More signs of post-Feb. 5 incompetence from the Clinton camp. Just as they only recently “discovered” the rules in Texas, they somehow didn’t manage to file a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania, despite having the backing of the state’s Democratic machine and despite Clinton supporter Gov. Ed Rendell giving the campaign an extension to do so. “It appears Clinton came up 10 or 11 candidates short across a number of congressional districts, including two in Philadelphia. That’s close to 10 percent of the 103 delegates to be decided by voters. It appears the shortage would’ve been double that if Rendell hadn’t extended last week’s candidate filing deadline by a day and a half, ostensibly due to bad weather.”
Category: Penn/McAuliffe/Wolfson Idiocies
Second-Class Citizens.
“‘Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,’ says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. ‘The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.‘” More bad news for non-Clinton-voting states: You’re not only insignificant to Mark Penn, a Clinton campaign co-chair thinks you’re second-class. Also, to the 2004 red-states of Ohio and definitely Texas, I’m afraid this pretty clearly includes you as well. Sorry, but, as always, please vote Democratic regardless.
Clinton: Obama is Bidenesque.
Sigh…Flailing about like a drowning victim, the Clinton campaign tries to accuse Sen. Obama of plagiarism for echoing remarks by friend and Obama supporter Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts regarding the value of words. (Both quoted such examples as “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” “I have a dream,” and “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” as times when words did, in fact, matter.) I’m sorry, but this is somewhat ludicrous, particularly coming from the grift-happy Clinton camp. (In fact, when asked point blank if Sen. Clinton has been known to lift from others, her campaign demurred.) For Gov. Patrick’s part, he said: “Senator Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Senator Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did.“
Ok, for one, much political rhetoric is by its nature an amalgamation of soundbites and talking points from other places. (See also Clinton and “Yes, we can,” or John McCain’s “ready to lead.”) For another, it’s not as if Sen. Obama (or his speechwriters) lifted entire paragraphs from some other source. He — and Patrick — both cited the most well-known examples in our history of words making a difference. It’s an obvious and devastating riposte to Clinton’s idiotic assertion that rhetoric is worthless. Could he have snuck Deval Patrick’s name in there? Well, I suppose so (as does Obama), but, really, this is pretty standard stuff in the political world. (And, before we consign ourselves to a political rhetoric characterized by interminable footnotes, let’s not forget: 95% of the time every word out of any candidate’s mouth — including Clinton’s — has been written by someone else.)
In any case, with this sad plagiarism riff, the Clinton campaign has shown once again that it will yield to nothing or noone in its race to the bottom. Please, go away, already. You’ve become an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Update: Former Carter speechwriter (and a friend and mentor of sorts) James Fallows calls shenanigans on the Clinton campaign.
Ready (to Screw Up) On Day One.
“Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state’s unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended. What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa’s heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates.” The Clinton campaign “discovers” the long-standing Texas primary rules this month. I mean, why bother to learn the state rules before running for president (or before making Texas the last-ditch firewall)? As a TPM commenter deadpanned, Sen. Clinton must have just presumed she’d be greeted as a liberator.
What are they paying Mark Penn $4.3 million for again? Did their Texas strategy encompass anything beyond kids in mariachi outfits? This is rank incompetence, and no way to run a presidential campaign…or a country.
The Clinton Spin gets Even Dumber.
As the Clinton campaign begins pulling out all the stops in Wisconsin, Mark Penn, he of the “impressionable elites” and “insignificant states,” offers up another doozy: “Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.” So…winning primaries is not a good way to pick a candidate now. Can we still get Mike Gravel as our standard-bearer, then?
For his part, Clinton adviser and superdelegate Harold Ickes (son of the prominent progressive and New Dealer) at least conceded the importance of winning, although he too is putting his faith on a bailout by the supers (and/or a successful joint pincer movement with McCain.) According to him, the campaign will go until June, whereupon supers will flock to Clinton. “‘At or about – certainly, shortly after – the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination,’ Ickes said. ‘She’s going to have a majority of the delegates.’” Sorry, not bloody likely. (About that June 7 match-up, tho, Sen. Obama recently picked up the endorsement of Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, so even that final Clinton firewall looks to be suffering from a few cracks.)
Clinton: If we have to, we’ll steal it.
It’s sad to have to put aside the Valentine’s Day cheer so soon after midnight, but there’s no other way to put it: The Clinton campaign have lost their damn fool minds. At first, all seemed well. In an article by NYT‘s Adam Nagourney, Clinton officials reiterated what Howard Fineman reported last night: that the Clinton campaign basically admitted they wouldn’t match Sen. Obama’s pledged delegate total. “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. They said the Democratic Party’s rules, which award delegates relatively evenly among the candidates based on the proportion of the vote they receive, would require her to win by huge margins in those states to match Mr. Obama in delegates won through voting.” This is true, and it’s the crux of their dilemma. Their last hope lies in racking up massive and decisive wins in Ohio and Texas, which is highly unlikely but worth the old college try. But, here’s the warning sign: “With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count.“
Sure enough, they have. According to the Boston Globe, forget Ohio and Texas: The Clinton campaign has said it will not concede the race, even if it is clear they’ve lost the delegate count on June 7 (Puerto Rico). “Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.” Never give up, never surrender! So, in effect, they’re saying they’ll risk an ugly and suicidal party schism, in the vain hope that the superdelegates don’t decide to renounce them en masse once they come in second, which they’re now basically admitting they will. And how are they going to convince the supers to back their play? Enter campaign strategist Mark Penn: “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.“
So…sorry you had to hear it this way, but Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Washington: you are not significant. Or at least according to the Clinton campaign. But please do vote Democratic in November.
As I said above, I never expected the Clinton campaign to make any drastic decisions until after March 4. I mean, I know they themselves aren’t big on the audacity of hope, but you never know: They might well be able to pull out the huge margins they need in both Ohio and Texas to stay mathematically viable. Stranger things have happened, some in this very election, and after the New Hampshire comeback, I’m not going to count them out until those returns come in. But, right now, they’re flat-out embarrassing themselves. [Globe and MSNBC links via TPM.]
Update: The Prospect‘s Ezra Klein is not happy: “If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton’s chances in the general election…This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton’s campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that’s not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities.“
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.)
The Victim Card…Again.
“I regret the way that this matter has been used,’ Clinton told reporters. ‘The comments about it are baseless and divisive. I was personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful.’” When asked about Congressman Jim Clyburn’s dissatisfaction with her recent remarks on the civil rights movement, Sen. Hillary Clinton suggests she‘s the aggrieved party here, and, worse, that a vast Obama conspiracy is to blame for people — including Clyburn — finding fault with her remarks. “She suggested reporters consider the sources of the criticism, much of which has come from the black community. ‘I think it clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign and I don’t think it’s the kind of debate we should be having in our campaign,’ she said.” Wow. I mean, I’m running out of ways to be surprised here. Isn’t this the exact same cynical and misleading strategy that President Clinton just accused Senator Obama of running? This is just getting depressing.
Update: On Meet the Press, Sen. Hillary Clinton continues the “Vast Obama Conspiracy” defense. “‘This is, you know, a, a — an unfortunate story line that the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully,’ she said. ‘They’ve been putting out talking points. They’ve been making this — they’ve been telling people, in a very selective way, what the facts are.” Uh, swift-boat much? What evidence do you have that the Obama team is responsible for people finding your recent actions dismaying? And why not just say your words could be misconstrued, apologize, and move on? Instead, we get: “Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this.” What media reports? (The closest I could find was this, when an Obama spokesman suggested there might be a “pattern” here. Well, given Billy Shaheen, mandatory minimums, “imaginary hip black friend,” and such readily misconstruable remarks as “fairy tale” and “kid,” and the LBJ “It takes a president” history lesson, I can see why one might think so. But I see little other evidence that the Obama campaign is responsible for the general dismay surrounding the Clintons right now. These people have no sense of shame.
Update 2: Obama’s response: “‘The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.” Meanwhile, the Clinton people point to this memo, drawn up by Amaya Smith, Obama’s press secretary in SC but not released to the press. Sigh…this may well be the dumb mistake the Clintons have been baiting the Obama team to make. Still, having read through the memo, I’m not seeing any “deliberate distortions” of the Clintons’ behavior, so much as a litany of the unfortunate incidents that have been emanating from the Clinton camp. (I hadn’t heard the Trippi v. Penn “cocaine” one. Cute.) Plus, the memo seems to follow the concerned responses of leaders such as Jim Clyburn and Donna Brazile — in fact, that’s the newspeg. Hard to say that it created them.
Update 3: Hillary Clinton is defended by BET’s Robert Johnson, who also sees fit to bring up the drug spectre again. “‘As an African American, I’m frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won’t say what he was doing but he said it in his book’…Clinton’s campaign says Johnson was not referring to Obama’s past drug use. Meanwhile, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, another African-American supporter of Clinton, said of the comments, ‘Sometimes people say things that aren’t sanctioned…I can’t speak for Bob.’“
Update 4: Johnson — previously a stalwart foe of the estate tax, by the way — also went on to compare Obama to Sidney Poitier, and not in a good way. Yep, a classy day all around for Team Clinton. I have to think this’ll backfire.
Update 5: Johnson’s official response to his earlier comment: “Johnson said it would be ‘simply irresponsible and incorrect’ to read his words that way. ‘My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else.’” Now, read back into the original quote, that clearly doesn’t make a lick of sense. But who’s got his back? Why, Bill Clinton: “I think we have to take him at his word.” It’s not a lie if you believe it, right, Mr. President?
Suppressing Votes in Vegas.
When in doubt, disenfranchise. You may have heard Senator Clinton say this the other day about caucuses: “‘You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard,’ Clinton (D-N.Y.) said. ‘That is troubling to me. You know, in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised.” (She said something similar after losing Iowa.) Well, it turns out now her team is trying to speed along the disenfranchising: A Clinton-supporting teachers’ union is now attempting to prevent caucusing on the Las Vegas strip, so as to undercut the ability of culinary workers (whose union backed Obama) to caucus on Jan. 19. “The complaint, with the state teachers union and some party activists as plaintiffs, came as Obama accepted the endorsement of the Culinary Union.” As — not before. When the Culinary Union endorsement was up for grabs, nary a peep was heard from the Clinton folk. (By way of The Daily Dish.)
Update: The WP has more: “The state party quickly dismissed the lawsuit. Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details. ‘This is a fair, legal and proper way to choose delegates under established law and legal precedent that has been reviewed by attorneys….The time for comment or complaint has passed,’ the party said in a statement.” [My emphasis.]
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.
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.‘”
Update: Oops, look like I missed a particularly virulent one.
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.