Yet another poll is showing that Republicans are in danger of losing a once-safe Senate seat in their stronghold state of Alaska, with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) edging out scandal-plagued Sen. Ted Stevens (R) in a statistical dead heat.
John McCain has a new ad set to air in Iowa, contrasting McCain as a leader against the two Democrats who are still taking shots at each other:
"John McCain -- leadership, not politics," the announcers says. Of course, this ad may be just in time to be too late, as Barack Obama is in many ways looking past Hillary Clinton and already duking it out directly with McCain, as we saw yesterday.
It needs to be restated that John McCain has settled on his message and is sticking with it. It's the essentially same message we've heard from the GOP for the last three elections now: If you elect my opponent, you will die.
The McCain campaign just sent out -- proudly -- these remarks that McCain made today:
"Earlier today, Senator Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America. No issue is more important. Senator Obama claimed all I had to offer was the 'naive and irresponsible belief' that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Senator Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a 'stinking corpse' and arms terrorist who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.
"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe."
Note the tweak of Obama's "soaring rhetoric," a sign (if you needed one) that Obama will be portrayed as little more than a smooth-talking slickster.
More to the point, note the last lines, which are identical to what his spokesperson said today. They are, again, a slightly watered down version of what he said yesterday on the blogger conference call.
This time, according to McCain, it isn't a fact that Obama is unfit to defend America. Rather, his ability to protect us is something we should have "every reason to doubt."
Obama did a pretty decent job of hitting back at this stuff today, though. The battle is joined.
When John McCain answered a question about diplomacy with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories by saying that sooner or later we'll have to "deal with" the group, what did McCain mean? Did that mean actually talking to them?
On MSNBC this afternoon, McCain foreign policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer explained that the phrase, "deal with," has meanings other than diplomatic negotiations:
"Dealing can be anything from bombing to a bed of roses," said Pfotenhauer.
For the record, the transcript of McCain's original exchange with Jamie Rubin in 2006 is available after the jump.
Before dropping out of the presidential race, John Edwards secured a private commitment from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that they'd undertake a poverty tour during the general election as the Democratic nominee, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks.
The vows to undertake a poverty tour -- which were confirmed to me by three former top advisers to Edwards -- went considerably farther than what has been publicly known until now about what the two Dems promised Edwards they'd do on poverty. During his drop-out speech last January, Edwards only said that the two Dems had "both pledged" to "make ending poverty central to their campaign."
An actual poverty tour, by contrast, would be a specific, protracted undertaking, possibly with Edwards himself, a possibility that came up in the private talks. Such a tour could be a major media event.
Now that Obama is on his way to becoming the nominee, the private promise is particularly relevant, because it raises the question of whether Obama will honor the commitment Edwards advisers say he (and Hillary) made.
This could require Obama to make a commitment of several days during a hard-fought general election, because Edwards specifically secured a commitment that it be a few days long, one top adviser said.
"Edwards was trying to think of ways to specifically hold them accountable," said another former top Edwards adviser. "It's easy for a Democrat to say, `Sure, I'll make poverty central to my campaign.' A poverty tour was something he felt would be really powerful with the spotlight of the general election, and it was a tangible, real thing he could ask them to commit to."
Matthew Nelson, a spokesperson for Edwards, declined to comment on the talks about the poverty tour, saying that Edwards "does not publicly discuss private conversations."
The presidential candidates are set to all boost their pro-Israel credentials in three weeks, Ben Smith reports, when they all speak at the annual AIPAC conference.
Republicans have been trying to paint Barack Obama as soft on defending Israel, so his appearance before the group will be closely watched in the political world for signs that he can rebut this line of attack effectively.
Meanwhile, expect McCain to none-to-subtly push said attack line by chest-thumping about how a President McCain would never, ever negotiate with hostile Arab powers.
Here at Election Central, we've been following the thrilling GOP primary for the Dem-held swing House seat in Oregon -- partly because it's a truly brutal affair, and partly because the worse it gets, the more likely it is Dems will hold the open seat.
Now the race has gotten even nastier.
Oregon Right to Life has released a statement calling for businessman Mike Erickson to quit the race, after his primary opponent spread a two-year old e-mail accusing Erickson of impregnating a younger woman and paying for her abortion. The statement contains a startling accusation: That when this matter first came up two years ago, Erickson privately admitted that key parts of the story were true.
The White House has been claiming -- and McCain's spokesperson reiterated it today -- that Bush wasn't talking specifically about Obama when he said that "some" Democrats favor engaging terrorists.
But Ben Smith has already posted two examples in which administration officials acknowledged to journalists -- albeit anonymously -- that, you know, in fact Bush was talking about Obama.
CNN's Ed Henry, for instance, said:
Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.
Obama, at a Q-and-A with reporters after his speech, continued to keep the story of his standoff with McCain and Bush going at full throttle:
"If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, in the Middle East or around the world, that's a conversation I'm happy to have."
The subtext, or, rather, the not-so-sub text: The general election has begun. Bring it on.
Here's the response from McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds to Obama's speech hitting McCain and Bush on foreign policy today:
"It was remarkable to see Barack Obama's hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama.
"Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America's enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?
"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."
You know, I wasn't aware that Obama had ever indicated that he thinks "we don't have enemies." I thought that Obama has been talking specifically about the Bush-McCain approach to dealing with our enemies, and labeling it an abject failure. But that's just me, I guess.
Separately, here's something that's noteworthy: The McCain camp appears to be reiterating -- in a slightly watered down version -- his claim yesterday on that blogger call that Obama is unfit to keep us safe.
In the current version, the McCain campaign is saying that "the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe." That's their message, and they're gonna stick with it.
In remarks in South Dakota just now, Barack Obama hit back hard at George Bush's and John McCain's foreign policy attacks yesterday, stating flatly that a debate with the two Republicans over foreign policy is a debate that "I will win."
"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said.
The fight is one that the Obama campaign is eager to have, because it accomplishes two things. First, it forces McCain to stand by Bush, making it easier to tie them together. And second, it puts Obama, sans Hillary, on the same stage as the current Republican president and his would-be successor, making the Dem primary seem a bit like a distant memory.
"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have any time," Obama said. "That is a debate that I will win."
He proceeded to rattle off all the things Bush and McCain have to "answer for." The unnecessary Iraq War. The phantom WMDs. The strengthening of Iran. The fact that "Hamas now controls Gaza." And the fact that Osama Bin Laden is "sending out video tapes with impunity."
Obama also slammed the notion that he'd ever supported any sort of negotiations with terrorists. "They're trying to fool you, trying to scare you, and they're not telling you the truth because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits," he said.
At times, Obama hit what I think is the right tone -- ridicule and bemusement, rather than outrage. At one point, for instance, he noted that McCain has now promised an end to the war in 2013, after repeatedly suggesting a much longer open-ended commitment might be necessary.
"I think he noticed that it wasn't polling well," Obama joked.
The McCain campaign is hitting back at a widely-circulated Washington Post Op ed published today by foreign policy expert Jamie Rubin.
Rubin claims that McCain said in a 2006 interview with Rubin that we have to "deal with" Hamas -- in seeming contradiction with his attacks on Obama.
According to Rubin, McCain said of Hamas: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another."
That would seem to be at odds, at least in spirit, with McCain's pronouncement yesterday that Obama is unfit to defend America based on his willingness to negotiate with hostile foreign powers.
But the McCain camp claims that there's no contradiction here at all.
"John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah," McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds said in a statement.
The statement continued: "Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes."
It's true that "deal with" (McCain's formulation above) is not the same as "willing to meet with during the first year with no preconditions" (Obama's formulation with regard to countries like Iran and North Korea).
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign is fudging the facts in this statement. Obama has never, ever said that the United States should "unconditionally meet with" leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah, as this statement clearly tries to imply (without quite saying).
In fact, Obama has explicitly said that we should only meet with Hamas "if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."
Hillary goes up on the air in Oregon with this new spot that uses Washington pundits -- who have largely pronounced the race over -- as foils...
"In Washington they talk about who's up and who's down," the narrator says, a rather charitable (to her) description of the Washington chatter that has largely written her off.
So is this a positive spot -- a sign that Hillary recognizes the race is largely decided and has decided to lay off harsh tactics? The spot makes no mention of Obama.
It does, however, say that "she's the one" who voted against the Bush energy bill and is insisting on "health coverage for every American" -- implicit contrasts with Obama.
Still, this hardly belongs in the same category as the red-phone ad or the gas-attack spots. It would be hard to call this a negative ad.
Late Update: Hillary also has twonew ads in Kentucky, which are also both positive spots. She's way ahead in that state's primary, so there isn't any obvious need to go negative against Obama.
Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice vowed on MSNBC this morning that Obama will respond forcefully today to President Bush's claim yesterday that Democrats' willingness to negotiate with hostile foreign powers constitutes "appeasement."
"What you're going to hear is a very vigorous response to what was an outrageous, unprecedented, and divisive attack from President Bush yesterday," Rice said.
Of course, Bush never specifically mentioned Obama in his comments. But the Obama team has good reason to forcefully respond, anyway. It puts Obama on the same stage as the Republicans and the President himself, placing him in a back-and-forth over foreign policy with the man that he and John McCain both want to replace -- thus making Hillary and the Democratic Primary recede ever more quickly in the political world's rear-view mirror.
I'm told that Obama's remarks about Bush may come during today's town-hall meeting in Watertown, South Dakota, at noon eastern.
In a sign that they are likely to declare victory in the presidential primary very soon, the Obama campaign is now boasting in a memo to reporters that they are on the cusp of winning the pledged-delegate majority, thanks to the endorsement from John Edwards and a group of his delegates.
By the Obama campaign's math, they are only 17 elected delegates away from the pledged-del majority, a number that they are guaranteed to pull off next week in Oregon and Kentucky. Expect them to court super-delegates to break their way en masse after that happens, on the basis that Obama has the popular mandate to be the nominee.
It turns out there could be a big problem with John McCain's charge that Barack Obama is unfit to be president on the basis of his desire to negotiate with hostile foreign leaders. In fact, McCain was saying very much the same thing two years ago -- and it was about Hamas, a group Obama hasn't proposed dealing with, but one that McCain has nevertheless gone out of his way to associate with Obama.
Jamie Rubin writes this morning that he interviewed McCain after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and asked whether American diplomats should work with the new government.
MCain's response: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... but it's a new reality in the Middle East."
Democrats can be pretty confident for now about picking up a new Senate seat in the Southwest this Fall, with a new SurveyUSA poll of the New Mexico Senate race showing Democratic Congressman Tom Udall beating both Republicans by very wide margins for this open GOP-held seat:
Sample size: 1,827 registered voters.
Margin of error: ±2.3%
In the Republican primary subset, the more conservative Congressman Steve Pearce leads Congresswoman Heather Wilson by a 49%-46% margin, within the ±4.8% margin of error. But with these general election figures, any arguments over electability may well be moot.
Barack Obama is sticking by his defense of same-sex unions, despite the likelihood that it will flare up as a general election issue because of today's California Supreme Court decision legalizing it. Here's the Obama camp's response to the court decision:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
The Republicans are likely to seize on Obama's respect for the court's decision as proof that electing Obama would bring about gay marriage across the country. Of course, it's also worth noting that Obama stops short of embracing gay marriage, putting him out of step with many on the left.
No statement yet from Hillary Clinton. John McCain's spokesman, however, has weighed in with this:
"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
Late Update: Here is the Clinton campaign's statement:
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Now this is really something. New polling shows that not one but two scandal-plagued incumbent Republicans are seriously in danger of losing their seats -- and to top it off, both are in a state that has historically been a GOP stronghold, Alaska.
The two GOPers in question are TPMmuckraker all-stars: Sen. Ted Stevens, who is at the center of a corruption investigation; and Rep. Don Young, whose potential involvement in the Coconut Road earmark has landed him in the hotseat. Both are trailing their Dem challengers.
From the new polls commissioned by Daily Kos, and conducted by the non-partisan firm Research 2000:
Senate Begich (D) 48% Stevens (R) 43%
House
Berkowitz (D) 50%
Young (R) 40%
Sample size: 600 likely voters.
Margin of error: ±4%.
Democrats have not won a federal race in Alaska since 1974, when Mike Gravel was elected to a second term in the Senate. But it's looking like this could be a big year indeed.
On a conference call with conservative bloggers this afternoon, John McCain launched what may be his most direct attack yet on Barack Obama's national security credentials, saying flat out that Obama is incapable of protecting America and lacks the necessary traits to keep it secure from foreign threats.
In a reference to Obama's declared willingness to meet with the leader of Iran, McCain said:
"I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."
That seems like an unequivocal declaration that Obama is incapable of protecting this country. In the past, McCain has raised doubts about Obama's national security cred, but to our knowledge has never taken the step of declaring outright that he's unfit to defend the country.
McCain's comments also go considerably farther than McCain did in his comments this morning about Bush's Israel speech attacking Dems. In those remarks, McCain said Obama needs to explain why he's willing to sit down with a "state sponsor of terrorism."
I was invited to join the blogger call by the McCain campaign as part of its effort to reach out to non-conservative bloggers. McCain is the only candidate right now to hold regular blogger conference calls.
On the call, McCain also signaled that he's eager to have a national security debate surrounding questions such as whether to negotiate with the leader of Iran. "I look forward to having that debate with him and take it to the American people," McCain said.
The Republican primary for the swing House seat in Oregon just keeps getting nastier -- a development that's cheering national Dems, because it improves the Democrats' chances of holding on to this key seat that could otherwise be at some risk of slipping into Republican hands.
Check out this vicious new attack ad that businessman Mike Erickson is airing -- it hits back at former state Rep. Kevin Mannix for spreading a two-year old e-mail that accused Erickson of impregnating a younger woman and paying for her abortion:
If things continue at this rate, the eventual Democratic nominee will be up against a badly bloodied GOP opponent, making it more likely that national Dems will hold the open seat.
Here's the spot that the pro-Hillary 527 American Leadership Project is airing in Oregon, starting today...
ALP will spend up to $500,000 on the buy, as I reported below.
The spot is an all-positive one touting her strength on the economy, a major departure for the group, which had aired a string of ads attacking Obama in other states.
The shift to a positive spot suggests that ALP's major backers -- unions and big Hillary donors -- may recognize that the contest is all but over, don't want to damage Obama in advance of his inevitable general election candidacy, and don't want to further alienate the party's all but certain nominee.
The American Leadership Project -- the big pro-Hillary 527 put together by major Hillary-backing unions and major donors -- is buying $300,000-$500,000 worth of TV time in Oregon for a new ad touting Hillary's record on the economy, I'm told.
Tellingly, the spot -- unlike past ALP-sponsored ads, which attacked Obama -- will be uniformly positive, with no mention at all of Obama or even any implicit contrast between his and Hillary's economic record. The ad will begin running today.
ALP's decision to go positive at this late date is significant. It suggests that ALP -- one of the top independent groups backing Hillary -- may recognize that the contest is all but decided and that there's no percentage in attacking Obama, something that could damage him in advance of the general election.
It also suggests that ALP's major labor and financial backers are now reluctant to alienate the party's all-but-certain nominee.
Contacted for comment, ALP spokesperson Jason Kinney confirmed the buy and its particulars.
Larry Cohen, the president of the Communication Workers of America and a super-delegate from D.C., will endorse Obama today, CWA's communications office confirms to me.
A press release will go out sometime soon. CWA's umbrella union sat out the primary, and had left it up to individual locals to decide whom to endorse.
That brings Obama's count for the day to two. Seattle Rep. Jim McDermott threw his backing to the Illinois Senator today.
This is also Obama's second labor endorsement today, having picked up the backing of the steelworkers' union this morning -- suggesting that John Edwards' endorsement of Obama yesterday is hastening the coalescing of institutional support behind the Illinois Senator.
Late Update: The Obama camp has also just announced the support of Congressmen Henry Waxman and Howard Berman, both from California.
If this new attack ad from GOP Senator Gordon Smith is any indication, he may recognize that he's facing a tough reelection fight and that the Dems have a shot at picking up this plum Oregon Senate seat this fall.
What's particularly interesting about this attack ad is that Smith doesn't know who is opponent is yet.
Jeff Merkley, the state House speaker and the target of this ad, is still locked in a tough fight against attorney Steve Novick for next week's primary. So the attempt by Smith to drive up Merkley's negatives at this point could be a sign that he'd rather face Novick.
A few weeks ago, Media Matters' David Brock announced to great fanfare that he was taking over Progressive Media USA, a third-party group that would, he vowed, raise $40 million for ads to soften up John McCain in advance of the general election.
Now the group is quietly shuttering those efforts with barely a whimper.
Barack Obama's fundraising team has been quietly putting out word to major donors that they didn't want any money to go to such third-party groups. Instead, they wanted the cash to go to the Obama campaign, so Obama advisers could be in sole control of the campaign's message.
It worked. Brock has quietly leaked a statement to The Washington Post saying that his group is, for all practical purposes, defunct.
"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," Brock's statement to WaPo said, adding that "donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."
One interesting footnote: With the likelihood of Obama donors helping them pretty much non-existent, Brock and company reportedly realized that Clinton donors, too, would be unlikely to help fund an effort to get Obama elected.
Two things about this. First, the speed with which Obama closed this thing down is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the party in advance of his all-but-certain nomination. And second, it looks as if this election is going to be impacted far less than anyone expected by groups like this, at least on the Dem side.
Here's another effect of the John Edwards endorsement that has passed unnoticed.
If Obama gets the support of the vast majority of Edwards' delegates, which is likely, that will mean that Obama could potentially secure a majority of pledged delegates on May 20 -- even if Florida and Michigan are fully seated.
Assuming that Obama is awarded all of the uncommitted slots from Michigan and also wins the support of all the Edwards delegates from Florida, that gives Hillary a total gain of 178 delegates from these two states to 135 for Obama, plus all 18 remaining Edwards delegates from other states switching to Obama.
As such, Obama would have 1,752 total pledged dels to Clinton's 1,625 for Clinton, and only need 32 more delegates to get the new pledged-del majority number of 1,784. A strong win in Oregon and a decent showing in Kentucky would be all that's necessary to pull that off.
NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision by NARAL Pro-Choice America to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president.
Since yesterday's announcement, NARAL groups in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York -- Clinton's home state -- have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters.
NARAL's Missouri chapter was so adamant about remaining neutral that it pumped a robocall yesterday into 8,500 homes stressing that many in its membership are strong supporters of Hillary.
Obviously the NARAL endorsement was a huge get for Obama, but you can't avoid the fact that this was a really mystifying decision for NARAL to make. All it did was alienate huge swaths of its membership and fundraising base, and it's hard to see how the endorsement did anything to accomplish the group's stated goal of uniting African Americans and female activists.
Offering yet another reminder of why his approval rating hovers in the 20s, President Bush yet again hauled out a political tactic that has been failing for the GOP for literally years now, likening the willingness of "some" -- apparently meaning Obama and other Dems -- to negotiate with hostile foreign powers to "appeasement."
Intriguingly, Bush called this willingness to negotiate -- which is supported by majorities of the American people -- something that had been "discredited by history," a claim that requires one to completely forget that the last seven years ever happened.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," retorted Obama, via spokesperson Bill Burton. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel."
Bush made the remarks today while in Israel. The exchange provides an early glimpse of the argument that Obama and McCain are likely to have over foreign policy in the run-up to the general election.
In a sign that John McCain recognizes the political pitfalls of his plan to stay in Iraq for practically forever, his speech this morning laying out his vision for his first term contains an interesting prediction: That by 2013, Iraq shall have essentially been won.
In his speech today in the big swing state of Ohio, McCain will make the following prediction for 2013: "The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced."
Late Update: The full prepared text of the speech is available after the jump.
In a first indication of that John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama has carried some weight, an Edwards pledged delegate from New Hampshire has now announced his support for Obama, as well.
Edwards' pledged delegates are not required by the rules to follow his support for Obama, though as former activists for their candidate they would no doubt be influenced by his recommendation. Edwards has another 18 delegates up for grabs -- and if they mostly end up going for Obama, it would be enough to wipe out Hillary Clinton's gains from West Virginia.
In his endorsement speech, Edwards boiled it down:
"The reason I am here tonight is that the Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and so have I."
Edwards rattled through some of his familiar, if now distant, exhortations about "one America." In a rousing summation, he talked about the struggles of the poor, the difficulties of those coping without health insurance, and veterans who were returning home only to face neglect.
"No more in our America," Edwards concluded, "when Barack Obama is President of the United States of America!"
But most significantly, Edwards effectively said, "The Democrats have made their choice. The primary is over," precisely at a moment when the Hillary campaign is making the opposite case. You really couldn't imagine a moment more perfectly scripted for the Obama campaign, coming right after Obama's lopsided loss in West Virginia, than this.
John Edwards' speech endorsing Obama, underway now in Grand Rapids, starts out on a very interesting note: Very lengthy and effusive praise of Hillary Clinton.
"I want to take a moment to say a word about my friend and your friend, Senator Hillary Clinton," Edwards said, eliciting scattered boos from the audience that Obama, sitting beside Edwards, quickly gestured for a stop to.
Edwards persisted, describing Hillary as a woman "of steel" who has reached her heights "not because of her husband, but because of what she has done," saying that Hillary has been a fighter for everything that everyone in that room believes in.
Tellingly, after pressing the point, Edwards ultimately succeeded in eliciting cheers on Hillary's behalf from the audience.
This suggests that Edwards clearly recognizes that a genuine gesture to Hillary supporters will be necessary to bring them into the fold if the party is going to be united -- and that he wants to be seen as a conciliatory figure, as a key promoter of party unity, even as he's choosing one of the two Dems.
Obama's landslide loss in West Virginia yesterday did nothing to slow his momentum, if today's super-delegate action is any indication.
Obama picked up Congressman Pete Visclosky of Indiana, DNC members Lena Taylor of Wisconsin and Mike Morgan of Oklahoma, and Democrats Abroad chair Christine Schon Marques. Schon Marques' support counts as a half-vote.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, picked up DNC member Vicky Harwell of Tennessee.
And last night, College Democrats president Lauren Wolfe of Michigan and vice president Awais Khaleel of Wisconsin announced their endorsements after an online campaign in which they asked for the input of college students across the country in order to determine their votes. Not surprisingly, they went for Obama.
The score: Obama +5.5, Clinton +1. According to NBC News, Obama has 287.5 super-delegates to Clinton's 276.5.
Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor confirms that Edwards will indeed endorse Obama today.
Edwards couldn't have picked a safer time to endorse -- he did it after it became obvious that the nomination was largely a foregone conclusion. And he did it after Obama lost big in West Virginia, among just the sort of voters Edwards is supposed to have sway among.
While it's true that his endorsement could make a difference in Kentucky, the fact that he waited this long -- and did it after dropping repeated public hints that he would stay neutral -- suggests that this was less than a profile in courage on Edwards' part.
Late Update: On the other hand, if the Obama campaign held this to roll out after the West Virginia loss, which seems probable, the timing in some ways was shrewd.
Late Update: Tracy Russo, the online suprema of the Edwards campaign (when it was in existence), weighs in with a few thoughts on the Edwards announcement, notably asking whether Edwards will end up campaigning for Obama between now and the end of the race. Take a look.
Late Update: The New York Times reports that Edwards had another reason for waiting so long before endorsing Obama: According to his aides, he was expecting Hillary to win, and wanted a position in the administration...
And he had another consideration: how to position himself for a job in the next president's administration. As Mr. Edwards saw it, aides said, Mrs. Clinton seemed to be more likely than Mr. Obama to win the nomination.
Edwards appeared to change his mind after Feb. 5th and Obama's subsequent victories, the paper reports, so this doesn't fully explain why Edwards waited until now.
Late Update: Here's the uncharacteristically lackluster and terse statement on Edwards' endorsement from Hillary campaign chair Terry McAuliffe:
"We respect John Edwards, but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."
Mark Halperin suggests that an Edwards endorsement of Obama may be imminent, and reports that he posed the following question to six senior Obama officials -- with no answer:
"Is John Edwards endorsing Barack Obama today?"
Following up on Halperin, my experience has been the same. The Obama campaign won't say whether Edwards is endorsing him today. They're saying nothing. Radio silence from an Edwards spokesperson, too.
Obama's one remaining public event today is at 6:30 P.M. in Grand Rapids. Stay tuned.
With the House Democrats already up three seats from special elections, a lot of eyes are now looking to another potential pickup in either a special election or this Fall: New York's 13th District, home of the scandal-plagued GOP Congressman Vito Fossella, where the national GOP leadership is frantically trying to push him out and take their chances on an open seat.
Fossella would be considered safe under normal circumstances -- but these are certainly not normal circumstances after he was arrested for drunk driving, called his girlfriend to pick him up from jail, and then had to admit that he had a girlfriend and a child with her outside of his marriage. Since then, the New York and Washington press and political operatives have practically been on a running deathwatch.
There is no question that the Republicans want him out -- indeed, the leadership has been reaching out to a potential new candidate. However, those close to Fossella say he's prepared to stay in, and a recent SurveyUSA poll showed early support at home despite the scandal.
The question, then, becomes whether Fossella's baggage will truly put this seat up for grabs, and which candidates will step forward to run a very tight, very expensive race.
CNN just sent me an advance chunk of transcript of an interview that Wolf Blitzer did with Hillary that will be airing today on The Situation Room.
In it, Hillary, who hit Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright, defends Obama from McCain's bogus Hamas-endorsed-Obama attack...
BLITZER: Here is what McCain said about Barack Obama and I want to get your reaction. He said, "I think," this is McCain, "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think people should understand that I would be Hamas' worst nightmare. If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly." McCain was referring to a statement by the North American spokesman for Hamas endorsing, in effect, Barack Obama. Is McCain right?
CLINTON: No, I think that that's really an overstatement, an exaggeration of any kind of political meaning and I don't think that anybody should take that seriously.
A sign that Hillary is taking a less harsh approach as the end of the campaign grows nigh?
In the interview, Hillary also concedes that her "white Americans" comment was a dumb mistake. We'll bring you video when it's available.
It looks like the GOP plans to continue its efforts to damage down-ticket Dems by tying them to Barack Obama -- even though this strategy completely failed to defeat the Dem candidate who won a big upset victory in the Mississippi special election yesterday.
On a conference call with reporters today, NRCC chair Tom Cole confirmed that the party will continue using Obama to tar Dem House candidates, in much the way the GOP has historically used figures like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to do the same.
The NRCC and the local GOP candidate in Mississippi ran ads tying Travis Childers to Obama and even to Jeremiah Wright, but Childers won yesterday by a comfortable eight-point margin.
But Cole is undaunted by yesterday's results, calling the anti-Obama strategy a "useful tool" for hitting Dems in conservative areas: "I think reminding people that we have a very liberal, and I think very inexperienced Democratic nominee, and that your opponent is likely to be supporting that individual, is interesting."
