Recently in The Dem Primary Category

"Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence -- on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to 'do the job from Day One.' In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel...Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency." The Atlantic's Josh Green, who covered the dirt on the Patty Doyle firing earlier this year, tells the story of Sen. Clinton's primary bid from the inside (thanks mainly to being the beneficiary of vindictive document dumps from across the campaign hierarchy.)

Among the many interesting revelations, Mark Penn is apparently an even bigger asshole than he seemed during the primaries. Regarding Sen. Obama: "All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050...his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values...Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds." Classy.

Update: Speak of the devil. While giving kudos to McCain for his Paris Hilton ad, Mark Penn emerges from his cave to extol the usefulness of negative advertising. "Picking a president is not just about the candidates’ strengths but also about how their weaknesses can manifest themselves. Imagine if, in 2000, Al Gore’s advertisements had hit George W. Bush hard over incompetence on foreign affairs and as a trigger-happy cowboy."

"[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.)

“'The most important thing we learned is this: Hillary Clinton won 8 of the last 13 primaries,' said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s top strategist. 'He is beatable.'" Facing an uphill battle against Sen. Obama, John McCain takes several pages from the Clinton playbook. Well, thanks much for pre-plowing that road, Senator. I don't think it'll make much difference in the end, whatever the polls say at the moment, but we might as well make the GOP work for a strategy next time.

In related news, Bill Clinton still seems stuck in a moment he can't get out of. "'I am not a racist,' he continued. 'I've never made a racist comment and I never attacked him [Obama] personally.'" Uh, riiight. Tell you what, Mr. President: We'll forgive you if you just stop insulting our intelligence about it.

Update: He's still picking at the scab. "'You can argue that nobody is ready to be President,' the former President told ABC News."

"'She's no longer campaigning for president,' said Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee. 'She's focused on her work in the Senate, campaigning for Senator Obama and other Democrats.'" With the Dems back on the same team, the Clinton campaign scrubs its website of anti-Obama material from the primary era. As such, this seems as good a time as any to definitively put to rest these Penn-inspired primary fictions as well:

"We cannot let this moment slip away,' Clinton pressed. "'For anyone who voted for me and who is now considering not voting, or voting for Sen. McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider. I urge you to remember what we are standing for in this election.'" In the aptly-named town of Unity, NH, Sen. Clinton campaigns with Sen. Obama. (They've also now maxed out donations to each other, and Obama continues to hire senior Clinton staff.)

In not-unrelated news, new polls put Wisconsin (+13) and Minnesota (+17) pretty firmly in the lean-Obama column. Says CNN: "The Illinois senator now has 231 electoral votes — 39 shy of winning the presidency," and that's not counting OH, FL, CO, NM, VA, or IA...all states we have a solid shot of picking up. Again, I don't want to jinx anything, but I'm feeling pretty confident about our prospects these days.

"Mr. Band, who declined to comment, is hardly alone in tallying those considered to have crossed the former candidate or the former president in recent months by supporting Mr. Obama. As the Obama bandwagon has swelled, so have the lists of people Clinton loyalists regard as some variation of 'ingrate,' 'traitor' or 'enemy,' according to the associates and campaign officials, who would speak only on condition of anonymity." They're making a list, and checking it twice... Via Blackberry, Clinton flunkies draw up a post-primary enemies list. It ain't politics without grudges, I guess.

So...as you probably saw, Sen. Clinton finally, officially left the race on Saturday. In the interests of moving forward, I'll refrain from commenting too much about her woefully self-absorbed concession speech [text], which has generally been garnering raves out of (I suspect) valedictory courtesy. It might've worked better if given at the appropriate time, I suppose, but as a do-over I found it sub-par both in theme (once again, it was all about her) and delivery (she only smiled when discussing herself, and otherwise had that gritted-teeth POW look about her.)

Regarding Sen. Clinton's much-touted brand-relaunch as a shatterer of glass ceilings and an exemplary avatar of feminism, I'll point to this earlier post by Alison Benedikt and Anne Applebaum's essay on Slate: "[T]he last few weeks of her campaign have been not so much feminist as pathological." For everything else, I'll refer to my post on Sen. Clinton's Boromirian tendencies these past primary months. In any case, on to the general election.

If that's your man, then tag him in... The dirt off their shoulders, Sen. and Michelle Obama share a brief and touching moment onstage before the nomination-clinching speech on Tuesday. I must say, I greatly prefer this presidential show of affection to this one (or to the Gore make-out session, for that matter.)

Speaking of which, with Isengard subdued, meet the new opponent (via Little Bit Left, and the reverse-angle bump via The Late Adopter):

"In the bunker there exists a different reality. In the bunker, Hillary is the winner: of the popular vote, of a series of big swing states, of the authentic American vote. In the bunker, Hillary is introduced by the indefatiguable Terry McAuliffe as 'the next President of the United States!' When asked about the reality outside the bunker -- that Obama supporters were in a minor rage over Hillary’s speech -- McAuliffe looked at me incredulously. 'Tonight was Hillary’s night!' he exclaimed. 'We won tonight! We won in South Dakota! We keep winning!'"

Sigh. Or, put another way via R.E.M.'s Life's Rich Pageant: "I will hide and you will hide, and we shall hide together here. Underneath the bunkers in the row. I have water, I have rum. Wait for dawn and dawn shall come, Underneath the bunkers in the row."

Also, on McAuliffe's point about it being "Hillary's night," see Jeffrey Toobin on CNN yesterday, referring to "the deranged narcissism of the Clintons." They really don't make it easy to cut them a break.

Update: The endgame is now Saturday: "Clinton will host an event in Washington on Saturday 'to thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity,' according to Howard Wolfson, who did not explicitly state that Clinton is dropping out of the race. But other campaign officials said the event will coincide with her departure, despite her earlier reservations about stepping aside." Well, better late than never.

Well, it's sometimes seemed to have more endings than Return of the King. But, tonight, it looks like the primary season is finally, really, truly at an end, with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois our duly chosen Democratic nominee. In the days and weeks ahead, it'll behoove all of us, however hard, to let the primary bygones be bygones and to help reunite the party against our real foe, John McCain and the GOP. But, before we let the healing begin, I do have one more word to say about the Clintons, who above all else this campaign season has proven the truth of the old adage: "Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them."

Now, I'm not going to recite the full litany of grievances against the Clintons' behavior of late one more time. I'd say that ground is already pretty well-covered in the election archives. But I will say this: It has become increasingly fashionable in the press and elsewhere to esteem Sen. Clinton -- regardless of her other political transgressions -- as gutsy, tenacious, a fighter. Say what you will about her methods, this line of thinking goes, she goes there. She does what needs to be done. In fact, argues otherwise discerning political observers such as friend and colleague David Greenberg, she is exactly the kind of fighter the Left has said they've been looking for. (Of course, she and her husband have been AWOL when it counted over the past seven years, but that's neither here nor there in this view.)

Well, simply put, this is all hooey. Sen. Clinton's behavior over the past six months and change has been exactly the wrong lesson for Democrats to draw from the politics of the last decade. I've said it here several times before, but, in a nutshell, here's why:

You don't wear the ring. You destroy the ring.

Or, in other words, the key to beating the Republicans is not by acting Republican. It's by rising above their tendentious garbage and working to restore reason and sanity to our politics. At the very least, a Democratic nominee for president shouldn't validate the base tactics of the GOP by wallowing in their wretchedness. For what shall it profit a woman, if she shall gain the whole world, and lose her own soul?

Nevertheless, seemingly blinded by ambition, Sen. Clinton very quickly chose the wrong path. (In the place of a Dumb Lord, we would have a Queen...) She embraced the Rove playbook and dabbled in Al Qaeda hysteria. She validated John McCain and threatened to obliterate Iran. She called her opponent elitist and derided the "elite opinion" of the reality-based community. She played nice with Limbaugh, Scaife, and FOX. She flirted dangerously with the race card and lauded hard-working whites. She, for all intent and purposes, became the Republican candidate in the Democratic primary. She, and her husband, became part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

To repeat something I said after Wisconsin in February, the night when Sen. Obama's primary victory basically became mathematically inexorable: "If you'll forgive the lapse into LotR metaphors, the treason of Saruman, once the noblest and wisest of our order, is almost subdued. The Battle for Middle-Earth is only beginning." So, as we move forward after tonight, I'll try as much as anyone to tone down the internecine fighting around here, and start focusing fire on our true opponents over on the Right. (That is provided, of course, that Sen. Clinton chooses to diminish, go into the West, and remain a Democrat.) But let's also draw the appropriate lesson from the Clinton candidacy of 2008. The Clinton era is over, and this general election is now a chance for we as Dems "to show our quality." We are not Dubya-Rove Republicans, and adopting their scorched-earth idiocies in a "tenacious" attempt to get elected is most assuredly the road to political, civic, and spiritual ruin.

"'I want to say also that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind,' the former president told Clinton supporters in South Dakota, ABC and NBC reported on their news websites. 'I thought I was out of politics, till Hillary decided to run. But it has been one of the greatest honors of my life to go around and campaign for her for president,' he added at the start of his stump speech." There've been rumors floating around about Sen. Clinton's speech in New York tomorrow, but has Bill let the cat out of the bag? One can only hope.

Update: Sigh...A Clinton spokesperson categorically denies an imminent exit tomorrow. In related news, New York Magazine's John Heilemann and The Atlantic's James Fallows ponder what Sen. Clinton is thinking these days. Heilemann: "[M]y response is simple: She wants to be president. Duh. And if it ain’t gonna happen this year, then her central objective is to make it as likely as possible in 2012." Fallows: "The Clinton team doesn't worry about hurting Obama's prospects of winning in the fall, because they assess those prospects at zero. Always have...So by definition they can't be making things worse. It is like sticking pins into a corpse -- you're not really hurting it any more. And if these efforts in fact make Obama's victory less likely -- well, then, reality will conform to their preexisting view."

Update 2: Word this morning is Sen. Clinton will in fact concede (sort of) tonight. "The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City...But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over." Update 3: McAuliffe says not so. Get it together over there, y'all.

Update 4: Well, for once McAuliffe was right -- You can't call that a concession. Sen. Clinton's "un-concession" speech tonight in New York, delivered an hour after Sen. Obama had mathematically clinched the Democratic nomination, would've been stunning in its gracelessness, if it wasn't so much in keeping with what we've seen all election season from her. Classy until the end.

"There is reason to believe that Clinton, who never made more than $35,000 a year as governor of Arkansas and left the White House about $12 million in debt, has had his head turned by his ability to enjoy his post-presidential status; that the world of rich friends, adoring fans, and borrowed jets in which he travels has skewed his judgment or, at a minimum, created uncomfortable appearances of impropriety. There is ample evidence that his eight-year absence from a political workplace that has changed radically in the interim has left him conspicuously rusty at the craft of which he was once a master. There are those friends who worry that Clinton has never been the same since his quadruple-bypass surgery, in 2004, and the unexpected follow-up operation six months later to remove accumulated scar tissue on his lung...It is also possible that all these influences have combined to make the cavernous narcissism that has always driven Clinton, for better and worse, at last consume the man almost completely."

As the primary season draws to a close, former White House correspondent and longtime Clinton watcher Todd Purdum tries to ascertain what's happened to Bill Clinton since 2001 (and takes another look at some of his recent questionable dealings.) "Perhaps more than anything, Clinton, whose audiences in recent years have tended to be adoring crowds who hang on every word of what those who have heard his standard speech say is a rambling tour d’horizon of world problems, has simply lost a step."

Update: "Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn't find time to talk to even one of them for comment." Suffice to say, Pres. Clinton didn't like the piece.

Whatever President Clinton's recent issues, he's still a much-loved figure down in Puerto Rico, as Sen. Clinton's large victory in the island territory today partially attests. (We're at 68%-32%, with 98% reporting.) Too little, too late, of course -- particularly as Puerto Rico currently doesn't count in the general election -- but at least Sen. Clinton got a chance to go out with a bang.

Update: Some interesting math via Rural Votes: "Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico, obviously, is a place where Limbaugh has no significant listenership, and this provides us a yardstick with which to measure Limbaugh’s actual impact on English-speaking state primaries. In Kentucky for example, on May 20, a full 19 percent of Clinton’s voters said they would not be satisfied with her nomination. On May 13, an equal number - 19 percent - of her own voters in West Virginia said they wouldn’t be satisfied with her nomination. But only five percent in Puerto Rico were in that category. This suggests that 14 percent of Clinton’s vote in recent mainland state primaries consisted of the Limbaugh 'chaos' voters."

With architect of the DNC rules turned Clinton apparachik Harold Ickes playing dead-ender to the hilt, the Rules & Bylaws Committee decides to seat Michigan and Florida as half-delegates. (However irate the stark raving Clintonites, even the former President has suggested recently -- in private -- that this compromise made the most sense.) For those keeping score, this makes the new delegate threshold 2118, which, if all goes well, puts Obama in striking range to end the primary season officially on Tuesday night (in Montana and South Dakota.)

Helping him pass the threshold, of course, will be the superdelegates, who have continued their trend toward Obama during my moving week. Since the last update, according to DemConWatch, Obama has picked up fifteen supers to Clinton's four, and word is the rest of the "undecideds" are just waiting for the word to break for our nominee. At long last, it's over, folks.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." A Freudian slip, or just the Mother of all Gaffes? Classy to the end, Sen. Clinton, perhaps inadvertently, blurts out her Vulture Strategy. Now, that should go over like gangbusters. Ugh, go away already.

Update: "Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, reacting to Mrs. Clinton’s comment through a spokeswoman, said only, 'This is beyond the pale.'"

Update 2: In a special comment tonight, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann blew a gasket over Clinton's remarks, and offered a concise and damning litany of the ridiculousness Sen. Clinton has subjected us to over these past few months. To be honest, I think Olbermann is pretty far over the top here. That being said, the riff beginning at 7:13 is very worthwhile.

"Tonight, Iowa, in the fullness of spring, with the help of those who stood up from Portland to Louisville, we have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States." After winning Oregon 59-41 (with 94% reporting) and, uh, doing less well in Kentucky (although I was heartened to see he took Louisville), Sen. Obama returns to Iowa with a majority of the pledged delegates, thus effectively sealing up the nomination.

It looks like Sen. Clinton has decided to hang around a few more weeks nonetheless (in part, it seems, to expose the "vast sexist conspiracy" which caused her not to contest caucus states or come up with a plan past Super Tuesday), but the focus for Team Obama is now clearly on John McCain and the GOP. "'I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations,' Obama's remarks continued, 'but the one thing they don't represent is change.'"

Update: By way of The Late Adopter and sententiae et clamores, The Village Voice's Allison Benedikt puts the lie to Sen. Clinton's grappling with sexism of late: "Currently pregnant with the next generation, let me just say this: There is no greater wish that a mother can have for her daughter than that she will exploit poor people, obliterate Iran, and win rigged class president elections, Putin-style. (Mom, I won 100 percent of the vote!)...This War on Women is just like the War on Christmas: imaginary."

Welcome from the land of boxes, and, if you live in Kentucky or Oregon, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. I expect updates will be sparser than usual this week on account of my imminent move, but, to catch up on recent electoral goings-on: Since the last super update, Sen. Obama has picked up the endorsement of Sen. Robert Byrd, Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (GU), DNC members Greg Pecoraro (MD), Larry Gates (KS), Blake Johnson (AK), Dwight Pelz (WA), and Cindy Spanyers (AK), and 3 UADs (2 in California, 1 in Kansas). (In the meantime, Sen. Clinton has picked up 3 Cali UADs.)

So, that's Clinton +3, Obama + 10 and Warren Buffett. The upshot being, however much tiptoeing is going on at the moment, Sen. Obama should wrap this thing up for good tonight when he takes 50% +1 of the pledged delegates. And there will be much rejoicing.

"Many answers fell into a handful of broad themes we've been hearing for months now. (She shouldn't have run as an incumbent. She should have paid more attention to caucus states. She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies.) Others had a distinct score-settling flavor...But whether personal or clinical, new or familiar, the critiques are all the more striking for having come directly from those neck-deep in the action. So, here it is, an elegy for Hillary '08, written by some of those who have worked tirelessly to keep it alive." Now that reality has finally set in, TNR's Michelle Cottle gets residents of Hillaryland to ruminate on what went wrong. Among the more telling:

Another day of endorsements for Sen. Obama: In today's batch so far, we have the inimitable Rep. Henry Waxman (CA), Reps. Jim McDermott (WA) and Howard Berman (CA), and DNC member Larry Cohen (DC).

In addition, yesterday's Edwards endorsement brings in 6 of Edwards' pledged 19 delegates (so far), as well as the endorsement of the United Steelworkers. For those playing at home, the Thursday count thus far: Obama +10.

Update: It now looks like eight Edwards delegates have defected, and word is a recanvass in NC has given one of Clinton's delegates to Obama. So, today's new count: Obama +13, Clinton -1.

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."

As expected, Sen. Clinton wins the Mountain State handily, taking West Virginia 67%-26%, with 7% For Edwards. (Her main key to victory: The 71% of the WV electorate without a college degree broke for her 71%-29%.) But, alas for Sen. Clinton's hopes for a miracle comeback, this is basically the equivalent of a garbagetime touchdown. And, worse still for Team Clinton, a new poll has Sen. Obama up 20 in the significantly larger state of Oregon, and the supers continue to move toward the presumptive nominee regardless. Today's haul thus far: Obama +3.5. (Rep. Peter Visclosky (IN), DNC member Awais Kaleel, OK State Senator Mike Morgan, WI State Sen. Lena Taylor, and Dem Abroad Christine Marques against a Tennessee UAD for Clinton.)

The night's big political news, however, happened down in Mississippi. In an upset that has stunned and demoralized the RNC, Democrat Travis Childers wins a special election going away, 54-46%, in a strong-conservative district that voted 62-37% for Dubya in 2004. Childers is not only the third Dem to win a safe-GOP district in recent months (following Bill Foster in IL and Don Cazayoux in LA), he was also explicitly painted as an elitist pro-Wright, prObama Dem by the Mississippi GOP. So how's that for an electability argument? (To be fair, Dick Cheney also showed up to stump for Childers' opponent...that might've helped us too.)

With all due respect to the Magnolia State, if the Republicans' tired culture-war strategy didn't play in the most conservative parts of Ole Miss, it's not going to play anywhere this year...not even in West Virginia.

Well, West Virginia and Kentucky may not be on board, but the supers are continuing to flock to Sen. Obama en masse. Recent pickups: Sen. Daniel Akaka (HI), Reps. Harry Mitchell (AZ) and Tom Allen (ME), UAD Dave Regan (OH), and DNC members Crystal Strait (CA), Dolly Strazar (HI), Keith Roark (ID), Carol Burke (VI) and Kevin Rodriguez (VI). (Rodriguez is a switch, so that cancels out either Clinton's Mass. UAD or Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (TX). The final tally since last update: Obama +9, Clinton +1, meaning, by everyone's count, Obama is now in the super lead.

Update: Tuesday morning brings another slew of supers to Obama: UAD Mayor Ray Nagin (LA) of Katrina fame, Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN), former Governor Roy Romer (CO), and DNC member Anita Bonds (DC). And, in a cruel irony given their earlier stated strategy to peel them off, the Clinton camp lost a pledged delegate this morning: Jack Johnson (MD). The morning tally: Obama +5, Clinton -1...that should help to salve tonight's probable 12-delegate pickup for HRC.

"'She has unleashed the gates of hell,' a longtime party leader told me. 'She's saying, "He's not one of us."'" As even former Clinton supporters look aghast at yesterday's transparent race-baiting, the supers begin to break in force for Sen. Obama. Adding to the two (Reps. Brad Miller of NC and Rick Larsen of WA) yesterday, Obama picks up Reps. Peter DeFazio of OR and Mazie Hirono of HI, DNC members Vernon Watkins (CA), Wilber Lee Jeffcoat (SC), John Gage (MD), Pilar Lujan (Guam), Ernest Espinoza (CA), and NM add-on Laurie Weahkee. In addition, Clinton's one pick-up (Rep. Chris Carney of PA, following his district) is erased by the defection of Rep. Donald Payne of NJ.

Taken altogether, this means Sen. Obama has picked up +11 to Clinton's +0 since the last update, putting him finally in the superdelegate lead. In addition, John Edwards, despite his recent claim of neutrality, now suggests he voted Obama, and even Clinton canary-in-the-coalmine Rahm Emanuel is now calling Obama "the presumptive nominee," even if he says he's not endorsing yet. In other words, the party is now backing Obama, and the Fat Lady is practicing her scales. (Clinton, of course, remains in denial.) Update: One more, Joe Johnson, DNC-VA.) Update 2: And a Saturday UAD, from Utah, Kristi Cumming. The next batch of UADs named (NY, OH) should lean Clinton, though.

You know, just when I thought Sen. Clinton realized she had been decisively beaten, and thus that it was time to beg off and let the healing begin, we get garbage like this: With West Virginia and Kentucky on the docket (and no more sizable African-American populations left on the calendar), Clinton toys dangerously with the race card yet again. "'I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,' she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article 'that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.'" Uh, riiiight. Because, as we all know, black Americans aren't hard-working at all, but rather "shiftless" and "indolent." "There's a pattern emerging here." That there is, Sen. Clinton, and your campaign seems to be on the wrong side of it.

I get it -- She was probably trying to make the same old point about her support among the white working class, and for whatever reason it came out disastrously wrong and inadvertently (I hope) conflated white and hard-working. But, even allowing for an unfortunate gaffe, this riff further illustrates the Clinton campaign's troubling penchant for denigrating African-American votes as less important than those of white folk. Simply put, they're not -- a vote is a vote is a vote, and Obama has more of them, eggheads, African-Americans, you name it. Nor do I agree with the dubious contention that white working-class voters who have backed Clinton in the primary will go for McCain in the general en masse. As I said here, when it comes to primaries and generals, we're talking apples and oranges. Past performance is no indicator of future success, or failure.

Just to do this properly, Sen. Obama wins North Carolina by 14 and comes within 2 in Indiana, effectively ending the race for the Democratic nomination. (Yes, it was already over, but now it's really, really over.) When I got home late last night, Clinton had cancelled all of her public appearances, and it seemed reality had finally set in. But, no, word this morning is she will press on, and continue to burn money and goodwill for no apparent reason. Still, even if her campaign remains gracelessly in denial, I'd expect high-profile Clinton supporters will soon close the deal for her regardless. (Former Clinton backer George McGovern, for one, has now switched to Obama and is urging her concession.) So, the upshot is we're done here, folks. It's all over but the cryin'. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is our Democratic nominee.

Update: Sen. Obama picks up four more supers (one formerly a Clinton supporter, so it's Obama +5 to Clinton's +1), while Sen. Clinton's Senate backers start looking for the exit. And May 20 is the new May 6.

If you live in North Carolina or Indiana, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. (And to the Tar Heels: my home state of South Carolina went for Obama by 28: If you can't represent at least somewhat similarly -- and right now the polls are saying single-digits -- I consider the contest between us closed.)

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists." As TPM noted, we seem to have finally reached the point where there are "no more sharks left to jump." For alas, Sen. Clinton's final, fraying tether to the reality-based community (and my general election vote, not that she'll be getting that far anyway) gave up its last this weekend, as she -- in defiance of her usual m.o. and very much in the manner of Dubya and the GOP -- deemed universal opposition to her gas tax pander to be merely a figment of "elite opinion". (She's also doubled down on her anti-Obama gas tax ads.) As Robert Reich noted: "In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies." (Rabid Clinton partisan Paul Krugman, also a member of the elite-economist cabal, has yet to weigh in on his being cast down as an enemy of the people.)

As it turns out, one of the salt-of-the earth proles at the event (self-identified as an Obama voter making less than $25,000 a year) called Clinton out to her face for this blatant idiocy: "'I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax,' the woman said, adding: 'Call me crazy but I actually listen to economists because I think they know what they've studied.'" Clearly, this woman will be requiring significant reeducation. "'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.' 'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'" (Give Clinton credit: Her campaign has been a travesty, but it's been great fodder for Orwell references around here.)

In any case, regarding the big picture: Unfortunately for earlier hopes that we'd be done May 6, it's looking like tomorrow will almost assuredly bring a split, with NC for Obama and IN for Clinton. (That is, unless Zogby has finally broke out of its slump this cycle.) Meaning, of course, that Clinton will be even more mathematically eliminated. And yet, in all likelihood, we'll slog on to June 3. Yay. (With that in mind, each side picked up another super today: Kalyn Free of OK for Obama and Theresa Morelli of Dems Abroad for Clinton. But as Morelli only counts for 1/2 a vote, that's another 1/2-vote pick up for Obama.)

Update: make that two and a half: Obama picks up two more MD supers, Michael Cryor and Lauren Dugas-Glover. And it sounds like some of Clinton's CA supers are reconsidering their options.

Update 2: Apparently, economists still mattered in 1992.

Thank you, Hagatna: Sen. Obama wins the Guam presidential caucuses by seven votes, 50.1%-49.9%. (This means a 2-2 delegate split, but also puts Obama two closer to the magic number of 2025.)

On the super side, Obama picks up Brian Colon of NM, Inez Tenenbaum of SC, and Parris Glendening of MD (the latter two are UADs.) Clinton, meanwhile, gets Jaime Gonzalez of TX and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend of MD (also a UAD). So the day's super tally: Obama +3, Clinton +2. Adding 'em to the post-PA super count, that puts us at Obama 17, Clinton 11 (or Clinton down 23 from her needed 2-1 split.)

You know all the media hype we've been hearing of late about Obama's presumed troubles with white voters? According to a study by NYT columnist Charles Blow, the numbers don't bear it out. In fact, quite the converse: "The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much. On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period). While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways." That it does. (See also Rural Votes.)

You've probably already seen this making the rounds today. But since it's definitely in GitM's wheelhouse, The Empire Strikes Barack. A few inspired moments therein: the cantina, Admirals Ozzel (Penn) and Motti (Dean), Emperor Bubba, the media barrage, etc.

"'He has shown such mettle under fire,' Andrew said in the interview. 'The Jeremiah Wright controversy just reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party.'" A Clinton endorser since Day 1 of her candidacy, former DNC Chair Joe Andrew switches to Sen. Obama, and is ready for the fallout."If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a 'Judas' for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton." Heh.

Throw in DNC member John Patrick of Texas for Obama and AFL-CIO head John Olson of CT for Clinton and that puts our post-PA super count at Obama 11-5. Once you add the automatic add-ons from NY (Clinton +4) and IL (Obama +3), Clinton is down nineteen from her needed 2-1 split. Clinton -5, -10, -13, -19...anyone else noticing a pattern?

"I don't think it's brilliant economics; unfortunately, it may be good politics. The smart people say 'It's stupid,' and the people who aren't as schooled say 'At least it will do something for me,'...I don't know that anyone connects the dots: that there have been a series of politically expedient decisions...that have added up to an economic picture that is not at all rosy and in fact fairly disastrous." In an A-1 story this morning, the WP joins the recent general calumny against the Clinton-McCain gas tax cut (which Clinton is now campaigning heavily on in IN and NC -- Obama is now pushing back on TV.) "'You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut,' said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington." Indeed, it's apparently such a dumb idea that even diehard Clinton cheerleader Paul Krugman is forced to concede thus. Of course, the reality of the situation hasn't stopped Bill Clinton from entering full-Pander Bear mode on the issue.

Update: Clinton doubles down, and introduces legislation promoting McCain's lousy idea in the Senate. Responded Obama: "It's a Shell game, literally."

Her 41 supermarket moment? As if I needed another reason not to vote Clinton: Though she may knock back boilermakers like us regular joes, the Senator has in fact never heard of Red Bull, the fantabulously addictive breakfast beverage which more often than not constitutes the best moment of my day. (This also means Clinton has lost another excuse for voicing her obliteration-happy nuclear ambitions last week...It wasn't the taurine talking.)

In other key findings: "Her fantasy date would be with President Abraham Lincoln [to which Sybil says back off!] She refused to choose between comedians Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, said she likes both wine and beer, and wouldn't select either 'American Idol' or 'Dancing With the Stars'; she said her mother -- who lives with the Clintons -- keeps her up to speed on both programs." (The answers, as everyone not running for office knows, is Fey, beer, and neither -- both are garbage, not that I'd expect someone who prefers Grey's Anatomy to The Wire (as per Obama) and spends her free time trying to ban Grand Theft Auto to pick up on that.)

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I might not know him as well as I thought, either." After an unrepentant Jeremiah Wright ratcheted up the heat again at the National Press Club yesterday, thus bringing the punditariat to a full boil, an "outraged" and "saddened" Sen. Obama definitively cuts Wright loose.

A bit depressing that this had to go down, but, at this point, Obama really didn't have much choice. (Wright was practically begging for it, what with promoting the AIDS and Farrakhan stuff anew yesterday.) So, hopefully this helps bring an end to the sad diversion that was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Now, perhaps we can move on to other matters, such as the Rev. John Hagee and the "Strangelovian" obliteration of Iran...

Update: While we all mull the fallout from Wrightgate II, consider this: Sen. Obama picked up two more superdelegates today, Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky and DNC member Richard Machachek of Iowa. I believe that puts the post-PA total at 6 for Obama, 2 for Clinton, meaning Sen. Clinton is now a full 10 behind where she needs to be to stay "alive."

Update 2: Count three more supers for Clinton, and now three more for Sen. Obama. The new post-PA tally: 9 for Obama, 5 for Clinton, meaning Clinton is down 13 from her needed mark.

"To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction. I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction." Along with Roger Waters and the Pink Floyd pig, Sen. Obama picks up another Senate super in New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman, thus putting him in the lead among his and Sen. Clinton's colleagues. Update: Clinton counters with NC Governor Mike Easley.

Meanwhile, over the weekend Matt Drudge ventured into the Wayback Machine to examine superdelegates' issues...with Bill Clinton in 1992. "'The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him,' Mr. Eckart said. 'Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats.'" Cut to 2008, where, thanks to his recent transgressions, undeclared supers -- particularly African-American supers like my old rep, Jim Clyburn -- still don't think much of the man. "How do you play the race card on the ex-president of the United States? How do you do it? I would like to know how that's done and who they [are]. And I'd like to see these memos he's talking about. That's what's so bizarre about this,' Clyburn said". (Nor, it seems, is Pres. Clinton a fan of Obama, but that's not really surprising at this point, is it?)

"I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from sound bites...I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?" I haven't watched the Sunday shows yet, but, if today's press is any indication, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the big story in the news, after he delivered remarks in several venues aimed at defending himself against the recent media throng, as well as horrifying attempts by the like of George Stephanopoulos to McCarthify him on national television. (As I said here, we seem to have entirely skipped the rails when kindly ole Mike Huckabee is the biggest voice for tolerance and historical understanding in the conversation.)

At any rate, the return of Obama's Angry Black Preacher-Man prompted tut-tuts of electoral worry from Clinton-leaning concern trolls like like Salon's Joan Walsh, and the usual waiting for the other-shoe-to-drop from breathless political blogs like War Room and Ben Smith. What I haven't seen yet today, amid all the puttering from the press on the subject of Wright, is any attempt to put the Reverend's remarks in context of this weekend's highly dubious acquittal in the Sean Bell case. To wit, New York City cops shoot an unarmed black man and his friends 50 times and end up getting off for it, and, outside of Harlem, there's barely a shrug, including in the news media. Meanwhile, when it comes to anything and everything involving the fates of Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, and any other white damsel in distress, the press drone on about it endlessly, funnelling info to us months or even years after the cases have gone cold. But, as they say, this ain't Aruba, b**ch.

Is Rev. Wright angry? At this point, and as this weekend's fiasco makes clear, he has every right to be. Perhaps the press and the punditocracy could investigate more thoroughly why black America may be less inclined to think well of our nation at times, rather than working themselves into yet another holier-than-thou froth about occasional intemperate remarks, and/or endlessly fretting about their potential impact on the electoral whims of the white working class. God forbid these media asshats break out of their echo chamber bubble once in awhile and do some honest-to-goodness reporting. Heck, I'd be happy just to see a few of 'em think for themselves.

"In an interview yesterday, Hillary -- whose connection to President Clinton's 2001 sentence commutations for two members of the Weather Underground has become an issue since she tried to raise questions about Obama's acquaintance with another ex-Weatherman -- told 'Inside Edition' that she 'didn't know anything about' the 2001 clemency case...If it's true, it means that she got the worst briefings in the world when she was running for Senate in 2000 and the clemency issue was hot in Rockland County, and it means that Chuck Schumer didn't even bother to mention the issue to his fellow NY senator-elect/ First Lady after promising the widows of two dead cops to fight against one of the clemencies." Following her recent attempt to make hay from the Weathermen, Sen. Clinton gets caught in another obvious lie. Oops.

Meanwhile, following on the two he picked up yesterday, Sen. Obama scores another superdelegate in Oregon rep David Wu. "'We need new policies both at home and abroad,' Wu said in a statement. 'Like Americans, the international community wants to see real change in America and I believe that Senator Obama embodies that change.'" As you probably know, Sen. Clinton needs the superdelegates to break 2-1 her way from now herein for the comeback math to make any sense at all. So, since Pennsylvania (1 for Clinton, 3 for Obama), she's already 5 down on where she needs to be.

"Yet for all of her primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind." Are the media finally going after the Clinton camp's last, sad buttress? In tomorrow's NYT, Patrick Healy pushes back against the dubious Clinton claim that she'll run better in the "big states" based on the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. "According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones -- just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries. And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women." In other words, when it comes to comparing primary and general election performance, we're basically talking apples and oranges. (Just ask Al Gore.)

First we had Senator Clinton adopting various Hail Mary Rovianisms, which have been well recorded here, including but not nearly limited to an ad featuring Osama Bin Laden just this past week. Then Bill went on the Rush Limbaugh show. Then Sen. Clinton played nice with Richard Mellon Scaife, architect of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," for his endorsement. And now we have this:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election." Disgusted by recent events, such as the Osama ad and the warnings of "obliteration", the NYT editorial board for all intent and purposes unendorses Sen. Clinton.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama open the post-PA era with another super endorsement, Gov. Brad Henry of OK. "Senator Obama understands that the serious concerns facing average Americans must transcend partisan games if we are to rise to the challenges of today and tomorrow. He is a strong, committed and inspirational leader, ideally suited to bring together Democrats, independents and Republicans," Henry said." Update: Clinton gets one too: Tennessee Congressman John Tanner, while Obama counters with 49 high-profile Edwards supporters in NC.

Well, I'm sure you watched it too. But, anyway, to recap: In tonight's big contest, the two race horses started out neck-and-neck, and it looked in the early going that an upset might be in order. But, slowly but surely, the plodding, methodical contender pulled away for a small but convincing victory, and that's all she wrote. I'm referring, of course, to Game 2 of the Suns-Spurs series. Why, was there something else going on?

(By the way, in case you didn't know, I'm not sure of the Obama analogue yet, but the San Antonio Spurs are definitely the Clintons of the NBA. Tim Duncan's the Bill of the bunch, the natural talent (with past championships to his name) who whines and works the refs constantly. Bruce Bowen is Hillary, a less-talented workhorse whom people in the media describe with euphemisms like "tenacious", when he's clearly and obviously just a dirty player. And, like the rest of the Clinton campaign, Parker and Ginobli are basically slashers...but let's not belabor it too much.)

At any rate, so, yes, in a huge shocker Senator Clinton won Pennsylvania by ten this evening, 55%-45%. [Update: Since it seems to have confused some Clinton-leaning folk on other blogs, I meant "huge shocker" ironically. See below.] We'll know the delegate spread tomorrow, but, however it turns out and like Ohio six weeks ago, tonight is just another case of Clinton winning the battle and losing the war: There's no way at all she gets enough delegates to become viable again. Simply put, Sen. Obama's previously insurmountable delegate lead is now, to coin a phrase, even insurmountabler. Do I need to link the same post again?

Nevertheless, if you're looking for someone to blame for Obama's loss tonight, look no further than Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love broke from the rest of the state and went 2-1 for Obama. And, as every sports fan knows, Philly always loses despite themselves. You can't fight the curse.

In any case, I'd been girding myself for a 15-point margin for Sen. Clinton of late, so, in the grand scheme of things, 55-45 was fine with me (particularly given that the contest seems to have cost Clinton what was left of her bankroll.) So, now, on to Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, where hopefully this primary -- finally -- comes to an end. Eat, drink, and be merry, Clinton folk, for tomorrow, your candidacy of choice dies.

Update: They're still tallying the delegates, but it's looking like Clinton will remain behind by around 150 pledged delegates overall. In the meantime, Al Giordano crunches the exit poll numbers: "Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote...Whether or not the commercial media spins it that way - in her campaign’s lexicon - 'doesn’t matter.' And ye shall know the dumbest and slowest - and intentionally dishonest - political reporters, pundits, bloggers (and former presidential candidates and spouses) by those that argue otherwise."

Update 2: It ain't over yet. This (pre-PA) Youtube suggests a potential path to victory for Clinton. (Here's a hint: The Hartford Convention.)

'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood, when blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud." Well, actually, it was only six weeks ago, just after Mississippi. (It only seems like a lifetime.) Still, I posted then, following Al Giordano at Rural Votes, to beware Pennsylvania tunnel vision, as it's a state tailor-made for Clinton's demographic strengths. Six long, miserable weeks later, after Jeremiah Wright and The Speech and Tuzla snipers and the Bitter pill, we've finally made it to PA Day, and what I wrote then still holds true. Given the polls and the probable Limbaugh shenanigans in Pennsyltucky, Clinton will almost assuredly win the Keystone State by double digits tonight, and yet still won't amass enough delegates to make a bit of difference in the final decision. And, because the media still won't call the race (and, indeed, resent even the slightest implication that they're lazy and f**king pathetic at their line of work), we will grimly slog on to May 6th, watching enviously as McCain and the GOP dance their happy jig of Dem self-immolation. (Don't get me wrong: I still think Obama will trounce McCain thoroughly in November. But it's going to be much harder than it ever needed to be.)

Was that magical night in Iowa really less than four months ago? It seems since then that we Obama-leaning political junkies are being punished by the Clinton campaign for the sin of putting too much faith in the process, and have been consigned to a neverending Purgatory of endless lowballs and trifling media idiocies. In a different world, I might have been flabbergasted by Clinton shoehorning Pearl Harbor and Bin Laden into a political ad against a fellow Democrat. But, at this late date, did anyone really expect anything less? Give it a few more weeks and the Clinton campaign will likely be regaling us with D.W. Griffith and guys in blackface. And it will still be over. Update: By way of Dangerous Meta, Sen. Clinton also attempted to recertify her cajones this morning by threatening to "obliterate" Iran. Dubya much, Senator?

At any rate, if you are of the Pennsylvanian persuasion, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. Let's get focused on our real opponent, already.

“I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along." It's not a lie if you believe it, right, Mr. President? I've grown bored with trying to keep track of all the myriad ways Bill Clinton has continually embarrassed himself in recent months. But, since I'm blogging today and as per his "mugging", former President Clinton whines further about the reaction to his unfortunate Jesse Jackson comparison, citing once again a vast Obama conspiracy and now memos that do not exist. (In his own mind, he probably meant the Amaya Smith memo during the MLK/LBJ uproar, which, of course, had nothing to do with Clinton's idiotic remarks.) The former president also said he couldn't have said anything racist because he has an office in Harlem. Uh, I live in Harlem...I didn't realize that constituted a free pass for us white folk to spout ignorant and dismissive bromides whenever it's politically expedient.

Not realizing the mic was still on, Clinton later scoffed to an aide during the interview, “I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?" Actually, Bill, you really, really should.

Update: Now, in full defiance of the audio, he's denying he said it. "Outside a Pittsburgh campaign event, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant 'when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?' Clinton responded: 'When did I say that and to whom did I say that?'" (Can you find the Clintonian distortion? I'm guessing it's "played" versus "was playing," but who knows how the man's mind works?)

"'Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,' Clinton said to a meeting of donors. 'We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. [sic] I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.'"

As Sen. Obama racks up the endorsements of Robert Reich, Sam Nunn, and David Boren, Sen. Clinton gets her own private fundraiser gaffe: To wit, audio surfaces of her blaming the netroots and "activists" for her dismal showings thus far. Well, I'm sure that'll go over like gangbusters. (By the way, if you're keeping score at home, it's now screw the southern whites, screw the red states, screw the insignificant states, screw the impressionable elites, and now screw the netroots. But, if you're a white working-class northerner without an Internet connection, you're the bedrock of the nation, and no mistake.)

You don't need The Weathermen to know which way the wind blows: This thing is over, and has been for weeks and weeks now. But, ABC held a debate tonight in Philadelphia anyway, and, man, it was a tough slog. [Transcript.] Moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos endlessly trafficked in inanities. (The Weather Underground? Really?) Sen. Clinton found no level she couldn't passive-aggressively sink beneath: Cringeworthy throughout, she name-dropped Farrakhan and channeled 9iu11iani whenever possible (see, for example, her answers on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and she got in Ahmadinejad's recent remarks as well.) And Sen. Obama seemed tired, a bit rusty, and, after 45 shallow minutes of idiotic gotcha, (justifiably) ticked. (But I thought he still came through in the clutch anyway.)

The only news made tonight? ABC is rather terrible at this whole debate thing. Tonight was basically a fiasco. From Stephanopoulos questioning Obama on flag pins to the tut-tutting about affirmative action to George getting questions from Sean Hannity to Gibson trying to wrest a "no new taxes" pledge from the candidates, virtually every minute tonight was occupied with trite Republican nonsense. Oh, and Gibson's dim remark at the Manchester debate that two-professor families make $200,000 a year was not a fluke. Apparently, the guy knows less about the economy than John McCain. Tonight he informed us that there "are a heck of a lot of people" making between $97,000 and $200,000 these days. If by "heck of a lot" you mean 14% of the US, well, ok. But some might consider 1 in 7 a rather small minority of the total population, and thus argue that our tax policy should keep the other, more-likely-to-be-struggling 6 out of 7 in mind. Sheesh...less than a week and our friends in the pundit world have already abandoned their newfound blue-collar bitterness.

At any rate, no news or game-changers to speak of. Sen. Obama is still our nominee, Sen. Clinton is still grappling with that fact. If you didn't watch this tonight, you chose wisely. Update: Having run ABC's gauntlet of idiocy, Obama brushes his shoulders off, puts distractions on notice, and says no to more debates.

"Clinton is viewed as 'honest and trustworthy' by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy." Who's bitter now? A new poll finds that a solid majority of voters now believes Sen. Clinton is dishonest. "And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards." In other words, all the shenanigans of the past few months seem to have made her unelectable. Oops.

Hey all. As promised, I've been working on other things over the past few days, and thus haven't really been following the election news as closely as in recent months. I'd heard that Sen. Obama had basically restated the thesis of What's the Matter with Kansas? at a fundraiser in San Francisco, and thought that, lordy, it was a slow news week. So, imagine my surprise when I settled in for the Sunday shows to discover that I was supposed to be outraged -- outraged, I tell you! -- at the import and tenor of Sen. Obama's remarks. Across the board, the Washington punditariat had ratcheted up the pique to 11, lambasting Obama for being elitist and out-of-touch because he argued a case for the appeal of cultural conservatism in economic bad times that's been made all over the place, not the least by the Clintons themselves. (By the way, this televised uprising of the pundit proletariat included several people I dealt with personally during my previous sojourn in DC and, well...let's just say I wasn't buying their newly-discovered blue-collar bona fides. Not. One. Bit. (and I'm not talking about Carville & Matalin, although they were in the mix on Sunday too.))

Enter Sen. Clinton, shameless as ever. Apparently seeing "Bitter-gate" as her last, best hope for the nomination, she's plumbed new depths of self-parody this week, not only calling Obama an elitist but trying to recast herself as some kind of working-class hero. (I guess she assumed we'd all just forget that she made $109 million over the past seven years, has been running around with a Secret Service detail for nearly two decades, and has had people otherwise waiting on her since 1978. Springsteen, she's not.) Nope, now she's banging back boilermakers, attacking Obama like he's the Second Coming of John Kerry (to the point of getting booed for it) and conjuring up this ridiculous ad of small-town folk aghast by Obama's words.

Well, I guess I'm an out-of-touch elitist too, because, frankly, I'm just not seeing it. Not only does this entire brouhaha seems like a completely media-manufactured (and Clinton-prolonged) event to me, but I'd be highly surprised if the vast majority of people Obama was referring to take any offense whatsoever. In fact, if anything, I'd bet the people who are supposed to feel so put upon here may well end up feeling more condescended to by Clinton and the mass media for trying to tell them they should be ticked off. Just a hunch...I could be very wrong. With fifteen years and counting in BosWash, it's been awhile since I've had my finger on the pulse of the Heartland. Still, I'm willing to bet that the white working-class Americans who are theoretically insulted by Obama's words are smarter, and made of sterner stuff, than Clinton et al would give them credit for. And this too shall pass.

Update: Speaking of Springsteen, the Boss endorses Obama, in part due to Bitter-gate. "At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment."

"Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote. So who says men don't vote for a woman?" Resorting to a blatant gender pitch once more, Sen. Clinton name-drops Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, the nation's first female representative. (She also took hold of the recent Kinsley meme: "'Do you realize how much longer it takes for me to get ready than my opponents?" Clinton said. 'I think I should get points for what I do, plus having to spend so much time getting ready.'")

Just to set the record straight, Jeannette Rankin was a committed pacifist who not only led the "Jeannette Rankin Brigade" to protest the Vietnam War late in her life, but voted against American entry into both World Wars (and was the only person to vote against entry into WWII.) So, their common womanhood aside, I think it's safe to say Rankin would be thoroughly disgusted by Clinton's record on Iraq and Iran, and might well roundly reject the comparison.

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign." With Colombia-gate the straw that finally leveled the proverbial dromedary, Mark Penn is gone from Team Clinton. Better late than never, I suppose, but this would've been more helpful if done several months ago. And isn't the captain supposed to go down with the ship?

Well, victory may have been a macrotrend that eluded Penn's grasp. Still, if nothing else, we'll always have his ridiculous post-mortem spin jobs. Of "Impressionable elites," "insignificant states," and useless primaries, at least one might be remembered someday as a 2008 campaign catch-phrase. Update: The Field also feels a Titanic motif.

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated, and I am sorry for it." Clinton consigliere and inveterate torturer of reason Mark Penn gets into trouble for playing both sides of a Colombian trade deal, is forced to apologize, and subsequently gets sacked by the nation in question. If only Sen. Clinton had followed Colombia's example months ago, she might still have a shot at the presidency right now.

In related news, Al Giordano of Rural Votes explains why Colombian president Alvaro Uribe is rooting against Obama, and why that speaks strongly in the Illinois Senator's favor. "The Uribe regime, after all, continues a chummy friendship with Bill Clinton, granting him the government’s 'Colombia Is Passion' Award last June. That, during the same 2007 spring when former vice president Al Gore cancelled his appearance at a Miami environmental conference because he did not want to share a podium with Uribe, the hemisphere’s poster boy for state-sponsored terrorism, narco-trafficking, and assassinations of opposition political, labor and social movement leaders."

"'We've come a long way from Harry Truman,' said Leon E. Panetta." At long last, the Clintons release their tax returns (to Drudge first), and the total post-White House tally amounts to $109 million, "with the former president collecting nearly half of that money as a speaker hired at times by companies that have been among his wife's most generous political supporters." The numbers are still being parsed, and the connections to key members of Clintons' post-presidential rogues gallery -- Ron Burkle, Vinod Gupta, the Quellos Fund, etc. -- itemized and assessed. Still, the news that leaps off the page here is [a] the Clintons have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, and [b] speechifyin' pays top dollar in certain circles. "Sen. Clinton's financial disclosure forms have offered a glimpse into her husband's speaking career and the nexus between his clients and her campaign donors. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years...On one day in Canada, he made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president."

Now, how 'bout those Foundation records?

"'It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,' one superdelegate said." From denial to anger? Bill Clinton goes off the rails at a superdelegate gathering in California, after a question about the Bill Richardson endorsement. "It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade. 'Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,' a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted." Meanwhile, it comes out that, while trying to woo Gov. Richardson, Sen. Clinton repeatedly emphasized her view her view that Obama is a general-election loser: "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win." She didn't say why she thought this, although one can presume.

Fortunately, more and more supers don't share the Clintons' dim view of the American electorate. Recent announcements of note: Montana super John Melcher, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, and, if you read between the lines, former president Jimmy Carter: ""My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess." Also, New Jersey Gov. John Corzine, like Cantwell before him, began laying the groundwork for a Clinton-to-Obama switch on CNBC this morning, although he retained some degree of plausible deniability [video.]

Update: The Clinton campaign attempts to elide her unelectable remark, now arguing that [a] Obama is in fact electable and [b] Richardson said it first.

"Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out." This was buried in a story over a month ago, but now it gets its own lede: While endlessly touting her insurance mandate as the be-all, end-all of health care reform, Sen. Clinton's campaign hasn't been paying the insurance bills. (This is in addition to screwing over local businesses and charities whenever possible, because apparently struggling mom-and-pop operations don't need to be paid as quickly as corporate behemoths.)

"I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for." As the press fully and finally catches up with the fact that it's over -- it only took a month, but, hey, math is hard! -- Sen. Clinton digs in for the long haul (and liberally plays the gender card anew), announcing she's staying in until a convention floor fight in August...which, by the way, she'll assuredly lose.

Their hand thus forced, more supers emerge for Sen. Obama, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and, sometime soon, seven House members from North Carolina. And, with the Gallup tracking poll disparity as big as it's ever been (thanks in part to Snipergate, one presumes), I'm guessing Sen. Clinton's fundraising also might be taking a hit. As such, I'm still of the opinion that this will all end May 6 or soon thereafter. Or, at least, that's my hope. This is not 'Nam, Sen. Clinton, this is politics. There are rules.

By the way, if anyone is under the impression that I'm so in the bag for Sen. Obama that no discouraging word about him shall ever be posted here at GitM, I'll say this: This man should never bowl in public ever again. 37? That's really sad. (And how did Bob Casey become a Senator from Pennsylvania bowling only a 71? I'm no Walter Sobchak, but I can't remember bowling under an 80 since the age of ten.) Please, Senator, at least until the election, stick with making baskets.

Update: The Obama campaign pushes back on the WSJ's NC supers story. So apparently the joint endorsement of those seven Reps is not as imminent as reported.

"Houston is filled with promise. Laredo is a beautiful place." With 88% reporting (56%-44%), Barack Obama has officially won the Texas caucus, and by extension the Lone Star State. What was that Bill Clinton said about Texas again?

"Barack Obama's speech on the financial crisis was a remarkable breakthrough...I wish I had written the speech. It is this kind of leadership and truth-telling that is the predicate for the shift in public opinion required to produce legislative change. A radical, appropriately nuanced, and deeply public-minded description of what has occurred, the speech was Roosevelt quality: the president as teacher-in-chief."

The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner praises Obama's economics speech of yesterday, and calls out Paul Krugman for his blatant partisanship: "Unlike some of my friends, I have not fallen in love with Obama...But Krugman, ordinarily an ornament of fair-minded progressive economics commentary, writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign. His latest characterization of Obama's proposals in commenting on the New York speech -- 'cautious and relatively orthodox' -- was preposterous."

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.

Sen. Obama picks up a Pennsylania superdelegate in Senator Bob Casey, who had previously pledged to stay neutral. "Obama strategists hope that Casey can help their candidate make inroads with the white working-class men who are often referred to as "Casey Democrats." This group identifies with the brand of politics Casey and his late father, a former governor, practiced -- liberal on economic issues but supportive of gun rights and opposed to abortion."

"'She never had anything to with it,' Clay said. 'I just don’t think you ought to play games with that kind of stuff.'" As a follow-up to Clinton's previous exaggerations on the matter, former Representative William Lacey Clay, who helped steer the Family and Medical Leave Act to passage in 1993, says Clinton had nothing to do with it. "All we needed was a president to sign it. The president signed it, and we’re grateful for that but there was no lobbying by him or her."

"I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are. But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion." Senator and former presidential candidate Chris Dodd makes the case that the Democratic race shouldn't go past May 6 (i.e. North Carolina and Indiana.)

Update: "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama." Sen. Patrick Leahy reaffirms Dodd's position on Vermont public radio. He later clarified with a written statement: "The bottom line is that...Senator Obama continues to hold a lead that appears to be insurmountable...Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to."

"As Bill Clinton put it on March 17: 'If Senator Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier'...Even Mr. Clinton seemed to concede the nomination to Mr. Obama unless Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote; without that, she doesn’t even have an argument. Unfortunately for the Clintons, almost nobody who has done the math thinks that she can win the popular vote without re-votes in Florida and Michigan...All this means that Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning are negligible, barring some major development."

Like Alter, Morris, Todd, Politico, Brooks and Obama Girl before him, the NYT's Nicholas Kristof joins the ranks of those calling the race for Obama, and takes the high road in trying to convince the Clintons to beg off: "Senator Clinton, who has done so much fine work on health and children’s issues for so many years and who more recently has been an outstanding senator, deserves better. Likewise, Mr. Clinton, who tackled AIDS and poverty so passionately since leaving the White House, risks tarnishing his own legacy." I applaud the effort, Mr. Kristof, but if that sort of reasoning had any purchase with the former First Couple, I think we would've already seen its results by now.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August." My, that's classy. A group of twenty top Clinton fundraisers (among them Robert Johnson, of BET, drug hysteria, and estate tax fame) attempt to blackmail Speaker Pelosi into backing the Senator's convention coup...or else!

Uh, did they not hear about Obama's $55 million haul, overwhelmingly from small donors, last month, or the $32 million he made in January? Welcome to the 21st century, y'all: Fatcat donors who think their money trumps the will of voters have gone the way of Betamax, HD-DVD, Pets.com, and the landline. But, way to embarrass yourselves, and your candidate, by wildly overstating the importance of your lucre. Honestly, you might as well take your checks over to the GOP -- I'm sure your credit's good with them.

"'If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,' the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process." Senator and Clinton superdelegate Maria Cantwell (D-WA) says she'll vote for the pledged delegate leader in the end, meaning -- barring a political meltdown of historic proportions -- Sen. Obama. If this steadfast commitment to the actual rules represents a trend among her super support -- and it likely does, despite the electoral vote Hail Mary -- Clinton's in real trouble. This also further supports Chris Bowers' recent argument that the Democratic race will end on or soon after May 6, the day Sen. Obama most likely crosses the threshold of 1627 pledged delegates (a.k.a. 50% + 1 of the pledged total.)

Update: Add unaffiliated super and Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen to those leaning Obama in the final analysis. "Bredesen also joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in warning that superdelegates should not overturn the outcome from primaries and caucuses." And Harry Reid, at least, also seems to think there's an exit strategy before the convention: "I had a conversation with...[Howard] Dean today. Things are being done." Update 2: Uncommitted and Clinton supers are not amused. Update 3: See also Clinton super Joe Andrew.

Meanwhile, over in his corner of the campaign trail, Bill Clinton does what he can to poison the well further, saying -- now that chances of a re-do have come and gone, of course -- that the Obama campaign was "desperate to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan." Sigh...at this point, you have to wonder about the man's mental health. Well, since the former president insists on continually behaving like an asshat, with no regard whatsoever for the Democratic party or his historical legacy, it bears repeating once more:

"Despite sustained efforts to tear down the New Deal -- from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 to President George W. Bush's ill-fated 2005 efforts to dismantle Social Security -- the 1930s-vintage infrastructure has proved remarkably durable...Although the Tennessee Valley Authority has yet to pitch in, four 70-year-old agencies are helping to cushion the blow of the housing bust. Let's count them." Slate's Daniel Gross examines how the New Deal is working to mitigate today's credit crisis. (He also has a funny line about Sen. Clinton's bizarre call yesterday to have Greenspan wave a magic wand to fix things: This "is a little like Chicago appointing a cow to a panel on preventing disastrous fires.")

"'He would not have been my pastor,' Clinton said. 'You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." With Snipergate currently gaining traction in the media and footage and transcripts now showing that Clinton had repeated this lie several times, the Senator herself (along with a member of her finance committee) tries to change the story back to Jeremiah Wright. A valiant attempt by Senator Clinton, I suppose, although as noted the other day, her choice in pastors is rather questionable too. His repellent views on AIDS aside, I'll take Jeremiah Wright's commitment to social justice any day of the week and twice on Sunday over the virulent right-wing nutjobs of Clinton's so-called "Family" (which, contrary to what she says above, she did in fact choose.)

But, anyway, back to the main story today: Clinton's first response to Snipergate: "I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years, I misspoke." After it came out this wasn't a one-time exaggeration, her response then became: ""So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation." (Note the use of that old standby, the victim card.) Either way, a mistake -- like a misstatement -- happens once, Senator. If it keeps happening, it's called a lie.

Update: Clinton brings up Wright again, this time reading from prepared remarks. I'm with TPM on this one: "You can always tell when a scandal story has peaked and is ebbing, almost down to the minute: when your political opponents start to raise it explicitly against you."

"The good news is that an ugly convention fight is highly preventable. The one advantage of a scenario that's both completely hair-raising and utterly foreseeable is that everyone has an incentive to stop it. The bad news is what's not preventable: a contest that rolls into June. Even without a messy convention, the current trajectory of the primary campaign could easily destroy the party's White House prospects." TNR's Noam Scheiber grimly surveys the Democratic endgame. I actually think it'll be over sooner rather than later, given that [a] the press finally seems to be internalizing the math, [b] the Clinton campaign seems to be running out of money, and [c] the Richardson endorsement would seem to indicate that the supers are losing patience. Still, worth a read, and the Clinton-Obama hybrid pic (now gracing TNR's cover) is just about the creepiest thing I've seen all day.

"In the beginning, it was about momentum. When she lost momentum, it was about pledged delegates. When she lost pledged delegates, it was about the popular vote. And now that she’s on her way to losing the popular vote, it’s about the number of electoral votes held by the states in which the candidates have won primary victories." Comrades! Pleddel and popvote now fullwise ungood and goldstein. The new metric of our glorious success is and has always been Elecvote. Be wary of thoughtcrime, brothers and sisters. Also, chocorat going up 15%.

Speaking of Newspeak, this may work against Sen. Obama, but I feel forced to admit it: His lead in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and the number of states won notwithstanding, Sen. Clinton won every state with "New" in its name --- New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. And, since the superdelegates are looking to pick a "new" president, their choice is sadly all too clear. I'd hoped and assumed Sen. Obama would be our nominee, but you just can't argue with ironclad logic like that.

'One of the most laudable things about Obama is that he always elects to rise above the politics of victimization. One of the most troubling things about Hillary Clinton is that she is never above cashing in on it." Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Melinda Hennenberger explain what Sen. Clinton might say in a "gender" speech akin to Sen. Obama's remarks on race last week -- and why she'd never deliver it. "She won't give that speech because the whole narrative of her candidacy -- and more broadly, her life -- is as rooted in grievance as Obama's is in getting past grievance. Her biggest supporters are the women who see themselves in her and who feel that she is/they are owed this; after all she has/they have endured...She won't give that speech because she has been on the wrong side of gender bias."

Hey all. Well, I'm sure many of you are as sick of reading about this lingering primary season as I'm getting to be about writing on it. At this point, my feelings about the Clinton campaign and the dwindling band of dead-enders lingering around her failed candidacy have gone from disbelief to disgust to a sort of exhausted aversion: It's unsightly and hard to watch, and not only because so many Clinton supporters online have been leaving the reality-based community in droves. Like a fatally wounded snake, the campaign is still writhing, hissing, and lashing out by reflex, seemingly unaware that its time came and went weeks ago.

But, the news is the news, and I did promise to keep following it. So, if you, like me, took a break over the Easter weekend, here is the most recent litany of outrages. (Of course, at this late date, you'll probably only find these outrageous if you haven't been following along for the past few months...)

"One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning." Following the lead of Chuck Todd and the NYT, Politico's Jim Vanderhei and Mike Allen make the staggering realization that the Democratic primary is over. "[S]he has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else. People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet...In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."

This is all true, of course, and it's good to see MSM outlets -- Jon Alter notwithstanding -- finally say as much. Still, it's more than a little irritating that, [a] not only is the press getting wise to this fact almost three weeks after it became patently obvious, but [b] when they finally do, the story isn't "the race is over" but "look, the press is covering the race like it's not over." Please, quit the collective navel-gazing and do your jobs, people.

Update: TPM's Josh Marshall has his own moment of clarity...sort of. "The obstacles in the way of Hillary Clinton are virtually insurmountable...Everyone in the press, probably including us, should be much more candid about that." "Probably"? Oh, good grief.

"My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad."

Big news this Good Friday: Governor Bill Richardson will endorse Sen. Obama today. In his letter to former supporters, Richardson specifically cites Obama's speech on Tuesday. "Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him...Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans." Mr. Richardson, your position is a messenger pigeon.

"As she campaigns now, Clinton says, 'I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.' But the White House records confirm that this is not true. Her statement is, to be precise, a lie. When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar." Shame on you, Hillary Clinton? The Nation's John Nichols argues Sen. Clinton's credibility is in the tank after ABC News discovers that, contrary to her more recent statements, she was shilling for NAFTA quite a bit back in 1993. (By the way, Nichols is not alone in this assessment of Sen. Clinton.) Moreover, it seems venerable Davos boogier David Gergen helped enable her lying about the record by conveniently forgetting that he emceed a private pro-NAFTA event held by Hillary.

FWIW, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has offered the most plausible reckoning of Clinton's NAFTA view so far: She was never against NAFTA, per se, only that the timing might interfere with her health care fiefdom. Update: Clinton and NAFTA, Youtubed.

"The irony to all of this, of course, is that while the mechanics of the Democratic nomination fight overwhelmingly favor Obama, the media is giving Clinton a huge lift. And this comes after a year of Clinton complaints that the media was doing them more harm than good." MSNBC's Chuck Todd argues that the press may be the only thing keeping Clinton in it (and that the supers may not much like Clinton anyway.) Gee, you think?

In related news, the NYT's Adam Nagourney argues Clinton's path to the nomination has gotten harder, now that Michigan and Florida don't appear to be revoting. "If there is a road to victory for Mrs. Clinton, it is a fairly narrow one." Emphasis there on "If." But, hey, at least they're starting to figure it out. Update: CNN also gropes toward the math.

"Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a 'Commander in Chief test' – not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington. She made a similar argument when she said her vote for war was based on her experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington’s judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military...We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually is."

On the fifth anniversary of the war, Sen. Obama delivers a speech on Iraq and national security in Fayetteville, NC, and takes time to poke McCain for his apparent and frightening misunderstanding of Mideast affairs. "Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Really, McCain's oft-repeated error smacks of Dubya-level incompetence, and would be all over the news today if we were in general election mode, rather than collectively continuing to assuage Sen. Clinton's vanity, by assuming she still has a chance. For shame.

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told 'you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant...And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me." Jeremiah Wright is defended by a brother from across the pew, Mike Huckabee. Gotta say, I don't agree with basically any of Huckabee's policy positions, but, he can be a seriously likable guy at times (even if he did fold a defense of Falwell into his remarks.)

"Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's 'most elite cell,' the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen." From the gander to the goose, Barbara Ehrenreich looks at Clinton's own questionable religious ties with an ultrasecret conservative bible study group, The Family, about which a book is due in May. "This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is 'a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.'"

"In Washington, there's no happier situation for a politician than to be doing absolutely nothing and getting great press for it. But let's be clear about one thing: keeping their powder dry profits the superdelegates, but comes at the expense of their party. It shouldn't take Solomon to see that." The Atlantic's Josh Green argues that the superdelegates should get cracking on their decision, if they're serious about a long race hurting the Dems.

And, in related news, Sen. Clinton picks up her first two superdelegates in a month: DNC rep DNC rep. Pat Maroney of WV and, more notably, Rep. John Murtha of PA. Murtha, a.k.a. "the Pork King," has not only been an enemy to ethics reform, but has a litany of shady scandals to his name, from Abscam to PAID. (Not for nothing did CREW name him one of the 20 most corrupt representatives in Congress.) And, of course, Murtha led the House in earmarks last year, clocking in at $162 million (thanks to his gig as the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman.) So, given that he's part of the problem and not part of the solution, I'm not at all surprised he's chosen to endorse the candidate who's rife in lobbyist money and who won't release her own earmarks. That's one super you can have, Sen. Clinton.

"The campaign did not play 'a race card,' Mr. Clinton told CNN. 'We had some played against us,' he said, “but we didn’t play any." As it turns out, Sen. Obama wasn't the only politician to discuss race in the past twenty-four hours. As noted by Emily Bazelon at XX Factor, President Bill Clinton went on TV on Monday to act (surprise, surprise) the aggrieved party with regard to race in South Carolina. "Mr. Clinton said the widespread interpretation of his remarks — comparing Senator Barack Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson — was 'a total myth and a mugging.' Mr. Clinton added, 'I think that’s been pretty well established.'" Uh, no, Mr. President, that hasn't been established in the slightest.

In the wake of the Wright controversy, Sen. Obama delivers a thoughtful and nuanced speech on race in America. Video below:

Now, on one hand, I sorta wish Sen. Obama had never had to give this speech, that we were as far along with regard to race in this country as it had first seemed after Iowa. That being said, since events of recent days in particular have suggested how far we still have to go on the racial recrimination front, this speech was both a necessary and important one. It's been garnering rave reviews across the political spectrum, and I'd throw my hat in there too -- my main quibble with the address is that Obama wrote it himself. C'mon, Sen. Obama, think of the speechwriters. When political leaders write speeches as memorable and moving as this one, it's going to put a lot of people out of work!

Seriously, tho', I thought the address moved beyond soundbites to give a substantive and nuanced view of race in America, the type of which we haven't heard in this country from a politician in a very long time. (I particularly like the Faulknerian flourish on the legacy of history.) And it -- in true Obama form -- showed that the Senator has an understanding of the grievances on both sides of the racial divide, and went out of its way to establish that Ferraro and Wright were two manifestations of the same intrinsic problem. Like TNR's Michael Crowley, I am somewhat concerned about whether the nuance of his message will come through to undecided voters, once the Hardballs, Hannitys, and Blitzers are done with it. Still, today's address was the type of leadership moment that I frankly can't see either Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain providing, and it showed once again how much our country stands to gain by electing Sen. Barack Obama our next president in November. Black, white, latino, or asian, leaders this wise, intelligent, thoughtful, and inspiring do not come along often.

"We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida." Florida announce it won't do a do-over, and Michigan looks headed the same way. On one hand, this means Senator Clinton can continue to try to spin the beauty contest results as definitive, as I'm sure she will. Given her campaign's reliance on a strategy of continued uncertainty, however, the closing of doors in Michigan and Florida is likely bad news for her (particularly when Clinton's top Michigan surrogates are arguing that a re-vote "wouldn't make much difference" anyway.) Update: The Michigan do-over is pronounced dead.

"In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative 'I helped to start.'...But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996."

Here's one I missed from a few days ago. As she did with foreign policy and the FMLA, it seems, Sen. Clinton has apparently been widely exaggerating her role in the creation of SCHIP. "McDonough, a Democrat who has not endorsed a presidential candidate, also said it was Kennedy who developed the SCHIP idea after that meeting. 'I don't recall any signs of Mrs. Clinton's engagement,' McDonough said."

"Barack is qualified. Personally, I want to know what qualifies Hillary Clinton to be the next president. Is it because she was married to the president? If that was the case, then Robin Givens would be the heavyweight champion of the world." Tina Fey had her say. Now, it's her 30 Rock co-star Tracy Morgan's turn. I think you can guess which side I come down on.

"'A key question to me is how the candidates would affect the down-ballot races,' said Steven Achelpohl, the Democratic state chairman in Nebraska. 'I think Obama would have a more positive impact on our other races out here in Nebraska.'" The NYT surveys the general mood among undecided supers at the moment, and finds them mostly nervous and looking for closure. "While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters." Good. I figured the opinion that Oregon super Bill Bradbury voiced in the WP would not be a common one, and particularly now that Pelosi has weighed in to the contrary.

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.

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives. The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did."

After Obama sits down with Chicago journalists on Friday afternoon, the paper deems itself satisfied with regard to the Tony Rezko story. (By way of TNR.) "Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged." (Previously, Glenn Greenwald surveyed the Rezko coverage and explained why there's no there there.)

Update: Sen. Obama also spent 80 minutes in the Land of Ebert, answering any and all questions held by the Chicago Sun-Times on Rezko. "I don’t think anybody at this newspaper can make the claim any longer that he hasn’t answered our inquiries after an exhaustive 80-minute interview session Friday evening. I won’t."

"This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn...your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

Breaking news! As an eagle-eyed commenter at TPM discovered, it appears one Frederick Douglass, an orator of some repute in the African-American community, and one whom Senator Clinton has called "one of my heroes" and "a great American," actually despises our great nation, and has given public remarks filled with hate-mongering toward patriotic Americans.

I for one was planning to vote for Senator Clinton, but now I am very concerned. She should reject and denounce this fellow Douglass immediately, although it may be too late. After reading this, I totally feel Clinton is not proud of America and I fear where she would lead this country.

Update: All kidding aside, Sen. Obama gave some eloquent remarks on the politics of division in Indiana today, citing RFK's elegy for MLK in Indianapolis. "I just want to say to everybody here that as somebody who was born into a diverse family, as somebody who has little pieces of America all in me, I will not allow us to lose this moment, where we cannot forget about our past and not ignore the very real forces of racial inequality and gender inequality and the other things that divide us. We have to come together. That’s what this campaign is about. That’s why you are here. That’s why we're going to win this election. That’s how we're going to change the country."

"Contrary to the gullible media's belief that 'time' is a 'powerful ally' on Clinton's side, in fact, Clinton's only ally is uncertainty. The minute it becomes clear what will happen with Michigan and Florida -- re-vote them, refuse to seat them, or split them 50-50 or with half-votes, as some have proposed -- is the minute that Clinton's last 'path to the nomination' closes. The only way to keep spin alive is to keep uncertainty alive...Penn can claim that there is a path to the nomination, but under any possible actual resolution of the uncertainty, there is not."

TAP's Mark Schmitt explains Clinton's FL/MI strategy: prolong the chaos. "[T]he specific resolution doesn't matter, because whatever it is, it will introduce certainty and finiteness, and without the comfort of ambiguity, the Clinton spin-campaign cannot survive. The Clinton campaign began -- unwisely -- by spinning inevitability; it ends, equally unwisely, by spinning cosmic uncertainty. In between the two spin campaigns, they apparently forgot to give people enough of a positive reason to actually vote for Senator Clinton."

Update: It's out of this same desire to muddy the waters, says Al Giordano, that the Clinton camp is now trying to put the brake on the Texas caucus results: "Only by generating smokescreens can it obscure from everybody’s view that Clinton has ceased to advance in national convention delegates while party leaders - from the national to the local - continue to converge in a near-consensus that Obama is the nominee that has earned it, that the voters most support, and that they view as most able to defeat McCain in November."

"'If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections,' said Pelosi, 'it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.'" Following up on her recent dismissals of the so-called "dream ticket", Speaker Nancy Pelosi reaffirms that the pledged delegate leader (i.e. Obama) will be the supers' choice for nominee. "But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos. 'But it's a delegate race,' Pelosi replied. 'The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.'" Game, set, and match.

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

In response to the burgeoning controversy over remarks by his pastor, Sen. Obama discusses his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright at , and repudiates the recent remarks that have caused so much consternation. I can't say I found myself personally offended by Rev. Wright's remarks, even if I do strongly disagree with them. But, yes, this sort of express air-clearing and establishing of distance by Sen. Obama is assuredly for the best, even if John McCain has his own intemperate clergymen to contend with.

Update: "'I think there was recognition that he’s obviously on the verge of retirement, [that] he’s taking a sabbatatical and that it was important for him to step out of the spotlight in this situation,' Obama said." Wright is officially out. With all the bodies dropping in both campaigns now, I'm reminded of D'Angelo's chess lesson in The Wire: "Pawns, man, in the game, they get capped quick, and be out the game early." (Although I guess, in this case, Obama lost a bishop.)

Update 2: Sen. Obama also addresses the Wright issue on a new Youtube video going around.

With a six-week lull between now and the next contest, during which I hope to spend more time focusing on Harold Ickes than on Harold Ickes (sorry, dissertation humor), now's a good chance to buck Mark Penn and refocus on the macrotrends in the primary race right now:

For one, superdelegates are clearly trending towards Obama. "Among the 313 of 796 superdelegates who are members of Congress or governors, Clinton has commitments from 103 and Obama is backed by 96, according to lists supplied by the campaigns. Fifty-three of Obama's endorsements have come since he won the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, compared with 12 who have aligned with Clinton since then...[Since Ohio/Texas] the Illinois senator has won backing from nine superdelegates and Clinton one, according to the campaigns and interviews." (Speaking of which, he picked up another one today in Wisconsin's Melissa Schroeder. As you probably know, you can keep track of the supers over at DemConWatch.)

For another, whatever sound and fury Mark Penn tries to kick up about Pennsylvania and electability, it's a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. In the most recent general election poll of the state, Obama still does better than Clinton against McCain there (although, thanks to all the recent negative press, McCain has moved ahead of both since this poll.) To his credit, Clinton supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, off-message once again, today conceded Obama can take PA over McCain. (And in any case, as Michael Dukakis can tell you, past primary performance is often not a valid predictor of future outcomes.)

Otherwise, Obama is up in the daily trackers, although those tend to be volatile. Most importantly, obviously, Sen. Obama enjoys a sizable, if not insurmountable, lead in pledged delegates, votes, and states, so we're in very good shape, despite what ever sad butchering of reality emanates from Camp Clinton these days. So keep your chin up, y'all. If you got money, donate. If you got time, phonebank, write your supers, and/or get the message out. Let's press this thing home.

By the way, while looking for a good Penn-Microtrends link above, I found this NYT book review that begins with an anecdote about the TV show Numb3rs: "'There’s no way the bad guys can win,' my son assures me each time we watch the show together. 'They can’t do the math, Dad.'" Truer words have never been spoken.

"You are campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican...Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth." One part Edward Murrow, one part Howard Beale, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann speaks his mind on the Clinton campaign, Geraldine Ferraro, and the kitchen sink.

And, while I'm embedding video, these merry pranksters made a similar point today, albeit with more snark and less dudgeon. Vinegar or honey, they're all speaking the truth.

"The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored." Speaking of rogue states, the Clinton campaign continues its gamesmanship in regard to the beauty contests held in Michigan and Florida. (As reported yesterday, Florida's House Dems -- four of nine of whom are Clinton supers (two are Obama voters) -- already stepped on the idea of a do-over.)

As for those "fair" primaries being seated as they are, that's obviously ridiculous if the contest is still in doubt, particularly given that Sen. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. But, don't take my word for it -- Here's Sen. Hillary Clinton on the question back in 2007: "It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."

"'If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no,' implored Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) last night." The House creates a new independent ethics panel, 229-182. As the WP notes: "Even with two House members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control." Nevertheless, ethics watchdog groups seem pleased with the bill. Said Common Cause's Sarah Dufendach: "For the first time in history, you have nonmembers able to initiate investigations. They're doing oversight. They're the new police." (And to tie everything back to the current theme, Sen. Obama advocated an similarly independent Office of Public Integrity for the Senate in his ethics reform package. Sen. Clinton, someone with considerably more than "a single ounce of self-preservation," voted against it.)

"Simply put: If Obama (and supporters) set expectations for a knockout punch in Pennsylvania, they will be giving oxygen to a gasping Clinton machine on its last breaths. But if they keep Pennsylvania in perspective (no single state has determined the nomination, although New Hampshire, Nevada, and Ohio were all frantically seen and spun as such in their moments), they’ll emerge from the coming Pennsylvania Clinton victory – a kind of Last Hurrah for the politics of the last century – to cross into the 21st century beginning in early May." I added this link to the post below, but in case you missed it: Al Giordano crunches the numbers and argues that focusing on the Keystone State is not the way to go.

Along related lines, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe downplayed the importance of PA today: "Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be." (And before anyone argues that this broader focus means Obama can't win Pennsylvania in the general, take a look at the polling there. As in many other states, Obama does significantly better against McCain in Pennsylvania than does Clinton.)

"What we've tried to do is steadily make sure that in each state we are making the case about the need for change in this country. Obviously the people in Mississippi responded." Sen. Obama takes Mississippi handily, winning 60%-38% (with 99% reporting.) This means a probable pick-up for Obama of five more delegates (19-14).

And now, mainly because pundits seemingly can't do math and the Clinton campaign has proven itself utterly shameless in defeat, we're in for six misbegotten weeks of ruthless campaigning until the next test in Pennsylvania. Sen. Obama is up by approximately 160 pledged delegates on Clinton, meaning Clinton has to win every state ahead -- including states she'll be lucky to even come close in, like Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota -- by 67-70% -- margins she has yet to accomplish anywhere but Arkansas. If, for some reason, we want to play by the Clinton metrics, Obama's popular vote lead is at least 680,000 votes in the official tally, but that doesn't include several of the caucus states. Add them and Obama's lead becomes 830,000 votes. And, of course, Obama has won twice as many states.

Now, I for one think there's a good bet Sen. Clinton will win Pennsylvania by an Ohioesque margin. Guess what? It won't matter. It's over. But because the Clinton campaign refuses to face the reality of their situation, and because neither the supers nor the media seem to be inclined to inform them of thus, expect six more grueling weeks of needless intraparty bloodletting.

Sigh...between this and Spitzer's meltdown, it's Christmas in Spring for the GOP right now. Update: In a bit of good news for Sen. Clinton, she gets her own version of the CA recertification bounce, picking up four delegate in Colorado and one in New York as those results become official. Of course, she's still down 155 or so, but I'm sure the Clinton campaign will take solace where they can find it.

"I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" As you may recall, Sen. Clinton's recent touting of her commanding foreign policy bona fides hit a snag when it turned out not only that she was lying about the particulars on several trips, but that her big Kosovo excursion was taken with those wily diplomatic veterans, Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. (If you frequent Talking Points Memo, one wag (no, not idiotic, although he's funny too) has been having a good deal of fun with this over the past week or so.)

Well, now the real Sinbad has gotten involved, and his critique of Clinton's account of that trip is pretty devastating. ""I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril...In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, 'We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.' Say what? As Sinbad put it: 'What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."'"

Update: If you don't want to take Sinbad's word for it, how about Greg Craig, the director of Policy Planning for the State Dept. during the Clinton years? He completely eviscerates Clinton's claims to foreign policy experience in a memo this morning: "There is no reason to believe...that [Sen. Clinton] was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day." (He then goes on to refute her claims country by country. Pretty damning stuff.)

"I think that the Clinton administration (sic) has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible.'" Sinbad aside, you really don't want to tick off Speaker Pelosi. Calling a joint Obama-Clinton ticket "impossible" in an interview with New England Cable News today, Speaker Pelosi makes her displeasure obvious with the Clinton campaign for hyping McCain over the Senator from Illinois. "I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any ambiguity." Play with matches, Sen. Clinton, you were due to get burned. Update: Lest anyone missed the import, Pelosi says it again: "I do think we will have a dream team, it just won't be those two names...Take it from me, that won't be the ticket."

"The (pro-Clinton) Florida Democratic Party leadership has floated a mail-in primary as the best-case-scenario for its candidate (after all, senior voters are less transient will receive mailed ballots in higher numbers than student, youth and minority voters), and the Obama campaign seemed even willing to go along with that proposal to allow Floridians a legitimate say. But, alas, there is the sticky wicket of The Law."

Rural Votes' Al Giordano explains why the mail-in plan for a Florida revote is illegal. "At this late date, time is running out. The continued gaming of the system demonstrates that they don’t really want a solution, mainly because the results would certainly be different than those of the January 29 beauty contest. But scratch the surface, and this is really about some Democrats now using GOP style voter-supression tactics...That’s not only ethically indefensible. It’s stupid politically, as it takes away the state party’s moral standing to contest the inevitable GOP voter-supression tactics coming to a Sunshine State near you next November." Update: Florida's House Dems nix a do-over.

"'What is the holdup?' said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. 'She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them." Campaign finance watchdogs wonder aloud why Sen. Clinton still hasn't released her tax returns for the past seven years. "'This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House,' said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group." And let's remember, we're not talking about her 2007 returns, which may not yet be complete. We're also talking about the previous six years, which should just be sitting on file, and would take all of five minutes to release to the public. That is, unless there's something shady therein...

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." I saw this yesterday and was going to leave it well enough alone, but since it's growing into a full-fledged dustup today, and since Team Clinton recently made a point of calling for Samantha Power's scalp: former veep candidate and Crossfire host Geraldine Ferraro makes some rather unfortunate remarks about Sen. Obama. To quote Ambinder (whom I generaly find irritating, but he pegged this one): "Because running as a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is soooo easy." At any rate, if the door is now open to playing this ridiculous identity game, I think it's rather obvious to all that if Ferraro herself was a white man, we'd never have heard of her, since her gender was basically the sole reason for her inclusion on that historically terrible '84 ticket. Similarly, if Sen. Clinton wasn't the spouse of a former president, it's hard to imagine her still in this race, particularly given her virtual mathematical elimination and all.

Perhaps, before Ferraro makes any more dubious claims about an easy road for black males in our society, she should read Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson's editorial today in the NYT, where he examines the old-school racial fears stoked by Clinton's infamous 3am ad: "I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image -- innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger -- it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society." Some pundits argue that Patterson is over the top here, but I actually think he's on to something (and, note, I've recently defended the Clinton ad people on charges of intentional racism.)

As Chris Orr notes, this wasn't just a warmed-over Mondale/LBJ Cold War leadership spot. Team Clinton explicitly turned it into an old-school home invasion ad, the kind that's so passé that even Slomin's Shield has moved on. The Clinton campaign still could've forestalled any possible racial subtext by changing the race of the family, but, as it is, you'd have to be willfully naive not to see a problem with the Clinton version of "Barack Obama is a menace that will harm your sleeping (white) children in their beds" as it came out. At the very least, the ad gurus at Camp Clinton are guilty of willful ignorance about racist cultural tropes in American history, and perhaps a good deal more. Update: In response, the Clinton campaign points to a blink-and-you'll-miss-her African-American child in the ad, although, given the lighting, that wasn't immediately obvious, to say the least.)

Update 2: Ferraro blows a gasket, now claiming: "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" Well, if it's any consolation, Rep. Ferraro, I'm sure your fellow national embarrassment, Sean Wilentz, agrees with you. (Patterson rebuts Wilentz here.) Update 3: Ferraro's done this before, back in '88: "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Update 4: "It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact." Ferraro can't seem to stop digging herself deeper. At this point she's either dogwhistling to Pennsyltucky or just completely off the rails. Either way, Keith Olbermann's disbelief about Ferrarogate last night is worth watching. Update 5: She's gone, and not very gracefully.

"Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow, Things should start to get interesting right about now..." If you're visiting from the Magnolia State today, please consider voting for Barack Obama.

How about a good, old-fashioned Democratic sex scandal? In a political shocker today, New York Governor, rising Dem star, and purported ethics champion Eliot Spitzer appears to have an affinity for prostitutes. More to come after Spitzer's press conference, but, really, what was he thinking? Spitzer was no Jimmy Walker -- He's cultivated his squeaky-clean public persona as a moral crusader since day one. That was his whole cachet. And given the enemies he's made, there was no way on God's green earth he was going to be able to keep that sort of thing quiet. It's sheer idiocy on his part. Update: "I am disappointed that I failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself." Spitzer makes a brief statement, and word comes out of a wiretap. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Update 2: Within an hour of the story's leak, Gov. Spitzer gets unpersoned by Team Clinton, with all traces of his existence removed from Clinton's website. (He endorsed her back in May.) Which makes it as good a time as any to note that, if he resigns this evening as some expect, Sen. Clinton loses a superdelegate. His likely successor, Lt. Gov David Paterson, would be the Empire State's first (and America's third) black governor, as well as New York's first blind one. He is already a Clinton superdelegate (although, according to some reports, potentially a wavering one.) While on the subject, Obama picked up two more supers today regardless. Update 3: It doesn't seem Spitzer is resigning tonight.

"If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?' Mr. Obama said. 'Do you understand that?'" Sen. Barack Obama probes an obvious fault line in the Clintons' kitchen-sink attack. "'With all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Senator Clinton,' Mr. Obama said, speaking over the applause of nearly 2,000 people who rose from their seats. 'I’ve won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place....I’m not running for vice president. I’m running for president of the United States of America.'" Well put. (See it here.)

For what it's worth, Clinton goon Howard Wolfson tried to square the circle this morning with this gem: "We do not believe that Sen. Obama has passed the commander in chief test. But there is a long way between now and Denver." Uh, that clearly doesn't make a lick of sense. Why does the Clinton campaign continue to assume that we're all morons? It's infuriating.

So, if you're of the mind that GitM has degraded in quality and become obsessively single-minded since the election season began in earnest, and that I should really just head out to the movies and chill, I apologize. There's a link about the The Dark Knight just above, and I'll try to keep the coverage somewhat broader in the weeks ahead. Alas, although the electoral math would seem to make it clear that the race is over -- former Clinton flunky Dick Morris is the latest to call it -- it would also seem the Clinton campaign is not getting the message, and they're more than willing to commit the party version of fratricide out of pique. Case in point, this new interview with Newsweek, in which Hillary Clinton actually floats (again) the nuclear option: stealing Obama's pledged delegates. ("Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.") Uh, what? (And caucus delegates are elected delegates, but nice try.)

So, I'll be the first to admit that the election season has become more than a little tiring and draining at this point, and the idea of at least seven more weeks of this until Pennsylvania does not bring a smile to my face. But, it's apparently time to take Fight Club up a notch. When Hillary Clinton and her campaign lie incessantly about her experience, cozy up with hatemongers for cash, try to change the election rules in mid-stream, spew forth readily disprovable idiocies in what seems at this point to be an attempt to hide some ill-gotten gains, and begin pushing John McCain over the presumptive Democratic nominee, she's going to get called on it. When a guy like Joe Conason, who made a career out of arguing (correctly) that there was really nothing much to Whitewater, then turns around and tries to use the exact same pattern of half-assed insinuation to smear Obama with Tony Rezko (a media tic his Salon colleague Glenn Greenwald had savagely picked apart just two days before), he's going to get called on it.

And this talk -- by the candidate herself! -- of stealing pledged delegates is the last straw. In short, these people need to go. Since the Clintons are not going gracefully, since they seem hell-bent on refusing to respect the rules in this contest, and since, in the naked pursuit of power, they have effectively decided to obliterate their legacy in the Democratic Party and salt the earth around its smoldering remains, there's nothing else to be done. It's time to cry havoc, and let slip the blogs of war.

As Ambinder notes today, the Clinton campaign dropped a $100,000 donor over the weekend, one Mehmet Celebi, apparently upon discovering he's been making anti-semitic movies (about Jewish doctors harvesting organs from Muslims.) Said Clinton flunky Ann Lewis two days ago: "We were unaware of Mr. Celebi's involvement in this film and we obviously do not agree with it." That would seem to be a bit less forceful than Clinton's "reject and denounce" blathering regarding Farrakhan at the Ohio debate, wouldn't it? In any case, Ann Lewis is lying. The New York Post contacted the campaign about Celebi over a month ago, when they had no comment.

As for Farrakhan, WP columnist Colbert King notes that the Clintons were singing a very different tune on him until very recently. "Post-White House Clinton found no fault with Farrakhan's leadership. There was no mention of Farrakhan's 'malice and division' during the interview. [in 2005]" As always, the rules would seem to change whenever it fits the Clintons' convenience.

"By now, we all know how over-hyped are Hillary claims about her foreign policy experience – including her claims that she negotiated peace treaties and opened borders. But there’s also hype in her claims about domestic policy." Some enterprising dKos'ers look at the timeline and find Sen. Clinton had basically nothing to do with passing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The bill, originally penned in 1986 by Sen. Chris Dodd, had already been passed and vetoed twice under Papa Bush. It was then set up to go by the Democratic Congress upon Clinton's entering office (it was HR.1 and S. 1 respectively), and was signed into law, as a fait accompli, only sixteen days after inauguration day.

Update: Former House member William Lacey Clay notes: "'She never had anything to with it. I just don’t think you ought to play games with that kind of stuff.'"

"The momentum is shifting to us right now. If we are the leader in the popular vote and we have closed the gap in pledged delegates, that’s a very persuasive argument." In a revealing piece in the Sunday Times, the Clinton campaign seems to concede it has lost the delegate race, instead placing their hopes on the popular vote. (At the moment, they're down 600,000, not counting rogue states Florida and Michigan.) This is basically akin to the New England Patriots arguing they should be given the Super Bowl trophy because, even if they lost the game, they got more yards. (They didn't, but you get what I mean.) Of course, since getting that lead looks hard for them, the Clinton campaign reserve the right to try to change the most-important stat again if need be. ("The argument is being made privately as winning the most votes still presents a formidable challenge. She might, in the end, have to rest her case on her ability to win key battleground states.")

The Times piece is also notable because it has Bill Bradley calling the Clintons out (again) as liars: "'The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach,' he said. 'She’s going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different.'"

Meanwhile, the sinking Clinton campaign finds a lifeline in this front-page WP story on undecided superdelegates, which states that [a] many undecideds seem to be planning to wait for now and, more troubling, [b] at least a few undecided super-delegates are comfortable with overturning the pledged delegate count. Says Oregon super Bill Bradbury: ""If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that.'" Hmm. Well, I'd be more concerned about this statement if all the data didn't suggest Obama is a stronger national candidate with bigger coattails (see also tonight's Foster win), so I'm guessing supers would be more inclined to back Obama in the end anyway. That being said, I'm absolutely positive Bradbury here significantly understates what the reaction would be if the supers reject the pledged delegate leader en masse. It would mean clear defeat in November, if not a lasting party schism. Fortunately, whatever Bradbury's personal opinion, this scenario isn't at all likely, particularly given that super-supers with more pull -- Pelosi, Biden, Richardson, etc. -- have all specifically argued against Bradbury's position.

The math just got even harder. Sen. Obama wins the Wyoming caucuses 61%-38%, meaning he's picked up three more delegates on Clinton (7-5 + 1 add-on UAD), i.e. 75% of her ostensibly game-changing 4-delegate victory last Tuesday. Next stop, Mississippi on Tuesday.

"'I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad,' Knowles said." Enterprising local journalists in Bonney Lake, WA find the little girl in Clinton's fearmongering 3am ad and discover, not only that she's old enough to vote, but that she's a strong supporter of, and former precinct captain for, Barack Obama. Apparently, the ad used stock footage from 8 years ago, which should help to quell the talk of subliminal racism on the Clinton campaign's part. (I don't happen to subscribe to that intentional-racism theory, or this one. But, if this thing goes on another month, who knows where Team Clinton will draw the line?)

"It was her coming that helped. But she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations...This had nothing to do with her competence." The Chicago Tribune delves into Clinton's dubious claims of foreign policy experience and finds not only that she has little to none, but that she is basically lying about what she's accomplished. "Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she 'helped to bring peace' to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo."

Let's take 'em one by one. Regarding Ireland, historian Tim Pat Coogan refers to Clinton's role as "part of the stage effects, the optics, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble today called Clinton's claims "silly": "I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player." The Telegraph digs up coverage of the one meeting Clinton attended in Belfast, and it wasn't exceptionally hard-hitting. In fact, it was a photo-op. "Conversation 'seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times' and Mrs Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot, which was duly given to her, for keeping the brew 'so nice and hot'." The Kitchen Debate, it wasn't.

Regarding Macedonia and Kosovo, that border was opened the day before Senator Clinton arrived. Update: The picture above is from Clinton's Kosovo trip. As you can see, part of her delicate negotiations to get this already-open border opened involved singing with Chelsea, Sheryl Crow, and some poor military officials forced to humor the wife of the Commander in Chief.

As TPM's Josh Marshall aptly summed up, "Let's get real and admit that Hillary Clinton is getting the free ride of all free rides on her repeated invocations of foreign policy experience."

California officially certifies its delegate count from Super Tuesday, and, as it turns out, Senator Obama has picked up eight more delegates there. That's twice as many as Clinton received on her big "blowout" day of March 4th, when, delegate-wise, she won Ohio and, it seems, lost Texas. Update: Just to clarify, I should say Obama picked up four more delegates in CA, which Clinton in turn lost. So Obama +4, Clinton -4, a.k.a. an eight-delegate swing.

Ugh. Another day of pettiness from Hillary Clinton and her crew -- we have to sit through seven more weeks of this, just because pundits are bad at math? Sigh...anyway, after referring to Hillary Clinton somewhat off-the-record as a "monster," (while promoting a book in England, and not speaking for the Obama campaign), author, journalist and genocide expert Samantha Power resigns as an Obama foreign policy advisor. This is mainly because the Clinton campaign called for her head (less than a day after Wolfson's Ken Starr analogy, mind you) and apparently deemed her original apology not sufficient.

To put things into perspective, when SNL's Tina Fey called Clinton a "bitch" several times over two weeks ago on national television, Bill Clinton called to thank her. (And, when Hillary Clinton suggested somebody kill Ralph Nader back in 2000, everyone just shrugged it off. Somehow, that seems worse to me than calling someone a "monster"...I'll never understand why that didn't cause more of a stir.)

In any case, Power is out (for now -- I expect she can come back once the Clinton people internalize the reality of their loss.) To be sure, her remark was unfortunate in public, but she did apologize. But I guess the Clinton campaign just has a problem with strong women speaking their mind, when that mind is directed against Her Eminence. And particularly when the strong woman in question just happens to have way more national security cred than Hillary Clinton, and thus puts the lie to her recent slobbering over John McCain: While Samantha Power was risking her life to research The Problem from Hell and get a handle on the world's most nightmarish dilemma, Hillary Clinton was toodling around Bosnia with a security detail, Sheryl Crow, and Sinbad. O, beware, my lady, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on.

Update: Clinton dispatches Wesley Clark and Jamie Rubin to pile on. Charming. Rubin's always been a stooge, but I thought Gen. Clark had more class than this. Guess I was wrong.

"I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed." Former Senator Bill Bradley, who endorsed Obama back in January, asks some tough questions about the Clinton library's shady financing. (And before anyone accuses Sen. Bradley of raising a phantom scandal, consider Frank Giustra and Boratgate.) Update: In related news, USA Today reports that Clinton library archivists are blocking the release of papers involving the Clinton pardons.

"[It's] a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support," Obama said in another fundraising appeal. "No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it — more than 90 percent of donations were $100 or less." The fundraising numbers for February are released, and Sen. Obama raised a record-breaking $55 million (i.e., a full $20 million more than Sen. Clinton.) In other good campaign news, Obama picked up three more supers today (to Clinton's one: Barbara Boxer.) And TPM's FlyontheWall explains why the 76 UADs (unpledged add-on delegates) further complicate Clinton's situation. Did I mention this was over?

"'I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.'...Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a 'distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,' Clinton said, 'Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold.'" Say what? Still happily in denial about her recent loss of the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton spouts more GOP talking points on national security in an attempt to wound Obama after the fact. (In case you missed it, she did the same sort of thing the other day.) Now, I remain unclear as to what national security qualifications McCain and especially Clinton assume they enjoy. (Lest we forget, Clinton didn't even have a national security clearance during her tenure as First Lady.) That being said, this sordid wallowing in (and thus legitimizing of) right-wing agitprop is exactly why the party can't afford to let Hillary Clinton sustain the delusion she will be our nominee. It is time for her to go.

"Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless." Seemingly a rarity among pundits at the moment, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter does the post-Tuesday math, and makes the case I outlined yesterday: the race for the Democratic nomination is over, and Barack Obama has won. "I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no...The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now. Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again."

"I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president, but perhaps that theory will be tested." A Starr is born? Clinton flunky Howard Wolfson makes the implicit explicit and directly likens Senator Obama to independent counsel and GOP bogeyman Ken Starr, suggesting that any criticism of the Clintons must be rooted in the "vast right-wing conspiracy." Well, Wolfson, I don't know Ken Starr personally. But, as fate would have it, I wrote the book on Ken Starr. And, news flash, Barack Obama is no Ken Starr. Y'see, I did copious research for And the Horse He Rode In On, and I discovered while doing so that Ken Starr, despite his self-righteous persona, was pretty much your run-of-the-mill hypocritical scumbag of a party hack. Now that doesn't really describe Sen. Obama very well, but, as it turns out, that is exemplary shorthand for one Howard Wolfson.

Exhibit A: What prompted Wolfson's "Ken Starr" smear today? That would be the Obama campaign's call to have Senator Clinton release her tax returns for the past seven years, something she's continually refused to do despite the fact that it would take all of five minutes to accomplish and is considered relatively standard in political campaigns at any level, let alone a race for the presidency. Now, let's flashback to 2000 for a sec: Then, Clinton flunky Howard Wolfson was running around with a guy in an Uncle Sam suit demanding that GOP Senate candidate Rick Lazio...wait for it, wait for it...release his tax returns.

Their hypocrisy knows no limits.

"'He said someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt,' said one participant in the conversation. The source added, 'someone called us and told us not to worry.'" As I'm sure y'all know, one of the late-term factors redounding against Obama in Ohio was Goolsbeegate, where it seemed one of Obama's top economic advisers had suggested to the Canadian government that the Senator's rhetoric on NAFTA was just political hot air. Senators McCain and Clinton, of course, ran with it. (This has caused a political uproar in Canada, as the leak seemed an attempt by the right-leaning Canadian government to help out McCain.) Well, now it turns out that, not only is there less to the Goolsbee story than first appears (Canadian officials sought him out before Super Tuesday, not the reverse, as reported), but that it was Sen. Clinton's campaign actually making overtures to the Canadians on the subject of NAFTA.

Charming. Somehow, with Ohio come and gone, I doubt this side of the story will have much in the way of legs. But, if you needed any further indication at this late date that Sen. Clinton can be a tremendous hypocrite at times, just look to our friends to the North.

Sigh. Since the spin levels today coming out of the Clinton camp are reaching Iraq war proportions, let's take a moment to review. As I said on Monday and several times before, Sen. Clinton had a very tough task before her last night. Unfortunately for her candidacy, she failed to accomplish it. The Clinton campaign did not "turn a corner" last night, unless you mean they've now rounded the corner to oblivion. Let's assess Sen. Clinton's post-March 4th position by her own standard, before we collectively sign on to the notion that the Clinton "surge" is suddenly working: (Via David Plouffe on Monday.)

"This election will come down to delegates...After March 4th, over 3000 delegates will be committed, and we project that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be virtually tied with 611 delegates still to be chosen in Pennsylvania and other remaining states...As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates - not the candidate who wins the most states." -- Mark Penn, February 13, 2008. (Well, he's right about the delegates. But it's March 5th, and they're not tied. And Sen. Obama has won the most delegates and the most states.)

"We think that at the end of the day on March 4 we will be within 25 delegates." -- Clinton aide Guy Cecil, February 13, 2008. (They're not. They're down at least four times that.)

"I Think We Will Be Ahead In The Delegate Race After Texas And Ohio." -- Howard Wolfson, February 11, 2008. (They're not. They're down big.)

None of these happened. While the numbers are still being crunched, it looks like Sen. Clinton picked up between 4 and 10 pledged delegates last night (depending on how the Texas caucus ultimately comes out.) She was down approximately 150 pledged delegates, and there are not enough contests left for her to feasibly make up that difference. Ohio and Texas were her last, best hope to turn things around, and -- in spite of all the sorry Republicanisms of the past week -- she failed to do so. As such, the race is now effectively over. Finished. Kaput. In the fridge. Our nominee is Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

True, some news outlets are tipping their hat to the mathematical reality today: Fournier at AP, Dickerson at Slate, the Wash Post and the New York Times. But, since all too many (ostensibly Clinton-hating) media outlets seem to be playing the idiot and rolling with her "comeback" spin today, I'll try to explain it using a sports metaphor. Obama is up 34-7 in the fourth quarter. Clinton just scored a touchdown. The score is now 34-14, but now there's only 2 minutes left and Obama has the ball. For all intent and purposes, he can just take a knee and run out the clock. (Not that I suggest he do so. Since the other team is playing dirty, we might as well run up the score.) Or, since we've been talking knockout punches of late, Obama failed to land one last night, true. But he's way up on points and will clearly win the decision. Clinton needed to score her own knockout last night. Unfortunately, for her, she didn't connect.

Now, some might argue, "What's the rush?" Why not just let the Clinton campaign continue to send dispatches from their make-believe world until the convention in September? Well, that might've been acceptable if Sen. Clinton had chosen to go the amiable, Huckabee route. But, she hasn't. Rather, she's been trying to make Obama bleed, and has now -- as if her credibility wasn't already at rock-bottom -- donned the fearmongering and national security wardrobe of the Bush-Cheney GOP. In effect, she is now basically acting as a McCain surrogate. Since we can only expect her to continue this behavior for as long as we indulge her delusional fantasy that she can be the nominee, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is time for the Democratic party to collectively put its foot down.

So, to sum up, the race is over. And, since Sen. Clinton will not withdraw gracefully, or do anything that might put the good of the party before her own desperate ambitions, it is now up to the supers to force her out. Every day they wait is another day our chances in the general election are threatened, merely for the sake of assuaging the vanity of an also-ran who is "drawing dead" and has conducted a truly terrible campaign.

Whatsmore, despite her grasping this morning, Sen. Clinton will not be on either end of the Democratic ticket this year. In fact, now that she's in the process of destroying any likelihood of her being Senate Majority Leader, the closest she'll get to the White House anytime soon is if President Obama is charitable enough to let her on a Health Care Task Force of some kind. (Although, a word of warning, Mr. President-to-be: She ran the last attempt at health care reform right into the ground.)

So, how was your evening? It's late, and I just got home, so I'll save a full post for tomorrow. But, in brief: As I said the other day, a knockout punch in either Texas and Ohio would've been grand. Still, Clinton did not win either state by the margins she needed. So, simply put, her campaign from now herein is Dead Woman Walking, mathematically speaking. As such, I'm not too depressed about the Texas and Ohio results, frankly...You can't always get what you want, but we got what we needed, and, even with a 10-point margin in Ohio, Sen. Clinton has only managed to forestall the inevitable.

I am bugged, however, that the Clinton campaign's pathetic shenanigans this week have been seemingly rewarded by the voters, particularly in the Buckeye State. (Late deciders seem to have broke heavily for Clinton in both states.) But, oh well. More tomorrow when we have a fuller picture, and I've had a few hours' rest to steel myself to the now very real possibility of several more weeks of Clinton hacks insulting our intelligence daily with their ridiculous spin.

Election Day: If you live in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, or Vermont, please consider voting (and caucusing) for Barack Obama today. Even notwithstanding all of the Clinton campaign's bad behavior of late, it's time to focus on Sen. McCain and the Bush-Cheney Republicans.

"All that matters tomorrow - and we might not know the answer until later in the week - is which campaign advanced in delegates and which campaign did not, and by how much. That Clinton spokesman Wolfson is saying here that the Texas Caucuses don’t matter is your clearest indication that he thinks they’re going to get shellacked at ‘em. He’s already spinning them into 'doesn’t-matterland' before they’re even held. That’s because it is precisely the caucus results that will advance Obama to a greater lead among pledged delegates nationwide than he has today." As the election season builds to a fever pitch in Ohio and Texas, Clinton sends out more attack ads, and the Clinton campaign begins trying to move the goalposts all over again to stay in the race after tomorrow night, Rural Votes' Al Giordano puts things in perspective.

In the meantime, the polls -- minus Zogby, who had Obama up 13 in California, and is thus someone I'm not putting much stock in at the moment -- seem to suggest Clinton is pulling away in Ohio (although not by enough to really make a dent in the delegate situation.) Texas polls are more favorable to Obama, although at least one has Clinton pulling ahead there too. But, to be clear, despite these leads (which also don't reflect the respective ground games), neither state shows anything like the margins Clinton needs to stay mathematically viable. Her campaign may continue wheezing and sputtering for several weeks yet, but -- if these numbers hold up, even with Clinton wins -- the race for all intent and purposes ends tomorrow...and not a moment too soon.

"On questions of substance and leadership style, Mr. Obama is the better choice. In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's antics mocking his optimism, Mr. Obama has shown that it is possible to have both hope and intellectual heft. Her campaign has confused proximity to power with work experience, selectively taking credit for her husband's accomplishments." The Dallas Morning News endorses Obama, as does the Cincinnati Enquirer: [I]t is Obama's ability to reach beyond the partisan divide and gather in support that prompts The Enquirer to give him our endorsement for the Democratic nomination." As far as Ohio and Texas go, Sen. Obama has previously earned the endorsements of the Houston Chronicle, Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Antonio Express-News, El Paso Times, and Austin American-Statesman.

"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions." In their training materials for Texas caucus participants, the Clinton campaign requests that supporters game the system. Classy, as always. And, since Camp Clinton can't seem to stop acting like Republicans at the moment, why not some of the real thing? Rush Limbaugh encourages his listeners to vote Clinton in Texas and Ohio (as do other GOPers), to keep the Dem party divided against itself for as long as possible.

Oof. I really hope this ends on Tuesday night. Mathematically, that would seem a certainty, given the huge margins Clinton needs in both Texas and Ohio to stay viable. Still, an unmistakable knockout blow, for those non-number-crunching folk among us, would be nice.

By way of my sis-in-law Lotta, here's a funky animated gif: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton play the oldest game of all. (The text is early on from Neil Gaiman's Sandman, when Morpheus descends into Hell to retrieve his helmet and is challenged to a contest of wits to reclaim his prize, at the risk of unending torment.)

Strangely enough, just as she sent me this, I'd just grabbed an animated gif of a different game, which -- at least imho -- also has some metaphorical resonance for the primary season. (For those who don't follow basketball, that's virtually an automatic basket by 7'5" Yao Ming getting stuffed out of nowhere by 5'7" Knick Nate Robinson...Notice also (in the Youtube) how Yao tries to play the victim card after ignominious defeat...)

"'As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious,' Rockefeller said in a statement issued by the Obama campaign. 'What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It's about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time -- and every time.'" In response to Clinton's fearmonger ad today, the Obama campaign announces the endorsement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). "'The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong,' added Rockefeller. 'It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time. Today, we remain a country at war, and countless mistakes over the last six-and-a-half years have made us less safe. The stakes have never been higher, and that is why we must take a stand.'" (So that's 5 supers today, not 4.)

Four days out from Zero Hour and as per the kitchen sink strategy, the Clinton campaign attempts a few more sad gambits to stay alive in the race...

"It's been a long, hard and difficult struggle to come to where I am now." I'll say...Rep. John Lewis officially switches to Obama. Also, North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan announced his backing of the Senator from Illinois today, bringing Obama's superdelegate total to 200. (He still lags behind Sen. Clinton by 56 in the supers category, but has picked up a net total of +34 since Super Tuesday.) Finally, if you're looking for more endorsements, there are at least 999,998 more of 'em out there: The Obama campaign reaches one million individual donors, and counting. Update: When Rep. Lewis says this was a tough decision for him, he wasn't kidding.

"The Obama campaign has yet to reach bottom in its race-baiter accusations...They promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary." Taylor Marsh, Ph.D? A Clinton supporter from Day One, he at first dismissed Obama as merely the newest in a long tradition of "beautiful losers," like Adlai Stevenson and Bill Bradley. (If you come 'round here often, you can probably guess that didn't sit too well with me. In fact, it's basically the same argument recently made by friend and colleague David Greenberg, before he went the way of the Great White Hope.) Well, if today's TNR piece is any indication, historian Sean Wilentz only knows how to lose ugly. Despite the fact that Wilentz has been ranting worse than Krugman for most of this election cycle, I've been inclined to give him a pass, partly as a professional courtesy of sorts to a well-esteemed historian of whom I once thought quite highly, and partly because of his well-publicized Dylan fandom. Well, no more. Wilentz has been writing increasingly blatant pro-Clinton spin pieces throughout the campaign, which is his wont as a Clinton supporter, I suppose. But here he's penned a shrill and intemperate screed which, frankly, is more embarrassing than anything else. It's the type of angry, weirdly conspiratorial rant you'd expect to be written by an anonymous, and possibly drunk, Salon poster, not one of the more venerable American historians in the profession.

Am I overstating the case? Well, let's take a look at some of the spleen-venting on display here: "After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing 'new' politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is." Calculated, deeply dishonest conduct? Ploy? Manipulative illusion? Tell us what you really think, Prof. Wilentz.

And that's just the first paragraph. It gets worse. Check out this unsightly sentence: "As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads." Riiight. I really started to buy your case after that fifth negative adjective or so.

I'd spend time refuting Wilentz point for point if I thought he was trying to make a reasonable case here. But he spends most of the article just shrieking "race baiter race baiter race baiter!", punctuated with occasional whiny, Clintonesque accusations of pro-Obama media bias. (One of the many targets of Wilentz's wrath, Frank Rich, has recently pointed out the problems with that line of argument.) But, in general terms, in order to buy what Wilentz is selling here, you'd have to believe all of the following:

The 20th and (hopefully) final round of the Democratic debate was tonight in Cleveland, Ohio. [Transcript.] Once again, no real gamechangers to mention, and thus, momentum-wise, Sen. Obama came out on top. (I thought he came out on top anyway, but am willing to concede I'm not the best judge of this sort of thing.) I don't have a lot to add at this point: We always seem to cover the same basic issues in these debates, and Obama was Obama, Clinton was Clinton, and (sigh) Russert was Russert. Rinse and repeat.

That being said, I do think Sen. Clinton's campaign would have been better served by having last Thursday's debate performance tonight, even if some people construed her closing as a valedictory. Perhaps it plays better to undecideds looking for a fighter above all else, but I thought this was perhaps Clinton's weakest debate performance since last October, when she tied herself in knots over drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. Two particularly cringeworthy moments: 1) Sen. Clinton's whining about the question order, which drew boos from the crowd and seemed remarkably petty, and 2) Sen. Clinton trying to tar Obama as weak on Farrakhan, and -- thanks to Obama drawing attention to her parsing -- ending up looking ridiculous. (FWIW, Sen. Obama addressed Farrakan in depth the other day during a Q&A with Jewish-community leaders.) But even notwithstanding those obvious moments, Sen. Clinton just kept trying to press the offense tonight in rather tone-deaf and unpresidential fashion. See also the 16-minute health care hijacking at the start of the debate, where Obama more than held his own. (As well he should -- we've only gone through this, lo, twenty times or so now.)

At any rate, from this admittedly biased corner Sen. Obama seemed magnanimous and presidential, while Sen. Clinton seemed desperate and petulant. But, from any corner, it's hard to envision this debate performance resulting in the twenty-point margins Clinton needs in both Ohio and Texas to stay viable. Now is by no means the time for we Obama supporters to take our collective foot off the gas: Keep volunteering, phonebanking, donating, and above all voting. Nevertheless, allowing some latitude to keep the karma gods happy, we're in garbage time, folks.

"What I got from talking to him is that he is a real sports fan and he knew about the Blazers. He said that when I come back Brandon, LaMarcus and I will be a force next year. He also asked me about my knee, and he said he wasn't feeling my mohawk." By way of TNR, Sen. Obama picks up the key endorsement of (much-touted) Blazer rookie Greg Oden.

"With a week to go before climactic tests in Texas and Ohio, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign team has slipped into full recriminations mode. Looking backward, interviews with a cross-section of campaign aides and sympathetic outsiders suggest a team consumed with frustration and finger-pointing about the apparent failure of several recent tactical moves against Barack Obama. Looking forward, it is clear Clinton’s team has only a faint and highly improvisational strategy about what to do over the next seven days. Simply put, there is no secret weapon." Politico's Mike Allen and John F. Harris offer another dismal window into what looks to be the final days in Camp Clinton.

In related news, Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder -- who, along with Politico's Ben Smith and Salon's Joan Walsh, has been one of the more obviously Clinton-leaning pundits in the paid blogosphere (nice work if you can get it) -- pretty much gives up hope: "The 'HRC can come back' bandwagon is rolling through town, and I spent a long time yesterday contemplating whether to jump on board. But the platform on which her supporters stand right now seems more tenuous by the day...Advisers figure that a loss in Texas is as likely as a win in Ohio; a large number of staffers appear to be willing to quit en masse next Wednesday if there’s a split decision and Clinton gives notice that she intends to fight for another month."

Update: Former Chief of Staff and long-time Clinton loyalist Leon Panetta gives his own post-mortem for the campaign, and puts the blame squarely on Mark Penn: "'[Penn] is a political pollster from the past. I never considered him someone who would run a national campaign for the presidency,' he said. He asserted that Mr. Penn 'comes from an old school, like Karl Rove -- it’s all about dividing people into smaller groups rather than taking the broader approach that was needed.'"

"I'm deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama," he added. "He is ready to be president. And I am ready to support him -- to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th president." The beginning of the end? The end of the beginning? Senator and former presidential candidate Chris Dodd endorses Barack Obama. "It's now the hour to come together. This is the moment for Democrats and independents and others to come together, to get behind this candidacy." As I said in my pre-Iowa endorsement, Dodd was always my favorite of the "second tier," as it were, and I'm very glad he's decided to swing behind Sen. Obama. This isn't as big as Ted Kennedy, but, in terms of its symbolic import, it's bigger than most.

Asked why now, Dodd said: "'I don't want a campaign that is only divisive here, and there’s a danger of it becoming that. Not because the candidates want that, but too often the advisors the consultants others are seeking for that divisiveness.'"

Of the veepstakes: "Who would want to be vice president? I'd rather be chairman of the Senate Banking Committee."

Regarding Sen. Clinton's reaction: "'She was as gracious as she could be,' he said, noting she was 'obviously disappointed, maybe even something beyond disappointment,' but that she appreciated the call."" Update: Is Richardson next? And will John Lewis now formally switch?

So, since Thursday night's seemingly valedictory moment, when it seemed Sen. Clinton might withdraw from the presidential contest with dignity intact, we've witnessed the ridiculous "shame on you" farce, her grotesquely unbecoming (and unpresidential) spate of unhinged sarcasm, further railing against Obama's foreign policy (in part by comparing him to Dubya), some really desperate whining about the press coverage, and -- arguably a new low -- her staff's apparent attempt to get the "closet Muslim" smear machine up and running again with the already-infamous Somali gear pic. (Here's a quick summary of recent events.) Update: One of the more egregious spins of the day: Combining the biased-press and Somali-photo tacks, a Clinton aide is quoted as saying, ""Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were [Clinton]?" Uh, no, because there's obviously no whispering campaign arguing that Sen. Clinton is secretly Muslim. Really, what kind of idiots do you take us for?

It can only make you wonder what the next eight days will bring, and how much lower the Clinton campaign can possibly sink. I understand that they're desperate now (See also Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro all but begging supers to back HRC), but they've really gone beyond the pale. At this point, I'm less outraged than I am just disgusted by Sen. Clinton, Mark Penn, and co. The self-immolation of the Clinton legacy is almost complete, and any goodwill they might've once enjoyed in progressive circles is well past exhausted. Let's just hope the trail of slime they leave on their path to the exit doesn't prove fertile ground for the Republicans in the general.

Update: Sen. Obama personally responds to the Somali pic flap: "Everybody knows that whether it's me or Senator Clinton, or Bill Clinton, that when you travel to other countries they ask you to try on traditional garb that you have been given as a gift. The notion that the Clinton campaign would be trying to circulate this as a negative on the same day that Senator Clinton was giving a speech about how we repair our relationships around the world is sad. We are going to try to stay focused on what will make a difference in our foreign policy, including bringing the war in Iraq to an honorable end." He then proceeded to twist the knife: "The notion that they would try to use this to imply in some way that I'm foreign, I think is, you know, unfortunate...These are the kinds of political tricks and silliness you start seeing at the end of campaigns."

Update 2: The NYT surveys "what one Clinton aide called a 'kitchen sink' fusillade against Mr. Obama," while the WP's Dana Milbank reports on the efforts of the increasingly combative and bizarre Clinton spin room: "They are in the last throes, if you will...there was no mistaking a certain flailing, a lashing-out, as two Clinton advisers sat down for a bacon-and-eggs session yesterday at the St. Regis Hotel...[They offered] a fascinating tour of an alternate universe."

"If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s 'plagiarism.' And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame...But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall."

The NYT's Frank Rich thoroughly eviscerates Senator Clinton's "Dubya in Iraq"-style campaign. "Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid...But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating."

Making a similar case about the aura of unreality surrounding Clinton, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter says it's time for the Senator to concede. "The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon -- they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers. When I floated this idea of her quitting, Hillary aides scoffed that it would never happen. Their Pollyanna-ish assessment of the race offered a glimpse inside the bunker. These are the same loyalists who told Hillary that she was inevitable, that experience was a winning theme, that going negative in a nice state like Iowa would work, that all Super Tuesday caucus states could be written off. The Hillary who swallowed all that will never withdraw...[Yet t]he choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption. Why not the latter?"

"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged...So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics." What was that about feeling "absolutely honored" the other night? No doubt in an attempt to stem all the final days talk, Sen. Clinton goes ballistic on Barack Obama this afternoon, claiming he's the one that has used Rovian tactics this primary cycle. (Watch the video for the full "Dean Scream" effect. I wonder what Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, fidgeting behind her, was thinking.) Sen. Obama responds here and here, and the Obama campaign's official rebuttal is here.

Ok, I'm going to try to put this as delicately as I can: Sen. Clinton, shame the fuck on you. After all the low-down, reprehensible, and thoroughly scummy maneuvers we've seen from your campaign this primary cycle, no doubt courtesy of your $10 million bust Mark Penn, how dare you get before the public and act the aggrieved party here? I've compiled this list before, but let's go over it again. In the past three months, Sen. Clinton and/or her campaign has:

"'Barack is very precise,' the governor observed, sitting in his office at the New Mexico Capitol. The Obama campaign rarely pesters him with surrogates. Mr. Obama’s approach is like 'a surgical bomb,' he said, while 'the Clintons are more like a carpet bomb.'" Governor Bill Richardson tells the NYT of his being wooed for an endorsement, and says at the moment he's "genuinely torn." "'I feel a great deal of personal loyalty to the Clintons,' Mr. Richardson said several times in the interview, his face betraying the agony of indecision as much as fondness. He went on to describe Mr. Obama as 'remarkable,' 'someone I like very much' and a leader 'who is creating something that’s really good in this country.'"

"Barack Obama began his career in public service helping to restore opportunity to a community that was devastated by a steel plant closing, and he has been fighting for economic fairness ever since." Sen. Obama picks up another superdelegate endorsement in Ohio Teamsters president Sonny Nardi. According to Ohio's Buckeye State Blog: "This is a huge deal. Sure, it's a superdelegate pickup for Barack, but more importantly, it will open the flood gates. Ohio superdelegates leaning for Clinton or Obama are going to be more likely to come out now, because Nardi just gave them cover."

Update: According to DemConWatch, Sen. Obama also picked up a few more: Overseas superdelegate Connie Borde, PA super Leon Lynch, and Rep. Steve Kagen of WI. And, most importantly (as you'll see if you scroll down), Sen. Feingold moved further towards Obama, and voted for him last Tuesday. Update 2: AP counts a super switch of +27 for Obama over the past two weeks.

"I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are." Uh, Texas doesn't matter? And, just like that, Sen. Clinton dispels all the warm fuzzies she attempted to earn with her reverse Muskie nostalgia moment last night. Sadly, it seems the evidence of a "reality check" among Sen Clinton and her campaign was misleading, and they're instead indulging in the "false hope" they can still steal this thing, vis a vis Michigan and Florida.

Well, if these (admittedly anecdotal) peeks at the Texas ground game are any indication, one can see why that screw-Texas spin is already starting to kick up now. First, Sen. Obama's team, by way of dKos: "Today I talked to a reporter working on a piece on the Obama movement, who had just returned from Texas to see the Obama ground game close up. I asked if it lived up to the hype. He said that he had gone down there cynical, not expecting much, but had been utterly blown away...[H]is volunteer-driven ground game is blowing whatever meager operation Clinton has completely out of the water." Update: Here's another positive testimonial about Obama's TX organization.

And for Clinton? Read this sad tale: "Although the Clinton Campaign has been telling the press that they have the ground operations to pull off a win in Texas, those ground operations have not been in evidence when I've traveled to small towns to see how Bill Clinton is doing on the Texas stump. Wednesday evening in Victoria, down in the southeastern part of the state, incipient chaos threatened to overwhelm the 'Early Vote' Rally precisely because there was no ground operation...'It's a clusterf**k! Just a clusterf**k!' the Corpus Christi producer for a local news affiliate shouts into his cell phone."

Update: A Clinton endorser in the Rio Grande Valley confirms trouble in Texas: "I made a commitment to Hillary Clinton and I must maintain it. I gave my word. However, as an observer, it appears to be increasingly evident who is going to win."

Update 2: Someone with Texas skillz has made a revised delegate projection for the Lone Star State based on recent polling. It's not good for Sen. Clinton.

In case you missed it, debate No. 19, held in Austin, TX, came and went this evening. (Transcript.) My quick take: Not all that much news made here, and, as a tie goes to the defender, that's a win for Barack Obama.

The big question coming in tonight was whether, after losing eleven contests in a row, Sen. Clinton would go into relentless-attack-mode (as desired by Mark Penn) or instead try to reassert her positives and perhaps prepare for a dignified exit to the race (as advised by Mandy Grunwald.) Well, the answer turned out to be yes. The first forty-five minutes or so were civil, agreeable, and thoroughly stultifying, basically a duller continuation of the LA debate of three weeks ago. Then, in the middle going, Sen. Clinton began trying to score some points, for example, by (once again) calling Obama a plagiarist and saying the Senator represented "change you can xerox." (That canned line backfired rather badly, and drew the only boos of the night. I hope this is because most people realize the plagiarism charge is absolutely moronic.)

For his part, Sen. Obama -- looking ever more presidential, as is the frontrunner's wont -- took the high road, correctly calling such maneuvers part of the "silly season" of politics and keeping the conversation mostly about substantive differences, such, as, once again, the interminable mandate question. (He had a particularly good response to the "cult" charge: "The implication has been that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional...The thinking is that somehow they're being duped...and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things. I think they perceive the reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly." Touche.)

The moment that's getting a lot of the buzz right now is Sen. Clinton's closing statement, which (Xerox alert!) borrowed heavily from both John Edwards and Bill Clinton in 1992. (I actually don't care at all about that, but if you're going to throw around spurious claims of plagiarism, you'd best be careful about that glass house.) More troublingly, in her close Sen. Clinton explicitly invoked her surprisingly game-changing Reverse Muskie back in New Hampshire. (She began this particular lip-quavering moment by asking herself the same goofy question she got in the diner: "How do you do it?")

Now, I don't want to claim Sen. Clinton is a fraud, even if she's seemed considerably less than "absolutely honored to be here with Barack Obama" over the past three weeks of scurrilious charges and no concession speeches. If anything, I agree with CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, who was much less enthralled by the moment than that venerable Establishment Davos-boogier, David Gergen. I think she got genuinely choked up for exactly the same reasons as she did back in NH. With the writing on the wall for her candidacy, this was a valedictory moment of sorts. Fine, she's earned it, and I applaud her for seemingly choosing, at least for a few moments, a graceful exit that will help bring the party back together. That being said, I wouldn't get such a guilty twinge of Bernie Birnbaum-ish grandstanding about it all if she hadn't explicitly invoked the diner tear, and/or if Clinton flunky Howard Wolfson hadn't immediately try to tell us afterward that this was "the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice." Um, no, not really.

Electability update: In case you missed the recent state poll findings showing that at least nine swing states choose Obama over McCain and McCain over Clinton (totalling 100 electoral votes, if you throw in Michigan below), the polling firms have crunched some more numbers. Here are a few more where the party winner doesn't change, but the margin of victory/defeat is considerably better for Sen. Obama:

"'His mind is as sharp as anybody's I've ever met,' Feingold said of Obama. 'He's done extremely well for somebody with his level of experience.'" While he's apparently not ready to officially endorse, Sen. Russ Feingold tells a Wisconsin paper he's "highly inclined" to vote for Obama. Meanwhile, Obama has picked up the vote of another Wisconsan, superedelegate Jason Rae, 21, who was recently wined and dined by Chelsea. "He cited Obama’s support from an overwhelming majority of young voters as the major reason for his decision." Update: Another super, Margaret Xifaras of MA, backs Obama. So that's 2 today...3 if we count Sen. Feingold.

Update: Count him. Sen. Feingold tells The Nation he voted for Barack Obama in Wisconsin. "'I really do think that, at the gut level, this is a chance to do something special,' Feingold said of the Obama campaign and the potential of an Obama presidency, which he said has 'enormous historical opportunities for America and for our relationship with the world.'"

"'If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you,' the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech." Well, some of it at least is on Mark Penn. Echoing remarks by James Carville after Super Tuesday, Bill Clinton underscores the importance of Ohio and Texas (and conveniently ignores the fact that Sen. Clinton must not only win but win by 20.)

It's not just here at home. Sen. Obama takes the Americans Abroad primary 2-1 (65%-32%), winning most of the countries around the world (Ex-pats in Israel and the Philippines opted for Clinton.) Thanks, Kris, and all the other Obama voters out there across the seas. Update: Clinton did well in the DR as well.

"Hillary Clinton ended January with $7.6 million in debt – not including the $5 million personal loan she gave to her campaign in the run-up to the critical Super Tuesday elections, according to financial reports released Wednesday." With the January FEC reports filed, Politico takes a look at the sinking fiscal ship that is the Clinton campaign. The key graphs: "According to the reports, Clinton raised about $20 million in January, including her loan. She spent nearly $29 million during the month. She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors. But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts." So add that all up and you get: no money. (Hence, the fatcat 527.) But the silver lining for Sen. Clinton? At least she's making interest on that loan.

Over at TNR, Christopher Orr emphasizes this finding from the piece: "More than $2 million of the red ink is owed to chief consultant and adviser, Mark Penn." So that goes a long way toward explaining why he's still employed over there these days, despite his obvious incompetence.

And a commenter in the same TNR thread teases out another key line buried in the article: "[T]he lengthy laundry list of IOUs also includes unpaid bills ranging from insurance coverage, phone banking, printing and catering at events in Iowa, New Hampshire and California." Wait a tic: Sen. Clinton, she of the much-touted mandate, is now ducking the insurance bills? Hmm...maybe affordability is the real problem after all.

Update: Politico's Kenneth Vogel has more on where the money went, including $10 million to Mark Penn and $1300 to Dunkin Donuts.

Update 2: The NYT piles on the terrible financing issue: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings...'We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,' said a prominent New York donor. 'So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late.'"

"'Sen. Obama will fight for better wages, real health care reform, stronger retirement security, fair trade and an end to the outsourcing of good jobs,' said Hoffa. 'He understands the importance of giving workers a voice at work and will fight for strong unions to help rebuild America’s middle class.'" The Teamsters, 1.4 million strong, back Barack Obama, as does the 65,000-member International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. (The Change to Win labor consortium may follow suit tomorrow, although four of its seven member unions already back the Senator.) Meanwhile, Sen. Obama picked up four more superdelegates today: Ron Kind of WI (who said he'd follow his district), Lloyd Doggett of TX, and Dana Redd and Donald Norcross of NJ. (Redd had previously backed Clinton, meaning today's superdelegate swing was 5.) Update: Change to Win backs Obama, although the three unions not already supporting the Senator abstained from voting: "[T]he three unions released the federation to work for Obama in the upcoming primaries and caucuses."

As I noted last night, the delegate math would now appear to be out of reach for Sen. Clinton. But, from setting up an anti-Obama 527 to launching a new website aimed at changing the rules to the candidate's "new" "time to get real" speech, the Clinton campaign looks to go down swinging. In related news, John McCain says pass the popcorn. Update: That 527 has its first ad ready to go in Ohio.

"It is the place where I feel if things get too hectic, I can come back and get centered, and it will always be in my heart, and I hope if we are successful, I would come to Hawaii. Certainly it would be my preference over Crawford, Texas." And No. 10: Sen. Obama crushes Hillary Clinton in the home state of his youth, 76%-24%.

No. 9, No. 9, No. 9...Sen. Barack Obama wins Wisconsin, the land of Feingold and the La Follettes, going away (58%-41%), and eats even deeper into Sen. Clinton's core constituencies.

Next up, two debates, then the line in the sand: March 4, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont. These are huge and crucial states, and they will dictate how much longer Sen. Obama has to face a debilitating two-front war. But, I might as well come clean. I've been saying this elsewhere since the Potomac primaries, and now I'll go ahead and say it here: The math is virtually inexorable now, and Sen. Clinton has lost. Her campaign even conceded thus a week ago. It's now just a question of how badly she and her campaign wants Obama to bleed before she drops out. (To his credit, Mitt Romney got out early so as not to hamstring his party's candidate in the general. Sadly, I doubt we can expect the same of Sen. Clinton.)

This is not to say Ohioans, Texans, Rhode Islanders, and Vermonters, to say nothing of Pennsylvanians, Kentuckians, North Carolinians, etc., should now become complacent. Far from it -- now's the time to redouble our efforts, and end this race, sooner rather than later. The tide has turned, and, to quote my former employer (who would tell Sen. Clinton the same), "When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." All that being said, I just don't see Sen. Clinton coming back at this point. And, if she somehow finds a way to wrest the nomination from Obama, it'll have been by dragging the Democratic party so deeply through the mud of asinine smears and obvious half-truths that the nomination will be worthless. It is time for her to go.

It's late, I'm still waiting for the Hawaii results, and I'm still pretty peeved about Clinton's ridiculous plagiarism gambit. But, If you'll forgive the lapse into LotR metaphors, the treason of Saruman, once the noblest and wisest of our order, is almost subdued. The Battle for Middle-Earth is only beginning.

More signs of post-Feb. 5 incompetence from the Clinton camp. Just as they only recently "discovered" the rules in Texas, they somehow didn't manage to file a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania, despite having the backing of the state's Democratic machine and despite Clinton supporter Gov. Ed Rendell giving the campaign an extension to do so. "It appears Clinton came up 10 or 11 candidates short across a number of congressional districts, including two in Philadelphia. That's close to 10 percent of the 103 delegates to be decided by voters. It appears the shortage would've been double that if Rendell hadn't extended last week's candidate filing deadline by a day and a half, ostensibly due to bad weather."

If you're a reader hailing from Wisconsin or Hawaii today, please consider voting for Barack Obama.

"'Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,' says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. 'The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.'" More bad news for non-Clinton-voting states: You're not only insignificant to Mark Penn, a Clinton campaign co-chair thinks you're second-class. Also, to the 2004 red-states of Ohio and definitely Texas, I'm afraid this pretty clearly includes you as well. Sorry, but, as always, please vote Democratic regardless.

Sigh...Flailing about like a drowning victim, the Clinton campaign tries to accuse Sen. Obama of plagiarism for echoing remarks by friend and Obama supporter Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts regarding the value of words. (Both quoted such examples as "We hold these truths to be self-evident," "I have a dream," and "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" as times when words did, in fact, matter.) I'm sorry, but this is somewhat ludicrous, particularly coming from the grift-happy Clinton camp. (In fact, when asked point blank if Sen. Clinton has been known to lift from others, her campaign demurred.) For Gov. Patrick's part, he said: "Senator Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Senator Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."

Ok, for one, much political rhetoric is by its nature an amalgamation of soundbites and talking points from other places. (See also Clinton and "Yes, we can," or John McCain's "ready to lead.") For another, it's not as if Sen. Obama (or his speechwriters) lifted entire paragraphs from some other source. He -- and Patrick -- both cited the most well-known examples in our history of words making a difference. It's an obvious and devastating riposte to Clinton's idiotic assertion that rhetoric is worthless. Could he have snuck Deval Patrick's name in there? Well, I suppose so (as does Obama), but, really, this is pretty standard stuff in the political world. (And, before we consign ourselves to a political rhetoric characterized by interminable footnotes, let's not forget: 95% of the time every word out of any candidate's mouth -- including Clinton's -- has been written by someone else.)

In any case, with this sad plagiarism riff, the Clinton campaign has shown once again that it will yield to nothing or noone in its race to the bottom. Please, go away, already. You've become an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Update: Former Carter speechwriter (and a friend and mentor of sorts) James Fallows calls shenanigans on the Clinton campaign.

"The Mexican American Democrats believe that Senator Obama’s experience bringing Americans of all ages, religions, races and ethnicities together make him the best candidate to make progress on the issues that matter to Hispanics in Texas and across America. Obama’s leadership in the U.S. Senate on comprehensive immigration reform and his specific plans to strengthen our schools, bring about universal healthcare, and provide tax relief for working families show us that he is truly committed to improving the lives of Hispanics and all Americans." Sen. Obama receives the endorsement of the Mexican American Democrats of Texas, the state's oldest Hispanic political organization.

"Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended. What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates." The Clinton campaign "discovers" the long-standing Texas primary rules this month. I mean, why bother to learn the state rules before running for president (or before making Texas the last-ditch firewall)? As a TPM commenter deadpanned, Sen. Clinton must have just presumed she'd be greeted as a liberator.

What are they paying Mark Penn $4.3 million for again? Did their Texas strategy encompass anything beyond kids in mariachi outfits? This is rank incompetence, and no way to run a presidential campaign...or a country.

As posted here awhile ago, national polls have consistently shown Sen. Barack Obama performing better against John McCain than Sen. Hillary Clinton. Well, the polling firm Rasmussen has taken the question a step further, and begun asking swing states what they think of the three remaining candidates. Check these out.

"At the sprawling Riverside Park Community apartments at Broadway and 135th Street, Alician D. Barksdale said she had voted for Mr. Obama and her daughter had, too, by absentee ballot. 'Everyone around here voted for him,' she said." City election officials find "major discrepancies" between the reported and actual vote totals here in NYC. In 80 of the city's 6106 election districts -- including the nearby 94th election district right here in Harlem (I'm in the adjacent 93rd) -- Obama was reported to have the grand total of 0 votes. (Clinton now leads the 94th 261-136, which frankly still sounds off for this neighborhood.) "In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116."

Local party officials here in Sen. Clinton's home state are calling the mistakes a result of human error. "'I’m sure it’s a clerical error of some sort,' Mr. Wright said. 'Being around elections for the last 25 years, no candidate receives zero votes.'" (Hmm. Funny how these poll officials, instead of transposing a few numbers or somesuch, just accidentally wrote down a big fat zero.) In any case, the official count is what really matters in the end anyway, and -- if this trend keeps up -- there's a possibility Sen. Obama might pick up a few more delegates here in the city.

More to the point, in an age where we can squeeze in 5-10 ATMs a city block, and all of them seem to know exactly how much (or how little) money I have, why are we still relying on a half-century-old voting system that allows for these sorts of "human error"? It's the 21st century, people. Update: Although most reports seem to indicate the problem was legitimately human error, Hizzoner claims fraud.

The Houston Chronicle endorses Sen. Obama: "Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party...The passion and excitement that Obama has brought to the race can only stimulate more citizens to participate in the electoral process. The Chronicle urges Texas Democrats to cast what could be decisive ballots for his presidential nomination."

As the Clinton campaign begins pulling out all the stops in Wisconsin, Mark Penn, he of the "impressionable elites" and "insignificant states," offers up another doozy: “Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries." So...winning primaries is not a good way to pick a candidate now. Can we still get Mike Gravel as our standard-bearer, then?

For his part, Clinton adviser and superdelegate Harold Ickes (son of the prominent progressive and New Dealer) at least conceded the importance of winning, although he too is putting his faith on a bailout by the supers (and/or a successful joint pincer movement with McCain.) According to him, the campaign will go until June, whereupon supers will flock to Clinton. "'At or about – certainly, shortly after – the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination,' Ickes said. 'She’s going to have a majority of the delegates.'" Sorry, not bloody likely. (About that June 7 match-up, tho, Sen. Obama recently picked up the endorsement of Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, so even that final Clinton firewall looks to be suffering from a few cracks.)

"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."

"The Obama campaign has been derisively and incorrectly described as more rock tour than political campaign and his supporters as more starry-eyed groupies than thoughtful voters. If detractors in either party want to continue characterizing the Obama campaign this way, they will have seriously underestimated both the electorate's hunger for meaningful change in how the nation is governed and the candidate himself. In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive." The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel endorses Obama for president.

Eight days after the fact, Sen. Clinton picks up a win in New Mexico by 2000 votes (of 150,000 cast), giving her a 2-delegate edge (14 to 12) in the state. But, unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, New Mexico was a caucus state, and thus "not significant." Oh well, sorry, y'all.

"Senator Obama understands the needs of working people. As a community organizer, he understands that America must restore the balance between working America and corporate America. He will fight to level the playing field on behalf of workers across our country. He will fight to regain the rights and protections workers have lost after too many years of the Bush Administration." Sen. Obama picks up some key labor endorsements. First up, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which is 1.3 million members strong and "has a powerful presence and a strong organization in key primary states such as Wisconsin, Hawaii, Texas and Ohio." And, though it hasn't been announced for sure yet, Politico's Ben Smith says an SEIU endorsement is imminent. "'It's done,' said one person close to the union." Let's hope so -- we'll know tomorrow.

Also, we should probably expect Bill Clinton to dust off the union-busting rhetoric.

Update: SEIU endorses. "'There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us,' Andy Stern, the union's president, told reporters in announcing the decision."

"'The Obama campaign is a phenomenon,' says Hightower, who will make his formal endorsement soon but spoke this week with Laura Flanders and this writer on Radio Nation. 'Í am impressed with the tone of his campaign and, most of all, I am impressed with the people who have surged behind his campaign –- especially the young people,' the Texan says of Obama." Well-known Texas populist Jim Hightower gets set to back Barack Obama.

Speaking of much-loved Texas populists: Alas, the late Molly Ivins is no longer with us. But, she made her own feelings pretty clear back in the day: "I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president."

I posted earlier today on superdelegate Christine Samuels switching from Clinton to Obama. Now, according to the AP, it seems Clinton may be losing a few more: Based on his district's overwhelming support for the Senator from Illinois, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) has switched to Clinton from Obama, and "two other superdelegates, Sophie Masloff of Pennsylvania and Nancy Larson of Minnesota, are uncommitted, having dropped their earlier endorsements of Clinton." And, perhaps buttressing TNR's recent argument that Clinton's support among Black establishment figures is wavering, none other than Rep. John Lewis goes on record about a possible switch: "'It could (happen). There's no question about it. It could happen with a lot of people...we can count and we see the clock,' he said." (Which reminds me: A good place to keep track of superdelegate shifts, if you haven't found it yet, is DemConWatch.)

Update: It's official. John Lewis switches to Obama. "'In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,' said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. 'Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap...'I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,' Mr. Lewis said. 'He’s getting better and better every single day.'" Update 2: Or did he? Now, everyone's confused.

A Valentine's afternoon campaign roundup:

"I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability." Former Republican (now Independent and Dubya critic) Senator Lincoln Chafee officially endorses Obama. The Senator from Illinois also picked up a Clinton superdelegate in Christine "Roz" Samuels (meaning, as MSNBC points out, a 2-point swing in the superdelegate column.) And Al Gore, meanwhile, has confirmed to TNR that he will not be endorsing anyone. "Basically, Gore appears to be preserving for himself the option of stepping in and declaring a winner in the event of a war over superdelegates, and thus being seen as a kind of mediating figure, rather than as someone trying to influence the outcome" Given yesterday's threat of a party meltdown by the Clinton campaign, that'll probably be more useful for Sen. Obama anyway.

Meanwhile, in an interview with WMAL, Bill Clinton just makes up random stuff as he goes along. (I was going to say he was commiting seppuku to his legacy, but, as Wikipedia just reminded me, seppuku involves dying with honor.) "Of his wife's recent travails, he said, 'the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change.'" (If you're keeping score at home, be sure to add "upper-income voters" to the 20 states in the "not-significant" column.) "'I think she has been the underdog ever since Iowa,' Clinton said. "She’s had, you know, a lot of the politicians, like Senator Kennedy, opposed to her...He said they'd done well considering their slim budget. 'We've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,' he said. He did not mention that his wife's campaign has raised more than $140 million."

The best news for the Clinton team today: As of this past weekend, Sen. Clinton still held a big lead in Ohio (between 14 and 21 points, depending on the poll.) Of course, these were taken before the Potomac results and before Sen. Obama has started campaigning on the ground, and they still don't show the kind of massive spread Sen. Clinton needs to take back the pledged delegate lead. But I'm sure they'll take solace where they can find it. Update: I've tried to swear off taking much out of polls of late, but there's an interesting further discussion of the Wisconsin and Ohio poll numbers here.)

Update 2: "That's the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions." With really no other recourse at this point, Sen. Clinton (and her husband) try the blunderbuss of negativity approach. I'd point out the many flaws in Sen. Clinton's screed today, but, as it turns out, the Obama team has already done it for me. I'll just leave it at this: Can anyone point to a single "solution" Sen. Clinton has ever offered and carried through for the American people? And, no, running health care reform into the ground in 1994 doesn't count. Well, to be fair, I guess she did once go out on a limb to put an end to the horrible scourge of flag-burning. Now, that takes leadership.

It's sad to have to put aside the Valentine's Day cheer so soon after midnight, but there's no other way to put it: The Clinton campaign have lost their damn fool minds. At first, all seemed well. In an article by NYT's Adam Nagourney, Clinton officials reiterated what Howard Fineman reported last night: that the Clinton campaign basically admitted they wouldn't match Sen. Obama's pledged delegate total. "Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. They said the Democratic Party’s rules, which award delegates relatively evenly among the candidates based on the proportion of the vote they receive, would require her to win by huge margins in those states to match Mr. Obama in delegates won through voting." This is true, and it's the crux of their dilemma. Their last hope lies in racking up massive and decisive wins in Ohio and Texas, which is highly unlikely but worth the old college try. But, here's the warning sign: "With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count."

Sure enough, they have. According to the Boston Globe, forget Ohio and Texas: The Clinton campaign has said it will not concede the race, even if it is clear they've lost the delegate count on June 7 (Puerto Rico). "Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson." Never give up, never surrender! So, in effect, they're saying they'll risk an ugly and suicidal party schism, in the vain hope that the superdelegates don't decide to renounce them en masse once they come in second, which they're now basically admitting they will. And how are they going to convince the supers to back their play? Enter campaign strategist Mark Penn: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

So...sorry you had to hear it this way, but Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Washington: you are not significant. Or at least according to the Clinton campaign. But please do vote Democratic in November.

As I said above, I never expected the Clinton campaign to make any drastic decisions until after March 4. I mean, I know they themselves aren't big on the audacity of hope, but you never know: They might well be able to pull out the huge margins they need in both Ohio and Texas to stay mathematically viable. Stranger things have happened, some in this very election, and after the New Hampshire comeback, I'm not going to count them out until those returns come in. But, right now, they're flat-out embarrassing themselves. [Globe and MSNBC links via TPM.]

Update: The Prospect's Ezra Klein is not happy: "If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton's chances in the general election...This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton's campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that's not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities."

It's just one poll, of an almost meaningless sample, now that we're past Super Tuesday. As we all know, polls have often not been kind to Obama supporters over the past month or so. And the last thing the Obama campaign needs right now is a false sense of security. But, since I've been willing these lines to cross every day over the past few weeks, screw it: I'm blogging it: Obama finally pulls ever-so-slightly ahead of Clinton in the Gallup daily tracker, 45%-44%. Onward and upward. Update: Sen. Obama takes his first statistical lead, 49%-42%. But will it hold?

""What we are seeing is way beyond historical or transformational. The human mind cannot get around what is happening in politics." James Carville (my former employer) goes on the record about election 2008, and Clinton's prospects going forward. "She’s behind. Make no mistake. If she lose either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done." (What he didn't say: if Clinton doesn't win Texas and Ohio by large margins, this thing is also done. Given the delegate situation, a tie goes to Obama.)

In related news, another 1992 Clinton campaign head, David Wilhelm, jumps ship to Obama. "He said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it 'masterful.' 'He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,' Mr. Wilhelm said. 'I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model' of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising." Happily, Wilhelm is also a resident of Ohio, a former DNC head and a superdelegate.

"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.

A change in the weather is known to be extreme, but what's the sense of changing horses in midstream? The Clinton campaign shake-up continues, with deputy campaign manager Mike Henry following Patty Doyle out (he's the guy who suggested skipping Iowa -- that's looking rather prescient these days) and Hillary's web team also getting the boot.

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

While the focus is now rightly on Wisconsin and Hawaii, some thoughts on the March 4 contests (I didn't want to post these until the chickens had hatched and the Chesapeake came through):

The good news: Part primary, part caucus, Texas is basically a logistical nightmare. That's good news for the Obama campaign, since thus far it has shown considerable organizational savvy, particularly as compared to Team Clinton. (In fact, people who seem to know what they're talking about are predicting a delegate lead for Obama in the Lone Star State.)

The bad news: A SurveyUSA poll released today has Sen. Obama down 17 in Ohio. We have work to do.

And now, 8-for-8. Sen. Obama sweeps the Chesapeake primaries, taking Virginia by 29 (64%-35%), Maryland by 23 (currently 60%-37%), and the District by 51 (75%-24%). Best of all, he won across the board and made clear and undeniable in-roads into Clinton's demographic base. Next stop, Wisconsin and Hawaii, which Sen. Clinton seems to be ceding for her Giulianiesque firewall of Ohio and Texas. (I'm not sure why -- both could feasibly play to her strengths.) Update: Clinton's going to Wisconsin after all.

Capping the night of victories was another splendid speech by Obama, one that clearly and organically weaved some Edwardsian bread-and-butter populism into the existing stump speech. Sen. Obama also spent some time going after John McCain, and, after ekeing out Virginia on his end, McCain returned fire. We still have a ways to go on the Democratic side, of course, and I'm definitely not counting the Clintons out yet. (If anything, they're more dangerous than ever.) But, Obama's definitely got the Big Mo. And, at least during the speeches tonight, it was starting to look and sound like a general election...

Update: The target for the Clinton campaign right now appears to be 56% -- that's the percentage of remaining delegates Senator Clinton need to win to defeat Senator Obama in the overall pledged delegate count. But, according to media poobah Howard Fineman, at least, even the Clinton campaign concedes that's not going to happen, despite all the talk about the firewall strategy in Ohio and Texas. Instead, barring a monumental collapse by the Obama campaign, the Clintons are basically looking for they closest they can get to a photo finish, followed by the superdelegates breaking against the will of the pledged delegates. I seriously doubt that dog will hunt.

From Senator Obama's impressive victory speech in Wisconsin this evening:

"The politics of hope does not mean hoping things come easy. Because nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened unless somebody, somewhere stood up when it was hard; stood up when they were told – no you can’t, and said yes we can.

Yes we can reclaim that dream. Yes we can heal this nation."

The progressives are back!

Today's the Battle of the Beltway: If you're a DC, MD, or VA resident, please consider voting for Barack Obama. Update: Not to be forgotten, the global primary is today too.

"Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, also said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some of them said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, may ultimately 'go with the flow,' in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come." The NYT reports on the general shakiness in the Clinton campaign at the moment, and reemphasizes the importance of Ohio and Texas on March 4. (Jon Chait disagrees.)"'She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,' said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. 'The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.' Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view."

All well and good, but really: Let's not put the cart before the horse here. We have the Chesapeake primaries tomorrow, and while the polls clearly favor Sen. Obama, they favored him before New Hampshire as well. Let's see how those critical primaries shake out first before presuming the Clinton campaign is in full rout. As we should all know by now, there's nothing more politically dangerous than a Clinton with his or her back to the wall. (And, being as oblique as possible for Wire fans behind the curve, Norman Wilson's recent advice to Tommy Carcetti about Clay Davis also comes to mind.)

How will the Clinton campaign rationalize the losses over the weekend? It's not pretty. Said Senator Clinton: "'These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.' Noting that 'my husband never did well in caucus states either,' Clinton argued that caucuses are 'primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that.'" So, "activists" and African-Americans, not "real" Dems. Got it. As for Bill Clinton's take: "'Her campaign's broad appeal is largely to people who need a president,' Clinton told an audience in Silver Spring's Leisure World retirement community tonight. 'Very often they are working and busy and dont go to these caucuses.'" Sure. I guess holding them on a weekend probably didn't help either. As a commenter at TNR wryly characterized the spin last night: "Clearly there's been a massive flood of Latte sipping African American knowledge workers into rural Maine."

Mind you, I've said before that caucuses may not be the best way to organize a statewide election. But, given both the breadth and depth of Obama's leads in caucus states all across the country, Sen. Clinton's continued losses speak less to the inherent problems of caucusing than to the inherent problems of the Clinton campaign. As I said yesterday, if her campaign is any indication of the managerial talent we can expect from a Clinton presidency, the prognosis is not good. To wit, it's poorly managed, woefully disorganized, suffers from a lack of "activist" enthusiasm, and -- like a certain Republican administration I could mention -- clearly had no Plan B. (Also, apparently, Sen. Clinton wasn't apprised of her dismal funding situation until after Iowa. Another managerial coup.)

"'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.

"Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." He's been teetering on the brink for awhile now. (Not for nothing did TNR deem his last anti-Obama column the "least surprising NYT column ever.") But NYT columnist Paul Krugman finally, irrevocably jumps the shark with his column this morning, which blames the "cult of personality" around Obama for all the venom in the Democratic race at the moment, and claims Obama is turning the Democratic party into "Nixonland." Um, yeah.

First off, it doesn't seem like Krugman gets out around the blogosphere much, since every political board you can find out there is strewn with Clinton supporters saying wildly intemperate things. (I'm sure he's suffering from a selection bias -- given that he's invariably writing anti-Obama pieces, he probably gets a lot more prObama hate mail.) Second, there' no mention at all of any of the shadier tactics employed by the Clinton campaign over the course of the past few months, of course (and he cherry-picks rather drastically when it comes to discussion of the race card.) No, the problem for Krugman resides only in Obama cultists and a vast media conspiracy. Right.

When it comes to economics, Krugman is usually a sound thinker, even if I do think he has a tendency to belittle the progressive position on matters of political economy. (The title of his recent book, The Conscience of a Liberal, makes it plain.) But, when he strays off the economics reservation to dabble in history or politics, hoo boy. This column, frankly, is partisan hackery of the first order.

"Generally speaking, the more education a Democrat has, the less likely he or she is to support Hillary Clinton, and the more likely to support Barack Obama." For all the talk of age, race, gender, and class divergences, some analysts at Gallup see a different dynamic at work in the Obama-Clinton race: education. "In short, education is a highly significant predictor of Democrats' vote choices...Gender, too, is a predictor, but is essentially overwhelmed by the impact of education."

In fact, a worthy regression analysis of poll data over at dKos pushes the point further: "It is educational attainment, rather than income level, that appears to be the driving force behind Obama's 'upscale' support. In fact, there is some weak evidence that Obama actually does a bit better in states with lower median household incomes, once we control for educational attainment (but, the effect was not quite statistically significant enough to make the final cut). Trust me -- I looked and looked for this one, analyzing variables such as household income, per capita income, home values, home ownership, unemployment rates, and union membership. The idea that Clinton does better with working class voters seems to be a myth; she does better with voters without college degrees, but not working class voters per se. To the extent any such effects exist, they appear to point in the opposite direction of the conventional wisdom." (Speaking of which, there are number of CW-defying findings in this regression analysis, and it's worth a look-see.) Update: Poblano has more.

Update 2: The WP parses more data and finds the same education cleave. "In each of the states where the Post subscribed to exit polls (and voters were asked about their level of education), Clinton did better among non-college than college-educated white voters. She also outpaced Obama among non-college whites in all 14 of these states, but beat him by more than a single percentage point among college graduates in only five."

"Republicans, of course, are bound to dislike his liberalism – but what is there for Democrats to think about? Why are they even having this conversation? They have been waiting an awfully long time for a politician like Mr Obama. If, having come so close, they still manage to nominate Mrs Clinton, I think it is a choice they will regret for years and maybe decades." In the Financial Times, Clive Crook sees the Democratic choice for Obama as a no-brainer.

In another sign that the Clinton campaign may actually be reeling more than it lets on after Super Tuesday's failed knockout, Patty Solis Doyle is out as campaign manager, to be replaced by longtime Clinton aide Maggie Williams. This shake-up isn't a huge surprise, as it's been telegraphed ever since Iowa. Still, given that the campaign is already looking shaky and is desperate for good news at the moment, the timing is not ideal for the Clintons.

Wow. Make that 5-for-5. Senator Obama wins the Maine caucus going away. (Final tally: 59%-40%.) I have to say, I didn't see this one coming -- I expected Sen. Obama to lose close. Either Obama's starting to pick up real momentum, the Clinton campaign is just terrible at caucuses (which doesn't speak well of Sen. Clinton's ability to "manage the bureaucracy"), or everyone severely misunderestimated the impact of the King endorsement.

Well, at any rate, good job by Team Obama in Maine, and hopefully the completed weekend sweep bodes well for Tuesday's big Chesapeake/Beltway primary: Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Sen. Obama is favored in all, but, of course, nothing's certain, and the margins matter. (By the way, New Hampshire and Massachusetts? Not to rub it in, but the Pine Tree State just made y'all look kinda silly.)

In the Caribbean, South, Midwest, and West, Senator Obama goes four for four, winning Nebraska (68% to 32%), Washington (68% to 31%), Louisiana (56% to 37%), and the Virgin Islands (90% to 8%) handily. Now, that's a good day's work. (As you can see from the picture, Maine is next...which looks to lean Clinton at the moment. We'll know more tomorrow.)

"Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot." The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio's biggest paper, backs Barack Obama. "America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it."

"Katyal, who has been called in by both senators, described what sounded like a typical establishment vs. insurgency split between the two. Clinton 'comes at it a bit more from a top-down perspective,' he said, 'as in, "elites are likely to know what the right answer is." She'll likely talk to the Nobel Prize winner, but maybe not be as likely to talk to the people on the ground affected by the policies./ Obama, on the other hand, talked to Katyal for two hours when the Military Commissions Act, which sought to limit the Guantanamo detainees' right to bring appeals in federal court, was being debated in the Senate. He wanted to know how the proposed law would play out directly for the detainees, and Katyal was representing Salim Ahmed Hamdan before the Supreme Court."

Slate's Emily Bazelon examines how Obama's years as a con law professor influence his judicial thinking. "Obama's immersion makes the law professors in his inner circle giddy. In addition to the sweet relief of a candidate who has promised not to keep marching to the drummer of executive power, and who wants to protect rather than diminish the right to privacy, the Obama lawyer team loves their man because he goes toe to toe with them. As Harvard law professor Martha Minow puts it, 'He has at his fingertips the whole historical context of the moments in which our Constitution has been stretched, or has been in jeopardy, and when presidents have tried to bring it back. This isn't an afterthought for him: "Oh, I'll go consult my lawyers."'" This probably goes a way toward explaining why Obama has the backing of so many anti-Gitmo lawyers.

"Senator Obama has been fighting for ordinary Americans ever since he was a community organizer more than two decades ago. He has the unique combination of real life experience fighting for ordinary Americans, and the skill to bring Democrats, Republicans, and Independents together to get things done." Sen. Obama picks up the endorsements of two more governors: Chet Culver of Iowa and Christine Gregoire of Washington. And, in related news, Minnesota Rep. (and superdelegate) Tim Walz backs Obama based on the Senator's strong showing in Walz's congressional district on Super Tuesday. "Last night at the Democratic caucuses, the voters of southern Minnesota overwhelmingly supported Sen. Barack Obama and his hopeful vision for positive change. As a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will honor their decision and support Sen. Obama."

"I must now stand aside, for our party and our country. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win." With an eye to 2012, Governor Mitt Romney is out, meaning the GOP nominee is now, for all intent and purposes, John McCain.

So, now part of the question for our party becomes, which Democrat is more likely to beat McCain? I'm betting you can guess my answer. As Nicholas Kristof notes: "When pollsters offer voters hypothetical matchups, Mr. Obama does better than Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain. For example, a Cook Political Report poll of registered voters released this week found Mr. McCain beats Mrs. Clinton, 45 percent to 41 percent. But Mr. Obama beats Mr. McCain, 45 percent to 43 percent. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results."

See also David Broder: "In either scenario, women break for the Democratic candidate. McCain leads Clinton by 13 points among men, but only runs even with Obama. Party lines are sharp, and the battle for independents would be close. Currently, independents give McCain a 12-point lead over Clinton but favor Obama by 6 points over the Republican."

Update: Another TIME poll agrees: "Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each...The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that 'independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton. But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, 'are a key battleground.'"

"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform."

So said Bill Clinton only a little over a month ago. But, as per the norm with the Clinton campaign, things have now changed: Word leaks out that Senator Clinton is not only planning to self-finance her candidacy with personal "loans" (a la Mitt Romney), but that she already gave her campaign $5 million out-of-pocket last month. (Indeed, money's gotten so tight around the Clinton camp that, according to Time's Mark Halperin, senior staff are now going without pay.)

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama is on pace for another $30 million month and has room to grow, mainly because he's relying on a wider pool of small donors rather than (as per Senator Clinton) a smaller pool of maxed-out donors and an army of lobbyists. (Which reminds me, Senator Obama accepts donations here.)

I for one doubt Sen. Clinton's campaign will really run out of cheddar. If anything, the campaign probably put the story out there so as to encourage their supporters to donate in the same fashion as Obama's have. Still, this Clinton cash crunch further indicates how much of their election strategy was predicated on a Super Tuesday knockout punch. Having swung and missed, the Clinton camp is now nearing broke, and seriously hurting.

More to the point, even notwithstanding the inherent shadiness of self-financing, which no less than Bill Clinton attested to above, this move puts President Clinton's penchant for troubling deals -- such as his recent venture in Kazakhstan -- right in the thick of things. Hard to ignore in any event, now this story comes front and center. If the Clintons are breaking into their private stash to get Senator Clinton elected, where did the money come from?

"There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come. Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.” Obama takes the Super Tuesday hit, and not only stands his ground but deals some damage of his own. The result? We need more rounds.

It's Wednesday morning, 3am, so I'll keep it short for now. But, all in all, I'm pretty pleased with how Super Tuesday shook out tonight. Sure, I'd have liked to see Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California in our column, and was rather dismayed when those pesky exit polls -- which had us winning in MA and NJ -- turned out to be bunk. But, around 10pm or so, the tide turned, with Obama racking up a slew of states and drawing particularly notable wins in Connecticut, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri. California didn't fall, of course, but I'd written it off hours earlier thanks to that early exit poll data.

The thing is, Super Tuesday was meant to be Clinton's knockout punch -- as little as two weeks ago, she was up 20 in the national polls. And, now, Obama is not only still standing, it looks like he may be (ever-so-slightly, of course) in the lead. At the end of the night, we ended up with more states (13 to 8, with NM outstanding) and -- more importantly -- basically split the delegates (we should know the exact figures in the next few days, but the late tally is 841-837 for Obama, and, regardless, all we had to do is stay close.) And, while Senator Clinton's support has held steady, Senator Obama has jumped 15 points nationally in just the past two weeks. Now, the Obama campaign has money to burn and time to spend on a smaller -- and more favorable -- playing field. We have a ways to go yet, but now that we've made it over the Super Tuesday hurdle, time is on our side.

Update: It's still not absolutely official, but Sen. Obama seems to have won more delegates last night. And, as that was kinda the point of the evening, this is very good news.

"The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlled media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear. America has become a phobocracy."

In the WP, author Michael Chabon makes his case for Obama, and argues we should vote against fear. "Thus in the name of preserving hope do we disdain it. That is how a phobocracy maintains its grip on power. To support Obama, we must permit ourselves to feel hope, to acknowledge the possibility that we can aspire as a nation to be more than merely secure or predominant."

"'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.)

"'I'm happy to support your candidacy, which is so full of promise for our country,' wrote the best-selling author, who has long backed liberal causes and progressive candidates such as the late-Paul Wellstone. 'Seven years of a failed presidency is a depressing thing, and the country is pressing for a change and looking for someone with clear vision who is determined to break through the rhetorical logjam and find sensible ways to move our country forward. That's you, friend.'" Senator Obama picks up a Minnesota ally in Garrison Keilor.

As I said before, I don't want to put too much emphasis on polls anymore -- partly because of what happened in New Hampshire, partly because they're all over the place. Still, it looks like Senators Obama and Clinton may now be tied nationally. (Obama even has a statistical lead in one poll.) And, again, while polls differ -- some suggest an Obama lead, some don't -- all seem to indicate the Senator from Illinois is not only surging in California (Thank you, Maria Shriver!), but even threatening Clinton's tri-state home base in Connecticut and New Jersey(!)

A lot of what happens tomorrow will depend on the ground game, and the race will go on past Super Tuesday in almost any event. Still, if we all get out there and make our voices heard, it looks like there's an outside chance Obama could emerge the delegate leader tomorrow night. Sure, a sweep would be wondrous, but let's face it -- it's extremely unlikely. There's still a lot of game left to play, and -- after tomorrow, of course -- slow and steady wins the race. Let's at least get Senator Obama in a good position to move forward. As long as he can keep it close tomorrow, we're good to go.

"The first-term senator from Illinois has become one of the top two Democratic contenders by the strange tactic of perceiving the widespread disgust with political business as usual and by giving it voice...[B]e positive and vote for Sen. Barack Obama. At worst, he's guilty of campaigning on the promise of hope." Following in the footsteps of the Albuquerque Tribune and Santa Fe Mexican, New Mexico's largest paper, the Albuquerque Journal, endorses Obama for president. In not unrelated news, Clinton and Obama appear to be statistically tied in New Mexico. (Obama's up 6, but the margin of error is 7.)

"Would you hear his voice come thru the music, Would you hold it near as it were your own?" The surviving members of the Grateful Dead are reuniting to back Obama. "Mickey Hart, Phil Lesh and Bob Weir will be joined by Jackie Greene, John Molo and Steve Molitz at the concert, which will be simulcast live onto the internet on iclips.net. This will be the first time that the members of the band have performed together since 2004."

In related news, Jesse Dylan (not his brother Jakob of the Wallflowers, as I earlier reported, but still of the same esteemed lineage) has directed a video for "Yes We Can", a music-speech hybrid by Senator Obama, the Black-Eyed Peas, John Legend, and a smattering of celebrities. (For her part, Super Obama Girl works alone.)

"Obama’s Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama’s national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states...Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one." The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg makes the case for Obama...and against Clinton. "Obama has turned out to have a kind of political magic unseen since the Kennedy brothers of the nineteen-sixties. He has something of Jack’s futuristic, ironic cool, something of Bobby’s earnest, inspiring heat...'The Clintons' used to be a Republican trope, calculated to make one or the other half of the couple look like a puppet or a victim or a co-conspirator; now it is simply descriptive."

Meanwhile, in a cover story for The Nation, Christopher Hayes laid out his own reasoning for Obama. "Obama's diagnosis of the obstacles to progress is twofold. First, that the division of the electorate into the categories created by the right's culture warriors is the primary means by which the forces of reaction resist change. Progress will be made only by rejecting or transcending those categories...Second, that the reason progressives have failed to achieve our goals over the past several decades is not that we didn't fight hard enough but that we didn't have a popular mandate. In other words, the fundamental obstacle is a basic political one: never having the public squarely on our side and never having the votes on the Hill...The candidacy of Barack Obama represents by far the left's best chance to, in Buchanan's immortal phrasing, take back the bigger half of the country. It's a chance we can't pass up."

"The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded."

In the WP, Susan Eisenhower, Ike's granddaughter, endorses Obama for president. "My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee...He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a 'Democrats for Eisenhower' movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation. It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges."

"The President made a deal with Senator Kennedy and neither one of them meant to mess it up. The deal was supposed to be, we will give the schools more money and get rid of two programs that Bill Clinton actually started...Now think about that -- you get the worst of all worlds." On the campaign trail in Arkansas (he's campaigning in Arkansas?), Bill Clinton goes after Teddy Kennedy on the issue of No Child Left Behind. This follows on remarks he said yesterday: "I want you to think about this, and I have to say, this was a train wreck that was not intended. No Child Left Behind was supported by George Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy and everybody in between. Why? Because they didn't talk to enough teachers before they did that." Left unmentioned in both cases: "Everybody in between" includes Senator Clinton, who also voted for NCLB in 2001.

"The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge on foreign relations and on this nation's particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He's a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate."

The Los Angeles Times endorses Barack Obama for president. "In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration."

It's the Friday before Super Tuesday, and no Edwards and no Gore...yet (and neither look to be choosing before Tuesday, if at all.) But some other big endorsements for Obama this morning:

Heya. Sorry this is going up so late...I spent the evening at the Generation Obama event in Midtown, so my usual prObama take on the debates got even more reinforcement than usual...

First off, it was heartening to watch a surprisingly substantive debate. The Nevada roundtable was too sweet, and the Myrtle Beach slugfest was too sour, but tonight's much-heralded showdown in Los Angeles actually seemed just right. [Transcript.] Both candidates were able to tease out and discuss notable differences in their policies, particularly on health care, immigration reform, and Iraq, while keeping a civil, friendly tone that didn't seem as unnaturally forced as back in Vegas.

With all that being said, and to no one's surprise, I thought Barack Obama came out ahead this evening. (In fact, I agree with Andrew Sullivan -- this might've been his best debate thus far.) He showed a clear and nuanced command of policy. He made a solid case for his strengths, most notably on the question of judgment ("Right on Day 1.") He explained well how he's more electable, particularly against John McCain. He was wry and personable. And -- when it came to the Republicans -- he was often devastating. (That Romney takedown was too rich.)

Hillary Clinton was also good tonight, but she gave more than a few answers that were real groaners. On immigration reform, her attempt to be Obamaesque by invoking the Statue of Liberty was strange and flat. More problematically, her answer on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants made no sense (She's against licenses for illegals, to protect illegals?) And, worst of all, when given the chance to defuse a zero-sum understanding of the immigrant issue, she instead told a story about an African-American man who blamed Latinos for his job loss, and it was hard not to read an off-putting Bendixen subtext into it.

Most notably, when it came to Iraq in the final third, Clinton was terrible. Rather than just admit she made a mistake in either [a] supporting the war or [b] believing Dubya, she seemed unwilling to concede any possibility of error, and got stuck in an increasingly tortured answer about her position on the AUMF vote. It was unseemly, to say the least, even Dubyaesque. And the more she spun her wheels, the better Obama looked. Update: Apparently, she also butchered the truth about the Levin Amendment.

Still, my general impression is that CNN's Jeff Toobin basically got the larger chess game right: As a TPM commenter well put it: Hillary Clinton is currently in the lead and is trying to run the four corners until the clock runs out. Barack Obama is surging massively right now and didn't want to upset that o-mentum unduly. So neither candidate felt they needed to shake up the current paradigm all that much, which helped keep everything friendly.

Instead, Obama wanted to show undecideds that he has presidential gravitas and can policy-wonk as needed. Clinton wanted to staunch her negatives and get the focus back on her rather than Wild Bill. (Which reminds me, no question about Kazakhstan?) In that sense, both candidates accomplished what they came to do.

Now, it's up to us.

"Obama's one-month tally is the most ever reported for January of a presidential election year, Federal Election Commission reports show...Plouffe said the Obama campaign counted 170,000 new donors in the last month, bringing its total to 650,000." Whatever happens Tuesday and thereafter, it looks like Sen. Obama has the money to play. "'Our strongest day of the whole month was the day after the New Hampshire primary,' which Obama lost to Clinton, Plouffe said. 'We took a lot of encouragement from that because it showed the resolve of our donor base.'" Update: As TNR's Christopher Orr deadpanned, 32 million? Pff. Bill Clinton can make that over dinner.

"Only two senators marched for immigrant rights on May 1, 2006, one in Washington and the other in Chicago. I marched in Washington and Barack Obama marched in Chicago. He was not afraid to stand up when others wouldn’t." Ted Kennedy pitches Barack Obama for 20 minutes on the El Piolín radio show, which happens to be the most popular radio show in America. Notes the article: "You simply cannot pay for advertising like that, nor underestimate its impact on the vote next Tuesday particularly in California."

Since the New Hampshire debacle, I've been trying to swear off on posting poll information around here. Still, if you'll forgive one lapse, the trend lines are looking surprisingly good for Senator Obama right now. Recent polls put Obama down 6 nationally (he was down 16 last week), down 6 in Massachusetts (a poll had him down 37 last week), down 12 in New York (a poll had him down 28 a few days ago), and down only 3 in California. Particularly given the proportional allotting of delegates, he's right in there.

Granted, the political landscape has proven nothing if not volatile of late, none of these polls factor in Edwards' exit, and there's a big debate tonight. But, like I said, we definitely seem to be moving in the right direction. Update: Make that down four nationally. Ok...no more polls.

"I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises." Ah. But, Senator Clinton, what about your husband? A front-page story in this morning's NYT -- a paper so resolutely anti-Clinton it recently endorsed her for president -- unearths what look to be some murky political dealings in Kazakhstan involving Bill Clinton and a top donor, former uranium-mining entrepreneur and Lions Gate Entertainment founder Frank Giustra. (He's the fellow at right.)

It's a long, convoluted article, but this seem to be the essence of it: Clinton said nice things publicly about the freedom-suppressing dictator of Kazakhstan -- in contradiction of US policy, the views of human rights groups, and even Senator Clinton's professed stance on his government -- so his buddy Giustra could land a lucrative exclusive mining contract. A much wealthier man as a result, Giustra later repaid Clinton in absurdly large donations to his Foundation, to the tune of $131 million. Both denied any quid pro quo, and both seem to have lied about at least some of the meetings that took place. This is all explained in more detail below:

Linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff -- also the recent author of Don't Think of an Elephant -- attempts to explain what he sees as the crucial differences between Clinton and Obama.

In TNR, Allegra Goodman makes a case for the importance of Barack Obama's Hawaiian youth. "To envision a world where racial identity is more fluid, where men and women are more mobile, and where segregation is a thing of the past is not to envision a post-racial world. Obama knows this, as anyone who has lived in Hawaii must."

Take that, Lincolnbots. The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn makes the "experience" case for William H. Seward of New York.

"Obama's no Abe Lincoln. But, as I observed last February...Abe Lincoln was no Abe Lincoln at this stage of the game either. I point this out simply as a reminder that Lincoln and history went on to make fools of those whose obsession with his shortcomings and failures blinded them to the singular promise of his gifts. Not often, but fairy tales do come true."

"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.

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."

-- 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: