Super Majority A' Comin'

From Political Wire

Democrats Poised to Pick Up More GOP Seats

A new Democracy Corps survey in the 40 most competitive Republican-held congressional districts "shows Democrats have an historic opportunity to challenge deep into Republican territory. The Democrats have a more positive image than the Republicans across these 40 Republican districts where the race between the named Republican incumbent and Democratic challenger is now even."

Key finding: "Democrats start off even with Republicans, 45% to 46%, in a challenging battleground that Republicans won by a 10-point margin in the past two elections."

Thanks For That

Republicans: Every bit as good at National Security as they are at Economics.

From Raw Story

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

Closing

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California shows Hillary Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The survey was conducted in the hours immediately following Florida’s Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama by five percentage points in California.

Ready For Those Media Buys!!!

Obama Raises $32 Million in January

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, matching his best three-month period last year, aides said Thursday.

The money positions Obama for the sweeping Feb. 5 primary contests, when 22 states will be in play for the Democratic nomination. Aides also announced that with their money they can now advertise in states beyond the Super Tuesday contest next week.

Obama is advertising in all but two of the Feb. 5 states and plans to begin advertising in states with upcoming contests, including Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign attracted 170,000 new donors for a total of 650,000 donors overall.

Clinton Scandal Watch

It Can't hurt ... Obama. And Bill does do much good work through his charities....

And Do We Want This Stuff Dribbling Out For The Next 8 Years?

From The NY Times today

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan.

Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

and this choice tidbit which says a lot about the chance for straight-talk:

... Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

Staying = Power

David Broder says that a non-decisve Tstunami Tuesday helps Barry O's fans (and you better be one of them) Keep Hope Alive

... the last two weeks have seen a remarkable shift of establishment opinion against her and against the prospect of placing the party's 2008 chances in the hands of her husband, Bill Clinton.

The prominence of his role in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the mean-spiritedness of his attacks on Obama, stunned many Democrats. Clinton's behavior underlined the warning raised in this column before Iowa, by a prominent veteran of the Clinton administration, that the prospect of two presidents both named Clinton sharing a single White House would be a huge problem for the Democrats in November if she is the nominee.

The negatives on the Clintons have brought much support to Obama, most notably that of Ted Kennedy, the most prestigious figure in the Democratic establishment in Washington. But it is also Obama's own appeal that is being talked about across the country from Massachusetts to Arizona by the younger generation of governors, senators and representatives who share with him an eagerness to "turn the page" on the battles of the past.

Obama is not inevitable, but the longer the race continues, the greater that hunger. And the growing recognition of McCain's appeal to independents also works in Obama's favor.

Uwired Unleashed

GT12's favorite TX/East Coast correspondent has a new blog.

UW has often been there for us in the past, providing fresh ananlysis and outrage when GT12 is overwhlemed by work or Clinton-schmerz.

Visit the innocently titled 'I Have Sexual Tourette's today.

Judgement Vs. Experience

Afraid that Hillary's "35 years of Experience" is really a strength?

Presidential Biographer Robert Dalleck writes today in The New York Daily News.

Obama's lack of experience shouldn't be considered a liability. Many of our most experienced Presidents have made disastrous choices. In the long life of the republic, judgment trumps experience, almost every time.

First, some context. When Kennedy ran for President, he had already served in the U.S. House and the Senate for 13 years (into the start of a second Senate term) and had traveled extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In the Second World War, he had commanded a P.T. boat - and emerged a hero. He had written a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on political courage.

Put that alongside Obama's record of public service: seven years in the Illinois State Senate, half a term in the U.S. Senate and assorted other positions of debatable relevance to the presidency.

But all of Kennedy's knowledge and experience, especially in matters of war and peace, did not insulate him from the blunder at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, which initially undermined his standing as a foreign policy leader. There, Kennedy simply exercised bad judgment; it strains credibility to believe that he would have made the right decision if only he had spent one more term in the Senate.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy relied more on his own judgment - overriding many gray-haired military men - and the most dangerous moment in Cold War history was resolved with far better results for the nation.

A look at other Presidents underlines the lesson. In the four years before the Civil War, James Buchanan [the only man between 'W' and GT12's Award as 'Worst President Ever] led the nation. He had held so many high offices over the years that he was known as "Mr. Government." It didn't help him or the country a jot.

Buchanan failed to head off the bloodshed that would soon engulf the country, and he is now remembered as one of, if not the worst, President in our history.

Inexperienced Abraham Lincoln was, happily, another story.

Woodrow Wilson had an impressive record before entering the Oval Office; history has not been kind to his legacy - or to his decision to enter the "war to end all wars."

Herbert Hoover, one of the most experienced public figures ever to get to the White House, demonstrated dreadful judgment in believing that the Depression would resolve itself with minimal government intervention.

By contrast, Franklin Roosevelt judged traditional strategies for ending the economic downturn inadequate, and instead gave the country a New Deal - a slew of federally sponsored programs including the SEC, the FDIC, Social Security and a minimum wage - that continue to make the country more humane and more just.

In foreign affairs as well, FDR sensed when to depart from conventional wisdom. In 1941, after Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union, Roosevelt's military chiefs, fearful that the Nazis would roll over the Soviets the way they had conquered Western Europe, advised against providing lend-lease aid to Russia. Roosevelt wisely concluded that the Soviets would hold out and provided needed supplies.

No, experience is not irrelevant - but it's no guarantee of anything either. And when judgment and experience clash, judgment is the decisive presidential virtue.

His Stock Is Rising?

Readings from a group even more hyper-reactive than Ann Coulter on a bender

From Political Wire

Political Markets Suggest Obama Benefits From Edwards Exit

The Wall Street Journal looks at the political futures markets to try to determine who supporters of John Edwards will gravitate towards now that he's out of the race.

"When word of Mr. Edwards's pending withdrawal leaked, Mr. Obama's stock rose. So the markets tell us that Mr. Obama is a better replacement for an Edwards candidacy than, say, Hillary Clinton, whose stock fell on this news. Despite the Edwards bump, Mr. Obama remains the underdog, and is currently a 38% chance of winning the nomination."

"Polls have been testing Edwards voters for some time, probing them about their 'second choice' for the Democratic nomination. Polls in New Hampshire suggested Edwards voters preferred Mr. Obama to Mrs. Clinton, whereas in South Carolina, the polls suggested the reverse. The market estimates, instead, tell us who Mr. Edwards's supporters are likely to favor in those states yet to vote."

Paint Your Opponent Red

A little old fashioned discourse from Mr. Change.

Polite and True.

Watch out for Clinton's victim-card play.

DENVER - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.

Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.

"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.

A Real Restoration?

From MSNBC First Read:

On Nightline last night, Clinton seemed to admit that her husband’s presidency was a co-presidency. It was a pretty striking admission. “MCFADDEN: Here's what a lot of people want to know. Can you control [Bill]? SEN. CLINTON: Oh, of course. … MCFADDEN: Newsweek magazine says flatly, if you're elected, it will be a co-presidency… Maybe it's a good idea? SEN. CLINTON: It’s not. I learned that. I learned that the hard way.” She learned that the hard way? Interestingly, at the time of course, the Clinton White House vigorously denied the idea of a co-presidency because it wasn't politically prudent. Now is history being rewritten a bit?

Planet Fucking Earth

Must See Video here (but not at the office ...)

Must See Blog

Album Art at it's most, uh, involving ... Sleeveface

HRC per Europa

About that need to repair the damage done by W ...

Her campaign managers probably think they are creating a perception of her as a bold, decisive and humane woman with the extraordinary intelligence required to cope with America's and the world's problems. To non-Americans she appears to be a mean street fighter who might be a vindictive and war-mongering President if her pride is crossed. She looks like the caricature ugly American who will stoop to anything to win. If she does this now, she might do so in foreign policy as well.

Love That Ted

Ted Says:

"With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay."

Andrew Notes:

no other candidate has defended gay people as "brothers and sisters" without prompting in front of a non-gay crowd in the height of an election campaign. The Clintons don't do that. In fact, they have often done the opposite, using the fear of gay people as a way to triangulate for their own purposes. That matters to me. It should matter to gays and straights who care about equality under the law. On policy, there is no difference between Clinton and Obama. In terms of character, there is all the difference in the world.

All the difference in the world.

Women Of The Party Unite!

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with Kansas these days.

From Mark Ambinder:

Sebelius Plans To Endorse Obama

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday.

And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said.

The sources said that Sebelius decided some time ago that Obama was her candidate but decided to wait until after the State of the Union.

An Obama spokesperson declined to comment.

"Right now, the Governor's focus is on delivering her response to the President's State of the Union message Monday night," said Nicole Corcoran, communications director to Sebelius. "The Governor will have more to say about the presidential campaign after Monday."

Sulli-Freude

Andrew Sullivan celebrates his 'I told You So' moment (I never thought that he'd actually have one ...).

Guilty!

The Clintons push the envelope again - on the Michigan and Florida delegates. Ed Morrissey and Josh Marshall come together. Maybe the Clintons can bring the country together again - in revulsion at their expediency. Jon Chait crosses the anti-Clinton Rubicon for the first time:

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

Grief

Joe Klein

It may well be true that any Democrat is going to have to handle that sort of sewage in the general election, but I've now--belatedly!--figured out that the real audacity in Barack Obama's campaign--far more than his positions on the issues, which almost seem an afterthought--is his outrageous belief that the entire country, not just Democrats, wants to see a straight up election; that the entire country is tired of the pestilence of tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts, the Bushes. (The latest example being their sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.)

It is a hell of a bet Obama has made. And nearly 40 years of political, uhm, experience tells me that it isn't a very wise one...but I must also say that it is truly sad to see Bill and Hillary Clinton on the wrong side of it.

... But You Run Just Like A Little Girl

MoDo, the left's biggest Clinton Hater

Two Against One

By MAUREEN DOWD

... Bill has merged with his wife totally now, talking about “we” and “us.” “I never did anything major without discussing it with her,” he told a crowd here. “We’ve been having this conversation since we first met in 1971, and I don’t think we’ll stop now.” He suggested as First Lad that “I can help to sell the domestic program

It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.

By Any Means Necessary

Bob Herbert, NY Times

Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.

It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.

What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?

These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.

Passing The Torch

May save both of 'em

From ABC

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., will endorse Barack Obama's presidential bid on Monday in Washington, a source close to Kennedy tells ABC News.

The endorsement gives Obama a boost in the eyes of the Washington establishment, and comes after some prominent Democrats criticized Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former president Bill Clinton for their campaign tactics before Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina.

Caroline Kennedy, the late President John F. Kennedy's only daughter, announced her endorsement of Obama in an Op-Ed for the New York Times on Sunday.

And in an exclusive "This Week" interview, Obama hinted that the senior senator from Massachusetts might be next.

"I'll let Ted Kennedy speak for himself. And nobody does it better. But obviously, any of the Democratic candidates would love to have Ted Kennedy's support. And we have certainly actively sought it," Obama said. "I will let him make his announcement and his decision when he decides it's appropriate."

Text Below

Listen To The speech.

A man aware of the forces being marshalled against him and defiantly refusing to concede to business as usual.

His best yet

Home Town Endorsement

Not a Surprise That Chicago's Tribune endorses Barry O in the Primary here (we are on the Supeer-Duper-Tsunami-Tuesday list) and it won't be a surprise when they don't endorse him in November (the Trib has never endorsed a non-Republican for President).

None-the-less, the Trib offers perspective with some history behind it.

For the Democrats: Obama

Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation. We offer him our endorsement for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary.

By one measure, this endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. But this is a more complicated contest, and a more complex candidate, than the norm. This nation's next president inherits a war -- against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere -- that has found many ways to divide Americans. Capitol Hill is gridlocked and uncivil. Our discourse is hostage to blame.

Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."

Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care -- when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.

Obama's key opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, unifies only her foes. Her penchant for gaming every issue -- recall her clumsy dodging when asked in a Philadelphia debate whether illegal immigrants should be licensed to drive -- feeds suspicion of maneuvering that would humble Machiavelli.

As this campaign has progressed, Hillary Clinton in moments of crisis hasn't been an ennobling sight. Her reliance on her husband, the less-than-presidential Bill, to trash-talk Obama reaffirms that the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail. Depicting Obama's record on Iraq as a "fairy tale" is instructive: Think what you will of the war, but Sen. Clinton was an enabler when that was popular. In Kerryspeak, she was for the war before she was against the war.

The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.

Well, The Ultimate Kennedy-esque Comparison, No?

A President Like My Father

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

... Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

... I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

[Amen sister - GT12}

Let's Look At It Cold Heartedly

It's not just that she's awful ... it's that he's the future.

The Left and the Right know it.

Because, he is offering what Reagan offered. This time it's Honest.

Andrew sullivan, who is enjoying the rare chance to say "I Told You So" to the teeming masses of newly minted ex-Bill-lovers sums up what the Conservatives are saying:

Conservatives recognize what's in front of them.

Here's Lowry:

That was not only a stirring victory speech by Obama, but a devastating rebuke to the Clintons clothed in inspirational liberal terms.

And Pete Wehner, who has noted Obama's power before:

Unlike Clinton and especially Edwards, the Obama message is about unity, not divisions; and hopes rather than grievances. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans have a great deal to fear. He has tremendous break-out potential.

He nearly had K-Lo.

And some liberals also saw new strength. Noam Scheiber agrees with me about the speech.

Dickerson has a great line:
Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton so badly in South Carolina it may spawn some new kind of Southern colloquialism.

And don't miss Ambers.

Hope For Mankind

From Political Wire

Clinton Did Not Help His Wife

Sen. Barack Obama's huge victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton in South Carolina tonight probably reflected as much on Bill Clinton as it did on his wife. The Los Angeles Times notes the "spectacle of a former president getting down and dirty in the current political trenches with numerous attacks on the freshman Illinois senator may have backfired big-time.""According to CNN exit polls, the ex-president's campaigning was an important factor in nearly 60% of Democrats' voting decisions.

Of those, 47% went for Obama and only 38% for Clinton's wife. Fourteen percent went for John Edwards."Nonetheless, "a Clinton aide said that Bill Clinton would continue campaigning for his wife."Jake Tapper reports that Clinton added fuel to the fire today -- an justified charges that he's engaging in race-baiting -- by comparing Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988.

Like It's 1999

An editorial worth absorbing from The Economist:

The Clintons are in the process of doing the impossible: making the 2008 election a referendum on them, rather than on the Republicans. And the Republicans are inching towards nominating their one candidate, Mr McCain, who has broad popular appeal. If what ought to be a stroll in the park in November becomes a real fight, then the Democrats will know who to blame.

So Fucking Happy

Maybe people really aren't susceptible to politicians who knee-cap their own party...

Obama alone received more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined did the week before.

Obama alone received more votes than all of those cast in the 2004 SC Democratic Primary (which was the only Primary win of '04 for John Edwards).

Frank Rich sums up the foolishness of a Clinton nomination:

The Billary Road to Republican Victory

... What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Yes We Can

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again
But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.

The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

More On Bye-Bye Moron

Dan Balz does the Pre-Mortem

What has been more curious is that degree to which Giuliani has proved to be a campaigner who appeal to voters seemed to diminish the more they saw him.

New Hampshire is the best example. Of all the early states, Giuliani tried to run a serious campaign in the Granite State, where the moderate-leaning GOP electorate appeared potentially hospitable. In November, Giuliani began to run television ads in the state and on the weekend after Thanksgiving he barnstormed the state. Standing outside city hall in Manchester, with Mayor Frank Guinta at his side, he predicted he would win the primary.

Instead, his support went in the opposite direction. He had almost a quarter of the vote in a September poll by the University of New Hampshire for CNN and WMUR-TV; by late December he was at about half that level.

Giuliani tried multiple messages. He began the campaign as a 2008 version of President Bush's 2004 reelection posture: the man who would keep the country safe. He railed at Democrats warning that their views on terrorism would invite more attacks and more casualties.

He ran for a time as the presumptive nominee, traveling overseas to appear with leaders in Britain and claiming to be one of the most recognizable Americans in the world. He ignored his rivals to attack Hillary Clinton, hoping to signal to GOP voters that he would be their strongest nominee.

He ran as the mayor, promising to do for America what he did for New York. He offered up his record as proof of what he could do as president.

He ran as a Reagan conservative -- at least on economic issues, touting his commitment to tax cuts, welfare reform, school vouchers and other conservative ideas.

But often he ran half-heartedly. He ran instead as a celebrity

Clinton V. Truth

From Obsidian Wings

I don't think the problem is exactly that they are assuming that most people won't follow the news closely enough to know who is telling the truth and who is lying. As far as I can tell, that assumption is accurate. The problem is that they are playing on that ignorance in a way that displays a different sort of contempt for voters: not the assumption that most people do not follow the news closely enough to be able to say what's wrong with criticizing Obama's 'present' votes on anti-abortion bills, which is probably true, but the idea that it is OK to manipulate them into casting votes they might not cast if people were not telling them lies.

Lies: a short, non-exhaustive list.

(1) The Reagan Quote

Hillary Clinton at the SC Debate:
"The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote."

Bill Clinton:
""Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas," Clinton told a crowd in Pahrump this morning."
(See also here, and Clinton's new ad.)

What Obama actually said (aka "the exact quote"):

"The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

Steve Benen's takes on this is good, as are Mark Schmitt's and Paul Waldman's.

(2) Iraq

Bill Clinton:
"The only thing I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq, and that he had said in 2004 there was no difference between his position and President Bush. And he said that was somehow dishonest, but he never answers how it's not accurate. So this is crazy."

Bill Clinton, earlier:
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break."
Big difference between Clinton's and Obama's record on the war: Obama opposed it in 2002, and said he would not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution, which, of course, Sen. Clinton did vote for. The 2004 quote, in context:

"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

"But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. "What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this," he said."
(OMG, I'm repeating a right-wing talking point!!)

(3) The 'Present' Votes

Here are accounts (or, in the case of the mailer, a scan) of a mailer, emails, and attack websites about Obama's "present" votes on anti-abortion votes.

From the NYT, in an article that came out several weeks before the Clinton flyer:
"Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights."

More:
"The Obama campaign has argued his present votes were part of a legislative strategy devised by the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood to counter a Republican leadership strategy to force pro-abortion rights Democrats into politically damaging “no” votes against popular abortion restrictions. The legislators wound then be attacked at election time for voting no legislation with names such as “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” The present votes would provide political cover and still have the same effect as a no vote.

The Tribune last year found few lawmakers remembered such a strategy and many of those who joined with Obama to vote present were, like him, in politically safe districts. But leaders of Illinois Planned Parenthood have maintained since the controversy erupted that they did in fact devise the present-vote strategy and asked Obama to participate.

Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, vouched again in the conference call that Obama’s present votes were made a the request of Illinois abortion-rights advocates.

“It was our strategy from Planned Parenthood,” Sutherland said.

“Sen. Obama was key to that present-vote strategy,” She continued. “He was always gong to be no votes on all of these bills. But we specifically asked him to vote present because he was so respected among his fellow Democrats that, if he did the present vote, they would follow suit. And that ended up being the case. They did follow suit. And not only did many of the Democrats follow suit. So did a couple of Republicans follow suit."

“It actually worked, because the then-Senate President was no longer able to use these votes against candidates in their races,” Sutherland added.

This is also interesting. And in case anyone wonders whether Pam Sutherland, the head of Illinois Planned Parenthood who appears in many of these stories, is just saying this because of the present election season, here she is giving the same account in 2004. Another person from Planned Parenthood who was involved with this strategy writes about it here.

This line of attack seems to have convinced the former President of Chicago NOW to switch from supporting Hilary to supporting Obama. YouTube videos here.

(4) The Teachers' Union Lawsuit

Bill Clinton on the suit to bar caucus sites in casinos:
"There were teachers who filed the lawsuit. You have asked the question in an accusatory way, so I will ask you back," the former president said. "Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give people who worked in the casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct?"

"Did you know that? Their votes will be counted five times more powerfully, in terms of delegates to the state convention, compared to delegates to the antional convention."

Matthews noted the state party approved the set up.Clinton: "What happened is nobody understood what happened..they uncovered it. And now everybody's saying, ''Oh, they don't want us to vote...what they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more, as much."

In fact:
"Well that sounds terribly unfair -- the casino workers' votes will count five times as much? Awful! Except it seems to be completely false. So where did Clinton arrive at this number? I can't say for sure, but it seems he just made it up.

As is often the case in the Rube Goldberg delegate allocation system used in caucuses, there is an absurdly complex formula to determine how many delegates each precinct receives. But the Las Vegas Sun crunched the numbers, and according to their calculation, if 10,000 people voted at the at-large precincts, they would make up around 6 percent of the total delegates for the state. Now, does that mean that the votes of those who vote there will count five times as much as anyone else's? Only if you assume that statewide turnout will be so large the at-large precincts will only make up 1.2 percent of the vote (6 percent divided by 5). That would mean, under this scenario, that total turnout in the Democratic caucus would have to be 833,333.

Will turnout be that high? Well, no. As the Sun recently reported, "Democratic circles are abuzz with excitement about Nevada’s caucus, and people are starting to think that the state party’s early estimate - recently repeated by Sen. Harry Reid - of 100,000 people might just be possible."

In order for the at-large precincts to be over-represented, the turnout there would have to be incredibly low, while turnout everywhere else in the state is incredibly high, and there is no reason to think that will happen."
(Actual Democratic turnout: 116,000.)

The idea that "nobody understood" what rules governed the apportioning of delegates in Nevada until a few days before the caucus, and a few days after the Culinary Union endorsement, is also pretty far-fetched:
"The state Democratic Party unanimously approved the caucus rules last March, and the Democratic National Committee signed on in August. Four of the six plaintiffs [in the suit to ban the caucus sites; hilzoy] are members of the committee that approved the rules."

(5) Social Security

Clinton mailer: Headline: "We need a president that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn." Description of Obama: "a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America's hard working families. Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families' hard-earned dollars to Washington."

In fact, Obama has no such plan. He has said he would "consider" raising the cap. Oddly enough, so has Clinton:

"Obama tried to describe his position at a campaign stop outside Las Vegas on Wednesday, saying the worst part about the mailer is that Clinton has said she would consider doing the same thing he wants to do.

He said he thinks requiring high-income earners to pay more Social Security taxes is the best way to prevent a cut in benefits.

Currently, workers pay Social Security taxes on the first $97,500 in income - anything above that is exempt. Obama said he would consider keeping the exemption for up to around $200,000, but anyone earning more than that should have to contribute more. He was not specific about what he would do.

"There might be some exemptions, but once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax," Obama said. (...)

Three months ago, Clinton told an Iowa voter privately that she would consider raising the income limit as long as there was a "gap," with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. An Associated Press reporter overheard the conversation."

In addition, the $1 trillion figure is wrong. Eliminating the cap -- not raising it, and not exempting people who make between from $97,500 and $200,000 -- would raise $1 trillion over ten years (cite, pdf), but Obama has not proposed eliminating the cap. Moreover, not including the 'over ten years' part is deeply misleading. (I mean, I could describe a one cent increase in, say, drivers' license fees as "a trillion dollar tax increase" if I got to add, under my breath: "over the next five millenia.")

And let's not even get into the question whether voters making over $200,000-250,000 count as middle class.

And This

William Greider on the Clintons' formula:

The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.

A Bright Spot

Rudy' Tanking Spectacularly.

As people get to know him they Learn what the NY Times and New Yorkers know

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

What A Great Four Years It Would Be

Joe Klein, who's seen it all, is stunned

Let me get this straight: Obama wins Iowa. In a desperate move--unprecedented for an ex-President in American politics--Bill Clinton decides to impede Obama's momentum by inserting himself into the campaign. He attacks Obama on an almost daily basis, sometimes falsely. He makes a spectacle of himself. And then he blames the press for not covering the substance of the campaign?

"This is what you live for," he told CNN reporter Jessica Yellin.. "They just spin you up on this and you happily go along," Clinton said. As aides steered him away, he scolded: "Shame on you."

I can't believe that Hillary Clinton wants the world to think that whenever she gets into political trouble, she's going to have her husband come roaring about, breaking furniture, sucking up oxygen, spewing carbon dioxide. My impression is that she's strong enough to defend herself--she certainly showed that in the recent Democratic debate. But apparently she's not strong enough to control Mr. Bill...and if that's the case, any sane voter would have to think twice before enabling this sort of circus act in the White House

Oh Yeah!

Where the Fuck was he?

From Daily Kos.

Where the hell has this red-faced, angry, combative Bill Clinton been for the last eight years?

Did Bill get angry and demand that wrongs be righted after the Florida miscount? After Bush v. Gore? After Bush, Cheney, and Rice blew off his concerns about terrorism for 8 months? After Bush's unpreparedness for, inadequate and incomplete response to, and unconscionable exploitation of 9/11? After the unfair media and GOP attacks on Al Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry? After Katrina? Plame? The US Attorneys? The "lost" emails? The countless other mistakes and malfeasances of the Bush administration?

Sorry, Bill -- by remaining silent in the face of so many grave catastrophes, you forfeited your right to attack Obama...

What She Said

Some words of wisdom from Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri:

"I do not begrudge Bill Clinton's working for his wife, but the one thing I would say is really important to President Clinton to think about right now, because of the larger megaphone he has as a former president, he really needs to be careful with the truth."

What He Said

Bob Reich :

It's not fair – indeed, it's demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama's anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it.

Duh

Sullivan finds this quote

"I felt, once again, that there was this underlying hostility for homosexuals and Democrats and, well, hippie types. I cannot tell you how much I did not want liberal or gay people to be my enemies. I liked them. The real issue in the Christian community was that (love) was conditional ... You were loved in word, but there was, without question, a social commodity that was being withheld from you until you shaped up,"

- Donald Miller, author of "Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality."

Sick

Sick to death of Bill Clinton's performance as Karl Rove.

Fuck him and his awful awful wife.

I'll be back soon

We Should All Follow This Example

One of Sullivan's readers writes

Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton -- inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30's, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90's, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her 'victory' speech. We made a pact last that we all followed through on this morning -- logging on to BarackObama.com and donating $100 each to his campaign (this is the first time ANY of us has donated money to a campaign). Oh, and did I mention we're all New Yorkers?

Yes We Can

From Obama's concession speech

"We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

"But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn'ttry, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

"Yes we can.

"It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

"Yes we can.

"It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

"Yes we can.

"It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

"Yes we can.

"It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for theballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

"Yes we can to justice and equality.

"Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.

"Yes we can heal this nation.

"Yes we can repair this world.

"Yes we can.

"And so tomorrow, as we take this campaign South and West; as we learn that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; that the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea -

Yes. We. Can.

Las Vegas Baby!

SEIU Nevada Endorses Obama

By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated PressJanuary 09, 2008 9:43 AM EST

LAS VEGAS - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won an endorsement from the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union, boosting his prospects against rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in Nevada's upcoming Democratic caucuses.

The influential union claims to represent 17,500 health care and county workers in Nevada. Its executive board approved the decision in a conference call late Tuesday night, shortly after the Illinois senator finished a close second behind Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.

The announcement came as Obama was expecting to get another boost from labor in Nevada. The 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 was scheduled to announce its endorsement Wednesday.

SEIU President Vicky Hedderman said she believes Obama is a candidate "who could take the campaign all the way through November."

Nevada's Jan. 19 caucus is the next major Democratic nomination contest. Under union rules, the endorsement allows SEIU locals in other states to lend resources and volunteers to its Nevada counterpart on behalf Obama.

Obama Wins!!!!!!

Well, on the New Hampshire delegate count: 12 to Clinton's 11.

Fired up! Ready to go!

Do White People Lie?

So, what the hell happened with those polls? did we have a 'Bradley Effect' moment, where white folks lied to pollsters about their williness to vote for a Black guy? Chris Matthews certainly feels that way. Steve McMahon on MSNBC today told of a conversation with an NH observer who assured McMahon, before the close of the polls, that NH-ers would in fact lie about voting against BO.

How depressing.

But Salon looks deeper:

Does race explain the polling disconnect?

Chris Matthews and some other mainstream media voices are pushing the theory that the "Bradley effect" or the "Wilder effect" explains what happened in New Hampshire Tuesday night -- that the polls were wrong because white voters told pollsters that they'd be voting for Barack Obama even though they couldn't actually bring themselves to cast a ballot for a black man.

It's fine as theories go, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it. As the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder explains, the polls actually got Obama's level of support pretty much right. According to Pollster's "standard estimate" based on pre-primary polls -- and if you want to know what that means, there's an explanation here -- Obama was drawing support from 36.7 percent of New Hampshire Democrats. With 96 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama had 37 percent of the vote. The polls were also pretty accurate in gauging support for John Edwards (18.4 percent in the polls, 17 percent on the ballots) and Bill Richardson (5.6 percent vs. 5 percent).

So what happened?

The polls didn't overstate the support for the black man (or any man, for that matter); they understated the support for Hillary Clinton. Pollster's "standard estimate" put Clinton's support at 30.4 percent as the polls opened. When the ballots were counted, she had 39 percent.

Thus, maybe the issue this morning shouldn't be whether white New Hampshire voters hid their racist preferences from pollsters (or even the Iowa corollary -- that in public caucuses as opposed to private voting booths, Democrats wanted to make a good show of voting for the black man). Instead, perhaps it should be why the pollsters didn't have a better grasp on the support for Clinton -- or how it was that undecided and late-changing voters left the race in play long after a lot of us thought it was over.

A Fleetwood Mac Moment

Back in 1975, when I was Features editor of the school newspaper, I rejected an album review submitted by one of my friends.

"No one wants to read about some washed up English Blues Band" I ruled. I went with a Little Feat review instead.

The 'washed up' band's album? 'Fleetwood Mac'.

So I'm used to disgrace. I am again chastened this morning.

But I can't help wondering what would today be like if John Edwards (whom I like and admire) was not in this race.

Oh Fuck

The Importance Of 'Why"

Chuck Todd writes one of the best pieces on how BO (and McCain) have gotten to the point they find themselves at today ... and why HRC (and The Mittster) are where they are:

Barack Obama and John McCain have political brands that some would kill for right now. For Obama, the brand is a unifying change agent; For McCain, it's a straight shooting, gritty, experienced hand.

And their brands have only become stronger thanks to their respective opponents -- Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney -- who have attempted "new and improved" re-branding campaigns throughout the last six months to seemingly no avail.

... I was going to bookend this Romney-Clinton branding problem with a look at Clinton's announcement speech. And then it dawned on me, she never gave one. This is so symbolic. Think about it, she never gave a rationale for her candidacy -- other than she was "in it to win it," making losses more devastating since she didn't "win it."
Ok, that's harsh, she certainly had a rationale for her candidacy, but to not herald it in a traditional announcement speech really does lend to some head scratching.

... The closest thing Clinton gave to an announcement speech was her exploratory YouTube announcement video.

In that video, here's the passage that seemed to outline what she planned to campaign on:

As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism...Only a new president can renew the promise of America -- the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day."

Some form of these issues have been a theme throughout her campaign, but a bigger rationale underscoring her brand never materialized. It appears Mark Penn believed the Clinton brand was about working hard to do the little things; something that most voters would believe of a Clinton. But this isn't a "little thing" election; it's a "big thing" election; The above rationale in the video announcement is something somebody runs on if running for a second or third term, not a first.

Go!

From Dan Balz at WaPo's blog

What happens after New Hampshire no one can quite tell, but this is Obama's moment and he is driving it and riding it all at the same time. In barely a week, the Illinois senator has transformed the presidential campaign, triggering wholesale reevaluations across the political spectrum.

Ahistorical Whining

Or is it just lying?

If you needed proof that the Clinton's are no longer for the people, but just for the Clintons take a look at this round up from Salon's War Room of HRC's latest basis for Victim-hood - ugh, how anti-feminst is this woman?):

A "free ride" for Obama and Edwards?
In an interview aired on ABC this morning, Hillary Clinton complained that Barack Obama and John Edwards have received "pretty much a free ride" in this political season. "That's fine," she said. "I don't mind having to get up there and take all the scrutiny. But at some point the free ride ends; maybe it ends now, maybe it ends in a month, maybe it ends in the general election. You cannot be elected president if you do not withstand the tough questions."

A "free ride"? While we're not saying that the press has been easy on Clinton -- it hasn't been -- it's pretty hard to make the case that it has given either Edwards or Obama a pass on the way to the White House.

Here's the campaign coverage we've been watching:

Jan. 3, 2007: In a front-page story, the Washington Post says Obama's "candor" about "early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity," could cause problems for him as he runs for president.

Jan. 17, 2007: Insight magazine reports -- falsely -- that Barack Obama was educated in a madrassa. Fox News picks up the story and runs with it, at least until CNN sets the record straight.

Feb. 8, 2007: The Associated Press produces a lengthy story on Edwards' home, suggesting that the house's large size and cost are in conflict with Edwards' antipoverty message, and that this conflict is hurting him with voters.

March 3, 2007: The Boston Globe reports that Obama racked up $375 in parking tickets and late penalties while attending Harvard Law School.

March 13, 2007: The Associated Press discusses leaked excerpts from political consultant Bob Shrum's book, in which Shrum suggests that Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution for political reasons. Later in the spring, further allegations from Shrum are revealed, including that John Kerry regretted picking Edwards as his running mate and that Edwards exploited the death of his own son.

April 16, 2007: The Politico's Ben Smith blogs about FEC records showing that the Edwards campaign paid $400 on two occasions to a trendy Beverly Hills, Calif., hair salon. The cost of Edwards' haircuts has been used to attack him repeatedly ever since.

May 11, 2007: The Washington Post publishes an article that links Edwards, through his work for the hedge fund Fortress Investment Group, to the subprime lending crisis.

May 16, 2007: NBC's David Gregory confronts Obama with the charge that there's little difference between his Senate voting record and Clinton's when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Oct. 11, 2007: After Edwards issues an official denial, the Associated Press picks up on a tabloid story alleging that the married Edwards carried on an affair with a woman who had done work for his campaign.

Nov. 11, 2007: On "Meet the Press," Tim Russert confronts Obama with virtually all of the Iraq-related questions Bill Clinton says the candidate wasn't forced to answer in the Democratic debates.

Nov. 16, 2007: New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman says Obama has been "turned into a sucker" and "played for a fool" on Social Security.

Nov. 29, 2007: In a front-page story, the Washington Post spreads mainstream media credibility on false rumors that Obama, a Christian, is actually a "'Muslim plant' in a conspiracy against America."

Dec. 3, 2007: MSNBC's Chris Matthews declares that Obama is "almost Third World in his presentation."

Dec. 12, 2007: Based on comments made by Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman, the press wallows in a sea of stories about Obama's past drug use.

Jan. 8, 2008: As voters vote in New Hampshire, the New York Times' Matt Bai says that "whether or not [Obama] actually has the skill and experience necessary to dislodge us from the past is the real question surrounding his improbable campaign" -- and that while we're waiting for an answer, no one should be comparing Obama to JFK.
― Tim Grieve and Alex Koppelman