Recently in John Edwards Category

"[I]t is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry...I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself." So...Edwards. To be honest, I can't say I'm surprised by this revelation -- When the story first broke back in December, it just seem too detailed to be completely implausible, and I figured it was only a matter of time before the Enquirer closed the deal.

That being said, it seems clear we Dems clearly dodged a bullet by not backing Edwards' candidacy, and he really shouldn't have played roulette with us by trying to keep this under wraps. (Then again, diehard Clinton flak Howard Wolfson seems to think Edwards' silence gave the nomination to Obama, which may or may not be true, so maybe he had an important part to play nonetheless.) I don't think revelations of an affair would've necessarily been a ticket-killer this year, particularly given the shadier turns of McCain's personal life. But it would've put us at an enormous disadvantage out of the box, honesty and character-wise, for no good reason whatsoever. (And, by the way, amiable southern white male narcissist who can't keep it in his pants? Been there, done that.)

While I've been packing things today, a few more key endorsements: First up, three former SEC heads back Obama. "'Each of us has been committed to prudent economic policy and effective financial regulation for many years,' they said in a joint statement along with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, also an Obama supporter. 'We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future.'"

Then, much to the consternation of Emily's List, NARAL gets behind the senator: "Today, we are proud to put our organization's grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Sen. Obama."

And, tonight in Grand Rapids, it looks like John Edwards will come off the fence at last and officially endorse Obama. (Edwards is not a super, but he does still have 19 pledged delegates credited to him.) Well, it'd have been nice to see this a few months ago, of course, and now that People pledge just looks ridiculous. But, hey, better late than never.

Update:: Hmm. No sign of Elizabeth. Also, Edwards' best line tonight (although the crowd didn't seem to get it): "I still want my jet-ski."

"Elizabeth Edwards likes Hillary Clinton's plan for universal health insurance. Husband John Edwards doesn't much care for Clinton's 'old politics.' So goes the his-and-her debate in the Edwards household." In a new interview with People magazine, John and Elizabeth Edwards announce they're staying neutral. "Bottom line: the couple said they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care."

To which I feel compelled to ask: What political capital? Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have Barack Obama, the "change" candidate who has had the nomination in the bag, mathematically speaking, for several months now. On the other, we have Hillary Clinton, the candidate whose campaign Edwards himself memorably deemed "the forces of status quo," and who has left no GOP tactic untried to hack and slash a path to the nomination. And the Edwardses are neutral? That's not statesmanship. That is political cowardice, pure and simple.

I mean, this isn't a huge surprise: It's been an open secret for awhile that the Edwardses would likely stay neutral, partly (if not mainly) on account of Elizabeth's personal issues with the Obama candidacy. Still, I thought they'd eventually rise above their pique and get on board with the "change" they'd espoused for months and months on end. I've lost count of the number of times I've personally defended Edwards (usually from the children of doctors, who've been indoctrinated with the idea that malpractice lawsuits rank just below genocide on the list of Crimes Against Humanity, and thus that Edwards is merely some kind of rank profiteer living off their dear parents' hard work.) I applauded his candidacy in 2008, and even voted for the guy in 2004. But, really, this is the kiss-off: If they still can't manage to bring themselves off the fence at this late hour, I just can't take either of them seriously anymore as leaders or progressives. "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

While Edwards donors have broken for Obama 2-1, current rumor has it that Edwards himself is inclined toward Clinton, mainly on account of his wife, Elizabeth. "'She feels her husband should have been the man in the center of the presidential sweepstakes, rather than Obama,' a source said."

Well, if that's true, it's a remarkably petty reason to back the establishment candidate. Still, sour grapes or no, it's hard to imagine Edwards coming out for Clinton at this late date anyway. Why would he obliterate all of his outsider-reformer cachet in one fell swoop, just to back a horse that's already lost? If he endorses Clinton now, not only is his credibility in many circles effectively reduced to zero, but he'd be needlessly prolonging a primary battle that the rest of the party is trying to end ASAP. So, if anything, I expect he'll remain neutral at this point.

Meanwhile, Al Gore reaffirmed he's staying out of it for now, despite calls among some for him to break the deadlock: "'What have we got, five months left?' Gore told the Associated Press...'I think it's going to resolve itself, but we'll see.'" Well, it's more like three months, if we go by the Dean standard. Still, I can't say I'm surprised that Gore's letting things shake out.

Which reminds me: There's been some loose talk recently, most notably by TIME's Joe Klein and Rep. Tim Mahoney, that the Dems could rally around Al Gore on top of a compromise ticket, a la John W. Davis in 1924. Now, maybe I'm in the minority these days in remembering that Al Gore was a thoroughly crappy candidate in 2000, one who -- despite unprecedented economic good times -- couldn't even beat a congenial idiot like Dubya back in the day. Nonetheless, this notion of putting Al Gore atop the ticket is the Mother of all Dumb Ideas, redolent of the blatantly undemocratic, smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear, and if it happens, I'm walking. In fact, I'd rather have Sen. Clinton be our standard-bearer than Al Gore: At least, she actually procured a sizable number of votes this cycle.

At the Iowa county conventions today, as a result of Edwards and other candidate delegates switching their support, Sen. Obama picked up six additional delegates on Clinton (or, to be more exact, 7 to her 1.) "Edwards dropped 8 delegates to 6. Those six will be up for grabs, perhaps, at the Iowa Democratic Party state convention in June." Update: Reports emerge that Obama's Iowa take today could be seven delegates, or even as many as nine. That's an Ohio-sized haul. Update 2: We're going to need a bigger boat: Now, it's Obama +10. Update: Also, +3 in California.

"At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said...Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said." It looks possible no more major endorsements will be in the offing for either Democratic candidate. Perhaps noticing the daunting math that faces Sen. Clinton's campaign, the big undeclared Dems seem to be envisioning themselves instead as much-needed brokers of the peace. "A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate."

"Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They're grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can't see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row." Last night was grand, but there'll be no resting on laurels just yet. The Clinton campaign redoubles its efforts in Wisconsin, putting out a new ad attacking Obama for the debate schedule. (Of course, allegations of debate-ducking is usually the last province of the also-ran. TNR, for example, dug up this campaign ad by NY Dem Jonathan Tasini attacking Sen. Clinton for...refusing to debate.) Update: A new Obama ad responds with class.

In the meantime, AP's Ron Fournier argues that many of the superdelegates are more than ready to balk the Clintons: "Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? 'What,' Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, 'isn't two Cabinet posts enough?'"

But if not Richardson, what of Edwards? While Sen. Obama delves into rhetorical Edwards/Feingold country (in Sen. Feingold's hometown of Janesville, WI, no less), ABC News suggests the Senator from North Carolina might be leaning towards endorsing Clinton at this point. That'd be a surprise, to say the least.

"'Sen. Obama has been talking about hope and change and improving the morale of this country,' Mr. Anchia said. 'Gen. Patton once said that 80 percent of leadership is improving morale. And right now the country is in a pretty demoralized state and looking to get out of it, and I think Sen. Obama has the most compelling message there.'" More recent Obama endorsements of note: Rep. Rafael Anchia (representing Dallas), Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (representing the San Antonio area), and Northern Virginia Rep. James Moran (this last one, it seems, might actually hurt Obama.) Sen. Obama also seems to have made fans across the aisle in former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Senator Lincoln Chafee. Meanwhile, checking in on the Big Three of remaining endorsements (that is, presuming Speaker Pelosi stays neutral until a candidate is decided):

Al Gore: Every few days a rumor circulates from the Clinton campaign side that Al Gore is set to endorse Obama. But, despite "unbelievable" animus reported between the Clintons and Gores, no word from the Nobel Prize-winner yet. Presumably, he's waiting because either [a] he doesn't want to endanger his post-partisan cachet or [b] he senses the Democratic Party might need people who seem above the fray to broker a pre-convention deal. Either way, it doesn't seem like he'll be getting involved anytime soon. Update: CNN reconfirms: Gore sources say he's staying out of it.

John Edwards: Here's where a lot of the attention seems to be at the moment, given that a Thursday meeting between Clinton and Edwards leaked, and a planned Obama-Edwards meeting today was postponed. At the moment, media speculation seems to be that Edwards' endorsement is truly up for grabs, although as I said here, given his previous statements about Clinton's "status quo" campaign, I'd think he'd have to be leaning toward Obama (or risk losing quite a bit of credibility.) In their report on the Clinton-Edwards meet, CNN said that two friends of Elizabeth Edwards said she preferred Obama. If that's true, that would seem to clinch it, but one never knows, and now "sources close to the Edwards family flatly deny that she favors one candidate over the other."

Russ Feingold: Sen. Feingold, whose endorsement may well carry more weight than that of Edwards (particularly in upcoming Wisconsin) has said he's planning to endorse after the Feb. 19 primary. He's previously been very critical of Edwards, and some see that playing a role in the Obama-Edwards discussions at the moment. Again, given the previous dust-ups between Feingold and Clinton, I'd think the Wisconsin Senator would be leaning Obama. But he's spent a lot of time with both candidates, and he doesn't look to be moving off the fence before the 19th, after which he may likely just follow the choice of his state.

In short, now that we're past Super Tuesday, it seems the Big Guns mainly want to see how things will play out. Update: The Man Who Fell to Earth? Greg Sargent's sources say Sen. Clinton is about to pick up a decently important endorsement in former Ohio Senator John Glenn. Hmm, that's too bad. I'd have liked to have Sen. Glenn in our corner. Ah well, godspeed regardless.

"'Barack Obama, like John Edwards, is redefining what is possible and in so doing he's changing us, each one of us,' she said in a letter released by Obama's campaign. 'Many who had given up on politics are re-engaging. Many who had grown tolerant of the intolerable are now ready to demand more ­ and not just from themselves but others. And many who had given up believing that the ideals of equality, dignity and justice would ever again be as politically important as money and power, now believe again.'" Former NARAL president Kate Michelman moves from Edwards to Obama (as, it seems, have many high-profile Edwards backers.)

"He seems like the real deal, you know...I think he's really the only choice." Barack Obama has a posse...By way of Yglesias, the inimitable Hulk Hogan is an Obama-backer.

"It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard. But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you once again.

And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible: one America -- one America that works for everybody; one America where struggling towns and factories come back to life, because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil; one America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college, they will be honored for that work; one America where no child will go to bed hungry, because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty; one America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care; one America with one public school system that works for all of our children; one America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end and brings our servicemembers home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a mill worker is going to be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine."

Senator John Edwards calls it quits. [Transcript, Obama response, Clinton response.] As I've said a few times now, Edwards has run a quality campaign focusing on the important and neglected issue of poverty's persistence, and he should be applauded for it. And, if nothing else, he'd make a great attorney general in the next Democratic administration. And, now, there are two...

While he left the race on his own terms this morning, my guess is Senator Edwards will endorse Obama sometime in the relatively near future (although perhaps after Super Tuesday.) Even if calling Clinton "the candidate of the status quo" in the New Hampshire debate a few weeks ago didn't telegraph his preference, I'm guessing Clinton's anti-Edwards robo-calls in South Carolina probably rankled. (And Edwards campaign manager Joe Trippi is on the record as no friend of Mark Penn.) So, let's hope he comes out for Senator Obama sometime relatively soon.

That being said, I'm not sold at all on the notion that Edwards supporters will now drift into the Obama camp. True, a sizable amount of Edwards voters are likely anti-Clinton votes. But, I'm guessing an equally sizable number were drawn to Edwards' "I'm a fighter" message, in which case they might prefer Clinton's recent pit bull tactics over Obama's message of unity. And, of course, Edwards' base was mostly white working-class and rural voters, and -- while Obama did well with this demographic in Nevada -- thus far said group has leaned toward Clinton. So, it's an open question.

If nothing else, though, a 2-person race should help to mitigate the Florida-Michigan delegate issue. And it should make tomorrow's debate that much more interesting...

"What has not been widely reported or discussed is how this decision by the Democratic Party changes the dynamics of the nomination process. They have reduced the total number of available delegates by 341 from 4049 to 3708. If they keep the required magic number of delegates to win the nomination at 2025 (50% +1), they have effectively required a successful candidate to garner 55% of the available delegates to win the nomination (2025/3708)."

Uh oh...A commenter over at Salon explains why the Michigan-Florida delegate issue might not go away anytime soon. Indeed, it may ensure -- and determine the fate of -- a brokered convention. "As explained above, in the democratic race, Edwards is siphoning off enough delegates to prevent either Barack or Clinton to sew up the nomination. The 341 unseated delegates from Michigan and Florida (8% of the total delegates) strengthen this effect considerably. The combined total of Edwards and the unseated delegates from Michigan and Florida is roughly 22% of all delegates leaving only 78% for Clinton and Obama to split. The loser will have to fall to 28% to leave 50% remaining for the winner."

If this math is correct, and the race stays close in the weeks after Super Tuesday, it sounds like Michigan and Florida may well have to schedule do-overs. Or there'll be blood on the floor at the convention, no matter how the MI-FL controversy shakes out. Update: This math, of course, is now moot...for obvious reasons.

"I am a gutter-ball bowler." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, observed while (not) campaigning in Florida last Sunday. Hey, Sen. Clinton, you said it. The WP's Dana Milbank puts her comment in context: "The remark...was no doubt meant literally; she was standing outside Lucky Strike Lanes in Miami Beach. But in politics, too, Clinton has recently been putting some questionable rotation on the ball." (As partial evidence, Milbank points to Clinton's "ersatz victory party" in Florida last night, which he deems "a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel.")

"My friends, as I said the other week in South Carolina, there is nothing in our country that is inevitable. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage, and stand by the principles that have made our party and our country great."

Florida votes, and Arizona Senator John McCain is the big winner and -- arguably -- now the prohibitive frontrunner for the Republican nomination (much to the consternation of the conservative base.) Given that he's easily the GOP candidate with the most crossover appeal, that's bad news for the Democrats, particularly if we decide to get behind the one person on this earth (well, two people, counting her husband) who could manage to reunite the abysmally fractured GOP.

Speaking of which, Senator Clinton handily won on the (meaningless) Dem side -- prompting much rejoicing and e-mailing by the Clinton campaign. (Although, in a bit of a shocker, it turns out she actually tied the delegate count with Mike Gravel.) Seriously, though, given that Florida is particularly choice demographic territory for Clinton, she'd probably have won the Sunshine State in any event. (As George Will and Slate have both recently pointed out, Florida is known as "God's Antechamber" for a reason, and, as has been the norm, voters over 60 -- 39% of the voting Dems -- went for Hillary 59%-24%.) But, given that this ended up being basically the name-recognition primary, and that no delegates came of it, I'm not too concerned about the results. On to Super-Tuesday.

Update: Looking over the CNN exit poll numbers for the Dem side, this would seem to be the key stat in viewing both tonight and the road ahead:

When did you decide who to vote for?

Today: (10%): Clinton 34%, Obama 30%
Last 3 Days: (7%): Obama 46%, Clinton 38%
Last Week: (7%): Obama 39%, Clinton 31%
Last Month: (16%): Obama 47%, Clinton 40%
Before That: (33%): Clinton 63%, Obama 27%
Absentee/Early Voter: (26%): Clinton 50%, Obama 31%

So, among voters that have decided since the campaign took off in Iowa, Obama does rather well. It's the long-time deciders and absentees -- 60% of the electorate -- where he seriously fell behind. This would indicate name recognition definitely played its part today, and that actual campaigning in Florida could've made a significant difference. Good to know, as we move forward.

"'Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family,' Mr. Carter said...'He has an extraordinary oratory...I think that Obama will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government.'"

Former president Jimmy Carter compliments Barack Obama, although he also says he will not be endorsing anyone before the nomination is decided. "Mr. Carter also said he talked by telephone at length on Monday with former President Bill Clinton, who was 'trying to explain that he was not raising the race issue' on the campaign trail...Mr. Clinton 'has said a few things that I think he wishes he hadn't said,' Mr. Carter said. 'He doesn't call me often, but the fact that he called me this morning and spent a long time explaining his position indicates that it's troublesome to them, the adverse reaction.'"

"'I think he represents the kind of leader that we need for the future of the country,' Sebelius told The Associated Press. 'I think he brings the hope and optimism that we really need to restore our place in the world, as well as to bring this country together and really tackle the challenges that we have.'" Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius endorses Barack Obama for president. (Sebelius also gave the Democratic SOTU response last night, and her upcoming endorsement was one of DC's worst-kept secrets last week.)

And another intriguing endorsement via the Daily Dish: Obama gets the support of 80 volunteer lawyers of Gitmo detainees: "Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue." (Their full statement is here.)

"Courting voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to 'campaign or participate' in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar." Back in New Hampshire, the Manchester Union-Leader isn't too happy about Clinton's breaking of her Florida pledge. "Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning...New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers."

"Obama can help this nation move forward...In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism...Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care -- when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama." One I missed earlier: Sen. Obama's hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune, endorses him for president.

"Her arrival is Sarasota was timed so that she could be photographed with palm trees behind her. 'It is a perfect day here in Florida,' declared a bemused candidate who officially was not campaigning in Florida as she posed for the classic Florida campaign photo." According to The Nation's John Norris, Hillary Clinton has broken the spirit of her pledge and is now actively campaigning in Florida. ("She arrived in Sarasota taking care to abide by the details of the agreement, because events in Sarasota and later in Miami were not open to the public. With a wink at the deal, Clinton carefully staged her arrival so she left her airplane with palm trees in the background for photographers.") As Matt Yglesias brilliantly put it, once again the Clintons -- like the GOP -- have shown they think elections in America are just a no-holds-barred game of Calvinball.

"[T]oday I see across the generational divide the spirit, excitement, energy and creativity of a new generation bidding to displace the old ways. Obama's moment is their moment, and I pray that they succeed without the sufferings and betrayals my generation went through. There really is no comparison between the Obama generation and those who would come to power with Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she knows it. The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power. They are the sorts of people young Hillary Clinton herself would have scorned at Wellesley. If history is any guide, the new 'best and brightest' of the Obama generation will unleash a new cycle of activism, reform and fresh thinking before they follow pragmatism to its dead end."

In The Nation, SDS co-founder, author of the Port Huron Statement, and longtime progressive Tom Hayden endorses Barack Obama for president. "Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agenda. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. [As Gandhi once said of India's liberation movement, 'There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.'] We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past. "

"Clinton, who arrived in the U.S. Senate four years before Obama, has tried to make experience the issue...But if she wants to highlight her White House experience as a defining difference, then it's only fair to point out that two of the projects she was most deeply involved with produced a debacle (health care) and scandals (fund raising). Especially in recent days, her campaign has shown the sharp elbows that evoke the ugly underside of the Clinton years, and the (Karl Rove inspired) Bush years that succeeded them: the reflex to scorch the Earth, to do what is necessary to vanquish political adversaries ... all is justified if you are left standing at the end.

The San Francisco Chronicle endorses Barack Obama for president. "America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness."

"This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it."

Author and Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison endorses Barack Obama for president. "In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom."

Also, since Toni Morrison's invoking of Clinton as "the first black president" has been getting a lot of run lately, it helps to remember it in context. "Morrison was not saying that Bill Clinton is America's first black president in a cute or celebratory way, nor was she calling Clinton an 'honorary Negro.' Rather, she was comparing Clinton's treatment at the hands of Starr and others with that of black men, so often seen as 'the always and already guilty "perp."'"

"It’s not so much that women aren’t ready for a woman president. We are. But there’s something about last week’s spectacle of Bill Clinton crashing through South Carolina like the guy poised to drag her back to his cave by the hair that reminds us that Hillary has some stuff to work out in her marriage before she works it out with the rest of us." Slate's Dahlia Lithwick ponders what feminists should make of President Clinton's newly increased role in his wife's campaign. "It hasn’t helped that this Clinton campaign has also reinvented itself almost weekly since January: We’ve had Falling to Pieces Week; Finding Our Voice Week; Unloading a Carton of Whupass Week; and then Heh, Heh, That Bill Is a Maniac Week. Is it just me, or is it true that when it comes to issues of character, you don’t necessarily want a candidate who seems to be testing out new ones for each new crisis?"

And, also in light of Bill Clinton's hogging of the spotlight -- and Dick Cheney -- historian Garry Wills surveys the serious problems involved in a co-presidency. "We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House."

I feel change in the air. Every time I’ve been asked over the past year who I would support in the Democratic Primary, my answer has always been the same: I’ll support the candidate who inspires me, who inspires all of us, who can lift our vision and summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country’s best days are still to come. I’ve found that candidate. And it looks to me like you have too... I believe there is one candidate who has extraordinary gifts of leadership and character, matched to the extraordinary demands of this moment in history. He understands what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the “fierce urgency of now.” He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view. He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to 'the better angels of our nature.' I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States... We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth. There is the great intelligence of someone who could have had a glittering career in corporate law, but chose instead to serve his community and then enter public life. There is the tireless skill of a Senator who was there in the early mornings to help us hammer out a needed compromise on immigration reform -- who always saw a way to protect both national security and the dignity of people who do not have a vote. For them, he was a voice for justice. And there is the clear effectiveness of Barack Obama in fashioning legislation to put high quality teachers in our classrooms -- and in pushing and prodding the Senate to pass the most far-reaching ethics reform in its history. Now, with Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign -- a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us. A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another. I remember another such time, in the 1960s, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30. We had a new president who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it. They realized that when they asked what they could do for their country, they could change the world. It was the young who led the first Earth Day and issued a clarion call to protect the environment; the young who enlisted in the cause of civil rights and equality for women; the young who joined the Peace Corps and showed the world the hopeful face of America. At the fifth anniversary celebration of the Peace Corps, I asked one of those young Americans why they had volunteered. And I will never forget the answer: “It was the first time someone asked me to do something for my country.” This is another such time. I sense the same kind of yearning today, the same kind of hunger to move on and move America forward. I see it not just in young people, but in all our people. And in Barack Obama, I see not just the audacity, but the possibility of hope for the America that is yet to be. What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people. With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay. With Barack Obama, we will close the door on the old economics that has written off the poor and left the middle class poorer and less secure... So let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation. Let us remember that when Franklin Roosevelt envisioned Social Security, he didn’t decide—no, it was too ambitious, too big a dream, too hard. When John Kennedy thought of going to the moon, he didn’t say no, it was too far, maybe we couldn’t get there and shouldn’t even try. I am convinced we can reach our goals only if we are 'not petty when our cause is so great'-- only if we find a way past the stale ideas and stalemate of our times – only if we replace the politics of fear with the politics of hope – and only if we have the courage to choose change. Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can bring us that change. Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can be that change. I love this country. I believe in the bright light of hope and possibility. I always have, even in the darkest hours. I know what America can achieve. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it -- and with Barack Obama, we can do it again. I know that he’s ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America’s standing in the world. There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed 'someone with greater experience' -- and added: 'May I urge you to be patient.' And John Kennedy replied: 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.' So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now. I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future. My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey -- to have the courage to choose change. It is time again for a new generation of leadership. It is time now for Barack Obama.

-- Senator Ted Kennedy, putting his significant record and experience behind Barack Obama's candidacy this afternoon. Update: The speech is now on Youtube, as is Obama's acceptance speech.

Word leaks that Senator Ted Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama tomorrow. "The announcements also come on a weekend when the House's highest-ranking Latino, California Rep. Xavier Becerra, also announced that he is backing Obama."

"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."

In a moving editorial, Caroline Kennedy endorses Barack Obama for president. "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

"In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being 'tested' by her '35 years of experience' won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief 'on Day One' when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so." The NYT's Frank Rich sees a Clinton v. McCain contest as tantamount to political suicide for the Dems. I'm inclined to agree.

"Thus did Barack Obama, in his campaign book 'The Audacity of Hope,' touch on a fundamental problem in today's American politics: It's too much about yesterday's American politics. In too many ways, it's still about Vietnam. It's still about hardhats and hippies. It's about Watergate and Iran-contra and Whitewater. It's about the past. Barack Obama is aware of yesterday, but he is about today and tomorrow and next year. In a strong field of Democratic presidential contenders, he offers the best hope of transforming the debate and moving on to what America can be in the 21st century."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch endorses Barack Obama for president. "Comets don't come around that often. In January of 1961, Ann Dunham Obama was six weeks pregnant with Barack Obama Sr.'s child when President Kennedy said at his inauguration that 'the torch has been passed to a new generation.' It's that time again."

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88..." Uh, but Bill, nobody mentioned Jesse Jackson. President Clinton tries to race-card it up until the last dog dies. But, hey, shame on the media for injecting race into the campaign, right? It is time...for them...to go.

Update: The Atlantic's Matt Yglesias had a pretty great line about this: "After all this time being told by the Clinton campaign that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Reagan-worshipping right-winger, it's a bit confusing to be told that he's the second coming of Jesse Jackson, too."

Update 2: Jesse Jackson says, Let's move on, while Chris Hitchens argues, What did you expect?

Update 3: If you were perusing politlcal sites on Sunday, you may have heard many angry Clinton supporters claim that they'd watched the full exchange, that the President was asked directly about the "first black president" prior to the clip -- hence, "that's just bait too" -- and that the media was distorting his remarks because they hate Clinton. Not surprisingly at this point, this all turned out to be a pack of bald-faced lies.

In South Carolina, Barack Obama wins in a rout, beating Hillary Clinton by 28 points and winning more votes than Clinton and Edwards combined. (And, as Andrew Sullivan noted tonight, Obama also scored more Palmetto votes than McCain and Huckabee combined...something to consider for the general election.) Some of the interesting numbers:

Aside from Horry County (a.k.a. Myrtle Beach), which went for Hillary Clinton, and Seneca County, where John Edwards was born, Barack Obama won the entire state -- 44 of 46 counties (including Florence, where I grew up...this makes me quite happy.)

Obama won the African-American vote -- both male and female -- by 4 to 1. However, he also won 1 in 4 white votes -- considerably higher than anticipated. (Clinton won 1 in 3 white votes, the rest went to the local native, Edwards.)

Obama -- and this accords with my understanding of the South -- won the white youth vote big. (52% to 27% for Clinton and 21% of Edwards.) White voters over 60, however, went 42% each for Clinton and Edwards, with only 15% for Obama. Sadly, the generation gap -- among whites -- persists.

White men went 45% for Edwards, but otherwise split evenly between Clinton and Obama (28%-27%) White women, unsurprisingly, went for Clinton: 42% to Edwards' 35% to Obama's 22%.

So now, we move to Super Tuesday, and the main demographic problem facing Senator Obama -- the generation gap among whites -- remains. (How the generation that coined the term "Don't trust anyone over 30" became so distrustful of Obama's Kennedyesque appeal remains, frankly, more than a little depressing.)

But, hope remains, while the company is true. I've been volunteering at Obama events over the past week and expect to continue to do so over the next nine days. Let's each of us do what we can. The stakes are too high not to give it our all...And, if South Carolina is any indication, the times are definitely a-changin'.

"Barack Obama is the best Democrat to lead this nation past the nasty, partisan, Washington-as-usual politics that have blocked consensus on Iraq; politics that never blinked at the greedy, subprime mortgage schemes that could spawn a recession; politics that have greatly diminished our country's stature in the world. Obama inspires people to action. And while inspiration alone isn't enough to get a job done, it's a necessary ingredient to begin the hard work." The Philadelphia Inquirer backs Barack Obama for president. "[T]he Illinois senator has shown on the campaign trail that he offers more than pretty words. In debates and speeches, he has provided details of a White House program that, with adjustments, could produce the outcomes this nation needs."

"The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred. In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty." LIke Tim Noah, the NYT's Nicholas Kristof argues Clinton's claims of superior "experience" don't hold up. "[T]he presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus -- according to the 'experience' camp -- best qualified to become the next president. That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case."

Another column update, as per yesterday:

TNR's Jonathan Chait examines the "vast left-wing conspiracy" emerging against the Clintons. "Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons...Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational."

The American Prospect's Paul Waldman agrees with the assessment that the Clintons are running a thoroughly Rovian primary campaign: "Three weeks ago, I wrote that Clinton was working to make voters uneasy, utilizing just enough fear to encourage them to stick with the known quantity in the race. But in the time since, her campaign has begun to appear more and more as though it's being run by Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Pick your tired metaphor -- take-no-prisoners, brass knuckles, no-holds-barred, playing for keeps -- however you describe it, the Clinton campaign is not only not going easy on Obama, they're doing so in awfully familiar ways. So many of the ingredients of a typical GOP campaign are there, in addition to fear. We have the efforts to make it harder for the opponent’s voters to get to the polls (the Nevada lawsuit seeking to shut down at-large caucus sites in Las Vegas, to which the Clinton campaign gave its tacit support). We have, depending on how you interpret the events of the last couple of weeks, the exploitation of racial divisions and suspicions (including multiple Clinton surrogates criticizing Obama for his admitted teenage drug use). And most of all, we have an utterly shameless dishonesty.""

Vanity Fair's Bruce Feirstein has had just about enough of Bill Clinton: "Clinton’s response offered an unusual lens into the powder-keg that is our former commander-in-chief: Starting with an almost jocular dismissal of the accusation, he then proceeded to wind himself up into a finger-pointing fury, attacking Barack Obama, painting himself as the victim, and generally blaming the press for everything, before walking away with the taunt, 'Shame on you.' It was not, well, presidential."

It's getting hard to keep up with the Clinton outrages these days. (I'll leave Bill Clinton deciding to praise Obama as 'articulate' alone for now, as -- perhaps -- that was just a poor choice of words.) As telegraphed by their moves after Michigan, the Clinton campaign is now explicitly trying to change the rules and get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated (a move which has brought Bill Nelson into the Clinton camp.) Says TPM's Josh Marshall: "[Y]ou don't change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama." Adds the Prospect's Ezra Klein: "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart."

"Obama represents an opportunity for a Democratic nominee who represents the value of service, intelligence, and judgment, and, most of all, an opportunity for real change, unburdened by favors owed and ideals lost. He deserves your vote." The Harvard Crimson endorses Barack Obama -- on the issues.

"If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes -- it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -- Bill Clinton, 10/26/04

"[B]eing an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top. Things have been said about Barack Obama's positions that are just plain untrue. It was said in Nevada, it's been said about Social Security, it's been said about Yucca Mountain, and it's been said in South Carolina. I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that."

John Kerry calls out Bill Clinton to the National Journal, and lays into the experience canard. "We made some tough decisions [in the '90's] and we ought to be proud of them, about the budget and the deficit. But the fact is, that was not Hillary Clinton making those decisions. It was a different team, at a different time. In fact, Barack Obama has more legislative experience than either of his two opponents."

While the NYT, in venerable (and dismaying) establishment form, swung behind Senator Clinton (and John McCain) -- despite contradicting their 2006 endorsement -- this morning, others in the commentariat are not so sanguine about the prospect of a Clinton restoration:

"Obama's best hope is that Democratic voters aren't as dumb as Hillary and Bill Clinton think they are." Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decries the Clintons' cynical strategy of misinformation. "Obama is stronger among well-educated Democrats, according to polls. So the Clintons figure that maybe their base among less educated white Democrats might be receptive to an argument that assumes they're dumb. Less well-educated equals gullible in the face of bogus attack ads. That's the logic, and the Clintons are testing it in South Carolina before trying it in Super Tuesday states. They are also road-testing major distortions of Obama's positions on abortion, Social Security and the minimum wage."

USA Today experiences Clinton fatigue. "[H]is famous lack of discipline, angry outbursts on the campaign trail and habit of drawing attention to himself all suggest that voters have every right to wonder how this would actually work."

But the NYT's Matthew Continetti senses a pattern, and calls shenanigans on red-faced Bill's recent (and conveniently timed) public screeds. "It’s been said that Mr. Clinton’s recent feistiness has revealed a side of him previously unknown to most Americans. But this is incorrect: he is rather a master of what one might call 'strategic emotion,' the use of tears or anger to comfort voters or intimidate the press."

Claiming "'if Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander,' E.J. Dionne remembers when Clinton loved Reagan. "His apostasy was widely noticed. The Memphis Commercial Appeal praised Clinton two days later for daring to 'set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan.' Clinton's 'readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia and admit it,' the paper wrote, 'is one reason he's a candidate to watch.'"

And, despite having written Primary Colors, TIME's Joe Klein just can't wrap his mind around it all: "Let me get this straight: Obama wins Iowa. In a desperate move -- unprecedented for an ex-President in American politics -- Bill Clinton decides to impede Obama's momentum by inserting himself into the campaign. He attacks Obama on an almost daily basis, sometimes falsely. He makes a spectacle of himself. And then he blames the press for not covering the substance of the campaign?"

Update: Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has had enough: "I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a 'fairy tale') or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it...we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics."

"Employing innuendo and half-truths against Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former President, have introduced the politics of personal destruction to the Democratic presidential campaign. They bear responsibility for cheapening the tone of the contest." Another NYC newspaper gets into the mix: The NY Daily News asks the Clintons to cool it. "She is indulging in the partisan-style politics that Americans are desperate to leave behind and certainly don't want in a President. And she is either giving free rein to, or failing to control, her husband. Neither possibility bodes well."

"It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn. And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world."

An endorsement closer to home: The New York Observer endorses Barack Obama for president. "[W]hen George W. Bush was driving a bleary, shocked nation into war with bait-and-switch deceptions in 2003, where was our experienced leadership? Meanwhile, in the west, an Illinois state senator -- who has since served three years in the Senate, the same Congressional period that a fellow Midwesterner, Abraham Lincoln, had served when he sought the presidency -- rose to exhibit courage and public judgment on that deceptive adventure, stating, 'I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.'...His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America. Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York’s Democrats should embrace him."

"I understand that most viewers want to know, how am I going to get helped in terms of paying my health care? How am I going to get help being able to go to college? All those things are important. But what's also important that people are not just willing to say anything to get elected. And that's what I have tried to do in this campaign, is try to maintain a certain credibility.I don't mind having policy debates with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards. But what I don't enjoy is spending the week or two weeks or the last month having to answer to these kinds of criticisms that are not factually accurate."

The faux bonhomie of Nevada's roundtable well behind them, the Democratic candidates started throwing haymakers in tonight's lively South Carolina debate. [Transcript.] Unlike the last two meetings, I'm not going spend a lot of time on a full-fledged summary, since -- when it gets this heated onstage -- I don't think it's particularly useful. Judging from the comment threads at the various political sites, people will see what they want to see. Clinton supporters are coming out of the woodwork to say she won the night. Well, that was definitely not my impression.

For my part, I was glad to see Barack Obama strongly counter Clinton's continued distortions in the first hour, and finally push back on Clinton's dubious "35 years of change" line (including, as it does, twelve years at the Rose Law Firm, which has been billed as Arkansas' "ultimate establishment law firm.") And he did a great job in the seated second hour of reasserting his positives -- the funny and gracious "first black president" answer, for example -- while staying on message.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was at her evasive, misleading, Rovian worst. She did ok on the first question, about the economic stimulus package, but went rapidly downhill thereafter. Rather than running on her own record, She repeated her distortions about Reagan. She repeated her husband's distortions about Obama's stance on Iraq. She tried (and failed) to turn Obama's present votes in the Illinois Senate into a vote for sexual abuse. And she like her husband -- basically accused Obama (wrongly) of being Clintonian. ("[I]t is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.")

Clinton also tried to inject the Rezko story into the debate. For those not following, Tony Rezko is a clearly shady Chicago businessmen with whom Obama had dealings with as a state legislator, and an iffy-looking land deal thereafter. An error in judgment, to be sure, and one he's apologized for (even though it looks like there's no there there.) Now it's a fair thing to bring up, as Obama himself admitted. But,to be honest, Rezko is really not a road Hillary Clinton wants to go down. For one, you'd think the Clintons -- of all people -- would try to avoid insinuating corruption-by-association when it comes to land deals. For another, do Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, and Johnny Chung ring a bell? Shady operators in the margins are and have been the Clintons' forte.

But I digress. Once the fur started to fly, John Edwards got plugged into the "above the fray" role by default, which may have helped him out among undecideds, I guess. Still, I was glad to see he directed attacks at both Obama and Clinton as he felt warranted, which should prevent another embarrassing post-debate spin along the lines of "the men were picking on me." But you never know. After all the outrageous displays of intellectual dishonesty from the Clinton camp, both tonight and over the past few weeks, I'd put nothing past them at this point.

CNN projects that Hillary Clinton has won the Nevada caucus. (At 90% and counting, we're at Clinton 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%(!))

Sigh. Well, to be honest, I don't feel all that bad about this loss. I mean, Nevada would have been a great pick-up for Obama, but if he wins my home state of South Carolina next weekend -- which is favorable terrain -- we're still going into February 5 with a 2-2 split. And given that things seem to have been shaking this way in past days, I'm heartened to see Obama managed to keep it relatively close against Clinton. Besides, while Senator Obama was apparently a star in Reno (Obama 46% -- Clinton 31%), he lost big in heavily-populated Clark County (Clinton 55% -- Obama 35%), which is usually most people's experience in Vegas. So be it.

The biggest surprise here, frankly, is the Edwards collapse. Less than 5%? Still, I wouldn't expect him to make any big moves until after South Carolina, if at all.

Looking at the CNN entrance poll numbers, the demographic breakdown remains very troubling. For one, the gender gap continues (Women: Clinton 52%, Obama 35%; White Women: Clinton 57%, Obama 28%.) For another, it looks like the Clinton-Obama generation gap has grown even worse. Note these dismaying stats:

Voters 18-29: Obama 57%, Clinton 30%
Voters 30-44: Obama 42%, Clinton 37%
Voters 45-59: Clinton 46%, Obama 39%
Voters 60+: Clinton 61%, Obama 28%

Voters under 45: Obama 48%, Clinton 34%
Voters over 45: Clinton 54%, Obama 33%

The affiliations:

Democrats: Clinton 51%, Obama 36%
Independents: Obama 46%, Clinton 35%

And then you get the race breakdown:

Whites: Clinton 52%, Obama 31%
African Americans: Obama 79%, Clinton 16%
Hispanics: Clinton 64%, Obama 23%

So -- right now -- it looks to be young people, independents, and African-Americans for Obama, with old people, Latinos, and white women for Clinton. Perhaps most notably, voters under 30 are breaking 2-1 for Obama, while voters over 60 are breaking 2-1 for Clinton. If that dynamic holds, it obviously favors Clinton in this primary season. (Although, if and when those young voters justifiably decide to turn against the process and stay home should Clinton win, given her campaign's scummy tactics, it's all around bad for the Democrats.)

Speaking of which, whatever the demographic breakdown, I have to think the Clinton campaign's lowball maneuvering will redound badly against them as we move forward. Even notwithstanding last weeks' race card wallowing and Giuliani-ish grandstanding, we now have attempts at voter suppression, more false mailers, blatant lying about Obama's record, Yucca and otherwise, union-busting rhetoric, and even anti-Obama robo-calls. If we Dems aren't going to take a stand against this sort of Rovian garbage within our own party, then we've absolutely no business bitching about similar behavior by the GOP.

On to South Carolina.

Update: Hmm, well that's interesting. After all is said and done, it seems Barack Obama actually won the Nevada delegate count, 13-12. "The math turns out to be a bit confusing, but the shorthand is this: The more populous Clark County, which Clinton won, awarded a even number of delegates, and Clinton and Obama split those down the middle. Meanwhile, the more rural areas, which Obama won, awarded an odd number of delegates, which gave Obama the edge. 'We showed real strength statewide,' campaign manager David Plouffe said in the call." Well, ok then. That's a nice gift, but the demographic concerns remain.

Update 2: How bad was the situation on the ground? Bad enough that Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is going on the record about it. At this point, widespread malfeasance by the Clinton campaign sounds eminently plausible.(And what the heck was Bill doing?)

"Let the argument about the viability and practicality of Obama's major message go forward. But as it does, even his critics need to acknowledge that he is not a weird historical aberration. His message has roots in our deepest political traditions. Indeed, it is in accord with the most heartfelt and cherished version of our original intentions as a people and a nation." In the LA Times, historian Joseph Ellis (of American Sphinx, Founding Brothers, and His Excellency) argues Obama's public interest message has roots in the writings of the Founders. "There are several passages in Obama's memoir, 'The Audacity of Hope,' that suggest a familiarity with the founders' legacy. He recalls teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago and always going back to 'the founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution,' which provide 'the record of the founders' intentions' and 'the core ideals that motivated their work.'"

"Of course, Hillary and Bill aren't suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn't. That's the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want." Ronald Cass examines the new tactic the Clintons have taken to in Nevada: union-busting. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton remains on a roll, and argues he and Chelsea personally witnessed voter intimidation at a Las Vegas casino, claims that would appear to be "technically impossible."

Did I mention it's been 10 years since Monicagate? (I wouldn't expect a 10th-anniversary edition of And the Horse He Rode in On.)

If you haven't been following the recent flap about Ronald Reagan among the Democrats, I've been covering it in the comment thread here. Basically, the point Obama was making to the Reno Gazette-Journal, which Clinton and Edwards have both since jumped on, is this: For all his lousy policies -- and Obama has said before they were lousy -- Ronald Reagan was without a doubt a paradigm-changing candidate in 1980. In that election, he encouraged many "Reagan Democrats" to switch parties to back his candidacy, thus forging a new coalition which enabled right-wingers not only to win most presidential elections since but to pass legislation that is more conservative than the mainstream. Bill Clinton's election in 1992, on the other hand, was not paradigm-changing. He won a plurality of votes in a three-way race and, by 1994, was already on the defensive again.

So, in 2008, the Democrats can back a possible paradigm-changer such as Barack Obama, a candidate with considerable independent and crossover appeal who might well be able to forge a new progressive governing coalition (as Reagan did for the Right.) Or we can back a polarizing figure such as Senator Clinton, one whom almost half the country is already dead set against and who rests her appeal on repeating the same cautious, poll-tested GOP-lite centrism we had under eight years of her husband...assuming, of course, she can eke out a victory over John McCain or his ilk anyway. (And there's John Edwards too, of course: While that's definitely more of an open question, I made my Obama-over-Edwards case here.)

As I said in the comment thread linked above, when it comes to a choice between Clinton or Obama, it would seem a no-brainer, particularly when you factor in her campaign's tactics of late.

Update: To help put the Clintons' attacks today in perspective, a December 22 press release from Hillary Clinton lists Reagan among her "favorite presidents." Oops.

Word comes down that District Court Judge James Mahan has rejected Clinton supporters' late-entry lawsuit against the casino caucus plan decided last March. (By the way, for non RSS-readers, I updated down here about yet another angry outburst of misinformation by former President Clinton. The video of his latest sad rant is here, and the reason why it's obviously deceptive malarkey is explained here.)

"'We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world – and actually reintroduce America to ourselves. Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again." Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont endorses Barack Obama. "Leahy likened his support of Obama to the 1968 presidential campaign, when as a young prosecutor he endorsed Robert Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. 'He was bringing us a sense of hope, bringing us together,' Leahy said. 'I know those are intangibles, but it encouraged me to go against the establishment in my own state, and go with Bobby Kennedy.'"

And another potentially big Obama endorsement from yesterday: Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles Federation of Labor. One expert said of Durazo: "There is no person in all of California who could get more people out to the street to go do something, either to march or get the vote out." "When she discussed her endorsement with her son Michael, a senior at Cathedral High School in Los Angeles, he urged her to choose Obama. 'He said, "In the end, Mom, it's the chance of a lifetime." For him to say that means a lot. It's true.'"

Another state, another patently false mailer. According to TPM's Greg Sargent, the Clinton campaign has now blanketed Nevada with the negative mailer above, one which (once again) falsely distorts Senator Obama's record. It reads: "Nevada families need to keep more of their hard-earned dollars not less...we need a president that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn."

It then goes on to read: "Barack Obama. A plan with a trillion-dollar tax increase on America's hard-working families. Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families' hard-earned dollars to Washington. Senator Obama said "I think that lifting the cap [on Social Security taxes] is probably going to be the best option."

So, what's the problem here? Mainly this: Only somebody who hangs out with the monied likes of Robert Johnson all day could honestly think Senator Obama's plan involves a tax increase for "hard-working families." Let's let Senator Obama explain it:

"Now there's one more way of solving the problem. And that is raising the cap on the payroll tax. Now what that means is, currently, you only pay Social Security on the first $97,000 of income. Now it turns out that here in Nevada, 97% of the people in Nevada make $97,000 a year or less. So essentially, everybody except 3% -- if this was a random sample of Nevada, there are only about 3% of you who make more than that, everybody else, you gotta pay payroll tax on 100% of your income. Now, what I've said is that what we should do is we should adjust the cap, so that billionaires like Warren Buffett are paying more, because right now they're paying a fraction of 1% of their income to payroll tax. And my answer is, that's not fair. Why would we have the wealthiest Americans pay such a smaller percentage of the payroll tax when everyone else is paying basically 100%? So I propose raising the cap. We might exempt middle class folks for maybe $97,000 for up to $200,000; there might be some exemptions, but those people are making over $200, $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more on payroll tax. So this is what I propose, this is what Senator Clinton is calling a trillion-dollar tax cut on hard-working Americans."

So, which is it, then? Does Senator Clinton think the top 3% of Nevadans represents the "hard-working families" of the middle-class, or is this another blatant attempt at misinformation disguised to confuse voters about Obama's real record? If I had to guess, I'm thinking this is the latter, and it's another disgusting, GOP-worthy lowball.

Despite the best efforts of Tim Russert, who asked rinky-dink meta-questions about the past week for most of the first segment, the Democratic debate in Los Vegas was a pause for breath tonight, with Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all going out of their way to dial back the heat and try to bridge the identity politics chasms that have yawned open of late. As such, with all three candidates on their best behavior and looking to avoid direct confrontations that might get nasty, it was the type of debate that made the party and all three contenders look good, but also probably didn't change very many votes.

From where I sat -- and this will surprise exactly no one -- I thought Barack Obama came off the best of the three. He seemed gracious in his call to move past last week's racial firestorm and deflected the -- many -- attempts by Russert to re-inject race into the debate. He offered the only funny moments of the evening (Brian Williams thinking he was in LA notwithstanding) and seemed convincing and natural. And, perhaps most importantly, he displayed a command of policy specifics and a capacity for nuance, which once again belies the argument that he's just a oratorical Hope machine. He seemed, in a word, presidential. (Although I do wish, when asked when he'd first decided to run for president, he'd simply said "kindergarten.")

John Edwards was as good and on-message as always, but it didn't seem like he managed to do anything tonight that would be a game-changer. (Then again, in an atmosphere of such explicit convivality as tonight, Edwards' central message -- I will fight for you! -- didn't have much of a chance to gain traction anyway. That being said, he did manage to trump Clinton's dubious "35 years of experience" claim by announcing that "for 54 years I've been fighting with every fiber of my being." 54 years of fighting? Hey, let's not forget those nine months in the womb, there.) Edwards also brought up one of the first campaign finance questions we've heard in awhile -- one in which Obama announced he'd ultimately be for public financing, which made me happy -- but due to the moderators not seeming to understand their own rules, it never got around to Senator Clinton, where it was likely -- and should have been -- directed.

Hillary Clinton came across better tonight than she did in New Hampshire, and, to her credit, she also did her part to uphold the truce (at least in public.) But -- again, not a shocker here -- I still found her dismayingly evasive on several questions: on Robert Johnson (do you believe his ridiculous clarification or do you think his comments were "out of bounds"?), on whether her opponents were qualified (she couldn't just say yes?), on the bankruptcy bill (you voted for it in 2001 but was glad it didn't pass?), and of course, on the politics of fear question, to take a few examples. But, as always, she had done her homework, she smartly went after Dubya a few times, and she had the talking points ready to attack on the Yucca Mountain question. (Without meaning to dismiss the important issue at hand, it's safe to say "Yucca" is apparently Nevadan for "ethanol.")

So, at any rate, I'd say Obama came off the best tonight, but Edwards and Clinton were both solid as well. (And I would presume supporters of the other two candidates would say the same, with perhaps the names rearranged.) More than anything, tonight was a chance for tempers to cool and for the party to show it was ready -- despite the best efforts of Mr. Russert -- to discuss matters of substance again. Still, with Nevada this Saturday and South Carolina right around the corner, I wouldn't expect the next debate to be so congenial.

Sigh...what manner of shadiness is this? As with the Nevada caucus lawsuit, it now seems Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign is threatening to change the rules in Michigan. Last September, when Michigan and Florida tried to jump the gun on their primary process, all major candidates -- including Clinton -- pledged not to campaign there, and the DNC later stripped both states of their delegates. In accordance with the pledge, Barack Obama and John Edwards removed their names from the ballot (as did Joe Biden and Bill Richardson)...but Hillary Clinton did not. And so, today Michigan voters had the chance to vote Clinton or "Uncommitted" in a theoretically meaningless primary.

But now Senator Clinton seems to be looking to alter the deal. (Pray she doesn't alter it any further.) From Salon's Tim Grieve: The Clinton camp now "seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all. 'The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important...Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states.'" Once again, when in doubt, change the rules. One hopes the DNC stands firm on this issue, or this convention could get nasty.

Update: Speaking of the Nevada caucus lawsuit, President Clinton embarrasses himself further by vocally backing the attempt to remove casino caucus areas. Said the president: "Why 'make a special rule only for these workers. For the rest of you other workers, tough luck. I think the rules ought to be the same for everyone,' he said." I repeat: "Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details." Where was this outrage in the many months before the Culinary Union's endorsement of Obama? Unbelievable. Update 2: Clinton also referred to Obama as the "establishment" candidate (in this union case) who'd only provide the "feeling of change." Sigh...I'm getting the feeling of more of the same.

Update 3: Some angry teachers respond to the suit filed by their union: "These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year...This lawsuit is all about politics...[T]hey’re using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama." Meanwhile, the DNC files a motion to intervene on behalf of the State Party (i.e. against the suit), and Sen. Reid remains conspicuously silent. Update 4: Bill Clinton angrily backs the suit again...while offering misleading statements about it. (The problem with the "five times"...uh, obfuscation...is explained here.)

"Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.)"

So...now that we've (hopefully) stepped back from the abyss of identity politics, where does that leave us? Ah, yes, hope vs. experience. Well, drawing on this NYT story of several weeks ago, Slate's Tim Noah argues that Clinton's claims of superior experience just don't hold up, and particularly once you factor in John McCain. "Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience...But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer." Update: Speaking of Dennis Kucinich, he's back in tomorrow's Nevada debate. Update 2: Nope, he's out again, by decision of the Nevada Supreme Court.

Saying he was "concerned about the tenor of the race in these past few days," Senator Barack Obama moves to quell some of the arguing over identity politics this past week.

Concerning Sen. Clinton's LBJ history lesson: "'I don't think it was in any way a racial comment,' Obama told ABC News. 'That's something that has played out in the press. That's not my view.' But, he said, the comment was revealing about her political character. 'I do think it was indicative of the perspective that she brings, which is that what happens in Washington is more important than what happens outside of Washington,' he said. He said he believes the quote betrays a belief on her part, 'that the intricacies of the legislative process were somehow more significant than when ordinary people rise up and march and go to jail and fight for justice.' He called that a 'fundamental difference' between them."

Concerning Bill Clinton's fairy tale: "[A]gain, Obama looked past the racial controversy. Instead, Obama directed his response to the dispute over whether opposition to the Iraq War was consistent. (Clinton has since reiterated that is what he meant when he invoked the 'fairy tale' line.) 'Both he and Sen. Clinton have been spending a lot of time over the past month trying to run down my record,' Obama said. 'What particularly distresses me is this notion that I wasn't against the war from the start. This is coming from a former president who suggests that he was and nobody can find any record of it,' he said."

A great, classy response. The Clinton strategy only really works if you play along. As my old employer, James Carville, was wont to put it, "Don't waste your time wrestling with a pig. You just dirty, and the pig loves it." (And, just to avoid confusion and just as McCain with Romney, I'm not calling the Clintons porcine, even if they have engaged in some swinish political tactics of late. It's a figure of speech.)

Update: Senator Obama continues in the same vein at a press conference this evening. Speaking of a possible Bradley effect in New Hampshire, Senator Obama said: "I don't think that's what was going on...as I understand it, basically there was a big shift in undecided's going towards Sen Clinton, particularly among women in the last minute. And keep in mind there was a big gap, a gender gap that cut both ways -- I won among men and she won among women -- there were more men than women who voted. If it had been a racial issue, there's no reason why that would have been something that was unique to women as opposed to men, so I don't' think that is the case."

Update 2: Speaking yet again of Clinton's "fairy tale" rant, it seems another -- substantive -- deception has emerged from Clinton's remarks (and Hillary's statement on MtP.) Did you notice how they both keep mentioning anti-war opponent Chuck Hagel? "[T]he talking point appears to misconstrue the facts."

Update 3: Sen. Clinton seconds the call for truce, although she then somehow failed to get word to Charlie Rangel.

In the Washington Post, Rutgers historian David Greenberg calls Barack Obama the "great white hope", and argues that his broad-based appeal amounts to little more than "a fantasy of easy redemption...Inspiring and exhilarating as it is, Obamamania allows us to sidestep the hardest challenges, at least for now." Now, Greenberg is a friend and colleague with whom I've disagreed in the past. Still, with all due respect, this is about as wrong as I've ever seen him, and, by putting so much argumentative emphasis on race, this article veers dangerously close to being the historian's version of the "imaginary hip black friend" argument of earlier in the week. My quick response, originally posted over at Cliopatria, is below.

The problem for me with Greenberg's piece is that he too readily dismisses the ideological appeal of Obama's candidacy in one sentence. "On the contrary, Obama's ideology, insofar as he has articulated it, seems to be a familiar, mainstream liberalism, heavy on communitarianism. High-minded and process-oriented, in the Mugwump tradition that runs from Adlai Stevenson to Bill Bradley, it is pitched less to the Democratic Party's working-class base than to upscale professionals." I consider Greenberg a friend and an excellent historian, but as I've written before, I disagree with him fundamentally on this point. Obama's language of civic-minded progressivism cannot be dismissed so readily. It's a huge part of his appeal, bigger -- to my mind -- than the simple fact of his race. And by sloughing off Obama's ideological appeal so quickly, Greenberg is then forced to overstate significantly the racial nature of Obama's candidacy, and make extremely dubious claims about we Obama supporters looking for "easy redemption." Also, I'm by no means a reflexive Clinton-hater, although I do feel the past week in American politics has tarnished their legacy considerably. Still, I would not concur with Greenberg that Clinton managed to "formulate a viable and vital new liberalism." The restoration of fiscal sanity in 1993 notwithstanding, by the middle of his first term, Clinton liberalism was in full rout, and it pretty much has been ever since. The remaining six Clinton years were spent mainly just triangulating madly to stay afloat. Putting race aside -- if we can still manage to do that after the past few days -- Obama's rhetoric calls for a repairing of the civic fabric and a progressive-minded style of governance that dreams big. And that -- not easy fantasies of racial reconciliation -- is what people are responding to. Without vision, the people perish...and, frankly, school uniforms and V-chips just aren't going to cut it anymore.

Update: See also TNR's Noam Scheiber.

"If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further...I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed with either the Democratic Candidates task or the Republican Candidates task." As the 2008 Democratic primary season degenerates into a Clintonian morass of identity politics and invective, now seems as good a time as any to test your own internal bias with an Implicit Association Test. (For more info, Slate's Jay Dixit covered the test and it social implications a few years ago.)

As for me, I took it three times. At first, my reptile-brain displayed a bias for Hillary Clinton, with Barack Obama and John Edwards exactly tied below her, and Bill Richardson lagging considerably behind. (My apologies, Governor Richardson. I think it might be because you look older than the rest of the candidates. At least, I hope that's the reason.) The second time I took it involved just the candidate's names, and it was completely inconclusive -- all four were tied exactly in the center of the chart. The third time -- perhaps because I was growing more used to the interface -- Barack Obama was up high, followed by Edwards, followed by Clinton followed by RIchardson.

"'As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign,' said Edwards. He then added, with a laugh: 'Some days I wish he was having a little less success." In South Carolina, John Edwards gives his take on recent events. ""I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that...Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale."

"'It is a direct lie and distortion of the facts of his "choice" record and I believe it did a lot of damage,' said Moore. 'The women are all very prominent Democrats, many of them in leadership, and it is sickening.'" When you engage in lowball tactics, there's going to be some serious wreckage. The WP's Alec MacGillis describes the emerging Democratic divide in New Hampshire between furious Obama voters and the cadre of pro-Clinton officials who signed off on the patently false abortion mailer. "Obama supporter Bill Siroty, a former Democratic chair for the town of Amherst, said the ill will is running so high that it could keep Democrats in the state who supported Obama from rallying behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she win the nomination. In 2000, bad feelings that lingered among some Bill Bradley supporters about tactics used by Al Gore in the primary - including misleading charges about Bradley's health care plan - were seen as one reason why Gore lost the state to George W. Bush in November...'People are very upset about it,' said Siroty. 'I've heard one or two threaten they're not going to vote for Clinton at all. Tensions are very high, and it could cause a rift.'"

The article is also worth reading for its delineation of a successful (and shady) attempt by the Clinton campaign to disrupt Obama's Get out the Vote operation. "Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls...The Obama campaign countered that that law applied only to monitors who are at the polls to challenge potentially invalid voters, a practice that is usually limited to general elections and which their volunteers were not engaged in. The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn't get in the way...The disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting...The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation,' said Edwards. 'My effectiveness that day [in checking off names] was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in' to protest the observers."

The Clinton camp response to these incidents? Suck it up. "Bette Lasky, the assistant House majority leader and a top Clinton supporter who was involved in both the e-mail and poll interventions, said she was sorry to hear about the bad feelings but hoped Obama supporters would get over it. 'It's politics, and it happens,' she said." In other words, we can keep doing what we want because Dems will be forced to return to the fold. Didn't these people learn anything from 2000?

Update: "[F]or Clinton to do this to the choice community is so appalling. I can't tell you how it distresses me...how devastating this and how horrified I am that the Clinton campaign would do this. I fear it will happen elsewhere and it's just appalling." The abortion mailer controversy simmers in New Hampshire.

When in doubt, disenfranchise. You may have heard Senator Clinton say this the other day about caucuses: "'You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard,' Clinton (D-N.Y.) said. 'That is troubling to me. You know, in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they're disenfranchised." (She said something similar after losing Iowa.) Well, it turns out now her team is trying to speed along the disenfranchising: A Clinton-supporting teachers' union is now attempting to prevent caucusing on the Las Vegas strip, so as to undercut the ability of culinary workers (whose union backed Obama) to caucus on Jan. 19. "The complaint, with the state teachers union and some party activists as plaintiffs, came as Obama accepted the endorsement of the Culinary Union." As -- not before. When the Culinary Union endorsement was up for grabs, nary a peep was heard from the Clinton folk. (By way of The Daily Dish.)

Update: The WP has more: "The state party quickly dismissed the lawsuit. Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details. 'This is a fair, legal and proper way to choose delegates under established law and legal precedent that has been reviewed by attorneys....The time for comment or complaint has passed,' the party said in a statement." [My emphasis.]

"Edwards is someone who never stops thinking about strategy -- and he has a remarkable ability to step out of the moment and analyze the state of play with a clear eye. That tells me he is thinking about what happens after South Carolina. If he concludes he cannot be the nominee, what will he conclude about the role he wants to play -- if any -- to influence the eventual outcome?" For all the political coverage of Senators Obama and Clinton here as everywhere, the WP's Dan Balz reminds us, there's still one, even election-deciding wild card that's being mostly overlooked: John Edwards. "In a largely two-person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's clear where Edwards's sentiments lie. If he can't be the nominee, he strongly prefers Obama to Clinton." I believe that too, and on its face one would think a lot of Edwards voters would be more sympathetic to Obama as well. But that might very well be mistaken: Some analyses of the New Hampshire vote have Edwards' attrition in support, particularly among women, putting Clinton over the top there. It's not a given by any means that Edwards voters would next vote Obama.

At any rate, I agree with Balz that Edwards will see how he does in South Carolina, virtually his home state (next to NC, where he's now polling third), before making any decisions. And regardless, whatever Edwards may decide, I'm not going to begrudge him his staying in the race for as long as he wants, even if he stays until the convention and even if he costs Obama in the end. He's a good candidate with a stirring populist message, he has stayed above the board in his campaign strategy, and, in any case, nobody should tell him he needs to get out of the race if he doesn't so desire. His votes and his supporters are his own.

"Since the birth of our nation change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is not defined by time in Washington and years in office. It is defined by wisdom and instinct and vision...The only charge that rings false is the one that tells you not to hope for a better America. Don't let anyone tell you to accept the downsizing of the American dream." Barack Obama picks up a few more endorsements in Sen. John Kerry (and more importantly, his voter list and organization), South Dakota Senators Tim Johnson and Tom Daschle, and Congressman George Miller (which some see as a nod from Speaker Pelosi, although Pelosi clarified again today that she plans not to endorse anyone.) In the meantime, while a new poll has Obama up 12 in South Carolina (not that polls mean much anymore, of course), South Carolina's leading Democrat (and my old congressman) Jim Clyburn still hasn't officially picked his candidate. "Clyburn, continuing to be coy about his endorsement, often tells reporters that he’s made up his mind, but never offers a name. Most signs, though, point to Obama."

Update: "To call that dream [of an Obama presidency] a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us." No official word yet, but Clyburn suggests again he's leaning Obama now, in part because of the Clintons' dismaying behavior in New Hampshire. Speaking of Senator Clinton's enthronement of LBJ as the civil rights ideal: "'We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics,' said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days. 'It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.'"

Update 2: I posted more about Clyburn's remarks -- and Clinton's view of history -- here.

"'It is clear from the overwhelming participation in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary that Americans are ready for change. We believe that Obama is the candidate who can bring the country together and we are proud to support his candidacy.'" And we're off again: Senator Obama picks up 2 key endorsements in the Nevada SEIU and the Culinary Workers Union. "The backing of the 60,000-member union [CWU] is seen as important because the state's Democratic Party is only expecting 40,000 Democrats to participate in the caucuses." Hmm. At this point, I'd probably expect a higher turnout. In the meantime, Bill Richardson -- who pulled 5% in New Hampshire and gave every indication in last night's speech that he was staying in, has instead decided to bow out. So that should also free up some Nevada votes.

So, the debates.

Of course, every big show has an opening act, and the undercard tonight was the Republicans. I realize I've been slipping on the GOP coverage around these parts of late, and I apologize...I promise to catch up once the Dem side quiets down (As a show of good faith: hey, look! Romney won Cheney country.) Still, part of the reason I've been losing interest in the GOP's internecine disputes this cycle is because -- even notwithstanding the moldering albatross that is Dubya -- their candidates are all so lousy, and everyone knows it. (The Iowa attendance numbers, where the Dems outnumbered Republicans 2-1, tell most of the story.) Still, my main impressions of the GOP side tonight were thus:

Nobody likes Mitt Romney. At various points Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani were all cracking wise about his flip-flopping and such, and he's not even the frontrunner anymore. (McCain's up six.) I guess the rationale is a poor Romney showing in New Hampshire might knock him out early. That, and he's been throwing his money around in negative ads. Either way, Romney was the primary punching bag for the majority of the debate.

Fred Thompson seemed older, more slothful, and less presidential than I remember him. His lazy contributions basically involved making fun of Ron Paul every so often. No wonder he hasn't been catching fire.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he had the gleam of a true believer about him (the vaguely Gandalfian looks help), and it'd have been nice to see his brand of old-school, Robert Taft conservatism get a fairer hearing from his opponents, just so its more frightening aspects could be exposed. (Paul's libertarianism sounds refreshingly anti-imperialistic on the foreign policy side. But on the domestic front, it'd mean the Gilded Age all over again.) Still, I can see why he's drawing so many disgruntled young Republicans to his standard. And at least he's trafficking in the realm of ideas.

Perhaps the trail is getting to him, but John McCain seemed like he was on autopilot all night. Still, as George Stephanopoulos noted in the post-game, he spent the night touting his conservative bona fides rather than his maverick cred, which will hopefully pay dividends for Obama among undecided independents.

Rudy Giuliani stayed in typical 9/11 9/11 9/11 form, with the aid of Ron Paul's speaking of uncomfortable truths about our overseas involvements. Still, it seemed clear he's just biding his time until Florida. He barely went after frontrunner (and his most obvious rival) John McCain at all.

I actually thought Mike Huckabee displayed some impressive kung-fu, for the most part. I still think he's fundamentally unelectable (From his son's Frist-like murdering of a stray dog to the horrible Wayne Dumond case to the AIDS quarantines, Gov. Huckaboom's closet has more skeletons than Undercity.) Still, given his evangelical backing, his aw shucks delivery, and his wilier-than-you'd-first-expect responses, I could see him causing serious problems for his GOP competitors, and he gave the best answer to WMUR announcer Scott Spradling's Obama question.

Speaking of which -- yes, in case you missed it, the Republican field was asked how they'd run against Senator Obama should he be the Democratic nominee. (Remember the earlier claims that Clinton was being treated unfairly in the Russert debate? Well, Obama got the exact same frontrunner treatment from Gibson and Spradling tonight in both debates, and, by and large, he handled it fine.) Anyway, in case you're wondering, Huckabee and Paul praised the Obama phenomenon, Romney tried to claim the mantle of change for himself, McCain touted his own experience, Thompson muttered some stale two-decade old tripe about "liberals," and Giuliani brought up...wait for it, wait for it...national security. (Obama's later response to all this: "I was going back and forth between the Republicans and football...[But] you know, we've seen this movie before. We know the Republican playbook.") The point being, none of these guys seemed to have anything close to an answer yet for the Obama phenomenon. (All they wanted to do was voice their tried-and-tested soundbites about Hillarycare.) Which brings us to:

The Democrats. First off, I should say -- and I'm sure it's obvious by now anyway, judging by the content here the past few days -- that I watched the debate not only as an Obama partisan but as someone profoundly irritated by Sen. Clinton for her lowball maneuvers of recent days. So, grab that shaker of salt and let's proceed...

I thought Barack Obama did a solid job overall, and was strongest in the first half of the debate. He seemed knowledgable, thoughtful, decisive, and, most importantly, electable. He showed an ability to discuss specifics about the issues on the table, kept his larger narrative about hope and change intact, and made no serious blunders that would impede his post-Iowa momentum, which is all he really had to do. Obama scored his best response to Senator Clinton's blunderbuss offense early on, when he calmly explained the differences between their two health plans and put the lie to her flip-flopping charges coolly and succinctly. For the most part, though, and as the evening progressed, he exercised his frontrunner privilege and stayed above the fray. Of course, he was aided in this strategy by... (Cue "Aunt Jackie": "If that's your man, then tag him in....")

John Edwards, who performed just as well as he usually does. Clearly, the Edwards team made the tactical decision to try and knock out Clinton now and get it to a race between he and Obama. Thus: "'Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. He [Obama] believes deeply in change, and I believe deeply in change. And any time you’re fighting for that, I mean, I didn’t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead.'" (The NYT is casting this as "Two Rivals Go After Defiant Clinton," but that's not in fact correct. Clinton went after Obama, expecting help from Edwards, who instead returned fire at Clinton. At that point, Clinton boiled over and Obama -- recognizing Edwards would be an ally for the night rather than an adversary -- magnanimously withdrew from the field. He didn't "go after" anybody, and, as the frontrunner, why should he?)

At any rate, Edwards' decision to go after Clinton rather than Obama may seem like "ganging up," but I can see the sense of it. For one, it's clear to all now that Obama's tapped in to a yearning for change that transcends the usual political categories, and, Edwards has decided he might be able to win the populism versus progressivism discussion between two "change" candidates if Clinton's out of the picture. (It'd be a fascinating debate.) For another, I've been reading a lot of online coverage about the election post-Iowa, and it seems pretty clear that Edwards supporters are livid that he's still considered the forgotten man in the race. Given that he bested Clinton in Iowa and is still being treated as an also-ran, he has a legitimate axe to grind with her.

Bill Richardson was there too.

Her back to the wall, Hillary Clinton was more combative than we've seen in any previous debate, calling Obama a flip-flopper right out of the box and not letting up much thereafter. (Obama's jujitsu was solid, though, and he deftly deflected most of her attacks with specifics and a smile, until Edwards took over the fight. His only misstep may have been not playing along nicely enough with Clinton's "I'm just a girl" act, although given everything Clinton's been throwing at him in recent days, I'd say it's a forgivable sin.)

The Senator's attack-mode, to my admittedly jaundiced eye, was unseemly. For one, this was the first time I can remember Clinton playing the "first woman president" card so flagrantly, and it reeked of desperation. (To his credit, Obama didn't feel the need to return the wallowing in identity politics.) For another, her anger blazed through at certain moments, particularly after Edwards showed he wasn't going to be her friend tonight, and I doubt it played very well to New Hampshire's undecided. (But again, I'm not a good judge of this sort of thing by now. Lines like "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered" just drive me to distraction.)

Speaking of which, one of the more intriguing volleys between Clinton and Obama happened late in the game, when Clinton once again tried to push the "false prophet" angle against Obama. Said Clinton: "So you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality." Obama's response: "There have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better. And I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes; not incremental changes, not small changes...The truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers." That sums up a good deal of Obama's oratorical appeal, and explains why Clinton, no matter what she says to the contrary, could never be the candidate of change. She just doesn't get it. As I said in my progressivism post of a few weeks ago: Without vision, the people perish. America's left is plumb sick of the poll-driven, over-triangulated brand of GOP-lite policy wonk Clinton represents. Put aside the V-Chips and school uniforms: We are looking to dream big again.

Rasmussen has the first post-Iowa NH poll out for consumption, and Barack Obama has leapt up to ten over Hillary Clinton in the Granite State. "Rasmussen Reports, in a telephone survey of 510 likely Democratic voters on Friday, found 37 percent backing Barack Obama, 27 percent for Clinton, 19 percent for John Edwards and 8 percent for Bill Richardson...The poll's admitted margin of error is 4.5 percent." (Give me a second while I stifle a mighty Yawp! to the heavens.) Keep in mind, though, that late rush polls like this are more likely to have problems (particularly when done on a Friday), And, of course, there's a debate tonight on ABC: Republicans at 7pm, Democrats at 8:45. Update: Don't break out the champagne just yet. A new CNN/WMUR poll has Clinton and Obama tied at 33%. Hmm. I preferred the first one. Update 2: Two more post-Iowa polls: One Concord Monitor, has Obama up 1, 34% to 33%. The other, American Research Group, has Obama up 12, 38% to 26%.

Update 3: What a difference a day makes. As of Sunday night, new polls have Obama up 10 (CNN-WMUR), up 12 (Rasmussen), and up 13 (USAT-Gallup). Looking pretty solid...let's drive this thing home.

"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher." As the focus now moves to New Hampshire in four days (here's a good historical overview of the Iowa-to-NH bounce), some interesting facts about Obama's resounding victory in the Iowa Caucus last night:

239,000 Dems caucused last night, shattering the previous attendance record of 124,000 in 2004. (2000 saw 61,000 Dems in attendance.) "Iowa Democrats outnumbered their Republican counterparts by an almost two-to-one margin."

First-timers came out in droves. "First-time caucus goers, who accounted for 57 percent of Democratic participants, favored Obama, 41 percent, over Clinton, 29 percent, or Edwards, 18 percent. Among repeat attenders, Edwards led slightly."

About 93% of the Iowa caucusgoers were white. "Obama...won whites, by a six-point margin, 33-27 percent over Clinton...Obama won blacks in Iowa with 72 percent support, his single best group."

The gender gap seen in early polls did not emerge last night: In fact, "In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton by 35 percent to 30 percent among women. He did better still among men, with 35 percent support, to 24 percent for Edwards and 23 percent for Clinton."

The generational gap, on the other hand, was rather stark. "Among all caucus-goers under age 45, a smashing 50 percent supported Obama, compared with just 17 percent for Edwards and 16 percent for Clinton. Among those under 30, Obama went even higher, to 57 percent. Among seniors, by contrast -- nearly a quarter of participants -- it was Clinton 45 percent, Edwards 22, Obama 18." "'This is as big a generation gap as I've ever seen in politics,' said CNN's Bill Schneider."

"Obama also won by a very sizable margin among independents, about a fifth of caucus goers, with 41 percent support to Edwards' 23 percent and Clinton's 17 percent."

Data suggests that "second-choice voters" actually went for Edwards, meaning Obama won handily with his "first-choice" support.

A big basketball fan, Sen. Obama spent an hour caucus morning playing a pick-up game with friends. It took awhile longer than I'd once hoped, but we may finally get that hoop at the White House...

"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come...

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back...

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it....

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

-- Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, hopefully the next President of our great nation. This was a huge win tonight, and right now I couldn't be happier. Obama's historic, moving victory speech was like something from another time, brimming over with progressive possibility. For the first time in a long time, it feels like we are moving in the right direction. I'll write something more meaningful tomorrow, when I'm feeling less giddy. But, for now...wow. Just wow.

An Early Round Knockout...

...or a new Democratic Frontrunner?

Barring a split decision of some kind, we should have our first real sense of how Election 2008 will all shake out by late this evening. Obviously, it seems somewhat bizarre to choose our two presidential candidates -- a full eleven months before Election Day -- solely by who can best navigate the byzantine complexities of the Iowa caucus system. But the cycle being as accelerated as it is, and with money, name recognition, and the post-Iowa press bounce playing the roles that they do, it's hard to see any other Democratic candidate gaining enough traction between now and Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) to stop Senator Clinton should she win tonight. And -- given her high negatives -- it's almost as hard to envision how Clinton might be able to come back should she definitively lose Iowa and New Hampshire to Obama or Edwards. So, with that mind, it's seems like the last, best time to write up an primary endorsement. Now, as long-time readers might remember, I threw myself behind Bill Bradley in 2000 and tepidly endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, so the track record around here isn't too good. But, hope springs eternal, so regarding 2008...

THE REST OF THE FIELD:

Even if it is a bit unfair, the fact that no other candidate besides the top three is breaking the 15% viability threshold in the polls helps facilitate clumping them together like this. Still, in a perfect world, CHRIS DODD in particular would merit a closer look from voters. An experienced Senate progressive who's stressed the importance of universal service, Dodd would likely make a fine president. But, for whatever reason, Dodd never established the media presence to be a true contender in 2008, and he goes down as the top of the second tier.

Senator JOE BIDEN has run a much better campaign than I ever expected, particularly given his dismal performance during the Alito hearings and his "clean and articulate" flub out of the gate. Indeed, Biden has shown a nuanced understanding of global issues and an impressive command over the foreign policy domain, and he has distinguished himself in debates with wit and (surprisingly enough) brevity. If he is inclined to take the job, I expect he'd make a fine Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration (although he may face some competition from the likes of Richard Holbrooke, particularly if Clinton wins the nomination.)

His considerable record notwithstanding, BILL RICHARDSON has never made a positive impression on me this election cycle. He has scowled his way through debates (when he wasn't capitulating to Clinton), he's shown himself to be a practitioner of the Dubya Fratboy school of leadership (nicknames, backslapping, etc.), and I've yet to hear anything from him that seems even remotely inspiring. In a way, he's been the Fred Thompson of the Democratic side -- the theoretical Dark Horse candidate who's been a total non-starter. At any rate, the fact that the New Mexico Governor can't even break the top three in nearby Nevada suggests his presidential bid isn't long for this world. (For what it's worth, he's apparently asked his supporters to back Obama in the caucuses.)

As in the 2004 cycle, DENNIS KUCINICH has been a breath of fresh air on stage -- he's the one (semi-viable) candidate who unabashedly refuses to join his colleagues in the protective camouflage of GOP-lite centrism. (This is no small feat given how reflexive this knee-jerk "triangulating" tendency has become among Dems in recent years.) Still, even he recognizes that Iowa will not be kind to him, and has also asked his supporters to vote Obama. So, (MIKE GRAVEL notwithstanding, I suppose, although, despite his impressive record of service, he never seemed much more than a novelty act), that leaves the Big Three:

HILLARY CLINTON:

Senator Clinton is a smart, tough, and formidable leader, and although the presidential merits of her experience as First Lady has lately been called more into question, no one can deny that she's a battle-tested veteran of the partisan wars of the 1990s, or that she's the candidate most accustomed to the vicissitudes of the GOP attack machine. She'd make a very good president, particularly compared to George W. Bush and any Republican running.

Still, I've already described my major concerns about Clinton's candidacy here, here, and particularly here, so if you'll permit me to quote from that last entry, my issues are thus: "[1] She's thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn't have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn't take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don't like her." Once you factor in her unseemly corporate backers, her woeful view of human rights versus national security, her recent campaign missteps and tribulations, and the dynasty issue to that list, I find it hard to get very enthused about Senator Clinton's candidacy.

If 2004 taught us anything, it's that the electability issue is a bit of a canard. We picked John Kerry because we believed he was more "electable" than Howard Dean, and that may have even been true. But can anyone name a single state that Kerry won in the general election that Dean wouldn't also have carried? All that being said, given her very strong negatives, I do think Senator Clinton is not only the least "electable" of the Big Three, but the only candidate -- in either party -- who could manage to reunite the fractured GOP this cycle. It may not be her fault, but she will invariably bring out the wingnuts in force to vote against her. I'd even go so far as to say that the GOP is banking on Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. It's the best possible outcome for them, and they know it.

And given that the leadership Clinton offers is the same unambitious and uninspiring blend of triangulated-to-death DLC centrism practiced by her husband, why even take the chance? This is not to say Bill Clinton was a bad president, not at all. Given the times he was working in and the low-down, unprincipled miscreants he was often forced to contend with, you could even say he accomplished amazing things, once he got his sea legs. Still, we are now at a moment when the Republican party is in rout. The conservative movement which began in 1964, coalesced during the 70's and 80's, and gave us the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush has now -- at long last -- been thoroughly discredited. Our nation has paid a heavy price for this realization, in both blood and treasure. Now more than ever, it is time for Democrats to shake off the protective camouflage and step into the sunlight. Put simply, it is time for change.

JOHN EDWARDS:

John Edwards is a candidate I've always thought highly of and, indeed, I voted for him in the NY primary in 2004. While he got off to a shaky start this cycle, Edwards -- arguably the candidate with the most to win or lose today -- has improved considerably over the past few months. In fact, I probably agreed with him more than any other candidate onstage in most of the debates. He was often the only person to suggest that the current system is fundamentally broken, and that stronger lobbying and campaign finance laws are needed to cleanse the taint of money from our political process and to make it responsive again to the needs and aspirations of everyday voters. As I said in the two long posts on progressivism several weeks ago, I agree -- as many progressives did a century ago -- that the unchecked influence of vast sums of money in Washington is arguably the central political problem facing our republic. Countless terrible decisions made by this administration, and by their Democratic counterparts in Congress, flow directly from the sad fact that dollars speak louder than people. And all the 12-point policy proposals in the world on health care, taxes, education, whathaveyou, won't change a thing until this underlying problem is recognized and rectified. To my mind, Edwards should be applauded for ringing the alarm bell loudly and strongly. (Not for nothing has Ralph Nader endorsed him.) If this argument carries Edwards all the way to the presidency, the result would almost assuredly be good for the country.

That being said, if I were caucusing in Iowa today, I would not be voting for John Edwards. Not because of any fault of Edwards -- he's my strong second choice -- but rather because I think there is one other candidate out there who shows more progressive potential. More on him in a moment, but, before I switch topics, here's the rub. As much as I admire Edwards for articulating the problem before us, I don't actually agree all that much with his solution to that problem. Put simply, Edwards is sounding the chord of populism, and populism is not progressivism. Populism speaks in a language of class, of insiders and outsiders, of haves and have-nots. Populism is often characterized by free-floating anger towards an elite "insider" cadre of some sort, and, while it's reductionist to group everyone together like this, populism has worked as well for Tom Watson and Huey Long as it has for Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. It's a blunt instrument that despises elites of any kind and relies on and perpetuates an us-versus-them mentality among Americans. From everything I've seen of him in the debates and otherwise, John Edwards isn't really using the inclusive language of progressive citizenship to make his case. He's wielding the often divisive cudgel of populism. Now, if I have to pick a side, I'm obviously with the people against the oligarchs. And if this is the only way America will wake up and recognize the stench of legalized corruption, so be it. But I still think this nation will embrace civic progressivism along the lines I recently discussed, given the right leadership...

BARACK OBAMA:

If Edwards has been articulating the key progressive problem -- corruption in government -- then Barack Obama embodies the key progressive solution. Like no other candidate we've seen on the Left in nearly a half-century, Obama has the potential to restore Americans' faith in government and bring people back into the political process. Many skeptics among the punditry have derided Obama as a "hopemonger," but, to my mind, his optimistic appeal shouldn't be taken lightly. In a country where less than half of us vote anymore, anything that encourages people who have felt disenfranchised to look anew at or become enthused about our common citizenship is a godsend. In short, Obama -- young, thoughtful, intelligent, charismatic -- seems the only candidate with the potential to spark a true progressive revival. True, Obama isn't quite speaking the language of progressivism yet. But he's been veering closer to it than either Clinton or Edwards (Note, for example, the line quoted in his stump speech at the link above: "Americans all across the country are hungry for -- desperate for -- a new type of politics. Something different. A politics focused not on what divides us but on our common values and our common ideals." This argument that we are one people, all in it together and bound together as citizens by our commonalities, is the very warp and woof of civic progressivism.)

What goes for the nation goes for the globe. As Andrew Sullivan noted in his endorsement of Obama back in November, an Obama presidency single-handedly "rebrands" the United States in the eyes of the world. No other candidate running suggests so immediately and profoundly that we live by the democratic ideals we espouse, that we are a nation of diversity committed to individual flourishing, and that America is a land where anyone and everyone has the opportunity to rise to their full potential.

This holds true for our enemies as much as our friends (many of whom will be glad to see anyone but Dubya in the Oval Office.) As Sullivan put it, "Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man -- Barack Hussein Obama -- is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

Progressive potential and global symbolism aside, Obama has shown himself to possess the requisite talents needed to make an excellent president. As we all know, he was the only major candidate with the judgment to speak out against the Iraq War from the start. In debates, he's proven himself light on his feet and displayed a quick, voracious mind. (As Slate's Michael Kinsley put it, "When I hear him discussing some issue, I hear intelligence and reflection and almost a joy in thinking it through.") During his tenure in the Senate, he's shown a pronounced ability to work with people across the aisle, and counts among his friends and working partners such paleolithic conservatives as Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn. His Dreams from My Father testifies to a life of travel and experience that would serve him well in the Oval Office. And, unlike Senator Clinton, Obama has been a friend to campaign finance and lobbying reform, which remains crucial to any real change happening in the next four-to-eight years.

Now, obviously there are some lacunae surrounding Obama. He is a young man, and relatively new to national politics. He has admittedly been vague at times, and could have done considerably more these past few months, when given the nation's ear, to highlight the issues he finds important. There's a possibility -- maybe even a strong possibility -- that he'll end up a Tommy Carcetti-like president: a well-meaning reformer outmatched and buffeted to and fro by the entrenched forces arrayed against him. After nearly eight years of Dubya, Washington is pretty screwed up these days, and I'm not naive enough to think any one politician can undo all the damage that's been wrought in recent years. Still, given the Democratic field, my money's on Barack Obama. He has the potential to be a very special candidate -- the kind that comes around only once or twice a generation -- and I hope this evening sees the first of many successes for his campaign.

GitM votes Obama.

With Iowa coming up tomorrow, one last look at the Democratic polls: Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby has Obama and Clinton tied at 28%, with Edwards at 26%. CNN/Opinion Research puts Clinton in the lead at 33% to Obama's 31% and Edwards' 22%. And the Des Moines Register/Selzer's last poll -- considered the most trusted in the industry, partly due to its getting the 2004 results right -- has Obama up big at 32% to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 24%. (This result presumes a large independent turnout for Obama, however, which is by no means a given.) In any case, the one good bet is it's going to be a barnburner tomorrow evening. Sometime before then, most likely by tomorrow afternoon, I plan to put up a longer endorsement-style post, since the nomination could well be a fait accompli by the NY primary on Feb. 5. No real surprise who I'm getting behind, but at least y'all will be able to poke holes in my reasoning.

"At the same time, Iowa's vaunted precinct caucuses -- especially those of the Democratic Party -- violate some of the most elemental values of a vibrant and open political process. As far as a mechanism for selecting a president is concerned, you might end up with Iowa's model if you set out to design a system that discouraged participation and violated basic democratic values." Whoever wins the Democratic caucus in Iowa tomorrow, CNN's Jeff Greenfield reminds us, it's a pretty lousy process. "What if you're in a union and want to pick someone your union hasn't endorsed, and your shop steward is there, watching you from across the room? Or the person who holds your mortgage? Or your spouse? Tough...[In addition] a candidate who won a lot of the precincts narrowly would wind up winning a bigger portion of the delegates than a rival who piled up votes in one corner of Iowa -- even if that corner yielded a higher overall number of supporters. It's all the disproportional representation of the Electoral College, in miniature. And that was the price for forming the Union, not a guide for running elections."

"'I’ve never seen anything like it,' Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race, said in an interview in his office on Friday. 'The get-out-the-vote efforts are going to be the best ever.'" As Iowa looms next Thursday and the polls still suggest a virtual dead heat, the Dem candidates ready the ground troops. (Zogby has Clinton at 31% to Obama's 27% and Edwards' 24%. McClatchy puts Edwards in front with 24%, followed by Clinton at 23% and Obama at 22%.) "The developments reflect the tightness of the race...and the dynamics of an unusual contest where so few people vote: about 125,000 in the Democratic caucus of 2004. Aides to the candidates said this contest could be determined by a swing of as few as 1,000 voters."

Another slew of Iowa/NH polls, most of which suggest that, as per the norm, turnout will be the key: ABC News/Wash Post has Obama up by four in the Hawkeye State: Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%. But a new InsiderAdvantage poll says Iowa is Edwards' to win, with the NC Senator pulling 30% to Clinton and Obama's 26% and 24% respectively. (This latter poll -- by a Republican firm -- has been called into question as an outlier. And speaking of elephants, the elephant in the room at the moment, of course, is the Enquirer's sordid and dubious "grandson of a millworker" story, which Drudge frontlined last night. But thus far it's not getting the traction in the mainstream press one's come to expect from the bimbo eruptions of the Bill Clinton era. Let's hope it stays that way.) Update: Iowa Poll #3: Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%. "Clinton is the favorite of women, older voters, liberals and those making less than $50,000 a year. Obama has an edge among moderates and younger voters; Edwards does best in union households and among married voters." Two weeks to go...

On the national front, a FOX/Wash Times/Rasmussen poll (and consider the source) finds Hillary Clinton leads the nation in "anti"-votes, with 40 percent of Americans saying they'd vote for her opponent in the general election just to keep her out of office. (Second was Giuliani, with 17%. Obama had 11%, Edwards 2%.) Still, Clinton's prospects look brighter in the Granite State, where a new poll puts her back up 12 over Obama, 38% to 26%. (Edwards comes in third at 14%) "Clinton gained some 7 percentage points over last week's poll, with Obama losing 4 percentage points. 'Nearly all of Clinton's gains come among older voters.'" An 11-point bounce for Clinton in a slow news week? Looks like Shaheen-gate paid dividends for her candidacy after all (although some say it's the weather.) Still, despite Clinton's Boomer boom, NH remains up in the air: "A whopping 65 percent of poll respondents who identify themselves as likely Democratic voters, however, said they have not made a definite decision on their vote."

"In the past I've been disappointed by politicians. In the past I've been discouraged by politicians. For the first time I'm stepping out of my pew because I've been inspired. I've been inspired to believe that a new vision is possible for this country." Meanwhile, on the Democratic side...As Oprah hits the hustings of Williams-Brice stadium for Obama, a new poll puts the Senator from Illinois now competitive with Clinton across several key states: Obama's down 2 in Iowa and only down 3 in New Hampshire and South Carolina. "John Edwards is a major factor in Iowa and South Carolina but trails badly in New Hampshire...Hillary Clinton's support is what you'd expect: women, folks over 50 and union members. Obama does very well among Democrats under 50. In fact, the biggest demographic gap is generational, not gender."

"When I decided to run for president, I accepted that my opponents would dig through my record looking for something to attack. I didn't realize they'd go all the way back to kindergarten." In keeping with their previously announced New Negativity, the Clinton campaign actually digs up dirt on Obama's kindergarten ambitions. (Two days after the press release in question, now that it's not playing so hot in the media, pollster Mark Penn claims it was a joke.) Desperate much? Well, before anybody throws a tantrum, two new polls put Clinton still in the lead in Iowa, by 5% and 7% respectively. Maybe that'll help put an end to this type of sorry stunt by Team Hillary in the future. (By the way, I have no plans to ever run for anything, but just in case it comes up someday (and a la Edwards): When I was in kindergarten I wanted to be Han Solo.)

Another new poll, by way of the Des Moines Register, puts Obama slightly in the Iowa lead at 28%, to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 23%. (All candidates are within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.) Also, it seems Obama may well have cut deeply into Clinton's impressive support among Iowa women: "In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama" Still, Clinton maintains her generational ace in the hole: "Clinton is the top choice among caucusgoers 55 years old and older. The largest share of Democratic caucusgoers -- exactly half -- are in this age group." Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney 29%-24%, with no one else even close. "That's a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson." We have a ways to go yet, but it's looking like we've got ourselves a barnburner on both sides of the aisle, and I'm obviously pleased as punch that Obama is not only in the running but leading the pack. Onward and upward.

Update: "Now the fun part starts"? Sensing the obvious danger to her candidacy in Obama's Iowa lead, Hillary Clinton announces she's going negative, and illustrates thus by insinuating Obama has character issues. “'I want a long term relationship,' she said. 'I don’t want to just have a one night stand with all of you.'"

The Dem race took another ugly turn over the weekend as a column by conservative DoL Bob Novak dropped that the Clinton campaign is harboring "scandalous information" about Obama but has chosen not to use it, thus making "Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent." Obama then dared the Clinton camp to release whatever info they were insinuating about on deep background, at which point Team Clinton disavowed all knowledge of the leak, choosing instead to go snide about the matter. Said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson: "A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games." I must say, the politics of personal destruction have gotten pretty bad when you can just let the suggestion of a scandal do the dirty work for you. Who needs a Swift Boat when you can just let people's imaginations run wild? Well, speaking as an "experienced Democrat" -- i.e. several years spent in the Beltway trenches -- I seriously doubt Novak just made this all up. I wouldn't trust Novak as far as I could throw him, but somebody out there, either by mistake or by design, planted this seed in his head. Update 12/13/07: Novak reveals more.

Update: Along with the phantom scandal comes a new poll showing progress for Obama in Iowa: Obama 30%, Clinton 26%, Edwards 22%. Strangely enough, unlike last week's tied poll, the usual gender and generational groupings didn't show up here. "Obama is running even with Clinton among women in Iowa, drawing 32 percent to her 31 percent...And despite widespread impressions that Obama is banking on unreliable first-time voters, Clinton depends on them heavily as well: About half of her supporters say they have never attended a caucus before, compared with 43 percent of first-timers for Obama and 24 percent for Edwards."

Don't call it a comeback? A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Clinton and Obama virtually tied in a national poll, 37%-36%. "Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, calls the USA TODAY poll 'an outlier' that is 'completely out of sync' with other surveys. He says it is 'seriously flawed' for including so many independents unlikely to vote in Democratic primaries...Among Democrats alone, Clinton leads Obama by 5 points, 34%-29%...Among independents, Obama leads by 9 points, 31%-22%." Good to hear, but admittedly this poll doesn't sound quite right: "An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last Tuesday through Friday gave Clinton a 12-point lead." Update: Iowa's all tied up too: Clinton 25%, Edwards 23%, Obama 22%. "Women have a strong preference for Clinton, while those under the age of 45 give Obama a double-digit lead. Obama and Clinton are nearly tied for support among first-time caucus-goers, but previous attendees give Edwards a narrow edge over Clinton."

As Hillary Clinton -- still -- spins away her debate performance of last week (You'd think she'd just let the story die of its own accord by this point -- this doesn't speak well for her campaign's potential handling of GOP criticism in a general election, and they're definitely watching carefully over there), the Democratic races in Iowa and New Hampshire start to tighten, with Clinton up three and ten on Obama in IA and NH respectively. (Edwards comes in third in both states at the moment.) And, in related news, a new USA Today poll further calls into question Clinton's crossover appeal: "In a general election, the poll suggests that Clinton has the least potential for winning votes from Republicans -- 84% say they definitely would not vote for her, compared with six in 10 for either Obama or Edwards. Independents show the least resistance to Obama and the most to Edwards." (That being said, some tightening in the polls was inevitable as the finish line nears, and that same USA Today poll still has Hillary beating Rudy in a national contest, so there is a silver lining here for the Clinton camp.) Update: Slate's John Dickinson reports in from Iowa on the Clinton-Obama race: "'Why isn't he killing her?' asked a colleague after Obama's hour-long visit. It's the persistent question for his campaign. He wows the crowds but lags in the polls everywhere but Iowa."

"[I]n spinning away her unsteady performance at Tuesday night's debate, a Clinton advisor tells the Washington Post: 'Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman.'" I'm just a girl? In a not-very-subtle appeal to her strong female base, the Clinton camp makes an unsightly resort to gender politics to explain away her opponents' criticisms in Tuesday's debate. "[I]magine for a moment that it was Barack Obama who stumbled in the face of criticism and pointed questions Tuesday night. Would his campaign dare to declare that it was 'ultimately five whites and a Hispanic against him, and he came off as one strong black man'? And how would America be feeling about him today if it did? Honestly, this makes me ill. Suggesting all political opposition to Clinton is a "pile-on" grounded in male hostility is as unsavory and disingenuous a tactic as the earlier claim that Obama and Edwards had abandoned "the politics of hope" for even daring to disagree with her in the first place. And neither strategy makes me very enthused about pulling the lever for Clinton, should she become the nominee. Surely, given her gimongous lead in the polls, Clinton can find more honest and substantive ways to address the ripostes of her Democratic opponents. If you're the frontrunner, you'll be attacked -- that's how it works, regardless of sex. Update: Obama calls out Clinton's use of the gender card. Update 2: As does NARAL's Kate Michelman.

"'Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her. I'm not saying anything that people don't know already. I don't necessarily like it, but those are the facts,' Dodd said." Edwards, Obama, and Dodd (finally) release the hounds at last night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Said Edwards: "I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Senator Clinton is, Senator, they may actually want to run against you, and that's the reason they keep bringing you up." (Update: Edwards' Youtube team pounces on the politics of parsing.)To be honest, I DVR'ed the debate and haven't watched it yet, partly because I'm rather dispirited about the whole process (among other things) these days, and partly because the NBA's opening-night double-header was on TNT...which means, if nothing else, there should be something on TV most nights from now until June. (The Knicks start Friday.)

In a new ABC/Washington Post poll, Hillary Clinton moves to a whopping 33-point lead over Barack Obama (and an 8-point lead over Rudy Giuliani.) "She leads Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination by 22 percentage points among men, and by 42 points among women. Fully 57 percent of women said they would support Clinton in a primary, compared with 15 percent for Obama and 13 percent for Edwards."

Well, if the family business issue is bothering primary voters, it's not being reflected in the funding tallies. In the third leg of the all-important money primary, Hillary Clinton comes out tops in 3rd quarter fundraising with $27 million raised, with Obama clocking in at $20 million and Edwards -- who's announced he'll accept public financing -- coming in third at $7 million. "Overall, Sen. Barack Obama has raised slightly more than Clinton for the primary, and the two look to be fairly evenly matched financially as they head into the final stretch before the first electoral contests in January." And, whoever your primary candidate is, the real silver lining here is that Dems overall have raised twice as much as the GOP. "'This just shows the difficult political climate that Republicans are facing,' said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. 'The bright side is that next spring, the Republicans will have plenty of money to give the candidate who goes up against Hillary Clinton.'" We'll see.

"'Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we've got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code,' he said. 'This isn't the invisible hand of the market at work. It's the successful work of special interests." In a speech at Washington's Tax Policy Center, Barack Obama unveils his tax plan. "The plan means billions in breaks by: nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who make less than $50,000 annually and do not itemize their deductions, and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000...Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, he said."

Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton unveils her new health care plan. "A Clinton adviser compares the plan's 'individual mandate' -- which requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance...Clinton is the third of the front-running Democratic White House hopefuls to formally unveil her plan, following Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards." Said Edwards of the Clinton plan: "I'm glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal -- and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I'm flattered...The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests -- you can never join 'em, you just have to beat 'em."

"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism." The attacks grow more pointed among the Dems at last night's AFL-CIO debate (which I missed), and it sounds like both Obama and Edwards got in some good zingers. (Edwards: "The one thing you can count on is you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying I am the candidate that big, corporate America is betting on.") And yet, a new poll finds Senator Clinton widening her lead over Obama to 18 points and enjoying huge advantages in big states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Hmm. Is the race already over? The inveterate pessimist in me says definitely maybe, but let's remember, Howard Dean was looking pretty solid in August of 2003. We have a ways to go yet. (I mean, the critical Jolie and di Caprio endorsements are still up for grabs, for example. And Obama does have Bourne and Clooney locked up.)

Well, it may seem like they've been going at it for awhile now...nevertheless, the first official Democratic primary debate was held last night, co-sponsored by the good folks at CNN and YouTube. [Transcript.] (As you likely heard, this gimmick this time was that the questions were submitted by Youtube users the nation over. All in all, they turned out to be a mixed bag, but no more or less cutting than the ones usually conjured up by George Stephanopoulos, Anderson Cooper, or some other venerable talking head of the moment. Still, not a single query on campaign finance reform managed to sneak through the vetters...so now, I kinda wish I had at least tried to submit one.)

And the verdict this time? Well, no one broke out of the pack as a result of their performance last night, which -- the talking heads tell me (hey, David Gergen's gotta eat) -- means a win for Clinton. But, as with the past few debates, I still find my position further solidifying in favor of Obama and Edwards, and against the Senator from New York. (My reasons have been put forth previously here and here.) In fact, the most irritating moment of the debate for me, and I'll admit that this'll be considered well beyond stupid and pedantic to most people, was Senator Clinton's butchering of the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" to contort her way out of having to name herself the former. For what it's worth, the key element of a turn-of-the-century progressive was never "someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms" -- that would be a liberal. Indeed, arguably the major flaw in the progressive movement -- until after WWI -- was its inattentiveness to individual rights and freedoms...hence, Prohibition, or, to take an even more sordid example, the proliferation of Jim Crow in the South.

But, more importantly, and this is what really irked me, Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be the least progressive of the Democratic candidates, in that she's been the most willing to get into bed with corporate interests time and time again. (And, for you historians reading this, yes, I'm calling shenanigans on Kolko.)

Ok, I'll concede, Clinton can't honestly be expected to deliver a comprehensive historical disquisition about liberalism v. progressivism in a 45-second debate answer. But, please don't chalk up my concern simply to being an aggrieved aspiring egghead just yet. (And, hey, speaking of parochial, Obama mentioned my hometown, Florence, SC, tonight, albeit not in a positive light. But I digress again.) The fact is, the differences between liberalism and progressivism do matter, particularly when you consider [a] how often politicians in our party seem confused, or even ignorant, about the Left's guiding political philosophies these days, and [b] how different a truly progressive presidential candidate would seem from what Hillary Clinton has yet offered us.

Most importantly, a true "modern progressive" would push campaign finance reform, ethics in government, and voting reform though the heavens fall. These are hardly central tenets of the Clinton campaign, to say the least. And, along with the obvious necessities of a sane, competent, foreign policy, accessible, affordable health care, and comprehensively reworked environmental and energy plans, a real "modern progressive" would also extol education, civics reform, universal (if not mandatory) service, community-building, a vast increase in arts and science funding, an end to child poverty...all ways to help renew the bonds of citizenship, to help encourage an active, engaged, self-governing electorate, and to help foster a new generation of Americans more attuned and responsive to the concerns of their fellow men and women -- here and around the globe -- than they are to the self-absorbed and increasingly inescapable dictates of rapacious consumerism and the corporate bottom line.

It's late, and I've clearly started soapboxing. Still, what I wrote back in 2000 here, before I came to Columbia, still holds: "I know it all sounds a bit academic and removed from reality, but, what can I say? This is where my idealism (or what vestiges of it that survive this election cycle) lies." Well, it's been a few election cycles since then, and in many other ways the years since have not been kind, in terms of progressivism or otherwise. I'd very much like to continue indulging in "the audacity of hope" when it comes to such matters -- I know it's way early in the game, and that we're probably still at least a good 3 or 4 "Macaca moments" out before this all gets decided. But increasingly, and particularly after listening to these debates thus far and the virtual Clinton coronation by the talking heads thereafter, other quotes often come to mind as well. For example: "Look for your friends, but do not trust to hope. It has forsaken these lands."

I'm not saying Clinton would make a terrible president -- Obviously, she'd be much better than the current fiasco of an administration. (But, as always, who wouldn't be?) But I do increasingly fear her tenure -- if it's marked by the same confused, wishy-washy and corporate-friendly Republican-lite "centrism" her campaign and the DLC have pushed in the past -- will make for yet another missed opportunity in terms of fostering real progressive change in this country. (And Senator Clinton, to get to the point: I know progressives. I've spent the past six years and change studying progressives. And, you, Madam, have been no progressive.)

Also concerning the NBA (and along the lines of this post last year), friend and colleague Ben of The Oak sent along this noteworthy article on which basketball players are contributing to what 2008 candidates. Supporting fan of the game Barack Obama: NY Knick Stephon Marbury, Shane Battier, Billy King, and Baron Davis. For Edwards (in the past): Charles Barkley, Mike D'Antoni, and Travis Best. For Clinton: many NBA owners, including Paul Allen and the Maloofs. For Mitt Romney: Celtic exec Danny Ainge. For the Dems in general: The Commish, David Stern.

Round 2 of the money game is in the books, and, surprisingly (or perhaps not), Barack Obama came out on top with $31 million to Hillary Clinton's (estimated) $27 million. (John Edwards pulled $9 million, Richardson $7 million.) "Obama's war chest in the second quarter was built on the strength of 154,000 new contributors, giving him well over a quarter-million donors since he started the race...[Clinton's] fund-raising team has been relying much more heavily on larger donors."

"'You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,' Clinton said. 'But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'" Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can't comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn't consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she's a smart, talented, and impressive politico who'd undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she's thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn't have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn't take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don't like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates -- Gore, Kerry, Clinton -- on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?

To be fair, the other Dems haven't been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there's some potential for it there. Sen. Obama's got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he's relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation's attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards' son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn't yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards -- unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents -- seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we've got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)

At the moment, I'm still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside -- he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I'll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)

So, for the first time and by a (statistically-insignifcant) margin of 32% to 30%, Barack Obama has moved ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. And, in more good news for the Obama camp, this poll was mostly taken before last week's first Democratic debate, so there might still be a bump to come. For, at least to my admittedly jaundiced eye, Obama came across as far and away the most impressive candidate last Thursday. I feared he might seem callow and inexperienced going in, but Obama came across to me as thoughtful, nuanced, and, when needed, decisive...in short, he seemed suitably presidential, while still exuding that youthful flair and enthusiasm that makes him such a potentially exciting vehicle for generational political change in 2008. (And, boding well for the general election, Obama also seemed well-practiced in the art of debate jujitsu, deftly tossing aside at least two clear trip-up questions -- on shady campaign contributors and Israel -- with remarkable ease.) As for Clinton, well, it's not entirely her fault, I guess -- unlike Obama, she's been with us for a decade and a half now, and is nothing if not a known quantity. But she came across to me as the same cautious, methodical, triangulating centrist she's shown herself to be over the past fifteen years in public life, and it's getting harder to imagine myself being anything but underwhelmed by her as a candidate in the general election.

John Edwards still seems the best of the rest, but he didn't do much on Thursday to stand out, I thought. (I expect he'll do better as the candidates decrease in number.) I found Richardson surprisingly uninspiring, given all the good things often said of him. (The Governor really needs to work on his presentation -- he kept scowling and frowning his way through every question like Old Man Potter.) Biden came across as better than usual but still interminably Bidenish -- that cute one-word answer couldn't mask his Senate-honed penchant for blathering and monologuing. Distinguished and discerning, Dodd actually seems like he'd make a fine president, if money and star power weren't so often the defining factors in this business. (As it is, it doesn't look good.) Speaking of which, the 2008 Kucinich seemed Kucinich-lite next to the throwback rantings of Mike Gravel, who was intermittently amusing with the Admiral Stockdale-isms at first, but who grew wearisome, in my opinion, by the end. (I'm all for the idea that the military-industrial complex has ballooned into a monstrosity, but saying things like America in fact has no enemies sounds a bit naive after 9/11, and is the type of thing the GOP agitprop hounds tend to have a field day with.)

"'A Democratic candidate could go out there and muck it up and raise questions about his or her competence or judgment,' says Andy Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. 'But the landscape really is tilted in a Democratic direction.'" In USA Today, Susan Page lists five reasons why 2008 is looking Democratic. But, don't tell these guys: The Republicans go at it tonight at the Reagan Presidential Library, 8pm, MSNBC.

"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was designed and built to be a dreadnought, an all-big-gun battleship that would rule the waves without being dented, slowed or thrown off course. But it has been caught off guard by a submarine named Barack Obama, running silent, running deep -- until he surfaced with a spectacular showing in the first round of fund-raising numbers." TIME's political bureau looks in on the Clinton campaign's likely response to the threat of Obama (which reminds me, the first Democratic debate is tonight, 7pm EST, on MSNBC. [Previews: WP | Newsweek | The State | The Times and Democrat]) "Hillary Clinton is also banking on the grueling schedule of debates, which is 'where she will shine,' says a strategist. 'This will be her strongest point. She knows this stuff inside out.' But her team says she is not yet ready to begin challenging Obama directly on his lack of specificity. That's because going on the attack could further boost her negatives and create an opening for Edwards, who has offered far more detailed plans than she has on issues like health care. 'They are worried about both Obama and Edwards,' says an outside adviser. 'They think if Obama flames out, Edwards rises.'"

"'We will take the evidence where it leads us. We will not leave any stone unturned.'" Well, Sheryl Crow's the least of his worries now. Based on the fact that several different current investigations seem to point his way, the White House's Office of Special Counsel opens an inquiry into Karl Rove, to ascertain if (and how often) he's violated the Hatch Act. "'This is a big deal,' Paul C. Light, a New York University expert on the executive branch, said of [Special Counsel] Bloch's plan. 'It is a significant moment for the administration and Karl Rove. It speaks to the growing sense that there is a nexus at the White House that explains what's going on in these disparate investigations.'" And, in related news, John Edwards calls for Rove's firing, based on his refusal to testify about the persecuted prosecutors.

TiVo time for the political junkies among us: Campaign 2008 begins in earnest this Thursday evening, when the first Democratic debate will take place in Orangeburg, SC. "Thursday's debate will air live on MSNBC from 7 to 8:30 p.m. and stream live on MSNBC.com."

And, in related news, a new Rasmussen poll has Obama now tied with Hillary at 32%, with Edwards coming in at third (17%). "Thirty-three percent (33%) of Likely Voters say they'd definitely vote for Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D). That's the highest total received by any of ten leading Presidential hopefuls included in the poll...Opinions are most solid concerning the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton -- 78% have an opinion of whether they'll definitely vote for or against her regardless of who she runs against. That includes 30% who would definitely vote for the former First Lady and 48% who would definitely vote against her."

"'What strikes me now is the degree to which the fairly fiscally irresponsible policies of the last six years have put Democrats in a box,' Mr. Greenstein said. 'They've got these large tax cuts in place, they have even larger fiscal problems in the coming decades and they have large unmet needs right now, such as 45 million uninsured people. Addressing all three of those things will be very difficult.'" The NYT discusses briefly how the 2008 Dems are planning to approach Dubya's tax cuts -- As you might expect, everyone agrees that the giveaways to the tiny percentage of wealthiest Americans, those with incomes over $200,000, will have to stop. "'Yes, we'll have to raise taxes,' Mr. Edwards declared in February in one of the first statements by a Democratic candidate on the issue."

"The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." In keeping with a tendency to move right incrementally, without necessarily overturning any laws (one that may also pose trouble for the McCain-Feingold act in coming weeks), the Roberts Court upholds a ban against partial-birth abortion 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote. (He was joined, of course, by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.) Kennedy's reasoning? According to Slate's always-perceptive Dahlia Lithwick, it was fear of the Inconstant Woman: "Today's holding is a strange reworking of Taming of the Shrew, with Kennedy playing an all-knowing Baptista to a nation of fickle Biancas." For her part, Senator Barbara Boxer sadly summed it up as such: "'It confirms that elections have consequences,'...alluding to Bush's re-election and the seven GOP Senate wins in 2004 which set the stage for the appointment of Roberts and Alito."

With that in mind, all the major candidates for 2008 obviously weighed in on the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, although everyone pretty much followed to party script, even the ostensibly pro-choice Giuliani. [Clinton | Edwards | Giuliani | McCain | Obama | Richardson | Romney] "Wednesday's ruling raises the stakes for the 2008 presidential election, which is almost certain to pit an abortion-rights Democrat against an anti-abortion Republican." Let's not make the same mistake again, y'all.

Some more fallout (and, in my opinion, auspicious signs) from the first money primary held recently: Hillary Clinton may have more in the bank, but Barack Obama raised more money, has more cap room to spare, so to speak, and has been peeling off some top Clinton donors to back his own efforts. "A list of Mr. Obama's top fund-raisers released Sunday showed the extent to which the Democratic Party establishment, once presumed to back Mrs. Clinton, has become more fragmented and drifted into her rival's camp, lending the early stages of the Democratic primary campaign the feeling of a family feud." Update: In related news, a new poll shows the race tightening on both sides. Clinton's up only eight on Obama, Giuliani has six on McCain (pending GOP reinforcements such as Fred Thompson.)

Yes, folks, this is how we choose a president in this country: Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. The first primary is effectively over, and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney lead the begging and scraping for loot at $26 and $21 million respectively. On the GOP side, Rudy came in second at $15 million, with McCain trailing at third with $12.5 million. Meanwhile, for the Dems: John Edwards has $14 million, Bill Richardson $6 million, Chris Dodd $4 million, and Joe Biden a clean, articulate $3 million. Still obviously missing, Barack Obama, who is rumored to be up around the 20 mark. While I hate to indulge this stupid financing system, I hope it's something like that, as I'm still rooting for he or Edwards over Sen. Clinton in the primary, and the Clinton money machine is, without a doubt, a sleek, well-oiled contraption. Update: Make that $25 million for Obama.

"The campaign goes on...The campaign goes on strongly." Despite a deeply unfortunate recurrence of his wife's cancer, John Edwards announces he's staying in the presidential hunt. A welcome decision: At the moment, I'd say it's still a race between he and Barack Obama for my primary vote.

"Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." I'm still furiously playing catch-up, so I'm obviously a day or two behind on blogging this...Then again, Dubya's just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I'll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush --- sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what's being billed as a "surge." (Re: "escalation.") When you get right down to it, Dubya's basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: "Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I've dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging..."

Here's the thing -- A massive troop increase would've made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then -- and a quicker restoration of order and basic services -- would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops -- many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended -- isn't going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we've been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam's hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything -- until now -- to rein in Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can't handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran...who says Dubya isn't a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn't having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya's plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight -- While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya's move (most notably John McCain, who's been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

"If we actually want to change this country and we want to move America the way it needs to move, we're going to have to do it, all of us, together." As telegraphed by his official site a day early, the John Edwards train leaves the station from the Ninth District of New Orleans. I thought highly of Edwards last cycle -- and voted for him in 2004 -- so I for one am glad to see him back around for 2008. Right now, with Feingold out of the picture, it's a two-man race right now between him and Obama for my primary vote.

Even more good news for Iowa leader (in October) John Edwards: Is Evan Bayh out of the running for 2008? FOX News says so.

Ethanol and granite, meet poker and palmettos. After months of wrangling, the Dems announce that Nevada and South Carolina will be pushed forward into Iowa/New Hampshire territory come the 2008 primaries. "Harold Ickes -- a committee member and confidante of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y., a potential 2008 candidate -- spoke in opposition to a Palmetto State primary out of concern that it would be a walkover for former senator John Edwards (N.C.) should he choose to run." (Interestingly enough, this article also notes that Rep. Jim Clyburn, the congressman from my hometown of Florence, SC, is now the third-ranking Dem in the House. Nicely done.)

Faced with the prospect of his state losing its disproportionate influence on presidential campaigns, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch (D) begins twisting the arms of possible presidential candidates in 2008, with Evan Bayh the first to cry uncle. "New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has assiduously avoided taking a position on the issue despite personal urgings by Lynch to do so. Former Virginia governor Mark Warner, the hot 'anti-Hillary' candidate these days, is similarly noncommittal." Pushing back on New Hampshire's entreaties are Bill Richardson (New Mexico) and John Edwards (North Carolina), for obvious reasons. Feingold is also uncommitted (as far as I know), although one would think that, as an independent-minded maverick, he'd be a prime candidate for an early Granite State boost. That is, provided John McCain doesn't suck all the air out of the state, as he did in 2000 versus Bradley.

"Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities." Gee, you think? "'What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?' Mr. Edwards said in an interview. 'What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of.'"

With the administration's numbers in a continuing death spiral ever since their sheer incompetence, blatant cronyism, and general heartlessness was exposed by Katrina, several recent anti-Dubya speeches of note:

President Clinton: "Now, what Americans need to understand is that means every single day of the year, our Government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else...We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong."

John Kerry: "'Brownie is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq, what George Tenet is to slam-dunk intelligence, what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad, what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy, what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning, what Tom DeLay is to ethics and what George Bush is to 'Mission Accomplished' and 'Wanted Dead or Alive.'"

John Edwards: "I might have missed something, but I don't think the president ever talked about putting a cap on the salaries of the CEOs of Halliburton and the other companies . . . who are getting all these contracts...This president, who never met an earmark he wouldn't approve or a millionaire's tax cut he wouldn't promote, decided to slash wages for the least of us and the most vulnerable."

Bill Maher: (I forgot where I saw this one first, but it's a toss-up between Booknotes and Follow Me Here.) "On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "

Well, to my partisan eye, Dick Cheney proved time and time again in tonight's sole veep debate that he's not only an inveterate liar but a major-league asshole. (Yeah, big time.) Iraq ("It's going great!"), Osama ("We never stopped going after him!"), the homefront ("Things are looking up!"), you name it...the guy just seems to have no compunction about dissembling flat-out to the American people. Said the veep early on, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Really, Dick? How were we supposed to take Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda" then? Similarly, the audacity of Dick Cheney attacking John Kerry for voting against weapons systems he himself opposed is simply staggering.

From lies to misdirection. How did Cheney try to explain away Halliburton's sweetheart no-bid Iraq contracts, and the subsequent looking askance at their egregious overbilling of the American people? "Um, John, I've never seen you around the Senate before." (Not true, of course, but nice of Dick to send voters to the Soros-run FactCheck.com rather than FactCheck.org, though.) And, when Edwards skewered the veep with his own voting record from back in the day -- no to Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and the Education Dept, no to MLK Day and to condemning apartheid(?!) -- what was Cheney's answer? "Oh, I think his record speaks for itself." You're damn right it does, as does yours.

All that being said, I thought Edwards missed a few chances to put the hurt on Cheney in the early going, and should have responded harder to the ridiculous "facing-up-to-Howard Dean" riff. And he didn't really hit his stride until the domestic-policy-oriented second half, when less-interested swing voters out there had probably started tuning out. (Conversely, I thought Cheney self-destructed for awhile there, mumbling about No Child Left Behind in a question about jobs.) So, while my gut (and the insta-polling) say Edwards took this one, I'm guessing the numbers in the next few days will show a draw, if only because Cheney seemed at least somewhat cognizant of the world around him, unlike his running mate. Next stop: Friday.

Say what you will about the Dem ticket, but at least they understand the importance of protecting our precious bodily fluids from terrorist and Communist impurifications. This October, John Edwards will introduce Dr. Strangelove for Turner Classic Movies. (By way of Quiddity.) For the rest of the "Party Politics and the Movies" series, John McCain chose Paths of Glory, Joe Biden picked Dead Poets Society, and Orrin Hatch took To Kill a Mockingbird.

Well, other than the over-the-top salute at the very beginning of his remarks, I'd say Kerry knocked it out of the park last night. It was definitely the best speech I've ever heard of him give, and one surprisingly full of red meat to lob back at the Bushies. As a result, Kerry seemed energetic and self-assured and, well, presidential throughout. All in all, I thought it a very impressive performance, and one that should help him a great deal in the time between now and the debates, bounce or no.

As for Edwards the night before, I actually thought his speech, despite the nice "Hope is on the Way" refrain, was a bit of a letdown after Obama's rousing keynote. Edwards seemed to stumble a few times in the middle going, and I found the tone a bit too conversational to produce any really memorable turns of phrase. Still, any other year, I think the Senator's speech would've been one of the highlights of the convention. The fact that it loses some luster when compared to those of Clinton, Obama, and Kerry speaks very highly of the overall quality of this year's proceedings in Boston.

Speaking of which, I'd say the GOP will be extremely hard-pressed to match the Democrats' unity, optimism, and energy in a month, particularly with the legions of embittered conservatives in attendance at the Garden. Well, even if they do muster up a fine three-ring circus at the end of August, John Kerry, John Edwards, and the Democrats have proven this week they're ready for the fight. So bring it on.

In his first riposte against his new Dem adversary, Dubya questions Edwards's qualifications for the Presidency. Good God, man, we let you take the position (although admittedly it did take some prodding by the Supreme Court.) For the Dems' part, Kerry had a pretty solid response: "He was right that Dick Cheney was ready to take over on Day One, and did, and he has been ever since, folks."

Apparently, the Bushies are also keying in on "shared values" as their answer to the threat of Kerry-Edwards. Shared values? Puh-leeze. Playing bait-and-switch on the American people? Wading neck deep in corporate cronyism? Handing the rich tax-cut candy at the expense of everyone else? Those ain't my values, bud.

The wait is over, and, in a very good decision by the Kerry team, John Edwards joins the Democratic ticket. This seems like a very smart call (although also a bit of a no-brainer...is there a single person in America who would've voted for Kerry because Gephardt was veep? Heck, even Nader knew the right choice) Edwards not only balances Kerry nicely (Southerner/son of a mill worker), but should seem an order of magnitude more appealing than the disgruntled and curmudgeonly Big Time in the debates. Plus, his optimism and good humor will be an enormous asset when the real mud starts flying in the fall.

All in all, as I said when he came to Columbia a few months back, Edwards has a great future in the Democratic party and American politics, and it's wonderful news that he made the ticket (and has become an instant future contender for the Oval Office.) Go team go.

Super Tuesday has arrived, and many pundits are predicting it to be the last stand of John Edwards, who's got mathematical problems even if he should upset in a few states tonight. Nevertheless, I voted for Edwards this morning (although the machine I used was so Third World that I have to wonder if my vote'll get counted), not because I prefer him all that much to Kerry in the end -- I think either will make a fine candidate this year -- but more because (a) he bothered to show up here twice, and (b) with his personal charm and rhetorical focus on poverty, I believe he has a bright future in the Democratic party. If my vote can help suggest that he has a following outside the South, good for it. All that being said, I'm happy with Kerry too, and he can expect my vote in November, if (ok, when) he proves to be the Dem nominee.

As it turns out, I was able to make it to the John Edwards event on campus this morning, and, all in all, I'd give him a B+. He both read and rushed through the first half of his remarks, which involved some new formulation of his trade policy (more on that in a second), and I found his opening lines particularly ham-handed and speechwriterly. "I know y'all have been waiting for a Son of the South to come to NYC...A-Rod," he said (and I'm paraphrasing.) "Well, I'm not A-Rod, but Wisconsin proved one thing: I can close!" Um, ok, but A-Rod is a shortstop and all, not a closer.

Anyway, nitpicking aside, Edwards improved measurably once he put the paper down and got into the rhythm of his "Two Americas" stump speech, which he'd clearly delivered many times. There were moments, however, when he definitely could have embellished his standard schtick, given the crowd. Edwards talked about how he was a lonely, legal David often going up and winning cases against a Goliath-sized team of corporate lawyers, a biographical stat which probably plays great in the Heartland. It went flat here, though, perhaps because the many law students in the auditorium seemed confused by his remarks: But we want to be those well-paid corporate shills!

Still, Edwards came off extremely polished and personable, and he definitely got the crowd on his side, even when he was blindsided by a sneak "Campaign on AIDS!" protest on the dais behind him. Several members of the VIP crowd unveiled red-ribbon shirts and began chanting right in the middle of his biographical portion (In fact, I could've sworn it was right after he gave the "son of a millworker" line, which was a clever signal to choose, if nothing else.) Edwards gave them a moment, asked the crowd to applaud the "activism of these young people," calmly told a heckler he'd address their point after finishing his bio, and then said a few positive words about fighting AIDS at home and abroad (A critical world issue to be sure, but not a particularly controversial one in this day and age...c'mon, y'all, this isn't 1988. And why try to derail a candidate who is politically sympathetic to your cause, particularly when Karl Rove is across town?) At any rate, no harm no foul for Team Edwards: He navigated this potentially rocky shoal extremely successfully, although I presume some advance guy or gal was given the serious what-for soon thereafter.

As for the trade stuff, I liked where he was going at first, but he eventually seem to fall back on the fair trade side of the usual dichotomy. As I see it, the problem isn't free trade itself per se as much as the loss of American jobs, as well as the ugly spectacle of corporations firing tons of US workers only to turn right around and offer up a fat dividend. Edwards obliquely mentioned this formulation, then fell back on tax breaks for "good" corporations and the trouble with NAFTA. My feeling is, if you want to stop this kind of behavior, there needs to be more stick and less carrot. Hit business where it hurts: Tax the heck out of (or even, God forbid, disallow) corporate dividends that occur in the same fiscal year as the downsizing of X number of American jobs. Simply put, if you can't afford to pay your workers anymore, you damn well shouldn't be paying dividends to stockholders. Edwards came close to saying thus, but then fell back into the old free trade/fair trade rut, which to my mind is a bit like shouting into the wind. If you want to change corporate behavior, focus on corporate behavior...don't blame the increasingly irreversible trend of globalization.

At any rate, all in all Edwards came off quite well, although not as inspiring or Clintonesque as I would've originally liked. He's definitely got a great future in the party and in American politics, and he'd no doubt make a solid contender in this election season against the likes of Dubya (or Dick Cheney.)

After a long, slow, and dismal post-Iowa slide (which, as Chris Suellentrop waggishly put it, wound up "with the leisurely pace of the interminable conclusion of The Return of the King"), Dr. Dean calls it quits, leaving basically a two-man field for the nomination. (Early scuttlebutt had Dean possibly endorsing Edwards, but, although Edwards sent the right signals, Dean instead asked his supporters, strangely enough, to vote his name despite his leaving the race.)

Well, I guess it'll probably take some time to put Dean's swift rise and swifter fall in perspective (Is this Goldwater, McCarthy, Muskie, or something altogether new?) To be honest, I was always a bit surprised by the furor surrounding Dean, given that he was neither as lefty nor as populist as many of his followers seemed to think. I know many found him inspiring, but, even after tentatively getting behind him, I never really saw it or felt it...in fact, quite the contrary. So, while it's always a bit disconcerting to see something that started so well end so badly, I'm can't say I'm overly aggrieved by this turn of events. As I said before, if the nominee is Kerry, so be it.

Of course, there's still the matter of John Edwards, whose surprise showing in Wisconsin definitely keeps him viable for at least one more round. Kerry's overwhelming lead aside, I've been quite enthused by the rise of Edwards since Iowa, who seems like the type of fresh and viable new face the Democratic Party's been needing for some time. Whether or not he has a chance of coming back to win it all this year, I'm inclined to vote for him, if only to show he's got some legs outside the South. At any rate, he'll be speaking on campus early this morning so, if all goes well, I may get a chance to see how he comes off in person.

Seven states across the nation up for grabs last night, and five go to John Kerry. On the flip side, Joe Lieberman finally faced the music and bowed out of the race (So much for that "three-way tie" in NH.)

Well, call me an establishment sellout, but I'm close to putting this one in the fridge. I was glad to see Edwards take my and his home big, but I think Clark's ekeing out of Oklahoma will hurt Carolina's Finest on the momentum front. (That being said, Edwards is looking like a grand Veep.) And Dean, well, his 0-7 strategy was a gamble anyway, but I personally don't believe he's hitting the right notes to make a comeback anymore. Kerry a Republican? That's just plain goofy. I'm all for running on campaign finance reform, of course, and I agree with Mark Shields that Dean's made an enormous contribution in that regard...but I think spinning the "outsider" rhetoric just for the sake of it is lame. (Might as well say "Vote for me! I won't know what the hell I'm doing for the first two years of my administration!") Besides, it's hard to run as the outsider who'll change the insidious culture of Washington once you've nestled the likes of Al Gore to your breast. I'll still put up Gore's primary performance last cycle as an order of magnitude more shady than anything that's gone down this time around.

So, if Kerry's our horse, I'm ready to circle the wagons. He's already up ten on Bush according to Gallup. And, having just seen California freak-show Darrell Issa on late-night CNN frantically go the "Dukakis Dukakis Dukakis" route, I'd say we have a real chance to win this thing. Between this and the atrocious State of the Union, I'm starting to get the sense we've been grossly overestimating Karl Rove's political savvy. And, if the Big 47 holds up...it means trouble for the GOP that even Rehnquist, Scalia et al can't solve this time. Bring it on.

So...New Hampshire has spoken, and John Kerry wins by 12 over fellow New Englander Howard Dean, Clark and Edwards tie for a distant third, and Lieberman falls to fifth. The game now shifts to the South and Midwest, including South Carolina.

Well, while it's a bit off-putting to put this race in the fridge after only two states have spoken, I say it's now definitely looking to be John Kerry's year. That is, barring a strong showing by John Edwards on more favorable terrain, who has to win South Carolina convincingly next week to stay alive. As everyone's known for months, Lieberman is clearly done, despite his ridiculous talk of a three-way tie for third in NH. (So much for the vote-swinging ability of the New Republic.) Wesley Clark may be able to pick up Oklahoma, but momentum counts for a lot, and he was fading fast all last week. So, barring something crazy happening, I'd say the general is also on his way out.

And Dean? Well, obviously he's still got a large war chest and the frenzy of the Deaniacs to fall back on...but where does he go from here? The pre-NH polls have him dropping to fourth or fifth in every one of the polled February 3rd states, except New Mexico (and even that's based on pre-Iowa numbers.) It'd be one thing if he had pulled closer to Kerry in New Hampshire, or even to within ten points, but a twelve-point loss is pretty decisive in terms of being a momentum-killer. (Consider in 2000 that Bradley got to within four points (52%-48%) of Gore in NH, something that was also spun by the pundit class as a "still-kicking" comeback after Iowa, and he got hammered in all 15 states the Tuesday next.) As Chris Suellentrop notes, Dean's only hope may be to go "underground" for awhile, but it's hard to see how a hail-mary play like that will have generated much mojo once the big states actually vote. It's remarkable how Dean and Kerry switched places so quickly, but they did...and just as Kerry would be toast had he not won New Hampshire, the same now looks true for the governor of Vermont.

The Dems held one more for the road last night in New Hampshire and, given that a rather bland Kerry didn't stumble, it's starting to look dire for Dean, who was subdued and chagrined most of the evening and only now seems to be turning the corner on his Muskie Moment. Edwards did reasonably well despite invoking states' rights (which never sounds good with a southern accent) to support his convoluted gay marriage position. And I actually liked Clark better than usual, and thought he handled his recent party switch as well as he could.

But, I have to say, I was extraordinarily irritated by the way the whole Dubya Deserter thing played out last night. First Peter Jennings tells Wesley Clark that Michael Moore's deserter comment was "a reckless charge not supported by the facts" and asks him if it'd have been "a better example of ethical behavior" to contradict him. Clark doesn't go either way on it, claiming not to know all the facts. (Which is lame -- What's the point of having a General in the running if he's not going to call out Bush on exactly this question?) Then, once the show's over, Fox News pulls out Team Bespectacled White Guys (Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes), who both immediately argue that Clark irreparably damaged his candidacy by not refuting this baseless charge, yadda yadda yadda.

Um, am I missing something? It's been substantiated quite well that Bush seems to have gone AWOL by the Boston Globe and others, and I'm not talking about the six or seven critical hours on September 11 when he was toodling around above the Heartland. While absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, Dubya seems to have disappeared from the Air National Guard for almost a year between 1972-73, conveniently right before a drug test (an offense for which he was grounded), and, to this day, he has never satisfactorily explained where he was. (In fact, as the Straight Dope notes, later reports in The New Republic (by Ryan Lizza, if I remember correctly) even cast doubt on the half-hearted "some recollection" explanation Dubya gave during the 2000 campaign. (By the way, this all happened several years after Bush scored in the underwhelming 25th percentile on the pilot's aptitude portion of the entrance exam, thus having to rely on his congressman-daddy's connections to jump the year-long waiting list for the Air National Guard in the first place.)

Does all of this prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Dubya pulled a Cold Mountain? Well, no, but it's definitely enough to suggest that Bush has some serious explaining to do. (And he revoked any "youthful indiscretion" type-defense when he began parading around in flight gear on the USS Lincoln.) So, I mean, c'mon, now, a baseless charge about Bush? At this point it seems more correct to say that the bases were "Bush-less." Next thing you'll know Fox News will be screaming at John Kerry for perpetuating the "vicious rumor" of Dubya's DUI.



At any rate, regarding other matters, I didn't see Diane Sawyer or Letterman last night so can't ascertain how Dean damage control went there, but I did catch the Dallas-Laker game on TNT, and during Inside the NBA EJ, Kenny and Charles must have played the Dean Scream about thirty times...in fact Ernie had it connected to his desk button. "Nash kicks to Dirk, Dirk from the corner...YEEEEEAAAAGH! Sacramento's up big in the third...YEEEEEAAAGH!" And so on, so on. Pretty much the first political content I've ever seen on the show, and, yeah, it was funny every time. Poor Dean.

As a revitalized John Kerry gains traction in New Hampshire and John Edwards shores up the South, Howard Dean plays subdued while his supporters ponder the state of the movement. Update: The Iowa bounce bounces...Kerry's up 10.

So how do you like them apples? John Kerry comes up big in Iowa (38%), John Edwards places a very viable second (32%)...and the once seemingly-insurmountable Howard Dean falls to a distant third (18%). (For his part, a broken-hearted Gephardt came in fourth (11%) and will drop out tomorrow...so much for Big Union.)


An interesting evening, all in all, and one that's in effect limited the Democratic race from eight to four:

First off, I think Howard Dean added insult to injury tonight with his cringeworthy (non-)concession speech -- that hoarse, high-pitched yelp at the end of his angry roll of states is going to be played-for-laughs by the punditocracy hundreds of times this week (In fact, it took all of two hours for Drudge to post it as his headline...it's since been removed.) It was a display that could seriously hurt him among undecideds who've never really seen the guy before. That being said, the prognosis for the doctor isn't necessarily terrible, if he can weather the initial post-Iowa dip. For one, the rise of Kerry and Edwards is going to seriously complicate the anti-Dean question: Both Kerry and Clark will now be vying for veterans, as Clark and Edwards fight over who's the electable southerner. And Dean's still got the money and the movement, which isn't going to just wither away because of a bad night in Des Moines. That being said, Dean's in for a race now, and if that's the case, I for one am pleased that the candidates pushing him are as of tonight more likely to be John Edwards and John Kerry than they are Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, or the now-defunct Dick Gephardt.

John Edwards is a candidate I've been looking to see more from this whole cycle, and, if a long primary haul is our party's fate, I'm very glad he'll get a chance to strut his stuff on the main stage. He's got real populist cred and a trial lawyer's argumentative savvy, and, well, the Southern accent doesn't hurt. He definitely looked the best tonight in terms of tone and message. And I think that, not unlike our current president, he's often "misunderestimated." Go Edwards.

I've been relatively agnostic about John Kerry for awhile (in part because he stumped so blatantly for Gore over Bradley last primary cycle), but I've liked him more recently since he lost Chris Lehane and started loosening up. Despite the fears of Dukakis-redux, I think Kerry could make a very strong candidate in the general, given his (perhaps too-overtouted of late) military record and debating skills. If he carries this bounce to a Democratic victory, I won't be overly disappointed.

As for Wesley Clark...well, let's just say the bloom is off the rose in these parts. Running a Lehane-style campaign isn't helping him, but the real problem is, well, he's not a Democrat. He voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, and Bush, he's been a member of the party for less than a year, and he's on tape praising the Dubya administration at a GOP fundraiser. I really don't think the Democratic Party should be getting behind a fellow who's said "I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill -- people I know very well -- our President George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe." Because, y'know, that particular soundbite would singlehandedly throw the election to Dubya, and we need to make Karl Rove spend at least some of his massive war chest on formulating his own advertisements.

So Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry...the board is set, the pieces are moving.

Just when you think it's over, Iowa gets crazy, with no less than four candidates -- Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards -- all in a statistical dead heat. Hmmm. While I'm still hoping Dean can nip a protracted primary fight in the bud right here (particularly given the huge GOP bankroll), I'm also glad to see John Edwards entering the top tier of candidates. At any rate, it looks like it'll all come down to get-out-the-vote on the big day, which should help Dean, who's got the fervor, and Gephardt, who's got the unions and a sixteen-year-old organization.

With Iowa and New Hampshire seemingly for Dean, both the Doctor and his rivals continue to hone in on South Carolina as a make-or-break state. As I said earlier, SC is probably the last, best hope for a Clark, Edwards or Gephardt to establish themselves as the Southern anti-Dean. As for Lieberman and Kerry, barring a fantastic upset in New Hampshire, it seems to be all over for the both of them, as their increasingly scorched earth rhetoric attests.

Up to now, he seemed content with making a few zingers at the Dem debates. But now, Reverend Sharpton is fighting mad, calling frontrunner Howard Dean "anti-black" in a recent statement. (The Deanies have issued a reply.) Well, I'm perturbed about Dean's stance on gun control and the death penalty as well (although most of the candidates are pro-death penalty this time around.) But it seems pretty clear in this case that Sharpton is gunning more at the credibility of Jesse Jackson, Jr. (soon to endorse Dean - his father is keeping mum for now) in the black community. Besides, class-based or no, Dean is more of a friend to affirmative action than Gore was back in the day. And speaking of Gore, Dick Gephardt tries once again to pin a Gore-like Mediscare gambit on Dean. Meanwhile, John Edwards, for his part, continues to pursue the Southern strategy.

By respective votes of 303-125 and 87-12, the Iraq funding bill passes the House and Senate. (In terms of the Dem contenders, Lieberman and Gephardt voted in favor of the bill, while Kerry, Kucinich, and Edwards did not.) So Dubya got his money this time...let's hope it's enough to get the job done. Perhaps it's time for Congress to reconsider the Biden Amendment?

It's unofficial - Wesley Clark will become the tenth contender in the crowded Democratic field and - barring an early screw-up of monumental proportions - has to be considered one of the frontrunners immediately. It'll be interesting to see how he shakes up the race - I expect he'll take some of Dean's mavericks, Kerry's military men, and, perhaps most importantly, Edwards' Southerners. (Perhaps sensing the threat, Gore alumnus Chris Lehane left the Kerry team.) In other election news, Edwards officially announces his candidacy (Poor luck that Clark'll steal his media today), while the NY Times's David Brooks examines why GOP ops love Dean. (I, for one, don't really buy it - Dean has to be more worrisome than a milquetoast like Graham.)

In a decision that may prove costly for Congressional Dems in 2004, John Edwards cancels his Senate bid to focus full-time on running for President. (I'd say Erskine Bowles is a strong back-up candidate - still, Dems are rarely an easy sell in North Carolina). I presume Edwards is making this move to gather some momentum and try to stake out the "Son of the South" slot in the top tier before Clark shows up to steal his mojo. As I've noted before, Edwards plays the populism angle very well, but he's going to have a seriously uphill battle should the General join the fight. And at the moment he's got ground to make up in my mind for his defense of the Patriot Act.

Warriors, come out and play...With help from Columbia's own KJ, David Greenberg attempts to explain the lack of NYC looters during the blackout, particularly as compared to the events of 1977. Also, in blackout news, the Dems (Edwards excepted) point the finger at Dubya's lousy energy and infrastructure policies. Works for me.

Campaign Update: While Howard Dean enjoys a very good press week, a flailing Joe Lieberman rails against the Left (and calls Dean a "ticket to nowhere.") How utterly self-serving. Meanwhile, although it's nothing compared to Dubya's, John Edwards prepares to capitalize on his own considerable war chest.

As Dean scores another Internet coup and looks even more competitive in New Hampshire, the DLC tries to scare the left into submission with polls suggesting a mass defection of white males (veterans notwithstanding, I presume.) Perhaps it should be noted that Mark Penn is currently working for the Lieberman campaign. In related news, Jonathans Chait and Cohn debate Dean's effect on the race in TNR. And, finally, John Edwards announces his health care plan in New Hampshire in Clintonesque fashion. (Veteran link via Follow Me Here.)

William Saletan, who's been rather unkind to Dean in the past, shows his hand - he's for Edwards. Unfortunately, Saletan's case here makes me less inclined to vote for him. "If Dean's strength is speaking bluntly to the right, Edwards, like Joe Lieberman, has shown a facility for speaking bluntly to the left." That's exactly what I don't want to hear.

After a week of considerable coverage for Dean (due to his second-quarter funding success), John Edwards tries to get back in the game by unveiling his corporate accountability plan. As usual, I think Edwards is playing this smart. The issue shores up his Populist creds while drawing attention to an area where Dubya is dismal. And Edwards still holds a trump card, in that he is the only top-tier candidate with an answer to the Dem's Southern problem. It'd be nice to see Edwards, Dean, and Kerry go head-to-head-to-head in a real debate, but first the field still needs to be culled, of course.

While the Democratic party as a whole continues to seem as divided and stymied by the Dubya dip as they do Weaponsgate, several of the candidates lash out on their own, including John Edwards, who calls the Dubya tax cuts the "most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since Socialism." I'd think Eugene Debs is probably turning over in his grave at the comparison.

William Saletan goes ga-ga for John Kerry (which would hold more water with me if he hadn't slavered over Gore back in the day), while Dean snipes at Graham, calling him a "lower-tier candidate." True enough, but Dean has to be careful - he's already garnered something of a reputation as Mean Dr. Dean, and coming out for the death penalty won't help. Rounding out the top tier (I can say it, even if Dean can't), John Edwards calls for middle-class tax cuts, to be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy. A smart move, in keeping with the populist track Edwards has staked out, even if I think a payroll tax cut makes much more sense.

Election 2004 update: Kerry tries to separate from the herd by announcing his proposed national energy policy today, which includes raising fuel-efficiency standards (currently at 20.7 and 27.5 miles per gallon for SUVs and cars respectively) to 36mpg by 2015. (Of the other leading candidates, Dean appears to concur with tougher standards, while Edwards - also in Iowa today to call for pension reform - has voted for a truck exemption in the past...the perils of a pickup state.)I like the "Of Big Oil, by Big Oil, for Big Oil" line...hopefully the pack will continue to call out Bush before turning on each other anew.

Well, after watching a rebroadcast of Saturday's first Democratic debate on C-Span yesterday...

The Top Tier: I'd have to say it's still a three-man race for my vote right now among Kerry, Dean, and Edwards. I personally thought Edwards came off the best, although he benefited greatly from being the first Dem to step "above" the Kerry-Dean fracas. As per the rap on him, Kerry seemed somewhat bored and remote, while Dean - who usually says the right things on paper - appeared pugnacious and self-satisfied. To my dismay, Dean seemed even less personable on the telly than Tsongas did back in the day. So, of the three, I thought Edwards seemed like he had the best chance of not being pigeonholed as a Standard-Issue Out-Of-It Liberal in a debate with Dubya, and he seemed much more comfortable using populist rhetoric than Gore ever did. To my mind, Edwards wins Round 1, although obviously we have quite a few more rounds to go.

The Rest: If I had to pick a fourth choice, it'd probably be Moseley-Braun, who got in the best line of the evening with her Florida recount gag. ("People said that the black vote would decide the election of 2000, and it did...Clarence Thomas's.") Gephardt seemed a bit weary of primary shenanigans, Lieberman (who inexplicably is getting the best post-debate press) is in the wrong primary, and Bob "Live in Fear" Graham, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich were too busy playing Orrin Hatch, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer respectively. Didn't much care for Stephanopoulos as self-proclaimed Kingmaker either (although I guess ABC had to use someone in their stable, and he was the most likely candidate), and I found his "I speak for the electorate about your foibles" routine in Pt. III to be wildly unproductive, if not downright insulting. While his characterizations of the candidates' flaws might have occasionally been on the money (although occasionally they weren't...who says Lieberman is too nice to be the Democratic candidate? Too theocratic, perhaps - too Republican, for sure - but too nice? That softball was a gift.), more time spent on issues and less on inside baseball would surely have been in order for the first debate.

Kerry's got the loot, Lieberman's spending too much, Edwards is bleeding support (I'm not sure if losing Shrum is a negative), and, even among nine candidates, Florida Senator Bob Graham has come up with a novel position on the Middle East: He's against the war in Iraq, for a war in Syria. And we've got eighteen months to go, folks.

Election 2004 Update: While the Dem field try to figure out who's going to go after Al Sharpton, Karl Rove and the White House set their sights on John Edwards. It's getting ugly early, folks.

In the Democratic race to lock up Golden State backing for 2004, John Kerry's leading in the (still-hesitant) money department while - surprisingly - Howard Dean (also doing well in Iowa) has locked up some key Hollywood endorsements, including Rob Reiner and President Bartlett. Meanwhile, Florida Senator Bob Graham joins the fun and swells the field to nine. Despite the late start by Graham, his entry probably means bad news for John Edwards.

John Edwards and the rest of the Democratic field try to figure out how to manage the NAACP boycott of South Carolina. Sigh...between Bob Jones University and the Stars 'n Bars, it's always a bit embarrassing to hail from South Carolina in an election year. Hopefully a day will someday come when the post-Strom Palmetto State will finally get its act together.

James Fallows on Bill Clinton on John Edwards, coming soon in The Atlantic Monthly. (In the meantime, you can peruse Fallows' annotated version of Dubya's State of the Union address.)

William Saletan sizes up John Edwards' Clintonian appeal, as does the rest of the media. If nothing else, it sounds like he's got a winning message that he's smart enough to stay on.

In related news, John Kerry currently leads the fundraising race among Democrats, although the as-yet-unannounced Dick Gephardt is relatively close. Like Daschle, I'd think Gephardt would serve the party better as a much-needed progressive flak, taking the heat off more viable candidates like Kerry and Edwards. But Gephardt has desired the Presidency for so long that I doubt he'll let the race pass him by this time.

It 's now looking like Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and Tom Daschle are both in for 2004. Edwards seems like an ok candidate due to the Southern thing, but Daschle? I like Daschle, but I'm not sure this is a very good idea. Sure, he'll probably win the not-so-crucial South Dakota primary hands down, but what does he bring to the table that's not already offered by the other three Senators in the hunt? I guess we'll see.