Kuttner: He’s the real deal.

“Barack Obama’s speech on the financial crisis was a remarkable breakthrough…I wish I had written the speech. It is this kind of leadership and truth-telling that is the predicate for the shift in public opinion required to produce legislative change. A radical, appropriately nuanced, and deeply public-minded description of what has occurred, the speech was Roosevelt quality: the president as teacher-in-chief.“

The American Prospect‘s Robert Kuttner praises Obama’s economics speech of yesterday, and calls out Paul Krugman for his blatant partisanship: “Unlike some of my friends, I have not fallen in love with Obama…But Krugman, ordinarily an ornament of fair-minded progressive economics commentary, writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign. His latest characterization of Obama’s proposals in commenting on the New York speech — ‘cautious and relatively orthodox‘ — was preposterous.“

Edwards Watch: Iffy. | No Gore ticket, period.

While Edwards donors have broken for Obama 2-1, current rumor has it that Edwards himself is inclined toward Clinton, mainly on account of his wife, Elizabeth. “‘She feels her husband should have been the man in the center of the presidential sweepstakes, rather than Obama,’ a source said.“

Well, if that’s true, it’s a remarkably petty reason to back the establishment candidate. Still, sour grapes or no, it’s hard to imagine Edwards coming out for Clinton at this late date anyway. Why would he obliterate all of his outsider-reformer cachet in one fell swoop, just to back a horse that’s already lost? If he endorses Clinton now, not only is his credibility in many circles effectively reduced to zero, but he’d be needlessly prolonging a primary battle that the rest of the party is trying to end ASAP. So, if anything, I expect he’ll remain neutral at this point.

Meanwhile, Al Gore reaffirmed he’s staying out of it for now, despite calls among some for him to break the deadlock: “‘What have we got, five months left?’ Gore told the Associated Press…’I think it’s going to resolve itself, but we’ll see.’” Well, it’s more like three months, if we go by the Dean standard. Still, I can’t say I’m surprised that Gore’s letting things shake out.

Which reminds me: There’s been some loose talk recently, most notably by TIME’s Joe Klein and Rep. Tim Mahoney, that the Dems could rally around Al Gore on top of a compromise ticket, a la John W. Davis in 1924. Now, maybe I’m in the minority these days in remembering that Al Gore was a thoroughly crappy candidate in 2000, one who — despite unprecedented economic good times — couldn’t even beat a congenial idiot like Dubya back in the day. Nonetheless, this notion of putting Al Gore atop the ticket is the Mother of all Dumb Ideas, redolent of the blatantly undemocratic, smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear, and if it happens, I’m walking. In fact, I’d rather have Sen. Clinton be our standard-bearer than Al Gore: At least, she actually procured a sizable number of votes this cycle.

Casey at the Bat.

Sen. Obama picks up a Pennsylania superdelegate in Senator Bob Casey, who had previously pledged to stay neutral. “Obama strategists hope that Casey can help their candidate make inroads with the white working-class men who are often referred to as “Casey Democrats.” This group identifies with the brand of politics Casey and his late father, a former governor, practiced — liberal on economic issues but supportive of gun rights and opposed to abortion.“

FMLA came first, redux.

“‘She never had anything to with it,’ Clay said. ‘I just don’t think you ought to play games with that kind of stuff.’” As a follow-up to Clinton’s previous exaggerations on the matter, former Representative William Lacey Clay, who helped steer the Family and Medical Leave Act to passage in 1993, says Clinton had nothing to do with it. “All we needed was a president to sign it. The president signed it, and we’re grateful for that but there was no lobbying by him or her.”

Dean sets a date. | The new new standard.

“‘I think it would be nice to have this all done by July 1,’ Dean said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program. ‘If we can do it sooner than that, that’s all the better.’” Howard Dean sets a date of July 1 at the latest for the primary election to end, meaning there’ll thankfully be no convention floor fight. I’m still thinking May 6 would be more preferable.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton drops the electoral vote standard (for now) and picks an even more unwieldy statistic by which to judge the candidates: “”Right now, among all the primary states, believe it or not, Hillary’s only 16 votes behind in pledged delegates,’ said the former president, ‘and she’s gonna wind up with the lead in the popular vote in the primary states. She’s gonna wind up with the lead in the delegates [from primary states].‘” (The 18 caucus states, you may remember, don’t matter.) Clinton also went on to do more stumping for John McCain, calling him a “moderate” who “has given about all you can give for this country without dyin’ for it.“

Dodd and Leahy: Wake up, it’s over.

“I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are. But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion.” Senator and former presidential candidate Chris Dodd makes the case that the Democratic race shouldn’t go past May 6 (i.e. North Carolina and Indiana.)

Update: “There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama.” Sen. Patrick Leahy reaffirms Dodd’s position on Vermont public radio. He later clarified with a written statement: “The bottom line is that…Senator Obama continues to hold a lead that appears to be insurmountable…Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to.“

Kristof: Think of your legacy.

“As Bill Clinton put it on March 17: ‘If Senator Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier’…Even Mr. Clinton seemed to concede the nomination to Mr. Obama unless Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote; without that, she doesn’t even have an argument. Unfortunately for the Clintons, almost nobody who has done the math thinks that she can win the popular vote without re-votes in Florida and Michigan…All this means that Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning are negligible, barring some major development.“

Like Alter, Morris, Todd, Politico, Brooks and Obama Girl before him, the NYT‘s Nicholas Kristof joins the ranks of those calling the race for Obama, and takes the high road in trying to convince the Clintons to beg off: “Senator Clinton, who has done so much fine work on health and children’s issues for so many years and who more recently has been an outstanding senator, deserves better. Likewise, Mr. Clinton, who tackled AIDS and poverty so passionately since leaving the White House, risks tarnishing his own legacy.” I applaud the effort, Mr. Kristof, but if that sort of reasoning had any purchase with the former First Couple, I think we would’ve already seen its results by now.

Clinton donors: Our money, our rules.

“We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.” My, that’s classy. A group of twenty top Clinton fundraisers (among them Robert Johnson, of BET, drug hysteria, and estate tax fame) attempt to blackmail Speaker Pelosi into backing the Senator’s convention coup…or else!

Uh, did they not hear about Obama’s $55 million haul, overwhelmingly from small donors, last month, or the $32 million he made in January? Welcome to the 21st century, y’all: Fatcat donors who think their money trumps the will of voters have gone the way of Betamax, HD-DVD, Pets.com, and the landline. But, way to embarrass yourselves, and your candidate, by wildly overstating the importance of your lucre. Honestly, you might as well take your checks over to the GOP — I’m sure your credit’s good with them.

More cracks in the wall. | Mark the date.

“‘If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,’ the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.” Senator and Clinton superdelegate Maria Cantwell (D-WA) says she’ll vote for the pledged delegate leader in the end, meaning — barring a political meltdown of historic proportions — Sen. Obama. If this steadfast commitment to the actual rules represents a trend among her super support — and it likely does, despite the electoral vote Hail Mary — Clinton’s in real trouble. This also further supports Chris Bowers’ recent argument that the Democratic race will end on or soon after May 6, the day Sen. Obama most likely crosses the threshold of 1627 pledged delegates (a.k.a. 50% + 1 of the pledged total.)

Update: Add unaffiliated super and Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen to those leaning Obama in the final analysis. “Bredesen also joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in warning that superdelegates should not overturn the outcome from primaries and caucuses.” And Harry Reid, at least, also seems to think there’s an exit strategy before the convention: “I had a conversation with…[Howard] Dean today. Things are being done.” Update 2: Uncommitted and Clinton supers are not amused. Update 3: See also Clinton super Joe Andrew.

Bill gets frantic | About that poll…

Meanwhile, over in his corner of the campaign trail, Bill Clinton does what he can to poison the well further, saying — now that chances of a re-do have come and gone, of course — that the Obama campaign was “desperate to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.” Sigh…at this point, you have to wonder about the man’s mental health. Well, since the former president insists on continually behaving like an asshat, with no regard whatsoever for the Democratic party or his historical legacy, it bears repeating once more:

Clinton supporters helped kill the Florida re-vote, as her campaign didn’t actually want another contest, just the illusory potential for one.

Once again, here’s Sen. Clinton on Michigan, last October, before she decided it’d be advantageous for her to count the state: “It’s clear: This election they’re having is not going to count for anything.“

And, if we really want to talk about disenfranchising voters, perhaps it’s time to revisit the Clinton team’s casino caucus lawsuit in Nevada, and Bill Clinton’s open shilling for it back in January.

Honestly, it’s like they’re trying to beat us into submission through sheer, brazen, and unyielding idiocy. Mr. President, you will not be returning to the White House — deal with it.

Update: Today’s poll about disgruntled Clinton and Obama supporters is getting a lot of run. Now, one one hand, this illustrates the problem with the Clintons’ “audacity of hopelessness.” Their continued spewing of often-ridiculous vitriol, even despite the fact that everyone from David Brooks to Obama Girl now knows its over, is only breeding more angry and aggrieved dead-enders among the Clinton ranks. (Then again, have the Clintons ever put the good of the party before themselves? Nope.)

Still, to keep things in perspective, let’s look at the presumed defection rate in 2000: “In March of that year, the Pew Center for the People & the Press released a report titled ‘Bush Pays Price for Primary Victory.’ Following Bush’s victory in the 2000 primaries and McCain’s exit from the race, the Pew survey found that 51% of those who backed McCain during the primary campaign would vote for Gore in the general election. Only 44% of his supporters said that they would be casting their votes for Bush.” That purported 2000 defection rate is considerably higher than those causing consternation today. But, obviously that number didn’t hold up, or Gore would have been elected overwhelmingly in 2000.

The point being, this poll doesn’t tell us anything about the situation in November, only that tempers are running high here in March.