It isn’t every night that “celebrities” like Ashlee Simpson, Lauren Conrad and the Jonas Brothers descend on Washington, D.C., though many of them match the intellectual level of our chief executive (a frightening but true thought).

Those stars - along with Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe, Marcia Cross and Gossip Girl star Ed Westwick - were guests at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday night in Washington.

President George W. Bush and Late Late Show host Craig Ferguson poked fun at themselves, the celebrities, and all three presidential candidates in front of an audience of the Washington press corps at the annual gala.

“Pamela Anderson and Mitt Romney in the same room?” Bush said. “Isn’t that one of the signs of the apocalypse?”

Bush also joked about his daughter Jenna Bush, and her May 10 wedding to fiancé Henry Hager - likening her to John McCain.

“Senator [John] McCain’s not here,” the president told the audience.

“He probably wanted to distance himself from me a little bit. You know, he’s not alone. Jenna’s moving out too.”

Jenna Bush, for her part, has indicated that she may not support McCain in this November’s election. Henry Hager is a former aide to Karl Rove.

President Bush later added, “Hillary Clinton couldn’t get in because of sniper fire and Sen. [Barack] Obama’s at church.”

During Craig Ferguson’s speech, he joked to the president, “By the way, Mr. President, you were fantastic on Deal or No Deal.”

The more he opens his mouth, the clearer it becomes that John McCain’s views on global affairs are rather consistent with those of the great George W. Bush.

Much like Bush, McCain sees the world in oppositional terms - us vs. them, good vs. evil. He speaks of taking the lead “in fighting the transcendent issue of our time” - an unending, undefined crusade against “evil.”

Really, we could end this post right now. But we’ll continue.

During the Cold War, the new, central tenet of neo-conservatism emerged - that America is locked in a battle with evil. The U.S.S.R. was evil - but this hazardous way of framing any and all conflict has prevailed ever since.

Bush’s foreign policy - his refusal to think for more than five seconds about any situation or consider diplomacy, his outright dismissal of the United Nations, his increasingly aggressive nuclear posturing - is a function of this.

John McCain maintains the same outdated, epically disastrous world view, no matter how “maverick” or “independent” he fancies himself.

DON’T KID YOURSELF: George W. Bush and his aspiring successor, John McCain, share the same bellicose, inherently dangerous world views, no matter what “criticism” the latter supposedly has regarding the former’s policies.

Like many conservatives during and since the Cold War, Sen. McCain has embraced this “moral” attitude that the United States is a force defending all that is good, battling the forces of evil. As if it could possibly be that simple.

• He has morphed this into an laughably simplistic, strategic guidebook.

• He rejects negotiation and coexistence out of hand. Even if this means mass casualties, unending conflict and unstated goals.

• He confuses our enemies - Sunni Al-Qaeda with Shiite Iranian extremists - not because he’s old (well, maybe a little for that reason), but thanks to the narrow-minded ignorance that assumes evil is a single, uniform entity.

John McCain may lambast Donald Rumsfeld and nitpick Bush on foreign policy, but that’s all it is. The fundamental principles, or lack thereof, are essentially the same, and cannot be allowed to continue in such reckless fashion if our once-respected nation is to repair its relationships with the rest of the world.

In a world of ambiguity, marred by deep-rooted and rapidly-transforming threats such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation and, yes, global warming, such a dumbed-down, overly nationalistic approach will inevitably fail.

It has, and it will. Vote for this man at your peril.

The scene is Gary, Indiana, and the tiled walls of Theodore Roosevelt High School’s gym, along with its “Panthers” banners, are looking a bit worn.

Shabbiness is no surprise in this Rust Belt steel-making region that has been hit hard by economic stagnation for decades, USA Today notes.

But the capacity crowds turning out in Gary and vicinity for Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are signs of renewed political vitality.

The contentious, marathon Democratic nominating contest is now focused on North Carolina and Indiana, which hold their primaries May 6.

To win the Indiana primary, carrying the state’s northwestern region — the five counties nearest Chicago — is critical for both candidates.

The key to that? Convincing voters that you offer the best plan to survive in a manufacturing economy that has been gutted in recent decades - and in many voters’ views, thanks to foreign trade agreements.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton square off in the Hoosier State.

Given its proximity to Chicago, the region looks as if it would favor Barack Obama — but there are myriad obstacles in the way of both.

A large proportion of black and Latino voters and a heavy union presence present unique challenges for this dynamic Democratic duo.

As a result, the Hoosier State could truly be up for grabs in the first Democratic primary that has mattered there in 24 years.

Seven state polls since February show Hillary Clinton leading in four and Obama in three. Obama leads 50-45 percent in the most recent, released April 11 by Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Continue reading this USA Today article here …

If Pennsylvania has given Hillary Clinton anything, it’s ammo.

She won’t go away, and will continue press her claim that she merits the support of the remaining superdelegates - and is even leading in one key category.

Sen. Clinton apparently netted around 200,000 overall votes and about a dozen delegates in this Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary - enough to narrow her gap with Sen. Barack Obama, but not nearly enough to close it.

However, those 200,000 net votes from Tuesday gave Clinton a narrow edge when it comes to the popular vote - from a certain point of view.

“I’m very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else,” Clinton said Wednesday.

Barack Obama’s campaign begs to differ.

Clinton’s claim assumes Michigan and Florida votes cast for her count - but the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.

Barack Obama didn’t even have his name on the Michigan ballot, so he received no votes from that contest. Clinton won with 55 percent over “Uncommitted.”

“We think that, in the end, if we end up having won twice as many states and having the most votes, then we should be the nominee,” Obama said.

Does Hillary Clinton’s popular vote argument hold water?

If Michigan and Florida votes are counted, Clinton is ahead by just about 100,000 (15.1 million to 15 million). Without them, Obama has a 500,000-vote lead. If Florida counted and not Michigan, Obama leads by 200,000.

Clinton says she has now received more votes than any Democrat in history - another dubious claim, as voter turnout continues to soar in large part because of the historic longevity and closeness of a race she refuses to bow out of - delaying the inevitable in the eyes of many Democrats.

Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, said he doesn’t expect Obama to lose his lead by June 3, when the Democratic contests - and their increasingly negative, self-destructive tone - mercifully end.

Here are the states and dates of the primaries still to come …

• Guam (May 3)
• North Carolina, Indiana (May 6)
• West Virginia (May 13)
• Oregon, Kentucky (May 20)
• Puerto Rico (June 1)
• South Dakota, Montana (June 3)

With an almost insurmountable pledged delegate lead, Obama is in the home stretch - but facing questions about why he can’t just end this thing.

“You know the way we’re going to close the deal is by winning. And right now we’re winning. And what we’ll do is keep on campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon and these other states,” he said. “And at the conclusion of all these contests, people will go back and take a look and say, ‘Who’s won?’”

Boy. How badly does the New York Times want to retract its Hillary Clinton endorsement from earlier this year? Why won’t it just say so overtly?

Maybe it doesn’t have to. Its scathing editorial from yesterday, “The Low Road to Victory,” which criticizes the New York Senator’s negative tactics in the Pennsylvania campaign, leaves no other conclusion.

While the New York Times‘ own credibility is suspect at this point, you have to wonder about the toll this protracted, increasingly bitter campaign is taking.

It’s nearing the point where the damage may be impossible to undo.

Here’s the piece from Wednesday’s paper, which also criticizes Barack Obama for falling victim to the negative tone set by Clinton, but compares the former First Lady to George W. Bush and Karl Rove (seriously) …

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Pennsylvania primary, which produced yet another inconclusive result Tuesday night, was even meaner, vacuous, desperate, and filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction.

Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.

It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1.

But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11.

A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

Continue reading this article …

Forget being president, Barack Obama could probably start for the New York Knicks! Seriously, non-sports fans. They’re that terrible.

His political skills were never in doubt, but here’s a fun video remix of the Illinois Senator lookin’ awfully smooth on the basketball court.

Obama should definitely stick to hoops and not bowling. We’d like to see John McCain make an up-and-under, double-pump move like this…

So President George W. Bush appeared on Deal or No Deal for some reason. He may or may not think he is seeking a third term in the White House, and he may just be bored and looking for attention. Over here!

Seriously, does he have nothing better to do? At least the WWE spots with Sens. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton helped expose each to many voters… or something. Why the heck is Bush doing this?

Not that it matters of course. Here’s the clip …

You have to love George W. Bush mocking his own abysmal approval ratings. We’d give him credit for being self-deprecating, except that he’s being that way after, y’know, doing an abominable job as U.S. President.

The never-ending Democratic race — and its increasingly nasty tone - are a subject of great debate and concern. At the end of the day, the election isn’t really about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama… at least it shouldn’t be. Right?

With the Pennsylvania primary finally over, the cartoon below tries to put the real, often-overlooked concerns of Americans back into focus.

NOTE: This political cartoon was created by and is property of journalist and cartoonist Andrew Wahl. Visit his blog, Off the Wahl, for more of his work.

Below is a map of Pennsylvania, indicating the winner in each Keystone State county in yesterday’s Democratic presidential primary.

Sen. Hillary Clinton won 55 percent of the vote overall, capturing approximately 215,000 more votes than her rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

A strong victory for Clinton, but still a reasonably contested race.

This map makes it look like a landslide, however - and plays into the Clinton campaign’s central argument against Barack Obama’s electability.

Aside from greater Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Barack Obama lost virtually every county in Pennsylvania - most of them by substantial margins…

Of course, the counties Obama did win are among Pennsylvania’s most populous, and his inability to defeat Hillary Clinton in some counties doesn’t automatically translate to inevitable losses to John McCain there.

The candidates are a little different, don’t you think?

Still, no Obama supporter can like the sight of that sea of light blue, indicating one 60-40 or even 65-35 rout after another. There’s a clear disconnect with rural, working-class voters in the Northeast / Rust Belt - one that the controversy over his remarks (however misguided the criticism might be) didn’t help.

What will it take for Obama to bridge the gap out there in “cling” country? Or is America simply not ready for a politician this atypical?

Last night, Sen. Hillary Clinton claimed that “the tide has turned” upon her 10-point victory in the hard-fought Pennsylvania primary.

But it’s more likely that she merely delayed the wave of momentum that is waiting to carry Sen. Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination.

This is not to diminish Hillary Clinton’s win or Pennsylvania’s importance altogether. Obama’s loss in another big state and the margins by which he lost among blue-collar and rural voters raise lingering questions.

However, as Democratic delegates are allotted proportionally according to the vote, Clinton’s Pennsylvania win does little to cut into Obama’s lead among pledged delegates or his advantage in the popular vote count.

Of course, if one counts Florida in the popular vote total, Barack Obama’s lead is considerably smaller. If you count Michigan and Florida - as Clinton aides surely will in their arguments - Obama no longer has a lead at all.

Pennsylvania win in hand, where does Hillary Clinton go from here?

So look for Clinton to head into the next round contests with the renewed big state theory - that Obama can’t win states like Pennsylvania and Ohio that Democrats will need to regain the White House in November.

On the flip side of that, Obama expands the electoral map in ways Clinton can’t. But Obama’s best strategy is to make these arguments moot with two huge wins on May 6, when Indiana and North Carolina take center stage.

It’s doubtful that Clinton can overtake Obama in North Carolina, where he enjoys a double-digit lead in polls. But the Clintons will campaign there to try to make it close - and keep him away from Indiana, where polls are about even.

Obama would love a victory in Indiana to prove he can win a large rust belt state and bolster his case that he can beat Sen. John McCain. Any victory also helps immensely in the tightening popular vote battle.

Until he posts another important victory - for symbolic and logistical reasons - the door is left ajar, no matter how small the crack may be.

Clinton will continue to challenge Obama’s electability in her argument to the superdelegates. He must erase any doubts via the only truly conclusive, indisputable means - votes. Bring on May 6.