The Obama campaign, and the Democrat party itself, is awfully sensitive these days:

Democratic House leaders are calling out President Bush for a speech in Israel in which he seemed to suggest that Sen. Barack Obama wants the United States to "negotiate with terrorists."

In his speech, Bush said: “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."

The White House insists that Bush was "referring to a wide range of people, not any single person." But Obama's campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

If the shoe fits then wear it, and it seems that the shoe that Bush designed for the Democrats fits very well. The Democrats are not going to win over the electorate needed for a White House victory in the fall by crying like little babies whenever someone takes a political swipe at them. If they are going to cry foul, rather than address the substance of the attack, they are not likely to convince voters that they are deserving of having the White House back.

Oh, and note to Rahm Emmanuel: Many in your party have taken countless swipes at George W. Bush when he he has been overseas during his presidency.

Thomas Edsall:

*Praying for a devastating anti-Obama story -- Jeremiah Wright-Tony Rezko squared - to surface and turn the Illinois Senator into an unacceptable candidate in the eyes of the media and convention delegates. This is clearly a long-shot, and presumably her aides have no such story in reserve or it would have already seen the light of day.

*Convinced, correctly, that after running a lousy campaign she has finally hit her stride as reflected in her solid victories in Texas, Ohio and, on Tuesday, in West Virginia. These victories, in her eyes and in the eyes of many of her aides, demonstrate that Obama is an empty suit weighed down with general election liabilities that are only coming to light at the close of the nomination process.

*Psychically unable to accept defeat -- after first believing she was the anointed candidate, and then, after losing her superstar status, clawing her way back into contention in an extraordinary display of grit.

Heh:

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn, an Obama supporter, compared Clinton to the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction" -- a spurned woman turned stalker who was apparently drowned in a bathtub only to jump up one more time to be shot dead.

"Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career and needs to move to the next step, which is helping elect the Democratic nominee," Cohen said during a local TV interview.

Eugene Robinson:

Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

Hillary would still like everyone to believe that she has a fighting chance, but the almost universal belief this morning was that it is indeed over.

With Obama winning handily in North Carolina, and a nail biter in Indiana with a possible Obama shocker there, the options are running out for Hillary. Apparently, she has canceled her appearances on the morning shows in the morning, and has reportedly canceled public appearances.

Hillary has to ask herself what the rationale from here forward would be for her candidacy. It would certainly appear more so after tonight that the only thing she could hope to accomplish would be to damage Obama's chances against John McCain in November.

Stomping on the American flag.

Newsweek:

The outcome of this November's election may hinge on a single question: which presidential candidate will prevail among the "Reagan Democrats"? Those traditionally Democratic voters made history—and a place in the political lexicon—in 1980 when they bolted their party's disarrayed ranks to swing the polls in Ronald Reagan's favor. Until recently, however, few liberal-leaning historians took a respectful look at the Reagan phenomenon. That's finally changing, with the publication of Sean Wilentz's new "The Age of Reagan," even as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—and John McCain—seek the support of that crucial bloc. NEWSWEEK's Evan Thomas moderated a conversation about the Gipper between Wilentz, a professed liberal, and NEWSWEEK's George F. Will, a longtime Reagan admirer.

Read the rest here.

ABC is planning on having George Stephanopoulos host a Clinton "town hall" on Sunday. How could the network even think of having the guy who was so close to Clinton and her husband moderate this event? Appearances alone will be bad enough, but after the debacle of a debate that Stephanopoulos was involved in last month one would think ABC would get a clue and find another person to host her appearance.

But is this denunciation too late? The impression that he must have had knowledge of Wright's previous statements over the years, and that he has not been as candid with the American people as he should have been about the matter, has set in. Obama has set himself up for a much more difficult task now to repair the damage that has without doubt occurred to his campaign.

Barack Obama just doesn't believe that ordinary people should be able to use guns:

S-T: As a state legislator, you voted against a bill which would let people with orders of protection [against others] carry guns and another that would have barred municipalities from punishing people who kept guns in their homes. Why?

B.O.: I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

S-T: But you don't want to take a stand on the D.C. gun-ban law?

B.O.: I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons hasn't made anyone safer? Really? Obama should come down from his elitist pedestal and talk to the many, many people in this country who have - with a firearm - successfully warded off someone intending to do them grave physical harm.

Then Sen. Obama might want to visit this site for further information.

This comment by Obama is about the most nonsensical one that I've heard come out of his mouth.

I suspect he's not the only one:

A decision by the Bush Administration to release information Thursday about a suspected Syrian nuclear facility — known about for more than a year but withheld from Congress — has angered U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland.

“They can’t have an imperial presidency. That’s wrong,” Hoekstra, the ranking Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Ludington Daily News this morning.

What he’s most upset about is the administration’s resistance until Thursday to brief the full House and Senate intelligence committees in the aftermath of a September airstrike by the Israelis against the Syrian facility linked to nuclear development.

Despite the heavy spin coming from her campaign, little changed for Hillary on Tuesday:

Pennsylvania voters Tuesday gave Hillary Rodham Clinton every reason to continue her campaign for president.

But they did not present any definitive new evidence that would compel Democratic Party elders to step in and anoint Clinton as their White House nominee, particularly when Barack Obama continues to lead in the overall delegate count and in the popular vote.

Instead, despite a grueling and often bitter campaign, Clinton's victory Tuesday left in play the same questions that remained seven weeks ago after her 10-point victory in Ohio, another large and politically important industrial state.

What does it portend for the fall campaign that Obama is not winning working-class whites, a crucial swing voting bloc, in the Democratic primaries? Or that he has lost most of the biggest states to Clinton?

How much credit should the party elders -- the superdelegates who are expected to select the nominee by providing the final votes needed for victory -- give Obama for drawing new voters to the polls? Or for energizing younger voters and for spurring massive turnout among African Americans?

Should party leaders worry that Clinton has been all but shut out of the black vote?

The big-state primary in Pennsylvania failed to bring clarity. Now, while a muddled Democratic nominating process enters its fifth month of voting, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is building his fall campaign, embarking this week on a tour of economically disadvantaged areas that is designed to attract the same working-class voters so coveted by the Democrats.

"She can't win but won't quit," Democratic strategist Jim Jordan said of Clinton. Obama, he said, "is going to win but can't close it out. And meanwhile, McCain skates on, unmolested."

Fox is projecting that Hillary has won it.

More bad news for Hillary, as Robert Reich appears poised to endorse Barack Obama:

The endorsement in question is that of Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor and a friend of both the former president and his wife for four decades. Around 1 p.m. EST, Reich informs me, he intends formally to declare his support for Obama on his blog.

Now, in one sense, the Reich endorsement comes as no great surprise. For some time, it's been clear to anyone paying attention that Reich favors Obama. Back in December, in a blog post titled "Why is HRC Stooping So Low?," Reich loudly and sharply criticized Clinton's conduct in Iowa and defended Obama's proposals for health-care and Social Security reform. Two days before the race-charged South Carolina primary, he assailed Bill Clinton's "ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks" on Obama, arguing that they were "doing no credit to the former president, his legacy, or his wife's campaign." And all throughout the primary season, he has spoken and written of Obama's candidacy with evident admiration and enthusiasm.