This is well done and definitely in the spirit of the great city of Philadelphia.

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.

I came across this while surfing on the web. Special shot-out to Lower Merion, PA!

Bitter. That was the word of the weekend. The press, pundits and talking heads are running away with this story, trying to turn it into a full-blown scandal and as expected, the Clinton campaign is pushing Obama’s quote to just about anyone who will listen. This doesn’t surprise me - at this point, they need to find any opening to try and knock down Obama, especially as he picks up a little headwind in Pennsylvania. In fact, Obama’s comments have now taken on a life of their own. He’s being accused of being a snob, out of touch and elitist, even though he said something that Bill Clinton has echoed many times in the recent past.

In fact, many Democrats have made the argument that voters have been acting against their economic interest by simply voting on wedge issues like guns, gays and god and ignoring what policy makers are actually saying about the issues that touch them most - the economy, health care, war and peace, etc. It’s also pretty clear that some Americans are bitter at the way the government have been treating them over the past couple decades. If I didn’t have adequate health care for my family and I had a sick kid, or needed care myself, I too might be a little bitter.

Rest assured for all you worrier’s out there - this story will go away in the next couple days. There is a debate at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Wednesday, and assuming that this issue is still swirling, Obama should be able to pacify the situation by giving a more artful explanation of what he meant in his comments and to clarify the pieces of the statement that have seemed to take on a life of their own.

The Obama campaign has wisely decided to put up Bob Casey on television to defend Obama. Here’s the ad.

We Democrats are balancing on a live wire and need to take decisive and immediate action after the primaries are finished to ensure the nomination battle does not make it all the way to Denver. That, surely, would cost us the general election in November.

I am writing today in strong support of a plan I’ve been reading about for the past week to end this primary process with transparency and fairness. If you haven’t already done so please check out my recent appearance on MSNBC (here comes the plug!) where I argued this prolonged primary process is good for Democrats and especially good for Obama. I want to see him tough and tested in the primary so he can be ready to stand against the crap that McCain will have coming in the general. If Clinton only managed to throw the kitchen sink, McCain and his doofi will surely throw the sink, cabinets, bathroom fixtures and the family minivan.

So, how does this all end neatly?

Phil Bredesen, the current Governor of Tennessee, has proposed a plan to hold a superdelegate primary immediately following the final party primaries in South Dakota and Montana on June 3, 2008. The plan, which Bredesen outlined in a recent New York Times editorial, makes sense because it brings closure to the process and pressures superdelegates to act swiftly in casting their votes.

Here is some more from the New York Times:

Here’s what our party should do: schedule a superdelegate primary. In early June, after the final primaries, the Democratic National Committee should call together our superdelegates in a public caucus.

Of the 795 superdelegates, over 40 percent have not announced which candidate they are supporting; I’m one of them. While it would be comfortable for me to delay making a decision until the convention, the reality is that I’ll have all the information I reasonably need in June, and so will my colleagues across the country.

There will have been more than 20 debates, and more than 28 million Americans will have made their choices and voted. Any remaining uncertainty in our nominee will then lie with the superdelegates, and it will be time for us to make our choices and get on with the business of electing a president.

This is not a proposal for a mini-convention with all the attendant hoopla and sideshows. It is a call for a tight, two-day business-like gathering, whose rules would be devised by the national committee, of the leaders of our party from all over America to resolve a serious problem. There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote.

This is our electoral process at work in a way the founders would be proud of.

The formal nomination itself obviously awaits the Denver convention. However, if most of the superdelegates were to come to the table in June, there could be a clear conclusion, and enormous moral pressure on the candidates to accept the result and move on.

Some might raise reasonable concerns about the cost and logistics of assembling these superdelegates. But those would be manageable; this is a business meeting of a few hundred people almost three months from now, not an extended, cast-of-thousands convention.

Possibly the nominee will become clear by June and such a gathering will no longer be needed. That’s fine: it can be canceled or turned into more of a formality. The chance to have our nominee clearly identified in June as opposed to late August far outweighs any logistical or financial concerns.

Much ado been made about the rules that govern the Democrats’ nominating process. The angst that been expressed from many people comes from the feeling that, after all of the campaigning and votes cast, there would be a chance that superdelegates could make a decision that would seemingly overturn the “will of the people.”

My biggest concern is that with over three months between the final primaries and Denver, all parties will have too much time to meddle, court and lure the uncommitted superdelegates and as a result we could end with a stalemate or worse– a result that is seen by many as tainted.

The superdelegates have had over a year to study the candidates and analyze their candidacies. After the South Dakota and Montana results are reported and the campaigning officially ends, the ball moves squarely into their courts and they must immediately get off the fence and pledge their support.

We all know there is a lot at stake in the coming weeks. Without a superdelegate primary, I fear we stand a good chance of squandering an opportunity to win this election and change the direction of our country. However, worse than losing an election, we stand to lose the trust of millions of voters from around the country and that will prove fatal for the future of our great party.

Iraq is the defining issue between Sens. Clinton and Obama in this race.

Hillary Clinton, along with many of her Senate colleagues (on both sides of the aisle) voted to authorize force, while some, like Barack Obama stood up strongly against it. Yes, it is in the past, but that is the choice that we have in this election. It’s about judgement.

Some (namely the Clinton campaign) point to the fact that Sen. Obama wasn’t in the Senate at the time, so his opposition was somehow not real and it should be brushed off and discounted.

I believe that Sen. Obama’s judgment was sound and his reasoning was correct when he spoke out against the war in 2002. Listen to the speech that he made back then.

Today, Clinton is bashing Obama because he didn’t do enough after entering Congress to end the war. This is just a silly argument. Watch this video that the Obama campaign put out today - it tells the story of Clinton’s bad judgment when it comes to Iraq.

This quote says it all. Hillary Clinton must win Ohio and Texas.

“If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee; if you don’t then I don’t think she can.”

– Bill Clinton, quoted by ABC News, on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

During Hillary Clinton’s concession speech last night in Youngstown, Ohio, the gloves came off…way off! Clinton surrogate Tom Buffenbarger, who is president of the machinists’ union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) went wild. Not only did he go nuclear on Obama, he angrily went after his supporters, calling them, “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies.”

Politics is a dirty game, but this stuff is just insulting. Using right-wing frames to insult Democratic Party voters is not lifting up the party, it’s tearing it down.

MSNBC’s First Read has more.

Buffenbarger called Obama a “thespian,” and he sarcastically referred to the junior senator from Illinois as a “wunderkind.” He compared Obama to “Janus, the two-faced Roman god of ancient times.” And he pleaded with the crowd to boo Obama’s labor record.

Early in his speech, Buffenbarger asked, “So now we have a decision to make. Will we rely on the Harvard Law Review editor? The silver-tongued orator from Kansas, Hawaii and Illinois? The man in love with the microphone?”

Taking off the gloves, he said, “Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois State Senate. He took a walk more than a 130 times. That’s what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves. All the right combinations. All the right footwork. But he never steps into the ring.”

But it was Obama supporters for whom Buffenbarger saved his most vitriolic contempt, and he proved that the Democratic Party’s coalition is nothing if not fragile. Channeling Howard Beale from the movie “Network,” he yelled into the microphone, “Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”