I know this will come as a big shock to Obama adulators, but Barack Obama does not always tell the truth:

He also did not tell the whole truth about what he said about Ronald Reagan or what he was conveying about Republicans being the party of ideas fighting the conventional wisdom. He also started the attacks, personal or otherwise last night.

Unlike some people, this does not bother me. I always knew Barack Obama was just a pol. Heck, I have been criticizing him for picking the wrong POLITICAL strategy. Even now I do not question his commitment to a progressive and Democratic agenda, nor do I question Hillary's. I think Kevin Drum nails what the question is now:

It's official, Fred Thompson's out.

Let's hope Giuliani's next.

By the way, we have 20 new posts today, so please scroll down and onto the next page if you want to read all of them.

I'm off to the jail now, back tonight.

Not an endorsement, but strong words of encouragement:

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

I agree with Yglesias that Edwards has largely been a positive force in this campaign, though I have disagreements with him on some key issues. Like Jeralyn, I would like to see him fight on as well.

I was hoping to avoid writing about the Barack Obama-Tony Rezko connection as I believe Obama did nothing wrong. Big Tent Democrat agrees it's a non-issue. Unfortunately, the AP is highlighting it today.

That said, perhaps if Obama hadn't attacked Hillary last night as a "corporate lawyer sitting on the board of WalMart", she wouldn't have responded calling Rezko a slumlord and it wouldn't be in the AP today. From the transcript (More...)

Speaking for me only

In what seems like a millenium ago, I criticized Barack Obama for embracing a Republican frame that Democrats abhor people of faith. Since then, Obama has made his appeal in a much more positive way, including in South Carolina. Barack Obama has really found a way to make his appeal to persons of faith without denigrating Democrats.

It appears that Bill Clinton is retrogressing on this issue:

[Clinton] took Democrats to task for failing to challenge the GOP among religious voters, for whom moral issues are important. 'Democrats have made a mistake by not entering the debate,' he said.

Entering what debate President Clinton? The debate about how godless and sinful Democrats are? This is bad politics from Clinton. And seeing as how he is the principal Hillary Clinton campaign surrogate, bad politics from the Clinton campaign. Bad show Mr. President.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the richest of them all? Via AOL Money:

Barack Obama's house:

Obama has a large, stately brick home on Chicago's South Side with an estimated value of $1.9 million. The Chicago Tribune describes it as a "96-year-old Georgian revival home that has four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar."

Personal wealth:

Compared to the other candidates, Obama seems a pauper with assets of between $456,012 and $1.1 million.

Hillary's house:

More below:

35 years ago, women did not have a constitutional right to control their bodies. That changed when Roe v. Wade was decided. It is fashionable today in legal circles to attack the legal reasoning of Roe. While I believe Justice Blackmun's prose could have been better, the central legal premise was and remains sound:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, . . . ; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments . . . ; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights . . . ; in the Ninth Amendment, . . . .; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," . . . , are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, . . . ; procreation, . . . ; contraception, . . . .; family relationships, . . . ; and child rearing and education, . . . This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. . . .

35 years ago today, an important step was taken in recogizing the equality of women and in recognizing the right to privacy. Fighting to preserve this advance has been central to progressives and Democrats since then. The challenge remains. Roe now probably stands with a precarious 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. There is no more important issue in this Presidential campaign than the appointment of Supreme Court justices. John Paul Stevens is 87. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter are 68 and older. We MUST elect a Democrat. Nothing is more important in this election.

Hillary Clinton is on her way to Salinas, California where she will receive the endorsement of the United Farm Workers, founded by Cesar Chavez.

Clinton is wheels up to California, where she’s set to pick up a major endorsement from the United Farm Workers of America — founded by legendary Latino organizer Cesar Chavez. The union backing only strengthens her already rock-solid support among Hispanics.

It is expected that 5,000 will attend the event.

Hillary Clinton maintains her double digit lead in California in the highly respected Field Poll (think the DMR poll in Iowa). The problem Obama has remains the same, women, Latinos and working class Democrats:

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama in California now stands at 12 percentage points – 39% to 27%, with 14% preferring other candidates and a relatively large proportion (20%) of likely voters undecided. Clinton’s lead is largest among women, Latinos, lower income voters, non-college graduates, and seniors. Conversely, Obama is preferred among blacks, college graduates and Democratic primary voters with household incomes of $80,000 or more. Clinton and Obama run about even among men, liberals, and white non-Hispanics.

He needs to find a way to crack this problem, or he has virtually no chance of winning the nomination. His expected win in South Carolina is not likely to come from the type of winning demographic that will work in California or other 2/5 states.

Crime and drugs may not be a big topic in this year's elections, but it is at the Oscars. "No Country for Old Men" and "Michael Clayton" scored seven nominations apiece, including best picture.

In the best supporting actress category,

Completing the list of best supporting actress nominees are 83-year-old Ruby Dee as the mother of a Harlem kingpin in "American Gangster" and Amy Ryan as the drug-dealing mother of a kidnapped daughter in "Gone Baby Gone."

Here's the complete list. Some films that I thought would get some nominations but didn't: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and Hotel Chevalier, the prequel to The Darjeeling Limited. [More...]

There is a true silliness to the way certain quarters want to act as if Hillary Clinton initiated the negativity in the debate last night. Take for example the normally levelheaded Josh Marshall:

One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. . . .

I take it Josh missed Obama's tendentious attacks. Here is where it started. Here was the first attack of the night, in Obama's FIRST answer of the debate:

So it is absolutely critical right now to give a stimulus to the economy. And Senator Clinton mentioned tax rebates. That wasn't the original focus of her plan. I think recently she has caught up with what I had originally said, which is we've got to get taxes into the -- tax cuts into the pockets of hard-working Americans right away.

An unprovoked and tendentious attack one could call it. I call it campaigning and highlighting differences about what each candidate SAID. This CAN NOT be out of bounds in a campaign. But who was the first with a personal attack? Well, that would be Obama again:

[W]hile I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

That is a tendentious personal attack. Maybe Josh Marshall missed it. I imagine he heard Hillary's tendentious personal attack in RESPONSE:

I was fighting against those [Republican] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

Some can only see bad in Hillary and good in Obama. I submit the picture is a bit more complicated than that.

The question of the competing health care plans has been one of the major differences between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on one hand, and Barack Obama on the other. Clinton and Edwards favor mandates, which would require everyone to have health insurance (while providing subsisides to those who can not afford it). Obama opposes mandates. Last night it was discussed again. Here is a key exchange: