In a Pennsylvania “state of the race” telephone conference today, Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, Howie Wolfson, brushed aside recent calls from some senior party officials for her to end the race before she destroys the Democratic Party.Asked if Senator Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates, states and popular votes won did not pose an insurmountable obstacle to Clinton winning the nomination he said: "Pay no attention to those people.The road to 1600 Pennsylvania goes through Pennsylvania, and there are no Obama delegates on that road, just liars.”
First of all, she cannot stop. Hillary has taken new money from donors with the promise she is going to fight till the end. Cowpoke Carville has "branded" Richardson for treason, and Hillary complains the men are at it again. The Clintons won't listen to anybody, so just give them their space.
Second, they don't believe in the graceful exit Sen. Leahy offered. Never mind if they risk humiliation later. Bill Clinton wants to be the Putin-Lite power behind his wife's throne. He says "relax" and "chill". But when he gets on stage at Denver, will he get the same treatment that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee got in Texas this weekend. He would have it coming for injecting race into the campaign and suggesting Obama is not patriotic.
Third, the Clinton campaign is already in serious debt. Just check out this Politico article. If they still owe money from Iowa and Ohio, what has happened in the past few weeks while Hillary, Bill and Chelsea have been campaigning intensly across PA, NC and IN? And if they forget to release their tax returns in two weeks, we won't. And what about the Clinton Library donors list. By the time the Puerto Rico primary rolls around, the Clintons may be yelling "Tio" when their creditors come to collect "la cuenta".
No one should be surprised by the threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi from the Democratic Party fat-cats supporting Hillary Clinton. Despite all the high-minded talk of “sticking to the issues”, the Clintons have since the beginning followed a strategy of offering favors to supporters and attempting to intimidate voters in the Democrats' 2008 Presidential campaign. And the Pelosi letter is only the latest example that these tactics are now being applied to superdelegates. For those who have not followed these matters as closely, let me recap some highlights.
After former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton, her campaign arranged for some of her wealthy supporters to pay off some of the $400,000 debt he incurred before ending his own Presidential candidacy the previous month. That was almost 10 months before the Iowa caucuses. At the end of 2007, as evidence mounted of Clinton's inability to contain the growing grass roots movement for Barack Obama, her campaign set out to intimidate out-of-state students, who under Iowa law were legally allowed to register to vote and caucus in January.This was the first, but not be the last attempt at voter suppression.
In NH, poll watchers were prevented from observing some polling stations. I personally met a poll watcher who was asked to leave in Keene, ostensibly because it was too crowded; but Obama was able to carry all five wards in the city.But there were reports of widespread intimidation in areas where Hillary Clinton registered her best results: Nashua, Concord and Manchester.
James Carville stood his ground today, refusing in a CNN interview to apologize for the "biblical" and "seasonal" metaphor, name-calling of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He had compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot for endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
Carville apparently believes Richardson owed the Clintons his support, if not continued neutrality. But he also pointedly signaled that if Obama is the party's nominee he himself is prepared to join the Obama campaign "from Day One". Is his "friend", David Axelrod, really looking forward to having this man join the campaign? If so, please assure us Carville will first be subjected to thorough ablutions.
Carville, who Cecil B Demille would have cast as the snake that got Adam and Eve thrown out of the Garden of Eden, avoided any reference during the interview to his New Testament namesake, the Apostle James. James was rebuked along with his brother John for seeking power and authority above the other disciples. Carville probably knows that James was beheaded and the first Apostle to be martyred.
Bill Richardson's announcement this morning that he is endorsing Barack Obama for President has, understandably, generated a lot of discussion this morning. Richardson has been criticized over the past six weeks for not weighing in on the nomination. His choice of words in the endorsement statement, however, indicate he may have held off in order to break a perceived stalemate.
We all know that this play looks increasingly like a Greek tragedy. I've already suggested the worst-case scenario. That's the "Train Wreck in the Station" that turns the Denver Democratic Convention into a modern-day "Chicago '68". There is also the more insipid, but similarly destructive possibility for which there is already evidence in the tone of the campaign and polls of Democratic voter attitudes. That is, the nominee is selected "free and fair", but fails to win a significant share of the other contender's support, allowing McCain to slide through in November. The chances for this outcome could improve the longer this race drags on.
No wonder the pundits are now wringing their hands in search of an elder statesman to save the day. Albert Hunt sees the need for someone to sort out the Michigan/Florida mess. After all, if George Mitchell can hammer out a plan for Northern Ireland and the Middle East, as well as professional baseball, he can certainly work out something for the DNC. I concede that these renegade states are important to the Democrats’ electoral total in November. But solving the problem created by the queue-jumpers may not solve the Clinton-Obama stalemate, only prolong it.
Dodd will announce Friday that he will remain neutral in Tuesday's Connecticut primary.
A Democrat close to Dodd, who requested anonymity because no formal announcement had been made, says the former Democratic presidential contender plans to talk about his decision at a late-afternoon news conference in Hartford.
A Richardson consultant let it be known that the Governor would also be remaining neutral in New Mexico's Tuesday primary.
John Edwards has already said that he plans to sit down with both candidates before making an endorsement, meaning it's highly unlikely that an endorsement would come before Tuesday.
And as for Al Gore, an endorsement looks unlikely.
So it's safe to say that there won't be anymore game-changing endorsements before February 5th. Keep looking, however, for unions and congresspeople who had supported Edwards to shift to Obama. Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota joined them this morning.
I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"
December 26. Nine days until Iowa voters caucus, thirteen days until New Hampshire voters go to the polls. The campaigns are making their final push to the first voting states, and the push promises to be more intense than what Democratic voters have seen in years.
Below the jump, details on the various campaigns' activities this week, and some context for how 2008 is different than 2004.
No, this is not another Saturday Night Live sketch (remember the Halloween party skit in which Bill Richardson fawned over the Clintons and unabashedly asked if he didn't look "vice presidential"?).
This is an actual exchange at the Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Iowa, reported in USA Today, that should confirm what many already suspected after Richardson stepped in to suggest other candidates not pick on Hillary at the Philadelphia Presidential debate:
But Clinton and Richardson also engaged in one of the event¹s many lighter moments when the candidates were allowed to question each other.
"Don¹t you think governors make good presidents?" Richardson asked, in a nod to President Bill Clinton, who was Arkansas governor before his 1992 election. "Well, Bill, I also think they make good vice presidents," Clinton responded.
One month ago, Senator Clinton said: "I'm going to focus on what I would do as president".
Following her rapid decline in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and national polls and also in head-to-head matchups against 5 Republican candidates, the Senator from New York has launched a series of attacks, focusing not on what she would do but on what she asserts Barack Obama won't do.
So, let us set the records straight.
American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in the Iraq invasion. Billions of dollars that could've been used to improve schools in SC, create jobs for thousands of Iowans, provide healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans, fund research on renewable energy and help rebuild the devastation of Katrina is being spent yearly in Iraq. It's easy to forget the past, but the fact is that if Senator Clinton and others had headed the warnings of Barack Obama, 3000 America soldiers would be with their families today. The truth hurts, but if you've lost someone in this war, you will understand why Senator Clinton who did not read the NIE and has refused to apologize for her vote to authorize the war, is most unqualified to lead this country.
John Edwards and other candidates who authorized this war have taken responsibility and renounced their vote, calling it a mistake. They also stood up against the Kyl-Liebermann amendment that George Bush could exploit to invade Iran or extend the war in Iraq. Senator Clinton on the other hand, refused to take responsibility for her decision to authorize the war, instead worsening matters by giving George Bush another blank check on Iran.
As a state senator, Barack Obama stood up to the lobbyists, the drug and insurance companies by successfully passing legislation that offered healthcare to 150,000 additional Illinoisans. Senator Clinton on the other hand failed to stand up to the lobbyists and special interests when she tried to fix healthcare in 1993. The result was a fiasco that has left Millions of Americans without healthcare to this day. Senator Clinton has often shifted the blame to Republicans and lately, her husband has claimed that it was his fault, not hers. In other words, the experience is hers, but the failure is his. Is that an argument voters are supposed to believe?
The bottom line: Senator Obama got it done and Senator Clinton got it wrong!
Senator Clinton often talks about being the most experienced candidate. Such a ludicrous claim isn't justified by her records, most of which Iowa caucus goers will not be able to see in order to determine the validity of her experience claim. It also shows how the Clintons have taken Democrats for fools who will swallow everything they spin. If Senator Clinton believes the solution to the problems facing America's future is an experienced Washington hand, we urge her to drop out of the race and endorse Joe Biden or Chris Dodd.
A few months ago, Senator Clinton said "All Democrats are for universal healthcare". Now that she's on a free-fall, she's attacking Obama for refusing to share her approach that universal healthcare will necessarily be achieved by forcing people to buy health insurance. If mandatory health insurance is what America needs right now, we suggest John Edwards plan instead of Clinton's.
But the fact of the matter is, there is no status-quo on universal healthcare in America, except a failed one authored by Senator Clinton. So it's silly to claim that a particular approach that has never been tested previously is the one guaranteed to work. At least at state level, we know for certain that mandatory health insurance isn't working. Furthermore, a health plan without an enforcement strategy for a mandate is a suspicious plan whose 'terms and conditions' are not completely spelled out.
No problem in America can be solved with a 51% majority. Obama's highest cross-over appeal and highest net positives, nationwide, suggest that he's the best candidate capable of creating a new majority required to pass universal healthcare. With half the country saying it will NEVER vote for Senator Clinton and her negatives at all-time highest, even if she ekes out a victory in November, it is very likely her plan will end up again as nothing but textbook material.
Every election, politicians make sound-bite promises they hardly keep and you applaud. The American people get played for suckers year in year out with meaningless phrases like "ready to lead from day one" that exploit voters' fears. In the end, the "most experienced candidates" lead us into an ill-conceived war, but no real solution to the problems of middle-class folks. Hillary Clinton is part of a failed system that wants to force her down our throats. But she has failed the American people far too many times and does not deserve another chance.
On January 3, Iowans will pass judgment on who has the level-headedness to lead a dangerous world, the humility to listen to the views of the other side, who can be trusted to tell the truth on hard issues like social security, universal healthcare, foreign conflicts and who's better capable to end the war in Iraq - a candidate who authorized it or one who warned against it before it began.
In making your decision, we ask you to judge the character and record of the candidates over the course of their life, not simply based on carefully designed sales pitches suited for the moment. Because you will not get a permanently reliable president from a temporally crafted message!
Signed: Carrington Ward, Jackson Heights, NY; Jimmie Willis, Beavercreek, OH; Victoria von Szelinski, Beverly Hills, CA; Jeff Schragel, Indiana, PA; Gerald Williams, Harrisburg, PA; Stacie Munger, AZ; Danielle Clarke; Rosalind Ware; Sharane Miller; Girish Manchaiah; Sharon Barolet; Jessica Caruso; Deborah Phelan; Pam Riddle; Dixie Siegel; Eileen Prussman; Cyd Reider; Tim Prudhel; Artemis OakGrove; Roberta Kelinson; Gebreyohanns Mehari; J. Ying Williams; Ciara Arnette; Diamond E.; Rosa Velez; Muriel Williams; Kim Slack; Leo Henton.
Or, as an alternative title "Barack Obama Had it Right (Again)"
There's an excellent diary up on the rec list now concerning Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf and his exploitation of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it focuses so myopically on its "War on Terror." We may sit here and observe that what is happening in Pakistan now is perhaps a predictable consequence of designing a foreign policy in Pakistan that relies solely upon bolstering the existing government against our archetypal mutual enemy off in the mountains at the Pakistan border. We might further believe that the present turmoil - the suspension of democracy, is a logical extension of the militarism we fostered supporting the conflict in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, or an extension of our tacit acceptance of the military rule and spreading of Sharia law under Zia-ul-Haq beginning in '77. However, while we sit here drawing those historical threads I would like to remind us of a discussion we had, here and elsewhere, some three months ago.
