After railing against Hillary Clinton for her UNENFORCEABLE call to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations (Josh Marshall calls it an attempt to "muscle" the Party, what muscle is not at all clear) and lambasting Clinton for not taking her name off the ballot in Michigan and Florida, Marshall asks:

Perhaps there's some detail of this question that I'm not aware of. And if there is I'll revise my opinion accordingly. But based on what I know now this is pretty clear-cut.

What Josh knows is pretty clearly wrong. First thing Josh seems NOT to know is that taking their name off the ballots was NOT required of the candidates by the Democratic Party. If it was, then Clinton AND Obama AND Edwards are violating the rules as they ALL have their names on the ballot. But of course the rules can not require this for to take their names off the Florida ballot they have to drop out of the race entirely under Florida law. So much for that "rule." More . . .

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp announced it has settled the lawsuit filed by Judith Regan for $25 million. (Background here.)

Regan had also accused her former employers of asking her to lie to federal investigators about Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who was once her lover, and had tried to smear her.

Regan said the smear campaign stems from her past intimate relationship with Kerik, who was police commissioner under former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and from the political agenda of News Corp.

Sounds like Rudy Giuliani will breathe a little easier tonight.

From the Obama camp, via Nico Pitney:

"The Clintons have always put people in a box - they look at everything through racial lines, gender lines, geographic lines; they tend to segment people," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama adviser who spearheaded his Iowa effort. "She goes to Nevada and sits with Latinos in their living room to court their vote - that's not the way Barack approaches people. . . .

(Emphasis mine.) Say what? Now a candidate can not sit in a Latino's home? WTF? Of course, it turns out Obama does in fact do the same thing, as Pitney demonstrates, but what in blazes is Hildebrand talking about?

then he is indisputably Obama's issue. Via Turkana, Rezko's donor list, lots to Obama and other Dems, none to Clinton. Of course, Obama's real estate deal with Rezko is the point that is his biggest vulnerability.

But let me say it again, it should NOT be an issue. But when the Media and some Left blogs act as if a photo with Rezko is an issue, then fairness dictates that Rezko must be a BIG issue for Obama. Rezko's donations to Obama the last few years here:

For the second time, a lawyer for Bernie Kerik has been disqualified from representing him.

During the federal investigation leading to his Indictment, the Government disqualified long-time Kerik lawyer (and TalkLeft pal) Joe Tacopina. (Background from the Washington Post here.

Today, on the Government's motion, the Court granted a request to disqualify Kerik's chief counsel Ken Breen.

Prosecutors had asked for the ruling in the criminal case against Kerik, arguing that defense lawyer Kenneth Breen was at meetings when Kerik gave his lawyers false information.

The potential conflict is "so severe that no remedial measure will cure it," U.S. District Judge Stephen Robinson said in his ruling from White Plains.

The Judge said the removal was necessary to preserve "both the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel and the court's need to preserve the integrity of the process."

A new lawyer will require lots of time to get up to speed on the case, putting off a trial date -- possibly until after the November elections. In the unlikely event Rudy is the nominee, that would be a big boost for him.

Here are the Government's request to disqualify Breen, Breen's response and declaration, and another Government response.

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 . . .