By Big Tent Democrat

NOTE Krugman notices. Do not hold your breath waiing for the A-List blogs too.

In an earlier post, I highlighted a David Brooks column that took pokes at Hillary Clinton because Tennessee Bush Dog Democrat Jim Cooper did not like that Hillary fought for universal health care in 1993 and 1994. To me, that was something GOOD about Hillary.

Mike Lux at Open Left highlights that this same Jim Cooper is an Obama point man on health care. This is worrisome to say the least. As Lux writes:

[T]here are still certain things that make me really, really nervous about Obama. At the top of that list is the health care debate, where I think he's just wrong about the importance of universality, and where he's employed Harry and Louise-style tactics to argue against Clinton's plan. My concerns shifted into overdrive, though, when I noticed that the Obama campaign is now using Rep. Jim Cooper as a spokesperson/surrogate on health care.

I was part of the Clinton White House team on the health care reform issue in 1993/94, and no Democrat did more to destroy our chances in that fight than Jim Cooper. . . .

He quickly became the leading spokesman on the Dem side for the insurance industry position, and undercut us at every possible opportunity, basically ending any hopes we had for a unified Democratic Party position. I was never so delighted to see a Democrat lose as when he went down in the 1994 GOP tide.

What can we expect from a President Obama on health care? Nothing much it seems. It seems clear that if you care about universal health care, Obama is likely to not be your kind of President.

By Big Tent Democrat

According to PPP, Obama will capture a comfortable win in Wisconsin tomorrow:

Obama 53 (50)
Clinton 40 (39)

What is interesting about this poll, and PPP's track record is not the greatest, is that it has Obama leading among women and all white voters. More than that, the pollster states that in a traditional turnout model, the race is close, 47-44, but they expect a massive turnout favorable to Obama. I assume they are expecting a very large African American turnout and a very large youth turnout.

Time will tell us if they are correct.

By Big Tent Democrat

Fierce Obama partisan Adam B. cites Mark Schmitt's parsing of the Obama pledge to public finance of the general election:

I described this a few weeks ago as a "pledge" to participate, but I should not have. Obama's precise statement was, and has always been, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That's an artful statement, and it's not artful in a "meaning of 'is'" sense -- it's exactly the right answer. A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

How come this sounds so much like John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry to me? As many properly said to Hillary Clinton on her Iraq vote, just bite the bullet - renounce the pledge. Do not parse it. It will not work against against a Media loving McCain. Do it now when your opponent is the Media despised Hillary Clinton. Do not become John Kerry.

By Big Tent Democrat

Apparently, when you are Barack Obama:

Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

Yes, it seems clear the Florida playing field was NOT level. Obama outspent Clinton in Florida. Let the rationalizations begin.

Update (TL): Jerome at MyDD now has an update on this.

By Big Tent Democrat

As, in the day, one of the proponents of what I term the politics of contrast, it was with great interest that I considered Paul Lukasiak's argument (and the reactions to it) that Super Delegates should consider, among other things, which candidate is the choice of Democrats (as opposed to Independents and Republicans who vote in Democratic contests). I myself think it has to be a secondary consideration to the who the overall popular vote winner and pledged delegate leader is. While I abhor the super delegate system (utterly undemocratic), open primaries (because they dilute the voice of Democratic voters, thus weakening their ability to hold their Democratic representatives accountable), caucuses (because of their unrepresentative and undemocratic tendencies ), congressional district apportionment (it also dilutes the choices of voters) and overrepresentation of voters for various alleged "party building reasons (rural voter overrepresentation, etc.), the rules were written not by the candidates, but by the Party, and they were required to play the contest as the rules were written (MI and FL is a different, more damning story of the DNC but let's leave that for now.) That includes playing in the caucuses, taking into account congressional and other factored apportionment, open primaries AND Super Delegates.

Accordingly, it is my view that the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote count SHOULD BE the primary considerations of Super Delegates and that the support of just Democrats should be a secondary consideration. That said, I also recognize that Super Delegates are empowered to form their own judgment of these things and, if I accept the rules, I must accept their judgments as part of the rules. More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Unlike most good government types, I believe that until there is full public financing of political campaigns, the Democratic Party should NEVER give away an advantage when it has one. This year the Democratic nominee is almost certain to have a financing advantage over the GOP nominee John McCain. Senator Barack Obama earlier made a pledge to abide by public financing in the general election if the Republican opponent would agree. John McCain has not only agreed, he is now pressing Obama to honor his pledge. Senator Obama, break that pledge. And do it now. Why? This piece from Obama strategist David Axelrod from Face the Nation provides a clue:

“Bob, we're not backing away [from our public finance pledge]. What Sen. Obama said is, once the nomination is secured, we will sit down with Sen. McCain as the nominee, and we will talk this through," Axelrod said. "Let's get through the primary season, sit down. We obviously want … nobody's been stronger on campaign finance reform than Barack Obama.”

Excuse me Mr. Axelrod, now is the time to break the pledge. You are running against Hillary Clinton, easily the most Media despised candidate we have seen since Al Gore. You will get a free pass NOW. You will not if you wait until McCain is your opponent. The free pass will be gone on this issue against John "McCain-Feingold" McCain. Democrats do not care. You will lose no votes to Clinton over this. But you will lose the Media over this if you wait until you are facing St. John McCain.

Paul Lukasiak, guest-blogging at Taylor Marsh's blog, crunches the numbers of votes cast so far in the Democratic presidential race. Why? Barack Obama is arguing that super-delegates should comply with the "will of the people."

Mr. Lukasiak's premise:

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?

Here's the table of votes. His analysis is below, but go read his whole post, I've just reprinted highlights:

Photo by ABC News)

They hugged as Obama left John Edwards' home after their sit-down today. Elizabeth was at the meeting too.

More tea-leaf reading anyone? Will Edwards wait until after March 4 and Ohio and Texas to announce his endorsement or will he give a much needed boost to Obama in those states? Or, could he be considering endorsing Hillary?

Update: While Obama used the downtime from the weather to fly to N.C. to meet John Edwards and ask for his endorsement, Hillary "pressed the flesh" at local eateries and grocery stores in Wisconsin.

How important is Edwards' endorsement? Poll below.

By Big Tent Democrat

As well as this campaign has gone for Barack Obama, the one field of play where his team has been consistently outmaneuvered by the Clinton team has been on playing the expectations game. Todd Beeton shows Axelrod taking it on the chin from Howard Wolfson this morning on Face The Nation:

Lots of snow in Wisconsin today, so much so that both candidates had to cancel events until tomorrow.

Tea-leaf reading anyone? Who does this hurt the most?

I'm heading out for the afternoon, this is an open thread, all topics welcome. Be nice.

By Big Tent Democrat

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

Matt Stoller writes about a news story that argues Obama is gaining among women. Matt likes that line and allows the important underlying story to be overshadowed. Matt writes:

More significantly, her lead among women has slipped to just 10 points in state.

But what does that mean? It means that, as in MD, VA, and DC, CALIFORNIA and almost EVERY STATE, Obama is winning African American women 4-1. This is not the issue for Obama in terms of a General election. Among women, Obama needs to win white women in a general election.

More . . .

Here's some early morning news items:

• A new Alabama poll shows McCain would sweep the state in November by double digits, and it might happen throughout the deep south.

Alabama has voted for the Republican nominee every year since 1980.

McCain's double-digit lead emerged even though poll respondents' biggest concern was the economy, an area not considered one of his strengths. The poll results also offered evidence that despite President Bush's slumping approval ratings, the GOP retains a tight grip on the region, at least in national races.

"My expectation is that Alabama and Georgia and maybe all of the Deep South is going to end up in the Republican column, regardless of who the players are," University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock said. "If they don't, it's going to be a massive Democratic blowout."

....McCain is well-known for his appeal to independents, about two-thirds of whom would support him over either Democrat, according to the Press-Register/USA poll.

• Hillary and Obama both spoke at the Founder's Gala dinner in Wisconsin last night. Here's where they differ: