The Clinton Campaign’s Unbelievable Chutzpah

I am seething right now over a Clinton staffer’s response to a minor problem concerning the credentials being presented by Obama’s poll workers:

Ohio’s Secretary of State, an office held by a Democrat, has rebuked Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for trying to staff precincts with poll workers who presented insufficient credentials.

Obama’s campaign calls this charge “wrong.”

In a memo sent late this morning to county election directors by David M. Farrell, Ohio’s
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a letter carried by Obama supporters — signed by Obama state director Paul Tewes — is deemed “not legally sufficient on its own to allow someone to gain access to polling places.”

Farrell notes that state law requires that polling observers must be “duly appointed” and have been previously issued a certificate.

The letter from Tewes states the bearer ‘is hereby authorized to serve as a legal poll monitor on behalf of the Obama campaign.”

The alleged infraction seems minor, but the Clinton campaign has seized on the e-mail from the Secretary of State’s office as evidence that the Obama campaign is trying to game the system in Ohio.
[…]
… Tina Flournoy, a Clinton campaign adviser, compared the conduct to that of Republicans in the 2004 election.

“It’s a pretty sad thing that people we now have to worry about are fellow Democrats,” she said.

Tell us about it, Tina. Who would have ever thought that one of the two Democratic candidates for president would tell voters that the Republican candidate for president is more qualified to be president than her Democratic opponent for the nomination? Or that one of the two Democratic candidates for president (the same one, if you must know), would run a radio ad on primary day about Obama’s NAFTA policy that impersonates an actual news report until the very end? Deceiving voters into thinking they’re listening to a reporter when they’re actually listening to a political message prepared and delivered by the Clinton campaign?

You know what, Tina? You said a mouthful there. In fact, I think what you said is so important that I should repeat it:

” ‘It’s a pretty sad thing that people we now have to worry about are fellow Democrats,’ [Tina Flournoy] said.”

Ain’t that the truth, Tina. Ain’t that the truth.

Thought of the Day II

“Stand up for what’s right, even if you are standing alone.”

— Anonymous

Primary Day in Ohio and Texas

It’s going to be a close race. Here’s what the latest Zogby poll says:

On the strength of some strong campaigning in Ohio and Texas, Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York has retaken a narrow lead over rival Barack Obama of Illinois in Texas and has dead-locked the race in Ohio, a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Houston Chronicle survey by Zogby International shows.

The telephone surveys show Clinton had a second consecutive good day, and now leads Obama 47% to 44% in Texas. The two are tied at 44% in Ohio. It is notable that 7% in Texas and 8% in Ohio said they were yet unsure about who to support in the Democratic Party race, even at this late moment. The surveys also show support is somewhat soft in the race, and could still shift in the waning hours.

Top Clinton aides are saying she’s staying in the race even if she loses both states:

The former First Lady had staked her political future on wins – with even her husband, former President Bill Clinton, saying she would drop out if she lost the make-or-break contests.

But, as rival Barack Obama closed in on Mrs Clinton’s once formidable leads in the two states, her spin machine has changed their tune and insisted she would not give up.

Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, said: “There are 16 remaining contests after Tuesday.

“There’s nothing wrong with letting the people in the remaining jurisdictions have their say.”

And Mrs Clinton’s communications director Howard Wolfson, insised “onus” was on Obama to win Texas and Ohio as well as the tiny states of Vermont and Rhode Island which are also holding primaries.

MSNBC’s First Read has a post up about a confrontational encounter between Obama and the press at a San Antonio news conference:

Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.

Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.

Obama ended up cutting the questioning short:

Toward the end of the press conference, the question of Goolsbee’s meeting was raised again. Obama answered curtly and then walked out after a staffer called last question. The press erupted with shouts, but Obama continued to walk out.

He paused only to say, “Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We’re running late.”

Perhaps some reporters might want to question Hillary Clinton, too. Not for a shady business deal or for sending mixed messages on a campaign promise — for publicly suggesting that John McCain would make a better president than Barack Obama:

I can appreciate, when the pressure’s on in a competitive primary, there must be a temptation for a presidential candidate to say literally anything to stop a rival. But if for no other reason than the strength of the party, that temptation has to be kept in check.

I’m afraid Hillary Clinton may have forgotten this point yesterday, when she praised John McCain while attacking Barack Obama.

At times, it seemed Clinton was all but accusing Obama of being an empty suit. She warned voters not to be swayed by speeches that left them thinking, “That was beautiful, but what did it mean?”

Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″ — a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize.

I noticed that different media outlets had reported her remarks in slightly different ways, so I thought it was at least possible Clinton had been misquoted. But then I saw that Aravosis had posted a YouTube clip.

Here is the clip:

Steve again:

There were points in the fall when Obama was accused — in some instances, fairly — of using conservative frames to make his case, which led some to suggest Obama was running against the party while seeking its nomination.

But as far as I can tell, he never argued publicly that a leading Republican candidate brought a better background to the table than a leading Democratic candidate.

Clinton’s comments were, to put it mildly, disappointing. At a certain point, which I believe we’re at right now, the Democratic Party’s general-election interests have to be taken into consideration by the candidates.

I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one where Clinton is concerned. She has shown all along that Democratic Party interests are the last thing she has in mind.

Matt Stoller calls the comment “irresponsible“:

This looks bad.

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presum[p]tive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Senator Clinton has no reason to care about what I have to say, obviously, since I voted for Obama. And she voted against the Moveon censureship (one of them anyway) resolution in the Senate, while Obama didn’t, and then Moveon endorsed him anyway.

Still, I find stuff like this quote repugnant, and it strikes me as a bad strategic move regardless of who wins the primary. McCain is very dangerous and building him up as experienced, with the implication that he’s ready to lead our military, is, shall we say, a bad thing.

Protein Wisdom is not a blog I usually agree with on anything, but this post by Karl is funny:

Hillary Clinton’s comment that presumed GOP nominee John McCain has more experience than her Democratic rival, Barack Obama — combined with her going nuclear with the “3 a.m. phone call” ad as her ‘08 odds sink– has strange bedfellows like Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO and left-liberals at OpenLeft wondering what her real motivation is.Maybe she is a Unifier!

That Lopez link is also worth clicking on. I hadn’t thought of this angle, but I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, knowing Clinton:

My conspiracy-theory analysis: The Clinton campaign did not release that ad for the sake of Clinton 2008. It is to defeat Obama, for sure. But not now.

Hillary knows she’s going down. They issued that ad because they want McCain to win. She thinks she can be a star in the Senate, leader of the Democratic party when he loses. So the commercial is her gift to John McCain. She’s got her eye on 2012.

Todd Gitlin is thinking along similar lines:

At OpenLeft, Chris Bowers notes this fascinating coincidence:

So, the Canadian conservative prime minister is calling Barack Obama two-faced on NAFTA at the exact same moment that John McCain is indicating that Canada might pull out its troops on Afghanistan if we make too much a stink about NAFTA? That strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In fact, it strikes me as a directly coordinated attack by McCain and Harper to neutralize McCain on trade during the general election. It wouldn’t be the first time Harper and Republican leaders have coordinated, given that Harper uses Republican pollsters and the conservative movements in both countries are deeply intertwined.

There’s another coincidence. While McCain is ingratiating himself with his right-wing Canadian friends, who returned the favor by accusing Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee of making a side deal with them over Nafta, Hillary Clinton is declaring that like her, “Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

This is revolting. Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he’s damaged goods after all, and she, by default, is McCain’s only true adversary. Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it’s revolting. One way or the other, it’s revolting.

Today is not a day for being proud to be a Democrat:

When tomorrow comes, if Hillary Clinton has taken Ohio (as I expect she will), and come close in Texas (which I also expect), then I’m certain she’ll declare her intention to continue her campaign to Pennsylvania and beyond. For her supporters, this is no doubt very exciting… but personally, I’m relieved that I’m not a partisan Democrat.

If I were, I’d perhaps be concerned that she’s spending her funds to bolster her Republican opponent. John McCain doesn’t need to spend his extremely limited dollars if she’s promoting him.

If I were, I’d be growing very concerned about my party’s chances in November… because generating negatives toward Barack Obama does nothing to reduce Hillary Clinton’s. The Democrats have seemingly lost sight of the fact that there’s a general election still to come.

Yet I absolutely believe Clinton when she says she’s “just getting warmed up“. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that, having proved her mastery of negativity and scorched-earth tactics over the last two weeks, we’re all going to be subjected to months more of it.

I have to say, I am becoming more and more reluctant to vote for Clinton if she is nominated. I know that’s a very unlikely possibility, and I hope it remains so — because at this point, I am so disgusted and appalled at Clinton’s, not just willingness but determination, to destroy her own party if she thinks it will get her the presidency that I don’t think there is any way I could bring myself to help her get into the White House.

And feeling this way strikes me as quite ironic, because I have no doubt that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will appeal to party loyalty up the wazoo to get turned-off Democrats and liberals to vote for her.

Thought of the Day

psyton (si-ton) – An elementary particle of media coverage. The probability of an event being noticed by the public is directly proportional to the number of psytons falling on it. Psytons are generated by MSM. Events with little or no relevance to the average person occasionally receive many bogus psytons from the right-wing-noise-machine, thereby attaining a place in the public square.

Chief’s Theorem – For any news story, in any group of people there will be at least ten percent who have not heard the story – and won’t believe the story when they do hear it.