Inspired by the new MoveOn.org ad that was just released, a new web-blog has appeared, allowing concerned citizens to send in their own pictures of loved ones that John McCain can't have.

Check it out!

According to Chuck Todd at MSNBC, Senator Obama actually had enough votes in today's Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting to split the Michigan delegates 50-50.

However, since there were more votes available to the 69-59 split, he agreed to back that proposal instead.

According to Sylvia Welsh at Huffington Post, Obama is not man enough to be president because, get this, he hasn't cheated on his wife.

A choice quote:

Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the
past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife. Does anyone
doubt Obama's fidelity? Now that it's near certain he will be the
Democratic nominee, I've been trying to sort out why I don't think this
is a good thing.

Now, I think that what goes on between a husband and wife is their own business. Yes, even the Clintons.

I am deeply troubled, however, by the sexist nature of this piece. As if being faithful to one's spouse makes you weak, ineffective, and not ready for the presidency. Is that what makes a man? Is that what makes an effective president?

The New York Post also had an opinion piece about how Obama could be the first woman president because he is trim, dresses well, and isn't a tyrant.

Sexism has reared its ugly head on more than one occasion in this campaign, and I know that Senator Clinton has received the brunt of it. It's deplorable.

But it's disingenuous to say that Clinton is the only one who has faced sexism from the media during this campaign.

I remember back in February having a discussion with my mother about the upcoming Democratic Party primaries. I was giddy with excitement, because Clinton and Obama were obviously the front runners. No matter who secured the nomination, it would be a groundbreaking election because finally, for once, the top of the ticket would not be a white male (no, they're not all bad, I'm married to one). I was witnessing history, something I could tell my future children about (or at least my niece).

And then things got...complicated. Mud started flinging, gaffes were blown up on the MSM every day, and the real issues were being ignored. John McCain was getting a free ride. I became...bitter. Angry. Frustrated. I've said things of which I am not proud.

Recently I was thinking of my little niece. She's only a toddler, but she's a smart little cookie and I absolutely adore her. I hope to have one just like her some day. I thought of the world I wanted to have for her. I thought of what it would be like if the Supreme Court was over-taken by conservative judges, and what that would do to her rights and choices. I thought of what her world would be like if we were in Iraq or even Iran for another 20, 50, 100 years. Would she or her friends or her first kiss need to serve? Is this the world I want for her?

No, it's not.

I have made the decision that I will vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination. I have to. I owe it to her, and to my future children, and to the rest of the children in the US. THEY deserve better than McCain.

This isn't just about me and my own personal opinions of the Democratic primary. This is about them. This is about their future, not just mine. I cannot in good conscience, either actively or passively, allow McCain to get into office.

So, no matter what, my vote in November will be for you, my dear niece. Whether it's for the first minority president, or the first woman president, I will be voting for you. You're worth it.

Since there's nothing here at Election Central about these endorsements, I'm going to post this here.

First, Oklahoma governor Brad Henry endorses Obama today.

Secondly, Former Edwards National General Chairman and 49 Other Edwards Supporters Throw Support to Barack Obama

In that haul are three Super Delegates: David Price, Mel Watt, and G.K. Butterfield.

Not bad, and the day isn't over yet.

"I want the Iranians to know that... we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Now imagine if George W. Bush had said this. Would you have looked favorably on this message? Would you agree with it? Or would you think that George W. Bush was being a war-mongering republican?

"I want the Iranians to know that... we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Now imagine if George W. Bush had said this. Would you have looked favorably on this message? Would you agree with it? Or would you think that George W. Bush was being a war-mongering republican?

Did George and Hillary conspire beforehand about Ayers?

Daily Kos seems to think so.

Knitters across America heed Obama's call for service by knitting caps for preemies in Pennsylvania.

We are a diverse group of knitters and crocheters from all across the country (and beyond!) that decided to put our talents to good use by doing some charity knitting in honor of Senator Obama.

A quote:

They created a drive for handmade caps in tiny sizes – some only a few
inches in circumference --- to donate in Obama’s honor to Pennsylvania
hospitals that treat premature babies.  (Hats will be donated in other
states as enough are finished.)  Because preemie babies have trouble
maintaining their body temperature, they must be dressed especially
carefully, with an eye to warmth.  But because these infants are so
tiny, they often do not fit into regular-sized baby clothing.  Knitters
and crocheters can create perfectly-sized hats, ranging in
circumference from six to twelve inches, to fit these little heads.

You can find the group's fundraising website here.

My very first blog post here at TPM was about keeping my eyes on the prize. Namely, I had to come to grips with the fact that, even though my preferred candidate of choice was ahead in every metric, there was still a chance that Hillary Clinton could gain the nomination by convincing the super delegates to endorse her. I stand by my original statement, that even though I find her campaign tactics completely distasteful, I would still vote for her in November, because a  Clinton presidency is still better than a McCain presidency.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actually incredibly close as far as policy is concerned. Their environmental policies are almost identical, and they both earned a 100% score from Planned Parenthood for their pro-choice voting records (John McCain, on the other hand, received a 0%). While there are some differences, they are still extremely similar on health care, the economy, education, and pretty much every other category.

Which is why it is absolutely confusing to me that Democrats across the nation are now saying they would rather vote for John McCain if their preferred candidate does not get the nomination.

Really? Really?

This tactic of temper tantrum-based revenge voting will only hurt all of us in the long run. Can we afford another Bush-esque presidency because of some disappointment and hurt feelings? Is the person behind the message more important than the message itself?

Would you really want to make a career working behind the counter at McDonald's if you didn't get into your college of choice, instead of choosing another school that is just as good, but different?

Because that's what voting for McCain would entail: at least another four years of crappy work for crappy wages, instead of opportunities to move forward and become better as a nation.

I believe either of the Democratic candidates would give us those opportunities. McCain would just make us stink and wallow in self-loathing.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton Campaign Spokesperson, owns an equity interest in Glover Park Group, which signed a $40,000 per month contract with Colombia to promote the trade agreement Clinton has been campaigning against.

More information here.

The campaign of Hillary Clinton finally released her tax returns for the last 7 years.

They reported $109.2 million dollars income.

It will be interesting to dive into the details, that's for sure.

An interesting article on Yahoo! News about Clinton's remarks about Obama's electability. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_delegates

The Reverend Wright flap last month turned out to be a huge opportunity for Barack Obama. Individuals from all over the political spectrum announced their support for Obama and what he said in his speech, saying it was one of the most important speeches on race, ever.

While the far-right-wing pundits and the Clinton camp are still trying to keep the story alive, recent polls are showing that it had little negative effect on his campaign. Obama's speech brought different viewpoints to the forefront, making the country look at herself in the mirror in regards to race relations. As much as we would like to think that our country is blind to race, the stark reality shows it is not.

But America is also not blind to sexism. Hillary has spent a lot of time fighting the sexism in America (Drop Out and Bake Cookies, Iron My Shirts, and I hesitate to bring up her womanizing husband whom she has chosen to have a relationship with for over 30 years, but it does fit in the same narrative).

Hillary can put the misogyny and sexism issues to rest by giving a speech to the country, forcing us to look in the mirror in regards to sexism and gender. It can only help her campaign at this point. So why doesn't she do it? Why not speak out against sexism, and try to bring the country together instead of race-baiting the superdelegates with the Wright story?

Hillary is someone for whom I had a great amount of respect, until her campaign started throwing the kitchen sink (and anything else they could find) at Obama. I would really hope that she could rise above it and show that a strong woman candidate need not get nasty in order to win.

Of course it is...but it doesn't look like the Clinton campaign puts much priority on paying the insurance premiums for its campaign staffers.

<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html">Article here</a>.

Now, to be fair the benefits of her campaign employees and their families was never interrupted. However, the fact that it was one of the bills they didn't put at the top of their priority list, especially considering Clinton uses healthcare as one of the main reasons to vote for her, doesn't bode well.

It seems like the Clinton campaign is starting to implode due to mis-management. If she can't handle the finances of her campaign, how can she handle the finances of the country?