A rather interesting though lightly sourced article from the Telegraph asserting that President Clinton told insiders Obama would have to “kiss my ass” for support. Reports have been coming out that Clinton had dodged Obama’s phone call attempts and is reportedly still in “rage” mode over the election but if the report is true it paints a very interesting picture of a former President who appears to be unhinged and very angry.

I noticed that there was something oddly familiar about General Wesley Clark’s attack line against Sen. McCain’s military service, it sounded like a joke I had heard from Al Franken, I just couldn’t remember where I had heard it. Luckily we have Google and I could find the quote from a 2000 campaign related interview in Playboy magazine.

OV: Do you like McCain?

AF: I just read his autobiography and I like that a lot. I think he’s admirable in many, many ways. He has certainly been courageous on tobacco and campaign finance reform. I read the book and it has a lot about his time in captivity in North Vietnam being tortured and stuff. I don’t understand why all this war hero stuff. I mean anybody can get captured. Isn’t the idea to capture the other guy? As far as I’m concerned, he sat out the war.

Now obviously, Franken unlike Clark was joking. With that said this isn’t the first interesting Franken thought to come out of a Playboy related article for the comedian who is currently running for the Minnesota Democratic Senate ticket.

General Wesley Clark, who was an early 2008 candidate until some unfortunate remarks asserting that Jews = money lenders, has attacked Senator John McCain’s qualifications for the presidency by attacking his military service. On Face the Nation this weekend Clark said the following:

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

The McCain campaign retorted with the following from spokesman Brian Rogers:

If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to question John McCain’s military service, that’s their right. But let’s please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he’s proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain’s military service record.
John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first — from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam and through to today.

In 2004 Republicans were roundly criticized by Democrats and the media for attacking Senator John Kerry’s military record, with some even questioning the validity of his purple hearts, perhaps opening up a Pandora’s box of future attacks against a candidates military record. With that said, this line of attack will surely raise eyebrows and could well put to bed any questions over Wes Clark as a potential Vice Presidential nominee for a candidate who has so often spoken of a “new politics” without the attacks of old.

Senator Barack Obama will head to “France, Germany, Israel, Jordan and the United Kingdom where he will consult with the leaders of those nations about common challenges like terrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change.”

No dates have been given for security reasons.

Potential that this trip will be combined with plans to visit Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today Senators Clinton and Obama held a major event in Unity, New Hampshire to show, what else, their unity. The scene, according to ABC News, was anything but the image of unity though last night as Clinton and Obama met privately with her top fund raisers to convince them to start giving to Obama.

One major Clinton donor described it this way: “This felt like when your mom forces you to go visit your Aunt Ida and she has to pinch your cheeks and you’re sitting there in an uncomfortable suit and you can’t wait to leave.”

Another Clinton-leaning person who was in the room said after the meeting wrapped up that there is still “a lot of anger” toward Obama among Clinton’s wealthiest fans.

“It was pretty bad,” this source said. He said donors were joking that the scene was like “an Irish wake” and that you “could cut the air with a knife” it was so tense in the room.

“He better go back to the internet,” said one donor about the Democratic nominee’s fundraising tactics.

“Most people left there feeling he didn’t connect,” said the person who was in the room. However, when asked if the donors still might write a check to Obama, he conceded that it was entirely possible.

While the report also notes some of the attendees saying they were ready to move on and get aboard an Obama administration, it is interesting to note that tension does still exist and that the schism in the party at this point does go deeper than just over policy. At its core both of these candidates represent differences in age, race, gender, style, background and geographic location. The story even picks up on a trend we have seen. Obama has always been well noted for mass appeal in his speeches but often aloof and incapable of connecting in one-on-one situations.

Clinton on the other hand has been noted by many as having an inability to express herself in mass during speeches while coming off far warmer and personable with small groups and one-on-one meetings.

It will be interesting to see how it all comes together or likewise falls apart.

Click to see video of Obama speaking about Clinton at todays Unity rally.

Also see video of Obama cracking Clinton up.

The Millionaires Amendment, a section of bipartisan campaign finance reform, has been struck down by the Supreme Court today. The case was brought there by Jack Davis, a millionaire running in my local Congressional District who has said he will spend $3 Million of his own money. Under the law his opponents were allowed to accept donations at a higher limit under the notion that this would help prevent those with money from simply buying Congressional seats.

Since this is an issue near and dear to my local area you can check out coverage at 26th District.

First the first time since 1791, the Supreme Court has made a ruling conclusively interpreting the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. District of Columbia v. Heller, challenged a 32-year-old-ban on handgun ownership in the nations capital city and put a new twist to the debate on whether the amendment should be interpreted solely as the right to create “well regulated militias” or whether it allowed for individual gun ownership without restriction.

The 5-4 decision fell along ideological lines with Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Dick Anthony Heller is an armed security guard who sued the District after rejecting his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals had ruled in Hellar’s favor stating that an individual’s right to own arms was obstructed by a total ban on handguns.

In addition to striking down D.C.’s handgun ban the ruling also lifted the restriction that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled. Scalia did say in his opinion that the ruling should not “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

Similar gun laws will now be challenged across the country and it is unlikely that this will be the final say between those debating the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the extent to which gun control can be carried out by cities, states and the federal government.

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Meanwhile in light of the decision the Obama campaign is attempting to reverse course on a statement given to the Chicago Tribune last year which suggested he supported the ban. The campaign now says those comments were “inartful”.

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he “believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”

From ABC News:

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls “common sense laws.”

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation’s capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Today the Obama campaign has released the following statement on the Court’s decision:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

The New York Times has a look inside how the Obama/Clinton campaign are negotiating how to move forward and “unify” the party.

The Associated Press reports and this morning MSNBC has confirmed that Senator Obama is asking top donors to help pay off $10 Million dollars of Senator Clinton’s debt accrued during her failed bid for the Democratic nomination.

In a teleconference with his top fundraisers Tuesday afternoon, Obama asked them to do what they could to help Clinton, according to two Democrats familiar with the call. A campaign spokesman confirmed that Obama had asked them to help the former first lady.

Clinton and Obama will appear together for the first time this Friday at a campaign event in Unity, New Hampshire. Concerns had previously been raised over the idea that Obama donors would alleviate Clinton’s debt because of the large sums still owed by Mark Penn whose business ties and connections to lobbyists and entrenched special interests Obama’s campaign stands in opposition to.