This morning, Bruce Springsteen endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States. Here is the letter that he posted on his website.

Dear Friends and Fans:

LIke most of you, I’ve been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where “…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.”

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man’s life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.

Over here on E Street, we’re proud to support Obama for President.

In 2004, Bruce passionately endorsed John Kerry and played some great shows for him in the final days of the fall campaign. Alas, there is no President Kerry, but given the fact that Obama has had some trouble “connecting” with working class voters (I don’t believe this, but it’s out there in the media narrative), this endorsement from the Boss should help solidify some of that blue-collar support.

Here’s video from that 2004 event in Madison, Wisconsin.

There is an interesting dynamic playing out in Maryland’s 4th district. Al Wynn (D), who has represented the district since 1993 is being challenged by a Donna Edwards (D), a political newcomer who is a very solid candidate and who has been steadily gaining momentum ever since she whooped Wynn in a one-on-one debate some weeks back.

This morning, Donna Edwards was endorsed by the Washington Post. Please take a moment to read the endorsement and send it around to as many Marylanders as you can.

Excerpt from Washington Post Endorsement:

On the war in Iraq, Ms. Edwards has scored points by attacking Mr. Wynn as Maryland’s Joseph I. Lieberman — a supporter of the war portrayed as too close to the Bush administration. Mr. Wynn backed the war at the outset, but he has since recanted, saying he was misled by bad intelligence. More to the point of today’s debate, both candidates are calling for a U.S. withdrawal, a scenario that we believe would leave chaos in its wake.

Mr. Wynn insists he has been a successful pork-barrel politician; we suspect Ms. Edwards, razor-sharp and relentless, would be at least as effective. We disagree with her on some important issues, but we are convinced she would be the more forceful, principled and effective representative. And while her insurgent candidacy is an uphill battle, it should put Mr. Wynn on notice that voters expect quality representation in Congress, not just a local political boss.

Read the rest here.

Okay, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is now officially on the Joe Lieberman train. This is troubling.

From BobGeiger.com:

Adam Sharp, Senator Landrieu’s Communications Director, confirmed with me this morning that Landrieu will indeed support Lieberman over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.

“Senator Landrieu is supporting Senator Lieberman,” wrote Sharp in an e-mail. “We have not issued any press release or anything on it, but have confirmed it to anyone who has called. She did state her support publicly before the primary, as reported by the Times Picayune and called Senator Lieberman the day after the primary to reiterate her position.”

Don’t you get it, Mary? This is not about YOU. This is not about your friendship with Joe. This is about America and this is about the will of Connecticut voters. This is about the Democratic Party!

A Senate Race in Connecticut
Editorial
July 30, 2006

Earlier this year, Senator Joseph Lieberman’s seat seemed so secure that — legend has it — some people at the Republican nominating convention in Connecticut started making bleating noises when the party picked a presumed sacrificial lamb to run against the three-term senator, who has been a fixture in Connecticut politics for more than 35 years.

But Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman’s friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents — say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.

This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It’s true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation’s moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman’s right to choose. He has been one of the Senate’s most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

Read the rest of the New York Times endorsement