The Lost Opportunity

Ross explains the cost to progressive politics of Hillary Clinton's decision to unleash the kitchen sink in a likely-futile effort to overcome Barack Obama's delegate lead:

Rather, the problem is that the party is losing a golden opportunity to try to put the race away early, the way Bill Clinton more or less did with Bob Dole in 1996 - by using their enormous fundraising advantage to rebrand John McCain as a Dole-style loser while he's still struggling to get his money-raising operation up to par. As Patrick Ruffini suggested earlier this week, if Obama had finished off Hillary last night he could have been up with anti-McCain ads all over the country immediately, forcing the GOP to play defense in places it usually owns all through the summer. Whereas the longer the race goes on, the less leverage the Dems' fundraising edge gives them, and the lower the chances that they can make it get late early for McCain through sheer dollar-power alone.

That's bad because it increases the chance of losing in November, it decreases the likelihood of an impressive-looking mandate, and most of all because its bad for down-ballot races. Yes, the very same down ballot races Democrats need to win if people actually want health care reform (as we learned in 1994, merely having a president who proposes health care reform doesn't do anyone any good), global warming legislation, etc. to happen.

UPDATE: Note in this context that the NAFTA memo thing was a bum rap cooked up by Canadian rightwingers (who are very networked with U.S. rightwingers) to deliberately hurt Barack Obama's campaign and produce the sort of long, hard slog we're now looking at.

Comments

Add to this the laughingstock of the MI and FL do-overs. They knew the rules, chose to ignore them, and now stand to benefit from having new primaries. But will HRC suffer any penalty for campaigning in those states earlier this year? Unlikely - rules are for the common folk.

Posted by KXB | March 6, 2008 9:36 AM

Add to this the laughingstock of the MI and FL do-overs. They knew the rules, chose to ignore them, and now stand to benefit from having new primaries. But will HRC suffer any penalty for campaigning in those states earlier this year? Unlikely - rules are for the common folk.

Posted by Ben Domenech | March 6, 2008 9:38 AM

Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!

Posted by steve duncan | March 6, 2008 9:38 AM

But what exactly was "the party" supposed to do to put this thing away early? Does he mean the DNC uniting with one voice to tell Hillary to quit? Hardly. It's the voters who aren't putting this away early. I hate that Hillary went negative on Obama and distorted his record a bit, but in the real world I don't see what anyone else would expect in a close fought race. A lot of this boils down to bad coincidence that these candidates are running at the same time. It was going to be a tough race for both, and hence for the party. Hillary would've been out of her mind to just concede - how would she explain that to all her donors?

Posted by Bill | March 6, 2008 9:41 AM

YEAH! I'm with you Matt, that bitch should have gone away. Who the fuck does she think she is? She should know her place.

Posted by bob | March 6, 2008 9:42 AM

Looking like I'll be watching the 73rd straight installment of "Petey vs. the 100 Obamabots", along the general lines of the big fight scenes from Kill Bill #1...

Petey bought Hillary at 12 a few days ago---at a time when I'd myself totally written off her chances. Now, after her big wins and given the very favorable PA demographics, her true odds must be pretty close to fifty-fifty.

I think that Matt and all the Obamabots should double up their bets on St. Barack..so as to drive up the odds and make even more money for Petey!

Posted by RKU | March 6, 2008 9:51 AM

a bum rap

In what way is it a bum rap? Since it was, you know, true.

Matthew's spectacular descent into Obama hackdom is absolutely hilarious.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2008 9:54 AM

I've brought up this point on a few blogs after hearing someone make it on MSNBC or CNN on Tuesday. This is really the only legitimate point in arguing against a drawn out primary: that it gives McCain breathing room.

But let me run with the idea that this isn't as bad as it seems, for a few reasons. There's always the notion that unless things really turn around for McCain--that the economy suddenly improves and the Iraq war starts looking like a stroke of genius--it won't matter what he does in the next three months because in the end, he'll still be stuck with the same fund raising disadvantage that he has now. Then there's the idea that we could simply start attacking him now, both directly and indirectly. If there's one thing Howard Dean should do right this moment, it's call Clinton and Obama and say that at least half the time, they should be attacking McCain. And as we know, there are already independent groups that are going to attack him.

Like Matt and Ross, I think it's possible that we could be hurting ourselves for the fight down the line right now. However, I want to tell myself not to worry too much, because if McCain really improves his position quite a bit from now until the summer, he was probably always stronger than we originally might have thought.

Posted by Brian | March 6, 2008 9:54 AM

Are there institutional barriers stopping Obama and Clinton from beginning to campaign against McCain right now? Or is it just tactics - it's better to try to pull down their Democratic rival than their Republican one? I'd love to see how each of them performed against McCain.

Posted by Tony P | March 6, 2008 9:56 AM

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, reported by the WaPo on 03/03:

"I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election," he told Parliament.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, reported by the Globe and Mail on 03/05:

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada — and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.

"Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter."

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 9:58 AM

So long as the candidates remain civil, I think having a drawn out race is awesome for the party. It turns out new voters, generates enthusiasm, keeps money pumping into the party, keeps the Democratic Party on the headlines while McCain struggles to get attention, and it makes more candidates tougher. A truly democratic process will also validate the nomination of one candidate, whereas pressuring a candidate to drop out would be held as illegitimate by half the Democratic party.

So go Barack! Go out and win those votes and put her away!

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 6, 2008 9:58 AM

Yeah,

What a shame that another pair of Democratic grifters can't tar another Republican war hero as a "loser" months before the general election. Such a lost opportunity.

Posted by Juan | March 6, 2008 9:59 AM

For all practical purposes, Obama "finished off" Clinton in February.

And frankly, it amazes me that people still think there was some chance of him "finishing off" Clinton this particular week any more than he had already "finished her off" last month. Have we already forgotten that at one point they were more or less admitting they had to pull roughly even in pledged delegates by this time? Have we already forgotten that they had laid the groundwork for Texas not mattering (and I am sure Ohio would also have been sent to the dustbin of Clintonian history if it hadn't come through for them)?

By the way, suppose that after beating Clinton in the pledged delegate contest in January, and after beating her in the pledged delegate contest in February, it turns out that Obama also beats her in the pledged delegate contest in March (once all the Texas delegates, Wyoming, and Mississippi are accounted for). Will that "finish off" her campaign?

The truth is that the only person who can "finish off" Clinton is Clinton herself. And I won't pretend to understand her thinking well enough to know what conditions would have to be met in order for her to decide to stop, but obviously those conditions do not have much to do with something as trivial as, say, the results of these contests.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 10:00 AM

** Calling all Clinton loyalists **

Please explain to me how you can defend her on this latest development involving Canada?

Understand what happened here:

> Sen. Clinton reached out to the Canadians to assure them that her anti-NAFTA rhetoric was to be taken "with a grain of salt."

> then, somehow, the story gets spun that Obama was the one being two-faced about NAFTA.

> Admittedly, his people need to do a better job of responding to a smear like this, however, Clinton "flatly denied" the conversation took place.

> which means, according to this, she flatly lied to the people of Ohio (and the country). Either she lied about the conversation not taking place, or she was (once again) inept in getting to the bottom of her campaign's activities (reminding me of a certain photo flap from weeks past).

So, tell me, my friends, should she apologize to the people of Ohio for deliberately misleading them for short term political gain?

This seems like just another instance, in a long string, of Clinton 1) realizing where she is vulnerable and then 2) accusing Obama of the same thing (even if she knows its not true). It's pre-emptive smearing. Rove would go after his opponent's strengths; Clinton will attack her opponent's where she is weak.

Petey, Tim K, et al., please, I'm dying to hear how you're going to spin this.

Posted by Enough | March 6, 2008 10:04 AM

Why doesn't Obama just do this anyway? If the math is so outrageously against Clinton, I'd think this was more than good sense, but was good campaigning. He can rise above--not engage Clinton specifically, though still focus on his organization and ground game--while also sending the message that Clinton's already lost the race. And that he's, y'know, inevitable.

If her odds are so small, why should Obama pretend otherwise? He should announce that he's done the math, and he's now starting the general campaign; he honors Clinton for her tenacity, but from here on out he's only going to be running ads against McCain. Then each one can be newsworthy because it's another general ad by a guy still in a primary.

Also, he can attack Clinton's arguments by claiming they come from McCain: "Does experience matter more than judgment when your long years inside Washington led you to rubber-stamp a misguided war? Your 'experience' supported the greatest foreign policy disaster in our history--and now you offer more of the same."

Posted by gussie | March 6, 2008 10:04 AM

I agree that the attached From Clinton and Obama should be directed at McCain and not each other. Unfortunately, Clinton stands to lose in such a campaign because Obama's contrast to McCains Iraq position trumps Clintons. Clinton also can only hope to do better by attacking Obama. A campaign where Clinton and Obama play nice to each other and go negative on McCain will backfire on Clinton.

Posted by hot2na | March 6, 2008 10:05 AM

I keep reading that once the primaries are over all the Democrats, regardless of which candidate they supported, will come together and all will be well; I keep being told that all's fair in attacking one's opponent, and showing ruthlessness and deviousness are actually good things because they show that a candidate will be though enough to survive the eventual Republican attack machine. Hell, relentless and even unfair attacks are even good for the candidate being attacked because they are some sort of inoculation before the Republican sunleash their election pandemic.

You know what? A few weeks ago I thought that the Democrats had two very good choices this election year, and I would have been happy with either of them winning the nomination. At a certain point I developed a preference, but no strong partisan inclinations. Well, right now I actually think one of the candidates is a loathsome person. It's not only that I no longer feel as motivated and excited as I was; I now, on a personal level, find McCain less loathsome that one of the Democratic nominees. Sure, I still disagree with McCain's positions, I don't think he's the honorable straight-shooter the media portrays him as being, and I surely will not be supporting him. But if the Democrat I now despise becomes the nominee, I'll be experiencing one hellish case of cognitive dissonance. How do I put a sign in my yard for this person? How do I argue with my neighbors in favor of this person?

Will I really change my mind once the general election starts? I don't know, but I suspect that a lot of people are in the same position I find myself in and the longer the primary lasts, more and more Democrats will become -- once again -- disillusioned.

____________________________________________

Posted by Aris | March 6, 2008 10:05 AM

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie [Harper's chief of staff] was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Whoops, eh.

Posted by southpaw | March 6, 2008 10:07 AM

1) I'll repeat what I've said several months ago: Some Republicans have the dirt on a massive screwup by Bill Clinton's administration in Feb 1999 --the loss of the F117 stealth fighter in Serbia.
2) If Hillary gets the nom, they will leak -- and Hillary will lose. The voters have had it with being screwed by Clintonian laziness, irresponsibility, and faux claims to competence.
And this story is one that makes even George W look like less of a moron , by comparison.
3) Dem leaders need to check with Melvin Dubee.

Posted by Don Williams | March 6, 2008 10:07 AM

Ahh, only in Matt's new world is an off the cuff remark from a right wing hack now more reliable than actually documented evidence! There is a fracken paper trail to Goolsbee!

Posted by Rob | March 6, 2008 10:19 AM

Ten Reasons for Hillary Clinton to drop out:

1. She is losing in pledged delegates.

2. She is losing in total delegates.

3. She has lost in most states.

4. Where she has won, she's done it by not quite blowing the HUGE leads she started with.

5. She has no honorable path to the nomination.

6. By staying in and forcing her opponent into a negative war, she will damage the eventual nominee and aid the Republicans.

7. The next seven weeks are going to be personally excruciating for her. She and her husband will receive a level of scrutiny they haven't experienced since the 90s, but this time it will be coming from respected voices in their own party.

8. If she goes all out and loses, she will scuttle any chance she had of leading the Senate.

9. She is more likely to permanently damage the Democratic party than she is to win the White House.

10. She has made a complete hash of a contest that was handed to her on a silver platter. Her opponent, by contrast, has come from far behind on the strength of his talent and the appeal of his message.

Posted by southpaw | March 6, 2008 10:19 AM

Ross explains the cost to progressive politics

Isn't this pretty much the definition of concern trolling?

Posted by Ryan | March 6, 2008 10:21 AM

I have to agree with a lot of the comments both here and to Ross that McCain and Clinton have become similar enough that it's rational for Obama to attack both simultaneously.

Wow, Harper's NAFTA leak was brilliant. If Clinton wins the nomination, then whoever wins the general owes Canada some hella-huge favors.

Obama, on the other hand, owes Harper some vengeance.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 6, 2008 10:26 AM

Isn't this pretty much the definition of concern trolling?

Not when the points he raises are correct.

Posted by jbryan | March 6, 2008 10:26 AM

Did the Conservative government to our north try to fry Barack Obama?

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 10:27 AM

And this story is one that makes even George W look like less of a moron , by comparison.
Posted by Don Williams | March 6, 2008 10:07 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don, a backdoor attempt to minimize the incompetent, lazy boob that is George Bush falls flat. Any attempt to prop up his image certainly calls into question the sanity and motives of the commentor. Aside from being a bumbling idiot he's guilty of ordering torture and genocide. Please don't contrast his behavior with anyone else. Few of the living are in the same league with the Gacys, Dahmers and Miloševićs of the world. Mr. Bush is. The Clintons are not. Even Mr. Gacy's nickname translates well to Mr. Bush: The Killer Clown.

Posted by steve duncan | March 6, 2008 10:30 AM

Regarding Ross and concern trolling - you also have to realize that Ross is one of those conservatives who (for IMO basically honorable reasons) wouldn't necessarily mind a big Republican loss which shakes up the current Republican establishment with which Ross has some big disagreements.

Which isn't to say I excpect him to vote for Obama in the general, if only because of Roe and Supreme Court nominatons.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 10:37 AM

Re Steve Duncan's comment "Don, a backdoor attempt to minimize the incompetent, lazy boob that is George Bush falls flat. Any attempt to prop up his image certainly calls into question the sanity and motives of the commentor. Aside from being a bumbling idiot he's guilty of ordering torture and genocide "
-------------
I agree with your characterization of George W Bush -- as any number of my posts here will show.

What you fail to realize is that there are things far worse than that.

Posted by Don Williams | March 6, 2008 10:40 AM

If the NAFTA hit was a bum rap, then the Obama campaign is completely incompetent. They changed their story on that multiple times as more details emerged. If it was a totally bum rap, why all the spinning?

Posted by James Robertson | March 6, 2008 10:42 AM

The truth is that the only person who can "finish off" Clinton is Clinton herself.

Actually, the only people who can finish her off are herself and/or the superdelegates.

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | March 6, 2008 10:43 AM

Rob, your paper trail is one dishonest memo, which is at best wildly inaccurate, at worst a malicious fabrication. Contrast that with the clear statements that it was Hillary's campaign that tried to reassure the Canadians about NAFTA. Quit defending the serial exercise in falsehood that is the Clinton campaign.Clinton lied about this, as about so many other things. She is unfit for any office involving public responsibility or financial management.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 10:45 AM

What you fail to realize is that there are things far worse than that.

Posted by Don Williams | March 6, 2008 10:40 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don, our media fail to show in all the grisly detail the carnage wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq. While certainly not attaining the scale of the Holocaust or The Killing Fields I have to believe those trapped in its hell feel terror and despair known but to a handful of Americans. I have no trouble trusting the civilian casualty figures running into the hundreds of thousands. Hussein was a monster but what Bush has unleashed possibly makes most Iraqis long for the good old days. Maybe you're privy to ongoing horrors that rival the mess in Iraq. Regardless, Bush should hang.

Posted by steve duncan | March 6, 2008 10:51 AM

Oh, great, now the Obama crowd sees a vast right-wing conspiracy everywhere...

Dear Obama worshippers: your candidate is a fake. He is a false prophet. His feces stinks just like the rest of us. You have fallen into the trap of Voodoo esoterism. There's a chicken somewhere missing its head.

Let's pick a real candidate; let's pick Hillary!

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 6, 2008 10:52 AM

James Robertson,

Did you even read the article? Or are you just one of those people who likes to ignore things that don't suit your narrative of choice.

Clinton reached out to the Canadians. Then she flatly denied the conversation even took place. Instead of out and out lying, Obama's campaign tried to get the facts out, and yes, Obama's responses did change, but it wasn't because he was lying to people, its because he didn't know that his advisor had met with the Canadians when he made that statement. and when he learned that a meeting had taken place, he corrected the record.

this means he acknowledged that an error had been made. contrast this with the clinton campaign which wont acknowledge anything wrong, ever.

Quit being a shill. CTV was backtracking on its story day after day.

Hillary called Obama a liar to the world, and probably cost him tens of thousands of votes in Ohio. And now it turns out that her campaign contacted the Canadians and told them not to sweat her rhetoric. Its absolutely astounding.

anyone thing Obama's going to hit back on this?

Posted by Enough | March 6, 2008 10:54 AM

It's pretty ballsy of Harper to completely alienate the frontrunner for president.

Did I say ballsy? I meant "political suicide".

Posted by Luke | March 6, 2008 10:55 AM

If it was a totally bum rap, why all the spinning?

Because it wasn't clear at first that the meeting wasn't in Canada, wasn't official, and wasn't at the Obama camp's behest.

I wonder who Brodie talked to from Camp Clinton.

This is a big deal up in Canada. They're quite worried about the consequences of having pissed off Obama if he becomes the next president.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 6, 2008 10:55 AM

Not to mention the anti-Obama campaigning that hillary does for mccain every time she says that mccain has a lifetime of experience and Obama has one speech.

Posted by john o. | March 6, 2008 10:56 AM

beat that strawman, Ringo! beat it good!

Posted by cleek | March 6, 2008 10:57 AM

One problem - the only real evidence is damning to Obama.
Sorry team Obama.

Days later, the leak of the internal Canadian diplomatic note revealed that Mr. Obama's adviser, Austan Goolsbee, spoke to Mr. Rioux on Feb. 8.

In a summary of the meeting written by Canadian diplomat Joseph de Mora, Mr. Goolsbee was described as indicating that Mr. Obama's NAFTA stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Dishonest Memo - LOL! It's the notes from an actual meeting. I suppose the Downing Street Memo is fiction too.

The Clinton Campaign flatly denied the allegation from the get go. They challenged anyone to name names and reveal facts. Crickets.

Obama lied from the get go. I remind you, when Goolsbee was first asked about this by the press he said he had to consult Obama headquarters. Then he came back and said no meeting ever took place. Then the actual memo from the meeting turns up. Then he says, oh, there was a meeting but they misinterpreted what I said. LOL.

.

Posted by Inkslayer | March 6, 2008 11:00 AM

This is a big deal up in Canada.

Didn't quite make the headlines here in the USA.

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 11:01 AM

So let me see if I understand this:

For Obama:

Official documents, plus Goolsbee basically admitting it, means its a hit job!

Now for Clinton:

No official proof, no idea who talked to who, based on the word of a wing nut Canadian=====CLINTON PWNED!!!!

Posted by Rob | March 6, 2008 11:02 AM

ntr Fausto Carmona,

You are obviously correct, and I failed to articulate a crucial qualifier in the sentence you quoted, namely "before the actual convention."

But I would stick by my analysis once that qualifier is included. That is because even if a sufficient number of superdelegates swore up and down on a stack of Bibles that they were voting for Obama, Clinton could argue that until the convention, legally they were still wildcards. Heck, her campaign floated such a trial balloon about the pledged delegates, which I suspect is their ultimate fallback position (than it isn't over until those people actually cast their votes and Obama wins).

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 11:03 AM

Rob,

To answer your question, no, you don't understand this.

Specifically, the Canadian government has officially walked back from the memo in question and also is currently in the process of investigating the leaking of the memo (which was not a public document). Meanwhile, Goolsbee did acknowledge he had a discussion with a Canadian Consul in Chicago about these issues, but has consistently denied suggesting in any way during that discussion that Obama did not mean the things he has said about NAFTA during the campaign. And again, the Canadians are now officially agreeing with Goolsbee's characterization of that discussion.

So, all the available evidence suggests that the original story was false both in detail and overall substance. And the Canadians are trying to identify who participated in what appears to be an organized effort to politically attack a U.S. presidential candidate.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 11:13 AM

Then he came back and said no meeting ever took place. Then the actual memo from the meeting turns up.

I haven't paid too too much attention to this little tempest since I've been away for a week and with limited internet, but correct me if I'm wrong -- wasn't the sequence of events that CTV alleged Goolsbee met with the staff of the Canadian ambassador, which he denied, only to have a memo come out which said that he met with someone in the Consulate General's office in Chicago, which hadn't been denied?

Posted by jbryan | March 6, 2008 11:16 AM

If Michigan and Florida get do-overs as appears likely (see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble ) then Hillary's chances just improved a lot, right? It's no guarantee that she'll win these states, but at least it's a plausible opportunity.

Posted by nbt | March 6, 2008 11:17 AM

jbryan:

Canada's Obama NAFTA Memo

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 11:21 AM

the Canadian government has officially walked back from the memo in question

This is false. The Canadian government hasn't "walked back" from what the memo said - that Goolsbee told them that the NAFTA talk was a sham. They've only said that they didn't mean to say anything about the campaign.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2008 11:24 AM

If I was on the Obama team, it would be fun. Here in the space of 2 days, are 4 ads he could use against that shrill and underhanded woman:

Idea one: “Which Hillary will show up on day one?” Montage of all her different personalities throughout the campaign from crazy to mean to phony nice with a voice over that says, “Don’t the American people deserve a calm, rational leader? Come on America, we can do better. It is up to you.”

Idea two: “About that experience, Hillary…” Cast aspersions on her vote for AUMF, Kyle Lieberman and then go into Travelgate, her failed healthcare debacle, etc. Voice over, “Solid judgment, transparency, character and the ability to get the job done beat failed experience any day.”

Idea three: “What is she trying to hide?” Kill her on her secrecy, her unwillingness to share her files, tax returns, etc. “Follow the money, who is backing this woman and what is she trying to pull on the American people.” BArack to do voice over and offer his clear accountability and honesty as a better direction.

Finally, idea 4: “She just can’t win.” Show footage of real independents talking about how they will vote McCain over Hillary and show polls that show her statistical disadvantage. Talk about how Barack will bring people together instead of solidifying our division. Could add Rush limbaugh’s plea to have Republicans cross over and vote for her since she is so beatable.

p.s.: I started out being equally happy to vote for either one with a preference for Obama and now there is no way I can vote for Hillary. She will lose anyway.

Posted by ksmiami | March 6, 2008 11:26 AM

This is from Rasmussenreports today:

It is possible that the Clinton commercial about a 3:00 a.m. phone call at the White House has helped in Pennsylvania (see the commercial). Most Likely Democratic Primary voters have either seen the ad or have heard about it. Forty-eight percent (48%) of Likely Democratic Primary voters say that if such a call came, they’d want Clinton in the White House to answer it. Thirty percent (30%) would rather see Obama while 15% of these Democratic voters would prefer the Republican nominee, John McCain, to answer the call. Among men, 23% prefer McCain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com

Clinton now leads by 15% in Pennsylvania in Scott Rasmussen latest survey. A week ago it was only 4%. She has turned a 14% deficit among males into a 11% lead. That's more than a statistical hiccup.

Also there is a new Survey USA national trial heat out today that show Clinton leading McCain 48%-46%, while Obama and McCain are tied at 46% each. ABCnews/Washington Post has a survey showing Obama leading McCain by a greater margin than Clinton. So the polls are mixed.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 11:28 AM

"a bum rap

In what way is it a bum rap? Since it was, you know, true."

Yeah, maybe Goolsbee freelanced. But apparently SO DID CLINTON!!!

This is a massive story that should stop all conversation until it is brought to general awareness.

Apparently Ian Brodie either made up the charge, or received similar assurances from the Clinton campaign itself! (As if she really needed to give them.)

Posted by Michael | March 6, 2008 11:30 AM

They've only said that they didn't mean to say anything about the campaign.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 11:31 AM

nbt,

Define "a lot".

It certainly puts more delegates back on the calendar. The problem is that Clinton has never shown the ability to convert her wins into large numbers of delegates, and I strongly suspect Obama could well get a blowout in Michigan and actually net more delegates himself.

So, sure, more opportunities to make up ground is better than fewer opportunities when you are way behind. But I don't think it would improve her overall chances to a significant degree.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 11:32 AM

Jayhawk Max, do you actually think this will remain civil?

Also, I've heard multiple places that the Republicans have a long list of the young women Bill has banged (sorry for the crude language if that offends anyone) over the past eight years, and they'll drop it hot once Hillary gets the nod.

Not saying it's true, but please people, do we need more drama and baggage?

Posted by ZednCu | March 6, 2008 11:35 AM

Three thoughts:

1. Democrats like myself (after Florida 2000) have gone through seven years of agony under Bush...Bill Clinton spoke up exactly TWICE during those seven years --- to tell Chris Wallace that his administration was not responsible for 9/11 (which I cheered) and to support war in Iraq...That's it...Other than that, nothing from the Big Dog...Mrs. Bill Clinton votes for the Iraq war, then as if to show that's not a fluke, comes back last fall and sides with Bush on the Iran/terrorist issue...

2. Obama wins Washington, Virginia, Wisconsin, Maryland and six other states all by more than 16 points, Mrs. Bill wins Ohio by 10 and Texas by 4, and suddenly, what, she's viable?...

3. Obama has amassed about a 150 pledged delegate lead --- this is not an easy thing to do in this environment...What may I ask is the metric by which a 150 PD lead in this environment is not a blow out?...IT IS A BLOW-OUT..She picked up a net of, what, 10 delegates on Tuesday...She'll lose Mississippi and Wyoming, and then Ed Rendell has six weeks to keep her, what, 10 points ahead in PA...That should be easy...Obama takes NC, Oregon, Indiana, while Clinton takes the rest of racist Appalachia...How exactly does this help the party?...Her throwing monkey feces around for three months?...Someone please tell me how this is a good thing....

Posted by Fred Bellemore | March 6, 2008 11:35 AM

Oh good, it's Tim "The blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice" K with the latest meaningless polls!

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 11:35 AM

If Clinton really "can't win," then Obama should ignore and start running the general election campaign. If she can, his supporters should continue screeching all over the blogosphere that she can't.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 6, 2008 11:36 AM

I have to agree with a lot of the comments both here and to Ross that McCain and Clinton have become similar enough that it's rational for Obama to attack both simultaneously.

Wow, Harper's NAFTA leak was brilliant. If Clinton wins the nomination, then whoever wins the general owes Canada some hella-huge favors.

Obama, on the other hand, owes Harper some vengeance.

Or if McCain wins, he owes Cananda some favors, even though I think it's pretty much a non-event.

Obama should attack Hillary and McCain on the issues simulteanously, because Hillary is now carrying McCain's water.

As the New York Times editorial page writes today:

"Mrs. Clinton’s camp continues to be responsible for most of the nastiness we’ve seen this primary season, and there were signs that they were drawing the wrong lesson from Tuesday’s vote: that “red phone” ads and hardball tactics will win the day."
...
"Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain owe the American public far more transparency than they have given. Mrs. Clinton has not released her income tax returns or made public the donors to her husband’s library and foundation. Mr. McCain is withholding medical records that Americans need to read before they are asked to vote for a 71-year-old man with a spotty medical history."

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 11:40 AM

Oops, my bad, it was a psuedo Tim K who said "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice". Sometimes it's hard to keep the real from the fake and the text from the subtext apart.

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 11:40 AM

Damn Fred, good summary. Are you saying either Dem has a good chance in November in FL, and that Obama has a better one? Is Hillary's "He's trying to silence your voices!" bit not sticking?

Posted by Tony | March 6, 2008 11:41 AM

Tell me about it, Lucy.

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 11:44 AM

Al,

The memo was written by an aide working for the Chicago consulate. After the memo was leaked, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa (roughly equivalent to our State Department) issued an official statement which said, among other things, "There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. . . . We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

You can call that statement whatever you like, but I personally think it is fair to call that officially walking back.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM

I would run ads about Hillary's vote for the Republican Bankruptcy Bill which she said she was against but voted for anyway. I wonder how many voters in Pennsyvania are aware of that.

I would also raise the issue that the Clinton campaign is trying to seat the Michigan delegates when Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 11:58 AM

DTM - Well, I'm an Obama fan, and am worried about Florida in particular. [I worry that the contest might induce Obama to start saying wingnutty stuff about Cuba and Israel] Of course I recognize that the do-over would be better for democracy and for Obama's legitimacy.

Posted by nbt | March 6, 2008 11:59 AM

But wait! I grabbed the quote from the wrong thread. "The blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice" was indeed uttered by one Tim K who later claimed to be "kidding...I just don't think it's a big deal. I have more faith in the voters than to think that people won't vote for Obama because they darken his photo."

So there.

Posted by Lucy | March 6, 2008 12:01 PM

Gah! This is so ridiculous. It's not Clinton who's prolonging this (not that it's even being prolonged historically) - IT'S THE VOTERS. If the majority of Democratic primary voters were sold on Obama has the nominee, he would have won handily on Tuesday. That he didn't is 1) a testament to Clinton's strengths (which this and other blogs ignore at the peril of the Democratic Party) and 2) his own weaknesses. I mean I know MY thinks Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, but clearly that is a far from universal view.

If it was actually up to the candidates to "prolong" a primary fight, Huckabee would still be in the race! But the Republican voters said otherwise and now he's out.

Not to mention that having the Dem nominee selected in March in 2004 just gave Republicans 8 months to define and damage him.

This is all NOTHING. It's not that negative and not that late. The hysterics really need to stop. If the voters in the late states go with Obama, then that's that. IF they don't, maybe we should consider the idea that he's not that strong of nominee.

And, again, if there's "no way" she can win, then Obama should just stop running against her. Because it wouldn't matter anyway, right?

Posted by Columbia | March 6, 2008 12:43 PM

Had he won Ohio and Texas straight up, that would be it - he didn't, she did, and here we sit. Get a grip.

Posted by Lynn | March 6, 2008 12:46 PM

It seems to me that Obama has plenty of money to fight a two front war with ads in primary states and anti McCain attack ads in purple to magenta states (magenta is somewhere between purple and red isn't it ?).

The problem is that the media won't comment on anti McCain ads until the Democratic candidate is chosen (if then).

I'd say that going after McCain is good primary campaign strategy. I don't think Democratic primary voters are eager to reward the Democrat who attacks a Democrat and I'm not going to let a little thing like the evidence from Ohio convince me otherwise.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | March 6, 2008 1:07 PM

Columbia,

One problem with your argument is that the particular states voting on Tuesday were not a random sampling of the entire primary electorate. Indeed, those particular contests were unilaterally designated as the important ones to watch by Clinton almost immediately after Super Tuesday, undoubtedly in large part because she calculated that was the most favorable set of contests for her on the calendar. And it is a bit silly to let Clinton get away with dictating which contests should count and which should not based on her calculations of which contests she has the best chance of winning ... although that is a silliness shared by a compliant media.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 2:21 PM

Gussie at 1004am has it right.

Also, regarding the war, its significance to the race, and the larger implications: Obama's advantage stems in large measure from his early and clear-eyed view of its wrongness, and the more small, petty stories such as the ones that boosted HRC's recent fortunes are allowed to eclipse the transcendent issue of our day, the worse off our discourse, our nation, Iraq itself, and yes, Obama's and Democrats' chances of correcting a misguided course all become. Norman Soloman has correctly pointed out that, sadly, antiwar sentiment has grown in tandem with the bungled execution of the war, rather than any apparent realization by a majority of Americans that the war was morally and strategically wrong in the first place. If MSM memes of a "successful" "surge" persist (and they will), many will downgrade the issue as a distinguishing factor in their general election vote, thus favoring McCain (and dooming us all to more of the same wasteful, immoral, effectively imperial policy, with its myriad deleterious effects, for years and years to come). Obama is correct in returning at every opportunity to the key moment -- whether it came at some lugubrious 3 a.m. moment of not -- when he stood up for what was right and smart, while Hillary cravenly, for personal political advantage, caved to what she had to know was wrong (whether she read the intelligence reports herself or not -- can you believe she acknowledged only getting briefed on something of this magnitude? Anyway, anyone who stays informed was clear on the falsity of the "ceryainty" of WMD etc offered as a casus belli by the Criminal in Chief and his nefarious cabal).

It is important for the tactical purposes of returning to one of Obama's strongest selling points, for establishing that line of thinking as the one that wins a mandate from the American people in the Fall, and for reestablishing U.S. legitimacy in the eyes of the world, which even if most Americans don't care about it, is an important dimension of who we are, and what happens in other contexts going forward. As Vietnam and other such situations have taught us Americans may be slow to learn, but we do, in the end, learn, and the campaign should keep that learning curve in mind going forward. Straying from the message that wars of this nature are wrong undermines our chances of avoiding the next collossal error. We have a chance to think long-term, for once, and it seems to me that while I can live with Hillary if necessary, Obama represents a much clearer symbol of intelligence and courage (remember how hard it was to be antiwar in 2002-2003?) Don't we want someone who is willing to buck fearmongering fools? Where are the "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" references? I guess they don't test well among a public conditioned to overreact to every relatively minor threat, as long as it has a funny name and costume to go with it.

Sorry for the rant. But come on, people, chins up! We are going to win, and we should be thinking about how to do so in a way that is clear, strong, and pointed along the path to peace and prosperity, not gigantic wasteful defense spending against what amounts, in real terms, to phantoms of our imagination. With all due respect to those who lost their lives on 9/11, just because we got smacked down once by an inferior foe because our leaders were asleep at the wheel doesn't mean we need to toss out our freedoms, or reprioritize our resource allocations away from the much greater threats we face (how many lives have been ruined by lack of universal health insurance, for instance, compared to the number snuffed out by terrorists?).

These are winning themes because they are based in truth and justice, but we must have the courage to lay them out forthrightly. THAT's the path to a mandate, a down-ticket set of coattails that can make it happen. There is indeed a giant mess to be cleaned up here, but I'm not convinced "it takes a Clinton" to clean it up. McCain sure won't do it. That leaves Obama. So, go BO! Thanks to anyone tolerant enough to have read all the way through this. I need to find another way to blow off steam. I'm going for a walk!

Posted by peaceworker | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM

DTM:

One problem with your argument is that the particular states voting on Tuesday were not a random sampling of the entire primary electorate... And it is a bit silly to let Clinton get away with dictating which contests should count.

Look, I'd normally leave this sort of thread to Petey, but your claim is just ridiculous!

Texas is important because it's *secondest* largest state in America. Ohio is important because it's also a very large state AND probably the swingiest swing state for November, as well all remember from 2000 and especially 2004.

Frankly, neither I nor anyone else paid that much attention to Rhode Island or Vermont.

Posted by RKU | March 6, 2008 2:49 PM

This is an unfolding disaster.

Posted by Korha | March 6, 2008 3:10 PM

It wasn't just the Clinton campaign that made those states important - it was the news media and the Obama campaign and their surrogates who were getting ready to "pressure" HRC out of the race if she didn't win both.

Furthermore, even if it was ONLY Clinton that made them important - Obama still should have been able to beat her if he truly had the support of an overwhelming number of democrats. I can think of loads of times in the past when second place candidates hung on after it was clear they should get out because they were waiting for their big break - an unexpected result on Super Tuesday for example (in fact, it was Super Tuesday - and not South Carolina, despite CW - that killed McCain's 2000 bid). But for the most part, these candidates kept on losing.

Clinton did not. So there is a valid question on 1) why she should be forced out when so many voters clearly passionately support her and 2) what happened to Obama's inevitability?

Also what RKU said.

Posted by Columbia | March 6, 2008 4:39 PM

RKU,

First, the big states argument is really just nonsense. If States A and B together have more population and electoral votes than State C, then State C is not more important than States A and B combined.

Second, Ohio is not the only potential swing state to vote since Super Tuesday.

In general, I am fine with thinking Texas and Ohio are important. They are just are not more important than all the other states that have voted since Super Tuesday combined. Similarly, Pennsylvania is not more important than all the other states that have not yet voted combined.

Columbia,

First, I agree that the media went along with Clinton's spin, which is not too hard to understand: this contest is a huge moneymaker for them, so they have a vested interest in seeing it continue as long as possible.

Second, I agree that Clinton has enough support among certain Democrats that it is not in fact inevitable that Obama will beat her in every single contest. And I think it is fine to point that out, but again the silliness comes in when people let Clinton dictate which contests count and which do not on the basis of which she has the best chance of winning.

Third, I for one think she is entitled to keep campaigning as long as she wishes. The tactics she chooses to use, however, are a different matter.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 6:22 PM

And I find (and have found for many months) some of Obama's tactics to be appalling. For whatever reason, Clinton is held to a different standard here too.

Weirdly, I am now finding many Obama supporters who say that Pennsylvania should not "count" because it's demographics are so beneficial to Clinton. Do you think they, too, are ridiculous? Also March 4th was the single largest delegate day after Super Tuesday - it would be weird if it had NOT been a big deal.

Posted by Columbia | March 6, 2008 6:31 PM

I'm glad the cost of this folly is coming to national blogs...how long do you think it will take to get into the MSM so the average voter will get it?

Good grief, if there ever was a reason for a change in DC it's so we can get some real media back again. How they have shaped this disaster with their incessant focus on the horse race rather than real fact checking/journalism is amazing.

Good god. Will someone please start a move to set these candidates side by side in voting records and history for a REAL comparison, so we voters can make a REAL informed choice?

Not to mention the obscene amounts of money spent on this food fight could provide health CARE for thousands for a very long time.

Posted by G Davis | March 7, 2008 3:32 AM

Well, well! I wonder how many raving attackers of Senator Clinton above will now apologize for their wild and hateful claims about her supposed role in the Canadian mess. Now it's all out and you should be ashamed--but of course you won't be, because you're beyond shame. The Prime Minister's Office put out a clear statement, carried by CBC and Global and now beginnng to permeate into our own pro_Obmaa MSM--Clinton's campaign NEVER CONTACTED THEM AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. THAT WAS A FALSE RUMORE, JUST AS CLINTON SAID IT WAS. Now the truth is out--Obama's Goolsbee was the ONLY person who told the Canadians his NAFTA criticisms should not be taken too seriously. Clinton? Absolutely, positively, definitively--INNOCENT.

What a bunch of hysteric losers you guys are! Man up, and admit your slanders were false in this case. Attack her on other grounds and crawl back into your holes.

Posted by doc austin | March 8, 2008 6:58 PM

Well, well! I wonder how many raving attackers of Senator Clinton above will now apologize for their wild and hateful claims about her supposed role in the Canadian mess. Now it's all out and you should be ashamed--but of course you won't be, because you're beyond shame. The Prime Minister's Office put out a clear statement, carried by CBC and Global and now beginnng to permeate into our own pro-Obama MSM--Clinton's campaign NEVER CONTACTED THEM AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. THAT WAS A FALSE RUMOR, JUST AS CLINTON SAID IT WAS. Now the truth is out--Obama's Goolsbee was the ONLY person who told the Canadians his NAFTA criticisms should not be taken too seriously. Clinton? Absolutely, positively, definitively--INNOCENT.

What a bunch of hysteric losers you guys are! Man up, and admit your slanders were false in this case. Attack her on other grounds and crawl back into your holes.

Posted by doc austin | March 8, 2008 7:01 PM