The report from Bloomberg:

May 9 (Bloomberg) — Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is struggling to attract money from some of the same industries that helped bankroll President George W. Bush’s record-setting fundraising.

Employees from the securities, construction, pharmaceutical and energy industries, who accounted for about a tenth of Bush’s money in 2004, are turned off by his record and giving more to his Democratic rivals, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

“A significant percentage of your base Republican support, whether financial or otherwise, are not fans of McCain because of various things he’s done or said or sponsored,” said Republican consultant Eddie Mahe, who is supporting the Arizona senator. “Many of them don’t see Mr. McCain as being a lot better” than the Democrats.

Obama and Clinton each raised close to $11 million from the four industries through the end of March, compared with $6 million for McCain. In 2004, Bush raised three times more money from those sources than Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee that year.

This isn’t too surprising since McCain has been a mixed bag when it comes to supporting the interests of corporate America. Plus, he has made statements similar to Obama and Clinton about fighting some large industries such as drug companies and insurance.

First, on Meet the Press, two former DNC Chairmen: Obama supporter Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe, here’s the full video:

Next, Obama campaign Chief Strategist David Axelrod was on Fox New Sunday earlier today along with Hillary Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson. Obviously they discussed the campaign and upcoming contests.

First, here is David Axelrod:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Howard Wolfson:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Sorry for the clipping, it was the best I could do today and I know they aren’t perfect, but you get the point, right?

There were several more including Face the Nation and This Week. John Edwards was on Face the Nation but I don’t have the video yet, will update later.

Update

Here is John Edwards’ interview on Face the Nation:

Here is Hillary Clinton’s message, delivered via Chelsea:

McCain and his mother:

Aren’t they all cute..

Here’s the video from the Associated Press:

Clearly she has to be on the short list but the question of whether or not she’d accept is something else.

Here’s a video report on it from Reuters:

Also, a report from Yahoo News:

BEND, Ore. - Barack Obama began sketching the outlines of his expected presidential contest against Republican John McCain on Saturday, saying the fall election will be more about specific plans and priorities than about questions of political ideology or who is more patriotic.

Barely mentioning Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama said he was open to campaigning with McCain in “town hall” events. But he also warned that controversial issues such as McCain’s ties to the Keating Five savings and loan scandal are fair game, and he called McCain’s proposal for a temporary halt in the federal gasoline tax a pander and a gimmick.

He did not mention that Clinton supports a similar plan.

Obama also said he soon will campaign in Michigan and Florida, two battleground states whose Democratic primaries were essentially nullified by party disputes, angering many voters.

Saying he still has not secured the nomination, Obama nonetheless entertained several questions about the likely outlines of a contest against McCain. As he campaigned in Oregon, whose primary is May 20, Obama picked up four superdelegate endorsements, erasing Clinton’s once-substantial lead among the party leaders who will determine the nominee.

Obama mentioned some specifics:

Speaking with reporters in Bend, Ore., Obama brushed aside suggestions that the fall campaign may be largely about his race, liberalism or patriotism.

“In a contest between myself and John McCain,” he said, “there is going to be a very clear choice on policy that I don’t think is going to have to do with ideology and who theoretically is more liberal or who’s more conservative. I think it is going to have to do with who has a plan to provide relief to people when it comes to their gas prices, who has a real plan to make sure that everybody has health insurance, who’s got a real plan to deal with college affordability.”

“So rather than an abstract set of questions about, ‘Is he too liberal, is he too conservative, how do voters handle an African American, et cetera,’ I think this is going to be a very concrete contest around very specific plans for how we improve the lives of Americans and our vision for the future,” he said.

I’m guessing that Obama will be brushing up on foreign policy because the danger will be whether or not he sounds as experienced in that area next to McCain. On the other hand, we haven’t heard much from McCain other than he refuses to go “negative” on Obama, but it doesn’t appear all aspects of the Republican Party will tow the same line.

Take for instance reports linking McCain to Reverend Jerry Falwell. Like Jeremiah Wright, Jerry Falwell blamed the United States as well for 9/11; however, instead of blaming Whites, he blamed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and others for the attack (so much for the theory that a bunch of people from a transnational organization called Al Qaeda did it).

Then there is the more recent controversy surrounding Pastor John Hagee endorsement of John McCain. Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church the Great Whore, and blamed New Orlean’s support of gays and the removal of Jews from the Gaza Strip for Katrina’s devastation in New Orleans (so much for blaming inept politicians for neglecting to improve New Orlean’s Levee or react prudently).

Although McCain denies it, Pastor Hagee insists that John McCain sought out his endorsement.

The more recent scandal involves Pastor Ron Parsley, who believes the United States was founded in order to rid the world of the “false religion, Islam.” David Corn of MotherJones reports, May 8, 2008:

During a 2005 sermon, a fundamentalist pastor whom Senator John McCain has praised and campaigned with called Islam “the greatest religious enemy of our civilization and the world,” claiming that the historic mission of America is to see “this false religion destroyed.” In this taped sermon, currently sold by his megachurch, the Reverend Rod Parsley reiterates and amplifies harsh and derogatory comments about Islam he made in his book, Silent No More, published the same year he delivered these remarks. Meanwhile, McCain has stuck to his stance of not criticizing Parsley, an important political ally in a crucial swing state.

Parsely’s divisive and inflammatory language is captured in a video from the same article:

Now, what can we make of these political alliances?

Barack Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years, had his two children baptized, and was married by Pastor Jeremiah Wright. This certainly looks like a very personal and long-term relationship, but it also is an apolitical relationship. Obama’s relationship with Wright was in the church, not in politics, and when Wright’s views became politicized, Obama was quick to publicly denounce Wright’s inflammatory and divisive words.

While John McCain never had a long and personal relationship with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, or Ron Parsely, he has received their endorsements, a clear political connection. Furthermore, he has not publicly denounced many of their words, unlike Barack Obama.

If we take a step back, we can clearly see that John McCain’s alliances with these men are more for political support than shared ideologies. Prior to the presidential election in 2000, McCain attacked Christian fundamentalists like Falwell and Robertson for their views and positions. So what can we make of this?

McCain might not personally agree with these men, but he needs their support. The question is how far does their support go, and how far will McCain go to secure this support? These are important questions to ask.

We can also see that the Jeremiah Wright scandal was political propaganda, or at least overblown in its magnitude, in an attempt to discredit Barack Obama. There are fiery and inflammatory pastors aplenty between these two candidates. Religious leaders do not define candidates, they define voting blocks, and thus reflect important pockets of demographics within the Republican and Democratic infrastructures.

We can also consider politics from an economic standpoint of supply and demand. As long as fundamentalists supply a significant and collective voting block in either Party, they stand to have leverage in presidential politics and policies. In the end, it is the U.S voters who determine the political leverage in an election.

His appearance on the Today Show:

Video from MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

Edwards doesn’t think Clinton can win but he’s still holding out on endorsing either one of them. I’m betting he’s hedging on the chance that an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket will materialize and Edwards doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of either of them.

Here’s video of the exchange:

A report from Political Radar:

ABC News’ Sarah Amos reports: While speaking at Fayetteville High School in Fayetteville, West Virginia, former President Bill Clinton was interrupted by a woman who said he and Hillary Clinton promised to fix healthcare when he was president and then did nothing.

Clinton got angry during the exchange, clearly upset by the woman’s claim.

“And do you know why it was defeated? Clinton asked, “I can’t believe you are saying this. There are, there are millions of pages of documents that we have released. Showing the exhausting work that was done, the tens of thousands of people who were consulted, the rallies and movements we had all over the country.”

The former president then added: “This is, one of the problems, one of the problems of this whole presidential campaign is how many things that people have said that are flat untrue.”

Bill Clinton angrily defended his wife, telling the woman Hillary’s first universal healthcare plan failed because of Republican opposition.

The report on it from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama all but erased Hillary Rodham Clinton’s once-imposing lead among national convention superdelegates on Friday and won fresh labor backing as elements of the Democratic Party began coalescing around the Illinois senator for the fall campaign.

Obama picked up the backing of nine superdelegates, including Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who had been a Clinton supporter.

In addition, the American Federation of Government Employees announced its support for Obama. The union claims about 600,000 members who work in the federal and Washington, D.C., governments.

Obama, who won a convincing victory in the North Carolina primary and lost Indiana narrowly on Tuesday, has been steadily gaining strength in the days since.

Clinton also gained a superdelegate.

The developments left the former first lady with 271.5 superdelegates, to 271 for Obama. Little more than four months ago, on the eve of the primary season, she held a lead of 169-63.

Superdelegates are party leaders who attend the convention delegates by virtue of their positions, and are not selected in primaries and caucuses.

In addition to Payne, Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, two members of the Democratic National Committee from California and a party official in South Carolina announced they were supporting Obama. Superdelegates from New Mexico and Virginia also joined the migration.

So, too, John Gage, president of the AFGE.

A video report from ABC News:

If the superdelegates continue leaning toward Obama, Clinton might not even have the option of trying to win using the superdelegate card. We’ll see how this plays out but it appears as though more and more will be committing to Obama as it’s clear he’s clenching the nomination.

Here is the first night of McCain’s interview in 2 parts on YouTube:

Seemed to me that McCain sort of ducked the issue of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Overall not bad, but nowhere near as interesting or entertaining as Hillary Clinton with O’Reilly.

Here’s to hoping Obama ventures on in as well for the presidential candidate hat trick.

A video report on it from CBS 2 Chicago:

Also, a report from the same place:

CHICAGO (CBS) ― It looks like the end is near for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. CBS 2 has learned that Barack Obama is ready to celebrate winning the Democratic nomination for president on May 20, the day two more states hold their primaries.

CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports on that day, Obama expects to cross a threshold that, his aides say in the past, has always guaranteed the Democratic nomination. He expects to have collected a majority of the pledged convention delegates.

As Obama shifts his focus to the likely Republican nominee, at his campaign headquarters on Michigan Avenue campaign workers are planning a big celebration for the evening of May 20, when votes will be counted in Kentucky and Oregon and they expect Obama will have clinched a majority of the elected, pledged delegates.

“We are building toward that day when we can claim a majority of the pledged delegates, and we believe that’s going to be on May 20 and I believe that’s gonna be a big night for those of us in this camapaign,” said Obama political strategist, David Axelrod.

But Rep. Jack Franks, a Clinton supporter, countered, “Declaring mission accomplished doesn’t make it so – all you have to do is ask George Bush about that. And that’s why we have to take this to the convention and let the delegates decide.”

The writing appears to be on the wall for Hillary Clinton, at some point she’ll have to step aside for the good of the party.

The growing perception that Obama is the Democratic presumptive nominee is creating quite a circle among superdelegates, particularly Nancy Pelosi, who made sure to greet the Senator. And his presence, of course, could not hurt in his vying for support from the currently uncommitted superdelegates, which incidentally include Rep. Brady (D-PA).

According to the Huffington Post, May 8, 2008:

Sen. Barack Obama stepped into a swarm of superdelegates this morning when he visited the House of Representatives in the middle of a vote. Obama stayed on the floor for almost half an hour visiting with both Democrats and Republicans who looked completely star struck.

Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi left her weekly press briefing and made a beeline for the House floor to say hello. And the Capitol Hill press corps surrounded the House Chamber to catch him on his way out and fire questions about such an unusual move for a presidential candidate, even if he is a senator.

Ryan Grim of Politico.com reports, May 8, 2008:

Even Republicans were star-struck. Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said she was escorting a group of elementary school students onto the House floor when Obama made his entrance.

Ros-Lehtinen said the children noticed the presidential hopeful and screamed, “It’s Barack Obama!” in unison. The congresswoman then led the students across the aisle and over to Obama, who chatted briefly with the three students.

“The kids were very excited,” said Ros-Lehtinen. “Like rock star excited.”

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), an Obama supporter, said that a number of Republicans crossed the aisle to congratulate him. “One told me that if he wins, he looks forward to working with him,” said Conyers, who would not give the member’s name. “I’ve worked with [the congressman] before on some things, but that still surprised me.”

Conyers suggested that Obama’s primary opponent needs to repeat the cross-chamber journey. “Hillary’s got to come now,” he said.

Twice, it looked like Obama was about to leave the chamber, but he got pulled back in by superdelegates — both committed and uncommitted.

Below is a video clip of his presence.

Political pressure is mounting, and with each of these occurrences, Hillary Clinton is forced to make a political splash as well. It should not be long before we hear something from her campaign.

The report on Florida from Breitbart:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Florida Democrats say they’re on the verge of finishing a plan to have the state’s delegates counted toward the party’s presidential nomination.

Thursday’s news comes after Michigan Democrats came up with their own plan. The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their convention delegates for holding their primaries too early in violation of party rules.

State party spokesman Mark Bubriski told The Associated Press that Florida officials have been talking with campaign representatives of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton about recognizing all, or part, of Florida’s 211 delegates.

Clinton is trailing Obama in the race for the nomination and is seeking to close the gap with delegates from Florida and Michigan.

The media has pronounce Obama as the nominee, however, Florida and Michigan might change the game a bit in terms of popular vote and the delegate count to some extent.

Here is her interview with USAToday:

The report from USA Today:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Clinton’s blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.

I’ve chronicled, somewhat, how the vote has been splitting between Obama and Clinton. She tends to take less educated voters while Obama tends to take more educated voters. Theoretically Clinton’s above statements are correct. However, Larry Sabato points out why it doesn’t matter:

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton’s comment was a “poorly worded” variation on the way analysts have been “slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms.”

However, he said her primary support doesn’t prove she’s more electable. Either Democrat will get “the vast majority” of the other’s primary election votes in a general election, he said.

I agree with Larry, this will all change once a nominee is chosen. Although that time seems to be getting further away, not closer.

If you look at recent presidential political calenders, successful campaigns needed more than 10 weeks for success. Take for instance the choosing of Jimmy Carter during the Democratic National Convention of 1976, which occurred on July 12-15 in New York. In 1976, the presidential election was on November 2nd. This gave Jimmy Carter over fourteen weeks to prepare his national campaign against the incumbent Republican, Gerald Ford. These fourteen weeks were instrumental for Carter to invent himself as the anti-Nixon, moral leader that the country desperately needed.

However, just four years later, Carter was faced with only ten weeks to build a campaign against the new contender, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan. Reagan had clearly captured the Republican nomination before the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Michigan, which officially declared him the winner in July. Contrary to this, Jimmy Carter had to fend off a vicious internal rivalry led by Ted Kennedy, that lasted until the Democratic National Convention on August 11-14, 1980 in New York. Reagan of course won, and there are a multitude of reasons for this, but the absolute pummeling that Carter suffered (he lost electorally 489 to 49 votes) suggests that more time and a more unified base could have helped him.

Now, it appeared that the Democrats had learned their lesson, for in 1992 they scheduled an early Democratic National Convention on July 13-16 in New York. This gave the Democratic contender Bill Clinton fourteen weeks to develop his national campaign against the incumbent George Bush. However, in 1996 the Democratic National Convention met on August 26-29 in Chicago. This time line would have given the Democratic incumbent Bill Clinton only eight weeks to prepare his national campaign, but luckily he had only token opposition in Lyndon LaRouche. Unlike Carter’s difficult battle with Ted Kennedy, Clinton sailed on to recapture the nomination, and his second term in office. Clinton did not have to wait until the Democratic National Convention to build his national campaign, and had no fractured base to heal.

I can continue on looking at how the political calender helps determine presidential candidates every four years. In each scenario, two very large influences is the internal political climate– is it a hotly contested primary, like Carter versus Kennedy, or lukewarm, like Clinton versus LaRouche?– and the duration in which the presidential nominee can plan his/her national campaign.

In 2008, the Democratic Party- in their infinite wisdom- chose a late date: August 25-28 in Denver Colorado. Democrats from around the country will meet to officially decide the Democratic nominee for president. The Republican National Convention is September 1-4, 2008 in Minnesota’s Twin Cities. This deadline would give each nominee between seven to eight weeks to prepare their national campaigns. There is, of course, one important difference at this point: The Republicans have known who their nominee is for the past several months.

If Hillary Clinton decides to push her campaign into the Democratic National Convention on August 25, this will give Democrats only eight weeks to try and convince independent and swing voters– and only these same eight weeks to mend the internal wounds, as the Presidential Election is on November 4, 2008.

It would be a political suicide for Democrats to let their decision last until the Convention, but I wouldn’t put it past them. When it comes to strategy and political processes, the Democratic Party is severely lacking. Howard Dean is fighting against time and poor planning at this point, and the Democratic base continues to fray. As the Democratic primary continues, I cannot help but see the irony of the situation. Lack of foresight and political planning cost the Democrats the election in 2004. Now, the same issues are coming to rear their heads in the current political calender. Superdelegates, anyone?

Don’t kid yourself, should Clinton take the nomination at this point, madness it will be. The liberal groups are urging mass riots at the Democratic convention should Obama not become the nominee at this point. Think I’m kidding, check out Re-create ‘68 and see for yourself. Here’s the goal of the organization:

Welcome to the “Re-create 68″ website, your virtual activists’ Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.

R-68 agrees with the proposition, POTESTAS IN POPULO, “all power comes from the people.” What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate institutions for their representation. We intend to create those institutions!

Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained.

I find this whole notion utterly hysterical as these liberal loons will basically be doing exactly what pundits like Rush would like them to do, continually embarrass and expose the Democratic Party for what it is.

As fun as it is contemplating the thought of liberal activists shutting down the Denver convention, let me get back to my point. Rush succeeded so strongly with “Operation Chaos” that he has liberal pundits and the Obama campaign trying to convince everyone that, had it not been for Rush, Obama would have won Indiana. They’re not even trying to marginalize him, they are using it as a reasoning for why Obama lost by less than 20,000 votes.

The Huffington Post, bastion of incoherent liberalism that it is, even went out on a limb to discuss the effects of “Operation Chaos” at length. For example, this post which explains it using the exit polls:

Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?

The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the “chaos” in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.

Though at the end they concede his effect may have been minimal, the fact that they’re acknowledging and crediting it is victory enough.

Do a little more searching and you’ll find numerous stories like this one:

Those looking for evidence of Limbaugh’s influence pointed to Clinton’s edge among Republicans in Indiana and North Carolina. In Indiana, 10 percent of Democratic primary voters described themselves as Republicans, a higher rate than in any state but Mississippi, and they went for Clinton by eight percentage points, according to exit polls. In North Carolina, they were 5 percent of the electorate, and went for her by 29 points.

Finally, as even more evidence that the media along with the Obama campaign are crediting Rush with Clinton’s victory, Chris Matthews unloaded on any Republican voter who dared meddle in the Democratic Primary:

What a crock! Where were these people when liberal activists were urging Democrat voters to crossover and vote for Mitt Romney in Michigan? Remember, less than a few short months ago, The Daily Kos was urging voters to extend the Republican Primary by giving Romney a victory in Michigan, here’s the the quote from Kos:

“(W)e want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us,” Kos writes. “We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan……(N)ot only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney’s victory.”

Rush simply succeeded where the Daily Kos failed. So to Chris Matthews, and anyone else criticizing Rush, chew on that one. In the same fashion, nobody has been able to destroy Obama the way Clinton has. In essence, Democrats should be more upset that Clinton is allowing her candidacy to be used by Rush as a way to continue attacking Obama.

Clinton, for her part, has played the situation well. She’s joked about it and played it off cool as a cucumber. However, secretly I’m sure she’s thanking God everyday that “Operation Chaos” is out their keeping her campaign alive. No campaign advertising funds in the world could pay for the free votes Rush is tossing her way.

So kudos to Rush who singlehandedly save Hillary Clinton’s candidacy Tuesday night in Indiana. Plus, we also learned that when moderates and independents choose the Republican nominee, the pendulum can equally swing the other way.

The bottom line is that the success of “Operation Chaos” simply shows the state of this presidential race: pure chaos. There are weak candidates full of hope, change, and other empty crap they’re continually putting forth. Republicans are disgusted with McCain, Democrats are disgusted with the superdelegate system, perhaps this is the year of the third-party candidate.

First, a report on it from Fox News:

While Hillary Clinton vowed to continue her fight “until there’s a nominee,” a general consensus was growing among Democrats Wednesday that the contest to become the party’s presidential candidate had already been decided beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the New York senator campaigned in West Virginia ahead of next Tuesday’s primary, Barack Obama’s campaign worked to finish off Clinton and began to focus on a general election battle against John McCain.

At least four new Democratic superdelegates shifted toward Obama on Wednesday, convinced by his double-digit victory in North Carolina and better-than-expected showing in Indiana that he will be the candidate who takes on McCain in November.

Among the newly added supporters was Virginia’s Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton, as well as North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council and California DNC member Inola Henry.

A report from the IHT:

“At this defining moment in history - a moment when we’re facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril - we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term.”

McCain, though he clinched the nomination weeks ago, still faces significant signs of dissatisfaction among Republicans. One in four Republicans voted against him in North Carolina, as did one in five in Indiana.

Media types like Tim Russert have also been calling it over:

Then you have the upcoming Time Magazine cover:

Plus, Obama has picked up 4 more superdelegates:

All adding up to bad news for Clinton since the media has decided Obama is the nominee and, subsequently, they’re arguing that she should drop out.

My guess is she stays in until June in the hopes that, in some miraculous move, Obama withdraws and hands her the nomination. I don’t think that’s going to happen so it’s not looking good.

A report from the IHT:

Very early Wednesday morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against Senator Hillary Clinton’s continued viability as a presidential candidate.

The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” he said on MSNBC. “Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.”

It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Russert’s comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, “The Nominee.”

The thought echoed throughout the world of instant political analysis, steamrolling the Clinton campaign’s attempts to promote the idea that her victory in Indiana was nonetheless an upset in the face of Obama’s heavy spending and his campaign’s predictions that he would win there, or that she could still come back if delegates in Florida and Michigan are seated.

Beyond the media pundits, George McGovern, a former Clinton supporter, announced today his endorsement of Obama and urged Hillary Clinton to withdraw, report from Breitbart:

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) - Former Sen. George McGovern, an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama.

After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern said Wednesday it’s virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. The 1972 Democratic presidential nominee said he had a call in to former President Clinton to tell him of the decision, adding that he remains close friends with the Clintons.

“I will hold them in affection and admiration all of my days,” he said of the Clintons.

McGovern’s announcement comes a day before Clinton was scheduled to travel to South Dakota to campaign. The state holds its primary June 3 with 15 pledged delegates at stake.

McGovern said he had no regrets about endorsing Hillary Clinton months ago, even before the Iowa caucuses.

“She has run a valiant campaign. And she will remain an influential voice in the American future,” he said.

But Obama has won the nomination “by any practical test” and is very close to a majority of the pledged delegates, said McGovern, who is 85. Obama moved within 200 delegates of clinching the nomination with his split decision on Tuesday of a win in North Carolina and a narrow loss in Indiana.

It’s time to unite the Democratic Party, he said.

Doesn’t look like any of that is going to happen. Clinton is prepared to continue campaigning in the remaining states such as Kentucky, West Virginia, and several others.

I see one of two scenarios happening. First, if Obama manages to win most of the remaining states, like 75% of them, he has a strong case for Clinton to drop and she might see the writing on the wall.

On the other hand, if she wins several of the remaining states, this will go down to the superdelegates and become messy.

A video report on it from ABC News:

Also, a report on her financial situation from MyWay:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A campaign aide says Hillary Rodham Clinton loaned herself $6.4 million in the past month.

Politically wounded and financially strapped, Clinton plunged back into the presidential campaign Wednesday even as Barack Obama declared that Tuesday’s primary results left him with a “clear path to victory.”

Obama beat Clinton soundly in North Carolina and fell just short in an Indiana cliffhanger, a rebound for the Illinois senator that presented Clinton with fast-dwindling chances to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination.

The loan more than doubles Clinton’s personal investment in her bid for the Democratic nomination. She gave her campaign $5 million earlier this year.

Clinton has been struggling financially behind the record fundraising of her Democratic rival, Barack Obama.

ut even as Obama planned to take the day off from the campaign trail Wednesday, Clinton showed no public signs of easing her pace. The campaign added a noon Wednesday appearance in Shepherdstown, W. Va., to her schedule. On Thursday, she planned to campaign in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon.

Arguably, Obama probably has reason to argue for her withdrawal at this point. Some prominent Democrats have already taken the opportunity to do so such as George McGovern, who today is endorsing Obama and asking Clinton to drop out.

I don’t know where she can really go from here in terms of pledged delegates. The few states left aren’t going to swing it and the chorus for her withdrawal is only going to grow.

The report from Fox News:

Barack Obama’s campaign issued an e-mail on Tuesday night that appeared to relegate Hillary Clinton’s lead in Indiana to efforts by Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc in the Democratic presidential primary contest.

In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote: “According to the latest exit polling data, 17 percent of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain match-up. Forty-one percent of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7 percent of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a Limbaugh Effect.”

“The Limbaugh Effect” referred to “Operation Chaos,” which the conservative radio talk show host launched early in the primary season to create “balance” in the 2008 primary contest after he said liberal influences helped John McCain emerge as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Limbaugh has said his scheme to tilt the Democratic primary exceeded his expectations.

“I see the Obama campaign is saying Operation Chaos accounted for a 7-point bump for Hillary in Indiana. I think they are just jealous that I out-organized them,” Limbaugh told FOX News Tuesday night. “I am extremely proud of Operation Chaos volunteers. I never doubted they would triumph and it is a delight to see.”

Obama might be correct, Indiana is typically a “red” state during general elections meaning they have a lot of Republican voters. More than a few of them may have taken the idea to heart and voted for Clinton in hopes of continuing the Democratic race.