Hamilton is one of the Dems that the media actually likes. This will help Obama immensely with them.

Meanwhile: I'd post this in Joan Walsh's thread, but that's closed, so I'm hoping somebody important sees it here:

Hard on the heels of Rove tool Viveca Novak's (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020016) oily anti-Obama "fact-check", we have Elizabeth Edwards getting up from her sickbed to go onto two morning talk-shows (so far) to, among other things, debunk a slander.

Elizabeth Edwards said today, on both the Today show (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23914511#23914511) and Morning Joe (video not available yet), that the New York article Joan Walsh and others have cited saying that the Edwards weren't endorsing Obama because he "turned them off" is a big fat lie. As in false, untrue, bogus.

Somebody tell Ms. Walsh.

Elizabeth Edwards said so this morning on the Today show (about a minute from the end of the video clip):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23914511#23914511

She also said so on Morning Joe to Joe Scarborough. The video's not up for that yet, otherwise I'd be posting the link.

Will Joan Walsh bother to notice?

Again, Elizabeth Edwards went onto the Today Show and Joe Scarborough's program this morning to go after John McCain's health-care plan -- and in the course of doing so debunked the NY piece that claimed that the Edwards weren't endorsing Obama because he allegedly was "condescending".

Here's the Scarborough video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23914511#23919149

Here's the Today video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23914511#23914511

In both cases the debunkings of the NY article are about a minute before the end of each clip.

Harold Ickes was a Teddy Kennedy buddy and one of the people who pushed Teddy to run against Jimmy Carter -- a sitting president in his own party -- in 1980.

They did this even after Carter had said that he was going to spend his time not campaigning, but dealing with the hostage crisis, which we would later find was artificially prolonged by the GOP (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html) much in the same way that Nixon sent Anna Chan Chennault to Paris in 1968 to make sure the peace talks didn't go anywhere (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080900-01.htm). The resulting endorsement chaos ripped the Democrats to shreds, allowing Reagan to waltz into the Oval Office in November.

Now Teddy Kennedy has learned his lesson. But Harold Ickes hasn't learned his.

Thomas Schaller points out that while black voters in the South are highly motivated to vote for Democrats, they are outnumbered by white voters who will vote for Republicans. However, black voters outside the South haven't been as highly motivated -- until this year, when Obama's candidacy got them to register and to attend caucuses.

Compare the sheer number of Democratic primary voters to Republican primary voters so far nationwide. Usually, Republicans have been much more into their primaries; this year, it's the other way around, even in Republican strongholds. And high primary turnout means really high general-election turnout.

The whole point, as Jon Stewart showed the other day on The Daily Show (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10135), is to attack Obama as THE EVIL GAY ELITIST BLACK MUSLIM FAKE CHRISTIAN DUDE (oh and did we mention he's GAY?!).

Read the transcript of last night's travesty (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) and compare it to the questions asked at YearlyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/17/137/77602/978/497346) last year. The Kossacks put the "journalists" to shame.

This is not going to be the case, to put it mildly.

Even the NYT, which endorsed Clinton in January, is allowing this bit of reality into its pages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/politics/24clinton.html

Exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.

According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.

And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women.

As was noted over at Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/4/24/01354/9055/67#c67):

People are voting for their favorite dessert in the primary between brownies and chocolate chip cookies. Chocolate chip cookies wins. In the general the choice comes down to chocolate chip cookies and broccoli (i.e., the Republican). Hillary Clinton is claiming that those who voted for brownies in the primary will choose broccoli in the general because they "rejected" chocolate chip cookies.

(H/t to Steven R: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/01354/9055/201/502207)