TPM Reader AB just asked if this was Hillary’s ‘Muskie’ moment, when she teared up a bit talking about her presidential campaign with voters in New Hampshire. I’m skeptical about whether it’ll matter too much one way or another. But I would say it’s a net positive if it’s anything. This isn’t 1972 and she’s no Edmund Muskie. I thought it showed her in a very positive light.

Rep. Doolittle (R-CA) won’t seek reelection. Standard excuse: wants to spend more time with defense counsel.

Bus carrying the traveling press corps behind McCain’s Straight Talk Express broke down outside Concord. McCain’s bus kept on going.

Guess he was ready for his scene.

Inside the Clinton campaign, a debate over what to do if she loses New Hampshire: Some worry about long-term damage if she stays in the race; others urge her to fight on.

In case you missed it, here’s the video of Hillary Clinton that’s gotten so much buzz today:

And here is her response later in the day to all the buzz:

Todd Gitlin: John Edwards’ response to Hillary’s tears gives my entire sex a bad name.

State troopers were called to the Clifton Park home of fmr. Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) after Sweeney stiffed a cabbie on the fare for a ride back from a local strip club.

Hillary drops a mailer in New Hampshire criticizing Obama on Social Security and taxes.

There’s been a lot of rough news for Hillary Clinton in the last 72 hours. And a lot of unforced errors. But I think on this MLK and Lyndon Johnson remark, the edited quote that’s circulating from The Politico is misleading.

The Politico quote is …

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said. “It took a president to get it done.”

But I think the full quote reads differently.

You can see the video here. The exchange starts at 3:40 in. Fox’s Major Garrett reads Clinton a quote from a speech Obama gave earlier in the day.

Here’s the Obama quote he reads …

“False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can’t be done, false hope, we don’t need leaders who tell us what we can’t do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us.”

He then asks if she would respond and she says …

“I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.”

It’s an ambiguous statement. But her reference is to different presidents — Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it’s not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ.

Now I know in writing this I’m going to get tons of emails saying I’m defending an indefensible statement, making excuses for her, etc. I’m not. It’s poorly worded, and easy to misunderstand. And it will be misunderstood. Her ‘false hopes’ line from the debate was one of the worst of the campaign. And you can read her realization of the dream point as putting a lot of focus on legislation and sort of discounting activism. But when I look at the actual words in this statement it just doesn’t match up with the line that’s circulating — that she was saying Obama’s King and she’s LBJ.

The Politico quote at a minimum distorts what she said. And I thought I should say so.

Still not looking good for Mitt tomorrow. But the final swing of the pendulum, picked up by various observers like Marc Ambinder and winger reporters like Bob Novak and others is that Romney’s regrouped in the final 48 hours and could pull off a surprise by nudging ahead of McCain.

My gut tells me that McCain probably pulls through. But perhaps not.

But let’s plot out this map a little further. Let’s say McCain takes first tomorrow with Romney a very close second. It’s close to fatal for Romney but not quite. What’s more, and what you need to look at to game out the significance is what comes next. The next big fight is in South Carolina. And two new polls out today (Rasmussen and SurveyUSA) show Huckabee in a dominant position in the state. So Huckabee looks likely to take Secessionville with either McCain or Romney coming in second.

At that point you’ll have to say that Huckabee, who the GOP establishment is roundly against, is the frontrunner in the campaign. And the others are going to coalesce around an anti-Huckabee candidate. It’s not clear to me that McCain is a shoe-in for that role.