The Clintons are finished. Will quit race soon.

I am going on the record to say that this will not go to the convention and most likely will not go into March.  The Clintons are done, finito, they will hang it up soon.

Financially there is no way that the Clintons can compete much longer. Obama has raised $5 million dollars in 24 hours. Five million dollars! People like me (including me) gave $50. My brother who has never given to a campaign before gave $20. My mother who lives on a limited income gave money. I will give again. There are more than half a million of us online, dedicated, and inspired.  $10 each = $5mil. $100 each = $50mil. $100 each month = you get the picture.

On the other hand the Clintons are loaning their campaign money and they have no good news in sight. Obama is going to do well, if not win out right, the next seven contests in as many days.  There is no momentum on the horizon for the Clintons and without momentum fund raising will be more difficult, if not impossible. Where is she going to get $30+ million? Bill? It would be one thing if the loan had enabled a super tuesday victory, and she had pulled ahead to win like Kerry did in Iowa, loaning his campaign money and then winning it all. But she just pulled even on super tuesday and her prospects don't look better than 50-50 in terms of pulling away or winning the nomination.

Its over for the Clintons. The institutional dem power base have already started to talk behind the curtain. People will talk about the 'good of the party'--the need to keep pace with the GOP who should have a candidate shortly--the need to spend some time unifying the party before we take on McCain--avoid a convention deadlock--avoid a public spat like Kennedy/Carter--how she could be senate leader--etc. The writing is on the wall. Nobody wants to risk a long drawn out affair with the possible outcome muddled and/or deadlocked. Everyone is hoping for a way to end this thing fairly and quickly.

Its one thing for a well funded machine to demand its day in court--to let the voters decide--to let this thing play itself out. Its another thing entirely to allow an non-funded campaign to drag the party through a long contested fight when the staff are working for free and the only funder is the candidate herself.  Its over even if we don't yet know it.

I would argue that there is still the sympathy factor, which I think worked in New Hampshire and will keep her alive for a few more weeks.  Even I feel sorry for her. She is decent, likable politician whom we have welcomed into our living rooms for 17 years. Its sad to see this chapter come to an end. Sympathy will bring some money and more votes, but sooner rather than later people will adjust to the loss, and then they may even want to hurry up her departure to end the story quickly.

I know that many of you will be furious by this and trash me and my ideas. But I wanted to go on the record predicting that the Clintons are finished and will quit the race in the near future.

UPDATE: I was wrong its 650,000 potential Obama donors online...and $6 million raised in 24 hours.

There's more...

Obama Wins More Delegates

According to Politico and NBC and the campaigns of Obama and the Clintons.

Obama wins the most states. 13-9.

OBAMA wins the most delegates. The Clintons agree.

"The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.

NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton."

"Clinton aide Guy Cecil says on a conference call that his math has Clinton up one delegate on the night, and that in any case the margin will be within five or six delegates"

This allows the Obama camp to point out - correctly - that they won a majority of the contests yesterday, won in a wider variety of red and blue states, and won in the number of delegates counted.

Obama is also winning in the all important fundraising. In January alone he raised $32 million. I sent $50 this morning. His online community is his WAR CHEST.

According to The Page the Clintons had to self-fund their campaign over the past several weeks. Not a good sign.

"Did the Clintons contribute millions of their own money to her campaign in the last few weeks?"

"Clinton aide Howard Wolfson on the morning's conference call said he doesn't know, but he'd ask."

He doesn't know or he doesn't want to say.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06super-tuesday-results_n_85159.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/More_delegates_for_Obama.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8358.html

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-t he-obama-clinton-questions

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/A_question_from_Halperin.html

Bottom line: Obama wins super tuesday.  

There's more...

Bill Clinton's White House: Offensive

It finally hit me why I have a visceral reaction to the thought of the Clintons back in the White House. I am still, to this day, offended by the things he did in the White House. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for president. There I said it. Sorry but I think most of you were too young to remember...or maybe just too young to care. I will not have anything to do with the Clintons returning to the White House. If I have to resign from this blog I will. I will not be voting for Hillary in 2008.

Many a good democrat, like myself, defended Bill Clinton for years and years against the 'right wing slash and slime machine. Republicans hated him and unfortunately he kept doing dumb things, giving them more and more ammunition. So we just kept up defending him through thick and thin. It was practically a way of life.

The cigar and the intern was over the top--unbelievable--stunning. But even then, most of us stuck by him, and defended him all through impeachment and beyond.

As I remember it, most of us didn't agree with Gore distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 election because we knew that Gore's chances were better with Bill at his side.  And we were right.

But just because we recognized Bill's charisma and political charm didn't mean that we also didn't understand that Al Gore had a daughter the same age as Monica and that Al and Tipper were deeply offended and disgusted by Bill's sexual dysfunction.  As was I.

And just because his favorables were high, didn't mean we were feeling good about ourselves, our country or our president.  

I can't go back there. It was a bad time--praying that the intern would lie to a grand jury so as not to bring down a president or permanently damage the dem party. I can't go back there. If..., and I think he probably will, if Bill has another episode of infidelity, I won't be one of those people who has to defend Hillary and Chelsey because --well, I won't have voted for her.

Instead I will be able to say: I told you so.

Mark my words. If they do it, the democratic party will regret nominating Hillary Clinton as president.

There's more...

Relentless negative campaign: HRC abandons positive approach

"I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don't think anybody who's watching would deny that. I gather that she's determined that instead of trying to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she's trying to convince folks that I wouldn't be a good one."

I think that this pretty much nails it the head. Sen. Barack Obama's own words:

Pool report on Obama's visit to Pentecostal Temple Church of God in Christ in Las Vegas early this afternoon from Michael Martinez of Chicago Tribune:

In a brief Q & A before Obama entered the church:

Question: Respond to Clinton's charge that he is distorting her statement on Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King:

"I am baffled by that statement by the senator. She made an ill advised statement about Dr. King suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with the Civil Right Acts. I did not make the statement. I haven't commented on the statement. For them to suggest that we're injecting race as a consequence of a statement she made that we haven't commented on is pretty hard to figure out. Maybe you can tell me and explain to me how we distorted her statement."

Question: Clinton campaign saying in a conference call earlier today that there is no difference in their record on war in Iraq because both voted for war funding:

"Sen. Clinton started off trying to make history and now she's trying to rewrite it. She's trying to rewrite it about my record and hers."

"In 2002, I made a clear and unequivocal statement before 3,000 people that this war was a bad idea." He said he was against the war in 2003 and 2004 also.

"Now she chose to vote for the war and she can decide whether it's a mistake or not. Apparently she has not said anything about it. For her to suggest somehow that half of a sentence that I uttered in 2004 in a setting in which I was trying not to throw the Democratic nominee and vice presidential nominee under the bus, after Tim Russert specifically asked me since you were so opposed to the war, what do you think about the fact that they weren't, to take that out of context and try to suggest my position and hers is the same is ludicrous. There is not objective observer of this who thinks at all that this argument is credible. And what's stunning is not only are they trying to distort my record, this is coming from Bill Clinton who is trying to suggest that he opposed the war from the start, something that everybody again who has looked at this objectively is puzzled by."

Q: then why did he vote for war funding

A: "Once we had our troops two years into a war, it was important that we try to do the best possible job on it. So is Sen. Clinton's argument is that the only people who were principled about this were people who voted against funding all the time, if that's the case, she should talk to Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer (war critics who also voted for the funding). Apparently they weren't against the war the entire time."

Q: Dick Durbin equating the Clinton attacks to swiftboating you. Is Clinton swiftboating you?

"I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign and I don't think anybody who's watching would deny that. I gather that she's determined that instead of tyring to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she's trying to convince folks that I wouldn't be a good one.""I don't think that's what the American people are looking for."

Obama was greeted by about 420 congregants and a 50-member choir at the Pentecostal Temple, a Church of God in Christ church, an African-American church in a Las Vegas neighborhood populated by black and Latino families, who largely live in poverty, according to residents.
http://thepage.time.com/full-comments-fr om-obamas-vegas-media-availability/

There's more...

4,000 Paid HRC Sock Puppets on LIberal Blogs

4,000 PAID Hillary Sock Puppets on the Liberal Blogs....

Can you Name One or Two or say Four Hundred ????

Watch how they work as a pack, come and go as a pack, invade a diary as a pack, talk up or down an issue as a pack.

Sad. sad. sad.

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/files/mp3 /2008_0110_friedman.mp3

There's more...

Clinton and McCain

Yes. I was crushed. I believed in the polls, and in the poll analysis here and on open left. C'est la vie.

I turned the TV off the minute Terry Mcauliffe showed his face on MSNBC. I couldn't take it. The thought of the Clinton machine fighting back and winning was uncomfortable enough but to have to sit there and listen to the Clinton surrogates was just too much to bear.

I can't stand them--the Clinton talking heads. For once, I agree with kos. To find them all back in my living room, on my computer screen and in my newspapers --and to imagine that it might be like this for eight more years--is a tough pill to swallow. My uneasiness with Clinton is all about the past. I have never been able to get past the Monica thing and all the damage it did to the dem party. The Clinton machine is not very good at apologizing. But they are good at spinning excuses.

This morning watching the news I see two smiling faces: Clinton and McCain. Can you imagine the general election if these two are our candidates? Two aging political pros. Both white, grey and wrinkled. Both tough, charming and experienced. One would have to be elected. Then we have a president. Simple as that.

It is depressing to think that this is what our country wants.  One of two old time political pros.  Both represent the status quo. Both have deep roots in the Washington establishment. And both lead to more of the same.

There they are side by side: Clinton and McCain. Not my dream team to say the least.

Is this what we have to look forward to?

There's more...

Clinton May Lose Michigan to Uncommtted

According to this Detroit paper the Michigan's uncommitted vote is a threat to Clinton:

There are growing signs that Michigan Democrats could turn out in larger numbers than expected for the Jan. 15 presidential primary -- and that may raise the stakes for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, the only top contender whose name will be on the Michigan Democratic ballot, has been widely expected to win the state by an overwhelming margin. Privately, Clinton supporters acknowledged Friday that she could be embarrassed if a significant percentage of Michiganians vote "uncommitted" -- one of the ballot choices.

No recent polls have been taken pointing in that direction. But Detroit News pollster Ed Sarpolus said Friday that anything less than 60 percent in Michigan would be a black eye for Clinton.

So first of all if she doesn't win big then it really isn't a win after all.....

Iowa's first- and second-place winners, Barack Obama and John Edwards, removed their names from the Michigan ballot because the state jumped ahead of others in scheduling its primary, in violation of national Democratic Party rules. They declined by Friday's 4 p.m. deadline to register as write-in candidates, meaning any write-in votes they get won't be counted.

There are informal efforts by some Edwards and Obama supporters in the state to encourage uncommitted votes, but Clinton backers said they saw no evidence of a coordinated campaign to embarrass the New York senator and former first lady.

Former Gov. James Blanchard, one of several leading Michigan Democrats who are backing Clinton, said Friday that he believed Edwards and Obama made a mistake by failing to register as write-in candidates.

"Even today they could register," Blanchard said before the 4 p.m. deadline. He also said he would discourage uncommitted voters: "Those candidates are good candidates, but I see no logic in rewarding candidates who won't put their name on the ballot."

State Democratic officials, including party Chairman Mark Brewer, have encouraged Democrats to vote, even if their candidate isn't on the ballot. Supporters of Obama, Edwards and others can vote "uncommitted." If 15 percent of Democrats statewide or in any congressional district do so, the state would send some delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer free to support any candidate.

Despite the missing names, and vows by Clinton and the other top contenders not to campaign here, it appeared at least possible that Democrats will rival the turnout in the hotly contested Republican primary. Election officials in several heavily Republican areas of Michigan said that among the early absentee ballots coming into their offices, Democratic ballots are nearly as numerous as Republican ballots.

"I'm finding out there are some Democrats in Holland," said Anne Perales, the Ottawa County community's acting deputy clerk. The area is among Michigan's most conservative; in 2006, losing Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos got 65 percent of the vote in Ottawa County, his best showing in the state. But Perales said Democratic absentee ballots are coming in at nearly the same rate as Republican ballots.

In the Wayne County GOP stronghold of Livonia, Clerk Linda Grimsby said roughly half of the 600-plus absentee ballots returned so far were Democratic. And in Republican-heavy Livingston County, Hamburg Township Clerk Joanna Hardesty said she was seeing more Republican ballots, but not by the overwhelming number she had expected.

"Some of the comments I'm hearing are that it's just going to be a bigger Democratic turnout," Hardesty said.

Political officials caution that early absentee returns are not necessarily a perfect indicator of total turnout on election day. And even if Democrats do turn up in surprising numbers, it's not clear why. Nationally, polls show Democrats are much more excited about their field of candidates than Republicans, and it's possible that enthusiasm has carried over into Michigan, despite the candidate boycott.

Another deadline comes today, the end of a 30-day period during which national Democratic officials had hoped Michigan would reverse its decision to hold the January primary. With expiration of that deadline, the national party will formally penalize Michigan by barring the state's delegation from the national convention in August.

Brewer repeated Friday that the state party will not back down -- and that he, like other Democratic leaders, expects the state delegation to eventually be seated, despite the ban.

Sounds like nobody knows what will happen but essentially it wouldn't be that hard to turn a Clinton 'win' into a Clinton 'loss.'
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=2008801050344

There's more...

It's a Movement, like it or not

Well when Chris Cillizza and Mike Huckabee call it a movement then I guess it doesn't matter anymore what Jerome thinks.

Obama: The Movement Has Begun

NASHUA, N.H. -- The line snaked for at least a half mile from the entrance of Nashua North High School. The first people in it had arrived at 7:30 a.m. -- two-and-a-half hours before Barack Obama was scheduled to start speaking. One woman had driven from West Hartford, Conn. The crowd was estimated at 3,000 and looked every bit of that number.

The movement has begun.

The Fix has long believed that the lone path for Obama to the Democratic nomination was to transform himself from a candidate into a movement. That is, by voting for Obama people would believe they are choosing something greater than simply a political candidate, that they are supporting a cause to change the way politics in America has been conducted.

In his speech here this morning, Obama cited the results in Iowa as a sign that things had changed in America politics. "A few days ago something special happened in the Midwest," Obama said to loud cheers. "The people of Iowa decided to set aside their fear and cynicism and reach for what is possible."

He cast New Hampshire as the next step in that process, a chance to validate the change that Iowa had voted for on Thursday. "In three days time you have the chance to continue that journey," Obama told the audience. "We are on the cusp of creating a new majority." Echoing perhaps the single best campaign commercial run so far in this race, Obama urged the crowd: "Our moment is now."

That message -- that in voting for Obama Americans are opting for a broad change in the way politics is conducted -- is VERY powerful and will be exceedingly difficult for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or anyone else to overcome.

Put another way: Obama's opponents are playing checkers while he is playing chess. When Clinton or John Edwards speak, they are regarded by those in attendance as politicians. Obama -- at least at the moment -- is seen as the leader of a movement.

"This is not about me," asserted Obama. "This is about you."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

Even the Republicans know a movement when they see one:

Mr. Huckabee adds that Mr. Obama "has touched at the core of what Americans want."

The GOP all seem a little bit worried about the prospect of running against him. They are much more respectful toward Mr. Obama than toward Mrs. Clinton.

Chick Todd says Huckabee made as good of a case for Obama as if he were a future surrogate.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 01/05/live-blogging-the-republican-debat e-3/

There's more...

GOTC

It all comes down to GOTC.

Its a three-way tie and its going to be won by the campaign with the best ground game. Obama is seeing crowds that are two to three times bigger than the other campaigns.

Consider this from JUST the past three days:

600 attend an Obama event in Burlington.
500 attend an Obama event in Keokuck.
900 attend an Obama event in Davenport.
900 attend an Obama event in Coralville--during a snowstorm.
400 attend an Obama event in Clinton.
400 attend an Obama event in Marshalltown.
500 attend an Obama event in Ottumwa last night. 400 attend an Obama event in Knoxville today. 500 attend an Obama event in Newton.

I heard they were already expecting 1000+ in Cedar Rapids and another 1,000 in Ames....He will be in Des Moines tonight.

He has been endorsed by more Iowa newspapers than anyone:

Marshalltown Times-Republican--central Iowa's Daily paper

Sioux City Journal--serving the states western citizens

Ottumwa Courier

Iowa City Press Citizen

Woodbine Twiner/Logan Herald-Observer

Daily Iowan

Iowa State Daily

Des Moines' El Latino

On Meet the Press Obama expressed confidence in his ground operation in Iowa. "We have as good of an organization as I think people have ever seen in Iowa, and this is going to be a tight race," he said. "I think the polls are going to be bouncing up and down over the next five days, but what we're confident about is that if our folks come to the caucus and participate, then we're going to do very well."

According to the New York Times: The Clinton, Edwards, and Obama camps seem to agree with this: -- if turnout equals 2004 (approx. 125,000), advantage Edwards. -- if turnout is slightly up (say, 130,000-140,000), advantage Clinton. -- and if turnout is way up there (think 140,000+), advantage Obama.

Asked whether he could be hurt by a lower turnout in Iowa, Obama said that's not what he is expecting. "I think everybody is predicting a big turnout at this point."

There's more...

Dodd on Clinton's So-called Experience

Well I guess Dodd has given up on his bid for VP. Can anyone say: being First Lady does not equal experience?

Dodd: Clinton was sitting on the sidelines

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) - Hillary Clinton may tout her 35 years of experience as the principal reason to vote for her, but Chris Dodd says counting her eight years in the White House as First Lady as a qualification "is an exaggeration, in my view. That's not experience, that's witnessing experience."

At the launch of his "Caucus For Results" bus tour, the Connecticut senator told a crowd at his Iowa campaign headquarters that "it's not just enough sitting on the sidelines and watching your husband deal with problems over the years," to argue that his 26 years in the Senate are better suited to bring people together and deal with unexpected events like the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Dodd said the New York senator's claim that her time as First Lady was experience would be like his wife Jackie taking credit for his Family Medical Leave Act, adding, "The experience of having witnessed history is not the same as having helped create it."


There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads