http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/3/15258/86136

At the very least the Obama folks were deceptive and close to outright lying when they strenuously denied having contact with the Canadian government. The AP article, of course, doesn't mention this obvious backtracking.

The fundamental assumption that Jeralyn rests her argument on is that somehow winning the Democratic primary against a Democratic opponent is any indication that that winner will do better in November than the loser would, against a Republican.

I dont see it.

And here is the key, at least for this poll.
It is a poll only of DEMOCRATS.

It says nothing about how independents will be voting. Clearly, Bill was able to win the SE, and only Bill won it amongst Dems, by appealing to independent voters, and maybe some Republicans. How else would you explain that the region went for the GOP every other time.

The key to winning Ohio, including the SE is to win independents. This poll says NOTHING about the relative strength of the two candidates on that point.

But, it looks like tomorrow's drudgery will focus on Hillary Clinton's response to an Rorschach test. To Josh Marhall's credit, he does not indicate whether it is an Obama Rorschach or a Clinton Rorschach, but the nature of the emails which provoked his post point to the likely debate.

Honestly, as an atheist, I cannot fathom the question. My thinking is that Democrats consider religious beliefs to be categorically personal. We  base many of our most cherished personal liberties on the idea that religious belief is deeply personal, from abortion rights to privacy.

Clinton responds in just this vein. There is nothing really that proves or disproves a person's religious beliefs besides their own statements and practices to that effect. Clinton responds exactly as a Democrat should:

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

Of course, that is not good enough in our current political world, driven by rightwing religious performances and Clinton Derangement Syndrome. A clear repudiation of "any reason to doubt that" is no longer sufficient for the MSM or the blogosphere.

Further pressed for knowledge about a subject that most Democrats accept as unknowable -- based solely in a person's spoken words -- and a subject that most Democrats would not bother to investigate or examine as germane to any civil political debate -- with factual or objective criteria -- Clinton says only what any Democrat can say, "As far as I know."

This of course will lead to endless hand-wringing among the Obama-intelligentsia who have no qualms with Barack's exploitation of MSM memes about Clinton's "claws," race-baiting, "periodically feeling down," multiple personalities, etc., etc. It is much more important that Hillary Clinton answer for the racism of the rightwing Republicans in a way that McCain does not have to.

As between Texas and Ohio, since Texas is unlikely to go Democratic in November and Ohio, given the right Democratic candidate very well may, I'd say Ohio is the much more important state to focus on Tuesday.

that your focus is on trying to predict nine months in advance which of Clinton or Obama would more likely beat McCain.

Not only is the logic flawed, but even if looking at Ohio would do a better job of predicting who -- as of today -- might win against McCain (which I don't believe, but will concede for this point), it's clear that as between Texas and Ohio, Texas is the much more important state to focus on Tuesday for purposes of predicting who will win the democratic nomination.

Houston - News - Barack Obama and Me

When asked about his legislative record, Obama rattles off several bills he sponsored as an Illinois lawmaker.

...

It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

...

in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor. Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's ­kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law -- including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics -- and he couldn't have done it without Jones.

The article is interesting for many reasons, if only to read about a very local paper that spawned both Seymour Hirsch and David Axelrod.