Rick Perry will be dropping out of the GOP race for the presidential nomination today, and sources say he “will make the announcement before the CNN debate in South Carolina” tonight.

South Carolina’s primary is to be held on Saturday. Sources have told Politico that Perry is “expected to endorse Newt Gingrich,” and ”Gingrich and Perry had a secret meeting to discuss a possible endorsement.”

Politico notes that Perry’s endorsement “gives the surging Gingrich a huge boost heading into the final debate tonight, and the South Carolina primary on Saturday, in which he’s already closing in on Mitt Romney.”

But wait… Last night Drudge broke the news that ABC News has an exclusive interview with Newt’s ex-wife Marianne Gingrich and “her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.” The Gingrich campaign is now in full on damage control mode, before ABC airs the interview on Nightline tonight.

Perry’s endorsement could mean diddly to conservative Newt Gingrich at this point, despite Newt’s rise in the South Carolina polls.

Stay tuned…

I’ve been laying low today, once again playing catch up with business and rest. Ah, yes rest… Something I never get enough of. Suffice to say running a small business and a blog keeps me very busy and rarely take much time for myself. That said, here’s the Weekend Reading List:

The Gallup Daily shows a Clinton upswing in recent days: Clinton 46%, Obama 45%:

At TaylorMarsh.com a piece by Paul Lukasiak dissecting the story by “journalist” Celeste Fremon that was front-paged at the HuffPo last night: “Anatomy of a Left Wing Smear.”

On TalkLeft from Jeralyn: “Bill Clinton Explains Falsities in Obama’ s Newest Ad” and Political Radar reports, “Bill Clinton Says Criticisms of Hillary’s Healthcare Plan are ‘Bull’.” CNN has more on the healthcare attacks ads battle in PA. No matter how Obama tries to slice it, Hillary Clinton still has the winning healthcare plan — even Elizabeth Edwards knows that. 

If you think the conservative base won’t continue to work “Bittergate” think again… Mark Steyn has at it: “Guns and God? Hell, yes.” And Arthur C. Brooks chimes in on the WSJ with this one: “Trigger Happy.”

In the NY Times on Friday, David Brooks recants “How Obama Fell to Earth.”

AP News reports Michigan is moving forward regardless of the fact that no decision has been made to seat the delegates: “Mich. Democrats fill 1st round of national convention spots.”

Obama does the doublespeak thing again… hitting Clinton with his own brand of projectionism. For someone who decries “petty, trivial slash and burn, back and forth, tit for tat politics,” Barack Obama sure does engage in them frequently as CNN’s Political Ticker notes: Clinton camp: Obama was a ‘hypocrite from day one’.

Let’s not forget we have other important races to win in November: “Democrats Widen Fundraising Lead for Senate Campaigns.”

Got gas??? If you do, you probably don’t have much spare change: “Pump prices rise to new record.”

Got trash??? NPR reports: “Beach Cleanup Tally: 6 Million Pounds of Trash.”

Hillary Clinton received some key endorsements in the past couple of days from: Congressman Tim Ryan; Congresswoman Betty Sutton; and Former NJ Governors Jim Florio & Brendan Byrne.

In North Carolina Friday: “Clinton and longtime friend Angelou sit, have a chat about issues the nation and voters face.”

Got links to share??? Post them in the comments.

Don’t forget to contribute to “Give Hillary The Resources To Win” and if you are feeling generous this weekend, consider a donation to The Dem Daily, too!

SUNDAY UPDATE:

On Buck Naked Politics, Damozel notes in a Must Read post: The Media’s Role in the Obama Phenomenon as a Sign of a Deeper Trend.

It was just an old-fashioned case of political log rolling. In this case, the Clinton campaign approached a Democratic county commissioner and held up a political carrot—if the commissioner, the only Democrat of the three commissioners, would endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, they would do their best to provide President Bill Clinton as a speaker in the commissioner’s county.           

“Well, OK. That’s a pretty fair deal,” the Bloomsburg (Pa.) Press Enterprise quoted Commissioner David Kovach as telling the Clinton staffer. Kovach told the newspaper he didn’t know whether to support Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama, but that the lure of the President’s appearance is what convinced him to make a decision.

The Clinton campaign later said it would neither confirm nor deny that such an offer was made, or verify any of the statements in the newspaper’s story. “As a policy, we do not comment on private conversations between the campaign and its supporters,” said Frank Rothman, communications coordinator for the northeastern Pennsylvania.

Rothman also would neither confirm nor deny that the campaign staff approached any other politician in Columbia County or any other county, trading personal appearances for endorsements. It didn’t have to.

“The director of the central Pennsylvania campaign contacted me about noon, Friday [April 11],” two days before the planned visit, says Bloomsburg Mayor Dan Knorr. “It seemed they already had a visit planned and were grabbing as much endorsement as possible.” However, Knorr was already committed to supporting Obama.

Allison Hirsch, Obama’s coordinator of volunteers for Pennsylvania’s north central region, says she’s “never heard of any offer to bring in a speaker in exchange for an endorsement” for Obama.

Kovach publicly supported Sen. Clinton; President Clinton came to Bloomsburg, the county seat, and spoke to an energized and enthusiastic crowd of about 800.

In political campaigns, it’s not unusual to use every tactic possible to gain even the smallest advantage. Trading favors is common. Less common is to lure an endorsement by dangling an appearance from a high-profile speaker. Even rarer is a politician who readily and publicly acknowledges that he traded his vote for an afternoon with a charismatic and popular former president.

But, overall, in the world of politics, in a nation in which almost every politician works behind-the-doors deals, it is refreshing to see a politician publicly admit that he allowed his vote to be bought.
 
[Walter Brasch, professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, is president of the Pennsylvania Press Club. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com]

So tonight, Elton John gave his concert for Hillary Clinton. “I’m still standing,” she quipped, and he said “I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist(ic) attitude of some of the people in this country. I say to hell with them.”

And bloggers and those who comment on blogs have already begun screaming that not wanting to vote for Hillary does not equal misogyny. Whoever said it did? One does not have to be a supporter of Sen. Clinton to realize that the misogynistic attacks against her constitute some of the ugliest bigotry this country has seen. No one–not Sen. Clinton, not her campaign, not her supporters–ever said that women should vote for Clinton because she is a woman, or that anyone who does not vote for her is a bigot. I do not support Obama, and I dare anyone to say that my lack of support is due to racism.

Here is an example of the type of comment that makes no logical sense at all, posted by Laura M. on Ben Smith’s Blog:

As a woman, I’m offended by Elton John’s comment. I don’t HAVE to vote for someone because she’s a woman. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see a woman as President, but not this woman.

Where in his comment did John say that Laura M. had to vote for Clinton because she is a woman?

But it has been this way all along. The blogosphere is full of sarcastic comments like “I didn’t like Hillary’s speech–I guess I’m sexist,” or “I didn’t like Hillary’s speech–I guess that makes me a misogynist.” It is a sad state of affairs when so-called liberals attack a candidate and her supporters because those supporters dare to point out that she is the victim of the vilest type of bigotry. Consider for a moment that the out-in-the-open, “ha, ha that was a good one” bigotry had been aimed at Obama because he is biracial. And that anyone–anyone–who supported him had to defend supporting him for reasons other than his being a victim of bigotry. There would be wailing, gnashing of teeth and anarchy. Why is it so difficult for Americans to understand that a candidate–whether you like that candidate or not–can be a victim of bigotry? You don’t like Clinton’s policies? Fine. But that makes her no less a victim of cruel and vicious attacks. Questioning her policies or her record does not give you the right to make fun of her or make vile comments about her gender.

I do not support Obama, but if I heard him attacked because of his race, I would be livid. Why can’t Obama supporters behave like the progressives they say they are and be livid when Hillary Clinton is treated like trash because America believes she has the wrong genitalia? And why can’t they acknowledge that the oppression of females is a real problem, and not a distraction from solving “real” problems?

Ooops… Barack Obama’s most famous supporter has taken a dive for Obama. Oprah has been “long considered the “queen of daytime TV,”” and she has “enjoyed sky-high popularity as a media personality for two decades.”

But now, thanks to her support for Barack Obama, Oprah’s popularity has plummeted:

…Oprah announced on CNN’s “Larry King Live” on May 1, 2007, that she would officially endorse her longtime friend Barack Obama for the presidency — the first time she had ever thrown her support behind a political candidate. “I think that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check,” Oprah told Larry King. At the time, Oprah did not indicate whether she would campaign for Obama.

Almost instantly, Oprah’s popularity in America plummeted. An August 2007 CBS News poll showed only 61 percent of Americans were favorably disposed to her — a considerable drop of 13 percentage points from a similar survey conducted just seven months prior. An October 2007 Gallup/USA Today poll that showed Oprah with a slightly higher 66 percent favorability still reflected a drop. [...]

But by the time Fox News/Opinion Dynamics asked Americans about their attitudes toward Oprah in a survey conducted about 10 days later, Dec. 18-19, Oprah’s favorability ratings had dropped even further — to 55 percent — the lowest level of favorability ever registered for Oprah in opinion surveys. Oprah’s negatives also spiked, with one in three respondents (33 percent) reporting unfavorable impressions of her.

The results of a March 26, 2008, AOL Television popularity poll of television hosts reveal Americans may now embrace Ellen DeGeneres over Oprah by a wide margin. Forty-six percent of the 1.35 million people who participated in the poll said the daytime talk show host that “made their day” was Ellen, compared with only 19 percent who chose Oprah. Nearly half (47 percent) said they would rather dine with Ellen, compared with 14 percent who preferred Oprah.

To be sure, Oprah remains one of the most popular figures in America, but recent data suggest her popularity has eroded. One possible explanation for this decline is that her endorsement of Obama and her support for him may have done more to damage impressions of her than to strengthen support for Obama.

Costas Panagopoulos who reported on Oprah’s decline in popularity on Politico, says there may be a lesson for celebrities in that “political endorsements carry the risk of alienating fans.” Hmmm… I don’t think Bruce Springsteen suffered a similar decline in popularity when he went on the stump for Kerry in ’04.

After a keynote speech at CTIA, the annual wireless industry showcase, John Edwards was asked in a Q&A session if “he would accept the nomination for vice president.” Edwards made it clear he would not: “No,” said Edwards.

He also “declined to say whether he would endorse Clinton or Obama.”

Although it was hinted recently that Edwards might be readying to endorse Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards touted her health care plan yesterday, I have feeling that the Edwards will continue to stay out of the fray and withhold any endorsement at this point, as formers aides to Edwards recently told the press.

Paul Krugman has a post on his NY Times blog today citing Jeralyn at Talk Left on why John Edwards hasn’t endorsed either Clinton or Obama:

Via Jeralyn at Talk Left, John Heilemann on why John Edwards hasn’t endorsed anyone yet:

So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt

But then why didn’t he endorse Obama after dropping out?

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

The Plank has more on the Elizabeth Edwards connection to John Edwards reticence to endorse:

…the idea that Elizabeth Edwards would get into a heated discussion with Obama over health care policy rings true. She is a well-known health care wonk. Just this weekend, as a matter of fact, she gave the keynote address at this year’s annual conference for the Association of Health Care Journalists–in which she offered a blistering, dead-on critique of John McCain’s health care plan.

During the campaign, Elizabeth had played a key role in shaping her husband’s health care policy. She lobbied hard for a single-payer plan, according to my sources. And when that didn’t fly, she pressed for the most comprehensive plan possible. That’s one reason the official Edwards plan–like the one Clinton eventually endorsed–included a requirement that everybody obtain insurance.

So it makes sense that Elizabeth would consider Obama’s arguments–that mandates for everybody aren’t essential right away–a “crock.” And given her passion for the subject, it also seems plausible that she’d make a big deal out of it.

On Saturday, “Pressed by reporters to detail any endorsement plans, Edwards declined to even say if he would endorse a candidate before North Carolina’s May 6 primary.”

“When I have something to say, I’ll let you know,” he said.

I’m not holding my breath on an Edwards endorsement of either Clinton or Obama at this point, but if he were I’d tend to think he’ll veer towards Clinton because of her stance on health care and the economy, which is closer to Edwards own position on both issues.

Will wonders never cease… The WaPo has a piece today that outlines how Barack Obama overstated the Kennedy’s role in helping his father come to the United States. Michael Dobbs reports:

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Well… Imagine that… Barack Obama has played politics as usual and he’s embellished his bio and managed to net himself some key Kennedy endorsements in the wake of it. Now months later the truth comes out:

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

And Obama’s campaign has fessed up but, nary a word has been said about the piece by the progressive bloggers supporting Obama:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father’s arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently “started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.”

This really does go all the way back to Obama’s claims on who he is in the world, in my opinion:

In his speech commemorating the 42nd anniversary of the Selma civil rights march, Sen. Obama linked his father’s arrival in the United States with the turmoil of the civil rights movement. Although the airlift occurred before John F. Kennedy became president, Obama said that “folks in the White House” around President Kennedy were looking for ways to counter charges of hypocrisy and “win hearts and minds all across the world” at a time when America was “battling communism.”

“So the Kennedys decided ‘we’re going to do an airlift,’ ” Obama continued. ” ‘We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.’ This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves. . . . So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

So much for the Kennedy connection… Now that Obama’s claims have been proven to be myth not fact. I can’t help wonder what will be revealed next?

UPDATE: See — Obama’s Other Nine Exaggerations.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Obama camp may have “rewritten the rules” for online fundraising but we can change that — Pitch in: Make calls — raise money — contribute. 

Today, was a miserable day. Sure, it was a beautiful sunny day. But, noticing that we have passed a casualty milestone in Iraq and hearing how cold-hearted the Vice-President was, in response to that milestone, broke my heart. Every day, I hope that my soldier will not become part of that milestone, yet, the current White House administration acts like, “it’s business, as usual”; not a big deal.

So, it’s only fitting that I re-post the following video, because it is a big deal that this president does not care that he is tearing this country apart: Dear Mr President – Pink

Meditate on today’s Ten Post Round-Up:

1: Being bullied: Sadly, just another day, for some kids…

What the f@#k is wrong with parents in Arkansas?–Brilliant at Breakfast

2: Decisions, decisions: If not McCain, then whom?…

Where Will Dobson Go?–Colorado Confidential

3: “Make your kids lose weight or they’ll be raised by the state”…

Obese children ‘may be put in care’–The Courier

4: Drug testing bar patrons?…

Coming Soon To A Pub Near You–duckplops

5: But, for the grace of blogs, go I…

Media Turns Its Back on Iraq–The Huffington Post

6: JPMorgan trying to schmooze Bear Stearns shareholders…

Bear Stearns shareholders don’t like “The Deal”–Its my Right to be Left of the Center

7: Apparently, the Pittsburgh Steelers think it’s OK to beat your girlfriend, so long as you have a religious reason for doing so…

Domestic Violence, Ownership of Women, and, Of Course, Jesus–Shakesville

8: Mortgage insurers refusing to do business in some ZIP codes…

Mortgage Insurers Have Blackballed 20% of US–Signs of the Times

9: Dear, Mr. President: “You’ve come a long way, from whiskey and cocaine”…

Cheney On 4,000 Troop Deaths In Iraq: ‘The President Carries The Biggest Burden, Obviously’»–Think Progress

10: Time in a bottle, circa 1986…

1986 message in bottle drifts 1,735 mi.–Yahoo! News

4000+ casualties: Why Bush can not even look any of us in the eye…

300 días hasta el final de un error…

Peace.

(Maybe GWBs prosthetic brain helps him feel our pain!…)