By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall writes:

One point that should not go unmentioned is that what former President Clinton is described as doing in that Times article is little different from what the first President Bush has done in his post-presidency. And his son is the president. So if it would be a problem with Bill, and I think it would be, it unquestionably is already a problem with the current president's dad. And no one has seemed to much bother about it.

Geez Josh. What could possibly explain that double standard?

By Big Tent Democrat

In the battle for gaining the support of John Edwards and his supporters, Hillary Clinton has one big advantage - the health care issue. A review of the respective plans demonstrates that Hillary Clinton is quite close to John Edwards while Barack Obama fundamentally differs on the issue of mandates. Last November, Ezra Klein wrote:

. . . The short version of the argument is that Obama's plan has no mandate at all, meaning it has no mechanism through which to achieve universal coverage, and Hillary Clinton's plan has an undefined mandate, meaning we don't know how it will achieve universal coverage. Clinton's position is better, but it's still a bit vague. Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) It is interesting how much of the wonkosphere has gone silent on this difference between Obama and Clinton. Take for instance, Ezra Klein's post mortem on Edwards:

Barack Obama spoke in Denver today. Here's what he said:

“It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.”

Hillary's refutes him point by point on her website.

This is a dangerous road for Obama. Check out his past support for Rumsfeld and Bush, expressed during the confirmation process of John Ashcroft. He even calls Rumsfeld "not out of the mainstream." (video here)

"The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I dont think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that."

I would say "pot meet kettle" except his statements about Hillary were not true. Hillary has been the most vocal critic of President Bush and his policies among all the Democratic candidates. From the early debates, while the others criticized her because they perceived her to be the frontrunner, she kept her eye on the real enemy: President Bush, his Administration and its failed and misguided policies.

By Big Tent Democrat

Here's an endorsement you won't see written about in the Left blogs. Rupert Murdoch's NYPost goes for Obama:

Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama . . .

Now I do not hold this against Obama. But I bet a lot of folks would have held it against Hillary if she got this endorsement.

By Big Tent Democrat

Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan!

The Republican Debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Callfornia is being conducted by CNN.

Alas, I can not live blog it and J. is dealing with life stuff. So please fill us in with your thoughts.

Warning, no drinking games on how many times Ronald Reagan is mentioned.

By Big Tent Democrat

With John Edwards out, there is nothing holding back the tide now. The Left blogs will go all out for Obama and will go after Hillary hard.

With the exception of a few isolated pockets, the Big Blogs, the wonk blogs, Big Media blogs, all of them, are all pro-Obama now. A poor Clinton supporter will be hard pressed to find a port in this storm, or even a place where Hillary gets half of a fair shake.

But don't sweat it too much Hillary supporters, this too shall pass one way or another. Either Hillary takes control on 2/5 or Obama gets the leg up. And it is likely that the nomination will be decided next week.

Either way, the Left blogs will stop hating the Clintons again next week after the 2/5 primaries.

By Big Tent Democrat

John Edwards is dropping out at any moment and the cable networks will carry it. He is speaking from the 9th Ward in New Orleans.

The two remaining candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are rightly lauding the manner in which John Edwards focused on the key issues of poverty, health care and voicelessness of many Americans -- the two Americas theme.

Kudos to John Edwards for the issues he raised and the style of his campaign. He did good.

"It is time for me to step aside to allow us to make history. We will be strong, united and if we show a little backbone we Democrats will make history."

By Big Tent Democrat

Just to lighten things up a bit, let's start a pointless irrelevant thread -- who should Obama or Clinton pick as their VPs?

I am on record that Clinton has no real choice here - Barack Obama would almost have to be her VP choice, and yes, he would accept it.

For Obama, the choice is murkier. I do not think Clinton would be a good choice but you can not rule it out. I am no fan of these drab choices like Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas. If it was my choice for Obama, I would pick Jim Webb. Webb can be tough and yet still fits in with Obama's unity message. Indeed, he could give Obama a real way to merge his unity message with a partisan fighting edge. It is something he needs.

How about you folks? Who would you pick?

I'll be offline much of the day and evening as I'm in the process of moving my home. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Thanks to all of you who contributed to TalkLeft on Monday, I'll be sending out individual thank-you emails next week. Your donations are much appreciated.

For me, the big news so far today is John Edwards dropping out of the presidential race. It means tomorrow night's debate will just be between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Pretty high stakes for both of them.

This is surprising to me. MSNBC , CNN and AP is reporting that John Edwards is dropping out of the Presidential race.

I think the big question is will he endorse Barack Obama. I do not imagine he would endorse Clinton. He is definitely NOT endorsing today news reports say.

The announcement is to take place in New Orleans at 1. Chuck Todd says Edwards would not do this if it helps Clinton. Honestly, I assume Edwards MAY think that, but my first impression is this helps Clinton, not Obama. And a January LATimes poll supports this view:

A Jan. 24 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll found that nationally, Edwards voters prefer Clinton to Obama by a slight margin.

More as information develops.

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall argued it did not:

Just in terms of managing the news cycle I think what the Clinton folks would have been looking for are two things -- big pictures of Hillary smiling, preferably above the fold, thus suggesting victory and some mention of her margin. But I don't see either anywhere. Perhaps the print front pages will play this differently. But on balance I suspect they didn't get as much juice out of this as they wanted or expected.

This seems pretty blinded analysis to me. What was the purpose of the Florida gambit? I would say principally it was to change the headline away from Obama's Big Mo/Kennedy talk. Can Josh HONESTLY say this did not change it? Of course it did. But I think it succeeded in a larger way, much more so than I expected. I will explain on the flip.

It's over for Rudy Giuliani. The New York Times provides some of the reasons. Among the milder criticisms:

He allowed a tight coterie of New York aides, none with national political experience, to run much of his campaign.

....He accumulated a fat war chest — he had $16.6 million on hand at the end of September, more than Mitt Romney ($9.5 million) or Senator John McCain ($3.2 million) — but spent vast sums on direct mail instead of building strong organizations on the ground in South Carolina and New Hampshire.

Then there's the ones based on Rudy himself: [More...]