Patrick Ruffini:

For all the left has done to move bodies and build infrastructure, there’s one area in which they remain woefully lacking: message. Nowhere is this more apparent in their central charge against McCain: that he’s a Bush clone from top to bottom.

[...]

The problem is that it runs counter to some deeply ingrained perceptions about McCain, the most transparently un-Bush candidate Republicans could have nominated.

Uh, Pat?

[WOLF] BLITZER: When it comes to domestic economic issues, what is the major difference between President Bush’s policies, what he wants to do, and what John McCain would do if he were president?

[REPUBLICAN HOUSE WHIP ROY] BLUNT: Well, I think what John McCain wants to do is continue these pro-growth tax policies that our friends on the other side have been talking…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But that’s what President Bush wants to do too.

BLUNT: And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

[Emphasis Added]

Yeah, Pat, we’re the ones with the messaging problem. With geniuses like this at work, no wonder the GOP’s electoral chances are in the toilet.

Pollster shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, 40.2% to 51.4%.

But SurveyUSA shows Clinton’s lead shrinking from 19% to 12% in the span of three weeks. Rasmussen is even more ambitious, showing Clinton now leading Obama by just 5%.

There’s also this quote from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO):

“If I had to make a prediction right now, I’d say Barack Obama is going to be the next president. I will be stunned if he’s not the next president of the United States.”

And Rep. Cleaver is a Clinton supporter.

Also, there’s this:

Hillary Telling Local Media In Future Voting States That Obama Wants Race To End

Followed by:

Obama: Hillary “Can Run As Long As She Wants”

Oops. Seems like Clinton isn’t telling the truth.

The FISA debate is underway in the House of Representatives; you can watch it on CSPAN here.

The issue is whether or not to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the Bush administration spy on the American people without warrants, in violation of federal laws.

The current proceedings have been as follows:

1. The House passed an immunity-free bill, H.R. 3773
2. The Senate passed a bill with immunity in it, S. 2248
3. The Senate stripped out the text of H.R. 3773 and substituted in the text of S. 2248, then sent the amended H.R. 3773 back to the House
4. Conyers and Reyes have an amendment to H.R. 3773 (as amended by the Senate) that would strip out what the Senate put in (the text of S. 2248) and put in its place the new, immunity-free language.

The GOP is muddying the waters with their usual rhetoric and spin–they talk about patriotic companies doing their duty and keeping America safe by cooperating with the government’s orders.

Of course, ignore the fact that the government was breaking the law, and the telecomm companies went along with it. Ignore the fact that the domestic spying program hasn’t lead to a single terrorism-related conviction or arrest. And ignore the fact that these companies weren’t following the government and doing their duty–in fact, when the federal government didn’t pay their phone bills on time, the telecomm companies shut the wiretaps down.

The telecomm companies and the Bush administration broke the law, and now their enablers in Congress are resorting to tired fear-and-smear tactics to beat their critics into submission and to make themselves exempt from the law.

For centuries, our country has protected itself from threat after threat without stripping away our Constitutional rights. We protected ourselves from threats far greater than terrorism without stripping away everything that makes this country great. And in the end, accountability matters. Our rights matter. The law matters. And it’s time for the secrecy to end.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: They’re voting now on the Senate amendment. With 6:00 left in voting time, the yeas lead the nays 109-69.

UPDATE II: In another attempt to destroy oversight and prevent themselves from being held accountable, the Bush administration recently gutted the Intelligence Oversight Board, which was established in the wake of the Nixon administration to prevent the abuse of intelligence agencies and personnel.

On the House floor, with a minute left in voting, the yeas lead the nays 150 to 126.

UPDATE III: Voting just closed; the yeas lead the nays 161 to 139. The vote totals are still shifting.

UPDATE IV: Vote totals are still changing; right now, 196 yeas to 171 nays. Awaiting the final vote totals.

UPDATE V: Final vote totals: 213 yeas, 197 nays and 1 present. The motion denying retroactive immunity passes; a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

UPDATE VI: Here are the final vote totals on the bill. No Republicans voted yea, while a number of Democrats voted nay. The Democrats who didn’t vote in favor of the bill are below:

Polls close in about 10 minutes, at 8:00 PM EST.

The NRCC spent nearly a third of their total budget to hold this solidly-Republican seat.

Will their expenditure be worth it? Or will this turn into another MA-05: a big, fat, expensive loss for the GOP?

We’ll see soon enough…

UPDATE: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 8:42 PM EST:

Illinois - 6 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 1%

__________________________________________

UPDATE II: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 8:52 PM EST:

Illinois - 77 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 14%

___________________________________________________

The vote totals have nearly flip-flopped, with Foster now leading Oberweis by 12%.

UPDATE III: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:04 PM EST:

Illinois - 135 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 24%

_______________________________________________

UPDATE IV: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:07 PM EST:

Illinois - 198 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 35%

_________________________________________________

UPDATE V: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:17 PM EST:

Illinois - 235 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 41%

_____________________________________________

UPDATE VI: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:23 PM EST:

Illinois - 313 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 55%

_______________________________________________

UPDATE VII: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:30 PM EST:

Illinois - 365 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 64%

____________________________________________________

This isn’t looking good for three-time loser Jim Oberweis or the GOP; if they can’t hold onto this solidly-red seat, they’re going to have some serious problems in November.

UPDATE VIII: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:32 PM EST:

Illinois - 423 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 74%

____________________________________________________

UPDATE IX: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:37 PM EST:

Illinois - 447 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 79%

__________________________________________________

UPDATE X: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:41 PM EST:

Illinois - 500 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 88%

___________________________________________________

The gap between the candidates has remained constant for a while; it’s early still, but it looks like Democrat Bill Foster will win this election in this normally Republican district.

UPDATE XI: From Chicago’s Beacon News, 9:47 PM EST:

Illinois - 535 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 94%

______________________________________________________

The Associated Press is projecting that Bill Foster will win IL-14.

FINAL UPDATE: You gotta believe!

This was a hugely Republican district. Dennis Hastert represented IL-14 since 1987; George W. Bush won this seat in both 2000 and 2004; John McCain even took time out of his busy schedule to endorse–and campaign for–Jim Oberweis.

The NRCC was so worried that Foster would win that they spent $1.2 million on this race–nearly 1/3rd of their entire budget.

And yet, Bill Foster won with a solid 6% of the vote. This has turned into another MA-05 for the GOP: a big, expensive loss. Whoever made the decision to blow so much money on this race shouldn’t have a job to go back to on Monday.

Today is the special election in Illinois’ 14th Congressional district to replace disgraced Republican House Speaker House Dennis Hastert.

The Democratic candidate is Bill Foster, a physicist and business owner who volunteered on Patrick Murphy (D-PA)’s 2006 Congressional campaign.

The Republican candidate is Jim Oberweis, an investment banker and dairy magnate.  He ran unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination for Senate (2002, 2004) and Governor (2006).

Does Foster have a shot?  I’m not sure, but he’s competitive enough to scare the NRCC.  This is usually a safe Republican seat, yet the NRCC is so worried that they spent $1.2 million on this one election.  That expenditure makes up nearly one-third of the NRCC’s total budget; at the end of January, the NRCC had just $4.1 million in the bank.

In addition, the NRCC is so desperate that they broke election laws to find volunteers.  The NRCC sent an email to to GOP Congressional staff asking them to recruit interns to phonebank for Oberweis.  Though the legality of that is unclear, what happened next was blatantly illegal:

A staffer working for Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) apparently broke House rules Friday, forwarding a request that congressional staffers send interns to the Republican National Committee (RNC) to make campaign-related phone calls.

[...]

Matthew Lillibridge, a staff assistant in Chabot’s office, forwarded the e-mail to aides in other congressional offices, apparently violating House rules against using House resources for campaign purposes. Lillibridge used his House e-mail address, forwarding the e-mail to other addresses on the House e-mail server.

I’ll bring you the results as they come…

Bill Gillespie, who’s challenging Republican Jack Kingston in GA-01, has released a new video focusing on Kingston’s hypocricy; Kingston likes to criticize Democrats for not wearing American flag lapel pins, even though he doesn’t bother wearing one himself.

The lapel pin line is a stupid attack, a way to score cheap shots against Democrats; Kingston’s hypocricy underscores just how stupid of an attack it is.

Here’s the video from the Gillespie campaign:

Gillespie is an Iraq war veteran and a fighting Democrat, and he’s definitely worth our support. You can view his site here, and you can contribute to his campaign here.

Let’s hop to it.

The next Democratic contests are Wyoming on March 8th and Mississippi on the 11th. Neither state has much polling data coming out of there, but it’s assumed that–based on demographics–Obama will do well in both states.

The next major contest is Pennsylvania on April 22nd. Pollster shows Clinton leading Obama in the Keystone State, 48% to 36.2%. It’s worth noting that Obama is trailing by far less than he was in Ohio, and he has far more time to make up ground before PA than he did in OH.

Meanwhile SurveyUSA did their first national match-ups, featuring both Obama and Clinton going up against McCain. The results?

Clinton: 276 EV
McCain: 262 EV

Obama: 280 EV
McCain: 258 EV

Comparing Obama and Clinton,

States Obama Wins But Clinton Loses: Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, some votes from Nebraska (which isn’t winner-take-all), North Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

States Clinton Wins But Obama Loses: Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

More:

Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Clinton outperforms Obama in 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

I have to add the disclaimer that this is a composite of polls, and it represents the race as it stands now (not as it will stand in November). But this shows us something important–though Obama performs better than Clinton, both beat McCain. It’s why I’ll be more than happy to support the eventual Democratic nominee; no matter who it is, I’m sure they’ll win.

Both Clinton and Obama have been prolific fundraisers; in February, Obama raised a stunning $55 million, while Clinton pulled in a significant total of $35 million. In comparison, John McCain–who was basically crowned the GOP nominee early in the month–raised just $15 million. Again, no matter who our nominee is, they will definitely be equipped to go up against John McCain.

On the Michigan/Florida front, Michigan is planning to hold a new caucus on an unannounced date; it would have to be a caucus, since a primary would have to be taxpayer-funded and none of the state’s elected officials want to get hit for spending public money on a partisan primary.

More from Political Wire:

The New Republic reports that Michigan “plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.“

Said the source: “They want to play. They know how to do caucuses. That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary.”

“Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.”

On the Florida front, a plan by high-ranking FL politicians to hold a revote have hit a snag–DNC Chair Howard Dean doesn’t want to spend the party’s funds on a new contest. That makes sense when you consider that the Florida Democratic Party can raise unlimited soft money to fund a primary themselves.

Dean’s is a sensible position–a revote would cost millions, and the DNC needs all the money it has to finance Senatorial and Congressional candidates who need a boost. If the FL Democratic Party can come up with the money, then they should; they shouldn’t make the party pay for the consequences of their own decision.

In addition, the idea of a combined Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) ticket is being mentioned:

“Ultimately, whoever loses will have to lose with grace — and that may very well mean they should join the ticket in order to ensure the party is unified coming out of the convention.”

– Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, quoted by the Los Angeles Times, on the Democratic presidential race.

A combined ticket might offer the best of both worlds, but it might also be unworkable. The attacks launched from one candidate to another won’t go away, and at this point the rivalry between the two seems also personal.

In addition, the two candidates offer very different visions and very different campaign styles–Clinton’s is a disciplined, top-down style relying on key advisers and focusing on a handful of major states. Obama’s is a more lax, grassroots style relying on building a large movement and fulfilling a 50-state strategy. It’s hard to see how the two can mend their fences and run together.

For John McBush, today hasn’t brought him much good news. First Bob Dole, the 1996 Presidential candidate whose campaign McBush’s is reminiscent of, warns us about the Arizona Senator’s temper:

Former Sen. Bob Dole told CNN’s Larry King last night that John McCain “does have a…I guess you could say temper. But I always sort of rationalized that because the poor guy had been locked up” in a tiny cell for six years.

And McBush’s refusal to renounce the endorsement of anti-Catholic bigot John Hagee has made it’s way to Capitol Hill; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (herself a Catholic) criticized McBush’s acceptance of Hagee’s support:

“That behavior is outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy,” Pelosi said during a Thursday conference call. “I certainly think John McCain should reject his endorsement and I’m sure it won’t be long before he does.”

John McBush just can’t seem to get a break…

Today was a big day in politics, so let’s get down to it.

NUMBERS:

The latest Rassmussen poll shows Clinton and Obama virtually tied in Ohio–Clinton now has 47% to Obama’s 45%. In addition, Reuters/Zogby show Obama widening his lead over Clinton in Texas, now carrying 48% to her 42%. ARG shows Clinton leading in Ohio, 50% to 45%, but trailing in Texas, 51% to 44%.

It’s clear that Obama is closing the gap, and by every indication he seems to be leading in Texas and trailing by a relatively small margin in Ohio. With just 4 days left until VOTR Day, Clinton is going to have to start making up ground–and fast–lest she walk away the loser.

DOLLARS:

It’s the last day of February, and the campaigns are releasing their monthly fundraising statistics.

Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in February, a considerable haul nearly equal to what Obama raised in January.

Obama’s exact fundraising numbers are unknown–they haven’t been announced yet–but his campaign advisers have said that it will be “considerably more” than $35 million.

And John McCain trails both Democrats, picking up a pathetic $12 million in February. After his victory on February 5th, it was clear that he would be the Republican nominee–after that, the floodgates were supposed to open up and he was supposed to start raking in the cash. Instead, it looks like the deep pockets and big wallets in the GOP haven’t opened up to him yet–possibly because of his shaky support among conservatives or his numerous scandals. Still, if he can’t start tapping into bigger reserves of cash–and fast–he’s going to get buried by the Democratic nominee.

Of course, even raising money at this point might be a problem for McCain–until the FEC releases him from public financing, he’s still technically in the system, and that means he can only raise and spend $54 million until this summer. Since his last FEC report shows him with over $53 million, it’s imperative for McCain to release his February expenditures as soon as possible–if he violated the $54 million, McCain’s campaign could very well end up in court.

SPIN:

In the wake of their flagging poll numbers, the Clinton campaign has released some of the most ridiculous spin I’ve ever read:

Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist Mark Penn today released a memo to the media, though, with the subject, “Obama Must-Wins.”

“If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem,” Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be “decisive,” according to the memo.

“Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear,” Penn continues, “Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.”

Obama has more delegates. Obama has won more states. Obama has raised more money. Obama has the support of a majority of Democrats nationwide. But if he fails to win every single state on VOTR Day, then Clinton should be the nominee?

This doesn’t make any sense. It’s well known that if the Clinton camp doesn’t win at least Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her candidacy’s basically over–and, in fact, Clinton campaign surrogates like James Carville and Bill Clinton have already said as much. TX and OH are her campaign’s self-declared firewall, and have been for weeks. But now, when it’s likely that they’re going to fall short of their goal, they declare that Obama has to win every single state? What kind of sense does that make?

And as I wrote about earlier today, the Clinton camp is trying to muck up Texas by filing a lawsuit over the Lone Star State’s delegate selection rules. Glenn Smith at Burnt Orange Report–a great Texas-based blog–tells us why:

There is method to the Clinton campaign’s mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.

This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion, plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.

It is widely assumed that Obama’s organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually “reserved the right to challenge” Texas law and Democratic party procedures.

Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.

[...]

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.

The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.

If Clinton loses Texas, it’s going to be over for her. The classy thing to do would be to drop out, let Obama assume the mantle as the nominee and focus on salvaging her political career. If her campaign continues to rely on ridiculous spin and tries to solder on, despite falling short of goals they themselves set, then there’s going to be a huge outcry (as well as significant damage to Clinton’s overall political career). We will not have a brokered convention, and I certainly hope the Clinton camp won’t force us any further down that road than we need to go.

Today, Obama picked up the support of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller today; that makes an even dozen sitting Senators in the Obama camp, while Clinton has the support of 13 Senate colleagues.

And in response to the John Hagee flap–where John McCain accepted the support of radical, bigoted preacher John Hagee–McCain released this tepid statement:

“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

“I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”

In other words, McCain will be glad to take the support of Hagee and his extremist followers, as long as he also gets to distance himself from Hagee’s more radical statements. Too bad he can’t have it both ways–either he sides with Hagee and his bigotry, or he denounces him and rejects his support.

Finally, the Roadblock Republicans are hard at work blocking funds to help communities struggling with the mortgage crisis as well as an independent Congressional ethics panel. They’re going to need a lot of spin to explain these decisions away before November.

Let’s get to it.

In response to Texas’ convoluted primary system, the Clinton campaign is threatening to file a lawsuit challenging the delegate selection rules:

The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an “imminent” lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats’ effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained there were no plans to sue before the March 4 election.

“It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party,” Dunn said in the letter, obtained by the Star-Telegram. “Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.”

Democratic sources said representatives from each campaign had made it clear they are keeping all their options open but that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

This is just like the lawsuit filed by a pro-Clinton union to shut down some caucusing sites in Nevada, and it should be dismissed for the exact same reasons. The rules for the primaries and caucuses were set months ago; there has been plenty of time for people to challenge the process. The time for that isn’t less than a week before the election. Just like in Nevada, the time has passed; any lawsuits filed now would serve no other purpose than to disrupt the election. This is going to make the Clinton campaign look desperate, and that’s not what they need right now.

I don’t blame Clinton for being worried–according to Pollster, Obama has widened his lead in Texas and is now beating Clinton 47.8% to 44%. In addition, Obama is also catching up in Ohio and now trails Clinton by just 7.4%. It’s clear that Obama has major momentum as we head into the weekend; Clinton’s latest assault hasn’t stopped his momentum one bit, she’s just spinning her wheels. If Clinton can’t pull it off on Tuesday, the pressure on her to drop out will be enormous; everyone will treat Obama as the nominee, even if she keeps running.

I’m not ready to write Hillary 08’s eulogy yet, but some people already are–Harold Ickies, who helped Bill Clinton win re-election in 1996 and who helped Hillary Clinton get elected to the Senate in 2000, is laying the blame at the feet of Mark Penn:

Harold Ickes definitely doesn’t buy the argument that Mark Penn isn’t responsible for everything that has happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.

“Now, he has been circumscribed to some extent by Maggie Williams,” said Ickes, who then pointed out that that was only a recent development.

When asked about the assertion by one senior Clinton official the campaign was effectively run by committee, diluting Penn’s authority, Ickes was incredulous.

“I don’t know what campaign you’re talking about,” said Ickes. “I have been at meetings where he introduces himself as the campaign’s chief strategist. I’ve heard him call himself that many times, say, ‘I am the chief strategist.’”

Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, “Prefer it? He insists on it!”

When asked if Penn was therefore responsible for the campaign’s strategy, Ickes said, “It’s pretty plain for anyone to see that he has shaped the strategy of the campaign. He has called the shots.”

“Mark Penn,” he said, “has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it.”

Penn doesn’t know what he’s doing, and he’s largely repsonsible for driving the Clinton campiagn into the ground. He’s been responsible for their stilted, discordant and often off-putting messaging; he was also an advocate of going fully negative against Obama, which has brought the Clinton camp no success.

If Clinton loses on Tuesday, expect a lot of finger-pointing and buck-passing. There will be a lot of eulogies written, a lot of post-postmortems and analyses; I fully expect Penn to get much of the blame, and for good reason.

Bottom line: Obama’s hot, Clinton’s not; let’s move on to John McCain:

McCain recently announced that he was ‘very honored’ to receive the support of Pastor John Hagee. Who is John Hagee?

Demonstrating how wildly out of the American religious and political mainstream Hagee’s views are, McCain’s acceptance of Hagee’s endorsement was condemned today by conservative William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Calling Hagee a “bigot,” Donahue said the right-wing pastor has waged “an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church” by “calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’”

Hagee holds many other radical beliefs. In a 2006 address to CUFI, Hagee declared:

The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

Speaking to the 2007 AIPAC conference, Hagee compared supporters of a two-state solution in the Middle East to Nazis. Hagee also echoed right-wing Israeli politician Binyamin Netanyahu, telling the audience that “Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.”

Obama was called upon to repudiate the support of religious extremist Lous Farrakhan, despite the fact that Obama didn’t seek out his support, didn’t want his support, and was all too happy to reject and denounce Farrakhan.

So why isn’t the media calling on John McCain to repudiate Hagee’s support? Especially since McCain sought Hagee out, praised him and accepted his support? How can the media allow such a huge double standard to exist?

Oh, and there’s also a corruption angle to the McCain-Hagee relationship:

Hagee’s tv show, “John Hagee Today,” is also broadcast on Cornerstone Television. In 1999, McCain wrote to the FCC on behalf of campaign contributor Lowell “Bud” Paxson, urging a deal that would have made $17.5 million for Cornerstone.

Will McCain do the right thing and denounce Hagee? Or will he let intolerance, extremism and corruption come to define his campaign? And will the media do the right thing and demand McCain denounce Hagee? We’ll have to see.

In more McCain news, the House is opening up an investigation into Rick Renzi, a McCain campaign Arizona co-chairs who was recently slapped with a 35-count federal indictment:

The House ethics committee said Thursday it was beginning an investigation into the conduct of Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., who was indicted a week ago on conspiracy, extortion and other charges.

The panel said in a statement it had created a four-member subcommittee to determine whether Renzi violated any laws, rules or standards of conduct with respect to any of the matters for which he was indicted.

Renzi was one of McCain’s biggest supporters in AZ; this incident it speaks volumes about McCain’s poor judgment.

We’ll leave off today with a quote from John McCain himself, trying to outline his beliefs:

“I’m a proud, conservative, liberal Republi — Hello! Easy there.”

John McCain, in his own words–conservative, liberal, Republican. When, exactly, does the straight talk kick in?

UPDATE:Clinton has released a new ad; unfortunately, it’s the same kind of visceral fearmongering that we’ve come to expect from Republicans, not Democrats:

“It’s 3:00am and your children are asleep,” a voice over says in the ad. “There’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.”

“Whether someone knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” the ad concludes.

Obama responds:

Addressing a group of veterans at an American Legion post in Houston, Obama said: “We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.”

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos

Two days ago I wrote about the right wing’s latest attack on Barack Obama–basically, that he’s unpatriotic because he doesn’t wear an American flag lapel pin.

Some key excerpts:

Of course, anyone with $2 in their pocket can wear an American flag pin, regardless of what they believe. In fact, how many politicians have worn that pin while tearing down nearly everything this great country stands for?

Patriotism isn’t defined by what we wear–it’s defined by what we do. And through his actions, Barack Obama has shown us what true patriotism is

[...]

So, Barack Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin. But you know what? Neither does Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or John Boehner. Or Mitch McConnell. Or RNC Chair Mike Duncan. And neither did Newt Gingrich. Or Tom DeLay. Or Bill Frist. Or even Ronald Reagan, for that matter.

Well, today GOP Congressman Jack Kingston ressurected the smear:

On MSNBC’s Live With Dan Abrams last night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said it was okay to “question” Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) patriotism because he doesn’t regularly wear an American flag lapel pin. Kingston claimed that “everybody” in politics “wears them.”

Here comes the hypocricy:

Asked by Abrams if he was wearing one, Kingston had to admit he wasn’t

In fact, Jack Kingston has made a habit of not wearing his American flag lapel pin–he’s not wearing one here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. By Kingston’s own logic, then, I should be questioning his patriotism.

I won’t, though–it’s just plain stupid to judge someone’s patriotism on whether or not they wear a $2 flag lapel pin. This all just shows how desperate Republicans are to attack Obama–they don’t have legitimate criticism to throw at him, so they come up with this kind of gutter politics nonsense.

Of course, it’s backfiring because these guys keep getting caught with their pants down. Note to Republicans: if you’re going to criticize someone for not wearing a flag pin, you better make sure there aren’t a bunch of pictures out there of you not wearing yours. Because this hypocricy exposes you for what you are–desperate, shameless partisan hacks.

Just like Jack Kingston–the shame of Georgia.

UPDATE: Jack Kingston has an announced challenger in Democrat Bill Gillespie.

Here’s part of Bill’s compelling biography:

Bill Gillespie of Chatham County served 23 years in the U.S. Army, retiring this year as a Lt. Colonel. In 2003, he served in Iraq as Senior Logistician for the Third Infantry Division, earning a Bronze Star.

Other positions held in the military include Inspector General, West Point professor, Operations Director of the Army Ordinance Center and Chief of Leadership and Tactics at the Army Ordinance Center. Gillespie has traveled to six continents and been stationed overseas in Kuwait , Korea and Germany . His military awards include the Legion of Merit, Combat Action Badge, Douglas MacArthur Leadership Award, Master Instructor Award, and three NCAA Championships as coach of the West Point Orienteering Team.

Bill’s a Fighting Democrat, and reading about his life reminds me of another young Iraq veteran who was once an unknown political up-and-comer–Pennsylvania’s Patrick Murphy, who pulled off an unexpected victory against Mike Fitzpatrick in 2006.

Want to send Jack Kingston to the unemployment line? Then spare a few dollars for Bill Gillespie, and help trade a partisan hack for a true blue fighting Democrat.

Are there any Republicans in Congress who aren’t absolutely corrupt? I know the GOP has a culture of corruption, but now they’re resorting to blatant political extortion.  Think Progress reports:

In 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushed forward on her pledge to run the most ethical Congress in history and established the House Ethics Enforcement Task Force. She charged the group with setting up an Office of Congressional Ethics, an “independent ethics panel” composed of six “nonpartisan professional staff” members who were jointly appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader. Lawmakers and lobbyists would be barred from serving.

The House is expected to vote on the task force’s proposal on Thursday. Even though this committee will be independent and nonpartisan, the GOP is already resisting. In an attempt to dissuade Democrats from voting for the ethics office, senior House Republican aides are drawing up a hit list of 10 Democratic lawmakers who would be pursued with ethics investigations if the measure passes. National Journal reports (sub. req’d):

Senior House Republican aides are drawing up a list of Democrats to target if the House votes Thursday to create an independent panel to weigh ethics complaints against lawmakers.

In a move that one top Democratic lawmaker called “political extortion,” House GOP aides said Tuesday the names of more than 10 Democrats are likely to end up on the list and that investigations would be pursued against all of them.

It is not clear how much support House Republican leaders are giving to the staff effort, but several GOP leadership aides who were asked about the list said they were aware of it.

In other words, if the House investigates real corruption complaints against Republicans, then the Republicans will file a bunch of fake ethics complaints against Democrats, all in an effort to muddy the Congressional waters.

John Boehner and his Roadblock Republicans are clearly afraid–they’re so corrupt they know any attempt to investigate Congressional ethical lapses will result in more GOP indictments.

And their threat to extort Democrats is transparent partisan nonsense.  If the GOP knows of legitimate ethical problems among Democrats, they’d have filed complaints already.  They’ve got nothing–and they know it–so they’re resorting to this.

We Democrats won’t go back on our promise to establish the cleanest Congress in American history.  f the Republicans want to tie up Congress and waste taxpayer dollars to pursue bogus ethics complaints against Democrats, so be it–the American people want a clean Congress, and they won’t tolerate this type of shameful politicking.

Republican incompetence is putting us all in danger. From ABC, via AMERICAblog:

Thousands of foreign student pilots have been able to enroll and obtain pilot licenses from U.S. flight schools, despite tough laws passed in the wake of the 9/ll attacks, according to internal government documents obtained by ABC News.

“Some of the very same conditions that allowed the 9-11 tragedy to happen in the first place are still very much in existence today,” wrote one regional security official to his boss at the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration.

“Thousands of aliens, some of whom may very well pose a threat to this country, are taking flight lessons, being granted FAA certifications and are flying planes,” wrote the TSA official, Richard A. Horn, in 2005, complaining that the students did not have the proper visas.

[...]

“TSA’s enforcement is basically nonexistent,” said former FAA inspector Bill McNease, in an interview for ABC News’ “World News With Charles Gibson.”

[Emphasis Added]

This is unbelievable. Nearly six and a half years have passed since 9/11, yet the oversights and loopholes that allowed the hijackers to get into this country and attend flight school haven’t been fixed.

For most of the time since 9/11, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House–they had more than enough time to close these loopholes and make America more secure. Instead, they spent it playing politics and getting us stuck in Iraq, leaving gaping holes in our nation’s security unaddressed.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, one of our first priorities was making the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission law, which we did. Since then, we’ve been fighting to improve America’s security and to ensure that the provisions of the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007 are being implemented.

It’s clear which party has the safety of America at heart. If you want to keep your country and your family safe, then you should vote for Democrats–our record speaks for itself.

Today marks one week until VOTR Day, and there’s a lot going on.

Former Presidential candidate Chris Dodd–who garnered a lot of progressive goodwill by standing up during the FISA debate–has endorsed Barack Obama:

[W]hile both of our Party’s remaining candidates are extremely talented and would make excellent commanders-in-chief, I am throwing my support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision.

I’m deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama. He is ready to be President. And I am ready to support him - to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th President.

Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America’s families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us.

That is why I believe the time has come for Democrats to come together as a Party and focus on winning the general election. The stakes are too high not to.

Like John Kerry’s endorsement, Dodd’s brings a lot to the table–namely, a list of donors and their contact information.

Yesterday, a number of polls showed Obama leading in Texas; today, SurveyUSA continues that trend:

Barack Obama: 49 (45)
Hillary Clinton: 45 (50)

Pollster shows Obama leading in Texas for the first time; while Clinton still leads in Ohio, her margin of victory has been cut to 9%–down from 10% yesterday and nearly 12% over the weekend.

In response, Clinton is launching what is becoming known as her ‘kitchen sink’ offensive–basically, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Sen. Obama. Apparently, she’s taking the advice of adviser Mark Penn and going as negative as possible against Obama.

Frankly, I don’t think it’ll work. First, polls show Obama with the support of most Democrats nationwide. He has high favorability ratings, even among people who aren’t his Obama supporters. All of this makes it harder for negative attacks to stick, and more likely that they’ll backfire.

Second, by going negative Clinton plays into the hands of her critics–she makes herself appear desperate, calculating, and willing to say anything to win, all traits that turn voters off. What’s most damning is that her campaign hasn’t learned from their mistakes–they’ve gone negative before and it cost them dearly, but that doesn’t stop them from going negative again. New Hampshire should have taught Clinton that she can overcome a deficit in the polls by being personable, by acting down to Earth and showing off her softer, more sympathetic side. Why stick with a strategy that has already failed?

I think this is going to be the last hurrah for Hillary Clinton. Their throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks offensive is probably going to backlash–badly–and they’re probably going to lose on VOTR Day. Out of every option the Clinton camp had , they picked the worst one–one that will to sour the voters even more to Sen. Clinton. It’s a shame, and the frustration in her campaign is palpable.

On the Republican side, John McCain has gotten caught up in a catch-22 with the FEC. He wants to opt out of the public financing system, even though he’s benefited from it–he got $5.8 million, ballot access, and a personal loan to his campaign (he used public financing as collateral).

Unfortunately for him, McCain can’t tell the FEC he’s withdrawing–he has to ask, and the FEC has to approve. Right now, the FEC can’t do anything because–ironically–the Roadblock Republicans are holding up the confirmation process for more FEC members, denying them a quorum.

And while he McCain waits in limbo, his campaign is approaching a crisis–the public financing system limits his campaign expenditures to $54 million until his party’s convention this summer. The FEC shows that his campaign has $53 million putting McCain in a precarious position. Either he suspend his campaign until the convention/until the FEC makes a decision–neither of which would happen for several months–or he knowingly violates the legal spending limit, which could land his campaign in court even if the FEC eventually releases him from public financing.

In addition to his FEC problem, McCain also has a corruption problem. Rep. Rick Renzi was one of McCain’s Arizona co-chairs, and he just got slapped with a 35-count indictment. And even though Renzi–smartly–won’t run for re-election, he also won’t resign his seat until January, 2009:

Contrary to the desires of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) released a statement late Monday vowing not to resign his House seat. “I will not resign and take on the cloak of guilt because I am innocent,” Renzi said. He was indicted last week on 35 counts of extortion, money laundering and conspiracy relating to his efforts to get the federal government to buy land from his business partner.

Having a corrupt McCain ally stay in Congress and fight corruption charges doesn’t bode well for the GOP or the McCain campaign.

Finally, this video shows George W. Bush hitting McCain over his ties to lobbyists back in 2000–and when George Bush thinks you’re too corrupt to be President, that’s saying a lot.

UPDATE: Bill Clinton has this to say about Ohio:

“I’ve just been in Ohio — looks like she’s going to win Ohio,” he predicted. “She’s winning there. It looks good.”

Let’s not put the cart before the horse, here. A week ago, the polls in OH were showing Clinton with a double-digit lead over Obama. Now, they show her leading by only 6% or so; at the rate Obama is building momentum, there’s a good chance he’ll end up close to–if not ahead of–Hillary by March 4th.

And in response to Clinton’s flagging poll numbers, her campaign has come up with a new strategy–blaming the media.

I agree that the media hasn’t always been exactly fair to Hillary Clinton, but this is just a cop out. The Clinton campaign has lots of problems–poor messaging, overreliance on advisers, fundraising issues, lack of message discipline, no post-Super Tuesday plan, infighting, etc. All of these have been exacerbated by the media’s poor treatment of her, but they weren’t been caused by it–in fact, months ago Hillary was dominating the polls despite the media’s issues with her.

Even if the media played a large role in making Clinton unpopular, so what? This isn’t an argument that’s going to win votes–if the media hates Clinton now, then they’re going to keep hating her well into the general election, making it even harder for her to get elected.

Finally tonight, DNC Chair Howard Dean predicts that the nominee will most likely be chosen before the Democratic convention in Denver:

“It could,” Dean responded, “because I think you’re already seeing movement among the superdelegates, the unpledged delegates and there will be more pledged delegates assigned as we go through this next round of primaries.”

Dean ended with this prediction: “I think the odds are much better than 50-50 that the nominee will be decided before we ever get to Denver.”

Here’s today’s front-page, above-the-fold story on The Washington Times:

Military fears ‘unknown quantity’

Members of Washington’s military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.

Oh, really?

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.

Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

[Emphasis Added]

The Washington Times won’t let the facts get in the way of a good smear–despite the fact that Barack Obama is getting more donations from soldiers than anyone else running for President (including John McCain), they cherry-pick a few key quotes to come up with a completely bogus story.

Get ready for more smears like this as the election wears on.  The Obama campaign better be prepared for baseless, underhanded attacks like this.

Flip-flopping on his decision to retire, Arizona’s John Shaddegg will now run for re-election:

I’m sure this is welcome news for the cash-strapped NRCC, which now has one less open seat to defend.

In all likelihood, Shaddegg was asked back because the GOP was hard-pressed to find (and fund) a good candidate in this district.  It’s also likely that the Republican leadership struck a deal to keep Shaddegg in the House, promising him a  leadership position or a better committee assignment or something like that.

Still, I’m not counting this race out. Shaddegg’s flip-flop on retirement–which shows at least some level of disinterest in representing the people–could come back to haunt him, and we have a great challenger in attorney Bob Lord.

Keep your eye on this one.

On The Web: Bob Lord for Congress