Interesting perspective today in the Toronto Star on the Obama wave:

It's the rumble of a political movement, a Barack Obama wave, building in the distance, about to break in a tsunami of inspiration, a torrent representing a clean break from old ways and a new chapter in American history. It is a national chant of "Yes We Can" swamping Hillary Clinton.

But the Obama wave breaks just short of the shore every time it appears ready to wash away everything in its wake.

For all the fervour of the arena rallies, the rapt thousands who hang on the senator's every word and call back to him with religious zeal, the wave has not crashed with all the ferocity bottled up in those venues.

What may be preventing the wave from cresting: the working class, women and 11th hour voters: [More...]

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will compete in three states today and one tomorrow. Today's states are:

• Louisiana (primary -- Obama heavily favored to win due to the large, 32% African-American vote)

• Washington State (caucus, but weird rules, as they have a primary next week. Only the caucus votes count.) The New York Times says this is the race to watch today. Hillary has the support of the both the states' Senators, while Obama has the support of the Governor. All three are female.

• Nebraska (caucus, Obama favored to win.)

On Sunday, Maine holds caucuses. Hillary is expected to do well there, even though caucuses usually favor Obama.

The total at stake: 161 delegates in Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska and the Virgin Islands and 24 delegates in Maine.

An Obama sweep today does not mean Hillary is out of the race -- her campaign is expecting a big Obama win and concentrating instead on the big states of Ohio and Texas which vote in early March. [More]

By Big Tent Democrat

Let's start with the anti-democratic nature of caucuses themselves. Unlike in a primary, where voters have all day to vote at their convenience, or previously vote absentee, to vote in a caucus a voter must go to the caucus site at the appointed hour. Once there they have to vote PUBLICALLY by standing in a corner of a room AND if their choice does not have 15% (not an issue here I think) their choice does not count. Understand this important fact, the biggest amount of voter disinfranchisement that occurs in the nomination campaigns is when a state or party chooses caucuses over primaries.

But Washington state decided that choosing a caucus was not enough voter disenfranchisement. Jerome Armstrong explains:

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall posits that Tweety led to Shuster's fall:

[M]any have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton. The most logical way for me to understand this development is that MSNBC is under a lot of fire for Matthews -- but Matthews is untouchable -- and Shuster's easier to can or suspend.

Josh is right as far as he goes but he overlooks some important particulars. First and foremost, imo, is that MSNBC is rightly feeling heat for its anti-Hillary/pro-Obama bias as TPM's own Greg Sargent has pointed out. This clearly contributed to the harsh punishment meted out to Shuster.

Via a reader in the comments who just received this e-mail:

NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:

On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

Steve Capus
NBC News President

Update: Comments now closed here, new thread on topic is here.

By Big Tent Democrat

And they are right to. Via TPM:

This is really something. The Hillary campaign has just gone to war with MSNBC, dispatching a top Hillary adviser to launch a lacerating attack on the network on a conference call with reporters moments ago.

On the call, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson suggested that there's a "pattern" of reprehensible comments by MSNBC personalities, and said outright that the Hillary campaign could no longer "envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made."

I think any honest observer of NBC's coverage has to admit that NBC has been incredibly anti-Hillary. Greg Sargent previously wrote:

By Big Tent Democrat

This is a new position for me. Before I believed Clinton would definitely choose Obama as her running mate because he can help her keep the excitement he has engendered, provide some of the Media Darling status he holds, emphasize the historic nature of the Democratic ticket and energize the Obama parts of the Democratic coalition. But I did not believe Obama need choose Clinton. I now believe that Obama will need Clinton as well. Most, including me, have completely misunderstood how Hillary Clinton has energized her part of the Democratic coalition, especially women.

Today we are hearing about a new Time poll that has Obama running stronger than Hillary against McCain. Generally speaking, looking at GE matchups this far out is an absurd exercise. So much will still happen before we get anywhere close to the election that trying to decipher who will run best in the GER is a futile exercise. That said, I DO believe Obama has the POTENTIAL to run better against McCain than Hillary, for the reasons I have previously expressed. But there are major pitfalls for Obama and some of them have been highlighted on Super Tuesday and the days following.

By Big Tent Democrat

In my view, the most underreported story of this campaign has been the blithe acceptance of misogyny and sexism. It is the hate that does dare speak its name. We all know about and condemned the many outrageous remarks made by some Clinton supporters and surrogates - Bill Shaheen, Bob Johnson, Andrew Cuomo and yes, Bill Clinton (his Jesse Jackson remark) made contemptible remarks in this campaign.

But the sexism and misogyny from the Media and yes, the Obama campaign, has gone largely unremarked. Here is one that has flown under the radar from Barack Obama himself:

Obama saved most of his criticisms for Bush, but he seemed to have Clinton in his sights when he said, "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."

(Emphasis supplied.) The report does not even note the sexism inherent in that statement. Nor did online communities. Jane Hamsher wondered about that and asked FDL readers what they thought. The results were similarly depressing.

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

Mark Penn, in a conference call tonight (audio here) says Hillary has raised $7.4 million online since the polls closed on Super Tuesday from 40,000 plus contributors.

Matt Stoller at Open Left writes about the phenomemal support, and says it comes mostly from suburban women. I don't know if that's true, I can't find a link. The last campaign contribution link I looked out which was updated 1/31/08 showed more campaign contributions to Hillary from men than women. (I've lost the link and can't find it now. It said something about gender being determined as closely as possible from FEC information.) But I agree with Matt on this:

It's remarkable, because it is converting voters and supporters into activists and donors, only it's probably not the creative class anymore. Clinton, like Dean, became an underdog, a real underdog, with more public support than Village support, and her public directly responded over the internet to close this gap.

In other words, the Obama campaign has had a strategy of cultivating online donors and activists, they know how to do it, and they are very good at it. The Clinton campaign has not done any of this particularly well because it hasn't been their strategy. And somehow, they are at rough parity over the last 48 hours.

Curiously, Obama's site is not broadcasting dollars raised, only the number of donations. Its goal is 500,000 donors by March 4.

Bottom line: There's a lot of Democrats giving money this election cycle. They want their White House back and they're willing to shell out to get it.

By Big Tent Democrat

At FDL, one of our favorite blogs, a post argues that Rezko IS an issue for Obama. Both Jeralyn and I are on record stating our view that Rezko is NOT an issue. After reviewing the FDL post, nothing I see there changes my view. Indeed, I endorse the analysis provided in this dkos diary:

The author claims that Miner, Barnhill firm that employed Obama was a "sleazy" and "ethically spotty" firm, insinuating that it essentially acted as an arm of Rezko's business and that Obama's choice of this firm itself is deeply suspicious. In this light the Rezko connection become ominous. But a little research shows this entire construction to be [false.]

Pols are pols and to expect them to scrutinize every donation they get is simply ridiculous. In my review of Obama's dealings with Rezko, I see nothing untoward. It remains a nonissue in my view.

The New York Times has posted California's distribution of delegates from the Super Tuesday primary.

• Hillary 207
• Obama 163

NBC's Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams tonight said Obama has a total of 861 delegates while Hillary has 855.

The New York Times says Hillary is ahead with 904 to Obama's 724.

That's a big discrepancy between NBC and the Times. Several of the states Obama won haven't yet awarded delegates according to the Times which may account for Obama's low total number. But, Hillary still has more from the Times than from NBC. Anyone know why?

As to how the Times counts delegates:

Many news organizations include delegate projections in their counts that are based on nonbinding votes for candidate preference, such as the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences.

To make things even more confusing, here's the San Jose Mercury News saying Hillary has 1000 to Obama's 902.

By Big Tent Democrat

This is a silly, absurd story:

Yesterday on "The View," Whoopi Goldberg switched her endorsement from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton. Whoopi cited Clinton's statement that she would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Whoopi previously believed that Obama had made that pledge first, but apparently she was mistaken.

Who cares who Whoopi Goldberg supports? And what a dumb reason for switching. So why am I posting about it? To ask you a question - do you think this would be big news if it was the other way around? You think there would be a lot of blog posts about it? Remember that silly precinct captain in Iowa who kept switching? Need I say more?