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."

Read more »

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 two new 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.

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.

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.

We'll bring you the ad as soon as we have it.

Late Update: Watch the ad right here.

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.

WaPo's Garance Franke-Ruta has a nice get: It appears that the ferment continues in the pro-choice movement over NARAL's surprise endorsement of Obama yesterday...

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.

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.

As I've noted here before, one key thing to watch is this: Will the big pro-Hillary third party groups continue putting money into ads on her behalf in remaining states, or will they quietly abandon such efforts?

Well, one of her top third-party supporters -- the American Leadership Project, the group put together by Hillary-backing unions and major financial supporters -- is still looking to spend money on TV for her.

I'm told reliably that ALP is looking to make an ad buy in Oregon. The size of the buy is as yet uncertain, but for now, this group is still prepared to shell out money on her behalf. I'll bring you details when I have them.

Obama scores the endorsement of NARAL, a key get by any measure.

Here's the key graf, from the Associated Press story, which explains the thinking of NARAL board members...

They said the board decided to back Obama over Clinton because he is overwhelmingly favored to win the nomination and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused.

Which confirms Ben Smith's observation that this endorsement is another "sign of the party coalescing" around Obama.

On the Hillary conference call, Hillary spokesperson was asked about NARAL's choice. "Surprised, would be my response," Wolfson said. "I think Senator Clinton's leadership on advocacy and choice issues is second to none."

That's what Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson just argued on a conference call with reporters.

Previously the Hillary campaign had argued that 2,209 was the magic number. But if you add in the surprise election of Dem Travis Childers in last night's Mississippi special election, the new threshold for winning a majority of the overall delegates -- Florida and Michigan included, of course -- is 2,210.

So Wolfson argued, at any rate. Audio of the conference call soon.

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

Click To Play

Last week top Hillary adviser Terry McAuliffe said that he thought a joint ticket with Obama and Hillary would be a "great idea."

Now another very prominent Hillary supporter -- a major institutional player in the Democratic party -- is adding his voice to the chorus-to-be:

(CNN) -- Governor Ed Rendell's name has recently come up as a potential running mate for Barack Obama, but the Pennsylvania Governor said Wednesday, why settle for a Clinton supporter when you can have the real deal...

"If Senator Obama becomes our nominee and he wants someone to carry the Clinton banner there's no question in my mind he should ask Hillary Clinton," Rendell told CNN's Kyra Phillips.

Noted without comment, other than to refer you back to this site's prediction last week that the public enthusiasm of Hillary supporters for an Obama-Hillary ticket will rise in direct proportion to their growing realization that Obama is the party's presumptive nominee.

Okay, we've been digging into this question of whether Hillary really outperforms Obama against McCain among blue-collar whites -- an argument that's a pillar of her claim that she's more electable than Obama is.

As noted below, today's Quinnipiac poll would appear to pour cold water on that argument -- it finds that McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by identical margins among non-college whites nationally, as well as among whites overall.

However, Hillary's argument is also that she outperforms Obama against McCain among this demographic specifically in the key swing states.

Is that true? The most recent poll we can find that looked at these numbers in a fine-grained way is this one from Quinnipiac some two weeks ago. It found, in the pollster's own words, that Hillary "runs much better" than Obama among these voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Take a look:

Florida

Top-Line:
Clinton (D) 49% McCain (R) 41%
McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%

Whites:
McCain (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 45%
McCain (R) 50%, Obama (D) 36%

Working-Class Whites:
Clinton (D) 45%, McCain (R) 45%
McCain (R) 51%, Obama (D) 34%

Ohio

Top-Line:
Clinton (D) 48% McCain (R) 38%
McCain (R) 43%, Obama (D) 42%

Whites:
Clinton (D) 45%, McCain (R) 42%
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 36%

Working-Class Whites:
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 40%
McCain (R) 49%, Obama (D) 34%

Pennsylvania

Top-Line:
Clinton (D) 51% McCain (R) 37%
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 38%

Whites:
Clinton (D) 47%, McCain (R) 41%
McCain (R) 43%, Obama (D) 41%

Working-Class Whites:
Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 40%
McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 38%

Some caveats are in order. This is only one poll, and as best we can determine thus far, there has been little to no polling elsewhere of precisely this nature. What's more, this polling comes months before the general election, at a time when passions from the primary haven't cooled and Obama hasn't had a chance to unite the party behind himself.

Also note that this deficit didn't prevent Obama from carrying Pennsylvania against McCain. And keep in mind that other general election polls have shown Obama running well against McCain in these states, too.

What's really noteworthy about the above numbers -- particularly when you compare them to the national numbers showing McCain beating both Dems equally among working class whites -- is that they strongly support the argument that Josh advanced yesterday at TPM:

Chiefly, that Obama's real disadvantage is in Appalachia, not among working class whites or rural voters in general.

There are some key numbers buried in the internals of today's Quinnipiac poll that go some way towards deflating Hillary's claim that she would outperform Obama against McCain among working class whites.

It finds that McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by an identical margin among working class (no college) white voters.

Among these voters, McCain beats Obama 46%-39%.

And McCain beats Hillary 48%-41%.

That's a seven point spread in both cases.

What's more, the poll also finds that both lose to McCain by an equal margin of seven points among whites overall.

Of course, Hillary's argument is also about who would fare better among these voters in the big states in particular, and this is only one poll.

Nonetheless, there's no getting around the fact that the above numbers are difficult to square with a central aspect of her basic argument.

According to ABC News's count, Hillary's big win yesterday in West Virginia has put her ahead again in the popular vote -- but only if you count Florida and Michigan:

Hillary: 16,691,403

Obama: 16,647,965

Hillary had edged ahead by this metric after Pennsylvania, and now has got this lead back. But if you exclude Florida and Michigan, Obama is still leading by over half a million votes:

Hillary: 15,492,108

Obama: 16,071,751

Given the Hillary campaign's argument that the popular vote should be seen as a crucial metric, here's something that bears watching. If some sort of deal is reached to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, it'll be interesting to see how both campaigns spin the significance of that deal in terms of counting the popular vote in those states.

Of course, given that Obama is now less than 150 delegates overall from securing the nomination, all this could prove to be moot.

Late Update: It's also worth pointing out that Obama would still lead in the popular vote even with Michigan factored in, if a fraction of the state's "uncommitted" vote is credited to his column.

Hillary may have won West Virginia by a landslide last night, but it's Obama who brandishes the first sign of momentum this morning, rolling out two new super-delegate endorsements.

They are Democrats Abroad Chair Christine Schon Marques (half a super) and Indiana Rep. Pete Visclosky.

A quick note on super-del policy here: Because Obama has what is essentially an insurmountable delegate lead, we won't be doing a post on every single super-del endorsement unless there's something remarkable about it. Instead, we'll do one or two daily posts wrapping up the day's super-del action.

A new Quinnipiac national poll shows the two Democrats winning against John McCain by similar margins -- a potential stumbling block for Hillary Clinton's argument that she's the more electable candidate in the wake of her huge West Virginia win:

Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 41%

Sample size: 1,745 registered voters.
Margin of error: ±2.4%

On the other hand, the poll does have some good news for Clinton, with 63% of Democratic respondents saying she should stay in the race, and 60% of Dems saying Obama should pick her as his running mate.

As expected, the news networks all called West Virginia for Hillary Clinton as soon as the polls closed -- meaning her win is likely to be by a very wide margin.

It's unclear how much this will change the fundamental delegate math. After all, the state only has 28 pledged delegates in total. That said, the Clinton campaign will likely use this as an opportunity to change the perceptions surrounding Obama's electability, and as a tool in their effort to sway the remaining super-delegates and generate a media narrative of momentum.

With Hillary Clinton simultaneously expected to win big today in West Virginia but lose overall for the nomination, the campaign has sent out a memo insisting that Barack Obama shouldn't be allowed to set low expectations here.

"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."

Full memo after the jump.

Read more »

Although Barack Obama is now widely expected to be the Democratic nominee, the campaign is in for a bit of embarrassment tonight in what is likely to be a very bad showing in the West Virginia primary -- indeed, if the polls are accurate, he'll be lucky to get more than 30%:

Clinton 60%, Obama 24% (Suffolk, May 11)

Clinton 66%, Obama 23% (ARG, May 9)

Clinton 56%, Obama 27% (Rasmussen, May 5)

Expect the Clinton campaign to use tonight's result as an argument against Obama's electability, and as evidence that Hillary can reach out to rural working-class voters where Obama can't.

The polls close at 7:30 p.m. ET.

In a further sign that even many Clinton supporters don't see her winning the nomination, another delegate has defected from Hillary Clinton over to Barack Obama -- and in this case it's a pledged delegate, not a super.

Jack B. Johnson, the executive of Prince George's County, Maryland, was elected as a pledged delegate for Hillary in the February 12 primary. However, he now says Obama has won the nomination, and he will support him at the convention: "I cannot in good conscience go to the convention and not support Barack."

AFSCME is going to put "real money" behind independent expenditures for ads on Hillary's behalf in remaining Democratic primary states, a union official just confirmed to me.

On Friday I noted that one good gauge of Hillary's continuing support would be to see whether the big third-party groups backing her continue to put money into ads on her behalf -- or whether they suspend such efforts.

An AFSCME official tells me that the union's leadership remains committed to pouring more money into the remaining states.

"Our independent expenditure campaign is going forward, just as our member education efforts are going forward -- full steam ahead," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"We are going to be knocking on doors and making phone calls and doing direct mail and contacting our members in Kentucky and Oregon and Puerto Rico," the official said.

As for ad spending, the official added: "The efforts will be similar to those made in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. We're gonna spend real money." The official declined to say whether real numbers had been agreed upon.

To be sure, it's easy to imagine that these plans might fizzle as super-dels continue to flock to Obama. And it's also easy to imagine AFSCME talking tough in this manner in order to avoid offending the Hillary campaign.

Nonetheless, this is what they're saying now. Bears watching.

In a further indication of just how closely contested this Fall's campaign could be, a new round of Rasmussen polls in Virginia and North Carolina show that the elections for even these Republican base states are running close:

North Carolina
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 45%
McCain (R) 43%, Clinton (D) 40%

Virginia
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 44%
McCain (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 41%

North Carolina hasn't voted Democratic since Jimmy Carter's win in 1976, while Virginia hasn't gone Dem since the 1964 Lyndon Johnson landslide.