CBS News has projected that Senator Hillary Clinton will win the Indiana Democratic Presidential primary — a result that means the evening of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries ended in a split decision for what increasingly appears to be a split political party:

Clinton pulled off an Indiana win in what was a virtual must-win Midwestern state. With 50 percent of the votes being reported in the state, she was leading Obama 55 percent to 45 percent.

Obama’s win mirrored earlier triumphs in Southern states with large black populations: Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina among them. With 14 percent of the votes in North Carolina being reported, Obama was leading Clinton 63 percent to 35 percent.

CBS News exit poll results show that most voters in both states made up their minds a while ago. Only 17 percent in Indiana and 14 percent in North Carolina decided in the last three days. Twenty-four percent in Indiana and 18 percent in North Carolina decided in the last week.

Late deciders backed Clinton in Indiana by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent for Obama. In North Carolina, Obama won late deciders by a much smaller margin of 49 percent to 48 percent.

And the important issues?

As it has been throughout the Democratic primaries, the economy was the most important issue in both states with 65 percent of voters in Indiana describing it as such and 60 percent in North Carolina. In Indiana, 50 percent of voters said Clinton would be more likely to improve the economy and 46 percent said that Obama would. In North Carolina, 52 percent said that Obama would be more likely to improve the economy and 42 percent said that Clinton would.

Nearly half of voters in both states said the situation with Obama’s former pastor Reverend Wright was important in their vote, while half said that it was not. In Indiana, 48 percent said that it was important and 49 percent said that it was not, while in North Carolina, 48 percent said the Wright situation was important in their vote and 50 percent said that it was not.

What happens next?

The Obama camp will point to his big North Carolina win and the rocky patch he has endured the past few weeks and suggest it shows he can handle anything. That spin is already going out.

Expect to the Clinton side to discount North Carolina without flatly coming out and saying Obama won in a state with a large black vote. Expect to hear the words “demographics” and fill in the vague word yourself.

Also, expect the Clinton campaign to signal ASAP that it intends to play hardball since Clinton did not get a double win tonight.

Is this the first salvo? Via The Page:

Clinton delegate honcho [Harold Ickes] tells The Page that his camp believes 2,209 — not 2,025 — is the magic number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination because they’re counting Michigan and Florida.

“I know the Obama people like to use the smaller amount. We don’t even like the implication of it, much less the amount. It implies he doesn’t recognize Florida and Michigan. We don’t see how he can do that politically…So our target is 2,209 and we think Hillary is in a good position to get there.”

This is called changing the goal posts. AND:

Also repeats his calling card to supers: “We don’t know enough about Senator Obama yet. We don’t need an October Surprise. And (the chance of) an October Surprise with Hillary is remote.”

So it could boil down to whether Superdelegates will allow the up-until-now conventional wisdom on the delegate count to be changed and to tilt to a candidate because the other side suggests there could be an October surprise.

FOOTNOTE: The total picture will be far more clear once the votes are completely tallied.

Democratic party activists and Democrats in general often say their party has two great candidates, no matter who gets the nomination — unless they’re Barack Obama supporters saying they’d never vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination or Clinton supporters saying they’d never vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.

When Democrats put aside their anger, they often describe the candidates as to topflight choices. But MSNBC’s First Thoughts looks at Clinton and Obama and proclaims “Enough Baggage To Fill A Plane”:

There’s also plenty baggage going into tomorrow…

Clinton can’t name a single economist to back up her gas-tax plan. While it’s easy to dismiss the idea that economists are heartless folks, isn’t one of the chief criticisms of Bush is that he doesn’t listen to experts? Also, Clinton defended her “obliterate” Iran comment on Sunday, but refused to reuse the word (doesn’t that suggest she DOES regret the choice of words?)

Meanwhile, Obama may have to explain at some point his quid pro quo with the Teamsters; how does one who is promising a new transparency in politics promise something that the general public has to find out about via reporters asking tough questions? And then there’s Wright, Wright, Wright. When Obama can get through a TV interview without the name Rev. Wright coming up, that’s when he’ll know he’s out of the woods. So far, he’s not out of the woods.

And, indeed, both of these candidates have negative aspects that the GOPers will most assuredly exploit come November. Indeed: viewed in this context, the idea of a “dream ticket” of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama could be seen as a boon to the Democrats but a,lso as a kind of Disneyland for Republicans in terms of targets and rallying their party’s base. (I still predict the “Dream Ticket” is more of an “In Your Dreams” ticket due to seeming irreperable anger between the two camps and how each side demonizes the other).

And McCain?

McCain has a host of vulnerabilities (his positions today versus what they were when he ran against Bush in 2000, his ties to his own divisive religious figures, the frequent corrections he has to make after speeches or comments in terms of accuracy, and — most critically — whether he is truly independent or a McCain administration in terms of staffing and ideas will really be Bush III) that have not been addressed by Democrats who are too busy beating each other up and raising each others’ negatives.

So perhaps First Thought’s analysis should be revised:

Both parties now have likely candidates who are carrying so much much baggage that TSA will have to inspect them.

It is now official: former President Bill Clinton has now injected himself so deeply into wife Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination that he has himself become an issue:

Sen. Barack Obama says he’s ready to confront former President Bill Clinton, calling his advocacy on behalf of his wife’s presidential campaign, “troubling.”

He is not the only Democrat to say that. Read our earlier post HERE. Read Jill Miller Zimon’s post today HERE.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts to air Monday on “Good Morning America,” Obama, D-Ill., directly engages Bill Clinton on a series of issues. MORE:
“You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” Obama said. “He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it’s about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.

“This has become a habit, and one of the things that we’re going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate,” Obama said.

….In his interview with Roberts on “Good Morning America,” Obama said the former president has taken his campaigning on his wife’s behalf too far.

The Politico:

With Obama’s new strategy, the Democratic nomination fight took on a new contour: It’s Obama versus two Clintons, not just one. And the line of attack emerging from his second consecutive primary loss appears to be this: The Clintons are a couple whose words cannot always be trusted.

What is truly amazing is that for years the Clintons were considered the masters of political shrewdness who knew how to piece-together coalitions and aggregate interests — not splinter coalitions and aggravate interests.

Read the rest of this entry »

The answer: Rep. Ron Paul — who came in second.

Arizona Senator John McCain will be the last man standing in the Republican battle for the 2008 Presidential nomination. And if Senator Barack Obama felt Senator Hillary Clinton’s camp played hardball in Nevada, just wait until he sees what awaits him in South Carolina. That’s the view of of two top Internet pundits.

The first contention is New York Political Scientist Dr. Steven Taylor, whose periodic “Toast-O-Meter” takes a look at which candidates are cooking nicely and which are toast and why. The second is by Pajamas Media’s Stephen Green, aka Vodka Pundit, whose “live blogging” of political events is exciting and often quite perceptive.

Taylor writes:

While the mass of contests on February 5th could yet reshuffle the stack, I continue to think that McCain will be the nominee…(a position have had for some time, and wrote about on the 17th of December). There were three separate posts that I read this week that are of interest in this regard. Perhaps the most interesting was by Charles Franklin1 who wrote about what he saw in the polling as An Emerging Republican Consensus. Specifically he noted (and this was pre-SC), that the trends all pointed towards a coalescing around McCain that started before New Hampshire.

Among other things, data shows that McCain has the smallest number of Republicans who said they would vote AGAINST him than any other candidate — which flies in the face of angry denunciations and mockery of McCain by talk show host Rush Limbaugh and many conservative pundits and bloggers. Go the link and his links to find out more. He adds this:

The stunning numbers in that list are McCain’s and Romney’s, because they are the top tier candidates at the moment. McCain’s number is fascinating, because the argument has long been that he had burned too many bridges in the GOP to be elected, but that more and more appears not to be the case. The fact that Romney has turned off a fifth of Republicans is devastating and explains, in part, why he has struggled to emerge as a true front-runner in a crowded field.

So it’s likely the battle in coming months will be whether McCain can solidify and consolidate key GOP establishment figures behind him or whether Romney can gobble them up.

Taylor gives his assessments on where each of the candidates stand. Among other things, he believes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has not shown widespread appeal and even couldn’t win in South Carolina, Romney has won in states where he didn’t have really tough competition, actor Fred Thompson now seems in “denial,” and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is “toast.” (There’s more so read the post).

On the Democrats:
Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Clinton’s victory message to her supporters after her Nevada victory was loud and clear…the US troops must return home and end the trauma of American families. (See Nevada victory video here) Ms Clinton could have added that this step might also help end the trauma of wives, mothers and children elsewhere in the world.

The US troops’ issue is of serious concern to the world community. And for this reason itself, Ms Clinton’s clear stand of bringing the troops home as her first priority would create a great deal of interest in her campaign progress everywhere, despite a large section of media pointing out the flaws in her personality/campaign/style.

Ms Clinton also said this earlier: “If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will.” — (Democratic debate, South Carolina, April 26, 2007.)

While later she said “I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated…[But there] may be a continuing counter-terrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.” —– (Democratic debate, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, September 26, 2007.)

So the world (as also the worried and concerned Americans) eagerly await the moment when the difference between a clear stand and election rhetoric evaporates. More here…

Meanwhile in view of certain vicious attacks on Ms and Mr Clinton in the media and blogosphere, it would appear that the present incumbent in the White House is a Saint!!! In fact the media has virtually forgotten that there is a President in the White House whose actions still need to be critically scrutinised for almost a year.

Ms Clinton’s clear stand would make a greater impact because the US troops issue is highly emotional and sensitive and touches numerous families in the US. There are also other important issues that deserve clearer stand and need to be highlighted instead of the media drowning these in the cacophony of diversionary tactics of ‘racist’ and ’sexist’ drum-beating (as Chris Matthews of MSNBC may have realised to his discomfiture by now…click here…)
Read the rest of this entry »

Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won Nevada caucuses voting today — wins that give “Big Mo” to both, particularly to Clinton, a candidate whose style and “voice” is a work in progress.

The reason: the Nevada GOP caucus was not hotly-contested, but the Democratic caucus sure was. And it spells big trouble in the Big Mo Department for Senator Barack Obama who needed the win here (and in South Carolina) to show that he could again derail Clinton from her long-perceived front-runner status.

CNN reports:

Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the Nevada Democratic caucuses, CNN projects.

The New York senator led rival Barack Obama by 8 percentage points with about half of the precincts reporting.

That’s an impressive margin — and can’t be spun as a squeaker.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was a distant third.

For all intents and purposes, Edwards’ candidacy is over, except for the belief he and his followers have that (a) he can possibly prevail or (b) there would be a deadlock between Clinton and Obama and he’d somehow fill the void.

In the case of Romney, the New York Times reports:

As the rest of the Republican field focused on the primary in South Carolina, Mr. Romney concentrated some of his campaign’s resources on this state, flying here several days ago for a last-minute push. His rivals overlooked Nevada, largely because state rules do not automatically assign delegates to the winning candidate, unlike in South Carolina, where voters were going to the polls Saturday.

With 38 percent of the electoral precincts reporting, Mr. Romney had 56 percent of the vote, while Senator John McCain and Representative Ron Paul each had 12 percent. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee was running fourth with 8 percent.

Good news for Ron Paul followers: Paul got double digits. Bad news for Ron Paul followers: he remains stuck in the basement and has not emerged as the candidate of disaffected voters.

The fact is: a win is a win, particularly in this campaign season when so many candidates seem to be getting their turns at winning a primary. He (or she) who wins several in a row gets the aura of being more than just a flash in the pan. And Gallup has found that primary results DO influence the perceptions and voting in later primaries.

UPDATES:

The AP says Romney won with the help of the Mormon vote.
–Transterrestial Musings is mad because AP says some moderates voted for Ron Paul and decides moderates are badguys:

And frankly, I find people who call themselves “moderate” to generally be people with no firm or coherent political principles whatsoever. All it really means is that they are neither “liberal” or conservative, so the media types find them difficult to pigeonhole. And given the large number of possibilities of positions one can have without being in either of those media pigeonholes, that means that we can’t draw any conclusions whatsoever about them. We need a different word for such people than “moderate.”

(TM: If you read TMV then you know the word is “PERFECT.”)

–Marc Ambinder notes that HC won among Hispanics, women and on the point of experience. Anything can happen this year, but based on this data, it doesn’t look good for Obama in the long term.

–Jazz Shaw:

Following the events today in Nevada, I’m becoming more and more sure that the “Obama threat” was largely a media creation. Even with the service workers’ union support and floating caucus sites inside of casinos, Clinton looks to handily serve up another defeat to Obama outside the margin of error. And from what I can see, Senator Obama will simply get steamrolled on Feb. 5, 2008. Obama has put up a game fight, and I’m sure he’ll continue the battle, but I no longer see a path to the nomination for him. This leaves me with some difficult choices to face.

For some time now, while not endorsing any one particular candidate, I’ve pretty much been in the position of “anyone but Hillary or Romney.” My memories of Hillary Clinton from her time as first lady, combined with my experiences with her here in New York as one of our two Senators, have left me with more than a bad taste in my mouth. I simply outright don’t want her in the White House.

–Dean Esmay:

I see that Clinton and Romney have won in Nevada, which arguably means they both maintain front-runner status. At least, technically, although I still think the odds of a brokered convention for one or both parties is pretty high–and I don’t think that would be a bad thing, by the way.

Several news stories including one in The New York Times underscore what this site has been saying for some time: former President Bill Clinton is emerging as a distraction in Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Democratic nomination campaign — sucking up media attention and dominating the stage in increasingly testy and potentially divisive-for-Democrats public appearances.

Here’s the latest from the Times —- and there’s a recent video below so you can judge for yourself:

Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the spouse running for office, but it is more Bill Clinton who appears to be feeling the heat.

After weeks of complaining publicly about Barack Obama’s record, the news media’s coverage of the Democratic presidential race, or both, Mr. Clinton on Wednesday ripped into a television reporter who had asked him about a Nevada lawsuit concerning participation in the state’s caucuses this Saturday. Mr. Clinton believed the question had seemed sympathetic to Mr. Obama’s stakes in the suit, Clinton campaign officials said.

When you watch the video, it’s clear that the reporter was DOING HIS JOB by asking questions that are “out there” — discussed on talk radio, in blogs, and even (we know first hand) by people who follow politics as they sit in Starbucks. The reporter wasn’t sent there by his office to ask friendly or unfriendly questions or extract a public relations comment. He asked questions pegged to a hot political news story that many members of the public would want asked and answered. MORE:

A federal judge in Las Vegas ruled in the case Thursday, with a decision that will apparently benefit the Obama campaign. The judge, James C. Mahan, held that some hotel-casinos, as arranged by the Nevada Democratic Party, would be permitted to set up caucus precincts on site so employees who work Saturday can participate. Many of those Nevadans are members of Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which has endorsed Mr. Obama, and their votes on Saturday could help him significantly against Mrs. Clinton.

In Sunday’s debate, Mrs. Clinton insisted her campaign wasn’t behind it but made it politely clear she was sympathetic to the suit brought by a union that had high officials who reportedly back the New York Senator as individuals.

Bill Clinton sandbagged any attempt to “finesse” the Clinton camp’s position: he made it totally clear that the Clinton camp most CERTAINLY had not just a position but felt it had a vested interest in stopping the onsite precincts and made the case for the plaintiffs:

The suit was brought by the state teachers’ union, which maintained that the arrangement gave the hotel employees an advantage that others working Saturday did not have. Some of this union’s top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. But her campaign has denied involvement in the suit, and when the television reporter suggested a connection between it and her supporters, the former president, stumping for her in Oakland, Calif., narrowed his eyes. As his aides looked on with concern, Mr. Clinton’s voice took on an edge.

Watch the video and make your own decision:

Read the rest of this entry »

New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama seemingly buried the hatchet tonight - and this not time in each other’s heads — in a mostly conciliatory debate in Las Vegas four days before the Nevada caucuses.

Both warring candidates seemed to try to short-circuit the ugly race controversy that seemed to be sawing a split in the Democratic ranks. (Ms. Clinton apparently received a warning sign in the Michigan primary today that her campaign may be alienating African American voters in droves). But, in the end, it was seemingly Clinton’s night as she downplayed conflict, subtly (or not too subtly) hurled verbal daggers at Obama, and framed many of her comments as if she was already the 2008 Democratic party nominee, blasting President George Bush’s record and the Republicans.

Was it a new strategy — or is the Clinton camp sure now that it will be able to win the nomination? The Washington Post:

After a week of bitter intraparty disputes over the issue of race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) extended an olive branch to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Tuesday night and declared that she and the other Democratic candidates are “all family” in a nationally televised debate.

Obama returned the gesture, acknowledging that both Clinton and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) were committed to racial equality. Yet despite striking a charitable tone during an appearance on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, the top three contenders continued to challenge each other over substantive issues, especially energy and the economy, salient issues in this state where caucuses will be held on Saturday.

Obama and Clinton, in one of their sharpest distinctions of the night, offered starkly different visions of the presidency. Obama said he believed the job is about “having a vision for where the country needs to go” rather than ensuring the “paperwork is being shuffled effectively,” while Clinton emphasized the need for understanding how the system works.

“I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together,” Clinton said. “But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.”

The New York Times also noted the (relatively) mellow tone:

In a two-hour session, which also included an opportunity for candidates to question one another, there was far more collegiality than in almost any of the dozens of debates and joint appearances in the past year. The rivals praised one another with phrases like “Hillary’s exactly right” and, “What Barack said is what John and I also meant” — a sharp break from the invective that had dominated the campaign in recent days.

When it became time for Mrs. Clinton to pose a question to Mr. Obama, she instead offered a long statement inviting him to join with her in sponsoring legislation to require Mr. Bush to come before Congress to get approval for any agreement he might make with the Iraqi government to continue the American presence in Iraq.

“We can work on this, Hillary,” Mr. Obama said, flashing a wide, sweet smile.

The debate, sponsored by MSNBC, came four days before the voters of Nevada take their turn in the Democratic presidential nominating contest. While Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are fighting to win the Nevada caucuses, they also are looking ahead to the South Carolina primary next week and nearly two dozen contests in the next three weeks.

Many of the states include a large share of black voters — as much as 50 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina — and all the candidates distanced themselves from comments about race made by their aides or supporters in recent days.

Here are some impressions from this independent voter (who lives in San Diego and who WILL vote in the Democratic primary):

Read the rest of this entry »

DEBATE PREVIEW:

Dennis Kucinich got ruled out at the last minute by the courts.

MSNBC

MSNBC First Read:

The two-hour debate from here in Las Vegas begins at 9:00 pm ET on MSNBC, and it’s moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams, who will be joined by NBC’s Tim Russert; NBC’s Natalie Morales also will be asking questions. The debate will feature a segment we haven’t seen in a while: candidate-to-candidate questions, which could end up being quite interesting. Definitely participating are Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

WATCH THE DEBATE ON MSNBC OR AT MSNBC.COM

DEBATE LIVE-BLOGGING:

MSNBC First Read:

Washington Post’s THE FACT CHECKER

THE CAUCUS BLOG (New York Times)

CNN’s Nevada Political Ticker

ABC Political Radar

WP’s THE TRAIL

Jeralyn at TalkLeft

Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog

POST-DEBATE ANALYSIS:

I’ll leave this part to Joe Gandelman!

Isn’t this the kind of thing Democrats (and we’ve done posts on it and decried it) denounce when Republicans do it to keep Democratic voters away from the polls?

Nevada’s state teachers union and six Las Vegas area residents filed a lawsuit late Friday that could make it harder for many members of the state’s huge hotel workers union to vote in the hotly contested Jan. 19 Democratic caucus in Nevada.

This is ANOTHER one of these stories that has a strange coincidence: if you read it, there is a link to supporters of New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Read on:

The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama, a blow to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama addressed the Culinary Union at their hall earlier Friday.

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

And — here we go again — here’s yet another coincidence. It appears that some of the folks involved support the campaign of New York Senator Hillary Clinton:

The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts. The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

“This could shut down those precincts in the casinos and keep culinary members from voting,” said Jon Ralston, a political pundit with The Las Vegas Sun, who broke the story on his blog. Mr. Ralston said it is unclear whether there are ties between the lawsuit and the Clinton campaign but, he predicted, “Even if they’re Hillary supporters, the campaign’s going to say they had nothing to do with it. It is unclear when the court will hear the matter.

FOOTNOTE: I’m an independent voter registered here in CA. I just got my absentee ballot. I can and will vote in the Democratic primary. I want to see elections that are UNFETTERED by coincidences such as:

Read the rest of this entry »