What would it take to get Hillary Clinton to drop her bid for the White House? Endless stories about back room strategies, desperate e-mails, and superdelegate push-plays are all over the Internet today. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter even has New York Dems bribing Hillary Clinton with the governor's mansion if she would just step aside and let Barack Obama have the nomination he's earned by the delegate count. I suspect that none of that will work, and that Hillary Clinton will not drop out, even if she wins not another contest between now and June 4. I just don't see her doing it. Why? Page two of the Politico's Hillary story today had a hint:
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.
Hillary, who probably should have run in 2004 but blinked, doesn't believe that Barack can win the general, and she knows full well that this is the Dems' best shot since 1992. (In their arrogance, they also believe that a sitting Senator with just two years less time in the Senate and more legislative experience in total would fare worse in the White House than small state governor Bill Clinton did at around Barack's age in 1992...)
It's like the year the New York Knicks almost won a ring the year Michael Jordan was "retired" and playing baseball, but Patrick Ewing blew it with that damned finger roll. HRC and Co. think Barack is Patrick Ewing. That, or they hope he is...
I think the Clintons have it wrong, but that thinking does explain their desperation to get the nomination (or, I believe, to get on the ticket.) Because besides what they believe about November, Hillary can count the years, and she knows that she has very little time left to run for president. 2008, maybe 2012, and then that's it. Her window closes. John McCain will have a hard enough time running for president as the geezer candidate. Imagine how much harder it would be to run as Geezer Girl...
I've long blogged about how much I like Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican Senator and iconoclast on Iraq. Many liberals are skeptical of him because, after all, he is a Republican. But I'm so over that. Hagel is a war hero, with similar credentials to the media's darling, John McCain. He's also, frankly, a white male from a red state, who could bring multiple layers of credibility to a presidential ticket -- that's why Mike Bloomberg flirted with him (in a totally platonic way) when he was thinking about running as an Independent.
Hagel has been cagey about whether he would endorse his party's nominee, fellow Vietnam vet McCain. And he has been increasingly vocal over the years about his opposition to Bush's arrogant, worthless policy in Iraq.
So the question is, would a fusion ticket -- something on the order of what McCain would probably like to do with Joe Lieberman (but he can't -- Lieberman brings no crossover, since Democrats hate his guts) and what John Kerry tried to pull off with none other than John McCain -- be just the ticket for Barack Obama? Some observers, like TIME's sometimey Joe Klein (who I have to say annoys the living crap out of me for some reason) are hoping for just such a thing. Blogcritics' Doug DeLong even gamed it out in February:
He's a decorated Vietnam veteran and an articulate, thoughtful man who last year considered jumping into the race himself, and has been talked about as a possible running mate for Mike Bloomberg, should he decide to run. Although a social conservative, he's been a thorn in the side of the Bush/Cheney administration with his criticism of their Iraq policy, and is basically on the same page as the Democrats on the issue.
Obama is an attractive candidate for so many people because of his desire to end the partisan bickering that has resulted in gridlock in Washington on so many fronts. What better way to demonstrate that "we are not red states and blue states, but the United States of America" than to put a Republican on the ticket? Hagel would undoubtedly help in winning over more Republicans and Independents and should help to turn some red states a bright shade of blue. His prominent membership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would also help to fortify Obama, who some perceive as lacking foreign policy expertise.
Would Hagel accept such an invitation? Appearing on CNN's Late Edition over the weekend, he gave this curious response when asked if he would support John McCain for president: "Well, I've not been involved in the primary and I am still not involved in any of that. At the appropriate time, then I'll have something to say about it." Earlier this month he was quoted as saying, "I like Barack Obama a lot. He's smart. He listens. He learns. He's a worthy candidate for president."
He also appeared to line up with Obama's views when, in the CNN interview, he talked about how we should approach dealing with rogue nations. "Great powers engage. Great powers are not afraid. Great powers trade," Hagel said. "If we're going to see any improvement in the Middle East, in Central Asia, the two wars that we're bogged down in right now, we're going to have to engage Iran."
Historically, it makes sense. The framers of the U.S. constitution never envisioned elections to be winner take all for one party. In fact, the notion of a president from one party and a vice president from an opposing one fits neatly into the American narrative, wherein the vice presidency was originally meant to go to the candidate who failed to win the most electoral votes -- in short, the guy who came in second (which is how Thomas Jefferson ended up as John Adams' veep.) It just hasn't been done in awhile (and no, the 12th Amendment doesn't prohibit it.)
I, for one, hope that Obama considers such a move, even though Hagel has one downside: he's a Senator like Obama, and two Senators on one ticket does not often spell a winning combination. (And of course there will be left wingers, and Hillary Campers, who will hit the freaking roof if he chooses a Republican.) And all things being equal, he'd probably just as soon have a governor, or a retired general. But Hagel remains an attractive possibility. There are, after all, many issues that could drive soft Republicans across the aisle, starting with the Iraq war. Obama and Hagel agree on that, and Hagel's hintings about impeachment make him more and more acceptable to even the bluest Dems (though it makes hardcore Republicans -- who would never vote for Obama anyway, hate the guy.) He voted for the war, but turned on it so completely he won't carry too much baggage. And demographically, he's a can't miss.
Of course, nothing is certain in politics, and perhaps Hagel would do little more than fuel pro-war Republicans' rage against Hagel, and against the Democratic Party. But given Obama's message of uniting the country, it's worth considering.
There will be no more warm rubs on the head from the Prez for Alphonso.
Alphonso Jackson, President Bush's HUD secretary, announced his resignation today, effective April 18. (I guess he won't be around to help implement Paulson's Miracle, after all ... )
The resignation is not all that surprising, given that Mr. Jackson is under investigation by a federal grand jury, and after the scandal touched off when it was discovered that he was vetting potential HUD contractees for their affection for George W. Bush. But something else Jackson told the group of minority contractors in Dallas is less surprising if you're familiar with contracting, and the politics and favoritism that goes into it, or if you're familiar with the way government contracting is seen as a path to wealth for many businessmen, minority and otherwise:
The secretary told the group he had canceled a contract after the contractor said he had a problem with President Bush: "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use the funds to try to campaign against the president?" Jackson said. "Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
The secretary also told the audience "how government works. Once you get the contract," he said, "they just keep giving you tax dollars. ... The most amazing thing I've ever seen is the amount of contracts we give out every day. One contract can make you wealthy."
Again, it's not just Black contractors who operate this way. Come to Miami and observe how Cuban-Americans work the system, or toddle up to Washington and take a gander at the Iraq contracting and trace the tentacles back to relationships within the White House (particularly the vice president's office) and you'll see that the federal government has become not only the employer of last resort for an economy that produces little, but also the banker, and the contractor to a growing proportion of small businesses. George Will on "This Week" on Sunday proposed that left and right agree that if government is going to give corporate welfare, there should also be a cap on CEO earnings to match it. That will never happen of course, but the point Will was making is true: the U.S. economy is so thoroughly planned and centralized in Washington, no wonder it doesn't grow much anymore.
Barack Obama is pouring on the charm in Pennsylvania's blue collar districts. With some help from his new pal, Bob Casey, he's showing his every-guy side, hanging out in diners and even bowling (note to the lades, he wears size 13 1.2 shoes...) It's the kind of thing he needs to do to close the gap in that state before the upcoming primary. And speaking of primaries, the schedule has reached the final ten:
Tuesday, April 22 - Pennsylvania (188 delegates) Saturday, May 3 - Guam (9) Tuesday, May 6 - Indiana (84), North Carolina (134) Tuesday, May 13 - West Virginia (39) Tuesday, May 20 - Kentucky (60), Oregon (65) Sunday, June 1 - Puerto Rico (63) Tuesday, June 3 - Montana (24), South Dakota (23)
Obama is picking up more support following the Bill Richardson and Casey endorsements, as an exhausted party appears poised to push for an end to this interminable campaign. Apparently, the entire Democratic congressional delegation from North Carolina will endorse Obama soon, as will Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar today.
Barack has opened up a 10-point lead over Hillary in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, though both he and HRC are losing to McCain in the poll's head-to-head matchups (within 3 points apiece -- margin of error.)
We get from the WaPo a treatise on just what Barack did to anger His Holiness, John McCain (a crime in the media lexicon), particularly since at first, Obama apparently collaborated with St. John of Earmarkia on ethics reform. The collabo apparently deteriorated into an exchange of nasty letters, McCain's likely proving testier, and more boring...
Meanwhile, anti-war Republicans are giving Obama a good, hard look. Who knows, he may even get Chuck Hagel. Actually, I think he will. And Collin Powell, too, I'd guess. Question: would Obama consider Hagel on the ticket? More on that later.
Indications that the HRC campaign is running low on funds are everywhere, including embarrassing stories about the campaign not paying some of its bills and leaving trashed offices in its wake (I smell a rerun...!) So its not surprising the following email is hitting the email inboxes this morning, signed by Big Bill:
Dear XXXXXX,
Here's the most important thing you need to know about this race: it's neck-and-neck.
Only 130 delegates separate Hillary from Senator Obama -- and that's not counting Florida and Michigan. The difference in popular vote is less than 1 percent, and millions of voters have yet to make their voices heard. This election should be about their choice.
But now we're hearing people -- elected officials, party members, and Obama campaign surrogates -- call for Hillary to pull out.
With the race this close, it sure doesn't make sense to me that she'd leave now -- does it make sense to you?
There's no better way to tell Hillary that you support her staying in than to make a contribution to her campaign -- and no better time to contribute than right now. If you've never donated online before, now is the time to do it. Even as little as $5 can make a difference.
We're facing a big deadline on Monday. Our opponents and the media will scrutinize our fundraising reports and look for any sign of weakness. By making a contribution today, you can help make sure we show nothing but strength.
Contribute $5 by our midnight Monday deadline to help us show our strength.
I know that Hillary never forgets exactly why she is running. Her commitment to the people of this country never wavers.
At this critical moment, all of us supporting Hillary must make sure we are just as focused as she is. With all the talk of the state of the race, all the people telling her she should just give up, you and I must make sure she has everything she needs to stay in this race.
With our big fundraising deadline coming up midnight Monday, we need to show the critics and the doubters that this campaign is running full steam ahead with the determination to win.
Contribute $5 now to help us reach our $3 million goal by midnight Monday.
My family isn't big on quitting. Hillary's in this race to win, and she's in it thanks to you.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
If things get quite tight, perhaps the old girl could turn to her cousin Camilla...
U.S. Army Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin ("Matt" Maupin,) the first American to be listed as MIA in Iraq, has been found. He was captured by Iraqi insurgents on April 9, 2004 and was then seen on a videotape released by a militant group and broadcast on Al Jazeera on April 16 of that year. As we appeared unhurt in that video, he was clearly killed by his captors, as was alleged in a second videotape showing the execution of what appeared to be a U.S. soldier some time later. Maupin was promoted twice in absentia, from Private First Class to Specialist and ultimately to Seargent in April 2005.) His family was told that his remains were identified via DNA.
May God bless and comfort his family in Batavia, Ohio. Two other U.S. troops are currently listed as missing/captured in Iraq:
Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie, a 41-year-old Iraqi-born reserve soldier from Ann Arbor, Mich., was abducted while visiting his Iraqi wife on Oct. 23, 2006, in Baghdad. Capt. Michael Speicher, a Navy pilot, has been missing since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
They, and the other troops serving in that country and in Afghanistan, should be in everyone's thoughts and prayers.
Did you catch the disastrous debut of BET J's "My Two Cents" host Crystal McCreary Anthony on "Hardball" this week? The poor dear had apparently been deployed by the House of Bob (Johnson) and was dutifully trotting out some pro-Hillary talking points (although she did have to admit that the threatening letter from Clinton donors, including her boss, to try and bully Nancy Pelosi into backing down on her delegates rule statements "didn't look good,") when she caught a left to the jaw from Matthews over her unsourced comments about Barack Obama's "Jewish problem."
Meanwhile, The HuffPo defends Ms. McCreary Anthony. and offers her some help on sourcing. The moral of the story: Bob should have his staffers read the Huffington Post prior to all Hardball appearances...
Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton tells the WaPo she's in it to the convention (and beyobnd...? Oh, right, there is no beyond...)
"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong," Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.
"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."
Asked if there was a scenario in which she would drop out before the last primaries on June 3, Clinton said no. "I am committed to competing everywhere that there is an election," she said.
The Clinton campaign requested the interview Saturday to talk about how she could win and to emphasize her focus on Michigan and Florida.
Meanwhile, over in Hell, Karl Rove (taking a break from his official duties skewering the damned with a pitchfork, and encouraging corrupt federal prosecutors to indict Democrats) has some advice for Barack Obama:
VAN SUSTEREN: What would be the most effective strategy for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in dealing with Dean since he obviously -- you know, he holds the money on this?
ROVE: Well, for Senator Clinton, it is to say every state needs to be included and every state's vote needs to be respected. I actually think Senator Obama has the capacity to resolve this situation in a way that gives him a big advantage, but it would have to be a gutsy call.
And that is, at some point, probably in June, after the delegates have all been elected, we have our final caucus -- I mean our final primary in Puerto Rico, it would be a gutsy call if Senator Obama stepped forward and said, I want to seat Florida and I want to seat Michigan. I know they did the wrong thing, but we did the wrong -- but we should not compound our error by not seating them. Seat the entire delegations.
Now, if he is ahead by 100 to 150 votes at that point, by my calculations, she picks up 54 delegates on him if these two delegations are seated, and it -- but it is a gutsy call. And he -- you know, if he is 150 ahead, he suddenly becomes 100 ahead. If he is 100 ahead, he suddenly becomes 50 ahead.
But I think it gives him -- it makes him look like a leader. It resolves the situation. It helps him in the fall in these two states. And it probably gets a lot of the superdelegates to step forward and say, that was a courageous move, and I am going to support him as a result of him doing this.
VAN SUSTEREN: One -- yes or no, do you expect him to do that?
ROVE: No, I do not, but it is a gutsy call.
I'd like to see him say that to the credentials' committee's face. Still, there is some kernel of sanity in Rove's ployo idea. Barack can and should push for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated, and guess what? Howard Dean will push for the same thing. At this very moment, Dean is pacing back and forth in his wee little room sweating like a field hand wondering how to undo the unadulterated mess he and his little coven of "deciders" made when they made the boneheaded decision to strip two of the most important swing states in Christendom of ALL their delegates just to appease snotty little New Hampshire and Iowa. How dead does your brain have to be to even attempt such a thing, when you know in the end you will have to find a way to seat these delegations, or risk the WORST, MOST HUMILIATING CONVENTION EVER???
(exhale)
Meanwhile, over at the Times, Maureen Dowd ruminates on the Democratic hostage crisis:
Despite Bill Clinton’s saying it was “a bunch of bull” that his wife should drop out, Democrats are trying to sneak up on Hillary, throw a burlap sack over her head, carry her off the field and stick her in a Saddam spider hole until after the Denver convention.
One Obama adviser moaned that the race was “beginning to feel like a hostage crisis” and would probably go on for another month to six weeks. And Obama said that the “God, when will this be over?” primary season was like “a good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long.”
Hillary sunnily riposted that she likes long movies. Her favorite as a girl was “The Wizard of Oz,” so surely she spots the “Surrender Dorothy” sign in the sky and the bad portent of the ladies of “The View” burbling to Obama about how sexy he is.
The WaPo digs into the story of Barack Obama Sr.'s education as part of a student airlift from Kenya in the late 1950s, and uncovers discrepancies in Barack's stump speech, but overall, a story of great expectations realized, if in ways too complex to be captured in a brief chat with supporters.
Freed Alabama Ex-Governor Sees Politics in His Case
By ADAM NOSSITER
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, released from prison today on bond in a bribery case, said he was as convinced as ever that politics played a leading role in his prosecution.
In a telephone interview shortly after he walked out of a federal prison in Oakdale, La., Mr. Siegelman said there had been “abuse of power” in his case, and repeatedly cited the influence of Karl Rove, the former White House political director.
“His fingerprints are smeared all over the case,” Mr. Siegelman said, a day after a federal appeals court ordered him released on bond and said there were legitimate questions about his case.
Mr. Rove has strenuously denied any involvement in the conviction of the former governor, who was sentenced to serve seven years last June after being convicted in 2006. He could not immediately be reached for comment today.
Mr. Siegelman served nine months while his lawyers appealed a federal judge’s refusal to release him on bond, pending the ex-governor’s appeal of his conviction. That refusal was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Thursday.
The former governor, a Democrat, said he would “press” to have Mr. Rove answer questions about his possible involvement in the case before Congress, which has already held a hearing on Mr. Siegelman. On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee signaled its intention to have Mr. Siegelman testify about the nature of his prosecution.
In June of 2006 he was convicted by a federal jury here of taking $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of the HealthSouth corporation, in exchange for an appointment to the state hospital licensing board. The money was to retire a debt from Mr. Siegelman’s campaign for a state lottery to pay for schools, and the ex-governor’s lawyers have insisted that it was no more than a routine political contribution.
On the telephone outside the prison today, Mr. Siegelman said he had confidence that the federal appeals court, which will now consider his larger appeal, would agree with his view of the case — that he was convicted for a transaction that regularly takes place in American politics.
Otherwise, Mr. Siegelman said, “every governor and every president and every contributor might as well turn themselves in, because it’s going to be open season on them.” ...
Yeah, and next, they'll have to investigate that CBS station that blacked out '60 Minutes' at a most inopportune moment...
Apparently, the Bush administration's "take it all, leave nothing but the drapes" approach to governing even extends to their junior members:
An aide to President Bush has resigned in the midst of an investigation by the Justice Department over allegations he misused an unspecified amount of U.S. grant money intended to promote democracy in Cuba, the White House said Friday.
Felipe Sixto, a Cuban American from Miami, was the special assistant to the president on inter-governmental affairs, dealing with Cuba, Native American issues, state legislators, Latino elected officials and Puerto Rico.
Sixto was until last summer the chief of staff of Frank Calzón, the head of the Washington-based Center for a Free Cuba. Sixto did not respond to emails and calls to his home Friday.
Calzón said he welcomed the investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which had provided the grants.
Neither Calzón nor the White House revealed how much money was involved. White House spokesman Blair Jones said the White House learned of the allegations from Sixto himself as he resigned from his post on March 20.
''Our understanding is that Mr. Sixto allegedly had a conflict of interest with the use of USAID funds in his former employment,'' Jones said. White House lawyers investigated and referred the matter to the Department of Justice.
Miami Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart said in a joint statement they were ''deeply disturbed by any allegation of misuse of taxpayer funds'' and urged the Department of Justice and the Inspector General of the USAID ``to move thoroughly and swiftly in investigating all the facts in this matter.''
''The transparency and accountability of U.S. taxpayer funds require nothing less,'' they said.
Uh-huh...
Joe Garcia, the Democratic candidate to the House seat held by by Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, said the resignation underscored ``the fundamental flaws of a policy designed to win votes in Miami and patronize partisan supporters -- not bring freedom to Cuba.''
In 2006, the Government Accountability Office pointed out most bids for Cuba grants were awarded without competitive bids and found some instances of abuse, like the purchase of cashmere sweaters with U.S. taxpayer money.
But the report also found that the grant money also led to large amounts of equipment and literature getting distributed to Cuban democracy activists.
The Center works with foreign governments and activists in Cuba to raise awareness on human rights abuses and distribute literature and other materials on the island. Calzón said it was the Center that initiated an investigation in mid-January when ''an allegation'' of the misuse of funds emerged.
''As weeks went by and some substance came up on the charges, a letter went to the inspector general of USAID,'' he said. ``We expect all the money to be returned.'' ...
"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.
McCain, who has nothing better to do at the moment, is releasing a new television ad. Hell, at least it should get him some cable news chat show time, right? But his new ad feels ... well ... old. It's the kind of ad I could have understood running for Wes Clark -- a four star general most Americans knew nothing about when he ran for president briefly in 2004 (truth in lending: I supported him.) But McCain isn't an unknown. Everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows that he was a prisoner of war during Vietnam, that he is a war hero, and that he's hellafied old. Is it really necessary to remind us of that in a freaking TV ad? HMM??? Anyhoo, here's the ad. Try not to fall asleep:
Hello... John? Got anything for us on the ECONOMY? You know, the thing most Americans are freaking out about daily while you're offering 100 years of war in Iraq? Maybe John-boy really should pick his arch nemesis Mitt Romney as a running mate. Then at least one member of the McCain team would be doing something other than talking about war. Otherwise, McCain is looking more and more like Bob Dole every day.
I hate to say it, but being president is 40 percent competency and 60 percent charisma. The presidents who are considered "great" or "near great" by most Americans are heavy on the latter, and in many cases, got damned lucky on the outcomes of their policies because they had at least a core competency and common sense. Think Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, even Reagan or Bill Clinton. They were larger than life figures who captured America's imagination, even as their policies appeared to make America better (emphasis on "appeared" in the case of Reagan...) And then contrast that with the also-rans -- people like Jimmy Carter, LBJ, or George H.W. Bush. They lacked charisma, and so their personal lack of appeal dragged their policies into the dungeon, even when, objectively, they may not have been all bad. (Of course, there is the strange case of George W. Bush, a man of questionable charisma and total incompetency, who nonetheless captured the presidency at a time when apparently, America wanted a president who made THEM feel smarter... ahem...)
That being the case, I reiterate that John McCain can at best ... at BEST ... hope to be a competent but uninspiring president -- in other words, a mediocre one. I just don't see greatness in him. And his lack of understanding of the economy guarantees that he won't even be a popular one. And so, devoid of charisma, and relying on old fashioned "Reaganomics" and Bush's foreign policy, McCain cannot hope to lead this country to greatness. His advertising campaign needs to disabuse me of that notion. It needs to jar me out of my long ... looooooong ... sense of memory about McCain, his biography, and my sense of his being a Johnny One Note -- war, war, and more war. It needs to refresh his image somehow, not solidify it.
That said, McCain's new ad is a total flop. And a crushing bore. (Oh, and he recycles Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani's tired line, "ready on day one."
The latest Pew and Gallup daily tracking polls indicate that Barack Obama has weathered the Jeremiah Wright storm, and is now comfortably ahead of Hillary Clinton with Democrats again. He also got a key endorsement in Pennsylvania today, from a fellow U.S. Senator and the son of the former, and very popular governor of the state.
The Pew poll finds Barack up 49%-39% over Hillary Clinton among Democrats. And Obama has lost just one point from a month ago against John McCain -- he beats him 49%-43% versus 50%-43% in the February poll. Hillary is also static versus McCain, beating him 49%-44% versus 50%-45% a month ago.
Over at Gallup, Barack is widening his lead over Hillary tracking upward every day since he lost his lead to John McCain on March 21st. He now leads McCain 50% to 42%, despite having a rather negative news cycle compared to McCain's typically glowing one.
Meanwhile, Hillary has seen her negatives climb significantly over the last two weeks, as her negative campaign appears to be bruising her own knee caps, rather than Barack's.
In a surprise move, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania has endorsed Senator Barack Obama in advance of the April 22 Democratic primary. Mr. Casey had said he would remain neutral in the race in part because he wanted to help broker a reconciliation between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton afterward.
“I believe in my heart that there is one person who’s uniquely qualified to lead us in that new direction and that is Barack Obama.” Mr. Casey said during a rally in Pittsburgh Friday. “I really believe that in a time of danger around the world and in division here at home, Barack Obama can lead us, he can heal us, he can help rebuild America,” he said. Mr. Casey is going against the grain in his state, where polls show Mrs. Clinton ahead by at least 12 percentage points and where she has the endorsement of most of the state’s major Democratic figures. But a person close to Mr. Casey said that the Senator had traveled to Florida over Easter and that rain had forced him to stay inside and he began to think more seriously about an endorsement. “He spent a lot of time thinking about it,” this person said, and he came to the conclusion that the race was “too important” to remain on the sidelines.
“He was asking himself, what’s more important than this?” the person said. “He was also just terribly frustrated with where Bush is going on Iraq and the economy and he felt he had to jump into the fray.”Mr. Casey said that he called Mrs. Clinton last night to tell her of his decision. “She was very gracious. We know that she’s a great senator, she’s a great leader,” he said, Friday. He is joining Mr. Obama today as he begins a six-day bus trip across Pennsylvania and plans to be with him for about three days as Mr. Obama meets up with just the kind of blue collar, Catholic men who have eluded Mr. Obama.
Mr. Casey won the state in 2006 with 59 percent of the vote. The fact that he is a strong opponent of abortion rights may give these voters cover to back Mr. Obama both now and in the fall against Senator John McCain, the putative Republican nominee, who also opposes abortion rights.
There are, of course, tales of potential family drama and payback afoot:
Mr. Casey’s father, the state’s former governor, had a chilly relationship with Mrs. Clinton’s husband dating from Mr. Clinton’s first campaign for president in 1992. The elder Mr. Casey was strongly against abortion rights and did not approve of Mr. Clinton, who in turn shut Mr. Casey out of the Democratic convention. Another long-time Casey ally said that during the 1992 campaign, Mr. Casey refused to attend a dinner in his home county, Lackawanna, where Mrs. Clinton was campaigning for her husband. On election night in 1992, Mrs. Clinton closely tracked the results in Lackawanna, which her husband won.
Still, it appears the endorsement isn't about that sort of George Bush poppy complex. Casey clearly saw an opportunity to make an impact, and he took it.
I've never heard Condi Rice comment this extensively on the issue of race. Her comments came during an interview with the Moonie Ed Board ... sorry, I mean the Washington Times editorial board:
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."
As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today," she said.
Race has become an issue in this year's presidential campaign, which prompted a much-discussed speech last week by Sen. Barack Obama, one of the two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination.
Miss Rice declined to comment on the campaign, saying only that it was "important" that Mr. Obama "gave it for a whole host of reasons."
But she spoke forcefully on the subject, citing personal and family experience to illustrate "a paradox and contradiction in this country," which "we still haven't resolved."
On the one hand, she said, race in the U.S. "continues to have effects" on public discussions and "the deepest thoughts that people hold." On the other, "enormous progress" has been made, which allowed her to become the nation's chief diplomat.
"America doesn't have an easy time dealing with race," Miss Rice said, adding that members of her family have "endured terrible humiliations."
"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy," she said.
Miss Rice also said that what "attracted" her to candidate George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign was not foreign policy, but his "no child left behind" initiative, which she said gave equal opportunities to black and white students.
What's interesting about Condi Rice is how slippery her actual beliefs are. I've talked to people in Washington who are sharp critics of Bush but who claim that she is reasonable and quite a lovely person -- hardly the hard line "Vulcan" she is portrayed as on the left. I've talked to people who knew her back when she was a Democrat, a Gary Hart fan and a liberal, and who claim that she is essentially a mercenary, throwing aside her real views in order to accrue power with the Republican Party. I know people who despise her as a traitor to Black America -- an embarrassment, as the Boondocks famously labeled her, and an Aunt Tom.
At the end of the day, Condi Rice is, fundamentally, an enigma. She's the woman who shopped for Ferragamos and slipped off to watch "Spamalot" while New Orleans' Ninth Word washed into oblivion. But she also has a family history steeped in the struggle for equality and dignity for Black Americans. She has ties to Denver University, where my mother taught for a time, and she and I both play classical piano. And she was taught by Madeleine Albright's father, Josef Korbel, who was a Democrat, though his views on "freedom on the march" are subject to interpretation. She was a terrible National Security Adviser, and seemed clearly outmatched by the vice president, Rumsfeld and the other uberhawks. She has been a middling secretary of state, with few real accomplishments to show for her sojourn with George W. Bush (then again, nobody who's hung around that clod has much to show for it after nearly two terms.) We don't know much more about her than that (unless you believe the stuff about her being Dubya's girlfriend ... she'd have to have pretty poor taste in men...)
Condi's comments on race offer one of the few insights into her mind. Emphasis on "few." But interesting nonetheless.
BTW, why is Condi suddenly so available? And why did she meet with the Club for Growth? Don't think GWB hasn't ruled out pushing her as a running mate for John McCain, who may want to run away from the Bush legacy, but who also may have already made his deal with the devil...
While the media remains determined to dredge up more Rev. Wright schlock to pin on Barack Obama (what is he, the Reverend's personal secretary???) the candidate is actually talking about something Americans care about: the economy. Barack gave a speech on the subject that got pretty good coverage today, including from the WaPo:
Sen. Barack Obama, tackling the fallout from the collapse of the subprime housing market, today outlined major changes in the way the federal government regulates financial institutions and called for a second stimulus package to boost the economy.
The stimulus package would cost about $30 billion would include assistance to individuals and areas hard hit by the housing crisis and an extension of unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs. "If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling," he said.
Speaking at historic Cooper Union in New York, Obama was sharply critical of the mindset that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. "Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," he said. "That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest."
The Democratic presidential candidate used the speech to criticize President Bush for contributing to economy's decline. The administration, he argued, instituted policies, including a costly war in Iraq and huge tax cuts, that "threw the economy further out of balance and has been slow to move aggressively enough to cushion the impact of the softening economy on ordinary Americans.
But he was equally critical of Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. On Tuesday, McCain said the subprime mortgage crisis should not result in major government intervention to bail out individuals or institutions who acted irresponsibly.
McCain's plan, Obama said, amounts to "little more than watching the crisis happen. While this is consistent with Senator McCain's determination to run for George Bush's third term, it won't help families who are suffering and it won't lift our economy out of recession."
While Obama was speaking, McCain's campaign issued a statement from the Republican candidate in which he emphasized that he is prepared to provide assistance to roughly four million homeowners who are facing foreclosure and the loss of their homes because of the housing industry crisis. "I am committed to considering any and all proposals to do so," he said in the statement. ...
That was from WaPo's Dan Balz ... how much does it suck to be named Dan Balz... sorry, juvenile moment...
Meanwhile, did you catch the McCainiack reaction? He's willing to look at proposals? Well gee, thanks Mr. Mideast Bomber in Chief ... Mr. War Guy. We'll be sure to get you some proposals, since I take it you weren't planning on having any of your own!!!... geez...
Iraq is still a hot mess (with another American killed in the "safe" Green Zone today.) Did you get the memo? Apparently John McCain and his good friend George W. Bush did not. And yet, Iraq is a mess, starting with Basra, and moving on to the mess being whipped up by the still strong Moqtada al-Sadr, whose general strike is making Baghdad John's perky pronouncements on Iraq look stupid ... again... Four More Years!!!
Nancy Pelosi stands her ground in the face of attempted threats by Clinton donors who want her to back down on pledged vs. super delegates:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reaffirmed her position that superdelegates should not “overturn the will of the voters” in the face of criticism from top donors to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
“The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said in a statement late Wednesday.
“This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”
In a letter first reported Wednesday on talkingpointsmemo.com, 20 top Hillary fundraisers and donors blasted Pelosi for saying that when the presidential nominating contest nears its conclusion, superdelegates should support whoever leads in pledged delegates.
They cited remarks she made to ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on March 16.
“We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes,” the letter said.
... The letter says that its signers “have been strong supporters of the DCCC,” or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is in charge of electing Democratic House members.
It concludes by saying they “hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.”
Memo to Clintonistas: one doesn't get to be speaker of the House by being a punk. And a majority of Democratic voters ... dare I say ... agree with Nancy.
The new Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama up slightly and Hillary falling below 51 percent in the Keystone State. And Barack maintains a strong lead in North Carolina, according to a new Public Policy poll. So much for the Wright effect (although I'm sure Wright will be resuscitated in the fall campaign.)
Note to the media: the Obama campaign is well aware that Hillary Clinton's only route to the nomination is to knee-cap Barack Obama, rendering him un-nominatable, or unelectable in the general. They know that. His campaign manager has said as much. The news isn't so much that Hillary's own people know that she has to go Tonya Harding on Barack in order to win. The news is that the media is surprised.
But one thing to remember about Ms. Harding: in the end, her knee-capping operation hurt her reputation more than it hurt her then opponent, Nancy Kerrigan. Harding became a punch line, a loser making a living doing amateur, B-list celebrity boxing. And for Mrs. Clinton, the kitchen sink strategy appears to be soaking her, and her husband's legacy, in much the same way.
The latest NBC News/WSJ poll finds that among voters surveyed, Hillary Clinton's negatives have risen more than Obama's, and her positive ratings have shrunk more. Moreover, Hillary Clinton is viewed negatively by more Obama voters than the reverse.
Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a "myth-buster" that showed the pastor controversy is "not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign."
But both Democrats, and especially New York's Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona. Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton's support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.
The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters. That is a slight improvement for Sen. Obama, though a statistically insignificant one, from the last Journal/NBC poll two weeks ago, which had Sen. Clinton leading among Democratic voters, 47% to 43%.
While Sen. Clinton still leads among white Democrats, her edge shrank to eight points (49% to 41%) from 12 points in early March (51% to 39%). That seems to refute widespread speculation -- and fears among Sen. Obama's backers -- that he would lose white support for his bid to be the nation's first African-American president over the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Chicago.
Had that erosion happened, party leaders' reassessment of Sen. Obama's electability could have tipped the race to Sen. Clinton's favor. Weathering the episode could strengthen his standing among the party leaders nationwide -- the superdelegates -- whose votes are likely to break the impasse.
Beyond the nomination race, in hypothetical matchups for November's election Sen. Obama still edges Sen. McCain 44% to 42%. That is nearly the same result as in the early March poll, before videos of Mr. Wright's most fiery sermons spread over the Internet. But Sen. Clinton, who likewise had a narrow advantage over Sen. McCain in the earlier survey, trails in this one by two points, 44% to his 46%.
The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, a week after Sen. Obama delivered a generally well-received address on race.
And ...
The negativity of the Obama-Clinton contest seems to be hurting Sen. Clinton more, the poll shows. A 52% majority of all voters says she doesn't have the background or values they identify with. But 50% say Sen. Obama does share their values, and 57% agree that Sen. McCain does.
Also, fewer voters hold positive views of Sen. Clinton than did so just two weeks ago in the Journal/NBC poll. Among all voters, 48% have negative feelings toward her and 37% positive, a decline from a net positive 45% to 43% rating in early March. While 51% of African-American voters have positive views, that is down 12 points from earlier this month, before the Wright controversy.
More ominous for Sen. Clinton is the net-negative rating she drew for the first time from women, one of the groups where she has drawn most support. In this latest poll, voters with negative views narrowly outstrip those with positive ones, 44% to 42%. That compares with her positive rating from 51% of women in the earlier March poll.
Both she and Sen. Obama showed five-point declines in positive ratings from white voters. But where she is viewed mostly negatively, by 51% to 34% of whites, Sen. Obama's gets a net positive rating, by 42% to 37%. Among all voters, he maintained a significant positive-to-negative score of 49% to 32%—similar to Sen. McCain's 45% to 25%.
The toll on both Democrats from their rhetorical brawling is evident in these poll findings: About a fifth of Clinton voters say they would support Sen. McCain if she isn't the Democratic nominee, and likewise a fifth of Obama voters say they would do the same if he isn't the party standard-bearer.
In other words, negative campaigning may work, but it can sometimes do more damage to your own knees than on your opponent's.
Meanwhile, back at the kitchen sink, Clinton's donors (who are far outnumbered by Barack's donors...) issue oblique threats to Nancy Pelosi (who appears to be an Obama Girl) ... but will they also threaten the Democratic governor of Tennessee over his idea for a superdelgate primary?
That Hillary (and apparently Bill's) new friend Richard Mellon Scaife is a complete cretin? He did, however, cut a big check to the Clinton Global Initiative, after making peace with the former president over dinner. Now, his wife is finding refuge in the family paper in Pittsburgh. Wow.
I haven't been a big fan of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Something about him just seems a bit ... well ... never mind (he does have a Jackie O wife (when she's dressed, of course...) a jilted ex a-la Ronald Reagan. (Seulement en France...) But has taken a strong, and I believe, correct stand on Chinese-hosted Summer Olympic Games, which may be well in need of an international boycott, even if just of the opening ceremonies.
Without a boycott by leaders of "A list" countries like France, the U.K., and, if we had a real leader with the slightest international stature, the United States, the world must just admit it fears Beijing, and cannot influence its horrific mistreatment of Tibet. Sarkozy can send such signals, because France, having sat out the Iraq fiasco, retains its stature in the international community. (Belgium's leaders have indicated they might boycott the opening ceremonies, too.)
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that President Bush has already ceded the boycott trump card in his supposed "pressuring" of the Chinese government over Tibet, given the corporate nature of his presidency, and the utter dependence of the U.S. on our Chinese bankers. Oh, and Bush says he's a sports fan, so he's goin'! Well yee-haw. Our bumpkin president strikes again.
