this is a test post

After Senator Hillary Clinton’s big wins in Texas and Ohio, Barack Obama clearly owned Wyoming Saturday…caucus-goers there choosing the Illinois Democrat with a record turnout. Still, the delegate distribution could be termed a “near-tie”, Obama securing 7 more delegates, Clinton walking away with another 5.

Senator McCain remains focused on the Mississippi race Tuesday and then Pennsylvania April 22nd…but how does he keep up the momentum for both the GOP and his plans for a McCain Presidency?

That’s what we’ll examine today in America’s Election Headquarters at 10am eastern when I host two hours with Eric Shawn.

We’ll show you a new Senator McCain campaign ad…the Arizona Senator must not only bring more conservatives aboard, he must build his general election campaign infra-structure, raise campaign cash and select a vice-presidental nominee that will attract not only republicans but cross-over voters as well.

Who do you think is the VP choice most likely to secure John McCain a victory in November?

Post your choice here!

Many of you watched the Congressional hearings during which Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee each told their tale of whether or not Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. Now the FBI is being asked to investigate whether Roger Clemens lied under oath.

Overwhelmingly, you posted comments on the Colbyfiles that one or the other was lying. But I heard a theory – perhaps far-fetched – I want to run by you.

A fellow attorney suggested that McNamee may have injected Clemens with steroids (as he claims) but Clemens may not have known what he was being injected with. In that isolated case, each would in fact be telling the truth.

I admit it’s a long-shot and I’m not even sure the FBI would consider it. But two weeks after we heard and considered the testimony of both:

Who do you think is lying – Clemens or McNamee? Is there any chance they are both telling the truth?

Did Drew Peterson say anything this morning that will provide investigators with a clue that helps solve this double mystery?

I’m particularly troubled by one line Drew used in his television interview this morning….”I just controlled my family”. That was his answer talking about the suspicion he had something to do with Stacy’s disappearance. What did he mean? Does Drew ever give a straight answer?

Attorney Joel Brodsky says there is no evidence in either Kathleen’s death or Stacy’s disappearance connecting Drew to either case. But did this interview help or hurt his case?

Weigh in here!

Just received this from the Will County State’s Attorneys office – confirming the Illinois State Police have notified Drew Peterson and his attorney that it has revoked his Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. This is interesting since Drew, though named a suspect in the disappearance of fourth wife Stacy, has not been charged with any crime.

The revocation of his I.D. card follows an order by a judge that he should get his guns back…an order the prosecutor argued against. So does this move signal a concern about Drew having guns around his children? Could charges be imminent in either the death of his third wife Kathleen Savio or the disappearance of fourth wife Stacy?

What do you think?

Here is the release from James Glasgow’s office:

Feb. 27, 2008

The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office announces that it received confirmation from the Illinois Department of State Police on Wednesday that it has revoked the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card of Drew W. Peterson.

The Illinois Department of State Police confirmed that the department sent a letter to Mr. Peterson on Wednesday informing him of the revocation. Mr. Peterson’s attorney also has been notified.Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow on Tuesday sent a letter to State Police Director Larry G. Trent requesting that his department exercise its authority under 430 Illinois Compiled Statutes 65/8 to revoke Mr. Peterson’s FOID card. Neither the letter from State’s Attorney Glasgow nor the Illinois Department of State Police will be released.