As a swing state and vital win for whomever wants to be president in January 2009, Ohio took a strong step today in making sure it’s ducks are in a row for the Democratic nominee with the resignation of Attorney General and Democrat, Marc Dann at approximate 4pm. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, one of the most frequently mentioned VP possibilities for the Democratic presidential ticket, gave a more than thirty minute press conference (some of which I live-blogged here) in which he announced that the first deputy AG, Tom Winters, will be the interim attorney general until Strickland appoints someone to occupy the position until an election in November, when voters will select a candidate to fill the remainder of Dann’s term (through 12/10).
Other reports:
Video here of the press conference w/Dann and Strickland
Update (Deal or No Deal): From numerous local sources but also reported in TPM Muckraker, Ohio AG Marc Dann tried to negotiate his resignation in exchange for the Ohio House not launching another investigation. So far no deal.
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is expected to announce his resignation later today, The Plain Dealer has learned. He planned to break the news to his senior staff this afternoon.
The decision came as Dann faced intense pressure from fellow Democrats and Republican critics who said he was not fit to continue as the state’s top lawyer.
It also followed action targeting Dann in the Ohio General Assembly today by lawmakers from both parties. House Democrats this morning filed articles of impeachment against Dann, accusing him of misconduct and malfeasance in office. And House Republicans began plans to fast-track a bill that would allow the state Inspector General’s office to conduct an independent investigation into Dann’s office.
…
Democrats have said Dann knew or should have known that Gutierrez and others were making a mockery of the office and done something about it.
But while Gutierrez, Jennings, former Chief of Staff Edgar Simpson and former scheduler Jessica Utovich, the 28-year-old woman Dann was linked to, all lost their jobs in the wake of the investigation, Dann had vowed to stay on. He admitted to running his office poorly but said things had been improving under his leadership. Dann also had said admitting his affair to his wife, Alyssa Lenhoff, was punishment enough for him.
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann (D), who, during his race for AG in 2006 named Eliot Spitzer as his role model, has refused twice to acquiesce to multiple calls to step down in the wake of admitting last week that he had a romantic relationship with his former scheduler (Dann is married with three children) and firing two of his top aides.
As a result of this refusal, the Ohio Democratic Party has made their intentions to force Dann out extremely clear. From the Columbus Dispatch:
The Ohio Democratic Party, which strongly backed Dann’s come-from-behind campaign in 2006, is preparing to sever its ties with Dann. Chairman Chris Redfern said he expects the party’s executive committee to rescind its 2006 endorsement of Dann when it meets Saturday, which Redfern said would make Dann an independent officeholder. Democrats also are prepared to lead the impeachment drive, Redfern said.
“Pending Saturday’s events, he’ll be holding office as an independent who was elected as a Democrat,” Redfern said. “We will distance ourselves both figuratively and literally from Marc Dann until he makes the right decision, which is to step down.”
Ohio Daily Blog reports that one of Dann’s hometown papers says that the Ohio House Democratic Caucus had a conference call this afternoon and will begin impeachment proceedings tomorrow if Dann doesn’t step down tonight.
Plunderbund writes about the removal of information about Dann from the ODP website and also has a video of Gov. Strickland in which he says that they’ll use “whatever action is necessary” to remove Dann.
Pho writes about the legal provisions related to replacing Dann.
This article from ePluribus Media includes most of the key information from today and last week, but the situation is developing minute by minute, as it has been all day today. And it’s been exhausting.
I’m somewhat restricted from saying too much (code words on my blog entries are “mmmumbble mummmble damn packing tape”) because my SO is in the same law firm as an attorney whom Dann has asked to help clean up the AG’s office. Although it’s a voluntary role, and I’ve been told my right to express myself is being respected, I don’t feel comfortable writing about this situation in as an unbridled manner as I might.
I can say that I’ve had off the record conversations with the Ohio Democratic Party stating my intense upsetment about the hostile work environment that came to exist in the AG’s office and my belief that it must not be tolerated, not only because of the women who were subordinates but for the sake of the entire 1400 person “law office” that is an AG’s office.
Obviously, I wasn’t and still am not the only one saying that this is an intolerable situation that demands dramatic and obvious attention.
But as a Democrat in Ohio, who wanted to believe in Marc Dann, even when I wasn’t the most certain, it’s also just a very very, as another Democrat expressed to me, profoundly sad experience.
I’ve spent considerable time in Ohio. In a past life, two of my largest clients were headquarted in the western half of the state. I also served for awhile as an interim GM for an office of my former employer in Ohio’s northeast quadrant. One of the things I remember most about my time there was the irrational animosity many Ohioans felt for the Pittsburgh Steelers. As much as that juggernaut of a football team was loved in Western Pennsylvania, it was hated in Ohio, and the closer to Cleveland you got, the stronger the hate grew.
Clearly, from last night’s primary results, the similarities of the people of Ohio and Pennsylvania far outweigh their divergent football loyalties. Consider this chart, courtesy of RCP:
RCP’s Jay Cost summarized it well: “… we can see why Pennsylvania and Ohio produced similar results in the aggregate. Clinton did roughly as well these groups in both states. Obama, for his part, improved here and there on her best Ohio groups. For instance, he trimmed her lead among white men. However, Clinton minimized this by doing slightly better with some of Obama’s best groups - like, for instance, the college educated. Overall, it added up to a roughly similar result.”
The Families USA report, Dying for Coverage for Ohio, was released yesterday. Families USA has released similar reports for Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The site contains other resources, including a section called, The Uninsured.
“Our report highlights how our inadequate system of health coverage condemns a great number of Ohioans to an early death simply because they don’t have the same access to health care as their insured neighbors,” Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA, said today. “The conclusions are sadly clear—a lack of health coverage is a matter of life and death for many Ohioans.
“Health insurance really matters in how people make their health care decisions,” Pollack said. “We know that people without insurance often forgo checkups, screenings, and other preventive care.”
As a result, he said, uninsured adults are more likely to be diagnosed with a disease, such as cancer, in an advanced stage, which greatly reduces their chance of survival. The Institute of Medicine found that uninsured adults are 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than adults with private health insurance.
Another recent academic study found that uninsured adults between the ages of 55 and 64 are even more likely to die prematurely. For this group, a lack of health insurance is the third leading cause of death, following heart disease and cancer.
I’m not familiar with what Ohio’s U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown or Congresswoman Betty Sutton (D-13) have said about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama’s health care plans and I couldn’t find anything direct with a little searching, but I’d like to. I know neither Ohio politician has stated how they cast their votes on 3/4 nor how they’ll vote as superdelegates.
FactCheck.org provides a comparison of the two plans here.
Read Obama’s explanation of his plan here. One of the main criticisms has been that it mandates coverage for all children, but not all adults. But in Obama’s speech in January 2007 to Families USA, while his plan was still in formation, he states something that implies that all adults would have - as in, possess and maintain and keep, not just have an oppotunity to have - universal health care:
Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. The President’s latest proposal that does little to bring down cost or guarantee coverage falls into this category. There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let’s make one thing clear right here, right now:
In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we will have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term. [my emphasis]
Read Clinton’s explanation of her plan here. One of the main criticisms has been that it imposes monetary fines on individuals who do not have health insurance and already may not be covered due to financial constraints and that it forces people to buy something they may not want. Ohio Daily Blog posted a copy of the Obama flyer that identifies his primary points of opposition to Clinton’s plan.
The Health Care Blog analysis of Clinton’s plan is here but that blog doesn’t seem to have an analogous critique of Obama’s plan. For comparison, they have this one for John McCain. They also pit Clinton v. Obama here.
What are the statistics in your state of people who literally die because they don’t have health care? Which candidates’ plan do you think will most decrease that number?
Have Democrats - and Europeans - become too comfortable with the inevitability of a Democratic President in 2008? Financial Times Deutschland columnist Thomas Klau writes in part, ‘The dramatic struggle between two exceptional Democratic politicians has drawn attention away from the fact that McCain’s candidacy is also a turning point - a break in the position of Republicans which, as far as party politics is concerned, could mean a historically and culturally deeper break than the Democratic Party’s nomination duel. … The reproach so often repeated by Obama - that McCain offers only a sequel of the failed politics of George W. Bush - misses the point: McCain has contradicted Bush’s policies so often, that no one can embody calls for change the way he does.’
By Thomas Klau
Translated by Julian Jacob
March 6, 2008
Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German)
The saga goes on - the epochal battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Once again, the voters have resisted the pressure of the media, which was so quick to choose a favorite candidate.
In the U.S., people love quick results and clear statistics and a fast declaration of winners and losers. But Americans also appreciate the courage of those who don’t give up. Hillary Clinton has fought on after being written off and has gone on the attack when many were urging her to clear the field for Barack Obama. On Tuesday [Mar. 4] , the voters didn’t abandon her.
The senator’s tenacity and her steadfastness in times of great stress could be her best argument, if in Denver in July it comes down to drawing party delegates to her side. Clinton will need arguments because despite her victory yesterday, the numbers continue to speak against her. In terms of the number of delegates, Obama is out in front and will be almost impossible to catch - the arithmetic and dynamics of the approaching primary dates work in his advantage.
Now the battle for the Democratic nomination will become harder and perhaps dirtier. Clinton’s revitalized election team will make every effort to keep the Illinois senator on the defensive. Obama’s squeaky-clean image will suffer if for the first time, the press keeps its klieg lights on the senator’s more problematic contacts. It is here that he is vulnerable to attack. He’s member of a Black church congregation in Chicago, the leader of which has maintained contacts with Black racists. And the corruption trial against a former Obama supporter, building contractor Tony Rezko, is imminent.
DEEP-SEATED PARTY CRISES
With the withdrawal of Mike Huckabee, the Republican primary battle has ended with the formal selection of John McCain. The dramatic struggle between two exceptional Democratic politicians has drawn attention away from the fact that McCain’s candidacy is also a turning point - a break in the position of Republicans which, as far as party politics is concerned, could mean a historically and culturally deeper break than the Democratic Party’s nomination duel.
Politically, Clinton and Obama are conventional Democrats, located in the middle-left of their own party. But McCain is the first Republican presidential candidate in many years who has ascended in spite of the resistance of the culture warriors - that aggressive nationalistic wing of the Party. Unlike the leading figures of the present U.S. government, his TV is not tuned to Fox News - the propaganda channel of the right - but MSNBC - and anyone who knows the United States understand how much that says.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections
And details on how the most reliable demographic of voters - senior citizens - exercises its right to vote (a bonus at the end is the staffer revealing who she will vote for and why): Read the rest of this entry »
Listen here if you’re interested in knowing what the BBC wanted to know about how I feel and how I feel about the Samantha Power incident.
From a clinical perspective, the fact that Ms. Power was unable to filter out intense negative comments about Hillary Clinton and her campaign during an on-the-record interview while on a book tour indicates that Ms. Power may be the one who is obsessed with Ohio, rather than, as she says, Ohio being obsessed (about what, we’re not quite sure but some believe Ms. Power meant that Ohio is obsessed with Hillary Clinton).
But the fact remains: as much as we malign strategists, advisers and consultants, those individuals have to be obsessed, at some level, with their candidate and winning and campaigning. Isn’t that a requirement? Sure - the money is a factor. But at the level where Ms. Power served, it’s about passion, maybe power but less likely money - at least at this campaigning stage.
And if the Obama campaign has been about anything, it’s been about getting obsessed with his message. They didn’t call one of his campaign ads “Join” for nothing.
The see-saw narrative continues in Canada with possible continued implications to the political campaign here: the Canadian Prime Minister’s office now insists the Clinton campaign didn’t give any private assurances on NAFTA, and it only came from the Obama camp:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama’s campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office said Friday.
With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.
After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.
“The answer is no, they did not,” said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.
That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.
The so-called NAFTA-gate affair took a bizarre twist this week that threatened to ensnare Ms. Clinton after having already damaged Mr. Obama at a critical phase of the U.S. election.
We ran THIS POST that detailed reports of comments from one of the Prime Minister’s top aides that in reality it had been the Clinton campaign that had given the assurances. So now there’s the PM’s aide versus the PM’s spokesman.
And each camp — Obama and Clinton — can now pick the version to believe, according to their political bias.
I’m starting to think that covering American politics is far easier than covering Canadian politics. But trying to cover the interplay between them both? A challenge of an entirely different magnitude. This NAFTA story offers no easy answers, no obvious heroes, and a passel of possible villains pointing their fingers at each other.
But one thing is certain: the timing of the report — coming right before the Ohio primary — seemed a bit smelly.
Ohio Senator George Voinovich has long been known as a deficit hawk. Whether as Commissioner of Cuyahoga County, Mayor of Cleveland, or Governor of Ohio, Voinovich has a strong reputation for insisting that government ought to live within its means. In recent years, that’s made him out-of-step with Republicans in Congress and the White House who have departed from traditional conservative Republican principles to engage in “drunken sailor” spending (to borrow a phrase from a Republican running for President this year).
A ploy used in recent years to make the annual budget appear less deficit-ridden has been to put anticipated spending into extra-budgetary emergency supplemental appropriations. Voinovich wants to put a halt to this practice. According the Columbus Dispatch blog:
Sen. George V. Voinovich next week will make a move to restrict Congress’ ability to pass “emergency” spending bills that aren’t, well, in fact much of an unanticipated emergency.
Voinovich’s move comes in the wake of a Government Accountability Office report. The GAO report, released earlier this week, found that the number and cost of so-called supplemental spending bills, which are supposed to be only used when unanticipated emergency needs arise in the middle of a federal fiscal year, has risen dramatically in recent years.
Much of that is due to defense spending. Emergency supplementals, for instance, have been passed in recent years to fund the Iraq war though it would seem that much of those costs could have been anticipated. Supplemental spending bills aren’t subject to the same controls and constraints designed to avoid busting annual budgets and sending the federal deficit spiraling upward.
Voinovich is going to propose an amendment to the Senate budget bill that would tighten up the definition of just what is an emergency…
Voinovich may get himself into trouble again with the crowd that likes to call other Republicans RINOs, Republicans in Name Only, then engage in more of that drunken sailor behavior.
It has become quite common in some parts of the world to wonder whether American democracy continues to be head-and-shoulders above Russia’s. But according to Patrik Etschmayer of Switzerland’s Nachrichten newspaper, Russia’s recent presidential ‘election’ and America’s ongoing presidential race should put any such chattering to rest. Etschmayer writes in part, ‘American democracy undoubtedly suffers many shortcomings, like voting machines that can be manipulated, smear campaigns, and the fact that apart from the two parties, there is virtually no chance for a candidate to establish him or herself. But American democracy is not yet completely ruined. Last weekend however, Russia’s took another step toward self-imposed dismantling and its rebuilding into a Potemkin democracy - only a facade.’
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Ulf Behncke
March 3, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)
The world media and election observers are all in agreement: Russia’s presidential elections were a farce. The Russians held an election without a choice, and the President was chosen by his predecessor Putin, who as prime minister will keep his new “boss” Dimitrij Medvedev under his thumb.
Some still hope that the Putin saga will play out again with Medvedev. Because even the strongman from Moscow was initially regarded as a predictable, weak president - merely a stooge in office. But today the arrangement is quite different. At the time, Putin took over from the sick, alcoholic Boris Yeltsin, Read the rest of this entry »
One of the late breaking issues that hurt Democratic Senator Barack Obama in recent Texas and Ohio primaries involved allegations that his campaign gave winking private assurances to Canada not to worry about his anti-Nafta campaign rhetoric — a controversy the Clinton camp used to it’s advantage. But now it turns out that the allegation focused more on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Yet, the pre-Ohio primary stories only focused on the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign — which used it against Obama in Ohio. The Globe and Mail reports: Read the rest of this entry »
March 6th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
I was driving in the hills when my wife placed a vintage Harry Belafonte audio cassette into the car stereo player… Belafonte’s magical voice never fails to refresh me during strenuous drives. Nearly 40 years ago this wonderful musician had swept American women off their feet with his broad smile and throbbing Caribbean songs…Somewhat like Obama, the politician, who has woven his own magic (with his presence and words) over women, as well as men, in the present day US of A.
Of course, it is not an appropriate comparison. How can one compare a legendary musician with a politician? Let me explain. While listening to Belafonte’s old number “Women smarter than men in every way” (click here to listen), I thought how topical/relevant the song had become with Hillary Clinton registering dramatic wins in Ohio and Texas…leaving the legions of her detractors in the media/blogosphere virtually speechless.
The British newspaper, The Independent, somewhat agrees that the woman (Clinton) is smarter and tougher than the man (Obama). “Super Tuesday belonged to Barack Obama, but its sequel – the US state primaries held this week – belonged to Hillary Clinton. Her victories in Ohio and Texas have given her presidential election campaign a new lease of life. If she eventually wins the Democratic Party nomination, 4 March will go down as the date her fortunes turned. Americans like to say that when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
“Not for the first time in her varied career, Mrs Clinton showed herself to be among the toughest. She responded to the setbacks of Super Tuesday by revamping her campaign staff, going on to the attack and applying herself with renewed energy to the task in hand. Before this week, it was possible to argue that maybe Mrs Clinton did not have what it takes to win the nomination, let alone the presidency. It is far more difficult to maintain that position now.”
Two commentators from different parts of the political spectrum have raised the issue of whether the race card has been played against Senator Barack Obama via the use of more subtle code words.
With Hillary’s big Ohio win and smaller Texas one, look for the whackos to become unhinged in their racist attacks on Obama now that they perceive some vulnerability in the candidate. And they’ll do it in a way that makes it seem like Obama acts like he has something to hide.
For a case study on how to insidiously inject race into the race, take a look at Amir Taheri’s column today in the New York Post: “Obama’s Real Mideast Problem - It’s His Policies, Not His Heritage.”
While Taheri’s headline focuses on Obama’s mideast policies, those don’t come up till more than halfway through his piece. The first half reveals Taheri’s true agenda: getting voters scared about a black American running for president who happens to have a father who’s Kenyan. First is a detailed exposition of the name “Hussein”: “one of the most popular names for Muslims, especially Shiites.” How special. Next up, details on where the names “Barack” and “Obama” come from: the former, Arabic for ‘blessing,’ and the latter referring to Obama’s “father’s tribe who converted to Islam.” Taheri ultimately bottom lines it: “In other words, ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ is a perfectly common identifier for someone with an ethnic East African Muslim background (emphasis mine).”
Has anyone informed Taheri that Obama’s parents separated when he was two years old and that he was raised — mostly in Honolulu — by his white mother and her parents? Or that, throughout his early years, Obama was commonly known at home and school as “Barry”? Or that Obama’s East African Muslim father — so integral to Obama’s “exotic” “family story” — attended Harvard University to pursue Ph.D. studies?
The column fairly oozes racial innuendo.
He has a lot more so read it all (we’re sure it will spur debate between the increasingly bitter supporters of Clinton and Obama).
And then there’s conservative Robert Novak writes about Senator Hillary Clinton’s political comeback in three key primary wins in a newsletter column titled: Hillary’s Wins Raise Prospect of the Unthinkable — A Contested Convention. He writes:
# Think about the unthinkable: a contested Democratic convention in Denver, with the identity of the Democratic presidential nominee unknown until just before Labor Day. That’s the impact of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) remarkable performance Tuesday that broke her long losing streak against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): a big win in Ohio where she was supposed to win narrowly, if at all, and unexpected wins in Texas and Rhode Island.
# A group of prominent Democrats was being formed secretly to go to Clinton to ask her to bow out for the sake of party solidarity. Now, neither candidate, counting their current super-delegates and potential unpledged delegates, can win a majority of delegates even after the Pennsylvania primary April 22. It is hard to imagine either bowing out. That raises the possibility of carnage in Denver with the super-delegates and the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations in play.
Novak gives plenty of informed analysis on the Democratic and Republican primaries, analyzing various factors that contributed to Clinton’s good night and Obama’s bad night. One section:
Exit polls also suggest that Bill Clinton successfully played his racial angle. Concentrating on Obama’s blackness, stressing that it’s fine for African-Americans to support a black candidate, Clinton drove home the idea that Obama is a “black candidate.” According to exit polls, Obama carried 86 percent of the black vote in Ohio and only 33 percent of the white vote. Clinton won big among those polled who indicated the candidate’s race was important.
There will be those who will argue this is all a bunch of hooey, that none of this was ever meant this way and that Ruiz and Novak are reading it wrong — that it’s all a matter of perception. Yet, politics is indeed perception and political professionals know it.
Obama’s critics argue the Illinois Senator’s own campaign has played the race card. Obama’s followers will counter he started out being considered by most Americans as a guy who was running who happened to be black and that the way his critics have battled him is by working on the message that he is a black — or black American with some-eyebrow-raising background — who is running.
Earlier this morning, TMV’s Shaun Mullen summarized his bottomline view on yesterday’s Democratic contests — offering a conclusion very similar to the one reached by Slate’s chief political correspondent, John Dickerson:
The larger point the Clinton aides will make to superdelegates and voters in the next big primary state of Pennsylvania is that the Texas and Ohio results reflect what happens when the two candidates are compared side by side. Obama can give speeches and draw crowds, but when it comes to matching him against a competitor, as the general election will demand, Obama can’t stand up to the comparison. Will any of the Clinton arguments work? We’ll see in the coming days if hundreds of superdelegates allow the primary process to continue without continuing to move toward Obama. Clinton is pleading for time, arguing that voters should be allowed to have their say in future contests. But even in this she comes up against a contradiction posted by Obama’s lead. Because she must rely on the superdelegates to beat back Obama’s likely lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, she is essentially asking those superdelegates to listen to the people—but only long enough to be persauded to vote for her. Then she expects them to undo the will of the people by voting against Obama in Denver. Clinton has rescued her campaign from free-fall, but the ride from here to the nomination is still going to be very bumpy.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton clinched the Texas Democratic 2008 Presidential primary — giving her the two big prizes for the night, Ohio and the Lone Star state, plus Rhode Island. The results: a second-lease on life in her battle to win the Democratic Presidential nomination and a new test for rival Senator Barack Obama.
Clinton’s win in Texas means she and her campaign can rightly say that she carved out victories in several big states and has no reason to agree to end her campaign, even though many analysts say the “math” in the delegate count makes it impossible for her to win via pledged delegates. So the battle will likely start now, more than ever, to convince Super-delegates — via increasingly sharp attacks on Obama and more no-holds-barred advertising — that the Illinois Senator would be a bad risk for the party in the general election.
Clinton, her campaign, and her followers will tout her victory today. And Obama, his campaign and his followers will try to downplay it. But the fact that Obama only won Vermont mean the net result is clear, as the New York Times reports:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, ending a string of defeats and allowing her to soldier on in a Democratic presidential nomination race that now seems unlikely to end any time soon.
Mrs. Clinton also won Rhode Island, while Mr. Obama won in Vermont. But the results mean that Mrs. Clinton won the two states she most needed to keep her candidacy alive. Her victory in Texas was razor thin and came early Wednesday morning after most Americans had gone to bed. But by winning decisively in Ohio earlier in the night, Mrs. Clinton was able to deliver a televised victory speech in time for the late-night news. And the result there allowed her to cast Tuesday as the beginning of a comeback even though she stood a good chance of gaining no ground against Mr. Obama in the hunt for delegates.
“No candidate in recent history — Democratic or Republican — has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “We all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win Democratic states just like Ohio.”
Although Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote in Texas, her hunt for delegates was complicated by the state’s peculiar nominating process, which includes a separate caucus that awards 35 percent of the state’s delegates, irrespective of the primary results. Mr. Obama held a slight lead in that contest with less than half of precincts reporting, but the outcome is likely to stay up in the air until later on Wednesday.
The Associated Press reported that all told, Mr. Obama retains his lead in the delegate count, with 1,477 pledged delegates compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 1,391. The A.P. said that 170 delegates from Tuesday’s contests have yet to be assigned, many from the Texas caucuses.
Expect the Clinton and Obama forces to battle each other every centimeter of the way while a smiling Republican (virtual) nominee Senator John McCain looks (and attacks) on.
One factor already being talked about in Texas is: did talk show host Rush Limbaugh help tilt the scales there with his call on Republicans to cross over the primary and vote for Clinton to sandbag Obama? There is already some buzz suggesting he might have. Conservative blogger and talk show host Hugh Hewitt:
If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?
Bill O’Reilly was just on with Brit Hume giving Rush the credit for the Clinton comeback –which is certainly the least expected bit of Campaign 2008 news in this very, very long campaign.
A month ago talk radio was dead. Now it has resurrected Hillary?
What does it mean for Democrats and how to some of those who’ve backed Obama view it? Kos from Daily Kos:
If she’s eaten into Obama’s lead, then we’ve got a serious rationale for the race to continue. If Obama wins the delegate count tonight, which is still pretty possible (remarkably, because this primary process is so stupid), then Clinton will have ended her “good” night without making ground where it actually matters. We’ll see.
But he sees a silver lining for the Democrats in general:
For one, Obama may finally have to go negative. I’ve never seen him do that. He’s never had to do that.
Second of all, as long as the talking heads are talking about the Democratic race, that’s time they’re not talking about their “maverick” friend. And what’s the debate about between Obama and Clinton? Health care. Iraq. Jobs. The sort of thing that can only help us long term.
Finally, Obama has to prove that he can bounce back from such setbacks. He’s had a mostly charmed political life. A little political adversity is important. Hillary Clinton and her team responded well to her painful losing streak. Now let’s see how the Obama team bounces back.
So I’m cool with her continuing on. I certainly won’t be calling for her to quit.
But if he wins the delegate count, her task will be even more difficult than it was today. And at that point, she’ll become little more than batting practice for Obama.
Some thoughts:
(1) Forget the navel gazing about negative campaigning and press criticism by candidates not working. It works. And, due to the way Clinton turned her campaign around with highly-touted negative ads plus what some called “working the refs” (calling the press to further scrutinize and be tough on Obama, which occurred during the past few days), expect the McCain and Obama campaigns to follow suit.
(2) The most interesting aspect of the Texas race was the issue of national security coupled with the idea that if you elect one candidate you’re safer then if you elect another. For several years now Democrats and independents have been critical of the administration’s and Republican Party’s suggestion that if you vote for them you’re more likely to live to a ripe old age and watch your children survive. Democrats decried this tactic. But, in a primary, it apparently worked quite well.
(3) The Republicans will most certainly use a national security argument — and advertising — against the Democrats. It’ll be harder for the Democratic Party itself and whoever the candidate is to argue it’s foul play or unseemly since the argument that if you vote for X you and your family are more likely to survive than if you vote for Y — since the Democrats have already been there/done that in their own primary. Expect the battle over this issue to continue in remaining Democratic primaries on the stump and on advertisements.
(4) The Clinton campaign came under fire for suggesting when it lost that it really didn’t matter losing their states. The Obama campaign is now suggesting the same — apart from its still-ahead position on delegates. In reality losses matter and, just as Clinton’s task and image was impacted by her losses, so are Obama’s despite what his camp may argue today.
Cagle cartoon by Paul Zanetti, Australia
UPDATE: The AP’s veteran political reporter Ron Fournier reports that pressures, tensions and ugliness in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign are going to soon increase:
“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. “In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever.”
Consider that a shot across the bow to the Clinton campaign because Brazile — like many other superdelegates — worries that Clinton’s only hope for victory is tearing down Obama and dividing the party. Party chairman Howard Dean recently told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he was concerned about the possible impact of a nominating campaign that stretched through the end of the primaries in early June.
Some superdelegates are bracing themselves to intervene on Obama’s behalf if necessary.
“If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate,” Brazile said. “But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby.”
A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s team will respond to Tuesday’s results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons’ past.
The winner of that fight would be John McCain, who sealed the GOP nomination Tuesday night and would love nothing more than fratricide among the Democrats. He could use the time to raise money, energize conservative voters and sharpen his general election message.
March 4th, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
It’s way too long to post here at TMV, but, if you just can’t get enough, check out the live-blogging of tonight’s election returns, along with commentary on and analysis of the presidential race generally, over at my place.
With 52 percent (5,809 OF 11,238 PRECINCTS) in, Sen. Hillary Clinton has 57% (649,950 VOTES) and Sen. Barack Obama has 41% (464,351 VOTES). Former Sen. John Edwards (who has withdrawn from the race) has 2% (21,547 VOTES).
UPDATE 12:30 am
With 79 percent (8,872 OF 11,238 PRECINCTS) reporting in, Sen. Hillary Clinton has 56% (961,967 VOTES) and Sen. Barack Obama has 42% (730,970 VOTES). Former Sen. John Edwards (who has withdrawn from the race) has 2% (31,244 VOTES).
Ohio Senator George Voinovich has long been known as a deficit hawk. Whether as Commissioner of Cuyahoga County, Mayor of Cleveland, or Governor of Ohio, Voinovich has a strong reputation for insisting that government ought to live within its means. In recent years, that’s made him out-of-step with Republicans in Congress and the White House who have departed from traditional conservative Republican principles to engage in “drunken sailor” spending (to borrow a phrase from a Republican running for President this year).
