Steve Kornacki in NY Observer draws an interesting comparison between the two campaigns…

…the similarities between Carter and Obama are considerable. Like Obama, Carter’s resume included service in a state Legislature (rare for a president), and only a very brief stint in high-profile office, his single term as Georgia’s governor from 1970 to 1974. Obama, of course, has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, after an eight-year run in the Illinois state Senate.
Both also outsmarted their intra-party foes when it came to primary strategy. In ‘76, Carter was the lone Democrat to comprehend the opportunities that attended the proliferation of state primaries and caucuses, entering the race early and targeting every state, a tactic that produced weekly victories, hordes of delegates, and a gathering sense of momentum that left his late-starting rivals in the dust. Similarly, the wisdom of Obama’s decision to contest small caucus states and all of the mid-size contests between Super Tuesday and March 4—and the lack of wisdom in Hillary Clinton’s decision not to do so—is only now becoming clear.

Most significantly, both men came along at exactly the right time. Carter’s peanut-farmer-from-Plains simplicity and his oft-repeated promise that he “will never lie to you” were powerful political weapons after Nixon and his wiretapping, his plumbers and his pardon from Ford. And Obama’s message of hope—and his own life story—resonates with an electorate that, after these past eight years, feels utterly disconnected from its government and simply wants to believe in someone again.

Another similarity is the naivete displayed by both candidates: Obama’s willingness to negotiate with sworn enemies of the US; Carter’s “shock” at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I actually voted for Carter in 76, and again in 80. As I think back, it was probably a case of identity politics on my part. Carter was a Southerner, a Christian, and I was young and stupid. In recalling the 76 election, Kornacki says if the race had continued another week or so, Ford might have overtaken Carter. Perhaps the early start to this election season is just what the Republicans need to overtake the Democrats.

From last night’s debate in Austin:

BHO:

“I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition; they didn’t have enough humvees.

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that’s a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who’s going to show the judgment to lead.”

This doesn’t pass the smell test with me on several levels.

First, if there were any truth to this, the media would not have hesitated to use it to bash George Bush. It would have been all over the news.

Second, some of my military readers might want to weigh in here, but, how common is it for an Army Captain to be a Platoon leader? Captains don’t lead platoons, they lead Companies.

Third, how does a under-equipped, under-supplied, half-strength platoon capture munitions, weapons and supplies from the enemy? You mean the Taliban is just handing them over?

BHO is not only revealing himself to be a plagiarist and a demagogue, but a liar as well.

AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) — It’s showdown time in Texas.

The debate, to be held on the campus of the University of Texas, will air live on CNN.

If words are as important as candidate Obama asserts, hopefully the CNN mods will take advantage of this historic opportunity to focus less on the ‘horse-race’ and the campaign rhetoric, and more on finding out what the candidates really mean.

Betsy McCaughey, former Lt Gov of New York, has penned several interesting questions regarding one of the major issues in the Democratic primary — universal healthcare.

1) Sen. Clinton: When you pledge to cover every one of the 47 million uninsured, do you include recent and future newcomers to the United States, legal and illegal?

2) Sen. Obama: You have said that you will require all parents to have health insurance for their children. What will you do to enforce this law?

3) Sen. Clinton: a question about young adults. They think of themselves as invincible and are not apt to buy insurance. Your “mandate” would force them to do so, and more than that, to pay the same premium as middle aged people whose health care needs generally are much greater. You defend the one-price rule as “shared responsibility,” but isn’t it an unjust, hidden tax on the younger generation?

4) Sen. Obama: You have pledged to make health insurance “affordable.” Texas lawmakers have made insurance less affordable by requiring that every plan include in vitro fertilization, acupuncture, marriage counseling and some 50 other features. This is like passing a law saying that the only car you’re permitted to buy is a fully loaded luxury sedan.

Would you allow Texans (and all of us who live in states with similarly costly insurance requirements) to shop for cheaper insurance outside our own state?

5) Sen. Clinton: You promise that “everyone who is already insured will be able to keep the coverage they have today.” Yet your proposal says all health plans must cover services “experts deem necessary.”

About 4.5 million people have high-deductible insurance, because it costs less and allows them to make their own decisions about where and when to get medical care. But when Massachusetts passed mandatory health insurance, people with high-deductible plans were forced to switch to more expensive medical policies to meet that state’s definition of insurance.

Will that also happen under your proposal?

6) Sens. Obama and Clinton: Some doctors and hospitals are worried about your plans to make electronic record-keeping compulsory. What will be the penalty for a doctor who doesn’t get computerized?

7) Sens. Obama and Clinton: Both your proposals call for limits on the profit margins of insurance companies. Attacking the most unpopular industry in America may sound politically attractive, but if profit margins are legally capped, investors will flee to other industries and private insurance could become a thing of the past. That would leave only a government-run health-care system.

Do you believe the nation should take that risk?

The latest polling from ARG shows a statistical tie heading into tomorrow’s Wisconsin primary.

TCUL poll of likely voters shows a similar result in Texas 3/4 primary.

Ohio, also March 4, is all over the map. Best estimate is McCain by double digits.

Mississippi’s primary is scheduled for 3/10. But, if Huck doesn’t pull off his miracle, the primary will be meaningless.

Most everyone believes the race is already over, so why is Huck holding out?

“Remember the Republican nominee must have 1,191 votes to claim the nomination or else there will be a brokered convention where the Party’s top candidates will have an opportunity to make an impassioned plea as to why they are the best choice to represent the Republican Party in the fall against the Democrat candidate.

Before we get to a brokered convention however we will need to win Texas and seize the momentum.”

The odds are long, and Huck is running uphill and against a strong headwind. If Huck takes Wisconsin, the race continues to Texas and Ohio. It might also mean a head to head debate with McCain. I would truly love to see that.

Just how much would a Hillary Clinton administration raise taxes?

It depends on who you ask, and lately, it also depends on when you ask. Mrs. Clinton has previously touted her version of fiscal responsibility, “I have a million ideas. I can’t do all of them. I happen to think in running a disciplined campaign - especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is what I’m trying to do - everything I propose I have to pay for.”

Today, Team Clinton unveiled her “economic blueprint” which would include an additional $820 billion in taxes over the next decade, aimed at oil companies, drug companies, and corporations which “ship jobs overseas.” This is in addition to allowing the Bush tax cuts expire, which would increase taxes by a staggering $4.3 Trillion, according to estimates provided by the National Women’sLaw Center.

Do the math.

Hillary Clinton is proposing $5.1 trillion in new taxes over the next decade.

Since she is proposing new spending programs to match the tax increases, the growth of Federal spending poised to grow dramatically under a Clinton Administration.

Update: So, where are the pro-growth groups when you need them? Glad you asked. They’re still attacking Republicans.