PSoTD

My favorite point of the debate last night was a Hillary Clinton exchange with Tim "This is Reality" Russert: (starts at the 4:29 point of the video)

I bet Chuck Todd has interesting opinions on Russert's capabilities.

From the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's --

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

SEN. CLINTON: No -- well, it isn't reality. You're -- you're -- you're making lots of different hypothetical assessments.

Finally, somebody points out that Russert's not dealing with reality. Thank you, Hillary!

Taken out of context, maybe this is a term worthy of derision. Taking things out of context is the domain of imbeciles. This was a call for responsibility, that people have to actually work towards what they want if they expect to see it happen.

If people can't understand that, they can't possibly grasp the call for political responsibility, which is pretty sad.

But Clinton's lead over Obama in Pennsylvania is shrinking, fast.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, surging among younger voters, has cut Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead among Pennsylvania likely Democratic primary voters to 6 points, 49 - 43 percent, after trailing by 16 points just two weeks ago, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 52 - 36 percent lead for Sen. Clinton February 14.

Chris Dodd endorses Obama.

"This is a moment of unity in our country, a time when we need to come together as the Democratic Party and get behind a candidacy that expresses the hopes, aspirations and ambitions of million and millions of Americans," he said, standing beside Obama in a hotel function room. Dodd added: "I don't want a campaign that's only divisive. But there is a danger of it becoming that, not because the candidates want it to, but too often the advisers and consultants others are seeking that divisiveness....It is devastating in the longer term."

...

"I want to offer a cautionary note to the campaigns and the people around them, be careful this week, we have good people running, we have remarkable people running in these two candidates, and I know the temptation of campaigns, beyond the ability of the candidates themselves to control it, can get out of control. We have witnessed a little bit of that here, and I'm worried about it," Dodd said. "We're on the brink of a great victory [in November] and I don't want to see us lose that opportunity because of mistakes made or divisiveness."

...

Dodd said he had called Hillary Clinton last night to inform her of his decision. "These are not comfortable conversations," he said. "These are not easy things to do...I believe [Hillary and Bill Clinton] have made significant contributions to our country and I believe very deeply and sincerely this morning that Hillary Clinton will continue to make a significant contribution to our nation in the years to come. But it is now the hour to come together."

Dodd is a committed, classy and thoughtful Democrat. The word "inevitable" comes to mind...

They're trying to figure out how racist their attacks can get before they backfire.

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.

Put on white hoods and maybe nobody will recognize you.

This "feels" true to me:

The air of inevitability that once surrounded Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton has shifted to challenger Barack Obama. In a new national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, those surveyed predict by 73%-20% that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

Democratic voters hold that view by nearly 3-1.

The Illinois senator has surged to a double-digit lead nationally over Clinton, walloping her 51%-39% among Democrat voters as their preference for the presidential nomination. The poll of 2,012 adults was taken Thursday through Sunday.

His 13-point lead — his first outside the survey's margin of error — is at odds with a separate Gallup tracking poll. Taken Friday through Sunday, it gave the Illinois senator a narrow 47%-45% lead over Clinton.

Both candidates are stumping for next week's primaries in Ohio and Texas — states that even Bill Clinton has described as must-wins for his wife's candidacy to have a chance of prevailing.

I get the sense that we're now in the final countdown - and that next Tuesday will become the end of the race. I think this survey suggests that a majority of voters actually WANT that to be the case - that they are ready for a break from the harsh heat of this primary season, and are ready for different distractions than primary politics for the near term. I think this would be the case regardless of who was leading at this point, and will work strongly against Hillary Clinton next week.

Let's hope the Democratic nomination is settled before it gets to Pennsylvania.

Prosecutors say that two brothers-in-law tried to settle the presidential race on the kitchen floor of a Collegeville, Pa. home.

Jose Ortiz, 28, is now behind bars on felony assault charges after prosecutors say he stabbed Sean Shurelds inside a home in the 100 block of Honeylocust Court.

District attorney Risa Ferman says a heated debate over the candidates escalated into violence:

"One is a supporter of Barack Obama, the other is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and an argument of words turned bloody when one brother-in-law tried to choke the other and the victim then responded with a knife and stabbed his brother-in-law in the stomach.”

State spending is going to go down this year. Nebraska is just an example... I wouldn't want to be a contractor depending on new business from state government this year.

Signs of an economic slowdown have a key state board predicting that Nebraska’s tax revenues will be $126 million less than originally expected over the course of this year and the next.

The new revenue forecast, which came as no surprise given recent economic trends in the state and nationally, prompted Gov. Dave Heineman to take immediate steps to reduce spending and call on lawmakers to do their parts during the current legislative session.

“Today’s forecast indicates we will be short $68 million by the end of the legislative session,” Heineman said. “Nebraska must balance its budget and we need to balance the budget by reducing spending. Raising taxes is not an option.”

Where exactly the $68 million in savings will come from is not yet known. But Heineman said he doesn’t believe the state will have to dip into its robust savings account, estimated to be roughly $500 million, to cover the shortfall.

He said he expects to meet next week with lawmakers involved in tweaking the budget.

But already, the dreary revenue news has Heineman changing his legislative wish list. Crossed off is his previous plan to give homeowners $75 million worth of rebates toward property taxes.

Agency heads and other leaders in state government have been directed to look for savings ranging from cheaper ways to deliver services to only making purchases that can result in savings or are absolutely necessary.

She's finally made a great decision for America. Thank you.

Both candidates had their moments, I suspect this will be seen as a draw. There's only one clear conclusion to make: Campbell Brown should not be a moderator of a debate ever again. Let the candidates talk, please.

McCain's.

Once we get past the general election, Democrats really ought to have a rank and file discussion about the primary process, because it's fucked up six ways to Tuesday. There should be no concept of "Super Tuesday", which simply awards the candidate with the most money and name recognition. Caucuses should give way to elections, superdelegates should be tossed in the dungheap of history, and there should be an agreed upon order for primary elections that changes on some sort of earned basis. There shouldn't be more than two states up in one week. It should go from smaller states to bigger states - the bigger states have more power because of their delegate totals, the smaller states get a little more power because they're earlier, but the real key to this is to distribute the elections out. There's no reason we can't have a 25 week primary election season.

Seriously - 2009 should be reserved now for this discussion by the national and state party leadership WITH the people who actually elect candidates.

Honestly, I think the idea of either Democratic candidate's supporters trying to claim that a nomination of the "other" candidate will lead to another 4 years of Bush-lite with McCain is just as bad as when Bush was claiming Americans need to vote for him, or the terrorists win. They are just stupid scare tactics with no substantive evidence behind them.

This is, in no way, an effort of reclamation for McCain. There is no question that his bondage to GWB should be campaigned vigorously against in the General.

... send a manned mission to Mars.

Clinton was more enthusiastic than Obama about human space travel and domestic oil production when the Democratic presidential candidates conducted separate telephone conferences with the Houston Chronicle editorial board.

...

"I intend to pursue an ambitious agenda in both space exploration and earth sciences," Clinton said. "I want to support the next generation of spacecraft for a robust human spaceflight program."

Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.

But, he said, the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment."

Human exploration has always been a risky and expensive undertaking. But from the opening of the New World to the opening of the American West, I can think of very few instances where human exploration hasn't proven to be well worth the cost. It's interesting that a visionary like Obama doesn't extend that vision into space.

Seriously, can't we offer somebody in the future that can be a bit more Presidential than good ole' James Buchanan?

Hey, I didn't realize that a President of the United States had graduated from Dickinson, however.

I have to say, I think the attacks on supporters of Obama as just loving great speeches is about as foolish of an effort as I can think of... People, pay attention:

I Have A Dream is a speech.
The Gettysburg Address is a speech.
The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself is a speech.

WE HONOR THOSE SPEECHES IN THIS COUNTRY. They demand reverence. They helped change a country. I find it absolutely ridiculous to somehow try to spin that being a great speaker is somehow a negative. I do find that having to fall back on that as some sort of attack point is a very large negative.

I'm pretty sure that any candidate in the future that hires Howard Wolfson will have at least one strike against them as far as I'm concerned.

I've been tough on the Obama culters so in the spirit of open-mindedness, I'm excerpting some passages on policy from his speech yesterday at the Janesville, Wisconsin General Motors Assembly Plant. He goes well beyond catch phrases and motivational slogans.

I’ll change our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity, not the agenda of some lobbyist. I am the only candidate in this race who’s proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans. This is a tax cut –paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens – that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying, and it’ll be worth up to $1000 for a working family. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect. Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I’ll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. And I won’t wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage – I’ll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it’s not just a minimum wage, but a living wage. Because that’s the change that working Americans need.

My universal health care plan brings down the cost of health care more than any other candidate in this race, and will save the typical family up to $2500 a year on their premiums. Every American would be able to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves, and we’d ban insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t. Well I believe the reason people don’t have health care isn’t because no one’s forced them to buy it, it’s because no one’s made it affordable – and that’s what we’ll do when I am President.

If we want to train our workforce for a knowledge economy, it’s also time that we brought down the cost of a college education and put it within reach of every American. I know how expense this is. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending more to payoff our college loans than we were on our mortgage. So I’ll create a new and fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, a benefit that students will get in exchange for community or national service, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university. And I’ll also simplify the financial aid application process so that we don’t have a million students who aren’t applying for aid because it’s too difficult.

With so many mothers and fathers juggling work and parenting, the next cost we have to bring down is the cost of living in a two-income family. I’ll expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and I’ll double spending on quality afterschool programs. We’ll also expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers; and we’ll change a system that’s stacked against working women by requiring every employer to provide seven paid sick days a year, so that you can be home with your child if they’re sick.

In addition to cutting costs for working families, we also need to help them save more – especially for retirement. That’s why we’ll require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings. You can keep this account even if you change jobs, and the federal government will match the savings for lower-income, working families.

Finally, we need to help families who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don’t become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they’re signing up for, I’ll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we’ll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that’s already incurred; and ban interest on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but they should pay what’s fair, not what fattens profits for some credit card company.

Wonky! Quite unlikely Obama can deliver on some of this. Make minimum wage a living wage and index it to inflation? It would probably be easier to add a hammer and sickle to the flag. But he's on the right track for sure.

When she hired Mark Penn at $5 mill?

Seriously, that's a bit of an indictment on getting the best value for the buck. He seems to create plenty of public relations damage for his candidate.

There has been a LOT of fear mongering lately about Obama's supporters being "cultlike". In general, I think that there's an effort going on to diminish Obama by labeling his supporters, rather than do much to attack the man's policies. I agree with Orcinus, as well, that there's a bit of fear of the energy of Obama's rallies, because there's a couple of layers of Democratic machine generations around now that have never participated in such a thing - too young for the Kennedys or Martin Luther King, and somehow thinking that the rallies of Clinton were the only way to do it.

I think Orcinus nails it on the spot here:

The energy of Obama's rallies scares the hell out of reason-bound, well-educated liberals; but it's nothing new to anyone who's spent time in the overheated revival-meeting atmosphere that conservative politicians have used to rouse their voters for decades. Stirring up their base in exactly this same way is how they won. Our chronic inability to move people like that is why we've continued to lose.

Hillary is going the old route, with more plans and promises. And she's losing. Obama is trying something that's new to Democratic politics -- but that also has a proven track record when it comes to raising and consolidating truly transformational movements. In fact: that kind of change simply does not happen unless you've got this kind of committed mass movement.

One person alone cannot transform the country, but can spark millions of others to pursue that transformation - and to take the responsibility to see it through. I think that's a hope that many people see in Obama, and I suspect that is helping draw independents and moderate Republicans as well. I see some other "liberal" bloggers elsewhere - one in particular that is practically unreadable in my opinion - claim that Obama's drawing of independents and moderates is some sign of being a sell out. Again, more efforts to paint the man by generalizing the voters. Lame.

About that John Edwards endorsement ....

MARK HALPERIN: He [John Edwards] comes with some delegates who he won before he dropped out and also everyday matters and his endorsement would be a big story for at least a day. And, I'll tell you one other reason I think it matters: Obama, the big rap on him is he is experienced enough, the big rap on her [Clinton], would she change enough. Edwards watched the two of them more closely than anybody in the country really. When he picks one of them, assuming he does, and I think at this point he will, he'll send that message whether it's explicit or not. If he picks Obama, the message is: Clinton doesn't represent change. If he picks Clinton, the message is Obama is not ready.

BILL GEDDIE: Haven't we heard all along that he doesn't like her, haven't we heard this?

MARK HALPERIN: Yes, that's right. And I can tell you, he's really skeptical of her ability to be the kind of president he wants. But, he kinda thinks Obama is.. he thinks Obama is kind of a pussy. He has real questions about Obama's toughness, his readiness for the office.he has real doubts about Obama, not just as a president, but as a general election candidate.

Don't hold your breath.

I would be surprised if Edwards gives an endorsement at this point, I really would. But I think this seems correct - there's no way Edwards can support Hillary Clinton and be seen as meaning what he said while campaigning.

The race has moved on since Edwards dropped out, which seems like twenty years ago now. The benefit of an endorsement of Obama would be minimal. An endorsement of Clinton might help Clinton some, would likely raise new questions about the viability of Obama, but would definitely open the door to comments of hypocrisy (or worse) for Edwards. It would also probably effectively close Edwards off from any position in a future administration for either candidate, as it would be more political damage for him.

I just can't see any endorsement happening.

Do you remember that one season where the NFL commissioner decided after the season to count a couple of preseason games as regular season games, completely changing the determination of who won and lost their divisions?

Really, you don't remember that? Don't you remember how people complained how it was completely unfair, a change of the rules after the fact, done only to give some an advantage over others? Don't you remember?

Oh, of course not. The NFL isn't that stupid.

Is the Democratic Party?

If the Democratic Party wants to seat Michigan and Florida delegates, they have to figure out a way to run a contest that is fair for the competitors, instead of telling them that it wouldn't count, and then changing that decision AFTER the vote. Figure it out, or don't change the earlier determination.

Ed analyzes the upcoming primary.

Not surprisingly, given the patterns of past contest, Mr. Rendell sees race as a factor as well.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [the 2006 GOP gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.

"Well-spoken"? Don't expect Hillary to be returning any calls.

Okay I admit it. I've been reading the right-wing wacko blogs again. But I thought this was worth passing on.

The late Alan Baron used to have the "15 and 50% rule" for cities. If a city was at least 50% black, it would almost certainly have a black mayor (Detroit, DC, Atlanta, etc.). If a city was less than 15% black, it MIGHT have a black mayor because a small minority wouldn't create all that much tension. (LA [where Tom Bradley won five elections from 1973 onward] and Seattle fit this mold).

On the other hand, if a city was between 16 and 49% black, they probably would NOT have a black mayor. The reasons were simple: at say, 30% black, the community was big to stir up a backlash, but not strong enough to win a majority. New York is the classic example of this at 30% black. David Dinkins has been their first and only black mayor. [Similarly, Harold Washington, who died 20 years ago, was Chicago's first and last black mayor.]

Obama is winning the white voters in states where no one is scared of blacks (North Dakota!). He's also winning the Deep South states where black Democrats outnumber white Democrats. But in the big states where blacks are mixed in competition with Catholic labor voters, Asians and Hispanics, he's struggling.

I think the racial component of an Obama nomination is going to be much more of a factor than people want to admit. I do not disqualify him from getting my vote for this reason. My reservations about Obama have nothing to do with race or "electability". Heck, I thought John Kerry was most electable in 2004 so I'm not even going to bother guessing this time.

Actually I kind of relish an open battle where everyone will have to confront their inner racist. But expect the battle.

BTW, Alan Baron was not a right-wing wacko. He was a former executive director of the Democratic National Committee.

PS - Harrisburg is 55 percent black and has still not had an African-American mayor but I'd imagine there is a good chance that Steve Reed's successor will be black. If he ever retires.

Superdelegates are a superbullshit idea for Democrats to include in how they run a nominating convention... What in the world was the real purpose behind this? Couldn't party powers recognize that if the nomination came down to the superdelegate, the rank and file voters were going to be mighty pissed off?

GET RID OF IT.

Right-wing schmucko Bill Kristol urges Gore and Pelosi to throw their support behind Barack Obama.

And there are, as a final resort, two super-superdelegates (so to speak) who would have the clout to help Democrats achieve closure: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.

If they stepped forward at the right time, they would earn the gratitude of their party. And they might also enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed — the fall of the house of Clinton.

Well, I guess it's only fair since Ann Coulter may be campaigning for Hillary.

A scene from the Maine caucuses

The most heated moment came late in the process, when an elderly gentleman for Hillary said, "I want everyone here to make a pledge, and I'm talking to all you Obama supporters. I want you to pledge that you will be loyal Democrats, and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination." The 4 (former) independents all said flat-out if it was Clinton vs. McCain, they would be voting for McCain. One Obama supporter said, "I'm an American first, not a Democrat, and I will make no such pledge." The rest of us Obama supporters were quiet because we didn't want to offend our neighbors, but I did a quick poll of 4 around me as we were leaving, and their position is the same as mine - we are not voting for Hillary for president under any circumstances.

I would caution that Clinton supporters don't have to vote Obama for President either. As you can see by the way he's hated by conservatives, McCain isn't the biggest wacko on the block. I'll be pulling the D lever in November no matter whose name is on it but I know some people who are getting very turned off by the Obama cult.

Conservative pseudo-intellectual Jonah Goldberg asks:

One thing I would like to know is what it says about Matthew Dowd (a perfectly likable fellow) that he eagerly signed up to work for Bush but now thinks the man's a moron.

It says that nothing exposes a moron like working for him.

Huckabee wins Kansas!

WASHINGTON — Mike Huckabee trounced John McCain in Kansas's Republican caucuses Saturday, garnering the backing of conservatives despite the likelihood that McCain will secure the GOP presidential nomination.

The former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister had 60 per cent to Mr. McCain's 24 per cent in the first clear matchup between the two since Mitt Romney dropped out of the race Thursday. Ron Paul of Texas had 11 per cent.

Mr. Huckabee won all 36 of the state's delegates at stake Saturday although McCain holds a commanding lead in the delegate count.

“It sends a pretty significant signal to John McCain that he's got a lot of work to do to get significant factions of the Republican Party solidly behind him,” said Kris Kobach, the state Republican Party chairman.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Huckabee said he wouldn't quit the presidential race and rejected suggestions that Mr. McCain is the party's inevitable nominee.

“I didn't major in math,” the former Arkansas governor told a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference meeting. “I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them.”

Suiciders rejoice!

I suspect there are millions of people that want you to throw your hat in the ring. So do I. Please, please, please, please buy the Dallas Mavericks from Mark Cuban, and maybe Dallas will actually get closer to winning an NBA Championship.

This article about Bill Clinton "learning" some things got me to thinking:

If his wife is elected president, Clinton said he will not interfere with her work or her advisers.

"I will do what I'm asked to do," Clinton said. "I will not be in the Cabinet. I will not be on the staff full-time. I will not in any way interfere with the work of a strong vice president, strong secretary of State, strong secretary of Treasury.

First of all, who really believes that Bill Clinton will stand quietly to the side on any issue that he disagrees strongly with a VP or other member of the Cabinet? I know I don't...

More importantly, there seems to be a "double trump" issue involved here. I'm sure it's hard enough for cabinet members to disagree strenuously with a sitting President, but how hard would it be to disagree with two Presidents that live in the White House, and with two Presidents that have greater access to the controls of power and press than any possible combination of Cabinet members would have? How much of a hushing impact on Cabinet advocacy would this have?

An answer for agnostics?

In a storefront on Q Street in Sacramento, Kim Mack told a crowd that spilled out onto the sidewalk how she came to back Barack Obama.

With a son serving in the Iraq war, which she opposed, Mack was looking for a like-minded presidential candidate. She was impressed by the Illinois senator's books.

But the clincher came on March 17, when she met the Democratic contender face to face. She describes how he lit up the room with his wide smile, shook her hand and thanked her for volunteering.

"He looked at me, and the look in his eyes was worth 1,000 words," said Mack, now a regional field organizer. Obama hugged her and whispered something in her ear and she was so thrilled she doesn't remember what it was.

Then Mack brought home the point of her story for the crowd of 100 or so eager volunteers, sipping coffee and watching a PowerPoint presentation in the Obama campaign office on a recent Saturday.

"Did that make more impact on you than if I had talked about his health care plan or his stance on the environment?" she asked.

Sounds a little like Paul's experience on the road to Damascus.

At least according to Faux News.

I know Fox likes to pull this trick but didn't think they'd do it to their own guy. Suiciders!

I did a search on Google to search for Pennsylvania primary stories. Found a bunch and opened them in different browsers. I started reading this one, and didn't really pay attention to my location, and the further I read, the further I wondered, who wrote this piece of shit? Goddamn do they have anything more than a hackneyed viewpoint of politics scrabbled together on every stereotype they can find? The more I read, the less I was interested in the writing, and the more I was determined that the writer was a complete sham.

And then I thought: "I bet it's Joe Klein!" I scrolled up. Could he be capable of such pathetic nonsense?

Yes, he can. Yes, it was. Yes, he did.

K-Lo hates them so we need to keep talking about them.

They go into the voting booth but they never come out.

Honestly, if Romney didn't want to "forestall" McCain's national campaign, why the hell did he run in the first place?

John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering presidential campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney told conservatives.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

I guess what I'm reading here is that Mike Huckabee is AIDING THE TERRORISTS!!!

Asked how he can claim he's still the underdog, Obama said that he is "always the underdog," USA TODAY's Martha T. Moore reports.

"If I were writing the story," he continued, "what I would say would be Sen. Obama came in as a challenger who two weeks ago nobody thought would come out of Feb. 5 standing. The Clinton camp's basic attitude was that the whole calendar was set up to deliver the knockout blow on Feb. 5. ... (Instead), we won more delegates and we won more states. What that means is we're in a fierce competition and we've got many more rounds to play.''

But isn't it disingenuous to say you're an underdog and then declare victory?

"I'm never disingenuous,'' said Obama.

Can you get through life without ever being disingenuous? I doubt you could get many jobs. Or dates.

And are you sure you want to tell your aunt what you honestly think of her Prosciutto-Wrapped Peaches?

Turns out Hillary was masterminding the Nixon impeachment proceedings!

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

....

Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they hoped to keep Nixon in office "twisting in the wind" for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.

And Teddy endorsed Obama! Some thanks.

This stuff would be comical except they had people wondering if John Kerry shot himself in Vietnam.

Rabid righties are responding in conniption fits to John McCain apparently glomming the GOP nomination. Nonsensically, they even have a laundry list of concessions they expect from their presumptive nominee.

A “trust but verify” strategy for McCain might include:

** McCain announcing in his CPAC speech he was leaving CPAC and going straight to Newt’s for a comprehensive tutelage on “Real Change.”

** adopting Fred’s immigration plan and Rudy’s tax plan;

** announcing that he would establish a Cabinet-level Domestic Policy Czar reporting directly to him and housed in the White House which would oversee and consolidate all the “soft Cabinets” and he planned to name Jeb Bush as the czar;

** Ted Olson as attorney general;

** George Allen as secretary of the Treasury;

** a recognition that Romney has made and could put blue states in play, is relentlessly optimistic about America. Therefore he would install him as RNC general chairman to traverse the country and chatterati shows as the 21st century face of conservatism.

Is that all? No candy dish of Oxycontin for El Rushbo's visits? How about a West Wing waterboarding chamber?

Hey Wackos! Your guys lost! You don't get to make demands anymore. You turned the keys to the Wingnutmobile over to Dubya and he totalled it. Bunnypants will be towing the burned-out wreck to Crawford next January to use for a fertilizer shed. So now you're stuck thumbing a ride and McCain is the only guy on your side of the tracks with wheels - wheels he needs to move left, not right, to have a shot in November.

Are right-wingers really ready to spite McCain (and themselves) by voting for Hillary or Obama? Could be. There's already hushed talk of "suicide voters" ...

Ha Ha Ha. You didn't end it on the Democratic Party side. Maybe we'll get to make the difference in Pennsylvania after all.

So here's a question - will Ron Paul's donors give money to the eventual Republican nominee for the general election?

I guess Josh Marshall pretty much sums up my view on it. But I will say, I didn't see Hillary Clinton as being any more commanding of a presence than Obama. In many ways they seemed rather equal in presence, with Clinton having the advantage on healthcare and Obama having the advantage on the Iraq War.

Clinton's answer on voting for the resolution had an aroma of "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Democrats ought to come up with the steely-eyed assessment of the November election - they are going to have a strong advantage on the economic issues discussion, period. The Republicans know this, and they are not going to want to play on that field. If the nominee is McCain, it's going to be about defense and the Iraq War. The nominee has to be better on that debate than Hillary Clinton was last night.