Update: Now that Ralph Nader has selected Matt Gonzales as his running mate, which I did not know when this post was written, I've written a follow-up here.

*****

Matt Gonzales is a progressive and the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He's also a former public defender, former Democrat and green party candidate who ran a well-respected and close campaign against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. (Bill Clinton campaigned for Newsom, who won.)

He started thinking he didn't know too much about Barack Obama other than the change meme, so he did some pretty exhaustive research on his voting record. As a result, he says, "Count Me Out." Check out his issue by issue comparison and then his conclusion:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

I think Gonzales' view is even more telling when you consider who supported him for Mayor in 2003. It wasn't the Democratic establishment, it was the change folks, including: [More...]

David Gergen, former advisor to President Bill Clinton confirms to CNN that Hillary Clinton did not support NAFTA:

And for Clinton supporters out there, here's a late nighter: Hillary's new Texas ad, One of a Million

There's a new LA Times/Bloomberg national poll. The key findings:

• Between McCain, Obama and Hillary:

  In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
  

• On the economy, Hillary beats McCain 43% to 34% while McCain beats Obama 42% to 34%. That's a big difference.

[More...]

Ohio is considered an important state in the general election. It's generally been a barometer of how the country will go.

A little history: No Republican has won the presidency that didn't take Ohio since Abe Lincoln in 1860. The only Democrats in the last century to win the presidency while losing Ohio were FDR and JFK.

Ohio favors Republicans, although Bill Clinton won the state both in 1992 and 1996. Al Gore and John Kerry both lost the state to George W. Bush.

Here's a map showing in red and blue how Ohio counties voted in past elections.

So how did Bill Clinton win Ohio? He went after the rural vote, not just the urban areas. [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

More thread.

By Big Tent Democrat

An Open Thread to continue ongoing debates or commence new ones. Go Gators! Beat the Bulldogs!

NOTE - This thread is at 215. Now closed. New thread above.

By Big Tent Democrat

In the spirit of speaking up when I think the blog CW is wrong, I want to address this argument from Markos. He cites Texas blogger Anna, who writes:

[A]nd let me just add to what karl sent you last night about the obama campaign doing more to rebuild the party in two weeks than the party's done in years.... he's 1000% right.

[W]e have - in [T]arrant county alone - 3400 volunteers and over 600 precinct captains. that means that we could fill almost every single precinct captain spot in [T]arrant county. [O]ne of our goals has been to ask these volunteers to continue to serve their local parties, and we are urging our precinct captains to become precinct chairs where ever there is an empty spot. [I]f our people will fill the empty spots, we could have a precinct chair in every precinct in [T]arrant county for the first time in over 15 years.

(Emphasis supplied.) Here's my question -- does Obama volunteer translate into Democratic volunteer? That is the assumption of both Markos and Anna. I have serious doubts that a post-partisan Unity campaign will produce the type of partisans who will become regular Democratic Party activists. "If" is the operative word in Anna's post. My reading of that "if" is "not likely."

NOTE - this thread is now closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum writes:

I'd say that some of the worst posts I've written (this one, for example) have come when I noticed that a lot of other people were writing about something and I felt like that meant I had to weigh in too. But, really, it's just the opposite: if everybody else is already writing about something, what's the marginal value of one more opinion? Unless I have something genuinely new to say, pretty small.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think that the part of Kevin's statement that I emphasize is true for most of us bloggers. I think some of the clearinghouse blogs really can't ignore big viral stories, but the rest of us can avoid "me tooism." That said, lots of times it is important to blog about a much blogged story when you believe, as I very often do these days, that most of the Left blogs are wrong and wrongheaded.

Heck, I think that is the bigger problem, a real hesitance to state disagreement with the prevailing Left blog wisdom.

When the government wants to take away our rights, it conceals its intent with the assurance that it simply wants to make us safe. The Boston Police Department's "Safe Homes Initiative" sounds unobjectionable -- who doesn't want a safe home? -- but it's important to look behind the marketing to understand what's really motivating the Boston police.

On the surface —- as with virtually all government actions diminishing liberty —- the initiative appears benign. The program is “designed” to help parents who have so little control over their children that they cannot —- or do not want to —- search their rooms to discover if their young charges are hiding firearms in their homes. Boston’s police chief, Edward Davis, graciously has agreed to fill this parental void by sending teams of officers to the homes of parents with children the police or other “community members” believe might be harboring hidden firearms. The “search teams” would then ask the parent or “other responsible adult” (whomever that might be) at the home for consent to search for guns.

What's the problem with "asking" for consent to search entire homes on the basis of unfounded rumors? Bob Barr explains:

After several starts and stops, Civil rights leader and long-time Hillary Clinton supporter has switched positions and will vote for Barack Obama.

Why? It's the movement. "He's transformational." The country has been swept away.

Nothing about whether or why he would make a good President. As to Hillary he says:

....the decision to switch his support was a difficult one, a choice between a longtime friend and a little-known black man.

"I did it because I felt I had to support Mrs. Clinton because of our friendship," Lewis said. "But also I thought she was ready to lead.

Update: As a commenter points out, could this have something to do with Lewis's support of Hillary earning him a new primary challenger?

In 2004, the Democratic ticket carried 20 states with 252 electoral votes. Obviously, it wasn't enough. What other states are most likely to play a role in 2008? Which of the Democratic candidates would be the Party's most successful candidate in the general election?

William Arnone, a long-time Democratic Party activist who worked with Robert F. Kennedy in 1967-68 has updated his July, 2007 analysis of "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election."

The ten states are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

With his permission, I reprint his newest analysis below:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Debate Transcript:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since -- in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let's begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your -- (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

More . . .