About half of Minnesotans approve of the job Sen. Norm Coleman is doing as senator, according to a new poll.

The Survey USA poll taken Feb. 15-17 and released today, found that the Republican Coleman’s job approval rating was at 49 percent.

The poll of 600 adults, sponsored by KSTP-TV, and Austin-based KAAL and Duluth-based WDIO, did not measure support for Coleman’s DFL opponents, led by Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Mike Ciresi and Al Franken.

Coleman’s approval rating is about the same as it was in the Survey USA poll last month (51 percent, and both polls had margins of sampling error of about 4 percentage points). His rating is up from the summer, when he hit a low of 43 percent job approval in the poll.

The new poll also found that Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s job approval is 61 percent — unchanged since the January poll.

The 20th and perhaps final Democratic primary debate tonight didn’t produce any shocks — no surprise there — but it was revealing on a number of fronts and provided some interesting moments.

Early on, Hillary Rodham Clinton made an odd objection to being asked the first question, and made it even odder by referring to a “Saturday Night Live” skit. Her objection began with a protest to always being asked the first question in debates (which MSNBC later reported isn’t true). But at the same time, she insisted that she doesn’t mind it, and that she just found it curious (which clearly wasn’t the case, or she wouldn’t have made such a big deal out of it).

But then she detoured into a reference to the SNL spoof this past weekend, which had riffed on the idea that the media is soft on Barack Obama and hard on her. “If anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,” Clinton said, mimicking the SNL skit.

On SNL, it was funny. On stage at Cleveland State University, it was an awkward attempt at humor — at best.

A revealing moment came when Obama was asked about National of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of him. Obama was unequivocal in denouncing Farrakhan and his anti-Semetic remarks, but he also clearly showed a reluctance to reject the endorsement when Tim Russert asked him if he would do so.

Clinton then jumped in and said she publicly rejected the endorsement of a party in New York during her Senate campaign under similar conditions, and chided Obama by saying “there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting.”

Realizing that Clinton was getting the better of him, he retreated with some fancy footwork, saying that he didn’t see a difference between the two words, but “I happily concede the point and I would reject and denounce.”

Yet another curious moment was when Russert pulled a pop quiz on the candidates, asking them, “What can you tell me about [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s successor?” They both passed, even if Clinton needed a little coaching on the pronunciation of Dmitry Medvedev’s name.

Another thing to take away from the debate was Obama’s demeanor. There were plenty of times he could have flashed annoyance or anger at Clinton, but he kept cool and retained his balance even when she was getting the best of him or needling him.

What was your reaction?

With two big states voting a week from Tuesday, it’s looking like the same old story: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s massive lead in the polls has all but disappeared.

That’s the situation in Texas and Ohio, two of the four states voting on March 4.

If Clinton can’t pull off wins in at least one of those states, it’s hard to see how she could continue running.

In Ohio last year, Clinton’s lead over Obama typically stood in the low- to mid-20 point range. Now, the last four polls have shown nearly identical results — Clinton leading by between 7 and 9 points.

In Texas, it’s even closer. The last four polls show Clinton with leads as high as 5 points, and as low as 1 point.

Certainly in Texas, and perhaps in Ohio, too, Clinton’s lead doesn’t seem large enough to hold off the waves of Obama supporters who surge to the polls on Election Day.

Texas has 193 pledged delegates at stake and Ohio has 141. Rhode Island (21 delegates) and Vermont (15), also are voting that day.

Currently, Obama holds about a 100-delegate lead over Clinton: 1,361 to 1,267, when Superdelegate endorsements are included.

Although narrow wins in Texas and Ohio by Obama may only widen the delegate gap over Clinton slightly, his repeated wins and his growing base of support probably would be enough to force Clinton to concede.

Now that Sen. John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, the key question is whether he can mend the rift with the party’s conservative base.

In today’s story, reporter Kevin Duchschere explores that question.

One of the more interesting findings is this poll released last week by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, which shows that whatever suspicions conservatives may hold about McCain, they aren’t likely to abandon him on Election Day.

In fact, this poll found that McCain has more support among Republicans than Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have among Democrats.

When asked about casting their vote in November, 75 percent of Republicans said they “would definitely” vote for McCain. But among Democrats, only 65 percent said they “would definitely” vote for Obama, and 63 said that for Clinton.

And among Democrats, 16 percent say they would never vote for Obama, and 18 percent say the would never vote for Clinton. But among Republicans, only 6 percent say they would never vote for McCain.

The poll does seem to confirm that Republicans disagree more with McCain than Democrats do with Obama and Clinton.

Asked about the candidates’ positions on the issues, 62 percent of Democrats said Obama’s positions were “about right,” and 69 percent felt that way about Clinton.

Among Republicans, only 51 percent said McCain’s positions were “about right,” while 10 percent said they were “too conservative” and 33 percent said they were “not conservative enough.”

But these policy disputes don’t seem to be translating into any form of punishment by either staying home on Election Day or voting outside the party.

What do you think? Is McCain too conservative or not conservative enough? And to conservatives: Will you stick with McCain in November?

Colleague Jill Burcum was watching Leno last night when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s name was invoked in a head-scratching moment. Here’s her account:

Minnesota’s governor was a surprise - and wrong - answer Thursday night on Battle of the Jaywalk All-Stars, a running skit on Jay Leno’s late night talk show that features regular people duking it out in a gameshow format testing their trivia knowledge.

The gag is that these folks are chosen because they’re really uninformed. On Thursday night, for example, none of the three contestants could identify which Italian city is famous for its canals.

But Contestant #1, Jessica, knew her Minnesota governors. Sort of.

Shown a picture of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Jessica thought hard and came up with this: Puhlenty?

To which Leno responded: Plenty?

No, no, said Jessica. Paw-lenty, accent heavy on the Paw.

Leno didn’t make the connection between McCain and his potential Minnesota running mate.

Jessica didn’t offer up anything else as to why she knew Pawlenty’s name or thought he was McCain. But she went on to win the show, anyway, scoring an impressive comeback by linking Einstein to the theory of relativity.

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Rodham Clinton turned emotional when she was asked a question about how she was holding up. Her response may have been a big factor in her victory in that state.

Afterwards, she said that the people of New Hampshire helped her find her voice.

She found it again in the final minutes of Thursday night’s debate with Barack Obama, when they were asked to describe a time when they were personally tested.

While Obama said it was the whole trajectory of his life, Clinton answered first with humor — “I think everyone here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life” — and then with passion.

Here’s the video of both of their responses.

Will this be another turning point for Clinton as she faces critical primaries on March 4?

Ironically, Clinton now is being accused of plagiarising part of her comments from John Edwards.

And here’s a moment that didn’t work so well for Clinton, when she and Obama were asked about Clinton’s assertion that Obama plagiarised a speech of a supporter. Listen to the boos and catcalls at the end.

Even though he’s the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain has a lot of work to do to win over conservatives. Today’s story in the New York Times may give him a big boost in that regard.

The Times story implies, but never outright alleges, that McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist. That’s the juicy element of a long story raising questions about McCain’s ethics and his ties to lobbyists.

Bloggers on the right are up in arms over the story, ripping it as baseless and a smear job. Here’s a sample of the reaction, starting with two Minnesota-based bloggers.

Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters:

The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing — only innuendo denied by all of the principals.

John Hinderaker at Power Line (posted Wednesday night):

The New York Times smears John McCain in tomorrow’s paper, accusing him of ethics violations and insinuating that he had an affair with a lobbyist. What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It’s mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The “news” that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain’s friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence.

From Allahpundit on Hotair:

A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.

Right Wing Nut House, by Rick Moran:

The story “alleging ‘impropriety’ on the part of John McCain with a female lobbyist has several different angles to it but basically, it comes down to a story about sexual infidelity – a perfect start to the Times effort to smear McCain.

That’s what the Times is peddling. And it is why they decided to run the story despite the fact that the legitimate issues they raise about McCain doing the bidding of this lobbyist is so thin that it’s damn near invisible.

Sister Toldjah:

I have no problems with his role in the Keating Five being discussed. It’s part of his political career, and one he will have to always answer for. But the insinuations that he had an affair with a lobbyist are the gutter type politics you’d expect to find on an opinion piece, partisan website, or blog, not a mainstream news outlet.

And here’s a comment from the Left.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it’s had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on ‘behaving inappropriately’ but then, doesn’t it always?) and promised to shape up…

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn’t know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I’ve learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Equally telling, though, is the McCain camp’s response and their clear unwillingness to address or deny any the key charges of the piece. (Read the statement closely. It’s all bluster.)

Today’s story about the enticements, threats, rewards and punishment swirling around the transportion bill opens a window onto the way things really work at the State Capitol.

Reporters Mike Kaszuba and Mark Brunswick describe how the DFL majority uses its power to put the squeeze on a Republican legislator — by adding a road project in his district to the funding bill, making it harder for him to vote against the measure.

They also show how a GOP legislator who dares to have dinner with the House DFL leader gets fingered by a blogger and then pilloried by talk radio as a “traitor.”

Sure, the official actions to add or delete provisions to this bill will happen in public, but the types of arm-twisting described in this story are what will really decide the bill’s fate.

Here’s the story, for more insight into what’s going on.

What do you think about the behavior of both sides?

Sen. Barack Obama has earned lots of attention for his oratorical skills — and now, his lifting of lines from another politician’s speech is bringing him even more attention.

Here’s today’s story about the flap, and Obama’s explanation: he acknowledges he should have credited Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, but because Patrick encouraged him to use them, the lack of attribution is no big deal.

The video below shows how Obama used Patrick’s idea and exact words. Patrick’s speech is from October 2006, and Obama’s was given Saturday night in Wisconsin.

Do you buy Obama’s explanation? Or is this plagiarism?

Today’s story by Washington Correspondent Kevin Diaz examines the status of Minnesota’s Democratic superdelegates — the members of Congress and other party officials who get to cast votes at the nominating convention as they see fit.

The role of superdelegates is not new, but the attention being paid to them is — because this year they may ultimately decide who get’s the Democratic nomination.

The debate surrounding superdelegates has raised lots of questions. Among them:
– Should superdelegates exist?
– Are they merely a device by party officials to retain control over the nominating process in a tight battle like this year’s, or do they serve a useful and defensible purpose?
– Should superdelegates be bound by the outcome of the primary or caucus in their state?
– If so, should Minnesota’s superdelegates be apportioned in line with the caucus vote, or should it be winner-take-all?

Sen. Barack Obama won 67 percent of the Minnesota caucus vote and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won 32 percent. If the state’s superdelegate vote is apportioned — as the party does for pledged delegates awarded on the basis of primary and caucus results — that would give Obama 11 of the state’s 16 superdelegates and Clinton the remaining five.