Mitt Romney won the primary/caucuses in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Nevada. Today, John McCain held some fundraisers in Utah and Colorado. In Colorado, Romney beat McCain 59% to 19%, winning rural and urban areas and even in Denver. Who did McCain bring along today? Mitt Romney.

Millions of Republicans supported him and voted for him," McCain said of the former Massachusetts governor at a press conference at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver.

Romney, whom some speculate is on McCain's short list of vice-presidential candidates, said McCain is "tested and proven."

The Washington Post has more. McCain and Romney were pretty contentious during the Republican debates. Looks like they've patched up their differences. Expect more of Romney on the campaign trail: [More...]

Barack Obama will be on the daytime chat show "The View" tomorrow. Here's what he had to say about Rev. Jeremiah Wright (received by e-mail from ABC News, no link):

• "I'm not vetting my pastor," Obama told "The View", "I didn't have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he's given and see if there's something offensive that he's said."

• "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people, and were inappropriate and mischaracterize what I believe is the greatness of this country," Obama explained, "Then I wouldn't have felt comfortable standing in the church."

• Obama described Wright as a "brilliant man who was still stuck in a time warp."

• "It was a snippet of a man," Obama told ABC. "I don't purchase all the DVDs and I didn't read all the church bulletins." The candidate went on to explain, "Part of what my role in my politics is to get people who don't normally listen to each other, to talk to each other, who crazy things, who are offended by each other, for me to understand them and to maybe help them understand each other."

Update: Comments now closed.

Yesterday I mentioned that following Hillary Clinton's interview with Greta Van Susteren, Karl Rove came on and gave a laundry list of exaggerations by Barack Obama. He spoke really fast so I couldn't grab them all, but the transcript is now on Lexis. Here's his list:

"We have had Senator Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

He claimed to be involved in an asbestos campaign in public housing in his book, and it turned out not to be the case.

More...

Just in from the DNCC:

We’re hosting a conference call on Tuesday to talk logistics. We’ll answer your questions about the credentialing process and we’ll give you a more clear picture of what to expect in August. Join us. And if you have friends or colleagues who plan to blog the Convention, please extend the invitation. We’re eager to see more bloggers apply for spots in the Press Gallery – but the application deadline is approaching.

CONFERENCE CALL DETAILS:
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 3:30pm ET

RSVP with your name, the name of your blog, and URLs to OnlineTeam-at-DemConvention.com. We’ll e-mail you the call-in number prior to the scheduled call.

More...

Former Alabama Governor Don Sigelman was granted an appeal bond today by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled his appeal raises a substantial question. He has served 9 months of a 7 year sentence.

The release may make it more likely Siegelman will testify in a Congressional probe:

Earlier in the day, in fact, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee in Washington asked the Justice Department to allow Mr. Siegelman to travel to Washington to testify about his prosecution, which he has long claimed was politically motivated. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said such a temporary release was unlikely, but the appellate court decision increases the possibility that the former governor will be able to testify before the committee.

Some good news for Mumia Abu-Jamal today -- but not enough. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled he either has to get a new jury sentencing trial or his sentence will be life without parole, rather than death.

"The jury instructions and the verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from finding a mitigating circumstance that had not been unanimously agreed upon," wrote Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica in the 77-page opinion.

One of the judges on the panel would have granted a new trial in the guilt phase as well: [More..]

By Big Tent Democrat

Puerto Rico is the post-racial society Obama represents. It is not difficult to imagine how he could take parts of his speech in Philadelphia about race, add some history and demography about Puerto Rico, and give a speech in San Juan that rightly acknowledges that on this great issue of bridging America's racial divide, Puerto Ricans have a lot to teach America. Such a speech would not only be attractive to Puerto Ricans, it would be true.

Puerto Rico a post-racial society? Hah! More . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Clinton's "scorched earth" tactics:

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite. "Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please." "It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."

. . . "First of all, every time you have a vigorous contest like we are having in this primary election people get intense," she continued. "You know, Sen. Obama has intense support. I have intense support."

Clinton stressed that there are "significant" differences between her and Obama, but said "those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain."

What a dastardly thing to say . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Move On, unfortunately and disappointingly, backed by Open Left, has chose to circulate a false petition defending Nancy Pelosi's outrageous behavior. Move On falsely states that:

A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.

This is false. Nancy Pelosi stood against the will of the people as expressed by the popular vote. Let's remind Move On and Open Left what Pelosi said:

Political prognosticators give Clinton more of a chance of catching, or even surpassing, Obama in the national popular vote but Pelosi argued that super delegates should follow the pledged-delegate, not the popular-vote, leader.

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos. "But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

But Move On's contempt for the will of the people and the popular vote is not new, nor is it new for the Pelosi family:

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Glenn Reynolds and PW, Jay Cost of RCP explains that pundits bloviate and voters decide:

I agree that Clinton is more likely to lose than win. I also do not necessarily disagree with these low estimates. However, I disagree with the way these estimates are occasionally presented. There is sometimes an implication that these are precise predictions - when in fact a prediction like this must be very imprecise. This is why I was so vague in offering my own estimate last week.

There are reasons to expect imprecision in this kind of situation. Precision depends in part on the number of variable factors that create that which we are predicting. The more things that must happen for the prediction to come true, the less precise it is. . . . We can make a prediction of what will happen, and we should predict that Obama is more likely to win than Clinton. However, there are so many factors that will go into who wins the nomination that speaking more precisely than this becomes quite problematic.

Exactly.