Chaos Theory

"Limbaugh, who makes a point of saying he does not officially endorse in the primaries, has nonetheless praised Romney effusively, repeated Romney's policy talking points, defended him against attacks from fellow conservatives, and after Romney's win in Michigan this week, declared him the front-runner.

"Just as tellingly, Limbaugh has been crusading against Huckabee and McCain, whom he does not consider real conservatives or suitable heirs to the Reagan legacy."

Things are getting combative out there. I don't know which I saw more often on TV yesterday, Bubba or Mitt scolding reporters in separate incidents.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the spouse running for office, but it is more Bill Clinton who appears to be feeling the heat," says the New York Times.

"After weeks of complaining publicly about Barack Obama's record, the news media's coverage of the Democratic presidential race, or both, Mr. Clinton on Wednesday ripped into a television reporter who had asked him about a Nevada lawsuit concerning participation in the state's caucuses this Saturday. Mr. Clinton believed the question had seemed sympathetic to Mr. Obama's stakes in the suit, Clinton campaign officials said . . .

"'When you ask me that question, your position is that you think that the culinary workers' vote should be easier' than those of other Nevada workers, Mr. Clinton told the reporter, Mark Matthews of KGO-TV in Oakland. 'If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it. Don't be accusatory with me.' "

The Boston Globe has the other story:

"Mitt Romney had an unusually testy face-off with a reporter yesterday over the role of lobbyists in his presidential campaign.

"When Romney repeated, 'I don't have lobbyists running my campaign,' Glen Johnson of the Associated Press challenged him, saying: 'That is not true. Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist.'

"Romney responded: 'Did you hear what I said? Did you hear what I said, Glen? I said I don't have lobbyists running my campaign, and he's not running my campaign.'

"Johnson didn't relent, saying after some more back-and-forth, 'So Ron's just there, window dressing; he's a potted plant.'

"Romney shot back: 'Glen, I appreciate that you think that's funny, but Ron Kaufman is not even in on the senior strategy meetings of our campaign.' "

The otherwise sleepy MSNBC debate on Tuesday had an important moment, says the New Republic's Noam Scheiber:

"I've said that Hillary's response to Obama's concession about being sloppy was probably her best moment of Tuesday's debate. The Clinton campaign apparently agrees, since she now brings it up at almost every opportunity.

"I stand by my original take. But the more I hear Hillary riff on this, the less I think it works outside the immediate context of Obama's remarks. She's basically making the rounds trumpeting the fact that 'I intend to run the government, I intend to manage the economy,' which just sounds small-bore and tedious without Obama's line setting her up."

The lefty blogosphere is none too happy with Barack for saying the following: " I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

Headline on Olbermann: "Channeling the Gipper." And Edwards has already declared that Reagan isn't his role model.

Says Open Left's Matt Stoller: "There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable.

"Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement . . .

"It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power."

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun has this from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial pastor at Obama's Chicago church:

"Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton 'because her husband was good to us,' he continued. 'That's not true,' he thundered. 'He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.' " I'm sure the Hillary camp appreciates the analogy.

And speaking of Hillary and, uh, that period, Chris Matthews has apologized for attributing her political success to her sexual humiliation.

Mike Huckabee seems to be saying a series of things that could spell big trouble in a general election. Americablog's John Aravosis is up in arms over the latest one:

"Any surprise that the man who comes from a religion that thinks Catholics worship Satan (and that Catholics aren't even Christians), now says that gay relationships are like men having sex with animals.

" QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

"HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic."

There goes the gay vote.

And because it's my solemn duty to keep you informed about the entire media landscape, Frank Luntz has done a sex poll for Playboy. Fifty-seven percent of Americans would definitely say no to a one-night stand in the Oval Office with a president they found sexually and physically attractive. But 23 percent of Republicans and 24 percent of Democrats would definitely or probably say yes.

The Oval Office? They should hold out for the Lincoln Bedroom.