I guess it’s not too hard to check them when they’re resting on your chin…

Another interesting quote from Edwards after they played him audio of Hillary’s “white Americans” comment:

I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. I think when that shifts to her contention about everything that’s supposed to be wrong with him--and I don’t agree with some of what she just said, by the way--but I think that then we’re doing damage instead of trying to be helpful.

But maybe the best part was when a visibly irked fill-in co-host Tiki Barber cut to the chase....

Race is going to play a part in this. I think what you were saying Mika, but you kind of walked around it, which I’ll say directly. Do you think that Hillary Clinton believes Barack Obama cannot win the presidency because he’s black?

I don’t know if this is a campaign-ender for Hillary, but it’s starting to look awfully Macaca-like when folks like Barber begin asking questions like that.

SOMEWHAT RELATED FROM RASMUSSEN:

Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

Ouch. [via a commenter at Balloon Juice]

From The New York Times editorial board:

There is a lot of talk that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now fated to lose the Democratic nomination and should pull out of the race. We believe it is her right to stay in the fight and challenge Senator Barack Obama as long as she has the desire and the means to do so. That is the essence of the democratic process.

But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan. [...]

She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact). [...]

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.

(Youngsters and/or non-movie enthusiasts look below the fold...)

Now, after this (which isn’t getting the attention it deserves), maybe someone should do a YouTube video with Hillary starring as Veruca Salt:

Michigan Democrats on Wednesday voted to back a plan that would give Clinton 69 delegates—four fewer than the 73 she gained by winning the state’s Jan. 15 primary. Obama would get 59 pledged delegates even though he took his name off the ballot, forcing his supporters to vote for Uncommitted.

Clinton campaign spokesman Isaac Baker said Thursday the campaign won’t support any proposal that gives Clinton fewer delegates than she earned by winning the primary. The New York senator trails Obama in the race for the nomination by about 150 delegates, and is seeking to close the gap with delegates from Florida and Michigan.

“This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan’s January primary. Those votes must be counted,” Baker said.

Michigan Democratic Party spokeswoman Elizabeth Kerr said Baker’s assertion that the 69-59 split doesn’t take the primary results into account is incorrect.

“This proposal honors the January 15 results and takes into consideration the fact that Barack Obama’s name was not on the ballot,” she said. “We continue to think this a fair resolution to seating the delegates.”

Disenfranchisement anyone?

MORE: A funny from a commenter at Balloon Juice:

Why Is Hillary Disenfranchising Michigan?

There’s a good reason. It’s because SHUT UP, that’s why.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” [Hillary Clinton] said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

After that comment, here’s one pattern I’d love to see emerging to replace the Clinton campaign:

(lots more at Daily Kos)

RELATED: Jonathan Singer has some interesting poll numbers at MyHRC.

Here’s just a small taste of Matt Taibbi’s latest article for Rolling Stone:

Seldom in American politics has the same side of a single party split into such distinct and acrimonious factions. As virtually identical as the two candidates are in their political positions, there is no longer any common cause left between Hillary lovers and Obama supporters. There is only a culture war of epic proportions, featuring some of the most unlikely and absurd combatants in the history of impassioned conflict. Ordinary suburban Americans, people who consider Tina Fey biting satire and whose only “fighting” experience has usually been against trans fats or hair loss, can now be seen running through the streets, screaming war calls like Maoist guerrillas in the jungles of Nepal.

And that’s not even the best of it.  No one has done a better job of explaining the bug-eyed spit n’ spew anti-Obama lunacy you see on sites like No Quarter and HillaryIs44 than Taibbi does on page two. Just go read it.

RELATED: Taibbi’s new book The Great Derangement is out now. You can learn more about it here and find out if he’s doing a reading in your area (NYC—June 6th—Barnes & Noble Tribeca).

You can view the first installment here.

Via Instaputz, I see that Wesley Clark, who I supported in ‘04, may have made a difficult phone call last night:

We’ve just been told that General Wesley Clark, a strong Clinton supporter and fellow Arkansan, called Hillary tonight to tell her it’s over.

In addition to our source, the king of the pundits, Mark Halperin, drops a tantalizing hint that something might be up with Clark:

“The biggest question: Will any of her supporters (including Wes Clark) say publicly or privately she should quit?”

In addition, an early Hillary supporter and family friend George McGovern has publicly urged her to drop out.

MORE: Regarding Clark as a potential VP choice for Obama, I’m not convinced.  I think the economy is and will be a key factor in November (not one of Clark’s strong suits), so I’d rather see him as SecDef.  I’m still leaning toward a current or former governor as VP (examples: Richardson, Sebelius or Rendell), but they all have negatives I’m still working through. I “get” why people are pushing Jim Webb, but I think Obama needs someone with a little more political experience. And I’m still fundamentally allergic to a Senator/Senator ticket, so that rules out Hillary and a few others.

BUT, let me reiterate something I’ve proposed here and elsewhere: John Edwards for Secretary of Labor. He could take a lackluster and undervalued cabinet position and, in these tough economic times, turn it into something special.  It’s a no-brainer to me.  I don’t understand why I’m the only person I’ve seen float the idea…