In what may be record timing for a response ad, Barack Obama's campaign unveiled this new spot, "Ringing," that seeks to address Hillary Clinton's spot, "Children."

The script: "It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep.

"But there’s a phone ringing in the White House. Something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the president be the one – the only one – who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start…"

"Who understood the real threat to America was al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Who led the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons around the globe… In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters."

Which one will be most effective? Or will voters simply be confused? If they are, and the message is muddled, the advantage goes to Obama.

The night before the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton did a cameo appearance on "Late Show with David Letterman." The night before Super Tuesday, she did a town hall on the Hallmark Channel. And on the eve of the Texas and Ohio showdowns next week, she will be on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

This will be Clinton's first appearance since she got in the presidential race, having appeared once before on Oct. 8, 2003. It will also be interesting, given that Stewart hasn't been the kindest in the past week, mocking aspects of her debate performance as well as her chiding of Barack Obama with "Shame on you."

Obama last appeared on the show in August.

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Hillary Clinton's campaign unveiled its latest --- and what some political analysts are calling her greatest --- political ad. It is all about national security, and the suggestion that she is the best prepared to handle a crisis.

The script:

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something’s happened in the world.

"Your vote will decide who answers the call. Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military. Someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

"It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”

Hillary Clinton, that is. She answers the call.

The spot, "Children," immediately invites comparisons to Lyndon Johnson's fabled "Daisy" ad in 1964, and more recently to Walter Mondale's "red phone" spot in 1984, when he used the ad to stave off a challenge from Gary Hart. In fact, in content and message, Clinton's ad has more in common with the latter, and there is no coincidence. As Marc Ambinder points out on The Atlantic,  the spot was done by Roy Spence, who also did the Mondale ad.  Clinton's spot, however, is updated for the 21st century: it has the feel of a movie trailer, with the slightly raspy voice of the narrator sounding almost identical to one for today's typical horror/action pic (In a world where...).

Here's Mondale's "red phone" spot.

And the Lyndon Johnson "Daisy" ad.

The Colbert Effect: A UC San Diego professor finds that Democrats who appear on "The Colbert Report" can expect an uptick in their fund-raising. Republicans, however, don't fare so well.

James H. Fowler writes, "As it turns out, the Republican candidates who appear on the show don't fare any better -- if anything they might actually do a little worse than their fellow Republicans who stayed home. However, Democratic candidates who appear on "The Report" receive 44% more money than those who do not in the first month after their appearance. We no longer have to rely on the gut or Wikipedia -- the evidence speaks for itself."

The Other Penn: Actor Kal Penn of Fox's "House" (and the film "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle") travels around Ohio college campuses this weekend for the Obama campaign.

The Springsteen Pick: Bruce Springsteen, who campaigned for John Kerry in 2004, offers no endorsement yet --- although he favors the Democrats.

And he does single out Obama.

"There are two really good Democratic candidates for president. I admire and respect them both enough to wait and see what happens."

"I always look at my work as trying to measure the distance between American promise and American reality," Springsteen says. "And I think (Obama's) inspired a lot of people with that idea: How do you make that distance shorter? How do we create a more humane society? We've lived through such ugly times that people want to have a romance with the idea of America again, and I think they need to.

"The hard realities and how things get done are important, too, but if you can effectively convince people that it's possible to make things better, they get excited."

Obama, USA Today points out, cited Springsteen as one person he would very much like to meet.

Defending Their Obama: "Saturday Night Live" producer Lorne Michaels defends the casting of Fred Armisen, who is not African-American, as Barack Obama.

"It's not about race," Michaels insisted via phone to the Washington Post's Paul Farhi. "It's about getting a take on Obama, where it serves the comedy and the writing. . . . Believe me, when we read 40 or 50 pieces [for the show] on Wednesday, no one says, 'This is a very good way of getting our political points across.' We're simply asking ourselves: Is it fresh? Is it funny? Fred just had best take on Obama."

U.N. goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie signals in the Washington Post that there is good reason for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq: Helping to return refugees to the region.

In an op-ed titled, "Staying to Help in Iraq," she writes, "What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy. "

"As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible."

She also calls for greater financial assistance.

"The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

"In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made."

Hillary Clinton is ever so slightly outpacing Barack Obama  when it comes to the flow of Hollywood money to their campaigns.

Clinton has raised $2.8 million from the entertainment industry so far in the campaign, compared to $2.7 million for Obama. Those are the latest figures --- through Jan. 31 --- from the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org). The figures could change slightly in the next few days as more donations are categorized. They are based on individual contributions of $200 or more.

They have engaged in a competitive race for entertainment donors throught the election cycle, far outpacing John Edwards, who raised $534,140.

During the month of January, Obama was slightly ahead of Clinton: $162,563 to her $160, 625. Obama had a fund-raiser at the Pacific Palisades home of The Capital Group's David Fisher, as well as a post-debate event at Hollywood nightclub The Avalon. Clinton hosted an event at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

John McCain, meanwhile, raised $48,459 during January from entertainment sources, for a total of $490,825 this election cycle. Overall, he is still eclipsed by Rudy Giuliani, who raised $502,476 before he abandoned his bid.

The figures also confirm a basic stereotype: That the industry is the domain of Democrats. More than 80% of contributions went to Democratic presidential candidates, and the rest to GOP contenders.

Fund-raising for the primary season, however, has dropped off considerably in the entertainment busienss, as donors reach their maximum contribution limits.

Updated

Hillary Clinton's campaign announced that she will have raised $35 million in February --- a record figure for her campaign that may soon be eclipsed by the more than $50 million that Barack Obama is expected to have raised in the month.

A survey of ad spending shows the Obama advantage: He's outpaced Clinton in ad spots run so far in Ohio and Texas, and both candidates are far ahead of John McCain (although there's not too much wisdom in him investing heavily with no serious challenger to the nomination). The Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, coupled with those in Vermont and Rhode Island, amount to what is being called "Super Tuesday II."

According to Nielsen Monitor-Plus, Obama has placed 4,076 ad spots in Ohio since Jan. 1, compared to 2,264 for Clinton and 159 for McCain.

Obama has placed 6,629 spots in Texas, compared to 4,521 for Clinton. McCain hasn't run any in the Lone Star State.

Another research firm, TNS Media Intelligence, broke it down in dollar terms: As of Tuesday, Obama had spent $2.4 million on ads in Ohio to Clinton's $1.3 million. In Texas, Obama has spent $5.1 million, and Clinton has shelled out $3.3 million.

The survey didn't account for Huckabee, who has actually started to run an ad in Texas, below.

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

A new Forbes story challenges the notion that Lowell "Bud" Paxson cozied up to John McCain to get legislation passed that was favorable to his broadcast network. According to writer Scott Woolley, McCain resisted Paxson's overtures to allow broadcasters to reap a windfall from the auction of the UHF spectrum, and not the government.

Woolley writes, "During the six-year-long fight that followed, McCain never wavered from his opposition to the legislation Paxson pushed, which would have diverted those billions into his company's coffers and away from the U.S. Treasury. Whether McCain did any other, smaller favors for Paxson is a question that will draw new attention as the campaign heats up. But, at least on the issue of most consequence, the two strong-willed men were implacable foes.

"The fate of Paxson Communications and the personal fortune its founder had put at risk would ultimately depend on which man--Paxson or McCain--triumphed in this knockdown Beltway battle."

Befriending Bush: Bob Geldof travels on Air Force One for Time in a profile of President Bush's trip to Africa. Geldof is praiseworthy of Bush's aid to Africa --- and tells him that he hasn't gotten proper credit for it. Bush also is unable to answer Geldof's query of where he does his laundry on these long presidential excursions.

There is one tense exchange.

Geldof writes, "I don't know how, but eventually we arrive at the great unspoken. "See, I believe we're in an ideological struggle with extremism," says the President. "These people prey on the hopeless. Hopelessness breeds terrorism. That's why this trip is a mission undertaken with the deepest sense of humanity, because those other folks will just use vulnerable people for evil. Like in Iraq."

"I don't want to go there. I have my views and they're at odds with his, and I don't want to spoil the interview or be rude in the face of his hospitality. "Ah, look Mr. President. I don't want to do this really. We'll get distracted and I'm here to do Africa with you." "OK, but we got rid of tyranny." It sounded like the television Bush. It sounded too justificatory, and he doesn't ever have to justify his Africa policy. This is the person who has quadrupled aid to the poorest people on the planet. I was more comfortable with that. But his expression asked for agreement and sympathy, and I couldn't provide either."

"Mr. President, please. There are things you've done I could never possibly agree with and there are things I've done in my life that you would disapprove of, too. And that would make your hospitality awkward. The cost has been too much. History will play itself out." "I think history will prove me right," he shoots back. "Who knows," I say."

Obama on "Ellen": Just two days after she appeared to endorse Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama taped an appearance on "The Ellen Show," set to air today.

An excerpt, per ABC News: "Ellen asked Obama what his first day in the White House would be like – if he were to win the nomination and then the general election.

"Well for of all I think I'll just go into the Oval Office and sit at the desk and say, 'Wow, this is really cool,'" Obama joked.

"The Senator then got serious and gave his stock answer – that he'd call in the join chefs of staff to start talking about getting troops out of Iraq in a safe way."

Pillow Flight: Aboard Barack Obama's campaign plane, a reporter handed the candidate a pillow --- a response to the "Saturday Night Live" riff on the media's coddling of the candidate. Obama accepted the pillow, then rather nonchalantly gave it back.

Writer React: The writer of the "SNL" skit, James Downey, says he's working on a new one for this Saturday's show. He was a bit surprised at all the attention, but he's not so sure that Hillary Clinton should have brought it up in a debate.

"It might, on balance, make her look a little whiny," he tells the AP. "She might have been better off if other people pointed it out for them."

For the record, he seems equally praiseworthy of Clinton and Obama.

In a New York Times op-ed, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "I am not --- and will not be --- a candidate for president."

His statement apparently ends the endless speculation of whether he would launch an independent bid for the White House.

The media mogul writes, "I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate."

He left open the possibility of an endorsement --- or even a spot on a ticket.

"In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."

The news network's coverage of the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday was the most watched program in the network's history.

Some 7.8 million viewers watched the debate, and it even beat NBC's broadcast of the new series "Quarterlife." In fact, the debate was second only to "American Idol."

The debate was the third most watched this election cycle, ranking behind ABC's New Hampshire Democratic debate on Jan. 5 and CNN's pre-Super Tuesday debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31.

The conservative writer, talk show host and consummate intellect died today at 82.

He founded the conservative journal National Review, and hosted PBS's "The Firing Line," and was an especially prolific writer, regularly churning out his newspaper column and more than 45 books.

Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote on the National Review website, "He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas."

Buckley will be remembered as the public face of conservatism, long before its ascendancy on the national political stage. But he also commanded a genuine presence on TV, and one of his most memorable appearances was as a commentator with Gore Vidal at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. Their confrontation ---a prelude to the crossfire of 24 cable TV news networks --- had Vidal labelling Buckley as a "proto- or crypto- Nazi" and Buckley responding, "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered.”

But unlike the red-meat, social conservative to come --- which could be a war against intellectuals --- Buckley was a man "of style, flair, intellectual honesty, manners," in the words of Andrew Sullivan. Here's a clip from a debate with Noam Chomsky.

This election contest's Democratic presidential debates have been compared to boxing matches, to reality shows and to soap operas. But the metaphor placed on tonight's 20th, and hopefully final, candidate encounter trumps them all: Hemingway.

It was MSNBC's Chris Matthews who talked of co-moderator Tim Russert's performance in terms of "The Old Man and the Sea," with Russert reeling in the marlin that is Hillary Clinton and finally getting her to concede that she'd like to take back her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

The media's much-criticized habit of attaching "narratives" to campaigns --- storylines based on shifting winds of momentum ---now extends to other members of the media as well.

But I can't complain, for what Russert (and to a lesser extent Brian Williams) helped produce was a dynamic and very tense debate, certainly one of the better ones, and freed of the constraints of time limits and the gimmick of user-generated queries. He was alternately a prosecutor and a pop quizmeister, delivering Clinton and Barack Obama a minefield of possible gaffes that could ostensibly make or break their chances. He cited past statements and pledges and reran campaign footage as if this were some sort of day of reckoning.

Credit both candidates for making it a draw. Clinton won the health care argument, even if it took some wonkish filibustering to do it, and made us all pray (as Obama seemed to be doing at one point) that we'll never have to listen to the back-and-forth again.

Obama, meanwhile, excelled at some foreign policy questions, and in particular in his detailed answers on Pakistan and once again, his criticism of Clinton's vote on Iraq.

Each also had their weaknesses: Clinton on her past support of NAFTA, and over the issue of releasing her tax returns; Obama when he blamed his failure to hold Senate oversight hearings on Afghanistan on the fact that he's been running for president.

He just barely scraped by on Louis Farrakhan, and whether he denounces or rejects the anti-semitic Nation of Islam leader's support. When Clinton pressed him on the point, he recovered with, "I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I am happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

But the onus was on Clinton. She needed to gain from this debate, or, as the narrative goes, to reel in her own big fish. But the circumstances made it very difficult for her to pull it off.

Her campaign has grown fond of casting her as the target of media bias, and Russert probably did little to quell any suspicions. He and Williams were probably harder on her than Obama (It was she who had to identify and pronounce the name of Vladimir Putin's successor, Medvedev; he didn't).

Where Clinton tripped up was in trying to make an issue out of media coverage of the campaign, her assertion that Obama has essentially gotten a free pass. But in trying to make her case at the debate, she cited a late-night comedy skit, and in so doing ignored a rule of quoting other people's jokes: It's all about the delivery.

"Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all time time," Clinton said. "And I don't mind. You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

There was some laughter and some boos.

Even though it fell flat, her basic point of media bias has at the very least stirred up some of her supporters and gained her sympathy from voters. After all, what else is she to do? Not say anything? As the storyline goes, the marlin did wear the old man down. Then again, the marlin also ended up devoured by the sharks.

Geraldine Ferraro, the only woman ever to be on a major party presidential ticket, lashed out at the media coverage of the campaign on an appearance today on KPCC's "Patt Morrison."

"If you take a look at what has happened in this campaign with Hillary, nobody is worried about how you deal with a woman," she said. "You can be sexist. It is perfectly all right in this country."

Ferraro was on the program to talk about how far the Republicans will go in running against a woman or a black man in November. She recalled some of the rhetoric she faced in 1984: Barbara Bush describing her as "rhymes with witch," and George H.W. Bush telling supporters after a vice presidential debate that "we kicked a little ass last night." Or Joan Rivers calling the Mondale-Ferraro ticket "Fritz & Tits."

But she said that sexism still prevails this year, beyond Fox News, where she would expect it.

"We don't know where Tim Russert is coming from. We don't know where Wolf Blitzer is coming from, anymore. I have never seen the media be so sexist as it is now. As far as being racist, you can't be. You can't even open your...and let me a little bit ahead of time saying this, I don't want anyone to be sexist or racist, they are both wrong. But in this race, it is much easier to be sexist because it is acceptable in this country. Being racists is aboslutely unacceptable, and no matter what happens, it is going to be much harder for the Republicans to try to deal with this issue with Barack Obama."

Ferraro endorsed Clinton in April.

The webcast here.

Updated

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Its tactics have changed, sometimes from day to day, but one line of argument has not within the Clinton campaign: There's a media double standard toward Hillary Clinton.  It's an argument for which advisers have plenty of ammunition, the latest being the "Saturday Night Live" parody that mocked reporters' love of Barack Obama. (We have our own poll up at Variety.com, which shows Clinton winning her argument of media bias). At a meeting with top political journalists on Monday, the bitterness was fully out in the open, with Clinton adviser Phil Singer "taunting" the likes of David Broder, "who began covering presidential politics two decades before Singer was born," Dana Milbank of the Washington Post writes in a rather harsh recounting of the event.

That is why tonight, in the final debate before next week's critical primaries, attention will be paid in particular to the language, tone, substance, even demeanor of not just the candidates by moderator Brian Williams and questioner Tim Russert. Before Clinton even threatened to pull out of the MSNBC debate after David Shuster suggested her daughter Chelsea was being "pimped out," MSNBC had come under plenty of fire from the New York senator's camp. In fact, Clinton's team suggested that Russert himself treated Clinton unfairly, so it will be interesting to see whether he tries to blunt this criticism with especially hard-hitting queries for Obama.

Whining?: "Saturday Night Live" may have exposed press bias, but MSNBC's Tucker Carlson isn't going to play nice, even if the candidate is about to participate in a network-sanctioned debate. He railed at Clinton's campaign for poor press relations. "They treated the press like enemies," he says. "Howard Wolfson is always calling around threatening people...They have earned the enmity of the press."

Obama Aloof: As much as there are media complaints about the Clinton campaign, it's not like reporters are jumping for joy over Obama's relations. As Carie Budoff Brown reports on The Politico, the candidate has remained aloof from the national press, and reporters are even forbidden from straying too far from the press pen at campaign events.

There's Always Ellen: At a fund-raiser, Hillary Clinton gets an assist from Ellen DeGeneres.

Keith Not Laughing: Keith Olbermann didn't seem to find Jon Stewart's monologue too funny, calling his joke about "Barack Hussein Obama" "Coulter" like.

New Project: Alex Gibney, who won an Oscar for "Taxi from the Dark Side" on Sunday, tells the Politico's Jeffrey Ressner that his next project will be "Casino Jack and the United States of Money," about the Jack Abramoff scandal. Included in it will be a probing look at how John McCain went about investigating the whole affair.

More Endorsements: Samuel L. Jackson stumps in texas for Obama, while Sean Astin campaigns in the state for Hillary Clinton.

When "60 Minutes" aired a segment on former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and the Bush adminstration's attempts to discredit him, some portions of the state could see it: Technical problems at affiliate WHNT.

According to the New York Times, that immediately triggered suspicions among bloggers that something Kremlin-esque was at work, and their fears were only confirmed when Scott Horton, a blogger at Harper's, phoned CBS in New York and got this response:

“There is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.”

Wrote Horton, "I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama “could only have been an editorial call.”"

Suffice it to say, the station eventually did broadcast the "60 Minutes" segment and posted it on its website, all the while denying that it was trying to blackout the segment. But its technical difficulties lasted the same length of time as the Siegelman package.

There were no political statements at this year's Oscars --- if you count some rather mild Jon Stewart remarks, some clever, others a bit flat. Or there were a few could have been delivered by Bob Hope. "Oscar is 80 this year, which automatically makes him the front runner for the Republican nomination."

Even Alex Gibney, winning for best documentary for "Taxi from the Dark Side," about the U.S. military interrogation of prisoners that Discovery found too controversial to air, was restrained in his acceptance speech, pretty much letting his work speak for itself.

The lack of political firebrand was one surprise at this year's Oscars, where instead the highlight was Diablo Cody, winner for best screenplay for "Juno." She was a former stripper who penned her script at the snack bar at a Target store in Crystal, Minn.

Any hint of political statement came from the makers of "Freeheld," Cynthia Wade and Vanessa Roth, the winner of documentary short, about a lesbian woman who is denied legal benefits as her partner is dying of terminal cancer. It also was presented by soldiers in Iraq, via satellite, although nothing was made of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Perhaps the otherwise apolitical nature of the ceremony is that the country could be on the cusp of an historic election and the Bush bashing has just run its course. As Stewart noted, Hollywood could be about to witness something only a screenwriter would dream up.

“Normally when you see a black man or a woman president, an asteroid is about to hit the Statue of Liberty.”

Returning for the first time since the writers strike, "Saturday Night Live" spared little time jumping into the presidential race.

The highlight was Mike Huckabee's cameo --- where he riffed on his own refusal to get out of the race.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is urging supporters to watch another skit on "SNL" that mocked the media's light treatment of her chief rival, Barack Obama. She also got an assist from guest host Tina Fey, who all but endorsed her.

Steven Spielberg took a lot of flack this week from Chinese government officials and media sources, but experts say that his decision to pull out of the Beijing Olympics may end up having just the desired impact.

From the New York Times:

"Amid the international outrage over the bloodshed in Darfur, frustration has increasingly turned toward China, Sudan’s biggest trading partner and international protector, culminating in Steven Spielberg’s decision last week to withdraw as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics.

"And it may be working.

"China has begun shifting its position on Darfur, stepping outside its diplomatic comfort zone to quietly push Sudan to accept the world’s largest peacekeeping force, diplomats and analysts say.

"It has also acted publicly, sending engineers to help peacekeepers in Darfur and appointing a special envoy to the region who has toured refugee camps and pressed the Sudanese government to change its policies."

More here.

In his decision to pull out of the Games, Spielberg cited some of the actions of the Chinese government, but concluded that the only measurement were the conditions on the ground, where the crisis shows little sign of improvement.

Broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson says that he did meet with John McCain in 1999 before the Arizona senator sent letters on his behalf urging the FCC to make a quick decision on Paxson's efforts to buy a Pittsburgh TV station, according to the Washington Post.

The McCain campaign fought back hard on Thursday over suggestions in a New York Times story that McCain engaged in inappropriate conduct with Paxson's lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. But their claim that McCain did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist contradicted Paxson's statement's to the Post.

"I remember going there to meet with him," Paxson told the Post. He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."

On Thursday, the McCain campaign said in a statement, "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay [where Iseman worked] personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding."

McCain's attorney, Robert Bennett, said, "We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference? McCain has never denied that Paxson asked for assistance from his office. It doesn't seem relevant whether the request got to him through Paxson or the staff. His letters to the FCC concerning the matter urged the commission to make up its mind. He did not ask the FCC to approve or deny the application. It's not that big a deal."

According to FEC records and the Center for Responsive Politics, Paxson contributed $2,000 to McCain in February, 1998, $1,000 in March, 1999, and $2,000 in 2003.

Despite the fact that so much of the country has already voted in the primaries and caucuses, CNN drew 7.6 million total viewers, ranking it just behind its Los Angeles debate as the most watched political forums in cable history.

It bodes well for next Tuesday's Ohio debate sponsored by NBC News, a matchup that could very well be the last for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A full ranking of all debates here, via TV Newser.

The next iteration of will.i.am's Barack Obama video, "Yes, We Can," debuted today in what is being called a "video mosaic."

In a site created by digital marketing agency Syrup, users can "express their support for change" by submitting their photos and they will "literally become thumbnail pieces of 'Yes, We Can.'" Here's the link.

Is this a continuation of a web sensation --- or a signal that it's "jumping the shark"?

It may be the former, in the eyes of those who think that Obama has tapped into a new voting bloc that could best be described as the "creative class." It's driven less by entertainment types and more by Internet grassroots.

Conor Bezane of MTV News writes, "Richard Florida, a professor of business economics at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business and author of the book, "The Rise of the Creative Class," agreed. "I think this is the first creative-class election in American history," he said. "The creative class is an online class; it's YouTube, it's MySpace, it's music." Based on his research, Florida estimates that 40 million Americans are members of this group. "They're inventors, they're entrepreneurs, they're people who work in arts and culture fields. They design, [they're] musicians, artists. Certainly you might think that more young people have these values, but all age groups are members of this class of people."

"There is no doubt in my mind that the creative class is a new voting bloc," Florida said. "The Republicans appeal to them on individualism, economic opportunity and keeping the finances in order. Democrats appeal to them with social liberalism, treating women with respect, treating the environment well and valuing the gay-and-lesbian community."

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

With all of the drama of the election, I've devoted little space to what is happening Sunday: The 60th annual Academy Awards. With the just-settled writer's strike, the ongoing war in Iraq, a sputtering economy, little progress in Darfur and a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, circumstances look just ripe for some kind of political outburst. That's not even mentioning the return of Michael Moore, whose "Sicko" competes in the documentary category against the equally hard-hitting Iraq docs "No End In Sight" and "Operation Homecoming," as well as "Taxi to the Dark Side." (The latter, which documents the use of torture in Guantanamo prison interrogations, was too hot for Discovery Channel, so HBO picked up TV rights.) Lighter --- if you want to call it that --- is the fifth nominated doc, "War/Dance."

But a lot of the attention will be on whether some of the star nominees and winners use the Oscars as a political platform. Tina Daunt in the Los Angeles Times recaptures some of the more memorable moments, from Moore, Vanessa Redgrave, Sacheen Littlefeather, and on and on.

My sense is that while the public is more supportive of celebrities who jump into activist causes than you would think, they have little tolerance for it at the Oscars. And that is certainly on the mind of Oscar producer Gil Cates, who recently outlined his general rule of thumb about taking a political stance at the ceremony.

"A presenter agrees to appear on a show to present an award much in the way that an actor agrees to appear in a play or a television show or a movie," he says. "They have a job to do, the presenter, which is to present the award. But when a presenter goes into anything political, it is very inappropriate, unprofessional and a display of bad manners.

"When a person wins the award, it is his or her 45 seconds, and while my personal preference would be that they stick to the award and their feeling of getting it, it is their time. So I guess if it's within the bounds of good taste, it is their time, and if they want to say something, they can."

For Obama: Rod Lurie, creator of ABC's "Commander in Chief," which some had seen as preparing the country for the idea of a woman as our next president, says that he's for Obama.

He writes on Huffington Post, "I have to admit that all of us creatively involved with "Commander" absolutely intended to put the term "Madam President" into the zeitgeist. I can't deny it. Indeed, if Hillary somehow gets the nomination, I'll be out there waving a flag for her like I was in the cast of "les Miserables." I respect her, think her wildly qualified, and wise.

"But until that time, I'm rooting for Barack Obama.

He adds, "All this having been said, I should end with three disclaimers. One, Obama was one year ahead of me at Punahou High School in Hawaii. Two, my brother's name is Barak (sic). And three, when I met Obama at a fundraiser not long ago, he shook my hand and whispered to me, "Jeff Bridges was the best movie president ever." He had my vote then."

Could it be?

There was just one truly memorable byte from tonight's Democratic debate in Austin, Texas, and it was when Hillary Clinton chided Barack Obama for lifting portions of his speeches from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

"Lifting whole passages is not change you can believe in," she said, "it's change you can Xerox."

The audience booed, Obama said the equivalent of "ah, come on," and others surely groaned.

It was a "zinger" that fell flat, especially after a day-long buildup in which commentators demanded such a "game changer." It didn't happen.

Perhaps debate "punches" just aren't what they used to be, certainly not to a real-life and TV audience satiated on campaign slogans and one-line swipes in 30-second spots.  They once  helped Walter Mondale get his race back on track when he declared "where's the beef?" to a speechless Gary Hart. Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle, "You're no Jack Kennedy," and although Dukukis-Bentsen lost the race, Quayle's ambitions ended at the vice presidency.

When Clinton fired her zinger, it had the sound of something that her campaign staff debated, parsed and prepared endlessly before it was ready for prime time. It was inauthentic, in a campaign that demands authenticity --- or the best imitation of it.

Obama dismissed Clinton as engaging in the "silly season" of politics, and said, "What we shouldn't be doing is tearing each other down, we should be lifting the country up."

The irony is that Clinton often scored on substance. She and Obama had a rigorous debate over universal mandated health care coverage --- and she perhaps caught him a bit off guard when she asked why he opposes them for adults yet has them for children. Her plan sounded more thought out and convincing. Yes, even in the 19th Democratic debate this election season there is still something left to haggle about. (And there's a 20th on the way on Tuesday).

Obama, too, had his moments. He spoke with more clarity than in the past about foreign policy --- his chief weakness. He challenged a line from Clinton's stump speeches: "Let's get real."

"The implication is that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," he said. "You know, the 20 million people who have been paying attention to 19 debates, and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas. You know, the thinking is that somehow they're being duped and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things."

That reality was perhaps reflected in Clinton's closing statement, when she alluded to the notion that she very well may not win this thing. It was her best moment.

"You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country," she said.

"You know, no matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. We have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, that is what this election should be all about."

Sure, the lines sounded a lot like those of John Edwards and Bill Clinton and, as one blogger pointed out, those in the movie "Primary Colors." They may not be original --- certainly not when you see them in print --- but the way that Clinton delivered them ended the night on an upbeat note. And that's perhaps just what this increasingly acrimonious race needed.

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told NPR News' "All Things Considered" today that its piece on John McCain "was not a gotcha story about some kind of quid pro quo."

In explaining the decision to run the story, he said, “We don’t know if there was a quid or a quo in this case. What we do know is that people very close to him, who watched him day after day, were worried enough by his behavior that they felt that he was endangering his career.”

Much of the controversy over the story stems from the Times' decision to rely so heavily on unnamed sources. Keller told NPR, “Obviously, you would like to have not just on-the-record sources, but documentary evidence for everything you put in the newspaper, but if you refused to publish stories that included anonymously sourced information, most of the most important things we know about how our country is run would not published – there are things you just cannot find without being willing to protect your sources.”

Keller also reiterated why he thought McCain's relationship to lobbyist Vicki Iseman was relevant.

“He [McCain] came back from Vietnam a hero, entered into public life and then was felled by the Keating five scandal, if you read his books, it was clearly a humiliating event for him. And he subsequently built his political life on themes of redemption, reform, you know, rectitude, if you will – and became the scourge of lobbyists, the champion of campaign finance reform, and so on, in Washington.”

“Yet, according to some people who knew him best, he can be surprisingly careless about his reputation, and that’s what I think this, his relationship with this particular lobbyist illustrates, although I think there’s a lot of other illustrations as well in the piece.”

Meanwhile, on the Huffington Post, Lanny Davis supports McCain's claim that he wasn't unduly influenced by lobbyists. Davis' evidence? He lobbied McCain on behalf of public TV station WQED in Pittsburgh, to no avail. He also notes that neither did Bud Paxson, for whom Iseman was lobbying.

Davis writes, "Another fact not included in the Times's and Post's account: Mr. Paxson, the individual cited in the Times and the Post as engaging a lobbyist to help get his purchase of Cornerstone's channel approved as part of the three-way transaction, failed to get what he wanted."

More of Keller's interview with NPR here.

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Updated

"It's not true," John McCain declared at a press conference this morning, to rebut the New York Times story, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk," a.k.a. the blonde bombshell. It raises questions about McCain's relationship with telecom lobbyists, but it is really about sex, and the time that he has spent with one in particular, Vicki Iseman. The story has proven that if there's one thing right-wing talk radio is more wary of than McCain, it is the newspaper that endorsed him. They were unified in dismissing the story, as Rush Limbaugh called it a "drive-by media event." 

The problem with the story is that it relies so heavily on anonymous sources, and even then it never really produces a smoking gun, other than a meeting that McCain aide John Weaver had with Iseman to tell her to stay away from the senator.  But short of details about what was said, even that is a bit thin. (Time has Cliff's Notes.) It is a "read-between-the-lines" piece that can easily be dismissed as innuendo. That's why the focus in the coming days will be squarely on the New York Times itself and their decision to run the story.

Clooney's Concern: In an otherwise amusing profile of George Clooney, Time's Joel Stein captures the movie star wondering if his Darfur activism is worth it. Stein writes, "The Darfur organization he helped found, Not on Our Watch, has given away more than $9 million. But now, just three weeks back from having a 14-year-old border guard shove a machine gun at his chest, after recovering from malaria, after helicoptering out of N'Djamena, Chad, in a sandstorm three days before the rebels sacked it, he wonders if his critics are right, if this scheme to use celebrity to bring attention to the world's plights isn't, if not vanity, at least striving after wind. "I've been very depressed since I got back. I'm terrified that it isn't in any way helping. That bringing attention can cause more damage. You dig a well or build a health-care facility and they're a target for somebody," he says. "A lot more people know about Darfur, but absolutely nothing is different. Absolutely nothing.""

The Obama supporter doubts that he will win an Oscar for "Michael Clayton," predicting it will instead go to Daniel Day-Lewis for "There Will Be Blood."

"For me, it's like being Hillary Clinton," Clooney told Time in its latest edition due out on Friday. "If it weren't for Barack Obama, it would have been a very good year."

Clooney, by the way, is an Obama supporter.

"SNL" Cameo: Mike Huckabee is due to make a cameo on the return of "Saturday Night Live" this week, in a show that is bound to focus on the political scene. Executive producer Lorne Michaels tells the New York Times, “We’re going to have to do Obama this week. We need to find our Obama.”

Flashback: In Newsweek, George Will talks with George McGovern, who thinks he could have won in 1972. How? Will writes, "McGovern thinks he could have won with a running mate then called "the most trusted man in America"—Walter Cronkite. Before choosing Eagleton, McGovern considered asking Cronkite, who recently indicated he would have accepted."

Hollywood Giving: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to land star contributions in January. Reports filed yesterday show that Clinton took in contributions from George Takei, Sally Field, Tony Bennett, Susan St. James and Debra Messing, while Obama collected money from Danny DeVito, Teri Hatcher, Bonnie Franklin and Margot Kidder, according to the New York Daily News. I'll have a more complete rundown later today or early tomorrow.

Cindy and Vicki: Humor site 23/6 asks of the McCain hubub: Is it cheating if she looks exactly like your wife?

A long rumored New York Times investigation into John McCain's ties to an industry lobbyist just landed on the paper's website tonight --- which probably raises more questions than it answers.

It suggests that something inappropriate went on between McCain and Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for such communications moguls as Lowell "Bud" Paxson, founder of family network Pax TV.  McCain sits on the Sentae Commerce Committee, which overseas the broadcast and cable business. Much of McCain's Hollywood support comes from execs in the broadcast and cable business.

But the suggestion that McCain --- the campaign finance reformer --- was somehow swayed by special interests is the "dry" part of the Times story.

It's the implication that McCain and Iseman were perhaps a bit too close --- even though each has denied they were in a romantic relationship.

The Times story, bylined by four staff writers and two researchers, includes these graphs: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

"That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

"A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

"In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."

It's still pretty opaque stuff --- depending on what you read into "behaving inappropriately." So it's hard to actually label this a Gennifer Flowers/Donna Rice scandal yet, outside of the Beltway rumor mill.

McCain tried to run interference, calling editor Bill Keller to complain about the inquiry. And his campaign issued a statement, “It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Barack Obama's 10-0 streak comes with a few warning signs: As Hillary Clinton points out in her stump speeches, she's best prepared to handle the Republican attack machine because she's been through it. And the Politico's Jonathan Martin finds truth in her claim. He finds that the Obama campaign has been slow to counter such things as allegations that Obama is a Muslim and, most recently, that Michelle Obama is anti-American. The latter results from her obvious gaffe when she said to a Wisconsin audience, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." It's been pounced on for the past two days by right-wing talk radio, Cindy McCain, even the otherwise friendly Drudge Report.

Martin writes, "The right-wing media voices may not have any great affection for John McCain, but the senator and some of his top advisers have been around long enough to know that most of these conservatives loathe liberals even more.

"They’ll never go anywhere near the Muslim smear or anything approaching racial territory, of course (that has already proven to have considerable currency underground). But there is nothing that delights a Republican operative more than the prospect of a Democratic candidate (or spouse) criticizing the country. It plays right into the blame-America-first narrative that the GOP has been beating over the heads of Democratic candidates dating back to George McGovern in ’72."

He adds, "The good news for Obama is that he and his campaign have now -- assuming they’ve grasped the impact -- been given something of a warning shot. It’s only February. There is time yet to figure out the difference between the way to win and the way to lose."

Union Label: Of course, others beg to differ on whether Obama is cut out for a crueling campaign against the right. He now has the backing of the Teamsters, which rivals Hillary Clinton's endorsement by IATSE and certainly Mike Huckabee's nod from Chuck Norris.

Easy Ride?: Is there now media parity in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama coverage?

Hillary Clinton told a reporter in Honolulu that "the media is finally examining my opponent." A recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study, conducted before a round of attacks on Barack Obama over the weekend, including a charge of plagiarism, shows that he has enjoyed favorable coverage in an environment when Democrats have dominated the news cycle. But she stumbled in talking about the plagiarism charge, telling the reporter, "Look, it's not us making the charge. It's the media."

In fact, as many reporters pointed out, the Clinton campaign conducted a conference call on Monday with reporters, and distributed a YouTube video to boot. The Wisconsin results certainly didn't seem to show any sign that it was effective --- save for a close vote among late deciders---but I'd bet that more speech comparisons are yet to come.

Meanwhile, one of the alleged pro-Obama perpetrators, Chris Matthews, proved that Obama's team best make their surrogates are well-prepared before they do on TV.

"Chicago 10" Event: Vanity Fair, Participant Media, and Roadside Attractions are sponsoring a town hall meeting tonight called "Speaking Your Peace: Activism Through Art," tied to a screening of Brett Morgen's documentary "Chicago 10." A panel will discuss the parallels between 1968 and 2008, with a screening of the pic to follow.

Chris Connelly moderates the panel that includes Morgen, MOCA LA director Jeremy Strick, Huffington Post constributor Paul Krassner and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who is penning the upcoming film, "The Trial of the Chicago 7." The event is being held at the Pacific Design Center.

It didn't seem to work in Wisconsin, according to exit polls.

According to MSNBC,  "When we asked if either of these candidates attacked the other unfairly, 53% said that Clinton was unfair, while only 33% said the same about Obama."

Clinton ran ads attacking Obama for refusing to debate, but Obama vastly outspent her on 30-second spots. In fact, chances are that more voters learned of Obama's refusal to debate in Wisconsin from his own advertisements --- in which he responded to Clinton's ads as an example of his opponent's negative campaigning (in addition to pointing out that they've have 18 debates so far). 

Clinton's campaign also charged with plagiarism in lifting portions of his speech from that of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. But Obama's campaign immediately fired back with instances where Clinton used some of Obama's phrasing.

Meanwhile, shortly after Wisconsin was called for Barack Obama, the cable news networks shifted from a speech Hillary Clinton was giving in Ohio to one Obama was giving in Houston. The New York Times called it "a telling sign of the showmanship power of a front-runner."

Was it rude of Obama to go onstage when his chief rival was still speaking? Or better yet, was it rude of Clinton not to publicly concede the state to Obama?

My guess is the race will get uglier in the next few days, and gradually the campaigns will tell a  more positive message as it gets closer to March 4.

Networks declare Barack Obama the winner in the Badger State, extending his streak to nine over Hillary Clinton.

John McCain wins handily over Mike Huckabee, and in a speech to supporters declares that he has all but won the nomination.

"Houston, I think we have achieved liftoff here," Obama told a gathering of some 20,000 in Houston, where he is campaigning for the Texas primary on March 4.

According to CNN exit polls, Obama led slightly or was nearly even with Clinton among women and blue collar voters, a parity that cut into Clinton's core base of support.

My colleague Brian Lowry writes in Variety that for all of the emphasis on punditry, Internet blogging and newspaper enterprise this election, the truth is that TV is still commanding this campaign --- and it inevitably benefits Barack Obama.

He writes, "At 46, Obama is the only candidate within the media-friendly 18-49 demographic. He's tall (roughly seven inches taller than McCain at 6'2"), charismatic and smooth speaking off the cuff. His mixed-race heritage speaks directly to a youth culture where white kids are the biggest buyers of rap music and Will Smith is perhaps the world's leading box office draw.

"Next to McCain, the image will be unavoidable: A party leader representative of the U.S.' multiethnic future, looking even more energetic and vital opposite someone that could charitably be cast as a loyal defender of the nation's standards and traditions. In a sense, the symbolic distinctions play to both parties' core strengths, while offering a clearly defined choice for those in the middle.

"Put aside specific policy arguments to dispassionately handicap the participants based on TV's style-over-substance criteria and, to borrow a phrase, Obama will drink his milkshake."

Updated

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred over the weekend in advance of today's Wisconsin primary (with some schoolyard-level back and forths), the Republican National Committee was in Los Angeles at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, plotting its campaign against either of the candidates, with attendees ranging from Karl Rove to "Tonight Show" segment producer Dave Berg.  It should come as little surprise that things look pretty negative come the general election, whether the candidate is Clinton or Obama.

Jeffrey Ressner of the Politico writes that the "winter retreat" included a Power Point presentation of how to run against Obama.

"The first called for pointing out what the GOP views as a seeming incongruity between Obama and the mantle of commander in chief. The second point harkened back to Obama’s days in the Illinois state Senate, noting how his “pattern of voting ‘present’ offers many openings to question his candidacy.” The third offered hope to the GOP faithful that “we can be confident in a campaign about issues.” A fourth bullet point relayed how “undisciplined messaging carries great risk,” while the fifth and final attack point stressed, “His greatest weakness is inexperience. He is not ready to be commander in chief. He is not ready to be president.”"

(As Time's The Page points out, Obama, in an interview with "Today," seems to be anticipating such attacks).

Berg called "There Will Be Blood" "another example of the Hollywood left's contempt for capitalism," and was scathing in his assessment of the Writers Guild. “The WGA cut a side deal with David Letterman but not with our show. We had to go back to work as the No. 4 network with no writers and no stars. Actors would not cross the line. I didn’t read this anywhere, but they were threatened with blackballing if they crossed the line to do our shows.” Ressner writes that Berg thinks this is ironic since Hollywood is “obsessed” with the 1950s blacklisting era of Joseph McCarthy. “The true threat of McCarthyism,” he says, “is coming from the left.”

Spike Lee for Obama: The director tells a University of Dayton audience he's supporting the Illinois senator and he urges them to "do the right thing" and vote.

Another Apology: Chris Matthews apologized on Monday when MSNBC mistakenly inserted a photo of Osama bin Laden in a story on Barack Obama and his use of some of Deval Patrick's phrasing in his speeches.

The Video: Will.i.am talks to John Harwood of the New York Times about the "Yes, We Can" video. "It struck an emotional chord with people," he says.

Quotable: “It gets expensive in a big hurry and if you’re not careful you can alienate some Swedes. If word gets out to Stockholm that we’re using Abba music, then there’ll be a
worsening in U.S.-Swedish relations.” John McCain, lamenting the group Abba's objections to his campaign's use of the song, "Take a Chance on Me."

That, and other news, in today's President's Day Political Panorama.

Hillary Clinton's campaign is charging Barack Obama with "plagiarism" for a speech he gave on Saturday that they say was a bit too similar to one given by Obama-backer and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. The speech was in reaction to charges that Obama's campaign was just empty rhetoric. Obama said, "Don't tell me words don't matter! ‘I have a dream' -- just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident that all me are created equal' -- just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? Just speeches?"

Obama's campaign, however, says that Obama and Patrick are "friends who share similar views and talk and trade good lines all the time."  The Boston Globe last year noted that the two share lines --- in fact the same lines that the Clinton campaign identified on their conference call this morning --- but not much was made of it back then.

Is it plagiarism?  The Random House dictionary defines it "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." So technically, it is not, as Obama's use of Patrick's phrasing was not "unauthorized," even if he did not credit Patrick. Asked whether he should have given a nod to Patrick in his speech, Obama said today, "I'm sure I should have." "I really don't think this is too big of a deal," he said, according to the Politico.

But it is an attack on Obama's chief strength, and in that regard it can distract the campaign from  other issues on the eve of the Wisconsin primary, which is clearly what the Clinton campaign was aiming for. Moreover, they have the gift of YouTube, where users can compare for themselves. We'll see tomorrow whether it worked.

Obama's camp, meanwhile,  immediately  dispatched instances of Clinton using some of his lines and phrasing, including the signature "Fired up and ready to go!"

Shades of 1987: I couldn't help but think back to 1987, when Joe Biden looked on his way to becoming the Democratic front-runner before claims surfaced that he lifted a speech from British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock.  Biden had credited Kinnock in previous speeches, but not the one that was videotaped. Biden then dropped out of the race. As it turned out, Michael Dukakis' campaign manager John Sasso had secretly distributed this piece of opposition research to reporters, and when Dukakis found out, he fired Sasso.

So how things have changed --- No more secret droppings of opposition research to political reporters. The campaigns are proudly doing it out in the open, on the record, via conference calls and press releases.

Pullout Fallout: At least online, there's anger at Steven Spielberg in China over his decision to pull out of the Beijing Olympics.

Clinton Coverage: Newsweek's Evan Thomas tries to figure out what is at the root of the Clintons' tensions with the media. He writes, "Obama appeals to the young millennial-generation reporters who fill the seats on press planes, just as Bill Clinton struck a chord with baby boomers 16 years ago. Her campaign has arguably alienated reporters by stonewalling them at times, but the relationship between the press and the Clintons is complicated—more in the nature of a bad marriage than a cold war."

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Bill Clinton griped in an interview on Tuesday that "the political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I've never seen this before. They've been active participants in this election. . . . But I don't want to talk about the press. I want to talk about the people. That's what's wrong with this election, people trying to take this election away from the people."

In fact, his assertion has been a common theme among the Clinton campaign --- that the media is stacked up against them, wooed by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills and holding Hillary Clinton to a double standard, probably because of her gender.

Their complaints come with plenty of evidence, starting with David Shuster's comments, Drudge's daily anti-Hillary postings, the tingly reaction of commentators to Obama victory speeches and the near unanimous conclusions that Hillary's stump speeches have about as much inspiration as Mondale '84.

True. But in recent days, as reporters dissect just how the Clinton campaign got to this point, treading perilously close to writing political obituaries (never a good idea, ever), they have ferreted out a simple problem: arrogance. It was the assumption, from the beginning, that Clinton would be the nominee. Such a strategy nearly ruined John McCain's campaign and certainly contributed to Rudy Giuliani's wipe out. And apparently the Clinton campaign was so convinced that the fight would be over by Feb. 5 that they didn't plan serious runs in February states, or the money needed to do it.

So it is interesting that some in the media are also casting blame on the Clinton campaign's media relations.

Chris Matthews, who already has apologized to Clinton for some of his comments, nevertheless let it rip on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning, calling her campaign's press relations "lousy." "If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians -- and in all fairness, the press -- human reaction to intimidation is screw you. That's the human reaction. Don't tell me what to say, and that has been their whole policy. We're going to win this thing. Get out of the way."

In the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson challenged the notion that reporters aren't vetting Obama. "Reporters are busy combing through Obama's personal, professional and financial history, just as they have examined the lives of the Clintons. Obama has facilitated this process by releasing his tax returns, which Clinton has declined to do. It is not unfair to point this out." But he also challenged Clinton's dismissal of the caucuses as  disproportionately  favoring upper income voters. "I don't recall traffic jams of chauffeured limousines around the caucus sites in Iowa, Maine and the other caucus states Clinton lost," Robinson wrote.

Do a campaign's media relations really make a difference to the average voter? I seriously doubt it.  But time and again this election cycle, what voters have sensed is hubris, and as much as that is pervasive in a campaign, the media picks up on it. Obama's campaign is guilty of it too --- the confusion of enthusiasm and celebrity endorsements with actual support.  And  the media, more than any politician, has been guilty of assumptions and grand sweeping statements that later turned out to be false.

Declare Yourself: Tina Daunt of the Los Angeles Times profiles one of the figures at the center of boosting youth turnout in this year's primary season: 85-year-old Norman Lear, whose Declare Yourself org is aiming to register at least 2.4 million young voters this year. "That's where my life is: How are we going to make things right for the next generation?" Lear said. "I'm not sure we've done a very good job of that. They are the ones who are making things right for themselves."

Spielberg Fallout: Time's Austin Ramzy writes that Beijing faces big problems ahead if Steven Spielberg's pullout of the Olympics leads to other defections. "Part of the issue is that the Summer Games are no mere sporting event for China. Even though Beijing demands the event not be politicized, it is using the Games to demonstrate that China has returned to its rightful place as a world player whose opinion matters. As long as the government ties China's global prestige to the success of the event, so it will be stung by any slights or failures. That's a position Beijing's opponents are learning to exploit. "The more the government gives political priority to the Games, the more the international political pressure on the Chinese government will increase," says Yan Xuetong, director of the Institute of International Studies at Beijing's Tsinghua University. "

Campaign Coverage: John Heileman has a very perceptive piece in New York magazine that pins the  media's divergent coverage of the Clinton and Obama campaigns as the media's desire to find "meta-narratives" for both candidates. Unfortunately for Clinton, hers only reinforced perceptions about her.

Heileman writes, "For any candidate and his or her team, the formation and management of the meta-narrative are paramount strategic challenges. And these challenges were especially daunting for Clinton because she started out with much of hers already baked in. Even so, early on, her campaign had ample opportunity to alter the vestigial perceptions of her. They had done so effectively, after all, when she first ran for the Senate in New York. But instead, the affect she presented to reporters was in perfect keeping with all the stereotypes about her: She was guarded and relentlessly, robotically on-message on the rare occasions when she sat for interviews, displaying little of her charm or humor. She adopted an arch-Establishmentarian posture rather than an inspiring, transformational one—an alterna-stance that wouldn’t have been such a stretch for someone who stood a reasonable chance of becoming our first female president.

"And, in fact, it was worse than that. By arguing that one of Clinton’s key virtues was her ability to go toe-to-toe with the GOP attack machine, her campaign exacerbated instead of ameliorated her reputation for ruthlessness. “By bragging about how tough they were,” says John Edwards’s former chief strategist, Joe Trippi, “they reinforced the sense of the media that everything they did had a negative cast to it.” At the same time, Trippi argues, “it made it really hard for them to call Obama on his shit. How can you complain about Obama being negative when you’re bragging about your willingness to do the same thing against the Republicans?”"

Matt Bai in the New York Times finds little surprise that Barack Obama switched to a much more technocratic tone in his speeches this week: After the wildly popular Will.i.am video, Obama has perhaps discovered the limits of being the candidate of cool. In fact, it's a good summation of why deploying celebrities on the campaign trail is a delicate process --- and how it can work against them in a general election.

Bai offers this anecdote:

"After Super Tuesday, I was surprised to find that a friend of mine, a lifelong Democrat who had been pledging his allegiance to Barack Obama all year, had stepped into the voting booth and suddenly changed is mind. He voted, instead, for Hillary Clinton, and here’s why: he’d watched that video online —you know, the one starring celebrities like will.i.am, Scarlett Johansson and Herbie Hancock—and he thought it made Obama look Hollywood smug, as if supporting him were this year’s version of wearing an AIDS ribbon on your lapel. My friend didn’t want anything to do with the latest chic cause, and he just couldn’t bring himself to pull the lever for the guy who now symbolized the things he liked least about Democratic politics, starting with all those stars who think they know more about America than the people who live in it."

Bai writes, "The morphing of the Obama campaign into this year’s glamorous social cause has created one of strangest ironies of the election. Mr. Obama sees himself as the harbinger of post-Boomer politics, the first of the next generation of less partisan problem-solvers. And yet, somehow, he has become, over these last several weeks, the Democrats’ nostalgia candidate. Those voters and celebrities who perennially long to reawaken the spirit of the ’60s, or who regret being too young to have lived through that turbulent period, seem to have adopted Mr. Obama as their connection to the past, whether he likes it or not. (No less an authority on the time than Ethel Kennedy has remarked on how much Mr. Obama’s movement reminds her of her husband’s. For Boomer nostalgia, it’s hard to top that.)"

That's probably why Obama's campaign has to be encouraged that it did win working class voters in Virginia and Maryland, after the star power involved in the California and New York campaigns had come and gone.

Updated

In their first official response to Steven Spielberg's decision to drop out of the Olympic Games, Chinese government authorities defended their efforts in Darfur and accused activists in general of "ulterior motives."

Variety's Clifford Coonan writes from Beijing, "The tone of the Chinese response, which came after a lengthy period of reflection in the corridors of power about how to deal with this setback to the Olympic production, is best described as a combination of defiance, nationalistic resolve and a feeling of being hard done by."

Olympic organizers, known as BOCOG, said in a statement, "The Chinese government has made unremitting efforts to resolve the Darfur issue, an obvious fact to the international community which holds unprejudiced opinions on this issue."

That the government responded at all is an indication that they are concerned with the public relations fallout from Spielberg's decision, especially as world attention focuses on China in the lead up to the Games in August.

"Linking the Darfur issue to the Olympic Games will not help to resolve this issue and is not in line with the Olympic Spirit that separates sports from politics," BOCOG said.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters that "It is understandable if some people do not understand the Chinese government policy on Darfur. But I am afraid that some people may have ulterior motives, and this we cannot accept."

"China is also concerned about the humanitarian crisis there, but we have been playing a positive and constructive role in promoting peace in Darfur," he said.

Updated

This new music video is making the rounds. It's pro-Hillary --- more Up with People than Will.i.am. Is this a parody?

It's not a joke, but the creation of Silicon Valley executive Gene Wang.

The Clinton campaign will follow through with plans for a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland after earlier indicating a boycott of NBC News because of comments one of its correspondents made about Chelsea Clinton.

David Shuster of MSNBC's "Hardball" had used the phorase "pimped out" to descirbe Chelsea Clinton's role in the campaign, triggering his suspension and an angry letter from Hillary Clinton herself to NBC News chief Steve Capus.

But there appears to be a change in tactic, as Hillary is hitting Barack Obama with an ad in Wisconsin that criticizes him for refusing to a debate there.

Clinton and Obama also have a debate scheduled for Feb. 21 in Austin, Texas.

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Variety's Clifford Coonan reports from Beijing that the reaction from the Chinese government to Steven Spielberg's decision to bow out of the Games was ... no reaction. He writes, "There was a deafening silence too from Beijing’s Olympic organizers (BOCOG), which met late into the night to discuss the US helmer’s decision. The initial reserve from Olympic organizers showed China is keen to limit any negative fallout and sources close to the organizers stressed that it was Spielberg’s personal decision to step down."

He adds, "Beijing has issued many warnings against politicising the Olympics, and statements in coming days are sure to reiterate this view."

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not directly address the pullout, but issued a statement:

"As the Darfur issue is neither an internal issue of China, nor is it caused by China, it is completely unreasonable, irresponsible and unfair for certain organizations and individuals to link the two as one," the embassy statement said, according to Reuters.

Playing Nice: The New York Times Alessandra Stanley surveys MSNBC's election coverage and finds that the mostly male anchor team is on their best behavior. She writes, "MSNBC was the only one of the three cable news networks that showed Mrs. Clinton’s speech at a Texas rally almost in its entirety; Fox News and CNN cut away much sooner to the primary results. Tuesday night’s coverage of the so-called Potomac primaries on MSNBC was so polite it was almost comical: the channel’s usually brash, voluble anchors were like schoolboys sent to the principal’s office, straining to look penitent and extra attentive."

Meanwhile, there is a pro-David Shuster campaign afoot on Facebook. And it turns out Shuster did bristle at a particularly nasty anti-Hillary e-mail he received two weeks ago.

After winning the Potomac primaries, where he posted across the board wins across almost all key demographics.

The news that Steven Spielberg will pull out of the Olympic Games was not surprising --- he had indicated that he would take some sort of action if there was no major progress on Darfur by the end of 2007.

His action is bound to ignite further calls for others involved in the Games to pull out, and will put new pressure on corporate sponsors to in turn pressure China. Just hours after his announcement, Human Rights Watch issued a release in which it said that "corporate sponsors are putting their reputations at risk unless they work to convince the Chinese government to uphold the human rights pledges it made to bring the Games to Beijing."

Spielberg's most vocal critic, Mia Farrow, told Variety's Winter Miller  that the director's decision was "absolutely great."

"I couldn't be happier at a more hopeless moment. It has been a terrible week in Darfur, three towns were attacked sending 200,000 more people fleeing for their lives. I'm pleased he stepped forward and declared it a matter of conscience. The hope is that Spielberg's voice will be heard around the world, and that sponsors and supporters of the Beijing Olympics will use their leverage with China to force Sudan to cease the slaughter of civilians and admit an effective peacekeeping force.

"This is exactly what China didn't want, they don't want their games sullied. No spitting on the ground, no chewing gum, and now the most famous director in the world has said he can't participate in their Olympics as a matter of conscience. This is huge. It is a defining moment for China. China and China alone has the power to influence Khartoum."

He wins the Maryland primary, adding to wins in Virginia and Washington DC.

It's looking like a very good night for Barack Obama, with networks also calling the District of Columbia for him.

Also called is a John McCain win in Virginia, despite a stronger-than-expected Mike Huckabee.

Networks call the race.

Steven Spielberg has decided not to participate in the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing as an artistic adviser, citing the lack of progress in ending the genocide in Darfur.

The move marks a public relations blow to the Chinese government as it tries to prevent the Games from being politicized, not just on the Darfur crisis but other issues.

“After careful consideration, I have decided to formally announce the end of my involvement as one of the overseas artistic advisers to the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games,” Spielberg said in a statement released today.

“I have made repeated efforts to encourage the Chinese government to use its unique influence to bring safety and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan,” Spielberg wrote. “Although some progress has been made …the situation continues to worsen and the violence continues to accelerate.”

“With this in mind, I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue with business as usual,” he added. “At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that will continue to be committed in Darfur.”

Spielberg noted that the Olympic Organizing Committee had sent him a contract nearly a year ago, but he left it unsigned.

Spielberg was pressured by Darfur activists to drop out, and actress Mia Farrow even warned that he would be the "Leni Reinfenstahl" of the Games if he continued his participation.

Last spring, Spielberg tried to put pressure on Chinese president Hu Jintao to take a more active role in pressuring the Sudan government to let a UN security force in Darfur to end the genocide in that country. Although the Chinese government supported a UN resolution to send troops to the region, the Sudanese government is still balking at letting the peacekeepers in, and the crisis continues.

His full statement below:

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Voters cast their ballots in Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia today, with Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton in polls in all three contests, and Mike Huckabee looking for signs of life against John McCain.

A few media notes: Cable news channels will have complete coverage, and washingtonpost.com and Newsweek will host a live online video Webcast of the results starting at 4 p.m. PST (7 p.m. EST). Newsweek editor Jon Meacham anchors, joined by reporters and analysts from the two publications.

Glenn for Clinton: Former Ohio senator/astronaut/'84 presidential contender John Glenn endorses Hillary Clinton.

Not So Super: On Huffington Post, Ari Emanuel is wary of his brother Rahm's power as a superdelegate. "I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

"So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States."

No Go for Gore: There's doubts that Al Gore will endorse in the primary, although he'll eventually have to cast a vote as a superdelegate.

The Fox Treatment: Hillary Clinton points out a study that shows Fox News is providing fairer coverage of her campaign than MSNBC.  She tells The Politico of the Shuster incident, "This is like the third time they've had to apologize. And there are a lot of things that they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one. So I wish they would take a look at, you know, some of the pattern of demeaning comments that are made on their networks."

Gay Record: Hillary Clinton hits Barack Obama on Donnie McClurkin, the gospel singer who campaigned for him in South Carolina yet caused an uproar over anti-gay comments he made in the past.  Asked about Obama's recent references to gays in front of non-gay audiences, Clinton tells the Washington Blade that she finds it  "ironic" given that he had McClurkin on his tour.

Penn Putdown: Magician Penn (one half of Penn & Teller) explains his sexist Hillary joke --- and calls David Shuster that "poor dumb bastard."

It's a parody of Will.i.am's "Yes, We Can" pro-Obama video, which has reached more than 3 million hits on YouTube. This one is to the tune of John McCain --- and the prospect of 10,000 years in Iraq.

Barack Obama has agreed to participate in a debate with Hillary Clinton at the LBJ Library on Feb. 21 (a Thursday), to be co-hosted by CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party.

No word yet from CNN on who will moderate.

Also unclear is the fate of a planned NBC News debate in Ohio on Feb. 26. Clinton's campaign cast doubt on her participation after MSNBC reporter David Shuster referred to Chelsea Clinton's politicking for her mother as being "pimped out." Shuster later apologized and was suspended.

Updated

That, and other news, in today's Political Panorama.

Watching the pundit panel on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, one thing was apparent: Predictions are peril. David Broder made the obvious point that much of the media's conventional wisdom of the presidential race has been turned on its head --- and then again. The latest was the notion that Super Tuesday would tilt the race in favor of one Democratic contender or another, and that the nomination battle would be all but over on Feb. 5. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Howard Kurtz writes in the Washington Post, "Time and again, the media's preferred narratives for this campaign have collided with reality. Remember when journalists repeatedly declared that both nominations would be settled by Feb. 5? Scratch that. How about the blowout television and print coverage of Ted Kennedy anointing Barack Obama as the crown prince of Camelot? Hillary Clinton showed how little it mattered in the heart of Kennedy country, taking Massachusetts by 15 percentage points."

Here are the latest "storylines" that could very well be proven wrong: February is Obama's month for wins; Ohio and Texas are Clinton's "firewall"; John Edwards is likely to endorse Obama; it's all about the "superdelegates"...

Youth for Hil: And how about one more? The notion that young voters are all for Obama. There's certainly some truth to that, but Hillary Clinton's campaign is making a play for the 18-29 set with this new video, "Hillary and the Band." It's been around for a while, but for some reason it's just getting some notice in the past few days.

Video Bonanza: The New York Times looks at the flood of citizen journalists and "embeds" that capture every moment on the campaign trail.

GOP and Grammys: RNC spokesman Alex Conant had this to say about Barack Obama's Grammy win: "I imagine Obama's Grammy will look nice on his mantle next to his 'most liberal' senator award. Glowing Hollywood endorsements and awards won't translate into votes this fall."

Wax Works: The Washington branch of Madame Tussauds unveils Barack Obama figure, with Obama initially put behind the Oval Office desk and Bill and Hillary off to the side. 

This has been a very good weekend for Barack Obama. He won Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska and the Virgin Islands, and is leading in Maine today. And he also won a Grammy.

Obama won in the spoken word category for his audio book reading of "The Audacity of Hope," beating Bill Clinton for "Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World" and Jimmy Carter with "Sunday Mornings in Plains." Maya Angelou and Alan Alda also were nominated.

Carter and Clinton have won Grammys before. Hillary Clinton won in 1996 for her reading of "It Takes a Village."

Coming off of Super Tuesday, he wins in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and the Virgin Islands to widen his lead over Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates.

MSNBC's David Shuster is being taken off the air after saying that Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" in her role in making get-out-the-vote calls to celebrities and superdelegates on behalf of her mother's campaign.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson had threatened to pull out of a planned Feb. 26 NBC debate in outrage over the comment.

NBC News president Steve Capus called the comment "irresponsible and inappropriate," and said in a statement that the news division "takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks."

Shuster had been subbing for Tucker Carlson on Thursday when he made the remark. He apologized this morning on MSNBC, and plans to do so again tonight. He also has extended an apology to the Clinton family.