Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton _ no stranger to political sex scandals _ sounded a short, sympathetic note Wednesday for disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer, saying she is thinking of his family.

"I’m deeply saddened by this turn of events and my thoughts are with Governor Spitzer’s family during this painful time," Clinton said in a statement.

The Democratic senator from New York went on to say she looks forward to working with the incoming governor, David Paterson.

Clinton issued her statement through her Senate office, but the scandal has ramifications for her campaign.

When Spitzer steps down Monday, she will lose one of her superdelegates, those party officials whose support may end up deciding the Democratic presidential nomination if neither she nor Sen. Barack Obama show large gains in the remaining primaries ahead.

Spitzer, like the rest of New York’s Democratic Party establishment, had been an outspoken booster of Clinton’s campaign.

At a joint appearance last year in Washington, Clinton praised Spitzer for trying to "break some of the political pottery" in the New York capital of Albany.

Source: Seattle Times

Sen. Barack Obama claimed victory by a wide margin over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Mississippi’s Democratic primary Tuesday.

"What we’ve tried to do is steadily make sure that in each state we are making the case about the need for change in this country. Obviously the people in Mississippi responded," Obama told CNN after his win.

Mississippi had 33 pledged delegates up for grabs, which will be allocated proportionally.

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama had 61 percent of the vote, compared with Clinton’s 37 percent.

The state’s Democratic voters were sharply divided among racial lines, exit polls indicated. 

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent. See the results

The state has a larger proportion of African-Americans (36 percent, according to the 2000 census) than any other state in the country. And black voters make up nearly 70 percent of registered Democrats.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.

According to The Associated Press, only two other primary states were as racially polarized — neighboring Alabama, and Clinton’s former home state of Arkansas.

Read the rest of this entry »

With the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination likely to go on for weeks or months, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are battling to define what it means to be winning — and, in some instances, they are overstating their own advantage and understating the gains of the other.

The candidates are not only playing to voters in the crucial nominating contests to come, especially the primary in Pennsylvania on April 22, but also wooing the Democratic superdelegates, the party leaders and officials whose votes seem increasingly likely to decide the nomination.

Mr. Obama is emphasizing the breadth of his appeal — his lead in the popular vote and in pledged delegates and his victories in states that Democrats have trouble carrying in general elections. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, has focused on her victories in states with the most Electoral College votes, like Ohio and California, and her strength among groups like women, blue-collar workers and Hispanics.

As the two candidates seek to cut each other down to size, the greatest flash point between them is over the “big state” victories that have largely gone to Mrs. Clinton. While she claims that those victories make her the stronger contender in November, Mr. Obama points to the greater number of states in his column. He added a victory in Mississippi to his total on Tuesday.

The skirmishing is just one front of an increasingly charged battle that on Tuesday drew in remarks by Geraldine A. Ferraro, the former New York representative who is a Clinton supporter, that Mr. Obama owed his success partly to his race.

The Clinton campaign’s argument that Mrs. Clinton has been winning in Electoral College battlegrounds falls short somewhat because of Mr. Obama’s victory in a bellwether state, Missouri, and his success in states that Democratic officials believe they may have a chance to carry this fall. These include Virginia and Colorado, which have been increasingly electing Democrats to statewide offices, as well as traditional swing states like Iowa.

“It’s the most ridiculous claim she’s making,” said David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager. “We have won big battleground states in the primaries like Wisconsin, Missouri and Iowa. We’ve also won states like Virginia that we believe Senator Obama will put in play in a general election and Senator Clinton will not.”

Read the rest of this entry »

No one doubts that Hillary Clinton is playing for all the marbles this year.  But what if she fails to undercut Barak Obama’s lead and loses her party’s nomination?  And what if the Illinois senator goes on to capture the presidency this November?  What does the future hold for Senator Clinton?

Well, not much, not by Clintonian standards, and that’s why she has begun laying the groundwork to help John McCain defeat Senator Obama in a General Election matchup.  Absent her own presidency, a McCain presidency may better serve her interests.
If she loses her fight with Barak Obama, it is hard to see Senator Clinton satisfied with a consolation prize.  Given her vaunting ambition and oversized ego, the vice presidency would not suit her.  She’s never made a good second banana, anyway; her tenure as First Lady proves it.  Her fingerprints were all over policy during her husband’s administration, starting with the infamous attempt at government control of the nation’s healthcare.  She was meddlesome in personnel decisions — Janet Reno, among others.  For her, the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton was a co-presidency.  That her name wasn’t right alongside her husband’s on the marquee must still chafe.   
And what would the vice presidency avail her?  Would she see it as a steppingstone to the presidency eight years hence?  Not likely, given that she’d be in her late sixties then, and after two terms of a Democrat in the White House, voters may well be ready to elect a Republican. 
What about one of the high profile cabinet portfolios — State, Defense, Attorney General?  In terms of a path to the presidency, none leads directly; all are contingent on direction from the White House.  And her success, to some measure, would become a President Obama’s success.
And, lest we forget, Barak Obama would have something to say about bringing Senator Clinton into his administration.  As someone with a well-earned reputation as brassy, overbearing and experienced at in-fighting, Senator Clinton would be a millstone around the Illinoisan’s neck.  Bringing Senator Clinton on board is something Barak Obama is not likely to do unless his back is to the wall.  
A seat on the Supreme Court?  Legislating from the bench may intrigue Senator Clinton, but how often are justices in the news?  How many monuments around Washington are dedicated to Supreme Court Justices? 
Or might Senator Clinton settle for status as the Grand Old Lady of the United States Senate?  Not realistic, since every corpuscle in Hillary Clinton’s body exudes "executive."  For someone who has a hunger to lead, collegiality goes only so far.
Read the rest of this entry »

When he deputized Warren Christopher to oversee his search for a running mate in the spring of 1992, Bill Clinton recoiled at the suggestion that he might use the process to float names and score political points.

“I think it’s important not to play games with people’s names,” Mr. Clinton insisted. “I don’t think that’s a good thing to do.”

Sixteen years later, though, that’s precisely what Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing as they try to damn Barack Obama—the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination—with the faint praise that he’d make a fine candidate for vice president.

“I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you,’” Hillary said in Mississippi late last week. “Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”

And Bill said that his wife “has always been open to“ a Clinton-Obama ticket, “because she believes that if you can unite the energy that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small-town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together, she thinks it’d be hard to beat.”

Read more here at NY Observer

Good question. The best answer, if any answer to that question can be called “good,” would be that he’s going to learn on the job under the sort of foreign-policy tutelage that only someone who used to pick out the White House drapes can provide. Was that the answer her campaign offered when pressed? Of course not. Theirs was much stupider, as befits the worst team money can buy. Apparently he’s going to learn all he needs to know before the convention — which means, I guess, that Democrats can elect him to the presidency without worries.

Today, on a conference call (still in progress), Howard Wolfson was asked that question and answered: “Senator Clinton would not choose any candidate who at the time of choosing has not passed the national security threshold.” But, he added, there is a lot of time between now and Denver.

When asked in a follow-up question if there was something Obama could do to prepare himself to pass that threshold before the end of the summer, Wolfson answered, “No, uh…it’s not something that I’m prepared to rule out at this time.”

The question at this point may be, how is it Obama is only leading these tools by 100 delegates?

Link: sevenload.com

Source: Hot Air

The Nation — New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had to be dragged onboard the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.

Now, he’s another headache for Clinton.

Spitzer, who earned a national reputation as a crime buster, was busy apologizing Monday after having been linked–via a federal investigation–to a prostitution ring. The governor reportedly reportedly paid $4,300 to spend the night before Valentine’s Day with a young lady at Washington’s swank Mayflower Hotel.

"I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family… [and] my sense of right and wrong," admitted Spitzer, in a brief statement delivered at his Manhattan office. "I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust to my family."

Ouch.

Ouch for Spitzer.

Ouch for all New York Democrats, including a certain New York senator.

The first question is an ugly one: Will Spitzer, one of Clinton’s highest profile backers and the man who was going to lead the New York delegation at this summer’s Democratic National Convention, quit politics?

The Governor’s not saying. But the calls for a quit are already being voiced. New York State Assembly Republican leader James Tedisco declared that "[Spitzer] has disgraced his office and the entire state of New York. He should resign his office immediately."

If Spitzer quits — and the betting is that, as details of the scandal come out, he will — the governorship will go to his able lieutenant governor, David A. Paterson.

Paterson, also a Democrat and also a Democratic National Convention super-delegate, has always been a good deal more enthusiastic about the Clinton campaign than Spitzer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pressure Is High for Clinton to Release Her Tax Returns Since She Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million

After weeks of intense pressure, and more than a year after announcing her presidential candidacy, Sen. Hillary Clinton has offered little explanation for why she has delayed releasing the tax returns made public by most other Democratic presidential candidates in recent years.

"What is the holdup?" said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. "She hasn’t exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them."

Past Democratic presidential candidates have set a precedent for releasing their tax returns before or during the primary season. Sen. John Kerry released his in December of 2003, and former Vice President Al Gore’s were in the public domain while he was in office. Clinton’s opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, released his 2006 return last April.

"This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group.

The pressure on Clinton to release her tax returns has been intensifying since it was revealed that she loaned her campaign $5 million in January. Clinton had repeatedly stated that she would release her tax returns upon becoming the Democratic nominee, but her spokesman Howard Wolfson said last week that the campaign now planned to release the returns "in or around April 15." Wolfson did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Read the rest of this entry »

She has no idea.

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals — whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband’s serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" — who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.

And then she ran for president.

After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let’s face it — Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen — isn’t it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her — that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America’s Billboard chart anymore.

So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative — personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama’s message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we’re to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.

She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad — which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama’s perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol’ Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband’s patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we’re at it, where the hell are those tax returns?

Read the rest of this entry »

By Dan Sargis, dansargis.org

Hillary Clinton’s ambition to be the next President has more to do with her DNA coming from Walter Mitty and Don Quixote than being “ready on day one”. 

Let’s face it…Hillary lives in a dream world and she wants the American electorate to pay for it.

As a Presidential candidate, Hillary has been touting the “35” years of “leadership” experience that makes her ready to “lead on day one”.

When referring to this magical 35 years of leadership experience is she talking about: her work on the Madison Guaranty scandal; the two years she spent “looking” for billing records that were sitting in her own reading room; her failed socialized healthcare scheme; her time “managing” the White House travel office; her “vetting” of the disastrous Janet Reno or…is she recanting her years as a gumshoe tracking her forever-unfaithful husband’s whereabouts?

Even if we forgave all of these shortcomings, there is still a central point…if Hillary plans on running the nation the same way she is ru(i)nning her campaign, we are in deep doo-doo.

Even that bastion of liberalism, the Washington Post, has said that Clinton’s leadership experience has produced a “combustible environment…an operation where internal strife and warring camps have undercut a candidate once seemingly destined for the Democratic nomination”.

Running against a virtual nobody (at the time), Hillary has managed to take a pre hoc nomination certainty and run it into the ground. 

The woman who says she can save the U.S. economy because “she knows how to run it” managed to raise $134,536,488 in campaign funds as of January 31.

And how did she care for this $134,536,488 of “other peoples’ money”?

When her “advisors” told her the campaign was financially insolvent shortly before the February 5th primaries she responded in true CEO fashion, “God, I’ve raised all this money.  What have you guys done with it?"

How do you spell “Clueless”?

From the “experienced” Senator who can save America when the White House phone rings at 3 A.M. we get such a state of preparedness that when her staff was repeatedly warned about Teddy Kennedy’s pending defection to Obama, her lieutenants were “slow to react”.

And, after the Kennedy bomb exploded, the Clinton wiz kids went prostrate as they gasped, “’Oh, my God, this can’t be happening”.

Read the rest of this entry »