Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are scheduled to speak in Texas tomorrow, the day Wisconsin voters go to the polls. They each had to cancel events Sunday in Wisconsin due to weather. Hillary did local campaigning at a diner and grocery store while Obama flew to North Carolina to seek John Edwards' endorsement.

Hillary rescheduled her canceled Wausau event for today, and addressed the labor-oriented crowd on issues.

Surrounded by several hundred enthusiastic union members, Hillary Clinton hit strongly populist themes in her second campaign appearance today in Wisconsin.

At the Wausau Labor Temple, the Democratic presidential candidate emphasized economic themes, including what she wanted to do as president to keep jobs in America, revive manufacturing jobs, hold down interest rates on student loans and stem home foreclosures.

She also spoke to a crowd of 500 at St. Norbert College in De Pere. Obama, on the defensive much of today for using Mass. Gov. Duval Patrick's speeches in his own without crediting the usage, will speak in Beloit tonight.

Hillary and Chelsea will be at a rally in Madison tonight. Hillary also offered new policy today. She announced a food safety recall plan, in the wake of this weekend's huge beef recall.

Who will win Wisconsin and by how much? Take our poll below:

I just love the sound of that phrase, "former President Bush." But, I'm referring here to former President George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush I) who has endorsed John McCain for President.

Here's the video.

What did anyone expect, that he would endorse Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? This is news that's not news in my opinion. Just another predictable endorsement.

Update: New thread on this is here. Comments on this one are over 200 and closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm just getting online today and I see there's a big to-do in the media over Barack Obama's use of Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick's words in his speeches.

The Clinton campaign says it's plagiarism. The Obama campaign says Obama should have credited Patrick but the two are friends and share ideas. Patrick says he doesn't mind Obama's use of his words.

Obama's oratory has been an issue in this campaign. There's been a plethora of media articles about Obama's speeches being inspirational while Hillary's are not.

I've often reminded readers that speeches are written by speechwriters and I'm not impressed that Obama has the ability, with a teleprompter, to inspirationally deliver a speech written by someone else. Not long ago, the New York Times ran a profile of his chief speechwriter. [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

NOTE Krugman notices. Do not hold your breath waiing for the A-List blogs too.

In an earlier post, I highlighted a David Brooks column that took pokes at Hillary Clinton because Tennessee Bush Dog Democrat Jim Cooper did not like that Hillary fought for universal health care in 1993 and 1994. To me, that was something GOOD about Hillary.

Mike Lux at Open Left highlights that this same Jim Cooper is an Obama point man on health care. This is worrisome to say the least. As Lux writes:

[T]here are still certain things that make me really, really nervous about Obama. At the top of that list is the health care debate, where I think he's just wrong about the importance of universality, and where he's employed Harry and Louise-style tactics to argue against Clinton's plan. My concerns shifted into overdrive, though, when I noticed that the Obama campaign is now using Rep. Jim Cooper as a spokesperson/surrogate on health care.

I was part of the Clinton White House team on the health care reform issue in 1993/94, and no Democrat did more to destroy our chances in that fight than Jim Cooper. . . .

He quickly became the leading spokesman on the Dem side for the insurance industry position, and undercut us at every possible opportunity, basically ending any hopes we had for a unified Democratic Party position. I was never so delighted to see a Democrat lose as when he went down in the 1994 GOP tide.

What can we expect from a President Obama on health care? Nothing much it seems. It seems clear that if you care about universal health care, Obama is likely to not be your kind of President.

Universities represent intellectual freedom for those who can afford to attend them. For everyone else, public libraries symbolize the opportunity to acquire knowledge free from governmental interference. That's why a New Bedford proposal to require library users to show ID before entering the library is so offensive.

The proposal is a knee-jerk response to a sexual assault that occurred in a New Bedford library. Its efficacy depends on the dubious assumption that sex offenders won't show ID. It would not, as the mayor suggests, "let people know they're completely safe." It would, however, cause people to wonder whether they are safe from governmental monitoring of their reading habits, and might deprive those who don't have ID from using the library altogether. Like most knee-jerk responses to the tragedy of crime, this is a proposal that is likely to cause more problems than it will solve.

By Big Tent Democrat

According to PPP, Obama will capture a comfortable win in Wisconsin tomorrow:

Obama 53 (50)
Clinton 40 (39)

What is interesting about this poll, and PPP's track record is not the greatest, is that it has Obama leading among women and all white voters. More than that, the pollster states that in a traditional turnout model, the race is close, 47-44, but they expect a massive turnout favorable to Obama. I assume they are expecting a very large African American turnout and a very large youth turnout.

Time will tell us if they are correct.

By Big Tent Democrat

Fierce Obama partisan Adam B. cites Mark Schmitt's parsing of the Obama pledge to public finance of the general election:

I described this a few weeks ago as a "pledge" to participate, but I should not have. Obama's precise statement was, and has always been, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That's an artful statement, and it's not artful in a "meaning of 'is'" sense -- it's exactly the right answer. A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

How come this sounds so much like John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry to me? As many properly said to Hillary Clinton on her Iraq vote, just bite the bullet - renounce the pledge. Do not parse it. It will not work against against a Media loving McCain. Do it now when your opponent is the Media despised Hillary Clinton. Do not become John Kerry.

By Big Tent Democrat

Apparently, when you are Barack Obama:

Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

Yes, it seems clear the Florida playing field was NOT level. Obama outspent Clinton in Florida. Let the rationalizations begin.

Update (TL): Jerome at MyDD now has an update on this.

By Big Tent Democrat

While debates over Paul Lukasiak's argument continue to rage, you will not see a post from me on this non-issue. This to me is as silly as the "who stole what from whose position papers" nonsense.

You are welcome to disagree in this non-issue Open Thread. Or debate real issues as you please.

The floor is yours.

By Big Tent Democrat

As, in the day, one of the proponents of what I term the politics of contrast, it was with great interest that I considered Paul Lukasiak's argument (and the reactions to it) that Super Delegates should consider, among other things, which candidate is the choice of Democrats (as opposed to Independents and Republicans who vote in Democratic contests). I myself think it has to be a secondary consideration to the who the overall popular vote winner and pledged delegate leader is. While I abhor the super delegate system (utterly undemocratic), open primaries (because they dilute the voice of Democratic voters, thus weakening their ability to hold their Democratic representatives accountable), caucuses (because of their unrepresentative and undemocratic tendencies ), congressional district apportionment (it also dilutes the choices of voters) and overrepresentation of voters for various alleged "party building reasons (rural voter overrepresentation, etc.), the rules were written not by the candidates, but by the Party, and they were required to play the contest as the rules were written (MI and FL is a different, more damning story of the DNC but let's leave that for now.) That includes playing in the caucuses, taking into account congressional and other factored apportionment, open primaries AND Super Delegates.

Accordingly, it is my view that the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote count SHOULD BE the primary considerations of Super Delegates and that the support of just Democrats should be a secondary consideration. That said, I also recognize that Super Delegates are empowered to form their own judgment of these things and, if I accept the rules, I must accept their judgments as part of the rules. More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Unlike most good government types, I believe that until there is full public financing of political campaigns, the Democratic Party should NEVER give away an advantage when it has one. This year the Democratic nominee is almost certain to have a financing advantage over the GOP nominee John McCain. Senator Barack Obama earlier made a pledge to abide by public financing in the general election if the Republican opponent would agree. John McCain has not only agreed, he is now pressing Obama to honor his pledge. Senator Obama, break that pledge. And do it now. Why? This piece from Obama strategist David Axelrod from Face the Nation provides a clue:

“Bob, we're not backing away [from our public finance pledge]. What Sen. Obama said is, once the nomination is secured, we will sit down with Sen. McCain as the nominee, and we will talk this through," Axelrod said. "Let's get through the primary season, sit down. We obviously want … nobody's been stronger on campaign finance reform than Barack Obama.”

Excuse me Mr. Axelrod, now is the time to break the pledge. You are running against Hillary Clinton, easily the most Media despised candidate we have seen since Al Gore. You will get a free pass NOW. You will not if you wait until McCain is your opponent. The free pass will be gone on this issue against John "McCain-Feingold" McCain. Democrats do not care. You will lose no votes to Clinton over this. But you will lose the Media over this if you wait until you are facing St. John McCain.

Paul Lukasiak, guest-blogging at Taylor Marsh's blog, crunches the numbers of votes cast so far in the Democratic presidential race. Why? Barack Obama is arguing that super-delegates should comply with the "will of the people."

Mr. Lukasiak's premise:

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?

Here's the table of votes. His analysis is below, but go read his whole post, I've just reprinted highlights: