From today's CNN Access interview with John Kerry:

WOODRUFF: Let me change the subject and ask you about Wisconsin. You won it this Tuesday. But some exit polls, Senator, showed that Senator Edwards was the one who did better with voters who identified themselves as independents and moderates. These are clearly the voters the Democratic nominee is going to have to win in November to have any hope of defeating George Bush.

KERRY: And that's exactly who I've won. No, that's exactly how I've won 15 out of 17 primaries and caucuses. I won the independents and Republicans in Tennessee. And in Virginia, in Ohio, in New Hampshire, in Missouri, I mean I'm very, very pleased with what we've done. And I will continue to appeal across the board.

First of all, Ohio?! They'd be surprised to know they already voted, I bet. Also, Edwards won the Republicans in Missouri and especially Virginia (45%-13%!), and won BOTH the crossover GOP and the independents in Tennessee, as you can see right here.  

Those were just outright lies. He's a liar, as Rev. Al would say:

SHARPTON: Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble. Because, absolutely, it was a lie. Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars.

HOLT: And reverend, you'll recognize, obviously, calling someone a liar is a very serious charge...

SHARPTON: I think he lied.

.

The most watched video at C-SPAN is Sen. Edwards on the Wisconsin Primary Results. You know, the one that had only just begun Tuesday night when it got stomped on by Kerry "coincidentally" starting his just a minute or two after, forcing cable networks to switch over to the droning.

Anyway, if you missed it, check it out. Apparently a lot of other people are.

Excellent article in The New Republic on why Edwards now has the upper hand, including this:

The other potential source of support is Dean voters, now that their candidate is dropping out. The exit polls show that former Dean supporters split about evenly between Kerry and Edwards, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the remaining Dean voters out there are the Kool-Aid drinking core. These people hate Kerry, and judging by the Dean blogs they see Edwards as an acceptable outsider to take up the Dean banner. Many seem ready to throw their support to the North Carolina senator. "John Edwards while in the same system, has not been a part of that system. ... I think if those exit polls hold true, the time may come for Dean and Dean's supporters to jump on the Edwards campaign before Super Tuesday," wrote one Deaniac Tuesday afternoon. Another posted, "Let's get behind Edwards. Kerry and Bush and their special interest[s] must be stopped. Edwards + Dean = Presidency."

...may be closer than they appear'

Did Kerry start his speech just in time to interfere with Edwards' speech? Well, there it is, in case you missed it.

The question now is, will Kerry accept a real, one-on-one debate with Edwards? Or instead be seen quite publicly as afraid to debate him?

That's a hell of a dilemma.

Former Gov. Dean is on record -- on video -- saying that he had ALREADY gone on the record that he believed Sen. Edwards would be a more formidable candidate in a general election than Sen. Kerry would be.

I think that's really about as strong an endorsement as you can make (and I'm sure that Edwards appreciates it, even if it was primarily intended to tear down Kerry). It also happens to be a fact, as the exit polling consistently shows.

That said, if Dean is considering backing Edwards at this point, I'm not sure that a formal, announced endorsement is the way to go. If Dean stays in for two more weeks, and if he has stashed away any money (and he seems to be able to keep raising it), he could run hard in those Super Tuesday states where Kerry looks strong, continue to get free media and still play hatchet man on Kerry -- more special interest money than any other senator. This would leave Edwards free to focus his resources on his best states and remain Johnny Sunshine.

If Dean would prefer Edwards over Kerry, and he's already said as much, I think that would be the best strategy.

This Associated Press article on Alexandra Polier denying an affair with John Kerry is linked at ABCNEWS.com's front page. I was buying it right up until this part:

In a separate statement, Polier's parents, Terry and Donna Polier of Malvern, Pa., dismissed the "completely false and unsubstantiated" allegations about their daughter.

"We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family," the statement said. "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

Yeah...

OK, somebody's trying a little too hard, now. It was pretty believable until we get to this "voting for him" bit, which is laughable considering some of the parents' earlier quotes regarding Mr. Kerry, which if I recall correctly included the use of the term "sleazeball."

Somebody got to these people.

Edwards hit it out of the park on Leno on Friday night.

Edwards on Leno

Given how few people have even heard him or seen him speak (according to polls), this will be their first impression of him.

Kerry to answer sex affair claim
By New York Correspondent PHILLIP COOREY
14feb04
FACING the first crisis of his campaign, Democratic presidential nomination front-runner John Kerry will today respond to allegations he had a two-year affair with a young woman who has since fled the country.

Branded a political dirty trick by the Democrats, the pro-Republican Drudge Report website yesterday accused Senator Kerry, 60, of having an affair that threatened "to turn the race for the presidency on its head".

At the centre of the allegations is Alex Polier, 24, who had worked as a New York-based reporter for Associated Press. She now is now in Kenya.

The ARG poll from Wisconsin shows four things quite clearly:

1. Kerry has an insurmountable lead, almost certainly based largely upon the widespread belief in his "electability"
2. Edwards continues to gain ground, as he appears to do in every state in which he actively competes
3. A large percentage of people don't know Edwards well enough to say whether they like him or not -- 11% have never even heard of him, and 44% of those who have say they don't know enough about him to form an opinion

So, the poll question: What percentage does Edwards need to reach to do "better than expected" in Wisconsin and make his case that voters still want -- and, of course, deserve -- to have a real choice in the Super Tuesday states on March 2?

Given that Edwards is winning the independent voters - the ones who will decide a general election in November - this information from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gives one pause:

Wisconsin has an open primary and high turnouts. In the state's last competitive Democratic presidential primary in 1992, exit polls showed that Democrats constituted only 53% of the voters, independents 40% and Republicans 7%.

In Tennessee and Virginia, 70% to 75% of those who turned out were Democrats, exit polls showed.

Wisconsin's primary electorate is unusually broad: Between 1968 and that last contested race in 1992, turnout in the Democratic presidential primary ranged from 18% to 28% of the state's voting age citizens.

That's far higher than any state that has voted this year except New Hampshire (23%). In Iowa it was 6%, in Arizona 6%, in New Mexico 8%, in Virginia 8%, in South Carolina 9%, in Missouri 13%. In Michigan, it was just 2%.

There's an argument to be made that Wisconsin offers Edwards an opening, if you believe an electorate less dominated by hard-core Democrats also will be less driven by the partisan desire to close ranks behind Kerry.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article

You told your supporters you needed their donations so you could compete in Wisconsin, because a loss there would put you out of the race. So they float you another million and change, and now that you realize you can't win there, you've changed your mind?!

This kind of contradiction is what Iowa voters (including me) sensed, before the "scream," and is the reason so many of us turned away. Saying one thing, often with great conviction, then coming back later to revise, rephrase, reverse positions. This does not build confidence in a candidate.

It is the same perception that cost Gore dearly in 2000. Most people, even if they disagree on the issue, will respect a candidate who takes a well-thought-out position and sticks to it, even if it becomes unpopular. But once you develop a critical gap in credibility, it is truly over, even if you don't know it yet.

A lot of people are under the false impression that this nomination process is over, apparently because there is clearly nowhere that Howard Dean is going to be able to beat John Kerry. But Kerry and Dean make up only half the field of serious contenders, and Kerry has yet to prove that he is as good a choice as the other two heavyweights in a part of the country that has proven critical to winning presidential elections: The South. If Kerry can't appeal to moderate Democrats in these states, is it realistic to believe that he can win the swing vote in key battleground states in November? That's why it's important not to rush to the finish line yet.

John Edwards and Wesley Clark have both demonstrated that they can defeat Kerry in primaries. Both beat him in Oklahoma -- despite splitting the Southern vote. Edwards also beat Kerry quite convincingly in South Carolina, despite the fact that Kerry announced his candidacy there (a state with many veterans), received endorsements from highly influential politicians (Fritz Hollings and James Clyburn) in the state and made a serious effort to knock Edwards out of the race by beating him there, a state Edwards had acknowledged he had to win. Edwards and Clark both beat Kerry just four days ago.

The Tennessee and Virginia primaries on Tuesday will be a golden opportunity for Kerry to knock out Clark and Edwards with convincing victories. Along with his momentum, the atmosphere of inevitability being portrayed by the mass media, and the fact that the Southerners will again be splitting the anti-Yankee vote, Kerry should win and win big. But what if he doesn't? What if Edwards or (though it appears less likely in the latest polls) Clark gives him all he can handle, perhaps beating him again? Should we just call the race, with only 14 out of 50 states (28%) having weighed in over a period of barely 3 weeks? After fighting this hard for this long, it doesn't sound to me like Edwards will accept a quick, split decision. If he survives Tuesday, I think he'll begin to make his case not only to Wisconsin but to California, Georgia, Texas, Ohio and the rest of the Super Tuesday voters that he provides a clear alternative to Kerry, and they still have a choice to make.