From Fox News:

The Sunday Telegraph reported that the Obama campaign is working up a "negotiated surrender" that would amount to Clinton's rapid departure in exchange for a post as health and human services secretary in an Obama administration or chief Senate sponsor for Obama-backed health care legislation.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/01/ report-obama-camp-may-offer-clinton-a-ca binet-seat/

It has been a remarkable switch. Early on in the campaign, when Hillary held double digit leads in the national polls, conservative commentators took every opportunity to trash Hillary, often unjustly. When Obama won Iowa, the republican pundits were overjoyed. Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, for example, were practically gushing when Clinton's campaign was supposedly on the brink of collapsing just before New Hampshire. They were taking every opportunity to pounce on Hillary and Bill for any alleged playing of the race card or any other misteps, and often sung Obama's praises. I was half expecting Joe to faint!

Then Super Tuesday came. Then Obama's string of primary wins came.

Now, Joe Scarborough sounds like Howard Wolfson each morning when speaking of Hillary Clinton. If you tune your TV into any of the major cable news networks, you will find that virtually ALL republican/conservative pundits are now singing a very pro-Hillary tune.

Why is this the case? Why are so many people who have been strongly anti-Clinton for so many years all of a sudden cheering her on?

Could it be a motive similar to Limbaugh's (prolonging the nasty battle and damaging Obama before the GE)?

Is it that conservatives want to run against Hillary now?

Are they finally realizing just how great the Clintons are? (lol)

Sen. Arlen Specter has just announced that his cancer, an advanced form of Hodgkin's lymphoma, has returned.

I think I speak for all of myDD when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with him.

He's always been one of my favourite senators, even though he's batting for the wrong team.

Get well soon, Arlen.

Hillary Clinton did not hold back words when asked about the latest  controversy surrounding the current front runner for the Democratic Party's nomination, John Edwards, at a campaign stop in Bristol, Pennsylvania last night.

"John Edwards' decision to pay $400 for a haircut smacks of liberal elitism.", Clinton told the jubilant crowd, "If John Edwards thinks that the average Pennsylvanian is going to spend $400 in a trendy hair salon, it is pretty clear that he is out of touch with Pennsylvanian voters".

Clinton had made an appearance at a local discount hair salon the day before where she received a haircut and shampoo, and paid $8 for the services. While her hair was being cut by the stylist, Clinton remarked that when she had been a little girl, her grandfather used to cut her hair "for free".

The Clinton campaign is expected to release a new TV ad depicting  angry Pennsylvania voters reacting to the news about John Edwards' pricey salon visits.

Edwards's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

A spokeswoman for Edwards' campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

UPDATE: You guys DO realize that this is snark, right?

This video, courtesy of TalkingPointsMemo sheds some light on how Obama really views rural America.

Are we, as Democrats, going to disagree with this analysis?

I think the whole issue is Obama's unwise use of the term "cling" without qualifying it by saying that they are only clinging to those issues in the voting booth.

Obama didn't mean to imply that people cling to religion, or develop a fondness for guns when they are economically disadvantaged. He was talking about how many poor people consistently vote against their economic interest (Republican) because Republicans have been so effective at making the elections about  things like gay marriage, gun control, and religion.

It's why Democrats lose elections that they should easily win. Clinton, for piling onto Obama over this and making it a big story...is doing the GOP's work for them once again.

...sigh....and I thought the Democrats might just win this one.

Silly me.

Despite not having a path to the nomination that doesn't involve injuring the party, and having no chance in catching Obama in pledged delegates, her insistence that she will still win is indeed very Veruca Salt-like.

I just cooked this little video up myself last night. Hope you get a few laughs out of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXXz-1VfS GQ

I'd be very interested to hear a knowledgeable Clinton supporter outline a plausible scenario where Clinton can win and the party as a whole does not lose.