Someone needs to make a YouTube of this.. please modify as necessary.

Clinton Supporter Robin Purnell Hourly Wage:  $14/hr

Groceries for the Iowa Caucus:  $95,000

Howard Wolfson's Monthly Salary:  $267,000

Mandy Grundwald's One Month Media Services Fee:  $2.3 Million

Mark Penn's One Month Polling Fee:  $4 Million



Lying about facing snipers when she was actually facing a 8 year old girl holding flowers?   Priceless

Objective:  Senator Hillary Clinton now leads 46-44% over Senator Barack Obama int the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows ongoing volatility in the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points (see recent daily results). While the national polls remain close, Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 78.1 contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68180;node_id = 7608 + "_" + 7058;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 21.9 contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68178;node_id = 7607 + "_" + 188;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); %.

Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close.

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

My Analysis
Based on my Levels of Evidence Rating System (Level I best rated polls like SUSA, Level II mildly well perfoorming polls like Zogby and the like, Level III Daily Tracking Polls), this is a Level III evidence poll.  Not the best, but better than speculation or opinion.

Here's where I lay out my level's of evidence:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obama-regains-lead-in-the-gall.php

Interestingly, whereas the Gallup polls were showing Clinton ahead most of last week, Rasmussen had Obama ahead, now for whatever reason, they reverse again.  Gallup has Obama ahead, while Rasmussen has Clinton ahead.

Whether or not this relates to the style of polling or time course of the polling, it seems that Rasmussen lags a little in terms of the reflection of the populace.  That may be good news to Obama folks.  The other explanation may be right as well, that there is no real bump to Obama's speech and Richardson's endorsement.  Time will tell.

Objective:  Obama now is ahead 48-45% in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)

My Analysis

It seems that Obama has weathered the harshest storm he has seen to date.  Not only did he stem the tide, the speech he gave and the Richardson endoresement likely puts him at an upswing as the week starts. 

While I hate to place any importance on polls, especially daily tracking polls, its all we got.  In medicine, we use Evidence Based Medicine.  Often our decisions are guided by rote learning, but when there is any studies published to guide our decision making, we refer to them.  The studies are graded Level I to Level III Evidence, with I being randomized, double blinded, controlled trials.  II being generally well done cohort retrospective of prospective randomized studies and III being published case studies or series without randomization.

Polls work the same way, I feel. 

Level I - large sample size, representative sample, well correlated to results in elections.

Level II - smaller sample size, represenstative sample, mildly correlated to results.

Level III - Daily tracking polls and the like.

To me, thsi is Level III evidence.  Its not somethign great, but its better than Pat Buchanan's opinion or any other person's opinion for that matter.

Taken as such, I think that Obama will gain greatly as more SD's come out for him and more endorsements come his way - not saying it will, but if it does.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but these days, I see the same pundits over and over and over again.  Many of them just write for papers, have a talk radio program, and analyze for TV.  Why do we listen to these people?

I'd like to hear from the historians - and how they view what's going on and give context.  Same thing with political scientists at academic institutions.  I guess I'm just tired of hearing the same pundits all the time who have really no formal training in it other than that they talk about it or write about it.  I'd rather hear what someone who studies this stuff and who can give us perspective has to say about it.

For example, does Obama's speech really hold up in comparison to other race speeches?  Or should we believe Tweety's hyperbole about it or the Right Wing's denunciation of it (excepting a few examples).  If it happens, how would a brokered convention hurt in comparison to other convention controversies in the past?

While I know that poli sci and history professors may not be the most TV friendly people, what's more important to me is their analysis of it.  It would be awesome to see some historians who are good at what they do on here at TPM.

Freedom is a funny thing.  Our concept of government is based upon it.  Our maturation into adults depends on our seeking it.  Our imagination derives from it.  We are Americans because we believe in it.  But it is increasingly clear, that freedom is becoming a tool - not an natural right.  

The Obama Passport problem brings up a host of numerous issues, but at its core, it deals with freedom, and the subtle shades of freedom's abuse.   In particular, we see its use as a political ploy, its violation by those in power, and its undermining by the excuse of vetting.

The Obama Passport controversy is starting to make its way across the internet and airwaves and it should be unsettling to most.  While we fret over its political implications, I'm more concerned with its underlying message.  While not obvious, it relates to the government's ability to monitor our private lives in ways we only think of, but don't really know exactly.  We trust that our government will protect something as valuable as our Passport (which carries with it our Social Security Number, our travels, our reasons for travel if a visa is needed) and that it will protect them from prying eyes.  But if anything, Obama's Passport problem is telling us we can't trust them.  It attacks the private nature of freedom.  Why we want to be free is to be away from forces telling us what to do, so we may do what we want.  On that level alone, its bad.  But on the level of a possible Presidential Nominee?  That is horrible. 

We are also seeing freedom abused as a political ploy.  At the heart of the 3AM ad, almost every Bush Fear Mongering speech, and the attacks on patriotism against Obama is the underlying message that if Obama is POTUS, our freedom will be compromised.  On so many levels, this can't be true - but because it threatens are very valuation of freedom, many Americans believe it.  But examination of the inalienable right of freedom reveals that it is not something that is that easily thrown away.  The foundation of our nation is built upon the resolute absoluteness of freedom.  It is not easily changed or taken away.  So the argument, that freedom is challenged by the nomination of one President is horrible on many levels, but philosophically is without merit.  But that's not what politicians will have you believe - they want us to internalize the thought that attacks by terrorists compromise our way of life.  It doesn't.  Freedom isn't that maleable, and using it for political gains in this manner should be an insult to any American.

The last abuse that I want to mention is how we excuse each candidate's freedom to associate and think as vetting.  As Americans, we love to say, "That's none of your business."  But conveniently, things not necessarily important to public service have come front and center, with claims that it speaks to the "character" and "judgement" of these public servants.  What we pass for vetting is really the stripping of the candidates' freedoms to satisfy our own argument.  Forget the excellent results that all the candidates' have (or they probably wouldn't have gotten this far), what we care about is only sensationalism.  In a way, we want to strip our President of his/her freedom before they get there to fully vet them.  It doesn't make sense - if they are to uphold everyone else's freedom, we should uphold theirs.  To this end, Senator Clinton's experiences during the Lewinsky problem is none of our business.  Senator Obama's pastor's words, really shouldn't matter to us.  Senator McCain's personal matters should not appeal to our civic duty.  They surely should have the freedom in these areas to be who they want.  Vetting them, then, is contrary to what we believe in.

I don't know what the political fallout of the Obama passport issue will be.  I actually do hope that no one accessed his records malignantly.  I really do hope that people have a higher mentality than that.  But at issue here is not necessarily the political implications, I think.  At issue, is the very nature of our citizenship being tested in the modern day roman coliseum of politics.  At issue, is our very freedom.

There is that often referenced quote from the movie The Untouchables:

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

The Republicans do it well.  Karl Rove, Fox News, Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio have learned how to coalesce behind their candidate and go after the Democrats, time and time again.  This loyalty and unity in fear-mongering is effective if not distasteful. 

This has happened time and time again.  Carter.  Dukakis.  Gore.  Kerry.  On and on.  Yet somehow, Democrats can't get their act together.  Instead of stubbornly refusing to let their mind games infiltrate Democratic planning - we openly welcome the doubts and innuendos they plant.  Instead of digging in and focusing our fire at them, we look at each other and say, "Maybe they got something figured out?"  Instead of fighting for one another, we act selfishly all the while dividing our party in two.

I've thought about it a lot and distilled it down to this.  There's three keys to Republican success.  (1)  Unity in offense.  (2)  Unity in defense.  (3) Divide and Conquer.  They implement it well - and we just sit bewildered by it.

Unity in Offense
This is fairly obvious.  From the Dukakis tank picture to the Kerry Swift Boat campaign to the now raging Obama Wright YouTube videos.  Almost all Republicans are forcing this down our throat.  Telling us that this is the only criteria for being a President.  From Fox News to Limbaugh Radio to Pat Buchanan to Joe Scarborough.  They toe the line with the same mantra - and its as forceful as "Yes We Can" if they all do it together.  The more they do it, the more their fellow Repulicans do it - and it seems to be working.

Unity in Defense
The McCain vs NY Times is the most obvious example of this.  How did McCain managed to wiggle out of this?  Everyone came to his side - all Republicans.  Just before this was out, they were splintered - with the Right questioning his conservatism.  After that, no one questioned him in his own party.  We can thank NY Times poor reporting for that one as well.

Divide and Conquer
This is them at their best.  Limbaugh urging voters to vote Hillary.  Baiting the white democratic members with race division.  This is much more subtle, but as we've seen - incredibly effective.  Its working.  And we just sit here.

What is incredible to me, is that the Democratic Party has not learned this.  They haven't figured it out.  They haven't even begun to attack this.  The best chance after the primaries started (I would argue that there was also a chance before this all began - when Clinton was the overall favorite - if she managed her campaign well and if the DNC leadership was bold enough to sit Obama down tell him that his time would come this would not have happened) was back in February (only 2 weeks ago) when Obama was way up and leading.  If he had won Texas and Ohio - this would have been a moot point.  But he didn't and here's how we've played into their hands.

Divided on Offense
There is none.  Period.  When Obama goes after McCain - Clinton discredits him by saying he's not capable of being CiC.  When Clinton goes after McCain, Obama says she's not experienced either.   And then we all just waste our energy on each other - forgetting the ultimate prize.  Its like your little brother coming up on you when you're arguing with you're dad and saying, "He wasn't at the library - he was at Nicole's house!"  Nice one - doesn't exactly help the cause.

Divided on Defense
The Obama/Wright fiasco is the most clear example of this.  When the Right Wing started its attack on Obama - who went out and supported him in the Democratic Elite?  In fact, I think McCain supported him more than any other Democratic politician publicly and on Fox.  No matter who you stand for, this attack by the Right should be an affront to any Democrat.  Clinton and her fans should have said, "We want to be the nominee, but what you're doing to a fellow Democrat is disgusting and we won't have it."  But of course, this didn't happen.  It goes both ways - Obama needs to better defend Clinton against McCain.  Defend.  Each.  Other.  Period.

Divide and Conquer
Instead of luring the moderate left leaning Republicans/Independents the Democratic way - they've been trying harder and harder to make McCain seem like not so bad of a guy.  Paint his ass red.  Make him Jerry Fallwell.  Make him Pat Robertson.  Find KKK quotes supporting him.  Everything you can do to make him seem like the most racist, evangelical, warmongering crazy this side of David Duke/Bush - will Divide their party.  Make them think again about voting for a crazy.

Ultimately, its sad what's happening.  As an Obama supporter, I am worried, depressed, and desolate about the whole Wright issue.  While I recognize his greatness, his intelligence, and the unique opportunity his candidacy affords our country to shine again, I fear most won't - they'll just see Rev Wright when they see him.  If this consumes the election like Swift Boats and Dukakis pictures of old - I fear that we may have another 4 years of BushCain.  Obama fans may not vote, being disillusioned if he is not the nominee.  Clinton fans might stay out of it as well, somehow agreeing with the Republican assessment of Obama.  This can't happen.  Repeat:  THIS CAN'T HAPPEN.  Our country's well being and soul may hurt for years to come after that.

In the end, who do I blame?  Republicans - thats too easy.  The MSM - well that's justified.  Democrats - yes I blame us the most.  We had an opportunity:  Hillary 08 (before Obama benefitted from inept Clinton campaign managing and inept DNC leadership) and Obama 08 (in February before the Wright fiasco and the 3AM ad) to unite and fight the Republicans in November. 

And who do we have to blame if we lose?  Ourselves.  Its that simple.  We have failed to help each other when attacked.  We have failed to attack the other together.  Instead of keeping internal dissonance internal - we've broadcast it, revealing our weaknesses to the opposition while they find creatively horrendous ways to manipulate it.

We've become the political version of the Lakers when they last had Kobe and Shaq together.  Each one of them superstars in their own right - each one of them would not back down.  They let their internal division spill out and over and it made them look silly when they needed to be perfect.  And now, whomever wins the nomination, they will lead a party weakened by strife, where the other nominee's supporters will leave with them.

Clintonistas, Obamabots (yes, I'm trying to unify by pointing out the retardness of our own labels) - our own dissonance may well be our downfall.  Watch that Untouchables scene again - repeat it.  Embrace it.  Lets stop focusing on each other - and fight the right fight, no matter who the DNC nominee is. 

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue"

The United Church of Christ, the parent organization to the Trinity United Church of Christ, released a press statement defending Rev. Wright.  Here's a quote:

"Trinity United Church of Christ is a great gift to our wider church family and to its own community in Chicago," says UCC General Minister and President John H. Thomas. "At a time when it is being subjected to caricature and attack in the media, it is critical that all of us express our gratitude and support to this remarkable congregation, to Jeremiah A. Wright for his leadership over 36 years, and to Pastor Otis Moss III, as he assumes leadership at Trinity."

Thomas says he has been saddened by news reports that "present such a caricature of a congregation that been such a great blessing."

"These attacks, many of them motivated by their own partisan agenda, cannot go unchallenged," Thomas emphasizes. "It's time for all of us to say 'No' to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends."

Link:
http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

And are these leaders of the UCC just a bunch of angry anti-white racists?  They don't look like it to me:
http://www.ucc.org/about-us/meet-our-officers.html

I'm spending entirely way too much time on TPM today.  But there seems to be some good articles out there that I've ran across, I thought might be interesting to TPM readers... well, most likely Obama supporters. 

To the point, Cilliza blogs about the Olbermann Special Comment on Clinton and Ferraro.  He describes the special comment and then provides a video link to it.  Some people have liked it, some think it was too forceful.  I myself, liked it.  But its interesting nonetheless to see if it will affect the campaigns either way.  I hope it tells both Obama and Clinton to tone it down a notch.

It also speaks to the rise of talk radio (Air America specifically) and people like Keith Olbermann who are countering the Coulter/Limbaugh/Savage type radio/tv programming that has rallied the Republican Right in the past.  I think it represents a direct response to the tepid comebacks of Democrats in the past elections.  For whatever reason, Democrats have not fought back hard enough, and these shows are starting to show that they will.

Anyways, Cilliza doesn't really pass much judgement on what Olbermann said, other than to say this:

But the tenor of his comments, coupled with the influence he wields among progressive activists, could well hurt Clinton's cammpaign as she seeks to make the case to the remaining states why she should be the nominee.

As Democrats learned in the 1990s, underestimate the power of Limbaugh at your own peril. Clinton's campaign would be wise to heed that lesson when it comes to Olbermann.

In a great post on HuffPo, Greg Mitchell does the research to find out what, if anything, Senator Clinton said about the Iraq War.  The answer?  Not much. 

Here's the link followed by the leading paragraph to this blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/as-war-neared-in-2003-_b_91747.html

Wherever you stand on the Obama/Clinton race, one thing nearly everyone agrees on is this: She voted for the war resolution in 2002, has not apologized for that vote since - but now says the resolution did not really authorize the war and calls the 2003 invasion a mistake. But what did she do in attempting to halt the war - which she felt she did not authorize -- in the two weeks before it began? Apparently, nothing.

I'm not sure if this will work or not.  But here's a youtube of John McCain essentially saying, "I do know Senator Obama, he does not share those views."  This is on Fox directly to Sean Hannity's face.

He goes on to say that there are a lot surrogates that say things on both campaigns that the candidates clearly don't agree with.  In fact, at one point he sighs as he seems annoyed that this is even an issue.

I have two thoughts on this.  One, McCain is trying the good cop/bad cop thing where the 527s will be the bad cop.  Two, he actually is annoyed that this is an issue - he himself has a problem with it as well.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQquSOnlxJ8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQquSOnlxJ8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

If that doesn't work, here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQquSOnlxJ8