Let's take a look at what Markos said about Edwards' haircut, it's really fun to read...

John Edwards
Some of you will shoot me for this, but the more time passes, the more his "haircut" deal pisses me off. Why? I see it as a stategic, tactical, and personal failure, and one that was so easy to avoid that it makes me question his judgment in a long, tough, presidential battle.

Strategic: There are two narratives Edwards' opponents are building against him -- one, that he's a "pretty boy", and two, that he's so rich he's out of touch with "regular" people. And in one fell swoop, Edwards reinforced both negative narratives!

Tactical: The only reason anyone knew about that haircut was because it was in campaign finance disclosures. Why was it in those disclosures? Because he used campaign funds to pay for the haircut! If he wants his pimp haircuts, I couldn't care less. But why do it in such a way that it's easy for your enemies to use against you?

Personal: I don't know Edwards' net worth, nor care. But he has a lot of money. I'm willing to bet that most of the small dollar donors Edwards has solicited don't have that much. For them, that $20 or $50 or even $100 contribution is a big sacrifice. Yet given the choice between taking out his own checkbook or having his campaign pay for the $400 the haircut cost, someone made the choice to put this on the contributors. More than anything, it's this that offends me about this incident. People expect their money to be well spent by campaigns, not used as personal slush funds for whatever luxuries they may want.

So as stupid and media-driven as that whole "haircut" mess may have been, it really was a disaster on way too many levels to completely ignore and shrug off.

To be able to raise close to $3000,000 at one event in Oklahoma City is staggering and deserves a separate thread...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/n ewyork/ny-bc-ny--clintonvisit0617jun17,0 ,7305866.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

A fundraiser for Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in Oklahoma City raised $282,000, according to one of the event's hosts.

"I am proud of Oklahoma's response," said Turpen, who provided the fundraising estimate.

Hillary Clinton also got warm reception in Texas.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/ 140112.html

Frances Rodriguez stood in the rain outside a north side restaurant for hours Saturday morning, hoping to catch a glimpse of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Her patience was eventually rewarded. As a caravan of black SUVs pulled behind Joe T. Garcia's Mexican Restaurant, she yelled, "There she is."

Clinton turned her head, waved and smiled at Rodriguez and a small group of supporters, before the vehicle parked and Clinton went inside for a private fundraiser.

"I just love that woman," Rodriguez, 56, said with a smile. "I'm a nobody, but when she becomes president, I'll be somebody."

...
After a stop in Dallas, the New York senator attended two private fundraisers at Joe T's that drew about 300 people and raised more than $150,000, organizers said.

...

Indi Jones of Fort Worth took her 9-year-old daughter, Bailey, to the event. Bailey wore a button that said, "I can be president."

"It was important to me because I wanted Bailey to see that ... a president, an effective president, can be a girl," Jones said.

Jesse Lancarte, a co-owner of Joe T's, said he shut down about 60 percent of the restaurant Saturday morning to accommodate the fundraisers. He and others had a chance to pose for a "family picture" with Clinton, and he said he was very impressed.

"She's very charismatic," he said.

A new poll this week showed Clinton leading other Democrats among Texas voters, with 33 percent of the support to Barack Obama's 21 percent and 10 percent for Al Gore. Other Democrats were in the single digits.

Hat tips to 'Team Edwards' for the lead. I am absolutely apalled by the lastest disclosure of Movement Obama's new money gimmicks.
This is just wrong. You can't tell everybody not to accept lobbyists' money, on the other hand, trying every gimmick possible to bypass your own promise...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/040 7/3550.html
Everybody needs to read this article: Money Race Endangers Reformer Label

Donning the white hats of campaign finance reformers, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are positioning themselves as the presidential candidates least likely to be bossed around by special interests if they win the Oval Office.

But the reality of presidential-level fundraising is driving both camps into the arms of the very lobbyists who are the agents of those interests.

...

Obama's moves have been more subtle. He has vowed not to take money from federally registered lobbyists. But that leaves wide latitude for his lobbyist friends in Illinois to pony up cash, and his campaign is informing Washington lobbyists that they'd be happy to take checks from their spouses or clients.

What separates Obama and McCain from the rest is that they have used the issue to define their campaigns and their candidacies. Like Obama, Democrat John Edwards has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and political action committees, or PACs.

Obama invited special scrutiny of his fundraising the day he announced. "As people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics and the lobbyists and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play," he said.
...

To adhere to that, Obama announced the no-federal-lobbyist-money rule. But it seems his fundraisers, under pressure to keep pace with the Clinton camp, have decided to follow the letter of that rule rather than embrace its full spirit. Thus, a current lobbyist can't give, but a former lobbyist -- even a recent one -- can. Of course, there is the spouse exemption, even if the money comes from a joint account.

The policy has rubbed some lobbyists the wrong way. One reports getting a call from an Obama representative that seemed to be a solicitation for a donation. When the lobbyist cut him off and pointed out that he was registered, the fundraiser said he was aware of that but "your spouse can contribute, and we want to reach out to your network," the lobbyist recalled, adding that he was "pretty taken aback."

The fuzzy lines also were evident last week when Obama headlined a fundraiser at Union Station. Invitations were forwarded around town to many lobbying shops, even though most of the folks who work in them are banned from giving. Among the event's chairs and hosts were four former lobbyists, including recent advocates for big oil and power companies.

In a recent texas poll, both Hillary and McCain were in the lead among respective primary voters. What's surprising is the head-to-head matchup numbers in general election

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/ story/138000.html

Hillary 35:36 McCain
Hillary 31:32 Rudy
Obama   25:32 McCain
Obama   22:32 Rudy

So much for Obama's electability argument. I don't think Clinton can win texas, but she definitely has a shot at Arkansas. CW discounts Hillary's chance in the South, but I think she has a much better chance than the traditional democratic candidates in this area. Southerners are tough, they love tough ladies, they may not necessarily feel warm and fuzzy about her, but in the end, Hillary may win them over in lady Thatcher mold. How many British voters really 'loved' iron lady, but they kept on electing her. Obama will likely cede the entire South. No matter how many Obama girls we're going to see in the future, Southerners usually do not buy this sort of celebrity B.S.

Other news:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio nworld/chi-obamaindiajun16,1,2562045.sto ry?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctra ck=3&cset=true

Obama campaign rankles Indian community

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign expressed regret Friday for the "tone" used in recently disclosed campaign documents that raised questions about rival Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton's ties to India and Indian-Americans.

The statement from Obama's campaign manager came after complaints from an Indian-American group, whose leader complained about "anti-Indian-American stereotyping" in the documents.

"There cannot be a suggestion that Indian-Americans are somehow taboo," said Sanjay Puri, chairman of the 50,000-member U.S.-India Political Action Committee. "That is not the message we want any leader to be presenting."

In a letter to Obama's campaign, the group is asking the Illinois Democrat to "respond directly" to the reports and to "let us know if indeed your staff is promoting these hurtful stereotypes."

Everybody must have known that famous half-naked Obama girl. If you have never heard of her, watch this clip on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYIC qU

In a hilarious development, 'Obama girl' claims she's just lusting for Obama, but may not vote for him in primary.

Obama Girl Lusts for Barack Obama, But Won't Give Him Her Vote:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/pub lish/article_272614088.shtml

Barack Obama has Obama Girl lusting after the Democratic presidential candidate in scantily clad outfits presenting some very impressive cleavage in a very popular online viral video.  But does the model really love Barack?  She says she isn't sure if the presidential candidate will get her vote during the New York primary next year.  "We'll see," she says. "Maybe."

Is this girl really into Obama's 'new movement', not really,

 "I absolutely fell in love with the song," Ettinger say of the political slow jam that pokes affectionate fun at Obama's peronality-based campaign, co-written by Relles and song performer Leah Kauffman.

"It's getting an unbelievable amount of attention," she says on her cell phone in between local and cable TV interviews. "It's been really, really crazy," she says.

Obama is on a roll, another Obama smear memo has been intercepted by Clinton campaign. This time, Obama smeared President Clinton of giving a for-profit speech on 911. What makes this incident even worse is that this faked story appears being copied directly from Druge. TPM has the scoop.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/ electioncentral/2007/jun/15/obama_campai gn_circulating_negative_story_about_bill _clinton

We've just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton -- that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.

This email is unusual in that it is flagging something potentially negative not about a primary rival but about the former President -- one who obviously isn't running in the Democratic primary and who remains popular with Dem primary voters.

The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday

One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 -- something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial. Referring to the Hillary documents, the email flags this:

"9/11/06: Bill Clinton Commemorated 5th Anniversary Of 9/11 With $100,000 Speech To Asia-Pacific Private Equity Group in Hong Kong.

Hillary's financial disclosure report indicates that Bill Clinton gave a speech on 9/11/06 for CLSA, Ld. In Hong Kong and received $100,000. According to their website, "CLSA is a leading brokerage, investment banking and private equity group in the Asia-Pacific Markets."

The question seems even more pointed in light of the Obama campaign's spreading of bad stories about Bill.

Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate to spread negative stuff about Bill, given that he's not running in the primary and is popular with primary voters, Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to directly address the question about Bill, instead saying: "I don't know why anyone would take umbrage with the circulation of publicly available information."

The story spread about Bill ultimately turned out to be false. It ended up on Drudge yesterday, where it was given heavy play for many hours, though there's no proof that it was given to Drudge by the Obama campaign. After Drudge posted it, The Observer's Politicker blog thoroughly debunked the story, pointing out that Bill's schedule proved that he'd actually given the speech the night before, on Sept. 10.

The latest NYT articles reveals Obama's sleazy smear against Clinton...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/pol itics/15clintons.html?pagewanted=1&_ r=4&hp

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations -- on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis -- a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: "We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don't see why anyone would take umbrage with that."

Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, "I'm going to leave my comment at that."

Since many people want to debate policies, issues, now let's take a close look at Obama's foreign policy. A new article penned by Obama was just published in 'Foreign Affairs'.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701fa essay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-amer ican-leadership.html

Obama outlines his foreign policy philosophy for the first time. It is extremely frank and telling. Here's the money quote:"

"I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense...."

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, according to our military leaders, are facing a crisis. The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

"We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness.

"Enhancing our military will not be enough. As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.

"We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The consequences of forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been grave."