Yep!

December, 1922

When Baghdad was England's problem

And While We're On The Subject Of Complete Stupidity ...

From the right a book that literally argues that Black Is White.

I've been meaning to comment on this book for a while but MR G Baker, probably frustrated with my sloth, sent me the article I needed to steal.

From Eric Alterman (whom we haven't cited in a while)

Goldberg's primary claim to public attention derived from exploiting the disreputable part his mother, Lucianne Goldberg, played in Linda Tripp's betrayal of Monica Lewinsky. Then employed as the vice president of Mom's right-wing literary agency, Goldberg told reporters he planned to pen a "Bonfire of the Vanities-type thing about stories peripheral to the scandal," with imagined movie deals to follow. Well, the only person who might imagine making a movie of the book Goldberg finally did write a decade later would be Mel Brooks. Liberal Fascism is the "Springtime for Hitler" of intellectual history. The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! (I see from my own ten seconds of Googling that cult leader Lyndon LaRouche beat Goldberg to this argument by five years with an essay titled "How Liberalism Created Fascism," published by his presidential committee. Hmmm.) People, this is a book that argues that Woodrow Wilson "was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator" and that it is "impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic." It's a rare book, indeed, that can be fairly judged by its cover, but I really do think that a smiley face with a Hitler mustache tells you all you will ever need to know about Liberal Fascism.

As dumb as Liberal Fascism may be, Goldberg has managed to sound even dumber when discussing it. He has modestly described his book as "a very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care." And in an interview published in Salon, he actually makes the statement, "The only reason [Mussolini] got dubbed a Fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I." Of course, out here in the real world, we think of Mussolini as the fellow who founded what would become Italy's National Fascist Party and became a proud dictator in its name, which would strike most people as a better reason to dub him a Fascist. Now, anyone can misspeak, but, dude, that's the topic of your book. (Unfortunately this magic moment, appearing as it did in Salon, cannot be made into a YouTube video so it could take its rightful place alongside Miss South Carolina and the most recent classic, American Idol's Kellie Pickler. Ms. Pickler, when asked in which European country could be found the city of Budapest, explained, "I thought Europe was a country," adding upon being given the correct answer by a fifth grader, "Hungry? That's a country? I've heard of Turkey. But Hungry?")

I'm tempted to call the publication of Liberal Fascism an intellectual scandal, but I remember that I live in a country where White House press secretary Dana Perino can admit to having no idea what the Cuban missile crisis was. ("Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?") And it thrives in a culture where Ann Coulter not only rules bestseller lists but has found herself, according to the nonprofit Media Matters, interviewed nearly 200 times on at least thirteen programs on MSNBC, CNBC and NBC, not including the period she worked there. True, Goldberg does not call people "faggots" in public or speculate merrily on the joys of mass murder, but his scholarly method is most definitely Coulterian. Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously. "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself," Ralph Waldo Emerson once observed, I learn from Susan Jacoby's excellent book The Age of American Unreason. (I wonder if Emerson was tempted to call his work Conservative Cannibalism.) Where, oh where, are the [Milton] Friedmans of yesteryear?

Perhaps I can get a book Contract for my opus 'Straight Homosexuality'

Santayana Again

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason.

Ahistorical approaches to issues has truly fucked up the Bush presidency and our place in the world.

So, who thought that 'Ready On Day One' would work for HRC?

Some people who were 'Ready On Day One'

Richard Nixon 1960
Hubert Humphrey 1968
Walter Mondale 1984
Al Gore 2000

To say nothing of Jimmy Carter, LB Johnson and GHW Bush (the only man in the last 150 or so years to first get elected with the credentials 'Ready On Day One').

Oh, it's all so sad.

The Grown-Up In The Room

From Salon:

After a contentious day in the Democratic presidential campaign Monday, Barack Obama has called for some calm. Speaking at a press conference where he was picking up the endorsement of Sen. Chris Dodd on Tuesday, Obama said, according to the Los Angeles Times, "It is important for me as well as Sen. Clinton to communicate to our staffs as well that ... we're both trying out for quarterback, but we're on the same team ... I think things have gotten a little hotter over the last couple of days, but these things have gone, sort of, in ebbs and flows."

Obama was asked about Monday's controversy over a photo showing him in traditional Somali dress that was allegedly being circulated by staffers on Hillary Clinton's campaign. "At this stage of the campaign, there are going to be dust-ups, particularly at the staff level," Obama responded. "Certainly I don't think that photograph was circulated to enhance my candidacy. I think that's fair to say. Do I think it's reflective of Sen. Clinton's approach to campaigning? Probably not."

Changed

This Firewall seems to have been breached

The 'O' Word

I can't bring myself to say it, but some at the Washington Post are willing to tempt fate ....

Let's face it. It's o*[ GT12 will not even print the word ] *r.

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa may have provided the last bit of muscle Wednesday with his union's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Barring a serious meltdown in the debates -- or a sensational revelation -- Obama will be the Democratic presidential n****ee [this one's too forward too] this fall.

Watch Him Grow

Compare today's with just the other days

Follow(ed by) The Money

When exactly was the last time we saw Sen McCain w/o Beer heiress Cindy looking scarily over his shoulder? ....

Just wondering.

(Not) Honest John

Not only has Mr Anti-torture twice in the last year caved-in to the authoritarian Administration but he's not so good as Mr. Clean he has a definate greyish tint.

Joe Conason in Salon

... many of his colleagues regard this great reformer as a preening phony. Although he has often displayed independence from the pressures of the capital, he has sometimes succumbed to those influences; and while he may seem to shun lobbyists, he actually surrounds himself with them.

Indeed, the McCain spokesmen who have mounted his aggressive counterthrust against the New York Times are lobbyists themselves, or at least that's what they do when they aren't speaking up for the integrity and incorruptibility of their candidate.

Among the loudest McCain mouthpieces is Charlie Black, a seasoned Republican operative whose client roster dates back to such paragons as the late Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos and several African dictators, and more recently has featured Erik Prince, the mercenary entrepreneur who founded Blackwater. (Black's wife is a lobbyist too, and his firm, known as BKSH, is owned by Burson-Marsteller, the enormous P.R. conglomerate chaired by Hillary Clinton's top campaign advisor, Mark Penn.) McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, is also a lobbyist, whose client interests in the broadcasting and cable industry overlapped with those represented by Iseman and her firm, Alcalde & Fay. During the off years between presidential elections, Davis collected donations from companies regulated by the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by his boss McCain, for the amusingly named "Reform Institute," which also paid handsome sinecures to Davis and various other McCain campaign consultants. McCain's chief fundraiser is Tom Loeffler, a prominent lobbyist and former Texas congressman whose clients range from PhRMA to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

One Every Family ...

David Letterman last night:

"Experts believe now that Fidel has resigned he will either be succeded by his brother, Raul, or by his idiot son Fidel W. Castro."

Come On Home Ex-Pats!

The movement crosses the sea:

Obama wins Democrats Abroad primary

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama won the Democrats Abroad global primary in results announced Thursday, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

... More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 percent of the vote, according to the results released Thursday.

Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, at a pub in Ireland and at a Starbucks in Thailand. The results took about a week to tabulate as local committees around the globe gathered ballots.

Another Tack

The New Republic offers a new spin for Clinton:

This just goes to show that Obama only wins in states that hold contested elections. Sure, he wins big in caucus states, he wins big in primary states, he wins big when turnout is low, and he wins big with record-high turnout. But what the Obama-worshipping media is overlooking is that in each of the 25 state contests Obama has won so far, his name appeared on the ballot. It's time to stop giving Obama a pass on this critical issue.

Remember, if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama's name will not be on the ballot in November. And only Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she can win when Obama's name is not on the ballot. In fact, she's undefeated in contests where Obama is not on the ballot, making her clearly the more electable general-election candidate.

What it Looks Like To Chuck

We hesitate (for a second or two) to post this but .Chuck Todd is pretty smart and reasonably cautious ....

Can Barack Obama be stopped?
Chuck Todd on why the final nail is likely going into the Clinton coffin

... Obama's trajectory is really stunning right now.

He's 10-0 since Super Tuesday, and remarkably, his smallest margin of victory came Tuesday night in Wisconsin.

That's right, Obama's 17 point blowout of Clinton in the Badger State was his poorest showing since Super Tuesday.

He's gone from a narrow pledged delegate lead (and overall delegate deficit) on Feb. 6 to a nearly insurmountable 150+ pledged delegate lead.

When you factor in superdelegates, he's still ahead by 80.

In fact, expect Obama's superdelegate deficit to Clinton to close very quickly over the next 13 days.

Right now, he's trailing her by approximately 75 superdelegates.

My guess is he'll pick up a net of 20 superdelegates before March 4. That's based on more than a hunch but I'll leave it at that.

The only plausible explanation is that Obama makes a series of mistakes that suddenly makes him unelectable. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No.

Now, is it possible for Clinton to force a series of Obama missteps without it backfiring? The answer to this question is probably one of the great debates inside her campaign.

We're already hearing whispers that there are multiple camps inside Team Clinton that are split on how to go after Obama.

There are some who believe a sustained negative campaign -- something Obama has NEVER dealt with -- is a winning strategy.

But is it? Can Clinton damage Obama for the long term? Yes.

But can she damage him and keep herself politically viable in 2008? I'm not so sure.

Lower Rent

More Inspiration from Her Royal Schoolmarm-ness.

Clinton's Campaign Strategy from 'unnamed' Clinton Official speaking to Andrea Mitchell last night:

There's nowhere for Obama's negatives to go but up.

Ohio

GT12 rec'd word today that our friend of 43 years has seen the error in his thinking and will not be voting for HRC on March 4, instead casting his ballot for a new America. My sister is joining the Obamawagon and as far back as Christmas the rest of the family was only worried that they'd be the only ones voting for him and that the Dems would once again self immolate and nominate HRC.

It's a good day.

More Bad news For Girls

Really not turning out to be the year of the woman (little or big) is it?

Anther female cult takes a hit

From the Chicago Tribune:

American Girl to close theaters in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles

For the past decade, American Girl Place has run a popular theater in the basement of its flagship Chicago retail emporium at 111 E. Chicago Ave. Hoards of tourists and residents have lined up to see one of the signature, original shows created by such Broadway professionals as Gretchen Cryer. For many young visitors to Chicago, "The American Girls Revue" has been a top draw for years.

Not for much longer.

On Tuesday, according to a person who works with the show, American Girl sent out a memorandum telling the cast and crew that theater operations in both Chicago and New York would end on Sept. 1. The American Girl Places in both cities will no longer have live shows after that date. The Los Angeles American Girl Place will lose its version of "The American Girls Revue" even earlier, on April 13.

Catholics, Edwards and the Lunchbox set

As GT12 notes it earlier Mackerel-Snappers-for-Barry-O post and asks also "do you think Obama's getting the Edwards votes?

From RealClear Politics

Obama won white males in the non-South by 8 points prior to the Potomac Primary. Last night, he won them by 26 points, yielding a net increase of 18 points.

As you can see [top above], Obama enjoyed significant expansions in three of his four strongest demographic groups. And, though it appears he did worse among white Protestants - the difference between the two is possibly due to statistical sampling error. So, all in all, Obama did no worse with any of his groups - and with most of them he did much better.

Meanwhile, he was able to peel away portions of Clinton's core electorate. To appreciate this, consider the [second] chart, which reviews Clinton's margin of victory over Obama in the non-South.

These numbers tell the tale succinctly. Clinton suffered significant loses across many of her core constituencies. White women, Democrats, union workers, downscale voters, and white Catholics all drifted to Obama last night - some so much that Obama actually won them.

Low Rent

Barack Obama has won 9 straight primaries since February 5. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator and ex-First Lady of the greatest country in history, has not offered one concession speech in any of those contests.

And her husband, who I loved, has disgraced himself and his position in the world repeatedly.

Good-bye to all that.

Mr G Baker sent us an article from Reagan Revoolution witness Peggy Noonan today. The awful penner of So much of Reagan's rhetoric notes (before today's voting):

Her whole life right now is a reverse Sally Field. She's looking out at an audience of colleagues and saying, "You don't like me, you really don't like me!"

Although of course she's not saying it. Her response to what from the outside looks like catastrophe? A glassy-eyed insistence that all is well. "I'm tested, I'm ready, let's make it happen!" she yelled into a mic on a stage in Texas on the night of her latest defeat. This is meant to look like confidence. Whether or not you wish her well probably determines whether you see it as game face, stubbornness or evidence of mild derangement.

Fading

This will be the first paragraph read throughout the country tomorrow morning.

From the AP

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

37 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama cruised past a fading Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night, gaining the upper hand in a Democratic presidential race for the ages. It was Obama's ninth straight victory over the past three weeks, and left the former first lady in desperate need of a comeback in a race she long commanded as front-runner.

Gallup-ing

Gallup Tracking, as of Today

This is how Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones put it:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The momentum in the Democratic nomination race has clearly swung toward Barack Obama. Not only has he won all of the post-Super Tuesday contests, but he has steadily gained in Gallup Poll Daily tracking to the point where he has overtaken Clinton as the national leader for the first time, holding a statistically significant lead in each of the last three tracking poll results.

Obama's standing has improved among most Democratic subgroups over the past several days. But one of the more substantial shifts has been the changing preferences of middle-aged Democratic voters, who have moved away from Clinton and toward Obama in the past week. Obama has also made gains among three other groups that have favored Clinton throughout much of the campaign -- women, Hispanics, and self-identified Democrats. Obama and Clinton are now running even among these three key groups in the most recent Gallup tracking data...

Throughout the campaign, exit polls have shown that Obama has appealed to younger voters, and Clinton to older voters. Even as the momentum has swung in Obama's favor, those basic relationships at opposite ends of the age spectrum still hold. The change in recent days has been in middle-aged Democratic voters' preferences. In the Feb. 5-9 period, Clinton led among Democratic voters aged 35 to 54 by a 49% to 42% margin. Now, Obama is the leader among this group by 51% to 42%.

Cheese We Can

How the Polls In WI look as the polls open.

Yes We Can, Y'all

From Political Wire

CNN Poll: Dead Heat in Texas

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds a statistical tie between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in Texas, 50% to 48%, which holds primaries March 4.Notes pollster Keating Holland: "One reason the race appears to be tight is that Texas Democrats are having a hard time choosing between two attractive options. Likely Democratic primary voters would be equally happy if either candidate won the nomination, and they don't see a lot of difference between them on several top issues."

Among Republicans, Sen. John McCain leads Mike Huckabee, 55% to 32%.

Tomorrow

Being fairly anxious by nature, HRC's less-than-complete collapse in WI has worried me. I want no wind taken out of her challenger's sails as we head to OH and TX.

So Political Wire offers some Ambien:

Obama Stronger Than Clinton in Wisconsin

On the eve of Wisconsin's primaries, a new SurveyUSA poll looks ahead to the general election."In head-to-head matchups today, Sen. John McCain defeats Sen. Hillary Clinton by 7 points, turning Wisconsin red for the first time since 1984, when Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale by 9 points in Wisconsin. Sen. Barack Obama defeats McCain today by 10 points, keeping Wisconsin blue."

PPP Poll: Obama Expands Lead in Wisconsin

A new Public Policy Polling survey in Wisconsin finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 53% to 40%.Key findings: "Obama is leading with every meaningful constituency except senior citizens. Whites and women, weak points for him in some states, are not in Wisconsin. He leads 50-43 with both of those groups, and has his typical large leads among African Americans (76-21) and men (57-36)."

In the GOP race, Sen. John McCain leads Mike Huckabee, 50% to 39%

Once A Catholic, Always A Catholic

I mean, that's how I was raised. Twelve years of Catholic Education. If I had kids I would sent them to a Jesuit school. I like the Jebbies alot.

I don't like Doug Kmiec, former Romney advisor, Former Reagan Legal Staffer and current douchebag Rightwing columnist and Dean of Wingnut/Surferboy Law School of Pepperdine University .

But, fair and balanced and all that I am, I note his recent contribution to Slate and oddly, find validation in my belief that the Christian valuee that I was taught and mostly still embrace (as opposed to Christian belief) had nothing to do with what has been call Christian by the Republican party:

Sorry, McCain. Barack Obama is a natural for the Catholic vote.

... my faith, Catholicism, teaches that pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religions talk to one another.

Apparently, we're pretty persuasive. Catholics have been on the side of the top vote-getter (who, as we know from playing hanging chad, is not always the winner) in the last nine presidential elections. The Electoral College and the Supreme Court threw us a curve in 2000, but many Catholics probably put their choice of Al Gore in the "you can't blame us" department. Unlike our Jewish brothers and sisters who trend Democratic, and our Protestant friends who regularly populate Republican ranks, we're the ultimate flip-floppers, picking Republicans five times and Democrats four since 1972.

.... Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." Notwithstanding all of Bill Clinton's self-possessed heckling to the contrary, Obama was right—Reagan was a "transformative" president. Reagan liked to tell us he was proudest of his ability to make America feel good about itself. He did. Catholic sensibility tells me Obama wants it to deserve that feeling.

... However hard-working, intelligent, and policy savvy she may be (and she is), Clinton seldom inspires even the so-called "social justice" Catholics or reveals that rare gift of empathy that defined Reagan and that one glimpses in Obama. Say what you will about not preferring style over substance, modern leadership requires both, especially now when the international community—whose help we need to arrest terrorism—seldom gives us the benefit of the doubt.

... Because Democratic and Catholic dogmas collide over the polarizing issue of abortion, Catholics do have to navigate some difficult ethical waters to contemplate voting blue. McCain and Huckabee—unlike either of the Democrats—join in the Catholic prayer for the unborn, but Republican promises have often left those prayers unanswered. While no papal instruction will ever condone the "right to choose," the church does ask for a consistent and realistic defense of life that actually takes steps to reduce the incidence of the practice, not just condemns it. Catholics will note that McCain and Huckabee's pro-life postures collapse when it comes to the death penalty. Even if the Supreme Court decides later this spring that lethal injection is not "cruel and unusual" under our Constitution, capital sentencing is often erratic and erroneous in light of the modern availability and reliability of DNA evidence. It is Catholic instruction that there are better ways to deter violent crime.

Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural. Anyone seeking "liberty and justice for all" really can't be satisfied with racially segregated public schools that don't teach. And there's something deeply hypocritical about being a nation of immigrants that won't welcome any more of them. And that creation that God saw as good in Genesis? Well, even without seeing Al Gore melt those glaciers over and over again, Catholics chose Al to better steward a world beset with unnatural disasters. Climate change is driven by mindless consumption that devotes more ingenuity to securing golden parachutes than energy independence.

... So, here's the thing: John McCain will have many Catholics in the pews a little while longer, but more than a few of us are thinking of giving him up for Lent. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The launch of "Reaganites for Obama" might not be far behind. We might not be there yet, but we're getting close.

The Road Ahead

GOP BigWigs got together this weekend to 'plan'. Since they've spent the last 15 years preparing themselves for a Clinton nomination there was little new to talk about vis. HRC.

But, as you see above, they did have to start to map out a vision for the destruction of the Obama. Wonkette kindly provides the analysis and cheap-looking chart.

Ready On Day One

We have three Senators running for President right now. None have 'executive' experience. This is in fact probably the main reasdon that there have been only two sitting senators ever elected to the presidency.

One's ability to run a campaign takes on special importance.


Sullivan's fill-in bloggers take it from there

From the Washington Post

"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.

Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.

What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.

"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."

Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they “discovered” that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).

While they were busy “discovering” the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)"

The First Straight Talk

Years and Years ago, before John McCain even had the opportunity to get wrapped up in grievious political scandal (he is the last politically surviving member of The Keating Five) real Straight Talk was provided free of charge to the teeming millions (as he loves to call us) by the legendary being known simply as Cecil Adams.

Some say that a man soo smart, so resourceful, so witty cannot be real. Bah! such people probably don't believe in Hope OR Nanker Phelge.

Anywhoo, Cecil and his "Straight Dope" column has been the last word on all issues of fact and consequence in my world ... and he should be that in your too. There are lots of books that your library needs.

This week Cecil takes on a myth near and dear to my 20+years of Mental Health Professionalismistic type work background....

Sugar or Mom: Which Is worse? (GT12 regulars will be able to guess) ...

There was a time, back in the 70s, when one could try and make a case for a correlation between kids' sugar intake and amped-up behavior, but the testing that seemed to support the theory was fairly rudimentary. Researchers took a closer look, though, and in 1995 the Journal of the American Medical Association ran a survey of 23 comparatively rigorous studies conducted between 1982 and 1994. These were your classic controlled double-blind affairs: two groups of kids, one fed a bunch of sugar, the other given a placebo (i.e., artificial sweetener), everyone kept sufficiently in the dark as to who'd gotten what, etc. The results? No discernible relationship between sugar ingested and how the kids acted. It didn't matter how old they were, how much sugar they got, what their diets were like otherwise — nothing. The JAMA authors stopped shy of drawing any definitive conclusions, but if there were a legitimate sugar-high effect out there, you'd like to see it turn up in the lab every so often.

Given that so far it hasn't, why would a sizable chunk of the child-rearing population continue to swear it exists? For a crucial piece of the puzzle we turn to the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology and a 1994 study by Daniel Hoover and Richard Milich, in which they looked at 31 boys ages five to seven and their mothers, all of whom had described their offspring as being "behaviorally affected by sugar."

The mom-son teams were split into the customary two groups: the moms in one were told their sons would be given extra-sugary Kool-Aid, while the others were told their kids were in the control group and would get a drink sweetened with aspartame. In reality, though, the same artificially sweetened stuff was administered to both sets of kids while the women got a sheaf of surveys to fill out. Mothers and children were then videotaped playing together, after which the moms were asked how they thought things went.

What did Hoover and Milich find? You guessed it: the moms who thought they were in the sugar group said their sons acted more hyper. In addition, they tended to hover over their children more during play, offer more criticism of their behavior, etc. The mother-son pairs in the other group were judged by observers to be getting along better. What's more, those moms who, going into the experiment, most strongly believed their kids were sugar-sensitive also scored highest on a test designed to gauge cognitive rigidity.

From there, of course, it's not too hard to whip up a hypothesis explaining why the sugar-high myth persists. Having always heard that sugar makes kids act crazy, some parents, particularly those hailing from the control-freak end of the spectrum, may go a little crazy themselves when the sugary stuff enters the picture. In situations where sweets are freely available to their children — like birthday parties or other high-stimulation events — they watch worriedly for any sign of obstreperousness, see it even if it's not there, call it hyperactivity, and attribute it to the cookies and cake. Kids, meanwhile, typically aren't oblivious to this sort of anxiety; consciously or not, they may well figure out that after taking on a load of candy they're expected to run amok and happily oblige.

I should stress we're not talking here about attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is its own freestanding issue; studies have suggested there's some correlation between ADHD and diet, so maybe every so often you'll get a kid whose condition really is exacerbated by sugar. And there are plenty of other good reasons to limit children's consumption of sugar-laden food. But when a parent freaks out because a swig of soda has allegedly made his kid uncontrollable, it's quite possible he's not just seeing the behavior he expects to see, he's helping create it.

Yes We Can

In the 'Poll of Polls',Obama takes the lead for the fitst time

Aaah ... We Are That Stupid

You're not wrong ...

Perhaps the greatest indictment yet of the Baby Boomers: their children.

From Salon

Richard Hofstadter's 1963 classic, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" (a clear inspiration for this book), described anti-intellectualism as "older than our national identity" and deeply rooted in our history. [Author Susan] Jacoby thinks the old American distrust of those who devote themselves to "ideas, reason, logic, evidence, and precise language" has been worsened by the conditions of contemporary life. There is, she writes, "a new species of semi-conscious anti-rationalism, feeding on and fed by an ignorant popular culture of video images and unremitting noise that leaves no room for contemplation or logic." People never read books, they can't concentrate on anything significant for more than a minute or two, and as a result they don't really think anymore. Lulled by the "pacifier" of "infotainment," their civic and political decisions emerge from a confused welter of laziness, reckless emotion and prejudice.

The chief manifestations of this newly virulent irrationality are the rise of fundamentalist religion and the flourishing of junk science and other forms of what Jacoby calls "junk thought." The mentally enfeebled American public can now be easily manipulated by flimsy symbolism, whether it's George W. Bush's bumbling, accented speaking style (labeling him as a "regular guy" despite his highly privileged background) or the successful campaign by right-wing ideologues to smear liberals as snooty "elites." Unable to grasp even the basic principles of statistics or the scientific method, Americans gullibly buy into a cornucopia of bogus notions, from recovered memory syndrome to intelligent design to the anti-vaccination movement.

Ole!

HRC Losing Her Hispanics

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences
Democrats
TX
Clinton42%
Obama48%
Someone else3%
Undecided7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%.

Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%.

Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%.

Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

BARACKTIONARY

Maybe Not Fair, But You know I'm Right

I am in 'the home office', two rooms and a hallway away from the TV.

On the TV, HRC is speaking to supporters in Texas.

Her Voice Is Awful.

Like, makes you long for Al Gore awful.

In 2000 someone I knew reviewed their choice of Bush over Gore and said 'Can you imagine listenong to him day in and day out?'

I observed that this was not exactly a compelling or mature point upon which to make your choice but I didn't do it with much ferver because I knew that she had a point.

He was, (and still is) unsufferable.

So is Kerry.

And So is HRC.

And Mike Dukakis for that matter.

This is how we lose.

We choose people even I don't want to listen too. People that live up to every Limbaugh-drawn sketch of 'Liberal Elite' (meaning Condesending Effete Eastern Twit) Can you imagine playing basketball with any of those folks?

Bill Had it. Reagan Had it. Carter didn't need it in '76 and didn't have it in '80. We made sure that neither Bush needed it.

Do You Want To Win?

Bush-ish At Best

Politcal Animal looks at HRC's Management Style

THE SHAKEUP....In the Atlantic today, Josh Green writes a fairly devastating account of the recent shakeup in Hillaryland and the firing of campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:

Even after grasping the magnitude of the [Obama] threat, the Clinton campaign didn't react quickly and stuck to the strategy of trying to project an aura of inevitability. Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton's Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration — and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary's inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit.

It Only Matters If I Say So

A great Weekend for Barry O. So of course Her Royal Clintoness poo- poos.

But, Matt Yglesias observes:

Maine for Obama

Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't.

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor. Obama has, of course, deployed polarization to his benefit in a number of states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana most notably) but he's also dominated the states with very few black voters.

UPDATE: I forgot about Missouri. Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.

Follow The Money

The Betting Money Is Go-O-oing O!

The Party Of Fiscal Responsibility

Andrew Sullivan (Clinton-Hater) Notes:

What if the Republican president had hewed to the projected spending levels of his Democratic predecessor - you know, that flaming liberal, Bill Clinton? If you project the Clinton administration's 2001 plans for long-term spending and you allow for all the new defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, you still end up with a surplus. The difference is Republican recklessness.

Seriously, Cleveland, How Are You?

Hello again, Cleveland! It's me, Bob Seger. You may recall me from the rock-and-roll concert last night. First off, let me say that it was such an...

Timing Is Everything

Look what came in the mail ... TODAY!!!!!!

A DC plot?????

We Win

Sullivan reports:

That's the calculation of the networks at this point, it seems. A narrow victory:

The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex
formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838
for Clinton.

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

Here we go

From Real Clear Politics

While no winner emerged tonight, a protracted campaign is better for Obama, and what might be his roll toward the nomination begins in four short days. On Saturday, voters in three states head to the polls or caucuses, and in all three, Obama has hefty advantages.

In Washington State, the biggest prize available this weekend, a total of 68 delegates will be decided in caucuses. Four years ago, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean did better in Washington than he did in any place outside his home state and the District of Columbia. Washington is one of the most highly educated states in the country, and the dominace of white Seattle liberals in the electorate could favor Obama heavily.

Washington State political watchers on both sides of the contest agree Obama has the leg up. Clinton backers privately admit that their candidate will likely lose on Saturday, while Obama supporters play up their organizational advantages and speak confidently of wins throughout the liberal western half of the state, from which most delegates will be allocated.

In Nebraska, just 21 delegates are available at that state's caucuses, but given the amount of effort Obama exerted in Idaho -- he opened an office in Boise, the only candidate to do so -- to win that state's 16 delegates, he could play strongly there as well. Obama has support from the state's only Democratic member of the congressional delegation, Senator Ben Nelson.

And if Nebraska's geographical and political positions, namely a red state in the Plains, are any indication, he will perform strongly there: Obama won North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri and Colorado on Tuesday, and won neighboring Iowa a month ago. Plains states, especially those President Bush won in 2004, have gone heavily for Obama so far this year.

93

CNN calculates yesterday's delegate win total - Clinton 825 Obama 732.

Obama needed to get within 100 delegate to call the night a 'win'.

A tight battle in New Mexico where they are still counting won't change that spread.

93

CNN calculates yesterday's delegate win total - Clinton 825 Obama 732.

Obama needed to get within 100 delegate to call the night a 'win'.

A tight battle in New Mexico where they are still counting won't change that spread.

Hmmmm

MA for HRC. what's with those exit polls?

Not What HRC WANTED

Drudge reports the exit polls:

Obama: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...

Clinton: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Ten

Vote Early, Vote Often

Here in Chicago we like to start the kids' participation in Democratic politics ASAP

More Explanation

Re: California Polls.

Leave it to CA to have poll results that are so screwed up.

Josh Patashnik at the New Republic looks deeper ...

About Those Dueling California Polls
As you might have seen elsewhere, the two new California polls out today show wildly diverging results: Zogby has Obama up 49-36, while SurveyUSA has Clinton up 52-42. As Josh Marshall says, somebody's gonna end up looking pretty stupid. Most likely they both will--I don't expect the final tally to be more than five or six points in either direction. But SurveyUSA will probably end up looking worse.

I took a look at the crosstabs of the SurveyUSA poll (I can't seem to find them for Zogby--if any commenters can, please link!). Unfortunately, one of the most relevant things to look at is the relative proportion of African-American and Latino votes in the electorate (since, by all accounts, Obama will win the black vote overwhelmingly and Clinton will win the Latino vote easily, though by a smaller margin). In the 2004 Democratic primary, 16 percent of voters were Latino and 8 percent were black. SurveyUSA estimates the 2008 Democratic electorate as being 26 percent Latino and 9 percent black. To be frank, I would be shocked if those numbers end up being correct--particularly given the disproportionate surge in black turnout we saw in South Carolina. If I had to guess, I'd say the proportions will be about 19 and 11--which is more in line with what other pollsters predict. This alone would swing the result several points toward Obama from what SurveyUSA has.

In addition, SurveyUSA has Hillary beating Obama by one point in the Bay Area, which defies all conventional wisdom. The Field Poll, which has more expertise polling California than anyone, had Obama winning in the Bay Area 41-31--and this was just at the beginning of what looks like a late Obama surge in the state. Hillary will win the state if turnout in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire are large enough, but, again, I'd be very surprised if she won the Bay Area (full of latté liberals and African-Americans) outright.

One final point: SurveyUSA doesn't say what percentage of Democratic primary voters are unaffiliated with either party (or "decline to state" in California parlance). But most models, I think, are underestimating these voters (who break heavily for Obama) as a share of the electorate. Field had them at 13 percent of Democratic primary voters, and far be it from me to question the oracle. But consider: decline-to-state voters can only vote in the Democratic primary, and it's easy for them to do so--they just show up at the polling place and ask for a Democratic ballot. They constitute 31 percent of eligible Democratic primary voters--that is, if you add up the number of Democrats and decline-to-state voters in the state, the latter make up 31 percent of that total. Now, of course, some of those folks lean Republican, and decline-to-state voters are less likely to vote in a primary generally--so the total decline-to-state share of the electorate won't approach 31 percent. But given the salience of the race and the enthusiasm it seems to be generating, I'd bet decline-to-state voters will make up closer to 20 percent of the electorate. This would add another couple points to Obama's total. Without having seen the crosstabs, I'd bet that Zogby has Obama up by so much because (1) he has a more favorable black/Latino composition for Obama, and (2) he has a more generous estimate of the decline-to-state share of the vote.

Bottom line, the race remains very, very close--Clinton's advantage among voters who have already mailed in their ballots should not be underestimated. But I will make two predictions. First, Obama will win among voters who go to the polls today. And second, Clinton will not win by double digits. (Obama probably won't either, but there's an outside shot.)

Who's Ready For Tomorrow?

Dan Balz from the Washington Post outlines the Obama Strategy

Which Democrat Is Positioned for A Long Campaign After Today?

8) Obama may have the edge on this. His $32 million fundraising record in January shows that he will have more money than Clinton to wage a long campaign. He will also have more time to become better known in upcoming states than he did in the 22 states in which he is competing today.

The next round of primaries and caucuses this month tends to look better for him than for Clinton. Her strategists are pessimistic about her chances in Washington, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Maryland, as well as in the District. But they see Ohio and Texas on March 4 as critical states in which she has a foundation of support and could add to her delegate strength.

Rules for selecting delegates are structured in a way that makes it difficult for candidates to gain a decisive advantage unless they begin winning by margins approaching 20 percentage points. In this race, that could be difficult. At the same time, if one candidate falls behind in the count by as many as 200 pledged delegates, making up that deficit will be extremely difficult, given the rules.

Clinton's strategists are counting on the support of "superdelegates" -- those party leaders and elected officials who automatically have seats at the convention -- to build her delegate lead. In the early stages, she has such an advantage. But in the past, superdelegates tended to follow election returns. If Obama wins primaries consistently, he is likely to attract more and more superdelegates.

Momentum and psychology therefore will play an important role over the next few weeks. Clinton may be stronger in a war of attrition, particularly if she wins big battleground states in March. But a number of strategists surveyed over the weekend said Obama might have more room for growth in his support, and if he can develop a sense of momentum she would be at a disadvantage.

Viewers Guide

Some Things To Know as you follow the returns tonight:

From Political Wire:

What to Watch For Tonight

To make some sense of today's voting, Political Wire reviewed all the polls, surveyed our favorite pundits and flipped a coin when necessary in an attempt to highlight the key races.

Here's how we rate the races for Democrats:

Advantage Clinton:
Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee

Advantage Obama:
Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, North Dakota

No Clear Favorite:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, Massachusetts, American Samoa, Democrats Abroad

Here's how we rate the races for Republicans:

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

Advantage Romney:
Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Utah

No Clear Favorite:
California, Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota

---- And ---

About California

All eyes are on California, as most polls show the Democratic presidential race either very close or completely up in the air.

For example:
The latest Reuters/C -Span/Zogby poll shows Obama leading Clinton, 49% to 36%.

The latest SurveyUSA poll gives the edge to Clinton, 52% to 42%.

But Marc Ambinder notes it may not matter who actually wins due to the strange rules for awarding delegates. "If, in many congressional districts in California, a Democrat does not receive more than 62% of the vote, he or she will receive the same number of delegates from that CD as the he or she who finishes second. Hence Hillary Clinton could win California by, say, 20 points... and take a sliver of a delegate advantage there."

Further confusing the situation: The Hotline notes we may not get the final delegate tally until Friday.

From Salon

Predicting California isn't easy - Alex Koppelman
Looking for some early sign about how the Democratic race in California, one of the most important states on that side of the aisle, will shake out tonight? Good luck.
On the one hand, you could look to the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, released today, and decide that Sen. Barack Obama has a nearly overwhelming advantage in the state. That poll shows Obama leading rival Sen. Hillary Clinton 49 percent to 36 percent, with a margin of error of 3.3 percent, and has the momentum strongly in Obama's favor.

But on the other hand, there's the latest SurveyUSA poll, which shows nearly the exact opposite result. That survey, conducted over the same dates as the aforementioned one, has Clinton leading 52 percent to 42 percent. SurveyUSA characterizes the results as showing that "Hillary Clinton appears to fend off a late charge from Barack Obama."

If you're hoping that at least by tonight you'll know who -- if anyone -- was right about how California will shake out, we've got some bad news on that front as well.

On Monday, the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog noted, "Want to know who will win the California primary? You'll probably be waiting until Wednesday morning -- and maybe longer," and quoted Stephen Weir, the president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the top election official in Contra Costa County, as saying, "The East Coast is going to tune in the next morning and we are still going to be counting."

And, from Walter Shapiro

Here are a few things to watch for on the Democratic side early in the evening before everyone starts treading water in the tidal wave of returns.

Georgia -- The first returns of the night will begin to roll in when the polls close at 7 p.m. (EST). While no one will be proclaiming, "As Georgia goes, so goes the nation," it will be illuminating to see if Obama attracts anything like the 78 percent of the African-American vote as he did in neighboring South Carolina. In South Carolina, John Edwards (who has since dropped out) finished first among white men, with 44 percent in a three-way race. It will be worth watching how Georgia now splits in a race between a woman and an African-American.

Alabama and Tennessee -- The polls here close at 8 p.m. (EST) and these states should quickly indicate whether the trends from the Georgia exit polls can be extrapolated through the South.

Illinois -- Obama's home state (8 p.m. EST closing time) should not offer much suspense about the outcome. But this is another place where it would be worth watching to see how white male Democrats split their vote in downstate Illinois.

Massachusetts -- At 8 p.m. (EST) we will also get a quick test of the power of endorsements. From Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to Gov. Deval Patrick, this state has become the launching pad of Obama campaign surrogates. But Massachusetts also has a vibrant blue-collar Democratic tradition -- and Clinton's performance among lower-income voters could be a bellwether for the evening.

Connecticut -- The candidates' own polls clearly indicated that Connecticut is up for grabs, since both Clinton and Obama were campaigning in the state Monday. (The best way to read a campaign's strategy is to watch where they send the candidate.) With the polls closing at 8 p.m. (EST), we should know fast the power of Obama-mania in Clinton's backyard. Working against Obama is that this is a primary open only to registered Democrats.

New Jersey -- Results from the fourth largest delegate haul of the evening will start coming in at 8 p.m. EST. Since independents can vote in the Garden State (unlike New York and Connecticut), we will soon know whether Obama is demonstrating his crossover appeal to these swing voters.

Arizona -- At 9 p.m. (EST) we will get our first look at the Latino vote in a primary out West. If Clinton does not roll up a large margin among this group in Arizona, it does not bode well for California, where the polls close at 11 p.m. (EST).

Minnesota -- While it is always difficult to draw larger conclusions from caucuses (since only a fraction of registered Democrats participate), Minnesota has perhaps the most vibrant caucus tradition in the Democratic Party, aside from Iowa. The caucus voting should be over by 9 p.m. EST -- and we should get another snapshot of how Obama is doing among party activists.

By the time we finally learn what happened in American Samoa (either Clinton or Obama will presumably come out with a 2-to-1 majority in the caucuses), our attention will probably have shifted to next Tuesday's Potomac primary with Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia all voting Feb. 12.

Even though a numerical majority of Democratic delegates will have been selected by the time the final returns trickle in on Wednesday, the real Super Duper Party Pooper Tuesday may come on March 4 when Texas and Ohio hold primaries that could (note the conditional) select the nominee.

From Chuck Todd at MSNBC

Looking for the break: But campaigns rarely deliver split decisions, and that’s why it’s possible that the Democratic electorate could break one way or the other. What if undecideds all go one way? And don't assume we think we know which direction they will break. We could easily explain how women power a break for Clinton, allowing her to win most states on the board today -- just as we could easily see undecideds breaking Obama and him cutting into Clinton's massive advantages among women and Hispanics thanks to a surge of younger voters that alter the makeup of electorates. The polls over the last week seem to indicate momentum is on the side of Obama, but we've all seen this movie before (think New Hampshire).

How to count delegates: On the Republican side, it's VERY easy; there are enough winner-take-call states to allow anyone who did ok in high school algebra to follow along. The Democratic side is not so easy: The threshold for winning an extra delegate (from 3-3 in a six-delegate district to 4-2 to 4-3 to 5-2 in a seven-delegate district etc.) changes. Then you add in the superdelegates. The Clinton campaign claims about a 100-delegate advantage among the supers. So if she gets any delegate advantage tonight, then she'll claim a 100+ delegate lead early and often. Obviously, Obama's folks would like to win the night on the delegate front, so that Clinton's super lead is cut into the double digits. Speaking of the spin war, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns did their best yesterday to lower expectations, with Team Clinton reminding folks this could be a convention fight (can you say Florida and Michigan credential fight?) and the Obama folks reminding the media that Clinton's still the favorite tonight to win more delegates and more states. The truth? As always, somewhere in between!

Go-Bama!

I have voted for the next President of the United States and let me tell you, after all the months of waitng, it feels good.

Hat tip to Mr JK for this post's title. Mr JK will be rising from his sick bed to do the good work of getting Barry O votes (well, at least one.)

No Wusses In Chicago

Vanity Fair Examines the Career of Barack Obama:

The Barack Obama who wrote so poignantly of adolescent alienation and the search for racial identity is the same Barack Obama who learned, the hard way, how to deal with the likes of Emil Jones Jr., a man whose cell-phone ring tone is the theme from The Godfather. Obama’s good looks and soft-spoken willingness to ponder aloud some of the inanities of modern politics have masked the hard inner core and unyielding ambition that have long burned beneath the surface shimmer. He is not, and never has been, soft. He’s not laid-back. He’s not an accidental man. His friends and family may be surprised by the rapidity of his rise, but they’re not surprised by the fact of it.

Closer Still

Cook/RT Poll: Obama Passes Clinton

Political Wire got an advance look at the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national survey which shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 43% to 37%, just outside the 5.1 point margin of error.

In the GOP race, Sen. John McCain leads Mitt Romney, 39% to 24%, with Mike Huckabee third with 18%.In general election match ups, McCain leads Clinton by 4 points, 45 to 41 percent; Obama leads McCain by two points, 45 to 43 percent.

CNN Poll: Obama Catches Clinton

The latest CNN/Opinion Research national survey finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 49% to 46%, within the survey's 4.5 point margin of error."The poll is consistent with other national surveys during the past few days. A CNN averaging of five national polls conducted in the last few days -- a 'poll of polls' -- puts Clinton at 45 percent and Obama at 43 percent. Those five surveys were done by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., Gallup, Pew, ABC and CBS."

In the Republican race, Sen. John McCain leads Mitt Romney, 44% to 29%, with Mike Huckabee at 18%.

Deseret Morning News: Obama, Romney Hold Leads in Utah

A new Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll in Utah shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton among likely voters, 53% to 29%.

On the Republican side, it's a blowout with Mitt Romney registering 84% support, followed by just 4% for Sen. John McCain.The Utah primaries are on Feb. 5.

Getting There

Reuters/Zogby: Obama Surges in Latest Tracking Poll

The latest Reuters/C-Span/Zogby tracking poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in three of the four key Democratic Super Tuesday races surveyed -- Georgia, Missouri, and California -- and the two were tied in the fourth, New Jersey.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain leads in three out of four key Super Tuesday states -- including winning more than 50% support in New York and New Jersey -- but trails Mitt Romney in California.

Will We Get There By Tuesday?

Or will we have to wait until March?

(click on pic to expand)

Another Example Of GT12 Leadership

Remember when we urged everybody to respond to Barry O's NH, uh, set back with a little cash?

Plouffe said the money came in at a consistent pace throughout the month, but the campaign's strongest day of fundraising came immediately after the New Hampshire primary, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton.

"We took a lot of encouragement from that, because it showed the resolve of our existing donor base," Plouffe said.