Sen. Barack Obama is between a rock and a hard place.

Failure to hit back against the underhanded, negative politics of rival Sen. Hillary Clinton that resulted in Texas and Ohio defeats could leave him imperiled.

Yet if he does retaliate, his unifying message of hope and change from the bitter politics of the past may ring hollow with both supporters and undecideds.

He didn’t get this far - winning 26 of 40 contests against Clinton by our count - by having a weak stomach. He’s a fighter, too. But this is tricky business.

The Clintons are throwing everything at him to wrest away a nomination that, by all mathematical outcomes, is still Obama’s to lose.

He can’t let them, and if he’s smart, he’ll respond in kind.

Only Obama must accomplish this in a measured way that leaves his message and credibility intact, which is easier said than done.

Even with the shadow cast upon him by Tony Rezko, it’s hard to imagine Barack Obama losing any battle with Clinton on the subject of integrity.

The problem lies in the fallout from bringing up such topics.

He can’t be Barack Obama and stoop to that level. But if he can utilize some of his biggest political supporters to make the case for him, remaining just far enough above the fray to focus on his core campaign themes, it just might work.

The story of Obama’s posturing on NAFTA turned out to be bogus. Hillary is equally guilty of taking campaign funds from a con-artist (Norman Hsu).

The Clintons’ joint finances pose blatant conflicts of interest and the list of their connections to special interest groups and lobbyists sure isn’t short.

Negatives about Hillary Clinton matter to voters. Barack Obama’s efforts to run a clean campaign are admirable, but could, unthinkably, be his undoing.

A measured, but proactive response is vital. Soon.

With six weeks to go until the Pennsylvania primary, it’s time to fight back and make sure the nomination doesn’t slip through his fingers.

After seven-plus years of lies, deception, annihilation of civil liberties, ineptness and Karl Rove-speak, John McCain’s plain talk, service to our country, and moderate voting record on many issues is, by all means, refreshing.

But there’s little doubt what the GOP nominee’s political platform amounts to, at least from what we’ve discerned in recent weeks. This about sums it up …

NOTE: This was created by and is property of journalist and cartoonist Andrew Wahl. Visit his blog, Off the Wahl, for many more classics like this.

His “independent streak” makes him a strong general election candidate, but John McCain should probably try to distance himself a little from George W. Bush and offer more than an unenthusiastic defense of the status quo.

Or maybe he shouldn’t. As Democrats, we embrace this campaign theme - from the correct side of it - as a talking point all spring, summer and fall.

Call it ethically questionable or politically brilliant, but the results were obvious. Hillary Clinton’s last-ditch fear-mongering - also known as the “red phone” or “3 a.m” ad - helped deliver huge wins in the Ohio and Texas primaries.

The controversial Clinton commercial featured sleeping children and asked voters to decide who they want protecting them -  implying not so subtly that Obama is an unknown commodity and that only Hillary will keep them safe.

Well, it turns out that footage is nearly a decade old, and one of those darling, sleeping kids - now 17 - is a huge Barack Obama supporter.

Casey Knowles, a Barack Obama volunteer in Washington State, was filmed eight years ago when she was working as a TV extra.

It is not clear what the material featuring Knowles was originally shot for, but Getty Images owns the footage and can do with it as it pleases.

Knowles, who turns 18 in April, told a Seattle TV station that she is for Obama all the way: “It’s really sort of ironic that my image would be used to advocate for Hillary Clinton when I myself do not.”

Hard to argue with that.

In other news, Obama won the Wyoming caucuses Saturday, giving him a modest boost in the historic and tight race for the Democratic nomination.

The win in the nation’s least-populated state is hardly seen as a turning point, but every race counts, and Obama’s delegate lead is still pushing 100.

A Clinton spokesman responded that these results mean nothing, and that she had actually been planning on losing to Barack Obama by a margin of 61-38 percent in Wyoming during each of her amazing 35 years of experience.

Just kidding. Mostly.

As party officials in Florida and Michigan scramble to get their delegates seated after royally lousing up and getting them banned in the first place, a key player has been entirely overlooked by mainstream media outlets.

Flying under the radar, a candidate no one is talking about drew an impressive 237,762 votes in Michigan, good for 40 percent of the primary’s tally.

Despite little name recognition and his name suggesting a lackadaisical air, the numbers don’t lie - and Hillary Clinton should be looking over her shoulder …

Hillary Clinton won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary with 55 percent, as this CNN table shows, but Uncommitted surprised pundits and came in a strong second.

This kind of showing despite limited resources and minimal effort suggests a strong grass-roots network of support for the upstart - and that the Democratic party may not be certain about co-frontrunners Clinton and Barack Obama.

With the magic number of 2,025 delegates still out of their reach, the possibility of an Uncommitted groundswell at the national convention is growing.

“I didn’t even campaign in Michigan, and 40 percent of people say I passed the Commander-in-Chief test!” Uncommitted told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

The insurgent pleaded his case to voters, insisting that his relatively unknown status won’t discourage him from drawing new supporters.

“Look, if Jon Stewart can be a fake newsman that gets viewers, I can be a fake candidate that gets votes,” Uncommitted argued.

If Barack Obama is the candidate of change, and Hillary Clinton a candidate of pure evil, Uncommitted may seek to portray himself something in between: the candidate of moderate, quasi-corrupt adjustment.

Asked by Cooper about his health care plan - a critical issue for many voters - Uncommitted replied: “I’m not ready to take on that series of issues yet.”

As for his Iraq war stance, Uncommitted said: “I can’t promise anything.”

Such political views have established Uncommitted as a serious threat in the under-30, white, black and Hispanic single male demographic.

The equivalent of a Vermont Republican, a Wyoming Democrat certainly isn’t arriving at his or her political stance because it’s the popular thing to do.

Republicans have a more than 2-1 edge in voter registration — or even 10-1 in some counties — so you can imagine the surprise even among Democrats themselves at the sudden relevance of their caucuses on Saturday.

Wyoming has 18 national Democratic delegates to apportion — 12 of them to be decided, directly or indirectly, by the caucus voting Saturday.

An even dozen. The fewest possible in this convoluted system. Wyoming has approximately 522,000 residents, or fewer than every other U.S. state including Vermont (621,000) and even Washington D.C. (588,000).

But every delegate matters in this race.

As Democrats around the nation digested the results of the March 4 voting, when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton broke a string of victories by her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, the fallout remained unclear.

One thing is certain: It’s not over, and therefore, Wyoming is back on the table. Obama’s delegate lead is estimated around 100. The Equality State won’t shift it much in either direction, but momentum is also critical.

Wyoming: Known for breathtaking scenery, not Democratic caucuses that matter.

Barack Obama has done well in the West and particularly well in caucuses, with his energetic grass-roots supporters pushing hard on his behalf. But Clinton’s momentum after her Tuesday victories could tighten things considerably.

Momentum is also a factor in a Democratic race where jockeying for position and the perception of being the frontrunner have become increasingly important.

Both candidates would surely love to claim a modest boost from a Wyoming victory, although Clinton would surely tell you it doesn’t matter the second she lost.

Where the respective Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton messages fit in is fairly hard to say in a state where a conservative — although often more libertarian — point of view is shared across much of the political spectrum.

Either way, it’ll be interesting to watch tomorrow. Record turnout is expected, and hopefully, Obama can point to Wyoming as another supposedly insignificant, red-leaning state that paved his way to the Democratic nomination.

In a potentially calamitous turn of events, officials in Florida and Michigan are dying to have Democratic delegates seated at the party’s national convention.

Both states’ primaries were held in January but did not count. The DNC warned all states not to move their primary and caucus dates any earlier than Super Tuesday, February 5. Michigan and Florida called the DNC’s bluff. Only it wasn’t a bluff.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in such a tight race that the magic number of 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination appears out of reach.

If Florida and Michigan, with 366 delegates between them, were to suddenly count, their delegates just might put either candidate over the top.

The reasons it is ridiculous to apportion delegates based on the January results or hold new elections - both of which have been proposed - are:

• Rules are rules. A February 5 race would have been plenty early, but Florida and Michigan moved up even further despite being told in no uncertain terms that this would be the result! Now what? They’re sorry?

• Obama did not run in those races. Clinton didn’t either, but in January, she enjoyed far greater name recognition in states where Barack Obama didn’t show up. He wasn’t even officially on the ballot in Michigan.

• Do-overs are moot at this stage. If you allocated delegates based on the January elections, Clinton would win 60 percent. Nowadays, Obama gets 45-48 percent at worst (see Texas and Ohio), shrinking the margin.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will point plenty of fingers over this mess.

By our calculations, two 55-45 percent wins would give Hillary a 201-165 edge in delegates, narrowing the deficit slightly, but not changing the math or the story.

Thus, the principal result of such an exercise is collateral damage.

There’s a reason Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican and a candidate for the V.P. nomination under John McCain (at least in our view), says he wants Democratic votes in the Sunshine State counted. It’s not because he’s a nice guy.

If Michigan and Florida scheduled new primaries or caucuses, a Democratic race already bordering on mass hysteria would officially attain that status.

Millions of dollars would be spent the states and party to hold the elections - with Clinton and Obama spending millions more tearing each other limb from limb. All while Crist and the Republicans smile as they sit and watch.

Hillary’s garbage 3 a.m. ad is proof positive of Democrats doing the Republicans’ work for them. Attack ads on national security readiness? Sparring on personal integrity? The longer this goes on, the better the GOP looks.

If this continues, whoever wins this historic Democratic race will emerge weaker than John McCain. The only question is how much weaker.

Finding the right way to arrive at a winner is a challenge, no doubt, but the answer is not letting Florida and Michigan back in the mix.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is already the Governor of California. Surely there’s room in the state’s capital for one of our favorite past NBA stars.

Former Phoenix Suns point guard Kevin Johnson announced that he will challenge incumbent Heather Fargo, according to the Sacramento Bee.

“It will end up being a knock-down, drag-out fight that will focus on the negatives of both candidates,” said local political consultant Doug Elmets. “Both campaigns’ teams are well known for focusing on the dark side.”

Former floor general Kevin Johnson wants to run the city of Sacramento.

With the California city in the midst of a financial crisis, problems with high-profile development projects, and with criticism of her frequent travels and perceived lack of leadership, Fargo is vulnerable, some experts believe.

A Sacramento State survey found Fargo with a George W. Bush-like approval rating of 36 percent - 28 percent said they would vote to re-elect Fargo, while 29 percent would choose Johnson and 41 percent are undecided.

An active local philanthropist and businessman born and raised in the city’s Oak Park area, KJ says his organizations have cleaned up areas of his hometown and started or planned to bring 20 businesses and 300 jobs to the area.

His announcement rally was slickly produced, with signs, T-shirts, a Web site and a Kevin Johnson for Mayor baseball card that includes a bio. Johnson’s vision, the card states, is “A city that works for everyone.”

As his platform, Kevin Johnson says that he will push for good schools, a climate that attracts business and jobs, and a transparent, accountable government. He would commit, he says, to decreasing crime in the rapidly-growing city.

No word on whether the Boston Celtics’ Kevin Garnett, a.k.a. the Big Ticket, would run as his Deputy Mayor. KJ and KG? Think about it! That, or he should form an all Phoenix Suns 1993 NBA Finals ticket with Charles Barkley.

Continue reading about KJ in the Sacramento Bee …

If you thought George W. Bush’s embrace of Cindy McCain at the White House had this award wrapped up, we wouldn’t blame you… but think again!

Half a world away, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak went in for the kill as he greeted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem Wednesday.

Politics sure is full of these moments, which certainly makes us laugh - and think that an international handshake-only policy would be passed pretty easily…

And we thought Condi was uncomfortable with foreign affairs already!

We know it’s part of politics, but for Barack Obama to be tagged with the all-talk, no action / empty rhetoric label strikes us as ridiculous. Especially given some of the statements of his chief rival made in her victory speech Tuesday night.

For someone who says they stand for action and not talk, the former First Lady sure offered up some awfully broad, empty and misleading remarks in Ohio.

Below are some choice Hillary Clinton quotes from March 4, followed by a brief translation / rebuttal of each by the Donkey Dish editorial board.

Hillary Clinton: “No candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary.”

Donkey Dish: Given the state’s late billing on the primary calendar, can anyone even remember the last time March 4 primaries were even contested?

Hillary Clinton: “If we want a Democratic president, we need a nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio. And that is what we’ve done. We’ve won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee.”

Donkey Dish: That’s about it. Never mind that two of those didn’t count, or that Obama polls better against John McCain, or that he has won more popular votes nationally, of that he’s taken many more states, including Missouri, Colorado and other “red state” staples he alone might bring into play in November.

Hillary Clinton: “More and more people have joined this campaign, and millions of Americans haven’t spoken yet. In states like Pennsylvania and so many others, people are watching this historic campaign, and they want their turn to help make history. They want their voices to count, and they should. They should be heard.”

Donkey Dish: That is, unless you’re one of the superdelegates. In that case, please don’t listen to the people! Slightly more voters picked Obama, after all.

Continue reading this article …

She’s always dressed immaculately, has a beautiful smile and comes across as a fun, laid-back, down-to-earth and supportive spouse.

But who is Cindy McCain?

For most of the public, relatively little is known about the wife of Republican presidential nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Here’s a brief rundown …

Her father founded Hensley & Company, one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributors in the U.S., and today Cindy is the Chairman of the Board.

The company is reportedly worth an estimated $300 million.

Cindy graduated from the University of Southern California with a teaching degree, but meeting John McCain changed her career plans.

Eighteen years her senior, John McCain first met Cindy after separating from his first wife. Their courtship was brief, and they married in 1980. He first ran for - and won - a U.S. House of Representatives seat in her native Arizona in 1982.

They had three children - Jack, James and Meghan McCain - and adopted a fourth child, who they named Bridget, from Bangladesh in 1991.

John and Cindy McCain after he won the GOP nomination March 4.

Cindy McCain has been and remains an active philanthropist, serving on boards of several charitable organizations. But she and her family are, unfortunately, better known for being dragged through the mud in 2000.

During the 2000 primary in South Carolina, which pitted John McCain against then Texas Gov. George W. Bush, there were push-polls and despicable rumors circulated that Bridget was actually McCain’s illegitimate black child.

In the same race, Cindy McCain was portrayed as an addict.

In 1989, Cindy took prescription pain killers for a back injury sustained in a car crash. Four years later, she was still addicted to then.

She admitted her addiction when confronted, then received help and stopped taking the medicine. But she became the target of smears nonetheless.

Cindy McCain has been more active, ongoing and visible in her husband’s presidential campaign in 2007-2008 than the last time around.

For more on the wife of Sen. McCain and potential First Lady, check out our bio section and our growing gallery of Cindy McCain photos.