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. 

In a post entitled, "Last Action Hero," Ben Domanech over at Red State writes:

Yet this is also what I’ve always admired about McCain, even if conservatives curse him in the course of legislative battle: he is the same man, whichever side he is on. He brings that same infuriating passion to our cause when his inner compass has led him to alliance. His support of the surge confounded the glitterati of the MSM, who gave him every opportunity to break with the president in a fashion that would’ve led to countless more cover appearances for the late-night self-pleasuring of pimply interns of the New Republic. And yet he could not be agreeable to them, as tempting as the doyennes and the cameras were: he rambled through, grousing yet triumphant, middle fingers raised to Rumsfeld on the right and the New York Times on the left. Even if you dislike McCain, you have to admit: It was a glorious moment for him.

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.

The invaluable Brendan Nyhan links to today's New York Times story which puts the actual monetary effect of congressional earmarks into proper context. The Times' David Kirkpatrick reports they make up less than 1 percent of the federal budget. As Nyhan explains:

Like welfare and foreign aid, the cost of earmarks as a proportion of the federal budget are vastly exaggerated. Sadly, I'm guessing most stories today will omit this necessary context. 

Several congressional reporters and bloggers, myself included on both fronts, have placed perhaps too great an emphasis on the prevalence of earmarks. However, I do believe there is justification for this bit of fiscal obsession. Excessive spending is often difficult to communicate as an issue, whether you are a reporter or an activist. Earmarks are symbolic of that issue and translate into a rare economic narrative that resonates with voters. They also are a perfect example of lawmakers from both parties circumventing the electorate to pursue projects that otherwise would likely not gain popular support. So, while their literal burden on the taxpayer may be dwarfed by other budgetary matters, they are still very important symbolically. Unfortunately, this administration has finally caught on to that, and now seeks to use them as a tool of political convenience, rather than to seriously address the philosophy of fiscal restraint. But that should not diminish their importance to individuals who believe that the government does too much, or should be more transparent and effective about what it chooses to do.

The "legacy moments" in politics usually fall far short of their stated goals. At least that's the early reaction from the blogs at some of Washington's political publications.

NRO's Lopez may not like McCain, but she likes the parts Krauthammer tonight called the "McCain speech":

There's a lot of talk of "legacy" in regard to the State of the Union tonight, for obvious reasons. I'd like to think the war section is the legacy statement.

Townhall's Matt Lewis sounds disappointed by the tone:

Because this was President Bush's last SOTU, and that it comes on the heels of a bi-partisan economic agreement, the speech was understandably more conciliatory. He is, after all, in legacy-mode.

Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel contrasts Bush's economic optimism:

The states of our union are weaker five years into war. That's why if Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison had been given the chance to give the Democratic Party reply to Bush's State of the Union, he'd lay out why the best economic stimulus package is to end the war in Iraq.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is just happy it's all over:

So that was, what? About 55 minutes? It may have been dull, but at least it was short!

Looking a tonight's State of the Union through the prism of 2008, MSNBC's Chris Matthews says: “Tonight was a John McCain speech in so many ways."

Over on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer questions the president's priorities by noting that Zimbabwe was mentioned in the speech but not North Korea Meanwhile, Fox News anchor Brit Hume looks at video of Nancy Pelosi and debate whether she was speaking "that's not enough," under her breath in response to President Bush’s comments about Iraq troop reductions.

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.

President Bush’s final State of the Union speech is being largely ignored when compared to recent years. Instead, the top stories in the political blogs across the political spectrum continue to be focused on the race for the White House.

Leading conservative blog Red State welcomes their Republican president:

While we're all focused on the election, there's still a lame duck in office who gets one last State of the Union address.

However, a more interesting development mentioned on NRO is that Bush will not only have the traditional opposition party response, but a counter speech from a leader in his own party, Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

Some conservative bloggers are also discussing Bush’s call for a fifty percent reduction in earmarks.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos gives the SOTU a pair of comment threads but has its focus on other targets, like the FISA battle and congressional elections.

On a historical note, the American Presidents Blog links to this site which breaks past SOTU speeches by length.

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 advance of tonight's final State of the Union Speech from President Bush, take a moment to check out CQ Politics' innovative SOTU feature. Break down every one of Bush's previous SOTU speeches by topic and section. 

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.

From our CQ Politics midday update:

Less than a month into his tenure as conference chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander , R-Tenn., is coming under heavy fire from conservatives, who are planning to fashion an alternative Republican agenda for the year.

Conservatives say the agenda they put forth will be meant to complement Alexander’s.

But his candidacy had been opposed by hard-liners, and their dissatisfaction appears to be shared, to some degree, at the grassroots level.

Erick Erickson, who runs the conservative Web site www.redstate.org, sent an e-mail to his more than 100,000 subscribers criticizing Alexander and invoking names in the other party that conservatives love to hate — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y., and liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass.

“Rather than push bold conservative issues, the Senate GOP leadership will instead enjoy the table scraps Harry Reid , Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton throw them from the leadership table,” that e-mail said.

Erickson is encouraging his readers to contact Alexander's office to express their objections.

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.

A very interesting new list from the Cascade Project, detailing which 100 blogs one should consider reading to be the most informed, using a computer algorithm.

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?

Patrick Ruffini is running a poll over at Hugh Hewitt’s website attempting to measure which candidate Fred Thompson’s supporters (FredHeads) would back assuming Thompson drops out of the race.

With about 4,000 votes, the overwhelming choice so far is Mitt Romney, with 74 percent. And in a second poll, 88 percent of respondents say a Thompson endorsement of John McCain would make “no impact” in their decision of whether or not to support McCain.

There are so many problems with this poll it would be a greater challenge to find something right about it than to outline the number of things wrong with it. First, the poll is being hosted on a website operated by Hugh Hewitt, an ardent Romney supporter. Second, McCain’s web presence has always been quite weak, so it’s unlikely a surge of online Thompson supporters would migrate to someone they’ve never been fond of. Third, not only is it a pro-Romney website, but many people forget that before Ron Paul’s “Ronulans,” or “Paultards,” began their great spamming adventure, it was Romney’s “Rombots” who were infamous for stacking online polls and surveys.

Then there’s the question of how much a Thompson endorsement would actually matter outside of the blogosphere. If he can’t get actual voters to support his campaign, what are the odds he could sway a significant portion of the electorate to vote for someone else?

If Fred Thompson drops out of the presidential race, he may do so with the conviction many say his actual campaign lacked. Jim Geraghty talks to a "Thompson source," and offers the following interesting tidbits:

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

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.

With the stock market currently down about 150 points, the top story in the blogosphere right now is the Federal Reserve’s decision to cut the federal-funds rate by three-quarters of a percentage point. Earlier speculation had the Fed cutting the overnight loan rate by half a point.

So far, the reaction has ranged from praise for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to looming fears about an economic recession. Over at the Chicago Tribune’s Swamp blog, Frank James describes the cut as a “bold, aggressive move”:

If the economy is in a recession or soon to be in one, it will be hard to blame Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.

But the TigerHawk blog says stock futures are predicting a possible drop-off of more than 500 points.

Meanwwhile, the Democratic Strategist, urges caution:

the Bush administration, after spending most of the autumn posturing against federal budget deficits, is now in a panic-stricken drive for a "stimulus package;" and the two leading Democratic candidates for president are going after each other like crazed weasels.

I think giving this day a few hours to sort itself out would be a prudent idea.

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.