Buyer's Remorse is setting in for Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan, who has often criticized Hillary and says she supports Obama. Read the whole thing, but here are some snippets:

I’m nervous because too many Obama-philes sound like Moonies, or Hare Krishnas...These true believers “Obama-ize” everything. They speak Obama-ese. Knit for Obama. Run for Obama. Gamble - Hold ’Em Barack! - for Obama. They make Obama cakes, underwear, jewelry. They send Valentine cards reading, “I want to Barack your world!”

Even better:

Oh - I’m nervous because it’s all gone to his head and he hasn’t even won yet. I’m nervous because it’s gone to a lot of other people’s heads as well.....“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” says George Clooney. “I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

I’m nervous because nobody’s quite sure what Obama stands for, even his supporters. (“I can’t wait to see,” said actress/activist Susan Sarandon, declaring full support nonetheless).

She even has remorse about Michelle Obama, about whom she recently wrote "a puff-piece." She ends with:

I’m nervous because John McCain says Obama’s is “an eloquent but empty call for change” and in the wee, wee hours, a nagging voice whispers, suppose McCain’s right, too? Then what?

Is she serious? Who knows, but I suspect we'll be hearing it from others over the next two weeks.

By Big Tent Democrat

WaPo Polls Ohio and Texas:

TEXAS

OHIO

The details on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat

A minor matter, but Hilzoy is concerned about Clinton's finances and states:

Question: does anyone think that she will take in as much in February as she did in January? I don't.

As I understand it, Clinton raised 13.5 millon (though Politico says $20MM, including Clinton's loan) in January. In February, just online, Clinton had raised 15 million in 15 days. So the answer to Hilzoy's question is actually, yes, Clinton will raise MUCH MORE in February than January.

Barack Obama is seeking to portray himself as the better candidate on issues pertaining to NAFTA, jobs, unions and labor.

For voters in Texas, Ohio and PA (it's too late for Wisconsin), I suggest you examine their voting records in the Senate on these issues. It's a far better yardstick than speeches. A good starting place: Progressive Punch.

Hillary Clinton's voting record during her seven years as U.S. Senator is 100% progressive on "Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements", on General Union Rights and on Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas.

Here is Hillary's record on Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements. It is solidly progressive with the exception of two votes on one bill in 2002. [More...]

Conservatives attacking Barack Obama and his supporters wanting change believe Obama is a more progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton. Let's take a look at that, because their voting records in the Senate suggest otherwise.

Progressive Punch is a site that rates the legislative records of all Senators on progressive issues. For 2007-2008, Barack Obama is the 43rd most progressive out of 100 Senators. # 44 is Joe Lieberman. After #50, they are all Republicans, except for Tim Johnson. (Overall, his ranking is 88% or 24 out of 99, possibly suggesting he has become less progressive over time in the Senate.)

Hillary Clinton is rated far more progressive for 2007-2008, at #29. Her score is 90% to Obama's 81%. Overall, she ranks 17 out of 99, with a 91% progressive voting record, to his 24 out of 99 and an 88% progressive voting record.).

Obama's weakest score: On human rights and civil liberties he's at 75%, and #42 out of 99. One reason: in 2005, he voted "no" on a bill to cut funding for a new $36 million maximum security prison at Guantanamo.

Writing in the Wall St. Journal today, Karl Rove offers some advice for Hillary Clinton with respect to challenging Barack Obama:

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Other than that advice, the column is a disappointing, and in my view, inaccurate portrayal of Obama as a leftist hiding in centrist clothing. I think Obama is a centrist. See my new post comparing his and Hillary's progressive voting record and rankings.

By Big Tent Democrat

(speaking for me only)

Barack Obama can convincingly win the Democratic nomination on March 4th. He can win more votes than Hillary Clinton in Texas and Ohio and let the voters decide that Clinton should concede.

Instead, according to the UK Guardian (other sources do not confirm this), the Obama campaign has decided to urge Clinton to concede before the voters in Texas and Ohio (and PA, etc.) have spoken:

Barack Obama's campaign team, riding a wave of 10 straight victories in the contest for the Democratic nomination after wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii, yesterday urged Hillary Clinton to bow to the inevitable and accept defeat.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, dismissed the Clinton camp's hopes of making a comeback when the power states of Texas and Ohio hold their primaries on March 4. "This is a wide, wide lead right now," Plouffe said in a conference call with reporters. "The Clinton campaign keeps saying the race is essentially tied. That's just lunacy."

If this reporting is accurate, this is a mistake. Moreover, the intimation is that the voters in Texas and Ohio have no voice in the nomination decision. Let the voters decide, Obama campaign. This attitude smacks of hubris. If I was the Clinton campaign, I would certainly use this. Something along the lines of "Obama says your vote does not matter." Read that somewhere.

More . . . NOTE Comments are now closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Many Democrats are glorying and gloating over the NYTimes story on McCain. Some after taking a moment, realize this story is troubling. Yglesias writes:

[T]hinking more clearly past my loathing of John McCain, the Times's effort to substitute innuendo for making a straightforward true or false assertion seems like a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt [Referencing Mickey's attempt to legitimize the "Edwards is having an affair" stories]. If they have reporting they're willing to stand behind of a McCain-Iseman affair, they should publish it. And if, as seems to be the case, they don't have the reporting, then they shouldn't write the story.

Good for Matt. But if Democrats take a moment, they will realize this development is not good at all. I mention one word to you - Rezko. I discuss on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat

At his press conference this morning, John McCain denied having had a relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman:

John McCain emphatically denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist on Thursday and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is "not true." "I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood beside him during a news conference called to address the matter. . . . McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend. . . .

So McCain has emphatically denied the Times account. Now the ball is in the court of the NYTimes. More

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Josh Marshall provides a response that I have seen in a couple of venues to the McCain story:

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go.

(Emphasis supplied.) Since, despite the protests of some, the meat of this story is the allegation of a romantic involvement with a person not his wife, I believe Marshall is referencing more evidence of the romantic relationship. And Marshall's response demonstrates what is outrageous about the Times' journalism here. If the Times cannot put "a lot more" into the article, then the allegations of a romantic relationship can not go in the article. This seems obvious to me.

Marshall also adds this troubling sum up:

Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is this what journalism has been reduced to? The Paper of Record can now run allegations of romantic relationships based on what DC reporters can understand but the "rest of us" do not get to know about? If there is "more," as some suggest, then the Times has to print it, or NOT print its explosive allegations until it CAN print "the more." My view has not changed -- this is a piece of atrocious journalism. I am eager to read the NYTimes Public Editor on this story.

Bump and Update: McCain releases a statement condemning the New York Times article. Olbermann read it really fast but I didn't hear any denial of the allegations pertaining to the female lobbyist.

Update: Salon has more. Scroll down to the bottom of this post for the key Times quotes, and again, this isn't about sex.

***

MSNBC broke into Hardball to announce this news that just appeared on the New York Times website: John McCain is tied to a 40 year old female lobbyist 8 years ago. Both deny an improper relationship. That's not what others suggest.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mike Huckabee anyone? If McCain's ethics and ties to corporate lobbyists are in doubt, when he has made this a hallmark of his campaign, can he still get the nomination? [More...]

ABC News has a pretty thorough analysis of the status of things in Texas, and which way different demographics are breaking.

There's three problems for Hillary in Texas, and they don't sound small.

• 1/3 of the delegates will be awarded based on a caucus held at the conclusion of the primary.

• Delegates are apportioned partially by Democratic voter turnout in prior elections

• The primary is open to Independents

The significance: Obama does better in caucuses and primaries where Independents can vote.

The places with the greater amount of liberal and African American voters (Dallas, Houston, Austin) had greater voter turnout than the Latino communities in prior years, so even if Hillary gets a great Latino turnout, she won't score as many delegates. [More...]