This little bit of gold could not be more buried in an otherwise excellent WaPo piece for tomorrow entitled "Obama Shifts the Foreign Policy Debate". But two shockers from the piece:

1. Mullen -- the same Joint Chiefs Mullen who made news on Sunday for telling Fox that a timeline is "dangerous" -- told PBS today that he agrees with Obama that Afghanistan is a major problem and the only way to get more troops there is to take them from Iraq.

and

2. He said that he has strict priorities from the Commander-in-Chief to focus on Iraq first and foremost. Afghanistan is second.

Passage from WaPo:

Well, the first big post-unity poll is coming out tonight from NBC/WSJ and by all teasers, Obama is going to be ahead. The question is by how much. Just for kicks, I thought I'd start a prediction thread.

While my sincere wish is 15 pts, I'll be ecstatic with anything in the double digits. This poll is going to set the CW, at least for a few days, and will hopefully put a little scare into the Republicans.

My guess: 51-42, good guys ahead. That's a 9 point spread. Anyone else want to play?

Here's some info from WSJ:

I saw this link at Ben's place, and I LOVE the letter -- and the list of people who signed it. I found it interesting that Joe Conason signed on as well. Just goes to show, the ABC debate was a disgrace to anyone who cares about how the media conducts itself in the political process.

We, the undersigned, deplore the conduct of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

Looks like a poll coming out tonight from NYT/CBS is going to be positive for Obama. He is 10 pts. above Clinton in favorability.

This poll has tended to be a bit better for Obama (just like in the general elections, it tends to be a bit better for Dems), but I'll take it. Especially since this will be tomorrow's news.

Voters’ opinions of the top three presidential candidates have shifted significantly over the past two months, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Currently Senator Barack Obama is viewed more favorably than both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain among all registered voters. Forty-five percent of voters said they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama, while about 35 percent have a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent said the same of Mr. McCain.

Frank Rich has another brutal column for the Clinton campaign to face. He takes the campaign apart piece by piece, and the lead is a comparison with Bush's Iraq strategy. Bush didn't have a Plan B strategy and neither did Clinton. It's the type of thing we've talked about here for awhile, but it's the first time I recall seeing a columnist put it in print.

But he doesn't stop there. He hits her on Mark Penn (calls him her "Rumsfeld"):

And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance.

Chet Edwards (and one of those Super-Duper Dems!) went with Obama today, which is fantastic. I don't know anything about him, and since he is from what Charlie Cook called the "reddest district in the nation," I'm guessing he has many positions I don't agree with. Still, love the endorsement.  

Waco’s Edwards endorses Obama

By Nathan Wade | Monday, February 18, 2008, 12:31 PM

U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, today endorsed Barack Obama’s bid for the White House, saying the U.S. senator from Illinois would work across party lines to unite the country.

Edwards, who represents Texas’ 17th Congressional District, which includes the ranch home of President George W. Bush, released the following statement with his endorsement announcement:

Is anyone else as amazed at the media silence around the Shuster/Clinton debacle as I am? Talk about circling the wagons. The complete and utter lack of coverage by any of the major networks or by MSNBC and CNN just makes me loathe the media even more. How many news cycles did we see on the Snub-that-Wasn't? How many cycles did we endure on one candidate or another saying "Wasted Lives," or Hillary's tears? Far too many.

There is no triviality too small for today's 24/7 media to cover ad nauseum and yet:

1. A major reporter on a cable network (tied to the vaunted NBC) said something indefensible about a candidate's daughter

2. That reporter has been suspended "indefinitely"

3. The Hillary campaign has distributed to all reporters a blistering letter to NBC about it

...and yet it's not worthy of even a MENTION by the networks or CNN? I don't watch FNC, but a friend who does told me they have been talking about it. Well, good for them. This is not a story that should be covered up just because it's happening to one of their own.

More...

I was completely supportive of Team Clinton's outrage yesterday and thought the suspension was justified, but Clinton sent a letter to NBC saying that his suspension is not sufficient. It's implied that she wants him fired -- though she may only be asking them to change the way they do business over there (see below). I'm not going to post her letter here, but if you want to read it, it's at TPM Election Central.

Firing Shuster for this is WAY OVER THE TOP. And it's really quite something for the Clintons to say they will not accept the apology of another person. Really. Quite. Something.

I'm going to send a note to NBC encouraging them not to fire a very good reporter who said something wrong. Whatever HRC's motives, he's a good man and a good reporter and does not deserve to have his career ruined over this.

The email I'm sending to is letters@msnbc.com, if you want to help Shuster out as well. Please be polite.

Team Hillary is back to lying in mailers and robocalls. Apparently there are more lies about Obama's 100% pro-choice positions in CT and now a robocall in AZ, the co-retirement capital of the U.S.,  she's lying about his social security position pretending Obama will raise the retirement age or even privatize social security.

People can complain all they want about Obama's health care mailer talking about Hillary mandating health care -- and whether or not the kitchen-table couple was a dog whistle to remind people about 1993 -- but at least they weren't lying in the piece. Hillary's position IS to mandate health insurance.

I am so very tired of the Clinton's lies.

AZ Robocall Hits Obama On Social Security

Per NJ Contributing Editor Linda Douglass, this call is reportedly going out to Arizona voters:

Let the naysayers begin to say Nay.

Apparently she is going to join Michelle at a rally in L.A. on Sunday. Superbowl counter-programming anyone?

On Sunday, Oprah Winfrey is returning to the presidential campaign trail to headline a California event for Senator Barack Obama. The Obama campaign has yet to announce details, but people familiar with the event say the television talk show magnate will join Michelle Obama at a campaign rally in the Los Angeles area.

The goal? Closing the gap with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in California before Tuesday’s primary. The target? Women voters.

Like many Obama supporters, I was pretty outraged by the lies (yes, LIES) Team Clinton sent out in mailing pieces in Iowa and New Hampshire regarding Obama's 100% POSITIVE pro-choice record. Now, days after those lies helped the dishonest Clintons win NH, many of the same people have now sent a new letter to Dem leaders in the state asking us all to kiss and make up.

And in one case, a founder of the NARAL chapter in NH actually admits she signed her name to the letter without bothering to check whether or not the lies and smears she was helping to propagate were true. She finds herself dismayed that the Clintons misled her (join the club), but I find it outrageous she didn't bother to check out the truth herself before slamming a good Democrat. I'm not sure if it's more outrageous to be ignorant, or to know the truth and after the smear worked try to pretty it up with a plea for peace and reconciliation.

From The Trail:

Matt Bai has been blogging at NYT's "The Caucus," and he just posted a thoughtful, insightful piece about decisions the Clintons need to make in this campaign moving forward. He's not biased toward one candidate or another (as far as I've been able to tell) and the piece is not polemical. But he clearly states that the Clintons are at a crossroads: Do they continue allowing the lowest level of political campaigning in order to win at any cost, or do they care about their legacy in this party?

The most dangerous place to stand in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a bank of television cameras.

Well, that may be, but it seems to me that the most dangerous place to be in the rest of the country is between the Clintons and an elected office.

Just this weekend, after all the recent attacks against Barack Obama involving his kindergarten essay and cocaine, the "fairy tale" of his antiwar stance, we found out that the Nevada teacher’s union with ties to the Clintons is suing to keep workers on the Vegas Strip from being able to caucus in their workplaces, since most of those workers belong to unions that have endorsed Mr. Obama.

I just read two interesting anecdotes on Iowa Independent, one of which I can back up with my own, that may help fill in the picture tomorrow night if Obama is, indeed, the winner.

The first is this amazing small story told to John Deeth:

After the Clinton rally last night in Iowa City, a Clinton precinct captain sighed in frustration and, insisting on anonymity, shared this story.  The precinct captain's friend, a school principal, had said he was trying to choose between Clinton and Obama.  He was on his way into the rally when his cell phone rang.  It was Obama.

Not a campaign staffer, a volunteer, or a robo-call.  It was Barack Obama himself.

I was surprised to read that, because I was in Iowa canvassing for Obama last weekend and heard a related story that blew me away.

Leave it to good-guy Letterman to be the FIRST to get a deal done with the WGA so he can come back to work with his writers and not cross a picket line. I realize he has an advantage over Stewart, Colbert and Leno because he owns his own production company, but still -- it shows that it is possible to end this strike. I hope others follow Letterman's lead.

Everyone tune in on Wed to show support!

Letterman, Ferguson returning to TV -- WGA strikes deal allowing late night shows

By JOSEF ADALIAN

The WGA and David Letterman's Worldwide Pants have reached an agreement that will allow "Late Show with David Letterman" and "Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson" to return to the air next week with their writers.

Letterman-produced shows will return Wednesday, people familiar with the situation said. A rep for Worldwide Pants declined comment.

Talks between WWP and the WGA weren't looking fruitful. But that changed within the last 48 hours, sources said.

Interim agreement is the first deal struck by the WGA with a studio since the strike began last month.

Letterman deal.

I know it's early, but I think we should respectfully ask the MTP producers not to include Carville, Matalin or any other panelists who have stated alliances to one of the campaigns on their Jan 6 panel. There is no way that Shrum, for example, or any other general Democratic consultant/advisor can effectively counterbalance Carville/Matalin, esp if Hillary loses in the caucuses.

We cannot eliminate all Clinton bias since most in the media do seem to be aligned with her, but there is no reason for them to put people on the panel who have publicly stated their support for her or any other candidate, whether it's Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

If you are interested in sending a note to MTP, here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

I was looking around for Yepsen's take and finally found it -- he raved about Obama's speech and organization last night, and said that if he wins Iowa, the JJ event will be considered a turning point.

Yepsen Reaction

Some excerpts...

I went to an Election Day training for Dan Seals tonight at a local library. I thought it would be a fairly small group, esp since his campaign has been overshadowed to a large degree by the high-profile Duckworth campaign.

Well, the place was standing room only! Easily more than 100 people there. The person in charge of GOTV said that it was their fourth training this week and that the groups have all been large. For Seals's little-engine-that-could congressional campaign, he said there are more than 500 ELECTION DAY VOLUNTEERS! And nearly 50 LAWYERS to chase down issues. Just for Seals. Kirk is not going to have that many people on the ground fighting for him to stay in office. They also said the DCCC just dropped some money into the campaign to help with a couple of mailing pieces. And Durbin and Obama are headlining a rally for him Monday night. People are excited, and it's really coming together.

It's a close, close race, but we have a real shot at taking it. And it's not included on anyone's list of probable takeovers.

It's clear now more than ever that the GOTV efforts around the country, and especially in the swing states, are going to decide this election. I was at the rally in Madison yesterday and was amazed that I got some questions from people -- even there -- who wondered how they could vote early.

We have many, many supporters on our side. The majority of Americans are Democrats, after all. But it takes people on the ground, and on the phone, to help encourage people to get to the polls. GOTV matters, it works. There are so many initiatives going on this weekend and on Election Day. I hope you are able to find one.

ACT 4 Victory

Driving Votes

Volunteer Center

Call from Home