8:45 - Obama leads in North Carolina 55-43; Clinton leads in Indiana 57-43.

You may wonder why our numbers are so different than CNN's. So do we — as we're getting our totals directly from the Indiana Secretary of State and the North Carolina State Board of Elections. EDIT: We'll continue updating numbers over the evening in our Primary Tracker there to the right. Straight from the real sources, of course.

8:15 - Obama's up in North Carolina 56-42, Clinton's up in Indiana 56-44. For those of you keeping track, No Preference is nearly 2-to-1 outpolling Mike Gravel in North Carolina, at 1.34% to 0.73%, making up the other 2%.

We've got a veritable smorgasbord of news from yesterday, but I want to lead off with Senator Clinton's appearance on O'Reilly — where the loser in the showdown was the American media.

So Clinton's interview with Bill O'Reilly has come and gone — well, at least in part. The first two parts aired today, and the last two will air tomorrow. You can find the 30-second clip of her speaking about Pastor Wright just about anywhere on the Internet, but unsurprisingly, it pretty much misconstrues the entire interview. So here, for your viewing pleasure, we have both of the parts that aired tonight in their entirety. Video after the jump.

It looks like I may actually have a reason to watch Fox News twice this campaign season: Senator Hillary Clinton will be making an appearance tomorrow on The O'Reilly Factor.

Voter ID laws caused a bit of a tumult yesterday, as the United States Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring photo identification to vote.

After Clinton's definitive victory in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, it stands to reason that the news cycle yesterday would be dominated by analysis.

I like nothing better than seeing Republicans in a feeding frenzy. So the more Ron Paul invests in taking down John McCain, the better.

I've always been a little wary of measuring the success of the surge in Iraq by the number of American military casualties we were suffering. Isn't the supposed reason we're there to maintain stability to prevent al-Quaeda from strengthening and again posing a threat to the United States? Shouldn't that be the metric?

Turns out it's probably not the metric because were it so, we'd have to declare that we have failed.

If the purpose of Iraq was ever to keep us safe from terrorism by fighting al-Quaeda, the Bush administration has officially failed.