From Maureen Dowd:
Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton. After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place. Her last resort is to continue to press the “Psssst — he’s a black man” tactic. She insisted to USAToday, after the North Carolina and Indiana slide, that she has a broader base, citing an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black? Is the most ingenious way to turn the screw by not choosing her as his running mate, or by choosing her? It is, verily, a sticky wicket. One top Hillary supporter who is black warns that, despite the giddy dreams of some punch-drunk Democrats, a fusion ticket could backfire because “Americans can’t handle too much change at once.” But should Obama ignore that caution and appease Hillary fans by putting her on the ticket? As president, he could announce that, because Dick Cheney abused the powers of his office so grievously, taking the title “Vice” literally, he intends to shrink the vice presidency back to its “bucket of warm spit” Constitutional prerogatives — presiding over the Senate and taking over if the president goes under anesthesia. He might also neglect to give Bill (whose acronym would be SLOTUS, Second Lad of the United States) full White House access. Aside from the delight Bill would get from living at the Naval Observatory and having a huge telescope to window-peep with, there wouldn’t be much joy in Hillaryland. The lady-in-waiting would be surrounded by Obama disciples who disdained her for fighting dirty. And she would be miserable holding up the train of the young prince who usurped her dream, derailing the post-nup she had with Bill to trade places. As de facto veep for Bill, she had enough leverage over him, due to his shenanigans, to co-opt huge chunks of policy and personnel decisions. But in a return engagement with Obama at the top, could she really wake up every day in the back seat and wish him well, or would she just be plotting? (Fourteen vice presidents have ascended, after all.) Wouldn’t she be, in Monty Python parlance, the Trojan Rabbit behind the gates? On a positive note, maybe she could bring back all that stuff she pilfered on her way out. Obama’s other option, laid out by Teddy Kennedy on Friday, is to go with someone who wouldn’t be a big dark cloud over his sunshiny new politics. Teddy told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that Obama should choose a partner “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.” That would be smart for another reason: Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him, and the Golden One is not used to such rough treatment. In the last few days, as Hillary has deflated and Obama and the Democrats have dashed for daylight, he has been more like his old self, flashing his all-is-right-with-the-world smile on the cover of Time, joshing and charming Democrats and Republicans as he wooed superdelegates on the House floor, taking on James Carville for insulting his manhood. “James Carville is well known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” he told Terry Moran on “Nightline.” Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She’s Jane Jinx to him. It’s a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn’s star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in “Pat and Mike.” The fiancé is always belittling Hepburn, so whenever he’s in the stands, her tennis and golf go kerflooey. Finally, her manager, played by Spencer Tracy, asks the fiancé to stay away from big matches, explaining, “You are the wrong jockey for this chick.” “You know, except when you’re around, we got a very valuable piece of property here,” he says, later adding, “When you’re around, she’s no good, she’s dead, see?” The best way Obama can punish Hillary is to reward himself. He’s no good around her, see?
Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton.
After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place.
Her last resort is to continue to press the “Psssst — he’s a black man” tactic. She insisted to USAToday, after the North Carolina and Indiana slide, that she has a broader base, citing an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black? Is the most ingenious way to turn the screw by not choosing her as his running mate, or by choosing her?
It is, verily, a sticky wicket.
One top Hillary supporter who is black warns that, despite the giddy dreams of some punch-drunk Democrats, a fusion ticket could backfire because “Americans can’t handle too much change at once.”
But should Obama ignore that caution and appease Hillary fans by putting her on the ticket?
As president, he could announce that, because Dick Cheney abused the powers of his office so grievously, taking the title “Vice” literally, he intends to shrink the vice presidency back to its “bucket of warm spit” Constitutional prerogatives — presiding over the Senate and taking over if the president goes under anesthesia.
He might also neglect to give Bill (whose acronym would be SLOTUS, Second Lad of the United States) full White House access.
Aside from the delight Bill would get from living at the Naval Observatory and having a huge telescope to window-peep with, there wouldn’t be much joy in Hillaryland.
The lady-in-waiting would be surrounded by Obama disciples who disdained her for fighting dirty. And she would be miserable holding up the train of the young prince who usurped her dream, derailing the post-nup she had with Bill to trade places.
As de facto veep for Bill, she had enough leverage over him, due to his shenanigans, to co-opt huge chunks of policy and personnel decisions.
But in a return engagement with Obama at the top, could she really wake up every day in the back seat and wish him well, or would she just be plotting? (Fourteen vice presidents have ascended, after all.) Wouldn’t she be, in Monty Python parlance, the Trojan Rabbit behind the gates?
On a positive note, maybe she could bring back all that stuff she pilfered on her way out.
Obama’s other option, laid out by Teddy Kennedy on Friday, is to go with someone who wouldn’t be a big dark cloud over his sunshiny new politics.
Teddy told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that Obama should choose a partner “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.”
That would be smart for another reason: Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him, and the Golden One is not used to such rough treatment.
In the last few days, as Hillary has deflated and Obama and the Democrats have dashed for daylight, he has been more like his old self, flashing his all-is-right-with-the-world smile on the cover of Time, joshing and charming Democrats and Republicans as he wooed superdelegates on the House floor, taking on James Carville for insulting his manhood.
“James Carville is well known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” he told Terry Moran on “Nightline.”
Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She’s Jane Jinx to him. It’s a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn’s star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in “Pat and Mike.”
The fiancé is always belittling Hepburn, so whenever he’s in the stands, her tennis and golf go kerflooey. Finally, her manager, played by Spencer Tracy, asks the fiancé to stay away from big matches, explaining, “You are the wrong jockey for this chick.”
“You know, except when you’re around, we got a very valuable piece of property here,” he says, later adding, “When you’re around, she’s no good, she’s dead, see?”
The best way Obama can punish Hillary is to reward himself. He’s no good around her, see?
From Frank Rich:
ANOTHER weekly do-or-die primary battle, another round of wildly predicted “game changers” that collapsed in the locker room.Hillary Clinton’s attempt to impersonate a Nascar-lovin’, gun-totin’, economist-bashin’ populist went bust: Asked which candidate most “shares your values,” voters in both North Carolina and Indiana exit polls opted instead for the elite and condescending arugula-eater. Bill Clinton’s small-town barnstorming tour, hailed as a revival of old-time Bubba bonhomie, proved to be yet another sabotage of his wife, whipping up false expectations for her disastrous showing in North Carolina. Barack Obama’s final, undercaffeinated debate performance, not to mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s attempted character assassination, failed to slow his inexorable path to the Democratic nomination.“It’s still early,” Mrs. Clinton said on Wednesday. Though it’s way too late for her, she’s half-right. We’re only at the end of the beginning of this extraordinary election year. While we wait out her self-immolating exit, it’s a good time to pause the 24/7 roller coaster for a second and get our bearings. The reason that politicians and the press have gotten so much so wrong is that we keep forgetting what year it is. Only if we reboot to 2008 will the long march to November start making sense.This is not 1968, when the country was so divided over race and war that cities and campuses exploded in violence. If you have any doubts, just look (to take a recent example) at the restrained response by New Yorkers, protestors included, to the acquittal of three police officers in the 50-bullet shooting death of an unarmed black man, Sean Bell. This is not 1988, when a Democratic liberal from Massachusetts of modest political skills could be easily clobbered by racist ads and an incumbent vice president running for the Gipper’s third term. This is not the 1998 midterms, when the Teflon Clintons triumphed over impeachment. This is not 2004, when another Democrat from Massachusetts did for windsurfing what the previous model did for tanks. Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama — surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic, organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam. The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known. And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable, countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.Mr. Obama hardly created this moment, with its potent brew of Bush loathing and sweeping generational change. He simply had the vision to tap into it. Running in 2008 rather than waiting four more years was the single smartest political decision he’s made (and, yes, he’s made dumb ones too). The second smartest was to understand and emphasize that subterranean, nearly universal anticipation of change rather than settle for the narrower band of partisan, dyspeptic Bush-bashing. We don’t know yet if he’s the man who can make the moment — and won’t know unless he gets to the White House — but there’s no question that the moment has helped make the man. For five years boomers have been asking, “Why are the kids not in the streets screaming about the war the way we were?” The simple answer: no draft. But as Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais show in “Millennial Makeover,” their book about the post-1982 American generation, that energy has been plowed into quieter social activism and grand-scale social networking, often linked on the same Web page. The millennials’ bottom-up digital superstructure was there to be mined, for an amalgam of political organizing, fund-raising and fun, and Mr. Obama’s camp knew how to work it. The part of the press that can’t tell the difference between Facebook and, say, AOL, was too busy salivating over the Clintons’ vintage 1990s roster of fat-cat donors to hear the major earthquake rumbling underground.The demographic reshaping of the electoral map, though more widely noted, still isn’t fully understood. From Rust Belt Ohio through Tuesday’s primaries, cable bloviators have been fixated on the older, white, working-class vote. Their unspoken (and truly condescending) assumption, lately embraced by Mrs. Clinton, is that these voters are Reagan Democrats, cryogenically frozen since 1980, who come in two flavors: rubes who will be duped by a politician backing a gas-tax pander or racists who are out of Mr. Obama’s reach. Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even among Obama voters). Some of them may reside in Indiana, which hasn’t voted for a national Democratic ticket since 1964. But there are many more white working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall. As the Times columnist Charles Blow charted last weekend, Mr. Obama’s favorable and unfavorable ratings from white Democrats are both up 5 points since last summer in the Times/CBS poll — a wash despite all the hyperventilating about Mr. Wright and Bittergate. (By contrast, Mrs. Clinton’s favorable rating among black voters fell 36 points while her unfavorable rating rose 17.) Gallup last week found that after the Wright circus Mr. Obama’s white support in a matchup against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry’s against President Bush in 2004.But this isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. This year black voters accounted for 18 percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters, up from 14 percent in 2004, an increase of some 230,000 voters out of an overall turnout leap of roughly a million. Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd. Good as this demographic shift is for a Democratic ticket led by Mr. Obama, it’s even better news that so many pundits and Republicans bitterly cling to the delusion that the Karl Rove playbook of Swift-boating and race-baiting can work as it did four and eight years ago. You can’t surf to a right-wing blog or Fox News without someone beating up on Mr. Wright or the other predictable conservative piñata, Michelle Obama. This may help rally the anti-Obama vote. But that contingent will be more than offset in November by mobilized young voters, blacks and women, among them many Clinton-supporting Democrats (and independents and Republicans) unlikely to entertain a G.O.P. candidate with a perfect record of voting against abortion rights. Even a safe Republican Congressional seat in Louisiana fell to a Democrat last weekend, despite a campaign by his opponent that invoked Mr. Obama as a bogeyman.A few conservatives do realize the game has changed. George Will wrote last week that Mr. Obama was Reaganesque in the stylistic sense that “his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness — the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.” John and Cindy McCain get it too, which is why both last week made a point (he on “The Daily Show,” she on “Today”) of condemning negative campaigning. But even if Mr. McCain keeps his word and stops trying to portray Mr. Obama as the man from Hamas, he can’t disown the Limbaugh axis of right-wing race-mongering. That’s what’s left of his party’s base.Now that the Obama-Clinton race is over, the new Beltway narrative has it that Mr. McCain, a likable “maverick” (who supported Mr. Bush in 95 percent of his votes last year, according to Congressional Quarterly), might override the war, the economy, Bush-loathing and the bankrupt Republican brand to be competitive with Mr. Obama. Anything can happen in politics, including real potential game changers, from Mr. McCain’s still-unreleased health records to new excavations of Mr. Obama’s history in Chicago. But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.
ANOTHER weekly do-or-die primary battle, another round of wildly predicted “game changers” that collapsed in the locker room.
Hillary Clinton’s attempt to impersonate a Nascar-lovin’, gun-totin’, economist-bashin’ populist went bust: Asked which candidate most “shares your values,” voters in both North Carolina and Indiana exit polls opted instead for the elite and condescending arugula-eater. Bill Clinton’s small-town barnstorming tour, hailed as a revival of old-time Bubba bonhomie, proved to be yet another sabotage of his wife, whipping up false expectations for her disastrous showing in North Carolina. Barack Obama’s final, undercaffeinated debate performance, not to mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s attempted character assassination, failed to slow his inexorable path to the Democratic nomination.
“It’s still early,” Mrs. Clinton said on Wednesday. Though it’s way too late for her, she’s half-right. We’re only at the end of the beginning of this extraordinary election year. While we wait out her self-immolating exit, it’s a good time to pause the 24/7 roller coaster for a second and get our bearings. The reason that politicians and the press have gotten so much so wrong is that we keep forgetting what year it is. Only if we reboot to 2008 will the long march to November start making sense.
This is not 1968, when the country was so divided over race and war that cities and campuses exploded in violence. If you have any doubts, just look (to take a recent example) at the restrained response by New Yorkers, protestors included, to the acquittal of three police officers in the 50-bullet shooting death of an unarmed black man, Sean Bell.
This is not 1988, when a Democratic liberal from Massachusetts of modest political skills could be easily clobbered by racist ads and an incumbent vice president running for the Gipper’s third term. This is not the 1998 midterms, when the Teflon Clintons triumphed over impeachment. This is not 2004, when another Democrat from Massachusetts did for windsurfing what the previous model did for tanks.
Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama — surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic, organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam.
The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known.
And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable, countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.
Mr. Obama hardly created this moment, with its potent brew of Bush loathing and sweeping generational change. He simply had the vision to tap into it. Running in 2008 rather than waiting four more years was the single smartest political decision he’s made (and, yes, he’s made dumb ones too). The second smartest was to understand and emphasize that subterranean, nearly universal anticipation of change rather than settle for the narrower band of partisan, dyspeptic Bush-bashing. We don’t know yet if he’s the man who can make the moment — and won’t know unless he gets to the White House — but there’s no question that the moment has helped make the man.
For five years boomers have been asking, “Why are the kids not in the streets screaming about the war the way we were?” The simple answer: no draft. But as Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais show in “Millennial Makeover,” their book about the post-1982 American generation, that energy has been plowed into quieter social activism and grand-scale social networking, often linked on the same Web page. The millennials’ bottom-up digital superstructure was there to be mined, for an amalgam of political organizing, fund-raising and fun, and Mr. Obama’s camp knew how to work it. The part of the press that can’t tell the difference between Facebook and, say, AOL, was too busy salivating over the Clintons’ vintage 1990s roster of fat-cat donors to hear the major earthquake rumbling underground.
The demographic reshaping of the electoral map, though more widely noted, still isn’t fully understood. From Rust Belt Ohio through Tuesday’s primaries, cable bloviators have been fixated on the older, white, working-class vote. Their unspoken (and truly condescending) assumption, lately embraced by Mrs. Clinton, is that these voters are Reagan Democrats, cryogenically frozen since 1980, who come in two flavors: rubes who will be duped by a politician backing a gas-tax pander or racists who are out of Mr. Obama’s reach.
Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even among Obama voters). Some of them may reside in Indiana, which hasn’t voted for a national Democratic ticket since 1964. But there are many more white working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall.
As the Times columnist Charles Blow charted last weekend, Mr. Obama’s favorable and unfavorable ratings from white Democrats are both up 5 points since last summer in the Times/CBS poll — a wash despite all the hyperventilating about Mr. Wright and Bittergate. (By contrast, Mrs. Clinton’s favorable rating among black voters fell 36 points while her unfavorable rating rose 17.) Gallup last week found that after the Wright circus Mr. Obama’s white support in a matchup against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry’s against President Bush in 2004.
But this isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. This year black voters accounted for 18 percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters, up from 14 percent in 2004, an increase of some 230,000 voters out of an overall turnout leap of roughly a million. Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd.
Good as this demographic shift is for a Democratic ticket led by Mr. Obama, it’s even better news that so many pundits and Republicans bitterly cling to the delusion that the Karl Rove playbook of Swift-boating and race-baiting can work as it did four and eight years ago. You can’t surf to a right-wing blog or Fox News without someone beating up on Mr. Wright or the other predictable conservative piñata, Michelle Obama.
This may help rally the anti-Obama vote. But that contingent will be more than offset in November by mobilized young voters, blacks and women, among them many Clinton-supporting Democrats (and independents and Republicans) unlikely to entertain a G.O.P. candidate with a perfect record of voting against abortion rights. Even a safe Republican Congressional seat in Louisiana fell to a Democrat last weekend, despite a campaign by his opponent that invoked Mr. Obama as a bogeyman.
A few conservatives do realize the game has changed. George Will wrote last week that Mr. Obama was Reaganesque in the stylistic sense that “his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness — the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.” John and Cindy McCain get it too, which is why both last week made a point (he on “The Daily Show,” she on “Today”) of condemning negative campaigning. But even if Mr. McCain keeps his word and stops trying to portray Mr. Obama as the man from Hamas, he can’t disown the Limbaugh axis of right-wing race-mongering. That’s what’s left of his party’s base.
Now that the Obama-Clinton race is over, the new Beltway narrative has it that Mr. McCain, a likable “maverick” (who supported Mr. Bush in 95 percent of his votes last year, according to Congressional Quarterly), might override the war, the economy, Bush-loathing and the bankrupt Republican brand to be competitive with Mr. Obama. Anything can happen in politics, including real potential game changers, from Mr. McCain’s still-unreleased health records to new excavations of Mr. Obama’s history in Chicago. But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.
Maureen Dowd of The New York Times wrote an Op/Ed today suggesting that Senator Obama is Desperately Seeking Street Cred. She makes mention of his "wan" appearance of late, something I think many of Americans have noticed.
The Senator's fatigue was particularly marked in the last debate. Initially, I assumed this was due to his having to endure yet another snoozefest of Senator Clinton's talking points. But then again, when it became clear that he was being ambushed by character assassins masquerading as moderators, hell-bent on lending credence to the smear job non-stories aimed at his obliteration, perhaps exasperation seemed like an appropriate response. To be sure, this is nothing new to him. And there was Hillary Clinton, revelling in the moment, looking every bit like the pig-tailed school yard bully who had the new kid on her turf at last and could finally rough him up and establish her inevitable dominance. Again, nothing new. It wasn't the first time we caught an eye full of the very political structures Senator Obama's campaign seeks to dismantle. The debate, if you can even call it that, was childish. No wonder Senator Obama barely suppressed his inclination to yawn.
Senator Clinton's campaign has been weird and, at times, even schizophrenic. On the one hand, in Texas she tells us "we'll all be just fine" no matter who wins the nomination. The next moment she all but formally endorses the candidate from the other party, claiming she and Mr.McCain passed some fictitious Commander-in-Chief litmus test. Even more frightening, Senator Clinton would have us believe that she is "ready on day one" but, as our nation is in denial of a Bush II recession that will certainly outshine the recession brought about by Bush I, can we ignore the fact that Hillary's campaign went broke because of inept planning? Can we really afford that kind of leadership at this point in our history? Her leadership style thrives on the premise divide and conquor. Even though a Clinton win is all but a mathematical impossibility, Hillary is happy to tear the Democratic Party in two for not handing her the nomination on a silver platter. And this is why the very sight of her sailing around with that frozen, maniacal smile behaving as if her Pennsylvania win meant any more than Ron Paul's triumph over John McCain is sickening.
I'm not surprised by Senator Obama's demeanor because frankly I doubt he is alone is the opinion that this perpetual primary is excrusiatingly tiresome and even pointless in view of the math. These days, whenever I see or hear Senator Clinton I feel an all encompassing dread. I cringe at the kind of campaign she's run. I shudder at how she holds fast to her husband's hand as she reaches for the highest office in the land - as if they're striving for Bill's 3rd term and not her presidency for its own sake. Her misty eyed, choked up discovery of "her voice" in New Hampshire made me want to puke. Her school marmish "Shame on you, Barack Obama" shennanigans were a disgrace...I could go on and on. But my point is that Hillary's campaign is nothing new. There are many wives who've attained high offices formerly held by their husbands. I see little difference in her ambitions and those of Lurleen Wallace. We've heard this song before and it is, indeed, tiresome.
This long good night kiss is becoming obscene. What I wouldn't give to see Senator Obama deliver the coup de grace. I can't help but think that he could easily dispose of her by simply pointing to the multitude of sins pounding on Senator Clinton's closet door. The hinges and bolts can barely contain them! He need not even go that far because her behavior in this campaign is sufficient.
But the fatigue is evident.
The Clintons seem to have gotten under Senator Obama's skin. When he called her Annie Oakley, he didn't seem amused, he seemed annoyed, even angry. They've finally struck a nerve and they are determined to make him lose his composure. I think the first step back toward the right track is to regain it and give her a heaping spoonful of her own medicine - using facts and skipping on spin.
From Frank Rich of The New York Times:
IT’S a nightmare. It’s the Bataan Death March. It’s mutually assured Armageddon. “Both of them are already losing the general to John McCain,” declared a Newsweek columnist last month, predicting that the election “may already be over” by the time the Democrats anoint a nominee.Not so fast. If we’ve learned any new rule in the 2008 campaign, it’s this: Once our news culture sets a story in stone, chances are it will crumble. But first it must be recycled louder and louder 24/7, as if sheer repetition will transmute conventional wisdom into reality.When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats’ exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war? But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.) For such a bitterly divided party, the Democrats hardly show signs of clinical depression. The last debate, however dumb, had the most viewers of any so far. The rise in turnout and new voters is all on the Democratic side. Even before its deathbed transfusion of new donations, the Clinton campaign trounced the McCain campaign in fund-raising by 2.5 to 1. (The Obama-McCain ratio is 3 to 1.)On Tuesday, a Democrat won the first round of a special Congressional election in Mississippi, even though the national G.O.P. outspent the Democrats by more than double and President Bush carried this previously safe Republican district by 25 percentage points in 2004. A Gallup poll last week found Mr. Bush’s national disapproval rating the worst (69 percent) for any president in Gallup’s entire 70-year history. For all his (and Mr. McCain’s) persistent sightings of “victory” in Iraq, the percentage of Americans calling the war a mistake (63) also set a new record. “I’m thrilled to be anywhere with high ratings,” Mr. Bush joked on Monday night, when he popped up like Waldo on the NBC game show “Deal or No Deal” to root for an Army captain who was a contestant. But it turns out that not even cash giveaways to veterans can induce Americans to set eyes on this president. “Deal or No Deal” drew an audience 19 percent below its season average. The best deal for Mr. McCain would be for Mr. Bush to disappear into the witness protection program.But surely, it could be argued, the mud in the Democratic race will be as much a drag on that party’s eventual nominee as the incumbent president is on the G.O.P. ticket. The counterargument, advanced by Mrs. Clinton in justifying her “kitchen sink” attacks on Mr. Obama, is that the Democrats are better off being tested now by raising all the issues the Republicans will. It’s a fair point. The Wright, Rezko, Ayers, “bittergate” and flag-pin firestorms will all be revived by the opposition come fall. Voters should indeed see how Mr. Obama deals with them, just as Democrats also need to gauge how the flash points of race and gender will play out in the crunch. The flaw in Mrs. Clinton’s refrain is her claim that she, unlike her challenger, has already been so fully vetted that her candidacy can offer no more unpleasant surprises. “I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years,” she says. Perhaps the delusion that she has a get-out-of-scandal-free card comes from her unexpected endorsement from Richard Mellon Scaife, the nutty Pittsburgh newspaper publisher who once spent a fortune trying to implicate the Clintons in the “murder” of Vince Foster. Or perhaps she thinks Fox News will call off the dogs now that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, is appearing in network promos endorsing its “fair and balanced” shtick.But the incessant praise for Mrs. Clinton’s resilience as a candidate by Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and William Bennett reveals just how eager they are to take her on. The dealings of the Bill Clinton post-presidency, barely alluded to by Mr. Obama in his own halting bouts of negative campaigning, have simply been put on hold while the Democrats slug it out. Close observers of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and Fox News can already read Rupert Murdoch’s tea leaves, and not just those from China. “Clinton Foundation Secrets” was the title of The Journal’s lead editorial on Friday profiling a rogues’ gallery of shady donors. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters would argue that she’s so battle-tested she could fend it all off. She’s unlikely to get the chance. For all the nail-biting suspense being ginned up, the probable denouement remains unchanged. When the primary juggernaut finally ends — following picturesque day trips to Puerto Rico and Guam — the superdelegates will likely succumb to the math of Mr. Obama’s virtually insurmountable pledged-delegate total. There’s also a way that two super-superdelegates, the duo on the Democrats’ last winning ticket, could trigger a faster finale. Bill Clinton could do so by undermining his wife once more with another ill-timed, red-faced eruption. Al Gore could possibly do so with a well-timed endorsement before his party gets mired in yet another Florida recount.There’s only one way this can end badly, no matter how long it lasts. That would be if the loser, whoever it is, turns sore and fails to rally his or her troops around the winner. It’s all about “the way the loser loses,” as the Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who is neutral in the race, likes to say. While the Clintons are capable of such kamikaze narcissism, their selfish desire to preserve their own political future, if not the party’s, may be a powerful check on those impulses.On the way to the finish line, the prolonged primary race, far from destroying the Democratic candidates, may do more insidious damage to the Republican nominee, lulling his campaign into an unjustified complacency. The Democrats should “take their time — don’t rush,” the McCain aide Mark Salter joked last week. Yet his candidate, as the conservative blogger Ross Douthat pointed out, keeps bumping up against a 45 percent ceiling in the polls even now, when the Democrats are ostensibly in ruins. Mr. McCain is not only burdened with the most despised president in his own 71-year lifetime, but he’s getting none of the seasoning that he, no less than the Democrats, needs to compete in the fall. Age is as much an issue as race and gender in this campaign. Mr. McCain will have to prove not merely that he can keep to the physical rigors of his schedule and fend off investigations of his ties to lobbyists and developers. He also must show he can think and speak fluently about the domestic issues that are gripping the country. Picture him debating either Democrat about health care, the mortgage crisis, stagnant middle-class wages, rice rationing at Costco. It’s not pretty.Last week found Mr. McCain visiting economically stricken and “forgotten” communities (forgotten by Republicans, that is) in what his campaign bills as the “It’s Time for Action Tour.” It kicked off in Selma, Ala., a predominantly black town where he confirmed his maverick image by drawing an almost exclusively white audience. The “action” the candidate outlined in the text of his speeches may strike many voters as running the gamut from inaction to inertia. Mr. McCain vowed that he would not “roll out a long list of policy initiatives.” (He can’t, given his long list of tax cuts.) He said he would not bring back lost jobs, lost wages or lost houses. But, as The Birmingham News reported, this stand against government bailouts for struggling Americans didn’t prevent his campaign from helping itself to free labor underwritten by taxpayers: inmates from a local jail were recruited to set up tables and chairs for a private fund-raiser.The Democrats’ unending brawl may be supplying prime time with a goodly share of melodrama right now, but there will be laughter aplenty once the Republican campaign that’s not ready for prime time emerges from the wings.
IT’S a nightmare. It’s the Bataan Death March. It’s mutually assured Armageddon. “Both of them are already losing the general to John McCain,” declared a Newsweek columnist last month, predicting that the election “may already be over” by the time the Democrats anoint a nominee.
Not so fast. If we’ve learned any new rule in the 2008 campaign, it’s this: Once our news culture sets a story in stone, chances are it will crumble. But first it must be recycled louder and louder 24/7, as if sheer repetition will transmute conventional wisdom into reality.
When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats’ exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war?
But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.)
For such a bitterly divided party, the Democrats hardly show signs of clinical depression. The last debate, however dumb, had the most viewers of any so far. The rise in turnout and new voters is all on the Democratic side. Even before its deathbed transfusion of new donations, the Clinton campaign trounced the McCain campaign in fund-raising by 2.5 to 1. (The Obama-McCain ratio is 3 to 1.)
On Tuesday, a Democrat won the first round of a special Congressional election in Mississippi, even though the national G.O.P. outspent the Democrats by more than double and President Bush carried this previously safe Republican district by 25 percentage points in 2004. A Gallup poll last week found Mr. Bush’s national disapproval rating the worst (69 percent) for any president in Gallup’s entire 70-year history. For all his (and Mr. McCain’s) persistent sightings of “victory” in Iraq, the percentage of Americans calling the war a mistake (63) also set a new record.
“I’m thrilled to be anywhere with high ratings,” Mr. Bush joked on Monday night, when he popped up like Waldo on the NBC game show “Deal or No Deal” to root for an Army captain who was a contestant. But it turns out that not even cash giveaways to veterans can induce Americans to set eyes on this president. “Deal or No Deal” drew an audience 19 percent below its season average. The best deal for Mr. McCain would be for Mr. Bush to disappear into the witness protection program.
But surely, it could be argued, the mud in the Democratic race will be as much a drag on that party’s eventual nominee as the incumbent president is on the G.O.P. ticket. The counterargument, advanced by Mrs. Clinton in justifying her “kitchen sink” attacks on Mr. Obama, is that the Democrats are better off being tested now by raising all the issues the Republicans will. It’s a fair point. The Wright, Rezko, Ayers, “bittergate” and flag-pin firestorms will all be revived by the opposition come fall. Voters should indeed see how Mr. Obama deals with them, just as Democrats also need to gauge how the flash points of race and gender will play out in the crunch.
The flaw in Mrs. Clinton’s refrain is her claim that she, unlike her challenger, has already been so fully vetted that her candidacy can offer no more unpleasant surprises. “I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years,” she says. Perhaps the delusion that she has a get-out-of-scandal-free card comes from her unexpected endorsement from Richard Mellon Scaife, the nutty Pittsburgh newspaper publisher who once spent a fortune trying to implicate the Clintons in the “murder” of Vince Foster. Or perhaps she thinks Fox News will call off the dogs now that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, is appearing in network promos endorsing its “fair and balanced” shtick.
But the incessant praise for Mrs. Clinton’s resilience as a candidate by Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and William Bennett reveals just how eager they are to take her on. The dealings of the Bill Clinton post-presidency, barely alluded to by Mr. Obama in his own halting bouts of negative campaigning, have simply been put on hold while the Democrats slug it out. Close observers of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and Fox News can already read Rupert Murdoch’s tea leaves, and not just those from China. “Clinton Foundation Secrets” was the title of The Journal’s lead editorial on Friday profiling a rogues’ gallery of shady donors.
Mrs. Clinton’s supporters would argue that she’s so battle-tested she could fend it all off. She’s unlikely to get the chance. For all the nail-biting suspense being ginned up, the probable denouement remains unchanged. When the primary juggernaut finally ends — following picturesque day trips to Puerto Rico and Guam — the superdelegates will likely succumb to the math of Mr. Obama’s virtually insurmountable pledged-delegate total.
There’s also a way that two super-superdelegates, the duo on the Democrats’ last winning ticket, could trigger a faster finale. Bill Clinton could do so by undermining his wife once more with another ill-timed, red-faced eruption. Al Gore could possibly do so with a well-timed endorsement before his party gets mired in yet another Florida recount.
There’s only one way this can end badly, no matter how long it lasts. That would be if the loser, whoever it is, turns sore and fails to rally his or her troops around the winner. It’s all about “the way the loser loses,” as the Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who is neutral in the race, likes to say. While the Clintons are capable of such kamikaze narcissism, their selfish desire to preserve their own political future, if not the party’s, may be a powerful check on those impulses.
On the way to the finish line, the prolonged primary race, far from destroying the Democratic candidates, may do more insidious damage to the Republican nominee, lulling his campaign into an unjustified complacency. The Democrats should “take their time — don’t rush,” the McCain aide Mark Salter joked last week. Yet his candidate, as the conservative blogger Ross Douthat pointed out, keeps bumping up against a 45 percent ceiling in the polls even now, when the Democrats are ostensibly in ruins.
Mr. McCain is not only burdened with the most despised president in his own 71-year lifetime, but he’s getting none of the seasoning that he, no less than the Democrats, needs to compete in the fall. Age is as much an issue as race and gender in this campaign. Mr. McCain will have to prove not merely that he can keep to the physical rigors of his schedule and fend off investigations of his ties to lobbyists and developers. He also must show he can think and speak fluently about the domestic issues that are gripping the country. Picture him debating either Democrat about health care, the mortgage crisis, stagnant middle-class wages, rice rationing at Costco. It’s not pretty.
Last week found Mr. McCain visiting economically stricken and “forgotten” communities (forgotten by Republicans, that is) in what his campaign bills as the “It’s Time for Action Tour.” It kicked off in Selma, Ala., a predominantly black town where he confirmed his maverick image by drawing an almost exclusively white audience.
The “action” the candidate outlined in the text of his speeches may strike many voters as running the gamut from inaction to inertia. Mr. McCain vowed that he would not “roll out a long list of policy initiatives.” (He can’t, given his long list of tax cuts.) He said he would not bring back lost jobs, lost wages or lost houses. But, as The Birmingham News reported, this stand against government bailouts for struggling Americans didn’t prevent his campaign from helping itself to free labor underwritten by taxpayers: inmates from a local jail were recruited to set up tables and chairs for a private fund-raiser.
The Democrats’ unending brawl may be supplying prime time with a goodly share of melodrama right now, but there will be laughter aplenty once the Republican campaign that’s not ready for prime time emerges from the wings.
From the AP:
Former President Carter wouldn't quite say it, but he left little doubt this week about who he'd like to see in the White House next year. Speaking to local reporters Wednesday on a trip to Nigeria, the former Democratic president noted that Barack Obama had won his home state of Georgia and his hometown of Plains."My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama," he said at a news conference, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. "As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess." Carter's spokeswoman confirmed the remarks.Asked about the comments, Hillary Rodham Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, said: "Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have a great deal of respect for President Carter and have enjoyed their relationship with him over the years. And, obviously, he is free to make whatever decision he thinks is appropriate."Asked if there was concern that Carter would be regarded as particularly influential, Wolfson said Carter is "clearly a distinguished former leader of our party and is a superdelegate. And I'm sure that people will be interested in the choice that he makes. But no, nothing beyond that."Carter is one of 13 Georgia Democratic superdelegates — elected officials and party elders who have a vote at the national convention this August in Denver and are free to support the candidate of their choice.Only three of those have not said who they support: Carter, state Rep. Jim Marshall, and former Rep. Richard Ray, who is president of the Georgia chapter of the AFL-CIO.Among those who have committed, Obama holds a 7-3 lead.Carter was in Nigeria for a ceremony celebrating a reduction in Guinea worm disease in West Africa.
Former President Carter wouldn't quite say it, but he left little doubt this week about who he'd like to see in the White House next year. Speaking to local reporters Wednesday on a trip to Nigeria, the former Democratic president noted that Barack Obama had won his home state of Georgia and his hometown of Plains.
"My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama," he said at a news conference, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. "As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess."
Carter's spokeswoman confirmed the remarks.
Asked about the comments, Hillary Rodham Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, said: "Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have a great deal of respect for President Carter and have enjoyed their relationship with him over the years. And, obviously, he is free to make whatever decision he thinks is appropriate."
Asked if there was concern that Carter would be regarded as particularly influential, Wolfson said Carter is "clearly a distinguished former leader of our party and is a superdelegate. And I'm sure that people will be interested in the choice that he makes. But no, nothing beyond that."
Carter is one of 13 Georgia Democratic superdelegates — elected officials and party elders who have a vote at the national convention this August in Denver and are free to support the candidate of their choice.
Only three of those have not said who they support: Carter, state Rep. Jim Marshall, and former Rep. Richard Ray, who is president of the Georgia chapter of the AFL-CIO.
Among those who have committed, Obama holds a 7-3 lead.
Carter was in Nigeria for a ceremony celebrating a reduction in Guinea worm disease in West Africa.
I'm part Swedish and in the old country we have a saying: "rise like the sun, fall like a pancake." This reminds me of Bill and Hillary Clinton's arrogant campaign for the White House. Their sense of entitlement is baffling. Plainly, it's never occurred to them that, given a legitimate choice, the people might have something to say about the matter. Sen. Clinton insolently continues to dismiss every state Sen.Obama wins as insignificant, blythely dissing voters in her own party (!) So I'm glad Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama was a pie in Billary's face. It tickles me that even though it's yesterday's papers the Clintons still can't let it go. On that note, here's a perfectly delicious read from the AP:
Former President Clinton is still smarting over New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama.During a private meeting with California Democrats this past weekend, Clinton grew red-faced as he talked about how he expected Richardson, who was a member of Clinton's Cabinet, to back Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidential nomination or at least stay neutral, according to several people who attended.Instead, Richardson endorsed Obama late last month, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader.""He sort of gets a little redder and redder and redder, but he wasn't off the deep end as I had seen him in the past," said Inola Henry, an uncommitted superdelegate. "It was sort of like, 'Gee, I'm a martyr.' He seemed more hurt than anything."Clinton used his appearance at the state Democratic Party convention in San Jose to lobby California's 21 uncommitted superdelegates to support his wife.After posing for a group photograph with the former president, superdelegate Rachel Binah told Clinton she was disappointed that one of his allies, strategist James Carville, had compared Richardson to Judas after he endorsed Obama.Clinton, according to several people present, distanced himself from Carville's remarks. But he went on to say that he had not expected Richardson to endorse the Illinois senator, especially since the New Mexico governor had invited Clinton to Santa Fe to watch the Super Bowl on Feb. 3."He did say he certainly had been led to believe that he was going to get the endorsement," Henry said Wednesday. She was one of about 15 superdelegates — some uncommitted, others backing Clinton — who attended Sunday's meeting with Clinton before he addressed the convention.Aleita Huguenin, another superdelegate, remembered Clinton saying, "We thought he'd let us know if he did an endorsement." But Huguenin said the comments about Richardson were "a minor blip in the whole meeting."According superdelegate Chris Stampolis, Clinton said only that Richardson had promised not to endorse Obama, saying, "'He told me to my face five times he would not do that.'"Binah did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but she previously told The Associated Press she supports Clinton. Other superdelegates interviewed by the AP said it was Binah's statement that prompted Clinton's comments about Richardson's decision.Pahl Shipley, a spokesman for Richardson, said his boss never promised to endorse Hillary Clinton."He never told the president or anybody else, for that matter," Shipley said. "The governor respectfully disagrees with the president."Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, endorsed Obama on March 21, shortly after the Illinois senator gave a speech about race. It was a blow to the Clintons because of their long association with Richardson, who served as Clinton's energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations.Clinton's campaign declined to comment, except to say the former president was in California to promote his wife's candidacy."President Clinton discussed the importance of this election with Democratic Party members and how after 46 primaries and caucuses, by virtually every measure, this election remains a very close race," campaign spokesman Luis Vizcaino said in a statement. "President Clinton is incredibly popular in the Golden State, and the convention was a great opportunity for him to speak directly with members of the California Democratic Party."Bob Mulholland, a spokesman for the state party who attended the private meeting, said Clinton expressed himself passionately but insisted the meeting was productive."I left the meeting feeling this was great," Mulholland said. "The guy had time to talk to us about the campaign."
Former President Clinton is still smarting over New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama.
During a private meeting with California Democrats this past weekend, Clinton grew red-faced as he talked about how he expected Richardson, who was a member of Clinton's Cabinet, to back Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidential nomination or at least stay neutral, according to several people who attended.
Instead, Richardson endorsed Obama late last month, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader."
"He sort of gets a little redder and redder and redder, but he wasn't off the deep end as I had seen him in the past," said Inola Henry, an uncommitted superdelegate. "It was sort of like, 'Gee, I'm a martyr.' He seemed more hurt than anything."
Clinton used his appearance at the state Democratic Party convention in San Jose to lobby California's 21 uncommitted superdelegates to support his wife.
After posing for a group photograph with the former president, superdelegate Rachel Binah told Clinton she was disappointed that one of his allies, strategist James Carville, had compared Richardson to Judas after he endorsed Obama.
Clinton, according to several people present, distanced himself from Carville's remarks. But he went on to say that he had not expected Richardson to endorse the Illinois senator, especially since the New Mexico governor had invited Clinton to Santa Fe to watch the Super Bowl on Feb. 3.
"He did say he certainly had been led to believe that he was going to get the endorsement," Henry said Wednesday. She was one of about 15 superdelegates — some uncommitted, others backing Clinton — who attended Sunday's meeting with Clinton before he addressed the convention.
Aleita Huguenin, another superdelegate, remembered Clinton saying, "We thought he'd let us know if he did an endorsement." But Huguenin said the comments about Richardson were "a minor blip in the whole meeting."
According superdelegate Chris Stampolis, Clinton said only that Richardson had promised not to endorse Obama, saying, "'He told me to my face five times he would not do that.'"
Binah did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but she previously told The Associated Press she supports Clinton. Other superdelegates interviewed by the AP said it was Binah's statement that prompted Clinton's comments about Richardson's decision.
Pahl Shipley, a spokesman for Richardson, said his boss never promised to endorse Hillary Clinton.
"He never told the president or anybody else, for that matter," Shipley said. "The governor respectfully disagrees with the president."
Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, endorsed Obama on March 21, shortly after the Illinois senator gave a speech about race. It was a blow to the Clintons because of their long association with Richardson, who served as Clinton's energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations.
Clinton's campaign declined to comment, except to say the former president was in California to promote his wife's candidacy.
"President Clinton discussed the importance of this election with Democratic Party members and how after 46 primaries and caucuses, by virtually every measure, this election remains a very close race," campaign spokesman Luis Vizcaino said in a statement. "President Clinton is incredibly popular in the Golden State, and the convention was a great opportunity for him to speak directly with members of the California Democratic Party."
Bob Mulholland, a spokesman for the state party who attended the private meeting, said Clinton expressed himself passionately but insisted the meeting was productive.
"I left the meeting feeling this was great," Mulholland said. "The guy had time to talk to us about the campaign."
Just when I thought HRC couldn't be any more corny she outshines herself with this gem: "Rocky and I have a lot in common."
Her speechwriter should be arrested. Hillary's single-mindedness and egoism is more reminiscent of Max Cady (see photo) than Rocky Balboa.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has something in common with legendary film boxer Rocky Balboa — she's not a quitter.Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art from the 1976 Oscar-winning film "Rocky," Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'""Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people," Clinton said in excerpts of prepared remarks to be given Tuesday to a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.Clinton warned that Democrats won't have an easy time against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain in the general, and implied that her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, may not be up to the task."The Republicans aren't going to give up without a fight," Clinton said. "And no matter how beautiful your rhetoric, the Republicans aren't going to turn off their attack machine — it doesn't have an off-switch.""But one thing you know about me is that when I say I'll fight for you, I'll fight for you," the New York senator said. "I know what it's like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've never stayed down, and I never will."In recent days, Clinton has made an issue of calls from Obama backers for her to abandon the Democratic race. They've argued that Obama holds the lead in the delegate count and a protracted Democratic primary would damage the eventual nominee."Now, this is one of the most important elections we've ever had. There is so much at stake. But just as it's getting time to vote here in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it. His supporters say they want it to end," Clinton said.Obama refused on Saturday to go along with other Democrats who are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race."My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has something in common with legendary film boxer Rocky Balboa — she's not a quitter.
Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art from the 1976 Oscar-winning film "Rocky," Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'"
"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people," Clinton said in excerpts of prepared remarks to be given Tuesday to a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.
Clinton warned that Democrats won't have an easy time against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain in the general, and implied that her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, may not be up to the task.
"The Republicans aren't going to give up without a fight," Clinton said. "And no matter how beautiful your rhetoric, the Republicans aren't going to turn off their attack machine — it doesn't have an off-switch."
"But one thing you know about me is that when I say I'll fight for you, I'll fight for you," the New York senator said. "I know what it's like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've never stayed down, and I never will."
In recent days, Clinton has made an issue of calls from Obama backers for her to abandon the Democratic race. They've argued that Obama holds the lead in the delegate count and a protracted Democratic primary would damage the eventual nominee.
"Now, this is one of the most important elections we've ever had. There is so much at stake. But just as it's getting time to vote here in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it. His supporters say they want it to end," Clinton said.
Obama refused on Saturday to go along with other Democrats who are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race.
"My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said.
From the ramussenreports.com:
Senator Hillary Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Primary is shrinking. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Clinton leading Barack Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March.Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.Obama recently received a key endorsement from Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey and has also spent more on television ads than Clinton. If Obama is able to pull off an upset in the Keystone State, it would effectively end the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Obama currently leads Clinton nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, while an Obama victory could end the nomination battle, Clinton remains ahead in the state and recently demonstrated her ability to finish strong in the Ohio and Texas Primaries.Tensions clearly remain in the contest. If Obama is nominated, just 56% of Clinton supporters say they are likely to vote for him against John McCain. Forty percent (40%) of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania say they are not likely to vote for Obama.On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, just 67% of Obama supporters say they are likely to vote for her against McCain. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not.Just 21% of Pennsylvania's Primary Voters say that Clinton should drop out of the race while 18% would like Obama to leave. Those figures are similar to results from a recent national survey. Fifty-one percent (51%) in Pennsylvania say it's very likely the contest will not be resolved until the convention in Denver. That figure includes 61% of Clinton voters and 38% of those who support Obama. Overall, another 33% say a convention decision is Somewhat Likely.Forty-seven percent (47%) say they have followed news stories Very Closely about Clinton's Bosnia misstatements. Another 27% have followed those stories Somewhat Closely. Overall, 19% consider that issue to be Very Important in their voting decision. That figure includes 6% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama voters. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Pennsylvania voters say that most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments. Only 12% disagree.Clinton voters, by a 64% to 26% margin, believe that American society is generally fair and decent. Obama voters are evenly divided—45% hold that optimistic view while another 45% say society is generally unfair and discriminatory.Among voters who say the economy is the top voting issue, Clinton maintains a sixteen-point lead over Obama. Among those who view the War in Iraq as the top issue, Obama has a seventeen-point advantage. Among those who say health care is most important, 48% prefer Clinton and 40% choose Obama. Overall, 54% say the Economy is most important, 19% say it's the War in Iraq, and 10% say Health Care.In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 74% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Obama by 73%.A separate survey found that both Democrats are in a competitive race with John McCain for Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes. Nationally, McCain currently leads both Democrats in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Looking at the Electoral College, the race is essentially a Toss-Up.Just 3% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters rate the economy as good or excellent while 70% say it's in poor shape. Just 2% say it is getting better while 91% say the economy is getting worse. Nationally, the Rasmussen Consumer Index shows that consumer and investor confidence has fallen to the lowest level of the past seven years.Rasmussen Markets data just prior to release of this poll shows that Clinton is overwhelming favored to end up victorious in Pennsylvania (current prices: Clinton 83.7 % Obama 17.0 %). Overall, the Markets give Obama a 81.7 % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 15.6 %. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the Rasmussen Markets harness competitive passions to provide a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market.This telephone survey of 730 Likely Democratic Primary Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 31, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
Senator Hillary Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Primary is shrinking.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Clinton leading Barack Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March.
Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.
Obama recently received a key endorsement from Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey and has also spent more on television ads than Clinton. If Obama is able to pull off an upset in the Keystone State, it would effectively end the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Obama currently leads Clinton nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, while an Obama victory could end the nomination battle, Clinton remains ahead in the state and recently demonstrated her ability to finish strong in the Ohio and Texas Primaries.
Tensions clearly remain in the contest. If Obama is nominated, just 56% of Clinton supporters say they are likely to vote for him against John McCain. Forty percent (40%) of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania say they are not likely to vote for Obama.
On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, just 67% of Obama supporters say they are likely to vote for her against McCain. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not.
Just 21% of Pennsylvania's Primary Voters say that Clinton should drop out of the race while 18% would like Obama to leave. Those figures are similar to results from a recent national survey. Fifty-one percent (51%) in Pennsylvania say it's very likely the contest will not be resolved until the convention in Denver. That figure includes 61% of Clinton voters and 38% of those who support Obama. Overall, another 33% say a convention decision is Somewhat Likely.
Forty-seven percent (47%) say they have followed news stories Very Closely about Clinton's Bosnia misstatements. Another 27% have followed those stories Somewhat Closely. Overall, 19% consider that issue to be Very Important in their voting decision. That figure includes 6% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama voters. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Pennsylvania voters say that most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments. Only 12% disagree.
Clinton voters, by a 64% to 26% margin, believe that American society is generally fair and decent. Obama voters are evenly divided—45% hold that optimistic view while another 45% say society is generally unfair and discriminatory.
Among voters who say the economy is the top voting issue, Clinton maintains a sixteen-point lead over Obama. Among those who view the War in Iraq as the top issue, Obama has a seventeen-point advantage. Among those who say health care is most important, 48% prefer Clinton and 40% choose Obama. Overall, 54% say the Economy is most important, 19% say it's the War in Iraq, and 10% say Health Care.
In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 74% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Obama by 73%.
A separate survey found that both Democrats are in a competitive race with John McCain for Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes. Nationally, McCain currently leads both Democrats in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Looking at the Electoral College, the race is essentially a Toss-Up.
Just 3% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters rate the economy as good or excellent while 70% say it's in poor shape. Just 2% say it is getting better while 91% say the economy is getting worse. Nationally, the Rasmussen Consumer Index shows that consumer and investor confidence has fallen to the lowest level of the past seven years.
Rasmussen Markets data just prior to release of this poll shows that Clinton is overwhelming favored to end up victorious in Pennsylvania (current prices: Clinton 83.7 % Obama 17.0 %). Overall, the Markets give Obama a 81.7 % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 15.6 %. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the Rasmussen Markets harness competitive passions to provide a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market.
This telephone survey of 730 Likely Democratic Primary Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 31, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Billary Theory at work...
READY TO BE THE NEXT QUARTERBACK FOR THE PACKERSIn a news conference today, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming year if her husband Brett retires. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she traveled extensively with him to away games, became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of Democrats polled agreed. Yet, she has never run a City, County, or State. When told that Hillary Clinton has experience because she has lived for 8 years in the White House, Dick Morris stated “so has the pastry chef”.
READY TO BE THE NEXT QUARTERBACK FOR THE PACKERS
In a news conference today, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming year if her husband Brett retires. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she traveled extensively with him to away games, became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable to you?
Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of Democrats polled agreed. Yet, she has never run a City, County, or State.
When told that Hillary Clinton has experience because she has lived for 8 years in the White House, Dick Morris stated “so has the pastry chef”.
Source
Sounds like Senator Clinton may soon be in need of a blindfold and a cigartette. From Politico:
Hoping to avoid a summer-long bloodbath for the Democratic presidential nomination, some party leaders such as Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen have urged a convention of superdelegates in June, after the caucuses and primaries are over. The idea sounds exotic, but recent public declarations and Politico interviews with top Democratic officials have made clear that something like what Bredesen proposed is already underway — not with a big meeting but with an intensifying series of exchanges among party elites. The early voting in this virtual convention is bad news for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her hope that Democratic leaders will settle the nomination is starting to come true — with Barack Obama so far emerging as the beneficiary. After a 10-day slog of self-inflicted wounds and fatalistic headlines for Clinton, these party elders are clearly tilting against her hopes for keeping the nomination contest open indefinitely. The Democrats’ virtual convention is taking place publicly, with statements like the remarkable comment by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that Clinton should get out now, and semi-publicly, with background comments made by top operatives to the media. It is taking place also in private entreaties by e-mail or phone — the modern equivalent of smoke-filed rooms — as advocates for Obama urge an early end to the race and Clinton backers plead for time and warn about his general election vulnerabilities. This weekend Clinton vowed to push on, perhaps for several more months, in hopes of an eventual victory at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August. This means her main strategic imperative, in addition to winning the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, is to slow and, if possible, reverse the parade of Democratic luminaries in recent days urging that the contest be wrapped up by spring rather than stretching into summer.The dynamic shows another way that Clinton’s strategy is working — once again with different consequences than she wants. Clinton is succeeding, many party operatives believe, in exposing Obama's potential general election vulnerabilities, concerns that would be amplified considerably if she scores a convincing win in Pennsylvania. But the general effect of these doubts — at least so far — has been to inspire unease with her continued campaign, rather than second-guessing about Obama's front-runner status. Some Clinton backers such as commentator and former consultant James Carville dismiss these anxieties, saying there is little danger from an intramural contest and that Obama, even if he does emerge as the nominee, should be prepared for far rougher stuff from Republicans in the fall. Former President Bill Clinton told California Democrats convening in San Jose this past weekend to “chill out” and that continued competition is a “good thing” for the party’s prospects in November. But it is clear that Hillary Clinton’s run of luck in recent days, including her own stumbles over an exaggerated account of a visit to Bosnia as first lady, has not helped her cause in playing for time. Clinton retains a lead among the superdelegates, who — because neither she nor Obama will likely win enough elected delegates to clinch the nomination — will determine the outcome. But the restlessness of party leaders has become unmistakable in recent days. So, too, has been the premise — sometimes unstated, sometimes explicit — that it is Clinton’s ambitions rather than Obama’s that would have to yield in the name of party unification. In a recent Politico interview, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) reiterated his stance that he will not take sides in the primary race. But he added that he believes that by early June all the superdelegates should come to a decision on whom to pledge their vote. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, meanwhile, set an unofficial deadline of July 1. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that something "will be done" to resolve the race before the convention. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is confident a decision will be made "before the convention," so Democrats can go in unified. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter and a former general chairman of the party, told National Journal that party leaders need "to stand up and reach a conclusion."Another Obama backer, 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), said on ABC’s “This Week”on Sunday: “I think the superdelegates ought to decide early, perhaps earlier than July. … Every day gives John McCain the opportunity to build momentum for the general election.”Describing the mood in Washington, a top Democratic strategist who supports Clinton said: “There’s a little bit of a deathwatch going on. Instead of, ‘Who’s going to win?’ the chatter is, ‘How’s it going to unfold?’”The strategist added: “There is general panic among Democrats. The big question is: Does she walk to the door, or is she shown to the door?”The reason some Democrats believe Clinton needs to be escorted from the race is not that they dispute her claims that the race is agonizingly close. It is that they see few scenarios in which she can finish the primary calendar ahead in elected delegates or the popular vote. By this logic, denying the favored candidate of African-Americans — the party’s most loyal constituency — if Obama is ahead could rupture the party.Clinton is not moved by these claims. Close advisers to her emphasized over the weekend that she is going nowhere — not simply as a matter of politics but of personal temperament. Like her husband, she is constitutionally averse to quitting.What’s more, her public argument that she is the more electable candidate is only a pale version of her private thoughts and those of Bill Clinton. They firmly believe that Obama is unready to face a general election or, if he wins, a presidency that would follow.For now, her party is hoping that the public pressure on her to step aside will create a backlash that will further fire up her most zealous supporters, especially women.“The more she can let this threat hang over the process, the more leverage she has,” a former Clinton administration official said.On Friday, Obama was talking about the nomination race in the past tense. “There are some people who felt like: God, when is this thing going to be over?” he said at a Pittsburgh rally. “It’s like a good movie that’s lasted too long. But the truth is that this has been a great campaign, a great primary season. It’s been hard, it’s been tough.”But wary of the possibility that pushing Clinton out could backfire, he has begun saying calmly that she’s free to stay in as long as she likes.And she may take her time, vowing in a Washington Post interview on Saturday to stay in as far as the convention: “I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong.”A senior adviser to Clinton argued at length that the race is still very much in play.“The press corps seems to have it in their mind that this race is done,” the adviser said. “Either you guys can’t count or you want it done.”The adviser asserted that the campaign is gaining traction with its argument that Obama would have electability problems in the fall and might weaken other Democrats running on his ticket.“It is our read that many of the remaining superdelegates are increasingly concerned about whether or not — as attractive a candidate as he is, as strong as a spokesman as he is — is this guy going to be carrying our district? I don’t think many candidates are looking forward to the Republican ad where ... his minister is saying, ‘God Damn America.’“People are making [individual] calculations,” the adviser added. “They don’t know which way to jump.”In the past 10 days, however, Clinton has steadily lost ground. Democrats’ private grumblings became public warnings.It started March 21, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — who was appointed to two Cabinet posts by Bill Clinton — endorsed Obama after holding off when it would have helped him most, right before the Hispanic-rich Texas primary.Three days later, in what some Obama strategists believe may eventually be seen as the death blow, Clinton had to admit she had repeatedly exaggerated when claiming to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire as first lady. It was an unnecessary gilding of the lily, tainting video of her in a military setting that otherwise would have been very positive.In another indignity, Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who had vowed to remain neutral, joined the Obama bandwagon on Friday.Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) did the same on Sunday.This gathering momentum has forced the Clintons into Hail Mary arguments, causing even some confidants to wonder about their logic or real aims. Bill Clinton recently pointed out that she was ahead in the popular vote in primaries, as opposed to caucuses — essentially saying she’s ahead in contests she has won.“They’re trying everything, and nothing is sticking,” said a Clinton family adviser. “It is possible she’s trying to leverage all this into a spot on the ticket.”
Hoping to avoid a summer-long bloodbath for the Democratic presidential nomination, some party leaders such as Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen have urged a convention of superdelegates in June, after the caucuses and primaries are over. The idea sounds exotic, but recent public declarations and Politico interviews with top Democratic officials have made clear that something like what Bredesen proposed is already underway — not with a big meeting but with an intensifying series of exchanges among party elites. The early voting in this virtual convention is bad news for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her hope that Democratic leaders will settle the nomination is starting to come true — with Barack Obama so far emerging as the beneficiary. After a 10-day slog of self-inflicted wounds and fatalistic headlines for Clinton, these party elders are clearly tilting against her hopes for keeping the nomination contest open indefinitely. The Democrats’ virtual convention is taking place publicly, with statements like the remarkable comment by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that Clinton should get out now, and semi-publicly, with background comments made by top operatives to the media. It is taking place also in private entreaties by e-mail or phone — the modern equivalent of smoke-filed rooms — as advocates for Obama urge an early end to the race and Clinton backers plead for time and warn about his general election vulnerabilities. This weekend Clinton vowed to push on, perhaps for several more months, in hopes of an eventual victory at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August. This means her main strategic imperative, in addition to winning the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, is to slow and, if possible, reverse the parade of Democratic luminaries in recent days urging that the contest be wrapped up by spring rather than stretching into summer.
The dynamic shows another way that Clinton’s strategy is working — once again with different consequences than she wants. Clinton is succeeding, many party operatives believe, in exposing Obama's potential general election vulnerabilities, concerns that would be amplified considerably if she scores a convincing win in Pennsylvania. But the general effect of these doubts — at least so far — has been to inspire unease with her continued campaign, rather than second-guessing about Obama's front-runner status. Some Clinton backers such as commentator and former consultant James Carville dismiss these anxieties, saying there is little danger from an intramural contest and that Obama, even if he does emerge as the nominee, should be prepared for far rougher stuff from Republicans in the fall. Former President Bill Clinton told California Democrats convening in San Jose this past weekend to “chill out” and that continued competition is a “good thing” for the party’s prospects in November. But it is clear that Hillary Clinton’s run of luck in recent days, including her own stumbles over an exaggerated account of a visit to Bosnia as first lady, has not helped her cause in playing for time. Clinton retains a lead among the superdelegates, who — because neither she nor Obama will likely win enough elected delegates to clinch the nomination — will determine the outcome. But the restlessness of party leaders has become unmistakable in recent days. So, too, has been the premise — sometimes unstated, sometimes explicit — that it is Clinton’s ambitions rather than Obama’s that would have to yield in the name of party unification. In a recent Politico interview, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) reiterated his stance that he will not take sides in the primary race. But he added that he believes that by early June all the superdelegates should come to a decision on whom to pledge their vote. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, meanwhile, set an unofficial deadline of July 1. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that something "will be done" to resolve the race before the convention. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is confident a decision will be made "before the convention," so Democrats can go in unified.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter and a former general chairman of the party, told National Journal that party leaders need "to stand up and reach a conclusion."
Another Obama backer, 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), said on ABC’s “This Week”on Sunday: “I think the superdelegates ought to decide early, perhaps earlier than July. … Every day gives John McCain the opportunity to build momentum for the general election.”
Describing the mood in Washington, a top Democratic strategist who supports Clinton said: “There’s a little bit of a deathwatch going on. Instead of, ‘Who’s going to win?’ the chatter is, ‘How’s it going to unfold?’”
The strategist added: “There is general panic among Democrats. The big question is: Does she walk to the door, or is she shown to the door?”
The reason some Democrats believe Clinton needs to be escorted from the race is not that they dispute her claims that the race is agonizingly close. It is that they see few scenarios in which she can finish the primary calendar ahead in elected delegates or the popular vote. By this logic, denying the favored candidate of African-Americans — the party’s most loyal constituency — if Obama is ahead could rupture the party.
Clinton is not moved by these claims. Close advisers to her emphasized over the weekend that she is going nowhere — not simply as a matter of politics but of personal temperament. Like her husband, she is constitutionally averse to quitting.
What’s more, her public argument that she is the more electable candidate is only a pale version of her private thoughts and those of Bill Clinton. They firmly believe that Obama is unready to face a general election or, if he wins, a presidency that would follow.
For now, her party is hoping that the public pressure on her to step aside will create a backlash that will further fire up her most zealous supporters, especially women.
“The more she can let this threat hang over the process, the more leverage she has,” a former Clinton administration official said.
On Friday, Obama was talking about the nomination race in the past tense. “There are some people who felt like: God, when is this thing going to be over?” he said at a Pittsburgh rally. “It’s like a good movie that’s lasted too long. But the truth is that this has been a great campaign, a great primary season. It’s been hard, it’s been tough.”
But wary of the possibility that pushing Clinton out could backfire, he has begun saying calmly that she’s free to stay in as long as she likes.
And she may take her time, vowing in a Washington Post interview on Saturday to stay in as far as the convention: “I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong.”
A senior adviser to Clinton argued at length that the race is still very much in play.
“The press corps seems to have it in their mind that this race is done,” the adviser said. “Either you guys can’t count or you want it done.”
The adviser asserted that the campaign is gaining traction with its argument that Obama would have electability problems in the fall and might weaken other Democrats running on his ticket.
“It is our read that many of the remaining superdelegates are increasingly concerned about whether or not — as attractive a candidate as he is, as strong as a spokesman as he is — is this guy going to be carrying our district? I don’t think many candidates are looking forward to the Republican ad where ... his minister is saying, ‘God Damn America.’
“People are making [individual] calculations,” the adviser added. “They don’t know which way to jump.”
In the past 10 days, however, Clinton has steadily lost ground. Democrats’ private grumblings became public warnings.
It started March 21, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — who was appointed to two Cabinet posts by Bill Clinton — endorsed Obama after holding off when it would have helped him most, right before the Hispanic-rich Texas primary.
Three days later, in what some Obama strategists believe may eventually be seen as the death blow, Clinton had to admit she had repeatedly exaggerated when claiming to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire as first lady. It was an unnecessary gilding of the lily, tainting video of her in a military setting that otherwise would have been very positive.
In another indignity, Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who had vowed to remain neutral, joined the Obama bandwagon on Friday.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) did the same on Sunday.
This gathering momentum has forced the Clintons into Hail Mary arguments, causing even some confidants to wonder about their logic or real aims. Bill Clinton recently pointed out that she was ahead in the popular vote in primaries, as opposed to caucuses — essentially saying she’s ahead in contests she has won.
“They’re trying everything, and nothing is sticking,” said a Clinton family adviser. “It is possible she’s trying to leverage all this into a spot on the ticket.”
From The Union Leader:
REALLY, there are no permanent Friends of Bill. For the former President and his wife, a tandem of duplicity and ambition unrivaled in American history, there are only temporary alliances. New Hampshire is learning this now, as so many others have before.Ever since Bill Clinton proclaimed himself "the Comeback Kid" for his second-place finish in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, he has portrayed himself as a stalwart defender of New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition. He championed this state's retail politics as a model for the nation and made sure he maintained his ties here in preparation for his wife's inevitable future presidential run.Those relationships paid off handsomely in January, when Hillary Clinton, who had spent more than a year fawning over New Hampshire's great electoral traditions, won here with the strong backing of the Democratic Party establishment.Now, having used New Hampshire as the launching pad for both of their presidential bids, the Clintons have no more use for us. And so it was that on Monday, Bill Clinton threw New Hampshire and our Democratic Secretary of State Bill Gardner under the proverbial bus.To justify his claim that Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, the former President said, "We let New Hampshire go out of turn. They had a Democratic secretary of state. The Florida voters are totally innocent. They asked to vote on time."To the Clintons, rewriting history is as simple as repeating their own talking points until they become accepted as facts. But the truth is that the Clintons happily accepted the bumped-up New Hampshire primary at the time because they perceived it gave Hillary an advantage. Hillary Clinton even signed a pledge to not campaign or participate in the Michigan or Florida primaries. That pledge was meant to punish those two states for moving up their primary dates, and she knew it.But it was not sincere. It was one point of the famous Clinton triangulation. And before you knew it, Sen. Clinton was participating in both the Michigan and Florida primaries, which, of course, she won by violating her pledge.Now, needing those delegates, she and her husband innocently claim that it was the sneaky New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who broke the DNC rules, victimizing poor, helpless Florida and Michigan. And the DNC let him get away with it only because he is a Democrat.Never mind the historical record, which shows that Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries first, prompting New Hampshire to respond. If they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, the facts be damned.And, if they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, their friends be damned, too.
REALLY, there are no permanent Friends of Bill. For the former President and his wife, a tandem of duplicity and ambition unrivaled in American history, there are only temporary alliances. New Hampshire is learning this now, as so many others have before.
Ever since Bill Clinton proclaimed himself "the Comeback Kid" for his second-place finish in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, he has portrayed himself as a stalwart defender of New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition. He championed this state's retail politics as a model for the nation and made sure he maintained his ties here in preparation for his wife's inevitable future presidential run.
Those relationships paid off handsomely in January, when Hillary Clinton, who had spent more than a year fawning over New Hampshire's great electoral traditions, won here with the strong backing of the Democratic Party establishment.
Now, having used New Hampshire as the launching pad for both of their presidential bids, the Clintons have no more use for us. And so it was that on Monday, Bill Clinton threw New Hampshire and our Democratic Secretary of State Bill Gardner under the proverbial bus.
To justify his claim that Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, the former President said, "We let New Hampshire go out of turn. They had a Democratic secretary of state. The Florida voters are totally innocent. They asked to vote on time."
To the Clintons, rewriting history is as simple as repeating their own talking points until they become accepted as facts. But the truth is that the Clintons happily accepted the bumped-up New Hampshire primary at the time because they perceived it gave Hillary an advantage. Hillary Clinton even signed a pledge to not campaign or participate in the Michigan or Florida primaries. That pledge was meant to punish those two states for moving up their primary dates, and she knew it.
But it was not sincere. It was one point of the famous Clinton triangulation. And before you knew it, Sen. Clinton was participating in both the Michigan and Florida primaries, which, of course, she won by violating her pledge.
Now, needing those delegates, she and her husband innocently claim that it was the sneaky New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who broke the DNC rules, victimizing poor, helpless Florida and Michigan. And the DNC let him get away with it only because he is a Democrat.
Never mind the historical record, which shows that Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries first, prompting New Hampshire to respond. If they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, the facts be damned.
And, if they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, their friends be damned, too.
While the cool cat’s away, the Hillary mice will play. As Barack Obama was floating in the pool with his daughters the last few days in St. Thomas, some Clinton disciples were floating the idea of St. Hillary as his vice president. She can’t win without him, said one Hillary adviser, and he can’t win without her. They’re stuck with each other. It’s one of my favorite movie formulas, driving the dynamics in such classics as “A Few Good Men,” “The Big Easy” and “Guys and Dolls”: Charming, glib guy spars and quarrels with no-nonsense, driven girl, until they team up in the last reel. He spices up her life, and she stiffens his spine. And soon they hear the pitter-patter of little superdelegate feet, who are thrilled not to be pulled in two directions anymore. And everybody’s happy. Or are they? A couple of weeks ago, when Hill and Bill mentioned the possibility of a joint ticket, it was an attempt to undermine Obama and urge voters and superdelegates to put Hillary on top; the implication was that this was the only way Democrats could have both their stars, and besides, it was her turn. The precocious boy wonder had plenty of time. But with the math not in her favor, her options running out, Bill Richardson running out and her filigreed narrative of dodging bullets in Bosnia and securing peace in Northern Ireland unraveling, could Hillary actually think the vice presidency is the best she’ll do? One Hillary pal said she wouldn’t want to go back to a Senate full of lawmakers who’d abandoned her for Obama. And even if she could get to be majority leader, would it be much fun working with Nancy Pelosi, whose distaste for the Clintons has led her to subtly maneuver for Obama? Maybe The Terminator is thinking: if she could just get her pump in the door. Dick Cheney, after all, was able to run the White House and the world from the vice president’s residence, calling every shot while serving under a less experienced and younger president. And Observatory Circle is just up the street from where Hillary now lives. But, aside from Barack and Michelle Obama’s certain resistance, would it fly? Many Hillary voters are hardening against Obama, and more and more Obama fans are getting turned off by the idea of dragging down the Obama brand with Clinton dysfunction. “No drama, vote Obama” placards and T-shirts are popping up at Obama rallies, and one of his military advisers dubbed him “No Shock Barack.” It’s hard to imagine that after spending her whole life playing second-fiddle to a superstar pol, Hillary wants to do it again. She’s been vice president. Could the veep talk be a red herring? A ploy designed to distract attention from the Clintons’ real endgame? Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain. If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65. Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?Why else would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. “When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,” he said, adding, “There’s a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida.” So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore? Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat. (Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC’s Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for “the Tonya Harding option” — if she can’t get the gold, kneecap her rival.) After all, the Clintons think of themselves as The Democratic Party. When Bill and Dick Morris triangulated during the first term, it was what was best for Bill, not the party. In 1996, when Bill turned the White House into Motel 1600 for fund-raisers, it was more about his re-election than the re-elections of his fellow Democrats in Congress; in 2000, the White House focused its energies more on Hillary’s Senate win than Al Gore’s presidential run.And even Clinton supporters know that Bill does not want to be replaced as the first black president, especially by a black president with enough magic to possibly eclipse him in the history books.
While the cool cat’s away, the Hillary mice will play.
As Barack Obama was floating in the pool with his daughters the last few days in St. Thomas, some Clinton disciples were floating the idea of St. Hillary as his vice president.
She can’t win without him, said one Hillary adviser, and he can’t win without her.
They’re stuck with each other.
It’s one of my favorite movie formulas, driving the dynamics in such classics as “A Few Good Men,” “The Big Easy” and “Guys and Dolls”: Charming, glib guy spars and quarrels with no-nonsense, driven girl, until they team up in the last reel. He spices up her life, and she stiffens his spine. And soon they hear the pitter-patter of little superdelegate feet, who are thrilled not to be pulled in two directions anymore.
And everybody’s happy. Or are they?
A couple of weeks ago, when Hill and Bill mentioned the possibility of a joint ticket, it was an attempt to undermine Obama and urge voters and superdelegates to put Hillary on top; the implication was that this was the only way Democrats could have both their stars, and besides, it was her turn. The precocious boy wonder had plenty of time.
But with the math not in her favor, her options running out, Bill Richardson running out and her filigreed narrative of dodging bullets in Bosnia and securing peace in Northern Ireland unraveling, could Hillary actually think the vice presidency is the best she’ll do?
One Hillary pal said she wouldn’t want to go back to a Senate full of lawmakers who’d abandoned her for Obama. And even if she could get to be majority leader, would it be much fun working with Nancy Pelosi, whose distaste for the Clintons has led her to subtly maneuver for Obama?
Maybe The Terminator is thinking: if she could just get her pump in the door. Dick Cheney, after all, was able to run the White House and the world from the vice president’s residence, calling every shot while serving under a less experienced and younger president. And Observatory Circle is just up the street from where Hillary now lives.
But, aside from Barack and Michelle Obama’s certain resistance, would it fly? Many Hillary voters are hardening against Obama, and more and more Obama fans are getting turned off by the idea of dragging down the Obama brand with Clinton dysfunction.
“No drama, vote Obama” placards and T-shirts are popping up at Obama rallies, and one of his military advisers dubbed him “No Shock Barack.”
It’s hard to imagine that after spending her whole life playing second-fiddle to a superstar pol, Hillary wants to do it again. She’s been vice president.
Could the veep talk be a red herring? A ploy designed to distract attention from the Clintons’ real endgame?
Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.
If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.
Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?
Why else would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. “When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,” he said, adding, “There’s a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida.” So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore?
Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat.
(Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC’s Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for “the Tonya Harding option” — if she can’t get the gold, kneecap her rival.)
After all, the Clintons think of themselves as The Democratic Party. When Bill and Dick Morris triangulated during the first term, it was what was best for Bill, not the party. In 1996, when Bill turned the White House into Motel 1600 for fund-raisers, it was more about his re-election than the re-elections of his fellow Democrats in Congress; in 2000, the White House focused its energies more on Hillary’s Senate win than Al Gore’s presidential run.
And even Clinton supporters know that Bill does not want to be replaced as the first black president, especially by a black president with enough magic to possibly eclipse him in the history books.
From metro.co.uk:
Pamela Anderson and Leslie Nielsen both endorsed US presidential hopeful Barack Obama as they stepped out for the Hollywood premiere of Superhero Movie. "I like Obama and I try to like Hillary (Clinton) - I have lots of friends who like Hillary," former Baywatch babe Pam told reporters on the red carpet. The 40-year-old went on: "I don't like nasty politics. I think Obama is an inspired leader and I think he's here for a reason." "My kids want to grow up to be like him, and I think it will be really fun to have a President that everyone loves and is enduring and smart and powerful. He gives me a great feeling. I think he's a great guy." And Naked Gun star Leslie, 82, was also keen to add his endorsement to the popular candidate, as the race for the Democratic party nomination hots up. "I'm for Barack myself and that's who I will be voting for," he said. "I sure will take a chance on him - I think he's a remarkable man." Superhero Movie sends up superhero films like Batman Begins, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four. Pam plays Invisible Girl in the spoof flick, while Leslie stars as Albert, the uncle to superhero Dragonfly, who is played by teen idol Drake Bell. It also stars Christopher McDonald.
Pamela Anderson and Leslie Nielsen both endorsed US presidential hopeful Barack Obama as they stepped out for the Hollywood premiere of Superhero Movie.
"I like Obama and I try to like Hillary (Clinton) - I have lots of friends who like Hillary," former Baywatch babe Pam told reporters on the red carpet. The 40-year-old went on: "I don't like nasty politics. I think Obama is an inspired leader and I think he's here for a reason."
"My kids want to grow up to be like him, and I think it will be really fun to have a President that everyone loves and is enduring and smart and powerful. He gives me a great feeling. I think he's a great guy."
And Naked Gun star Leslie, 82, was also keen to add his endorsement to the popular candidate, as the race for the Democratic party nomination hots up. "I'm for Barack myself and that's who I will be voting for," he said. "I sure will take a chance on him - I think he's a remarkable man."
Superhero Movie sends up superhero films like Batman Begins, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four. Pam plays Invisible Girl in the spoof flick, while Leslie stars as Albert, the uncle to superhero Dragonfly, who is played by teen idol Drake Bell. It also stars Christopher McDonald.
Sen. Patrick Leahy is suggesting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton abandon her White House run.The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and six-term Vermont lawmaker said there is no way that Clinton is going to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination. Leahy told Vermont Public Radio, in a show that aired Thursday, that Clinton ought to withdraw and should be backing Sen. Barack Obama. But Leahy said that's obviously a decision only Clinton can make.In a statement issued Friday, Leahy — who has endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination — said Obama's lead appears to be insurmountable and that Obama's endorsement by U.S. Sen. Bob Casey is the latest sign of how the race is going."Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make," Leahy said in the statement.
Sen. Patrick Leahy is suggesting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton abandon her White House run.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and six-term Vermont lawmaker said there is no way that Clinton is going to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination. Leahy told Vermont Public Radio, in a show that aired Thursday, that Clinton ought to withdraw and should be backing Sen. Barack Obama. But Leahy said that's obviously a decision only Clinton can make.
In a statement issued Friday, Leahy — who has endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination — said Obama's lead appears to be insurmountable and that Obama's endorsement by U.S. Sen. Bob Casey is the latest sign of how the race is going.
"Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make," Leahy said in the statement.
Rack 'em up, Barack! From the philly.com:
Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president today in Pittsburgh, sending a message both to the state's primary voters and to undecided superdelegates who might decide the close race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Dan Pfeiffer, deputy communications director for the Obama campaign, confirmed that Casey would announce his support during a rally at the Soldiers and Sailors Military Museum and Memorial and that he would then set out with the Illinois senator on part of a six-day bus trip across the state. The endorsement comes as something of a surprise. Casey, a deliberative and cautious politician, had been adamant about remaining neutral until after the April 22 primary. He had said he wanted to help unify the party after the intensifying fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There are few stronger advocates for working families in Pennsylvania than Sen. Casey," Pfeiffer said. By coming out for Obama, Casey puts himself at odds with many top state Democrats - including Gov. Rendell, Rep. John P. Murtha and Mayor Nutter - who are campaigning for Clinton. The endorsement also comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has been trailing Clinton in Pennsylvania polls by double-digit margins but who also has bought at least $1.6 million worth of television advertising statewide in the last week, more than double Clinton's expenditure. Obama strategists hope that Casey can help their candidate make inroads with the white working-class men who are often referred to as "Casey Democrats." This group identifies with the brand of politics Casey and his late father, a former governor, practiced - liberal on economic issues but supportive of gun rights and opposed to abortion. (Obama favors some gun-control measures and backs abortion rights.) Obama badly lost the white working-class vote to Clinton in Ohio and Texas on March 4, keeping the outcome of the fight in doubt amid questions about whether he could appeal to a group of voters that has often strayed from the party in presidential elections. Since then, Obama has been stressing economic issues important to the middle class more often than his calls to reform politics. His campaign's recent TV ads in Pennsylvania also feature blue-collar imagery. Other state Democrats who support Obama include Reps. Patrick Murphy and Chaka Fattah, and former Lt. Gov. Mark Singel. Casey sees Obama as an "underdog" in the campaign who sacrificed at the beginning of his career to be a community organizer "in the shadows of the closed steel mills in Chicago," said a source close to Casey who is familiar with the endorsement decision but was not authorized to speak publicly about it. The source, reached by The Inquirer yesterday, said that Casey was also impressed with how Obama had stood up to the pressures of the campaign, including recent attacks over the racially incendiary remarks of his former pastor. Casey's decision was also personal, motivated in part by the enthusiasm his four daughters - Elyse, Caroline, Julia and Marena - have expressed for Obama, the source said. "He thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."
Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president today in Pittsburgh, sending a message both to the state's primary voters and to undecided superdelegates who might decide the close race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Dan Pfeiffer, deputy communications director for the Obama campaign, confirmed that Casey would announce his support during a rally at the Soldiers and Sailors Military Museum and Memorial and that he would then set out with the Illinois senator on part of a six-day bus trip across the state.
The endorsement comes as something of a surprise. Casey, a deliberative and cautious politician, had been adamant about remaining neutral until after the April 22 primary. He had said he wanted to help unify the party after the intensifying fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"There are few stronger advocates for working families in Pennsylvania than Sen. Casey," Pfeiffer said.
By coming out for Obama, Casey puts himself at odds with many top state Democrats - including Gov. Rendell, Rep. John P. Murtha and Mayor Nutter - who are campaigning for Clinton.
The endorsement also comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has been trailing Clinton in Pennsylvania polls by double-digit margins but who also has bought at least $1.6 million worth of television advertising statewide in the last week, more than double Clinton's expenditure.
Obama strategists hope that Casey can help their candidate make inroads with the white working-class men who are often referred to as "Casey Democrats." This group identifies with the brand of politics Casey and his late father, a former governor, practiced - liberal on economic issues but supportive of gun rights and opposed to abortion. (Obama favors some gun-control measures and backs abortion rights.)
Obama badly lost the white working-class vote to Clinton in Ohio and Texas on March 4, keeping the outcome of the fight in doubt amid questions about whether he could appeal to a group of voters that has often strayed from the party in presidential elections.
Since then, Obama has been stressing economic issues important to the middle class more often than his calls to reform politics. His campaign's recent TV ads in Pennsylvania also feature blue-collar imagery.
Other state Democrats who support Obama include Reps. Patrick Murphy and Chaka Fattah, and former Lt. Gov. Mark Singel.
Casey sees Obama as an "underdog" in the campaign who sacrificed at the beginning of his career to be a community organizer "in the shadows of the closed steel mills in Chicago," said a source close to Casey who is familiar with the endorsement decision but was not authorized to speak publicly about it.
The source, reached by The Inquirer yesterday, said that Casey was also impressed with how Obama had stood up to the pressures of the campaign, including recent attacks over the racially incendiary remarks of his former pastor.
Casey's decision was also personal, motivated in part by the enthusiasm his four daughters - Elyse, Caroline, Julia and Marena - have expressed for Obama, the source said. "He thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."
A lot of people I've spoken to seem to have written off a potential win in Pennsylvania due to Wrightgate and Clinton muscle. The Obama campaign however, isn't giving up without a fight. Whether or not Billary wins Pennsylvania in the primary, it's important for Senator Obama to raise his profile there for the general election. From Sasha Issenberg:
On the eve of his six-day bus tour of Pennsylvania, Barack Obama is bringing in a new operative to lead his efforts in the state. Paul Tewes, who directed Obama's impressive win in the Iowa caucuses, will take over the Pennsylvania campaign from Jim DeMay, according to campaign sources. Tewes could not be immediately reached for comment.Obama's national campaign has come under criticism from supporters that his defensive strategy in Pennsylvania -- designed largely to limit Hillary Clinton's ability to run up her popular-vote total -- was tantamount to conceding the state. Even before Tewes's appointment was confirmed today, campaign officials had hoped that the extended bus tour -- a commitment Obama's campaign has not made to an individual state since Iowa -- and a sizeable advertising buy over the past week would help to quell internal skeptics."My guess is it's a smokescreen, I don't think it changes the strategy at all," said one Obama fundraiser in Pennsylvania. "I think a lot of people were catching wind of the fact that they were writing off Pennsylvania."
On the eve of his six-day bus tour of Pennsylvania, Barack Obama is bringing in a new operative to lead his efforts in the state.
Paul Tewes, who directed Obama's impressive win in the Iowa caucuses, will take over the Pennsylvania campaign from Jim DeMay, according to campaign sources. Tewes could not be immediately reached for comment.
Obama's national campaign has come under criticism from supporters that his defensive strategy in Pennsylvania -- designed largely to limit Hillary Clinton's ability to run up her popular-vote total -- was tantamount to conceding the state.
Even before Tewes's appointment was confirmed today, campaign officials had hoped that the extended bus tour -- a commitment Obama's campaign has not made to an individual state since Iowa -- and a sizeable advertising buy over the past week would help to quell internal skeptics.
"My guess is it's a smokescreen, I don't think it changes the strategy at all," said one Obama fundraiser in Pennsylvania. "I think a lot of people were catching wind of the fact that they were writing off Pennsylvania."
Senator McCain's former classmate and colleague offers some insight in to why he's not going to board the so-called Straight Talk Express. From retired naval commander, Phillip Butler, PhD:
Dear friends:As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me “coming around” to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape “over the wall” in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No – John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.John’s treatment as a POW:1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW’s for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case – new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.Phil
Dear friends:
As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.
When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!
John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me “coming around” to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape “over the wall” in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No – John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW’s for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case – new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
Phil
From the Associated Press:
White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down."Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.In his sermons over the years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has railed against the United States and accused it of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism. He also has said the government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has shouted "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities.Videos of his remarks circulated on the Internet and on television.In an attempt to quiet the controversy, Obama gave a speech last week in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not repudiate him.Obama said Wednesday he has spoken with Wright, who retired from Trinity United Church of Christ last month but remains as a senior pastor.Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, broke her silence on the matter Tuesday, saying she would have parted company with a pastor who spoke about the country the way Wright has.Asked about the controversy Wright's comments have created, Republican John McCain said while campaigning in Denver: "I can only say that I am sure, knowing Senator Obama, that he does not share the extreme views that were expressed that I saw on television."
White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.
"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.
In his sermons over the years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has railed against the United States and accused it of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism. He also has said the government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has shouted "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities.
Videos of his remarks circulated on the Internet and on television.
In an attempt to quiet the controversy, Obama gave a speech last week in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not repudiate him.
Obama said Wednesday he has spoken with Wright, who retired from Trinity United Church of Christ last month but remains as a senior pastor.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, broke her silence on the matter Tuesday, saying she would have parted company with a pastor who spoke about the country the way Wright has.
Asked about the controversy Wright's comments have created, Republican John McCain said while campaigning in Denver: "I can only say that I am sure, knowing Senator Obama, that he does not share the extreme views that were expressed that I saw on television."
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the press hounding Senator Obama about Reverend Wright's comments. Can the man be more clear than he was in his 5000 word speech? No one has questions Senator Clinton's pastorate, The Fellowship, which has been described as a facist leaning sect which suggests a serious double standard.
Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia. Two others: Is there a pattern of embellishment? And is she held to a higher standard than her rival, Barack Obama?The answers: Yes, she's held to a higher standard and, yes, she does exaggerate her credentials. Perhaps she's driven by insecurity; Clinton must think her resume needs padding to reflect "35 years of experience" and the promise to be "ready on Day One."Otherwise, the truth would have sufficed.The fact is that Clinton and her entourage were warned in advance that Bosnia was hostile territory and that there had been sniper fire reported in the hills surrounding the tarmac at some point before the trip. As a journalist on the trip, the story I wrote began, "Venturing to the front lines of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, Hillary Rodham Clinton greeted U.S. troops today and heard horror stories about the region's devastating civil war."It continued: "Security was tight � fighter jets accompanied her DC-17 cargo plane to Tuzla � but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks on the trip."In her biography, Clinton wrote about the reports of snipers in the hills and said she met with local children on the tarmac, adding that the gathering was cut short by security concerns. All plausible, and a mission to be proud of.But during a speech last week on Iraq, Clinton stretched the truth to the breaking point. "I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia and ... there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the first lady. That's where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."Hogwash. The truth is:� There was no sniper fire.� Nobody ducked for cover.� Bad weather, not security concerns, kept her husband from making the same trip a few months earlier.Clinton and her aides stood behind the story � which she has told more than once � until video surfaced showing the former first lady, her daughter, Chelsea, and their entourage strolling off the plane and walking calmly across the tarmac."I made a mistake," she said Tuesday. "That happens. It proves I'm human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation."To be sure, Clinton is not the first American to pad a resume. She's not even the only candidate for president to do so.Obama has exaggerated his role in reaching a compromise in the Senate on immigration as well as his authorship of a bill to address the housing crisis. Voters need to weigh such distortions when they consider whether the freshman senator from Illinois truly is a new breed of politician.What makes Clinton's situation unique � and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging � is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel.As first lady, she did not attend National Security Council meetings, did not receive the presidential daily briefing on terrorism and other threats and did not have a top level security clearance. Her foreign trips were glorified goodwill tours, a collection of photo opportunities and sightseeing trips. Still, Clinton was an exceptionally active first lady who knows more than most about what it takes to be president. So it must drive her nuts when Obama and his allies dismiss her role. Their condescension must make it harder for Clinton to accept the fact that hers was a largely ceremonial job, especially after her ill-fated attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. And so the best explanation for her Bosnia embellishment may be this simple, and this human: She's overcompensating. That would explain why it wasn't good enough to say she visited Northern Ireland five times and urged the rivals to make peace. No, Clinton claims she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." She didn't just urge the Macedonian government to open its borders to refugees. No, she "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." Polls show that voters wonder about Clinton's honesty and authenticity. The Bosnia story plays to that character issue. As former Vice President Al Gore could tell her, once the media and voters start doubting a candidate's integrity, every episode that fits that narrative gets blown out of proportion. Gore never said he invented the Internet; his mistake was to place himself more centrally than warranted at the creation of the technology. But such nuance was lost on people who voted against him in 2000.
Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia. Two others: Is there a pattern of embellishment? And is she held to a higher standard than her rival, Barack Obama?
The answers: Yes, she's held to a higher standard and, yes, she does exaggerate her credentials. Perhaps she's driven by insecurity; Clinton must think her resume needs padding to reflect "35 years of experience" and the promise to be "ready on Day One."
Otherwise, the truth would have sufficed.
The fact is that Clinton and her entourage were warned in advance that Bosnia was hostile territory and that there had been sniper fire reported in the hills surrounding the tarmac at some point before the trip. As a journalist on the trip, the story I wrote began, "Venturing to the front lines of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, Hillary Rodham Clinton greeted U.S. troops today and heard horror stories about the region's devastating civil war."
It continued: "Security was tight � fighter jets accompanied her DC-17 cargo plane to Tuzla � but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks on the trip."
In her biography, Clinton wrote about the reports of snipers in the hills and said she met with local children on the tarmac, adding that the gathering was cut short by security concerns. All plausible, and a mission to be proud of.
But during a speech last week on Iraq, Clinton stretched the truth to the breaking point. "I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia and ... there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the first lady. That's where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Hogwash. The truth is:
� There was no sniper fire.
� Nobody ducked for cover.
� Bad weather, not security concerns, kept her husband from making the same trip a few months earlier.
Clinton and her aides stood behind the story � which she has told more than once � until video surfaced showing the former first lady, her daughter, Chelsea, and their entourage strolling off the plane and walking calmly across the tarmac.
"I made a mistake," she said Tuesday. "That happens. It proves I'm human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation."
To be sure, Clinton is not the first American to pad a resume. She's not even the only candidate for president to do so.
Obama has exaggerated his role in reaching a compromise in the Senate on immigration as well as his authorship of a bill to address the housing crisis. Voters need to weigh such distortions when they consider whether the freshman senator from Illinois truly is a new breed of politician.
What makes Clinton's situation unique � and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging � is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel.
As first lady, she did not attend National Security Council meetings, did not receive the presidential daily briefing on terrorism and other threats and did not have a top level security clearance. Her foreign trips were glorified goodwill tours, a collection of photo opportunities and sightseeing trips.
Still, Clinton was an exceptionally active first lady who knows more than most about what it takes to be president. So it must drive her nuts when Obama and his allies dismiss her role. Their condescension must make it harder for Clinton to accept the fact that hers was a largely ceremonial job, especially after her ill-fated attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system.
And so the best explanation for her Bosnia embellishment may be this simple, and this human: She's overcompensating.
That would explain why it wasn't good enough to say she visited Northern Ireland five times and urged the rivals to make peace. No, Clinton claims she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland."
She didn't just urge the Macedonian government to open its borders to refugees. No, she "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo."
Polls show that voters wonder about Clinton's honesty and authenticity. The Bosnia story plays to that character issue. As former Vice President Al Gore could tell her, once the media and voters start doubting a candidate's integrity, every episode that fits that narrative gets blown out of proportion.
Gore never said he invented the Internet; his mistake was to place himself more centrally than warranted at the creation of the technology. But such nuance was lost on people who voted against him in 2000.
From Robin Toner:
At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.” But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year? Also, and more immediately, if Mr. Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country’s values? To many political strategists, the furor over the racial views of Mr. Obama’s former pastor is only the first of many such tests the senator will face if he is the nominee. Mr. Obama, in an interview that was conducted on March 15, in the midst of that controversy, said he was confident that Americans were eager for a new kind of politics and were convinced that “a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.” He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could — and should — rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda. Only then, he said, could the party achieve what it has so rarely won in modern presidential elections: a mandate to do big things.“Senator Clinton’s argument in this campaign,” he said, “has really been that you can’t change the electoral map, that it’s a static map and we are inalterably divided, so we’ve got to eke out a victory and then try to govern more competently than George Bush has. My argument is that if that’s what we’re settling for, after seven or eight years of disastrous policies on the part of the Bush administration, then we’re not going to deliver on the big changes that are needed.” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has worked hard in the Senate to moderate her liberal image and forge working relationships with Republicans. But with her husband’s tumultuous presidency still fresh in some voters’ minds, she is often cast as a hyperpartisan Democrat who would try to achieve her ends by beating the Republicans at the same brutal (and often futile) competition that has dominated Washington for years.Mr. Obama’s rise has been built in part on the idea that he represents a break from the established identities that have defined many of the nation’s divisions. To many, he embodies a promise to bridge black and white, old and young, rich and poor — and Democrats, Republicans and independents. Even so, Mr. Obama does not come to the campaign with a reputation as one of the most accommodating bridge-builders in the Senate. And while he promises a very different politics from Mrs. Clinton, their voting records in the Senate last year were not strikingly different. A recent analysis of key votes by The National Journal concluded that Mr. Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record in 2007; Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th. But of the 267 measures on which both senators voted, the National Journal analysis found that they differed on only 10. One of their major differences came on an amendment that called for the designation of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran as a terrorist organization; while Mrs. Clinton supported it, Mr. Obama missed the vote, but said he opposed it. Congressional Quarterly said Mr. Obama voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes last year; Mrs. Clinton did so 98 percent of the time. But it is Mr. Obama who is running on a promise of a new approach to politics. Given that, he says he understands the criticism of his voting record, but argues that the Senate is so ideologically polarized it is hard not to end up on one side or the other. “The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people,” he said. “It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate.”Mr. Obama seems to be promising less a split-the-difference centrism than an ability to harness the support of all those voters who yearn for something new, beyond the ideological stalemate. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote, “They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.”In many ways, the Obama campaign is challenging the fundamental political premise that has prevailed in Washington for more than a generation: that any majority coalition must be carefully centrist, if not center-right. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 as a candidate willing to break with liberal orthodoxy on many issues, including crime and welfare, and eager to move the party — which had lost five of the six previous presidential elections — to the middle. Mr. Clinton’s New Democrats assumed a certain level of conservatism among voters. Mr. Obama and his allies are basing his campaign on a different bet: that the right-leaning political landscape Mr. Clinton confronted has changed. Several major Democratic strategists, and outside analysts as well, argue that the country has shifted to the left because of the Iraq war, the economy and seven-plus years of President Bush, and that it has become open to a new progressive majority. Mr. Obama said: “What I’m certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there’s no doubt the pendulum is swinging.”Still, he added: “The Democrats have to seize this opportunity by showing people in very practical terms how a different set of policies can deliver solutions that will actually make a difference in their lives. I think the jury is still out right now.”Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Mrs. Clinton, said Mr. Obama’s Senate career did not back up his promise of being able to forge a new governing coalition across party lines.“It’s a great promise,” Mr. Penn said. “But are the actions consistent with the words? I don’t see it.” Still, many of Mr. Obama’s supporters say he has recognized this new political climate in a way that Mrs. Clinton has not. They say he is ready for a new, self-assured era in which progressives (few have returned to using the word “liberal”) make no apologies about their goals — universal health care, withdrawing troops from Iraq, ending tax breaks for more affluent Americans — and assume that a broad swath of the public shares them.Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, often displays the wariness of Democrats who came of political age in the Reagan era, when the party was constantly on the defensive. As The New Republic recently put it, “Clintonism is a political strategy that assumes a skeptical public; Obamaism is a way of actualizing a latent ideological majority.”Mr. Obama significantly outperformed Mrs. Clinton among independents in the coast-to-coast nominating contests on Feb. 5, and in several other key contests. But can that transpartisan appeal be sustained? He has only begun to take some hard political hits — from the Clinton campaign, from conservative commentators and radio hosts, and from the campaign of Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee. So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Mr. Obama as just another big-government liberal. “When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. Mr. Obama insists that while his core values are progressive, he himself is not ideological. His policy differences with Mrs. Clinton are limited, and his proposals are solidly in the mainstream of Democratic thought. In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works. “I’m interested in solving problems as opposed to imposing doctrine,” he said. “I see a lot of convergence of interests among people who in traditional terms are considered to be divided politically.”
At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”
But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?
Also, and more immediately, if Mr. Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country’s values?
To many political strategists, the furor over the racial views of Mr. Obama’s former pastor is only the first of many such tests the senator will face if he is the nominee.
Mr. Obama, in an interview that was conducted on March 15, in the midst of that controversy, said he was confident that Americans were eager for a new kind of politics and were convinced that “a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.”
He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could — and should — rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda. Only then, he said, could the party achieve what it has so rarely won in modern presidential elections: a mandate to do big things.
“Senator Clinton’s argument in this campaign,” he said, “has really been that you can’t change the electoral map, that it’s a static map and we are inalterably divided, so we’ve got to eke out a victory and then try to govern more competently than George Bush has. My argument is that if that’s what we’re settling for, after seven or eight years of disastrous policies on the part of the Bush administration, then we’re not going to deliver on the big changes that are needed.”
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has worked hard in the Senate to moderate her liberal image and forge working relationships with Republicans. But with her husband’s tumultuous presidency still fresh in some voters’ minds, she is often cast as a hyperpartisan Democrat who would try to achieve her ends by beating the Republicans at the same brutal (and often futile) competition that has dominated Washington for years.
Mr. Obama’s rise has been built in part on the idea that he represents a break from the established identities that have defined many of the nation’s divisions. To many, he embodies a promise to bridge black and white, old and young, rich and poor — and Democrats, Republicans and independents.
Even so, Mr. Obama does not come to the campaign with a reputation as one of the most accommodating bridge-builders in the Senate. And while he promises a very different politics from Mrs. Clinton, their voting records in the Senate last year were not strikingly different.
A recent analysis of key votes by The National Journal concluded that Mr. Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record in 2007; Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th. But of the 267 measures on which both senators voted, the National Journal analysis found that they differed on only 10. One of their major differences came on an amendment that called for the designation of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran as a terrorist organization; while Mrs. Clinton supported it, Mr. Obama missed the vote, but said he opposed it.
Congressional Quarterly said Mr. Obama voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes last year; Mrs. Clinton did so 98 percent of the time.
But it is Mr. Obama who is running on a promise of a new approach to politics. Given that, he says he understands the criticism of his voting record, but argues that the Senate is so ideologically polarized it is hard not to end up on one side or the other.
“The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people,” he said. “It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate.”
Mr. Obama seems to be promising less a split-the-difference centrism than an ability to harness the support of all those voters who yearn for something new, beyond the ideological stalemate. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote, “They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.”
In many ways, the Obama campaign is challenging the fundamental political premise that has prevailed in Washington for more than a generation: that any majority coalition must be carefully centrist, if not center-right. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 as a candidate willing to break with liberal orthodoxy on many issues, including crime and welfare, and eager to move the party — which had lost five of the six previous presidential elections — to the middle. Mr. Clinton’s New Democrats assumed a certain level of conservatism among voters.
Mr. Obama and his allies are basing his campaign on a different bet: that the right-leaning political landscape Mr. Clinton confronted has changed. Several major Democratic strategists, and outside analysts as well, argue that the country has shifted to the left because of the Iraq war, the economy and seven-plus years of President Bush, and that it has become open to a new progressive majority.
Mr. Obama said: “What I’m certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there’s no doubt the pendulum is swinging.”
Still, he added: “The Democrats have to seize this opportunity by showing people in very practical terms how a different set of policies can deliver solutions that will actually make a difference in their lives. I think the jury is still out right now.”
Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Mrs. Clinton, said Mr. Obama’s Senate career did not back up his promise of being able to forge a new governing coalition across party lines.
“It’s a great promise,” Mr. Penn said. “But are the actions consistent with the words? I don’t see it.”
Still, many of Mr. Obama’s supporters say he has recognized this new political climate in a way that Mrs. Clinton has not. They say he is ready for a new, self-assured era in which progressives (few have returned to using the word “liberal”) make no apologies about their goals — universal health care, withdrawing troops from Iraq, ending tax breaks for more affluent Americans — and assume that a broad swath of the public shares them.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, often displays the wariness of Democrats who came of political age in the Reagan era, when the party was constantly on the defensive. As The New Republic recently put it, “Clintonism is a political strategy that assumes a skeptical public; Obamaism is a way of actualizing a latent ideological majority.”
Mr. Obama significantly outperformed Mrs. Clinton among independents in the coast-to-coast nominating contests on Feb. 5, and in several other key contests. But can that transpartisan appeal be sustained? He has only begun to take some hard political hits — from the Clinton campaign, from conservative commentators and radio hosts, and from the campaign of Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.
So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Mr. Obama as just another big-government liberal.
“When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Obama insists that while his core values are progressive, he himself is not ideological. His policy differences with Mrs. Clinton are limited, and his proposals are solidly in the mainstream of Democratic thought.
In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.
“I’m interested in solving problems as opposed to imposing doctrine,” he said. “I see a lot of convergence of interests among people who in traditional terms are considered to be divided politically.”
