(Update (TL): Our server got overwhelmed by the number of people trying to log on to the site. Even I'm having trouble logging on. Our webmaster is working on it.If you can't get in to comment, try back in a few minutes. Thanks.)

By Big Tent Democrat

My take? NBC stinks. Tim Russert stinks. Brian Williams stinks. Keith Olbermann stinks. Chris Matthews stinks. Who won the debate? No one. Who lost? Everyone.

NBC's coverage of its coverage? We are fair. We are great. How could anyone complain? What a joke.

The Ohio debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama begins momentarily on MSNBC. They will probably stream it if you're not by a tv. Big Tent Democrat and I will be live-blogging.

You can comment same as always in the comment section below. You also can send us live messages through the software. Only comments you post below will appear on the site.

I'll be putting up some polls during it to see how you think the candidates and questioners are doing. Big Tent's posts will say BTD and mine will be TL.

The live blog stays below the fold so that it can be a bit wider than the front page allows. Just click on the "There's More" button or bookmark the permalink to go directly to it.

If comments hit 200, we'll start a new one.

The Ohio debate starts in 20 minutes. We'll have a live-blog going, but here's a thread to post your comments about the media coverage leading up to it and afterwards.

Who's the biggest Horses As*? Who did you like?

Bumped by BTD.

By Big Tent Democrat

Funny how needing to hype your own debate makes it not so superfluous. After Keith Olbermann expressed a desire to see no more debates, today in the need to hype THEIR OWN DEBATE, NBC is singing a different tune:

In many ways, tonight is Sen. Hillary Clinton’s last stand. The pressure's off Sen. Barack Obama in Cleveland this evening, he just has to keep on keepin’ on.

But if Clinton can’t dramatically convince voter/viewers of her essential point – that Obama is dangerously vague and ill-prepared for a fall campaign, let alone for the presidency – then it is very hard to see how she can stop the Obama Express in March.

Tell us what you think about all this. Jeralyn and I will liveblog tonight starting at 9 EST.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

In an earlier post, I misattributed a line that was written by Obama blogger Sam Graham Felsen to the very fine writer for the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg. What Hertzberg actually wrote in the New Yorker, and was quoted by the Obama blogger was:

"Going negative" has been a bust. It could never be anything but a bust, because there is no audience for it in the Democratic Party... Barack Obama is a phenomenon that comes along once in a lifetime. Unfortunately for Hillary, it's her lifetime; fortunately for the rest of us, it's ours.

The line from the Obama blogger was "Let's let Hillary know that the American people are sick and tired of negative attacks and want something new."

I regret the error.

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall's reader has got to be kidding me:

Penn was never going to catch on to this whole 'change' thing because to Penn 'change' is too wrapped up in the Democratic populism that he has been trying to exterminate in the Democratic Party since the 90s. It is the great irony of this campaign that Penn, champion of the DLC and sworn enemy of populists like Greenberg, Borosage, and Shrum, is now being forced to churn out populist messaging in the dying days of the campaign.

Gammon. David Axelrod the great populist strategist? Obama the great populist candidate? What did Axelrod do right? He realized his CANDIDATE, an incredibly talented one, was the message. Obama is the change. Not any issue Obama is trumpeting. As for the populist MESSAGE? Edwards withdrew from the race before Super Tuesday.

By Big Tent Democrat

I know, I know - Duh. But David Kurtz of TPM seems shocked by the thought, when linking to TPM's Greg Sargent, who correctly writes:

[T]his reporter is generally sympathetic to the notion that the press treats Hillary unfairly on a regular basis. As Horse's Mouth has argued, there really is a different set of rules governing the media when it comes to the Clintons -- what Paul Krugman recently described as "the Clinton Rules."

Greg raises the more interesting question - does the Clinton campaign's pointing out this truth help? My thought is this - it can't hurt.

The Houston Chronicle reports on the increase in Republicans voting in the Democratic primary to ensure Hillary doesn't win. Some examples:

There is scattered evidence across the state that some Republicans may be voting Democratic, at least for a day. In one precinct in the suburban Houston neighborhood of Kingwood, where 82 percent of voters cast ballots for President Bush in 2004, Democrats were outvoting Republicans 4-to-1 last week in early voting.

....Daron Shaw, a political science professor at University of Texas, said surveys he conducted in two state legislative districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area revealed that almost a quarter of voters with a history of voting in GOP primaries planned on participating in the Democratic primary.

Here's a Texas pollster:

"The argument I've seen is, 'Let's get rid of Clinton once and for all,' " said Ralph Bordie, who conducts the IVR Poll in Texas.

Bordie's latest statewide poll released last week found that 15 percent of Texas Republicans who said they will support the GOP nominee in November plan nonetheless on voting for Obama next week.

I complained about this last week. I'm still complaining. Democrats, not Republicans and Independents, should pick our party's nominee.

Update: Pamela at the Democratic Daily weighs in on this.

By Big Tent Democrat

Update [2008-2-26 16:15:0 by Big Tent Democrat]: Booman has some interesting thoughts on this issue.

Kevin Drum writes what reads to me as a strange defense of Amy Sullivan, and by extension, Barack Obama. The post is long but the basics of Kevin's defense is:

{Sullivan] basically suggests that about 60% of the evangelical community is politically conservative and won't ever vote for a Democrat. But the other 40% will, and those 40% are worth trying to appeal to. And one way to appeal to them is to acknowledge their moral qualms about abortion even if you don't happen to share them yourself. Like this guy:

. . . I don't think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I've arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And I don't think they make it lightly.

That's Barack Obama, likely the next Democratic candidate for the presidency. All he's doing is acknowledging the moral dimension of abortion, while remaining solidly in favor of abortion choice, reducing unwanted pregnancies, and encouraging responsible sexual behavior.

I'll tell you what I think is problematic about this approach on the flip.

I have an op-ed today over at Pajamas Media -- Will the Real Ralph Nader Please Stand Up?

What a sad decline from the consumer advocate in the 50’s to the man who can’t say no to his decade-long vanity project — running for president. Ralph Nader has become irrelevant, says Jeralyn Merritt.

Yesterday's Blogometer has a good compilation of liberal bloggers' reactions to Nader's announcement.

Immigrants in general, and undocumented immigrants in particular, are less likely to commit serious crime than native-born citizens, according to a report (pdf) released yesterday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

"Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?" ... aims to dispel the perception that cities with large foreign-born populations are criminal hot beds, with several California cities showing a dip in police activity amid recent immigration waves.

The findings won't play well with those who prefer stereotypes to reality, but they make sense. As explained by Kristen Butcher, one of the report's authors:

"The type of people who are immigrating are less likely to commit crimes because they're here for jobs," said Butcher, a professor at Wellesley College and a fellow for the nonpartisan policy research group.

Salvador Bustamante explains why reality-based thinking about immigration is important: [more...]

By Big Tent Democrat

A new poll shows Texas in a dead heat. But what is really interesting about is that like SUSA, Ras and other polls, the turnout models seems to be determinative. PPP says:

With major disparities along racial lines in Texas, this contest is likely to be decided by what groups turn out the most," said Dean Debnam, President of [PPP].

That seems an understatement. But what is REALLY interesting is that PPP has it tied DESPITE Obama leading 51-44 among white voters. SUSA has Clinton leading among white voters by a whopping 17, but behind by 4. The turnout model appears to be everything in Texas.