Big news: Democrats won a special election in Illinois’ 14th District, gaining a seat in the House. Why is that big news? Because the seat was Dennis Hastert’s, the former Republican Speaker of the House, a district that should have been an “easy seat” for the Republicans. Democratic candidate Bill Foster won 52% to 48%.

The fact is, Democrats could win big in 2008. We made huge gains in 2006; expecting only to win the House, we won it by a safe margin and won control of the Senate as well. This time, however, the wins could be even bigger–and not just because so many House Republicans are retiring this year and Democrats are winning special elections which are seen as bellwethers.

The numbers tell the story: in the Senate, there are 35 seats up for grabs–and 23 are Republican seats, with only 12 Democrats having to fight for their incumbency. Even better: a lot of those Republican seats are seriously threatened. Republican John Warner’s Virginia seat could be taken by Democrat and former governor Mark Warner. Al Franken has a good chance to take back the seat that Norm Coleman ungraciously grabbed from deceased Senator Paul Wellstone, capitalizing on smears that Democrats “hijacked” Wellstone’s memorial. John Sununu might lose his New Hampshire seat to Governor Jeanne Shaheen. Boulder Congressman Mark Udall might win the now-open seat vacated by a Republican in blue-shifting Colorado, where the Democratic convention will be held (expect him to make an appearance or two there). Oregon, Maine, and Nebraska could see a switch from right to left as well. And even powerful Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, in a decidedly red state, could lose his seat to popular Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, in part due to Steven’s recent scandals.

We thought it was highly unlikely that Democrats could take the Senate in 2006. It seems just as unlikely that Democrats could win a filibuster-proof majority this year. Let’s hope those odds hold true.

---

Remember Hillary’s “3:00 am” girl? The cute little child sleeping in her bed while nasty threats lurked somewhere out there, and could only be dealt with by Hillary? Well, irony has its day: the video was 8-year-old stock footage; the actress will be old enough to vote this year, and is a “big” Obama fan:

Knowles, a senior at Bonney Lake High School who turns 18 next month, has been campaigning for Obama. She attended his rally at Seattle’s KeyArena on Feb. 8. Her mother, Pam, told The News Tribune of Tacoma that Casey cried and trembled after shaking the candidate’s hand.

The next day, she was a Democratic precinct captain for the state’s caucuses. If she plays her cards right, she could go to the national convention.

She thinks the Obama campaign should use her in a counter-ad. Think of the possibilities!

In other good news for Obama on the Hillary front: the New York scandal with governor Eliot Spitzer could help shoot down Hillary’s attacks against Obama by putting her on the defensive, in perception if not in action. The troubled governor is a Clinton superdelegate from her home state.

Recent late-night talk-show quips:

Jay Leno joked last night that Spitzer’s scandal “means Hillary Clinton is now only the second angriest woman in the state of New York.” David Letterman offered a Top 10 List of excuses Spitzer might cite, including the number one excuse: “I thought Bill Clinton legalized this years ago.”

---

Marshall brings up the perfect example of “Liberal Media” bias: a CNN piece slamming Obama. The piece references a fellow legislator felt that Obama was not a “bold” legislator. The problem? The “fellow legislator” was a Republican; this CNN mentioned. Worse: He works for John McCain in Illinois; this CNN did not mention. Whether they mention it or not, or even disregarding that the guy works for McCain, the question arises as to why CNN thinks it’s newsworthy that a Republican criticizes the Democratic front-runner for president. I am absolutely certain that they could find any number of Democrats who worked in Congress with John McCain who would be willing to testify that McCain is not as squeaky-clean on campaign finance as people think he is, and they wouldn’t even have to limit themselves to someone who works for Obama to find such a person–and yet I see no equivalent stories of that nature out there.

Why not?

---

I find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with Bill Kristol:

Perhaps the most obvious way McCain could upend the normal dynamics of this year’s election would be a bold vice presidential choice. … He could persuade the most impressive conservative in American public life, Clarence Thomas, to join the ticket.

Wow! That would be great! Of course, it would never happen, but it would be fantastic! Thomas has a long string of bad decisions that would be easily made sport of on the campaign trail; his age and demeanor would complement McCain’s in the worst way; but best of all, Thomas would have to resign from the Supreme Court before it convened in October, and Democrats would probably be able to stall the nomination of another justice until after a Democrat takes office, relieving the court of one of its most ardently destructive right-wingers. All of which, of course, are reasons why it’ll never happen.