Endorsement of Obama Points Up Clinton Obstacles

Article taken from New York Times

This article was reported by Adam Nagourney, Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny and written by Mr. Nagourney.

The surprise endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by a popular senator in a battleground state on Friday underlined the ferment in the Democratic nominating race and the serious obstacles facing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as she tries to rescue her candidacy.
Compounding the challenge, one of Mr. Obama’s most prominent supporters, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said Mrs. Clinton should quit the race because she hurt Mr. Obama “more than anything John McCain has said.”
The Clinton campaign showed resolve in the face of the developments, rallying supporters and donors and enlisting prominent surrogates to fight back. Mrs. Clinton told aides that she would not be “bullied out” of the race.
In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the “big boys” trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them.
On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton said she was in the contest to stay.
“I believe that a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party,” Mrs. Clinton said in a late-afternoon news conference in northwestern Indiana, a few miles from Mr. Obama’s house on the South Side of Chicago. “We will have a united party behind whoever that nominee is.”
The developments, including the endorsement of Mr. Obama by Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a state where Mrs. Clinton is looking for a large primary victory, occurred as uneasiness grew among Democrats over a race that has become closer, more extended and more bitter than expected. In interviews, Democratic leaders said they were concerned that the increased tensions between the campaigns and the sharpening exchanges between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were hurting the party’s chances of winning the White House in November.
Even though Mrs. Clinton’s supporters acknowledge that she faces a decidedly uphill battle against Mr. Obama — he leads in delegates and in total votes — there is no sign that party leaders will try to end the race by urging Mrs. Clinton to withdraw or urging uncommitted delegates to rally around Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they could see no circumstance in which she would withdraw unless she lost Pennsylvania on April 22. Two senior advisers and one close ally said they would urge her to quit the race if she lost Indiana two weeks later, on May 6.
In a sign of the forces roiling the battle, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has kept a markedly low profile in the contest, urged both campaigns to ratchet down the rhetoric.
While not assigning blame, Mr. Dean said some attacks by the candidates’ supporters and surrogates would complicate efforts to unify the party after it had a nominee.
“The tone has changed in the last three or four weeks,” he said in an interview. “And the emotional content has increased to the point where it is in some cases unhealthy.
“If we have an ugly, divided convention, we will lose,” he said. “John McCain is not a strong candidate for president. The only way we lose is if we are divided.”
Mr. Dean said he wanted the contest settled well before the convention at the end of August. He urged the superdelegates, uncommitted party leaders and elected officials, to unify behind a candidate soon after the last nominating contests on June 3.
“I don’t think superdelegates should be waiting for the convention,” he said. “There’s no reason they can’t make up their mind now or in the last several weeks. Ideally, it would be good to know who the nominee is by July 1.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, citing similar concerns about the fall campaign, said in an interview that she hoped the nominating fight ended even earlier.
“I hope that it will be resolved sooner than June, so we can get behind one candidate,” she said.
Ms. Pelosi, who has not endorsed any candidate, said that she did not agree with Mr. Leahy’s call for Mrs. Clinton to end her candidacy and that she did not intend to intervene.
Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, said in an interview that Democrats fretting over divisions in the party “need to relax and cool it a little bit.” Mr. Reid said he had recently had separate conversations with Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Dean and former Vice President Al Gore and was confident that the nominating fight would end naturally. The next contest is in Pennsylvania, where polls suggest that Mrs. Clinton is in a strong position, and her aides are confident of a sizable victory there, even after Mr. Casey’s endorsement of Mr. Obama.
Some of her associates said Indiana was now a must-win state for her. A defeat there would make it even more mathematically improbable that she would win the nomination and undercut any boost she might achieve from a victory in Pennsylvania.
Tensions between the two campaigns — already high — have worsened in recent days as many of Mr. Obama’s supporters have argued that Mrs. Clinton cannot win the nomination and should quit.

“There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination,” Mr. Leahy told Vermont Public Radio. “She ought to withdraw, and she ought to be backing Senator Obama.
“Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make. Frankly, I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate.
“I am very concerned. John McCain, who has been making one gaffe after another, is getting a free ride on it, because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to fight with each other. I think that her criticism is hurting him more than anything John McCain has said.”
Mr. Obama’s aides said he had not sanctioned Mr. Leahy’s remarks and was not calling for Mrs. Clinton to step aside.
Mrs. Clinton, seeking to turn an attack to her advantage, invoked the calls to quit in a new fund-raising e-mail message to donors. Privately, she has told Democratic allies that she will not be pushed aside through pressure tactics. And as the Casey-Leahy one-two punch was announced, her supporters pushed back.
“I think there’s a bit of brainwashing going on that Senator Clinton should retire for the good of the party,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a Clinton supporter. “I think that’s really premature, and it’s ill conceived. She has a right to wage her candidacy and to fight until a time that she can’t recoup those votes” and catch up with Mr. Obama in the delegate fight.”
Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, another supporter of Mrs. Clinton, called Mr. Leahy’s remarks outrageous.
“Just flip it for a second,” Mr. Rendell said. “Let’s say Senator Clinton was ahead by about 110 delegates and ahead by less than 1 percent of the vote cast, and she and her supporters started to call on Senator Obama to get out. Just picture what the media would be saying. They’d be saying you’re being racist, you’re being everything in the world. It’s nuts! It’s nuts!”
Former Gov. Joseph E. Kernan of Indiana, a Clinton backer, said voters in his state were captivated by the first truly competitive presidential primary in the state since 1968 and would be disenfranchised if the race ended abruptly.
“To say that we don’t matter,” Mr. Kernan said, “is not only wrong. It’s ludicrous.”
That sentiment was echoed by Democrats who turned out for Mrs. Clinton’s rallies.
“The party leaders, they have this perception that it might be dividing the party,” said John Link, 23, an elementary school teacher from Fayetteville, N.C. “But I really think they need to let this play out until every single state and every single voter have voiced their opinions.”
While some Democrats worry about the contest’s tone, others, particularly Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, argued that the competition would be good for the party and for the eventual nominee.
“I think we’ve become a bit too squeamish too soon in terms of our reaction to the emotion,” former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a Clinton supporter, said when asked about Mr. Dean’s criticism about tone. “I think Democrats appreciate the fact that this will be a difficult race. Whoever the nominee is against John McCain, I, for one, want my nominee to be battle tested and a warrior going into the fall election.”

Hillary Clinton's losing by a neck

Article taken from Stuff.co.nz.

ROSEMARY MCLEOD - Sunday Star Times Sunday, 27 April 2008
Looking at that photograph of Hillary Clinton last week, I sensed impending doom. No good can possibly come of wearing big silk scarves. She's bound to lose the Democratic Party nomination on this basis alone.

Hers has been a plucky fight, as even reluctant commentators admit. She plugs away there, tailing slick Barack Obama, willing herself to become the first woman American president, yet draping herself in those unfortunate hunks of cloth that declare the game's up already.

There comes a time in a woman's life when old age dances in middle distance. Once it was a remote impossibility; now it looms in every wrinkle.

Suddenly she falls for facial creams that cost a lot and do little; cuts her hair short in the deluded belief that this makes her look young, when it only emphasises her slackening jawline; and a facelift seems to make more sense than renovating her kitchen.

Some think of toy boys at this point. Others enter politics, that haven for the desperate and the redundant. It can't be helped.

I feel sure Hillary's had eye work done in advance of this campaign. The rest of us have a mass of wrinkles and soft skin draping what were formerly our eyes which, in the privacy of our own bathrooms, we can fiddle with and stretch in quiet alarm. Well, she can afford it.

She has taken the sensible path of perpetual blondeness, which I also intend to cling to till I pop my clogs, but in the quest for power she's also taken on that dreadful robe of office, the Hermes scarf and its near relations.

The nearly old - and the old already - wear them softly knotted and draped, as she did last week, over boring tailored suits. They are a declaration that if glamour must be denied them, or their old suit hasn't worn out yet, at least they can spend a fortune on a square of rag with pictures on it.

Then, God forbid, they take to poking pearl necklaces underneath them.
The square scarf is a strange thing with no legitimate function other than conferring blandness on all who wear it.

It has often been a gift, one of those neutral ones that go to aunts who people don't know very well, or to mothers-in-law who have to be given something after your overseas trip, or they'll throw a wobbly. It lives in dressing table drawers with bottles of 4711.

It means nothing unless its label is subtly visible, although those who love a designer scarf can spot their design from a hundred metres away. They have so little else to think about.
I don't know why Hillary wears them, unless it's to make her look sexless, which it does. A woman has to be sexless looking if she seeks power, or nobody will take her seriously.
Yet she can't be downright ugly, and her grooming should be immaculate. A scarf confers, I guess, an air of aunt- dom that makes a woman unthreatening, and makes it look as if she kind of weakly tried. How awful.

And what a mistake such outsized bibs have proved to be. They make you think of other doomed female leaders like India's Indira Gandhi, or Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto, who likewise draped fabric about them. And that brings me to the pashmina, a crime Hillary has also been guilty of.

Of all the horrors of the past 20 years that western women have taken upon themselves, surely this glorified bedspread is the most unfortunate. To wear a pashmina is to abandon hope. At best, it's to enter the camp world of an Oscar Wilde play, metaphorically bellowing, "A handbag?!"

A woman in a pashmina is a yacht in full sail without its beauty, a bosom rampant, an alarming baby in pastel swaddling clothes, a declared matriarch and scourge of all that is vibrant and young.

I would cross the street to avoid one headed in my direction, and I avoid literary gatherings for fear of being suffocated in their drapes.

I'd rather walk naked down Lambton Quay than submit to draping either a scarf or a pashmina about me. I have my tragic pride.

So why doesn't Hillary? Doesn't she understand that people don't really want to be governed by aunties? Hasn't she heard about the trouble it's caused us here, where it all began? The joining together of crones to warble tunelessly at Labour Party conferences is the least of it.

That photograph of Hillary makes me feel a slight fondness for Helen Clark. Whatever else she's done, she's surely never strutted the world stage in a spooky pashmina, and I doubt whether she's keen to humiliate herself with a strand of cultured pearls.

The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats

Article taken from Yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080424/us_time/theincrediblyshrinkingdemocrats;_ylt=Ap_Brvqg5QY9PdsuTIPn_qWs0NUE
By JOE KLEIN 39 minutes ago
"This election," Bill Clinton said in the hours before the Pennsylvania primary, "is too big to be small." It was a noble sentiment, succinctly stated, and the core of what Democrats believe - that George W. Bush has been a historic screwup as President, that there are huge issues to be confronted this year. But it was laughable as well. The Pennsylvania primary had been a six-week exercise in diminution, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - and Bill Clinton too - losing altitude and esteem on an almost daily basis. Even as he spoke, the former President was in the midst of a tiny, self-inflicted absurdity, having claimed in a radio interview that the Obama campaign had played the "race card" against him. And that was the least of the damage.
Hillary Clinton won a convincing victory in Pennsylvania, but it came at a significant cost to the Clinton family's reputation and to the Democratic Party. She won by throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, as her campaign aides described it. Her campaign had been an assault on Obama's character flaws, real and imagined, rather than on matters of substance. Clinton also suffered a bizarre self-inflicted wound, having reimagined her peaceful landing at a Bosnian airstrip in 1996 as a battlefield scene complete with sniper fire. After six weeks of this, according to one poll, 60% of the American people considered her "untrustworthy," a Nixonian indictment.
But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered - still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party. In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life - bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food - as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement. All of which deepened the skepticism that Caucasians, especially those without a college degree, had about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language. And worse, it raised questions among the elders of the party about Obama's ability to hold on to crucial Rust Belt bastions like Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey in the general election - and to add long-suffering Ohio to the Democratic column.
Yes, yes, the bulk of the sludge was caricature, and some of it, especially the stuff circulating on the Internet, was scurrilous trash. But there is an immutable pedestrian reality to American politics: you have to get the social body language right if you want voters to consider the nobler reaches of your message. In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" - that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin. In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low - how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker's helmet, whether John Kerry's favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore's debate sighs over his opponent's simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling - a love of McDonald's and other assorted big-gulp appetites gave him credibility that even trumped his evasion of military service.
The audacity of the Obama campaign was the belief that in a time of trouble - as opposed to the peace and prosperity of the late 20th century - the low-information politics of the past could be tossed aside in favor of a high-minded, if deliberately vague, appeal to the nation's need to finally address some huge problems. But that assumption hit a wall in Pennsylvania. Specifically, it hit a wall at the debate staged by ABC News in Philadelphia - viewed by an audience of 10 million, including a disproportionate number of Pennsylvanians - that will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions, with the first 40 minutes focused exclusively on so-called character issues rather than policy. Obama was on the defensive from the start, but gradually the defensiveness morphed into bitter frustration. He kept his cool - a very presidential character trait - and allowed his disdain to show only when he was asked a question about his opponent's Bosnia gaffe. "Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while," he said. "What's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history."
It is the transcendent irony of this campaign that Obama, who entered the race intent on getting past the "dorm fights of the '60s," has now become deeply entangled in them. Each of the ABC moderators' questions were about controversies that erupted in the '60s. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black-nationalist sermons had their roots in the black-power movement that corrupted Martin Luther King Jr.'s "beloved community." The sprouting of flag pins on the lapels of politicians was a response to the flag-burning of antiwar protesters; the violence of Weather Underground members like William Ayers, with whom Obama was said to be "friendly," was a corruption of the peace movements as well. All of these occurred before Obama reached puberty - and they helped define the social atmosphere in academic communities like Chicago's Hyde Park, where Obama now lives. For 40 years, the Republican Party has feasted on the secular humanism, feminism, distrust of the military and permissiveness that caricature such communities. For 40 years, the Democratic Party has been burdened by its inability to break free of those stereotypes.
Obama's challenge to the primacy of that sort of politics is both worthy and essential. His point, and Bill Clinton's, is indisputable: there is a need for a big election this year. A decision has to be made about the war in Iraq. The mortgage-market and the health-insurance systems are falling apart. There is a drastic need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for national-security, environmental and basic supply-and-demand reasons. The physical and educational infrastructures of the country are badly outdated. In order to have an election about those big challenges, we need to shove some serious social issues - like gun control and, yes, even abortion - and phony character issues to the periphery. But Obama is going about it the wrong way. "After 14 long months," he said in his concession speech, "it's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are immune to, and it trivializes the profound issues." What's wrong with that, you might ask? It's too abstract, too detached. Too often, Obama has seemed unwilling to get down in the muck and fight off the "distractions" that are crippling his campaign. Obviously, this is strategy - his appeal has been the promise of a politics of civility (and as a black man, he wants to send low-information signals that he is neither angry nor threatening). But what if, after ABC had enabled the smarmy American-flag-pin question from an "average citizen," Obama had taken on George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson directly, "Why aren't you guys wearing pins? Why isn't Hillary?" Indeed, this was Clinton's strategy in an earlier debate, upbraiding her questioners from MSNBC - and it may have turned the tide in her favor in Ohio and Texas.
In the last days of the Pennsylvania campaign, Obama made a halfhearted attempt to go negative. He ran ads distorting Clinton's health-care plan, claiming that it would force everyone to get health insurance (true), even if they couldn't afford it (false). He devoted more and more of his stump speech to slagging Clinton. "She's got the kitchen sink flying, the china flying - the buffet is coming at me," he said during a whistle-stop tour of southeastern Pennsylvania. His delivery of the kitchen-sink line was droll, but the rest of the tour was surprisingly soporific. He seemed fed up with campaigning - as any reasonably sane human being would be at this point - and embittered by the turn the race had taken.
I'm not sure that Bill and Hillary Clinton are reasonably sane human beings, at least not when they are running for office: they become robo-pols, tireless and seemingly indestructible. Senator Clinton was on fire in the days before the Pennsylvania primary, as energized as I've ever seen her. She barely mentioned Obama at all but fiercely plowed her latest field - the populist granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker, the daughter of a Penn State football player. As she said in her victory speech, "You know, tonight, all across Pennsylvania and America, teachers are grading papers, and doctors and nurses are caring for the sick, and you deserve a leader who listens to you. Waitresses are pouring coffee, and police officers are standing guard, and small businesses are working to meet that payroll. And you deserve a champion who stands with you."
There was a warmth and a feistiness to Clinton in Pennsylvania - the very qualities that Obama was lacking. She had embraced the shameless rituals of politics, including some classic low-information signals, downing shots of Crown Royal and promising lower gas prices, attacking her opponent over trivia and threatening to "obliterate" Iran. It was enough to earn the ire of the New York Times editorial page, which harrumphed, "By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues ... she undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be President."
Well, tsk-tsk and ahem! But part of the problem with editorial writers - and, truth to tell, columnists like me - is a narrow definition of the qualifications necessary to be President. It helps to be a warrior, for one thing. It helps to be able to take a punch and deliver one - even, sometimes, a sucker punch. A certain familiarity with life as it is lived by normal Americans is useful; a distance from the Élite precincts of academia, where unrepentant terrorists can sip wine in good company, is essential. Hillary Clinton has learned these lessons the hard way; Barack Obama thinks they are "the wrong lessons." The nomination is, obviously, his to lose. But the presidency will not be won if he doesn't learn that the only way to reach the high-minded conversation he wants, and the country badly needs, is to figure out how to maneuver his way through the gutter. View this article on Time.com

North Carolina excited to choose between Clinton and Obama

Article taken from Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/north_carolina_primary_4;_ylt=AiZRzFBzTt9B6XhYgUknleXBF4l4
By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer
RALEIGH, N.C. - Not since 1988 has North Carolina had much of a voice in choosing a presidential nominee. Back then, it joined several Southern states to help pick Al Gore, a neighbor from Tennessee.

But the longer-than-expected race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination will thrust the state into the national spotlight when it has its say on May 6. Indiana also votes that day.
The primary, offering 115 national convention delegates, comes two weeks after Pennsylvania gave the former first lady the win she needed to stay in the race. But Obama is favored to win North Carolina, the largest prize among the contests remaining.
"My crystal ball wasn't working well last year, and I certainly would not have anticipated this," said state Democratic Party chairman Jerry Meek. "But, in retrospect, having a May primary was a tremendously astute decision."
Voters, especially new ones, have taken note.
More than 165,000 people have registered to vote in North Carolina in the first three months of the year, a nearly threefold increase from the same period in 2004. Election officials expect a record turnout May 6 — about half of the more than 5.7 million registered voters, compared with past turnouts ranging from 16 percent to 31 percent.
Another wild card: A new law allows unregistered voters to sign up and vote on the same day through May 3. Both campaigns have launched efforts to turn out those voters, and the polling sites have been flooded since they opened last week.
As of midafternoon Wednesday, more than 74,700 "one-stop" ballots had been cast — about eight times higher than during the 2006 primary, according to the state Board of Elections. An additional 8,400 absentee ballots have been collected, officials said.
Voter registration is up overall, but the biggest boost has been among blacks.
More than 45,000 black voters have registered in the first three months of 2008, compared with just over 11,000 in the same period four years ago. Blacks make up more than 20 percent of the state's registered voters, according to Board of Elections data.
Those numbers bode well for Obama, who has won strong black support throughout the primaries.
There are other signs Clinton will have a hard time achieving victory in North Carolina.
Neither of the state's top two Democrats, outgoing Gov. Mike Easley and former White House hopeful John Edwards, have endorsed a candidate. Among superdelegates who have made their choice known, Obama has a 6-1 edge. The 10 remaining superdelegates, including Meek, are uncommitted.
The two Democratic candidates vying to replace Easley, who is barred by law from seeking a third consecutive term, are not only backing Obama but have made their support for him a feature of their campaigns.
State Treasurer Richard Moore has run radio ads on stations popular with black listeners noting he "was the first Democrat running for governor to endorse Barack Obama for president." His rival, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, has sent mailers to likely black voters with a photo of her with Obama.
State Republican party officials have made the gubernatorial candidates' connection to Obama the focus of a TV ad scheduled to begin airing Monday that includes footage of Obama's controversial former pastor and calls the Democratic presidential hopeful "too extreme for North Carolina." On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain, the GOP's certain presidential nominee, called the ad "offensive" and asked party officials not to air it, but they refused.
Tar Heel politics are often both unpredictable and contradictory.
The state elected the populist Edwards to serve alongside arch conservative Jesse Helms in the Senate. It has not voted for a Democrat for president since 1976, when Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter swept most of the South, but it has elected a Democratic majority to the state Senate for more than 100 years.
"People in North Carolina tend to look at individuals and offices distinctly and make the decision based on the person and the office," said Elon University pollster Hunter Bacot. "We have such a large number of independents. And they are true independents — they split ballots."
North Carolina has roughly 9 million people, making it the nation's 10th largest state. It is home to the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune and the Army's Fort Bragg, two massive installations whose troops have suffered heavy losses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What's left of a once vibrant manufacturing and textile industry is in tatters. Many voters blame the North American Free Trade Agreement, agreed to under President Clinton, for the decline and the thousands of job losses that followed.
The state's largest city, Charlotte, has become an international financial center as home of Bank of America Corp. and Wachovia Corp., the nation's leading retail and consumer banks.
It's high-tech economy, led by the many companies with facilities based at Research Triangle Park outside Raleigh, have withstood the national economic downturn. Home values have not suffered the same widespread decline as in other states, and North Carolina's income tax revenues remain strong compared with others.
Both Clinton and Obama started campaigning in the state long before this week's Pennsylvania primary. Clinton debuted quirky TV ads asking voters to submit questions, to which she responded in conversational spots. Obama has blanketed the state with his own ads.
Some political observers say Clinton needs to win North Carolina, the last big stop on the road to the August convention in Denver, to convince unaligned superdelegates that momentum has swung in her favor. Superdelegates are elected leaders and party officials who can vote for any candidate. That, they said, is her only chance to overcome Obama.
"She's got to build momentum — serious momentum — in order to make that argument," said Jeff Link, a Democratic strategist who advised former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's brief presidential run. "She has to have a winning streak."

Don't stop believin', Hillary

Article taken from Yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080424/pl_politico/9839;_ylt=Aso0TRaj_y8y4VMd7vyTmJth24cA

Roger Simon Thu Apr 24, 6:05 AM ET
Run, Hillary, run.

Run in Guam, run in North Carolina, run in Indiana. Run in each and every one of the nine contests that are left.
Then make some states do their contests over.
Should Barack Obama's victory in Vermont really count? I don't think Vermont is actually a state. I think it is technically a socialist republic. Have somebody check this out.
And Obama's victory in Alaska? Are you kidding me? They let caribou vote in Alaska.
And do some other stuff that levels the playing field: Raise the voting age to 65 in all the remaining contests, for instance.
You do great with this group, Sen. Clinton. Younger people don't really care about who becomes president anyway. All they want to do is go on this World Wide Interweb thing that they keep talking about. And while you are at it, Senator, cap all salaries at $50,000 a year, take away all college degrees and give everybody a gun. The demographics are clear: That is your base vote.
Also, no men get to vote unless they have a note from a woman saying they are mentally competent. (Good luck with that!)
And, Sen. Clinton, keep portraying yourself as a sympathetic underdog. That works much better than when you were the inevitable overlord.
In Haverford, Pa., last Thursday, you told the crowd: "Just knock on the door and say, 'You know, she's really nice.' Or you could say it another way: 'She's not as bad as you think.'"
It is a theme that worked in Pennsylvania and will work elsewhere. I can see the billboards now: "Hillary Clinton. Not as Bad as You Think."
But do not give up the kitchen sink stuff, Senator. Make it a Good Hillary/Bad Hillary kind of campaign.
Good Hillary talks about the dreamy, gooey, feel-good stuff, like when, in your victory speech from Philadelphia Tuesday night, you said: "We are, in many ways, all on this journey together to create an America that embraces every last one of us. ... I believe with all of my heart that together we will turn promises into action, words will become solutions, hope will become reality."
But Bad Hillary can't go away. You have to have the Hillary who says Obama is "elitist" and "demeaning," and you have to keep running ads that portray him as the guy who won't be able to protect us from the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, long lines at the gas pump, Osama bin Laden or ringing telephones.
And speaking of Osama bin Laden, isn't he a Muslim? And didn't Bad Hillary say Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know"? Keep up that subtle stuff. It is gold.
And then, of course, bribe the superdelegates. These are the 794 party insiders who have one standard for all their decisions in life: "What's in it for me?"
So offer them something. You know how many interstate rest stops there are? They have to be named for somebody. And promise the holdouts that they will be appointed ambassador to Bermuda. It doesn't matter that they all can't be ambassador to Bermuda, because we don't have an ambassador to Bermuda. (Say it was Bill's idea.)
And even if you can't get ahead in the delegate count, don't stop running!
Go to the convention in Denver and chain yourself to the front door of the Pepsi Center and refuse to leave unless every resident of Florida and Michigan -- not just the rogue delegates but all 26 million residents! -- is seated inside and gets to cast a ballot for you.
What's the worst that could happen? Howard Dean comes out and bites you on the ankle? Forget about it. I could carve a tougher guy out of tofu.
But most of all, Sen. Clinton, never give up, never surrender.
And remember: There's always 2012.

Border states key as Clinton, Obama battle in Indiana

Article taken from Yahoo
By TOM DAVIES, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 24, 3:24 PM ET
INDIANAPOLIS - Hillary Rodham Clinton's Indiana strategy relies on the state's similarities with eastern neighbor Ohio, where fertile farmland and factory towns produced blue-collar workers who propelled her to victory there.
To the west is Barack Obama's home state, Illinois, where he has long been a familiar face in the Chicago TV market that serves northern Indiana and trounced Clinton in the state's Feb. 5 primary. The Illinois senator often jokes about "making a break" for home while campaigning in the Hoosier state.
The result: Neither candidate has a clear advantage as they seek the 72 pledged delegates at stake in Indiana's primary on May 6. Polls are split, making Indiana perhaps the biggest question mark left on the primary calendar.
Obama, who holds the edge in overall delegates, says the state is a potential "tiebreaker." Clinton tells Indiana crowds their votes will decide who becomes the next president.
Relishing their first opportunity in four decades to make their choice count in a Democratic presidential primary, voter registrations have shot up by some 160,000 since January. Election officials expect the record for Democratic ballots cast in a presidential primary — almost 477,000 in 1992 — to shatter.
That may play in Obama's favor, especially among independents, a strong base for him in other states. Indiana has an open primary.
Obama's campaign has been intensely focused on new voter registration ever since staff arrived in large numbers back in mid-March. The campaign bought a list of voting-age residents who hadn't registered and called through it to see if there were potential supporters to get involved.
It also had a special effort for young voters, giving away thousands of tickets for a free Dave Matthews concert, and offering high school and college students who register their peers the chance to play basketball with the senator.
But if Obama is to carry Indiana, he'll have to reach deep into Clinton territory — rural voters and white working-class communities like those along the Ohio River.
"Democrats in some of those areas are very close to the Clinton legacy and they have very good feelings toward Clinton," said state Sen. Earline Rogers, an Obama supporter whose district covers much of economically depressed Gary, where a large black population and the proximity to Chicago are expected to help Obama. "It's the known quantity of Clinton versus the unknown quantity of Barack Obama that might make a difference in the rural areas."
The two campaigns have had a regular presence in the state since Obama first held a town hall meeting in Plainfield, an Indianapolis suburb, on March 15. And both brought in top organizers to run the state operation.
Obama outspent Clinton 4-to-1 on Indiana television ads through mid-April, dropping $1.6 million to Clinton's $400,000. Clinton and her top surrogates — husband Bill and daughter Chelsea — have blanketed the state with more than 40 campaign stops in the past month.
Both campaigns have about 20 offices statewide.
Clinton has the support of popular Sen. Evan Bayh, a former two-term governor often mentioned as a potential Clinton running mate. Bayh has joined Clinton on daylong campaign trips across the state, and her first Indiana TV ad featured him almost exclusively.
Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, backed Obama in early April in a move that could help Obama's foreign policy and national security credibility. Obama also is touting his work with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; one TV ad shows them together as the announcer describes Obama as a leader on arms control.
Clinton has an edge among the state's superdelegates. Bayh and four others have endorsed Clinton, while three — including new Rep. Andre Carson — support Obama. The state's four other Democratic congressmen have yet to choose sides.
Other traditional supporters might not be as helpful.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed women, a Clinton stronghold, are evenly divided between the two in Indiana. And while Obama does well among black voters, Indiana's total black population is just 9 percent.
Many of those black voters are in the industrial cities along Lake Michigan, where Obama expects to do well. He also expects strong showings in Indianapolis and its burgeoning suburbs and Bloomington, home to Indiana University's main campus.
Those areas typically account for more than 40 percent of the statewide Democratic vote, and Obama courted the college vote heavily with the Matthews concert at Indiana University. An unannounced stop on campus less than a week later sent people rushing into the streets and crowding a local pub to see him.
Clinton could do well in the blue-collar factory towns throughout the state's northern half, many of which have been hit hard by job losses — much like Ohio, another heavy manufacturing state. Indiana's unemployment rate, though, is nearly a percentage point lower than Ohio's 5.3 percent, which might soften her advantage with blue-collar workers.
Still, her message that Indiana's top issue is "jobs, jobs, jobs" resonates with many.
A raucous crowd of 5,000 showed up for a Clinton rally in the fading factory city of Anderson, where the last of the auto industry plants that once employed 27,000 people closed last year.
"A lot of people will be concerned about Iraq, but everyone cares about jobs," said Vicki Chase, a biology teacher at Highland High School in Anderson who supports Clinton.
Obama backers say his campaign has spurred enthusiasm they haven't seen since the state last played a significant role in a presidential primary. That was 1968, when Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were fighting for the Democratic nomination.
"I don't care how many times I hear him," said Jean Page, a retired travel agency owner who heard Obama speak in Fort Wayne. "He's invigorating and uplifting."

How can Obama, Clinton not be tired?

Taken from yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/candidate_fatigue;_ylt=ApG5dPTPoLpnJZnRCXUtKflh24cA
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 24, 12:33 PM ET
NEW ALBANY, Ind. - How can they not be tired?

Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are undeniably exhausted. They've been campaigning hard for more than a year, and their wall-to-wall schedules won't let up anytime soon. Neither wants to cede ground in their epic struggle for the Democratic nomination.
Fatigue, however, breeds unforced errors — and both candidates have made some in the past few weeks.
He turned in a weak debate performance in Pennsylvania, took heat for saying residents of small-town America were bitter and inadvertently praised Republican John McCain. She, too, had a sub-par debate and mistakenly claimed to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia as first lady.
"Sometimes. Yes, of course," Obama, 46, acknowledged Tuesday when asked whether he was exhausted.
The Illinois senator was in the midst of a near 20-hour campaign day. He left his hotel at 6 a.m. for satellite TV interviews in Philadelphia and didn't stop moving until his plane touched down Wednesday in Chicago at 1:30 a.m.
Fourteen years his senior, Clinton laughed off a question about how she maintained a grueling schedule.
"It's been a 15-month campaign and, if everything had been as much fun as Pennsylvania, it wouldn't feel like 15 years," the 60-year-old said — uncharacteristically showing weariness.
As the Democrats continue their long days of tussling, Republican nominee-in-waiting McCain has pared back his schedule considerably from the before-sunup to after-sundown days of the GOP primary fight. Energetic at 71, he would be the oldest person ever elected president.
Since the Arizona senator wrapped up the nomination last month, he has kept to just one or two public events a day. To be sure, he's at work behind the scenes raising money and preparing for the general election. But most weekends he opts for down time in Phoenix or at his cabin in Sedona, Ariz., resting up for the fall fight.
It's a luxury Obama and Clinton don't have.
The next Democratic primaries — Indiana and North Carolina — are May 6, just two weeks away, and the stakes are extraordinary.
So, the excruciatingly long days will continue.
The drawn-out race clearly weighs on Obama; he talks about it at every stop.
"I've been running for president for about 15 months now, which means that there are babies who are now walking and talking, who were born since I announced for president," he said again Wednesday, campaigning in this Ohio River city. "This has been a long primary season."
Obama also frequently mentions how rarely he gets to see his family. He rearranged his schedule so he could return to Chicago late Tuesday to see his daughters off to school Wednesday. He plans no public events Thursday, just down time at home in Chicago.
He took his family to the Virgin Islands last month for a quick rest, but went full-bore in the run up to the Pennsylvania primary. He typically started the day at dawn with an early morning stop at a diner and ended with a nighttime rally. Several other events — and numerous interviews with local and national media outlets — were packed in between.
To combat exhaustion, Obama catnaps on his plane. Lithe and athletic, he prioritizes daily exercise to keep up his energy. But there are physical signs of the stress; his hair has grown grayer since he began campaigning.
For her part, Clinton is a veteran of her husband's back-to-back White House races and is keenly aware of the toll it takes on body and spirit. She, too, takes short naps on her plane and eats a steady diet of hot peppers, which she believes has helped her stave off illness. But she says she's getting very little exercise.
The former first lady goes to great pains to manage and hide her fatigue, mindful of Obama's youth and exuberance. Hair and makeup specialists travel with her to help her look fresh from morning until night. When she talks about the long campaign, she tries to be lighthearted and humorous.
However, when pressed about the Bosnia gaffe during last week's debate by a voter named Tom Rooney, Clinton blamed fatigue.
"I will either try to get more sleep, Tom or, you know, have somebody that, you know, is there, as a reminder to me," the New York senator said.
Her schedule is punishing. Clinton usually is up at dawn to prepare for local morning TV and radio interviews, zips to events in far flung cities throughout the day and into the evening, and often doesn't go to bed until after midnight.
In Memphis, Tenn., this month to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Clinton didn't get to her hotel until 5 a.m. after a redeye flight from California.
She was onstage before television cameras just 6 hours later.
___
Associated Press writer Beth Fouhy in New York contributed to this report.