THE SF POLITICAL PRIMARY AD COMCAST TRIED TO KEEP OFF THE AIR

PELOSI’S LESBIAN OPPONENT IN JUNE 3 DEM HOUSE PRIMARY HAS SOME SUPPORT

[ The Huffington Post]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be in for the campaign battle of her life during the June 3 primary election. (We hope.).

Pelosi's opponent, Shirley Golub, says Pelosi has never had an opponent since she won her first race for Congress 20 years ago.

But Golub has been pulling the top spot for weeks at actblue.com, where bloggers supporting Democrats go to give campaign contributions. According to one source Golub is a lesbian who came "out" after divorcing her former husband.

Golub says she's received some spotty local media coverage, but just about no national coverage, even though the campaign involves the seat of the woman who is two heartbeats away from the presidency.

Shirley Golub is a former speech and language therapist, a realtor and entrepreneur who reports she got disgusted with Pelosi's not ending the war or putting impeachment back on the table.
She's running to win in Pelosi's very liberal San Francisco district and with limited resources and what she estimates at less than one tenth the funding Pelosi has (Pelosi has been reported to be the House's top fundraiser.) Golub says shes been getting a great response. "Some people bring up the point that she's speaker of the house, but I ask them what she's done for them. Nothing." But most people, she reports, agree with her that Pelosi has failed to stop the war, Pelosi has continued to fund the war and has kept impeachment of criminals Bush and Cheney off the table.
OUR TAKE: Democrats should vote for Shirley Golub in the June 3 primary for another reason: The Speaker’s blatant favoritism and bias against Hillary Clinton. Don’t like the Speaker’s heavy handed attempts to sink Clinton’s chances? VOTE FOR SHIRLEY GOLUB ON JUNE 3 AND SEND NANCY PELOSI A MESSAGE TO STOP PUTTING HER THUMB ON THE NOMINATING SCALE.

NANCY PELOSI “UNDEMOCRATIC", PRO CLINTON PAC FOUNDER SAYS

[USA Today]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow yesterday that she will "step in" and put an end to Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid if she has not dropped out on her own by June 3, 2008 is not sitting well with some Clinton supporters, USA Today reports. Specifically, Allida Black, a professor at George Washington University and co-founder of the WomenCount PAC, which wants Clinton to get the nominationation.

“I thought it was undemocratic," Black said about what Pelosi told The San Francisco Chronicle yesterday. Never in the history of our party have we precluded any candidate from going to the convention floor. ... I'm an elected delegate from the state of Virginia. ... She has no right as a leader of this party to say the party has to make a decision before the convention. That's what the convention was created to do. ... I don't want Nancy Pelosi telling me who my nominee is."

For her part, Pelosi had this to say to the Chronicle about WomenCount, which has in recent weeks bought full-page ads in USA TODAY and other newspapers to make its case that that Clinton should not be forced out of the race:

"God bless their enthusiasm. ... These women are fabulous, and I know many of them very well." But, while "we all want to see a woman president ... they want me to be the chair of the convention, who is neutral. And yet they want me to be for Hillary Clinton."

Eh, um, no Speaker Pelosi. We Clinton supporters do not want you to be “for” Hillary Clinton, we just want you to stop trying to rig the process for Barack Obama. And we find your feigned "neutrality" to be hypocritical in the extreme, since you have done everything in your power to publicy undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign and get her to drop out of the race.

ATTENTION HRC SUPPORTERS: NANCY PELOSI IS UP FOR REELECTION

For those Hillary Clinton supporters from Speaker Pelosi’s district who have been frustrated by the Speaker’s thumb on the Obama-Clinton scale—not or the “good of the Party, but due to Pelosi’s Clinton hatred—relief is at hand!

The Democratic Primary election for Nancy Pelosi’s House seat is on June 3.

We urge you to vote for a woman, just not her.

SPEAKER PELOSI ONCE AGAIN PLACES HER THUMB ON THE OBAMA SCALE

[San Francisco Chronicle]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will personally “step in” and prevent Hillary Clinton’s bid to take her nomination fight to the Democratic National Convention in August, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Pelosi predicted Wednesday that a presidential nominee will emerge in the week after the final Democratic primaries on June 3, but she said "I will step in" if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, the two states that defied party rules by holding early primaries.

"For now, 2,026 is the magic number" of pledged and unpledged delegates needed by a candidate to win the party's presidential nomination, she said, but "if they decide to seat (Florida and Michigan) this weekend, there will be a new magic number."

While saying she believes those two states' delegates should be seated, Pelosi added that it must happen ''in a way that is not destructive to any sense of order in the party."

"If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election," she said. "So there has to be some penalty."

She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is "fair and accepted by both campaigns," perhaps allowing the states 50 percent of their delegates. But "if the resolution is not appropriate, then it remains for the (Democratic National Convention) credentials committee to resolve it," she said. Then, "it will have to happen by the end of June" or she will intervene, she said.

OUR TAKE: If the HRC supporters registered to vote in Speaker Pelosi’s district vote for one of her opponents in the June, 2008 Democratic primary for the Speaker’s seat in the House, maybe she will get the message that she should refrain from trying to influence the outcome of voting by the DNC Rules Committee this week-end, and the Credentials Committee (should Senator Clinton chose to take it that far).

FIDEL CASTRO ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA

[Telegraph-UK]

The former Cuban president Fidel Castro gave a qualified endorsement to presidential candidate Barack Obama whom he described as "the most-advanced candidate" in the race for the White House.

Read the entire post here.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN BACKS OBAMA-CLINTON ‘DREAM TICKET’

[The Associated Press]

At least there are two San Francisco Bay Area super-delegates that we do not have to oppose when they are up for re-election. The first is Barbra Boxer—who announced that because Clinton carried California in the primary she will support Clinton’s bid for the nomination—and the second is loyal Clinton supporter Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Feinstein said Friday that she believes that if Obama becomes the nominee he should select Clinton as his running mate, the Associated Press reported an hour ago.

"I think as this race has emerged each one of them has garnered a different constituency and different states, and therefore when you put the two of them together it forms, I believe, the strongest ticket," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview.

"Women feel very strongly about Hillary and African-Americans feel very strongly about Barack, and the election results show that, and the young versus old, the higher educated versus the working person ... All these things are sort of separated out into one or the other so there is a logic in combining the two constituences."

Feinstein is a longtime friend and supporter of Clinton's. So would Clinton accept the vice-presidency?

"I think anyone accepts if asked — whatever they say," Feinstein said.

Meanwhile, Obama campaign denied reports that there were talks going on between the two campaigns about putting Clinton on the ticket. But they would, wouldn’t they?

NANCY PELOSI FLIP-FLOPS ON IMPORTANCE OF DELEGATE COUNT

In March, 2008, super-super-delegate Nancy Pelosi drew objections from Clinton backers when she said she shared Obama's view that superdelegates — nearly 800 elected officials and party leaders — should be guided by the vote for pledged delegates.

Pelosi received a letter from 20 top Democratic donors who support Clinton, expressing unhappiness that Pelosi appeared to be backing Obama's position on pledged delegates and urging her to clarify her position.

Asked about the letter, Pelosi said: "It wasn't important to me."

But then on April 1, 2008 Pelosi reversed course, saying:

"These superdelegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win…”

But now Pelosi is again singing a different tune:

“The person who has the most delegates becomes the nominee of the party,'' Pelosi said. ``It's not been about the popular vote.''

Will the real Nancy Pelosi please stand up?

MASSIVE OREGON CROWD CAME FOR FREE ROCK CONCERT, NOT OBAMA

[NewsBusters and the Oregonian]

Oh the crafty Obama loving media!

That Oregon crowd of 70,000 that (supposedly) turned out for an Obama speech?

It turns out the crowd was drawn by a free concert given by the popular Oregon based band The Decemberists , whose last two albums, including The Crane Wife, received 4 and a half stars out of a possible 5 from Rolling Stone Magazine. And the weather was an unseasonable 80 degrees and sunny.

But 70,000 people turning out to hear an Obama speech made much better copy, so that is the story that was reported around the world.

CLINTON STOMPS OBAMA IN KENTUCKY WITH 2-TO-1 LANDSLIDE

Repeating her 2-to-1 margin of victory in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton has runaway with the Kentucky primary by capturing 459,145 votes to Obama’s 209,771.

While Obama is expected to win in Oregon today, it will not be by such a commanding margin—in all reasonable likelihood Obama will win by a margin of 10 or 15 points--or even by single digits.

What does all of this mean? According to the media and the Obama campaign, absolutely nothing. In fact, Obama is speaking tonight in Iowa, doing his best to pretend the primaries are over, the convention is over, and that he is the nominee in the general election. But it is not over.

KENTUCKY: CLINTON HAS GROWING 32% LEAD—66% REPORTING

CNN reports that with 66% of Kentucky precincts reporting, Clinton has a commanding 32% lead—which has been growing all evening as the results trickle in.

All remaining counties are expected to go for Clinton, and her lead is expected to grow larger. Stay tuned….

CNN PROJECTS CLINTON WINS KENTUCKY BY 30 POINTS

Wolf Blitzer just delivered the news of a projected 30 point Clinton blow-out in Ky. More….

OBAMA 'ADOPTED' BY CROW NATION; NOW HE'S 'BARACK CALLS WOMEN SWEETIE'

[USA Today]

In Montana yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was "adopted" by the Crow Nation in one of the more colorful events of the presidential campaign so far, USA TODAY's Fredreka Schouten reports. She writes that:

The Illinois senator was given a Crow name, Awe Kooda bilaxpak Kuuxshish, which translates as 'That Person Who Goes Throughout
Our Land And Calls Women Sweetie'... And, he was presented with several gifts -- including a bolo tie for him and intricately beaded buckskin baby-carrying pouches for his two daughters.

Sources inside the reservation refused to confirm the allegation that Obama refused to imbibe the ceremonial shot of Aqua Net a/k/a Ocean Water, or that the tribe has pledged 100% of it’s gaming revenue to Obama’s re-election bid.

CLINTON LEADS BY 26 POINTS IN KENTUCKY, TIED IN OREGON

****BREAKING NEWS****

[Associated Press]

Hillary Clinton maintains a commanding lead in Kentucky and has erased an Obama double digit lead in Oregon to 3 points, a new Suffolk University poll shows today, May 19, 2008—just one day before the Democratic presidential primaries in those states, AP is reporting.

The results:

The presidential race for Democrats in Kentucky.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 51 percent
Barack Obama, 25 percent
COMPLETE RESULTS: http://www.suffolk.edu/

The presidential race for Democrats in Oregon.
Obama, 45 percent
Clinton, 41 percent
[NOTE: This result is within the 4 point margin for polling error, meaning Obama and Clinton are statistically tied.]

http://www.suffolk.edu/

OBAMA’S ASS IS GRASS AND HILLARY’S—THE EARTH MOVER?

We stumbled across this political cartoon and are not sure what it means exactly.

JOHN EDWARDS RULES OUT BEING OBAMA’S VP ON NOVEMBER TICKET

REUTERS/Jeff HAYNES photo

****BREAKING NEWS****

[ Reuters]

John Edwards said on May 16, 2008 that he would not accept the number 2 spot on the Democratic ticket if asked by Barack Obama to be his running mate, Reuters reports.

"Won't happen," Edwards told NBC's "Today" program when asked if he would be Obama's vice presidential pick. "This is not something I'm interested in."

Asked if he had spoken Obama about a role in his administration if he beat Republican John McCain in November, Edwards said, "Only in the most abstract way."

We wonder, did Edwards tell Obama “no” in an “abstract way”?

CHRIS MATTHEWS GETS HIS HISTORY WRONG AFTER RIPPING GUEST FOR IGNORANCE OF HISTORY

Dear Chris Matthews:

You were right to criticize your Republican guest on today’s show for not knowing his history.

However, may we offer this small style point: When ripping the lungs out of a guest for his lack of historical knowledge—by, among other things, calling his historical ignorance about 1938 “pathetic”—try to avoid making a history mistake of your own in the same segment.

Particularly a huge mistake concerning more recent history—like who the president was in October, 2000.

It happened on this afternoon's Hardball. After lambasting a guest for not knowing his Neville Chamberlain history, Matthews asserted that the attack on the USS Cole in October, 2000 happened under . . . President Bush. Oooops. [HINT: The President’s initials were WJC].

View video here.

TENNESSEE GOP RELEASES ANTI-MICHELLE OBAMA “PROUD” AD

And now, by popular demand, the general election begins. (The anti-Wright, Obama Mississippi ads failed to dent Barack Obama's popularity in the Magnolia State--maybe attacking Michelle's "proudness" will get somewhere.) At any rate, let the games begin:

SEXIST OBAMA ADDRESSES TV REPORTER AS “SWEETIE”

No, really—there is video:
.
UPDATE: This is not the first time Obama has addressed women while on the stump as “sweetie”. Read: Obama's 'Sweetie' Problem (US News, April 4, 2008). It’s true! Obama is a closet sexist pig!
.
SECOND UPDATE: See: Is Obama Using Sexist Language? (Political Punch, February 16, 2008) [Obama says, in reference to Hillary Clinton, that when you try to change the status quo “the claws come out”, and discusses Hillary’s “periodic” flashes of anger when “she is feeling down”.)--This is a doggone pattern!

CHRIS MATTHEWS CALLS CLINTON “AL SHARPTON OF WHITE PEOPLE” AND SHOULD BE FIRED

Chris Matthews’ bias against Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama is well known and well documented. [Matthews said of Clinton: “Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people — like maybe me on occasion. . . . She drives some of us absolutely nuts.” In comparison, Matthews has called Obama “bigger than Kennedy” and compared the success of his campaign to “the New Testament.” And of course, Matthews once described “this thrill going up my leg” after an Obama victory speech.]

It is bad enough that a so called “journalist” with this kind of transparent bias is doing “Hardball”—which is arguably commentary. But to put Matthews in a position of anchoring election night news coverage is absurd, and for Matthews to call Mrs. Clinton the “Al Sharpton of white people” while “reporting the news” is as egregious a breach of journalistic ethics as we could imagine.

To be sure, Keith Olbermann—Matthews’ MSNBC co-anchor last night—was also unabashedly biased last night, weaving blatant sarcastic digs against Clinton into his “reporting”—but if MSNBC does not fire Matthews after the Al Sharpton comment it cannot even pretend to be a news network.

Instead, MSNBC will forever be an entertainment and faux news network characterized by Matthews' buffoonery and Olbermann’s sarcastic commentary.

To be sure, commentary has its place, but the lines need to be demarcated, as when Wolf Blitzer reports on election night and calls on Donna Brazile and others to provide commentary.

MSNBC, on the other hand, has lost all pretense of objective journalism. Hell, it has lost all pretense of journalism. Last night's election "coverage" was nothing more than a hate filled free-for-all against Hillary Clinton, with Olbermann asserting over and over that "if the media leaned at any point early on in this race, it was not against [Clinton], but towards her." We think that Olbermann protests a bit too much.

HILLARY CLINTON: “I AM MORE DETERMINED THAN EVER”

[Boston.com]

Hillary Clinton declared tonight that after her decisive win in West Virginia, "she is more determined than ever" to continue her campaign.

"Like the song says, it's almost heaven. I am so grateful for this overwhelming vote of confidence," she told supporters in Charleston, West Va.

She dismissed pundits -- and an increasing number of Democrats -- say it is nearly impossible for her to pass Barack Obama, that the mountain is too high. "Here in West Virginia you know a thing or two about rough roads to the top of the mountain."

Clinton appealed again for more campaign cash to keep going, and argued for seating disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Clinton said while she deeply admires Obama, her case for the nomination is stronger.

"I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate," she said. "...The bottom line is this. The White House is won in the swing states, and I'm winning the swing states."

CLINTON SWEEPS ALL DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES IN WEST VIRGINIA EXIT POLLING

***BREAKING NEWS***

According to exit polls published by CNN (click here), Clinton dominated in all demographic categories—young, old, educated, uneducated, union and nonunion, and by race and gender.

Clinton, for example, won 69% of the white vote, and 72% of white female voters.

Stay tuned. It’s wild.

BREAKING NEWS—CLINTON WINS WEST VIRGINIA BY 2-TO-1 MARGIN

MSNBC is reporting that according to exit polling data, Clinton has won West Virginia by a margin of 2-to-1.

More to come……

THREE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES FOR TODAY’S WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY

Three possible outcomes for today’s vote in West Virginia:

1. It's dismissed by the media as too little, too late for Clinton and doesn't change a thing or 2. It’s dismissed because West Virginia voters are (allegedly) “bigoted” and doesn't change a thing or 3. Clinton’s margin of victory is so big it reignites doubts about Obama's ability to win working class white voters in Rust Belt states and moves the narrative slightly back in Clinton's direction.

Given the media adulation for Obama, and its repeated haste to declare him the winner—as far back as the eve of the New Hampshire primary—we predict some combination of the first two, even though #3 will be in play.

After all, Obama has the current cover of Time Magazine as “the winner” even though the contest is not officially over (nor does either candidate have the number of pledged delegates to declare victory, as McCain did the night Huckabee finally dropped out), and almost all of the media pundits have declared the race “over”. Heck, we have even declared the contest “over”.

But consider this May 10 blog post from Jake Tapper, ABC News' Senior National Correspondent writing for Political Punch:

“Doesn't look good anecdotally for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in West Virginia this Tuesday.

“Party insiders say Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might beat him in the Mountaineer State on Tuesday by 30 points.

“Yikes!

“You want to know why superdelegates are trickling but not stampeding to Obama's side? His electoral weaknesses with white working-class voters, as evidenced by this pending stompage.”

WHERE DO WE STAND?

We too believe that its “over”—meaning that in all likelihood Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But we admire Hillary Clinton’s resilience, we believe that the media was biased against her from the beginning, and think that she has gotten a bad rap in the media by (wrongfully) placing the “race card” jacket on her for simply discussing the same exit polling data that Team Obama extolled when he was winning over “white voters” (and that the media has been reporting for months).

Therefore, we hope it is a 40 point blow-out victory for Clinton today in West Virginia! "Pending stompage"--kind of has a nice ring to it.....

OBAMA TO SURROGATES: IF ASKED ABOUT “DREAM TICKET”, CHANGE SUBJECT

[TheHill.com]

Barack Obama’s surrogates should, if asked about a possible Obama-Clinton “Dream Ticket”, say that the issue is “premature” and change the subject, an Obama Campaign memo, dated May 12, 2008 instructs—The Hill reports:

“It contains a mock question-and-answer section that reveals how Obama’s campaign wants to approach the endgame of a long and bitter nomination fight.

“The questions also deal with “chatter” that the Illinois senator might help Clinton retire her substantial campaign debt or ask her to join him on the Democratic ticket as his running mate.

“That kind of talk is premature, and I’ll leave the speculation to the press and pundits,” the memo instructs surrogates to say. “Barack is focused on energizing and uniting voters as we look toward November.”

OBAMA COMMENTS ON, BUT FAILS TO DENY, NOVAK REPORT THAT MICHELLE VETOED CLINTON AS VEEP

[ Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times blogs]

As an update to our prior post below:

“Barack Obama, wrapping up a news conference while campaigning in Bend, Ore., had a terse reply when asked about a terse report by columnist Robert Novak on the prospects of an Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket.

“"Close-in supporters" of Obama's presidential campaign, Novak wrote, "are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination" to Clinton because of antipathy toward her by the frontrunner's wife, Michelle Obama.

“"My wife does not talk to Bob Novak on a regular basis," Obama told the reporters gathered around him, who included The Times' Robin Abcarian.”

OUR TAKE: Novak never claimed to have talked directly to Michelle Obama—only “[c]lose-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign”. In context, Obama could have replied with a polite “no comment”, but did not. Nor did the Senator deny that it was Michelle Obama who threw cold water on the Obama-Clinton Dream Ticket idea.

NOVAK: MICHELLE OBAMA VETOES ‘DREAM TICKET’ WITH CLINTON AS VP?

[ROBERT NOVAK]

Has Michelle Obama vetoed any notion that Barack Obama may chose Hillary Clinton as his running mate—the so called “Dream Ticket” where Obama and Clinton’s supporters are melded into an unbeatable Democratic slate in November?

Robert Novak thinks so:

“Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

“The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.”

OBAMA POISED FOR THUMPING IN WEST VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY

West Virginia Democratic Primary
(Primary Date: May 13 Delegates at Stake: 28)

Poll/Date/Sample/Clinton/Obama/Spread

Suffolk/05/10 - 05/11/600 LV/60/24/Clinton +36.0

ARG*/05/07 - 05/08/600 LV/66/23/Clinton +43.0

Rasmussen/05/04 - 05/04/840 LV/56/27/Clinton +29.0

TSG Consulting (D)/05/03 - 05/03/300 LV/63/23/Clinton +40.0

ARG*/03/29 - 04/02/600 LV/37/22/Clinton +15.0

Kentucky Democratic Primary

(Primary Date: May 20 Delegates at Stake: 51)

Poll/Date/Sample/Clinton/Obama/Spread

Research 2000/05/07 - 05/09/500 LV/58/31/Clinton +27.0

SurveyUSA/05/03 - 05/05/595 LV/62/28/Clinton +34.0

SurveyUSA/04/26 - 04/28/555 LV/63/27/Clinton +36.0

SurveyUSA/04/12 - 04/14/557 LV/62/26/Clinton +36.0

POLLS SHOW HUGE CLINTON LEADS IN WEST VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY

[WSJ-Market Watch]

A new Suffolk University poll shows that Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in West Virginia—which holds its primary election tomorrow—by a staggering 36 percentage points.

Moreover, Clinton is also leading Obama in Kentucky, where voters go to the polls on May 20. She's ahead of Obama 58% to 31% there, according to a poll by the Lexington Herald-Leader and WKYT television.

Other polls are showing similar polling results in both states.

An American Research Group poll conducted May 7 shows a 43 percent lead for Clinton in West Virginia.

TSG Consulting (D), in a poll conducted May 3, gives Clinton a 40% lead in West Virginia.

A SurveyUSA poll gives Clinton a 34 point lead in Kentucky.

With Obama holding an unshakable grip on the pledged delegate count lead and a lead in the popular vote, but lagging by such huge margins in these two upcoming primary elections, what does it all mean?

Jake Tripper, writing for the ABC News political blog The Political Punch wrote:

“If these Democrats vote for Clinton, the presumptive loser, overwhelmingly -- as is predicted -- that indicates a real problem for Obama. I know the delegate math is close to dispositive for Clinton, but tomorrow's butt-stomping seems to me like it should merit some serious hand-wringing among Democrats.”

OUR TAKE: It is time for Barrack Obama to reach out to white working class voters by inviting Hillary Clinton to join the ticket as veep.

OBAMA OPEN TO CLINTON AS POSSIBLE RUNNING MATE

*****BREAKING NEWS*****

[Reuters]

An Obama-Clinton Dream Ticket came one step closer to reality today when the presumptive nominee said he was open to the idea.

"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.

In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.

"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.

According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.

We are in favor of the idea—Blogonaut.

OBAMA-CLINTON ‘DREAM TICKET’ “IN THE WORKS”

*****BREAKING NEWS*****

May 8, 2008

[ABC News]

An Obama-Clinton "dream team" ticket? ABC News is reporting that as a real possibility.

"I think it's very much a possibility and there are others around Sen. Clinton, other top Democrats who think the strongest ticket would be a joint ticket," George Stephanopoulos, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent, said Monday on "Good Morning America."

The “Dream Ticket” talk has revived as Clinton now looks like an ultra-long shot for the presidential nomination, and her disappointed supporters are threatening to vote for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, instead of Obama.

"There are intermediaries discussing this very scenario," Stephanopoulos said on "GMA".

Would Obama offer, and Hillary Clinton accept, the veep slot?

OUR ADVICE: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton—take the deal.

TIME TO REVIVE THE OBAMA-CLINTON DREAM TICKET IDEA

Even after Barack Obama’s stunning win in North Carolina and his surprising virtual tie in Indiana, the national Democratic electorate remains deadlocked on their choice of the nominee.

The obvious solution? An Obama-Clinton Dream Ticket, of course!

At least that is the message of a new website called VoteBoth.com.

(We could not agree more.)

DEAR MEDIA: QUIT BEATING A DEAD HORSE AND ALLOW CLINTON TO WITHDRAW ON HER OWN TERMS

Opinion
By Blogonaut

To restate the obvious: Of course Clinton cannot win the nomination. She is out of money, out of time, and out of states. It's a waste of space for the anti-Clinton bloggers and media to keep restating the obvious.

Second, it is now obvious that America wants to believe in something so badly that there is almost nothing that can befall Obama that he cannot brush off. If his 20 year association with the racist preacher who will not go quietly into the good night did not finish Obama, nothing will.

Even (most) die-hard Clinton supporters (such as the undersigned) acknowledge that it is time for Hillary Clinton to decide precisely when and under what negotiated terms (if any) that she will gracefully withdraw from the race.

The super-delegates should have enough grace to refrain from public pressure in this regard, and allow Clinton to withdraw with dignity.

Wonkette captured the feeling with this headline: Obama's Joyless Math Beats Hillary's Magical Maps.

As to McGovern jumping into the fray this morning, Wonkette also nailed it with: Famous 1972 Democrat Loser George McGovern Throws Hillary Under The Bus.

The (publicly) uncommitted super-delegates do themselves no favors with us 50% of the Democratic electorate who supported HRC by kicking Hillary when she is down now. And it’s too late for those who have not previously endorsed Obama to suck up now anyway.

Be gracious. Seat Florida and Michigan (it will not make any difference anyway). Let Clinton withdraw on her own terms.

In addition, we would seriously think about offering HRC the veep spot—unless the DNC wants 30% to 40% of Hillary’s supporters to vote for McCain (the undersigned included).

IT’S OVER FOR HILLARY CLINTON—IT’S NOW TIME TO THINK ABOUT QUITTING

With Barack Obama well on the way to a double digit blow-out in North Carolina (68% to Clinton’s 38%, with 25% of precincts reporting) and Clinton with a dwindling, 54-46% lead in Indiana (with 54% of precincts reporting), Clinton filed to obtain the “game changing” primary results needed to change the perception that Obama has enough flaws to deny him the nomination in the face of his insurmountable pledged delegate lead.

Moreover, tonight’s results—if the trends hold—will make it near impossible for Clinton to capture a popular vote lead by June, 2008 after the last primary contest.

We will check the final result in the morning, but at this point we believe that Hillary Clinton should start thinking about when and on what terms she is going to withdraw from her race for the Democratic nomination.

INDIANA RESULTS

From CNN:

Indiana: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%, 8% of precincts reporting.

INDIANA RESULTS

From CNN:

Indiana: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%, 8% of precincts reporting.

EXIT POLLS: OBAMA WINS OVER 90% OF BLACK VOTE IN IND. AND NC

INDIANA RESULTS

From CNN:

Indiana :Clinton 59%, Obama 41%, 4% of precincts reporting.

EARLY INDIANA RESULTS

From CNN:

Indiana :Clinton 58%, Obama 42%, 4% of precincts reporting.

EARLY INDIANA RESULTS, CLINTON LEADING BY 18% (3% REPORTING)

From CNN:

Indiana :Clinton 59%, Obama 41%, 3% of precincts reporting.

EARLY INDIANA RESULTS, CLINTON LEADING BY 22% (3% REPORTING)

From CNN:

Indiana : Clinton 61%, Obama 39%, 53% of precincts reporting.

ASTOUNDING 60% OF DEMOCRATS WANT PRIMARY RACE TO CONTINUE

****BREAKING NEWS****

Election day, May 6, 2008

[Gallup.com]

A staggering sixty percent of registered Democrats are in no hurry to see the Democratic primary contest end anytime soon, Gallup reports.

Even among Obama supporters, half say they want the race to continue; Clinton supporters mostly favor having the campaign continue, obviously to allow Clinton a chance to catch up to Obama, while the remainder say Obama should drop out.

In other polling news, may 6 marks the 13th consecutive day that neither candidate could claim a statistically significant lead—with the current national tracking poll indicating that 48% favor Obama and 46% favoring Clinton as the nominee, which result is within the poll margin for error.

DRUDGE REPORT VS BLOGONAUT ON THE NORTH CAROLINA RESULT

The unreliable (in these matters) Drudge Report has a post citing “Hillary Clinton's inner circle” that Drudge claims predicts a “15-point loss” for Clinton in the North Carolina primary.

We have predicted a much closer contest there, giving Hillary an unexpected victory by 2 points.

All of this depends on black voter turnout. If it is more than 30%, Obama will most likely carry the state. If less than that, Clinton will most likely stage an upset victory.

Initial reports are of a lower than expected turnout, but we will see.

For immediate voter turn out numbers by county in North Carolina as soon as they are available click here.

NORTH CAROLINA VOTER TURNOUT LOW—BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA

The blog Hot Air brings us this report from North Carolina:

Uh-oh. If this holds up, Barack Obama may not have such a great day after all in North Carolina. According to the elections director and in opposition to the early reports from the precincts, voter turnout has not been all that remarkable:

Few problems were reported Tuesday as voters cast ballots in presidential and state primaries that were expected to break turnout records.

State elections director Gary Bartlett said turnout was “steady … not tremendously heavy.” The presidential nomination seemed to overshadow primaries for governor, Senate and statewide office.

This comes in an update to a story by WRAL that had predicted twice the normal turnout. This makes sense anyway, since North Carolina rarely has much of an impact on presidential primaries, and the large turnout was thought to favor Barack Obama. A smaller turnout might indicate a loss of momentum for Obama or perhaps election fatigue overall.

Polls close in a few hours, and we’ll find out whether Bartlett is proven correct or the media’s predictions instead. (h/t: Southern Gent)

OBAMA BACKED GAS TAX HOLLIDAY IN ILLINOIS—AND IT WORKED

[Salon.com]

Obama dismisses Clinton's proposal to suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax as: 1) a political gimmick that will not deliver any significant relief to consumers, while diverting us from the serious energy reforms we need to undertake; 2) an opportunity for oil companies to raise prices to capture the missing tax increment; 3) an inducement to drivers to drive more, thus leading to more consumption and higher prices down the road; and 4) a drain on highway trust funding, which is sorely needed to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

This is powerful criticism because it resonates with a long-standing talking point against Clinton -- that she is a political phony willing to do anything to get elected.

But guess what? Obama supported a similar measure in Illinois—and it worked.

Despite the "gimmick" slam on Clinton, could it be that Clinton is sincerely trying to help, albeit in a very modest, and politically self-serving way? The evidence suggests that Clinton's plan might work. It also raises the question of why Obama hasn't made a similar proposal. He was certainly proud to back a gas-tax moratorium eight years ago.

While an Illinois state senator, Obama supported a state tax holiday very much like Clinton's proposal, but without the saving mechanism of a windfall profits tax.

CBS News says Obama voted for the temporary lifting of the tax three times in the state Senate. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago. The moratorium lifted the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline through the end of 2000.

Obama told constituents that gasoline prices would drop: "Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas."

During one state Senate floor debate, Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."

Now, running for president, Obama says the tax reduction was a complete failure, and that "the oil companies, the retailers" ended up benefiting most because they raised prices by the entire amount of the tax cut.

But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."

This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

Read the entire Salon.com post here.

NEWSWEEK: WRIGHT’S EXTREME VIEWS MADE OPRAH LEAVE WRIGHT’S CHURCH IN THE ‘90’S

[Newsweek]

Newsweek Magazine is reporting in its current issue that Oprah Winfrey left the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church over a decade go due to her concerns about Wright’s radical views.

Winfrey was a member of Trinity United from 1984 to 1986, and she continued to attend off and on into the early to the mid-1990s. But then she stopped. A major reason— the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

“According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' "”

This report raises the question: If Oprah could see trouble ahead by continuing to attend Wright’s church, why didn’t Obama?

NEW POLL: CLINTON LEADS IN WEST VIRGINIA BY 29 POINTS

[Rasmussen]

In a new poll published yesterday by pollster Rasmussen, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary race by a staggering 29 points.

As we posted here, on March 13, 2008 Rasmussen showed a 28 point West Virginia lead in Clinton’s favor, CLINTON 55%, OBAMA 27%.

We pointed out in the same post that “Obama could have considerably narrowed that TWENTY EIGHT PERCENT gap by now”, but that “[i]f history is any guide, that is unlikely.”

All of this is meaningless if Obama can pull off double wins in Indiana and North Carolina tomorrow, in which event Clinton is finished.

However, we are standing by our predictions of a narrow Clinton victory in North Carolina and a 10 point win in Indiana.

NEW POLL: CLINTON HAS 12 POINT LEAD OVER OBAMA IN INDIANA

***BREAKING NEWS****

[SurveyUSA]

In SurveyUSA’s final tracking poll before the Indiana primary Hillary Clinton has a commanding 12 point lead over the senator from Illinois Barack Obama.

This poll is of particular interest to us because SurveyUSA was the only poll to get Clinton’s 10% win in California on Super-Tuesday exactly right. (Zogby, by contrast, gave Obama a 12 point lead on the eve of the California primary.)

Particularly given Obama’s tendency to over-poll, today’s poll showing Clinton winning Indiana 54% to 42 percent is more than intriguing.

SurveyUSA said today:

“24 hours untill votes are counted in the Indiana Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama in the symbolically important popular vote, and possibly by enough to pick up more than a trivial number of net Convention delegates, according to SurveyUSA’s final pre-primary tracking poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati and WHAS-TV Louisville. In 4 tracking polls over the past 5 weeks, Clinton has never polled lower than 52%, Obama has never polled higher than 43%.

“At the wire, they finish: Clinton 54%, Obama 42%. Among males, the two have been tied in 3 of the 4 tracking polls. Among females, Clinton has always led by at least 14, and finishes ahead by 22. Among Republicans and Independents, the two are effectively tied. Among Democrats, Clinton finishes ahead by 19. Clinton leads among Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals. She leads among Pro Life and Pro Choice voters, among regular and not-so-regular church goers. In Northern Indiana, she leads by 11. In Central and Southern Indiana, she leads by 27. In greater Indianapolis, Obama leads. Among voters under 35, Obama leads. Among voters over 35, Clinton leads.

“Full results and tracking graphs are here.”

CLINTON: OBAMA ‘SECRET’ TEAMSTER DEAL EVIDENCE OF STEALTH CANDIDACY

A damaging story published in the Wall Street Journal today reports that Barack Obama, D-Illinois, the Teamsters-endorsed candidate, cut a secret deal with the union that if elected President Obama would end the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption.

According to the Times:

“It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union."

Moreover, according to the Times, the Obama campaign confirmed the position:

"Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board 'has run its course,' because 'organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined.' Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year."

But when asked about the secret deal by Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America this morning, May 5, Obama’s response was far from clear:

SAWYER: Want to turn to the news of the day. Front page of "The Wall Street Journal" today, it says before you won the endorsement of the Teamsters, you indicated to them you would support ending strict federal oversight of the union, which was imposed back in the early '90s to deal with corruption. Was that commitment made to them?

OBAMA: "You know, I wouldn't make any blanket commitments. What I've said is that we should take a look at what's been happening over the Teamsters and at all unions to make sure that, in fact, you know, organized labor is able to represent its membership and engage in collective bargaining in accordance to what we've always believed."

Contrast that nondenial denial with what Obama told the Teamsters during his endorsement interview, when asked a similar question—implying that apart from a few legal technicalities, it would be a done deal in an Obama administration:

"Well look, this, under the president now with his leadership, I think the union has been transformed," Obama said. "I think that's the assessment, generally, and the problem is you have an administration that hasn't been particularly friendly to the union spirit and this union in particular. And I think that if you've got somebody in the White House that you know and you trust and you've got history with, then you are going to see a change in terms of how we evaluate these consent decrees. Now obviously, there is a legal aspect to it. It's got to run through the paces to make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. So, I don't want to talk as if I snap my fingers and it suddenly happens, but as president with the authority to appoint an attorney General who actually understands the law...".

Understandably, the Clinton campaign was all over this story in a conference call to the press.

As the TPM Election Central Blog reported today:

On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer pointed to a report this morning in The Wall Street Journal saying that Obama privately told the Teamsters he backed ending strict federal oversight over the union before winning its support.

“"One has to wonder what exactly Senator Obama's position is," Singer said on the call. "It would appear as though he's taking a position in private and not telling voters about that view."”

STEVIE WONDER TRIES TO FILL OPRAH’S SHOES FOR OBAMA

Since Oprah Winfrey publicly endorsed Obama, her popularity took a nosedive. So it is perhaps not surprising that Oprah is nowhere to be seen this week as Obama fights for his political life in North Carolina and Indiana—as the race tightens there.

Take heart Obama fans. Stevie Wonder has agreed to fill in this week in Indiana.

CLINTON-OBAMA TIED IN NORTH CAROLINA W/IN MARGIN OF ERROR

*****BREAKING NEWS*****
May 5, 2008

[Southern Political Report]

Insider Advantage has released its May 4, 2008 tracking poll for the Democratic primary race in North Carolina, and it shows Obama and Clinton tied 48% to 45%-which is within the poll’s margin for error.

According to the Southern Political Report—an Insider Advantage House publication:

“InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery: “Really interesting dynamics at play here. Clinton has increased her lead among white voters to 58% - very close to the 60% plus level needed to pull off a victory. She now leads among those who say they are Democrats but has started to trail among Unaffiliated voters, who are allowed to participate in Tuesday’s election. Additionally, African-American voters are not quite as solid with Obama as they have been, at least based on previous exit polls. Clinton has remained in the upper teens (17%) of African-American support in our recent surveys. African-American turnout will be the key to this race. Our poll is based on a turnout model of 35% African-American vote. Anything under that number could give Clinton a shocking upset. But Indiana has become a true horserace that should concern the Clinton camp.”

“Towery adds “ What is ironic is that Clinton has an outside chance to pull off a near-tie or victory in North Carolina, but our preliminary overnight numbers in Indiana show her losing steam, but holding a lead, in that state. We will release Indiana numbers by midday Monday.” Click here for crosstabs.”

MCCAIN NOW LEADS OBAMA BY 6%, OBAMA’S LEAD OVER CLINTON GONE

[Gallup.com]

Today, May 2, 2008, marks the eighth day in a row where Obama’s former 10 point lead in Gallup’s national tracking poll for the democratic nomination has been reduced to a statistical tie (Clinton continues to hold a slight lead in the poll, which is within the margin for error).

But there is more bad news for Barrack Obama today from Gallup.

In the national tracking poll for the general election, McCain now beats Obama by six points—with McCain and Clinton in a statistical tie.

This is not good for Obama—especially coming on the eve of next Tuesdays primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina.

Obama has such a stunning demographic advantage there—with 40% of North Carolina democrats being black, a group that Obama has been dominating—that a win in that state by Clinton on Tuesday would most certainly turn the Democratic race for the party’s nominee on its head.

And there are some early indications that a North Carolina upset is in the works, including an Insider Advantage poll showing Clinton with a 2% lead there, and other polls reflecting trends in Clinton’s favor.

However, it will take the actual vote count to determine whether Obama will continue to trend downward until election and by how much—particularly given the polls’ tendency to overstate Obama’s lead in the recent primary contests including Pennsylvania.

OBAMA SUPPORTERS DOCTOR FILM CLIP TO SLUR CLINTON CAMPAIGN

It now turns out that Team Obama was up to some dirty political tricks over the last two days.

Yesterday, “someone” posted a film clip from the movie “The War Room” on You Tube, in which a Clinton advisor allegedly uttered a slur on Indianans (calling them “shit”).

Apparently, this did not turn into the news sensation that Team Obama was seeking (since Obama continued to plummet in the polls), so a new, beefed up clip of the same documentary scene was posted on You Tube earlier today. To Cantor’s (alleged) expletive, the second version had added a racial slur (the “N” word).

The punch line: It now turns out that both versions of the You Tube video were doctored to slur the Clinton campaign.

As Politico’s Ben Smith reports:

“I just spoke to D.A. Pennebaker, the director of "The War Room," who said his film had been doctored to produce a widely-viewed You Tube clip.

In a clip from his film on the 1992 Clinton campaign, posted to YouTube today, Clinton advisor Mickey Kantor is -- according to subtitles -- seen referring to Indiana residents with an expletive and to his colleague George Stephanopolous with a racial slur.

"He does not say that. He does not say that," said Pennebaker, after viewing the clip.
“He said the initial expletive referred to the anticipated reaction in the Bush White House to the fact that Ross Perot's polling numbers were holding strong.

"What he says is he’s surprised Perot’s numbers are holding," said Pennebaker in a brief phone interview. "He says they must be shi**ing in the White House."

“The second expletive, he said, appeared to have been entirely fabricated, with new audio dubbed onto the original movie.

Pennebaker appeared surprised and amused by the video.

“"A thousand people saw that film in theaters and didn't think" the second expletive had been used, he said. "It's very clearly understandable. It's not like it was in Bulgarian."

“In an earlier version posted yesterday, the clip was circulating with a subtitle indicating -- Pennebaker says inaccurately -- that Kantor had insulted Hoosiers; the racial slur appears to have been added to the second version.”

So there you have it.

Overzealous Obama supporters faked a 1992 film clip of a Clinton advisor insulting the people of Indiana, and when that did not work the clip was again doctored to add the same advisor uttering the “N” word.

While Team Obama’s desperation is completely understandable—Clinton is poised for a win in Indiana and for a possible upset in North Carolina—this whole affair is as dirty as politics can get.

PREDICTIONS FOR TUESDAY: NC: CLINTON BY 2, INDIANA: CLINTON BY 10

We are once again going out on a limb here and predicting two more highly volatile primary races. Such predictions are risky business—just ask John Zogby about his ridiculously inaccurate tracking polls on the eve of the California and Pennsylvania primary races.

Nevertheless, we once again race in where angels and pundits fear to tread and make the following time and date stamped predictions.

NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY: Clinton by 2%.

In view SurveyUSA’s stellar and contrarian performance in correctly predicting—and being the only poll to correctly predict--Clinton’s 10 point California win on Super-Tuesday, that poll giving Obama a dwindling 5% lead three days ago, the trend, out feeling that the full effect of the Reverend Wright has not yet shown in the polling, and the Bradley effect that is in play in this race—we are going out on a limb and predicting a narrow but stunning Clinton victory.

INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY: Clinton by 10%

This one's a little easier to call. All major polls now give varying degrees of lead to Hillary Clinton—currently averaging 6%.

But we believe that Obama continues to over poll among white voters (who do not want to seem racist) and that the trend toward Clinton in this race will continue in the three days until the Hoosier State votes on Tuesday.

OK, the comments are open for you to explain the folly of our predictions or to express your own.

A RATTLED OBAMA NOW TOUTS HIS “PATRIOTISM” AT EVERY SPEECH

Barack Obama before he embarked on his look how patriotic I am program

[Pruden on Politics]

Wesley Pruden posted a revealing piece that is linked today on the Real Clear Politics website (the home of those poll averages we read so much about, and that overstated Obama’s strength in Pennsylvania by 100%, a phenomena we have talked about here).

Pruden begins provocatively:

“Patriotism is not always the last refuge of the scoundrel. Sometimes it's just the last refuge of a frightened politician.”

Notes Pruden:

“Barack Obama, hotly pursued by his preacher and the crazy preacher's aggressive racism, has revised his stump speech. His once formidable polling lead over Hillary Clinton has dwindled to the single digits. The man who wouldn't wear a tiny American flag on his lapel is looking for a flag pin the size of a bass fiddle.

“"You want to know who I am?" he asked a crowd in North Carolina this week. "You want to know what's in me? It's a love of country that made my life possible. It's a belief in the American dream."

“All no doubt true. But the senator's own dream, which only a fortnight ago looked so dreamy, has begun to feel more like a nightmare. He was leading in North Carolina by 25 points — unrealistic then, to be sure — and yesterday that lead had shrunk to 14 points (Rasmussen), 12 (Public Policy Polling) or even to 5 (Survey USA), depending on which pollster you believe.

“Worse, a poll taken for New York Times-CBS News shows a spectacular decline in the number of voters who think Sen. Obama is the inevitable Democratic nominee. (Hillary was once inevitable, too, so inevitability is not always reliable.) A month ago, nearly 70 percent of the Democrats expected Sen. Obama to be their nominee; now barely half (51 percent) do. Worst of all, such a turnaround comes only five days before crucial primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. The big 'mo is not always everything, but it's always a lot.”