Hillary Clinton is upping the pressure on Barack Obama to hold new debates before the next round of primaries, challenging him to what she referred to as Lincoln-Douglas style debates, sans moderators.

"Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions. We'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said. "I think it would give the people of Indiana -- and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that's what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates."

Meanwhile, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the campaign is reluctant hold any more debates before the next primaries: "Over the next 10 days we believe it's important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina."

(Ed. Note: This is not in fact the format used by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas -- which in turn would be anathema to a modern viewing audience. In those famous debates, one candidate would speak for a solid hour, the opponent would go for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate would make a half-hour rebuttal. In this format, there was simply no active role for a moderator to play.

A better term for Clinton's proposed format might be "Santos-Vinick," after the fictional West Wing debate acted out by Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda.)

Although Bill Clinton's remarks throughout the campaign have been the object of some controversy, that isn't slowing him down. Bill is doing his best to get out on the trail as much as possible -- and according to the Wall St. Journal is as responsible as anyone else for the campaign's harsh tone:

Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists. Known as a bad loser, Mr. Clinton privately buttresses his wife's drive to push on, telling her, according to aides: "We're not quitters."

On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: "We've got to take him on every time." At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher.

A new national poll from Newsweek has some bad news and some good news for Barack Obama post-Pennsylvania: On the one hand, his lead over Hillary Clinton has been cut significantly since last week -- but on the other hand, he's still ahead of her in the horse race and on other measures of popularity:

Obama 48% (-6)
Clinton 41% (+6)

Obama's favorable ratings stand at 53% favorable and 40% unfavorable, compared to 47%-49% for Clinton.

Another example: On the charge of elitism that has dogged Obama since the "small town" flap, 25% of respondents said he looks down on people like them, with 65% saying he does not. This was in fact slightly better than Clinton's 32%-61% rating on this issue.

In an interesting example of how the views of many high-profile Clinton supporters have changed regarding the status of rogue primaries, blogger Mark Nickolas has spotted a key passage from Terry McAuliffe's 2007 book.

McAuliffe recounted how he stared down Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) attempt to move up the Michigan primary during the 2004 cycle, and held firm on his threat to strip the state of delegates:

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

McAuliffe is currently a vocal advocate for seating Michigan's claimed delegates, and for counting the popular votes for Hillary Clinton in that state's primary, in which Barack Obama had taken his name off the ballot.

Barack Obama has this new ad running in Kentucky, a stock ad he's long used to promote his work on ethics reform and his independence from special interests in Washington:

Kentucky may very well be Obama's worst state in the country, both in terms of how he polls against Hillary Clinton in the primary and against John McCain for the general election. So for him to be running an ad here shows the degree to which his campaign is leaving no stone unturned in using their big cash advantage over Hillary Clinton.

Hillary goes up in Indiana with a gas prices spot, in keeping with her campaign's awareness that she's been outworking Obama among big-state blue-collar and lower-middle-class voters worried about the economy.

No mention at all of Obama, though there is this one line at the end: "With gas this expensive, talk is cheap."

The Hillary campaign has the same ad on tap for North Carolina.

The McCain camp has just blasted out a statement saying that Obama's alleged "endorsement" by Hamas will "definitely be an issue in the election," an indication that McCain intends to honor his promise of a "civil" campaign more in the breach than in the observance.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers called the supposed endorsement by Hamas, something that McCain hit Obama for earlier today, "a legitimate issue for the American people to think about," on the basis of Obama's call for negotiations with Iran.

Rogers added: "It is not only responsible to raise these critical issues in this election, but it would be the height of irresponsibility not to have this discussion with the American people."

Read more »

Updated below.

As I've noted here before, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has a bizarre tendency to listen to the substance of criticism against him. Even more strange, considering that he's a top-shelf media star, is the fact that he apologizes for his conduct when he's wrong.

Today Olbermann apologized in response to criticism of a crack he made the other night about Hillary.

The barb in question came in a discussion with a guest about the fact that the super-delegates were going to have to resolve the Dem primary. Olbermann said: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

This line drew some very sharp criticism from The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar, who noted acidly that Olberman could "only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out."

Which prompted Olbermann to send Sklar an apology:

It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic "he" gender could imply something untoward. It should've been "only the other comes out -- from a political point of view." You could've called for reaction first if your main motive had merely been criticism.

Not to quibble with the great KO, but does he really call people for reaction before pillorying them as "The Worst Person In The World"?

The larger context here, obviously, is the hostility that MSNBC has shown towards Hillary for months and months now. Recall that David Shuster apologized for his "pimp" comment about Chelsea and that Chris Matthews apologized for effectively saying that Hillary would be cleaning toilets in a Dunkin' Donuts if it weren't for Bill.

And now Keith has apologized for suggesting that a burly super-del should manhandle Hillary into unconsciousness. Seems like the boys over at MSNBC have done a lot of apologizing to Hillary of late.

Late Update: A bunch of people have pointed out that I was wrong to say that Olbermann is responsive to criticism and admits it when he's wrong. Let me clarify this. I'm not talking about -- or defending -- Olbermann's night-to-night opinions here or saying that he's right on a nightly basis. I'm not saying that he's responsive to criticism of his nightly opinions.

I'm simply saying that in cases where he's been criticized for straying into particularly egregious journalistic conduct, as opposed to when he's merely criticized for spewing wrong opinions, he's been more willing to admit wrongdoing than some other top-shelf media stars have been.

I'm talking about episodes such as the above, where he suggested that perhaps a super-del should leave Hillary unconscious, or another recent one where he inadvertently had a guest on his show to talk about the presidential race despite the fact that he'd published some ridiculous anti-Edwards diatribes only days before. In cases such as these he's been willing to admit wrongdoing in a way some other media stars haven't been. That was the sole point here.

In the meeting with the Indy Star edit board that's going on right now, Obama pushed back against the National Journal's recent rating of him as the number one liberal in the Senate, a ranking that will no doubt be one of the GOP's chief attacks against him this fall.

The push-back is worth a quick look, since he'll have to come up with a strong way of countering this in the general election, presuming he's the nominee.

Obama questioned NJ's methodology, arguing that "they selected 10 votes out of the many hundreds that I've cast" which the mag thought were indicators of his liberalism. One of those votes, he said, was a bill that he'd sponsored calling for a new "office of public integrity."

Obama then questioned "the notion that the National Journal scored that as a quote-unquote liberal vote," adding: "I don't think there's anything liberal about wanting to reduce the appearance of questionable ethics in the Senate."

Now, that's a good line. And Obama is obviously talking to a wonkish group here, so getting down into the policy weeds to refute the "most liberal" claim is an understandable approach.

But during the general we'll be hearing this claim at the soundbite level ad infinitum. So Obama will need to come up with a sharp and pithy way of knocking this one down without getting into a debate about the study's flawed methodology.

In an interesting experiment, the Indianapolis Star is broadcasting via live streaming its editorial board interview with Barack Obama.

Obama started speaking to the board moments ago.

You can watch it right here.

More soon.

The Obama campaign is clearly determined to use their financial advantage over Hillary Clinton by flooding the airwaves in remaining states well in advance of their votes.

Obama has this new ad in West Virginia, in which he promises to get to work on lowering gas prices and creating an overall better energy policy:

The one poll out so far in this particular state showed Obama losing by a 2-1 margin. As such, he needs to seriously narrow the gap in time for the May 13 primary, assuming the race is still going after the May 6 contests in Indiana and North Carolina.

Separately, the Obama campaign confirms to us that they are going up on the air in all the remaining states, as first reported by The Page.

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton just confirmed to me that the campaign has set up a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, a development that was first reported today by Mark Halperin.

The move is unusual in the sense that it's typically the sort of thing that's done once there is a nominee.

That the DNC has done this with Obama before the contest is settled reflects two realities: First, that Obama is the likely the nominee; and second, that McCain is forging ahead with the building of a campaign apparatus while the two Dems continue to pour resources into an intra-Dem contest with no immediate end in sight.

"This is an effort to be a team player and make sure we have the resources we need," Burton says.

The joint committee can raise cash in far larger chunks than candidates -- they can take in $28,500 from individuals, more than 10 times the $2,300 contribution limit for candidates.

Similar discussions are ongoing between Hillary and the DNC, but no deal has been struck yet, Halperin reports.

Today's Gallup tracking poll shows that Hillary Clinton is definitely enjoying a bounce in the wake of her Pennsylvania primary win. The numbers, compared to yesterday:

Obama 48% (-1)
Clinton 47% (+3)

From Gallup's analysis:

The latest results, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 22-24, include two days of interviews conducted entirely after Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Support for Clinton is significantly higher in these post-primary interviews than it was just prior to her Pennsylvania victory, clearly suggesting that Clinton's win there is the catalyst for her increased national support.

A new Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania shows Hillary Clinton running stronger than Barack Obama against John McCain here -- the sort of number likely to be touted by the Clinton campaign to demonstrate superior electability:

McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%
Clinton (D) 47%, McCain (R) 42%

While Obama is able to outperform Clinton among independent voters, Clinton is doing a better job at holding down the core Democratic base -- meaning that some of those Pennsylvania Dems who don't like Obama are at least seriously considering going for McCain.

Other polls have shown a similar situation: The current Pollster.com averages have Clinton beating McCain in Pennsylvania by 45.7%-43.2%, but McCain beating Obama by 45.2%-42.7%.

Here is Hillary's long-shot best-case-scenario game plan, as best as I can understand it:

1) Make North Carolina unexpectedly close, showing that she can compete on his turf and using this to try to make the "Obama is weak" argument stick -- and use any future revelations about Obama or gaffes by him to feed that argument as aggressively as possible

2) Eke out a win in Indiana, partly offsetting Obama's popular vote gain from North Carolina, and making it possible to continue arguing that he can't win over blue-collar whites in big industrial states

3) Rack up huge popular-vote gains in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, and keep it unexpectedly close in Oregon -- making it not completely out of the question that she wins the popular vote, or that she gets within one percent of Obama, when you include Florida

4) Push hard for Michigan to be included in the popular vote count, so that including just Florida in the tally looks like a reasonable fall-back position

5) Turn the argument over who won into a two-front spin war

6) The first spin war: Get into an argument over whether Florida should count in the popular vote tally, making the case that not including the state disenfranchises its voters and that Obama's refusal to count those votes is imperiling his general-election chances there

7) The second spin war: Argue that the fact that she "won" the popular vote with Florida "included," or basically tied it, shows that the Democratic primary electorate didn't really deliver a clear verdict on its choice as nominee -- and that the "will of the people" has not been clearly established

8) Argue that the fact that the electorate allegedly didn't deliver a clear verdict frees the super-delegates to use their own judgment -- and that if they do, they will not be bucking the "will of the people"

9) Argue that the fact that she kept it close in the popular vote, despite having been counted out multiple times, shows that she has the tenacity and staying power to take on the GOP -- and that Obama lacks the toughness and killer instinct necessary to finish off a tough opponent for good

So there you have it.

Is this likely? Of course not. Is it absolutely impossible? Of course not.

Outstanding question: If Obama emerges as the clear victor in the pledged del count and the popular vote even with Florida included -- which is far and away the most likely conclusion -- will she continue to press the case to the super-dels that they should follow her, even though not one, but two metrics showed him to be the Dem primary electorate's clear choice?

So much for John McCain's promise of a "civil" campaign. In a conference call with bloggers today, McCain defended his campaign's fundraising e-mail declaring that Hamas wants Barack Obama to win.

"All I can tell you Jennifer [Rubin] is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States," McCain said. "So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare ... If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly."

A senior Obama adviser vows that he will "take Fox on" when he appears on the network this Sunday, though it's unclear yet just how.

Obama's decision to go on Fox News has prompted a lot of discussion about the Illinois Senator's relationship with Rupert Murdoch and whether Obama is trying to "court" the media mogul in advance of the general election.

It's also been met with some dismay in the blogosphere, where folks had worked hard to push Dems to boycott Fox as a way of snuffing out whatever is left of the network's credibility.

But how do Obama and his advisers view this? What do they have to say about it?

The senior Obama adviser insists that Obama is under no illusions about Fox and what it represents, and that this isn't about courtship at all, and vows a confrontational approach on Sunday.

Here is what the adviser IM-ed me about this today:

We are clear-eyed about Fox’'s role in the dissemination and amplification of Republican talking points this election. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama. He is going on their Sunday show to take Fox on, not because we have any illusion about their motives or politics in this election.

The Obama adviser declined to detail how he'd be taking on Fox. But if Obama does this, it could end up playing to his advantage. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has an interesting peek inside the thinking of an uncommitted super-del:

Barack Obama needs to "demonstrate he can connect with blue-collar, working-class people," says U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle.

"Up to this point, I don't think he's shown that yet. That causes me some concern," said Doyle, a Forest Hills Democrat whose 14th District includes much of Pittsburgh....

"I told him I wasn't real pleased" with his approach and that "he can't win campaigns in Western Pennsylvania on television," Doyle said in an interview. "You have to go out there amongst the people, and I felt Hillary was outworking him in Western Pennsylvania, and she got a result for it."

Before Pennsylvania, the super-dels were moving over to Obama, though not in the numbers that the Obama campaign was hoping for. And one thing the Pennsylvania outcome has clearly done is put off any wholesale movement of supers for at least ten more days.

If Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina, there will be some serious super-del movement, but if she posts strong showings in both states, they'll continue sitting tight -- and the contest will drag on.

Barack Obama goes into the North Carolina primary with a big advantage in money raised in-state: In March, the Charlotte Observer reports, Obama raised three times as much cash from North Carolinians as compared to Hillary Clinton. It's an indication of on-the-ground support that could do him well in the primary -- after all, donors large and small are guaranteed to come out to vote, and also to do everything they can to recruit their friends.

Ace Smith, the Clinton campaign's state director, says this only increases the stakes for Obama. "It's proving in this campaign cycle that money don't buy you love," said Smith. "The fact of the matter is, they spent just absolutely mind-boggling and historic amounts of money and haven't been able to close the deal. And to close the deal here in North Carolina, they'd have to beat us by high, high double-digits."

Hey, just a quick housekeeping reminder to readers:

You can subscribe to TPM Election Central's RSS feed right here!

And that's not all.

You can get a TPM Election Central Widget for your site right here!

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, top Hillary strategist Geoff Garin has laid out the campaign's most detailed case yet that the truly negative campaign is being run not by Hillary, but by Obama.

"The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate -- but it has been Obama's campaign, not ours," Garin writes. "You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.

"The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us -- and sometimes the media do, too."

Despite Barack Obama's apparent edge in North Carolina -- much like Virginia before it, it has a lot of both African-Americans and urban white liberals -- Hillary Clinton is by all appearances making a major play for the state, in the hopes of making it a close race or even winning on friendly turf for Obama.

For example, the Clinton campaign has sent Averell "Ace" Smith, the leader of their efforts in both California and Texas, over here to run their operation. "He's their top primary manager," said former top Edwards adviser Joe Trippi. "They didn't send Ace Smith if they weren't going to try to compete."

While John Edwards has stayed on the sidelines since he dropped out of the presidential race, Barack Obama has succeeded in getting far more of Edwards' organizational support than Hillary Clinton -- all of which could help him in the upcoming North Carolina primary.

FEC records show that Obama has raised almost $1 million from previous Edwards donors, compared to only $427,000 for Clinton. Another key statistic: Nine of Edwards' former Congressional backers have now endorsed Obama -- compared to zero for Clinton.

A poll of Indiana by the Midwestern firm Selzer & Co. has the Indiana primary looking close, with Barack Obama posting a very slight lead within the margin of error: Obama 41%, Clinton 38%.

This shows a statistical dead heath like the Research 2000 poll that also came out tonight, but with a much higher undecided number. In other words, it looks like Indiana is going to be a very tight race.

A new Research 2000 poll of Indiana shows a dead heat in this key primary: Obama 48%, Clinton 47%. With a five percent margin of error, this one is anybody's game.

This is the only state left that doesn't have a clear frontrunner going in. As such, expect both campaigns to put a lot of resources here leading up to the May 6 primary. A Clinton win would give her campaign a big boost of momentum, while an Obama victory could potentially lock up the nomination for him.

Bill Clinton is now coming under fire from House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), for his recent accusation that the Obama campaign had long planned to play the race card against him.

Clyburn characterized the former president's behavior throughout this campaign as "bizarre," and said that there is now a nearly-unanimous view among African-Americans that the Clintons are "committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win."

"When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar," Clyburn said. "I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation."

Clyburn has not publicly endorsed in the Democratic race.

The North Carolina Republican Party is hitting a wall in their efforts to run that attack ad against Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright: Finding a TV station that will run it.

WRAL-TV, the CBS affiliate in the "Triangle" region of Raleigh, Durham and Fayetteville, has officially rejected the ad. WTVD, the ABC outlet in that same media market, is also saying they haven't been asked to run the ad but would have reservations about doing so.

John McCain promised at a town-hall meeting today that he would bring "every pressure to bear" to stop the North Carolina GOP from running that ad hitting Obama over his controversial pastor, an issue that McCain said wasn't a legit one.

Take a look:

The North Carolina GOP's spot has McCain in something of a jam. He has come out and condemned the ad and said he doesn't want it to air, but he's now taking hits from Democrats who are demanding that he do more as the GOP's standard bearer to stop it from running. And if he can't get that done he risks looking weak.

Indeed, a top McCain strategist is now telling Time magazine that the ad won't be running at all -- the implication being that McCain managed to put the kibosh on it behind the scenes.

But guess what -- a spokesperson for the North Carolina GOP just told me that this isn't the case. Here's the statement I just got from the spokesperson, Brent Wilcox:

I'm not sure where this gossip is coming from but that is not the case. The ad is still scheduled to run early next week.

The spokesperson added that it's set to run statewide.

Hmmm. It looks like McCain still has a bit of work to do if he really wants to stop this thing from running.

Barack Obama is going where his campaign has never gone before: Fox News, where he'll be interviewed by Chris Wallace this weekend on Fox News Sunday.

The Obama camp has more or less shut out Fox ever since they ran with the fake story about him supposedly being educated in a madrassah, so this is a big break from the standard practice. Even before that, Obama didn't have much time for Fox -- by the channel's count, the time between his last sit-down interview with them and this upcoming one will have been 772 days.

Late Update: Another fun thing here is that the Fox gang seem to be practically trashing Obama in their celebration of his decision to come. From their statement:

Wallace said if Obama had won Pennsylvania, he may not have accepted the invitation.

"If he had won he'd probably on a Caribbean island this weekend. The fact that he's going to be on Sunday television and on FOX News may be an indication he figures he has to reach out to working-class Democrats, moderates and conservative Democrats and FOX News is a good place to do it," he said.

Today's Gallup tracking poll shows that Barack Obama is still ahead of Hillary Clinton nationwide in the wake of his defeat in Pennsylvania, but there has also been a slight narrowing of the race.

The numbers, compared to yesterday:

Obama 49% (-1)
Clinton 44% (+2)

From the pollster's analysis: "Notably, he outpolled Clinton slightly in Wednesday night interviewing, the first night of post-Pennsylvania primary data collection. The full impact of the Pennsylvania results will be apparent in the coming days, though the initial indications are that it has helped Clinton, so far her win has not dramatically altered the dynamics of the race at the national level."

Jeremiah Wright had some tough words for his media detractors in an interview with Bill Moyers -- his first since YouTubes of his sermons put him in the national spotlight -- and some backhanded remarks about his friend and parishioner Barack Obama, too.

From an advance transcript of the yet-to-be-broadcast interview:

Moyers: You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You were, for 20 years, his spiritual counsel. He has said that. And, yet, he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about you. How did those words...how did it go down with you when you heard Barack Obama say those things?

Wright: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two different worlds.

I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.

Wright also had this to say about the suggestion that he is the one who has miscommunicated his message:

When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a "wackadoodle."

A bunch of you have written in to express skepticism about the Hillary campaign's claim that they raised $10 million in the 24 hours following her Pennsylvania victory.

But the Hillary camp is now saying that, yes, in fact they did raise that sum.

Here's what happened. Yesterday afternoon top Hillary adviser Terry McAuliffe said on MSNBC that the campaign was on track to raise that amount by the end of the day. He also said that there were 50,000 new donors.

A lot of people understandably questioned those numbers, because they would mean that the average donation yesterday was $200 -- an unusually high sum.

But here's the deal. Hillary's top internet adviser, Peter Daou, tells me that McAuliffe was talking about the number of donors they had counted by that moment, not the projected total number of donors. Meanwhile, other Hillary advisers gave other reporters different donor numbers at different times, adding to the confusion.

But Daou clarifies that by 11 P.M. yesterday, the campaign had in fact taken in the $10 million, from a total of 100,000 donors -- 80,000 of them new.

That would mean an average contribution of roughly $100 -- which makes much more sense.

Separately, it looks as if Tech President's Micah Sifrey -- who first sounded the alarm about this -- has now updated with the same new info.

So that's where we are on this now. More if we get it.

Howard Dean -- trying to soften up McCain even as the Dem candidates continue bludgeoning each other -- is jumping into the battle over the North Carolina GOP's anti-Obama ad, demanding that McCain show some leadership and get the ad pulled.

As you know, the North Carolina Republicans are preparing to run a spot attacking local Dems over Obama's ties to controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright. As you also know, McCain has said that he doesn't think Wright is a legit issue.

McCain has asked the NC GOP not to run an ad -- but it's unclear whether he's really tried to get it yanked.

Now Dean is hitting McCain for his inaction.

"This is a test of leadership for John McCain. If he can't pick up the phone and make members of his own party stop airing a television ad he claims to oppose, how can he lead our country through an economic crisis or the war in Iraq?" Dean said in a statement just emailed over by the DNC. "If he is serious, he will get this ad pulled."

This one bears watching. We're going to see if any North Carolina GOP officials also occupy spots on McCain's campaign.

If so, McCain could simply threaten to fire them from his campaign until the local party agrees not to air the ad. Couldn't he?

There's a pretty interesting debate about Obama's supposed likeness to past Dem nominees simmering on various sites around the web, so I'd be remiss if I didn't set up a thread for it here.

* It all started when TNR's John Judis asked whether Obama's Pennsylvania loss meant he risked becoming the "next McGovern."

* Judis' colleague Jon Chait dissented, arguing rightly that the fact that people voted for Hillary against Obama doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for Obama against McCain. Of course, one can broadly agree with this argument while simultaneously asking whether Obama's failure to win over big-state blue collar whites in the primary might have some relevance of some sort for the general election.

* TPM Cafe's Ed Kilgore, meanwhile, also dissented from the Obama-as-McGovern line, going big by arguing that McGovern's candidacy differed in a thousand ways large and small from Obama's. And Kilgore should know -- he was there! He was a McGovern precinct captain, it turns out.

* Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias argues that we should just junk the McGovern analogy altogether, because it does more harm than good to our efforts to understand what the heck's going on in this race.

* And Karl Rove, for reasons entirely different from Judis', also comes up with a historical analogy of his own, comparing Obama to Adlai Stevenson.

Rove's piece, obviously, is only worth reading as a blueprint of the coming GOP campaign against Obama. It hits all the high -- or low -- notes: His patriotism, his alleged inability to understand salt-of-the-earth working folks, his alleged lack of experiences or accomplishments, the fact that he's a fancy talker, etc., etc. It's unbearably predictable, but you have to read it, anyway.

A key freshman House Democrat, Zack Space of Ohio, is now facing a much better playing field for his re-election campaign than many people would have expected a year ago. The latest fundraising numbers show Space with almost $1 million on hand, compared to only $36,000 for his low-profile opponent, former state agriculture director Fred Dailey.

The district voted 57%-42% for President Bush in 2004, and went Democratic in 2006 due in large part to the spectacle of GOP Rep. Bob Ney's corruption, resignation and replacement on the ballot by an unpopular candidate.

But with the GOP's finances in overall disarray -- Dailey apparently wasn't able to raise much money after he won the nomination -- Space may very well be on his way to re-election unless the Republicans can get their act together. CQ has changed their rating from "Leans Democratic" to the much more solid "Democrat Favored."

The round of negative stories about Al Franken's failure to properly pay business taxes in all the states he was active now appears to be damaging him and endangering his effort to oust Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), a new poll finds.

The latest numbers from Rasmussen, compared to last month:

Coleman (R) 50% (+2)
Franken (D) 43% (-3)

National Democrats have viewed this seat as a top pickup opportunity, but unless Franken can figure out a way to deal with his travails, the bad publicity hitting him may cause Dems to squander the chance to oust one of the GOP's most vulnerable incumbents.

Here's a quick round-up of super-delegate-related news:

* After Pennsylvania, many super-dels are accepting the fact that the contest won't end until the voting is over, and some even say that's a good thing for the party.

* Hillary's Pennsylvania win has persuaded many super-dels to remain neutral for the time being -- in hopes that the voters will render a clear verdict and relieve them of the burden of having to pick sides.

* A Hillary adviser says that her Pennsylvania win was what persuaded Tennessee Rep. John Tanner to come out for her yesterday.

* Fifteen House Dems gathered at Hillary headquarters yesterday to strategize about how to corral more super-dels for her -- the goal being to erase the sense of inevitability that surrounds Obama's candidacy.

* Howard Dean reiterated his call for the super-dels to make up their minds promptly after the voting ends.

In a sign that the Clinton camp is worried about more super-delegates endorsing Barack Obama, major Clinton-backer Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has pressed his state's House members to delay endorsing, rather than lobbying them to come out in favor of Hillary.

"Why should they get crosswise with some of their friends if they really don't need to?" Bayh said, adding that he expects Hillary to carry many of their districts no matter how the endorsements turn out. "My advice to you is to follow the voters of your district."

Hillary Clinton might have just reached Terry McAuliffe's prediction of raising $10 million since the polls closed in Pennsylvania. The Washington Post reports that the campaign has taken in more than $10 million, according to campaign aides -- a sum that was badly needed in light of her recent money problems.

On the other hand, the New York Times puts the number at only $8 million, though it's not clearly sourced. It's possible that the number was $8 million when the Times reporters found out, and then rose to $10 million afterward, or that different staffers have heard different numbers themselves.

Another thing that's unclear is how much of this money will be available for the primary. What is nearly certain, however, is that Barack Obama will still have more overall cash, as he went into this month with over $40 million on hand and barely any debts.

Late Update: The Times has updated their numbers, confirming that Clinton did in fact succeed in raising $10 million.

Another red state super-del comes out for Obama this afternoon, the campaign announces: Audra Ostergard, Associate Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party.

Both campaigns were looking to roll out super-del support today, to show momentum heading out of Pennsylvania, and there was some talk in political circles to the effect that Obama would be showcasing a bunch of them today.

As of now, Obama has rolled out two super-dels today to Hillary's one.

The Democratic National Committee has seriously upped its ad campaign against John McCain, with the latest FEC filing showing a $500,000 buy to run the spot on the economy that they previewed over the weekend.

With the Democratic candidates still beating each other up, the DNC has had to step in and do some of the heavy lifting in taking on John McCain rather than let him enjoy a free ride in the press. And this is not a small problem, either -- the DNC has been the one area of Democratic fundraising to seriously lag behind its Republican counterpart.

A DNC staffer told us that the ad will run on national cable.

A top Hillary surrogate appears to disagree with Bill Clinton's now-infamous assertion the other day that the Obama campaign played the race card against him.

New York governor David Paterson, who's African American, was asked on a Hillary campaign conference call moments ago whether he agreed with Bill's assertion.

"I don't think that either of the candidates has played the race card in this campaign," Paterson said, after wondering aloud a bit about the context of Bill's remarks.

In a reference to both race and gender, Paterson continued: "I don't think either candidate pushed that button."

It's obviously a delicate spot for Paterson, but he could have sidestepped the question, and he didn't.

Late Update: Here's the audio from the call: