MSNBC's David Shuster is in some hot water for comments he made about Chelsea Clinton. They were inapproporiate. He knows it and has apologized.

But this raises the issue of the flame-outs we are seeing in many quarters of this presidential race. The innuendo, harsh attacks, Fox News style bravado that demeans the potential quality and importance of this election seems more pervasive.

I have some other stuff that has kept me off-line today, but I'm sure many of you have views on not only this Chelsea Clinton incident but also about the deterioration of serious political commentary today.

Maybe it's always been this way or perhaps the trends are well known to just about everybody, but on some level, the tabloidization of serious news seems to me to be getting worse.

-- Steve Clemons

From Chris Nelson's insider daily political essay, The Nelson Report:

. . .Romney today disgraced himself and his party by charging that a Democratic victory in the presidential race will turn America over to the terrorists.

As we said, a new abyss. . .even for the man who reversed every important policy position he had ever held. . .in order to make himself attractive to the worst elements of the Republican "base".

Fortunately, in national politics, when you aim low most folks see it. And in any event, Republican voters, to their credit, rejected both Romney and his cynical messages.

The now-presumptive nominee, John McCain, was apparently so relieved by Romney's surrender that he didn't note Romney's betrayal of one of the fundamental "laws" of politics in a civilized country: criticize your opponent's policies, beliefs, and perhaps even his spouse, children, and dog. . .but NEVER his patriotism.

In the post-9/11 panic which swept the country, some in the Republican Leadership accused critics of the Iraq war of treason. . .Romney has now resurrected this ugly, dare one say treasonous tactic.

It will be interesting to see how soon McCain, who has himself been on the receiving end of such dirt, moves to counter Romney's sleaze.

The problem may well be "bi-partisan", of course.

In the "informed gossip" department, we have heard that it may not be just the Republican Romney diving into the sewage pit. Sources in the Clinton Campaign say consideration is being given to comparing Obama supporters to cult members. . .with all that implies.

Clinton Campaign players at a very high level are calling attention to a recent article by Joel Klein (author of "Primary Colors") in which he examines the "messianic" aspects of the "movement" Obama has sparked, we have been told.

So perhaps this. . .on top of Bill Clinton's transparent playing of the "race card" after South Carolina.

Politics is a blood sport. . .no one ever argued otherwise. But today, we got a shotgun blast showing what some players may think is the way to win in 2008. . .through tactics which the very success of the McCain, Obama and Huckabee "movements" would seem to refute.

Romney hitting the terror button surprised and disappointed me. Many of his advisers were realists -- but I guess they failed to tutor him well before that kind of sleazy comment.

-- Steve Clemons

The Clinton campaign has now announced that it has raised a staggering $7.5 million since Super Tuesday. Add this to the announcement from the Obama campaign that it has raised $7.2 million since Tuesday as well.

The Republicans must be freaking out. These are huge dollars.

Obama still has bragging rights that his team pulled in $32 million in January compared to Hillary Clinton's $14 million -- leaving Obama with a net lead for 2008 fundraising $17.7 million.

With all due respect, what was Terry McAuliffe doing in January?

-- Steve Clemons

Despite Gov. Romney's departure from the Republican field, the excitement over the primaries is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon. But in the next month, there are a number of elections around the world that will have significant bearing on the U.S. strategic landscape, and perhaps the candidates' foreign policy positioning.

Pakistan's elections are scheduled for February 18 with Western hopes that a new democratically elected government might actually start to crackdown on the Taliban freely operating on the Pakistani-Afghan border. Some are suggesting that the recent spat of Taliban-style attacks on Pakistani urban centers have created uproar and galvanized the public against such acts of terrorism.

Even if the Pakistani military does not fall prey to another "truce" offered by the Taliban, structural barriers exist to constrain any democratically elected leadership wishing to crackdown on the frontier provinces. This includes the fact that actions perceived to be at the behest of the U.S. war on terror are extremely unpopular by a supermajority of Pakistanis; ISI calculations to maintain Taliban ties for strategic depth as well as in case of a U.S. withdrawal from the region; flagging morale in the Pakistani military; and the simple fact that Pakistani force structures have not fully and effectively adapted for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism.

Cuban elections follow six days later on February 24 where we are likely to see the official beginnings of the post-Fidel era. Whether we (and our presidential candidates) acknowledge that change will be pivotal, and speak volumes about the future of our relations with a gateway to Latin America.

There will be few surprises in the upcoming Russian elections on March 2nd, only intrigue over how President Putin will manage power from a new institutional vantage. But it will revive attention to Russia's thorny intransigence on a number of global issues.

And finally Iranian parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for March 14th, have already exhibited a major setback. The Financial Times reports that the reformist party lead by former President Khatami, was dealt a major blow with a vast number of their candidates disqualified from running in upcoming elections. Khatami's alliance with conservative former President Rafsanjani -- formed out of concern over economic malaise and incompetence as well as what they perceived to be a dangerously provocative foreign policy statements and gestures -- was supposed to do well and knock back current President Ahmadinejad before he runs for re-election in the summer of 2009.

The disqualifications (that included the grandson of the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini) were initiated by Ahmadinejad's interior ministry but then ratified and expanded by the Guardian Council. Rafsanjani and Khatami are appealing to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini who has the power to reverse the decisions. It also looks as though former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani might be leading a conservative faction of his own against Ahmadinejad.

While these elections pose opportunities for reformists and moderates to assume to the helm of power, they also could also complicate and frustrate relationships with the U.S. even further. And they each provide an opportunity to turn our electoral focus back to the messy questions of foreign policy.

--Sameer Lalwani

I have gotten in trouble in the past for the insensitive and apparently now-politically incorrect use of such aphorisms as "off the reservation" and "going native" -- both of which have drawn complaints from some well-meaning watchdogs who heard me use those terms on radio interviews.

But now, language and cultural sensitivity have entered a new phase. I won't take sides -- too dangerous.

The National Iranian-American Council is protesting Google Earth's use of the term "Arabian Gulf" to describe what NIAC and apparently many others have classically called the "Persian Gulf."

And no, the State Department has told me that Google's actions were not done in response to any sanctions actions against Iran.

Good luck to all parties.

-- Steve Clemons

John McCain is going to be the next GOP candidate for President -- but today he was booed when speaking about his immigration views before CPAC.

But warning to progressives -- mocking this may come back to haunt. McCain may suffer a bit if these supporters stay home in November -- but his position really helps him with independent-minded Americans and some Dems who admire him in ways that are not connecting for them in the candidacies of either Clinton or Obama.

-- Steve Clemons

CNN reports that Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign.

Now, will McCain pay tribute to him? Or kick his tail as he exits the stage? Watch for a McCain/Huckabee ticket now -- and as consolation prize, perhaps Romney will get to be Ambassador to the Court of St. James if the GOP wins in November.

-- Steve Clemons

A well-placed spouse of a Clinton campaign insider just told me that a rumor is spreading like wild fire in Hillaryland that Al Gore is going to endorse Barack Obama.

My source emphasizes that this is rumor and may just be paranoia and hyperventilation of the campaign, but it's important to know that this rumor is out there. Another source of mine inside Obamaland has told me that they have been working very hard to secure Gore's public support and trying numerous avenues to "encourage" him.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Gore would do this -- despite his clear disaffection for the Clintons. He is the undisputed king of the climate change franchise now, but even kingdoms can be assaulted, undermined, outfoxed, circumvented, ridiculed, and starved.

If Hillary Clinton wins this tight race -- which she may still do -- then Gore is gambling with his own status as a climate-change first-and-only transcendant politician.

It will be interesting to see what happens, and of course if Barack Obama wins the primary and then the presidency, Al Gore will get significant credit. The problem is that that can work the other way too.

-- Steve Clemons

Google CEO and New America Foundation Chairman of the Board Eric Schmidt

Go back to glasses and the smartish nerd look.

Apologies to global readers of The Washington Note, but I have to telegraph to my many New America Foundation colleagues my concern that our new Chairman of the Board Eric Schmidt and our new President and two time Pulitzer prize winner Steve Coll look like they were stamped out of the same human printing press.

It's uncanny how much that they look alike. . .

Coincidence? or on purpose?

-- Steve Clemons

Well, sort of.

After nine years of exemplary leadership, Atlantic Monthly National Correspondent James Fallows is stepping down as Chairman of the Board of the New America Foundation -- for which I previously served as Executive Vice President and am now Director of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.

The new Chairman of the Board -- announced today -- is Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Eric has also been on New America's Board for years -- and this is very cool news for our outfit (and in the big sense, for the world, the U.S. and you and me).

-- Steve Clemons

New Media, Facebook and the presidential race is streaming now here.

-- Steve Clemons

A Clinton insider sent me this note early this morning -- agreeing with part of my take on yesterday's Super Tuesday outcome:

surge story ended, but money story begins. heavy sledding ahead

Now the news has broken that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million. To some degree, that's not a big deal. Wait -- I'm reversing myself; that is a big deal. The fact remains that Barack Obama isn't having to loan himself anything right now.

One of the odd moments of the day is that campaign director Howard Wolfson seemed unaware that the Clinton load had taken place during a 10:30 am conference call this morning when queried by Politico's Ben Smith. How could Wolfson not have known? Or did he know and was surprised others did too? Makes no sense.

Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei look at other trouble spots for the Clinton machine -- but still count me as someone who sees this entire process at dead even for quite a while yet.

-- Steve Clemons

Tonight, I'm going to be on Brian Lehrer Live -- a televised interview production with the well-respected WNYC New York Public Radio host Brian Lehrer between 7:30 and 8:30 PM. The show can be watched live on Time Warner Cable (Channel 75) or seen streaming over the web at CUNY TV's site.

The subject tonight is Facebook as political engine -- and how Facebook is a very cool emerging platform for new forms of journalism as well as political activism and networking. At his blog, Brian Lehrer asks who will be the first "TechPresident"?

This graphic will be posted on the show tonight, but you can take a sneak peak. It shows relative levels of Facebook members' affinity for the candidates distributed in the following proportions:

Democrats

Obama: 382,137

Clinton: 92,731

Gravel: 8,622

Total: 483,490

Republicans

Paul: 82,442

Huckabee: 48,432

McCain: 44,560

Romney: 42,508

Total: 217,912

Note the Dems 2:1 plus advantage over Republicans in this new media

Recently, I wrote this piece on how Facebook was morphing into a key part of my blogging and think tank distribution network. I noted how well known journalists like Slate's John Dickerson were using it as a vehicle for microjournalism and how it was becoming an avenue of choice for political organizing and social cause advocacy.

I'll also be on the show with Columbia School of Journalism New Media Professor and WNBC Tech Reporter Sree Sreenivasan and Personal Democracy Forum Founder Andrew Rasiej.

And Brian Lehrer is always great. Should be interesting to interpret the trends that divide Republicans and Democrats in new media -- and the lines that divide the candidates within both parties.

And yes, I have a profile on Facebook -- and so does Brian Lehrer.

-- Steve Clemons

Hillary Rodham Clinton's National Gallery portrait by Ginny Stanford

This morning, I was invited to a media call with Clinton campaign director Howard Wolfson and strategist Mark Penn.

It took forever for the call operator to get me on the call -- more than 12 minutes waiting so missed the beginning of Wolfson's statement.

But some of the general lines offered from Penn and Wolfson:

1. Hillary Clinton won more people who made their decisions on the very last day. Obama had momentum in the previous days -- but then that broke towards Clinton in the final 24 hours, which is consistent with the Gallup Tracking Poll.

2. The Hallmark Channel "national town hall" and the Los Angeles debate seemed to matter. The Clinton campaign has called for more debates with Barack Obama -- but Clinton's team is unaware of any response thus far from the Obama camp.

3. Obama's momentum was broken. Clinton bounced back to significant victory in places like California and Massachusetts.

4. Results in Missouri important. Hillary won 110 of 115 rural districts in Missouri -- debunking the myth that she can't win in rural areas.

5. She also showed that she is competitive in attracting youth. Clinton won the youth vote in California and Massachusetts.

6. There were very strong increases in turnout in groups that support Hillary -- women and Latinos. Debunking the claim that only Obama is driving new voters to the polls, Clinton is driving increased numbers to the polls in these categories.

7. Economy is top issue. Clinton won on her concerns about America's economic situation and her health care proposal.

8. Overall, people rejected the increasingly "establishment oriented" campaign of Barack Obama -- and accepted her more "substantive campaign." This comment was made by Mark Penn.

9. From a delegate perspective, the campaign's goal was to be ahead in terms of super delegates and regular delegates. Currently, Clinton is in the lead in yesterday's race by just 1 delegate. Both candidates will be within 5 or 6 delegates of each other when the counting is finished. Yesterday was a draw in terms of delegates. Hillary remains ahead in overall delegate count.

10. Ben Smith from Politico asked if the Clinton's had loaned some of their own money to the campaign. Wolfson did not know and would be back to the media with a definitive answer.

11. Andrea Mitchell just jumped on the call -- and like me was in conference call purgatory waiting a very long time to get on -- and missing much of the prepared commentary from Wolfson and Penn.

12. In the next few days, the Clinton campaign expects Obama to do well in other states -- but Clinton will also take a large delegate haul.

13. Mark Penn said that they will have sufficient funds to continue to compete with Obama in various political markets -- even though they expect to be "outspent" like they were yesterday.

14. Hillary Clinton won a ton of districts in Missouri and nearly won the state -- despite Senator Claire McCaskill's endorsement of Obama. Clinton seems to be overcoming some of the slew of endorsements that Barack Obama had from leading personalities in Massachusetts, California, and nearly in Missouri.

15. Mark Penn made a comment (that I'm not sure I agree with) that Obama has in the past week been running on "establishment" positions -- and Hillary Clinton in contrast has been running on change in economic policy and change in health care. (I think that this is a leap -- but it is interesting that this is the kind of spin Mark Penn wants out there.)

More later. I hope to be invited to participate on an Obama conference call -- but not sure at this point.

-- Steve Clemons

Maybe. Obama has now won 13 states, and Clinton has won 8 states:

Obama -- 13 States: AK, AL, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MO, MN, ND & UT

Clinton -- 8 States: AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NY, OK & TN

Hers are mostly big. His are mostly small, but there are more of them.

The Dems are divided -- just really divided down the center.

-- Steve Clemons

Friends of mine just asked what I thought John Edwards would do now. Would he endorse Obama or Clinton? Then I got an email asking what I thought Bill Richardson would do.

I have no idea on either of them -- but endorsements at this point are of less and less consequence. . .unless Al Gore comes out for someone. Gore's franchise matters, and I know that the Obama team is working overtime trying to get to Gore any way they can. He's ducking their calls.

As long as there is a serious chance of Hillary Clinton winning, Gore will not challenge her -- even though he would love to scratch his anti-Clinton itch. If she ended up winning the presidency, his life efforts on climate change would suffer significant political setbacks.

But on endorsements -- it turns out Ted Kennedy didn't matter much. Massachusetts didn't go to Obama. John Kerry's celebration of Obama's gut and unique identity didn't help. Maria Shriver's support didn't matter. I think Oprah Winfrey did matter -- not so much with African-Americans but with white men. She is a crossover celebrity. Just my hunch. Could be wrong.

But what about Jack Nicholson -- who played Daryl Van Horne in Witches of Eastwick and who endorsed Hillary Clinton on Friday.

Nicholson is one of my favorites -- and maybe someone who matters to many others. As best as I can tell, the fairly divided results tonight and the strength of Hillary's position in California are due to Jack Nicholson.

May be just as good an explanation as any other.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm sitting right now next to Alex Steffler, a real devotee of Barack Obama who just said something insightful about many (not all) Obama supporters.

He said that many Obama advocates support "his aura" -- not his substance.

David Gergen on CNN stated that there were two frontrunners tonight -- Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- but neither could put it away tonight.

Gergen continued that Obama really performed well -- and that many dynamics may favor Obama as the challenger.

But I wonder if Obama has characteristics similar as that of a quickly rising pop star -- and that after tonight, the pop star may be popping.

Clinton advocates seem to scrape on no matter what -- cynically aware of the fact that their candidate is not the potentially transformative/high change symbol that Obama is.

But for the Obama team, the failure to sweep the country and perform wildly beyond expectations may be quite deflating to his supporters -- many of whom are motivated and inspired by the fumes of mystique and charisma.

Again, this slug fest and contest will continue for quite a while -- but to beat McCain/Huckabee, Obama and Clinton need to run together.

-- Steve Clemons

Everyone I know is shocked that with Ted Kennedy and John Kerry endorsing Obama, Massachusetts went big for Hillary Clinton. I guess I'm surprised too -- but Obama still did very strongly tonight. He has 11 states so far out of 24 -- not bad. . .and may get more.

As I write, Hillary Clinton has 55% of California with 15% of precincts reporting. Zogby predicted a 13% lead in polls for Obama, so this is either a huge polling read mistake -- or Clinton as able to push a lot of the right buttons in one of the most pivotal states in the country. Although I haven't analyzed exit polls, I think that Hillary did well overall with women and Hispanics in California.

As I write, Blitzer on CNN is reporting that McCain and Hillary Clinton win in California.

The Dems will continue to struggle internally with what they want to be -- and I bet that despite some stumbles, McCain wins the day for the most part -- and knows that he has to do a VP deal with Huckabee, who was the big news of the day.

-- Steve Clemons

I've been on Al Jazeera Arabic for a few hours tonight and enjoyed encounters with a number of thoughtful Republican and Democratic strategists. After I left, I went to a party in the Adams Morgan sector of Washington to watch the results continue to roll in with a bunch of young activists, bloggers, and friends associated with Move On.

The crowd I was with in the after evening was overwhelmingly pro-Obama. . .but I asked them one on one and then collectively what their mood as the results came in -- and despite the cheering behind Obama right now in the Chicago Hyatt -- I would say the mood was not entirely despondent, but more like somewhere between slightly depressed and unimpressed by Obama's results tonight.

It's not a scientific survey -- but it's an interesting read among people because these folks are the sort who want to see Obama win badly. They didn't see him doing that tonight.

But his speech tonight was lofty. And I liked the lines "All the results may not be in yet -- but we know that our time has come. . .our movement is real. . .and that change is on the way."

Obama did well tonight I think. He scored some significant wins -- and the story may be very interesting when delegates come in. He seemed to win the smaller states by large margins -- and Hillary seemed to win most of the big states by smaller margins. That may have helped Obama disproportionately with delegates. But we'll see. California is not in.

But if I were an alien looking down at the Earth without any pre-knowledge of the race, I think that Dems are still divided down the middle. I see the results as roughly even -- and that means this goes on. Those who support Obama want to see the results viewed through the surge in his standing -- but even his supporters feel he didn't go far enough.

Those who support Hillary Clinton see that there is no inevitability in a victory for their clan -- and she did not score any knockout punch.

And her speech lacked the personal vignettes that Bill Clinton used to mesmerize and inspire his crowds with.

The Democrats are divided -- and the negotiation between quadrants of the party about what it wants to be will continue.

On the Republican side, Huckabee's legs are impressive in the South -- and he's the necessary sizzle for any one who takes the nomination.

BUT THE REAL STORY TONIGHT was the absense of enthusiasm and people at the McCain party in Arizona. The staging of that was unbelievably bad. No people. Flat energy. When compared to the sizzle and excitement of the Obama and Clinton campaign parties, it's clear that Republicans have an enthusiasm problem.

Barack may have a rise going on -- but the barrage of celebrity and political endorsements for him turned out not to be a tsunami. Hillary Clinton performed solidly -- but she lacks his spark.

Hillary and Barack need to run on the same ticket.

-- Steve Clemons

An odd moment during Mitt Romney's address to supporters tonight: Romney promises to govern in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and Teddy Roosevelt. I've heard him and others lay claim to the Reagan legacy before, but by bringing George H.W. Bush into the picture, Romney is smacking down President George W. Bush pretty hard and with very little subtlety. Yet, Romney is depending more and more on pro-Bush Republicans in his campaign for the nomination. What's up?

-- Scott Paul

More. . .Romney gets his home state of Massachusetts. McCain takes Connecticut (thanks to Joe Lieberman) and New Jersey.

-- Steve Clemons