We’re going the distance.

“There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come. Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.” Obama takes the Super Tuesday hit, and not only stands his ground but deals some damage of his own. The result? We need more rounds.

It’s Wednesday morning, 3am, so I’ll keep it short for now. But, all in all, I’m pretty pleased with how Super Tuesday shook out tonight. Sure, I’d have liked to see Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California in our column, and was rather dismayed when those pesky exit polls — which had us winning in MA and NJ — turned out to be bunk. But, around 10pm or so, the tide turned, with Obama racking up a slew of states and drawing particularly notable wins in Connecticut, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri. California didn’t fall, of course, but I’d written it off hours earlier thanks to that early exit poll data.

The thing is, Super Tuesday was meant to be Clinton’s knockout punch — as little as two weeks ago, she was up 20 in the national polls. And, now, Obama is not only still standing, it looks like he may be (ever-so-slightly, of course) in the lead. At the end of the night, we ended up with more states (13 to 8, with NM outstanding) and — more importantly — basically split the delegates (we should know the exact figures in the next few days, but the late tally is 841-837 for Obama, and, regardless, all we had to do is stay close.) And, while Senator Clinton’s support has held steady, Senator Obama has jumped 15 points nationally in just the past two weeks. Now, the Obama campaign has money to burn and time to spend on a smaller — and more favorable — playing field. We have a ways to go yet, but now that we’ve made it over the Super Tuesday hurdle, time is on our side.

Update: It’s still not absolutely official, but Sen. Obama seems to have won more delegates last night. And, as that was kinda the point of the evening, this is very good news.

Showtime | Barack Obama for President.

It’s Super Tuesday. Do you know where your voting station is?

GitM’s endorsement of Barack Obama | GitM’s Obama archives

Why Obama is progressive | Why Clinton is not | A Note for the Boomers

Some great Obama speeches.

List of over 100 Newspaper Endorsements.

Yes, we can.

Pe[e/a]king at the Polls.

As I said before, I don’t want to put too much emphasis on polls anymore — partly because of what happened in New Hampshire, partly because they’re all over the place. Still, it looks like Senators Obama and Clinton may now be tied nationally. (Obama even has a statistical lead in one poll.) And, again, while polls differ — some suggest an Obama lead, some don’t — all seem to indicate the Senator from Illinois is not only surging in California (Thank you, Maria Shriver!), but even threatening Clinton’s tri-state home base in Connecticut and New Jersey(!)

A lot of what happens tomorrow will depend on the ground game, and the race will go on past Super Tuesday in almost any event. Still, if we all get out there and make our voices heard, it looks like there’s an outside chance Obama could emerge the delegate leader tomorrow night. Sure, a sweep would be wondrous, but let’s face it — it’s extremely unlikely. There’s still a lot of game left to play, and — after tomorrow, of course — slow and steady wins the race. Let’s at least get Senator Obama in a good position to move forward. As long as he can keep it close tomorrow, we’re good to go.

Obamaquerque.

“The first-term senator from Illinois has become one of the top two Democratic contenders by the strange tactic of perceiving the widespread disgust with political business as usual and by giving it voice…[B]e positive and vote for Sen. Barack Obama. At worst, he’s guilty of campaigning on the promise of hope.” Following in the footsteps of the Albuquerque Tribune and Santa Fe Mexican, New Mexico’s largest paper, the Albuquerque Journal, endorses Obama for president. In not unrelated news, Clinton and Obama appear to be statistically tied in New Mexico. (Obama’s up 6, but the margin of error is 7.)

Hertzberg and Hayes.

“Obama’s Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama’s national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states…Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.” The New Yorker‘s Hendrik Hertzberg makes the case for Obama…and against Clinton. “Obama has turned out to have a kind of political magic unseen since the Kennedy brothers of the nineteen-sixties. He has something of Jack’s futuristic, ironic cool, something of Bobby’s earnest, inspiring heat…’The Clintons’ used to be a Republican trope, calculated to make one or the other half of the couple look like a puppet or a victim or a co-conspirator; now it is simply descriptive.“

Meanwhile, in a cover story for The Nation, Christopher Hayes laid out his own reasoning for Obama. “Obama’s diagnosis of the obstacles to progress is twofold. First, that the division of the electorate into the categories created by the right’s culture warriors is the primary means by which the forces of reaction resist change. Progress will be made only by rejecting or transcending those categories…Second, that the reason progressives have failed to achieve our goals over the past several decades is not that we didn’t fight hard enough but that we didn’t have a popular mandate. In other words, the fundamental obstacle is a basic political one: never having the public squarely on our side and never having the votes on the Hill…The candidacy of Barack Obama represents by far the left’s best chance to, in Buchanan’s immortal phrasing, take back the bigger half of the country. It’s a chance we can’t pass up.“

Et tu, Teddy?

“The President made a deal with Senator Kennedy and neither one of them meant to mess it up. The deal was supposed to be, we will give the schools more money and get rid of two programs that Bill Clinton actually started…Now think about that — you get the worst of all worlds.” On the campaign trail in Arkansas (he’s campaigning in Arkansas?), Bill Clinton goes after Teddy Kennedy on the issue of No Child Left Behind. This follows on remarks he said yesterday: “I want you to think about this, and I have to say, this was a train wreck that was not intended. No Child Left Behind was supported by George Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy and everybody in between. Why? Because they didn’t talk to enough teachers before they did that.” Left unmentioned in both cases: “Everybody in between” includes Senator Clinton, who also voted for NCLB in 2001.

Times for a Change.

“The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge on foreign relations and on this nation’s particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He’s a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.“

The Los Angeles Times endorses Barack Obama for president. “In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.“

C’mon aboard, you won’t hurt the horse.

It’s the Friday before Super Tuesday, and no Edwards and no Gore…yet (and neither look to be choosing before Tuesday, if at all.) But some other big endorsements for Obama this morning:

Move On votes to endorse Obama, and will encourage its 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states to follow suit. The movement said recently they’d back a primary candidate if two-thirds of their members agreed on one. “The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.” Says Obama: “In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up…I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead.“

The California SEIU, 650,000 strong, has switched from Edwards to Obama. “Obama’s pledge to ensure working families have a strong voice, that health care is not a luxury and that our children are given the tools to succeed best represents the values that our members care about,” said Annelle Grajeda, president of the SEIU California State Council.“

CT Rep. Rosa DeLauro endorses Obama tomorrow, which is a big deal because she’s higher-profile in DC than most (her husband is also former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg.) That being said, Connecticut’s biggest prize, Chris Dodd, is announcing today that he staying neutral.

Perhaps eyeing a Harlem rout for Obama, Charlie Rangel’s wife, Alma Rangel, endorses Obama for president. “I believe Barack Obama has the ability to unify this country and the character to stand up for what’s right instead of what’s popular. Barack is a man of principle, a man whose faith in the greatness of our nation gives us hope, showing us what’s possible if we work together.“

ABT principal ballerina Gillian Murphy endorses Obama for president. Good goin’, little sis.

The Yale Daily News foregoes their famous alumni and — like the Harvard Crimson — decides to back Obama. “[T]he time has come to abdicate Yalie rule over America, at least for now…An Obama presidency promises a reassertion of the natural, American optimism for which JFK stood, but also new reforms of which he could only have dreamt. Let us not let this moment slip away.“

George Clooney, already an Obama backer, speaks well of his candidate, but seems gunshy to stump for him (for legitimate reasons).

California’s Asianweek backs Obama: “A native Hawaiian, Obama’s personal and political background reflects the multicultural future of America. The energy Obama has ignited among young Asian Pacific American activists is unprecedented for presidential politics and could pave the way for future APA involvement.“

Word is that Bill Richardson won’t endorse anyone until after February 5. Given that my sense is he leans Clinton (although others argue he just wants a job either way), this is good news for Obama. Update: Bill and Bill will be Superbowl buddies. Doesn’t sound like he’s heading Obama’s way.

“‘This week helped me make up my mind between two great candidates – that I was going to be supporting Sen. Obama,’ Blumenauer said.” And other House endorsements of the past few days: “Reps. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Friday…Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) all announced their backing for Obama on Thursday. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) endorsed him on Wednesday. All of their states except Oregon will vote Tuesday in the so-called ‘national primary.‘”

In the City of Angels.

Heya. Sorry this is going up so late…I spent the evening at the Generation Obama event in Midtown, so my usual prObama take on the debates got even more reinforcement than usual…

First off, it was heartening to watch a surprisingly substantive debate. The Nevada roundtable was too sweet, and the Myrtle Beach slugfest was too sour, but tonight’s much-heralded showdown in Los Angeles actually seemed just right. [Transcript.] Both candidates were able to tease out and discuss notable differences in their policies, particularly on health care, immigration reform, and Iraq, while keeping a civil, friendly tone that didn’t seem as unnaturally forced as back in Vegas.

With all that being said, and to no one’s surprise, I thought Barack Obama came out ahead this evening. (In fact, I agree with Andrew Sullivan — this might’ve been his best debate thus far.) He showed a clear and nuanced command of policy. He made a solid case for his strengths, most notably on the question of judgment (“Right on Day 1.”) He explained well how he’s more electable, particularly against John McCain. He was wry and personable. And — when it came to the Republicans — he was often devastating. (That Romney takedown was too rich.)

Hillary Clinton was also good tonight, but she gave more than a few answers that were real groaners. On immigration reform, her attempt to be Obamaesque by invoking the Statue of Liberty was strange and flat. More problematically, her answer on drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants made no sense (She’s against licenses for illegals, to protect illegals?) And, worst of all, when given the chance to defuse a zero-sum understanding of the immigrant issue, she instead told a story about an African-American man who blamed Latinos for his job loss, and it was hard not to read an off-putting Bendixen subtext into it.

Most notably, when it came to Iraq in the final third, Clinton was terrible. Rather than just admit she made a mistake in either [a] supporting the war or [b] believing Dubya, she seemed unwilling to concede any possibility of error, and got stuck in an increasingly tortured answer about her position on the AUMF vote. It was unseemly, to say the least, even Dubyaesque. And the more she spun her wheels, the better Obama looked. Update: Apparently, she also butchered the truth about the Levin Amendment.

Still, my general impression is that CNN’s Jeff Toobin basically got the larger chess game right: As a TPM commenter well put it: Hillary Clinton is currently in the lead and is trying to run the four corners until the clock runs out. Barack Obama is surging massively right now and didn’t want to upset that o-mentum unduly. So neither candidate felt they needed to shake up the current paradigm all that much, which helped keep everything friendly.

Instead, Obama wanted to show undecideds that he has presidential gravitas and can policy-wonk as needed. Clinton wanted to staunch her negatives and get the focus back on her rather than Wild Bill. (Which reminds me, no question about Kazakhstan?) In that sense, both candidates accomplished what they came to do.

Now, it’s up to us.

O-Momentum?

Since the New Hampshire debacle, I’ve been trying to swear off on posting poll information around here. Still, if you’ll forgive one lapse, the trend lines are looking surprisingly good for Senator Obama right now. Recent polls put Obama down 6 nationally (he was down 16 last week), down 6 in Massachusetts (a poll had him down 37 last week), down 12 in New York (a poll had him down 28 a few days ago), and down only 3 in California. Particularly given the proportional allotting of delegates, he’s right in there.

Granted, the political landscape has proven nothing if not volatile of late, none of these polls factor in Edwards’ exit, and there’s a big debate tonight. But, like I said, we definitely seem to be moving in the right direction. Update: Make that down four nationally. Ok…no more polls.