.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist talks to Jon Allen about how he sees the general election shaping up:

"I want to run against Hillary because she’s the candidate of the past. People vaguely remember that there was something icky that they didn’t like," he said. "You bring back Bill Clinton, which peole in Hollywood think is cute, but people with kids don’t want to talk about."

He said he could support McCain in a general. McCain "has been moving to the center" of the Reagan coalition, he said.

More excellent reporting coming in from CQ Politics' Jonathan Allen. Allen has spoken with a trio of Democratic members of Congress, who offer the following takes:

Clinton supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) called in from the Clinton victory party at the Manhattan Theater. She said they are very pleased with victories in Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma. "Those are three red states and that's a very strong sign for her," Wasserman Schultz said. She said Missouri and Massachusetts exit polling looks good for Clinton, especially given the work of Edward M. Kennedy, John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick on behalf of Obama.

Obama supporter Xavier Becerra (CA-31):

Barack Obama is in the hunt! This race is real, no one can deny or spin it away anymore. The double-digit leads, the nay-saying is, as my daughters might say, so yesterday! Now we're competing on Barack Obama's turf: tomorrow, the future! And Senator Obama heads into the next round of primaries with real momentum and a unifying message of change and hope for the American people.

This is as exciting a race as anyone could have dreamed! Record turnouts, young voters energized and engaged, people believing as they did with JFK and RFK that we can make a difference. Almost like a fairytale-- except this is the real deal!

And Clinton supporter Hilda Solis (CA-32):

Hillary is winning the big states - Massachusetts, New York. Now we need California and New Mexico. The turnout in East Los Angeles has been big - higher than I've seen in years - and most signs indicate that they're Hillary supporters. I'm at the East Los Angeles headquarters with Dolores Huerta and Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina. We're making calls and working to get out the vote for Hillary!"

And she gets twice as many delegates as Obama. Technically, it's 2 Clinton delegates to Obama's 1, but it's all about the expectations game, right?

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign manger David Plouffe is claiming an overall delegate victory for Obama tonight. From Hotline On Call:

The camp projects it's ahead in delegates awarded tonight, 606-534. And "we may end up winning more delegates" as the Western states come in. The camp projects winning 23 of the 32 delegates in KS; and 46 of the 72 delegates in MN. The camp expects MN, which also has 72 delegates, to be "very close."

Mary Katherine Ham echoes the sentiment of many self-described conservatives, particularly those in the Beltway. To paraphrase, "We KNOW McCain and Huckabee are just awful, but for some reason, the voters appear to disagree." And with Huckabee's strong showing tonight, Ham and several other pundit-types on the right are trying to figure out exactly where that support belongs. Should Huckabee be a vice presidential candidate for McCain or Romney? And if not, will evangelical voters protest by not voting?

Ham ponders:

That makes some more sense for Romney, I think, although the two of them don't care much for each other. For McCain, doesn't the Huckabee vice-presidency knock the legs out from under all his independent support? Although it would seem to be a decent choice on paper since he's Southern and evangelical, every moderate/libertarian Republican or Independent I know would seriously consider sitting out instead of voting for a ticket with Huckabee on it.

The thing about McCain, though, is he has this self-destructive political tick, which would not surprise me if it kicked in and compelled him to pick Huckabee as his veep.

Bloggers are pouring over exit polling data from both the Democrats and the Republicans.

NRO's Jim Geraghty, who has been a go-to-guy for many bloggers looking for polling data tonight, says, “The Surprise of the Night..." "...is that so far, there are no real huge surprises."

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at the GOP numbers and finds:

That is enough for McCain to take the lead, but nowhere near enough to become the presumptive nominee. Romney and Huckabee are alive and well.

Josh Marshall and Raising Kaine has more analysis.

Jonathan Allen has some more reporting to share, this time with a pair of Hillary Clinton related bits.

From the Clinton campaign's talking points on Obama's Georgia Victory:

GEORGIA

Unlike the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign never dedicated significant resources to Georgia.

Sen. Obama spent over $500,000 dollars on ads on television and radio; we never went up on TV

The Obama campaign has 9 offices in Georgia. The Clinton campaign only has 2.

Sen. Obama has had staff and significant campaign operation across the state for 8 months. Sen. Clinton only deployed staff to the state in the last couple of weeks.

Polls have consistently showed Sen. Obama with wide lead over Sen Clinton. That lead has only widened over time.

And from NOW president Kim Gandy on Tennessee:

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women and a Clinton backer, was in Tennessee yesterday and said Volunteer State residents are thrilled to be getting so much attention. That included visits from Bill, Hillary and Chelsea. She said she heard out of Knoxville today that, based on anecdotal exit polling, there should be good returns in eastern Tennessee for Clinton.

The Project for Excellent in Journalism has released tabulations of recent press coverage for the presidential candidates. John McCain received 37 percent of the coverage to 21 percent for Mitt Romney. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama rated much closer, but Democrats did receive about five percent more overall coverage than the Republicans:

In that Jan. 28-Feb. 3 period, which ran from the day before the Florida primary to two days before Super Tuesday, McCain generated more coverage than any candidate. And that coverage suggested a media “tiering” of the race, with McCain a heavy favorite over several also-rans. McCain had not necessarily put Mitt Romney away, but the press nearly had. On the Democratic side—where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were virtually equal in media attention for the third consecutive week—the tone and level of coverage anticipated a long and intense battle.

Mitt Romney was cruising to a Super Tuesday caucus victory in West Virginia. Then, supporters of Ron Paul and John McCain threw their support behind Mike Huckabee, giving him a close victory over Romney, 52 percent to 47 percent. Reason's David Weigel has the details:

Paul has been knocked out of the race, and I honestly don't know where his votes go. Whoever wins the convention gets 18 delegates: Paul and presumably McCain will get nothing. The Ron Paul Forums people want the conventioneers to vote Huck—how do you like that monkey wrench, gears?—or split.

UPDATE 2:20: I'm hearing the gambit by McCain and Paul backers to go for Huckabee worked. Huckabee's going to win.

UPDATE 2:24: Yes, most of the McCain and Paul voters went for Huckabee on the second ballot. Huckabee wins, 52-47 percent.

Rush Limbaugh says he won’t compromise his conservative principles to support John McCain, even if McCain is the Republican nominee for president. So, Limbaugh is steadfast and resolute – except when he’s not. Reading about the radio commentator’s neophytic approach to absolutism reminded me of something remarkably different Limbaugh confessed after the 2006 midterm elections.

First, Limbaugh on McCain:

If a candidate who is asking me and the American people for his vote isn't particularly conservative on a wide array of issues, I'm going to talk about it. It's not my job to get him elected. . . . I'm in the free speech business. I am not a campaign spokesman. I believe it would be a setback for the Republican Party to attract liberals and independents by being like them in order to attract them."

Compare that to Limbaugh in November, 2006, asked about the Republican collapse:

But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.

That’s Limbaugh. Always consistent – except when he’s not.

Most polls show John McCain leading in California, fighting off a late Romney surge, along with safer McCain bets in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Arizona. Likewise, pollsters show a tighter contest on the Democratic side, with Obama rising quickly. But Zogby now shows Obama and Romney leading big in California, making the race appear far more influx than most analysts and pollsters have measured. After the collapse of polls and conventional wisdom in New Hampshire, that's led some bloggers to add a level of scrutiny to the polls, usually reserved for the actual candidates.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat, looks at the latest Zogby poll showing Obama leading in California. BTD says a California win for Obama delivers the nomination, but adds:

I do not believe Zogby is an honest pollster, I believe he is a disingenuous pundit

Talking Points Memo's John Marshall says:

There's one guarantee I can make right now about tonight's results. They are going take make either Zogby or SurveyUSA look like complete fools. Which one I'm not completely sure, but definitely one of them.

Marc Ambinder breaks down the Super Tuesday states for the Democrats and the Republicans, using, "campaign sources, polling and stealing off other analysts," to conclude:

Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Obama has an edge in Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois.

Tossups: California, Connecticut, Democrats Abroad, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts 

And...

McCain: New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Oklahoma, Delaware, Alabama

Romney: Colorado, Alaska, West Virginia, Utah

Tossups: California (lean McCain), Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota

Blind dates are always bad ideas, but that didn't stop Fox News from trying to play matchmaker.

During yesterday’s broadcast of Fox News Sunday, guests John McCain and Hillary Clinton were briefly, and awkwardly, on screen simultaneously. The event didn’t seem staged by the two campaigns, so much as by Fox News. After all, why would either candidate want to be ushered into a forced moment of bipartisan banter 48 hours before heading into a contentious primary-election battle?

Howard Kurtz did some follow-up with the Fox News producers, and finds:

Advisers to Hillary Clinton and John McCain felt misled yesterday when "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace prodded the candidates into talking to each other after they had agreed to be interviewed separately.

Kurtz also notes the McCain campaign was “particularly unhappy” about the unscheduled appearance.

Powerline’s Ed Morrissey says Fox owes both candidates an apololgy:

Part of the conservative complaint against McCain is his deference to Democrats while treating conservatives much more harshly. That got put on full display yesterday, as the two exchanged not just pleasantries but assurances that a general-election contest between the two would be "respectful". Republicans may want someone less inclined to put the gloves on against Hillary than taking them off against fellow Republicans. Both candidates got taken by surprise, but Hillary hasn't got Democrats wondering if the Clintons can fight hard enough against Republicans. Fox and Wallace owe both candidates an apology.

Hillary Clinton's campaign choke-up that I posted on earlier has now become the most-discussed story in the blogs today.

Hot Air:

They must be genuine. Because given the abuse she’s going to take for this remarkably coincidental display of emotion the day before a do or die election, there’s no way she’d do it on purpose.

John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog:

It certainly isn't the first time Hillary has been faced with emotional scenes. But I just don't ever recall her being someone who teared up once a month. Which leads me to ask, what happened to change all of that? What changed in her at such a profound level, and why, as to make her one of those people who tears up? Or, is it all just a show? Either way, the question is actually relevant in determining just who Hillary Clinton is.

And Carpetbagger Report, says this may be more of a natural phenomenon:

Look, these candidates, all of the ones who are really giving it their all, are enduring a grueling, painful process, with very little sleep, poor nutrition, and intense, constant pressure. Given how exhausting this is, no one should be surprised if a candidates attends a personal event and gets a little choked up. These are not in any way “Muskie moments.”But if recent history is any guide, this is going to be the biggest political story of the day anyway. Ugh.

Chicago Tribune reporter (and one of my former college roommates) Jason George is on the trail with the Clinton campaign in Connecticut, where the New York senator has once again teared up at a campaign event:

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

George compares the event to Clinton's tearing up in New Hampshire shortly before that state's primary rebooted her campaign. So, was this just a genuine moment caught by a national political reporter on the scene, or has Clinton been reading some of those polls showing Obama making headway in California and other key Super Tuesday states?

I'm sure this doesn't represent Red State as a whole, but diarist Mark Kilmer has a detailed endorsement/analysis here.

John McCain will be our nominee, and there are certain indicators which lead me to believe that Ronald Reagan would want Republicans to back the Republican. Let's do it, okay? If it's going to be Hillary Clinton, it is personal.

As John McCain inches closer to the Republican nomination, a growing number of conservative bloggers are making measured defenses of the candidate almost none of them have previously supported. The overwhelming blog response to McCain is still negative, but a few, influential voices are rising to the surface.

NRO's Jonah Goldberg:

McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd. And I find such claims odd coming from some people who've insisted for a couple years now that the war on terror is the #1 overriding issue of this campaign."

And Right Wing News' John Hawkins:

For all of his flaws, and there are many of them, John McCain is far to the right of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Those of us on the Right tend to downplay that, because a betrayal by someone on our own side stings much more sharply than one from a Democrat, but it is something conservatives should be willing to admit. It's also worth noting that these claims that McCain will destroy the conservative movement are unlikely to be true or alternately, if they are, then the conservative movement is probably too fragile to last any way.

Perhaps most significantly, Hugh Hewitt, a vocal Romney supporter, announced he will support McCain if the Arizona senator wins the nomination:

If Ann Coulter declares again that she'd campaign for Hillary at CPAC, she will be booed and rightly so. Not only did her grandstanding on Hannity & Colmes divert attention from the real issue before conservatives -- the need to abandon the idea of voting for Huckabee or Paul and rally to Romney -- she further fractures an already deeply divided GOP. I have no doubt that most of the anti-McCain voices and voters will throw in with him if he is the nominee, but he doesn't have to be the nominee...I'll sign up for McCain if he is the nominee, but it will be with the same sort of sense of gloom that pervaded the Dole campaign in 1996."

No one's exactly sure how much endorsements matter, but it's fair to say MoveOn's endorsement of Barack Obama should make some difference in targeted states on Super Tuesday. Nearly 300,000 MoveOn members voted in an online poll of whether the group should endorse Obama or Hillary Clinton. Obama won in a landslide, with 70.4 percent to Clinton's 29.6 percent. Despite the lopsided Obama victory, endorsements rarely move an entire organization's membership. And it's likely that a strong majority of MoveOn members already support Obama. But the money, phone-banking and other primary state organizing efforts could make a measurable different in tight contests. From the group's endorsement email:

There are lots of ways to help. You can call voters from home, go door-to-door with others in your community, travel to "Super Tuesday" states, donate, put up a yard sign, volunteer in a campaign office, or join a local meetup. Senator Obama is running a grassroots campaign, and there's a role for everyone.

Open Left's Matt Stoller adds more details on the effort:

I just spoke with Ilyse Hogue, communications director for Moveon, and she tells me that the group is going to mobilize volunteers for Obama in key states and use call for change technology. That's the stuff that lets their members do phone-banking with their browsers to targeted individuals, and often what Moveon will do with this is have Moveon members in non-key states call other Moveon members in key states for GOTV. We'll see what they do.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin describes the anti-war group who stirred up some controversy with their "General Betray Us" ad campaign a few months ago as “Military smearing”

Did Bill Clinton mean what he said when speaking to a Denver audience yesterday about the economy and the environment? ABC News highlights the following text:

"We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

But in full context, no, Clinton does not appear to be calling for an economic slowdown. Later in the speech, the former president seems to indicate that he was more specifically saying that environmental agreements will hurt the U.S. and other first-world economies unless they are also agreed to upon by other emerging nations like India and China. Nonetheless, that hasn’t stopped the blogs from speculating.

Over at the liberal Washington Monthly, Steve Benen points out that even conservative blogs like The Corner and Hot Air are coming to Clinton’s defense. From the Corner’s Iain Murray:

[The ABC] video is actually (and again, I can't believe I'm saying this) really unfair to Bill Clinton. The biter bit, you may say, but I don't believe this sort of manipulation by the media is in any way helpful. The clip is out of context.... That's not good journalism in any sense.

But some other righty blogs, like Townhall.com, are running with the out-of-context reporting, even though a number of readers on the Townhall.com comments board have pointed out the differences in context.

Patrick Ruffini, now a Romney supporter, looks at how a cash-strapped John McCain has become the Republican frontrunner while investing half the money expected from a potential nominee. Ruffini offers some advice to future candidates and campaign analysts:

If he wins, John McCain will have spent roughly $40 million to secure the nomination against two vastly better funded opponents. That is a far cry from the conventional wisdom that it would take $100 million to compete.

...

I hope that future candidates and political operatives learn the right lessons from this. Knowing that McCain was able to (probably) win the nomination on half the money they said it would take, let’s keep those 2011 Q1 (or 2010 Q4?) numbers in perspective, won’t we? And let’s truly understand online not as another layer on top of the traditional campaign, but as an opportunity to change the equation, protecting candidates from unreliable, time-consuming, and costly fundraising practices from the past.

CQ Politics' Poll Tracker takes a look at some of the leading Super Tuesday state polls and breaks down the ethnic and issue divides:

Three common threads that jump out in the Democratic race are these: Hillary Clinton leads big among Hispanics, Barack Obama among blacks, and voters cite the economy as the top issue, usually by a double-digit margin over the number two issue, Iraq. It's worth checking out Gallup's analysis on race and ethnicity.

The Politico's coverage of the Republican debate they co-sponsored last night leads with this Jonathan Martin headline, "Romney falls into McCain trap on Iraq," and Martin declaring of McCain's showing:

It was a dull, boredom-inspring performance. But for the undisputed frontrunner, boring isn’t a bad thing.

Matthew Yglesias, who has taken to "supporting" Mitt Romney because of his belief that Romney presents a weaker GOP general election candidate responds by saying that the voters and media have given McCain a pass on his shaky accusation that Romney previously favored a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq:

One interesting thing about politics is that you might think that when a politician develops a reputation for honesty, the way Saint John of Arizona has, that from that day forward he needs to be super-scrupulous about telling the truth. Otherwise, voters who might dismiss a small fib from a "regular" politician will suddenly be outraged. In truth, the reverse is the case.

But in fact McCain has been piled on with criticism for his attacks. This NRO piece notes McCain’s attack was “being dissected unfavorably on Fox News and CNN,” and that McCain had to clarify himself during his recent “Meet the Press,” appearance. A number of mainstream newspapers and pundit-types, normally friendly to McCain, have also called him out on the issue. And during last night's debate, Romney won applause on more than one occasion while refuting McCain's Iraq claims.

UPDATE: I also meant to note that I'm pretty sure Martin's headline is pointing out that McCain's Iraq focus in the deate pulled Romney off-message and was therefore successful regardless of the actual merits of McCain's attack.

My recap and analysis here. 

Over at the Nation, Ari Melber reports that Barack Obama's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, which was taped exclusively for YouTube, quickly became the "most watched clip in the world":

Barack Obama was the only presidential candidate to tape a rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union for YouTube. It's paying off. By Tuesday afternoon, "Barack Obama's response to Bush's final State of the Union" was the most watched clip in the world, drawing a over 300,000 views in under 20 hours. The public has shown overwhelming and sustained interest in hearing from Obama directly.

Melber also notes this is the third Obama YouTube video to crack the site's top three in the past 10 days.

You can watch Obama's video here:

With John Edwards set to officially drop-out of the presidential race in a few minutes, progressive bloggers are wondering who his decision helps most: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? But they are also lauding the former North Carolina senator for running a campaign they say brought attention to populist ideals often-ignored by leading candidates and the media.

Matt Stoller says Hillary Clinton's Florida victory "doesn't and shouldn't matter," because Democrats were officially boycotting the contest after Florida moved up their primary calendar date against party wishes.

Meanwhile, over at MyDD, Todd Beeton notes Clinton discussed her victory on MSNBC and declares:

The fact that she's getting this interview (and I assume other networks interviewed her as well...?) means she won this round, eh?

Looking at the dejected conservative reaction to John McCain's Florida reaction, Andrew Sullivan says:

Something has gone seriously wrong with the right when John McCain is not regarded as a conservative.

Reading the conservative blogs tonight, you’d think a Democrat had just won Florida’s Republican primary. They say he’s not a real Republican. But remember, these are many of the same people who advocated policies and political stances that led their party racing back into the minority and searching for an identity. It’s now more likely than not that McCain will be the nominee to forge that new identity. It may not be one that righty bloggers and professional Republicans like, but it appears to be the one actual voters are backing.

Unlike most of his NRO colleagues, Rich Lowry makes a gracious gesture towards McCain’s victory:

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum says that while most Republicans will get on board with a McCain nominee, it won’t be enough for victory in 2008:

Sure, they'll mostly come around in November, but mostly isn't enough. He needs 105% of the conservative base, not 95%. Remember that Karl Rove famously had to turn out four million extra conservative evangelicals just to eke out a bare win against John Kerry in 2004.

More conservative blogger reaction here, here and here.

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post discusses a new John McCain "robo-call" phone campaign attacking Mitt Romney for his alleged flip-flopping record on gay rights. From the ad:

"Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer-funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn't changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it's something different."

The McCain campaign announced they pulled the attack ad yesterday.

But James Joyner doesn't think the ad rises to the level of slandering gays:

Does this amount to “gay baiting”? That seems a bit much, since the target of the attack is Romney, an open heterosexual. The main thrust of the message is that Romney is a dishonest flip-flopper who’ll tell you what you want to hear. But, certainly, the choice of abortion and gay rights among the dozens of issues on which Romney has changed positions to highlight would appear to be aimed at social conservatives.

Much discussion is being had today over Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy standing together during last night's State of the Union address. In particular, the biggest headline from the speech today is Obama's snubbing of Hillary when she walked over to shake Kennedy's hand.

But as my CQ Politics colleague Jonathan Allen points out, the Kennedy/Obama roadshow is in fact on its second year. From last year's SOTU:

Bloggers on the left and the right are dissecting the polls, including today's new Zogby tracking survey, showing John McCain inching into a slight lead in Florida, 35 percent to 31 percent.

As MyDD’s Todd Beeton asks:

Going into the Republican vote in Florida on Tuesday, the polls couldn't be tighter but you can't deny, John McCain has had a heck of a couple days, seeming to shut off Romney's momentum and gaining some of his own. From what I'm hearing, prognosticators would have given it to Romney a couple of days ago without question; now, they're not so certain -- it's a matter of whether the McCain surge is real or just a temporary bump.

But the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder says Romney's overwhelming advertising advantage in the state could make all the difference:

Mitt Romney's had an 8 to 1 television ad advantage in Florida... part of the reason why he's made the competitive. Heck, most of the reason he's made the race competitive has been his ads. According to Neilsen, he's run 4,475 ads compared to John McCain's 470 through 1/22. McCain did not run a single ad until January; Romney ran more ads in September than McCain has run to date.

Does John McCain’s difficult relationship with some Republicans include differences over judicial nominations? That briefly looked to be the case, when John Fund wrote that McCain opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."

Such a sentiment could derail McCain’s already fragmented and often unreliable relationship with the Republican base. However, Powerline sits in on a blogger conference call with the McCain campaign in which the Arizona senator’s support for Alilto is emphasized.

Also, Stephen Bainbridge digs up McCain’s pre-confirmation Alito comments and finds multiple examples of praise.

A hilarious mix of Tom Cruise's recently-leaked Scientology video, and Hillary Clinton's emotional moment before the New Hampshire primary:
Hat Tip: Sullivan

The leading discussion on the blogosphere right now concerns today's Howard Kurtz column, which reports that Barack Obama and his top-level staffers are not spending as much time courting reporters on the campaign trail as some in the media would like.

The perceived media snub is leaving some reporters, like Newsweek's Richard Wolffe, sounding like he was left holding a corsage outside the junior-high prom:

"There is no charm offensive from the candidate toward the press corps," says Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe. "The contact is limited. . . . They see the national media more as a logistical problem than a channel for getting stuff out."

Of course, what is team Obama's incentive to risk over-exposure when so many reporters, like NBC's Lee Cowan, have-all-but endorsed the man they are supposed to be objectively reporting on?

The risk, according to a number of bloggers, is that spurned lovers like Wolffe may pull a Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction and turn on Obama.

Just One Minute:

the seeds have been sown for an Obama media backlash, but when will we see the harvest?

And Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

Obama has gotten pretty rapturous press coverage anyway, and Kurtz mentions later in his piece that reporters are just as susceptible to the famous Obama charisma as anyone. Still, the general election is going to be a slugfest, and it's a bad sign if Obama's press operation hasn't been honed to deal with it. What's more, it's also peculiar: why stay aloof from a press corps that loves you? Maybe someone should try to ask him.

However, Jules Crittendon says Obama's strategy may actually play in his favor.

In the words of Truthdig, “It’s been a pretty amazing weekend for Barack Obama.”

After his dominant South Carolina victory, Obama has picked up a number of high-profile endorsements: Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and author Toni Morrison, who famously referred to Bill Clinton as the nation’s “first black president.”

While the actual positive value of endorsements from traditional politicians like Kennedy and Sebelius is often-debated, Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left says the Morrison endorsement may have come at a bad time for Obama:

This is a double edged sword for Obama imo. The Media will love it as they will see it as a rebuke to the Clintons. It will get a lot of play. The downside is EVERY story will focus on Morrison's "first Black President" remark.

Former Fred Thompson spokesman Darrel Ng has launched a website asking people to boycott actor Chuck Norris for his support of Mike Huckabee. Ng posts his personal phone number and email on the site and a list of companies who have advertised on syndicated reruns of Norris' show, Walker, Texas Ranger.




















It would appear that some Huckabee fans discovered the site, since all of the comments are pro-Huckabee. As for me, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Silent Rage.

Charles Krauthammer be damned, there is evidence that John Edwards is experiencing something of a mini-surge in South Carolina polls. However, it appears that the best Edwards can hope for is to inch ahead of Hillary Clinton for a distant second-place finish to Barack Obama, much like in Iowa.

MyDD’s Todd Beeton says the Edwards surge may be temporary:

while the Edwards surge is impressive, hidden within these three-day rolling averages may be the real story once the votes are counted Saturday night: a potential New Hampshire-like late surge of voters coming home to Clinton.

James Joyner discounts the momentum:

So, let’s say he “shocks the world” by coming in second in a place where people talk like him (he’s from next-door North Carolina, after all) beating out a Yankee senator. Yay for him. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats allocate their South Carolina delegates proportionally. So he’d get a couple more than if he’d finished third. But so what? He’s not going to suddenly become a contender.

While Open Left’s Chris Bowers says a second-place Edwards finish would be good news for Obama:

Obviously, the ideal situation for Obama would be a double-digit victory coupled with a second-place finish for Edwards. That doesn't seem too likely, but it also isn't impossible.

During last night's debate, Mitt Romney was asked if he would emulate Ronald Reagan's 1983 Social Security reforms. As the question was being asked, viewers could hear an unidentified voice whispering, "raise taxes." Was it a MSNBC producer accidentally speaking over the air? A Romney surrogate tipping the candidate toward his answer? Seems a bit paranoid, but that hasn't stopped bloggers from discussing. Maybe it was the box on President Bush's back from the 2004 debate? Listen and watch for yourself:

Bloggers today are dissecting this new Charles Krauthammer editorial, which accuses John Edwards of disowning his entire legislative record (Iraq, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.) for a distant third-place finish in this year’s Democratic primary contest. In other words, nearly everything he once voted for, he now opposes, and it still isn’t helping him become president.

Or, as Krauthammer puts it:

There's losing. There's losing honorably. And then there's John Edwards.

Ed Morrissey:

He has approached irrelevancy almost as rapidly as Dennis Kucinich but with none of the entertainment value.

While Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal jokes:

I don't have a real problem with anything Krauthammer has written here, which I have to admit gives me a sort of queasy feeling

You can read my take from last night's GOP Florida debate here. 

The Republican presidential candidates are set to debate in just a few hours, but it's former Democratic President Bill Clinton who is dominating both the traditional media and blog chatter today.

Leading the discussion is former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who writes on his personal blog:

Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign.

The conservative blogs continue to enjoy the inter-party self-loathing across the aisle.

Over at the Huffington Post, Ari Melber says Clinton's outbursts have been negatively received, but strategically timed:

But as Clinton knows, it doesn't even matter what people say, as long as they are talking about him and his latest attacks on Barack Obama. Like clockwork, these supposed outbursts give airtime to attacks while pulling attention away from Obama in the crucial, closing days of each primary.

Yet Talking Points Memo says Obama is winning the "spin war":

Right now -- if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide -- it's hard not to conclude that Obama is winning this particular spin war handily.

With Fred Thompson out of the race, Mitt Romney has segued into the favored candidate of conservative bloggers. So, why do so many of Romney’s fellow Republicans running for president personally dislike him? Is it because of the large personal fortune he’s used to help make himself a viable contender? Is it opposition to his Mormon faith? Or, is it his willingness to make major pivots on issues for electoral convenience?

The Moderate Voice suggests it’s the latter:

The difficulty of dealing with a candidate like Mitt Romney, who reminds me less of his laudable father, the late Michigan governor George Romney and more of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, is that he can baldly misrepresent the facts about himself and others, something he’s done repeatedly in this election cycle, and affect wounded rectitude when he gets called to the carpet for it.

While conservative Hot Air suggests that Romney let his establishment Republican friends boost his candidacy rather than going on the attack.

Meanwhile, some liberal bloggers like Matthew Yglesias have given Romney something of a pass, while others, like Daily Kos, asked Democrats to vote for him in the Michigan primary because they think he’s the least electable Republican, as many polls have indicated.

The liberal AMERICAblog ponders:

It's easy for us to dislike Mitt Romney. He's loathsome. But, what's interesting is how those who know him best -- his fellow Republican -- really can't stand the guy

Critics of the Clintons often seem more opposed to the political couple's personalities, rather than their specific policy positions. To that end, the Wall Street Journal today shares some empathy with Barack Obama after the Illinois senator complained that Bill Clinton was distorting Obama's record on the campaign trail. But the sympathetic notions only go so far:

The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win.

Needless to say, conservative bloggers are loving it.

Over at Newsbusters, Matthew Sheffield writes:

One of the refreshing things about the contest this year on the Democratic side is that we are finally seeing the Clintons receive the scrutiny that they ought to have during the time Bill Clinton was running and serving as president.

And perpetual Clinton hater Andrew Sullivan adds:

I've long believed that the core truth of the 1990s was as follows: the main culprits of the culture war were the emerging Christianists, but the Clintons made things far worse, and unnecessarily so, by the style of their politics and the extent of their narcissism.

Over at National Review Online, they're saying John McCain won, beating out Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. However, another NRO bloggers points to dramatically different results showing an uncommitted "pro-life/pro-family" slate featuring a photo of Ronald Reagan and asking voters to "Win One for the Gipper," winning handily.



















Did the GOP field lose to a deceased, former president?

More explaining here and here.

Bloggers are having fun with this Onion story today, "Bill Clinton: 'Screw It, I'm Running For President'"

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."

As the Carpetbagger Report notes:

Now, this item is just poking fun, so it can brush past that pesky 22nd Amendment, but it obviously touches on a genuine phenomenon. At this week’s debate, Barack Obama mentioned, “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.” The audience applauded because they knew exactly what he meant.

I spoke with Ron Paul’s campaign spokesman Jesse Benton earlier today about the Paul/MLK video. Benton said he had not seen the video or heard of it before being contacted by CQ Politics. “It’s a powerful video put together by an independent supporter,” he said.

When asked about the specifics of the video, Benton said, “We would never make those kind of comparisons ourselves. We’ll leave that to the American people to sort out.”

However, Benton went ahead and compared his boss to Dr. King, saying:

“Dr. Paul and Dr. King do share some things in common, including a belief that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And both were supporters of civil disobedience through non-violence.”

“He is someone that Dr. Paul considers a great personal hero,” Benton said, adding the campaign does not plan to return any of the cash raised through the effort. In fact, the daily fundraising total is being touted on Paul's website.

When asked about New Republic reporter Jamie Kirchick’s story revealing a Ron Paul newsletter from 1990 that made disparaging comments about Dr. King, Benton said, “That’s old news. Everyone knows what Dr. Paul believes in.”

I put in several calls to the King Center in Atlanta and to the Washington, DC office of the NAACP. Oddly enough, the websites for both groups were down today. The King Center’s phone system was a mess and I haven’t heard back from them today.

But I did get through to the NAACP. Waiting on a call from their DC Executive Director, Hillary Shelton.

In the meantime, I touched base with Jamie Kirchick, who says of the fundraising video:

"It's ironic -- though perhaps expected -- that Ron Paul's supporters would now try to compare him to Martin Luther King, considering that newsletters published under his name repeatedly slandered King and showed an obsession with the late civil rights leader's sex life. He also seems to think that the wrong side won in the War of Southern Aggression, a view which I doubt King shared. Ron Paul constantly talks about restoring the Republican Party back to its roots. He forgets that the GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln."

First, Ron Paul is accused of harboring racist sympathies. He did a pretty good job of deflecting the direct accusation, but the evidence that Paul was willfully ignorant of the less-than-reputable supporters in his circle was hard to shake.

But rather than play it safe, Paul supporters have instead launched a new fundraising pitch directly comparing their candidate to Martin Luther King Jr. in a new fundraising video. From the video text: "Two great men ... With one great message."



Rough timing. A story from Fox News yesterday notes that one of the Paul newsletters in question referenced Dr. King directly:

In a 1990 newsletter called the Ron Paul Political Report, which resurfaced earlier this month in The New Republic, Ron Paul — or his ghostwriters — called King an adulterer and seducer of young children, and questioned why the nation should celebrate the Civil Rights leader with the same glory as that given to its first president.

The site, "FreeAtLast2008.com," which says it is in no way directly affiliated with the Paul campaign, claims more than 10,000 donors have gone through the site. Meanwhile, the You Tube version of the video has nearly 60,000 views with more than 1,100 comments and 561 Diggs.

Fred Thompson has officially dropped out of the presidential race. We'll have a round-up of blogger reaction as soon as it starts trickling in. My first reaction is this would seem to hurt McCain and possibly help Romney in that it narrows the field, removing what many saw as a McCain surrogate. The best thing McCain could have hoped for was Thompson staying in the race and continuing to draw votes from litmus test conservatives. From the campaign:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States.  I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort.  Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

So, who becomes the candidate of choice for online conservatives? Romney?