Let me say this, that if Obama and the Democratic Party force themselves to exclude Florida and Michigan from the Democratic Convention, as Howard Dean seems prepared to do (though I must add that Kos is absolutely wrong about Dean's position on FL and MI. Dean favored revotes - OBAMA blocked the revotes), kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye for November. Chalk up 44 electoral votes for John McCain right now. There is STILL time to fix this - with party run revotes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

“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." 

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

CNN reports that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton met backstage after last night's debate for a private discussion, but none of the specific details of that conversation were divulged. Is Edwards angling for another VP spot, making amends for his earlier confrontations with Hillary, or were the two just chatting?

Shakespear's Sister writes:

I've heard/read a bit of chatter recently about the whole Democratic ticket coming from the top three, but I find that highly unlikely, unless Edwards gets the nomination. If Hils gets it, I'd put money on her choosing Bayh as a running mate. If Obama gets it, I'm less sure about whom he'd choose, but I can say with some confidence it wouldn't be either of the two people with whom he shared a stage last night.

James Joyner wonders why Edwards is still in the race and Matt Stoller notes how “vicious” the campaign debate has become.

Paul Starr smartly notes that while the presidential race may appear the Democrats' to lose, they are sort of good at doing just that:

[T]he major reason I see trouble ahead for the Democrats is that voting patterns so far, as well as rumbling tensions over race and gender, suggest serious vulnerabilities in both of the Democratic front-runners that McCain or another rival could exploit.

The Nation’s Ari Melber has this surprising breakdown of Nevada counties, showing that while Hillary Clinton won the most votes in Nevada’s caucus, Barack Obama has actually walked away with 13 delegates to Clinton’s 12:

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

MyDD’s Jonathan Singer adds:

If this is indeed a delegate battle (leaving aside for a moment issues of momentum, which are extremely important), this could actually be somewhat of a win for Obama.

And more analysis from the Liberal Values blog:

It looks like the Nevada caucus will be a wash in terms of the Democratic race and adding a western state will not have a meaningful impact as intended when the date was moved up.

UPDATE: Chris Cillizza says that both the NV state Dem chair and the Clinton campaign are disputing the delegate math

The tide appeared to be turning against Hillary Clinton in Nevada, with Obama’s culinary union endorsement and Bill Clinton’s emotional confrontations with reporters. But after her victory there today, Clinton supporters can argue she has recaptured her party’s momentum.

But bloggers say not so fast...

Andrew Sullivan, who has been accused to having an anti-Clinton obsessions by some liberal bloggers, concedes she won the vote with Hispanics, which he says will help her in California, but adds:

It was still close, though: 51 to 45, and completely in line with the last polls.

Ed Morrissey also plays down Clinton’s victory:

Given the strong demographics in her favor, this isn't exactly an impressive showing. Obama will get almost as many delegates, and people will question her strength, especially after South Carolina's primary if Obama wins it as projected.

And the Politico’s Ben Smith adds this bit on how Clinton used Obama’s culinary union endorsement to her advantage:

One thing to keep in mind: The charges of intimidation were, at one level, a strategy for explaining a loss; but they may also have served to stir up support among non-union workers in the casinos and others around Nevada. So, as much an electoral strategy as a post-electoral spin.

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein is often referred to as a “respectable” foe by his ideological opponents and simultaneously lauded by fellow progressives and mainstream media bloggers for being a smart voice in the blogosphere.

However, he recently was the source of some ridicule in the conservative blogosphere for this post on Obama’s post-Iowa victory speech. Although the post was written in well-crafted prose, it attempted to put Obama’s speech in a larger historical perspective by comparing it to recent speeches by … John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Howard Dean.

Of course, some criticism is expected when you’re a high-profile blogger like Klein and there’s plenty of evidence his fans enjoyed the post, regardless of whatever it lacked in context. Much like Obama’s speech, it at least sounded nice, whether or not you thought the substance was equally persuasive. After all, hyperbole is often the main course in a blogger's political diet.

But there’s nothing positive or professional to be taken from Klein’s commentary on last night’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, sponsored by MSNBC. Klein was clearly upset by the line of questioning directed at the Democratic candidates by moderator Tim Russert and Brian Williams, declaring, fairly ridiculously:

It’s almost impossible for me to convey the damage Tim Russert and Brian Williams are doing to the republic this evening.

But far worse, the conservative blog Unpopular Front captured a Twitter offering from Klein that drops below the standards of professionalism for any working writer or reporter, even if that person’s primary outlet is a blog. The language is aggressively foul, so I will not re-print it here, but you can see it here (link removed).

If this were just a random missive, it would be forgettable, albeit tasteless. But as Unpopular Front points out, Klein is a regular guest on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” which falls under the stewardship of Russert, NBC’s main man in DC.

So, should Klein be banned from “Hardball” and other MSNBC programming as Unpopular Front suggests?

UPDATE: Klein writes in to note that his Twitter message was intended as private. Twitter has a function allowing you set your content to private, which Klein has now activated, but was not in use until his message began receiving attention. By journalistic standards, that makes his post fair game. Nonetheless, as a professional courtesy, I've removed the offending link, which in full disclosure, can be now be found at a number of other sites. And to avoid any potential misunderstanding of my post, I have no opinion on whether Klein should continue as a guest on MSNBC.

Last night I asked:

My first thought is, did the tears put her over the top? Is playing the victim Clinton's ace card? Remember, Rick Lazio's overly-aggressive moment is what put Clinton over-the-top in her first Senate race.

And, sure enough, the biggest story in the blogosphere today is Maureen Dowd’s column, asking, “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?”

From the column:

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

The Protein Wisdom blog thinks female New Hampshire voters were “womanipulated.”

Balloon Juice rejects the theory, and writes instead:

I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.” I honestly can not believe he has been able to get away with it this long, and I assure you, he will not in a general election. So that is why, in my opinion, Hillary won. She stands for something- something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.

Michelle Malkin says Hillary’s “Access Hollywood” appearance probably helped.

Many liberal bloggers are being surprisingly kind to Hillary Clinton in the first moments since the AP and some news networks have called New Hampshire for her. My first thought is, did the tears put her over the top? Is playing the victim Clinton's ace card? Remember, Rick Lazio's overly-aggressive moment is what put Clinton over-the-top in her first Senate race.

Daily Kos’ Markos:

And the race is on! Hillary Clinton just showed everyone who had called this thing for Obama that, in fact, there's a much longer race in store. How exciting! No coronation this year. The candidates are going to have to earn their victory the old fashioned way -- one vote at a time.

And from the right, Red State’s Erik:

I think Hillary came back. Now we're going to hear the press get back on the bandwagon lest they get their throats slit. We'll be treated to "Come Back Kid" stories for a few weeks because the press is so predictable.

Some progressive bloggers are chiming in on early New Hampshire returns showing Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 40 percent to 35 percent.

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas:

If Hillary holds on, this thing will go a long way. All that money that is drying up for her? The spigots will open. And the rest of the country might have a say in this thing after all. The Obama people are fervently praying for these numbers to turn around. There is a lot at stake here.

MyDD is posting on what they hope is a downward trend for Clinton as the votes continue to come in.

Chris Bowers goes with a similar thread, writing:

Clinton is certainly doing well so far, much better than expectations. Still, one would expect that the larger, urban precincts haven't reported yet, and that those precincts should favor Obama. Also, there is no way that Edwards beats Clinton now. CNN has officially projected him 3rd.

A number of conservative and liberal blogs are responding to breaking news news that New Hampshire’s secretary of state is reporting “huge” turnout in early voting returns today.

On the right, Captain’s Quarters Ed Morrissey says the large turnout is bad news for Hillary Clinton and that “Conventional wisdom has McCain benefiting from a big turnout.”

Liberal Values’ Ron Chusid writes that he would expect independents to vote in the GOP primary if it’s clear Obama is headed for victory:

Whether the high Democratic turnout is an indication primarily of Obama’s lure or the excitement of finally having a truly competitive race won’t be known until we see the exit polls. I would have expected independents to swing towards the Republican contest, given that the polls show Obama winning comfortably while McCain and Romney are neck-and-neck.

The Carpetbagger Report says turnout may go even higher:

In previous cycles, there’s been a large after-work rush, so the “absolutely huge” description may be even more impressive by the time the polls closed.

Outside the Beltway and Open Left offer their observations as well.

The blog discussion is dominated today by this Drudge flash item speculating on whether Hillary Clinton will withdraw from the Democratic primary if she loses in New Hampshire tomorrow night.

However, most of the discussion seems to mock both Matt Drudge and the notion that Clinton would drop out, regardless of how she performs in NH.

While conservative blogs have no love for Clinton (unless they are scared of Obama), some of them are comparing this story to last week’s inaccurate Politico report claiming that Fred Thompson was about to drop out of the race after Iowa.

From the right, Captain’s Quarters:

It didn't work with Fred Thompson, and it won't work with Hillary Clinton.

Liberal leaning Wonkette asks mockingly:

Have you ever seen a sadder Drudge Report Siren?

And more Thompson comparisons from Outside the Beltway:

Even aside from the fact that this is on the Drudge report, this strikes me as wildly implausible. Unlike earlier reports that Fred Thompson would drop out after poor finishes in the early states, there’s just no reason for Clinton to quit. As noted in the previous post, she’s got more cash on hand than Obama and Edwards combined. And she’s got huge leads in several big states.

While most progressive bloggers are pulling for a John Edwards second-place showing in Iowa, many of those same bloggers have long placed Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd as their ideal candidate.

Unfortunately for them, that online enthusiasm isn't translating to much in caucus land. In fact, the headline is a bit misleading, as Dodd is actually pulling in .02% of the vote, according to official results:

Senator Barack Obama : 37.53% Senator John Edwards : 29.87% Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.42% Governor Bill Richardson : 2.09% Senator Joe Biden : 0.93% Uncommitted : 0.13% Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02% Precincts Reporting: 1719 of 1781 (Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

UPDATE: The Dodd campaign just announced he is dropping out of the race

UPDATE 2:

From the AP

Dodd to drop presidential bid

By BETH FOUHY

Associated Press Write

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was set to abandon his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday after a poor showing in Iowa's precinct caucuses.

The veteran lawmaker was to announce his decision to supporters at a post-caucus party in Des Moines, according to advisers speaking on the condition of anonymity. He was expected to travel to Connecticut Saturday with his family to thank friends and supporters.

Dodd was never able to break from the pack of Democratic contenders despite his long and distinguished Senate career. He won just 0.02 percent of the state's caucus-goers.

More updated Iowa Democratic numbers:

Senator Barack Obama : 34.96% Senator John Edwards : 31.26% Senator Hillary Clinton : 30.96% Governor Bill Richardson : 1.72% Senator Joe Biden : 0.95% Uncommitted : 0.12% Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03% Precincts Reporting: 1230 of 1781

(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

The first entrance polls are coming out from Iowa. CNN is reporting that Huckabee and Romney are leading, 33 percent to 24 percent respectively. In the battle for third place, Fred Thompson is getting 17 percent of the entrance poll numbers, while John McCain is pulling 11 percent.

On the Democratic side, CNN says entrance polls are showing a “tight race” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

These numbers are incredibly early and prone to change, but very interesting nonetheless.

UPDATE:

MSNBC is also posting some post-entrance poll numbers

Edwards: 39%

Clinton: 38%

Obama: 36%

Huckabee and Romney are leading MSNBC's polling as well, with Fred Thompson is a solid third-place at 18 percent.

I recently had the chance to interview Georgetown University Professor and author Christopher C. Hull about his new book, “Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents.”

Mr. Hull has been studying the Iowa caucuses for years and offered some insights on tonight’s voting, along with how the political blogs have helped reshape the process.

Although there have been a number of developments in the days since we spoke, Hull’s breakdown of the three leading Democratic candidates sounds about right.

Hull says Obama “has the right idea,” in his approach to campaigning in Iowa and is “well-positioned to win,” the caucuses which are about to begin in just over an hour.

Even with the recent Obama surge, Hull still thinks Hillary Clinton is“likely to do very well” in Iowa. “I still see her ultimately winning the nomination,” Hull said, despite the favorable trends for Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire, where most polls have him now leading Clinton.

However, Hull was less enthusiastic about John Edwards, saying his trends have been “almost a mirror image of Clinton’s,” with poll numbers “slowly trending downward,” despite his large turnout at recent campaign rallies.

Hull’s observations have added weight because he correctly predicted the final results in Iowa back in 2004. He said his statistical model allowed him to make the ’04 prediction in advance of caucus night, but that this year’s field is too competitive for him to make a similar public prediction.

Nonetheless, he did predict that if current trends continue, Obama is “positioned to win New Hampshire if he wins Iowa.”

On the Republican side, he said the “thing to watch,” is how Mitt Romney’s traditional organizational support fares against Mike Huckabee’s largely grassroots effort. Hull says his research shows that part of Huckabee’s support has come from voter fatigue with Romney’s massive spending and advertising blitz in the state.

“What you really need in Iowa is narrow-casting,” Hull said, adding that retail politicking almost always trumps media saturation in Iowa. “Spending is inversely proportional relative to what you see elsewhere.”

In the previous post, I mentioned at least one Red State blogger prediction an Iowa victory for Fred Thompson tonight.

Fellow conservative blogger John Hinderaker over at Powerline predicts a Romney victory in Iowa, followed by a McCain win in New Hampshire.

Weekly Standard’s Richelieu, who may or may not be long-time GOP strategist Mike Murphy, says Huckabee will edge out Romney by less than a point, while McCain will get the strong third place showing his campaign is hoping for. He also predicts an Obama victory tonight by seven points, with Clinton finishing third.

Red State has also weighed in on the Democrats, predicting a narrow victory for Edwards over Obama, and Clinton pacing a few points behind in third place.

Most liberal bloggers have been more reserved about their predictions, but a few have weighed in, often with detailed disclaimers explaining their educated guesses.

Daily Kos separates his predictions into "Entrance poll" numbers and "Final results," with Obama coming out first in both. In fact, he sees an upward tick for Obama once supporters of candidates who receive less than 15 percent of the vote are asked to give their second choice candidates.

Open Left’s Chris Bowers also predicts an Obama victory

MyDD’s Jerome Aromstrong goes with Obama as well, but notes he is personally pulling for Edwards, a sentiment that seems to be shared by a plurality of progressive bloggers.

Finally, over at the Huffington Post, pollster John Zogby has revised his own caucus fallout theory. Originally, Zogby said Edwards could not survive a third place finish in Iowa. However, Zogby now says that might not be the case if the top three finishers are within a few points of each other:

This race could stay very close and we may emerge with all three as viable candidates going into New Hampshire

It took but a few moments after news broke yesterday of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for the cable news networks to begin debating which presidential candidate would benefit most from the news.

Almost as quickly, several liberal bloggers began criticizing the discussion. For instance, Talking Points Memo’s Greg Sargent singles out a discussion by MSNBC Joe Scarborough over the potential political fallout.

But over at MyDD, Todd Beeton defends looking at the politics of murder:

I'm sorry but Bhutto's assassination was a political event whether people like it or not; it's much larger than the tragic death of Bhutto and the throngs of supporters who were killed as well, this is earth-shaking, both abroad and at home. There is a parliamentary election in Pakistan on January 8th, which Bhutto's death clearly throws into chaos; is it distasteful to speak of that election as well? And what arbitrary date does it suddenly become OK to discuss the political ramifications of this event? As much as people like to belittle talk of who is going to win the primaries over the next few weeks as trivial "horserace" coverage, there are few issues more crucial to the future of our world than who the next president of the United States is. The extent to which this event informs that decision, I see it as absolutely relevant to the discussion.

In the conservative blogosphere, Captains Quarters' Ed Morrissey went after Bill Richardson for calling on Musharraf to resign in light of the assassination.

Over at Time’s Swampland blog, Jay Carney brings a different perspective to the conventional wisdom reaction that national security candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani benefit from such news:

[T]he impact of international events on domestic elections can be hard to predict. Take McCain's resurgence among the Republicans. McCain brandished his hawkish stand on Iraq earlier this year. Together with immigration, it nearly killed his campaign. Now that Iraq has receded as an issue and turned into a positive of sorts, at least for him, McCain has risen from the ashes. But that may be mere coincidence. McCain is benefitting far less from his steadfast stance on Iraq or his national security experience than he is from the unprecedented fluidity of the GOP race, the general unhappiness of Republican voters with their choices and the surprise surge of Mike Huckabee as a potential Romney-killer in Iowa.

The initial blogger reaction to the debate indicates that Obama and Edwards performed best amongst the top-tier candidates, with Bill Richardson scoring points well, as I noted in my live blogging analysis. And Obama gets the debate's highlight for his joke about looking forward to having Hillary advise him on foreign policy.

It’s still early, but more than 3k respondents at Daily Kos agree that Obama and Edwards won the debate, garnering 37 percent and 26 percent, respectively. Clinton is a distant third with 13th percent, but that’s not all bad for her camp, considering how she usually scores amongst progressive bloggers.

Meanwhile, the Marc Ambinder writes that Clinton and Edwards were the winners:

Why them, and not Obama? Because Clinton and Edwards repeatedly wove their answers into a larger argument, and Obama generally kept his answers to his answers. He did well though. No calls, Chicago. No calls.

And from Chuck Todd:

Perhaps no one benefited more from this subdued format than Obama since he's the guy with the momentum. Clinton, oddly, didn't get as much time in this debate (or forum) than she has in previous ones which may lead some to believe she was not at her best.

MyDD’s Todd Beeton was disappointed in Obama but liked that Richardson brought up Iraq:

I was surprised that Barack Obama didn't step up his debate performance today I have to say; while he looked more relaxed than he usually does at these things, his answers did not project the confidence of someone with all the mo' and unlike on the stump, he still hasn't found his debate voice (although he did score with the invitation to Hillary to advise him.)

I thought Richardson was particularly good when he used his 2 minute statement to bring up Iraq, which as he reminded us, has been neglected at the last couple of debates.

Finally, as I previously mentioned, conservative bloggers aren’t likely to appreciate the warmer reception DMR editor and debate moderator Carolyn Washburn, whom many have dubbed “schoolmarm,” appeared give the Democrats.

From Michelle Malkin:

Note: Just a few minutes into this debate, it’s clear how much more deferential Schoolmarm is to the Dems than she was to the Republicans. Deathly dull. This is not a debate. It’s a wake. Note II: Schoolmarm is all giggles. She seems to have a particular soft spot for Bill Richardson.

I’ll be providing regular updates over the next two hours as I live blog today’s Des Moines Register sponsored Democratic debate in Iowa.

Bloggers and beltway reporters are falling over themselves today to formulate the conventional wisdom that yesterday’s debate was boring. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that incredible bit of insight, but I would ask, as opposed to which debate, exactly?

Today’s DC collective-thought thread also seems to agree with my quick analysis that Mitt Romney performed well yesterday, Huckabee didn’t do anything to really hurt his new front-runner status, and that it was annoying to have Alan Keyes on stage. But I think we’re all a little curious to see how DMR editor Carolyn Washburn handles, or mishandles, things today.

• Hmm… this isn’t a good sign for those upset about the lack of diversity in yesterday’s questions (no immigration, no Iraq).

Washburn, on today’s topics: ‘The issues not getting a lot of attention,” and those “most-important to Iowa voters.”

• The candidates are being asked about balancing the federal budget:

Obama: Hates “special interests,” without naming any

Richardson: Wants to get rid of congressional earmarks, sticking with a pay-as-you-go budget.

Biden: Says ending the war will go a long way

Dodd: Growing the economy is good. But what will the anti-economy candidates say?

Edwards: “One of the reasons we’ve lost jobs … is because corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government.”

Clinton: Evokes Clinton administration. “I will institute those very same approaches. … The economy will grow again once we start acting fiscally responsible. … The results will take awhile for us to actually see.”

• The candidates, on how U.S. China relations should be balanced in light of Chinese creditors carrying a significant amount of U.S. debt.

Richardson: “Our relationship with China today is clearly one-sided.” “I would tell them that they cannot continue playing around with currencies. … It would be a stronger relationship with American leadership.”

Dodd: “This is more of an adversarial relationship and it has to be identified as such.” Makes a key distinction that “competitors,” usually play on a level-playing field. “We need to get a lot tougher on this – fair, not loud.”

On entitlements, and if they need to be reformed:

Clinton: “It’s a particular problem with Medicare.” Suggests a bi-partisan committee on Social Security.

Obama: Cites 1980 obesity rates, saying slimming down would save $20 billion in healthcare costs.

Richardson: “I believe universal healthcare is a human right for every American.” Calls out The Beetis

• Edwards is calling out “corporate greed” for the third question in a row. Refresh my memory, but I swear hearing once that he’s the son of a mill worker.

The candidates are now answering questions about trade agreements.

Biden: “How are we helping third-world countries by signing agreements with them that we know are going to be exploiting their workers?”

Richardson: Said any future trade agreements should require both partners to agree to international trade agreements on child labor, air standards, etc.

Dodd: Said human rights should be part of the “seamless conduct” of U.S. national security. “That’s one way to enhance our reputation.”

Edwards: “Human rights should be central to how our country engages with the rest of the world.” And yes, a reference to “big corporations,” and the mill his father worked in! Who could have seen that coming?

Clinton, on if NAFTA should be “scrapped,” or “changed.”: “It should be changed.” “I want to be a president who focuses on smart, effective trade.” “We believe in trade, but we don’t want to be the trade patsies of the world.”

Obama, on NAFTA: “There’s no doubt that NAFTA needs to be amended.”

• Richardson turns the table on Washburn during his personal statement: “I’m concerned that in the media, and in the last debate, that the Iraq war was not discussed.” “This is the number one issue facing not only this country, but Iowa caucus goers.”

He seems to be in his groove, but does it matter at this point?

The candidates on energy policy:

Biden: “The president’s gotta make this a moral crusade for the American people.”

Richardson: “Fuel-efficiency standards in this country should be 50 miles per gallon.”

Dodd: “We’re borrowing a billion dollars every day to buy foreign oil. … (getting quite vocal) “You need to be able to tax this carbon, which is killing us, killing this planet.”

Clinton: “This has to call for a new form of American patriotism.”

Obama: “There are going to be some increases in energy prices, initially, if we go with a cap-and-trade system.” “We’ve got to be courageous enough to not just talk about this in front of the Sierra Club.” Tells an anecdote about talking to auto makers in Detroit. “It was quiet in the room, nobody clapped,” gets laughter from both Washburn and the audience.

Edwards: “We have a future responsibility to future generations, an enormous responsibility.”

Daily Kos held its latest straw poll yesterday, where John Edwards and Barack Obama continued to show traction, finishing first and second, respectively. With 14,804 respondents, Edwards took 39 percent of the vote, improving his standing amongst progressive bloggers in the poll for the third consecutive time. Obama placed second with 30 percent. His numbers have fluctuated in each poll, but the 30 percent mark is his highest placement yet.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton remains static, tying for fourth place with Dennis Kucinich, as both received eight percent in the poll.

Markos’ take:

I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess. That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

Republicans yesterday managed to successfully hold two seats after special elections yesterday in VA-01 and OH-05. The fact that Ohio’s Bob Latta and Virginia’s Robert J. "Rob" Wittman held their party's seats isn’t the most stunning news.

However, liberal bloggers made a big push for the Ohio seat and are once again left discussing moral victories, rather than actual electoral ones. The bottom line: Republicans will spin this as a victory, but in reality, they essentially held par on 2006 numbers and had to spend valuable campaign cash to do so. Liberal bloggers will note a normally unnecessary cash influx from the GOP, but they were hoping for a true victory, rather than rationalizing defeat.

Daily Kos has perhaps the best progressive blogger analysis today:

Republicans beat us in the expectations game, got enough of their people out, and basically kept things even from 2006. They spent a shitload of money for an "expectations" game victory in what might have otherwise been a routine and uneventful hold. So well played to them. But the bottom line is that they held an R+10 seat. Funny that this is the sort of thing they're left "celebrating" these days.

Red State diarist Adam C also has a reasonable take from the right:

This combo of big wins seems to suggest that partisan R districts are holding up in a difficult environment where both parties and all parts of government are seen in a negative light. Note however that the NRCC and RNC had to get involved in OH-05 where they should not be needed. This takes money and time away from other tighter districts to spend on an R +10 area.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Singer tries spinning things a bit over at MyDD:

Simply put, regardless of the results of this election, the DCCC thoroughly outmaneuvered the NRCC.

But he quickly comes back with an update that puts things in a more rational context:

Update [2007-12-11 22:33:35 by Jonathan Singer]: To be clear, would I have liked to see a win? Yes. But the Republicans' victory was definitely a pyrrhic one, hurting them more in the long term than it helped them in the short run.

CQ’s Jonathan Allen and Kathleen Hunter have the details on the resignation yesterday of two Republicans from the bipartisan House Page board, after it was revealed that four pages had been dismissed recently for “serious criminal acts,” and “inappropriate sexual indiscretions,” according to Ginny Brown-Waite’s , R-Fla., resignation letter.

Shelley Moore Capito , R-W.Va., also announced her planned resignation from the board.

The two Republicans blamed the Democratically controlled board for lack of proper oversight and for not keeping them properly informed of the misconduct: “We were intentionally kept in the dark about dismissals for more than a week,” Brown-Waite wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Read the rest of the story here.