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

Barack Obama and John McCain score golds in Illinois.

Hillary Clinton takes Oklahoma. My mom lives in Bartlesville. Hi Mom! She just told me that she voted for Obama. We have some humdinger political debates so don't presume that her vote prejudices me.

And in the nail-biter in Georgia, Mike Huckabee who was trailing McCain is now pulling ahead of the Arizona Senator -- and Romney is in a certain third there.

-- Steve Clemons

Regrettably, I have to be on TV interpreting the election results for 80 million Arabic speakers in a few minutes -- and that is when the next bundle of state results will begin to roll out. So, I'll be back with TWN readers in an hour. . .but feel free to turn in to Al Jazeera Arabic in the mean time.

-- Steve Clemons

Here is a statement from the Obama Campaign on his win in Georgia:

Georgia: Obama's victory in Georgia was achieved through a broad coalition of voters. He not only increased his support among African American voters since South Carolina (78% in South Carolina to 86% in Georgia), but he dramatically improved his standing among white voters (from 24% in South Carolina to 43% in Georgia.)

Not much -- but not triumphalist either. Interesting, and impressive.

-- Steve Clemons

From the Clinton Campaign, two sets of talking points. First, on Super Tuesday overall:

We're excited by what we're seeing.

We have 21 states that are still outstanding where we expect to pick up a significant number of new delegates.

To be sure, both campaigns have a long night ahead of them -- but we feel very good about the numbers that we're seeing.

It's very important that people in the states where the polls are still open get out and vote.

And then rationalizing the sizable loss in the State of Georgia:

Unlike the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign never dedicated significant resources to Georgia.

Sen. Obama spent over $500,000 dollars on ads on television and radio; we never went up on TV

The Obama campaign has 9 offices in Georgia. The Clinton campaign only has 2.

Sen. Obama has had staff and significant campaign operation across the state for 8 months. Sen. Clinton only deployed staff to the state in the last couple of weeks.

Polls have consistently showed Sen. Obama with wide lead over Sen Clinton. That lead has only widened over time.

Frankly, I think that the Clinton campaign should congratulate Obama for doing well to connect with voters in Georgia -- not rationalize his win by stating that they didn't make Georgia a priority.

-- Steve Clemons

57% of white voters went for Clinton and 39% to Obama in Georgia -- not surprising. Black voters were overwhelming in support for Obama. 49% of white men went for Clinton and 46% for Obama -- but a whopping 62% of white women went for Clinton and just 36% for Obama.

Obama scores the win overall -- but some of the demarcations are interesting.

Jane Hamsher will be at Al Jazeera's studios tonight as well -- giving some her interpretations of tonight's results on Al Jazeera English. I just checked out Hamsher's Firedoglake and found some interesting 'predictions' from Jerome Armstrong.

-- Steve Clemons

Mike Huckabee's win in West Virginia combined with the fact that he is virtually neck and neck and neck in a three way battle with McCain and Mitt Romney in West Virginia virtually assures Huckabee's status as the high sizzle Vice Presidential nominee.

Republicans are not matching Democrats on turnout -- and they need the high precision, effective organization of evangelicals if they are going to compete against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Huckabee's legs in this race today further reinforce my view that he will be #1 on every serious list to run as VP on the GOP ticket.

-- Steve Clemons

It's 7 pm EST and Barack Obama has been declared the victor in Georgia. Mike Huckabee takes West Virginia.

Interestingly, CNN reports that exit polls show that those who support Obama overwhelmingly want change and few rank experience anywhere at all. In contrast and not surprisingly, Senator Clinton draws those who rank experience strongly.

Some numbers that are extremely preliminary put up on Josh Marshall's site show Obama is very strong in more states than Clinton at the moment -- but Clinton may be ahead in some of the large population states.

-- Steve Clemons

. . .at Washington College, Dickinson College and elsewhere in the country.

I've learned that Professor Andrew Oros -- and many other professors around the nation -- are hosting "Super Tuesday" return watching parties for their political science, government, and international affairs students.

I think that this is a great thing for faculty to be doing -- and wanted to give a "shout out" to those at the 1782-founded Washington College as well as to the 1783-founded Dickinson College where there are also some parties planned to watch returns. I'm on advisory boards at both schools.

I've done a number of media spots already today -- but at 6:15 pm EST, I'll be doing my regular weekly political commentary on "Morning with Deborah Cameron" in Sydney Australia. Yes, it's evening here and early morning there.

And then for most of the rest of the evening, I'll be at Al Jazeera's DC Studio for the Arabic Channel helping to interpret what we learn as polls close. And I'll be blogging from there.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Last week, I heard some pretty fascinating analysis of the Iranian-Hezbollah relationship that, while not earth shattering, is worth sharing.

The idea being floated from a Levant scholar was that -- based on interviews with senior Hezbollah officers -- the organization considers itself more of a partner rather than a client of Iran with greater freedom of action than the prevailing narrative accords it. The officers claim Hezbollah has never taken an action at Iran's bequest which they believed to be detrimental to their own or Lebanese interests, suggesting at least a semi-independent Arab army rather than merely an Iranian cat's paw, and has actually convinced Iran to drop such proposals. (This matches with account of the 2006 war in Lebanon by Anthony Cordesman who found that Hezbollah initiated action on its own and ran its own operations without Iranian direction. And though there's indications that members of the Quds force may have been present during the war, there's no evidence that IRGC officers visited Lebanon before the war).

While Iran might try to leverage Hezbollah's decision making through supplies of arms and money, the senior Hezbollah officers believe they could procure sufficient military hardware from other sources with the relationships they've developed, and could sufficiently finance their operations with private donors, particularly since their regional and global profile rose tremendously after the 2006 Lebanon War.

A situation ripe for testing this freedom of action would be if Iran were bombed. With the prospect of a US bombing campaign against Iran diminishing in the wake of the recently declassified sections of NIE, it seems increasingly likely that Israel is seriously considering a strike against Iran, especially given the Seymour Hersh's penetrating diagnosis of Israel's September strike on Syria. Irrespective of who carries it out, if either the U.S. or Israel were to strike Iran's nuclear facilities or other military assets, Hezbollah officers are confident that Iran will immediately retaliate against Israel as well as U.S. bases in Iraq and the Gulf.

However, Hezbollah would not be immediately activated or called upon to respond as Iran's pawn. They would be able to wait to see the U.S. and/or Israel's reaction. If either actor widened the theater of their counter-retaliation to Lebanese or Syrian territory (which seems a likely possibility), then Hezbollah would likely respond. But without that direct provocation, Hezbollah would consider whether it wanted to enter such a regional conflagration.

Hezbollah's self-declaration of restraint may be suspect, but its sense of geopolitical independence is worth evaluating. It suggests a few important takeaways to consider.

First, in the event of an attack on Iran, it plans to immediately attack Israel no matter who attacks them indicating their strategic rationale is to expand the conflict believing it to be in their interest. This should concern Israel when Iran is betting the table that the region rallies to it regardless of Israeli involvement.

Second, conflict expansion to the Levant theater might be avoidable if Hezbollah is denied certain incentives to enter the fray.

Third, Hezbollah must be treated as an authentic Lebanese political actor rather than an agent of Iran. Coming to terms with this might require us to modify our approach to Lebanese "democracy," Hezbollah's role in government, the parameters of a political/power-sharing arrangement, and perhaps even our intransigent and sometimes obtuse management of the Hariri trial.

Fourth and as a corollary to the third, given Hezbollah's independence (or at least the desired appearance of it), the hydra of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas might actually be picked apart. On one hand they cannot be separated in terms of the influence and impact they have on each other and the region at large. But at the same time, a "divide and conquer" strategy (like former Secretary Jim Baker's "flip Syria" approach) seems feasible and best served by disaggregating them as political actors with distinctive interests.

--Sameer Lalwani

Now that I'm done gloating (for now) about the New York Giants Super Bowl triumph, I can pay more attention to important things like our country's energy choices. My friend and former colleague Heather Hamilton reports back from a forum that confirms what we've been discussing here for a while:

U.S. in the World research for a meta-analysis of polls and focus groups on climate change has found that the argument that the U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on foreign or Middle Eastern oil to protect national security actually increases public support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other non-renewable, domestic energy sources like coal and nuclear energy.

-- Scott Paul

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is concerned that al Qaeda's base is shifting outside of Iraq.

This may undo President Bush's famous line, "We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

But where is there now?

-- Steve Clemons

It will be interesting to measure reality with Gallup's latest tracking poll showing Hillary Clinton ahead of Obama by 5%. I've grown very skeptical of polls (again) -- so take with a grain of salt. We'll all know tonight how things shape up.

-- Steve Clemons

Truth be told. . .I hate the whole concept of Super Tuesday. I feel that it's adding on to a number of incremental shifts that are undermining our democracy.

Americans should have a chance to think about a candidate and tilt one direction and then redo it if they change their minds or learn more about a candidate that would alter their support -- which is why we have preferred historically such a long primary season.

But, as far as today goes -- I think that there is no choice but to enjoy the ride and VOTE. I don't get to. I live in DC -- and even then, I don't get to vote as I'm a registered Independent.

So, I'm both envious and happy for those of you participating.

Happy Super Tuesday, he grumbles. . .

-- Steve Clemons

At the beginning of the battle to stop John Bolton's confirmation as US Ambassador to the United Nations, Senators Russ Feingold and Barack Obama were both inclined to support his nomination. They both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Feingold in particular believes that the President of the United States should get the team he or she wants with minimal interference from the Senate.

Both Senators came around -- particularly after meeting some of the people that various NGOs assembled to outline their serious concerns about the damage Bolton might do to America's global credibility. This blogger is pleased that both Obama and Feingold became the fervent opponents of Bolton's nomination that they became.

There was a point in the battle, however, after Bolton's confirmation got kicked out of committee on a neutral basis to the Senate floor, the strategy changed -- and it involved demonstrating how John Bolton manipulated the intelligence process for political ends. Part of this story was his inquiry into the names of "American" citizens whose names had been redacted from various National Security Agency intercepts.

The Executive Branch refused to share these names and the basic intelligence intercepts with the Congress -- and thus the Senate refused to allow his nomination to proceed. Even Senators Joseph Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein voted against cloture and would not allow the vote to take place until the administration yielded.

This affair -- which stretched 21 months -- became one of the first significant political losses for George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Co. in the foreign policy arena.

Emptywheel now reminds us tonight that Senator Feingold was not only moved to oppose Bolton but is now continuing to invoke his name as an example of the kind of government abuse of authority and intelligence that all Americans should worry about.

Here is a clip of Feingold outlining his views that we need to protect Americans from future John Boltons:

I respect Russ Feingold's principled views about the balance of power between the Executive Branch and the Congress as well as their mutual responsibilities -- and we also respect him when he makes that tough decision to withdraw Senate consent from the Executive's decision when called for.

-- Steve Clemons

There's so much tension in the air now as we trip into tomorrow that folks are forgetting to laugh a bit about the sillier part of elections.

I kind of liked this montage that Media Matters put together on McCain -- but I also think it's a little substantively off target. But for a good chuckle, watch this:

Darn it. . .I am one of those who thinks that John McCain is a maverick. Sometimes he bucks my way, sometimes towards the evangelicals, sometimes towards the realists, and sometimes towards the neoconservatives.

According to National Interest Senior Editor Ximena Ortiz in her just out piece, "Inside Track: Deconstructing McCain":

McCain has earned a reputation as a maverick and independent thinker due to his support of legislation on the environment, banning the use of torture on detainees, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and reforming campaign finance laws and opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

That would leave him well poised to win over the much-coveted moderate and independent voters in a general election, should he win his party's nomination. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cited such initiative in endorsing McCain. "There are people out there that talk about reaching across the aisle, but [McCain] has shown the action over and over again," he said. McCain has also distinguished himself through his honorable service, involving much sacrifice, to his country during the Vietnam War.

Ortiz neglects to mention McCain's strong support of stem cell research in her list, but it's a good roster over all of McCain's marquee efforts that reach across party lines. I have lauded McCain for these.

But the Iraq War is a big dividing line. McCain is for it and perhaps even widening the theater of conflict -- and doesn't see Iraq as I do as the largest single strategic catastrophe that America has embarked on in decades if not the last century.

Ximena Ortiz then changes course and relentlessly pounds McCain for not only the war but other revisionism the campaign has engaged in regarding his own policy positions.

But on the subject of America's Middle East conflicts present and future, she writes about Senator McCain:

On Iran and its nuclear program, McCain has been so flippantly bellicose -- singing “Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” to the Beach Boys tune -- that some conservatives have warned that a President McCain would take America to war with Iran.

McCain last Sunday said: "There's going to be other wars. . . . I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

Presumably, McCain was suggesting his view that a war with Iran was inevitable. When asked by Joe Scarborough about McCain's statement, Pat Buchanan replied: "That is straight talk. . . . You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran." Buchanan said, "That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," adding, "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. . . . His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."

But if McCain's strategic vision is to strike Iran militarily, he has not explained how that might be achieved without further endangering the already failing U.S. mission next door in Iraq, which he also believes in continuing without a timetable.

McCain's framing of the Iraq War and the inevitability of a war with Iran feels like someone who has not gotten beyond Vietnam -- and whose intellectual prism on the issue is shaped by the view that America took a wrong course when it finally took steps to end its proxy wars in Southeast Asia.

America has had enough of fighting old wars. George W. Bush fought a war with Iraq that was in part motivated by some in his administration who felt the job was not finished during the tenure of Bush's father. Fighting a new round of wars in the Middle East through a Vietnam-fashioned framework of scores to settle is incredibly wrong-headed.

I've admired Senator McCain for many of his maverick positions and will continue to do so -- but hugging the Iraq War and essentially calling for more as an election tactic -- undermines America's interests and American global credibility.

-- Steve Clemons

Democrats aren't the only ones geeked out by climate change science and policy. It appears Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) could probably give Al Gore a run for his money when it comes to a simple, compelling explanation of the dense and oh-so-titillating subject of climate science.

I saw this video addressed to Clemson University students via an email from Eban Goldstein, who has been leading a group called "Focus the Nation" that has organized an extensive bipartisan group of Congressional members to draw attention to climate change solutions.

With his folksy charm, Inglis manages to impart the lessons of arctic carbon-dating and internalizing externalities. But he also draws on imagery and metaphors that I would venture to guess are rather new to the reconstituted environmental movement.

Inglis's relies on a pair of University of South Carolina cups ("washed in the tears of Gamecocks") to explain negative externalities. He goes on to suggest how we can turn the potential hard hit of climate change into the "triple play of another American century" by cleaning the air, creating jobs, and reducing oil dependency for national security. The real surprise was his likening of EPA regulations to biblical law in their mutual support for stewardship of the earth.

Despite Inglis's disarming self-assuredness, I do have a concern or two about his pitch. Inglis relies on a "why not" argument to address climate change -- that if it doesn't cost us, why not try to help stop it. In fact it will cost us and trying to obfuscate that fact will make for a more difficult sell. Businesses and economists aren't just whistling dixie when they complain about the initial costs of compliance for some sort of tradable permits system. The argument is more convincing when explained in terms of a risk calculus where the cost of inaction for the global economy is twenty times greater than the cost of acting now on climate change as the Stern Report made clear two years ago.

Investment is another way to make the case to businesses, which Inglis does. But renewable and R&D investment can easily fall prey to parochial interests. The hydrogen solution Inglis proposes is not only a long way off, it's also an incredibly expensive front-end investment. I am left wondering whether Inglis would support these investments if they didn't benefit the South Carolina R&D economy. If serious action on climate change can only win Congressional support with a pork-barrel buffet, this will be another uphill battle to yield another energy boondoggle.

But overall, I think Inglis is pioneering new ground and has caught on to a bigger idea here about how the US can revitalize its leadership potential -- even if we are waving goodbye to hegemony -- when he suggests we can no longer afford to look like "the fat cats who really don't care."

--Sameer Lalwani

I've been working through some information on Barack Obama's diplomatic forays with Kenya's political leaders -- and his apparent campaigning for Opposition party leader Odinga.

This is a complicated story -- and something where I think that there has been some overstatement about Obama's role -- but it may raise some interesting questions about judgment in meddling in the political battles inside other countries.

I'm still sorting this out -- but if any of you have material or interesting insights into the Kenya situation and Obama's seemingly unique profile in this situation, please email me offline.

-- Steve Clemons

A while back, I concocted a pretty interesting scenario to rationally explain why Bill Clinton sort of lost it against Barack Obama a while back. To recap, I thought that challenging the caucus procedures in Nevada and antagonizing the African-American vote along with other general harshness might be telegraphing messages to Hispanics and to other Dems tired of losing over the genteel weaknesses of the Gore and Kerry campaigns in the past.

However, a very well-placed Clinton official has shared the scoop with me that Bill Clinton "lost it" when Barack Obama had asserted that Reagan had been more transformative than Clinton. That is where the "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice" comment came from. Clinton was seething deep down. So, no strategy on behalf of his wife the candidate; just revenge at that moment.

Secondly, a friend of a friend of mine went hunting last week with Cheney-target Harry Whittington who was shot just about two years ago. In fact, the two year anniversary of the cloak-and-dagger hunting accident featuring Cheney shooting his campaign contributor will be February 11th.

According to my source, Whittington commented that the press really got played by Cheney's team not only in the delayed reporting -- but in how serious Whittington's situation really was. According to my source, he nearly died and to this day, still carries quite a few metal pellets in him. But the seriousness of his condition was underplayed by Cheney's team and in the press.

I wonder what would have happened if Whittington had accidentally shot the VP? Let's not go there. . .

In other news, TWN has learned that New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski -- considered by his peers to be one of the best of his kind in the business -- has an article soon to appear that digs into the drug past of Barack Obama.

According to one source of mine (not further confirmed), Kovaleski has found and interviewed somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 people who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College where he did his undergraduate work. According to one interviewee of Kovaleski's, the New York Times reporter said that thus far he thinks that if anything "Barack Obama overstated his drug profile in his memoir."

A separate couple I found on my own and who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College are New America Foundation President and New Yorker staff writer Steve Coll and his wife Susan. I asked Coll what the depth of his and his wife's relationship with Obama was -- and whether he'd seen the presidential aspirant get "wild."

Coll told me that he was two years ahead of Barack -- and his wife one year ahead -- and that they were all pretty good friends. They are friends now, but at a more pronounced distance and don't see each other much.

Coll recounted that he and Susan were impressed with Obama then and saw absolutely nothing on the drug front with him -- though he can't say the same about a lot of his other Oxy pals. He said that his one wild thing that got him a lot of accolades was his hard lobbying to get the trustees to divest Occidental College holdings from South Africa, which they did.

So, despite the rumors that some of the campaigns hope might swirl around Obama's youthful transgressions, Kovaleski and the New York Times may soon slay further speculation on that front.

-- Steve Clemons

Salon.com asked me to join a number of other writers and bloggers to comment on the qualities we liked and didn't in the various candidates and to disclose who we thought looked best from our vantage point before the Iowa Caucuses. I feel badly today because I actually told them I'd do it -- and then kept deleting about a dozen versions of the 250 word mini-essays I had written.

I never filed the response that would have been an attempt to talk about the Hagelesque "hybrid candidate" rather than any of the candidates we were being forced to choose between. I eventually posted this on my own blog that sort of went that direction.

As I've written many times on this blog and elsewhere, only Senator Chuck Hagel's approach to foreign policy seemed to match my own thinking, and he's not running. Senator Biden came closest to Hagel's approach but never got enough traction in his campaign efforts.

Unlike Bill Bennett, I am not predetermined in any of the candidates' favor and just faking it when I write. I have more criticism and applause in store for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

I add the last two candidates -- because there are things in the portfolios of McCain and Romney that I do like. And after Tuesday, I'll specify more about the qualities and views in the approaches of those still standing.

Overall, I'm tilting Democratic only because I think it's important for the country to have a political shift -- but not because I'm an automatic Democrat. I'm not. In fact, I'm quite disappointed in the complicity of the Democratic Party in many of our problems today and the lack of leadership in setting an exit strategy from today's domestic and international foreign policy and economic quagmires.

But I just want to say for the record that if I post something that disturbs me about Obama's profile, or Hillary Clinton's, I'm not doing so as an agent for either. They both have qualities and positions I can support -- but there is a great deal of uncertainty I have about both.

Fareed Zakaria has a great piece out today on something I've been writing about for ages -- Barack Obama's approach to US-Cuba policy. I agree with Zakaria that Obama was able to get out of the standard grooves on the US-Cuba issue, but he hasn't used the same out of the box approach in his commentary on the Middle East. That has bothered me.

Obama has given speeches that seem to throw every foreign policy challenge from Darfur to engaging bad guys to climate change to dealing with Russia in a roster of equal challenges. I don't see a sense of priority or an understanding of trade-offs consistent with the brilliant framing Obama applied to US-Cuba relations.

Hillary Clinton too has been holding on to many incrementalist grooves in foreign policy and national security that are very disconcerting and that, in my view, promise disaster if we continue down our current path. She supports "coercive diplomacy," as she said in the Los Angeles debate the other night. But America's abilities to coerce are evaporating and are not as credible any longer. There must be a new approach -- and we aren't yet hearing it from her.

So, just for the record -- so that all of you can stop guessing -- I'm not comfortable disclosing affinity for any of the candidates yet.

They need to work harder to get my support -- and none has met my standard.

If forced to vote today, I'd write in Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, Lincoln Chafee (on no one's list -- but I like him), or Chris Dodd.

I've got some positive and negative comments coming about some things I have learned about Obama and Clinton. Rather than just chasing the ethereal stuff, I've been doing some research into their foreign policy positions.

More on that later.

-- Steve Clemons

Susan Eisenhower, a long time friend and reader of TWN, impressed me with her Washington Post commentary endorsing Barack Obama. I'm not 'there' on any of the candidates, but I'm glad she's committing to helping him understand the strategic picture if he's elected.

I particularly liked this part of her commentary:

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility.

We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.

-- Steve Clemons