Surprised I don't see any video up yet.  So, here's one great American introducing another.  

Part I:

Part II:

I was this close to predicting an Edwards endorsement right after West Virginia -- I just expect big news from the Obama campaign after a rough voting day.  Like Teddy after New Hampshire.  But now, it's also floodgates time.  So, who's going to be the next big endorsement?  Webb?  Gore?  Clinton?

In 2004, John Kerry was urged and finally agreed to add second place finisher John Edwards to the ticket.  For whatever you might say about that decision, it was made possible because Edwards had been gracious to the presumptive frontrunner throughout the campaign.

Which leads us to an important rule in picking a vice presidential running mate:  Don't pick someone that has repeatedly trashed you recently.

Okay, let the rumors begin.  HRC just cancelled all of her morning TV appearances.  Of course, that could be because she needs a rest ... for her 2012 Senate primary race.

So, let's see if anything else happens -- but perhaps they aren't feeling too good about Gary, Indiana right about now.  

Also, the SEIU has come oh-so-close to calling for her to quit.

Updates as needed ....

I don't know how much more forcefully I can say it, but I really really really hope that Obama doesn't pick Hillary Clinton as her running mate.  I could think of many reasons why he shouldn't.  

1.  She'd bring all those negatives that we were trying to avoid in the general, firing up the GOP base the same as if she won the nomination.

2.  She'd be rewarded for her Rovian-style intra-party hatchet-job.

3.  She'd submarine the perfect contrast Obama brings to the inside-the-beltway, same-ol'-same'-ol', right-wing candidacy of John McBush.  

4.  She'd remove Obama reality-based advantage, given her recent reality-challenged comments and proposals.

5.  She'd make the whole thing about herself and her family, making her a clear and present risk to Obama being the leader of the party

Via Sully, the right-wing neo-conservative Weekly Standard is liking the new Hillary "Kitchen Sink" Clinton:

And what caused this display of intense [liberal] irritation? She's running a right-wing campaign. She's running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues, the campaign that the elder George Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, that the younger George Bush waged in 2000 and then again against John Kerry, and that Ronald Reagan--"The Bear in the Forest"--ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale. And she's doing it with much the same symbols.

Okay, that's it.  That's the last straw.  I'm never supporting Hillary for anything.  Ever.

I thought about writing this diary after she first attacked Obama this past weekend in what sounded far too much like the typical right-wing "liberals are elitists" smears.  

But, she didn't actually call him an "elitist," so I demured.

Then she did use the word.  And I came very close again to giving up on her forever.  But, I talked myself out of it:  just banter on the stump, let's not jump to conclusions like that.  

But this new ad by her is too much.  

This time in D.C.:

A D.C. Council member and unpledged Democratic delegate has withdrawn his prominent public support for Sen. Hillary Clinton, preferring instead to be listed as undecided in the race for the nomination.

Ward 5 D.C. Councilman Harry Thomas Jr. was elected last week by the D.C. Democratic State Committee as a delegate to the national convention. Thomas, who had previously endorsed Clinton, was listed as a Clinton backer on a delegate spreadsheet circulated Monday by the committee.

But by the end of the day, the party had retracted that announcement, and Thomas was switched to simply "unpledged."

"He wants to confer with the party," said Vicky Leonard-Chambers, Thomas’ spokeswoman.

I bet he does.  In fact, I bet there are a lot of Clinton superdelegates who need to start conferring and backtracking and then, well, you know the rest.

Obama's post-partisan politics is that desire to bring the country together based on common ground to solve problems.  However, this political philosophy has often been denigrated by other Democrats (normally his opponents) as being too conciliatory.  Such criticism misses the point: working on common ground does not equate to capitulation.  I've highlighted how Obama is a fighter in the past.  Obama has shown that, while seeking common ground, he can also stand his ground as well.  Being able to do both is what will make him such an effective president.

In fact, given their records, I'd argue that it's Obama that understands how to stand his ground when needed.  Clinton, on a host of issues, has shown to be quite adept at conciliating where she sees a political need, and acting tough later when she sees a political need: the war, NAFTA, etc.

Have the floodgates opened?  Another superdelegate for Obama:

Former U.S. Sen. John Melcher says he is going to cast his key Democratic Party superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.

Melcher is one of eight Montana superdelegates who can vote for whoever they please at the party's national convention this summer.

Melcher says he chose Obama because he believes the Illinois senator has been against the Iraq war since the start.

That's two in one day.  Based on this NBC post after Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal's endorsement, Obama has now picked up 12 superdelegates to Clinton's one since March 4.

Yeah, yeah, you've heard it before.  The insurmountable pledged delegate deficit, the dried up finances, the Bosnia flap, etc. etc.  But, aside from all of that, Hillary Clinton had a mathematical chance at winning the nomination if the superdelegates were willing to give her the nomination (i.e., thwart the popular will and trigger intra-party civil war).

But, then I read this over at WaPo's "The Fix":

By appearing as magnanimous as possible toward Clinton, Obama is seeking to reassure these superdelegates that everything is going to be all right in the end. Meanwhile, his campaign in exerting ramped up pressure behind the scenes for superdelegates who are with Obama privately to be with him publicly.

That's right folks.  It's just a matter of convincing private Obama fans to come out publicly.  In fact, that's exactly what's happening now:

Dodd sees the problem we all see:

Well, I think it is hurting. Look, we've got five more months to go before the Democratic convention at the end of August and, candidly, we cannot go five more months with the kind of daily sniping that's going on and have a candidate emerge in that convention. My hope is that it will be Barack Obama, but if it's Hillary Clinton, she too will suffer, in my view, from this kind of a campaign that I think is undermining the credibility and the quality of the two candidates that we have. We have two very strong candidates. So I'm worried about this going on endlessly and to a large extent, Linda, the media, a lot of these cable networks, are enjoying this. It's what is keeping them alive financially. The fact that this thing is going on forever, back and forth every day, all night -- I don't think it's really helping the candidates or the political institutions.

Calling out the horse-race obsessed media and looking out for the good of the party....

TPM has put together this killer video detailing the most important happenings in the whole snipers-in-Bosnia flap that's engulfing Clinton right now:

Josh says this controversy is "peaking" -- but I don't think that the "phony" narrative is anywhere near at it's peak.  There's FMLA and Northern Ireland and SCHIP and NAFTA and ... anything else?  The thread has been pulled, and the whole resume is coming apart.

Dear Superdelegate,

I just wanted to write a little note to you on this fine Tuesday.  I'll use some special font so the message gets through: Americans won't elect a serial exaggerator.

You see, if someone can be depicted as a person who exaggerates their own record over and over and over again, that person is in serious trouble with the electorate.  Voters just don't like it when presidential candidates sounds like they are pushing the bounds of reality to make  themselves sound better than they are.  The GOP attack machine revs into action and soon the media will start tossing around words like "untrustworthiness" and "credibility gap."  And then the polling starts. Then it's all over but the concession speech.

And, now, the "serial exaggerator" tag is stuck on Hillary Clinton.

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

The Clinton campaign is claiming she misspoke.  U.S. Air Force journalist Don Jackson has a different explanation:

Mrs. Clinton arrived to a flight line full of well-wishers, both military and civilian, accompanied by her staff as well as comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow who were there to entertain troops. To set the record straight, there was no enemy fire, and no imminent danger. If there had been any danger, "well-wishers" would not have been allowed on the tarmac, much less allowing me to stand above everyone else on the back of a truck. And Sinbad and Sheryl Crow would've been running for their lives instead of taking the time to be interviewed by yours truly, on the tarmac. Mrs. Clinton's [claim] is a lie, plain and simple.

Ouch!  I think "lie" is a bit more accurate.

More evidence that Obama's speech on race was a game changer:

Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race was a decisive factor in Bill Richardson's endorsement of his presidential bid, the New Mexico governor revealed Saturday.

"I think what kind of clinched it for me, although I made a decision a week ago, was Sen. Obama's speech on race," Richardson said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"He had this problem with his pastor. He could have said nothing or glided through it. Instead, he attacked the race issue head-on, talking about stereotypes, taking some very, very tough stances on this issue."

I have a feeling that other superdelegates will follow.  This may have been the week that the pundits will single out a few months from now during the postmortem on when the Democratic primary race finally ended.

Think about this for a moment.  Right now, the biggest media story so far during this election year hasn't been something a candidate has done during his or her professional life.  Or something a candidate has said while on the trail.  Or some aye vote or nay vote or failure to vote.  Or really something the candidate did in his or her personal life, however irrelevant to the office sought.*

No, the biggest story of the campaign is what someone that a candidate has known said outside of that candidate's presence, despite the fact that the candidate himself has rejected those statements and has never said anything remotely similar.

I didn't know much about these records that were being released, but it appears that this release must have been a response to a FOIA request.  In other words, the Clintons were not voluntarily giving up information.  They were being compelled by law to do so.

So, not knowing that, I took a quick look expecting to see documents showing Clinton clearing the air and allowing her to be "vetted."  I was wrong.  The documents are full of redactions based on FOIA exemptions.  My quick look showed a large number of (b)(6) redactions, meant to protect another person's privacy.  Sorry, to me that's a cop out.  Those that meet with the First Lady should not expect "privacy" in all but the most unique cases.  If they are meeting with her about policy discussions, trying to make their case for their special interests, or just "make the rounds" for the sake of influence, there is no personal privacy at stake.  The invasion of privacy must be "unwarranted" -- and I don't think there's much a privacy interest in the fact that someone had an audience with the First Lady, and it's certainly not unwarranted to release such not-that-private info.

With another superdelegate endorsing Obama, he's up to 48 announced superdelegate endorsements since Feb. 5th.  Hillary?  Zero announced.  And she's lost seven in the mean time.