BREAKING NEWS: Obama camp picks 2 more confirmed supers & possibly 9 more!

The dripping faucet for the Clinton campaign is now becoming a full-fledged leaking faucet as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), yes another woman politician, announced her public endorsement. It was earlier in March when she told the NY Times when referring to the Illinois senator's victory in Minnesota's caucuses last month:

"Barack's impressive showing in our state is attractive to me..."

Texas superdelegate Senfronia Thompson, the state representative from Houston, reported the Houston Chronicle originally pledged her support to Clinton, upon hearing from enough of her constituents she threw her support to Obama. Thompson says she will stay with Obama — unless her constituents feel strongly she should support Clinton.

"The people I represent may say we need to change our position again," Thompson said.

They also reported that superdelegate Al Edwards, stated he pledged his support to Obama over the weekend. But on Wednesday, a spokesman for the Obama campaign said they weren't counting on Edwards' support.

The Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal is reporting that Klobuchar joins eight other Minnesota superdelegates who are supporting Obama Reps. Jim Oberstar, Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, Betty McCollum and DNC members Mee Moua, Ken Foxworth, Brian Melendez and Donna Cassutt.

"One North Carolinian confirmed that at least several of the state's House members would go public in favor of Sen. Obama before long."

While MSNBC reports that the campaign has not confirmed it yet...

"North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say." But Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read that there will be no endorsements from North Carolina congressmen coming today. "That did not come from our campaign, we have not confirmed that," Burton adds.

This puts the hard count on superdelegates at 214-to-246, and now 10 soft confirmations meaning that Obama is probably within 22 of Clinton---AND GAINING. In March (to date Obama picked up 27 superdelegate endorsements to Clinton's net 6 (she lost 2, possibly 3).

The March continues...more superdelegate endorsements and Clinton's being worn down

I missed yesterday and there was what seems to be the normal pace of developments and news. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) gave a surprise endorsement of Obama conceivably providing a boost to the vaunted rural/urban white male blue collar vote in the 6th largest state. Also Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) and one of the big kahoona's of the Democratic political power elite started the drum beat to have Senator Clinton fold up her presidential bid. My thinking is this drum beat will continue as the Pennsylvania primary comes closer as a warning to the Clinton's that if they continue in their negative and bully tactics more and more power elites will step away from her.

The net effect is that Obama garnished not one (Casey) but two superdelegate commitments as also Politico.com listed Steve Alari (CA-DNC) stating that he had announced his support for Obama back on January 11th. This means that Obama has 211 hard count superdelegates and an additional (2) with the apparent commitments of Mike Panetta (DC-DNC) because of process confusion which appears will be cleared up before the convention and Paul J. Kirk Jr., (MA-DNC) but other news reports say he is uncommitted. This would mean Obama has 213 endorsements to Clinton's 246 and within 33. With the leading statement of Sen. Maria Cartwell (D-WA) who said she would support the idea of whomever had the most pledged delegates she would vote for even though she is on record supporting Clinton one could say Clinton is at 245.

There is another interesting report that has surfaced demonstrating Obama's political savvy in that his PAC has contributed to more superdelegates than the Clinton PAC. In an article from the McClatchy Newspapers:

McCaskill and Matsui are among the nearly 800 superdelegates who have a say in who heads the Democratic ticket this fall.

While both women say the PAC contributions did not influence their choice for president, a study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take.

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82% of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.

More on polling, superdelegates commitments & that debate and "more Clinton war stories"

As the days wear on towards April 22nd things are becoming clearer and more sublime. Obama and his campaign for the nomination and eventual Presidential win is holding firm as the recent tracking polls show him reacquiring his former lead while Clinton's negatives continue to escalate with her "kneecapping" campaign tactics. MSNBC stated that the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll recorded Obama leading Clinton 48% to 44% (Obama gaining a point while Clinton losing 2). This also coincides where Clinton's negatives in the NBC-WSJ poll have reached the lowest positives ratings since 2001. All told Clinton only sports a 37% positive rating and:

"Our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run.

Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.

Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him."

We have recorded two more commitments of superdelegates for Obama, Rep. Lipinski (D-IL) finally publicly announced his support and Don Williams (add-on-CT): The Sun-Times reports that:

Lipinski had been one of the two remaining holdouts among Democratic superdelegates in Illinois' congressional delegation. He says he's endorsed Obama because of the candidate's emphasis on overcoming partisanship and uniting the country....
...Representative Rahm Emanuel of Chicago is a former White House aide to President Clinton and now the chairman of the House Democratic Conference, and he remains neutral in the presidential race."

This leads us to the growing debate regarding superdelegates as the power play continues. The big Clinton donors are now trying to pressure Pelosi regarding her unique position by using their fund-raising abilities to the DCCC (Congressional races):

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Her response was as interesting to walking the tight rope.

“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

This is very close to Obama's position, though not exact, yet she's agreeing with Obama's claim that going against the voters would damage the party. Now a bit on this dynamic, for stuck in the cracks of aformenttion NBC/WSJ poll was revealing numbers on the question of how Democrats would react if the super-delegates delivered the nomination to the candidate that isn't leading in the pledged-delegate count:

If One of the candidates loses among delegates selected by voters but still wins the nomination by winning among superdelegates, would you consider that nominee legitimate, would you consider that nominee NOT legitmate, or do you not have an opinion either way?

Would consider nominee legitimate 29%

Would consider nominee NOT legitimate 38%

No opinion either way 28%

Get the picture....Obama is winning...he is beating the Clinton's by withstanding the negative kneecapping, the political pressure on the superdelegates and he continues to gain on superdelegates and the electorate would be mad if the superdelegates overturned the outcome. Now for another war story from Hillary:

The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a "war zone" by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began.

Just because something has appeared in a newspaper does not mean that is entirely accurate. The Clinton camp has circulated a March 26, 1996, quote from a Post article describing Clinton's Bosnia trip as "the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone." The article went on to say that "other first ladies have visited troops abroad but never in front-line positions," citing the examples of Bush and Nixon.

How these factoids got into the Post story is unclear, but they offer a somewhat misleading picture of the relative risks being run by the three first ladies. By almost any measure, the Nixon trip to Saigon in July 1969 should surely count as the most dangerous of the three visits. Unlike Bosnia in March 1996 and Saudi Arabia in November 1990, South Vietnam was an actual, not "potential," war zone in the aftermath of the 1968 Tet offensive, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gene Boyer, the Nixons' chief helicopter pilot.

"This was a combat mission," Boyer said yesterday, noting that more than 2,000 U.S. helicopter pilots were shot down and killed in Vietnam. "There were no front lines. Everything outside of Saigon was a war zone..."

Boyer had spent three or four days in Saigon before the Nixons' arrival, planning the trip and assessing the risks. The itinerary was changed at the last moment, just in case word had leaked out to the Viet Cong. To reduce the risk from machine-gun fire, Boyer made almost vertical landings and takeoffs from above 1,500 feet.

In the meantime, Clinton's claims about a "corkscrew" landing in Tuzla, Bosnia, have been challenged by the pilot who commanded the C-17 that flew her from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Speaking in a radio interview on the "Rusty Humphries Show," retired Air Force Col. William "Goose" Changose said that he did not undertake any kind of "evasive" maneuver on the approach to Tuzla, and that the only reason the descent was a little steeper than normal was because there were hills around.

"Not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around," Changose recalled.

There would seem little more to debunk about Clinton's adventures in Bosnia. But it is worth correcting the record about Pat Nixon's visit to Vietnam in July 1969. I have already assigned the maximum four Pinocchios to Clinton for her Tuzla tale.

To those reading this daily blog I want to ask a question: Are those Democrats aiding and abetting Clinton's destructive campaign are they really good Democrats allowing her the time and means to tear apart the whole party for her personal political ambition?

"Tanya Harding kneecapping" has Democratic Party's (Harry Reid) leadership responded?

I stated a couple of weeks ago that how Obama responded to the Wright controversy would determine the party's nomination and ultimately the election. Obama did and Gov. Bill Richardson responded (as did the recovery in the daily Gallup tracking poll where on March 16th Obama fell below Clinton for 6 days until March 22nd and has maintained his lead since. Yet since the "kitchen sink" strategy that was publicly pronounced since the end of February all that has resulted is a continuing escalation of personal political assaults on Obama by the Clinton camp reminding all of us of the "scorched earth" political climate of the Clinton Presidential Era, except this time the Clinton's are the learned initiators. This is the natural consequence of a campaign that has fully vented the political policy matters through 20 debates and over 40 state contests where now it has befallen upon a personal popularity game where in the words of Clinton's has been reduced to nothing more than a "mean-spirited cat fight". Is that sexist or apropos? But I think this coming to an end far more quickly than the press are expecting.

Let me review a few things: Jake Tapper of ABC News on his blog Political Punch reported yesterday that a Democratic Official described Clinton was pursuing a "Tanya Harding Option". If you don't recall that sad chapter, Tonya Harding was a figure skating aspirant who had a 'band of henchmen'--- her ex-husband Jeff Gillooly, Derrick Smith, Shawn Eckardt and Shane Stant, where they clubbed figure skating rival Nancy Kerrigan on the knee to remove her from the Olympic qualifying competition. Ironically, I have a niece who is also a current Olympic hopeful and where I am told the politics under the surface are extremely vile, but again that is for another subject. Tapper reports:

I just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.

The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tanya Harding Option---the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.

(In this metaphor, presumably, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be Oksana Baiul. Does that make former President Bill Clinton Jeff Gillooly?)

This leads to the ultimate conclusion is what Chris Matthews' Hardball posed to his panel of pundits on Monday March 24th:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL...

I want you all to pay close attention to this, and to the extent your ability allows you, decide what you think, based upon your reporting, would be the favorite option and the least favorite option and the ones in the middle for Senator Clinton at this point.

• Number one, Senator Clinton wins the nomination of the Democratic party and then goes on to win the general election. Is that the best scenario for Senator Clinton? Probably.
• Number two, Obama wins the nomination, but McCain wins the general election.
• Three, Clinton wins the nomination and McCain wins the general election.
• Or four, Hillary Clinton—Obama wins the nomination and the election. Keep that board up there while we each go through it. Please hold that up there.
  

Gene Robinson, for Hillary Clinton, what‘s the worst-case scenario for her? Is it number four, that Barack Obama becomes the greatest Democratic president in modern times, and everybody forgets her husband and forgets she ever ran?

EUGENE ROBINSON, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: It‘s the worst case for her chances of ever being president. If he she wants to be president, that‘s the worst thing for her. If she wants to be remembered as a great Democrat and a great figure in the party, then, you know, an option in which a Democrat wins is that.

MATTHEWS: You threaded the needle here. I want to go—before I get to Norah, I want to go to Chuck. ...Obviously, Hillary Clinton would like to win the whole shebang at this point, even, when it‘s really a long shot at this point. I think we would all agree. But would she be happier having a McCain win the presidency ultimately or the man she‘s fighting hardest right now, because she keeps saying McCain is qualified to be commander-in-chief. He‘s another lover of the country, another patriot, seemingly to the exclusion of the other guy, Barack.

Does she really prefer Barack over John McCain to be the next president?

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: She is in a fight for the nomination, a heated fight. We have gotten to the point where the two sides now hate each other more than they hate the eventually enemy. And right now she is in an alliance, whether they have formed it officially or not—McCain and Clinton are in alliance because McCain knows how to run against Clinton, has been preparing to run against Clinton in a general election...

...Clinton, of course, wants to prove that Obama can‘t beat McCain, so needs to make McCain a stronger and stronger nominee. It is her path to nomination. I think we can‘t read her mind and sit there and say, gee, she certainly hopes Obama doesn‘t get—does she want to be president?

MATTHEWS: If he wins, she‘ll never be president. He‘ll get the nomination four years ago.


MATTHEWS: ...Norah: when you look at this, do you go with Gene‘s theory that Hillary Clinton would like to be president someday, if she can‘t win it this time, she‘s still hopeful, and therefore, would really, deep down, prefer that the door be kept open by the election of John McCain who will only serve, perhaps, four years and certainly will be vulnerable to an attack from the Democrats four years later.

NORAH O‘DONNELL, MSNBC CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the answer to your test, Chris, is choice number two, which is that she would rather have Obama win the nomination and have McCain win the general election, so that in 2012 she can come back and run against McCain. That clearly would be the second-best-case scenario other than her winning the whole thing.

MATTHEWS: That also fits into the strategy. By the way, this is not idle discussion, because I have been looking at the performance of the Clinton campaign, and I completely understand why they‘re doing it, if this is her ambition. They‘re very tough an Obama. They‘re not cutting him much slack. I detected a little cutting of slack today, but they‘re really going after him this week, saying he‘s the one running the dirty campaign. He‘s the one trying to destroy her character. When they‘re out there really being tough with Obama.

This is not idle chatter yesterday Matthews also brought forward an interesting twist on Carville's "Judas" metaphor regarding Richardson's endorsement offering that disloyalty right now will have severe consequences as the presumption is that the Clinton's will rise again if not in 2008 then presumably in 2012. REALLY, will the Democratic Party allow that to happen? I think not for Harry Reid responded to the entire "kneecapping" with this interview in his home state newspaper, the Las Vegas Review Journal yesterday.
While Democrats across the country are anguished about the bitter fight for their presidential nomination, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't appear to be losing any sleep over it.

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it.

How do you interpret this? I interpret it as that the party leaders who are the superdelegates are not going to destroy the ticket for Clinton's personal ambition and very soon are going to come down in a large way and endorse Obama making certain he has the delegates to win the nomination in the first ballot. Symbolically and through leadership they can pull in many of the leadership and even have some superdelegates committed to Clinton switch and take away any of that 5% chance. In essence they will state to any Clinton fund raising effort that the matter is over and no more money for you to kneecap the party and the party's standard bearer.

More evidence is that the Op-Ed pages the most striking being NYTimes David Brooks

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair
without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent...

...For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Let us now see how much guts do the leadership have? Watch if the Democrats start coming out in a daily parade, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Hoyer, Emmanuel followed by many of the other undeclared 200 or so superdelegates which are DNC members---which goes to Howard Dean's reference.

More on the superdelegate vote---good news for Obama

No matter how you slice or dice it Obama has won the superdelegate endorsement game since the Iowa Caucus and especially since February 5th when he basically ran the table in February. Brian Schaeffer at the Center for Congressional Presidential Studies at the American University has been doing some deep statistical research---stuff I actually love! Schaeffer states that:

"using statistical models to generate estimates for how likely each unpledged superdelegate was to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. March 3rd the models had successfully predicted the endorsements of 71% of the previously unpledged superdelegates. Thus, this model provides a reasonable way of getting a sense of which candidate the remaining superdelegates will favor."

Since my last estimates, 17 superdelegates have announced their candidate endorsements and we predicted 11 of those correctly (65%)."Overall, since we began generating these predictions, 82 superdelegates have announced their endorsements, and we have been correct on 57 of these. Thus, overall, the models have been correct about 70% of the time...

...I have updated the predictions for which candidate unpledged Democratic superdelegates are likely to support. As before, I use information about the superdelegates who have committed to a candidate to generate predictions for the remaining unpledged superdelegates. I exclude superdelegates from DC and the territories because we lack complete data from those areas, and from IL, NY, and AR because superdelegates in those states have nearly unanimously cast their support for their native son/daughter.

Superdelegates who are between 40% and 60% likely to vote for Clinton/Obama are labeled as "unclear." There are 78 superdelegates in this range. There are 171 unpledged superdelegates who are at least 60% likely to vote for Obama; just 19 unpledged superdelegates are at least 60% likely to vote for Clinton. These predictions suggest that Obama will be able to cut into and even overtake Clinton's superdelegate lead in the coming weeks and months. Unless something significant changes, there seems to be little hope for the Clinton campaign in hoping that the superdelegates will help her erase Obama's lead.

These estimates show that among Obama's most likely endorsers are Governor Dave Freudenthal (WY), Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), and Rep. Tom Allen (ME). Clinton's most likely endorsers include Reps. Jerry McNerney, Susan Davis, and Lois Capps (all from CA).

All told using his prediction model and Obama would pick up 43 to 11 and being 34 behind now coming within 2 by sometime in May. Furthermore Senator Cantwell (D-WA) is reported to be on the fence leaving Clinton and endorsing Obama.

Interesting Endorsement List for Obama

Woman Senators: Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and former Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO) {Clinton has 6 including herself, of the 12 woman senators}


Senate Chairman, (consider them super-superdelegates for there is bite in their bark): Conrad (D-ND) Budget; Dodd (D-CT) Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs; Dorgan (D-ND) Democratic Policy and Indian Affairs; Durbin (D-IL) Majority Whip; Johnson (D-SD) Ethics; Kennedy (D-MA) Health, Education, Labor; Kerry (D-MA) Small Business; Leahy (D-VT) Judiciary; Rockefeller (D-WV) Intelligence; other notables; Feingold (D-WI), Nelson (D-NE), Paul Strauss (D-DC), . (12) {Clinton has 13; 20 remain neutral)

Woman Congresspersons: Melissa Bean (D-IL); Gwen Moore (D-WI); Zoe Lofgren (D-CA); Betty McCollum (D-MN); Kathy Castor (D-FL); Linda Sanchez (D-CA); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT); Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH); Anna Eshoo (D-CA); Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD); Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC); Barabara Lee (D-CA) (.13) {Clinton has 73 to 71 of all Democratic Representatives, 78 remain uncommitted.}

Woman Governors: Christine Gregoire (D-WA); Janet Napolitano (D-AZ); & Kathleen Sebelius; plus 8 others; Acevede-Vila (D-PR), Blgojevich (D-IL), Culver (D-IA), De Jongh (D-VI), Doyle (D-WI), Kaine (D-VA), Patrick (D-NM), Richardson (D-NM). (12) {Clinton has 10 to Obama's 12, 9 remain uncommitted.}

Former Presidential Aides: Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's Natl Sec Advisor), William Daley (Sec of Commerce), Anthony Lake (Clinton's Natl Sec Advisor), Ted Sorensen (JFK's Advisor/speechwriter), David Wilhelm (Clinton's '92 campaign chairman), Clifford Alexander (Sec of the Army), Richard Danzig (Sec of the Navy), Gen McPeak (Sec of USAF), Adm John Nathman (Vice Chief of Naval Operations), F Whitten Peters (Sec of USAF), Paul Volcker (Chairman of the Fed Reserve).

Krauthammer, 30 pieces of silver and irrelevancy

I received more than a couple of emails from readers who wanted to enlighten me on "Charles Krauthammer's" column that appeared in our Sunday's Gazette titled: "Obama's Speech leaves a few question marks" and I thought I might shed some perspective on good old Charles and the entire right-wing its pending irrelevancy. Krauthammer is one of the best right-wing intellectual propagandist's who find every communication means to partake in their psychological warfare.

In above column Krauthammer attempts to parse and breakdown Obama's major points of connecting Obama's grandmother's fear of strange African-American men on the street and occasionally expressing racial bias to that of Rev. Wright's pulpit epitaphs as ill-conceived "moral equivalence" and "white guilt". He bellows at Obama for tolerating (this of course is Charles twisted worldview) the racism of Rev. Wright, for Krauthammer knows racial & ethnic bigotry personally as he is open about his hatred towards all Arabs. Krauthammer has stated on television numerous times that Israel must triumphant in every conceivable political situation with the Arabs where they are always wrong and that the Jews are always victims in a world perpetually divided between them and gentiles.

The simple conclusion is that Charles the commentator of the past sees the world no different than how Rev. Wright does; crazy old uncles who only see oppressors and the oppressed. That is the 20th Century view. Thus, seeing the world as in warped Krauthammer's paranoid world view is nothing other than a historical-cultural memory rather than on life's personal journey.

Yes, Rev. Wright experienced racism all throughout his life, while Krauthammer, who ironically grew up in neighboring Canada, went to the privileged halls of McGill College and Harvard U., where he never actually suffered the ravages that were inflicted on Jews throughout history and especially in the 20th Century. Even though genocide social injustices, prejudices and historical oppression that have been placed on Jews is real, and the need to continually validate it, Charles' virtual experience does not compare with Rev. Wright's personal experience, where in all reality Wright's paranoia is far more legitimate---meaning Krauthammer's effort to minimize Obama's speech through his questions is simply more of Charles' effort at psychological propagandizing--for the gain of the right-wing, which he serves.

James Carville's outrageous and inflammatory statement calling Gov. Richardson's endorsement of Obama as an:

“An act of betrayal,” an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

The personal nature of the Clinton camp's characterizations continues to confirm the point that the Clinton's failed mindset that their quest for the White House was entitled and that all that oppose them are personally disloyal. One thing is for certain the psychological warfare of the constant Clinton attack on the Obama movement is doing two things; it is cementing the nation's consciousness that or the validity of her negative numbers and two, her willingness to to try to win at all cost, including the health of the Democratic Party. My intuition is that another Big Superdelegate will fall in Obama's camp this week giving cover to Bill Richardson. One other note is that whether the 30 pieces reference was meant to say that Bill Richardson will receive the vaunted Secretary of State role when Obama wins the presidency.
Finally Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) was on the Sunday morning talk show circuit when he was a guest on "This Week with George Stepanopolous" s discussing his book "GOP's Future" where he says:

"Watershed years such as 1994, 1980, 1932 and 1854....all had one thing in common. The political party in power were thrown out because the people saw it as irrelevant and incapable of leading America....We are living in such a time."

Hagel went on to deny his party was in a state of irrelevancy, but the reality is altogether different; their fund-raising is down, their voter registration is down, their voter participation is down and my father's description of the three candidates running then in Florida was: Worst, Worster, and Worstest. I would be interested to hear what any of you say either via email or comment.

Gallop Tracking Poll: Obama reclaims lead!

Today's Gallup tracking poll now shows that Obama has retaken the national lead over Ms. Clinton. This following a week of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy which had badly damaged his poll numbers placing him behind Ms. Clinton for almost a week.

• Obama 48%
• Clinton 45%

This appears to confirm that Obama's big speech last Tuesday possibly combined with the Gov. Richardson superdelegate endorsement on Friday has gone a long way reestablishing Obama's poll numbers, although the Obama campaingn has of yet to fully recover the six-point lead he had over a week ago.

This one might really stick---WaPo Fact Checker bust Clinton on Bosnia visit

(WaPo 4 Pinocchios = WHOPPERS!)

Ms. Hillary Clinton appears to have a pattern of hyperbole and exaggeration when it comes to her co-presidential, history-making and even dangerous experience as First Lady, but her March 17th at George Washington U. speech takes the cake. Often Ms. Clinton told supporters on the campaign about her 'hair-raising tales' of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling of the story ( a real whopper, I might add), she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous."

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Hillary and Chelsea on the the tarmac, err a picture is worth a 1000 words!

WaPo puts the facts in order:

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on 01/13/1996 (see pic on the right).

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way. See clarification below.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian". Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me.

Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport.

UPDATE Friday 6:45 p.m.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:

I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

UPDATE Saturday 8:45 a.m.

Gen. Nash says that I misquoted him in saying he was unaware of any "security threat" to the First Lady. While he was unaware of any "sniper threat," he now tells me there were a couple of "security concerns" that day, which he found out about after returning to his headquarters after greeting Clinton at the airport. There was a "non-specific report" of a possible truck bomb in the area. The military also had information that "some of the communications associated with the First Lady's visit were being monitored."

"In both cases, we took appropriate security action," said Nash, adding that Clinton's visit was not disrupted.

Just to make you feel better: CBS Poll states good news on Obama speech

A CBS poll shows Barack Obama effectively stemmed the negative tide regarding the Wright revelations and received high marks for his speech on race relations.

The poll stated that 69% of registered voters saying Obama did a good job of addressing race relations, and 71% said he did a good job explaining his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. The poll also indicated that 63% saying they agree with Obama on race relations.

Of voters who did follow the Wright revelations; 14% said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result the controversy — but an an equal 14% stating they were more likely to vote for him, and 70% saying it made no difference.

There does appear to be some lasting damage, where on whether voters believe Obama can unite the country; that question he is at 52% Yes to 35% No, showing a precipitous decline from the score of 67%-25% in February---bad news for the Clinton whispering campaign!

Unmasking the Clinton myth; slim & none....

Recently there has been a media din that there is this Clinton mystique, this urban myth that somehow, someway, the Clinton's are going to get the superdelegates to overturn the ballot box and caucus results of the rank & file Democratic voters and nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Don't believe it for it is a fairytale, a movie script, a fisherman's tall tale.

This political illusion is fed by the fictitious premise that somehow, someway the Clinton campaign is going to eventually emerge with popular vote, which by all calculations would be a modern-day miracle on the level of a Biblical story. Politico.com's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen did a story on this which makes for a MUST READ titled: Story behind the story: The Clinton Myth.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why or how this make-believe is happening? Vandehei & Allen say that the press have become partners with the Clintons in promoting this snake-oil sell job because of all things a self interest to carry on the race for of all things----love of a close race that just happens to make money.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.

Looking at the numbers currently Obama holds a 703,000 (2.6%) vote lead 13.281M to 12.577M. In of itself a 700,00 vote lead is significant but it would take Clinton winning 60% of the remaining primaries to wrestle the popular vote lead. That said it is not that easy, for she only won by that margin in three states, New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas where Obama has won by that margin in 17 states. Even if Pennsylvania comes to the polls with record numbers, the greatest estimate that Clinton could only gain 300,000 on the lead. This loss will probably be all but made up with Guam, North Carolina and Indiana.

West Virginia will probably go with Clinton, but alas Oregon could go with Obama in excess of 60% again negating any gain Clinton hoped to gain with the border state Kentucky on the same day. Where with Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota Obama could actually extend his popular lead or at least hold serve. Politico continues:

The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon.

Harold Ickes, an icon of the Democratic Party who is Clinton’s chief delegate strategist, points out that every previous forecast about this race has been faulty.

Asked about the Obama campaign’s contention that it’s mathematically impossible for Clinton to win, Ickes replied: “They can’t count. At the end of it, even by the Obama campaign’s prediction, neither candidate will have enough delegates to be nominated.”

This is true, as a matter of math. But even the Clinton campaign’s own best-case scenario has her finishing behind Obama when all the nominating contests are over.

"She will be close to him but certainly not equal to him in pledged delegates,” a Clinton adviser said. “When you add the superdelegates on top of it, I’ll think she’ll still be behind him somewhat in total delegates — but very, very close.”The total gap is likely to be 75 to 110, the adviser said.

That means Clinton would need either some of those pledged delegates to switch their support — which technically they can do, though it would be unlikely — or for the white-dominated group of superdelegates to join forces with her to topple Obama.

To foster doubt about Obama, Clinton supporters are using a whisper and pressure campaign to make an 11th-hour argument to party insiders that he would be a weak candidate in November despite his superior standing at the moment.

“All she has left is the electability argument,” a Democratic official said. "It’s all wrapped around: Is there something that makes him ultimately unelectable?”

But the audience for that argument, the superdelegates, will not easily overturn the will of the party’s voters. And in fact, a number of heavyweight Democrats are looking at the landscape and laying the groundwork to dissuade Clinton from trying to overturn the will of the party rank and file.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has not endorsed either candidate, appears to be among them. She told Bloomberg Television that superdelegates should "respect for what has been said by the people.” And she told ABC’s “This Week” that it would be “harmful to the Democratic Party” if superdelegates overturn the outcome of elections.

A Democratic strategist said that given the unlikelihood of prevailing any other way, Clinton now must “scare” superdelegates “who basically just want to win.”

The strategist said Clinton aides are now relying heavily on the controversy over Obama’s retiring minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to sow new seeds of doubt.

“This issue is the first thing that’s come along that I think is potentially fatal to his electability argument,” the strategist said. “They’re looking ahead and saying: Is it possible this thing is just going to drip, drip, drip, drip — more video? Where does that leave us if he’s our presumptive nominee and he’s limping into the convention and the Republicans are just read to go on him, double-barreled?

”The strategist also said Clinton’s agents are making more subtle pitches. “I’ve heard people start to say: Have you looked at the vote in Ohio really carefully? See how that breaks down for him. What does that portend?” said the strategist. “Then they point to Pennsylvania: In electorally important battleground states, if he is essentially only carrying heavy African-American turnout in high-performing African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?”

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

What has to irk Clintons’ aides is that they felt she might finally have him on the ropes, bruised badly by the Wright fight and wobbly in polls. But the bell rang long ago in the minds of too many voters.

FEC Reports: Clinton Campaign running in the red! Deep Implications

One of the basic things when it comes to political campaigns is the ability to finance them. That said, raising campaign funds is in part what defines a political legitimacy, stating that political campaigns are other persons movements where this requires that others pay for the campaign---self financing a political campaign is if nothing else, a handicapped campaign. And a campaign that is running in the red more often than not---is also a losing one. Today the latest FEC Report published in the NY Times Political Blog seems to suggest that Clinton's campaign may be in the red (again).

Despite a strong month of fund-raising in February in which she brought in $35 million, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished the month essentially in the red, once her campaign’s outstanding debts are factored in, as well as her personal loan, according to filings submitted late last night to the Federal Election Commission.

After spending about $31 million in her efforts to keep up with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton finished February with more than $33 million in cash on hand, but $21.5 million of that is earmarked exclusively for the general election, leaving her with $11.7 million for the primary.

Mrs. Clinton, however, loaned her campaign $5 million earlier this year and she listed $8.7 million in debts to various vendors, making clear why she has not yet paid herself back from her loan.

Even though it is not necessary for Mr.s Clinton to pay back the $5M loan to herself simple math indicates that she also owes an additional $3M to other vendors. Comparing the $30M Obama has on hand for the primary demonstrates that the Clinton campaign is running out of fuel and oxygen supply. This is how campaigns suddenly stop.

Where this strategically hurts is with the astute political superdelegates. Making a legitimate argument that she is more electable comes crashing down like Humpty Dumpty as no cash--no legitimacy. It has been assumed that the fabled Clinton fund raising prowess has been one of the factors they are floated in convincing the superdelegates that this political contest race is not over[yet] and that they should wait out the contest. This kind of news coincides with what I was told that soon the "Big" superdelegates are about to fall in behind Obama and start moving towards party unity, this could seal it.

By the way; Barack Obama's campaign brought in $55M during the month of February, a setting all sorts of records where he spent $43M, leaving him with $31.6M, available for the primary and $7.3M set aside for the general. Ironically he is better at paying his debts, listing only $625,000 in outstanding bills. Just to compare McCain raised a paltry $12M in February from the vaunted Republican machine.