Gallup Daily General Election Tracker (3/31)

• John McCain 46%
• Barack Obama 45%

• John McCain 47%
• Hillary Clinton 45%

Gallup Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (3/31)

• Barack Obama 51%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.

The general election results are based on combined data from March 26-30, 2008. For results based on this sample of 4,394 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

The Democratic nomination results are based on combined data from March 28-30, 2008. For results based on this sample of 1,262 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Our last update was the last day of February, so why not one on the last day of March? This map has a slew of wonderful news for John McCain:

This represents a result of McCain – 297; Obama – 224; Tied – 17.

McCain still loses NV, CO, NM, and IA to Obama, but gains in OH, PA, NJ, and NH are enough to propel him to victory. Additionally, since the last electoral map update, MO and VA have gone from light blue to dark red, MI has gone from dark blue to tied, and NV, CO, MN, and WI all fall from dark blue to light blue.

A caution to the wise: some of these states are shaded based only on one poll from that massive SUSA poll dump at the end of February, so take some of the results with a grain of salt (especially ND, SC, and TX).

Read after the fold to see the polls used in compiling this map.
(more…)

Wow. Hillary over Obama by a whooping 29 points in KY.

SurveyUSA Kentucky Democratic Primary

• Hillary Clinton 58%
• Barack Obama 29%

1,600 state of KY adults were interviewed 03/28/08 through 03/30/08. Of them, 1,454 were registered to vote. Of them, 572 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the 05/20/08 closed Democratic Primary.

Today’s update:

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (3/31)

• Barack Obama 46%
• Hilary Clinton 43%

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (3/31)

• John McCain 47%
• Barack Obama 42%

• John McCain 49%
• Hillary Clinton 40%

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Each update includes approximately 900 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 800 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Sunday’s Update:

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (3/30)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Hilary Clinton 42%

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (3/30)

• John McCain 47%
• Barack Obama 44%

• John McCain 50%
• Hillary Clinton 40%

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Each update includes approximately 900 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 800 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The campaign has also released a Spanish-language version of his first general election TV ad “624787″:

Here’s the setup.

Lowell Brown, the savvy legal eagle over at the Article VI blog, links to this article by Warren Smith. (Lowell and crew are masters at surveying the current intersection of politics and religion. Its an important post which we will discuss at some later date but Smith’s claim is the issue at hand.)

In his WorldMag article, Smith alleges that Paul Weyrich (noted conservative Christian leader who endorsed Romney last November) now openly regrets his endorsement. Quoting Weyrich: “Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong.” Smith continues:

In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.

Lowell thinks Smith is spinning. I’m not convinced. Its difficult for me to claim spin with that direct quote from Weyrich. Still, context is everything.

My sources tell my that Weyrich (like many conservatives) was not a little miffed about Mitt’s endorsement of McCain. I understand his sentiment but disagree with his reasoning.

The gist of the meeting, which Smith says took place in early March, lambastes leaders for not getting behind Huck. Its hard to justify this thinking. I could use the same logic in my corner to berate Iowan Evangelicals for not getting behind Mitt (which is the demographic move that started the whole McCain ball rolling after all).

From my perspective Mitt’s McCain move was calculated but completely logical. McCain has always been the snubbed candidate from most sides of the conservative playground. But today, he’s the only guy left to be picked for the kickball game. The good news is this: with the anti-Bush electorate so vocal, McCain may just be the best guy to put up against the Dems. This is what Mitt sees and what I hope our readers will see as well.

To wit: conservatives who oppose McCain for political reasons are essentially “kicking against the pricks” – a rough venture when the alternatives are President Clinton or Obama.

Still, Weyrich is expressing a certain bewilderment and understandable angst which many conservative Christians are feeling about McCain. Another source who is deeply connected in Evangelical circles expressed his dismay that McCain isn’t reaching out to them.

A third source confirmed this feeling but indicated that its mostly par for the course. “McCain is coming to these conservative events but he does so just to check the box that says he was there. He holds no private meetings, no meet and greets and never lingers to mix with the crowd.”

I hope he’s wrong. Its going to take more than the facade of placation to placate these masses.

Still, context is everything. While Weyrich was miffed at Mitt I’m told he’s also a bit perturbed about Huck’s defense of Reverend Wright. What goes around comes around.

There’s something truly unnerving about Barack Obama’s act. Yes, his followers are, by and large, brainless zombies. That alone shouldn’t condemn Barack; he only has so much control over the people that support him. But, one still has the sense that Barack ought to be condemned; that, even for a politician, he’s attempting an unusually unpleasant con. And then it occurred to me, that the secret was fairly obvious. Obama has cast himself as a secular political messiah. Not explicitly, but the implicit notion undergirds all language and imagery he uses. He thinks we can:

Keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.

He is Change We Can Believe In. Not simply an expression of change, but the living embodiment of it. At the very least, he’s casting himself as a great leader of men in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella (thus his nuanced MLK allusions); men who smashed down barriers, often at their own peril; men who attempted to bring about unity, even though it cost them their freedom and in some cases their lives. Messiah’s and leaders of change are courageous.

Yet, Barack is one of the more cowardly politicians in recent memory. No theme more closely jumps to the mind of the discerning observer. We’re now discovering that radically liberal survey he filled out during his days in the Illinois senate, which he’d heretofore claimed was mistakenly marked by an “aide”, was in fact filled out by him. He scrawled hand-written notes in another version, to “amend” or clarify, or expand upon the positions expressed in the survey. It has him opposing the death penalty and supporting a ban on the sale and manufacture of handguns, positions he now denies ever holding.

Obama’s campaign insists that these handwritten notes don’t “prove” he filled out the rest of the form, or had any knowledge of these positions. Which is plausible of course. He, you know, just happened to write comments pertaining to the form in the margins. He probably picked up the form, thought it was scratch paper, and spontaneously decided to write a 2 sentence truncated treatise on parental consent laws. Uh-huh. As Ed Morrissey notes, at the time he was filling out this form to win the endorsement of the Independent Voters of Illinois, a group that basks in extreme liberalism. I don’t claim to know whether Obama actually wants to ban all handguns, but he was quite content to let a certain group of voters believe he did. Now he’s quite content to tell a decidedly different set of voters that yes, he supports a personal right to bear arms, and yes that includes handguns. And when pressed on the discrepancy, he’s quite content to lie through his teeth. He continues to lie when he’s been thoroughly caught.

Earlier, we learned about his curious series of present votes in Illinois legislature, where he avoided controversial issues. This was, of course, per the Obama camp, strategery. We all remember NaftaGate, where Austin Goulsbee privately informed the Canadian government that Barack was cool on trade, and his protectionist rhetoric was simple campaign pandering. They denied this heatedly, though the Canadian reps stuck by their story. Or the incident where Samantha Power insisted that Barack didn’t really mean it when he pledged to leave Iraq, irrespective of facts on the ground. Again, this was heatedly denied.

And of course, there’s Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s friend and mentor of 20 years. His pastor and spiritual adviser. And a visceral and unrelenting anti-American hate monger. We know that story all too well. And some wonder, even now, how could he have sat their for 20 years? How could a man who’s campaign is premised so neatly on the idea of a different kind of politics; on hope, on change, have meekly endured such hatred and vitriol for 20 years. Of course Barack has an explanation for this too; he was about to leave the church. Once he’d heard of those hate-filled remarks, he felt honor bound to do so. But, don’t you know, Wright had decided to retire and Barack decided to let a deeply misguided, but well-meaning, man go quietly into his retirement. This all rings more hollow than a drum. And we shouldn’t wonder at this point, how Barack could have endured such hatred, but rather how he convinced any of us to expect better of him.

He voted present, because it was politically expedient to do so. It allowed him to avoid a record of supporting extremist positions, without suffering immediate consequences. He filled out a form with extremist views because it was politically expedient to do so, and any later negative repercussions could be mitigated by a simple “it was a staffer’s mistake”. He promotes conflicting stories on NAFTA and the war, because he’s actively attempting to be all things to all people. And he stayed in a hateful church for two decades, because it made him a power-broker in Chicago and his own ambitions were more important then disclaiming virulent racism and anti-Americanism. Until, that is, this church threatened those ambitions.

Barack Obama is a coward. He’s never given an ounce of blood, literally or metaphorically, for a cause. He’s never suffered for a controversial belief. He’s followed the political winds without question, and without hesitation. He can unite no one; he’s never made the attempt, beyond tossing off flowery rhetoric dripping in hyperbole, condescension, and an elevated sense of his own importance. He embraces figures and positions which further his own ends, and disavows figures and positions which harm those ends; when the former become the latter, he speedily reverses course. In comparison to John McCain, who’s suffered bitterly for this country, and who’s staked his political career numerous times on fighting against the headwinds of his interests (Iraq, immigration, global warming), Barack Obama looks like a rank opportunist of the first order.

Rasmussen Michigan General Election Poll, conducted March 25th, 2008:

• John McCain 43%
• Barack Obama 42%

• John McCain 45%
• Hillary Clinton 42%

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on March 25, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen New Jersey General Election Poll, conducted March 27th, 2008

• John McCain 46%
• Barack Obama 45%

• John McCain 45%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on March 27, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Inside the numbers:

McCain now leads Clinton by twenty-nine points among men in the Garden State. Clinton leads McCain by twenty-one points among women. With Obama as the nominee, the gender gap is smaller-McCain leads by nine among men but trails by seven among women.

McCain is viewed favorably by 61% of New Jersey voters, unchanged from a month ago. The presumptive Republican nominee has recently released his first general election campaign commercial and it focuses heavily on his personal life story.

Obama is viewed favorably by 58%, Clinton by 50%. For Obama, that’s a six-point improvement over the past month. For Clinton, it’s a six-point decline.

Rasmussen Washington General Election Poll, conducted March 27th, 2008

• John McCain 46%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

• Barack Obama 48%
• John McCain 43%

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on March 27, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Inside the numbers:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Washington state voters finds Barack Obama leading John McCain 48% to 43%. When matched against Hillary Clinton, however, it’s McCain with a three-point edge, 46% to 43%. Those results reflect a slight improvement for the Democrats compared to a month ago. They also are similar to results from the Evergreen State’s southern neighbor. In Oregon, Obama leads McCain by six while McCain leads Clinton by six.

Nationally, McCain has a modest lead over both Democrats in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

In Washington, Obama leads McCain by twelve points among women but trails by three among men. McCain holds a fifteen-point lead over Clinton among men, but trails by seven among women.

Obama leads McCain by seven among unaffiliated voters in Washington. He is essentially even with Clinton among these voters.

Obama is viewed favorably by 57% of voters statewide while McCain earns positive reviews from 56%. Just 43% offer a favorable opinion of Clinton.

Every empty arrogant phrase is strung together in a single cultish web ad. The repeated chants of “Obama” throughout the ad are just creepy. How could this appeal to anyone without a brain slug. If Obama loses the election, he ought to start a Hollywood celebrity cult (Obamianity/Obamology/Obamaism).

H/T Townhall.com

(Uriel Sinai / Reuters-Corbis)

From Michael Hirsh’s lengthy profile of McCain in Newsweek.

Michael Barone used Jay Cost’s spreadsheet to project what the popular vote will be after the end of the primaries.

Barone projects that Hillary will win the popular vote by netting 933,684 votes in the next few primaries. However he also projects that she will still be behind in the pledged delegate count. This projection excludes Michigan and Florida.

Karl Rove suggests the real fight is going to be on the Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee. The Democratic nominee could be decided in a committee room that decides whether to allow Florida and Michigan into the Convention.  If that happens there will be blood.

It looks like my prediction that former Vice President Al Gore will ultimately be nominated by Democrats for president this year is moving closer to reality every day:

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November’s election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party’s convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore’s inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

Mr Gore, who was Bill Clinton’s vice-president and has since won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his work on green issues, remains an influential figure eight years after he beat George W Bush in the popular vote but lost the White House after the Florida recount fiasco.

The opening has emerged because opinion polls show Mr McCain stretching his lead over both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, whose campaigns are engaged in a daily cycle of attacks, character assassination and mutual recriminations on religion, race and the economy.

Time to buy Gore on Intrade.

If you can’t even work your magic on John Edwards, how are you going to accomplish anything when meeting with Mahmoud Ahmedinejed and Hugo Chavez?

In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism-her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries-that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. “Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.”

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out-tempus fugit!-and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

I don’t think this is an accurate poll at all, but I’m putting it up anyway.

PPIC California General Election

• Barack Obama 49%
• John McCain 40%

• Hillary Clinton 46%
• John McCain 43%

Rasmussen Wisconsin General Election

• John McCain 48% (43%)
• Barack Obama 46% (44%)

• John McCain 50% (50%)
• Hillary Clinton 39% (38%)

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (3/29)

• Barack Obama 48% (46%)
• Hilary Clinton 42% (44%)

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (3/29)

• John McCain 48% (49%)
• Barack Obama 43% (42%)

• John McCain 51% (49%)
• Hillary Clinton 40% (42%)

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Each update includes approximately 900 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 800 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Virginia General Election

• John McCain 52% (49%)
• Barack Obama 41%  (44%)

• John McCain 58% (51%)
• Hillary Clinton 36% (41%)

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on March 27, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

But beneath the surface, the relationship between the Washington veteran and the Republican Party rising star is more complex. Mr. Sanford didn’t endorse anyone during the primaries this year, after having co-chaired Sen. McCain’s bitter battle in South Carolina during the 2000 race. He brushed off requests for support by the McCain team at least three times, according to people familiar with the matter, including a period last year when the campaign was at a low.

The snub could cost him his chance at the vice presidency. “Loyalty is a big, big commodity in McCain-land,” said a McCain aide familiar with Mr. Sanford’s involvement….

Shortly after Mr. Sanford was re-elected governor in 2006, the McCain campaign began seeking his support for 2008. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who is close with both men, led the effort. McCain supporters were optimistic.

But the endorsement never came. In the spring of 2007, Mr. Sanford says he told the campaign he would not be offering his official support….

In January, after Sen. McCain won New Hampshire and was facing off in South Carolina against Iowa victor Mike Huckabee, the campaign again asked for Mr. Sanford’s support. Even though the time commitment to campaign with Sen. McCain would be minimal — maybe a week — Mr. Sanford still refused. At the time, the cluttered Republican field still lacked a clear front-runner. “I already gave my word,” to voters about not endorsing, Mr. Sanford said.

Sen. McCain won South Carolina without his support.

Mr. Sanford’s endorsement finally came earlier this month, after Sen. McCain had accumulated enough delegates to claim the nomination.

A McCain strategist now says the relationship between the pair is “cordial” at best. Mr. Folks predicted he won’t get the VP spot: “He missed his opportunity.”

Read the whole thing:

According to a surprising statement that Ben Smith got ahold of:

“Senator Clinton:

“Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race. Believe me.

I know something about this. Here’s my advice: Don’t listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore. That’s just political bigotry.

“Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run. Whenever you like. For as long as you like.

“It’s up to you, Hillary. Just tell them – It’s democracy. Get used to it.

“Yours truly, Ralph Nader”

Just when you thought that the Democratic race couldn’t get any crazier.

Pew Research 2008 Democratic National Primary Poll, conducted March 19th-22nd, 2008

• Barack Obama 49%
• Hillary Clinton 39%

Pew Research 2008 General Election Poll, conducted March 19th-22nd, 2008

• Barack Obama 49%
• John McCain 43%

• Hillary Clinton 49%
• John McCain 44%

Gallup Daily General Election Tracker (3/28)

• John McCain 46%
• Barack Obama 44%

• John McCain 48%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

Gallup Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (3/28)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Hillary Clinton 42%

Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.

The general election results are based on combined data from March 22 and March 24-27, 2008. For results based on this sample of 4,398 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

The Democratic nomination results are based on combined data from March 25-27, 2008. For results based on this sample of 1,218 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

As a Republican, it is easier for me to objectively analyze the Democratic race since I have no emotional attachment to either of the candidates. I don’t care which one gets the nomination as long as whoever it is loses to McCain. Among Democrats, their opinions about whether to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan depend largely on which candidate they support. Clinton supporters, who think Clinton is strong in both states, are angry with the DNC for stripping those states of delegates in the first place and would like revotes in those states. They would like them in the form of primaries since Hillary does better in primaries. They say they prefer primaries because they are more inclusive, but it has more to do with the fact Hillary does better.

Obama people say, “The rules are the rules.” That’s an interesting position for a campaign that is supposed to be all about
changing the status quo. Obama is pretty loyal to the DNC for someone running a post-partisan campaign.

One party hack after another, with the exception of fierce Clinton loyalists, have come out and said, “We need to settle this soon or else it will hurt the party’s chances in November.” Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Bob Beckel, and Bill Richardson are some examples.

Instead of appreciating the majesty of having all fifty states have a real say in who the Democrat nominee is, all they care about is whether the party will win in November.

As a Republican and a person who respects state sovereignty, I have to agree with Clinton on this one. If Iowa or my home state of New Hampshire violated DNC rules, I wouldn’t want the Bill Bradleys and the Howard Deans of the world saying, “The rules are the rules.” The DNC should have left it up to each individual state to vote when they want and should not have stripped any state of delegates for voting early. Even if you disagree with the decisions of Florida and Michigan to hold early primaries, do the individual voters really deserve to have no say in who the Democrat nominee is in a very close race just because the state governments there made a decision you might disagree with? Bill Clinton gets this. Howard Dean does not. This is mostly because those states are favorable to Hillary, but the Clintons also have enough political sense to know that disenfranchising two swing states from having a say in the nominee of a party is not good for a party. However, liberal Democrats, believing in central control as they do,decided to leave the nominating system up to the national party rather than each state.

Republicans should resist our natural tendency to dislike anything the Clintons say and join with them in expressing outrage over the disenfranchisement of millions of voters in two large states. Furthermore, senators like Bill Nelson are off base in blaming this situation on local officials in Iowa and New Hampshire when the real blame should be on the DNC rules committee. It is also ironic that youdidn’t hear Democrats say, “The rules are the rules,” constantly when Al Gore beat George Bush in the popular vote but lost the electoral college. When the DNC chose Howard Dean as its chairman in 2005, I was happy because I thought he’d be a disaster for the party. It turned out he wasn’t, but the 2006 elections had little to do with him. It looks like he will work his magic to elect John McCain (the former prisoner of war who Howard Dean said had no integrity), in a year that by all objective measures should be impossible for Republicans.

As Time noted in a much-discussed piece yesterday, anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton (having spent every waking minute of the last 10 years preparing for this race) will drop out voluntarily is delusional.

Clinton is well aware of the long odds she faces in the battle against Barack Obama for delegates. She knows that as the Democratic National Convention gets closer, the increasingly bitter back and forth between the two campaigns hurts Obama’s chances of winning a general election and reinforces the image of the Clintons as a power-hungry couple who will do anything to win, even if they damage the Democratic Party.

But for the Clintons, quitting isn’t an option…When Clinton closes her eyes, she sees John McCain triumphing in November against Obama in a contest she believes she would win. Like all competitive candidates, Clinton is certain she would be a better leader than her rivals, and she feels an obligation to her supporters to fight on.

Clinton believes Obama’s support is largely a mirage — a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience. She can’t stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children’s enthusiasm for his candidacy…

According to those close to her, she is hoping that as spring becomes summer, the potential for finding another skeleton or two in Obama’s closet will prove him ultimately unelectable in the fall…

Said a confidant who has talked to her regularly throughout the campaign: “This woman never quits. Neither she nor her husband.” So don’t expect this race to end anytime soon. [emphasis mine]

Also, PA Gov. Ed Rendell just released a statement pushing back on calls for Hillary to drop out:

“I respect Senator Leahy and like him very much but as the governor of one of America’s largest states, I am disappointed in his comments.  By virtually every measure, this race is neck and neck with less than 1% of the more than 27 million votes cast forming the difference between the two candidates.  To call for an end to this race before the people of Pennsylvania have had a chance to make their views known is wrong and a disservice to millions of Democrats.”

Yesterday, former Dem candidate Chris Dodd (D-CT) declared it a “foregone conclusion” that Obama had won the Democratic nomination. Now today, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is publicly calling on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race and support Obama.

According to Leahy, Clinton “ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama… she would have a tremendous career in the Senate.” Yeah – I’m sure she’ll be happy settling for that, Pat.

Intrade currently has the race at 80-19 for Obama.

Back when McCain was an essentially an also-ran during the summer and fall, he gave a lot of interviews to journalists about how a McCain Administration would be different than any other modern president. He’s long noted that he would give weekly “fireside-style chats” to the American people and that he will aggressively beat back any attempts by Congress to pass egregious and wasteful spending. But over at Redstate, Adam C reminds me of something I had forgotten about McCain. He does not like the Secret Service much at all. He’s the only candidate left that doesn’t have a Secret Service detail (he also rejected it in 2000):

Sen. John McCain of Arizona waded through a crush of strangers at a crowded roadside diner in Florida two weeks ago, shaking hands and posing for photos with admirers and gawkers alike.

That’s the kind of scenario that energizes voters but makes Secret Service agents shudder.

McCain, though, has no agents watching over him.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, McCain is the only major candidate who is not guarded by a Secret Service detail. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has lifetime protection as a former first lady, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has had protection since asking for it last year.

“The day that the Secret Service can assure me that, if we’re driving in the motorcade and there’s a guy in a rooftop with a rifle, that they can stop that guy, then I’ll say fine,” McCain told reporters late last year. “But the day they tell me, ‘Well, we can’t guarantee it,’ then fine, I’ll take my chances.”

Indeed. This is what he told the Boston Globe last year:

[...]the aspect of Harry Truman’s presidency that McCain recalled most vividly was not his handling of the Berlin airlift or the Korean War, but his laid back ways.

“He could walk out of the White House and take a walk with one Secret Service agent. One Secret Service agent!” McCain said. “My, how times have changed.”

In his most forceful comments yet on the subject, DNC Chairman Howard Dean called on Superdelegates to announce who they were going to vote for before July 1 so the Democrats could end their bruising primary season without taking the contest to the convention to decide.

“Well, I think the superdelegates have already been weighing in. I think that there’s 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they’re for. I’d like the other 350 to say who they’re at some point between now and the first of July so we don’t have to take this into the convention.”

For anyone interested, there are actually 794 superdelegates, 466 of whom have committed thus far (Clinton – 250; Obama – 216). That essentially leaves the decision of who the party nominee is up to 328 people.

How, um… democratic of them.

It’s interesting how a primary makes enemies and a general election brings people back together. For instance, while campaigning in Florida the day before the state’s primary, McCain said this about Mitt Romney:

“The truth is, Mitt Romney was a liberal governor of Massachusetts.”

Yesterday, while the two were campaigning together, McCain had this to say of his former rival:

“He came to a very liberal state and campaigned as a conservative and governed as a conservative.”

Just making up for the sake of the party? Or preparing the stage for a future Veep pick? Only time will tell.

Barack Obama was introduced at campaign stop in New York by none other than threatened-independent candidate wannabe Michael Bloomberg yesterday. Here’s what Obama said about Mike in the opening of his speech:

I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his extraordinary leadership. At a time when Washington is divided in old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he been a remarkable leader for New York –he has established himself as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our economy, educating our children, and seeking energy independence. Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country together to finally make progress for the American people.

This, of course, leading to much Veep speculation for the pair. Marc Ambinder notes:

Obama isn’t much of an administrator or a details guy by his own admission, while Bloomberg is so concerned about Your Health and Welfare that he studies intently the ins and outs of congestion pricing and trans-fats. He’s a prime minister-type — although he brings an outsider’s sense of efficiency to the bureaucracy. Let Obama be the vision guy; Bloomberg could be the brass-tacks administrator.

Personally, I think Obama has about five choices for Veep at the moment, and they are (in order):

1) Sam Nunn
2) Jim Webb
3) Evan Bayh
4) Phil Bredesen
5) Mike Easley

The problems, of course, being that Nunn has announced he doesn’t want the Veep slot, Webb is short on experience like Obama, and Bayh doesn’t balance the ticket geographically. That leaves Bredesen and Easley, both incredibly popular governors of red states that lend a lot of strength to an Obama ticket.

Bloomberg would be an interesting pick, though, with his business background and perceived strength in the area of economic understanding, since the economy is (and most likely will be) the main concern for voters.