Well this should certainly fuel some liberal outrage.

Remember don’t shoot the messenger folks!

I am still trying to figure out how the endorsement of the Gov. of Oklahoma equates to a “Big endorsement” but everyone in the media is heralding this as a major win.

A New York Times editorial piece written last night blasted Senator Clinton for negative campaigning. While the editorial acknowledged Senator Obama has had a role in this campaigning as well, it put the blame solely on Clinton saying:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

I just want to quibble with one point, that voters are getting tired of it. This is a traditional argument that follows the reasoning that negative campaigning doesn’t work, ruins the process and is the reason voters are apathetic. To which I say, with 99% of the vote reporting 2,300,542 out of 4.2 million registered Democrats voted in Pennsylvania last night. For a primary election that is an amazing turnout. Despite Obama’s 2-1 spending over Senator Clinton he lost by ten points.

Frankly, that to me shows the negative campaigning is probably working.

Democratic Underground and Daily Kos caught Howard Fineman on MSNBC saying that Elizabeth Edwards may be campaigning with the Senator in North Carolina. The story is also on First Read at MSNBC.

Sorry, I know I am late, I was buying a washer and dryer

From Election Journal.

The presidential candidate really are like us! They too can pre-tape segments for professional wrestling programs.

How long before they compete on American Idol or Dancing With the Stars?

Today the Supreme Court will consider a case started by Jack Davis who is currently running for Congress in New York’s 26th district and who has pledged to spend $3 Million of his own money. Davis is contesting the “Millionaires’ Amendment” a part of campaign finance law that allows opponents of self financed candidates greater flexibility in fundraising.

Davis maintains this amendment violates his free speech, I don’t entirely understand how and neither did any of the lower courts, but it has moved its way up to the Supreme Court and the ruling today could have wide ranging effects on this and future elections.

Find out more information here.

I would vote for McBain, especially if that Quimby fella was running.

Nice job from the The Margins of Error

An interesting observation from the NY Times:

Mr. Obama is spending 75 cents for every dollar he is taking in; Mrs. Clinton is spending $1.10.

One of the amazing realities of the race is that Sen. Clinton’s entire operation has been run terribly, especially in the money game. To project the aura of inevitability at the start, Clinton seemed to burn through money leaving little in the bank for a rainy day.