Recently in Endorsements Category

"The outcome of this election will affect the future of our planet...Take it from me -- elections matter." Finally, Al Gore endorses Sen. Obama. (Not exactly a profile in courage at this point, but could we really expect anything less from the man?) Well, in any case, welcome aboard.

Also joining Team Obama today: Patty Solis Doyle, who has been hired to be "chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate." As Doyle, "a native Chicagoan with deep ties to many senior Obama aides," is no longer on speaking terms with Sen. Clinton (to whom she "devoted her adult life") after having been blamed for Iowa, it would seem Clinton will not be making the veep short list. Try to contain your despair.

"You should always take the best from the past, leave the worst back there and go forward into the future." Take that, Sean Wilentz. In an interview with The Times (concerning his touring art show), the freewheelin' Bob Dylan backs Barack Obama. "Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralising. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor. But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up...Barack Obama. He's redefining what a politician is, so we'll have to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I'm hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to."

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."

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.

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.

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.)

"'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?

"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?)

"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.

"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.

"'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.)

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."

"'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.

"'I read his national security and foreign policy speeches, and he comes across to me as pragmatic, visionary and tough. He impresses me as a person who wants to use all the tools of presidential power.'" The good news from Indiana: Sen. Obama picked up the endorsment of Lee Hamilton, formerly an Indiana rep and one of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission. (Obama has also continued to out-raise Sen Clinton, although the official numbers aren't yet known.) The bad news from Indiana: A new poll puts Clinton up there by nine, 52% to 43%. Wins in both Indiana and North Carolina on May 6 remain Obama's best chance to put this away before mid-June, so keep your fingers crossed.

Update: More on the fundraising numbers: Sen. Obama's campaign raised over $40 millions in March. "The campaign, which did not release an exact total, said more than 218,000 donors contributed to the campaign for the first time, and the average contribution was $96." Sen. Clinton's campaign, meanwhile, raised only half that.

"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.

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."

"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.

"'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.

"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.

"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.

"'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.

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.

"[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?

"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.

"'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.

"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.

"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?

"'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.

"'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.'"

"'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."

"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.

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.)

"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.

"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.

""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.

"'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.

"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.

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.)

"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."

"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."

"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.

"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 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:

"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.

"'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.)

"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.

"[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."'"

-- 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."

"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."

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

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

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

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

"Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself."

The State, the paper of record in South Carolina, endorses Barack Obama for president. Of Senator Clinton, they write: "[W]e also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere...In such an environment, little gets done."

Update: The Rock Hill Herald and the Greenville News follow suit: "In this race that's ultimately about giving the Democratic Party its strongest candidate for the November general election, Barack Obama has emerged as one of the most attractive candidates on the political scene in decades. He has a refreshing lack of political guile, and he inspires with his words and with his life's story."

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

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

Two more Senate endorsements for Obama: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. "Nelson, pledging his support for his Illinois colleague, said Obama has 'the greatest potential to ending the bitterness and poisonous atmosphere in Washington.'" Update: McCaskill's statement.

"'I think we need fresh voices and fresh messages of unity and coming together,' Napolitano told the Post in a telephone interview. 'I think he's a new young voice who has new appeal, particularly for those of us in the West...He does bring the unique ability to excite, to bring young people into the process...and to attract independent voters.'" Senator Obama picks up another (potentially) big endorsement in Arizona governor Janet Napolitano.

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

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

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

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

"Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, Independents, and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics...Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. Barack knows above all that unless people can once again believe in our democracy, we won’t be able to do the things that need to be done on health care and education or to break our dependence on foreign oil. His movement for change could create a new era of American politics -- truly a new American story.” Barack Obama receives an endorsement this morning from a former progressive standard-bearer, Bill Bradley.

"'He said he'd be a uniter, not a divider. He said he'd bring America together,' she said of Bush. 'He didn't need a lot of experience, he had this great intuition, he understood people, he could go meet with rogue leaders, look in their eyes and their souls, solve our problems. Remember that?'" And here's another Clinton attempt to grapple Obama to the mat: He's Dubya all over again. Uh, this from the "national security" candidate who backed Dubya's play in both Iraq and Iran? Sorry, try again.

Still, the article above was worth reading for this sterling endorsement: "Ryan and Anna Pekins, 18-year old twins from Durham who said they plan to vote in Tuesday's primary, said they came away very impressed with Clinton. 'I was leaning toward Hillary before and now I'm pretty sure I'll vote for her,' Anna said. 'I think she keeps in mind that not everyone wants to see change in the country and the plans she proposes appeal to those who support change and those who don't.'" She just about called it: Vote Clinton, the "Status Quo-Change" candidate.

An Early Round Knockout...

...or a new Democratic Frontrunner?

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

THE REST OF THE FIELD:

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

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

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

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

HILLARY CLINTON:

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

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

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

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

JOHN EDWARDS:

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

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

BARACK OBAMA:

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

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

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

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

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

GitM votes Obama.

Late to the party on this, but some endorsements of note. The The Des Moines Register backs Hillary Clinton, as does former Senator and Bradley supporter Bob Kerrey (although Kerrey has some nice words for Obama as well.) Says the Register: "Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence." And, of course, former President Bill Clinton has been touting his wife more loudly than usual of late, including going so far as to disparage Obama on television.

Meanwhile, calling Clinton's campaign "needlessly defensive" and "a backward glance at the bruising political battles of the 1990s," the Boston Globe backs Barack Obama, citing his international experience, judgment, and -- most happily -- his progressive bona fides: "The first major bill to Obama's name in the Illinois Legislature was on campaign ethics reform. In Washington, he coauthored this year's sweeping congressional lobbying reform law...exposure [to government] has tended to give [Obama's opponents] a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities."

Finally, while Mike Huckabee may have locked up the home-school crowd, both the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe back John McCain...as does -- continuing his fall from Democratic grace -- formerly Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. "The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the presidency," said Lieberman. Sigh...And he and Clinton seemed so close in their aghast GOP-lite moralism when they were blaming Grand Theft Auto for all America's ills.

"My candidate, at least at the moment, is Obama. When I hear him discussing some issue, I hear intelligence and reflection and almost a joy in thinking it through...That willingness, even eagerness, to figure things out seems to me more valuable than any amount of experience in allowing issues to wash over you as they do our incumbent president." In an article on the value of various types of experience (spurred by this recent exchange), Slate founder and Crossfire alum Michael Kinsley comes out for Obama.

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

"On civil rights, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the race to the moon, and other issues, President Kennedy succeeded by demonstrating the same courage, imagination, compassion, judgment, and ability to lead and unite a troubled country that he had shown during his presidential campaign. I believe Obama will do the same." Also concerning Sen. Obama and from the pages of this week's New Republic, Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorensen compares his old boss to Barack Obama. (If you're not a TNR subscriber, Sorensen makes a similar case on Youtube here.)

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

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

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

"'I disagree with Obama on the war but I don't think it is a test of his patriotism,' Martin says. 'Obama has a message of hope for the country.'" Come on aboard, you won't hurt the horse: Disillusioned Republicans wander over to the Obama bandwagon, including "Power and Weakness" author Robert Kagan. "In an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was 'pure John Kennedy', a neocon hero of the cold war...'Personally, I liked it,' Kagan wrote." And, really, after seeing what the Republicans have to offer at the first debate last week, can you blame him or anyone else for defecting?