Update below: Chicago Tribune calls Missouri the "bellwether state that almost exactly mirrors the demographic, economic and political makeup of the nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Missouri has voted for for the winner in every election, but one, since 1904. In good news to Democrats, a female Democrat unseated an incumbant Republican Senator in 2006. Missouri is trending blue. This is always good for the Democratic Party.

Current breakdown....

January 26th poll Rasmussen Reports showed Edwards sitting in second place at 28%, Obama 24% and Clinton 43%. Interesting.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

John F. Kennedy was the great Democratic candidate in 1960 and ultimately president primarily because he lost his first bid for national office in the 1956 Democratic convention.

Obama-JFK: There are lots of similarities. This diary will adrress the similarities and Obama's swing state problems and electability in 2008.

The South Carolina Debate

The debate in South Carolina solidified John Edwards' position not only as the 'honest broker' between the three candidates, but as the honest broker of the Democratic party. How did John do this?

Easy.

He was honest, stuck to the issues, and wasn't personal. When he does argue, he's remains generous to his fellow Democrats.

As a result, no one candidate is surging faster in S. Carolina than Edwards. (See Zogby, JRE surge graph front page http://www.zogby.com/ )

Question were asked after the debate: "Why did John go after Obama, then Clinton... is this part of his new strategy?"

Approximate Answer on MSNBC: "No, John seems to attack whoever disagrees with him on the issues."

Ah....Isn't that REFRESHING!

Barack Obama Lied Tonight

Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps this is a 'teaching moment'.

Obama did not tell the truth about a KEY ISSUE, predatory lending, at a time when the economy is crashing due in large part to this very fact. This is unacceptable. Barack Obama challenges other candidates on their votes. I have actually heard them apologize. However, I haven't heard a lie like this in a while.. told with such a straight face.

For that reason, I'm coming down HARD on Barack Obama. You will scream 'hit'! But, if Obama just distanced himself, 'no comment', or apologized... no hit. He didn't distance himself or apologize, like he forces upon others. No. Instead, he lied straight. Unacceptable. I often write on banking and bank-influence issues. I know that Barack Obama does not come as advertised. I've known that for a while. I just never thought he'd be so completely disingenuous about the truth of his own actions.

Yesterday on NBC Nightly News:

**************************

Tim Russert, Williams, NBC shows the SC poll and the white/black split.

Polls show WHITE vote as:

Obama:   20%
Clinton: 39%
Edwards: 28%

Tim says, "Obama in third place amongst whites..."

A Race Assumption...

Tim says, "If John Edwards was not in this race, every indication would be, it would be very good news for Hillary Clinton, getting more white voters in her camp."

What!?

How can NBC-Tim assume 1) that 28% of Whites are making 'race' a driving concern and 2) that this 28%'s second choice would be driven by race, not issues or CHANGE (the natural assumption given WITH DATA)

Did NBC create an assumption OPPOSITE to the DATA...WITHOUT THEIR OWN DATA?

The NBC logic I hear: Whites switching from Edwards would make their second choice based on RACE, not CHANGE

All the prior data was 'change-based' and 'progressive or union-based', not 'race'. Did NBC flip this upside down without the data? If they did, then they just re-framed.

Obama, using his strong intellect, revealed something deeply interesting.
Let's all hold Obama to his own logic.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/...

If you listen to the interview, Obama is RIGHT. He didn't say the following... but the the logic behind what he says is thus,

THE LOGIC

"When the country was so sick of a blue state president, Carter, Reagan was able to tap into it by being 100% red-state. Reagan knew the electorate was so sick of a blue-state president and blue-state policies, they we're willing to go 100% red. Reagan didn't mince words. He ran on a 100% red-state message. When Reagan won with a 100% red state message, Reagan had a 100% red-state mandate. Reagan knew transformation was all about mandate. Reagan ran a clear red-issue campaign. He never reached out to blue. Reagan was able to bowl over any resistance in Congress because he had a clear 100% red-state mandate. When you have a 100% red-state mandate, no one is surprised by what you do. Reagan, therefore, was able to get all the changes he wanted. Reagan was for those reasons...transformational."

Obama's Pledge to the Military Complex:

Obama has made the boldest pledge (shocking to many) to increase standing ground troops by 92,000. This feeds against the Eisenhower 'standing army' argument. This is a core-issue of true progressives. Core issues are generally non-negotiable. In the absence of large enemies with large standing armies, this is a very disconcerting military pledge. First, 92,000 additional ground troops is an enormous increase and expense (to what end). This is a clear pander and triangulation directed to the military complex (donors), and the foreign policy right, think neoconservative. This is an enormous anti-progressive position at the heart and soul of progressive policy. How could this happen?

Question Presented and Answered:

1. Progressive voters become more neoconservative on their core-beliefs within the last two years or,

2. Progressive are trading their core-beliefs for the Obama-hype and the Obama-bargain with the right.

I'm breaking this implicit net roots rule and attacking Obama, not personally, but professionally, and also because he and his supporters need it. I believe Obama and his people are running a lightweight campaign far outside Democratic progressive-populist traditions, holding hands with the financial establishment - afraid to offend them, and completely unready for a general election.

Obama is the Brand of the Financial Establishment

Obama and Clinton are both moderate establishment-bankrolled candidates. But, Obama is definitely advertised differently than Clinton. The financial establishment is bankrolling Obama to avert retribution from a perfect storm brewing in our economy. Obama reached an bargain with the financial establishment. He created his brand based on this bargain. Implicit in the bargain is the agreement to drown-out populist voices by poaching the rare air and substantively not being a populist voice, yet appealing to populist leaning voters. It was the illusion of change and anti-Bush change sold instead of real economic change that fit the actual priorities of the Democratic Party. He reflects the viewpoints of his high-profile donors.

For the last six years, you've invested. Watching TV, writing, activating, you had long, invested anger with Bush policy. When you were mad, you might rant against the corrupt system, you were John Edwards. When you were reminded of the more competent 1990's, you were Hillary Clinton. Someone fresh suddenly grabbed your hopes for change, and you were Barack Obama. Obama is intoxicating. Hillary is our hard work and perhaps our trade-offs. Edwards is our inner Bobby Kennedy.

Crowds worry me, especially quick ones.

Do you want to be roundly attacked, deprived of money, marginalized by your own party, starved of media time, attacked by Alan Greenspan, and told you’re ‘too uppity’ and ‘confrontational’ while Rome burns?

Try being John Edwards for a day.

Today Chris Matthews Joins Ugly and Desperate Refrain against Edwards:

A John Edwards presidency would represent a greater populist movement. This scares people who have spent capital accumulating political power. The evidence of this fear continues to accumulate. We must pay close attention, because John Edward's enemies are telling you a great deal about him, substantively.

Lacking any real substantive attack on John Edwards, big media has decided to attack the Populist on new grounds; that he is occasionally tardy for speeches. This qualifies as a small background news story at the New York Times, but it qualifies as huge news shaped into a weapon at GE/NBC. Chris Matthews didn’t just ‘cover’ this small new item today, he turned it into his Waterloo. He introduced the ‘Edwards is Tardy’ story with an lengthy and well-written homage to the greatness of the Iowa voters, they wait in long lines to hear speeches, meet candidates, etc.. It sounded great as I watched it live.... Then, at the close of this homage, Matthews essentially said: ‘but there is ONE candidate that doesn’t respect these people: John Edwards’. I looked back at the screen in quiet disbelief. What did I just hear?

Karl Rove and the ubiquitous Wall Street capital interests created their latest Frankenstein, Mike Huckabee, unintentionally. Now, they want to destroy it. The GOP has committed rank usury of the social conservatives for decades. Instead of helping them destroy their creation, I propose we sit back and enjoy it a little first.  

Schadenfreude is a perfect (if not slightly sadistic) German word describing the pleasure one derives from someone else’s misfortune. Today, I admit my open schadenfreude regarding Mike Huckabee. However, everywhere I turn, it seems progressive news/blogs are assisting the GOP corporate attack aka Huckacide. Believe me, I understand this instinct. I indulged in it myself after reading a Huckabee article on Salon. But, this time, I’m learning to temper my knee-jerk reaction and enjoy this deeply ironic Rovian moment.

The real war emerges. The real war showed itself this Sunday the moment the first poll ever showed Edwards with a lead. Greenspan attacked on Edwards and Populism on national television (very unusual for Greenspan). The arrogance and pressures of international capital back at work in the United States starting with ABC pushing Alan Greenspan as rebuttal to Edwards Sunday morning on George Steph. This should not surprise, but for those that perhaps didn't notice, pay attention. The devil is certainly in the details in this case. Greenspan already promoted his book a month ago. What would call for such a prized appearance on ABC Sunday morning? Certainly it's not to speak on the month old mortgage crisis he caused with his failure to implement early regulatory measures after he was warned. He's been chatting the crisis up for weeks. George's first question to Alan was: "What do you think of Edwards economic plan?". Canned all the way. It was a bad moment for George and ABC. Call it an in-kind contribution to the other mainstream Federal Reserve approved candidates, because that is exactly what it was.