Tonight’s Democratic debate in Cleveland gave viewers yet another glimpse of the man who is poised to become the most leftist Democratic presidential nominee, well, ever. Even one of Obama’s staunchest supporters is unnerved about the senator’s attempt to tiptoe around a call for a clear rebuke of Louis Farrakhan:

10.09 pm. Farrakhan. Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced him is not the same as simply saying, “I denounce him”? A weak response – reminiscent of Dukakis. (By the way, why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans that Farrakhan is a fascist hate-monger? It’s a question for all Americans.) Obama’s Farrakhan response suggests to me he is reluctant to attack a black demagogue. Maybe he wants to avoid a racial melee. But he has one. He needs to get real on this. Weak, weak, weak. Clinton sees an opening and pounces. She wins this round. He is forced to adjust. His worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I’m astounded he couldn’t be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan’s support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me.

I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he’d rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.

The Dukakis analogy is a good one, though Obama’s problem is a bit different, and more unsettling, than that of The Duke. Dukakis’ dilemma was that he was tone deaf when it came to the sensibilities of regular Americans. He could never understand why Americans found him a bit of an odd bird for showing no emotion when presented with a hypothetical during a presidential debate about the rape and murder of his wife. Sen. Obama is also disconnected from most Americans, but in the realm of values, not sensibilities. Obama’s gathering storm finds its source in the growing sentiment that there’s just something a little off about the senator and his wife when it comes to their attitudes and personal sentiments regarding all of the things that Americans hold near and dear. First there was Barack’s refusal to wear the American flag lapel pin. Then he declined to hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge. Then came Michelle’s bizarre commentary about her lack of pride in our nation. And now the senator has difficulty rebuking a vile hate-monger without prodding from his primary opponent. Any one of these incidents can be explained as a curiosity; taken together, they constitute a pattern. I’m not saying that the Obamas are somehow bad, evil, nefarious people who dislike children and puppies. But it does seem that their words and actions, in the aggregate, paint a picture of a couple that doesn’t view America and her history and her accomplishments and her people with the same reverence and pride as do most Americans. And considering that more and more evidence of this attitude keeps slipping out every few days, I’d say it’s going to be a long, tough road to November for the senator from Illinois.

Well, hey, I’m sure Sen. Obama will at least win Vermont in the fall.

It still looks to me as if Hillary has blunted Obama’s momentum. Rasmussen likewise shows a race that has not moved much (a 3-point Obama lead).

The state polls are showing some movement toward him, but not as radically as they have in the previous few weeks. And, there is a huge X-factor. Believe it or not, many of the pollsters in TX are not polling in Spanish. In a close race, that strikes me as a pretty big problem. I’m not going to call this for Clinton by any stretch, but remember California. And, to a lesser extent, Arizona.

Behold, mere mortals, the awesome power of our Great American Messiah.

LA Times/Bloomberg General Election

• John McCain 44%
• Barack Obama 42%

• John McCain 46%
• Hillary Clinton 40%

McCain leads Obama with independents 41-39, the economy 42-34, who the strongest leader would be 41-35, handling taxes 40-38, the right experience to be president 53-22, illegal immigration 40-29, handling the situation in Iraq 47-34, protecting the country from terrorism 58-21.

I had to miss the conference call this afternoon, but Jim Geraghty over at NRO has a great wrap-up:

The McCain camp held a conference call with Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker, Campaign Manager Rick Davis, and Trevor Potter, former FEC Chairman and John McCain 2008 General Counsel.

[By the way, how solid is the ground McCain is on when the guy making sure his FEC filings are on the up-and-up used to run the FEC?]

I joined in progress, and am fairly certain these comments were from Potter: “The bank was very clear on that yesterday, saying that they never recieved any collateral from us in the form of certificates from the matching funds program. It was clear that if any loan occurred, that no collateral in that form.”

“The law does not establish any requirement that the FEC vote to allow someone out… We don’t object to the commission voting, and they’re welcome to do that. But we don’t believe that it is required as a matter of law.”

Q: Would have McCain have been able to get the loan without the possibility of matching funds?

Potter: “It’s a hypothetical. We won’t know. It’s a question for what’s inside the banker’s brain, rather than inside our brain. We said, ‘we are likely to withdraw from the system… if we can financially withdraw from that system, we will. The bank knew that was a possibility.”

Rick Davis: “The way we read that wasn’t a commitment for collateral. They’re a bank, they’re not in the business of running campaigns. They wanted to know ‘what happens if.’”

Potter: “They had loaned us the money based on our projections of income and expenses. If we had put up the matching funds as collateral, we could have gotten a larger loan, probably twice the size.”

Rick Davis: “We’re not dealing with a vulnerability of law or ethics, we’re dealing with a political issue. That’s why I’m on this call – if was an issue of law, I would defer to Trevor. Obama started this attack, saying we were run by lobbyists. I would dare say that they have as many lobbyists on their campaign as we do. Then we had this hypocritical comment by Dean. We’re happy to debate ethical standards and commitment to reform all day long.”

Davis points out that McCain pushed for CFR after it had failed nine times. Once he was chair of the Indian Affairs Committee, he held hearings on Jack Abramoff. He went after Boeing on a procurement scandal in the defense budget.

“We hear a lot about change, but we see few people willing to spend their own political capital on actually changing things.”

Update: Matt Lewis also recaps the call-

McCain’s team made the point that McCain is essentially doing the same thing Howard Dean did in 2003, when he withdrew from the matching funds system. As you may recall, Dean decided to forgo the matching funds based on an online vote of his supporters. Davis scolded the media for buying the Democrat’s argument:

“I think you guys totally took the debate from Howard Dean and totally got sucked into a debate that he’d know something about …”

Potter argued the Supreme Court has concluded that public financing is voluntary, and as such, candidates have a constitutional right to withdraw from the program. Refuting Dean’s argument (that it was okay for him to opt out of the system because the FEC voted to allow him out of the system), Potter pointed out that the FEC could not possibly vote to allow McCain out of the financing — even if they wanted to — because there are four vacancies, thus denying them a quorum. (Guess who is blocking confirmation of one of the FEC appointees?)

Potter says that simply by sending the FEC Chairman a letter on February 6, saying that he wants out of the system, McCain was released.

Putting aside the legal argument that both McCain and Obama are making, I think it’s obvious to anyone paying attention that Howard Dean is attempting to pull off a dirty trick that would result in McCain not having a fair chance to compete.

The fact that Dean, himself, did the same thing makes it all the more hypocritical. And the fact that Dean argues that it was okay for him — because the FEC voted to allow him to opt out — while knowing the FEC cannot meet to vote to allow McCain out, should they want to — makes this look politically expedient, and too cute by half.

The Weekly Standard has the scoop:

I’ve heard from two different sources that Tom Ridge is at or near the top of the list to be VP.

This would not come entirely out of the blue, if it’s true. McCain mentions Ridge frequently on the trail, and tactically it makes a lot of sense. Ridge was an extremely popular governor in Pennsylvania, and was widely believe to have been on the short list for the VP job in 2000. Also, Ridge is a combat veteran, like McCain. It would set up a strong contrast with a Democratic ticket that may not boast a veteran let alone a war hero.

I still think Fred Thompson makes the most sense, and regular readers will know well of this blog’s fondness for Sarah Palin, but the rumor mill says Ridge.

Well, I could have told you that. In fact, I did.

Rasmussen Daily GOP Primary Tracker (2/26)

• John McCain 54%
• Mike Huckabee 30%
• Ron Paul 8%

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (2/26)

• Barack Obama 46%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (2/26)

• John McCain 47%
• Barack Obama 43%

• John McCain 47%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

Investor’s Business Daily details Obama’s history of receiving lobbyist contributions, ties to officials currently under indictment, and sweetheart land deals:

Barack Obama accuses John McCain of corruption as his partner in a Chicago real estate deal goes on trial. In both Illinois and Washington, D.C., Obama is no stranger to those trying to buy influence.

Campaigning in Ohio last Saturday, Obama accused presumptive GOP presidential nominee McCain of having lobbyists as top aides and said “many of them have been running their businesses on the campaign bus while they’ve been helping him.”

Obama’s charge against the man who co-authored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold because he thought there was too much money in politics comes on the heels of a flimsily concocted story on the front page of the New York Times suggesting without facts that McCain had an affair with an attractive female lobbyist for whom he did political favors.

Obama knows insurance lobbyists all too well. Back in 2003, Illinois lawmakers, including Obama, tried to expand health care coverage with the “Health Care Justice Act.” As Scott Helman of the Boston Globe reported last September, insurers and their lobbyists, fearing a government-run system, “found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking.” During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Helman notes, Obama acknowledged he had “worked diligently with the insurance industry.”

Meanwhile, Obama was willing to accept campaign contributions from insurers, including $1,000 to his state Senate campaign committee from the Professional Independent Insurance Agents PAC in June 2003 and $1,000 from the Illinois Insurance PAC in December of the same year. According to Helman, “Obama also collected money from the insurance industry and its lobbyists for his successful U.S. Senate campaign in 2004.”

The Washington Times reports that while Sen. Obama has said he won’t accept money from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), he has accepted “tens of thousands” from partners at Covington & Burling LLP, which was paid nearly a half-million dollars to lobby for PhRMA last year.

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that partners at Covington & Burling have given Obama $25,000 in contributions and $10,560 since October. Covington & Burling lawyer Eric Holder, a former top deputy in the Clinton Justice Department, gave $4,600.

Obama might claim they gave as private individuals, not as lobbyists or as representatives of lobbying firms. But that’s splitting hairs too fine. Partners at the Chicago law firm of Kirkland Ellis LLP gave Obama more than $70,000 in contributions last year. The firm represented a pharmaceutical company.

As Obama questions McCain’s ethics, the corruption trial of Tony Rezko began on Monday. When Hillary Clinton blasted Obama’s cozy relationship with Rezko in a recent debate, she wasn’t far off the mark.

Rezko and Obama go back at least to 1995, when Obama ran for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters was Rezko, who through two of his companies gave Obama $2,000. Obama won election in 1996 in a district that contained 11 of Rezko’s 30 low-income housing projects, the Chicago Sun Times reports. In 2003, when Obama said he would run for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a lavish fundraiser at his Wilmette, Ill., mansion.

They would do business yet again. In 2005, at a time Rezko was under federal investigation of influence peddling in the administration of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Sen. Obama and Rezko’s wife Rita bought adjacent pieces of property from a Chicago doctor.

The doctor sold one parcel to Obama for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price, while Rezko’s wife paid full price, $625.000, for the adjacent vacant lot. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko’s wife $104,500 for a 10-foot wide strip of her land, allegedly so he could have a bigger yard. But it rendered the Rezko parcel too small to build on, thereby increasing the value of Obama’s property.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. Obama has engaged in sweetheart land deals with contributors accused of influence peddling while accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from firms that peddle influence.

Somehow the New York Times doesn’t think all this is Page 1 material. But we bet John McCain will mention it really soon.

An agent of change? Obama seems more like a throwback to certain previous Democratic nominees to me.

David Brooks sets the record straight:

You wouldn’t know it to look at them, but political consultants are as faddish as anyone else. And the current vogueish advice among the backroom set is: Go after your opponent’s strengths. So in the first volley of what feels like the general election campaign, Barack Obama has attacked John McCain for being too close to lobbyists. His assault is part of this week’s Democratic chorus: McCain isn’t really the anti-special interest reformer he pretends to be. He’s more tainted than his reputation suggests.

Well, anything is worth trying, I suppose, but there is the little problem of his record. McCain has fought one battle after another against lobbyists and special interests. And while I don’t have space to describe all his tussles, or even the lesser ones like his fight with the agricultural lobby against sugar subsidies, I thought that, amidst all these charges, it might be worth noting some of the McCain highlights from the past dozen years.

In 1996, McCain was one of five senators, and the only Republican, to vote against the Telecommunications Act. He did it because he believed the act gave away too much to the telecommunications companies, and protected them from true competition. He noted that AT&T alone gave $780,000 to Republicans and $456,000 to Democrats in the year leading up to the vote.

In 1998, McCain championed anti-smoking legislation that faced furious opposition from the tobacco lobby. McCain guided the legislation through the Senate Commerce Committee on a 19-1 vote, but then the tobacco companies struck back. They hired 200 lobbyists and spent $40 million in advertising (three times as much as the Harry and Louise health care reform ads). Many of the ads attacked McCain by name, accusing him of becoming a big government liberal. After weeks of bitter debate, the bill died on the Senate floor.

In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa , he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway. A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. Unlike, say, Barack Obama, McCain still opposes ethanol subsidies.

In 2002, McCain capped his long push for campaign finance reform by passing the McCain-Feingold Act. People can argue about the effectiveness of the act, but one thing is beyond dispute. It was a direct assault on lobbyist power, and earned McCain undying enmity among many important parts of the Republican coalition, who felt their soft money influence was being diminished.

In 2003, the Senate nearly passed the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. The act was opposed by the usual mix of energy, auto and mining companies. But moderate environmental groups were thrilled that McCain-Lieberman was able to attract more than 40 votes in the Senate.

In 2004, McCain launched a frontal assault on the leasing contract the Pentagon had signed with Boeing for aerial refueling tankers. McCain’s investigation exposed billions of dollars of waste and layers of contracting irregularity.

In 2005, McCain led the Congressional investigation into the behavior of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The investigation was exceedingly unpleasant for Republicans, because it exposed shocking misbehavior by important conservative activists.

Over the past few years, McCain has stepped up his longstanding assault on earmarks. Every year, McCain goes to the Senate floor to ridicule the latest batch of earmarks, and every year his colleagues and the lobbyists fume. For years, McCain has proposed legislative remedies – greater transparency, a 60-vote supermajority requirement – that were brutally unpopular with many colleagues until, suddenly, now.

Over the course of his career, McCain has tried to do the impossible. He has challenged the winds of the money gale. He has sometimes failed and fallen short. And there have always been critics who cherry-pick his compromises, ignore his larger efforts and accuse him of being a hypocrite.

This is, of course, the gospel of the mediocre man: to ridicule somebody who tries something difficult on the grounds that the effort was not a total success. But any decent person who looks at the McCain record sees that while he has certainly faltered at times, he has also battled concentrated power more doggedly than any other legislator. If this is the record of a candidate with lobbyists on his campaign bus, then every candidate should have lobbyists on the bus.

And here’s the larger point: We’re going to have two extraordinary nominees for president this year. This could be one of the great general election campaigns in American history. The only thing that could ruin it is if the candidates become demagogues and hurl accusations at each other that are an insult to reality and common sense.

Maybe Obama can start this campaign over.

Here’s more on Howard Dean’s, frankly, sad attempt to smear Sen. McCain regarding a violation of campaign finance laws:

Lawyers for the bank that provided a crucial $4 million line of credit to John McCain‘s campaign late last year said Monday that the loan agreement was carefully drafted to give McCain the opportunity to withdraw from public financing during the primary elections.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, the outside counsel for Fidelity & Trust Bank said the loan terms specifically excluded from the collateral any potential share of public matching funds the Arizona senator was entitled to receive.

The letter, from lawyers Matthew S. Bergman and Scott E. Thomas to McCain lawyer Trevor Potter, supports McCain’s stance against claims that his withdrawal from public financing is in jeopardy.

The bank’s description of the loan came on the same day the Democratic Party filed a complaint against McCain, calling on campaign finance regulators to investigate whether the likely Republican presidential nominee can legally bypass public financing for the primary and the strict spending limits that come with it. The Federal Election Commission also has asked McCain to explain the loan terms.

Staying in the public financing system could be devastating for McCain because he would have to live within spending limits that he is already on the verge of surpassing.

The Federal Election Commission approved, or certified, McCain to receive up to $5.8 million in public matching funds. McCain did not collect any of the money. To withdraw once such funds have been certified, a candidate must not have received any of the money nor encumbered it as collateral for a loan.

”The bank does not now have, nor did it ever receive from (McCain’s campaign) committee, a security interest in any certification of matching funds,” Bergman and Thomas wrote. ”Any finding or determination to the contrary would be wholly inconsistent with the language of the loan documents, the intent and understanding of the parties and basic principles of banking, security and uniform commercial code law.”

The loan documents specifically state that the collateral did not include McCain’s right to such the public funds. But the agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank of Bethesda, Md., required him to reapply for matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests.

”It is our understanding that, to date, none of those events have occurred,” the bank lawyers wrote.

But FEC Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain last week, said the senator must show that he did not use the promise of future public funds to help secure the loan and asked McCain to explain three specific provisions in the loan agreement.

Mason also said McCain must receive approval from four members of the six-member commission before withdrawing from the system.

Such approval is doubtful in the short term because the commission has four vacancies and cannot convene a quorum.

The DNC’s complaint faces a similar obstacle.

Upon receiving a complaint, FEC staffers must notify the target and request a response. They then make a confidential recommendation to the commissioners whether to continue with a full investigation or whether to dismiss the complaint. Without a quorum, the FEC will be unable to make that determination.

The vacancies have not been filled because of a partisan dispute in the Senate. Many Democrats oppose nominee Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has proposed holding separate, simple majority votes on each nominee. Republicans want all FEC nominees voted on as a package.

McCain and his lawyer, Potter, a former FEC chairman, have argued that McCain is entitled to turn down the primary matching funds in the same manner that Democratic presidential candidates Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Howard Dean did in the 2004 primaries. Dean is now chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

McCain, campaigning in Ohio on Monday, said he hadn’t considered the financial implications of staying in the public financing system.

”I haven’t even contemplated it because we’re doing exactly what Howard Dean did in a previous election and what the FEC ruled in the case of Congressman Gephardt,” he said. ”They said they were going to take matching funds and then they withdrew.”

You read that right folks… Howard Dean is accusing Sen. McCain of an FEC violation for exact same action that he, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt took in the 2004 cycle.

Pathetic…

Is a Democratic civil war brewing? In Philly, the nomination contest is already pitting brother versus brother:

The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination continues to heat up — but in one Montgomery County, Pa. household, the debate turned violent.Prosecutors say that two brothers-in-law tried to settle the presidential race on the kitchen floor of a Collegeville, Pa. home.

Jose Ortiz, 28 (right), is now behind bars on felony assault charges after prosecutors say he stabbed Sean Shurelds inside a home in the 100 block of Honeylocust Court.

District attorney Risa Ferman says a heated debate over the candidates escalated into violence:

“One is a supporter of Barack Obama, the other is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and an argument of words turned bloody when one brother-in-law tried to choke the other and the victim then responded with a knife and stabbed his brother-in-law in the stomach.”

Shurelds was taken to the hospital in critical condition. Ortiz is jailed in lieu of $20,000 bail. Police found the knife in the dishwasher.

If Ortiz is convicted of the felony charge, he won’t be able to vote.

The “City of Brotherly Love” indeed…

How nasty is this thing going to get if Ms. Rodham wins Texas and Ohio?



Hat-tip: Election Night HQ.

USA Today/Gallup GOP Primary

• John McCain 61%
• Mike Huckabee 23%
• Ron Paul 4%

USA Today/Gallup Democratic Primary

• Barack Obama 51%
• Hillary Clinton 39%

USA Today/Gallup General Election

• John McCain 48%
• Barack Obama 47%

• John McCain 50%
• Hillary Clinton 46%

Jennifer Rubin has more over at Contentions.

Rasmussen Daily GOP Primary Tracker (2/25)

• John McCain 53%
• Mike Huckabee 30%
• Ron Paul 9%

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (2/25)

• Barack Obama 46% (44%)
• Hillary Clinton 41% (43%)

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (2/25)

• John McCain 47%
• Barack Obama 43%

• John McCain 47%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

Seriously, I can’t describe how good this analysis is. I mean that in the literal sense, of course, because it is so far down in the weeds that I couldn’t call BS on it if its conclusion was that Obama was going to carry Texas over McCain by 50 points. But it certainly is interesting.

Go ye and read of it if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of how the TX primary is likely to shake out.

But not Mitt…

Utahans may get the chance to vote for a Romney this November after all – Josh Romney, the son of former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, says he’s considering a run for Congress.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mitt Romney may end up on the ballot as a vice presidential candidate.

Josh Romney told the Deseret Morning News that after a year of campaigning across country for his father, he’s been approached to run as a Republican against 2nd Congressional District Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

“I haven’t ruled it out,” Josh Romney, 32, of Millcreek, said of becoming a candidate himself. “I’m pretty young, but I’ve had good experience on the campaign trail.” Plus, he said, he likely could count on his father’s supporters here in Utah.

Late last week, I noticed some trends in the Gallup tracking poll. Specifically, Barack Obama was no longer gaining on Hillary Clinton in tracking polls, and indeed seemed to be losing ground. I noted that the downturn in his poll numbers seemed to have coincided with the beginnings of Clinton’s attacks on him, and the increased media scrutiny he was drawing with his status as a frontrunner.

At the time, I cautioned that there simply wasn’t enough data to draw any conclusions one way or another. Some additional data points seem to indicate that, indeed, Obamamania reached a peak shortly before the WI primary. Whether it reached the peak is a question I can’t answer, but for now, it has become somewhat more likely that Clinton will eke out a narrow win in TX and a more substantial win in OH.

This is what the Gallup tracking data look like to date:

2/3: Clinton +4
2/4: Clinton +5
[Super Tuesday] 2/5: Clinton +13
2/6: Clinton +11
2/7: Clinton +7
2/8: Clinton +5
2/9: Clinton +5
2/10: Clinton +2
2/11: Clinton +1
[Potomac Primary] 2/12: TIE
2/13: Obama +1
2/14: Obama +2
2/15: Obama +7
2/16: Obama +5
2/17: Obama +7
2/18: Obama +1
[Wisconsin]: Obama +5
2/20: Clinton +1
2/21: [No Polling]
2/22: Obama +2
2/23: Obama +1

Having traded leads in the single-digit range now for four of the last five polling observations, it appears that Clinton has blunted the momentum Obama was gaining shortly before the WI primary, when he steadily rose in the polls. As I noted, this is consistent with the exit poll data from WI which showed that the bulk of Obama’s support came from people who had made up their mind 2-4 weeks before the voting began. Gallup has included a nice graph of these data, which I have stolen appropriated borrowed here:

Rasmussen is showing a similar phenomenon. Now understand, Rasmussen and Gallup sometimes seem like they are polling different races. On the Republican side, Rasmussen currently shows McCain with a 23-point lead over Huckabee. Gallup shows a 45-point lead. What matters isn’t so much the absolute numbers as the direction of the change, if any. Do they move in tandem? It is less clear from the Rasmussen numbers, but it still appears that Rasmussen has shown that Obama is no longer gaining on Hillary, and indeed may be slipping a bit. Over the same time period, the numbers look like this:

2/3: Clinton +11
2/4: Clinton +6
[Super Tuesday] 2/5: Clinton +7
2/6: Clinton +4
2/7: TIE
2/8: Clinton +4
2/9: Clinton +6
2/10: Clinton +8
2/11: Clinton +5
[Potomac Primary] 2/12: Clinton +2
2/13: Obama +5
2/14: Obama +12
2/15: Obama +8
2/16: Obama +4
2/17: Obama +3
2/18: Obama +4
[Wisconsin]: Obama +4
2/20: Obama +7
2/21: Obama +5
2/22: Obama +3
2/23: Obama +1

Significantly, both pollsters show movement at the same time: Clinton generates consistent leads pre-Super Tuesday, which turns to momentum for Obama shortly thereafter. Both show Obama taking the lead the day after the Potomac primary. And both show Obama hitting a high point of support of around 49% on around 2/14 (2/15 in Gallup), before slowly declining into the mid-40s.

Again, this roughly correlates with Clinton’s decision to go negative, the breaking of the so-called plagiarism story (which I personally find to be ridiculous — you don’t footnote a political speech, unless you are pulling a Biden and wholesale stealing a speech without permission), and continuing through a fairly rough week last week.

Which all goes to this point: State polls tend to lag federal polls in how quickly they come out. In OH, two polls: SUSA and ABC/WaPo, were conducted shortly after 2/14, when Obama was only beginning his decline. They show Obama at 43. Two polls have been conducted largely after the Obama decline began nationally, and they show him at 40. The most recent poll — the Q poll — was taken from 2/18-2/23, and I am very interested to see what the day-by-day breakdown was, although with 130 people taken each day, I’m not sure you could draw any helpful conclusions.

With TX, the situation is even more difficult to read. All the polls except for Rasmussen were taken in the pre-WI peak period.

At any rate, OH shows HRC with a roughly 10-point lead, while TX shows a much narrower lead. There are some indications, however, the HRC may have staunched the bleeding, and that her leads may hold. Obviously there are other questions: Will TX and OH — where the candidates are most active — follow the national trend? And this one: Is it too late? Has Obama gained an aura of inevitability that is causing the punditocracy to write Hillary off prematurely? Today on RCP I see articles from the Left and from the Right declaring Clinton’s campaign over. Conventional wisdom is like a battleship: It is difficult to alter its course, but once it has changed, it then difficult to change it back. Will a narrow HRC win in TX and a solid win in OH be enough to change it back? This may be the most important question of the campaign right now.

fn — Personally, I think that the importance of the pledged delegate count is overstated. If HRC win TX, OH, and PA, I really have a hard time seeing her not winning the nomination.

Mark Halperin has an fascinating list of 16 things that John McCain can do against Barack Obama in a general election, that Hillary Clinton couldn’t do against him in the primaries:

Nomination fights are tribal matters. There are certain lines candidates from the same party cannot cross when trying to win. In general election battles, there are fewer rules and constraints.

If Clinton is not able to come back and beat Obama, there will be a fair amount of (to borrow one of her phrases) coulda-shoulda-woulda on behalf of her campaign: things she could have done that she chose not to do -– or was not able to do.

The McCain campaign is staffed with savvy, experienced operatives who have closely watched the rise of Obama, and they have learned from Clinton’s failure to take down her Democratic rival.

Things McCain can do when running against Obama that Clinton has been unable to do well or at all:

1. Play the national security card without hesitation.

2. Talk about the Iraq War without apologies or perceived contradiction.

3. Go at Obama unambiguously from the right.

4. Encourage interest groups, bloggers, and right-leaning media to explore Obama’s past.

5. Make an issue of Obama’s acknowledged drug use.

6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.

7. Exploit Michelle Obama’s mistakes and address her controversial remarks with unrestricted censure.

8. Play dirty without alienating his party.

9. Dismiss Obama’s brief national tenure from his own lofty platform of decades in the Senate – there will be no ambiguity about who has more experience as conventionally defined.

10. Use his sterling war record to reinforce his image of patriotism and valor – and contrast it with his opponent’s.

11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.

12. Employ third party groups like the NRA to hit Obama on issues that might turn off general election voters. Perhaps an ad such as this will run in Ohio: “So, what do you really know about Barack Obama? Did you know he supports meeting with the head of terrorist states? Do you know he wants to get rid of your right to own a handgun? Do you know he is calling for the repeal of the law preventing gay marriage? Do you know he is for a trillion-dollar tax increase? What do you really know about Barack Obama?”

13. Face an electorate less consumed with “change change change” (the main priority for Democratic voters) and keenly interested in “ready from day one” as an equally important ideal.

14. Link biography (experience/courage) and leadership (straight talk) to a vision animated by detail – accentuating Obama’s relative lack of specificity.

15. Give Obama his first real race against a credible Republican. (Clinton has always asserted that Obama would wilt before a fierce Republican assault.)

16. Confront Obama with a united, focused campaign absent of second-guessing, which hits the same themes and message every day.

Could former Vice President Al Gore take advantage of a Democratic convention floor fight between two wounded candidates in order to steal the nod from Denver? According to John Derbyshire: YES HE CAN!

Some weeks before that I had told attendees at a private lecture the same thing. The organizers of that event had asked me to give a talk on the 2008 field of candidates, which was at that point very large. At the end of my talk, they said, I should offer my opinion as to who would actually be the next president. Preparing my talk, I mulled over the matter carefully. At the very end of the lecture, after 40 minutes of surveying the entire field, both parties, I said “Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States,” pressed the key (it was a PowerPoint presentation), and up on the screen came Al Gore. There was a chorus of boos and jeers – it was a conservative crowd. Derb: “Look, this is not my guy. I’m anti-Gore, and have a paper trail to prove it (see here, here, and here). But as an analyst, it’s my job dispassioantely to weigh the probabilities. I weighed them. This is what they told me.”

It’s still what they tell me. And if this has occurred to me, it has sure as heck occurred to the Democratic-party bosses, and those who influence them. Eleanor Clift, for example: “Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama …” Hey, it never looked preposterous to me, Eleanor … but then, I didn’t need to have several Hillary Clinton tattoos surgically removed before I could think straight.

“Plausible”? Try “inevitable.” It’s August in Denver. You have a convention hall full of party activists, nervous and weary from months of watching the party’s two candidates clawing and scratching at each other. Both those candidates are looking pretty tattered. Bill Clinton’s mistress has spilled the beans on O’Reilly, and Michelle Obama’s senior sociology thesis has come to light – the one where she let loose on the “ineradicable racism of white Americans” and called the U.S.A. “a nation founded in crime and hatred.” McCain is looking stronger than ever. The Turks are advancing on Kirkuk. Iran has lobbed a ballistic test missile far out over the Indian Ocean. The Chinese are mad as hell following the collapse of the summer Olympics the week before, as athletes refused to compete in gritty smog, and are making new threats against Taiwan. It’s a dangerous world out there, and community organizing and ed-biz wonkery are being marked down as presidential qualifications.

What to do? What to do? The party bosses are slumped in their seats, staring blankly into space, or doing job searches on their Blackberries. All is gloom and despondency.

Then … A fanfare of trumpets! A shaft of light! Into the hall rides a man on a white stallion! Stirred from their lethargy, the delegates begin rising from their seats. They start cheering and applauding. The rider reaches the podium, dismounts, and strides to the dais. The applause is deafening now. Cheers ring round the hall! Women are weeping; men are hugging each other.

Broad-shouldered and confident, his sternocleidomastoid muscle flexing and rippling, the Rescuer sweeps his powerful gaze around the hall. A hush falls. He begins to speak. As he speaks, the same though settles on every listener simultaneously: This is the one. He has always been the one. What fools we have been!

Don’t think it couldn’t happen. Don’t, in fact, think it isn’t going to happen. The Democratic party has two lame candidates, without a dime’s worth of executive experience between them. Competing on the campaign trail, by August each will have thoroughly alienated the other’s supporters, and turned off the voting public. Meanwhile, in the wings, there is this guy who was vice president for eight years, who ran a campaign for the presidency and actually won it! (well, according to party lore). He looks presidential, with a fine strapping physique and a big square jaw. You’re hankering after moral authority? How about a Nobel Peace Prize, for crying out loud!!

But … does he want it? Does Al Gore want to be the president of the United States?

Are you kidding me?

A fun scenario, though not a particularly plausible one. As of now, I would suspect that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee unless a deus ex machina halts his momentum. Obama will probably win Texas on March 4th and will only lose Ohio narrowly, while continuing to cut into Clinton’s superdelegate lead given that the senator from Illinois is starting to feel like a winner while Hillary seems desperate. Hillary’s campaign is starting to feel very much like that of another New Yorker who ran for president this year, Rudy Giuliani. Like Rudy, Hillary continues to postpone Judgment Day, assuring us that her comeback is always just around the next corner. But with every Rudy loss, his support began to evaporate in subsequent contests, as well as nationally, and that is exactly what is happening to Hillary right now. Whether she even manages to pull out a win in Pennsylvania in April is now suspect despite the fact that the demographics are all wrong for Barack Obama in the Keystone State, and the New York senator is currently being trounced by John McCain from coast to coast in general election matchups. Ironically, the race for 2008, which once appeared to be headed towards all New York, all the time status, may soon exist free of any Empire State candidates.

But Derb is correct that Gore may still have a political future, especially if Obama loses in the fall to John McCain. With Hillary relegated to Liberal Lioness status in the Senate, a la Ted Kennedy, and with Edwards completely discredited as a serious presidential contender, the race for 2012 on the Democratic side will feature the tired old retreads that Democratic voters continue to reject in election after election. As such, 2012 would offer a perfect opportunity for Gore to pull a Nixon and best Joe Biden and Chris Dodd for the nomination, especially if President McCain is less popular than anticipated or decides to serve only one term.

Let’s do a little compare and contrast. Today, Dean and the Democratic National Committee have filed an FEC complaint against John McCain on the grounds that McCain was somehow out of line when he opted out of the primary public funding system on Febraruary 6th, after having qualified but not recieved any of the money:

The Democratic National Committee will file a complaint Monday with the Federal Election Commission, alleging that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has illegally blown through spending limits imposed by the presidential public financing system.

“This is a classic example of someone who talks one way and does the other,” DNC Chairman Howard Dean said today. “Our purpose here is to get him to obey the law.”

The complaint is based on a dispute between McCain, who appears headed toward his party’s nomination for president, and the FEC, which notified him last week that it had not approved his request to withdraw from the public funding system.

And yet, if we go back to June of 2003, we see that Howard Dean himself actively sought FEC primary funds as well, when he was a Presidential contender:

In March 2003, Dean Committed To Public Financing, Promised To Attack Any Opponent Who Opted Out: “It Will Be A Huge Issue”

In March 2003, Dean Committed To Taking Matching Funds, Said He Would Attack Any Opponent Who Opted Out Of System: “It Will Be A Huge Issue … I Think Most Democrats Believe In Campaign Finance Reform.” “Howard Dean committed Friday to taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign … He promised to make it an issue in the Democratic primaries if any of his rivals decide to skip public financing, as President Bush did en route to winning the Republican nomination in 2000. ‘It will be a huge issue,’ Dean said. ‘I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.’” (Sharon Theimer, “At Least Five Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Lay Groundwork To Take Public Financing,” The Associated Press, 3/7/03)

And yet, surpris, surpise. Dean goes back on his pledge and opts out of the system a few months later:

In November 2003, Dean “Became The First Democrat To Opt Out Of The Presidential Public Financing System In 30 Years, Striking A Severe Blow To The Watergate-Era Program.” “Howard Dean on Saturday became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years, striking a severe blow to the Watergate-era program. Dr. Dean, who has raised $25 million to become the best-financed Democrat in the race, will rely on private contributors to fuel his campaign in the primaries, turning away almost $19 million in taxpayer financing and avoiding the spending limit of about $45 million that comes with it.” (Glen Justice, “Dean Rejects Public Financing In Primaries,” The New York Times, 11/9/03)

His fellow Democratic contenders didn’t seem particularly happy about it at the time:

· Lieberman Spokesman Craig Smith: “It’s a shame that Howard Dean has broken his word and abandoned his earlier pledge never to bypass the public financing system …” (Ronald Brownstein, “Dean Won’t Accept Public Financing,” Los Angeles Times, 11/9/03)

· John Edwards: “It sends exactly the wrong signal to voters in this country …” (Jim Drinkard and Jill Lawrence, “Dems Decry Dean Move,” USA Today, 11/10/03)

· Dick Gephardt: “You’ve got to … stay with what you believe in and think is right.” (Jim Drinkard and Jill Lawrence, “Dems Decry Dean Move,” USA Today, 11/10/03)

This is the official McCain campaign position on withdrawing from federal matching funds:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has repeatedly held that candidates who enter the Presidential Primary Matching Funds System have a right to withdraw, provided they do so before the United States Treasury pays them the funds and provided they do not use the matching fund certificates they hold as collateral for a loan. The campaign has been paid no funds by the United States Treasury and never used the certificates issued by the FEC as collateral for its bank loan. Previous candidates in this situation include Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, who entered and then withdrew from the primary funding system in the 2004 election, and Congressman Dick Gephardt, whose campaign obtained an advisory opinion from the FEC in 2003 stating they could withdraw from the system and then re-apply for re-entry. The right to withdraw from the system is a constitutional right, which prevents the FEC from blocking Senator McCain’s withdrawal without cause.

Senator McCain notified the FEC and the United States Treasury of his withdrawal from the system in a letter dated February 6th. The current dispute is simply over whether the FEC has to take any action in response to the withdrawal notice. It is clear to the campaign, as it is to a number of FEC experts, that no FEC action is necessary in response to Senator McCain’s notice of withdrawal given the constitutional nature of the right. In our view, the Senator’s letter is all that is legally required to exit from the system. FEC Chairman Mason, who does not represent the official view of the Commission due to the current lack of a quorum, has written a letter to the campaign in which he states his belief that the FEC must formally vote to accept the withdrawal. In either case the result is the same: the campaign will be out of the public funding system either because of the letter sent on February 6th, or because of a future vote by the Commission acknowledging the letter.

Nevertheless, the campaign is fully responding to Chairman Mason’s request for information and is confident that the new commissioners, when appointed and confirmed, will take whatever action they conclude is necessary to confirm Senator McCain’s withdrawal from the system as of February 6, 2008.

According to the AP:

Republican Party members in Puerto Rico awarded all 20 delegates at stake Sunday to Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has vowed to help resolve Washington’s complicated relationship with the U.S. Caribbean territory.

The at-large delegates each will cast one vote at the Republican National Convention this summer. Three “superdelegates,” who are not bound by Sunday’s results, also have pledged to back McCain, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

The delegates from Puerto Rico helped McCain move closer to clinching the GOP nomination, giving him a total of 996 delegates. His rival, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee trails McCain with 254 delegates.

It will take 1,191 delegates to secure the Republican nomination.

On Saturday, McCain picked up all nine delegates awarded by the GOP in American Samoa, as well as the nine GOP delegates from the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

In a letter to Luis Fortuno, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting congressional delegate and a superdelegate, McCain pledged to support a process that would enable Puerto Ricans to decide if they want to remain a commonwealth, become a state or an independent nation.

“The people of Puerto Rico deserve a process of self-determination and a congressionally defined referendum that gives them a fair and unambiguous choice among status options,” McCain wrote. “That is one of the many important things that we will accomplish together.

Rasmussen New Mexico General Election

• John McCain 44%
• Barack Obama 44%

• John McCain 50%
• Hillary Clinton 38%

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on February 17-18, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Wisconsin General Election

• Barack Obama 44%
• John McCain 43%

• John McCain 50%
• Hillary Clinton 38%

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on February 21, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. 

Rasmussen Daily GOP Primary Tracker (2/24)

• John McCain 54% (53%)
• Mike Huckabee 28% (29%)

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (2/24)

• Barack Obama 46% (44%)
• Hillary Clinton 41% (43%)

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (2/24)

• John McCain 46% (46%)
• Barack Obama 44% (43%)

• John McCain 48% (47%)
• Hillary Clinton 44% (44%)

Rasmussen Daily Favorable/Unfavorable Tracker (2/24)

•  John McCain 54%/43% Net = +11%
• Barack Obama 54%/44% Net = +10%
• Hillary Clinton 49%/50% Net = -1%

On a few occasions here I have tried to articulate reasons why Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is not the movement conservative to balance the ticket with Senator McCain. 

For the uninitiated, Jason Lewis is the premier conservative radio talk show host in Minnesota.  It’s very possible you have heard Lewis without knowing it — more often than not these days he is the guest host behind the golden EIB microphone when Rush Limbaugh is on vacation.  It would be a mistake to simply label Lewis a conservative bomb thrower.  In fact, he is the intellectual godfather on the conservative movement in Minnesota and his ability to articulate a defense of economic and political liberty is well-known. 

That’s why it is noteworthy that Jason Lewis, “Minnesota’s Mr. Right”, uses the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to tell national conservatives that Governor Pawlenty’s conservative creds are less than stellar:

Minnesota’s 47-year-old governor is now one of a handful of names being bandied about as a possible running mate for John McCain. But if the Arizona senator wants to unite conservative Republicans behind him, there are better choices.

First elected in 2002, Mr. Pawlenty got off to a good start by holding the line on taxes in the face of a $4.5 billion state deficit. That shortfall equaled 15% of the state’s $28 billion biennial budget, and the pressure on the governor to break his no-new-taxes pledge was unrelenting. Nonetheless, he showed resolve in dealing with Minnesota’s recalcitrant liberal elite.

But in 2005, signs of his “progressive” instincts emerged. In a quest for new revenue, Mr. Pawlenty supported a 75 cents per-pack cigarette tax. He called it a “health impact” fee. No one was fooled. User fees are generally charged to ensure that those who use a government service pay for the cost of providing that service. In this case, however, it was obvious that smokers were just being tapped to fund health-care entitlement programs.

On his nanny-state tendencies:

Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days – although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

In 2006, liberal Democrats (there is no other kind here) proposed a universal health-care behemoth to cover all residents. Mr. Pawlenty responded with a more limited proposal to expand the state’s child health-care program, Minnesota Care, to cover all children. More recently, the governor’s Health Care Transformation Task Force recommended imposing a mandate – à la Massachusetts – on residents to buy health insurance.

On Climatism (note the Governor comes dangerously close to applying the “global warming denier” epithet):

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. “It looks like we should have listened to President Carter,” he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. “He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real.”

On his inability to deliver Minnesota:

But it doesn’t mean that he’ll be able to deliver the state for Mr. McCain. In the run-up to Super Tuesday earlier this month, Mr. Pawlenty stumped hard for Mr. McCain only to watch as Republican voters delivered Minnesota overwhelmingly to Mitt Romney.

Lewis is correct.  Better choices are available.  That said, Pawlenty is a huge political talent and Senator McCain could also do worse.  It would simply be a mistake for national conservatives to dismiss the misgivings of those of us who have seen Mr. Pawlenty’s governing style first hand. 

Looks like the New York Times story has helped McCain in more ways than just financially. For the first time in the 3 weeks that Rasmussen has been conducting daily general election tracking polls, McCain is ahead of Obama nationally.

Rasmussen Daily GOP Primary Tracker (2/23)

• John McCain 53%
• Mike Huckabee 29%
• Ron Paul 9%

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (2/23)

• Barack Obama 44%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (2/23)

• John McCain 46%
• Barack Obama 43%

• John McCain 47%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

Rasmussen Core Favorability/Core Opposition (All Voters) (2/23)

• John McCain 34%/33% Net = +1%
• Barack Obama 34%/43% Net = -9%
• Hillary Clinton 32%/46% Net = -14%
• Mike Huckabee 22%/45% Net = -23%

Wow. I don’t ever think I’ve seen an editor of a major newspaper so systemically take apart a piece (in public)  by his very own newspaper. But that’s precisely what New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt does to Thursday’s Times hit piece on McCain:

BILL KELLER, the executive editor of The Times, said the article about John McCain that appeared in Thursday’s paper was about a man nearly felled by scandal who rebuilt himself as a fighter against corruption but is still “careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that’s a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States.”

But judging by the explosive reaction to the 3,000-word article, most readers saw it as something else altogether. They saw it as a story about illicit sex. And most were furious at The Times.

Marilyn Monaco of Philadelphia, one of more than 2,400 readers to comment on The Times’s Web site, said the newspaper “has sunk below its standards and created a salacious distraction from an otherwise substantive campaign. And for the record, I am an Obama supporter.” Terry Bledsoe of Sun Lakes, Ariz., said, “I am most disappointed in The New York Times for engaging in this sort of trash-the-candidate journalism.” A minority of readers applauded the article. “Bravo to The Times for integrity and guts,” said Rick Gore of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The uproar was over an assertion in the second paragraph that during McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, some of his top advisers became “convinced” he was having a “romantic” relationship with a female lobbyist and intervened to protect the candidate from himself. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, denied they had an affair, and at a press conference after the article was published, McCain denied that anyone ever confronted him about their relationship. He described her as a friend.

The article had repercussions for both McCain and The Times. He may benefit, at least in the short run, from a conservative backlash against the “liberal” New York Times. The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics – sex – it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.

In a follow-up article on Friday, the newspaper even seemed to play down its role in the sex angle. It described the previous day’s article as talking about McCain’s “ties” to Iseman and his “association” with her. The only mention of romance came in quoting a question to McCain at his press conference. …

Two former McCain associates, who were quoted anonymously and described as “disillusioned” with the senator, said he “acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.” John Weaver, a former top strategist for McCain, told The Times he had arranged a meeting at Union Station in Washington in which Iseman was asked to stay away from the senator. Weaver said the message of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was “taking on the special interests” and Iseman’s presence could undermine that.

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately – an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap.

It was not for want of trying. Four highly respected reporters in the Washington bureau worked for months on the story and were pressed repeatedly to get sources on the record and to find documentary evidence like e-mail. If McCain had been having an affair with a lobbyist seeking his help on public policy issues, and The Times had proved it, it would have been a story of unquestionable importance.

But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.” …

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

The Northern Mariana Islands held their caucus/convention earlier today and Sen. McCain was awarded all 9 delegates:

The first nine delegates to a national Republican convention from the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas say they’ll all be voting for Sen. John McCain, although they won’t be able to vote for him in November.

Some of the delegates elected at a party convention Saturday said they’re convinced the former Vietnam War prisoner can deliver better times for the far-flung U.S. territories in the Pacific.

The islands are one of three Pacific territories each sending nine delegates to the convention.

American Samoa will award their nine delegates at their caucus/convention later today. Guam’ will hold it’s caucus/convention (9 delegates at stake) on March 8th.

The Editorial Board of the Concord Monitor calls out the Times:

The New York Times…printed a story that forced Sen. John McCain to deny an extramarital affair with a Washington lobbyist. The paper provided no evidence of such a relationship and never should have published it.

The 3,000-word article, which carried the bylines of four Times reporters, relies almost entirely on unnamed sources within McCain’s first presidential campaign – people who may or may not have agendas of their own. The paper quotes unnamed staffers who, for reasons undisclosed, became convinced that the two were romantically involved.

McCain and Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman deny anything more than friendship existed, and the allegations have been denied by others on McCain’s staff at the time.

Iseman worked primarily for clients in the telecommunications industry. McCain, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, was in a position to influence matters favorably for Iseman’s clients. The Times produced little evidence that he did so. He both supported and opposed positions taken by the industry. He says he only interceded to urge a sluggish bureaucracy to come to a decision.

If McCain spent an unusual amount of time with Iseman, it was likely to raise suspicions of improper favoritism toward her and her clients – which is fair game for reporters. Publishing unsourced innueno alleging a romantic relationship was not.

The struggle The Times must have had in deciding to go to print comes through in the odd structure of the story. The allegation takes up virtually the entirety of the portion of the article that ran on the front page. That’s followed by a rehash of old events in McCain’s political life that raise questions about his ethics and judgment.

Finally, near the end of the story, John Weaver, a former campaign strategist and current informal McCain adviser, is quoted saying only that Iseman’s frequent public appearances with McCain, and possible boasting of her influence with the senator, were a political liability. Weaver, at least in print, made no claim that the relationship between the two had become sexually-charged.

The Times hurt its own reputation, not McCain’s, by publishing a piece that was clearly not fit to print.

Some of you may have seen the David Brooks article earlier today on an alleged rift within the McCain campaign between former chief campaign strategist John Weaver and current campaign manager Rick Davis. As someone who usually enjoys Brooks op-ed pieces, I was greatly dismayed that he not only seemed to insinuate that Weaver was leaker but that his piece was even more poorly sourced than the original New York Times story that sparked all this uproar. The entire piece seemed to rely on one or two unnamed sources and included really uncalled for personal attacks. Brooks didn’t even attempt to get a response quote from Weaver before running the article.

There are rumors circulating (including by Brooks and TNR’s Michael Crowley) that Weaver leaked the information to the Times because he was trying to exact some kind of revenge on McCain since he wasn’t part of the campaign anymore. Yet, that really doesn’t make any sense if you actually think about it. First according to what he told Chris Cillizza, the New York Times contacted Weaver late last fall and asked him about Vicki Iseman. The reporter already knew about his meeting with Iseman, so the only realistic options were to lie, say no comment, or tell the truth. The truth it turns out was that Weaver met with Iseman after hearing that she was bragging around DC that she had influence on the Senate Commerce Committee that McCain chaired at the time. Weaver told her to stop spreading the comments around and to not be involved in the campaign at all. McCain did not know that Weaver had met or said anything to Iseman. So, this is what he told the Times reporter. Afterwards, he immediately forwarded what he had said to the McCain campaign. I should also mention that Weaver was the guy who helped broker Romney’s endorsement of McCain last week. Not bad for a guy who was supposedly working behind the scenes to sabotage the entire campaign.

Most importantly though, David Kirkpatrick (one of the reporters for the piece) answered a lot of the readers questions regarding the article and unintentionally exonerated Weaver as one of the leakers. He writes:

As far as the timing, don’t attach too much significance to the Drudge posting. We heard a second-hand report from a lobbyist about Senator McCain and Vicki Iseman more than a year ago. Early last year we began making careful, quiet inquiries into the matter. Last fall, we learned more about some of the conversations around the campaign concerning Ms. Iseman, and we kept reporting.

That is one of the most significant paragraphs of this entire saga. I know that “more than a year ago” is ancient history in politics, but let’s step into our time machine and take a trip back. A year ago, McCain was the Republican frontrunner and Weaver was the the chief strategist. That continued until the infamous summer meltdown when Weaver left (although he remained in contact with the campaign up until the present). So, what does that mean exactly? It means that Weaver would have had to leak the information from within the campaign itself. Given that he’s the biggest McCain loyalist on the planet and worked tirelessly after 2000 to set up everything so that a McCain would be well positioned for a 2008 run, why in the world would he leak something like this? Not to mention that the Times first got a second-hand tip from a lobbyist and began probing around shortly afterwards. I agree with Marc Ambinder who speculates that “at least one of ["the original and confirming sources"] was a prominent lobbyist who was part of the team in 2000 and had some reason to disfavor McCain.”

Looks like yesterday’s McCain campaign email on the Times story has paid off:

John McCain raised more money from yesterday’s Times-bashing e-mail pitch than he has from any other e-mail solicitation, according to a source familiar with the fundraising effort.

In a missive authored by campaign manager Rick Davis, the McCain camp used the Times story to portray themselves as a victim of the “liberal media.”

The source declined to say exactly how much they raised.

UPDATE: The McCain campaign tells CNN that they have raised “nearly $2 million” in the past 24 hours since the email was sent out.