By Big Tent Democrat

My title is deliberately provocative. Why? Because you are reading a lot about this Zogby poll result that shows Obama ahead by 4 in California. Not much about the Romney result. I do not believe a Zogby poll NO MATTER the result. In my opinion, Zogby is NOT a honest pollster, he is a disingenuous pundit. An anti-Clinton pundit in particular. There are other polls that show a close race in Cali. The Rass poll and the gold standard Field Poll show it within 2 points. Others, such as Survey USA and the Mason Dixon poll, show a much wider lead for Clinton.

But what about Romney? We have proclaimed that he is done in this race. But he won Maine last night and most polls show him close if not leading in California. Maybe reports of his political death are greatly exaggerated.

By Big Tent Democrat

The Super Bowl is today and I do believe today and tomorrow will have less focus on politics than any 2 days this year. What effect that will have I do not know but politics will become the top story again when the votes are being cast and counted.

The state of the race for Super Tuesday is well matched among the Democrats. Barack Obama is well funded, well covered and well endorsed. He has no excuses. Results are just results now.

Playing expectations games, something the Obama campaign has never been particularly good at, no longer matters. Winning states and delegates matter. This is a relief. Let's put the pundits on the sidelines for a while. The blogs too. NOTE: One last piece of punditry - On MTP, Russert asks "what happens if Clinton loses California? Carville says "it would be bad." Well, presumably winning California then would be good. For the spin of the night, it all comes down to California. Which means it will be way late that night before the spin of the night is decided.

It is time for the voters to decide.

John McCain on the campaign stump Saturday:

"You can count on me to protect the rights of the unborn in this country, " McCain told voters in Birmingham. In Atlanta, he vowed to appoint judges who are "clones" of conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

That just about says it all. So, which Democrat can beat John McCain in November? Hopefully, either one.

The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. Newsday and the New York Daily News do the same. From Newsday:

Obama presents an inspiring vision of how the nation can heal its polarizing partisanship. Clinton brings proven experience and knowledge to accomplish that goal. Democrats engaged in this election have distilled this argument down to a simple but essential question: Do you choose with your heart or your head?

It's a difficult decision, but in the end, we choose experience. Clinton has been an outstanding senator for this state and this Island. She's intelligent, hard-working, tough, passionate and has an enthusiasm for the important nuances of complex policy. Newsday endorses Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. ...While both are strong candidates, Clinton is better prepared to deal with the challenges the next president will confront.

When Hillary ran for Senate in 2000, the paper says it was "skeptical" and endorsed her Republican opponent. Now, it says,

The New York Times examines Barack Obama's record on nuclear leaks legislation in the Senate.

The background: Exelon Corp. did not disclose some nuclear leaks in Illinois. Residents in Ill. were upset. Obama introduced a bill to help them.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

The Times reports, that's not quite true. [More...]

During the October 30, 2007 presidential debate, Barack Obama raised his hand to say said he opposed decriminalizing marijuna.

In 2004, he supported it. Video here.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana.

So, which is it?

When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to The Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.

He flip-flopped the wrong way.

On ABC News tonight, Barack Obama reaffirmed his support for drivers' licenses for the undocumented, saying it's an issue of public safety.

He also earned the support of the Spanish newspaper, La Opinion, over Hillary:

"We were disappointed with her calculated opposition to driver's licenses for the undocumented, which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama," wrote La Opinion's editorial board. "We understand that this is an extremely controversial issue but we believe there is only one right position and it is that of the senator from Illinois."

I strongly support drivers' licenses for the undocumented. But it's states that issue drivers' licenses. I wonder if Obama will take it a step further and work to get Congress to pass a law withholding federal funds from states that don't allow drivers' licenses for the undocumented. That's what the feds did when they wanted states to lower the speed limit to 55. Why can't we do it with drivers' licenses?

By Big Tent Democrat

Ron Klain writes an interesting post about the left blogosphere that stumbles onto a central truth, that the left blogosphere should NOT have favorite candidates, it must have favorite principles and issues. Klain writes:

[N]otwithstanding this stunning success, this week’s withdrawal by John Edwards, coming a week after the departure of Dennis Kucinich [Klain clearly is not THAT familiar with the blogs], means that both of the preferred presidential candidates of the liberal blogosphere are now out of the race.

Despite Klain's glaring error, Barack Obama was at least the second favorite candidate of the blogosphere, he hints at an essential truth - the blogs should not be about favorite candidates. It should try to persuade and/or pressure Dems, candidates and officeholders, on the issues that matter to them. In 2007, I was very critical of the blogs' performance on withdrawal from Iraq. Why? Because it was candidate centric, not issue centric.

In essence, Klein gets to the issue in a roundabout way when he writes:

If you missed our earlier open threads this week, you may not know I haven't been blogging for a few days because I'm moving.

I am finally in the new place, 3.5 miles from the old one, and everything is still in disarray. If you're in the mood for details, click on "more" below:

By Big Tent Democrat

It is always hard to know about these things, but the latest Rassmussen and Gallup polls provide evidence that the minority view expressed by me and Markos that the debate benefitted Hillary Clinton (not that she won the debate, but that she benefitted from it) was right.

The Rassmussen poll has Clinton moving up 2 in the Friday tracking and the Gallup poll has Clinton moving up 4. Her leads in these national polls are 8 and 7 respectively. Who knows if this is right, but it is the only evidence we have seen post debate.

By Big Tent Democrat

Dan Gerstein, LieberMcCain Dem extraordinaire, has the funniest column I have seen in a long time. dangerstein claims that Obama's win in South Carolina is a defeat for daily kos and, as far as I can tell, a win for JOE LIEBERMAN. I kid you not:

[South Carolina] resolv[ed] the pre-eminent conflict of the party's present -- between the politics of hope and the politics of Kos. (That being the Daily Kos, the nation's most influential liberal blog and the left's poster child for partisan pugnacity.)

. . . The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national -- and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman's communications director).

. . . The hope candidate [Joe Lieberman to dangerstein!] soundly beat the Kos candidate -- Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont -- by 10 points. . . .

There you have it. Lieberman's 2006 run was a test of Obama's politics of hope. Never mind that Lieberman is no longer a Democrat or that he has endorsed McCain. Anyway, this is truly one of the funniest pieces I have ever read.

By Big Tent Democrat

President Bill Clinton will offer his regret regarding the tone of the campaign in South Carolina:

On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he's expected to offer a mea culpa to those who "dearly loved him" when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says.

Does Clinton NEED to apologize? Perhaps not. But I think it is good he will. And not just for the Clinton campaign. I think it is good for the Democratic Party and the country.

It takes a big man to stand down sometimes, even if you are not sure you did anything wrong. The Big Dog is a big man. Good for him.