The Corner reports:

Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee.

Ace says supporters began chanting “Denver! Denver! Denver!”

Update: Statement from Ickes:

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

Update: Mark Halperin writes:

Vote prompts loud protests of “Denver!” and “Count our votes!” from many raucous observers.

Just across on CNN.

Update: Michelle Malkin finds a web-based source:

CNN is reporting this afternoon that Sen. Barack Obama is leaving Trinity United Church of Christ, his longtime religious home on Chicago’s South Side and a place that has triggered repeated controversies during his presidential bid.

This is, of course, the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s moral guidance counselor of 20 years.

Former DNC chief Terry McAuliffe gave his own opinion on Scott McClellan’s book. He says (as many of us have) that if McClellan was really upset, he should’ve quit.

“I never like it when someone works for someone and then comes out and writes a book trashing them,” quoth the Macker. “I don’t care if it is politics or life. If he was that upset about everything, he should have quit. Remember, Gerald Ford’s press secretary quit when he disagreed with pardoning, Ford pardoning Nixon. If you don’t agree, then get out. And I just, I find it abhorrent the way these people come out and write books about their boss. It made ‘em money, it made ‘em prestige, it gave them all this power, and then they turn around and slap ‘em. I just, I gotta tell you, I just uh, I don’t care who it is — Democrat, Republican — it’s wrong.”

Correct. If Scott knew the president was misleading the nation into war, why did he stay around voluntarily for another 3 years? Why did he only mention any of this when he decided to write a book?

I’m sure Barack Obama will be shocked — shocked — to find yet another one of his close supporters peddling theories about the government conspiring against the black community. I’m sure our nation’s Savior would never have associated with Wright and Pfleger for years if he knew this is what they’re preaching about. Right? I said, right?

Quite a few interesting friends Mr. Hope and Change has, huh?

As Ace says, hey, why not have us give up ours first, too? That’ll surely be a goodwill gesture that will persuade the Iranians to stop their program. Right? Right? I mean, surely the Iranians would follow suit.

Israel should give up its nuclear weapons to ensure Iran halts its illicit nuclear program, argues an adviser on nuclear issues to Sen. Barack Obama.

Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, also previously dismissed reports Israel’s Sept. 6 airstrike targeted a Syrian nuclear reactor as “nonsense” and called Damascus’ nuclear program “miniscule.”

Immediately following Israel’s air raid, Cirincione listed “Israelis [who] want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria” as among those spreading rumors Syria was constructing a nuclear facility.

Brilliant! In order to persuade a rogue, psychotic regime to give up its search for nuclear weapons, let’s have our allies the regime wishes to wipe off the map disarm first. What could possibly go wrong?

This time in regards to his Memorial Day flub. Obama had this to say at the event in question:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

He claims to see many of our “fallen heroes” in the crowd. That would, of course, indicate he sees dead people. But never you fret, Barry, CNN’s here to save the day. Here’s the newscast.

It shows up to the “its unbroken line of fallen heroes”, cuts out his flub without explanation, then picks up again at “our patriotism is particularly strong”.

Why not? If Pelosi & Co. had no problem sitting down for tea with Bashar al-Assad, why should Obama wait to bring about HOPE & CHANGE® until Bush is out of office? By all means, Barry, grace us all with your diplomatic expertise now!

Let’s see you start laying the groundwork for your inevitable presidency. Let’s show the American people you truly mean what you say. Why wait until George Bush leaves office?

It must be difficult to be an Obama adviser. No, wait; Scratch that. It would be difficult to be an Obama adviser if the media actually cared to cover the candidate’s gaffes and inconsistencies.

Obama’s chief strategist, last seen attempting to claim Obama never accused McCain of wanting 100 more years of war, had this to say on MSNBC today.

David Axelrod said that Barack Obama “never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference.”

Too bad history disputes Axelrod’s claim. January 14, 2007:

“We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

Maybe one day the media will cover Team Obama’s inconsistencies with the same uumph it extends to Team McCain’s. And maybe I’ll sprout wings and fly.

Barack Obama’s criticizing McCain for apparently saying Iraq troop numbers are down to pre-surge levels.

But it seems like Senator McCain’s a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday – in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy – he stood up in Wisconsin and said, “We have drawn down to pre-surge levels” in Iraq.

“That’s not true, and anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own view, but not your own facts.

McCain’s striking back, saying he didn’t misspeak, but rather the argument is over verb tenses.

Does Obama really want to get into an argument over what presidents should know? I mean, really? Shouldn’t presidents know there are 50 — not 57 — states? Shouldn’t presidents know that Canada has a prime minister — not a president? Shouldn’t commander-in-chiefs know that Afghanis speak Dari and Pashto — not Arabic? Shouldn’t presidents know the purpose of Memorial Day? Shouldn’t a president know basic family and world history? Shouldn’t presidents know what city they’re actually in?

But of course. As Ace noted earlier, McClellan is an incompetent fool who doesn’t have the skills to be more than a “regional tire distributor” spokesman. This is his opportunity to make some serious money, so why let little things like loyalty and reality get in the way?

He’s already done the rounds on Countdown, The Daily Show, and the Today show. Next stop? Testifying at the behest of a Congressman who’s been trying to impeach Bush since at least ‘07.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday he would be willing to comply with a rumored congressional subpoena to discuss the administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he’d be “glad to share my views” if asked to testify.

“I think that anyone who is objective who reads the book will see that it was a very tough process to come to these conclusions. It wasn’t easy to write these things.”..

McClellan told CNN he did not believe he needed to apologize for misleading the public as he now concedes he did. “I have come to terms with it, and realized that some of what I said was badly misguided,” he said Friday. “There’s things we did right, and there’s things we did wrong. The things that we did wrong overshadowed so much of what we did right. … and I think the American people see through what I have been saying the last few days, that I do regret that I didn’t realize some of the things then that I do now.”

Yes, just a short half-decade later, when he decides to cash out by writing a book, he’s come to the conclusion that misleading people is wrong. In 2003, when he claims Bush mislead the public into a long war, he apparently didn’t see enough wrong to lead him to resign for another 3 years.

I don’t oppose his testimony, just like I don’t really oppose impeachment hearings. What facts has he to offer to back up his accusations? He essentially relies upon his own honor and integrity, which (apparently) until recently didn’t have him believe anything is wrong with intentionally misleading a nation.

Bring it on.