Hillary Clinton released a statement today asking her delegates to support the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates at the DNC in Denver.

She also says she will abide by the no-campaign pledge the candidates signed and expects the other candidates to do so as well.

"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention. "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

"I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

A lead story in the New York Daily News this morning:

A 5-year-old boy was handcuffed and hauled off to a psych ward for misbehaving in kindergarten - but the tot's parents say NYPD school safety agents are the ones who need their heads examined.

....Dennis - who suffers from speech problems, asthma and attention deficit disorder - never went back to class at Public School 81 in Queens after the traumatic incident.

Neither the school nor the NYPD are commenting. The matter is under investigation.

The Wall St. Journal interviewed Joe Trippi (free link), John Edwards senior campaign advisor, on Edwards' role as "kingmaker" at the Democratic Convention and his Feb. 5 strategy.

On the kingmaker issue: Trippi says their make or break delegate number for Feb. 6 is 200. He says it will be tough fro Edwards to win enough for the nomination, but that it is still possible.

More probable: arriving at the convention with enough delegates to tip the scales in favor of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. "Edwards is the primary force keeping Clinton under 50%," Mr. Trippi said. "Worst case? We go to the convention as the peacemaker, kingmaker, whatever you want to call it."

More...

This site is on record in believing that the Rezko matter is a nonissue -- that Barack Obama did nothing wrong. It seemed that the Media largely agreed with our assessment, there has been virtually no coverage of the issue.

But find a picture, undated and unsourced, of the Clintons with Rezko, then lo and behold, the Media sees an issue. Let's ignore the fact that Presidents and First Ladies take pictures with a multitude of people. Let's ignore the fact that Rezko was NOT a Clinton contributor. If we can unfairly bash the Clintons let's do so.

But if it IS an issue, then it is time to cover Obama's close relationship with Rezko. I think it is a nonissue, but if the Media really believes it IS an issue, then Obama's close relationship with Rezko demands coverage that it has not recieved. What a joke the Media is and always has been.

This is classic Joe Klein:

Over the past few weeks, I’ve asked Constitutional Law professors from Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago about the immunity provision. There are differences of opinion—no one is thrilled about immunity, to be sure—but the bottom line is, essentially, that this is a lesser issue diverting attention from the passage of an important law.

The importance of telecom immunity is NOT a legal issue that gives law professors any special insight on its relative importance. Your opinion or my opinion is as valid as yours or mine.

But what is more interesting is that Klien basically falsely states what one of the two law professors he actually quotes says. David Barron of Harvard did NOT agree with Joe Klein that telecom immunity should be allowed. He said the opposite. Cass Sunstein, who has supported the bush Administration's illegal activities for 7 years now is not surprising when he does so again now. That is like asking John Yoo on this issue frankly. And he does not disappoint Klein here. Sunstein has been an embarrassing shill for the Bush Administration on FISA since day one. His opinion on this to me is less than meaningless.

In short, a classic Klein post, ignorant, misleading and wrong.

Yes, this is an old refrain from me, but E.J. writes it today:

Obama's not particularly original insight was a central premise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Clinton argued over and over that Democrats could not win without new ideas of their own. To reread Clinton's "New Covenant" speeches from back then is to be reminded of how electrifying it was to hear a politician who was willing to break new ground. That's why the Clintons' assault on Obama is so depressing. In many ways, Obama is running the 2008 version of the 1992 Clinton campaign. You have the feeling that if Bill Clinton did not have another candidate in this contest, he'd be advising Obama and cheering him on.

Of course the problem here is it is 2008, not 1992. As I have written, I believe Bill Clinton would NOT be running his 1992 campaign today. Indeed, when Obama argues against a return to the 90s, in my view, he is arguing against himself as it is his political style that is the return to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. The politics of today demand a politics of contrast from Fighting Democrats. It is ironic that it is the Clintons, taking their lead from John Edwards, who are not the ones reliving the 90s. It is ironic that it is Barack Obama who is reliving 1992.

Sometimes it seems like the Media and some of the blogs have never watched a primary campaign before. The level of moaning and wailing about the "divisive" campaign among the Democrats and how Dems will never be able to come together after it is absurd. Earth to pundits, this is the way primary battle ALWAYS are. ALWAYS. These pronouncements of an unbridgeable divide are simply ridiculous. All this divisiveness in South Carolina should be reflected in the favorable ratings of the candidates right? Then let's look at the respected Mason Dixon poll:

FAV UNFAV NEUTRAL
Obama 63% 15% 22%
Clinton 57% 14% 29%
Edwards 54% 16% 28%

How about Bill Clinton? A whopping 75% favorable rating. It is interesting that the voters are not as whiny and misguided on this than the pundits and some of the blogs. They seem to know what politics is. One last note - the Media's withering criticism coupled with the GOP debate attacks on Hillary Clinton last night is a familiar refrain - and one that will lead to a familiar result, Dems rallying around the Clintons. Some folks never learn. More . . .

Another Hillary Clinton endorsement, this time from the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, S.C. It sounds like the paper's views are normally Republican. And, while it's endorsing her for the Democratic nomination, it's not endorsing her for President.

There are some things about Clinton and the other Democratic candidates we don't like: their view that the best way to create universal health care is a big new government entitlement program; their belief that new federal spending of many kinds is the path to a more prosperous, happier America. As for soaking "the rich" with tax increases, that only dries up private investment, the true path to greater prosperity.

Nonetheless, as to Hillary, it says: [More...]

This is big. The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. It's no tepid endorsement. It "strongly recommends" her candidacy.

Big Tent Democrat just e-mailed me and said the endorsement sounds like something I would have written. Let's take a look.

First, it describes the top contenders.

Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

Then, it rules out John Edwards:

The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

More...

On the Republican side, the New York Times endorses John McCain. That's not a story. The story is why it says it doesn't support Giuliani. It says the man who cleaned up New York and stood tall on 9/11 is not the man running for President.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Ouch! But how true.

Continuing the live-blog.

My thoughts: They are all attacking Hillary and I heard no mention of Obama. What does that signify? Also, they are being so polite to each other. Was that pre-arranged to show the difference between them and the Dems?

[Update: The New York Times' Opinionator Blog quotes that paragraph.]

Part Two: The candidates question each other.

First question: Romney asks Rudy about China. Rudy says he'll beef up the military.

McCain to Huckabee: on the fair tax. Updates below the fold.

The debate starts with a discussion of the stimulus package announced today.

Romney liked it want to go further. Not enough tax cuts.

More on the flip.

McCain. I want to cut taxes more. I voted twice to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Rudy. I want to abolish taxes. (Not really but almost.)