ABC News charges the Clinton campaign with "going nuclear" in their new campaign ad asking viewers "in ominous undertones," which candidate they'd prefer answering the White House situation room telephone at 3:00am:




However, a number of blogs have dug up this ad from Walter Mondale's 1984 primary campaign against Gary Hart. If it sounds familiar, that's because the ad was produced by Clinton's media consultant, Roy Spence



The Moderate Voice disagrees with the "nuclear" characterization:

There have been a few comments to this being Hillary Clinton’s nuclear cloud ad, similar to LBJ’s during the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater campaign for the Presidency. But this doesn’t come close. It’s a basic pitch, again, making the argument that Americans would be safer with Hillary Clinton’s experience.

And, of course, it's not the first ad attacking Clinton this campaign to reference 1984:

On Tuesday, I noted that #1 NBA draft pick Greg Oden (who also writes a blog), had a phone conversation with Barack Obama and endorsed Obama for president.

Yesterday, Oden took his political flirtations to another level, appearing with First Lady Laura Bush at a "Helping America's Youth," conference in Portland, Oregon. But really, the picture says it all:

Hillary Clinton has a blog post up at The Huffington Post on child poverty. The most interesting part for once is the 700+ comments, which are decidedly mixed.
Some anti-Hillary comments accuse the positive comments as being Clinton staff plants, while others accuse her of only caring about the issue because she's running for president. Clinton has faced a serious disconnect from the liberal blogosphere since before she made her candidacy official. Now that it appears to be reaching its end, it's fair to ask if Hillary could have closed the netroots gap with a more concerted effort earlier in the campaign? Short of apologizing for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, I'm guessing the answer is "no."

John McCain hosted another blogger conference call today. Topics included Iraq, spending, and whether McCain knows the difference between MySpace and YouTube (he does).

But the highlight of the call had to be McCain's parting shot at his staff. For at least the past three weeks in a row, McCain has joked that bloggers should start complaining to his staff if there is too long of a gap between conference calls. Today's joke encouraged bloggers to:

"Start complaining to my incompetent staff, who are composed to work-release people."

Now, to the actual highlights. McCain will probably regret this, but when asked how President Bush should best finish his term, McCain focused on Iraq and uttered what has become an essentially taboo phrase, but suggesting Bush "stay the course."

McCain was asked when the U.S. could declare victory in Iraq. "I'm not sure when that happens," he acknowledged, before describing the progress in Iraq as "astonishingly rapid." "Overall, now, I'm confident of success," he said.

On spending, McCain used his regular campaign line, "I will veto any pork that comes across my desk."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being under the weather is bad enough, but it comes on an already tremendously sad day with the passing of National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr.  Even as a former NR contributor, I don't have anything to add to the flood of good will emanating from the blogosphere today. All I will say is that Buckley was really about high-minded and civil discourse, something that is often-lacking in our national debate, and certainly not limited to bloggers. As today's reactions show, he inspired and earned the affection of many, and not just from the right side of the political aisle.

Ed Morrissey:

He brought together the disparate factions of the Right into one umbrella and made conservatism a potent political force.

Reason's Jacob Sullum touches on Buckley's near-universal appeal:

For left-liberals, I realized, he was a house-broken conservative, witty, learned, and cordial even while espousing horrifying opinions. Although many of today's most conspicuous conservatives eschew that role, Buckley's dignified, thoughtful approach earned the conservative movement mainstream credibility and may even have persuaded a few people, instead of simply stirring up the mob.

Even Ken Layne over at Wonkette puts the snark on hold for a witty, kind gesture:

He was a man of fine character, and nothing proved that more than the fact that Ayn Rand would melodramatically stomp out of the room if she saw Buckley.

Jane Hamsher put down the political guns for a brief respite:

I grew up watching Buckley, and I have to admit there was something appealing about how strongly he cut against the grain of conventional political wisdom of the time.

I'd rather avoid the few low-brow offerings on Buckley's passing, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't offer you the full picture. So, if you must, the so-called "Moderate Voice," uses Buckley's death to, of course, attack George Bush. They have a point, but it would have been much classier to wait till tomorrow. Oh well.

Your Ground Game correspondent is a bit under the weather today and resting up at the moment. Regular blogging should resume later this afternoon...

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher has launched an email campaign directed to local and national newspapers against the Associated Press' Nedra Pickler, for her recent story documenting conservative attacks questioning Barack Obama's patriotism. Ultimately, I think Pickler's story was one worth reporting, but as TPM notes, the first source in her story is Roger Stone, a disgraced former GOP strategist who has been in the news lately for less-than-savory antics. It's also not the first time liberal bloggers have turned their sights on Pickler.

Hamsher opens by saying:

It was pretty much world-record speed with which the smears against Barack Obama's patriotism alley-ooped from the right wing attack machine into the pages of legitimate media, neatly laundered into the AP by Nedra Pickler.

And then directs her readers:

The AP probably doesn't care a whole lot about what you think, but it does care what the papers who subscribe to their wire service think. So we've set up a page where you can plug in your zip code and automatically send an email to the papers in your area who syndicate the AP and let them know this is beneath what you expect their coverage to be -- for this election cycle and beyond.

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

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

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

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

Two Hillary Clinton stories are dominating the blogs this afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

As a number of my former Washington Times colleagues can attest to, the hiring of John Solomon as  the paper's editor-in-chief brings with it many hopes for enhancing the paper's reputation, overall quality and staff morale.

One of the paper's most embarrassing components has been its reliance on outdated, and some would say, loaded, stylistic preferences: homosexual "marriage," in place of gay marriage; illegal aliens instead of illegal immigrants, and so on.

Well, it appears that Solomon is on the same page as those wanting a more respectable, albeit still conservative, voice emanating from 3600 New York Ave. The following "style changes" email was issued about an hour ago from the paper's Patrick Tuohy:

From: Patrick Tuohy <ptuohy@washingtontimes.com>

Date: February 25, 2008 4:43:13 PM EST

To: twtnews@washingtontimes.com

Cc: Patrick Tuohy <ptuohy@washingtontimes.com>

Subject: Style changes

All:

Here are some recent updates to TWT style.

1) Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

2) Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.

3) The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).

4) Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.

5) We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.

Thanks.

Patrick

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

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

Progressive Texas blog Burnt Orange Report asks:

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

National Review Online says of the photo:

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

James Joyner adds:

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

Sat down yesterday morning (on my couch, in true blogger form), for a group podcast discussion with Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, Michael Brendan Dougherty of the American Conservative and "Inside Washington Weekly" host David White, of the Americas Future Foundation.

We discussed the ongoing Democratic primary race, the New York Times/McCain story and a few other items along the way.

And yes, to crouch blogger vernacular, I "smeared" the great director Jim Jammusch by referring to his 1995 masterpiece "Dead Man" as "Dead Man Walking." In my defense, both films came out the same year and Dead Man Walking is a pretty good description of the film, Dead Man. But as a cinephile who once surprised/disturbed the unflappable Chuck Todd by knowing William Friedkin's birthday, even though I've never seen the Exorcist, I'm a little disappointed in myself...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo goes a different route:

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

They add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local rival the New York Daily News opines:

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

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

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

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

While T-STEEL over at The Moderate Voice speculates:

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

There's a fair debate going on now about whether the media is applying the appropriate level of scrutiny to Barack Obama and his presidential campaign. But it's equally fair to acknowledge the difference between genuine investigative journalism and desperate scare tactics.

Over at NRO, Lisa Schiffren takes the quality of discussion down a notch by calling for an investigation into whether Obama's parents were communists. An examination into Obama's own history is certainly appropriate and looking into his parental history adds context to that story. But in this case, Schiffren's analysis borders on racial demagogy:

Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics.

Full disclosure: A briefly worked at NRO a few years ago. During that time, I often received emails accusing the publication of having a racist past and harboring current biases against minorities. While I had several ideological differences with colleagues at the publication, these accusations always struck me as quite ridiculous. Differences in political leanings do not equate to racial prejudice. And there's the little factual nugget that some of the publication's most prominent voices come from a more diverse racial and gender background than most liberal and mainstream publications. Nonetheless, this post strikes me as pretty bad. Bad enough, that some of Schiffren's fellow Cornerites are calling foul:

Good grief, Lisa, I'm no fan of Obama, but I really think that 'investigating' the senator's background in the manner you suggest will be thoroughly counterproductive

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just returned from an interesting panel discussion hosted by the New Democrat Network, featuring Joe Trippi, Hotline Editor-in-Chief Amy Walter, and NDNers Simon Rosenberg and Andres Ramirez. The panel discussed emerging trends in 2008, the "collapse of the conservative brand," and the rise of Hispanic voters. But they also got into some interesting points about the increasing role of technology in campaigns.

To summarize, Trippi said what he and Howard Dean started in 2004 with the netroots has come to fruition with Barack Obama's campaign, which he called, "A move from top down media ... to bottom up technology." Trippi used the comparison repeatedly, describing Hillary Clinton's campaign as, "the best top down campaign, the strongest one our party ever put together."

He also noted that because of the differences in online and traditional fundraising that despite Obama raising significantly more more than Clinton, 90% of Clinton's donors had already maxed-out their individual contributions, versus only 3% for Obama's supporters.

Trippi also explained how he thought the Clinton campaign could have taken the reins and "won a change campaign from the bottom," by using Clinton's gender to defuse notions that hers was the establishment campaign. Comparing his own role in the Dean campaign to that Obama's, he said, "We were like the Wright Brothers, and now, four years later, they are landing on the moon."

Walter didn't entirely disagree with Trippi's assessment, but cautioned, "The way Obama has run his primary is not necessarily how he'll run his general election.

For his part, Rosenberg described the differences in how the Democrats and Republicans are using technology in this election to, "the difference between using conventional weapons and nuclear weapons."

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

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

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

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

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

Over at Bloggingheads.tv, Time's Ana Marie Cox and Jon Fine debate whether the press has done their job covering Obama and whether the media will be held accountable for getting so much so wrong during this campaign season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hot Air asks:

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

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

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

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

Earlier today the House GOP leadership staged a dramatic walkout onto the steps of Congress, where they held a news conference accusing the Democrats of wasting time while pursuing contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, rather than addressing a temporary surveillance law that's about to expire.

However, liberal bloggers are pushing back, noting that the walkout happened at the same time as memorial services for the recently deceased Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA).

John Aravosis says:

Even the dead are political pawns to the Republicans (then again, we already knew that post-September 11).

And Outside the Beltway's James Joyner says the Republicans made a misstep as well:

Silliness in Congress has morphed into ugliness

However, NRO has a more sympathetic take:

Tensions were already unnecessarily high today because of an earlier scheduling snafu — just a simple error, apparently in the Speaker's office. Under a bipartisan agreement, the House was not to come into session until after the Tom Lantos memorial service. But the service ran long, and the session was gavelled in anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, that’s a Valentine’s Day gift.

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

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

Over at TPM Election Central Eric Kleefeld writes:

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

While MyDD's Todd Beeton adds:

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

Via Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog, CNN American Morning producer Chez Pazienza has been fired over objections to content included in his personal blog, Deus Ex Malcontent (warning: foul language abounds):

According to Chez, he was terminated for violating network policy by not running what he was writing through their vetting system. So he was fired not for blogging but for the content of his blog. “It’s not that I’ve been writing,” he wrote in an email. “It’s WHAT I’ve been writing.”

Was Pazienza unjustly fired? I'm guessing not, based on standard corporate policy. Nonetheless, it's a very tough balancing act finding exactly how far into the blogging wilderness a paid professional can venture. I can speak from personal experience, having allowed my creative muse to idle on the eponymous ericpfeiffer.net for more than a year. While it would be wonderful to have an outlet