Going down swinging.

Four days out from Zero Hour and as per the kitchen sink strategy, the Clinton campaign attempts a few more sad gambits to stay alive in the race…

Fearmongering: It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep, but there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing…” Sen. Clinton has a new terror, terror, terror ad out in Texas, suggesting an Obama presidency will result in all manner of horrible things disrupting the sleep of your dear children. (It echoes this old Mondale spot, by the same ad guru twenty-four years ago.) Sen. Obama responded here: “We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes…We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.” Update: If this seems like a McCain ad, that might be because it was one, a fan-made ad back in January. (Then again, LBJ did it too.) Update 2: The Obama campaign already has a response ad out.

Moving the Goalposts (again): Flying in the face of reality once again, the newest Clinton campaign spin gets silly: “With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.” Uh, no. Quite the contrary. The math hasn’t changed since Wisconsin. Sen. Clinton must not only win Texas and Ohio, but win them both by twenty points. Anything less, and her campaign is mathematically kaput. (The reason for this goofiness from the campaign? Rhode Island looks to be an easy Clinton pick-up.)

Shady lawyering: “It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party…Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.” Texas Dem sources say the Clinton campaign has — in keeping with their strategy in Nevada last month — threatened a lawsuit to disrupt the caucus process there. Camp Clinton has backed away from these threats since they leaked, but sources maintain Clinton is suggesting legal action to cast doubt on the Texas caucus results on Tuesday night, thereby possibly buying her campaign a media cycle or two before the inevitable happens.

Granted, I’m a partisan. But I really don’t see any of these working to Sen. Clinton’s advantage. In fact, they just make her and her campaign look that much more petty. (See also the newest playing of the gender card: “‘Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,’ she said, ‘but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.’” Aw, it’s hard out here for the wife of a popular, two-term ex-president!) Update: In the meantime, Sen. Obama has picked up four more supers.

Update 2: Let’s see…what else does the Clinton campaign have under the kitchen sink? How ’bout some misleading mailers? (Gasp! Tough mailers? Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!) In any case, one claims “Barack Obama voted against protecting American families from predatory credit card interest rates of more than 30 percent.” As Obama said in a previous debate, he opposed the bill because “thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee.” (Lest we forget, Sen. Clinton actually voted for the lender-friendly bankruptcy bill in 2001.) The other basically suggests Obama is a corporate stooge on the payroll of the energy companies. Left unsaid: Sen. Clinton has taken more donations from the energy industry.

Please (Go), Mr. Henry | Loyalty above all.

A change in the weather is known to be extreme, but what’s the sense of changing horses in midstream? The Clinton campaign shake-up continues, with deputy campaign manager Mike Henry following Patty Doyle out (he’s the guy who suggested skipping Iowa — that’s looking rather prescient these days) and Hillary’s web team also getting the boot.

In the meantime, The Atlantic‘s Josh Green tells the backstory of the Solis Doyle firing, and see Dubyaesque overtones therein. “Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.“

Spinning the Saturday Sweep.

How will the Clinton campaign rationalize the losses over the weekend? It’s not pretty. Said Senator Clinton: “‘These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.’ Noting that ‘my husband never did well in caucus states either,’ Clinton argued that caucuses are ‘primarily dominated by activists” and that “they don’t represent the electorate, we know that.‘” So, “activists” and African-Americans, not “real” Dems. Got it. As for Bill Clinton’s take: “‘Her campaign’s broad appeal is largely to people who need a president,’ Clinton told an audience in Silver Spring’s Leisure World retirement community tonight. ‘Very often they are working and busy and dont go to these caucuses.’” Sure. I guess holding them on a weekend probably didn’t help either. As a commenter at TNR wryly characterized the spin last night: “Clearly there’s been a massive flood of Latte sipping African American knowledge workers into rural Maine.“

Mind you, I’ve said before that caucuses may not be the best way to organize a statewide election. But, given both the breadth and depth of Obama’s leads in caucus states all across the country, Sen. Clinton’s continued losses speak less to the inherent problems of caucusing than to the inherent problems of the Clinton campaign. As I said yesterday, if her campaign is any indication of the managerial talent we can expect from a Clinton presidency, the prognosis is not good. To wit, it’s poorly managed, woefully disorganized, suffers from a lack of “activist” enthusiasm, and — like a certain Republican administration I could mention — clearly had no Plan B. (Also, apparently, Sen. Clinton wasn’t apprised of her dismal funding situation until after Iowa. Another managerial coup.)

“Empty Suit”…with a Stovepipe Hat.

The whole thing, really, is a fairy tale.

I mean, give me a break: The guy gives a good speech. Yes. Give him that. But are we electing a toastmaster or a president of the United States? Let’s look at his record to see what qualifies him for the highest office in the land:

Eight years in the Illinois legislature? He was a party loyalist and a temporizer who too often put politics ahead of principle and was cautious rather than bold when it came to controversial issues.

Two years in Washington? Yes, he pontificated about how he opposed the war, but at crunch time he voted to fund it. And his legislative record on Capitol Hill is thin.

Other accomplishments? The enthusiasm for his candidacy was sparked by one big successful speech and is carried along by his gift for uplifting rhetoric.

Consider, in contrast, the senator from New York who is his top rival for the nomination: A history in public life going back 30 years. Solid reform credentials. Clearly far more ready for the Oval Office than the younger, audacious Mr. Slim Silver-tongue from Illinois.

Take that, Lincolnbots. The Chicago Tribune‘s Eric Zorn makes the “experience” case for William H. Seward of New York.

“Obama’s no Abe Lincoln. But, as I observed last February…Abe Lincoln was no Abe Lincoln at this stage of the game either. I point this out simply as a reminder that Lincoln and history went on to make fools of those whose obsession with his shortcomings and failures blinded them to the singular promise of his gifts. Not often, but fairy tales do come true.”

Chronicle of a Win Foretold?

“Clinton, who arrived in the U.S. Senate four years before Obama, has tried to make experience the issue…But if she wants to highlight her White House experience as a defining difference, then it’s only fair to point out that two of the projects she was most deeply involved with produced a debacle (health care) and scandals (fund raising). Especially in recent days, her campaign has shown the sharp elbows that evoke the ugly underside of the Clinton years, and the (Karl Rove inspired) Bush years that succeeded them: the reflex to scorch the Earth, to do what is necessary to vanquish political adversaries … all is justified if you are left standing at the end.

The San Francisco Chronicle endorses Barack Obama for president. “America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness.”

The GOP: Clinton, Please!

“In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being ‘tested’ by her ’35 years of experience’ won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief ‘on Day One’ when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.” The NYT’s Frank Rich sees a Clinton v. McCain contest as tantamount to political suicide for the Dems. I’m inclined to agree.

Kristof: “Experience” is a canard.

“The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred. In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty.” LIke Tim Noah, the NYT’s Nicholas Kristof argues Clinton’s claims of superior “experience” don’t hold up. “[T]he presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the ‘experience’ camp — best qualified to become the next president. That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.”

Kerry Returns Fire.

“[B]eing an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it’s been over the top. Things have been said about Barack Obama’s positions that are just plain untrue. It was said in Nevada, it’s been said about Social Security, it’s been said about Yucca Mountain, and it’s been said in South Carolina. I think it’s very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that.“

John Kerry calls out Bill Clinton to the National Journal, and lays into the experience canard. “We made some tough decisions [in the ’90’s] and we ought to be proud of them, about the budget and the deficit. But the fact is, that was not Hillary Clinton making those decisions. It was a different team, at a different time. In fact, Barack Obama has more legislative experience than either of his two opponents.”

Are you experienced? Uh…

“Clinton’s claim to superior experience isn’t merely dishonest. It’s also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn’t be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That’s especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her “Hillary.” Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we’ll save that for another day.)”

So…now that we’ve (hopefully) stepped back from the abyss of identity politics, where does that leave us? Ah, yes, hope vs. experience. Well, drawing on this NYT story of several weeks ago, Slate‘s Tim Noah argues that Clinton’s claims of superior experience just don’t hold up, and particularly once you factor in John McCain. “Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don’t mean to denigrate her professional experience…But in government, Clinton’s chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer.” Update: Speaking of Dennis Kucinich, he’s back in tomorrow’s Nevada debate. Update 2: Nope, he’s out again, by decision of the Nevada Supreme Court.

Obama’s Iowa: The Clinton Response.

“For a candidate sometimes accused of arrogance, Clinton did little in the immediate aftermath of the Iowa caucuses to suggest that she held herself responsible for the defeat or intended to change her message to attract voters in other states. Instead she and her advisers blamed the electorate and the process, saying the Iowa system is flawed… At the same time, her campaign advisers made some arguments that seemed to defy logic: They contended that, although the Iowa system is too exclusive, she also lost because so many people participated in the process.”

As a candidate who’s been cultivating her inevitability as the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton’s third place finish last night was obviously a huge setback for her (and for her main campaign strategist, Mark Penn.) Still, Senator Clinton is the well-financed, well-organized establishment candidate, and she enjoys both huge name recognition and a Weapon X in her popular, crowd-galvanizing husband. So, how does the Clinton camp propose to turn things around in four days? Let’s take a look.

First, argue that the “real” voters didn’t vote in Iowa. See Senator Clinton’s “concession” speech: “There were a lot of people who couldn’t caucus tonight despite the very large turnout. There are a lot of Iowans who are in the military…There are a lot of people who work at night.”

Second, recognize the youth of today: “Per NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, at an off-camera briefing aboard the Clinton plane, strategist Mark Penn attributed Clinton’s loss to the unprecedented turnout of younger voters. He said they got the voters they’d targeted — but ‘the difference is the under 30 group turned out.’ He suggested they would fix that in New Hampshire ‘by making clear that she was about change for all generations.’“

As such, here’s Clinton’s new approach: “Just seconds into her speech Friday morning, Clinton was declaring herself the candidate for America’s youth. Clinton got off her plane in New Hampshire and declared: ‘This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won’t just call for change, or a president who won’t just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I’ve been doing for 35 years.’ ‘I’m running for president to reclaim the future — the future for all of us, of all ages, but particularly for young Americans,” she said a few seconds later.‘”

Third, convince people Iowa doesn’t matter: “‘The worst thing would be to over count Iowa and its importance,’ said chief strategist Mark Penn…’Iowa doesn’t have a record of picking presidents. We’re in a strong position to move forward.’…’Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city,’ traveling press secretary Jay Carson said. ‘It wouldn’t be wise to put too much emphasis on it.‘” (In NH today, Bill Clinton didn’t even mention last night, although he did ask New Hampshire residents to show their “independent judgment.”)

Fourth, reduce New Hampshire expectations: “‘We have the resources to take this campaign all the way through to the nomination,’ Terry McAuliffe, the campaign chairman, said on the conference call.” “‘President Clinton lost five states before he won a single state in his quest for the nomination,’ Penn said.”

Fifth, insult people’s intelligence: “Mr. McAuliffe said that the campaign ‘exceeded our goals’ in Iowa…’Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee. I feel stronger about that today than ever before.‘” Really? Than you did before yesterday?

Sixth, get ready to go negative: “Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to target what her campaign calls Barack Obama’s inexperience over the next five days in New Hampshire and deliver much sharper – and likely much more personal and negative – attacks against the Iowa winner, according to Democrats familiar with the evolving strategy.“

Update: Oops, look like I missed a particularly virulent one.

Seventh, Take a lowball page from the fired Bill Shaheen and subtly invoke drug hysteria. Exhibit A: “Clinton said, ‘Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated and — my goodness — the most innocent, it turns out.’‘” The most “innocent”? “Asked what she meant when she said earlier to a crowd in Nashua, N.H., that all of the vetting and investigations of her record had found her “most innocent,” Clinton simply said: ‘I think I come into this race tested and proven and ready to take on the Republicans no matter what they send my way.’“

If that “my goodness, whatever was Obama up to?” stunt (basically Choose Your Own Scandal redux) didn’t already reek of desperation, the Clinton camp’s Hail Mary fumbling with drug hysteria push-buttons gets even worse. Also from the ABC article above: “Aiming at Obama’s signature rhetoric, Clinton said what America needs is someone who can ‘actually deliver change’ not ‘false hopes.’ While the senator was vague, her campaign pointed out to ABC News examples of Obama’s liberal positions. In 2004, Obama said he would vote to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes. ‘Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges,’ Obama said in an NAACP debate.“

That they do — In fact the Supreme Court just agreed as much in a 7-2 decision, one which included those crazy liberals John Roberts and Antonin Scalia in the majority. So, what’s Clinton’s point, and what on earth does Obama’s stance on mandatory minimums have do with “change” and “false hopes” anyway? Put plainly, they seem to be saying, “Obama isn’t only a former drug user, he’s soft on them too.” Willie Horton much, Senator Clinton? Coming from Shaheen a month ago, it was bad enough. Coming from the candidate herself, this is a new low.

At any rate, it should be noted that while the Granite State terrain ostensibly favors Obama, and, as noted below, the Iowa bounce is real, Clinton is currently up six in NH, according to today’s (pre-Iowa) Zogby poll: 32% to Obama’s 26% (to Edwards’ 20%). [Update 2: Obama up 10?(!)] So keep an eye out for the debate on Saturday night. Obama still has some ground to make up, and Clinton isn’t going anywhere just yet. Despite last night’s impressive win, the Obama team can’t just rest on the laurels of Iowa to keep moving through New Hampshire. Let’s do it again.