One of these things…

…is not like the other. McClatchy...

WASHINGTON — On health care, the war in Afghanistan, civil liberties and the economy, President Barack Obama is meeting growing resistance from the very group that propelled his election last year: liberal Democrats.

Public Policy Polling...

Our new poll suggests that liberal unhappiness with Barack Obama is still largely anecdotal and not very widespread. His approval rating with liberal Democrats is 95%, with only 3% disapproving of him.

And does anyone really believe there are enough liberal Democrats in America to propel anyone to victory? I wish there were, but if I got that wish we'd all be busy bitching about President Kucinich's inability to get single payer through the Senate, or impeaching President Edwards for being a cad, or wondering what the hell President Gravel was talking about.

My man John?

I am, of course, dismayed on several counts, but really, there's only one opinion that matters.

"The Democratic voters have made their choice…

...and so have I."

Me too.

Elizabeth Edwards…

…explains it all.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.

I keep hearing that Hillary's still in so that people in the remaining states have a choice, but millions of us were denied the chance to vote for our first choice without wrinkling her brow.

Heck we didn't even get a chance to vote for our first choice's husband.

Since you asked…

Jake Tapper...

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful," Obama said.

Do you buy it?

Since you asked, sure.

Of course, I'm hardly a public financing purist. I'm in favor of its most salutary effect, the dispersion of financial influence in politics, but thanks to new tools and technology, public financing is no longer the only, perhaps not the best, means to that end. Obama's success is an example, but only one. The Clinton campaign has raised more money, with more of it coming from small donors as she pushes on, than any Democrat in history, save Barack Obama. The Edwards campaign, too, raised millions in small donor donations. There's been a paradigm shift in political fundraising, one that might have been predictable to a degree when Obama made some earlier commitments to the principle of public financing, but hadn't been proven. Now, the proof is in the reports.

That "parallel public financing system" would be enhanced, I think, by the adoption of Taegan Goddard's suggestion...

For instance, Obama could easily turn a flip-flop story to his advantage by pledging to cap all campaign contributions at $250. Harnessing new voters, his popular brand and the Internet, he could promise to really build a people-based campaign. A million individuals could literally "max out" and feel like they have just as much influence as anyone else.

It's a notion reminiscent of Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign, when Brown adopted a self-imposed limit of $100, with an 800 number as the technological advance that made the campaign accessible to a flood of new contributors who would never have attended a fundraiser or a rally, who didn't appear on anyone's political mailing list. People who could sent $100, but the people who could only offer $20 or $50 felt more empowered as well, knowing that their contribution wasn't being dwarfed by the attendees at some $1000 a plate fat cat fundraiser, or by thousands from PACs and boardrooms. It's a notion whose time seems to have truly come. It's a challenge worth putting to McSame.

Yep, I buy it.

A reminder…

…from Katrina vanden Heuvel.

One in eight Americans -- approximately 37 million people -- now live below the federal poverty line of $19,971 for a family of four. (A woefully inadequate measure that is 42 years old and fails to account for basic necessities.)

Which reminds me of John Edwards. Remember John Edwards? Remember the candidates who were going to honor his commitment to the poor among us? Whatever happened to that?

So far…

…me too. Rebecca Traister at Salon…

On Super Tuesday, for the first time in my life, I will walk into the voting booth without knowing who to vote for. I blame John Edwards.

Of course, I get a few extra days and a ton of extra data between her decision and mine, so who knows.

But for now, yeah, me too.

Did'ya know?

Edwards had no speechwriter on his staff; he wrote his own words.

I didn't. Madeline Stow knows, though, that and more, and though her profile of Edwards is post-campaign, it's not really a post-mortem. Interesting reading for those who wonder what happened…and what might yet happen.

He's two years younger than I am, and I'm feeling pretty chipper.

Worth repeating.

Krugman...

...Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.

There's a point where some campaigns, faced with certain electoral failure, execute an 11th hour transition into a campaign not for nomination, but for the proverbial "soul of the Party." In Edwards' case, that was his starting point.

From his announcement in New Orleans' 9th Ward to the conclusion of his active campaign in the same spot, he put poverty on the political agenda this year, and with it the corresponding need for policies that fight poverty by expanding the middle class. He made including everyone the standard for health care policy by being there first. He put "labor union" back in the Democratic lexicon from the beginning with a campaign strategy that failed in no small part because of the loss some hoped for union support at critical junctures.

He reminded us who we are, as Democrats, and what we're supposed to be about.

Thanks again, John.

If he's trying to win me over…

…he's on the right track. Obama on Edwards...

"At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters."

Yes, he did.

A great thing, indeed.

Joe Trippi...

"Look, the guy led on every single issue out there, whether it was poverty, the economy, global warming, or universal health care. He moved the progressive agenda much further than any other candidate -- so much so that both Clinton and Obama adopted a lot of his language and agenda. Which is a great thing to have done."

Thanks, John.

The remaining contestants have a few days to convince me who's the best to turn that language into action. If my caucus convened today, I'd sign in uncommitted.

Open minded, though.

One reason not to vote for Edwards.

If He's not running.

Well, yeah...

...this breaking from Obama spokesman Bill Burton ... "Obama and Clinton tie for delegates in Florida. 0 for Obama, 0 for Clinton."

…but in fairness to my man John, it was a three-way tie.

I'd settle for #8.

David Mizner offers Ten Reasons To Vote For Edwards. OK, nine. Who's counting. Any one will do…

By Voting for Edwards, you…

Reward and advance progressivism.

Pull the race to the left.

Preserve the possibility of (an unlikely) victory.

Make Edwards kingmaker (or platform editor).

Reject the self-fulfilling nominating system driven by polls, pundits, and money.

Sign on to a movement

Increase the likelihood of a meaningful convention, which would be good for Democrats.

Piss off the establishment.

Do something good for your soul.

Come Up with Your Own Reason (I ran out of time but didn't want to change the title)

He elaborates here.

I want to believe…

…this too. Even more.

Suppose Clinton and Obama continue their scorched earth fight for delegates through the spring, with Edwards able to stay above the fray and run a more positive campaign. By the time delegates gather in Denver on August 25, both frontrunners' negative ratings would have been driven up considerably, and either would probably be able to expect an uphill general election race. In a modern version of Gore Vidal's "The Best Man," wherein the all-but-forgotten third candidate wins a party's nomination after the two frontrunners bludgeon each other into oblivion, the Democrats could take another look at the comparatively unsullied Edwards. Again, it's highly unlikely -- but in this election, no possibility can be entirely ruled out.

Just suppose.

Ya' think?

Anonymous Liberal weighs in on Bill Clinton and the Obama/Jackson comparison...

The goal has been to transport us back in time 20 years, to turn what had begun as an almost post-racial election into a replay of 1988...

"Post-racial"? Ya' think? I mean, I would hope, but I don't believe it. Does anyone, really? I mean, does anyone think we're going to elect a black man President of the United States without noticing that he's black?

There certainly seems to be an element of Obama's support for whom that may ring true. It's heartening to believe, and there's evidence to sustain the belief, that there is a politically aware and active generation who judge candidates from a post-racial perspective. That's been a goal of a lot of folks for a long time, and if I'm living to see it come to fruition, I count myself a very lucky man.

That's only part of America, though. There's still a lot of America where race matters. Just as he's racked up impressive percentages among young voters, Obama has as consistently registered his poorest performances among the oldest voters. Does anyone really believe that that has nothing to do with race? That his overwhelming support among African American voters in South Carolina had nothing to do with his race?

Barack Obama's race will be a benefit with some folks, a detriment for others. It will be meaningless to some, but not, I fear, most. I can't say it's meaningless to me. If he becomes our nominee, it will be a historic cause for celebration for reasons that, in my mind, certainly include his race. I concede that that disqualifies me for membership in the "post-racial" caucus. In Senator Clinton's case, there will be similar cause for celebration for reasons that would certainly include her gender. Gender still matters in America, too. Even, I admit, to me. It would, I believe, be a great thing to elect a woman to the White House, and perhaps a greater thing to elect an African American. (Best of all? Both of them serving us ably in a Senate busy implementing President Edwards' agenda.)

A word, too, about the backhanded treatment Jesse Jackson has received in this affair. Jesse Jackson never ran as 'the black candidate,' and considerable effort was put into the Rainbow Coalition brand to make exactly that point. Jackson took his platform far beyond the parochial concerns of the black community to build a coalition based on class consciousness and progressive concerns that created new coalitions in the Democratic Party and spawned a generation of consultants, candidates and activists who are making an impact to this day. Bill Clinton certainly remembers that at the 1992 convention, without a delegate on the floor, Jesse Jackson still held a constituency that earned him a place at the podium. I don't think Bill would intend any slight in referencing Jesse Jackson, who, whatever he may be today, was a major Democratic power broker during Bill Clinton's own political ascendancy.

Small blessings.

The home folks still love him...

Edwards won Oconee County on Saturday, handily defeating Hillary Clinton and primary winner Barack Obama, who finished third there. Edwards was born in the Oconee town of Seneca.

Since you asked...

Buckarooskidoo's got questions...

First, I wonder if it is true, as pundits suggest, that the Clintons have succeeded in defining Obama as the "African-American" candidate in the race and somehow marginalized him?

Since you asked, no. As it turns out, Barack Obama's been an African American candidate all along. The Clinton's had nothing to do with it. They weren't even the first to notice.

Second, maybe basic tribalism kicked in again here. I think you could say women were outraged in New Hampshire by the admittedly misogynist coverage of Hillary Clinton in the media after Iowa...Could it be that we've seen the same reaction among African-Americans re some of the punches the Clintons and their surrogates threw at Barack Obama?

Maybe. I'd say probably, except that it's more likely that those African American folks who noticed Barack was one of 'em are just naturally pretty, ahem, fired up about voting him. Same folks voted for Jesse. Attacks? I figure they figure that's bound to happen. Might make voting for him seem just a bit more righteous, though.

And if the latter interpretation is on the mark, can we now move beyond race and gender and get some serious discussion of where the two leading contenders stand on the key issues, namely the ones Tomcat reiterates all the time on politics plus--the ones that never seem to get asked in the lust for horserace gossip?

Umm, no. I don't suppose so.

Of course, the third candidate talks about 'em all the time.

I didn't make a prediction...

…for South Carolina, and now there's enough counted to consider it done. No surprises. Actually, if I had published a prediction here, I probably would have come closer than usual. My best wild guess was around a 50-30-20 split, Obama on top, Edwards trailing. Here's CNN's latest (96% reporting)...

Obama 55% 15 delegates
Clinton 27% 6 delegates
Edwards 18% 5 delegates

Actually, with one of the most heavily African American Democratic electorates in the country and women making up over 60% of the turnout as identity politics have taken center stage in the debate, five delegates for the white guy isn't really bad at all. Another shutout, especially in SC would have been crippling, but I think Edwards can take some encouragement from the result. Obama deserves congratulations for securing his base and running an effective field operation. Hillary takes a little momentum hit, I suppose, but I don't think she was counting on South Carolina to put her over the top.

Now it's gonna get real interesting...

More delegates apportioned with 99% reporting...

Obama 25
Clinton 12
Edwards 8

Nice haul for Obama, no doubt.

This week on DiGrassi Junior High...

Democrats Tear Into Bill Clinton for Going After Obama

Obama Surrogates Go After Bill Clinton

Obama on Economy Turns to Obama on Clinton

The grownups are assembling over here.