GORE CLIMBS ABOARD OBAMA EXPRESS

Al Gore has endorsed Barack Obama for POTUS. Other than asking for donations to Obama's presidential candidacy, this is all he says:

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.
...
Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.

With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.
...
On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president and it begins by making a contribution to his campaign today.

Pretty tepid, wouldn't you say?

WHERE'S ELIZABETH EDWARDS?

I don't know why I should feel disillusioned because John Edwards endorsed Obama. I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the race (because of his anti-poverty campaign, largely), but I wasn't heartbroken when he did because I was already getting, via the debates, the sense that Hillary had a broader, better-thought-out agenda. And to tell the truth, the smell of sexism and the "good ole boys club" was starting to bother me. And now Edwards' end-game endorsement of Obama smacks of more of the WWTSBQ? activity than a true meeting of the minds.

Still, it's a disappointment. I thought better of him. Obama has done nothing to indicate that fighting poverty is a priority for him, and from what I can tell from his resume and his books, he’s done about zero for poor people in his life. For crying out loud, he didn’t even take care of his own constituents who were freezing in his pal Tony Rezko’s tenements!

Sure would be nice if Elizabeth would endorse Hill. She was noticeably absent from the stage during the endorsement announcement. She's a smart, pragmatic feminist that has much in common with HRC and has stated that she prefers Hillary's healthcare proposal to Obama's. John even indicated on Morning Joe last week that he and Elizabeth had voted differently, which I take to mean she voted for Hill.

NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR TO ENDORSE HILLARY

This is good news for Hillary's chances in North Carolina.

A former state attorney general, Easley has focused largely on education programs during his eight-year tenure. He's called on both of the presidential candidates to talk more about he issue.

"Gov. Easley understands that education and a good economy are intertwined, and he understands that more than anyone else in the country," Hendrickson said.

Two week ago, Easley wrote a note to Obama imploring the Illinois senator to take part in a debate that would have taken place Sunday in Raleigh. Obama declined, saying he wasn't sure it would fit with his schedule, and the state Democratic Party later abandoned the debate plans.

Easley is a moderate Democrat, a popular two-term governor. The only thing better, in North Carolina, would be an endorsement from John Edwards.

What with this endorsement and the fallout from the Wright media blitz, not to mention his own missteps in the Chris Wallace interview yesterday, Obama may want to reconsider his debate boycott.

U OF PA STUDENT NEWSPAPER ENDORSES HILLARY

The "independent student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania" has chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton over Obama. They demonstrate great good sense in their editorial explaining why they made their choice.

We want to believe that Sen. Barack Obama can accomplish all he promises. His soaring rhetoric and compelling vision have inspired us and many other students.

But while Obama's charisma far outshines that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, her public service, political experience and tenacity tell us not only "Yes we can" but also "How we can." As such, we endorse Clinton for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

Our endorsement is not a rejection of Obama's leadership qualities. But choosing the president of the United States is too important a decision to make based on hope alone. After finishing his term in the Senate and better showing us what he can do for the American people, Obama could one day be a remarkable president.

Clinton, on the other hand, is ready to lead this nation now. A successful champion for change, her experience in the Senate and as first lady gives her a better understanding of how Washington works. She has the ability to turn policy into reality. And her mastery of causes central to the Democratic Party's platform makes her better suited to challenge presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

Take her leadership on health-care issues. In 1993, then-first lady Clinton urged America to embrace universal health care during her keynote speech at Penn's commencement. Unfortunately, she was far ahead of the times. Her proposal was met with fierce resistance and ultimately rejected.

Refusing to give up, Clinton helped to expand children's health insurance in the late 90's instead. More than a decade later, her new policies - and the concept of universal health care itself - enjoy wider support because of her past work. Indeed, of all the candidates still in the race, she offers the most comprehensive health care proposal. And as with most of her plans, she also has a way to fund it.

Some doubt Clinton's ability to bring the country together. But, in New York, her senatorial campaigns united a surprisingly wide coalition of supporters across political and socioeconomic boundaries. She can do the same this November.

Others are concerned with her support for the Iraq War Resolution. But since then, she has pressed the Bush administration for accountability and demanded a responsible end to the war. She also has far more exposure to national security and foreign policy.

Ultimately, we are confident in Clinton's ability to implement her agenda. It's this quality that has brought leaders like Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell to her side. And it's this quality that convinces us to support her as well.

HILLARY CLINTON, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Talk about a 3 a.m. call. James Wolcott intrudes upon the primary season to remind us that we still have a president, GWB, who has some months to go before he can cease causing the United States and the world a vast amount of grief.

"Adm. Fallon's (forced?) resignation was the last warning we are likely to get of an attack on Iran. It does not mean an attack is certain, but the U.S. could not attack Iran so long as he was the Centcom commander. That obstacle is now gone.

Vice President Cheney's Middle East tour is another indicator. According to a report in The American Conservative, on his previous trip Cheney told our allies, including the Saudis, that Bush would attack Iran before the end of his term. If that report was correct, then his current tour might have the purpose of telling them when it is coming.
...
The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack. Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq."
...
I've been dubious on the prospect of preemptive strikes against Iran, mostly because I didn't believe that the Bush administration would want to risk plunging the American economy into the abyss, a risk carrying an even greater probability today given the implosions in the credit markets, plunging consumer confidence, and foreclosures turning neighborhoods into squatters' havens. But the recklessness of the Bush administration with other people's lives can't be underestimated, and men who fancy themselves on a mission may give military action one last roll of the dice, convinced history will thank them later for their bold decisiveness. They've paid no price for their folly thus far, so why fear any future reckoning? Bush will hire some ghostwriter or biographer-whore to compare him to Harry S. Truman and find peace in the consolations of posterity, though peace may be come dear if the destruction of the American army ends up on his debit sheet.

We're already faced with such a muck as a result of this disastrous administration. But we can't assume that Bush/Cheney and the neocons don't have one last good one in them. Things can get worse before they get better.

Hillary has proven herself the master of domestic policy, dwarfing Obama and simply withering McCain in any comparison of her knowledge and the seriousness of her detailed proposals with their own. To some extent, that message has penetrated voter awareness, though many accept the "there isn't an iota of difference between [Obama and Clinton] their policies/stand on the issues" meme. Oh yes, there's more than an iota, and Clinton's are superior.

What hasn't been delivered by the MSMedia is the message that she is the choice of a slew of our most prestigious retired flag officers, including two former Joint Chiefs of Staff, to be Commander-in-Chief.

In these critical areas, it is clear to us that Senator Clinton is the candidate best qualified to be our nation's next Commander-in-Chief.

We believe that she has real understanding of the military through her diligent service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has worked tirelessly to ensure our men and women in uniform are properly trained and equipped to be sent to battle. And she has fought to make certain that they are treated with dignity when they return home. We have personally and closely observed her respect for our armed forces, and she has earned their respect. And ours.

These military leaders have surveyed the field and have endorsed Hillary Clinton over John McCain and Barack Obama. She has their confidence that when the next inevitable crisis occurs, she's ready to lead, and lead in the right direction. They, better than most of us, know that the World After Bush will still have to contend with the damage he's inflicted, and that includes not only cleaning up the mess in Iraq but handling the increased threats to American national security both at home and abroad that will be the undoubted result of the mistakes made over the past eight years. And they've concluded that Hillary is the best one to lead us.

Think about it. These people are products of the military machismo culture. They are, many of them, senior citizens, of a generation that accepted the role of women as primarily domestic in nature -- even when employed, the ones to run for coffee while the men settled the issues of the day. Yet they view a woman, a singular woman named Hillary Clinton, to be best qualified to lead our armies and navies, to provide for our national security. It's mind-boggling. And it speaks VOLUMES about her character that they have come to such a conclusion. It's an amazing and fascinating news story that nobody's covering.

But then, it's not too hard to understand why. It flies in the face of the media affection for John McCain as a war hero, and therefore his image is more to their liking:

MATTHEWS: "Let me explain why a lot of guys like McCain. He served his country in ways that none us cannot imagine serving this country. I think that gives him a moral edge over a lot of us and we show it."

I think the opinion of a few dozen distinguished military leaders weighs more with me than that of a bunch of effete, elite talking heads.