Douglass: Well, just one more question on that subject... She was quoted today in USA Today describing her strengths against his weaknesses, and she said about herself -- quoting from a news article, she was talking about a news article -- but Senator Clinton said the following: that "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again," and "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." "There is a pattern emerging here," she said. What's your reaction to that quote?

Clyburn: Well, I don't think that carries any more weight than anyone who will argue that the fact that she only got 8 percent of the African-American vote in North Carolina indicates that she cannot get African-American votes in the general election. It's one thing for us to measure these two Democratic candidates against each other. It is totally something else again for us to measure a Democratic candidate against a Republican candidate. Those are two different things -- apples and oranges -- and I do believe it is a stretch for us to consider otherwise. If we buy into that, and we buy into the conventional wisdom that no Democrat wins the presidency getting only 8 percent of the African-American vote, then what does that to say for her prospects in the fall?

Later, he explains why he's neutral, sounding very non-neutral and very much of a mind to believe that if the "graybeards" -- the superdelegates -- take the nomination away from Barack Obama, there'll be consequences.

. I'm very proud of what Barack Obama's done. When I sat in those jails back in the '60s in South Carolina -- dreaming about growing up, dreaming about becoming an adult, dreaming about having children and grandchildren -- I now have a 14-year-old grandson, and he is very proud of Barack Obama. I'm not going to sit down and watch anybody marginalize my grandson's dreams and aspirations. And I'm not going to see anybody go out and just absolutely nullify the energy and time that my daughter, youngest daughter, put into Barack Obama's race. This young lady started going to his office at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, every day after work, staying there to 11, 12 o'clock at night, and apologized to me for having to follow her heart for fear that it might disrupt my neutrality.

So when I look at this daughter of mine, I look at this grandson of mine, and see the pride in their faces -- I'm just not going to have anybody just tamping that down, and so that's why I spoke up. Because I'm going home on weekends, and I go to these college campuses, as I will be this weekend -- I'm going to Voorhees [College] and do the commencement there, I'm going to Tuskegee in Alabama and do commencement there on Sunday -- these young people are looking at me, saying, are you graybeards in this party getting ready to go into some room somewhere and nullify everything we did in this campaign?

But if John McCain did this -- if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states -- the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment. Just saying....

There is no loved lost between Huffington and McCain these days. She's said for two years that McCain has been "hijacked by the right" and subsequently "sold his soul."

"For me, why this is so sad is that I am utterly convinced that he was genuine in 2000 about reforming the country and reforming the system," she says.

In theory, both sides have motive to shade the truth, here, so those sympathetic to McCain will accept his denial, and those unsympathetic to McCain will accept the testimonies as true. Three witnesses are presently on the record against McCain; currently, only McCain is on the record in favor of himself. (You should expect more folks to attest to having heard McCain say or signal that he voted against Bush in 2000.)

There are four possibilities:

(a) Either he did not vote for Bush in 2000 and is lying; the lie being a reflection of his need to harness his political history to his present ambitions; this preserves the campaign's need to present McCain as having always been a conservative Republican who, despite a brief fluffaroo in the 2000 primaries, has always been a party loyalist.

(b) Or he did vote for Bush in 2000 but, to impress his new Hollywood friends, told them that he did not;

(c) Or Huffington and the actors are lying in order to smear McCain; the narrative here would be that McCain is and has always been a Bush conservative; or they're trying to drive a wedge between him and Republicans

(d) Or everyone misremembers;

This story will not worry the McCain campaign because it sets him up as a foil for a plot by nefarious Hollywood liberals.

Here's one way to think about the question. Ask yourself whether McCain has changed his outlook, orientation and worldview since 2000; read news coverage of what else McCain said in 2000 and who he spent his time with after the election; go through his legislative record on domestic issues in 2001 and 2002 and 2003. If the McCain you see today is the same McCain who is the sum of all those parts, then his denial is more credible.

None of this is to suggest that McCain every voted for Al Gore. Indeed, one longtime McCain observer says that McCain was not shy about telling his friends that Gore was a "phoney."

What is true: Folks on the periphery of McCain's world are talking her up.

What I don't know: Basically everything else.

"I have not won the nomination yet; it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that she is going to be my running mate while we are still actively running."

"I will say that she has shown herself to be an extraorindary candidate and an extraordinary public servent. She is hard working, she is tough, she is very smart, and so I think she would be on anyone's shortlist."

While I realize it's a slow news day, and all 08 reporters feel every news bit must be immediately made out to be breathless, breaking, and instantly analyzed in order to break thru, I would like to clarify two points:

1. All Rahm said was that Senator Obama is clearly now the frontrunner, which by and large means, because of the calendar, he is the presumptive nominee, at this point. He was stating the obvious. Its about the calendar.

2. The "presumptive" quote is only accurate if you ignore the several sentences proceeding this half sentence and the several minutes of conversation that followed it. I'd call it selective quoting. Congressman Emanuel also stated about 90 seconds after this that he thought Senator clinton can still win the nomination and he stands by that.

It's not Christine Pelosi.

It's not Bob Mullholland.

Update: It's Mr. Super himself, Ed Espinoza.

And here's a letter written by a dozen members of Congress to undecided "automatic delegates" seeking their forbearance.

Swing State Democrats Say Hillary Best For Top Of Ticket The text of the letter is below.

Dear Fellow Democrat,

We are writing to you because of our shared belief in our Party’s principles and our commitment to ensuring that we have the strongest possible nominee to lead our ticket against John McCain and the Republicans in November.

The decision about who to support to be our Party’s nominee is not one that any of us should take lightly. We haven’t. But, after giving this important decision a great deal of thought, we are convinced that Hillary Clinton has the vision, skills and commitment to make the changes our country needs. As Democrats who have run and won in competitive Congressional districts and battleground states, we believe that Hillary is best positioned to successfully lead the Democratic ticket in districts and states like ours around the country.

As you know, Hillary has racked up victories in bellwether states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Indiana that are absolutely vital to winning the White House and maintaining our Congressional majority in the fall. Hillary has won the big battleground states by connecting with voters whose support we must have to win the general election. Her victories in Pennsylvania and Indiana were all the more impressive after being outspent by as much as two or three to one.

Pennsylvania was not just a victory for Hillary Clinton. It was also a wake- up call for superdelegates, forcing us to ask ourselves two essential questions: 1) Which candidate can carry the magic 270 electoral votes to win in the fall? 2) Which candidate is most likely to help our fellow Democrats in down-ballot races? We believe the answer to both of these questions is Hillary Clinton.

On the first question, Hillary has shown she can win the all-important battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida even while being outspent. This speaks to her ability to connect with voters we must deliver in the fall, including blue collar Democrats who can sway this election as they have in the past.

On the second question, Hillary has won rural and suburban districts which we as Democrats must carry to maintain our edge in Congress. Of the fifteen districts rated “toss up” by the Cook Political Report, Hillary has now won ten. Of the 20 districts we picked up in 2006 that had gone for President Bush just two years before, Hillary has now won 16. She is strong in the places we must win to hold and expand our majority.

This is a historically close race. The candidates are separated by a mere percentage point or two and the path to victory for each candidate is the same: win in the upcoming states and secure enough pledged and automatic delegates to get to the number required to win the nomination.

The race now turns to the remaining six contests where the focus will be squarely on the economy. Voters in our states and across the country are voting on issues that affect them, their communities and their children’s future. We believe that they will decide that Hillary is the candidate who best understands those issues and has the best solutions to address them.

We Democrats are justifiably proud of both of our candidates, and if Senator Obama is our Party’s nominee, we will enthusiastically support him. But our responsibility is not to choose simply to support the eventual nominee; it is to help select the nominee who is best for our party and best for our country. Our choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is that candidate. We believe she should be your choice as well.

Thank you for consideration.

Sincerely,

Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY-24)

Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV-01)

Rep. Marion Berry (AR-1)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)

Rep. Gene Green (TX -29)

Rep. John Hall (NY-19)

Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR-5)

Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (FL-17)

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX-16)

Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4)

Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-8)

Rep. Ike Skelton (MO-4)

Rep. John Tanner (TN-8)

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20)

"At this point, Barack is the presumptive nominee," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel during the New Yorker's magazine conference. "Hillary can't win but something could happen that Barack could lose the nomination."

Emanuel wouldn't go so far as to say that Clinton should drop out. "Next question!" he declared when asked. But his voice does carry political sway. The congressman has been staunchly non-committal throughout the primary process. And his ties to the Clinton administration and connections to fellow Chicago pol Obama make him one of the key figures who could help facilitate an end to the nomination battle.

Clearly, party unity was on Emanuel's mind.

"What Hillary does in the next month is important," he said. "If she spends her time contrasting with Senator McCain, drawing distinctions that help the Democratic Party, that's productive. If it's done in another way, that's not productive."

Says one volunteer organizer: "These volunteer lists were built with months and months worth of campaign events, visibility events, marches and social gatherings leading into super Tuesday. Every single event included a determined effort to sign up new supporters, and press those supporters to signal an interest in volunteering. I've heard casual mention that the nyc team alone has something like 15,000 potential volunteers names and contact information."

Here's an e-mail from another organizer:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Faina XXX Date: Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM Subject: Details on staffing the May 10th event To: Faina XXX

Hello all,

Thank you for volunteering to help out with the Vote for Change rally, your experience is critical in ensuring that this event goes smoothly.

Before I can get into details about the actual program, I want to ask if any of you are available to help with setup on Friday, May 9th at 3pm. We will be putting together packets for volunteers, and making signs. Because we are expecting a turnout of about 800 - 1,000 people, we will need to have enough packets ready for each volunteer. If you are not available tomorrow, it's totally fine, although any help that you can give is greatly appreciated.
As for the day of the event, we are asking that staffers get to the church at around 10:30 - 11:00. We will be needing people to direct the lines that will be forming outside of the church, there will most likely be two lines. The church is wheelchair accessible, so we will be needing volunteers to direct traffic through the wheelchair accessible entrance. There will also be sign in tables, where volunteers will be receiving their packets.

We will also need ushers to direct people to their seats, and then to their staging location captains, after the training.

I will continue to update you all on the program, as the details come in. In the meantime, please let me know if you are available to help out on Friday.

Thank you!

--
Faina XXX
Obama for America
(XXX) XXX-XXXX

How sophisticated is Barack Obama's voter database and contact mining? Testimony from reader TDE:

"I donated a small amount and supplied my work contact information below before the California primary. A few days later, I get a message on my home answering machine – not the numbers below and _not_ a listed number – thanking me for my support and inviting me to an event “at a neighbor’s house” two blocks from my house (miles away from the information I supplied below). I was not contacted at my work address. So they took my name from the donation and then located my unlisted home phone number and unprovided home address and put it in their database so they could contact me for a neighborhood meet up. "

He will appear on Friday afternoon, an NRA spokesman said.

McCain has authored legislation tightening loopholes at gun shows and wants to reduce the flood of cheap guns into the market, but he opposes restrictions on so-called assault weapons and does not support holding gun manufacturers liable for illegal gun trafficking. In South Carolina last year, McCain said simply that he believes in "no gun control."

The NRA has sparred with McCain over campaign finance regulation, and the Gun Owners of America, more hardline than the NRA, has given McCain an "F-" ranking for his alleged apostasies.

Courting the NRA has benefits -- its millions and millions of members, including many Democrats -- and its risks. The NRA would probably do Sen. McCain's bidding regardless -- Obama presents such a contrast on gun rights. There's a chance that appearances before groups like the NRA could undercut McCain's effort to attract soft Republicans, independents and Democrats -- precisely the groups with which he underperforms today.

An NRA spokesman had no immediate comment.