Somebody pointing a gun at Barack Obama—hilarious!

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee—who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain—joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“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.”

I’m running to become a 7th Congressional District national delegate for Obama tomorrow. I’ve been working my butt off for SIFF for the last few week and haven’t had much of a chance to campaign, so I don’t rate my chances very highly.

But what chance I do have is largely due to you, Slog politics junkies, and I thank you. (Even you, Big Sven—I love wrasslin’ in the comments.) Has this primary been fun or what?

You Know What I Like About Obama?

The Feminist Case Against Hillary Clinton.

Wishin’… and Hopin’… and Behavioral Economics.

Why Erica is (Mostly) Wrong on Barack Obama.

OK, Now Hillary’s Pissing Me Off.

Good to Know.

Caucus Potus.

Caucus!.

… and, of course, The Stranger’s endorsement (which I cowrote with HRC fan Josh Feit) way back in January.

If I’m elected as a national delegate, I will, of course, be Slogging from the convention and probably writing a longer piece about my experience. You guys benefit, too—so beam me lucky thoughts!

Here’s the video of Obama swinging back today. (And wearing a flag pin!) Among other things, his speech seems intended as a stark contrast to the way in which John Kerry handled attacks on his fitness to be Commander in Chief:

Responding the attacks of yesterday (which some were calling an attempted long-distance swift-boating by the president), Obama told a town hall meeting in South Dakota:

That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and that alienates us from the world, and that’s why we need change in Washington.

More, including charges that McCain is being a hypocrite on Hamas, here and here.

And here’s the tape of McCain calling for, uh… talks with Hamas:

…on live TV during last night’s Hardball. As Huffington Post’s Jason Linkins eloquently explains, “host Chris Matthews took up President Bush’s pointed attack on the Democrats in the Knesset, asking if Bush was ‘out of line.’ Radio talk-show host Kevin James didn’t think so, saying-and I’m paraphrasing-‘RRRRAAAAAHHHH! OBAMA BLAAAAHHHH! HAMAS LOVES BARACK, YAAAAHHHH!’”

Then Chris Matthews proceeds to beat Kevin James like that pinata full of shit that he is. Enjoy.

Via Ben Smith:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Clinton defends Obama and slams Bush’s attack, saying:

President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially 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 celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

The Obama interview in Willamette Week.

Would you stop the DEA’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers?

I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science, and if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something that I think we should consider.

Seems an innocuous enough answer: He’ll stop the raids on sick people, but he won’t “support” medical marijuana until it goes through the same rigors as pharmaceuticals. (Not that there isn’t a ton of evidence already.) Of course, that’s a cop-out response because he’s not promising to stop prosecutions and the government usually won’t fund or allow “sound” research on the schedule-one drug. In the meantime, he says, we have higher priorities. Here’s the RNC’s retort…

Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?

Gee, RNC, it seems like Obama agrees with the current Republican administration: After 9/11, the federal government overhauled priorities for the FBI—federal agents—directing resources away from certain domestic crimes and toward terrorism.

But there’s no question that the GOP has pulled an about-face on terrorism before. The real question is this: Given the public support for medical pot in swing states, will McCain try to muzzle the RNC on the medical-marijuana issue before November?

More “campaign ads candidates wish they could run” here.

NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday has unleashed a massive shitstorm among other pro-choice groups and within the organization itself from folks who feel betrayed by the national group’s preemptive support of a candidate whose voting record on reproductive rights has been nearly identical to his Democratic opponent’s (the main substantive difference being that Clinton has been far more pro-active in sponsoring pro-choice legislation.)

Indeed, NARAL has consistently given both Clinton and Obama 100 percent ratings on issues relating to reproductive rights—prompting reproductive-rights advocates to wonder: Why divide the pro-choice and alienate Clinton supporters? Why not let the nomination process play out and, assuming Obama becomes the official nominee, endorse him then?

The alternative path certainly hasn’t won NARAL any fans.

Ellen Malcolm, of EMILY’s List, issued a statement calling it “tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton — who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade — to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

The National Women’s Political Caucus, meanwhile, issued a statement saying they were “disappointed” in the endorsement, adding, “We believe that this announcement at this time will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.”

And in swing states around the country, NARAL affiliates representing a quarter of NARAL’s state chapters have already condemned the endorsement, which NARAL made without consulting its affiliates.

In Oregon, statewide NARAL director Michele Stranger Hunter said her group was “proud to have two strongly pro-choice candidates running for President. And we look forward to supporting whoever the nominee will be and are committed to defeating Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in November.”

NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri went further, conducting robo-calls across the state to clarify that the Missouri branch of NARAL has endorsed neither Clinton nor Obama. “In our membership demographic, a lot of longtime women’s rights supporters are strong supporters of Hillary Clinton,” Missouri NARAL director Pamela Sumners told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “If we had been consulted, we would have said, ‘Let this play out. We have two strong pro-choice candidates” in Obama and Clinton.

In New York and Pennsylvania, the statewide NARAL groups issued nearly identical statements calling the decision—”made internally by NARAL Pro-Choice America, based in Washington D.C., and without the consultation of the NARAL state affiliates across the country,” as both statements put it— “premature.”

And here in Washington State, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington director Karen Cooper called the endorsement “an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton, adding, “Time and again, both Sens. Clinton and Obama have stood up for the right to privacy and the right to choose. American women would be well-served by either Clinton or Obama in the Oval Office.”

Endorsing Obama now is hardly a bold move by NARAL Pro-Choice America (unlike, say, endorsing Joe Lieberman), which has never had anything but kind words to say about both Democratic primary candidates. By endorsing now, NARAL could alienate a substantial portion of their membership—a risky move at a time when the distinction between Democrats and Republicans on reproductive rights couldn’t be more obvious.

The last undeclared superdelegate in our Congressional delegation makes his preference known:

I am proud to endorse Barack Obama today, because I believe he will bring us together to achieve the kind of change we need in this country moving forward.

As Democrats, we are fortunate to have two very talented public servants running to be the nominee of our party, and I have great respect for Senator Clinton. But I believe now is the time to unite behind Barack Obama so we can be in the strongest place possible to win in November.

Barack Obama has chosen to spend his career speaking out for those who need a voice and reaching across the aisle to bring change that matters in the lives of working families. I am confident that as president, Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq and bring our sons and daughters home, he will make universal health care a reality and he will restore our moral standing in the world.

Barack Obama won the race in my home state by an overwhelming margin and I am thankful that so many new voters have become engaged because of the kind of campaign he has run, and I am happy to support him today.

Agitated? Irritable? Hostile? Aggressive? Impulsive? Restless?

House Republicans may be heading off a cliff in November, but give them credit for perseverance. Even after the new slogan they floated — “The Change You Deserve” — was discovered to be trademarked ad copy for the antidepressant drug Effexor, GOP leaders decided to go with the rollout anyway.

Good point.

Getting ready for work this morning I channel surfed between CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, and FNC, and I heard no fewer than six talking heads refer to Obama as “African American” AKA black, and potentially “the first African American” president…

By completely ignoring the fact that Obama is half white, when discussing voters’ feelings about his ethnicity, the media is perpetrating a fraud on the news consumer and buying into to the racial hype… He is half of both. So if my better-paid peers insist on continuing to refer to him as the black candidate, instead of a biracial candidate—on those occasions when his appearance is relevant to the conversation—then I am going to have to start referring to him as the white candidate.

(H/t.)

Just watched a livestream of John Edwards endorsing Barack Obama.

First thoughts: Edwards could have talked about himself a little less and the crowd in Michigan could have booed Clinton a lot less.

Also, I don’t know that I saw a natural pairing when these two were on the stage together. It didn’t look as if Edwards was really enjoying sharing the stage, for one thing, and more importantly hearing them both speak one after another reminded me how similar their core messages are—both talk about uniting America, getting beyond old divisions, changing the way politics is played in Washington, etc.

In terms of a potential VP, it’s of course not bad to have someone who sounds a lot like you. But Obama could really benefit from someone who supplements his message and fills in some of his perceived voids. A gritty realist with military experience might be a nice compliment to the beloved messenger of hope, for example.

Here’s the sound-bite:

No. That’s not the ticket. This is.

Yay First Congressional District of Mississippi. That’s up north, around Tupelo.
You guys rock. Yay Travis Childers.
You guys are great Democrats.
Welcome to the party.
Yay.

Back on March 11, when 1st District counties like Itiwamba went 80 percent Clinton, you guys were ill-informed racist hicks, but hey, all is forgotten. Yay for voting for Childers and his “Mississippi Democrat” strategy.

God, Democrats are such hypocrites.

Via HuffingtonPost:

The Obama campaign has announced a “major national endorsement” for a rally tonight at 7pm in Michigan, and the rumor mill is swirling that it is none other than Sen. John Edwards.

That’s 4 p.m. Pacific time. Check back in to see what happens, but this would indeed be a good day for Obama, facing continuing questions about his ability to attract working class whites, to get the backing of a good ol’ boy like Edwards.

UPDATE: The New York Times confirms: Edwards will endorse Obama.

ALSO: NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Obama earlier today.

The piece opens auspiciously with the line:

LUIS SALGADO will forever see Hillary Clinton on his thigh.

This raises all kinds of hope for where this story may go next, but then it just turns out that some guy in Philadelphia is giving out free tattoos of Hillary Clinton.

Salgado, 28, owner of the Ill Skillz (4948 N. 5th) tattoo parlor just got a portrait of Clinton inked on his leg at a tattoo convention in Baltimore.

Artist Buffalo Bill, of Sunbury, offered a free Hillary tattoo to any takers because his daughter Sarah Taby is a big Clinton supporter and thought the tattoo would give Clinton good exposure…

“Hell, yeah,” Salgado says, when we asked if he voted for Clinton recently.

As for the tattoo itself?

That’s pretty cool, but it’s nothing compared to the full portrait of Dennis Kucinich, riding a winged horse and battling a dragon, that I’m considering having done on my back.

Wait a minute, Josh.

As Charles has pointed out, the difference between the outcome in West Virginia last night and the outcome in Mississippi last night may have far less to do with white voters than with black voters—meaning, the relative presence or absence of black voters in a given state.

In West Virginia, the number of black voters was so negligible that the exit polls didn’t even have a big enough sample of black voters to allow for a projection of which way blacks had voted. In Mississippi, black turnout was high and black voters seem to have helped the Democratic congressional challenger win his surprising victory.

So the lesson here is not to be found in comparing the white demographics of West Virginia with the white demographics of Mississippi, finding that they’re similar, and then trying to call liberals out on some sort of hypocrisy for liking the result in Mississippi and not liking the result in West Virginia.

The lesson is to be found in comparing the black demographics of each state. Blacks make up about 40 percent of the population in Mississippi. They make up just over 3 percent of the population in West Virginia. It’s a telling difference.

It suggests that a major difference between the working-class white Democrats in West Virginia and the working-class white Democrats in Mississippi is that one group has had far more day-to-day interaction with non-whites and is therefore much less apt to be scared by campaign messages playing to fears of an “other” and casting Obama as out of step with American values (as happened in both the Mississippi contest, in which Republicans tried unsuccessfully to sink the Democrat by tying him to Obama, and the West Virginia contest, in which many white voters had clearly been reached by messages telling them Obama was a Muslim, unpatriotic, etc).

As Josh noted earlier today, something very odd happened: While Obama suffered an absolutely brutal loss in West Virginia last night, the Democrats went on to win a congressional seat in rural Mississippi that has been in Republican hands since 1994—and more specifically, a seat where the Republicans used the specter of Obama and his mad, America-hating pastor to try to drag down the Democratic candidate.

When combined with Obama’s win in Nebraska last night (a contest that’s a mirror image of Washington’s system, wherein the caucus is king and the primary is a beauty contest), it kind of raises a question:

What’s so different between rural, white America in West Virginia and the same rural white voters in Nebraska and Mississippi?

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo attempts to explain the historical context of Appalachian politics, and why the first black president will probably never be a popular concept there. I’m only able to post a portion of it (and it’s a pretty long piece), but here’s the crux:

These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that’s where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.

As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the linchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant.

This is history. But it shapes the region. It’s overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations.

This map has been floating around the lefty-end of the blog world, giving a pre-West Virginia breakdown of counties where Hillary has beaten Obama by over 65% of the vote. Other than her strongholds in Hispanic-dominated areas and her well known popularity in upstate New York, the map almost geographically matches the spine of the Appalachian mountains:

That’s probably as good a guess as any for whats going on, or at the very least a step up from the hallowed argument: ‘They’re Slackjawed Klansmen vs. Obama Doesn’t Understand The Tender Sensibilities of Jug Band Aficionados.’