Let me start out by saying, as I have before, that I don't think Barack Obama did anything illegal in his dealings with Anton "Tony" Rezko. Obama has labeled his involvement with Rezko and his wife in the purchase of his home "boneheaded." In other words, since Rezko was under federal investigation by a grand jury at the time Obama bought the $1.65 million house, it was bad judgment, nothing more.

Rezko's trial begins next week. It is a trial about the politics of crime and the crime in politics. As I do many such trials, including that of former Ill. Gov. George Ryan, I am going to cover it. I'm not going to walk on eggshells because Barack Obama's name will come up.

It seems the American media, aside from Obama's home town papers, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times, and the New York Post, are mostly lying low on it. Across the pond, as Instapundit notes, it's of interest to the TimesOnLine, which has a three page article on it today.

Also today, the Tribune reports that the Judge has allowed "Public Official A" to be unmasked as Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And that Obama's name will surface during the trial.

[More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Oliver Willis writes:

In Texas, the vote will be weird. They have a traditional primary in the day, then at night there is a caucus. Now, remember, the Clinton campaign didn't have any problems with caucuses in Iowa. Then before Nevada they whined about them. Then they won Nevada so they were okay with them. Then the lost a boatload of caucus states and one again disliked caucuses.

Is it possible to analyze something without regard to how it will effect a particular candidate? Are pols shameless hypocrites? But of course they are. But bloggers do not have to be.

Is it so difficult to say that this Texas system, like the Washington system, is a travesty and a joke? That caucuses are disenfranchising? Oh, for the record, I said so before, during and after Iowa. Texas is what it is and the Clintons have to play be these rules. But my gawd, is it so hard to acknowledge these rules stink?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

With the polling showing Hillary Clinton with a comfortable lead in Ohio and falling behind in Texas (Clinton and Obama also seem poised to split RI and VT), how important is tonight's debate? I think it is important. The last debate seemed to hold Clinton's position in Ohio, a double digit lead, while she continued to slip badly in Texas.

I am of the view that if Clinton loses Texas (I assume an Ohio victory), she should suspend her campaign. And of course she CAN win in Texas. But let's assume for the sake of argument, she does not. What then? First of all, the decision is entirely Clinton's and she has every right to continue should she choose to press on. But I would recommend dropping out IF she can not pull out Texas because she will likely be significantly behind in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. Because of this, it seems to me her chances for the nomination become slim to none. She would have lost the important narrative she could argue to super delegates, that Obama has not shown an ability to win contested big states and that a slim lead among pledged delegates and a virtual tie in the popular vote signals a tie. (Yes, I understand Texas will not be a battleground in November.)

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

More . . .

Here's the new SUSA Texas poll released tonight.

In a Democratic Primary in Texas today, 02/25/08, 8 days till votes are counted, Barack Obama moves ever-so-slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton, though at the edge of the margin of sampling error, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KTRK-TV Houston, KTVT-TV Dallas and KRLD-AM radio Dallas. Today, it's Obama 49%, Clinton 45%. Compared to a SurveyUSA tracking poll released one week ago, Obama is up 4 points, Clinton is down 5 points.

It's not all bad news for Hillary:

"Among seniors, Liberals, voters in Central Texas, South Texas and West Texas, Clinton's support is holding. "

..."Of the 25% of respondents who have already voted, it's Clinton 51%, Obama 46%."

Also, the Laredo Times endorsed Hillary today, citing her experience.(pdf)

Via McJoan at Daily Kos, I see that the Pentagon announced today that William J. Haynes, II has resigned as the chief counsel of the Department of Defense.

As we noted last week, Haynes is the guy who told Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, that the Administration couldn't handle any acquittals in the military commission trials. Haynes was responsible for oversight of the tribunal process.

Haynes was also a Bush judicial nominee for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. He was widely opposed, in no small part for his hand in the Bush Adminsitration's much-criticized military interrogation policies. Democrats refused to confirm him. Here's more on his failed confirmation hearing.

One more: People for the American Way: Keep Haynes Off the Federal Bench. The Pentagon announcement says he's going back to private life. That's a relief.

As Attorney General, John Ashcroft gained valuable experience testifying before congressional committees. He'll put that experience to use when he testifies in his new role as a highly paid contractor for the Justice Department he once headed.

The former attorney general is considered a key witness in the inquiry into lucrative federal monitoring contracts awarded by federal prosecutors to hand-picked monitors to oversee deferred prosecutions.

The House hearing was prompted, in part, by complaints from two New Jersey congressmen, Reps. Frank Pallone and Bill Pascrell, after Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, awarded a contract said to be worth $27 million or more to Ashcroft to monitor a medical device maker that had entered a deferred prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors. ...

Christie, who has defended the practice as a method to correct corporate misbehavior while preserving jobs, was once Ashcroft's subordinate.

Ashcroft agreed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee without a subpoena. He will undoubtedly be ready to explain why the services his firm contracted to provide are worth a paycheck that may exceed $27 million. [more...]

According to the cable news shows and some polls today, Obama has the Democratic nomination all but sewn up.

As we wrote earlier, two polls in Ohio show Hillary with a ten point lead.

She's also picking up endorsements. Today, she was endorsed by the Akron Beacon Journal even though it recognized Barack Obama seems to be the party's favorite.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

She also received the endorsement today of a dozen Cleveland officals and community leaders , adding to more than 20 who have previously endorsed her.

More...

Bump and Update (TL): ARG Ohio poll out today has Clinton 49% and Obama 39%.

In Ohio, Obama leads among men 49% to 37% (46% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 59% to 31%. Clinton leads among white voters 56% to 31% (82% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads among African American voters 79% to 15% (16% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among voters age 18 to 49 (61% of likely Democratic primary voters), it is Clinton 43% and Obama 42%. Among voters age 50 years and older, Clinton leads 58% to 34%.

***

By Big Tent Democrat

While Hillary Clinton's lead in Ohio is smaller than it was, it remains a double digit lead according to the latest Quinnipiac poll:

Clinton 51 (55)
Obama 40 (34)

Inside the numbers:

More...

By Big Tent Democrat

Is this is sign of some buyer's remorse regarding Obama? Via Ezra Klein, John Judis questions the Obama unity schtick:

Obama's commitment to radical centrism could also be severely tested. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who enjoyed the support of popular movements, gave priority to getting their substantive legislative agendas adopted; and they succeeded by uniting their supporters and dividing their opponents. If they had focused first on uniting Democrats and Republicans behind common objectives, they probably would not have gotten their way. And, if they had initially turned their attention, as Obama has proposed, to "the most sweeping ethics reform in history," it is unlikely they would have passed public works spending (Roosevelt) or tax cuts (Reagan). Jimmy Carter, too, provides a cautionary tale: The last Democrat to take office on a radical centrist agenda, Carter failed to tame Congress or K Street and was defeated for reelection. He had campaigned for the presidency on the presumption that reformers could overturn the status quo in Washington. In the end, he turned out to be wrong.

(Emphasis suppied.) Anyone else concerned about this Unity Theory of Change? Mark Schmitt, this is your cue.

By Big Tent Democrat

Why smart writers like Jon Alter write stupid columns like this remains a mystery:

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. . . . [T]o withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.

What reason could that possibly be? That she wants the voters to decide? The hubris and boorishness inherent in Alter's really dumb column is amazing. The funny thing is he imagines it is advice on how to be dignified. It seems to me Alter needs some lessons of his own on grace.

A new national AP poll out today finds Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a statistical tie.

Overall, Obama has 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent, a virtual tie. Clinton had a slight 5 point lead nationally in early February.

The AP stresses the increase in white male support for Obama. He's also increased among youth, liberals, those earning more than $50k a year and voters with college or graduate degrees. But, Hillary maintains a big lead in her core constituency as well.

Clinton maintains robust leads among some groups that have been cornerstones of her candidacy, including those age 65 and up, white women and people earning under $50,000 annually.

By Big Tent Democrat

I am a little offended that Ed Kilgore decided to not include me in his roundtable discussion at Democratic Strategist on appealing to swing voters vs. base voters. After all, Ed and I have debated these issues for years now.

While I lick the wounds to my ego, I still find the urge to comment. The first two pieces come from Al From, the DLC President, and from Joan McCarter, the Contributing Editor mcjoan at daily kos. My reaction to this discussion on the flip: