Gotta wonder what happened to Mike Huckabee. At his peak, he was one of the most politically savvy candidates running in either party, always at the ready with a clever quip that made you chuckle. Not so his disturbing quip today during his speech at the NRA, referring to a bang heard in the background:

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

It's actually really disturbing to watch because you have the sense that he knows it was a stupid thing to say; there's this really long uncomfortable pause after he says it as though he was trying to think of a way to retract it but just couldn't think of one.

Watch it below:

Jeffrey Feldman, whose new book, Outright Barbarous, explores the right's tendency to evoke violent language in a political context, reminds us that this isn't the first time Huckabee has joked about shooting a presidential candidate. Last year, on a hunting trip, Huckabee joked about shooting Mitt Romney. That at least had the benefit of context, although, obviously, it was still really twisted. The only context here was the fact that Huck was speaking at the NRA, even though, as Ben Smith notes, the joke was even off their message. I have to agree with Feldman that Huckabee should face consequences.

For joking about the assassination of Sen. Obama, Mike Huckabee should be removed from the rosters of all the various cable and network stations on which he regularly appears.

Of course, perhaps Huck already has. This episode probably single-handedly disqualified him from being McCain's VP, or at least it gave McCain the excuse he needed to cross him off his list.

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the race, there's been speculation about what his role would be in a Democratic administration, if any. VP? No way. My thinking for months has been that he'd never want to go there again but even if he did, he brought so little to the ticket in 04 why would the nominee want to pick him this year? So, what then? My response has always been: Attorney General. What better job for a man who holds social justice as the cause of his life?

Looks like Edwards may feel the same.

When asked whether he'd want to be Vice President, Edwards was surprisingly emphatic:

"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen....It's just not something I am interested in."

But when asked whether he'd be interested in Attorney General, he began to play coy.

"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we'll worry about those things."

John Edwards is not good at playing these games. Remember when he was on MSNBC recently, he was asked who he voted for and even as he said he wouldn't reveal it, he accidentally used the pronoun "him" referring to his candidate preference. So, I have to take this as an indication that he does want AG and in fact, I suspect, he's probably been in talks with both Democrats about that very role. He'd be perfect for it and what a change it would be after the jokers who've held the position these past few years. Not only that, but as Bowers points out:

While there were some who thought he was overly messianic in his anti-corporate campaign rhetoric (people like positive messages), that strikes me as exactly the attitude we need from an Attorney General.

Barack Obama has said for months that he "looks forward to having that debate with John McCain", usually referring to issues where Democrats are perceived as weaker than Republicans. In this video clip (h/t TPM) Obama responds to George Bush's "appeasement" attack yesterday and John McCain's embrace of it and in so doing signals clearly that the debate on foreign policy is on. I have to say, watching this, that I'm starting to believe that in Obama's hands, we really can finally win this debate.

Today on Hardball, there was more fawning over how great John Edwards and Barack Obama looked on the stage together yesterday, the point, of course, being that they're a ticket made in heaven. I have to agree they did look great but so did John Kerry and John Edwards four years ago and we all know how well that worked out. The truth is, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton looked perfect together too once upon a time, but the quintessential Dream Ticket image of them standing on the stage together after the Los Angeles debate has been overshadowed by the tension of the race between them that's ensued since then, not to mention the most recent debate, which was anything but a showcase of unity.

But in the minds of these talking heads who seem to have written off an Obama/Clinton ticket but now see Obama/Edwards as the key to Democratic victory in the fall, the perfection of Edwards extends beyond aesthetics. On Hardball today it was suggested by one guest that Edwards was a perfect match for Obama because he could be the bridge between Obama and those elusive white working class voters. It's ironic, of course, that Edwards's endorsement would prompt this discussion since Edwards had cited his concern over the white working class narrative that had emerged post-West Virginia as one of the reasons he chose yesterday to endorse. But my real point here is that in fact, as great a guy and a candidate John Edwards is and was, he has in no way demonstrated that he would somehow be the key to the white working class vote.

Poblano has the goods. He begins:

It seems to be taken for granted that John Edwards had some stranglehold on the working class white vote. But this was not really the case. The working class vote was not a particular strength of John Edwards in either relative or absolute terms.

As evidence, he breaks down how all three candidates performed in the first 5 contests -- through Florida after which Edwards dropped out -- on several measures in an attempt to gauge white working class support. Poblano concludes:

Firstly, John Edwards actually performed slightly better among voters making more than $50,000 per year than among those making less.

Secondly, while we only have this data available in three states, there was no real difference in the education levels of Edwards supporters.

Thirdly, in every state where we have data available, Barack Obama performed significantly better than Edwards among voters making less than $50,000 per year, and among voters who did not attend college. This held true in racially mixed states like Florida, as well as extremely white states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fourthly, in every state where we have data available, Hillary Clinton performed significantly better than Edwards among voters making less than $50,000 per year, and among voters who did not attend college.

Now, as Poblano correctly states, this is not to in any way disparage John Edwards but rather just to point out that if it's white working class voters you want, there's just no evidence that John Edwards would deliver them. In fact, Hillary Clinton didn't exactly blow Obama away on this measure either that early in the game but as we've seen in the most recent contests, the game has changed.

Today, David Brock announced what is essentially the death of Progressive Media USA:

"Progressive Media was established to be an independent on-going progressive issue advocacy organization," Brock added. "We were not established for one issue, one candidate or one election cycle. But donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."

This is creepy because of the apparent cause.  During a meeting in early May, Obama's finance chair told big donors flat out not to support independent groups.  

more...

As Bush's disastrous tenure as president winds down, we've seen him devolve into a bizarre, almost court jester-like persona.  He's really not even trying anymore, and the more obvious that has become, the further his approval ratings have continued to plummet. But perhaps in a new low for Bush, demonstrating that he truly has no shame and has absolutely no interest in salvaging any ounce of dignity from his final year in office -- and indeed that he intends to play bad cop in the general election -- Mr. 27%, on a trip to Israel to celebrate the nation's 60th anniversary, took the opportunity in his speech to liken Obama to Nazi appeasers.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

And in case you were wondering if he was being ambiguous, while he may not have named Obama by name...

White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

Imagine for a moment a Democratic president criticizing the foreign policy of a Republican presidential candidate on foreign soil, let alone going to Israel to draw a Nazi comparison. Oh, right, my bad, it's OK if you're a Republican...

But in case anyone feared Obama intends to let himself be swiftboated, Obama hit back fast.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel...."

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.

As did Howard Dean:

"On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America's greatest allies. Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible."

2008 is going to be ugly. Not only is Bush in his last throes -- desperate for relevancy to the point of not caring -- so is the entire Republican Party. This sort of attack, which harkens back to their 2004 campaign, is, of course, all they have and we can expect plenty more over the course of the rest of the year. They really don't seem to get that this shit doesn't work anymore. The country has moved on.

Update [2008-5-15 16:4:5 by Todd Beeton]:Joe Biden gets the prize for best response:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”

Biden noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both suggested that the United States ought to find a way to talk more with its enemies.

"If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?”

Message: we will not be swiftboated.

Update [2008-5-15 16:17:37 by Todd Beeton]:And Hillary Clinton responds, via CNN:

"Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous. In light of his failures in foreign policy, this is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced."

I'd mentioned earlier in the Edwards endorsement speech thread, that John Edwards currently has 19 delegates that may, but don't have to, go to Obama. DemConWatch clarifies:

So how many Edwards delegates are there? Four from New Hampshire, 8 from South Carolina, and 4 so far from Iowa.

With the help of Ben Smith, DemConWatch identifies 13 of the 16. But what about the other 3?

The DCW tracker shows Edwards with 19 delegates. Why the difference? It's because Edwards is projected by The Green Papers to get 3 state-wide delegates at the Iowa State Convention on June 14. But as we learned at the Iowa Congressional District Conventions in April, these delegate projections are only estimates. And it's difficult to see the Edwards forces holding together in June. (assuming the race is still going on then). So those final 3 delegates will likely get reassigned to other candidates, leaving Edwards with the 16 delegates described above.

Edwards also has 13 delegates out of Florida whose fate we will know after the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting on the 31st.

Now, as for the extent to which Edwards's delegates are now compelled to vote for Obama:

...from a political and practical viewpoint, pledged delegates will keep their pledge to vote for the candidate they were elected for until "released" by that candidate. By endorsing Obama, Edwards finally ended his campaign, which had been "suspended" up to now, and "released" his delegates to vote for the candidate of their choice. Of course, these delegates may decide to follow their original candidate and support Obama, and Edwards will of course be contacting them to urge them to support Obama.

In other words, as of now, they are essentially unpledged delegates akin to the supers. The likelihood is, of course, that they'll declare for Obama.

In fact at least one already has.

Today's Quinnipiac University National poll is the second poll in a row showing a majority of Democrats favoring an Obama/Clinton ticket.

By a 60 - 33 percent margin, Democrats say Obama should pick Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.

That's almost 2 to 1 among a group that prefers Obama to Clinton for the nomination by a slim 45-41 margin.

It should be noted too that the poll finds that either Obama or Clinton at the top of the ticket would defeat McCain in November, Obama by 7 points, Clinton by 5.

Interestingly, Quinnipiac finds that Clinton and Obama perform quite similarly against McCain among white voters, among men and among women. The real difference between how each Democrat fares against John McCain comes among groups with whom Obama has traditionally held more appeal. In other words, when up against John McCain, Barack is stronger among Hillary's base than Hillary is among his.

In an Obama-McCain matchup, independent voters back the Democrat 48 - 37 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. Men split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama, while women back Obama 49 - 36 percent. McCain leads 47 - 40 percent among white voters, while blacks back Obama 87 - 4 percent.

In a Clinton-McCain contest, independent voters split with 41 - 41 percent. Men go with McCain 46 - 42 percent while women back Clinton 51 - 36 percent. White voters back McCain 48 - 41 percent, the same margin as the Obama-McCain matchup, while black voters back Clinton 79 - 8 percent.

What I find most remarkable about these results is how close this contest is still. The poll was taken from May 8-12 in the wake of the results of last Tuesday's primaries, indeed, at the height of the post-IN & NC "it's over" talk. Yet Obama is up only 4 points above Clinton for the nomination and only fares 2 points better against McCain. It really shows you not only how popular Hillary Clinton is but also how solid her support continues to be and it really begs the question does Barack Obama want to expand the map and have a landslide victory in the fall as he has said he does or is he content to risk simply winning with 50+1? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, more and more I'm convinced that if we're really going to accomplish the former, finally, Hillary Clinton must be on the ticket.

Update [2008-5-14 21:11:59 by Todd Beeton]:I wanted to add that it's also striking how at odds the will of the voters is with conventional punditry. Not only does a majority of Democrats want Obama to pick Clinton for VP, which itself contradicts the "it'll never happen" chorus from the talking heads on the teevee, but there's also this result from the poll:

"Party leaders may be cringing over the potential damage to Democratic chances in November from the endless primary campaign, but two-thirds of the rank-and-file think Clinton ought to keep battling," Carroll added.