Some GOP senators are about to propose a new package of immigration legislation:

The package, an enforcement smorgasbord assembled by at least eight lawmakers, consists of 11 bills, but could expand to include as many as 14. Some elements echo House bills, but others go beyond House proposals.

One would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants by docking 10 percent of highway funding from states that continue to do so. Another would extend the presence of National Guard on the border and a third would end language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for people with limited English ability.

A bill by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is leading the effort, would impose a maximum two-year jail sentence on someone caught crossing the border for a second time.

"The point is to reinforce the idea that most of us here feel that we need to make enforcement and border security a first step to solving the overall problem," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the sponsors.

Although Congress usually avoids tough legislation during an election year, Vitter insisted that he and his colleagues could still get something done. "There are concrete steps we can take. None of us see any reason to waste this time," he said.

Other bills in the package would:

• Block federal funding from cities that bar their police from asking about immigration status.

• Give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to use information from the Social Security Administration to target illegal immigrants.

• Require construction of 700 miles of fencing along the Southern border, not including vehicle barriers.

• Impose sanctions on countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

• Deport any immigrant, legal or illegal, for one drunken-driving conviction.

• Enable local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican proposal "falls far short of what is needed." Democrats want to combine enforcement with a guest-worker program and a way to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Reid "continues to support legislation that is tough on people who break the law, fair to taxpayers and practical to implement," Manley said.

But Democrats also have begun embracing a tougher stance on immigration as well. A confidential study assembled for the Democratic leadership earlier this year urged them to start using tougher language. Democrats have focused on offering opportunity to immigrants, but the study by two think tanks urged them to begin speaking in terms of "requiring" illegal immigrants to become legal and about what's best for the United States.

Where does Sen. McCain stand on this package? Could his official support of it quiet some of the concerns of those who are doubtful about him over his support of the "grand bargain"?

Whom can Clinton in part thank for her victory in Texas? The border counties. Aside from Brewster county (which only cast 754 votes according to CNN), she won all counties on the US-Mexico border, some by very commanding margins (e.g. 77%-21% or 83%-16%), and a significant portion of her 100,000-vote victory margin can be found in these counties. Her margins of victory in Hidalgo, Webb, Cameron, Maverick, and Starr counties (just some of the border counties) combined add up to over 90,000 votes. Throw in Nueces county, which is on the Gulf of Mexico and close to the southern border, at you're at over 100,000. Part of Clinton's success in Texas came from her ability to avoid any massive pro-Obama blowouts in the urban areas of Austin, Houston, and Dallas (the counties of which often when very strongly for Obama but without too many 70-30 splits). But part of her success also relied upon her ability to rack up massive leads in the border counties along with suburban and rural counties.

Marc Ambinder discusses potential plans for a Democratic re-vote in Florida and Michigan, which currently are not having their delegates counted because they voted too early for the Democratic primary rules:

The thinking, here, is that the ONLY way that Clinton makes up her delegate gap is to get Michigan and Florida's earned delegates to count. The ONLY way they count is to re-run the vote under the umbrella of the DNC's rules.

The chutzpah here is that she already won Florida -- and is challenging Obama, essentially, to a fair fight... daring him... saying, "I can win this fair and square... same with Michigan... let's give the voters in those states a real voice."

Obama's response would no doubt me: "Well, wait a minute. You and I agreed to the rules. And now you want to change them at the last minute?"

He may not have a choice: if Florida and Michigan resubmit delegate plans to the DNC, if the DNC approves the plans, and if the states can find a way to pay for primaries, the contests would be on.

And it seems as though Obama may have a hard time complaining about a re-vote. Certainly, he wouldn't want to alienate the population of FL and MI, and too much complaining could do that.

But an opposition to having the voters of Florida and Michigan have a say also cuts against what is the main argument of proponents of Obama "inevitability": his lead in pledged delegates as these delegates represent the will of the Democratic voters (even if these delegates are often elected on the backs of independents and Republican voters). Alter says that it would be "suicide" for the superdelegates to overturn the "will of the people," but this democratic appeal has a harder time working when a significant portion of "the people" do not have their votes count. Obama and his backers can appeal to the "rules" and how they shouldn't change them partway through the election, but the "rules" also allow for superdelegates to vote as they will and not be bound by the numbers of pledged delegates.

A re-vote might not even significantly hurt Obama. Even if Clinton wins both states--and she might not do so well in Michigan--she may still not catch Obama's pledged delegate lead. Though she would be closer--and some superdelegates might not feel the "will of the people" is that clear if there's only a 20- or 40- delegate difference (both under 1% of the total delegate numbers). I'm sure the Clinton campaign would be glad to seat the current delegate results (Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan), but I doubt the DNC would be very willing to let that happen.

And the networks have called Texas for Clinton, too.

The networks call Ohio for Clinton.

Tensions between Obama and Clinton over the Texas caucuses: accusations of unfair play abound!

Obama's projected to win Vermont--no surprise there.

Exit poll watch: This site seems to be posting some tidbits on exit polls from Ohio and Texas. Don't know how reliable the information is, though.

Post will be updated when more information comes in.

UPDATE: From the first wave of Dem. exit polls in OH:

The first wave of Democratic exit polls are in: more women are voting then men, and the highest turnout is among white women, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. The earliest results were gleaned from 1,020 Ohio voters.

Of those polled so far, 75 percent are white and 20 percent are African-American. Three percent are Hispanic.

Thirteen percent are between the ages of 17 and 29; 27 percent between the ages of 30 and 44; 33 between the ages of 45 and 59 and 26 percent older than 60.

Eighty percent of voters in the Democratic primary made their decision a week ago or more.

Fifty-nine percent considered the economy the most important issue facing the country, followed by 18 percent considering Iraq most important and 19 percent considering health care their most important.

Geraghty's seeing some exit polls that show a close race.

More exit poll data from ABC News. "Change" still trumps "experience" (though not by as much as in previous races):

The theme of change continues to resonate in Ohio and Texas, but not by as wide a margin as in most previous primaries. The ability to "bring needed change" beats "experience" as the most important quality in a candidate by about a 20-point margin in Ohio and by about 15 points in Texas, according to preliminary exit poll results.

That compares, for example, with the Wisconsin primary, where change beat experience by 32 points.

Preliminary exit poll results also suggest a healthy turnout by Latinos in the Texas Democratic primary, where early results indicate they're accounting for just over three in 10 voters. If that holds, it'll be a record.

Blacks account for about two in 10 Texas Democratic voters, closer to their customary share of the electorate. In this early data blacks also account for two in 10 in Ohio, which if it holds would be up from 2004.

Turnout among women looks to be up in both states in these preliminary results -- they account for about six in 10 voters in Ohio, and not quite as many in Texas, compared with 52 percent in Ohio and 53 percent in Texas in 2004.

The economy is the top issue in Texas and Ohio alike, and most strikingly so in Ohio, where nearly six in 10 Democrats rank it as the single most important issue. If that holds in later data, Ohio would be second only to Michigan in the importance of the economy to Democratic primary voters.

People in Ohio and Texas are still voting--so these numbers can certainly change.


7:40 ET: CNN exits for Ohio. Clinton wins Democrats 53-46. Loses Republicans and independents about 46-54.

8:08 ET: Clinton seems to be doing stronger among later deciders. In the CNN Ohio exits, she beat Obama 55-45 among those who decided in the past 3 days (compared to 50-49 among those who decided after. Some exit polls from Texas have her winning 66-34 among late deciders in Texas.

It seems most people are thinking the votes in the four primary states voting today--Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont--could go any way for the Democrats. Obama's favored in Vermont, and Clinton had been favored in Rhode Island (though her lead has shrunk a little recently). The big-ticket states of Ohio and Texas seem really up in the air. It seems as though Clinton has reversed Obama's momentum over the past few days and has expanded her polling lead in Ohio, and, in Texas, where Obama had been leading, she is now eking out narrow leads. Real Clear Politics averages for both Ohio and Texas show Clinton's poll numbers strengthening. Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows Clinton achieving her first nation-wide polling lead over Obama in three weeks. Of course, this primary season has delighted in frustrating pundits. Obama's been able to outperform significantly his polling numbers in past races, but so has Clinton (as Kaus reminds us). Clinton probably has the edge in Ohio, but Texas is more complicated due to the fact that its primary includes both a conventional voting-booth primary and a series of caucuses.

So what could happen after today? That's hard to say. Certainly, if Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas (or at least wins the popular vote in Texas) and wins in Rhode Island, she seems very likely to stay in. A recent poll shows Democratic voters want her to stay in the race even if she wins only Ohio or Texas. If she loses both big? There seems like there would be significant pressure on her to bow out. If she loses both by a little? She may decide to keep on fighting. Her people are keeping an eye on the Rezko trial--which seems already to have damaged Obama's relationship with the press--and maybe even the Canada-NAFTA flap. If it seems like some scandal could derail Obama's campaign, Clinton's more likely to stay in no matter what the results are today.

Has Clinton halted Obama's momentum a little? A new set of Public Policy Polling reports has Clinton leading Obama 50%-44% in Texas and leading him 51%-42% in Ohio. Last week's PPP polls had Clinton and Obama tied in Texas and Clinton having a four-point lead in Ohio. Rasmussen's latest TX and OH polls also show Clinton gaining.

David Ignatius quotes a Democratic senator wondering how "bi-partisan" Obama really is:

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

One wonders who this Democratic senator is. Is it a solid Clinton backer or an unaffiliated senator?

A Canadian memo has been obtained by the AP, and this memo reports that Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee did meet with the Canadian Consulate General and discuss NAFTA. Goolsbee is now admitting the meeting took place.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Goolsbee asserts that this memo is only a summary of what he said and that this summary is sometimes mistaken. Clinton's people are already drawing attention to this memo.

An interesting report on some of the hazards faced by "undocumented immigrants" in Mexico.

The Obama-NAFTA-CTV plot thickens. CTV stands by its report:

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

As Geraghty notes, if Goolsbee didn't talk to the Canadian Consulate General, wouldn't he just say that he didn't speak to the Canadian Consulate General rather than refusing to answer that question? Over at the Politico, Ben Smith says that of course Obama and Clinton are insincere about their criticisms of NAFTA.

ABC News also finds Goolsbee and the CCG in Chicago Georges Rioux refusing to say whether or not they had a conversation.

The McCain campaign, according to ABC, is already hitting Obama for this story, and, via Geraghty, Clinton is now going after Obama on this report. Obama's rivals may, it seems, try to use this story as a means of tarnishing the sheen of Obama's "new" politics and argue that this story offers further evidence that this "new" politics includes that double-talking and deception that Obama says he stands against.

UPDATE: Goolsbee now criticizes the story as inaccurate:

“It is a totally inaccurate story,” he said. “I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.”

The Obama campaign, and Obama himself, have also said the story isn't accurate, but have mostly avoided specifics about the call itself.

Obama's campaign is now offering more strident denials:

This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

Matt Yglesias thinks back to the time when John Kerry's economic team told some assembled ambassadors that "all of his anti-trade rhetoric was just empty rhetoric"--and believes that Obama would do well to avoid these types of stories.

The Indiana House votes today on a bill punishing those who hire workers illegally:

Delph's bill would target Indiana employers that hire illegal immigrants, punishing them in a series of three steps that could end with the revocation of a business license. A similar law in Arizona was recently upheld in a federal court as constitutional.

The bill also requires the the Indiana State Police to take the necessary steps to start enforcing federal immigration laws and provides funding to make that happen. It also includes funding for the Indiana attorney general's office, which would investigate written complaints made against employers.

UPDATE: The House passes the measure 66-33. A coalition of Republicans and Democrats supported the measure. It next goes to a conference report with the state Senate. More details:

Although some lawmakers disagree about the details of the proposals, both chambers have supported the idea of going after companies that profit from illegal immigration. The House version of the bill would set up a three-tier penalty system for companies that hire illegal immigrants after July 1, 2009. After three incidents within five years, companies could have their business licenses suspended or revoked. The House also included $1.5 million in state money to help enforce the bill, and removed an exemption in the Senate-passed legislation for those who hire part-time or seasonal workers.

Rasmussen Texas poll: Obama 48-Clinton 44. The trend favors Obama.

The "campaign rhetoric" of hope:

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.

Since the staffer's statements are paraphrased, it's hard to tell what this staffer really said. Still, if this report is true--and the Obama campaign is not explicitly denying it [UPDATE Obama's campaign is now denying this reported conversation.]--it may raise questions about what else is "campaign rhetoric" for Obama.

UPDATE 2/29: CTV stands by its story.

Howard Dean continues to encourage Americans to come together:

The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Governor of Vermont contrasted the two parties’ presidential candidates, saying that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field “looks like America,” while the all-white male Republican field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”

After all, you do hear John McCain regularly include a defense of the Fugitive Slave Act in his stump speech. (Ron Paul might be closer to the 1850s--note his comments on Lincoln and notions of the role of the federal government....)

The state of Maine offers a 14-point plan for dealing with a broken CFL bulb. Due to the release of mercury from one of these bulbs when it breaks, a broken bulb can be quite hazardous--particularly to children. More concerns are raised here.

Andrew Sullivan tries to differentiate Obama's "liberalism" from that of the past:

What makes Obama's liberalism different from both the technocratic meliorism of the Clintons and the 1970s big government liberalism that preceded it is that it is an inclusive, self-help kind of liberalism. It is participatory, not passive. It is not about government saving us; it is about us saving the government.

Bill Clinton famously said that the "era of big government is over"; I haven't heard Obama say that. Indeed, many of his signature policies (such as nationalized healthcare) are about expanding the role and powers of the federal government. So there's an expansionist aspect of government for Obama (as there has been for Bush, too). There also seems to be a compulsory aspect to "Obama's liberalism," as in Michelle Obama saying that her husband "will require you to work" and "will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual." It may be "participatory," but it also demands participation (or says it does).

Virtual troubles:

Homeland Security Dept. officials have decided that an experimental 28-mile "virtual fence" meant to extend the U.S. Border Patrol's eyes and ears along the U.S.-Mexico border—a web of radar, infrared cameras, ground sensors, and airborne drones—won't be copied anywhere else in its entirety. The project was plagued with design, software, and other glitches; had fallen months behind schedule; and sometimes proved inoperable.

The government agreed to pay Boeing almost the full $20 million for successful completion of the prototype endeavor just south of Tucson, known as Project 28. But in choosing not to expand the project, Homeland Security officials are dashing expectations and causing embarrassment from Capitol Hill to the campaign trail.

Even Real Clear Politics is proclaiming the death of the "virtual fence." Obama, Clinton, and McCain have all been touting the value of a virtual fence in place (at times) of a physical one; will this disappointment cause them to change their policies?

SurveyUSA's released a bunch of new state presidential polls for Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, Minnesota, California, Alabama, Kansas, and Massachusetts. There's some rough news for the GOP in Ohio and Missouri: McCain trails both Obama and Clinton in states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004. No Republican has won the presidency without Ohio. Hillary Clinton is polling stronger in Ohio: she leads McCain by 10, but Obama only leads him by 3. McCain leads Clinton strongly in Kansas, but his lead over Obama is smaller. Massachusetts has a very interesting result. Clinton leads McCain by nine there, but Obama only leads McCain by two points: 48-46. So Obama seems at the moment to be more competitive in some states, but, in states like Ohio and Massachusetts (despite the backing of MA governor Deval Patrick and both MA senators Kerry and Kennedy), he seems to lag behind Clinton. For the moment at least....

UPDATE: A reader wonders if the SurveyUSA poll for Missouri might be weighting Democrats too much, claiming that a 14-point gap in Democrat-Republican identification (41-27) to be unusual for polling in Missouri. And, if you check SurveyUSA's last presidential head-to-head polling for Missouri, on January 14, you see only a 7-point identification gap (38D-31R). Under those conditions, McCain wins against both Clinton and Obama (winning by 10 points over the latter). Of course, a seven-point swing in five weeks could happen, but those numbers could swing back, too. Just a detail to keep in mind....

Huckabee, at least, is still talking about a brokered Republican convention. Guess whom he thinks that convention would nominate....

Clinton and Obama laid out their positions on immigration (video here) in yesterday's debate. Both reiterated their support for "comprehensive immigration reform," and Obama again says that he finds some of the tone in the immigration debate "racist." Debate transcript here. Mickey Kaus parses some of Obama's and Clinton's statements on a border fence: "Is voting for a fence and then denying you were actually voting for a fence the old politics of Washington or the new politics of hope? I get confused."

The Audacity of the Usual: Jim Geraghty transcribes part of a recent speech in which Michelle Obama assures us that her husband will force us to work:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Geraghty (ever the opponent of change) wonders where the president has the Constitutional authority to prohibit "your lives as usual." Though Michelle Obama seems in that speech (more transcription and analysis here) to be attacking the politics of "fear," she herself seems to be trying to make the usual lives of citizens (whatever those "usual lives" are) objects of fear and loathing. She also emphasizes the rhetoric of compulsion in this address. Obama will "require," "demand," and "never allow you" to do certain things or even to feel certain ways.

The UK offers plans to make the citizenship process more rigorous.

Utah considers a new bill to punish the employers of "illegal immigrants," and, in Indiana, another employer-enforcement bill moves forward.

Barack Obama tries to clarify what his wife said about her feelings for the United States:

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America," he said. "Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama said: "Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Some aren't persuaded.

Exit poll confusion: Geraghty's hearing reports that Wisconsin, based on two rounds of exit polling, could be a big Obama win of 60-40. But some exit poll data also show the woman vote to be very close: either Clinton winning by 1 or Obama by 2. For Obama to gain an overall victory of 60-40, he'd have to achieve something maybe like 70%-75% of the men's vote (assuming that women do really make up 57% of Democratic voters today)--a gender gap recent polls have not found. Will this data stand up? There's almost two hours left for voting in Wisconsin, too, so things are certainly in flux....other exit poll data here.

UPDATE: Full exits here. Obama seems to have dominated among many demographic groups. He tied women with Clinton and won men 67-31.

David Bernstein finds some Obama quotes from the 1990s. One is about economics, and the other is about gun control. Obama's had an unclear past on gun rights (at one point, in 1996, his campaign said he favored the banning of handguns, but Obama's campaign now says that he never believed that--he now says that the ban on handguns would not be "politically practicable" at the moment). He now says that he believes in the individual right to bear arms but also says that he believes in the "commonsense regulation" of this right. What does Obama think to be a "commonsense regulation"? He supports the Washington, DC gun ban, and the quote Bernstein's found from 1999 offers some other policies that Obama apparently thinks are "common sense" (e.a.):

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park.

So if a burglar steals a gun from your home (unless, perhaps, the gun is secured in a gun safe) and injures someone with it, Barack Obama thinks that you should be charged with a felony? And the five-mile anti-gun-store school-and-park radius would effectively ban the sale of guns in all urban areas, many, if not all or most, suburban areas (a single school zone would, after all, mean at least seventy-five square miles of anti-gun territory), and, I would guess, a great number of rural areas. Obama's "commonsense regulations" (at least circa 1999) would significantly restrict the ability of the vast majority US citizen to buy guns legally. Indeed, for some, it would effectively be a gun ban.

Enforcement wave continues: New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (D) is proposing a law that would punish employers who employ the "undocumented":

A top state Democrat plans to introduce legislation that would penalize New Jersey businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said his proposal is aimed at companies that provide opportunities for illegal immigrants to "undermine family, educational and health care support systems."

"Companies that knowingly hire illegals are destroying job opportunities for the working men and women of New Jersey," said Sweeney, D-Gloucester. "The practice has to be stopped."

The law would require New Jersey businesses to verify the legal status of their employees. Businesses in violation of the law would face a 10-day suspension of their business license for the first offense and permanent revocation for the second.

Rasmussen shows a tight race in Wisconsin and a strong Clinton lead in Ohio:

Wisconsin (Feb 13, 855 LV)
Obama 47
Clinton 43
Undecided 10

Ohio (Feb 13, 754 LV)
Clinton 51
Obama 37
Undecided 12

Quinnipiac also shows leads for Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Clinton seems to be contesting Wisconsin, which is probably a good strategy for her. I don't know what her internal polls are saying, but public polls seem to suggest that she could prevent another Obama blowout in Wisconsin. She could even be close enough to possibly win there. She'd probably be in better condition heading into the March 4 primaries as a Wisconsin victor. Obama's widely expected to win Hawaii next Tuesday, so a Clinton loss in Wisconsin would give Obama a 10-primary winning streak.

While this Wisconsin poll doesn't have such good news for Hillary Clinton in her nomination fight against Barack Obama, this Ohio poll has much more promising numbers for Clinton, giving her a 17-point overall lead. Though she is tied with Obama among men, she has nearly a 30-point lead among women. She leads Obama in all age categories and only lags six points behind him with independents (42%-48%); she has a 21-point lead among Ohio Democrats.

State laws punishing the employers of "illegal immigrants" seem to be very effective at encouraging "illegal immigrants" to leave the state--whether for their native countries or other, more "undocumented"-friendly states. In Oklahoma and Arizona, two states which have passed employer-enforcement laws, the "undocumented" seem to be leaving in large numbers. For example, in two Oklahoma cities:

In Tulsa, Okla., the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 15,000 to 25,000 illegal immigrants have left the area. One builder estimated that 30 percent of the Hispanic work force left Tulsa.

"There's been a tremendous impact in Oklahoma City," said David Castillo, the executive director of the Greater Oklahoma City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "We've had several companies close shop and leave the state. Banks have called us and say they're closing 30 accounts per week."

Arizona also seems to be experiencing an outflow of the "undocumented."

Where are they going? Maybe Texas:

Texas' reputation as a welcoming destination has experts predicting more immigrants will come to Houston and other cities in the state. Texas has not passed any statewide law targeting the employment of undocumented workers.

"Texas is still very much an entrepreneurial place, where you can find your place in this economy," said James Hollifield, a Southern Methodist University professor and migration expert. "It's not an immigrant's paradise, but if you work hard and keep your head down you can get ahead."

Ortiz, a native of southern Mexican state of Tabasco, said he left Phoenix eight months ago working 60 to 70 hours a week as a nursery worker. While now he can only pick up two to three days a week of yardwork and barely earns enough to send back to his family, he prefers to be in Texas.

"Here, they let you work. Over there, they won't. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn't -- it's better," Ortiz said of Houston.

Another comprehensive try: I don't have too many details on this, but Roll Call's reporting (behind subscription wall) that top House Democrats are planning on putting forward a "scaled-down" attempt at immigration "reform." It seems to be moving along (e.a.):

It says that Hispanic members — including Rep. Joe Baca — are seeking five-year visas for illegal immigrants who pay fines and pass criminal background checks. Baca, a California Democrat chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Baca said the prospects for a compromise package were discussed in high-level meetings that included Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who chairs a key immigration subcommittee, Roll Call said.

The paper added: “It’s unclear if the behind-the-scenes discussions will actually result in a bill coming to the floor, but Democrats say drafts of legislation already have been written and are being vetted behind the scenes.”

(H/T Hot Air)
These rumors also emphasize the importance of Congress in discussions over immigration law and legislative battles in general. The presidential race gets the most centralized media coverage, but Congressional races matter quite a lot, too.

UPDATE: Brian Faughnan suggests that this 5-year legalization may be paired with Heath Shuler (D-NC)'s enforcement-minded SAVE bill. House Republicans, he says, are resistant to any measure that could be read as "amnesty."

The Pew Research Center has released a new report on the effects of immigration upon national demographics. It reports that in 2050, under current immigration rates, 19% of the total US population will be immigrants, well above the "historic peaks for immigrants as a share of U.S. population" (nearly 15% in 1890 and 1910). It also includes some demographic models for the US in 2050 if the immigration rate increases or decreases.

A bill punishing businesses for hiring the "undocumented" (Senate Bill 335) has passed the Indiana state Senate:

Perhaps the night’s most passionate argument came from Sen. Brent Steele, who blasted lobbyists for suggesting that Indiana’s economy would suffer if the state’s estimated 85,000 illegal workers were not available to work in fields, on construction sites and at restaurants.

Steele, R-Bedford, said that sounds as if it’s OK to overlook lawbreakers for the sake of profit.

“What are we saying ... to our kids?” Steele asked. “It would be the same as saying to our kids that it’s OK to sell drugs as long as you make a profit.”

As for complaints that some businesses would not be able to survive without illegal workers, Steele said: “I don’t want those kinds of businesses in my state.”

Senate Bill 335 in its present form would allow the attorney general’s office and local prosecutors to investigate written complaints against businesses accused of hiring illegal immigrants. Employers found to have violated the law face a three-tier punishment system: warning, suspension and revocation of its license to operate.

It passed 37-11 in the Senate. It will next be voted on by the Indiana House. The bill's author says that the bill is about human rights.

A federal judge upholds Arizona's new immigration-enforcement laws. Opponents of the law are appealing. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.

Emily Bazelon wonders about the possible Supreme Court nominees for a potential Obama administration with some of Obama's legal advisers:

One of Obama's close advisers on legal matters, Cass Sunstein, is a proponent of judicial minimalism—the theory that judges should hew closely to the facts in the cases before them rather than issuing forth with bold and sweeping opinions. So I wondered if Obama might favor moderate judges over strongly liberal ones—a translation to the bench of his calls for unity and bipartisanship, in other words. But Minow and Tribe rejected that. And Sunstein himself has written that given the roaring conservative voices currently on the court and its shift to the right, minimalism isn't necessarily the best posture for the next justice. "I clerked for Justice Marshall, and while I don't agree with him on everything by any means, there is an argument that the court would benefit from someone with a vision of equality and liberty," Sunstein said. "That is clearly absent."

On Obama's staff, that absence is also keenly felt. How to fix that? "We'd want a nominee who would do what John Roberts did," one staff member said. "You go through the process and say 'Hey, I'll look at each case as it comes.' You have a moderate temperament. You're affable and everybody likes you. And then you get up there, and after a year and a half, you vote on the opposite side from John Roberts in every single case where that's warranted and it matters."

The judicial version of Barack Obama, perhaps?

Some Rasmussen polling may have a sliver of good news for a worried GOP. Voters surveyed trust the Republican party more than the Democratic party on national security, Iraq policy, immigration, and taxes (just barely):

On other issues, Republicans now have a 9% edge of 49% to 40% on National Security and the War on Terror, (Very Important to 66%); a 3% edge on the War in Iraq, (Very Important to 58%); a 4% edge on Immigration, (Very Important to 50%); and a 2% edge on Taxes. This is the first time since tracking began in the fall of 2006 that the Republicans have had an advantage on four separate issues.

Every issue is considered at least Somewhat Important by a majority of respondents; Abortion, for example, is Somewhat or Very Important to 60%, but is Very Important to only 39%. The issue of Taxes is at least Somewhat Important to 84%. But it's Very Important to only 54%.

The Democrats currently enjoy a much larger advantage on their own strongest issues, Health Care (54% to 32%), which is Very Important to 61%; and Education (51% to 34%), Very Important to 62%. But a month ago the GOP could not claim even a thin margin on a single issue, managing only a tie on National Security. Then, the Democrats led by double digits on six issues. Now, they lead by double digits only on Health Care and Education.

The Democrats have a six-point lead on the Corruption issue—where, as usual, a big slice of voters (30%) are Not Sure which party they can trust more. The Democrats are also favored by eight percentage points on Social Security, (Very Important to 64%); and by eight points on Abortion.

The voters surveyed also trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy.

Some scientists are concerned about the sun's cycle of activity:

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Scientists want to do more research on this phenomenon.

CQ lays out some of the possible domestic accomplishments/aims of a potential McCain administration:

If he wants to accomplish things — and every president wants to accomplish things — he will have to do so on the Democrats’ terms.

That means his agenda will include those things on which he agrees with the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate:

• A cap and trade regime for climate change.

• Expansion of McCain-Feingold regulations for campaign finance.

• Expanded legal rights for enemy combatants, and probably the closing of Guantanamo.

• Comprehensive immigration overhaul, with a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.

This will not be a “reaching across the aisle.” This will be a full partnership of the president and the Congress, who just happen to be of different parties. The shrunken GOP minority in the Senate might serve as a brake, especially on immigration. But it will be only a brake, not a standing astride history yelling “stop!”

"Change" is coming?

The best technology is the one you don't think of as technology? Jim Manzi thinks so:

What’s so funny about this is that CFL proponents (or more precisely, proponents of laws that would make it illegal for you to use incandescent bulbs in your house) often refer to “inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago.” This profoundly misunderstands technology. The best technologies last hundreds or thousands of years, and become so much a part of the built environment that we don’t even think of them as technologies anymore: books, stone houses, woven shirts, fire. The fact that incandescent bulbs have lasted as long as they have and that a law is required to make people give them up probably indicates that it is a great technology.

Romney's out? It seems like a sudden decision.
UPDATE: The text of Romney's speech withdrawing him from the race. He says he's withdrawing for the sake of party unity and to ward off a potential Obama/Clinton presidency:

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox claims that most "illegal immigrants" from Mexico have no interest in becoming US citizens:

Fox said most illegal immigrants from Mexico don't want to become U.S. citizens and plan to return to their homeland someday because "they like better tacos, tortillas and chilies than hot dogs or hamburgers." He thinks a temporary guest worker program would solve many problems.

John McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director" Juan Hernandez (a former adviser to Fox) has also said that immigrants to the US from Mexico should not/will not "assimilate."

Mark Krikorian has four questions for John McCain on immigration.

Do-over? Howard Dean seems to be pushing for Florida and Michigan to have another Democratic primary vote; the delegates from these states, which were both won by Clinton, currently are not supposed to be seated at the national convention because the primaries were held too early based on DNC rules.

Jim Geraghty has a breakdown of the upcoming GOP February primary votes and their various policies.

One law for all a nation's citizens? The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't think that's such a good idea:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

Some wonder if such a divided legal system might ultimately widen cultural rifts in the UK.

The Bush administration plans to reform part of the agricultural "guest worker" program to make it easier for foreign workers to come to the US:

The proposed changes to the program, which would relax the requirements for the H-2A visas granted to foreign farmworkers, come against a backdrop of growing anger over illegal immigration and tension among the presidential candidates over the issue.

The new regulations could be a boon to growers, who have long complained that the program is too cumbersome and leaves them little choice but to turn to illegal immigrants.

The simplified rules are certain to generate outrage among anti-immigration activists, who say the program steals jobs from Americans. At the same time, advocates for farmworkers charge that under the new rules, growers could exploit workers by paying them less than they do now.

The proposed changes, which would take effect after a 45-day period of public comment, would modify how foreign laborers are paid and housed, and slightly expand the types of industries that can use the program. The administration would also ease the standards farmers must now meet to show they have tried to hire U.S. citizens first.

Romney sounds like he's not giving up yet.

After Super Tuesday: A Lot of Little Races: Or, Is a Brokered Republican Convention Still Possible?

Some are predicting a brokered GOP convention. Some are saying McCain's guaranteed a win. Who's right? Who knows? I sure don't, but here's one possible route to a brokered convention (Note: Possible does not mean probable):

While it may be very hard, if not impossible, for Romney or Huckabee to get an absolute majority of delegates before the convention, it is also possible, in a three-man race, that McCain may still not get an absolute majority, either. McCain’s people are claiming 775 delegates (of the 1191 needed for a majority) and say that 963 are left outstanding. McCain needs to win over 400 (around 40%) of those remaining delegates to get a majority. Has the deal been sealed? Not necessarily.

While, at this point, it seems likely that McCain will win the Republican nomination, particularly with a possible McCain-Huckabee alliance, it is also possible that Huckabee and Romney could together prevent McCain from getting an absolute majority. To do so, they will (combined) need to win nearly 60% of the oustanding delegates.

Virginia with 63 delegates is the only remaining sizable winner-take-all primary state. The rest are some variant on proportional-voting primary systems and caucuses. Louisiana (47d) and Kansas (39d) are both closed primary votes and both include conventions as part of their delegate-selection process; LA also has a proportional primary vote. These caucus states might be in Romney’s favor since he seems to run stronger in caucuses. McCain's present numbers rely heavily on winner-take-all states. The proportional open states cut into the ability of Romney and Huckabee to rack up big numbers, but they also cut into McCain's ability to get big boosts, too. McCain seems very likely to get a number of votes and delegates from those states where all delegates are assigned proportionately, but Romney and Huckabee are likely to score some delegates there, too.

Where could be the real turning point for a hard-fought campaign? Those states following a winner-take-all by Congressional district method of delegate allocation. What right now might be Romney/Huckabee’s best strategy to deny McCain a majority of delegates in those states: to run less a general state-wide campaign and more a number of little congressional campaigns. A number of the upcoming states are winner-take-all by Congressional district: Ohio (88 delegates–March 5), Maryland (37 delegates–Feb. 9), and Wisconsin (40 delegates–Feb. 19). Mississippi (33 delegates–March 10) also relies upon Congressional districts for assigning some delegates. Winner-take-all by Congressional district can lead to candidates with a broad but diffused level of popular support from gaining delegates. For example, McCain won California 42-34, but it looks like he might get 160 delegates to Romney's 10 due to CA's winner-take-all by Congressional district. Numerically close races statewide need not lead to close delegate counters under winner-take-all by CD. If Romney and Huckabee sufficiently concentrate their efforts, they could cut into McCain's delegate counts in these states.

Texas, the biggest outstanding R state, with 140 delegates at stake, has a complicated method of vote distribution. It all depends on if any candidate receives a majority in each Congressional district or statewide:

Each congressional district elects three delegates, for a total of 96.
--If one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in a congressional district, that candidate wins all three delegates.
--If no candidate wins 50% of the vote, but two candidates win 20% or more of the vote, the candidate with the higher vote total wins two delegates and the candidate with the lower vote total wins one delegate.
--If one candidate wins 20% or more of the vote but less than 50%, and no other candidate wins 20% of the vote, the candidate with more than 20% of the vote wins all three delegates.
--If no candidate receives more than 20% of the vote, then the top three vote-getters receive 1 delegate each.

Forty-one delegates are elected statewide, making a cumulative total of 137.
--If one candidate wins a majority of the votes statewide, that candidate gets all 41 delegates.
--If no candidate wins a majority of the vote, but at least one candidate receives 20% or more of the vote, the delegates are awarded proportionately among the candidates receiving 20% or more of the vote.
--If no candidate receives 20% of the vote, all 41 delegates are rewarded proportionately.

50% and 20% are major thresholds for Texas. Congressional-district campaigning could be especially salient there.

McCain’s relying on open primaries as a way of helping him power past Romney. But will Democrats vote Republican when they have their own hard-fought election? Could Romney’s/Huckabee’s dropping out help Obama? A non-contested GOP primary might free up more independents, who often seem to favor Obama. With open primaries, could some of the GOP switch to vote for Clinton?

It’s hard to predict many of these states because there doesn’t seem to be, according to RCP, any recent polling for most of them. Absent any knowledge of public opinion, it’s hard to tell if this district-based strategy could even work. Still, it seems as though it might be structurally possible for Romney/Huckabee to deny McCain a majority of convention delegates.

There's another question: what would a brokered convention ultimately mean? McCain and Huckabee seem to have an alliance, so Huckabee could just throw his delegates to McCain in exchange for a VP nod.

But, if it did come to a brokered convention for the Republicans, things could become very uncertain. Different states have different rules for how bound delegates are to their candidates. Arizona, for example, does not seem to bind its delegates; Texas's delegates are bound for 3 ballots. This site seems to have a reliable breakdown of delegate rules for each state.

This has been a pretty topsy-turvy election cycle so far--why should the fun end now?

(All delegate counts for this post are based on Real Clear Politics's count. Primary allocation rules are based on this helpful index.)

Mickey Kaus wonders how much present "campaign finance reforms" favor large corporations over grass-roots political organizations:

American Apparel, giant L.A.-based maker of mostly crappy t-shirts, has apparently sent an email to its employees urging them to vote for McCain or Obama because Hillary has shown an insufficient "committment" to immigrant legalization ... P.S.: You mean a huge, rich company can send an email urging its captive audience of workers to vote for Obama, but if I spend $1,001 starting a Web site or handing out leaflets on the street for the same purpose I have to pay a lawyer to register with the federal government as a "political committee"?

Strategy question: Numbers USA is urging its members to vote in certain states for Mike Huckabee in order to stop John McCain. But there does seem to be some hint of an anti-Romney McCain-Huckabee alliance, so does it really make sense (from their perspective) for their strategy to support Huckabee--particularly in states where Romney's pretty close to McCain/Huckabee? Like Tennessee or Missouri...
A stronger showing on Super Tuesday could give Huckabee more of a motivation to stay in, and, if Romney decides to keep fighting for the nomination after today, won't that presence of Huckabee represent a continued risk of splitting the non-McCain vote? Which is what McCain/Huckabee may want....
UPDATE: Gallup offers some statistics showing that pro-Huckabee forces may be more likely to break for McCain than Romney. But I think it partially matters which aspects of the Huckabee coalition may favor McCain over Romney--particularly in close states. But there are other ways Huckabee can hurt Romney, too. His persistent attacks on Romney don't seem to have helped Romney too much...

Signs of a McCain-Huckabee alliance multiply. Ambinder at the Atlantic reports on the West Virginia GOP caucuses (which Huckabee won):

But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot.

Ron Paul's people also seem like they may have swung for Huckabee, too, in WV.

Real Clear Politics has a number of state polls posted for Super Tuesday primary states. California seems like it could be close for both parties. Some polls have Clinton ahead and some polls have Obama ahead; among Republicans, sometimes McCain leads and sometimes Romney.

Romney wins the GOP Maine caucuses by a sizable margin.

Robert Novak says that President Bush is upset by Romney's position on immigration.

Poll confusion: Rasmussen has a 30% McCain/30% Romney/21% Huckabee national poll; Gallup has a 44% McCain/24% Romney/ 16% Huckabee national poll. Various state polls also show considerable variation. Who's right? Time will tell....the numbers are changing fast and furious....

McCain plays the expectations game: says that the race for the GOP nomination may be over by Super Tuesday. Huckabee continues to attack Romney, saying that a vote for Romney may be "a vote for Hillary Clinton" and insinuating that Romney may have "bought" Sean Hannity's endorsement (H/T Hot Air). Romney's not giving up yet....

Some Arizona citizens challenge John McCain on immigration.

The New York Times reports on La Raza's new campaign, We Can Stop the Hate, which aims to curtail certain types of "hate speech." La Raza claims the use of "code words of hate"--which include mentioning fears that the Mexican government wants to reconquer the US Southwest and discussing the risk of disease and crime that "illegal immigrants" may present--as preparing for possible violence against "immigrant" (both legal and not).
In a speech at the National Press Club, La Raza president Janet Murguia seems to come close to advocating (if not outright advocating) some form of censorship:

Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech. And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line. And that’s what we’re doing here today. And we need to make sure that network executives will hold their people accountable and not cross that line.

She mainly seems to be calling for the owners of various broadcast outlets to monitor what their anchors and other talking heads say--which seems removed from government censorship. But, at one point, she does say that Pat Buchanan should be able to write as many books as he wants but he "should not have access to the public airwaves." Whether cable is considered part of the "public airwaves" or not, who is Murguia saying should prevent this access? Businesses or the government? The New York Times thinks she's advocating censorship ("Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights"), and Mark Krikorian implies the same thing. Could Murguia be pushing for government oversight over television outlets a la the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Ron Rosenbaum writes in defense of the incandescent light bulb.

While sneering at the "freedom equals light bulbs argument," Dan Niel laments the decline of the incandescent light bulb:

The passing of any technology provokes nostalgia. I’m sure someone bemoaned the rise of the push-button phone and eulogized the rotary dialer (What a beautiful sound, the “shickity-shick” of a well-spun number. . . .) But the Edisonian light bulb is a more fundamental thing—so much the proverbial better idea that it came to symbolize the eureka moment, the flash of insight, when it appeared over a cartoon character’s head. The fact is, how we light the world inevitably affects how we see the world. I predict we’re going to miss the soft, forgiving light of the incandescent bulb with its celestial geometry.

I predict a more harshly lighted future.

Of course, the rise of this "harshly lighted future" (compact fluorescent light bulbs), should it come to pass, will be primarily achieved through government coercion in the banning of contemporary-technology incandescents. The overtaking of oil lamps by light bulbs did not occur through government prohibitions but through the desires of the free market.

Meanwhile, the rise of CFL presents its own environmental challenges. One "green" consumer group estimates that the USA's use of fluorescent lamps could, if bulbs are not properly disposed of, lead to the poisoning of 20 million acres of water a year due to the mercury contained in florescent bulbs.

The Washington Post has video of part of the immigration exchange between Clinton and Obama at tonight's Democratic debate. Obama at one point seemed to say that raising concerns about the "undocumented" displacing or driving down the wages of the native-born or legal immigrants is "scapegoating"; Clinton thinks that there are some economic implications for "illegal immigration." Hot Air has more about the debate over drivers licenses for the "undocumented."

UPDATE: Scapegoating Then?: Mickey Kaus points out that Obama used (in 2006) to assert that a massive influx of the "undocumented" drove down the wages of some; he thinks there might be electoral reasons to avoid saying this now....

This kind of rating goes only so far, but, according to a survey of votes done by the National Journal, Barack Obama has the most "liberal" voting record in the US Senate, placing his record to the left of self-described "democratic socialist" Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). As Obama has missed a number of controversial votes, these ratings (which only consider the votes he did cast) may be partially misleading...

Parsing McCain's words: It seems as though McCain may have now said that he would oppose or at least vote against) the immigration bill that he had earlier support. See this Hot Air clip (around 30):

HOOK: Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here.

What I'm wondering is -- and you seem to be downplaying that part. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

MCCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate...

HOOK: But if it did?

MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.

However, the CNN transcript offers a different transcription of McCain's response:

MCCAIN: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.

"I would not" vs. "It would not." It sounds like an "I" to me (see around 00:34 or so)...Also, McCain could be being extra tricky: he "would not" vote in favor of the bill because, he believes, the bill would not come to the floor; you can't vote in favor of a bill that's never on the floor.

Still, McCain seems to have a very hard time saying clearly how he now feels about previous McCain-Kennedy immigration bills, and, just a few days ago, he seemed to say that he would sign McCain-Kennedy if it came across his desk as president. He mainly emphasizes instead that the bill won't come across his desk--without saying what would happen if McCain-Kennedy-like legislation did come across his desk.
Kaus wonders:

P.S.: I don't quite understand why McCain can't just say, "No." (He could then give the same little talk about securing the borders, etc.) Unless, of course, the real answer is "Yes." ...

The past of the future (or the future of the past): A Washington Post reporter claims that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)'s endorsement of Barack Obama was in part driven by anger over Hillary Clinton's discussion of political events of the 1960's:

Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

I think the headline on this (Bill) Clinton piece is a little misleading: "Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming." Jack Tapper is saying that Clinton says we have to "slow down our economy"--and that " something of a contradiction there" in his talking about slowing down the economy and also talking about how "green" technology can create jobs. (As a side note, Tapper himself thinks " a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy.") However, if you look at a bigger portion of the speech, it seems as though Bill Clinton wasn't arguing in favor of slowing down the economy at all (or at least not explicitly arguing that way). Time for the (dreaded) "context" (emphasis mine):

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

It seems to me like Clinton was laying out various strategies for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. One, which we could adopt, would be for the wealthy nations to choose to slow down their economies--except, as Clinton points out, that wouldn't work because other, poorer countries like the PRC and India would not stop their economic growth (and the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions). Another plan (the one Clinton supports) would be to find "clean, efficient, green" technologies that allow for both economic growth and environmental protection. Now, Clinton might be wrong about these choices and his proposed solutions might ultimately slow down the economy, but it seems to me that he's not arguing that we should slow down our economy. Indeed, he's explicitly arguing against that proposition.

Wyoming's legislature considers an immigration-enforcement measure. This news story alludes to a possible domino effect for the passage of state immigration-enforcement laws:

And when one state tightens its laws, nearby states apparently feel compelled to act as well to avoid receiving a flood of displaced immigrants.

Concerns are raised that some of the tax rebates of the new economic stimulus package may go to the "undocumented." Senators Baucus (D-SD) and Ensign (R-NV) pledge to change the bill to prevent such benefits going to the "undocumented."

UPDATE: Mark Krikorian has more details about tax policy and immigration.

McCain's victory in Florida is still bubbling through the blogosphere and beyond. The Corner's fighting over/intensely debating a possible McCain candidacy. Malkin's raising some sharp questions about McCain. David Brooks criticizes Romney and proclaims that "the big conservative issues [e.g. immigration and tax cuts] did not bark, once again." Hot Air offers a few thoughts. Stephen Hayes reports that McCain has said that he's not too interested in "reaching out" to talkers such as Rush Limbaugh. For his part, Limbaugh is now invoking the specter of 1976--citing "conservative" disappointment with Ford and Ford's subsequent loss in the general election.
Aspects of the right seem to be weighing the risks of a Republican loss if McCain becomes the nominee and the risks of a Republican victory if McCain becomes the nominee.

With Edwards dropping out of the Democratic race for president, the chances of a brokered Democratic convention seem radically reduced. Either Obama or Clinton is very very likely to receive enough delegates to claim the nomination.

UPDATE: However, superdelegates could still make the convention at least a little uproarious if neither Obama nor Clinton have a commanding majority of primary delegates. As this WaPo story points out, superdelegates can switch their allegiances at any time. With 800 superdelegates (and 2025 delegates needed to gain the nomination), there's still a fair amount of room for uncertainty.

Some interesting exit poll results for the Florida GOP primary in no particular order:
McCain relied on independent voters (or "independent voters"? UPDATE: see here and here) to put him over the top; he split Republicans with Romney 33-33.
Only 29% of Florida GOP voters support a "path to citizenship" for the "undocumented"; 46% of that 29% went to McCain.
Romney won a plurality of those voters who believed that either illegal immigration or terrorism was the most important issue of the election. McCain won a plurality of those voters who believed that either Iraq or the economy was the the most important issue. The economy is important to those who voted in the GOP primary: 45% of voters said it was the top issue.
The Crist endorsement seems important; a significant percentage of voters said it was influential.
On the age question, Romney won a plurality of voters age 25-39 and 50-64; McCain won those in their 40's and those 65+.

This Hill story has some details on John Edwards's potential strategy for a brokered Democratic convention. Edwards advisers say he'll have enough delegates to be meaningful:

Prince told reporters in a conference call that in “a worst-case scenario” Edwards would control 20 to 25 percent of the Democratic delegates heading into the convention. He predicted that Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would each have 35 to 40 percent of the delegates, well short of half the 4,049 needed to win the nomination.

The race could leave Obama and Clinton with nearly the same number of delegates because complex rules would divide delegates evenly among candidates who win more than 30 percent in the congressional districts that make up each state.

And there's a wrinkle for Democratic delegate rules--they're not necessarily bound to any candidate:

At the Democratic convention this August, delegates will be allowed to vote freely even if they are already pledged to a candidate, Wayne explained. But he expected that Edwards’s delegates would do his bidding.

Wayne said that Edwards’s delegates have been “hand-picked” because of their loyalty.
“That loyalty would probably extend to the convention, though Democrats have a rule that would not impose loyalty,” he explained.

Most experts predict that a brokered convention isn't very likely. But, after New Hampshire, the pundit class is increasingly embracing the slogan "Anything could happen."

In his State of the Union, Pres. Bush challenges Congress to "reform" immigration policy:

The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders. And, with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing work site enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings.

We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border. And by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents.

Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy.

(APPLAUSE)

This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm.

We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved, and it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.

Is this "lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy" code for "guest worker program"? After all, we do already have plenty of ways for "workers" to come to this nation.

Mickey Kaus says it's OK to go after McCain for his connection with Juan Hernandez, and Michelle Malkin raises some questions about McCain's national finance co-chair and posts an email reporting a voter's exchange with McCain over Hernandez.

Barack Obama sounds like he's going to try to increase his support in California through a combination of policy promises/preferences and identity politics:

The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver's licenses [for the "undocumented"], a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago.

With 77% of Americans opposing drivers licenses for "illegal immigrants," some wonder how much this strategy will help Obama with voters...

Based on some anecdotal evidence, Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law seems to be increasing the wages of some as the "undocumented" leave the state:

Two out of three men who apply at Ironco, a construction firm that specialises in buildings and parking garages made with heavy steel, are Hispanic or foreign-born Hispanic, the company said.

Ironco has raised steel fitters' wages 30 percent from a year ago, according to Bailey. "We've raised wages, competing for a diminishing supply (of workers)," he said. "We?ve been on a campaign of quality improvement, training, scouring the waterfront, so to speak, for American vets, ex-offenders trying to find their way back into society."

So it seems as though, with this increased scrutiny, Ironco has turned its attention to US veterans and those with a criminal record and engaging in investment in developing the skills of individuals.
(H/T: Mark Krikorian)

McCain's motivations: Over at the Corner, inspired by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)'s criticism of John McCain, they're trying to find anecdotes of McCain's behavior behind the scenes at the Senate. One staffer's offering some specific details on McCain's cloakroom hostility to votes on English as a national language. These backroom anecdotes can be revealing in a number of ways. Will any other details come forward about McCain? The other candidates?

McCain stands behind the "grand bargain"--said he'd sign McCain-Kennedy immigration bill as president.

Does Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) support Barack Obama in part because of Obama's work on the "grand bargain"? The Boston Globe thinks so:

Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

Obama, who supports drivers licenses for the "undocumented," has pledged to push "comprehensive immigration reform" in his first term as president and called last year's debate over immigration policy "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights." Will he use the same rhetoric if he becomes president?
"Comprehensive" "change" marches on....