Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings writes an interesting post that includes a a reactive theory of change that strikes me as wrongheaded and even dangerous:

For that reason I think that Democrats should prepare a sort of Aikido strategy: turning our opponents' attacks against them. We should try to set things up in such a way that if the Republicans go after our candidate in an underhanded, dishonest, and despicable way, that fact will be as clear to ordinary voters as it could possibly be. . . . . . . [P]eople [are]. . . ready to see Republican scorched-earth tactics for what they [are]. . . . If we capitalize on that fact, we have the chance to change people's perceptions of the two parties in a serious and lasting way. If we do not, then this will be one more election, which the Democrats will probably win, but it will not be a game-changer.

This is wrong in almost every particular. The problem Democrats have had, as Ruy Texeira and John Halpin demonstrated, is that people do not believe they stand for anything! More . . .

What a sick feeling I get when I see headlines like these. At least history didn't repeat itself in either case.

• Joe Biden's Wife Involved in Traffic Accident, Not Seriously Hurt
  

  According to Delaware State Police, Jill Tracy Biden was driving a 2001 BMW southbound in the left lane when a tractor-trailer in the center lane moved into her lane and struck her vehicle. Biden was taken to Christiana Hospital, where she was treated for minor injuries and released.

  ....In December 1972, Biden's first wife, Neilia, and the couple's 18-month-old daughter, Naomi, were killed when the family's station wagon was hit by a tractor-trailer at an intersection. The accident, which left his sons Beau and Hunter seriously injured, happened just five weeks after Biden, then 29, was elected to the Senate.

From Yesterday:

• Edwards Daughter Hit By Drunk Driver [More...]

Speaking for me only

Checked in at Sully's site to see how things look at CDS headquarters and found this:

Jill Tubman sees it:

If she wins the nomination, I would absolutely vote for her over whichever fascist fumbling jacka*s the Republicans select in their primaries. . . .

Yep: that's how they screw over gay people and still get their money, votes and fawning admiration. . . .

(Emphasis mine.) It is as if Sully never heard of Donny McClurkin or that he has not been supporting race baiting and gay baiting Republicans and libeling African Americans his entire public life. Oh, and Sully, we have NOT forgotten your support of the racist Bell Curve movement to declare blacks intellectually inferior to whites.

Newsweek presents four pages of interview excerpts on the topic:

Vying for the Black Vote

Will Clinton's Martin Luther King comment cost her black support in the South Carolina primary? A veteran of the civil rights movement weighs in.

Who's the veteran of the civil rights movement? An Obama supporter.

How will the controversy affect voting in the state, where roughly 50 percent of the Democratic electorate is black? Cleveland Sellers, who heads the department of African-American studies at the University of South Carolina, is an Obama supporter. He's also a veteran of the civil rights movement.

Shame on Newsweek for not presenting a neutral voice or an additional voice so both sides could be presented.

Update: Kucinich is out. Here's the opinion.

Bump and Update: The Nevada Supreme Court will hold oral argument (pdf) at 1:30 PT. Issues: State vs. federal jurisdiction and "the absence of state court jurisdiction to hear a claim for breach of contract."

Bump and Update: NBC says it will appeal.

****
NV. Judge Says No to Debate Without Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich scores a win in Nevada. A judge ruled today that the MSNBC Democratic debate tomorrow night cannot go forward unless Kucinich is allowed to participate.

Kucinich, whose position on issues most closely matches my own, is a necessary voice. He knows, as do we all, he can't win. But he gets people thinking. And that's a start to real change.

Congrats, Mr. Kucinich. I look forward to hearing your remarks tomorrow night.

Are voters sitting out the Michigan primary? The Detroit Free Press reports little or no wait time at an assortment of metro voting places.

Or, is it just that Detroit is a heavily Demcoratic city and with Edwards and Obama off the ballot due to the DNC stripping the state of delegate votes because they moved their primary up, they aren't bothering to vote?

I think the number of uncommitted votes will be large, in an effort to keep Obama and Edwards in play at the national convention in Denver, should things change and the party decide to seat the states' delegates.

Do we care what happens in the Republican race in Michigan? I've attached a poll below.

John Edwards' presidential nomination chances are very much alive in Nevada. The Reno Gazette poll, conducted by Research 2000, shows: Obama 32%, Clinton 30%, and Edwards 27%.

Most surprising was Edwards' standing, which jumped 15 points from the last RGJ poll in November. Edwards was second in Iowa and third in New Hampshire and has not campaigned in Nevada since those contests.

This is a very fluid race that could change in any candidate's direction between now and the Saturday caucuses.

But with 9 percent undecided and 12 percent of those who expressed a preference likely to change their minds before Saturday, the race could shift dramatically to any of the candidates.

"In a one- or two-point race, it could tip either way," pollster Del Ali said. "It's a volatile electorate out there, particularly in a primary or a caucus. Twelve percent could change their mind, that could mean all the difference in the world."

Blue Texan at Firedoglake wisely cautions us not to anoint anyone yet. I want John Edwards to stay in this race. His increasingly progressive voice benefits us all.

Thanks to CL, our man in Hollywood, for this terrific Nevada graphic. Every time you see it, it means we have a new post about the Nevada race.

Update [2008-1-15 9:28:58 by Big Tent Democrat]:

And the great Charlie Rangel, now is not the time for this nonsense. Kindly can it please.

As Jane Hamsher notes, the Media seems unlikely to take the candidates' graceful truce on the race issue as the final word. Jane excoriates Matt Bai's silly blog post but today in the Washington Post we see two columns trying to keep the fires burning. One is not surprising - Richard Cohen's playing of the Farrakhan card against Obama was as predictable as the sun rising imo. The second piece is surprising to me as it comes from the usually invaluable Eugene Robinson, who irresponsibly accuses the Clintons of playing the race card:

Obama surrogate Senator John Kerry launched a baseless attack on Senator Hillary Clinton. In an interview with Huff Po, Kerry launched an attack on Senator Clinton, claiming she was falsely attacking Senator Obama on his Iraq record, and then basically admitted his own attack was false:

. . . . Asked to respond to Clinton's contention that Obama has been more rhetoric than substance on Iraq -- speaking out against the war before entering the Senate, but voting for funding resolutions while in office -- Kerry said the attack was baseless. . . . "If you're criticisms and/or your attacks are not founded on accuracy, that's an unfortunate tactic under any circumstance, whatever you call it," said Kerry.

But not a moment later, Kerry admits the criticism is completely accurate:

When pressed to discuss how two presidential frontrunners differed on the war since Obama entered the Senate, Kerry did not cite a speech, policy, or vote. Indeed, he acknowledged their virtually identical voting records . . . "I think that he essentially -- in many ways as you go along the road, the votes we've had, they have paralleled each other on the votes," said Kerry. "But I think Barack has been very clear -- I mean they've both been clear that they are going to try and end the war in a way that is responsible. There is a great similarity in their articulation since then."

(Emphasis supplied.) Thanks for making Senator Clinton's point Senator Kerry. Too bad you prefaced it with a baseless attack on Senator Clinton.

Just when Hillary and Obama called a truce on the race issue, the New York Times brings it up again, in the context of the tension between Latino and Hispanics and African Americans.

Shorter version: The article plays to stereotypes and says Clinton has the edge because Latinos are strong on motherhood and identify with Clinton.

Mr. Obama, some party officials and scholars suggested, may face additional difficulty if Hispanic women respond to Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly strong appeal for support based on sex. A rally here Saturday was packed with Hispanic women who shrieked at seeing Mrs. Clinton.

“The Hispanic community is very family oriented, and we respect our mothers,” said Ruben Kihuen, an influential Democratic assemblyman from Las Vegas who supported Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of middle-aged women see her as a mother, a head of the household, and they can identify with this. Especially when they see her daughter, Chelsea, with her.”

On the other hand, it says, Obama, who has taken to joining the crowds' "Si se puede" chants at his campaign appearances, is doing okay.

Fanning the flames is Al Sharpton: [more...]

This is great news and I applaud Senator Obama for doing this:

ABC News' David Wright, Andy Fies, and Sunlen Miller Report: Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics. Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy. . . . "I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News. "That's something that has played out in the press. That's not my view."

I know many will question Obama's motives, saying the politics had started to run away from him, but I do not care. I am thrilled he has put an end to this from his camp's perspective. I heartily applaud him.

An Obama Nevada precinct captain (Taylor Marsh has a copy of the flier) is circulating a flier with the following language:

You can be a Democrat for one day. Vote for Obama and then return to your voting status as you chose [sic].

Everyone regardless of party is welcome to be a Democrat for one day and vote. Republicans, Independents, Everyone, you can make THE difference. If you think a Democrat will win in November and you don't want Hillary you can come to the Democratic Caucus and vote for Obama.

As I have said before, Obama is a fighter for Obama. He is not a fighter for the Democratic Party or Democratic values. This flyer is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Obama campaign. Be a Democrat FOR A DAY. For Obama. But not for the Democratic Party or for Democratic values.