Is it possible to win the Democratic nomination in such a way as to make winning not worth it?

The Barack Obama campaign thinks so. It thinks Hillary Clinton’s campaign is willing to take any road to the White House, including the low road.

“They would do anything to win, and that means anything,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, told me Monday. “There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can.”

Axelrod went on: “She is the ultimate Washington inside player. She is always asking, ‘How do we wire the vote? How do we wire the system to get the results we want?’”

From his point of view, the Clinton campaign keeps trying to change the rules.

“When they started off, it was all about delegates,” Axelrod said. “Now that we have more delegates, it’s all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game of cribbage to choose the nominee.”

Another Obama senior aide told me he believed Clinton was willing to “destroy the party” just as long as she ends up with the nomination.

I asked Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson for a response.

“I think these apocalyptic quotes are unhelpful,” Wolfson said. “I don’t envision that either side would destroy the party. There is a democratic process here to play out. This process is not over. There are still 10 [contests] left to vote. What is the fear here? Let’s let democracy run its course.”

From the perspective of the Clinton campaign, it has little choice but to go all-out. As a top Clinton aide admitted to me: “Under our projections, if you sat both the Michigan and Florida delegations as they now exist and based on our projections for the remaining contests, Sen. Clinton would still trail narrowly on pledged delegates going into the convention.”

Read the rest of this entry »

As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Bosnia in March 1996 with her daughter and several celebrities to boost troop morale and thank soldiers stationed there.

Clinton cites the goodwill trip as a part of her foreign policy experience, describing a dangerous landing where she was ordered to the armored front of the plane because of possible ground fire. She also now reports landing under sniper fire and contradicts her previous written account of a shortened welcoming ceremony at the airport.

But according to accounts at the time, she was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it said he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

___

THE SPIN

Clinton described her trip to Bosnia on Monday during a speech about Iraq in Washington. She said: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Questioned about it later at a news conference, Clinton said she was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina. "Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," she said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. … There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

She gave a somewhat different account in her book, "Living History."

In it, she said there were reports of fire but does not mention hearing or seeing it on her way to Tuzla.

"Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," she wrote.

She also described in the book how the plane was kept high, "above the reach of surface-to-air missiles and sniper fire." She wrote, "Above the airstrip, the captain dipped a wing and made a near-perpendicular landing to evade possible ground fire."

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who was also on the trip, said the military needed to take safety precautions with Clinton given that it was a combat zone.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Obama campaign Sunday called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a "veteran of non-disclosure" and, opening a new front, challenged her to release information about her income taxes, Bill Clinton’s foundation and library donors, earmark requests and first lady records. The Clinton team said raising questions about her integrity is a "personal attack."

While Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were cordial when they met on the Senate floor Thursday — Clinton said they talked about keeping their hotly contested primary fight on the issues — the top strategists and spokesmen for their respective campaigns in conference calls Sunday were anxious to deal with more contentious matters of ethics and transparency.

As I wrote in my Sunday column, Obama’s team is finally free to launch an ethics offensive against Clinton because after declining for more than a year, he granted extensive interviews with the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday to discuss his relationship with fund-raiser Tony Rezko, who is on trial in Chicago on federal corruption charges.

The Obama team is trying to dilute Clinton’s claim that because she and former President Bill Clinton have been investigated through the years — from Whitewater to impeachment to campaign finance scandals — she is "fully vetted."

David Axelrod, Obama’s top strategist, said, "Sen. Clinton and her campaign says she is fully vetted, but the truth is that she is a veteran of non-disclosure. In this campaign, we have set a standard. Sen. Obama has released his tax returns, he has released his earmark requests, and he has been forthcoming on these and other issues."

Read the rest of this entry »

it was a double whammy of a day for Hillary Clinton, who got pounded at the polls in Mississippi as Gov. Spitzer’s mushrooming sex scandal brought ugly headlines reminiscent of her husband’s philandering.

Barack Obama cleaned up in the Magnolia State, 60% to 38%, with 95% of precincts reporting. He was declared the winner by TV networks moments after the polls closed, likely giving him the majority of the state’s 33 delegates to extend his lead.

"It’s just another win in our column, and we are getting more delegates," Obama told CNN.

The win was the latest in a string of racially divided matches, with Obama grabbing about 90% of the black vote, according to exit polls.

"I’m confident that once we decide on a nominee and we go through the convention, that, in fact, the party’s going to be unified," Obama added.

Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams issued a statement congratulating Obama, saying, "Now we look forward to campaigning in Pennsylvania" - which votes next on April 22.

Back in the loss column after big wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4, the cloud over her home-state governor seemed to hang over Clinton’s campaign as she stumped earlier yesterday in Pennsylvania.

Clinton already had to sidestep questions about Spitzer Monday. "Let’s wait and see what comes out of the next few days," she said. "Right now I don’t have any comment."

Read the rest of this entry »

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

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 »

Her Governor’s In Trouble, But Clinton’s Not Talking

Aussie feminist Greer brands Hillary ‘cold, bossy’

Obama backer revives Clinton sex scandals

Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He’s Black

Greg Craig Former Clinton Loyalist: Don’t Believe Hillary’s Claims - OUCH!

Clinton link in Brazil ethanol probe

Team Obama Hits Clinton on Experience Claims

Hillary Clinton’s Spitzer Problem

Hide and Seek - Bill and Hillary

The Red Phone in Black and White - Oh Brother! The 3 a.m. ad is racist?

SHE’LL NEVER RELENT

Will Obama Blink?

Her Governor’s In Trouble, But Clinton’s Not Talking

Aussie feminist Greer brands Hillary ‘cold, bossy’

Obama backer revives Clinton sex scandals

Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He’s Black

Greg Craig Former Clinton Loyalist: Don’t Believe Hillary’s Claims - OUCH!

Clinton link in Brazil ethanol probe

Team Obama Hits Clinton on Experience Claims

Hillary Clinton’s Spitzer Problem

Hide and Seek - Bill and Hillary

The Red Phone in Black and White - Oh Brother! The 3 a.m. ad is racist?

SHE’LL NEVER RELENT

Will Obama Blink?

Lisa Miller defends Hillary Clinton against critics of her marriage in the latest from Newsweek. Although admitting that Hillary has brought the focus onto the marriage herself because of the nature of her claims to “experience”, Miller scolds people for speculating on the nature of the relationship. However, Miller doesn’t explain how to separate that from the nature of Hillary’s experience:

Cindy McCain is a grown-up woman who has suffered her share of personal and marital setbacks—including an addiction to prescription painkillers that she hid from her husband—but she knows that what America wants in a First Marriage is something more mythic than real. Like my 4-year-old daughter, deep into the second year of her infatuation with the Disney princesses, people want to believe that “husband” and “prince” are synonyms.

Hillary suffers at the hands of her critics, in part, because we all know her husband is no prince and her marriage is no fairy tale. Bill is a reckless philanderer who disrespected his wife, his daughter and the people who elected him because he couldn’t control his libido—and then lied about it. Much of the hesitance I hear about Hillary in my (admittedly small) circles is a hesitance over seeing that marriage (say it in irritated italics) back in the White House for four or eight more years. …

To be fair, Hillary has encouraged this endless dissection of her marriage because she seems to want it both ways: she wants to run and win as her own woman and she wants to offer her years as First Spouse as “experience.” She wants her impossible husband to be always an asset but never a liability. At the same time, I confess to a certain amount of unease when I hear that party game starting up yet again.

Hillary invites the criticism because she has essential run on her husband’s record. She has little experience of her own to produce: just an undistinguished seven years in the Senate. She has spent most of her life supporting Bill Clinton’s political career, only freeing herself from his shadow when he could not realistically run for another office.

Furthermore, neither Hillary nor Bill has exactly made it a secret that Hillary’s bid for the Senate was a mechanism they hoped to use to return both of them to the White House. Some speculated that she would run in 2004, essentially becoming the Barack Obama of that cycle — and against John Kerry, she may have succeeded in being just that. Hillary’s personal ascent in national politics has always been tied to Bill. John McCain didn’t have to run on Cindy McCain’s record, which is why the public treats their relationship differently.

Read the rest of this entry »