Obama back to a lead in Gallup; must have had a real strong Saturday showing

First, some explanations and background.

Andrew Sullivan loathes Hillary Clinton as much as anyone here (he nearly drove me from his site until I realized he was on to something). He is also a major Obama supporter.

And yes, I realize he was awful post-9/11 and going into the Iraq war. He has changed and repented since them on most of this, and his moral outrage and leadership on the torture issue (he regards Bush, Cheney et al as war criminals) has been stellar.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

Daily Kos is like my second home, and my admiration for Markos is tremendous.

But he is human, and like all of us, makes mistakes.

One of them was last January, when a number of posters started diaries encouraging Michigan Dems to vote in the open GOP primary for Mitt Romney.

Brief note - TPM reports that today's 3 day tracking indicates a narrowing of the Obama lead to 49-45%.

This four point shift most likely indicates a combination of two better Clinton days Sun and Mon.

If this is anything more than statistical noise, it might indicate that once again Clinton gains whenever it looks like she is being pressured to concede - it may have to do with the reflexive female support for her as the first serious woman candidate, or at least some resentment at the idea of (mostly) men trying to order her to disappear.

In any event, as always, Obama just can't seem to shake her.

Via TPM, from Greg Sargent:

Edwards Didn't Endorse Anyone On Leno Tonight, NBC Flack Confirms
By Greg Sargent - March 20, 2008, 9:02PM
John Edwards just finished up taping his appearance on Jay Leno tonight -- it hasn't aired yet. The fact that he was appearing on the show prompted many to wonder whether he would use the appearance to endorse Hillary or Obama.

The answer: Nope. He didn't endorse either, according to Leno's publicist, Tracy St. Pierre, who emails me this:

No news...it was a catching up interview, but he didn't throw his support either way.
So no Edwards endorsement for now.

The early pre-candidate vote exit poll results are dribbling out. (They have only teased us with this for more than 90 minutes)

For what it's worth, in Mississippi today, only one breakdown given for the candidates:

17(?)-29: O 67, C 32
65+:      0 44, C 55

Anyone care to compare with previous primaries?

Other questions not relevant to vote totals, but it showed that close to 3/4s of Clinton supporters would not be happy with Obama as nominee.

My guess? Definitely less than a 20 point margin (Kos') guess) from these little indications.

Pardon me if this has been written about. And also upfront - I am as ardent an Obama supporter as anyone here.

Also because this was misunderstood, I am rewriting the beginning.

Irrespective of the campaigns official position, might Obama actually be best served by having no MI and FL do-overs, whereas HRC desperately needs them?

This might seem counterintuitive, but I think I see the beginnings of a strategy.

Continued below...

Just had a thought - with the pygmies running in the GOP race, and Giuliani likely toxic (the recent immigration sanity from him won't help), what are the chances that if there is still a divided field that the powers behind the scene propose Petraeus as the nominee?

Yes, there hasn't been a nominee of either party who hasn't faced the primary system since Humphrey in 1968, but delegates do pick the nominee, and assuming that no candidate has majority support (which of course is contrary to recent history), could this be in the back of the Bush/Cheney/Rove braintrust?

As most of you know, California has a fairly easy proposition process which overrides state law and anything the (overwhelmingly Democratic) Legislature can do.

The GOP, clearly led by Karl Rove, wants to fundamentally shift the balance of the national vote by putting an amendment on the ballot to divide California's electoral votes the same way that Nebraska and Maine do - two go to the state wide winner, the others go by CD.

The net effect of this, should it pass, would be to shift 20+ electoral votes to the GOP, enough to change the outcome of many elections to the GOP's favor.

MORE BELOWhttp://www.iht.com/...

I am not from Louisiana, but have a passing knowledge of its election law and local politics. It would be better for someone from there to greatly supplement what I am writing here.

If more details of Vitter's activities arise, and particularly if he is caught lying, it is possible (although unlikely with the tenuous Democratic majority) that Vitter might resign. (An additional reason for this being unlikely it that if other GOP officials are outed, it would be a bad precedent for them). If he does however, it would be at least a short term Democratic pickup possibility, and maybe even ultimately help the Dems add or keep two Senate seats.

More details and thoughts below....

Below the radar, the California State Assembly has hitched on to an intriguing idea.

http://www.latimes.com/...

In brief, they passed a bill and sent it to the Senate a reform to California's electoral vote procedure. If passed there and signed by the Governor, it would begin a process that would forever change the electoral college.

As we watch Dante's Inferno continue to unfold under our eyes. I try to understand what is going on with the administration. In my work and life, I always have found trying to figure out the other guys' motivations is invaluable.

As hard as it is to try to react rationally to these events, it is crucial to think one step ahead of this cabal, likely stage managed by Dick Cheney at every stage.

Why has all this happened? Possible reasons below the fold:

Kos and lesser blogs have been effective in creating and spreading the great phrase "101 Fighting Keyboarders" and then challenging the wingnut trolls and others who back Bush to put themselves on the line in the military.

This is getting traction, and puts what is involved in perspective and the other side on the defensive.

We should build on this - I have already started on other blogs throwing this back to the more erudite and/or annoying trolls.

Goes as follows:

Obviously the blue state/Canada reallignment speculation is mainly a fantasy and a way to dream. But my Canadian progressive friends are not amused, and react with eyerolls about how little liberal/progressive/Dem Americans know about their great country. They want none of this talk.

Canada is a very fragile confederation - its becoming a country in 1867 was specifically related to the end of our Civil War, and British fear that with its end an expansionist Union would next set its sights north. A transcontinental railroad to join the loose collection of towns together was finished. Ever since they have looked south warily, and kept ties to the UK in order to safeguard their independence. Its the main reason the Queen is still their head of state.

As part of visualizing victory, let's anticipate whose on-air reaction we most want to see tomorrow night.

I did one round of this & have revised based on many suggestions & the early voting.

This includes commentators/surrogates/activists - no GOP officeholders or anchors.

There are so many to choose from - whose shock and awe do you most want to see?

Just a break, continue acting like we are 10 points behind, but as part of visualizing victory:

Of the commentators/activists/surrogates out there, after the Kerry victory, whose sputtering do you most look forward to seeing?

I am excluding anchors who barely conceal their bias, and have only one politician (GOPers don't really qualify) and campaign spokesmen, but please feel free to suggest anyone else - I may revise this Tuesday night when we are all celebrating.

For me - Zell Miller gets my vote.

Back to GOTV! Sorry: MEANT ANN COULTER, not COURIC Poll below

Needing to think of something else for a few minutes than 11/2, and anticipating Clinton's return tomorrow, I want to throw out an idea.

If the Dems retake the House (yes, unlikely, but so was the GOP victory in 94), the Dems should elect Bill Clinton Speaker of the House.

You say, ridiculous, he needs to be a member. Well, no, he does not have to be - House rules state that members are free to select whomever theyt want.

Richard Holbrooke just delivered a major smackdown to the Fox anchor post Bush speech

She rambled on, he finally interrupted - are you going to just repeat Bush' speech or let me talk?

CNN now has Kerry's speech from the start - Fox & MSNBC missing a crucial part (re: Sanchez revelations today)

Fox started with speech (intros) then went to commercials All 3 now covering, but other two did not fill in on important beginning