Barack Obama has a very bad habit of denigrating the political battles of the past. A few days ago, Barney Frank wrote a terrific piece taking on Obama kneejerk swipes at the battles of the past. Here is a piece of it:

I think it is important to express my discomfort with a major theme of Senator Obama's campaign. I am referring to his denigration of "the Washington battles of the 1990's" and, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly, of those who fought them.

. . . I cannot think of a cause that I cared deeply about then that I felt it appropriate to abandon as I aged, nor an important issue in which I had no interest then, but which now gets my attention.

This brings me to my particular concern with Senator Obama's vehement disassociation of himself and those he seeks to represent from "the fights of the nineties." I am very proud of many of the fights I engaged in in the nineties, as well as the eighties and before. Senator Obama also bemoans the "same bitter partisanship" of that period and appears to me to be again somewhat critical of those of us who he believes to have been engaged in it. . . .

MORE

TPM's Greg Sargent has this video of Obama comparing his ability to make a transformational change to that which Ronald Reagan accomplished in 1980:

I will not take the easy political cheap shot here and take on Obama's point. Greg describes it well:

Obama is also making an argument about the readiness of the electorate for change, comparing today's desire for a new direction with the electorate's mood in 1980. In this context, Obama is presenting himself as a potentially transformational figure in opposition to Hillary, who, Obama has been arguing, is unequipped to tap into the public's mood due to her coming of age in the sixties and her involvement in the political battles of the 1990s.

Obama simply misunderstands how Reagan achieved that transformational change - to the detriment of the country I must add - he ran a partisan, ideological divisive campaign that excoriated Democratic values and trumpeted GOP values. He also race baited.

Obama is running a post-partisan, nonideological campaign that is bereft of defenses of Democratic values and ideas. He is running an anti-Reagan campaign. His argument is simply ahistorical. It is precisely BECAUSE he refuses to try and make this a transformational campaign, a campaign to fight for Dem values, to persuade the country that the Dems are right, that his campaign is a promise unfulfilled.

In short, Obama STILL does not get it.

with Glenn Greenwald for not recognizing his journalistic prowess. He fired off an e-mail with a level of vituperativeness that would make any DFH angry blogger proud:

I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game. But a friend who understands how my business works and knows a little something about my 20 plus years in it sent me the link to your ramblings. Since the site suggests you have law training, maybe you forgot that good lawyers to a little research before they spit out words. . . . You clearly know very little about journalism. . . . When I am writing something that calls someone's credibility into question, I pick up the phone and give them a chance to give their side, or perspective. . . .

Pretty funny. Glenn makes a good point in response (for the substance of the dispute follow the link):

Ponder how much better things would be if establishment journalists -- in response to being endlessly lied to and manipulated by political officials and upon witnessing extreme lawbreaking and corruption at the highest levels of our government -- were able to muster just a tiny fraction of the high dudgeon, petulant offense, and melodramatic outrage that comes pouring forth whenever their "reporting" is criticized

Indeed.

Speaking for me only.

Because he put the Democratic Party first. In really laying the race brouhaha to rest, Senator Obama went beyond what was politically expedient for his campaign - which was to of course appear to disclaim any desire for the dispute - to go above and beyond that. He expressly and emphatically cleared the Clinton campaign of engaging in racial politics AND he took some responsibility for the controversy. He was the biggest person in the room - for the benefit of the Democratic Party. No Obama for Obama, as I have often accused him of, this was Obama for the Democratic Party. Some examples:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think Hillary said it well. . . . Now, race has always been an issue in our politics and in this country, but one of the premises of my campaign and, I think, of the Democratic Party -- and I know that John and Hillary have always been committed to racial equality -- is that we can't solve these challenges unless we can come together as a people and we're not resorting to the same -- or falling into the same traps of division that we have in the past.

More . . .

Bump and Update: A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday in the case.

In other Nevada news, the Las Vegas Review Journal will endorse Barack Obama. In 2004, the paper endorsed George W. Bush for President.

***

The Las Vegas Sun in an editorial today backed the lawsuit brought by the teachers' union challenging the at-large caucuses established in Las Vegas strip hotels.

As we see it, the caucuses were moved up so that all labor organizations and minorities in the state could get a bigger say, not just the Culinary Union.

Background here.

Who impressed you? Who let you down? Who do you think scored points with Nevada caucus voters?

I thought all three were good. I appreciated their lack of barbs and their attempt to put the Democrats first.

I thought the questioning by Russert and Williams was pretty poor. Instead of asking questions that would highlight their policy differences, they tended to ask questions on which all agreed.

No one failed. No one tripped up seriously. All would serve us far better than any Republican.

My final thoughts: Obama was likeable and well-intentioned. He just isn't ready in my opinion. He may be one day, but we need someone who is ready now. Hillary impressed tonight as being that person.

Part III. Domestic issues.

Not yet. Russert asks Hillary about national service and military recruiters on college campus. She talks about her bills to give GI's and vets more rights and services. Mentions her service on armed services committee.

Russert asks her if the top ten schools should have ROTC.

Obama agrees and says he too will enforce a statute that requires military recruiters and ROTC to be allowed on campus. He too supports national service and has introduced a bill on it.

Edwards agrees with the other two. He talks about PTSD. It's obvious all three have the same position here. Why not ask questions about areas they disagree on? [Updates Below}

Resumes with questions about economy. So far, everyone is behaving and acting very conciliatory. What a welcome change.

After this part, each of them will be able to ask two questions of the other candidates.

Hillary gives a specific answer on a complicated finanical thing. Obama converts the question to one on energy and fuel. Then answers about sub-prime mortgage problem and criticizes lobbyists and advocates for disclosure He will restore accountabilty and regulatory oversight over financial system.

Edwards asked if he regrets his vote on bankruptcy bill. Says absolutely. Updates below.

I'll be live-blogging the Nevada debate which begins in 30 minutes. Hope you will join me in comments. If Big Tent Democrat is around, he'll be joining in.

No cable? Watch online here.

7:04 pm (MT): Race question is up first. She and Obama both look concerned. "How did we get here?" Goes to Hillary. Says she and Obama agree neither race nor gender should be part of this race. She praises Edwards as son of a mill worker. She appreciates that she and Obama, both have exuberance and sometimes uncontrolled supporters, and they have committed to having campaign be about individuals.

Obama: Hillary said it well.Our supporters get overzealous and say things I would not say. We want to focus on issues. Everyone here is committed to racial equality.

The candidates are seated around a conference type table. It’s the three top candidates and Russert and Brian Williams. [More...]

Update: Fox and MSNBC calls Michigan for Romney and Clinton.

You can follow the live results here. (Update: That site crashed, you can get them here now.)

7 in 10 appeared to vote Republican.

It looks like Mitt Romney will win the Republican vote. Turnout was low, maybe 20%.

Update [2008-1-15 20:24:9 by Big Tent Democrat]: Another result to watch is how Hillary does against "uncommitted" where Obama and Edwards sending their supporters.

Update (TL): Fox News just said exit polls show the race is too close to call between Hillary and the uncommitted. I'm not surprised, it's a protest vote by supporters of Obama and Edwards who withdrew from being on the ballot.

Update (TL): Now they say Hillary is winning 2:1 over uncommitteds and Romney's lead is slight.

Update: (TL): Here's the opinion. Shorter version: There was no contract because there was no consideration.

***

According to KO, via Josh, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in favor of NBC's petition for prohibition (do not ask me, I know nothing of Nevada civil procedure) and ruled against Dennis Kucinich.

That means tonight's debate is between the 3 leading candidates. Could be fireworks. I can not watch and will be counting on Jeralyn and commenters to keep me up. Jeralyn's earlier post on the Kucinich challenge.

National Review:

I'm surprised no one else has put this up yet. I'm hearing the first round of exit polls have Romney 35, McCain 29, Huckabee 15, Ron Paul 10, Giuliani 4. This doesn't count absentee ballots.

Will Rudy be invited to the next debate?

Update (TL): Early Exit poll results here.

Fox News says it will be a good night for Romney if low turnout holds for Independents.