From NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court.

"With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

CONTINUE READING ON NBC NEWS' INVESTIGATIVE BLOG DEEP BACKGROUND

From NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger
FORT WORTH, Texas -- Huckabee tried his hand at roping cattle Friday, but didn't get very far.

With two bails of hay with cow heads taking the place of the real thing, Huckabee received a quick lesson at the Fort Yards Stockyard and then had a try. He seemed to have an issue snapping his wrist, although he was better at the lassooing.

As he tried unsuccessfully, he put things in perspective.

"Ok, you're laughing at me," he said. "You think John McCain could do this better."

His wife, Janet, took aim at the other bail of hay, and lassoed the cow the first time. The governor never got it right.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Here's the Obama response to the Clinton "Children" ad...

Here's the Clinton ad again for reference...

[YouTube:M70emIFxETs]

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Sen. Jay Rockefeller has thrown his support behind Obama. Rockefeller is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

SUPERDELEGATE COUNT (as of 3:40 pm ET, Feb. 29)
Clinton 254
Obama 208

NOTE: Obama has picked up 38 delegates since Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. Clinton has lost a net of 6.

Super delegate numbers reflect totals gathered by the NBC News Political Unit from the campaigns and public endorsements.

The NBC News Hard Count stands at Obama leading Clinton 1,194-1,037.

GRAND TOTAL
Obama 1,402
Clinton 1,291

From NBC's Mark Murray
This Friday, the Clinton and Obama campaigns have traded numerous charges -- over national security, NAFTA, expectations for March 4, and the delegate math.

The Obama camp now has added yet another topic to the discussion: Clinton's tax returns.

"Senator Clinton's refusal to make this very basic disclosure has raised a number of eyebrows among advocates for increased transparency," the Obama campaign says in a memo. "As her top Ohio supporter Governor Ted Strickland said in his 2006 campaign, if a candidate is not releasing his or her "tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what's going on."

Click below for the full memo...

To:     Interested Parties
From:   Obama Campaign
RE:     Why Won't Hillary Clinton Release Her Tax Returns?
DA:     2/29/08

During a recent MSNBC debate, Senator Clinton was asked if she would release her tax returns. She answered, "Well, I will do it as others have done it, upon becoming the nominee or even earlier." But the very next day, her campaign backtracked, saying, "As is customary, as the Democratic nominee Sen. Clinton will release her tax information in April at tax time."

But waiting until April is not customary. In the 2004 Democratic primary, Governor Dean, Rep. Kucinich, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Edwards released their tax returns in April of 2003 – a full year earlier in the primary process. Senator Kerry released his tax returns in December of 2003, and General Clark released his tax returns in January of 2004.

Senator Clinton's refusal to make this very basic disclosure has raised a number of eyebrows among advocates for increased transparency. As her top Ohio supporter Governor Ted Strickland said in his 2006 campaign, if a candidate is not releasing his or her "tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what's going on."

Senator Clinton should explain why she believes voters in the upcoming primaries shouldn't have access to the same information as voters in the general election.

Senator Obama has made a practice of releasing his tax returns (the summary and the schedules), because he believes that after seven years of secrecy from the Bush Administration, we need increased transparency in our government. Allowing voters to evaluate this information is good for the process, but this is particularly true when a candidate decides to use his or her own personal fortunes to fund their campaign, which Senator Clinton did when she loaned her campaign $5 million.

Senator Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns is part of a pattern of secrecy that has imbued her campaign and raises questions about the sort of change she would be willing and able to bring to Washington.

Equally troubling is the fact that three years after Senator Clinton said all the record in the Clinton library would be available, less than 300,000 of the 78 million documents have been released.

In the debate, Senator Clinton tried to cast some of the blame on the White House for the delayed release of her records, saying, "Now, also, President Bush claims the right to look at anything that is released, and I would urge the Bush White House to move as quickly as possible." But White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that Clinton representatives have known since Jan. 31 that the documents – Senator Clinton's daily public schedule during her husband's presidency – have been deemed ready for public release by the National Archives. "To my knowledge, we have not been contacted by Mrs. Clinton or anyone else about moving more quickly with the review and release of Clinton material, specifically, her schedules."

Senator Clinton's misleading answers and refusal to release her taxes and her White House records speak to the fundamental choice facing voters in this election – more of the same Washington games or change the American people can believe in.

From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli
FINDLAY, OH -- Bill Clinton said this morning that, despite the some hard feelings among the candidates' most "severe partisans," he's confident that most Democratic voters are still happy with both candidates, and will support whoever the nominee is.

"We know that an overwhelming majority of the American people believe the country has to change course," Clinton told nearly 1,000 people here at the University of Findlay. "The other thing we know is that most voters who will participate in the Democratic primary like both these candidates. Some of their severe partisans have developed hard feelings about the other -- that always happens. But the truth is, most people like them both."

Clinton, speaking at the first of five scheduled stops in the Buckeye State, told the crowd that if they voted for her in Tuesday's primary, and again in November, she'd be the next president. He also called her "the best change agent I've ever known," though he conceded he's biased.

"I know every time I get up to speak, people say, 'Aw he's gotta do this, they're married," he said. "It is true that I love her. But I love my country, too. And I would not have urged her on in this campaign, would not have encouraged never to quit when times were tough, if I didn't believe she'd be the best president for you."

And he pressed on with the argument he said both candidates made themselves at last week's debate. Without mentioning Barack Obama by name, he said the Illinois senator is making a case that "you should vote for me because I embody change," and that "we need to change Washington, and we don't want anybody who was there before." Hillary, on the other hand, argues that she has the "best record" of making changes in other people's lives and has the best ideas for the future."

"I think that's the better side of the argument."

From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy
ROUND ROCK, TX -- After several days of slamming Obama for his answer at Tuesday's debate about a hypothetical reinvasion of Iraq if Al Qaeda seized control, McCain today found a new line of attack in what is increasingly looking like a general election campaign: NAFTA.

Earlier at the debate on Tuesday, both Clinton and Obama said that they would use the threat of withdrawing from NAFTA to compel Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the terms of the trade agreement. But today, McCain called that irresponsible, especially in light of Canada's military support for the war in Afghanistan.

"One of our greatest assets we have in Afghanistan today, frankly, are our Canadian friends," he said. "It's very controversial in Canada, their commitment and the suffering and the losses they have faced. And we need, we need our Canadian friends and we need their continued support in Afghanistan.

"So what do we do? The two Democrat candidates for president say that they're going to unilaterally, they're going to unilaterally abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Our biggest trading partner, they're going -- who we made a solemn agreement with -- they're gonna unilaterally abrogate that. Now, how do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that –- who we are having now their enormous and invaluable assistance in Afghanistan and we're going to abrogate a free trade agreement?"

"I want to tell you right now I believe in free trade," McCain added.

Speaking to reporters after his town hall, he changed his rhetoric a little bit and muddied his point, admitting that neither of the Democrats have used the word 'abrogate' but that doesn't meant that they aren't looking to withdraw from NAFTA.

"Maybe they're not saying they'd, quote, abrogate. They are saying radically restructure," he said. "The point is not whether I want to renegotiate any terms. The point is whether you want to renegotiate or unilaterally announce that you are going to take certain action whether the Canadians happen to agree with it or not."

But that's not exactly what the Democrats are saying.

On Tuesday, Clinton said this about NAFTA: "It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forth a very specific plan about what I would do. And it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards."

And Obama said this: "I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
The back-and-forth over Clinton's new ad in Texas continues... In an hour-plus conference call with reporters, the Clinton campaign rebutted Obama's criticism that Clinton had her red-phone moment -- the 2002 Iraq war authorization -- and failed.

"The question is not about who will be picking up the phone. The question is what kind of judgment will you exercise when you answer the phone," Obama said today. "We've had a red phone moment -- it was the decision to invade Iraq. Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

VIDEO: Sen. Hillary Clinton's most recent political ad portrays her as the leader voters want on the phone when crisis occurs.

In the conference call, referring to the remarks Obama gave in 2002 opposing the Iraq war, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said, "Sen. Clinton understands there is a big difference between giving a speech and picking up a phone call at 3:00 am in the White House."

Citing Obama's remarks during the 2004 Democratic convention defending John Kerry's vote for the war authorization, as well as Obama's Senate votes in 2005-6 to fund the war, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn added, "Time and time again, you have heard talk from Sen. Obama that's quite different from action."

During the call, however, reporters twice asked Wolfson and Penn when Clinton had ever been tested on foreign policy -- or had to pick up the phone at 3:00 am. "She has been tested throughout her life on so many matters," Penn answered, citing her "strength," her service on the Armed Services Committee, and when she went to China as first lady and said that human rights and women's rights.

"I am not arguing that Sen. Clinton was president of the United States," Wolfson later added. "What I am arguing is that she has the strength and experience to step into the situation." He also noted the numerous former generals and military officers who have endorsed her candidacy.

The argument from the new ad, Wolfson went on to say, is who has the strength and experience to answer that call at 3:00 am. "We believe that person is Sen. Clinton."

Also in the call, the Clinton campaign argued -- as it did in a memo -- that if Obama doesn't win in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on Tuesday, that would signal "buyer's remorse" among Democrats. In other words, if Obama loses even one state next week -- making the race since Feb. 5 14-1 -- it would show voters have big concerns about him.

Wolfson argued the Obama campaign had anointed itself as the front-runner and that it holds numerous advantages over Clinton, including "enormous" financial resources. If Obama doesn't win all four states, Wolfson reasoned, it would show there was dissatisfaction with him as a candidate and send a "very clear signal that Democrats want this campaign to continue."

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
On a conference call to respond to the "3 am" ad that the Clinton campaign went on air with today, former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, an Obama supporter, gave a terse response when asked if Clinton should drop out after March 4th.
 
"I would encourage you on March 5th to call Sen. Clinton at 3 a.m. and ask that question," Danzig said.
 
A morning (and early afternoon) of dueling conference calls and spin started with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe dismissing the Clinton ad. Since that mid-morning call, both Obama and three of his national co-chairs have responded.
 
Stressing that Clinton failed in her own "red-phone moment," Sen. Dick Durbin today referred to 12:50 a.m. on October 2002 when Congress voted to authorize President Bush to go to war. Durbin called that night a "red-phone moment" and said that 77 senators, including Clinton and McCain failed exercise the right judgment.
 
Gen. Tony McPeak (Ret.), the former Air Force chief of staff, told reporters that if they want to see who can handle the phone call at 3 a.m., they should examine the leadership the candidates have exercised over the course of this campaign.
 
"A campaign is a lot like a war in many respects," McPeak said. "If you want to know what kind of commander in chief Senator Obama would be why don't you look at the kind of campaigns that have been run?"

"Are you firing people? Are you loaning yourself money?" he continued.

He also argued that it wasn' t just judgment that was important at 3 a.m., but also temperment. Danzig also responded strongly, saying this type of ad feeds a wrong impression of what it takes to be president and argued that Obama had better judgment and leadership skills than the New York senator.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Who is Texas and Ohio "must win" for again? Hillary Clinton's chief surrogate, former President Bill Clinton, has said she has to win both Texas and Ohio. Harold Ickes, a top aide, said, "If we lose in Texas and Ohio, Mrs. Clinton will have to make her decision as to whether she goes forward or not." Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, said in order to win Pennsylvania, she's got to win Tuesday.

So Clinton must win, right? Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist Mark Penn today released a memo to the media, though, with the subject, "Obama Must-Wins."

"If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem," Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be "decisive," according to the memo.
 
"Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear," Penn continues, "Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer."

Obama has won a majority of nominating contests, including caucuses, but note Penn's use of "primary."

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe says, by their estimate, his candidate is ahead by 162 pledged delegates. (NBC News' hard count shows Obama ahead 157 pledged delegates, but there are 13 delegates still unallocated, including nine in Colorado, two in Maryland and one each in Hawaii, Democrats Abroad, New York and Tennessee. Of those states, Obama won Colorado, Maryland, Hawaii and Abroad.)

"We're heading to a series of close contests" on March 4th, Plouffe said on a conference call with reporters earlier today. "There will not be a huge delegate swing." Plouffe also pointed out that they could rack up more delegates in a decisive victory in Vermont than Clinton could with slight wins in either or both Ohio and Texas. 

"They have said themselves they need to win both Texas and Ohio by over 10 pts," Plouffe said of the Clinton campaign. "There's a long way to go, so maybe they can do that. Their goal was to dig into our pledged delegate lead on March 4. They thought they could make huge delegate strides.

"They're going to fail on that and fail miserably."

Below is the full Penn memo:
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: Friday, February 29, 2008
RE: Obama Must-Wins
 
The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he's playing the part.
 
With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.
 
The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.
 
Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.
 
If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.
 
Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:
 
Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.
 
###

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Obama picked up three new super delegates today, bringing our Super Delegate tracking total to Clinton 254, Obama 207. Notably, this puts Obama over 1,400 total delegates (Obama 1,401, Clinton 1,291) -- combining supers with the NBC News Hard Count, which stands at Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037. Obama has picked up 37 superdelegates since Super Tuesday; Clinton has lost a net of six.

NOTE: The Obama campaign sent out a release showing four superdelegate pick ups, but one of those was already on a list provided to us by the campaign prior to Feb. 5, which is why we add in only three as new.

*** UPDATE *** For those wondering who the four are who have publicly said they have committed to Obama, they are Minnesota DFL Chair Brian Melendez, Minnesota DFL Associate Chair Donna Cassutt, North Dakota DNC Member Renee Pfenning and Texas State Rep. Yvonne Davis. Pfenning was previously on our list; her endorsement at that point may have been private.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Here's that Mondale ad... hat tip to the New York Observer's Politicker blog...

[YouTube:3fu-2Ew1ijg]

A rotating red phone is shown as a an announcer ominously pronounces, "The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about. This is the issues of our times. On March 20, vote as if the future of the world is at stake. Mondale. This president will know what he's doing, and that's the difference between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale."

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Andrea Mitchell notes that Obama responded on camera to Clinton's ad. "We've seen these ads before, trying to play on people's fears, trying to scare up votes," Obama said. "But I don't think they'll work this time. The question is not about who will be picking up the phone. The question is what kind of judgment will you exercise when you answer the phone.

"We've had a red-phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

*** UPDATE 2 *** As NBC's Lauren Appelbaum points out, Roy Spence, who has been advising the Clinton campaign, was also the media advisor for the 1984 Mondale campaign, and helped to create the red-phone ad.

If Obama's the nominee, might the GOP go even further? As Politico's Ben Smith writes, "Indeed, a GOP media consultant who's made his share of red phone spots over the years e-mails that he found Clinton's a bit soft -- long on children, short on direct contrast."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
In a conference call with reporters, the Obama campaign pushed back against Clinton's newest ad. The ad, running in Texas, shows children sleeping and an announcer says, "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, "She had her red-phone moment; she had it in 2002," when she and President Bush voted for the war.

The red phone reference is to an ad run by Walter Mondale in the Democratic primary against Gary Hart.

"We don't think the ad's going to be effective at all," Plouffe also said, continuing, "she's already had her red-phone moment… she answered affirmatively" on her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. "She did not read the NIE, so she did not do her homework either."

When asked repeatedly about the ad on the call, Plouffe focused on "judgment."

"Sen. Clinton's red-phone moment in her career was in 2002," he said again. "And she supported the Iraq war, supported president Bush. ... Ultimately an ad like this is going to make people focus on judgment."

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee emails First Read, "The Clinton campaign has not made any threat 'direct or veiled' to engage in litigation and no legal action is being taken. The campaigns have been discussing primary night procedures and we asked for those procedures to be put in writing before we agree to them. It is standard operating procedure for our campaign -- and we presume any campaign -- to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it."

From NBC's Mark Murray
In response to the new TV ad the Clinton campaign is running in Texas -- "It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep, but there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing" -- the Obama folks are re-releasing this ad from October featuring retired General Tony McPeak.

"As a combat pilot and Air Force chief during Desert Storm, lives depended on the judgments I made. And judgment is what we need from our next commander-in-chief," McPeak says in it.

"Barack Obama opposed this war in Iraq from the start, showing insight and courage others did not. And he's our best hope to restore our security and standing in today's world.
The old Washington hands have let us down. We need a new leader to lift America."

[YouTube:ag8gOXZulXg]

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The GOP's Disadvantages: The New York Times' Nagourney does a smart preview piece of how Republicans are likely to go after Obama in a general election, and are already doing so (on national security, taxes, his voting record, and even his middle name). But what the piece doesn't mention is that the Republican Party is facing HUGE problems -- bigger than any candidate they could face. Indeed, just a look at other articles out there today should have the folks at the RNC reaching for the Tums: the Dem turnout in Texas, Obama and Clinton's fundraising haul in just one month, and the youthfulness and diversity of the Dem electorate. And then there's the Iraq war, Bush's approval rating, and the fact -- as NBC political analyst Charlie Cook points out today -- that it's difficult for one political party to hold onto the White House for three-straight elections.

*** Nevada redux? The Texas papers are reporting today that the Clinton campaign is apparently raising the specter of a lawsuit to challenge the Dem-sanctioned caucuses in the state that will occur on top of the regular primary voting. The motivation here by the Clinton camp is to discount the delegates Obama potentially wins during the caucus portion. Obviously, they are worried that narrow victories in Ohio and Texas will get overshadowed if Obama ends up with more delegates for the night, which is very possible because of his likely landslide win in Vermont and the caucus portion of the Texas prima-caucus. Is the state's delegate-selection process screwy?  Definitely. But how does Team Clinton overturn a process that had been approved for quite some time? This would be the third time -- the Nevada caucus sites on the Vegas strip, and Michigan/Florida being the others -- that the campaign has questioned rules that had already been established.

*** Goin' negative: We were about to write this morning about our surprise that Clinton hasn't run a negative ad against Obama in either Ohio or Texas. But then we saw the new Clinton ad in Texas that appeared on TODAY. It goes: "It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that 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 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?" Does it remind anyone of that LBJ Daisy ad? Ok, that's a little extreme… But it sure does raise the specter of fear. Of course, remember, primary voters are more likely to vote their heart than head, which may mean an ad like this won't be as effective as it would, say, in a general election. Meanwhile, Obama, who has outspent Clinton in Texas and Ohio considerably, has bought two-minute TV ad blocks in those states. No word on the content of the ads yet, but sounds like it could be another closing argument-type.

[YouTube:M70emIFxETs]

*** Blame Canada! CTV, the Canadian TV channel, isn't letting the story die that an Obama staffer warned Canadian officials to ignore the campaign's criticism of NAFTA. In fact, it even names an Obama official. (*** CORRECTION *** The man it names is an Obama adviser, not official -- Austan Goolsbee.)  The Obama camp has denied that any conversation like that occurred. Today's CTV story also repeats the charge -- largely ignored yesterday -- that the "Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim."

*** Delegate update: Obama leads Clinton 1,398-1,291. The NBC News Hard Count is now Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037 (with 13 delegates still unallocated). Obama picked up another superdelegate yesterday to bring that total to: Clinton 254, Obama 204.

*** Money trouble: We've noticed today the McCain/FEC stories -- that McCain very well might have to abide by spending limits before the GOP convention -- are starting to roll in. But why is this only now starting to get more traction, compared with all the stories about Obama waffling on his pledge to accept public funds in the general? For one thing, the McCain story is much more complicated; certainly the Obama pledge hedge was an easier one to tell. But is this starting to become a problem for McCain? At the very least, it makes it MUCH more difficult to criticize Obama for waffling on public funds…
 
*** On the trail: Clinton, in Texas, holds rallies in Waco and San Antonio; Huckabee has five events across the Lone Star State; McCain tours Dell in Round Rock, TX and then raises money at the Four Seasons in Austin before heading to Arizona; and Obama, also in Texas, stumps in Houston, Brownsville, and Selma.

Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 4 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 249 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 326 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639 to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.  

The AP: "More than doubling her January fund-raising total, Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in February, her biggest month yet, her advisers said. But Barack Obama's campaign said it will surpass that figure, with some reports that it could exceed $50 million. Clinton has been struggling to recover from weak fund-raising in January, when she had to loan her campaign $5 million. She raised $14 million in January to Obama's $36 million."

The New York Post: "[S]everal Democratic sources said Obama was on target for a $50 million February. One source said Obama will have raised 'between 50 million and 60 million this month.'"

The Washington Post notes the really scary fact for the Republicans about Clinton and Obama raising more than a combined $80 million in month. It is unprecedented territory.

TEXAS: The state Democratic Party said the Clinton campaign is threatening a lawsuit over the caucus portion of the prim-caucus. "In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers. Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election. 'It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party,' Dunn wrote in the letter, obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 'Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.'

"Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit. 'Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign,' said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity."

More: "The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton 's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle. But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking. 'It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it,' Elrod said. 'No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.' Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said the Obama campaign had no plans to sue."

The Wall Street Journal has a profile of Obama's Texas organization, and it notes that it's actually not as sophisticated as other states. He's relying on unpaid staffers a lot more. "The uncharacteristic late start has left the Illinois senator relying to an unusual degree on the groundwork of volunteers such as Ian Davis. The 29-year-old Austin community organizer has been laboring for months with no guidance at all from Obama headquarters. When Sen. Obama's team finally arrived, Mr. Davis handed over laundry baskets stuffed with 20,000 handwritten names of potential volunteers, which Mr. Davis had gathered on his own. 'At the end of the day,' Mr. Stewart says, it will be people like Ian Davis 'who win this thing.'"

"Early on in the national campaign, Obama headquarters saw no good reason to devote substantial resources to Texas. Few experts expected the showdown between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton to climax here. Texas is a deeply Republican state, and hasn't played a deciding role in a Democratic nominating contest in 20 years."

Turnout is up, REALLY up. "Through Wednesday, in the state's 15 most populous counties, 805,000 people have voted, compared with 169,000 for the same period in 2004, according to the Texas secretary of state, Phil Wilson. Of those, 601,000 have been Democrats. If the same level of enthusiasm holds true through Tuesday, Mr. Wilson projected, 3.3 million people will eventually vote in the primary, easily surpassing the record of more than 2.7 million in 1988 when Vice President (and native son) George Bush was in the race, along with Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts."

And McCain is hoping a big win in Texas will put to rest this idea he can't unite conservatives, since the GOP electorate in the Lone Star State is likely to skew VERY conservative.

NBC political analyst Charlie Cook writes in his latest National Journal column about the advantages the Democrats have going into the general election -- once their nominee becomes obvious. "My hunch is that the general election will be a very competitive race. However, it's important not to minimize the Democrats' inherent advantages. First, it's extremely difficult for a party to win the White House three elections in a row. Indeed, consider the past 60 years: In four of the five elections in which one party had held the White House for two consecutive terms, that party failed to win a third one. This 'time for a change' dynamic has predominated each time. The only exception was in 1988, when Vice President George H.W. Bush was elected at the end of President Reagan's eight years in office."

More: "Going into 2008, George W. Bush's approval ratings hover around 30 percent, 25 percentage points below Reagan's 20 years ago. Bush's presidency has been marred by scandals, an unpopular war, and an economy that is just barely skating above recession—hardly ideal for any party wanting to hold onto the White House."

Also, National Journal's Ron Brownstein looks inside the exit poll numbers and finds, "From New Hampshire to California, and from Arizona to Wisconsin, exit polls from this year's contests show the Democratic coalition evolving in clear and consistent ways since the 2004 primaries that nominated John Kerry. The party is growing younger, more affluent, more liberal, and more heavily tilted toward women, Latinos, and African-Americans. In the 18 states for which exit polls are available from both 2004 and 2008, the share of the Democratic vote cast by young people has risen, often by substantial margins."

Former Bush '04 adviser Matthew Dowd is particularly concerned about the growing youth vote for the Dems. "Dowd says that even if McCain wins, Republicans should still worry about these trends, especially among young people… In 2000, under-30 voters split about evenly between Bush and Gore, according to exit polls. In 2004, they preferred Kerry over Bush by 54 percent to 45 percent. In the 2006 House elections, they backed Democrats by 60 percent to 38 percent. In a race between Obama, 46, and McCain, 71, even many Republicans wouldn't be surprised to see that wide a gap among the young. 'If you look at Ronald Reagan and how he performed among youth, he created a generation of Republicans that was able to sustain itself,' Dowd says. 'Well, what Bush has done in his presidency is almost the opposite: He has won elections and lost a generation. Now this generation is emerging, and if Democrats end up winning this election, and then govern in a way that gives people a sense that it is a new politics, they will have a generation. It will be the reverse of Reagan.'"

CLINTON: The Boston Globe's Helman writes that Clinton "misstated [Obama's] healthcare views before an audience yesterday in rural Ohio" yesterday. "I want . . . each and every member of the family to have health insurance. My opponent only wants your children to have health insurance," she said. "I don't think that's smart." Clinton has a mandate to require everyone to purchase healthcare. Obama has a mandate for parents to purchase health care for children. Clinton defended her characterization of Obama's plan, saying, Obama "he was not willing to go the distance with a universal healthcare plan. ... I was drawing that distinction, and I think it's a fair one."

The New York Daily News writes, "While Hillary Clinton wages the fight of her political life, her campaign architects are at war trying to save their reputations. The blame game between chief strategist Mark Penn and her top political svengali, Harold Ickes, has burst into the open as Clinton's poll numbers plunge."

OBAMA: The New York Times: "For much of this year, Mr. Obama has been handled with relative care by Mrs. Clinton and, before they dropped out, the other Democratic candidates. They generally do not have huge policy differences with him, and they have been wary of making a particularly harsh attack that winds up in a Republican television advertisement this fall. Yet the shifting tone offers a glimpse of the Republican playbook as the party adapts to the prospect that it will be running against Mr. Obama rather than Mrs. Clinton."

More: "Mr. Obama's record is not as long as Mrs. Clinton's, or as potentially rich, for an opponent looking for damaging votes or quotes. But there is still plenty to work with. Some cases are simple let's-go-to-the-video moments, like Mr. Obama's statements that he would support giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens or would support raising taxes to shore up Social Security, lines of attacks that Republicans are already employing. Others — like a suggestion that Mr. Obama opposed the USA Patriot Act or supported a ban on handguns — might be subject to dispute by Mr. Obama, who would argue they were yanked out of context or did not take into account the subtleties of shaping legislation. (Nuance is usually a weak defense in political campaigns.)"

The Dallas Morning News notes Obama spent yesterday focused on McCain. "Throughout the day, the Illinois senator pursued a double-barreled attack on Mr. Bush and John McCain, marking an effort to let Democratic voters try him on for size ahead of Tuesday's primary. He spent the day mocking the current and would-be Republican president as oblivious to the inequities of the tax cuts they espouse, and slow to remedy or even notice joblessness, stagnant wages and spiraling health care costs."

And in front of a mostly black audience last night, Obama did his best Bill Cosby impersonation, saying "that parents need to shape up, turn off the TV, help their kids with their homework and stop letting them grow fat eating Popeyes chicken for breakfast."

Time's Thornburgh asks, "So who gets to say Hussein? At the Oscars, host Jon Stewart took innuendo about as far as it can go, saying that Barack Hussein Obama running today is like a 1940's candidate named Gaydolph Titler. But that reference, served up to a crowd that presumably swoons for Obama, got laughs. So maybe the H-word is more like the N-word: you can say it, but only if you are an initiate. Blacks can use the N-word; Obama supporters can use the H-word."

The Financial Times notes that Obama's economic rhetoric has shifted left ever since John Edwards left the race.

NBC's Andy Merten, writing on MSNBC.com, notes that although both Clinton and McCain have blasted Obama on the issue of Pakistan, "there's some recent evidence that suggests Obama's idea of unilateral strikes within Pakistan's borders may not be that different from current U.S. actions. Last week, The Washington Post reported that in late January, a CIA aircraft fired on several buildings in the Pakistani town of Mir Ali, killing a senior al-Qaida commander and several others." More: "'The reality is that any president, Republican or Democrat, will unilaterally go after a target when the intelligence is good,' he said, adding, 'You're not attacking an ally; you're attacking a de facto sanctuary.'"

HUCKABEE: NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger writes in National Journal: "Few people believe that Huckabee will be the Republican nominee for president, but he continues to win rave reviews for his oratory and his talent for connecting with voters. With the race all but sewn up, however, many political analysts are wondering why Huckabee is still in. Earlier, some thought that he was setting himself up to be John McCain's running mate, but that likelihood has faded as Huckabee continues to challenge the front-runner. Now the take is that he is priming himself for a career -- perhaps in television, but definitely in the limelight."

MCCAIN: The Boston Globe front pages, "Last year, when his campaign was floundering and nearly broke, McCain applied for public financing. Candidates who opt into the system get portions of their privately raised donations matched with taxpayer dollars, but agree to abide by an overall campaign spending limit. This year, the cap for the presidential primaries is about $54 million. But earlier this month, after he became the GOP front-runner and donations began pouring into his campaign, McCain decided to withdraw from the public financing system, even though he had not yet received any public money and his campaign has already spent nearly $50 million. Staying in the system would be crippling. His campaign would not be able to pay for ads, mailings, polls, or travel until September, when the primary campaign officially ends with the party convention."

"Critics pounced on the announcement, saying it was too late for McCain to back out. And David Mason, the Republican chairman of the FEC, told the candidate that only the commission can decide whether McCain can be released from the federal funding system. But the commission is unable to vote because an impasse in Congress has left it with too few members for a quorum. As a result, McCain is in a bind. His campaign says that he has a right to declare himself out of the system without an FEC ruling and that he will feel free to spend more than the cap allows in coming months. But the dispute has cast a cloud over the self-styled election-finance reformer."

And the AP has this story: "Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign told federal regulators Monday that he does not need their approval to withdraw from the public finance system for the primaries. The campaign, in a letter to Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, also said McCain did not encumber his potential share of public matching funds as collateral for a crucial $4 million loan he obtained late last year."

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill -- an Obama supporter -- introduced a bill that would get rid of any ambiguity about McCain's citizenship status at birth. The legislation would state that any child born to parents serving abroad for the U.S. military would be considered "natural born citizens."

The New York Times: "Senator Barack Obama has made significant inroads over the last month among the Democratic elected officials and party leaders known as superdelegates who will cast a fifth of the votes at the party's convention, cutting into Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's long-held advantage with the group."

For every John Lewis, there are some black superdelegates who are fighting back against the pressure to switch from Clinton to Obama.

From NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger
TEXARKANA, Texas -- Huckabee accused the Rev. John Hagee of playing politics over principle by endorsing McCain, and criticized the Republican front-runner for not accepting a debate.
 
Speaking after a rally in Texarkana, Huckabee said he was surprised by Hagee's endorsement because of McCain's lack of fervor on abortion -- despite his 100% anti-abortion rights voting record. (McCain has, however, voted for stem-cell research.) Huckabee also said Hagee told him he endorsed because he assumed McCain would win the nomination.
 
"He just thought that the political rationale was he wanted to get on Sen. McCain's team, and he thought he was gonna win the nomination," Huckabee said. "I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, and even if I did, I would stand on principle more than I would politics."
 
Huckabee said he spoke with Hagee, expressed his "disappointment and surprise" and asked him to hold off on publicly backing McCain. 
 
"I felt that it was totally out of character for what I knew he believed," Huckabee said, "or at least I thought he did."
 
Huckabee also criticized McCain for not accepting a debate among the remaining Republican presidential candidates, after suggesting his interest earlier in the week.
 
"I would debate anywhere, anytime, there's no issue that I would be afraid to sit down in front of Sen. McCain and discuss, none," Huckabee said. "And if you're going to be president, you ought to be willing to sit down in front of any group."
 
During the rally, Huckabee made a rare attack against Obama, criticizing the cost of his spending proposals. "When I hear Barack Obama say that he's gonna provide everybody with health care and college tuition and pave the streets with gold," Huckabee said at a rally. "Ya know, the American Taxpayers Union has already figured out that just the proposals he's put on the table so far already are going to cost about $287 billion, so far."
 
He went on to say that the estimates don't include costs if the United States abandons Iraq. "If we were doing the MasterCard commercial," Huckabee said, "we'd simply say we know what some of the costs are, some of the items on his agenda -- priceless. But this much we know, we can't afford it."

From NBC's Andy Merten
Although the McCain versus Obama storyline has now veered back toward the topic of al Qaeda in Iraq, the likely GOP nominee last week previewed what could be a general-election talking point. Trying to cast doubt on the foreign policy credibility of the junior senator from Illinois, McCain told a crowd of supporters last Tuesday that he did not trust Obama's policy toward Pakistan and his willingness to strike at known terror targets without permission from Islamabad, if necessary.

But just how far from the status quo is Obama's position toward the nuclear-armed state, which is a known sanctuary for al-Qaeda terror cells? It turns out that Obama, whose platform of change has become the cornerstone of his campaign, may actually be more in line with the Bush administration than either McCain or Hillary Clinton. Still, both have been citing a foreign policy speech he gave last summer to criticize him.

CONTINUED

From NBC's Lindsey Pritzlaff and Lauren Appelbaum
While McCain was elaborating on the "stark differences" between his Democratic opponents' positions and his own, he slipped up.

"I'm a proud conservative liberal republic -- conservative Republican," he said.

After joining with the Richardson, Texas, crowd in hearty laughter, McCain went on to say what he initially meant.

"Hello, easy there," he said. "Let me say this. I am a proud conservative Republican and both of my possible or likely opponents are liberal Democrats."

From MSNBC's Adam Verdugo
What does Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) think of his longtime friend and colleague Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) switching his support from Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama? "I've know him for a long time and I know how much he agonized over this because he felt that so much of what he fought for back in the 60s and 70s was beginning to be realized in a way that he did not anticipate, at a much faster rate that both of us had anticipated," Clyburn said. "And so I think that he felt compelled to be a part of that movement."
 
He continued: "I can recall as a child things my parents told me would come to pass are now coming to pass. And so you always wish for it, and you lay the foundation for it, but the question is 'When will it happen?' I think this has come upon us in a way that was a little bit unexpected at this particular juncture."
 
As to whether he will follow suit and declare his support publicly: "I will make clear what I am going to do before the convention. Will I do it this week or next? No. Simply because I do believe that as an unpledged delegate I have a very, very important role to play." 
 
And as the third most powerful member in the House of Representatives and a longtime serving member of the Democratic Party, Clyburn sees utility in remaining neutral. "If it comes to a point where the other unpledged delegates will be looking for some guidance as to what ought to be done," he said. "I'll see if I can help with that as a neutral party much better than as a committed party."